This blog post from TTI’s excellent blog, MarketEye, is an update on global environmental regulations from DCA’s Mike Kirschner.
China RoHS
The update to China RoHS is progressing, so we have updates to our previous report on the China RoHS mandatory standard landscape. They’ve produced, reviewed and accepted an English translation of the yet-to-be-released mandatory standard, GB 26572 (2025, we assume).
However, the final draft was released on April 14 for a brief public comment period ending on April 21. A review of the draft indicates that the test requirement for products listed in the catalog and subject to substance restriction has, thankfully, been removed.
We’re now awaiting the final release of the new mandatory standard (and hopefully an official English translation). The timeline is unknown.
New Ecodesign for Sustainable Products and Energy Labelling Working Plan 2025-2030
The first ESPR and Energy Labelling Working Plan was adopted and published in April 2025 and covers five years. As noted previously, Article 18 of the regulation itself set the EcoDesign priorities; however, only a subset will be addressed in this first working plan. The working plan also includes a list of products to be prioritized for energy labeling per the Energy Labeling Framework Regulation.
In the working plan, the only ICT-related items are two horizontal requirements:
- Repairability (including scoring)
- Recycled content and recyclability of electrical and electronic equipment
The indicative timeline for adoption is 2027 and 2029, respectively.
Certain ICT products covered by the Ecodesign and Energy Labelling working plan for 2022-2024 and for which considerable progress has been made (e.g., external power supplies, cooking appliances, servers and data storage products) will remain under the current EcoDesign Directive, 2009/125/EC, but others will be carried over to the new plan. These include standby and off-mode consumption, mobile phones and tablets and EV chargers and are where we’re most likely to see the initial implementations of the two horizontal requirements.
So, review the working plan and, if your products are in scope, start budgeting time and resources to follow and participate in the regulatory development process. Even if your products are not in scope, paying attention is important as repairability and recyclability/recycled content requirements may well be coming to your product line in the future.
Quite a bit of work has been done in scoring of repairability already, as noted in our previous column. But inclusion of recycled content in EEE and recyclability of EEE, in general, are areas that still require significant research and investment. For instance, certain metals (for chassis, etc.) and plastics (bezels and enclosures) may contain post-consumer recycled materials but measurement and public disclosure is, today, limited to industry leaders like HP, Dell (which states that “We use PCR plastic made from a variety of sources, like water jugs and single-use plastics, across our product portfolio. In FY24, we used over 22.7 million kgs (50.1 million lbs.) of PCR plastic”) and others.
Apple touts their “Material Recovery Lab (MRL), an R2-certified facility in Austin, Texas, that focuses on assessing the recyclability of our products, helping inform design decisions that support disassembly and recovery.” Apple’s approach is a best practice, using their internal recycler’s input to make product design decisions. Few manufacturers are large enough to have a captive recycler, unfortunately.
Minnesota PFAS in Products Progress
Since I last updated the status of the Minnesota PFAS statute in my December 2024 column, the Pollution Control Agency proposed rules on reporting fees and held a public hearing on the subject.
The bottom line is that they are proposing a $1,000 flat fee per manufacturer for submission of the initial report then $500 for annual updates. Extension requests will cost $300. Voluntary updates will not have a fee. This means, of course, that manufacturers will have to include these fees in their upcoming budgets, as the initial reports are due by January 1, 2026 (when the reporting period begins is unknown at the moment; the data collection system is not yet in place). The fees could be adjusted for inflation starting in 2027.
The public comment period ends at 4:30 p.m. CDT on June 23. Comments may be sent by mail, by fax or electronically by posting on their discussion board. Comments sent in by e-mail will not be accepted. Review the proposed rule and the presentation before submitting your comments. There will also be a short rebuttal period where the public will be able to comment on the comments of others after the comment period closes. It will close at 4:30 p.m. CDT on June 30.
DBDPE: A Possible Ban in Australia and a Possible SVHC in the EU
Australia’s Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) has proposed banning a popular replacement for brominated flame retardant Decabromodiphenyl Ether (DecaBDE), that was restricted by EU RoHS and, more recently, the Stockholm Convention. Decabromodiphenyl ethane, or DBDPE, CASRN 84852-53-9 and chemical substances which contain a proportion of DBDPE such as CASRN 1092834-40-6, are proposed to be prohibited in electronics as of January 1, 2033. A de minimis of 500 mg/kg (0.05%) would be allowed in articles.
The EU’s BFR strategy does make note of DBDPE and, due to its persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) profile, placed it squarely in the focus of the strategy (see Table 7), which recommends restriction for it (and other aromatic brominated flame retardants). ECHA, in fact, recently announced that its initial strategy is to identify DBDPE as an SVHC. A consultation is expected to launch on June 27, 2025, with a deadline of August 11, 2025.
Note that Canada did not find DBDPE harmful to human health but did find it harmful to the environment and persistent as well. In February, it was added to Part 2 of Schedule 1 to CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (along with Dechlorane Plus (DP), which was banned by the Stockholm Convention): “The Government of Canada has proposed to amend the Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations, 2012 to prohibit DBDPE and DP and products containing these substances.”
Bottom Line
The information requirements from and constraints on the electronics supply chain will continue to increase. Suppliers will be required to:
- Provide more extensive information on substance including PFAS, brominated flame retardants include DBDPE and DP
- Determine how to obtain consistent sources of post-consumer recycled materials and substances and incorporate those into their products
- Make assembled products more repairable and recyclable through modular design and ensuring compatible or easily separatable substances
Doing business in the electronics industry has never been simple and straightforward. It continues to get more complex and constrained, but with significant new opportunities, as long-ignored environmental issues continue to become regulated.
Visit DCA at www.DesignChainAssociates.com or email the author with any questions or comments on this post.
Statements of fact and opinions expressed in posts by contributors are the responsibility of the authors alone and do not imply an opinion of the officers or the representatives of TTI, Inc. or the TTI Family of Companies.
