RE: EMC, NEBS & NRTL's
Bandele, even without equipment, lab cost of various NEBS tests in ONE cycle
can reach $100k easily. Add to that your time (if you outsource all of your
tests).
Now, since you are a part of an organization that is building gear costing
$250k+, you know that there will ALWAYS be something wrong, so you can count
on duplicating some tests (EMC is a very good example).
Costs 10 years ago were probably lower, since some NEBS sections (or their
importance) were not high on any list. It's only with the competition that
there is more enforcement to have a fully NEBS compliant gear.
Regards,
Naftali Shani, Nortel Networks, Dept. 0S45, MS 117/C1/M05
21 Richardson Side Road, Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2K 2C1
Voice +1.613.765.2505 (ESN 395) Fax +1.613.763.8091 (ESN 393)
E-mail: nsh...@nortelnetworks.com <mailto:nsh...@nortelnetworks.com> or
n...@ieee.org <mailto:n...@ieee.org>
-Original Message-
From: Bandele Adepoju [SMTP:badep...@jetstream.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 3:58 PM
To: 'Grant, Tania (Tania)'; 'emc-p...@ieee.org'
Subject:RE: EMC, NEBS & NRTL's
Then, Tania, I would say that if the price is equipment
dependant, don't blame the labs. They are only performing
the tests asked of them.
Our equipment, by itself is well over $25,000.00 (they cost
at least a quarter of a 'mil). I don't think that if we went
back 10 years the price we pay now for testing would be much
lower, when adding the costs of equipment.
Bandele
Jetstream Communications, Inc.
badep...@jetstream.com
-Original Message-
From: Grant, Tania (Tania) [mailto:tgr...@lucent.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 12:42 PM
To: 'Doug'; ; 'Bandele Adepoju'
Subject: RE: EMC, NEBS & NRTL's
Bandele,
Testing to Bellcore requirements can be quite expensive when your
are
burning a whole cabinet of expensive OEM stuff, especially if you
are
burning it twice because the first test failed! Thus, the cost is
not just
what you pay the lab for running the test, but the cost is also
equipment
going up in smoke.
Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com <mailto:tgr...@lucent.com>
Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group
--
From: Bandele Adepoju [SMTP:badep...@jetstream.com]
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2000 9:51 PM
To: 'Doug'; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: RE: EMC, NEBS & NRTL's
Doug, telling your customers that your product was "UL
approved" when in fact it was approved by a Lab other than UL
would have been a hard sell - in any period. I wouldn't have
bought that story myself, and your arguing in support of it
would have just irritated me much more. You should have told
your customers that your product was "safety approved" to a
UL standard.
ps, I wonder at what test lab those companies paying over
$160,000.00 are doing their testing? Poor souls!
Bandele
Jetstream Communications, Inc.
badep...@jetstream.com
-Original Message-
From: Doug [mailto:dmck...@gte.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2000 12:34 AM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: EMC, NEBS & NRTL's
I have a little experience with this interpretation
by RBOCs having worked with contracts and compliance
testing as the compliance guy of a former company.
There's certainly people here with more experience
and history with this stuff than I.
The change began somewhere around 1995-96. I had a
small lab in the engineering department where I
personally did some of the more simple tests for
Bellcore. Specifically the RBOCs I worked with
were Ameritech, NYNEX, Southern Bell, Pac Bell ...
I had someone on the qualification survey team from
these places come in and witness the testing I did.
All was fine back then with accepting FCC Class A
and UL 1950 for Bellcore requirements.
I could estimate UL-1950, FCC Class A, EN60950,
EN55022A, EN50082 ... and the agreed upon Bellcore
stuff (we negotiated that) all could be done for
$25,000 for one product. The Bellcore results
I wrote up myself as deliverables for the RBOC.
