Final report of the Forum Pilot Project on the control of PIC.
Date: 2018-02-17
Institutions: European Chemicals Agency
Subjects: chemical industry, chemical product, dangerous substance, industrial research, international trade, regulation (EU)

1 

Forum pilot project on the control of PIC -Public 

Final report of the Forum pilot project  
on the control of PIC 

Adopted on 13.12.2018 

  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Forum pilot project on the control of PIC -Public 

2 

Disclaimer  

This  publication  is  solely  intended  for  information  purposes  and  does  not  necessarily 
represent the official opinion of the European Chemicals Agency. The European Chemicals 
Agency is not responsible for the use that may be made of the information contained in 
this document. 

This  report  presents  the  results  of  inspections  made  under  the  Forum  enforcement 
project. Duty holders and substances  selected  for checks were those that were relevant 
for  the  scope  of  the  project.  The  project  was  not  designed  as  a  study  of  the  EU-EEA 
market.  The  number  of  inspections  for  individual  countries  is  varied.  Accordingly,  the 
results  presented  in  the  report  are  not  necessarily  representative  of  the  situation in  the 
EU-EEA market as a whole. 

Version 

Changes 

1.0 

13.12.2018 

First Edition 

FORUM  
Final report of the Forum Pilot Project on the control of PIC 
Reference:   ECHA-2018-R-25-EN 
ISBN:   978-92-9020-917-1 
Cat. Number:   ED-05-18-147-EN-N 
DOI:   10.2823/924127 
Publ.date: December 2018 
Language: EN  
© European Chemicals Agency, 2018  
Cover page © European Chemicals Agency  
If you have questions or comments in relation to this document please send them (quote 
the reference and issue date) using the information request form. The information 
request form can be accessed via the Contact ECHA page at: 
http://echa.europa.eu/contact  

European Chemicals Agency  
Mailing address: P.O. Box 400, FI-00121 Helsinki, Finland  
Visiting address: Annankatu 18, Helsinki, Finland 

  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3 

Forum pilot project on the control of PIC -Public 

Table of Contents  

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 4 

A. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 6 

B. OBJECTIVES AND PARTICIPANTS ................................................................... 6 

C. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ......................................................................... 6 

1. 
2. 

Project history and background ...................................................................... 6 
Legislative background.................................................................................. 7 

D. ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS ................................................................................ 8 

1. Participating countries and number of inspections ................................................ 8 
2. Coordination of the project ................................................................................ 8 
3. Methods of enforcement .................................................................................... 9 

E. PROJECT RESULTS ........................................................................................ 10 

1. 

General overview ........................................................................................ 10 

1.1 Overview of the number of inspections ......................................................................... 10 
1.2 NACE codes of inspected companies ............................................................................. 11 
1.3 Size of the inspected companies .................................................................................. 12 

Substances subject to inspection ................................................................... 12 
2. 
3.  Module A: Inspected companies exporting a substance .................................... 13 
4.  Module B: Provisions on packaging and labelling established by the CLP Regulation 
and safety data sheets ................................................................................. 14 
5.  Module C: Results of the checks by customs ................................................... 15 
6.  Measures imposed and follow-up actions ........................................................ 16 

F. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................... 18 

1. 
2. 

Conclusions ................................................................................................ 18 
Recommendations ....................................................................................... 18 

2.1 Recommendations to the Forum .................................................................................. 18 
2.2 Recommendations to enforcement authorities and inspectors .......................................... 18 
2.3 Recommendations to industry ..................................................................................... 19 
2.4 Recommendation to the Commission ............................................................................ 19 
2.5 Recommendation to ECHA .......................................................................................... 19 
2.6 Recommendation to customs authorities ....................................................................... 19 

LIST OF ANNEXES ............................................................................................. 19 

ANNEX 1: QUESTIONNAIRE .............................................................................. 20 

  
 
 
Forum pilot project on the control of PIC -Public 

4 

Executive summary  

The  Forum  for  Exchange  of  Information  on  Enforcement  (Forum)  conducted  a  pilot 
project on the control of PIC duties. 13 Member States participated in the project.   

The  project  was  set  up  in  2017.  National  enforcement  authorities  (NEAs)  from  the 
participating  countries  conducted  inspections  between  January  and  June 2018  using  the 
manual  and  questionnaire  prepared  by  the  ‘Forum  pilot  project  on  the  control  of  PIC’ 
Working  Group.  The  reporting  from  the  national  coordinators  took  place  from  July  to 
August  2018  and  the  project  report  was  prepared  by  the  Working  Group  by  the  end  of 
2018. 

Even  though  the  project  was  a  pilot  project,  a  considerable  number  of  inspections  were 
completed  (296).  These  included  on-site  inspections  and  desktop  inspections.  During 
each inspection, one substance per company was inspected and reported on by filling in 
the questionnaire (Annex 1). 

143  of  the  companies  inspected  fell  into  the  EU’s  NACE  category  ‘Manufacturing  of 
chemicals and related products’ (codes 20 to 25), while 112 correspond to NACE division 
46,  ‘Wholesale  trade,  except  of  motor  vehicles  and  motorcycles  and  retail’.  Micro,  small 
and medium-sized companies (SMEs) represented 61 % of the companies inspected.  

