RE: Define Continuous DC Voltage

[Bill Owsley]

I've never seen cardiac function or resuscitation explained
this way...  and I'm an EMT-D.  The D is for defibrillator and
the EMT is for emergency medical technician.  And with very few
exceptions, the rest of the medical aspects of this discussion have been
suspect.
As my kids say - don't go there...

- Bill


At 12:02 PM 11/19/2001 , Gary McInturff wrote:

From
a few courses several years back.
The heart
has something called the Sinus node (spelling could be
wrong) The responsibility of that node is to control the timing of
the
electric wave "front" if you will. The heart actually has about
three
pulses. Looking at a heart waveform on a monitor you will see a small
blip,
big blip, and another smaller blip (those all being medical terms
naturally). Those are the QRS waves, and sweep across the heart, from
the
input side to the output, although the "big blip' is the main blood
moving
event. I no longer remember exactly what each of the pulses does, but
all
three are needed for the pumping of blood through the heart chambers,
and
the sinus node does all the time for these events.
When
"low" level current disrupts this timing sequence the
heart
starts to fibrillate - it beats unrhymtically and "quivers" not
only does it
not pump blood but it works itself into exhaustion. The node needs to
be
allowed to resynchronize. That is done with a "high" current
applied to a
defibrillator paddle from one side of the chest to the other. 
When this
is done it is not the current through the heart that is
effective but the current through the muscles of the chest that are
effective. The current causes the muscles to constrict hard enough
to
squeeze the heart muscle and prevent it from the uncontrolled and
uncoordinated pulsing. The current is release, the muscles relax, and it
is
hoped that the sinus node re-takes control of the heart. This is the
reason
that the old method of reviving someone by slamming them in the
chest
worked. It forced the heart to stop long enough for the sinus node
to
reestablish itself.
People
that work around high voltage are more prone to death by
falling from the high voltage lines, or internal burns that actual
heart
failure do to heart fibrillation. 
Gary


-Original Message-
From: Gregg Kervill
[mailto:gkerv...@eu-link.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 1:12 PM
To: 'Rich Nute'
Cc: jrbar...@lexmark.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Define Continuous DC Voltage



Hi Rich

>   There was also a very good (but short) article by
Tektronix in the 70's
>   called The Lethal Current.
>
>   It concluded that currents between 100 mA and 3 Amps
were more lethal
that
>   currents of more than 3 Amps because those high currents
tended to
'restart'
>   the heart.

Hmm.  Having been the manager of product safety at Tektronix 
in
the '70's, I don't recall such an article.  At least not by
that
name.

- I'll try and find it - it may have called the fatal current circa
72-5
published in the UK

 B-I-G  SNIP

INFORMATION OVERLOAD!! I'm squeamish

So, Gregg's statement that there is both a lower and upper limit
for fibrillation is correct (although I do not agree with Gregg's
values).

Hang on - I'm trying to quote from an article I read in the early 70's -
and
the figures were from the article.
I'm sure it was from Tex - we had a number of the big valve 'scopes
(plugins
and more than 100 valves) - wonderful things and the only ones that
allowed
a delay longer than the TB sweep.

I'll try to dig the article out - I found it very useful -
particularly
since the safety standards at that time were pretty Spartan.




Thank goodness they have - and continue to help and provide
guidance.
Best regards

Gregg


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at: 
http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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:
 Michael
Garretson:   
pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave
Heald   
davehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard
Nute:  
ri...@ieee.org
 Jim
Bacher:
j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
    No longer online until our new server is brought
online and the old
messages are imported into the new server.

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at: 
http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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:
 Michael
Garretson:   
pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave
Heald

RE: Define Continuous DC Voltage

[Gary McInturff]

From a few courses several years back.
The heart has something called the Sinus node (spelling could be
wrong) The responsibility of that node is to control the timing of the
electric wave "front" if you will. The heart actually has about three
pulses. Looking at a heart waveform on a monitor you will see a small blip,
big blip, and another smaller blip (those all being medical terms
naturally). Those are the QRS waves, and sweep across the heart, from the
input side to the output, although the "big blip' is the main blood moving
event. I no longer remember exactly what each of the pulses does, but all
three are needed for the pumping of blood through the heart chambers, and
the sinus node does all the time for these events.
When "low" level current disrupts this timing sequence the heart
starts to fibrillate - it beats unrhymtically and "quivers" not only does it
not pump blood but it works itself into exhaustion. The node needs to be
allowed to resynchronize. That is done with a "high" current applied to a
defibrillator paddle from one side of the chest to the other. 
When this is done it is not the current through the heart that is
effective but the current through the muscles of the chest that are
effective. The current causes the muscles to constrict hard enough to
squeeze the heart muscle and prevent it from the uncontrolled and
uncoordinated pulsing. The current is release, the muscles relax, and it is
hoped that the sinus node re-takes control of the heart. This is the reason
that the old method of reviving someone by slamming them in the chest
worked. It forced the heart to stop long enough for the sinus node to
reestablish itself.
People that work around high voltage are more prone to death by
falling from the high voltage lines, or internal burns that actual heart
failure do to heart fibrillation. 
Gary


-Original Message-
From: Gregg Kervill [mailto:gkerv...@eu-link.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 1:12 PM
To: 'Rich Nute'
Cc: jrbar...@lexmark.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Define Continuous DC Voltage



Hi Rich

>   There was also a very good (but short) article by Tektronix in the 70's
>   called The Lethal Current.
>
>   It concluded that currents between 100 mA and 3 Amps were more lethal
that
>   currents of more than 3 Amps because those high currents tended to
'restart'
>   the heart.