< I'll wait until you guys stop laughing. >
Two problems arose. One was having UL testing
performed by an NRTL that was not UL. Thus,
with some customers, it was unfathomable that
a piece of equipment could be UL approved, NOT
have been
Re: EMC, NEBS & NRTL's
Bandele Adepoju wrote: < snipped material > > You should have told your customers that your product > was "safety approved" to a UL standard. Bandele, That is exactly what I did of course. Regards, Doug --- 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: EMC, NEBS & NRTL's
Then, Tania, I would say that if the price is equipment dependant, don't blame the labs. They are only performing the tests asked of them. Our equipment, by itself is well over $25,000.00 (they cost at least a quarter of a 'mil). I don't think that if we went back 10 years the price we pay now for testing would be much lower, when adding the costs of equipment. Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: Grant, Tania (Tania) [mailto:tgr...@lucent.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 12:42 PM To: 'Doug'; ; 'Bandele Adepoju' Subject: RE: EMC, NEBS & NRTL's Bandele, Testing to Bellcore requirements can be quite expensive when your are burning a whole cabinet of expensive OEM stuff, especially if you are burning it twice because the first test failed! Thus, the cost is not just what you pay the lab for running the test, but the cost is also equipment going up in smoke. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com <mailto:tgr...@lucent.com> Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: Bandele Adepoju [SMTP:badep...@jetstream.com] Sent: Monday, March 20, 2000 9:51 PM To: 'Doug'; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: EMC, NEBS & NRTL's Doug, telling your customers that your product was "UL approved" when in fact it was approved by a Lab other than UL would have been a hard sell - in any period. I wouldn't have bought that story myself, and your arguing in support of it would have just irritated me much more. You should have told your customers that your product was "safety approved" to a UL standard. ps, I wonder at what test lab those companies paying over $160,000.00 are doing their testing? Poor souls! Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: Doug [mailto:dmck...@gte.net] Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2000 12:34 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: EMC, NEBS & NRTL's I have a little experience with this interpretation by RBOCs having worked with contracts and compliance testing as the compliance guy of a former company. There's certainly people here with more experience and history with this stuff than I. The change began somewhere around 1995-96. I had a small lab in the engineering department where I personally did some of the more simple tests for Bellcore. Specifically the RBOCs I worked with were Ameritech, NYNEX, Southern Bell, Pac Bell ... I had someone on the qualification survey team from these places come in and witness the testing I did. All was fine back then with accepting FCC Class A and UL 1950 for Bellcore requirements. I could estimate UL-1950, FCC Class A, EN60950, EN55022A, EN50082 ... and the agreed upon Bellcore stuff (we negotiated that) all could be done for $25,000 for one product. The Bellcore results I wrote up myself as deliverables for the RBOC. < I'll wait until you guys stop laughing. > Two problems arose. One was having UL testing performed by an NRTL that was not UL. Thus, with some customers, it was unfathomable that a piece of equipment could be UL approved, NOT have been tested at UL, and NOT have the classic UL label showing compliance. I always ran into this where ever I went. Second, a change occurred whereby some of the RBOCs got scammed or whatever (so I was told). This lead to testing such as safety, environmental, shake testing, flame spread ... to be done *** AT *** important word there at, an NRTL. A lab that had some sort of national accreditation, i.e. reputation. In other words, in scanning the test results, the customer could see that the testing was done at some maybe famous lab, and well ... then it was in like flint. FCC testing was still separate from an NRTL lab. I threw many wrenches back then about this. Some of those wrenches landed on this newsgroup. Anywho, I estimated that such testing off site would raise from $25,000 to well over $100,000. This would impact my budget, it would bleed over into cost for the product and thus would obviously end up with increased costs to the customers (RBOCs) and finally, the increased costs would settle right in their customers laps - i.e. you and me. The heck with arguing about raising minimum wages. We're talking increasing the overhead on developing a product by a factor of times 4 overnight! I may as well have been a chickadee blowing flowers in a hurricane with that one, scuse my language. I'm hearing that those same type of products on which I used to spend only $25,000 to get through compliance now costs somewhere on the order of $160,000. And you as the mfr of that equipment are totally out of the loop during the testing. No more customizing some part of some test for a customer by way of a phone call and doing the test before running off to lunch. Anywh
RE: EMC, NEBS & NRTL's
