Procedure : 2008/0240(COD)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected : A7-0196/2010

Texts tabled :

A7-0196/2010

Debates :

PV 22/11/2010 - 18
CRE 22/11/2010 - 18

Votes :

PV 24/11/2010 - 8.5
Explanations of votes
Explanations of votes

Texts adopted :

P7_TA(2010)0431

REPORT     ***I
PDF 521kWORD 788k
15 June 2010
PE 430.424v05-00 A7-0196/2010

on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (recast)

(COM(2008)0809 – C6-0471/2008 – 2008/0240(COD))

Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety

Rapporteur: Jill Evans

(Recast - Rule 87 of the Rules of Procedure)

PR_COD_1Recastingam

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
 EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
 ANNEX: LETTER FROM THE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AFFAIRS
 ANNEX: OPINION OF THE CONSULTATIVE WORKING PARTY OF THE LEGAL SERVICES OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMISSION
 PROCEDURE

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (recast)

(COM(2008)0809 – C6-0471/2008 – 2008/0240(COD))

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading - recast)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2008)0809),

- having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 95 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0471/2008),

–   having regard to the Commission communication to Parliament and the Council entitled: 'Consequences of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon for ongoing interinstitutional decision-making procedures' (COM)2009)0665),

–   having regard to Article 294(3) and Article 114 of the Treaty on the functioning of the EU,

- having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 16 December 2009(1),

- having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 29 May 2010(2),

- having regard to Rules 87 and 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A7-0196/2010),

1.   Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out, taking into account the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission;

2.   Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3.   Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission and to the national parliaments.

Amendment  1

Proposal for a directive

Recital 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(3a) Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 gives first priority to prevention in waste legislation. Prevention is defined inter alia as measures that reduce the content of harmful substances in materials and products.

Justification

The recast of RoHS should be put into the context of the waste hierarchy established in the waste framework directive in 2008. Prevention is the top priority in the binding waste hierarchy. Prevention includes measures to reduce the content of harmful substances in materials and products. The recast of RoHS recast is therefore an important opportunity to translate this obligation into concrete action, all the more that electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) continues to create numerous problems during waste treatment.

Amendment  2

Proposal for a directive

Recital 3 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(3b) The Council Resolution of 25 January 1988 on a Community action programme to combat environmental pollution by cadmium1 invites the Commission to pursue without delay the development of specific measures for such a programme. Human health also has to be protected and an overall strategy that in particular restricts the use of cadmium and stimulates research into substitutes should therefore be implemented. That Resolution stresses that the use of cadmium should be limited to cases where such use is suitable and where safer alternatives do not exist.

 

1 OJ C 30, 4.2.1988, p. 1.

Justification

The reference to the Council Resolution of 1988 (Recital 4 of current RoHS) should be reinstated as it is the political reference for combating environmental pollution by cadmium.

Amendment  3

Proposal for a directive

Recital 3 c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(3c) The European Parliament, in its resolution of 14 November 1996 on the communication from the Commission on the review of the Community Strategy on Waste Management and the draft Council resolution on waste policy1, asked the Commission to present proposals for directives on a number of priority waste streams, including electrical and electronic waste. The European Parliament, in the same resolution, requested the Council and the Commission to put forward proposals to reduce the presence of hazardous substances in waste such as chlorine, mercury, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), cadmium and other heavy metals.

 

1 OJ C 362, 2.12.1996, p. 241.

Justification

The reference to the Parliament Resolution of 1996 (Recital 4 of current RoHS) should be inserted as an important reminder that Parliament already asked for concrete restrictions on PVC back in 1996.

Amendment 4

Proposal for a directive

Recital 3 d (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(3d) Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on persistent organic pollutants and amending Directive 79/117/EEC1 recalls that the objective of protecting the environment and human health from persistent organic pollutants cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, owing to the transboundary effects of those pollutants, and can therefore be better achieved at Union level. Pursuant to that Regulation, releases of persistent organic pollutants, such as dioxins and furans, which are unintentional by-products of industrial processes, should be identified and reduced as soon as possible with the ultimate aim of elimination, where feasible. Thermal treatment or uncontrolled disposal of waste electrical and electronic equipment containing halogenated flame retardants or PVC can contribute significantly to the formation of dioxins and furans.

 

1 OJ L 158, 30.4.2004, p. 7.

Justification

The RoHS recast needs to be put into the context of the EU’s international obligations to reduce total releases of dioxins and furans, with the goal of their continuing minimization and, where feasible, ultimate elimination. The final destiny of large quantities of WEEE remains unclear. High-temperature incineration remains the exception. Sub-standard treatment of WEEE – in the EU or in third countries - risks remaining a reality for significant amounts. Emissions of dioxins and furans can only be addressed via material choices at design stage.

Amendment  5

Proposal for a directive

Recital 3e (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(3e) The study commissioned by the Commission on hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment highly recommended a phase-out of organobromines and organochlorines due to their potential to form polybrominated and polychlorinated dioxins and furans in waste treatment operations, and gave priority to the phase-out of PVC over selective risk management options to guarantee a reduced release of PVC, of its additives and of hazardous combustion products. It also recommends the labelling of beryllium metal and beryllium oxide and the voluntary phase-out combined with market surveillance of several other examined substances.

Justification

The recommendations of the Öko-Institut with its different options should be referred to, reflecting that the suggestions go beyond the recommendation to include substances into Annex IV.

Amendment  6

Proposal for a directive

Recital 3f (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(3f) There is scientific uncertainty about the safety of nanomaterials for human health and the environment, no internationally agreed definition of a nanomaterial and no internationally agreed test guidelines. The Commission's Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) adopted on 28-29 September 2005 an opinion on nanotechnologies which concluded that there were "major gaps in the knowledge necessary for risk assessment and concluded that "existing toxicological and eco-toxicological methods may not be sufficient to address all of the issues arising in relation to nanoparticles". There is increasing scientific evidence that some carbon nanotubes may behave like asbestos fibres and thus have severe impact on human health. The same applies to nanosilver particles which may end up in the environment and may have severe impacts on soil, aquatic and terrestrial organisms.

Justification

A 2009 research project on emerging nanotechnologies found that about 807 products are available on the market containing nanomaterials, some of which are EEE. There is a common agreement amongst nanotoxicologists that risks of severe impacts on health and the environment are real, precautious measures are therefore warranted in regards to nanomaterials. This amendment is linked to the amendment of Art. 4 (1) b new, suggesting a labelling for nanosilver and carbon nanotubes.

Amendment  7

Proposal for a directive

Recital 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(6) The substances covered by this Directive are scientifically well researched and evaluated and have been subject to different measures both at Community and at national level.

(6) The substances covered by this Directive should be scientifically well researched and evaluated prior to establishing restrictions and becoming subject to different measures both at Union and at national level. Substances listed in Annex III should be scientifically well researched and evaluated prior to establishing restrictions.

Justification

The assessment of substances listed in annex III has not yet been completed. The substances listed in annex III are scheduled for assessment, which should be done thoroughly; however, this work has not yet been finished.

Amendment  8

Proposal for a directive

Recital 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(7) The measures provided for in this Directive take into account existing international guidelines and recommendations and are based on an assessment of available scientific and technical information. The measures are necessary to achieve the chosen level of protection of human and animal health and the environment, having regard to the risks which the absence of measures would be likely to create in the Community. The measures should be kept under review and, if necessary, adjusted to take account of available technical and scientific information.

(7) The measures provided for in this Directive take into account existing international guidelines and recommendations and are based on an assessment of available scientific and technical information. The measures are necessary to achieve the chosen level of protection of human and animal health and the environment, having regard to the risks which the absence of measures would be likely to create in the Union. The measures should be kept under review and, if necessary, adjusted to take account of available technical and scientific information. In particular, the risks to human health and the environment arising from the use of substances listed in Annex XIV of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 with special attention to Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD), Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, Butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP) and Dibutylphthalate (DBP) should be considered as a priority.

Justification

Substances about which some concern has been expressed by various bodies.

Amendment  9

Proposal for a directive

Recital 8

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(8) This Directive supplements the general Community waste management legislation, such as Directive 2008/[…]/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste.

(8) This Directive supplements the general EU waste management legislation, such as Directive 2008/[…]/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste as well as Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)1.

 

1 OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

Justification

It should be stated specifically that RoHS supplements REACH. RoHS and REACH have different objectives, scope, timelines, and outreach. RoHS was created to address the specific problems of a fast-growing waste stream, REACH addresses chemical substances at a general level, with no special focus on waste. REACH is a regional law still in its infancy, RoHS is already setting a global standard. Key problems with WEEE are due to polymers, which are exempted from REACH. RoHS should be further developed to address the specific problems of the recovery and disposal of WEEE at the origin.

Amendment  10

Proposal for a directive

Recital 11

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(11) The technical development of electrical and electronic equipment without heavy metals, PBDE and PBB should be taken into account.

(11) The technical development of electrical and electronic equipment without heavy metals, brominated flame retardants, chlorinated flame retardants, PVC and its hazardous plasticisers should be taken into account.

Justification

The electronics industry is well-advanced in its global initiative to phase out the use of brominated/chlorinated flame retardants and PVC. Major electronics companies have already phased out the use of these substances in some/all of their products (e.g. 50% of all new mobile phones are already low halogen). Almost all major electronics companies have committed to do so for consumer products (e.g. market share of low-halogen personal computers will be at over 40% in the next 1-2 years). Similar action has already been undertaken by some manufacturers of ‘white goods’ in the past.

Amendment  11

Proposal for a directive

Recital 12

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(12) As soon as scientific evidence is available and taking into account the precautionary principle, the prohibition of other hazardous substances and their substitution by more environmentally friendly alternatives which ensure at least the same level of protection of consumers should be examined, paying attention to coherency with other Community legislation, and in particular to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH). Specific account should be taken of the potential impact on SMEs.

(12) Periodically, and as soon as scientific evidence is available, and taking into account the precautionary principle, the prohibition of other hazardous substances and their substitution by more environmentally friendly alternative substances or technologies which ensure at least the same level of protection of consumers should be examined. To this end, the Commission should study the negative impacts of other hazardous substances and the feasibility of substituting them, in particular at the end of life of electrical and electronic equipment, with a view to making legislative proposals to strengthen the provisions of this Directive on a regular basis. This examination should include a full impact assessment with consultation of relevant stakeholders. The examination should also pay attention to coherence with other EU legislation and maximise synergies with the work carried out under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006. Specific account should be taken of the potential impact on SMEs.

Justification

Amendment  12

Proposal for a directive

Recital 12 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(12a) The development of renewable forms of energy is one of the Union’s key objectives, and the contribution made by renewable energy sources to environmental and climate objectives is crucial. Directive 2009/28/EC of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC1 recalls that there should be coherence between those objectives and the remainder of the Union’s environmental legislation. Consequently, this Directive should not prevent the development of renewable energy technologies that present no danger to the environment and that are sustainable and economically viable, such as photovoltaic solar panels, which should be excluded from the scope of this Directive. Independent impact assessment studies requested by the Commission also recommend the exclusion of photovoltaic solar panels from the scope of this Directive.

 

1 OJ L 140, 05.06.2009, p. 16.

Justification

The revision of the RoHS Directive should be coherent with the EU’s climate change objectives and should allow the development of sustainable, economically viable forms of energy. It is therefore essential to allow specific exclusions from the scope of this Directive in order to help the EU attain its broader objectives as regards environmental protection, security of energy supply and combating climate change.

