Hi Carl:
> 1. Is the IEC 60695-11-4 flame more or less
difficult to pass than the
> alternative 60695-11-5 flame?
The 11-4 is a premixed flame.
The 11-5 is not a premixed flame.
The premixed flame would have more energy and
therefore hotter and more likely to raise the
sample under test to i
Hi Ron:
The values in Table 5 are taken, directly, from
IEC 61201, Table A.2 and Figure A.1 (notes 1 and
2). See Annex A, IEC 61201, for further
information about these values.
Upeak is not the correct term; the voltage is the
open-circuit voltage to which the capacitor is
charged.
Hi Ron:
>But, a capacitor charged to such an open-circuit
voltage need to also be rated for that voltage
(probably a DUH moment). Correct?
Yes.
>Is Table 2 of IEC 61201:1992 equivalent to Table
A.2 of IEC 61201:2007?
Yes.
>ECMA 287 Table 3.4 ES1 values decrease from 60
Hi Ron:
5.4.9.2, IEC 62368-1, is for routine electric
strength testing of solid insulation (there is no
routine electric strength test for clearances or
creepage distances - as if they can be separated).
The routine test voltage is 10% less than the type
test voltage. For 250-volt rat
Hi Adam:
Its okay to test each power supply separately. And the power distribution
system.
If each of these passes, then the conglomerate will also pass with a higher
power tester. But, you don’t need one to predict that the conglomerate will
pass.
Pass-fail criteria a
Hmm.
The Class B requirements are intended to offer
adequate protection to broadcast services within
the residential environment.
I live about ¼ mile from 8 transmitter TV, FM,
etc., towers. Only the best of radios, e.g.,
Grundig Yachtboy, can properly tune both AM and
FM, but the
Hi John:
If you can, I would include both markings,
90-230 volts: L, N, PE;
220 volts: L1, L2, PE (North America).
(I am assuming that the equipment ratings marked
on the equipment are wide-range, e.g., 90-240
volts.)
The NRTL should not object to a dual marking
Hi Ian:
Clause 7.2 only applies if the steady-state
current exceeds 0.2 amps. Is this the case with
your wall wart?
Happy New Year,
Rich
From: McBurney, Ian
[mailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2016 3:29 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
<mailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com>
From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
Sent: 05 January 2016 18:58
To: McBurney, Ian mailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com> >;
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: RE: [PSES] IEC 60950-1 PSU accept
Compliance (and non-compliance) has different
meanings depending on who you are.
If you are a regulatory authority or certification
house, compliance means the product complies with
the regulatory requirements or the standard.
If you are product management (in a manufacturing
organiza
Hi Scott:
The standard is written assuming enamel winding
wire insulation, not TIW (FIW).
What is the main reason to require the protection
against mechanical stress?
Enamel insulation is brittle, and subject to
failure due to mechanical stress. (On the other
hand, TIW is not
Hi Scott:
At the time the standard was written, the
performance of TIW (FIW) was not fully understood,
so the requirements were the same as for ordinary
enamel-insulated wire. The authors took the
conservative route. I suggest moving to IEC
62368-1 and invoking 108-606 DC. (This is wha
9LU. UK
T: 01326 372070
E: ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com
<mailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com>
From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
Sent: 22 January 2016 00:09
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN 60065 clause 8.17
Hi Michael:
For Korea, maybe these will help:
http://www.iecee.org/cbscheme/emc_reg_requirements/korea_emc_655q.pdf
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/july/tradoc_151637.pdf
Good luck!
Rich
-
---
Hi Scott:
In North America, molded plugs are not required by
law or standards.
Most North America factory-supplied cords (on
equipment) are molded plugs. However, wirable
plugs are commonly available at electrical supply
stores, hardware stores, and even some grocery
stores.
Molded plugs a
Check your contract!
> -Original Message-
>
> Starting last year, noticed that some NRTLs are
charging
> twice for same audit. For example - same
equipment
> category, same file reference, but getting
charged
> factory FUS audit fees for both audit of
products in
> production and 'Produc
my
> employer's products. The compliance engineering
> community should push back. No longer view many
> compliance agencies as being part of a
sustainable and
> rational economic model.
