: ...(certificate number)
Best regards
Charlie
Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247
From: Amund Westin
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2024 5:53 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] EU DoC
If you
If you have to consult an EU Notified Body for CE marking a product, must
the EU DoC include information that Notified Body?
Best regards
Amund
-
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
In our experience purchasers/compliance officers in large retail organisations
expect to explicitly see the RoHS amendment listed in the DoC text as per Mike
writes below, because this ticks their box that the product has addressed the
additional four substances the amendment was concerned with
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] DoC - reference to ROHS directive
What I've seen is language like
"2011/65/EU RoHS directive with amendment 2015/863/EU"
or
"2011/65/EU RoHS directive as amended by 2015/863/EU"
The 2015 amendment adds four substances to
man
Sherman PSC LLC
> On 04/21/2024 12:52 PM CDT Amund Westin wrote:
>
>
>
> I have the last 10+ years made reference to ROHS directive 2011/65/EU in the
> DoC.
>
> Now, I have been told to switch to 2015/863/EU? Is that correct?
>
>
>
> From what
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2024 7:39 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] DoC - reference to ROHS directive
The proper directive reference remains 2011/65/EU. If you look at the current
version of that directive, it incorporates all of the modification, so there is
no need to
, 2024 11:52 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] DoC - reference to ROHS directive
I have the last 10+ years made reference to ROHS directive 2011/65/EU in the
DoC.
Now, I have been told to switch to 2015/863/EU? Is that correct?
>From what I see on the EU web site, 201
I have the last 10+ years made reference to ROHS directive 2011/65/EU in the
DoC.
Now, I have been told to switch to 2015/863/EU? Is that correct?
>From what I see on the EU web site, 2015/863 is a Commission Delegated
Directive, amending Annex II to Directive 2011/65/EU
As I underst
when used in operation with each
other.
Address the risk I guess in a user manual?
I assume the our DoC should include the adapter, because we put the
combination of two products on the market. We have to declare that CE +
CE = CE in this case.
On 2024-03-05 10:43, Amund Westin
We buy in CE-marked ACDC adapters from third-party manufacturers. We
then include adapters together with our product in a common packaging.
Do we have to provide original DoC for adapters along with our own DoC
in the package or do we not need to do any action for these adapters?
I cannot find
@listserv.ieee.org> *
> --
> Hello Group,
>
> I have a client that wishes to use a single DoC for both EU (CE) and UK
> (UKCA). He has figured out everything except one area and that is the
> address/location for signature. Does he have to have two addresses shown on
Thank you all. We will do one PDF with couple of pages as that seems to be a
safer bet.
-Original Message-
From: Charlie Blackham
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Sent: Wed, Mar 1, 2023 2:21 pm
Subject: Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] Re: [PSES] EU and UK DoC
Dan You might not have had it
phrase on the CE and UKCA DoCs are
different, so I would recommend against combining them as it gives a market
regulator an angle to attack your DoC, and an “administrative non-compliance”
opens you up to impounding and/or audit testing at your expense.
I would suggest a better alternative would be
erv.ieee.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2023 2:59 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EU and UK DoC
You don't often get email from
06cee064502d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org<mailto:06cee064502d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>.
Learn why
We’ve been combining both onto one document. It sometimes makes the document
go to a second page because of the extra information. We include Australia and
anywhere else that will take a DoC into one document as well. Haven’t had it
rejected by anyone yet.
Dan
From: Andres
Great idea
-Original Message-
From: Chuck August-McDowell
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Sent: Wed, Mar 1, 2023 12:25 pm
Subject: Re: [PSES] EU and UK DoC
#yiv2282591812 filtered {}#yiv2282591812 filtered {}#yiv2282591812
p.yiv2282591812MsoNormal, #yiv2282591812
/>
(UTC -07:00) Mountain Time (US-MST)
On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 1:25 PM Chuck August-McDowell
wrote:
> We are going to print on the EU DoC page other side…
>
> 2-sided printing to save paper.