In  relation  to  compliance  with  Article  8  of  PIC,  17  cases  (10  %)  were  identified  where 
there  was  no  export  notification  for  the  exported  substances  and  no  exemption  was 
applicable.  Moreover,  in  3  cases  (2  %)  there  was  no  reference  identification  number 
(RIN)1,  and  in  12  cases  (9  %)  the  RIN  was  not  valid  during  the  exporting  period  (see 
more information in Chapter E.3).    

The  exported  substances  were  also  checked  for  their  compliance  with  Article  17  of  PIC, 
namely related to the CLP labelling and packaging aspects (Article 17 (1)) and the REACH 
obligation  that  a  safety  data  sheet  (SDS)  must  accompany  chemicals  that  are  intended 
for export (Article 17(3)). Non-compliance with the packaging provision was reported in 2 
cases (2 %) and in 6 cases (4 %) with the labelling provisions. Moreover, 7 cases (5 %) 
were  found  to  be  non-compliant  with  respect  to  the  SDS  provision.  The  inspectors  also 
identified  16  cases  (12  %)  of  non-compliance  with  Article  17(4)  of  PIC,  concerning  the 
language on the label and the SDS (see more information in Chapter E.4). 

The  customs  authorities  that  have  the  remit  to  enforce  PIC  were  also  involved  in  this 
project. During the project, they reported 3 cases (3 %) of non-compliance with Article 8 
of PIC (see more information in Chapter E.5). 

In  many  cases,  more  than  one  measure  could  have  been  imposed  for  each  non-
compliance  with  the  Articles  of  PIC  under  this  project,  or  a  measure  could  have  been 
taken  for  more  than  one  non-compliance.  18  written  advices,  13  verbal  advices  and  12 
administrative orders were issued. In 14 cases, a criminal complaint was undertaken and 
in 2 cases a fine was applied.  

1 A reference identification number (RIN) is generated by the ePIC application as part of the export notification 
procedure.  A  RIN  is  the  unique  identifier  for  each  export  notification  (and  is  associated  to  an  exporter,  a 
substance,  an  importing  country  and  a  calendar  year).  It  is  a  string  of  10  alphanumeric  characters:  nine 
randomly  generated  preceded  by  a  first  digit  which  is  always  either  a  ‘1’  or  a  ‘0’  and  categorises  the  type  of 
notification  (in  order  to  facilitate  customs  controls).  ‘1’  indicates  a  standard  export notification,  whereas  a  ‘0’ 
indicates a special RIN request. Note that RINs are not required for exports of chemicals that are not subject to 
the PIC Regulation. 

ePIC: An IT application for processing and management of legal requirements of the PIC Regulation. 

Source: https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/23036412/guidance_pic_en.pdf/813e3826-5b6d-4a31-
9088-6bb9ceae34b4 

  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
 
5 

Forum pilot project on the control of PIC -Public 

At the time of finalising the reporting phase, follow-up activities were still ongoing for 26 
cases, and information was forwarded to another Member State for further follow-up for 
3 cases.  

This project was important as it was an opportunity to establish enforcement processes, 
gain  more  experience  and  put  in  place  best  practices  to  help  future  PIC  enforcement 
actions.  It  was  confirmed  that  customs  authorities  have  an  important  role  in  the 
enforcement of the PIC Regulation and that the customs codes were not always useful in 
identifying substances in Annexes I and V to PIC.  

Based on the findings of the pilot project, the project’s Working Group has outlined some 
recommendations  for  the  Forum,  the  European  Commission,  enforcement  authorities, 
inspectors  and  industry  (see  Chapter  F).  In  general,  it  is  recommended  to  continue  the 
cooperation  with  customs  authorities  at  national  level,  either  by  industry  or  authorities. 
With  the  view  to  improve  the  work  of  inspectors,  the  Commission  is  recommended  to 
create a unique customs codes for substances in Annexes I and V to the PIC Regulation. 

  
 
 
 
 
Forum pilot project on the control of PIC -Public 

6 

A. Introduction 

At the Forum-25 plenary meeting in November 2016, the Forum decided to engage in a 
pilot project on the enforcement of the PIC Regulation. The PIC Regulation is a relatively 
new  legal  obligation  for  the  Forum,  and  some  national  enforcement  authorities  (NEAs) 
still need to gain experience in enforcing it.  

The  aim  of  the  pilot  project  was  to  check  compliance  regarding  the  export  of  all 
substances  covered  by  the  PIC  Regulation.  The  focus  was  on  gathering  experience  and 
building  best  practices  and  processes  for  enforcing  compliance  with  the  PIC  obligations. 
The  project  was  set  up  in  2017,  and  inspections  took  place  between  January  and  June 
2018. 

B. Objectives and participants  

The scope of the pilot project was to clarify and establish a practical way of enforcing the 
PIC  Regulation,  building  enforcement  experience  and  good  practices  by  checking 
compliance  with  the  obligations  and,  where  required,  imposing  measures  on  the  non-
compliances found.  

The project had the following objectives: 

•  Collect  practical  experience  and  establish  practices  in  the  enforcement  of  PIC  in 

those countries in which there is yet little or no enforcement experience. 

•  Harmonise PIC enforcement practices. 

•  Establish tools and coordinated enforcement methods for PIC obligations.  

• 

• 

Increase  the  cooperation  of  the  NEAs  with  customs  authorities  and  designated 
national authorities (DNAs). 

Identify problematic areas that could hinder the inclusion of PIC inspections in future 
related REACH/CLP projects. 

By achieving these objectives, enforcers would be more knowledgeable in conducting PIC 
inspections in future larger-scale projects. 

