Re: [PSES] Put product on the Australia's market

[Kevin.Richardson]

Hi Scott,

Adding to Ted Eckert's, comments..

Not sure of the source of your information however, it would depend upon the 
Act or regulation and the nature of the change, i.e. if it is safety related it 
may well require compliance from the date the change was gazetted. Typically 
however, any change would allow a phase-in period during which on-sale and 
first introduced (newly arrived) products may comply with either the previous 
or new requirements.  At the end of that specified phase-in period the new 
requirements would be mandatory.

Changes to standards that are mandated by any Act/regulation are generally 
handled in a similar manner.


Best regards,
Kevin Richardson

Stanimore Pty Limited
Compliance Advice & Solutions for Technology
(Legislation/Regulations/Standards/Australian Agent Services)
Ph:   02-4329-4070   (Int'l: +61-2-4329-4070)
Fax:  02-4328-5639   (Int'l: +61-2-4328-5639)
Mobile:  04-1224-1620   (Int'l: +61-4-1224-1620)
Email:kevin.richard...@stanimore.com  or  kevin.richard...@ieee.org 
URL:  www.stanimore.com


Confidentiality 
This material (this email including all attachments) may contain confidential 
and/or privileged information intended to be read or used by the addressees 
only.  If you are not one of the intended recipients or you have received this 
material in error, any copying, disclosure, distribution, use of or reliance 
upon this material is prohibited.  Please immediately notify Stanimore Pty 
Limited and delete/destroy all copies (electronic and hardcopy) of this email 
and all attachments.  While the sender tries to ensure the accuracy of the 
information contained in this material, Stanimore take no responsibility for 
any actions taken as a result of receiving this material or for any consequence 
of its use.


From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, 3 October 2016 11:53 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Put product on the Australia's market

When there is an update to an Act or a applicable standard, it said it applies 
to both on-sale products meeting previous ones and newly arrived products on 
the effective date.  The retailers must sell out all the stock before the 
effective date or return to the suppliers for alternation in compliance with 
the latest standard.  Is there any legal document to endorse this rule?

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  

-

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] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..

[Nyffenegger, Dave]

And of course the OSHA NRTL marks are required in the US on applicable products 
(which do not include EMC).

-Dave

-Original Message-
From: dward [mailto:dw...@pctestlab.com] 
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 12:09 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..

To repeat the obvious.  The fact that the CE marking is or is not on a product 
in the US is really irrelevant to being able to be sold in the US.  The US 
market is not dependent upon other countries or Unions compliance agendas or 
standards.  It is only the necessary push by manufacturers to minimize the 
sizes of labels and yet have one label so as to sell in as many areas of the 
world as possible, that has made it so irrelevant and/ or unneeded markings, 
appear on products in The US; but they have absolutely no legal meaning.  

Many parts of the world accept CE marking as evidence of compliance, many 
accept FCC labeling as evidence of compliance.  The appearance of one over the 
other only matters for the specific country allowing or disallowing such label. 
 This we should all know. 

Consequently, in the US, no mark is acceptable as evidence of compliance, even 
while such markings may appear on products, unless that marking is specific to 
the US.  The FCC grant of authorization (FCC ID number),  FCC DoC, the required 
medical labels,  or the required FDA labels and such are the only valid labels 
for US products.   

​
Dennis Ward
This communication and its attachements contain information from PCTEST 
Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and is intended for the exclusive use of the 
recipient(s) named above.  It may contain information that is confidential 
and/or legally privileged.  Any unauthorized use that may compromise that 
confidentiality via distribution or disclosure is prohibited.  Please notify 
the sender immediately if you receive this communication in error, and delete 
it from your computer system.  Usage of PCTEST email addresses for non-business 
related activities is strictly prohibited.  No warranty is made that the e-mail 
or attachments(s) are free from computer virus or other defect.  Thank you.

-Original Message-
From: Grasso, Charles [mailto:charles.gra...@echostar.com]
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2016 8:37 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..

Gert - That's a difficult question to answer. For high volume manufacturers 
(consumer type products) the presence of the CE mark in the US is a byproduct 
of the compliance marking (i.e. one label) and is common place.

-Original Message-
From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl]
Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2016 3:57 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..

John Allen wrote:
>That's probably why the products from some major multinationals (as mentioned 
>in the previously linked >website) could not be sold elsewhere in the major 
>World markets without suitable compliance and >verification, and yet can be 
>sold in the US.

I was wondering if that is really the case ?  Can our US collegues witness that 
product of reputable manufacturers are not wearing the CE marking in the US. ?? 
 




Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



+ ce marking of electrical/electronic equipment Independent Consultancy 
+ Services Compliance Testing and Design for CE marking
 according to EC-directives:
- Electro Magnetic Compatibility 2004/108/EC
- Electrical Safety 2006/95/EC
- Medical Devices 93/42/EC
- Radio & Telecommunication Terminal Equipment 99/5/EC
+ Improvement of Product Quality and Reliability testing Education

Web:www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information that is 
confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights and are intended 
for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not limited to, 
total or partial reproduction, communication or distribution in any form) by 
persons other than the designated
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please 
notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and delete the material from 
any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: Friday 30 September 2016 15:31
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..

Dieter

Yes, that's what the words state, and have done for years - but, with no clear 
requirements or guidelines as to the technical requirements (tests, limits, 
pass/fail conditions etc.) or the actual need to do verification, then 
many/most suppliers appear to me to 

Re: [PSES] Put product on the Australia's market

[Ted Eckert]

Hello Scott,

The relevant act or law should specify the date the new requirement comes into 
force and the transitional requirements. Here is an example for AS/NZS 60950-1.
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2013C00943

Section 6 gives some of the transitional information noting that basic 
requirement is based on when a product is manufactured or imported. This would 
indicate that products already on the shelf at the time of the new requirement 
would not be affected.

The effective dates and transitional requirements can vary significantly even 
between regulatory agencies within one country. The language of the applicable 
statute should be used to determine what products are affected. General 
guidance may not always be accurate for every case even within one country.

Ted Eckert
Microsoft Corporation

The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my 
employer, the ACMA or the Australian government.

From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2016 5:53 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Put product on the Australia's market

When there is an update to an Act or a applicable standard, it said it applies 
to both on-sale products meeting previous ones and newly arrived products on 
the effective date.  The retailers must sell out all the stock before the 
effective date or return to the suppliers for alternation in compliance with 
the latest standard.  Is there any legal document to endorse this rule?

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 >

-

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] Test Message - Please Disregard

[Nyffenegger, Dave]

Test Message - Please Disregard except Scott and Dan

-Original Message-
From: Scott Douglas [mailto:sdouglas...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2016 1:23 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Test Message - Please Disregard

Test Message - Please Disregard

-

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: 

-

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] Test

[Willard, Bradley]

Test message.

Thanks,
Brad




- CONFIDENTIAL-

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential, and may also be 
legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, 
use, copy, or distribute this message. If you receive this email in error, 
please notify the sender immediately by reply email and then delete this email.

-

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] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..

[dward]

To repeat the obvious.  The fact that the CE marking is or is not on a product 
in the US is really irrelevant to being able to be sold in the US.  The US 
market is not dependent upon other countries or Unions compliance agendas or 
standards.  It is only the necessary push by manufacturers to minimize the 
sizes of labels and yet have one label so as to sell in as many areas of the 
world as possible, that has made it so irrelevant and/ or unneeded markings, 
appear on products in The US; but they have absolutely no legal meaning.  

Many parts of the world accept CE marking as evidence of compliance, many 
accept FCC labeling as evidence of compliance.  The appearance of one over the 
other only matters for the specific country allowing or disallowing such label. 
 This we should all know. 

Consequently, in the US, no mark is acceptable as evidence of compliance, even 
while such markings may appear on products, unless that marking is specific to 
the US.  The FCC grant of authorization (FCC ID number),  FCC DoC, the required 
medical labels,  or the required FDA labels and such are the only valid labels 
for US products.   

​
Dennis Ward
This communication and its attachements contain information from PCTEST 
Engineering Laboratory, Inc., and is intended for the exclusive use of the 
recipient(s) named above.  It may contain information that is confidential 
and/or legally privileged.  Any unauthorized use that may compromise that 
confidentiality via distribution or disclosure is prohibited.  Please notify 
the sender immediately if you receive this communication in error, and delete 
it from your computer system.  Usage of PCTEST email addresses for non-business 
related activities is strictly prohibited.  No warranty is made that the e-mail 
or attachments(s) are free from computer virus or other defect.  Thank you.

-Original Message-
From: Grasso, Charles [mailto:charles.gra...@echostar.com] 
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2016 8:37 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..

Gert - That's a difficult question to answer. For high volume manufacturers 
(consumer type products) the presence of the CE mark in the US is a byproduct 
of the compliance marking (i.e. one label) and is common place.

-Original Message-
From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl]
Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2016 3:57 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..

John Allen wrote:
>That's probably why the products from some major multinationals (as mentioned 
>in the previously linked >website) could not be sold elsewhere in the major 
>World markets without suitable compliance and >verification, and yet can be 
>sold in the US.

I was wondering if that is really the case ?  Can our US collegues witness that 
product of reputable manufacturers are not wearing the CE marking in the US. ?? 
 




Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



+ ce marking of electrical/electronic equipment Independent Consultancy 
+ Services Compliance Testing and Design for CE marking
 according to EC-directives:
- Electro Magnetic Compatibility 2004/108/EC
- Electrical Safety 2006/95/EC
- Medical Devices 93/42/EC
- Radio & Telecommunication Terminal Equipment 99/5/EC
+ Improvement of Product Quality and Reliability testing Education

Web:www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information that is 
confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights and are intended 
for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not limited to, 
total or partial reproduction, communication or distribution in any form) by 
persons other than the designated
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please 
notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and delete the material from 
any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: Friday 30 September 2016 15:31
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..

