One June 27, 2016, the Commission posted Oeko-Institut’s report on the bulk of the requests for EU RoHS exemption renewals. The report covers renewal requests for 29 RoHS 2 Annex III exemptions including: no. l(a to e -lighting purpose), no. l(f – special purpose), no. 2(a), no. 2(b)(3), no. 2(b)(4), no. 3, no. 4(a), no. 4(b), no. 4(c), no. 4(e), no. 4(f), no. 5(b), no. 6(a), no. 6(b), no. 6(c), no. 7(a), no. 7(c) – I, no. 7(c) – II, no. 7(c) – IV, no. 8(b), no. 9, no. 15, no. 18b, no. 21, no. 24, no. 29, no. 32, no. 34, no. 37.

In general, all of the exemptions with renewal requests have been recommended for renewal in one form or another; however, several of the exemptions have a narrower scope of allowed use than the current exemption or a short timeframe before expiry for certain applications.  The complete report (all 864 pages) is available on the Commission’s website. A summary table of recommendations is available in the Executive Summary at the front of the report.  We’ve also provided below an excerpt, analysis and discussion of the more commonly used exemptions in EEE products.

Note: the dates in the discussion below focus on product categories 1-7, 10, and 11. The exemption period for category 8 (medical devices) and 9 (monitoring and control instruments) is typically recommended for a longer time given the extra two years provided to these products in the RoHS Directive.

Exemption 6 – Lead in Alloys

The consultant’s recommendations for the lead in alloys exemptions mark the beginning of the end – the Commission’s push to begin phasing out these lead in alloy exemptions wherever possible.  The 6a (lead in steel), 6b (lead in aluminium alloys), and 6c (lead in copper alloys) exemptions are recommended for renewal, but generally with a short three-year duration for most product categories.  Some of the exemptions are also recommended for carving into multiple parts, usually with tighter scope and/or reduced concentration levels.

The renewal applications did not provide a lot of information to distinguish which applications still need the exemption and which don’t; therefore the consultant proposes a three-year timeframe for manufacturers and their supply chain to provide better information to justify longer term exemptions for applications that still need them; the consultants, otherwise recommend that the exemptions are allowed to expire after the three years. This “ultimatum” will certainly cause significant concern within the EEE industry and supply base. The consultants acknowledge that machining and other fabrication processes may need to be modified to accommodate non-lead materials.

Exemption 6a (Lead as an alloying element in steel for machining purposes and in galvanized steel containing up to 0.35% lead by weight) was split up based on application. In particular the allowed concentration level for galvanized steel components has been reduced to 0.2% lead. This exemption is known to be misused in many steel parts, regardless of application and the need for using lead. Separating the exemption based on application may put more visibility and accountability to justify the purpose of the lead in steel.

The report’s summary of recommendations for exemptions 6a are shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Recommendations for Exemption 6a

Exemption No.	Wording: Main Entry Sub-Entry	Applicant	Recommendation: Proposed Exemption Wording Formulation	Proposed Duration
n.6(a)	Lead as an alloying element in steel for machining purposes and in galvanised steel containing up to 0,35 % lead by weight	Dunkermotoren; The European Steel Association (EUROFER) and European General Galvanizers Association (EGGA) Sensata Technologies	I) Lead as an alloying element in steel for machining purposes containing up to 0,35 % lead by weight	For Cat. 1-7 and 10 and 11: 21 July 2019
			II) Lead in batch hot dip galvanized steel components containing up to 0.2% lead by weight	For Cat. 1-7 and 10 and 11: 21 July 2021
			III) Lead as an alloying element in steel for machining purposes and in galvanized steel containing up to 0,35 % lead by weight	For Cat. 8 and 9: 21 July 2021; For Sub-Cat. 8 in-vitro: 21 July 2023; For Sub-Cat. 9 industrial: 21 July 2024

Exemption 6b (Lead as an alloying element in aluminium containing up to 0.4% lead by weight), does not currently limit the applications that may use the exemption. However, going forward, the intention is to provide only a three-year exemption period for lead in aluminum (Al) for machining purposes. The consultants concluded that substitutes are available:

As for lead in Al alloys for machining purposes, it can be followed that substitutes are available on the market for which reliability is claimed by alloy producers. In the consultants opinion EU COM should give a clear sign to industry that this exemption is to expire, that the available substitutes are to be tested and implemented as such. Further exemptions for specific applications shall only be acceptable where there is sufficient evidence that lead cannot be reliably substituted. In this case, the consultants propose a review period of three years.

