A few weeks ago I posted a question regarding the stability of the compliance date for EN 61000-3-2/3 as it pertains to equipment not falling within the scope of the earlier EN 60555. Although I do not recall there being a publicly posted answer, I received a number of e-mails indicating that the 6/1/98 effective date for EN 61000 and the Rock of Gibraltar are one and the same.
Then I noticed the attached posting to the sci.engr.electrical.compliance newsgroup, which seems to indicate that the effective date may change to 1/1/2001. (My thanks to the author, incidentally.) Any comment or independent verification of this information? Any clue as to when this issue is likely to be settled? -Paul Wilson ========================================================================= >From [email protected] Tue Apr 22 14:35:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.engr.electrical.compliance Subject: EN61000-3-2 and -3: interesting development From: John Woodgate <[email protected]> List-Post: [email protected] Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 19:35:01 +0100 As a consequence of the uncertainty caused by the legal dispute between the Commission and CENELEC over certification clauses in standards, which is now largely resolved, and the recent acknowledgement that both standards need at least clarification of their texts, CENELEC BT (Technical Board) at their recent 91st meeting, decided to ****delete the 1998-06-01 introduction date for the above-mentioned standards in respect of products which were outside the scopes of the earlier EN60555-2 and -3****. Both standards would therefore come into effect for *all* products on 2001-01-01. According to BT procedures, such decisions have to be subject to a delay of one month, during which time any national standards committee of a member state may enter an objection. At least one such objection has been received. While it can be argued that the deletion of the 1998 date must cause harmonic pollution levels in the public mains supply to persist, many people consider that the effect of the 1998 introduction would have been very small. Reasons for supporting the deletion include: * Both standards have been found to have interpretation and implementation problems, which are being considered in CENELEC and IEC at present. The results of these studies, which may not be completed until quite late in 1997, may well alter many decisions on whether equipment does or does not meet the requirements. (It is to be proposed to CENELEC that no existing certifications should be invalidated as a result of the review processes.) * For products which cannot meet these standards, it was always intended that IEC1000-3-4 and -5 would give alternative routes to conformity, but as Reports they cannot do this. IEC1000-3-5 has been converted into a standard, IEC61000-3-11, but this has not yet even reached 1CD circulation, so it cannot be ready by the middle of 1998. IEC1000-3-4 itself is at the CDV stage, but is still controversial and cannot possibly be converted into a standard and published by mid-1998. Non- conforming equipment would thus be forced to be modified to conform (if possible) from 1 June 1998 until IEC61000-3-11 and the converted IEC1000-3-4 standard are published as ENs, when it would be permitted to meet relaxed requirements! In fact, the alternative routes to conformity were originated *precisely because* it was recognized that some product types cannot economically be modified so as to meet IEC1000-3-2 and/or -3: extremely costly new technology would have to be introduced. * For products rated at over 16 A per phase, there will, in the absence of the 'missing' standards, be controversy among regulatory authorities as to whether this means that no limits apply or that the limits in the Reports apply and the costly and time-consuming Technical Construction File route to compliance has to be followed, simply because they are 'Reports' and not 'standards'. Effectively, the TCF route would be a mere formality for'promoting' them from Reports to standards, at very considerable cost. * The main sources of harmonics are television sets and desktop computers, perhaps together with some other domestic appliances, which are already exempt until 2001. The UK Permanent Delegate to CENELEC BT will be very fully briefed on the UK position for the next BT meeting, in July. It is suggested that industry representatives in all CENELEC countries should try to ensure that their Permanent Delegates to CENELEC BT are equally fully briefed on industry views on this matter. -- Regards, John Woodgate Tel. +44 (0)1268 747839 Fax +44 (0)1268 777124. OOO - Own Opinions Only Alternative e-mail address: [email protected] That means I get double spam with everything (;-(
