UL6500
Hello All, I'm in the process of specifying an external Ac to Dc power Adaptor which will be used for one of our products. The transformer is to be mounted inside an abs plastic housing with an Ac supply cord and a Dc output cord. Both cords are permanently fixed. Input voltage will be 120Vac and output will be 12Dc, 8Amps. Our product (Audio of sorts)can be used with a PC to provide audio or be used as home theater audio equipment. UL has identified UL 6500 as the approriate std to evaluate our end product to. UL has also indicated that off the shelf transformers, usually evaluated to UL 1411 (for Xfmrs used in certian types of audio products) won't meet the criteria for UL6500. I've had no luck thus far in locating a power adaptor manufacturer that evaluates to UL6500. Plenty have off the shelf product evaluated UL1411. What I'm trying to do here is start off my product's UL 6500 investigation with a Recognized Component power adaptor. This should make my product evaluation that much easier. If any of you knows of a mfgr that has been thruogh the UL6500 process, or if you have any suggestions as to what Power Adaptor manufacturers have a good reputation in working with you on this type of issue, please contact me via email. Additional comments regarding this issue also welcome. we're all in school, our whole lives through Good Health Good Fortune to YOU, George Sparacino - Sr. Compliance Engineer Boston Acoustics - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators).
Re: Help with USA EMC-Safety certification
Dear Tony, All Devices connecting to the Public Switch Telephone Network (PSTN) needs to be tested to FCC Part 68 before it can be sold in the US. This would be similar to the testing that I expect you would have tested to, for the crossed hockey stick mark for Europe. The US requirements that you met under Part 15 and UL1950 should be enough for EMC and Safety. If you don't already have a lab that can do this testing, or if you simply have more questions, call me at TUV Telecom: Best Regards, Paul K. Chang TUV Telecom 165 Forest Street Suite 201 Marlboro, MA 01752 (508) 460-0792 x235 (508) 460-9073 fax -Original Message- From: TO tonyo_e...@onaustralia.com.au To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' emc-p...@ieee.org List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date: Wednesday, August 19, 1998 6:59 AM Subject: Help with USA EMC-Safety certification We have Telecommunication terminal equipment (switch), which has been tested for European market for EMC and safety in an Australian Test House. It meets EMC emission limits CISPR22 class A, IEC-1000 series Immunity limits and IEC950 safety requirements. This is sufficient for CE marking. Equipment complies with FCC part 15 emission requirements and UL1950. Could someone put me on the right track regarding EMC and safety certification in the USA. Can we legally issue certificate of compliance and export this equipment to USA or is it mandatory to test it again in the USA test House? Do we have to register this equipment with Authorities such as FCC? How do we go formally about it Regards Tony Olejnicki tonyo_e...@onaustralia.com.au - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators).
ultrasonic cleaners
Greetings, What CE directives and hence what test standards apply to a small ultrasonic cleaner (sometimes referred to as a jewelry cleaner) when it is included as an accessory to an ITE product? The ultrasonic cleaner is an off the shelf product from another manufacturer. As received from the manufacturer it does not appear to be CE marked. The ITE product that it will accompany is used exclusively in commercial and light industrial environments (i.e. not for home use). It is a not attached to or in any way physically part of the ITE product. The ultrasonic cleaner is sold in both 120V/60Hz and 240V/50Hz versions (different part numbers). I am going to have a discussion about certification with our supplier of these and I just want to be armed with some accurate information. Thanks in advance for the help. Regards, Richard Cass Iris Graphics, Inc. USA - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators).