Hmm.  Having been the manager of product safety at Tektronix in
the '70's, I don't recall such an article.  At least not by that
name.

- I'll try and find it - it may have called the fatal current circa 72-5
published in the UK

 B-I-G  SNIP

INFORMATION OVERLOAD!! I'm squeamish

So, Gregg's statement that there is both a lower and upper limit
for fibrillation is correct (although I do not agree with Gregg's
values).

Hang on - I'm trying to quote from an article I read in the early 70's - and
the figures were from the article.
I'm sure it was from Tex - we had a number of the big valve 'scopes (plugins
and more than 100 valves) - wonderful things and the only ones that allowed
a delay longer than the TB sweep.

I'll try to dig the article out - I found it very useful - particularly
since the safety standards at that time were pretty Spartan.




Thank goodness they have - and continue to help and provide guidance.
Best regards

Gregg


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old
messages are imported into the new server.

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

Re: CE - frequencies lower than 150kHz, now minx

[Ron Pickard]

Hi Tania,

>Could it be that the word gurus want to avoid confusing minks with minx, an 
>entirely different
"animal" 

It truly is an entirely different animal! And, I can't imagine confusing them.  
:-)

Dictionary definitions of "Minx":
Websters "(n.) A pert or a wanton girl."
American Heritage "(n.) A girl or young woman who is considered pert, 
flirtatious, or impudent"

But, maybe that's what all those question marks were for.

Best regards,

Ron Pickard
rpick...@hypercom.com



---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

RE: ULC vs. CUL

[David_Sterner]

Gregg,
 
ULC is UL Canada whose logo is "ULC" inside a maple leaf inside a circle.
ULC is now owned by UL (purchased a couple years ago) but files and
administrative functions are not yet merged
ULC is different from cUL and CSA (different spec #'s, files, etc.)
ULC approvals are primarily Fire and Burg equipment including alarm
systems
 
Older ADEMCO products have separate UL and ULC approvals (different spec
#'s, file #'s, etc).  New products have UL and cUL because approval is
one-stop.  Maybe someone from Underwriters Laboratories can let us know UL's
future plans for merging administrative functions and procedures.
 
David Sterner
ADEMCO
Syosset NY
 

-Original Message-
From: Gregg Kervill [mailto:gkerv...@eu-link.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 10:06 PM
To: bur...@andovercontrols.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: ULC vs. CUL


UL Underwriters' Lab is the Agency - it Lists PRODUCTS or Recognizes
Components for North American use.
 
(The Canadian counterpart is CSA Canadian Standards Association)
 
Historically you had to apply to BOTH agencies to have a product Listed
(Recognize) and Certified (for Canada).
 
Twp submissions to two labs.
 
Now CSA and UL have a MOU by which they acknowledge test performed by each
other to their standards.
 
UL is the UL Listing mark to a UL standard.
 
cUL is the UL Marking that demonstrates that the product was tested by UL to
a CSA standards.
 
The recognition marks are similar but I do not have a backward R so I cannot
do them here.
 
 
Best regards
 
Gregg
 
PLEASE NOTE NEW NUMBERS
P.O. Box 310, Reedville, 
Virginia 22539  USA

Phone: (804) 453-3141
Fax: (804) 453-9039
Web: www.test4safety.com 

-Original Message-
From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
bur...@andovercontrols.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 3:18 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: ULC vs. CUL



Someone from our UK office is asking if ULC is the same as CUL.  Does anyone
know the difference between these two marks?

Your help is always appreciated. 

Thanks, 
Joe 

Josiah P. Burch 
Compliance Engineer II 
Andover Controls Corporation 
300 Brickstone Square 
Andover,Ma 01810 
(978)-470-0555  x335 
(978)-470-3615  Fax 

RE: Quality Assurance and product approvals

[Gary McInturff]

