RE: Safety testing for 48 VDC powered ITE Equipment

[Kazimier Gawrzyjal]

Hi Kurt,

I believe that under the R&TTE Directive, now in full bloom, the
requirements of the LVD apply without the voltage limits.

For North America, UL 1950, third edition/CAN CSA C22.2 No. 950-M95 (the
binational standard) would likely be your best fit.

My 2 Cents and not that of my current employer.

Regards,
Kaz Gawrzyjal , P. Eng.
Product Safety Engineer
--
Nortel Networks-Wireless Solutions
Wireless Development Centre
2924 11 Street NE   
Calgary, Alberta
Canada, T2E 7L7 
tel:403-232-4805 (ESN 765)
fax:403-232-4813 (ESN 765)
e-mail:  k...@nortelnetworks.com



-Original Message-
From: Andrews, Kurt [mailto:kandr...@tracewell.com]
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 11:04 AM
To: EMC-PSTC
Subject: Safety testing for 48 VDC powered ITE Equipment



I'm looking for information as to what is required as far as safety testing
for a piece of 48 VDC powered ITE Equipment. All outputs will be 12 VDC or
less. This is a commercial unit and will not be sold to consumers.

In Europe it would fall outside the scope of the LVD as it starts at 75V for
DC powered equipment and this will be powered by 48 VDC. 

Does anyone know if there any other safety standards required in Europe for
this type of equipment?

It does appear that safety testing and listing is required by OSHA for use
in a U.S. workplace. According to OSHA Standard 1910 Subpart S all "electric
utilization equipment" is required to be "approved" which in most cases
means Listing by a NRTL. In 1920.399 OSHA defines "electric utilization
equipment" as equipment which uses electrical energy for mechanical,
chemical, heating, lighting, or similar useful purpose. My interpretation of
this is that any equipment which uses electricity, AC or DC, would need to
be tested and Listed.

Is my interpretation of the OSHA requirements correct?

What about requirements for Canada?

Any insights into these questions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Kurt Andrews
Compliance Engineer
Tracewell Systems, Inc.
567 Enterprise Dr.
Westerville, OH 43081
Ph. 614-846-6175
Fax 614-846-7791
Email: kandr...@tracewell.com 

---
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

TAD 8465

[Pryor McGinnis]

Is anyone familiar with TAD 8465.  I think it is a Bell Canada ESD Requirement.
Where can copies be obtained?

Best Regards,
Pryor McGinnis
c...@prodigy.net 
www.ctl-lab.com

Re: Safety testing for 48 VDC powered ITE Equipment

[Eric Petitpierre]

 Kurt,
 
 As for US and Canada UL1950/CSA950 should do it. Would be best to get 
 both standards done at the same time due to similarity.  Would also 
 have to make sure lab is accredited for both standards, ie by a MOU.
 
 As for Europe, I have heard a rumor that the 75 V dc minimum level may 
 be reduced to zero. ( All equipment that uses dc is liable).  This may 
 apply only to the RTTE Directive.  Perhaps others can comment..

Regards,

Eric Petitpierre

__ Reply Separator _
Subject: Safety testing for 48 VDC powered ITE Equipment
Author:  kandr...@tracewell.com (Andrews; Kurt) at smtp
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date:5/19/00 1:03 PM


I'm looking for information as to what is required as far as safety testing 
for a piece of 48 VDC powered ITE Equipment. All outputs will be 12 VDC or 
less. This is a commercial unit and will not be sold to consumers.
 
In Europe it would fall outside the scope of the LVD as it starts at 75V for 
DC powered equipment and this will be powered by 48 VDC.
 
Does anyone know if there any other safety standards required in Europe for 
this type of equipment?
 
It does appear that safety testing and listing is required by OSHA for use 
in a U.S. workplace. According to OSHA Standard 1910 Subpart S all "electric 
utilization equipment" is required to be "approved" which in most cases 
means Listing by a NRTL. In 1920.399 OSHA defines "electric utilization 
equipment" as equipment which uses electrical energy for mechanical, 
chemical, heating, lighting, or similar useful purpose. My interpretation of 
this is that any equipment which uses electricity, AC or DC, would need to 
be tested and Listed.
 
