China ROHS catalog makes a late appearance

Back in March 2007, Phase 1 of the so called “China ROHS” directive was implemented on time. This declaration period required labeling and information on up to 1,800 electronic information products. Pollution (recycling) symbols were required to indicate the level of toxic substances in a product. Where below permitted levels, a green symbol would typically be used, and an orange symbol where restricted substances were present above the permitted levels, which are broadly outlined within the EU ROHS directive that had entered into force in July 2006. Other unique information would also be required including an environmentally friendly use period advising how many years a product could be safely used before hazardous substances were likely to leak into the environment, a disclosure table outlining which toxic substances were present in a product and, to aid recycling, where they were located.

Phase 2, which would restrict actual products via a China ROHS “catalog,” was to follow at the end of 2007. Little were we to know that it would take another two years to publish the first draft of the catalog, as it slipped from the end of 2007, to mid and then the end of 2008, then on to mid 2009.

Finally, on October 9, 2009, the first draft was published, allowing for a one month consultation period. The restrictions will come into force 10 months after the adoption of the legislation. As anticipated, the first draft only provided for a token number of products and these were principally telephones and printers. The list of products will be updated periodically.

The restricted substances are the same as EU ROHS, excluding deca-BDE, as are the maximum permitted concentration levels of homogeneous material, although China ROHS specifically refers to coatings and very small components.

There are 10 of the EU exemptions for telephones and 12 for printers. Testing may prove a bottleneck as all equipment exported for sale within China, will require analysis and a China Compulsory Certificate (CCC). The testing can only be carried out, in China, via authorized Chinese labs. This begs the question, “Will 10 months allow sufficient time?”

The approved Chinese labs, and the standards they will use, are yet to be announced. There will be insufficient time to modify product designs to comply, so clearly it has been assumed that telephones and printers made by Chinese manufacturers will already meet these substance restriction obligations, as the directive also covers products manufactured and sold in China.