Well I have been convinced, and the answer is..........yes BSI does publish a version that includes the actual text of the A1 through A4 amendments (of course with the "as modified..." proviso). Odd wording aside, "BS EN 60950 incorporating Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and implementing Amendment No. 4, not published separately" apparently really DOES contain everything one needs to have a complete, stand-alone EN60950 (well sort of complete, given that A5 and A11 are hovering out there somewhere). I have ordered this, and will promptly e-mail the forum (and the supplier!!!) if it is not what I expect it to be.
Thanks to all who replied. To those whose answers I questioned, thanks for putting up with my skepticism. Regards, Jim Eichner Statpower Technologies Corporation [email protected] http://www.statpower.com Any opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really exists. Honest. > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Eichner [SMTP:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 1998 6:03 PM > To: 'EMC-PSTC - forum' > Subject: RE: Amendment A4 to the 950 Standard(s) > > My e-mail generated a number of responses, all of which are > appreciated. > Thanks everyone. I've included below the only response I got that > wasn't copied to the whole forum. > > I'm still confused, however, so please indulge me with one more > go-around on this. > > The BSI version, BS EN 60950, contains the wording "Incorporating > Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and implementing Amendment No. 4, not > published separately". In the responses I received, there are two > different interpretations of what this really means: > > 1. That document does NOT contain the actual text of A4, and you > need to buy the IEC A4 and use it in conjunction (this from a > standards outlet who should know) > > 2. That document DOES contain the actual text of A4 and is > complete (except for A5 and A11 of course !#@%$!) > (this from 2 compliance engineers with copies in front of them) > > If interpretation #2 is correct, then the BS EN including A1-A4 is > exactly what I was after, and I never should have bought the IEC's > separate A4. > > Can someone please tell me with absolute certainty which is > right??????? > > Also, does anyone have any inside scoop on any plans that may be in > the > works to introduce a new EDITION of the standard, now that we're up to > 6 > amendments (A1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 11)? For that matter, why is it A11, > not A6? > > Thanks for your help! > > Regards, > > Jim Eichner > Statpower Technologies Corporation > [email protected] > http://www.statpower.com > The opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend, who really > exists. Honest. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: RDBBRD [SMTP:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 1997 10:18 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Amendment A4 to 950 Standards > > Dear Jim: > > With regard to your recent purchase of IEC 950 (1997) A4 and EN 60950 > A4: > 1997, you obviously received exactly what you ordered and paid for. I > wouldn't lay the blame on your supplier for they did their job. As is > the > case with most document delivery services, they are only sales > outlets. > Nothing more and nothing less. > > As is the case, most regulatory compliance engineers (hopefully) > understand > their discipline, and have (hopefully) the ability to interpret the > documents > governing the compliance of their respective products, however, many > do > not > understand the standards making process, the numbering of documents, > the > updating of documents, etc. > > The IEC is an international Standards Writing Organization (SWO) while > CEN and > CENELEC (the originator of ENs. The individual member states retain > the > publishing rights, i.e. the copyright, and are responsible for the > distribution of the documents) are European regional SWOs, CENELEC > being > an > electrotechnical SWO as is the IEC. CENELEC's charter states that it > shall > adopt in whole, or adopt and modify, whenever possible, an existing > IEC > standard. CENELEC will only produce a given standard that is not > based > on an > existing IEC standard when CENELEC is in complete disagreement with > the > given > IEC standard. This accounts for the fact that the EN counterpart is > released > some time after the IEC document (review time of the IEC document for > making > any determinations as to the fate of their corresponding document). > > An amendment is just that. The purpose of the document is to add to > and/or > modify the base document. All to often a buyer assumes that when > purchasing > an amendment (or for that matter, any other given document, whether a > base > document or other document), they will automatically receive a > complete > document. They'd be well advised to look up the definition of > 'amendment'. > Along the same lines, a 'supplement' may be issued when the > information > is new > and supplementary and is to be added to the base document. > Furthermore, > a > 