Re: Short circuit tests in GR-1089
This was resolved a couple of NEBS conferences ago. All the main RBOCs were present and they agreed that a fuse was a special case. The fuse is designed to open, therefore operation of the fuse is normal and allowed. This may be a semantic strech, but that's where the current NEBS interpretation lies. All other parts of the board must remain undamaged. The no fire hazard is a significant weakening of the general interpretation and probably represents aggressive engineering judgement. Jon. j...@aol.com wrote: Hello All: I am hoping that some of you can help clarify the intent of requirement R9-20 in Telcordia GR-1089. Taken literally, the requirement says that there shall be no damage to equipment, conductors, or components when the DC power supply is shorted at the load. This could even be interpreted to preclude the use of a fuse that has to be replaced. One test lab has told me that as long as no fire hazard is created from this test, it is considered to have been passed. Needless to say, this differs a bit from the literal interpretation. I guess it would help if I had a better feel for the overall goal of the short circuit testing. Any insight on this would be most appreciated. Joe Randolph Telecom Design Consultant Randolph Telecom, Inc. 781-721-2848 http://www.randolph-telecom.com
Re: Australian compliance to ARE: creepage v breakdown voltage
Yes, NATA has informed us that the RTA list is being updated soon. Curtis-Straus (USA) is also accredited to perform testing to AS/ACIF S043. Jon Curtis Kevin Richardson wrote: Kristiaan, Equipment which falls under TLN Category A50 is required to comply with ACA TS001:1997 (Compliance Level 3) and AS/ACIF S043 - Parts 1, 2 3 as appropriate (Compliance Level 3 from 1 Jan 02). You said deemed to comply but I presume you mean need to comply so this is correct. Compliance Level 3 does indeed require test reports be from an Recognised Testing Authority (RTA). Compliance Level 3 requirements are spelt out in the TLN Section 4.6(1) and 4.6(2). Yes there are other options to compliance with Compliance Level 3 instead of a test report from an RTA as listed in 4.6(2). NOTE: 4.6.(2)(c) I do not think could be applied as there is no reason a Category A50 device could not be tested in a lab. In addition, 4.6(2)(d), 4.6(2)(e), 4.6.(2)(f) and 4.6(2)(g) do not apply to Category A50 equipment. The only compliance options therefore for a Category A50 device would be: 1. a test report from an RTA; or 2. a written statement from a certification body. The NATA RTA listing is not up-to-date even though the last revision was dated 7 Mar 02. Apart from BABT TUV Product Services lab in Santa Clara, USA, there are at least 2 other labs that I am aware of accredited to S043: a) Austest (Sydney, Australia); and b) Comtest (Melb, Australia) Details for these labs can be found in the RTA listing on the NATA web site you referenced. Best regards, Kevin Richardson Stanimore Pty Limited Compliance Advice Solutions for Technology (including Australian Agent Services) (Legislation/Regulations/Standards) 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:k...@compuserve.com (kevin.richard...@ieee.org - alternate email) The material transmitted in this message or contained in attachments to this message may contain confidential and/or privileged material and is intended only for the addressee. Any use of or reliance upon this material by persons or entities other than the addressee is prohibited. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender and destroy any copies of the material immediately. -Original Message- From: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of kristiaan.carpent...@alcatel.be Sent: Saturday, 16 March 2002 3:12 AM To: Emc-Pstc Post Subject: Australian compliance to ARE: creepage v breakdown voltage Hello, According to the latest version of the Telecommunication Labelling Notice 2001, products in the Category A50 are deemed to comply with ACA TS-001-1997 and AS/ACIF S043-2001. No problem for TS-001, but S043 needs Compliance level 3 only since January 1rst 2002. The general approach is that testing for S043 must be done by a Recognised Testing Authority. After verifying the latest list of RTA´s http://www.nata.asn.au/downloads/rtalist.pdf of March 7th, only 1 lab seems to be listed as RTA and it is not even located in Australia, but in the US. From my reading of the Labelling Notice, Schedule 3 seems to give however other possibilities to comply, like a Certification or Competent body. Any-one can shed some light on this issue? Regards, Kris Carpentier -- Jon D. Curtis, P.E. Director of Engineering Curtis-Straus LLC NRTL TCB One Stop Laboratory for NEBS, EMC, Product Safety, and Telecom Testing. 527 Great Road Littleton, MA 01460 USA Voice 978-486-8880 Fax 978-486-8828 email: jcur...@curtis-straus.com WWW.CURTIS-STRAUS.COM
