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