[PSES] Energy related Products (ErP) requirements

2020-05-07 Thread Scott Xe 
I have some queries about the application of ErP requirements seeking
esteemed advice.  The following products are involved.

   1. TV + EPS (sold together)
   2. Mobile Phone + EPS (sold together)

For product 1, should ErP requirements for TV or EPS be applied or both.

For product 2, should ErP requirements for EPS be applied since mobile
phone alone is not within the scope of ErP requirements.  Thus is only EPS
subject to the ErP requirements?

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 


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://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald:

[PSES] UL 60065 7th & 8th Edition

2020-05-07 Thread McBurney, Ian 
Dear Colleagues.

Does anyone know if products approved to the above standard will still be able 
to be NRTL marked after 20th December 2020? This is the date the EN version can 
no longer be used to declare conformity with the EU LVD. I would like to know 
if the same event will happen in the USA, or when it is likely to occur.

Many thanks in advance.

Ian McBurney
Compliance Engineer
Allen & Heath Ltd.

Allen & Heath Ltd is a registered business in England and Wales, Company 
number: 4163451. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual 
and not necessarily those of the company.

-

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 


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://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald:

Re: [PSES] UL 60065 7th & 8th Edition

2020-05-07 Thread BANSI PATEL 
Ian:

 

You are mixing up EU vs North America.

NRTL is US requirements. UL standards don't get withdrawn. As long as you
comply with the requirement of a American standards it is up to approving
agency issuing  NRTL mark.

Agency i.e. UL let you carry product with NRTL mark in US market place as
long as you comply with the requirements.

 

Please be safe

 

Stay Home - Stop the Spread - Save Lives

 

Best Regards

 

Bansi Patel

M: 909-260-9403

  bansipate...@gmail.com

 

From: McBurney, Ian  
Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2020 6:56 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] UL 60065 7th & 8th Edition

 

Dear Colleagues.

 

Does anyone know if products approved to the above standard will still be
able to be NRTL marked after 20th December 2020? This is the date the EN
version can no longer be used to declare conformity with the EU LVD. I would
like to know if the same event will happen in the USA, or when it is likely
to occur.

 

Many thanks in advance.

 

 

Ian McBurney

Compliance Engineer

Allen & Heath Ltd.

 

Allen & Heath Ltd is a registered business in England and Wales, Company
number: 4163451. Any views expressed in this email are those of the
individual and not necessarily those of the company. 

-


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
mailto: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://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe)  
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html 

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org> >
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org> > 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org> >
David Heald 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 


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://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald:

Re: [PSES] UL 60065 7th & 8th Edition

2020-05-07 Thread Ted Eckert 
Hello Ian,

New products will not be eligible to be certified to UL 60065 starting December 
20th. However, products already certified to UL 60065 as of that date will 
continue to retain their certification and do not need to be updated to the new 
standard. However, at some point in the future, a date may be announced when 
existing certifications will need to be transitions. I would expect that to be 
a number of years off in the future.
https://ctech.ul.com/en/knowledge-center/ul-62368-1-effective-date-information/

Regards,
Ted Eckert
The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer, UL or any other NRTL.

From: McBurney, Ian 
Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2020 6:56 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] UL 60065 7th & 8th Edition

Dear Colleagues.

Does anyone know if products approved to the above standard will still be able 
to be NRTL marked after 20th December 2020? This is the date the EN version can 
no longer be used to declare conformity with the EU LVD. I would like to know 
if the same event will happen in the USA, or when it is likely to occur.

Many thanks in advance.


Ian McBurney
Compliance Engineer
Allen & Heath Ltd.

Allen & Heath Ltd is a registered business in England and Wales, Company 
number: 4163451. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual 
and not necessarily those of the company.
-


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 
mailto: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://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald 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 


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://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald:

Re: [PSES] UL 60065 7th & 8th Edition

2020-05-07 Thread McBurney, Ian 
Hello Ted.

Many thanks for your reply.
I hope you are safe during the current pandemic.

Kind regards;

Ian

From: Ted Eckert 
Sent: 07 May 2020 15:07
To: McBurney, Ian ; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: UL 60065 7th & 8th Edition

Hello Ian,

New products will not be eligible to be certified to UL 60065 starting December 
20th. However, products already certified to UL 60065 as of that date will 
continue to retain their certification and do not need to be updated to the new 
standard. However, at some point in the future, a date may be announced when 
existing certifications will need to be transitions. I would expect that to be 
a number of years off in the future.
https://ctech.ul.com/en/knowledge-center/ul-62368-1-effective-date-information/

Regards,
Ted Eckert
The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer, UL or any other NRTL.

From: McBurney, Ian 
mailto:ian.mcbur...@allen-heath.com>>
Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2020 6:56 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] UL 60065 7th & 8th Edition

Dear Colleagues.

Does anyone know if products approved to the above standard will still be able 
to be NRTL marked after 20th December 2020? This is the date the EN version can 
no longer be used to declare conformity with the EU LVD. I would like to know 
if the same event will happen in the USA, or when it is likely to occur.

Many thanks in advance.


Ian McBurney
Compliance Engineer
Allen & Heath Ltd.

