[PSES] Job opening for senior EMC Compliance Engineer at Tektronix Inc.

[Harrington, John]

Please see the attached link.

Senior Product Compliance Engineer job in Beaverton, Oregon, United States | 
Operations jobs at 
Fortive
 with full job description.



John Harrington
Product Compliance Engineer
E/ john.harring...@keithley.com
T/ 440.498.2727
tek.com
[Twitter][Facebook][LinkedIn][Google+][Instagram][YouTube]

[Tektronix Keithley]
[Keithley]
Please be advised that this email may contain confidential information. If you 
are not the intended recipient, please notify us by email by replying to the 
sender and delete this message. The sender disclaims that the content of this 
email constitutes an offer to enter into, or the acceptance of, any agreement; 
provided that the foregoing does not invalidate the binding effect of any 
digital or other electronic reproduction of a manual signature that is included 
in any attachment.



-

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] RED products in EMC compliance part

[Jim Bacher]

Scott, What's important is what will the customs in Europe accept for your
product when you ship it in. I have on numerous occasions had to have a
similar discussion with customs as to what was required for a product
shipment. Having a understanding of what the others said will be to your
advantage if that happens to one of your products.

Jim Bacher, JB Consulting
Product Regulatory Compliance Consultant
https://trc.guru/
IEEE Life Senior Member j.bac...@ieee.org

>

-

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] RED products in EMC compliance part

[Scott Xe]

Hi Pete,

Thanks for your advice!  Thru this exercise,  some test labs are using the
dow as guide for the mandatory date without caring the OJEU.

Obviously the similar confusion exists.  For example, HS 60065 in LVD
calling for requirements of lithium battery 62133.  It does not specify
which version, 2012 or 2017 in OJEU and the HS.  On 2017 version, the dow
is 14/03/2020.  In general, the lab will use it as the mandatory date for
62133 : 2017.  That is a bit confused sometimes apply OJEU and dow of
standard.

Regards,

Scott


On 23 June 2018 at 01:42, Pete Perkins  wrote:

> Scott,I’m not quite that hard-nosed on this issue.  I
> have recommended that manufacturer’s choose the best available path knowing
> that the  EU bureaucrats will move the goal posts again on us.  So I would
> say, use harmonized standards when it is clear that they are designated to
> apply else use tried and true methods when there is confusion and wait for
> clarity from the system.
>
>
>
> :>) br,  Pete
>
>
>
> Peter E Perkins, PE
>
> Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant
>
> PO Box 23427
>
> Tigard, ORe  97281-3427
>
>
>
> 503/452-1201
>
>
>
> IEEE Life Fellow
>
> p.perk...@ieee.org
>
>
>
> *From:* Scott Xe 
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 21, 2018 8:58 AM
> *To:* Pete Perkins 
> *Cc:* EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part
>
>
>
> Pete,
>
>
>
> Both you and Charlie share the esteemed and fair opinions that using other
> than harmonised standards is not a wise decision although it is allowed by
> the directive.  I have the same perception since we have no control in this
> route due to limited knowledge.  Will see how to stick to harmonised
> standards.
>
>
>
> The test lab insisted on that EN 55020 is till valid in demonstrating EMC
> compliance although RED already has a new harmonised standard and it
> disappears in EMC list.  So far both the test lab and we cannot find any
> support to this claim.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
>
>
> On 21 June 2018 at 23:18, Pete Perkins  wrote:
>
> Scott et al,
>
>
>
>Charlie is right; no matter what promise you get from your 3
> rd party NB they are not in ultimate control.  You, as manufacturer, are
> at the mercy of the regulators.  It is important for you & your company to
> keep the heat on so that there is a reasonable expectation that the work
> that has been done will be acceptable moving ahead.
>
>
>
> :>) br,  Pete
>
>
>
> Peter E Perkins, PE
>
> Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant
>
> PO Box 23427
>
> Tigard, ORe  97281-3427
>
>
>
> 503/452-1201
>
>
>
> IEEE Life Fellow
>
> p.perk...@ieee.org
>
>
>
> *From:* Scott Xe 
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 21, 2018 7:25 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part
>
>
>
> Hi Charlie,
>
>
>
> Many thanks for your kind advice!!
>
>
>
> As the conformity review of this product is required by a NB, it is quite
> difficult to challenge their result due to their status but we can require
> them to issue a confirmation of continual compliance with the latest
> essential requirements of RED on the repeat orders.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> On 21 June 2018 at 02:46, Charlie Blackham 
> wrote:
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> I understand the issue you describe, however it should be remembered that:
>
>- The manufacturer is always responsible , whoever advises them. If
>they are going to ask a 3rd party (lab or consultant) then they should
>satisfy themselves that the advice is correct, perhaps by asking what the
>recommendation is based on.
>- A test lab cannot issue a “Declaration of Conformity” only a
>manufacturer (or suitably contracted representative) can do that – test
>labs should (only) issue “Certificates of Conformity” as a summary of test
>results, which are not the same thing
>- Copying someone else who got it wrong isn’t much of a defence
>
>
>
> In my experience, you should be prepared for challenges from market
> surveillance if you don’t apply Harmonised Standards (but whether you
> actually get challenged may be down to luck and whether your product type
> has been selected for market surveillance activity)
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
> *Charlie Blackham*
>
> *Sulis Consultants Ltd*
>
> *Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317*
>
> *Web: **www.sulisconsultants.

Re: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part

[Pete Perkins]

Scott,I’m not quite that hard-nosed on this issue.  I have 
recommended that manufacturer’s choose the best available path knowing that the 
 EU bureaucrats will move the goal posts again on us.  So I would say, use 
harmonized standards when it is clear that they are designated to apply else 
use tried and true methods when there is confusion and wait for clarity from 
the system.  

 

:>) br,  Pete

 

Peter E Perkins, PE

Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant

PO Box 23427

Tigard, ORe  97281-3427

 

503/452-1201

 

IEEE Life Fellow

 <mailto:p.perk...@ieee.org> p.perk...@ieee.org

 

From: Scott Xe  
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 8:58 AM
To: Pete Perkins 
Cc: EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part

 

Pete,

 

Both you and Charlie share the esteemed and fair opinions that using other than 
harmonised standards is not a wise decision although it is allowed by the 
directive.  I have the same perception since we have no control in this route 
due to limited knowledge.  Will see how to stick to harmonised standards.

 

The test lab insisted on that EN 55020 is till valid in demonstrating EMC 
compliance although RED already has a new harmonised standard and it disappears 
in EMC list.  So far both the test lab and we cannot find any support to this 
claim.

 

Regards,

 

Scott

 

 

On 21 June 2018 at 23:18, Pete Perkins mailto:peperkin...@cs.com> > wrote:

Scott et al,

 

   Charlie is right; no matter what promise you get from your 3rd 
party NB they are not in ultimate control.  You, as manufacturer, are at the 
mercy of the regulators.  It is important for you & your company to keep the 
heat on so that there is a reasonable expectation that the work that has been 
done will be acceptable moving ahead.  

 

:>) br,  Pete

 

Peter E Perkins, PE

Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant

PO Box 23427

Tigard, ORe  97281-3427

 

503/452-1201

 

IEEE Life Fellow

 <mailto:p.perk...@ieee.org> p.perk...@ieee.org

 

From: Scott Xe mailto:scott...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 7:25 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 


Subject: Re: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part

 

Hi Charlie,

 

Many thanks for your kind advice!!

 

As the conformity review of this product is required by a NB, it is quite 
difficult to challenge their result due to their status but we can require them 
to issue a confirmation of continual compliance with the latest essential 
requirements of RED on the repeat orders.

 

Regards,

 

Scott

 

On 21 June 2018 at 02:46, Charlie Blackham mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com> > wrote:

Scott

 

I understand the issue you describe, however it should be remembered that:

*   The manufacturer is always responsible , whoever advises them. If they 
are going to ask a 3rd party (lab or consultant) then they should satisfy 
themselves that the advice is correct, perhaps by asking what the 
recommendation is based on.
*   A test lab cannot issue a “Declaration of Conformity” only a 
manufacturer (or suitably contracted representative) can do that – test labs 
should (only) issue “Certificates of Conformity” as a summary of test results, 
which are not the same thing
*   Copying someone else who got it wrong isn’t much of a defence

 

In my experience, you should be prepared for challenges from market 
surveillance if you don’t apply Harmonised Standards (but whether you actually 
get challenged may be down to luck and whether your product type has been 
selected for market surveillance activity)

 

Regards

Charlie

 

Charlie Blackham

Sulis Consultants Ltd

Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317

Web:  
<https://outlook.hslive.net/owa/redir.aspx?C=02be3bf3e3a544d1bdf7b6c99fbd12f5=http%3a%2f%2fwww.sulisconsultants.com%2f>
 www.sulisconsultants.com

Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

 

From: Scott Xe mailto:scott...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: 20 June 2018 17:31
To: Charlie Blackham mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com> >
Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part

 

Hi Charlie,

 

Understand that the manufacturer is free to choose any conformity assessment to 
meet the essential requirements for EMC without using a Notified Body.  However 
the manufacturer must have expert in this area to provide the appropriate 
advice.  Most of oem manufacturers lack of such luxury resource and reply on 
renowned test houses to do it for them.  Can we use the declaration of 
conformity from the test lab for selecting the right test standards for EMC 
part even those standards are not in RED and EMC harmonized lists.  Would we 
receive extra challenges from the market surveillances due to the fact that we 
use non harmonized standards.

 

Thanks and

Re: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part

[Scott Xe]

Hi Charlie,

Deeply appreciate your further advice!!

Best regards,

Scott


On 22 June 2018 at 20:26, Charlie Blackham 
wrote:

> Scott
>
>
>
> *[CB] comments* below
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
> *Charlie Blackham*
>
> *Sulis Consultants Ltd*
>
> *Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317*
>
> *Web: **www.sulisconsultants.com*
> <https://outlook.hslive.net/owa/redir.aspx?C=02be3bf3e3a544d1bdf7b6c99fbd12f5=http%3a%2f%2fwww.sulisconsultants.com%2f>
>
> Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247
>
>
>
> *From:* Scott Xe 
> *Sent:* 22 June 2018 11:55
> *To:* Charlie Blackham 
> *Cc:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part
>
>
>
> Hi Charlie, I am not fully catching up your points.  Could you please give
> some insights of the points highlighted below.  Thanks!
>
>
>
> On 22 June 2018 at 00:28, Charlie Blackham 
> wrote:
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> Sound and Broadcast receivers fall under the scope of the RED (it was one
> of the changes from the R Directive), as such:
>
>- They don’t fall under the EMC Directive
>- There are no longer HS for them under the EMC Directive - Scott: Are
>we sure EU has taken out all EMC HS re receivers?  RED does not have
>enough HS for EMC without referencing to EMC HS.
>- There is now a HS for them under the RED - Scott: Currently only
>have one!  What is correct practice for the field to select EMC standards?
>It is not governed by the NB review!
>
> *[CB] The manufacturer is free to choose what standards to apply:*
>
>- *Where the product is “just” a radio, then the latest ETSI standards
>would be a good starting point, and they can all be found at 
> **https://goo.gl/5nseKp
><https://goo.gl/5nseKp>*
>- *Where the product is a “non-radio product with a radio”, then the
>above applies along with EMCD standard for the non-radio part. More
>information on this in *
>
>
>- *ETSI EG 203 367 v1.1.1:
>   
> http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_eg/203300_203399/203367/01.01.01_60/eg_203367v010101p.pdf
>   
> <http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_eg/203300_203399/203367/01.01.01_60/eg_203367v010101p.pdf>*
>   - *Draft ETSI EN 303 446-1 V1.1.0:
>   
> http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/303400_303499/30344601/01.01.00_20/en_30344601v010100a.pdf
>   
> <http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/303400_303499/30344601/01.01.00_20/en_30344601v010100a.pdf>*
>   - *Draft ETSI EN 303 446-2 V1.1.0:
>   
> http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/303400_303499/30344602/01.01.00_20/en_30344602v010100a.pdf
>   
> <http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/303400_303499/30344602/01.01.00_20/en_30344602v010100a.pdf>*
>
>
>
>
>
> Whilst you aren’t required to apply a Harmonised Standard, please note the
> requirement of Article 34 which applies if you are using a NB:
>
>
>
> Where a notified body finds that the essential requirements set out in
> Article 3 or corresponding harmonised standards or other technical
> specifications have not been met by a manufacturer, it shall require that
> manufacturer to take appropriate corrective measures and shall not issue an
> EU-type examination certificate or a quality system approval - Scott:
> Under RED, EU-type examination cert is required for article 3.2 only.  Will
> the NB also look after 3.1a and b?
>
> *[CB] The NB should look at whatever you ask them to. You may request
> everything; article 3.2 only; 3.2 and 3.1(b); 3.2 and 3.1(b) and 3.1(a)EMF
> etc.*
>
>
>
> So if you haven’t applied a listed Harmonised Standard and are requesting
> a Type Examination Certificate that covers article 3.1(b), then you need to
> show that the product has a level of EMC performance equivalent to the
> technical levels shown in the HS - Scott: Unless EN 55035 is a relax
> version of EN 55020, how can the manufacturer/test lab to show a level of
> EMC performance equivalent to the technical levels shown in the HS?
>
> *[CB] With careful consideration, not a short answer, but in this instance
> the HS would be probably be the best approach*
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
>
>
> *Charlie Blackham*
>
> *Sulis Consultants Ltd*
>
> *Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317*
>
> *Web: **www.sulisconsultants.com*
> <https://outlook.hslive.net/owa/redir.aspx?C=02be3bf3e3a544d1bdf7b6c99fbd12f5=http%3a%2f%2fwww.sulisconsultants.com%2f>
>
> Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247
>
>
>
>
>

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-p

[PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part

[Scott Xe]

 Gert,

Note 55032 has replaced 55022 in EMC HS but not in RED.  Suppose 55035 and
55032 are a pair of EMS and EMI for MME.  Any particular reason?

Regards,

Scott

On 22 June 2018 at 21:03, Gert Gremmen  wrote:

> It IS far behind. This step was made just to stop the delay.
>
> Virtually all standards will go through this step, as all LVD/EMCD
> standards need to include
>
> radio products in their scope, ETSI standards will need to include
> receiver parameter .
>
> Do not expect many technical changes in EMCD and LVD standards however, but
>
> the changes already discussed in this thread. (55020->55035 55022->55032)
>
>
> Gert Gremmen
>

-

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] RED products in EMC compliance part

[Scott Xe]

Hi Gert,

Glad to have leant this new process behind and congratulate your
contributions to these two groups!

However I have worries about the current status that is far behind the
demand of HS.  With this new step, further delay may be anticipated!

Is there any ID to identify the standards have been gone thru this new
process?

Thanks and regards,

Scott


On 22 June 2018 at 19:38, Gert Gremmen  wrote:

> The EC has blocked all publications of HS for the directives, because of
> legal problems.
>
> The main problem is that part of standards were not "written in stone",
> and were therefore
>
> not suitable as legislative text.
>
> To share the work and create transparency a pool of experts has been
> created, to verify  and if possible approve
>
> new corrected versions of almost all standards, currently been
> (re)-written by CENELEC and ETSI.
>
> If judged suitable, those standards will be presented to the EC  for
> publication in the OJ-C.
>
> The pool of experts has been created last month, and will soon start
> working and it is expected
>
> that soon after the publication of standards under RED and LVD will resume.
>
> I have been appointed as one of those experts, for the RED and EMCD.
>
> Within the scope of RED both new versions  EMC and new versions of LVD
> standards will be published.
>
> Many ETSI standards are missing  tests for receivers. So there is a lot of
> changes coming to the market.
>
> Independent Expert on CE marking
> Harmonised Standards (HAS-) Consultant @ European Commission for RED and EMC
> EMC Consultant
> Electrical Safety Consultant
>
>
>
>
> On 22-6-2018 12:54, Scott Xe wrote:
>
> Hi Charlie, I am not fully catching up your points.  Could you please give
> some insights of the points highlighted below.  Thanks!
>
> On 22 June 2018 at 00:28, Charlie Blackham 
> wrote:
>
>> Scott
>>
>>
>>
>> Sound and Broadcast receivers fall under the scope of the RED (it was one
>> of the changes from the R Directive), as such:
>>
>>- They don’t fall under the EMC Directive
>>- There are no longer HS for them under the EMC Directive - Scott:
>>Are we sure EU has taken out all EMC HS re receivers?  RED does not
>>have enough HS for EMC without referencing to EMC HS.
>>- There is now a HS for them under the RED - Scott: Currently only
>>have one!  What is correct practice for the field to select EMC standards?
>>It is not governed by the NB review!
>>
>>
>>
>> Whilst you aren’t required to apply a Harmonised Standard, please note
>> the requirement of Article 34 which applies if you are using a NB:
>>
>>
>>
>> Where a notified body finds that the essential requirements set out in
>> Article 3 or corresponding harmonised standards or other technical
>> specifications have not been met by a manufacturer, it shall require that
>> manufacturer to take appropriate corrective measures and shall not issue an
>> EU-type examination certificate or a quality system approval - Scott:
>> Under RED, EU-type examination cert is required for article 3.2 only.  Will
>> the NB also look after 3.1a and b?
>>
>>
>>
>> So if you haven’t applied a listed Harmonised Standard and are requesting
>> a Type Examination Certificate that covers article 3.1(b), then you need to
>> show that the product has a level of EMC performance equivalent to the
>> technical levels shown in the HS - Scott: Unless EN 55035 is a relax
>> version of EN 55020, how can the manufacturer/test lab to show a level of
>> EMC performance equivalent to the technical levels shown in the HS?
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Charlie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Charlie Blackham*
>>
>> *Sulis Consultants Ltd*
>>
>> *Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317*
>>
>> *Web: **www.sulisconsultants.com*
>> <https://outlook.hslive.net/owa/redir.aspx?C=02be3bf3e3a544d1bdf7b6c99fbd12f5=http%3a%2f%2fwww.sulisconsultants.com%2f>
>>
>> Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Scott Xe 
>> *Sent:* 21 June 2018 16:58
>>
>> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part
>>
>>
>>
>> Pete,
>>
>>
>>
>> Both you and Charlie share the esteemed and fair opinions that using
>> other than harmonised standards is not a wise decision although it is
>> allowed by the directive.  I have the same perception since we have no
>> control in this route due to limited knowledge.  Will se

Re: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part

[Michael Derby]

Hello,

 

The big problem with that approach is the change to the ‘state of the art’ 
(many more radios) and the fact that the technical requirements changed from 
the R to the RED (additional emphasis on receiver testing).