RE: ultrasonic cleaners
In my opinion, the cleaner is not an accessory to the ITE since it has no connections to it whatsoever. Therefore, the cleaner must stand as a product in its own right. I would consider it to be business equipment, so it must comply with EN 60950 for safety and EN 50081-1 for emissions and EN 50082-1 for immunity. I strongly recommend that you make the OEM responsible for performing the compliance tests. I also recommend that you require the OEM to provide an agency safety mark such as TUV. That way, the agency will perform survalence on the product to ensure continued safety compliance. If you are the importer you will be responsible for the Declaration of Conformity. Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics wo...@sensormatic.com Views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent those of Sensormatic. -- From: Richard Cass[SMTP:richard_c...@iris.scitex.com] Reply To: Richard Cass Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 1998 10:33 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: ultrasonic cleaners Greetings, What CE directives and hence what test standards apply to a small ultrasonic cleaner (sometimes referred to as a jewelry cleaner) when it is included as an accessory to an ITE product? The ultrasonic cleaner is an off the shelf product from another manufacturer. As received from the manufacturer it does not appear to be CE marked. The ITE product that it will accompany is used exclusively in commercial and light industrial environments (i.e. not for home use). It is a not attached to or in any way physically part of the ITE product. The ultrasonic cleaner is sold in both 120V/60Hz and 240V/50Hz versions (different part numbers). I am going to have a discussion about certification with our supplier of these and I just want to be armed with some accurate information. Thanks in advance for the help. Regards, Richard Cass Iris Graphics, Inc. USA - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators).
RE: Help with USA EMC-Safety certification
Hello TO, From your inquiry, it seems as if you have covered almost everything to sell your product in the USA - except the network protection requirements. All devices connecting to the Public Switch Telephone Network (PSTN) will need to meet this requirement. The requirement can be met by complying with FCC Part 68 in which REGISTRATION of your product with the FCC will be necessary. The requirements that you meet under FCC Part 15 and UL1950 should be enough for US EMC and Safety. If you should need additional information, please feel free to contact me at 011-49-6039-9182-0 (Germany) or 001-301-855-1375 (USA). Best Regards, Bandele Adepoju Rockford Engineering Services, Inc Tel:001-301-855-1375 (USA) 011-49-6039-9182-0 (Europe - Germany) Fax 001-410-586-1460 (USA) 011-49-6039-9182-29 (Europe - Germany) Email: band...@resemc.com Web:www.resemc.com -- From: TO [SMTP:tonyo_e...@onaustralia.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 1998 5:49 AM To: 'emc-p...@ieee.org' Subject: Help with USA EMC-Safety certification We have Telecommunication terminal equipment (switch), which has been tested for European market for EMC and safety in an Australian Test House. It meets EMC emission limits CISPR22 class A, IEC-1000 series Immunity limits and IEC950 safety requirements. This is sufficient for CE marking. Equipment complies with FCC part 15 emission requirements and UL1950. Could someone put me on the right track regarding EMC and safety certification in the USA. Can we legally issue certificate of compliance and export this equipment to USA or is it mandatory to test it again in the USA test House? Do we have to register this equipment with Authorities such as FCC? How do we go formally about it Regards Tony Olejnicki tonyo_e...@onaustralia.com.au - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators).