Bottom line is that each program generates a set of milestones that
identify a function, set of equipment required, and timeframe for getting
them done, and there are a set of generic test suites, but generally the
whole process is documented at very non-descript level. The rest of this is
rational for the way it happens.
Over the course of my career ( companies of 40 - to 1,000 employees)
this function has 1) grown in scope, first just safety, then safety and EMC,
then safety, EMC and DVT, currently its safety, EMC, DVT, and NEBS. 2) It
has been shuffled from place to place. Engineering, QA, manufacturing, to
marketing. I have always been able to direct it back to what I believe is
the correct department - Engineering. Principally for, conservation of
resources - I already have some lab rats ( I say this with humor they have
saved me much time and grief over the years) , and equipment, I may have to
expand the equipment set marginally but I don't have to duplicate it.
Probably just as important, is that inside of engineering I have the most
timely input into the design changes or recommendations up front. Being
located with the design engineers gives us both immediate and personal
contact. They can stop into my office, and do quite regularly, to ask
questions or seek advice, and I can do the same.
As for formality of process it has always been more a series of
milestones rather than explicitly documented processes for the vary reason
Tania states - things change and they can change rapidly. I do have a series
of boilerplate tests such as temperature, etc but occasionally those tests
end up confirming - not predicting - what the safety agencies find. I try to
find the very earliest point at which I can submit product to the safety
agencies and the product is not always 100% functional from a design
perspective, but 100% representative of the tests and construction that the
safety agencies focusing on. Occasionally, that means a phone call or letter
telling them that there are changes before they issue the certificates and
possible some re-test but it helps move this part of the design process of
the critical path. The same goes for EMC, although that can be a bit
trickier and almost always means that I repeat many EMC tests, but the final
ones are more validation than praying for a pass as the early units are, and
we are pretty comfortable that the project will conclude on time rather than
going back for adjustments - which might trigger conversations with more
than one outside agency.
Marketing puts out a products requirement document and engineering
responds with and Engineering requirements. If they have missed agency marks
etc, we will feed that back to them in this document. Once everyone agrees
what has to be done, the design schedule is fleshed out, and there are a
fixed set  of prototypes, beta, and production units that are identified and
build exclusively for my area or responsibilities, along with a pretty fixed
amount of time to complete each of these tasks. - 6 to 8 weeks or whatever.
Exactly, what is being done inside each of these tasks left undefined, just
as the basic design function is undefined, once the system architecture is
defined. I am responsible for project updates and status reports but they
are also on a high, rather than detailed, level. Process, problems, design
changes needed etc. 
Gary
   

[Gary McInturff] 
 
 -Original Message-
From: Tania Grant [mailto:taniagr...@msn.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 10:32 PM
To: am...@westin-emission.no; 'EMC-PSTC Discussion Group'
Subject: Re: Quality Assurance and product approvals



Amund,
 
Since I transferred, over more than 20 years ago, from Quality Assurance to
Regulatory compliance/product safety, I will share with you my opinions and
my experience.   However, I would also be interested in hearing about the
experience of others.
 
In my opinion, QA and regulatory compliance are different enough functions
that require different experiences and disciplines that would not
necessarily make it effective for a QA organization to either write or
enforce procedures on the regulatory compliance functions.  That does not
mean that regulatory compliance shouldn't have a more formal process and a
procedure to go with it.   For myself, I know that having a QA background
made me a more effective regulatory "guru" at the company.  But I don't see
how the two can be meshed under the same umbrella without diluting one or
the other.  Both require focus but it would be a rare Janus that could
manage this effectively.   
 
However, the regulatory processes could, and should, be integrated into the
whole engineering design process;-- and so should the QA process.   Thus,
the two can and should help each other, but I just don't see that a QA
oversight by itself would make the regulatory process better or more
effective.   
 
Now, I have a problem with your statement  "...have your companies made
proced

Re: John Woodgate Departure

[Ken Javor]

I absolutely agree.  The point of this forum is the free exchange of info,
and Woodgate is not only an authoritative source but he spends a lot of time
answering questions and is likely the most prolific contributor.  He is an
asset.

--
From: "Alan E Hutley" 
To: "emc-pstc" 
Subject: John Woodgate Departure
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date: Sun, Nov 18, 2001, 2:12 AM



Hi All

Hopefully John will reconsider, the group would be far less interesting
without him.  Then the group can get back to its intended remit.

The sort of driffle below does not help.

"Posted by Greg Kerville:
Maybe John should start his own site for information.

I believe that the domain www.flame.com   is
available."

Perhaps it would be a good idea if the administrators ask that a line be
drawn under the subject.

Alan E Hutley

Methods & Equipment; Surge & Dips

[WmFlan]

Esteemed listmembers,

In gearing-up for testing under the auspices of EN61326:97, I'm trying to 
understand two immunity tests: EN61000-4-5 (surge immy) and -4-11 (dips immy). 
Is there test equipment one can rent to conduct these tests? What sort of 
mitigation steps are typical. Is anyone aware of any exceptions for this 
testing under ClassA rules?

Thanks in advance... 
Wm Flanigan
Standards Engineer
Ameritherm Inc


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

RE: European Harmonization of the 2.4 Ghz Band

[Sandy Mazzola]

Doug,

   Thank you and all who responded to my question. 

