Re: [PSES] Pending Regulatory Change to UKCA Program

[Doug Powell]

Rich, et al,

I've had the opposite experience.  On a particular occasion, a field sales
person was on the site of a notably abrasive customer. Initially, that
customer was a little cagey saying "Can you see the difference, and what's
wrong with yours?"  Eventually, after playing the game for a time, that
customer pointed out how the competitor's product had one more safety
marking that ours did not.  While I haven't seen this sort of
behaviour very often, I have seen a similar attitude prevail for many years.

Unfortunately, a few sales people, whom I know and call my friends, have
sometimes complained about the lack of value that product certs bring to
the table; then complain about delays in time-to-market, and the added cost
of goods sold...  And I have the evidence to prove that a safety redesign
of an existing "low cost" product family with multiple models and
configurations allowed us to further reduce the COGS by an additional 6%
overall.  So that argument does not hold water with me.

It has always been my belief that product certs are not so much a hit to
productivity and value, but they do open markets that would otherwise be
closed. And this along with evidence of due diligence, and ultimately the
safety of the end user are their true value.  A singular focus on
profitability in the short term is a disservice to everyone.

-Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
doug...@gmail.com
LinkedIn 

(UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)






On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 12:39 PM Richard Nute  wrote:

>
>
> “It’s a fact the CE mark adds way more cost than the return on investment
> of performance improvement.”
>
>
>
> Reminds me of a marketing manager saying to me that safety (and, I assume,
> safety certification and EMC) do not generate sales.
>
>
>
> Rich
>
>
> -
> 
>
> 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
>
> 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:
> Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
> David Heald dhe...@gmail.com
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1
>

-

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

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:
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Intertek message FYI: Important Update: Pending Regulatory Change to UKCA Program

[John Mcbain]

My apologies to everyone - I did not intend to drift into a political
discussion!  My question was meant to be focused on the product safety /
regulatory concerns that arose after Brexit (that is, ones that did not
previously exist), NOT whether sovereignty is good or bad in any other way.

>From just that single-minded perspective I found in my own job that Brexit
created more work without adding an iota of value to the product.  Also
from that selfish point-of-view I would hate to see the other countries in
the EU decide to seize national sovereignty and implement their own
regulations, their own markings and their own paperwork.
  
In other words from the narrow product safety / regulatory position (which
is how I was looking at it), "encouraging [the UK] to exit from the EU" did
the OPPOSITE of the "removal of unnecessary trade barriers".  It may or may
not have had other beneficial results - a political argument for which this
is NOT the forum - but for me it just meant more paperwork that previously
had not existed.

Along the same lines in the US - the National Electric Code (NEC) is a
guide for the thousands of Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) within the
country - in other words "sovereignty" within their city / county / state -
to decide what applies to their bailiwick.  Does this make life easier for
those trying to build or install a product if the standards vary across the
country?  Certainly not!

Which of course is one reason why UL / Intertek / CSA / other NRTLs have
been successful.  But that is another discussion.

Best regards,
John McBain


On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 11:18 AM Lfresearch  wrote:

