|
&n=
bsp;
|
|
&n=
bsp;
|
|
&n=
bsp;
|
|
|
|
|
|
CE Approved
Dec 14, 2002 3:03 pm, by Bob Peterson
Subject : Engineering
from the Automation List dept.
Text :
On a somewhat humorous note, someone popped their head over top of my cub=
icle
a few minutes ago and asked what was the difference between "UL
Approved" and "CE Approved". Is it like the difference bet=
ween
a Cadillac and a Yugo? I guess someone sold a=
job
going to Europe and the salesman noted=
it
had to be "CE Approved".
I explained it was more like the difference between a Cadillac and an ora=
nge.
:-)
I am no expert on such things and won dered if
anyone is aware of a web site I could point towards that would give a good
overview.
Bob Peterson
Reply
· Re:=
CE
Approved
Dec 14, 2002 3:59 pm, by Bill Clemons
CE =3D "Conformity European"
h=
ttp://www.synchrotech.com/support/geninfo-ce-mark.html
Reply
· Re:=
CE
Approved
Dec 16, 2002 2:07 am, by William Mostia
The actual meaning for CE is:
CE - "Conformité Européenne"
which I believe translates into "European Conformity"
CE is not an approval like UL but rather generally a
self-declaration/self-marking process whereby a manufacturer certifies th=
at
the particular equipment meets the requirements for a CE mark(meets
appropriate European Directives). Some product do
require 3rd party testing.
Here is UL's statement on the CE mark:
http://ww=
w.ul.com/regulators/CEmarkinfo.html
Here is a good description of what is involved in a CE mark:
http://www.baccsf.org/cemar=
k9.htm
Bill Mostia
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D
William(Bill) L. Mostia, Jr. P.E.
Partner
exida.com
Worldwide Excellence in Dependable Automation
wmostia@exida.com(b) wlmostia@msn.com(h)
www.exida.com 281-334-3169
These opinions are my own and are offered on the basis of Caveat Emptor. =
Reply
<=
span
style=3D'font-family:Symbol;mso-ascii-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>&mid=
dot; Re<=
/strong>: CE Approved
Dec 16, 2002 2:03 am, by Walt Boyes
You can get CE Approval from UL...but they aren't the same thing.
UL approval, generically, is basic electrical safety.
CE Marked instrumentation products meet the CE specifications for RFI/EMI=
shielding
and rejection.
It should be noted that products actually made in the European Community =
do
not need to be CE Marked, but products made in the US and imported into the EC=
MUST
be CE Marked. You may think what you like.
Walt Boyes
---------SPITZER AND BOYES, LLC-------------
"Consulting from the engineer
to the distribution channel"
www.spitzerandboyes.com
walt@waltboyes.com
21118 SE 278th Place
Maple Valley, WA
98038
253-709-5046 cell 425-432-8262 home office
fax:1-253-981-0285
--------------------------------------------
Reply
<=
span
style=3D'font-family:Symbol;mso-ascii-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>&mid=
dot; Re<=
/strong>: CE Approved
Dec 16, 2002 10:29 am, by Konni
Hi together,
each device in Europe needs a CE
certification - it doesn't matter where it comes from. We build devices in
Germany/Europe and we wouldn't spend money to do the certification if we
wouldn't have too.
Best regards,
Konni
Reply
<=
span
style=3D'font-family:Symbol;mso-ascii-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>&mid=
dot; Re<=
/strong>: CE Approved
Dec 16, 2002 1:18 pm, by Steve YATES
A CE marking on a product means that the product complies to all European
standards that are applicable for that type of product, it is not restric=
ted
to electrical equipment.
Our Intriniscally Safe products carry a CE ma=
rk
because they conform to all of the following:
Low Voltage Directive
ATEX Directive
EMC Directive
A fluffy stuffed doll woud not comply to any =
of
those but would have to correspond to the relavent
standards for toys re materials etc
Reply
<=
span
style=3D'font-family:Symbol;mso-ascii-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>&mid=
dot; Re<=
/strong>: CE Approved
Dec 18, 2002 4:08 pm, by Marc Sinclair
Walt Boyes wrote:
> You can get CE Approval from UL...but they aren't the same thing.