Re: Help with USA EMC-Safety certification
Tony, First, I'm confused. If you know that your product complies with FCC Part 15 and UL19050, why are you asking EMC and safety certification guidance in the US? Or, are you just making the statement? Anyway, compliance with IEC950 does not equate to compliance with UL1950. There are a few national deviations to be considered. Making the crossover might be a little easier with a CB certificate report. If this product is indeed truly compliant with UL1950 as indicated, then Listing of your product with an OSHA approved NRTL (Nationally Recognized Test Lab) is required. There is a bit of contractual process involved and testing will likely be required. Any NRTL should be able to get you started. See the following web address for the list of NRTLs for the category your product falls into: http://www.osha-slc.gov/SLTC/nrtl/index.html As for FCC Part 15, the FCC accepts data taken to the limits of CISPR22, however, the test must have been performed in accordance with ANSI C63.4 and performed at 120V, not 220V. There are also some requirements for the test lab as well. For safety, a CofC will not be sufficient. For FCC Part 15, a CofC may be sufficient depending on your target market's environment. In addition, registering your equipment with the FCC (Part 68) will also be required to connect to the telephone network. This is accomplished by formal testing and an application to the FCC. Formal product marking and manual statements are required. If you are unsure of how to proceed, enlist the services of a consultant or someone knowledgeable in this area to assist you. You may find that this investment will likely be well worth it. That's it in a nutshell. And, be advised that the above represents my experiences intermixed with my opinions. Good luck and best regards, Ron Pickard ron_pick...@hypercom.com __ Reply Separator _ Subject: Help with USA EMC-Safety certification Author: TO tonyo_e...@onaustralia.com.au at INTERNET List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org Date:8/19/98 7:49 PM We have Telecommunication terminal equipment (switch), which has been tested for uropean market for EMC and safety in an Australian Test House. It meets EMC emission limits CISPR22 class A, IEC-1000 series Immunity limits an IEC950 safety requirements. This is sufficient for CE marking. Equipment complies with FCC part 15 emission requirements and UL1950. Could someone put me on the right track regarding EMC and safety certification i the USA. Can we legally issue certificate of compliance and export this equipmen to USA or is it mandatory to test it again in the USA test House? Do we have to register this equipment with Authorities such as FCC? How do we go formally about it Regards Tony Olejnicki tonyo_e...@onaustralia.com.au - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators).
The EMC Directive and Insurance Companies
Hello All, I work in an industry in which ( in Europe ) we are subject to insurance regulations as well as the EMC directive. In many countries having your equipment meet these standards entitles the users of the equipment to a premium discount with the insurer. In some countries submitting your equipment for test is optional in others it is required by law. Most, if not all, of the insurance regulations include EMC tests in their suite of tests (including some mighty peculiar ones). I've thought up until now that I would just put up with it until the DOW for our family product comes around and then I thought all these extra tests would go away. I have recently hear for a source in Europe that the insurance industry is exempt from the EMC directive and that they could continue to impose their tests. Can anyone confirm or deny this exemption. Regards, Kevin Harris Compliance Engineering Manager Digital Security Controls 1645 Flint Road Downsview, Ontario CANADA M3J 2J6 Tel +1 416 665 8460 Ext. 378 Fax +1 416 665 7753 - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators).
RE: ultrasonic cleaners
What frequency is the ultrasonic section working at ? This may well classify as ISM equipment if it is intentionally using rf (above 9kHz) to perform its intended function (clean jewelry) and so EN 55011 would apply. Choice of Class A or B, as appropriate. Class A if not used in a residential environment, Class B if it is. I would recommend Class B since it could be used in a shop located beneath an apartment. For immunity I agree with Richard - EN50082-1 and would recommend the 1997 version of this standard. Mark mbri...@elliottlabs.com In my opinion, the cleaner is not an accessory to the ITE since it has no connections to it whatsoever. Therefore, the cleaner must stand as a product in its own right. I would consider it to be business equipment, so it must comply with EN 60950 for safety and EN 50081-1 for emissions and EN 50082-1 for immunity. I strongly recommend that you make the OEM responsible for performing the compliance tests. I also recommend that you require the OEM to provide an agency safety mark such as TUV. That way, the agency will perform survalence on the product to ensure continued safety compliance. If you are the importer you will be responsible for the Declaration of Conformity. Richard Woods Sensormatic Electronics wo...@sensormatic.com Views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent those of Sensormatic. -- From:Richard Cass[SMTP:richard_c...@iris.scitex.com] Reply To:Richard Cass Sent:Wednesday, August 19, 1998 10:33 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: ultrasonic cleaners Greetings, What CE directives and hence what test standards apply to a small ultrasonic cleaner (sometimes referred to as a jewelry cleaner) when it is included as an accessory to an ITE product? The ultrasonic cleaner is an off the shelf product from another manufacturer. As received from the manufacturer it does not appear to be CE marked. The ITE product that it will accompany is used exclusively in commercial and light industrial environments (i.e. not for home use). It is a not attached to or in any way physically part of the ITE product. The ultrasonic cleaner is sold in both 120V/60Hz and 240V/50Hz versions (different part numbers). I am going to have a discussion about certification with our supplier of these and I just want to be armed with some accurate information. Thanks in advance for the help. Regards, Richard Cass Iris Graphics, Inc. USA ++ +Mark Briggs MSc CEng, MIEE + + Manager, EMC Consulting Services + + Elliott Labs, 684 W Maude Avenue + +Sunnyvale, CA 94086+ ++ + Phone: +1 (408) 245 7800 x238+ + Fax: +1 (408) 245 3499 + ++ + Email: mbri...@elliottlabs.com + + http://www.elliottlabs.com + ++ - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators).