Bandele, Testing to Bellcore requirements can be quite expensive when your are burning a whole cabinet of expensive OEM stuff, especially if you are burning it twice because the first test failed! Thus, the cost is not just what you pay the lab for running the test, but the cost is also equipment going up in smoke. Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com <mailto:tgr...@lucent.com> Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: Bandele Adepoju [SMTP:badep...@jetstream.com] Sent: Monday, March 20, 2000 9:51 PM To: 'Doug'; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: EMC, NEBS & NRTL's Doug, telling your customers that your product was "UL approved" when in fact it was approved by a Lab other than UL would have been a hard sell - in any period. I wouldn't have bought that story myself, and your arguing in support of it would have just irritated me much more. You should have told your customers that your product was "safety approved" to a UL standard. ps, I wonder at what test lab those companies paying over $160,000.00 are doing their testing? Poor souls! Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: Doug [mailto:dmck...@gte.net] Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2000 12:34 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: EMC, NEBS & NRTL's I have a little experience with this interpretation by RBOCs having worked with contracts and compliance testing as the compliance guy of a former company. There's certainly people here with more experience and history with this stuff than I. The change began somewhere around 1995-96. I had a small lab in the engineering department where I personally did some of the more simple tests for Bellcore. Specifically the RBOCs I worked with were Ameritech, NYNEX, Southern Bell, Pac Bell ... I had someone on the qualification survey team from these places come in and witness the testing I did. All was fine back then with accepting FCC Class A and UL 1950 for Bellcore requirements. I could estimate UL-1950, FCC Class A, EN60950, EN55022A, EN50082 ... and the agreed upon Bellcore stuff (we negotiated that) all could be done for $25,000 for one product. The Bellcore results I wrote up myself as deliverables for the RBOC. < I'll wait until you guys stop laughing. > Two problems arose. One was having UL testing performed by an NRTL that was not UL. Thus, with some customers, it was unfathomable that a piece of equipment could be UL approved, NOT have been tested at UL, and NOT have the classic UL label showing compliance. I always ran into this where ever I went. Second, a change occurred whereby some of the RBOCs got scammed or whatever (so I was told). This lead to testing such as safety, environmental, shake testing, flame spread ... to be done *** AT *** important word there at, an NRTL. A lab that had some sort of national accreditation, i.e. reputation. In other words, in scanning the test results, the customer could see that the testing was done at some maybe famous lab, and well ... then it was in like flint. FCC testing was still separate from an NRTL lab. I threw many wrenches back then about this. Some of those wrenches landed on this newsgroup. Anywho, I estimated that such testing off site would raise from $25,000 to well over $100,000. This would impact my budget, it would bleed over into cost for the product and thus would obviously end up with increased costs to the customers (RBOCs) and finally, the increased costs would settle right in their customers laps - i.e. you and me. The heck with arguing about raising minimum wages. We're talking increasing the overhead on developing a product by a factor of times 4 overnight! I may as well have been a chickadee blowing flowers in a hurricane with that one, scuse my language. I'm hearing that those same type of products on which I used to spend only $25,000 to get through compliance now costs somewhere on the order of $160,000. And you as the mfr of that equipment are totally out of the loop during the testing. No more customizing some part of some test for a customer by way of a phone call and doing the test before running off to lunch. Anywho, at that time there were some really good people at the RBOCs. People who really knew their stuff when it came to compliance and Bellcore. And I could actually negotiate with them various parts of the Bellcore tests to do. They're almost gone now. And I fear some marketing contract reviewer with a business degree is the only person at some RBOC who checks off required testing deliverables. And things like "NRTL" and "Class A" don't mean a hoot to them ... Sorry for the length. Regards, Doug McKean --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technic
RE: EMC, NEBS & NRTL's
Doug, telling your customers that your product was "UL approved" when in fact it was approved by a Lab other than UL would have been a hard sell - in any period. I wouldn't have bought that story myself, and your arguing in support of it would have just irritated me much more. You should have told your customers that your product was "safety approved" to a UL standard. ps, I wonder at what test lab those companies paying over $160,000.00 are doing their testing? Poor souls! Bandele Jetstream Communications, Inc. badep...@jetstream.com -Original Message- From: Doug [mailto:dmck...@gte.net] Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2000 12:34 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: EMC, NEBS & NRTL's I have a little experience with this interpretation by RBOCs having worked with contracts and compliance testing as the compliance guy of a former company. There's certainly people here with more experience and history with this stuff than I. The change began somewhere around 1995-96. I had a small lab in the engineering department where I personally did some of the more simple tests for Bellcore. Specifically the RBOCs I worked with were Ameritech, NYNEX, Southern Bell, Pac Bell ... I had someone on the qualification survey team from these places come in and witness the testing I did. All was fine back then with accepting FCC Class A and UL 1950 for Bellcore requirements. I could estimate UL-1950, FCC Class A, EN60950, EN55022A, EN50082 ... and the agreed upon Bellcore stuff (we negotiated that) all could be done for $25,000 for one product. The Bellcore results I wrote up myself as deliverables for the RBOC. < I'll wait until you guys stop laughing. > Two