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