RE: FDA requirements
Dear Rebeca Chan, Based on the information that you provided, a device such as your electrode device could be classified as a Class I device. A submittal to FDA under a 510k plan may or may not be necessary. It is hard to say with the limited information provided. The key question here is how does it attach to the skin to record electrical signals. A product type search may be necessary to determine if it is similar to a device that is on the market in the United States. The thing to note for design here, is to ensure that your device is substantially equivalent in functionality to the device on the market (or precursory device). A function to function comparison must be made to determine equivalency. Your device will be subject to the same requirements as the precursory device. So you will also need to take special note as to what the special requirements of the precursory device are. You may find these to be more limited to what you will like to be applied to your device. The drawback to this is if a thorough comparison of your device to the precursory is not made and you fail to recognize some critical deviations in your device functionality, the FDA may by default conclude that your device is not substantially equivalent to the precursory device. Your device could be upgraded to where it requires PMA (PreMaket Approval) . If possible, you want to avoid the PMA (Class III) or 510k (Class II) route. It is important to understand how the FDA reaches its decisions regarding substantial equivalence. Manufacturers of devices classified as Class II or Class III (and some Class I), are required to register their facilities and conform to the GMP (Good manufacturing Practices) regulations. ISO 9000 will go a long way as a good start towards satisfying this requirement. Please note that some devices classified as Class I are exempted from this requirement. Your device may fall in the exempted group. I hope this helps in answering your questions. Best Regards, Bandele Adepoju Rockford Engineering Services, Inc. Tel:001-301-855-1375 Fax:001-410-586-1460 Email: band...@resemc.com Web;www.resemc.com -- From: becky...@aol.com [SMTP:becky...@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, August 13, 1998 4:32 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: FDA requirements I am working on a machine that has electrodes that are attached to the skin to measure various electrical signals. This machine is battery powered. My question is : am I required to conform to any FDA design rules in this area ? When the machine goes into production, do I have to find a manufacturer that is specifically qualified to produce medical device ? Is a ISO9000 certification sufficient qualification for a manufacturer to produce this item ? Rebeca Chan - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators).
RE: Use of Cadmium in ITE product
Here is a little more information that I have on this subject. I am not
aware of any other national deviations specifically covering Cadmium
batteries:
EN 60950 - European differences
Sweden (Ordinance SFS 1989:974)
Equipment provided with built-in batteries, not replaceable by the user,
shall be marked with the following
{recycle} symbol if the batteries have a content of mercury or cadmium
exceeding 0,025 % by weight.
EN 60950 - European differences
Switzerland (Ordinance on environmentally hazardous substances SR 814.013)
Annex 4.10 of SR 814.013 applies for batteries.
Greg Hansen
OEC Medical Systems, Inc.
ghan...@oecmed.com mailto:ghan...@oecmed.com
-Original Message-
From: Peter E. Perkins [SMTP:peperk...@compuserve.com]
mailto:[SMTP:peperk...@compuserve.com]
Sent: Friday, August 14, 1998 12:08 AM
To: INTERNET:bharat_s...@logitech.com
Cc: PSNetwork
Subject:Use of Cadmium in ITE product
PSNet
As I remember, the Scandinavians (Sweden, I believe)
first banned
the use of Cadmium in products because the Cadmuim would
leach out in
landfills and contaminate the groundwater... this was a
large concern to
equipment manufacturers who used Cad plated hardware...
