Re: [PSES] Pickle

[Pete Perkins]

Resending after deleting Doug's image (which wasn't allowed
on the PSNet and  resulted in my message being returned, unsent).  

 

John,

 

   I'll chime in here, rather belatedly it appears.  

 

   A detailed risk assessment is in order here.  

   A useful method for evaluation of circuits, including for
safety functions, is to determine the effects of open or shorts for each
component.  

   UL does some of this in fault testing which is helpful.  

   A more comprehensive method is to do this by reviewing the
schematic and developing a spreadsheet which explains the expected effect of
opening and shorting each component.  

   The use of each of these techniques complements one another. 

 

   Hope this helps.   

 

:>) br,  Pete

 

Peter E Perkins, PE

Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant

PO Box 23427

Tigard, ORe  97281-3427

 

503/452-1201

 

  p.perk...@ieee.org

 

From: John Allen [mailto:jral...@productsafetyinc.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 1:02 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Pickle

 

Thanks everyone!

 

Either test or re-design is required.

 

I appreciate the input.

 

John

 

  _  

From: Doug Powell 
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 2:07 PM
To: John Allen
Cc: EMC-PSTC
Subject: Re: [PSES] Pickle 

 

John,

 

UL 991 is a test method for qualifying solid-state circuits for safety
function.  It is generally referenced by another standard and is not used as
a primary certification standard as such.  Additionally, semiconductors are
not certified individually to UL 991 as this is not a component standard.
It is very important that the circuits where the semiconductors are used be
evaluated.  If you are familiar with the EMC immunity testing of IEC/CISPR
standards, it is very much like this.  Radiated immunity, EFT, surge, ESD,
etc.

 

-Doug

 

 

Douglas E Powell

Laporte, Colorado USA

  http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01



  Doug Powell | Professional Profile |
LinkedIn

www.linkedin.com

View Doug Powell's professional profile on LinkedIn. LinkedIn is the world's
largest business network, helping professionals like Doug Powell discover
inside connections to recommended job candidates, industry experts, and
business partners.

 

 

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:44 AM, John Allen  > wrote:

Hi,

 

We have a pickle of a situation and wondering if anyone knows a simple
fix.

 

We have a moving wall that complies with the maximum force limits of UL962.

An IC measures the voltage of a resistor and if appropriate, allows the
correct current to be sent to a motor that moves the wall.

If too much current is allowed to the motor, the force created is greater
than the limit.

We have a fuse, but it won't open before the force is created.

 

A UL991 investigation on the IC and Resistor circuit is necessary.  I agree
with that.  That said - 

 

1.  I could not find any UL Recognized Component circuits that comply
with UL 991.  Is there such a category??  I searched UL's database for
anything UL 991 and came up with a few categories.  FSPC2 is a likely
candidate, but the few Listings that are in there are heavy duty motor
controllers or position sensing devices, etc.
2.  If we redesign to not use the IC, won't we still be subjected to UL
991?  If we use discrete components (resistors and capacitors vs ICs) does
that get us out of UL 991?

 

Any insight would be appreciated. 

 

Best Regards,

 

John

 

-


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://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 sdoug...@ieee.org  
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org   

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org  
David Heald dhe...@gmail.com   





 

-- 

 

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com  
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

Re: [PSES] Pickle

[John Allen]

Not sure if it's a new category.  It says "Last Updated on 2017-09-15" at the 
bottom of the Guide Card.  Does that mean anything??



From: Brian O'Connell 
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 12:53 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Pickle

Is 'QVGS2' a new CCN?

Brian


From: John Allen [mailto:jral...@productsafetyinc.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 8:51 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Pickle

Hi,

To pass along the learning that came out of this.

A fuse did not have a tight enough tolerance, but we found a UL R/C Protector - 
QVG2S - that will open before the hazard.  The NRTL agreed as long as we prove 
it opens before the hazard, UL 991 and 1998 are not required.

Thanks again for the input and help,

John


From: John Allen 
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 3:02 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Pickle

Thanks everyone!

Either test or re-design is required.

I appreciate the input.