Amendment  13

Proposal for a directive

Recital 13

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(13) Exemptions from the substitution requirement should be permitted if substitution is not possible from the scientific and technical point of view , taking specific account of the situation of SMEs or if the negative environmental, health or socio-economic impacts caused by substitution are likely to outweigh the health, environmental or socio-economic benefits of the substitution or the availability and reliability of substitutes is not ensured. Substitution of the hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment should also be carried out in a way so as to be compatible with the health and safety of users of electrical and electronic equipment. The placing on the market of medical devices requires a conformity assessment procedure, according to Directives 93/42/EC and 98/79/EC, which could require the involvement of a notified body designated by Competent Authorities of Member States. If such a notified body certifies that the safety of the potential substitute for the intended use in medical devices or in vitro medical devices is not demonstrated, this will be viewed as a clear negative socio-economic, health and consumer safety impact. It should be possible to apply for exemptions of equipment coming under the scope of this Directive from the date of its entry into force, even when that is before the actual inclusion in the scope of that equipment.

(13) Exemptions from the substitution requirement should be permitted if substitution is not possible from a scientific and technical point of view, taking specific account of the situation of SMEs or if the negative environmental and health impacts caused by substitution are likely to outweigh the health and environmental benefits of the substitution. Substitution of the hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment should also be carried out in a way so as to be compatible with the health and safety of users of electrical and electronic equipment. Socio-economic considerations should be taken into account when deciding on the duration of an exemption. It should be possible to grant a grace period after expiry of an exemption in case more time is required to ensure adequate availability of substitutes, including for reasons of intellectual property restrictions. The placing on the market of medical devices requires a conformity assessment procedure, according to Directives 93/42/EC and 98/79/EC, which could require the involvement of a notified body designated by Competent Authorities of Member States. If such a notified body certifies that the safety of the potential substitute for the intended use in medical devices or in vitro medical devices is not demonstrated, this will be viewed as a clear negative socio-economic, health and consumer safety impact. It should be possible to apply for exemptions of equipment coming under the scope of this Directive from the date of its entry into force, even when that is before the actual inclusion in the scope of that equipment.

Amendment  14

Proposal for a directive

Recital 14

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(14) Exemptions from the prohibition for certain specific materials or components should be limited in their scope, in order to achieve a gradual phase-out of hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment, given that the use of those substances in such applications should become avoidable.

(14) Exemptions from the prohibition for certain specific materials or components should be adopted on a case-by-case basis and should be limited in their scope and duration, in order to achieve a gradual phase-out of hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment, given that the use of those substances in such applications should become avoidable.

Amendment  15

Proposal for a directive

Recital 14 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(14a) The use of nanomaterials in electrical and electronic equipment may increase with the further development of technology. There is inadequate information about the use of nanomaterials other than nanosilver and certain carbon nanotubes in electrical and electronic equipment and the risks associated with such use. In order to enable the Commission to assess the safety of nanomaterials in electrical and electronic equipment, economic operators should notify the use of nanomaterials in electrical and electronic equipment and provide all relevant data with regard to their safety for human health and the environment. The Commission should assess the information received and come forward with a legislative proposal for adequate risk management, if necessary. Producers should label electrical and electronic equipment that contains nanomaterials that can lead to exposure of consumers, in order to enable consumers to make an informed choice.

Amendment  16

Proposal for a directive

Recital 19

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(19) The measures necessary for the implementation of this Directive should be adopted in accordance with Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission.

deleted

(This amendment is linked to the replacement of the former "regulatory procedure with scrutiny" by the new procedure of delegated acts under Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.)

Justification

Recital 20 as modified covers the necessary provisions.

Amendment  17

Proposal for a directive

Recital 20

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(20) In particular the Commission should be empowered to adapt Annexes II, III, IV, V and VI to technical and scientific progress and to adopt other necessary implementing measures. Since those measures are of general scope and are designed to amend non-essential elements of Directive 2002/95/EC, they must be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny provided for in Article 5a of Decision 1999/468/EC.

(20) In order to allow the provisions of this Directive to be adapted to technical and scientific progress and to adopt other necessary measures, the Commission should be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union (TFEU) in respect of the adaptation of Annexes V, VI, VIa and VIb, the adoption of a format for applications for exemptions, detailed rules for compliance with maximum concentration values, on sampling and inspection, the definition of nanomaterials, standards for the detection of nanomaterials, the application of the labelling of nanomaterials and adaptations to REACH.

Amendment  18

Proposal for a directive

Recital 23 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(23a) A thorough analysis of the added value of the RoHS Directive should be carried out in the context of the upcoming review of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006.

Amendment  19

Proposal for a directive

Article 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

This Directive lays down rules on the restriction of use of hazardous substances in electric and electronic equipment with a view  to contribute to the protection of human health and the environmentally sound recovery and disposal of waste electrical and electronic equipment.

This Directive lays down rules on the restriction of use of hazardous substances in electric and electronic equipment with a view to contribute to the protection of human health, the environment, and the environmentally sound recovery and disposal of waste electrical and electronic equipment.

Justification

The subject matter should reflect the content of the recitals. Recital 4 says: “even if WEEE were collected separately and submitted to recycling processes, its content of mercury, cadmium, would be likely to pose risk to health and the environment”. Recital 5 then states that “the most effective way of ensuring the significant reduction of risks to health and the environment relating to those substances … is the substitution”. Thus the phase-out of hazardous substances contributes to the protection of the environment as such, not just via environmentally sound recovery and disposal.

Amendment  20

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 - paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. This Directive shall apply to electrical and electronic equipment falling under the categories set out in Annex I as specified in Annex II .

1. This Directive shall apply to electrical and electronic equipment, including cables, consumables and accessories, falling under the categories set out in Annex I.

Justification

RoHS should apply to all EEE, not just to certain categories, and include cables, consumables and accessories. Annex II is confusing: it is said to be a “binding list of products”, yet the list is not exhaustive, but only gives certain examples: “appliances, including”. This does not solve the problem of different interpretations of the categories. Annex II should be deleted, instead the general definition of EEE should apply. The categories in Annex I should be kept, completed with a catch-all category, to address different restrictions and timelines for different categories of EEE.

Amendment  21

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 - paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

1a. Paragraph 1 shall apply to electrical and electronic equipment that falls into category 11 of Annex I as of 1 July 2014.

Justification

The broadening of the scope of RoHS beyond the 10 current categories requires a transitional phase to allow manufacturers to apply for exemptions.

Amendment  22

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 - paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. This Directive shall apply without prejudice to requirements of Community legislation on safety and health, on chemicals, in particular Regulation (EC) 1907/2006 as well as of  specific Community waste management legislation.

2. This Directive shall apply without prejudice to requirements of EU legislation on safety and health, on chemicals, in particular Regulation (EC) 1907/2006 and Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of-life vehicles1, as well as of specific EU waste management legislation.

 

____________

1 OJ L 269, 21.10.2000, p. 34.

Justification

This amendment explicitly excludes end-of-life vehicles and the electronic components of such vehicles from the scope of the RoHS Directive. These vehicles will never enter the electrical and electronic equipment waste stream. Since they are governed by other legislation, they should be excluded from the scope of the RoHS Directive.

Amendment  23

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 - paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. This Directive does not apply to:

3. This Directive does not apply to:

(a) equipment which is necessary for the protection of the essential interests of the security of Member States, including arms, munitions and war material intended for specifically military purposes ; 

a) equipment which is necessary for the protection of the essential interests of the security of Member States, including arms, munitions and war material intended for specifically military purposes ; 

(b) equipment which is specifically designed as part of another type of equipment that does not fall within the scope of this Directive and can fulfill its function only if it is part of that equipment;

(b) equipment which is specifically designed as part of another type of equipment that does not fall within the scope of this Directive and can fulfill its function only if it is part of that equipment;

(c) equipment which is not intended to be placed on the market as a single functional or commercial unit. 

 

 

(ba) means of transport for persons or goods;

 

(bb) large-scale fixed installations, except monitoring and control equipment;

 

(bc) large-scale stationary industrial tools, except monitoring and control equipment;

 

(bd) renewable energy generation technology intended to be used in a system that is designed, assembled, and installed for permanent use at a defined location to produce energy for public, commercial and residential applications;

 

(be) equipment which is manufactured in the Union or imported, and specifically designed for the purposes of research and development and not made available on the market for sale to the general public;

 

(bf) non-road mobile machinery intended exclusively for professional use;

 

(bg) equipment designed to be sent into space;

 

No later than [...*], the Commission shall submit a report examining the need for further exclusions of equipment in category 11 from the scope of this Directive where the long-term contribution to the objectives of this Directive by the inclusion of such equipment would be disproportionately low as compared to the long-term costs thereof. The report shall be accompanied by a legislative proposal, if appropriate.

Amendment  24

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 - paragraph 3a new

 

3a. Notwithstanding the exclusion from the scope of this Directive of certain EEE, Member States shall take all measures necessary to ensure that economic operators reduce exposure to the substances listed in Annex IV in materials and components of EEE for consumers, workers and the environment to as low a level as is technically and practically possible.

 

* Insert date: eighteen months after entry into force of this Directive.

Amendment  25

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 - paragraph 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

3a. By 31 December 2014 at the latest, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council examining the scope of this Directive with regard to equipment referred to in Article 2(3);

Justification

While provisions may be made now for exemptions, the scope of the legislation should be subject to a review following appropriate impact assessments

Amendment  26

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 - point a a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(aa) "dependent" means needing electricity to fulfil at least one of its basic functions;

Justification

Amendment  27

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 - point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) "manufacturer” means any natural or legal person who manufactures an EEE or who has an EEE designed or manufactured under his name or trademark;

(b) “manufacturer” means any natural or legal person who manufactures an EEE or has an EEE designed or manufactured, or who markets such a product under his name or trademark;

Justification

As Regulation (EC) 765/2008 serves as a reference for the current RoHS recast, definitions should be aligned to one another to prevent confusion or different interpretations.

Amendment  28

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 - point d a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(da)"economic operators" means the manufacturer, the authorised representative, the importer and the distributor;

Justification

The term ‘economic operators’ is used in several places in the directive. The same definition as given in Decision 768/2008/EC on a common framework for the marketing of products should apply.

Amendment  29

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 - point g a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(ga) "technical specification" means a document that prescribes technical requirements to be fulfilled by a product, process or service;

Justification

The term 'technical specification' is used in several places in the directive. The same definition as given in Decision 768/2008/EC on a common framework for the marketing of products should apply.

Amendment  30

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 - point k a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(ka) "recall" means any measure aimed at achieving the return of a product that has already been made available to the end user;

Justification

The term 'recall' is used in several places in the directive. The same definition as given in Decision 768/2008/EC on a common framework for the marketing of products should apply.

Amendment  31

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 - point k b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(kb) "withdrawal" means any measure aimed at preventing a product in the supply chain from being made available on the market;

Justification

The term 'withdrawal' is used in several places in the directive. The same definition as given in Decision 768/2008/EC on a common framework for the marketing of products should apply.

Amendment  32

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 - point l

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(l) “homogeneous material” means a material of uniform composition throughout that can not be mechanically disjointed into different materials, meaning that the materials can not, in principle, be separated by mechanical actions such as unscrewing, cutting, crushing, grinding and abrasive processes;

(l) “homogeneous material” means:

- a material that consists of only one material throughout; or

 

- a combination of multiple materials that can not be mechanically disjointed into different materials, excluding surface coatings; or

 

- a surface coating.