>
> UL approval, generically, is basic electrical safety.
>
> CE Marked instrumentation products meet the CE specifications for
> RFI/EMI shielding and rejection.
>
> It should be noted that products actually made in the European Commu=
nity
> do not need to be CE Marked, but products made in the US an=
d imported
> into the EC MUST be CE Marked. You may think what you like.
This is simply NOT TRUE and I am surprised that anyone would believe this=
. CE
marking is a way of harmonising European stan=
dards,
A CE mark is meant to show that the equipment conforms to one of the harmonised standards. _All_ relevant equipment sold=
(or
used) in the EEA (European Economic Area) must comply with the rules,
wherever it is manufactured - even if it is produced in house, for self u=
se.
Before CE legislation, anyone wanting to export to a European country wou=
ld
have had to comply with the specific standards of each country. which may have meant preparing different equipment f=
or
installation in England
and France.
So far from being a protectionist policy as you infer, the legislation op=
ens
up the whole of Europe to a single pro=
duct.
Furthermore, as the standards are very high, this maintains an upward
pressure on product safety and quality - worldwide.
Marc Sinclair
Reply
<=
span
style=3D'font-family:Symbol;mso-ascii-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>&mid=
dot; Re<=
/strong>: CE Approved
Dec 20, 2002 5:30 pm, by Bob Peterson
Against what standards are they very high? When I get equipment sourced f=
rom
Europe it generally seems of lesser quality then what I would expect from=
a US or
Japanese manufacturer. There are some exceptions (German machinery is
generally very good but extremely pricey, thus rarely seen outside of
automobile showrooms).
What it was largely intended to do (despite protestations to the contrary)
was to make it more difficult for outsiders (US and Asia)
to sell into the European market. It has succeeded in some respects as it=
did
reduce the rate of growth of imports, but it made it easier in the long r=
un
for foreign companies to compete in that market. How much easier we will
someday find out.
Largely what has happened is that lots of resources have been shifted to
marking and paper shuffling from product development.
OTOH - its generally a good thing for the
marketplace to have a single standard that crosses many boundary lines. O=
ne
less thing that
differentiates products. Contributes to the commodity product idea.
Bob Peterson
Reply
<=
span
style=3D'font-family:Symbol;mso-ascii-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>&mid=
dot; Re<=
/strong>: CE Approved
Dec 23, 2002 4:05 pm, by Marc Sinclair
>Against what standards are they very high?
Safety and machine standards just compare EN60204 and UL508a E-Stop
regulations. EMC standards, hence extra filtering on inverters and Switch
Mode Power supplies. Power efficiency requirements
>When I get equipment sourced
>from Europe it generally seems of lesser quality then what I would
>expect from a =
US
or Japanese manufacturer. There are some exceptions
Quality, as fitness for purpose is subjective, I buy US built Siemens PLC=
S,
German designed, manufactured with Japanese and Irish components to
EC standard, UK made Inverters made with Malaysian Semiconductors, Czech
Republic wound components, Japanese displays in a US Plastics case. All g=
ood
quality equipment, because it does what I want it to do, but where does it
come from ?
>What it was largely intended to do (despite protestations to the
>contrary) was to make it more difficult for outsiders (US and Asia) to
>sell into the European market. It has succeeded in some respects as i=
t
>did reduce the rate of growth of imports, but it made it easier in th=
e
>long run for foreign companies to compete in that market. How much
>easier we will someday find out.
The introduction of the harmonisation did not
introduce new standards. If you were successfully exporting to the EU bef=
ore,
then all that was needed was the extra paperwork to show which standards
applied. Of course, new standards have been introduced since, and are bei=
ng
introduced regularly :-(
>Largely what has happened is that lots of resources have been shifted=
to
>marking and paper shuffling from product development.
>
On the other hand, you are saved from having to develop safety and EMC
policies - it's all done for you :-)
>OTOH - its generally a good thing for the
marketplace to have a single
>standard that crosses many boundary lines. One less thing that
>differentiates products. Contributes to the commodity product idea. <=
br>
>
And that, I beleive is the aim of this legisl=
ation.
