[PSES] Taiwan and Korean approvals

[Peter Hays]

Hello group,
 
Can someone recommend a lab that can do BSMI and Korean approvals please?
 
Thank you
Peter




-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Spark Ignition Source

[Kevin Robinson]

A common source used for calibration of the spark test chamber for intrinsic 
safety testing is a 95 mH air core inductor connected to a 24vDC source with 
current limiting that is adjusted based on the gas group you are using.  

Kevin Robinson




On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 7:57 PM -0400, "Doug Powell"  wrote:










All,
I am looking for a supplier of electrical spark ignition sources used in 
flammable vapor or dust testing.  It needs to have a calibrated energy level 
and be able to provide two sparks per second with sufficient energy to ignite 
natural gas.  Any help is much appreciated.
All the best, Doug


-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01


-





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 




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 

Mike Cantwell 



For policy questions, send mail to:

Jim Bacher  

David Heald 







-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Spark Ignition Source

[Brian O'Connell]

Is typically two different things - the ASTM E2019/EN13821 MIE stuff or the Mil 
stuff based on an LEL mix.

Has been a very long while since these tests were witnessed, but do remember 
that the MIE tests can be rather sensitive to the shape of the VI curve per 
time, so L needs good control. Remember that the test conditions can be rather 
complex as it depends on suspensive gas, LOC/gas blanketing, colloids, 
volumetric R, charge build-up, temp/humidity, etc. The two labs that did my 
tests both used home-grown ignition sources: typical lab DC source that charged 
a series of calibrated RLC networks for the energy 'bucket'.

The test containers (steel spheres and columns) were complex and had several 
different types of igniter electrode pairs, and connections for multiple power 
sources.

Brian


From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 4:53 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Spark Ignition Source

All,

I am looking for a supplier of electrical spark ignition sources used in 
flammable vapor or dust testing.  It needs to have a calibrated energy level 
and be able to provide two sparks per second with sufficient energy to ignite 
natural gas.  Any help is much appreciated.

All the best, Doug

-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] Spark Ignition Source

[Doug Powell]

All,

I am looking for a supplier of electrical spark ignition sources used in
flammable vapor or dust testing.  It needs to have a calibrated energy
level and be able to provide two sparks per second with sufficient energy
to ignite natural gas.  Any help is much appreciated.

All the best, Doug



-- 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Presumption of conformity Question

[Hooper, Nick]

Hello everyone

I have raised this question to an EMC Directive desk officer I know at the EU 
commission, but there are no promises as to getting an answer back!

Regards
Nick

Nick Hooper BSc(Eng) PGDip CEng MIET SMIEEE
Chairman R CA / RED CA

UL VS Ltd
Unit 3, Horizon, Wade Road
Basingstoke RG24 8AH
England

T: +44 1256 31 2097
E: chair...@redca.eu




From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com]
Sent: 16 August 2016 15:32
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Presumption of conformity Question

Is there any proper channel to feed this back to the commission and get their 
response rather than any guess by the public?

Regards,

Scott


From: "Harris, Kevin J (DSC)" 
>
Reply-To: "Harris, Kevin J (DSC)" 
>
Date: Tuesday, 16 August 2016 at 10:19 PM
To: >
Subject: [PSES] Presumption of conformity Question

Dear Colleagues

In 2014 CENELEC published an amendment to the EMC standard for alarm systems EN 
50130-4:2011/A1:2014. In all the time since the commission failed to post it in 
the OJ for the old EMC directive to the considerable detriment of manufactures 
of alarm equipment.

In May of this year a bit of a miracle happened and the document was published 
in the OJ for the new EMCD. Much to my chagrin however in the new version of 
the OJ just published it has disappeared from the list.

This leads me to an interesting thought.  What therefore is the legal status of 
EN 50130-4:2011/A1:2015 vis a vis presumption of conformity to the new EMCD. 
Technically it was published in the OJ once and although it now does not now 
appear on the list, it wasn’t withdrawn in the normal way and so one might 
perhaps argue that the removal from the list was improper and therefore invalid.

Thoughts?