Interested  Member  States  participated  by  allocating  resources  to  organise  and  plan  the 
inspections  conducted  from  January  until  June  2018.  The  participating  Member  States 
were: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, 
Netherlands, Romania, Spain and Sweden. 

C. Background information 

1. Project history and background 

This  project  is  integrated  in  the  implementation  of  several  of  the  Forum’s  tasks  as 
established  by  Article  77(4)  of  REACH,  which  are  also  valid  for  the  PIC  Regulation,  in 
particular: 

a)  spreading good practice and highlighting problems at Community level; 
b)  proposing, coordinating and evaluating harmonised enforcement projects and joint 

inspections; 
identifying enforcement strategies, as well as best practice in enforcement; and 

c) 
d)  developing working methods and tools to be used by local inspectors. 

  
  
 
 
 
 
 
7 

Forum pilot project on the control of PIC -Public 

The PIC Regulation obligations fall under the Forum’s strategic priorities  for 2014-2018, 
namely the focus on enforcing obligations related to the export of substances. 

PIC  exporters  were  the  main  target  group  of  the  pilot  project.  Such  companies  may  or 
may not also have a role under REACH or CLP.  

In general, all substances present in Annexes I and V to the PIC Regulation fall within the 
scope of the project. However, the packaging and information requirements in Article 17 
apply  to  any  substance  or  mixture  with  a  relevant  hazard  profile  (i.e.  classification  and 
labelling under CLP). 

Imports/importers  were  excluded  from  the  scope  since  there  is  very  limited  data 
available to be checked by inspectors.  

Due to the definition of an article used in PIC being quite complex and not corresponding 
to the one in REACH, the ‘substances in articles’ aspect was also excluded. Moreover, not 
many such export notifications are received by ECHA.  

2. Legislative background 

This pilot project on PIC is limited to the export obligation and duties under Article 8, 14, 
15(2) and 17. Obligations imposed by REACH and the CLP Regulation are not included. 

The obligations checked and eventually enforced within the scope of the pilot project are 
described below. 

Table 1: Articles of the PIC Regulation investigated in the pilot project  

Article 
8 
14 

15(2) 
17 (1),(2), 
(3) 

17(4) 

Annex I  

Annex II 
Annex V 

Description 

Export notifications forwarded to parties and other countries 
Obligations  in  relation  to  export  of  chemicals  other  than  export 
notification 
Export of chemicals as listed in Annex V is prohibited 
Information  to  accompany  exported  chemicals  (packaging  and 
labelling and safety data sheet (SDS)) 

Information  on  the  label  and  on  the  SDS  shall as  far  as  practicable 
be given in the official languages, or in one or more of the principal 
languages,  of  the  country  of  destination  or  of  the  area  of  intended 
use 
Chemicals subject to export notification, chemicals qualifying for PIC 
notification and chemicals subject to PIC procedure 
Information required in the export notification according to Article 8 
Chemicals and articles subject to export ban 

One  direct  outcome  of  the  pilot  project  was  the  identification  of  different 
interpretations by different Member States and ECHA of the scope of Article 17 of the 
PIC  Regulation.  During  the  preparation  of  the  project,  following  discussions  between 
the Working Group members, ECHA and the European Commission, the Commission’s 
services  confirmed that Article 17 is applicable to the  export  of all chemicals and not 
just the ones subject to Annex I of PIC.  

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Forum pilot project on the control of PIC -Public 

8 

D. Enforcement actions 

1. Participating countries and number of inspections 

13  Member  States  participated  in  the  pilot  project,  but  only  the  results  of  12  countries 
were taken into consideration for this report. A total of 296 inspections were completed, 
consisting  in  both  on-site  and  desktop  inspections,  and  a  questionnaire  was  completed 
for each substance inspected. Further details on the results can be found in Chapter E. 

The  companies  were  selected  for  inspection  if  they  dealt  with  substances2  (including 
substances  in  mixtures)  subject  to  the  PIC  requirements  based  on  the  data  provided  in 
their REACH dossiers, such as pre-registrations, registrations, registrations of transported 
isolated intermediate substances, data provided to ECHA and CLP notifications and other 
duties (including those related to mixtures). 

2. Coordination of the project 

A  Forum  Working  Group  ‘Forum  Pilot  Project  on  control  of  PIC’  was  responsible  for  the 
project management of this pilot project. This included: 

-  providing all relevant project documents (e.g.  manual and questionnaire) to the pilot 

project national coordinators (NCs); 

-  conducting the webinar for training of the NCs in December 2017;  
-  communicating  closely  with  the  NCs  through  a  secure  messaging  system,  the  Portal 
Dashboard for National Enforcement Authorities (PD-NEA); all exchange of confidential 
information, such as data and inspection reports, was done using PD-NEA; 

-  collecting and compiling the inspection findings;  
-  project  coordination  at  European  level  with  the  Member  States  participating  in  the 

project;  

-  evaluating the project’s findings; and  
-  reporting to the Forum.  

The ECHA Forum Secretariat supported the project management, prepared data and the 
interactive  questionnaire  for  inspectors  to  report  the  findings  of  the  project.  It  also 
contributed  to  the  preparation  of  the  manual  and  the  webinar  for  the  NCs.  In  addition, 
the ECHA Forum Secretariat provided all necessary logistic, administrative, financial and 
technical support as in Forum’s previous enforcement projects. 

