Quality Standards legislation Consumer Safety legislation Weights and Measures legislation Fair Trading legislation Feedback main page Advice main page Main links page CAnet home

Electromagnetic Compatability

EMC - Since the first UK prosecutions
One year experience with EMC market surveillance in Germany and the system developed for that goal


Back to the top


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



  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. 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.

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.


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

Copyright © XOdesign 1996-2005
All rights reserved.