>
> One part number to save labor.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* MIKE
Hello Peter,
I have been working with Mike and I too concur with his answer. The EU and the
UKCA are not the same entities. At a minimum, two different addresses are
needed to identify the authorize representatives, hence the cleanest approach
is two different declarations of conformity (DoC
We are going to print on the EU DoC page other side…
2-sided printing to save paper.
One part number to save labor.
From: MIKE SHERMAN
Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2023 12:18 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EU and UK DoC
[THIS EMAIL IS FROM AN EXTERNAL SENDER]
Yes, that is
...@listserv.ieee.org wrote:
Hello Group,
I have a client that wishes to use a single DoC for both EU (CE) and UK (UKCA). He has figured out everything except one area
0) Mountain Time (US-MST)
On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 12:29 PM <
06cee064502d-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:
> Hello Group,
>
> I have a client that wishes to use a single DoC for both EU (CE) and UK
> (UKCA). He has figured out everything except one area and that
Hello Group,
I have a client that wishes to use a single DoC for both EU (CE) and UK (UKCA).
He has figured out everything except one area and that is the address/location
for signature. Does he have to have two addresses shown on the DoC for
signature? One in EU and one in UK?
ThanksPeter
Both countries are using BS 1363 plugs and sockets. We have a cord
extension set for the UK market and complies with Plugs and Sockets etc.
(Safety) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/1768). Do both Republic of Ireland and
Republic of Cyprus recognise the UK compliance as EU LVD compliance in EU
DoC
2
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] RED DoC and ETSI EN 301 489-1
of the standards to which they were tested.>
The trend is to not harmonise the -1 version of this (and other series) in the
future,
the -1 instead will be normatively referenced in any of the applied subp
March 2022 10:02
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RED DoC and ETSI EN 301 489-1
The trend is to not harmonise the -1 version of this (and other series) in the
future,
the -1 instead will be normatively referenced in any of the applied subparts,
that WILL be harmonised (once
years. It's also possible that EU legislation has changed during that time.>
Indeed, there is an urgent need to speed up the process of standards
creation/modification, as both have happened, though it is more a
process of iteration to get to a final acceptable result.
That said, the consensu
the standards to which they were tested.>
The trend is to not harmonise the -1 version of this (and other series) in the
future,
the -1 instead will be normatively referenced in any of the applied subparts,
that WILL be harmonised (once approved).
By normatively referencing, the referenced claus
y in the OJEC under the EMC
> Directive?
> Many RED guidance articles mention the EMC Directive should not be identified
> in the RED DoC.
> Is it OK to list this ETSI standard under the RED Directive-I am afraid it
> would be misleading or raise a red flag. (pun unintended).
> Inst
es, number 05466247
From: Ryan Jazz
Sent: 25 March 2022 21:29
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] RED DoC and ETSI EN 301 489-1
Dear members,
We have a Short Range Device transmitter and corresponding receivers we install
in various enclosures for which we have test reports from differe
should not be identified
in the RED DoC.
Is it OK to list this ETSI standard under the RED Directive-I am afraid it
would be misleading or raise a red flag. (pun unintended).
Instead of this ETSI standard, should we list the EN 55035:2017 standard
instead, which is published in the OJEC under the
RE: [PSES] Notice about LVD compliance in a DoC for machinery?
I think that the EMC directive is not specifically mentioned in the MD as it is
in RED, unless you consider it a radiation (annex 1 section "1.5.10.
Radiation"). However EMC compliance is required in the electrical
: Saturday, January 22, 2022 9:50 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Notice about LVD compliance in a DoC for machinery?
CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is s
The MD Directive is quite similar with RED which includes both LVD and EMC. No
one quotes LVD and EMC separated from RED. We can put LVD compliance and
applicable standards under MD Directive compliance. Does MD Directive include
EMC? If not, EMC if required should be stated in the DoC
rrent understanding, the phrase "shall not refer to the LVD but
to the MD" means that the DoC has to be issued under the rules of the
MD, but it does not mean that LVD is a "Directive Which Cannot Be Named"
in a machinery DoC.
