Re: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product
In message OFE17D9CEB.71B64FF9-ON88257D2E.007C9B4A-88257D2E.007D2799@US.Schneider-E lectric.com, dated Fri, 8 Aug 2014, McDiarmid, Ralph ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com writes: Certainly appears that they did. As I understand it, the DofC doesn't even need to accompany the product, only that the product bear the CE mark. If you don't include the DoC with the product, Customs can assume it doesn't exist and still impound the shipment. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Quid faciamus nisi sit? John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product
In message 0760902f-bc34-4c2a-ba9d-768e907fd...@gmail.com, dated Sat, 9 Aug 2014, Scott Xe scott...@gmail.com writes: Yes, they seem to do too much as required. On other side, I was told some customs want to see CE mark on export cartons so they do not need to inquire the DoC and keep uptodate of applicable standards and theirs latest versions. Thus you may see the CE mark on export cartons that are not required by the directive. Note that it is usually illegal to put the CE mark on products or their packaging if no applicable Directive requires it. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Quid faciamus nisi sit? John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product
Hi John, Is DoC a customs requirement or CE Directive requirement? Scott On 9 Aug, 2014, at 2:35 pm, John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk wrote: In message OFE17D9CEB.71B64FF9-ON88257D2E.007C9B4A-88257D2E.007D2799@US.Schneider-E lectric.com, dated Fri, 8 Aug 2014, McDiarmid, Ralph ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com writes: Certainly appears that they did. As I understand it, the DofC doesn't even need to accompany the product, only that the product bear the CE mark. If you don't include the DoC with the product, Customs can assume it doesn't exist and still impound the shipment. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Quid faciamus nisi sit? John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product
In message 794aeeeb-1ac9-4e16-b048-87a59e7fc...@gmail.com, dated Sat, 9 Aug 2014, Scott Xe scott...@gmail.com writes: Is DoC a customs requirement or CE Directive requirement? It's not a customs-imposed requirement and I don't think it is a CE Directive requirement. It is a requirement of the LVD, the EMCD and the Machinery Directive and probably most others. As I wrote, if the customs can't see a DoC, they are likely to assume that it doesn't exist, so will impound the shipment. Including the DoC with the shipment paperwork prevents that. Of course, there is no way to prevent the customs wrongly interpreting the DoC, as the OP found. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Quid faciamus nisi sit? John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product
Certainly appears that they did. As I understand it, the DofC doesn't even need to accompany the product, only that the product bear the CE mark. ___ Ralph McDiarmid | Schneider Electric | Solar Business | CANADA | Regulatory Compliance Engineering From: Jim Hulbert jim.hulb...@pb.com To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG, Date: 07/31/2014 12:26 PM Subject: Re: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product A little different problem than Mr. Xe is experiencing, but we recently had a product stopped at Customs in an EU country because the Declaration of Conformity supplied with the product did not call out the latest amendment to an applicable harmonized standard. We had previously performed an assessment to the latest amendment and determined no impact on our product, so quickly drew up a new Declaration to reference the latest amendment. This was insufficient to Customs. They required us to also provide evidence that we had done that assessment. We had no choice but to comply and provide the evidence because we couldn't afford to have this shipment held up any longer. My point here is that I think Customs overstepped their authority. Jim Hulbert 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. - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product
Yes, they seem to do too much as required. On other side, I was told some customs want to see CE mark on export cartons so they do not need to inquire the DoC and keep uptodate of applicable standards and theirs latest versions. Thus you may see the CE mark on export cartons that are not required by the directive. Scott On 9 Aug, 2014, at 6:47 am, McDiarmid, Ralph ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com wrote: Certainly appears that they did. As I understand it, the DofC doesn't even need to accompany the product, only that the product bear the CE mark. ___ Ralph McDiarmid | Schneider Electric | Solar Business | CANADA | Regulatory Compliance Engineering From: Jim Hulbert jim.hulb...@pb.com To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG, Date: 07/31/2014 12:26 PM Subject: Re: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product A little different problem than Mr. Xe is experiencing, but we recently had a product stopped at Customs in an EU country because the Declaration of Conformity supplied with the product did not call out the latest amendment to an applicable harmonized standard. We had previously performed an assessment to the latest amendment and determined no impact on our product, so quickly drew up a new Declaration to reference the latest amendment. This was insufficient to Customs. They required us to also provide evidence that we had done that assessment. We had no choice but to comply and provide the evidence because we couldn't afford to have this shipment held up any longer. My point here is that I think Customs overstepped their authority. Jim Hulbert 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. - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product
Hi John, Appreciate your further advice on the compliance with LV Direcitve. You are right although the principle is the same, there are a number places in differences. I will read it again. Best regards. Scott On 3 Aug, 2014, at 8:43 pm, John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk wrote: In message b410eae1-379c-43c4-a9a8-e6e6bff18...@gmail.com, dated Sat, 2 Aug 2014, Scott Xe scott...@gmail.com writes: Although your given reference is for EMC Directive, Sorry about that: this list is mostly about EMC and I remembered at the beginning that your post was LVD, but I forgot later. I assume it is identical with LV Directive. You cannot safely assume ANY correspondence between the EMC Guide and the LVD Guide. But the principle cited in the EMC Guide comes from 'above' in the Commission, so whether it is in the LVD Guide in the same terms or not doesn't matter. See clause 18, page 12 of the 2007 LVD Guide (mod Jan 2012): A harmonised standard can be used to provide a presumption of conformity at the moment of the first national publication of the standard according to Article 5, second paragraph, and in this regard the listing in the Official Journal of the EU is only for information, in accordance with Article 5, third paragraph. The Official Journal also contains the date of cessation of presumption of conformity of the superseded standard, which is considered to be the date beyond which a harmonised standard is no longer considered to be up to date in the light of technological progress and the developments in good engineering practice in safety matters (Article 5, second paragraph). In this regard the listing therefore provides the definitive text -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Quid faciamus nisi sit? John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product
