Electromagnetic Compatability
Introduction
EMC
COMMISSION GUIDELINES - Help or Hindrance
EMC
- Since the first UK prosecutions
One
year experience with EMC market surveillance in Germany
and the system developed for that goal
GUIDELINES
ON THE APPLICATION OF COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 89/336/EEC OF 3
MAY 1989 ON THE APPROXIMATION OF THE LAWS OF THE MEMBER
STATES RELATING TO ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY (DIRECTIVE
89/336/EEC AMENDED BY DIRECTIVES 91/263/EEC, 92/31/EEC,
93/68/EEC, 93/97/EEC)
Introduction
Back to the top
EMC COMMISSION GUIDELINES - Help or Hindrance
By Jim Rackham, Principal Trading Standards Officer
Warwickshire County Council
The 1997 Commission Guidance on the EMC Directive has
received much comment since it was published last summer.
However I would urge restraint when considering it in relation
to equipment being supplied and used in the UK. The guidance
does contain some clauses that are at odds with the UK regulations.
I will highlight some of the differences in this article.
It should be remembered that it is only guidance and does
not have the force of law. Since these guidelines have been
published Trading Standards Officers have not been issued
with advice on how they are to be used and therefore the
following comments are my own and may not be universally
accepted by your local Trading Standards Authority.
It is interesting to note that the DTI have not published
this guidance as one of their official guidance booklets
on 100A Directives, in fact it is with their lawyers to
decide on what status to give it. It should also be remembered
that relatively few manufacturers and importers will be
aware of it's existence, and it's impact may not be as great
as has been anticipated. Trading Standards Officers will
continue to receive enquiries from businesses who have never
heard of the EMC regulations for many years to come. In
fact whilst some Trading Standards Authorities are active
in this area many others have not had any requests for advice
since the regulations came into force in 1993 and therefore
other legislation will be given a higher priority.
It has been said by the Commission that the main thrust
of 100A Directives is to ensure the free movement around
the EEA rather than compliance with essential requirements,
in the case of the EMC Regulations the Protection Requirements.
Evidence of this is that the Directive imposes limitations
on controls dependant on whom the goods are intended for
rather than whether they are EMC active or not. I would
hope that as with other 100A Directives which are concerned
with issues of Gas Safety, Personal Protective Equipment
and Lifts and Toys, the Committees concerned with all these
Directives would be more concerned that the first priority
is that equipment in use in the Community complies with
the essential objectives within the Directives and then
the issue of free movement. The guidance contains examples
of circumstances in which non conforming equipment are exempted
by the Directive which I believe are caught by the UK Regulations.
3.1 Placing on the Market
The guidance informs that placing on the market takes place
when the goods enter the distribution chain. In the United
Kingdom we have transposed the definitions "placing on the
Market" and "making available" as supply, which is commonly
used in our legislation. We have also usually added exposure
and possession for supply in recent UK law. Therefore we
also consider that finished product which is in the manufacturer's
or importer's warehouse should comply at that point before
it has entered the supply chain. This enables the prevention
of non conforming product being distributed.
There is also a specific requirement in the UK regulations
concerning offering for supply. The guidance advises that
such offers do not constitute placing on the Market. However
this may be an additional contravention in the UK if the
apparatus does not comply on delivery.
3.2 Taking into Service
The guidance advises that taking into service takes place
at the same time as placing on the market, if apparatus
or systems are not affected by their installation or assembly.
The UK regs contain separate provisions for "supply" Reg.
28 and "taking into service" Reg 29. I think that there
can be a difference between placing on the market and taking
into service for finished goods and systems and this conflicts
with the guidance.
If the apparatus is used in a different EMC environment
than was intended by the person placing it on the market,
then it might contravene the protection requirements. The
person who takes the apparatus into service may be liable.
Users may be misguided if they believe that by following
the guidance they are not bound by the regulations as the
goods have already passed the stage of taking into service.
If apparatus is made or imported from outside the EEA for
your own use then I don't think that it has been supplied,
consequently I don't think it needs to go through the conformity
procedures, or bear the CE marking, it only has to comply
with the protection requirements.
