TOTALLY RUDE Mr.Towner Offer us your opinions if you must, but limit yourself to technical arguement and not to personal attack. This is a forum of professionals whose opinions may differ but it is better to discuss the differences openly without having to resort to rudeness.
I find, I don't agree with your position on ENV documents. You stated that these must be used only with a competent bodies involvement. There are currently some family product specs that call out ENV documents. Since the family product spec has been published with an EN number we need not involve a C.B. ----------------------------------------------------- Kevin Harris Manager, Compliance Engineering Digital Security Controls Canada 416 665-8460 Ex 378 Opinions expressed are purely personal ------------------------------------------------------- > From: Richard C. Towner <[email protected]> > To: Jeff Whitmire ITS/QS-Atl <[email protected]> > Cc: "Butch Sarma" <[email protected]>; T-REG <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Not Correct, Mr. Whitmire! > Date: Friday, December 13, 1996 8:00 PM > > Let's get this straight, Mr. Whitmire, I'm tired of misinformation!! > > IT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT OF THE EMC DIRECTIVE TO USE HARMONIZED STANDARDS, > PRODUCT SPECIFIC STANDARDS, GENERIC STANDARDS, OR ANY OTHER STANDARDS! IN FACT, > A MFR. CAN USE MIL STD, OR BELLCORE, OR ANY OTHER STANDARD HE/SHE WISHES TO USE, > IF SHE/HE WISHES TO USE STANDARDS AT ALL! > > FURTHERMORE, Under the EMC Directive there are TWO types of standards (READ > ARTICLE 7 BELOW) in an accepted hierarchy, and these standards don't have > anything to do with product specificity or generic requirements under the > Directive. That information comes from the subdivision of the standards > referred to in Article 7 below by the Official Journal, WHICH IS NOT THE EMC > DIRECTIVE OR ANY OTHER DIRECTIVE, AND DOES NOT OFFER TO INTERPRET COMPLIANCE > WITH THE DIRECTIVES. > > Article 7 of the Directive refers to "harmonized standards", and I quote: > 1: Member states shall presume (that's PRESUME, not assert!) compliance with the > protection requirements referred to in Article 4 in the case of apparatus which > is in conformity; > a) with the relevant national standards transposing the harmonized standards, > the reference numbers of which have been published in the Official Journal of > the European Communities. Member states shall publish the reference of such > national standards; > b) or with the relevant national standards referred to in paragraph 2 in so far > as, in the areas covered by such standards, no harmonized standards exist. > > 2) (Foregone. relevance is not appropriate to this argument) > > 3) Member States shall accept that where the manufacturer has not applied, or > has applied only in part the standards referred to in paragraph one, or where no > such standards exist, apparatus shall be regarded as satisfying the protection > requirements has been certified by means of attestation provided for in Article > 10(2); > > Article 10: > 2) In the case of apparatus for which the manufacturer has not applied, or has > applied only in part, the standards referred to in Article 7 (1) or failing such > standards, the manufacturer or his authorized representative shall hold at the > disposal of the relevant competent authorities, as soon as the apparatus is > placed on the market, a technical construction file. This file shall describe > the apparatus, set out the procedures used to ensure conformity of the apparatus > with the protection requirements referred to in Article 4 and include a > technical report or certificate, one or the other obtained from a competent > body. > > etc., etc., etc., > > But you say in your statement "to declare conformity to the EMC Directive you > MUST [caps mine] use the product specific standard, or if none is published use > the Generic Standard for the intended environment..." in reference to the use of > standards. Standards are an excellent basis against which conformity can be > gauged, and they should be used as such. Indeed, they should be implemented in > the design phase because that's what they're for. But there is nothing in the > Directive or any amendments that either advocates or mandates the use of > standards. In fact, under article 9 of the Directive the manufacturer bears > some culpability "where the apparatus does not meet the standards referred to in > article 7... incorrect application of the standards referred to in article 7... > shortcomings in the standards referred to in Article 7 (1) themselves..." In > this case the authorities have already taken the product off the market and will > keep it off for at least two months while they make up their minds. Either way, > a manufacturer or supplier is hurt...seriously! > > The implication is that a TCF may be a better risk management tool than the > standards route, but article 9 addresses this as well (I'll let you do the > reading. I can't do ALL the work.) > > FURTHERMORE, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, you make inappropriate reference to the use > of standards other than "harmonized standards" in showing conformity to the > essential requirements of the Directive. It is true that one may use standards > other than those "harmonized" to show conformity with the essential requirements > of the Directives, but this is only permissible if a Competent Body is engaged. > YOUR INFORMATION IS NOT ONLY INCORRECT AND MISLEADING, IT IS DANGEROUS!! > > AN ENV CANNOT BE SUBSTITUTED FOR AN EN UNLESS A COMPETENT BODY OVERSEES THE > SUBSTITUTION! > A standard is only "harmonized" if it is published as "harmonized" in the > Official Journal. Any ENVs are, by definition, UNDER CONSIDERATION, are thereby > NOT "harmonized" and so cannot be employed to show conformity outside the > jurisdiction of a Competent Body, which could be more expensive, time-consuming, > and frustrating than re-designing to meet the "harmonized" standards. > > I appreciate that you are trying to get the information out. But you bear a > certain responsibility in doing that. PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO BE COMPLETE IN > YOUR ASSERTIONS AND CONSULT AN EXPERT BEFORE YOU PUT INFORMATION LIKE THIS AT > THE DISPOSAL OF PEOPLE WHO NEED IT TO PERFORM THIER RESPONSIBILITIES!!! It is > information like what you have just given that has manufacturers doing loops, > wasting time and effort, and spending tons of money doing the wrong things to > show compliance. > > BAD INFORMATION IS UNACCEPTABLE IN REGULATORY COMPLIANCE. THIS IS NOT A TRIVIAL > ISSUE! > > Please, for the sake of your clients and those of us who appreciate good > information, Bone up!! > > Rick Towner > 888-2-CE MARK
