Mike:

Yes, I agree, the mixing of parts has been a big problem.  Some companies
have written off entire inventories of non-compliant parts for just that
reason.

Tim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Kirschner" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Timothy McGrady" <[log in to unmask]>; "(Leadfree Electronics
Assembly Forum)" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 12:56 PM
Subject: RE: [LF] EU Not Busting for RoHS Violations Yet


> Tim,
>
> Excellent point regarding standards. Unfortunately we are generally seeing
> just the opposite occur around the world: regulations beget standards
> rather
> than the other way around. Having the standard in place first ensures that
> industry understands how to actually accomplish something and can actually
> do it.
>
> In my humble opinion the primary risk for one of the big companies likely
> to
> be a target is the production problem of mixed parts, rather than improper
> or inadequate testing (I absolutely agree there are labs that are not
> using
> the right tests out there; but I think that's a second order issue). There
> have been, and continue to be, many reports of not-compliant parts
> shipping
> as, being stocked as, or being used as compliant parts.
>
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Timothy McGrady [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 9:16 AM
> To: (Leadfree Electronics Assembly Forum); Mike Kirschner
> Subject: Re: [LF] EU Not Busting for RoHS Violations Yet
>
>
> Thanks for that link, Mike.
>
> When an enforcement authority finally does make the decision to go ahead
> with a prosecution, they better make sure they've done their homework.
> There are very few standard methods for analysis of RoHS substances and
> there are few reference materials with which to validate those methods.
> That is not to say they cannot come up with a solid case - I'm saying that
> they should chose that case wisely and make sure they can support their
> findings with solid, validated methodology.  It will have to be a "no
> brainer" - an obvious violation.  But of course, the EU would prefer to
> catch a high-profile company in non-compliance.  And it is likely they
> want
> to catch a company originating in a developed nation such as Japan or the
> US - picking on a developing nation might not sit right with public
> opinion.
> That might not be so easy, given the amount of attention paid to RoHS by
> the
> big boys.  None of them wants to be the next Sony, and they certainly do
> not
> want their company name or product name in the media.
>
> That being said, there has been a lot of testing done using methods that
> are
> inappropriate and can result in false negatives.  So there's a chance that
> a
> relatively big company placed faith in a lab or used inappropriate methods
> themselves to overcheck results from independent labs.  Even so, there's
> also a good chance that EU enforcement authorities will also use
> inappropriate methods to determine non-compliance (or conversely,
> compliance).  The lack of properly developed standards hurts all involved:
> enforcement authorities and producers alike.  That is why standards must
> be
> in place before technical legislation such as RoHS go into effect.
>
> The example I use to illustrate this problem concerns a government
> developing a regulation stating that all children age 14 and under must
> wear
> a helmet while riding a bicycle.  Let's say that no standards for helmets
> were developed prior to the regulation going into force.  A kid is
> observed
> riding a bicycle wearing a baseball cap.  Is that kid in violation of the
> law?  Not without a standard defining a helmet and laying out the
> technical
> requirements necessary to protect the head in case of an accident.  Now
> let's say the givernment developed extensive requirements for the helmet
> and
> a standards development body developed a standard for such helmets.  The
> resulting helmet would protect the head in every case, but it would cost
> $2000.  Would it be fair to expect a poor child riding a cheap bike to
> wear
> a $2000 helmet?  Again, the answer is no.  But if the law went into
> effect,
> there would likely be plenty of violations to go around.  Fakes of
> standard
> helmets would quickly become available.  In that case, the government
> should
> have taken their requirements to the standard developers and experts and
> get
> their feedback before putting the law on the books.  If the law was too
> costly to implement, the regulation would have to be altered.  In either
> case, it is necessary to have standards developed prior to the regulation
> going into force.
>
> That is why the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade
> Agreement (TBT) is so important.  Here is a quote from the TBT:
>
> "
> With respect to their central government bodies:
>
> 2.1 Members shall ensure that in respect of technical regulations,
> products
> imported from the territory of any Member shall be accorded treatment no
> less favourable than that accorded to like products of national origin and
> to like products originating in any other country.
>
> 2.2 Members shall ensure that technical regulations are not prepared,
> adopted or applied with a view to or with the effect of creating
> unnecessary
> obstacles to international trade. For this purpose, technical regulations
> shall not be more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate
> objective, taking account of the risks non-fulfilment would create. Such
> legitimate objectives are, inter alia: national security requirements; the
> prevention of deceptive practices; protection of human health or safety,
> animal or plant life or health, or the environment. In assessing such
> risks,
> relevant elements of consideration are, inter alia: available scientific
> and
> technical information, related processing technology or intended end-uses
> of
> products.
>
> 2.3 Technical regulations shall not be maintained if the circumstances or
> objectives giving rise to their adoption no longer exist or if the changed
> circumstances or objectives can be addressed in a less trade-restrictive
> manner.
>
> 2.4 Where technical regulations are required and relevant international
> standards exist or their completion is imminent, Members shall use them,
> or
> the relevant parts of them, as a basis for their technical regulations
> except when such international standards or relevant parts would be an
> ineffective or inappropriate means for the fulfilment of the legitimate
> objectives pursued, for instance because of fundamental climatic or
> geographical factors or fundamental technological problems.
>
> 2.5 A Member preparing, adopting or applying a technical regulation which
> may have a significant effect on trade of other Members shall, upon the
> request of another Member, explain the justification for that technical
> regulation in terms of the provisions of paragraphs 2 to 4. Whenever a