4.2.2 Decision flow chart
The risk analysis chart is quite useful although I believe
it is given exaggerated importance. I think it is a fairly
easy decision to decide whether or not a product is caught
by the regulations. It is more difficult, to sort out, what
if anything is needed to make it comply.
The main provisions of the regulations are that the goods
perform a direct function, they are available to the end
user as a single commercial unit and they are not included
in any of the exemptions mentioned in the UK Regulations.
The flow chart also refers to other references in the guidelines
which may be at variance with the UK regulations.
There is one interesting comment on the bottom row of boxes
concerning components where it states that components which
are exempt after consideration of the above principles must
have instructions for use despite being exempt from the
Regulations, this doesn't seem to follow any previous arguments.
However I think it is a good idea as it will assist in the
final assembly of a finished product and assist in compliance
with descriptions of performance of equipment for the purposes
of Trade Descriptions Act.
5.3 Passive EM Equipment and 5.4 Exempted Equipment
Caution should be exercised when considering whether a product
is exempted. An item such as a high voltage transformer
may itself be EM passive, however it is likely to be supplied
as a system with switch and/or control gear which is EM
active and therefore the "system" would not fall in line
with the exemption.
Although such products as switches and induction motors
and light bulbs may be exempt from the EMC regs, they may
all require CE Marking for the Low Voltage Directive. Therefore
the Directives for which the CE Marking is applied should
always be detailed clearly in the accompanying information.
6.2 Components
This has always been a difficult area. The way that the
regulations are framed means that relevant apparatus could
require full conformity or be classed as an exempt component
depending on who receives it. The principles of it's function
, whom supplied to and the electromagnetic environment must
always be considered as with finished products . I think
that this section does help to clarify the situation. I
am all in favour of instructions to assist the final assembler
using sub assemblies. However if components are exempt I
don't think a supplier could be compelled to include information
about its EMC performance under our EMC legislation. But
I would advise any assembler, that where possible they should
ask their component suppliers to certify that sub assemblies
comply with the protection requirements, (this may be achieved
by reports of tests on suitable host apparatus) and this
will avoid the assembler having to rectify EMC problems
caused by such sub assemblies.
6.3 Finished Products
This is an alternative definition of "apparatus". However,
6.3.2 concerning finished products to be included in larger
apparatus, seems to be an extension of the theme of components.
Although, it says that only instructions are necessary ,
I would expect that the final assembler would almost certainly
want confirmation that the finished product was compliant
itself, which should not pose a problem if the finished
product is also supplied direct to end users.
Finished products modified by an end user for use in a different
EM environment are still covered by the UK Reg 29 taking
into service provisions and should comply with the protection
requirements.
6.4 systems
A retailer may put together a HI- Fi system comprising equipment
from different several manufacturers but each piece of apparatus
has previously been put on the market individually and should
be compatible. Similarly where an importer puts several
CE marked pieces of apparatus together as a system from
different manufacturers he may not be placing on the market
a system intended by those manufacturers to be supplied
as a single functional unit. However, as each part is CE
marked, then if one fails to comply the importer has still
had each part in this possession for supply and actions
can be taken to restrict the non compliant unit's further
supply within the UK provisions.
The guidance states that equipment used in the wrong environment
is exempt, however as I stated earlier if apparatus or systems
are taken into service in the wrong electromagnetic environment
and fail the protection requirements then they may contravene
Regulation 29.
Testing systems
The guidance introduces new terms of "relevant" and "irrelevant
components" to assess the need for subsequent re-testing
of a system. It is suggested that a manufacturer may change
"EMC irrelevant components" without further testing. I would
advise the person to be sure of the status of such components
and gain expert advice in the case of complex components
before taking that course of action.
6.5 Installations
You might consider installations to be large systems. If
the CE marked apparatus is not intended necessarily to be
supplied together as a single functional unit, then it does
not require a CE mark, it only needs to conform to the protection
requirements. If it contravenes those requirements then
it's operation can be suspended until it is rectified. I
think that "Moveable Installations" are systems. However
I do not believe that there is any exemption in the Directive
or the UK Regulations to exempt systems which substitute
for other parts of an installation, whatever the operating
voltage. If they are used in an installation they should
fully conform themselves.