John


From: Doug Powell 
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 2:07 PM
To: John Allen
Cc: EMC-PSTC
Subject: Re: [PSES] Pickle

John,

UL 991 is a test method for qualifying solid-state circuits for safety 
function.  It is generally referenced by another standard and is not used as a 
primary certification standard as such.  Additionally, semiconductors are not 
certified individually to UL 991 as this is not a component standard.  It is 
very important that the circuits where the semiconductors are used be 
evaluated.  If you are familiar with the EMC immunity testing of IEC/CISPR 
standards, it is very much like this.  Radiated immunity, EFT, surge, ESD,  etc.

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

Doug Powell | Professional Profile | LinkedIn
www.linkedin.com
View Doug Powell's professional profile on LinkedIn. LinkedIn is the world's 
largest business network, helping professionals like Doug Powell discover 
inside connections to recommended job candidates, industry experts, and 
business partners.


On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:44 AM, John Allen  
wrote:
Hi,

We have a pickle of a situation and wondering if anyone knows a simple 
fix.

We have a moving wall that complies with the maximum force limits of UL962.
An IC measures the voltage of a resistor and if appropriate, allows the correct 
current to be sent to a motor that moves the wall.
If too much current is allowed to the motor, the force created is greater than 
the limit.
We have a fuse, but it won't open before the force is created.

A UL991 investigation on the IC and Resistor circuit is necessary.  I agree 
with that.  That said -

1. I could not find any UL Recognized Component circuits that comply with UL 
991.  Is there such a category??  I searched UL's database for anything UL 991 
and came up with a few categories.  FSPC2 is a likely candidate, but the few 
Listings that are in there are heavy duty motor controllers or position sensing 
devices, etc.
2. If we redesign to not use the IC, won't we still be subjected to UL 991?  If 
we use discrete components (resistors and capacitors vs ICs) does that get us 
out of UL 991?

Any insight would be appreciated.

Best Regards,

John

-

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://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 sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.com


Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

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:  

Re: [PSES] UK/EU Type Approval for Automotive Components

[Brian O'Connell]

Typically depends on whether control-related and/or intended for direct 
connected to same DC bus as control systems and/or signals connected to a 
control system.

Compare your stuff to scope of requirements in ECE Regulation 10. Would also 
suggest that you become familiar with Guide to Control Plans, VCA09. 

If you have never done VCA submittals, suggest you talk to an automotive 
specialist at VDE or TUV Rheinland or the Klingon High Command.  There are 
probably other 'agencies' that have automotive specialists.

Brian


From: James Pawson (U3C) [mailto:ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk] 
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 8:13 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] UK/EU Type Approval for Automotive Components

Hello all,

I've got an inquiry with the UK government Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA) 
regarding EMC testing of automotive components but they are taking an age to 
respond. Does anyone here have any experience with EMC type approval of auto 
components? The questions I asked were:

1. In this document - 
https://www.dft.gov.uk/vca/additional/files/vehicle-type-approval/vehicle-type-approval/vca004.pdf
 - section 2.2 discusses "System or Component" approval. Do OEM spare parts 
fall into this scope?
2. Looking at the flowchart in - 
http://www.dft.gov.uk/vca/additional/files/vehicle-type-approval/system--component-type-approval/vca045.pdf
 - I can see that some components do not fall under the 'immunity related' 
category. 
a. When testing non 'immunity related' parts, does this testing need to take 
place at a VCA accredited facility or to be VCA witnessed?
b. When this document quotes the R directive, am I correct in assuming that 
it actually should now refer to the Radio Equipment Directive since the R 
has been repealed?

I appreciate this is a bit of a niche question but I've always been surprised 
at the breadth of knowledge in this forum!

Many thanks
James

-

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] Pickle

[Brian O'Connell]

Is 'QVGS2' a new CCN?

Brian


From: John Allen [mailto:jral...@productsafetyinc.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 8:51 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Pickle

Hi,

To pass along the learning that came out of this.

A fuse did not have a tight enough tolerance, but we found a UL R/C Protector - 
QVG2S - that will open before the hazard.  The NRTL agreed as long as we prove 
it opens before the hazard, UL 991 and 1998 are not required.

Thanks again for the input and help,

John


From: John Allen 
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 3:02 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Pickle 
 
Thanks everyone!

Either test or re-design is required.

I appreciate the input.

