Hello Tin,
This is a difficult point but I think on strictly legal terms of
the UK implementation of the EMC directive my old friend and
colleague Chris Dupres is right, although I would strongly caution
against trying it unless you are very sure your equipment does not
cause interference.
It must be remembered that the EMC directive itself does not
carry the weight of law anywhere. However all signatories to
the Treaty of Rome and the European Economic Area Agreement
are bound by those documents to pass into the domestic law of
their states  the same or equivalent legislation.
Some countries like France have done this by passing verbatim
into law the National language version of the directive and issuing
additional regulation on matters not covered by the directive
such as how it will be policed and what the penalties are for
breaking the law
The UK however passed a single item of legislation to cover
all aspects in the form of Statutory Instrument 1992 No 2372
The Electromagnetic Compatibility Regulations. In these the
EMC directive is rewritten and a number of wrinkles are added
that are not in the EMC directive. It is open to the Commission
or any other aggrieved state to take the UK to the European Court
of Justice on the grounds that we have not fully implemented
the directive, as bound by treaty, but they have not done so
and UK law stands.
 Examples of such wrinkles are the exclusion
of "electromagnetically benign equipment" in clause 17. In
could be argued that Chris' example of a convection heater
does not even need a CE mark let alone testing.
In Clause 8 Educational equipment only has meet the protection
requirements outside the bounds of the educational establishment.
In Clause 13 large fixed "excluded installations" do not have to show
conformance for the whole installation if the parts conform and
the installation is put together according to the instructions for
EMC conformance for each part.
As to whether the standards route requires testing the relevant
clause is 37
"The conformity assessment requirements are complied with pursuant
 to the standards route to compliance if the manufacturer has applied an
applicable EMC standard which makes, or all applicable EMC standards
which make, complete provision in respect of the apparatus"
What it does not say is it must be tested to and pass all EMC standards
that have been adopted for EMC by CENELEC and had their
titles published in the OJ.
It has been argued that a manufacturer may claim that a certain standard
is not necessary to make complete provision for the  equipment.
(for instance ESD test for equipment that only ever operates
completely immersed in water)
The word "applied" is also open to interpretation. Close reading of some
of the standards give levels to be met and means to measure these levels
but do not explicitly say to meet this standard thou shalt carry out
these tests.
Although these arguments are very tenuous there is some backing
from the DTI, the department with responsibilities for EMC.
Although the guidelines give no hint of this interpretation they did
issue an earlier document titled "Minimising the cost of compliance
with the EMC directive" or something very similar. Unfortunately
I cannot lay my hands on it at the moment but it did strongly
imply that the manufacturer could decide which standards made
complete provision for the equipment.
This document caused quite a stir at the time but has not to my
knowledge been officially retracted. There is a political background
to this. Margaret Thatcher after having initially been enthusiastic
about the EU as a wider stage on which to display her glory,
turned against the EU when the other leaders did not bow down to
worship her as the second coming of Churchill and had the blind
impertinence to disagree with her. In a huff she gave orders to
minimise all EU influence on the UK and this document was one
of the results. (yes I know my political prejudices are showing
but it is satisfying to let off a little spleen now and than)
Having said all this and agreed with Chris that this is the UK
law I strongly recommend you confine these ideas to arguments
over a pint of beer after work and if you want to use the
harmonised standards route, use all of them and test to them
and if you want to skip or modify one of the standards produce
a TCF and get a competent body to sign and take responsibility.
If your equipment does actually cause interference and you are
taken to court the only thing to stand between you and a hefty
penalty (and remember the signatory of the DOC bears personal
liability) is an argument of "due diligence" If your equipment fails
because of an aspect that there is a specified test for and you
deliberately decided not to test for you have a very difficult case
to make. If you think you could make such a case I suggest your
talents would be much more profitably employed in the law
than in being a compliance engineer.

Nick Rouse


----- Original Message -----
From: <tinb...@aol.com>
To: <cdup...@cs.com>; <fr...@amcomm.com>
Cc: <emc-p...@ieee.org>
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 6:24 PM
Subject: Re: Getting Started


>
>
> Chris,
>
> I am interested in knowing the basis of your response to items 1 and 2, as
it is contrary to my understanding of the EMC Directive.
>
> Specifically, it was my understanding that unless the manufacturer is
following ALL of the requirements specified in Standard(s), that they must
follow the TCF route and obtain a report or certificate from a Competent
Body, as outlined per Article 10(2) of the EMC Directive states that "In the
case of apparatus for which the manufacturer has not applied, or has applied
only in part, the standards referred to in Article 7(1) or failing such
standards, the manufacturer or his authorized respresentative established
within the Community shall hold at the disposal of the relevant competent
authorities, as soon as the apparatus is placed on the market, a technical
construction file. This file shall describe the apparatus..... and include a
technical report or certificate, one or other obtained from a competent
body."
>
> If a manufacturer uses their engineering rationale to waive all of the EMC
testing specified in standards, they have only applied part of the standard
and as such, the EMC Directive would require that the rationale and the TCF
be reviewed by a European EMC Competent Body.
>
> Furthermore, I believe that UK's DTI is consistent with EMC Directive's
philosophy outlined in Article 10(2).  In the October 1992 DTI's Guidance
Document on the Preparation of a Technical Construction File as required by
EC Directive 89/336, Section 1.3 outlines the "Circumstances where the TCF
might be used", "ii) For apparatus where harmonized standards exist but the
manufacturer applied that standard in part only, eg where a manufacturer can
justify that a particular type of apparatus complies with the protection
requirements of the Directive without performing tests to any or all of the
phenomena described in the relevant harmonized specifications."
>
> I am interested in learning whether UK has established an updated position
which allows manufacturer to waive testing (altogether) and still
self-declare conformity to the EMC Directive through the standards route?
>
> Regards
>
> Tin
>
> In a message dated Sun, 1 Oct 2000  2:58:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
cdup...@cs.com writes:
>
> <<
> In a message dated 29/09/00 15:43:06 GMT Daylight Time, fr...@amcomm.com
> writes:
>
> << I'm just getting started in the world of EMI and would like to ask a
few
>  questions.  I'm not sure if I should be going the TCF route or the
Standards
>  Route.  The company that I work for manufactures products which have many
>  variants.
>
>
>  1)  Is it EC law that a manufacturer must perform EMI testing before
>  applying the CE mark?
>
> No.  In the UK, the Electromagnetic Compatibility Regulations don't
require
> testing if you follow the Standards Route.  But you must make the
Declaration
> of Compliance before you use the CE mark and be able to provide evidence
of
> compliance to the regulatory authorities when challenged.  This can be
test
> results, or detailed analysis, or statements etc.  Again, 'testing' per se
is
> not a particular requirement.  For instance,  a simple resistive
convection
> heater could be stated to Comply because there are no non-linear elements
to
> produce or be affected by EMI.  No need to test.  Having said that,
testing
> is the only absolutely certain way of proving compliance.  And don't
forget
> that the Regulations are Criminal Law!
>
>  2)  If a manufacturer follows the Standards Route, does EC law require
each
>  variant to be tested?
>
> No.  There is nio statutory need to test.  But you need to provide firm
> evidence, when asked, that the variant is not significantly different in
EMC
> terms to the original subject of the Compliance Declaration.  A detailed
> technical statement would suffice, but must be accurate and traceable.
> Again, we are taking Criminal Law here!
>
>  3)  If, when testing, the limit is exceeded, can the CE mark still be
>  applied?
>
> No.  The CE mark means that ALL relevant Directives have been complied
with.
> If EMC limits are exceeded when using the Standards Route then it doesn't
> comply with the EMC Directive.  If the product can't be produced without
> exceeding the limits, then the TCF route to compliance should be used.
>
>  4)  Are the services of a Competent Body required in order to put
together a
>  TCF or can the manufacturer do that on his own?
>
> A TCF is only valid when qualified by a Competent Body.  A manufacturer
can
> build his own TCF, or an external Test House/Competent Body can build it,
but
> at the end of the day the Competent Body signs/takes responsibility for
it.
> Think of a TCF as a new EMC standard which relates ONLY to that particular
> product.  A simple rule is 'if it complies with the Standards then use the
> Standards Route, if it doesn't then use the TCF route.
>
> Hope is useful.
>
> Chris Dupres
> Surrey, UK.
>
>   >>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
>
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
>      majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line:
>      unsubscribe emc-pstc
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>      Jim Bacher:              jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
>      Michael Garretson:        pstc_ad...@garretson.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
>      Richard Nute:           ri...@ieee.org
>
>
>  >>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
> Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
>
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
>      majord...@ieee.org
> with the single line:
>      unsubscribe emc-pstc
>
> For help, send mail to the list administrators:
>      Jim Bacher:              jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
>      Michael Garretson:        pstc_ad...@garretson.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
>      Richard Nute:           ri...@ieee.org
>
>


-------------------------------------------
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
     majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
     unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
     Jim Bacher:              jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
     Michael Garretson:        pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
     Richard Nute:           ri...@ieee.org

Reply via email to