There was pressure
to make this a European requirement, but I'm not sure where
that has lead
(no Pb pun intended)...
Perhaps someone has later information to flesh this
out...
- - - - -
Peter E Perkins
Principal Product Safety Consultant
Tigard, ORe 97281-3427
+1/503/452-1201 phone/fax
p.perk...@ieee.org mailto:p.perk...@ieee.org
email
-
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com
with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the
quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list
administrators).
CE marking vs. Annex ZB in EN60950
I am trying to sort out an an apparent contradiction between the main body of the harmonized EN 60950 and the national deviations that appear in Annex ZB. I would appreciate some assistance from the safety professionals and regulatory experts in the emc-pstc and treg forums. My particular problem has to do with the specified insulation between between TNV-3 circuits and SELV circuits, although the question about Annex ZB applies to other national deviations as well. I will use the TNV/SELV issue as an example. Clause 6.2.1.2 of EN 60950 specifies basic insulation between TNV-3 and SELV circuits. However, in Annex ZB, it states that Norway and Sweden require supplementary insulation. Annex ZB states that for the countries in which the special national conditions apply, these provisions are normative. For other countries they are informative. I am trying to understand how this distinction is applied for CE marking. I thought that the intent of CE marking was that products could be evaluated against harmonized standards and then have the CE marking applied. I thought that products with the CE marking were allowed to move freely among the member countries in the EU. Annex ZB seems to complicate this simple interpretation. My tentative conclusions about the above situation are: 1) A manufacturer who intends to market his product in a list of EU countries that excludes Norway and Sweden can apply the CE marking to a product that has only basic insulation between TNV-3 and SELV circuits. 2) A manufacturer who intends to market his product in a list of EU countries that includes Norway or Sweden can only apply the CE mark if the product provides supplementary insulation between TNV-3 and SELV circuits. The above two cases result in products that each bear identical CE marking, but one of them (case 1) is technically illegal for use in Norway and Sweden. From looking at the product marking, there is no way to determine that the product in case 1 should not be used in Norway or Sweden. I suppose that this distinction could be made in the user manual. I also presume that the manufacturer in case 1 would be obligated to ensure that the product is not offered for sale in Norway or Sweden. Maybe this is enough to comply with the letter of the law, but I suspect that it would be easy for the product in case 1 to find its way into Norway and Sweden. Prior to the adoption of CTR 21 for analog modems, the above issue was largely academic, since individual national approvals and the corresponding national labels were still required for connection to the PSTN. However, now that CTR 21 has been adopted, I expect there will be a rush toward full CE marking (including the crossed hockey sticks) of analog modems. National approval labels will no longer be required. I think this will bring additional attention to the situation I have described above. Can anyone offer some some insight into how this situation should be handled? Is my interpretation correct? Any comments would be welcome. Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 325 Highland Avenue Winchester, MA, USA 01890 781-721-2848 (voice) 781-721-0582 (fax)
RE: CE marking vs. Annex ZB in EN60950
Hi Joe: An excellent question ! Let me ask one or two of my own here. 1. Are we sure that both Sweden and Norway are currently EU members ? Not just IEC members ? Regardless of that answer the question really remains valid for the other items in annex ZB 2. Would it be reasonable that these National Requirements are only applicable when getting a National Approval, and that they are not applicable to CE marking and compliance with the EN standard ? I hope to see a lot of opinions, this should be interesting. Richard Payne MBD Product Safety Engineering Tektronix, Inc. v (503) 627-1820 f (503) 627-3838 e richard.pa...@tek.com -Original Message- From: j...@aol.com [SMTP:j...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 1998 9:17 AM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Cc: t...