Is my interpretation of the OSHA requirements correct?
 
What about requirements for Canada?
 
Any insights into these questions would be greatly appreciated.
 
Thanks,
 
Kurt Andrews
Compliance Engineer
Tracewell Systems, Inc.
567 Enterprise Dr.
Westerville, OH 43081
Ph. 614-846-6175
Fax 614-846-7791
Email: kandr...@tracewell.com
 
---
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

RE: Safety testing for 48 VDC powered ITE Equipment

[Grant, Tania (Tania)]

Kurt,

Be careful.The LVD might exempt your equipment; however, if your 48 Vdc
ITE has TNV connections, then you need to meet, per the old Telco or the new
RTTE Directive,  the "essential requirements" of safety, which are presumed
to be met by compliance to EN60950.   Alternatively, you can provide other
proof that you meet the "essential requirements."Believe me, it is
easier to comply with EN60950 than provide this alternate proof!If your
48Vdc ITE equipment is NOT connected to TNV circuits then, by the book, you
can consider it as falling outside the scope of the LVD.However, I
believe that this is a foolish position to take;-- you should take a look at
the European liability laws and then decide whether you want to hide under
LVD dc limit exemption.
 
The EN60950:1992, incorporating Amendments 1 through 5,  states that it is
applicable to mains-powered or battery-powered ITE,  "...with a rated
voltage not exceeding 600 V." Note that there is no mention of a minimum
voltage, whether ac or dc.

Thus, the ITE standard does not exempt you, however, the LVD does, assuming
you want to take up this exemption.

Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com  
Lucent Technologies, Intelligent Network Unit
Messaging Solutions Group


--
From:  Andrews, Kurt [SMTP:kandr...@tracewell.com]
Sent:  Friday, May 19, 2000 10:04 AM
To:  EMC-PSTC
Subject:  Safety testing for 48 VDC powered ITE Equipment


I'm looking for information as to what is required as far as safety testing
for a piece of 48 VDC powered ITE Equipment. All outputs will be 12 VDC or
less. This is a commercial unit and will not be sold to consumers.

In Europe it would fall outside the scope of the LVD as it starts at 75V for
DC powered equipment and this will be powered by 48 VDC. 

Does anyone know if there any other safety standards required in Europe for
this type of equipment?

It does appear that safety testing and listing is required by OSHA for use
in a U.S. workplace. According to OSHA Standard 1910 Subpart S all "electric
utilization equipment" is required to be "approved" which in most cases
means Listing by a NRTL. In 1920.399 OSHA defines "electric utilization
equipment" as equipment which uses electrical energy for mechanical,
chemical, heating, lighting, or similar useful purpose. My interpretation of
this is that any equipment which uses electricity, AC or DC, would need to
be tested and Listed.

Is my interpretation of the OSHA requirements correct?

What about requirements for Canada?

Any insights into these questions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Kurt Andrews
Compliance Engineer
Tracewell Systems, Inc.
567 Enterprise Dr.
Westerville, OH 43081
Ph. 614-846-6175
Fax 614-846-7791
Email: kandr...@tracewell.com 

---
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

Re: Charge moving from decoupling capacitors

[Ralph Cameron]

Barry

Thanks for correcting me. Practical solutions have changed from the time I
made many measurements on PCBs with discrete components. I'll be interested
to read the article you mentioned since I wasn't aware a single SMA cap
could do a better job.

