Re: [PSES] ACMA labelling arrangement change announcement
Hi Ron, The ACMA are confident the new system will be in place July 1, although we are sceptical. Regards, Martin. From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Ron Pickard RPQ Sent: Tuesday, 13 March 2012 2:17 PM To: 'Martin Garwood'; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: [PSES] ACMA labelling arrangement change announcement Hi Martin, Thank you for the detailed brief summary. Does anyone know if the ACMA expects this to be in place and functioning by their effectivity date or will it be delayed. Have you heard if there any expectation or rumblings from the ACMA that this will be delayed? Also, if Sergei German is still at Austest, tell him I said hi. I look forward to your reply. Best regards, Ron Pickard From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Martin Garwood Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 10:14 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: [PSES] ACMA labelling arrangement change announcement Hi All, I have put together a summary of the new Australian Electrical Safety System (as of today) with details of compliance levels and documentation requirements on our blog. http://www.approvalsblog.com/?p=717 Regards, Martin. Martin Garwood Austest Laboratories Unit 2, 9 Packard Avenue, Castle Hill, NSW 2154, Australia Tel: +61 2 9680 9990 | Fax: +61 2 8850 3113 http://www.austest.com.au/ www.austest.com.au (Offices in Sydney, Central Coast NSW, Melbourne, Adelaide) http://www.harvestlabs.com/ www.harvestlabs.com (Auckland) http://www.approvalspecialists.com/ www.approvalspecialists.com (Global) Local and Global Approvals News http://www.approvalsblog.com/ www.approvalsblog.com Austest Laboratories is 100% Australian Owned - 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
Re: [PSES] Identifying Apparatus in Europe Declarations of Conformity (DOCs)
Hello John, et al, 3rd para: NBs “freely supporting” exemptions are not required, and I doubt in practice that any of them would want to stick their neck out to support such a move. I am moved to use a texting abbreviation, ROFL! *IN MY OPINION* that’s EXACTLY why some companies use Notified Bodies; to skimp or circumvent testing which they then support with a written technical and/or operational justification. The notified body reviews the limited/partial testing, accepts the justification, issues a positive opinion and import authorities are happy. I could tell you stories that would make your toes curl. T - Original Message - From: John Cotman Sent: 03/12/12 04:44 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Identifying Apparatus in Europe Declarations of Conformity (DOCs) Using a standard that gives a presumption of conformity has obvious benefits, both in the legal protection of due diligence and in meeting customer expectations. It would be rather perverse not to do so if there is a standard that is a good fit to the product. ITE is clearly the type of product where close adherence is more important, and in many cases it is interoperability as much as safety that determines this. (Test labs in particular like to issue Pass/Fail reports to current standards, much more than decisions about compliance with directives. It’s nice and tidy and saves all the agonising about whether or not the latest amendment actually conveys the slightest benefit in improving the safety of a product, and getting customers into the mindset that every revision needs a retest is good for business) But going another route is legally permissible, and it does not mean that a Notified Body necessarily has to be involved. The CE process, for most products and directives, is one of self-declaration (yes, not in every case, and there are situations that have to involve an NB). But for that “most” situation, if you as the manufacturer are satisfied that your product meets the Essential Health and Safety Requirements of all relevant Directives, and that the evidence in your Technical File supports it, you may make a Declaration of Conformity, whatever standards, test methods, calculations etc have led you to that conclusion. No NB has had to agree or disagree with you, you take the responsibility. That is both the beauty and the problem with CE marking. NBs “freely supporting” exemptions are not required, and I doubt in practice that any of them would want to stick their neck out to support such a move. Now it may turn out that you are wrong, your declaration shouldn’t have been made, and you face enforcement action. It’s for any court action to prove non-compliance with any EHSRs, not failure to comply with a particular standard. And, of course, the prosecution has to prove its case, the defence does not. Any defence is going to be more difficult if you have used methods of your own devising, especially if it turns out that applying the “proper” current standard would have led you to a different conclusion, though there is a difference in culpability between a reckless declaration and one made in good faith, albeit incorrectly. Not sure if this clarifies or confuses the issue? John C - From: Monrad Monsen [mailto:monrad.mon...@oracle.com] Sent: 12 March 2012 15:39 To: John Cotman Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Identifying Apparatus in Europe Declarations of Conformity (DOCs) John, You made a very interesting statement ... especially for someone whose e-mail address indicates that you are in Europe. You said: You have also complicated the issue by supposing that changed standards (as distinct from legislation) are “mandatory” – they aren’t. You are correct that Compliance with a 'harmonised standard' is not compulsory. (EMC Directive 2004/108/EC, Article 6, section 1). However, compliance of equipment with the relevant harmonised standards ... shall raise a presumption ... of conformity with the essential requirements (EMC Directive 2004/108/EC, Article 6, section 2) Otherwise, a manufacturer would have to use (and pay for) a notified body to learn about our product and make up their own rules which will generally adopt the harmonized standards if they can be applied to the product. For products for which there are specific family standards developed like information technology equipment (ITE), the harmonized standards are effectively compulsory. Since my experience is with ITE products, I have not actually worked through a notified body. Are you implying that a notified body would freely support a product not updating to comply with new revisions of the harmonized standards? Would a notified body make a blanket finding for a company's whole portfolio of ITE products? Or would a company have to pay a fee to the notified body to effectively exempt each and every
