1.  INTRODUCTION
2.  COMPLIANCE WITH EMC FRAMEWORK 2.1 Demonstrating Compliance
   2.2 Sanctions and Penalties
   2.3 EMC Requirements for Telecommunications (TTE) Devices
   2.4 RF Generators (Group 2 ISM Devices)
   2.5 Advantages of Using NATA (Accredited) Testing
   2.6 NATA MRA Partner Laboratories
   2.7 Which Route To Compliance ?
3.  EMC COMPETENT BODIES
   3.1 Role of the Competent Body
   3.2 Comparison of Costs - Testing versus TCF/Competent Body Route
   3.3 Compliance Without Testing
   3.4 Products too Large for Testing at Test Laboratory
   3.5 Product Variants
   3.6 Selecting a Competent Body
   3.7 Disadvantages of the Competent Body/TCF Route
4.  SELECTING AN EMC TEST HOUSE
   4.1 Test Time and Test Costs
   4.2 Appropriate Standards Accreditations
   4.3 Risks of Overseas Testing
   4.4 Assessment of Overseas Test Reports
5.  CONCLUSION

1. Introduction

As of 1 January 1997, all electrical/electronic devices imported into Australia or entering the market for the first time, must comply with the appropriate EMC standard if they fall under the scope of one of the EMC standards mandated by the Australian Communication Authority (ACA). Existing products already on the marketed or imported prior to that date can be marketed until the transition period ends on the 31 December 1998. As of the 1 January 1999, all products on the market must comply including those devices that were previously exempted. Compliance is by means of self declaration and suppliers placing products on the Australian market must ensure that the products meet the appropriate EMC standards.

This paper will outline the routes to compliance and the compliance options available to suppliers. The accredited testing and Technical Construction File (TCF) compliance routes are explained and advice is given on how to choose the appropriate compliance route and on the selection of a Test House and Competent Body.

CONTENTS

2.Compliance with EMC Framework

2.1 Demonstrating Compliance

The Australian regulations are based on the manufacturers declaration of conformity (DoC). Technical compliance with internationally harmonised standards is the sole criteria for market access. Once compliance is established, a DoC is prepared and placed in a Compliance Folder. The C-Tick is then affixed to the product prior to marketing and there is no need to submit products or any documentation to the ACA for testing or certification.

The DoC must have a sound and justifiable basis. A NATA test report has national and international recognition. The ACA will always accept as proof of compliance a NATA report or a report from a body that has an MRA with NATA. In the event that a product’s compliance is called into question, the ACA will accept a NATA test report as final in any determination. Where the declaration of conformity is based on non-NATA testing, then the supplier may be required to bear the cost of testing at a NATA test laboratory. The test samples and the NATA test laboratory will be nominated by the ACA. The testing of your product by a NATA test house that is accredited for the specific standard provides the best protection against the risk of non-compliance.
 

2.2 Sanctions and Penalties

If, for any reason, a product is found to be non-compliant, the supplier and the individual making the declaration, may be exposed to criminal sanctions or civil and legal liability. The use of NATA testing provides the best possible protection to the person signing the declaration of conformity since it means that the supplier has exercised due diligence, and this can be used as the basis of defence in any legal action that may ensue. Penalties may apply to both individuals and companies and are enforceable under the Radiocommunications Act 1992, the Trade Practices Act 1974 and the Telecommunications Act 1997.

The ACA may issue a notice prohibiting the sale or use of a device that is causing interference until the interference problem is corrected. Provisions exist for fines of up to $12,000 per day that the infringement is allowed to occur. A system of “on-the-spot” fines for minor transgressions is also in place and the seizure and forfeiture of stock is also possible. In addition, failure to prepare and maintain a Compliance Folder that adheres to the ACA requirements for a device imported or placed on the market, may constitute a number of offences. Offences are also committed for breaches of the C-Tick labelling provisions.