 

So, quite simply, there are many cases where the old R standard would not 
meet the requirements of the RED, or the latest state of the art.

(e.g., radio standards without receiver tests, and EMC standards where the 
immunity tests stop at 2.7 GHz).

 

For those reasons and more, a draft RED standard would be better than an old 
R standard.

 

 

Michael.

 

 

 

From: Jim Hulbert [mailto:jim.hulb...@pb.com] 
Sent: 22 June 2018 12:38
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part

 

My suggestion would be to go back to the harmonized standards list from the 
RED’s predecessor, the R, and search there for applicable EMC standards.  
I would use those for compliance in the absence of harmonized standards for the 
RED, with rationale in the technical file.   Does anyone see any pitfalls to 
taking that approach until harmonized standards do actually get attached to the 
RED?

 

Jim Hulbert

 

From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 6:55 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part

 

Hi Charlie, I am not fully catching up your points.  Could you please give some 
insights of the points highlighted below.  Thanks!

 

On 22 June 2018 at 00:28, Charlie Blackham mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com> > wrote:

Scott

 

Sound and Broadcast receivers fall under the scope of the RED (it was one of 
the changes from the R Directive), as such:

*   They don’t fall under the EMC Directive
*   There are no longer HS for them under the EMC Directive - Scott: Are we 
sure EU has taken out all EMC HS re receivers?  RED does not have enough HS for 
EMC without referencing to EMC HS.
*   There is now a HS for them under the RED - Scott: Currently only have 
one!  What is correct practice for the field to select EMC standards?  It is 
not governed by the NB review!

 

Whilst you aren’t required to apply a Harmonised Standard, please note the 
requirement of Article 34 which applies if you are using a NB:

 

Where a notified body finds that the essential requirements set out in Article 
3 or corresponding harmonised standards or other technical specifications have 
not been met by a manufacturer, it shall require that manufacturer to take 
appropriate corrective measures and shall not issue an EU-type examination 
certificate or a quality system approval - Scott: Under RED, EU-type 
examination cert is required for article 3.2 only.  Will the NB also look after 
3.1a and b?

 

So if you haven’t applied a listed Harmonised Standard and are requesting a 
Type Examination Certificate that covers article 3.1(b), then you need to show 
that the product has a level of EMC performance equivalent to the technical 
levels shown in the HS - Scott: Unless EN 55035 is a relax version of EN 55020, 
how can the manufacturer/test lab to show a level of EMC performance equivalent 
to the technical levels shown in the HS?

 

Regards

Charlie

 

 

Charlie Blackham

Sulis Consultants Ltd

Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317

Web:  
<https://outlook.hslive.net/owa/redir.aspx?C=02be3bf3e3a544d1bdf7b6c99fbd12f5=http%3a%2f%2fwww.sulisconsultants.com%2f>
 www.sulisconsultants.com

Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

 

From: Scott Xe mailto:scott...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: 21 June 2018 16:58


To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part

 

Pete,

 

Both you and Charlie share the esteemed and fair opinions that using other than 
harmonised standards is not a wise decision although it is allowed by the 
directive.  I have the same perception since we have no control in this route 
due to limited knowledge.  Will see how to stick to harmonised standards.

 

The test lab insisted on that EN 55020 is till valid in demonstrating EMC 
compliance although RED already has a new harmonised standard and it disappears 
in EMC list.  So far both the test lab and we cannot find any support to this 
claim.

 

Regards,

 

Scott

 

 

On 21 June 2018 at 23:18, Pete Perkins mailto:peperkin...@cs.com> > wrote:

Scott et al,

 

   Charlie is right; no matter what promise you get from your 3rd 
party NB they are not in ultimate control.  You, as manufacturer, are at the 
mercy of the regulators.  It is important for you & your company to keep the 
heat on so that there is a reasonable expectation that the work that has been 
done will be acceptable moving ahead.  

 

:>) br,  Pete

 

Peter E Perkins, PE

Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant

PO Box 23427

Tigard, ORe  97281-3427

 

503

Re: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part

[Charlie Blackham]

Scott

[CB] comments below

Regards
Charlie

Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Web: 
www.sulisconsultants.com<https://outlook.hslive.net/owa/redir.aspx?C=02be3bf3e3a544d1bdf7b6c99fbd12f5=http%3a%2f%2fwww.sulisconsultants.com%2f>
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

From: Scott Xe 
Sent: 22 June 2018 11:55
To: Charlie Blackham 
Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part

Hi Charlie, I am not fully catching up your points.  Could you please give some 
insights of the points highlighted below.  Thanks!

On 22 June 2018 at 00:28, Charlie Blackham 
mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com>> wrote:
Scott

Sound and Broadcast receivers fall under the scope of the RED (it was one of 
the changes from the R Directive), as such:

  *   They don’t fall under the EMC Directive
  *   There are no longer HS for them under the EMC Directive - Scott: Are we 
sure EU has taken out all EMC HS re receivers?  RED does not have enough HS for 
EMC without referencing to EMC HS.
  *   There is now a HS for them under the RED - Scott: Currently only have 
one!  What is correct practice for the field to select EMC standards?  It is 
not governed by the NB review!
[CB] The manufacturer is free to choose what standards to apply:

  *   Where the product is “just” a radio, then the latest ETSI standards would 
be a good starting point, and they can all be found at https://goo.gl/5nseKp
  *   Where the product is a “non-radio product with a radio”, then the above 
applies along with EMCD standard for the non-radio part. More information on 
this in

 *   ETSI EG 203 367 v1.1.1: 
http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_eg/203300_203399/203367/01.01.01_60/eg_203367v010101p.pdf
 *   Draft ETSI EN 303 446-1 V1.1.0: 
http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/303400_303499/30344601/01.01.00_20/en_30344601v010100a.pdf
 *   Draft ETSI EN 303 446-2 V1.1.0: 
http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/303400_303499/30344602/01.01.00_20/en_30344602v010100a.pdf


Whilst you aren’t required to apply a Harmonised Standard, please note the 
requirement of Article 34 which applies if you are using a NB:

Where a notified body finds that the essential requirements set out in Article 
3 or corresponding harmonised standards or other technical specifications have 
not been met by a manufacturer, it shall require that manufacturer to take 
appropriate corrective measures and shall not issue an EU-type examination 
certificate or a quality system approval - Scott: Under RED, EU-type 
examination cert is required for article 3.2 only.  Will the NB also look after 
3.1a and b?
[CB] The NB should look at whatever you ask them to. You may request 
everything; article 3.2 only; 3.2 and 3.1(b); 3.2 and 3.1(b) and 3.1(a)EMF etc.

So if you haven’t applied a listed Harmonised Standard and are requesting a 
Type Examination Certificate that covers article 3.1(b), then you need to show 
that the product has a level of EMC performance equivalent to the technical 
levels shown in the HS - Scott: Unless EN 55035 is a relax version of EN 55020, 
how can the manufacturer/test lab to show a level of EMC performance equivalent 
to the technical levels shown in the HS?
[CB] With careful consideration, not a short answer, but in this instance the 
HS would be probably be the best approach

Regards
Charlie


Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Web: 
www.sulisconsultants.com<https://outlook.hslive.net/owa/redir.aspx?C=02be3bf3e3a544d1bdf7b6c99fbd12f5=http%3a%2f%2fwww.sulisconsultants.com%2f>
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

From: Scott Xe mailto:scott...@gmail.com>>
Sent: 21 June 2018 16:58

To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part

Pete,

Both you and Charlie share the esteemed and fair opinions that using other than 
harmonised standards is not a wise decision although it is allowed by the 
directive.  I have the same perception since we have no control in this route 
due to limited knowledge.  Will see how to stick to harmonised standards.

The test lab insisted on that EN 55020 is till valid in demonstrating EMC 
compliance although RED already has a new harmonised standard and it disappears 
in EMC list.  So far both the test lab and we cannot find any support to this 
claim.

Regards,

Scott


On 21 June 2018 at 23:18, Pete Perkins 
mailto:peperkin...@cs.com>> wrote:
Scott et al,

   Charlie is right; no matter what promise you get from your 3rd 
party NB they are not in ultimate control.  You, as manufacturer, are at the 
mercy of the regulators.  It is important for you & your company to keep the 
heat on so that there is a reasonable expectation that the work that has been 
done will be acceptable moving ahead.

:>) br,  Pete

Peter E Perkins, PE
Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant
PO 

Re: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part

[Jim Hulbert]

My suggestion would be to go back to the harmonized standards list from the 
RED’s predecessor, the R, and search there for applicable EMC standards.  
I would use those for compliance in the absence of harmonized standards for the 
RED, with rationale in the technical file.   Does anyone see any pitfalls to 
taking that approach until harmonized standards do actually get attached to the 
RED?

Jim Hulbert

From: Scott Xe [mailto:scott...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 6:55 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part

Hi Charlie, I am not fully catching up your points.  Could you please give some 
insights of the points highlighted below.  Thanks!

On 22 June 2018 at 00:28, Charlie Blackham 
mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com>> wrote:
Scott

Sound and Broadcast receivers fall under the scope of the RED (it was one of 
the changes from the R Directive), as such:

  *   They don’t fall under the EMC Directive
  *   There are no longer HS for them under the EMC Directive - Scott: Are we 
sure EU has taken out all EMC HS re receivers?  RED does not have enough HS for 
EMC without referencing to EMC HS.
  *   There is now a HS for them under the RED - Scott: Currently only have 
one!  What is correct practice for the field to select EMC standards?  It is 
not governed by the NB review!

Whilst you aren’t required to apply a Harmonised Standard, please note the 
requirement of Article 34 which applies if you are using a NB:

Where a notified body finds that the essential requirements set out in Article 
3 or corresponding harmonised standards or other technical specifications have 
not been met by a manufacturer, it shall require that manufacturer to take 
appropriate corrective measures and shall not issue an EU-type examination 
certificate or a quality system approval - Scott: Under RED, EU-type 
examination cert is required for article 3.2 only.  Will the NB also look after 
3.1a and b?

So if you haven’t applied a listed Harmonised Standard and are requesting a 
Type Examination Certificate that covers article 3.1(b), then you need to show 
that the product has a level of EMC performance equivalent to the technical 
levels shown in the HS - Scott: Unless EN 55035 is a relax version of EN 55020, 
how can the manufacturer/test lab to show a level of EMC performance equivalent 
to the technical levels shown in the HS?

Regards
Charlie


Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Web: 
www.sulisconsultants.com<https://outlook.hslive.net/owa/redir.aspx?C=02be3bf3e3a544d1bdf7b6c99fbd12f5=http%3a%2f%2fwww.sulisconsultants.com%2f>
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

From: Scott Xe mailto:scott...@gmail.com>>
Sent: 21 June 2018 16:58

To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part

Pete,

Both you and Charlie share the esteemed and fair opinions that using other than 
harmonised standards is not a wise decision although it is allowed by the 
directive.  I have the same perception since we have no control in this route 
due to limited knowledge.  Will see how to stick to harmonised standards.

The test lab insisted on that EN 55020 is till valid in demonstrating EMC 
compliance although RED already has a new harmonised standard and it disappears 
in EMC list.  So far both the test lab and we cannot find any support to this 
claim.

Regards,

Scott


On 21 June 2018 at 23:18, Pete Perkins 
mailto:peperkin...@cs.com>> wrote:
Scott et al,

   Charlie is right; no matter what promise you get from your 3rd 
party NB they are not in ultimate control.  You, as manufacturer, are at the 
mercy of the regulators.  It is important for you & your company to keep the 
heat on so that there is a reasonable expectation that the work that has been 
done will be acceptable moving ahead.

:>) br,  Pete

Peter E Perkins, PE
Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant
PO Box 23427
Tigard, ORe  97281-3427

503/452-1201

IEEE Life Fellow
p.perk...@ieee.org<mailto:p.perk...@ieee.org>

From: Scott Xe mailto:scott...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 7:25 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>

Subject: Re: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part

Hi Charlie,

Many thanks for your kind advice!!

As the conformity review of this product is required by a NB, it is quite 
difficult to challenge their result due to their status but we can require them 
to issue a confirmation of continual compliance with the latest essential 
requirements of RED on the repeat orders.

Regards,

Scott

On 21 June 2018 at 02:46, Charlie Blackham 
mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com>> wrote:
Scott

I understand the issue you describe, however it should be remembered that:

  *   The manufacturer is always responsible , whoever advises them. If they 
are goin

Re: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part

[Scott Xe]

Hi Charlie, I am not fully catching up your points.  Could you please give
some insights of the points highlighted below.  Thanks!

On 22 June 2018 at 00:28, Charlie Blackham 
wrote:

> Scott
>
>
>
> Sound and Broadcast receivers fall under the scope of the RED (it was one
> of the changes from the R Directive), as such:
>
>- They don’t fall under the EMC Directive
>- There are no longer HS for them under the EMC Directive - Scott: Are
>we sure EU has taken out all EMC HS re receivers?  RED does not have
>enough HS for EMC without referencing to EMC HS.
>- There is now a HS for them under the RED - Scott: Currently only
>have one!  What is correct practice for the field to select EMC standards?
>It is not governed by the NB review!
>
>
>
> Whilst you aren’t required to apply a Harmonised Standard, please note the
> requirement of Article 34 which applies if you are using a NB:
>
>
>
> Where a notified body finds that the essential requirements set out in
> Article 3 or corresponding harmonised standards or other technical
> specifications have not been met by a manufacturer, it shall require that
> manufacturer to take appropriate corrective measures and shall not issue an
> EU-type examination certificate or a quality system approval - Scott:
> Under RED, EU-type examination cert is required for article 3.2 only.  Will
> the NB also look after 3.1a and b?
>
>
>
> So if you haven’t applied a listed Harmonised Standard and are requesting
> a Type Examination Certificate that covers article 3.1(b), then you need to
> show that the product has a level of EMC performance equivalent to the
> technical levels shown in the HS - Scott: Unless EN 55035 is a relax
> version of EN 55020, how can the manufacturer/test lab to show a level of
> EMC performance equivalent to the technical levels shown in the HS?
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
>
>
> *Charlie Blackham*
>
> *Sulis Consultants Ltd*
>
> *Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317*
>
> *Web: **www.sulisconsultants.com*
> <https://outlook.hslive.net/owa/redir.aspx?C=02be3bf3e3a544d1bdf7b6c99fbd12f5=http%3a%2f%2fwww.sulisconsultants.com%2f>
>
> Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247
>
>
>
> *From:* Scott Xe 
> *Sent:* 21 June 2018 16:58
>
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part
>
>
>
> Pete,
>
>
>
> Both you and Charlie share the esteemed and fair opinions that using other
> than harmonised standards is not a wise decision although it is allowed by
> the directive.  I have the same perception since we have no control in this
> route due to limited knowledge.  Will see how to stick to harmonised
> standards.
>
>
>
> The test lab insisted on that EN 55020 is till valid in demonstrating EMC
> compliance although RED already has a new harmonised standard and it
> disappears in EMC list.  So far both the test lab and we cannot find any
> support to this claim.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
>
>
> On 21 June 2018 at 23:18, Pete Perkins  wrote:
>
> Scott et al,
>
>
>
>Charlie is right; no matter what promise you get from your 3
> rd party NB they are not in ultimate control.  You, as manufacturer, are
> at the mercy of the regulators.  It is important for you & your company to
> keep the heat on so that there is a reasonable expectation that the work
> that has been done will be acceptable moving ahead.
>
>
>
> :>) br,  Pete
>
>
>
> Peter E Perkins, PE
>
> Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant
>
> PO Box 23427
>
> Tigard, ORe  97281-3427
>
>
>
> 503/452-1201
>
>
>
> IEEE Life Fellow
>
> p.perk...@ieee.org
>
>
>
> *From:* Scott Xe 
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 21, 2018 7:25 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part
>
>
>
> Hi Charlie,
>
>
>
> Many thanks for your kind advice!!
>
>
>
> As the conformity review of this product is required by a NB, it is quite
> difficult to challenge their result due to their status but we can require
> them to issue a confirmation of continual compliance with the latest
> essential requirements of RED on the repeat orders.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> On 21 June 2018 at 02:46, Charlie Blackham 
> wrote:
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> I understand the issue you describe, however it should be remembered that:
>
>- The manufacturer is always responsible , whoever advises them. If
>they are going to ask a 3r

Re: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part

[John Woodgate]

Yes, the Commission does not always make the docopocoss the same as the 
dow.  The situation is known to be unsatisfactory, due to the Commission 
changing its criteria for listing standards in the OJ.