Sandy Mazzola

Santo Mazzola
Regulatory Engineer
Symbol Technologies Inc
1 Symbol Plaza
Holtsville, N. Y. 11742-1300
Phone:  (631) 738-5373
Fax:  (631) 738-3318
E-mail: mazzo...@symbol.com


>>> "Massey, Doug C."  11/19/01 08:01AM >>>

Sandy,
It depends on the particular device. You can get the full details at this
website : http://www.anfr.fr/gb/ This is the site for the French Frequency
Agency. You'll have to click on the NEWS button to see the new rules
regarding 2.4 Ghz. In a nutshell, there are still power limitations for the
full band, and will be until 2004. Power limitations also exist for outdoor
use, even after 2004. Bluetooth falls under the category non-specific SRD, I
believe.

I think the reason for the truncated 2.4 Ghz band in France is that it
conflicts with military useage. Agreement has been made to move the military
applications to another band, thereby opening the 2.4 band up entirely, but
this, as one might imagine, will take some time.

Along the same lines, I have heard that Singapore has also opened the full
2.4 GHz band to SRD's, but I have been unable to confirm this. Does anyone
have information on Singapore?

Doug Massey
Lead Regulatory Engineer
LXE, Inc.


-Original Message-
From: Sandy Mazzola [mailto:mazzo...@symbol.com] 
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 2:03 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org 
Subject: European Harmonization of the 2.4 Ghz Band


To all,

  I have a question regarding the harmonization of the 2.4 Ghz
to 2.4835 Ghz band for usage in Europe.  My understanding was that France
still allows only a truncated band  (2.4465 Ghz-2.4835 Ghz) usage.
  Will those more learned then me in this area answer if this is
still true, will it change any time soon and does this have any power
stipulation on it. In other words is it also not harmonized for
Bluetooth usage which would be a relatively low power transmitted of  either
1 milliwatt or 10 milliwatts.
  Again Thank You in advance for your responses and have a great day.

Sandy Mazzola 

Santo Mazzola
Regulatory Engineer
Symbol Technologies Inc
1 Symbol Plaza
Holtsville, N. Y. 11742-1300
Phone:  (631) 738-5373
Fax:  (631) 738-3318
E-mail: mazzo...@symbol.com 



---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 

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:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org 
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net 

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org 
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org 

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
X-GWTYPE:USER
FN:Mazzola, Sandy
TEL;WORK:(631) 738-5373
EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:mazzo...@symbol.com
N:Mazzola;Sandy
X-GWUSERID:MazzolaS
END:VCARD

BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
X-GWTYPE:USER
FN:Mazzola, Sandy
TEL;WORK:(631) 738-5373
EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:mazzo...@symbol.com
N:Mazzola;Sandy
X-GWUSERID:MazzolaS
END:VCARD

RE: Quality Assurance and product approvals

[Dan Teninty]

Here, here !

Best regards,

Daniel E. Teninty, P.E.
Managing Partner
DTEC Associates LLC
http://www.dtec-associates.com
Streamlining the Compliance Process
5406 S. Glendora Drive
Spokane, WA 99223
(509) 443-0215
(509) 443-0181 fax

  -Original Message-
  From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Tania Grant
  Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 10:32 PM
  To: am...@westin-emission.no; 'EMC-PSTC Discussion Group'
  Subject: Re: Quality Assurance and product approvals


  Amund,

  Since I transferred, over more than 20 years ago, from Quality Assurance
to Regulatory compliance/product safety, I will share with you my opinions
and my experience.   However, I would also be interested in hearing about
the experience of others.

  In my opinion, QA and regulatory compliance are different enough functions
that require different experiences and disciplines that would not
necessarily make it effective for a QA organization to either write or
enforce procedures on the regulatory compliance functions.  That does not
mean that regulatory compliance shouldn't have a more formal process and a
procedure to go with it.   For myself, I know that having a QA background
made me a more effective regulatory "guru" at the company.  But I don't see
how the two can be meshed under the same umbrella without diluting one or
the other.  Both require focus but it would be a rare Janus that could
manage this effectively.

  However, the regulatory processes could, and should, be integrated into
the whole engineering design process;-- and so should the QA process.
Thus, the two can and should help each other, but I just don't see that a QA
oversight by itself would make the regulatory process better or more
effective.

  Now, I have a problem with your statement  "...have your companies made
procedures which in details describes the product approval process from
beginning to end ?"   You are quite right that any procedure should describe
a process in detail from beginning to end.   This lends itself quite well to
any and all test procedures, assembly of various parts, and other such
functions where the same process is repeated over and over again.   However,
with the regulatory approval process, each product is different enough, that
a procedure, especially one that is "detailed", would not work.   And the
approval process is not always "from the beginning to end" but very often
just a test or two have to be repeated, but not all, and sometimes you just
notify the authorities about this and that, and sometimes you don't, but
only document it or write up a justification why a particular test is not
required.   So how do you write a procedure around this?   If I had to
religiously do all this, I would be writing a procedure practically every
time I was submitting a new or providing changes to a product.   And I sure
as heck would have been very upset if someone else (say from QA) were
writing these "procedures" for me, especially since they wouldn't know what
was required, or how to achieve this.