The  NCs  were  the  key  element  of  this  project,  as  they  were  the  contact  point  between 
the  inspectors  and  the  Forum’s  working  group.  Their  main  task  was  to  implement  the 
project  in  their  country.  This  entailed  organising  the  exchange  of  information  and 
cooperating  with  the  relevant  inspectors  and  authorities  and  providing  them  with 
information  in  relation  to  the  project.  Moreover,  they  planned  all  the  national  project-
related inspections and collected the data used in this report. 

2 Both substance on its own or in a mixture were possible to be investigated in this project. 

  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
9 

Forum pilot project on the control of PIC -Public 

3. Methods of enforcement 

Inspections  were  carried  out  in  accordance  with  the  project  manual.  The  inspectors 
initially  completed  a  desktop  inspection  of  the  company/substance  based  on  the 
information available (e.g. ECHA’s database via PD-NEA, environmental permits, Member 
State competent authority, customs data). The desktop inspection was followed up with 
an on-site inspection of the company’s premises if the inspectors deemed it necessary to 
seek  further  evidence.  A  questionnaire  was  completed  for  each  substance  subject  to  a 
desktop or on-site inspection. 

In cases where the selected company was in another Member State, the inspector could 
consider  referring  the  matter  or  relevant  information  to  the  appropriate  national 
enforcement  authority  (NEA)  for  follow-up.  This  was  done  using  any  suitable  mode  of 
bilateral  information  exchange  via  a  secure  exchange  platform  (e.g.  PD-NEA).  The 
project was designed to have optional modules to allow enough flexibility that would take 
into account the different organisation of PIC responsibilities in different Member States.  

Module  A  focused  on  the  enforcement  of  export  notification  and/or  explicit  consents, 
while  Module  B  focused  on  additional  provisions  on  packaging  and  labelling  as  well  as 
the provisions in REACH concerning the SDS as part of Article 17 of PIC. 

Module C focused on the checks by customs authorities. In some countries also customs 
authorities  are  involved  in  checking  PIC  compliance.  Therefore,  this  pilot  project  has  a 
special customs authorities’ module devoted to checking export notifications by customs 
authorities by checking box 44 of the export declaration3.  

3  Box  44  of  the  single  administrative  document  (SAD)  is  used  to  show  the  information  about  documents, 
certificates and authorisations accompanying the customs declaration and also additional information relating to 
the movement of the goods. Consequently, box 44 contains the following information: 

1) additional customs information; 
2)  documents,  certificates  and  authorisations  provided  for  by  Union  legislation  (e.g.  in  Customs  legislation 
such as in Article 145 of UCC-IA; in article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 of 5 May 2009 setting 
up  a  Community  regime  for  the  control  of  exports,  transfer,  brokering  and  transit  of  dual-use  items  and  in 
article 4 (1), subparagraph 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 for the export certificate at export 
of agricultural products with export refund) or by national legislation. 

Source: https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/customs-procedures/general-overview/single-
administrative-document-sad_en 

  
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
  
Forum pilot project on the control of PIC -Public 

10 

E. Project results 

The  statistics  presented  in  this  report  are  based  on  the  data  recorded  in  the 
questionnaire  (Annex  1)  by  the  inspectors  during  their  visits  to  the  companies  and 
desktop inspections. Some of the questions in the questionnaire were optional and hence 
some  inspectors  opted  not  to  reply.  Therefore,  the  statistical  results  used  in  this  report 
should  be  read  as  the  result  reported  for  that  particular  question.  For  clarity,  when 
needed,  the  number  of  total  replies  for  that  question  (n)  is  given  as  well  as  the 
percentage based on that number. 

1.  General overview  

1.1 Overview of the number of inspections 

13  Member  States  participated  in  the  pilot  project,  and  a  total  of  296  inspections  were 
completed  by  12  of  those  Member  States.  Questionnaires  were  completed  for  112 
different substances, and not all substances were substances from Annex I of PIC. Table 
2 presents the number of inspections completed by participating Member States. 

Table 2: Participating countries and reported inspections 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 

Country 
Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Denmark 
Germany 
Greece 
Hungary 
Italy 
Lithuania 
Netherlands 
Romania 
Spain 
Sweden 
Σ = n 

Number of inspections 
-4 
35 
4 
11 
40 
50 
12 
3 
9 
52 
5 
66 
9 
296 

Some  inspectors  indicated  that  more  companies  were  inspected  in  their  country  but  in 
cases  where  there  was  no  activity  with  the  inspected  substances,  the  inspection  was 
stopped and the questionnaire was not filled in. 

118 of the inspections were conducted by visiting the companies on-site, while 178 were 
desktop  inspections  only,  carried  out  by  contacting  the  company  and  authorities  and 
checking the relevant documentation. 

As  stated  in  section  D.3  ‘Methods  of  enforcement’,  the  inspectors  had  the  possibility  to 
record the result of their inspections in three different modules (A, B and C), depending 
on  the  obligations  checked.  The  inspectors  were  encouraged  to  fill  as  many  of  the 
modules as possible. Module A was reported for all inspections except in 6 cases where 
the investigations were done by customs only (module C only).  

4 15 on-site inspections (3 covering Module A and 15 covering Module B) – mainly on substances in mixtures – 
were carried out in Austria under this project but were not included in this report. The findings in Austria were 
in general in line with the findings outlined in this pilot project report. 