> Easy John, but first address my key issue with the EU: surrender of
> sovereignty. Period.
>
> Second, EU is not the only trading market, something missed by members of
> the community. It’s a fact the CE mark adds way more cost than the return
> on investment of performance improvement. Not having to do this simplifies
> the route to market compliance and hence makes the product cheaper.
>
> I could go on, but I have to teach today, I’d be happy to resume the
> discussion later.
>
> BUT, reemphasize my first point: surrender of sovereignty. Period.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Derek.
>
>
> On Nov 7, 2022, at 1:04 PM, John Mcbain  wrote:
>
> Hello Lfresearch -
>
> Would you please explain to me how you reconcile "removal of unnecessary
> trade barriers" and "encouraging for England [*note: actually UK*] to
> exit from the EU"?
> Those views seem to be mutually incompatible, since Brexit has raised new
> non-tariff trade barriers (additional certifications, markings, etc.).
>
> Best regards,
> John McBain
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 10:14 AM Lfresearch <
> 00734758d943-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:
>
>> I think most people have learned to not listen to MSM, but rely on
>> individuals in groups like this to further knowledge. It’s highly
>> beneficial to have working members, most without a dog in the fight, in
>> multiple economic zones.
>>
>> That said, and to counterpoint a different position, I was originally in
>> favor of England joining the EU many years ago since the idea of removing
>> barriers to free trade is highly appealing.
>>
>> HOWEVER, what has transpired while populations have been asleep at the
>> wheel is nothing other than a power grab of sovereignty: Totally
>> unacceptable and it was highly encouraging for England to exit from the EU
>> and I hope other will follow. I have a hope that the UK and the rest of the
>> world can work toward the removal of unnecessary trade barriers and
>> standardization. Something I devote many hours a day promoting.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Derek.
>>
>> On Nov 7, 2022, at 11:45 AM, Doug Powell  wrote:
>>
>> Thanks John,
>>
>> As you can imagine mainstream media tends to give us a filtered view,
>> with various unspoken motivations.  This is the very reason I do not rely
>> upon a single source.  And of course, guidance provided on
>> https://www.gov.uk should always be viewed in its official capacity.
>>
>> I appreciate your insider's perspective,  -Doug
>>
>>
>> Douglas E Powell
>> Laporte, Colorado USA
>> LinkedIn 
>>
>> (UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 9:58 AM  wrote:
>>
>>> Doug & co
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I can only speak for myself and what I have seen & heard in the
>>> mainstream broadcast media (don’t do Twitter, FB etc!).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The majority viewpoint seems to be that it is far too late to do
>>> anything in the short-medium term about re-joining the EU, even if there
>>> was another referendum on the subject that said “Yes, Rejoin”. None of the
>>> main-stream political parties are pushing for it *(at least those in
>>> England, but there are very different views held by some parties in Wales,
>>> N. Ireland and especially the SNP in Scotland!).*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thus I can’t see it happening “anytime soon”, if at all!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> FWIW: To state 

Re: [PSES] Intertek message FYI: Important Update: Pending Regulatory Change to UKCA Program

[John E Allen]

Folks 

 

I also totally agree! – I did say that my main input nowadays on the general 
subject was mainstream media, BUT that’s not to say that I agree with what I 
see/hear on it , nor is it my ONLY input, as  I’m an argumentative sceptic on 
most subjects and generally tend to disagree with what the media says (as you 
may have noted from my previous comments!) – especially where it relates to 
what politicians and some lawmakers say/do !

 

John E Allen

W. London, UK

 

From: Chas Grasso  
Sent: 07 November 2022 20:59
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Intertek message FYI: Important Update: Pending Regulatory 
Change to UKCA Program

 

Totally agree!! 

 

On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 11:14 AM Lfresearch 
<00734758d943-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org 
 > wrote:

 This message originated outside of DISH and was sent by: 
00734758d943-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org 
  

 

  _  

I think most people have learned to not listen to MSM, but rely on individuals 
in groups like this to further knowledge. It’s highly beneficial to have 
working members, most without a dog in the fight, in multiple economic zones.

 

That said, and to counterpoint a different position, I was originally in favor 
of England joining the EU many years ago since the idea of removing barriers to 
free trade is highly appealing.

 

HOWEVER, what has transpired while populations have been asleep at the wheel is 
nothing other than a power grab of sovereignty: Totally unacceptable and it was 
highly encouraging for England to exit from the EU and I hope other will 
follow. I have a hope that the UK and the rest of the world can work toward the 
removal of unnecessary trade barriers and standardization. Something I devote 
many hours a day promoting.

 

Cheers,

 

Derek.





On Nov 7, 2022, at 11:45 AM, Doug Powell mailto:doug...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

Thanks John,

 

As you can imagine mainstream media tends to give us a filtered view, with 
various unspoken motivations.  This is the very reason I do not rely upon a 
single source.  And of course, guidance provided on https://www.gov.uk 
  should always be viewed in its official capacity.  

 

I appreciate your insider's perspective,  -Doug

 

 

Douglas E Powell

Laporte, Colorado USA

  LinkedIn

 

(UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)

 

On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 9:58 AM mailto:john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk> > wrote:

Doug & co

 

I can only speak for myself and what I have seen & heard in the mainstream 
broadcast media (don’t do Twitter, FB etc!).

 

The majority viewpoint seems to be that it is far too late to do anything in 
the short-medium term about re-joining the EU, even if there was another 
referendum on the subject that said “Yes, Rejoin”. None of the main-stream 
political parties are pushing for it (at least those in England, but there are 
very different views held by some parties in Wales, N. Ireland and especially 
the SNP in Scotland!). 

 

Thus I can’t see it happening “anytime soon”, if at all!

