Peter, I provide below a very detailed explanation of why I, as an individual, believe that it is a good idea to comply with standards whose references fall within the 'date of cessation' as published in the OJEC. Those who are not interested in safety or the minutiae of the LVD should stop reading now...
The reason for the removal of the so-called 'certification clause' that was in the Foreword of the various amendments to EN 60950:1992 but is not in the Forward to EN 60950:2000 and EN 60950-1:2002 is as follows: - There was a request from the Commission to remove this text from all standards referenced in the OJEC under the LVD. I have not tried to find the exact text but I can imagine that those who wish to look for it would need access to documents from the CENELEC Technical Board (CENELEC BT). - Although I do not have all the list of standards published in the OJEC in relation to the LVD, I do recall that it was not always the case that the list had the column entitled "Date of cessation of presumption of conformity of the superseded standard Note 1". The first version of the revised list I have stored on my PC is dated 1999 (but this may not be the first such list). Nevertheless, you can see that there would be confusion if a standard were to give one date and the OJEC were to give another date. Eliminating the 'certification clause' leaves the OJEC as the only date for the expiree of a standard, with the Commission being in overall control of when that date is (although in practice this would normally be agreed with the CENELEC BT). - Having 'dates of cessation' published in the OJEC was already an established precedent under the EMC Directive. So much for the history lesson. Now for the need to revise products already in production so as to maintain their compliance with standards that are not beyond their 'date of cessation'... You will see that I do not think that it is necessary to look any further than the LVD itself. The first thing to say is that it is possible to comply with national implementations of the LVD without complying with any standards at all. The fundamental requirement is given in Article 2, which refers you to the 'safety objectives' listed in Annex I (we are nowadays more used to the term 'essential requirements' rather than 'safety objectives' - but we are dealing with a 1973 directive remember!). Article 5 of the LVD states that "electrical equipment which complies with the safety provisions of harmonized standards shall be regarded ... as complying with the provisions of Article 2". Therefore, standards whose references are published in the OJEC offer a presumption of conformity with the LVD and those that are not referenced do not offer such a presumption. If a manufacturer wished to use a standard that is not listed in the OJEC they at liberty to do so, but in that case they would have to rely directly on demonstrating compliance with the 'safety objectives' listed in Annex I of the LVD. Article 5 also requires that "The standards shall be kept up to date in the light of technological progress and the developments in good engineering practice in safety matters." This is a task carried out by the standardisation bodies of course. Inclusion of a 'date of cessation' within the OJEC could be seen as a way of linking the legislation to the more recent edition of a standard. While on the subject of Article 5 it is necessary to deal with the question of the meaning of the last paragraph "For purposes of information the list of harmonized standards and their references shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities." How should one understand what is meant by "For purposes of information"? My personal opinion is that there is already a requirement in the second para of Article 5 which states "Standards shall be regarded as harmonized once they are drawn up by common agreement between the bodies notified by the Member States in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 11, and published under national procedures." and so the primary requirement is to comply with the national standards published in this way. If the reference to the OJEC were not "For purposes of information" then there could be a discrepancy between the national listing and the EU listing. Again, this is text that dates back to 1973 when unique national standards were the norm and harmonised European standards the exception: not the case now of course. Article 8 (1) states "Before being placed on the market, the electrical equipment referred to in Article 1 must have affixed to it the CE marking provided for in Article 10 attesting to its conformity to the provisions of this Directive, including the conformity assessment procedure described in Annex IV." Annex IV section 3 states "Technical documentation must enable the conformity of the electrical equipment to the requirements of this Directive to be assessed." and in the 4th indent "a list of the standards applied in full or in part, and descriptions of the solutions adopted to satisfy the safety aspects of this Directive where standards have not been applied". So, it is necessary (when using standards) to both maintain compliance of your product with the applicable standards referenced in the OJEC and also to update your technical files with this fact. In summary, if the LVD applies to your product and you wish to use harmonised standards to show that each and every item rolling off your production line complies then ensure your