In message b410eae1-379c-43c4-a9a8-e6e6bff18...@gmail.com, dated Sat, 2 Aug 2014, Scott Xe scott...@gmail.com writes: Although your given reference is for EMC Directive, Sorry about that: this list is mostly about EMC and I remembered at the beginning that your post was LVD, but I forgot later. I assume it is identical with LV Directive. You cannot safely assume ANY correspondence between the EMC Guide and the LVD Guide. But the principle cited in the EMC Guide comes from 'above' in the Commission, so whether it is in the LVD Guide in the same terms or not doesn't matter. See clause 18, page 12 of the 2007 LVD Guide (mod Jan 2012): A harmonised standard can be used to provide a presumption of conformity at the moment of the first national publication of the standard according to Article 5, second paragraph, and in this regard the listing in the Official Journal of the EU is only for information, in accordance with Article 5, third paragraph. The Official Journal also contains the date of cessation of presumption of conformity of the superseded standard, which is considered to be the date beyond which a harmonised standard is no longer considered to be up to date in the light of technological progress and the developments in good engineering practice in safety matters (Article 5, second paragraph). In this regard the listing therefore provides the definitive text -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Quid faciamus nisi sit? John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product
In message e8f40652-0a8c-40e8-98be-e8ed41b2b...@gmail.com, dated Sat, 2 Aug 2014, Scott Xe scott...@gmail.com writes: They all state the applicable standards are valid till 2016. We are unaware if when the Directive is transposed to local law, they got the right to change it. No, they do not have such a right. It would make nonsense of the free market. You do need to settle this in your favour: the authority is wrong. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Quid faciamus nisi sit? John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product
On 1 Aug, 2014, at 8:39 pm, Charlie Blackham char...@sulisconsultants.com wrote: Scott I'd suggest you might need some proper legal advice here. The issue shouldn't be whether you are compliant or not with a specific standard, but whether you are compliant or not with the directive, or more explicitly, it's national implementation into law of the member state in question. IF, the version of standard that you applied was found to be no longer suitable for compliance with the Directive, then this should have been addressed by (presumably in this case) CENELEC and the Commission and the OJ updated accordingly. They all state the applicable standards are valid till 2016. We are unaware if when the Directive is transposed to local law, they got the right to change it. As others have stated, customs and other AHJ have been tasked with identifying non-compliant products, and for some categories of equipment there are a lot of them, but if you believe your product to be safe and compliant with the Directive, you should be able to prove it. Have you asked the authority and their lab to confirm compliance to the standard you have applied? Yes, but they have no interest in it and repeat the non-conformance they found. It seems they can interpret the compliance with their way. Regards Charlie -Original Message- From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com] Sent: 31 July 2014 18:22 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product Recently we received a sales ban from an authority. The authority took a sample from the market and appointed a 3rd party laboratory for verification of LVD conformity. They found a non conformance on construction according to the latest version of safety standard and concluded the product is unsafe. The requirement is new in the latest version and did not appear in the previous version. When our product was verified by the 3rd party test house, it complied with previous version of safety standard but was the latest version of the safety standard at time of testing. The new version was issued 2 months later and has an additional construction requirement. The DoW of previous version of safety standard is in 2016. We are at loss how come they consider our product unsafe with the latest version of the standard during this transitional period. Any previous experience to deal with such authority can be shared? It sounds ridiculous charge on our product. Thanks and regards, Scott - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product
Rich, Thanks for your advice. It is unnecessary to re-test with previous version of standard since they did not find any non-conformance except the additional construction requirement. Thus they do not want to confirm we are right - they are wrong. In next production, the product will comply with the latest version of standards. Regards, Scott On 2 Aug, 2014, at 3:20 am, Richard Nute ri...@ieee.org wrote: Hi Scott: The product (which was certified to the version of the standard that was in effect at the time) was tested by a third-party laboratory (to a new requirement in the current edition of the standard) and found non-compliant. Somebody (either the laboratory or the authority) used the descriptive term unsafe because it did not comply with a safety standard. (To a naive person, non-compliance with a safety standard makes an unsafe product.) Since the third-party lab was engaged by the authority, you have no recourse to the lab (except on a friendly basis). Re-test to the old version of the standard can only be authorized by the authority (who has no interest in your sales and trusts that the third-party lab is testing correctly, including choice of standard). You can ask the authority to re-test to the old standard, but I guess that they would rather you fix the non- compliance and then they will authorize a re-test. The authority is naive as to whether or not the product is safe, and will go by the word of the third-party lab. As much as it hurts, I suggest that your only remedy is to make the product compliant to the latest version of the standard. Good luck, Rich On 7/31/2014 10:21 AM, Scott Xe wrote: Recently we received a sales ban from an authority. The authority took a sample from the market and appointed a 3rd party laboratory for verification of LVD conformity. They found a non conformance on construction according to the latest version of safety standard and concluded the product is unsafe. The requirement is new in the latest version and did not appear in the previous version. When our product was verified by the 3rd party test house, it complied with previous version of safety standard but was the latest version of the safety standard at time of testing. The new version was issued 2 months later and has an additional construction requirement. The DoW of previous version of safety standard is in 2016. We are at loss how come they consider our product unsafe with the latest version of the standard during this transitional period. Any previous experience to deal with such authority can be shared? It sounds ridiculous charge on our product. Thanks and regards, Scott - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product