I had hoped that we, as a community, had gone beyond the idea of nations.=
I
look forward to a system of harmonised world
standards. - (roll on the WC mark :-)
Marc Sinclair
Reply
<=
span
style=3D'font-family:Symbol;mso-ascii-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>&mid=
dot; Re<=
/strong>: CE Approved
Dec 16, 2002 10:26 am, by Jesper M. Pedersen<=
br>
Someone stated that the CE mark indicates that equipment meets requiremen=
ts
for EMC.
Be advised that the CE mark ALSO indicates that the equipment meets
electrical requirements AND the machinery directive (safety of machines).=
Reply
<=
span
style=3D'font-family:Symbol;mso-ascii-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>&mid=
dot; RE<=
/strong>: CE Approved
Dec 18, 2002 12:37 pm, by Geoff Moore
Hmmm...interesting interpretations of this, an=
d some
very inaccurate stuff from some of you on the western side of the Atlantic ;)
Every product of any type sold in the European Community MUST bear the CE
mark.
Any company selling non-CE marked product or any company purchasing non-CE
marked equipment in the EC is liable to prosecution (in the UK this can
result in fines for companies who violate or fines and/or prison sentences
for company directors who do not display due dillige=
nce
in the selling or purchasing decisions!!).
I am not aware of any prison sentences having been handed down yet but th=
ere
have been fines and the courts do have the power to lock people up for gr=
oss
violations.
In simple terms what CE means is "this product complies with all
applicable standards".
So when you find it attached to a piece of electrical equipment the
applicable standards will include EMC and electrical safety. When attache=
d to
a stuffed toy it means....well toy related safety standards :)
There are numerous broad standards defined for electrical and electronic
equipment such as the EMC directive (covering RFI/EMI) and the Low Voltage
directive (covering electrical safety) but the allowable levels within th=
ese
standards are not defined as they vary depending on the application. A ra=
nge
of "harmonised standards" have now
emerged each of which lists the specific tests that must be done and their
pass/fail criteria for specific types of equipment used in specific types=
of
application. This has made life a LOT more simple
for us all as the generic standards were way too difficult to interpret. =
A product manufacturer can self certify but they must be able to prove th=
at
they have shown due dilligence in
:
a. ensuring that they are testing the product to all the proper and
applicable standards (a lot easier to do now there are harmonized standar=
ds)
b. that the product's characteristics fall within the proper ranges for t=
he
standards tested against (hard to do unless you have documented results f=
rom
properly calibrated equipment properly set up and properly operated).
The extent to which the CE law is enforced and the processes used to enfo=
rce
it differ between European countries but some do not accept due dilligence of manufacturers unless it is backed up =
with
validated results from a registered test laboratory.
You can assess the level of commitment taken by each EU country to CE by
looking at how many state registered laboratories it has. Germany has several thousand, Ireland has
one...
Hope this clears up some of the missconceptions.
Geoff Moore
Reply
<=
span
style=3D'font-family:Symbol;mso-ascii-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>&mid=
dot; RE<=
/strong>: CE Approved
Dec 20, 2002 3:10 pm, by Walt Boyes
interspersed.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geoff Moore
>
> Hmmm...interesting interpretations of thi=
s, and
some very inaccurate
> stuff from some of you on the western side of the Atlantic
;)
Beg to differ, Geoff. I've seen these things happen.
> Every product of any type sold in the European Community MUST bear t=
he
> CE mark.
I have seen product sold in the EC that does not.
> Any company selling non-CE marked product or any company purchasing =
> non-CE marked equipment in the EC is liable to prosecution (in the <=
st1:country-region
w:st=3D"on">UK
> this can result in fines for companies who violate or fines and/or <=
br>
> prison sentences for company directors who do not display due dilligence
> in the selling or purchasing decisions!!).
That's true.
> I am not aware of any prison sentences having been handed down yet b=
ut
> there have been fines and the courts do have the power to lock peopl=
e up
> for gross violations.
No argument there.
> In simple terms what CE means is "this product complies with al=
l
> applicable standards".
