BILL ANALYSIS
AB 147
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator S. Joseph Simitian, Chairman
2009-2010 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 147
AUTHOR: Saldana
AMENDED: June 1, 2009
FISCAL: Yes HEARING DATE: July 6, 2009
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Caroll
Mortensen
SUBJECT : ELECTRONIC WASTE REPORTING
SUMMARY :
Existing law:
Pursuant to the Electronic Waste Recycling Act (Public
Resources Code 42460 et seq.) :
1)Defines "covered electronic device" as a video display
device containing a screen greater than four inches,
measured diagonally, as determined by the Department of
Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), except for video display
devices that are in a motor vehicle or contained within
specified large appliances or industrial, commercial or
medical equipment. (Public Resources Code (PRC)
42463(f).).
2)Prohibits a person from selling a new or refurbished covered
electronic device if the manufacturer is not in compliance
with the Act (PRC42465).
3)Requires a manufacturer of a covered electronic device to
submit a report to the Integrated Waste Management Board
(IWMB) an annual report that includes:
a) An estimate of the number of covered electronic
devices sold by the manufacturer in the state during the
previous year.
b) A baseline or set of baselines that show the total
estimated amounts of mercury, cadmium, lead, hexavalent
AB 147
Page 2
chromium, and PBB's used in covered electronic devices
manufactured by the manufacturer in that year and the
reduction in the use of those hazardous materials from
the previous year.
c) A baseline or set of baselines that show the total
estimated amount of recyclable materials contained in
covered electronic devices sold by the manufacturer in
that year and the increase in the use of those recyclable
materials from the previous year.
d) A baseline or a set of baselines that describe any
efforts to design covered electronic devices for
recycling and goals and plans for further increasing
design for recycling.
e) Make information available to consumers, that
describes where and how to return, recycle, and dispose
of the covered electronic device and opportunities and
locations for the collection or return of the device in a
specified manner.
f) For the purposes of complying the Act, allows a
manufacturer to submit a report to the IWMB that includes
only those covered electronic devices that include
specified compounds listed in #3b above that are exempt
from the European Union's (EU) Directive 2002/95/EC (the
Reduction of Hazardous Substances Directive or RoHS
directive) if both of the following conditions are met:
i) The manufacturer submits written verification to
DTSC that demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the
department, that the manufacturer is in compliance with
the RoHS directive and any amendments to that
directive, for those covered electronic devices for
which it is not submitting a report to the IWMB.
ii) DTSC certifies that the manufacturer is in
compliance with the RoHS directive, and any amendments
to that directive, for those covered electronic devices
for which the manufacturer is not submitting a report
to the board pursuant to this subdivision.
AB 147
Page 3
Pursuant to the Electronic Waste Law (Health and Safety Code
25214.9 et seq.) :
1)Requires DTSC to adopt regulations that prohibit an
electronic device, as defined in Section 42463 of the PRC,
from being sold if the electronic device is prohibited from
being sold in the EU under the RoHS Directive due to the
presence of certain heavy metals in the device.
2)Prohibits DTSC, in adopting regulations, from requiring the
manufacture or sale of an electronic device that is
different than, or otherwise not prohibited by, the EU under
the RoHS Directive.
3) Prohibits DTSC from adopting any regulations that impose
any requirements or conditions that are in addition to, or
more stringent than, the requirements and conditions
expressly authorized by the Electronic Waste Law. (Health
and Safety Code Section 25214.10 et seq.).
This bill :
1)Requires a manufacturer of a covered electronic device to
prepare, and at the request of DTSC to submit within 28
days, technical documentation or other information
demonstrating that the device is not prohibited from sale.
2)Requires the manufacturer to prepare and submit, if
requested, available information about the hazardous
characteristics of the device.
3)Defines "electronic equipment" as a consumer device that
works by use of or relates to electric currents or
electromagnetic fields but is not a non-portable,
fixed-installation device; a covered electronic device, or a
light.
4)Requires a producer of electronic equipment to prepare, and
at the request of DTSC to submit within 28 days, technical
documentation or other information demonstrating that the
device is allowed in the EU under the RoHS Directive.
5)Requires the producer to prepare and submit, if requested,
AB 147
Page 4
available information about the hazardous substance content
and hazardous characteristics of the device.
6)Requires a producer of electronic equipment not sold in the
EU to submit to DTSC available information relating to the
hazardous substance content and hazardous characteristics of
the equipment.
7)Requires DTSC to treat as confidential, any information
provided under this bill that is a trade secret and that is
identified by the manufacturer as a trade secret. Requires
information that is not a trade secret to be available to
the public pursuant to the California Public Records Act.