Hi Charlie, On 2 Aug, 2014, at 4:00 am, Charlie Blackham char...@sulisconsultants.com wrote: I'm not a lawyer, but (AIUI) the requirement on the authority to show that the product is not compliant with the DIRECTIVE, it is not an offence to be non-compliant with a Harmonised Standard - there is no offence in law for that. If the product was tested to a standard that is still a Harmonised Standard, then that standard (also) still gives a presumption of conformity. It is only a presumption, but unless there is a fundamental flaw in that version, the product should still be safe and should be considered so. If the requirement of the new standard exceeds the requirement of the old standard, then I'm sure that the standards body had a good reason for the increase, but that does not necessarily mean the previous version was deficient in determining compliance with the Directive. If it was then the relevant standards body and the Commission should have addressed that through a reduced (or indeed instant) DOCOPOCOSS when the newer version was listed in the OJ. This approach has been used under the RTTE directive where Radio Spectrum issues were found with certain standards, so the process exists and works. Thanks for your good points! Once a product has been banned (or even voluntarily withdrawn) from a single country, it will quickly appear on RAPEX, and then it's basically banned from Europe. http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/archive/safety/rapex/ Yes, the impact is great. We do not want to upset the authorities but consider not to open this hole for more issues in the future. Regards Charlie -Original Message- From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] Sent: 01 August 2014 20:21 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product Hi Scott: The product (which was certified to the version of the standard that was in effect at the time) was tested by a third-party laboratory (to a new requirement in the current edition of the standard) and found non-compliant. Somebody (either the laboratory or the authority) used the descriptive term unsafe because it did not comply with a safety standard. (To a naive person, non-compliance with a safety standard makes an unsafe product.) Since the third-party lab was engaged by the authority, you have no recourse to the lab (except on a friendly basis). Re-test to the old version of the standard can only be authorized by the authority (who has no interest in your sales and trusts that the third-party lab is testing correctly, including choice of standard). You can ask the authority to re-test to the old standard, but I guess that they would rather you fix the non- compliance and then they will authorize a re-test. The authority is naive as to whether or not the product is safe, and will go by the word of the third-party lab. As much as it hurts, I suggest that your only remedy is to make the product compliant to the latest version of the standard. Good luck, Rich On 7/31/2014 10:21 AM, Scott Xe wrote: Recently we received a sales ban from an authority. The authority took a sample from the market and appointed a 3rd party laboratory for verification of LVD conformity. They found a non conformance on construction according to the latest version of safety standard and concluded the product is unsafe. The requirement is new in the latest version and did not appear in the previous version. When our product was verified by the 3rd party test house, it complied with previous version of safety standard but was the latest version of the safety standard at time of testing. The new version was issued 2 months later and has an additional construction requirement. The DoW of previous version of safety standard is in 2016. We are at loss how come they consider our product unsafe with the latest version of the standard during this transitional period. Any previous experience to deal with such authority can be shared? It sounds ridiculous charge on our product. Thanks and regards, Scott - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw
Re: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product
Hello Scott, A challenge and reversal of the authorities ban should be possible if they have wrongly enforced a sales ban. Firstly, can you share the particular standard and version the authority had your product tested to, and what was the last version of that standard your product fully complied with? On what date was your product tested by the 3rd party test house and on what date was the ban advised to you? Reply off-line if you wish. Regards, Tony Sent:Thursday, July 31, 2014 at 6:21 PM From:Scott Xe scott...@gmail.com To:EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org Subject:[PSES] Definition of unsafe product Recently we received a sales ban from an authority. The authority took a sample from the market and appointed a 3rd party laboratory for verification of LVD conformity. They found a non conformance on construction according to the latest version of safety standard and concluded the product is unsafe. The requirement is new in the latest version and did not appear in the previous version. When our product was verified by the 3rd party test house, it complied with previous version of safety standard but was the latest version of the safety standard at time of testing. The new version was issued 2 months later and has an additional construction requirement. The DoW of previous version of safety standard is in 2016. We are at loss how come they consider our product unsafe with the latest version of the standard during this transitional period. Any previous experience to deal with such authority can be shared? It sounds ridiculous charge on our product. Thanks and regards, Scott - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product
