TECHNET Archives

March 2012

TechNet@IPC.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
SALA GABRIELE <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>, SALA GABRIELE <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:30:20 +0200
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (39 lines)
Hi Blair,

   for US Producer, Importer and all of those who export EEE to US it will
be very hard time, yes even worse the RoHS 2 (the new RoHS from Jan 2 2013).

You can get plenty of reliable information about this topic, by searcin on
IPC dedicated  task. See the link.

http://www.ipc.org/ContentPage.aspx?pageid=Conflict-Minerals


the 3T+G will be a real effort to find alternative sources then DRC mines.

Gabriele


-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Per conto di Blair Hogg
Inviato: giovedì 29 marzo 2012 14.45
A: [log in to unmask]
Oggetto: [TN] Conflict Minerals

We have been receiving requests from customers for statements thta our
products do not have any content of minerals from conflict areas, e.g.
Congo. Anyone else getting these? How are you handling them? 

The point behind this is apparently to avoid providing funding of aggressors
through the purchase of minerals from areas in conflict. A quick glance at
this makes it look even worse than RoHS, now it is not simply the materials
in the components, but from where they originate. 

Blair


______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask] 
______________________________________________________________________

ATOM RSS1 RSS2