RE: Telecom Regulatory Generator
You could also try our regulatory fact files. More info at www.gentel.co.uk Enter the site and follow buttons and links to Information or Approvals Info The site has been modified a little lately so if you have trouble let me know. Nick Genesys -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Peter Merguerian Sent: 30 March 2000 12:02 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:Telecom Regulatory Generator Dear All, Anyone knows of a telecom regulatory generator where one can easily find the regulatory requirements in a particular country, including but not limited to: regulating authorities and contacts; test labs and contacts; applicable safety/emc/telecom standards and mutual recognitions (acceptance of international test reports). Thanks Peter Merguerian Managing Director Product Testing Division I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. Hacharoshet 26, POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: 972-3-5339022 Fax: 972-3-5339019 e-mail: pmerguer...@itl.co.il website: http://www.itl.co.il --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RTTE Directive Survivala guide revision 2
Dear All Following developments and clarifications by a number of bodies, we have placed revision 2 of our RTTE Directive Survival Guide on to our website www.gentel.co.uk As before the guide is free to download to any interested party. The guide can be located by following the RTTE links. If anyone has problems with the download and would like a copy e-mailed, please contact Claire Townsend at gene...@dial.pipex.com or Matthew Sykes at matthew_sykes_gene...@msn.com Best regards Nick
RTTE Directive information available
Dear all If it useful to anyone, we have just placed a copy of our RTTE Directive Survival Guide on our web site. This document is available for free download by following the RTTE links on the web site www.gentel.co.uk If anyone has any problems with the download, please let me know and we can e-mail you or mail a copy, etc. Best regards Nick - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Upgrades
Brian Your obligation is to ensure that all products placed on the market, in whatever configuration, comply. There is no stipulation as to how you place products and configurations on the market. Whether you need to CE mark the upgrade itself depends on what the upgrade is. If the upgrade is a component (or components) that have no functionality on their own then it in itself does not need to be CE marked but you must ensure that the instrument when fitted with the upgrade continues to comply.Normally this would be done when developing the upgrade by investigation and testing if required of the instrument + upgrade combination. As noted by others you would then need to update or issue a new Delcaration of Confirmity covering the new product configuration. Assuming that you are confident that any installation instructions provided to the customer are straightforward and do not allow any risk that the upgrade could be fitted in such a way as to compromise the compliance of the instrument then all is fine. Your customer does not need to get the instrument re-tested.I would say that your obligation is to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the instrument when fitted with the upgrade (following the instructions you provide) continues to comply and that you have documentation to support this argument (ie technical file, Declaration, etc) if asked to defend your claim. Best regards Nick Evans Genesys -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Brian Harlowe Sent: 02 August 1999 16:57 To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject:Upgrades Please can you give me some opinions on the following. I have a customer who has one of our Scientific instruments that he wishes to upgrade. If I supply him with CE marked everything to allow him to carry out this up grade and I also provide him with a detailed manual on how to install and connect up these items to be emc compatible. Do my responsibilities end there and does the customer have to get the instrument re tested and CE mark it? Regards Brian Harlowe * opinions expressed here are personal and in no way reflect the position of VG Scientific - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
RE: Basic EMC Standards
The Basic EMC standards, ie EN 61000-4 series (or at least some of them), are harmonised and are published as EN documents in each member state. They are not in themselves, however, designated for use under the scope of the European EMC directive. The use of these basic standards is entirely by reference made to them by other product specific or product generic standards which are designated for use through the official journal. The most obvious example of this, with respect to the EN 61000-4 series, is the latest (1997) version of the generic immunity standard, EN 50 082-1. This standard makes reference to various of the EN 61000-4 series and calls upon the use of the test methods, etc described in these basic standards. When deciding on which EMC standards to apply to a particular product for EMC compliance, you should always start with the product specific standards which are designated through the Official Journal.If there are no product specifics, fall back to the most appropriate generic standards. Once these have been identified, they will tell you which basic standards you need to look at and how to apply them. If anyone would like a copy of the latest (full) list of EMC standards published in the OJ, let me know. We have this as a word document. Best regards Nick Evans Managing Director Genesys IBS Ltd Worldwide ITT Product Design Compliance Tel:+44 1600 710300 Fax:+44 1600 710301 Mobile: +44 385 367348 (GSM) E-mail: nick_evans_gene...