Hello All:
Aside from surge tolerance during normal type testing, are there any
regulatory requirements regarding the placement of MOVs from line to ground
on an AC mains input port?
I seem to recall that some countries or standards are concerned about
potential hazards associated with
Also should note that a computer peripheral is allowed have the single required
reference and note to see manual. In any case, the TCB should specify markings
in your report. And the OET has issued some rulings on product marks.
Brian
-Original Message-
From: Brian O'Connell
Sent:
"(c) The provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section do not apply
todigital devices exempted from the technical standards under the provisions of
§ 15.103."
And, in any case, is allowed to be in the manual. And scope of 15.19 labeling
stuff is found in 15.19(a).
Or use Jedi mind
Esteemed Colleagues --
We are incorporating a modularly approved intentional transmitter into some
industrial products. We understand the requirement to include on the product
(or in our manuals, if the product is too small) the Part 15.19 compliance
statement (" This device complies with
I think Charlie’s final bullet point is key. The customs and surveillance
authorities are looking for references to the latest harmonized standards in a
DofC. The don’t understand or will not accept the concept of ‘presumption of
conformity’; they want to see the EN standards listed.
Ralph
Scott
> The knowledge and experience of each manufacturer vary markedly
It does, and that of test labs, and that of consultants :)
Harmonised Standards are not compulsory under EMCD or LVD - they provide for a
“presumption of conformity”, and they’re very often the best option, but
Hi Charlie,
Is there any condition for that a manufacturer is free to choose any standards
for demonstrating compliance with article 3(1), safety and EMC. The knowledge
and experience of each manufacturer vary markedly. I am at loss on what basis,
how can EU allow the manufacturer to
Understood. These desk officers! I also wasn't aware of the allowance of
non-harmonized standards in some cases. But the tardiness remains and
is a blight for everyone concerned with compliance.
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
John
In the case of RED EMC standard, the EU Commission Desk Officer rejected the
first wave of published Standards as they didn’t contain the required legal
text, so the standards had to go back, be updated, and follow the normal
approval route before they could be published and (re)
Maybe those manufacturers are hoping to be caught, so that they can draw
attention (even in a court) to the tardiness of the updating of the OJ
listings.
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2017-10-30 06:59, Amund Westin wrote:
Amund
No, a manufacturer is free to choose any standards for demonstrating compliance
with article 3(1), safety and EMC.
It is only where Harmonised Standards for article 3(2) and article (3)
standards have not been followed that a Notified Body must be used.
This is detailed in Article 17 of
Charilie
EN 301 489-1 is an article 3.1.b standard under RED, and not yet harmonized.
But according to RED Article 17. 2(a), you just carry out Internal production
control without any need for NB examinations?
BR
Amund
Fra: Charlie Blackham [mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com]
Hi,
this is not necessary for Article 3(1), see Article 17 of RED.
Regards,
Ari Honkala
From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no]
Sent: maanantai 30. lokakuuta 2017 8:59
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] EN 301 489-1 and RED
EN 301 489-1 v2.2.0 is still not listed as a
EN 301 489-1 v2.2.0 is still not listed as a harmonized RED standard.
I see a lot of DoCs with EN 301 489-1 v2.2.0 included, but none of the DoC
owners have a EU-Type examination certificate in addition.
I assume it is still a requirement to consult a Notified body and get a EU-Type
14 matches
Mail list logo
