EMC - Since the first UK prosecutions

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 1.5 million 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 œ650 and œ850. 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 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.

• 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 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.