@msn.com (if sending attachments, please copy e-mail to our central e-mail account: gene...@dial.pipex.com) Web:Http://www.gentel.co.uk/genesys -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Chris Dupres Sent: 16 June 1998 22:47 To: R. Heller Cc: emc-pstc Subject:Basic EMC Standards Hi R.Heller. You wrote: Are basic EMC standards harmonized? I have yet to see a basic EMC standard show up in the OJ. The 61000-4 series are widely used but are not in the OJ. What gives? Basic EMC standards must be harmonised, that is the point of national legislation coverings such things. The generic standards are EN 50081 and EN50082. In the UK they are BS EN 50081 etc. EN meaning Euronorm = harmonised. You can only meet the requirements of national legislation if you comply with harmonised standards otherwise the Common Market principle will not be relevant. The 61000 etc series are based on IEC standards to which all European States are signatory, but in many cases I don't think you can claim compliance with them in order to apply a CE mark. The EN standards , though, do call up these standards in the 'Annexes' at the back so in that respect they are relevant. Another couple of cents worth of humble opinion. Chris Dupres Surrey, UK.
RE: GS Requirements
I think the following is basically right. One of the fundamental objectives (and requirements) of the original treaty of Rome, which has been re-inforced since as the treaty has been amended, is the free movement of goods within the EU and the removal of barriers to trade.In recent years, under the terms of the new approach directives, there has been a move towards presumption of conformity for products placed on sale provided that such products carry the CE mark. There is European directive numbered 83/189/EEC which addresses procedures to be followed for introducing new technical requirements. This directive is basically targetted at removing the possibility of new barriers to trade being introduced. 83/189/EEC requires certain procedures to be followed by the European Commission when it comes to commissioning new technical standards. Importantly, it also defines procedures to be followed by each member state if implementing new or modified technical regulations ( I think this is the case, it always used to be). This procedure basically requires notification through the European Commission of the proposed standard, regulation, etc. This notification and draft of the relevant documents is translated by the EC into the native language of each member state and distributed for review by relevant authorities in each member state. In this way, each member state has the opportunity to review and oppose new national legislation and standards. Also, importantly, the issue of European standards under the scope of product compliance directives have the force of law in that conflicting national standards must be withdrawn by the final designated date of withdrawal. So I think the bottom line is that a EU state can implement a national regulation relating to product compliance provided that it does not conflict with existing European legislation and European standards and that the regulations have passed successfully through the 83/189/EEC procedures. This actually is a little bit of a joke as the documents distributed under 83/189/EEC have always been circulated to a very small audience and some quite interesting things have found their way through with no objections. I didn't catch the beginning of this thread so I am not sure what the original problem was reported to be. However, there is an anti-competition unit at the EC which monitors this kind of thing that is usually very interested to hear of problems with respect to barriers to trade. Also, I think I am right in saying that each member state has an anti-competition unit which also makes all the right noises about fighting the good fight in terms of barriers to trade. Best regards Nick Evans Managing Director Genesys IBS Ltd Worldwide ITT Product Design Compliance Tel:+44 1600 710300 Fax:+44 1600 710301 Mobile: +44 385 367348 (GSM) E-mail: nick_evans_gene...@msn.com (if sending attachments, please copy e-mail to our central e-mail account: gene...@dial.pipex.com) Web:Http://www.gentel.co.uk/genesys -Original Message- From: WOODS, RICHARD [SMTP:wo...@sensormatic.com] Sent: 27 April 1998 13:07 To: 'emc-pstc' Subject:RE: GS Requirements This has been a very interesting thread. There appears to be two distinct groups of thought. One group believes that an EU state can enforce a state law affecting trade as long as it is not in violation of a Directive. Another group seems to believe that no EU state may enforce a law the tends to impede trade. To this latter group I ask the question, what is the legal basis for this claim? Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics wo...@sensormatic.com Views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent those of Sensormatic.