The consultants also recognized that Al is heavily recycled resulting in unintentionally added lead in generic Al materials – it may take years to progressively reduce the average lead content. Therefore, the exemption for unintentionally added lead in other Al parts (ie. not machined parts) is recommended for a five year duration timeframe.

The report’s summary of recommendations for exemptions 6b are shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Recommendation for Exemption 6(b)

Exemption No.	Wording: Main Entry Sub-Entry	Applicant	Recommendation: Proposed Exemption Wording Formulation	Proposed Duration
n.6(b)	Lead as an alloying element in aluminium containing up to 0,4 % lead by weight	AISBL - EAA Sensata Technologies Dunkermotoren	Lead as an alloying element in aluminium
			I) with a lead content up to 0.4 % by weight, used for the production of parts not machined with shape cutting chipping technologies	For Cat. 1-7 and 10 and 11: 21 July 2021
			II) for machining purposes with a lead content up to 0.4 % by weight	For Cat. 1-11: 21 July 2021
			III) Lead as an alloying element in aluminium containing up to 0,4 % lead by weight	For Cat. 8 and 9: 21 July 2021; For Sub-Cat. 8 in-vitro: 21 July 2023; For Sub-Cat. 9 industrial: 21 July 2024

Exemption 6(c) (Copper alloy containing up to 4% lead by weight) is recommended for renewal, but only for a three year period for Cat. 1-7 and 10 and 11.  The consultants feel that substitutes are becoming available and that the current broad scope for exempting lead in copper alloys is not justified. They suggest extending the current exemption for an additional three-year period (until 2019) to provide time for manufacturers to determine which applications cannot use substituted materials (non-lead) and to request an exemption renewal for these applications. Other applications would then fall out of the scope of the exemption.  The consultants suggest that:

Based on the above considerations, it can currently not be concluded whether substitution of the use of copper alloys containing lead up to 4% by weight is scientifically or technically practicable. It appears that substitutes can be applied in some cases (lead-free or with lower lead content), however mutual factors that would allow conclusions for specific sub-groups cannot currently be identified. It can also be understood that at least in some cases, available substitutes cannot be applied.

Table 4: Summary of Recommendations for Exemption 6c

Exemption 6c	Duration*
Copper alloy containing up to 4% lead by weight	For Cat. 1-7 and 10 and 11: 21 July 2019 For Cat. 8 and 9: 21 July 2021 For Sub-Cat. 8 in-vitro: 21 July 2023 For Sub-Cat. 9 industrial: 21 July 2024

Exemptions 7 and 15 – Lead in Various electronic components

Similar to the consultant’s approach to the lead in alloy exemptions, the consultants are recommending carving up the exemptions to refine the applications that do and do not still require the use of lead. The report’s summary of recommendations for exemptions 7a, 7(c)-I/II/IV, and 15 are shown in tables below.

Exemption 7a (lead in high melting temperature type solders),

• The report recommends a short duration time for die attach and the voice coil in power transducers (expiry in 2019).

Table 5: Recommendations for Exemption 7a

Exemption No.	Wording: Main Entry Sub-Entry	Applicant	Recommendation: Proposed Exemption Wording Formulation	Proposed Duration
n.7(a)	Lead in high melting temperature type solders (i.e. lead-based alloys containing 85 % by weight or more lead)	Bourns Inc. IXYS Semiconductor GmbH Chenmko Enterprise Co., Ltd Yeashin Technology Co., Ltd Freescale Semiconductor Formosa Microsemi Co., Ltd.	I) Lead in high melting temperature type solders (i.e. lead-based alloys containing 85 % by weight or more lead)	For Cat. 8 and 9: 21 July 2021; For Sub-Cat. 8 in-vitro: 21 July 2023; For Sub-Cat. 9 industrial: 21 July 2024
			Lead in high melting temperature type solders (i.e. lead-based alloys containing 85 % by weight or more lead)
			II) in all applications not addressed in items III and IV, but excluding applications in the scope of exemption 24	For categories 1 to 7 and 10: 21 July 2021
			III) for die attach	For categories 1 to 7 and 10: 21 July 2019
			IV) for electrical connections on or near the voice coil in power transducers

Exemption 7(c)-I lead in glass or ceramic,

• The recommendation narrows the scope of the exemption to lead in glass or in a glass or ceramic matrix compound. Other applications that were previously in scope of the exemption are recommended for a transition period until 2019.

