COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Directive 2011/65/EU on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment
Date: 2017-01-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: dangerous substance, electrical equipment, electronic component, electronic equipment, electronic waste, hazardous waste, machinery, market approval, musical instrument, waste recycling

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 26.1.2017  SWD(2017) 23 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  IMPACT ASSESSMENT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL  amending Directive 2011/65/EU on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment {COM(2017) 38 final} {SWD(2017) 22 final}  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

2 

1 

POLICY CONTEXT, PROBLEM DEFINITION AND SUBSIDIARITY ................ 8 

1.1  Policy context .................................................................................................... 8 
1.2  Secondary market problem ................................................................................ 8 
1.3  Spare parts problem ......................................................................................... 10 
1.4  Pipe organs problem ........................................................................................ 11 
1.5  Non-road mobile machinery problem ............................................................. 11 
1.6  The EU's right to act and justification ............................................................. 13 

2  OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................... 13 

3 

POLICY OPTIONS................................................................................................... 14 

3.1  Baseline scenario ............................................................................................. 14 
3.2  Options for the secondary market problem ..................................................... 15 
3.3  Options for the spare parts problem ................................................................ 15 
3.4  Options for the pipe organs problem ............................................................... 16 
3.5  Options for the non-road mobile machinery problem ..................................... 16 

4  ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS ....................................................................................... 17 

4.1  Public consultation .......................................................................................... 17 
4.2 
Impacts of the baseline scenario ...................................................................... 18 
4.3  Secondary market problem .............................................................................. 22 
4.4  Spare parts problem ......................................................................................... 24 
4.5  Pipe organs problem ........................................................................................ 26 
4.6  Non-road mobile machinery problem ............................................................. 28 

5  COMPARING THE OPTIONS ................................................................................ 30 

5.1  Secondary market problem .............................................................................. 30 
5.2  Spare parts problem ......................................................................................... 31 
5.3  Pipe organs problem ........................................................................................ 33 
5.4  Non-road mobile machinery problem ............................................................. 34 

6  MONITORING AND EVALUATION .................................................................... 35 

7  ANNEXES ................................................................................................................ 36 

7.1  Annex 1 Procedural information ..................................................................... 36 
7.2  Annex 2 Stakeholder consultation ................................................................... 38 
7.3  Annex 3 Who is affected by the initiative and how ........................................ 45 
7.4  Annex 4 Case studies on secondary market operations and spare parts use 

for certain newly in scope product groups ...................................................... 46 
7.5  Annex 5 Quantitative data on pipe organs ...................................................... 61 

 
 
 
 
3 

Glossary of Abbreviations 

EEE: Electrical and electronic equipment 

IASG: Impact Assessment Steering Group 

NRMM: non-road mobile machinery 

RoHS: Directive on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and 
electronic equipment 

RoHS 1: Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 

RoHS 2: Directive 2011/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council 

SME: Small and medium-sized enterprise 

WEEE: Waste electrical and electronic equipment 

WEEE Directive: Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste 
electrical and electronic equipment

 
 
4 

Introduction 

Directive  2011/65/EU  (RoHS  2)  lays  down  rules  on  the  restriction  of  the  use  of  certain 
hazardous  substances1  in  electrical  and  electronic  equipment  (EEE).  RoHS  2  provisions 
apply to EEE placed on the EU market regardless whether they are produced in the EU or 
in  third  countries  and  then  imported  into  the  EU  market.  The  production  of  EEE  is  a 
globalised  activity  which  takes  place  in  many  countries  across  the  world.  Thus,  RoHS  2 
affects mainly industrial manufacturers, importers and distributors of EEE, and, to a lower 
extent, also EEE customers. 
RoHS  is  a  directive  implementing  the  highest  priority  of  the  waste  hierarchy,  which  is 
waste  prevention.  Waste  prevention  is  defined,  inter  alia,  as  measures  that  reduce  the 
content  of  harmful  substances  in  materials  and  products.  The  decrease  of  hazardous 
substances  in  waste  EEE  benefits  the  waste  EEE  management  as  a  result.  This  type  of 
prevention  promotes  the  reuse  of  products  and  the  recycling  of  used  materials,  thus 
promoting the circular economy in the sector. 
RoHS 2 is necessary to prevent barriers to trade and distortion of competition in the Union, 
which  could  have  been  generated  by  disparities  between  the  laws  or  administrative 
measures if these were adopted individually by the Member States and to contribute to the 
protection of human health and the environmentally sound recovery and disposal of waste 
EEE and, at the same time. 
RoHS  has  stimulated  a  global  change  in  hazardous  materials  reduction:  several  third 
countries, including China, Korea, US, have developed RoHS-like legislation. 
Issues introduced by the recast 
RoHS 2 is a recast of the earlier RoHS Directive 2002/95/EC. It introduced new definitions 
and expanded the scope to cover medical devices and monitoring and control instruments. 
These  provisions  were already impact assessed with the Commission’s proposal in 2008. 
However, RoHS 2 also introduced further changes: the 'open scope' by, firstly, introducing 
a  new  category  11  "Other  EEE  not  covered  by  any  of  the  other  categories"2,  so  that  the 
Directive became applicable to all EEE and, secondly, a broader interpretation of EEE as a 
result  of  a  new  definition  of  the  dependency  on  electricity.  These  open  scope  provisions 
were  introduced  during  the  codecision  procedure  of  the  recast  and  they  were  not 
specifically impact assessed. 
RoHS 2 Article 2(4) provides a 10-entry list of specific equipment which is excluded from 
the  new  scope3;  this  list  defines  the  only  EEE  currently  not  under  the  scope  of  the  new 
Directive. 

1  The  ten  substances  restricted  under  RoHS  2  are  namely:  lead,  mercury,  cadmium,  hexavalent  chromium, 
polybrominated biphenyls (PBB) polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE), bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), 
butyl  benzyl  phthalate  (BBP),  dibutyl  phthalate  (DBP),  diisobutyl  phthalate  (DIBP)  the  restriction  of  DEHP, 
BBP,  DBP  and  DIBP  will  apply  from  22 July 2019;  other  substances  could  be  restricted  in  future.  The 
substances covered by RoHS 2 are scientifically well researched and evaluated and have been subject to different 
measures both at Union and at national level. 
2  The  eleven  categories  of  EEE  are  large  household  appliances  (category  1),  small  household  appliances 
(category  2),  IT  and  telecommunications  equipment  (category  3),  consumer  equipment  (category  4),  lighting 
equipment (category 5), electrical and electronic tools (category 6), toys, leisure and sports equipment (category 
7), medical devices (category 8), monitoring and control instruments including industrial monitoring and control 
instruments (category 9), automatic dispensers (category 10), and other EEE not covered by any of the categories 
above (category 11). 
3 The ten RoHS explicit exclusions are in short: military equipment, equipment to be sent into space, equipment 
that  is  only  part  of  excluded  equipment,  large-scale  stationary  industrial  tools,  large-scale  fixed  installations, 
means  of  transport  for  persons  or  goods,  professional  non-road  mobile  machinery,  active  implantable  medical 
devices, photovoltaic panels, research and development equipment. These are the only EEE that at the moment 
do not fall under the scope of RoHS 2. 

 
 
                                                            
5 

Moreover, to ease the phasing-in of the additional EEE that had been introduced through 
the  open  scope,  RoHS  2  provides  for  a  transitional  arrangement  until  22  July  2019  for 
electrical and electronic equipment that was outside the scope of RoHS 1 and that is now in 
scope  of  RoHS 24.  The  phase-in  transition  allows  that  new-in-scope  EEE  can  still  be 
placed and circulated on the EU market until 22 July 2019, even if they contain restricted 
substances.  However,  undesired  implications  of  this  provision  hampering  secondary 
market operations have been discovered after the publication of RoHS 2. As pointed out in 
the strategy on the circular economy recently proposed by the Commission,5 in most cases 
the  extension  of  the  EEE  life-time  via  repair,  resale  and  refurbishment  is  both 
economically and ecologically desirable and a positive contribution to resource efficiency. 

The review of RoHS 2 
RoHS 2 Article 24(1) mandates the Commission to examine the need to amend the scope 
of this Directive in respect of the EEE definition and of additional exclusions of product 
groups  covered  by  RoHS  2  by  virtue  of  the  open  scope  introduced  with  the  2011  recast. 
The current Impact Assessment builds upon the Impact Assessment carried out prior to the 
RoHS recast. It responds to the mandate of Article 24(1) of RoHS 2 and takes into account, 
in  addition,  the  impact  assessment  studies  commissioned  on  the  previously  unassessed 
scope-related provisions in RoHS 2. A list of undertaken studies and analyses is presented 
in 7.1 

Annex 1 Procedural information. 

A general review of the Directive is required to be carried out by 22 July 2021, as required 
by Article 24(2). 

 Exemption mechanism under RoHS providing for flexibility 
Under the RoHS 2 Directive, time-limited exemptions from substance restrictions  can be 
granted  for  specific  applications  when  the  conditions  spelled  out  in  Article  5(1)  of  the 
Directive  are  met:  if  a  substance  substitute  does  not  exist,  if  existing  substitutes  are  not 
reliable or if they are worst in terms of overall impact. This flexible mechanism is a useful 
solution  for  product  groups  covered  by  RoHS,  where  the  substitution  of  the  restricted 
substances  needs  more  time  to  take  place,  thus  allowing  a  gradual  application  of  the 
restriction.  While  already  a  single  market  operator  only  can  request  an  exemption,  the 
mechanism  allows  all  market  operators  to  use  existing  exemptions.  This  possibility  in 
particular  is  beneficial  for  SMEs  as  they  can  rely  on  exemptions  requested  through 
industrial associations, thus limiting the burden on individual operators. 

Additionally, to assist in the implementation of the Directive, guidance on interpretation of 
RoHS  with  regard  to  specific  product  groups  was  drafted  following  consultation  of 
stakeholders and with the help of experts. Such guidance is given regularly6 to cover issues 
of interpretation relating to product groups under RoHS 2. 

As confirmed by stakeholders during the development of the scope-related studies and by 
the Member States RoHS experts7, exemptions8 and guidance have been used adequately 

4 From now on, "new-in-scope EEE"; see RoHS 2 Article 2(2)). 
5 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/index_en.htm 
6 The RoHS FAQ document is publicly available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/rohs_eee/pdf/faq.pdf 
7 http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=2810, and  

 
 
                                                            
6 

and  effectively  for  issues  related  to  several  products  groups,  including  those  facing  the 
upcoming  RoHS  restriction.  Thus,  considering  the  possibilities  given  by  the  exemption 
mechanism  and  guidance,  as  well  as  the  Impact  Assessment  studies9,  which  were 
developed with comprehensive public and targeted stakeholder consultation, no problems 
were identified for the following new-in-scope product groups or areas, which have been 
confirmed as not needing to be formally excluded from RoHS 2: 

  Gas water heaters with electrical function; 

  Combustion powered (garden) equipment for non-professional or dual use; 

  Electric windows, doors and gates; 

  Cables as finished EEE; 

  Complex air conditioning systems; 

  Fuse boxes; 

  Electric two-wheel vehicles which are not type-approved (i.e. electric bicycles); 

  Furniture with an integrated electrical function; 

  Light switches, power wall sockets; 

  Power switches; 

  Safes; 

  Swimming pools for home use with pumps included; 

  Toys with minor electrical functions; 

  Power generation sets; 

  Refurbishment of medical devices; 

  Towed machineries for the agriculture (covered by existing exclusion of Article 4(c)). 

Therefore, this Impact Assessment focuses on how best to address the residual identified 
issues  that  cannot  be  dealt  with  either  by  substance  substitution  or  by  exemptions  and 
guidance,  e.g.  for  specific  product  groups  with  permanently  unresolvable  compliance 
problem or when scope provisions generate market distortions. 

Other  related  existing  policies  have  been  considered  within  the  assessment.  RoHS  2  and 
the REACH regulation are consistent in terms of policy interaction, working efficiently in 
synergy:  this  is  expressed  in  several  recitals  and  provisions  of  RoHS  2,  e.g.  a  coherence 
provision  with  REACH  is  provided  for  both  to  restrict  new  substances  (RoHS  2  Article 
6(1)) and to grant exemptions from restriction (RoHS 2 Article 5(1)). Guidance to explain 
how the interface is to be managed, particularly in view of potential overlaps in the scope 
of  this  legislation,  is  provided  in  the  Common  Understanding  Paper  drawn  up  by  the 
Commission  and  endorsed  by  the  Member  States  on  the  interface  between  REACH  and 

8 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/rohs_eee/adaptation_en.htm  
9  A  summary  for  each  of  the  product  groups  is  given  in  the  studies,  i.e.  in  section  6.1  of  the  study 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/rohs_eee/pdf/1.%20Biois%20study%20-
and 
section 
%20RoHS_II_IA_Final%20Report.pdf; 
http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/reports/201406012_RoHS_Scope_Review_report_final.
pdf; and in sections 2.6, 3.7, 3.8, 4.10 and 4.11 of the study 
http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/reports/20150312_RoHS_scope_review_final_a.pdf, 
addition to the general 2008 study http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/pdf/ia_report.pdf. 

study 

2.10 

3.8 

the 

of 

in 

in 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                          
7 

Directive 2011/65/EU (RoHS)10. This Common Understanding Paper is fully in line with 
Better  Regulation  principles  and  represents  the  Commission’s  response  to  the  need, 
recognised  in  the  2013  REACH  Review,  “to  avoid  any  possible  future  overlaps  or 
inconsistencies  with  restrictions  laid  down  in  EU  sector-specific  legislation”.  RoHS  2  is 
furthermore  consistent  with  other  legislation  on  waste,  such  as  in  particular  Directive 
2012/19/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  waste  electrical  and 
electronic equipment (WEEE) and Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and 
of  the  Council  on  end-of  life  vehicles  (ELV)).  Despite  the  name,  the  Non-road  mobile 
machinery  (NRMM)  directive11  is  not  specifically  linked  to  RoHS  2,  which  excludes 
NRMM from its scope. Both directives have different NRMM definitions; however, this is 
not  considered  an  inconsistency  as  they  have  a  different  purpose:  the  first  directive 
regulates  the  combustion  emissions  from  NRMM  engines,  while  RoHS  2  regulates 
hazardous substances used in EEE. 

This  initiative  is  not  part  of  the  REFIT  agenda.  No  recently  adopted  initiatives  or  other 
initiatives under preparation touch upon the same problems. 

10 http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/5804/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/native 
11 Directive 97/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 

 
 
                                                            
8 

1 

1.1 

POLICY CONTEXT, PROBLEM DEFINITION AND SUBSIDIARITY 

Policy context 

This impact assessment assesses policy options to reduce unnecessary burden on industry 
from unintended side-effects of the open scope provisions of RoHS 2, while promoting a 
circular  economy  in  the  sector  and maintaining  a  high  level  of  environmental  and  health 
protection. 

This  report  provides  an  in-depth  assessment  on  how  best  to  address  the  problems 
identified, which cannot be solved by means of substance substitution or through granting 
exemptions  and  providing  guidance,  as  explained  in  the  introduction.  These  issues  have 
been  identified  and  confirmed  by  the  studies  and  stakeholder  consultations,  and  relate  to 
specific  product  groups  where  compliance  with  RoHS  2  cannot  be  achieved  and  to 
situations of market distortions caused by scope provisions, namely: 

  Secondary market operations for RoHS 2 EEE which were not in scope of RoHS 1; 

  Spare parts for RoHS 2 EEE which were not in scope of RoHS 1; 

  Pipe organs; 

  Cord-connected non-road mobile machinery. 

While all these problems are scope-related, they are not directly linked with each other and 
can only be solved independently; consequently, possible impacts and options will be 
analysed individually. 

1.2 

Secondary market problem 

One  of  the  key  principles  of  RoHS 2  and  other  EU  product  legislation  is  the  protection 
from  retroactive  measures12  (in  RoHS  2  the  substance  restriction  applies  only  at  the first 
time  an  EEE  is  made  available  on  the  EU  market).  This  means  that  when  legal 
requirements, including substance restrictions, apply to a product from a certain date and 
an individual product of this type is lawfully placed on the EU market before that date, the 
same product can continue to be circulated in the EU market after that date without having 
to respect the meanwhile applicable legal requirements. In such case, all secondary market 
operations,  such  as  the  reselling  of  used  EEE,  would,  irrespective  of  their  date,  be 
unaffected  by  the  obligations  of  RoHS 2.  In  general,  the  extension  of  the  lifetime  of  a 
functioning product is indeed both economically and environmentally beneficial.13 

However,  as  per  Article  2(2)  RoHS  2,  Member  States  shall  provide  that  EEE  that  was 
outside the scope of RoHS 1, but which would not comply with RoHS 2, may nevertheless 
continue to be made available on the market until 22 July 2019, without prejudice of the 
specific  provisions  established  for  medical  devices  and  monitoring  and  control 
instruments.  This  transitional  period  applies  to  the  placement  on  the  market  for 
new-in-scope  EEE  other  than  medical  devices  and  monitoring  and  control  instruments. 
However,  it  also  sets  an  end  date  to  all  market  operations  (including  the  first)  for  all 

12 See Blue Guide, http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/16210 p. 20 
13 The impact assessment for the “secondary market” issue is based on the above mentioned 2014 Oeko-Institut 
study. For further information and references see the following report: 
http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/reports/201406012_RoHS_Scope_Review_report_final.
pdf. 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
9 

new-in-scope  EEE  (including  medical  devices  and  monitoring  and  control  instruments) 
that do not meet the RoHS 2 requirements. Indeed, there is no other provision in RoHS that 
would allow these products to be made available on the market (i.e. placed on the market 
or  any  subsequent  market  operation)  after  22  July  2019.  As  for  medical  devices  and 
monitoring  and  control  instruments  product  group,  Article  4(3)14  only  additionally  limits 
the time window for the placing on the market of non-compliant equipment in this group, 
but does not allow for secondary market operations beyond 22 July 2019. 

Therefore, as a result of the current wording of Article 2(2) and Article 4(3), products that 
are  affected  by  the  problematic  'hard-stop'  of  secondary  market  operations  are  medical 
devices,  monitoring  and  control  instruments  and  other  new-in-scope  EEE  captured  by 
category 11. 

Data  on  the  contribution  of  EEE  production  to  the  economy  shows  that  the  value  of 
production has remained quite stable in its ratio to GDP, amounting to around 7% in 2012. 
Sector specific quantification is given for selected cases in 7.4  Annex  4  Case  studies  on 
secondary market operations and spare parts use for certain newly in scope product groups. 

