Could proposed amendment be a US ROHS?

Hello. And Bye.

I am happy with USA policy to import all welding equipment from China.Getting all this in low prices and high quality.Plasma cutters made by china are of high quality.visit it to view best Plasma Cutters. www.longevity-inc.com/productcategory_27/Plasma-Cutters.php

I will not get into a discussion on the merits of RoHS, that could just go on forever. My main concern is the introduction of a "variant" of RoHS. It is hard enough to make products meet the requirements of EU RoHS... it would become even more challenging to also comply with a different type of RoHS.

Does anyone know how HR2420 would affect monitoring and control instruments (Category 9 in the WEEE Directive)?

It's been a while since I read up on RoHS, and WEEE -- but I want to say that RoHS is an offspring of WEEE. And that WEEE was a move to reduce/reuse/recycle electronics, get them out of landfills, that sort thing--but it wasn't moving fast enough for getting these heavy metals out of the wastestream. So, RoHS came about. My question is, what does this legislation do to make it easier to recycle waste electronics? IIRC, WEEE required that the manufacturer pay for recycling costs; in effect, consumers pay for that at point of purchase, and should be able to drop off said item at end of lifetime at the transfer station and then it gets appropriately dealt with. Will the US RoHS do likewise? Or is the goal to make waste electronics "safe" enough for tossing into a landfill, where they will just errode away like organic material? My thinking is, it's better to design for easier recycling than it is to get rid of "dangerous" material that only causes higher manufacturing costs, lower reliability, and makes it harder to recycle.

What would the US get out of this except higher cost lower reliability electronics? Ask into the high reliability exemption for Row House.

I truly believe they should be a Technical Adviser Board (industry expert and representatives form the supply chain) in placed to look each proposed product Environmental bill before it present to the House.

It would wise for the house to obtain the educated consent of metallurgists in the industry, who can prove that they do not have a vested interest in pushing certain metallurgical formulations. Without that, the US political scenario will do the same harm to the US Electronics Industry as has happened with the EU's RoHS Directive. While doing this, please consider the following: 1) The loss of reliability in solder joints when looking for "lead-free" solders. 2) The loss of reliable EMI gasketing and Spring contacts when looking for "Beryllium-free" copper. 3) Unless the components/products are running at room temperature at all times, which is unlikely to happen, be prepared to accept failures. 4) Accepting a higher failure rate means less "green", since the failed product under most circumstances is not repairable by the end customer, and has to be disposed of. Who is going to pay the disposal fees? 5) Why burden the manufacturers with that cost when the economy is not doing well to begin with? Is the government going to bail out the complete electronics manufacturing industry when all fingers will point at the compliance with environmental laws as the reason for failure?

If the US establishes its own ROHs like legislation I would hope it would make more sense than the incrdedibly mindless legislation that comes out of the EU. While the EU legislation is well intentioned they seem to do more for emotional value than by using good common sense.