problems arose. One was having UL testing performed by an NRTL that was not UL. Thus, with some customers, it was unfathomable that a piece of equipment could be UL approved, NOT have been tested at UL, and NOT have the classic UL label showing compliance. I always ran into this where ever I went. Second, a change occurred whereby some of the RBOCs got scammed or whatever (so I was told). This lead to testing such as safety, environmental, shake testing, flame spread ... to be done *** AT *** important word there at, an NRTL. A lab that had some sort of national accreditation, i.e. reputation. In other words, in scanning the test results, the customer could see that the testing was done at some maybe famous lab, and well ... then it was in like flint. FCC testing was still separate from an NRTL lab. I threw many wrenches back then about this. Some of those wrenches landed on this newsgroup. Anywho, I estimated that such testing off site would raise from $25,000 to well over $100,000. This would impact my budget, it would bleed over into cost for the product and thus would obviously end up with increased costs to the customers (RBOCs) and finally, the increased costs would settle right in their customers laps - i.e. you and me. The heck with arguing about raising minimum wages. We're talking increasing the overhead on developing a product by a factor of times 4 overnight! I may as well have been a chickadee blowing flowers in a hurricane with that one, scuse my language. I'm hearing that those same type of products on which I used to spend only $25,000 to get through compliance now costs somewhere on the order of $160,000. And you as the mfr of that equipment are totally out of the loop during the testing. No more customizing some part of some test for a customer by way of a phone call and doing the test before running off to lunch. Anywho, at that time there were some really good people at the RBOCs. People who really knew their stuff when it came to compliance and Bellcore. And I could actually negotiate with them various parts of the Bellcore tests to do. They're almost gone now. And I fear some marketing contract reviewer with a business degree is the only person at some RBOC who checks off required testing deliverables. And things like "NRTL" and "Class A" don't mean a hoot to them ... Sorry for the length. Regards, Doug McKean --- 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
Re: EMC, NEBS & NRTL's
I have a little experience with this interpretation by RBOCs having worked with contracts and compliance testing as the compliance guy of a former company. There's certainly people here with more experience and history with this stuff than I. The change began somewhere around 1995-96. I had a small lab in the engineering department where I personally did some of the more simple tests for Bellcore. Specifically the RBOCs I worked with were Ameritech, NYNEX, Southern Bell, Pac Bell ... I had someone on the qualification survey team from these places come in and witness the testing I did. All was fine back then with accepting FCC Class A and UL 1950 for Bellcore requirements. I could estimate UL-1950, FCC Class A, EN60950, EN55022A, EN50082 ... and the agreed upon Bellcore stuff (we negotiated that) all could be done for $25,000 for one product. The Bellcore results I wrote up myself as deliverables for the RBOC. < I'll wait until you guys stop laughing. > Two problems arose. One was having UL testing performed by an NRTL that was not UL. Thus, with some customers, it was unfathomable that a piece of equipment could be UL approved, NOT have been tested at UL, and NOT have the classic UL label showing compliance. I always ran into this where ever I went. Second, a change occurred whereby some of the RBOCs got scammed or whatever (so I was told). This lead to testing such as safety, environmental, shake testing, flame spread ... to be done *** AT *** important word there at, an NRTL. A lab that had some sort of national accreditation, i.e. reputation. In other words, in scanning the test results, the customer could see that the testing was done at some maybe famous lab, and well ... then it was in like flint. FCC testing was still separate from an NRTL lab. I threw many wrenches back then about this. Some of those wrenches landed on this newsgroup. Anywho, I estimated that such testing off site would raise from $25,000 to well over $100,000. This would impact my budget, it would bleed over into cost for the product and thus would obviously end up with increased costs to the customers (RBOCs) and finally, the increased costs would settle right in their customers laps - i.e. you and me. The heck with arguing about raising minimum wages. We're talking increasing the overhead on developing a product by a factor of times 4 overnight! I may as well have been a chickadee blowing flowers in a hurricane with that one, scuse my language. I'm hearing that those same type of products on which I used to spend only $25,000 to get through compliance now costs somewhere on the order of $160,000. And you as the mfr of that equipment are totally out of the loop during the testing. No more customizing some part of some test for a customer by way of a phone call and doing the test before running off to lunch. Anywho, at that time there were some really good people at the RBOCs. People who really knew their stuff when it came to compliance and Bellcore. And I could actually negotiate with them various parts of the Bellcore tests to do. They're almost gone now. And I fear some marketing contract reviewer with a business degree is the only person at some RBOC who checks off required testing deliverables. And things like "NRTL" and "Class A" don't mean a hoot to them ... Sorry for the length. Regards, Doug McKean --- 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: EMC, NEBS & NRTL's
Yup, but..
