Cortland, I suspect that your bike inner tube complies with the Toy Directive. Or could it be the Machinery Directive? (grin) - it may have been assessed as having moving parts! Would be very interesting to obtain the DoC.
Regards, Peter > > What an interesting discussion! > > As many others, I suspect, I believed that the CE mark was extended to > cover the LVD (and possibly other safety requirements) in order to permit > use of a harmonized standard rather than various national ones. > > Well, I've been wrong before, so it would be no surprise to be wrong again. > > The only excuse I can produce is not being a safety engineer, but a poor, > struggling (sob) EMI troll, wrapped in layers of copper tape, given the > (EMI) finger at every opportunity, and isolated in a corporate bureaucratic > morass designed to make sure nothing actually gets done. > > Ahem (wiping eyes). Sorry. > > With regard to the END ITEM equipment, I do remember hearing at a former > employer that we could include the CE mark as evidence that we had met the > requirements of the LVD and the machinery directive, and thus eliminate > multiple overlapping approvals on it. Logically, this is the way to go. But > what method could be used to show compliance if there is no pan-European > mark, for components? I can't believe the intent of the CE mark was to > require the continued application of national marks. > > Hr. Ingr. Gremmen has, I think, hit the target with his observation that > one who uses the CE mark assumes all liability which may accrue from later > performance,and it may indeed be that this consideration, rather than > inapplicability, is to blame for not wishing to use the CE mark on filters. > > Let's not forget that a CE mark does not have to mean compliance with > obviously inapplicable standards. I have a bicycle inner-tube whose box > carries the CE mark and I am pretty sure it doesn't comply with EITHER the > LVD or the EMI directives. (grin) > > What an interesting avalanche! > > Cortland > > > > ====================== Original Message Follows ==================== > > >> Date: 14-Jun-99 09:30:29 MsgID: 1068-75575 ToID: 72146,373 > From: "Peter E. Perkins" >INTERNET:[email protected] > Subj: more Line filter certification remarks > Chrg: $0.00 Imp: Norm Sens: Std Receipt: No Parts: 1 > > > > > PSNet > > Since I don't agree with Cortland, I'll put my U$ 0.02 worth in > here... > > CE marking is intended for completed equipment (or major > components, not small components). The best explanation of marking of > components is included in the Machinery Directive. Unfortunately, this > level of detail has not been carried into the other major directives. > > From this, it is clear that small components are not supposed to be > CE marked (in spite of the intense marketing pressure on the part of both > equipment and component manufacturers to use the CE marking to get rid of > dealing with Euro Labs). This differentation was part of an undocumented > settlement between the EUrocrats and the Euro test houses about 1989. This > was intended to leave the certification of componets for the test houses, > rather than driving them out of business. > > As an aside, the MD specifies that safety components which are CE > marked must have a Notified Body involved in the process. I do not yet see > any NB reference to CE markings on circuit breakers and other safety > devices (I'll accept correction from cb mfgrs who use a NB in their > process). > > From this background I always demand a Euro certification on any > component used in CE marked equipment that I work with. I ask for, and get > a copy of the component manufacturers Certificate(s) for the Euro marks > claimed. It all boils down to - who sez so... and I want component > manufacturers to have someone looking over their shoulder on all of this... > There are some component manufacturers who are moving away from Euro lab > marks and I discourage the use of their components in certified equipment. > > > Finally, I'd like the EU folks clear this up and get the MD > clarifications spread thruout the other Directives, which could be done > very much in the same manner as the marks information was clarified in a > single Directive. > > > - - - - - > > Peter E Perkins > Principal Product Safety Consultant > Tigard, ORe 97281-3427 > > +1/503/452-1201 phone/fax > > [email protected] email > > visit our website: > > http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/peperkins > > - - - - - > > --------- > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. > To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected] > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the > quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], or > [email protected] (the list administrators). > > > > > **Primary Recipient: > Cortland Richmond 72146,373 > > ====================== End of Original Message ===================== > > --------- > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. > To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected] > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the > quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], or > [email protected] (the list administrators). > > PETER S. MERGUERIAN MANAGING DIRECTOR PRODUCT TESTING DIVISION I.T.L. (PRODUCT TESTING) LTD. HACHAROSHET 26, P.O.B. 211 OR YEHUDA 60251, ISRAEL TEL: 972-3-5339022 FAX: 972-3-5339019 E-MAIL: [email protected] Visit our Website: http://www.itl.co.il --------- This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected] with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], or [email protected] (the list administrators).