RE: System Integration
You need to be careful talking to the European Commission. You've got to remember that the European directives have to be transposed into national law. It is all very well and good the European Commission continually backtracking and re-defining what they really meant in the EMC directive but it has already been transposed into national law in each member state and some of what the Commission is saying now, particularly in the respect of CE+CE = CE does not tie up with the legal interpretation in most Member States. The EMC directive (and national law) clearly indicates that the responsibility is for supplying compliant (final) products onto the market. The European Commission guidance document does state that under certain conditions CE+CE=CE should give confidence in the final system but the supplier of the final system still takes responsibility (and must sign a declaration of conformity) for that system.(Important Note: The first drafts of the guidance document did not have the requirement that the final system supplier produce a declaration of conformity but this was thrown out following review and comment by the Member States!) It is also stated in the guidance document that suppliers of modules and sub-assemblies should provide adequate installation instructions in order to allow their products to be installed whilst maintaining compliance. This guidance document has to be taken with a pinch of salt.Technically, the CE+CE=CE argument is significantly flawed in many situations. Also our experience with surveillance authorities (particularly in the UK) is that argument but the module was CE marked! may be OK for a backstreet PC assembler whose resources are limited but would not be OK for a multi-million dollar organisation who would be expected to at least do some testing on final products. The key principle is due dilligence. It has to be recognised that sub-assembly manufacturers can only do so much themselves in terms of testing in representative host systems and providing installation instructions. It is unreasonable to place all of the burden on sub-assembly manufacturers. What you are saying is that these manufacturers would need to take responsibility for any installation of their products into any host system and would legally be bound to this responsibility. System Integrators have to take some responsibility, particularly if installing sub-assemblies in non-standard applications where installation instructions could not be expected to be valid. The European Commission is not the final authority in this matter. Their guidance is just that, guidance and often it is initially hasty and technically flawed. Talk to people responsible for enforcing the EMC directive and relevant national legislation in each country and see what they have to say about your particular company and situation! Also talk to some Competent Bodies and Notified Bodies and see what they have to say. Of course, this may all be a bit of a moot argument given the limited resources applied to enforcement in most Member States but that is another discussion. Nick -- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org on behalf of Arthur Poolton (MEPCD) Sent: 14 July 1997 10:19 To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: System Integration Ladies Gentlemen, I thought that you may be interested in the outcome of a meeting between a well-known PC manufacturer and the European Commission, DGIII (Elena Santiago) concerning the legalities of System Integration :- 1. An integrator of a Core PC (motherboard, power supply, case drives - 6.4.2 para. 4 of the EMC Directive Guidelines) need only follow the Conformity Assessment Guidelines (10.1 or 10.2 of the Directive, 8.1 or 8.2 of the Guidelines). This entails using CE Marked modules, following module instructions exactly, providing a Declaration of Conformity, and providing a CE Marking on the product. If he/she does this, then the resultant product NEED NOT BE TESTED. Further, if an enforcement organization later tests the product and it fails the emissions limits, the System Integrator will still be considered in compliance! The enforcer is then supposed to turn his/her sights on the module suppliers for not providing sufficient instructions, and leave the System Integrator alone. Accordingly, if the System Integrators under prosecution in the UK followed the Guidelines but did not test, they should not be prosecuted. 2. EMC auditing of production is not mandatory. Even though EN55022, in describing the 80/80 rule, indicates that auditing is mandatory, the European Commission views this as not a standards issue and beyond the scope of CENELEC to specify. They also consider this requirement in conflict with their guidelines and are taking steps to have CENELEC remove this wording from EN55022. 3. We also brought up an issue regarding the use of prototypes for evaluation and demonstration,