'corrigendum' typically contains corrective information, particularly > when the > affected document contains a 'typo' or the information was inserted in > the > incorrect place within the document. > > In order to prevent down time (meaning having the information that you > require > when you require it), regulatory compliance engineers also need to > learn > how > the SWOs operate, particularly in the area of the way a given SWO does > business. > > What I am referring to is as follows: > > 1. The IEC sells all documents individually, meaning that where a base > document exists that also has amendments and supplements, each of > those > documents are sold individually. This is true unless the base document > incorporates the amendment. The later does occur, particularly when > the > base > document is reprinted (i.e when stock for that document is depleted) > and > the > process continues until a new edition of the document is released, > thus > eliminating the need for the amendment. However, I have never seen > this > happen > in the case of a supplement, meaning the supplement is always supplied > separately (the supplement similarly disappears when a new edition is > released). In the case of a corrigendum, the IEC always supplies this > document to the original buyer of the affected document. Just cross > your > fingers that your supplier is on the ball and forwards the corrigendum > to you, > otherwise you may never realize what you're missing. As I had > mentioned > earlier, the amendment is sometimes included within the body of the > base > document when the base document is reprinted. This seems to be > document > dependant and I have not yet seen this occur with IEC 950. Also, and > depending on the document, the release of a new edition of a given > document is > not dependant upon the number of amendments released against that > document. > In the case of IEC 950 (i.e. the various editions), there have never > been more > than 4 amendments per edition (as a matter of fact, the first edition > only had > 3 amendments before the second edition was released). On the other > hand, the > second edtion of IEC 335-1 (household appliances...) had more than > twice > as > many amendments (as the first edition of IEC 950) prior to the release > of the > third edition. Given the size of some of the amendments to IEC 950, > in > addition to the number of amendments, and the total cost of purchasing > a > complete document (most SWOs base the pricing of their documents on a > price > per page basis), you may think that the IEC's profit is great (all > costs > go > into administration, development, publishing, distribution, etc. > Committee > members are not paid by the IEC!). The truth of the matter is that > the > entire > standards making process is an enormous undertaking, and most SWOs are > not for > profit type entities (committee members don't get paid unless they > have > a > sponsor, i.e. their employer pays them to sit on the committee). > > 2. CEN and CENELEC operate differently when it comes to the supply of > documents. When a base document is purchased, you automatically > receive > (and > are charged for) all amendments affecting that document (most document > suppliers operate in the same manner, unless of course they're greedy > or > don't > know any better). However, you may purchase a given amendment > seperately > (knowingly or not, if you request a given amendment, that's all you > get). CEN > and CENELEC's premise is good in a way (when it comes to purchasing a > base > document and supplying all updates at the same time) as you don't miss > out on > any information as you would when purchasing an IEC base document, > unless of > course, that's all you require. (The later is true, let's say for > example in > the case of liability litigation where a product was produced at a > given > time > and the document only consisted of the information existing up to the > time > frame in question with regards to the litigation and any additional > information, i.e. amendments, supplements, etc. did not yet apply to > the > product in question). > > The way that CEN and CENELEC produce documents has changed over the > years. > There was a time when these SWOs produced 'common modifications' > meaning > that > if a CEN or CENELEC document was based on an IEC document that was > adopted and > modified, only the modifications were published (as well as the date > of > effectivity and any grandfathering) and the base IEC document had to > be > purchased separately otherwise you had a CEN or CENELEC document that > was > meaningless on its own. There was similarly a time when CEN and > CENELEC > produced an amendment consisting of one to several pages in length > when > its > IEC counterpart was more than several and up to hundreds of pages. In > this > case, the CEN or CENELEC document would simply state that the > amendment > was > identical to IEC ... A... (and again the date of effectivity and any > grandfathering) and you would need to additionally purchase the the > corresponding IEC amendment, otherwise, and you guessed it, you