product complies with a version of the standard that has not gone beyond its 'date of cessation'. If you wish to show compliance with the 'safety objectives' directly, then forget standards and dates of cessation. Naturally these are just personal opinions and I am not a lawyer: if you make a product decision based on the above then on your own head be it. Regards, Richard Hughes. -----Original Message----- From: Peter L. Tarver [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 04 November 2002 20:20 To: [email protected] Subject: RE: EN60950:2000 & EN60950-1 last dates of manufacture All - I have received a number of responses, for which I am grateful. As a matter of course, we must all try to act as lawyers in pursuit of compliance. To that end, I reviewed the documents I had in hand [which included the CSA transition document (which I treat as a third hand interpretation), the LVD, the list of harmonized standards from the OJ, the Guide to the Implementation of Directives Based on New Approach and Global Approach, EN60950:1992 through A4 and a copy of the Forward to EN60950:2000], prior to posting my query. None of these provided me with a feeling of certain knowledge. As points of comparison, I offer the following citations. >From Guide to the Implementation of Directives Based on New Approach and Global Approach (the so-called "Blue Guide"): "4.5. Revision of harmonised standards "Following its internal regulations, the relevant European standard organisation lays down the date of publication at national level of the revised harmonised standard, and the date of withdrawal of the old standard. The transitional period is normally the time period between these two dates. During this transitional period both harmonised standards give presumption of conformity, provided that the conditions for this are met. After this transitional period, only the revised harmonised standard gives a presumption of conformity. "The Commission may consider that, for safety or other reasons, the old version of the harmonised standard must cease giving a presumption of conformity before its date of withdrawal, set by European standards organisation in question. In such cases, the Commission fixes an earlier date after which the standard will no longer give a presumption of conformity, and publishes this information in the Official Journal. If circumstances allow, the Commission consults the Member States prior to taking a decision to reduce the period during which the standard gives a presumption of conformity. "The reference of the revised harmonised standard, the reference of the old harmonised standard, and the date where the presumption of conformity of the old standard finishes are published together in the Official Journal." >From EN60950:1992, Forward to A4: "For products which have complied with EN 60950:1992 and its amendments A1:1993, A2:1993, A3:1995 before 1998-08-01, as shown by the manufacturer or by a certification body, this previous standard may continue to apply for production until 2003-08-01." You will note that there is a distinct difference in language between the two documents. EN60950:1992 is quite clear, while the Blue Guide is not quite satisfying. Other points of comparison lie in the last dates of manufacture in the various forwards EN60950:1992 and the right-most column from the OJ's list of harmonized standards titled "Date of cessation of presumption of conformity of the superseded standard." These dates agree completely, though I still wished to eliminate all doubt, because of the differences in language. The language of the list of harmonized standards and the Blue Guide don't explicitly mention manufacturing and could be interpreted as the last date a product certification could be obtained using a standard, which is consistent with the text of the forwards to EN60950:1992. With the absence of similar verbiage in the forward to EN60950:2000 and knowing that the last dates of manufacture in EN60950:1992 occurred some time after the DOW for each amendment, I am left desirous of certainty. With the advent of an additional interpretation (I say interpretation, because I've seen nothing explicit, official and in writing to support this) that the DOW is the last date a product may be offered for sale, irrespective of dates of manufacturing, what used to apply for last dates of manufacture, and that product might be in a distribution path well prior to the DOW, but not yet sold. Not to disparage the value of previous postings or to doubt the veracity of posters on the subject, but we all must take posts to the list server with a grain of cynicism, lest we find ourselves paddleless up a reeking creek, heading for the rapids. The old saw about "assume" plays a key role. I now wish to change my query, to alleviate the irritation some may have felt at this being "asked again": is there an official document available that provides unambiguous clarity defining "date of cessation of presumption of conformity of the superseded standard," in the context of manufacturing? My searches on Europa, UK DTI and the internet in general have not to date yielded useful results. Regards, Peter L. Tarver, PE Product Safety Manager Sanmina-SCI Homologation Services San Jose, CA [email protected] ------------------------------------------- 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: Ron Pickard: [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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"