2.3 EMC Requirements for Telecommunications (TTE) Devices

ACA, had mandatory requirements for compliance with the less stringent class A limits of AS/NZS3548(CISPR22) since 1991. The previous system of Austel permits has now be changed to a DoC system however the requirement for compulsory NATA (accredited) testing still remains. All devices connecting to the Telecommunications system must be tested for compliance to the appropriate limit of AS/NZS3548. As of the 1 January, 1998, Class A limits apply to all devices to be used in a commercial or industrial environment and the more stringent Class B limits apply to devices used in a domestic or residential environment. There are some differences in the compliance and marking requirements for TTE and these are covered under the “Labelling Instrument”. The TCF route to compliance may not be used for TTE products.

2.4 RF Generators (Group 2 ISM Devices)

Equipment covered under AS/NZS CISPR 11 (CISPR 11) Group 2 ISM devices are considered high risk interference sources and they must only be declared on the basis of a NATA or NATA MRA partner endorsed report. This includes products such as RF Welders, Medical Diathermy machines and Induction Heaters.

 

2.5 Advantages of Using NATA (Accredited) Testing

Testing by an accredited NATA or MRA partner laboratory is the safest way of proving compliance. A NATA endorsed report is acceptable by the ACA and most of Australia’s trading partners including the EU countries. A NATA report can only be issued by a laboratory performing the test, if that laboratory is NATA registered for the specific standard applicable to the device. Accredited testing will minimise the risks should a dispute arise with the regulatory agencies. Non-accredited testing should be avoided as there is no guarantee of the reliability or the accuracy of the results. The use of non accredited testing is cheaper, but in practice it may be rejected by the regulator.

NATA accredited facilities meet the requirements of ISO/Guide 25, demanding full calibration traceability of measurement equipment to the national standards at the National Measurement Laboratories (NML) of the CSIRO, and thereby to international standards. Calibration traceability is essential for the acceptance and recognition of test reports. NATA accredited test houses have been thoroughly evaluated by NATA and accredited as meeting internationally recognised standards for good laboratory practice, the availability of the necessary test facilities, an adequate level of technical competence and the appropriate quality management systems. NATA accredits laboratories against each EMC standard and a test report may not be endorsed with the NATA logo unless the test house is accredited to the specific standard.

2.6 NATA MRA Partner Laboratories

NATA has a mutual recognition agreement (MRA) with the Testing Multilateral Agreement Group of the European Co-operation for Accreditation of Laboratories (EAL). Reports endorsed by any of the following international bodies are considered equivalent to NATA.

2.7 Which Route To Compliance ?

In over 99% of the cases, compliance with the EMC framework is by testing against the appropriate CISPR/ACA standards . In a some cases, a Technical Construction File (TCF) can be prepared and submitted to an ACA recognised Competent Body for assessment. The TCF route is used when it is not practical or cost effective to test, or when there are a large number of variants of a basic model. Where there is uncertainty as to which is the best route to compliance , advice should be sought from an accredited EMC test house that is also an accredited Competent Body.

CONTENTS

3. EMC Competent Bodies

3.1 Role of the Competent Body

Competent Bodies are appointed by the ACA on advice by NATA. The role of the Competent Body is to provide a technical report based on the technical assessment of the TCF (prepared and submitted by the supplier) which confirms the claims of compliance made by the supplier. Any testing requested by the Competent Body must be NATA accredited. The report issued by a Competent Body will be a NATA endorsed document which will have the same legal status as that of a NATA test report however it is not equivalent.

A Competent Body may not “approve” test reports (regardless of whether the test reports are accredited or not) and they may not themselves carry out testing as part of the assessment of a TCF unless they have NATA accreditation for that testing. The testing and Competent Body functions must be totally independent of each other. The Competent Body may not “approve” test laboratories or manufacturer’s in-house testing. (These activities are the role of NATA and like organisations)

When the Competent Body requires testing in support of a TCF assessment, then they may only use NATA or equivalent accredited testing. The data may be used in conjunction with other data supplied by the manufacturer in the assessment of the device. The TCF route to compliance is generally not cost-effective except when there are many variations of the same model within a family of products. This will vary with the type of product so it is recommended that you consult with an accredited test house that is also an authorised Competent Body to determine the most appropriate route to compliance.