The  industry  most  impacted  by  the  secondary  market  hard-stop  would  be  the  sector 
producing long-life high-priced EEE. Examples are: 

a)  Medical devices and monitoring and control instruments: 

EEE in this product group are high-priced high-tech equipment with an average lifetime of 
ten  years  and  beyond.  They  very  often  get  refurbished  and  resold  at  around  half  of  their 
expected lifetime. The industry impacted by the hard-stop of secondary market operations 
is  firstly  the  medical  device  industry  which  often  proposes  also  product  lines  of  used 
repaired or refurbished products.15 

Non-compliant products were allowed to be placed on the EU market until 21 July 2014.16 
The typical business scenario sees the customer sending a device bought before 2014 to a 
refurbisher authorised  by the manufacturer five or  six years later, and replacing it with  a 
new model from the same manufacturer. Refurbishment of these products not complying 
with RoHS 2 and recirculation after 22 July 2019 would however be an infringement of the 
Directive  due  to  the  hard-stop  of  secondary  market  operations.  If  this  legal  constraint 
remains  unchanged,  this  will  result  in  reducing  the  lifetime  of  many  products  on  the 
market. 

14 Article 4(3) states that the restriction "shall apply to medical devices and monitoring and control instruments 
which are placed on the market from 22 July 2014, to in vitro diagnostic medical devices which are placed on the 
market from 22 July 2016 and to industrial monitoring and control instruments which are placed on the market 
from 22 July 2017." 
15  Under  the  medical  devices  legislation,  the  term  “fully  refurbished”  exists.  “Fully  refurbished”  products  are 
assimilated to new products. The proposed new Regulation on medical devices adopted by the Commission on 
26 September 2012 defines "fully refurbishment" as follows: "the complete rebuilding of a device already placed 
on the market or put into service, or the making of a new device from used devices, to bring it in conformity with 
this  Regulation,  combined  with  the  assignment  of  a  new  lifetime  to  the  refurbished  device".  For  any 
refurbishment  other  than  "fully  refurbishment",  the  person  who  carries  out  the  refurbishment  holds  the 
responsibility  to  verify  whether  or  not,  in  the  light  of  the  changes  done,  the  refurbished  product  should  be 
considered as a new product and, where applicable, undergo a new conformity assessment procedure. 
16 Article 4(3) 

 
 
                                                            
10 

Strong industrial actors in the sector are based in the EU, but medical devices and the spare 
parts production, as well as the repairs, takes place also in third countries as this market is 
global.17 

b)  New-in-scope  equipment  other  than  medical  devices  and  monitoring  and  control 

instruments: 

The  hard  stop  of  secondary  market  operations  will  also  apply  to  a  very  diverse  range  of 
other  products18,  including  furniture  with  integrated  electric  functions,  swimming  pools, 
lawnmowers with electric ignition, electric bicycles, electric windows and sport shoes with 
lights.  While  this  might  be  irrelevant  for  e.g.  sport  shoes,  it  is  indeed  an  issue  for  high-
priced  long-life  products,  especially  if  they  have  only  been  placed  on  the  market  close 
before 22 July 2019. 

In short: 

21 July 2014-21 July 2019 

From 22 July 2019 onwards 

Medical  devices  and 
and 
monitoring 
control instruments 

may  not  be 
if  non-
compliant  but  secondary  market 
possible 

sold 

Secondary  market  not  allowed 
for non-compliant EEE 

Other  newly  in  scope 
EEE 

may  be  sold  if  non-compliant 
and secondary market possible 

Secondary  market  not  allowed 
for non-compliant EEE 

1.3 

Spare parts problem 

The  possibility  to  repair  a  product  placed  on  the  EU  market  with  a  view  to  reusing  or 
reselling  it  (repair-as-produced  principle)  underpins  EU  product  legislation19,  including 
RoHS 2.  This  means  that  when  specific  legal  requirements  such  as  substance  restrictions 
apply to a type of product from a specified date and an individual product of this type is 
placed on the EU market before that date, it can be repaired or upgraded with spare parts in 
the  EU  after  that  date  without  having  to  respect  the  meanwhile  applicable  legal 
requirements.20 Once an individual product is placed on the EU market and it is therefore 
compliant  with  the  applicable  legal  requirements  at  the  time,  all  its  spare  parts  are 
unaffected by the obligations of RoHS irrespective of the date of repair, upgrade, etc. The 
reasoning  behind  this  is  that  in  most  cases  the  extension  of  the  lifetime  of  a  functional 
product is both economically and environmentally beneficial. 

However,  after  22 July 2019,  RoHS  2  new-in-scope  products  other  than  medical  devices 
and monitoring and control instruments can only be repaired with RoHS 2-compliant spare 
parts  and  only  if  the  repair  is  not  part  of  a  secondary  market  operation  (i.e.  not  for 
reselling). 

17  For  example,  see  COCIR  members,  http://www.cocir.org/index.php?id=131.  In  any  case,  RoHS  applies 
equally to imported equipment. 
18 In RoHS 2 these products will be grouped in Category 11, "other EEE" 
19  See  the  Blue  guide,  which  provides  horizontal  interpretation  on  the  principles  for  the  Union  harmonisation 
legislation on products, p. 17-21: 
http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/4942/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/native  
20 The “spare parts” impact assessment is based on the above mentioned 2014 Eunomia/Oeko-Institut study. For 
further information and references see 
http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/reports/201406012_RoHS_Scope_Review_report_final.
pdf. 

 
 
 
                                                            
11 

Experience shows that it is often difficult and sometimes impossible to replace an original 
non-compliant part with a different, compliant spare part. As product reuse, refurbishment 
and extension of lifetime are both environmentally and economically beneficial, spare parts 
need to be sufficiently available.21  

1.4 

Pipe organs problem 

Today 99% of pipe organs22 built use at least one electric blower. Some use other electrical 
or electronic components, all of which are compliant with RoHS 2. However, the presence 
of  the  electrical  components  used  in  pipe  organs  makes  the  whole  organ,  including  the 
pipes, fall under the RoHS 2 scope. Indeed, RoHS 2 introduced an EEE definition23 where 
the  word  “dependent”  means  “necessary  to  fulfil  at  least  one  intended  function”,  and  it 
added a product category “other EEE”24 to which pipe organs pertain. The combination of 
these provisions means that pipe organs are in the scope of RoHS 2, with full compliance 
requirements from 22 July 2019 for the whole product, pipes included.25 

The vast majority of pipes are made of lead alloys. The variation of lead and tin is used to 
vary the timbre of the organ sounds. No other material  can be manufactured in the same 
way as the tin/lead alloy, meaning that there are no substitutes to the lead in organ pipes 
and  neither  can  the  product  be  modified  for  it  to  fulfil  its  intended  function.  The  key 
problem will then be the use of lead, a substance restricted by RoHS, in the pipes alloy. 

If  the  legal  situation  remains  unchanged,  pipe  organs  containing  lead  will  be  non-
compliant products under RoHS 2, due to a lack of possible substitutes for lead. Therefore, 
they cannot be placed on the EU market as from 22 July 2019 leading to the loss of jobs 
and market shares in this sector. The industry affected would be the organ builders industry 
and  the  cultural  business  of  organ  music  concerts.  As  of  today,  there  is  no  indication  of 
health  and  environmental  problem  generated  by  the  production  and  use  of  pipe  organs, 
which are a product with an extremely long life. 

1.5 

Non-road mobile machinery problem 

Non-road mobile machinery (NRMM) is excluded from the scope of RoHS 2 when made 
available exclusively for professional use.26 

Certain types of machinery are produced in the same production line in models either with 
an on-board power source or with an external power source; see for example, Figure 1, 

21 See RoHS recital (20); this in line with the promotion of a circular economy. 
22 The “pipe organs” impact assessment is based on the 2012 BioIS study: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/rohs_eee/pdf/1.%20Biois%20study%20-
%20RoHS_II_IA_Final%20Report.pdf. For further information and references see 7.5  Annex 5 Quantitative 
data on pipe organs and the factsheet no. 9 Pipe organs in: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/rohs_eee/pdf/RoHS%20website%20documents.zip  
23  Art.  3(1)  ‘electrical  and  electronic  equipment’  or  ‘EEE’  means  equipment  which  is  dependent  on  electric 
currents  or  electromagnetic  fields  in  order  to  work  properly  and  equipment  for  the  generation,  transfer  and 
measurement of such currents and fields and designed for use with a voltage rating not exceeding 1 000 volts for 
alternating current and 1 500 volts for direct current; 
24 Annex I, entry 11 “Other EEE not covered by any of the categories above” 
25 Under RoHS 1 pipe organs were formally excluded from the scope of the directive. Also in the Commission 
RoHS recast proposal of 2008, pipe organs installed in churches were then officially listed as excluded. Due to 
the new and broader definition of EEE in RoHS 2, as from July 2019 if no changes are introduced, pipe organs 
that require electricity will fall in the scope of this Directive and the restriction will apply to all components, also 
non-electrical ones, on the homogeneous material level. 
26 See Article 3(28) and Article 2(4)(g) of RoHS 2. The “NRMM” impact assessment is based on the 2015 
Eunomia/Oeko-Institut study: 
http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/reports/20150312_RoHS_scope_review_final_a.pdf 

 
 
                                                            
Figure 2, and Figure 3. In light of the reference of the Article 3(28) definition to an 
on-board power source,27 only the models with an on-board power source are excluded 
from the scope of RoHS 2, while the twin models with external power source fall under 
RoHS 2 scope. 

12 

Figure  1:  Pictures  of 
cord-connected for professional use 

identical  machines  with  an  on-board  power  source  and 

Relevant product groups for the latter include professional cleaning machinery (see Figure 
1) and certain types of construction or mining machinery (see Figure 2 and Figure 3). 

Figure 2: Example of NRMM without on-board power source: concrete spraying machine 
used in mining 

Market  quantities  of  relevant  machinery  product  groups  (i.e.  where  a  scope-excluded 
model is also produced with a scope-included version) are: 

  Professional  cleaning  machinery:  estimates  of  over  70,000  units  placed  on  the  EU 
market per annum, with a distribution between models with an on-board power source 
and models without (cord connected) of 80:20. Most manufacturers are assumed to be 
close in size to SMEs or possibly slightly larger. 

  Construction  or  mining  machinery:  several  types  of  machinery  used  primarily  in 
mining  are  practically  identical  to  diesel-  or  gas-powered  NRMM  in  every  other 
respect, excepted for the electrical power system replacing the on-board power source. 

27 Battery or combustion engine 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
13 

Figure  3:  Example  of  NRMM  without  on-board  power  source:  a  wheel  loader  used  in 
mining 

The current NRMM definition would thus lead, after 22 July 2019, to a situation resulting 
in very similar types of equipment being regulated differently and inconsistently. 

1.6 

The EU's right to act and justification 

The legal basis of the RoHS 2 directive and of this initiative is Article 114 of the Treaty on 
the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union  (TFEU),  the  objective  of  which  is  to  harmonise 
national laws and to ensure that the same rules are applicable throughout the Union. This 
initiative concerns a review of a Directive required by Article 24(1) of the Directive itself 
and is therefore justified on the grounds of subsidiarity. 

The problems highlighted cannot be solved without changing the scope of RoHS 2, as they 
originate in the current legal formulation of the RoHS 2 scope and related provisions. Only 
a solution at EU level can solve the problems, as provisions regarding the restriction of the 
use  of  hazardous  substances  in  EEE  have  a  direct  impact  on  the  EU  internal  market  and 
cannot be solved at Member States' level. 

2 

OBJECTIVES 

The general, specific and operational objectives of this initiative are presented in Table 1. 

Table 1: Objectives 

GENERAL 

SPECIFIC 

OPERATIONAL 

 
 
 
14 

  Allow  second  hand  operations 

for all EEE in scope  

  Exclude  pipe  organs  product 
group from the scope of RoHS 2. 

  Exclude  from  restriction  spare 

parts for repair for all EEE. 

  Clarify  the  scope  of  RoHS  2, 
with  adjustments  to  Article  2(2), 
Article 4(3), and Article 4(4). 

the 

definition 
in  Article  3(28) 

  Fine-tune 
of 
NRMM 
to 
prevent  unbalanced  treatment  of 
almost identical machineries. 

  The 

contribution 
to the protection of 
human  health  and 
the  environment, 
the 
including 
environmentally 
sound 
recovery 
and  disposal  of 
EEE, 
waste 
through 
the 
restriction  of  the 
certain 
use 
hazardous 
substances. 

of 

  Removing  unnecessary 
barriers  to  secondary 
market  operations,  so 
to  promote  a  circular 
economy  for  the  EEE 
sector in the Union 

from 

the 
product 
with 

  Exclusions 
of 
scope 
groups 
unresolvable 
compliance  problems 
and  negligible  benefits 
from 
inclusion 
their 
into RoHS 2 scope. 

  The  correct  and 

regular 
functioning  of  the 
Union 
internal 
market  in  relation 
to  electrical  and 
electronic 
equipment 
products 
by 
preventing barriers 
to 
and 
trade 
competition 
distortion. 

  Preventing  distortion 
the  second  hand 
in 
operations 
(repair, 
reselling)  for  products 
already  placed  on  the 
Union internal market. 

  Prevent 

inconsistent 
treatment  of  almost 
identical  machinery 
placed  on  the  Union 
internal market. 

3 

3.1 

POLICY OPTIONS 

Baseline scenario 

The  baseline  scenario  with  no  policy  changes  (also  referenced  in  the  next  sections  as  the 
policy Option 1) will develop as follows in relation to the four problems28: 

 

In  the  secondary  market  baseline  scenario29  spill-over  effects  due  to  similarities  in  the 
production chains between products already in scope of RoHS 1 and products newly in 
scope  of  RoHS 2  should  facilitate  compliance.  Indeed,  even  in  the  baseline  scenario, 
manufacturers  are  making  efforts  to  reach  compliance  before  the  2019  deadline.30 
Product  life  corresponds  with  design  cycles,  and  shorter  design  cycles  should  again 
facilitate  substance  substitution  and  compliance.  Also,  the  list  of  already  available 
exemptions from the substance restrictions, in Annexes III and IV of RoHS 2, facilitates 
compliance.  It  can  hence  be  assumed  that  some  products  newly  in  scope  are  already 

28 See also Sections 0 to 0 for further information on the problems which the current scenario will face. 
29  For  case  studies  on  secondary  market  operations  for  articles  with  integrated  lighting,  equipment  with  an 
internal combustion engine, gardening equipment, and toys newly in scope, see 7.4 
Annex  4  Case  studies 
on secondary market operations and spare parts use for certain newly in scope product groups. 
30  For  example,  entry  41  in  Annex  III  is  a  specific  exemption  requested  for  a  product  newly  in  scope;  this 
exemption was added by a Commission delegated directive in March 2014. 

 
 
 
                                                            
15 

compliant and therefore not impacted by the hard-stop of secondary market operations. 
Several  other  products  will  however  be  impacted,  especially  high-value,  long-lifetime 
products. 

  As  for  the  spare  part  problem,  the  potential  lifetime  of  many  affected  products  on  the 

market will be reduced. 

  Pipe organ builders will have to abandon the production of pipe organs of the traditional 
type  and  quality  before  the  22 July 2019  compliance  date.  Existing  pipe  organs  can 
continue to be used, but it will be impossible to both sell and resell pipe organs, as well 
as repair them with spare parts after 2019. 

  NRMM  manufacturers  will  have  to  adapt  their  production  either  by  creating  two 
different lines for almost identical machinery or by becoming RoHS 2-compliant also for 
out-of-scope NRMM towards the 22 July 2019 compliance date. 

3.2 

Options for the secondary market problem 

The  key  problem  is  the  curtailment  of  the  potential  lifetime  of  operational  EEE  and  the 
negative economic consequences thereof, due to the hard-stop of secondary market operations 
for new-in-scope products. Article 2(2) prevents the recirculation of non-compliant products 
after  22  July  2019  even  if  they  were  placed  on  the  market  before  this  date.  The  following 
policy options were developed and discussed in the early steps of the impact assessment: 

  Option 2 – the exclusion of medical devices and monitoring and control instruments, 
from the scope of the Article 2(2) transition period, thus preventing specific negative 
impacts  on  medical  devices  and  monitoring  and  control  instruments  resale  and 
refurbishment; 

  Option 3 – the removal of the hard stop to secondary market operations for all new in 
scope  EEE,  including  medical  devices  and  monitoring  and  control  instruments:  this 
entails  the  transformation  of  the  transition  period  into  a  compliance  phase  in 
requirement for the placing on the market of new in scope EEE in Article 4(3). 

Option  2  is  based  on  the  assumption  that  medical  devices  and  monitoring  and  control 
instruments  would  be  the  product  groups  with  the  longest  life  (10  years  if  no  secondary 
market is allowed, up to 30 years in case of refurbishment) and innovation cycles (e.g. 7 
years)  and  therefore  most  affected  by  the  2019  secondary  market  hard-stop.  Stakeholder 
input showed however that also other product groups (e.g. certain articles with integrated 
lighting,  certain  equipment  with  an  internal  combustion  engine,  certain  gardening 
equipment,  or  certain  toys;  in  general,  all  EEE  pertaining  to  category  11,  "other  EEE") 
were equally affected. While option 2 would solve the problems related to medical devices 
and monitoring and control instruments (e.g. supply-related patient health issues), it does 
not  tackle  the  problems  with  the  other  new-in-scope  products,  e.g.  some  articles  with 
integrated  lighting  such  as  post  boxes,  souvenirs,  shoes,  signs,  music  instruments,  doors, 
windows,  and  mirrors;  some  equipment  with  an  internal  combustion  engine,  some 
gardening  equipment,  as  illustrated  by  the  case  studies  in  Annex  2.  Therefore,  Option  2 
would not effectively solve the problem and is not retained for further assessment. 

Option 3 does not discriminate between the various product groups newly in scope, while 
leaving the original compliance date unchanged. 

3.3 

Options for the spare parts problem 

The key problem is the curtailment of the potential lifetime of functional/repairable EEE and 
the negative economic consequences thereof, as a consequence of impeding repair operations 

 
 
16 

for products newly in scope through replacement of broken parts. The main reason is the lack 
of  a  specific  repair-as-produced31  spare  part  provision  in  the  Directive.  The  policy  option 
identified in the early steps of the impact assessment is: 

  Option 2 – the introduction of a specific provision, which excludes from restriction the 
spare parts concerned, in order to allow the repair of pre-RoHS 2 EEE with pre-RoHS 
2 spare parts.32 

Option 2 introduces a repair-as-produced provision, which, for the sake of legal clarity and 
enforceability, needs to be fully aligned with the product compliance date. 

3.4 

Options for the pipe organs problem 

The key question regarding pipe organs is whether the product group should be kept within 
the scope of RoHS 2, assuming that organ builders will not be able to change the nature of 
their product. 

The policy options identified in the early steps of the impact assessment were: 

  Option  2  –  scope  exclusion  for  pipe  organs,  thus  removing  them  from  the  scope  of 

RoHS 2; 

  Option  3  –  issuing  guidelines  on  applicable  existing  exclusions  to  pipe  organs  (e.g. 

large-scale fixed installations); 

  Option 4 – the use of temporary RoHS 2 exemptions for pipe organs which remain in 

RoHS 2 scope. 