  A procedure describes "how" something is done.   If I don't know how to do
it, I shouldn't be working in that position.   If the QA person is writing
such a procedure (and assuming they are effective at it, which is
problematic) then they should be working in that position and not me.

  Thus, I am not in favor of "procedures".   However, I am very much in
favor of regulatory compliance plans that should be written for each new
product, or a major regulatory up-date to a product.   This compliance plan
is really a communication device that informs Marketing, Engineering, QA,
etc., the regulatory strategy: what the requirements are for this particular
product, for which countries, to which standards, where the various tests
will be performed, the approximate time assuming only one sample is
available, and so forth.   I am in favor, when a later update is made to the
same product, to add an addendum to the same plan rather than generate a
brand new plan.   This way you can only add the delta tests that have to be
done rather than start from scratch.   And you have a history of the
compliant process in one convenient location.

  Note that a compliance plan describes "what" is to be done and sometimes
"why", if that is crucial, but it does not really go into the details of the
"how".   I don't want to start writing "how" I thermocouple the various
components to get the product ready for safety heating tests!  That, I
consider, is part of training;--  and I have trained many to do this, all
without benefit of writing any "procedures."   However, I do insist (and I
believe that all companies also do this) that there is a Hi-pot test
procedure available (and I usually review it), and that designated personnel
are properly trained on how to run these tests, whether this function is
under the QA or manufacturing test umbrella.

  Thus, I consider that the regulatory functions (safety, EMC, te

Global Approvals..EMC..Safety..Comms

[Alex McNeil]

Hi Group,

I have been given a project to obtain the CE Mark for a particular product.
However, I know, as my past and painful experiences to date have shown, that
the marketing department will want to ship this product worldwide. In my
opinion, the product will eventually be shipped to North and South America,
Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and Asia. So I have decided to, with
co-operation from my design engineers, obtain Approvals on a global basis.
This will be my first attempt. You never know, if I do it well maybe this
will help my next salary review (sorry just dreaming!).
I know this may be a small question with a lot of answers required, but if
you as an individual could answer their particular area of expertise then I
would not take up too much of your time. I can assure you it would be very
much appreciated. I am willing to divide my expected salary increase to all
those who participate (Note: 10% of nothing = 0!!)

For My Input

Product Safety 
EN60950 with National deviations. UL or CSA marking application based on the
CB report?
1. I intend to use the Certified Body (CB) scheme to obtain a CB Report and
Certificate. It currently has 42 member countries. 
2. Submit a fully configured product, with all options identified, to my
chosen "CB" Test House, as identified by the NCB.
3. Choose a Power Supply that already has global approvals.
4. Choose a VGA display that already has global approvals.

EMC
ITE = EN55022 and EN55024 (EEA), Self verification to CFR 47 Part 15 (USA),
ICES-003 (Canada) based on the EN standards?
SRD = EN 301 489-1 & -3
GSM = EN 301 489-1 & -7
1. Although the CB scheme does not include EMC, I intend to ask the Test
House for a similar CB Report which may or may not be acceptable to other
Countries outside the EEA. However, I think it would help!

Communications (The most difficult!)
PSTN = CTR21 (EEA only), FCC Part 68 (USA) and ICES-003 (Canada) but do I
need both USA and Canada? Other Regions?
GSM = CTR 5 (EEA only) Other Regions?
SRD = EN 300 220-3 (EEA only) Other Regions?
Dial and leased line modem?
Ethernet?
Mobitex?
CDMA?
TDMA?

The Main Product Details
*   Switching power supply supporting 100 VAC to 240 VAC, 50/60 Hz
*   ¼ VGA monochrome display  (color optional)
*   PCMCIA peripheral port
*   10BaseT ethernet port
*   Dial and leased line modem
*   RF modem (optional Mobitex, GSM, CDMA, TDMA)


THANKS!! In anticipation of your usual excellent responses.

Kind Regards
Alex McNeil
Principal Engineer
Tel: +44 (0)131 479 8375
Fax: +44 (0)131 479 8321
email: alex.mcn...@ingenicofortronic.com


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

RE: AC, DC definitions and safety

[Gregg Kervill]

This works well unless you are working with high voltages (and low power),
In my early R&D days I was taught that, if in doubt, (AND AFTER waving an
earthed conductor all over the circuit) to keep my left hand in my pocket
and stand on my right leg.  If something din go horribly wrong the current
would not cross the body and was slightly less likely to pass through the
heart.



Fortunately I never got the 'chance' to prove it true or false - but - hey -
any end is better than none.

Think of all those "lucky" rabbits feet that have been sold.

My answer - if they were that lucky then the rabbit would still be wearing
them.

Best regards

Gregg

PLEASE NOTE NEW NUMBERS
P.O. Box 310, Reedville,
Virginia 22539  USA

Phone: (804) 453-3141
Fax: (804) 453-9039
Web: www.test4safety.com



-Original Message-
From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Rich Nute
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 9:13 PM
To: Product Safety Technical Committee
Subject: AC, DC definitions and safety






Hi Ted:


>   The electrician's rule of thumb when working on domestic wiring was to
>   always check the wire is dead, even though you isolated it, in case of
>   bridging or faulty connection.  The technique used was to brush the
>   exposed conductor lightly with the back of the fingers.  Any AC present
>   will be noticeable as a tingle.  DC would cause contraction of hand
>   muscles which would cause the hand to withdraw from the conductor.