>
> Brian
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ie
> Refusal to pay for any audit services rendered
that the
> NRTL deems necessary will result in suspension
of right
> to apply their mark to any products.
Pay for services rendered. If no service is
rendered, then don't sign that there was service
(and indicate at that time that there was no
serv
> - U.S. customer site - auditor arrives 0930,
inspects
> units that do not bear his agency's marks (and
have
> never been assessed by any NRTL), writes
variation
> notice, then leaves about 1100.
Why was the inspector allowed to inspect units
that do not bear his certification house's mark?
Do no
> - Asia site - auditor writes variation notice
because hi-
> pot test level is too high. Their agency
required 2500V,
> another wanted 3kV.
> - Asia site - auditor writes variation notice
because
> product is being hi-potted twice during
production
> process, and because one test level is a bit
h
> Does anyone know the energy [joules] in a standard stick of
> dynamite, or a gallon of gasoline?
Not the answer, but may be useful:
4,184,000,000 J = 1 ton of TNT
For a comparison of energy in dynamite and gasoline, and for "The nonsense
about gasoline and dynamite," see:
Hi David:
The above is due to disagreement with customer.
Apparently, the customer wants testing and
certification, so give it to him! (The customer
is always right!)
Best regards,
Rich
-
This mes
> " ...operating at a temperature of 120 degC..."
has no
> meaning. Test conditions and component ID? A Tj
of
> 150deg does not mean that you are allowed 150deg
on the
> component body. TI, ST, and others have
published some
> good stuff on calculating component temps for
power
> semiconductors. Th
Hi John:
How do you demonstrate the dielectric strength
between mains and user accessible circuits when
the accessible circuits are referenced to chassis?
Disconnect the ground, and connect the low end of
the hi-pot tester to the user-accessible part
(circuit). Don't touch the cha
Hi Peter:
Don't use the VDR or any transient suppression. Take it out.
Your insulation is good enough and is not likely to be damaged by a transient
over-voltage.
VDRs and most other transient suppression schemes may protect the immediate
equipment, but generate transients for other equipm
> FWIW, have recorded >4kV transients at a North Carolina
> site twice during previous 14 months.
Unfortunately, we don't know whether the cause was by operation of equipment,
operation of a transient suppression device, or atmospheric discharge. Since
the occurrence rate is so low, and the loc
> > You are dating yourself. How many people on this list
> know what a TO-220 is.
>
> Some of us also know what a CK-722 is, a 5Y3 and an 80.
> Among other things.
Ahh, yes. And Sams Photofact. And Hugo Gernsbach's "Radio-Electronics"
magazine.
-
I've used a 5-sided cube inside the chamber to create a draft-free environment
for performing flammability tests. The open side faces the front so you can
see the equipment. The test flame is quite still. I would believe this would
also work for temperature measurements.
Rich
> -Or
Hi Ralph:
It seems that the standards are treating functional ground connections (those
that do not pass a bonding impedance test) as a 0th fault, not a single fault.
For the bonding impedance test (fault current), what would be the test
current? Would it be twice the rating of t
Hi Ralph:
Some say 0th fault to mean it is expected to fail, therefore you fault it,
before applying a single-fault.
Never heard of this process. And never used this process. And have never seen
it in a safety standard.
If bonding impedance test passes, then the circuit is
Hi Lauren:
Whether used (resold) or rebuilt, the equipment
must meet all the requirements of the standard for
the certification mark to be valid. If the
equipment has been rebuilt and re-certified, you
know that it meets all of the requirements. If
the equipment is used, you don't kn
Scott Xe said, “The risk assessment is unclear how to do it and any reference
to follow.”
I agree. Risk assessment is an abstraction. ISO/IEC Guide 51, the basis for
risk assessment, defines risk as the “combination of the probability of
occurrence of harm and the severity of that ha
- A device with a single class X capacitor
from neutral to ground.
Safety standards require the capacitor to be Class
Y.