Hi Scott, It looks to me as if the 3rd party overlooked the DoW, and you are right, a warning, possibly with a re-inspection in 2016 seems more appropriate. But it all depends on the the compliance systems in force in the place this happened. Do you want to share the standard (old/new) , the clause and country (EC,USA, elsewhere) with us ? Gert -Original Message- From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com] Sent: donderdag 31 juli 2014 19:22 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product Recently we received a sales ban from an authority. The authority took a sample from the market and appointed a 3rd party laboratory for verification of LVD conformity. They found a non conformance on construction according to the latest version of safety standard and concluded the product is unsafe. The requirement is new in the latest version and did not appear in the previous version. When our product was verified by the 3rd party test house, it complied with previous version of safety standard but was the latest version of the safety standard at time of testing. The new version was issued 2 months later and has an additional construction requirement. The DoW of previous version of safety standard is in 2016. We are at loss how come they consider our product unsafe with the latest version of the standard during this transitional period. Any previous experience to deal with such authority can be shared? It sounds ridiculous charge on our product. Thanks and regards, Scott - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product
Scott I'd suggest you might need some proper legal advice here. The issue shouldn't be whether you are compliant or not with a specific standard, but whether you are compliant or not with the directive, or more explicitly, it's national implementation into law of the member state in question. IF, the version of standard that you applied was found to be no longer suitable for compliance with the Directive, then this should have been addressed by (presumably in this case) CENELEC and the Commission and the OJ updated accordingly. As others have stated, customs and other AHJ have been tasked with identifying non-compliant products, and for some categories of equipment there are a lot of them, but if you believe your product to be safe and compliant with the Directive, you should be able to prove it. Have you asked the authority and their lab to confirm compliance to the standard you have applied? Regards Charlie -Original Message- From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com] Sent: 31 July 2014 18:22 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product Recently we received a sales ban from an authority. The authority took a sample from the market and appointed a 3rd party laboratory for verification of LVD conformity. They found a non conformance on construction according to the latest version of safety standard and concluded the product is unsafe. The requirement is new in the latest version and did not appear in the previous version. When our product was verified by the 3rd party test house, it complied with previous version of safety standard but was the latest version of the safety standard at time of testing. The new version was issued 2 months later and has an additional construction requirement. The DoW of previous version of safety standard is in 2016. We are at loss how come they consider our product unsafe with the latest version of the standard during this transitional period. Any previous experience to deal with such authority can be shared? It sounds ridiculous charge on our product. Thanks and regards, Scott - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product
Hi John, Thanks for your useful reference and pointing out the difference between DoW date of cessation of presumption of conformity of superseded standard. We do always check the deadline 4 in OJ. Although your given reference is for EMC Directive, I assume it is identical with LV Directive. Best regards, Scott On 1 Aug, 2014, at 1:37 am, John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk wrote: In message e3b064b4-f401-4b4b-85b4-f8bbbdb94...@gmail.com, dated Fri, 1 Aug 2014, Scott Xe scott...@gmail.com writes: hen our product was verified by the 3rd party test house, it complied with previous version of safety standard but was the latest version of the safety standard at time of testing. The new version was issued 2 months later and has an additional construction requirement. The DoW of previous version of safety standard is in 2016. Strictly, the DOW doesn't matter, it's the docopocoss (date of cessation of presumption of conformity of the superseded standard) that is the valid date, but for almost all standards, they are the same date. We are at loss how come they consider our product unsafe with the latest version of the standard during this transitional period. You are quite correct; the transitional period is there precisely because products cannot be changed at short notice when a new edition of a standard is published. You need this document: Guide for the EMC Directive 2004/108/EC (8th February 2010) Look at clause 3.2.2, especially 3.2.2.3.where it says on page 31: Any version of a standard taken from the latest valid OJEU list may be used as a harmonised standard until the date of cessation of Presumption of Conformity is reached. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Quid faciamus nisi sit? John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product
Hi Dave, Thanks for your useful reference. We always adopt the 1st option. Can you share some light the way to prove the product safe without compliance with a standard. Thanks and regards, Scott On 1 Aug, 2014, at 1:44 am, Nyffenegger, Dave dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com wrote: Refer to the Blue Guide 2014 section 1.1.3 * Products manufactured in compliance with harmonised standards benefit from a presumption of conformity with the corresponding essential requirements of the applicable legislation, and, in some cases, the manufacturer may benefit from a simplified conformity assessment procedure (in many instances the manufacturer's Declaration of Conformity, made more easily acceptable to public authorities by the existence of the product liability legislation9). * The application of harmonised or other standards remains voluntary, and the manufacturer can always apply other technical specifications to meet the requirements (but will carry the burden of demonstrating that these technical specifications answer the needs of the essential requirements, more often than not, through a process involving a third party conformity assessment body); You can also prove your product is safe and complies with the Directives even if it does not comply with a standard. -Dave -Original Message- From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 1:22 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product Recently we received a sales ban from an authority. The authority took a sample from the market and appointed a 3rd party laboratory for verification of LVD conformity. They found a non conformance on construction according to the latest version of safety standard and concluded the product is unsafe. The requirement is new in the latest version and did not appear in the previous version. When our product was verified by the 3rd party test house, it complied with previous version of safety standard but was the latest version of the safety standard at time of testing. The new version was issued 2 months later and has an additional construction requirement. The DoW of previous version of safety standard is in 2016. We are at loss how come they consider our product unsafe with the latest version of the standard during this transitional period. Any previous experience to deal with such authority can be shared? It sounds ridiculous charge on our product. Thanks and regards, Scott - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product
