Nick,
Thanks for your comments. However, I like to simplify things to their
essential ingredients. Whatever I may fail to understand, I do
understand that my products will have no import within EU states if:
1. They are designed with IEC 60950 and common sense in mind.
2. They are third party certified via a CB Report to IEC 60950.
3. Similarly to 1 and 2 above for EMC.
4. A EU DoC is appropriately held within the EU.
We do obtain certifications for Germany (GS mark) and Sweden (S mark),
not because they are mandatory, but for ease of marketing. I know of
no national laws that take precedence over the EU Directives for
IEC/EN 60950.
For the U.S. and Canada, one may follow a similar path:
1. Design to UL/CSA 60950 and common sense in mind.
2. Obtain either UL or CSA approval for both countries.
3. Submit EMC data to the U.S. FCC and Canada ICES.
4. No DoC required.
A CB Report from a Euro test agency may be used to obtain either the
UL or CSA blessing, or conversely, a UL or CSA CB may be used to
support the EU DoC.
George
"Nick Rouse" <nickjrouse%cs....@interlock.lexmark.com> on 03/25/2002 06:28:35 PM
To: "emc" <emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee....@interlock.lexmark.com>,
"George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark.LEXMARK"@sweeper.lex.lexmark.com
cc: (bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark)
Subject: Re: U.S. Safety Regulations
George
I fail to follow your argument, The fact that you have
not been challenged or taken to law by any member state
does not mean that it is not the laws of the member states
that have legal juristriction. You have not been taken to
the European courts of justice either.
you say:-
>For ITE, the EU requires compliance to the Low Voltage
> and EMC Directives
No, the EU requires that member states put in place
national laws requiring compliance in that country
of the requirements of the Low Voltage and EMC Directives.
This is somewhat different. Had you transgressed
and been prosecuted you would have been prosecuted
under the national law of the country. If for instance you
had been taken to court in the UK in relation to EMC
problems you would not be accused of contravening
directive 89/336/EEC, you would be accused of
contravening the UK Electromagnetic Compatibility
Regulations 1992 (SI 19992/2372)
In Germany the same action will have you in conflict with
Gesetz über die elektromagnetische Verträglichkeit von Geräten, (EMVG)
In Belgium you will run foul of
Royal decree of May 18th 1994 concerning electromagnetic compatibility;
and in Greece
Ministerial Decision number 94649/8682/ 93/25-8-94
And in each case it is you the manufacturer dealer or user
that will be taken to court. It is not the country that will be prosecuted
and it is not a matter of allowing entry. Crossing borders as such is not
an offence either for an individual or a member state. The offence
is placing on the market or taking into service non-compliant equipment
at any point in the EU.
The fact that you have not had any trouble with any of these national laws
is good news, long may it remain so. However this does not
change the fact that these are the laws under which manufacturers,
dealers and users operate in the various countries and you should
beware of the subtle differences between them.
Nick Rouse
----- Original Message -----
From: <geor...@lexmark.com>
To: "Nick Rouse" <nickjro...@cs.com>
Cc: "emc" <emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org>
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 5:16 PM
Subject: Re: U.S. Safety Regulations
>
>
> Nick,
>
> To some degree, I beg to differ with your explanation,
> particularly with the following:
>
> "It is these national regulations that have direct force
> of law on manufacturers, traders and users of equipment
> in that member state. It is not a matter of crossing
> boundaries into the EU or between member states, and not
> a matter of it being just wise to meet the various
> requirements. Wherever you are in the EU you will be
> breaking a local national law if you do not."
>
> For ITE, the EU requires compliance to the Low Voltage
> and EMC Directives. They have further listed harmonized
> standards which are deemed sufficent to comply. Under
> the present process, a manufacturer can obtain a CB Report
> of create a Technical Construction File to meet the LVD,
> and take EMC data at an authorized test site to meet the
> EMC Directive.
>
> At that point the manufacturer can apply the CE marking,
> and file a EU Declaration of Conformity within the EU.
> Since this process was adopted by the EU, we have not
> had a single EU member state ask to see either our DoC
> or our background test data/reports.
>
> So, there are no "national" regulations, but only the
> EU regulations, which were designed to do away with the
> many diveregent national regulations. Again, the EU
> "law" applies to member states, over which the EU has
> some power. There is no "law" pertaining to mfrs, but
> the Directives as to what the member states are to do
> to ensure "safe" products. If a mfr manages to place a
> product on the market that does not meet the LV or EMC
> Directives, it is the member state which allowed entry
> of the product that is held accountable. Of course, a
> mfr found doing this would have to remove the product
> from the market and would have a hard time doing future
> business in the EU.
