Hello, I'm not really giving an opinion here, I'm just sharing some observations.
There have been a lot of conversations in Notified Body groups about this topic. It's important to remember that the Directives (either the LVD or the R&TTED) require that a device is safe and will not cause harm. That's the basic requirement. The Directives are more important than the standards. The standards are there to help you demonstrate that. Though, they do provide 'presumption of conformity'. I think the history of the scope of this document comes from a study that personal portable music players present a safety risk. Therefore, the standard was created and references those devices. As for other devices which put sound into your ear? Well, that's the debate. You still need to ensure that the device is not going to cause harm. Some people say that the standard only covers portable music players and therefore something like a laptop or tablet does not need to worry about it. Other people say that it's easy to sit at your desk for 8 hours and listen to music while you work, so therefore those devices should be assessed too. Some say that a portable music player is a greater risk because you could walk away from your desk and still be listening. Some say that a laptop/tablet is a greater risk because many people sit at their desk for longer than they walk around. Ultimately, the standards are written based on a need that has been proposed to (for example) CENELEC. Regardless of what you think poses the greatest risk; if you sell a device that allows people to listen to music, you are still responsible for being confident that there are no safety risks; regardless of whether this standard applies to your device or not. That said, you may agree with the standard that a device outside the scope of A12 does not present a safety risk. As ever, the Directives are more important than the standards. Michael. Michael Derby Regulatory Engineer ACB Europe -----Original Message----- From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com] Sent: 06 February 2013 14:08 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] EN 60065 A12 - Sound Pressure Restriction Hi Ted, Appreciate your valid points. Where does the standard specify to use the device while walking? We can easily find people to watch the film or play the game with mobile phones and/or tablets in public transport. To avoid dispute on this point, let us focus on CD players (all DVD players are backward compatible to CD players). Lots of ads are showing that youngsters are holding the player by one hand. Does the standard restrict that the device must be put into the pocket as a qualified unit? The player can be placed in hand bag. Samsung Note 2 and other tablets are considered not as portable units? However lots of people are holding such items on the go. If a CD player is qualified as an exemption, does the supplier need to update the original LVD report to include this A12 although it is not required to comply with any requirements in A12? Thanks and regards, Scott On 6/2/13 12:08 AM, "Ted Eckert" <ted.eck...@microsoft.com> wrote: > Hi Scott, > > The people who sit on CENELEC committees are humans and they are prone > to human errors. They write standards in plain language that is easy > to understand. The problem comes when these standards are adopted into > law. Laws that are very precise are easy to interpret, but are very > complicated. Take the Low Voltage Directive as an example. It tells us > that products must be safe, but doesn't give much more detail. If that > were the only regulation in place, we would need armies of lawyers to > argue whether specific products are acceptably safe or have > unreasonable hazards. We are given the option of complying with standards > that give us more detail on one route to compliance. > If you have an IT product that meets EN 60950-1, you have met one > legal interpretation of acceptably safe. > > In addition, standards are written by committee. The words need to be > acceptable to a specified majority of the committee before the > standard can be adopted. Precise language can be harder to pass > sometimes because some committee members may object to one particular > item. The whole committee may agree on the general intent of the > standard but not every specific item. A more general wording can be easier to > pass. > > The CENELEC audio requirements have three tests to determine if a > product is within the scope. The product is within the scope if: > − is designed to allow the user to listen to recorded or broadcast > sound or video; and − primarily uses headphones or earphones that can > be worn in or on or around the ears; and − allows the user to walk > around while in use. > > Let's take the example of a portable DVD player. It meets the first > clause as playing recorded video is its primary function. Many meet > the second clause having headphone jacks, and often multiple headphone > jacks. The third test is the one that I would consider to broadly > written. A portable DVD player allows the user to walk around while in > use. It is light enough to hold in your hands and it is battery > powered. However, that isn't the intended use nor is it a likely use. > It is difficult to walk any distance while concentrating on the screen to > watch a movie. > > Good legal council will be able to help you determine what the intent > of the standard is. This may require figuring out what the intent of > the standards committee was. This may require research into CENELEC > OSM decision, committee notes and such. A lawyer knows how the law is > applied and the lawyer can best determine how to use that application > of the law to see if your product is within the scope of the standard. > When a standard is written with broad text, different courts may > interpret it different ways. A lawyer may be better suited to telling > you how a court will interpret the standard. The standard writers may > not have intended to write clauses that require interpretation, but the law > is enforced by courts, not engineers. > > IEC 62368-1 addresses this issue by changing the third test of the > requirement. It states that the product is within the scope if it "is > body worn (of a size suitable to be carried in a clothing pocket) and > is intended for the user to walk around with while in use." The size > of a clothing pocket is still up to interpretation, but this clause