Hi Tony
In my experience, if you are embedding wireless modules that already have CE
authorisation from the original manufacturer, then a Technical File and
Notified Body Opinion is cheaper.
I have done this for a number of clients.
If you need more details contact me directly.
Regards
David
In my opinion it would be more expensive to do a Technical File (old Technical
Construction File) because it is very difficult and massive amounts of
calculations et al to prove that your unit will pass the EMC Directive using
non-test data (schematics, etc) for all of the radiated and interfering
In my opinion it would be more expensive to do a Technical File (old Technical
Construction File) because it is very difficult and massive amounts of
calculations et al to prove that your unit will pass the EMC Directive using
non-test data (schematics, etc) for all of the radiated and interfering
Depends where you are going with it in the world? Some countries as part of
the radiocom approval process require an iec 60950-1 safety test report
Peter Merguerian
pe...@goglobcompliance.com
Go Global Compliance Inc.
Tel: 408-4163772
Cel: 408-9313303
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 23, 2010, at
In message 003a01cb4308$1c6d36f0$d600a...@tamuracorp.com, dated Mon,
23 Aug 2010, Brian O'Connell oconne...@tamuracorp.com writes:
Class '2' is ** NOT ** the same thing as Class 'II'.
Yes, but not everyone always writes 'II'. It is advisable to check.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try
Depends where you are going with it in the world? Some countries as part of
the radiocom approval process require an iec 60950-1 safety test report
Peter Merguerian
pe...@goglobcompliance.com
Go Global Compliance Inc.
Tel: 408-4163772
Cel: 408-9313303
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 23, 2010, at
In message 003a01cb4308$1c6d36f0$d600a...@tamuracorp.com, dated Mon,
23 Aug 2010, Brian O'Connell oconne...@tamuracorp.com writes:
Class '2' is ** NOT ** the same thing as Class 'II'.
Yes, but not everyone always writes 'II'. It is advisable to check.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try
O'Connell oconne...@tamuracorp.com
Subject: RE: RTTE and IEC 60950
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Date: Monday, August 23, 2010, 5:14 PM
Class '2' is ** NOT ** the same thing as Class 'II'.
The concept of an class 2 power source
Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of John
Woodgate
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 2:00 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: RTTE and IEC 60950
In message 003101cb4301$80977930$d600a...@tamuracorp.com,
dated Mon,
23 Aug 2010, Brian
In message 003101cb4301$80977930$d600a...@tamuracorp.com, dated Mon,
23 Aug 2010, Brian O'Connell oconne...@tamuracorp.com writes:
1. Class '2' has no meaning outside of North America.
That depends on which sort of 'Class 2' it is! 'Class 2' in the sense of
double-insulation and no PEC applies
In message f12eba124c6e064b9cf1b45e67ddb7e79099a...@dlee02.ent.ti.com,
dated Mon, 23 Aug 2010, Gartman, Richard rgart...@ti.com writes:
I am looking for view points on wither or not IEC60950 is necessary for
a WiFi product, and if so why.
For use in which countries? It is essential to specify
1. Class '2' has no meaning outside of North America.
2. See Guide to the RTTE Directive.
3. Is the unit marked as Class III, and does the battery have a test cert
? If so, the only mitigation removed is protection from shock - all other
ITE safety requirements may apply, depending on the
O'Connell oconne...@tamuracorp.com
Subject: RE: RTTE and IEC 60950
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Date: Monday, August 23, 2010, 5:14 PM
Class '2' is ** NOT ** the same thing as Class 'II'.
The concept of an class 2 power source
Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of John
Woodgate
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 2:00 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: RTTE and IEC 60950
In message 003101cb4301$80977930$d600a...@tamuracorp.com,
dated Mon,
23 Aug 2010, Brian
In message 003101cb4301$80977930$d600a...@tamuracorp.com, dated Mon,
23 Aug 2010, Brian O'Connell oconne...@tamuracorp.com writes:
1. Class '2' has no meaning outside of North America.
That depends on which sort of 'Class 2' it is! 'Class 2' in the sense of
double-insulation and no PEC applies
In message f12eba124c6e064b9cf1b45e67ddb7e79099a...@dlee02.ent.ti.com,
dated Mon, 23 Aug 2010, Gartman, Richard rgart...@ti.com writes:
I am looking for view points on wither or not IEC60950 is necessary for
a WiFi product, and if so why.