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of Bill . According to the author, in order for DTSC
to effectively enforce the existing hazardous materials ban
and inform the Green Chemistry Initiative, DTSC needs
authority to request documentation from electronics
manufacturers detailing the amount of hazardous materials
contained in their products. Manufacturers are currently
providing this information upon request in the EU per its
"Restriction on the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in
Electrical and Electronic Equipment" Directive 2002/95/EC
(RoHS). Without this authority, DTSC must resort to
expensive product-by-product testing to determine the
hazardous materials content, if any, of a consumer
electronic item sold in the state.
2)EU RoHS . The RoHS was adopted by the EU in February 2003
and took effect on July 1, 2006. RoHS aims at controlling
the use of hazardous substances in the production of new
electrical and electronic equipment and prohibits the sale
of those products that contain more than specified levels of
mercury, lead, hexavalent chromium, cadmium and a range of
flame retardants, such as polybrominated biphenyls and
polybrominated diphenyl ethers. Currently, RoHS
requirements only apply to products sold in the EU. As a
result, other countries and states, including California,
are examining RoHS-type standards consistent with the EU's
requirements.
AB 147
Page 5
The EU RoHS is being implemented by the various member
states and is encountering implementation and harmonization
challenges that are common to such a comprehensive effort.
As with other laws and regulations, it is anticipated that
requirements may be amended from time to time, however
nothing has indicated that the overall vision and scope of
the effort will change. Regardless, most manufactures are
working with their suppliers to develop policies and
processes to ensure and document that their products meet
the RoHS requirements.
3)California's RoHS . The Electronic Waste Recycling Act
includes, along with collection and fee requirements, a
California RoHS provision that requires DTSC to adopt
regulations prohibiting a covered electronic device from
being sold or offered for sale in California if that device
is prohibited from being sold or offered for sale in the EU
due to the presence of lead, mercury, cadmium and hexavalent
chromium above certain maximum concentration values (MCVs).
DTSC's regulations took effect January 1, 2007, and only
apply to covered electronic devices (video display devices
that have a screen 4 inches or greater). Therefore, many
electronic products are not regulated under California's
current RoSH laws.
4)Status of California RoHS . While the DTSC regulations are
in effect, oversight and enforcement is a challenge as DTSC
does not have the authority to request, nor are
manufacturers required to provide, information that would
document compliance with the existing California RoHS
requirement. Thus, DTSC must perform costly
product-by-product tests to determine if the covered device
meets the requirement. This bill would remedy that
situation and allow DTSC to request technical information to
verify compliance. As this is a similar requirement to the
EU RoHS, that data should already be compiled by the
manufacturers. This would make it less costly and more
efficient to determine compliance. It would help level the
playing field as most electronics manufacturers already
produce and sell EU RoHS compliant products in California.
5)Other Electronic Devices . Over the past several years, the
California legislature has considered numerous bills that
AB 147
Page 6
would have expanded California's RoHS law to prohibit the
sale of electronic products banned in the EU in California.
This bill takes a different approach and instead requires
manufacturers to report data on the hazardous
characteristics of electronic devices sold in the state.
The language and timelines in the bill that describes the
requirements is similar to that used in the EU RoHS.
As mentioned #2 above, as the EU RoHS requirements are
dynamic, thus allowing flexibility for the information
submitted by manufacturers to demonstrate compliance is
important. Also, as to not unduly burden manufacturers,
consideration should be given to ensuring that the
information that can be requested by DTSC under this bill is
reasonable and relevant to accomplishing compliance
determinations. Input from manufacturers with EU RoHS
expertise could put a fine point on these issues while still
providing DTSC the information it needs to determine
compliance.
6)Related Legislation .
a) AB 48 (Saldana, 2006), would have prohibited the
manufacture or sale of electronic products that are
prohibited from sale in the EU pursuant to the RoHS
Directive. (Vetoed.)
b) AB 218 (Saldana, 2007), would have expanded the
prohibition on the sale of all electronic devices in
California to all those that are prohibited from sale in
the EU by the RoHS Directive. (Held on the Senate
Appropriations Committee suspense file.)
c) AB 2202 (Saldana, 2006), would have prohibited the
manufacture or sale of electronic products that are
prohibited from sale in the EU pursuant to the RoHS
AB 147
Page 7
Directive. (Held on the Senate Appropriations Committee
suspense file.)
d) AB 3001 (Pavley, 2006), would have added personal
computers to the term "covered electronic device" after
July 1, 2007, and would have placed a $6 advanced
recycling fee on the retail sale of such products. (Held
on the Assembly Appropriations Committee suspense file.)
SOURCE : Californians Against Waste
SUPPORT : American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Environmental
Working Group, Sierra Club California, Silicon
Valley Toxics Coalition
OPPOSITION : Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers,
California Business Properties Association,
California Chamber of Commerce, California
Manufacturers and Technology Association,
California Retailers Association, Consumer
Electronics Association, Industrial
Environmental Association, Information
Technology Industry Council, TechAmerica,
TechNet