Thanks much Rich. To further confuse item #2, please note public comments like this
http://www.aeanet.org/Forums/uyjJDbXivUHVMhpKNeoAnHywYlFRFqkhSNGo SorUkafgtnTUQJRYEmBHxALldqWTyXItM.pdf (sorry about the wrap) Also, I have noted that many EU states have 'parallel' committees for both the IEC TC and their CENELEC reps. Sorta hoping to toss two stones at three birds. luck, Brian From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of 'Rich Nute' Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 3:02 PM To: 'Brian O'Connell'; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: IEC 62368 Hi Brian: > 1. What is the status of IEC62368 and the associated and > infamous IEC62441 ? Ultimately, when are 60950-1 and 60065 > projected to be replaced by 62368 ? CDV2 will be issued to National Committees for voting this or next month. (You can get a copy from your National Committee.) Voting will be complete in 5 months. If the vote is yes, then a FDIS will be issued. Regarding replacement of 60950-1 and 60065, the CDV2 states: "The attention of National Committees and National bodies who prepare national standards is drawn to the fact that equipment manufacturers and testing organizations may need a transitional period following publication of a new, amended or revised IEC publication in which to make products in accordance with the new requirements and to equip themselves for conducting new or revised tests. It is the recommendation of TC108 that the content of this publication be adopted for mandatory implementation nationally not earlier than five years from the date of publication of this standard." > 2. As there have been several industry groups that have > stated that an 8 year transition period is not adequate, has > there been any response from CENELEC or other national groups ? The transition period is the result of input from National Committees. (CENELEC is not a member of IEC TC 108 or any other IEC committee.) If you do not like the 5-year transition period, comment to your National Committee with both why you object and with your proposal. (I have not heard a National Committee state that an 8- year transition is not adequate. I have heard National Committees state that an 8-year transition is too long.) > 3. The oft-heard quote about HBSE is that it is a "radical > new approach". Other than a new way to draw > hazard/protection/product dependency diagrams, what is so > 'radical' about 62368 and HBSE ? The new standard introduces models for injury and models for safety. The models allow for prediction of injury. No past standard has used models for its requirements. I suppose one could call this "radical." (In the past, most requirements were based on preventing recurrence of a safety incident, i.e., the inversion of a bad experience.) The new standard introduces the concepts of "safeguards" as the means for protection against injury. If you are not being injured, then one or more safeguards are in place. For many, identification of safeguards is a difficult concept. All of the required safeguards and safeguard parameters are based on engineering analysis. The clauses are organized according to the type of "injury." For example, openings for control of electric shock are specified in the electric shock clause. Openings for the control of spread of fire are specified in the fire clause. And, they are different as the safeguard functions are different. If your product poses a fire hazard but not an electric shock hazard, then only the fire openings are required. And vice-versa. Such organization of requirements yields more freedom for the design of equipment. Once you understand the concepts, the new standard is not "radical." It is a new and logical way of thinking about safety. Once this new way of thinking is mastered, safety becomes an engineering discipline, much less arbitrary, and not a standards check-off process. > 4. To those that have attended the UL seminar on HBSE, and > that have previous experience with IT and AV safety, did the > seminar enable you to understand and implement any additional > or new requirements, documentation, and/or procedures ? No comment. Best regards, Rich - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