[PSES] Construction directive/regulation in EU
Hi One of our customers has asked us how to understand the Construction directive and the new regulation, concerning their products. The make different kind of stationary road traffic signs according to standards; · EN 12966 · EN 12368 · EN 12899 At the moment they have no NB involved in their CE marking. We have made some test for them concerning EMC and electrical safety. I'm not sure how to read the directive/regulation and understand when a product is under which system (1, +1, 2 etc...). Will all tests have to be made by an accredited laboratory? Do all products require the use of a NB? Is there issued a guide on this regulations Best regards, Mr. Kim Boll Jensen Bolls Aps Ved Gadekæret 11F DK-3660 Stenløse Phone: +45 48 18 35 66 k...@bolls.dk www.bolls.dk - 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
Re: [PSES] Identifying Apparatus in Europe Declarations of Conformity (DOCs)
Yes, I think you're thinking of the RTTE Directive Monrad. For the RTTE Directive, the lack of a harmonised standard would require a Notified Body opinion. For the EMC Directive, the use of a Notified Body is optional. Remember that if the RTTE Directive applies to your device, then the EMC Directive does not apply. You don't apply them both. Michael. Michael Derby Regulatory Engineer ACB Europe -Original Message- From: Charlie Blackham [mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com] Sent: 12 March 2012 20:58 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Identifying Apparatus in Europe Declarations of Conformity (DOCs) Monrad My understanding is that unless the DOC cites the current harmonized standards, then a company must go to a notified body to get an exception and cite that finding/exception in the DOC That is not required - the use of a NB is completely voluntary under the EMC Directive as per Article 7. You can put whatever standards you choose on your DoC. Regards Charlie -Original Message- From: Monrad Monsen [mailto:monrad.mon...@oracle.com] Sent: 12 March 2012 18:44 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Identifying Apparatus in Europe Declarations of Conformity (DOCs) John, Regarding the question Are you implying that a notified body would freely support a product not updating to comply with new revisions of the harmonized standards?, you wrote: Yes: It's possible. For example, an update might well require emission testing above 1 GHz. If the product clearly has no possibility of producing such emissions, since previous tests have shown no significant emissions above 100 MHz, it does not need to be tested. But the manufacturer can justify that in his EMC assessment, it is not necessary to involve a Notified Body. The declaration of conformity (DOC) must be signed by the manufacturer using the harmonized standards. Your example is inadequate. Avoiding even testing the new radiated emissions testing above 1GHz for based on whether there is significant emissions above 100 MHz is very risky. In fact, the emissions standard (EN55022:2006+A1:2007) states product must be tested if the product has a clock/oscillator over 108MHz. More likely, the product will be sold also in USA and Canada, so the product is already tested above 1GHz even if there was a slightly different test methodology. My e-mail was addressing the case if a hardware change is required to meet the new requirement. Are you saying that a manufacturer can justify in his EMC assessment to avoid having to complying with the new 4dB tighter limits given in the 1-3GHz range and implementing a known hardware change? My understanding is that unless the DOC cites the current harmonized standards, then a company must go to a notified body to get an exception and cite that finding/exception in the DOC. To do any less would invite some regulator to take time to investigate your product documentation with a risk of either stopping a product in customs or demanding a recall of any products that did get through to customers. You also state: Again, no Notified Body need be involved. Revised standards apply in Europe only after a (normally) 3 year transition period. For some types of product, that is short compared with the normal product replacement cycle, but surely it isn't for ITE. Your preference is thus often achievable. Might be true for laptops, but I normally deal with professional products like servers and massed storage products that have a sales life going as long as 4-8 years with minor updates (drop-in CPU updates or drop-in replacements with faster disk or tape drives). Even beyond the period of new product sales, there is also a market for used product sales that could bring products to Europe from outside years later. As you know, the directives apply to all products (new or used) at the time when it is placed on the market and/or put into service which impacts used product sales when it first enters the European market. By the way, the Europe Commission issued Decision 2010/571/EU on 24 Sep 2010 that announced expiration dates for several RoHS exemptions that were within a year of the decision. Fortunately, the more frequently used RoHS exemptions 7(c)-III and 11(b) expiration dates were given two years notice. Hence, even your hopeful 3 year transition period is not rigorously followed by Europe. Note: All opinions expressed in this e-mail are my own only and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of any company I work for or have ever worked for. In fact, my opinions may change in the progress of this discussion. Monrad On 3/12/2012 10:18 AM, John Woodgate wrote: In message 4f5e1878.2000...@oracle.com, dated Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Monrad Monsen monrad.mon...@oracle.com writes: You made a very interesting statement ... especially for someone whose e-mail address indicates that you are in Europe. You said: You have also complicated the issue by