Regards,

Ralph Cameron

- Original Message -
From: "Barry Ma" 
To: 
Cc: 
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: Charge moving from decoupling capacitors


> Ralph,
>
> Please be cautious about what you said below: "the reason why most power
buses on PCBs use several values of decoupling is to ensure that a wide
range of frequencies are covered."
>
> Several V curves shown in the figure of impedance vs. frequency, which we
are all familiar with, would easily convince us the above statement. But
those V curves only show the absolute value of impedance around
self-resonance frequency of various capacitors. If considering related phase
relations, the total impedance of several values of decaps would become not
as simple as we expected - having low impedance over wider frequecy range.
You may refer to an article by Paul, C. R.:
>
> "Effectiveness of multiple decoupling capacitors," IEEE EMC Vol. 34, p.
130, May 1992."
>
> In my practice of using SMA caps, only the largest value of capacitance
available for given SMA size is selected, if I have a PCB with 10 mil or
less plane spacing.
>
> Regards,
> Barry Ma
> b...@anritsu.com
>
> 
> On Thu, 18 May 2000, "Ralph Cameron" wrote:
>
> > As I read in an article related to bypassing for good decoupling ( in
1971)
> > one can select from a number of EIA values and by cutting the lead
lengths
> > correctly ( e.g. from 1/2"- less than 1/4"  ) the series reonant
frequency
> > will drop by a considerable amount so - yes, the reason why most power
buses
> > on PCBs use several values of decoupling is to ensure that a wide range
of
> > requencies are covered.  Perhaps, with surface mount caps, that is
easier to
> > predict because they are essentially leadless.
> >
> > I once cured a very severe case of an FM receiver responding to the 7th
> > harmonic of a 14Mhz transmitter because an untuned mixer was used.
Placing
> > a 100pf cap with 1/4" leads right across the mixer IC completely cured
the
> > problem without degrading mixer sensitivity.
> >
> > Ralph Cameron
> > EMC Consultant for Suppression of Consumer Electronics
> > (After Sale)
>
>
> ___
>
> Why pay when you don't have to? Get AltaVista Free Internet Access now!
> http://jump.altavista.com/freeaccess4.go
>
> ___
>
>


---
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

RE: EN55022: 1995 withdrawal date

[Geoff Lister]

Ted,
The EC Official Journal, ref. 2000/C 21/03 does indeed state
that equipment must meet EN55022:1998 on and after 
August 1st, 2001.
The chances are that the specs will be updated well before
the year 20001 :-)

Regards,
Geoff Lister

geoff.lis...@motionmedia.co.uk
Senior Engineer
Motion Media Technology Ltd., Horton Hall, Horton, Bristol, BS37 6QN, UK
Direct: +44 (0) 1454 338561ISDN: +44 (0) 1454 338554
Switchboard: +44 (0) 1454 313444 Fax: +44 (0) 1454 313678
http://www.motionmedia.co.uk



On Friday, May 19, 2000 4:46 PM, Carr, Ted [SMTP:ted.c...@gtech.com] wrote:
>I need to know the withdrawal of EN55022: 1995. That is
> to say at what date can you no longer ship equipment that has been tested to
> this standard. The EN55022: 1998 mention the date of July 31, 20001. Is this
> the date or has it been change. I would appreciate any comments. 
>  
> Thank You,
>  
> Ted Carr
> ted.c...@gtech.com  
>  
>  << File: ATT2.htm >>  << File: Ted Carr.vcf >> 

---
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

RE: EN55022: 1995 withdrawal date

[Pettit, Ghery]

Ted,
 
The DOW for EN 55022:1995 is 1 August 2001.  Any product shipped into the EC
after that date must have been tested to EN 55022:1998.
 
Ghery Pettit
Intel

-Original Message-
From: Carr, Ted [mailto:ted.c...@gtech.com]
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 8:46 AM
To: Emc-Pstc (E-mail)
Subject: EN55022: 1995 withdrawal date


   I need to know the withdrawal of EN55022: 1995. That is
to say at what date can you no longer ship equipment that has been tested to
this standard. The EN55022: 1998 mention the date of July 31, 20001. Is this
the date or has it been change. I would appreciate any comments. 
 