I tired pointing out to one of the RBOC's that there reliance on
OSHA NRTL was horribly inadequate because most of them - maybe all of them
had nothing in the scope of accreditation that indicated the could do any of
the EMC tests. The key to any certification is what the scope of your
accreditation is. If you go out to the OSHA site and look at the NRTL scopes
you will see what I mean. Apparently, getting your name into the OSHA NRTL
site qualifies you to do anything and everything, no experience necessary.
Some of the OSHA NRTL's that I have seen probably can do a reasonable EMC
job, a couple I've seen were woefully adequate. (but doesn't matter because
they are NRTL's) As the ol' axiom goes "Garbage in Garbage out" The RBOC's
that ignore Nationally Recognized EMC Test labs, are doing themselves and us
a large disservice. They are not only nationally recognized by a US
govermental body but any country with a signed Mutual Recognition Agreement
(MRA),
With EMC testing in the scope of accreditation they are internationally
recognized.
But again, use the EMC lab you want and have your NRTL include the
data and wham-o - your done. (its Friday, I'm in a good mood, and no this
isn't quite as easy as I just made it sound)
Gary
-Original Message-
From: Grant, Tania (Tania) [mailto:tgr...@lucent.com]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 2:08 PM
To: 'Naftali Shani'; 'Collins, Jeffrey'; 'Gary
McInturff'
Cc: 'emc-p...@ieee.org'
Subject:RE: EMC, NEBS & NRTL's
Gary and Company,
You have a valid point, but incomplete historical data.
The reason OSHA
"blesses" NRTLs is because the whole issue started because
the National
Electrical Code used to state that the "appliances"
(everything is an
appliance in the NEC!) placed into buildings be safety
approved by
nationally recognized testing laboratories, such as
Underwriters
Laboratories.The NEC, as you well understand, does not
care about
radiated emission limits. Some time later an independent
east coast safety
testing lab sued, or almost sued, OSHA/NEC that the specific
mention of the
UL name was un-American, etc. As a result, this offending
language was
removed from the NEC, the National Recognized Testing
Laboratory achieved
new status and, it seems, other (any) safety labs could now
"approve"
appliances.Well now, that did not sit too well with a
lot of labs or
even OSHA.The upshot was, safety labs were made to
submit their
"expertise" to be blessed by OSHA as an NRTL.
Now, if that same safety lab also happens to offer EMC
testing, it seems
that this also falls into the NRTL umbrella. I believe
that this is an
incorrect premise. Several UL offices also perform EMC
testing. The east
coast lab also performs safety (which is how they first got
NRTL listing)
and EMC. Thus, to my knowledge, there are at least two
labs that are NRTL
and do both safety and EMC.However, I am not aware that
any independent,
EMC only test lab has gotten OSHA (which is only concerned
with safety) NRTL
approval.
The RBOCs, not realizing this fact, made a sweeping
statement that all
testing had to be performed by an NRTL lab. This
immediately cut out
excellent independent EMC only testing labs. This mess is
continuing
because the RBOCs, very often, don't do their homework, but
assume many
things.Too bad.
To make a long story short,
Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com <mailto:tgr...@lucent.com>
Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group
--
From: Gary McInturff [SMTP:gmcintu...@telect.com]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 8:57 AM
To: 'Naftali Shani'; 'Collins, Jeffrey'
Cc: 'emc-p...@ieee.org'
Subject: RE: EMC, NEBS & NRTL's
Still can be done at an independent site. The Lab I use,
ACME Testing,
here in Washington has accreditation to at least the
radiated emissions
portions of the GR-, I have to check on the susceptibility,
but I think so.
Even if that were not true. I believe that if your "NRTL"
accepts the EMC
da
RE: EMC, NEBS & NRTL's
Gary and Company,
You have a valid point, but incomplete historical data.The reason OSHA
"blesses" NRTLs is because the whole issue started because the National
Electrical Code used to state that the "appliances" (everything is an
appliance in the NEC!) placed into buildings be safety approved by
nationally recognized testing laboratories, such as Underwriters
Laboratories.The NEC, as you well understand, does not care about
radiated emission limits. Some time later an independent east coast safety
testing lab sued, or almost sued, OSHA/NEC that the specific mention of the
UL name was un-American, etc. As a result, this offending language was
removed from the NEC, the National Recognized Testing Laboratory achieved
new status and, it seems, other (any) safety labs could now "approve"
appliances.Well now, that did not sit too well with a lot of labs or
even OSHA.The upshot was, safety labs were made to submit their
"expertise" to be blessed by OSHA as an NRTL.