@world.std.com Subject: CE marking vs. Annex ZB in EN60950 I am trying to sort out an an apparent contradiction between the main body of the harmonized EN 60950 and the national deviations that appear in Annex ZB. I would appreciate some assistance from the safety professionals and regulatory experts in the emc-pstc and treg forums. My particular problem has to do with the specified insulation between between TNV-3 circuits and SELV circuits, although the question about Annex ZB applies to other national deviations as well. I will use the TNV/SELV issue as an example. Clause 6.2.1.2 of EN 60950 specifies basic insulation between TNV-3 and SELV circuits. However, in Annex ZB, it states that Norway and Sweden require supplementary insulation. Annex ZB states that for the countries in which the special national conditions apply, these provisions are normative. For other countries they are informative. I am trying to understand how this distinction is applied for CE marking. I thought that the intent of CE marking was that products could be evaluated against harmonized standards and then have the CE marking applied. I thought that products with the CE marking were allowed to move freely among the member countries in the EU. Annex ZB seems to complicate this simple interpretation. My tentative conclusions about the above situation are: 1) A manufacturer who intends to market his product in a list of EU countries that excludes Norway and Sweden can apply the CE marking to a product that has only basic insulation between TNV-3 and SELV circuits. 2) A manufacturer who intends to market his product in a list of EU countries that includes Norway or Sweden can only apply the CE mark if the product provides supplementary insulation between TNV-3 and SELV circuits. The above two cases result in products that each bear identical CE marking, but one of them (case 1) is technically illegal for use in Norway and Sweden. From looking at the product marking, there is no way to determine that the product in case 1 should not be used in Norway or Sweden. I suppose that this distinction could be made in the user manual. I also presume that the manufacturer in case 1 would be obligated to ensure that the product is not offered for sale in Norway or Sweden. Maybe this is enough to comply with the letter of the law, but I suspect that it would be easy for the product in case 1 to find its way into Norway and Sweden. Prior to the adoption of CTR 21 for analog modems, the above issue was largely academic, since individual national approvals and the corresponding national labels were still required for connection to the PSTN. However, now that CTR 21 has been adopted, I expect there will be a rush toward full CE marking (including the crossed hockey sticks) of analog modems. National approval labels will no longer be required. I think this will bring additional attention to the situation I have described above. Can anyone offer some some insight into how this situation should be handled? Is my interpretation correct? Any comments would be welcome. Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 325 Highland Avenue Winchester, MA, USA 01890 781-721-2848 (voice) 781-721-0582 (fax) - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators).
Re[2]: CE marking vs. Annex ZB in EN60950
Richard et al, To respond: An excellent question! Yes it was. Let me ask one or two of my own here. 1. Are we sure that both Sweden and Norway are currently EU members ? Not just IEC members ? IEC members? Actually, Sweden is a recent member of the EU. Norway is not an EU member. The EEA (European Economic Area), also referred to as EFTA I believe, comprises the EU and various neighboring countries around the EU, which includes Norway. The CE requirements are generally accepted throughout all of these countries. Regardless of that answer the question really remains valid for the other items in annex ZB Actually, the 6.2.1.2 Norway question and others in Annex ZB are moot if a type B plug is used instead of a type A plug. 2. Would it be reasonable that these National Requirements are only applicable when getting a National Approval, and that they are not applicable to CE marking and compliance with the EN standard ? According to Article 2 of the Low Voltage Directive (LVD) as amended by 93/68/EEC, compliance must be proven prior to placing a product on the market. In accordance with Article 10 of the LVD, the CE marking is the only required product marking. Other markings liable to deceive third parties as to the meaning and form of the CE marking shall be prohibited. Although, I suppose this means that individual NB marks are still allowed, but not required. Article 12 of the LVD describes that the LVD does not apply to products intended for export to third countries, or outside the EU and EEA. By this definition, the LVD applies to all member states within the EU, and referred to by the agreement on the EEA. I hope to see a lot of opinions, this should be interesting. Opinions would be nice to see, but the law makers in the EU seem to have made these issues cut and dry. Of course, everything's open to interpretation. Comments? Best regards, Ron Pickard ron_pick...@hypercom.com
