EMC Down Under: Proposed Amendments to Australia's EMC Regulations

The EMC Framework, now known as the EMC Scheme, requires that all products falling under the scope of the mandated EMC standards comply with the appropriate standard. On the whole, the ACA EMC Scheme has worked well for products intended for mass production and mass distribution, but some industry sectors have had difficulty in applying the required standards and thus complying with the regulations. A review of the scheme resulted in a series of proposed amendments designed to address key deficiencies identified by ACA both in the course of its management and via submissions received from industry.

ACA convened an EMC review committee to provide recommendations to improve difficult areas. Following a consultation period, most of the proposed amendments were met with general approval, but doubts were also raised as to the effectiveness and suitability of some. This article provides an overview and discussion of the proposals to amend the EMC Scheme. A sidebar shows the complete list of recommendations under consideration by ACA.

It was always understood that implementing the new EMC regulations would be extremely difficult, but despite the doomsayers and some spirited opposition, the EMC Framework has been successful. The general industry and community awareness of Australia's C-tick is high, and the ACA strategy of conciliation and education has fostered industry cooperation. However, some industry sectors have experienced problems in applying the standards and regulations. Some suppliers are dissatisfied with the level of enforcement, and others have been unhappy with some of ACA's interpretations. The audit process is seen by many as inadequate and has been met with some disapproval.

Some problems arose from:

The following section discusses the key decisions that have come from discussions on the proposals and recommendations. In some cases, a final decision has not been made.

New Powers for ACA. ACA is proposing to amend Regulation 40 of Radiocommunications Regulations 1993 to enable the authority to issue written directions stipulating conditions for the operation, installation, and maintenance of electrical and electronic equipment causing interference to radiocommunications. Currently, this section of ACA's powers extends only to radiocommunications transmitters. This amendment would enable ACA to provide clear guidelines to ensure the compliance of specific installations or equipment causing interference. It would also give the agency the power to impose penalties when steps are not taken to reduce and control interference.

Voluntary C-Tick Labeling. Under the current regulations, it is an offense to apply the C-tick label to equipment not covered by the scope of the EMC Scheme, even if the product is covered under CISPR or other international standards. For example, three-phase equipment under AS/NZS 1044 (CISPR 14) and battery-operated lighting equipment under AS/NZS 4051 (CISPR 15) are excluded from the current EMC Scheme, and, therefore, it is illegal to apply the C-tick mark to such equipment.

Because the C-tick requirement is often stipulated on commercial contracts, many suppliers have experienced market resistance from sectors of the supply chain not familiar with the specific requirements of the C-tick labeling scheme. Therefore, many suppliers requested this change because they believed they were suffering commercial disadvantage compared to others interpreting the scope of a particular standard differently. The Electrical Compliance Testing Association (ECTA) pointed out that C-ticked products have become expected of industry. Manufacturers are more likely to gain compliance for their products according to the EMC guidelines, even if not compulsory, and this could only be a benefit in the control of interference. Concerns were raised over the voluntary use of the C-tick, arguing that it could be seen as a marketing symbol rather than a regulatory check. A final decision has not been made, and the issue is being further analyzed.

Voluntary C-Tick on Level 1 Products. The EMC review committee agreed that no purpose was served to impose mandatory requirements on very-low-risk devices. It was recommended that the compliance requirements for Level 1 products be made voluntary. Simple low-risk devices, such as ac induction motors, would no longer be subject to mandatory C-tick labeling, and it would not be necessary to maintain a compliance folder or hold a declaration of conformity (DoC).

Placement of C-Tick Label. Currently, the C-tick label must be placed on the product itself except when it is not possible because of the size or the physical nature of the device. This restriction has caused problems for many importers and suppliers to world markets, and a proposed change would make the labeling requirement similar to European regulations. The amendment would allow the placing of the C-tick compliance label on product packaging when it is not practical to place it on the product exterior. If that solution is still not practical, the amendment would also allow the label to be placed on the instructions for use or on the guarantee certificate.

Voluntary Industry Code of Practice. Correct installation and operation are often essential in controlling interference. Unlike the European requirements, ACA does not have the power to compel suppliers to include instructions with their products. It was recommended that ACA revamp the current structure by amending the Radiocommunications Act to allow the development and registration of industry codes similar to those existing under the Telecommunications Act 1997. Once a company registered with ACA, the code of practice would become mandatory and enforceable by ACA. This proposal was met with approval. It was agreed that encouraging industry associations to provide detailed EMC information to users regarding the environment and the intended use of the device with its instructions for use would assist in interference control.