John


From: Doug Powell 
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 2:07 PM
To: John Allen
Cc: EMC-PSTC
Subject: Re: [PSES] Pickle 
 
John,

UL 991 is a test method for qualifying solid-state circuits for safety 
function.  It is generally referenced by another standard and is not used as a 
primary certification standard as such.  Additionally, semiconductors are not 
certified individually to UL 991 as this is not a component standard.  It is 
very important that the circuits where the semiconductors are used be 
evaluated.  If you are familiar with the EMC immunity testing of IEC/CISPR 
standards, it is very much like this.  Radiated immunity, EFT, surge, ESD,  etc.

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

Doug Powell | Professional Profile | LinkedIn
www.linkedin.com
View Doug Powell's professional profile on LinkedIn. LinkedIn is the world's 
largest business network, helping professionals like Doug Powell discover 
inside connections to recommended job candidates, industry experts, and 
business partners.


On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:44 AM, John Allen  
wrote:
Hi,

We have a pickle of a situation and wondering if anyone knows a simple 
fix.

We have a moving wall that complies with the maximum force limits of UL962.
An IC measures the voltage of a resistor and if appropriate, allows the correct 
current to be sent to a motor that moves the wall.
If too much current is allowed to the motor, the force created is greater than 
the limit.
We have a fuse, but it won't open before the force is created.

A UL991 investigation on the IC and Resistor circuit is necessary.  I agree 
with that.  That said - 

1. I could not find any UL Recognized Component circuits that comply with UL 
991.  Is there such a category??  I searched UL's database for anything UL 991 
and came up with a few categories.  FSPC2 is a likely candidate, but the few 
Listings that are in there are heavy duty motor controllers or position sensing 
devices, etc.
2. If we redesign to not use the IC, won't we still be subjected to UL 991?  If 
we use discrete components (resistors and capacitors vs ICs) does that get us 
out of UL 991?

Any insight would be appreciated. 

Best Regards,

John

-

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://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 sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org 
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.com 


Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01

-

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] UK/EU Type Approval for Automotive Components

[John Woodgate]

If you don't get any useful response here, let me know and I'll refer 
your enquiry to the automotive EMC experts on the BSI committee.


John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK

On 2017-11-30 16:12, James Pawson (U3C) wrote:


Hello all,

I’ve got an inquiry with the UK government Vehicle Certification 
Agency (VCA) regarding EMC testing of automotive components but they 
are taking an age to respond. Does anyone here have any experience 
with EMC type approval of auto components? The questions I asked were:


 1. In this document -

https://www.dft.gov.uk/vca/additional/files/vehicle-type-approval/vehicle-type-approval/vca004.pdf
- section 2.2 discusses “System or Component” approval. Do OEM
spare parts fall into this scope?
 2. Looking at the flowchart in -

http://www.dft.gov.uk/vca/additional/files/vehicle-type-approval/system--component-type-approval/vca045.pdf
- I can see that some components do not fall under the ‘immunity
related’ category.
 1. When testing non ‘immunity related’ parts, does this testing
need to take place at a VCA accredited facility or to be VCA
witnessed?
 2. When this document quotes the R directive, am I correct in
assuming that it actually should now refer to the Radio
Equipment Directive since the R has been repealed?

I appreciate this is a bit of a niche question but I’ve always been 
surprised at the breadth of knowledge in this forum!


Many thanks

James

-


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] Pickle

[John Allen]

Hi,


To pass along the learning that came out of this.


A fuse did not have a tight enough tolerance, but we found a UL R/C Protector - 
QVG2S - that will open before the hazard.  The NRTL agreed as long as we prove 
it opens before the hazard, UL 991 and 1998 are not required.


Thanks again for the input and help,


John



From: John Allen 
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 3:02 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Pickle


Thanks everyone!


Either test or re-design is required.


I appreciate the input.


John



From: Doug Powell 
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 2:07 PM
To: John Allen
Cc: EMC-PSTC
Subject: Re: [PSES] Pickle

John,

UL 991 is a test method for qualifying solid-state circuits for safety 
function.  It is generally referenced by another standard and is not used as a 
primary certification standard as such.  Additionally, semiconductors are not 
certified individually to UL 991 as this is not a component standard.  It is 
very important that the circuits where the semiconductors are used be 
evaluated.  If you are familiar with the EMC immunity testing of IEC/CISPR 
standards, it is very much like this.  Radiated immunity, EFT, surge, ESD,  etc.