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

On 2018-06-22 00:22, Scott Xe wrote:

John,

EN 55035 is the 1st EMC standard under RED so no docopocoss may be 
normal.  This standard is not included in the EMC list as of today.  
The dop and the dow of the standard are 28/01/2018 and 08/09/2022 and 
some people interpreted dow as the effective date.  In Europe, the 
effective should be determined in OJEU, not dow of the standard, isn't it?


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: 

Re: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part

[Scott Xe]

John,

EN 55035 is the 1st EMC standard under RED so no docopocoss may be normal.
This standard is not included in the EMC list as of today.  The dop and the
dow of the standard are 28/01/2018 and 08/09/2022 and some people
interpreted dow as the effective date.  In Europe, the effective should be
determined in OJEU, not dow of the standard, isn't it?

Regards,

Scott

On 22 June 2018 at 00:39, John Woodgate  wrote:

> Yes, EN 55035 is listed under the RED, but there is no docopocoss for
> 55020 cited, possibly because 55020 was never cited under the RED.  So
> the only place to look for the docopocoss is the EMC list, I suggest.
> Otherwise it's in a sort of limbo.
>
> John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
> J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
> Rayleigh, Essex UK
>
> On 2018-06-21 17:28, Charlie Blackham wrote:
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> Sound and Broadcast receivers fall under the scope of the RED (it was one
> of the changes from the R Directive), as such:
>
>- They don’t fall under the EMC Directive
>- There are no longer HS for them under the EMC Directive
>- There is now a HS for them under the RED
>
>
>
> Whilst you aren’t required to apply a Harmonised Standard, please note the
> requirement of Article 34 which applies if you are using a NB:
>
>
>
> Where a notified body finds that the essential requirements set out in
> Article 3 or corresponding harmonised standards or other technical
> specifications have not been met by a manufacturer, it shall require that
> manufacturer to take appropriate corrective measures and shall not issue an
> EU-type examination certificate or a quality system approval
>
>
>
> So if you haven’t applied a listed Harmonised Standard and are requesting
> a Type Examination Certificate that covers article 3.1(b), then you need to
> show that the product has a level of EMC performance equivalent to the
> technical levels shown in the HS
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
>
>
> *Charlie Blackham*
>
> *Sulis Consultants Ltd*
>
> *Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317*
>
> *Web: **www.sulisconsultants.com*
> <https://outlook.hslive.net/owa/redir.aspx?C=02be3bf3e3a544d1bdf7b6c99fbd12f5=http%3a%2f%2fwww.sulisconsultants.com%2f>
>
> Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247
>
>
>
> *From:* Scott Xe  
> *Sent:* 21 June 2018 16:58
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part
>
>
>
> Pete,
>
>
>
> Both you and Charlie share the esteemed and fair opinions that using other
> than harmonised standards is not a wise decision although it is allowed by
> the directive.  I have the same perception since we have no control in this
> route due to limited knowledge.  Will see how to stick to harmonised
> standards.
>
>
>
> The test lab insisted on that EN 55020 is till valid in demonstrating EMC
> compliance although RED already has a new harmonised standard and it
> disappears in EMC list.  So far both the test lab and we cannot find any
> support to this claim.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
>
>
> On 21 June 2018 at 23:18, Pete Perkins  wrote:
>
> Scott et al,
>
>
>
>Charlie is right; no matter what promise you get from your 3
> rd party NB they are not in ultimate control.  You, as manufacturer, are
> at the mercy of the regulators.  It is important for you & your company to
> keep the heat on so that there is a reasonable expectation that the work
> that has been done will be acceptable moving ahead.
>
>
>
> :>) br,      Pete
>
>
>
> Peter E Perkins, PE
>
> Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant
>
> PO Box 23427
>
> Tigard, ORe  97281-3427
>
>
>
> 503/452-1201
>
>
>
> IEEE Life Fellow
>
> p.perk...@ieee.org
>
>
>
> *From:* Scott Xe 
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 21, 2018 7:25 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part
>
>
>
> Hi Charlie,
>
>
>
> Many thanks for your kind advice!!
>
>
>
> As the conformity review of this product is required by a NB, it is quite
> difficult to challenge their result due to their status but we can require
> them to issue a confirmation of continual compliance with the latest
> essential requirements of RED on the repeat orders.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> On 21 June 2018 at 02:46, Charlie Blackham 
> wrote:
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> I understand the issue you describe, however it should be remembered that:
>
>- The manufacturer is always res

Re: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part

[John Woodgate]

Yes, EN 55035 is listed under the RED, but there is no docopocoss for 
55020 cited, possibly because 55020 was never cited under the RED.  So 
the only place to look for the docopocoss is the EMC list, I suggest. 
Otherwise it's in a sort of limbo.


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

On 2018-06-21 17:28, Charlie Blackham wrote:


Scott

Sound and Broadcast receivers fall under the scope of the RED (it was 
one of the changes from the R Directive), as such:


  * They don’t fall under the EMC Directive
  * There are no longer HS for them under the EMC Directive
  * There is now a HS for them under the RED

Whilst you aren’t required to apply a Harmonised Standard, please note 
the requirement of Article 34 which applies if you are using a NB:


Where a notified body finds that the essential requirements set out in 
Article 3 or corresponding harmonised standards or other technical 
specifications have not been met by a manufacturer, it shall require 
that manufacturer to take appropriate corrective measures and shall 
not issue an EU-type examination certificate or a quality system approval


So if you haven’t applied a listed Harmonised Standard and are 
requesting a Type Examination Certificate that covers article 3.1(b), 
then you need to show that the product has a level of EMC performance 
equivalent to the technical levels shown in the HS


Regards

Charlie

*Charlie Blackham*

*Sulis Consultants Ltd*

*Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317*

*Web: **www.sulisconsultants.com* 
<https://outlook.hslive.net/owa/redir.aspx?C=02be3bf3e3a544d1bdf7b6c99fbd12f5=http%3a%2f%2fwww.sulisconsultants.com%2f>


Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

*From:*Scott Xe 
*Sent:* 21 June 2018 16:58
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part

Pete,

Both you and Charlie share the esteemed and fair opinions that using 
other than harmonised standards is not a wise decision although it is 
allowed by the directive.  I have the same perception since we have no 
control in this route due to limited knowledge.  Will see how to stick 
to harmonised standards.


The test lab insisted on that EN 55020 is till valid in demonstrating 
EMC compliance although RED already has a new harmonised standard and 
it disappears in EMC list.  So far both the test lab and we cannot 
find any support to this claim.


Regards,

Scott

On 21 June 2018 at 23:18, Pete Perkins <mailto:peperkin...@cs.com>> wrote:


Scott et al,

   Charlie is right; no matter what promise you get
from your 3^rd party NB they are not in ultimate control.  You, as
manufacturer, are at the mercy of the regulators.  It is important
for you & your company to keep the heat on so that there is a
reasonable expectation that the work that has been done will be
acceptable moving ahead.

:>) br,  Pete

Peter E Perkins, PE

Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant

PO Box 23427

Tigard, ORe  97281-3427

503/452-1201

IEEE Life Fellow

p.perk...@ieee.org <mailto:p.perk...@ieee.org>

*From:*Scott Xe mailto:scott...@gmail.com>>
*Sent:* Thursday, June 21, 2018 7:25 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>


    *Subject:* Re: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part

Hi Charlie,

Many thanks for your kind advice!!

As the conformity review of this product is required by a NB, it
is quite difficult to challenge their result due to their status
but we can require them to issue a confirmation of continual
compliance with the latest essential requirements of RED on the
repeat orders.

Regards,

Scott

On 21 June 2018 at 02:46, Charlie Blackham
mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com>> wrote:

Scott

I understand the issue you describe, however it should be
remembered that:

  * The manufacturer is always responsible , whoever advises
them. If they are going to ask a 3^rd party (lab or
consultant) then they should satisfy themselves that the
advice is correct, perhaps by asking what the
recommendation is based on.
  * A test lab cannot issue a “Declaration of Conformity” only
a manufacturer (or suitably contracted representative) can
do that – test labs should (only) issue “Certificates of
Conformity” as a summary of test results, which are not
the same thing
  * Copying someone else who got it wrong isn’t much of a defence

In my experience, you should be prepared for challenges from
market surveillance if you don’t apply Harmonised Standards
(but whether you actually get challenged may be down to luck
and whether your product type has been selected for market
survei

Re: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part

[Charlie Blackham]

Scott

Sound and Broadcast receivers fall under the scope of the RED (it was one of 
the changes from the R Directive), as such:

  *   They don’t fall under the EMC Directive
  *   There are no longer HS for them under the EMC Directive
  *   There is now a HS for them under the RED

Whilst you aren’t required to apply a Harmonised Standard, please note the 
requirement of Article 34 which applies if you are using a NB:

Where a notified body finds that the essential requirements set out in Article 
3 or corresponding harmonised standards or other technical specifications have 
not been met by a manufacturer, it shall require that manufacturer to take 
appropriate corrective measures and shall not issue an EU-type examination 
certificate or a quality system approval

So if you haven’t applied a listed Harmonised Standard and are requesting a 
Type Examination Certificate that covers article 3.1(b), then you need to show 
that the product has a level of EMC performance equivalent to the technical 
levels shown in the HS

Regards
Charlie


Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Web: 
www.sulisconsultants.com<https://outlook.hslive.net/owa/redir.aspx?C=02be3bf3e3a544d1bdf7b6c99fbd12f5=http%3a%2f%2fwww.sulisconsultants.com%2f>
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

From: Scott Xe 
Sent: 21 June 2018 16:58
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part

Pete,

Both you and Charlie share the esteemed and fair opinions that using other than 
harmonised standards is not a wise decision although it is allowed by the 
directive.  I have the same perception since we have no control in this route 
due to limited knowledge.  Will see how to stick to harmonised standards.

The test lab insisted on that EN 55020 is till valid in demonstrating EMC 
compliance although RED already has a new harmonised standard and it disappears 
in EMC list.  So far both the test lab and we cannot find any support to this 
claim.

Regards,

Scott


On 21 June 2018 at 23:18, Pete Perkins 
mailto:peperkin...@cs.com>> wrote:
Scott et al,

   Charlie is right; no matter what promise you get from your 3rd 
party NB they are not in ultimate control.  You, as manufacturer, are at the 
mercy of the regulators.  It is important for you & your company to keep the 
heat on so that there is a reasonable expectation that the work that has been 
done will be acceptable moving ahead.

:>) br,  Pete

Peter E Perkins, PE
Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant
PO Box 23427
Tigard, ORe  97281-3427

503/452-1201

IEEE Life Fellow
p.perk...@ieee.org<mailto:p.perk...@ieee.org>

From: Scott Xe mailto:scott...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 7:25 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>

Subject: Re: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part

Hi Charlie,

Many thanks for your kind advice!!

As the conformity review of this product is required by a NB, it is quite 
difficult to challenge their result due to their status but we can require them 
to issue a confirmation of continual compliance with the latest essential 
requirements of RED on the repeat orders.

Regards,

Scott

On 21 June 2018 at 02:46, Charlie Blackham 
mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com>> wrote:
Scott

I understand the issue you describe, however it should be remembered that:

  *   The manufacturer is always responsible , whoever advises them. If they 
are going to ask a 3rd party (lab or consultant) then they should satisfy 
themselves that the advice is correct, perhaps by asking what the 
recommendation is based on.
  *   A test lab cannot issue a “Declaration of Conformity” only a manufacturer 
(or suitably contracted representative) can do that – test labs should (only) 
issue “Certificates of Conformity” as a summary of test results, which are not 
the same thing
  *   Copying someone else who got it wrong isn’t much of a defence

In my experience, you should be prepared for challenges from market 
surveillance if you don’t apply Harmonised Standards (but whether you actually 
get challenged may be down to luck and whether your product type has been 
selected for market surveillance activity)

Regards
Charlie

Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Web: 
www.sulisconsultants.com<https://outlook.hslive.net/owa/redir.aspx?C=02be3bf3e3a544d1bdf7b6c99fbd12f5=http%3a%2f%2fwww.sulisconsultants.com%2f>
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

From: Scott Xe mailto:scott...@gmail.com>>
Sent: 20 June 2018 17:31
To: Charlie Blackham 
mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com>>
Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part

Hi Charlie,

Understand that the manufacturer is free to choose any conformity assessment to 
meet the essential requirements for EMC without using a 

Re: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part

[John Woodgate]

I think you can consider that until EN 55035 is listed in the OJ, there 
is no official docopocoss (Date of cessation of presumption of 
conformity of the superseded standard) for EN 55020, so you can still 
apply it.


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

On 2018-06-21 16:57, Scott Xe wrote:

Pete,

Both you and Charlie share the esteemed and fair opinions that using 
other than harmonised standards is not a wise decision although it is 
allowed by the directive.  I have the same perception since we have no 
control in this route due to limited knowledge.  Will see how to stick 
to harmonised standards.


The test lab insisted on that EN 55020 is till valid in demonstrating 
EMC compliance although RED already has a new harmonised standard and 
it disappears in EMC list.  So far both the test lab and we cannot 
find any support to this claim.


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: 

Re: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part

[Scott Xe]

Pete,

Both you and Charlie share the esteemed and fair opinions that using other
than harmonised standards is not a wise decision although it is allowed by
the directive.  I have the same perception since we have no control in this
route due to limited knowledge.  Will see how to stick to harmonised
standards.

The test lab insisted on that EN 55020 is till valid in demonstrating EMC
compliance although RED already has a new harmonised standard and it
disappears in EMC list.  So far both the test lab and we cannot find any
support to this claim.

Regards,

Scott


On 21 June 2018 at 23:18, Pete Perkins  wrote:

> Scott et al,
>
>
>
>Charlie is right; no matter what promise you get from your 3
> rd party NB they are not in ultimate control.  You, as manufacturer, are
> at the mercy of the regulators.  It is important for you & your company to
> keep the heat on so that there is a reasonable expectation that the work
> that has been done will be acceptable moving ahead.
>
>
>
> :>) br,  Pete
>
>
>
> Peter E Perkins, PE
>
> Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant
>
> PO Box 23427
>
> Tigard, ORe  97281-3427
>
>
>
> 503/452-1201
>
>
>
> IEEE Life Fellow
>
> p.perk...@ieee.org
>
>
>
> *From:* Scott Xe 
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 21, 2018 7:25 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part
>
>
>
> Hi Charlie,
>
>
>
> Many thanks for your kind advice!!
>
>
>
> As the conformity review of this product is required by a NB, it is quite
> difficult to challenge their result due to their status but we can require
> them to issue a confirmation of continual compliance with the latest
> essential requirements of RED on the repeat orders.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> On 21 June 2018 at 02:46, Charlie Blackham 
> wrote:
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> I understand the issue you describe, however it should be remembered that:
>
>- The manufacturer is always responsible , whoever advises them. If
>they are going to ask a 3rd party (lab or consultant) then they should
>satisfy themselves that the advice is correct, perhaps by asking what the
>recommendation is based on.
>- A test lab cannot issue a “Declaration of Conformity” only a
>manufacturer (or suitably contracted representative) can do that – test
>labs should (only) issue “Certificates of Conformity” as a summary of test
>results, which are not the same thing
>- Copying someone else who got it wrong isn’t much of a defence
>
>
>
> In my experience, you should be prepared for challenges from market
> surveillance if you don’t apply Harmonised Standards (but whether you
> actually get challenged may be down to luck and whether your product type
> has been selected for market surveillance activity)
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
> *Charlie Blackham*
>
> *Sulis Consultants Ltd*
>
> *Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317*
>
> *Web: **www.sulisconsultants.com*
> <https://outlook.hslive.net/owa/redir.aspx?C=02be3bf3e3a544d1bdf7b6c99fbd12f5=http%3a%2f%2fwww.sulisconsultants.com%2f>
>
> Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247
>
>
>
> *From:* Scott Xe 
> *Sent:* 20 June 2018 17:31
> *To:* Charlie Blackham 
> *Cc:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part
>
>
>
> Hi Charlie,
>
>
>
> Understand that the manufacturer is free to choose any conformity
> assessment to meet the essential requirements for EMC without using a
> Notified Body.  However the manufacturer must have expert in this area to
> provide the appropriate advice.  Most of oem manufacturers lack of such
> luxury resource and reply on renowned test houses to do it for them.  Can
> we use the declaration of conformity from the test lab for selecting the
> right test standards for EMC part even those standards are not in RED and
> EMC harmonized lists.  Would we receive extra challenges from the market
> surveillances due to the fact that we use non harmonized standards.
>
>
>
> Thanks and regards,
>
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> On 21 June 2018 at 00:12, Charlie Blackham 
> wrote:
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> EN 55035 is the (only) article 3.1(b) EMC standard that is Harmonised for
> broadcast receivers under the RED.
>
>
>
> As per RED article 17, the manufacturer is free to choose any conformity
> assessment to meet the essential requirements for EMC without using a
> Notified Body, but:
>
>- Your approach to EMC needs to be considered in your Risk Assessment
>  

Re: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part

[Pete Perkins]

Scott et al,

 

   Charlie is right; no matter what promise you get from your 3rd 
party NB they are not in ultimate control.  You, as manufacturer, are at the 
mercy of the regulators.  It is important for you & your company to keep the 
heat on so that there is a reasonable expectation that the work that has been 
done will be acceptable moving ahead.  

