RE: RTTE Notified Body Opinion Cheaper than Full Testing?
Hi Tony In my experience, if you are embedding wireless modules that already have CE authorisation from the original manufacturer, then a Technical File and Notified Body Opinion is cheaper. I have done this for a number of clients. If you need more details contact me directly. Regards David Shidlowsky Technical Writer EMC Laboratory ITL (Product Testing) Ltd. Lod/Kfar Bin Nun Israel Tel: +972-8-918-6113 Fax: +972-8-915-3101 Email: dav...@itl.co.il/e...@itl.co.il http://www.itl.co.il http://www.itl.co.il/ This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you received this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding the message and its attachments to the sender. From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of ton...@europe.com Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 5:03 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RTTE Notified Body Opinion Cheaper than Full Testing? Hi, I design bespoke vehicle/personnel tracking and machine-machine communications systems for clients using GPS and GSM/cellular technologies, sometimes RF wireless (e.g. 433 2400 MHz unlicensed), mostly embedding GPS/GSM/wireless modules within custom electronics. These are normally manufactured in a few 10’s at most. We self-declare to the RTTE Directive by testing to the relevant harmonised standards – this is phenomenally expensive for the volumes we produce. Alternatively, I suspect it would be considerably (very considerably) cheaper to supply a Technical File, including very limited testing results, design data and technical rationales to a RTTE Notified Body to confirm compliance with the RTTED. We naturally produce most of this information anyway as part of the development. The NB certificate would satisfy us, regulatory authorities and clients. Does anybody have experience of using this alternative approach – is it a viable and cheaper alternative. Feel free to reply off-line if you wish. Thanks in advance for your views, Tony - 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://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald 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://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
Re: RTTE Notified Body Opinion Cheaper than Full Testing?
In my opinion it would be more expensive to do a Technical File (old Technical Construction File) because it is very difficult and massive amounts of calculations et al to prove that your unit will pass the EMC Directive using non-test data (schematics, etc) for all of the radiated and interfering phenomena. If you do a Technical File correctly it is very time consuming and labor extensive. Besides, I am not sure that this is allowed for Radio Devices. Even if it was it would not be allowed for the US and many other countries. Bob Heller 3M EMC Laboratory, 76-1-01 St. Paul, MN 55107-1208 Tel: 651-778-6336 Fax: 651-778-6252 = From: ton...@europe.com To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 05/03/2011 09:04 AM Subject:RTTE Notified Body Opinion Cheaper than Full Testing? Sent by:emc-p...@ieee.org Hi, I design bespoke vehicle/personnel tracking and machine-machine communications systems for clients using GPS and GSM/cellular technologies, sometimes RF wireless (e.g. 433 2400 MHz unlicensed), mostly embedding GPS/GSM/wireless modules within custom electronics. These are normally manufactured in a few 10’s at most. We self-declare to the RTTE Directive by testing to the relevant harmonised standards – this is phenomenally expensive for the volumes we produce. Alternatively, I suspect it would be considerably (very considerably) cheaper to supply a Technical File, including very limited testing results, design data and technical rationales to a RTTE Notified Body to confirm compliance with the RTTED. We naturally produce most of this information anyway as part of the development. The NB certificate would satisfy us, regulatory authorities and clients. Does anybody have experience of using this alternative approach – is it a viable and cheaper alternative. Feel free to reply off-line if you wish. Thanks in advance for your views, Tony - 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 mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net mailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com mailto: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://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
Re: RTTE Notified Body Opinion Cheaper than Full Testing?
In my opinion it would be more expensive to do a Technical File (old Technical Construction File) because it is very difficult and massive amounts of calculations et al to prove that your unit will pass the EMC Directive using non-test data (schematics, etc) for all of the radiated and interfering phenomena. If you do a Technical File correctly it is very time consuming and labor extensive. Besides, I am not sure that this is allowed for Radio Devices. Even if it was it would not be allowed for the US and many other countries. Bob Heller 3M EMC Laboratory, 76-1-01 St. Paul, MN 55107-1208 Tel: 651-778-6336 Fax: 651-778-6252 = From: ton...@europe.com To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: 05/03/2011 09:04 AM Subject:RTTE Notified Body Opinion Cheaper than Full Testing? Sent by:emc-p...@ieee.org Hi, I design bespoke vehicle/personnel tracking and machine-machine communications systems for clients using GPS and GSM/cellular technologies, sometimes RF wireless (e.g. 433 2400 MHz unlicensed), mostly embedding GPS/GSM/wireless modules within custom electronics. These are normally manufactured in a few 10’s at most. We self-declare to the RTTE Directive by testing to the relevant harmonised standards – this is phenomenally expensive for the volumes we produce. Alternatively, I suspect it would be considerably (very considerably) cheaper to supply a Technical File, including very limited testing results, design data and technical rationales to a RTTE Notified Body to confirm compliance with the RTTED. We naturally produce most of this information anyway as part of the development. The NB certificate would satisfy us, regulatory authorities and clients. Does anybody have experience of using this alternative approach – is it a viable and cheaper alternative. Feel free to reply off-line if you wish. Thanks in advance for your views, Tony - 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 mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net mailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com mailto: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://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@radiusnorth.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
Re: RTTE and IEC 60950
Depends where you are going with it in the world? Some countries as part of the radiocom approval process require an iec 60950-1 safety test report Peter Merguerian pe...@goglobcompliance.com Go Global Compliance Inc. Tel: 408-4163772 Cel: 408-9313303 Sent from my iPhone On Aug 23, 2010, at 9:51 PM, Gartman, Richard rgart...@ti.com wrote: I am looking for view points on wither or not IEC60950 is necessary for a WiFi product, and if so why. The WiFi client product is a battery operated 802.11 b/g device with 0.1W output. The battery in the WiFi client device is recharged by a class 2 EPS that has both UL/CAS and GS mark. Thanks W. Richard Gartman, MS, CSP Product Stewardship Manager Texas Instruments, Education Technology 7800 Banner Drive, Dallas, Tx 75251 Office: 972-917-1636Email: rgart...@ti.com Fax: 972-917-0668 URL: www.education.ti.com www.education.ti.com/us/productstewardship - 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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@socal.rr.com Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: 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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@socal.rr.com Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: RTTE and IEC 60950
In message 003a01cb4308$1c6d36f0$d600a...@tamuracorp.com, dated Mon, 23 Aug 2010, Brian O'Connell oconne...@tamuracorp.com writes: Class '2' is ** NOT ** the same thing as Class 'II'. Yes, but not everyone always writes 'II'. It is advisable to check. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK If at first you don't succeed, delegate. But I support unbloated email http://www.asciiribbon.org/ - 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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@socal.rr.com Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: RTTE and IEC 60950
Depends where you are going with it in the world? Some countries as part of the radiocom approval process require an iec 60950-1 safety test report Peter Merguerian pe...@goglobcompliance.com Go Global Compliance Inc. Tel: 408-4163772 Cel: 408-9313303 Sent from my iPhone On Aug 23, 2010, at 9:51 PM, Gartman, Richard rgart...@ti.com wrote: I am looking for view points on wither or not IEC60950 is necessary for a WiFi product, and if so why. The WiFi client product is a battery operated 802.11 b/g device with 0.1W output. The battery in the WiFi client device is recharged by a class 2 EPS that has both UL/CAS and GS mark. Thanks W. Richard Gartman, MS, CSP Product Stewardship Manager Texas Instruments, Education Technology 7800 Banner Drive, Dallas, Tx 75251 Office: 972-917-1636Email: rgart...@ti.com Fax: 972-917-0668 URL: www.education.ti.com www.education.ti.com/us/productstewardship - 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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@socal.rr.com Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: 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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@socal.rr.com Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: RTTE and IEC 60950
In message 003a01cb4308$1c6d36f0$d600a...@tamuracorp.com, dated Mon, 23 Aug 2010, Brian O'Connell oconne...@tamuracorp.com writes: Class '2' is ** NOT ** the same thing as Class 'II'. Yes, but not everyone always writes 'II'. It is advisable to check. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK If at first you don't succeed, delegate. But I support unbloated email http://www.asciiribbon.org/ - 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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@socal.rr.com Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
RE: RTTE and IEC 60950
Oh shyte, just when I thought I had the syntax just right! It reminds me of the Energy Efficiency rating on the power supplies. (just to send this off on a tangent).It would look like I, II, III, etc get more and more efficient. Hah! V is undefined! Can be anything, or nothing at all. They come from that wonderful we will produce anything country... Watch for them. I hope the reg's have changed or will change soon! - Bill In the event of a national emergency, click on the following links to provide directions to your duly elected mis-representatives. http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml or... https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm if really desperate... http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml --- On Mon, 8/23/10, Brian O'Connell oconne...@tamuracorp.com wrote: From: Brian O'Connell oconne...@tamuracorp.com Subject: RE: RTTE and IEC 60950 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Date: Monday, August 23, 2010, 5:14 PM Class '2' is ** NOT ** the same thing as Class 'II'. The concept of an class 2 power source is derived from NEC/CEC requirements. The concept of class II construction is based on the used of spacings and insulation to mitigate the lack of reliable protective earth. Brian -Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of John Woodgate Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 2:00 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: RTTE and IEC 60950 In message 003101cb4301$80977930$d600a...@tamuracorp.com, dated Mon, 23 Aug 2010, Brian O'Connell oconne...@tamuracorp.com writes: 1. Class '2' has no meaning outside of North America. That depends on which sort of 'Class 2' it is! 'Class 2' in the sense of double-insulation and no PEC applies in Europe. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK If at first you don't succeed, delegate. - 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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@socal.rr.com Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: 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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@socal.rr.com Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
RE: RTTE and IEC 60950
Class '2' is ** NOT ** the same thing as Class 'II'. The concept of an class 2 power source is derived from NEC/CEC requirements. The concept of class II construction is based on the used of spacings and insulation to mitigate the lack of reliable protective earth. Brian -Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of John Woodgate Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 2:00 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: RTTE and IEC 60950 In message 003101cb4301$80977930$d600a...@tamuracorp.com, dated Mon, 23 Aug 2010, Brian O'Connell oconne...@tamuracorp.com writes: 1. Class '2' has no meaning outside of North America. That depends on which sort of 'Class 2' it is! 'Class 2' in the sense of double-insulation and no PEC applies in Europe. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK If at first you don't succeed, delegate. - 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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@socal.rr.com Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: RTTE and IEC 60950
In message 003101cb4301$80977930$d600a...@tamuracorp.com, dated Mon, 23 Aug 2010, Brian O'Connell oconne...@tamuracorp.com writes: 1. Class '2' has no meaning outside of North America. That depends on which sort of 'Class 2' it is! 'Class 2' in the sense of double-insulation and no PEC applies in Europe. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK If at first you don't succeed, delegate. But I support unbloated email http://www.asciiribbon.org/ - 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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@socal.rr.com Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: RTTE and IEC 60950
In message f12eba124c6e064b9cf1b45e67ddb7e79099a...@dlee02.ent.ti.com, dated Mon, 23 Aug 2010, Gartman, Richard rgart...@ti.com writes: I am looking for view points on wither or not IEC60950 is necessary for a WiFi product, and if so why. For use in which countries? It is essential to specify the country/ies for IEC standards. Obviously, for EN standards it is not usually necessary. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK If at first you don't succeed, delegate. But I support unbloated email http://www.asciiribbon.org/ - 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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@socal.rr.com Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
RE: RTTE and IEC 60950
1. Class '2' has no meaning outside of North America. 2. See Guide to the RTTE Directive. 3. Is the unit marked as Class III, and does the battery have a test cert ? If so, the only mitigation removed is protection from shock - all other ITE safety requirements may apply, depending on the available energy into and within the box. Brian -Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Gartman, Richard Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 12:51 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RTTE and IEC 60950 I am looking for view points on wither or not IEC60950 is necessary for a WiFi product, and if so why. The WiFi client product is a battery operated 802.11 b/g device with 0.1W output. The battery in the WiFi client device is recharged by a class 2 EPS that has both UL/CAS and GS mark. Thanks W. Richard Gartman, MS, CSP Product Stewardship Manager Texas Instruments, Education Technology 7800 Banner Drive, Dallas, Tx 75251 Office: 972-917-1636Email: rgart...@ti.com Fax: 972-917-0668 URL: www.education.ti.com www.education.ti.com/us/productstewardship - 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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@socal.rr.com Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
RE: RTTE and IEC 60950
Oh shyte, just when I thought I had the syntax just right! It reminds me of the Energy Efficiency rating on the power supplies. (just to send this off on a tangent).It would look like I, II, III, etc get more and more efficient. Hah! V is undefined! Can be anything, or nothing at all. They come from that wonderful we will produce anything country... Watch for them. I hope the reg's have changed or will change soon! - Bill In the event of a national emergency, click on the following links to provide directions to your duly elected mis-representatives. http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml or... https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm if really desperate... http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml --- On Mon, 8/23/10, Brian O'Connell oconne...@tamuracorp.com wrote: From: Brian O'Connell oconne...@tamuracorp.com Subject: RE: RTTE and IEC 60950 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Date: Monday, August 23, 2010, 5:14 PM Class '2' is ** NOT ** the same thing as Class 'II'. The concept of an class 2 power source is derived from NEC/CEC requirements. The concept of class II construction is based on the used of spacings and insulation to mitigate the lack of reliable protective earth. Brian -Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of John Woodgate Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 2:00 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: RTTE and IEC 60950 In message 003101cb4301$80977930$d600a...@tamuracorp.com, dated Mon, 23 Aug 2010, Brian O'Connell oconne...@tamuracorp.com writes: 1. Class '2' has no meaning outside of North America. That depends on which sort of 'Class 2' it is! 'Class 2' in the sense of double-insulation and no PEC applies in Europe. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK If at first you don't succeed, delegate. - 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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@socal.rr.com Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: 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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@socal.rr.com Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
RE: RTTE and IEC 60950
Class '2' is ** NOT ** the same thing as Class 'II'. The concept of an class 2 power source is derived from NEC/CEC requirements. The concept of class II construction is based on the used of spacings and insulation to mitigate the lack of reliable protective earth. Brian -Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of John Woodgate Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 2:00 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: RTTE and IEC 60950 In message 003101cb4301$80977930$d600a...@tamuracorp.com, dated Mon, 23 Aug 2010, Brian O'Connell oconne...@tamuracorp.com writes: 1. Class '2' has no meaning outside of North America. That depends on which sort of 'Class 2' it is! 'Class 2' in the sense of double-insulation and no PEC applies in Europe. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK If at first you don't succeed, delegate. - 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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@socal.rr.com Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: RTTE and IEC 60950
In message 003101cb4301$80977930$d600a...@tamuracorp.com, dated Mon, 23 Aug 2010, Brian O'Connell oconne...@tamuracorp.com writes: 1. Class '2' has no meaning outside of North America. That depends on which sort of 'Class 2' it is! 'Class 2' in the sense of double-insulation and no PEC applies in Europe. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK If at first you don't succeed, delegate. But I support unbloated email http://www.asciiribbon.org/ - 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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@socal.rr.com Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: RTTE and IEC 60950
In message f12eba124c6e064b9cf1b45e67ddb7e79099a...@dlee02.ent.ti.com, dated Mon, 23 Aug 2010, Gartman, Richard rgart...@ti.com writes: I am looking for view points on wither or not IEC60950 is necessary for a WiFi product, and if so why. For use in which countries? It is essential to specify the country/ies for IEC standards. Obviously, for EN standards it is not usually necessary. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK If at first you don't succeed, delegate. But I support unbloated email http://www.asciiribbon.org/ - 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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@socal.rr.com Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
RE: RTTE and IEC 60950
1. Class '2' has no meaning outside of North America. 2. See Guide to the RTTE Directive. 3. Is the unit marked as Class III, and does the battery have a test cert ? If so, the only mitigation removed is protection from shock - all other ITE safety requirements may apply, depending on the available energy into and within the box. Brian -Original Message- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Gartman, Richard Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 12:51 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RTTE and IEC 60950 I am looking for view points on wither or not IEC60950 is necessary for a WiFi product, and if so why. The WiFi client product is a battery operated 802.11 b/g device with 0.1W output. The battery in the WiFi client device is recharged by a class 2 EPS that has both UL/CAS and GS mark. Thanks W. Richard Gartman, MS, CSP Product Stewardship Manager Texas Instruments, Education Technology 7800 Banner Drive, Dallas, Tx 75251 Office: 972-917-1636Email: rgart...@ti.com Fax: 972-917-0668 URL: www.education.ti.com www.education.ti.com/us/productstewardship - 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.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@socal.rr.com Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: dhe...@gmail.com
Re: RTTE equipment to South Africa.
On 5/17/2007, Daniel Liang wrote: Does anyone know the EMC, RTTE and electrical safety requirements for South Africa? Which regulatory authority in South Africa I should contact? Hi Daniel: I get involved with a South African approval every year or two, and each time the names and functions of the various regulatory bodies have changed since the previous time. I think that South Africa is going through a gradual process of restructuring their regulatory framework. For example, they appear to be trying to fully separate their telecom approvals from the state-owned telecom monopoly, just as many other countries have done. The telecom regulatory authority is presently called ICASA (http://www.icasa.org.za http://www.icasa.org.za/ ). I believe that safety and EMC requirements are published and administered by SABS (https://www.sabs.co.za/). In general, the safety and EMC requirements are harmonized with other international standards such as those used in Europe. The South African requirements for wireline telecom are still unique to South Africa and seem to be in a constant state of revision. There was a big effort a few years ago to harmonize their wireline requirements with Europe's TBR 21, but the project appears to have fizzled. Sorry I can't provide a better answer to your question, but hopefully the above information will help you get started in the right direction. Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2848 (USA) j...@randolph-telecom.com http://www.randolph-telecom.com http://www.randolph-telecom.com/ __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: RTTE equipment to South Africa.
Daniel, For non-telecom/radiocom, the regulatory authority is SABS. You willneed LoA (safety) and CoC (emc). For the LoA you will need the name of your importer. For telecom/radiocom the regulatory authority is ICASA. Best Regards, Peter Daniel Liang daniel_liang_...@yahoo.com wrote: Dear all experts, Does anyone know the EMC, RTTE and electrical safety requirements for South Africa? Which regulatory authority in South Africa I should contact? Thanks. Regards, Daniel Liang. ___ »¶ÓʹÓó¬´óÈÝÁ¿ÑÅ»¢ÓÊÏä http://cn.mail.yahoo.com - --- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc _ Be a PS3 game guru. Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games. http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49936/*http://videogames.yahoo.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
RE: RTTE Conformity Assessment Procedure
Hi Grace There are other issues that may be involved but let’s address your specific question. Labs are not actually ‘registered’ with a Notified Body except under annexes V and up. The intent of use for an NB proposed in your email is 1 - to give credence to the test suite under annex III or 2 - to give an opinion based on a review of the technical construction file under annex IV, or 3 – have the NB audit the quality system of the manufacturer so they (the manufacturer) can declare conformity under a full quality assurance process. Under annex III the notified body would assist the manufacturer in determining the appropriate test suite for the product. This could mean that the NB produces the test suite itself or that it ‘approves’ a test suite requested by the manufacturer. The directive itself simply states that it is the NB that has responsibility of identifying the appropriate test suite. It does not say how this identification is to be made. Thus the ability of the manufacturer to assess the test requirements and submit to the NB is not ruled out. In either case however, the options obviously require that the NB has a full and complete understanding of the product in order to either agree with the manufacturers assessment of testing or to establish a test suite itself. Under annex IV the notified body makes a determination of the appropriateness of the product to the essential requirements based on a thorough review of the TCF. While some may assume that a minimalistic review of only certain aspects of the TCF is needed and while NBs may put caveats in the opinion as only applying to documentation provided, the question then becomes, how can a reasonable assessment as to the appropriateness of the product to the essential requirements be done without a full and complete review of all documentation normally required in a complete TCF? Under annex V the notified body does a complete audit of the manufacturers quality assurance program, including test methods and other capabilities. This would be the only time that any lab registration would necessarily exist. Please note however, that it is not only the lab that is ‘registered’ but all aspects of the quality system that deals with the product line and its ability to meet all essential requirements. As to the specific frequencies you mention – you have not provided enough information for any reasonable position on what would be needed. Thanks Dennis Ward Evaluation Engineer American TCB Certification Resource for the Wireless Industry www.atcb.com 703-847-4700 fax 703-847-6888 direct - 703-880-4841 cell - 209-769-8316 NOTICE: This E-Mail message and any attachment may contain privileged or company proprietary information. If you received this message in error, please return to the sender. _ From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Grace Lin Sent: 08/09/2006 10:24 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RTTE Conformity Assessment Procedure Dear Members, Please help me to understand the conformity assessment procedure per the RTTE Directive. Paragraph 4 of Article 10 of Directive 1999/5/EC states: Where a manufacturer has applied the harmonized standard referred to in Article 5(1), radia equipment not within the scope of paragraph 3 shall be subject to the procedures described in any one of Annexes III, IV or V at the choice of the manufacturer. Annex III states: For each type of apparatus, all essential radio test suites must be carried out by the manufacturer or on his behalf. The identification of the test suites that are considered to be essential is the responsibility of a notified body chosen by the manufacturer except where the test suites are defined in the harmonized standards. The notified body must take due account of previous decisions made by notified bodies acting together. The manufacturer or his authorized representative established within the Community or the person responsible for placing the apparatus on the market must declare that these tests have been carried out and that the apparatus complies with the essential requirements and must affix the notified body's identification number during the manufacturing process. I don't understand the first paragraph of Annex III. My question is: do I need to have my lab (in a manufacturer) registed with one of notified bodies to be considered to be essential? If not, what is the marking requirement, CE ( 433.92MHz) or CE plus alert sign (2.4GHz SS), or others? Thank you very much for your time and look forward to your help. Best regards, Grace Lin Sr. Compliance Engineer Crestron Electronics, Inc. 6 Volvo Drive Rockleigh, NJ 07647 g...@crestron.com www.crestron.com - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a
RE: RTTE Conformity Assessment Procedure
The alert mark is required if the frequency band is not harmonized in the EU. Bill From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of John Woodgate Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 12:47 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Re: RTTE Conformity Assessment Procedure In message 2a93eb060608091024h274cf040w98474b21dcc66...@mail.gmail.com, dated Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Grace Lin graceli...@gmail.com writes I don't understand the first paragraph of Annex III. My question is: do I need to have my lab (in a manufacturer) registed with one of notified bodies to be considered to be essential? No, it says that the Notified Body has to tell you which tests your product requires. If not, what is the marking requirement, CE ( 433.92MHz) or CE plus alert sign (2.4GHz SS), or others? I think that's a different, and perhaps unrelated, question. I don't have enough data about your product to answer it, and I don't normally advise on RTTE stuff. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk 2006 is YMMVI- Your mileage may vary immensely. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: RTTE Conformity Assessment Procedure
In message 2a93eb060608091024h274cf040w98474b21dcc66...@mail.gmail.com, dated Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Grace Lin graceli...@gmail.com writes I don't understand the first paragraph of Annex III. My question is: do I need to have my lab (in a manufacturer) registed with one of notified bodies to be considered to be essential? No, it says that the Notified Body has to tell you which tests your product requires. If not, what is the marking requirement, CE ( 433.92MHz) or CE plus alert sign (2.4GHz SS), or others? I think that's a different, and perhaps unrelated, question. I don't have enough data about your product to answer it, and I don't normally advise on RTTE stuff. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk 2006 is YMMVI- Your mileage may vary immensely. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
RE: RTTE apply for non-radio equipment?