 

FWIW: To state my personal perspective, I was very much in favour of the UK 
joining in the first place many years ago because of my experiences of the many 
“technical barriers to trade” which made exporting to the then (IIRC!) Common 
Market countries really difficult due to all the differences between them. 
Then, in the Referendum I was very much in favour of Remaining in the EC & very 
disappointed in the (marginal!) result (my opinion of those who voted to leave 
was/still is fairly unprintable – something about “cutting off your nose to 
spite your face”!)

 

John E Allen

W. London, UK

From: Doug Powell mailto:doug...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: 07 November 2022 16:15
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: Re: [PSES] FW: Intertek message FYI: Important Update: Pending 
Regulatory Change to UKCA Program

 

I've been watching the latest UK news with interest.  From my perspective in 
the US news media, it seems with the financial, energy, and PM woes, there is a 
small movement discussing how BREXIT may have been a mistake.  Possibly John 
Allen can elaborate about how the locals feel about this, Is there any real 
possibility of reverting to EU membership, or not? 

 

thanks,  -Doug

 

 

Douglas E Powell

Laporte, Colorado USA

  LinkedIn

 

(UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)

 

 

 

On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 8:53 AM Richard Georgerian mailto:richa...@mesanetworks.net> > wrote:

Greetings all,

 

As a follow-up to John Allen’s email below –

 

Has the UK submitted and/or passed any legislation for the UKCA labelling 
easement until December 31, 2025? Otherwise, the UKCA labelling starts on 
December 31, 2022.

I went to the www.gov.uk 

Re: [PSES] Intertek message FYI: Important Update: Pending Regulatory Change to UKCA Program

[Chas Grasso]

Totally agree!!

On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 11:14 AM Lfresearch <
00734758d943-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:

> * This message originated outside of DISH and was sent by:
> 00734758d943-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org
> <00734758d943-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> *
> --
> I think most people have learned to not listen to MSM, but rely on
> individuals in groups like this to further knowledge. It’s highly
> beneficial to have working members, most without a dog in the fight, in
> multiple economic zones.
>
> That said, and to counterpoint a different position, I was originally in
> favor of England joining the EU many years ago since the idea of removing
> barriers to free trade is highly appealing.
>
> HOWEVER, what has transpired while populations have been asleep at the
> wheel is nothing other than a power grab of sovereignty: Totally
> unacceptable and it was highly encouraging for England to exit from the EU
> and I hope other will follow. I have a hope that the UK and the rest of the
> world can work toward the removal of unnecessary trade barriers and
> standardization. Something I devote many hours a day promoting.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Derek.
>
> On Nov 7, 2022, at 11:45 AM, Doug Powell  wrote:
>
> Thanks John,
>
> As you can imagine mainstream media tends to give us a filtered view,
> with various unspoken motivations.  This is the very reason I do not rely
> upon a single source.  And of course, guidance provided on
> https://www.gov.uk
> 
> should always be viewed in its official capacity.
>
> I appreciate your insider's perspective,  -Doug
>
>
> Douglas E Powell
> Laporte, Colorado USA
> LinkedIn
> 
>
> (UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)
>
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 9:58 AM  wrote:
>
>> Doug & co
>>
>>
>>
>> I can only speak for myself and what I have seen & heard in the
>> mainstream broadcast media (don’t do Twitter, FB etc!).
>>
>>
>>
>> The majority viewpoint seems to be that it is far too late to do anything
>> in the short-medium term about re-joining the EU, even if there was another
>> referendum on the subject that said “Yes, Rejoin”. None of the main-stream
>> political parties are pushing for it *(at least those in England, but
>> there are very different views held by some parties in Wales, N. Ireland
>> and especially the SNP in Scotland!).*
>>
>>
>>
>> Thus I can’t see it happening “anytime soon”, if at all!
>>
>>
>>
>> FWIW: To state my personal perspective, I was very much in favour of the
>> UK joining in the first place many years ago because of my experiences of
>> the many “technical barriers to trade” which made exporting to the then
>> (IIRC!) Common Market countries really difficult due to all the differences
>> between them. Then, in the Referendum I was very much in favour of
>> Remaining in the EC & very disappointed in the (marginal!) result *(my
>> opinion of those who voted to leave was/still is fairly unprintable –
>> something about “cutting off your nose to spite your face”!)*
>>
>>
>>
>> John E Allen
>>
>> W. London, UK
>>
>> *From:* Doug Powell 
>> *Sent:* 07 November 2022 16:15
>> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] FW: Intertek message FYI: Important Update:
>> Pending Regulatory Change to UKCA Program
>>
>>
>>
>> I've been watching the latest UK news with interest.  From my perspective
>> in the US news media, it seems with the financial, energy, and PM woes,
>> there is a small movement discussing how BREXIT may have been a mistake.
>> Possibly John Allen can elaborate about how the locals feel about this, Is
>> there any real possibility of reverting to EU membership, or not?
>>
>>
>>
>> thanks,  -Doug
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Douglas E Powell
>>
>> Laporte, Colorado USA
>>
>> LinkedIn
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>> (UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 8:53 AM Richard Georgerian <
>> richa...@mesanetworks.net> wrote:
>>
>> Greetings all,
>>
>>
>>
>> As a follow-up to John Allen’s email below –
>>
>>
>>
>> Has the UK submitted and/or passed any legislation for the UKCA labelling
>> easement until December 31, 2025? Otherwise, the UKCA labelling starts on
>> December 31, 2022.
>>
>> I went to the www.gov.uk
>> 
>> website and there is no mention of the specific legislation. Just the
>> announcement that the UK *intends to submit* legislation for the
>> easement.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank-you,
>>
>>
>>
>> …Richard Georgerian
>>
>> Compliance Engineer
>>
>> HID Global
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* John E Allen <09cc677f395b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 4, 2022 9:01 AM
>> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> *Subject:* [PSES] FW: Intertek message FYI: Important Update: Pending
>> Regulatory Change to UKCA Program
>>
>>
>>
>> For anyone who has not seen this or something similar!
>>
>>
>>
>> John E Allen
>>
>> 

