http://www.ieee-pses.org/symposium http://www.emc2004.org/
It appears that using harmonized standards for a "presumption of conformity" to the LVD is not the only route to compliance. Article 8 and Annex I of that directive appear to provide an "essential requirements" route similar to that available in the EMCD. A technical file (perhaps more accurately, a TCF) is put together by a manufacturer and then audited by a Notified Body. (exactly as you would do in order to claim compliance with the protection requirements of the EMCD using a Competent Body). The employ of a certified body is thus necessary and proper in this case to ensure the safety objectives of the LVD are satisfied. This seems a reasonable approach, particularly so for industrial equipment, and it may alleviate the necessity of retesting and reissuing a DofC ever time a harmonized standard is revised. This approach wouldn't please all customers, however, and so a manufacturer might be pressured to update their DofC and test reports regardless. This is a point I wanted to raise at the PSES symposium, but I could not find an appropriate moment. Comments from the group? Ralph McDiarmid, AScT Compliance Engineering Group Xantrex Technology Inc. This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. IEEE PSES Main Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message send your e-mail to [email protected] Instructions for use of the list server: http://listserv.ieee.org/listserv/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 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