 

:>) br,  Pete

 

Peter E Perkins, PE

Principal Product Safety & Regulatory Affairs Consultant

PO Box 23427

Tigard, ORe  97281-3427

 

503/452-1201

 

IEEE Life Fellow

 <mailto:p.perk...@ieee.org> p.perk...@ieee.org

 

From: Scott Xe  
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 7:25 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part

 

Hi Charlie,

 

Many thanks for your kind advice!!

 

As the conformity review of this product is required by a NB, it is quite 
difficult to challenge their result due to their status but we can require them 
to issue a confirmation of continual compliance with the latest essential 
requirements of RED on the repeat orders.

 

Regards,

 

Scott

 

On 21 June 2018 at 02:46, Charlie Blackham mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com> > wrote:

Scott

 

I understand the issue you describe, however it should be remembered that:

*   The manufacturer is always responsible , whoever advises them. If they 
are going to ask a 3rd party (lab or consultant) then they should satisfy 
themselves that the advice is correct, perhaps by asking what the 
recommendation is based on.
*   A test lab cannot issue a “Declaration of Conformity” only a 
manufacturer (or suitably contracted representative) can do that – test labs 
should (only) issue “Certificates of Conformity” as a summary of test results, 
which are not the same thing
*   Copying someone else who got it wrong isn’t much of a defence

 

In my experience, you should be prepared for challenges from market 
surveillance if you don’t apply Harmonised Standards (but whether you actually 
get challenged may be down to luck and whether your product type has been 
selected for market surveillance activity)

 

Regards

Charlie

 

Charlie Blackham

Sulis Consultants Ltd

Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317

Web:  
<https://outlook.hslive.net/owa/redir.aspx?C=02be3bf3e3a544d1bdf7b6c99fbd12f5=http%3a%2f%2fwww.sulisconsultants.com%2f>
 www.sulisconsultants.com

Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

 

From: Scott Xe mailto:scott...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: 20 June 2018 17:31
To: Charlie Blackham mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com> >
Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: Re: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part

 

Hi Charlie,

 

Understand that the manufacturer is free to choose any conformity assessment to 
meet the essential requirements for EMC without using a Notified Body.  However 
the manufacturer must have expert in this area to provide the appropriate 
advice.  Most of oem manufacturers lack of such luxury resource and reply on 
renowned test houses to do it for them.  Can we use the declaration of 
conformity from the test lab for selecting the right test standards for EMC 
part even those standards are not in RED and EMC harmonized lists.  Would we 
receive extra challenges from the market surveillances due to the fact that we 
use non harmonized standards.

 

Thanks and regards,

 

Scott

 

On 21 June 2018 at 00:12, Charlie Blackham mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com> > wrote:

Scott

 

EN 55035 is the (only) article 3.1(b) EMC standard that is Harmonised for 
broadcast receivers under the RED.

 

As per RED article 17, the manufacturer is free to choose any conformity 
assessment to meet the essential requirements for EMC without using a Notified 
Body, but:

*   Your approach to EMC needs to be considered in your Risk Assessment 
(whether or not a Harmonised Standard is applied)
*   Market enforcement and customs would “expect” to see Harmonised 
Standards such as EN 55035:2017 listed on the DoC

 

If the DAB radio contains Bluetooth then EN 301 489-1 and -17 would also apply, 
though these won’t be in the OJ until Q4 2017 or Q1 2018

 

Regards

Charlie

 

Charlie Blackham

Sulis Consultants Ltd

Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317

Web:  
<https://outlook.hslive.net/owa/redir.aspx?C=02be3bf3e3a544d1bdf7b6c99fbd12f5=http%3a%2f%2fwww.sulisconsultants.com%2f>
 www.sulisconsultants.com

Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

 

From: Scott Xe mailto:scott...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: 20 June 2018 16:05
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG> 
Subject: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part

 

Dear All,

 

We have a DAB radio with BT speaker.  It held NB a cert using EN 55032 : 2015,  
EN 55020 : 2007 + A12 : 2016, ….  for EMC part compliance last year.  Currently 
we are reviewing the continual compliance.  It is discovered that both EN 55032 
and

Re: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part

[Scott Xe]

Hi Charlie,

Many thanks for your kind advice!!

As the conformity review of this product is required by a NB, it is quite
difficult to challenge their result due to their status but we can require
them to issue a confirmation of continual compliance with the latest
essential requirements of RED on the repeat orders.

Regards,

Scott

On 21 June 2018 at 02:46, Charlie Blackham 
wrote:

> Scott
>
>
>
> I understand the issue you describe, however it should be remembered that:
>
>- The manufacturer is always responsible , whoever advises them. If
>they are going to ask a 3rd party (lab or consultant) then they should
>satisfy themselves that the advice is correct, perhaps by asking what the
>recommendation is based on.
>- A test lab cannot issue a “Declaration of Conformity” only a
>manufacturer (or suitably contracted representative) can do that – test
>labs should (only) issue “Certificates of Conformity” as a summary of test
>results, which are not the same thing
>- Copying someone else who got it wrong isn’t much of a defence
>
>
>
> In my experience, you should be prepared for challenges from market
> surveillance if you don’t apply Harmonised Standards (but whether you
> actually get challenged may be down to luck and whether your product type
> has been selected for market surveillance activity)
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
> *Charlie Blackham*
>
> *Sulis Consultants Ltd*
>
> *Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317*
>
> *Web: **www.sulisconsultants.com*
> <https://outlook.hslive.net/owa/redir.aspx?C=02be3bf3e3a544d1bdf7b6c99fbd12f5=http%3a%2f%2fwww.sulisconsultants.com%2f>
>
> Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247
>
>
>
> *From:* Scott Xe 
> *Sent:* 20 June 2018 17:31
> *To:* Charlie Blackham 
> *Cc:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part
>
>
>
> Hi Charlie,
>
>
>
> Understand that the manufacturer is free to choose any conformity
> assessment to meet the essential requirements for EMC without using a
> Notified Body.  However the manufacturer must have expert in this area to
> provide the appropriate advice.  Most of oem manufacturers lack of such
> luxury resource and reply on renowned test houses to do it for them.  Can
> we use the declaration of conformity from the test lab for selecting the
> right test standards for EMC part even those standards are not in RED and
> EMC harmonized lists.  Would we receive extra challenges from the market
> surveillances due to the fact that we use non harmonized standards.
>
>
>
> Thanks and regards,
>
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> On 21 June 2018 at 00:12, Charlie Blackham 
> wrote:
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> EN 55035 is the (only) article 3.1(b) EMC standard that is Harmonised for
> broadcast receivers under the RED.
>
>
>
> As per RED article 17, the manufacturer is free to choose any conformity
> assessment to meet the essential requirements for EMC without using a
> Notified Body, but:
>
>- Your approach to EMC needs to be considered in your Risk Assessment
>(whether or not a Harmonised Standard is applied)
>- Market enforcement and customs would “expect” to see Harmonised
>Standards such as EN 55035:2017 listed on the DoC
>
>
>
> If the DAB radio contains Bluetooth then EN 301 489-1 and -17 would also
> apply, though these won’t be in the OJ until Q4 2017 or Q1 2018
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
> *Charlie Blackham*
>
> *Sulis Consultants Ltd*
>
> *Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317*
>
> *Web: **www.sulisconsultants.com*
> <https://outlook.hslive.net/owa/redir.aspx?C=02be3bf3e3a544d1bdf7b6c99fbd12f5=http%3a%2f%2fwww.sulisconsultants.com%2f>
>
> Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247
>
>
>
> *From:* Scott Xe 
> *Sent:* 20 June 2018 16:05
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> We have a DAB radio with BT speaker.  It held NB a cert using EN 55032 :
> 2015,  EN 55020 : 2007 + A12 : 2016, ….  for EMC part compliance last
> year.  Currently we are reviewing the continual compliance.  It is
> discovered that both EN 55032 and EN 55020 disappears in the latest list of
> EMC harmonized standard list.  In RED harmonized standard list, there is a
> new harmonized standard EN 55035.  Is it in need of meeting EN 55035 : 2017
> instead of EN 55020 : 2007 to maintain the continual compliance of RED?
>
>
>
> Thanks and regards,
>
>
>
> Scott
>
> -
> 
>
> This message is from

Re: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part

[Charlie Blackham]

Scott

I understand the issue you describe, however it should be remembered that:

  *   The manufacturer is always responsible , whoever advises them. If they 
are going to ask a 3rd party (lab or consultant) then they should satisfy 
themselves that the advice is correct, perhaps by asking what the 
recommendation is based on.
  *   A test lab cannot issue a “Declaration of Conformity” only a manufacturer 
(or suitably contracted representative) can do that – test labs should (only) 
issue “Certificates of Conformity” as a summary of test results, which are not 
the same thing
  *   Copying someone else who got it wrong isn’t much of a defence

In my experience, you should be prepared for challenges from market 
surveillance if you don’t apply Harmonised Standards (but whether you actually 
get challenged may be down to luck and whether your product type has been 
selected for market surveillance activity)

Regards
Charlie

Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Web: 
www.sulisconsultants.com<https://outlook.hslive.net/owa/redir.aspx?C=02be3bf3e3a544d1bdf7b6c99fbd12f5=http%3a%2f%2fwww.sulisconsultants.com%2f>
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

From: Scott Xe 
Sent: 20 June 2018 17:31
To: Charlie Blackham 
Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part

Hi Charlie,

Understand that the manufacturer is free to choose any conformity assessment to 
meet the essential requirements for EMC without using a Notified Body.  However 
the manufacturer must have expert in this area to provide the appropriate 
advice.  Most of oem manufacturers lack of such luxury resource and reply on 
renowned test houses to do it for them.  Can we use the declaration of 
conformity from the test lab for selecting the right test standards for EMC 
part even those standards are not in RED and EMC harmonized lists.  Would we 
receive extra challenges from the market surveillances due to the fact that we 
use non harmonized standards.

Thanks and regards,

Scott

On 21 June 2018 at 00:12, Charlie Blackham 
mailto:char...@sulisconsultants.com>> wrote:
Scott

EN 55035 is the (only) article 3.1(b) EMC standard that is Harmonised for 
broadcast receivers under the RED.

As per RED article 17, the manufacturer is free to choose any conformity 
assessment to meet the essential requirements for EMC without using a Notified 
Body, but:

  *   Your approach to EMC needs to be considered in your Risk Assessment 
(whether or not a Harmonised Standard is applied)
  *   Market enforcement and customs would “expect” to see Harmonised Standards 
such as EN 55035:2017 listed on the DoC

If the DAB radio contains Bluetooth then EN 301 489-1 and -17 would also apply, 
though these won’t be in the OJ until Q4 2017 or Q1 2018

Regards
Charlie

Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Web: 
www.sulisconsultants.com<https://outlook.hslive.net/owa/redir.aspx?C=02be3bf3e3a544d1bdf7b6c99fbd12f5=http%3a%2f%2fwww.sulisconsultants.com%2f>
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

From: Scott Xe mailto:scott...@gmail.com>>
Sent: 20 June 2018 16:05
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG<mailto:EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part

Dear All,

We have a DAB radio with BT speaker.  It held NB a cert using EN 55032 : 2015,  
EN 55020 : 2007 + A12 : 2016, ….  for EMC part compliance last year.  Currently 
we are reviewing the continual compliance.  It is discovered that both EN 55032 
and EN 55020 disappears in the latest list of EMC harmonized standard list.  In 
RED harmonized standard list, there is a new harmonized standard EN 55035.  Is 
it in need of meeting EN 55035 : 2017 instead of EN 55020 : 2007 to maintain 
the continual compliance of RED?

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 
mailto: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)<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

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


-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineerin

Re: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part

[Charlie Blackham]

Scott

EN 55035 is the (only) article 3.1(b) EMC standard that is Harmonised for 
broadcast receivers under the RED.

As per RED article 17, the manufacturer is free to choose any conformity 
assessment to meet the essential requirements for EMC without using a Notified 
Body, but:

  *   Your approach to EMC needs to be considered in your Risk Assessment 
(whether or not a Harmonised Standard is applied)
  *   Market enforcement and customs would “expect” to see Harmonised Standards 
such as EN 55035:2017 listed on the DoC

If the DAB radio contains Bluetooth then EN 301 489-1 and -17 would also apply, 
though these won’t be in the OJ until Q4 2017 or Q1 2018

Regards
Charlie

Charlie Blackham
Sulis Consultants Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317
Web: 
www.sulisconsultants.com<https://outlook.hslive.net/owa/redir.aspx?C=02be3bf3e3a544d1bdf7b6c99fbd12f5=http%3a%2f%2fwww.sulisconsultants.com%2f>
Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247

From: Scott Xe 
Sent: 20 June 2018 16:05
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part

Dear All,

We have a DAB radio with BT speaker.  It held NB a cert using EN 55032 : 2015,  
EN 55020 : 2007 + A12 : 2016, ….  for EMC part compliance last year.  Currently 
we are reviewing the continual compliance.  It is discovered that both EN 55032 
and EN 55020 disappears in the latest list of EMC harmonized standard list.  In 
RED harmonized standard list, there is a new harmonized standard EN 55035.  Is 
it in need of meeting EN 55035 : 2017 instead of EN 55020 : 2007 to maintain 
the continual compliance of RED?

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 
mailto: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)<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas mailto:sdoug...@ieee.org>>
Mike Cantwell mailto:mcantw...@ieee.org>>

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher mailto:j.bac...@ieee.org>>
David Heald mailto: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 


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] RED products in EMC compliance part

[Scott Xe]

Hi Charlie,

Understand that the manufacturer is free to choose any conformity
assessment to meet the essential requirements for EMC without using a
Notified Body.  However the manufacturer must have expert in this area to
provide the appropriate advice.  Most of oem manufacturers lack of such
luxury resource and reply on renowned test houses to do it for them.  Can
we use the declaration of conformity from the test lab for selecting the
right test standards for EMC part even those standards are not in RED and
EMC harmonized lists.  Would we receive extra challenges from the market
surveillances due to the fact that we use non harmonized standards.

Thanks and regards,

Scott

On 21 June 2018 at 00:12, Charlie Blackham 
wrote:

> Scott
>
>
>
> EN 55035 is the (only) article 3.1(b) EMC standard that is Harmonised for
> broadcast receivers under the RED.
>
>
>
> As per RED article 17, the manufacturer is free to choose any conformity
> assessment to meet the essential requirements for EMC without using a
> Notified Body, but:
>
>- Your approach to EMC needs to be considered in your Risk Assessment
>(whether or not a Harmonised Standard is applied)
>- Market enforcement and customs would “expect” to see Harmonised
>Standards such as EN 55035:2017 listed on the DoC
>
>
>
> If the DAB radio contains Bluetooth then EN 301 489-1 and -17 would also
> apply, though these won’t be in the OJ until Q4 2017 or Q1 2018
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
> *Charlie Blackham*
>
> *Sulis Consultants Ltd*
>
> *Tel: +44 (0)7946 624317*
>
> *Web: **www.sulisconsultants.com*
> <https://outlook.hslive.net/owa/redir.aspx?C=02be3bf3e3a544d1bdf7b6c99fbd12f5=http%3a%2f%2fwww.sulisconsultants.com%2f>
>
> Registered in England and Wales, number 05466247
>
>
>
> *From:* Scott Xe 
> *Sent:* 20 June 2018 16:05
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] RED products in EMC compliance part
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> We have a DAB radio with BT speaker.  It held NB a cert using EN 55032 :
> 2015,  EN 55020 : 2007 + A12 : 2016, ….  for EMC part compliance last
> year.  Currently we are reviewing the continual compliance.  It is
> discovered that both EN 55032 and EN 55020 disappears in the latest list of
> EMC harmonized standard list.  In RED harmonized standard list, there is a
> new harmonized standard EN 55035.  Is it in need of meeting EN 55035 : 2017
> instead of EN 55020 : 2007 to maintain the continual compliance of RED?
>
>
>
> 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 <
> 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) <http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
> 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] RED products in EMC compliance part

[Scott Xe]

Dear All,

We have a DAB radio with BT speaker.  It held NB a cert using EN 55032 :
2015,  EN 55020 : 2007 + A12 : 2016, ….  for EMC part compliance last
year.  Currently we are reviewing the continual compliance.  It is
discovered that both EN 55032 and EN 55020 disappears in the latest list of
EMC harmonized standard list.  In RED harmonized standard list, there is a
new harmonized standard EN 55035.  Is it in need of meeting EN 55035 : 2017
instead of EN 55020 : 2007 to maintain the continual compliance of RED?

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: 

Re: [PSES] EMC Compliance for various countries

[Ravinder Ajmani]

Hi Rodney,

I am sorry I should have made it clear in my first post.  The equipment is ITE, 
and our current process covers all the countries listed in my initial post.  I 
would like to kow if we cover the requirements of other countries, except for 
the report requirements.

Thanks.

Regards,

Ravinder Ajmani


From: Rodney Davis [mailto:rodneydavis...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2016 4:04 PM
To: Ravinder Ajmani <ravinder.ajm...@hgst.com>
Cc: EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [PSES] EMC Compliance for various countries

It would depend on the type / category of the equipment. Australia and New 
Zealand will likely require in country representation and listing on the 
national database but the first question is it radio, telecom,ITE??