EU Definitions and Scope Definition. Initially, ACA looked to the European Union (EU) electromagnetic compatibility directives to provide a model for the Australian EMC Framework. It had been noted that the EU system did not appear to have experienced the problems associated with the lack of concise, consistent definitions that have plagued the Australian scheme, particularly for specialized products requiring interconnection and installation by qualified personnel.

The Australian EMC Scheme's mandatory standards currently come under the scope of three categories: generic standards, product-family standards, or product-specific standards. This system, although inherently simple, has enabled a wide range of interpretations to be applied, causing some devices to attempt compliance and exemptions via an incorrect standard and occasionally hindering a product's ability to be marketed.

To counter this anomaly, it was proposed that ACA adopt definitions and compliance procedures similar to those in the EU where the three categories are defined as "components," "finished products," and "systems." Classifications under these definitions are concise, making it less likely that a standard would be incorrectly interpreted or that a device would be assessed for compliance against the wrong standard.

EMC Scheme Clarification. The need to supply adequate definitions and coverage for devices also resulted in unanimous agreement to a proposal to clarify the "first offered for sale to the Australian market" stipulation. Problems had always been noted with how to determine when and if a product was actually first offered for sale, particularly for products that may have initially been leased or rented before being sold. It was agreed that changing the scope to "first supplied," thereby covering sale, exchange, lease, hire, and hire-purchase, was an important step in increasing the scheme's efficiency.

Extending the Scope of the EMC Scheme. To further assist in the correct interpretation of standards, it was proposed that the intentional exemptions of battery-powered products and two- and three-phase equipment from AS/NZS 1044 (CISPR 14) and AS/NZS 4051 (CISPR 15) be removed. It was also recommended that AS/NZS 2064 (CISPR 11) and AS/NZS 4251.1 (EN 50081-1) be limited to (and include) three-phase equipment designed or intended for connection to electrical mains supply. The intention was to exempt products intended for heavy industry use.

ACA noted that interpretations of these standards had previously resulted in heavy industry equipment being included in the scope of the EMC Scheme. According to ACA, proposals that limited covered devices to those using a specified power supply were necessary to maintain the scheme's intention of covering "products for use in domestic, commercial, and light industry environments." Although this proposal was accepted, it was not embraced without some reservation. Concerns were raised that the proposal would mean the exclusion of some devices considered a relatively high EMI risk, such as heavy industrial, scientific, and medical equipment. ECTA argued that maintaining the current scope of the standards or alternatively mandating product-family standards and product-specific standards would be a better option because it would still provide a regulatory check for such high-risk devices.

Adoption of FCC Rules or EN Standards. Another concern outlined by ACA was the lack of mandated standards compared to the number recognized by the EU. In a bid to extend compliance coverage and decrease the chance of a device slipping through the system, it was proposed that the equivalent European standards and FCC Part 15 and Part 18 be added to the EMC Scheme. It was further proposed to recognize and include European product-specific and product-family emission standards in the ACA list of mandatory standards.

The recognition of suitable emission standards as used in the EU was viewed as necessary for the development of a progressive and suitable Australian EMC Framework. Because many European standards are product specific and aptly suited to a great deal of imported products requiring testing, it was determined that such a procedure would help reduce interpretation problems in Australia.

Although generally agreed to, the adoption of equivalent European standards was viewed as requiring further analysis. Although EU standards seem to be generally equivalent to AS/NZS standards, it was decided that aberrations exist that must be addressed. Of particular concern was the issue of timing and the problems this could create. Currently, Australian equivalent standards can be up to two years behind their European counterparts, making it difficult for changes in Europe to be mirrored in Australia. Such discrepancies could, in turn, lead to some confusion.

The proposal to adopt Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations into the EMC Scheme was opposed on many counts. ECTA argued that these are government regulations rather than standards and contain standards requirements that differ greatly from the compliance requirements of the EMC Scheme. It was noted that the FCC regulations set different limits, are wide ranging, are less specific, and are subject to constant change, factors that could create confusion and lead to possible disputation.

Adoption of CISPR 24 Immunity Standard. In response to industry demands, ACA acknowledged a need to mandate domestic immunity standards in important areas, notably CISPR 24 for telecommunication terminal equipment (TTE). This was supported by submissions from telecommunication networks, which outlined the difficulties faced in dealing with products, usually imported, found to be susceptible to interference. Reaction to this proposal varied, with two key suppliers associations arguing that immunity requirements were not required because there is insufficient evidence to justify the burden on the suppliers and manufacturers. Others, however, noted that implementing immunity standards would decrease the flow of goods capable of creating interference. ECTA also pointed out that ACA's stand on immunity standards—i.e., justifiable where product failure due to a lack of immunity could lead to life-threatening equipment malfunction, or where equipment failure consequences would outweigh the costs of compliance—applied to devices not always covered by the range of CISPR 24. ECTA described how devices such as fire alarms, wheelchairs, and scooters were susceptible to life-threatening immunity problems; therefore, it proposed the adoption of the relevant immunity standards.

