Hope this helps to clarify things:
1. 98/37/EC is a consolidating directive which is intended only to make
clearer what the requirements of 89/392/EEC as amended by 91/368/EEC,
93/44/EEC 93/68/EEC actually are.
2. I havn't had time to check this, but I think I am correct that 98/37/EC
is only
for the product or DoC.
Regards,
From: George, David L george.da...@unisys.com
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Copies to: lisa_cef...@mksinst.com
Subject:RE: question (re: 98/37/EC
Date sent: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 10:39:04 -0500
Lisa:
There seems to be one difference. Can anyone verify how the date code
is to be displayed? As in the old directive, Directive 98/37/EC
requires the use of the year of manufacture. The old Directive
indicated the year of manufacture should be a part of the CE mark, The
new Directive
Folks:
The date code was NOT to be displayed adjacent to the CE marking per the
Old Directive
This was eliminated in one of the amendment to 89/392/EEC.
Per 1.7.3 of 98/37/EC, Annex 1, section 1.7.3, the year of construction
(date) must be marked ON the machinery legibly and indelibly.
I hope
:39 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Cc: lisa_cef...@mksinst.com
Subject: RE: question (re: 98/37/EC
Lisa:
There seems to be one difference. Can anyone verify how the date code
is to be displayed? As in the old directive, Directive 98/37/EC
requires the use of the year of manufacture. The old
and..
With regards to having the date on the product. does it actually have to
show the date in such a way as the customer can understand, or is a
serial number which is traceable to a manufactured date adequate enough??
-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion
6 matches
Mail list logo
