A few weeks ago, a posting reported on a meeting between "a well known
computer manufacturer" and Mrs Elena Santiago of the European Commission.
I was surprised at the content of this report, since it did not appear to
be consistent with the recently-produced Guidelines, so I checked with
the Department of Trade and Industry (who are responsible here in the UK
for the Directive). They in turn checked with the Commission.
The DTI have asked me to copy the following response back to the
discussion group.
Best wishes to all
Brian Jones
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
From:
Department of Trade and Industry
151 Buckingham Palace Road
London SW1W 9SS
Enquiries +44 171-215 5000
Fax +44 171-215 1529
INCORRECT/INCOMPLETE INTERPRETATION OF INFORMATION ORIGINATING FROM THE
EUROPEAN COMMISSION (DGIII) REGARDING SYSTEM INTEGRATORS - EMC DIRECTIVE
The following information has been placed on a web site accessed by many
manufacturers in the UK.
_______________________________________________________________________________
" Ladies & Gentlemen,
I thought that you may be interested in the outcome of a meeting between a
well-known PC manufacturer and the European Commission, DGIII (Elena
Santiago) concerning the
legalities of System Integration
1. An integrator of a "Core PC" (motherboard, power supply, case & drives -
6.4.2 pare. 4 of
the EMC Directive Guidelines) need only follow the Conformity Assessment
Guidelines (10.1
or 10.2 of the Directive, 8.1 or 8.2 of the Guidelines). This entails
using CE Marked
modules, following module instructions exactly, providing a Declaration of
Conformity,
and providing a CE Marking on the product. If he/she does this, then the
resultant product
NEED NOT BE TESTED. Further, if an enforcement organization later tests
the product and it
fails the emissions limits, the System integrator will still be considered
in compliance!
The enforcer is then supposed to turn his/her sights on the module
suppliers for not
providing sufficient instructions, and leave the System Integrator alone.
Accordingly, if
the System Integrators under prosecution in the UK followed the Guidelines
but did not
test, they should not be prosecuted.
2. EMC auditing of production is not mandatory. Even though EN55022, in
describing the 80/80
rule, indicates that auditing is mandatory, the European Commission views
this as not a
standards issue and beyond the scope of CENELEC to specify. They also
consider this
requirement in conflict with their guidelines and are taking steps to have
CENELEC remove
this wording from EN55022.
3. We also brought up an issue regarding the use of prototypes for evaluation
and
demonstration, and of development units for customers to use to
simultaneously prepare new
designs. Ms. Santiago agreed to bring the matter up with the horizontal
National
Authorities.
The above will obviously have a major impact on all PC manufacturers and
system integrators!
Perhaps someone within this newsgroup is able to confirm (or otherwise) this
ground-shift."
____________________________________________________________________________
Mrs Santiago the Commission Official named above has asked the DTI, as the UK
Competent Authority responsible for the EMC Directive, to put out a "correct
statement" to counter the erroneous information appearing on the website
Mrs Santiago was not consulted or warned that the private discussions she had
with a well known personal computer company were going to be published and
appear on the website. Mrs Santiago "fully disagrees" with what has been
included under item 1 above.
Mrs Santiago was trying to give the company an interpretation of 6.4.2 of the
new EMC guidelines, insisting on the fact that the "guidelines are publicly
available,
but they are not legally binding in the sense of legal acts adopted by the
Community. The legally binding provisions are those transposing the EMC
Directive".
Mrs Santiago further clarifies as follows.
" The manufacturer of the system assumes the responsibility for the compliance
of the system as a whole but after carrying out his verification according to
the provisions of the EMC Directive. We do not enter into the verification
procedure, and there is no mandatory testing according to the provisions of the
Directive. A system assembled from only CE Marked apparatus should be aware
that combining two or more CE marked sub-assemblies 'May not' automatically
produce a system which meets the requirements of the Directive. It is the full
responsibility of the manufacturer (system integrator in this case) to ensure
conformity with the Directive. Of course in case of challenge it will be
investigated to establish the reason for non-compliance. However, the system
integrator must be able to technically justify his verification procedure."
Certain details regarding EN 55022 have also been erroneously reported, again
Mrs Santiago clarifies;
" I never stated that this standard is in conflict with the EMC guidelines, but
it is true that standards must not contain any regulatory statement and if this
is the case in EN
55022, we ( the Commission) would ask CENELEC to remove the statement from the
standard. This issue will be managed with the help of an EMC Consultant who
will be appointed in the Autumn".
Mrs Santiago regrets the concerns that have been caused by this "uncontrolled
and irresponsible distribution of information", and hopes the above now
clarifies this.
DAVID SOUTHERLAND
Standards and Technical Regulations Directorate
DTI
UK