For use in which countries? It is essential to specify
1. Class '2' has no meaning outside of North America.
2. See Guide to the RTTE Directive.
3. Is the unit marked as Class III, and does the battery have a test cert
? If so, the only mitigation removed is protection from shock - all other
ITE safety requirements may apply, depending on the
On 5/17/2007, Daniel Liang wrote:
Does anyone know the EMC, RTTE and electrical safety requirements for South
Africa?
Which regulatory authority in South Africa I should contact?
Hi Daniel:
I get involved with a South African approval every year or two, and each time
the names and
Daniel,
For non-telecom/radiocom, the regulatory authority is SABS. You willneed LoA
(safety) and CoC (emc). For the LoA you will need the name of your importer.
For telecom/radiocom the regulatory authority is ICASA.
Best Regards,
Peter
Daniel Liang daniel_liang_...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi Grace
There are other issues that may be involved but let’s address your specific
question.
Labs are not actually ‘registered’ with a Notified Body except under
annexes V and up. The intent of use for an NB proposed in your email is 1 -
to give credence to the test suite under annex III or 2
The alert mark is required if the frequency band is not harmonized in the EU.
Bill
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of John Woodgate
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 12:47 PM
To: emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: RTTE Conformity Assessment Procedure
In message
In message
2a93eb060608091024h274cf040w98474b21dcc66...@mail.gmail.com, dated
Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Grace Lin graceli...@gmail.com writes
I don't understand the first paragraph of Annex III. My question is:
do I need to have my lab (in a manufacturer) registed with one of
notified bodies to be
Amund,
We use the RTTE Directive for batteries that are used with radios. For the
chargers we use the EMC and Low Voltage Directive. Finally, the radio team
uses the RTTE directive with the complete system.
Best Regards,
Jody Leber
Senior Regulatory Engineer
jody.le...@motorola.com
In message aoenigjpfmpdhikjmgcniegnciaa.am...@westin-emission.no,
dated Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Amund Westin am...@westin-emission.no writes
We have been told by a RTTE Notified Body that non-radio equipment
are covered by RTTE directive, if they are a part of a total radio
system and connected
Check this TR from ETSI this gives some guidance for radio approvals and
associated devices.
Below is an excerpt from ETSI TR 102 070-2 V1.1.1 (2002-11) Guide to the
application of harmonized standards to multi-radio and combined radio and
non-radio equipment; Part 2: Effective use of the
The RTTED is for radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment not
just radio equipment.
Article 2 of the RTTED states “radio equipment means a product, or relevant
component thereof”.
The “relevant component thereof” is where some equipment classified and
“non-radio” are included in
Kevin brings up another good point,
Can one CE mark a product and yet have an asterisk, stating it does not comply
with one country in the EU?
There are many deviations for safety and now Kevin brings up an EMI issues as
well..
thanks,
Richard,
From: emc-p...@ieee.org
Hi
You can try also this link:
http://www.eett.gr/eng_pages/index2n.htm
Best regards
Gaétan Hogue
Approvals Manager
Eicon Networks
Phone: (514) 832-3488
Fax: (514) 745-5588
Email: gaetan.ho...@eicon.com
http://www.eicon.com http://www.eicon.com/
From: Amund Westin
Kevin,
I think you can find the answer in the FAQ on the RTTE site :
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/rtte/faq.htm#informing
It says under the chapter:
What information has to be given to the user by the manufacturer?
For apparatus that makes use of radio frequency bands, is
Del,
I'm not an RTTE expert, but from the MDD side under the 2nd edition of
60601-1-2 (2001), the function of the card and it's communications would have
to be evaluated. If it falls under the ESSENTIAL FUNCTION of the medical
device, it would be subject to the requirements of 60601-1-2. These
owner-emc-pstc@majordocc:
mo.ieee.org Subject: RE: RTTE
Directive Member States Notification
.
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
Title: RE: RTTE requirements
Bill,
An ADSL modem is telecom terminal equipment and must comply with the RTTE
Directive.
