In my opinion it would be more expensive to do a Technical File (old Technical Construction File) because it is very difficult and massive amounts of calculations et al to prove that your unit will pass the EMC Directive using non-test data (schematics, etc) for all of the radiated and interfering phenomena. If you do a Technical File correctly it is very time consuming and labor extensive. Besides, I am not sure that this is allowed for Radio Devices. Even if it was it would not be allowed for the US and many other countries.
Bob Heller 3M EMC Laboratory, 76-1-01 St. Paul, MN 55107-1208 Tel: 651-778-6336 Fax: 651-778-6252 ================================= From: <ton...@europe.com> To: <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 05/03/2011 09:04 AM Subject: R&TTE Notified Body Opinion Cheaper than Full Testing? Sent by: <emc-p...@ieee.org> ________________________________ Hi, I design bespoke vehicle/personnel tracking and machine-machine communications systems for clients using GPS and GSM/cellular technologies, sometimes RF wireless (e.g. 433 & 2400 MHz unlicensed), mostly embedding GPS/GSM/wireless modules within custom electronics. These are normally manufactured in a few 10’s at most. We self-declare to the R&TTE Directive by testing to the relevant harmonised standards – this is phenomenally expensive for the volumes we produce. Alternatively, I suspect it would be considerably (very considerably) cheaper to supply a Technical File, including very limited testing results, design data and technical rationales to a R&TTE Notified Body to confirm compliance with the R&TTED. We naturally produce most of this information anyway as part of the development. The NB certificate would satisfy us, regulatory authorities and clients. Does anybody have experience of using this alternative approach – is it a viable and cheaper alternative. Feel free to reply off-line if you wish. Thanks in advance for your views, Tony - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <emc-p...@ieee.org <mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org> > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/> Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ <http://www.ieee-pses.org/> Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html <http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html <http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html> For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <emcp...@radiusnorth.net <mailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net> > Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org <mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org <mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> > David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com <mailto:dhe...@gmail.com> > - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <emc-p...@ieee.org> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <emcp...@radiusnorth.net> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org> David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com>