>
> So when you find it attached to a piece of electrical equipment the =
> applicable standards will include EMC and electrical safety. When
> attached to a stuffed toy it means....well toy related safety standa=
rds
> :)
>
> There are numerous broad standards defined for electrical and electr=
onic
> equipment such as the EMC directive (covering RFI/EMI) and the Low <=
br>
> Voltage directive (covering electrical safety) but the allowable lev=
els
> within these standards are not defined as they vary depending on the=
> application. A range of "harmonised
standards" have now emerged each of
> which lists the specific tests that must be done and their pass/fail=
> criteria for specific types of equipment used in specific types of <=
br>
> application. This has made life a LOT more simple for us all as the =
> generic standards were way too difficult to interpret.
Costly, too. One of the reasons Foxboro lagged behind throughout the 1990s
was the incredible cost of becoming CE Mark certified.
> A product manufacturer can self certify but they must be able to pro=
ve
> that they have shown due dilligence in :=
>
> a. ensuring that they are testing the product to all the proper and =
> applicable standards (a lot easier to do now there are harmonized
> standards)
> b. that the product's characteristics fall within the
> proper ranges for the standards tested against (hard to do unless yo=
u
> have documented results from properly calibrated equipment properly =
set
> up and properly operated).
Here's where, IN PRACTICE, the EC gives European Companies a bye. There is
not to my knowledge a single case where the EC or any member country's
customs authority has challenged the self-certification of CE on any
automation product.
> The extent to which the CE law is enforced and the processes used to=
> enforce it differ between European countries but some do not accept =
due
> dilligence of manufacturers unless it is
backed up with validated
> results from a registered test laboratory.
However, there are several cases where even CE marked products from the <=
st1:country-region
w:st=3D"on">US we=
re held
in Customs and denied entry into the EC because of "inadequate
documentation."
> You can assess the level of commitment taken by each EU country to C=
E by
> looking at how many state registered laboratories it has. Germany has
> several thousand, Ireland
has one...
>
> Hope this clears up some of the missconceptions=
.
Now that CE Marking has been in force for nearly a decade, and now that US
firms have been bought by EC companies, the politics have eased off.
But there is no question that the primary motivation behind CE was to give
the EC's indigenous manufacturers a leg up on the competition. Sufficient
standards already existed for EMC and Safety without adding a selectively
enforceable additional layer of standard.
Water over the dam now.
Walt Boyes
Reply
<=
span
style=3D'font-family:Symbol;mso-ascii-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>&mid=
dot; Re<=
/strong>: CE Approved
Dec 27, 2002 10:15 am, by Marc Sinclair
>>Here's where, IN PRACTICE, the EC gives European Companies a bye.
There
>>is not to my knowledge a single case where the EC or any member <=
br>
>>country's customs authority has challenged the self-certification=
of
CE
>>on any automation product.
Could that be because goods within the EU don't pass through customs? - T=
he
EU is a common market, allowing free movement of goods and people, within=
the
area. (Just like you don't pass through customs between Utah
and Nevada.
This doesn't stop US customs checking imports from Europe.)
Customs are only one of the authorities charged with enforcement. Within =
the
EU non-compliance is usually uncovered by department of trade officers or,
sadly after an accident by the health and safety executive.
Here, just for your knowledge are three domest=
ic
companies prosecuted for non-compliance with CE regulations
Arena Supplies Ltd. Accident in which an employee amputated tips of his
fingers. Two employees using hydraulic folding machine with single hold to
run button. Fined $6,070. Machine supplier Morgan Ru=
shworth
Ltd also fined $2,255. Machine was CE marked with a closing ramp speed too
fast (28mm/s rather than <10mm/s). Machine did not meet the essential
health and safety standards of the Supply of Machinery Regulations.
Brian Selley. Employee injured while working =
at the
conveyor produced by the defendant. Machine did not meet essential health=
and
safety requirements, no risk assessment done, no CE Mark and the machine =
was unsafe. Fined $4,843.