Allen & Heath Ltd is a registered business in England and Wales, Company 
number: 4163451. Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual 
and not necessarily those of the company.
-


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 
mailto: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://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to

Re: [PSES] [EXTERNAL] [PSES] Energy related Products (ErP) requirements

2020-05-07 Thread Ted Eckert 
Hello Scott,


  1.  A television will fall under the Lot 
5
 requirements. The EPS still falls under Lot 
7
 even if it is sold with a television.
  2.  The cell phone would still be subject to Lot 
6/26
 when plugged in through the EPS. The EPS still falls under Lot 
7
 even if it is sold with a cell phone.

Regards,
Ted Eckert
The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer or the European Commission.

From: Scott Xe 
Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2020 6:46 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [PSES] Energy related Products (ErP) requirements

I have some queries about the application of ErP requirements seeking esteemed 
advice.  The following products are involved.

  1.  TV + EPS (sold together)
  2.  Mobile Phone + EPS (sold together)
For product 1, should ErP requirements for TV or EPS be applied or both.

For product 2, should ErP requirements for EPS be applied since mobile phone 
alone is not within the scope of ErP requirements.  Thus is only EPS subject to 
the ErP requirements?

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 
mailto: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://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to 
unsubscribe)
List rules: 
http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald 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 


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://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list

Re: [PSES] 62368-1 Section 6.4.8 Flammability Confusion

2020-05-07 Thread John E Allen 
As I outlined in a PM to John Woodgate, I'm not able to do that for various
reasons ATM, but it basically involves a (long, tedious, and oft-times
repetitive!) process of dissecting and analysing each section/clause,
paragraph, sentence and  phrase of a standard to the level that one can give
one of the following responses regarding  the "compliance" of the product to
each one of those:

1.  "Not applicable" - with very good reason(s)!
2.  "Compliant" - with the reference to the evidence as necessary (e.g.
test reports, drawings of the compliant parts/labels/etc., materials specs,
compliance reports, etc.)
3.  "Not Compliant" - with the reasons - in which case the "problem"
must be "fixed"! Of course, in the final version of such a product
compliance report then there will be NO statements to this effect because
everything WILL have been "fixed" and thus the response will be either "1"
or "2" above!
4.  "Not established" because "we don't know" - meaning  that further
work is required to establish what then needs to be done to work out what
needs to be checked out in detail and then "fixed, and will result the
response being either "1" or "2" above!

 

Thus, only when all the responses are either "1" or "2" above can the
product be declared compliant to the standard in question.

 

"Simples" in theory, but very difficult/time-consuming in practice - thus it
would be far better for everyone, everywhere, if the IEC committees made
sure that checklists were prepared for each standard in a form that "your
("average" in safety compliance issues but otherwise very competent!)
development engineer" can understand and then meet!

 

In other words: The IEC committees should make sure this is done it right
first time, so that multiple "interpretations" of the standards - and thus
multiple "controversies" are avoided - and thus that compliance verification
process will become more straightforward.

 

PS: it might hopefully  then also result in the standards being far more
clearly and explicitly worded as the committees realise the "errors of their
ways"

 

John E Allen

W.London, UK

From: John Woodgate  
Sent: 06 May 2020 23:06
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] 62368-1 Section 6.4.8 Flammability Confusion

 

Can you please share the format of your 'document and worded' exercise? I
might be able to get at lease a small part of IEC interested in it.

Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only www.woodjohn.uk
  Rayleigh, Essex UK MAY THE VIRUS NOT BE WITH YOU

On 2020-05-06 20:40, John E Allen wrote:

IMHO & TBH. I encountered such inconsistencies in IEC standards too many
times - which was why I "dissected" several standards (notably 60950, 60204
and 61010-1), rigourously followed the various cross-references, and then
documented and worded them in a form that would allow your ("average" in
safety compliance issues but otherwise very competent!) development
engineers to understand and then meet the  requirements of the standards in
question.

 

Great pity that the IEC tech committees never seem to do the thing - but, if
they did then their standards and Technical Report formats would be far more
easily and clearly understood by everyone!

 

John E Allen

W.London, UK.

 

From: John Woodgate    
Sent: 06 May 2020 19:45
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: Re: [PSES] 62368-1 Section 6.4.8 Flammability Confusion

 

This is the sort of thing that can easily happen in a huge document. It is
extremely difficult, especially where there is a chain of forward and back
cross references, and text pushed off from its primary context to multiple
annexes, to ensure internal consistency.

Best wishes John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only www.woodjohn.uk
  Rayleigh, Essex UK MAY THE VIRUS NOT BE WITH YOU

On 2020-05-06 18:35, Carl Newton wrote:

I'm wondering if any list members can explain the rationale behind 62368-1,
in sections 6.4.8.2.2 and 6.8.8.4.  I'm looking at the 2014 edition.

Clause 6.4.6,  Control of fire spread in a PS3 circuit, states that, "Fire
spread in PS3 circuits shall be controlled by applying all of the following
supplementary safeguards:".  In that clause it includes, "by providing a
fire enclosure as specified in 6.4.8."  

Clause 6.4.8.2.2,  Requirements for a fire enclosure, states "For circuits
where the available power does not exceed 4 000 W (see 6.4.1), a fire
enclosure shall comply with the requirements of Clause S.1."  That clause
then goes on to say that V-1 is acceptable

Clause (6.4.8.4) is addressing "Separation of a PIS from a fire enclosure
and a fire barrier" and is only requiring the application of the S.2 flame
test, which I believe is less demanding in that only a 60 s flame is applied
rather than three steps up to 120 s for the S.1 test method.  Clause 6.4.8.4
then goes on to state that a V-0 material is excluded from the