Dear John My intention was simply to remind people (if any reminding was needed) that achieving a presumption of conformity does not necessarily mean complying with the EMC Directive.
Regards, Keith Armstrong www.cherryclough.com In a message dated 05/02/02 22:57:37 GMT Standard Time, j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk writes: > Subj:Re: SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3 > Date:05/02/02 22:57:37 GMT Standard Time > From: j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk (John Woodgate) > Sender: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org > Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk";>j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk</A> > (John Woodgate) > To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org > > I read in !emc-pstc that cherryclo...@aol.com wrote (in <17b.31edfe2.299 > 12...@aol.com>) about 'SV: Generic emissions - EN 61000-6-3', on Tue, 5 > Feb 2002: > > Where the electromagnetic environment or proximity to sensitive > devices > > (such as radio receivers) for the intended use of a product is not > > adequately covered by the most relevant harmonised standard, there is > a > > possibility that the EMCD's Protection Requirements (Article 4 and > Annex III > > in 89/336/EEC) might not be complied with. > > In such situations, especially if there are complaints of actual > > interference related to the product, enforcement actions could be > taken > > against a manufacturer even though his product met the most relevant > > harmonised EMC standard in every detail. > > It's probably most unwise of me to comment on that, but it concerns in > practice only a very dire situation - probably interference with safety- > of-life communications. It is not a situation that is at all likely to > arise if John Doe stands his radio on top of the equipment and then > complains of interference. > > If such a case did occur, the first step that the regulatory authority > SHOULD take is to invoke Article 8 of the Directive and report to the > Commission that the harmonised EMC standard is not, in the case in > point, ensuring compliance with Article 4. The manufacturer can hardly > be held responsible if the relevant standard is defective. > > Furthermore 'enforcement action' in most countries is very much the last > resort - usually triggered by the manufacturer refusing to co-operate in > solving the problem. > > I think we had enough 'headless chicken syndrome' in past years about > the EMC Directive, and no new outbreak should be encouraged. > -- > Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. > http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
