Source
ESB
November 30, 2005
As companies prepare to meet the
July 1, 2006 deadline for the European Union’s (EU) Restriction on Hazardous
Substances (RoHS), late changes in the EU directive and new developments in
China have muddied the compliance waters. Part of the murkiness is a lack of
clarity in how EU countries intend to police electronic products as they enter
the European market next summer.
The latest amendment to the RoHS
directive greatly expands the exemptions list. The directive was amended three
times in 2005, according to RoHSwell.com. The first clarified the concentration
limits for the restricted substances (0.01 percent for cadmium, 0.1 percent for
the other five substances). In October, two additional amendments were
released. One exempted decabromodiphenyl ether – a flame retardant – and lead
in lead-bronze shells and bushes.
The other October amendment
removed the 2010 expiration of the server exemption and added five specific
exemptions permitting the use of lead in pin connector systems, thermal
conduction module c-rings, microprocessor pin to package connections, and Flip
Chip packages. In addition, lead and cadmium may be used in optical and filter
glass.
The changes mean that certain IC
packages may continue to use lead-content solders freely. Server manufacturers
are now completely off the hook, but PCs for business and consumers will have to
comply. Telecom infrastructure is exempt, but cell phones and other mobile
devices must all comply.
One of the toughest wickets in
compliance will be due diligence. So far, the individual EU countries have not
unified behind compliance enforcement. The European Information Communication
Technology Association, which is similar to the Electronics Industry
Association in the United States, has proposed a “due diligence approach”
toward RoHS enforcement. The group recommends that “a company has presumption
of conformance” simply by putting the product on the European market.
That’s clear enough until a
company’s product comes under suspicion. In some countries, governmental bodies
have signaled they intend to conduct spot checks. Manufacturers can also expect
their products to get tipped by aggressive competitors. Sony’s Play Station was
busted by The Netherlands just before the Christmas season in 2002 because of
cadmium in its cables. The Netherlands seized $162 million worth of Play
Stations. The government was apparently given information that the game
platform had the banned cadmium in its cables by a Sony competitor. So
aggressive competitors may prompt the policing after the RoHS deadline.
As for what the EU countries will
take as proof of compliance, it’s a mixed bag. Gary Nevison who leads RoHS
activities for British-based distributor Farnell InOne insists compliance
certificates will not be sufficient to prove compliance. The UK’s National
Weights and Measures Laboratory – which was appointed by the UK government to
oversee compliance – concurs, saying that electronic manufacturers will have to
be able to demonstrate that “all reasonable steps” have been taken to avoid the
inclusion of the banned substances in the product.
This hard position was likely
prompted by evidence in the components market that some unscrupulous suppliers
have been passing off non-compliant parts as compliant. These suppliers are
even providing compliance certificates, which has weakened the perception that
these certificates assure compliance. Consequently, EU governments want the
manufacturers to show they have gone beyond simply collecting certificates. To
prove due diligence, some manufacturers are sending suspect components out for
expensive testing.
In the midst of this uncertainty,
China issued notification to the World Trade Organization that it will soon
enact a RoHS-equivalent directive, called The Cleaner Production Promotion Law.
While the law was originally released only in Chinese, an English translation
has been posted at the Design Chain Associates site (http://www.designchainassociates.com/).
China’s law is slotted to go into effect on the same day RoHS becomes
effective, July 1, 2006.
There are some key differences
between China’s restrictions and the EU directive. China’s law refers to a
separate “catalog” that will define precisely which product classes are covered
by the law. As of this writing, the catalog has not been issued. Another
difference from the EU’s RoHS directive is that China plans to review its
restrictions annually, while the RoHS restrictions will only be up for revision
every four years.
While the catalog specifics are not available, the law did spell out the substances that will be banned, and they match the RoHS list of six. The law also contains language that suggests other harmful substances may be added to the list at an undetermined future date.
Visit sourceESB.com for all your sourcing needs.
We would like to hear from
you. Please e-mail article feedback or
comments to esbideas@primediabusiness.com