  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
11 

Forum pilot project on the control of PIC -Public 

Figure 1: Distribution of inspections by module (possible for more than one module to be 
reported per inspection)  

The  questionnaire  provided  information  in  relation  to  the  type  of  company  inspected 
based on the NACE code5, the size of the company, the role of the company and details 
of  the  substance  being  exported,  which  was  the  subject  of  the  inspection.  The  results 
detailed  in  the  following  chapters  are  based  on  the  information  provided  by  the 
participating Member States. 

1.2 NACE codes of inspected companies 

Table 3 summarises the findings concerning the main type of business sector (based on 
the NACE code) of the companies inspected within the scope of the project. 

Table 3: Main business sectors of the companies inspected in the scope of the project  

NACE division 

NACE category 

Number of companies 

20-25 

46 

Manufacturing of chemicals 
and related products 
Wholesale trade, except of 
motor vehicles and 
motorcycles and retail  

143 

112 

Proportion of 
companies 
(N=296) 

48 % 

38 % 

The  vast  majority  of  the  inspected  companies  (86  %)  belonged  to  the  two  business 
sectors  identified  in  Table  3.  In  particular,  the  sector  most  frequently  reported  by  the 
inspectors  was  ‘Manufacturers  of  chemicals  and  chemical  products’  (NACE  division  20), 
which accounted for 124 of the 143 reported cases for manufacturing companies. 

34  companies  (12  %)  were  reported  as  ‘Other  professional,  scientific  and  technical 
activities’ (NACE division 74). 7 companies (2 %) belonged to NACE divisions 9, 12, 15, 
32 and 72. 

5 Statistical classification of economic activities: 
  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:393:0001:0039:EN:PDF. 

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Forum pilot project on the control of PIC -Public 

12 

1.3 Size of the inspected companies 

Companies of all size categories according to the EU standard scale6 were included in the 
inspections.  Figure  2  summarises  the  findings  related  to  the  size  of  the  companies 
inspected.  Micro,  small  and  medium-sized  companies  (SMEs)  represented  61  %  of  the 
companies  inspected.  The  companies  were  selected  for  inspections  if  they  dealt  with 
substances  based  on  the  data  provided  in  their  dossiers,  such  as  those  for  PIC 
notifications,  pre-registrations,  registrations,  data  provided  to  ECHA,  and  CLP 
notifications. 

Figure 2: Distribution of company sizes (n= 296) 

2.  Substances subject to inspection  

Table 4 summarises the results related to the five substances most frequently subject to 
inspections. Additionally it was reported whether the substance was part of a mixture.  

Due  to  the  scope  of  Article  17  of  the PIC  Regulation,  the  substances  reported  were  not 
only  the  ones  present  in  Annex  I  or  V  to  PIC,  but  also  other  exported  substances.  The 
most frequently investigated substance is not part of Annex I or V to PIC. 

Table 4: Top 5 most frequently inspected substances 

Ranking 

Substance subject to inspection 

CAS number 

Number of 
inspections related 
to the substance 

Number of cases 
where the substance 
was present in a 
mixture 

1 

2 
3 
4 
5 

Didecyldimethylammonium 
chloride 
Chloroform 
Benzene 
Permethrin 
1,1-dichloroethylene 

7173-51-5 

67-66-3 
71-43-2 
52645-53-1 
75-35-4 

45 

24 
19 
12 
10 

11 

2 
5 
4 
4 

6 Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC. 

  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
13 

Forum pilot project on the control of PIC -Public 

3.  Module A: Inspected companies exporting a substance  

A  total  of  290  inspections  on  substances  were  checked  for  compliance  with  the 
obligations described in Articles 8 and 15(2) of PIC (module A). However, in 126 of these 
inspections,  the  substance  turned  out  to  be  not  exported  and/or  was  not  a  chemical 
listed in Annex I or V to PIC, and thereby not subject to PIC, and the questions in module 
A were not applicable.  

The inspectors investigated the 164 substances that were exported regarding whether an 
export  notification  was  submitted,  and  found  that  for  31  substances  this  was  not  the 
case.  

Among  those  31  substances,  there  were  17  cases  where  an  exemption  did  not  apply. 
Those  substances  were  found  non-compliant  with  Article  8  of  PIC.  Therefore  the  overall 
rate of non-compliance with Article 8 was 10%.  

For  13  substances  out  of  the  31  where  no  export  notifications  were  submitted, 
exemptions were applicable7 and a special reference identification number (RIN) existed, 
and therefore they were compliant with Article 2(3) of PIC.  

For one case out of 31, compliance had not been verified before the end of the reporting 
phase and investigations were still ongoing. 

In 133 out of the 164 substances inspected, the inspectors confirmed the existence of an 
export  notification.  The  notifications  were  checked  against  the  situation  that  the 
inspectors witnessed during the inspection.  

The inspectors reported that the content of the notification was in line with the practical 
situation  observed  during  the  inspection  in  all  cases.  However,  in  3  cases  (2  %)  there 
was  no  RIN  submitted,  and  in  12  cases  (9  %)  the  RIN  was  not  valid  during  the  export 
period. All these cases were non-compliant and in breach of Article 8 of PIC. 

Figure 3: Summary of the percentage of non-compliance related to Article 8 of the PIC 
Regulation for exported substances listed in Annex I of PIC 

7 Article 2(3) of the PIC Regulation shall not apply to chemicals exported for the purpose of research or analysis 
in quantities that are unlikely to affect human health or the environment and that in any event do not exceed 
10 kg from each exporter to each importing country per calendar year. 

