Currently, 23 states have passed laws regulating e (electronic)-waste, further challenging design and end products. Each state has its own criteria for disposing of discarded electronic products, and each has its own registration process, a burden on OEMs. There are perennial attempts at national legislation that would create one set of rules, thus making compliance simpler and less costly, but no bill is likely to pass soon. Even if a federal bill were to gain traction, there is no guarantee that it would pre-empt state regulations and could end up as just one more conflicting regulation.  Although e-waste sits at the opposite end of the product life cycle from design, the ramifications of state e-waste laws are hitting the design community. For one, many states are taking the liberty of packing e-waste regulation with EU (European Union) ROHS (restriction-of-hazardous-substances)-like restrictions on materials. Starting in January 2011, you cant sell anything in New Jersey that includes materials banned in the European Union, says Ken Stanvick (photo), vice president and co-founder of Design Chain Associates, which advises OEMs and suppliers on environmental compliance. Minnesota wants a notice [about] whether you are ... ROHS-compliant. These laws are only going to get more inclusive in adding materials restrictions.  The electronics-industry OEMs that sell globally most likely are now ROHS-compliant because the regulation has been in effect for years. However, the state e-waste laws may force companies in the aerospace, military, and medical-device industries that sell only in North America into ROHS compliance.  Another impact on design will come in the form of designing for easy disassembly. Some products have a soldered battery to avoid handle vibration, says Stanvick. The European Union has tried to address this [problem] to make sure that design doesnt cause undue work in recycling. The [EU is] talking about having battery holders for easy reuse. Because many of the e-waste laws in the United States are taking their model from Europe, Stanvick expects these concerns to find their way into the state e-waste laws. Stanvick also points to plastics as concerns for design. He expects states to pressure OEMs to include easy-to-recycle plastics in their product designs. Patchwork of conflicting regulations The patchwork of conflicting state regulations has made compliance difficult for the electronic OEMs. It a real challenge to comply with 23 requirements, says Rick Goss, vice president of environment and sustainability at the ITIC (Information Technology Industry Council). The registration process alone is confusing. Goss also notes that, although fewer than half the states have e-waste laws, those states with regulations represent two-thirds of the US population. As an example of the conflicting laws, Michigan recently passed regulation that established no mandatory collection goals. Instead, the state has asked manufacturers to voluntarily collect an amount equaling 60% of the weight of the products they sell in the state. Minnesota, however, asks manufacturers to recycle a set number of pounds based on the sales weight of video-display devices but can count a larger array of products, such as computers, DVD players, and printers, toward meeting that goal. Reactions to e-waste bills have been mixed. Some industry stakeholders are not eager to revive efforts to produce and push a federal bill. In the federal end, there seems to be little appetite for any federal recycling infrastructure, says the ITIC Goss.  Still, some industry groups push on for a unifying solution. The CEA (Consumer Electronics Association) has called for federal regulation to supersede state laws, stating that a national solution is the most appropriate means to address this public policy challenge.  The NEPSI (National Electronics Products Stewardship Initiative), attempted earlier this decade to forge federal regulation, but the bill failed to gain traction. The NEPSI multistakeholder attempt at federal regulation in the early 2000s went on the rocks, says Walter Alcorn, vice president of environmental affairs and industry sustainability at the CEA. Since then, the state patchwork has exploded. The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) has deferred to the states on e-waste policy. The response from the EPA is that theyll partner with states. Theyre not going to take the lead on e-waste, says Design Chain Stanvick. There has been no significant effort to harmonize these laws. In South Carolina, you may be out of scope; in another state, youre in scope. Would federal law even pre-empt state law? Even if a successful federal bill emerged, questions exist about whether it would pre-empt state laws. Without pre-emption, a federal bill would just be one more regulation on the long list of conflicting laws. One of the tricky things now is what happens to the state programs if you have a federal bill? says the CEA Alcorn. A federal bill with pre-emption is something the industry would support. The original goal of federal regulation was to mimic the European Union electronics recycling laws. The aim of the NEPSI initiative in 2001 was to match the WEEE (Waste from Electric and Electronic Equipment) regulation passed in Europe, says Barbara Kyle, national coordinator at the Electronics TakeBack Coalition. It fell apart because the industry couldnt decide what to do. She notes that a large number of TV companies were simply unwilling to support a federal e-waste bill. Kyle believes that continuing efforts to revive a federal bill are mostly industry attempts to override strict state laws. Many companies in the electronic industry want a weak federal bill so they dont have to comply with certain tough state laws, says Kyle. State laws may incubate a national approach State governments often take the role of testing regulations on a small scale before the federal government can hammer together laws. On the state level, a valuable policy incubator [is happening], says Kyle. Were learning a lot by doing this in small bites, state by state. The states are paying a lot of attention to each other. Kyle says the government should postpone passing a federal bill until the states have determined the most efficient way to run e-waste recycling. Then, it would make sense to harmonize the state regulations, says Kyle. The states are struggling with developing effective e-waste programs. A lot of states are lax in their enforcement, says Stanvick. A lot of these laws were put into place, and the funding was not there. Some of these folks have no understanding of what theyre trying to enforce.  Industry groups are skeptical that the states will come up with e-waste programs that can become models for an overarching regulation. I wouldnt say at this point there is a state model that CEA would support, says Alcorn. It might help if there were a state model that was inherently multistate. But that [scenario is] no longer theoretical. Another problem coming out of the move toward e-waste regulation is the states inability to control what happens to e-waste once it collected. Manufacturers are illegally selling a large portion of the e-waste in bulk in Asia and West Africa.  States are not allowed to establish export controls, says Rick Goss, vice president of environment and sustainability at the Information Technology Industry Council. So states are looking to see the federal government step in on e-waste exports. Brokers and exporters engage in these illegal activities. Goss notes that Europe faces that same problem with lax enforcement of e-waste exports from European ports. The practice of disassembling e-waste is costly in human terms. Families are trying to recover metals from the board. They use acid to take off the metals, and there are a lot of stories about its ruining the environment. Plus, there child labor involved, says Ken Stanvick, vice president and co-founder of Design Chain Associates. It out of sight out of mind, and China turns a blind eye to it.