Re: [PSES] Identifying Apparatus in Europe Declarations of Conformity (DOCs)
What if your equipment is multi-functional? Say a passport reader that has a RFID mode (RTTE) as well as a functional mode to read UV inks or invisible data (EMC). Or a laptop (EMC) with a wireless mouse (RTTE)? Bob Heller St. Paul, MN 55107-1208 Tel: 651-778-6336 Fax: 651-778-6252 = From: Michael Derby micha...@acbcert.com To: 'Charlie Blackham' char...@sulisconsultants.com, EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Date: 03/13/2012 04:33 AM Subject:RE: [PSES] Identifying Apparatus in Europe Declarations of Conformity (DOCs) Sent by:emc-p...@ieee.org Yes, I think you're thinking of the RTTE Directive Monrad. For the RTTE Directive, the lack of a harmonised standard would require a Notified Body opinion. For the EMC Directive, the use of a Notified Body is optional. Remember that if the RTTE Directive applies to your device, then the EMC Directive does not apply. You don't apply them both. Michael. Michael Derby Regulatory Engineer ACB Europe -Original Message- From: Charlie Blackham [mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com] Sent: 12 March 2012 20:58 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Identifying Apparatus in Europe Declarations of Conformity (DOCs) Monrad My understanding is that unless the DOC cites the current harmonized standards, then a company must go to a notified body to get an exception and cite that finding/exception in the DOC That is not required - the use of a NB is completely voluntary under the EMC Directive as per Article 7. You can put whatever standards you choose on your DoC. Regards Charlie -Original Message- From: Monrad Monsen [mailto:monrad.mon...@oracle.com] Sent: 12 March 2012 18:44 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Identifying Apparatus in Europe Declarations of Conformity (DOCs) John, Regarding the question Are you implying that a notified body would freely support a product not updating to comply with new revisions of the harmonized standards?, you wrote: Yes: It's possible. For example, an update might well require emission testing above 1 GHz. If the product clearly has no possibility of producing such emissions, since previous tests have shown no significant emissions above 100 MHz, it does not need to be tested. But the manufacturer can justify that in his EMC assessment, it is not necessary to involve a Notified Body. The declaration of conformity (DOC) must be signed by the manufacturer using the harmonized standards. Your example is inadequate. Avoiding even testing the new radiated emissions testing above 1GHz for based on whether there is significant emissions above 100 MHz is very risky. In fact, the emissions standard (EN55022:2006+A1:2007) states product must be tested if the product has a clock/oscillator over 108MHz. More likely, the product will be sold also in USA and Canada, so the product is already tested above 1GHz even if there was a slightly different test methodology. My e-mail was addressing the case if a hardware change is required to meet the new requirement. Are you saying that a manufacturer can justify in his EMC assessment to avoid having to complying with the new 4dB tighter limits given in the 1-3GHz range and implementing a known hardware change? My understanding is that unless the DOC cites the current harmonized standards, then a company must go to a notified body to get an exception and cite that finding/exception in the DOC. To do any less would invite some regulator to take time to investigate your product documentation with a risk of either stopping a product in customs or demanding a recall of any products that did get through to customers. You also state: Again, no Notified Body need be involved. Revised standards apply in Europe only after a (normally) 3 year transition period. For some types of product, that is short compared with the normal product replacement cycle, but surely it isn't for ITE. Your preference is thus often achievable. Might be true for laptops, but I normally deal with professional products like servers and massed storage products that have a sales life going as long as 4-8 years with minor updates (drop-in CPU updates or drop-in replacements with faster disk or tape drives). Even beyond the period of new product sales, there is also a market for used product sales that could bring products to Europe from outside years later. As you know, the directives apply to all products (new or used) at the time when it is placed on the market and/or put into service which impacts used product sales when it first enters the European market. By the way, the Europe Commission issued Decision 2010/571/EU on 24 Sep 2010 that announced expiration dates for several RoHS exemptions that were within a year of the decision. Fortunately, the more frequently used RoHS exemptions 7(c)-III and 11(b) expiration dates were given two years notice. Hence, even your hopeful 3 year
Re: [PSES] Identifying Apparatus in Europe Declarations of Conformity (DOCs)
