 
|
  
   |
| About
CE-Mag Free Subscriptions Current Issue Article Archives ESD Help Mr. Static Web Gallery Staff Info Contact us
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
An EMC Directive for the Next CenturyA redrafting of the directive should be finished soon, and an improved version for the relief of manufacturers is expected by mid-decade. The
EMC Directive was first published in 1989 and came into force
in January 1996. The six-year transition period was caused by
the lack of published standards and the fact that European industry
wanted more time to prepare for what it recognized as a major
piece of legislation. The directive is now being redrafted in
a process called simplified legislation for the internal market
(SLIM). This time, the standards are in place—some would say
too many of them—and industry has had plenty of time to get
used to designing for EMC.
The SLIM Approach SLIM is a procedure being applied to many new approach directives to remove ambiguities, improve clarity, and correct areas that have proved to be administrative problems. It should be noted that simpler does not necessarily mean shorter. The EMC Directive, which is administered for the European Commission by DG Enterprise (DGIII), was targeted for SLIM in 1998. A panel was established with five government representatives and five industry experts and was chaired by a senior official from the European Commission. The panel met three times between May and September 1998 and produced 20 recommendations (see the sidebar, "SLIM Recommendations"). These were published as a report in November 1998 and accepted in February 1999. A SLIM working group was then established to assist the Commission in the drafting of a new directive. This clearly represented a two-stage task: to decide which sections of the directive needed to be revised and to agree on the detailed text. The second task takes the most time. Although there were 20 recommendations from the SLIM panel, they did not translate into 20 amendments. Four recommendations related to fixed installations, and some recommendations were purely advisory. In February 1999, the main areas for amendment were agreed upon, including
Before focusing on these recommendations, however, the panel made its most important decision, which was to write a new directive. Some countries would have preferred to rewrite the guidelines that were published in 1997. The guidelines have no legal force, so rewriting them would have been a relatively fast procedure. However, because the guidelines have no legal entity, most countries preferred to take the route of drafting a new directive. The penalty, of course, is that a directive must move through each stage of drafting and approval, including approval by the European Parliament and Council, and finally adoption into the legislation of each member state. Although Brussels publishes directives, they must be adopted in a given member state in order to have legal effect. At this time, all 15 European Union (EU) countries retain different—in some cases very different—legal systems. To enact an EU directive can take a member state several years. In addition to the complexity of the legislation, any single legal act has to find its place in the ever-lengthening queue of European legislation. An estimated timetable for the SLIM process is shown on page 146. This is in no way an official timetable; it is purely
an educated guess. However, midway through 2000, a first draft
of the directive still has much work to be done, and it appears
that this part of the process will take at least until the end
of 2000. The consultation period is a best guess, but given
that all 15 member states must consult their interest groups,
it is difficult to see the process taking fewer than 18 months.
Finally, each member state must translate the legislation into
its own legal framework, and allowing only two years for this
stage could be an underestimate.
