[email protected] wrote:
> 
> 
> Keep in mind that the Phone Company has long been exempt from many 
> regulations.
> This includes FCC Part 15 as well as the OSHA.  The Phone Companies themselves
> require that all equipment to be used in the CO or customer Premise be listed
> with a NRTL.  On the EMC side they require a wider range of emissions tests as
> well as several immunity tests.  These regulations are found in GR-1089 and
> GR-63.  It seems that back in the MA Bell days they were able to convince the
> Agencies that the Phone Company was better left self regulated.
> 
> Tom Whissel
> Senior Compliance Engineer
> Cabletron Systems, Inc.

Well, first, you'll have to point me exactly where in 
Part 15 telephone equipment is exempted. 

It's debatable that the telephone 'company' is exempt from 
OSHA since public mains power comes into the COs for other 
types of equipment, to include some telephonic equipment 
that uses 120vac. I was specifically referring to only 
tleco equipment that used the 48vdc rails. 

On the emc side, yes, there is a wider range of testing 
*available* (important word here). That does not in any 
way mean that *all* of GR-1089 or 63 are to be used. 
These standards are customer driven and to the letter 
of the Bellcore standards, they may (and believe me 
they do) modify them at their discretion. A classic 
example is claiming a product to be NEBS compliant. 
The equipment would have to go through ALL testing 
in '63 to be NEBS compliant. 

At a previous company I routinely advised marketing to be 
very careful how the contracts were written. Bellcore 
specifically states a disclaimer in the beginning of all 
their standards.  I also told them to advise the customers 
that unless specifically told otherswise, emissions testing
and safety testing were to follow ONLY FCC part 15 for 
emissions, and UL-1950 for safety with Part 68 assumed 
would over-ride 1089.  The only thing the customers 
wanted beyond that was shake, flame spread, needle flame, 
and temp/humidity from '63 and ESD from '1089. 


************************************************************
------------------------------------------------------------
   The comments and opinions stated herein are mine alone,
   and do not reflect those of my employer.
------------------------------------------------------------
************************************************************

Reply via email to