Kind Regards

Kevin Harris





This e-mail contains privileged and confidential information intended for the 
use of the addressees named above. If you are not the intended recipient of 
this e-mail, you are hereby notified that you must not disseminate, copy or 
take any action in respect of any information contained in it. If you have 
received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail 
and immediately destroy this e-mail and its attachments.
-


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 
>

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 >
Mike Cantwell >

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher >
David Heald >
-


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 
>

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 >
Mike Cantwell >

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher >
David Heald >

This e-mail may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not 
the intended recipient: (1) you may not disclose, use, distribute, copy or rely 
upon this message or attachment(s); and (2) please notify the sender by reply 
e-mail, and then delete this message and its attachment(s). Underwriters 
Laboratories Inc. and its 

Re: [PSES] Presumption of conformity Question

[John Woodgate]

It's a valid argument. You can look at the DoCs of your competitors to see
what they are doing about it.
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO - Own Opinions Only
  www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and
Associates Rayleigh England
 
Sylvae in aeternum manent.
 
From: Harris, Kevin J (DSC) [mailto:kevinharr...@tycoint.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 3:20 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Presumption of conformity Question
 
Dear Colleagues
 
In 2014 CENELEC published an amendment to the EMC standard for alarm systems
EN 50130-4:2011/A1:2014. In all the time since the commission failed to post
it in the OJ for the old EMC directive to the considerable detriment of
manufactures of alarm equipment.
 
In May of this year a bit of a miracle happened and the document was
published in the OJ for the new EMCD. Much to my chagrin however in the new
version of the OJ just published it has disappeared from the list.
 
This leads me to an interesting thought.  What therefore is the legal status
of EN 50130-4:2011/A1:2015 vis a vis presumption of conformity to the new
EMCD. Technically it was published in the OJ once and although it now does
not now appear on the list, it wasn't withdrawn in the normal way and so one
might perhaps argue that the removal from the list was improper and
therefore invalid.
 
Thoughts?
 
Kind Regards
 
Kevin Harris
 
 
 
  _  


This e-mail contains privileged and confidential information intended for
the use of the addressees named above. If you are not the intended recipient
of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that you must not disseminate, copy
or take any action in respect of any information contained in it. If you
have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by
e-mail and immediately destroy this e-mail and its attachments.
-

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
 >
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  >
Mike Cantwell  > 
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher  >
David Heald  > 

-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] Presumption of conformity Question

[Scott Xe]

Is there any proper channel to feed this back to the commission and get their 
response rather than any guess by the public?

 

Regards,

 

Scott

 

 

From: "Harris, Kevin J (DSC)" 
Reply-To: "Harris, Kevin J (DSC)" 
Date: Tuesday, 16 August 2016 at 10:19 PM
To: 
Subject: [PSES] Presumption of conformity Question

 

Dear Colleagues

 

In 2014 CENELEC published an amendment to the EMC standard for alarm systems EN 
50130-4:2011/A1:2014. In all the time since the commission failed to post it in 
the OJ for the old EMC directive to the considerable detriment of manufactures 
of alarm equipment.

 

In May of this year a bit of a miracle happened and the document was published 
in the OJ for the new EMCD. Much to my chagrin however in the new version of 
the OJ just published it has disappeared from the list.

 

This leads me to an interesting thought.  What therefore is the legal status of 
EN 50130-4:2011/A1:2015 vis a vis presumption of conformity to the new EMCD. 
Technically it was published in the OJ once and although it now does not now 
appear on the list, it wasn’t withdrawn in the normal way and so one might 
perhaps argue that the removal from the list was improper and therefore invalid.

 

Thoughts?

 

Kind Regards

 

Kevin Harris

 

 

 


This e-mail contains privileged and confidential information intended for the 
use of the addressees named above. If you are not the intended recipient of 
this e-mail, you are hereby notified that you must not disseminate, copy or 
take any action in respect of any information contained in it. If you have 
received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail 
and immediately destroy this e-mail and its attachments.

-


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 


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 
Mike Cantwell  

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald  


-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

[PSES] Presumption of conformity Question

[Harris, Kevin J (DSC)]

Dear Colleagues

In 2014 CENELEC published an amendment to the EMC standard for alarm systems EN 
50130-4:2011/A1:2014. In all the time since the commission failed to post it in 
the OJ for the old EMC directive to the considerable detriment of manufactures 
of alarm equipment.

In May of this year a bit of a miracle happened and the document was published 
in the OJ for the new EMCD. Much to my chagrin however in the new version of 
the OJ just published it has disappeared from the list.

This leads me to an interesting thought.  What therefore is the legal status of 
EN 50130-4:2011/A1:2015 vis a vis presumption of conformity to the new EMCD. 
Technically it was published in the OJ once and although it now does not now 
appear on the list, it wasn't withdrawn in the normal way and so one might 
perhaps argue that the removal from the list was improper and therefore invalid.

Thoughts?