3.2 Comparison of Costs - Testing versus TCF/Competent Body Route

3.3 Compliance Without Testing

The question of compliance without testing is often discussed as an alternative but in practise, it has limited application to a very small number of devices. Some product variants do not need testing nor do they need Competent Body/TCF approval. A product that consumes a total power of 6 nano Watt or less may be considered benign and does not require testing. Though it is possible in some cases to demonstrate compliance by theoretical calculation, testing to standards will be involved in virtually all cases, whether in part or in full. It is necessary to thoroughly investigate this option to ensure that the expensive consultancy costs do not escalate to a point where any savings are eroded.
 

3.4 Products too Large for Testing at Test Laboratory

Some products can be very large or complex and difficult or impractical to transport to a test laboratory so the supplier, with assistance from experienced EMC engineers may prepare a TCF for submission to our Competent Body for assessment. The preparation of a TCF for large and complex products may be very expensive, particularly where theoretical calculations require specialist consultancy from experienced EMC engineers. The TCF will always involve some level of testing. In some cases, EMC standards permit in-situ testing at the user installation. Where there number of installations is low, this option may be the least expensive route to compliance. In making that determination, advice should always be sought from a laboratory accredited by NATA for in-situ testing to the specific standard in question.
 

3.5 Product Variants

In cases involving product variations, the supplier will gradually acquire the knowledge necessary to be able to identify variants that are benign and/or those that do not require testing or Competent Body assessment of a TCF. The ACA Framework specifically allows the presumption of compliance for electromagnetically benign products and those variants of a basic model that:

(i) are irrelevant to the RF characteristics of the device (cosmetic changes), or
(ii) do not increase the RF emission characteristics established for the basic model.

The supplier is legally able to claim compliance under the above circumstances without testing and without the involvement of a Competent Body. With the assistance of an accredited Test House, your company will gradually acquire sufficient knowledge of the EMC characteristics of your products, to allow you to claim compliance without the expense of further testing or expensive Competent Body TCF assessments. It is still necessary to prepare a Compliance Folder for the product including the evidence to support the claims of compliance for the variants.
 

3.6 Selecting a Competent Body

It is a condition of the NATA accreditation that the Competent Body be able to access accredited EMC testing. Virtually all products requiring EMC certification will require some testing at some stage of their development. Without access to accredited testing, it would be virtually impossible for Competent Bodies to fulfill their role in the assessment of TCFs. A key difference between the “Test House” Competent Body and the “consultant” Competent Body is that the Test House is also accredited to test to EMC standards and is therefore able to arrange accredited testing in-house. i.e.. Both services can be provided as a one stop service under the same roof.

As with “consultant” Competent Bodies, test house Competent Bodies are assessed by NATA and must meet the strict NATA rules for total independence and freedom from all undue influences in the exercise of their functions. Test houses are well placed to guarantee this independence as they have larger staff numbers, enabling the clear separation of activities associated with Competent Body assessments, consulting services and testing activities. “Test House” Competent Bodies guarantee that the Competent Body performing the TCF assessment will never be involved in any way with any testing (or consulting) associated with the same TCF. Conflict of interest is also avoided in the same way when they advise clients in the preparation or content of a TCF. Where testing is considered necessary in the course of a TCF assessment, “Test House” Competent Bodies are obliged to inform their clients of all options and sources of appropriate testing, including the option of testing by competitor companies.

3.7 Disadvantages of the Competent Body/TCF Route

Establishing compliance by means of the Competent Body/TCF route does not facilitate the global approval of your product. Unlike NATA endorsed reports, Competent Body reports do not have recognition outside of Australia. Unless there are a very large number of variants of a product, the cost of the TCF route will always be very expensive in comparison to the Testing Route.

CONTENTS

4. Selecting an EMC Test House

4.1 Test Time and Test Costs

The cost of testing is directly proportional to the test time and the use of the test facilities. The number of applicable tests and the nature of the product will impact on the total test time. Devices which are slow to respond or difficult to exercise during the testing require longer test times and are therefore subject to higher test charges. Test house charges in Australia range from A$200-$3000 per test depending on the nature of the test, the technical competence of the test house, the sophistication of the test facilities and the accreditation status.
 

