<c70e41e6f8e8d411b80700508bb8e2e526f...@caq010exch001u.corp.octel.com>, Grant, Tania (Tania) <tgr...@lucent.com> wrote: > >Terry, > >I believe that the emphasis is on "traceability" of what the part actually >is. We have noticed that UL field inspectors are lately no longer >accepting "good faith" explanations, but require actual proof. The UL >field office actually issued some letters regarding this intention some time >back. > >If on this particular UL Procedure you have a certain standoff that requires >to be "insulated" with a known flammability rating, you may have 2 avenues >to explore: > 1. Have the UL inspection done at the manufacturing location where >this standoff is assembled onto your PC card. In that location should also >be present "immediate packaging" containers that would identify what this >non Recognized standoff is. Then the standoff manufacturer's >specifications should identify the flammability information of this part. >If that flammability information is not available, then you are left to >challenge the original UL engineering decision that this particular standoff >needs to be "insulated." This topic has been covered adequately by Rich >Nute and others earlier. (I've been horribly busy the last two days and >am only now reading my e-mail.) > > 2. What if you fitted the standoff with a UL Recognized sleeving >where the information is printed on this tubing or sleeving? Obviously, >this change you would have to submit to UL. I think it would be worth >while exploring. > >Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com >Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group >Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Terry Meck [mailto:tjm...@accusort.com] >Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 7:44 AM >To: emc-p...@ieee.org >Subject: FLAME RATING OF STANDOFFS > > > >Hi group! > >I need a sanity check on a `new approach' our safety agency has recently >taken. > >We have an open frame power supply ( has all the certs through the CB report >etc. for EN 60950 UL 1950 ) > >On of the conditions of acceptability is one mounting standoff shall be >insulated. We have this supply in no less then 4 listed products without >any reference to the flame rating of the standoff having to be checked when >the inspector comes in. >I consider that to be reasonable. section 4.4.3.3 UL 1950 has exception: >"gears, cams, belts, bearings and other small parts which would contribute >negligible fuel to a fire;" > >Recently new products have been reviewed and the new procedures require >`traceable 94V-2' standoffs!?!? Which manufacturing engineering says is >difficult to procure a traceable recognized plastic standoff. > >Questions: >Has my fever and pneumonia the past weeks clouded my reasoning? What am I >missing? You place a .5 inch #6 standoff between a V-0 board and a medal >chassis what requires a recognized part except maybe `straining out the >gnats so we can swallow the camel' somewhere else. >
I didn't see the original post, so excuse me replying this way. If you are sure that 4.4.3.3 applies, then DON'T settle by 'doing what you're told'. That encourages safety agency personnel to invent their own 'standards'. But are you sure that the demand is that it has to be 94V-2, or is it just that it has to be 'traceable'? It might be a legitimate demand that the part is identifiable so that your procurement people can't buy Celluloid ones from Sum Yung Gai (apocryphal purveyor of guaranteed UNtraceable components to the unwary trade). -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. Phone +44 (0)1268 747839 Fax +44 (0)1268 777124. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Foxhunters suffer from tallyhosis. PLEASE do not mail copies of newsgroup posts to me. ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson: pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