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
[https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/shrinknp_200_200/AAEAAQ1hJDI5ODhkOGExLWExNGQtNDZmYi1hNjkyLTEwN2Y2M2VmZDcyZg.jpg]

Doug Powell | Professional Profile | 
LinkedIn
www.linkedin.com
View Doug Powell’s professional profile on LinkedIn. LinkedIn is the world's 
largest business network, helping professionals like Doug Powell discover 
inside connections to recommended job candidates, industry experts, and 
business partners.



On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:44 AM, John Allen 
> wrote:

Hi,


We have a pickle of a situation and wondering if anyone knows a simple 
fix.


We have a moving wall that complies with the maximum force limits of UL962.

An IC measures the voltage of a resistor and if appropriate, allows the correct 
current to be sent to a motor that moves the wall.

If too much current is allowed to the motor, the force created is greater than 
the limit.

We have a fuse, but it won't open before the force is created.


A UL991 investigation on the IC and Resistor circuit is necessary.  I agree 
with that.  That said -


  1.  I could not find any UL Recognized Component circuits that comply with UL 
991.  Is there such a category??  I searched UL's database for anything UL 991 
and came up with a few categories.  FSPC2 is a likely candidate, but the few 
Listings that are in there are heavy duty motor controllers or position sensing 
devices, etc.
  2.  If we redesign to not use the IC, won't we still be subjected to UL 991?  
If we use discrete components (resistors and capacitors vs ICs) does that get 
us out of UL 991?


Any insight would be appreciated.


Best Regards,


John


-


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://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 sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.com



--

Douglas E Powell

doug...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/dougp01
-


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 

[PSES] UK/EU Type Approval for Automotive Components

[James Pawson (U3C)]

Hello all,

 

I've got an inquiry with the UK government Vehicle Certification Agency
(VCA) regarding EMC testing of automotive components but they are taking an
age to respond. Does anyone here have any experience with EMC type approval
of auto components? The questions I asked were:

 

1.  In this document -
https://www.dft.gov.uk/vca/additional/files/vehicle-type-approval/vehicle-ty
pe-approval/vca004.pdf - section 2.2 discusses "System or Component"
approval. Do OEM spare parts fall into this scope?
2.  Looking at the flowchart in -
http://www.dft.gov.uk/vca/additional/files/vehicle-type-approval/system--com
ponent-type-approval/vca045.pdf - I can see that some components do not fall
under the 'immunity related' category. 

a.  When testing non 'immunity related' parts, does this testing need to
take place at a VCA accredited facility or to be VCA witnessed?
b.  When this document quotes the R directive, am I correct in
assuming that it actually should now refer to the Radio Equipment Directive
since the R has been repealed?

 

I appreciate this is a bit of a niche question but I've always been
surprised at the breadth of knowledge in this forum!

 

Many thanks

James

 

 

 


-

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] EAC Mark in Russia

[McBurney, Ian]

Hello Brian.

My company is going through EAC certification at the moment but for medium 
volume manufacturing.
>From my understanding there is 2 types of compliance.
TR CU Certificate of conformity and the TR CU Declaration of conformity.
Essentially, the Certificate of conformity is meant for higher volume products 
e.g. consumer and the Declaration or conformity is intend for one offs or small 
batches e.g. industrial.
Hopefully someone out there will correct me if I'm mistaken.

regards;

Ian


From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Sent: 29 November 2017 19:25
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] EAC Mark in Russia

Greetings.

I would love to hear your story about dealing with the EAC mark and shipping 
products to Russia. Though most all countries have laws, acts, or directives on 
the books, most are not enforced across the board, yet focuses primarily on 
mass produced consumer electronics, computers, etc.. Individual or custom built 
equipment, such as scientific/laboratory equipment generally gets in such 
countries without much trouble.

However, our department has been asked to looking into the current status of 
the EAC marking and what it takes to get single built instruments into Russia.  
Any information on this would be helpful.

We have talked to a couple 3rd party labs and of course they want the entire 
gambit including full certification testing for Safety, EMC, and RoHS by an 
accredited lab and a full certification program with factory inspections, the 
works, blah blah blah.  This approach is totally out of the question for the 
few products that we sell into this market.  Let's be reasonable here.

So far we haven't had any issues (unless we include a PC in the shipment) but 
if things are changing we would like to stay on top of things.

I would love to hear from you.  Thanks for all comments and stories.

The Other Brian



LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.
-


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 >

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

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to 


All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html

Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used 
formats), large files, etc.

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

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

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