Harmonised standards to comply with:
Art 3.1a) Safety
DLS Electronics
166 South Carter St.
Genoa City WI 53128
ph: 262-279-0210
fx: 262-279-3630
email: bstu...@dlsemc.com
EU CAB for EMC and RTTE
From: richwo...@tycoint.com [mailto:richwo...@tycoint.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 1:32 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: RTTE Directive
...@gigabyte.com.tw]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 9:51 PM
To: jheff...@core.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
Even though individual country forms do not explicitly suggest the if
applicable condition, just take the initiative to put not considered
Out of curiosity...are there ANY harmonized frequencies in Europe?
Is 13.56 MHz harmonized?
Bob Heller
3M EMC Laboratory, 76-1-01
St. Paul, MN 55107-1208
Tel: 651- 778-6336
Fax: 651-778-6252
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc
[mailto:bstu...@dlsemc.com]
Sent: 02 July 2003 13:59
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
Richard Woods wrote: Gerald, please explain why a Notified Body number
is required? I thought that a harmonized ETSI standard exists.
A Notified Body
I understand that Class 1 products use harmonized bands. 13.56 MHz is not
harmonized. Sigh!
Richard Woods
Sensormatic Electronics
Tyco International
From: rehel...@mmm.com [mailto:rehel...@mmm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 10:05 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: RTTE
: rehel...@mmm.com [mailto:rehel...@mmm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 7:05 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
Out of curiosity...are there ANY harmonized frequencies in Europe?
Is 13.56 MHz harmonized?
Bob Heller
3M EMC
[mailto:neil.bar...@e2vtechnologies.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 10:11 AM
To: 'Bill Stumpf'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
My understanding is that where there is a harmonised standard, but the
spectrum usage is not harmonised
...@mmm.com [mailto:rehel...@mmm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 9:05 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
Out of curiosity...are there ANY harmonized frequencies in
Europe?
Is 13.56 MHz harmonized?
Bob Heller
3M EMC Laboratory, 76
Jan,
You do not have to go through a notified body or U.S. CAB to notify.
Each Member State has its own form that can be downloaded for this
purpose, and yes , you do have to notify if the frequency is not
harmonized in that Member State. Go to www.ero.dk for frequency
allocation information.
I read in !emc-pstc that Jan Heffken jheff...@core.com wrote (in
200307011403.h61e3n69098...@mail4.mx.voyager.net) about 'RTTE
Directive Member States Notification' on Tue, 1 Jul 2003:
Since paragraph 31 uses should and not shall do I have to do it all?
The text you cite is in the 'whereases'
I have gone through the process of a 802.11 WLAN.
France is not harmonized to the rest on the EU in the 2.4Ghz spread
spectrum.
Yes you will need a NOTIFIED BODY number to submit with the country
notifications
Yes you need to send notification to each country that you want to sell
into.
There
...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
I have gone through the process of a 802.11 WLAN.
France is not harmonized to the rest on the EU in the 2.4Ghz spread
spectrum.
Yes you will need a NOTIFIED BODY number to submit with the country
notifications
Yes you need to send
]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 2:32 PM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
Gerald, please explain why a Notified Body number is required? I thought
that a harmonized ETSI standard exists.
Richard Woods
Sensormatic Electronics
Tyco International
Gerald, Richard, All
Ok, I have to chime in here. You do not need a Notified Body when there
is a Harmonized Standard published in the OJ. I understand that the frequency
is not harmonized (france because of their Military band), but there is a
harmonized standard and therefore no
mo.ieee.org cc:
Subject: Re: RTTE
Directive Member States Notification
-Byte
From: Gerald Tammi [mailto:gera...@zoom.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 4:35 AM
To: 'richwo...@tycoint.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: RTTE Directive Member States Notification
The 2.4 Ghz frequency spectrum is NOT harmonized. France is one of the
countries that has
I read in !emc-pstc that richwo...@tycoint.com wrote (in 846BF526A205F8
4BA2B6045BBF7E9A6A04675F9D@flbocexu05) about 'RTTE DoC languages' on
Tue, 20 May 2003:
Anything the group can provide would be appreciated, but I would ask that
persons refrain from offering translations if they are not
...@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Lothar Schmidt
Sent: donderdag 15 mei 2003 00:04
To: 'Amund Westin'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: RTTE - antennas
It depends on which ETS/EN standard is applicable for the Radio some of them
have the antenna parameters specified as part of the spectrum parameters
Amund
Check the standards applicable to your product - provided that you meet the
standard at the output from your transmitter system (impedance etc.) you
should be able to specify that any antenna meeting the relevant ETSI class may
be used.