In message of3cd9390f.9696df42-on862579c0.003df660-862579c0.003e7...@mmm.com, dated Tue, 13 Mar 2012, rehel...@mmm.com writes: What if your equipment is multi-functional? Say a passport reader that has a RFID mode (RTTE) as well as a functional mode to read UV inks or invisible data (EMC). Or a laptop (EMC) with a wireless mouse (RTTE)? 'Render unto Caesar' - Apply the relevant Directive to each functional part. Can indeed be a complex matter. Here is a case where a Notified Body, that may have experience of similar hybrid products, may give valuable **advice**. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK If 'QWERTY' is an English keyboard, what language is 'WYSIWYG' for? - 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
Re: [PSES] Identifying Apparatus in Europe Declarations of Conformity (DOCs)
Or a laptop (EMC) with a wireless mouse (RTTE)? Presumably there'd be some wireless in the laptop as well :) Regards Charlie From: Robert Heller [mailto:rehel...@mmm.com] Sent: 13 March 2012 11:22 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Identifying Apparatus in Europe Declarations of Conformity (DOCs) What if your equipment is multi-functional? Say a passport reader that has a RFID mode (RTTE) as well as a functional mode to read UV inks or invisible data (EMC). Or a laptop (EMC) with a wireless mouse (RTTE)? Bob Heller St. Paul, MN 55107-1208 Tel: 651-778-6336 Fax: 651-778-6252 = From:Michael Derby micha...@acbcert.com To:'Charlie Blackham' char...@sulisconsultants.com, EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Date:03/13/2012 04:33 AM Subject:RE: [PSES] Identifying Apparatus in Europe Declarations of Conformity (DOCs) Sent by:emc-p...@ieee.org Yes, I think you're thinking of the RTTE Directive Monrad. For the RTTE Directive, the lack of a harmonised standard would require a Notified Body opinion. For the EMC Directive, the use of a Notified Body is optional. Remember that if the RTTE Directive applies to your device, then the EMC Directive does not apply. You don't apply them both. Michael. Michael Derby Regulatory Engineer ACB Europe -Original Message- From: Charlie Blackham [mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com] Sent: 12 March 2012 20:58 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Identifying Apparatus in Europe Declarations of Conformity (DOCs) Monrad My understanding is that unless the DOC cites the current harmonized standards, then a company must go to a notified body to get an exception and cite that finding/exception in the DOC That is not required - the use of a NB is completely voluntary under the EMC Directive as per Article 7. You can put whatever standards you choose on your DoC. Regards Charlie -Original Message- From: Monrad Monsen [mailto:monrad.mon...@oracle.com] Sent: 12 March 2012 18:44 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Identifying Apparatus in Europe Declarations of Conformity (DOCs) John, Regarding the question Are you implying that a notified body would freely support a product not updating to comply with new revisions of the harmonized standards?, you wrote: Yes: It's possible. For example, an update might well require emission testing above 1 GHz. If the product clearly has no possibility of producing such emissions, since previous tests have shown no significant emissions above 100 MHz, it does not need to be tested. But the manufacturer can justify that in his EMC assessment, it is not necessary to involve a Notified Body. The declaration of conformity (DOC) must be signed by the manufacturer using the harmonized standards. Your example is inadequate. Avoiding even testing the new radiated emissions testing above 1GHz for based on whether there is significant emissions above 100 MHz is very risky. In fact, the emissions standard (EN55022:2006+A1:2007) states product must be tested if the product has a clock/oscillator over 108MHz. More likely, the product will be sold also in USA and Canada, so the product is already tested above 1GHz even if there was a slightly different test methodology. My e-mail was addressing the case if a hardware change is required to meet the new requirement. Are you saying that a manufacturer can justify in his EMC assessment to avoid having to complying with the new 4dB tighter limits given in the 1-3GHz range and implementing a known hardware change? My understanding is that unless the DOC cites the current harmonized standards, then a company must go to a notified body to get an exception and cite that finding/exception in the DOC. To do any less would invite some regulator to take time to investigate your product documentation with a risk of either stopping a product in customs or demanding a recall of any products that did get through to customers. You also state: Again, no Notified Body need be involved. Revised standards apply in Europe only after a (normally) 3 year transition period. For some types of product, that is short compared with the normal product replacement cycle, but surely it isn't for ITE. Your preference is thus often achievable. Might be true for laptops, but I normally deal with professional products like servers and massed storage products that have a sales life going as long as 4-8 years with minor updates (drop-in CPU updates or drop-in replacements with faster disk or tape drives). Even beyond the period of new product sales, there is also a market for used product sales that could bring products to Europe from outside years later. As you know, the directives apply to all products (new or used) at the time when it is placed on the market and/or put into service which impacts used product sales when it first enters the
Re: [PSES] Identifying Apparatus in Europe Declarations of Conformity (DOCs)
