In message <[email protected]>, dated Sun, 26 Feb 2006, John Barnes <[email protected]> writes >John, >We have IEC 61326:2002. My concern is that the C77 (March 31, 2005) and >C246 (October 5, 2005) Official Journal of the European Union (OJ) >published new Harmonized Standards for the EMC Directive 89/336/EEC, >showing as the last item for EN 61326:1997: > "Amendment A3:2003 to EN 61326:1997 Note 3 1.10.2006"
The OJEC does occasionally get it wrong, when it cites an amendment that in fact isn't available separately. However, there is more; an amendment coded 'A3' would be an IEC amendment adopted by CENELEC, but for most standards no Amendment 3 exists, because IEC issues a new edition when a third amendment is necessary. And IEC indeed issued a 2002 edition. But then again, CENELEC doesn't seem to have adopted it; BSI still lists the 1998 EN (with amendments), which is based on the 1997 IEC. Probably only participants in the work of IEC SC65A and the national mirror committees know the full story. > >No reference standard for Amendment 3 is listed, and I've checked all of >my sources for electronics standards in > http://www.dbicorporation.com/sources.htm >without finding anyone so far who says they can supply this amendment OR >a consolidated standard. > >On April 22, 2004 I asked this forum how IEC 61326:2002 differs from IEC >61326:1997 +A1:1998 +A2:2000. On April 23, 2004, Helge Knudsen answered >that IEC 61326:2002 added Annex E and Annex F. So I *suspect* that >Amendment A3:2003 to EN 61326:1997 also adds Annex E and F-- making EN >61326:1997 +A1:1998 +A2:2001 +A3:2003 identical to IEC 61326:2002. Well, the EN would also have been updated to a new edition; 2002 or 2003 depending on the exact publication date. I have a vague recollection of this matter arising here late last year. An archive search might be useful. > >But maybe it doesn't... which is what worries me. I've been working >heavily with European EMC/EMI/ESD standards for the last four years, and >whenever I see "(Modified)" in a reference listing, I get nervous. I've >seen EN standards that differed from the reference CISPR or IEC >standard only in the date of withdrawal of the superceded standard. You can NEVER be sure that a CENELEC standard is identical to the IEC standard. >Usually the EN standard adds an Annex ZA (normative) that lists the EN >standards to be used in place of the IEC/CISPR standards listed in the >reference standard. There has been a move to stop doing that, but to do so would have very serious consequences, so it may be reconsidered. > I've seen one EN amendment, English pages only, >that was almost double the size of the reference standard. That's BAD. But it may have been completely unavoidable. > But this is >the first time that I recall seeing an EN standard/amendment without a >reference standard/amendment. I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'reference standard' in that context. > -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk 2006 is YMMVI- Your mileage may vary immoderately. John Woodgate - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to [email protected] Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas [email protected] Mike Cantwell [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: [email protected] David Heald: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