Re: [PSES] Pending Regulatory Change to UKCA Program

[John E Allen]

The original question related to the UK and EU certification regimes , but it 
seems to have “drifted” to the regimes across  the Pond !  That being the case, 
one might have “reminded” the marketing manager (and others of like mind) of 
the US legal framework and the effect of NOT  having the relevant safety/EMC 
certifications/”listings”  on potential sales, especially in states & cities 
where those are mandated by the local legislation AND on the likely penalties 
for non-compliance &/or after accidents and the resulting court cases!. 

 

FWIW, OTOH, over this side of the Pond (both in the UK & EU) we tend to have a 
more “measured” approach to enforcement (where we are quite similar) and the 
penalties for non-compliance tend to be somewhat lower (but differ between 
countries), and that’s not likely to change that much after BREXIT .

 

As regards the UK, the current political & financial “situations” are delaying 
a lot of frankly “more important” legislation that affects large sections of 
the population and so finalisation and implementation of the latter (and 
definitely should) takes  priority over changes in these certification regimes! 

 

On the thorny subject of “BREXIT or not”, in today’s modern (or  should be)  
World, I would generally prefer to be part of a  larger group of countries that 
have strong collective policies and targets – and with the “negotiating power” 
that comes with that – than be trying to work out and agree individual trade 
deals with all the large politico-economic  groupings elsewhere in the World.

 

That’s why I consider the issues around the perceived importance of UK national 
sovereignty is actually rather overrated and over-egged by quite a few 
politicians and, even more  sadly, a large proportion of what is a 
unfortunately large aging and poory-educated segment of the population (who 
still remember/dream of the old British Empire!) –  and can you the possible 
parallels “elsewhere but closer to home”??

 

John E Allen

W. London, UK 

 

From: Richard Nute  large 
Sent: 07 November 2022 19:40avi
To: emc-p...@listserv.ieee.ORGhere  
Subject: Re: [PSES] Pending Regulatory Change to UKCA Program

 

“It’s a fact the CE mark adds way tiomore cost than the return on investment of 
performance improvement.”

E p

Reminds me of a marketing manager saying to me that safety (and, I assume, 
safety certification and EMC) do not generate sales. p

 

Rich

 

-


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

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:
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> > 

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC 
 =1 


-

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

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:
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Pending Regulatory Change to UKCA Program

[Lfresearch]

Not the same analogy.

Sorry.

> On Nov 7, 2022, at 1:39 PM, Richard Nute  wrote:
> 
>  
> “It’s a fact the CE mark adds way more cost than the return on investment of 
> performance improvement.”
>  
> Reminds me of a marketing manager saying to me that safety (and, I assume, 
> safety certification and EMC) do not generate sales.
>  
> Rich
>  
> -
> 
> 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 
> 
> 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:
> 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>>
> 
> To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1 
> 

-

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

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:
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Pending Regulatory Change to UKCA Program

[Richard Nute]

 

“It’s a fact the CE mark adds way more cost than the return on investment of 
performance improvement.”

