Re: [PSES] TTE Equipment and RTTE Directive
These standards do exist for a good reason, they guarantee interoperability with PSTN networks all over the world. So the good news is that testing is not mandatory, the bad news is that by skipping them your product may fail in certain places or even full networks. As the standards are free, I suggest that at least you read them and even better implement the tests in your own development lab Note that for a long time the telecom operators had internal test protocols exceeding TBR21 (we tested their equipment for some time) , to allow their equipment stand out from the competition on the market. The standards mentioned provide for minimum requirements only. Gert Ce-test qualified testing bv -Original Message- From: Carl Newton [mailto:emcl...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:33 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] TTE Equipment and RTTE Directive Excellent response Larry. When something sounds too good to be true it usually is. But not in this case. Thanks very much, Carl On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 15:26:53 -0500, Larry K. Stillings la...@complianceworldwide.com wrote: Hi Carl, What you have surmised is correct. You are not required to meet any line standards is order to comply with the directives. The DoCs you are seeing, is the voluntary testing to ETSI standards to show that the line interface device is compatible with the phone network. I asked several times a joint NIST - EU meetings (in the 2000's) about the implementation of TTE standards under the RTTE directive and always got the same response. There are no formal complaints and therefore no implementation of mandatory standards will occur. Also, the other reason the directive is going to become the Radio Equipment Directive (RED), as that is all it has ever really covered. Of course being a test lab whom does those tests, we can only make a mild suggestion you should test, as to this day we still have product showing up that don't comply with the ETSI TBR and or ES 203 021-x standards, but that is always a financial / business decision on what the risk is of performing no testing. Larry K. Stillings Compliance Worldwide, Inc. Test Locally, Sell Globally and Launch Your Products Around the World! FCC - Wireless - Telecom - CE Marking - International Approvals - Product Safety 357 Main Street Sandown, NH 03873 (603) 887 3903 Fax 887-6445 www.complianceworldwide.com Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. -Original Message- From: Carl Newton [mailto:emcl...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 3:10 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] TTE Equipment and RTTE Directive Dear List Members, I haven't worked with land-line telecom hardware for many years. I have a device intended for use by handicapped persons that will enable a visual alarm if the land-line phone is ringing, so the device is listen-only. I've found what appears to be good and reliable guidance concerning TTE equipment at this link which indicates that TTE equipment need only comply with the EMCD and LVD: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/rtte/regulatory-framework/index _e n.htm However, I'm seeing DoCs and product specs for current TTE equipment that reference the ETSI 201 703 and TBR series of standards, and those standards are not listed under the RTTED, EMCD, or LVD on the Europa Harmonized Standards pages. Can someone shed some light on this confusing issue? Is TTE really not required to meet a line connection standard of some type as the Europa link above indicates? Thanks very much, Carl -- - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list
Re: [PSES] TTE Equipment and RTTE Directive
Thank you for your insight Gert. Carl On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 05:32:32 -0500, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: These standards do exist for a good reason, they guarantee interoperability with PSTN networks all over the world. So the good news is that testing is not mandatory, the bad news is that by skipping them your product may fail in certain places or even full networks. As the standards are free, I suggest that at least you read them and even better implement the tests in your own development lab Note that for a long time the telecom operators had internal test protocols exceeding TBR21 (we tested their equipment for some time) , to allow their equipment stand out from the competition on the market. The standards mentioned provide for minimum requirements only. Gert Ce-test qualified testing bv -Original Message- From: Carl Newton [mailto:emcl...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:33 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] TTE Equipment and RTTE Directive Excellent response Larry. When something sounds too good to be true it usually is. But not in this case. Thanks very much, Carl On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 15:26:53 -0500, Larry K. Stillings la...