Hi Michael, On 1 Aug, 2014, at 2:49 am, Michael Derby micha...@acbcert.com wrote: The Harmonised Standards are really a tool to show compliance with the standards. But still, regardless of compliance with the standards if your product is found to be non-compliant with the Directive, then it is a non-compliant product. The Directive says the product must be safe. The harmonised standards are the tools to help demonstrate that. The basic situation here being that regardless of your safety test results, if the device is unsafe, it's off the market. It is a good point from the authority. The harmonised standards are the tools to demonstrate the product is safe and then complies with the Directive. According to our verification with valid standards, it passes and complies with the Directive. The authority also use the same way to prove our product unsafe and then fails to comply with the Directive. In fact they are right but we are not wrong. They do not want to talk our way but just insist their way is right. In fact they are right to check with the latest standards but they cannot disregard current standards to demonstrate the compliance within the transitional period. Scott - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product
Hi Gert, We are dealing with the authority so it is inappropriate to give the details. The authority is from Finland. We are not very familiar if their compliance systems are different from other EU countries. Thanks and regards, Scott On 1 Aug, 2014, at 4:39 pm, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: Hi Scott, It looks to me as if the 3rd party overlooked the DoW, and you are right, a warning, possibly with a re-inspection in 2016 seems more appropriate. But it all depends on the the compliance systems in force in the place this happened. Do you want to share the standard (old/new) , the clause and country (EC,USA, elsewhere) with us ? Gert -Original Message- From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com] Sent: donderdag 31 juli 2014 19:22 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product Recently we received a sales ban from an authority. The authority took a sample from the market and appointed a 3rd party laboratory for verification of LVD conformity. They found a non conformance on construction according to the latest version of safety standard and concluded the product is unsafe. The requirement is new in the latest version and did not appear in the previous version. When our product was verified by the 3rd party test house, it complied with previous version of safety standard but was the latest version of the safety standard at time of testing. The new version was issued 2 months later and has an additional construction requirement. The DoW of previous version of safety standard is in 2016. We are at loss how come they consider our product unsafe with the latest version of the standard during this transitional period. Any previous experience to deal with such authority can be shared? It sounds ridiculous charge on our product. Thanks and regards, Scott - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product
Hi Scott: The product (which was certified to the version of the standard that was in effect at the time) was tested by a third-party laboratory (to a new requirement in the current edition of the standard) and found non-compliant. Somebody (either the laboratory or the authority) used the descriptive term unsafe because it did not comply with a safety standard. (To a naive person, non-compliance with a safety standard makes an unsafe product.) Since the third-party lab was engaged by the authority, you have no recourse to the lab (except on a friendly basis). Re-test to the old version of the standard can only be authorized by the authority (who has no interest in your sales and trusts that the third-party lab is testing correctly, including choice of standard). You can ask the authority to re-test to the old standard, but I guess that they would rather you fix the non- compliance and then they will authorize a re-test. The authority is naive as to whether or not the product is safe, and will go by the word of the third-party lab. As much as it hurts, I suggest that your only remedy is to make the product compliant to the latest version of the standard. Good luck, Rich On 7/31/2014 10:21 AM, Scott Xe wrote: Recently we received a sales ban from an authority. The authority took a sample from the market and appointed a 3rd party laboratory for verification of LVD conformity. They found a non conformance on construction according to the latest version of safety standard and concluded the product is unsafe. The requirement is new in the latest version and did not appear in the previous version. When our product was verified by the 3rd party test house, it complied with previous version of safety standard but was the latest version of the safety standard at time of testing. The new version was issued 2 months later and has an additional construction requirement. The DoW of previous version of safety standard is in 2016. We are at loss how come they consider our product unsafe with the latest version of the standard during this transitional period. Any previous experience to deal with such authority can be shared? It sounds ridiculous charge on our product. Thanks and regards, Scott - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product