Table 6: Recommendations for Exemption 7c-I

Exemption No.	Wording: Main Entry Sub-Entry	Applicant	Recommendation: Proposed Exemption Wording Formulation	Proposed Duration
n.7(c)-I	Electrical and electronic components containing lead in a glass or ceramic other than dielectric ceramic in capacitors, e.g. piezoelectronic devices, or in a glass or ceramic matrix compound	Bourns Inc. Sensata Technologies YAGEO Corporation RALEC TECHNOLOGY (KUNSHAN) CO. BANDELN electronic GmbH&Co.KG RALEC TECHNOLOGY (KUNSHAN) CO. Japan Electronics & Information Technology Industries Association Murata Elektronik GmbH EPCOS AG VISHAY BC components BEYSCHLAG GmbH SCHOTT AG	7(c)-I: Electrical and electronic components containing lead in a ceramic other than dielectric ceramic in discrete capacitor components, e7(c)-I: Electrical and electronic components containing lead in a ceramic other than dielectric ceramic in discrete capacitor components, e.g. piezoelectronic devices.	For categories 1-7 and 10: 21 July 2019
			7(c)-V: Electrical and electronic components containing lead in a glass or in a glass or ceramic matrix compound. This exemption does not cover the use of lead in the scope of exemption 34 (cermet-based trimmer potentiometers).	For categories 1-7 and 10: 21 July 2021
			7(d): Electrical and electronic components containing lead in a glass or ceramic other than dielectric ceramic in capacitors, e.g. piezoelectronic devices, or in a glass or ceramic matrix compound	For Cat. 8 and 9: 21 July 2021; For Sub-Cat. 8 in-vitro: 21 July 2023; For Sub-Cat. 9 industrial: 21 July 2024

Exemption 7(c)-II (Lead in dielectric ceramic in high voltage capacitors)

• The consultant is recommending a three-year transition period to phase out this exemption in most product categories. Manufacturers that still need the exemption beyond the three years will need to submit a renewal request for their specific technical application.

Table 7: Recommendations for Exemption 7c-II

Exemption No.	Wording: Main Entry Sub-Entry	Applicant	Recommendation: Proposed Exemption Wording Formulation	Proposed Duration
n.7(c)-II	Lead in dielectric ceramic in capacitors for a rated voltage of 125 V AC or 250 V DC or higher	Murata Elektronik GmbH EPCOS AG VISHAY BC components BEYSCHLAG GmbH JEITA(Japan Electronics & Information Technology Industries Association)	Lead in dielectric ceramic in capacitors for a rated voltage of 125 V AC or 250 V DC or higher	For Cat. 8 and 9: 21 July 2021; For Sub-Cat. 8 in-vitro: 21 July 2023 For Sub-Cat. 9 industrial: 21 July 20;
			Lead in dielectric ceramic in discrete capacitor components for a rated voltage of 125 V AC or higher, or for a rated voltage of 250 V DC or higher	For Cat. 1-7 and 10: 21 July 2019

Exemption 7(c)-IV (Lead in PZT based dielectric ceramic materials for capacitors)

• The consultant is recommending a three-year transition period to phase out this exemption in most product categories. Manufacturers that still need the exemption beyond the three years will need to submit a renewal request for their specific technical application(s).

Table 8: Recommendations for Exemption 7c-IV

Exemption No.	Wording: Main Entry Sub-Entry	Applicant	Recommendation: Proposed Exemption Wording Formulation	Proposed Duration
n.7(c)-IV	Lead in PZT-based dielectric ceramic materials for capacitors which are part of integrated circuits or discrete semiconductors	ST Microelectronics	Lead in PZT-based dielectric ceramic materials of capacitors being part of integrated circuits or discrete semiconductors	For Cat. 1-7 and 10: 21 July 2019; For Cat. 8 and 9: 21 July 2021; For Sub-Cat. 8 in-vitro: 21 July 2023; For Sub-Cat. 9 industrial: 21 July 2024

Exemption 15 (Lead for die attach in flip-chip packages)

• The consultants propose a convoluted partitioning of the exemption based on semiconductor technology.
• The exemption would phase out by 2019 for larger technology nodes (90nm or larger) and continue until the max. period (until 2021) for large die (300mm2 and greater).

Table 9: Recommendations for Exemption 15

Exemption No.	Wording: Main Entry Sub-Entry	Applicant	Recommendation: Proposed Exemption Wording Formulation	Proposed Duration
n.15	Lead in solders to complete a viable electrical connection between semiconductor die and carrier within integrated circuit flip chip packages	Intel Corporation	I) Lead in solders to complete a viable electrical connection between semiconductor die and carrier within integrated circuit flip chip packages
			II) Lead in solders to complete a viable electrical connection between semiconductor die and the carrier within integrated circuit flip chip packages where one of the below criteria applies:
			a) A semiconductor technology node of 90 nm or larger	For categories 1-7 and 10: 21 July 2019
			b) A single die of 300 mm2 or larger in any semiconductor technology node	For categories 1-7 and 10: 21 July 2021
			c) Stacked die packages with dies of 300 mm² or larger, or silicon interposers of 300 mm2 or larger	For categories 1-7 and 10: 21 July 2021
			d) Flip chip on lead frame (FCOL) packages with a rated current of 3 A or higher and dies smaller than 300 mm²	The exemption cannot be recommended but is added here in case the Commission would decide that it should be granted

Further to last month’s environmental report, we are starting to see the industry reaction to the Oeko-Institut report on 29 of the Annex III exemption renewal requests.