Thank You,
 
Ted Carr
ted.c...@gtech.com  
 



---
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

Safety testing for 48 VDC powered ITE Equipment

[Andrews, Kurt]

I'm looking for information as to what is required as far as safety testing
for a piece of 48 VDC powered ITE Equipment. All outputs will be 12 VDC or
less. This is a commercial unit and will not be sold to consumers.

In Europe it would fall outside the scope of the LVD as it starts at 75V for
DC powered equipment and this will be powered by 48 VDC. 

Does anyone know if there any other safety standards required in Europe for
this type of equipment?

It does appear that safety testing and listing is required by OSHA for use
in a U.S. workplace. According to OSHA Standard 1910 Subpart S all "electric
utilization equipment" is required to be "approved" which in most cases
means Listing by a NRTL. In 1920.399 OSHA defines "electric utilization
equipment" as equipment which uses electrical energy for mechanical,
chemical, heating, lighting, or similar useful purpose. My interpretation of
this is that any equipment which uses electricity, AC or DC, would need to
be tested and Listed.

Is my interpretation of the OSHA requirements correct?

What about requirements for Canada?

Any insights into these questions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Kurt Andrews
Compliance Engineer
Tracewell Systems, Inc.
567 Enterprise Dr.
Westerville, OH 43081
Ph. 614-846-6175
Fax 614-846-7791
Email: kandr...@tracewell.com 

---
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

ANSI/TIA/EIA-603

[Westin, Amund]

All,

Any suggestion where I can get the ANSI/TIA/EIA-603 document ?

Best regards
Amund Westin
Det Norske Veritas
* amund.wes...@dnv.com




**
Neither the confidentiality nor the integrity of this message 
can be guaranteed following transmission on the Internet. 
This message has been swept by MAILsweeper at DNV for 
the presence of computer viruses.
**

---
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

EN55022: 1995 withdrawal date

[Carr, Ted]

   I need to know the withdrawal of EN55022: 1995. That is
to say at what date can you no longer ship equipment that has been tested to
this standard. The EN55022: 1998 mention the date of July 31, 20001. Is this
the date or has it been change. I would appreciate any comments. 
 
Thank You,
 
Ted Carr
ted.c...@gtech.com  
 
<>

Re: Charge moving from decoupling capacitors

[Barry Ma]

Ralph,

Please be cautious about what you said below: "the reason why most power buses 
on PCBs use several values of decoupling is to ensure that a wide range of 
frequencies are covered."

Several V curves shown in the figure of impedance vs. frequency, which we are 
all familiar with, would easily convince us the above statement. But those V 
curves only show the absolute value of impedance around self-resonance 
frequency of various capacitors. If considering related phase relations, the 
total impedance of several values of decaps would become not as simple as we 
expected - having low impedance over wider frequecy range. You may refer to an 
article by Paul, C. R.:

"Effectiveness of multiple decoupling capacitors," IEEE EMC Vol. 34, p. 130, 
May 1992."

In my practice of using SMA caps, only the largest value of capacitance 
available for given SMA size is selected, if I have a PCB with 10 mil or less 
plane spacing. 
 
Regards,
Barry Ma
b...@anritsu.com


On Thu, 18 May 2000, "Ralph Cameron" wrote:

> As I read in an article related to bypassing for good decoupling ( in 1971)
> one can select from a number of EIA values and by cutting the lead lengths
> correctly ( e.g. from 1/2"- less than 1/4"  ) the series reonant frequency
> will drop by a considerable amount so - yes, the reason why most power buses
> on PCBs use several values of decoupling is to ensure that a wide range of
> requencies are covered.  Perhaps, with surface mount caps, that is easier to
> predict because they are essentially leadless.
> 
> I once cured a very severe case of an FM receiver responding to the 7th
> harmonic of a 14Mhz transmitter because an untuned mixer was used.  Placing
> a 100pf cap with 1/4" leads right across the mixer IC completely cured the
> problem without degrading mixer sensitivity.
> 
> Ralph Cameron
> EMC Consultant for Suppression of Consumer Electronics
> (After Sale)