7 As new apparatus
I think that modifiers should liaise carefully with their
local trading standards departments if they think that changes
to existing apparatus or systems are likely to produce a
more reactive situation than existed previously.
7.3 Modifications carried out by the end user
The guidance exempts users modifying their own equipment.
I believe that article 3 of the Directive and Reg 29 of
the UK Regs are also concerned with the "taking into service"
of relevant apparatus. I think that such persons should
consider the protection requirements when modifying apparatus
etc., in case it affects the EM environment.
7.4 Spare Parts
If spare parts could also be classed as relevant apparatus
then they should comply, e.g. a replacement hard drive for
a PC.
15 EMC and Machinery
The guidance advises that CE + CE is acceptable in relation
to machines. I cannot find anything in the Directive or
the UK regs which differentiates between systems of CE marked
apparatus that constitute a "machine" and other systems
of electronic or electrical apparatus. I therefore disagree
with the concept. I would advise any machine manufacturer
to follow the normal routes to conformity to ensure that
the final assembly complies. The test houses say that less
than 20% of apparatus passes first time and I don't believe
that machines are any different. I believe that it is essential
that manufacturers conduct some screen testing of equipment.
I think that the guidelines are very useful in many respects,
however, I have pointed out some variations and contradictions
between them and the UK Regulations and it is likely that
they also do not totally agree with the EMC regulations
in force in the other 17 countries of the EEA. It has been
suggested that the Directive and the UK regulations should
be amended to conform to these guidelines, however, until
the contradictions are removed and there is more agreement
on their contents within the EEA I don't believe it would
resolve the difficulties with the Directive. I would advise
businesses not to treat the guidelines as a "bible" and
to liaise with your local Trading Standards Officer, on
what steps to take to ensure compliance with the EMC Regulations.
Back to the top
EMC - Since the first UK prosecutions
Dave Holland, Trading Standards Manager, Cardiff County
Council
Five years ago, I stood up in front of colleagues in Wales
and gave a 20 minute presentation on the EMC regulations.
My presentation covered the problem of Electromagnetic Interference
(EMI) and the challenge facing the service in enforcing these
new rules. By the time I had finished, most of the delegates
looked shell shocked, the rest had finished listening long
before I had finished talking.
Since that time, the Trading Standards Service has worked
hard to educate itself and local businesses about the mysteries
of Electromagnetic Compatibility. My own authority held seminars,
wrote guidance notes, and visited all our "Home Authority"
companies to spread the word. We did not use the "big stick"
approach, but rather tried to help industry help themselves.
Through close liaison with the Wales EMC club, (now Club European),
we began to familiarise ourselves with the problems being
encountered by manufacturers/importers. Make no mistake, the
myriad of standards and test requirements facing them and
the "Home Authority" TSO, is bewildering. Close contact remains
essential for both parties.
In November 1996, the newly formed Cardiff County Council
decided to "put a toe in the water" and assess how some of
our manufacturers were doing. In certain areas, such as the
Amusement industry (fruit machines, etc.), the progress was
impressive and the results pleasing. Our experience with PC
assemblers was, disappointingly, different.
Officers identified a number of computer assemblers in the
city. All of those targeted had a turnover of 1.5million plus
and had been issued with guidance on the EMC regulations in
the previous year. The Officers purchased 4 "standard" 486
Personal Computers at a cost of between £650 and £850. The
products were tested at a NAMAS approved test house for compliance
with EN 55022:1995, the harmonised standard for Information
Technology equipment intended to be placed in a commercial
or light industrial environment. All four computers failed
the performance requirements for conducted emissions outlined
in EN 55022. One computer failed, but only marginally. The
subsequent investigation showed that the company in question
had followed our advice and since the time of our purchase,
they had made further, unprompted, improvements to their product.
In light of this we decided not to pursue the matter any further.
The remaining three computers all failed the emissions requirements
badly. All three assemblers were interviewed about the supply
of the product and the checking systems operated by the business.