Justification

A distinction needs to be made between materials that consist of only one material throughout and those consisting of multiple materials that cannot be mechanically disjointed. Surface coatings should be considered as a homogenous material in their own right.

Amendment  33

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 - point l a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(la) "cables" means all cables inside EEE and all cables that serve as a connection or an extension to connect the equipment to the relevant grid;

Amendment  34

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 - point l b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(lb) "mechanically disjointed" means materials can, in principle, be separated by mechanical actions, such as unscrewing, cutting, crushing, grinding and abrasive processes;

Justification

A definition is important to ensure that legal certainty with regards to sampling and testing is achieved. In order to provide legal certainty there should be a separate definition of "mechanical disjointed".

Amendment  35

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 - point p

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(p)”industrial monitoring and control instruments” mean monitoring and control instruments designed for exclusively industrial or professional use.

(p) ”industrial monitoring and control instruments” means monitoring and control instruments designed for exclusively industrial use.

Justification

Community legislation normally distinguishes between the use by the general public, by professionals or within industry. The distinction between the general public and professionals differs from Member State to Member State. The distinction is furthermore blurred, as persons of the general public can have access to professional products, while professionals may use products widely available to the general public. To avoid further confusion, the definition of industrial monitoring and control instruments should be limited to exclusively “industrial use”.

Amendment  36

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 - point p a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(pa) “consumable” means any unit, containing one or more electrical or electronic parts, which is necessary for the functioning of an EEE and which vice versa cannot function without the EEE;

(Replacement of amendment 26.)

Justification

Given the interdependence between EEE and consumables, consumables should also be included in the directive, all the more that they are normally more short-lived and thus becoming waste faster than the EEE. A definition should therefore be included. This definition is limited to units that have electrical/electronic parts. It would thus include e.g. current toner cartridges, but exclude CDs, printing paper, powder for dishwashing machines or drill bits.

Amendment  37

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 - point p b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(pb) "nanomaterial" means any intentionally produced material that has one or more dimensions of the order of 100 nm or less or is composed of discrete functional parts, either internally or at the surface, many of which have one or more dimensions of the order of 100 nm or less, including structures, agglomerates or aggregates, which may have a size above the order of 100 nm but retain properties that are characteristic to the nanoscale.

 

Properties that are characteristic to the nanoscale include:

 

(i) those related to the large specific surface area of the materials considered, and/or

 

(ii) specific physico-chemical properties that are different from those of the non-nanoform of the same material.

Justification

A definition of nanomaterials needs to be introduced. The definition here is the one agreed to by all three institutions in the context of the regulation on novel food.

Amendment  38

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

In view of the various definitions of nanomaterials published by different bodies at international level and the constant technical and scientific developments in the field of nanotechnologies, the Commission shall adjust and adapt point (pa) of this Article to technical and scientific progress, taking into account definitions subsequently agreed at international level, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 18.

Justification

Amendment  39

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 - point p c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(pc) "accessory" means any unit containing one or more electrical or electronic parts, designed to be used with an EEE, which is not necessary for the functioning of the EEE, but which cannot function without the EEE;

Justification

RoHS should also include accessories. A definition should therefore be included. This definition is limited to units that have electrical/electronic parts. It would thus include e.g. separate lenses for digital cameras, but it would exclude the bag for the camera or the lens.

Amendment  40

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 - point p d (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(pd) "electrical or electronic part" means any unit with two or more connecting lead or metallic pads, which is part of an electric circuit, to provide a discrete function;

Justification

As the newly introduced definitions for "consumable" and "accessory" refer to containing an "electrical or electronic part", a definition for such parts should be given.

Amendment  41

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 - point p e (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(pe) "means of transport" means a vehicle used for transport of people or cargo, such as cars, buses, trucks, trams, trains, ships and aeroplanes;

Amendment  42

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 - point p f (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(pf) "large-scale fixed installation" means a particular combination of several types of apparatus and, where applicable, other devices, assembled and installed permanently at a predefined location. It shall not include electrical and electronic components which may, during the lifespan of the installation concerned, be replaced from time to time and which can also fulfil their function without being part of that installation;

Amendment  43

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 - point p g (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(pg) "large scale stationary industrial tools" mean an assembly of machines, equipment, and/or components, designed to be used together in industry to perform a specific task. It is installed by specialised personnel responsible for the installation activity only, and they are permanently located during their phase of use. It shall not include electrical and electronic components which may, during the lifespan of the tool concerned, be replaced from time to time and which can fulfil their function also by not being part of that tool;

Amendment  44

Proposal for a directive

Article 3 - point p h (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

(ph) "non-road mobile machinery intended exclusively for professional use" means equipment as defined in Directive 97/68/EC which is only made available for use by professionals;

Amendment  45

Proposal for a directive

Article 4 - paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Member States shall ensure that, EEE including spare parts for its repair or its reuse placed on the market does not contain the substances listed in Annex IV.

1. Member States shall ensure that EEE, including spare parts for its repair or its reuse, cables, consumables and accessories, and parts for recalibration or updating of functionalities or upgrading of capacity placed on the market does not contain the substances listed in Annex IV.

Amendment  46

Proposal for a directive

Article 4 - paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to spare parts for the repair or to the reuse of the following:

4. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to cables, consumables, accessories or spare parts for the repair or to the reuse, nor to parts for recalibration or updating of functionalities or upgrading of capacity, of the following:

(a) EEE placed on the market before 1 July 2006.

(a) EEE placed on the market before 1 July 2006.

(b) Medical devices placed on the market before 1st January 2014.

(b) Medical devices placed on the market before 1st January 2014.

(c) In vitro diagnostic medical devices placed on the market before 1st January 2016.

(c) In vitro diagnostic medical devices placed on the market before 1st January 2016.

(d) Monitoring and control instruments placed on the market before 1st January 2014.

(d) Monitoring and control instruments placed on the market before 1st January 2014.

(e) Industrial monitoring and control instruments placed on the market before 1st January 2017.

(e) Industrial monitoring and control instruments placed on the market before 1st January 2017.

(f) EEE which benefited from an exemption and was placed on the market before that exemption expired.

 

(f) EEE which benefited from an exemption and was placed on the market before that exemption expired, as far as the relevant exemption is concerned.

Amendment  47

Proposal for a directive

Article 4 - paragraph 4 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

4a. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to the re-use of spare parts recovered from EEE put on the market before 1 July 2006 in equipment placed on the market before July 2016, under the condition that re-use takes place in auditable closed-loop business-to-business return systems, and that re-use of parts is notified to the consumer.

Justification

To ensure resource efficiency, the EU needs to further promote re-use. The premature disposal, destruction or substitution of well-functioning and re-usable spare parts, due to the fact that they have been put on the market before 1st July 2006 and do not comply to RoHS restrictions, would cause unnecessary environmental burden. Not allowing this temporary exemption will lead to disposal of the entire equipment including a majority of RoHS compliant parts. As re-use takes place in a closed return system, the end-of-life of these parts will be appropriately controlled and managed.

Amendment  48

Proposal for a directive

Article 4 - paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to active implantable medical devices. By 2020 the Commission shall review the exclusion of active implantable medical devices with a view to propose inclusion.

5. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to active implantable medical devices. By 2020 the Commission shall review the exclusion of active implantable medical devices with a view to assessing the availability of suitable, safe and reliable alternatives based on scientific and technological advice and to propose inclusion.

Justification

Intended to ensure that there is no conflict with the need to ensure that active implantable medical devices are available.

Amendment  49

Proposal for a directive

Article 4 - paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to the applications listed in Annexes V and VI .

6. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to the applications listed in Annexes V, VI and VIa.

(Correction of an oversight, replacing amendment 33. Linked to the amendments of Article 2(1) and 4(1a), Annex I and Annex VIa)

Justification

The introduction of an open scope requires a separate Annex to allow for applications exempted from the ban in Article 4(1) for EEE that were currently not in the scope of RoHS as not falling under any of the 10 first categories. There needs to be a possibility for exemptions from the new restriction proposed in paragraph 1.

Amendment  50

Proposal for a directive

Article 4 - paragraph 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

7. When there is an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment, arising from the use of substances, and in particular the substances listed in Annex III, which needs to be addressed on a Community-wide basis, the list of prohibited substances in Annex IV shall be reviewed using a methodology based on the process set out in Articles 69 to 72 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006. Those measures designed to amend non essential elements of this Directive shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 18(2)

deleted

(Linked to the amendment reinstating Article 6 of RoHS in a modified form)

Justification

RoHS is a one-issue directive: restricting hazardous substances in EEE. It is not acceptable to delegate the power for decisions on the very essence of RoHS to comitology, let alone to a methodology in comitology which is yet to be defined, all the more that the legislator clearly mandated the Commission to make such proposals in co-decision (Art. 6). And doing so would mean no new restrictions now, which is against the recommendations by the Commission study. To maintain the driving force of RoHS, new restrictions need to be adopted now, and not put off to an undefined time in the future.

Amendment  51

Proposal for a directive

Article 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The Commission shall, for the purposes of adapting the annexes to scientific and technical progress, adopt the following measures:

1. The Commission shall, for the purposes of adapting Annexes V, VI and VIa to scientific and technical progress and taking into account the criteria laid down in Article 6a, adopt the following measures:

(a) any necessary amendments to Annex II.

 

(b) Include materials and components of EEE in Annexes V and VI where either of the following conditions is fulfilled:

(a) Include materials and components of EEE for specific applications in Annexes V, VI and VIa where either of the following conditions is fulfilled:

- their elimination or substitution via design changes or materials and components which do not require any of the materials or substances referred to in Article 4(1) is  scientifically or technically  impracticable;

- their elimination or substitution, via design changes or materials and components which do not require any of the materials or substances referred to in Article 4(1), is  technically  impracticable;

 

- the availability and reliability of substitutes is not ensured,

- the reliability of substitutes is not ensured,

- the negative environmental health consumer safety or socio-economic  impacts caused by substitution are likely to outweigh the environmental, health or consumer safety and/or socio-economic  benefits thereof;

- the negative environmental, health and consumer safety impacts caused by substitution are likely to outweigh the environmental, health and consumer safety benefits thereof based, where relevant, on a life-cycle assessment;

(c) delete materials and components of EEE from Annexes V and VI where the conditions set out in point (b) are no longer fulfilled.

(b) delete materials and components of EEE from Annexes V and VI where the conditions set out in point (a) are no longer fulfilled.

Those measures designed to amend non essential elements of this directive shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 18(2).

The Commission shall adopt any such measure by means of an individual delegated act in accordance with Article 18.

2. Measures adopted in accordance with point (b) of paragraph 1 shall have a maximum validity period of four years and may be renewed. The Commission shall decide in due time on any application for renewal that is submitted no later than 18 months before an exemption expires.

2. Measures adopted in accordance with point (a) of paragraph 1 shall have a validity period of up to four years for categories 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 11 of Annex I, and a validity period of up to eight years for equipment in category 8 and 9 of Annex I. The validity period shall be decided on a case-by-case basis. Such measures may be renewed.

 

The Commission shall take into account socio-economic impacts as defined in Annex XVI of Regulation (EC) 1907/2006 when deciding on the duration of an exemption or the renewal of an exemption.