___

Why pay when you don't have to? Get AltaVista Free Internet Access now! 
http://jump.altavista.com/freeaccess4.go

___


---
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

Re: Re:RE: Charge moving from decoupling capacitors

[Ralph Cameron]

As I read in an article related to bypassing for good decoupling ( in 1971)
one can select from a number of EIA values and by cutting the lead lengths
correctly ( e.g. from 1/2"- less than 1/4"  ) the series reonant frequency
will drop by a considerable amount so - yes, the reason why most power buses
on PCBs use several values of decoupling is to ensure that a wide range of
requencies are covered.  Perhaps, with surface mount caps, that is easier to
predict because they are essentially leadless.

I once cured a very severe case of an FM receiver responding to the 7th
harmonic of a 14Mhz transmitter because an untuned mixer was used.  Placing
a 100pf cap with 1/4" leads right across the mixer IC completely cured the
problem without degrading mixer sensitivity.

Ralph Cameron
EMC Consultant for Suppression of Consumer Electronics
(After Sale)


- Original Message -
From: "Jim Bacher" 
To: 
Cc: 
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2000 4:24 PM
Subject: Re:RE: Charge moving from decoupling capacitors


>
> Forwarded for George.
>
> Reply Separator
> Subject:RE: Charge moving from decoupling capacitors
> Author: george_t...@dell.com
> Date:   5/18/00 2:30 PM
>
> Barry,
>
> Thanks for the comments.  Here are my comments:
>
> Ok, you put caps at a certain distance away from the IC because you only
> want them to work at 100 MHz.  But that distance turns out to be the 1/4
> wave distance at 400 MHz, and you placed enough caps at the 1/4 wave
> distance to cause board resonance.  Now what?  Do you tell the caps not to
> work at 400 MHz because it's not their frequency?
>
>
> For your 2nd comment:
>
> I used the words "loosely define" for that reason.  If you are interested
in
> high frequency decoupling and instantaneous current, you really want to
have
> all your charges moving in phase.  At 1/4 wavelength, the charges are 90
> degrees out of phase, so they will not do much for your instantaneous
> current.  1/8 wavelength is what I consider to be acceptable.  You can
> certainly pick a different number.
>
> Regards,
>
> George Tang
> george_t...@dell.com
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Barry Ma [mailto:barry...@altavista.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2000 10:50 AM
> To: george_t...@exchange.dell.com
> Cc: si-l...@silab.eng.sun.com; emc-p...@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: Charge moving from decoupling capacitors
>
>
> George,
>
> Thanks for your long input. I'd like to make some comments below.
> -
> On Wed, 17 May 2000, george_t...@dell.com wrote:
>
> > Large parallel plates behave as transmission lines.  A quarter
wavelength
> > transmission line with a short at the end has infinite impedance, so
> > capacitors placed 1/4 wavelength away are bad.
>
> That's why decaps work on low frequency portion. Let's set 100 MHz and
below
> for decaps to cover. The wavelength at 100 MHz is 3 meters. A quarter of
it
> is 75 cm. It's long enough to ordinary PCB size. (The cap is directly
> connected to pwr/gnd planes.)
>
>
> > This means that we can loosely define the largest usable board area
> capacitance as 1/8
> > wavelength radius of copper surrounding the IC power pin.  Charges
stored
> on the planes
> > further than 1/8 wavelength away are not very usable due to the time
> delay.
> > At 500MHz in FR4, 1/8 wavelength is 1.5 inches.  Is such a board
capacitor
> > good enough for your IC?
>
> George, I beg for differentials. How did you jump from "capacitors placed
> 1/4 wavelength away are bad" to "the largest usable board area capacitance
> as 1/8 wavelength radius"?
>
> Can I use the same token to infer from "caps placed one wavelength away
are
> good" to "the largest usable board area capacitance is within 1/2
wavelength
> radius"? And so, and so on.
>
> Regards,
> Barry Ma
> b...@anritsu.com
>
>
>
> ---
> 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