Oliver
-
SERV.IEEE.ORG
Betreff: [PSES] Notice about LVD compliance in a DoC for machinery?
[Sie erhalten nicht oft E-Mail von "list...@gmx.net". Weitere Informationen,
warum dies wichtig ist, finden Sie unter
"http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification";.]
Hi all,
the "Guide
I have had resistance to placing both directives on a single DoC. Mostly
from strong proponents of the MD who believe that all equipment is under
their control. It was the same people who told me that even a mechanical
writing instrument such as a ball point pen is "machinery".
It shoul
We have also had issues with Turkish customs interpretation of the Directives
and it’s nice to know we are not alone.
I’m curious now and hoping the knowledgable readership can explain, how does
the law work in Turkey/ EU around these interpretations if they are off base?
How do they get normal
Charlie Blackham wrote:
The issue is that the legal bit stating that only the MD applies and not
the LVD is in the MD (below) and not included in the list of exemptions
in Annex II of the LVD
1.5. RISKS DUE TO OTHER HAZARDS
1.5.1. */Electricity supply/*
Where machinery has an electricity supp
While I pay close attention to the Guide, I am doubtful that going against its
guidance to, in effect, over document, is sufficient to invalidate a DoC.
I have not ever encountered resistance to listing both MSD and LVD---has anyone
on this listserv?
Mike Sherman
> On 01/17/2022 10:54
In my opinion, the Guide is making too fine a distinction. I know that when I
examine a DoC for electrically powered machinery, I expect to see both the MSD
and LVD. This gives me some assurance that the manufacturer has considered both
aspects.
Also in my experience, Turkish customs sometimes
service of machinery
with regard to electrical hazards are governed solely by this Directive.
(noting that 73/23/EEC was the first iteration of the LVD)
My view is that Turkish customs are incorrect, but there’s little point in
trying to argue with them, so I would send them a DoC that they are
Other that the fact that the statement is "the manufacturer’s EC
Declaration of
conformity *shall not* refer to the LVD but to the MD".?
My guess is that you could invalidate the DoC if you violate that
requirement.
Chas
On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 9:41 AM Oliver Betz wrote:
>
lfil the
safety objectives of the LVD, the manufacturer’s EC Declaration of
conformity shall not refer to the LVD but to the MD".
Yet, EN60204-1:2018 is listed in the LVD summary of harmonised standards.
Would it harm to state also the LVD conformity in a DoC for machinery?
The above mentioned g
> My advice is always cite, because Mr. Militant Customs Man can challenge
> your import because there is no proof on the DoC that you have taken all
> the amendments into account. You don't need to list every amendment; 'and
> all amendments up to the date of dispatch'
proof on the DoC that you have taken all the
amendments into account. You don't need to list every amendment; 'and all
amendments up to the date of dispatch' should be enough.
==
Best wishes J
My advice is always cite, because Mr. Militant Customs Man can challenge
your import because there is no proof on the DoC that you have taken all
the amendments into account. You don't need to list every amendment;
'and all amendments up to the date of dispatch' s
permitted
exemptions if permitted, at the time of signing.
Lots of people like ask to see it on the DoC, so I agree that it won’t hurt,
probably isn’t “wrong”, but also is not “required”
You do not however declare compliance to RoHS III (it doesn’t exist)
Best regards
Charlie
Charlie Blackham
Sulis
It can't hurt to cite it. There are cases where a citation is not
allowed, but I don't think this is one of them.
==
Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
Istae nunc p
All,
Given that Directive 2011/65/EU has been amended by Directive (EU)
2015/863, is it now necessary to reference the amendment on the Declaration
of Conformity?
This is an amendment to Annex II, and "RoHS III" appears terminology used
by the unwashed masses.
Thoughts?
-Doug
Douglas E Powell
om:*Chuck August-McDowell
*Sent:* Friday, May 14, 2021 11:42 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] EU DoC on Thumb Drive?
Seconding Brian’s motion to allow the QR Code as an approved method to
provide DoC information.
We recently Include Symbol ISO 7000-3500 "Electronic instr
d on paper and
which must accompany the equipment.
