Hi Jim,
I understand your concerns, but that is exactly why harmonised standards give only PRESUMPTION of Compliance only. and not PROOF of compliance. Definition of presumption: PRESUMPTION - A fact assumed to be true under the law is called a presumption. For example, a criminal defendant is presumed to be innocent until the prosecuting attorney proves beyond a reasonable doubt that she is guilty..... read more .... http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p149.htm It is exactly what has happened in the case of the hair dryers. I agree BTW the the EN 55014 is an outdated standard ; of which the modernisation has been witheld by the hair dryers manufacturers that conveniently use the clamb mathod over a limited part of spectrum to "get rid of that EMI hassle". The base problem is that CENELEC ; as being mandated by the EC to produce harmonised standards; is a partially incompetent organisation in the sense that the product committees and voting comittees define and vote standards. Voting committees and product committees are overcrowded by parties of interest (read: manufacturers), and the CENELEC system does not allow for overruling creating an incompetent standard. The EC has on several affairs (f.a DOW dates, and "conditional limits") threathened the CENELEC of withdrawing the mandats if they would not comply with their requirements, and that has created some consistence. Instruction reports exists for product committees that explicitly address the situation of "essential EMC phenomena" that need to be addressed in every harmonized standard; but it is widely "ignored". The EC not being idiot, has wisely decided that harmonized standards can therefore give only presumption of compliance. Same is true for EN 55022 and interference above 1 GHz; just the standard is not enough. This is a pitfall especially for USA based manufs as they often look to the letter of a standard, losing the overalll view. This is mainly caused by the former rigid system of FFC and UL approvals, putting to much responsibility with the test house. If I were the manufacturer and had enough money, i'dd sue the product standards committee responsible for creating this standard, and not covering the full spectrum in spite of the EMC directive being in force since 1992. Gert Gremmen ce-test -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Jim Eichner Sent: donderdag 26 september 2002 20:17 To: 'EMC-PSTC - forum' Subject: FW: EMC Prosecution in UK I read this article with some consternation, since in my mind it challenges not the manufacturer or importer, but the concept of Presumption of Conformity (I'll use PofC...). Quote: "If the standard in question only covers some of the EM phenomena, or is limited in its scope, then full compliance cannot be guaranteed. The products thus failed the essential protection requirements and were incorrectly CE marked". I am in strong disagreement with that statement. If the standard in question only covers some of the EM phenomena, then the standard in question does NOT provide PofC and should NOT have been published in the OJ or on the Europa site as a harmonized standard under the EMC Directive. It is not the manufacturer's fault if the EU incorrectly publishes references in the OJ implying PofC where there are essential requirements not covered. In my mind, the CE Mark was correctly applied by the mfr, and the fault lies with EN55014 (which I have always thought is flawed) and with the EU/CEN for issuing a standard that fails to provide PofC. Am I right or am I delusional, naive, misinformed, an idealist, or all of the above?!?!? At the very least, it seems to me that the EU has an obligation to provide more information. If a standard is listed as applicable to the EMC Directive and does not provide PofC, then the standard's preamble and the Europa listing should say so, and should point out which essential requirements are not addressed, and which standards should be used to cover the missing requirements. I am getting extremely tired of the "let the mfr figure it out" approach used by the EU. Ok, I'll stop whining now. Jim Eichner, P.Eng. Regulatory Compliance Manager Xantrex Technology Inc. e-mail: [email protected] web: www.xantrex.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really exists. Honest. No really. Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. -----Original Message----- From: Alan E Hutley [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 11:43 PM To: Emc-Pstc Discussion Group Subject: EMC Prosecution in UK EMC Prosecution, the company mentioned in the report Hot UK Ltd is owned by Helen of Troy based in El Paso Texas. For full story go click below http://www.compliance-club.com/TS%20Prosecution.doc Alan E Hutley EMC Compliance Journal www.compliance-club.com
