Very well put, I would have to say. Steve Yow
-----Original Message----- From: geor...@lexmark.com [mailto:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 8:40 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Euro Agency Marks vs. CE Marking Earlier exchange..................... > In Europe, there are no longer any 'national approvals' like the old > SEMKO etc. There is ONLY the Low Voltage Directive, and the European > Standards (ENs) that have been 'notified' in the Official Journal as > providing evidence of compliance." > > < Not so, the SEMKO "S" mark along with NEMKO, DEMKO and FIMKO and many < others (TUV?) is alive and well. These marks not only demonstrate < compliance with the LVD and EMCD (if applicable) but also that some < form of manufacturing quality contol is exercised which is audited by < the mark's owner. Critical components will be checked and hi pot < testing must be performed. For the European Union, only the CE marking is required, indicating conformity to all applicable Directives, for ITE this would be the EMC and LV Directives. It is correct that this marking is not "issued" by any test agency, and does not, in itself, stipulate required production tests. It is true that all of the former local country approval agencies are still alive, and attempt to "sell" the importance of their marks to their country residents as the only "true" sign of safety. They often point out, and rightly so, that the CB Scheme does not actually require the equivalent of a type test to the applicable standard, allowing a manufacturer to submit a Technical Construction File (TCF) or self- declaration of conformity, and with little production oversight required. Due to this and local preferences, many manufacturers still obtain one of more of these redundant, but traditional, marks. In some respects, these many test houses contributed to their own demise. How many "type tests" from multiple agencies does it take to affirm meeting EN60950? How many agency inspectors does it take to inspect the same factory? When all is said and done, only one type test and one routine factory follow-up inspection is required to ensure the safety quality of a product. The CB Scheme is the common sense approach, but still has a few flaws. The CB Scheme should include a requirement for one, and only one, agency factory certification and follow-up inspections. This would remove the continuing redundancy of multiple agencies inspecting the same factory for the same safety related processes. My opinion........... George Alspaugh ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson: pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Heald davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server. ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson: pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Heald davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