Stay safe, and best regards,
Rich
From: Chuck August-McDowell
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2021 11:42 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EU DoC on Thumb Drive?
Seconding Brian’s motion to allow the QR Code as a
Seconding Brian’s motion to allow the QR Code as an approved method to provide
DoC information.
We recently Include Symbol ISO 7000-3500 "Electronic instructions for use" and
the QR Code in the Symbol table in the basic safety information provided on
paper with each product.
Current
p.perk...@ieee.org
Entropy ain’t what it used to be
From: Brian Ceresney
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2021 10:40 AM
To: Pete Perkins ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] EU DoC on Thumb Drive?
Hello All,
Apologies for “hijacking the thread”, but we’ve been considering the
ES] EU DoC on Thumb Drive?
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Carl et al,
This question has been asked before and the official answer
seems to still b
net search my
name
<mailto:p.perk...@ieee.org> p.perk...@ieee.org
Entropy ain’t what it used to be
From: Charlie Blackham
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2021 1:17 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EU DoC on Thumb Drive?
Carl
A number of other Directives such a
Carl
A number of other Directives such as RED and Machinery also require DoC to be
provided with equipment
In the absence of Guidance that says you can provide it electronically it is
best to work on the basis that you must not – Customs / Market enforcement will
expect to be able to find the
Group,
I've not been able to find anything that suggests that the EU DoC can be
provided with the product electronically for a medical device. I sent
an inquiry to the commission and received no response. The MDD and MDR
require that the DoC is shipped with each product and I h
Scott
CE marking requires a DoC
For example – Article 10 of the RED:
Obligations of manufacturers
3.Manufacturers shall draw up the technical documentation referred to in
Article 21 and carry out the relevant conformity assessment procedure referred
to in Article 17 or have it carried out
Dear Charlie,
Thanks for your advice! Does CE Mark link with DoC? For example, REACH
regulation does not require CE Mark whereas it requires DoS. For CE
Marking, does it require DoC?
On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 at 00:10, Charlie Blackham
wrote:
> Scott
>
>
>
> The list of applicable
Hi Dan,
We put almost all applicable directives or regulations in one DoC for a
long period of time without any questions from MSAs. It is a
common practice in the industry. Recently we got an inquiry about
inadequacy of putting energy label regulation in the DoC and expect us to
remove it
Best regards
Charlie
Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Web: https://sulisconsultants.com/
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247
From: Scott Xe
Sent: 24 February 2021 13:46
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] EU Declaration of Conformity (DoC)
Does
Hi Scott,
I think what you are really asking is what is the legally required minimum? If
yes, then Directives like the GPSD, which does not in its text require a DoC
(or CE Marking), would not require a DoC and would not need to be listed on a
DoC that may be issued to cover other
Does the DoC only provide references to the directives or regulations that
require DoC? Other non-required directives or regulations should not be
included in the DoC. For examples, GPSD, packaging waste, battery, energy
label, etc.
Thanks and regards,
Scott
A; May 18-20, 2021
From: Brian Kunde
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2020 8:47 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] ROHS and DoC
Our motivation for including information on our EU DoCs that may not be
technically required is two-fold; 1. to better inform our customer
information on the DoC; in this case, the 2015/863 amendment. I agree that
technically it should not be necessary, but there are benefits here to
consider. And as far as I know, there is no rule against it. So why not?
BTW, thanks to everyone who participated in this thread. It has been very
Hi Amund,
You may have enough responses to meet your needs, but just in case...
2011/EU/65 is, of course, a CE marking directive, so consideration of a DoC is
entirely appropriate.
2015/863 was, of course, an amending directive. It has no functional standing
as a directive in its own right
ssary to do so? When you sign a DoC for RoHS
> compliance, the product must fully comply with RoHS Directive 2011/65/EU (all
> amendments are included) at time of signing. Otherwise it is not a correct
> DoC. Although it does not reach the deadline now, you need to sign another
> o
Brian,
My view is that is it necessary to do so? When you sign a DoC for RoHS
compliance, the product must fully comply with RoHS Directive 2011/65/EU (all
amendments are included) at time of signing. Otherwise it is not a correct
DoC. Although it does not reach the deadline now, you
Thanks Brian, as simple as possible.