 

Where the Commission considers that more than the time until application of the prohibition or until expiry of the exemption, as the case may be, is necessary to ensure adequate availability of substitutes, including reasons due to intellectual property restrictions, it shall grant a grace period after application of the prohibition or expiry of the exemption. The duration of the grace period shall be decided on a case-by-case basis and shall not exceed 18 months from the application of the prohibition or the expiry of the exemption.

 

The specific exemptions in Annexes V, VI and VIa shall indicate the date of granting the exemption, of its renewal, of its expiry, and of the grace period, as applicable.

 

2a. Applications for granting, renewing or deleting an exemption from Article 4(1) shall be made to the Commission in accordance with Annex VIb. An application for renewal of an exemption shall reflect the latest situation.

 

2b. The Commission shall:

 

(a) acknowledge receipt of an application in writing within 15 days of its receipt. The acknowledgement shall state the date of receipt of the application;

 

(b) assign a number to the application, which is to be used for all correspondence regarding the application until the review is deemed to be complete;

 

(c) inform without delay the Member States of the application and shall make the application and any supplementary information supplied by the applicant

available to them;

 

(d) make a summary of the application available to the public.

 

(e) carry out an independent study on the justification of the application.

 

2c. Applications shall be submitted not later than 18 months before the prohibition applies, or before the exemption expires, as the case may be.

 

The Commission shall take a decision not later than 6 months before the prohibition applies, or before the exemption expires, as the case may be. In the event that the Commission has not taken a decision by that time, the exemption shall be valid or remain valid until six months after the Commission has taken a decision.

3. Before Annexes are amended, the Commission shall inter alia consult producers of electrical and electronic equipment, recyclers, treatment operators, environmental organisations and employee and consumer associations.

3. Before Annexes V, VI and VIa are amended, the Commission shall inter alia consult economic operators, recyclers, treatment operators, environmental organisations and employee and consumer associations. Comments received by the Commission in the context of such consultations shall be made publicly available. The Commission shall provide an account of the information it receives and make it publicly available.

4. As long as materials or components are included in Annexes V and VI to this Directive, on the basis of Article 5(1)(b) of this Directive, those applications shall also be considered exempted from the authorisation requirements set out in Article 58(2) of the regulation (EC) No 1907/2006.

 

 

3a. Notwithstanding the inclusion of materials and components in Annex V, VI or VIa, Member States shall take all measures necessary to ensure that economic operators reduce exposure to the substances listed in Annex IV in materials and components of EEE for consumers, workers and the environment to as low a level as is technically and practically possible.

 

3b. The Commission shall, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 18, adopt a harmonised format for applications pursuant to paragraph 2a.

 

3c. The Commission shall adopt comprehensive guidance on the application of paragraph 2a, taking into account the situation of SMEs.

 

3d. The Commission may, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 18, modify Annex VIb to add further elements to it.

 

3e. Not later than [...*], the Commission shall decide , by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 18, which of the exemptions granted in Annex V shall also apply for equipment in categories 8 and 9. In the event that no decision is taken by that time, the exemptions granted in Annex V shall also be valid for such equipment.

 

* Insert date: eighteen months after entry into force of this Directive.

Amendment  52

Proposal for a directive

Article 5 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

Article 5a

 

Nanomaterials

 

1. Economic operators shall notify the Commission of the use of nanomaterials in EEE and provide all relevant data with regard to their safety for human health and the environment over their life cycle.

 

2. No later than [...*], having regard to the information provided by economic operators pursuant to paragraph 1, the Commission shall assess the safety of nanomaterials in EEE for human health and the environment, in particular during use and treatment, and communicate its findings in a report to the European Parliament and the Council. This report shall be accompanied by a legislative proposal for adequate risk management of nanomaterials in EEE, if necessary.

 

3. Economic operators shall label EEE that contains nanomaterials that can lead to exposure of consumers no later than [...**].

 

4. The Commission shall develop a standard for the identification and detection of nanomaterials by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 18 no later than [...***]..

 

5. The Commission shall develop detailed rules for the application of the labelling requirements of paragraph 3 by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 18 no later than [...***]..

 

* Insert date: 36 months after entry into force of the Directive.

 

** Insert date: 24 months after entry into force of the Directive.

 

*** Insert date: 18 months after entry into force of the Directive.

Amendment  53

Proposal for a directive

Article 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Implementing measures

Delegated acts

The Commission shall adopt detailed rules for:

No later than [...*], the Commission shall adopt, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 18, detailed rules for:

- applications for the exemption including a format and types of information to be provided when introducing those applications, including analysis of the alternatives and, if suitable alternatives are available, substitution plans as referred to in Regulation (EC) 1907/2006.

 

- Complying with the maximum concentration values of Article (4)(2)

- complying with the maximum concentration values of Article (4)(2), inter alia by defining a de minimis volume, and specific rules for surface coatings,

 

- sampling and inspection of electrical and electronic equipment,

 

- a harmonised format for a material declaration for EEE materials, components and parts, including details of the concentration of substances regulated under this Directive,

- The implementation of Article 5(2), taking into account the need for legal certainty for economic operators pending a Commission Decision on renewal of exemptions.

- the application of the labelling requirements for nanomaterials of Article 5a(3).

Those measures designed to amend non essential elements of this directive shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 18(2).

 

 

* Insert date: eighteen months after entry into force of this Directive.

Amendment  54

Proposal for a directive

Article 6 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

Article 6a

 

Review

 

Before [...*], and periodically thereafter, the Commission shall, taking account of the precautionary principle, and based on an impact assessment, review and amend the list of prohibited substances in Annex IV if it is considered that a substance, or a group of similar substances in EEE or in the waste derived from it, is detrimental to the environmentally sound recovery or disposal of waste electrical and electronic equipment, or has an adverse impact on human health or the environment during use of EEE or treatment of waste EEE.

 

Particular attention shall be paid during that review to whether such substances or groups of substances:

 

(a) could have a negative impact on the possibilities for preparing for the reuse of EEE or for recycling of materials from WEEE;

 

(b) could give rise to uncontrolled or diffuse release to the environment of the substance or of hazardous residues, transformation or degradation products thereof during its life cycle, and in particular during the preparing for reuse, recycling or other treatment of materials from WEEE, including during sub-standard operations in the European Union and in third countries;

 

(c) could result in unacceptable exposure of workers involved in the collection, reuse, recycling or treatment of WEEE;

 

(d) could give rise to significant quantities of secondary hazardous waste during the preparation for reuse, recycling or other treatment of materials from WEEE;

 

(e) could be replaced by safer substitutes or alternative technologies via design changes or materials and components which have less negative impacts on environmentally sound recovery or disposal of waste EEE or less negative impacts on human health and the environment.

 

During that review, the Commission shall consult interested parties including economic operators, recyclers, treatment operators, environmental organisations and employee and consumer associations. The Commission shall also take into account any relevant dossier submitted to the European Chemical Agency under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 or other EU legislation. It shall also take into account the possibility of granting exemptions for those applications where such substitutes or alternative technologies are not yet available.

 

The Commission shall adopt measures to extend the scope of Annex IV, as appropriate, by those dates and periodically thereafter, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 18.

 

A Member State or the European Parliament may request the Commission at any time to submit such a proposal. Such a request shall be duly justified on the basis of the criteria set out in this Article. The Commission shall consider the request and adopt measures, if appropriate, no later than twelve months after the reception of the request, by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 18.

 

* Insert date: four years after entry into force of the Directive.

 

** Insert date: eight years after entry into force of the Directive.

Amendment  55

Proposal for a directive

Article 6 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

Article 6b

 

Adaptation to REACH

 

When new limitations on the placing of the market with regard to substances used in EEE are adopted pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the relevant Annexes of this Directive shall be amended accordingly, corresponding to the sunset date for substances of very high concern for which no authorisation was granted, or to the date of application of the restriction, as the case may be.

 

The Commission shall adopt such measures by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 18.

(Replacement of amendment 49 by the rapporteur. Linked to the replacement of the former "regulatory procedure with scrutiny" with the new procedure of delegated acts under Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.)

Justification

A mechanism needs to be introduced to allow that restrictions or phase-outs under authorisation as adopted under REACH are carried over into RoHS.

Amendment  56

Proposal for a directive

Article 7 - introductory part (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

Member States shall ensure that:

 

(This amendment will necessitate consequential changes throughout the article; paragraphs will become points and their grammatical structure will have to be adapted accordingly.)

Justification

This is a correction of a drafting error in the Commission proposal. A directive cannot directly establish obligations on economic operators. It can only establish obligations on Member States to ensure that economic operators take certain action.

Amendment  57

Proposal for a directive

Article 7 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Manufacturers shall draw up the required technical documentation and carry out the internal production control procedure set out in module A of Annex II to Decision No 768/2008/EC or have it carried out.

2. Manufacturers draw up the required technical documentation and carry out the internal production control procedure set out in module A of Annex II to Decision No 768/2008/EC or have it carried out, unless specific legislation requires technical documentation and internal control procedures that are at least as strict as the procedure set out in that module.

Where compliance of an EEE with the applicable requirements has been demonstrated by that procedure, manufacturers shall draw up an EC declaration of conformity and affix the CE marking.

Where compliance of an EEE with the applicable requirements has been demonstrated by those procedures, manufacturers draw up an EC declaration of conformity and affix the CE marking.

Justification

Where comparable legislation already applies (e.g. for medical devices), and where it contains at least the elements specified in Annex VII, it should be acceptable to provide the declaration of conformity pursuant to that legislation to avoid double bureaucracy.

Amendment  58

Proposal for a directive

Article 7 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. When deemed appropriate with regard to the risks presented by a product, manufacturers shall, to protect the health and safety of consumers, carry out sample testing of marketed EEE, investigate, and, if necessary, keep a register of complaints, of non-conforming EEE and product recalls, and shall keep distributors informed of any such monitoring.

5. When deemed appropriate with regard to the risks to human health, the environment or environmentally sound recovery and disposal presented by a product, manufacturers carry out sample testing of marketed EEE, investigate, and, if necessary, keep a register of complaints, of non-conforming EEE and product recalls, and keep distributors informed of any such monitoring.

Justification

RoHS has been adopted to address the risks to human health and the environment, in particular during end-of life, due to the use of certain hazardous substances or materials in EEE. This should be reflected in the wording of this article.

Amendment  59

Proposal for a directive

Article 7 – paragraph 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

7. Manufacturers shall indicate their name, registered trade name or registered trade mark and the address at which they can be contacted on the EEE or, where that is not possible, on its packaging or in a document accompanying the EEE. The address must indicate a single point at which the manufacturer can be contacted.

7. Manufacturers indicate their name, registered trade name or registered trade mark and the address at which they can be contacted on the EEE or, where that is not possible, on its packaging or in a document accompanying the EEE. Where specific applicable legislation already sets out such requirements, the requirements in that legislation shall apply instead. The address must indicate a single point at which the manufacturer can be contacted.

Justification

Where comparable legislation already applies (e.g. for medical devices), the provisions of that legislation should apply.

Amendment  60

Proposal for a directive

Article 7 - paragraph 8

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

8. Manufacturers who consider or have reason to believe that an EEE which they have placed on the market is not in conformity with the applicable Community harmonisation legislation shall immediately take the necessary corrective measures to bring that EEE into conformity, to withdraw it or recall it, if appropriate. Furthermore, where the EEE presents a risk, manufacturers shall immediately inform the competent national authorities of the Member States in which they made the EEE available to that effect, giving details, in particular, of the non-compliance and of any corrective measures taken.