We noted that for many of the commonly used exemptions, the consultants felt that requester’s did not provide sufficient information to identify between applications that still need the exemption and applications for which alternative technologies are available. For these exemptions, the consultants generally recommended a 3-year duration for the exemption instead of the maximum 5 years, suggesting that this will provide manufacturers enough time to assess alternatives and develop renewal requests for the applications that really need the exemption.

Manufacturers are raising concerns and petitioning the European Commission via their industry associations. Industry associations from Europe, North America and Asia have banded together to write a letter with initial feedback to the Director-General for the Environment at the European Commission highlighting the industry concerns. The letter (which is available from the IPC website) states that the industry associations support the overall RoHS objective, but they express concern about some of the consultant’s recommendations.  The main body of the report identifies two key areas of concern and goes on to provide specific feedback on some of the exemption recommendations.

Key initial areas of concern include:

• Inclusion of shorter applicability dates;
• Rewordings and/or splitting of exemptions;

The letter recommends that the Commission renew the exemptions with the existing wording and for the maximum 5 years allowed under the RoHS Directive.

The difference of opinion between industry and the consultant arises from the opposing objectives each has with the exemption renewal process.  Industry would like to maintain status-quo for another 5 years (the maximum time period) and avoid having to re-assess its supply chain; whereas, the consultant (presumably at the request of the European Commission) would like to make progress in eliminating the use of the exemptions by narrowing the scope of applications eligible to use the exemptions. It’s well known that some part suppliers are using the exemptions only because it’s easiest or cheapest to do so even though alternate technologies may be available.  It’s these applications that the regulators would like to eliminate from the exemptions.

In a press release from the European Commission on June 16, 2016, the Commission announced that it, together with the Council and Parliament, have agreed on a framework for a conflict minerals regulation.  The press release is available on the Europa website.

The agreement is to impose mandatory obligations for due diligence and reporting on the upstream companies that directly import and work with the minerals and metals, such as importers of ore, smelters and refiners. The due diligence requirement is expected to align with the OECD guidance.

As part of the agreement, the Commission is expected to develop voluntary measures and tools for downstream companies to help them source responsibility. There was also a suggestion that some form of public disclosure by downstream companies may be required, but this requirement is very vague in the information provided to date.  The agreement appears to be structured to not initially impose mandatory obligations on product manufacturers but includes a clause to renegotiate such requirements in the future.

As for timeframe, the press release states: “Today’s political understanding sets the Regulation on track for technical work and final adoption in the coming months.”

Republican members on the House Financial Services Committee have proposed a repeal of section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act and therefore a repeal of the US’s conflict minerals reporting rules. The proposal is included in a draft of the Financial CHOICE [Creating Hope and Opportunity for Investors, Consumers and Entrepreneurs] Act.

According to the House Committee’s analysis, the committee asserts that the rules have been “overly burdensome” on industry and have done more harm than good (Note: several other organizations disagree with these conclusions). From the executive summary of the analysis:

Title   XV   of   the   Dodd-Frank   Act   imposes   a   number   of   overly   burdensome   disclosure  requirements  related  to  conflict  minerals,  extractive  industries,  and  mine  safety  that  bear  no  rational  relationship  to  the  SEC’s  statutory  mission  to  protect  investors,  maintain  fair,  orderly,  and  efficient  markets,  and  promote capital formation.  The Financial CHOICE Act repeals those requirements.  There  is  overwhelming  evidence  that  Dodd Frank’s  conflict  minerals  disclosure requirement has done far more harm than good to  its intended beneficiaries – the citizens  of  the Democratic  Republic  of  Congo  and  neighboring  Central  African countries.

A discussion draft of the Bill is available on the House website.

As if the proposed Bill to repeal the conflict minerals rule isn’t enough, the House of Representatives has approved an appropriations Bill  containing an amendment that would defund enforcement of the SEC’s conflict minerals rule.