Not in my Abacus Model 1 ;) Bob Heller 3M EMC Laboratory, 76-1-01 St. Paul, MN 55107-1208 Tel: 651-778-6336 Fax: 651-778-6252 = From: Charlie Blackham char...@sulisconsultants.com To: rehel...@mmm.com rehel...@mmm.com, EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Date: 03/13/2012 07:27 AM Subject:RE: [PSES] Identifying Apparatus in Europe Declarations of Conformity (DOCs) Or a laptop (EMC) with a wireless mouse (RTTE)? Presumably there?d be some wireless in the laptop as well J Regards Charlie From: Robert Heller [mailto:rehel...@mmm.com] Sent: 13 March 2012 11:22 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Identifying Apparatus in Europe Declarations of Conformity (DOCs) What if your equipment is multi-functional? Say a passport reader that has a RFID mode (RTTE) as well as a functional mode to read UV inks or invisible data (EMC). Or a laptop (EMC) with a wireless mouse (RTTE)? Bob Heller St. Paul, MN 55107-1208 Tel: 651-778-6336 Fax: 651-778-6252 = From:Michael Derby micha...@acbcert.com To:'Charlie Blackham' char...@sulisconsultants.com, EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Date:03/13/2012 04:33 AM Subject:RE: [PSES] Identifying Apparatus in Europe Declarations of Conformity (DOCs) Sent by:emc-p...@ieee.org Yes, I think you're thinking of the RTTE Directive Monrad. For the RTTE Directive, the lack of a harmonised standard would require a Notified Body opinion. For the EMC Directive, the use of a Notified Body is optional. Remember that if the RTTE Directive applies to your device, then the EMC Directive does not apply. You don't apply them both. Michael. Michael Derby Regulatory Engineer ACB Europe -Original Message- From: Charlie Blackham [mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com] Sent: 12 March 2012 20:58 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Identifying Apparatus in Europe Declarations of Conformity (DOCs) Monrad My understanding is that unless the DOC cites the current harmonized standards, then a company must go to a notified body to get an exception and cite that finding/exception in the DOC That is not required - the use of a NB is completely voluntary under the EMC Directive as per Article 7. You can put whatever standards you choose on your DoC. Regards Charlie -Original Message- From: Monrad Monsen [mailto:monrad.mon...@oracle.com] Sent: 12 March 2012 18:44 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Identifying Apparatus in Europe Declarations of Conformity (DOCs) John, Regarding the question Are you implying that a notified body would freely support a product not updating to comply with new revisions of the harmonized standards?, you wrote: Yes: It's possible. For example, an update might well require emission testing above 1 GHz. If the product clearly has no possibility of producing such emissions, since previous tests have shown no significant emissions above 100 MHz, it does not need to be tested. But the manufacturer can justify that in his EMC assessment, it is not necessary to involve a Notified Body. The declaration of conformity (DOC) must be signed by the manufacturer using the harmonized standards. Your example is inadequate. Avoiding even testing the new radiated emissions testing above 1GHz for based on whether there is significant emissions above 100 MHz is very risky. In fact, the emissions standard (EN55022:2006+A1:2007) states product must be tested if the product has a clock/oscillator over 108MHz. More likely, the product will be sold also in USA and Canada, so the product is already tested above 1GHz even if there was a slightly different test methodology. My e-mail was addressing the case if a hardware change is required to meet the new requirement. Are you saying that a manufacturer can justify in his EMC assessment to avoid having to complying with the new 4dB tighter limits given in the 1-3GHz range and implementing a known hardware change? My understanding is that unless the DOC cites the current harmonized standards, then a company must go to a notified body to get an exception and cite that finding/exception in the DOC. To do any less would invite some regulator to take time to investigate your product documentation with a risk of either stopping a product in customs or demanding a recall of any products that did get through to customers. You also state: Again, no Notified Body need be involved. Revised standards apply in Europe only after a (normally) 3 year transition period. For some types of product, that is short compared with the normal product replacement cycle, but surely it isn't for ITE. Your preference is thus often achievable. Might be true for laptops, but I normally deal with professional products like servers and massed storage products that have a sales life going as long as 4-8 years with minor
[PSES] Fwd List of Test Equipment for Sale
Ladies/Gentlemen: I am not associated with this firm, nor benefit from any sales they may make. I have worked with this firm before and appreciated their Quality of Products and Professionalism at supplying Test Equipment. I thought someone in this group may benefit from new contact and from the Test Equipment they are offering. Regards, Robert The following email is TEXT only: =-=-= From: Jennifer DuMond jdum...@prioritytest.com To: 'undisclosed recipients' nthr...@prioritytest.com Subject:Priority Test - March Check In! Date: Mon 03/12/12 06:22 PM Hi - How are you? Are you looking to buy (refurbished), rent, sale or repair any test equipment today? Remember - We specialize in refurbished Agilent, Tektronix, Fluke, RS, Instek, SRS, SmartBits, (plus an additional 400 manufacturers) for electronic test equipment such as oscilloscopes, power supplies, spectrum and network analyzers, probes, amplifiers, electronic loads, accessories plus much more. We have the following items FOR SALE (manual and power cord included only - calibration extra): TEK TDS694C - 3GHz/4 channel - 10 GS/s digital oscilloscope - $5995 ANR MG3633A - 10kHz-2700MHz Synthesized Signal Generator - $3795 EIP 578 - 26.5 GHz Frequency Counter - $3995 AT/HP 3325B - Synthesizer/Function Generator - $795 AT/HP 3458A - Multimeter w/cal certificate - $5995 w/cal cert AT/HP 437B - RF Power Meter - $200/ea AT/HP 438A - 50 MHz power meter - $250/ea AT 85033D - Calibration Kit 3.5MM - $2795 SmartBits 6000B - 20 module mainframe - $2495 TEK VM700A - Video Measurement Test Set - $1495 Chroma 6314 w/63103 - Load with 1 module - $1995 Happy upcoming St. Patrick’s Day! Remember to give us a call or email when you need to buy, rent or repair test equipment – We’re happy to help! Thanks again and have a great day! Nanette Jennifer Chelsea Nanette Throne Account Manager Priority Test Equipment 925-513-7300 ofc 925-513-7338fax 925-759-1093 mobile nthr...@prioritytest.com www.prioritytest.com Jennifer DuMond Inside Sales Representative Western Northern United States jdum...@prioritytest.com Chelsea Alayne Inside Sales Representative Eastern Southern United States cala...@prioritytest.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
