Green Electronics Council
Registry Services Department

Outcomes Report

P41
Issue 1 Rev 0

Green Electronics Council
227 SW Pine Street, Suite 300 • Portland, OR 97204 • V: (503) 279-9382 • F: (503) 279-9381 • www.epeat.net

OUTCOMES REPORTEPEAT VERIFICATION ROUND PC-2016-04
1. Overview of Verification RoundThis report provides the detailed results of EPEAT Verification Round PC-2016-04. This roundfocused on two types of investigation:
The following criteria from 1680.1 were investigated during Verification Round PC-2016-04:
 4.5.1.1 ‐ ENERGY STAR
 4.5.1.2 ‐ Early adoption of new ENERGY STAR specification
 4.3.2.2 ‐ Marking of plastics
 4.8.2.1 ‐ Separable packing materials
1) Level 0 Investigations: 4.5.1.1 was first investigated through Level 0 investigations, which
involved the auditor reviewing publically available documentation. This criterion was targetedbecause a new version (7.0) of the EPA Energy Star became effective on July 1, 2016. All
manufacturers of monitors and signage displays were investigated during this Verification
Round for at least one product.
2) Level 1 investigations: All Manufacturers claiming 4.5.1.2 for EPA Energy Star Version 7.0 wereinvestigated for one product. All manufacturers claiming 4.3.2.2 were investigated for one
product due to high levels of non‐conformances in previous rounds. Additionally, one
manufacturer was investigated for 4.8.2.1 for a specific product due to a previous inconclusive
investigation from the PC‐2016‐02 Verification Round.
i. All Active products were included.
ii. All manufacturers claiming 4.3.2.2.
iii. All manufacturers of monitors and signage displays were investigated for 4.5.1.1, while
those claiming 4.5.2.1 were also investigated.
iv. For one manufacturer, a specific product was chosen due to an inconclusive
investigation from a previous round and investigated for 4.8.2.1
v. All geographies and all Manufacturers were included.
vi. Manufacturers participated in no more than three investigations in this round.

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2016-04

Page 1March 2017

2. Summary of Outcomes
Highlights from this Verification Round:

76 investigations completed

54 decisions of Conformance

21 decisions of Non-Conformance

0 decisions of Inconclusive

1 investigation was cancelled

Figure 1: Overall Conformance Status for
PC 2016-04 (as a percentage of total investigations)
1%Conformance28%

Non-conformance
Cancelled
71%

Figure 2: Reasons for Nonconformances
25202151710520

No documentation provided
Declaration proven inaccurate
Insufficient evidence to prove accuracy of declaration

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2016-04

Page 2
March 2017

Green Electronics Council
Registry Services Department

P41
Issue 1 Rev 0

Outcomes Report

Green Electronics Council
227 SW Pine Street, Suite 300 • Portland, OR 97204 • V: (503) 279-9382 • F: (503) 279-9381 • www.epeat.net

Table 1 below summarizes the nonconformances for manufacturer, product, criterion, and the corrective action taken.
TABLE 1: Specific Non-Conformance Findings and Corrective Action Taken
Participating
Manufacturer

ProductCountry

Product Type

Criterion

Requiredor Optional

Criterion
Description

NC Finding
Description

Corrective Action
Taken

Ace Computers

VisionSense
M2798

UnitedStatesMonitors

4.5.1.1

RENERGY STAR

Insufficient evidence
to prove accuracy ofdeclaration

Product archived
by Manufacturer

Ace Computers

LogiCAD 55525A

UnitedStates

Workstations

4.3.2.2

O

Marking ofplastics

Declaration proveninaccurate

Criterion
undeclared byManufacturer

Action S.A.