Option  3  was  discussed  to  verify  whether  larger  church  organs  would  fall  within  the 
category  of  "large-scale  fixed  installation",33  which  is  excluded  from  the  RoHS  2  scope, 
and  whether  additional  scope  exclusion  would  be  redundant.  It  was  considered  that  the 
"large-scale fixed installation" definition allows room for interpretation and Member State 
positions  on  this  issue  tend  to  vary.  This  could  lead  to  a  market  distortion  and  make 
enforcement  nearly  impossible.  Moreover,  this  would  discriminate  against  manufacturers 
of  smaller  organs  for  no  apparent  scientific  or  technical  reason.  Thus,  option  3  was 
discarded and it is not retained for further analysis. 

Option 4 was discussed to verify whether it was possible to keep pipe organs in scope, as 
manufacturers could always apply for an exemption of lead in the organ pipes. However, 
the RoHS 2 exemption mechanism is meant to allow adaptation to technical and scientific 
progress,  whereas  pipe  organs  have  not  changed  significantly  over  hundreds  of  years. 
Hence,  an  exemption  is  not  appropriate  to  address  the  reality  of  the  sector  and  it  would 
constitute  an  unnecessary  financial  burden.  Thus  option  4  was  discarded  and  it  is  not 
retained for further analysis. 

3.5 

Options for the non-road mobile machinery problem 

The  key  question  regarding  NRMM  is  whether  its  definition  should  be  broadened  to 
exclude cord-connected twin machinery from the RoHS scope. 

The policy options identified in the early steps of the impact assessment were: 

31 See section 0 
32 Pre-RoHS 2 means placed on the EU market before the RoHS 2 requirements applied to the relevant product 
category  and  therefore  potentially  containing  restricted  substances  beyond  the  (post-enforcement)  tolerated 
limit values. 
33 Article 3(4) 

 
 
                                                            
17 

  Option 1 – the baseline scenario with no policy changes; 

  Option 2 – a change in the NRMM definition so that the NRMM exclusion covers also 

external source powered machinery models fitted with a traction drive. 

Option  2  would  consistently  exclude  all  the  NRMM,  from  RoHS  2  scope,  whether  its 
power source is on board or external. 

4 

ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS 

This  chapter  provides  the  analysis  of  the  impacts  for  the  different  options;  the  baseline 
scenario (i.e. "no policy change" Option 1) is described as whole in section . 
Quantification is provided for impacts in the pipe organs and NRMM problems, while in the 
secondary  market  and  spare  parts  problem,  the  limitation  of  quantification  is  due  to 
uncertainty in quantifying the following aspects: 

  The open scope: the split between EEE already in scope of RoHS 1 and EEE newly in 
scope in terms of quantity, value and influence on the market is quite difficult. This is 
because,  for  some  products,  certain  models  may  fall  under  the  old  scope  and  others 
under  the  new,  with  no  distinction  in  terms  of  activity  classification.  This  brings  a 
severe  level  of  uncertainty  in  quantifying  the  EEE  subject  to  the  secondary  market 
hard stop. 

  The secondary market is generally possible for EEE in category 1 to 7 and 10, while 
for  EEE  newly  in  scope  (e.g.  medical  devices  -  cat.  8,  monitoring  and  control 
instruments – cat. 9 and any other EEE not belonging to the other categories – cat. 11) 
will  be  stopped  after  the  transition  period.  Quantifying  amount  of  EEE  (as  a 
percentage  of 
to 
refurbishment/reselling/repair is also difficult and aleatory, as it will depend on market 
evolution and public budget conditions (e.g. for medical devices). 

the  hard  stop)  which  will  be  subject 

those  subject 

to 

  Refurbishment of medical devices is a global scale business; thus it is very complex 
also to split this business between the two flows: refurbished EEE from third countries 
(which  would  be  placed  as  new  EEE  in  the  EU),  and refurbished  EEE  coming  from 
the  EU  (which  would  count  as  secondary  market  EEE).  Additionally,  under  medical 
devices  legislation,  the  term  “fully  refurbished”  exists.  “Fully  refurbished”  products 
are assimilated to new products. 

  Some EEE can be resold without being repaired or refurbished. 

4.1 

Public consultation 

The  results  of  the  public  consultation  are  presented  in  detail  throughout  the  analysis  of  the 
impacts, which is based on the Commission studies.34 Further information is provided in 7.2

Annex 2 Stakeholder consultation. 

Stakeholders were intensely consulted during the development of these studies by means of a 
dedicated website, three stakeholder consultations of 12-weeks and four stakeholder meetings 
through the years 2012-2015.  

More  than  three  hundred  contacts  were  reached  for  the  consultation,  including  independent 
experts,  representatives  from  Member  States,  industry  associations,  manufacturers  of  EEE, 
environmental NGOs, consultancy companies and institutes, and other types of organisations 
(e.g.  universities).  Overall,  responses  from  around  forty  participants  were  received. 
Respondents  were  in  essence  private  companies,  associations  representing  industrial 

34 Footnotes 51, 52, and 53. 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
18 

companies, including SMEs, third countries or global bodies/associations and Member States 
authorities/agencies,  while  response  rate  from  academic/research  institutions,  NGOs, 
consumer associations or individual citizens, despite invitations and promotion given on the 
initiative,  was  low.  This  response  pattern  with  contributions  coming  almost  only  from 
industrial and institutional stakeholders is frequent under RoHS, despite the constant effort to 
reach also different audience through public consultation. 

When  asked  about  their  preferences,  a  majority  of  the  respondents  preferred:  for  secondary 
market  problem,  the  removal  of  the  hard  stop  to  secondary  market  operations  for  all 
new-in-scope EEE and the transformation of the transition period into a compliance phase-in 
requirement  by  the  same  date;  for  the  spare  parts  problem,  the  introduction  of  a  repair-as-
produced provision; for the pipe organs problem, a scope exclusion provision for pipe organs; 
for the NRMM problem, the exclusion from RoHS scope of cord-connected twin machinery. 
These are seen as efficient, effective and safe solutions. 

4.2 

Impacts of the baseline scenario 

Secondary market 

Possible environmental impacts result from a reduction in the use of banned substances (a 
positive  environmental  impact)  versus  a  reduction  of  product  lifetime  (a  negative 
environmental impact), and shifting of sales abroad. The baseline scenario should ensure that 
by  the  end  of  2019  all  new-in-scope  products  are  compliant  with  RoHS 2.  This  is  however 
ensured  by  the  compliance  date,  and  not  through  the  interdiction  of  secondary  market 
operations. Operators are expected to stop acquiring non-compliant products as late as 2018, 
depending  on  the  market  situation.  After  mid-2018,  products  would  be  sold  at  lower  prices 
and more likely to non-EU customers (in this case also beyond mid-2019), with more end-of-
life equipment containing RoHS 2 restricted substances ending up in non-EU countries with 
potentially  improper  treatment  and  undesired  effects.  Another  negative  environmental 
side-effect might be a consumers' shift towards products with a shorter service life. 

Waste new-in-scope EEE content of mercury, cadmium, lead, chromium VI, polybrominated 
biphenyls (PBB) and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) could pose risks to health or the 
environment,  in  particular  when  the  waste  EEE  is  treated  in  less  than  optimal  conditions. 
Similarly, evidence available suggests that the four restricted phthalates35, when used in EEE, 
can  have  a  negative  impact  on  recycling  and  on  human  health  and  the  environment  during 
waste EEE management operations. Therefore, the hard stop of secondary market for existing 
EEE containing such substances, resulting in those products to enter their waste phase earlier 
is likely to have negative consequences in terms of both environment and health impacts. On 
the contrary, product reuse, refurbishment and extension of lifetime of existing EEE are likely 
to  have  positive  impacts  as  they  reduce  the  rate  of  waste  EEE  being  generated  per  unit  of 
time. 

The  secondary  market  closure  will  in  addition  involve  disproportionate  administrative 
costs  for  economic  operators,  in  particular  SMEs  which  work  in  the  EEE  refurbishment 
sector, given that the second life of most products post-2018 will depend on documentation 
and  not  on  the  technical  possibility  to  refurbish  the  product.  Additionally,  as  concerns 
enforcement, disproportionate administrative costs are expected for public administrations as 
well. 

The  refurbishment  of  non-compliant  medical  devices  would  be  stopped  after  2019.  Health 
impacts specifically related to the secondary market stop might occur where medical devices 

35 Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), Butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP), Dibutyl phthalate (DBP) and Diisobutyl 
phthalate  (DIBP)  are  substances  of  very  high  concern  (SVHC).  DIBP  is  a  substance  that  can  be  used  as  a 
substitute for DBP and was subject to previous assessments performed by the Commission. 

 
 
                                                            
19 

products’  life  ends  earlier  than  technically  necessary.  The  forced  changes  in  the  supply  of 
refurbished’ medical equipment in the EU could result in negative impacts on patients’ health 
in  terms  of  medical  devices  equipment  availability,  especially  in  times  of  budgetary 
constraints to the public health sector. 

Economic  impacts  on  the  manufacturing  of  products  are  primarily  related  to  the  2019 
compliance  date  rather  than  to  the  interdiction  of  secondary  market  operations.  This 
interdiction  of  secondary  market  operations  will  however  motivate  industry  to  reach  full 
compliance  earlier;  indeed,  in  absence  of  the  possibility  to  repair  and  resell  non-compliant 
products, customers would look for compliant products already in the years 2017-2018. This 
means  that  the  product  portfolio  will  be  screened  for  occurrence  of  RoHS  2  restricted 
substances. If needed, manufacturers would apply for exemptions and adapt production to the 
required  changes.  The  managing  of  the  product  portfolio  requires  the  updating  of  product 
documentation  and  the  training  of  personnel.  A  2008  study36  performed  a  survey  of  30 
industry  companies,  including  4  SMEs,  regarding  compliance  with  RoHS  2  and  found  that 
past  costs  and  future  one-off  administrative  costs  were  a  maximum  of  €  42.7  million  per 
company, with an average of € 5.9 million and a weighted average of € 13.2 million. Future 
yearly  administrative  costs  were  estimated  to  reach  a  maximum  of  €  4.7  million,  with  an 
average  of  €  265,500  and  a  weighted  average  of  €  675,000.  This  was  further  explained  to 
mean that below 0.001 and 1.233% (0.024% – weighted average) of turnover was relevant for 
past costs and future one-off costs, whereas between 0.0001 and 0.15% (0.014% – weighted 
average)  of  turnover  was  projected  for  future  yearly  costs.  Annual  costs  however  were 
expected to remain at a similar rate, as they are tied with general administrative work such as 
documentation  of  compliance,  and  not  necessarily  affected  by  the  distribution  of  compliant 
and non-compliant products. These compliance costs would be hastened to the period 2017-
2018 by the interdiction of secondary market operations. 

To  sum  up,  the  stop  of  secondary  market  operations  does  not  add  anything  substantially 
positive  to  the  mere  compliance  requirement,  while  it  might  have  significant  negative 
environmental, economic and social side-effects. 

Spare parts problem 

The impacts from the spare part issue are very similar to the ones triggered by the secondary 
market  stop.  Indeed,  the  spare  part  issue  will  push  manufacturers  towards  products  with 
shorter lifetimes and result in higher administrative costs (e.g. market surveillance). Although 
it  is  unlikely  that  any  economic  operator  will  repair  a  pre-RoHS  2  product  with  compliant 
spare parts, market surveillance will become more complex and vulnerable to fraud. 

The spare part provision specifically impacts long-lived products newly in scope, where the 
average  lifetime  is  ten  years  and  repair  might  still  be  relevant  several  years  after  2019.37 
Specialised repair business is a well-established part of the EEE sector, typically undertaken 
by  SMEs;  the  limitation  of  this  activity,  taking  place  both  in  the  EU  and  in  third  countries, 
will  most  likely  have  some  degree  of  negative  economic  and  social  impact,  including  on 
reduced international trade of spare parts and on SMEs. The shortening of EEE life under this 
scenario  will  also  negatively  affect  the  use  of  resources  needed  to  early  replace  end-of-life 
EEE. 

36  http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/pdf/rpa_study.pdf  -  Arcadis  Ecolas  &  RPA  (2008),  A  Study  on 
RoHS and WEEE Directives - Final Report 06/11925 for European Commission DG Enterprise and Industry, p. 
103, 110. 
37 See case studies in Annex 2. 

 
 
                                                            
20 

To  sum  up,  the  2019  repair-as-produced  stop  does  not  appear  to  have  tangible  positive 
impacts. 

Pipe organs problem 

No more pipe organs of the traditional type and quality will be placed on the EU market. In 
addition  to  the  loss  of  annual  European  turnover,  this  would  have  significant  impacts  on 
employment and on culture. This translates into a loss of 3,000-3,300 jobs in Europe by 2019, 
or a salary loss of € 15-16.5 million per year from 2019.38 

Moreover,  if  pipe  organs  remain  within  the  scope  of  RoHS  2,  they  are  products  newly  in 
scope  and  therefore  affected  by  the  problems  created  by  Article  2(2).  This  means  that  also 
existing pipe organs placed on the EU market before 22 July 2019 cannot be resold or, more 
importantly, repaired after that date. This will lead to an additional loss of 60% of jobs in the 
sector and would only leave organ tuners and maintainers employed, which account for 10% 
of the current total. The accumulated job losses would translate into a salary loss of € 24-26 
million  from 2020  to  €  59-65  million  per  year  by  2025.  Health  and  environment  would  not 
receive any relevant benefit from the phase-out of lead-containing pipe organs in the EU as 
today there is no recognised health and environment issues triggered by their production and 
use. 

Non-road mobile machinery problem 

Environmental impacts 

In terms of environmental impacts, if machinery with an off-board power source is to remain 
in  scope,  some  (limited)  environmental  benefits  could  be  expected,  related  to  RoHS 2 
restricted substances being replaced with time in some applications. Although exact quantities 
are not provided, it is expected that for most of the applications RoHS 2 restricted substances 
presence would be small in terms of the total mass per machine. 

Finding alternatives with comparable performance and reliability may be challenging, given 
the conditions of use of cleaning machinery or mining machinery. Such devices could become 
RoHS 2 compliant through the development of substitutes, expected in some cases in the next 
years,  or,  where  this  would  require  additional  time  (post  2019),  by  requesting  exemptions 
until  the  reliability  of  possible  alternatives  could  be  proven.  Environmental  benefits  are 
expected connected  to  the  phase-out  of  RoHS 2  restricted  substances;  in  the  case  of  mining 
activities  some  additional  emissions  can  also  be  expected  in  case  of  a  shift  toward  engine-
based  equipment.  However,  in  light  of  the  small  market  share  of  both  cleaning  and  mining 
machinery industries, compliance depends on the development of substitutes for other EEE, 
whose  market  share  determines  a  strong  influence  over  the  suppliers.  As  only  a  limited 
percentage  of  machinery  are  said  to  be  in  scope  (e.g.  20%  of  cleaning  machinery),  it  is 
concluded that overall environmental benefits would be limited. 

Economic impacts 

The  cleaning  machinery  sector  is  highly  specialised  and  export-oriented,  with  the  European 
turnover  amounting  to  1.5  billion  €.  Only  part  of  this  is  relevant  for  equipment  which  is  in 
RoHS  scope,  i.e.  the  20%  of  the  product  range  with  off-board  power  source,  amounting  to 
14,000  units  placed  on  the  market  per  annum.  Also  the  electric  powered  NRM  mining 
machinery  has  a  very  small  EU  market  share. Furthermore,  most  manufacturers  of  cleaning 
machinery are SMEs or slightly larger than SMEs. 

38 See p. 282 of the Biois study: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/rohs_eee/pdf/1.%20Biois%20study%20-

%20RoHS_II_IA_Final%20Report.pdf. 

 
 
                                                            
21 

Therefore, efforts towards RoHS 2 compliance could create a large burden for this industry, in 
particular where substitution is to require resources for research and development as well as 
for  reliability  testing  over  a  longer  period  of  time.  Since  the  main  market  share  of  these 
companies  is  in  the  manufacture  of  machinery  with  on-board  power  sources,  manufacturers 
could  pull  cord-powered  models  off  the  EU  market  to  avoid  the  need  for  compliance.  As  a 
consequence, higher costs and a loss of effectiveness are expected in those cleaning services 
where the cord-connected machineries are requested (e.g. where recharging creates a loss of 
working  time).  Changes  to  market  structure  are  not  expected  as  all  manufacturers  produce 
both types of models in light of the similarity of both on and off-board powered equipment; 
all  manufacturers  are  expected  to  be  affected  by  RoHS  2  similarly,  regardless  of  types  of 
machinery  that  they  produce  or  the  location  of  manufacturing  sites  (inside  or  outside  EU). 
Though the impacts shall be similar, larger manufacturers may be able to cope slightly more 
easily with this burden in comparison with smaller manufacturers, which are understood to be 
more dominant in this industry. 

Therefore, substantial costs in the cleaning machinery sector are expected due to: 

 

 

 

the efforts needed to support compliance; 

the turnover of the machinery; and 

the size of manufacturers. 

Similarly, for the mining sector the burden of compliance for a niche sector (electric powered 
NRM  mining  machinery)  is  also  potentially  high,  leading  to  negative  economic  impacts  for 
sector  consumers.  A  small  market  share  of  electric  powered  non-road  mobile  mining 
machinery could also mean that the market share is too small for manufacturers to be willing 
to carry the burden of RoHS 2 compliance. 

Manufacturers  could  thus  phase-out  cord-powered  models,  shifting  costs  to  consumers,  at 
least until substitutes are found for similar applications. Costs of compliance are regarded as 
high  due  to  the  large  development  effort  needed  to  make  substitutes  available.  Overall,  the 
economic burden seems disproportionate in relation to the benefits expected. 

Social impacts 

Where a shift to battery-operated cleaning machinery is to occur, the higher operational costs 
could  lead  to  labour  savings  to  compensate  the  costs,  which  could  have  an  impact  on 
employment levels. In terms of impacts on health, positive impacts are only to be expected in 
relation with the phase-out of RoHS 2 restricted substances.  

In  case  of  mining  machinery,  phasing-out  of  RoHS 2  restricted  substances  in  some 
applications could bring minor positive health impacts only with lower emissions throughout 
the equipment life cycle. However, negative health impacts could also occur in case of a shift 
toward  engine-based  equipment:  for  example,  the  machinery  operators  would  be  heavily 
affected by the flue gases in close working environment39 in case the NRMM were replaced 
by an engine-based equivalent. 

Manufacturers  could  be  impacted  either  by  higher  costs  (shift  to  on-board-power-source 
machinery)  or  by abandoning of the segment product  for the EU. In  both  cases, impacts on 
employment are expected in the manufacturing sector or downstream sectors (e.g. the mining 
sector). If however manufacture is mainly impacted in light of the research and development 
of  substitutes  for  RoHS 2  restricted  substances,  this  could  create  employment  opportunities 
related to research and development. 

39 See Figure 2 and Figure 3 

 
 
                                                            
22 

Secondary market problem 

4.3 
The  baseline  scenario40  deviates  from  the  principle  of  non-retroactivity  of  RoHS 2  as  it 
prevents  the  recirculation  of  products  that  are  already  on  the  EU  market.  Moreover,  it  has 
considerable  negative  impacts,  both  economically  and  environmentally.  Option  2  is  not 
retained as explained in Section 3.1; its positive impacts would have been similar, but more 
limited than the impacts of Option 3 as it would solve the problem only for specific product 
groups and not for all; for this reason it is considered worse than Option 3. Option 3 aims at 
fixing  the  underlying  legal  problem  by  adjusting  the  legal  construction,  thus  allowing 
recirculation of all pre-RoHS 2 products. 

