Hi Gordon, IPC LF Listservers,

Thanks as always for your readings, input, and analysis.

<However, European parliament sources claim that that Era's recommendations
are at least partly based on the commercial viability of alternatives - an
aspect not recognised by the RoHS legislation. The assembly's environment
committee is scheduled to discuss the issue next week.>
<
<Perhaps sensing a parliamentary challenge, the Commission has drafted
guidelines for future exemption requests by firms facing the RoHS ban. In
it they stress that higher cost of alternatives will not be considered a
sufficient reason for leniency.>

Although this is probably true, with some particular cases having merit,
the EU has also provided for a low cost self declaration process rather
than a more costlier 3rd party validation of compliance. So my reading
is that they are a tad bit cost conscious.

The battle between the TAC and the EU Bureaucrats is probably reasonable
considering the great gulf of knowledge between the two groups. Look here
in the US at that Florida case and we see a similar gulf of knowledge not
only scientific yet even religious.

Yours in Engineering, Dave
Y i Engr, MA/NY DDave

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------