8. Manufacturers who consider or have reason to believe that an EEE which they have placed on the market is not in conformity with this Directive immediately take the necessary corrective measures to bring that EEE into conformity, to withdraw it or recall it, if appropriate. Furthermore, manufacturers immediately inform the competent national authorities of the Member States in which they made the EEE available to that effect, giving details, in particular, of the non-compliance and of any corrective measures taken.

Justification

The reference for conformity should be this Directive, which includes relevant references to Community harmonisation legislation, and not just the latter. The deletion of ‘shall’ follows from the correction of a drafting error by the Commission (see amendment 50. A directive cannot directly establish obligations on economic operators. It can only establish obligations on Member States to ensure that economic operators take certain action.

Amendment  61

Proposal for a directive

Article 7 - paragraph 9

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

9. Manufacturers shall, further to a reasoned request from a competent national authority, provide it with all the information and documentation necessary to demonstrate the conformity of the EEE, in a language which can be easily understood by that authority. They shall cooperate with that authority, at its request, on any action taken to eliminate the risks posed by EEE which they have placed on the market.

9. Manufacturers, further to a request from a competent national authority, provide it with all the information and documentation necessary to demonstrate the conformity of the EEE, in a language which can be easily understood by that authority.

Justification

Manufacturers’ obligations with regard to non-compliant products are already regulated in other New Approach Directives regulating product safety.

Amendment  62

Proposal for a directive

Article 8 - introductory part (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

Member States shall ensure that:

 

(This amendment will necessitate consequential changes throughout the article; paragraphs will become points and their grammatical structure will have to be adapted accordingly.)

Amendment  63

Proposal for a directive

Article 8 - paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. A manufacturer may, by a written mandate, appoint an authorised representative.

1. A manufacturer has the possibility to appoint an authorised representative by written mandate.

The obligations laid down in Article 7(1) and the drawing up of technical documentation shall not form part of the authorised representative’s mandate

The obligations laid down in Article 7(1) and the drawing up of technical documentation shall not form part of the authorised representative’s mandate

Justification

Change in the wording as a consequence of the new introductory part (see amendment 50)./

Amendment  64

Proposal for a directive

Article 8- paragraph 2 - point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) keep the EC declaration of conformity and the technical documentation at the disposal of national surveillance authorities for ten years;

(a) keep the EC declaration of conformity and the technical documentation at the disposal of national surveillance authorities for ten years after the EEE has been placed on the market;

Justification

The reference to ‘made available on the market’ should be replaced by ‘placed on the market’. The New Legislative Framework always refers to “placed on the market” when defining the starting date for the time period for which the Declaration of Conformity must be retained. This is because “placing on the market” means “the first making available of a product on the Community market” (Article R1(2) of Decision No 768/2008/EC) and which is a therefore single fixed date. In contrast, a product can have multiple "made available" dates and such reference would thus lead to legal uncertainty.

Amendment  65

Proposal for a directive

Article 9 - introductory part (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

Member States shall ensure that:

 

(This amendment will necessitate consequential changes throughout the article; paragraphs will become points and their grammatical structure will have to be adapted accordingly.)

Amendment  66

Proposal for a directive

Article 9- paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. Importers shall indicate their name, registered trade name or registered trade mark and the address at which they can be contacted on the EEE or, where that is not possible, on its packaging or in a document accompanying the EEE.

3. Unless the authorised representative’s name and address is indicated, the importers indicate their name, registered trade name or registered trade mark and the address at which they can be contacted on the EEE or on its packaging or in a document accompanying the EEE. Where specific applicable legislation already sets out such requirements, the requirements in that legislation shall apply instead.

Justification

Naming the importer in addition to naming the authorised representative is unnecessary and creates unnecessary administrative burden. This is especially the case when model is imported by several parties. This would avoid unnecessary administrative burden for industry and confusion for customers.

Amendment  67

Proposal for a directive

Article 9 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. When deemed appropriate with regard to the risks presented by an EEE, importers shall, to protect the health and safety of consumers, carry out sample testing of marketed EEE, investigate, and, if necessary, keep a register of complaints, of non-conforming EEE and EEE recalls, and shall keep distributors informed of such monitoring.

5. When deemed appropriate with regard to the risks to human health, the environment or environmentally sound recovery and disposal presented by an EEE, importers carry out sample testing of marketed EEE, investigate, and, if necessary, keep a register of complaints, of non-conforming EEE and EEE recalls, and shall keep distributors informed of such monitoring.

Justification

RoHS has been adopted to address the risks to human health and the environment, in particular during end-of life, due to the use of certain hazardous substances or materials in EEE. This should be reflected in the wording of this article.

Amendment  68

Proposal for a directive

Article 9- paragraph 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

7. Importers shall, for ten years, keep a copy of the EC declaration of conformity at the disposal of the market surveillance authorities and ensure that the technical documentation can be made available to those authorities, upon request.

7. Importers keep, for ten years after the EEE was placed on the market, a copy of the EC declaration of conformity at the disposal of the market surveillance authorities and ensure that the technical documentation can be made available to those authorities, upon request.

(Replacing amendment 59)

Justification

The ten-year timeline needs a clear starting point.

Amendment  69

Proposal for a directive

Article 10 - introductory part (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

Member States shall ensure that:

 

(This amendment will necessitate consequential changes throughout the article; paragraphs will become points and their grammatical structure will have to be adapted accordingly.)

Amendment  70

Proposal for a directive

Article 10- paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. When making an EEE available on the market distributors shall act with due care in relation to the requirements applicable.

1. When making an EEE available on the market distributors act with due care in relation to the requirements applicable, in particular that the EEE bears the CE marking, that it is accompanied by the required documents in a language which can be easily understood by consumers and other end-users in the Member State in which the EEE is to be made available on the market, and that the manufacturer and the importer have complied with the requirements set out in Articles 7(6) and 7(7) and Article 9(3).

Justification

It is appropriate to highlight specific provisions in the context of the due care obligation of distributors.

Amendment  71

Proposal for a directive

Article 10 - paragraph 2 - subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Before making an EEE available on the market distributors shall verify that the EEE bears the CE marking, that it is accompanied by the required documents in a language which can be easily understood by consumers and other end-users in the Member State in which the EEE is to be made available on the market, and that the manufacturer and the importer have complied with the requirements set out in Article 7(5) and (6) and Article 9(3).

deleted

Justification

This provision would mean that every distributor would have to open up the original packaging of every EEE before making it available on the market. This would go too far. Instead, it is proposed to highlight these issues in the context of the 'due care' obligation in Article 10(1). This ensures that distributors are responsible for ensuring that they only make available products that comply with these provisions, without obliging them to unpack every single item.

Amendment  72

Proposal for a directive

Article 11

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

An importer or distributor shall be considered a manufacturer for the purposes of this Directive and he shall be subject to the obligations of the manufacturer under Article 7, where he places an EEE on the market under his name or trademark or modifies an EEE already placed on the market in such a way that compliance with the applicable requirements may be affected.

Member States shall ensure that an importer or distributor is considered a manufacturer for the purposes of this Directive and that he is subject to the obligations of the manufacturer under Article 7, where he places an EEE on the market under his name or trademark or modifies EEE already placed on the market in such a way that compliance with the applicable requirements may be affected.

Justification

This is a correction of a drafting error in the Commission proposal (see amendment 50). A directive cannot directly establish obligations on economic operators. It can only establish obligations on Member States to ensure that economic operators take certain action.

Amendment  73

Proposal for a directive

Article 12

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Economic operators shall, on request, identify the following to the market surveillance authorities, for ten years:

Member States shall ensure that economic operators, on request, identify the following to the market surveillance authorities, for ten years

Justification

This is a correction of a drafting error in the Commission proposal (see amendment 50). A directive cannot directly establish obligations on economic operators. It can only establish obligations on Member States to ensure that economic operators take certain action.

Amendment  74

Proposal for a directive

Article 13 - paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The EC declaration of conformity shall state that the fulfilment of requirements specified in Article 4 has been demonstrated.

1. The EC declaration of conformity shall state that the fulfilment of requirements specified in this Directive has been demonstrated.

Justification

Conformity should be declared with the entire Directive.

Amendment  75

Proposal for a directive

Article 13 - paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. The EC declaration of conformity shall have the model structure and shall contain the elements specified in Annex VII and shall be updated.

2. The EC declaration of conformity shall have the model structure and shall contain the elements specified in Annex VII and shall be updated, unless specific legislation requiring a declaration of conformity that contains at least the elements specified in Annex VII applies. It shall be translated into the language or languages required by the Member State in which market the product is placed or made available on the market by a manufacturer, importer or distributor.

Justification

Where comparable legislation already applies (e.g. for medical devices), and where it contains at least the elements specified in Annex VII, it should be acceptable to provide that declaration of conformity to avoid double bureaucracy.The EC declaration of conformity shall be available in the respective official languages of each Member State in which the EEE is placed on the market or made available on the market.

Amendment  76

Proposal for a directive

Article 15 - paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. The CE marking shall be followed by the identification number of the notified body, where that body is involved in the production control phase..

deleted

The identification number of the notified body shall be affixed by the body itself or, under its instructions, by the manufacturer or his authorised representative

 

Justification

This is a correction of an error in the Commission proposal. There are no notified bodies for RoHS.

Amendment  77

Proposal for a directive

Article 16 - paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Member States shall presume electrical and electronic equipment bearing the CE marking as conforming to this Directive.

deleted

Justification

Because the specified maximum concentration values (i.e. % limits) for RoHS apply at the "homogeneous material" level, compliance testing must also occur at this level. At the finished product level, it is possible to test a finished product, but it is not possible to break the finished product down to thousands of homogeneous materials and test each of them individually. Under the current RoHS it is impractical for manufacturers of finished products to undertake their own testing. Manufacturers therefore control their supply chain and use documentation to demonstrate compliance.

Amendment  78

Proposal for a directive

Article 16 - paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Electrical and electronic equipment on which tests and measurements have been performed in accordance with harmonised standards, the references of which have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be presumed to comply with all the relevant requirements of this Directive to which such standards relate.

Materials, components, or parts of electrical and electronic equipment which have passed tests or measurements, or which have been assessed, in accordance with harmonised standards, the references of which have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be presumed to comply with all the relevant requirements of this Directive to which such standards relate.

Justification

Finished products cannot be "tested" to prove compliance with this Directive, they can only be "assessed" against specific conformity standards.

Amendment  79

Proposal for a directive

Article 16 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

Article 16a

 

Formal objection to a harmonised standard

 

Article R9 of Decision No 768/2008/EC on a common framework for the marketing of products shall apply.

Justification

It should be possible for a Member State or the Commission to formally object to a harmonized standard. Amendment 66 was an exact copy of Article R9 from the new legislative framework (NLF), which contains comitology provisions. Due to the new Treaty, the comitology procedures no longer apply for new legislative acts. However, the recast of RoHS cannot align acts other than RoHS to the provisions of the new Treaty. To introduce the possibility for a formal objection to a harmonised standard without prejudice to a future alignment of NLF, there should only be a reference to the relevant article.

Amendment  80

Proposal for a directive

Article 18

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Committee

Exercise of the delegation

1. The Commission shall be assisted by the Committee set up by Article 18 of European Parliament and Council Directive on waste 2006/12/EC of 5 April 2006.