Dieter

Yes, that's what the words state, and have done for years - but, with no clear 
requirements or guidelines as to the technical requirements (tests, limits, 
pass/fail conditions etc.) or the actual need to do verification, then 
many/most suppliers appear to me to ignore those words! I think the same was 
true in Europe during the period after the original EMC Directive (76/889/EEC) 
was published but before the CE marking requirement version (89/336/EC) came 
out and required "proof" of compliance in the form of test reports, tech files 
and the CE marking - after 

Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..

[Grasso, Charles]

Gert - That's a difficult question to answer. For high volume manufacturers 
(consumer type products) the presence 
of the CE mark in the US is a byproduct of the compliance marking (i.e. one 
label) and is common place.

-Original Message-
From: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen [mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl] 
Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2016 3:57 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..

John Allen wrote:
>That's probably why the products from some major multinationals (as mentioned 
>in the previously linked >website) could not be sold elsewhere in the major 
>World markets without suitable compliance and >verification, and yet can be 
>sold in the US.

I was wondering if that is really the case ?  Can our US collegues witness that 
product of reputable manufacturers are not wearing the CE marking in the US. ?? 
 




Regards,

Ing. Gert Gremmen
Approvals manager



+ ce marking of electrical/electronic equipment Independent Consultancy 
+ Services Compliance Testing and Design for CE marking
 according to EC-directives:
    - Electro Magnetic Compatibility 2004/108/EC
    - Electrical Safety 2006/95/EC
    - Medical Devices 93/42/EC
    - Radio & Telecommunication Terminal Equipment 99/5/EC
+ Improvement of Product Quality and Reliability testing Education

Web:    www.cetest.nl (English) 
Phone :  +31 10 415 24 26
---
This e-mail and any attachments thereto may contain information that is 
confidential and/or protected by intellectual property rights and are intended 
for the sole use of the recipient(s) named above. 
Any use of the information contained herein (including, but not limited to, 
total or partial reproduction, communication or distribution in any form) by 
persons other than the designated
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please 
notify the sender either by telephone or by e-mail and delete the material from 
any computer. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: Friday 30 September 2016 15:31
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..

Dieter

Yes, that's what the words state, and have done for years - but, with no clear 
requirements or guidelines as to the technical requirements (tests, limits, 
pass/fail conditions etc.) or the actual need to do verification, then 
many/most suppliers appear to me to ignore those words! I think the same was 
true in Europe during the period after the original EMC Directive (76/889/EEC) 
was published but before the CE marking requirement version (89/336/EC) came 
out and required "proof" of compliance in the form of test reports, tech files 
and the CE marking - after that, things gradually began to change! 

The big problem in 1989, and for some years after, was the almost total lack of 
standards against which to do the tests and assessments on non-military 
products. However, some 25+ years later, the same cannot be said as there are 
many international, and even US trade-body, standards which could almost 
immediately be used as the basis for realistic sets of requirements to be 
formulated.

Many multi-national and US companies already do that as normal development 
practice, but in the current US legislative environment they can then "cost 
cut" for the US market by either not doing that testing on US-market specific 
products, or "cost reducing" their internationally-sold products for sale in 
that market. That's probably why the products from some major multinationals 
(as mentioned in the previously linked website) could not be sold elsewhere in 
the major World markets without suitable compliance and verification, and yet 
can be sold in the US. 

John E Allen
W. London, UK

From: Paasche, Dieter [mailto:dieter.paas...@christiedigital.com]
Sent: 30 September 2016 13:59
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] [RFI] Part 15 isn't enough..

In general I believe that changing part 15 will be very difficult since it is a 
legal  (political) document and would need congress approval for changes. 
Different that than in the EU where you have directives and harmonized 
standards somehow separately. 

 
Also the US is part of international committees and heavily participates on 
emissions and immunity standards. However implementation and enforcing is 
always difficult.
 
And finally, isn't FCC indirectly stating that immunity has to be met as well?  
FCC Part 15.5 (b)
§15.5   General conditions of operation.
 (a) Persons operating intentional or unintentional radiators shall not be 
deemed to have any vested or recognizable right to continued use of any given 
frequency by virtue of prior registration or certification of equipment, or, 
for power line carrier systems, on the basis 

[PSES] Put product on the Australia's market

[Scott Xe]

When there is an update to an Act or a applicable standard, it said it applies 
to both on-sale products meeting previous ones and newly arrived products on 
the effective date.  The retailers must sell out all the stock before the 
effective date or return to the suppliers for alternation in compliance with 
the latest standard.  Is there any legal document to endorse this rule?

 

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: