To: Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs Directorate General Avenue des Nerviens 105 Brussels Belgium, 1040 Email: GROW EU TBT@ec.europa.eu From: Mr. Lauren Crane Manager, Product Environmental Compliance EHS Tokyo Electron U.S. Holdings, Inc. 2400 Grove Boulevard Austin, Texas 78741 Email: lauren.crane@us.tel.com RE: WTO Technical Barriers to Trade Notice G/TBT/N/EU/433 Draft Commission Regulation implementing Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ecodesign requirements for electronic displays, etc. Dear Sir or Madam, I am writing to inform you of my concern regarding the draft regulatory text for the subject notice. There are various points in the text which I recommend be changed to improve clarity and/or legal certainty in the document. Additionally, I support the SEMI organization s comments (which are mainly in common to mine), that were submitted into the European Commission s public consultation for this same effort. I have attached the SEMI input to this letter, for your information. Specific Concerns with draft ErP Display Regulation (reference WTO notice EU 433) >> indicates change suggestions. 1. Annex I defines Mercury Free but not Cadmium Free. >> Provide a Cadmium Free definition based on the RoHS Cd threshold. 2. In Annex III part is used but not defined. In light of the REACH Once An Article Always an Article ruling, this results in legal uncertainty (e.g., is a part different from an article?). In Annex V.6 component is used rather than part in referring to Annex III criteria >> Use part or component consistently. Provide a clear definition of how to identify a part/component with consideration to the REACH article definition and recent ECJ interpretation. 3. The criterion of Annex III seems to overlook the fact that some of the listed items might be soldered (a type of joining) in place. >> Include de soldering as an acceptable step in disassembly. 4. The criterion of Annex III to use specifically double sided adhesive tape is overly constraining. The goal is clearly to provide joining means and methods that are only semi permanent, but there could be many other
solutions that provide semi permanence, perhaps even some not yet invented (but if they were, they could greatly improve EEE disassembly timelines and complexity), which are not double sided adhesive tape. >> Reword to focus on the convenience goal rather than the specific attachment method. Including consideration of comment 3, above, reword to the effect of Manufacturers shall ensure that welding or gluing other than through the use of double sided adhesive tape are not used as joining or sealing techniques for the following components does not require significantly more time, larger forces or more specialized equipment than would be required to disassemble the items if they were joined or sealed with solder and/or double sided adhesive tape. 5. Annex III 2.1 sets a criterion for using terms as specified in available standards. This is too ambiguous and particularly assumes there may be more than one standard. Identifying plastics is most useful to recycling if a single set of identifications are used. Also there is no constraint on the sourcing of these standards, thus it might be interpreted as requiring multiple markings for the same plastic if some member state, city, or organization has put out a marking standard contrary to the mainstream. There is nothing in the wording which explicitly prevents a non EU manufacturer from using a standard developed in their non EU nation that is contradictory to EU expectations >> Provide reference to a single standard or set of standards or otherwise characterize the standards so that there is clearly one accepted marking for a particular type of plastic possible. 6. Flame Retardant (e.g. Annex III.2.2) is not defined and there is no reference to legislation that defines it, and no reference where to get the standard code number of the flame retardant. Thus, whether something is a flame retardant is legally uncertain >> Provide a definition or reference for flame retardant and the standard code numbers. 7. Per Annex III.3 the Hg logo must be in Gill Sans serif. A font of this exact name is not readily provided in many word processing environments. >> Specify the font type more generically as Gill Sans ref (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/gill_sans ) 8. There is font criteria for the Hg logo (Annex III.3) but not the Cd logo (III.4). This diminishes legal certainty.>> Provide font criteria for the Cd logo. 9. Per Annex III, the Cd logo must be in two places the Hg just one, without significant benefit. >> Remove the internal Cd logo criterion. 10. In Annex VI.3 supplier is used, apparently as a type of economic actor, but there is no definition, and no definition of supplier in the ErP Directive, thus the meaning is legally uncertain.>> Change supplier to importer or manufacturer or his authorized representative. 11. In the Annex IV.3(e) table there is Ratio on the total mass of display (A/C), but C is not identified. >> change Total mass of the display to C) Total mass of the display. 12. Annex V.6 requires a check for the Hg logo but not for the Cd logo. >> Add a requirement to check for the Cd logo.
13. Annex VI.10.iii calls for a check that Hg/Cd logos are provided for products containing these metals. This overlooks the relevant thresholds. A product could contain Hg and meet the mercury free definition. Also, the sentence references the logos in Annex IV. They are actually in Annex III>> Change this to the effect of The mercury logo and cadmium logo, as detailed in Annex III point 3 and 4, are present for products that are not Mercury Free or Cadmium Free, respectively. 14. Annex VI.10.iv refers incorrectly to Annex III. >> Change to containing all information set out in Annex IV point 3, as applicable 15. In Annex II HD is implied to be 1980x1080 pixels. This seems to be a typo. 1920 1080 is the common HD resolution. >> Use 1920x1080 as the HD resolution threshold. 16. In Annex III.1 bulleted list, the in addition following capacitors is not needed. >> Delete in addition. 17. Regarding the Annex III.1 bulleted list, Capacitors can refer to nano and micro scale objects that are integral to integrated circuits, which can result in legal uncertainty in applying the criteria. >> Provide an effective exception for integrated circuits such as Capacitors, except those that are an integral part of an integrated circuit. Consider other situations of circuit elements that could be identified as capacitors outside of the nominal component soldered into a PCB model. For example, many devices use so called capacitive sensors for input. Should they also be subject to the Annex III.1 criteria? 18. Regarding Annex III.1, the paragraph following the bulleted list speaks of Accessing components but it is not clear if the focus is on only the components listed, or any components in the display I suspect it is the former. >> Change this to the effect of Accessing components listed above shall be ensured by documenting the sequence of dismantling operations needed to access the targeted components, 19. The threshold concepts for mercury and cadmium include an idea of being considered free of the substance if it is present below a stated threshold, the same idea should be extended to the concerns related to fire retardants such as in Annex III. >> Frame the requirements in terms of a fire retardant threshold such as 2.2. If flame retardants are present in the part above 0.1% w/w, or perhaps adopt a definition similar to mercury free, i.e., flame retardant free. 20. The criteria in Annex III for using the Mercury free and Cadmium free logos does not take into account the related definition thresholds, setting instead a threshold of no use. >> Change the Annex III criteria to the effect of A Mercury Free logo may be used if all parts of the display are Mercury Free, and likewise for the cadmium related criterion. Note that parts should be changed to component or article depending on the decision related to comment 2, above. 21. Annex IV 1.vi, vii and viii have a grammatical error demand in Watt rounded to. >> change to demand in Watts rounded to. Note that in Annex IV 2.(b)i and a couple other places power demand in Watts rounded to is used.
22. In Annex IV 1.viii, available could be misunderstood such as available on another model. >> change to present 23. In Annex IV 2.(a)ii, abbreviations are used that are not explained and could perhaps be misunderstood. >> spell out the abbreviations such as test voltage in Volts, and for alternating currents, frequency in Hertz (Hz) 24. Annex IV 2.(a)v and vi refer to information and documentation but it is not clear how information is different from documentation. >> delete and documentation from both. 25. Annex IV 2.(f) has a criterion for reporting deviations. This statement could be construed as a requirement to submit some sort of report to an enforcement authority. >> Change confirmation that the display product recognises and prioritises the computer display power management protocols set out in Point 6.2.3 of Annex II of Regulation 617/2013 or a description of any deviation from the protocols, as appropriate. Any deviation from the protocols should be reported. 26. The Annex IV introduction implies the information requirements may be met by the display manufacturer, their authorized representative, or the importer, but point (h)i contain a criterion just for the manufacturer. This seems like an accidental inconsistency. >> Change the beginning to the manufacturer shall provide data confirming the power reduction 27. Annex III 2.1(5) sets a size criterion based on what would be a legible size to be identified by a recycling operator. This is too legally uncertain. Many EU regulations with a marking criterion state a minimum size (e.g. directives setting the CE mark size to a minimum of 5mm). >> Set a minimum marking size such as If there is not enough available appropriate surface area for the marking to be a minimum of 5mm square of a legible size to be identified by a recycling operator. 28. Regarding the Annex IV introduction, the amount of General Information required is so small it could be handy to provide it by means of a label on the product, but it is uncertain whether a label could be considered a means of documentation. >> Make it clear labeling is also acceptable such as General information: available as printed documentation with the product or a label on the product or in free 29. Regarding the Annex IV introduction, it is not clear what a common database means. >> Please clarify what qualifies as a common database. 30. Regarding the Annex IV introduction, the grammatical structure in English is a bit unclear regarding what is modified by of manufacturers, their authorised representatives or importers. : does this modify only common database or does it modify the larger printed documentation with the product or in free access websites or in a common database? I suspect the later. Also the placement of free of charge is placed such that it almost could be read as describing how the product is placed, rather than the information. Similarly it is unclear if upon registration in point 3 is meant to modify displays or third parties. The use of was in the introductory sentence could be misunderstood as implying the requirement applies