Subsequently one written caution was issued, and the remaining
two cases were progressed as prosecutions. When word got out
of our investigations and intended course of action we began
to attract some media attention. "The first UK prosecution",
"EMC goes to Court" were typical headlines in the Electronics
press. Some commentators hailed us as heroes, while for others,
we were overzealous officials. Whatever their comments, my
own concern was the "enforceability" of the EMC regulations.
Many had expressed doubt over their content and structure.
If these fears materialised, there would be even bigger shock
waves throughout the industry.
The first case came to Court on the 8th of October 1997 and
lasted for over one hour, even with a guilty plea. The company
pleaded guilty to failing the protection requirements (R.28)
and the incorrect use of the CE mark (R.33{6}), but through
their solicitor offered 40 minutes of mitigation. The defending
solicitor made mention of;
- the complexity of the legislation.
- He claimed that the computer industry believed that assembling
CE marked components was an acceptable practice. (However
his clients did not use all CE marked components.)
- He cited Eleanor Santiago of the European Commission as
a reference for such a belief? Eleanor Santiago has never
made such a statement, but was misquoted on the Internet
in July 1997, 9 months after our purchase.
The Court decided to fine the Company £1,000 for each offence
and award costs of over a thousand pounds to the Trading Standards
Section. Since our involvement the company has rectified the
problem at a cost of £5,000. This cost reflected testing and
consultancy fees.
The case itself had another interesting aspect. The test results
for instance; these were plotted on a graph and even as an educated
amateur, I could see that something was wrong. The plotted points
showed a steady climb up the graph, indicating an increase in
the electronic noise, and then it disappeared from view. A few
millimetres to the right it reappeared again on a downward path.
The test house told us that the computer generated so much noise
that they were unable to quantify the exact amount. It remains
the worst case they have dealt with.
The second case again attracted a guilty plea. This time
the Company was fined £1,500 for failing to meet the protection
requirements, £250 for incorrect use of the CE mark and £250
for failing to issue a Declaration of Conformity. Since the
prosecution Trading standards officers have helped the company
to build a due diligence system. This offer has been made
to all our producers, yet few take up the offer. On the face
of it these were simple prosecutions but, on the way to a
successful prosecution we encountered a number of difficulties.
- The concept of CE + CE = CE is an issue for many small
assemblers
- Does the failure to comply with a harmonised standard
mean that the supplier has failed to meet the essential
protection requirements
- the definition of "supply" in the EMC regulations is not
helpful when pursuing component manufacturers
On a positive note, the proactive role taken by TSO’s in South
Wales has borne fruit
- We have established a screen testing programme with a
NAMAS approved test house at a very competitive rate. Since
October 1997, over 100 products have been screen tested
in South Wales and where necessary appropriate action taken.
- A lot of manufacturers are coming forward to seek advice
and in some respects this has been like turning the clock
back to late 1995, when the regulations became another occupational
hazard.
The electronics industry are beginning to accept that the EMC
regulations are in the hands of competent enforcers The trade
reaction to a £2,000 fine has been predictable, "Another production
cost", "A small sum to pay". What they have failed to comprehend
are the missing costs. The EMC regulations contain powers of
seizure, suspension and forfeiture. In the Cardiff case, there
was nothing to suspend, the problem was related to design and
a number of defunct power supply units. However, when the first
series producer is challenged, we will see stock suspended and
if a forfeiture order is granted, the true cost of non compliance
will be closer to six figures. When that happens, and I believe
it will, this legislation will be the subject of even greater
scrutiny.
The fact that these prosecutions took place might be viewed
as a failure on my part. The Trading Standards Service in Cardiff
did try hard to educate its local producers. In some cases we
were successful, in other cases, our words went unheeded and
I suspect that there are still some who believe we will never
catch them out. Prosecution is a last resort, trading Standards
will always seek to help legitimate businesses' first and apply
the force of the law only as a last resort. The Home Authority
Principle and the concept of Due Diligence are important areas
to consider and it is appropriate that your next speaker will
be covering these issues.