Now, if that same safety lab also happens to offer EMC testing, it seems
that this also falls into the NRTL umbrella. I believe that this is an
incorrect premise. Several UL offices also perform EMC testing. The east
coast lab also performs safety (which is how they first got NRTL listing)
and EMC. Thus, to my knowledge, there are at least two labs that are NRTL
and do both safety and EMC.However, I am not aware that any independent,
EMC only test lab has gotten OSHA (which is only concerned with safety) NRTL
approval.
The RBOCs, not realizing this fact, made a sweeping statement that all
testing had to be performed by an NRTL lab. This immediately cut out
excellent independent EMC only testing labs. This mess is continuing
because the RBOCs, very often, don't do their homework, but assume many
things.Too bad.
To make a long story short,
Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com <mailto:tgr...@lucent.com>
Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group
--
From: Gary McInturff [SMTP:gmcintu...@telect.com]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 8:57 AM
To: 'Naftali Shani'; 'Collins, Jeffrey'
Cc: 'emc-p...@ieee.org'
Subject: RE: EMC, NEBS & NRTL's
Still can be done at an independent site. The Lab I use, ACME Testing,
here in Washington has accreditation to at least the radiated emissions
portions of the GR-, I have to check on the susceptibility, but I think so.
Even if that were not true. I believe that if your "NRTL" accepts the EMC
data from the other lab they will include it in the overall report.
Now there is the dicey part. Many of the NRTL's have their own EMC labs
and may not want to loose the cash, and try reject the independent lab's
report. I would find that a really hard sell however, because the NRTL labs
undoubtedly carry accreditation through NIST for the EMC portion, making any
argument about competency of the "independent lab" a tough sell.
At any rate I've never quite understood the justification for not
calling laboratories which are accredited through programs set up by and
through the FCC, as NRTLS'. The basic assumption I would make is that the
FCC knows a heck of a lot more about this aspect of testing and
accreditation than OSHA does. Heavy sigh!
Gary
-Original Message-
From: Naftali Shani [mailto:nsh...@nortelnetworks.com]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 6:05 AM
To: 'Collins, Jeffrey'
Cc: 'emc-p...@ieee.org'
Subject: RE: EMC, NEBS & NRTL's
BM__MailDataJeffrey, the requirement that was for NRTL lab (&
Bellcore representative) for each section of GR-63 & GR-1089, has been
dropped. See section 3.1.2 in the BA-NEBS-R10.
However, FCC data/frequency range for radiated emissions is
insufficient: You should have data based on GR-1089 requirements &
objectives (10 kHz to 10 GHz).
Regards,
Naftali Shani, Nortel Networks, Dept. 0S45, MS 117/C1/M05
21 Richardson Side Road, Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2K 2C1
Voice +1.613.765.2505 (ESN 395) Fax +1.613.763.8091 (ESN 393)
E-mail: <mailto:nsh...@nortelnetworks.com> nsh...@nortelnetworks.com or
<mailto:n...@ieee.org> n...@ieee.org
-Original Message-
From: Collins, Jeffrey [SMTP:jcoll...@ciena.com]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 4:57 AM
To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org'
Subject:RE: EMC, NEBS & NRTL's
Group,
Can anyone confirm that the RBOC's, particularly Bell Atlantic has
agreed to
accept EMC FCC data from non NRTL's?