The technique of brushing lightly avoids a low-
resistance connection to the body which would
occur with a tight or solid connection.

The back of the hand has more hair, fewer sweat
glands, and higher resistance than other parts
of the body.  So, this, too, tends to avoid a
low-resistance connection.

Both ac and dc would cause a tingle; in this
situation, the protection is by means of a high-
resistance connection which limits the current,
and the electrician maintains control of his
muscles regardless whether ac or dc.

>   The same teacher explained that this precaution saved lives.  Should the
>   hand be allowed to grasp a live conductor the paralyzing effect of DC
>   would be more likely to cause injury, shock or death because the effect
>   of the current on the hand muscles when grasping would increase the grip
>   and prevent the hand being opened to break the circuit.  In this case it
>   is precisely tetanus of the body which is dangerous because it
>   interferes with the ability to move away from the hazard.

Dc may cause a single contraction, but not
continuous contraction.  In my experience, the
dc tends to throw you away from the source.

Charles Dalziel reports in his experiments that
his subjects chose not to let go of dc (and they
could!) because of the severe pain at the moment
of letting go.

I studied Reilly (again) and found no reference
to tetanization due to dc.  Reilly says that

"As sinusoidal frequencies approach dc, it
becomes quite difficult to stimulate peripheral
nerves.  Stimulation may be elicited at the
onset of direct current as with any rectangular
pulse.  However, following the onset of direct
current, additional stimulation of... skeletal
muscle is not so easily achieved..."

>   Power is hazardous to health in all its forms.

I would say that ENERGY is the key parameter, not
power.  Defibrillators are calibrated in joules,
and essentially apply a corrective pulse to the
heart to contract the heart muscle and then let it
resume normal rythyms.

Because we can easily do so, the limits in safety
standards are in terms of voltage and current which
can be sensed.  Sensation levels are very much below
the injury level (where energy becomes important).


Best regards,
Rich



ref:  Reilly, J. Patrick
  Applied Bioelectricity from Electrical Stimulation to Electropathology
  ISBN 0-387-98407-0, Springer-Verlag, New York



---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old
messages are imported into the new server.


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 maj

RE: Define Continuous DC Voltage

[Gregg Kervill]

Hi Rich

>   There was also a very good (but short) article by Tektronix in the 70's
>   called The Lethal Current.
>
>   It concluded that currents between 100 mA and 3 Amps were more lethal
that
>   currents of more than 3 Amps because those high currents tended to
'restart'
>   the heart.

Hmm.  Having been the manager of product safety at Tektronix in
the '70's, I don't recall such an article.  At least not by that
name.

- I'll try and find it - it may have called the fatal current circa 72-5
published in the UK

 B-I-G  SNIP

INFORMATION OVERLOAD!! I'm squeamish

So, Gregg's statement that there is both a lower and upper limit
for fibrillation is correct (although I do not agree with Gregg's
values).

Hang on - I'm trying to quote from an article I read in the early 70's - and
the figures were from the article.
I'm sure it was from Tex - we had a number of the big valve 'scopes (plugins
and more than 100 valves) - wonderful things and the only ones that allowed
a delay longer than the TB sweep.

I'll try to dig the article out - I found it very useful - particularly
since the safety standards at that time were pretty Spartan.




Thank goodness they have - and continue to help and provide guidance.
Best regards

Gregg


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

RE: ULC vs. CUL

[Gregg Kervill]

ULC vs. CULUL Underwriters' Lab is the Agency - it Lists PRODUCTS or
Recognizes Components for North American use.

(The Canadian counterpart is CSA Canadian Standards Association)

Historically you had to apply to BOTH agencies to have a product Listed
(Recognize) and Certified (for Canada).

Twp submissions to two labs.

Now CSA and UL have a MOU by which they acknowledge test performed by each
other to their standards.

UL is the UL Listing mark to a UL standard.

cUL is the UL Marking that demonstrates that the product was tested by UL to
a CSA standards.

The recognition marks are similar but I do not have a backward R so I cannot
do them here.


Best regards

Gregg

PLEASE NOTE NEW NUMBERS
P.O. Box 310, Reedville,
Virginia 22539  USA

Phone: (804) 453-3141
Fax: (804) 453-9039
Web: www.test4safety.com

  -Original Message-
  From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
bur...@andovercontrols.com
  Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 3:18 PM
  To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
  Subject: ULC vs. CUL


  Someone from our UK office is asking if ULC is the same as CUL.  Does
anyone know the difference between these two marks?

  Your help is always appreciated.