I'm not a lawyer, but (AIUI) the requirement on the authority to show that the product is not compliant with the DIRECTIVE, it is not an offence to be non-compliant with a Harmonised Standard - there is no offence in law for that. If the product was tested to a standard that is still a Harmonised Standard, then that standard (also) still gives a presumption of conformity. It is only a presumption, but unless there is a fundamental flaw in that version, the product should still be safe and should be considered so. If the requirement of the new standard exceeds the requirement of the old standard, then I'm sure that the standards body had a good reason for the increase, but that does not necessarily mean the previous version was deficient in determining compliance with the Directive. If it was then the relevant standards body and the Commission should have addressed that through a reduced (or indeed instant) DOCOPOCOSS when the newer version was listed in the OJ. This approach has been used under the RTTE directive where Radio Spectrum issues were found with certain standards, so the process exists and works. Once a product has been banned (or even voluntarily withdrawn) from a single country, it will quickly appear on RAPEX, and then it's basically banned from Europe. http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/archive/safety/rapex/ Regards Charlie -Original Message- From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] Sent: 01 August 2014 20:21 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product Hi Scott: The product (which was certified to the version of the standard that was in effect at the time) was tested by a third-party laboratory (to a new requirement in the current edition of the standard) and found non-compliant. Somebody (either the laboratory or the authority) used the descriptive term unsafe because it did not comply with a safety standard. (To a naive person, non-compliance with a safety standard makes an unsafe product.) Since the third-party lab was engaged by the authority, you have no recourse to the lab (except on a friendly basis). Re-test to the old version of the standard can only be authorized by the authority (who has no interest in your sales and trusts that the third-party lab is testing correctly, including choice of standard). You can ask the authority to re-test to the old standard, but I guess that they would rather you fix the non- compliance and then they will authorize a re-test. The authority is naive as to whether or not the product is safe, and will go by the word of the third-party lab. As much as it hurts, I suggest that your only remedy is to make the product compliant to the latest version of the standard. Good luck, Rich On 7/31/2014 10:21 AM, Scott Xe wrote: Recently we received a sales ban from an authority. The authority took a sample from the market and appointed a 3rd party laboratory for verification of LVD conformity. They found a non conformance on construction according to the latest version of safety standard and concluded the product is unsafe. The requirement is new in the latest version and did not appear in the previous version. When our product was verified by the 3rd party test house, it complied with previous version of safety standard but was the latest version of the safety standard at time of testing. The new version was issued 2 months later and has an additional construction requirement. The DoW of previous version of safety standard is in 2016. We are at loss how come they consider our product unsafe with the latest version of the standard during this transitional period. Any previous experience to deal with such authority can be shared? It sounds ridiculous charge on our product. Thanks and regards, Scott - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings
[PSES] Definition of unsafe product
Recently we received a sales ban from an authority. The authority took a sample from the market and appointed a 3rd party laboratory for verification of LVD conformity. They found a non conformance on construction according to the latest version of safety standard and concluded the product is unsafe. The requirement is new in the latest version and did not appear in the previous version. When our product was verified by the 3rd party test house, it complied with previous version of safety standard but was the latest version of the safety standard at time of testing. The new version was issued 2 months later and has an additional construction requirement. The DoW of previous version of safety standard is in 2016. We are at loss how come they consider our product unsafe with the latest version of the standard during this transitional period. Any previous experience to deal with such authority can be shared? It sounds ridiculous charge on our product. Thanks and regards, Scott - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product
In message e3b064b4-f401-4b4b-85b4-f8bbbdb94...@gmail.com, dated Fri, 1 Aug 2014, Scott Xe scott...@gmail.com writes: hen our product was verified by the 3rd party test house, it complied with previous version of safety standard but was the latest version of the safety standard at time of testing. The new version was issued 2 months later and has an additional construction requirement. The DoW of previous version of safety standard is in 2016. Strictly, the DOW doesn't matter, it's the docopocoss (date of cessation of presumption of conformity of the superseded standard) that is the valid date, but for almost all standards, they are the same date. We are at loss how come they consider our product unsafe with the latest version of the standard during this transitional period. You are quite correct; the transitional period is there precisely because products cannot be changed at short notice when a new edition of a standard is published. You need this document: Guide for the EMC Directive 2004/108/EC (8th February 2010) Look at clause 3.2.2, especially 3.2.2.3.where it says on page 31: Any version of a standard taken from the latest valid OJEU list may be used as a harmonised standard until the date of cessation of Presumption of Conformity is reached. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Quid faciamus nisi sit? John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product
Refer to the Blue Guide 2014 section 1.1.3 * Products manufactured in compliance with harmonised standards benefit from a presumption of conformity with the corresponding essential requirements of the applicable legislation, and, in some cases, the manufacturer may benefit from a simplified conformity assessment procedure (in many instances the manufacturer's Declaration of Conformity, made more easily acceptable to public authorities by the existence of the product liability legislation9). * The application of harmonised or other standards remains voluntary, and the manufacturer can always apply other technical specifications to meet the requirements (but will carry the burden of demonstrating that these technical specifications answer the needs of the essential requirements, more often than not, through a process involving a third party conformity assessment body); You can also prove your product is safe and complies with the Directives even if it does not comply with a standard. -Dave -Original Message- From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 1:22 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product Recently we received a sales ban from an authority. The authority took a sample from the market and appointed a 3rd party laboratory for verification of LVD conformity. They found a non conformance on construction according to the latest version of safety standard and concluded the product is unsafe. The requirement is new in the latest version and did not appear in the previous version. When our product was verified by the 3rd party test house, it complied with previous version of safety standard but was the latest version of the safety standard at time of testing. The new version was issued 2 months later and has an additional construction requirement. The DoW of previous version of safety standard is in 2016. We are at loss how come they consider our product unsafe with the latest version of the standard during this transitional period. Any previous experience to deal with such authority can be shared? It sounds ridiculous charge on our product. Thanks and regards, Scott - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product