If this is true please provide any documentation to support this. (You know
a customer is going to want to see it)
Thanks in advance,
Jeffrey Collins
MTS, Principal Compliance Engineer
Ciena Core Switching Division
jcoll...@ciena.com
www.ciena.com
---
RE: EMC, NEBS & NRTL's
Still can be done at an independent site. The Lab I use, ACME Testing, here in Washington has accreditation to at least the radiated emissions portions of the GR-, I have to check on the susceptibility, but I think so. Even if that were not true. I believe that if your "NRTL" accepts the EMC data from the other lab they will include it in the overall report. Now there is the dicey part. Many of the NRTL's have their own EMC labs and may not want to loose the cash, and try reject the independent lab's report. I would find that a really hard sell however, because the NRTL labs undoubtedly carry accreditation through NIST for the EMC portion, making any argument about competency of the "independent lab" a tough sell. At any rate I've never quite understood the justification for not calling laboratories which are accredited through programs set up by and through the FCC, as NRTLS'. The basic assumption I would make is that the FCC knows a heck of a lot more about this aspect of testing and accreditation than OSHA does. Heavy sigh! Gary -Original Message- From: Naftali Shani [mailto:nsh...@nortelnetworks.com] Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 6:05 AM To: 'Collins, Jeffrey' Cc: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: RE: EMC, NEBS & NRTL's BM__MailDataJeffrey, the requirement that was for NRTL lab (& Bellcore representative) for each section of GR-63 & GR-1089, has been dropped. See section 3.1.2 in the BA-NEBS-R10. However, FCC data/frequency range for radiated emissions is insufficient: You should have data based on GR-1089 requirements & objectives (10 kHz to 10 GHz). Regards, Naftali Shani, Nortel Networks, Dept. 0S45, MS 117/C1/M05 21 Richardson Side Road, Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2K 2C1 Voice +1.613.765.2505 (ESN 395) Fax +1.613.763.8091 (ESN 393) E-mail: <mailto:nsh...@nortelnetworks.com> nsh...@nortelnetworks.com or <mailto:n...@ieee.org> n...@ieee.org -Original Message- From: Collins, Jeffrey [SMTP:jcoll...@ciena.com] Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 4:57 AM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject:RE: EMC, NEBS & NRTL's Group, Can anyone confirm that the RBOC's, particularly Bell Atlantic has agreed to accept EMC FCC data from non NRTL's? If this is true please provide any documentation to support this. (You know a customer is going to want to see it) Thanks in advance, Jeffrey Collins MTS, Principal Compliance Engineer Ciena Core Switching Division jcoll...@ciena.com www.ciena.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: EMC, NEBS & NRTL's
John- Actually, GR-1089 starts at 60 Hz (magnetic field) and 10 kHz (electric field and conducted tests). Penny Robbins Telcordia Technologies John Juhasz on 03/17/2000 08:23:25 AM Please respond to John Juhasz To: "'Collins, Jeffrey'" , "'emc-p...@ieee.org'" cc:(bcc: Penny D. Robbins/Telcordia) Subject: RE: EMC, NEBS & NRTL's You have to be careful here Jeff. The frequency range for evaluation to GR-1089 starts at 150kHz and goes up to 10 GHz. The FCC Part 15 testing range is from 30MHz-1.0GHz. The GR-1089 spec also contains Immunity requirements. Further, the objective is to meet the spec with all covers, panels, doors off/open which is not typically done during FCC testing. Additionally, look at it from this perspective: If an RBOC is going to be reviewing proposals, if there are two similar products competing, they will choose the one that meets the details of the NEBS spec, than the one that took steps to 'look like' they meet NEBS, even if the product costs more. The RBOCs are a different breed than the usual commercial customer. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Collins, Jeffrey [mailto:jcoll...@ciena.com] Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 4:57 AM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: RE: EMC, NEBS & NRTL's Group, Can anyone confirm that the RBOC's, particularly Bell Atlantic has agreed to accept EMC FCC data from non NRTL's? If this is true please provide any documentation to support this. (You know a customer is going to want to see it) Thanks in advance, Jeffrey Collins MTS, Principal Compliance Engineer Ciena Core Switching Division jcoll...@ciena.com www.ciena.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 Title: RE: EMC, NEBS & NRTL's You have to be careful here Jeff. The frequency range for evaluation to GR-1089 starts at 150kHz and goes up to 10 GHz. The FCC Part 15 testing range is from 30MHz-1.0GHz. The GR-1089 spec also contains Immunity requirements. Further, the objective is to meet the spec with all covers, panels, doors off/open which is not typically done during FCC testing. Additionally, look at it from this perspective: If an RBOC is going to be reviewing proposals, if there are two similar products competing, they will choose the one that meets the details of the NEBS spec, than the one that took steps to 'look like' they meet NEBS, even if the product costs more. The RBOCs are a different breed than the usual commercial customer. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Collins, Jeffrey [mailto:jcoll...@ciena.com] Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 4:57 AM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: RE: EMC, NEBS & NRTL's Group, Can anyone confirm that the RBOC's, particularly Bell Atlantic has agreed to accept EMC FCC data from non NRTL's? If this is true please provide any documentation to support this. (You know a customer is going to want to see it) Thanks in advance, Jeffrey Collins MTS, Principal Compliance Engineer Ciena Core Switching Division jcoll...@ciena.com www.ciena.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
Re: EMC, NEBS & NRTL's
"Collins, Jeffrey" wrote: > > Group, > > Can anyone confirm that the RBOC's, particularly Bell > Atlantic has agreed to accept EMC FCC data from non NRTL's? > If this is true please provide any documentation to support > this. (You know a customer is going to want to see it) Maybe I don't understand the question ... FCC data from a non-NRTL? A lab that can measure emissions of equipment for FCC compliance is registered with the FCC and is independent from the NRTL program run by OSHA. Two entirely different animals. Thus, a lab that does FCC emissions testing IS a non-NRTL lab. Otherwise, the implication with the question is that RBOCs until now have accepted FCC data ONLY from NRTLs such as ETL, MET, UL, ... Regards, Doug --- 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: EMC, NEBS & NRTL's
Jeffrey, the requirement that was for NRTL lab (& Bellcore
representative) for each section of GR-63 & GR-1089, has been dropped. See
section 3.1.2 in the BA-NEBS-R10.