would > have an > incomplete document. Nowadays it seems that SWOs such as, and in > particular, > CEN and CENELEC produce their own complete documents meaning that, > depending > on where in the world your company markets its products, you are > usually > forced to purchase both documents in their entirety (if you are > unfamiliar > with ISO 9000 registration, and similarly DIN EN ISO 9000, BS EN ISO > 9000, > etc. the registrant is required on have on file, current editions of > documents > affecting its products, in order to remain compliant with the > registration). > An expensive proposition as can be quickly realized. > > In a nutshell, you need to know exactly what to ask for when it comes > to > purchasing a document. When in doubt, ask the supplier exactly what > your > purchase will include (also, consult with the respective notified or > competent > body as to what applies, including any amendments, supplements, etc.). > Also > ask what edition the document is (it is efficient when asking for a > given > document by the edition date as multiple editions don't usually have > the > same > publication date unless the technology for the given product changed > overnight, literally, which would require a new edition to keep up > with > the > trend). It also pays to ask "do any amendments, supplements, > corrigendums, > etc. exist affecting the document in question" (I stated 'document' > here > rather than 'base document' for an amendment or supplement can have a > corrigendum issued against it also). Be inquisitive! If you don't ask > them, > they most likely won't ask you or tell you (unless they have good > business > sense and thus realize by doing so will ultimately increase their > sales). > > I apologize for the lengthy dissertation here. Persons involved in > regulatory > compliance need to realize that their discipline involves more than > just > knowing how to interpret a document and in turn how to apply that > document to > their products. Document delivery services employ sales personnel and > NOT > regulatory compliance engineers (although, once upon a time, a > document > delivery service did exist that employed regulatory compliance > engineers > and > not sales personnel). It is not their job to know the document, just > to > sell > it. Also, not knowing what to ask for can cause downtime (getting the > product > to market), can cost you plenty (re-engineering the product to include > what > was missed in any updates), can make you look foolish (well, the > document > supplier didn't tell me it existed - whose job is it anyway?), and > make > you > feel downright silly in the presence of your managers and peers (well, > I > didn't know - Do I really know my job?). > > As I am not registered to the IEEE EMC boards (don't have time to weed > through > all of the e-mail) and thus may not post directly, please feel free to > post my > response for the benefit of others (you may only post this if it is > posted in > its entirety). > > Kind regards, > > Rolf-Dieter Burckhardt, > Sr. Specialist - Product Safety Engineering > [email protected] > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jim Eichner [SMTP:[email protected]] > > Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 1997 12:45 PM > > To: 'EMC-PSTC - forum' > > Subject: Amendment A4 to the 950 Standard(s) > > > > Season's Greetings: > > > > I have just reviewed the two "versions" (IEC vs. EN) of "A4" to 950 > > that > > we received > > recently, and I'm confused. > > > > As outlined in the attached e-mail below, A4 is extensive, and > > modifies > > most of the pages in the standard. What we really need is a > complete, > > stand-alone EN60950 incorporating all amendments up to and including > > the > > IEC's A4 stuff. I am now in doubt whether this exists! > > > > Here's what we ordered and received: > > > > We ordered IEC950 A4 and received an inch-thick set of replacement > > pages > > that need to be inserted into an existing copy of IEC950 (1991). > What > > we thought we were getting was a stand-alone completely updated IEC > > standard. Oh well. > > > > We also ordered EN60950/A4, formally titled "Safety of information > > technology equipment (IEC950:1991/A4:1996, modified)". This > document > > is > > only 15 pages long, contains only a few revisions (primarily some > > "common modifications" and new/revised annexes ZA, ZB, ZC, and ZD), > > and > > is meant to be used with EN60950:1992 and its previous amendments > A1, > > A2, and A3. Its content in no way resembles the list of changes > > below. > > > > Am I incorrect in expecting the EN's A4 to implement the > > IEC's A4, or is the EN's A4 unrelated, and > > the EN version of the IEC's A4 is still to come? > > > > Can someone please explain what's going on here, and point us > > to a source for a complete, stand-alone EN60950 incorporating the > > IEC's > > A4 > > amendment? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jim Eichner > > Statpower Technologies Corporation > > [email protected] > > The opinions expressed are those of my invisible friend who really > > exists (honest)! > > > >