>
> George Alspaugh
>
>
>
>
> "Nick Rouse" <nickjrouse%cs....@interlock.lexmark.com> on 03/22/2002
04:44:05 PM
>
> To: "emc" <emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee....@interlock.lexmark.com>,
> "George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark.LEXMARK"@sweeper.lex.lexmark.com
> cc: (bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark)
> Subject: Re: U.S. Safety Regulations
>
>
>
> Thanks George for your outline of the basic
> way US safety works. Perhaps I may expand
> a bit on how EU directives works. First the EU
> directives are, as you say, not in themselves
> directly law in any of the member states.
> What they do is to direct each of the member
> states to pass into their national laws regulations
> emboding the requirements of the directive and
> most importantly to repeal any other legislation
> that lays any requirement in the aera covered
> on anyone placing relavant products on the
> market or taking them into service. The member
> states are bound to do this under the terms of the
> treaty of Rome and other European treaties. Any
> member state not properly transposing a directive
> into national Law is in principle liable to be taken
> by the Commission to the European Courts.
> The wording of the directives, heavy on permissive
> clauses and requirements on governments to allow
> goods to be moved, sold and put into service,
> surprises some people but it must be remembered
> that the wellspring of most of this legislation is the
> idea of a single European Market. The member
> states are not allowed to have local regulations that
> may act as an indirect trade barrier favoring local
> suppliers over those of other member states.
> By a having just a unified set of European technical
> requirements it is hoped to create a level playing
> field for all paticipants in the European market.
> The directives are usually implimented by some form
> of secondary legislation. Here in the UK we use things
> call statutary instruments. The Single European Market
> Act of 1987 was passed through the full legislative
> process but gives thereafter ministers of the crown the
> right to draft statutary instruments to impliment directives
> into UK law. They are placed in the libaries of both
> houses of parliment and it is in principle open to
> the members of parliament to pass a resolution
> anulling these instruments. In practice this never
> happens and after 7 days they automatically
> become statute law.
> It is these national regulations that have direct
> force of law on manufacturers, traders and users
> of equipment in that memmber state. It is not a matter
> of crossing boundaries into the EU or between member
> states, and not a matter of it being just wise to meet
> the various requirements. Wherever you are in the
> EU you will be breaking a local national law if you do not .
>
> The various national implimentations should all be the
> same but just to remind everyone that we still are 15
> independant countries, there are small quirks in the
> the various implimentations that the Commission has not
> thought serious enough to stamp on. One such if the
> UK modified application of the EMC directive to
> educational establishments. In addition the member
> states may apply to the Commission for the right to
> have extra local laws to meet special local requirements
> An example of this is the UK 1994 Plugs and Sockets
> etc.(Safety) regulations that require the fitting of
> UK style fused plugs to equipment solt to comsumers.
>
>
> Nick Rouse
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <geor...@lexmark.com>
> To: <emc-p...@ieee.org>
> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 9:57 PM
> Subject: U.S. Safety Regulations
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > There seems to be some confusion regarding U.S. product safety
> > regulations. It is not as complicated as some have made it
> > appear. I will try to simplify this topic.
> >
> > First, the European Directives may be EU law, but they are only
> > directed to member states, not manufacturers, over which they
> > have no legal authority. Read the text of some Directives. The
> > EU Directives outline to member states what standards products
> > must meet to enter the EU via any country border. Hence, manu-
> > facturers who wish to market in the EU would be wise to adhere
> > to the LVD and other applicable Directives.
> >
> > The U.S. OSHA regulations are virtually the same in this respect.
> > These regs describe what employers must do to ensure a safe
> > workplace. The employer is barred under OSHA rules from allowing
> > employees to use specified products that do not meet OSHA require-
> > ments. Hence, manufacturers who wish to market in the U.S. to
> > businesses would be wise to adhere to OSHA requirements.
> >
> > Now, it is somewhat true that electrical products for the U.S.
> > can either be NRTL approved for total U.S. distribution, or be
> > approved by every local city/county electrical safety authority.
> > BTW, this is an option that does not exist within the EU that I
> > know of. Now, which method do you think is easier and less costly?
> > Duh! I assure you it is the NRTL route, even if you desire to enter
> > only one local market.
> >
> > There have been several opinions offered as to why any U.S. (or
> > other) safety regs exist. My personal opinion is that manufacturers
> > should apply the following concepts, in the order given:
> >
> > - provide products that will not cause injury or property damage
> > - provide products that meet the standards
> > - provide products that exceed the standards if appropriate to
> > achieve the first item
> > - if the above are done, there is little else you can do to
> > minimize product liability litigation
> >
> > [The above comments do not necessarily apply to extremely large
> > and expensive products sold in volumes of only 1, 10, or so. These
> > may best be handled by on-site installation approvals.]
> >
> > George Alspaugh
>
>
>
>
>
>
