California RoHS Expansion Vetoed by Governor

Veto Message
AB 48: Electronic Devices
Directive 2002/95/EC - RoHS
Directive 2002/96/EC - WEEE
 

On October 13, 2007, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed Assembly Bill 48, which would have greatly expanded the scope of California RoHS to mirror the European RoHS directive. He cited three main objections to the California bill as written:
	The approach taken by the bill is largely unworkable and will result in unintended and potentially more harmful consequences.
	The language for exempting spare parts and refurbished products deviates from the EU directive and will make many electronic products prematurely obsolete, forcing their retirement years earlier than necessary.
	The bill is overly broad in scope and will prohibit the sale of potentially tens of thousands of electrical and electronic products for California's consumers and businesses.

AB 48 was filed by Lori Saldana on December 4, 2006 for the 2007-08 legislative session. On June 4, 2007, it passed the California Assembly by a vote of 43 to 35. On September 11th, it passed the California Senate by a vote of 22 to 16. On September 12th, the Assembly concurred with Senate amendments by a vote of 44 to 33, sending it on to Governor Schwarzenegger for his signature.

A similar measure (AB 2202) was approved by the Assembly during the 2005-06 session, but it died in the Senate Appropriations Committee suspense file.

AB 48 would have amended the definition of electronic device in the California Health and Safety Code to mirror the language in the RoHS directive. Devices "dependent on electric currents or electromagnetic fields" designed for use with voltage ratings that do "not exceed 1,000 volts AC and1,500 volts DC" that fall within the scope of the RoHS directive (Article 2) would have been covered. This is a substantial expansion of the current definition which includes video display devices only.

The RoHS directive was defined to include Directive 2002/95/EC, subsequent amendments and decisions by the Technical Adaptation Committee. The intent was quite clearly to mirror the RoHS directive in Europe as it continues to evolve. California RoHS "shall not prohibit ... an electronic device that is ... otherwise not prohibited by the RoHS directive."

January 1, 2010 would have been the effective date for the expanded definition of "electronic device." Producers of major appliances would have until January 1, 2011 to comply. Producers of welding equipment would have until January 1, 2013 to comply.

The most significant difference between EU RoHS and the proposed California RoHS was in the substances that are prohibited. The RoHS directive restricts the use of four heavy metals and two flame retardants. AB 48 would only have prohibited sales "due to the presence of certain heavy metals," that is, lead, mercury, cadmium and hexavalent chromium. Unlike Europe, California would not restrict the use of the flame retardants PBB and PBDE.

Exclusions were provided for electronic devices that contain a substance used to comply with consumer, health or safety requirements required by Underwriters Laboratories or government. EU RoHS has similar provisions; however, the governmental requirements here would be those of the United States and California.
 

AB 48 as proposed included five new provisions that were not included in AB 2202:
	Specific exclusions for fixed installations that are hard-wired into the electrical or mechanical systems of a structure. Only portable devices that connect to a electrical source by means of a plug would be covered. This is an attempt to clarify Category 6 in WEEE: "electrical and electronic tools (with the exception of large-scale stationary industrial tools)." The meaning of "large-scale stationary industrial tools" is still ambiguous in EU RoHS.
	A twenty-four month grace period for electronic devices that lose their RoHS exemption. Such electronic devices "shall not be prohibited from sale in [California] until at least 24 months after the effective date of prohibition in the EU."
	A process for securing exemptions or time extensions from the state of California. The criteria for such exemptions and time extensions would be developed in consultation with stakeholders: manufacturers, distributors and environmental groups.
	Exemptions for devices that are refurbished or sold for reuse. A similar provision in EU RoHS requires that the equipment be placed on the market before 7/1/06, but there is no such time limitation in AB 48.
	Specific exemptions for spare parts used to repair and extend the lifetime of electronic devices.

This summary of efforts to expand California RoHS is designed to provide you with an accurate, easy-to-understand overview of the topic. However:
ê	We have not attempted to cover the implementation issues that need to be addressed at your company or in your supply chain. For this type of assistance, please email or call us at 972-679-8996 to inquire about our services.
ê	This summary does not constitute legal advice. The actual standard in the original language should be reviewed and used for all business, legal, and product compliance purposes.

  Back to News Index

Copyright © 2008 -- All Rights Reserved
RSJ Technical Consulting
PO Box 867705, Plano, Texas 75086