Hi John,
As usual, i take too many shortcuts in my replies.,
let me explain again....
Yes John , you are right about the CE-marking directive,
but the reference is needed to sketch the situation.
My remarks were made from the perspective that the ce marking
documents (DoC) were meant to have no function but to the authorities.
Of course a DoC may have a function towards customers and
business partners, but I am not sure if this will held in court,
as the DoC is a liability statement TO THE AUTHORITIES,
and not to customers. That is essentially not the same thing.
As an example, if you drive too fast, you may be ticketed
by the authorities only, not by your customers, even if you
provided them with a copy of your driving license.
Speeding is a breach of public law, not private law, unless
you made a contract with your customer that you will not speed.
Business relations between manufacturers and customers are
governed by private law basically.
If a manufacturer wants to show compliance to the appropriate directives,
he should do so in his own words, by writing a letter (contract)
or specification sheet to his customers,
not by copying a liability statement (DoC), how viable
this DoC may be in itself.
You are right if a customer may informally accept a DoC
as prove of compliance, but formally, the DoC is not a
suitable paper for this.
A manufacturer showing a false DoC to his customers
is formally not committing fraude to the customer, as
the DoC was simply not addressed to him.
It's a testimonial document, not a contract.
As victim of such a DoC in court, you may win only
because you handled in good faith, not due to a contractual
breach.
The manufacturer will definitely have a problem with authorities, though.
Much better and safer for customer is a contractual demand for
compliance, regardless the DoC, by specifying
performance, possibly to product or basic standards.
A document serving this contractual demand may well
have the same format as a DoC, but with a changed addressee.
Your points a) b) c) are answered by this I believe.
To your third remark:
Of course he may add basic standards to show additional levels
of compliance, or to be more specific if he wants to, as the
format of specifications in a product brochure or manual is free
to the manufacturer. But specifying basic standards related
to ce marking is definitely not correct (though no fraude)
My remark was directed to those speficiying compliance to
(for example) the EMC directive by listing basic standards without
the appropriate product standard, still a very common error.
Regards,
Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager
======================================================
ce-test, qualified testing
Member of EMC committee CENELEC/IEC
+ Independent Consultancy Services
+ Compliance Testing and Design for CE
+ Improvement of product quality and reliability
+ Testing services according to:
Electro magnetic Compatibility 89/336/EC
Electrical Safety 73/23/EC
Medical Devices 93/42/EC
Radio & Telecommunication Terminal equipment 99/5/EC
Website: www.cetest.nl (english)
www.ce-test.nl (dutch)
Phone : +31 10 415 24 26
Fax : +31 10 415 49 53
======================================================
From: John Allen [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 9:29 AM
To: 'Gert Gremmen'
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: CE declaration
Gert
Please excuse me but I think several of your comments are misleading:
- "The CE Marking Directive" (93/68/EEC) is 10 years old, and was only
intended really as a way of avoiding the republishing of all the 12
Directives to which it refers. It is out of date in a number of ways, and
makes no reference to the many relevant Directives published or
substantially amended since 1993 - therefore I think it can now be
disregarded for all practical purposes.
- DoC's are often reproduced in manuals because the manufacturer likes to
demonstrate compliance and the customer likes to see it! It also saves the
manufacture having to respond individually to enquiries for copies from
customers (see my last comment below).
- Why should manuals NOT refer to BASIC standards if those were - for good
technical reasons - the ones that were correctly applied where the Technical
Construction File route has been followed, or even to demonstrate that a
better-than-legally-required level of EMC performance has been achieved?
Provided that the pass/fail criteria met are stated (most BASIC emissions
and immunity standards give the option to choose these according to the
intended usage environment) then the requirements for stating both the test
method AND the test criteria are met. I agree however, that for most
products, the relevant Harmonised Standards are those that should be quoted.
- A DoC most definitely DOES often have a "function between you and your
customer", as the customer may informally, or formally in contract (I have
certainly done that - and been very glad later that it did!), request it for
various reasons, such as:
a) He, or one of his employees, is going to use the product himself, and
wants to ensure that it is legal, suitable for the intended application and
that the CE Marking has been legally applied (as is the requirement under
the UK Provision of Work Equipment Act);
b) He is going to pass on the product to a third party, and wants to ensure
he is supplying "legal goods";
c) He is going to integrate the product into one of his own systems, and
needs the DoC as part of the package of evidence of compliance for that
system.
Regards & the Seasons Wishes
John Allen,
Technical Consultant
EMC and Safety Engineering
ERA Technology Ltd.
Cleeve Road
Leatherhead
Surrey KT22 7SA
UK
Tel: +44-1372-367025 (Direct)
+44-1372-367000 (Switchboard)
Fax: +44-1372-367102
From: Gert Gremmen [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 23 December 2003 21:09
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: CE declaration
Hello Ian,
You should supply ONE DoC, listing all directives applicable, because:
- The CE marking directive governs the use of the application of the ce mark
(by amending existing directives)
- The application of the ce mark implies compliance with all applicable
directives, and requires therefore one declaration of conformity (for one ce
mark)
- DoC papers are not meant not be reproduced in manuals, nor meant to be
used as "quality" aspect to your product or company (like ISO 900x papers)
- Manuals may refer to compliance with applicable directives within the
specifications chapter, possibly enhanced with a listing of compliant
product standards (NOT BASIC standards).
- A DoC is a liability declaration within public law (in opposition to civil
law)
- The original DoC should be kept on file for the authorities.
- A DoC has no function between you and your customers.
- I advise to use a civil contract to rule any ce related obligations
and liabilities with your customers.
Gert Gremmen
ce-test, qualified testing
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected]
Sent: maandag 22 december 2003 10:13
To: [email protected]
Subject: CE declaration
Dear colleagues with knowledge of matters CE,
As I see it there are two methods of declaring CE compliance:
a) Prepare a single CE marking declaration document that lists all the
relevant directives and the standards used to show compliance.
OR
b) Prepare a series of separate declaration documents, each one covering a
single directive and listing the standards used to show compliance. A list
of the CE marking directives is then included in, for example, the
equipment instruction manual.
Can any CE marking wizards advise me which of these (if any) is the "legal"
approach? If "a)", are we obliged to present the information to the
customer by placing a copy, or a distillation of the information it
contains, in the equipment manual?
Many thanks in anticipation of your help.
Very many thanks in anticipation of your replies and best wishes for
Christmas and the New Year.
Ian Unwin
Servomex Group Limited
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
Visit our web site at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
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://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
_____________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI's Internet Managed Scanning
Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit
http://www.mci.com
**********************************************************************
Copyright ERA Technology Ltd. 2003. (www.era.co.uk). All rights reserved.
The information supplied in this Commercial Communication should be treated
in confidence.
No liability whatsoever is accepted for any loss or damage
suffered as a result of accessing this message or any attachments.
**********************************************************************
_____________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MCI's Internet Managed Scanning
Services - powered by MessageLabs. For further information visit
http://www.mci.com
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.
Visit our web site at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
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://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
