Hello Any national law or requirement that limits importing /exporting (trading) in the EU, is illegal within the scope of view of the EU. Even if literally this is not the case, the European Commission will certainly support this view. So, if Germnay thinks it's GS requirements and laws are not opposing the ce-marking directive, we will have to ask the EC.
Regards Gert Gremmen -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: WOODS, RICHARD <[email protected]> Aan: 'Mike Hopkins' <[email protected]> CC: '@IEEE' <[email protected]> Datum: vrijdag 24 april 1998 21:29 Onderwerp: RE: GS Requirements >Mike you area correct. No state law may exist that is in conflict with the >EMC Directive. Let us assume that the German beer industry determines that >rays from Kryptonite harms beer production, so a law is passed that bans the >element from being imported into Germany. Is this law legal? What if I use >the element inside my pc in order to produce super high processor speeds? Is >my product protected by a Directive? Sorry, I am out of luck. The law is >legal because it is not in conflict with any Directive. > > > >> ---------- >> From: Mike Hopkins[SMTP:[email protected]] >> Sent: Friday, April 24, 1998 12:05 PM >> To: WOODS, RICHARD >> Cc: '@IEEE' >> Subject: RE: GS Requirements >> >> I believe everything you say is correct; however, if you read the first >> page >> of the EMC Directive (if you can get throught the Wheras's and >> Wherefore's) >> it says the following (paraphrased): >> >> Member states have mandatory EMC requirments, these requirements don't >> necessarily lead to different protection levels, but "...do, by their >> disparity, hinder trade within the community." >> >> EMC must be "... harmonized to guarentee the free movement of electrical >> and >> electronic apparatus without lowering existing and justified levels of >> protection..." >> >> Recognizing the need for free movement of trade, barriers currently >> existing >> to intra-community trade must be recognized where there are safety issues, >> harmonization must be confined to EMC, "... these requiremts must replace >> the corresponding national provisions." >> >> It goes on to allow national standards be used in the interim until >> counties >> all adopt the EMC directive.... >> >> Anyway, it seems clear that any national standard the restricts trade >> based >> on additional technical requirements -- beyond CE requirements -- IS in >> direct conflict with the directive. >> >> Well, that was fun, but all I have time for..... They rest of you are now >> free to tear it apart!! Have a ball. >> >> >> Mike Hopkins >> [email protected] >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: WOODS, RICHARD [SMTP:[email protected]] >> > Sent: Friday, April 24, 1998 11:43 AM >> > To: Mike Hopkins >> > Cc: '@IEEE' >> > Subject: RE: GS Requirements >> > >> > How quickly we forget. Recall that the Low Voltage Directive was issue >> in >> > 1973 and was in effect over 10 years before the EMC Directive became >> > effective. So what was the status of local EMC laws during this 10 year >> > period? Since there was no EMC Directive, each state had their own law. >> > Remember the legal need to have emissions testing to the VDE limits? The >> > existance of the Low Voltage Directive had no bearing on the local EMC >> > laws >> > or any other state laws not in conflict with the Low Voltage Directive. >> It >> > is nonsense to say that this situation has now changed just because the >> > EMC >> > Directrive is active. The CE mark denotes compliance with all relevant >> > Directives - that is all it denotes. Each state can still have laws that >> > affect the sale and use of equipment as long as the laws are not in >> > conflict >> > with any Directives. >> > >> > Richard Woods >> > Sensormatic Electronics >> > [email protected] >> > Views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent those of >> > Sensormatic. >> > >> > > ---------- >> > > From: Mike Hopkins[SMTP:[email protected]] >> > > Reply To: Mike Hopkins >> > > Sent: Friday, April 24, 1998 9:16 AM >> > > To: WOODS, RICHARD >> > > Cc: '@IEEE' >> > > Subject: RE: GS Requirements >> > > >> > > I don't believe Germany or any other EU country can impose additional >> > > legal >> > > restraints on the importation or use of equipment beyond the CE >> > > requirements. If this were allowed, each nation could, and probably >> > would, >> > > impose additional restrictive requirements for the importation and use >> > of >> > > products in their country -- exactly what the EU is trying to avoid. >> > This >> > > said, any CUSTOMER can then decide what criteria a product must meet >> > > before >> > > purchasing it, but that's a negotiation between the customer and the >> > > supplier -- not a legal restraint or condition of trade. >> > > >> > > > -----Original Message----- >> > > > From: WOODS, RICHARD [SMTP:[email protected]] >> > > > Sent: Thursday, April 23, 1998 4:32 PM >> > > > To: 'emc-pstc' >> > > > Subject: RE: GS Requirements >> > > > >> > > > Did I miss something along the way? Did Germany delete the >> "Equipment >> > > > Safety >> > > > Law" of 24 