The China ROHS syndrome: Wait and see
If you thought that progress was slow on the implementation of the so called “China ROHS Catalog” first published in September 2009, but not yet in force, then now there is “China ROHS 2″ to consider. A draft was published in July, and now it is a question of which version of China ROHS will be taken forward and, if so, will the other be rejected (or amended) once and for all.
On July 16, 2010, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology released the “draft measures for the pollution control of electrical and electronic product”– the so called China ROHS 2 for public consultation. Among other things, the proposed measures would amend the coverage of products by modifying the definition from “electronic information product-EIP” to “electrical and electronic product-EEE.”
This new definition largely corresponds to EEE in the EU ROHS directive and within the same scope of “designed for use with a voltage rating not exceeding 1500Vdc and 1000Vac.”
This is a much broader scope than before but, so far there is no indicative list of products. However, they may not produce one if it is felt that everything electrical is in scope. The six restricted substances remain the same as EU ROHS, but one difference is that accessories will be included, as well as component parts.
Another interesting observation is that there is no mention of the China Compulsory Certification (CCC) in the July 2010 draft.
This draft would also change the title of the Catalog from “key management catalog for the control of pollution by electronic information product” to read the “standard product catalog for the pollution control of electrical and electronic product.
So the scope of EU ROHS will expand due to the recast, as will China ROHS because of these proposals.
Finally though, no timescales are known at present.
J. Williams commented:
Am I the only one who sees just a little irony in China mandating RoHS type regulations?
Gary Nevison commented:
That appears to be the case.China RoHS2, while aligning to EU RoHS still leaves as many unanswered questions.Enforcement, certification, products (an open scope?)etc etc
G
TSB commented:
Gary,
I also noticed there is no direct statement about who has to do the certification (e.g. a lab in the PRC, a lab in the exporting country, or self-certification. Seems to me the former could promote a trade barrier.