In message 62acad4bbe3449198bb398e2c437b...@bn1pr08mb059.namprd08.prod.outlook.com , dated Thu, 31 Jul 2014, Nyffenegger, Dave dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com writes: You can also prove your product is safe and complies with the Directives even if it does not comply with a standard. Perhaps, but the main point here is that the authority that banned sales is wrong, seriously wrong. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Quid faciamus nisi sit? John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product
Having tracked development of the proposed Market Surveillance Regulation, and stared for hours at NLF model language now incorporated in LVD... it is frustrating how ambiguous the actionable criteria are for this sort of thing. Authorities may act on Risk, but there is no risk assessment standard referenced and no threshold of risk required. So regardless of anything to do with standards, an authority's assessment that there is risk could allow empounding, third party testing etc... all on your nickel. The finding of risk is not 100% precluded by the use of harmonized standards (though it may be lessened). I also find it interesting that only the EMCD has language requiring keeping pace with the state of the art. Regards, Lauren -Original Message- From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 12:22 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product Recently we received a sales ban from an authority. The authority took a sample from the market and appointed a 3rd party laboratory for verification of LVD conformity. They found a non conformance on construction according to the latest version of safety standard and concluded the product is unsafe. The requirement is new in the latest version and did not appear in the previous version. When our product was verified by the 3rd party test house, it complied with previous version of safety standard but was the latest version of the safety standard at time of testing. The new version was issued 2 months later and has an additional construction requirement. The DoW of previous version of safety standard is in 2016. We are at loss how come they consider our product unsafe with the latest version of the standard during this transitional period. Any previous experience to deal with such authority can be shared? It sounds ridiculous charge on our product. Thanks and regards, Scott - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product
I'm certainly not a safety expert but I think that Lauren is on the right track here. The Harmonised Standards are really a tool to show compliance with the standards. But still, regardless of compliance with the standards if your product is found to be non-compliant with the Directive, then it is a non-compliant product. The Directive says the product must be safe. The harmonised standards are the tools to help demonstrate that. The basic situation here being that regardless of your safety test results, if the device is unsafe, it's off the market. However, if it was really that extreme, it would imply that the older harmonised standard was found to be insufficient for demonstrating compliance and therefore I would have thought it should have had an immediate withdrawal from the Official Journal. ...unless the thing it failed was some new safety requirement or scenario that had not been considered at all before. Sometimes, completely new situations are realised and must be considered anew, without actually being in a harmonised standard yet. And as we know, just because it's not in a harmonised standard yet, doesn't mean we shouldn't consider it as valid. There are plenty of things which must be assessed by manufacturers independently before they make it into harmonised standards. So, maybe it was unsafe? Michael. Michael Derby Regulatory Engineer ACB Europe -Original Message- From: Crane, Lauren [mailto:lauren.cr...@kla-tencor.com] Sent: 31 July 2014 19:09 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product Having tracked development of the proposed Market Surveillance Regulation, and stared for hours at NLF model language now incorporated in LVD... it is frustrating how ambiguous the actionable criteria are for this sort of thing. Authorities may act on Risk, but there is no risk assessment standard referenced and no threshold of risk required. So regardless of anything to do with standards, an authority's assessment that there is risk could allow empounding, third party testing etc... all on your nickel. The finding of risk is not 100% precluded by the use of harmonized standards (though it may be lessened). I also find it interesting that only the EMCD has language requiring keeping pace with the state of the art. Regards, Lauren -Original Message- From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 12:22 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product Recently we received a sales ban from an authority. The authority took a sample from the market and appointed a 3rd party laboratory for verification of LVD conformity. They found a non conformance on construction according to the latest version of safety standard and concluded the product is unsafe. The requirement is new in the latest version and did not appear in the previous version. When our product was verified by the 3rd party test house, it complied with previous version of safety standard but was the latest version of the safety standard at time of testing. The new version was issued 2 months later and has an additional construction requirement. The DoW of previous version of safety standard is in 2016. We are at loss how come they consider our product unsafe with the latest version of the standard during this transitional period. Any previous experience to deal with such authority can be shared? It sounds ridiculous charge on our product. Thanks and regards, Scott - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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
Re: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product
In message 04b801cfacf0$22a263f0$67e72bd0$@acbcert.com, dated Thu, 31 Jul 2014, Michael Derby micha...@acbcert.com writes: So, maybe it was unsafe? The OP wrote: They found a non conformance on construction according to the latest version of safety standard and concluded the product is unsafe. The requirement is new in the latest version and did not appear in the previous version. It is exceedingly unlikely that the previous version of the standard is so defective as to allow an unsafe product to pass. The LV Directive says that a product that passes a relevant current harmonized standard ought not to be impeded in marketing by the authorities (see Articles 4 and 12). -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Quid faciamus nisi sit? John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product