Rich
-
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discus
Hi Richard:
The usual class Y value of 4,700pF presents an
impedance of only 1.13 ohms at 30MHz, so it
provides a very substantial unbalance to create CM
from a neighbour's DM
All of the products I have seen have two Y
capacitors, one from L to E, and one from N to E.
With these tw
If without the warning and symbol, are the users qualified to use the products
outdoor?
Users are rarely qualified to use products outdoors (regardless of the warning
and the symbol). But products can be qualified for use outdoors.
Standards have additional requirements for o
There is a gap between standalone transformer standard requiring warning "For
indoors use only" and combined product requiring no warning.
There is no uniformity (standardization?) among safety standards for the use of
the “indoor use” symbol. Virtually all electrical products are “ind
OTOH, apart from instructions and symbols, how else can manufacturers begin to
address the issue of “risk reduction” other than making the products
“absolutely safe”?
Most products are absolutely safe for all practical purposes. As you read
this, you are safe. And, you are acting li
> Depending on the
> product I could easily see using an indoor only rated
> power supply outdoors as possible misuse.
That depends on your definition of "misuse."
If "misuse" means using the product for something other than its intended use,
then using the product outdoors is not misuse. If
". hopefully involving some who have had "field"
experience of similar products and the HAZARDS
that they have faced."
". become familiar/"comfortable" with what it is
trying to achieve and how it is prompting/helping
YOU to do it."
Can you provide a bibliography of articles by
academics
Based on your question, your best bet would be to
read ISO 12100
Having sat on numerous standards committees, many
of the requirements come from BOGSAT (Bunch Of
Guys Sitting Around Talking), not from science. I
am interested in the academic (or scientific)
background for RA rather than
". Risk Assessment is a qualitative (estimate
based on experience) venture."
I don't have experience in RA, so I guess I can't
do it. I guess I have to hire someone who has RA
experience.
This is very much like the certification house
manager who told me that product safety is an art
John Allen (UK) gave the name of Tim Kelly.
Looking at some of his work on the web, I found
this:
Safety compliance is a very demanding activity, as
the standards can consist of hundreds of pages and
practitioners typically have to show the
fulfilment of thousands of safety-related
criteria. Fur
Hi Amund:
2.10.6 addresses printed wiring boards.
2.10.6.3 addresses insulation between conductors
on the same inner surface of a printed board which
invokes 2.10.5.5, which is cemented joints.
Table 2N (Amendment 1) applies to the creepage
distance of the cemented joint. If y
Regards
Amund
Fra: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org]
Sendt: 18. april 2016 20:59
Til: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Emne: Re: [PSES] IEC60950-1, Table 2N - creepage
Hi Amund:
2.10.6 addresses printed wiring boards.
2.10.6.3
60950 (and 62368) rely on physical and behavioral
safeguards for safety. They have no provision for
relying on code (firmware or software) safeguards
for safety.
These standards require the equipment to be safe
in the event of a single fault. As I understand
the original comment, the RCD
.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: [PSES] Meet some of the list admins at the PSES Symposium next week
The following emc-pstc list admins will be at the IEEE PSES Symposium on
Product Compliance Engineering May 16-18 in Anaheim California:
Rich Nute (former admin)
Dan
I'm sure we all agree that NO failures is the goal, but to John's point, I
think it would be instructive for some to know what types of failures are
generally found. (e.g. marking, ventilation openings, temperature limits,
dielectric strength, ground bonding, critical components, clause
m
I would agree that “Design It In!” is a good and appropriate slogan.
Unfortunately, there is no formal training program for product safety
professionals; learning about how to do third-party certification submittals is
on-the-job learning. Same for the professionals at the certificatio
I agree with the differences between Europe and the USA. However, in my
experience, product safety and product liability are treated separately.
Liability (in the USA) occurs after someone claims that he has been injured by
the product. Lawyers run this. The lawyers may or may not con
In my last job I tried to do something similar w.r.t. PWB materials for
applications where V-1 or better materials aren’t any good because the
retardants result in reduced service lives in hostile equipment environments,
whereas some specific (and very special!) HB materials last much long
Hi Scott:
“In general, the users and testing houses are referring to the rating of UL
yellow card rather than the actual test on individual final designed pcb.