Stoves Ltd. Employee lost three fingers and part of right hand when he ma=
de
contact with unguarded toothed gears while undertaking commissioning work=
on
a production line. Serious because the company is responsible for awarding
the CE mark on completion of commissioning and testing of the equipment. =
Fine
$9,420.
marc
Reply
<=
span
style=3D'font-family:Symbol;mso-ascii-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>&mid=
dot; Re<=
/strong>: CE Approved
Dec 16, 2002 1:23 pm, by Anonymous
After all the hashing is said and done, CE is a move to compete by regula=
tion
rather than by quality. I've done many Euro jobs and always had to use lo=
cal
unionized electricians for the actual installation, even though the panel=
was
US
bulit by us. Every time I have been amazed th=
at the
quality of the installation negates any attempt at quality in the control
panel and that they get away with it.
Reply
<=
span
style=3D'font-family:Symbol;mso-ascii-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>&mid=
dot; Re<=
/strong>: CE Approved
Dec 16, 2002 2:33 pm, by Zelenka
Dear Sirs,
Your comparison is funny. Which is Cadillac, and which Yugo?. First of all both organisati=
ons
-bodies (European and American) will sooner or later come to same solutio=
ns).
The biggest difference is in Explosion proof equipment. Almost all USA companies that wish to sell in Europ=
e have
certified there equipment in
Europe in accordance with CENELEC. I had=
a
situation that we received a container explosion proof installation. The
control box and some instruments were Explosion proof, UL listed. The con=
duit
was done by USA
company, but
incorrectly. Although the conduits were longer then 2 meters, there was no
seal on both sides of the conduit, etc.
So even if each unit is recognised as compati=
ble,
still the installation rules shall be compared.
Conclusion: All standards are written to help buyer and seller. All are
similar, but not identical.
Reply
<=
span
style=3D'font-family:Symbol;mso-ascii-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>&mid=
dot; Re<=
/strong>: CE Approved
Dec 18, 2002 11:52 am, by Bob Peterson
> Your comparison is funny. Which is Cadillac, and which Yugo?. First of
> all both organisations -bodies (European=
and
American) will sooner or
> later come to same solutions).
The guy who asked me the question assumed that one approval was better th=
an
the other. My response was aimed at pointing out that "UL approved&q=
uot;
and "CE approved" (if there is such a thing as CE approved) are=
not
variations of the
same thing. UL approval means an independent 3rd party lab has tested and=
certfied that certain items meet certain standards.=
Thats all it means.
The CE mark means both less and more. It means less, in that no third par=
ty
testing is required at all (at least for most control applications). It m=
eans
more in that the mark indicates that the equipment maker is certifying th=
at
ALL applicable standards have been met (not just a specific standard).
Not that it matters much, but to my mind, European style control equipment
seems somewhat less robust. It seems more application dependent, where as=
US
designed stuff seems to be designed such that it can take the worst cases=
.
This seems particularly evident in the design of contactors and pushbutto=
ns.
> The biggest difference is in Explosion proof equipment. Almost all <=
st1:country-region
w:st=3D"on">USA
> companies that wish to sell in Europe have certified there equipment=
in
> Europe in accordance with CENELEC=
. I
had a situation that we received a
> container explosion proof installation. The control box and some
> instruments were Explosion proof, UL listed. The conduit was done by=
USA <=
br>
> company, but incorrectly. Although the conduits were longer then 2 <=
br>
> meters, there was no seal on both sides of the conduit, etc.
I have no knowledge of your problems with US company=
s
complying with CENELEC explosion proof requirements. I assure you it was
nothing I had anything to do with. Does UL even certify stuff to meet CEN=
ELEC
requirements?
> So even if each unit is recognised as
compatible, still the installation
> rules shall be compared.
>
> Conclusion: All standards are written to help buyer and seller. All =
are
> similar, but not identical.
Installation rules here are governed by tens of thousands of local govern=
ment
inspection departments, all of whom think they know more than the guys who
wrote the NEC, and have their own ideas about what each paragraph means. =
Plus
we have local building code agencies in many locales who care only for the
political contributions they can get for skewing the building code to help
their political friends, usually unions and unionized contractors, so they
add on things to the NEC that are required in their locale only.