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Forum pilot project on the control of PIC -Public 

14 

The  inspectors  also  investigated  if  the  substances  were  chemicals  from  Annex  V  to  PIC 
(chemicals subject to export ban) and if there was compliance with Article 15(2) of PIC. 
Such  substances  were  identified  in  only  2  cases  out  of  the  290;  an  exemption  was 
applicable  to  both,  and  hence  the  substances  were  compliant  with  the  requirements  of 
Article 15(2) of PIC.  

4.  Module B: Provisions on packaging and labelling established by 

the CLP Regulation and safety data sheets  

Module B was recorded for 147 hazardous substances (including substances in mixtures), 
not  exclusively  for  substances  listed  in  Annex  I  to  the  PIC  Regulation.  This  module 
investigated  compliance  with  Article  17  of  PIC.  It  states  that  all  chemicals  that  are 
intended for export are subject to the provisions on packaging and labelling established 
by  the  CLP  Regulation.  Moreover,  the  safety  data  sheets  (SDSs)  without  exposure 
scenarios annexes, in accordance with the REACH Regulation, must accompany chemicals 
that  are  intended  for  export.  Therefore,  the  inspectors  checked  whether  the  exporter 
sent such SDSs to each natural/legal person importing the chemical into a third country 
and whether it fulfilled the provisions regarding packaging and labelling. 

Additionally, this pilot project investigated the  aspect mentioned in Article 17(4) of PIC, 
that  “as  far  as  practicable”,  the  exporter  must  also  guarantee  the  information  on  the 
label and the SDS to be in the language of the country of import.  

A low rate of non-compliance with the abovementioned provisions was recorded, and the 
cases  are  summarised  in  Figure  4.  Please  note  that  this  project  included  optional 
questions  that  the  inspectors  might  have  opted  not  to  reply.  Therefore,  the  results 
reported  below  are  the  number  of  total  replies  (n)  for  that  particular  question  of  the 
questionnaire.  

Figure 4: Distribution of non-compliance of exported chemicals related to packaging and 
labelling (CLP), the obligation of having an SDS (REACH), and if the SDS is the language 
of the importing country (Article 17(4) of the PIC Regulation) 

  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
15 

Forum pilot project on the control of PIC -Public 

The  inspectors  recorded  the  language  used  in  the  SDS  provided  on  the  exported 
substance.  As  of  8  November  2017,  exporters  have  had  to  make  a  self-declaration  in 
ePIC8  on  their  SDS  language  if  they  do  not  submit  an  ‘optimal’  version.  The  language 
hierarchy is as follows: 

1)  Official language of the importing country  

2)  Rotterdam  Convention  language  (EN/FR/ES)  as  is  best  compatible  with  the 

importing country 

3)  English only as a final resort. 

Figure  5  summarises  the  information  reported  by  the  inspectors  on  the  language  of  the 
SDSs  investigated.  180  results  were  submitted,  where  more  than  one  option  could  be 
selected per inspection. 

Figure 5: Distribution of languages identified in the SDS of the exported substances 
(n=180) 

5.  Module C: Results of the checks by customs  

With  the  view  to  have  more  complete  results  and  be  in  line  with  the  objectives  of  the 
project, the national enforcement authorities (NEAs) and inspectors were encouraged to 
cooperate  with  customs  authorities.  Therefore,  97  inspections  were  carried  out  in 
collaboration with customs, 6 of which were carried out only by customs officers.      

Inspectors  frequently  reported  that  the  exported  substance  was  registered  with  a  non-
unique  combined  nomenclature  (CN)  code9  and  the  substance  was,  in  fact,  not  a 
substance  listed  in  Annex  I  of  PIC.  This  is  because  the  selection  system  of  customs  is 
based on CN codes, and not every CN code is specific for a substance in Annex I of PIC. 
Some  inspectors  indicated  that  more  companies  were  inspected  in  their  country,  but  in 
cases  where  there  was  no  activity  with  the  inspected  substances,  the  inspection  was 
stopped and the questionnaire was not filled in. 

8 ePIC is the IT tool established and maintained by ECHA to ensure that requirements under the PIC Regulation 
are supported by appropriate IT systems: 
https://echa.europa.eu/support/dossier-submission-tools/epic. 

9 The combined nomenclature (CN) is a tool for classifying goods, set up to meet the requirements both of the 
Common Customs Tariff and of the EU's external trade statistics: 
https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/calculation-customs-duties/what-is-common-customs-
tariff/combined-nomenclature_en. 

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
 
Forum pilot project on the control of PIC -Public 

16 

The intention of Module C was to assess the level of compliance with Article 8 of PIC that 
could be identified by customs. Additionally, the customs officers could indicate whether 
they checked if the export notifications were in place and compliant with Article 19(1) of 
PIC  (i.e.  RIN  in  box  44  of  the  single  administrative  document  (SAD))  and  filled  in 
correctly (according to their own customs regulation)10. Figure 6 summarises the findings 
from Module C in relation to the obligations described above.  

Figure 6: Distribution of non-compliances identified by customs related to Articles 19(2) 
and 8 of PIC and the customs regulation 

6.  Measures imposed and follow-up actions  

Different measures were imposed by the enforcing authorities when they encountered a 
non-compliance,  depending  on  the  national  procedures  of  each  Member  State.  Often 
more than one measure could be imposed for each non-compliance, or a single measure 
could be taken to address more than one non-compliance.  