Kind Regards

Kevin Harris





This e-mail contains privileged and confidential information intended for the 
use of the addressees named above. If you are not the intended recipient of 
this e-mail, you are hereby notified that you must not disseminate, copy or 
take any action in respect of any information contained in it. If you have 
received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail 
and immediately destroy this e-mail and its attachments.

-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] EU OJ today - EN55013/20 missing

[Scott Xe]

Michael,

 

I agree that the committee for EMC may remove these two standards that should 
go to RED now.  Unfortunately, the committee for RED does not do the handover 
seamlessly.

 

Regards,

 

Scott

 

 

 

From: Michael Derby 
Date: Tuesday, 16 August 2016 at 3:41 PM
To: Raymond Li , 
Subject: RE: [PSES] EU OJ today - EN55013/20 missing

 

Hi Scott,

 

I suspect that the exclusion of EN 55013 and EN 55020 from the latest EMCD OJ 
is now an intentional thing, based on the fact that those products are no 
longer intended to be used with the EMC Directive…..  even though we know that 
they are, during this short transition period.

I suspect they did not want to have a specific EMCD OJ, just to cover the RED 
transition period.

 

You can use standards which are not in the OJ, of course, as long as you have a 
good reason for doing that.   You just need to keep some records of why you 
made that decision.

 

Therefore, if I were a manufacturer, I would use EN 55013 and EN 55020, declare 
against the EMCD, and keep records that I used those standards because they are 
the most appropriate standards for the product.

 

It’s true that formally you may not be using a standard which gives presumption 
of conformity (depending on the understanding of the person you’re talking to); 
but it should be very easy to justify that those are the correct standards to 
use.

 

Thanks,

 

Michael.

 

 

From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 15 August 2016 18:06
To: Michael Derby ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EU OJ today - EN55013/20 missing

 

Hi Michael,

 

Since the new HS list for EMCD does not include EN 55013 and EN 55020 for 
broadcast receivers, should we use the HS of 16/01/2015 until the EMC HS 
appears in RED.  Your given guidance document is no longer applicable for this 
scenario.  A new HS has been issued twice for the new EMCD as of today.

 

Regards,

 

Scott

 

 

 

 

From: Michael Derby 
Reply-To: Michael Derby 
Date: Monday, 15 August 2016 at 10:38 PM
To: 
Subject: Re: [PSES] EU OJ today - EN55013/20 missing

 

Hello,

 

You are correct that you can continue to use the EMCD and LVD until the end of 
the RED transition period.

 

(See this useful document:   
http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/11983/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/native
 )

 

It’s true that if the standards are not listed in the OJ for the new EMCD, 
those standards do not offer immediate presumption of conformity.   It means 
that the manufacturer must include some thought and justification in their own 
records.   But, based on this situation, I think that justification should be 
quite simple.

It would not mandate the use of a Notified Body for the EMCD; because Notified 
Body use is never a mandatory requirement for the EMCD.

(If is an option to use an EMCD Notified Body, of course)

 

If you wish to use the RED before the standards are harmonised and published on 
the RED OJ, though, that would require a Notified Body (type examination 
certificate) for the RED.

 

In the absence of standards or guidance, most broadcast receiver manufacturers 
seem to be sticking with the EMCD and LVD for as long as possible.

 

 

Michael.

 

 

 

From: Wordley Chris [mailto:chris.word...@smardtv.com] 
Sent: 15 August 2016 15:08
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EU OJ today - EN55013/20 missing

 

Thanks for highlighting this Ron.

 

Neither EN55013 nor EN55020 (broadcast receiver emission and immunity) appear 
in the list for 2014/30/EU; they were listed in the OJ under the previous EMC 
Directive for many years. 

 

Broadcast receivers now fall under the RED rather than the EMC directive, but 
the OJ listing for the RED doesn’t include any EMC standards at all so appears 
virtually unusable currently for most products by anyone seeking a presumption 
of conformity through applying harmonised standards. 

 

I believe that until June 2017, compliance with LVD/EMC directives is a valid 
alternative to RED compliance. For emissions that would be no problem, EN55032 
is listed under 2014/30/EU and it covers broadcast receivers, but the omission 
of EN55020 seems to mean that no presumption of conformity is possible anymore? 
Since the product-specific standard isn’t listed we could apply a standard that 
is such as EN55024 (ITE) or EN61000-6-1 (generic), but would that provide a 
presumption of conformity? Your opinions would be appreciated…..

 

Regards

Chris

 

From: Ronald Pickard [mailto:ronald.pick...@compoundphotonics.com] 
Sent: 12 August 2016 16:38
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] EU OJ today

 

To all, FYI.