Re: [PSES] Identifying Apparatus in Europe Declarations of Conformity (DOCs)
You were on Hogwarts with Harry too ? He got the Nimbus 2000 ! Regards, Ing. Gert Gremmen, BSc Van: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] Namens rehel...@mmm.com Verzonden: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 1:33 PM Aan: Charlie Blackham CC: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Onderwerp: RE: [PSES] Identifying Apparatus in Europe Declarations of Conformity (DOCs) Not in my Abacus Model 1 ;) Bob Heller 3M EMC Laboratory, 76-1-01 St. Paul, MN 55107-1208 Tel: 651-778-6336 Fax: 651-778-6252 = From:Charlie Blackham char...@sulisconsultants.com To:rehel...@mmm.com rehel...@mmm.com, EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Date:03/13/2012 07:27 AM Subject:RE: [PSES] Identifying Apparatus in Europe Declarations of Conformity (DOCs) Or a laptop (EMC) with a wireless mouse (RTTE)? Presumably there'd be some wireless in the laptop as well J Regards Charlie From: Robert Heller [mailto:rehel...@mmm.com mailto:rehel...@mmm.com ] Sent: 13 March 2012 11:22 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Identifying Apparatus in Europe Declarations of Conformity (DOCs) What if your equipment is multi-functional? Say a passport reader that has a RFID mode (RTTE) as well as a functional mode to read UV inks or invisible data (EMC). Or a laptop (EMC) with a wireless mouse (RTTE)? Bob Heller St. Paul, MN 55107-1208 Tel: 651-778-6336 Fax: 651-778-6252 = From:Michael Derby micha...@acbcert.com To:'Charlie Blackham' char...@sulisconsultants.com, EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Date:03/13/2012 04:33 AM Subject:RE: [PSES] Identifying Apparatus in Europe Declarations of Conformity (DOCs) Sent by:emc-p...@ieee.org Yes, I think you're thinking of the RTTE Directive Monrad. For the RTTE Directive, the lack of a harmonised standard would require a Notified Body opinion. For the EMC Directive, the use of a Notified Body is optional. Remember that if the RTTE Directive applies to your device, then the EMC Directive does not apply. You don't apply them both. Michael. Michael Derby Regulatory Engineer ACB Europe -Original Message- From: Charlie Blackham [mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com ] Sent: 12 March 2012 20:58 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Identifying Apparatus in Europe Declarations of Conformity (DOCs) Monrad My understanding is that unless the DOC cites the current harmonized standards, then a company must go to a notified body to get an exception and cite that finding/exception in the DOC That is not required - the use of a NB is completely voluntary under the EMC Directive as per Article 7. You can put whatever standards you choose on your DoC. Regards Charlie -Original Message- From: Monrad Monsen [mailto:monrad.mon...@oracle.com mailto:monrad.mon...@oracle.com ] Sent: 12 March 2012 18:44 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Identifying Apparatus in Europe Declarations of Conformity (DOCs) John, Regarding the question Are you implying that a notified body would freely support a product not updating to comply with new revisions of the harmonized standards?, you wrote: Yes: It's possible. For example, an update might well require emission testing above 1 GHz. If the product clearly has no possibility of producing such emissions, since previous tests have shown no significant emissions above 100 MHz, it does not need to be tested. But the manufacturer can justify that in his EMC assessment, it is not necessary to involve a Notified Body. The declaration of conformity (DOC) must be signed by the manufacturer using the harmonized standards. Your example is inadequate. Avoiding even testing the new radiated emissions testing above 1GHz for based on whether there is significant emissions above 100 MHz is very risky. In fact, the emissions standard (EN55022:2006+A1:2007) states product must be tested if the product has a clock/oscillator over 108MHz. More likely, the product will be sold also in USA and Canada, so the product is already tested above 1GHz even if there was a slightly different test methodology. My e-mail was addressing the case if a hardware change is required to meet the new requirement. Are you saying that a manufacturer can justify in his EMC assessment to avoid having to complying with the new 4dB tighter limits given in the 1-3GHz range and implementing a known hardware change? My understanding is that unless the DOC cites the current harmonized standards, then a company must go to a notified body to get an exception and cite that finding/exception in the DOC. To do any less would invite some regulator to take time to investigate your product documentation with a risk of either stopping a product in customs or
Re: [PSES] Identifying Apparatus in Europe Declarations of Conformity (DOCs)