Bob Peterson
Reply
<=
span
style=3D'font-family:Symbol;mso-ascii-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>&mid=
dot; Re<=
/strong>: CE Approved
Dec 16, 2002 2:54 pm, by Roberto Burgos
CE stands for "Conformite Europeenne"
which is an agency approval in the european u=
nion
UL stands for "underwriters laboratories" USA wich
is an agency approval in the us
this agency's preform test and certifications=
acording to their own standards, there are several =
more
depending on the aplcation of a product.
Reply
<=
span
style=3D'font-family:Symbol;mso-ascii-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>&mid=
dot; Re<=
/strong>: CE Approved
Dec 18, 2002 9:35 am, by RVK
There is no such animal called as a CE Approval! CE does not approve
anything. This is a declaration by the manufacturer of the equipment in
discussion that their manufacturing procedures were safe and that they did
not damage the environment. No wonder you see the CE sticker on helium baloons & the kids toys.
UL on the other hand requires testing. Also, UL applies if the device is
connected to circuits 30 Volts & there are certain pre-requisites to =
get
the approval.
In simple language, You declare the CE compliance yourself if you are a
primary manufacturer, but you pay somebody to get UL approval even if you=
are
a primary manufacturer.
Reply
<=
span
style=3D'font-family:Symbol;mso-ascii-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>&mid=
dot; RE<=
/strong>: CE Approved
Dec 20, 2002 2:01 pm, by Geoff Moore
To RVK !
Nonsense!
As I have already stated in an email to this list but which I haven't seen
posted yet, when attached to a product CE means "this product compli=
es
with all applicable standards".
Your email is dissinformation. You should not=
post
to lists until you know what you're talking about.
Manufacturers are technically allowed to self certify but the tests they =
must
carry out are predefined in European standards, the pass and fail criteria
are predefined in European standards and the governments of each European
country defines how manufacturers prove that they have adhered to these
standards.
In most countries the only accepted way to prove this is to undertake the
tests in a government licensed test house.
I don't know anything about US
standards but I hope people posting to this list know a lot more about th=
em
than they obviously do about European ones!
Regards
Geoff Moore
Reply
<=
span
style=3D'font-family:Symbol;mso-ascii-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>&mid=
dot; RE<=
/strong>: CE Approved
Dec 23, 2002 11:53 am, by Walt Boyes
Mr. Moore,
I have had products CE Marked.
I have studied the situation for nearly 10 years.
You are accurately citing the letter of the rules, but perhaps not the sp=
irit
and the intent.
Unfortunately, many European instrumentation manufacturers are following a
different drummer.
There are two sets of standards for US products shipping to Europe
and European products used there.
US
Products that are self-certified are regularly challenged. European produ=
cts
that are self-certified are not.
As I have posted previously, I am unaware of a single case of a European
product whose self-certification has been challenged. I _am_ aware of sev=
eral
cases where US Made goods have been seized by europe=
an
customs agencies, even though the boxes were clearly labeled CE, and their
self-certifications were challenged.
So, it is more expensive to achieve CE Mark in the US
than in Europe.
This is clearly an informal barrier to trade.
Walt Boyes
---------SPITZER AND BOYES, LLC-------------
"Consulting from the engineer
to the distribution channel"
www.spitzerandboyes.com
walt@waltboyes.com
21118 SE 278th Place
Maple Valley, WA
98038
253-709-5046 cell 425-432-8262 home office
fax:1-253-981-0285
--------------------------------------------
Reply
<=
span
style=3D'font-family:Symbol;mso-ascii-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>&mid=
dot; Re<=
/strong>: CE Approved
Dec 24, 2002 2:29 pm, by Geoff Moore
Walt
I have no argument with your experiences. You may have noticed my comments
two or three mails ago on the enforcement of standard throughout the EC w=
ere
intended to be somewhat tongue in cheek. In some European countries the
standards situation is laughable.
This is not the fault of the equipment manufacturers,=
it's down to each country's regulatory authorities and the way in which t=
he
CE regulations have been written into the law. As an example, in the UK a =
product
or company will only come under the spotlight if some other company or
individual makes a complaint against them. If a non-compliant product gets
into the market and nobody complains then that product will continue to be
sold with no penalty.