Re: Laser Safety
See laser notice 50 from the FDA. http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/radhlth/laser.html It's allowed, but you have to change the certification statement to indicate that you are using the notice. Jon Curtis Curtis-Straus LLC John Juhasz wrote: I tried looking real hard for free downloadable ANSI specs and couldn't find them - I had to buy them. Regarding labelling, there have been efforts (not sure of the status at this time - is there anyone out there who knows?) to harmonize the EN 60825 and 21CFR1040 to make it easier on manufacturers. As the final laser classifications are parallel (it's the methodology that has differences) the FDA, in the interest of manufacturer satisfaction(?) has been allowing the use of the Classification/Warning labels as described in EN 60825. But you still have to add the FDA-CDRH label This product complies with FDA Radiation Performance Standard 21 CFR Subpart J Hope this helps. John Juhasz Fiber Options Bohemia, NY -Original Message- From: Davis, Mike [mailto:mda...@c-cor.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 9:26 AM To: 'Doug Mckean'; 'John Juhasz'; 'Mark Schmidt'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: Laser Safety I agree with Doug and with John but, I have the same question. And I will add, Doug is speaking of the FDA-CDRH requirement for the US. But, to ascertain what the European mode is, this requires a single-fault condition for classification as described by John Juhasz. That, I understand. John, is there a free downloadable copy of ANSI Z136.1 and .2 specs? I have used the calculations to determine the classification of a laser based on the no fault and a single fault mode. These lasers are operating in a pulsed mode at a 50% duty cycle. I have attached a sample calculation of a 1310nmn and a 1550nm laser that I used to determine that the lasers either do or do not fall within the Class 1 laser classification. Another question... Can the same label be used for FDA as for IEC? Has anyone had any feedback or problems with laser labels that deviated from recommended markings by the 21 CFR or IEC 825-1? --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list -- Jon D. Curtis, P.E. Director of Engineering Curtis-Straus LLC NRTL TCB One Stop Laboratory for NEBS, EMC, Product Safety, and Telecom Testing. 527 Great Road Littleton, MA 01460 USA Voice 978-486-8880 Fax 978-486-8828 email: jcur...@curtis-straus.com WWW.CURTIS-STRAUS.COM --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: Laser Safety
Use caution once again. IEC 60825-2 is NOT single fault. You need to go further and consider if a condition is reasonable foreseeable even if you need multiple faults to get there. Often there is congruence between single fault and reasonably foreseeable, but not always. From 60825-2: reasonably foreseeable event event the occurrence of which under given circumstances can be predicted fairly accurately, and the occurrence probability or frequency of which is not low or very low. Examples of reasonably foreseeable events might include the following: component failure, fibre cable break, optical connector disconnection, operator error or inattention to safe working practices. Reckless use or use for completely inappropriate purposes is not to be considered as a reasonably foreseeable event The assessment of hazard levels shall always consider worst case conditions, including reasonably foreseeable fault conditions (see 4.4.3). Consequently, it may be necessary to include multiple fault conditions, the probability of which shall be judged by the responsible organization. NOTE Whereas IEC 60825-1 refers to single fault conditions, it may be reasonably foreseeable that more than one fault will combine to cause a dangerous situation. FDA laser notice 50 issued in July of 2001 allows you to harmonize with IEC 60825-1, so as long as you slightly modify your FDA certification statement label to note that you are using the deviations in Notice 50 you can use the IEC 60825 labels. The FDA is contemplating a rule making to adopt the IEC versions and has therefore put manufacturers on notice