RoHS Updates: Writing Better Declarations; A New Harmonized Standard

In my previous column, I once again described why referencing any European Union Directive other than 2011/65/EU (when addressing EU RoHS in general), as quite a few manufacturers do in compliance documentation, is fundamentally incorrect. Over the years I have reviewed compliance declarations from many, many component and material manufacturers, and what I see remains frustrating.

Company size, position in the supply chain and relative sophistication of the supplier seems to be irrelevant to its ability to provide a correctly-worded RoHS declaration or certificate of compliance. In a recent project I have seen the following:

Inadequate CofC – Certificates of compliance (CofC) referencing Delegated Directive 2015/863, which added four phthalates to the Annex II list of restricted substances. Often this Delegated Directive is referenced to the exclusion of all other relevant Directives (including 2011/65/EU) as if 2015/863 were itself the entirety of the RoHS Directive. Of course, it is not. The fact that the item complies with 2015/863 is not a confirmation that it complies with all relevant 2011/65/EU requirements.

Lack of specific detail – I have a fundamental disdain for certificates of compliance that are not specific to a given product or product family. These typically say something to the effect of, All our parts are compliant, and some may take an exemption, but we are not going to tell you which parts take which exemptions.

I have two reasons for disliking this kind of wording:

• Their use by a customer in their RoHS technical documentation as defined in Article 7(b) must be done in a very conscientious and well-documented manner, since they are not evidence that a specific item used in the product complies with RoHS.
• As we have seen before, exemptions can expire or change. If your customers don’t know which components or materials are incorporating a given exemption, they cannot understand the degree of risk presented by any given product of yours they may be using. This risk alone can be a rationale for selecting a competitor’s product.

Very often, contacting the manufacturer’s rep or your salesperson will get you a part-specific CofC. It’s on the customer to take the initiative.

Poor wording – Some CofCs include references to both 2015/863 and 2011/65/EU, but are worded very poorly. I have seen CofCs that say a product is in compliance with “Directive 2015/863/EU amending Annex II to Directive 2011/65/EU.”

That’s nice, but (as described above) it is so incomplete as to be meaningless. As a customer, I want suppliers’ products to be compliant with Annex II of 2011/65/EU and relevant exemptions, as defined in Annexes III and IV, which 2015/863 does not reference.

On the other hand, Intel understands the relationship between 2011/65/EU and 2015/863 and explains it properly. Their downloadable Material Declaration Data Sheets also declare correctly, e.g. “This product is EU RoHS 2 (Directive 2011/65/EU) compliant.” However, even Intel is not monolithic: I received a declaration from the Programmable Solutions Group (ex-Altera) that stated the product “does not contain the hazardous substances listed in 2011/65/EU and EU 2015/863 beyond the maximum concentration value (MCV).” While accurate, including “EU 2015/863” is redundant, potentially confusing and unnecessary.

Bottom line: words matter. Be precise. Dozens of Delegated Directives have amended 2011/65/EU, many with far broader impact than 2015/863 – consider, for example, the amendments that changed the 6- and 7-series exemptions.

Yes, I’m being rather pedantic, but the topic is documentation for a legal requirement. Lawyers are “word nerds,” so don’t let a knowledgeable one get you on a technicality.

Guidance for Components and Materials Manufacturers

Given the above, how should manufacturers of components and materials that themselves are not within the scope of EU RoHS word their EU RoHS compliance certificates? (That is to say, manufacturers whose products are not EEE that is in one of the 11 categories defined in Annex I of the RoHS Directive.)

While all components and materials used in EEE must be compliant with the substance restriction requirements of Article 4 in order for the EEE itself to comply, ensuring compliance of non-EEE and providing documentary evidence is technically a business decision, not a legal requirement.

Given that making the business decision not to provide that information to your customer is usually going to be a deal-breaker, in my opinion the minimum would be:

A part- or family-specific statement that the item is compliant with EU RoHS Directive 2011/65/EU substance restrictions listed in Annex II as of the date of the certificate;

An explicit statement about exemptions used to achieve that compliance, including the exemption numbers from Annexes III and IV, or a statement that no exemptions are taken, if that is the case.

No Delegated or other amending Directives, including 2015/863, should be identified in the documentation; they are all included, by definition, in 2011/65/EU. The date of compliance referenced indicates which substances and exemptions are being complied with, based on their respective effective dates.

Given the dynamic nature of exemptions, everyone in the supply chain must understand which exemptions are being used where in their products. This enables them to know when they may have to take – or press for – action on the renewal of an exemption, or the replacement of a part or material.

Guidance for EEE (Finished Goods) Manufacturers

Current and prospective customers, importers and distributors often ask their EEE suppliers for EU RoHS (and REACH, etc.) certificates of compliance. When asked about RoHS compliance, the correct response is, “The product complies with 2011/65/EU requirements as of the date of this certificate” (or “as of DD MM YYYY”).

Another option is to say, “The product complies with 2011/65/EU and all of its amendments as of the date of this document.”

Any exemptions used in the product should be listed in either case.

We will once again have problems with terminology and communication when the next substance restrictions come along. The correct statements will still be the same, but at that time they should be amended to include wording such as: “… as well as with the future restriction of TBBPA and MCCPs” – and if you are working to remove these substances, you can state that, as well as the date you expect them to be out of your products.

The End of EN 50581:2012

Everybody’s favorite RoHS Harmonized Standard, EN 50581:2012, has finally been replaced as the official Harmonized Standard to be referenced on your CE Declaration of Conformity (DoC).

EN IEC 63000:2018, the same as IEC 63000:2016 (which is essentially the same as EN 50581:2012 with Figure 1 inverted), has been defined as the RoHS Harmonized Standard by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/659. While you may start referencing it today in your DoCs, you have until November 18, 2021 to replace EN 50581:2012 in all your existing DoCs.

Email the author with any questions or comments on this post.

Statements of fact and opinions expressed in posts by contributors are the responsibility of the authors alone and do not imply an opinion of the officers or the representatives of TTI, Inc. or the TTI Family of Companies.