 

In the EU OJ today (see link below), there were six (6) harmonized standards 
lists published relating to 5 directives and 1 regulation.

 

Directives: 

Re: [PSES] EU OJ today - EN55013/20 missing

[Michael Derby]

Hi Scott,

 

I suspect that the exclusion of EN 55013 and EN 55020 from the latest EMCD OJ 
is now an intentional thing, based on the fact that those products are no 
longer intended to be used with the EMC Directive…..  even though we know that 
they are, during this short transition period.

I suspect they did not want to have a specific EMCD OJ, just to cover the RED 
transition period.

 

You can use standards which are not in the OJ, of course, as long as you have a 
good reason for doing that.   You just need to keep some records of why you 
made that decision.

 

Therefore, if I were a manufacturer, I would use EN 55013 and EN 55020, declare 
against the EMCD, and keep records that I used those standards because they are 
the most appropriate standards for the product.

 

It’s true that formally you may not be using a standard which gives presumption 
of conformity (depending on the understanding of the person you’re talking to); 
but it should be very easy to justify that those are the correct standards to 
use.

 

Thanks,

 

Michael.

 

 

From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 15 August 2016 18:06
To: Michael Derby ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EU OJ today - EN55013/20 missing

 

Hi Michael,

 

Since the new HS list for EMCD does not include EN 55013 and EN 55020 for 
broadcast receivers, should we use the HS of 16/01/2015 until the EMC HS 
appears in RED.  Your given guidance document is no longer applicable for this 
scenario.  A new HS has been issued twice for the new EMCD as of today.

 

Regards,

 

Scott

 

 

 

 

From: Michael Derby  >
Reply-To: Michael Derby  >
Date: Monday, 15 August 2016 at 10:38 PM
To:  >
Subject: Re: [PSES] EU OJ today - EN55013/20 missing

 

Hello,

 

You are correct that you can continue to use the EMCD and LVD until the end of 
the RED transition period.

 

(See this useful document:   
http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/11983/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/native
 )

 

It’s true that if the standards are not listed in the OJ for the new EMCD, 
those standards do not offer immediate presumption of conformity.   It means 
that the manufacturer must include some thought and justification in their own 
records.   But, based on this situation, I think that justification should be 
quite simple.

It would not mandate the use of a Notified Body for the EMCD; because Notified 
Body use is never a mandatory requirement for the EMCD.

(If is an option to use an EMCD Notified Body, of course)

 

If you wish to use the RED before the standards are harmonised and published on 
the RED OJ, though, that would require a Notified Body (type examination 
certificate) for the RED.

 

In the absence of standards or guidance, most broadcast receiver manufacturers 
seem to be sticking with the EMCD and LVD for as long as possible.

 

 

Michael.

 

 

 

From: Wordley Chris [mailto:chris.word...@smardtv.com] 
Sent: 15 August 2016 15:08
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: Re: [PSES] EU OJ today - EN55013/20 missing

 

Thanks for highlighting this Ron.

 

Neither EN55013 nor EN55020 (broadcast receiver emission and immunity) appear 
in the list for 2014/30/EU; they were listed in the OJ under the previous EMC 
Directive for many years. 

 

Broadcast receivers now fall under the RED rather than the EMC directive, but 
the OJ listing for the RED doesn’t include any EMC standards at all so appears 
virtually unusable currently for most products by anyone seeking a presumption 
of conformity through applying harmonised standards. 

 

I believe that until June 2017, compliance with LVD/EMC directives is a valid 
alternative to RED compliance. For emissions that would be no problem, EN55032 
is listed under 2014/30/EU and it covers broadcast receivers, but the omission 
of EN55020 seems to mean that no presumption of conformity is possible anymore? 
Since the product-specific standard isn’t listed we could apply a standard that 
is such as EN55024 (ITE) or EN61000-6-1 (generic), but would that provide a 
presumption of conformity? Your opinions would be appreciated…..

 

Regards

Chris

 

From: Ronald Pickard [mailto:ronald.pick...@compoundphotonics.com] 
Sent: 12 August 2016 16:38
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: [PSES] EU OJ today

 

To all, FYI.

 

In the EU OJ today (see link below), there were six (6) harmonized standards 
lists published relating to 5 directives and 1 regulation.

 

Directives: 2014/68/EU, 2014/53/EU (still very abbreviated), 2014/30/EU, 
2014/34/EU, 2014/33/EU

Regulation: 765/2008

 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:C:2016:293:TOC

 

Best regards,

 

Ron Pickard
Regulatory Compliance Engineer
Compound