Jim, Yes, I'm sure that there was a "collective groan" when you mentioned EN 61000-3-2 and EN 61000-3-3 in your email. I wasn't part of it. I'm glad to see that someone else is still questioning what's going on with this standard.
I think that your understanding of "Basic Standards", "Product Family Standards" and "Generic Standards" is about as good as anybody's. I started a thread similar to this some months ago. I may not be able to answer your question directly, but I can outline the response that I got so that maybe you can draw some parallels to your own situation. The last time I summarized the responses I got, I received some ridicule. Being the youngest of 11 children, I've taken my share of that and I've learned not to let it get in my way. So ... My company is in a similar situation with EN 61326-1 versus EN 61000-3-2 and 61000-3-3. EN 61326-1 is a product family standard covering test and measurement equipment. EN 61326-1 specifically includes EN 61000-3-2 and EN 61000-3-3 in the requirements for its "Class B" (residential) equipment. EN 61326-1 specifically excludes EN 61000-3-2 and EN 61000-3-3 from the requirements for its "Class A" (non-residential) equipment. The last time we discussed this, the responses I got were: (paraphrased to protect the innocent) FROM A PERSON AT A TEST LAB: EN 61000-3-2 and -3-3 are "Product Standards" which apply and are enforced upon any equipment falling under their scope. They cannot be excluded by a product family standard (such as EN 61326-1) with a narrower scope. FROM ONE OF THE PEOPLE ON THE PANEL THAT WROTE EN 61326-1: EN 61326-1 specifically intended to exempt its Class A equipment from EN 61000-3-2 and EN 61000-3-3. FROM AN INNOCENT BYSTANDER: EN 61000-3-2 and EN 61000-3-3 were given Product Family Standard status by a stroke of an editors pen without true CENELEC approval. They were intended to be basic standards. Chaos has ensued. At this point, I was still confused, so I emailed CENELEC using the www.cenelec.be website. FROM CENELEC: Check with ANSI (The American National Standards Institute). So, I followed my instructions: FROM ANSI: (No comment) Well there you have it. (SARCASM ALERT !!!!) I don't understand why anyone would be confused about this standard. What has this pointed me toward? For one thing, it has led me to appreciate this email group. If it wasn't for the group, I would have simply followed EN 61326-1 and never considered EN 61000-3-2 and 3-3. I may not agree with it, but the only safe path is to design and test our products for the harmonics and flicker standards. This is what I'm preparing to do. However, I really would like to see some direction from CENELEC to clear this up. I think that it would be easy enough. All CENELEC would need to do is make a short press release and hand it to "Compliance Engineering", "Conformity", "Item" ... (I apologize to publications I haven't listed). I'm sure they would be glad to print it. By the way, I have kept all of the reponses to my original query. I would be glad to forward them to you if you wish. The opinions expressed in this email are mine and mine alone. I don't think like my employer. If I did, they wouldn't have any use for me. Chris Maxwell, Design Engineer GN Nettest Optical Division 6 Rhoads Drive, Building 4 Utica, NY 13502 PH: 315-797-4449 FAX: 315-797-8024 EMAIL: [email protected] > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Eichner [SMTP:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 8:00 PM > To: 'EMC-PSTC - forum' > Subject: Standards hierarchy > > > As relates to the EMC Directive, I am trying to straighten out my thoughts > re the different classes of standards. I'll say what I thought was right > and then ask my questions and ask for comments: > > What I thought until now: > > 1. Basic - underlying standards that have no force themselves but are > there > to provide test methods and limits or performance criteria for other > standards to call out, so that a large number of other standards don't > have > to repeat and maintain this common material. > > 2. Generic - standards used in the absence of 3 or 4, that define the > required tests and set limits, and may make use of Basic standards for > methodology. > > 3. Product Family - standards that have a scope that covers a family of > related equipment, and are mandatory and sufficient only in the absence of > 4 > below; they define the required tests and set limits, and may make use of > Basic standards for methodology. > > 4. Product Specific - standards that cover a narrowly defined, specific > type > of equipment, and are therefore mandatory if your product falls within the > scope; they define the required tests and set limits, and may make use of > Basic standards for methodology. > > Hierarchy: I thought the situation was that > a) you use a Specific standard if there is one, then if not you go for a > Family standard, and finally, failing that, you go for the Generic > standards > b) if you have a Specific a standard applicable to your equipment, the > Family and Generic standards have no force, and the Specific standard > gives > you full presumption of conformity even if it leaves out or contradicts > requirements in the broader standards > c) if you have a Family standard applicable to your equipment, the Generic > standards have no force and the Family standard gives you presumption > without using the Generics. > > Any comments on the accuracy of items 1-4 and a)-c)? > > My specific question relates, of course, to harmonic currents (collective > groan). The product specific standard in question is EN50091-2:1996, > which > covers EMC requirements for UPS. The scope section states that the > standard > "will take precedence over all aspects of the Generic Standards and no > additional testing is necessary". The omission of a statement that the > standard takes precedence over a Product Family standard started me > thinking > that my assumption b) above is wrong in saying that Product Family > standards > have no force. > > If this is a Product Specific standard, and assumption b) above is > correct, > I am under no obligation to look at EN61000-3-2 which is a Product Family > standard. I suspect my assumptions are wrong, and EN50091-2 takes > precedence over the Generics but not any Product Family standards that may > apply and therefore I need to meet EN61000-3-2. > > My confusion is escalated by the outdated info in EN50091-2, which has a > section on harmonics wherein it says "If the application is within the > scope > of EN60555-2, the limits and test methodology shall apply" followed by > "Note: This subclause is under consideration pending revision of > EN60555-2:1987". The combined effect of those two quotes seems to be to > allow me to ignore EN60555-2:1987 (which is obsolete anyway). > > The comments of the group are greatly appreciated, as always. > > Thanks, > > > Jim Eichner > Sr. Regulatory Compliance Engineer > Mobile Markets > Xantrex Technology Inc. > Email: [email protected] > Website: www.xantrex.com > Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really > exists. > Honest. > > > ------------------------------------------- > This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety > Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. > > To cancel your subscription, send mail to: > [email protected] > with the single line: > unsubscribe emc-pstc > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > Jim Bacher: [email protected] > Michael Garretson: [email protected] > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Richard Nute: [email protected] > ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: [email protected] with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: [email protected] Michael Garretson: [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected]