Should we use it to object their normal practice. How often is it successful?”
Testing in place is a once-per-product-
Hi John:
Thanks for your comments.
In the end, the “solution” was a different sort of pragmatic approach because
the boards were always enclosed in hermetically sealed high pressure (10,000
psi+) / temperature (180C+) -resistant stainless steel tubes which have very
little fre
Thanks, Brian.
I recall now. I used hexamine tablets. I used two sizes, one about ½ inch
diameter and ¼ inch thick, and the other about the size of an aspirin tablet.
I placed the hexamine on top of the component I expected to catch fire, ignite
the pellet, put the enclosure back on, a
Hmm. Thanks to Ted Eckert, the small tablet may have been methenamine.
Rich
-
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your
Our most common and serious safety issue is that of product electrically-caused
fire. I subscribe to "In Compliance" weekly recall notices; most are fire.
As Gert Gremmen has stated, no fault-testing has resulted in a product fire in
the test lab, yet product fires continue to occur in the
Hi John:
Thanks for your additional comments.
> Could it be that the scenarios which the standards
> committees envisage are not "the real deal"
In my opinion, this is the case.
> OR that the
> products which cause the fires just don't comply with the
> standards?
Of course, counterfeit and n
> Not following instructions is foreseeable misuse...
Depends.
I define "misuse" as using the product for some use other than its intended
use. Standing on a chair is misuse of the chair.
Misuse (my definition) cannot be foreseeable because it depends on what the
user needs to do (and has de
240 VA (not W) is defined as "energy hazard" in UL/IEC 60950 and its
predecessors, UL 950 and UL 478. "Energy hazard" only applies if the potential
is 2 V or more.
(The dimension for energy is the Joule, not the volt-ampere.)
The standards state:
"A risk of injury due to an energy h
> " Safety standards are not tested to see if they accomplish
> the objective"
>
> I'm not sure how one would go about doing that, other
> than gathering data from customer returns and from
> product recalls.
All safety standards include means to determine if the product complies with
the requ
> So, for the protection against FIRE, we have two energy
> rates, 100VA and 240VA, used across quite a number of
> standards, and the units are wrong. Should be Watts.
Agree. But, for pessimism, use VA.
My experience and tests show that a product fire can be started by 15 watts!
The standa
> Example: I measure and determine that an electrolytic
> capacitor temperature is compliant with the standard, but
> what happens when that capacitor eventually fails due to
> large ripple current and then overheats and catches fire.
> That's a single fault condition (a component fault), but it's
> The 15W is the *dissipated* power level to determine if
> PIS. The standard is somewhat ambiguous because it uses
> the term 'location' in definition, but 'circuit' in 6.2.
Well... the intent was the maximum power available into a fault.
Rich
-
> The 240VA "Energy Hazard" was not a
> consideration for the protection against Fire but a limit
> value for accessible parts by the User.
The energy hazard requirement (in the 950-series standards) is that the
conductors shall not be bridged by the test finger (which has a spherical tip).
If
> This is my recollection of where 240VA came from and
> how it was used.
In a 1966 UL meeting with industry on the requirements in UL 478, the minutes
report:
"Where high current is available at potentials down to about 2 volts, enough
energy is available to melt and splatter metal from neck c
I submitted the CB documentation for the power
supply along with the product to the safety
testing agency.
I am surprised that the testing agency decided to
dismantle the power supply and thoroughly evaluate
it even though it is already pre-approved.
While the power supply meets 60950 requirem
> There are differences, but I suppose citing
Guide 112
> would deal with that.
I don't believe that Guide 112 applies as this
equipment was not designated "multimedia"
equipment.
If it was multimedia, Clause 3 of 60065 would
apply, which references 4.2 and 4.3 of 60065 which
is the meat of the s
> If it's not multimedia, why was 60065 applied?