@complianceworldwide.com wrote: Hi Carl, What you have surmised is correct. You are not required to meet any line standards is order to comply with the directives. The DoCs you are seeing, is the voluntary testing to ETSI standards to show that the line interface device is compatible with the phone network. I asked several times a joint NIST - EU meetings (in the 2000's) about the implementation of TTE standards under the RTTE directive and always got the same response. There are no formal complaints and therefore no implementation of mandatory standards will occur. Also, the other reason the directive is going to become the Radio Equipment Directive (RED), as that is all it has ever really covered. Of course being a test lab whom does those tests, we can only make a mild suggestion you should test, as to this day we still have product showing up that don't comply with the ETSI TBR and or ES 203 021-x standards, but that is always a financial / business decision on what the risk is of performing no testing. Larry K. Stillings Compliance Worldwide, Inc. Test Locally, Sell Globally and Launch Your Products Around the World! FCC - Wireless - Telecom - CE Marking - International Approvals - Product Safety 357 Main Street Sandown, NH 03873 (603) 887 3903 Fax 887-6445 www.complianceworldwide.com Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. -Original Message- From: Carl Newton [mailto:emcl...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 3:10 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] TTE Equipment and RTTE Directive Dear List Members, I haven't worked with land-line telecom hardware for many years. I have a device intended for use by handicapped persons that will enable a visual alarm if the land-line phone is ringing, so the device is listen-only. I've found what appears to be good and reliable guidance concerning TTE equipment at this link which indicates that TTE equipment need only comply with the EMCD and LVD: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/rtte/regulatory-framework/index _e n.htm However, I'm seeing DoCs and product specs for current TTE equipment that reference the ETSI 201 703 and TBR series of standards, and those standards are not listed under the RTTED, EMCD, or LVD on the Europa Harmonized Standards pages. Can someone shed some light on this confusing issue? Is TTE really not required to meet a line connection standard of some type as the Europa link above indicates? Thanks very much, Carl -- - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules:
[PSES] UL 1740 - Wet Locations vs Outdoor
All, I am in review of construction and testing requirements for a product suing UL 1740 - Robotics and Robotic Equipment. I am using this standard in conjunction with ANSI RIA R15.06. The device is not stationary; it is tethered and self-propelled. It is powered by a universal input of 90-254 VAC, 50-60 Hz and it does produce secondary voltages as high as ± 600 V DC. I hope someone here can clarify my concerns about the requirements for wet locations vs outdoor. I anticipate that this product could be used in any type of weather although this has not been discussed with the client. In UL 1740 the definition of a Wet Location is Portions of an indoor installation where occasional or continuous exposure to water or other liquids is anticipated. UL 1740 has considerations such as reduced wet contact voltage limits and a brief mention of enclosure tests for spraying water, but no modification for safety spacings or any other concern. Outdoor use is only mentioned a few times, twice as footnotes in sheet metal minimum thickness tables and once in the section for outdoor-use tests where it refers to solely to requirements of UL 50. RIA R15.06 does mention specification of intended use limits including outdoor in terms of risk assessment. I suppose it bugs me a little that there is so little attention paid to the possibility of water in the environment (/I am aware of submersible robotic vehicles being approved to this standard, although this is not the case in this instance)/. Is it possible that the committee did not cover this matter in detail because they thought the Risk Assessment would take up the slack? The client is especially concerned about safety and has actually suggested multiple levels of redundancy with regard to isolation and insulation. My feeling is that I should at least apply some of the wet location provisions. Any insights or experiences that can be offered are much appreciated. Thank you, ~Doug -- Douglas E Powell doug...@gmail.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01 - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
[PSES] GUARDS AND PROTECTIVE DEVICES