Amund, We use the RTTE Directive for batteries that are used with radios. For the chargers we use the EMC and Low Voltage Directive. Finally, the radio team uses the RTTE directive with the complete system. Best Regards, Jody Leber Senior Regulatory Engineer jody.le...@motorola.com http://www.motorola.com/producttesting blocked::http://www.motorola.com/producttesting Motorola Product Testing Services 1700 Belle Meade Court Lawrenceville, GA 30043 770.338.3581 P 678.201.7270 C 847.761.3145 F _ From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Amund Westin Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 4:53 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RTTE apply for non-radio equipment? We have been told by a RTTE Notified Body that non-radio equipment are covered by RTTE directive, if they are a part of a total radio system and connected (signal transfer) to a radio RX/TX unit. Can it be correct that such adjacent equipment applies for RTTE? Personally, I thought that RTTE basically covers radio transmitter and receivers, of course with some exceptions. And all equipment which do not have a TX/RX port are excluded. Reagrds Amund Westin Oslo / Norway - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: RTTE apply for non-radio equipment?
In message aoenigjpfmpdhikjmgcniegnciaa.am...@westin-emission.no, dated Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Amund Westin am...@westin-emission.no writes We have been told by a RTTE Notified Body that non-radio equipment are covered by RTTE directive, if they are a part of a total radio system and connected (signal transfer) to a radio RX/TX unit. Can it be correct that such adjacent equipment applies for RTTE? Reading the Directive, it does not appear so. Ask them to show you the place in the Directive where the relevant provision is stated. If it were so, a PC connected to a wireless router, for example, would fall under the Directive. You can download the Directive free of charge from the Commission web site. Personally, I thought that RTTE basically covers radio transmitter and receivers, of course with some exceptions. And all equipment which do not have a TX/RX port are excluded. RTTE also applies to telecommunications terminal equipment. Maybe your 'non-radio' product is within that definition. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk 2006 is YMMVI- Your mileage may vary immoderately. John Woodgate - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list.Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald:emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: RTTE apply for non-radio equipment?
Check this TR from ETSI this gives some guidance for radio approvals and associated devices. Below is an excerpt from ETSI TR 102 070-2 V1.1.1 (2002-11) Guide to the application of harmonized standards to multi-radio and combined radio and non-radio equipment; Part 2: Effective use of the radio frequency spectrum Where the embedded radio function cannot operate independently from the primary product then the combined equipment should be assessed to the harmonized standard relevant for the radio technology utilized. Alternatively, for radiated spurious emissions in receive and/or standby mode, the harmonized EMC standard for the primary product may be used. For the remaining parts of the frequency measurement ranges covered by the radio standard, but not the primary product EMC standard, the requirements in the radio standard should be used to demonstrate compliance to article 3.2 of the RTTE Directive 1999/5/EC [1]. Lothar Schmidt Technical Manager EMC, SAR, Antenna testing and BQB CETECOM Inc. 411 Dixon Landing Road Milpitas, CA 95035 Phone +1 408 586 6214 Fax +1 408 586 6299 This e-mail may contain proprietary, privileged and confidential information for the sole use of the named intended recipient. Any review or distribution of this e-mail by any party other than the intended recipient or that person's agent is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete all copies and immediately Contact the sender. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. Thank you. _ From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Amund Westin Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 1:53 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RTTE apply for non-radio equipment? We have been told by a RTTE Notified Body that non-radio equipment are covered by RTTE directive, if they are a part of a total radio system and connected (signal transfer) to a radio RX/TX unit. Can it be correct that such adjacent equipment applies for RTTE? Personally, I thought that RTTE basically covers radio transmitter and receivers, of course with some exceptions. And all equipment which do not have a TX/RX port are excluded. Reagrds Amund Westin Oslo / Norway - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: RTTE apply for non-radio equipment?
The RTTED is for radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment not just radio equipment. Article 2 of the RTTED states “radio equipment means a product, or relevant component thereof”. The “relevant component thereof” is where some equipment classified and “non-radio” are included in the RTTED. Dennis Ward Evaluation Engineer American TCB Certification Resource for the Wireless Industry www.atcb.com 703-847-4700 fax 703-847-6888 direct - 703-880-4841 cell - 209-769-8316 NOTICE: This E-Mail message and any attachment may contain privileged or company proprietary information. If you received this message in error, please return to the sender. _ From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Amund Westin Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 1:53 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RTTE apply for non-radio equipment? We have been told by a RTTE Notified Body that non-radio equipment are covered by RTTE directive, if they are a part of a total radio system and connected (signal transfer) to a radio RX/TX unit. Can it be correct that such adjacent equipment applies for RTTE? Personally, I thought that RTTE basically covers radio transmitter and receivers, of course with some exceptions. And all equipment which do not have a TX/RX port are excluded. Reagrds Amund Westin Oslo / Norway - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: RTTE Labelling Question...AND - CE MARK QUESTION
Kevin brings up another good point, Can one CE mark a product and yet have an asterisk, stating it does not comply with one country in the EU? There are many deviations for safety and now Kevin brings up an EMI issues as well.. thanks, Richard, From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Kevin Harris Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 5:16 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RTTE Labelling Question Greetings, I thought I knew this RTTE labelling stuff cold but clearly I don't :( Until the recent addition of additional countries to the EU we had clear requirements for our short range devices at 433.92 MHz According to the list kept at ero.dk our equipment was Class1 Sub Class 20. Easy label, no problem! Now with the addition of Poland (who does not accept SRDs at 433.92 MHz ) I have become confused. Does this mean that Poland, by refusing this particular use of frequency, can essentially override a commission decision determining the Class of our product? Should our product now be labelled Class 2 with the CE ! mark and a crossed out PL Or should we still indicate Class 1.20 and CE but no ! and also indicate no PL Thoughts? Thanks Kind Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approvals Group Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: kevinharr...@dsc.com This transmission is intended to be delivered only to the named addressee(s) and may contain information that is confidential or proprietary. If this information is received by anyone other than the named addressee(s), the recipient(s) should immediately notify the sender by e-mail or by telephone at 905-760-3000 and delete this message. In no event shall this material be read, used, copied, reproduced, stored or retained by anyone other than the named addressee(s), except with the express written consent of the sender. Thank you. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/listserv/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/listserv/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org David Heald: emc-p...@daveheald.com All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: RTTE to be marketed in Greece.
Hi You can try also this link: http://www.eett.gr/eng_pages/index2n.htm Best regards Gaétan Hogue Approvals Manager Eicon Networks Phone: (514) 832-3488 Fax: (514) 745-5588 Email: gaetan.ho...@eicon.com http://www.eicon.com http://www.eicon.com/ From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 11:53 AM To: Y W Leung; emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: SV: RTTE to be marketed in Greece. A couple of years ago, we send a RTTE Notification to the following in Greece: National Regulatory Authority for Telecommunications and Post (EETT) 60 Kifissias Avenue, 151 25 Maroussi, Athens, Greece Tel. +301 0615 1000 fax. +301 0610 5049 Regards Amund Fra: owner-emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@ieee.org]På vegne av Y W Leung Sendt: 30. juni 2005 09:49 Til: emc-p...@ieee.org Emne: RTTE to be marketed in Greece. Dear All, For RTTE product to be marketed in Greece, I have checked the ERO website, there is no any info about it inside. Could anyone tell me where I can get the information (RTTE and the website of the regulatory body,etc). Thanks a lot. Regards, Derek. ¦³§Y(r)ɳqª3/4¡A¦¬ß§ --- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/listserv/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/listserv/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/listserv/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: RTTE Question
Kevin, I think you can find the answer in the FAQ on the RTTE site : http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/rtte/faq.htm#informing It says under the chapter: What information has to be given to the user by the manufacturer? For apparatus that makes use of radio frequency bands, is intended to be used. In which form is the responsibility of the manufacturer; Vriendelijke Groeten, Meilleures salutations, mit freundlichen Gruessen, Best regards, Kristiaan Carpentier Regulatory and Approval Engineer From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Kevin Harris Sent: vrijdag 7 mei 2004 20:34 To: EMC-PSTC (emc-p...@ieee.org) Subject: RTTE Question Dear Colleagues, I have a question concerning labelling under the RTTE directive. Given a transmitter operating in a frequency band that is not harmonized and therefore having a restricted list of countries appropriate for use, the RTTE directive instructs the use of the alert symbol ! And then Article 6 of the directive says in part Where it concerns radio equipment, such information shall be sufficient to identify on the packaging and the instructions for use of the apparatus the Member States or the geographical area within a Member State where the equipment is intended to be used and shall alert the user by the marking on the apparatus referred to in Annex VII, paragraph 5, to potential restrictions or requirements for authorization of use of the radio equipment in certain Member States. The common theme I've seen to fulfill this requirement is a list of countries after the alert symbol (in the two letter acronym form) . I've read the above statement a few times and I can convince myself that the list should be one of where the use of the device is permitted, or on alternate readings of where the device is not permitted. Is there a ruling anywhere that clarifies this statement or is it just left up to the manufacturer to choose? On a side track to this issue Whether or not the list is inclusive or exclusive, everybody just had to update their labels and manuals to accommodate last weeks EU expansion :( I wonder how many of us caught that one! Kind Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approvals Group Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: kevinharr...@dsc.com This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com 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: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: RTTE for Medical Devices?
Del, I'm not an RTTE expert, but from the MDD side under the 2nd edition of 60601-1-2 (2001), the function of the card and it's communications would have to be evaluated. If it falls under the ESSENTIAL FUNCTION of the medical device, it would be subject to the requirements of 60601-1-2. These requirements are somewhat more stringent than the RTTE directive. That probably doesn't help much, but it's a bit more information. Regards, Brent DeWitt From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of D.Han Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 4:20 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RTTE for Medical Devices? Hi All, I would appreciate your thoughts on the following scenario: Company A designs a medical product that incorporates a wireless device, lets say, a wireless PCI card. The wireless card is manufactured by Company B and has been evaluated to the RTTE directive and thus CE-marked. This wireless card is installed in the end medical product, unmodified and according to manufacturers instructions. Company As name goes onto the end product, but Company Bs name, markings, labeling etc. remain on the wireless card. Would Company A need to consider RTTE (in addition to the MDD) for their end product? If yes, what additional testing would this encompass? Thanks! Del _ Do you Yahoo!? SBC http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://rd.ya oo.com/evt=1207/*http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/ Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
RE: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
Rich, Inductive Devices operating at 13.56 MHz are Class 1 and are therefore harmonized in the EU. Non-specific 13.56 MHz devices are not Class 1 and are therefore not harmonized. See http://www.ero.dk/rtte Regards, Frank de Vall Assa Abloy ITG richwo...@tycoint.com Sent by: To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org owner-emc-pstc@majordocc: mo.ieee.org Subject: RE: RTTE Directive Member States Notification 07/02/2003 08:51 AM Please respond to richwoods I understand that Class 1 products use harmonized bands. 13.56 MHz is not harmonized. Sigh! Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International From: rehel...@mmm.com [mailto:rehel...@mmm.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 10:05 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: RTTE Directive Member States Notification Out of curiosity...are there ANY harmonized frequencies in Europe? Is 13.56 MHz harmonized? Bob Heller 3M EMC Laboratory, 76-1-01 St. Paul, MN 55107-1208 Tel: 651- 778-6336 Fax: 651-778-6252 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: RTTE requirements
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. Bill, An ADSL modem is telecom terminal equipment and must comply with the RTTE Directive. Harmonised standards to comply with: Art 3.1a) Safety and health: EN60950(-1) Art 3.1b) EMC: EN55022, EN55024, EN61000-3-2, EN61000-3-3 Art 3.2 Radio: only applicable if your modem has a radio interface. For the valid versions of the harmonised standards, take a look at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/newapproach/standardization/harmstds/re flist/radiotte.html Vriendelijke Groeten, Best regards, Meilleures salutations, Kristiaan Carpentier Regulatory and Approval Engineer Thomson Prins Boudewijnlaan 47, B-2650 Edegem, Belgium Tel: +32 3 443 6407 - Fax: +32 3 443 6632 e-mail: kristiaan.carpent...@thomson.net www.speedtouch.com From: Bill Stumpf [mailto:bstu...@dlsemc.com] Sent: dinsdag 1 juli 2003 20:38 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RTTE requirements To all, A manufacturer of an ADSL modem/router needs to meet both the EMC and RTTE Directives. What standards are applicable to the device under the RTTE Directive as telecommunications terminal equipment? Thanks in advance, Bill 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Title: RE: RTTE requirements Bill, An ADSL modem is telecom terminal equipment and must comply with the RTTE Directive. Harmonised standards to comply with: Art 3.1a) Safety and health: EN60950(-1) Art 3.1b) EMC: EN55022, EN55024, EN61000-3-2, EN61000-3-3 Art 3.2 Radio: only applicable if your modem has a radio interface. For the valid versions of the harmonised standards, take a look at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/newapproach/standardization/harmstds/re flist/radiotte.html Vriendelijke Groeten, Best regards, Meilleures salutations, Kristiaan Carpentier Regulatory and Approval Engineer Thomson Prins Boudewijnlaan 47, B-2650 Edegem, Belgium Tel: +32 3 443 6407 - Fax: +32 3 443 6632 e-mail: kristiaan.carpent...@thomson.net www.speedtouch.com -Original Message- From: Bill Stumpf [mailto:bstu...@dlsemc.com] Sent: dinsdag 1 juli 2003 20:38 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RTTE requirements To all, A manufacturer of an ADSL modem/router needs to meet both the EMC and RTTE Directives. What standards are applicable to the device under the RTTE Directive as telecommunications terminal equipment? Thanks in advance, Bill --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc attachment: Carpentier_Kristiaan.vcf
RE: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
Richard Woods wrote: Gerald, please explain why a Notified Body number
is required? I thought that a harmonized ETSI standard exists.
A Notified Body number is not required unless a Notified Body (NB or
CAB) is consulted for the job. Since there are Harmonized standards that
can be used for this type of product, a NB/CAB is not required. The
manufacturer is responsible for compliance with the Essential
Requirements of the Directives, therefore they are responsible for
notifying the different Member States of the EU of their intent to
market the device in their country.
William M Stumpf
DLS Electronics
166 South Carter St.
Genoa City WI 53128
ph: 262-279-0210
fx: 262-279-3630
email: bstu...@dlsemc.com
EU CAB for EMC and RTTE
From: richwo...@tycoint.com [mailto:richwo...@tycoint.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 1:32 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
Gerald, please explain why a Notified Body number is required? I thought
that a harmonized ETSI standard exists.
Richard Woods
Sensormatic Electronics
Tyco International
From: Gerald Tammi [mailto:gera...@zoom.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 12:52 PM
To: 'Jan Heffken'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
I have gone through the process of a 802.11 WLAN.
France is not harmonized to the rest on the EU in the 2.4Ghz spread
spectrum.
Yes you will need a NOTIFIED BODY number to submit with the country
notifications
Yes you need to send notification to each country that you want to sell
into.
There is a 30 day waiting period for each country to reply before you
can
sell into that market. {they may respond sooner that the 30 days} They
may
reject especially if there is an external antenna.
If you are shipping out of the United States, and the product has an
embedded encryption engine; you need to file for an export license with
the
US BXA. Also you need to comply with control of export to the T7
terrorist
countries ban.
Gerald Tammi
Zoom Telephonics.
Boston, MA
From: Jan Heffken [mailto:jheff...@core.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 10:04 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
I am a little confused about paragraph 31 of the RTTE Directive. I
have copied it below. My understanding is that if our equipment (2.4GHz
outdoor WLAN) operates in a non-harmonised frequency band, then we have
to Notify Member States where it is not harmonised.
Where can I find answers to the following questions.
Is the 2,4GHz. spread spectum band harmonized through the EU?
Which Member States have not harmonized?
Do I have to go through a Notified Body to Notify?
Since paragraph 31 uses should and not shall do I have to do it all?
Paragraph 31 from the RTTE Directive.
(31) Whereas manufacturers should notify Member States
of their intention to place radio equipment on the
market using frequency bands whose use is not
harmonised throughout the Community; whereas
Member States therefore need to put in place procedures
for such notification; whereas such procedures
should be proportionate and should not constitute a
conformity assessment procedure additional to those
provided for in Annexes IV or V; whereas it is desirable
that those notification procedures should be
harmonised and preferably implemented by electronic
means and one-stop-shopping;
Thanks in advance,
Jan Heffken
--
CoreComm Webmail.
http://home.core.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:
Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com
Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com
For policy questions, send mail to:
Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
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:
Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com
Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com
For policy questions, send mail to:
Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
This message is from
RE: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
My company has notified many products to all of the EU and EFTA member
countries based upon using a harmonized standard and a non-harmonized band
and we have never needed to add a Notified Body number to the form. Indeed,
in the beginning when we left that part blank, some countries asked for the
information. Then we got smart and indicated on the form that the number was
not required because we applied a harmonized standard. After that, we had no
problems.
Regards,
Richard Woods
Sensormatic Electronics
Tyco International
From: alain.sam...@gigabyte.com.tw [mailto:alain.sam...@gigabyte.com.tw]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 9:51 PM
To: jheff...@core.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
Even though individual country forms do not explicitly suggest the if
applicable condition, just take the initiative to put not considered or
not considered - the product is conformed to harmonized standards in place
of the number of the NB.
I guess many of us tried it, and it worked.
Alain
Giga-Byte
From: Gerald Tammi [mailto:gera...@zoom.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 4:35 AM
To: 'richwo...@tycoint.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
The 2.4 Ghz frequency spectrum is NOT harmonized. France is one of the
countries that has a restricted band allocation
It may not be true per the a directive, however if you download the required
individual notification forms by country; you will see that there is an
entry required for the notified body name and number. The general form in
the EU catalog says if applicable. the individual country forms are
similar but customized to that country. Many of the forms are in the
language of the country only, with no English version.
From: richwo...@tycoint.com [mailto:richwo...@tycoint.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 2:32 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
Gerald, please explain why a Notified Body number is required? I thought
that a harmonized ETSI standard exists.
Richard Woods
Sensormatic Electronics
Tyco International
From: Gerald Tammi [mailto:gera...@zoom.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 12:52 PM
To: 'Jan Heffken'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
I have gone through the process of a 802.11 WLAN.
France is not harmonized to the rest on the EU in the 2.4Ghz spread
spectrum.
Yes you will need a NOTIFIED BODY number to submit with the country
notifications
Yes you need to send notification to each country that you want to sell
into.
There is a 30 day waiting period for each country to reply before you can
sell into that market. {they may respond sooner that the 30 days} They may
reject especially if there is an external antenna.
If you are shipping out of the United States, and the product has an
embedded encryption engine; you need to file for an export license with the
US BXA. Also you need to comply with control of export to the T7 terrorist
countries ban.
Gerald Tammi
Zoom Telephonics.
Boston, MA
From: Jan Heffken [mailto:jheff...@core.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 10:04 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
I am a little confused about paragraph 31 of the RTTE Directive. I
have copied it below. My understanding is that if our equipment (2.4GHz
outdoor WLAN) operates in a non-harmonised frequency band, then we have
to Notify Member States where it is not harmonised.
Where can I find answers to the following questions.
Is the 2,4GHz. spread spectum band harmonized through the EU?
Which Member States have not harmonized?
Do I have to go through a Notified Body to Notify?
Since paragraph 31 uses should and not shall do I have to do it all?
Paragraph 31 from the RTTE Directive.
(31) Whereas manufacturers should notify Member States
of their intention to place radio equipment on the
market using frequency bands whose use is not
harmonised throughout the Community; whereas
Member States therefore need to put in place procedures
for such notification; whereas such procedures
should be proportionate and should not constitute a
conformity assessment procedure additional to those
provided for in Annexes IV or V; whereas it is desirable
that those notification procedures should be
harmonised and preferably implemented by electronic
means and one-stop-shopping;
Thanks in advance,
Jan Heffken
--
CoreComm Webmail.
http://home.core.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:
Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com
Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com
For policy
RE: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
Out of curiosity...are there ANY harmonized frequencies in Europe? Is 13.56 MHz harmonized? Bob Heller 3M EMC Laboratory, 76-1-01 St. Paul, MN 55107-1208 Tel: 651- 778-6336 Fax: 651-778-6252 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
My understanding is that where there is a harmonised standard, but the
spectrum usage is not harmonised, then there is no need to involve a
Notified Body for any of the testing, but you do need a Spectrum Usage
Report from a Notified Body to ratify the intended usage of the device in
the target destination. I have had such reports produced by BABT, and the
cost is quite minimal, probably equivalent to about one man-day's effort,
which is about all that it should take to review the documentation. In this
instance, I would suggest that it is perfectly legitimate to place the NB
number alongside the CE marking to indicate their involvement in determining
the product's suitability for the intended market.
Broadly speaking, it seems to me that for a Class 1 device (harmonised
standards and spectrum usage) there is no need for a NB, but for Class 2
devices, a NB will need to be involved for the spectrum usage at least.