On Friday, July 1, 2016, Ravinder Ajmani 
<ravinder.ajm...@hgst.com<mailto:ravinder.ajm...@hgst.com>> wrote:
> Hi Experts,
>
>
>
> One of our customers has sent us a list of all the countries, and wants us to 
> indicate our product’s compliance against each of them.  Our product testing 
> specifically covers the following:
>
>
>
> ·   US and Canada
>
> ·   EU
>
> ·   Australia / New Zealand
>
> ·   Japan
>
> ·   Taiwan
>
> ·   South Korea
>
>
>
> My assumption is that testing to these countries’ requirements should 
> technically cover the requirements of most , if not all the countries.  
> However some countries may have unique reporting requirements, while others 
> may accept the standard report.
>
>
>
> I will appreciate your opinions on this.
>
>
>
> Thanks a lot.
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Ravinder Ajmani
>
> HGST, a Western Digital Corporation brand
>
> ravinder.ajm...@hgst.com<mailto:ravinder.ajm...@hgst.com>
>
> Western Digital Corporation (and its subsidiaries) E-mail Confidentiality 
> Notice & Disclaimer:
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential or 
> legally privileged information of WDC and/or its affiliates, and are intended 
> solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. 
> If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution 
> or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited. 
> If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender 
> immediately and delete the e-mail in its entirety from your system.
> -
> 
>
> 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<mailto:lt%3bemc-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<mailto:lt%3bsdoug...@ieee.org>
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org<mailto:lt%3bmcantw...@ieee.org>
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org<mailto:lt%3bj.bac...@ieee.org>
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com<mailto:lt%3bdhe...@gmail.com>
Western Digital Corporation (and its subsidiaries) E-mail Confidentiality 
Notice & Disclaimer:

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential or 
legally privileged information of WDC and/or its affiliates, and are intended 
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If 
you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or 
any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited. If 
you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately 
and delete the e-mail in its entirety from your system.


-

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>

Re: [PSES] EMC Compliance for various countries

[Rodney Davis]

It would depend on the type / category of the equipment. Australia and New
Zealand will likely require in country representation and listing on the
national database but the first question is it radio, telecom,ITE??


On Friday, July 1, 2016, Ravinder Ajmani  wrote:
> Hi Experts,
>
>
>
> One of our customers has sent us a list of all the countries, and wants
us to indicate our product’s compliance against each of them.  Our product
testing specifically covers the following:
>
>
>
> ·   US and Canada
>
> ·   EU
>
> ·   Australia / New Zealand
>
> ·   Japan
>
> ·   Taiwan
>
> ·   South Korea
>
>
>
> My assumption is that testing to these countries’ requirements should
technically cover the requirements of most , if not all the countries.
However some countries may have unique reporting requirements, while others
may accept the standard report.
>
>
>
> I will appreciate your opinions on this.
>
>
>
> Thanks a lot.
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Ravinder Ajmani
>
> HGST, a Western Digital Corporation brand
>
> ravinder.ajm...@hgst.com
>
> Western Digital Corporation (and its subsidiaries) E-mail Confidentiality
Notice & Disclaimer:
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential or
legally privileged information of WDC and/or its affiliates, and are
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are
addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying,
distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it,
is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the
sender immediately and delete the e-mail in its entirety from your system.
> -
> 
>
> 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 &
LT;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

-

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] EMC Compliance for various countries

[Ravinder Ajmani]

Hi Experts,

One of our customers has sent us a list of all the countries, and wants us to 
indicate our product's compliance against each of them.  Our product testing 
specifically covers the following:


*   US and Canada

*   EU

*   Australia / New Zealand

*   Japan

*   Taiwan

*   South Korea

My assumption is that testing to these countries' requirements should 
technically cover the requirements of most , if not all the countries.  However 
some countries may have unique reporting requirements, while others may accept 
the standard report.

I will appreciate your opinions on this.

Thanks a lot.


Regards,

Ravinder Ajmani
HGST, a Western Digital Corporation brand
ravinder.ajm...@hgst.com
Western Digital Corporation (and its subsidiaries) E-mail Confidentiality 
Notice & Disclaimer:

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential or 
legally privileged information of WDC and/or its affiliates, and are intended 
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If 
you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or 
any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited. If 
you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately 
and delete the e-mail in its entirety from your system.

-

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] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC compliance?

[John Allen]

FWIW, I wasn't actually pointing to the financial sector, and/or the US ones
in particular, because I have no particular expertise in that  area -
especially w.r.t. the US, but some of the UK & European banks were either
complicit and/or just as bad/worse anyway!

 

What I actually said was  "financial and other scandals"   - which includes
many other and different areas from fake or "non-compliant" materials
/products (consumer electronics ring any bells?)  to deliberate misuse of
substandard materials in life changing/threatening applications (such as the
breast plants made from normal industrial materials instead of specialist
medical grade ones).

 

Therefore, In that respect, I do agree that EMC compliance is, in the
majority but certainly not all, of products/cases a relatively "low level"
compliance issue by comparison. 

 

However, it is, and it should be, a sub-set of a company's legal and ethical
approach to do no harm and improve the lot of its customers. Having worked
for many (too many!) companies over the years, I have encountered some
senior management "real cowboys" -  and "walked away" in at least one case
-, plus many middle managers and senior engineers, who did not care a s***
for making sure the products were as reasonably compliant as possible to
whatever regs/stds applied. Unfortunately that mindset then influences those
who work for them (and/or know no better), and that in turn can lead to
many, and worse, things being done/not done.

 

It was therefore a great relief to work for the "old HP" for a few years
because of the "HP Way" approach to products and product compliance - and
that certainly included EMI (no immunity requirements at that time) stds &
regs. Unfortunately very few of the companies I worked for after that were
as ethical or diligent. L

 

John Allen

W.London, UK

 

From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] 
Sent: 17 January 2016 16:10
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC
complia nce?

 

We are getting off-topic here, but I can't let this one go without comment.
The "financial melt-down" in the USA back in 2008/2009 was initiated by the
very US government which is now in a lily-white, holier-than-thou mode
enforcing all sorts of rules-of-conduct to make sure, as Mr. Allen says,
that this doesn't happen again. USG had been forcing banks into making
mortgage loans that were not backed by adequate security.  Meaning, they
were legally forced to make loans to people who shouldn't have been
qualified. They did this to avoid accusations of various sorts of
discrimination that had become illegal.  Faced with massive amount of bad
debt, bankers attempted to off-load that bad debt by selling mortgage-backed
securities, which were worthless, but people didn't know it. It was like a
game of "Old Maid," with the holder of the "Old Maid" trying to dump it on
someone else.

The USG by forcing bankers to take on bad debt converted the banking
industry from one fundamentally based on truth and integrity (as perceived
by the public) into a group of con artists. But they became con-artists in
response tot the government stimulus of forcing them to make bad loans. 

People refer to the bad actors in the banking/mortgage industry without
referencing that it wasn't always like that, and it was the USG that
transformed that industry from a reputable one into a disaster.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



  _  

From: John Allen <john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk>
Reply-To: John Allen <john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2016 09:13:02 -
To: <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC
complia nce?

And I should have added that I, for one, am quite glad that "compliance" is
now a far more widespread discipline than it used to be as it may mean that
we get fewer financial and other scandals that might have been avoided if
the relevant regs and rules had been followed and enforced over the last 10
years or so - they affected me, and many others like some of you guys.
 
John Allen
 

From: John Allen [mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk] 
Sent: 17 January 2016 08:28
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC
complia nce?

Morning all from a slightly snowy Southern England
 
Over the years I've received a number of approaches from financial services
recruitment companies about jobs in that industry sector - and had to
outline the Compliance Engineer role to them because they were not aware of
there being compliance people outside their sector!
 
John Allen
W.London, UK
 
 

From: Doug Powell [mailto:doug...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 17 January 2016 06:54
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequ

Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC compliance?

[gdstuyvenb...@yahoo.com]

Ken, wasn't suggesting increased government regulation, rather useful tips for 
our own consideration.  
 Gary StuyvenbergThompson Consulting
  From: Ken Javor <ken.ja...@emccompliance.com>
 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
 Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 10:59 PM
 Subject: Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC 
compliance?
   
Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC compliance?“Last 
week was a good one for the compliance profession. “

Could not disagree more.  This is big brother, or socialism, call it what you 
will.  A product either meets requirements, or it doesn't. The gov’t 
instructing the private sector on how to get there is worse than superfluous, 
it’s damaging.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261


From: "gdstuyvenb...@yahoo.com" <058ee1229c70-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org>
Reply-To: "gdstuyvenb...@yahoo.com" <gdstuyvenb...@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 03:33:42 +
To: <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC compliance?

As this is a board that deals primarily with regulatory/compliance issues, I 
thought the following article was pertinent to our cause and deserving of 
consideration.  

FEDS AS THOUGHT LEADERS: A BACK-DOOR COMPLIANCE DEFENSE TAKES SHAPE 
<http://www.fcpablog.com/blog/2015/11/11/feds-as-thought-leaders-a-back-door-compliance-defense-takes.html>
 
By Richard L. Cassin <http://www.fcpablog.com/blog/author/fcpablog>  | 
Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 7:53AM
Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell said last week the DOJ's hiring of a 
compliance counsel doesn't mean the agency is "moving toward recognizing or 
instituting a 'compliance defense.'"
What then will the compliance counsel do?
"She will help us evaluate each compliance program on a case-by-case basis -- 
just as the department always has -- but with a more expert eye," AAG Caldwell 
told a gethering 
<http://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/assistant-attorney-general-leslie-r-caldwell-speaks-sifma-compliance-and-legal-society>
  of compliance officers in New York.
Caldwell, pictured above, then set out the factors the DOJ compliance counsel 
will assess:
   
   - Does the institution ensure that its directors and senior managers provide 
strong, explicit and visible support for its corporate compliance policies?
   - Do the people who are responsible for compliance have stature within the 
company? Do compliance teams get adequate funding and access to necessary 
resources? Of course, we won’t expect that a smaller company has the same 
compliance resources as a Fortune-50 company.
   - Are the institution’s compliance policies clear and in writing? Are they 
easily understood by employees? Are the policies translated into languages 
spoken by the company’s employees?
   - Does the institution ensure that its compliance policies are effectively 
communicated to all employees? Are its written policies easy for employees to 
find? Do employees have repeated training, which should include direction 
regarding what to do or with whom to consult when issues arise?
   - Does the institution review its policies and practices to keep them up to 
date with evolving risks and circumstances? This is especially important if a 
U.S.-based entity acquires or merges with another business, especially a 
foreign one.
   - Are there mechanisms to enforce compliance policies? Those include both 
incentivizing good compliance and disciplining violations. Is discipline even 
handed? The department does not look favorably on situations in which low-level 
employees who may have engaged in misconduct are terminated, but the more 
senior people who either directed or deliberately turned a blind eye to the 
conduct suffer no consequences. Such action sends the wrong message -- to other 
employees, to the market and to the government -- about the institution’s 
commitment to compliance.
   - Does the institution sensitize third parties like vendors, agents or 
consultants to the company’s expectation that its partners are also serious 
about compliance? This means more than including boilerplate language in a 
contract. It means taking action -- including termination of a business 
relationship -- if a partner demonstrates a lack of respect for laws and 
policies. And that attitude toward partner compliance must exist regardless of 
geographic location.   

Two days after AAG Caldwell's talk in New York,  Andrew Ceresney, head of the 
SEC's enforcement division, spoke to 
<http://www.fcpablog.com/blog/2015/11/9/sec-we-protect-compliance-officers-except-when-we-prosecute.html>
  the National Society of Compliance Professionals at the group's annual event 
in DC.
He started with a disclaimer: "[T]he views I express here today are my own and 
do not necessarily represent the views of the Commission or its staff."
Then he said something eve

Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC compliance?

[Ken Javor]

³Last week was a good one for the compliance profession. ³

Could not disagree more.  This is big brother, or socialism, call it what
you will.  A product either meets requirements, or it doesn't. The gov¹t
instructing the private sector on how to get there is worse than
superfluous, it¹s damaging.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



From: "gdstuyvenb...@yahoo.com" <058ee1229c70-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org>
Reply-To: "gdstuyvenb...@yahoo.com" <gdstuyvenb...@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 03:33:42 +
To: <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC
compliance?

As this is a board that deals primarily with regulatory/compliance issues, I
thought the following article was pertinent to our cause and deserving of
consideration.  

FEDS AS THOUGHT LEADERS: A BACK-DOOR COMPLIANCE DEFENSE TAKES SHAPE
<http://www.fcpablog.com/blog/2015/11/11/feds-as-thought-leaders-a-back-door
-compliance-defense-takes.html>
By Richard L. Cassin <http://www.fcpablog.com/blog/author/fcpablog>  |
Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 7:53AM
Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell said last week the DOJ's hiring
of a compliance counsel doesn't mean the agency is "moving toward
recognizing or instituting a 'compliance defense.'"
What then will the compliance counsel do?
"She will help us evaluate each compliance program on a case-by-case basis
-- just as the department always has -- but with a more expert eye," AAG
Caldwell told a gethering
<http://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/assistant-attorney-general-leslie-r-caldw
ell-speaks-sifma-compliance-and-legal-society>  of compliance officers in
New York.
Caldwell, pictured above, then set out the factors the DOJ compliance
counsel will assess:
* Does the institution ensure that its directors and senior managers provide
strong, explicit and visible support for its corporate compliance policies?
* Do the people who are responsible for compliance have stature within the
company? Do compliance teams get adequate funding and access to necessary
resources? Of course, we won¹t expect that a smaller company has the same
compliance resources as a Fortune-50 company.
* Are the institution¹s compliance policies clear and in writing? Are they
easily understood by employees? Are the policies translated into languages
spoken by the company¹s employees?
* Does the institution ensure that its compliance policies are effectively
communicated to all employees? Are its written policies easy for employees
to find? Do employees have repeated training, which should include direction
regarding what to do or with whom to consult when issues arise?
* Does the institution review its policies and practices to keep them up to
date with evolving risks and circumstances? This is especially important if
a U.S.-based entity acquires or merges with another business, especially a
foreign one. 
* Are there mechanisms to enforce compliance policies? Those include both
incentivizing good compliance and disciplining violations. Is discipline
even handed? The department does not look favorably on situations in which
low-level employees who may have engaged in misconduct are terminated, but
the more senior people who either directed or deliberately turned a blind
eye to the conduct suffer no consequences. Such action sends the wrong
message -- to other employees, to the market and to the government -- about
the institution¹s commitment to compliance.
* Does the institution sensitize third parties like vendors, agents or
consultants to the company¹s expectation that its partners are also serious
about compliance? This means more than including boilerplate language in a
contract. It means taking action -- including termination of a business
relationship -- if a partner demonstrates a lack of respect for laws and
policies. And that attitude toward partner compliance must exist regardless
of geographic location.
Two days after AAG Caldwell's talk in New York,  Andrew Ceresney, head of
the SEC's enforcement division, spoke to
<http://www.fcpablog.com/blog/2015/11/9/sec-we-protect-compliance-officers-e
xcept-when-we-prosecute.html>  the National Society of Compliance
Professionals at the group's annual event in DC.
He started with a disclaimer: "[T]he views I express here today are my own
and do not necessarily represent the views of the Commission or its staff."
Then he said something every compliance officer and corporate director and
C-suiter should hear and remember: "I have found that you can predict a lot
about the likelihood of an enforcement action by asking a few simple
questions about the role of the company¹s compliance department in the
firm."
Here are those "simple" questions:
* Are compliance personnel included in critical meetings?
* Are their views typically sought and followed?
* Do compliance officers report to the CEO and have significant visibili

Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC compliance?

[alfred1520list]

And now the fire catching hover boards are hard to buy, but not because no one 
wants to buy. Why?