Best regards
Amund
Fra: Brian Kunde
Sendt: 22. november 2020 06:26
Til: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Emne: Re: [PSES] ROHS and DoC
Because we provide DoCs translated into over 30 languages, we try to avoid text
that has to be translated. Our type
t;
> > char...@sulisconsultants.com mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com > wrote:
> >
> > > > > Amund
> > >
> > > Whilst 2015/863 updates 2011/65/EU, you do not CE mark to it.
> > > The DoC must be to 2011/65/EU
> > >
@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] ROHS and DoC
Because we provide DoCs translated into over 30 languages, we try to avoid text
that has to be translated. Our type of products do not have to comply with
these new regulations until next year, but when we do, we plan to use the same
nomenclature that is
as
> amended. Now I say 2011/65/EU as amended by 2015/863. No more complaints.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2020, 12:57 PM Charlie Blackham <
> char...@sulisconsultants.com> wrote:
>
>> Amund
>>
>> Whilst 2015/863 updates 2011/65/EU, you do not CE mark to
, you do not CE mark to it.
> The DoC must be to 2011/65/EU
>
> Some people concentrate a lot on 2015/863 but there have been far more
> Delegated Directives dealing with exemptions than just this one dealing
> with substances (
> https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/rohs_e
Amund
Whilst 2015/863 updates 2011/65/EU, you do not CE mark to it.
The DoC must be to 2011/65/EU
Some people concentrate a lot on 2015/863 but there have been far more
Delegated Directives dealing with exemptions than just this one dealing with
substances (https://ec.europa.eu/environment
: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] ROHS and DoC
For EU compliance, I assume Directive 2011/65/EU is still the correct reference
to use?
I see several parties who is referring to 2015/863 in their DoC, but isn't that
reference just a replacement for Annex II in 2011/65/EU?
Best re
For EU compliance, I assume Directive 2011/65/EU is still the correct
reference to use?
I see several parties who is referring to 2015/863 in their DoC, but isn't
that reference just a replacement for Annex II in 2011/65/EU?
Best regards
IMO, part of the answer is how it is being sold. If the product is known and
sold as Model ABC, then it should be tested as a system for compliance to the
applicable directives and standards and a DoC would be written for Model ABC
and it would indicate the various 'components' tha
new product to applicable directives, and
creating a new DoC. You, as a helpful supplier, can anticipate their needs and
do much of the work for them.
If you are marketing an upgrade kit that any J.Q. Public can purchase as an
"expansion option" for their product, the situation is
That is what used to be called a 'system', although the term seems to
have been dropped now. Each piece should be CE marked, otherwise the
surveillance authorities won't know it's legitimate. You don't need a
DoC for each bit, only for the system, but each bit needs an
t;all devices", then do I need a DoC for each device or
will one DoC be ok? If each device has its own identifier, can I just list
all identifiers on the DoC? OR can I simply list what the devices are
instead of their specific part numbers?
In the same train of thought, If my product is called
yffenegger, Dave
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2018 11:18 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] MD clarification of the DoC
Ha, ha, I have written many DoCs and DoIs with the two names for my current
company. Fortunately we already had resident employees in the EU that could
clue understanding
the requirements and no EU resident/address was included.
It’s understandable that the signer of the DoC may not be in the EU as they are
typically within the manufacturer’s organization responsible for the product
compliance and/or manufacturing or company signatory if they
Thanks Pete for that history lesson.
My confusion lies on the fact that 2 different people and addresses can be
on the MDoC. One for the DoC as a whole and one for the compiler. If I
understand you correctly, it seems that it will be easier for the EU courts
to fine/imprison someone in the EU
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] MD clarification of the DoC
Regan, “So, a European must compile it but he can store it somewhere in i.e.
Timbuktu. strange.”