Dave Holland July 1998
Back to the top
One year experience with EMC market surveillance
in Germany and the system developed for that goal
Dipl.- Ing. Gerd Jeromin
Mainz, Germany;
Federal Office for Posts
and Telecommunications
1. Introduction
The provisions concerning the testing of equipment on the market
which have to be complied with in Germany are not only based
on the EMVG (German EMC Act) but also on the Telecommunication
Act (TKG) which transposed the Terminal Directive 91/263/EEC
into national law. Both laws are applicable in this context
since the provisions of the EMVG and of the Terminal Directive
are closely related when the equipment is tested on the premises
of the customer. During the transitionary period until December
31, 1995, different types of marking of the equipment, type-examination
certificates, certificates of conformity and provisions of the
European Community may be applied in Germany. The large number
of requests received and the experience gathered whithin the
framework of the testing of equipment on the market have revealed
that many manufacturers and import companies are not yet familiar
with the relevant laws and regulations. Thus, the activities
of market observation will focus on providing information to
the parties concerned, following the general principle: explanation
rather than penalties.
2. Market observation procedures
Currently, the procedures concerning the testing of equipment
on the market are still subject to a preliminary set of work
instructions.
Tests are aimed at:
- monitoring compliance with the EMC protection requirements
- monitoring compliance with the provisions pertaining to
the CE marking of equipment
- monitoring the plausibility of the EC declaration of conformity
- taking the necessary steps in order to initiate subsequent
improvements, if necessary, or to prevent equipment from
being placed on the market or to withdraw equipment from
the market
- taking the necessary steps on basis of Article 3 of the
Terminal Directive 91/263/EEC in order to ensure that terminal
equipment intended for connection to the public telecommunications
network, and equipment suitable, but not intended for connection
to the public telecommunications network will only be placed
on the market on the condition that requirements stipulated
in the aforementioned Directive have been met.
Tests are carried out regarding:
- radio installations (transmitting and receiving equipment
- telecommunications installations (except radio installations)
- telecommunications terminal equipment
- other electrical/electronic devices, systems and installations
subject to the EMC Directive
The tests are carried out when the equipment is placed on the
market or when it is exhibited, put on display and thus made
available to the customers. Manufacturers or companies importing
equipment to Germany for the first time place it on the market.
According to the German interpretation of the Electromagnetic
Compatibility Act, anyone who puts the equipment on display
for viewing on his business transaction, and means of display
or exhibition sales or by other means, sells it to the end
user, is subject to market surveillance.
The staff of the 54 BAPT regional offices in Germany are
testing the equipment by visual inspection and/or by technical
measurements.
Initially, the data is recorded on a data sheet, and the
following aspects are covered:
- the reason for market observation
- type of equipment and equipment model
- year of manufacture,
- serial and equipment number,
- who placed the equipment on the market
- who manufactured the equipment
- which markings are affixed on the equipment or indicated
in the equipment documents
- have any documents of conformity been included,
- have any preliminary measurements on the premises of the
customer or in one of the regional offices of the Federal
Office for Posts and Telecommunications (BAPT) already been
carried out,
- what are the results of the measurements.
3. Preliminary Results
Each month, roughly 1500 data sheets concerning market surveillance
are established and processed within the entire BAPT. For further
processing, 750 sheets are forwarded to the regional offices
responsible for the company which placed the equipment on the
market.
The interpretation of the data sheets has led to the following
results:
- Currently, testing of the equipment is restricted to visual
inspections in most cases.
- Technical tests on the premises of the costumer require
a lot of time and effort and are considered an impairment
to business activities. Thus, we decided, that all of our
regional BAPT-offices conducted these tests only at the
test site of their office.
- An additional problem is the fact that in some cases it
is very time-consuming to find the mark of conformity (CE-label)
on the product, in the equipment documents or on the packaging.
- As already described, all the results obtained until December
1996 are recorded by means of a data sheet.
- The quality of these data sheets varies to a great extend.
- The identification of the company which placed the equipment
on the market using delivery notes etc. has proven to cause
the most problems. On the premises of the customer, the
member of staff of the regional BAPT-offices seldom succeed
in identifying all stages the equipment has passed through:
wholesale and intermediate trade, and right back to the
manufacturer or the import company.
Thus, this kind of information is gathered by the inside staff
of the regional BAPT-offices.