You will also have to specify the maximum gain of
It depends on which ETS/EN standard is applicable for the Radio some of them
have the antenna parameters specified as part of the spectrum parameters.
Best Regards
Lothar Schmidt
Technical Manager EMC/Radio/SAR
BQB
CETECOM Inc.
411 Dixon Landing Road
Milpitas, CA 95035
phone ?+1 (408) 586
Amund,
Another antenna may alter the Radio and EMC behaviour of your radio
transmitter. So you must check if the complete system with the other antenna
is still compliant with the applicable harmonised EMC and radio standards.
Kris
From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no]
Sent:
I read in !emc-pstc that Gary McInturff Gary.McInturff@worldwidepackets
.com wrote (in 4e9a9436c008314eaa32033b23e96fd90b0...@thorondor.wwp.co
m) about 'RTTE directive.' on Wed, 29 Jan 2003:
Anybody have a link to peruse and purchase this, and a brief synopsis.
Replied to a previous e-mail
Hope the following links help - I think it is what you are looking for :
Link to the text of the RTTE Directive :
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/rtte/dir99-5.htm
List of harmonised standards published in the Official Journal of the EC for
the RTTE:
oktober 2002 19:09
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: RTTE - receive only equipment
Good question Amund. I found nothing in the Directive that provides a clear
direction. I think that sound of silence from the rest of the group means
that no one knows the answer. I checked the UK's
Good question Amund. I found nothing in the Directive that provides a clear
direction. I think that sound of silence from the rest of the group means
that no one knows the answer. I checked the UK's notification form and there
is only one place where they ask about the receiver:
Duplex direction
to ETSI
TBR's although we would rather delay project until it is necessary.
Thx,
Joe
-Original Message-
From: Paul Didcott [mailto:pdidc...@ktl.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 4:34 AM
To: 'Joe Finlayson'
Cc: TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup'
Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD
...@ieee.org;
n...@world.std.com
Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Dear Colin,
TTE to be approved are, according to the wording used in the Korean ministry
decree:
1- Equipment which can be connected directly to a demarcation point of backbone
communication network.
2
:
colin_mcgeec...@agilent.com
ld.std.com Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for
Equipment with E1 SELV
interface
: colin_mcgeec...@agilent.com [mailto:colin_mcgeec...@agilent.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 6:32 PM
To: t...@world.std.com; emc-p...@ieee.org; n...@world.std.com
Cc: colin_mcgeec...@agilent.com
Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Hi All,
I have some Network Equipment
: jeudi 3 octobre 2002 12:32
To: t...@world.std.com; emc-p...@ieee.org; n...@world.std.com
Cc: colin_mcgeec...@agilent.com
Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Hi All,
I have some Network Equipment with DS1 and E1/T1 interfaces, it is for use
within the Telco Central
Message-
From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com]
Sent: 02 October 2002 19:56
To: TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup'
Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Roger,
Thanks for the contact. I will do just that and post the response
from Mr
; 'Clement Dave-LDC009'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS
Newsgroup'
Cc: Roger Magnuson
Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Joe et al,
It seems a little overambitious to declare it under RTTE as Network
Equipment did not even require type approval under the old TTE Directive
: Hughes, Richard [HAL02:GF00:EXCH]; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup'; 'TREG
Newsgroup'
Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Agreed. So, in Peter's case, he stated that his product is SELV and
therefore is not designed or intended to connect to the PSTN. From that
statement
.
Roger Magnuson
TGC Communication AB
-Original Message-
From: treg-appro...@world.std.com [mailto:treg-appro...@world.std.com]On
Behalf Of Joe Finlayson
Sent: den 2 oktober 2002 19:09
To: 'Clement Dave-LDC009'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup'
Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD
-LDC009 [mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:47 AM
To: 'Joe Finlayson'; TREG Newsgroup; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup'
Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Joe,
Maybe I have missed something here but how does the TNV-X vs SELV from a
safety
: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Dave,
Please reference the subject title of this thread. My position is that by
declaring compliance to the RTTE Directive, we would then be stating that we
have designed to and/or are capable of connecting to the PSTN. This would
...@ieee.org, 'NEBS
Newsgroup' n...@world.std.com
cc:
Subject:RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Dave,
Please reference the subject title of this thread. My position is
that by declaring compliance to the RTTE Directive, we would then be
stating that we
01, 2002 3:15 PM
To: 'Richard Hughes'; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup'; 'TREG Newsgroup'
Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Richard,
Good point - the directly or indirectly part grabbed my attention
but that seems too broad a description which could encompass quite
...@motorola.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 9:05 AM
To: 'Joe Finlayson'; TREG Newsgroup
Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
This whole discussion is some what of a moot point. Under the RTTE
directive there are no mandatory telecom standards anyway.