On January 14, 2016 10:08:50 PM PST, "Ghery S. Pettit" <n6...@comcast.net> 
wrote:
>Amen to that.
>
> 
>
>Ghery Pettit
>
> 
>
>From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] 
>Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 7:59 PM
>To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>Subject: Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC
>compliance?
>
> 
>
>"Last week was a good one for the compliance profession. "
>
>Could not disagree more.  This is big brother, or socialism, call it
>what
>you will.  A product either meets requirements, or it doesn't. The
>gov't
>instructing the private sector on how to get there is worse than
>superfluous, it's damaging.
>
>Ken Javor
>Phone: (256) 650-5261
>
>
>
>  _  
>
>From: "gdstuyvenb...@yahoo.com"
><058ee1229c70-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org>
>Reply-To: "gdstuyvenb...@yahoo.com" <gdstuyvenb...@yahoo.com>
>Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 03:33:42 +
>To: <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
>Subject: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC
>compliance?
>
>As this is a board that deals primarily with regulatory/compliance
>issues, I
>thought the following article was pertinent to our cause and deserving
>of
>consideration.  
>
>FEDS AS THOUGHT LEADERS: A BACK-DOOR COMPLIANCE DEFENSE TAKES SHAPE
><http://www.fcpablog.com/blog/2015/11/11/feds-as-thought-leaders-a-back-door
>-compliance-defense-takes.html>
><http://www.fcpablog.com/blog/2015/11/11/feds-as-thought-leaders-a-back-door
>-compliance-defense-takes.html> 
>By Richard L. Cassin  <http://www.fcpablog.com/blog/author/fcpablog>
><http://www.fcpablog.com/blog/author/fcpablog>  | Wednesday, November
>11,
>2015 at 7:53AM
>Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell said last week the DOJ's
>hiring
>of a compliance counsel doesn't mean the agency is "moving toward
>recognizing or instituting a 'compliance defense.'"
>What then will the compliance counsel do?
>"She will help us evaluate each compliance program on a case-by-case
>basis
>-- just as the department always has -- but with a more expert eye,"
>AAG
>Caldwell told a gethering
><http://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/assistant-attorney-general-leslie-r-caldw
>ell-speaks-sifma-compliance-and-legal-society>
><http://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/assistant-attorney-general-leslie-r-caldw
>ell-speaks-sifma-compliance-and-legal-society>  of compliance officers
>in
>New York.
>Caldwell, pictured above, then set out the factors the DOJ compliance
>counsel will assess:
>
>*  Does the institution ensure that its directors and senior managers
>provide strong, explicit and visible support for its corporate
>compliance
>policies? 
>*  Do the people who are responsible for compliance have stature within
>the company? Do compliance teams get adequate funding and access to
>necessary resources? Of course, we won't expect that a smaller company
>has
>the same compliance resources as a Fortune-50 company. 
>*  Are the institution's compliance policies clear and in writing? Are
>they easily understood by employees? Are the policies translated into
>languages spoken by the company's employees? 
>*  Does the institution ensure that its compliance policies are
>effectively communicated to all employees? Are its written policies
>easy for
>employees to find? Do employees have repeated training, which should
>include
>direction regarding what to do or with whom to consult when issues
>arise? 
>*  Does the institution review its policies and practices to keep them
>up to date with evolving risks and circumstances? This is especially
>important if a U.S.-based entity acquires or merges with another
>business,
>especially a foreign one. 
>*  Are there mechanisms to enforce compliance policies? Those include
>both incentivizing good compliance and disciplining violations. Is
>discipline even handed? The department does not look favorably on
>situations
>in which low-level employees who may have engaged in misconduct are
>terminated, but the more senior people who either directed or
>deliberately
>turned a blind eye to the conduct suffer no consequences. Such action
>sends
>the wrong message -- to other employees, to the market and to the
>government
>-- about the institution's commitment to compliance. 
>*  Does the institution sensitize third parties like vendors, agents or
>consultants to the company's expectation that its partners are also
>serious
>about compliance? This means more than including boilerplate l

Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC compliance?

[Ghery S. Pettit]

Amen to that.

 

Ghery Pettit

 

From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 7:59 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC
compliance?

 

"Last week was a good one for the compliance profession. "

Could not disagree more.  This is big brother, or socialism, call it what
you will.  A product either meets requirements, or it doesn't. The gov't
instructing the private sector on how to get there is worse than
superfluous, it's damaging.

Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261



  _  

From: "gdstuyvenb...@yahoo.com" <058ee1229c70-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org>
Reply-To: "gdstuyvenb...@yahoo.com" <gdstuyvenb...@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 03:33:42 +
To: <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: [PSES] Is your company doing enough to ensure adequate EMC
compliance?

As this is a board that deals primarily with regulatory/compliance issues, I
thought the following article was pertinent to our cause and deserving of
consideration.  

FEDS AS THOUGHT LEADERS: A BACK-DOOR COMPLIANCE DEFENSE TAKES SHAPE
<http://www.fcpablog.com/blog/2015/11/11/feds-as-thought-leaders-a-back-door
-compliance-defense-takes.html>
<http://www.fcpablog.com/blog/2015/11/11/feds-as-thought-leaders-a-back-door
-compliance-defense-takes.html> 
By Richard L. Cassin  <http://www.fcpablog.com/blog/author/fcpablog>
<http://www.fcpablog.com/blog/author/fcpablog>  | Wednesday, November 11,
2015 at 7:53AM
Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell said last week the DOJ's hiring
of a compliance counsel doesn't mean the agency is "moving toward
recognizing or instituting a 'compliance defense.'"
What then will the compliance counsel do?
"She will help us evaluate each compliance program on a case-by-case basis
-- just as the department always has -- but with a more expert eye," AAG
Caldwell told a gethering
<http://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/assistant-attorney-general-leslie-r-caldw
ell-speaks-sifma-compliance-and-legal-society>
<http://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/assistant-attorney-general-leslie-r-caldw
ell-speaks-sifma-compliance-and-legal-society>  of compliance officers in
New York.
Caldwell, pictured above, then set out the factors the DOJ compliance
counsel will assess:

*   Does the institution ensure that its directors and senior managers
provide strong, explicit and visible support for its corporate compliance
policies? 
*   Do the people who are responsible for compliance have stature within
the company? Do compliance teams get adequate funding and access to
necessary resources? Of course, we won't expect that a smaller company has
the same compliance resources as a Fortune-50 company. 
*   Are the institution's compliance policies clear and in writing? Are
they easily understood by employees? Are the policies translated into
languages spoken by the company's employees? 
*   Does the institution ensure that its compliance policies are
effectively communicated to all employees? Are its written policies easy for
employees to find? Do employees have repeated training, which should include
direction regarding what to do or with whom to consult when issues arise? 
*   Does the institution review its policies and practices to keep them
up to date with evolving risks and circumstances? This is especially
important if a U.S.-based entity acquires or merges with another business,
especially a foreign one. 
*   Are there mechanisms to enforce compliance policies? Those include
both incentivizing good compliance and disciplining violations. Is
discipline even handed? The department does not look favorably on situations
in which low-level employees who may have engaged in misconduct are
terminated, but the more senior people who either directed or deliberately
turned a blind eye to the conduct suffer no consequences. Such action sends
the wrong message -- to other employees, to the market and to the government
-- about the institution's commitment to compliance. 
*   Does the institution sensitize third parties like vendors, agents or
consultants to the company's expectation that its partners are also serious
about compliance? This means more than including boilerplate language in a
contract. It means taking action -- including termination of a business
relationship -- if a partner demonstrates a lack of respect for laws and
policies. And that attitude toward partner compliance must exist regardless
of geographic location.

Two days after AAG Caldwell's talk in New York,  Andrew Ceresney, head of
the SEC's enforcement division, spoke to
<http://www.fcpablog.com/blog/2015/11/9/sec-we-protect-compliance-officers-e
xcept-when-we-prosecute.html>
<http://www.fcpablog.com/blog/2015/11/9/sec-we-protect-compliance-officers-e
xcept-when-we-prosecute.html> the National Society of Compliance
Professionals 

[PSES] Job Opening for EMC Compliance Engineer at Oracle (Bay Area in California)

[Monrad Monsen]

Hello!
Oracle has posted a job opening for an EMC Compliance Engineer - 
150017QP.  Today's preference is for candidates that are able to commute 
to Menlo Park and Santa Clara area in California.


You can view the details of the job posting at the below web site.  
Enter "150017QP" into the requisition number search field.

https://oracle.taleo.net/careersection/2/jobsearch.ftl?lang=en

Thanks.
--
<http://www.oracle.com> Monrad Monsen | Hardware Technical Compliance 
Strategist
Phone: +13032729612 <tel:+13032729612> | Fax: +13032724867 
<fax:+13032724867>

Oracle HW Technical Compliance Engineering
500 Eldorado Blvd | Broomfield, CO 80021
<http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to developing 
practices and products that help protect the environment


-

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>

[PSES] Juniper Networks Job Opening - EMC Compliance Technologist

[Marko Radojicic]

Hello All,
We have an exciting growth position for a very senior EMC Technologist. 
Position is located in Sunnyvale (Silicon Valley) California - relocation 
assistance available.
If interested, please submit your resume per the instructions. I am the hiring 
manager so feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions.
https://careers.juniper.net/psc/careers_1/EMPLOYEE/HRMS/c/HRS_HRAM.HRS_APP_SCHJOB.GBL?Page=HRS_APP_JBPSTAction=UFOCUS=ApplicantSiteId=1JobOpeningId=929785PostingSeq=1#.VTGca_nF8ep


Regards,Marko

| About the Position:
Lead the development of predictive Compliance design methodologies and tools in 
the areas of EMC, Safety, GR-63, and Reliability. Scope is from integrated 
circuits to full systems and everything in-between.
The immediate emphasis will be on EMC prediction methodologies  design 
innovations and applying them to real world problems.
You will contribute to making Juniper products the most cost-effective and 
quickest to market by applying these newly developed design methods  rules.

Responsibilities:
In conjunction with the existing high-performance Compliance team –
Analyze existing issues, proactively identify future issues.
Use analytic  modeling techniques to develop design rules and/or drive vendors 
to address identified issues.
Develop novel solutions that meet or exceed development requirements for cost.
Team with Hardware, Mechanical, and Power design to implement new design 
features.

Minimum Qualifications:
Engineering degree with strong background in electromagnetics is desired along 
with at least 10 years of relevant experience.

Preferred Qualifications:
Advanced engineering degree with specialization in electromagnetics is desired 
along with at least 10 years of experience leading a group in the development 
of EMC design  test methodologies. Five years background in design for 
compliance in Safety, GR-63, and Reliability. Strong track record of delivering 
to schedule and budget. Ability to influence partners, vendors, and standards 
bodies. Great communications to team members and higher levels of management.

Other Information:
Relocation is available for this position
Minimal travel is required for this position - less than 5%. |
|  |   |



-

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

[PSES] VS: EMC Compliance Engineer Career Opening

[Immonen, Pentti]

A
 alkuperäinen viesti 
Lähettäjä: Chuck McDowell
Lähetetty:  18-11-2011, 20:14
Vastaanottaja: emc-p...@ieee.org
Aihe: EMC Compliance Engineer Career Opening

Meyer Sound in Berkeley California has a Career Opening for a EMC Compliance 
Engineer.

Short list of requirements:
Must be able to understand and operate EMI/EMC test laboratory equipment, 
troubleshoot when testing.
PCB layout experience is a must (using Altium preferred), preferably digital 
layout, grounding, and I/O
layout. Layout of class-D amplifier experience a plus.

Read the full position posting at:

http://meyersound.com/about/careers/?id=258


How to Apply

Email your cover letter and resume to 
h...@meyersound.commailto:h...@meyersound.com. Please put the title of the 
position for which you are applying as the EMC Compliance Engineer  of the 
email.

Fax your resume and cover letter to 510 486.8356. Please put the title EMC 
Compliance Engineer on the Fax.

Mail your resume and cover letter to:
EMC Compliance Engineer
2832 San Pablo Avenue
Berkeley, California 94702
Attn: Human Resources

Please, no calls!

Respectfully yours,

Chuck McDowell
Meyer Sound Laboratories Inc.


NOTICE: This email may contain confidential information. Please see 
http://www.meyersound.com/confidential/ for our complete policy.   ­­   -

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.orgmailto:emc-p...@ieee.org

All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at 
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL.

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.netmailto:emcp...@radiusnorth.net
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.orgmailto:mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.orgmailto:j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.commailto: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://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL.

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] EMC Compliance Engineer Career Opening

[Chuck McDowell]

Meyer Sound in Berkeley California has a Career Opening for a EMC Compliance 
Engineer.

Short list of requirements:
Must be able to understand and operate EMI/EMC test laboratory equipment, 
troubleshoot when testing.
PCB layout experience is a must (using Altium preferred), preferably digital 
layout, grounding, and I/O
layout. Layout of class-D amplifier experience a plus.

Read the full position posting at:

http://meyersound.com/about/careers/?id=258


How to Apply

Email your cover letter and resume to 
h...@meyersound.commailto:h...@meyersound.com. Please put the title of the 
position for which you are applying as the EMC Compliance Engineer  of the 
email.

Fax your resume and cover letter to 510 486.8356. Please put the title EMC 
Compliance Engineer on the Fax.

Mail your resume and cover letter to:
EMC Compliance Engineer
2832 San Pablo Avenue
Berkeley, California 94702
Attn: Human Resources

Please, no calls!

Respectfully yours,

Chuck McDowell
Meyer Sound Laboratories Inc.

NOTICE: This email may contain confidential information.  Please see 
http://www.meyersound.com/confidential/ for our complete policy.

-

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://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL.

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

EMC Compliance Engineer Position at Apple

[emc-p...@ieee.org]

Hi All,


We have an opening in our group for an experienced EMC engineer at Apple in 
Cupertino, CA. The candidate will be working on EMC design and testing of iPod, 
iPhone and iPad accessories. If interested, please send me your resume and I 
will forward it to the hiring manager. 


Job description:


The Apple EMC Compliance Engineering group has an open position for an 
experienced EMC Compliance Engineer. This position will work closely with the 
team through the entire design process of new products. 

Experience must include:

• Thorough knowledge of worldwide EMC standards.
• Thorough knowledge of designing ITE and Consumer products for EMC compliance. 
• Component selection for EMC
• Printed circuit design for EMC
• Mechanical design for EMC
• Ability to create detailed test plans and the knowledge and skill to perform 
all EMC testing.
• Excellent written and verbal communications skills in English are required to 
communicate with project teams and management.
BSEE or related degree and 8 or more years of experience in EMC.

Additional area of expertise desired;
• Familiarity with the EMC challenges of DisplayPort/HDMI, USB 2.0, MIPI, and 
high bandwidth analog video.
• Ability to solder 0201 sized components, and perform electrical/ mechanical 
rework for EMC.
• Experience with RF and antenna systems.

This position will report to the Apple iPod EMC and Wireless Compliance 
manager. 


- BSEE or related degree
- 8 or more years of experience in EMC




A link to the Apple Job website:
http://jobs.apple.com/index.ajs?BID=1method=mExternal.showJobRID=70304CurrentPage=1
 
http://jobs.apple.com/index.ajs?BID=1method=mExternal.showJobRID=70304CurrentPage=1
 






Thanks,
Ram Chundru
EMC Design Engineer
Apple, Inc.
-

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://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/
Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. 

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 

FW: Job Opportunity-EMC Compliance Engineer

[owner-emc-p...@listserv.ieee.org]

Hopefully, someone out there can use this.

Regards,

Peter L. Tarver, PE
ptar...@ieee.org


 From: Alana Fulvio [mailto:aful...@i-hire.com]
 Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 11:54 AM
 
 
 Peter,
  
 I am contacting you regarding a significant 
 opportunity within a top named company as an EMC 
 Compliance Engineer (upper level position). I am 
 qualifying and interviewing candidates with 10 or 
 more years of EMC compliance experience (2 or 
 more years out of the past 4 years in telecom 
 systems), Degreed (EE/ME/CE, etc.) or equivalent 
 in years of experience, high-level of knowledge 
 regarding NEBS and one of the following: 
 EN55022/EN55024 or CISPR22/CISPR24, OR VCCI OR 
 300/380, a strong desire to work in Petaluma OR 
 Santa Clara, exceptional communication and a 
 positive personality.  Very strong at EMC Design 
 Review, the ability to communicate with design 
 teams across the nation and willing to conduct 
 either Final Systems level testing OR 
 Developmental Systems Testing and 
  
 If you are interested in either learning more 
 about the opportunity itself, and feel you are 
 qualified, please reply and attach a copy of your 
 resume with specifications as to your expertise 
 and goals. I will contact you at my earliest 
 convenience to speak further about the details.  
 This is a time sensitive position, so your timely 
 response is very important.
  
 I look forward to hearing from you. If you are 
 not interested or in the market, I would 
 appreciate the opportunity to connect with anyone 
 you know who might be qualified for this position.  
  
 Sincerely,
  
 Alana Fulvio
 Technical Recruiter
 i-hire
 650-292-3312
  
 


This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
emc-pstc discussion list.Website:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to emc-p...@ieee.org

Instructions:  http://listserv.ieee.org/listserv/request/user-guide.html

List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html

For help, send mail to the list administrators:

 Scott Douglas emcp...@ptcnh.net
 Mike Cantwellmcantw...@ieee.org

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://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

FYI - EMC Compliance Australia/NZ - AS/NZS 3548 Not Acceptable From 20 Jan 04

[owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org]

Australia and New Zealand EMC Compliance - IT and communication type
equipment

Compliance with AS/NZS 3548 is now not be an option for new product.
Compliance with AS/NZS 3548 was allowed for 2 years from the publishing of
AS/NZS CISPR 22:2002.
That 2 year phase-out period for AS/NZS 3548 ended on 19 Jan 04.


Best regards,
Kevin Richardson

Stanimore Pty Limited
Compliance 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
URL:  www.stanimore.com

This material (this message and the information contained in all attachments
to this message) is confidential and/or privileged information and is
intended only for the addressee/s named above. Any unauthorised
dissemination, copying, use of or reliance upon this material by persons or
entities other than the addressee/s named above is prohibited. If you
receive this material in error, please notify Stanimore Pty Limited and
destroy all copies (electronic and hardcopy) of this message and all
attachments immediately.




This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

Visit our web site at:  http://www.ieee-pses.org/

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:   emc_p...@symbol.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://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc

RE: Looking for an EMC/Compliance Engineering Position

[Jim Bacher]

The IEEE EMC Society has a web page with job postings on it at:
http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/jobs.html

Jim

Jim Bacher,  Senior Engineer
Paxar Corp.
e-mail: jim.bac...@paxar.com
voice: 1-937-865-2020
fax: 1-937-865-2048 

---
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

Looking for an EMC/Compliance Engineering Position

[Jason Greenwood]

Due to a recent round of layoffs I'm now looking for a new position.  If
anyone has a lead on an EMC or Compliance engineering position please
contact me at either jason_greenw...@mailcity.com or 858-526-7263.  My
Resume is included below for your reference.