However, FCC data/frequency range for radiated emissions is
insufficient: You should have data based on GR-1089 requirements &
objectives (10 kHz to 10 GHz).
Regards,
Naftali Shani, Nortel Networks, Dept. 0S45, MS 117/C1/M05
21 Richardson Side Road, Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2K 2C1
Voice +1.613.765.2505 (ESN 395) Fax +1.613.763.8091 (ESN 393)
E-mail: nsh...@nortelnetworks.com <mailto:nsh...@nortelnetworks.com>
or n...@ieee.org <mailto:n...@ieee.org>
-Original Message-
From: Collins, Jeffrey [SMTP:jcoll...@ciena.com]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 4:57 AM
To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org'
Subject:RE: EMC, NEBS & NRTL's
Group,
Can anyone confirm that the RBOC's, particularly Bell
Atlantic has agreed to
accept EMC FCC data from non NRTL's?
If this is true please provide any documentation to support
this. (You know
a customer is going to want to see it)
Thanks in advance,
Jeffrey Collins
MTS, Principal Compliance Engineer
Ciena Core Switching Division
jcoll...@ciena.com
www.ciena.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
RE: EMC, NEBS & NRTL's
You have to be careful here Jeff. The frequency range for evaluation to GR-1089 starts at 150kHz and goes up to 10 GHz. The FCC Part 15 testing range is from 30MHz-1.0GHz. The GR-1089 spec also contains Immunity requirements. Further, the objective is to meet the spec with all covers, panels, doors off/open which is not typically done during FCC testing. Additionally, look at it from this perspective: If an RBOC is going to be reviewing proposals, if there are two similar products competing, they will choose the one that meets the details of the NEBS spec, than the one that took steps to 'look like' they meet NEBS, even if the product costs more. The RBOCs are a different breed than the usual commercial customer. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Collins, Jeffrey [mailto:jcoll...@ciena.com] Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 4:57 AM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: RE: EMC, NEBS & NRTL's Group, Can anyone confirm that the RBOC's, particularly Bell Atlantic has agreed to accept EMC FCC data from non NRTL's? If this is true please provide any documentation to support this. (You know a customer is going to want to see it) Thanks in advance, Jeffrey Collins MTS, Principal Compliance Engineer Ciena Core Switching Division jcoll...@ciena.com www.ciena.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
RE: EMC, NEBS & NRTL's
Jeffrey, DLS, here in Illinois, claims to have a letter from Bell Atlantic stating that their EMC data will be accepted. You can email Steve Grimes at DLS and ask him if they will give you a copy. ( sgri...@dlsemc.com ) Regards, Jay Johansmeier Regulatory Engineer 3Com Corporation jay_johansme...@3com.com "Collins, Jeffrey" on 03/17/2000 03:56:40 AM Please respond to "Collins, Jeffrey" Sent by: "Collins, Jeffrey" To: "'emc-pstc @ieee.org'" cc: (Jay Johansmeier/MW/US/3Com) Subject: RE: EMC, NEBS & NRTL's Group, Can anyone confirm that the RBOC's, particularly Bell Atlantic has agreed to accept EMC FCC data from non NRTL's? If this is true please provide any documentation to support this. (You know a customer is going to want to see it) Thanks in advance, Jeffrey Collins MTS, Principal Compliance Engineer Ciena Core Switching Division jcoll...@ciena.com www.ciena.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: EMC, NEBS & NRTL's
Group, Can anyone confirm that the RBOC's, particularly Bell Atlantic has agreed to accept EMC FCC data from non NRTL's? If this is true please provide any documentation to support this. (You know a customer is going to want to see it) Thanks in advance, Jeffrey Collins MTS, Principal Compliance Engineer Ciena Core Switching Division jcoll...@ciena.com www.ciena.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