Here in Ireland
the body responsible for enforcement is the Trading Standards Authority, a
grossly undermanned government agency who are =
also
responsible for such diverse subject areas as advertising standards and
consumer goods pricing monitoring. The commitment of our government to hi=
gh
standards in CE compliance can be gauged by the fact that the only govern=
ment
operated test house was recently closed down, leaving only one independant test house in the country!
OK, the situation isn't ideal, but in principle it is a better system than
one that can put out product with no certification whatsoever or one that=
can
fool the uneducated consumer by quoting a whole list of irrelevant standa=
rds.
I too have studied the system, in my case for well in excess of 10 years.=
As
an equipment designer working in the EC I watched the situation unfold fr=
om
the mid 1980s, including more than one stalled launch of the system becau=
se
"nobody was ready". (CE was supposed to happen in 1992 but nobo=
dy
took it seriously so it was put off until 1993...then everyone panicked..=
.so
it was put off again until 1994 because nobody was ready).
Fear ran riot through the electronics industry in =
Europe.
Panic stricken company execs caught up in stories about how costly it wou=
ld
be to certify entire product ranges, tales of 5 year waiting lists to get
into test houses, scare mongering amongst competitors each trying to out =
do
each other.
I saw just as many panic stricken engineers scared of having to certify
products which had formerly required no certification, engineers who had =
been
putting together digital systems blissfully un-aware of the radiation they
were spewing all over the spectrum.
I watched several companies completely change direction as a result of the
introduction of CE.
I also watched several micro-enterprises go out of business because they
couldn't afford to put their products through the test regime.
Perhaps from the U=
S
perspective it appears that CE has been invented as a means of blocking
outside competition but I find that a little hard to swallow given the am=
ount
of US and Far Eastern manufactured equipment in circulation here.
Within the EC it would appear otherwise. Like many (most?) other European
directives CE favours large corporations to t=
he
detriment of small companies and entrepeneurs=
. Most larger companies (particularly in mainland Europe) with a significant output of new product =
now
have certified in house test facilities to reduce the cost burden. The
certification of these test facilities is handled by each member state's =
own
standards authority, and it is here perhaps that the problems arise.
We have product manufactured and certified in house at a company in India=
and
have absolutely no problem getting it into the EC.
BYW The very first compliance related prosecution of a company in the UK wa=
s of a
company manufacturing PCs and attaching the CE mark having falsely claime=
d to
have self certified their product. Can't remember the company name or the
exact date but it would have been around 1995/6.
What I really take issue with in this series of mails is the myth that is
being circulated regarding the low quality of European equipment.
CE may represent "an informal barrier to trade" in SOME
circumstances as you state, however there is an even greater one being bu=
ilt
by people who do not know anything about European standards expressing th=
eir
opinions on this list as if these opinions were facts.
I agree that there is some very poor quality European equipment on the ma=
rket
but I have seen some horrendously bad US made equipment too. I do=
not
use this as a weapon with which to pummel the entire US
electronics industry and I do not try to preach to others that US made =
=3D bad
quality.
There are a lot of fine engineers contributing a lot of good information =
to
this list, but there are also a lot of impressionable people who take
everything they read here as gospel.
If I had two general suggestions for people on this list they would be: <=
br>
1. for God's sake, do a search before you ask a
question (if you don't get pretty close to the answer from the search ass=
ume
you've asked the wrong question)
2. turn up the opinion filter, both when reading and when contributing
Regards
Geoff Moore
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Modulo - Advanced Security Devices
(A division of Straight Forward Solutions Ltd)
Maynooth Road, Prosperous,
Naas, Co.Kildare, Ireland
Phone : +353 (0)45 892739
Fax : +353 (0)45 893880
Mobile : +353 (0)86 8179683
email : geoffm@modulosecurity.com
web : www.modulosecurity.com
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Reply
<=
span
style=3D'font-family:Symbol;mso-ascii-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>&mid=
dot; RE<=
/strong>: CE Approved
Jan 10, 2003 10:42 am, by Amgad Badawi
> There are two sets of standards for US products shipping to Europe and European products used there.