that they will not take enforcement action against those choosing to use the IEC standards. Note that you still have additional administrative requirements under the CDRH rules. Jon Curtis Curtis-Straus LLC Davis, Mike wrote: I agree with Doug and with John but, I have the same question. And I will add, Doug is speaking of the FDA-CDRH requirement for the US. But, to ascertain what the European mode is, this requires a single-fault condition for classification as described by John Juhasz. That, I understand. John, is there a free downloadable copy of ANSI Z136.1 and .2 specs? I have used the calculations to determine the classification of a laser based on the no fault and a single fault mode. These lasers are operating in a pulsed mode at a 50% duty cycle. I have attached a sample calculation of a 1310nmn and a 1550nm laser that I used to determine that the lasers either do or do not fall within the Class 1 laser classification. Another question... Can the same label be used for FDA as for IEC? Has anyone had any feedback or problems with laser labels that deviated from recommended markings by the 21 CFR or IEC 825-1? Subject: Re: Laser Safety From: Doug Mckean dmck...@corp.auspex.com Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 17:16:54 -0500 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Do the acid test type question ... During normal use, what are you exposing the end user to? For instance, with a laser pointer using a Class IIIb laser that emits unprotected from the pointer, the pointer is Class IIIb. If instead, you are using a Class IIIb laser for fiber optic communication and the entire beam is contained within the fiber, no lasing is emitted from the product during normal operation and/or service or maintainance, then you *could* declare the telco product as Class I. - Doug McKean --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list -- Jon D. Curtis, P.E. Director of Engineering Curtis-Straus LLC NRTL TCB One Stop Laboratory for NEBS, EMC, Product Safety, and Telecom Testing. 527 Great Road Littleton, MA 01460 USA Voice 978-486-8880 Fax 978-486-8828 email: jcur...@curtis-straus.com WWW.CURTIS-STRAUS.COM
Re: Laser Safety
Use caution with this approach. IEC 60825-2 is specifically for Optical Fiber Communications Systems (OFCS) and requires the consideration of fiber breaks exposing humans to the laser energy contained within. 60825-2 is referenced in 60825-1 and must be considered for OFCS. Additionally, you need to consider where the fiber goes as a break might occur downstream and expose not only direct users of the equipment. Jon Curtis Curtis-Straus LLC Doug Mckean wrote: Do the acid test type question ... During normal use, what are you exposing the end user to? For instance, with a laser pointer using a Class IIIb laser that emits unprotected from the pointer, the pointer is Class IIIb. If instead, you are using a Class IIIb laser for fiber optic communication and the entire beam is contained within the fiber, no lasing is emitted from the product during normal operation and/or service or maintainance, then you *could* declare the telco product as Class I. - Doug McKean --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list -- Jon D. Curtis, P.E. Director of Engineering Curtis-Straus LLC NRTL TCB One Stop Laboratory for NEBS, EMC, Product Safety, and Telecom Testing. 527 Great Road Littleton, MA 01460 USA Voice 978-486-8880 Fax 978-486-8828 email: jcur...@curtis-straus.com WWW.CURTIS-STRAUS.COM --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on browse and then emc-pstc mailing list
Re: Initial Laser Reports submitions to the CDRH-FDA?
Go to http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/radhlth/laser.html and check out the reporting guides on product reports and annual reports. Jon Curtis. jsarell...@tuvam.com wrote: Hello Group, Does anyone know what is the procedure to follow for laser report submittals to the CDRH? this is not a medical laser. It conforms to laser classification Class I. any comments, advice is appreciated. Regards, Jorge Sarellano TUV PRODUCT SERVICE Compliance Engineer Phone 408-919-3744 Fax 408-919-0585 Visit http://www.tuvam.com and discover the new CEU Mark, multiple markets one solution! -- Jon D. Curtis, P.E. Director of Engineering Curtis-Straus LLC NRTL TCB One Stop Laboratory for NEBS, EMC, Product Safety, and Telecom Testing. 527 Great Road Littleton, MA 01460 USA Voice 978-486-8880 Fax 978-486-8828 email: jcur...@curtis-straus.com WWW.CURTIS-STRAUS.COM