Dave Clement
.
Thx,
Joe
-Original Message-
From: Paul Didcott [mailto:pdidc...@ktl.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 3:59 AM
To: 'Joe Finlayson'
Cc: 'Richard Hughes'; 'EMC PSTC'; 'NEBS Newsgroup'; 'TREG Newsgroup'
Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Guys
any upper or lower voltage limit).
Well, that's enough personal opinions expressed on this matter for me...
Richard Hughes
-Original Message-
From: Joe Finlayson [mailto:jfinlay...@telica.com]
Sent: 01 October 2002 17:52
To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail)
Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment
Peter,
As this product does not connect to the PSTN and is destined for the
Central Office only, I would say the RTTE Directive does not apply as the
scope does not include Network Equipment.
Thx,
Joe
-Original Message-
From: Peter Merguerian [mailto:pmerguer...@itl.co.il]
EN 60950 is a harmonized safety standard also for RTTE.
For the RTTE is a manufacturer choice to use the old LVD and EMCD rule
to certify the safety and EMC requirement or the new rule of RTTE
(annex II, III, IV or IV).
Ciao
Paolo
_
Paolo Gemma
...@nortelnetworks.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 5:57 PM
To: 'Joe Finlayson'; EMC-PSTC (E-mail)
Subject: RE: RTTE or LVD for Equipment with E1 SELV interface
Joe,
The RTTED applies to the following types of equipment:
1) Radio equipment
2) Terminal equipment.
The Directive also contains
Thank you all for helping. I believe I know the right
approach now for devices that can straddle the fence.
It will be interesting if there is more clarification
about this before Oct 2002 like Mr. Woodgate
mentioned.
Neil, my scenario for the laptop needing E-Mark would
then only apply to the
I read in !emc-pstc that w w kro...@yahoo.com wrote (in 2002082118211
9.9182.qm...@web14911.mail.yahoo.com) about 'RTTE and E-Mark
applicable?' on Wed, 21 Aug 2002:
Hello Group,
1) Assuming I have learned corrrectly from past
discussions, devices that can fall under two EU
Directives:
To kro...@yahoo.com
I think one premise of this list server is that folks participating identify
themselves.somehow kro...@yahoo.com leaves a bit to be desired.
Regards,
Kaz Gawrzyjal
Dell Computer Corp.
-Original Message-
From: w w [mailto:kro...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August
Hi Amund,
Notifications are free in the EU. Switzerland is not
member of the EU , and in the guys there do not know exactly
-or don not want to comply- with the rest of Europe.
Both for the notification procedure, AND the
associated fees, but also for the full implications of the RTTE directive.
We receive the invoices too.
Richard Woods
Sensormatic Electronics
Tyco International
-Original Message-
From: am...@westin-emission.no [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no]
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 4:31 AM
To: Forum Safety-emc
Subject: RTTE EU notifications - fees
Hi all,
We have
I have heard authorities saying that some companies notify everything,
including receivers, etc. while only the equipment (=transmitters) which does
operate in non-harmonised frequency bands should be notified.
I guess this fee is a way to make those notifying to consider if this is really
: 08 May 2002 17:06
To: jjuh...@fiberoptions.com
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: RTTE Directive
In a message dated 5/8/2002, John Juhasz writes:
it appears that it is not required to test the interface itself to
'telecom specs' such as those in the CTR21.
Hi John:
Your
Hi John,
You are right. The only requirements are for EMC and Safety (according to
the RTTE directive).
I remember there was only 1 (temporary) exception, important if the POTS
equipment will be used in France. (drawn current 80 mA)
Probably this requirement is gone now, but be careful.