Changes Brought about by SLIM Installations. The treatment of fixed installations will be the most significant change to the directive; these installations will be subject to a less-rigorous conformance regime. They will no longer be required to complete a technical construction file (TCF) nor will they require a Declaration of Conformity (DoC). They must still meet the essential requirements of the directive, and the installation owner must retain the data that show due diligence was applied during installation. In particular, each fixed installation will need data to cover components that do not have a CE mark. In other words, it will be necessary to demonstrate that good manufacturing practices were applied at all times. These new requirements will meet the needs of the manufacturing interests that lobbied hard for them. It remains to be seen how well a complaint-driven regime will fulfill the requirements. By the time the installation is in service it will be too late to take EMC protection measures, so any complaint process would by nature fail. A useful change already agreed upon is to redefine the scope of the directive. Its scope has always caused many problems, particularly relating to identifying which components are in and which are out. At the moment, it depends largely on a hard-to-define concept called direct function. The new draft provides a definition of passive: what is not passive is active and is therefore within the scope of the directive. The concept of direct function is removed. Redefining EMC Environments. Currently, the directive identifies two classes of environment: domestic and light industrial, and heavy industrial. The problem is that there is a need to separate domestic from light industrial, and some European countries already have local regulations (not EMC laws) that make this separation mandatory. The industry needs a document that defines a commercial business situated in a residential area, e.g., a bank, a building society, or a light-industrial workshop. The question is, "Should this be done by revising legislation, or should it be left to the standards?" A proposal now being considered is to have a single uniform emissions limit that would eliminate the concept of emission classes. Clearly this would not only be a European decision, and adoption of such a proposal would take many years. The Essential Requirements. Also under consideration is what the essential requirements should encompass. The question on the table here is, "Should the directive specify in greater detail which EMC phenomena are relevant and to what extent?" The crucial point is whether immunity should have been included at all and, if so, whether manufacturers should be able to define the amount of immunity that is essential to their products. Alignment and Definitions. The alignment of the directive with the guidelines published in 1997 has some appeal. The guidelines have, in general, been favorably received. Because they deviate from the original directive in places, some alterations would be required. Many of the basic definitions have been successfully redefined to align with useful definitions in the guidelines. For the redrafted directive to be acceptable to the Commission lawyers, it must also be worded so that it can be translated into 15 languages without changing its basic meaning. One recommendation from SLIM concerned standards, which led to the formation of a standards review panel (SRP) run by CENELEC. This group has a broad assignment to delve into the standards-making process, as well as into the basic structure of European standards. The problem here is critical. Most European standards
are, in fact, IEC standards with an EN prefix. Hence, the problems
with the standards are not just European but international.
For example, problems have occurred with specific standards
such as EN 61000-3-2. Concerns have also been expressed about
the perceived proliferation of immunity standards. It has been
mentioned that the 1992 version of EN 50082-1, the light-industrial
generic immunity standard, covered only three phenomena, whereas
the current version covers eight phenomena. Another problem
stems from frequent amendments to many standards. Even where
a standard is not subject to a total rewrite, there is often
a flow of minor changes to even basic standards. It is difficult
for both test laboratories and manufacturers to keep abreast
of these continual changes. The SRP will report to the SLIM
committee later in the year.
SLIM Summary It is evident that there will be no immediate changes resulting from SLIM, and those who hoped to reduce their testing will soon be disappointed. In the long term, however, it will result in a new directive that will be easier to interpret and that will cause less confusion than the original legislation. Other EMC Directives Although 89/336 is a horizontal directive and is therefore intended to cover a wide range of equipment, it is not the only directive that addresses EMC. There is a general exclusion under Article 2.2 for apparatus covered by specific directives that include EMC requirements, i.e., emissions and immunity, equivalent to the protection requirements of the EMC Directive. Table I lists applicable directives for equipment totally or partially excluded from the EMC Directive.
The R&TTE Directive. The R&TTE Directive 99/5/EC, which came into force on April 8, significantly deregulated the European approvals process for telecommunications terminals. The R&TTE Directive deregulated both the EMC Directive and the Low Voltage Directive for equipment within its scope. However, it does contain references to both of these directives, and all the provisions of the EMC Directive must still be met. The only difference from an EMC point of view is that the DoC is written against the R&TTE Directive . The R&TTE Directive is one of a series of directives designed to implement the European Single Market Act of 1987. The primary main aim of the series is to remove the technical barriers to trade within the EU by providing common legislative requirements on technical issues. These are called new approach directives because they follow the approach taken after 1987 in which the standards and the legislation are published separately. The EMC Directive is only seven pages long, and the technical content is contained within Article 4, which states that a product must be produced so that (a) the electromagnetic disturbance it generates does not exceed a level allowing radio and telecommunications equipment and other apparatus to operate as intended, and (b) the apparatus has an adequate