Japan Machinery Center for Trade and Investment
No.401 Kikai Shinko Building
5-8, Shibakoen 3-chome
Minato-ku, Tokyo 105-0011
JapanTelephone: 81-3-3431-9230
Facsimile: 81-3-3436-6455

13th February 2008
European Commission
Rue de la Loi 200
1049 Brussels - BELGIUM

Dear Sir / Madam,Japan Machinery Center for Trade and Investment is a nonprofit organization
established in 1952 in accordance with the Export and Import Transaction Law.

It

comprises about 300 major and medium-ranked companies engaged in exporting orinvesting in a broad range of machinery, including manufacturers of electrical andelectronic equipment, trading firms and engineering companies.
Our committee handles environmental issues over products for trade and is stronglyconcerned with environment-related regulations on product in Europe and other countries.
From this standpoint, we would like to comment on Invitation for comments on Policy
Options and for Information Supply regarding the Review of Directive 2002/95/EC.
We would like to express our thanks for the transparency of the Review of the RoHS
Directive and are delighted to have this opportunity to submit our comments on theReview.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact our secretariat (Mr. Hideaki
Fukasawa, E-mail : fukasawa@jmcti.or.jp ).
Sincerely yours,Takao SatoChairman
Trade and Environment Committee
Japan Machinery Center for Trade and Investment

JMCTI responseto the Invitation for Comments on Policy Options and for Information
Supply regarding the Review of Directive 2002/95/EC
13 February, 2008

I. PRODUCT GROUPS TO BE INCLUDED [ARTICLE 6 OF ROHS]
Since the final ERA report has made recommendations based on an analysis of reliabilityand failure, the conclusions of the report should be respected, in principle, for making
decisions.

It is also desirable, however, that sufficient consideration be given to new

developments concerning the studies on addition of restricted substances and removal ofexisting exempted applications with respect to the two categories of equipment.
II. SUBSTANCES COVERED [ARTICLE 6 OF ROHS]
OptionWe believe that the currently six restricted substances should be maintained,

1 to 6considering that many companies have already established their management
systems concerning those substances, and that chemicals are managed
comprehensively under the REACH.

Option 7

Labelling is not required for the six substances restricted under the RoHS
Directive.

No requirements should therefore be introduced for unrestrictedsubstances.
Option 8

It is not appropriate to regulate easy removability of parts which is difficult to beassessed.

III. TECHNICAL CHANGES TO THE SCOPE OF THE DIRECTIVE
Option 1

It is not necessary to separate WEEE from the scope of the RoHS, since no major
disadvantages have occurred in the market as of the current time.

Option 2

We absolutely oppose this option.

It would necessitate changing the designs ofpast products and entail greater cost and administrative burdens than necessary.
The periods for supplying spare parts are determined based on how long theproducts will be operational in the market. If the spare parts were included andrestricted, even products lawfully placed on the market after July 1, 2006 might
have to be collected and disposed of.

Spare parts should not be covered,

therefore, from the perspective of saving resources.

Japan Machinery Center for Trade and Investment(JMCTI)
No.401 Kikai Shinko Building, 5-8, Shibakoen 3-chome, Minato-ku, Tokyo Japan 105-0011
Tel:+81-3-3431-9230, Fax:+81-3-3436-6455, WEB: http://www.jmcti.org/

1

Option 5

It is not necessary to define the status of consumables, since there are nodisadvantages for us thanks to the current FAQs of the European Commission.

OptionWe oppose assessing whether or not products, the definition of which has not

6 to 7been generally accepted, should be included.

Option 8

We oppose extending the scope to cover the whole EEE, since the status quo has
not been fully assessed.

Option 9

It is not necessary to add those categories since it is, after all, just an indicativeannex.

Option 10We support this option if it is intended to exclude parts for repairing and reuse toextend product usable period for those products lawfully placed on the market
and the exemptions are removed for them later on. The reason for our support isthat it would contribute to saving resources.

IV. DEFINITIONS
Option 1

Industry refers to the definitions the European Commission provides for in its
FAQs concerning this matter.

Since we find no disadvantages in this, weconsider that the current definition should be maintained to avoid confusion.
OptionWe oppose these options, since we see no disadvantages in connection with the2 to 5

current situation.

Option 6

It is more desirable to improve the FAQs of the European Commission than toinsert definitions in the RoHS Directive.

Option 7

There is no special need to insert a definition for such a generic term as “spareparts.”

V. FACILITATING IMPLEMENTATION
Va. Enforcement of the RoHS Directive
Option 1

The Enforcement Guide for the RoHS Directive published by the informalnetwork should be respected, and we request that the administrative procedures
be unified throughout the EU member states.