Best regards,
Neil R. Barker
Compliance Engineering Manager
e2v technologies ltd
Waterhouse Lane
Chelmsford
Essex
CM1 2QU
U.K.
Tel: +44 (01245) 453616
Fax: +44 (01245) 453410
E-mail: neil.bar...@e2vtechnologies.com
-Original Message-
From: Bill Stumpf [mailto:bstu...@dlsemc.com]
Sent: 02 July 2003 13:59
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
Richard Woods wrote: Gerald, please explain why a Notified Body number
is required? I thought that a harmonized ETSI standard exists.
A Notified Body number is not required unless a Notified Body (NB or
CAB) is consulted for the job. Since there are Harmonized
standards that
can be used for this type of product, a NB/CAB is not required. The
manufacturer is responsible for compliance with the Essential
Requirements of the Directives, therefore they are responsible for
notifying the different Member States of the EU of their intent to
market the device in their country.
William M Stumpf
DLS Electronics
166 South Carter St.
Genoa City WI 53128
ph: 262-279-0210
fx: 262-279-3630
email: bstu...@dlsemc.com
EU CAB for EMC and RTTE
-Original Message-
From: richwo...@tycoint.com [mailto:richwo...@tycoint.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 1:32 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
Gerald, please explain why a Notified Body number is
required? I thought
that a harmonized ETSI standard exists.
Richard Woods
Sensormatic Electronics
Tyco International
-Original Message-
From: Gerald Tammi [mailto:gera...@zoom.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 12:52 PM
To: 'Jan Heffken'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
I have gone through the process of a 802.11 WLAN.
France is not harmonized to the rest on the EU in the 2.4Ghz spread
spectrum.
Yes you will need a NOTIFIED BODY number to submit with the country
notifications
Yes you need to send notification to each country that you
want to sell
into.
There is a 30 day waiting period for each country to reply before you
can
sell into that market. {they may respond sooner that the 30
days} They
may
reject especially if there is an external antenna.
If you are shipping out of the United States, and the product has an
embedded encryption engine; you need to file for an export
license with
the
US BXA. Also you need to comply with control of export to the T7
terrorist
countries ban.
Gerald Tammi
Zoom Telephonics.
Boston, MA
-Original Message-
From: Jan Heffken [mailto:jheff...@core.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 10:04 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
I am a little confused about paragraph 31 of the RTTE Directive. I
have copied it below. My understanding is that if our
equipment (2.4GHz
outdoor WLAN) operates in a non-harmonised frequency band,
then we have
to Notify Member States where it is not harmonised.
Where can I find answers to the following questions.
Is the 2,4GHz. spread spectum band harmonized through the EU?
Which Member States have not harmonized?
Do I have to go through a Notified Body to Notify?
Since paragraph 31 uses should and not shall do I have to
do it all?
Paragraph 31 from the RTTE Directive.
(31) Whereas manufacturers should notify Member States
of their intention to place radio equipment on the
market using frequency bands whose use is not
harmonised throughout the Community; whereas
Member States therefore need to put in place procedures
for such notification; whereas such procedures
should be proportionate and should not constitute a
conformity assessment procedure additional to those
provided for in Annexes IV or V; whereas it is desirable
that those notification procedures should be
harmonised and preferably implemented by electronic
means and one-stop-shopping;
Thanks in advance,
Jan Heffken
RE: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
I understand that Class 1 products use harmonized bands. 13.56 MHz is not harmonized. Sigh! Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International From: rehel...@mmm.com [mailto:rehel...@mmm.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 10:05 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: RTTE Directive Member States Notification Out of curiosity...are there ANY harmonized frequencies in Europe? Is 13.56 MHz harmonized? Bob Heller 3M EMC Laboratory, 76-1-01 St. Paul, MN 55107-1208 Tel: 651- 778-6336 Fax: 651-778-6252 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
Yes there are harmonized bands E.g. cellular bands for GSM in the 900 and 1800 MHz range, some satellite services. These are bands were the different member states didn't had other radio services before. For this reason this was easy to harmonize. But if some member states had radio services in certain areas this will take time to remove these services, since there are users having devices which can't be used after changing this. Lothar Schmidt BQB Technical Manager EMC/Radio/SAR CETECOM Inc. 411 Dixon Landing Road Milpitas, CA 95035 ' +1 408 586 6214 7 +1 408 586 6299 From: rehel...@mmm.com [mailto:rehel...@mmm.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 7:05 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: RTTE Directive Member States Notification Out of curiosity...are there ANY harmonized frequencies in Europe? Is 13.56 MHz harmonized? Bob Heller 3M EMC Laboratory, 76-1-01 St. Paul, MN 55107-1208 Tel: 651- 778-6336 Fax: 651-778-6252 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Download free spam killer at http://eliminatespam.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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
Ah, you have hit upon a problem that I see with the Directive. When the
spectrum is not harmonized and Notification is required, who is responsible
for ensuring that the equipment operates according to the spectrum usage
requirements of the Notified country. Is it the responsibility of the
manufacturer or the country spectrum authorities? If I fail to receive a
reply from my Notification, the Directive says I am free to market the
equipment after the Notifcation period has elapsed. But what if the country
failed to reply and yet the country has a spectrum restriction? I have
received some replies that say they have received my Notification and I can
market the equipment if it conforms with the spectrum regulations. Huh? They
may as well have said We received your Notification but did not read it.
This reply is just a formality and all of the conformity responsiblity
belongs to you.
My understanding of the Directive is that I can market my product unless the
spectrum authority specifically says NO. Of course, the spectrum authority
who sent the crazy worded message probably thinks otherwise.
Richard Woods
Sensormatic Electronics
Tyco International
From: Barker, Neil [mailto:neil.bar...@e2vtechnologies.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 10:11 AM
To: 'Bill Stumpf'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
My understanding is that where there is a harmonised standard, but the
spectrum usage is not harmonised, then there is no need to involve a
Notified Body for any of the testing, but you do need a Spectrum Usage
Report from a Notified Body to ratify the intended usage of the device in
the target destination. I have had such reports produced by BABT, and the
cost is quite minimal, probably equivalent to about one man-day's effort,
which is about all that it should take to review the documentation. In this
instance, I would suggest that it is perfectly legitimate to place the NB
number alongside the CE marking to indicate their involvement in determining
the product's suitability for the intended market.
Broadly speaking, it seems to me that for a Class 1 device (harmonised
standards and spectrum usage) there is no need for a NB, but for Class 2
devices, a NB will need to be involved for the spectrum usage at least.
Best regards,
Neil R. Barker
Compliance Engineering Manager
e2v technologies ltd
Waterhouse Lane
Chelmsford
Essex
CM1 2QU
U.K.
Tel: +44 (01245) 453616
Fax: +44 (01245) 453410
E-mail: neil.bar...@e2vtechnologies.com
-Original Message-
From: Bill Stumpf [mailto:bstu...@dlsemc.com]
Sent: 02 July 2003 13:59
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
Richard Woods wrote: Gerald, please explain why a Notified Body number
is required? I thought that a harmonized ETSI standard exists.
A Notified Body number is not required unless a Notified Body (NB or
CAB) is consulted for the job. Since there are Harmonized
standards that
can be used for this type of product, a NB/CAB is not required. The
manufacturer is responsible for compliance with the Essential
Requirements of the Directives, therefore they are responsible for
notifying the different Member States of the EU of their intent to
market the device in their country.
William M Stumpf
DLS Electronics
166 South Carter St.
Genoa City WI 53128
ph: 262-279-0210
fx: 262-279-3630
email: bstu...@dlsemc.com
EU CAB for EMC and RTTE
-Original Message-
From: richwo...@tycoint.com [mailto:richwo...@tycoint.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 1:32 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
Gerald, please explain why a Notified Body number is
required? I thought
that a harmonized ETSI standard exists.
Richard Woods
Sensormatic Electronics
Tyco International
-Original Message-
From: Gerald Tammi [mailto:gera...@zoom.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 12:52 PM
To: 'Jan Heffken'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
I have gone through the process of a 802.11 WLAN.
France is not harmonized to the rest on the EU in the 2.4Ghz spread
spectrum.
Yes you will need a NOTIFIED BODY number to submit with the country
notifications
Yes you need to send notification to each country that you
want to sell
into.
There is a 30 day waiting period for each country to reply before you
can
sell into that market. {they may respond sooner that the 30
days} They
may
reject especially if there is an external antenna.
If you are shipping out of the United States, and the product has an
embedded encryption engine; you need to file for an export
license with
the
US BXA. Also you need to comply with control of export to the T7
terrorist
countries ban.
Gerald Tammi
Zoom Telephonics.
Boston, MA
-Original Message-
From: Jan Heffken [mailto:jheff...@core.com]
Sent
RE: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
Bob, Go to the ERO website www.ero.dk and download ERC report 25. It's a big help when determining frequency allocation/use in the EU. Bill Stumpf William M Stumpf DLS Electronics 166 South Carter St. Genoa City WI 53128 ph: 262-279-0210 fx: 262-279-3630 email: bstu...@dlsemc.com From: rehel...@mmm.com [mailto:rehel...@mmm.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 9:05 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: RTTE Directive Member States Notification Out of curiosity...are there ANY harmonized frequencies in Europe? Is 13.56 MHz harmonized? Bob Heller 3M EMC Laboratory, 76-1-01 St. Paul, MN 55107-1208 Tel: 651- 778-6336 Fax: 651-778-6252 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
Jan, You do not have to go through a notified body or U.S. CAB to notify. Each Member State has its own form that can be downloaded for this purpose, and yes , you do have to notify if the frequency is not harmonized in that Member State. Go to www.ero.dk for frequency allocation information. William M Stumpf DLS Electronics 166 South Carter St. Genoa City WI 53128 ph: 262-279-0210 fx: 262-279-3630 email: bstu...@dlsemc.com EMC RTTE CAB From: Jan Heffken [mailto:jheff...@core.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 9:04 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RTTE Directive Member States Notification I am a little confused about paragraph 31 of the RTTE Directive. I have copied it below. My understanding is that if our equipment (2.4GHz outdoor WLAN) operates in a non-harmonised frequency band, then we have to Notify Member States where it is not harmonised. Where can I find answers to the following questions. Is the 2,4GHz. spread spectum band harmonized through the EU? Which Member States have not harmonized? Do I have to go through a Notified Body to Notify? Since paragraph 31 uses should and not shall do I have to do it all? Paragraph 31 from the RTTE Directive. (31) Whereas manufacturers should notify Member States of their intention to place radio equipment on the market using frequency bands whose use is not harmonised throughout the Community; whereas Member States therefore need to put in place procedures for such notification; whereas such procedures should be proportionate and should not constitute a conformity assessment procedure additional to those provided for in Annexes IV or V; whereas it is desirable that those notification procedures should be harmonised and preferably implemented by electronic means and one-stop-shopping; Thanks in advance, Jan Heffken -- CoreComm Webmail. http://home.core.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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
I read in !emc-pstc that Jan Heffken jheff...@core.com wrote (in 200307011403.h61e3n69098...@mail4.mx.voyager.net) about 'RTTE Directive Member States Notification' on Tue, 1 Jul 2003: Since paragraph 31 uses should and not shall do I have to do it all? The text you cite is in the 'whereases' part, which is not about requirements; it's an archaic form of rationale, still preserved by the legal eagles. The 'shoulds' refer to what the Commission *hopes* (but does not mandate) member states will do; they do not refer to what manufacturers have to do. You will find what manufacturers have to do later in the Directive. I don't have access to a copy at present so I can't say exactly where you will find the information you want. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
I have gone through the process of a 802.11 WLAN.
France is not harmonized to the rest on the EU in the 2.4Ghz spread
spectrum.
Yes you will need a NOTIFIED BODY number to submit with the country
notifications
Yes you need to send notification to each country that you want to sell
into.
There is a 30 day waiting period for each country to reply before you can
sell into that market. {they may respond sooner that the 30 days} They may
reject especially if there is an external antenna.
If you are shipping out of the United States, and the product has an
embedded encryption engine; you need to file for an export license with the
US BXA. Also you need to comply with control of export to the T7 terrorist
countries ban.
Gerald Tammi
Zoom Telephonics.
Boston, MA
From: Jan Heffken [mailto:jheff...@core.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 10:04 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
I am a little confused about paragraph 31 of the RTTE Directive. I
have copied it below. My understanding is that if our equipment (2.4GHz
outdoor WLAN) operates in a non-harmonised frequency band, then we have
to Notify Member States where it is not harmonised.
Where can I find answers to the following questions.
Is the 2,4GHz. spread spectum band harmonized through the EU?
Which Member States have not harmonized?
Do I have to go through a Notified Body to Notify?
Since paragraph 31 uses should and not shall do I have to do it all?
Paragraph 31 from the RTTE Directive.
(31) Whereas manufacturers should notify Member States
of their intention to place radio equipment on the
market using frequency bands whose use is not
harmonised throughout the Community; whereas
Member States therefore need to put in place procedures
for such notification; whereas such procedures
should be proportionate and should not constitute a
conformity assessment procedure additional to those
provided for in Annexes IV or V; whereas it is desirable
that those notification procedures should be
harmonised and preferably implemented by electronic
means and one-stop-shopping;
Thanks in advance,
Jan Heffken
--
CoreComm Webmail.
http://home.core.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:
Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com
Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com
For policy questions, send mail to:
Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
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:
Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com
Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com
For policy questions, send mail to:
Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
Gerald, please explain why a Notified Body number is required? I thought
that a harmonized ETSI standard exists.
Richard Woods
Sensormatic Electronics
Tyco International
From: Gerald Tammi [mailto:gera...@zoom.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 12:52 PM
To: 'Jan Heffken'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
I have gone through the process of a 802.11 WLAN.
France is not harmonized to the rest on the EU in the 2.4Ghz spread
spectrum.
Yes you will need a NOTIFIED BODY number to submit with the country
notifications
Yes you need to send notification to each country that you want to sell
into.
There is a 30 day waiting period for each country to reply before you can
sell into that market. {they may respond sooner that the 30 days} They may
reject especially if there is an external antenna.
If you are shipping out of the United States, and the product has an
embedded encryption engine; you need to file for an export license with the
US BXA. Also you need to comply with control of export to the T7 terrorist
countries ban.
Gerald Tammi
Zoom Telephonics.
Boston, MA
From: Jan Heffken [mailto:jheff...@core.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 10:04 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
I am a little confused about paragraph 31 of the RTTE Directive. I
have copied it below. My understanding is that if our equipment (2.4GHz
outdoor WLAN) operates in a non-harmonised frequency band, then we have
to Notify Member States where it is not harmonised.
Where can I find answers to the following questions.
Is the 2,4GHz. spread spectum band harmonized through the EU?
Which Member States have not harmonized?
Do I have to go through a Notified Body to Notify?
Since paragraph 31 uses should and not shall do I have to do it all?
Paragraph 31 from the RTTE Directive.
(31) Whereas manufacturers should notify Member States
of their intention to place radio equipment on the
market using frequency bands whose use is not
harmonised throughout the Community; whereas
Member States therefore need to put in place procedures
for such notification; whereas such procedures
should be proportionate and should not constitute a
conformity assessment procedure additional to those
provided for in Annexes IV or V; whereas it is desirable
that those notification procedures should be
harmonised and preferably implemented by electronic
means and one-stop-shopping;
Thanks in advance,
Jan Heffken
--
CoreComm Webmail.
http://home.core.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:
Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com
Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com
For policy questions, send mail to:
Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
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:
Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com
Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com
For policy questions, send mail to:
Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
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:
Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com
Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com
For policy questions, send mail to:
Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
The 2.4 Ghz frequency spectrum is NOT harmonized. France is one of the
countries that has a restricted band allocation
It may not be true per the a directive, however if you download the required
individual notification forms by country; you will see that there is an
entry required for the notified body name and number. The general form in
the EU catalog says if applicable. the individual country forms are
similar but customized to that country. Many of the forms are in the
language of the country only, with no English version.
From: richwo...@tycoint.com [mailto:richwo...@tycoint.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 2:32 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
Gerald, please explain why a Notified Body number is required? I thought
that a harmonized ETSI standard exists.
Richard Woods
Sensormatic Electronics
Tyco International
From: Gerald Tammi [mailto:gera...@zoom.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 12:52 PM
To: 'Jan Heffken'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
I have gone through the process of a 802.11 WLAN.
France is not harmonized to the rest on the EU in the 2.4Ghz spread
spectrum.
Yes you will need a NOTIFIED BODY number to submit with the country
notifications
Yes you need to send notification to each country that you want to sell
into.
There is a 30 day waiting period for each country to reply before you can
sell into that market. {they may respond sooner that the 30 days} They may
reject especially if there is an external antenna.
If you are shipping out of the United States, and the product has an
embedded encryption engine; you need to file for an export license with the
US BXA. Also you need to comply with control of export to the T7 terrorist
countries ban.
Gerald Tammi
Zoom Telephonics.
Boston, MA
From: Jan Heffken [mailto:jheff...@core.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 10:04 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
I am a little confused about paragraph 31 of the RTTE Directive. I
have copied it below. My understanding is that if our equipment (2.4GHz
outdoor WLAN) operates in a non-harmonised frequency band, then we have
to Notify Member States where it is not harmonised.
Where can I find answers to the following questions.
Is the 2,4GHz. spread spectum band harmonized through the EU?
Which Member States have not harmonized?
Do I have to go through a Notified Body to Notify?
Since paragraph 31 uses should and not shall do I have to do it all?
Paragraph 31 from the RTTE Directive.
(31) Whereas manufacturers should notify Member States
of their intention to place radio equipment on the
market using frequency bands whose use is not
harmonised throughout the Community; whereas
Member States therefore need to put in place procedures
for such notification; whereas such procedures
should be proportionate and should not constitute a
conformity assessment procedure additional to those
provided for in Annexes IV or V; whereas it is desirable
that those notification procedures should be
harmonised and preferably implemented by electronic
means and one-stop-shopping;
Thanks in advance,
Jan Heffken
--
CoreComm Webmail.
http://home.core.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:
Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com
Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com
For policy questions, send mail to:
Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
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:
Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com
Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com
For policy questions, send mail to:
Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
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
Re: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
Gerald, Richard, All Ok, I have to chime in here. You do not need a Notified Body when there is a Harmonized Standard published in the OJ. I understand that the frequency is not harmonized (france because of their Military band), but there is a harmonized standard and therefore no Notified Body is needed, period. The point of the Notified body and number on the form is when there is no harmonized standard and at this point I don't see how that could happen with respect to Short Range Devices (SRDs) since the publication of the three generic standards EN 300 220, EN 300 330 and EN 300 440 covers basically 9 kHz to 40 GHz SRDs. Europa's web site has more information on this at http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/rtte/infor.htm Harmonised standards The easiest route to demonstrate compliance with the Directive is to comply with Harmonised Standards. For this Directive these are developed mostly by ETSI. Some safety and health standards have been developed by CENELEC. The 3rd European Standardisation Organisation (CEN), doesn’t cover this sector. These standards are developed upon a request from the European Commission and once adopted are published by the European Commission in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU). Notified bodies When harmonised standards aren’t available or when a manufacturer considers them inappropriate for his product, he must seek the opinion of an independent 3rd party, a notified body. These are appointed by the Member States after having proven that they have the relevant expertise to provide such an opinion. Although a Notified Body has various responsibilities under the Directive, the manufacturer (or authorised representative) always remains responsible for the compliance of the equipment. Larry K. Stillings Compliance Worldwide, Inc. 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.
Re: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
All, Now, I have to chime in too. Article 12 (1) of the Directive states, Where the procedures identified in Annex III, IV, or V are used, the marking [CE] shall be accompanied by the identification number of the notified body... The Directive Introduction (31) states, ...manufacturers should notify Member States of their intention to place radio equipment on the market using frequency bands whose use is not harmonised throughout the Community;... Article 6 (4) states, ...radio equipment using frequency bands whose use is not harmonised throughout the Community, the manufacturer or his authorised representative established within the Community or the person responsible for placing the equipment on the market shall notify the national authority responsible in the relevant Member State for spectrum management of the intention to place such equipment on its national market. There is no stated exception for testing to harmonized standards. If a particular frequency or frequency band is not harmonized, a Notified Body must issue a Certificate of Conformity and each Member State must be notified 4 weeks prior to placing the product on the market in each country. This is true even if only one Member State disallows a frequency. Frank de Vall Manager Compliance Engineering Assa Abloy ITG stillin...@aol.com Sent by: To: gera...@zoom.com, richwo...@tycoint.com, owner-emc-pstc@majordo emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org mo.ieee.org cc: Subject: Re: RTTE Directive Member States Notification 07/01/2003 04:02 PM Please respond to Stillingsl Gerald, Richard, All Ok, I have to chime in here. You do not need a Notified Body when there is a Harmonized Standard published in the OJ. I understand that the frequency is not harmonized (france because of their Military band), but there is a harmonized standard and therefore no Notified Body is needed, period. The point of the Notified body and number on the form is when there is no harmonized standard and at this point I don't see how that could happen with respect to Short Range Devices (SRDs) since the publication of the three generic standards EN 300 220, EN 300 330 and EN 300 440 covers basically 9 kHz to 40 GHz SRDs. Europa's web site has more information on this at http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/rtte/infor.htm Harmonised standards The easiest route to demonstrate compliance with the Directive is to comply with Harmonised Standards. For this Directive these are developed mostly by ETSI. Some safety and health standards have been developed by CENELEC. The 3rd European Standardisation Organisation (CEN), doesn't cover this sector. These standards are developed upon a request from the European Commission and once adopted are published by the European Commission in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU). Notified bodies When harmonised standards aren't available or when a manufacturer considers them inappropriate for his product, he must seek the opinion of an independent 3rd party, a notified body. These are appointed by the Member States after having proven that they have the relevant expertise to provide such an opinion. Although a Notified Body has various responsibilities under the Directive, the manufacturer (or authorised representative) always remains responsible for the compliance of the equipment. Larry K. Stillings Compliance Worldwide, Inc. 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
RE: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
Even though individual country forms do not explicitly suggest the if
applicable condition, just take the initiative to put not considered or
not considered - the product is conformed to harmonized standards in place
of the number of the NB.
I guess many of us tried it, and it worked.
