I spotted the error months ago, when the draft was released. I thought it was just another example of EU incompetence, like the whole RoHS directive. Even hoped we would get errors like this in the final law, confusion in legal documents could be mighty powerful if you are defending an action from the authorities against RoHS, and I'm sure as it gets more complex it won't be long before some will finding theselves in this position. Regs Mark Dr. Mark Vaughan Ph'D., B.Eng. M0VAU Managing Director Vaughan Industries Ltd., reg in UK no 2561068 Water Care Technology Ltd, reg in UK no 4129351 Addr Unit3, Sydney House, Blackwater, Truro, Cornwall, TR4 8HH UK. Phone/Fax 44 (0) 1872 561288 RSGB DRM111 (Cornwall) -----Original Message----- From: tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bob Landman Sent: 15 May 2008 01:01 To: tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [tinwhiskers] RE: [tinwhiskers] Re: Exemption to the rule (so you are exempt from RoHS, so what?) Your colleague is correct Steph - it has to be a typo. It should say "DO NOT". I copied it directly from the article. I didn't notice it as I guess I knew what it was saying and glossed over it - good catch! I will repost it so it is corrected Bob -----Original Message----- From: tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tinwhiskers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Meschter, Stephan J (US SSA) Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 3:04 PM To: tinwhiskers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [tinwhiskers] Re: Exemption to the rule (so you are exempt from RoHS, so what?) Bob L.: One of my collegues thinks that there a typo in the 3rd line: It probably should read: But for those companies whose product categories "DO NOT" fall within the scope of the RoHS directive - which includes medical, military, industrial monitoring and control, automotive and telecommunications products - finding items such as tin-lead terminated parts in a lead-free world is just as much work. Stephan Meschter BAE Systems