That is without doubt correct in my view. Nick.
> On 1 Mar 2017, at 16:04, Sundstrom, Mike <[email protected]> wrote: > > Everyone, > I would opinion that the TV is a broadcast receiver and therefor it falls > under RE-D. > > Thanks, > > Michael Sundstrom > Garmin Compliance Engineer > 2-2606 > (913) 440-1540 > KB5UKT > > "We call it theory when we know much about something but nothing works, > and practice when everything works but nobody knows why." -- Albert > Einstein > > From: Mike Sherman ----- Original Message ----- > [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>] > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 9:52 AM > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PSES] Conformity assessment under RED > > Seems to me that IR does not communicate in the radio frequency range, but BT > and RF do, so I would say IR is out of RED scope but BT and RF are within > scope. > > What opinions do others have? > > Mike Sherman > Graco Inc. > > From: "Scott Xe" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > To: "EMC-PSTC" <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 8:21:14 AM > Subject: Re: [PSES] Conformity assessment under RED > > For the traditional TV that comes with an infrared remote controller and > latest TV that comes with BT or RF remote controller, does it fall into RED > scope? > > Thanks, > > Scott > > > > > From: Scott Xe <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Date: Tuesday, 21 February 2017 at 12:25 AM > To: Michael Derby <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: Re: [PSES] Conformity assessment under RED > > Hi Michael, > > Thanks for your kind reminder! The NB also suggests to use the draft EN 303 > 345 (best available) for Radio Receivers. > > One query about TV, as most of digital TVs still have analogue part (although > the transmission had been switched off in lots of areas). Is there any > additional standard for this part? > > Regards, > > Scott > > > > > From: Michael Derby <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Date: Tuesday, 21 February 2017 at 12:05 AM > To: 'Scott Xe' <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: RE: [PSES] Conformity assessment under RED > > Hi Scott, > > Please don’t forget that for FM Radio Receivers, the Article 3.2 standard (EN > 303 345) is not expected to be cited on the RED OJ until September 2017; so > those broadcast sound receivers could not be assessed without the use of a > Notified Body. > > For TV, it could be different because some of the standards (such as EN 303 > 340) are already listed on the RED OJ. > > Thanks, > > Michael. > > > > From: Scott Xe [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>] > Sent: 19 February 2017 23:00 > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PSES] Conformity assessment under RED > > For TV/Radio receivers and BT/Wifi enabled units, it can use the HSs in > RED/LVD/EMC of OJEU without the use of NB as per the interpretation of below. > > Thanks, > > Scott > > > > On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 6:00 AM, Michael Derby <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Hi Nick, > > You are completely correct. > > Actually, this approach (NB is only needed for deviations in testing to > Articles 3.2 and 3.3; but not needed for deviations in testing for 3.1) was > apparently the original intention with 1999/5/EC, but it was not correctly or > clearly written. 2014/53/EU corrects that. > > Thanks, > > Michael. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Nick Williams [mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>] > Sent: 04 January 2017 12:18 > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: [PSES] Conformity assessment under RED > > Happy New Year, EMC-PSTC listers! > > 2014/15/EU article 17 separates the conformity assessment procedures for > essential requirement 3.1 (safety and EMC) from those which are applied for > essential requirements 3.2 and 3.3 (spectrum efficiency and special > provisions). Notified Body intervention is required for ER’s 3.2 and 3.3 if > the manufacturer has not applied harmonised standards, but no such > requirement is applied for ER 3.1. > > My reading of this is that the manufacturer has complete freedom of approach > under RED for safety and EMC compliance in exactly the same way that they do > under the LVD and EMC Directive, and can self-certifiy even if they do not > apply harmonised standards, irrespective of whether or not they are required > to involve a NoBo for compliance with ER’s 3.2 & 3.3. > > This is not how things worked under 1999/5/EC. > > Is my interpretation correct, and if not, why not? > > - - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) 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]>