Sierra 500X

PolandDesktops

4.3.2.2

O

Marking ofplastics

Declaration proveninaccurate

Criterion
undeclared by
Manufacturer

Atrust Computer
CorpT180

Australia

Thin Clients

4.3.2.2

O

Marking ofplastics

Declaration proveninaccurate

Manufacturer
provided evidenceof changes maderesulting inconformance

Dell Inc

Latitude 12
Rugged Extreme

UnitedKingdom

Notebooks

4.3.2.2

O

Marking ofplastics

Declaration proveninaccurate

Manufacturer
provided evidenceof changes maderesulting inconformance

Digital Computer

Ascent DesktopD-XXXX

BrazilDesktops

4.3.2.2

O

Marking ofplastics

Declaration proveninaccurate

Manufacturer
provided evidenceof changes maderesulting inconformance

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2016-04

Page 3
March 2017

TABLE 1: Specific Non-Conformance Findings and Corrective Action Taken
Participating
Manufacturer

ProductCountry

Product Type

Criterion

Requiredor Optional

Criterion
Description

NC Finding
Description

Corrective Action
Taken

EIZO Corporation

FlexScan S2133

UnitedStates

Monitors

4.3.2.2

O

Marking ofplastics

Declaration proveninaccurate

Manufacturerarchived productGammatech
ComputerCorporation

SA14

UnitedStates

Notebooks

4.3.2.2

O

Marking ofplastics

Declaration proveninaccurate

Criterion
undeclared by
Manufacturer

GETAC

S410

UnitedStates

Notebooks

4.3.2.2

O

Marking ofplastics

Declaration proveninaccurate

Manufacturer did
not take
Corrective Action
so CAB archived
the productHowardTechnology
Solutions, A
Division of Howard

QS77-IQ

UnitedStatesDesktops

4.3.2.2.

O

Marking ofplastics

No documentation
providedCriterion
undeclared by
Manufacturer

HP Inc

Z820
Workstation(ENERGY STAR)

PolandWorkstations

4.3.2.2.

O

Marking ofplastics

Declaration proveninaccurate

Product archived
by Manufacturer

Hyundai IT
America Corp

P247DT

UnitedStates

Monitors

4.3.2.2.

O

Marking ofplastics

Declaration proveninaccurate

Manufacturer
provided evidenceof changes maderesulting inconformance

Iiyama Corporation

ProLite X2380HS

UnitedKingdom

Monitors

4.3.2.2.

O

Marking ofplastics

Insufficient
documentation toprove accuracy ofdeclaration

Product archived
by Manufacturer

MMD- Monitors &Displays Taiwan
Ltd

Phillips 221B3L

PortugalMonitors

4.5.1.1

RENERGY STARNo documentation
provided

Product archived
by Manufacturer

NCS Technologies

CIRRUS TZ2ZERO CLIENT

UnitedStatesThin Clients

4.3.2.2

O

Marking ofplastics

Declaration proveninaccurate

Product archived
by Manufacturer

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2016-04

Page 4March 2017

TABLE 1: Specific Non-Conformance Findings and Corrective Action Taken
Participating
Manufacturer

ProductCountry

Product Type

Criterion

Requiredor Optional

Criterion
Description

NC Finding
Description

Corrective Action
Taken

NTT System S.A.

NTT Business W
947G

PolandDesktops

4.3.2.2

O

Marking ofplastics

Declaration proveninaccurate

Manufacturer did
not take corrective
action so CAB
archived theproduct.

Panasonic

Toughbook 54UnitedStates

Notebooks

4.3.2.2

O

Marking ofplastics

Declaration proveninaccurate

Criterion
undeclared by
Manufacturer

Samsung
Electronics

S19E200BR

FranceMonitors

4.3.2.2

O

Marking ofplastics

Declaration proveninaccurate

Product archived
by Manufacturer

Toshiba

Portege A30C/A30t-C
PT363E, PT365E

Germany

Notebooks

4.3.2.2

O

Marking ofplastics

Declaration proveninaccurate

Manufacturer
provided evidenceof changes maderesulting inconformance

TPV Technology

AOC I2475PXQU

Germany

Monitors

4.3.2.2

O

Marking ofplastics

Declaration proveninaccurate

Criterion
undeclared byManufacturer

ViewSonicCorporation

VS15164/ SCT35

CanadaThin Clients

4.3.2.2

O

Marking ofplastics

Declaration proveninaccurate

Manufacturer
provided evidenceof changes maderesulting inconformance

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2016-04

Page 5
March 2017

3. Key Lessons
Criterion 4.3.2.2: Marking of plastics
Criterion 4.3.2.2 references ISO 11469 standard. However, in order to be in accordance with ISO
11469, Manufacturers must use the symbols and terms given in ISO 1043. There are four parts toISO 1043:
1. Basic polymers and their special characteristics
2. Fillers and reinforcing materials
3. Plasticizers
4. Flame retardants
During this verification round, GEC discovered that Part 4 (flame retardants) of the ISO 1043
standard was amended in 2016. Although the changes to ISO 1043 had already been implemented,
GEC did not issue any nonconformances for being out of compliance with the new version of ISO1043. Recognizing that making changes in the supply chain takes time, EPEAT Participating
Manufacturers therefore will have nine (9) months to put these changes into effect. After nine(9) months, any plastic markings that are not in accordance with the updated ISO 1043 standard
may result in a nonconformance for these criteria.
See the EPEAT Conformity Guidance Packets for up-to-date information on other conformity issues
associated with 4.3.2.2.