The following potentially relevant  impacts were assessed for the Option 3 in  comparison to 
the baseline scenario: 

  Environmental  impacts:  use  of  RoHS  2  restricted  substances,  emission  of  RoHS 2 

restricted substances41, waste prevention; 

  Economic  impacts:  functioning  of  the  internal  market;  competitiveness;  costs  and 

administrative burden, including on SMEs; innovation and research,; 

  Social impacts: employment; consumers behaviours linked to product availability; health. 

Given  the  very  broad  range  of  diverse  categories  of  products  involved,  the  impacts  are 
described  in  qualitative  terms  as  a  detailed  quantification  is  impractical,  while  detailed 
4  Case 
quantification is though provided for some case studies below and in 7.4  Annex 
studies on secondary market operations and spare parts use for certain newly in scope product 
groups. 

Public consultation 

Stakeholders  were  provided  with  background  information  of  the  projects  and  related  policy 
scenarios and unanimously expressed their positions as follows: 

  The secondary market problem is relevant for many of them. 

  Stakeholders underlined the difficulties triggered by a baseline scenario where no changes 
are  introduced  in  RoHS 2  and  were  in  favour  of  the  policy  options  proposing  a  specific 
change in RoHS 2 to prevent the hard-stop of secondary market operations. 

  Stakeholders consider that only EU level action can solve the secondary market problem of 

RoHS 2 scope. 

Regarding the policy options aiming to address the secondary market problem, Option 3 was 
supported by most stakeholders, as detailed in 7.2  Annex 2 Stakeholder consultation. 

Option 3 – removal of the hard stop to secondary market operations 

Potentially relevant impacts are assessed below for Option 3 as a variation from the baseline 
scenario. 

Environmental impacts  

As  for  the  use  of  RoHS  2  restricted  substances  and  emissions  from  WEEE,  deadlines  of 
compliance are not affected, thus no specific impacts are expected for Option 3. 

40 See section 0. 
41 See footnote 1 and baseline scenario. 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
23 

In  terms  of  waste  generation  impacts,  Option  3  is  likely  to  be  beneficial  in  light  of  the 
removal of  secondary market limitations,  because  it results in  prolonging  product's life thus 
contributing  to  the  circular  economy  in  the  EU;  the  total  quantity  of  waste  prevented  is 
estimated  at  more  than  2000  tonnes  per  year  only  for  the  sector  of  medical  equipment  and 
1000  tonnes  per  years  in  the  case  of  monitoring  and  control  instruments.  No  negative 
environmental  impacts  from  the  market  circulation  of  pre-RoHS  2  products  (containing 
restricted  substances)  or  possible  changes  in  the  distribution  of  environmental  impacts 
resulting  from  export  of  such  items  are  expected  given  that  the  EEE  concerned  are  already 
circulating in the EU market. 

Internal market 

For Option 3 no cost difference is expected for placing new products on the market, while for 
the entire market costs could be lower with a fully operational secondary market. 

Manufacturers' competitiveness and cost of innovation and research 

As under this option the deadlines are unchanged, no cost difference is expected. 

Costs and administrative burden 

Option 3 facilitates enforcement, resulting in lower administrative costs for public authorities: 
market surveillance measures to enforce the removal of non-compliant articles from the EU 
market shall also no longer be needed, resulting in lower costs for public authorities. 

Long-lifetime  product  groups  have  important  repair  and  resale  markets.  Thus,  industries 
concerned, mostly SMEs could be severely affected by the secondary market problem. Under 
Option 3 this impact on industries would be removed.  

Employment 

Option 3 stimulates secondary market operations 

Consumers 

With  regard  to  secondary  market  operations,  Option  3  would  positively  impact  all 
non-compliant articles placed on the market prior to the various compliance deadlines, given 
that it leaves the original compliance date untouched. Allowing secondary market operations 
will  remove  negative  impacts  on  consumers,  otherwise  tied  with  the  limited  supply  of 
non-compliant articles by secondary market operations. This eliminates negative impacts on 
consumers caused by an early end-of life of the products concerned, with the highest benefit 
linked to the supply of secondary long-life products. 

Health 

Promoting  medical  equipment  refurbishment  in  the  EU  would  have  positive  impacts  on 
patients’  health  in  terms  of  medical  devices  equipment  availability,  given  in  particular  that 
that  the  difficult  budget  situation  of  public  health  sectors  goes  along  with  an  increased 
demand  of  used  medical  equipment.  The  potential  loss  for  EU  hospital  due  the  Article  2(2) 
hard stop in the resale of used imaging medical equipment is estimated above 100 million €. 
Additionally,  the  health  sector  will  have  to  spend  an  additional  70  million  €  to  buy  new 
equipment,  for  a  total  increased  cost  exceeding  170  million  €  for  EU  hospitals.  Thus,  the 
removal  of  the  hard-stop  would  trigger  a  corresponding  saving  of  170  million  euro  for  EU 
hospitals  in  comparison  to  the  baseline  scenario.  Further  significant  savings  (in  terms  of 
avoided  costs)  will  occur  also  for  other  medical  devices  and  again  after  2021,  when  other 
substances (phthalates) will be banned in EEE. 

 
 
24 

Summary 

The  baseline  scenario  might  have  significant  negative  environmental,  economic  and  social 
side-effects. Option 3 is better in terms of economic and social benefits, and whilst there are 
both  positive  and  negative  environmental  factors,  the  environmental  benefits  overall  also 
appear likely to prevail. 

Option 3 is likely to deliver the intended result with less administrative costs and greater legal 
certainty. Stakeholders, including SMEs, favour Option 3, which is seen to achieve the result 
of solving the issue identified without going beyond what is needed, meeting the general and 
specific objectives. 

Spare parts problem 

4.4 
The Option 1 baseline scenario42 hampers the repair of products that are already on the EU 
market. Option 2 resolves the reparability aspects of all non-compliant articles placed on the 
market prior to the compliance deadlines. Option 2 does not impact any other aspects as 
neither the deadlines for compliance, nor secondary market operations are affected. 

The following potentially relevant impacts were assessed for Option 2: 

  Environmental  impacts:  use  or  emission  of  RoHS 2  restricted  substances,  waste 

prevention; 

  Economic  impacts:  functioning  of  the  internal  market;  competitiveness;  costs  and 

administrative burden; innovation and research; 

  Social impacts: employment; consumers' behaviour; health. 

The  impacts  are  described  in  qualitative  terms  as  a  detailed  quantification  is  impractical, 
given the broad range of diverse categories of products involved. Quantification is provided 
for specific case studies and details are provided below and in 7.4  Annex  4  Case  studies  on 
secondary market operations and spare parts use for certain newly in scope product groups. 

Public consultation 

Stakeholders  were  provided  with  background  information  of  the  projects  and  related  policy 
scenarios and a vast majority of them expressed their positions as follows (the others did not 
express their opinion): 

  The spare parts problem is relevant for most of the respondents. 

  Stakeholders were in favour of the policy options proposing a specific change to the legal 
provisions  of  RoHS  2;  in  general  they  clearly  underlined  the  difficulties  triggered  by  a 
baseline scenario where no changes are introduced in RoHS 2 concerning the spare parts 
problem.  

  Stakeholders  consider  that  the  related  specific  problems  can  be  solved  at  EU  level  only, 
directly  in  RoHS  2  scope,  without  going  beyond  what  is  needed.  They  in  particular 
supported option 2. 

42 The detailed description of option 1, the baseline scenario, is given in section 0. 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
25 

Regarding  the  proposed  solutions,  as  the  spare  parts  problem  affects  a  broad  amount  of 
different sectors, addressing it was supported by most stakeholders; more details are given in 
7.2 

Annex 2 Stakeholder consultation. 
Option 2 – introduction of a repair-as-produced provision43 

Potentially  relevant  impacts  for  Option  2  as  a  variation  from  the  baseline  scenario  are 
assessed below. 

Environmental impacts 

Reparability  of  non-compliant  EEE  newly  in  scope  is  made  possible  in  Option  2,  thus 
resulting in a certain production and imports of non-compliant spare parts and cables, which 
shall  entail  further  use  of  RoHS  2  restricted  substances  (negative  impact)  and  may  cause 
additional  emissions,  particularly  tied  to  treatment  of  WEEE  (the  replaced  broken  spare 
parts).  However,  in  terms  of  total  waste  generation  impacts,  a  major  positive  benefit  is 
expected  from  Option  2  reparability  of  non-compliant  EEE  newly  in  scope,  resulting  in  a 
reduction of products being scrapped early or shipped to non-EU countries to be re-paired and 
resold. This triggers a reduction of the WEEE rate over time, due to the prolonged life of the 
products concerned, thus contributing to the reduction of use of raw resources in the sector. 

Internal market 

Option  2  should  bring  no  cost  difference  to  market  operators,  while  benefits,  especially  on 
SMEs are expected through promoting repair operations. 

Manufacturers' competitiveness 

The  option  would  result  in  reduced  costs  of  compliance  to  repair  non-compliant  products. 
Reduced costs for manufacturers would also derive in terms of easier screening of compliant 
versus non-compliant spare parts. 

Costs and administrative burden 

Option  2  facilitates  enforcement,  resulting  in  lower  administrative  costs  for  market 
surveillance authorities.  

Long lifetime product groups have important repair and resale markets. Thus, they could be 
severely  affected  by  unavailability  of  spare  parts  for  industries  concerned,  mostly  SMEs. 
Option 2 would remove this impact on industries by solving the spare parts problem. 

Employment 

Positive impacts are expected in light of additional work on repair of non-compliant products 
both related to repair operations and to the production of spare parts. 

Consumers 

Consumers will also benefit from extended reparability, which might even lead to a shift in 
warranties and consumer behaviour towards long life articles in some product sectors.  

Health 

While  there  will  be  a  certain  use  of  RoHS 2  restricted  substances  in  the  manufacture  of 
non-compliant spare parts and cables, the reduction in manufacturing of the entire equipment 
(which often contains anyway some restricted substances by virtue of exemptions) to replace 
articles, counterbalances the impacts. 

43 The "Repair as produced principle" was generally impact assessed for the 2008 Commission proposal on the 

RoHS recast, see p. 50 in the report 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52008SC2930&from=EN 

 
 
 
                                                            
 
26 

Summary 

The baseline scenario does not contribute positively to the objectives. 

Option  2  could  result  in  the  manufacture  of  more  non-RoHS  compliant  spare  parts  as  such 
spare  parts  would  be  allowed  for  the  repair  of  articles  placed  on  the  market  before  the 
compliance  deadlines.  This  negative  environmental  impact  in  terms  of  the  use  of  RoHS 2 
restricted substances is more than offset by the positive impact of articles being repaired and 
thus  not  reaching  their  end-of-life  early.  Where  repair  aspects  are  of  relevance,  impacts  on 
industry and consumers  are expected to  be positive.  The most  positive impact should be on 
enterprises  connected  to  such  operations,  i.e.  manufacturers  of  parts,  further  repair  of  old 
articles, second-hand sellers. Option 2 resolves the key economic problem with no important 
negative  side-effects.  Stakeholders,  including  SMEs,  favour  Option 2,  which  achieve  the 
result of solving the identified issue without going beyond what is the needed and meeting the 
general and specific objectives. 

4.5 

Pipe organs problem 

There  is  no  official  collection  of  pipe  organ  data  at  a  European  level  and  only  very  few 
Member  States  have  a  local  industry  representation.  Available  data  is  based  on  information 
provided by the International Society of Organbuilders (ISO) and on sector publications. 

The annual turnover for Germany is € 120 million and for the UK € 8 million. This data can 
be used to extrapolate an EU wide figure of around € 350-400 million. The EU-wide turnover 
of the sector was estimated at € 350-400 million44. Stakeholders describe the market as stable, 
which means that the market demand will not change in the foreseeable future. 

The  components  of  pipe  organs  relevant  for  this  assessment  are  the  pipes,  as  they  contain 
large  amounts  of  lead. All  other  components  are  RoHS 2-compliant.  The  five  biggest  organ 
pipe  builders,  producing  half  of  the  pipe  organs  placed  on  the  EU  market,  t  use  around  28 
tonnes of lead per year for the pipes. This suggests a total lead consumption of 56 tonnes per 
year. As explained, lead-free production is not an option, nor do alternatives exist to the use of 
electricity for generating the air pressure necessary to play the instrument. 

The following potentially relevant impacts were assessed: 

  Environmental impacts: waste generation and recycling; air quality; 

  Economic  impacts:  functioning  of  the  internal  market;  competitiveness;  costs  and 

administrative burden; innovation and research; 

  Social impacts: culture; employment; health. 

Public consultation 

Stakeholders  were  provided  with  background  information  of  the  projects  and  related  policy 
scenarios  and  the  only  interested  stakeholder,  the  International  Society  of  Organ  Builders 
expressed its positions as follows: 

  The pipe organs problem is relevant for them, 

  They  were  in  favour  of  the  policy  options  proposing  a  specific  change  to  the  legal 
provisions  of  RoHS  2,  i.e.  Option  2;  in  general  they  clearly  underlined  the  difficulties 
triggered by a baseline scenario where no changes are introduced in RoHS 2. 

44 See 7.5 

Annex 5 Quantitative data on pipe organs 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
27 

  They consider that the related problems can be solved only at EU level directly in RoHS 2 
scope as only this would solve the specific problems without going beyond what is needed. 

Option 2 – Scope exclusion for pipe organs 

Potentially  relevant  impacts  for  Option  2  as  a  variation  from  the  baseline  scenario  are 
assessed below 

Environmental impacts – Waste generation and recycling 

Pipe organs are long-lived products; many are between 100 and 400 years old. It is very rare 
that a pipe organ lasts less than 25 years. When an organ is beyond repair, the pipes are not 
disposed of. They are either reused in their original form or melted down and transformed into 
new pipes. This means that a closed-loop business had already been established before RoHS, 
and  the  addition  of  pipe  organs  to  the  RoHS  2  scope  does  not  have  any  impact,  nor  will 
possible  scope  exclusion  lead  to  an  increase  in  waste  generation  or  a  decrease  in  recycling, 
which is in the sector’s own interest. 

Environmental impacts - Air emissions 

When the lead/tin alloy is melted, the temperatures used are too low to emit lead fumes into 
the  environment.  Temperatures  range  from  300  to  350  degree  Celsius,  whereas  the  critical 
threshold  for  the  release  of  lead  fumes  is  at  approximately  480  degree  Celsius.45  Lead 
foundries in the EU would apply the best available techniques as requested by the Industrial 
Emissions  Directive;  this  implies  that  prevention  techniques  (e.g.  temperature  control), 
coupled with primary and/or secondary abatement systems would bring dust and gaseous lead 
emissions down to negligible values.46 There is therefore no major difference between the two 
scenarios with regard to emissions. 

Internal market 

RoHS 2 should affect all pipe organ builders in the EU equally, and no competitive pressures 
within the EU should be expected.  

Competitiveness 

Only around seven organs are being imported into the EU per year, mainly from Switzerland. 
However,  RoHS 2  covers  imported  products,  and  the  RoHS  2  scope  inclusion  (baseline 
scenario)  would  stop  imports  as  well.  No  significant  differences  between  the  two  scenarios 
are expected. 

Costs and administrative burden 

Due  to  a  lack  of  possible  substitutes,  as  explained  above,  pipe  organ  builders,  which  are 
mainly SMEs, would have to completely abandon their production for the EU market, which 
is  approximately  95%,  by  2019  in  the  baseline  scenario.  Although  strictly  speaking  no 
additional  costs  or  burden  would  be  incurred,  the  total  loss  of  annual  turnover  in  the  EU 
would be € 350 – 400 million. Option 2 would avoid these costs. 

Innovation and research 

In view of the history of the sector and its specific musical requirements, it is very unlikely 
that the restriction of lead in pipes in the baseline scenario should lead to the development of 
adequate lead-free alternatives. No differences between the two scenarios are expected. 

45 See p. 280 of the Biois study: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/rohs_eee/pdf/1.%20Biois%20study%20-
%20RoHS_II_IA_Final%20Report.pdf; 
46 Currently dust level associated with the use of best available techniques is < 20 mg/Nm³ in the dry normalised 
foundry flue gas, see p. 321 of the following report: 
http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reference/BREF/sf_bref_0505.pdf 

 
 
 
                                                            
28 

Culture 

The  baseline  scenario  has  a  significant  negative  cultural  impact,  as  the  extinction  of  the 
instrument has long-term implications regarding music performances. While all other impacts 
affect  only  the  manufacturing  sector,  the  cultural  impact  is  relevant  to  the  wider  public. 
Option 2 would avoid this vast cultural loss. 

Employment 

As explained in the problem definition, the baseline scenario will lead to an accumulated loss 
of  9,000  to  10,000  jobs  in  Europe  (90%  of  the  current  total),  or  a  salary  loss  of  €  24-26 
million  from  2020.  Moreover,  all  European  organ  builders  qualify  as  SMEs,  which  would 
particularly suffer from this hardship. Option 2 would avoid this impact. 

Health 

A possible health issue related to the organ manufacturing process is the impact of lead on the 
pipe  makers.  Some  long-term  of  over  30  years  test  results  from  UK  and  Austria  show  that 
there  are  no  health  effects  on  workers.47  Therefore  there  is  no  difference  between  the  two 
scenarios with regard to workers’ health. 

Summary 

The  baseline  scenario  means  the  de-facto  end  of  organ  production  for  the  EU  market  and 
therefore a significant loss of turnover and jobs in Europe. It also means the extinction of this 
musical instrument in the long run and a significant cultural loss. 

With  regard  to  competitiveness,  the  two  scenarios  are  equivalent.  Both  scenarios  affect 
manufacturers inside and outside the EU in the same way. With regard to the functioning of 
the  internal  market,  the  baseline  scenario  might  create  problems  that  the  scope  exclusion 
should resolve. 

No  environmental,  economic  or  social  reasons  for  keeping  pipe  organs  within  the  scope  of 
RoHS  2  could  be  identified.  Several  reasons  justify  full  scope  exclusion.  Stakeholders, 
including  the  pipe  organs  industry  that  is  mainly  composed  by  SMEs,  are  in  favour  of 
Option 2. 

The  environmental  and  health  impacts  of  the  two  scenarios  are  identical.  From  an 
environmental and health perspective, the inclusion of pipe organs in the scope of RoHS 2 is 
therefore  unnecessary.  Option  2  does  not  go  beyond  what  is  necessary  to  ensure  that  the 
objectives specified in section 2 are achieved, as only a full exclusion of the subsector would 
solve entirely the identified problem. 

4.6 

Non-road mobile machinery problem 

In general, NRMM with off-board power sources are manufactured in small quantities. 

