At 18:42 +0000 4/1/10, John Woodgate wrote: >In message ><p06240812c767dcb08334@[192.168.1.80]>, dated >Mon, 4 Jan 2010, Nick Williams ><[email protected]> writes: > >>Where is this '1 year' written down? > >What is it about 'informally' that is not clear? >When we get unattributable assurances from >authorities, there is always someone who wants >to see an official document. No way, and such >enquires often result in the informal assurances >being officially denied, which puts the >fertilizer back in the fan.
I am entirely comfortable with the concept of questions to which one should know the answer before asking them, or which one should never ask in the first place, but in this context if the guidance is as 'informal' as you indicate then in fact it is actually completely useless. How can one possibly use such 'informal' guidance for which you can't quote the source to make a decision on which a potential enforcement action, either now or at some time in the future, might rest? Answer - you can't. In fact, I would contend that not only is the informal guidance guidance useless because it can't be quoted but it's also useless because it's wrong - there is nothing which says that a manufacturer cannot continue to quote 73/23/EC if they want to, they will simply make themselves appear less well informed than people who know a bit more about the subject than most. >> >[snip] >> >>Certainly, so far as the UK is concerned, there >>has been no change in the 1994 Regulations, so >>any attempt to enforce a requirement to put >>2006/95/EC (or, indeed, 73/23/EC) on a >>declaration would be laughed out of court. >> >But that is not relevant. The question was about >DoCs that DO have the Directive cited, whether >it needs to be or not. It's entirely relevant to the OP's question, which was as to the legality (or otherwise) of Declarations which quote 73/23/EC instead of 2006/95/EC. >In any case, the quoted statement appears to be >contrary to Commission document SOGS N506 EN, >which includes at item 5 below: > >QUOTE > >Declaration of Conformity >1. No: > >2. Name and address of (authorised representative of the) manufacturer: > >3. This declaration of conformity is issued >under the sole responsibility of the >manufacturer (or installer): > >4. Object of the declaration (identification of >product allowing traceability): > >5. The object of the declaration described above >is in conformity with the essential requirements >of directive(s) ŠŠŠ > >6. References to the relevant harmonised >standards used, or references to the >specifications in relation to which conformity >is declared: > >7. The notified body ... (name, number)Š performed Š (description of >intervention)Š and issued the certificate: Š. > >8. Additional information: >ŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠ.. >ŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠ.. >Signed for and on behalf of: ŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠ. >(place and date of issue) > >9. (name, function) (signature) > >ENDQUOTE > Which is certainly no more relevant than the information I gave, in that the information I quoted was at least consistent with a piece of UK legislation, not some 'guidance' document issued for the internal use of the Commission which has no legal force in any Member State (and which, incidentally, has now been superseded by Commission Decision 768/2008). We're dealing with the law here, and as such it should be clear, unambiguous and available to all. Access to guidance, informal or otherwise, should not be reliant on membership of some secret sect of experts who happen to be in the know. Nick. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.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 <[email protected]> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <[email protected]> David Heald: <[email protected]>