Then it's an RTTE Device. If you have a piece of apparatus that has no radio or telecoms (wirelessless?), you would normally apply the EMC and Safety Directives. Then you add a radio device to it and it becomes an RTTE Directive device. The RTTE Directive includes EMC (article 3.1b) and Safety (article 3.1a) and states that once you apply the RTTE Directive, you no longer apply the EMC and Safety Directives. Now, you might say.. But my device is complex and the harmonised standards I apply are in the EMC OJ and the Safety OJ, not the RTTE OJ! ..well, that's ok, you can use standards from the EMC OJ and the Safety OJ to demonstrate compliance with articles 3.1b and 3.1a of the RTTE Directive but that doesn't mean you're applying the EMC or Safety Directives. Michael. Michael Derby Regulatory Engineer ACB Europe From: Charlie Blackham [mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com] Sent: 13 March 2012 12:27 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Identifying Apparatus in Europe Declarations of Conformity (DOCs) Or a laptop (EMC) with a wireless mouse (RTTE)? Presumably there'd be some wireless in the laptop as well J Regards Charlie From: Robert Heller [mailto:rehel...@mmm.com] Sent: 13 March 2012 11:22 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Identifying Apparatus in Europe Declarations of Conformity (DOCs) What if your equipment is multi-functional? Say a passport reader that has a RFID mode (RTTE) as well as a functional mode to read UV inks or invisible data (EMC). Or a laptop (EMC) with a wireless mouse (RTTE)? Bob Heller St. Paul, MN 55107-1208 Tel: 651-778-6336 Fax: 651-778-6252 = From:Michael Derby micha...@acbcert.com To:'Charlie Blackham' char...@sulisconsultants.com, EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Date:03/13/2012 04:33 AM Subject:RE: [PSES] Identifying Apparatus in Europe Declarations of Conformity (DOCs) Sent by:emc-p...@ieee.org _ Yes, I think you're thinking of the RTTE Directive Monrad. For the RTTE Directive, the lack of a harmonised standard would require a Notified Body opinion. For the EMC Directive, the use of a Notified Body is optional. Remember that if the RTTE Directive applies to your device, then the EMC Directive does not apply. You don't apply them both. Michael. Michael Derby Regulatory Engineer ACB Europe -Original Message- From: Charlie Blackham [ mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com] Sent: 12 March 2012 20:58 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Identifying Apparatus in Europe Declarations of Conformity (DOCs) Monrad My understanding is that unless the DOC cites the current harmonized standards, then a company must go to a notified body to get an exception and cite that finding/exception in the DOC That is not required - the use of a NB is completely voluntary under the EMC Directive as per Article 7. You can put whatever standards you choose on your DoC. Regards Charlie -Original Message- From: Monrad Monsen [ mailto:monrad.mon...@oracle.com mailto:monrad.mon...@oracle.com] Sent: 12 March 2012 18:44 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Identifying Apparatus in Europe Declarations of Conformity (DOCs) John, Regarding the question Are you implying that a notified body would freely support a product not updating to comply with new revisions of the harmonized standards?, you wrote: Yes: It's possible. For example, an update might well require emission testing above 1 GHz. If the product clearly has no possibility of producing such emissions, since previous tests have shown no significant emissions above 100 MHz, it does not need to be tested. But the manufacturer can justify that in his EMC assessment, it is not necessary to involve a Notified Body. The declaration of conformity (DOC) must be signed by the manufacturer using the harmonized standards. Your example is inadequate. Avoiding even testing the new radiated emissions testing above 1GHz for based on whether there is significant emissions above 100 MHz is very risky. In fact, the emissions standard (EN55022:2006+A1:2007) states product must be tested if the product has a clock/oscillator over 108MHz. More likely, the product will be sold also in USA and Canada, so the product is already tested above 1GHz even if there was a slightly different test methodology. My e-mail was addressing the case if a hardware change is required to meet the new requirement. Are you saying that a manufacturer can justify in his EMC assessment to avoid having to complying with the new 4dB tighter limits given in the 1-3GHz range and implementing a known hardware change? My understanding is that unless the DOC cites the current harmonized standards, then a company must go to a notified body to get an exception and cite that finding/exception in the DOC. To do any less would
Re: [PSES] Identifying Apparatus in Europe Declarations of Conformity (DOCs)
Of course, you couldn’t have a wireless abacus. That’d be just a frame and a pile of beads! T - Original Message - From: Robert Heller Sent: 03/13/12 12:32 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Identifying Apparatus in Europe Declarations of Conformity (DOCs) Not in my Abacus Model 1 ;) Bob Heller 3M EMC Laboratory, 76-1-01 St. Paul, MN 55107-1208 Tel: 651-778-6336 Fax: 651-778-6252 = From: Charlie Blackham char...@sulisconsultants.com To: rehel...@mmm.com rehel...@mmm.com, EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Date: 03/13/2012 07:27 AM Subject: RE: [PSES] Identifying Apparatus in Europe Declarations of Conformity (DOCs) - Or a laptop (EMC) with a wireless mouse (RTTE)? Presumably there’d be some wireless in the laptop as well J Regards Charlie *From:* Robert Heller [ rehel...@mmm.com ] *Sent:* 13 March 2012 11:22 *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG *Subject:* Re: [PSES] Identifying Apparatus in Europe Declarations of Conformity (DOCs) What if your equipment is multi-functional? Say a passport reader that has a RFID mode (RTTE) as well as a functional mode to read UV inks or invisible data (EMC). Or a laptop (EMC) with a wireless mouse (RTTE)? Bob Heller St. Paul, MN 55107-1208 Tel: 651-778-6336 Fax: 651-778-6252 = From: Michael Derby micha...@acbcert.com To: 'Charlie Blackham' char...@sulisconsultants.com, EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Date: 03/13/2012 04:33 AM Subject: RE: [PSES] Identifying Apparatus in Europe Declarations of Conformity (DOCs) Sent by: emc-p...