The EU market share of cord-connected electric powered non-road mobile mining machinery 
is estimated to be relatively low compared to the global market. Because of the size, nature, 
expense and operating costs of these products, the market concentrates within professional use 
in mines only. A very small number of electric rope shovels and continuous miners are used 
in  the  EU.  These  products  can  be  as  large as  a building  and  cost  several  millions of  Euros. 
The total sales of each individual product are relatively low globally. 

As  regards  professional  cleaning  machinery  it's  estimated  that  over  70,000  units  are  to  be 
placed  on  the  EU  market  every  year,  with  a  distribution  between  models  with  an  on-board 
power source and models without (cord-connected) of 80:20. 

47 See p. 283 of the Biois study: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/rohs_eee/pdf/1.%20Biois%20study%20-
%20RoHS_II_IA_Final%20Report.pdf; 

 
 
 
                                                            
29 

Most  manufacturers  are  assumed  to  be  close  in  size  to  SMEs  or  possibly  slightly  larger  for 
both cleaning and mining machineries product groups. 

The following potentially relevant impacts were considered in the assessment: 

  Environmental impacts, including waste generation and recycling, air quality; 

  Economic impacts, including the functioning of the internal market, competitiveness, costs 

and administrative burden, innovation and research; 

  Social impacts, including culture, employment, health. 

Public consultation 

Stakeholders  were  provided  with  background  information  of  the  projects  and  only  some  of 
them expressed a position, 48 which can be summarised below: 

  The NRMM problem is relevant for some stakeholders. 

  Stakeholders concerned were in favour of the policy options proposing a specific change to 
the legal provisions of RoHS 2, as highlighted in the problem description; in general they 
underlined  the  difficulties  triggered  by  a  baseline  scenario  where  no  changes  are 
introduced in RoHS 2. Therefore, they called for a solution in line with option 2. 

  Stakeholders consider that the related problems can be solved only at EU level directly in 
the  RoHS  2  scope  as  only  this  would  solve  the  specific  problems  without  going  beyond 
what is needed. 

Regarding  the  NRMM  problem,  the  stakeholders  concerned  supported  the  solution  of 
option 2.49 

Option 2 – exclusion from RoHS scope of cord-connected NRMM 

Potentially relevant impacts are assessed below for Option 2 as a variation from the baseline 
scenario, i.e. in a scenario where the non-road mobile machinery with off-board power source 
is excluded from RoHS 2 scope. 

Environmental impacts 

RoHS 2 restricted substances are present in some components of non-road mobile machinery 
with  an off-board power  source. However,  given also the limited amount  of EEE placed on 
the EU market and the limited amount of substance per EEE, the total environmental impact 
of excluding from the scope this product group is considered limited, especially because it is 
only  on  a  portion  of  a  sector  (the  NRMM  with  an  on-board  power  source  are  already 
excluded). 

Economic impacts 

The  exclusion  of  the  cord-connected  machinery  models  would  bring  relevant  economic 
benefit to the cleaning and mining machinery sector, which are mostly made up by SMEs, due 
to  avoided  costs  of  compliance  and  of  research  and  development.  As  only  a  limited 
percentage  of  machinery  are  said  to  be  in  scope  (e.g.  20%  of  cleaning  machinery),  it  is 
concluded that most of the burden would be borne by the excluded EEE sector (NRMM with 

48  CECE  (Committee  for  European  Construction  Equipment,  i.e.  the  European  construction  equipment 
manufacturers’  association)  and  Eunited  Cleaning,  the  European  Cleaning  Machines  Association.  Also,  third 
countries associations (e.g. from the US) expressed similar positions. 
49 See Oeko 2015 study, pages 24-32 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
30 

an  on-board  power  source)  as  the  solutions  can  only  be  developed  for  the  whole  sector 
NRMM sector. 

Social impacts 

Negligible social impacts are expected due to size of this sector. 

Summary 

Costs  of  compliance  are  expected  to  be  high  in  relation  to  the  possible  benefits  in  case  of 
maintaining the cord-connected NRMM in scope. Costs are significant and they would likely 
be borne by EEE manufacturers concerned, while environmental benefits are expected only to 
a limited extent, and regardless of whether cord-powered equipment remains in scope or not. 
Therefore,  the  baseline  scenario  does  not  positively  contribute  to  the  objectives  of  the 
Directive  and  the  inclusion  of  cord-connected  NRMM  in  the  scope  of  RoHS  2  is  therefore 
unnecessary. Option 2 does not go beyond what is necessary to ensure that the objectives set 
out  in section 2 are achieved, as  only a full exclusion  of the cord-connected NRMM would 
solve entirely the identified problem. 

5 

5.1 

COMPARING THE OPTIONS 

Secondary market problem 

A qualitative comparison of impacts is given in Table 2. 

Table 2: Impacts of policy options for the secondary market problem compared to the baseline 
scenario 

Policy option 

Option 3: 
Deletion of Article 2(2) and compliance date 
22 July 2019 brought to Article 4(3) 

Impact 

Environmental impacts 

Use of RoHS 2 restricted substances 

Emissions from WEEE 

Waste prevention 

Environmental - aggregate 

Economic impacts 

Industry’s substitution costs 

Industry’s administrative costs 

Internal market distortion 

Market changes / trade impacts 

Authorities’ administrative costs 

Economic – aggregate 

+ 

+ 

++ 

+/++ 

= 

= 

= 

= 

+ 

=/+ 

 
 
 
Policy option 

Option 3: 
Deletion of Article 2(2) and compliance date 
22 July 2019 brought to Article 4(3) 

31 

= 

+/++ 

= 

+ 

Impact 

Social impacts 

Employment 

Consumer behaviour 

Health 

Social – aggregate 

Magnitude of impact as compared with option 1 (the baseline is indicated as 0): + + strongly 
positive; + positive; – – strongly negative; – negative; = marginal/neutral; ? uncertain; n.a. not 
applicable 

The comparison shows that an amendment to Article 2(2) should be beneficial in any case.  

Option 1 has significant negative impacts with regard to coherence and consistency with other 
overarching EU policy objectives; it does not help achieving the objective of the contribution 
to the protection of human health and the environment and it could go against the objective of 
the correct and regular functioning of the Union internal market. 

Option  2  does  not  address  the  problem  in  its  entirety  and  was  discarded  as  explained  in 
Section 4.2. 

Option 3 is clearly preferable with regard to its environmental and social performance. This 
option was supported by all stakeholders. Option 3 of the secondary market problem would 
mutually reinforce option 2 of the spare parts problem. Option 3 will also entail a reduction of 
costs and administrative burden. 

As the secondary market problem is fundamentally a legal problem, it can only be resolved by 
an  amendment  to  the  relevant  RoHS  2  provision.  This  means  that  the  'hard-stop'  for 
secondary  market  operations  should  be  removed  by  deleting  Article  2(2),  and,  at  the 
same  time,  adding  a  phase-in  compliance  provision  in  Article  4,  covering  all  products 
newly  in  scope  (in  addition  to  already  covered  medical  devices  and  monitoring  and 
control instruments), stating that the compliance date for these products is 22 July 2019, 
which is the date also originally foreseen for the transition. 

5.2 

Spare parts problem 

A qualitative comparison of impacts is given in Table 3. 

Table 3: Impacts of policy options for spare parts problem compared to the baseline scenario 

Policy option 

Option 2: 
Addition of a “repair-as-produced” spare part 
provision in Article 4(4) 

Impact 

Environmental impacts 

Use of RoHS 2 restricted substances 

– 

 
 
Impact 

Policy option 

Option 2: 
Addition of a “repair-as-produced” spare part 
provision in Article 4(4) 

32 

Emissions from WEEE 

EEE lifetime related impacts 

Environmental - aggregate 

Economic impacts 

Industry’s substitution costs 

Industry’s administrative costs 

Authorities’ administrative costs 

Product value from reparability 

Product warranty 

Economic – aggregate 

Social impacts 

Employment 

Consumer behaviour 

Social – aggregate 

– 

++ 

? 

+ 

+ 

+ 

++ 

++ 

+/++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

Magnitude of impact as compared with option 1 (the baseline is indicated as 0): + + strongly 
positive; + positive; – – strongly negative; – negative; = marginal/neutral; ? uncertain; n.a. not 
applicable 

Option 2 has significant positive economic and social impacts in comparison to the baseline 
scenario.  It  should  be  noted  that  significant  negative  impacts  from  WEEE  treatment  only 
occur  in  a  worst  case  scenario.  Also,  the  assumption  that  the  current  repair  prohibition 
(baseline) will lead to a significant reduction in the circulation of banned substances cannot 
take possible substance exemptions for future products into account. In any case the positive 
environmental  impacts  from  the  extension  of  product  service  life  outweigh  these  negative 
impacts.  The  overall  assessment  clearly  supports  option  2,  i.e.  the  addition  of  a 
repair-as-produced  clause.  Option  2  in  the  spare  parts  problem  would  mutually  reinforce 
option 3 of the secondary market problem. Option 2 will also entail a reduction of costs and 
administrative burden. This option was supported by most stakeholders. 

As  the  spare  parts  problem  is  fundamentally  a legal  problem,  it  can  only  be  resolved  by  an 
amendment  to  the  relevant  RoHS  2  provision.  This  means  that  a  new  clause  should  be 
added  in  Article  4  for  the  use  of  spare  parts  for  the  repair,  reuse  etc.  of  all  products 
newly  in  scope  (in  addition  to  already  covered  medical  devices  and  monitoring  and 
control  instruments  already  covered)  that  were  placed  on  the  market  before  22  July 
2019. 

 
 
33 

5.3 

Pipe organs problem 

In Table 4, a qualitative comparison of the impacts is given. 

Table 4: Impacts of policy options for the pipe organs problem compared to the baseline 
scenario 

Impact 

Policy option 

Option 2: 
Full exclusion of pipe organs from RoHS 2 scope 
(Article 2(4)) 

Environmental impacts 

Waste generation and recycling 

Air quality 

Economic impacts 

Internal market 

Competitiveness 

Costs and administrative burden 

Innovation and research 

Social impacts 

Culture 

Employment 

Health 

= 

= 

=/+ 

= 

++ 

–/= 

++ 

++ 

= 

Magnitude of impact as compared with the situation before RoHS 2 enforcement (2019): + + 
strongly  positive;  +  positive;  –  –  strongly  negative;  –  negative;  =  marginal/neutral;  ? 
uncertain; n.a. not applicable 

Option 1 has significant negative impacts with regard to coherence and consistency with other 
overarching EU policy objectives; it does not help achieving the objective of the contribution 
to the protection of human health and the environment and it could go against the objective of 
the correct and regular functioning of the Union internal market. 

Option  2  has  significant  positive  economic  and  social  impacts  without  any  negative  side-
effects  and  is  therefore  the  preferred  option,  helping  to  meeting  the  objective  of  the  correct 
and regular functioning of the Union internal market, without hampering the objective of the 
contribution to the protection of human health and the environment. 

Option 2, the scope exclusion, is clearly preferable. It resolves the identified problem in the 
simplest  possible  way  without  weakening  the  level  of  environmental  and  health  protection. 
Transposition into national legislation will be simple. The exclusion of pipe organs from the 
scope of RoHS 2 has no impact on the EU budget and will also entail a reduction of costs and 
administrative burden. This option was supported by the stakeholders concerned. 

 
 
34 

As the pipe organs problem is fundamentally a legal problem, it can only be resolved by an 
amendment  to  the  relevant  RoHS  2  provision.  This  means  that  pipe  organs  should  be 
excluded from the scope of RoHS 2 by adding them as a new entry to the list of excluded 
product groups in Article 2(4). 

5.4 

Non-road mobile machinery problem 

In Table 5, a qualitative comparison of the impacts is given. 

Table 5: Impacts of policy options for the NRMM problem compared to the baseline scenario 

Impact 

Policy option 

Option 2: 
change of definition of non-road mobile machinery to 
exclude from RoHS 2 scope also off-board power 
source NRMM – Article 4 and Article 3(28) 

Environmental impacts 

Waste generation and recycling 

Air quality 

Economic impacts 

Internal market 

Competitiveness 

Costs and administrative burden 

Innovation and research 

Social impacts 

Culture 

Employment 

Health 

= 

= 

+ 

= 

++ 

–/= 

= 

= 

= 

Magnitude of impact as compared with the situation before RoHS 2 enforcement (2019): + + 
strongly  positive;  +  positive;  –  –  strongly  negative;  –  negative;  =  marginal/neutral;  ? 
uncertain; n.a. not applicable 

Option 1 has significant negative impacts with regard to coherence and consistency with other 
overarching EU policy objectives; it does not help achieving the objective of the contribution 
to the protection of human health and the environment (negligible contribution) and it could 
go against the objective of the correct and regular functioning of the Union internal market. 

Option 2, the NRMM definition change to cover also twin machineries having an off-board 
power  source  NRMM,  has  significant  positive  economic  and  social  impacts  without  any 
negative side-effects and is therefore the preferred option, helping to meeting the objective of 
the  correct  and  regular  functioning  of  the  Union  internal  market,  without  hampering  the 
objective  of  the  contribution  to  the  protection  of  human  health  and  the  environment.  It 

 
 
35 

resolves the identified problem in the simplest possible way without weakening the level of 
environmental  and  health  protection.  Transposition  into  national  legislation  will  be  simple. 
The  NRMM  definition  change  has  no  impact  on  the  EU  budget  and  will  also  entail  a 
reduction  of  costs  and  administrative  burden.  This  option  was  supported  by  stakeholders 
concerned. 

As  the  NRMM  problem  is  fundamentally  a  legal  problem,  it  can  only  be  resolved  by  an 
amendment  to  the  relevant  RoHS  2  provision.  This  suggests  that  NRMM  where  an 
off-board  power  source  replaces  an  on-board  power  source  should  also  be  excluded 
from the scope of RoHS 2, by changing correspondingly the NRMM definition in Article 
3(28). 

6 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

Monitoring and ex-post evaluation of the taken measures are neither necessary nor technically 
feasible,  as  all  measures  aim  at  a  comprehensive  solution  of  the  underlying  problems  by 
means of a fundamental yet simple change to the legal status. All tangible impacts except the 
direct  economic  consequences  for  the  EEE  sector  are  neutral.  As  there  are  no  gradual 
implementation steps foreseen and Member States will only need to transpose the legal text 
one-to-one  into  national  legislation,  there  is  no  need  for  any  specific  follow-up.  Market 
surveillance is expected to be simplified by this initiative. 

 
 
36 

7 

7.1 

ANNEXES 

Annex 1 Procedural information 

7.1.1 

Identification 

This Staff Working Paper was prepared by the unit A2 'Waste Management & Recycling' of 
Directorate  A  'Green  Economy'  of  Directorate  General  'Environment'.50  The  Rolling  Work 
Programme reference of this initiative is 2012/ENV/009. 

7.1.2  Organisation and timing 

The  lead  DG  in  this  exercise  is  DG  ENV.  Other  services  of  the  Commission  with  a  policy 
interest in  the subject have  been  associated in the development of this analysis.  The Impact 
Assessment Steering Group was established in October 2013 by inviting the following DGs: 
ENV, GROW, SG, SJ, ECFIN, COMP, EMPL, CLIMA, and SANTE. 

The  impact  assessment  was  undertaken  through  several  studies  conducted  on  behalf  of  DG 
ENV between 2011 and 2015. DG GROW was consulted in the course of these studies. All 
DGs  participating  in  the  impact  assessment  steering  group  (IASG)  were  notified  of  the 
outcome.  A  first  roadmap  was  adopted  in  2014  and  was  replaced  by  an  Inception  Impact 
Assessment in December 2015. 

The Impact Assessment Steering Group met for the first time on 25 February 2016 to discuss 
a first version of the draft Impact Assessment report, including the possible policy options as 
well as its preliminary impacts. During the first meeting, A2 presented the draft content which 
were based mainly on the three studies. The participants (units in DG ENV, DG GROW and 
Secretariat General) discussed and provided their input and comments during the process. 

The final Impact Assessment Steering Group meeting was held on 08 April 2016; during this 
final meeting, the Impact Assessment Steering Group members discussed the updated Impact 
Assessment  report  and  took  some  conclusions,  whose  content  have  been  consequently 
reflected in this report. 

7.1.3 

Regulatory Scrutiny Board  

The Regulatory Scrutiny Board some recommendations, which were used to amend the text as 
explained in the table below. 

Table 6: Recommendations and improvements 

Recommendations  
(1)  The  report  should  provide,  where 
possible,  additional  details  and  quantitative 
data  on  the  likely  impacts  of  the  different 
options,  including  with  regard  to  the  order 
of  magnitude  of 
foreseen  burden 
the 
reductions. 
(2)  In  order  to  increase  transparency,  the 
report  should  provide  more  information 

Improvements 
Additional  details and quantitative data on the 
impacts  of  some  options  were  introduced  in 
sections  4.3  and  4.4.  Where  this  was  not 
possible,  explanations  have  been  given  in  in 
the introduction of section 4. 

Additional  details  and  explanations  on  the 
discarded  options  were  introduced  in  sections 

50 Currently Unit B3 Waste Management & Secondary Materials in directorate B "Circular Economy & Green 

Growth" of Directorate General 'Environment' 

 
 
                                                            
them 

include 

appropriate, 

regarding  the  discarded  policy  options  and, 
as 
where 
alternative  options  to  be  impact  assessed 
even  if  they  only  partially  address  the 
problem. 
(3)  More  detailed  information  should  be 
provided  on  the  stakeholder  consultation 
acknowledging  the  strong  response  bias  in 
favour  of  businesses  and  public  authorities. 
Efforts 
from  other 
seek  views 
stakeholders should be clarified. 
(4) In order to effectively serve as reference 
point  for  the  analysis,  only  one  baseline 
scenario should be introduced and assessed. 

to 

Other suggestions 

7.1.4 

Evidence 

4.3 and 4.4. 

37 

Section  4.1  was  improved  by  adding  details 
and explanations on the reaction pattern. 

The  baseline  scenario  description  and  impacts 
were  revised  as  recommended  in  sections  3.1 
and  4.2.  The  related  comparison  analysis  in 
sections 
accordingly 
harmonised. 
Minor fine tuning improvements were brought 
to section 2. 

5.4  was 

5.1 

to 

The  options  considered  in  this  impact  assessment  were  designed  by  taking  into  account  the 
following Commission studies on the RoHS open scope: 

1.  DG ENV in 2011 commissioned a study ("Measures to be implemented and additional 
impact assessment with regard to scope changes, pursuant to the new RoHS Directive" 
(2012))  which  identified  possible  problem  areas  due  to  the  scope  related  changes  in 
the RoHS 2. The final report was published July 2012 and highlights all the problems 
addressed in this impact assessment.51 

2.  A  follow-up  study  ("Additional  Input  to  the  Commission  Impact  Assessment  for  a 
Review of the Scope Provisions of the RoHS Directive" (2014)) commissioned for DG 
ENV  analysed  various  possible  solutions  to  the  problems  identified  in  the  above 
mentioned 2012 study. The final report was published in July 2014.52 

3.  An  additional  study  ("Study  for  the  analysis  of  impacts  from  RoHS2  on  non-road 
mobile  machinery  without  an  on-board  power  source,  on  windows  and  doors  with 
electric  functions,  and  on  the  refurbishment  of  medical  devices  "  (2015))  on  certain 
specific product groups' issues was published in March 2015.53 

The  stakeholders'  opinion  expressed  during  the  public  and  targeted  consultations  helped 
shaping the development of the above studies. 