Amendment 34 to the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2017 (HR 5485) was introduced by Representative Bill Huizenga (R-Michigan), chairman of the House Financial Services Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee. It states that no funds appropriated by the bill could be used to “implement, administer, or enforce” provisions in section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act.

An overview of the Bill and the amendment to defund 1502 enforcement are available on the House website.

Not surprisingly, NGOs are protesting the proposal.

One June 20, 2016, one additional substance was added to the EU REACH Candidate List of SVHCs. This is one of four substances that had been proposed for this round of Candidate List additions and had been posted in February for public consultation.

Table 1: SVHC added to REACH Candidate List

Substance name	EC number	CAS number	Examples of use(s)
Benzo[def]chrysene (Benzo[a]pyrene)	200-028-5	50-32-8	Impurities in carbon black, which is used as coloring agent in plastics and softener in rubbers

Two of the other three substances that went out for public consultation did not receive unanimous support from the Member State Committee (MSC) for listing and were sent to the European Commission for final decisions. This includes the phthalate DCHP which has known uses in plastic materials used in EEE. The third proposed SVHC that was not added, 4-methylbenzylidene camphor, was withdrawn by Germany in order to further elaborate on the justification.

A new material declaration standard for the aerospace, defense and heavy equipment industries is being developed as IPC-1754. The standards development committee officially kicked off development of the standard in October 2015. The IPC-1754 standard came out of a initiative started by the International Aerospace Environmental Group (IAEG(tm)).

ECD Compliance principal, Walter Jager, has been appointed as co-chair and will help lead the committee (which now includes over 100 members) in developing the standard.

The India E-Waste Management Rules, 2016 were recently finalized and published in the Gazette of India by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. The new Rules come into effect on October 1, 2016, superseding the e-waste (Management & Handling) Rules, 2011. They tighten up responsibility for funding e-waste management and for the operation of the entire e-waste collection, reuse and recycling chain. The India e-waste Rules also include requirements for RoHS compliance of products sold in India (changes are also discussed below).

A draft of the revised rules were posted and notified to the WTO in 2015 (“India – Proposed Revision to RoHS Provisions” in our November 2015 report). The Ministry says that it received 584 suggestions and objections in response to the draft rules and subsequently made several changes to address some of the comments.

WEEE requirements

In addition to tightening up responsibility for funding and operations of the entire e-waste reverse logistics, the new Rules also provide some additional flexibility to producers in setting up their own collection and reuse/recycling system under Extended Producer Responsibility. We’ve provided a brief summary of some changes in the Rules:

• Several additional economic actors have been added to the Rules, including: manufacturer, dealer, refurbisher and Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO).
• The applicability of the Rules has been extended to components, consumables, and spare parts of EEE products that within the scope of the Rules;
• Compact Fluorescent Lamp (CFL) and other mercury containing lamps are included in the scope of the rules
• Collection mechanisms, particularly with regard to Extended Producer Responsibility
• Deposit Refund Scheme
• Clarification of government bodies that have authority and responsibilities with regard to e-waste management and enforcement.

The Rules are available on the government website along a “What’s New?” and a summary of “Salient Features”. Schedule 1 of the Rules specifies the EEE products that are within scope of the Rules (excerpted in Figure 1 below).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RoHS Requirements

In general, the Ministry has tried to align the RoHS substance restrictions with the requirements specified in the EU RoHS Directive (2011/65/EU), including the substances that are restricted, the thresholds, exemptions, and the requirement to provide technical documentation that conforms to the European standard EN 50581.  The RoHS requirements are specified in Chapter V (Rule 16). RoHS exemptions are listed in Schedule II.

However, there are a few sub-rules which raise questions about additional requirements that could prove challenging, depending on exactly how they are implemented. This includes sub-rule (5) and sub-rule (8):

(5) Every producer shall provide the detailed information on the constituents of the equipment and their components or consumables or parts or spares along with a declaration of conformance to the Reduction of Hazardous Substances provisions in the product user documentation.

(8) Every producer while seeking Extended Producer Responsibility – Authorisation will provide information on the compliance of the provisions of sub-rule (1) of rule 16. This information shall be in terms of self-declaration

No additional information is provided on the nature of the “detailed information on the constituents” stated in sub-rule (5), making it difficult to judge the impact of this provision.  With regard to sub-rule (8), Form-1 specifies that the “information on compliance” must be technical documents based on EN 50581.

To enforce the substance restrictions, sub-rule (9) places responsibility for conducting random sampling of EEE product on the “Central Pollution Control Board”; however, sub-rule (9) also states that the Producer must cover the cost of acquiring a sample product and for conducting the testing.  The Central Pollution Control Board is also responsible for publishing the methods for sampling and analysis of hazardous substances.