level of intrinsic immunity to electromagnetic disturbance to enable it to operate as intended. Routes to Compliance. The EMC Directive defined two main routes to compliance based on Articles 10.1 and 10.2 (the third route for broadcast transmitters, 10.5, differs only in the need to obtain type approval). The first, 10.1, is the self-declaration route and accounts for the largest volume of products. The second route, 10.2, is the technical construction file (TCF), which actually presents the greatest number of opportunities. It is essential to understand the terminology here clearly. Both routes require the organization placing the product on the market or taking it into service to make a Declaration of Conformity (DoC). This is also often referred to as a Manufacturer's Declaration. Self-declaration is a route to produce the DoC. Self-declaration and Declaration of Conformity are not synonymous. The Self-Declaration Route. This is described in Article 10.1 of the EMC Directive. "In the case of apparatus for which the manufacturer has applied the standards referred to in Article 7 (1), the conformity of apparatus with this Directive shall be certified by the manufacturer or his authorized representative established within the community." It is used when there are published European standards (ENs) that are relevant to the product. The declaration must contain
Location of the manufacturer. The organization making the declaration need not be the manufacturer of the equipment; imported products are often badged by another company. In such cases, the DoC must clearly document both organizations. It should be noted that despite the phrase about "resident in the European Community," neither the manufacturer nor the organization making the declaration must reside within the EU. The DoC should, however, be available within the EU for inspection by relevant authorities. That means that a copy of the DoC should reside with the manufacturer's agent within the EU. Some companies that import and badge products offer a service to hold DoCs for all their products for those customers. Product description. The description of the apparatus does not require any technical detail, but should be sufficient to uniquely identify the product. It may well be that a simple entry containing the product name and model type will suffice. European standards. It should be noted that the EMC Directive does not specify testing to specific standards. Further, there is no requirement to use an accredited test lab or even to use a test lab at all. On the other hand, it may be considered that since the DoC is a legal document (with specified legal penalties for making a false declaration), the use of an accredited lab is a reasonable procedure. Likewise, use of an accredited lab would logically become part of a defense of due diligence if the manufacturer ever faced legal proceedings. It is also important to note that the only standards to which reference may be made are European Normatives (EN) that have been published in the Official Journal of the European Commission (OJ) and that have also been adopted in at least one member state. Not all standards with the prefix EN, e.g., the ENVs, are necessarily published in the OJ. The signatory. For two reasons, the directive requires that the DoC be signed by "someone empowered to bind the resources of the company." First, the Manufacturer's Declaration is a legal document that carries potential legal and commercial penalties for making an incorrect declaration. Second, it is important to bring together in the declaration both the signed test report from the EMC manager and a commitment from manufacturing that the product will remain in compliance. The way to ensure compliance is to agree to a plan to retest at regular intervals. As stated above, the signatory need not reside within the EU. Therefore, it is permissible for both the testing and the DoC to be completed outside of the EU, provided that the self-declaration route can be used. This is not the case with the technical construction file route.
Technical Construction File. The TCF is used either where no relevant standards exist or where a manufacturer decides not to apply them for whatever reason. Technical files are generally used for three main areas. The first is the simple case of no relevant standards being available. The second is when the product is too large to be tested in a laboratory. In the third instance, standards are available, but the manufacturer wishes to make a declaration for a product range based on testing a subset of that range. This last case has become a major source of technical files, even though, if harmonized standards are applied in full, the self-declaration route could be used if the manufacturer had enough technical knowledge to be confident of compliance. The difference from the self-declaration route is the requirement to have the file approved by a third party known as a competent body. In addition to the simple elements contained in the self-declaration, the TCF must include a technical description of the product, the way in which conformance to the EMC Directive has been demonstrated, and a report from the competent body. Although a large part of the TCF may be filled with test results completed to published European standards, it also contains the justification for why the tests represent a reasonable coverage of the product range being declared. If the testing has been done to nonharmonized standards, the technical file will contain the technical rationale that demonstrates that the standards are relevant. The TCF therefore may range from a few pages to several volumes, depending on what is being assessed. Clearly it can be quite complex and, hence, is likely to be the source of much disputation. If the EMC Directive is to operate efficiently, then harmonization of the competent bodies who approve the technical files is also essential. CE mark. The intention of either route is to place a CE mark on the product. The purpose of the mark is to facilitate the passage of goods either into the EU or across the borders of member states. The mark placed on a product is the sole responsibility of the manufacturer. No organization can award or supply a CE mark. Only a report that may justify application of the mark can be provided. It is worth mentioning that the purpose of the CE
mark is to enable a product to pass across a national border
within or around the EU. Its purpose is to satisfy a customs
official or the relevant country administration. It is not intended
for the customer; it is not meant to be a quality mark.