Also other studies on the RoHS 2 scope were taken into account: 

51 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/rohs_eee/pdf/1.%20Biois%20study%20-
%20RoHS_II_IA_Final%20Report.pdf. 
52 
http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/reports/201406012_RoHS_Scope_Review_report_final.
pdf. 
53 http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/reports/20150312_RoHS_scope_review_final_a.pdf. 

 
 
 
                                                            
38 

  A  2010  study  for  the  Danish  Ministry  of  the  Environment  addressed  selected  aspects 
and  product  categories  under  a  potential  open  RoHS  2  scope,  however  without 
analysing the problems addressed by this impact assessment.54 

  A  UK  study published  in  November  2012  explored  some  RoHS  scope  related  issues 

from an economic perspective.55 

Other  sources  are  referenced  in  the  studies  and  range  from  public  agencies  documents  to 
industry figures and estimates. 

7.1.5 

External expertise 

The European Commission sought external expertise on the technical field as well as on the 
impacts  of  the  possible  amendments  to  the  RoHS  2  scope,  by  contracting  three  subsequent 
studies and by involving stakeholders' expertise in the field in the development of the studies. 

The first study was conducted by Biois and ERA consultants associated; the second and third 
studies  were  conducted  by  Oeko  Institute  and  Eunomia  associated.  Details  of  the  study 
findings are provided throughout the report. 

7.2 

Annex 2 Stakeholder consultation 

Public  websites  were  set  up  and  updated  on  a  regular  basis  to  implement  the  public 
consultations carried out in the years 2012-2015. More than three hundred participants were 
registered  as  stakeholders  on  the  websites,  including  representatives  from  Member  States, 
industry  associations,  manufacturers  of  EEE,  environmental  NGOs,  consultancy  companies 
and institutes, and other types of organisations (e.g. universities). 

All project-relevant documents were made available on specifically-built websites throughout 
the  duration  of  the  work.  Stakeholders  were  notified  by  an  email  of  the  availability  of  new 
documents. 

As  part  of  the  consultation,  also  several  workshops  (see  Table  9)  were  organised  with 
stakeholders  who  were  also  consulted  in  the  development  of  the  Commission  studies,  both 
online  and  in  writing.  Dedicated  webpages  facilitated  the  exchange  of  information. 
Stakeholders  from  Member  States'  administrations,  European  industry  and  NGOs  were 
extensively  consulted  on  the  identification  of  relevant  product  sectors,  gathering  and 
interpretation  of  data,  and  definition  and  assessment  of  problem  areas.  The  stakeholder 
consultations  were  open  to  the  public  twice  via  online  websites  and  lasted  twelve  weeks. 
Commission minimum standard has thus been met. 

Further follow-up consultations targeting specific stakeholders were carried out also through 
direct contact, in writing and through workshops. 

For  the  Commission  studies,  relevant  background  information  and  stakeholder  input  are 
available online.56 

In  the  first  twelve-week  consultation,  respondents  were  either  industry  or  industry 
associations, for a  total of 13 responses. 20 responses were received in the second 12-week 
consultation. While this number is not high, the quality of the answers was very satisfactory 
and these contributions did feed into the analysis. Additional stakeholder meetings took place 
involving around forty stakeholders, which provided additional input to the analysis. 

54 http://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2010/978-87-92617-50-7/pdf/978-87-92617-51-4.pdf. 
55 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/3032/pdfs/uksifia_20123032_en.pdf. 
56 See http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/rohs_eee/pdf/RoHS%20website%20documents.zip and 
http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/index.php?id=127. 

 
 
                                                            
39 

Another 12-week consultation was carried out providing participants with a short summary of 
the aim of the project and the scenarios investigated, as well as with a questionnaire outlining 
the main areas where information was needed. Various EEE manufacturers participated in this 
exercise,  providing  information  and  data  as  to  possible  impacts  of  the  current  status  of 
products  addressed  by  different  scope-related  RoHS  2  articles.  Along  with  the  review  of 
publicly  available  information,  the  results  of  this  consultation  have  provided  a  basis  for  the 
subsequent analysis and assessment. 

In  total,  some  forty  respondents  (see  Table  7)  participated  to  the  public  consultation  or 
stakeholders'  meetings  (see  Table  9)  and  provided  input  that  has  been  taken  into  account 
during the development of the studies in the years 2012-2015. 

Table 7: Public consultation participants 

Industry 
associations 

ACEA 

Companies 

MS public bodies 

Andreas Stihl AG & 
Co KG 

Belgian Federal Public 
Service Environment 

CECED 

Briggs & Stratton 

Danish EPA 

Third 
or global bodies 

countries 

American 
Chamber 
of 
Commerce  to  the 
EU 

Japan 
Business 
Council in Europe 

CECE  –Committee 
for 
European 
Construction 
Equipment 

Daikin Europe 

French  Environment 
Ministry 

TechAmerica 
Europe 

the 

– 

CEMA 
European 
association 
representing 
agricultural 
machinery industry 

the 

Denso 

Swedish  Chemicals 
Agency (KEMI) 

rep-
the 

SEMI  –  the  global 
industry 
association 
resenting 
manufacturing 
supply  chain  for 
the  semiconductor 
and 
related 
industries 

COCIR,  European 
Coordination  of  the 
Radiological, 
Electromedical  and 
Healthcare 
IT 
Industry 

EADS (European 
Aeronautic Defence 
and Space Company 
NV), (now Airbus) 

UK  Department 
Business 

for 

EDMA/EUCOMED 

FEI 

(European 
Diagnostics 
Manufacturers 
Association 

/ 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Companies 

MS public bodies 

Industry 
associations 

European  medical 
devices industry) 

40 

Third 
or global bodies 

countries 

EGMF 
(European 
Garden  Machinery 
industry Federation) 

Intel 

EPEE 

NIKO 

EPTA 

Océ Technologies BV  

European 
Semiconductor 
Industry 

LG Electronics 

the 

NEC Europe 

Orgalime, 
European 
Engineering 
Industries 
Association 

Panasonic Europe 

Philips Healthcare 

Siemens Healthcare 

GAMBICA  – 
the 
UK  Association  for 
Instrumentation, 
Control, 
Automation 
Laboratory 
Technology 

and 

EUROMOT  –  The 
European 
Association 
Internal 
Combustion  Engine 
Manufacturers 

of 

and 
the 

Eucomed 
EDMA, 
industry 
associations 
representing 
the 
medical devices and 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Companies 

MS public bodies 

41 

Third 
or global bodies 

countries 

Industry 
associations 

in  vitro  diagnostic 
devices 
medical 
sectors respectively 

LEU 
LightingEurope 

– 

United Technologies 

EUnited  Cleaning  – 
the  Association  of 
European  Cleaning 
Machines 
Manufacturers 

In Table 8, stakeholders' positions on the options discussed are reported.57 

57  The  numbering  of  the  policy  options  in  this  annex  corresponds  to  the  options  of  the  secondary  market 
problem, except for Option 5, which correspond to the Option 2 for the spare parts problem in this document. 
Individual documents can be found in the webpage: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/rohs_eee/studies_rohs4_en.htm. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Table 8: Summary of stakeholders' contributions 

42 

 
 
 
43 

 
 
 
44 

 
 
 
 
 
45 

Table 9: Stakeholders' meetings and workshops 

Study 

Event 

Date 

First 
Commission 
study58 

1st 
meeting 

Stakeholder 

29 November 2011 

2nd 
meeting 

Stakeholder 

21 February 2012 

3rd 
meeting 

Stakeholder 

15 May 2012 

Third 
Commission 
study 

Targeted 
stakeholder 
meeting 

27 November 2014 

Venue 

Brussels, 
Belgium 

Brussels, 
Belgium 

Brussels, 
Belgium 

Brussels, 
Belgium 

The stakeholder consultations undertaken identified the following product groups and RoHS 2 
scope areas as problematic, namely: 

  Secondary  market  operations  for  RoHS  2  EEE  which  were  not  in  scope  of  RoHS  1 

(RoHS 2, Article 2(2)) 

  Spare parts for RoHS 2 EEE which were not in scope of RoHS 1 

  Pipe organs 

  Certain cord-connected Non-Road Mobile Machinery 

The vast majority of stakeholders were of the opinion that those problems can be solved only 
with an amendment to the RoHS 2 directive in order to allow the secondary market operation 
of  new-in-scope  EEE,  including  with  the  use  of  pre-RoHS  2  spare  parts,  in  addition  to  the 
exclusion  of  pipe  organs  and  cord-connected  non-road  mobile  machinery.  This  opinion  was 
also reflected in the Commission studies. 

7.3 

Annex 3 Who is affected by the initiative and how 

Who is affected 

How 

Member States 

The amendments to the scope of the RoHS 2 directive will require 
Member States to: 

  Transpose the amendments into national law 
  Enforce  the  amended  provisions  (jointly  with  previous 
RoHS  2  provisions  to  be  enforced  at  the  end  of  the 
transition  period)  by  the  compliance  date  through  market 

58 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/rohs_eee/pdf/1.%20Biois%20study%20-

%20RoHS_II_IA_Final%20Report.pdf  

Meeting documents can be downloaded at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/rohs_eee/pdf/RoHS%20website%20documents.zip  

 
 
 
 
                                                            
surveillance 

Manufacturers, 
distributors 
importers 

and 

A reduction of costs for the public administration is envisaged due 
to simplified market surveillance. 
Manufacturers,  distributors  and  importers  will  make  available 
EEE  on  the  EU  market  in  compliance  with  the  amended 
provisions. This means that: 

46 

  Manufacturers,  including  SMEs,  will  be  enabled  to 
perform secondary market operations, also through repair 
operations  with  pre-RoHS2  spare  parts,  also  on  new-in-
scope  EEE.  This  will  be  particularity  important  for 
manufacturers of long-life high priced EEE which have an 
important secondary market. 

  Manufacturers,  including  SMEs,  will  be  able  to  place  on 
the  EU  market  pipe  organs  and  cord-connected  non-road 
mobile machinery with no RoHS substance restriction. 

Therefore,  the  amended  provisions will  reduce  regulatory  burden 
on  the  category  of  manufacturers,  distributors  and  importers, 
including on SMEs concerned. 

Consumers 
Users 

and 

Consumers and users will take benefit of increased availability of 
EEE in the EU market. This means that: 

  An  increased  availability  of  second-hand  newly-in-scope 
EEE,  also  after  repair  operation  with  pre-RoHS2  spare 
parts,  could  result  in  additional  benefits  to  consumers, 
including for health in the case of medical devices. 

  Pipe  organs  and  cord-connected  non-road  mobile 
machinery will continue to be made available to them with 
no substance restriction. 

7.4 

Annex 4 Case studies on secondary market operations and spare parts use for 
certain newly in scope product groups59 

Articles with integrated lighting newly falling in the scope of RoHS 2 

Lighting Europe60 (LEU) submitted a contribution to the Stakeholder Consultation61 as well 
as  a  response  to  clarification  questions62  prepared  following  the  initial  contribution.  Both 

59 This Annex is identical to chapter 3.5.3 of 
http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/reports/201406012_RoHS_Scope_Review_report_final.
pdf; for underlying statistical data and stakeholder input see appendices therein. The numbering of the policy 
options in this annex corresponds to the options of the secondary market problem, except for Option 5, which 
correspond to the Option 2 for the spare parts problem in this document. 
60 LightingEurope is an industry association of 33 European lighting manufacturers, national associations, and 
companies producing materials. LightingEurope members represent over 1,000 European companies, a majority 
of which are SMEs; a total  workforce of over 100,000 people in Europe; and an annual turnover estimated to 

 
 
 
                                                            
47 

documents concern products with an integrated lighting function, which did not fall under the 
scope of RoHS 1, as the  electric function (i.e. lighting)  was not the primary function  of the 
product. Subsequent to the new interpretation of dependency on electricity, these products are 
to be regulated according to RoHS 2. 

LEU state that “A typical case is furniture, which is normally a non-EEE product. Typically, 
the same type of furniture can be sold with and without a LED luminaire. In case it is sold 
with  an integrated LED luminaire the  whole  furniture  has to  be RoHS compliant,  including 
those  parts  which  are  normally  not  EEE,  and  were  probably  never  assessed  against  RoHS 
requirements.  Normally,  these  products  are  not  assessed  if  sold  without  LED  luminaire. 
Conformity  assessment  for  the  whole  product,  including  all  nonelectrical  parts,  has  to  be 
performed  according  to  harmonized  European  Standard  EN50581.”  LEU  warns  that  this 
group includes “a huge variety of products for which a reliable impact assessment on cost and 
benefits is not available and even difficult to prepare”. Examples of such products equipped 
with LED lighting specified in the first contribution include: post boxes; art/souvenirs; shoes; 
signs;  music  instruments;  toys  (e.g.  scooter  with  LED  in  wheel);  doors,  windows;  and 
mirrors.63  

Additional  examples  were  provided  in  LEUs  response  to  clarification  questions:  clothing; 
sport equipment; dog collars; cups; porcelain; and carpets. In this regard LEU explained that 
“Members  of  LightingEurope  observed  that  LED  has  features  (e.g.  lightweight,  small  size, 
little electricity consumption), which inspires other business (entrepreneurs, designers etc.) to 
use LED in fields where lighting was not present before. As a consequence we can observe an 
increasing trend to integrate a non-electrical product with LED”.64 

Areas of possible non-compliance are tied to the non-electric components of the product. LEU 
provides some examples of materials where compliance may be a problem, such as in the use 
of: 

  “lead in glass (limit 0,2% in EEE)  

  lead  in  brass  (limit  4%  for  brass  in  EEE,  up  to  6%,  no  limit,  in  non-EEE  brass 

products  

  lead in aluminium,  

  flame retardants / plasticisers in clothing  

  lead in leather  
  lead in steel”65 

exceed 20 billion Euros. LightingEurope is dedicated to promoting efficient lighting practices for the benefit of 
the global environment, human comfort, and the health and safety of consumers. 
61  LightingEurope  (LEU)  (2014a),  Contribution  to  RoHS  Stakeholder  Consultation  Concerning  RoHS  Scope 
Review, submitted 10.03.2014, available under: 
http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_IA_2_2/20140310_LE_PP_EEE_Newly_in_the_
scope_20140310_final.pdf. 
62 LightingEurope (LEU), (2014b), Response to Clarification Questions concerning LEU Contribution to RoHS 
Stakeholder Consultation Concerning RoHS Scope Review, submitted 11.04.2014 per e-mail. 
63 Op. cit. LEU (2014a). 
64 Op. cit. LEU (2014b). 
65 Op. cit. LEU (2014b). 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                          
48 

LEU explains that as consequence to the inclusion of such products in the scope of RoHS, the 
administrative burden on clients of the lighting industry, particularly of producers of non EEE 
products,  shall  increase.  The  lack  of  awareness  of  such  manufacturers  to  the  RoHS 
compliance  requirements  may  increase  the  risk  for  non-compliance  of  the  whole  product  in 
such  cases.  This  is  stated  not  to  be  in  line  with  the  WEEE  Directive,  under  which  such 
products are not considered to be WEEE at the end of life and could bring about hundreds of 
exemption requests.66 

LEU estimate the main impacts tied with this product group as follows: “The logical reaction 
of  the  producers  of  “EEE  newly  in  the  scope”  is  to  avoid  costs  and  risks  by  not  including 
lighting  in  their  products.  Therefore,  LightingEurope  believes  that  the  open  scope  has 
negative impacts: 

  On the lighting industry in the form of loss of business;  

  On producers of category 11 products in the form of increased cost and loss of product 

diversification; and  

  On consumers in the form of decrease of product functionality;  

  All  while  the  positive  environmental  impact  is  not  known  and  based  largely  on 

estimations.67 

LEU further explains that some guidance is  further  provided in  this regard in  the EU COM 
FAQ document which gives the example of a wardrobe with lighting and “suggests that the 
whole cupboard is EEE, if lighting and cupboard are integrated and cannot be separated into 
two fully functional units. In the opinion of LightingEurope this explanation does not remove 
the  legal  uncertainty  with  regard  to  the  question,  what  is  EEE  and  what  is  the  notion  of 
integration.  While  the  FAQ  provides  much  appreciated  guidance,  it  is  not  a  binding,  legal 
document,  and  introduces  further  uncertainty  by  the  addition  of  the  word  “integral”  and 
“fully functional unit”. The main concern is understood to be, that despite the compliance of 
the  electric  components  used  in  these  products,  non-compliance  of  other  components  shall 
make the whole product non-compliant (lighting as well as lighting fixtures were in scope of 
RoHS 1 and are thus expected to be compliant). To avoid this complication, manufacturers of 
such  products  are  expected  to  avoid  use  of  electric  components,  leading  to  the  above 
mentioned impacts.68 

LEU  thus  request  a  further  exclusion  be  added  to  Article  2(4)  to  resolve  this  issue,  and 
propose the following formulation in this regard: “(k) non-electrical parts of EEE in Category 
11  of  Annex  I,  which  are  using  lighting  as  a  non-primary  function”.  As  further  exclusions 
from  the  scope  of  RoHS  are  beyond  the  scope  of  the  current  project,  this  request  is  not 
discussed,  and  the  following  evaluation  shall  merely  try  to  shed  light  on  the  type  and 
magnitude of impacts tied to this product group.  

66 Op. cit. LEU (2014a). 
67 Footnote cited from LEU (2014a): See BIOIS report, for European Commission, DG ENV: Measures to be 
implemented  and  additional  impact  assessment  with  regard  to  scope  changes,  pursuant  to  the  new  RoHS 
Directive, 2012, Annex V, Furniture with secondary electrical functions. 
68 Op. cit. LEU (2014a). 

