Charles, On the face of it your analysis would seem to be correct, although I am not sure that was the intended result. As for me, I will continue to follow this thorny topic but will not get too excited by it until I either get a hassle from a customer or until I see it more clearly defined for ITE. I will, however, continue to push my power supply vendors to make sure they are compliant way ahead of the game. If that means June of 1998 then we will probably not make it unless I can get the vendors to speed up the process. I do expect to be compliant by 1999 in any case.
________________________ Regards, Scott Douglas Principal Compliance Engineer ECRM Incorporated Telephone: 1-508-851-0207 Facsimilie: 1-508-851-7016 e-mail: [email protected] ________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ From: Grasso, Charles (Chaz) on Fri, Sep 12, 1997 8:34 PM Subject: RE: Re[2]: EMC/Harmonics requirements To: 'Mark Briggs'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; 'MartinJP' The application date of EN61000-3-2/3 for ITE has been a difficult problem to resolve. Although the whole would seems to think that the date is 1/1/2001, I have a slightly different view that I would like to offer to the group. Fundamentally my problem is that the term "dow" is being used synonymously with "doa" - which means date of application. In other words most folks are assuming that the dow IS the application date for ITE. I don't think that is correct. Here is my analysis, please feel free to comment: >EN6100-3-2 is ALREADY in the Official Journal (circa 1995). That >means that the EU member countries should have been enforcing the >standard. However, as this enforcement would have caused huge disruption >to the electronic business, an unofficial decision was made NOT to >enforce the standard until June of 1998 (A12). > >What CENELEC have recommended is that the dow (for conflicting standards >[in this case EN60555-3-2]) is 1/1/2001. CENELEC have also recommended >that A12 to EN61000-3-2 be rescinded. > >Here is the crux of the problem. > >ITE equipment did NOT fall under the 60555 standard. So the dow of >1/1/2001 does not apply to ITE - there are no standards to conflict >with!! > >If the Commission agree with CENELEC and as a result the dow is moved to >2001 and A12 is rescinded - then EN61000-3-2 becomes IMMEDIATELY >effective for ITE. >---------- >From: MartinJP[SMTP:[email protected]] >Sent: Thursday, September 11, 1997 9:02 AM >To: Mark Briggs; [email protected]; [email protected] >Subject: Re[2]: EMC/Harmonics requirements > >In regards to the implementation dates for EN 61000-3-2 and EN 61000-3-3, I >received a letter, dated July 23,1997, from N. Baumier-Duphil Assistant >Secretary of IEC SC 77A. > >The letter states: > >"Actually, the situation is ambiguous. The implementation date of June 1st, >1998 for these two EN was approved (EN 61000-3-2/A12) but was never published >in >OJEC. Then these implementation date do not actually have an official >status. > >During the last BT of CENELEC (July 1-3, 1997), this question was treated. >The >TC 211 of CENELEC , which is in charge of this subject, had proposed to the >BT >to publish the EN 61000-3-2/A12 at the OJEC. The position taken by the BT is >the following: > >5.5.1 DOW for harmonized EMC standards > >D92/195:BT Confirmed that the dow of EN 61000-3-2 and 61000-3-3 remains >2001-01- >01 for all products. An informative document on the consequences of the >decision will be circulated. > >D92/196:In consequence BT decided to launch a 2MV (2 month vote) on the >withdrawl of EN 61000-3-2/A12 which was offered by CENELEC for publication in >the OJEC but was not published by the commission. > >The proposition of the BT must be approved by the European Commission to have >an >official status. The decision is in progress and has not actually been >defined." > >Taking this information into consideration, it is my understanding that >products >which were not covered by the 555 series may not be required to meet >61000-3-2,3 >until Jan. 1, 2001 depending upon the 2 month vote on the withdrawl of >61000-3- >2/A12. > >Does anyone have any information on the results of this 2 month vote?? > >Thanks > >Joe Martin >[email protected] > > >_____________________________________________________________________________ >__ >Subject: Re: EMC/Harmonics requirements >From: Mark Briggs <[email protected]> at INTERNET >Date: 9/9/97 9:27 PM > > >Does this mean that products that are currently being certified against a >product or family standard, such as ITE equipment (EN55022) or ISM >equipment (EN55011) as opposed to a generic standard have to meet the >requirements of the EN61000-3 specs ?? Neither