  Thanks,
  Joe

  Josiah P. Burch
  Compliance Engineer II
  Andover Controls Corporation
  300 Brickstone Square
  Andover,Ma 01810
  (978)-470-0555  x335
  (978)-470-3615  Fax

RE: 80/80 rule for euro compliance?

[Gregg Kervill]

Liars, Damn Liars and .



I sounds like the Pareto's law from management statistics "You can do 80% of
the work with 20% of the effort..."



I think someone requoted it once as "You an fool some of the people all of
the time."



Cynically yours  Gregg





---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

CEPT Rec 70-03

[richwoods]

Dear all,
 
During the development of a CEPT Regulation for 2,45 GHz RFID in form of a
new Annex 11 for ERC/Rec 70-03, the EU (the European Commission) has
intervened and requested CEPT to reduce the amount of SRD parameters to be
Regulated throughout the entire recommendation ERC/Rec 70-03. As a first
attempt the meet the above mentioned EU requirement, all the annexes of the
Recommendation including the new proposed Annex 11 for RFID at 2,45 GHz
have been redrafted and are attached for your review. The next SRDMG meeting
is November 20-21, (starting tomorrow).  
 
Richard Woods 
Sensormatic Electronics 
Tyco International 

 


New Annexes to ERC REC 70-03.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

RE: European Harmonization of the 2.4 Ghz Band

[Massey, Doug C.]

Sandy,
It depends on the particular device. You can get the full details at this
website : http://www.anfr.fr/gb/ This is the site for the French Frequency
Agency. You'll have to click on the NEWS button to see the new rules
regarding 2.4 Ghz. In a nutshell, there are still power limitations for the
full band, and will be until 2004. Power limitations also exist for outdoor
use, even after 2004. Bluetooth falls under the category non-specific SRD, I
believe.

I think the reason for the truncated 2.4 Ghz band in France is that it
conflicts with military useage. Agreement has been made to move the military
applications to another band, thereby opening the 2.4 band up entirely, but
this, as one might imagine, will take some time.

Along the same lines, I have heard that Singapore has also opened the full
2.4 GHz band to SRD's, but I have been unable to confirm this. Does anyone
have information on Singapore?

Doug Massey
Lead Regulatory Engineer
LXE, Inc.


-Original Message-
From: Sandy Mazzola [mailto:mazzo...@symbol.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 2:03 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: European Harmonization of the 2.4 Ghz Band


To all,

  I have a question regarding the harmonization of the 2.4 Ghz
to 2.4835 Ghz band for usage in Europe.  My understanding was that France
still allows only a truncated band  (2.4465 Ghz-2.4835 Ghz) usage.
  Will those more learned then me in this area answer if this is
still true, will it change any time soon and does this have any power
stipulation on it. In other words is it also not harmonized for
Bluetooth usage which would be a relatively low power transmitted of  either
1 milliwatt or 10 milliwatts.
  Again Thank You in advance for your responses and have a great day.

Sandy Mazzola 

Santo Mazzola
Regulatory Engineer
Symbol Technologies Inc
1 Symbol Plaza
Holtsville, N. Y. 11742-1300
Phone:  (631) 738-5373
Fax:  (631) 738-3318
E-mail: mazzo...@symbol.com



---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

The frustrating search for certificates!

[duncan . hobbs]

Group,
I'm having problems trying to talk to someone who can help with providing
safety certification for some PC based components. I have tried both
organisations 'technical' helplines, to no avail and they seem unable to put me
in contact with anyone who knows what I am asking for.

Does anyone in the group have a contact in Seagate and Mitsumi who may be able
to assist in matters of regulatory compliance?

Many thanks in advance,
Duncan Hobbs, Product Safety Engineer
Snell and Wilcox Ltd.


--
The contents of this communication are confidential to the normal user of
the email address to which it was sent.  If you have received this email
in error, any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this
email is strictly prohibited.  If this is the case, please notify the
sender and delete this message.
-- 


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

Looking for a book.

[Enci]

Hi All, 

I am looking for the following book:

Power Line Filter Design for Switched-Mode Power Supplies by Mark J.  Nave
ISBN 0-442-00453-2

It is out of print and I have been unable to find a copy on the web or
locally.

Ideally if anyone has a copy they are willing to sell, please email me.
I know that will be pretty unlikely, as this book is about as rare as hen's
teeth, therefore my best bet is to get a duplicate of the book. Again if
anyone is willing to do that for a reasonable price, or send it to me so
that I can copy it and return it, please email me.

Thank you,
Enci





---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

RE: European Harmonization of the 2.4 Ghz Band

[Andrea Bishop]

Take a look at the current list of equipment classifications on the R&TTE
website.  

http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/rtte/listeq.htm

It includes information on 2.4GHz products, including SRDs up to 10mW. 

It does, however, give a proviso regarding "certain Member States".