 

Reminds me of a marketing manager saying to me that safety (and, I assume, 
safety certification and EMC) do not generate sales.

 

Rich

 


-

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

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:
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] Intertek message FYI: Important Update: Pending Regulatory Change to UKCA Program

[Lfresearch]

Easy John, but first address my key issue with the EU: surrender of 
sovereignty. Period.

Second, EU is not the only trading market, something missed by members of the 
community. It’s a fact the CE mark adds way more cost than the return on 
investment of performance improvement. Not having to do this simplifies the 
route to market compliance and hence makes the product cheaper.

I could go on, but I have to teach today, I’d be happy to resume the discussion 
later.

BUT, reemphasize my first point: surrender of sovereignty. Period.

Cheers,

Derek.


> On Nov 7, 2022, at 1:04 PM, John Mcbain  wrote:
> 
> Hello Lfresearch -
> 
> Would you please explain to me how you reconcile "removal of unnecessary 
> trade barriers" and "encouraging for England [note: actually UK] to exit from 
> the EU"?
> Those views seem to be mutually incompatible, since Brexit has raised new 
> non-tariff trade barriers (additional certifications, markings, etc.).
> 
> Best regards,
> John McBain
> 
> 
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 10:14 AM Lfresearch 
> <00734758d943-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org 
> > wrote:
> I think most people have learned to not listen to MSM, but rely on 
> individuals in groups like this to further knowledge. It’s highly beneficial 
> to have working members, most without a dog in the fight, in multiple 
> economic zones.
> 
> That said, and to counterpoint a different position, I was originally in 
> favor of England joining the EU many years ago since the idea of removing 
> barriers to free trade is highly appealing.
> 
> HOWEVER, what has transpired while populations have been asleep at the wheel 
> is nothing other than a power grab of sovereignty: Totally unacceptable and 
> it was highly encouraging for England to exit from the EU and I hope other 
> will follow. I have a hope that the UK and the rest of the world can work 
> toward the removal of unnecessary trade barriers and standardization. 
> Something I devote many hours a day promoting.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Derek.
> 
>> On Nov 7, 2022, at 11:45 AM, Doug Powell > > wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks John,
>> 
>> As you can imagine mainstream media tends to give us a filtered view, with 
>> various unspoken motivations.  This is the very reason I do not rely upon a 
>> single source.  And of course, guidance provided on https://www.gov.uk 
>>  should always be viewed in its official capacity.  
>> 
>> I appreciate your insider's perspective,  -Doug
>> 
>> 
>> Douglas E Powell
>> Laporte, Colorado USA
>> LinkedIn 
>> 
>> (UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)
>> 
>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 9:58 AM > > wrote:
>> Doug & co
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I can only speak for myself and what I have seen & heard in the mainstream 
>> broadcast media (don’t do Twitter, FB etc!).
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> The majority viewpoint seems to be that it is far too late to do anything in 
>> the short-medium term about re-joining the EU, even if there was another 
>> referendum on the subject that said “Yes, Rejoin”. None of the main-stream 
>> political parties are pushing for it (at least those in England, but there 
>> are very different views held by some parties in Wales, N. Ireland and 
>> especially the SNP in Scotland!).
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Thus I can’t see it happening “anytime soon”, if at all!
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> FWIW: To state my personal perspective, I was very much in favour of the UK 
>> joining in the first place many years ago because of my experiences of the 
>> many “technical barriers to trade” which made exporting to the then (IIRC!) 
>> Common Market countries really difficult due to all the differences between 
>> them. Then, in the Referendum I was very much in favour of Remaining in the 
>> EC & very disappointed in the (marginal!) result (my opinion of those who 
>> voted to leave was/still is fairly unprintable – something about “cutting 
>> off your nose to spite your face”!)
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> John E Allen
>> 
>> W. London, UK
>> 
>> From: Doug Powell mailto:doug...@gmail.com>> 
>> Sent: 07 November 2022 16:15
>> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
>> Subject: Re: [PSES] FW: Intertek message FYI: Important Update: Pending 
>> Regulatory Change to UKCA Program
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I've been watching the latest UK news with interest.  From my perspective in 
>> the US news media, it seems with the financial, energy, and PM woes, there 
>> is a small movement discussing how BREXIT may have been a mistake.  Possibly 
>> John Allen can elaborate about how the locals feel about this, Is there any 
>> real possibility of reverting to EU membership, or not? 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> thanks,  -Doug
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Douglas E Powell
>> 
>> Laporte, Colorado USA
>> 
>> LinkedIn 
>>  
>> 
>> (UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)
>> 

