I read in !emc-pstc that Gert Gremmen <g.grem...@cetest.nl> wrote (in <oleokfnbajjejfkplbbmcelgcdaa.g.grem...@cetest.nl>) about 'EMC Prosecution in UK' on Fri, 27 Sep 2002:
> 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 You have no grounds for assuming that the word 'presumption' in an EC Directive has the same meaning as in a particular on-line glossary. If 'presumption' cannot be relied on by a manufacturer who applies the appropriate standard, there is NO POINT in applying the standard. Everyone should use the TCF route and thus divert the responsibility for determining whether the essential requirements have been met to a Notified Body. > > > 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 I agree BTW the the EN 55014 is an outdated standard ; of which the 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". What evidence have you for that claim? EN 55014-1 is dated October 2000, and an amendment is dated October 2001. It is derived from the 4th edition of CISPR 14-1, dated March 2000. This is 'out-of-date'? The fact that the basis is a CISPR standard is very important. While part of IEC, CISPR has a different Constitution, under which spectrum management and regulatory authorities can be members, as well as national standard bodies. So it is clear that an approved CISPR standard has satisfied those regulatory authorities who are concerned with it. > > 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. Who else could do so? But all draft standards are published for **public comment** before final voting and usually before first voting. > Voting committees and product committees are overcrowded by parties of > interest (read: manufacturers), Membership of national committees is open to ALL interested parties. If manufacturers dominate, that's because other organizations choose not to participate. The UK national committee regularly sends representatives of organizations other than manufacturers to regional and international committees. The national and international committees are very often chaired by other than manufacturer representatives. > and the > CENELEC system does not allow for overruling creating an incompetent > standard. Yes it does. Representations are occasionally made to CENELEC Technical Board regarding the suitability or otherwise of a 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. You have evidence of this? There was an argument several years ago about the legal power of CENELEC to set dow dates, but that was resolved long ago. What is a 'conditional limit'? I ask so as to prevent confusion. > > 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". Please give your evidence for this statement. How many times have you, or anyone else, registered an objection with your national committee on the grounds that CENELEC GUIDE 24 or its predecessor R210-001 has not been properly taken into account? > > 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. But that is not what the provisions of Article 10.1 of the Directive say. > > 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. > You want to sue the members of CISPR/F? I think that would be rather difficult. It's all very well to get on your soapbox and rant for a while, but we need to live in the real world. If EN 55014-1 is defective, the regulatory authorities must attack it under Article 8 of the Directive, not by prosecuting on extremely doubtful grounds (in the absence of any such attack) in one country. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! ------------------------------------------- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"