Mr. McBurney "submitted a product for CB
certification to IEC/EN/UL 60065."
Rich
-
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To pos
Thanks for the URL to the AMA website.
Unfortunately, the AMA doesn't give any color temperature or intensity numbers
for "harmful human and environmental effects of high intensity street
lighting." So, how are we to know what is acceptable to the AMA?
As safety engineers, we cannot design a su
Insulated wires, like any other component, must be
used within their ratings. Voltage, temperature,
ampacity, etc. And, if the equipment is to be
certified, the wire must be certified.
These days, most wire is surface printed with its
ratings and certifications.
A typical PVC wire that is use
AFAIK, that requirement does not apply if a correctly fused appliance inlet is
used because that should allow smaller gauge wiring from its outlet terminals
– and that is quite common (or at least it was) for 60950 equipment.
Wire rating (in 60950 equipment) is based on normal-condition c
Hi John:
Also, it might be worth reminding folks that single-pole fusing is OK for
defined-polarity mains supply systems (e.g. the UK, and some N.American
systems) if it is in the Line/Live/”Hot” conductor, but not in
undefined-polarity systems as found on the European Continent and ma
Will the CE mark continue to be accepted in the
U.K.? Or, will the old U.K. marks be resurrected?
-
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list,
Hi Boštjan:
Consider this IEC 62368-1, 4.1.1, paragraph:
"Components and subassemblies that comply with IEC
60950-1 or IEC 60065 are acceptable as part of
equipment covered by this standard without further
evaluation other than to give consideration to the
appropriate use of the component or sub
Hi Boštjan:
> What is your view to this statement? How should
we fill
> the verdict in the test report in this case with
pass or
> N/A?
I would say the verdict is "pass." The basis is
the paragraph I quoted.
No matter the standard, the PE circuit must be
capable of carrying the fault current
> During last TC 108 meeting there was no real
consensus
> about this topic. Also there was an issue raised
that fire
> enclosure of some product will fail requirement
of new
> standard while it was OK for IEC 60950-1 and
they will
> make a proposal to change the requirement in the
> standard.
Thi
> I also know this. However some labs are not in
favor to
> this statement.They interpret it in different
way like this
> is only applicable to internal components of
sub-
> assembly that is IEC 60950-1 or IEC 60065
certified. In
> addition, it is only allowed during transition
period.
As far as I
> Wires which can't document UL or any other
approval,
> will mean a potential
> fail verdict when a CBTL is doing the report.
Maybe. Wire insulation which does not need to be
basic insulation need not be UL-certified.
However, most CBTLs will not recognize this
aspect; they will insist that all
Hi (the other) Brian:
> This subject is very interesting to me. If I
wanted to
> know more, is getting a copy of 62368-1 worth
reading
> or will I have to wait for the proposed changes
to
> 60950-1 to come out, or what do you recommend?
Sooner or later, you will need 62368-1. And, you
should
> I also need to consider contact from PE trace to
> enclosure through pads on PCB and screws.
Only if those parts are in the fault-current path.
Otherwise, those parts are not required to meet PE
requirements.
Rich
-
This message
I agree that 62368 attempts to allow for more flexibility the process of
designing a safe product, but in the specific case of fire enclosures there is
in fact a considerable impact where some existing product can not be certified
to the new standard without significant product redesign.
Software safety... what is it?
At the very least, it is software control of a
safeguard. In printers, software shuts down the
moving parts when the cover is opened. In CD
drives, software shuts down the spinning disc and
turns off the laser. No, these shut-downs are not
done with a physical swi
Anchor the box, and do the 35 lb. test. If it passes, you’re done. If it
fails, you have the ammo to change to an appliance coupler. It’s a simple and
easy test.
The pull test proves that the anchor hole and cord diameter are the right
dimensions. We already know that the anchor
u can
send the hard-copy to me; I will scan and return
the original to you.
Thanks,
Richard Nute
ri...@ieee.org <mailto:ri...@ieee.org>
-
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion
> Why would they need to limit scope to just
business
> machines and the like? Why couldn't this be
applicable
> to a broad range of electrical equipment, from
television
> receivers to solar inverters?
