A few weeks ago, a posting reported on a meeting between "a well known computer manufacturer" and Mrs Elena Santiago of the European Commission.
I was surprised at the content of this report, since it did not appear to be consistent with the recently-produced Guidelines, so I checked with the Department of Trade and Industry (who are responsible here in the UK for the Directive). They in turn checked with the Commission. The DTI have asked me to copy the following response back to the discussion group. Best wishes to all Brian Jones
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN From: Department of Trade and Industry 151 Buckingham Palace Road London SW1W 9SS Enquiries +44 171-215 5000 Fax +44 171-215 1529 INCORRECT/INCOMPLETE INTERPRETATION OF INFORMATION ORIGINATING FROM THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION (DGIII) REGARDING SYSTEM INTEGRATORS - EMC DIRECTIVE The following information has been placed on a web site accessed by many manufacturers in the UK. _______________________________________________________________________________ " Ladies & Gentlemen, I thought that you may be interested in the outcome of a meeting between a well-known PC manufacturer and the European Commission, DGIII (Elena Santiago) concerning the legalities of System Integration 1. An integrator of a "Core PC" (motherboard, power supply, case & drives - 6.4.2 pare. 4 of the EMC Directive Guidelines) need only follow the Conformity Assessment Guidelines (10.1 or 10.2 of the Directive, 8.1 or 8.2 of the Guidelines). This entails using CE Marked modules, following module instructions exactly, providing a Declaration of Conformity, and providing a CE Marking on the product. If he/she does this, then the resultant product NEED NOT BE TESTED. Further, if an enforcement organization later tests the product and it fails the emissions limits, the System integrator will still be considered in compliance! The enforcer is then supposed to turn his/her sights on the module suppliers for not providing sufficient instructions, and leave the System Integrator alone. Accordingly, if the System Integrators under prosecution in the UK followed the Guidelines but did not test, they should not be prosecuted. 2. EMC auditing of production is not mandatory. Even though EN55022, in describing the 80/80 rule, indicates that auditing is mandatory, the European Commission views this as not a standards issue and beyond the scope of CENELEC to specify. They also consider this requirement in conflict with their guidelines and are taking steps to have CENELEC remove this wording from EN55022. 3. We also brought up an issue regarding the use of prototypes for evaluation and demonstration, and of development units for customers to use to simultaneously prepare new designs. Ms. Santiago agreed to bring the matter up with the horizontal National Authorities. The above will obviously have a major impact on all PC manufacturers and system integrators! Perhaps someone within this newsgroup is able to confirm (or otherwise) this ground-shift." ____________________________________________________________________________ Mrs Santiago the Commission Official named above has asked the DTI, as the UK Competent Authority responsible for the EMC Directive, to put out a "correct statement" to counter the erroneous information appearing on the website Mrs Santiago was not consulted or warned that the private discussions she had with a well known personal computer company were going to be published and appear on the website. Mrs Santiago "fully disagrees" with what has been included under item 1 above. Mrs Santiago was trying to give the company an interpretation of 6.4.2 of the new EMC guidelines, insisting on the fact that the "guidelines are publicly available, but they are not legally binding in the sense of legal acts adopted by the Community. The legally binding provisions are those transposing the EMC Directive". Mrs Santiago further clarifies as follows. " The manufacturer of the system assumes the responsibility for the compliance of the system as a whole but after carrying out his verification according to the provisions of the EMC Directive. We do not enter into the verification procedure, and there is no mandatory testing according to the provisions of the Directive. A system assembled from only CE Marked apparatus should be aware that combining two or more CE marked sub-assemblies 'May not' automatically produce a system which meets the requirements of the Directive. It is the full responsibility of the manufacturer (system integrator in this case) to ensure conformity with the Directive. Of course in case of challenge it will be investigated to establish the reason for non-compliance. However, the system integrator must be able to technically justify his verification procedure." Certain details regarding EN 55022 have also been erroneously reported, again Mrs Santiago clarifies; " I never stated that this standard is in conflict with the EMC guidelines, but it is true that standards must not contain any regulatory statement and if this is the case in EN 55022, we ( the Commission) would ask CENELEC to remove the statement from the standard. This issue will be managed with the help of an EMC Consultant who will be appointed in the Autumn". Mrs Santiago regrets the concerns that have been caused by this "uncontrolled and irresponsible distribution of information", and hopes the above now clarifies this. DAVID SOUTHERLAND Standards and Technical Regulations Directorate DTI UK