4. General Message to Manufacturers
Products “Active” on the EPEAT Registry:
All Active products on the EPEAT Registry are subject to Verification. When products reach their endof life, Manufacturers should remove the products from the EPEAT Registry. If a product which is
Active on the EPEAT Registry has gone end of life and a Manufacturer cannot obtain required
evidence due to the age of the product, it would still be considered a Non-Conformance.
Initial response to Auditors:
When contacted regarding participation in a Verification Round, Manufacturers should respond tothe Auditor as soon as possible to let them know they are communicating with the correct person or
to inform them of the correct contact. This also helps the Auditor know that the e-mail address isvalid.
Conformance of products that may share similar traits and/or supply chains:
If a Non-Conformance is found for a particular criterion and product, Manufacturers should beprepared to determine if other products on the EPEAT Registry are similarly impacted due to use ofsimilar materials and/or supply chains, and develop corrective action plans to address the future
conformance of these other products.

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2016-04

Page 6
March 2017

5. Looking Forward
Plans for Future Verification Activities:
All 2016 Verification Rounds for PCs and Displays were kicked off. Four Verification Rounds areplanned for PCs and Displays. Some 2017 Verification Rounds have already kicked off.

6. BackgroundTo assure the credibility of the EPEAT Registry, verification of the claims by Participating
Manufacturers are rigorous, independent and transparent. Verification is conducted according topolicies and procedures described in documents provided on www.epeat.net. Manufacturers aregiven no forewarning that their products will be verified, and verification is performed based on thedeclarations as they are in the Registry at the time the Verification Round begins.
Investigations are performed by expert technical contractors called Auditors working for aConformity Assurance Body approved by the Green Electronics Council (GEC). Auditors are free ofconflicts of interest, and their recommended decisions are reviewed and finalized by a five-person
panel of independent technical experts (called the Conformity Decision Panel) who are also
contractors free of conflicts of interest. Decisions of conformity by the Conformity Decision Panelare made blind to the identity of the products and companies they are judging, based only on
evidence collected and analyzed by Auditors. A serious consequence of receiving a NonConformance is that it is published publicly in an Outcomes Report, for purchasers, competitors, andothers to see.
In a Level 0 investigation, an Auditor assesses Conformance to a criterion by examining publicly
available information only – no products are obtained for inspection or testing, and theManufacturer is not asked to submit documentation. If the publicly available information isinconclusive (i.e. was not available, could not be found from public sources, or did not provide
enough details to determine conformance), the Auditor may be instructed to proceed with a
Level 1 investigation.

In a Level 1 investigation, an Auditor assess Conformance to a criterion by examining
information submitted by a Manufacturer. The Manufacturer is required to provide detailed andaccurate information in a timely manner.

In Level 2 investigations, the Conformity Assurance Body obtains a product without theManufacturer’s knowledge or involvement, and has the product disassembled and inspected toassess conformance with one or more criteria.

In Level 3 investigations, the Conformity Assurance Body obtains a product without theManufacturer’s knowledge or involvement, and has the product analytically tested to assess
conformance with one or more criteria.

Manufacturers must correct Non-Conformances, either by bringing the product into Conformance,by un-declaring the criterion until Conformance is achieved, or by removing the product from theRegistry. The Green Electronics Council also requires that Manufacturers examine other registeredproducts to determine if their declarations should be corrected as well. If a Manufacturer corrects
the Non-Conformance by un-declaring the criterion and the criterion is an optional criterion, theylose that point, and possibly the product drops a tier. If it is a required criterion, they must archive
the product. If it is a required corporate criterion, they must archive all of their registered products.

Outcomes Report
EPEAT Verification Round PC-2016-04

Page 7
March 2017