Ron Given that if you apply all the applicable harmonised standards in full, your product you may assume that your product meets the directive and CE mark it.....when you apply them "in part", you have not assessed you product against all the sections of the harmonised standard and so cannot apply CE mark without carrying out additional tasks such as those outlined in the next paragraph of Annex IV of the EMC directive Not forgetting that "applying" is not the same as "testing". You can apply EN61000-3-2 to a resistive heating device without test by stating why you think it complies. You can fail to meet a part of a harmonised standard and still meet the directive...BUT you have to argue how it still meets the directive, you cannot just ignore it by "not applying" the part that you fail. regards Charlie
_____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ron Pickard, RPQ Sent: 12 April 2008 00:45 To: [email protected] Subject: EU directive interpretation query This is a question for a Friday afternoon that’s based on a single statement segment found in some EU directives, which is “evidence of compliance with the harmonised standards, if any, applied in full or in part” (excerpted >from the new EMC Directive, Annex IV). There is a similar statement in the R&TTED (Art 5.1) and the LVD has no such statement that I could find. The question was “What does the “or in part” portion of this statement actually mean and how could it be interpreted?” Recently I was asked that question and the only answer I could give was no and requested that the directive guidelines be carefully read on that subject. After researching the directives’ guidelines on this point I could find nothing addressing this interpretation, so I am bringing it to the experience of this forum, particularly those involved with EU standards/legislation writing. I believe I know this statement’s intended meaning, but it may also be interpreted to mean that even if a product fails all ‘parts’ except one >from applicable harmonized standards, that one or more remaining part(s) that did comply makes that product comply with this statement’s requirements and also the directive at least on this point (for instance, a product passed EN55022 radiated emissions and failed conducted emissions or failed all EN55024 immunity tests except ESD). Conceivably, if a product passed only a single part of a harmonized standard’s requirements, it could, by this interpreted meaning of this statement, still be in conformance with this statement. Given this, it could then be possible to claim compliance with this statement, and the directive, as evidence of compliance by either noting or even negating the failed parts on the DofC. I know that’s not good for business in the long term, but in the short term to get a product on the market some unscrupulous marketers might take advantage of any loophole (take the money and run, so to speak). Please note that a product’s conformance is the responsibility of the one that places a product on the market or puts it into service. I perceive this to be an unethical interpretation, however it may be a loophole nonetheless. I know of no such occurrences where this interpretation was put into practice and would not advocate anyone pursue this interpretation, although someone might. I recommend that these directives should be amended to make the word usage on this point more precise, which should remove this apparent loophole that needs to be closed. But, maybe this is not such a big deal, however I would like other member’s feedback to see if they also see this as a potential issue. Comments? I look forward to your replies. Best regards, Ron Pickard RPQ Consulting 7372 West Luke Avenue Glendale, AZ 85303 +623.512-3451 tel, +623.848-9033 fax [email protected] www.rpqconsulting.com - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.12/1374 - Release Date: 11/04/2008 16:59 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.12/1374 - Release Date: 11/04/2008 16:59 - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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