 
 
                                                            
49 

LEU could not provide data to clarify the scope or the turnover related to the manufacture and 
sales of such products in the EU, but referred to the estimation made by BIOIS: “The same 
report in chapter 1.3.33 tries to estimate the market size of furniture with secondary electrical 
function,  which  is  around  1%  of  the  total  turnover,  corresponding  to  1.26  billion  EUR  per 
year”.69  However,  to  provide  some  insight  to  the  possible  implications  of  these  products 
being in scope, they provided an estimate as to the fraction of the lighting industry’s turnover, 
which  is  tied  to  the  use  of  lighting  in  these  products:  “At  the  moment  the  estimation  of 
LightingEurope is that approximately 5% of the turnover is coming from integration of LED 
lighting into non-EEE products. This turnover was achieved during the times, when only the 
lighting  part  of  such  integrated  products  had  to  comply  with  RoHS  Directive.  Since  LED 
technology  is  very  young  there  is  still  space  for  market  development.  We  are  not  able  to 
estimate however how big this market will grow.” Later on in the document a further rough 
estimation was provided of 5-15% concerning the possible loss of business at best-case and 
worst-case.  “Coming  to  the  implications  on  the  market  trends,  LightingEurope  can  at  the 
moment only apply the common business sense to this case. Our conclusion is that the market 
growth  in  this  segment  will  lag  behind  of  its  potential,  what  would  be  without  the  RoHS 
compliance obligation to non-EEE part. At the end of the day it is a lost business for lighting 
industry  and  lost  opportunity  for  the  European  economy  and  European  consumers  without 
any  significant  improvement  in  the  state  of  environment.”  Examples  were  also  provided  for 
products  which  can  be  designed  to  be  custom-made  (such  as  furniture),  in  which  case  the 
burden of compliance is higher as each article will separate compliance documentation.70 

In light of the relevance of the lighting sector to this product group, information was extracted 
from Eurostat71 as to the value of sales of lighting applications in the EU 27. Data is based on 
NACE classifications for lighting applications such as lamps and lighting fixtures. The total 
value  of  the  sector  in  2012  was  estimated  to  be  around  €20  billion  with  fluctuations  in 
turnover of up to 10% in the last few years. Based on the estimations provided by LEU, it is 
thus  estimated  that  between  €  1–1.5  billion  of  the  lighting  sector  turnover  may  be  at  risk 
where  impacts  are  to  arise  from  the  need  of  products  with  integrated  lighting  to  be  RoHS 
compliant.  The  worst  case  situation  would  be  a  loss  of  business  of  this  volume,  though  the 
consultants assume that even if the worst case situation is to be relevant, it would not result in 
a loss of all business tied to this product group. Detailed statistical information is provided in 
Appendix 5. 

The consultants interpret the information provided by LEU to clarify that two sub-groups can 
be outlined concerning compliance:  

  The  first  includes  products  which  are  free  of  RoHS  substances.  The  burden  of 
compliance  will  result  in  additional  costs  for  the  manufacture  of  articles  with 
integrated lighting, whereas no environmental benefit is expected as the product was 
RoHS substance free to begin with.  

69  Cited  in  Op.  cit.  LEU  (2014b)  as  Bio  Intelligence  Service,  Impact  Assessment,  Annex:  Furniture  with 
secondary electrical functions, chapter 1.3.2.5 p. 243. 
70 Op. cit. LEU (2014b). 
71 Op. cit. EUROSTAT (2014). 

 
 
                                                            
50 

  The  second  includes  products,  which  may  use  RoHS  substances  in  the  non-electric 
components (components tied with the lighting function are assumed to be compliant 
in  light  of  already  being  in  scope  of  RoHS  1).  The  manufacturer,  who  may  produce 
products both with and without integrated lighting, will need to consider if only RoHS 
regulated  products  are  to  be  redesigned  to  be  compliant  or  all  products.  The  latter 
would  be  a  result  of  the  separation  of  production  lines  to  be  non-feasible. 
Environmental benefits are expected, with their volume depending on the decision to 
redesign only RoHS regulated products or all products. 

In both cases, the burden of compliance on manufacturers of products normally not regulated 
under  RoHS  may  result  in  a  decision  to  discontinue  manufacture  of  products  with  integral 
lighting  in  order  to  avoid  such  expenses.  It  could  be  argued  that  the  lighting  could  be 
redesigned so that it would not be “integral”, however the distinction between “integral” and 
“non-integral” may not be completely clear to manufactures, as explained by LEU, and is not 
legally binding as it is provided in the EU COM FAQ document and not in the RoHS legal 
text. A further result could be that consumers purchase items and lighting fixtures separately 
and  have  lighting  retrofitted  into  the  item  (individually  or  assisted  by  a  professional 
craftsman).  

A summary of the expected impacts relevant for Option 1 (Business as Usual) is provided in 
Table 10. 

Table 10: Impact expected in Option 1 for products with integrated lighting 

Impact area 

Impact expected in Policy Option 1: Business as usual 

Environmental  
impacts 

Economic 
impacts 
manufacturers 

– 

Some  benefits  for  products  with  non-EE  components  using  RoHS 
substances.  If  as  a  result  of  current  legislation,  manufacturers  shall 
discontinue  manufacture  of  articles  with  integrated  lighting  or  shall 
revert to designs where lighting component is no longer integrated and 
can  be  easily  removed;  this  would  have  benefits  concerning  the 
management of waste at end of life. In contrast, where manufacture is 
not  expected  to  change,  more  costs  shall  be  relevant  in  terms  of  the 
recycling sector coming  to terms with  a product which is not  WEEE, 
but must still be included in part in the treatment of WEEE. 

Additional costs for manufacturers of products with integrated lighting, 
(technical costs of compliance and administrative costs of compliance). 
Loss of income where manufacture discontinued, though in most cases 
consumers  are  expected  to  purchase  articles  without  light  capability, 
supplementing  a  light  fixture  adjacent  to  the  item  or  through  a  retro-
fitting of the lighting fixture within the purchased item. 

Economic 
impacts 
suppliers 

–

Small to large burden for providing documentation (lighting suppliers 
and other suppliers respectively). Loss of business where manufacture 
is  discontinued,  though  in  some  cases  lighting  fixtures  may  be 
purchased separately and assembled by owner.  

Economic 
impacts  –  public 
authorities 

Additional  costs  due  to  additional  products  being  regulated  under 
RoHS.  

 
 
51 

Impact area 

Impact expected in Policy Option 1: Business as usual 

Economic 
impacts 
consumers 

- 

Loss  of  product  diversity  (lighting  capabilities)  of  relevant  product 
groups,  though  in  some  cases  articles  and  lighting  fixtures  would  be 
purchased separately and assembled by owner. 

Social  impacts  - 
employment 

Impacts  to  incur  both  in  products  where  production  is  to  be 
discontinued (negative) and where product compliance is to be sought 
(positive).  

Social  impacts  – 
consumer 
behaviour 

Where products are to be discontinued, in some cases consumers may 
purchase lighting equipment to provide lighting capabilities otherwise 
supplied by product.  

Social  impacts  - 
health 

Impacts  proportional  to  change  in  environmental  benefit  (tied  to 
decrease in RoHS substances) 

The implication of the reparability and secondary market aspects were not discussed by LEU 
regarding this product group, though they may have impacts, as at least some of the products 
are assumed to be long life  and thus also resalable and reparable. Nonetheless, for the most 
part, the impacts addressed by LEU are not expected to change in light of these two aspects. It 
is generally expected that the various stakeholders would benefit if the secondary market and 
reparability  issues  could  be  resolved  (Options  3  or  4  and  5,  respectively),  however  other 
impacts mentioned in the table above would not be expected to be significantly affected in the 
various policy options. In this sense the consultants conclude that this product group is more 
or  less  indifferent  to  the  proposed  scenarios.  For  the  most  part,  impacts  addressed  in  this 
section shall remain similar in all scenarios. In the consultants’ view some of the uncertainty 
in this regard could be addressed through clarification of the notion of integrity for products 
where the electric function is not primary, though, this may also lead to further confusion if 
not handled carefully. 

Equipment with an internal combustion engine newly falling in the scope of RoHS 2 

The  European  Association  of  Internal  Combustion  Engine  Manufacturers  (EUROMOT) 
submitted  a  contribution  to  the  Stakeholder  Consultation.72  EUROMOT  explain  that,  as  the 
primary energy is not based on electricity but fuel such as petrol, diesel or gas, all equipment 
powered by internal combustion engines did not fall under the scope of RoHS 1, but would 
newly be in the scope of RoHS 2, probably falling under category 11. It is further explained 
that  most  engine-powered  equipment  is  covered  by  exclusions  under  Article  2(4)73  and  that 
engine powered equipment above 1000 V for alternating current and 1500 V for direct current 
is not in scope of the RoHS Directive. Engines are explained to power many different product 
groups  and  markets,  making  the  retrieval  of  market  data  on  this  diverse  group  of  products 
challenging.  EUROMOT  explain  that  service  life  “varies  significantly  between  equipment 

72 The European Association of Internal Combustion Engine Manufacturers – EUROMOT (2014), Contribution 
to  RoHS  Stakeholder  Consultation  Concerning  RoHS  Scope  Review,  submitted  07.03.2014,  available  under: 
http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_IA_2_2/Products_newly_in_scope/20140307_E
UROMOT_RoHS_2_Oeko-Institut_Review_EEE_newly_in_Scope-Questionnaire_Final_Response_2014-03-
07.pdf. 
73  This  is  understood  to  refer to  the  exclusions  available  in  RoHS 2  for  large  scaled  installations  stipulated  in 
Articles 2(4)(d and e). 

 
 
 
                                                            
52 

based on internal combustion engines. Some products may have an average service life of 50h 
(two years) others in excess of 80,000 hours may still be in service after 25 years. In general, 
it is common practice to repair equipment based on internal combustion engines and it is an 
important  part  of  the  business.  Depending  on  the  type  of  equipment  the  engines  may  have 
multiple  overhauls  in  their  service  life.  Each  overhaul  will  need  many  spare  parts  some  of 
which may contain substances which are restricted under the RoHS 2 Directive”. Detail as to 
possible parts where RoHS substances shall be required are specified below.74 

Concerning  secondary  market  operations,  EUROMOT  explain  that  “secondary  market 
operations  are  common  for  many  products  based  on  internal  combustion  engines.  This 
includes  leasing,  renting,  and  secondary  sales  operated  both  by  retailers  and  equipment 
owners. For some products, the secondary market is so well established that the potential for 
resale is an important factor in the value of the product.”75 

Concerning the compliance of such equipment, at present the main substances of concern are 
understood  to  be  lead  (Pb)  and  hexavalent  chromium  (Cr  VI).  Cr  VI  is  used  for  corrosion 
protection  of  certain  engine  parts  in  current  equipment  and  will  probably  be  needed  in  the 
future for spare parts of engines. Manufacturers are working on replacing Cr VI, however, in 
many cases spare parts will probably not be redesigned. EUROMOT provides the following 
examples for Pb, which is used in light of the high temperature range and the vibration of the 
engine and the resulting high strength requirement for the solder joints.76 

  Compression Ignition Engines:  

  Pb in solder of the Monitoring Instruments is likely to be above the restricted 

0.1wt% threshold at homogeneous level; 

  Pb  in  solder  in  engine  control  electronic  systems  exceeds  the  0.1  wt% 

threshold at homogeneous level; 

  Likewise Pb in the engine bearing and bushing components of the Combustion 

Engine is also likely to exceed the 0.1wt% threshold. 

  Spark-ignition engines: 

  Pb  in  solder  for  the  spark-ignition  system  and  engine  control  electronic 

systems exceed the 0.1 wt% threshold; 

  Pb in metal alloys for engine body; 

  Pb as impurity in recycled plastics. 

  Pb  is  also  used  in  the  starter  batteries  of  internal  combustion  engines,  which  are 
notably  exempted  under  the  End  of  Life  Vehicles  Directive  covering  engines  in 
automobiles. 

EUROMOT explains that for some components, particularly in large scale products, present 
alternatives  may  result  in  an  unacceptable  reduction  in  service  life.  Although  EUROMOT 
members  have  stated  their  intention  to  comply  by  the  end  of  the  transitional  period, 

74 Op. cit. EUROMOT (2014). 
75 Op. cit. EUROMOT (2014). 
76 Op. cit. EUROMOT (2014). 

 
 
                                                            
53 

EUROMOT claims that present indications show that some products may not be capable of 
complying.77 

Generating sets (GENSETs) and power systems equipment is specified as a sub-group, for 
which additional information was submitted. Here too repair and secondary market operations 
are  explained  to  be  of  relevance,  though  a  large  portion  of  equipment  is  assumed  to  be 
excluded  through  the  Article  2(4)  provisions.  However  in  some  cases  the  rental  use  of 
equipment does not allow benefiting from these provisions. “EUROMOT wishes to point out 
the apparent contradiction caused by the interpretation of the term “Large Scale” in relation 
to certain applications. In the FAQ document, 12 December 2012, page 11, it is noted that: 
‘Machinery  that  has  partial  mobility,  for  example  semi-mobile  machinery  running  on  rails, 
can be of ‘permanent use’. On the other hand, EEE that is intended to be used  on different 
sites during its life is not considered as permanent. It is an indicator of permanent use if the 
equipment is not readily re-locatable (or ‘mobile intended’) and if it is intended for use at one 
single location.’” In this regard, an example is provided of a 2.5 MW enclosed generating set 
installed permanently at a pre-defined and dedicated location, which would be excluded as a 
Large Scale Fixed Installation. In comparison, the same GENSET offered for rental use would 
not be entitled to this exclusion in light of use in multiple locations. EUROMOT claims that 
there is a “significant risk that rental and similar products placed on the market during the 
transition  period  may  not  be  capable  of  being  repaired  with  compliant  parts  and  may  be 
forced out of service, to the detriment of the environment and all stakeholders.”78 
EUROMOT  also  make  a  short  statement  concerning  professional  lawn,  garden  and  forest 
equipment  falling  under  this  product  group,  which  shall  be  further  explained  in  Section  0 
below. 

EUROMOT recommend implementing Option 3 (the 2019 Scenario) as it brings a single date 
enabling alignment of all EEE compliance with reduced impact to the environment. Option 4 
(the  2017  Scenario)  in  comparison  would  artificially  shorten  the  time  needed  to  ensure 
compliant  parts,  whereas  in  some  cases  significant  R&D  work  is  required  to  establish 
compliance, stretching beyond the specified timeframe. Concerning Option 5 (the Spare-Part 
Scenario)  EUROMOT  state  that  this  option  will  help  to  clarify  and  support  the  needs  of 
products  with  a  long  life  cycle  as  well  as  secondary  markets  that  are  an  integral  part  their 
members business’. If secondary market operation and spare parts provisions are not included, 
this  is  said  to  result  in  more  waste  and  a  negative  impact  on  the  environment  because  of 
limitations to resale and limitations to service in light of non-reparability. 79 

To  provide  some  indication  as  to  the  volume  of  sales  that  may  be  relevant  for  this  case, 
information  was  extracted  from  Eurostat80.  In  the  information  provided  by  EUROMOT 
(which concerns combustion engines being used in a diverse range of equipment) it was stated 
that  clarifying  the  range  of  sales  of  all  products  would  be  challenging.  To  provide  some 
indication,  the  example  of  generating  sets  was  thus  the  focus  of  data  extracted  from  the 
Eurostat  data,  regarding  sales  in  the  EU  27  between  2008  and  2012  (as  opposed  to  data 

77 Op. cit. EUROMOT (2014). 
78 Op. cit. EUROMOT (2014). 
79 Op. cit. EUROMOT (2014). 
80 Op. cit. EUROSTAT (2014). 

 
 
                                                            
54 

concerning  manufacture  of  all  combustion  engines).  Data  is  based  on  NACE  classifications 
for GENSETs falling under classification “27.11 Manufacture of electric motors, generators 
and  transformers”.  The  total  value of  the  EU  GENSET  sector  in  2012  was  estimated  to  be 
around  €5.5  billion.  After  a  27%  fall  in  sales  in  2009,  assumed  to  be  tied  to  the  economic 
crisis,  the  market  seems  to  have  stabilized  in  the  last  few  years.  Detailed  statistical 
information is provided in Appendix 6. 

In the consultants’ opinion, it is important to make a distinction between equipment which is 
only  available  for  professional  use,  consumer  equipment  and  equipment  designed  for 
professional  use  but  also  available  to  private  consumers  (through  renting  and  leasing 
operations  or  through  direct  purchase).  The  GENSET  example  is  a  private  case  of  the  first 
equipment  group;  whereas  the  case  of  garden  equipment,  developed  in  the  next  section  is 
more relevant to the last group.  

For  the  GENSET  case,  the  information  provided  by  EUROMOT  suggests  that  costs  of 
compliance  shall  mainly  be  a  burden  in  cases  where  equipment  is  circulated  on  the  rental 
market, as such equipment would not enjoy the large scale exclusions which are understood to 
cover a large portion of GENSETs. In comparison with privately owned equipment81 with a 
single  owner  (or  even  multiple  owners),  rented  equipment  is  expected  to  have  significant 
disadvantages embodied in the burden of compliance. This would be expressed in the general 
costs of compliance in terms of technical costs of researching and applying substitutes and in 
administrative costs of screening product portfolios for compliance issues and preparing and 
maintaining documentation. As rented equipment will usually have a longer service life and 
be repairable, additional costs are expected in light of the limitations relevant for both of these 
aspects  on  Option  1  (business  as  usual).  As  expressed  in  the  general  evaluation  of  options 
(Section 3.5.2), costs tied to secondary market operations shall be alleviated in policy options 
3 or 4, and costs tied to reparability alleviated in policy option 5. However, the differentiation 
between  mobile  and  fixed  (as  well  as  semi-mobile)  equipment  means  that  certain  market 
distortions  may  arise.  First  of  all,  manufacturers  providing  equipment  mainly  for  the  rental 
market would be heavier burdened with compliance than manufacturers providing equipment 
to  a mixed market, not  to  mention  those mainly  selling to  private users. This  burden would 
either be shifted to consumers (rental operators and further on to consumers)  or would give 
way to a shift of market structure away from rental operations. In both cases costs could be 
expected for manufacturers,  for the secondary market operators and for  consumers of rental 
equipment.  Though  policy  options  resolving  secondary  market  and  reparability  aspects  will 
alleviate  some  of  these  costs,  they  do  not  provide  a  full  solution.  Nonetheless,  as  it  is 
understood that manufacturers are already preparing for the transition to compliance, it can be 
assumed  that  where  substitution  is  possible,  it  shall  be  achieved  for  a  larger  range  of 
equipment than that falling in scope. This means that if industry is provided sufficient time to 
comply with the RoHS substance restrictions, additional benefits (in the form of substitution 
of  products  excluded  from  scope)  may  be  relevant.  It  is  thus  concluded  that  providing  such 
products  with  the  longer  transition  period  (2019)  would  ease  the  burden  of  compliance  and 

81  Equipment  owned by  a  professional user could  still  be  sold on  to  a second user, however  as  the  location  is 
fixed during the period of ownership, such resale is allowed. Ownership periods are also assumed to be longer, 
as otherwise purchase would be less economic in comparison with rental. Thus such equipment may have a few 
locations, but would still be interpreted as semi-mobile and benefit from an exclusion from scope. 

 
 
                                                            
55 

may  have  additional  positive  impacts  in  terms  of  the  environment  and  the  respective  social 
impacts (health). Provision of a spare parts provision (Option 5) will have similar beneficial 
effects.  

It  may  be  argued  that  the  burden  of  compliance  on  the  sector,  in  light  of  the  forced 
compliance of articles which are not in scope, does not justify the expected benefits of such 
compliance. However, such aspects were not quantified in the submitted data, nor would the 
consultants  be  in  the  position  of  recommending  further  exclusions  from  scope  of  certain 
articles in light of the scope of this project. 