Traditionally, product safety standards have been
written for a specific product. Few produ
> You have touched on an interesting topic, and
one that
> IEC 62109-1,2 tries to address. Namely,
redundant
> hardware performing a safety function. The
hardware
> evaluated for single fault tolerance and the
software
> automatic controls used in a safety function
evaluated
> against Annex H of
We're seeing an issue with scope probes, and I'd
appreciate suggestions, or just information on how
others handle calibration.
Start by studying this pamphlet:
http://circuitslab.case.edu/manuals/Probe_Fundamen
tals-_Tektronix.pdf
http://www.ni.com/white-paper/14825/en/#toc1
If you
]
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 7:15 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG; Richard Nute
Subject: Re: [PSES] Oscilloscope probe calibration
Hi Rich,
Although useful, the literature from measurement companies and be misleading
and rarely descirbe the situation completely. Maybe I should hold a short
In electrical part and charger, should we apply EN 60204-1 or EN 60950-1 and EN
60335-2-29 or EN 61558-2-6?
This is one of the problems of product-specific safety standards.
In 1961, James J. Gibson postulated that injury was due to an energy source
impinging on a body part. We woul
> how long would it take to turn the 111 standards in
> 60335 into one?
I envision a standard for each energy source, for example electric shock.
Electric shock from a toaster, or cooker, or microwave, is the same as electric
shock from a TV, or computer, or voltmeter. This is largely recogni
> One standard for each energy source is a good idea, but
> there are six or more sources, so it would not be swiftly
> done.
Here are the energy sources that are commonly addressed in product safety
standards:
1) Electric shock (electrically-caused injury).
2) Electrically-caused fire
> So are you working on a proposal to ACOS (via ANSI
> and SMB, of course) to start the process?
Step by step. Small steps.
One step is to convince this august group. And you. Can't propose to SMB or
ACOS without support from their members and member countries.
Not (yet) many are willing t
Many jurisdictions have had third-party
certification requirements for many years (70's or
earlier), mostly UL, but some CSA. For example,
cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago
(which has its own electrical code), State of
Oregon.
UL used to lobby each jurisdiction so that, when
they ad
The NEC is a model standard and intended to be adopted by local and state AHJs.
In doing so, the AHJs often take exception to some requirements, and add some
requirements. In adopting the NEC, the AHJs must specify what “listing” means
– what third-party certifiers are acceptable to the
ISO 8373 defines robot as "An automatically controlled, reprogrammable,
multipurpose manipulator programmable in three or more axes, which may be
either fixed in place or mobile for use in industrial automation applications."
My Roomba doesn’t fit this definition. First, it is only two
When I worked at an NRTL, a story circulated
(veracity never verified, but useful for hawking
testing services) about a person in Oregon who
purchased a non-approved exercise stroller
appliance from overseas via the Internet. It
subsequently caught fire and burned the house
down.
The sto
Within EU, most of electrical products are covered by LVD and GPSD. In US,
which body, law and standards are responsible for the similar regulatory?
In the USA, we have a number of entities that oversee electrical safety:
AHJ, enforcing the local (state, county, or city) electrical cod
Hi Scott:
For consumer and household products, compliance with CPSC requirements is
required.
No. Only products considered “substantial product hazards” such as hair dryers
need comply with CPSC requirements. However, any consumer product that injures
someone is subject to CPSC reca
What is the best practice for the suppliers/importers to demonstrate the
compliance with relevant requirements?
NRTL certified.
Rich
-
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
d
“Each NRTL has a scope of test standards that they are recognized for…”
https://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/
NRTL certification for OSHA purposes is limited to its scope of test standards.
Check out your favorite NRTL for its OSHA test standards.
We don’t yet know whether the NEC is l
Hi Scott:
Regarding local requirements in a state, county or city, how can they buy a
product for particular state, county or city? Normally we sell the product to
whole country and it sounds strange to me. What is the normal practice to
restrict the movement of the imported products
1 - 100 of 1347 matches
Mail list logo
