Value of Using Non-NRTL Engineering Firms? no attachment
Reposting without attachment. Sorry group I'll get the hang of it. For those who have provided response to date, thanks much I wrote - We are working some responses to OSHA and would like to ask for some industry response from the Product Safety group (EMC welcome to respond too). Just looking for a quick statement on the Value of using a Non-NRTL firm for testing and/or certification (Listing). Statement: Non-NRTL laboratories can provide Listings and publish the customers (thus Listing). However, based on OSHA law, NEC requirements, Retailer specification, and other MOU/MRA with Canada/EU, it would not seem to be a significant accomplishment to be Listed or Labeled by a non-NRTL. In a quick paragraph, would you provide your opinion on the value of a Non-NRTL Listing Certification. Thanks Much Chris The following is from Richard Fairfax (reply to one of 4 questions) - OSHA's Director Directorate of Compliance Programs which states that Electrical products in the workplace must be Listed or Labeled by an NRTL to meet OSHA Law. Question 4: Do items identified in 1 through 3 above make the machine non-compliant with OSHA, NEC or both? As defined at 29 CFR 1910.399(a)(1) an installation or equipment is acceptable to the Assistant Secretary of Labor, and approved within the meaning of Subpart S: (i) If it is accepted, or certified, or listed, or labeled, or otherwise determined to be safe by a nationally recognized testing laboratory (NRTL); or (ii) With respect to an installation or equipment of a kind which no nationally recognized testing laboratory accepts, certifies, lists, labels, or determines to be safe, if it is inspected or tested by another Federal agency, or by a State, municipal, or other local authority responsible for enforcing occupational safety provisions of the National Electrical Code (NEC) and found in compliance with the provisions of National Electrical Code as applied in this subpart. Therefore equipment must be listed, labeled, or certified by a NRTL. As we understand the conversation of my staff and you, the equipment was not certified by NRTL, it is a violation of OSHA standard 1910.399 (a)(1). To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at http://www.osha.gov. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact the Office of General Industry Compliance Assistance at (202) 693-1850. Sincerely, Richard E. Fairfax, Director Directorate of Compliance Programs cc: Regional Administrator, Region II --- 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...@attbi.com 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
A Friend Asked to Post his Resume
STEPHEN J. RAY JR. 8228 Brian Court Garner, N. C. 27529 (919) 553-0783 QUALIFICATIONS SUMMARY Engineering Project Handling, Laboratory Testing/Procedure, Telecommunications, Systems Planning and Operations and Transmission/Distribution Voltage Systems; four years in the U.S. Navy; five years training. EXPERIENCE: UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES May 2000 - Present: Engineering Project Handler – Dept. Conformity Assessment Services · Determine project scope, develop plan for investigation, determine project specifications such as cost, time and sample requirement by analyzing client input, supplemental data and product construction · Communicate with client to promote and explain services, discuss technical issues, negotiate sample requirements, address client concerns and resolve issues for product Listing/Recognition and follow-up services · Establish appropriate test programs by applying knowledge of UL Standards and NEC requirements, coordinate laboratory activities, prepare data sheets; analyze test results and programs for adequacy, conformity and sequence · Prepare product reports and coordinate administrative aspects of project management · Review of colleague’s reports and applicable UL standards --- 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...@attbi.com 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: Value of Using Non-NRTL Engineering Firms?
Hello Again Group, There are several documents available from OSHA's site. Attached is another pdf from OSHA dated 1993 to show more history of OSHA requirements/laws... This letter defines the term approved which is used in several 29CRF documents and also used in the NEC. Again, OSHA confirms must be approved and explains approved can only be findings from an NRTL. Just another document I located. thanks group for your help Chris All electrical equipment must be approved.pdf Description: All electrical equipment must be approved.pdf
Value of Using Non-NRTL Engineering Firms?