1. The powers to adopt delegated acts referred to in Articles 5 and 6 shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time.

2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5a(1) to (4) and Article 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC shall apply, having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof.

2. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.

 

3. The powers to adopt delegated acts are conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in Articles 18a and 18b.

(Linked to the replacement of the former "regulatory procedure with scrutiny" with the new procedure of delegated acts under Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.)

Justification

In the context of this directive, it seems appropriate to confer the powers on the Commission to adopt delegated acts for an indeterminate period of time.

Amendment  81

Proposal for a directive

Article 18 - paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

1a. The Commission shall ensure that in the conduct of its activities it observes a balanced participation of Member States' representatives and all interested parties concerned, such as industry, including SMEs and craft industry, environmental protection groups and consumer organisations. Those parties shall meet in a consultation forum. The rules of procedure of the forum shall be established by the Commission.

Justification

To reduce legal uncertainty and economic risks the exemptions mechanism should become more workable, clear and transparent. The consultation of stakeholder should be improved in establishing clearer rules of procedures. Therefore, a Consultation Forum similar to Directive 2009/125EC on Eco Design should be created to ensure a continuous and structured stakeholder consultation mechanism in the implementation process of the directive.

Amendment  82

Proposal for a directive

Article 18 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

Article 18a

 

Revocation of the delegation

 

1. The delegation of power referred to in Article 18 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council

 

2. The institution which has commenced an internal procedure for deciding whether to revoke the delegation of power shall endeavour to inform the other institution and the Commission within a reasonable time before the final decision is taken, indicating the delegated powers which could be subject to revocation and possible reasons for a revocation.

 

3. The decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the powers specified in that decision. It shall take effect immediately or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of the delegated acts already in force. It shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

(Linked to the replacement of the former "regulatory procedure with scrutiny" with the new procedure of delegated acts under Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.)

Justification

The possibility to revoke the delegation of powers should be included.

Amendment  83

Proposal for a directive

Article 18 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

Article 18b

 

Objections to delegated acts

 

1. The European Parliament or the Council may object to a delegated act within a period of two months from the date of notification. At the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council this period shall be extended by two months.

 

2. If, on expiry of that period, neither the European Parliament nor the Council has objected to the delegated act, it shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and shall enter into force at the date stated therein.

The delegated act may be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and enter into force before the expiry of that period, if the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission of their intention not to raise objections.

 

3. If the European Parliament or the Council objects to a delegated act, it shall not enter into force. The institution which objects shall state the reasons for objecting to the delegated act.

(Linked to the replacement of the former "regulatory procedure with scrutiny" with the new procedure of delegated acts under Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.)

Justification

A two+two-month procedure should be included for objections to delegated acts. This would allow a relatively fast entry into force in non-controversial cases, while granting sufficient time in case of controversial cases.

Amendment  84

Proposal for a directive

Article 20 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Member States shall adopt and publish, by at the latest [18 month after this Directive’s publication in the Official Journal of the European Union], the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.

Member States shall adopt and publish, by at the latest [18 month after this Directive’s publication in the Official Journal of the European Union], the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.

They shall apply those provisions from […].

They shall apply those provisions from […*].

 

* Insert date: 18 months after the publication of this Directive in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Justification

The Commission did not specify when the provisions shall apply, as they wanted to leave this open to the legislator. In their views, there is no need to defer the application of the measures beyond the date of transposition into national law. It is therefore proposed that Member States shall apply the provisions from 18 months after publication of the Directive.

Amendment  85

Proposal for a directive

Annex I

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Categories of electrical and electronic equipment covered by this Directive

Categories of electrical and electronic equipment covered by this Directive

1. Large household appliances

1. Large appliances

2. Small household appliances

2. Small appliances

3. IT and telecommunications equipment

3. IT and telecommunications equipment

4. Consumer equipment

4. Consumer equipment

5. Lighting equipment

5. Lighting equipment

6. Electrical and electronic tools (with the exception of large-scale stationary industrial tools)

6. Electrical and electronic tools

7. Toys, leisure and sports equipment

7. Toys, leisure and sports equipment

8. Medical devices

8. Medical devices.

9. Monitoring and control instruments including industrial monitoring and control instruments

9. Monitoring and control instruments including industrial monitoring and control instruments

10. Automatic dispensers

10. Automatic dispensers

 

11. Other electrical and electronic equipment not covered by any of the categories above

Justification

The term "household" has led to confusion and should thus be deleted. It is difficult to see why large scale industrial tools should be excluded from the scope, given that industrial monitoring and control instruments are included. In light of the different scope of restrictions and corresponding timelines for different categories of EEE, a list of categories of EEE should be maintained, but completed by a category that catches all EEE that is not covered by any of the current categories. This would ensure an open scope while allowing differentiation between different categories.

Amendment  86

Proposal for a directive

Annex II

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

Annex deleted

Justification

RoHS should apply to all EEE, not just to certain categories. Annex II is very confusing: it is meant to be a “binding list of products”, yet the list is not exhaustive, but only gives certain examples: “...appliances, including”. This does not solve the problem of different interpretations of these categories. Annex II should be deleted, instead the general definition of EEE should apply.

Amendment  87

Proposal for a directive

Annex III

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Substances referred to in Article 4(7)

Substances referred to in Article 6a

1. Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD)

1. Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD) and all major diastereoisomers identified;

2. Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP)

2. Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP)

3. Butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP)

3. Butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP)

4. Dibutylphthalate (DBP)

4. Dibutylphthalate (DBP)

 

5. Arsenic compounds

 

6. Beryllium and its compounds

 

7. Antimony trioxide

 

8. Dinickeltrioxide

 

9. Bisphenol A

 

10. Organobromines

 

11. Organochlorines

 

12. Polyvinylchloride (PVC)

 

13. Dinitrotoluene

 

14. Diaminodiphenylmethane (MDA)

 

15. 5-tert-butyl-2,4,6-trinitro-m-xylene (musk xylene)

 

16. Alkanes, chloro (Short Chain Chlorinated Paraffins)

 

17. Aluminosilicate RefractoryCeramic Fibres

 

18. Anthracene

 

19. Anthracene oil

 

20. Anthracene oil, anthracene paste

 

21. Anthracene oil, anthracene paste, anthracene fraction

 

22. Anthracene oil, anthracene paste,distn. lights

 

23. Anthracene oil, anthracene-low

 

24. Bis(tributyltin)oxide (TBTO)

 

25. Cobalt dichloride

 

26. Diarsenic pentaoxide

 

27. Diarsenic trioxide

 

28. Diisobutyl phthalate

 

29. Lead chromate

 

30. Lead chromate molybdate sulphate red

 

31. Lead hydrogen arsenate

 

32. Lead sulfochromate yellow

 

33. Pitch, coal tar, high temp.

 

34. Sodium dichromate

 

35. Triethyl arsenate

 

36. Tris(2-chloroethyl)phosphate

 

37. Zirconia Aluminosilicate Refractory Ceramic Fibres

Justification

Amendment  88

Proposal for a directive

Annex IV

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Prohibited substances referred to in Article 4(7) and maximum concentration values tolerated by weight in homogeneous materials

Prohibited substances referred to in Article 4(7) and maximum concentration values tolerated by weight in homogeneous materials

Lead (0,1%)

Lead (0,1%)

Mercury (0,1%)

Mercury (0,1%)

Cadmium (0,01%)

Cadmium (0,01%)

Hexavalent chromium (0,1%)

Hexavalent chromium (0,1%)

Polybrominated biphenyls (PBB) (0,1%)

Polybrominated biphenyls (PBB) (0,1%)

Polybrominated diphenyl ethers(PBDE) (0,1%)

Polybrominated diphenyl ethers(PBDE) (0,1%)

 

Nanosilver (detection limit)

 

Long multi-walled carbon nanotubes (detection limit)

Justification

Nanosilver is already being used as an antimicrobial in EEE, e.g. as a coating for mobile phones, or even released by washing machines. Apart from such uses being superfluous, they endanger human health and the environment. Carbon nanotubes may be used in EEE, yet it has been shown that they can have asbestos-like properties. Respected authorities such as the UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, the UK Health and Safety Executive or the German Environment Agency have raised concern about these nanomaterials or even recommended against their use.

Amendment  89

Proposal for a directive

Annex V – title and introductory part (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Applications exempted from the ban in Article 4(1)

Applications exempted from the ban in Article 4(1) as regards categories 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10

 

Unless otherwise stated, the exemptions of the applications in this Annex shall expire on […*].

 

* Insert date: 48 months after entry into force.

Justification

Clarification of the Commission's intention that Annex V is not valid for categories 8 and 9. This is to be read in conjunction with compromise 2a point 4a, which creates a review mechanism of the application of the exemptions in this Annex for categories 8 and 9, with default application of the exemptions in this annex to categories 8 and 9 in case no decision is taken within 18 months.

Amendment  90

Proposal for a directive

Annex VI – subheading 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Equipment utilising or detecting ionising radiation

deleted

Justification

ERA concluded in its study asked for by the Commission (2006-0383) that the inclusion of medical devices in the scope would be possible, but manufacturers would require certain exemptions. ERA also recommended that a temporary exemption for lead in solders should be re-considered nearer to the time that the RoHS Directive is amended. In the course of a new ERA Report (2009-0394) manufacturers of some complex medical apparatus have discovered that these cannot yet ensure long term reliability without lead. This should be taken into consideration in the recast.

Amendment  91

Proposal for a directive

Annex VI – introductory part (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

Unless stated differently, the applications in this Annex shall expire eight years after the dates referred to in Article 4(3).

Amendment  92

Proposal for a directive

Annex VI – point 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5 Lead in shielding for ionising radiation

5 Lead in shielding, collimators and scattering control devices and grids for ionising radiation

Justification

See justification to Annex VI - introductory part

Amendment  93

Proposal for a directive

Annex VI – point 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6 Lead in X-ray test objects.

6 Lead in ionising radiation test objects and X-ray markers

Justification

See justification to Annex VI - introductory part.

Amendment  94

Proposal for a directive

Annex VI – point 8

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

8 Radioactive cadmium isotope source for portable X-ray fluorescence spectrometers Sensors, detectors and electrodes (plus item 1)

8 Radioactive cadmium isotope source for portable X-ray fluorescence spectrometers

Justification

See justification to Annex VI - introductory part

Amendment  95

Proposal for a directive

Annex VI – subtitle

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Others

deleted

Justification

See justification for Annex VI - introductory part.

Amendment  96

Proposal for a directive

Annex VI – point 10

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

10 Lead and cadmium in atomic adsorption spectroscopy lamps

10 Lead and cadmium in atomic absorption spectroscopy lamps

Justification

See justification to Annex VI - introductory part.

Amendment  97

Proposal for a directive

Annex VI - point 11

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

11 Lead in alloys as a superconductor and thermal conductor in MRI

11 Lead in alloys as a superconductor and thermal conductor in MRI and MEG

Justification

See justification to Annex VI - introductory part

Amendment  98

Proposal for a directive

Annex VI – point 17

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

17 Lead in solders in portable emergency defibrillators

17 Lead in solders in

 

- Class II portable defibrillators,

 

- Class II patient-worn devices and portable ultrasound equipment and portable patient monitoring equipment

Justification

See justification to Annex VI - introductory part.

