Lauren et al,
Thanx to Lauren and the others who are advocating for reasonableness
in these requirements.
From the foreigh manufacturer's point of view I believe that it is
important to keep from getting tied up in knots too soon. 'No unreasonable
requirement should be
The new DoC concept for the LVD
says in COM2011-0773 (referring to 768/2008)
ANNEX IV [Annex III of Decision No 768/2008/EC]
EU DECLARATION OF CONFORMITY
1. No xx (unique identification of the electric equipment):
2. Name and address of the manufacturer or
COM(2011)773 final is the proposal from the Commission to the Council and
Parliament.
It does not represent a final draft of the directive.
This and proposals for other directives are currently under discussion between
all three institutions of the EU and are subject to further modifications
I agree with John. We went through this when the new Machinery Directive came
out a few years back. The directive itself only said, description and
identification of the machinery, including generic denomination, function,
model, type, serial number and commercial name;, but the guide said, As
In message
64D32EE8B9CBDD44963ACB076A5F6ABB0262C6D0@Mailbox-Tech.lecotech.local,
dated Mon, 14 Jan 2013, Kunde, Brian brian_ku...@lecotc.com writes:
As far as the color picture, well, that?s just stupid. Why not ask for
a hologram of the product?
A fully working full-size model would be
You can make fun of it, but all these things have been introduced
with the goal of creating a better level playing field, thus making possible
to find, an pursue those manufacturers that spoil the market
by selling untested, possible unsafe cheap rubbish.
Customs are better able to simply stop
The Toy Safety Directive already has the picture requirement on the D of C.
John C
-Original Message-
From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl]
Sent: 14 January 2013 14:37
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] One DoC per manufactured
In message FCA549BE3ECF9D4CB8CB8576837EA489140C40@ZEUS.cetest.local,
dated Mon, 14 Jan 2013, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
g.grem...@cetest.nl writes:
You can make fun of it, but all these things have been introduced with
the goal of creating a better level playing field, thus
Thanks John and all for your comments.
There is a persistent problem knitted into this issue regarding the meaning of
'product'.
Most inquiries to the Commission tend to end up clarifying that 'product' means
a particular unit and not a model line or type. This is particularly true when
.
Michael Derby
Regulatory Engineer
ACB Europe
-Original Message-
From: John Cotman [mailto:john.cot...@conformance.co.uk]
Sent: 14 January 2013 16:37
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] One DoC per manufactured Unit?!
The Toy Safety Directive already has the picture requirement
In message 021c01cdf279$f5b33720$e119a560$@acbcert.com, dated Mon, 14
Jan 2013, Michael Derby micha...@acbcert.com writes:
I believe one of the situations that arises from the NLF is that the
requirements of each Directive are being harmonised. This often means
looking at all the Directives,
In message sij2yahm4d9qf...@jmwa.demon.co.uk, dated Mon, 14 Jan 2013,
John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk writes:
n message 021c01cdf279$f5b33720$e119a560$@acbcert.com, dated Mon, 14
Jan 2013, Michael Derby micha...@acbcert.com writes:
I believe one of the situations that arises from the NLF
Thanks Lauren,
I appreciate your insight as it is always tricky business interpreting what the
regulator's intended when they wrote the Directives.
Hopefully this is not what the powers that be intended because, as John pointed
out, it is easier and less expensive to create paperwork then it
John,
I share your hope. I have the fortunate experience of doing some policy
advocacy on RoHS2 and WEEE2 face to face with members of Parliament and Council
and I very quickly learned that law makers do not have any obligation to
understand in depth the industry/ies they may be impacting.
In message
617eb8c8634c9149aa66c853d7b8ac53d...@by2prd0310mb389.namprd03.prod.outlo
ok.com, dated Mon, 14 Jan 2013, Crane, Lauren
lauren.cr...@kla-tencor.com writes:
I very quickly learned that law makers do not have any obligation to
understand in depth the industry/ies they may be
I don't know Lauren, I read COM(2011) 773 final and NLF Council Decision
768/2008 and I interpret it to mean you need a unique model number which can be
cross referenced with the TCF reports for that model. I am not seeing where it
requires each unit to have a unique ID# listed on the DoC which
In message
617eb8c8634c9149aa66c853d7b8ac53b...@by2prd0310mb389.namprd03.prod.outlo
ok.com, dated Wed, 9 Jan 2013, Crane, Lauren
lauren.cr...@kla-tencor.com writes:
Does anyone reading have any additional perspective on this battle?
Will a ?model line? DoC be possible in the future?
As many know, the LVD is in the process of being recast for alignment with the
New Legislative Framework (NLF).
The Commission proposed text, (COM(2011) 773 final), calls for what looks like
a unique equipment identification number do be provided in the Declaration of
Conformity (DoC). The
18 matches
Mail list logo