Alain
Giga-Byte
From: Gerald Tammi [mailto:gera...@zoom.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 4:35 AM
To: 'richwo...@tycoint.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
The 2.4 Ghz frequency spectrum is NOT harmonized. France is one of the
countries that has a restricted band allocation
It may not be true per the a directive, however if you download the required
individual notification forms by country; you will see that there is an
entry required for the notified body name and number. The general form in
the EU catalog says if applicable. the individual country forms are
similar but customized to that country. Many of the forms are in the
language of the country only, with no English version.
From: richwo...@tycoint.com [mailto:richwo...@tycoint.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 2:32 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
Gerald, please explain why a Notified Body number is required? I thought
that a harmonized ETSI standard exists.
Richard Woods
Sensormatic Electronics
Tyco International
From: Gerald Tammi [mailto:gera...@zoom.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 12:52 PM
To: 'Jan Heffken'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
I have gone through the process of a 802.11 WLAN.
France is not harmonized to the rest on the EU in the 2.4Ghz spread
spectrum.
Yes you will need a NOTIFIED BODY number to submit with the country
notifications
Yes you need to send notification to each country that you want to sell
into.
There is a 30 day waiting period for each country to reply before you can
sell into that market. {they may respond sooner that the 30 days} They may
reject especially if there is an external antenna.
If you are shipping out of the United States, and the product has an
embedded encryption engine; you need to file for an export license with the
US BXA. Also you need to comply with control of export to the T7 terrorist
countries ban.
Gerald Tammi
Zoom Telephonics.
Boston, MA
From: Jan Heffken [mailto:jheff...@core.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 10:04 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
I am a little confused about paragraph 31 of the RTTE Directive. I
have copied it below. My understanding is that if our equipment (2.4GHz
outdoor WLAN) operates in a non-harmonised frequency band, then we have
to Notify Member States where it is not harmonised.
Where can I find answers to the following questions.
Is the 2,4GHz. spread spectum band harmonized through the EU?
Which Member States have not harmonized?
Do I have to go through a Notified Body to Notify?
Since paragraph 31 uses should and not shall do I have to do it all?
Paragraph 31 from the RTTE Directive.
(31) Whereas manufacturers should notify Member States
of their intention to place radio equipment on the
market using frequency bands whose use is not
harmonised throughout the Community; whereas
Member States therefore need to put in place procedures
for such notification; whereas such procedures
should be proportionate and should not constitute a
conformity assessment procedure additional to those
provided for in Annexes IV or V; whereas it is desirable
that those notification procedures should be
harmonised and preferably implemented by electronic
means and one-stop-shopping;
Thanks in advance,
Jan Heffken
--
CoreComm Webmail.
http://home.core.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:
Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com
Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com
For policy questions, send mail to:
Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org
Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
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:
Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com
Dave Heald: emc_p...@symbol.com
For policy questions, send
Re: RTTE DoC languages
I read in !emc-pstc that richwo...@tycoint.com wrote (in 846BF526A205F8 4BA2B6045BBF7E9A6A04675F9D@flbocexu05) about 'RTTE DoC languages' on Tue, 20 May 2003: Anything the group can provide would be appreciated, but I would ask that persons refrain from offering translations if they are not sufficiently competent in the language. I recommend that you ask the professional translators on sci.lang.translation because there are legal implications if a translation is defective. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: RTTE - antennas
Within the RTTE harmonized standards fa. for SRD's a distinction is made between equipment having 1/ internal and 2/ external or 3/ dedicated antenna's. If your product is tested as an equipment having an external antenna, the test program will be such that the type of antenna should not have impact on the RTTE properties. Of course, otherwise a HAM product (transceiver) would not be able to be sold in Europe, as the antenna is unspecified. As an antenna is basically a passive element (at least it should), no detoriation of the transmitter properties is to be expected, but for directional properties. Some products won't be allowed with external antenna's, if the requirement is to limit it's geographical range (due to f.a. frequency sharing). Then a dedicated antenna is part of the approval procedure. Of course this IS the always case with internal antenna's. Many SRD devices use dedicated or internal antenna's only. I have to add that the requirement for external/dedicated antenna is most often implemented on regulatory level, and not specifically within the RTTE. Any permission to use the equipment will be with a prescribed antenna type, and often heigth. Of course, this is country and product type dependent, and subject to frequent changes and (hopefully) harmonization within the EC. Regards, Gert Gremmen ce-test, qualified testing Rotterdam, The Netherlands http://www.ce-test.nl From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Lothar Schmidt Sent: donderdag 15 mei 2003 00:04 To: 'Amund Westin'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: RTTE - antennas It depends on which ETS/EN standard is applicable for the Radio some of them have the antenna parameters specified as part of the spectrum parameters. Best Regards Lothar Schmidt Technical Manager EMC/Radio/SAR BQB CETECOM Inc. 411 Dixon Landing Road Milpitas, CA 95035 phone ?+1 (408) 586 6214 fax +1 (408) 586 6299 -Original Message- From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:10 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:RTTE - antennas Assume a CE / RTTE approved radio transmitter system, which consists of an indoor unit (modulator), an outdoor unit (HPA/LNB/OMT) and an antenna. If you change to another type of antenna (passive), will the system still be compliant to the RTTE directive ? Is antenna testing a part of the RTTE testing ? Best regards Amund Westin 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: RTTE - antennas
Amund Check the standards applicable to your product - provided that you meet the standard at the output from your transmitter system (impedance etc.) you should be able to specify that any antenna meeting the relevant ETSI class may be used. You will also have to specify the maximum gain of antennas that may be connected to your system so that it still complies with EMF/SAR requirements. regards Charlie Blackham Approvals Manager Airspan Communications Ltd From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] Sent: 14 May 2003 21:10 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RTTE - antennas Assume a CE / RTTE approved radio transmitter system, which consists of an indoor unit (modulator), an outdoor unit (HPA/LNB/OMT) and an antenna. If you change to another type of antenna (passive), will the system still be compliant to the RTTE directive ? Is antenna testing a part of the RTTE testing ? Best regards Amund Westin 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: RTTE - antennas
It depends on which ETS/EN standard is applicable for the Radio some of them have the antenna parameters specified as part of the spectrum parameters. Best Regards Lothar Schmidt Technical Manager EMC/Radio/SAR BQB CETECOM Inc. 411 Dixon Landing Road Milpitas, CA 95035 phone ?+1 (408) 586 6214 fax +1 (408) 586 6299 -Original Message- From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:10 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:RTTE - antennas Assume a CE / RTTE approved radio transmitter system, which consists of an indoor unit (modulator), an outdoor unit (HPA/LNB/OMT) and an antenna. If you change to another type of antenna (passive), will the system still be compliant to the RTTE directive ? Is antenna testing a part of the RTTE testing ? Best regards Amund Westin 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: RTTE - antennas
Amund, Another antenna may alter the Radio and EMC behaviour of your radio transmitter. So you must check if the complete system with the other antenna is still compliant with the applicable harmonised EMC and radio standards. Kris From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] Sent: woensdag 14 mei 2003 22:10 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RTTE - antennas Assume a CE / RTTE approved radio transmitter system, which consists of an indoor unit (modulator), an outdoor unit (HPA/LNB/OMT) and an antenna. If you change to another type of antenna (passive), will the system still be compliant to the RTTE directive ? Is antenna testing a part of the RTTE testing ? Best regards Amund Westin 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Re: RTTE directive.
I read in !emc-pstc that Gary McInturff Gary.McInturff@worldwidepackets .com wrote (in 4e9a9436c008314eaa32033b23e96fd90b0...@thorondor.wwp.co m) about 'RTTE directive.' on Wed, 29 Jan 2003: Anybody have a link to peruse and purchase this, and a brief synopsis. Replied to a previous e-mail question, by e-mail. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: RTTE directive.
Hope the following links help - I think it is what you are looking for : Link to the text of the RTTE Directive : http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/rtte/dir99-5.htm List of harmonised standards published in the Official Journal of the EC for the RTTE: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/dat/2002/c_304/c_30420021207en00160042.pdf General RTTE information : http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/rtte/infor.htm Mark Render EMC and Radio Group Manager KTL Saxon Way Priory Park West Hessle East Yorkshire HU13 9PB From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com] Sent: 29 January 2003 16:11 To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RTTE directive. Anybody have a link to peruse and purchase this, and a brief synopsis. I assume it calls out the standard EMC tests - EN55022, EN55024, and Safety standards, along with a standard or section which deals with the intentional radiator portion of box, and harmonized frequencies etc. The device itself is a Wi-fi type box. Ethernet in, and RF out. Is that correct? Gary 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
RE: RTTE - receive only equipment
The requirement for receivers depend on the classification of the receiver. As you may know most ETSI standards classify a receiver or send/receive combination into 3 classes, depending on the amount of hinder their failure may cause, in terms of 1 serious problem with risk for user (cellulars / marine / rescue equipment etc) 2 problems, easy to overcome (walki talkies) 3 failure causes no problem (car keyers babyphones etc) In Class 3 most tests do not need to be carried out. Some assessment need to be made however. When reading the text however, i cannot stop thinking that the authors thought of receivers being part of a transceiver combi, and not stand alone receivers. There is no reason however to exclude those receivers that upon failing may cause harm to a certain user or environment. In my opinion, commercial broadcast receivers for consumer use are definitely to be excluded (for now). The notification aspect is definitely only for intentional radiators, the scope of this may be taken wide, however. I personnally would never even think of notifying a radio receiver to the authorities. None of their business , and... Notification is related to effective use of the spectrum, unless your receiver is intentionally radiating, no impact on spectrum is to be expected. Gert Gremmen ce-test -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of richwo...@tycoint.com Sent: dinsdag 15 oktober 2002 19:09 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: RTTE - receive only equipment Good question Amund. I found nothing in the Directive that provides a clear direction. I think that sound of silence from the rest of the group means that no one knows the answer. I checked the UK's notification form and there is only one place where they ask about the receiver: Duplex direction (if applicable) This should state simplex, ½ duplex or duplex operation. If duplex please quote, where applicable, transmit and receive frequencies and/or duplex split. It's a mystery. Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International -Original Message- From: am...@westin-emission.no [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 8:43 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RTTE - receive only equipment As far as I understand the RTTED, the directive also applies to radio receive-only equipment. But are we required to notify it for each member state within EU, if it use non-harmonized frequency bands ? Best regards Amund Westin, Oslo / Norway --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: RTTE - receive only equipment
Good question Amund. I found nothing in the Directive that provides a clear direction. I think that sound of silence from the rest of the group means that no one knows the answer. I checked the UK's notification form and there is only one place where they ask about the receiver: Duplex direction (if applicable) This should state simplex, ½ duplex or duplex operation. If duplex please quote, where applicable, transmit and receive frequencies and/or duplex split. It's a mystery. Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International -Original Message- From: am...@westin-emission.no [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 8:43 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RTTE - receive only equipment As far as I understand the RTTED, the directive also applies to radio receive-only equipment. But are we required to notify it for each member state within EU, if it use non-harmonized frequency bands ? Best regards Amund Westin, Oslo / Norway --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Paul, I agree with your statements below. I also agree that test reports to the applicable interface standards may be required in other countries. I further agree that certain network operators within the European Union may require said test reports as part of their procurement requirements. My charter is to advise management of the *legal* requirements to ship a product into a particular region. However, spending money and allocating resources prematurely under the current market conditions would be frowned upon at my company. I have non doubt that I will end up testing to ETSI TBR's although we would rather delay project until it is necessary. Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Paul Didcott [mailto:pdidc...@ktl.com] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 4:34 AM To: 'Joe Finlayson' Cc: TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe, The situation is sublimely simple really. If the equipment will ever be sold as 'Terminal Equipment' (the RTTED definition has already been given in this thread), it falls within the scope of the RTTED. If it will only ever be sold direct to the public network operators within the EU/EFTA countries, and used internal to the network, it is outside of the scope of the RTTED. (NB: Network Operators will have there own 'procurement requirements'). As per my post on the 2nd Oct: E1 equipment designed for connection to a public telecom network service (i.e. as terminal equipment), must be CE marked for compliance with the RTTED. However, the applicable (harmonised) standards will be exactly the same for EMC and Safety compliance under the RTTED as would apply under the EMC Directive and LVD. Regarding your question: Is there anyone out there who was involved in the draft of the RTTE that can comment on the intent? For what it's worth, I have lectured on the application of the RTTED at least 1/2 a dozen times with Mark Bogers in attendance, as well as run seminars on the application of the RTTED within CEE 'Accession Countries' on behalf of the European Commission, in conjunction with Stewart Davidson (RTTED Committee Secretary). I'm not a betting man, but hope the above provides further clarity :-). A further note: Whilst the choice of standards under the RTTED is 'voluntary', compliance with the specified 'harmonised standards' provides a legal 'presumption of conformity', which simply means that the responsible person placing the equipment on the market has no need to provide further evidence of compliance. Hence there is a legal benefit in using 'harmonised standards', plus a commercial benefit as the usual EMC and Safety standards may be used in many countries outside of the EU. There is no need to use an accredited lab for compliance with the EMC/LVD or RTTE Directives. Although reports from 'recognised labs' are beneficial for many other markets. - Hence a rational compliance strategy is always advisable, giving due consideration to all potential markets. Best regards, Paul G Didcott Snr Approvals Consultant Compliance Management Dept. Tel: +44 (0) 1482 801801 Fax: +44 (0) 1482 801806 Laboratory Accreditation Services Ltd t/a KTL. Registered No. 4407692. Registered Office: KTL, Saxon Way, Priory Park West, Hull, HU13 9PB, UK. http://www.ktl.com -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: 02 October 2002 19:56 To: TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Roger, Thanks for the contact. I will do just that and post the response from Mr. Bogers. Anyone want to bet a beer on this one?? ;-) Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Roger Magnuson [mailto:ro...@tgc.se] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 2:07 PM To: Joe Finlayson; 'Clement Dave-LDC009'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Cc: Roger Magnuson Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe et al, It seems a little overambitious to declare it under RTTE as Network Equipment did not even require type approval under the old TTE Directive. If you need a comment right from the source I suggest you contact Mark Bogers (mark.bog...@cec.eu.int), he is the contact point for RTTE issues. Roger Magnuson TGC Communication AB -Original Message- From: treg-appro...@world.std.com [mailto:treg-appro...@world.std.com]On Behalf Of Joe Finlayson Sent: den 2 oktober 2002 19:09 To: 'Clement Dave-LDC009'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Dave, My position was based on my particular interface (in this case also E1) and, based on my interpretation, concluded that it does not fall under the scope of the RTTE Directive. Based on your examples below, I can see that apparently there are PSTN interfaces that can be classified as SELV. We definitely seem to have a divided field here. I've seen
RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Alain et al, Looking on this web site (http://approval.rrl.go.kr/eng/index.html) I found the following exception: Equipment exempt from certification according to Article 4 of the Regulations for certification of information and communication equipment and Article 2 of the Enforcement Guidelines for the Certification of Information and communication are as following; 4. Equipment, requiring type approval, to be used (including installed by it's end-users) by common carriers, and transmission network operators (in the case of special category telecommunications service providers, terminal equipment and it's accompaniment are exempt) I think I'll try this first. Cheers, Colin. -Original Message- From: alain.sam...@gigabyte.com.tw [mailto:alain.sam...@gigabyte.com.tw] Sent: 03 October 2002 13:20 To: colin_mcgeec...@agilent.com; t...@world.std.com; emc-p...@ieee.org; n...@world.std.com Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Dear Colin, TTE to be approved are, according to the wording used in the Korean ministry decree: 1- Equipment which can be connected directly to a demarcation point of backbone communication network. 2- Equipment not directly connected to a demarcation point of backbone communication network, and which can cause harm to the backbone communication network: 2.1) TTE which can be used separately without the system. (if the TTE has to be bundle to the system, then has to be approved as part as the system's type approval) 2.2) TTE for Integrated Service Digital Network (ISDN) 2.3) Digital communications devices directly connected to Channel Service Units (CSU) 3- TTE directly connected to the demarcation point of a transmission network All these 3 points are explained at the RRL website: http://approval.rrl.go.kr/eng/sec01_02_1.html The text of the decrees are at: http://approval.rrl.go.kr/eng/erow1.html So I believe the point of the dicussion is to precise at which point(s) only can your equipement be used (intentionally or unintentionally). Hope this helps Alain Sam-Lai Gigabyte Technolgy mailto:alain.sam...@gigabyte.com.tw -Original Message- From: colin_mcgeec...@agilent.com [mailto:colin_mcgeec...@agilent.com] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 6:32 PM To: t...@world.std.com; emc-p...@ieee.org; n...@world.std.com Cc: colin_mcgeec...@agilent.com Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Hi All, I have some Network Equipment with DS1 and E1/T1 interfaces, it is for use within the Telco Central Office and while I believe it to be outwith the scope of the RTTE I find that in Korea this type of interface requires a Telecom type approval (according to the Korean Test Lab - Estech Co,Ltd). I am trying to argue the point, but have not read the regulations (I'm trying to get a translation) and therefore can't put this into context. Has anyone else experienced similar requirements for Korea? Thanks and regards. Colin McGeechan Product Regulations Specialist Telecomms Networks Test Division Agilent Technologies UK Limited West Lothian Scotland EH30 9TG +44 (0)131 331 7196 Tel 3132196 TN +44 (0)131 331 6075 Fax www.agilent.com Registered Office: Eskdale Road, Winnersh Triangle, Wokingham, Berkshire, RG41 5DZ. Registered Number: 03809903 England -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: 02 October 2002 19:56 To: TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Roger, Thanks for the contact. I will do just that and post the response from Mr. Bogers. Anyone want to bet a beer on this one?? ;-) Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Roger Magnuson [mailto:ro...@tgc.se] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 2:07 PM To: Joe Finlayson; 'Clement Dave-LDC009'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Cc: Roger Magnuson Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe et al, It seems a little overambitious to declare it under RTTE as Network Equipment did not even require type approval under the old TTE Directive. If you need a comment right from the source I suggest you contact Mark Bogers (mark.bog...@cec.eu.int), he is the contact point for RTTE issues. Roger Magnuson TGC Communication AB -Original Message- From: treg-appro...@world.std.com [mailto:treg-appro...@world.std.com]On Behalf Of Joe Finlayson Sent: den 2 oktober 2002 19:09 To: 'Clement Dave-LDC009'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Dave, My position was based on my particular interface (in this case also E1) and, based on my interpretation, concluded that it does not fall under the scope of the RTTE Directive. Based on your examples below, I can see that apparently there are PSTN interfaces that can be classified as SELV. We definitely seem to have a divided field here. I've seen posts
RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Hi Colin, I'd try another test lab, and if possible, ask your customer (they may want it to make them feel good). I did not do any telco testing on our E1 boards that use SS7 (C.O. location) and did not have a problem with the RRL. You will still need to do EMC and safety . Of course, rules do change. ;o) John Czyzewicz NMS Communications colin_mcgeechan@a gilent.com To: t...@world.std.com, emc-p...@ieee.org, Sent by: n...@world.std.com treg-approval@worcc: colin_mcgeec...@agilent.com ld.std.com Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface 10/03/2002 06:31 AM Please respond to colin_mcgeechan Hi All, I have some Network Equipment with DS1 and E1/T1 interfaces, it is for use within the Telco Central Office and while I believe it to be outwith the scope of the RTTE I find that in Korea this type of interface requires a Telecom type approval (according to the Korean Test Lab - Estech Co,Ltd). I am trying to argue the point, but have not read the regulations (I'm trying to get a translation) and therefore can't put this into context. Has anyone else experienced similar requirements for Korea? Thanks and regards. Colin McGeechan Product Regulations Specialist Telecomms Networks Test Division Agilent Technologies UK Limited West Lothian Scotland EH30 9TG +44 (0)131 331 7196 Tel 3132196 TN +44 (0)131 331 6075 Fax www.agilent.com Registered Office: Eskdale Road, Winnersh Triangle, Wokingham, Berkshire, RG41 5DZ. Registered Number: 03809903 England -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: 02 October 2002 19:56 To: TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Roger, Thanks for the contact. I will do just that and post the response from Mr. Bogers. Anyone want to bet a beer on this one?? ;-) Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Roger Magnuson [mailto:ro...@tgc.se] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 2:07 PM To: Joe Finlayson; 'Clement Dave-LDC009'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Cc: Roger Magnuson Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe et al, It seems a little overambitious to declare it under RTTE as Network Equipment did not even require type approval under the old TTE Directive. If you need a comment right from the source I suggest you contact Mark Bogers (mark.bog...@cec.eu.int), he is the contact point for RTTE issues. Roger Magnuson TGC Communication AB -Original Message- From: treg-appro...@world.std.com [mailto:treg-appro...@world.std.com]On Behalf Of Joe Finlayson Sent: den 2 oktober 2002 19:09 To: 'Clement Dave-LDC009'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Dave, My position was based on my particular interface (in this case also E1) and, based on my interpretation, concluded that it does not fall under the scope of the RTTE Directive. Based on your examples below, I can see that apparently there are PSTN interfaces that can be classified as SELV. We definitely seem to have a divided field here. I've seen posts stating Absolutely RTTE as well as Absolutely not RTTE. Is there anyone out there who was involved in the draft of the RTTE that can comment on the intent? Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Clement Dave-LDC009 [mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:47 AM To: 'Joe Finlayson'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe, Maybe I have missed something here but how does the TNV-X vs SELV from a safety
RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Dear Colin, TTE to be approved are, according to the wording used in the Korean ministry decree: 1- Equipment which can be connected directly to a demarcation point of backbone communication network. 2- Equipment not directly connected to a demarcation point of backbone communication network, and which can cause harm to the backbone communication network: 2.1) TTE which can be used separately without the system. (if the TTE has to be bundle to the system, then has to be approved as part as the system's type approval) 2.2) TTE for Integrated Service Digital Network (ISDN) 2.3) Digital communications devices directly connected to Channel Service Units (CSU) 3- TTE directly connected to the demarcation point of a transmission network All these 3 points are explained at the RRL website: http://approval.rrl.go.kr/eng/sec01_02_1.html The text of the decrees are at: http://approval.rrl.go.kr/eng/erow1.html So I believe the point of the dicussion is to precise at which point(s) only can your equipement be used (intentionally or unintentionally). Hope this helps Alain Sam-Lai Gigabyte Technolgy mailto:alain.sam...@gigabyte.com.tw -Original Message- From: colin_mcgeec...@agilent.com [mailto:colin_mcgeec...@agilent.com] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 6:32 PM To: t...@world.std.com; emc-p...@ieee.org; n...@world.std.com Cc: colin_mcgeec...@agilent.com Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Hi All, I have some Network Equipment with DS1 and E1/T1 interfaces, it is for use within the Telco Central Office and while I believe it to be outwith the scope of the RTTE I find that in Korea this type of interface requires a Telecom type approval (according to the Korean Test Lab - Estech Co,Ltd). I am trying to argue the point, but have not read the regulations (I'm trying to get a translation) and therefore can't put this into context. Has anyone else experienced similar requirements for Korea? Thanks and regards. Colin McGeechan Product Regulations Specialist Telecomms Networks Test Division Agilent Technologies UK Limited West Lothian Scotland EH30 9TG +44 (0)131 331 7196 Tel 3132196 TN +44 (0)131 331 6075 Fax www.agilent.com Registered Office: Eskdale Road, Winnersh Triangle, Wokingham, Berkshire, RG41 5DZ. Registered Number: 03809903 England -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: 02 October 2002 19:56 To: TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Roger, Thanks for the contact. I will do just that and post the response from Mr. Bogers. Anyone want to bet a beer on this one?? ;-) Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Roger Magnuson [mailto:ro...@tgc.se] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 2:07 PM To: Joe Finlayson; 'Clement Dave-LDC009'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Cc: Roger Magnuson Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe et al, It seems a little overambitious to declare it under RTTE as Network Equipment did not even require type approval under the old TTE Directive. If you need a comment right from the source I suggest you contact Mark Bogers (mark.bog...@cec.eu.int), he is the contact point for RTTE issues. Roger Magnuson TGC Communication AB -Original Message- From: treg-appro...@world.std.com [mailto:treg-appro...@world.std.com]On Behalf Of Joe Finlayson Sent: den 2 oktober 2002 19:09 To: 'Clement Dave-LDC009'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Dave, My position was based on my particular interface (in this case also E1) and, based on my interpretation, concluded that it does not fall under the scope of the RTTE Directive. Based on your examples below, I can see that apparently there are PSTN interfaces that can be classified as SELV. We definitely seem to have a divided field here. I've seen posts stating Absolutely RTTE as well as Absolutely not RTTE. Is there anyone out there who was involved in the draft of the RTTE that can comment on the intent? Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Clement Dave-LDC009 [mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:47 AM To: 'Joe Finlayson'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe, Maybe I have missed something here but how does the TNV-X vs SELV from a safety perspective define if the product falls under the RTTE Directive? Many telcom interfaces are SELV from a safety perspective and clearly fall under the RTTE Directive. For example; V.11/V.24/V.35/X.21 when connected to WAN services via a CSU/DSU and ISDN Basic Rate S/T. Also, I believe Peter's original post stated intrabuilding and did not state it was CO equipment. In any case there are expectations and I believe you are going to spend more time trying
RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Colin, You have to be carefull about what Korea RRL is stating by telecom type approval. We have experience with VPN product without connections to the Public Network and they have requested telecom approval tests. Mainly the tests consist of EMI/EMC tests I hope this help Pierre-Marie Andre Sophia Certification and Environmental Labs Intel Corp.Senior Approval Engineer Tel : +33 (0) 4 93 00 14 13 Fax : +33 (0) 4 93 00 14 01 http://www.intel.fr/ -Original Message- From: colin_mcgeec...@agilent.com [mailto:colin_mcgeec...@agilent.com] Sent: jeudi 3 octobre 2002 12:32 To: t...@world.std.com; emc-p...@ieee.org; n...@world.std.com Cc: colin_mcgeec...@agilent.com Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Hi All, I have some Network Equipment with DS1 and E1/T1 interfaces, it is for use within the Telco Central Office and while I believe it to be outwith the scope of the RTTE I find that in Korea this type of interface requires a Telecom type approval (according to the Korean Test Lab - Estech Co,Ltd). I am trying to argue the point, but have not read the regulations (I'm trying to get a translation) and therefore can't put this into context. Has anyone else experienced similar requirements for Korea? Thanks and regards. Colin McGeechan Product Regulations Specialist Telecomms Networks Test Division Agilent Technologies UK Limited West Lothian Scotland EH30 9TG +44 (0)131 331 7196 Tel 3132196 TN +44 (0)131 331 6075 Fax www.agilent.com Registered Office: Eskdale Road, Winnersh Triangle, Wokingham, Berkshire, RG41 5DZ. Registered Number: 03809903 England -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: 02 October 2002 19:56 To: TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Roger, Thanks for the contact. I will do just that and post the response from Mr. Bogers. Anyone want to bet a beer on this one?? ;-) Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Roger Magnuson [mailto:ro...@tgc.se] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 2:07 PM To: Joe Finlayson; 'Clement Dave-LDC009'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Cc: Roger Magnuson Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe et al, It seems a little overambitious to declare it under RTTE as Network Equipment did not even require type approval under the old TTE Directive. If you need a comment right from the source I suggest you contact Mark Bogers (mark.bog...@cec.eu.int), he is the contact point for RTTE issues. Roger Magnuson TGC Communication AB -Original Message- From: treg-appro...@world.std.com [mailto:treg-appro...@world.std.com]On Behalf Of Joe Finlayson Sent: den 2 oktober 2002 19:09 To: 'Clement Dave-LDC009'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Dave, My position was based on my particular interface (in this case also E1) and, based on my interpretation, concluded that it does not fall under the scope of the RTTE Directive. Based on your examples below, I can see that apparently there are PSTN interfaces that can be classified as SELV. We definitely seem to have a divided field here. I've seen posts stating Absolutely RTTE as well as Absolutely not RTTE. Is there anyone out there who was involved in the draft of the RTTE that can comment on the intent? Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Clement Dave-LDC009 [mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:47 AM To: 'Joe Finlayson'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe, Maybe I have missed something here but how does the TNV-X vs SELV from a safety perspective define if the product falls under the RTTE Directive? Many telcom interfaces are SELV from a safety perspective and clearly fall under the RTTE Directive. For example; V.11/V.24/V.35/X.21 when connected to WAN services via a CSU/DSU and ISDN Basic Rate S/T. Also, I believe Peter's original post stated intrabuilding and did not state it was CO equipment. In any case there are expectations and I believe you are going to spend more time trying to justify why you did not declare to the RTTE than if you just do it. Again because of expectations I would have a TBR12/13 test report to back up the declaration even if it's no longer mandatory. NOTE: meeting the over voltage requirements of these standards has nothing to do with the classification of the port from a safety standpoint since the surges are applied to the AC mains (not even applicable ifDC powered) Dave Clement Motorola Inc. Test Lab Services Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P:508-851-8259 F:508-851-8512 C:508-725-9689 mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com http://www.motorola.com/globalcompliance/ -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson
RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Hi All, I have some Network Equipment with DS1 and E1/T1 interfaces, it is for use within the Telco Central Office and while I believe it to be outwith the scope of the RTTE I find that in Korea this type of interface requires a Telecom type approval (according to the Korean Test Lab - Estech Co,Ltd). I am trying to argue the point, but have not read the regulations (I'm trying to get a translation) and therefore can't put this into context. Has anyone else experienced similar requirements for Korea? Thanks and regards. Colin McGeechan Product Regulations Specialist Telecomms Networks Test Division Agilent Technologies UK Limited West Lothian Scotland EH30 9TG +44 (0)131 331 7196 Tel 3132196 TN +44 (0)131 331 6075 Fax www.agilent.com Registered Office: Eskdale Road, Winnersh Triangle, Wokingham, Berkshire, RG41 5DZ. Registered Number: 03809903 England -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: 02 October 2002 19:56 To: TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Roger, Thanks for the contact. I will do just that and post the response from Mr. Bogers. Anyone want to bet a beer on this one?? ;-) Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Roger Magnuson [mailto:ro...@tgc.se] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 2:07 PM To: Joe Finlayson; 'Clement Dave-LDC009'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Cc: Roger Magnuson Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe et al, It seems a little overambitious to declare it under RTTE as Network Equipment did not even require type approval under the old TTE Directive. If you need a comment right from the source I suggest you contact Mark Bogers (mark.bog...@cec.eu.int), he is the contact point for RTTE issues. Roger Magnuson TGC Communication AB -Original Message- From: treg-appro...@world.std.com [mailto:treg-appro...@world.std.com]On Behalf Of Joe Finlayson Sent: den 2 oktober 2002 19:09 To: 'Clement Dave-LDC009'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Dave, My position was based on my particular interface (in this case also E1) and, based on my interpretation, concluded that it does not fall under the scope of the RTTE Directive. Based on your examples below, I can see that apparently there are PSTN interfaces that can be classified as SELV. We definitely seem to have a divided field here. I've seen posts stating Absolutely RTTE as well as Absolutely not RTTE. Is there anyone out there who was involved in the draft of the RTTE that can comment on the intent? Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Clement Dave-LDC009 [mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:47 AM To: 'Joe Finlayson'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe, Maybe I have missed something here but how does the TNV-X vs SELV from a safety perspective define if the product falls under the RTTE Directive? Many telcom interfaces are SELV from a safety perspective and clearly fall under the RTTE Directive. For example; V.11/V.24/V.35/X.21 when connected to WAN services via a CSU/DSU and ISDN Basic Rate S/T. Also, I believe Peter's original post stated intrabuilding and did not state it was CO equipment. In any case there are expectations and I believe you are going to spend more time trying to justify why you did not declare to the RTTE than if you just do it. Again because of expectations I would have a TBR12/13 test report to back up the declaration even if it's no longer mandatory. NOTE: meeting the over voltage requirements of these standards has nothing to do with the classification of the port from a safety standpoint since the surges are applied to the AC mains (not even applicable ifDC powered) Dave Clement Motorola Inc. Test Lab Services Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P:508-851-8259 F:508-851-8512 C:508-725-9689 mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com http://www.motorola.com/globalcompliance/ -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 9:29 AM To: Clement Dave-LDC009; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Dave, Please reference the subject title of this thread. My position is that by declaring compliance to the RTTE Directive, we would then be stating that we have designed to and/or are capable of connecting to the PSTN. This would contradict our IEC 60950 SELV classification and would then change our classification to TNV-X (depending on the interface). That would open up a whole new can of worms and is a good example of how declaring blindly could leave you in an undesirable situation. Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Clement Dave-LDC009
RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Roger, Thanks for the contact. I will do just that and post the response from Mr. Bogers. Anyone want to bet a beer on this one?? ;-) Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Roger Magnuson [mailto:ro...@tgc.se] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 2:07 PM To: Joe Finlayson; 'Clement Dave-LDC009'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Cc: Roger Magnuson Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe et al, It seems a little overambitious to declare it under RTTE as Network Equipment did not even require type approval under the old TTE Directive. If you need a comment right from the source I suggest you contact Mark Bogers (mark.bog...@cec.eu.int), he is the contact point for RTTE issues. Roger Magnuson TGC Communication AB -Original Message- From: treg-appro...@world.std.com [mailto:treg-appro...@world.std.com]On Behalf Of Joe Finlayson Sent: den 2 oktober 2002 19:09 To: 'Clement Dave-LDC009'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Dave, My position was based on my particular interface (in this case also E1) and, based on my interpretation, concluded that it does not fall under the scope of the RTTE Directive. Based on your examples below, I can see that apparently there are PSTN interfaces that can be classified as SELV. We definitely seem to have a divided field here. I've seen posts stating Absolutely RTTE as well as Absolutely not RTTE. Is there anyone out there who was involved in the draft of the RTTE that can comment on the intent? Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Clement Dave-LDC009 [mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:47 AM To: 'Joe Finlayson'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe, Maybe I have missed something here but how does the TNV-X vs SELV from a safety perspective define if the product falls under the RTTE Directive? Many telcom interfaces are SELV from a safety perspective and clearly fall under the RTTE Directive. For example; V.11/V.24/V.35/X.21 when connected to WAN services via a CSU/DSU and ISDN Basic Rate S/T. Also, I believe Peter's original post stated intrabuilding and did not state it was CO equipment. In any case there are expectations and I believe you are going to spend more time trying to justify why you did not declare to the RTTE than if you just do it. Again because of expectations I would have a TBR12/13 test report to back up the declaration even if it's no longer mandatory. NOTE: meeting the over voltage requirements of these standards has nothing to do with the classification of the port from a safety standpoint since the surges are applied to the AC mains (not even applicable ifDC powered) Dave Clement Motorola Inc. Test Lab Services Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P:508-851-8259 F:508-851-8512 C:508-725-9689 mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com http://www.motorola.com/globalcompliance/ -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 9:29 AM To: Clement Dave-LDC009; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Dave, Please reference the subject title of this thread. My position is that by declaring compliance to the RTTE Directive, we would then be stating that we have designed to and/or are capable of connecting to the PSTN. This would contradict our IEC 60950 SELV classification and would then change our classification to TNV-X (depending on the interface). That would open up a whole new can of worms and is a good example of how declaring blindly could leave you in an undesirable situation. Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Clement Dave-LDC009 [mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 9:05 AM To: 'Joe Finlayson'; TREG Newsgroup Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface This whole discussion is some what of a moot point. Under the RTTE directive there are no mandatory telecom standards anyway. Dave Clement Motorola Inc. Test Lab Services Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P:508-851-8259 F:508-851-8512 C:508-725-9689 mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com http://www.motorola.com/globalcompliance/ -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 8:53 AM To: 'Pausch, Robert'; TREG Newsgroup Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Hi Robert, I'm glad to see you're still in the game. I think the issue here is that terminal equipment is that which connects directly or indirectly to the PSTN. This type of product does neither as it installed in the Central Office and is NOT in free circulation on the market in the EU (only available to Network Operators). Thx, Joe -Original
RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Joe, Perhaps Peter (who works for a test lab and not a manufacturer) could infer that, because the interface on the product he is evaluating was designed to be an SELV Circuit, it is not intended to connect to a network that extends beyond a building and further that the RTTED does not apply. But that would presume that his customer knew what he was doing. Peter may find out that his customer does intend to supply the product as an item of CPE. In this case he could then deduce that the equipment is unlikely to be suitable for that purpose (certainly not universally so). That is why it is wrong to start off looking to see what standards and aspects of a standard are complied with and then decide which regulations apply. Rather, in my opinion, Peter should start by asking his customer what market the equipment he is evaluating is intended to be supplied into. He can then see which standards and attributes of those standards are complied with. Based on these two items of information he will then be in a position to advise his client as to whether the product is likely to be suitable for the intended market. Always remembering of course that complying with a Harmonised Standard is only one way of demonstrating compliance with with any directive (albeit the most common way). As usual, my own opinions. Regards, Richard Hughes -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: 02 October 2002 13:30 To: 'Paul Didcott' Cc: Hughes, Richard [HAL02:GF00:EXCH]; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup'; 'TREG Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Agreed. So, in Peter's case, he stated that his product is SELV and therefore is not designed or intended to connect to the PSTN. From that statement, I would venture to say that his product is Network Equipment (not CPE) and therefore does not fall within the scope of the RTTE Directive. Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Paul Didcott [mailto:pdidc...@ktl.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 3:59 AM To: 'Joe Finlayson' Cc: 'Richard Hughes'; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup'; 'TREG Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Guys, As this product does not connect to the PSTN and is destined for the Central Office only, I would say the RTTE Directive does not apply as the scope does not include Network Equipment. Correct. It will be seen from the above that the RTTED is not limited to PSTN since it is quite possible that a network operator could provide a business with an E1 interface, for instance. Correct. The RTTED applies to terminal equipment which connects to any public service of the network operator, whether that be a leased line service or PSTN service. Public telecommunications network is included in the scope of the RTTE Directive Incorrect. The RTTE scope statement, intended to be connected directly or indirectly by any means whatsoever to interfaces of public telecommunications networks, only relates to TE, not network equipment. The term 'indirect' simply means via another piese of equipment, e.g. such as a telephone connected to a PBX which connects to the public telecom network. Hence equipment connected behind PBX falls within the scope of the RTTED, for example. As has been mentioned, the LVD and EMC Directives CE marking still applies to equipment destined for use only 'within' the public network, for EU/EFTA Member countries. Hence, E1 equipment desined for connection to a public telecom network service, must be CE marked for compliance with the RTTED. However, the applicable standards will be exactly the same for EMC and Safety compliance under the RTTED as would apply under the EMC Directive and LVD. Hope this helps, B-regards, Paul G Didcott Snr Approvals Consultant Tel: +44 (0)1482 801801 Mailto:pdidc...@ktl.com mailto:pdidc...@ktl.com KTL is now fully recognised by the DSL Forum as an Independent Testing Laboratory (ITL). Laboratory Accreditation Services Ltd t/a KTL. Registered No. 4407692. Registered Office: KTL, Saxon Way, Priory Park West, Hull, HU13 9PB, UK. www.ktl.com http://www.ktl.com -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: 01 October 2002 23:15 To: 'Richard Hughes'; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup'; 'TREG Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Richard, Good point - the directly or indirectly part grabbed my attention but that seems too broad a description which could encompass quite a wide range of equipment. However, the point of discussion here is whether a product classified as SELV by IEC 60950, Type 2 by GR-1089, etc. and does not connect (interface) to the Public telecommunications network is included in the scope of the RTTE Directive. This type of product resides in the network and does not connect to outside plant conductors - terminates to another piece of equipment with the proper
RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Joe et al, It seems a little overambitious to declare it under RTTE as Network Equipment did not even require type approval under the old TTE Directive. If you need a comment right from the source I suggest you contact Mark Bogers (mark.bog...@cec.eu.int), he is the contact point for RTTE issues. Roger Magnuson TGC Communication AB -Original Message- From: treg-appro...@world.std.com [mailto:treg-appro...@world.std.com]On Behalf Of Joe Finlayson Sent: den 2 oktober 2002 19:09 To: 'Clement Dave-LDC009'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Dave, My position was based on my particular interface (in this case also E1) and, based on my interpretation, concluded that it does not fall under the scope of the RTTE Directive. Based on your examples below, I can see that apparently there are PSTN interfaces that can be classified as SELV. We definitely seem to have a divided field here. I've seen posts stating Absolutely RTTE as well as Absolutely not RTTE. Is there anyone out there who was involved in the draft of the RTTE that can comment on the intent? Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Clement Dave-LDC009 [mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:47 AM To: 'Joe Finlayson'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe, Maybe I have missed something here but how does the TNV-X vs SELV from a safety perspective define if the product falls under the RTTE Directive? Many telcom interfaces are SELV from a safety perspective and clearly fall under the RTTE Directive. For example; V.11/V.24/V.35/X.21 when connected to WAN services via a CSU/DSU and ISDN Basic Rate S/T. Also, I believe Peter's original post stated intrabuilding and did not state it was CO equipment. In any case there are expectations and I believe you are going to spend more time trying to justify why you did not declare to the RTTE than if you just do it. Again because of expectations I would have a TBR12/13 test report to back up the declaration even if it's no longer mandatory. NOTE: meeting the over voltage requirements of these standards has nothing to do with the classification of the port from a safety standpoint since the surges are applied to the AC mains (not even applicable ifDC powered) Dave Clement Motorola Inc. Test Lab Services Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P:508-851-8259 F:508-851-8512 C:508-725-9689 mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com http://www.motorola.com/globalcompliance/ -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 9:29 AM To: Clement Dave-LDC009; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Dave, Please reference the subject title of this thread. My position is that by declaring compliance to the RTTE Directive, we would then be stating that we have designed to and/or are capable of connecting to the PSTN. This would contradict our IEC 60950 SELV classification and would then change our classification to TNV-X (depending on the interface). That would open up a whole new can of worms and is a good example of how declaring blindly could leave you in an undesirable situation. Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Clement Dave-LDC009 [mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 9:05 AM To: 'Joe Finlayson'; TREG Newsgroup Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface This whole discussion is some what of a moot point. Under the RTTE directive there are no mandatory telecom standards anyway. Dave Clement Motorola Inc. Test Lab Services Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P:508-851-8259 F:508-851-8512 C:508-725-9689 mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com http://www.motorola.com/globalcompliance/ -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 8:53 AM To: 'Pausch, Robert'; TREG Newsgroup Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Hi Robert, I'm glad to see you're still in the game. I think the issue here is that terminal equipment is that which connects directly or indirectly to the PSTN. This type of product does neither as it installed in the Central Office and is NOT in free circulation on the market in the EU (only available to Network Operators). Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Pausch, Robert [mailto:robert.pau...@hp.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 4:05 AM To: Joe Finlayson; TREG Newsgroup Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe, my position is that the RTTE directive does apply for all types of radio or terminal equipment unless it has been excluded by article 1(2) or annex I and is in free circulation on the market in the EU. However, the RTTE does only
RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Dave, My position was based on my particular interface (in this case also E1) and, based on my interpretation, concluded that it does not fall under the scope of the RTTE Directive. Based on your examples below, I can see that apparently there are PSTN interfaces that can be classified as SELV. We definitely seem to have a divided field here. I've seen posts stating Absolutely RTTE as well as Absolutely not RTTE. Is there anyone out there who was involved in the draft of the RTTE that can comment on the intent? Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Clement Dave-LDC009 [mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:47 AM To: 'Joe Finlayson'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe, Maybe I have missed something here but how does the TNV-X vs SELV from a safety perspective define if the product falls under the RTTE Directive? Many telcom interfaces are SELV from a safety perspective and clearly fall under the RTTE Directive. For example; V.11/V.24/V.35/X.21 when connected to WAN services via a CSU/DSU and ISDN Basic Rate S/T. Also, I believe Peter's original post stated intrabuilding and did not state it was CO equipment. In any case there are expectations and I believe you are going to spend more time trying to justify why you did not declare to the RTTE than if you just do it. Again because of expectations I would have a TBR12/13 test report to back up the declaration even if it's no longer mandatory. NOTE: meeting the over voltage requirements of these standards has nothing to do with the classification of the port from a safety standpoint since the surges are applied to the AC mains (not even applicable ifDC powered) Dave Clement Motorola Inc. Test Lab Services Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P:508-851-8259 F:508-851-8512 C:508-725-9689 mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com http://www.motorola.com/globalcompliance/ http://www.motorola.com/globalcompliance/ -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 9:29 AM To: Clement Dave-LDC009; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Dave, Please reference the subject title of this thread. My position is that by declaring compliance to the RTTE Directive, we would then be stating that we have designed to and/or are capable of connecting to the PSTN. This would contradict our IEC 60950 SELV classification and would then change our classification to TNV-X (depending on the interface). That would open up a whole new can of worms and is a good example of how declaring blindly could leave you in an undesirable situation. Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Clement Dave-LDC009 [mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 9:05 AM To: 'Joe Finlayson'; TREG Newsgroup Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface This whole discussion is some what of a moot point. Under the RTTE directive there are no mandatory telecom standards anyway. Dave Clement Motorola Inc. Test Lab Services Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P:508-851-8259 F:508-851-8512 C:508-725-9689 mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com http://www.motorola.com/globalcompliance/ http://www.motorola.com/globalcompliance/ -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 8:53 AM To: 'Pausch, Robert'; TREG Newsgroup Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Hi Robert, I'm glad to see you're still in the game. I think the issue here is that terminal equipment is that which connects directly or indirectly to the PSTN. This type of product does neither as it installed in the Central Office and is NOT in free circulation on the market in the EU (only available to Network Operators). Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Pausch, Robert [mailto:robert.pau...@hp.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 4:05 AM To: Joe Finlayson; TREG Newsgroup Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe, my position is that the RTTE directive does apply for all types of radio or terminal equipment unless it has been excluded by article 1(2) or annex I and is in free circulation on the market in the EU. However, the RTTE does only specify the essential requirements in article 3 which equipment has to comply with. It does not regard any specific standard like E1. Peter, I think You must declare conformity to the RTT directive. What is the point not to do it? Regards Robert Robert Pausch, Regulatory Compliance Engineer and Compliance Project Manager Hewlett-Packard EMEA, Einsteinring 30, 85609 Dornach, Germany Tel: +49 (89) 9392 2352, FAX
RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Joe, Maybe I have missed something here but how does the TNV-X vs SELV from a safety perspective define if the product falls under the RTTE Directive? Many telcom interfaces are SELV from a safety perspective and clearly fall under the RTTE Directive. For example; V.11/V.24/V.35/X.21 when connected to WAN services via a CSU/DSU and ISDN Basic Rate S/T. Also, I believe Peter's original post stated intrabuilding and did not state it was CO equipment. In any case there are expectations and I believe you are going to spend more time trying to justify why you did not declare to the RTTE than if you just do it. Again because of expectations I would have a TBR12/13 test report to back up the declaration even if it's no longer mandatory. NOTE: meeting the over voltage requirements of these standards has nothing to do with the classification of the port from a safety standpoint since the surges are applied to the AC mains (not even applicable ifDC powered) Dave Clement Motorola Inc. Test Lab Services Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P:508-851-8259 F:508-851-8512 C:508-725-9689 mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com http://www.motorola.com/globalcompliance/ http://www.motorola.com/globalcompliance/ -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 9:29 AM To: Clement Dave-LDC009; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Dave, Please reference the subject title of this thread. My position is that by declaring compliance to the RTTE Directive, we would then be stating that we have designed to and/or are capable of connecting to the PSTN. This would contradict our IEC 60950 SELV classification and would then change our classification to TNV-X (depending on the interface). That would open up a whole new can of worms and is a good example of how declaring blindly could leave you in an undesirable situation. Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Clement Dave-LDC009 [mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 9:05 AM To: 'Joe Finlayson'; TREG Newsgroup Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface This whole discussion is some what of a moot point. Under the RTTE directive there are no mandatory telecom standards anyway. Dave Clement Motorola Inc. Test Lab Services Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P:508-851-8259 F:508-851-8512 C:508-725-9689 mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com http://www.motorola.com/globalcompliance/ http://www.motorola.com/globalcompliance/ -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 8:53 AM To: 'Pausch, Robert'; TREG Newsgroup Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Hi Robert, I'm glad to see you're still in the game. I think the issue here is that terminal equipment is that which connects directly or indirectly to the PSTN. This type of product does neither as it installed in the Central Office and is NOT in free circulation on the market in the EU (only available to Network Operators). Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Pausch, Robert [mailto:robert.pau...@hp.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 4:05 AM To: Joe Finlayson; TREG Newsgroup Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe, my position is that the RTTE directive does apply for all types of radio or terminal equipment unless it has been excluded by article 1(2) or annex I and is in free circulation on the market in the EU. However, the RTTE does only specify the essential requirements in article 3 which equipment has to comply with. It does not regard any specific standard like E1. Peter, I think You must declare conformity to the RTT directive. What is the point not to do it? Regards Robert Robert Pausch, Regulatory Compliance Engineer and Compliance Project Manager Hewlett-Packard EMEA, Einsteinring 30, 85609 Dornach, Germany Tel: +49 (89) 9392 2352, FAX: +49 (89) 9392 2336 Mailto: robert.pau...@hp.com -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:15 AM To: 'Richard Hughes'; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup'; 'TREG Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Richard, Good point - the directly or indirectly part grabbed my attention but that seems too broad a description which could encompass quite a wide range of equipment. However, the point of discussion here is whether a product classified as SELV by IEC 60950, Type 2 by GR-1089, etc. and does not connect (interface) to the Public telecommunications network is included in the scope of the RTTE Directive. This type of product resides in the network and does
RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Joe, As Dave Clement explained, your product falls under the RTTE directive. Your Declaration of Conformity to the RTTE directive, is not saying we designed to connect to the PSTN, (for connection outside the Central Office, where the confusion seems to be). To declare compliance to RTTE, you look through the standards listed in the Official Journal at Europa for the directive, 1999/5/EC. What classification to use has no bearing on the directive. Under RTTE, EN 60950 has to be met, and when your compliance test lab reviews your product to the IEC 60950, the Safety report simply states the classification. Joe Finlayson jfinlay...@telica.com@world.std.com on 10/02/2002 09:28:40 AM Please respond to n...@world.std.com Sent by:nebs-appro...@world.std.com To:'Clement Dave-LDC009' dave.clem...@motorola.com, TREG Newsgroup t...@world.std.com, 'EMC PSTC' emc-p...@ieee.org, 'NEBS Newsgroup' n...@world.std.com cc: Subject:RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Dave, Please reference the subject title of this thread. My position is that by declaring compliance to the RTTE Directive, we would then be stating that we have designed to and/or are capable of connecting to the PSTN. This would contradict our IEC 60950 SELV classification and would then change our classification to TNV-X (depending on the interface). That would open up a whole new can of worms and is a good example of how declaring blindly could leave you in an undesirable situation. Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Clement Dave-LDC009 [mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 9:05 AM To: 'Joe Finlayson'; TREG Newsgroup Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface This whole discussion is some what of a moot point. Under the RTTE directive there are no mandatory telecom standards anyway. Dave Clement Motorola Inc. Test Lab Services Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P:508-851-8259 F:508-851-8512 C:508-725-9689 mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com http://www.motorola.com/globalcompliance/ -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 8:53 AM To: 'Pausch, Robert'; TREG Newsgroup Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Hi Robert, I'm glad to see you're still in the game. I think the issue here is that terminal equipment is that which connects directly or indirectly to the PSTN. This type of product does neither as it installed in the Central Office and is NOT in free circulation on the market in the EU (only available to Network Operators). Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Pausch, Robert [mailto:robert.pau...@hp.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 4:05 AM To: Joe Finlayson; TREG Newsgroup Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe, my position is that the RTTE directive does apply for all types of radio or terminal equipment unless it has been excluded by article 1(2) or annex I and is in free circulation on the market in the EU. However, the RTTE does only specify the essential requirements in article 3 which equipment has to comply with. It does not regard any specific standard like E1. Peter, I think You must declare conformity to the RTT directive. What is the point not to do it? Regards Robert Robert Pausch, Regulatory Compliance Engineer and Compliance Project Manager Hewlett-Packard EMEA, Einsteinring 30, 85609 Dornach, Germany Tel: +49 (89) 9392 2352, FAX: +49 (89) 9392 2336 Mailto: robert.pau...@hp.com -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:15 AM To: 'Richard Hughes'; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup'; 'TREG Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Richard, Good point - the directly or indirectly part grabbed my attention but that seems too broad a description which could encompass quite a wide range of equipment. However, the point of discussion here is whether a product classified as SELV by IEC 60950, Type 2 by GR-1089, etc. and does not connect (interface) to the Public telecommunications network is included in the scope of the RTTE Directive. This type of product resides in the network and does not connect to outside plant conductors - terminates to another piece of equipment with the proper isolation to outside plant conductors. My interpretation is that if there is no provision for physical connection to the PSTN, the RTTE does not apply. Any takers??? I'll copy the TREG and NEBS gurus on this one as well. Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Richard Hughes [mailto:rehug...@nortelnetworks.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 5:57 PM To: 'Joe Finlayson'; EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe, The RTTED applies
RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
It's been my interpretation for quiet some time and haven't had any
repercussions. The indirectly is entirely too broad. I think I've used the
music headphones example in the past. I have a set of headphones, that are
electrically connected to my speaker. The speaker to the computer motherboard
and the motherboard to all other systems inside of the computer. Inside the
computer is a modem, the modem is electrically connected to the public
telephone system, and the headphones indirectly connected to the modem so
indirectly connected to the public telephone system. Does that mean my
headphones fall under the RTT E directive. I don't believe that is the intent
of the standard, and the indirectly connected statement is an ill thought out
catch-all phrase.
Gary
-Original Message-
From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 3:15 PM
To: 'Richard Hughes'; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup'; 'TREG Newsgroup'
Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Richard,
Good point - the directly or indirectly part grabbed my attention
but that seems too broad a description which could encompass quite a wide
range of equipment. However, the point of discussion here is whether a
product classified as SELV by IEC 60950, Type 2 by GR-1089, etc. and does
not connect (interface) to the Public telecommunications network is
included in the scope of the RTTE Directive. This type of product resides
in the network and does not connect to outside plant conductors - terminates
to another piece of equipment with the proper isolation to outside plant
conductors. My interpretation is that if there is no provision for physical
connection to the PSTN, the RTTE does not apply.
Any takers??? I'll copy the TREG and NEBS gurus on this one as well.
Thx,
Joe
-Original Message-
From: Richard Hughes [mailto:rehug...@nortelnetworks.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 5:57 PM
To: 'Joe Finlayson'; EMC-PSTC (E-mail)
Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Joe,
The RTTED applies to the following types of equipment:
1) Radio equipment
2) Terminal equipment.
The Directive also contains the following definitions:
'telecommunications terminal equipment' means a product enabling
communication or a relevant component thereof which is intended to be
connected directly or indirectly by any means whatsoever to interfaces of
public telecommunications networks (that is to say, telecommunications
networks used wholly or partly for the provision of publicly available
telecommunications services).
'interface' means
(i) a network termination point, which is a physical connection point at
which a user is provided with access to public telecommunications network,
and/or
(ii)an air interface specifying the radio path between radio equipment
and their technical specifications
It will be seen from the above that the RTTED is not limited to PSTN since
it is quite possible that a network operator could provide a business with
an E1 interface, for instance.
Peter,
It is for the manufacturer to decide to which market, e.g. terminal
equipment or central office equipment only, they whish to sell their product
into. EN 60950 has nothing to do with it since this standard can be used to
evaluate either type of product - and other non-telecom ICT products as well
of course.
Simplistically, if the product does not have an input or output voltage in
the range 50-1000Vac, 75-1500Vdc then the LVD does not apply {ref. Article 1
of LVD}. Clearly, if the LVD does apply then certain editions of EN 60950
do provide a presumption of conformity with the safety objectives of the
LVD. If the LVD does not apply then that should not be taken as an excuse
to not comply with EN 60950, but that's another debate entirely.
If the RTTED applies then the EMC is not applied as such, because the EMC
requirements are then covered by the RTTED. However, this is largely an
administrative technicality because Article 3(1)(b) points to the EMC
Directive for its essential requirements, just as Article 3(1)(a) points to
the LVD for safety (minus any upper or lower voltage limit).
Well, that's enough personal opinions expressed on this matter for me...
Richard Hughes
-Original Message-
From: Joe Finlayson [ mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com
mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com ]
Sent: 01 October 2002 17:52
To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail)
Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Peter,
As this product does not connect to the PSTN and is destined for the
Central Office only, I would say the RTTE Directive does not apply as the
scope does not include Network Equipment.
Thx,
Joe
-Original Message-
From: Peter Merguerian [ mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il
mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il ]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:33 AM
To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail)
Subject: RTTE or LVD for Equipment
RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Dave, Please reference the subject title of this thread. My position is that by declaring compliance to the RTTE Directive, we would then be stating that we have designed to and/or are capable of connecting to the PSTN. This would contradict our IEC 60950 SELV classification and would then change our classification to TNV-X (depending on the interface). That would open up a whole new can of worms and is a good example of how declaring blindly could leave you in an undesirable situation. Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Clement Dave-LDC009 [mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 9:05 AM To: 'Joe Finlayson'; TREG Newsgroup Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface This whole discussion is some what of a moot point. Under the RTTE directive there are no mandatory telecom standards anyway. Dave Clement Motorola Inc. Test Lab Services Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P:508-851-8259 F:508-851-8512 C:508-725-9689 mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com http://www.motorola.com/globalcompliance/ http://www.motorola.com/globalcompliance/ -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 8:53 AM To: 'Pausch, Robert'; TREG Newsgroup Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Hi Robert, I'm glad to see you're still in the game. I think the issue here is that terminal equipment is that which connects directly or indirectly to the PSTN. This type of product does neither as it installed in the Central Office and is NOT in free circulation on the market in the EU (only available to Network Operators). Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Pausch, Robert [mailto:robert.pau...@hp.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 4:05 AM To: Joe Finlayson; TREG Newsgroup Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe, my position is that the RTTE directive does apply for all types of radio or terminal equipment unless it has been excluded by article 1(2) or annex I and is in free circulation on the market in the EU. However, the RTTE does only specify the essential requirements in article 3 which equipment has to comply with. It does not regard any specific standard like E1. Peter, I think You must declare conformity to the RTT directive. What is the point not to do it? Regards Robert Robert Pausch, Regulatory Compliance Engineer and Compliance Project Manager Hewlett-Packard EMEA, Einsteinring 30, 85609 Dornach, Germany Tel: +49 (89) 9392 2352, FAX: +49 (89) 9392 2336 Mailto: robert.pau...@hp.com -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:15 AM To: 'Richard Hughes'; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup'; 'TREG Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Richard, Good point - the directly or indirectly part grabbed my attention but that seems too broad a description which could encompass quite a wide range of equipment. However, the point of discussion here is whether a product classified as SELV by IEC 60950, Type 2 by GR-1089, etc. and does not connect (interface) to the Public telecommunications network is included in the scope of the RTTE Directive. This type of product resides in the network and does not connect to outside plant conductors - terminates to another piece of equipment with the proper isolation to outside plant conductors. My interpretation is that if there is no provision for physical connection to the PSTN, the RTTE does not apply. Any takers??? I'll copy the TREG and NEBS gurus on this one as well. Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Richard Hughes [mailto:rehug...@nortelnetworks.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 5:57 PM To: 'Joe Finlayson'; EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe, The RTTED applies to the following types of equipment: 1) Radio equipment 2) Terminal equipment. The Directive also contains the following definitions: 'telecommunications terminal equipment' means a product enabling communication or a relevant component thereof which is intended to be connected directly or indirectly by any means whatsoever to interfaces of public telecommunications networks (that is to say, telecommunications networks used wholly or partly for the provision of publicly available telecommunications services). 'interface' means (i) a network termination point, which is a physical connection point at which a user is provided with access to public telecommunications network, and/or (ii)an air interface specifying the radio path between radio equipment and their technical specifications It will be seen from the above that the RTTED is not limited to PSTN since it is quite possible that a network operator could provide a business with an E1
RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Agreed. So, in Peter's case, he stated that his product is SELV and therefore is not designed or intended to connect to the PSTN. From that statement, I would venture to say that his product is Network Equipment (not CPE) and therefore does not fall within the scope of the RTTE Directive. Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Paul Didcott [mailto:pdidc...@ktl.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 3:59 AM To: 'Joe Finlayson' Cc: 'Richard Hughes'; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup'; 'TREG Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Guys, As this product does not connect to the PSTN and is destined for the Central Office only, I would say the RTTE Directive does not apply as the scope does not include Network Equipment. Correct. It will be seen from the above that the RTTED is not limited to PSTN since it is quite possible that a network operator could provide a business with an E1 interface, for instance. Correct. The RTTED applies to terminal equipment which connects to any public service of the network operator, whether that be a leased line service or PSTN service. Public telecommunications network is included in the scope of the RTTE Directive Incorrect. The RTTE scope statement, intended to be connected directly or indirectly by any means whatsoever to interfaces of public telecommunications networks, only relates to TE, not network equipment. The term 'indirect' simply means via another piese of equipment, e.g. such as a telephone connected to a PBX which connects to the public telecom network. Hence equipment connected behind PBX falls within the scope of the RTTED, for example. As has been mentioned, the LVD and EMC Directives CE marking still applies to equipment destined for use only 'within' the public network, for EU/EFTA Member countries. Hence, E1 equipment desined for connection to a public telecom network service, must be CE marked for compliance with the RTTED. However, the applicable standards will be exactly the same for EMC and Safety compliance under the RTTED as would apply under the EMC Directive and LVD. Hope this helps, B-regards, Paul G Didcott Snr Approvals Consultant Tel: +44 (0)1482 801801 Mailto:pdidc...@ktl.com mailto:pdidc...@ktl.com KTL is now fully recognised by the DSL Forum as an Independent Testing Laboratory (ITL). Laboratory Accreditation Services Ltd t/a KTL. Registered No. 4407692. Registered Office: KTL, Saxon Way, Priory Park West, Hull, HU13 9PB, UK. www.ktl.com http://www.ktl.com -Original Message- From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com] Sent: 01 October 2002 23:15 To: 'Richard Hughes'; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup'; 'TREG Newsgroup' Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Richard, Good point - the directly or indirectly part grabbed my attention but that seems too broad a description which could encompass quite a wide range of equipment. However, the point of discussion here is whether a product classified as SELV by IEC 60950, Type 2 by GR-1089, etc. and does not connect (interface) to the Public telecommunications network is included in the scope of the RTTE Directive. This type of product resides in the network and does not connect to outside plant conductors - terminates to another piece of equipment with the proper isolation to outside plant conductors. My interpretation is that if there is no provision for physical connection to the PSTN, the RTTE does not apply. Any takers??? I'll copy the TREG and NEBS gurus on this one as well. Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Richard Hughes [mailto:rehug...@nortelnetworks.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 5:57 PM To: 'Joe Finlayson'; EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Joe, The RTTED applies to the following types of equipment: 1) Radio equipment 2) Terminal equipment. The Directive also contains the following definitions: 'telecommunications terminal equipment' means a product enabling communication or a relevant component thereof which is intended to be connected directly or indirectly by any means whatsoever to interfaces of public telecommunications networks (that is to say, telecommunications networks used wholly or partly for the provision of publicly available telecommunications services). 'interface' means (i) a network termination point, which is a physical connection point at which a user is provided with access to public telecommunications network, and/or (ii)an air interface specifying the radio path between radio equipment and their technical specifications It will be seen from the above that the RTTED is not limited to PSTN since it is quite possible that a network operator could provide a business with an E1 interface, for instance. Peter, It is for the manufacturer to decide to which market, e.g. terminal equipment or central office equipment only, they whish to sell
RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Joe,
The RTTED applies to the following types of equipment:
1) Radio equipment
2) Terminal equipment.
The Directive also contains the following definitions:
'telecommunications terminal equipment' means a product enabling
communication or a relevant component thereof which is intended to be
connected directly or indirectly by any means whatsoever to interfaces of
public telecommunications networks (that is to say, telecommunications
networks used wholly or partly for the provision of publicly available
telecommunications services).
'interface' means
(i) a network termination point, which is a physical connection point at
which a user is provided with access to public telecommunications network,
and/or
(ii)an air interface specifying the radio path between radio equipment
and their technical specifications
It will be seen from the above that the RTTED is not limited to PSTN since
it is quite possible that a network operator could provide a business with
an E1 interface, for instance.
Peter,
It is for the manufacturer to decide to which market, e.g. terminal
equipment or central office equipment only, they whish to sell their product
into. EN 60950 has nothing to do with it since this standard can be used to
evaluate either type of product - and other non-telecom ICT products as well
of course.
Simplistically, if the product does not have an input or output voltage in
the range 50-1000Vac, 75-1500Vdc then the LVD does not apply {ref. Article 1
of LVD}. Clearly, if the LVD does apply then certain editions of EN 60950
do provide a presumption of conformity with the safety objectives of the
LVD. If the LVD does not apply then that should not be taken as an excuse
to not comply with EN 60950, but that's another debate entirely.
If the RTTED applies then the EMC is not applied as such, because the EMC
requirements are then covered by the RTTED. However, this is largely an
administrative technicality because Article 3(1)(b) points to the EMC
Directive for its essential requirements, just as Article 3(1)(a) points to
the LVD for safety (minus any upper or lower voltage limit).
Well, that's enough personal opinions expressed on this matter for me...
Richard Hughes
-Original Message-
From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com]
Sent: 01 October 2002 17:52
To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail)
Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Peter,
As this product does not connect to the PSTN and is destined for the
Central Office only, I would say the RTTE Directive does not apply as the
scope does not include Network Equipment.
Thx,
Joe
-Original Message-
From: Peter Merguerian [mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:33 AM
To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail)
Subject: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Dear All,
For an equipment where the E1 has been assessed for SELV under EN 60
950 (ie for intrabuilding use and not subject to overvoltages), does the
equipment fall under the RTTE Directive or can the manufacturer declare
compliance to the LVD and EMC Directives.
If under the RTTE Directive, what telecom standard applies to the E1
intrabuilding interface?
This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If
you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate,
distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you
received this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding the
message and its attachments to the sender.
PETER S. MERGUERIAN
Technical Director
I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd.