Amendment  99

Proposal for a directive

Annex VI – point 20a – 20w (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

20a Lead in solders and in component terminations and connector terminals of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Magnetoencephalography that operate at temperatures lower than -50C

 

20b Lead in termination coatings of non-magnetic components used in Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Magnetoencephalography and solders used to bond these non-magnetic components

 

20c Lead in solders and in component termination coatings used for assembly of printed circuit boards of medical devices that include BGA, CSP, QFN, and similar devices and medical devices used for imaging including CT, PET, SPECT, MEG, MRI and molecular imaging and for medical devices used for radiation and particle therapy

 

20d Lead in solder used for assembly of printed circuit boards used for mounting semiconductor digital array detectors, e.g. cadmium zinc telluride and pin-grid array digital X-ray detectors

 

20e Lead and hexavalent chromium in components specifically designed for industry sectors that are out of scope of the RoHS directive and utilised as components in medical devices

 

20f Lead as a dry lubricant in copper and aluminium alloys for locations exposed to ionising radiation

 

20g Lead for vacuum-tight seals of image intensifiers

 

20h Hexavalent chromium in in-situ alkali dispensers

 

20i Cadmium in output phosphors of image intensifiers

 

20j Lead acetate marker for use in stereotactic head-frames for use with CT and MRI

 

20k Lead and hexavalent chromium in component parts from used X-ray tubes that were put onto the EU market prior to 1 January 2014 and re-used in new X-ray tubes from 1 January 2014 until 31 December 2019.

 

20l Mercury in straight fluorescent lamps for special purposes.

 

20m Lead in the glass of cathode ray tubes, electronic components and fluorescent tubes.

 

20n Lead as an alloying element in steel containing up to 0.35% lead by weight, aluminium containing up to 0.4% lead by weight and as a copper alloy containing up to 4% lead by weight

 

20o

 

- Lead in high melting temperature type solders (i.e. lead based alloys containing 85% by weight or more lead).

 

- Lead in solders for servers, storage and storage array systems, network infrastructure equipment for switching, signalling, transmission as well as network management for telecommunication.

 

- Lead in electronic ceramic parts (e.g. piezo-electronic devices).

 

20p Cadmium and its compounds in electrical contacts and cadmium plating except for applications banned under Directive 91/338/EEC amending Directive 76/769/EEC

 

20q Lead used in compliant pin connector systems

 

20r Lead and cadmium in optical and filter glass

 

20s Lead in solders consisting of more than two elements for the connection between the pins and the package of microprocessors with a lead content of more than 80% and less than 85% by weight.

 

20t Lead in solders to complete a viable electrical connection between semiconductor die and carrier within integrated circuit Flip Chip packages.

 

20u Lead in finishes of fine pitch components other than connectors with a pitch of 0.65 mm or less with NiFe lead frames and lead in finishes of fine pitch components other than connectors with a pitch of 0.65 mm or less with copper lead frames.

 

20v Lead in solders for the soldering to machines through hole discoidial and planar array ceramic multilayer capacitors.

 

20w Lead oxide in seal frit used for making window assemblies for Argon and Krypton laser tubes.

Justification

See justification for Annex VI - introductory part.

Amendment  100

Proposal for a directive

Annex VI a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

Annex VIa

 

Applications exempted from the ban in Article 4(1) as regards Category 11

 

Unless stated differently, the applications in this Annex shall expire four years after the date referred to in Article 2(1a).

Amendment  101

Proposal for a directive

Annex VI b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

 

Annex VIb

 

Application for exemption from Article 4(1) or for renewal or deletion of such an exemption

 

Applications may be submitted by a manufacturer, an authorised representative of a manufacturer, or any actor in the supply chain and shall include at least the following:

 

(a) the name, address and contact details of the applicant;

 

(b) information on the material or component and the specific uses of the substance in the material and component concerned and its particular characteristics;

 

(c) a verifiable and fully referenced justification on the basis of the conditions established in Article 5;

 

(d) an analysis of possible alternative substances, materials or designs on a life-cycle basis, including, when available, information and peer-reviewed studies about independent research, and development activities by the applicant;

 

(e) an analysis of the availability of the alternatives referred to in point (d);

 

(f) a timetable for proposed actions by the applicant to develop, to request the development and/or to apply possible alternatives referred to in point (d);

 

(g) where appropriate, an indication of the information which should be regarded as proprietary accompanied by verifiable justification;

 

(h) a proposal for a precise and clear wording for the exemption;

 

(i) a summary of the application.

Amendment  102

Proposal for a directive

Annex VII - point 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6. Where applicable, references to the relevant harmonised standards used or references to the specifications in relation to which conformity is declared:

6. Where applicable, references to the relevant harmonised standards used or references to the technical specifications in relation to which conformity is declared:

Justification

This is an alignment in line with the introduction of a definition for a 'technical specification'.

Amendment  103

Proposal for a directive

Annex VII - point 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

7. Where applicable, the notified body ... (name, number) … performed … (description of intervention) … and issued the certificate: …

deleted

Justification

This is a correction of an error in the Commission proposal. There are no notified bodies for RoHS.

(1)

OJ C 306, 16.12.2009, p. 36–38

(2)

OJ C 141, 29.5.2010, p. 55–64


EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

"Some leading companies have voluntarily taken the process one step ahead to phase-out brominated and chlorinated organic substances, but that is not enough for solving the problems in the supply chain. We believe that only legislation can drive the whole supply chain to phase out hazardous substances and to produce HSF[hazardous substance free] products. To abide by the precautionary principle and to fulfill our corporate responsibility, Acer will proactively support RoHS 2.0 for the ban of all organo- Cl/Br Chemicals."

Acer Environment Progress - Halogen Free Products(1)

1. Background

According to the Commission, every year, in the EU alone, an estimated 9,3 million tonnes of electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) are sold annually, the biggest share of which are large household appliances and IT and telecommunication equipment. As the market continues to grow and innovation cycles become even shorter, the replacement of equipment accelerates, making waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) the fastest growing waste stream. WEEE arisings are estimated to grow to 12.3 million tonnes by 2020.

WEEE is a complex waste stream, including several hazardous substances. These substances, or their transformation products, can be released into the environment and damage human health, especially if not treated appropriately. Risks for human health and the environment are further increased by sub-standard recycling/recovery operations in developing countries.

According to Article 174(2) of the Treaty, environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source. The waste hierarchy in the waste framework directive gives first priority to prevention, which is defined inter alia as setting out waste prevention measures that reduce the content of harmful substances in materials and products.

The current RoHS Directive, adopted in 2003, based on a proposal made in 2000, sought to phase-out a first series of hazardous substances in EEE, namely certain heavy metals and two groups of brominated flame retardants. It has led to a reduction of more than 100,000 tonnes of these substances being disposed of and potentially released into the environment.

RoHS has been an important instrument in setting not just a European standard, but a global standard for manufacturers. It has not prevented the continued development of new products but the opposite - products were redesigned to be compliant with RoHS. And many companies are already going beyond that to phase out the use of halogenated compounds.

2. Key issues

The recast is an important opportunity to take this progress a step further. Your rapporteur will concentrate on explanations with regard to the new restrictions proposed, as these were specifically requested during the committee debate on 4 November 2009.

The other key issues, such as

- open scope (Article 2),

- the differentiation between RoHS and REACH (Recital 8 and Art. 4(7)),

- modifications of the criteria for exemptions (Article 5(1)),

- criteria for deciding on the duration of an exemption/grace periods (Article 5(2)),

- co-decision for future restrictions instead of comitology (Article 6)

should be sufficiently explained in the justifications of the relevant amendments.

Proposals for specific provisions on nanomaterials will be added in January 2010 following further evaluation of the situation.

3. New restrictions

The problem of hazardous substances in EEE, in particular with regard to waste treatment, has not been solved with RoHS 1.0. This was clear for the co-legislator already back in 2003. Article 6 of RoHS explicitly obliges the Commission to examine the feasibility of replacing other hazardous substances and materials used in EEE and to present proposals to extend the scope of Article 4, if appropriate.

a) Evidence about the negative impact of halogenated flame retardants and PVC

The Commission did study other hazardous substances and materials. It asked the Öko-Institut to look at substances not yet regulated under RoHS, to select candidate substances for potential inclusion into the RoHS Directive, to evaluate possible substitutes, and to propose policy options for each candidate substance(2). The Öko-Institut is reviewing exemptions from Article 4 of RoHS since 2005 for the Commission - it can thus be considered to be a reference authority on RoHS restrictions.

Halogenated flame retardants

The study states the following:

"the group of organobromine and organochlorine substances have been considered in the present study and their phase out from EEE is highly recommended by the authors".

The main reasons are the following:

- the potential to form dioxins and furans in case of uncontrolled fires (accidental fire) and upon co-combustion at lower temperatures or in not well functioning incinerators,

- the formation of dioxins and furans and further hazardous combustion products can only be avoided by the application of advanced disposal technologies.

However, advanced technologies do not even exist in all EU Member States, let alone in developing countries. And where they exist, there is no requirement to actually use them for these waste streams.

Further reasons for a phase-out can be found in the explanatory memorandum of the Commission proposal on WEEE and RoHS from 13 June 2000(3):

Halogenated substances contained in WEEE, in particular brominated flame retardants, are also of concern during ... plastic recycling. Due to the risk of generating dioxins and furans, recyclers usually abstain from recycling flame retarded plastics from WEEE. In view of the lack of proper identification of plastic containing flame retardants and the inherent difficulty in distinguishing flame retardant plastic from ordinary plastic, most recyclers do not process any plastic from WEEE."

The use of halogenated flame retardants is a direct impediment to recycling of plastics in WEEE as a whole.

The problems above have not been solved by phasing out only two groups of brominated flame retardants (PBDE and PBB) to date.

PVC

The Commission study makes the following recommendation:

"The phase out of PVC should ... have priority over selective risk management measures to guarantee a reduced release of PVC, of its additives and of hazardous combustion products".

The problems of PVC waste in general have been well-documented by the European Commission already in 2000 based on five studies. The findings were referred to explicitly in the Explanatory Memorandum of the proposal from 2000:

Significant quantities of PVC are contained in WEEE(4). There is substantial evidence supporting the view that PVC is not suitable for incineration, particularly in view of the quantity and the hazardous nature of the flue gas residues resulting from incineration.(5) In addition, losses of plasticizers, especially phthalates, from the landfilling of PVC are widely recognised and can have potential adverse effects on the human health and the environment.(6). It should also be noted that very little PVC waste, in particular in WEEE, is currently recycled(7).

Unfortunately, the evidence on PVC came too late for inclusion in RoHS. But the problem is still there - it needs to be tackled now!

b) Action by manufacturers

The electronics manufacturing industry already understood in 2003 the problems of halogenated substances as a whole. Major companies took individual action to convert to low-halogen (free of halogenated flame retardants and PVC)(8). There is now a global initiative to do so, and it is well advanced(9). According to Greenpeace, the market share of such products is already at 50% for mobile phones (Nokia, Sony Ericsson and Apple), and expected to be at over 40% for new PCs in the next 1-2 years (Acer and HP). This initiative also includes the supply chain (e.g. manufacturers of plastic components), which in turn crosses over to manufacturers of EEE of other categories.

If the electronics industry with its highly complex products can convert to low-halogen within the next few years, then it should be no problem for inter alia the fast moving white goods sector to do the same. As an example, Electrolux is offering PVC-free fridges in Sweden(10).