@ieee.org - Yes, I think you're thinking of the RTTE Directive Monrad. For the RTTE Directive, the lack of a harmonised standard would require a Notified Body opinion. For the EMC Directive, the use of a Notified Body is optional. Remember that if the RTTE Directive applies to your device, then the EMC Directive does not apply. You don't apply them both. Michael. Michael Derby Regulatory Engineer ACB Europe -Original Message- From: Charlie Blackham [ char...@sulisconsultants.com ] Sent: 12 March 2012 20:58 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Identifying Apparatus in Europe Declarations of Conformity (DOCs) Monrad My understanding is that unless the DOC cites the current harmonized standards, then a company must go to a notified body to get an exception and cite that finding/exception in the DOC That is not required - the use of a NB is completely voluntary under the EMC Directive as per Article 7. You can put whatever standards you choose on your DoC. Regards Charlie -Original Message- From: Monrad Monsen [ monrad.mon...@oracle.com ] Sent: 12 March 2012 18:44 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Identifying Apparatus in Europe Declarations of Conformity (DOCs) John, Regarding the question Are you implying that a notified body would freely support a product not updating to comply with new revisions of the harmonized standards?, you wrote: Yes: It's possible. For example, an update might well require emission testing above 1 GHz. If the product clearly has no possibility of producing such emissions, since previous tests have shown no significant emissions above 100 MHz, it does not need to be tested. But the manufacturer can justify that in his EMC assessment, it is not necessary to involve a Notified Body. The declaration of conformity (DOC) must be signed by the manufacturer using the harmonized standards. Your example is inadequate. Avoiding even testing the new radiated emissions testing above 1GHz for based on whether there is significant emissions above 100 MHz is very risky. In fact, the emissions standard (EN55022:2006+A1:2007) states product must be tested if the product has a clock/oscillator over 108MHz. More likely, the product will be sold also in USA and Canada, so the product is already tested above 1GHz even if there was a slightly different test methodology. My e-mail was addressing the case if a hardware change is required to meet the new requirement. Are you saying that a manufacturer can justify in his EMC assessment to avoid having to complying with the new 4dB tighter limits given in the 1-3GHz range and implementing a known hardware change? My understanding is that unless the DOC cites the current harmonized standards, then a company must go to a notified body to get an exception and cite that finding/exception in the DOC. To do any less would invite some regulator to take time to investigate your product documentation with a risk of either stopping a product in customs or demanding a recall of any products that did get through to customers. You also state: Again, no Notified Body need be involved. Revised standards apply in
Re: [PSES] Construction directive/regulation in EU
Kim – You can review these links as a starter. http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/construction/index_en.htm http://www.exploreconstruction.eu/index.jspx Peter Tarver *From:* Kim Boll Jensen [mailto:k...@bolls.dk] *Sent:* Tuesday, March 13, 2012 02:24 *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG *Subject:* [PSES] Construction directive/regulation in EU Hi One of our customers has asked us how to understand the Construction directive and the new regulation, concerning their products. The make different kind of stationary road traffic signs according to standards; · EN 12966 · EN 12368 · EN 12899 At the moment they have no NB involved in their CE marking. We have made some test for them concerning EMC and electrical safety. I'm not sure how to read the directive/regulation and understand when a product is under which system (1, +1, 2 etc...). Will all tests have to be made by an accredited laboratory? Do all products require the use of a NB? Is there issued a guide on this regulations Best regards, Mr. Kim Boll Jensen Bolls Aps Ved Gadekæret 11F DK-3660 Stenløse Phone: +45 48 18 35 66 k...@bolls.dk www.bolls.dk - 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 email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review, use, copy, disclose or distribute this message. If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. - 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
Re: [PSES] Identifying Apparatus in Europe Declarations of Conformity (DOCs)
In message 64D32EE8B9CBDD44963ACB076A5F6ABB0261B59C@Mailbox-Tech.lecotech.local, dated Tue, 13 Mar 2012, Kunde, Brian brian_ku...@lecotc.com writes: So when a directive says to apply harmonized standards, do we just assume it means to apply standards harmonized to THAT directive? Is it clear that it doesn?t also mean standards harmonized to ANY directive? To all the Directives that apply to the product, and *only* those. There is no obligation to trawl through every harmonized standard that exists and apply it to a product if that product is not included in the scope of the standard. That is why the Commission publishes list of standards that apply under each Directive. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK If 'QWERTY' is an English keyboard, what language is 'WYSIWYG' for? - 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
[PSES] I am out of the office - for my annual vaccation
I will be out of the office starting 03/14/2012 and will not return until 04/12/2012. I will have very limited access to my e-mail, therefore preferably please contact my deputies: For FCC/Canada and EU-Notified Body: arvin...@twn.tuv.com For Telecom International Approvals: jane.p...@twn.tuv.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
