<FD27170820E5DD42B1D5B13DE96A775404BF7F@mrl01>, Massey, Doug C. <[email protected]> inimitably wrote: >In the EU/EFTA, the justification is not so easy. As I mentioned earlier, >the products are exempt from the LVD. The General Product Safety Directive, >and the Product Liability Directive, do not give me an easy justification, >such as in the case of the OSHA regs stated in US Federal Code. My company >has always had all products evaluated to the -950 standards, but has >observed that other manufacturers of similar equipment do not have their >products evaluated to applicable safety standards, and CE mark their >products based on compliance to the EMC Directive, but not to the LVD.
You can have them 3rd-party tested to EN60950 by a test-house if you want. There is nothing to stop you doing that voluntarily, even though the LVD is not applicable. If they all pass, you have a problem! You can't learn anything from passes. If you get a few failures, you can learn from them and in due course dispense with 3rd-party testing if you wish. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. Phone +44 (0)1268 747839 Fax +44 (0)1268 777124. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Why not call a vertically- applied manulo-pedally-operated quasi-planar chernozem-penetrating and excavating implement a SPADE? ------------------------------------------- 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: [email protected] with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson: [email protected] Dave Heald [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] Jim Bacher: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"