26 Hacharoshet St., POB 211
Or Yehuda 60251, Israel
Tel: + 972-(0)3-5339022 Fax: + 972-(0)3-5339019
Mobile: + 972-(0)54-838175
http://www.itl.co.il
http://www.i-spec.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:
Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com
Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com
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:
http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
---
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:
Ron Pickard: emc-p
RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Peter, As this product does not connect to the PSTN and is destined for the Central Office only, I would say the RTTE Directive does not apply as the scope does not include Network Equipment. Thx, Joe -Original Message- From: Peter Merguerian [mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:33 AM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Dear All, For an equipment where the E1 has been assessed for SELV under EN 60 950 (ie for intrabuilding use and not subject to overvoltages), does the equipment fall under the RTTE Directive or can the manufacturer declare compliance to the LVD and EMC Directives. If under the RTTE Directive, what telecom standard applies to the E1 intrabuilding interface? This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you received this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding the message and its attachments to the sender. PETER S. MERGUERIAN Technical Director I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. 26 Hacharoshet St., POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: + 972-(0)3-5339022 Fax: + 972-(0)3-5339019 Mobile: + 972-(0)54-838175 http://www.itl.co.il http://www.i-spec.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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
EN 60950 is a harmonized safety standard also for RTTE. For the RTTE is a manufacturer choice to use the old LVD and EMCD rule to certify the safety and EMC requirement or the new rule of RTTE (annex II, III, IV or IV). Ciao Paolo _ Paolo Gemma Siemens Mobile Communications S.p.A. PG MW ST EMC Safety SS Padana sup. KM 158 20060 Cassina de' Pecchi (MI) Italy phone +39 02 9526 6587fax +39 02 9526 6203 mobile +39 348 3690185 e-mail paolo.ge...@icn.siemens.it _ -Original Message- From: Peter Merguerian [mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 3:33 PM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface Dear All, For an equipment where the E1 has been assessed for SELV under EN 60 950 (ie for intrabuilding use and not subject to overvoltages), does the equipment fall under the RTTE Directive or can the manufacturer declare compliance to the LVD and EMC Directives. If under the RTTE Directive, what telecom standard applies to the E1 intrabuilding interface? This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you received this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding the message and its attachments to the sender. PETER S. MERGUERIAN Technical Director I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd. 26 Hacharoshet St., POB 211 Or Yehuda 60251, Israel Tel: + 972-(0)3-5339022 Fax: + 972-(0)3-5339019 Mobile: + 972-(0)54-838175 http://www.itl.co.il http://www.i-spec.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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Richard,
Good point - the directly or indirectly part grabbed my attention
but that seems too broad a description which could encompass quite a wide
range of equipment. However, the point of discussion here is whether a
product classified as SELV by IEC 60950, Type 2 by GR-1089, etc. and does
not connect (interface) to the Public telecommunications network is
included in the scope of the RTTE Directive. This type of product resides
in the network and does not connect to outside plant conductors - terminates
to another piece of equipment with the proper isolation to outside plant
conductors. My interpretation is that if there is no provision for physical
connection to the PSTN, the RTTE does not apply.
Any takers??? I'll copy the TREG and NEBS gurus on this one as well.
Thx,
Joe
-Original Message-
From: Richard Hughes [mailto:rehug...@nortelnetworks.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 5:57 PM
To: 'Joe Finlayson'; EMC-PSTC (E-mail)
Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Joe,
The RTTED applies to the following types of equipment:
1) Radio equipment
2) Terminal equipment.
The Directive also contains the following definitions:
'telecommunications terminal equipment' means a product enabling
communication or a relevant component thereof which is intended to be
connected directly or indirectly by any means whatsoever to interfaces of
public telecommunications networks (that is to say, telecommunications
networks used wholly or partly for the provision of publicly available
telecommunications services).
'interface' means
(i) a network termination point, which is a physical connection point at
which a user is provided with access to public telecommunications network,
and/or
(ii)an air interface specifying the radio path between radio equipment
and their technical specifications
It will be seen from the above that the RTTED is not limited to PSTN since
it is quite possible that a network operator could provide a business with
an E1 interface, for instance.
Peter,
It is for the manufacturer to decide to which market, e.g. terminal
equipment or central office equipment only, they whish to sell their product
into. EN 60950 has nothing to do with it since this standard can be used to
evaluate either type of product - and other non-telecom ICT products as well
of course.
Simplistically, if the product does not have an input or output voltage in
the range 50-1000Vac, 75-1500Vdc then the LVD does not apply {ref. Article 1
of LVD}. Clearly, if the LVD does apply then certain editions of EN 60950
do provide a presumption of conformity with the safety objectives of the
LVD. If the LVD does not apply then that should not be taken as an excuse
to not comply with EN 60950, but that's another debate entirely.
If the RTTED applies then the EMC is not applied as such, because the EMC
requirements are then covered by the RTTED. However, this is largely an
administrative technicality because Article 3(1)(b) points to the EMC
Directive for its essential requirements, just as Article 3(1)(a) points to
the LVD for safety (minus any upper or lower voltage limit).
Well, that's enough personal opinions expressed on this matter for me...
Richard Hughes
-Original Message-
From: Joe Finlayson [ mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com
mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com ]
Sent: 01 October 2002 17:52
To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail)
Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Peter,
As this product does not connect to the PSTN and is destined for the
Central Office only, I would say the RTTE Directive does not apply as the
scope does not include Network Equipment.
Thx,
Joe
-Original Message-
From: Peter Merguerian [ mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il
mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il ]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:33 AM
To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail)
Subject: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Dear All,
For an equipment where the E1 has been assessed for SELV under EN 60
950 (ie for intrabuilding use and not subject to overvoltages), does the
equipment fall under the RTTE Directive or can the manufacturer declare
compliance to the LVD and EMC Directives.
If under the RTTE Directive, what telecom standard applies to the E1
intrabuilding interface?
This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If
you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate,
distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you
received this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding the
message and its attachments to the sender.
PETER S. MERGUERIAN
Technical Director
I.T.L. (Product Testing) Ltd.
26 Hacharoshet St., POB 211
Or Yehuda 60251, Israel
Tel: + 972-(0)3-5339022 Fax: + 972-(0)3-5339019
Mobile: + 972-(0)54-838175
http://www.itl.co.il http://www.itl.co.il
http://www.i-spec.com http
RE: RTTE and E-Mark applicable?
Thank you all for helping. I believe I know the right approach now for devices that can straddle the fence. It will be interesting if there is more clarification about this before Oct 2002 like Mr. Woodgate mentioned. Neil, my scenario for the laptop needing E-Mark would then only apply to the cigarrette lighter adapter that powers the laptop, simalr to your hands-free kit scenario for cellphones. Thank you all again. W W --- Barker, Neil neil.bar...@e2vtechnologies.com wrote: I believe that your interpretation of the marking requirements is correct. Devices that are intended for use in vehicles need to be e-marked, and devices for use elsewhere need to be CE marked. Devices intended for both environments will need both markings. I am concerned, however, with your interpretation of the type of devices that may need to be e-marked. A laptop would only need to be e-marked if it was intended to be installed in a vehicle. A regular laptop that is simply used in a vehicle is not subject to the Automotive EMC Directive. If this were not the case, then potentially all laptops could be used in vehicles and all would require to be e-marked! Similarly for radio devices. A mobile radio (receiver or transmitter) that is intended for installation in a vehicle does need to be e-marked. However, a portable radio that can be carried in and out of a vehicle (e.g. cellphone) does not require to be e-marked, but any adaptor that is intended to be permanently installed in the vehicle for use with such a portable device would need to be e-marked. So, your cellphone does not need to be e-marked, but the installed hands-free adaptor does need to be e-marked. I hope that this clarifies the position for you. Best regards, Neil R. Barker Compliance Engineering Manager E2V Technologies Waterhouse Lane Chelmsford Essex CM1 2QU U.K. Tel: +44 (01245) 453616 Fax: +44 (01245) 453410 E-mail: neil.bar...@e2vtechnologies.com -Original Message- From: w w [mailto:kro...@yahoo.com] Sent: 21 August 2002 19:21 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RTTE and E-Mark applicable? Hello Group, 1) Assuming I have learned corrrectly from past discussions, devices that can fall under two EU Directives: examples: Laptop's used in vehicle (E-Mark requirements) and non-vehicle (CE-Mark requirements)environments. or Radio devices used in vehicles (E-Mark CE Mark/RTTE) would need to show compliance to both EU Directives...entailing a combined test plan and placing both marks on the device(E CE Mark). One does not supercede the other. Thank you in advance. W W __ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list ATTACHMENT part 2 application/octet-stream name=Neil R. Barker (E-mail).vcf __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: RTTE and E-Mark applicable?
I read in !emc-pstc that w w kro...@yahoo.com wrote (in 2002082118211 9.9182.qm...@web14911.mail.yahoo.com) about 'RTTE and E-Mark applicable?' on Wed, 21 Aug 2002: Hello Group, 1) Assuming I have learned corrrectly from past discussions, devices that can fall under two EU Directives: examples: Laptop's used in vehicle (E-Mark requirements) and non-vehicle (CE-Mark requirements)environments. or Radio devices used in vehicles (E-Mark CE Mark/RTTE) would need to show compliance to both EU Directives...entailing a combined test plan and placing both marks on the device(E CE Mark). That APPEARS to be so, but is clearly not in the least sensible or practicable. It would mean that **all electrical and electronic equipment that might ever be used in a vehicle, even just once** would need to have the E-Mark and be double-tested. For example, I've used in my car: - oscilloscope; - audio signal generator; - sound level meter; - audio spectrum analyser; - digital multimeter; - two laptops. Work is going on to resolve this, without causing more than minimal embarrassment to the perpetrators of the situation, before the Automotive Directive comes into effect. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: RTTE and E-Mark applicable?
To kro...@yahoo.com I think one premise of this list server is that folks participating identify themselves.somehow kro...@yahoo.com leaves a bit to be desired. Regards, Kaz Gawrzyjal Dell Computer Corp. -Original Message- From: w w [mailto:kro...@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 1:47 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Fwd: RTTE and E-Mark applicable? Note: forwarded message attached. OopsQuestion is Is this correct, the scenario I proposed? Thx again __ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: RTTE EU notifications - fees
Hi Amund, Notifications are free in the EU. Switzerland is not member of the EU , and in the guys there do not know exactly -or don not want to comply- with the rest of Europe. Both for the notification procedure, AND the associated fees, but also for the full implications of the RTTE directive. In switzerland the principal of manufacturers responsability is not fully accepted. The bakom still insists in verification before allowing the equipment to be used. Other EC countries accept any notification (esp. if supported by NB declarations) if not contradictory to the national frequencies table, and verify afterwards steered by complaints. Not switzerland. Try to contact Mr. Zulauf and ask him why one should pay for them to note (listen); as that is the basic function of a notification procedure. Other EC countries -fa the netherlands- will never comment on any notification; some will reply by sending a confirmation of receiption. Gert Gremmen ce-test -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of am...@westin-emission.no Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 10:31 AM To: Forum Safety-emc Subject: RTTE EU notifications - fees Hi all, We have recently send a lot of RTTE EU notifications to the European telecom authorities. We did also include Switzerland, because the radios system shall be put into the Swiss marked and in addition we have also thought that Switzerland accept the RTTE directive. Anyway, we have now received an invoice (CHF 200,-) from the Swiss authorities for handling the EU notification. Is that correct ? Isn't this EU notification service for free? Best regards Amund Westin, Oslo, NORWAY --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: RTTE EU notifications - fees
We receive the invoices too. Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International -Original Message- From: am...@westin-emission.no [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 4:31 AM To: Forum Safety-emc Subject: RTTE EU notifications - fees Hi all, We have recently send a lot of RTTE EU notifications to the European telecom authorities. We did also include Switzerland, because the radios system shall be put into the Swiss marked and in addition we have also thought that Switzerland accept the RTTE directive. Anyway, we have now received an invoice (CHF 200,-) from the Swiss authorities for handling the EU notification. Is that correct ? Isn't this EU notification service for free? Best regards Amund Westin, Oslo, NORWAY --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: RTTE EU notifications - fees
I have heard authorities saying that some companies notify everything, including receivers, etc. while only the equipment (=transmitters) which does operate in non-harmonised frequency bands should be notified. I guess this fee is a way to make those notifying to consider if this is really needed. Best regards, Ari Honkala -Original Message- From: ext am...@westin-emission.no [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no] Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 11:31 AM To: Forum Safety-emc Subject: RTTE EU notifications - fees Hi all, We have recently send a lot of RTTE EU notifications to the European telecom authorities. We did also include Switzerland, because the radios system shall be put into the Swiss marked and in addition we have also thought that Switzerland accept the RTTE directive. Anyway, we have now received an invoice (CHF 200,-) from the Swiss authorities for handling the EU notification. Is that correct ? Isn't this EU notification service for free? Best regards Amund Westin, Oslo, NORWAY --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: RTTE Directive
Hi Group, John etc. The RTTE has provision Network Access essential requirements (for wired products) to be added if the commission find a need. Currently, there are no requirements except for those added to cover France Telecom. Parts of the French POTs network use old technology where certain transformers (possibly A type relays) become saturated and thus will not pass any audio if the line current drawn exceeds 60mA. For an interim period, the commission have included the Line feeding tests (60mA current limit) from TBR21 as an applicable, essential requirement for France. There is a withdrawal date for this requirement so it to will soon vanish. I agree with John, many sales chains are unhappy taking product with no network access test results, we therefore choose to voluntarily apply the TBR standards as a means of demonstrating compliance with the former, applied essential requirements to show to any interested parties. This testing can of course be of further benefit, as many reports can be used in other countries to support an overseas approval application. This is particulalry true of more modern technologies like ISDN BRI and PRI, ONP etc. A good example of this is TBR3 which is widely accepted as the Euro / CEPT ISDN test standard. Investigate the standards you apply as part of any One stop multi-country approvals strategy. I also agree that other, design standards may be applied. The directive calls for all PTOs to provide a list of interface specifications for the ports available on their networks. Many PTOs are quoting earlier national specification for this purpose (I see some BS specs on the BT site) and many refer to the NETs and TBRs from previous years. Do not forget that Wireless interfaces do still have connection requirements under the directive, where possible these are harmonised (ETSI) but due to deviation in frequency allocations and terrain, many remain based on National standards. This is only a brief answer, obviously there is a lot more content in the actual body of the directive. This should be essential (but not bed time) reading for this subject! the 99/5/EC directive can be downloaded from our favourite EUROPA server. Hope this helps. Best regards Bill Ellingford Approvals Conformance manager Motion Media Technology Ltd -Original Message- From: j...@aol.com [mailto:j...@aol.com] Sent: 08 May 2002 17:06 To: jjuh...@fiberoptions.com Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: RTTE Directive In a message dated 5/8/2002, John Juhasz writes: it appears that it is not required to test the interface itself to 'telecom specs' such as those in the CTR21. Hi John: Your interpretation is correct. For wireline POTS products/interfaces, the only requirements that apply under the RTTE directive are safety and EMC. There are no regulatory requirements whatsoever for the type of specifications called out in CTR 21. CTR 21 ceased to be a regulatory requirement when the RTTE directive came into force on April 8, 2000. That being said, many manufacturers are uncomfortable with having no regulatory requirements for telecom. One option is to continue voluntary testing to CTR 21. Another option is to obtain the individual reference standards that the RTTE directive requires each operator of a public network to publish. Most of the major operators have posted these on their web sites. A third option is to review CTR 21 and the relevant reference specifications, then use engineering judgment to design and test your interface. This is the preferred approach if you are seeking minimum cost and/or maximum compatibility with the various national networks. The bottom line is that the telecom aspects of your product performance are now a matter between you and your customer, rather than between you and the regulators. Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2848 http://www.randolph-telecom.com *
Re: RTTE Directive
Hi John, You are right. The only requirements are for EMC and Safety (according to the RTTE directive). I remember there was only 1 (temporary) exception, important if the POTS equipment will be used in France. (drawn current 80 mA) Probably this requirement is gone now, but be careful. Success! Theo Hildering Hildering Telecom Consulting The Netherlands On 08-05-2002 16:46, John Juhasz jjuh...@fiberoptions.com wrote: Having been out of the telecom arena for a few years, I am seeking some clarification on the RTTE Directive as it relates to a single-line, simple, analog POTS unit. With regard to specific testing of the telephone interface, the way I am reading the directive and associated guidance documents on Europa.EU http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/rtte/gener.htm it appears that it is not required to test the interface itself to 'telecom specs' such as those in the CTR21. Testing to those specs is recommended only to ensure that the product works properly when connected to the PSTN and it doesn't harm the network. Am I misunderstanding this? GE Interlogix John A. Juhasz Product Qualification Compliance Engr. Fiber Options Div. 80 Orville Dr. Suite 102, Bohemia, NY 11716 631-419-2324, Fax: 631-567-8322 --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list Deze e-mail is door E-mail VirusScanner van Planet Internet gecontroleerd op virussen. Op http://www.planet.nl/evs staat een verwijzing naar de actuele lijst waar op wordt gecontroleerd. --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: RTTE Directive
John, A few years ago, the European Commission has determined that there is no need for technical requirements against which to assess wired telecommunication products. Further work on the technical basis for regulation (TBRs) has been suspended and many CTRs (CTR 21 included) have been removed from the list of harmonized standards under the RTTE Directive. The only requirements deemed essential for wired telecommunication apparatus are the safety and EMC requirements. John Radomski Clare Inc. John Juhasz jjuhasz@Fiberoptions.To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' emc-p...@ieee.org com cc: Sent by: Subject: RTTE Directive owner-emc-pstc@majordo mo.ieee.org 05/08/02 10:46 AM Please respond to John Juhasz Having been out of the telecom arena for a few years, I am seeking some clarification on the RTTE Directive as it relates to a single-line, simple, analog POTS unit. With regard to specific testing of the telephone interface, the way I am reading the directive and associated guidance documents on Europa.EU http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/rtte/gener.htm it appears that it is not required to test the interface itself to 'telecom specs' such as those in the CTR21. Testing to those specs is recommended only to ensure that the product works properly when connected to the PSTN and it doesn't harm the network. Am I misunderstanding this? GE Interlogix John A. Juhasz Product Qualification Compliance Engr. Fiber Options Div. 80 Orville Dr. Suite 102, Bohemia, NY 11716 631-419-2324, Fax: 631-567-8322 --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com 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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: RTTE Directive
In a message dated 5/8/2002, John Juhasz writes: it appears that it is not required to test the interface itself to 'telecom specs' such as those in the CTR21. Hi John: Your interpretation is correct. For wireline POTS products/interfaces, the only requirements that apply under the RTTE directive are safety and EMC. There are no regulatory requirements whatsoever for the type of specifications called out in CTR 21. CTR 21 ceased to be a regulatory requirement when the RTTE directive came into force on April 8, 2000. That being said, many manufacturers are uncomfortable with having no regulatory requirements for telecom. One option is to continue voluntary testing to CTR 21. Another option is to obtain the individual reference standards that the RTTE directive requires each operator of a public network to publish. Most of the major operators have posted these on their web sites. A third option is to review CTR 21 and the relevant reference specifications, then use engineering judgment to design and test your interface. This is the preferred approach if you are seeking minimum cost and/or maximum compatibility with the various national networks. The bottom line is that the telecom aspects of your product performance are now a matter between you and your customer, rather than between you and the regulators. Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2848 http://www.randolph-telecom.com
RE: RTTE and video out
This equipment isn't a radio transmitter and also is not a terminal so is outside the RTTE. Ciao Paolo At 12:12 3/13/02 +0100, Roger Magnuson wrote: Don't think so as the equipment is using the antenna cable. As VCRs are not radio terminals this can't be either. Roger Magnuson TGC Communication AB Sweden -Original Message- From: treg-appro...@world.std.com [mailto:treg-appro...@world.std.com]On Behalf Of Kim Boll Jensen Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:49 AM To: EMC-PSTC; treg Subject: RTTE and video out Hi all I have an equipment which can convert audio and video (phono connector) signal from a PC to a normal HF antenna signal which can be transmitted though a normal antenna cable in the house to your radio and TV sets. The voltage of the HF signal is the same as normal received from an antenna. Does this product fall under the RTTE directive ? According to my interpretation the definitions in art. 2 c) and d) say that it has to be used for TX to be under this directive. What do you think ? Best regards, Kim Boll Jensen Bolls Raadgivning Denmark -- Paolo Gemma Siemens Information and Communication Network spa Microwave Networks MW RD NSA EMC SS Padana sup. KM 158 20060 Cassina de'Pecchi (MI) Italy phone +39 02 9526 6587fax +39 02 9526 6203 mobile +39 348 3690185 e-mail paolo.ge...@icn.siemens.it --
RE: RTTE and video out
Difficult one to call but this device may be subject to RTTE as, depends on how it is connected and used. It will probably have a 75 Ohm output which will match a TV antenna impedance and thus be capable of transmitting (albeit a short distance). Can you get around this with warnings in the User Guide? Bill Ellingford -Original Message- From: Kim Boll Jensen [mailto:kimb...@post7.tele.dk] Sent: 13 March 2002 10:49 To: EMC-PSTC; treg Subject: RTTE and video out Hi all I have an equipment which can convert audio and video (phono connector) signal from a PC to a normal HF antenna signal which can be transmitted though a normal antenna cable in the house to your radio and TV sets. The voltage of the HF signal is the same as normal received from an antenna. Does this product fall under the RTTE directive ? According to my interpretation the definitions in art. 2 c) and d) say that it has to be used for TX to be under this directive. What do you think ? Best regards, Kim Boll Jensen Bolls Raadgivning Denmark *
RE: RTTE and video out
No, for a product to fall within the radio categorie of the RTTE directive the signal need to be airborn. Suitable warnings about the products use may help avoid misunderstandings regarding applicability. Tha phrase can be transmitted to in your mail is an example of how an ambiguous operating manual may create a problem regarding applicability of the RTTE. It should say is meant to be transmitted.. or must be transmitted . You probably understand. A 5 Watt transmitter can also be used on normal antenna cable, but is meant to be used with an antenna. Even equipment containing a transmitter and antenna do not necessarily fall under the RTTE directive ! I FA am currently working on a radar system meant to protrude the ground and detect piping and other irregularities. Although substantial power is fed into the soil the emission spectrum remains below EN 55022 limits. As the equipment was not meant to transmit and communicate by radio waves, the RTTE was found not applicable. Gert Gremmen ce-test -Original Message- From: treg-appro...@world.std.com [mailto:treg-appro...@world.std.com]On Behalf Of Kim Boll Jensen Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:49 AM To: EMC-PSTC; treg Subject: RTTE and video out Hi all I have an equipment which can convert audio and video (phono connector) signal from a PC to a normal HF antenna signal which can be transmitted though a normal antenna cable in the house to your radio and TV sets. The voltage of the HF signal is the same as normal received from an antenna. Does this product fall under the RTTE directive ? According to my interpretation the definitions in art. 2 c) and d) say that it has to be used for TX to be under this directive. What do you think ? Best regards, Kim Boll Jensen Bolls Raadgivning Denmark --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com 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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: RTTE and video out