> technical regulation is prepared, adopted or applied for one of the
> legitimate objectives explicitly mentioned in paragraph 2, and is in
> accordance with relevant international standards, it shall be rebuttably
> presumed not to create an unnecessary obstacle to international trade.
>
> 2.6 With a view to harmonizing technical regulations on as wide a basis as
> possible, Members shall play a full part, within the limits of their
> resources, in the preparation by appropriate international standardizing
> bodies of international standards for products for which they either have
> adopted, or expect to adopt, technical regulations.
>
> 2.7 Members shall give positive consideration to accepting as equivalent
> technical regulations of other Members, even if these regulations differ
> from their own, provided they are satisfied that these regulations
> adequately fulfil the objectives of their own regulations.
>
> 2.8 Wherever appropriate, Members shall specify technical regulations
> based
> on product requirements in terms of performance rather than design or
> descriptive characteristics.
>
> 2.9 Whenever a relevant international standard does not exist or the
> technical content of a proposed technical regulation is not in accordance
> with the technical content of relevant international standards, and if the
> technical regulation may have a significant effect on trade of other
> Members, Members shall:
>
>  2.9.1 publish a notice in a publication at an early appropriate stage, in
> such a manner as to enable interested parties in other Members to become
> acquainted with it, that they propose to introduce a particular technical
> regulation;
>
>  2.9.2 notify other Members through the Secretariat of the products to be
> covered by the proposed technical regulation, together with a brief
>indication of its objective and rationale. Such notifications shall take
> place at an early appropriate stage, when amendments can still be
> introduced
> and comments taken into account;
>
>  2.9.3 upon request, provide to other Members particulars or copies of the
> proposed technical regulation and, whenever possible, identify the parts
> which in substance deviate from relevant international standards;
>
>  2.9.4 without discrimination, allow reasonable time for other Members to
> make comments in writing, discuss these comments upon request, and take
> these written comments and the results of these discussions into account.
>
> 2.10 Subject to the provisions in the lead-in to paragraph 9, where urgent
> problems of safety, health, environmental protection or national security
> arise or threaten to arise for a Member, that Member may omit such of the
> steps enumerated in paragraph 9 as it finds necessary, provided that the
> Member, upon adoption of a technical regulation, shall:
>
>  2.10.1 notify immediately other Members through the Secretariat of the
> particular technical regulation and the products covered, with a brief
> indication of the objective and the rationale of the technical regulation,
> including the nature of the urgent problems;
>
>  2.10.2 upon request, provide other Members with copies of the technical
> regulation;
>
>  2.10.3 without discrimination, allow other Members to present their
> comments in writing, discuss these comments upon request, and take these
> written comments and the results of these discussions into account.
>
> 2.11 Members shall ensure that all technical regulations which have been
> adopted are published promptly or otherwise made available in such a
> manner
> as to enable interested parties in other Members to become acquainted with
> them.
>
> 2.12 Except in those urgent circumstances referred to in paragraph 10,
> Members shall allow a reasonable interval between the publication of
> technical regulations and their entry into force in order to allow time
> for
> producers in exporting Members, and particularly in developing country
> Members, to adapt their products or methods of production to the
> requirements of the importing Member."
>
> The EU has always argued that because their regulations such as RoHS are
> for
> protection of human health and the environment and because they impact
> their
> companies in the same way as they impact importing companies, there cannot
> be a trade barrier (see paragraphs 2 and 5 above).  But paragraph 2 can be
> argued in the case of RoHS.  I contend (as I think many of you do) that
> RoHS
> is much more trade restrictive than necessary, taking into account the
> actual impact the directive will have on human health and the environment.
> Had the proper standards been in place, billions of dollars would have
> been
> saved.  If RoHS had not been implemented or had been delayed, I doubt many
> lives would be negatively impacted, if any at all.  In fact, the argument
> can be made that RoHS can negatively impact human health, because there is
> high probability that a safety related part or system will fail due to the
> wholesale redesign of products and materials.
>
>
>
> Tim McGrady
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike Kirschner" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 12:05 AM
> Subject: [LF] EU Not Busting for RoHS Violations Yet
>
>
>> Rob Spiegel spoke, at our behest, to Steve Andrews to get a clear
>> response
>> on why we haven't seen any visible cases of non-compliance in the EU yet.
>> He
>> has more credibility on this topic than just about anyone, even DCA ;o)
>>
>> You can read his story, entitled "EU Not Busting for RoHS Violations
>> Yet",
>> at
>>
>> http://www.designnews.com/article/CA6387098.html
>>
>> So the bottom line is that they're trying to find that first case to go
>> public with.
>>
>> Mike Kirschner
>> Design Chain Associates, LLC
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----Leadfee
>> Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
>> the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
>> To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send:
>> SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
>> Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
>> Please visit IPC web site
>> http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16
>> for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask]
>> or
>> 847-615-7100 ext.2815
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----
>>
>
>
>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This message (including any attachments) contains confidential
and/or proprietary information intended only for the addressee.
Any unauthorized disclosure, copying, distribution or reliance on
the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may
constitute a violation of law.  If you are not the intended
recipient, please notify the sender immediately by responding to
this e-mail, and delete the message from your system.  If you
have any questions about this e-mail please notify the sender
immediately.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------