|
EMCTLA Comments on the HOT UK Prosecution
Hair Dryers and the UK prosecution The recent UK prosecution of a hairdryer manufacturer has raised questions regarding the extent to which products that comply with a product specific standard are deemed to meet the EMC Directive’s essential requirements. The report of this prosecution states that two hairdryers failed the EN 55014-1 disturbance power test and one also failed the emissions test of EN 50081-1 as well as causing visible interference with terrestrial TV reception.
The EMCTLA believes that this brings into focus two issues, one general and one specific:
1. To what extent is our understanding of the Presumption of Conformity affected by this case?
2. The specific defects of EN 55014-1 as a standard to demonstrate that a household appliance meets the essential requirements of EMC directive 89/336.
Presumption of Conformity There is a basic assumption made meeting all applicable standards as listed in the Official Journal (OJEC) gives a “presumption of conformity” with the essential requirements. This is the basis of the standards route. This comes from a reading of the EMC directive 89/336 article 7.1 which states:
“Member States shall presume compliance with the protection requirements referred to in Article 4 in the case of apparatus which is in conformity;
(a) with the relevant national standards, the reference numbers of which have been published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.”
This is followed by article 10.1 usually known as the self-declaration route which states that:
“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 a declaration of conformity issued by the manufacturer.”
So although there is a basis for the assumption it is only valid if the standards referred to do indeed meet the essential requirements. It is important to appreciate the limitations of the standards approach and to be aware that both the EMC Directive, and of the UK Regulations which implement it, does not require compliance with standards per se but compliance with the Directive’s essential requirements. The EC “Blue Book” on the New Approach (Guide to the implementation of directives based on the New Approach and the Global Approach, EC, 2000) states that
(4.2) … a harmonised standard does not necessarily cover all essential requirements. This would oblige the manufacturer to use other relevant technical specifications in order to meet all the essential requirements of the directive.
(4.3) …If the manufacturer applies only a part of a harmonised standard or the applicable harmonised standard does not cover all the essential requirements, the presumption of conformity exists only to the extent the standard corresponds to the essential requirements.
(4.4) …The fact that the Commission or the Member States can challenge a harmonised standard, instead of conducting an approval procedure prior to the publication of its reference, indicates that a systematic verification of the technical contents of harmonised standards is not provided for. Only in cases where a standard, after it has been challenged, is found not to satisfy the essential requirements or to present shortcomings, may its reference be withdrawn.
This makes it clear that a harmonized standard by itself may not cover all essential requirements. There has been an assumption within the Commission that if they mandate a standards body to write standards then that body will take into account all relevant phenomena so that the resultant standards do indeed meet the essential requirements. The problem lies in the fact that not all the standards committees have fulfilled this task. What has now been raised is the likelihood that in the case of EN 55014-1 the standard does not meet the essential requirements and hence does not offer presumption of conformity.
The EMC test laboratories now have a problem when confronted by a manufacturer of domestic appliances. Do they accept a test plan that uses only EN 55014-1 knowing that their customer may be subject to prosecution or do they require a test plan that includes testing above 300MHz and face the accusation from the manufacturer that this is merely a device to increase the cist of certification?
It would be helpful if the EU Commission or failing them, the DTI, were to provide guidance on this issue.
The problems of EN 55014-1 EN 55014-1 is the emission standard for household equipment; most manufacturers would work on the assumption that conformance to this standard would provide Presumption of Conformity. EN 55014-1 specifies radio frequency emission limits for appliances whose main functions are performed by motors and switching or regulating devices; for example, household electrical appliances, electric tools, electric toys. At present both its 1993 and 2000 editions are harmonised for the EMC Directive, the latter with a date of cessation of presumption of conformity of 1.8.2003.
There are 2 major areas of concern:
1) The standard does not cover the frequencies covered by commercial TV broadcasting,
2) The standard covers but requires no testing for battery powered equipment.
· EN 55014-1 specifies testing on the mains lead up only to 300 MHz in contrast to the other harmonized emission standards which apply radiated emissions tests to 1GHz. The significance of this problem lies in the fact that the TV band extends from 470MHz to 854MHz (see figure below). Therefore a product that complies with the standard cannot be said to meet the essential requirements of the directive 80/336 article 4 with respect to TV broadcasting. It must be remembered that there is a very high probability of a household appliance operating close to a TV. It has been well known for many years that this problem existed however the recent UK prosecution against HOT UK Ltd has increased our awareness.
· Battery powered equipment is covered by the standard however the relevant section does not require any testing hence a manufacturer can and does claim compliance without testing the apparatus. In the case of toys the recent Amendment 1 will resolve the problem and there are indications from the last CISPR F meeting that a draft amendment to resolve this situation might be considered, however this would take years rather then months to reach the stage where it can be published in the OJ.
The EMCTLA has already expressed concerns in its Technical Guidance Note (TGN 34, first published in 1996, updated in 1998) regarding this standard.
TGN 34 Issue 2, Battery operated devices in the home:
BACKGROUND: A battery operated device for use in the home declares to 89/336 using EN50081-1. It has no microprocessor and only internal batteries hence neither EN55014 nor EN55022 would appear to apply but it significantly interferes with a domestic TV receiver.
PROBLEM: What standard may be used to test? Is the CE mark valid?
GUIDELINES: The apparatus falls within the scope of EN55014 therefore this is the appropriate standard to apply. In this case however, no limits are applicable therefore no tests would be performed. This is a shortcoming in the standard.
Without undertaking any testing then there is no evidence showing compliance with the protection requirements of the Directive. As a result, the most appropriate tests to apply would be the radiated emissions requirement of the generic emissions standard EN50081-1:1992 (in spite of the restrictions on apparatus with no processing devices operating at frequencies greater than 9kHz). If the device complies with the radiated emissions requirements of EN50081-1 then the CE marking is valid and the product can benefit from a presumption of conformity.
Attention is drawn to the fact that the Class B radiated emissions limits specified in EN50081-1 allow for a 10 m protection distance. Therefore devices complying with these limits may still interfere with TV receivers closer than 10m.
Conclusion Because HOT UK Ltd pleaded guilty, the arguments outlined above have not been tested in court. Nevertheless, it is the EMCTLA’s view that any manufacturer defending a similar position who wished to rely on the established precedence of product or product family standards over the generic standards, as now described in CENELEC Guide 25, would also have to construct a rigorous technical case to overwhelm the analysis presented here. However the EMCTLA would prefer to see guidance on the position from either the EU Commission or at least the UK government.
|