When such action is taken at the design stage, according to industry, it does not create extra costs. Instead, it will save society significant costs in terms of damage to health and the environment. But to be truly successful, economic operators need certainty which is best provided by a clear legislative framework.

c) Evidence about substitutes

Halogenated flame retardants

The Commission argues that the available data does not allow deciding on further restrictions of halogenated flame retardants. At the same time, they state that "some" information is available on the substitutes and that "it is settled that they do not present some of the hazards (such as persistence, bioaccumulation or toxicity for the halogen-free flame retardants)"(11)

There was a similar controversy over DecaBDE for many years. Having disregarded the availability of safer substitutes, the Commission had to concede in a study in 2007 that "substitutes do exist on the market ... and that literature data suggest that potential adverse environmental and human health effects of at least some substitutes may be minimal."(12)

Consequently, for DecaBDE, the Commission considers that "the remaining uncertainties about its toxicity and degradation to other banned products, as well as the commercial availability of substitutes justify maintaining the ban on this substance"(13).

It is difficult to understand why the same analysis should lead to a ban in one case (DecaBDE), but not in another similar case (other halogenated flame retardants).

PVC

The Commission does not question the availability of safer substitutes for PVC in its impact assessment, but only raises cost issues. If the external costs of PVC were internalised, its use would be prohibitively expensive. The fact that PVC is cheap cannot be an argument against its replacement, when it creates significant external costs due to the manifold well-documented problems of PVC waste treatment.

3. Conclusions

Prevention is better than cure. It is better to address environmental problems at the source - as indeed required as a priority by the Treaty and as implemented in the waste framework directive.

Therefore, your rapporteur suggests, based on

a) Commission studies on RoHS, PVC and halogenated flame retardants,

b) actions by economic operators and

c) information on substitutes

phasing out brominated and chlorinated flame retardants as well as PVC and its hazardous additives.

(1)

             http://www.acer-group.com/public/Sustainability/sustainability_main04-3.htm

The Acer Group is a family of four brands -- Acer, Gateway, Packard Bell and eMachines. It ranks as the world's third-largest company for total PC shipments, and is No. 2 for notebooks. Revenues in 2008 reached US$16.65 billion.

(2)

               http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/pdf/hazardous_substances_report.pdf

(3)

             COM(2000) 347 final

(4)

              According to M. Rohr, Umwelt Wirschaftsforum, No 1, 1992, more than 20% of the plastic used in electrical and electronic equipment is PVC.

(5)

              Environmental aspects of PVC (Copenhagen 1996), Danish Environmental Protection Agency Position Paper of the Netherlands on PVC (The Hague 1997), Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment. The influence of PVC on quantity and hazardousness of flue gas residues from incineration, Study for DG ENV, Bertin Technologies, 2000.

(6)

              The Behaviour of PVC in Landfill, Study for DG ENV, Argus in association with University Rotstock, 1999.

(7)

              Prognos, Study for DG XI, Mechanical recycling of PVC wastes, January 2000.

(8)

           http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/electronics/how-the-companies-line-up

(9)

           http://thor.inemi.org/webdownload/newsroom/Presentations/NEPCON_China_2009/HFR-Free_Conversion.pdf

(10)

           http://www.electrolux.se/node38.aspx?productID=18360

(11)

           Commission Impact Assessment of the RoHS recast, SEC(2008)2930

               http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52008SC2930:EN:NOT

(12)

           http://ecb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/Existing-Chemicals/Review_on_production_process_of_decaBDE.pdf

(13)

           Commission Impact Assessment of the RoHS recast, SEC(2008)2930


ANNEX: LETTER FROM THE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AFFAIRS

COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AFFAIRS

CHAIRMAN

Ref.: D(2009)61414

Mr Jo LEINEN

Chair of the Committee on Environment,

Public Health and Food Safety

ASP 12G205

Brussels

Subject:        Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (recast)

                    (COM(2008)809 - C7-0471/2008 - 2008/0240(COD

Dear Chairman,

The Committee on Legal Affairs, which I am honoured to chair, has examined the proposal referred to above, pursuant to Rule 87 on Recasting, as introduced into the Parliament's Rules of Procedure.

Paragraph 3 of that Rule reads as follows:

"If the committee responsible for legal affairs considers that the proposal does not entail any substantive changes other than those identified as such in the proposal, it shall inform the committee responsible.

In such a case, over and above the conditions laid down in Rules 156 and 157, amendments shall be admissible within the committee responsible only if they concern those parts of the proposal which contain changes.

However, if in accordance with point 8 of the Interinstitutional Agreement the committee responsible intends also to submit amendments to the codified parts of the Commission proposal, it shall immediately notify its intention to the Council and to the Commission, and the latter should inform the committee, prior to the vote pursuant to Rule 54, of its position on the amendments and whether or not it intends to withdraw the recast proposal."

Following the opinion of the Legal Service, whose representatives participated in the meetings of the Consultative Working Party examining the recast proposal, and in keeping with the recommendations of the draftsperson, the Committee on Legal Affairs considers that the proposal in question does not include any substantive changes other than those identified as such in the proposal or in the opinion of the Consultative Working Party and that, as regards the codification of the unchanged provisions of the earlier acts with those changes, the proposal contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts, without any change in their substance.

Furthermore, pursuant to Rules 87, the Committee on Legal Affairs considered that the technical adaptations suggested in the opinion of the abovementioned Working Party were necessary in order to ensure that the proposal complied with the recasting rules.

In conclusion, after discussing it at its meeting of 11 November 2009, the Committee on Legal Affairs, by 19 votes in favour and no abstentions(1), recommends that your Committee, as the committee responsible, proceed to examine the above proposal in keeping with its suggestions and in accordance with Rule 87.

Yours faithfully,

Klaus-Heiner LEHNE

Encl.: Opinion of the Consultative Working Party.

(1)

Klaus-Heiner Lehne (Chairman), Raffaele Baldassarre, Sebastian Valentin Bodu, Antonio López-Istúriz White, Tadeusz Zwiefka, Luigi Berlinguer, Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg, Bernhard Rapkay, Evelyn Regner, Alexandra Thein, Diana Wallis, Cecilia Wikström, Jiří Maštálka, Francesco Enrico Speroni, Kurt Lechner, Sergio Gaetano Cofferati, Edit Herczog, Edvard Kožušník, Sajjad Karim.


ANNEX: OPINION OF THE CONSULTATIVE WORKING PARTY OF THE LEGAL SERVICES OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMISSION

 

 

 

GROUPE CONSULTATIF

DES SERVICES JURIDIQUES

 

                     Brussels, 26.03.2009

OPINION

FOR THE ATTENTION OF           THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

                                                       THE COUNCIL

                                                       THE COMMISSION

Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment

COM(2008) 809 final of 3.12.2008 - 2008/0240 (COD)

Having regard to the Inter-institutional Agreement of 28 November 2001 on a more structured use of the recasting technique for legal acts, and in particular to point 9 thereof, the Consultative Working Party consisting of the respective legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission met on 16 December 2008 for the purpose of examining, among others, the aforementioned proposal submitted by the Commission.

At that meeting(1), an examination of the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council recasting Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment resulted in the Consultative Working Party’s establishing, by common accord, as follows.

1) As regards the explanatory memorandum, in order to be drafted in full compliance with the relevant requirements laid down by the Inter-institutional Agreement such a document should have stated the reasons for each proposed substantive amendment and specified which provisions of the earlier act remain unchanged in the proposal, as is provided for under points 6(a)(ii) and (iii) of that agreement.

2) In recital 2, the initial wording of the second serntence ("It therefore appears necessary to approximate the laws of the Member States in this field [...]") should be replaced by an adapted wording which should read as follows: "It therefore appears necessary to lay down rules in this field [...]".

3) The following parts of the text of the recast proposal should have been identified by using the grey-shaded type generally used for marking substantive changes:

- in recital 13, the words "the human" (having been marked with double strikethrough) and the words "the health";

- in Article 19, first sentence, the final wording "and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented";

- the entire wording of the third sentence of Article 19.

4) The following parts of the recast text correspond to parts of the currently applicable text of Directive 2002/95/EC in respect of which no change is apparently being proposed, and which therefore should have not been marked with grey-shaded type:

- in Article 2(2), the words "requirements of";

- in Article 3(a), the word "hereinafter";

- in Article 4(1), the proposed deletion of the words "from 1 July 2006" and the proposed replacing of the word "put" with "placed".

5) in Article 5(b), third indent, the punctuation should be completed as regards the initial words "the negative environmental health consumer safety or socio-economic impacts".

6) In Annex VIII, Part A, the wording "referred to in Article 12" should be adapted so as to read "referred to in Article 21", and the indication "p. 219" appearing in connection with the publication of Commission Decision 2005/717/EC in the Official Journal should be corrected so as to read "p. 48".

7) In Annex VIII, Part B, the wording "referred to in Article 13" should be adapted so as to read "referred to in Article 21".

In consequence, examination of the proposal has enabled the Consultative Working Party to conclude, without dissent, that the proposal does not comprise any substantive amendments other than those identified as such therein or in the present opinion. The Working Party also concluded, as regards the codification of the unchanged provisions of the earlier act with those substantive amendments, that the proposal contains a straightforward codification of the existing text, without any change in its substance.

C. PENNERA                       J.-C. PIRIS                                      C.-F.DURAND

Jurisconsult                            Jurisconsult                                       Director General

(1)

The Consultative Working Party had at its disposal the English, French and German language versions of the proposal and worked on the basis of the English version, being the master-copy language version of the text under discussion.


PROCEDURE

Title

Restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (recast version)

References

COM(2008)0809 – C6-0471/2008 – 2008/0240(COD)

Date submitted to Parliament

3.12.2008

Committee responsible

       Date announced in plenary

ENVI

19.10.2009

Committee(s) asked for opinion(s)

       Date announced in plenary

JURI

19.10.2009

 

 

 

Rapporteur(s)

       Date appointed

Jill Evans

31.8.2009

 

 

Discussed in committee

4.11.2009

1.12.2009

6.4.2010

 

Date adopted

2.6.2010

 

 

 

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:

53

0

1

Members present for the final vote

János Áder, Elena Oana Antonescu, Pilar Ayuso, Paolo Bartolozzi, Sandrine Bélier, Martin Callanan, Nessa Childers, Chris Davies, Bairbre de Brún, Esther de Lange, Anne Delvaux, Bas Eickhout, Edite Estrela, Jill Evans, Karl-Heinz Florenz, Elisabetta Gardini, Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, Julie Girling, Françoise Grossetête, Dan Jørgensen, Karin Kadenbach, Christa Klaß, Jo Leinen, Corinne Lepage, Peter Liese, Linda McAvan, Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė, Vladko Todorov Panayotov, Gilles Pargneaux, Antonyia Parvanova, Andres Perello Rodriguez, Mario Pirillo, Pavel Poc, Vittorio Prodi, Frédérique Ries, Oreste Rossi, Daciana Octavia Sârbu, Carl Schlyter, Horst Schnellhardt, Theodoros Skylakakis, Bogusław Sonik, Catherine Soullie, Salvatore Tatarella, Anja Weisgerber, Glenis Willmott, Sabine Wils, Marina Yannakoudakis

Substitute(s) present for the final vote

José Manuel Fernandes, Judith A. Merkies, Rovana Plumb, Bart Staes, Thomas Ulmer, Kathleen Van Brempt

Substitute(s) under Rule 187(2) present for the final vote

Willy Meyer

Last updated: 7 October 2010Legal notice