Scope of the EMC Directive In principle, the EMC Directive applies to "all electrical and electronic appliances," but in practice, there must be limitations. Firstly, it does not apply to benign devices, devices to which no EMC phenomena apply. The only obvious example is an incandescent light bulb. The main area of contention is between components (some of which may be excluded) and apparatus (which is included). Components and Apparatus. The extremes are simple to define. A device, such as a resistor or a capacitor, is clearly a passive component and does not need to be marked. On the other hand, equipment such as a personal computer is clearly a piece of apparatus and must be marked. In the middle, there are all sorts of items that are difficult to specify. The two criteria to apply are
If 100% of the manufacturer's output of a particular item is sold directly to another manufacturer for inclusion into a higher assembly, then the first manufacturer is excluded. However, if a portion of the production is sold directly to the end-user—either through direct marketing or through commercial outlets—then the manufacturer must declare compliance with the EMC Directive. The second definition, direct function, is a little more complex. Direct function means that the component adds a new capability to the assembly with only essential connections needed to provide electrical power and to enable the exchange of analog or digital signals. Therefore, for a PC, a plug-in board would meet this definition. Once the board is installed in the PC, the user is aware that a new function, such as the ability to run live video or send a fax transmission, is available; the system provides the power plus the means to connect cables. By this definition, items such as CD-ROMs and data storage devices would be included, as well as most PC plug-in cards. What is important is to test the many items whose inclusion in a system could change it from compliance to noncompliance. It is not possible to circumvent the application of the directive by selling a series of noncompliant components that are later assembled into a noncompliant system. For this reason, do-it-yourself (DIY) kits are required to be CE marked. The following are examples of items that are excluded from the directive:
The following are examples of products that may be considered included and, hence, may be CE marked:
Systems. If a system is placed on the market as a single functional unit, then the system as a whole—rather than the individual components—must comply. Frequently in test labs, a system built from compliant components fails to meet the radiated emissions part of the European standards. This only reinforces that EMC is largely based on the way items are housed and connected in a system rather than on the components themselves. Installations. An installation is a collection of
systems that act together to provide a specified function, and
it may be very large indeed. Most installations are physically
too large to be tested and, therefore, compliance to the EMC
Directive must be done using a TCF that generally includes both
the statements about the measures taken to ensure good EMC practice,
as well as the on-site test results. The responsibility for
defining compliance of an installation rests with the organization
that "takes it into service," although in some circumstances,
it may be contracted back to the supplier.
Competent Bodies The EMC Directive introduced the concept of competent bodies in addition to the existing concept of notified bodies. Notified bodies, which are used in most technical directives, are usually quasigovernmental and have the responsibility for regulating of some essential element of a directive, such as type approval. Notified bodies have been a recognized agency of the telecom world for many years. In the case of the EMC Directive, the role of notified bodies is limited to Article 10.5. Competent bodies, however, are either EMC test houses or, in some cases, consultants. Their function is to act as a third party for the assessment of TCFs. Annex II of the directive defined the requirements for a competent body. Although the competent bodies review TCFs, the responsibility for completing the DoC and placing the product on the market remains with the manufacturer. Conclusion The redrafted EMC Directive should ultimately make
the process of EMC compliance clearer and easier to achieve.
It will take some time to come to fruition, so in the meantime,
manufacturers must still follow the standards and practices
set forth in the current version of the EMC Directive and other
applicable directives.
Dave Imeson is director of Compliance Europe Ltd. (West Wellow, Hants, UK) and a member of Compliance Engineering's editorial advisory board. He can be reached at dimeson@iee.org. Illustration by James Schlesinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
