"CE" mark self certification

[GaryAviation]

Folks: Thanks to all who replied to my question(s) on CE certification. I took your advice and ordered EN 50082-1 and EN 50082-2. PROBLEM ?? I did not receive either. I received the following:

BS EN 61000-6-1:2001 and BS EN 61000-6-2:2005

Are these two officially replacing the EN 50082-1 and EN 50082-2? And on my self certification document, I can simply list one of these and call it a day?

Thanks

[hansknec]

If your product meets ANY Directive, you are entitled to stick a CE mark on it and certify saying so.

Melanie, You are actually in the UK right? I say that because those of us across the pond (USA) have been given a much more restrictive warning about CE marks. I sold a product to Darsbury University and needed the CE mark. I "self" certified as is allowed and saved the $8000 EMC and Low Voltage directive testing, but I really felt like I was pushing my luck. Everything I read about CE indicated that I needed to check off ALL directives that the product fell under and then show that the product met ALL directives before affixing the mark. (sidebar- can you believe there are companies selling the gif image for CE? As if we can't find the image elsewhere and photoshop it.)

I think the fear is not that some postal inspector will catch you, but rather the fact that one of your EU competitors might rat on you to the authorities in order to get your product banned.

I would love to have you dissuade my fears, because I just got a quote from a testing company for a new product. $12500 to certify it for EMC and Low voltage directives.

[hansknec]

To answer your original question -- Yes.

EN61000:2001 is the new EMC standard.
I think the sub chapters followed the old 50082 numbers.

A good web search will yield all the right numbers for you.

John

[lester]

Speaking as somebody that has been through not only the certification process for products that we manufacture and market, but also as someone who has been through the mill when prosecuted for non compliance under the EMC directive, I think i'm fairly well positioned in saying that:

Many people attach the CE mark without testing correctly or even understanding exactly what directives apply. They "get way with it" because they are not challenged.

You do need to test and you do need to understand which directives apply. You are accountable ( not the company, but the signatory on the compliance statement).

If you are supplying to a gov't agency or any client likely to carry out due dilligence, i.e any one that specifically asks for CE, be sure to ensure that you have thourougly researched the relevent directives.

(The same applies to RoHS)

I dont have it to hand, but if you PM me i'll point you to two excellent books that will spell it out for you. And if you like to call me, i'll explain what happenms when OfCom get wind of a non compliant product, via the local trading standards officer or by Govt agency.

Rememebr that in the UK failure to comply is a criminal office, with a penalty that can include not only a fine but also imprisonment.

A two year battle resulted in my name being cleared, the company receiving a fine and 15000 GBP in costs.

And that was related to failure to comply with the legislation on a product that was exempt form CE, under Functionality, use and End User.

There is also a case in the UK where a company building home PC's for retail sale, used all CE marked parts, but failed to test the fully built product. They assumed that by using CE marked parts they could CE mark the final product, without further testing. WRONG, resulted in 3 MONTHS prison sentence for the company director and a big fine.


My advice, dont take advise from non qualified peers, anecdotal evidence is no defence. If it all goes pear shaped, the court will not accept "so and so on the forum said it would be OK"

BUT, you are in the USA, yes? So the importer is the responsible party, and thats your client
------------------------------o0o---------------------------------
I just deleted a whole load of advsie that i'm pretty sure is correct, but i'm not qualified to give. (legal stuff, that i learned during our prosecution)

PM me or call me if you wish.


BTW, I learned so much during our prosecution, that ending up with a clear name and paying 15000 GBP, was actually well worth the money (when viewed in commercial terms), made loads of really good contacts, including those on the presecution team, who i'm still in touch with. Even went for a drink with one of them after the case.

[lester]

Actually i just read this thread again,

If you were in the UK you're flying really close to the wind.

Just the content of this thread, in the hands of prosecution, are enough to counter any mitigation that you might plead if you failed to comply.

its scary.

[Archangel]

Even went for a drink with one of them after the case.

Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer!
Regards Lester,
JS

[lester]

Yep it pays

[hansknec]

I am confused about one thing though, and I ask it on the forum so that others may find clarity in your answer. Are you saying that when some professor at a university asks a little grey-haired lady in purchasing to buy a thingamabob from this guy across the pond, then she is the importer and is therefore the responsible party?

I'm not selling the particular device anymore to EU, but I did do quite a bit of research and the technical construction file ... blah moot point now.

I am planning on selling something else in the future. I'll just make sure I make a boat load of money over here first then pay for a qualified independent lab analysis for CE, or find a partner over the pond to import and distribute after doing their own analysis.

[malc-c]

There is also a case in the UK where a company building home PC's for retail sale, used all CE marked parts, but failed to test the fully built product. They assumed that by using CE marked parts they could CE mark the final product, without further testing. WRONG, resulted in 3 MONTHS prison sentence for the company director and a big fine.

Lester,

This seams strange. I've been in consulation with our H&S director where I work and he stated that as I've purcahsed components through such suppliers as Farnell, RS etc these components would of had to of been tested to comply with these directives. Therefore there would be no real requirement to have a lab test the assembled device. This would be the equivelent of your example above.

It seems that this process is somewhat of a mind field and nothing is black and white

[ponthirmike]

Unfortunately a system of parts which are CE approved does not automatically make the System CE compliant.

I have had a specific case where I used a CE compliant radio module in a product but still had to have the product approved to the R&TTE directive. On a brighter note (?) the use of CE approved parts DOES reduce the overall system approval (ie using a CE approved Power Supply will dramatically reduce, or in some cases, remove the need for the assessment to the Low Voltage Directive

[malc-c]

This does really get confusing..

So assuming I gathered all the data and compliance sheets for the components and parts used, which should mean that the parts to be sold would already be CE marked or compliant, it still means the final unit has to be tested? - Bummer !!!

I'm awaiting a call from the business section of our local trading standards office (well they are apparently responsible for policing the CE marking) to hear their view point. I'll let you know the outcome