Oh,
I'm not disputing anything you said regarding the need for standardization
of the test method or anything for that matter in your e-mail. Totally agree
with you.

Just offering a converse point of view to your last sentence on the impact
that RoHS has had on the quality and reliability of products.

Most view the impact in those areas as negative but maybe it has had a
positive effect for some manufacturers. Maybe all the work that went into it
was not for nought.

Just a thought.

LS

-----Original Message-----
From: Timothy McGrady [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 2:15 PM
To: Lester Subrattee; (Leadfree Electronics Assembly Forum)
Subject: Re: EU Not Busting for RoHS Violations Yet

Lester:

Inspection and Introspection can lead to improvements in process and
products, sure.  Audits by external companies can be a good thing as well.
But if you cannot measure regulated requirements, you cannot enforce them,
nor can those targeted by the regulation truly know if they comply.  And you

cannot audit to the requirements, either.

Here's another example:

Let's say that California requires that arsenic concentrations within all
materials have to be less than one part per trillion.  They cannot measure
that low in most cases, nor can most labs.  The measurement is much more
difficult in complex materials than in water.  You must comply with the law.

How do you know if you comply if you cannot measure that low a concentration

accurately?  How does California know whether you comply with the law?  But
California is sure that limiting arsenic to below one part per trillion in
everything is important for protection of human health and the environment,
because arsenic is poisonous.  So they do not have to develop a standard for

measurement, because they have successfully argued that people will die or
at least become ill if they do not put the regulation into effect.  The law
goes into effect tomorrow.  How can you prove your product complies?  How
can they enforce the law?

This is a no-brainer to me.  The law is worthless without standards of
measurement.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Lester Subrattee" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "(Leadfree Electronics Assembly Forum)" <[log in to unmask]>; "Timothy
McGrady" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 1:50 PM
Subject: RE: EU Not Busting for RoHS Violations Yet


> Good points.
>
> Just a comment on your closing statement. A "glass half full" view to
> think
> about.
>
> Is it possible that through all the scrutiny, reliability testing,
> assembly
> equipment upgrades, inspection system upgrades, material investigations,
> improved process controls, etcetera, etcetera...........
>
> That you now have a better product and better manufacturing capability to
> produce better products  ??
>
> Hmmmm.
>
> LS
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Timothy McGrady [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 12:16 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: 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 EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHED FILES ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY BE LEGALLY
> PRIVILEGED. If you are not the addressee, any disclosure, reproduction,
> copying, distribution or other dissemination or use of this communication
> is
> strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error,
> please
> notify the sender immediately and delete this email. It is the policy of
> ACR
> Electronics, Inc. that no legally binding statements, representations or
> commitments (collectively statements) may be made by email. Any such
> statements must be confirmed either by facsimile transmission or by postal
> mail before they will have legal effect. The sender of this email is not
> authorised to commit the company in any way and the addressee is hereby
> notified of that fact.
>

THIS EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHED FILES ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY BE LEGALLY
PRIVILEGED. If you are not the addressee, any disclosure, reproduction,
copying, distribution or other dissemination or use of this communication is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please
notify the sender immediately and delete this email. It is the policy of ACR
Electronics, Inc. that no legally binding statements, representations or
commitments (collectively statements) may be made by email. Any such
statements must be confirmed either by facsimile transmission or by postal
mail before they will have legal effect. The sender of this email is not
authorised to commit the company in any way and the addressee is hereby
notified of that fact.

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