We are working some responses to OSHA and would like to ask for some industry response from the Product Safety group (EMC welcome to respond too). Just looking for a quick statement on the Value of using a Non-NRTL firm for testing and/or certification (Listing). Statement: Non-NRTL laboratories can provide Listings and publish the customers (thus Listing) however, based OSHA law, NEC requirements, Retailer specification, and other MOU/MRA with Canada/EU, it would not seem to be a significant accomplishment if not an NRTL. In a quick paragraph, would you provide your opinion on the value of a Non-NRTL Listing Certification. Thanks Much Chris PS: Attached is a pdf from Richard Fairfax - OSHA's Director Directorate of Compliance Programs which states that Electrical products in the workplace must be Listed or Labeled by an NRTL to meet OSHA Law. US DOL Requirements.pdf Description: US DOL Requirements.pdf
Request for Input - Third Party Request
We are testing 2 coil windings (at a same time) for resistance using 4 wires Kelvin connection. Acceptable (Pass) Value ranges for the parts are: Part A 2.3 - 2.7 Ohm Part B 5.4 - 5.8 Ohms. We want to know if the part is within (good) these ranges or out (bad) of these ranges. We should be able to connect your output to our digital PLC I/O Card, or simply to trigger a relay. (NO RS-232) In the station prior to the testing station, terminals of the coil winding are being dipped into soldering pot resulting on the temperature increase, which then effects our resistance readings. We want (ideally) to measure the temperature of the part using infrared sensor, inputting that into the tester and compensating for the temperature. This would require a tester that would be able to do some computation. Ed --- 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: Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org Dave Healddavehe...@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: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
Re: Fwd: IEC 60950 - ITE safety testing
Forwarding Test Equipment Reply for all who may need a source: David Gaffney states Dear Al, Thanks for forwarding the inquiry for Product Safety Test Equipment. Our manufacturing calibration of this specialized equipment can save manufacturers an enormous amount of resources/time (vs. attempting to build per the Standards). We recently upgraded our sales staff to better serve customer needs, and would like the opportunity to quote any equipment requirements you have. You can check out our web site at www.productsafet.com for information about our product line. Please direct any inquirys to: Dave Gaffney / E.D. D. Phone : (919) 469 - 9434. Fax : (919) 469 - 5743. E-mail : dav...@productsafet.com Thank you and best wishes for the holiday season! Dave Gaffney --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
UL544 Leakage Limits Patient Equipment*
Most esteemed colleagues, we are looking for your professional opinion on a UL 544 leakage limit (I think you will find this interesting): 1. This particular product uses a UL 544 evaluated direct plug in power supply with outputs to the patient care equipment. In this case it is a diagnostic unit that sends an audible tone to headphones (audiometer). The plug in power supply Conditions of Acceptability indicate the outputs are not evaluated for patient leads (i.e. applied parts). 2. Table 42.1 of UL 544 specifies leakage limits. patient connection footnote a references testing of patient leads (applied parts) connections. There is no written definition for patient leads or applied parts in UL544. As such NFPA 99 supplements UL 544 as it draws from the NEC and NFPA 99 (referenced in UL 544): NFPA 99 defines the US definition of Patient Lead = A deliberate electrical connection that can carry current between an appliance and patient. It is not intended to include adventitious or casual contacts such as a push button, bed surface, lamp, hand held appliance, etc. 3. As the headphones of this audiometer are clearly not deliberate electrical connections we conclude these are not patient leads (applied parts) which would not fall under the limits for patient connection limits per 544. The applicable limits would be as defined under enclosure or chassis grounded or double insulated Now be careful not to jump to a conclusion yet. You might say enclosure or chassis?, but if you examine this, you will find the footnotes reference UL 544's Enclosure definition: Enclosure = That external portion of an appliance that serves to house or support component parts, or both. Enclosure of patient care equipment likely to be contacted by a patient include, for example, bedside monitors, bed frames, dental chairs, and examination stands. Our conclusion: Due to the US definition of patient leads (applied parts), the earphones of an audiometer (patient care equipment) are subjected to the leakage current limits for enclosure or chassis, and not the limits of patient connection. For this particular application, we conclude that based on the C of As, the output of the power supply has already been evaluated for enclosure or chassis leakage limits. Your Thoughts??? Drew PS: If you care to look, CSA supports this position in that 50uA is related to cardiac tissue limits only. See Appendix A of CSA 22.2 125 (500uA). --- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 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: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org