I don’t take ‘compile” too literally, they are looking for a contact in the
EU, one that can be easily contacted wh
gets it or where they get it from is not of
concern. This individual is distinctly different than one who signs the DoC
and different than authorized representative, although it could be the same
person as you have pointed out. The Blue Guide probably has some words on
this, it’s been a while
enjoying the festive season thus far!
I was wondering if any of you knew the rationale behind
requirement #2 in the Machinery Directive and why the other
directives do not have this? (as you can see, this is over &
above the authorized rep (#10) signing the DoC).
Excerpt below:
ndering if any of you knew the rationale behind requirement #2 in
> the Machinery Directive and why the other directives do not have this? (as
> you can see, this is over & above the authorized rep (#10) signing the
> DoC).
>
> Excerpt below:
>
>
> *A. EC DECLARATIO
above the authorized rep (#10)
signing the DoC).
Excerpt below:
/A. EC DECLARATION OF CONFORMITY OF THE MACHINERY
/
/
/
/*_2. name and address of the person authorised to compile the
technical file, who must be established in the Community;_*
/
/
/
/10. the identity and signature of the person emp
Hello folks. Hope you are all enjoying the festive season thus far!
I was wondering if any of you knew the rationale behind requirement #2 in
the Machinery Directive and why the other directives do not have this? (as
you can see, this is over & above the authorized rep (#10) signing the
That’s right, Scott. We sell the main product with the adapter included.
There will be a warning plate.
BR
Amund
Fra: Scott Xe
Sendt: 6. september 2018 15:56
Til: Amund Westin ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Emne: RE: [PSES] DoC - 3rd party device to be included?
Hi Amund
Hi Michael.
We have two adapters.
1. Adapter No.1: In stock, we have a lot of these adapter which is
obsolete from the manufacturer, because they have not done the A2 approval
(IEC/EN60950-1). We have will do A2 now to fulfill LVD and make use of all the
stock devices. Valid DoC
Hi Amund,
Under your scenario, the AC/DC adapter is just an external power supply of your
main unit. Your product is operating on safe level of DC. If you don’t sell
the adapter together with the main unit, you may avoid declaring it in your DoC.
If you have to sell your product together
it (with a DoC).
However, your own DoC must list any critical accessories required for your
device, and it sounds like this is an accessory for your device, which is
important for the compliance. So, I think you would therefore list it as an
accessory, on the DoC of your own product
I agree with Dave. I would not include the adapter on your DoC for your end
product. However, your test reports/technical file should state what adapter
is used for end product compliance. And instructions/information to the user
should state that the product must only be used with the
your DoC. But it
wouldn’t be separately identified on your DoC. Nor would I think your DoC
would simply include the same conformity statements to the directives and
standards listed on the adapter DoC.
I have seen other products that do not include the adapter in their product
DoC. For
Just to make it a bit more complicated ….
One of the adapters we are using is not for sale anymore. But we have a lot of
adapters in stock and we have made tests to include the A2 for IEC/EN60950-1
and the adapter is now good for LVD. But the original DoC from the adapter
manufacturer is
We buy AC/DC adapters form a major power supply manufacturer. It has all the
papers in place as DoC, CB test reports and CB certificate.
This adapter has been used under the EMC, LVD and RED tests of our product.
There have been some questions if the adapter should be included in the DoC
Thanks for all the helpful responses and clarification folks, I missed the OR
statement in the directive text I quoted.
Cheers and all the best
James
James Pawson (U3C) wrote
>Hi folks,
>
>
>
>Should the EN 61000-4-x standards be listed on the DoC for a product when a
No. It was a specific decision by the Commission not to list standards
that are referenced by listed standards, partly because that could
result in near-never ending listings.
You do not cite 61000-4- series standards on a DoC. The DoC refers only
to the standards that give prima facie
James,
In your example, EN 55024 should be included on your DoC, but not the EN
61000-4-x standards that are covered under EN 55024. EN 55024 is a harmonized
standard listed under the EMC Directive and will provide a presumption of
conformity (along with other harmonized standards which may
1 - 100 of 509 matches
Mail list logo