of these standards >mention testing harmonics/flicker or the IEC 555 specs. > >Mark > >[email protected] > > >>______________________________ Reply Separator >_________________________________ >>Subject: EMC/Harmonics requirements >>Author: [email protected] at PMDF >>Date: 8/22/97 10:40 AM >> >> >>To All: >>For information. >> >>The European Union has put out a notice to all national committees aimed >>at clarifying the implementation dates for the harmonics and flicker >>standards. (Reference TC741 JPV/is/970722 dated 1997-07-10) They have >>also referenced the 555 series standards and in their minds clarified the >>relationship between the two harmonics standards. The notice is copied >>below for your information. Please note the IEC 555 -2 and 555-3 are >>withdrawn and obsolete. This means CENELEC is not using an international >>standard for those products covered. >> >>Dave George >> >> >>"Taking into account the above, for products originally not >>falling within the scope of EN 60555-2/EN 60555-3 but covered by EN >>61000-3-2/EN 61000-3-3, presumption of conformity to the ERs of the EMC >>Directive exists and is confirmed on the basis of a manufacturer's >>declaration based on the generic EMC standards up to 2001-01-01. >> >>In this context reference is made to Note 2 to Table I of EN 50021-1 >>(relating to emission in the a.c. mains supply and in particular >>harmonics) which reads: >> >>"Note 2: Applicable to apparatus covered within the scope of EN 60555-2 >>and EN 60555-3. Limits for apparatus not currently covered by EN 60555-2 >>and EN 60555-3 are under consideration.' >> >>In consequence the levels given in these two standards applicable to the >>relevant phenomena can be used for conformity assessment purposes under >>the manufacturer's responsibility." >> >> >> >>Received: from 192.168.190.1 by ALPHA.CORP.SCIATL.COM (PMDF V4.3-13 #7203) >> id <[email protected]>; Fri, >> 22 Aug 1997 14:59:15 -0500 (EST) >>Received: from [199.172.136.3] by gatekeeper.sciatl.com for >> <[email protected]> id PAA14535; Fri Aug 22 15:04:07 1997 >>Received: (from daemon@localhost) by ruebert.ieee.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) >> id LAA10936; Fri, 22 Aug 1997 11:42:35 -0400 (EDT) >>Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 11:40:31 -0400 >>From: "George, David L" <[email protected]> >>Subject: EMC/Harmonics requirements >>Sender: [email protected] >>Reply-to: "George, David L" <[email protected]> >>Message-id: >> <c=US%a=_%p=UNISYS%[email protected] >>isys.c >>om> >>X-Envelope-to: "Kealey, Doug%SA-B08"@ccmail.corp.sciatl.com >>MIME-version: 1.0 >>X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version >>4.0.995.52 >>Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >>Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit >>Precedence: bulk >>X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients <[email protected]> >>X-Listname: emc-pstc >>X-List-Description: Product Safety Tech. Committee, EMC Society >>X-Info: Help requests to [email protected] >>X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to [email protected] >>X-Moderator-Address: [email protected] >> > ------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------ Received: by macgtwy.ecrm.com with SMTP;12 Sep 1997 20:34:25 -0400 Received: by highlight.ecrm.com (AA02144); Fri, 12 Sep 97 20:00:12 EDT Received: from ruebert.ieee.org by maildrop.ecrm.com (UAA05536); Fri, 12 Sep 1997 20:00:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by ruebert.ieee.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id PAA21335 for emc-pstc-list; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 15:59:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=Stortek%[email protected]> From: "Grasso, Charles (Chaz)" <[email protected]> To: "'Mark Briggs'" <[email protected]>, "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>, "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>, "'MartinJP'" <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Re[2]: EMC/Harmonics requirements List-Post: [email protected] Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 13:57:55 -0600 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.995.52 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: [email protected] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Grasso, Charles (Chaz)" <[email protected]> X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients <[email protected]> X-Listname: emc-pstc X-List-Description: Product Safety Tech. Committee, EMC Society X-Info: Help requests to [email protected] X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to [email protected] X-Moderator-Address: [email protected]
