http://www.ieee-pses.org/symposium http://www.emc2004.org/
In article <[email protected]>, Peter L. Tarver <[email protected]> writes >So let us consider, then, that the manufacturer was following what they >were led to believe were all the necessary requirements applicable to >their product. The manufacturer was working with a well known, long >established test house of German heritage, who went so far as to issue a >GS License for the product. Germany is one of those states I refer to, >above. Clearly, on the basis of the account you have given, the test houses were at fault. But the manufacturer's responsibility for due diligence is absolute; he can't devolve it to any test-house. > [snip] >. >> >> Well, this is an extreme scenario, since it >> assumes that the non- >> compliance discovered is not remediable. Can you >> give an example of an >> OSM decision that applies to just one (or some >> but not all) EU member >> states. I think that such OSM decisions are rare. > >Not so extreme. The situation you described in your anecdote IS remediable. >I give a specific example in the anecdote e-mail for a >real world case. Yes; I wrote my request before receiving your anecdote. >the manufacturer had no clue and was relying on the >advice of a test houses of world renown ON TWO LEVELS - the power supply >and the end product. See above. You can't rely on anyone - except me, of course. (;-) > >Examples of OSM Decisions with limited nation applicable (emphasis >added): > >EN 60950:2000 and EN 60950-1:200___ > >1.5.1, Varistors across the mains, Pluggable Equipment Type A, Accepted >by all countries (when the varistor is separately certified) >***except*** Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Norway, >Sweden, United Kingdom > >2. 7. 1 The maximum rated current in different CENELEC countries for >fuse-links inside the equipment are as >follows: Pluggable Equipment Type A >Denmark 16 A >Finland 16 A >Norway 16 A >Sweden 16 A >***Switzerland 10 A*** >United Kingdom 16 A > >(This one might not count, per se, within the specifics of my >proposition, since Switzerland isn't a member of the EU, though they are >members of CENELEC.) Well, I suppose this is an 'OSM decision', but it isn't really; it's bases on Swiss national legal requirements, AIUI. It should have been an A-deviation, perhaps, but the Swiss National Committee may not have noticed the need. > > [snip] >> >> OSM decisions are NOT applicable only to CENELEC >> member test houses; in >> fact, I'm not sure what you mean by that. OSM >> decisions apply to the >> *equipment*, which is why manufacturers must be >> able to learn of their >> existence and provisions without hindrance. > >As I stated above, the origin of that comment was statements made in >this forum that were not contradicted. Perhaps my use of the word >"applicable" is at fault. The most recent reference was along the lines >of, "only EU test houses apply the OSM decisions," in my response within >this thread that the OSM Decision need to be applied. > If 'only EU test houses apply the OSM decisions' is true, then other test-houses that are testing products for Europe are simply WRONG not to apply them. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. The good news is that nothing is compulsory. The bad news is that everything is prohibited. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk 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