The final decision on the adoption of CISPR 24 remains open for discussion, and ACA will explore the self-help model used by FCC. Immunity requirements for other equipment were not considered justifiable at this stage.

Telecom Requirements from Level 3 to Level 2. Australian suppliers of telecom equipment requested that the compliance testing requirements be reduced from the current Level 3 (accredited testing) to Level 2 (unaccredited testing).

The current EMC Scheme uses a graded approach to compliance. It has three operative levels—known as compliance Levels 1, 2, and 3—which are ranked according to the potential risk to cause interference.

Level 1 applies to products whose performance would have minimal interference to or from other devices using the radio-frequency spectrum. This level covers products that fall within standards and that contain only simple relays, induction motors, or resistive elements.

Level 2 applies to products whose performance would have, in comparison to Level 1, a higher interference impact on other devices using the radio-frequency spectrum. This level covers most of the products under the EMC Scheme. For this level, the supplier must: 1) sign a DoC; 2) hold a product description; and 3) hold a test report (either an accredited or nonaccredited test report) or technical construction file.

Level 3 applies to products whose performance poses the highest risk of interference on other devices using the radio-frequency spectrum. For this level, the supplier must: 1) sign a DoC; 2) hold a product description; and 3) hold an accredited test report or technical construction file. Currently, ACA's scheme applies Level 3 compliance requirements to telecom equipment under AS/NZS 3548 (CISPR 22). It is based on self-declaration by means of accredited testing.

ECTA's view was that the current system, even though abused by some suppliers using inadequate unaccredited test reports, has proved to be effective. It was also observed that many countries, including the United States, still require accredited testing for some basic products such as PCs and peripherals. Other countries, such as Taiwan and Korea, do not recognize most overseas testing, whether accredited or not. ECTA noted that the current system of declaration was simple via DoC; however, accredited testing was necessary to ensure confidence in the test reports.

The argument that accredited testing was more expensive was not substantiated because most EMC test houses worldwide are now accredited to CISPR 22. Hundreds of substandard in-house and third-party test laboratories around China, Southeast Asia, Australia/New Zealand, Europe, and the United States are not accredited and perform extremely cheap and unreliable testing. In general, regulators have little confidence in reports from unaccredited test houses. Acceptance of cheap reports would lead to an overall reduction in the quality of testing, and this would result in increased risk of noncompliance. Downgrading to Level 2 compliance would only reduce the compliance rate in an area that is currently successful.

The likely effect on test houses would be a significant reduction in Level 3 testing. Some test houses rely heavily on TTE Level 3 testing, and they would certainly suffer. If this proposal is adopted, there would no longer be any requirement for accredited testing by the National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA), and the EMC test houses that have committed significant capital to achieving NATA accreditation would suffer commercially. This would result in a setback for the Australian conformance testing infrastructure and would have an indirect effect on Australian manufacturing. The extra cost of achieving NATA-accredited testing would make the accredited test houses uncompetitive and would result in lower product quality. Test houses are unlikely to dedicate resources to achieving NATA accreditation for testing to the EN standards that may be adopted as discussed in the other proposals.

CISPR 22 Requirements. The new requirement in CISPR 22:1997 for conducted emission limits from cables connecting to telecommunications ports is technically complex. Because this testing is not yet widely understood in the EMC testing arena, results from inexperienced or unaccredited labs would be suspect. EMC labs must allocate significant capital and resources to properly undertake this new area of EMI measurements. Faced with competition from cheap unaccredited test houses, Australian labs would be reluctant to allot the additional capital and resources.

ACA intends to proceed with this proposal. It has generally accepted the ECTA arguments against the downgrading of test quality, so the authority intends to explore supplementing audits of compliance folders with off-the-shelf product testing.

At the time of writing, ACA had not yet ratified the recommendations. The sidebar provides a list of ACA's recommendations as a result of the EMC review. The majority of the recommendations are to proceed, but some will remain open for further analysis. In addition, ACA is currently preparing a list of EMC standards it proposes to mandate. Once the list is finalized, it will be widely distributed for comment.

The author thanks Donna Cleary of EMC Technologies for her extensive input in the preparation of this article.