_Simply_Not_True_ The Standards are available=
for
everyone to inspect. There is only one set of standards that I can find, =
the
standards even apply to products made for internal company use!
> US
Products that are self-certified are regularly challenged. European produ=
cts
that are self-certified are not.
Again Simply_Not_True, even a quick 'net sear=
ch
brings up many instances of prosecutions!
> As I have posted previously, I am unaware of a single case of a Euro=
pean
product whose self-certification has been challenged. I _am_ aware of sev=
eral
cases where US Made goods have been seized by europe=
an
customs agencies, even though the boxes were clearly labeled CE, and their
self-certifications were challenged!
You obviously do not understand anything about The EU. Customs authoritie=
s do
not interfere with internal goods. As for European products, It has certa=
inly
happened, I even read (and checked)some exampl=
es of
prosecutions in previous posts!
> So, it is more expensive to achieve CE Mark in the US than in Europe=
.
_Simply_Not_True - these rumors are usually p=
ut
about by companies looking for consultancy work, by the way, what do you =
do
again?.
I work for a company who manufacture goods in the US for sale the world over =
- yes
- even the EU. The effort put into CE marking was no more that any other
regulatory conformance, it's just what the cus=
tomer
wants.
> This is clearly an informal barrier to trade.
No, what is an informal barrier is scaring off US manufacturers with tale=
s of
this type. Let me tell my US
buddys, Europe is
open for business, just be diligent with your paperwork.
Reply
<=
span
style=3D'font-family:Symbol;mso-ascii-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>&mid=
dot; Re<=
/strong>: CE Approved
Jan 13, 2003 2:39 pm, by PETERSONRA@aol.com
> > There are two sets of standards for US products shipping to Europe and
> > European products used there.
>
> _Simply_Not_True_ The Standards are avai=
lable
for everyone to inspect.
> There is only one set of standards that I can find, the standards ev=
en
> apply to products made for internal company use!
A fairer statement would be that there are two standards for compliance. =
One
for products made inside the EU and one (much stricter) for those made
outside the EU.
> > US Products that are self-certified are regularly challenged. <=
br>
> > European products that are self-certified are not.
>
> Again Simply_Not_True, even a quick 'net
search brings up many instances
> of prosecutions!
>
> > As I have posted previously, I am unaware of a single case of a=
> > European product whose self-certification has been challenged. I
_am_
> > aware of several cases where US Made goods have been seized by =
> > european customs agencies, even tho=
ugh
the boxes were clearly labeled
> > CE, and their self-certifications were challenged!
>
> You obviously do not understand anything about The EU. Customs
> authorities do not interfere with internal goods. As for European
> products, It has certainly happened, I even read (and checked)some
> examples of prosecutions in previous posts!
Thats kind of the =
point
isn't it? Since goods being sent within the EU are not even looked at by =
the
customs people they concentrate on goods coming from outside the EU. The was the whole purpose in the first place.
> > So, it is more expensive to achieve CE Mark in the US than in Europe=
.
>
> _Simply_Not_True - these rumors are usua=
lly
put about by companies looking
> for consultancy work, by the way, what do you do again?.
I work for a
> company who manufacture goods in the US for sale the world over =
- yes
-
> even the EU. The effort put into CE marking was no more that any oth=
er
> regulatory conformance, it's just what the customer wants.
I think the issue is really one of compliance. US com=
panys
just do not want to sign on the bottom line until all the I's are dotted a=
nd T's
are crossed because of all the silly litigation that goes on here. This is
not a big issue in Europe. Look at the
minimal fines for noncompliance, even where serious injury or death resul=
ted.
> > This is clearly an informal barrier to trade.
>
> No, what is an informal barrier is scaring off US manufacturers with
tales
> of this type. Let me tell my US
buddys, Europe is
open for business, just
> be diligent with your paperwork.
The US=
will someday figure out that it makes no sense to subsidize our trading
partners. Eventually.
Bob Peterson
Reply
|
|