June 1968 and ammended 13th August 1980? Article 3 of the >> > law >> > > > says, "The manufacturer or importer of technical equipment may only >> > > > display >> > > > or put into circulation if it is of such a nature, in accordance >> with >> > > the >> > > > generally recognized rules of technology and the work safety and >> > > accident >> > > > prevention regulations . . ." The article then goes on to say " The >> > > > manufacturer or importer of an item of technical equipment may affix >> > > there >> > > > to the symbol "GS = geprfte Sicherheit (safety tested) . . . if the >> > > > equipment has undergone a type test by a Test Centre." The law goes >> on >> > > to >> > > > describe how the technical rules are developed. >> > > > >> > > > Remember that an EU state may have any law affecting equipment as >> long >> > > as >> > > > it >> > > > does not conflict with a Directive. Germany has at least two such >> > > > requirements: ergonomics for workstations (PCs) and human exposure >> to >> > > EMF. >> > > > One cannot receive a GS mark for a PC unless it complies with the >> > > > ergonomic >> > > > requirements of ZH1. That is the law and it is not in conflict with >> > any >> > > > directive since there is no directive on ergonomics nor are there >> any >> > > > harmonized standards. Likewise there is no directive on EMF >> exposure. >> > > The >> > > > ENV 50166 series will eventually become the harmonized standards. >> > > > >> > > > Again, all of this is moot if Germany has repealed the Equipment >> > Safety >> > > > Law >> > > > which I don't beleive they have. >> > > > >> > > > Richard Woods >> > > > Sensormatic Electronics >> > > > [email protected] >> > > > Views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent those of >> > > > Sensormatic. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > ---------- >> > > > > From: Ing. Gert Gremmen[SMTP:[email protected]] >> > > > > Sent: Thursday, April 23, 1998 3:14 PM >> > > > > To: WOODS, RICHARD; 'emc-pstc' >> > > > > Subject: Re: GS Requirements >> > > > > >> > > > > Hello Richard, >> > > > > >> > > > > No other requirements are necessary for your products then >> > > > "manufacturers >> > > > > declaration", based on EMC and/or LVD requirements/tests, who are >> > > backed >> > > > > up >> > > > > by appropriate standards to attach the ce-mark and export to >> europe. >> > > > Make >> > > > > sure safety instructions are in the right European language. >> > Although >> > > > the >> > > > > lVD directive does not insist on this, local authorities are keen >> on >> > > > > maintaining safety. If any problems occcur, directly contact the >> > > > > European >> > > > > Commission by means of the appropriate office for compliants. Make >> > > sure >> > > > > you >> > > > > have a representative in Europe, who can be contacted for >> inspection >> > > of >> > > > > technical files. >> > > > > >> > > > > Regards, >> > > > > >> > > > > Gert Gremmen Ing. >> > > > > >> > > > > == Ce-test, Qualified testing == >> > > > > Consultants in EMC, Electrical safety and Telecommunication >> > > > > Compliance tests for European standards and ce-marking >> > > > > Member of NEC/IEC voting committee for EMC. >> > > > > Our Web presence: http://www.cetest.nl >> > > > > List of current harmonized standards >> > http://www.cetest.nl/emc-harm.htm >> > > > > 15 great tips for the EMC-designer >> > http://www.cetest.nl/features01.htm >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- >> > > > > Van: WOODS, RICHARD <[email protected]> >> > > > > Aan: 'emc-pstc' <[email protected]> >> > > > > Datum: woensdag 22 april 1998 21:02 >> > > > > Onderwerp: GS Requirements >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >Equipment sold in Germany must comply with the GS requirements. >> > > > Somewhere >> > > > > in >> > > > > >the bowels of the German Government, there must be a list of >> > > standards >> > > > > that >> > > > > >must be met in order to comply with the GS requirements. Does >> > anyone >> > > > know >> > > > > >where one can find this list? What agency is responsible for >> > > > > >maintaining/changing the list? Is there a legal methodology that >> > must >> > > > be >> > > > > >followed in order to change the list, especially a public notice >> > > prior >> > > > to >> > > > > >the change? Given that a change is going to take place, are there >> > > > > standard >> > > > > >transition rules? >> > > > > > >> > > > > >The particular case at hand is that TUV has informed me that the >> > EMF >> > > > > human >> > > > > >exposure standards have changed. VDE 0848 parts 2 and 4 have been >> > > > > replaced >> > > > > >by ENV 50166-1 and ENV 50166-2. Any further information that >> anyone >> > > has >> > > > > in >> > > > > >this regard would be helpful, especially information on any >> > > transition >> > > > > >rules. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >Richard Woods >> > > > > >Sensormatic Electronics >> > > > > >[email protected] >> > > > > >Views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent those >> of >> > > > > >Sensormatic. >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> >