4. The data base system to be used for recording equipment
placed on the market
The BAPT`s data base system for recording equipment is based
on an already existing data base system which is currently used
for investigating cases of interference within the field of
radio monitoring and which has been expanded.
According to the concept, a central data base which can be accessed
directly by all regional BAPT offices has been established.
- In accordance with a phased system, all equipment data
is initially keyed into the equipment data base by the central
coordination office.
- During the transitionary period, this coordination office
will furnish information on any stored equipment data requested
by the regional BAPT-offices.
- The coordination office will foreward any applications
for testing to the regional BAPT-office responsible for
the company which placed the equipment on the market, and
will store the results in the data base.
Measurement quantities per year
Equipment for industrial use
Medical and scientific apparatus
Domestic tv and radio receivers and connected equipment
Domestic appliances and household electrical equipment
Lights and fluorescent lamps
IT equipment
Telecommunications and terminal equipment
Radio and TV networks
Radio transmitters |
EN 50 081-2
EN 55 011
EN 55 013
EN 55 014
EN 55 015
EN 55 022
EN 55 022
EN 50 083-2
national standards |
100 units
300 units
1000 units
4300 units
400 units
700 units
1200 units
1000 units
600 units |
5. Results
Situation on the German market
The German market for equipment covered by the EMC Directive
contains about 250 million units per year. This is approximately
30% of the european market.
In this particular study:
- 200 million apparatus per year
- 50 million components performing a direct function per
year
- 65000 different types of equipment per year
- 50000 persons placing products on the market per year
- 100000 product providers (trade companies)
In 1996 the civil servants of the BAPT checked 10049 electrical
products, and 3280 appliances have been complained about.
- 28 % of the queried products weren`t correctly CE-marked.
- 61 % had faults in the declaration of conformity and
- 11 % of tested appliances had technical faults.
- 4 % of the queried products, were products placed on the
common market from non german european member states.
Administrative offence proceedings under the EMC Act
Period covered: 1/1/96 to 31/12/96
No of cases under EMC: approx 100
Measures taken:
- 7 administrative fines less than DM1000
- 7 administrative fines more than DM1000
- 8 warnings without cautionery fines
- 5 warnings with cautionery fines
- 25 cases dropped
- 50 cases pending
Grounds for the institution of proceedings:
- Deviations from the specified limits
- Non conformity with marking requirements
- Failure to furnish information
- Permission to examine apparatus not granted
Back to the top
GUIDELINES ON THE APPLICATION OF COUNCIL
DIRECTIVE 89/336/EEC OF 3 MAY 1989 ON THE APPROXIMATION OF
THE LAWS OF THE MEMBER STATES RELATING TO ELECTROMAGNETIC
COMPATIBILITY (DIRECTIVE 89/336/EEC AMENDED BY DIRECTIVES
91/263/EEC, 92/31/EEC, 93/68/EEC, 93/97/EEC)
NOTES
- These guidelines are intended to be a manual for all parties
directly or indirectly affected by the EMC (electromagnetic
compatibility) Directive. They should be read and used as
a help for interpretation of the Directive, they do not
substitute for it; they simply explain and clarify some
of the most important aspects related to the application
of this Directive. They are also intended to ensure the
free movement of products in the EU Internal Market by agreement
of these explanations and clarification's, reached by consensus
among Member States' government experts and other parties
concerned. The existence of these harmonised interpretations
is expected to minimise the number of safeguard clause applications,
at least those originating from divergent interpretations.
- These guidelines have been prepared by the competent services
of the General Directorate III Industry of the Commission
in collaboration with the group of government experts of
Member States, representatives of European industry, European
standardisation bodies and Bodies entrusted with the technical
tasks related to third party intervention in the conformity
assessment procedures.
- Guidelines are publicly available, but they are not binding
in the sense of legal acts adopted by the Community. The
legally binding provisions are those transposing the EMC
Directive
- Finally, the reader's attention is drawn to the fact that
all references to the CE marking and EC Declaration of conformity
relates only to the EMC Directive and that placing an apparatus
on the market in the EEA territory is only guaranteed when
applying all the relevant legislation.
