A US House of Representatives bill focused on the same six
elements in the European Union's ROHS (Restriction of Hazardous
Substances) directive is causing controversy in the US electronics
industry as it pits industry groups against each other. The
Environmental Design of Electrical Equipment ACT,
or HR 2420, aims to harmonize individual state laws with ROHS-like
restrictions and offer overarching regulations that would end the
patchwork of state ROHS-like legislation. The bill was introduced
as an amendment to the Toxic Substances Control Act of
1976 (TSCA).
A major goal of the bill is to create a national standard that
gives companies clarity for environmental compliance. "The industry
has done a good job of making products environmentally safe, but
since we don't have a standard, regulations are causing some
confusion," said Congressman Michael Burgess
(R-Texas), the representative sponsoring HR 2420. "We want to be
consistent with existing regulatory standards and harmonize with
laws throughout the country."
The bill was written specifically to create a one-size fits all
compliance target. "One of the goals is a nationwide approach for
electrical products," said Kyle Pitsor, VP of government relations
at NEMA (National
Electrical Manufacturers Association). The Rosslyn, Va-based group
proposed the bill to Representative Burgess. "Most states would be
able to adopt this federal bill to end conflicting regulation," he
said.
It's a start
While many in the electronics industry are skeptical about the
value of HR 2420, it's often viewed as a fair beginning that could
be useful is it's changed and improved through the legislative
process. "I think it's a good start, but it has some problems,"
said Ken Manchen, corporate director of safety, health, and
environmental affairs at Newark in Chicago. "I don't see
it getting passed as it's written. I expect it will be changed
quite a bit."
One of the changes Manchen would like to see is a match-up
between the exemptions in the EU ROHS and the House bill. "This
bill has pages of exemptions. The problem I see is the exemptions
are not in sync with the Europe ROHS, China ROHS, or California
RoHS," said Manchen. "We have always been an advocate of uniform
standards, but I don't think this bill was well-written. It will to
have to be extensively altered before it's passed."
Fern Abrams, director of government relations and environmental
policy at the
IPC - Association Connecting Electronics
Industries in Bannockburn, Illinois, agrees the exemptions keep
the bill from providing the harmony many were seeking in a
ROHS-like bill from the United States. "This bill doesn't harmonize
with ROHS," said Abrams. "NEMA wrote in exemptions that are not in
ROHS and they didn't include all the exemptions in ROHS."
One of the reasons the exemptions in HR 2420 are different in
nature from ROHS is they were prepared by NEMA, which has
membership that produces electrical products. ROHS was written for
the electronics industry. "NEMA wanted to do something for their
membership, and their membership is mostly electrical," said
Michael Kirschner, president of Design Chain
Associates, a San Francisco company that assists clients with
environmental compliance.
Because of the disparity between electrical equipment and
consumer electronics, many don't even see HR 2420 as a ROHS-like
bill. "The only thing that's similar is the six substances in the
same concentrations. I'm not even sure this bill should be called
ROHS," said Gary Nevison, who heads up legislation and
environmental affairs for the UK-based Premier Farnell,
a sister organization to Newark. "This bill is for manufacturing
equipment and the EU ROHS covers consumer goods."
NEMA acknowledges its bill was developed specifically to cover
the products produced by its members. "The scope of HR 2420 is
limited to NEMA electrical equipment," said NEMA's Pitsor. "The
electrical industry is different from the electronics
industry."
A number of groups in the electronics industry have met with
NEMA in an attempt to fashion a bill that would encompass products
from both the electrical and electronics industries. "Every other
electronics association we work with opposed this bill," said IPC's
Abrams. "But NEMA decided this is what they wanted to do for their
membership and we were unable to dissuade them."
Will pre-emption survive?
One of the goals of a federal bill to restrict substances in
electrical products is to lay down nationwide restrictions that
would eliminate a patchwork of state bills. Companies in the
electrical or electronics industries don't want to comply with
multiple state restrictions only to have new restrictions pop up.
So NEMA sees pre-emption as an important part of the bill. "This
bill presently has pre-emption as part of it, plus there is also a
big picture of pre-emption in the broader bill [TSCA]," said
Pitsor.
While HR 2420 certainly includes pre-emption language, many
believe that pre-emption will not survive if the bill finally
passes. "This bill asks for pre-emption, but the EPA [Environmental
Protection Agency] is against pre-emption," said IPC's Abrams.
There's a good chance pre-emption will be eliminated from TSCA.
Industry watchers expect pre-emption to emerge as a major issue in
the eventual legislative debate over TSCA, and reform of TSCA is a
priority for the EPA. Its current director, Lisa Jackson, named
chemical regulation as one of her top five priorities.
Industry is asking for strong pre-emption, but environmental
activists insist the EPA's recently released principles for TSCA
reform validate state efforts. The administration favors the
elimination of pre-emption. President Barack Obama released a memo
in May effectively urging federal entities to view pre-emption of
state law as interference with states rights.
Is HR 2420 dead?
The bill includes an effective date of July 1, 2010, but even
Burgess believes that date will be have to be re-set beyond 2010.
"I think the bill will be pushed into the future, since healthcare,
cap-and-trade, and financial reform are on the front burners," he
said. "So it's likely to slip its timeline."
NEMA agrees there will be delays before the bill can be passed.
"Since the bill is an amendment to the overreaching TSCA, it will
move as TSCA reform moves in the congress," said Pitsor. "That
debate is just getting started. The committees are still in the
process of laying out their plan. They've had one information
hearing on chemical legislation."
Pitsor expects most of the debate to take place next year.
"Nothing will move until 2010," he said. "That will impact the
proposed affect date which will have to be adjusted."
Design Chain's Kirschner doesn't think the bill will pass
because industry associations don't agree on it. "I don't think
it's going to survive mainly because the rest of the electronics
industry is against it." He also believes it will stumble because
it's a Republican bill in a Democratic House and because there is
no Senate version moving forward. "It's not a high profile bill,"
said Kirschner. "The fact that it was initiated by a Republican is
a problem and there is no Senate equivalent."
IPC hopes the bill will die a quiet death. "It won't be
pre-emptive and it doesn't harmonize," said Abrams. "And it puts
the electronics industry in a bad position. We don't want to have
to lobby against NEMA on the hill and we don't want to lobby
against environmental legislation."
By Rob Spiegel, Contributing Editor - Electronic Business