Folks, The Machinery Directive MD 2006/42/EC ANNEX I states 1.4. REQUIRED CHARACTERISTICS OF GUARDS AND PROTECTIVE DEVICES 1.4.1. General requirements Guards and protective devices must: - be of robust construction, - be securely held in place, - not give rise to any additional hazard, We normally use EN 60204-1 Safety of machinery - Electrical equipment of machines - Part 1: General requirements to certify paper and mail handling machinery to the Machinery Directive. I don't really see anything in there that addressed the first and third bullets above. The OJ for MD harmonized standards lists EN 953:1997+A1:2009 Safety of machinery - Guards - General requirements for the design and construction of fixed and movable guards. I don't currently have a copy. Does anyone know if this standard addresses the above requirements? Sounds like it should. Is there any other harmonized standard to apply to meet these requirements? EN 60950-1 has requirements for flammability and mechanical strength of guards well defined but EN 60950-1 itself is not in the list of harmonized standards for the MD. It is applicable to the Low Voltage Directive and the MD does state that the requirements of the LVD apply.I'm wondering if the EN 953 standard has the same requirements in the same level of detail or if they are at least consistent. Thanks -Dave David P. Nyffenegger, PMP, SM-IEEE Product Development Manager - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] UL 1740 - Wet Locations vs Outdoor
I have a product being reviewed for compliance, a computer/display for use in outdoor environments, and UL/CSA/IEC 60950-22 was said to apply. John Cochran STRONGARM Designs Ph: 215-443-3400 x219 From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 12:51 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] UL 1740 - Wet Locations vs Outdoor All, I am in review of construction and testing requirements for a product suing UL 1740 - Robotics and Robotic Equipment. I am using this standard in conjunction with ANSI RIA R15.06. The device is not stationary; it is tethered and self-propelled. It is powered by a universal input of 90-254 VAC, 50-60 Hz and it does produce secondary voltages as high as ± 600 V DC. I hope someone here can clarify my concerns about the requirements for wet locations vs outdoor. I anticipate that this product could be used in any type of weather although this has not been discussed with the client. In UL 1740 the definition of a Wet Location is Portions of an indoor installation where occasional or continuous exposure to water or other liquids is anticipated. UL 1740 has considerations such as reduced wet contact voltage limits and a brief mention of enclosure tests for spraying water, but no modification for safety spacings or any other concern. Outdoor use is only mentioned a few times, twice as footnotes in sheet metal minimum thickness tables and once in the section for outdoor-use tests where it refers to solely to requirements of UL 50. RIA R15.06 does mention specification of intended use limits including outdoor in terms of risk assessment. I suppose it bugs me a little that there is so little attention paid to the possibility of water in the environment (I am aware of submersible robotic vehicles being approved to this standard, although this is not the case in this instance). Is it possible that the committee did not cover this matter in detail because they thought the Risk Assessment would take up the slack? The client is especially concerned about safety and has actually suggested multiple levels of redundancy with regard to isolation and insulation. My feeling is that I should at least apply some of the wet location provisions. Any insights or experiences that can be offered are much appreciated. Thank you, ~Doug -- Douglas E Powell doug...@gmail.commailto:doug...@gmail.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01 - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto:emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.orgmailto:sdoug...@ieee.org Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.orgmailto:mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.orgmailto:j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.commailto:dhe...@gmail.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: [PSES] TTE Equipment and RTTE Directive
In message FCA549BE3ECF9D4CB8CB8576837EA48920AB07@ZEUS.cetest.local, dated Thu, 20 Nov 2014, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl writes: Note that for a long time the telecom operators had internal test protocols exceeding TBR21 At least one claimed to do tests that later proved impossible, because the operator didn't have, and could not obtain, some of the essential parts of the test equipment. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk When I turn my back on the sun, it's to look for a rainbow John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
[PSES] Job Opening
I had a recruiter contact me about a position for a Sr. Manager Global Product Safety and Compliance position at Bissell. The url describing the position is: https://www.candidatecare.com/srccsh/RTI.home?r=501942010c=35d=bissell.candidatecare.com_dissimuloSSO=ijsc47EXsJI:cvVDW3Ulycwf8v5MgUQgtYh8qCA https://www.candidatecare.com/srccsh/RTI.home?r=501942010c=35d=bissell.candidatecare.com_dissimuloSSO=ijsc47EXsJI:cvVDW3Ulycwf8v5MgUQgtYh8qCA If you are interested in this position, please contact the recruiter, Lara Heacock, directly at lara.heac...@adp.com mailto:lara.heac...@adp.com as I have no affiliation with the recruiter. I just like to pass on opportunities I am aware of for those that might be looking for new opportunities. Regards, Mike - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas sdoug...@ieee.org Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