In total, 66 measures  were  reported to have  been imposed due to non-compliance with 
PIC  obligations  in  the  scope  of  this  project.  Most  of  the  measures  were  written  advice 
(18),  followed  by  criminal  proceedings/prosecutions  (14)  initiated  for  the  non-
compliances  found.  Verbal  advice  (13)  and  administrative  orders  (12)  were  also  issued, 
and  2  fines  were  imposed.  Examples  of  other  measures  reported  by  the  inspectors  are 
additional fines according the national law, and warning letters relating to the company’s 
SDSs. 

3 cases were forwarded to Member States other than the one where the inspection was 
conducted (2 to the designated national authority and 1 to the NEA).  

10  The RIN  has  also  to  be  present  in  box  44  of  the  Single Administrative  Documents  of  the  export,  based  on 
Article  19  of  the  PIC  Regulation.  However,  Article  19  was  not  part  of  the  scope  of  this  project  but  it  was 
recorded by the customs, hence it is reported in this report. 

  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
17 

Forum pilot project on the control of PIC -Public 

Figure 7: Distribution of the number of enforcement measures 

  
 
 
 
 
 
Forum pilot project on the control of PIC -Public 

18 

F. Conclusions and recommendations 

1.  Conclusions 

Within this project, it was found a non-compliance rate in respect to PIC Article 8 of 10% 
(see  Chapter  E.3).  Concerning  Article  17,  the  rates  of  non-compliance  range  between  2 
% and 12 % (see Chapter E.4). 

Based  on  the  information  provided  through  the  questionnaire  and  the  feedback  of 
participants, the following conclusions can be made: 

•  This  project  was  important  for  clarifying  that  duties  under Article  17  of  PIC  are  to 
be  complied  with  by  companies  exporting  any  chemicals,  not  only  the  chemicals 
included in Annexes I and V to PIC.  

•  This  project  raised  awareness  of  the  obligations  of  exporters  of  hazardous 

chemicals in general, not only of exporters of PIC chemicals. 

•  The  selection  of  companies  for  this  project  was  identified  as  a  challenge  by  some 
national  coordinators.  In  some  countries,  a  combination  of  various  data  bases 
allowed  to  select  possible  companies  related  to  the  export  of  Annex  I  PIC 
chemicals. 

•  For  inspections  of  PIC  exporting  duties  by  national  enforcement  authorities,  the 
availability  of  customs  data  on  export  declarations  was  very  helpful.  This  data  set 
should also include information from box 44 of the export declarations. 

•  This  project  was  important  as  it  was  an  opportunity  to  establish  enforcement 
processes, gain more experience and put in place best practices to help future PIC 
enforcement actions. 

•  Customs,  which  can  perform  an  important  task  in  the  enforcement  of  PIC 

obligations, did not carry out that many inspections. 

•  No unique customs code is available for chemicals in Annexes I and V of PIC. That 

caused problems in targeting the right chemicals for inspection. 

2.  Recommendations 

The following recommendations are based on the experience of the members of the pilot 
project’s  Working  Group  as  well  as  on  the  results  of  the  project  and  the  feedback  from 
the questionnaires completed by the national coordinators. 

2.1 Recommendations to the Forum 

• 

Include the enforcement of PIC obligations in future projects. 

2.2 Recommendations to enforcement authorities and inspectors 

•  Continue the enforcement of the PIC Regulation at national level. 
•  Continue  the  cooperation  with  customs  authorities  for  PIC  enforcement  (e.g. 
availability  of  data  sets  of  export  declarations  from  customs  to  the  national 
enforcement authorities).  

  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
19 

Forum pilot project on the control of PIC -Public 

2.3 Recommendations to industry 

•  Continue  and  improve  compliance  with  the  PIC  Regulation  as  well  as  with  the 

related CLP and REACH obligations in relation to exported chemicals.  

•  Companies  exporting  hazardous  chemicals  (which  include  chemicals  not  included 
in  Annexes  I  and  V  of  PIC)  should  be  aware  of  their  duties  related  to  the  PIC 
Regulation.  

2.4 Recommendation to the Commission 

•  The Commission/DG TAXUD to improve the unique customs code for chemicals in 

Annexes I and V to PIC.  

2.5 Recommendation to ECHA 

•  Raise  awareness  through  ECHA’s  website,  guidances  and  other  relevant 
dissemination tools that the  obligations under  Article 17 of PIC are to be fulfilled 
by all companies exporting PIC chemicals or chemicals not in the Annexes to PIC.  

2.6 Recommendation to customs authorities 

•  Based  on  the  findings  that  44  %  of  export  notifications  inspected  by  customs 
authorities  were  not  compliant  with  Article  19(1)  of  PIC,  it  is  recommended  for 
these  authorities  to  prioritise  the  checking  of  the  RIN  in  box  44  of  the  single 
administrative document for hazardous chemicals being exported. 