John,
A few years ago, the European Commission has determined that there is no
need for technical requirements against which to assess wired
telecommunication products. Further work on the technical basis for
regulation (TBRs) has been suspended and many CTRs (CTR 21 included) have
been removed
In a message dated 5/8/2002, John Juhasz writes:
it appears that it is not required to test the interface itself to
'telecom specs' such as those in the CTR21.
Hi John:
Your interpretation is correct. For wireline POTS products/interfaces, the
only requirements that apply under the
This equipment isn't a radio transmitter and also is not a terminal so is
outside the RTTE.
Ciao
Paolo
At 12:12 3/13/02 +0100, Roger Magnuson wrote:
Don't think so as the equipment is using the antenna cable. As VCRs are not
radio terminals this can't be either.
Roger Magnuson
TGC
Difficult one to call but this device may be subject to RTTE as, depends on
how it is connected and used. It will probably have a 75 Ohm output which
will match a TV antenna impedance and thus be capable of transmitting
(albeit a short distance). Can you get around this with warnings in the
User
No, for a product to fall within the radio categorie of the
RTTE directive the signal need to be airborn.
Suitable warnings about the products use
may help avoid misunderstandings regarding applicability.
Tha phrase can be transmitted to in your mail
is an example of how an ambiguous
Don't think so as the equipment is using the antenna cable. As VCRs are not
radio terminals this can't be either.
Roger Magnuson
TGC Communication AB
Sweden
-Original Message-
From: treg-appro...@world.std.com [mailto:treg-appro...@world.std.com]On
Behalf Of Kim Boll Jensen
Sent:
.tele.dk]
Sent: mercredi 6 mars 2002 11:44
To: richwo...@tycoint.com
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: RTTE
Hi all
Here are a list of all countries which at the moment have implemented the
RTTE
directive 100%:
Belgium
Denmark
UK
Finland
France
Greece
Holland
Italy
Iceland
International
-Original Message-
From: WOODS, RICHARD
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 8:30 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: RTTE
I found the english document at
http://www.mdcr.cz/english/index14.htm
Richard Woods
Sensormatic Electronics
Tyco International
-Original
Both solution are valid.
In the RTTE you can find an article said that at your choice you can
demonstrate the conformity to the essential requirements 3.1b
using the procedure of the EMC directive if applicable.
I don't suggest this, for me, complicate way two declaration two
Kevin,
Here is my interpretation: since the requirements of the EMC Directive are
integral part of the essential requirements under the RTTE Directive, a
single declaration to the RTTE Directive should be sufficient. But if the
scope of the RTTE Directive regarding your product is not
In my opinion, you must issue a DoC according to the procedures specified in
the RTTE Directive and all of the essential requirements of Article 3 must
be addressed. Article 10 allows you to follow the conformity assessment
procedures of the EMC and LV Directives for the essential requirements
Hi Kevin,
I am inclined to side with the regulatory authority. If you have a
device that has an RTTE component in it, than that directive applies.
Since the RTTE Directive requires compliance to the EMC and LV
directives in order to declare conformity to it, it is not necessary to
declare to
Kevin,
Council Directive 99/5/EC does call out directives 73/23/EEC and 89/336/EEC.
Since some customers are not aware of the linkage, listing all three
directives on the DofC avoids having to 'educate the customer'. Either way,
standards applied will tell the story.
David
-Original
Kevin,
The OJ for the RTTE Directive lists EMC (EN55022, EN55024, etc) and Safety
(EN60950, EN60065, etc) standards as well as the Radio and Telecom standards
(well there are no requirements for wireline telco listed).
So, if you are declaring to the RTTE then you should be covered for EMC and
Sensormatic Electronics
Tyco International
-Original Message-
From: Andre, Pierre-Marie [mailto:pierre-marie.an...@intel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 6:13 AM
To: 'Kim Boll Jensen'; richwo...@tycoint.com
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: RTTE
I thought that Hungary and Czec
...@post7.tele.dk]
Sent: mercredi 6 mars 2002 11:44
To: richwo...@tycoint.com
Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: RTTE
Hi all
Here are a list of all countries which at the moment have implemented the
RTTE
directive 100%:
Belgium
Denmark
UK
Finland
France
Greece
Holland
Italy
Iceland
Ireland
1 - 100 of 165 matches
Mail list logo