4.2 Appropriate Standards Accreditations

A test house may use the NATA or equivalent endorsement when it is accredited for testing to just one standard. Some NATA accredited test houses have very limited scope of accreditations often to one standard only. Competent Bodies are also NATA accredited and may use the NATA logo in advertising or promotional literature. The NATA (or equivalent) logo often appears in advertising literature giving the perception that the Competent Body organisation is accredited for testing or that the test house with limited accreditations has wider terms of accreditation. This practice is misleading and results in confusion among those unfamiliar with the vagaries of the NATA rules for the use of the NATA logo.

When selecting a Test House, the supplier must be satisfied that the laboratory is NATA accredited to the appropriate standard and that they will receive a NATA endorsed test report that includes all the relevant clauses of the specific standard.
 

4.3 Risks of Overseas Testing

The cost of EMC testing in Australia is around 50% of the cost in South East Asia and 50 to 75 % of the cost of testing in European and USA test houses. Most cheap testing is non-accredited and should be avoided. Testing overseas can be risky since any savings are rapidly eroded and the costs will rapidly blow out when a problem occurs. The probability of compliance failure is very high for first time tests particularly for those products tested against the tighter residential class B limits. The cost of freight, courier fees, phones and faxes will result in further escalation of the costs. The supplier is advised to select an Australian test house that allows you to attend the testing. This ensures that the testing proceeds smoothly and allows you to assist in overcoming compliance problems should they occur.
 

4.4 Assessment of Overseas Test Reports

(i) “My product has been tested overseas, is my test report adequate for claiming compliance with the EMC Framework?

(ii) “My product is CE marked, can I apply the C-tick?”

These are two of the most frequently asked questions. The quality of reports varies greatly but if your report carries the endorsement of a NATA MRA partner laboratory, then the report is generally accepted by the ACA. The responsibility for the accuracy of the test report still rests on the supplier that has signed the DoC. You should be able to provide evidence that the test report and the results contained within it, relate specifically to the product which is the subject of the DoC. The assessment of a test report should show that the product was tested in accordance with the appropriate standard and that no modifications or changes have been made since the product was tested. It should refer to the exact build status of the product at the time of test. NATA test houses report that a significant number of products which claim compliance with other EMC regimes, fail the EMI tests because of modifications (whether intentional or not) performed subsequent to the initial compliance test.

The experienced EMC Test House can provide a competent assessment of your test report for a very low price. The use of expensive Competent Body services is not necessary unless the report is presented in conjunction with a TCF assessment.

CONTENTS

5. Conclusion

Most countries have government regulations that mandate compliance with EMC standards before products can be legally marketed. In choosing the most appropriate route to compliance, the manufacturer/supplier is often faced with conflicting advice from the various sectors of the compliance industry. In the the majority of cases, the use of the TCF/Competent Body route will not be appropriate except where the product has a large number of variants. The testing route should be used for large and complex products which can be tested in-situ. In determining the cost of the compliance options, the cost of the TCF preparation should be included. The choice of an experienced EMC Test House accredited to test to all the ACA standards, and who is also a Competent Body, will give you a valuable partner who will provide all the expertise necessary in dealing with the complexities of regulatory approvals, standards and specifications.

Products that claim compliance on the basis of overseas markings such as CE and FCC should not be presumed to comply until a thorough assessment of the supporting documentation has been performed. Overseas test reports and certificates should not be accepted at face value and must be rigorously evaluated against Australian requirements. In verifying claims of compliance, consideration should also be given to national variations, in test standards, in test limits, in test parameters and in test procedures. The acceptance of non-accredited testing whether from Australia or overseas, may expose you and your company to unnecessary risks. The use of NATA accredited testing is the lowest risk approach to EMC compliance and will also facilitate global acceptance of your product. In some cases, the TCF compliance route will be cost effective but be very wary of locking yourself into the non-testing route.

The author has many case histories where suppliers have spent a fortune “not testing” their product.

CONTENTS