Hello George,
While I'm reluctant to flog a dead horse, somewhere along this discussion
thread, someone was looking for a "definitive statement" regarding the
subject at hand. After searching OSHA's Interpretation Letters I found
the following letter relating OSHA's requirements and (desktop) computers.
Regards, Art Michael
Editor - Int'l Product Safety News
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* International Product Safety Bookshop *
* Check out our current offerings! *
* <http://www.safetylink.com/bookshop.html> *
* *
* Another service of the Safety Link *
* <www.safetylink.com> *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
============================================================================
OSHA Banner Image Map
OSHA Standards Interpretation and Compliance Letters
02/18/1992 - Electrical standards as it applies to desktop computers.
_________________________________________________________________
OSHA Standard Interpretation and Compliance Letters - Table of
Contents OSHA Standard Interpretation and Compliance Letters - Table
of Contents
_________________________________________________________________
* Record Type: Interpretation
* Standard Number: 1910.303;1910.399
* Subject: Electrical standards as it applies to desktop computers.
* Information Date:02/18/1992
_________________________________________________________________
February 18, 1992
William K. Blocher President
BBC Computers Inc.
7 Columbia Circle
Merrimack, New Hampshire 03054
Dear Mr. Blocher:
Thank you for your letter of January 23, requesting clarification on
the applicability of 29 CFR 1910 Subpart S, Electrical standards, to
desktop computers.
Desktop computers are "appliances" otherwise described as "utilization
equipment" when used by employees in the workplace. By 29 CFR
1910.303(a) "equipment" required or permitted by 29 CFR 1910 Subpart S
shall be "accepted" only if "approved". "Approved" means acceptable to
the authority, that is, the Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, enforcing 29 CFR 1910 Subpart S. The
definition of "acceptable" includes three different methods to
determine acceptable equipment, and these methods are specified at
1910.399. A copy of the 1910.399 definitions, specified by quotation
marks in this letter, is enclosed for your use.
We appreciate your interest in occupational safety and health. If we
can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Patricia K. Clark, Director
Directorate of Compliance Programs
Enclosure
_________________________________________________________________
OSHA Standard Interpretation and Compliance Letters - Table of
Contents OSHA Standard Interpretation and Compliance Letters - Table
of Contents tracking image
===========================================================================
On Thu, 19 Aug 1999
geor...@lexmark.com wrote:
>
> Tania,
>
> Thank you for your comments. Allow me to better explain my position.
>
> 1. I am well aware of the language you cited from UL1950. This has
> never been in question, as it is precise and understandable. Page
> 23? even lists many examples of products falling under the standard.
>
> 2. However, UL1950 is a standard, not a "law", which was the original
> question initiating this discussion. I think the original inquiry
> asked what laws require compliance to the standards. My original
> point was that the "laws" cited, e.g.NEC and OSHA, are very poorly
> worded when it comes to what "equipment" is covered. One response
> was that it means any electrical equipment with a useful purpose,
> or words to that effect. Is there electrical equipment out there
> that has no useful purpose that would therefore not be covered?
>
> 3. You are correct that SELV ITE is included in UL1950. I did not mean
> to gloss over this. An earlier append in the discussion said that
> "utilization equipment" was anything that plugged into 120V. I was
> pointing out that it also applies to voltages other than 120V. The
> "standard" does allow for the certification of Class III (SELV)
> ITE. However, the scope limits this to "mains or battery powered"
> equipment. This excludes the many devices which may be powered at
> SELV voltages from an external AC adapter. That is, the adapter
> falls within the scope (mains powered), but not the driven device.
>
> 4. It is my opinion that the reason "battery" powered equipment was
> included is that some older products were prone to catching fire
> inside briefcases as a result of shorted batteries. See the CPSC
> website for some early laptops pulled from the market for this reason.
> BTW, the flashlight comments were posted by Rich, not me.
>
> Again, thank you for your comments. That is what makes this listserver
> an excellent sounding board. I have consistently been impressed with
> the caliber of questions and answers posted. Note that there is a big
> difference between ignorance and stupity. Ignorance can be cured. I am
> still ignorant in many matters, but hope I am not stupid, which has no cure.
>
> Regards,
>
> George Alspaugh
>
>
---------
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
