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.
Sick and Tired
Terry J. Meck
Senior Compliance / Test Engineer
Accu-Sort Systems
-------------------------------------------
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
-------------------------------------------
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