is > a bit more specific than the text written by CENELEC. It's easier for > me to argue that a portable DVD player is too large to fit into a > typical clothing pocket and it certainly can't be used for its primary > function while in a pocket. There is still reason to consult an > attorney for some products, but not as many. In this case, the > ambiguity largely comes down to what is pocket sized. A tablet > computer with a 10 inch screen might not be, and a cell phone with a 4 > inch screen likely is within the scope. But we have devices with 5, 6, 7 and > 8 inch screens. Where is the line where something is too big to fit in a > pocket? > TC108 was well m! > eaning in trying to craft the scope, but you still have a standard > that may be adopted into national law in various countries. If so, > courts, regulators and lawyers will be called on to determine what is pocket > sized. > > Regards, > Ted Eckert > Compliance Engineer > Microsoft Corporation > ted.eck...@microsoft.com > > The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those > of my employer. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 6:19 AM > To: Ted Eckert; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG > Subject: Re: EN 60065 A12 - Sound Pressure Restriction > > Hi Ted, > > Thanks for your opinion. The excessive sound pressure issue occurred > since Sony Walkman era and taken up by Apple iPods in last few years. > The issue was discussed/debated many years ago and concluded a standard for > compliance. > Both will harm our human ears at high sound level regardless of > analogue devices or digital devices. > > In the past, Apple iPods could not run 10 hours per single charge of > battery pack using micro drive while Sony MP3 players was able to play > music for 52 hrs per single charge of battery pack. On the latest > versions, it is easily to achieve long hour playback. > > It is a very valid point for digital devices that employ the firmware > for controlling the functionality and features. Adding the > instructional safeguard is deadly easy to accomplish. > > I guess the standard working committee does not want to control > analogue devices since there would be a strong reaction. They also > believe even they are not controlling them, they are going to phasing > out soon. Music files will replace CDs, DVDs or even BDs. HMV > closing down in the UK is a good trend indicator. > > Is there any particular reason for EN standards that are written with > the aid of attorney to understand? Most of readers are normal > engineers and they find difficult in understanding/interpreting the > standard easily and correctly. Do they have any mechanism to help the > engineers to use the standard correctly? > > Regards, > > Scott > > > On 5/2/13 5:38 AM, "Ted Eckert" <ted.eck...@microsoft.com> wrote: > >> Hello Scott, >> >> I believe that there are at least two reasons analog music players >> are exempted. The first is that the instructional safeguard in the >> standard is to provide a specific notification to the user when they >> exceed 85 dBA. This is not practical on a purely analog device. The >> instructional safeguard must be repeated for every 20 hours >> cumulative listening above 85 dB, and an analog device cannot easily >> make this measurement. Second, analog devices such as a portable >> cassette tape player are not practical to use for extended periods. A >> user who wanted to listen to 10 hours of continuous music would need >> to carry around quite a few cassette tapes or would have to listen to >> the same tape over and over. >> >> I believe that portable CD players are within the scope of the requirement. >> However, a portable DVD player that includes a screen is different >> from a CD play. Although it is technically possible to walk around >> with a DVD player while watching a movie, it is neither practical nor >> a normal use. However, I am not qualified to say with certainty >> whether a portable DVD player is exempted. It is possible that you >> can make a reasonable argument that a portable DVD player would not >> fit within the scope. However, that will depend on the design and >> features of the DVD player. >> >> It may be best to consult an attorney who is familiar with the >> regulations to determine if a particular product is within or outside >> of the scope. >> >> Regards, >> Ted Eckert >> Compliance Engineer >> Microsoft Corporation >> ted.eck...@microsoft.com >> >> The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect >> those of my employer. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 8:15 AM >> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG >> Subject: EN 60065 A12 - Sound Pressure Restriction >> >> Dear Sir/Madam, >> >> In this requirement, there is a following exemption. >> >> € analogue personal music players (personal music players without any >> kind of digital processing of the sound signal) that are brought to >> the market before the end of 2015. >> >> NOTE 4 >> >> This exemption has been allowed because this technology is falling >> out of use and it is expected that within a few years it will no >> longer exist. This exemption will not be extended to other technologies. >> >> I believe the old design portable DVD players with a pair of >> earphones and operated on batteries or rechargeable batteries are >> qualified for such exemption. I am seeking advice why the digital >> processing of sound signal is so critical to this sound pressure >> restriction and how to identify if the digital processing is built in the >> unit or not. >> >> Thanks and regards, >> >> Scott >> >> - >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html >> >> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities >> site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for >> graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. >> >> 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://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html > > Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities > site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for > graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. > > 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://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. 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://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. 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>
