Avenue E Van Nieuwenhuyse 4, Box 2, B-1160 Brussels, Belgium Tel: +32 2 676 72 60 Fax: +32 2 676 73 92 VAT 412.849.915

RoHS Directive

Inter-institutional code COD/2008/0240

3 July 2009

RoHS Directive provisions on restrictions for new substances duplicate REACH, creating

further administrative burdens for no additional environmental or consumer benefit

One of the stated objectives of the Commission’s revision of RoHS Directive is to avoid duplication

and contradictions between RoHS and other pieces of legislation, such as REACH. However, in its

article 4(7) the current RoHS proposal clearly duplicates the REACH’s restrictions process.

We ask that Parliament and Council amend Article 4(7) and delete Annex III to ensure that existing

regulatory tools are used to restrict new substances in electronic and electrical goods. Such an

amendment would avoid the creation of an unnecessary administrative burden and potential

uncertainty for all concerned, while maintaining the same level of protection afforded by the

current proposal.

A. The proposal duplicates the process established by REACH and therefore only serves to add to

legal complexity and the administrative burden

REACH already provides a working regulatory process to restrict substances in all articles, including

those goods regulated by RoHS (REACH article 69). REACH takes into account the risks arising from

the entire life-cycle of substances including the waste phase of articles that contain the substance.

Under REACH, Member States and the European Chemicals Agency can propose and adopt

restrictions on substances in articles (including electrical and electronic equipment) when substances

pose an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment and there is a need to manage this

risk on a Community wide basis. Under RoHS only the Commission can propose such restrictions.

The proposal therefore potentially creates the unnecessary legislative and administrative duplication

of REACH processes. At a time when ECHA and Member State authorities are already struggling to

find the resources required for REACH restriction and authorisation implementation, it would appear

unwise to create additional administrative burdens for all concerned.

B. The proposal creates uncertainties regarding the process to restrict new substances in

electrical and electronic goods

The REACH criteria for restrictions are repeated verbatim in the proposal on RoHS (RoHS proposal

article 4, paragraph 7). However, the proposal seeks to establish a separate process to adopt

restrictions on substances in articles through an ill-defined and yet-to-be established comitology

procedure.

The ambiguity in the Commission’s proposal creates a number of uncertainties. While the

Commission proposal refers to the use of a “methodology based on the process” set out in REACH

for assessing and restricting new substances, the proposal falls short of simply using the existing

process and expert bodies (ECHA) established under REACH to restrict substances in articles,

including electrical and electronic goods.

ECPI – RoHS Directive proposal 3 July 2009

In a case where a substance needed to be restricted across a range of articles, including electronic

goods, it is unclear whether a restriction would proceed under RoHS (DG Environment lead) or

REACH restrictions (DG Enterprise lead). It is also unclear how far the already stretched REACH

bodies (the European Chemicals Agency, the Risk Assessment and Socio-Economic Committees)

would be involved in the process. Under the Commission proposal the comitology committee that

decides on the restrictions is the committee established under the Waste Framework Directive. RoHS

does not use the full breadth of chemical expertise available under REACH. As such, the separate

process and people involved may lead to different regulatory views at an EU level.

C. The proposal to assess the need to restrict DEHP underlines the unnecessary duplication

created by the Commission’s RoHS proposal

The proposal suggests that the substance DEHP should be assessed as a priority under the RoHS

Directive to establish whether a restriction under RoHS is required (Annex III). If such a review were

to take place under RoHS it would constitute the fifth review of DEHP in consumer goods, including

electrical and electronic equipment, conducted under European legislation in recent years.

1. DEHP was found to pose no risk to consumers or the environment from its presence in

electrical and electronic goods (due to its use in cable and wiring) in a 10 year long EU

assessment conducted under the Existing Substances Regulation. This assessment

included an examination of the risks associated from the end of life of articles containing

DEHP. These conclusions were published in the Official Journal as recently as 2008.

2. DEHP is currently undergoing a review of restrictions in articles under the terms of point

51 of Annex XVII of REACH.

3. DEHP is recommended as one of the first substances to undergo REACH authorisation.

As from mid-2012 producers will have to apply for authorisation from the European

Chemicals Agency to continue marketing the substance in Europe.

4. DEHP will be subject to a further review by the European Chemicals Agency the need for

restrictions of the substance in articles post-2012-2013 according to article 69(2) of

REACH.

For further information:

Tim Edgar

Deputy Director, ECPI

ted@cefic.be

+32 (0)475 37 66 93