In message <p06240801c4dc9ab8332e@[192.168.1.18]>, dated Thu, 28 Aug 2008, Nick Williams <nick.willi...@conformance.co.uk> writes:
>Except for the highly unusual circumstances which apply under the >Construction Products Directive, Would you please enlarge on the 'highly unusual circumstances'? Some standards under the CPD include EMC clauses. > it is wrong to rely on the scope statements of standards in order to >determine whether or not a product is within the scope of a particular >directive. What is definitive is listing in the OJ. >Quite apart from the fact that the legal status of the directives is >quite different to that of the standards, to be blunt the accuracy of >the work of many of standards committees falls short of that which >would be considered desirable in making a legally important distinction >such as this. This tends to be less true for LVD standards than for the >Machinery Directive, but nevertheless, standards committees do not (and >probably should not) primarily write the scopes of their standards with >this purpose in mind and so that's not how they should be applied by >standards users. I strongly disagree. Standards committees MUST bear in mind (if it is true) that their work gains quasi-legal status if it is cited in the OJ under a Directive. So a higher level of clarity than normal is likely to be required, but above all, ambiguity must be avoided and no 'loose ends' (unmentioned or untreated cases, or indefinite extensions, such as the dreadful 'etc.') must be left. We had object lessons on this with IEC 61000-3-2 and -3, which pre-date the 1989 EMC Directive. Considerable work had to be done, as described above, even though as standards per se, they were quite acceptable. > >I tend to approach this from the perspective of having to justify to a >court how I made a claim that any given product was safe. In these >circumstances (and particularly in a civil case), I think it's unlikely >that one could rely on the harmonisation (or otherwise) of a particular >standard under a particular directive as evidence that its requirements >should or should not be applied. Why not? It is obviously the intention of the Commission that citation in the OJ (which is what the Commission means by 'harmonized') IS such evidence. >If there no better yardstick to use as a measure of what constitutes >the 'state of art' of safety for a particular piece of equipment then >you need to apply the most appropriate standard you can find whether to >not is is harmonised under the directives which actually apply. That is VERY risky: you would be applying a standard outside its scope, and you would bear the total responsibility for its applicability. You would have no greater responsibility if you wrote and applied a 'standard' yourself. >Putting it another way, compliance with the directives is a criminal >matter so not applying a particular standard can be justified if it's >not listed against a particular directive. One would certainly hope so! >However, if someone gets hurt and you find yourself having to justify >your failure to apply a safety measure identified in a standard and >which might have prevented the injury, the fact that the standard was >not harmonised under the applicable directives is fairly unlikely to >impress the court, particularly in a civil case. I feel that is a very stringent interpretation. I suppose it depends on who 'you' are. If you are a 'safety standards consultant' who has made rash claims, it might be true, but I don't see any obligation for any manufacturer to trawl though all published standards in a quest for a legion of safety provisions not intended to be applied to his product and which may never have any applicability to it. Would you even limit the search to European standards? Or would you advocate a search through all IEC, ISO, UL, GOST, Chinese ...? Actually, I think you are proposing a sub-optimal approach. I would analyse the product to determine the hazards it presents, and the level of risk, and then consider directly what safety measures need to be applied, quite independently of whether any of them happen to be mentioned in standards or not. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk Either we are causing global warming, in which case we may be able to stop it, or natural variation is causing it, and we probably can't stop it. You choose! John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