Thanks,
Jason Greenwood


Jason Greenwood
536 Shadywood Dr.
Escondido, CA  92026  (760) 233-0682
jason_greenw...@mailcity.com

Education:

* Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering, Co-operative Program
1996
University of Alberta   Edmonton, AB


* Masters of Business Administration
1999-Present
Heriot-Watt University  Edinburgh, Scotland 

* Additional Courses
- Attended Henry Ott Consulting Seminars on EMC on two occasions, 1998 and
2000
- Training on UL 1950, 1997
- Various internal Nortel training courses on Wireless and internet
technologies
- Various internal Cisco training courses on internet technologies
 

Career Experience:

Ensemble Communications San Diego, CA   Aug. 2001 -
Present
Compliance Engineer
* As the only Compliance Engineer, I was responsible for all compliance
activities. 
* Reviewed designs and provided EMC and Safety input at both the PCB and
system 
level.
* Performed FCC Part 101 and ETSI EN 301-213 radio testing for BWA
equipment.
* Responsible for investigating requirements and obtaining approvals for
countries 
requested 
by sales and marketing.
* Scheduled and tracked all compliance testing. 
* Wrote EMC test plans for testing at outside labs.
* Resolved any issues that arose during testing.
* Reported to sales and marketing on the status of all approval activities
on a 
weekly basis.
* Coordinated all aspects of obtaining UL and TUV safety certifications.
* Created and Maintained CE mark technical construction files.

Cisco Systems   Boulder, CO Aug. 2000 -
Aug. 2001
EMC Compliance Engineer
* Provided EMC design input at both the PCB and system level.
* Scheduled and tracked all compliance and design verification testing.
* Worked with suppliers to resolve issues relating to their subassemblies.
* Responsible for obtaining all country approvals required by marketing.
* Coordinated testing at outside labs.
* Resolved EMC issues that surfaced during testing.
* Mentored junior EMC personnel in the areas of EMC design and trouble
shooting
techniques. 
* Performed initial product safety reviews of PCBs and systems. 
* Coordinated formal safety reviews and testing.



Nortel Networks Calgary, AB Jan.1998 -
Aug 2000
EMC/Radio Engineer
* Worked with PCB and Mechanical designers to ensure that the system EMC
requirements 
were met.
* Used EMC experience and product knowledge to provide risk assessments on
cost 
reductions and other design changes.
* Performed emissions, immunity and radio testing in accordance with various
standards 
including: FCC part 15, CISPR22, Bellcore GR-1089-CORE, FCC Part 22/24.
* Wrote test reports for testing completed.
* Mentored junior EMC personnel.
* Developed test procedures and test set-ups for use in our EMC lab.
* Trouble shot issues that arose in the EMC lab.
* Chaired EMC group meetings.

Nortel Networks Calgary, AB Sept. 1996 -
Jan 1998
Regulatory Factory Engineer
* Reviewed design changes for impact to Safety, EMC, mechanical and thermal
performance.
* Performed audits of our products on a regular basis to ensure that they
remained in 
compliance with the UL Follow up service agreement.
* Supported UL/CSA during their quarterly inspections.
* Developed the processes necessary to maintain regulatory compliance on our
products 
in manufacturing.
* Developed strategies to address problems that occurred in manufacturing or
the field.
* Provided mentoring to my replacement as I transitioned into my role as an
EMC/Radio 
Engineer.

Nortel Networks Calgary, AB Sept. 1995 -
Jan. 1996
Product Integrity Co-op Student
* Tested telecommunication equipment according to FCC Part 68 and Industry
Canada CS03 
standards.
* Assisted with FCC and Industry Canada submissions for new products.
* Ensured that our products met the safety requirements of the European 
Community (EN60950).
* Sent sample of products to various independent labs for testing.

---
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

US-TX-Austin-EMC/Compliance Engineer

[Dave Lorusso]

General Bandwidth is looking for an EMC/Compliance Engineer to take
our Voice Gateway to the next level of worldwide Compliance.

We are a pre-IPO voice over Broadband manufacturer with a direct line to the
future of broadband technology.  For more details on the company and to
submit
your resume, please visit our web site:  www.genband.com. 
Please submit resume under the Jobs section.  The Compliance Engineer
position will be posted there shortly, please use Don't see a job that
matches your interest until then.

JOB SUMMARY

+ Responsible for implementing EMC PCB layout techniques to solve 
   potential EMI problems.
+ Take a product through NRTLs.  Consults and provides 
   specifications and design criteria for board and systems 
   to development engineers. 
+ Defines EMC requirements for product development and team with 
   RD engineers to ensure EMC requirements are met. 
+ Performs EMC bench tests and simulations to ensure compliance 
   for external lab testing. 
+ Submits products for certification and works with external test labs 
   to perform emissions and compliance testing. 
+ Writes test plans and reports.

PREFERRED KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, OR ABILITIES

+ Experience with product compliance (NEBS, UL, ETSI)
+ Strong written and verbal communication skills
+ Excellent collaboration skills
+ Strong understanding of compliance processes
+ Coordination skills to define priorities
+ Ability to collect, analyze and present data effectively 

EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE

BSEE (preferred) or equivalent with 3+ years experience (Telecom preferred)

General Bandwidth is a real fun place to work too.

Dave Lorusso
Compliance and Design Verification Manager
General Bandwidth
12303 Technology Boulevard
Austin, TX 78727
512-681-5480 (phone)
512-681-5481 (fax)
dave.loru...@genband.com
www.genband.com

---
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

Re[2]: EMC Compliance job opening

[Jim Bacher]

forwarding for she...@harbornet.com

Reply Separator
Subject:Re: EMC Compliance job opening
Author: she...@harbornet.com (Sheila A. Schultz)
List-Post: emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org
Date:   11/7/00 12:22 PM

11/7/2000
Job Title: Senior EMC Compliance Engineer
Company:  Mordue, Allen, Roberts, Bonney, Ltd.  
Location: Seattle, WA


Sr. EMC Compliance Engineer to lead design for EMC compliance for electronic
device manufacturer. Lead field testing and screen room testing. Work closely
with mechanical and electrical engineers on prototype fabrication for this new
product, system grounding layout for low noise performance,electromagnetic
modeling, system integration and PCB layout.

REQUIREMENTS:
* Ability to solve complex problems
* Motivated, self-starter, Team player. 
* Good written and oral communication skills. 
* Minimum BSEE and 2 years experience in design and testing for EMC compliance. 
* Knowledge of EMC standards  testing tools. 
* Knowledge of low noise PCB and system layout techniques. 

Contact:
Sheila A. Schultz  253 851 5355
Mordue, Allen, Roberts, Bonney, Ltd.  
she...@harbornet.com

---
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

US-TX-Austin-EMC/Compliance Engineer

[Dave Lorusso]

General Bandwidth is looking for an EMC/Compliance Engineer with the following
qualifications:


BSEE with at least 5 years of industry related compliance experience.


Direct exposure to Bellcore GR-1089-CORE and GR-63-CORE is desired.


Hands-on experience in testing and submitting products for certification.


Define EMC requirements for product development and team with RD engineers
to ensure EMC requirements are met.


Ability to consult and provide specifications and design criteria for boards
and systems to RD engineers.


Work with and manage outside test labs to perform emissions and compliance
testing.


Write test plans and test reports.


Perform EMC bench tests and simulations to ensure compliance will be met
at outside lab facilities.

We are a pre-IPO voice over ADSL manufacturer with a direct line to the
future of broadband technology. For more details on the company,
please visit our web site:
www.genband.com
To apply, please forward a letter of introduction, resume (email preferred),
and salary history to:
Dave Lorusso
dave.loru...@genband.com
512-681-5401 (fax)

Re: emc compliance

[Lisa_Cefalo]

I want to thank all of you for your input on the emc complicance ferrite
issue.. !



-
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).

RE: emc compliance

[Ing. Gert Gremmen]

A few tips:

RF emission limits are not difficult to meet, once you have knowledge and
experience.  If a single ferrite suffices to make the design compliant, you
are probably not much more then 0-6 dB over limit.

Another test house will certainly test a few dB different, you may pass
there.

(accuracy of EMI test set-ups do not include the test sample and cable
setup)

Then consider testing another sample. Standard deviation of
RF-emissionbetween samples could be large enough  to meet the requirements.
Possibly you had a worst case sample.

80 % confidentiality interval of your series production should fall
within the limits. ( it is possible to reject a batch of all compliant
samples if their variation
in RF emission is too large: that's statistics)

Any clock oscillator in a metal can should be damped using a series
resistor.

Best thing is to learn how to get your design compliant, and do that.
otherwise:

Next time, next project, you will (Murphy) probably need  2 ferrites.
Ferrites are always more expensive then re-design (on a commercial scale).
Commercial end-user products should have the cable delivered with them
and have a pre-confectioned ferrite on it.
If you tell your customers how to fix the ferrite
 themselves and why they have to, they will probably leave the ferrite out.


Regards,

Gert Gremmen Ing.

== Ce-test, Qualified testing ==
Consultants in EMC, Electrical safety and Telecommunication
Compliance tests for European standards and ce-marking
Member of NEC/IEC voting committee for EMC.
Our Web presence: http://www.cetest.nl
List of current harmonized standards http://www.cetest.nl/emc-harm.htm
15 great tips for the EMC-designer http://www.cetest.nl/features01.htm



-Original Message-
From:   owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of
lisa_cef...@mksinst.com
Sent:   vrijdag 25 juni 1999 21:37
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject:emc compliance




Here's a question  If you have a product that, at one particular
frequency
during radiated RF, you simply cannot get to pass the requirements of the
relative CE standard without putting an external ferrite on the cable, is it
legal , to still mark it, provided you inform your customers via the
declaration of conformity or in the manual etc., that they could experience
problems at such and such frequencies and if they do, to use a ferrite?
(boy,
that was a mouthful).  Faced with a redesign or a statement, the words would
be
the easier route to take, since in this case, the customer could probably
never
see the problem frequency range.   Comments?

thank you for any advise,

Lisa



-
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).

Re: emc compliance

[George Waters]

I have seen some examples of the shipment of ferrites with a consumer
product.  I have purchased two computer modem boards from different
vendors.  Each came with a ferrite in the box, together with
instructions as to how to loop the phone cable through it, and a warning
ss described below.

George Waters

John Juhasz wrote:
 
 When I was at my last company, we had a similar situation. The customer was
 the one who would provide the cable to the EUT.
 
 In the report it was a 'modification' note which indicated that a clamp-on
 ferrite,
 P/N  was used. We then provided the ferrite with each shipment,
 along with a detailed instruction on usage. A warning was included on the
 instruction sheet that the ferrite was required to meet emission
 specifications, and if it was not used, compliance is not guaranteed.
 
 The instruction sheet was prominently located within the documentation
 package.
 However, take note that this product was not consumer goods, and trained
 installers
 were required for that product. Therefore, there was some assurance that the
 ferrite
 was indeed going to be installed as instructed.
 
 If this was a product that was sold directly to a home user, I wouldn't feel
 comfortable with this. Most times a home user just wants to get the thing
 running, and doesn't care, or more often doesn't read such instructions.
 
 John A. Juhasz
 Product Qualification 
 Compliance Engr.
 
 Fiber Options, Inc.
 80 Orville Dr. Suite 102
 Bohemia, NY 11716 USA
 
 Tel: 516-567-8320 ext. 324
 Fax: 516-567-8322
 
 -Original Message-
 From: lisa_cef...@mksinst.com [mailto:lisa_cef...@mksinst.com]
 Sent: Friday, June 25, 1999 3:37 PM
 To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
 Subject: emc compliance
 
 Here's a question  If you have a product that, at one particular
 frequency
 during radiated RF, you simply cannot get to pass the requirements of the
 relative CE standard without putting an external ferrite on the cable, is it
 legal , to still mark it, provided you inform your customers via the
 declaration of conformity or in the manual etc., that they could experience
 problems at such and such frequencies and if they do, to use a ferrite?
 (boy,
 that was a mouthful).  Faced with a redesign or a statement, the words would
 be
 the easier route to take, since in this case, the customer could probably
 never
 see the problem frequency range.   Comments?
 
 thank you for any advise,
 
 Lisa
 
 -
 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).

-
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).

RE: emc compliance

[Schanker, Jack]

Lisa:

I sure wouldn't think so. What type of Declaration could you generate for
such a product? Declaration of mostly Conformity? What would a customer's
reaction be to reading that if they use the product they buy on a certain
frequency (presumably within its intended operating range) it requires an
external ferrite. Will you include the ferrite ? Not a very attractive
business practice, in my opinion.

Swallow hard and do the right thing.

Jack

Jacob Z. Schanker, P.E.
Director of Agency Compliance
Adaptive Broadband Corporation
175 Science Parkway
Rochester, NY 14620 USA
+716 242 8454 (voice)
+716 241 5590 (fax)
jschan...@adaptivebroadband.com




 --
 From: lisa_cef...@mksinst.com[SMTP:lisa_cef...@mksinst.com]
 Sent: Friday, June 25, 1999 3:36 PM
 To:   emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
 Subject:  emc compliance
 
 
 
 
 Here's a question  If you have a product that, at one particular
 frequency
 during radiated RF, you simply cannot get to pass the requirements of the
 relative CE standard without putting an external ferrite on the cable, is
 it
 legal , to still mark it, provided you inform your customers via the
 declaration of conformity or in the manual etc., that they could
 experience
 problems at such and such frequencies and if they do, to use a ferrite?
 (boy,
 that was a mouthful).  Faced with a redesign or a statement, the words
 would be
 the easier route to take, since in this case, the customer could probably
 never
 see the problem frequency range.   Comments?
 
 thank you for any advise,
 
 Lisa
 
 
 
 -
 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).

RE: emc compliance

[John Juhasz]

When I was at my last company, we had a similar situation. The customer was
the one who would provide the cable to the EUT. 

In the report it was a 'modification' note which indicated that a clamp-on
ferrite,
P/N  was used. We then provided the ferrite with each shipment,
along with a detailed instruction on usage. A warning was included on the
instruction sheet that the ferrite was required to meet emission
specifications, and if it was not used, compliance is not guaranteed. 

The instruction sheet was prominently located within the documentation
package.
However, take note that this product was not consumer goods, and trained
installers 
were required for that product. Therefore, there was some assurance that the
ferrite
was indeed going to be installed as instructed.

If this was a product that was sold directly to a home user, I wouldn't feel
comfortable with this. Most times a home user just wants to get the thing
running, and doesn't care, or more often doesn't read such instructions. 

John A. Juhasz
Product Qualification 
Compliance Engr.

Fiber Options, Inc.
80 Orville Dr. Suite 102
Bohemia, NY 11716 USA

Tel: 516-567-8320 ext. 324
Fax: 516-567-8322 


-Original Message-
From: lisa_cef...@mksinst.com [mailto:lisa_cef...@mksinst.com]
Sent: Friday, June 25, 1999 3:37 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: emc compliance





Here's a question  If you have a product that, at one particular
frequency
during radiated RF, you simply cannot get to pass the requirements of the
relative CE standard without putting an external ferrite on the cable, is it
legal , to still mark it, provided you inform your customers via the
declaration of conformity or in the manual etc., that they could experience
problems at such and such frequencies and if they do, to use a ferrite?
(boy,
that was a mouthful).  Faced with a redesign or a statement, the words would
be
the easier route to take, since in this case, the customer could probably
never
see the problem frequency range.   Comments?

thank you for any advise,

Lisa



-
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).

RE: EMC compliance

[Scott Douglas]

Lisa,

In my experience, the only way you can get away with the ferrite required 
statement is to either provide the cable with a ferrite installed or to 
provide the ferrite itself. Ferrites are considered not commonly available 
items (by the FCC for example) and so therefore must be provided by you the 
vendor. Much better is to provide the cable with a ferrite molded in place, 
although snap-on ferrites have become acceptable. You will also need to add 
a statement to the user/installation manual that specifies the use of the 
supplied ferrite/cable.

Scott
s_doug...@ecrm.com

-Original Message-
From:   lisa_cef...@mksinst.com [SMTP:lisa_cef...@mksinst.com]
Sent:   Friday, June 25, 1999 3:37 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject:emc compliance




Here's a question  If you have a product that, at one particular
frequency
during radiated RF, you simply cannot get to pass the requirements of the
relative CE standard without putting an external ferrite on the cable, is
it
legal , to still mark it, provided you inform your customers via the
declaration of conformity or in the manual etc., that they could experience
problems at such and such frequencies and if they do, to use a ferrite?
(boy,
that was a mouthful).  Faced with a redesign or a statement, the words
would be
the easier route to take, since in this case, the customer could probably
never
see the problem frequency range.   Comments?

thank you for any advise,

Lisa



-
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).

Re: emc compliance

[Leslie Bai]

Lisa,

Your product is experiencing radiated 
emissions testing, it can not pass the 
test at one particular frequency unless
a ferrite has to be put at the external
cable. What should you do for CE marking?

Is this your question? 