Fwd: impact /probes
In a message dated 11/22/99 12:02:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, george.da...@unisys.com writes: emc-p...@ieee.org (EMC PSTC) I understood the purpose of this forum is not to monitor the e-mails so that you can reference persons to your services. Please respond and take action as needed. Ed ---BeginMessage--- Try Ergonomics, Inc at Ergonomicsusa.com or 215 357 5124 Dave George -Original Message- From: Dwight Hunnicutt [mailto:dwight.hunnic...@vina-tech.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 1999 1:20 PM To: EMC PSTC Subject: impact /probes Mech testers- Anyone know of sources for the UL1950 Impact Ball (500g, 50mm dia.)? (I know of one online source, but $150 for a ball?!? How about a ball-bearing shop?) Also, how about a source for the UL1950: Test Pin (Fig. 20) Telecom Test Probe (Fig. 16) thanks D -- _ DWIGHT HUNNICUTT Sr.Compliance Engineer _/_/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ T E C H N O L O G I E S 510-771-3349 520-244-2721 fax www.vina-tech.com _ - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators). ---End Message---
Fwd: EU Authorised Representatives
In a message dated 7/30/99 5:55:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
a...@safety.demon.co.uk writes:
emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Many of the members and professional services participating in this group
resist this type of advertisement.
---BeginMessage---
Hi Darrell members.
Authorised Representatives Ltd. specialize in providing support
and 'Authorised Representative' status for importers into the EU.
Our background experience is in European and International
certification and we can provide a total package of advice,
management services and legal support to our clients.
Given involvement at an early stage in a products conception we can
also advise on 'product globalisation', optimising certification
requirements and gaining marketing advantage in particular areas.
For further information see MS Word 6 attachment - (1 page leaflet)
or, visit our website http://www.arl.demon.co.uk
Regards Eric.
* Authorised Representitives Ltd. *
* a...@safety.demon.co.uk*
The following section of this message contains a file attachment
prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format.
If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any another MIME-compliant system,
you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer.
If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance.
File information ---
File: ARL_LFT2.DOC
Date: 30 Jul 1999, 8:52
Size: 10240 bytes.
Type: MS-Word-6
ARL_LFT2.DOC
Description: Binary data
---End Message---
Re: Seminars:EMC/EMI/ESDRelated to Corrosion and Material Reliability Issues
please someone make this person stop they have sent over 100 of these in the last few days
Telecommunications Vs. LV Directive
Your assistance if greatly appreciated (even if you can only answer some of the questions): I have a general question concerning the applicable Directive for equipment originally classified as ITE here in the US (by an International Lab with NRTL accreditation). (not a Telecom expert) The product has a T3 interface connection for the US, and has an E3 connection for Europe... 1. Are there any instances where a product with E3 connector is only LVD and EMC, or is the Telecommunication Directive also mandatory? 2. Is Common Technical Requirement (CTR) 24 published and suitable for the EU, or is some other country by country registration still needed? 3. Can anyone suggest a local (US) firm that can assist in this? J. Burns (Engineer)
Telecommunication Terminal Equipment vs LVD
Your assistance if greatly appreciated (even if you can only answer some of the questions): I have a general question concerning the applicable Directive for equipment originally classified as ITE here in the US (by an International Lab with NRTL accreditation). (not a Telecom expert) The product has a T3 interface connection for the US, and has an E3 connection for Europe... 1. Are there any instances where a product with E3 connector is only LVD and EMC, or is the Telecommunication Directive also mandatory? 2. Is Common Technical Requirement (CTR) 24 published and suitable for the EU, or is some other country by country registration still needed? 3. Can anyone suggest a local (US) firm that can assist in this? J. Burns (Engineer)
IEC 65 - From Stephanie Reeves
I have a quick question. We are in the process of getting a draft copy of the 6th edition IEC 65. Our engineers are out and someone asked about the new Leakage Current circuit. Anyone having a quick reply (i.e. same as IEC 950, etc.) I would certainly appreciate it. Thanks in advance
