Dear friends,
As far as the validity of European Standards ( harmonized standards) concerns, not the DOW or other dates are valid, but -with the exclusion of all other dates- the ones on the most recent list of harmonized standard as published in the European Official Journal (OJ/C) , lastly published on 7-April-2000. And yes, older designs need to comply (most often) within 2 years after publishing the reference to it in the OJ. Normally this is not such a hassle as it look like. A good quality product will almost always meet new requirements, unless they are fully new tests. In that case, most of the time a product that fails to comply will meet problems in the field too. After all, immunity requirements are there to solve performance problems as can be met in real life. Sometimes a product fails, because of some non-applicability of a test to a specific equipment, most often caused by a product accidentally falling within the scope of a standard that was not written for. Then a TCF route with a competent body may resolve your problems. Note that competent bodies are required to accept tests performed by yourself, provided they are credible. So no investment is lost. I doubt however that the citation is meant the way it was suggested. The number of tests would overwhelm the CB's capacity very quick. The procedure of self certification is one of the routes as defined in the "blue guide" and used in many directives that are concerned with customer risk much more then EMC. Take f.a. the LVD and MDD directive. The route chosen in the new RTTE directive is even more liberal towards this regime. Basically only frequency selection (harmonization) is left over to a notified body, the application of harmonized TTE-standards is voluntarily. Regards, Gert Gremmen, (Ing) ce-test, qualified testing P.S. this list is downloadable in .PDF format on the link below. =============================================== Web presence http://www.cetest.nl CE-shop http://www.cetest.nl/ce_shop.htm /-/ Compliance testing is our core business /-/ =============================================== >>-----Original Message----- >>From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf >>Of [email protected] >>Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 6:01 PM >>To: [email protected] >>Subject: RE: Philosophy for old designs with new requirements. >> >> >> >>Don asked: >> >>>I would appreciate some feedback on the following: >>> >>>Let's say I have several existing designs which meet the >>requirements for CE >>>Marking today (EMC & Safety). What is the requirement for these existing >>>designs when a new standard comes out, let's say six months from now? >>> >>>I think the older designs must be re-designed to meet the new >>requirements >>>or not be sold into the EU. Is this true? What ammunition is >>out there for >>>me to prove this fact to the higher-ups? >> >>Don, >> >>In my experience, one cannot predict whether new standards will allow >>existng products to be forever "grandfathered" under previous >>standards, or >>required to meet the new standard immediately, or some "grace" >>period after >>which compliance to the new standard is required. The >>"allowances" are made >>known by the time the standard is placed in force. >> >>This decision is often what slows the introduction of new standards as all >>affected parties lobby for what best suits their products. Products with >>relatively short market lifetimes are not usually impacted by new >>standards. >>However, products with long market lifetimes may require a re-design to >>meet the end of the grace period for new standards. >> >>Fortunately, our products typically fall into the first category, >>with market >>lifetimes of a year or so. >> >>George Alspaugh >>Lexmark International Inc. >> >> >> >>------------------------------------------- >>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] >> >> >>
<<attachment: Gert Gremmen.vcf>>