Option 2

If the criteria for conformity assessment are to be clarified, self-declaration
scheme should be strengthened in accordance with the criteria as opposed to CA
procedures through third-party verification, toward which we take a negativestance.

Japan Machinery Center for Trade and Investment(JMCTI)
No.401 Kikai Shinko Building, 5-8, Shibakoen 3-chome, Minato-ku, Tokyo Japan 105-0011
Tel:+81-3-3431-9230, Fax:+81-3-3436-6455, WEB: http://www.jmcti.org/

2

Option 3

We oppose this option.

There is no need to introduce marking, sinceself-declaration is in place.

Marking would entail a heavy burden on

manufacturers.
Option 4

We support this option.

The Enforcement Guide for the RoHS Directive

published by the informal network should be respected, and we request that theadministrative procedures be unified throughout the EU member states in a waythat will lessen the burden on both member states and us.
Option 5

We support this option on a conditional basis.

For the purpose of implementing

the directive in a flexible, convenient and cost-effective manner, we would preferself-declaration based on international standards to new provisions inserted into
the RoHS Directive.
Option 6

We oppose this option.

It is more efficient to collect information throughself-declaration by industry based on international standards than to insert an
obligation into the directive requiring the respective member states to collectinformation from industry.
Option 7

We oppose this option.

We see no disadvantages in the current situation.

Inserting a review clause for the purpose of identifying “candidate” products orsubstances could cause uncertainty and confusion.

It would also be difficult tofind generally acceptable, qualified and easily measurable indicators to assess theimpacts on the environmental, social and internal markets.
Option 8We oppose this option.

We see no disadvantages in the current situation.

Without such forums, specialist stakeholders can still participate in thedecision-making process.
Option 9

We oppose this option.

We recognize no advantage to introducing redundantprovisions, since these matters should be covered in the scope of the existing
WEEE directive.
Vb. Mechanism for exemptions<Comments on Entire Section Vb>
Appropriate mechanisms for considering exemptions require high-level transparency
throughout the decision-making process, from the phase of examining applications to thephase of granting exemptions.

Our comments 1 to 9, given below, should be taken into

consideration.
Option 1

We oppose this option.

We see no disadvantages in the current situation.

Japan Machinery Center for Trade and Investment(JMCTI)
No.401 Kikai Shinko Building, 5-8, Shibakoen 3-chome, Minato-ku, Tokyo Japan 105-0011
Tel:+81-3-3431-9230, Fax:+81-3-3436-6455, WEB: http://www.jmcti.org/3

Option 2

We oppose this option.

We consider that the current practice should bemaintained, since it is important to consult stakeholders.
Option 3

New technologies that have not been applied to any products on the market
should be given exemptions if they can improve functions and performance
significantly.

In addition to new technologies and products, exemptions should

also be granted to applications for which no substitutes are available.
Option 4

We absolutely oppose this option. If industry were to assume the burden ofproof, it would become more difficult to ensure fairness, transparency andaccountability to every business due to the influence of the interests of individual
sectors.

Option 5

Manufacturers request exemptions because they find it difficult to provide
substitution plans.

Exemption requests should be considered separately fromsubstitution plans.
Option 6

We support this option. It would simplify and speed up the decision-making
process for examining exemption requests.

Option 7

We support this option on a conditional basis.

We would support this option, inprinciple, if stakeholders could refer to criteria reflecting environmental, socialand economic factors and access all information concerning the wholedecision-making process, from the phase of considering exemption requests tothe phase of granting exemptions.
Option 8

Introducing other criteria in addition to Option 7 would create extremelycomplex criteria and impose excessive burdens on the public authorities andapplicants.

As a result, this option could become a source of potential

problems.
Option 9

Submission of exemption requests directly to the TAC could lead to a situation inwhich decisions are made without consultation. This could lead to thepossibility that exemptions might be granted for applications for which many
companies could find substitutes, simply because a fraction of the companies
could not do so for some reason.
Stakeholders should be given access to all information concerning the wholedecision-making process, ranging from exemption criteria to exemption requests
and decisions. Consultation should also be initiated. We are also in favor ofallowing applicants to give a presentation at a TAC meeting, if necessary. This
presentation should also be disclosed.

Japan Machinery Center for Trade and Investment(JMCTI)No.401 Kikai Shinko Building, 5-8, Shibakoen 3-chome, Minato-ku, Tokyo Japan 105-0011
Tel:+81-3-3431-9230, Fax:+81-3-3436-6455, WEB: http://www.jmcti.org/4