You have two choices to CE mark legally:

1. Sell the product with that ferrite,
and state in the test report this modification
was made to comply  You will be able to
declare conformity as usual.
 
2. Redeign it and make it pass.

Otherwise, you are not supposed to put any 
statement in the manual to justify the 
conformity since the product fails without
modification. 

Hope it helps,
Leslie


--- lisa_cef...@mksinst.com wrote:
 
 
 
 Here's a question  If you have a product that,
 at one particular frequency
 during radiated RF, you simply cannot get to pass
 the requirements of the
 relative CE standard without putting an external
 ferrite on the cable, is it
 legal , to still mark it, provided you inform your
 customers via the
 declaration of conformity or in the manual etc.,
 that they could experience
 problems at such and such frequencies and if they
 do, to use a ferrite?  (boy,
 that was a mouthful).  Faced with a redesign or a
 statement, the words would be
 the easier route to take, since in this case, the
 customer could probably never
 see the problem frequency range.   Comments?
 
 thank you for any advise,
 
 Lisa
 
 
 
 -
 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).
 
 
 

_
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.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).

Re: emc compliance

[Graham Rae Dulmage]

Lisa,

I don't think so. If you had the cable built with the ferrite included or the
ferrite
was sleeved in such a way that it was not removeable and your equipment was
supplied with this you can then provide a full declaration of conformity 
provided
that you advise that they must use the cable provided and that this is part of 
the
compliance. Ferrites are not identical products and not all manufacturers 
ferrites
are easily obtained in any one particular location. The best solution would be 
to
have a cable which solves the problem.


Regards



G. Rae Dulmage, B. Comm.,
President
TelApprove Services Corporation
(613) 257 3015
http://www.angelfire.com/on/telapprove


lisa_cef...@mksinst.com wrote:

 Here's a question  If you have a product that, at one particular frequency
 during radiated RF, you simply cannot get to pass the requirements of the
 relative CE standard without putting an external ferrite on the cable, is it
 legal , to still mark it, provided you inform your customers via the
 declaration of conformity or in the manual etc., that they could experience
 problems at such and such frequencies and if they do, to use a ferrite?  (boy,
 that was a mouthful).  Faced with a redesign or a statement, the words would 
 be
 the easier route to take, since in this case, the customer could probably 
 never
 see the problem frequency range.   Comments?

 thank you for any advise,

 Lisa

 -
 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).

Re: Desiging Openings for EMC Compliance

[Georg M. Dancau]

WOODS, RICHARD wrote:

 I am about to give a short seminar to our Mechanical Engineers and
 Designers
 on enclosure design for EMC compliance. There is only one problem - I
 have
 no faith in the theory I have for the attenuation through openings.
 The
 following  formula is from the EMC Handbook, Vol 3, by Don White.
 Assuming
 the frequencies of interest are below the waveguide cutoff frequency,
 the
 formula is

 A(dB) = KL/G - 20 log N where,

 K = 32 for round holes or 27 for square holes
 L = thickness of panel
 G = hole diameter
 N = number of holes.

 According to this formula, one 1/4 inch hole in a 0.090 inch panel
 would
 have an attenuation of 11 dB, and  ten holes would have no attenuation

 whatsoever. This does not match my experience in typical ITE. Does
 anyone
 have any usable rules of thumb for Mechicanical types?

 Richard Woods
 Sensormatic Electronics
 wo...@sensormatic.com
 Views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent those of
 Sensormatic.

  Hi Rich,

You can find the formulae in the german mil standard VG95376 Part 4.
As far as I know, the formula is OK under following restrictions

1.High frequency
The frequency is much higher than the cut-off frequency of the wave
guide.
The cut off frequency for cylindrical guides is

f=c0/(1.71*D)

whereas c0=3e8m/s, D= diameter

The cut off frequency for rectangular waweguides is

fc=c0/(2a)

whereas a= length of the long side of the wave guide

The attenuation of one  cylindrical waweguide is

A=31,9*(L/D)*sqrt(1-(f/fc)^2)

For rectangular or square wave guides

A=27,3 *(L/a*)sqrt(1-(f/fc)^2)
If the frequency is much higher than fc, than

A=31,9*L/D

2 High Attenuation
If one can assume that you can compute the field behind the perforated
wall
by adding the absolute values of the fields coming through each hole or
wave guide.

Than

A=31,9*L/D -20*lg(N)

3. Plane wave, far field
Of course only plane wave, far field and infinite wall conditions were
taken into consideration.
Reflections and resonances inside an enclosure were not taken into
consideration.

The above formula should therefore regarded as a pretty good guess.


The same german military standard also gives some formulae for
attenuation
of an infinite and very thin perforated wall.

Case 1: one small hole in an infinite wall, where
r0lambda/10
r= distance of point P to the hole:
r0  r  0.15*lambda

outside
I2r0-
Iwall
inside\
 \
  r
   \
\
 +P


Attenuation of en external field

A[dB]= 13,5 + 60*lg(r/r0)

Case 2: one small hole in a spherical shield

A[dB]= 10 + 60*lg(r/r0)


For N  holes, add -20*lg(N) to the formulae above. Also see restrictions
above.

A[dB]= 13,5 + 60*lg(r/r0) -20*lg(N)

A[dB]= 10 + 60*lg(r/r0) -20*lg(N)




Hope this helps
Best regards,

George


--
**
* Dr. Georg M. Dancau *  HAUNI MASCHINENBAU AG   *
* g.m.dan...@ieee.org *  Manager EMC Lab *
* TEL: +49 40 7250 2102   *  Kampchaussee 8..32  *
* FAX: +49 40 7250 3801   *  21027 Hamburg, Germany  *
**
* home: Tel: +49 4122 99451   *  Hauptstr. 60a   *
*   Fax: +49 4122 99454   *  25492 Heist, Germany*
**

Re: Desiging Openings for EMC Compliance

[Douglas Mckean]

At recent symposium in Santa Clara, I talked to some length 
with one of the speakers about round holes in shielding for 
ventilation.  For all the equations I've seen and tried to 
verify, they really don't pose a problem with the work I've 
done.  But, that's strictly my experience and that in itself 
is limited to some others here. 

Slots are the things to watch out for because in my experience 
they have caused alot of problems. 

Now, mechanical types I find are the best to teach EMI issues.  
Why?  Because they aren't all cluttered up with Maxwell and 
integral vs. differential forms ... 

Just remember: Slots are wires incognito. 

Regards,  Doug 


WOODS, RICHARD wrote:
 
 I am about to give a short seminar to our Mechanical Engineers and Designers
 on enclosure design for EMC compliance. There is only one problem - I have
 no faith in the theory I have for the attenuation through openings. The
 following  formula is from the EMC Handbook, Vol 3, by Don White. Assuming
 the frequencies of interest are below the waveguide cutoff frequency, the
 formula is
 
 A(dB) = KL/G - 20 log N where,
 
 K = 32 for round holes or 27 for square holes
 L = thickness of panel
 G = hole diameter
 N = number of holes.
 
 According to this formula, one 1/4 inch hole in a 0.090 inch panel would
 have an attenuation of 11 dB, and  ten holes would have no attenuation
 whatsoever. This does not match my experience in typical ITE. Does anyone
 have any usable rules of thumb for Mechicanical types?
 
 Richard Woods
 Sensormatic Electronics
 wo...@sensormatic.com
 Views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent those of
 Sensormatic.

RE: Desiging Openings for EMC Compliance

[WOODS, RICHARD]

Derek, there is a big difference between military/Tempest equipment and
commercial equipment. I have used honeycombe filters in Tempest designs
because of the very low limits. But, In my 30 years of design experience of
point-of-sale equipment, mini-computers, PCs, and other types of business
equipment, I have never seen the need for a honeycombe panel to comply with
commercial EMC limits. Even if there were a need, it could never be cost
justified. Rather, it would indicate that the digital designers did a very
poor job of source suppression and a pcb redesign would be ordered. 

Richard Woods
Sensormatic Electronics
wo...@sensormatic.com
Views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent those of
Sensormatic.


 --
 From: lfresea...@aol.com[SMTP:lfresea...@aol.com]
 Reply To: lfresea...@aol.com
 Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 1998 11:33 AM
 To:   knigh...@exchange.sandiegoca.ncr.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
 Subject:  Re: Desiging Openings for EMC Compliance
 
 Jim,
 
 you hit the nail on the head, even with extensive calculations, the error
 is
 large. Seasoned EMC chaps tend to ask for thin-walled Honeycombe openings
 with
 a depth at least 5 times the hole dia. If you can't live with a deep hole,
 life gets hard
 
 Derek Walton
 Owner: L F Research EMC Design and Test Facility, Poplar Grove, IL USA.
 

RE: Designing Openings for EMC Compliance

[Knighten, Jim]

Richard,

The caveat in Henry Ott's statement about 20 dB, are the words,
properly designed.  For equipment that is not properly designed, 20
dB may be a little on the lean side.  Boards that are not properly
designed are very common.

Since it is difficult to predict shielding performance (or shielding
need) with accuracy (see my previous posting), a cautious designer will
either over-design, or provide a contingency to add additional shielding
if the need arises. I have done the  latter and been very glad about it.


Jim

---
Dr. Jim Knighten
NCR
17095 Via del Campo
San Diego, CA 92127
Telephone: 619-485-2537
Fax: 619-485-3788
e-mail: jim.knigh...@sandiegoca.ncr.com


--
From:  WOODS, RICHARD [SMTP:wo...@sensormatic.com]
Sent:  Tuesday, July 21, 1998 6:33 AM
To:  'emc-pstc'
Subject:  Designing Openings for EMC Compliance

Thanks to all of you who replied to my request. I received at
least four
different formulas ranging from the very complex to the very
simple. Some
equations were based upon the wave guide beyond cutoff
principle, but some
people said that the wave guide formula does not apply to thin
panels. Most
people seem to rely upon a simple equation which can be found in
Henry Ott's
book and other sources. The equation is based upon the
fact/assumption (your
choice) that a slot dimension of 1/2 wavelength has zero loss.
The equation
then becomes  A = 20 log (lambda/2L). For multiple apertures,
the reduction
in shielding is approximately proportional to the square root of
the number
of openings:  A = - 10 log n.

Several people indicated that I should avoid using equations
with dB when
addressing Mechanical Engineers and Designers, so I made the
equation even
simpler. Henry Ott indicates that enclosures of properly
designed commercial
equipment only needs 20 dB of shielding. I then added my own
assumptions.  I
have assumed that the clock frequency is no higher than 33 MHz
which, based
upon experience, can present harmonics up to about 600 MHz.
Therefore, I
will design for 20 dB of shielding at 600 MHz. Using these
assumptions and
combining the two equations above, one is left with the equation
L(cm) =
2.5/sqr(N). Now this is an equation the Mechanical Engineers and
Designers
can live with.

Comments?

Richard Woods
Sensormatic Electronics
wo...@sensormatic.com
Views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent those
of
Sensormatic.

Re: Desiging Openings for EMC Compliance

[Lfresearch]

Jim,

you hit the nail on the head, even with extensive calculations, the error is
large. Seasoned EMC chaps tend to ask for thin-walled Honeycombe openings with
a depth at least 5 times the hole dia. If you can't live with a deep hole,
life gets hard

Derek Walton
Owner: L F Research EMC Design and Test Facility, Poplar Grove, IL USA.

Designing Openings for EMC Compliance

[WOODS, RICHARD]

Thanks to all of you who replied to my request. I received at least four
different formulas ranging from the very complex to the very simple. Some
equations were based upon the wave guide beyond cutoff principle, but some
people said that the wave guide formula does not apply to thin panels. Most
people seem to rely upon a simple equation which can be found in Henry Ott's
book and other sources. The equation is based upon the fact/assumption (your
choice) that a slot dimension of 1/2 wavelength has zero loss. The equation
then becomes  A = 20 log (lambda/2L). For multiple apertures, the reduction
in shielding is approximately proportional to the square root of the number
of openings:  A = - 10 log n.

Several people indicated that I should avoid using equations with dB when
addressing Mechanical Engineers and Designers, so I made the equation even
simpler. Henry Ott indicates that enclosures of properly designed commercial
equipment only needs 20 dB of shielding. I then added my own assumptions.  I
have assumed that the clock frequency is no higher than 33 MHz which, based
upon experience, can present harmonics up to about 600 MHz. Therefore, I
will design for 20 dB of shielding at 600 MHz. Using these assumptions and
combining the two equations above, one is left with the equation L(cm) =
2.5/sqr(N). Now this is an equation the Mechanical Engineers and Designers
can live with.

Comments?

Richard Woods
Sensormatic Electronics
wo...@sensormatic.com
Views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent those of
Sensormatic.

RE: Desiging Openings for EMC Compliance

[Knighten, Jim]

Richard,

Even though you are a mechanical type, you have put your finger on a
week area in EMC design.  The brutal truth is that there are no good
design rules for shielding.  While this may be shocking, since it is far
from a new topic, it is due to the complexity of the problem.  If you
look at Maxwell's equations, they are difficult to solve analytically
for very simple geometries and impossible for realistic, real life
geometries.

Many of these published rules were developed more than a decade ago
(some three decades ago) and are based on a blend of theory and some
empirical data.  They all have a common flaw and work better in some
configurations than in others.  The common flaw is that they are based
on plane wave behavior (this means that you are in the far field) with
some corrections for being close in.  My experience is that you may
survey several sources of theory and either take the one that makes most
sense to you, or take portions of several to make your own composite
theory.  Here are some other sources:

1.  Reinaldo Perez, ed., Handbook of Electromagnetic Compatibility,
Academic Press, Inc., New York, 1995, pp. 401 - 443, ISBN 0-12-550710-0.
This is a chapter written by Richard B. Schulz.  Schulz's original IEEE
article is found in time #2 below.
2.  Schulz, R.B., et. al., Shielding Theory and Practice, IEEE
Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility, 1968, EMC-10, pp. 168 -
175.  
3.  Violette, J, et. al., Electromagnetic Compatibility Handbook,
Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., NY,1987, ISBN 0-442-28903-0

If you are a real diehard, you may be interested to know that the EMC
Lab at University of Missouri - Rolla has been developing theory along
these lines.  Contact Dr. James L. Drewniak, 573-341-4969, or look up
their web site at http://www.emclab.umr.edu  Their approach may have
practical promise.  (They also have a good list of EMC books on their
site.)

To avoid the inaccuracies of the published theories on shielding (top
two paragraphs), many people have taken to numerical modeling of
specific problems.  With this approach, you solve these pesky Maxwell's
equations numerically, but this requires specific geometries and
produces results only appropriate to specific geometry addressed.
Finite Difference Time Domain (FDTD) is one of the more common types of
numerical techniques that are appropriate.  These also have some
well-known problems, but I will not bore you or the list-server with
those unless some one asks.

I am new in the computer industry.  Hence, I have asked myself these
same questions not too long ago.  My experience and the experience of
many colleagues in the industry that have spoken to is this:  if you
follow the guidelines based on classical theory that have been published
(the Schulz stuff is an example) you will usually overdesign.  These
methods drive you to very small vent holes and you equipment sounds like
a vacuum cleaner when forced air is used for cooling.

Good Luck,

Jim Knighten

---
Dr. Jim Knighten
NCR
17095 Via del Campo
San Diego, CA 92127
Telephone: 619-485-2537
Fax: 619-485-3788
e-mail: jim.knigh...@sandiegoca.ncr.com


--
From:  WOODS, RICHARD [SMTP:wo...@sensormatic.com]
Sent:  Monday, July 20, 1998 5:57 AM
To:  'emc-pstc'
Subject:  Desiging Openings for EMC Compliance

I am about to give a short seminar to our Mechanical Engineers
and Designers
on enclosure design for EMC compliance. There is only one
problem - I have
no faith in the theory I have for the attenuation through
openings. The
following  formula is from the EMC Handbook, Vol 3, by Don
White. Assuming
the frequencies of interest are below the waveguide cutoff
frequency, the
formula is 

A(dB) = KL/G - 20 log N where,

K = 32 for round holes or 27 for square
holes
L = thickness of panel
G = hole diameter
N = number of holes.
 
According to this formula, one 1/4 inch hole in a 0.090 inch
panel would
have an attenuation of 11 dB, and  ten holes would have no
attenuation
whatsoever. This does not match my experience in typical ITE.
Does anyone
have any usable rules of thumb for Mechicanical types?
 
Richard Woods
Sensormatic Electronics
wo...@sensormatic.com
Views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent those
of
Sensormatic.

Desiging Openings for EMC Compliance

[WOODS, RICHARD]

I am about to give a short seminar to our Mechanical Engineers and Designers
on enclosure design for EMC compliance. There is only one problem - I have
no faith in the theory I have for the attenuation through openings. The
following  formula is from the EMC Handbook, Vol 3, by Don White. Assuming
the frequencies of interest are below the waveguide cutoff frequency, the
formula is 

A(dB) = KL/G - 20 log N where,

K = 32 for round holes or 27 for square holes
L = thickness of panel
G = hole diameter
N = number of holes.
 
According to this formula, one 1/4 inch hole in a 0.090 inch panel would
have an attenuation of 11 dB, and  ten holes would have no attenuation
whatsoever. This does not match my experience in typical ITE. Does anyone
have any usable rules of thumb for Mechicanical types?
 
Richard Woods
Sensormatic Electronics
wo...@sensormatic.com
Views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent those of
Sensormatic.