A little different problem than Mr. Xe is experiencing, but we recently had a product stopped at Customs in an EU country because the Declaration of Conformity supplied with the product did not call out the latest amendment to an applicable harmonized standard. We had previously performed an assessment to the latest amendment and determined no impact on our product, so quickly drew up a new Declaration to reference the latest amendment. This was insufficient to Customs. They required us to also provide evidence that we had done that assessment. We had no choice but to comply and provide the evidence because we couldn't afford to have this shipment held up any longer. My point here is that I think Customs overstepped their authority. Jim Hulbert - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product
Jim, Was this for an EMCD issue, or other? The reason I ask is I think that only the EMCD explicitly presses for keeping up with state of the art in its essential requirements (e.g., LVD and MD do not). Which might mean that an insistence on latest-and-greatest is reasonable for EMC standards. Of course it's also possible for Customs to simply ask for what they want regardless of its basis in a directive or national law. 2014/30/EU (recast EMC Directive) emphasis added: ANNEX I ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS 1. General requirements Equipment shall be so designed and manufactured, having regard to the *state of the art*, as to ensure that:... Regards, Lauren Crane KLA-Tencor -Original Message- From: Jim Hulbert [mailto:jim.hulb...@pb.com] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 2:18 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product A little different problem than Mr. Xe is experiencing, but we recently had a product stopped at Customs in an EU country because the Declaration of Conformity supplied with the product did not call out the latest amendment to an applicable harmonized standard. We had previously performed an assessment to the latest amendment and determined no impact on our product, so quickly drew up a new Declaration to reference the latest amendment. This was insufficient to Customs. They required us to also provide evidence that we had done that assessment. We had no choice but to comply and provide the evidence because we couldn't afford to have this shipment held up any longer. My point here is that I think Customs overstepped their authority. Jim Hulbert - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product
In message 7B9D892F88F070469771832D78B3086E2831C2C8@013-BR1MPN1-011.MGDPBI.global.p vt, dated Thu, 31 Jul 2014, Jim Hulbert jim.hulb...@pb.com writes: A little different problem than Mr. Xe is experiencing, but we recently had a product stopped at Customs in an EU country because the Declaration of Conformity supplied with the product did not call out the latest amendment to an applicable harmonized standard. We had previously performed an assessment to the latest amendment and determined no impact on our product, so quickly drew up a new Declaration to reference the latest amendment. This was insufficient to Customs. They required us to also provide evidence that we had done that assessment. We had no choice but to comply and provide the evidence because we couldn't afford to have this shipment held up any longer. My point here is that I think Customs overstepped their authority. They are entitled to see the assessment. (Whether they understand it or not is another matter.) Bear in mind that they are being leant on from above to combat the flood of non-compliant product that was entering the EU before this year. They will be exacting from time to time, especially if they were found to have let something slip in last week. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Quid faciamus nisi sit? John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product
This was in regard to the LVD. Jim -Original Message- From: Crane, Lauren [mailto:lauren.cr...@kla-tencor.com] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 3:33 PM To: Jim Hulbert; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product Jim, Was this for an EMCD issue, or other? The reason I ask is I think that only the EMCD explicitly presses for keeping up with state of the art in its essential requirements (e.g., LVD and MD do not). Which might mean that an insistence on latest-and-greatest is reasonable for EMC standards. Of course it's also possible for Customs to simply ask for what they want regardless of its basis in a directive or national law. 2014/30/EU (recast EMC Directive) emphasis added: ANNEX I ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS 1. General requirements Equipment shall be so designed and manufactured, having regard to the *state of the art*, as to ensure that:... Regards, Lauren Crane KLA-Tencor -Original Message- From: Jim Hulbert [mailto:jim.hulb...@pb.com] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 2:18 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product A little different problem than Mr. Xe is experiencing, but we recently had a product stopped at Customs in an EU country because the Declaration of Conformity supplied with the product did not call out the latest amendment to an applicable harmonized standard. We had previously performed an assessment to the latest amendment and determined no impact on our product, so quickly drew up a new Declaration to reference the latest amendment. This was insufficient to Customs. They required us to also provide evidence that we had done that assessment. We had no choice but to comply and provide the evidence because we couldn't afford to have this shipment held up any longer. My point here is that I think Customs overstepped their authority. Jim Hulbert - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product
OK. So I guess this would be a reasonable request from the authorities. Lesson learned: make sure DoC's are up-to-date to avoid delays. -Original Message- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 3:35 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Definition of unsafe product They are entitled to see the assessment. (Whether they understand it or not is another matter.) Bear in mind that they are being leant on from above to combat the flood of non-compliant product that was entering the EU before this year. They will be exacting from time to time, especially if they were found to have let something slip in last week. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Quid faciamus nisi sit? John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - - 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 emc-p...@ieee.org 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 emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