A  further  potential  subgroup  was  identified  in  the  case  of  equipment  in  one  particular 
category of EEE with similarity to other groups. Certain product groups falling under Cat. 
11 have been mentioned by stakeholders with regard to their similarities to other categories, in 
particular those in Cat. 8 and 9 where there are advantageous compliance stipulations within 
RoHS.  EUCOMED  Medical  Technology  and  EDMA  Diagnostics  for  Health82,  the  industry 
associations representing the medical devices and in vitro diagnostic medical devices sectors 
respectively, mentioned such product groups in their contribution. They explained that though 
their  products  are  intended  for  human  medical  purposes,  similar  products  were  used  for 
veterinary and forensic uses. Despite such similarities, these product groups were assumed to 
fall  under  Category  11  of  RoHS2.  In  this  sense,  the  consultants  assume  that  despite 
similarities  of  compliance  aspects  (availability  of  substitutes)  as  well  as  reparability  and 
secondary  market  aspects,  such  articles  would  be  penalized  in  comparison  with  Cat.  8  &  9 
counterparts  (under  the  current  legal  text,  reparability  and  secondary  market  operations  of 
non-compliant  articles  are  limited). Furthermore,  even  if  articles  are  to be  granted the  same 
exemptions, the 7 year duration of exemptions for Cat. 8 & 9 would not apply, meaning that 
maintaining exemptions would also be more burdensome. Though such product groups would 
be alleviated from the former mentioned costs under the joint implementation of Option 3 (or 
4) and Option 5, the latter costs shall still apply. To conclude, it appears that additional areas 
may  exist  where  similar  articles  have  requirements  which  are  slightly  different.  However, 
further  information  was  not  made  available  by  such  stakeholders.  As  it  is  assumed  that  the 
manufacturers  of  such  equipment  are  for  the  most  part  the  same  manufacturers  as  those  of 
Cat.  8  &  9  equipment,  the  consultants  assume  that  the  additional  burden  did  not  justify 
providing a contribution to quantify the difference of costs in such cases. 

Gardening equipment newly falling in the scope of RoHS 2 

EGMF, the European Garden Machinery Industry Federation submitted a contribution to the 
Stakeholder  Consultation.83  The  data  they  provide  concerns  the  possible  impacts  expected 
where  garden  equipment  is  concerned.  They  provide  a  list  of  equipment  which  would  fall 
under this product group including augers; blowers/vacuums; brush cutters; chain saws; edge 

82 Eucomed & EDMA (2014), Contribution to RoHS stakeholder consultation concerning RoHS scope review, 
submitted 10.03.2014, available under:  
http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_IA_2_2/Products_newly_in_scope/20140310_E
DMA_Eucomed_RoHS_Art_2_2_and_Art_4_consultation_response_to_Oeko_Institute_2014_03_10_PUB.pdf. 
83  EGMF  (2014),  Contribution  to  RoHS  stakeholder  consultation  concerning  RoHS  scope  review,  submitted 
28.02.2014, available under: 
http://rohs.exemptions.oeko.info/fileadmin/user_upload/RoHS_IA_2_2/Products_newly_in_scope/20140310_FI
NAL_EGMF_answers_to_Oko_28022014_all6parts.pdf. 

 
 
 
                                                            
56 

trimmers;  grass  trimmers;  hedge  trimmers;  high  pressure  cleaners;  Ice  augers;  lawn  and 
garden  tractors;  lawnmowers;  log  splitters;  motor  hoes;  pole  prunes;  pumps/submersible 
pumps;  scarifiers/turf  aerators;  shredders;  snow  throwers;  sprayers;  stump  grinders;  and 
sweepers. All of these products are specified to be newly in scope in light of the change in the 
definition  of  EEE  (interpretation  of  dependency  on  electricity).  For  most  products,  similar 
items exist which are already in scope in either battery or electric powered versions. However, 
articles operated with petrol but with an electrical function were not in the scope of RoHS 1, 
though these are now to be regulated within RoHS 2. This regards a total of 8.6 million units 
of  equipment,  estimated  for  Europe  (geographical)  sales  volumes  for  2012  of  petrol  driven 
machines, for EGMF members only.84 

The average service life of products is 10 years and all equipment is said to be reparable. All 
parts  are  explained  to  have  spare  parts  and  examples  of  critical  ones,  in  which  RoHS 
regulated substances, are used, being: e.g. electric parts, fasteners, blades, coated/plated parts. 
Furthermore  all  of  these  products  can  be  leased,  rented  or  can  be  sold  as  second  hand 
products.85 

EGMF86 provides information about compliance of equipment as presented in Table 11. 

Table  11:  Compliance  of  petrol  powered  garden  equipment  with  the  RoHS  substance 
restrictions 

Source: Op. cit. EGMF (2014) 

It  is  understood  that  in  most  cases  exemptions  or  alternatives  are  available,  with  the  main 
concerns of substitution being focused on lead in general usages, and cadmium in switches. It 
is explained that the substitution with lead free solder may result in a reduction of the lifespan 
of the entire product, due to reduction of the lifespan of certain components of the product for 
which lead free solder has been used. This would result in an increase of the waste generated 
in light of early end-of-life. Investigations are still ongoing regarding the possible effects of 

84 Op. cit. EGMF (2014). 
85 Op. cit. EGMF (2014). 
86 Op. cit. EGMF (2014). 

 
 
 
                                                            
57 

lead  free  solder  on  the  lifespan  of  product/components.  EGMF  provide  a  roadmap  of  the 
stages needed to enable compliance with RoHS, estimating a total of 6 to 8 years needed for 
compliance of new products (time differs for various products included in the product range). 
It is further stated that (under the current legislation) exemptions would be needed to enable 
the use of non-compliant spare parts for repairing equipment already on the market. 

A table comparing the costs and benefits of each of the proposed policy options is provided 
by EGMF to clarify that Option 3 (the 2019 Scenario) and Option 5 (the Spare-Part Scenario) 
are  preferable  for  this  sector.  Option  4  (the  2017  Scenario)  would  resolve  the  limited 
secondary  market  issues,  but  would  require  earlier  compliance,  possibly  increasing  costs  in 
light  of  insufficient  time.  Option  2  is  understood  to  be  irrelevant  as  it  shall  not  change  the 
impacts relevant for products of EGMF members. 

On  the  basis  of  the  information  provided  by  EGMF,  the  consultants  could  estimate  that  in 
2012 the following quantities of RoHS substances were brought on the market: 

  Lead  –  6.364  kg  (an  average  of  0.74  g  per  each  of  8.6  million  units  placed  on  the 
market in light of use of lead solders, metal alloys, ceramics and recycled plastics); 

  Hexavalent chromium – 1.72 kg (an average of 0.0002 g per each of 8.6 million units 
placed on the market in light of use in fasteners and other steel parts where corrosion 
protection is relevant). 

It is assumed that as compliance is achieved towards 2019, these quantities shall decrease. It 
is  further  understood  that  especially  concerning  the  use  of  lead,  this  decrease  may  require 
additional time beyond  2019, where  exemptions already exist or  would be requested. These 
reductions are observed as an environmental benefit of compliance, with various costs being 
tied to the efforts needed for such benefits to incur. In light of the time needed specified by 
EGMF  for  the  various  stages  of  achieving  compliance  (including  research  of  substitutes  {2 
years} testing {2 to 3 years} and redesign {2 to 4 years}), it can be followed that achieving 
compliance before 2019 would be difficult, and would result in additional costs since various 
stages  would  need  to  be  performed  in  parallel  (where  this  can  be  done).  It  can  also  be 
followed  that  in  some  cases,  earlier  deadlines  shall  not  result  in  earlier  benefits,  and  it  is 
unclear  if  the  additional  benefit  of  an  earlier  deadline  (2017)  would  justify  earlier 
environmental benefits. In  this regard, it can be followed that Option  3 (the  2019 Scenario) 
will  be  preferable  in  terms  of  the  cost  of  compliance  for  industry  and  society  (considering 
impacts  on  manufacturers,  impacts  on  secondary  market  operations,  and  impacts  on 
employment).  If  this  Option  3  is  coupled  with  Option  5  (the  Spare-Part  Scenario),  then 
benefits,  in  terms  of  reparability  shall  also  incur  for  industry,  for  the  environment  and  for 
society (employment, health). 

Toys newly falling in the scope of RoHS 2 

The Toy Industries of Europe (TIE) Association submitted documents, prepared in the course 
of  the  BIOIS  report,  to  the  Stakeholder  Consultation.  As  documents  were  listed  as 
confidential,  TIE  was  sent  clarification  questions  and  requested  to  provide  information  that 
could be made public. The information concerning toys regulated under RoHS is based on the 
response87 provided by TIE to these questions.  

87 Toy Industries of Europe (TIE) (2014), Response to Clarification Questions Sent by Oeko-Institut, submitted 
per e-mail on 01.04.2014. 

 
 
 
                                                            
58 

To  provide  some  indication  as  to  the  volume  of  sales  that  may  be  relevant  for  this  case, 
information was extracted from Eurostat88 as to the value of sales of toys in the EU 27. Data is 
based on NACE classifications, which in the case of toys are understood not to fall under the 
group classifications of EEE. The total value of the EU toy sector in 2012 was estimated to be 
€5.2 billion with large fluctuations in turnover (annual changes of -4% to +31% have occurred 
over the last 5 years). As separating between data for conventional toys and toys with electric 
functions is not feasible in terms of the available classifications, it cannot be determined what 
part of this value would be attributed to EE toys, let alone to EE toys newly in scope. Detailed 
statistical information is provided in Appendix 7. 

Toys falling under the scope of “EEE newly in scope” are understood to be “toys with a minor 
electrical  function”  as  these  would  fall  under  RoHS  2  in  light  of  the  new  interpretation  of 
dependency  on  electricity.  The  compliance  of  such  products  is  also  to  be  underway  if  not 
already achieved: “All members of TIE, and all its members’ members are aware of the new 
situation and of the new scope of RoHS, and therefore have already taken measures to make 
sure  they  will  comply  with  the  new  requirements  when  these  will  enter  into  force  after  the 
transition  period.  The  biggest  toy  manufacturers  have  long  taken  the  approach  that  any 
electrical toy (regardless of whether the toy has a primary or secondary electrical function) 
needs to comply with RoHS.” Such articles are characterised as follows: “24 categories of toys 
were  identified  that  contained  electrical  or  electronic  (EE  components).  The  average 
electronic  content  of  EE  toys  was  found  to  be  8%.  This  includes  circuit  board  &  wiring 
(1.7%), motors and transformers (6%).” It was estimated that nearly 85,000 tonnes of EE toys 
were sold in the EU in 2002. The applicability of these quantities in 2014 was explained by 
TIE stated as follows: “In some Member States such as Spain, the amount (in Kg) of electrical 
toys  decreased  by  8%  from  2011  to  2012,  and  by  13%  from  2012  to  2013.  However,  we 
cannot  tell whether  this  is  a  result of  the economic  crisis  or  responds to  other  reasons.  We 
will have to check the data and tendency of the coming years.”89 

The consultants understand this to mean that some of the larger enterprises already comply, 
whereas  others  are  expected  to  become  compliant  by  2019.  A  possible  exception  to  this 
understanding  may  be  in  smaller  enterprises  (SME’s)  which  may  not  be  fully  aware  of  the 
RoHS Directive and its possible implications. 

Concerning Compliance of EE toys, TIE provide the following information: “…it is important 
to  note  that  the  average  metal  content  of  EE  toys  is  low  at  7%  compared  to  51%  in  most 
WEEE. Toy manufacturers do not "use" heavy elements. Toys have been regulated for heavy 
metals for many years and the toy industry complies with these regulations. Legislation such 
as REACH, RoHS or the Batteries Directive add to the recently revised Toy Safety Directive 
2009/48. The new migration limits for 19 heavy elements (incl. lead, cadmium, mercury and 
chromium  VI)  laid  down  in  the  Toy  Safety  Directive  apply  as  of  July  2013.  Very  minor 
quantities (traces) of lead might be found in EEE toys, due to its natural occurrence in raw 
materials  and  mainly  due  to  the  solder  used.  Mercury  is  not  likely  to  be  found  in  toys. 
Chromium VI compliance has not been an issue for toys that are within scope of RoHS until 
now.  Flame  retardants  PBB  and  PBDE  are  not  used  in  toys.  They  were  banned  for  a  very 

88 Op. cit. EUROSTAT (2014). 
89 Op. cit. TIE (2014). 

 
 
                                                            
59 

large group of products, and they have essentially disappeared from the supply chain.” It is 
thus  understood  that  RoHS  substances  should  not  be  contained  in  toys,  unless  possibly  in 
alloys used for soldering purposes. Where these are applied in electric components, acquired 
from suppliers, these areas were explained to be easier for achieving compliance, as suppliers 
will  probably  manufacture  components  for  other  EEE  and  so  either  compliance  has  been 
achieved,  or  the transition  is  expected  to  be  relatively  simple.  In  comparison,  where  solders 
are used by the toy manufacturer, this could be more complicated as in the past “… a number 
of relevant companies have replaced their solders by lead-free solders. These companies have 
had to modify their toys as the solder was different and reacted differently. It was not easy.”90 

The  consultants  assume  that  complications  with  solders  were  more  relevant  for  toys  with 
primary electric functions that have already come into scope under RoHS 1, whereas in toys 
with  secondary  electric  functions,  electric  components  will  more  often  be  provided  by 
suppliers,  making  compliance  easier.  It  is  not  known  to  what  degree this  assumption  would 
clarify the easier compliance, however TIE estimate in this regard that given sufficient time, 
compliance should not be problematic “Toy manufacturers of toys with a secondary electrical 
function  (new  in  scope)  will  be  compliant  at  the  date  of  entry  into  force  of  the  new 
obligations. In fact, manufacturers, who need around 18 months to prepare and design new 
products,  are  already  taking  these  new  obligations  into  account.  As  RoHS-compliant 
components are already available on the market, no big hurdles are expected.”  

The consultants thus conclude that achieving compliance by 2019 should not be a problem for 
the toy industry. If the date of compliance was moved to 2017, as long as it could be ensured 
that  industry  would  be  notified  at  least  18  months  ahead  of  time  (mid  2016),  compliance 
would probably still be possible. In this regard however, the consultants assume that this may 
result in some negative financial impacts to business as it would require a change of business 
plan to ensure earlier compliance. It is unclear if compliance in this regard is still forthcoming 
in  some  cases  (subsequently  also  resulting  in  associated  environmental  benefits)  or  if  this 
mainly requires an administrative effort to guarantee that electric components, obtained from 
the supply chain, are indeed RoHS compliant. 

Concerning  Secondary  Market  Operations,  TIE  state  that  “Toys  are  often  kept  in  attics, 
collected by collectors or simply kept for many years for emotional reasons, and therefore the 
life  expectancy  of  a  toy  can  be  very  long.  It  is  almost  impossible  to  have  accurate  data  on 
secondary market operations, but we can be sure that toys are part of many charity actions in 
Europe where second-hand products are sold at lower price or offered. In any case, these toys 
are compliant with the legal requirements applying at the time they were placed on the market 
for the first time.”91 

In the consultants’ opinion, though it is unclear what part of such products would fall under 
the definition of EEE newly in scope (in light of date placed on the market), it is understood 
that in such cases, such charity activities would have to adapt activities to comply with RoHS. 
This may result in a few scenarios: (1) Charities may choose to offer such EEE free of charge 
to avoid complications or otherwise (2) it would need to be discarded or (3) exported to non-

90 Op. cit. TIE (2014). 
91 Op. cit. TIE (2014). 

 
 
                                                            
60 

EU countries. Though the first and latter option may have benefits to society (in the EU or in 
other  countries,  respectively),  they  would  result  in  higher  costs/lower  benefits  for  the 
charities. Discarding of such toys would have negative environmental costs as products would 
reach  end  of life early and charities would also have  a loss of income in  this regard,  which 
facilitates their activities in general. Though it is unclear if implementing RoHS regulation in 
the  context  of  charity sales  is  feasible,  it  can  be  understood  that  the  current  situation  would 
lead  to  various  costs  that  would  be  avoided  if  the  secondary  market  aspect  was  resolved. 
Society  may  have  lower  benefit  in  this  regard  (as  toys  will  not  be  given  free  of  charge  or 
supplied  to  countries  outside  the  EU,  however  these  are  assumed  to  be  balanced  with  the 
elimination of charity costs, which would result in less charity activities for society in light of 
less financial resources. Thus the environmental benefit would also be in favour of resolving 
this issue. 

The  following  information  was  provided  which  provides  some  background  for  aspects  of 
Reparability.  The  life  time  of  toys  is  explained  to  be  rather  long.  “A  recent  TIE  study  from 
2012  shows  that  the  average  life  expectancy  of  a  toy  can  be  very  long  …  life  cycle  of  an 
electric toy will obviously depend on the toy itself and the use the consumer makes of it. The 
study found that it is rare for toys to be thrown away. 19 out of every 20 toys are either stored 
or re-used after use, usually by passing the toy onto friends or family or donating to charity 
or nursery. Toys are generally kept in the house for a long time prior to being given up for re-
use.  Typically  toys  are  kept  for  between  6  to  12  years.  The  mean  time  they  are  kept  is  10 
years... In general, toys are not subject to repairs, because it is much less cost effective to do 
this than for other more expensive products”92 

The  consultants  thus  understand  that  despite  the  long  life  time  of  toys,  repair  may  not  be  a 
common practice where use continues regardless of dysfunction of electrical components. For 
example, a teddy bear with a light function is assumed to remain in use as such, regardless of 
the operation of the light component. Articles where use would be discontinued in the event 
of electric malfunction, are assumed to already be in scope through RoHS1 since the electric 
components  provide  the  main  function  in  this  case  (such  as  in  computer  game  devices). 
Against this background, this project category would be relatively indifferent to addition of a 
spare part provision. 

To conclude, it is understood that Option 3 (the 2019 Scenario) would be preferable for the 
toy  sector,  as  it  would  solve  the  possible  problems  of  secondary  market  operations.  Such 
operations, mainly relevant in light of charity activities, are understood to have an impact on 
the environment, on society and on consumers and not to be a concern of industry. Though 
Option 4 (the 2017 Scenario) is expected to solve secondary market operations as well, it may 
result  in  some  costs  for  the  toy  industry  as  well  as  their  supply  chain,  in  light  of  need  to 
reallocate resources to support earlier transition to RoHS compliance. From a comprehensive 
perspective, Option 3 would thus be preferable, as all other factors are understood to remain 
unchanged. The addition of a spare parts provision (Option 5) in Article 4(4) is not expected 
to have an impact on the toy sector, which would thus be indifferent to its implementation. 

92 Op. cit. TIE (2014). 

 
 
 
                                                            
7.5 

Annex 5 Quantitative data on pipe organs 

Table 12: Average UK organ builder income93 

61 

Table 13: Average European organ builder income94 

Table 14: Inflation rate adjustment 

93 Based on Eurostat, GDP per capita in PPS, 2010, accessed at 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=tec00114. 
94 Eurostat, GDP per capita in PPS, 2010, accessed at 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=tec00114.  

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Table 15: Employment impacts 

62