List of annexes 

Annex 1: Project questionnaire 

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Forum pilot project on the control of PIC -Public 

20 

Annex 1: Questionnaire 

QUESTIONNAIRE 
(One (1) questionnaire per inspected substance) 

0. Section – General Information about the inspection (obligatory) 
(questions 0.2 to 0.5 will not be forwarded to ECHA Secretariat) 

0.1.Participating country: 

0.2. Authority: 
0.3. Person in Charge: 
      Telephone:  
      Fax:  
      E-mail:              
0.4. Date of inspection: 
0.5. File reference:             
0.6. Type of inspection 
 Only desk top check 
 On-site check 

Only for national 
internal use – do not 
submit data 

I. Section – General information about the inspected company and substance 
(obligatory) 
(questions 1.1. to 1.3. will not be forwarded to ECHA Secretariat) 
1.1. Name of company: 
1.2. Name and telephone of the contact person:             
1.3. Contact person’s position: 
1.4. Company’s NACE-Code(s): 

Only for national 
internal use – do not 
submit data 
Source for NACE Code 
Please provide 4-digit 
NACE class, e.g. 
"01.11" 

2. According to Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC the company qualifies as: 

  Small      

  Medium      

  Micro       
Micro:     <10 employees and  ≤2 million euro annual turnover 
Small:     <50 employees and  ≤10 million euro annual turnover 
Medium: <250 employees and  ≤50 million euro annual turnover 
Not SME: >250 employees and > 50 million euro annual turnover 

  unknown    

  not SME     

3.  Identification of the substance 

3.1 Substance name            
3.2 CAS No            
3.3 In a mixture?  � Yes  � No 

  
  
           
           
           
           
           
           
⃝
⃝
 
           
           
           
 
          
⃝
⃝
⃝
⃝
⃝
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
21 

REF-5 Project Report -Public 

II. Section –Modules A-C  
Please fill in the following module combinations: 

-  Only Module A 
-  Module A + B 
-  Module A + B+C 
-  Module A + C 
-  Only Module C 

Module A - Export notifications and explicit consents  

                  (Article 8 and 15 (2) of the PIC Regulation)  
A1. Are there chemicals listed in Part 1 of Annex I, exported? 
� Yes  
� No 

A2.  Is there an export notification submitted for the exported 
chemicals? 
� Yes (go to A3) 
� No  (go to A2.1) 
    If No:     

A2.1 Is an exemption applicable? 
� Yes  
� No  

    A2.2 Is there a special RIN?  

 Yes  / 

 No 

A3.  Is  the  content  of  the  notification(s)  correct  with  the  practical 
situation  observed  during  the  inspection  such  as  the  identity  of  the 
substance? 

� Yes 
� No 
A4. Was a Reference Identification Number (RIN) submitted? 
� Yes  
� No 

A5. Was the RIN valid during the period of export? 
� Yes  
� No 
A6. Was the chemical from Annex V being exported?  
� Yes (Go to A6.1) 
� No  
� Not applicable (not a chemical from Annex V) 

If yes   A6.1 Is an exemption applicable? � Yes  / � No 
                 A6.2 Is there a special RIN?  � Yes  / � No 

Record any exceptional 
situation in Section IV 
of the questionnaire 
(e.g. Annex 1 part 3 
substances) 

Export ban: if “yes” 
there is breach of 
Article 15.2. 

An exemption for 
small quantities (e.g 
<10Kg/year) is 
possible (“special 
RIN”) 

  
 
 
 
 
⃝
⃝
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Forum pilot project on the control of PIC -Public 

22 

Module  B  -  Provisions  on  packaging  and  labelling  established  by  the  CLP 
Regulation and SDSs  

B1. Are the chemicals that are intended for export compliant to 
the provisions on packaging established by the CLP Regulation? 
� Yes  
� No 
B2. Are the chemicals that are intended for export compliant to 
the provisions on labelling established by the CLP Regulation? 
� Yes  
� No 
B3. Are the chemicals that are intended for export compliant to 
the provisions on SDSs, in accordance with the REACH Regulation? 
� Yes  
� No 
B4. Are the chemicals that are intended for export compliant with 
PIC Article 17(4)?  
� Yes  
� No 
B5. What is the language of the SDS of the chemicals intended for 
export? 

 Official language of the importing country  
 Rotterdam Convention language (EN/FR/ES) 
Other 

SDSs without 
Exposure Scenarios 
(ES) annexes 

Module C - Check of Article 8 by customs 

C1. Was the export notification (RIN in box 44 of the SAD) 
checked by the customs authorities? 
� Yes  
� No 
C2. Was box 44 filled in correctly? 
� Yes  
� No 
C3. Was there a non-compliance with Article 8? 
� Yes  
� No 

Single Administrative 
Documents (SAD) 

  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
23 

REF-5 Project Report -Public 

III. Section: Summary / Follow-up Action (obligatory)  

4. Measures imposed due to non-compliance with PIC obligations 
subject to this project (table 1 of the manual)?      
(multiple responses possible)? 

 No measures  
 Verbal advice 
 Written advice 
 Administrative order  
 Fine                        
 Criminal complaint / Handing over to public prosecutor's office    
Others 

 No non-compliance was found  

5. Are the follow-up activities 
� completed  
� on going                    

6. Have any cases been forwarded to other Member States? 

� Yes  

If yes, to whom? 

 National Enforcement Authority 
 Designated National Authority 
 Customs Authority 
 Forum Member 
 National Pilot Project Coordinator 
 NEA Contact Point / Focal Point in PD-NEA 
 Feedback from the other Member State approached is already 

               available 

� No 

IV. Section – Other comments11 

.……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………….............. 

11 Please fill this section if you would like to inform on specific situation regarding this inspection, or the encountered 
obstacles, lessons learned, need for clarification/harmonization.