Don't think so as the equipment is using the antenna cable. As VCRs are not radio terminals this can't be either. Roger Magnuson TGC Communication AB Sweden -Original Message- From: treg-appro...@world.std.com [mailto:treg-appro...@world.std.com]On Behalf Of Kim Boll Jensen Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:49 AM To: EMC-PSTC; treg Subject: RTTE and video out Hi all I have an equipment which can convert audio and video (phono connector) signal from a PC to a normal HF antenna signal which can be transmitted though a normal antenna cable in the house to your radio and TV sets. The voltage of the HF signal is the same as normal received from an antenna. Does this product fall under the RTTE directive ? According to my interpretation the definitions in art. 2 c) and d) say that it has to be used for TX to be under this directive. What do you think ? Best regards, Kim Boll Jensen Bolls Raadgivning Denmark
Re: RTTE
Hi I'm sorry if I have confused things a little. But I visited this page: http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/rtte/implem.htm And was so naive to think that when it says Adopted there was no national deviations, sorry. Best regards, Kim Boll Jensen Bolls Andre, Pierre-Marie skriver: I thought that Hungary and Czec Republic are RTTE like,not 100% RTTE according to the type of interface some minor difference may exist (label,DOC,...) Pierre-Marie Andre Intel Sophia Senior Approval Engineer -Original Message- From: Kim Boll Jensen [mailto:kimb...@post7.tele.dk] Sent: mercredi 6 mars 2002 11:44 To: richwo...@tycoint.com Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: RTTE Hi all Here are a list of all countries which at the moment have implemented the RTTE directive 100%: Belgium Denmark UK Finland France Greece Holland Italy Iceland Ireland Liechtenstein Luxembourg Norway Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland Czech Republic Germany Hungary Austria richwo...@tycoint.com skriver: Have any European states that are not EU or EFTA members adopted the RTTE Directive and Notificaion process? In other words, will any other European countries allow a radio product to be placed on their market if the processes of the RTTE Directive are followed without the need for any other special national process to be followed? Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com 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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list attachment: kimboll.vcf
RE: RTTE In Czech Republic
After reading the document, I find that this is not anywhere near a transposition of the RTTE Directive. Rather it is a very high level telcom law. So, does know the reference of the actual document that transposes the RTTE and where to find it? Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International -Original Message- From: WOODS, RICHARD Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 8:30 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: RTTE I found the english document at http://www.mdcr.cz/english/index14.htm Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International -Original Message- From: h.knud...@niros.com [mailto:h.knud...@niros.com] Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 3:10 AM To: richwo...@tycoint.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: SV: RTTE Hello Richard, About Czech Republic, you may find the information in English on: http://www.ctu.cz/index_a.htm The Czech legislation Act No. 151/2000 Coll. on telecommunication and changes in other Acts may be found on http://www.mdcr.cz/tp1.htm (it is not accessible at the moment). Best regards Helge Knudsen Test Approval manager Niros Telecommunication Hirsemarken 5 DK-3520 Farum Denmark Tel +45 44 34 22 51 Fax +45 44 99 28 08 email h.knud...@niros.com -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: richwo...@tycoint.com [mailto:richwo...@tycoint.com] Sendt: 6. marts 2002 14:07 Til: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Emne: RE: RTTE I just investigated Hungary and found the following variances for radio: A Hungarian national (local manufacturer or importer) is responsible for compliance including signing the Declaration of Conformity. The user instuctions and DoC must be in the Hungarian language. Annex VIII includes the harmonized bands in Hungary. For some bands, the use of the alert symbol is not required and neither is notification. Unfortunatuly, the Czec directive is not available in English on the website, so I have not been able to determine if there are any deviations from the EU RTTE. Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International -Original Message- From: Andre, Pierre-Marie [mailto:pierre-marie.an...@intel.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 6:13 AM To: 'Kim Boll Jensen'; richwo...@tycoint.com Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: RTTE I thought that Hungary and Czec Republic are RTTE like,not 100% RTTE according to the type of interface some minor difference may exist (label,DOC,...) Pierre-Marie Andre Intel Sophia Senior Approval Engineer -Original Message- From: Kim Boll Jensen [mailto:kimb...@post7.tele.dk] Sent: mercredi 6 mars 2002 11:44 To: richwo...@tycoint.com Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: RTTE Hi all Here are a list of all countries which at the moment have implemented the RTTE directive 100%: Belgium Denmark UK Finland France Greece Holland Italy Iceland Ireland Liechtenstein Luxembourg Norway Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland Czech Republic Germany Hungary Austria richwo...@tycoint.com skriver: Have any European states that are not EU or EFTA members adopted the RTTE Directive and Notificaion process? In other words, will any other European countries allow a radio product to be placed on their market if the processes of the RTTE Directive are followed without the need for any other special national process to be followed? Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com 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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com 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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: RTTE DoC Philosophy Question
Both solution are valid. In the RTTE you can find an article said that at your choice you can demonstrate the conformity to the essential requirements 3.1b using the procedure of the EMC directive if applicable. I don't suggest this, for me, complicate way two declaration two documentation.. You can demonstrate the compliance of the equipment to the essential requirements 3.1a using HS listing on the OJ under the RTTE directive or under the EMC directive this is clearly wrote on the note of the OJ: NOTES: 1. In addition, standards published under Directives 73/23/EC and 89/336/EEC may be used to demon- strate compliance with Articles 3(1)(a) and 3(1)(b) of Directive 1999/5/EC. And make only one DoC for the RTTE directive using the standards of the EMC. But I don't understand the reason to use the standard of the EMC directive for a RTTE equipments. Ciao Paolo At 12:27 3/6/02 -0500, Kevin Harris wrote: Hello, I just had an interesting conversation with the head of a approvals authority for a country in Europe for our type of products. The discussion centred around DoCs for the RTTE directive. His claim was since I had a product that has a RTTE element to it then I just make a declaration to the RTTE directive and not to the EMC directive. To support his claim he refers to Article 3.1(b) of the RTTE directive which states 1.The following essential requirements are applicable to all apparatus and part (b) the protection requirements with respect to electromagnetic compatibility contained in Directive 89/336/EEC. His interpretation is, then, that any standard published in the OJ for the EMC standard is (by this clause) also valid for the RTTE directive and one should make their declaration accordingly. My interpretation of this statement is slightly different. I believe that I cannot make an RTTE directive DoC using EMC published standards. I felt that the intention of this clause meant that just because you are declaring to the RTTE directive you are in no way relieved of the obligations of the EMC directive. Accordingly we produce a EMC declaration and a RTTE declaration. The EMC declaration uses standards published in the EMC OJ to show compliance and the RTTE directive DoC is to the standards published in the OJ for that directive. In the end I suppose this is all semantics as you end up doing the same test suite regardless but What are the feeling of this group. Do you agree with either position? Do you have another interpretation? Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: harr...@dscltd.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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com 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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list -- Paolo Gemma Siemens Information and Communication Network spa Microwave Networks MW RD NSA EMC SS Padana sup. KM 158 20060 Cassina de'Pecchi (MI) Italy phone +39 02 9526 6587fax +39 02 9526 6203 mobile +39 348 3690185 e-mail paolo.ge...@icn.siemens.it --
Re: RTTE DoC Philosophy Question
Kevin, Here is my interpretation: since the requirements of the EMC Directive are integral part of the essential requirements under the RTTE Directive, a single declaration to the RTTE Directive should be sufficient. But if the scope of the RTTE Directive regarding your product is not completely clear or you feel that your product may be regarded as failing under either directive, depending on its various application, you may choose to declare conformity under both directives (dual declaration). John Radomski Clare Kevin Harris harr...@dscltd.com To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) emc-p...@ieee.org Sent by: cc: owner-emc-pstc@majordom Subject: RTTE DoC Philosophy Question o.ieee.org 03/06/02 12:27 PM Please respond to Kevin Harris Hello, I just had an interesting conversation with the head of a approvals authority for a country in Europe for our type of products. The discussion centred around DoCs for the RTTE directive. His claim was since I had a product that has a RTTE element to it then I just make a declaration to the RTTE directive and not to the EMC directive. To support his claim he refers to Article 3.1(b) of the RTTE directive which states 1.The following essential requirements are applicable to all apparatus and part (b) the protection requirements with respect to electromagnetic compatibility contained in Directive 89/336/EEC. His interpretation is, then, that any standard published in the OJ for the EMC standard is (by this clause) also valid for the RTTE directive and one should make their declaration accordingly. My interpretation of this statement is slightly different. I believe that I cannot make an RTTE directive DoC using EMC published standards. I felt that the intention of this clause meant that just because you are declaring to the RTTE directive you are in no way relieved of the obligations of the EMC directive. Accordingly we produce a EMC declaration and a RTTE declaration. The EMC declaration uses standards published in the EMC OJ to show compliance and the RTTE directive DoC is to the standards published in the OJ for that directive. In the end I suppose this is all semantics as you end up doing the same test suite regardless but What are the feeling of this group. Do you agree with either position? Do you have another interpretation? Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: harr...@dscltd.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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com 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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
RE: RTTE DoC Philosophy Question
In my opinion, you must issue a DoC according to the procedures specified in the RTTE Directive and all of the essential requirements of Article 3 must be addressed. Article 10 allows you to follow the conformity assessment procedures of the EMC and LV Directives for the essential requirements covered by those directives. I have followed that route and my DoC has three sections: safety, EMC and radio, and includes the following statements: . . .conforms with the essential requirements for protection of health and safety of the user and any other persons by application of the following standards: [list of safety standards] and conforms with the essential requirements for electromagnetic compatibility by application of the following standards: [list of safety standards] and conforms with the essential requirement for effective use of the radio spectrum by application of essential radio test suites included in [reference of standard] and therefore complies with the essential requirements and provisions of the Radio and Telecommunication Terminal Equipment Directive, 99/5/EC, when installed according to the installation instructions and used as intended. Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International -Original Message- From: Kevin Harris [mailto:harr...@dscltd.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 12:28 PM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RTTE DoC Philosophy Question Hello, I just had an interesting conversation with the head of a approvals authority for a country in Europe for our type of products. The discussion centred around DoCs for the RTTE directive. His claim was since I had a product that has a RTTE element to it then I just make a declaration to the RTTE directive and not to the EMC directive. To support his claim he refers to Article 3.1(b) of the RTTE directive which states 1.The following essential requirements are applicable to all apparatus and part (b) the protection requirements with respect to electromagnetic compatibility contained in Directive 89/336/EEC. His interpretation is, then, that any standard published in the OJ for the EMC standard is (by this clause) also valid for the RTTE directive and one should make their declaration accordingly. My interpretation of this statement is slightly different. I believe that I cannot make an RTTE directive DoC using EMC published standards. I felt that the intention of this clause meant that just because you are declaring to the RTTE directive you are in no way relieved of the obligations of the EMC directive. Accordingly we produce a EMC declaration and a RTTE declaration. The EMC declaration uses standards published in the EMC OJ to show compliance and the RTTE directive DoC is to the standards published in the OJ for that directive. In the end I suppose this is all semantics as you end up doing the same test suite regardless but What are the feeling of this group. Do you agree with either position? Do you have another interpretation? Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: harr...@dscltd.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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com 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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com 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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: RTTE DoC Philosophy Question
Hi Kevin, I am inclined to side with the regulatory authority. If you have a device that has an RTTE component in it, than that directive applies. Since the RTTE Directive requires compliance to the EMC and LV directives in order to declare conformity to it, it is not necessary to declare to them individually. If the RTTE Directive did not require conformity to either the EMC or LV directives, then those would have to be applied and declared to separately. Kind Regards, Sam Wismer Engineering Manager ACS, Inc. Phone: (770) 831-8048 Fax: (770) 831-8598 Web: www.acstestlab.com -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Harris Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 12:28 PM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RTTE DoC Philosophy Question Hello, I just had an interesting conversation with the head of a approvals authority for a country in Europe for our type of products. The discussion centred around DoCs for the RTTE directive. His claim was since I had a product that has a RTTE element to it then I just make a declaration to the RTTE directive and not to the EMC directive. To support his claim he refers to Article 3.1(b) of the RTTE directive which states 1.The following essential requirements are applicable to all apparatus and part (b) the protection requirements with respect to electromagnetic compatibility contained in Directive 89/336/EEC. His interpretation is, then, that any standard published in the OJ for the EMC standard is (by this clause) also valid for the RTTE directive and one should make their declaration accordingly. My interpretation of this statement is slightly different. I believe that I cannot make an RTTE directive DoC using EMC published standards. I felt that the intention of this clause meant that just because you are declaring to the RTTE directive you are in no way relieved of the obligations of the EMC directive. Accordingly we produce a EMC declaration and a RTTE declaration. The EMC declaration uses standards published in the EMC OJ to show compliance and the RTTE directive DoC is to the standards published in the OJ for that directive. In the end I suppose this is all semantics as you end up doing the same test suite regardless but What are the feeling of this group. Do you agree with either position? Do you have another interpretation? Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: harr...@dscltd.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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com 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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com 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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: RTTE DoC Philosophy Question
Kevin, Council Directive 99/5/EC does call out directives 73/23/EEC and 89/336/EEC. Since some customers are not aware of the linkage, listing all three directives on the DofC avoids having to 'educate the customer'. Either way, standards applied will tell the story. David -Original Message- From: Kevin Harris [mailto:harr...@dscltd.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 12:28 PM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RTTE DoC Philosophy Question Hello, I just had an interesting conversation with the head of a approvals authority for a country in Europe for our type of products. The discussion centred around DoCs for the RTTE directive. His claim was since I had a product that has a RTTE element to it then I just make a declaration to the RTTE directive and not to the EMC directive. To support his claim he refers to Article 3.1(b) of the RTTE directive which states 1.The following essential requirements are applicable to all apparatus and part (b) the protection requirements with respect to electromagnetic compatibility contained in Directive 89/336/EEC. His interpretation is, then, that any standard published in the OJ for the EMC standard is (by this clause) also valid for the RTTE directive and one should make their declaration accordingly. My interpretation of this statement is slightly different. I believe that I cannot make an RTTE directive DoC using EMC published standards. I felt that the intention of this clause meant that just because you are declaring to the RTTE directive you are in no way relieved of the obligations of the EMC directive. Accordingly we produce a EMC declaration and a RTTE declaration. The EMC declaration uses standards published in the EMC OJ to show compliance and the RTTE directive DoC is to the standards published in the OJ for that directive. In the end I suppose this is all semantics as you end up doing the same test suite regardless but What are the feeling of this group. Do you agree with either position? Do you have another interpretation? Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: harr...@dscltd.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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com 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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com 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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: RTTE DoC Philosophy Question
Kevin, The OJ for the RTTE Directive lists EMC (EN55022, EN55024, etc) and Safety (EN60950, EN60065, etc) standards as well as the Radio and Telecom standards (well there are no requirements for wireline telco listed). So, if you are declaring to the RTTE then you should be covered for EMC and Safety since they are listed as essential requirements in the RTTE OJ. Dave Clement Motorola Inc. Global Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P:508-851-8259 F:508-851-8512 C:508-725-9689 mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com -Original Message- From: Kevin Harris [mailto:harr...@dscltd.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 12:28 PM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RTTE DoC Philosophy Question Hello, I just had an interesting conversation with the head of a approvals authority for a country in Europe for our type of products. The discussion centred around DoCs for the RTTE directive. His claim was since I had a product that has a RTTE element to it then I just make a declaration to the RTTE directive and not to the EMC directive. To support his claim he refers to Article 3.1(b) of the RTTE directive which states 1.The following essential requirements are applicable to all apparatus and part (b) the protection requirements with respect to electromagnetic compatibility contained in Directive 89/336/EEC. His interpretation is, then, that any standard published in the OJ for the EMC standard is (by this clause) also valid for the RTTE directive and one should make their declaration accordingly. My interpretation of this statement is slightly different. I believe that I cannot make an RTTE directive DoC using EMC published standards. I felt that the intention of this clause meant that just because you are declaring to the RTTE directive you are in no way relieved of the obligations of the EMC directive. Accordingly we produce a EMC declaration and a RTTE declaration. The EMC declaration uses standards published in the EMC OJ to show compliance and the RTTE directive DoC is to the standards published in the OJ for that directive. In the end I suppose this is all semantics as you end up doing the same test suite regardless but What are the feeling of this group. Do you agree with either position? Do you have another interpretation? Best Regards, Kevin Harris Manager, Approval Services Digital Security Controls 3301 Langstaff Road Concord, Ontario CANADA L4K 4L2 Tel: +1 905 760 3000 Ext. 2378 Fax +1 905 760 3020 Email: harr...@dscltd.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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com 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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: RTTE
I just investigated Hungary and found the following variances for radio: A Hungarian national (local manufacturer or importer) is responsible for compliance including signing the Declaration of Conformity. The user instuctions and DoC must be in the Hungarian language. Annex VIII includes the harmonized bands in Hungary. For some bands, the use of the alert symbol is not required and neither is notification. Unfortunatuly, the Czec directive is not available in English on the website, so I have not been able to determine if there are any deviations from the EU RTTE. Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International -Original Message- From: Andre, Pierre-Marie [mailto:pierre-marie.an...@intel.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 6:13 AM To: 'Kim Boll Jensen'; richwo...@tycoint.com Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: RTTE I thought that Hungary and Czec Republic are RTTE like,not 100% RTTE according to the type of interface some minor difference may exist (label,DOC,...) Pierre-Marie Andre Intel Sophia Senior Approval Engineer -Original Message- From: Kim Boll Jensen [mailto:kimb...@post7.tele.dk] Sent: mercredi 6 mars 2002 11:44 To: richwo...@tycoint.com Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: RTTE Hi all Here are a list of all countries which at the moment have implemented the RTTE directive 100%: Belgium Denmark UK Finland France Greece Holland Italy Iceland Ireland Liechtenstein Luxembourg Norway Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland Czech Republic Germany Hungary Austria richwo...@tycoint.com skriver: Have any European states that are not EU or EFTA members adopted the RTTE Directive and Notificaion process? In other words, will any other European countries allow a radio product to be placed on their market if the processes of the RTTE Directive are followed without the need for any other special national process to be followed? Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com 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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com 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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
RE: RTTE
I thought that Hungary and Czec Republic are RTTE like,not 100% RTTE according to the type of interface some minor difference may exist (label,DOC,...) Pierre-Marie Andre Intel Sophia Senior Approval Engineer -Original Message- From: Kim Boll Jensen [mailto:kimb...@post7.tele.dk] Sent: mercredi 6 mars 2002 11:44 To: richwo...@tycoint.com Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: RTTE Hi all Here are a list of all countries which at the moment have implemented the RTTE directive 100%: Belgium Denmark UK Finland France Greece Holland Italy Iceland Ireland Liechtenstein Luxembourg Norway Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland Czech Republic Germany Hungary Austria richwo...@tycoint.com skriver: Have any European states that are not EU or EFTA members adopted the RTTE Directive and Notificaion process? In other words, will any other European countries allow a radio product to be placed on their market if the processes of the RTTE Directive are followed without the need for any ot From - Sun Mar 10 05:16:34 2002 Return-Path: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Received: from ruebert.ieee.org ([140.98.193.10]) by mtiwgwc28.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id 20020306105605.cpc24579.mtiwgwc28.worldnet.att@ruebert.ieee.org; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 10:56:05 + Received: (from daemon@localhost) by ruebert.ieee.org (Switch-2.1.0/Switch-2.1.0) id g26AhRS25559 for emc-pstc-resent; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 05:43:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: 3c85f2db.dcfb1...@post7.tele.dk List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 11:43:39 +0100 From: Kim Boll Jensen kimb...@post7.tele.dk X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [da] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: da MIME-Version: 1.0 To: richwo...@tycoint.com CC: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: RTTE References: 846BF526A205F84BA2B6045BBF7E9A6A01F13EC8@flbocexu05 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=EE982B8B8087C7659CE469C8 Sender: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kim Boll Jensen kimb...@post7.tele.dk X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Listname: emc-pstc X-Info: Help requests to emc-pstc-requ...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to majord...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Moderator-Address: emc-pstc-appro...@majordomo.ieee.org X-Mozilla-Status: 8011 X-Mozilla-Status2: X-UIDL: 3c85f2db.dcfb1...@post7.tele.dk Der er en flerdelt meddelelse i MIME-format. --EE982B8B8087C7659CE469C8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all Here are a list of all countries which at the moment have implemented the RTTE directive 100%: Belgium Denmark UK Finland France Greece Holland Italy Iceland Ireland Liechtenstein Luxembourg Norway Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland Czech Republic Germany Hungary Austria richwo...@tycoint.com skriver: Have any European states that are not EU or EFTA members adopted the RTTE Directive and Notificaion process? In other words, will any other European countries allow a radio product to be placed on their market if the processes of the RTTE Directive are followed without the need for any other special national process to be followed? Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics Tyco International --- 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com 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: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list --EE982B8B8087C7659CE469C8 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name=kimboll.vcf Content-Description: Kort for Kim Boll Jensen Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=kimboll.vcf Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ruebert.ieee.org id g26AhRS25559 begin:vcard=20 n:Jensen;Kim Boll tel;cell:22 99 69 91 tel;fax:48 18 35 30 tel;work:48 18 35 66 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:www.bolls.dk org:Bolls R=E5dgivning adr:;;Hyacintvej 6;Stenl=F8se;;3660;Danmark version:2.1 email;internet:k...@bolls.dk fn:Kim Boll end:vcard --EE982B8B8087C7659CE469C8-- --- 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