You can also find links to most of the European Frequency Plans on the  ERO
website, 

http://www.ero.dk/

regards

Andrea Bishop



Andrea Bishop
TUV Product Service Ltd
Segensworth Road
Fareham, Hants
PO15 5RH
Tel: +44 1329 443509



-Original Message-
From: Sandy Mazzola [mailto:mazzo...@symbol.com]
Sent: 17 November 2001 19:03
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: European Harmonization of the 2.4 Ghz Band


To all,

  I have a question regarding the harmonization of the 2.4 Ghz
to 2.4835 Ghz band for usage in Europe.  My understanding was that France
still allows only a truncated band  (2.4465 Ghz-2.4835 Ghz) usage.
  Will those more learned then me in this area answer if this is
still true, will it change any time soon and does this have any power
stipulation on it. In other words is it also not harmonized for
Bluetooth usage which would be a relatively low power transmitted of  either
1 milliwatt or 10 milliwatts.
  Again Thank You in advance for your responses and have a great day.

Sandy Mazzola 

Santo Mazzola
Regulatory Engineer
Symbol Technologies Inc
1 Symbol Plaza
Holtsville, N. Y. 11742-1300
Phone:  (631) 738-5373
Fax:  (631) 738-3318
E-mail: mazzo...@symbol.com





---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/

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:
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org
 Dave Healddavehe...@mediaone.net

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org
 Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old 
messages are imported into the new server.

Re: Quality Assurance and product approvals

[Tania Grant]

Amund,

Since I transferred, over more than 20 years ago, from Quality Assurance to 
Regulatory compliance/product safety, I will share with you my opinions and my 
experience.   However, I would also be interested in hearing about the 
experience of others.

In my opinion, QA and regulatory compliance are different enough functions that 
require different experiences and disciplines that would not necessarily make 
it effective for a QA organization to either write or enforce procedures on the 
regulatory compliance functions.  That does not mean that regulatory compliance 
shouldn't have a more formal process and a procedure to go with it.   For 
myself, I know that having a QA background made me a more effective regulatory 
"guru" at the company.  But I don't see how the two can be meshed under the 
same umbrella without diluting one or the other.  Both require focus but it 
would be a rare Janus that could manage this effectively.

However, the regulatory processes could, and should, be integrated into the 
whole engineering design process;-- and so should the QA process.   Thus, the 
two can and should help each other, but I just don't see that a QA oversight by 
itself would make the regulatory process better or more effective.

Now, I have a problem with your statement  "...have your companies made 
procedures which in details describes the product approval process from 
beginning to end ?"   You are quite right that any procedure should describe a 
process in detail from beginning to end.   This lends itself quite well to any 
and all test procedures, assembly of various parts, and other such functions 
where the same process is repeated over and over again.   However, with the 
regulatory approval process, each product is different enough, that a 
procedure, especially one that is "detailed", would not work.   And the 
approval process is not always "from the beginning to end" but very often just 
a test or two have to be repeated, but not all, and sometimes you just notify 
the authorities about this and that, and sometimes you don't, but only document 
it or write up a justification why a particular test is not required.   So how 
do you write a procedure around this?   If I had to religiously do all this, I 
would be writing a procedure practically every time I was submitting a new or 
providing changes to a product.   And I sure as heck would have been very upset 
if someone else (say from QA) were writing these "procedures" for me, 
especially since they wouldn't know what was required, or how to achieve this.  
 

A procedure describes "how" something is done.   If I don't know how to do it, 
I shouldn't be working in that position.   If the QA person is writing such a 
procedure (and assuming they are effective at it, which is problematic) then 
they should be working in that position and not me.

Thus, I am not in favor of "procedures".   However, I am very much in favor of 
regulatory compliance plans that should be written for each new product, or a 
major regulatory up-date to a product.   This compliance plan is really a 
communication device that informs Marketing, Engineering, QA, etc., the 
regulatory strategy: what the requirements are for this particular product, for 
which countries, to which standards, where the various tests will be performed, 
the approximate time assuming only one sample is available, and so forth.   I 
am in favor, when a later update is made to the same product, to add an 
addendum to the same plan rather than generate a brand new plan.   This way you 
can only add the delta tests that have to be done rather than start from 
scratch.   And you have a history of the compliant process in one convenient 
location.   

Note that a compliance plan describes "what" is to be done and sometimes "why", 
if that is crucial, but it does not really go into the details of the "how".   
I don't want to start writing "how" I thermocouple the various components to 
get the product ready for safety heating tests!  That, I consider, is part of 
training;--  and I have trained many to do this, all without benefit of writing 
any "procedures."   However, I do insist (and I believe that all companies also 
do this) that there is a Hi-pot test procedure available (and I usually review 
it), and that designated personnel are properly trained on how to run these 
tests, whether this function is under the QA or manufacturing test umbrella.

Thus, I consider that the regulatory functions (safety, EMC, telco, Bellcore, 
etc.) should be part of the overall design process, to the release to 
manufacturing production, and finally, to the eventual "death" of the product.  
Note that this product life cycle procedure is for the overall product process, 
and not just for the regulatory approval process alone.It is desirable that 
the design process be documented, probably under a series of procedures, and, 
therefore, the regulatory requirements be inserted in the appro