retroactively. Finally, a websites (point 3) is incorrect. >> restructure the introduction to the effect of the following From 1 July 2018, the following information shall be kept available free of charge by manufacturers, their authorised representatives or importers for at least 15 years from the day the last model of a product family was is placed on the market and free of charge: 1. General information: available as printed documentation with the product or in a free access websites or in a common database of manufacturers, their authorised representatives or importers. 2. Technical information: available in a free access websites or in a common database of manufacturers, their authorised representatives or importers. 3. Repair and end of life documentation and information: available in a website or in a common database to third parties registered with the manufacturer, their authorized representative or importer, and who are dealing with maintenance, repair, reuse and upgrading of displays upon registration and provided in a websites or in a common database of manufacturers, their authorised representatives or importers. Kind Regards, Lauren Crane [Attachment: SEMI letter to the EU public consultation on the proposed regulation]
SEMI Feedback Draft Regulation Ecodesign Requirements for Electronic Displays Introduction SEMI Europe is the European branch of SEMI, the global industry association representing the manufacturing supply chain for the semiconductor and related industries (such as PV/photovoltaic, LED, flat panel displays etc.). SEMI thanks the European Commission for the opportunity to submit feedback to the consultation on the proposed regulation on eco-design measures for electronic displays. This present feedback from SEMI has been drafted by member companies (both European and global companies that are active on the EU market) that produce and supply manufacturing equipment. These are complex industrial machines, operated in advanced manufacturing facilities (fabs), that are made up of thousands of components sourced from a global supply chain. Electronic displays are often embedded in semiconductor manufacturing equipment. The producers of semiconductor manufacturing equipment are therefore not directly impacted by the proposed regulation electronic displays are sourced from a supplier. SEMI refers the European Commission to the concerns raised by the vast majority of other stakeholders responding to this consultation and their representative associations, regarding the extended scope of the proposed regulation to include all displays larger than 1 square decimeter that are integrated into other larger equipment. SEMI understands that no impact assessment nor stakeholder consultation was carried out for this extended scope SEMI Recommendations SEMI requests that the European Commission evaluates the stakeholder feedback to amend the scope of the proposed legislation to: 1. Ensure that the products in scope have been subject to the impact assessment and process requirements set out by EU Ecodesign legislation. 2. Exclude from scope displays intended to be integrated into other products, including industrial machinery via broader exclusion in Article 1.4 As regards the wording of the proposed regulation and its Annex, SEMI would like to propose the following technical amendments, in order to improve the language and overall workability/application of the proposed rules. [Note to reader: >> indicates amendment suggestions.] 3. Annex I defines Mercury Free but not Cadmium Free.
>> Provide a Cadmium Free definition based on the RoHS Cd threshold. 4. In Annex III part is used but not defined. In Annex V.6 component is used rather than part in referring to Annex III criteria. >> Use part or component consistently. 5. The structure of Annex III.2 makes it unclear whether the exemptions for plastic marking requirements, as defined in Annex III 2.1 (1) (5) are applicable to the entire Annex III.2, or to Annex 2.1 only, but it is not practical to think that the exemption applies only to Annex III 2.1. >> Define the exemption for plastic parts [or components, depending on the Commission s final choice of wording as outlined in SEMI s point 4 above] heavier than 50g regardless of presence of Flame Retardant. 6. Per Annex III.3 the Hg logo must be in Gill Sans serif. A font of this exact name is not readily provided in many word processing environments. >> Specify the font type more generically as Gill Sans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/gill_sans) 7. There is font criteria for the Hg logo (Annex III.3) but not the Cd logo (III.4). This diminishes legal certainty. >> Provide font criteria for the Cd logo. 8. Per Annex III, the Cd logo must be in two places - the Hg just one, without significant benefit. >> Remove the internal Cd logo criterion. 9. In Annex VI.3 supplier is used, apparently as a type of economic actor, but there is no definition, and no definition of supplier in the ErP Directive, thus the meaning is legally uncertain. >> Change supplier to importer or manufacturer or his authorized representative. 10. In the Annex IV.3(e) table there is Ratio on the total mass of display (A/C), but C is not identified. >> Change Total mass of the display to C) Total mass of the display. Page 2 of 3
11. Annex VI.10.iii calls for a check that Hg/Cd logos are provided for products containing these metals. This overlooks the relevant thresholds. A product could contain Hg and meet the mercury free definition. Also, the sentence references the logos in Annex IV, but they are actually in Annex III. >> Change this to the effect of The mercury logo and cadmium logo, as detailed in Annex III point 3 and 4, are present for products that are not Mercury Free or Cadmium Free, respectively. 12. Annex VI.10.iv refers incorrectly to Annex III. >> Change to containing all information set out in Annex IV point 3, as applicable 12. In Annex II HD is implied to be 1980x1080 pixels. This seems to be a typo. 1920 1080 is the common HD resolution. >> Use 1920x1080 as the HD resolution threshold. About SEMI Europe SEMI Europe is the European arm of SEMI, the global industry association serving the microand nano-electronics manufacturing supply chain. SEMI connects more than 2,000 member companies, 290 of which are headquartered in Europe, and more than a quarter-million professionals worldwide to advance the science and business of electronics manufacturing. SEMI members are responsible for the innovations in materials, design, equipment, software, and services that enable smarter, faster, more powerful, and more affordable electronic products. Since 1970, SEMI has built connections that have helped its members grow, create new markets, and address common industry challenges together: trade shows, conferences, industry standards, industry research and statistics and advocacy. www.semi.org EU Transparency Registry # 671799223-02 SEMI Europe Contact Person Ms Ourania Georgoutsakou Director Public Policy for Europe, SEMI gourania@semi.org +32 2 609 5334 +32 475 749 718 Page 3 of 3