I will take the liberty to answer this question even if I was not asked to do so. There had been a "VfG" "decree" that required Class B compliance unless individual devices are registered with the then "BZT" (then a branch of the ministry of Postal affairs and telecommunication). It was clearly out of tune with EU requirements (i.e. the ITE product standard) , was never enforced and eventually withdrawn. The idea that anybody would assess fines on non-compliance with Class B limits is preposterous. The issue is more one of compatibility with other equipment (unintentional receivers). However, the 10 dB difference will hardly ever manifest itself in equipment failing.
On the GS issue: Just as I outlined in my previous response to the group, it is voluntarily mark. Anybody wants to sue GM for requiring their suppliers to get QS9000? Matthias R. Heinze TUV Rheinland -----Original Message----- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Grasso, Charles (Chaz) Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 1998 7:30 AM To: 'WOODS, RICHARD'; 'emc-pstc'; 'Ing. Gert Gremmen' Subject: RE: GS Requirements I have been following this thread with interest and would like to ask Ing. Gert Gremmen a pointed question. Gert, In your email you stated: "For the moment all i want to say is that the GOAL of all so-called new-approach directives is and was to stop all barriers that existed for importing and exporting any goods. The GOAL of the ce-mark was to introduce a common symbol to show that the product marked had free access to the full EU." Q. Does Germany, or any other EU country, impose a fine on ITE products that comply with the Class A EMI limits intended for commercial applications? Thank you Charles Grasso EMC Engineer StorageTek 2270 Sth 88th Street Louisville CO 80027 MS 4262 gra...@louisville.stortek.com Tel:(303)673-2908 Fax(303)661-7115 Symposium Website URL: http://www.ball.com/aerospace/ieee_emc.html >---------- >From: Ing. Gert Gremmen[SMTP:cet...@cetest.nl] >Reply To: Ing. Gert Gremmen >Sent: Monday, April 27, 1998 2:09 PM >To: WOODS, RICHARD; 'emc-pstc' >Subject: RE: GS Requirements > >Hello Richard, Group, > >I will come back to the legal aspects of this. > >For the moment all i want to say is that the GOAL of all so-called >new-approach directives is and was to stop all barriers that existed for >importing and exporting >any goods. The GOAL of the ce-mark was to introduce a common symbol to show >that the product marked had free access to the full EU. > >It applies to toys, elevators, sterile injection needles as well as >electronic typewriters. >It applies to machines, simple pressure vessels and sailing boats. >It will apply to many more goods in the near future. > >If for any reason and for any beliefs any local national law could resist >this European regime of ce-marking, the whole foundation under ce-marking >would fall down. > >I am not a lawyer in European affairs, but i understand well how the ce-mark >stuff has been implemented and how it is meant to be. > >Therefore, if any legal hole exists, it will be filled up, unless the EC is >really less powerful as f.a. Germany. > >I suggest that one of you, not being a test-house or consultant, innocently >directs this question to Mr. Bangemann of the European Commission. > >Let's hear what he has to say. > >To be read: The New Approach (legislation and standards on the free >movement of goods in Europe) by CENELEC > > >Other considerations (from seminar papers) > >Basic conditons for the free Eur. market: > >Free traffic of persons / goods/ services/ money > >1/ Stop taxes on importing >2/ stop limitiations in quantity >3/ Stop all measures of equal effect including technical limitations > >Technical limitations are : > >National technical regulations >National standards >National test- and certification procedures > >1. Stopping limitations by: > >Mutual recognition > >exceptions : >- public order >- public health, lives of persons and plants or animals in danger >- national properties artistic or historic >- industrial and commercial properties > >Exceptions should be no hidden limitations. > >2. harmonisation of technical regulations > >1983 information phase >1985 new approach directives >1989 global approach for conformity assessment > >Directive 83/189/EEC: >Goal: >- stop implementations of new national regulations >- halt progress on national initiatives > >Contents: > >- notifying necessary for new national regulations (to EC) >- hold off period for national regulations > > > >So far: > >Gert Gremmen > > > >== Ce-test, Qualified testing == >Consultants in EMC, Electrical safety and Telecommunication >Compliance tests for European standards and ce-marking >Member of NEC/IEC voting committee for EMC. >Our Web presence: http://www.cetest.nl >List of current harmonized standards http://www.cetest.nl/emc-harm.htm >15 great tips for the EMC-designer http://www.cetest.nl/features01.htm > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org >[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of WOODS, RICHARD >Sent: maandag 27 april 1998 14:07 >To: 'emc-pstc' >Subject: RE: GS Requirements > >This has been a very interesting thread. There appears to be two distinct >groups of thought. One group believes that an EU state can enforce a state >law affecting trade as long as it is not in violation of a Directive. >Another group seems to believe that no EU state may enforce a law the tends >to impede trade. To this latter group I ask the question, what is the legal >basis for this claim? > >Richard Woods >Sensormatic Electronics >wo...@sensormatic.com >Views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent those of >Sensormatic. > >