INTRODUCTION
The objective of this document is to clarify certain matters
and procedures referred to in Directive 89/336/EEC, amended
by Directives 91/263/EEC, 92/31/EEC, 93/68/EEC and 93/97/EEC
concerning electromagnetic compatibility, with a view to compiling
a guide for use in conjunction with the Directive.
In view of the breadth of the scope of the Directive and
the variety of products covered, it has become necessary to
address this document not only to the Member States' competent
authorities, but also to the main economic operators concerned,
such as manufacturers, their trade associations, the bodies
in charge of the preparation of standards and those entrusted
with the conformity assessment procedures.
First and foremost, this document must ensure that, when
correctly applied, the Directive leads to the removal of obstacles
and difficulties related to the free circulation (free movement)
of goods within the European Economic Area (EEA), which any
of the groups concerned may encounter.
The EMC Directive is a new-approach directive laying down
apparatus protection requirements and leaving it to standards,
primarily European harmonised standards, to define technical
requirements to achieve the level of protection required.
The EMC Directive is a total harmonisation Directive, i.e.
its provisions replaced the national ones concerned when they
came into force.
The EMC Directive had to be transposed into national law
by 1 July 1991. Its provisions have applied since
1 January 1992.
However, the wide scope of the EMC Directive demonstrated
the overriding need to provide for a transitional period,
so as to ensure a smooth changeover from the application of
legislation of a purely national character to a Community-wide
system.
That is why, on 28 April 1992, the Council adopted Directive
92/31/EEC with a view to allowing a transitional period until
31 December 1995.
During this transitional period, a manufacturer had the
choice of placing on the market and/or putting into service
:
- apparatus manufactured in accordance with the EMC Directive,
whereby the free movement of the apparatus was guaranteed
pursuant to the Directive, or
- apparatus manufactured in accordance with national regulations,
whereby free movement of apparatus was guaranteed pursuant
to Article 30 of the EEC Treaty, albeit subject to the possible
derogation provided for in Article 36 and the jurisprudence
of the European Community Court of Justice.
During the transitional period the choice of system to be applied
was left to the manufacturer, but conformity to the Directive
greatly facilitated the free movement of apparatus in the EEA.
In particular, free access of an apparatus conforming to the
Directive was guaranteed, even if a pre-existing national regulation
still in force during the transitional period was more onerous.
As of 1 January 1996, Member States have abolished national
regulations concerning electromagnetic compatibility and applied
the provisions of the Directive for all apparatus.
OBJECTIVE OF THE EMC DIRECTIVE
The main objective of the EMC directive is to guarantee
the free movement of apparatus and to create an acceptable
electromagnetic environment in the EEA territory. In order
to achieve it, a harmonised and acceptable level of protection
is requested in the Directive, based on Article 100a of the
Union Treaty, leading to full harmonisation in the EEA.
The level of protection requested is further specified in
the EMC Directive by protection aims in the field of electromagnetic
compatibility. The main goals are:
- To ensure that the electromagnetic disturbances produced
by electrical and electronic apparatus does not affect the
correct functioning of other apparatus according to the
definition of Article 1.1 of the EMC Directive (see note
8), as well as radio and telecommunications networks, related
equipment and electricity distribution networks.
- To ensure that apparatus have an adequate level of intrinsic
immunity to electromagnetic disturbances to enable them
to operate as intended.
To achieve these objectives, the EMC Directive lays down protection
requirements and procedures under which the manufacturer may
himself assess his apparatus against these requirements or may
have it assessed by third parties. Obviously, the goal of the
protection requirement is not to guarantee absolute protection
of the above apparatus (e.g. zero emission level or total immunity
of the apparatus). These requirements accommodate both physical
facts and practical reasons. T ensure that this process remains
open to future technical developments, the EMC Directive only
describes protection requirements along general lines.
When compliant with the provisions of the EMC Directive,
electrical and electronic apparatus may be placed on the market
in the EEA territory, freely moved and operated as designed
and intended in the expected electromagnetic environment.
If you wish further details of this new guidance document
it can be downloaded from ftp.win-uk.net/pub/users/emc/newguide.html.
See also EMC
Journal.
Back to the top
|
|
|
|