Re: [PSES] Intertek message FYI: Important Update: Pending Regulatory Change to UKCA Program

[John Mcbain]

Hello Lfresearch -

Would you please explain to me how you reconcile "removal of unnecessary
trade barriers" and "encouraging for England [*note: actually UK*] to exit
from the EU"?
Those views seem to be mutually incompatible, since Brexit has raised new
non-tariff trade barriers (additional certifications, markings, etc.).

Best regards,
John McBain


On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 10:14 AM Lfresearch <
00734758d943-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:

> I think most people have learned to not listen to MSM, but rely on
> individuals in groups like this to further knowledge. It’s highly
> beneficial to have working members, most without a dog in the fight, in
> multiple economic zones.
>
> That said, and to counterpoint a different position, I was originally in
> favor of England joining the EU many years ago since the idea of removing
> barriers to free trade is highly appealing.
>
> HOWEVER, what has transpired while populations have been asleep at the
> wheel is nothing other than a power grab of sovereignty: Totally
> unacceptable and it was highly encouraging for England to exit from the EU
> and I hope other will follow. I have a hope that the UK and the rest of the
> world can work toward the removal of unnecessary trade barriers and
> standardization. Something I devote many hours a day promoting.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Derek.
>
> On Nov 7, 2022, at 11:45 AM, Doug Powell  wrote:
>
> Thanks John,
>
> As you can imagine mainstream media tends to give us a filtered view,
> with various unspoken motivations.  This is the very reason I do not rely
> upon a single source.  And of course, guidance provided on
> https://www.gov.uk should always be viewed in its official capacity.
>
> I appreciate your insider's perspective,  -Doug
>
>
> Douglas E Powell
> Laporte, Colorado USA
> LinkedIn 
>
> (UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)
>
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 9:58 AM  wrote:
>
>> Doug & co
>>
>>
>>
>> I can only speak for myself and what I have seen & heard in the
>> mainstream broadcast media (don’t do Twitter, FB etc!).
>>
>>
>>
>> The majority viewpoint seems to be that it is far too late to do anything
>> in the short-medium term about re-joining the EU, even if there was another
>> referendum on the subject that said “Yes, Rejoin”. None of the main-stream
>> political parties are pushing for it *(at least those in England, but
>> there are very different views held by some parties in Wales, N. Ireland
>> and especially the SNP in Scotland!).*
>>
>>
>>
>> Thus I can’t see it happening “anytime soon”, if at all!
>>
>>
>>
>> FWIW: To state my personal perspective, I was very much in favour of the
>> UK joining in the first place many years ago because of my experiences of
>> the many “technical barriers to trade” which made exporting to the then
>> (IIRC!) Common Market countries really difficult due to all the differences
>> between them. Then, in the Referendum I was very much in favour of
>> Remaining in the EC & very disappointed in the (marginal!) result *(my
>> opinion of those who voted to leave was/still is fairly unprintable –
>> something about “cutting off your nose to spite your face”!)*
>>
>>
>>
>> John E Allen
>>
>> W. London, UK
>>
>> *From:* Doug Powell 
>> *Sent:* 07 November 2022 16:15
>> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] FW: Intertek message FYI: Important Update:
>> Pending Regulatory Change to UKCA Program
>>
>>
>>
>> I've been watching the latest UK news with interest.  From my perspective
>> in the US news media, it seems with the financial, energy, and PM woes,
>> there is a small movement discussing how BREXIT may have been a mistake.
>> Possibly John Allen can elaborate about how the locals feel about this, Is
>> there any real possibility of reverting to EU membership, or not?
>>
>>
>>
>> thanks,  -Doug
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Douglas E Powell
>>
>> Laporte, Colorado USA
>>
>> LinkedIn 
>>
>>
>>
>> (UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 8:53 AM Richard Georgerian <
>> richa...@mesanetworks.net> wrote:
>>
>> Greetings all,
>>
>>
>>
>> As a follow-up to John Allen’s email below –
>>
>>
>>
>> Has the UK submitted and/or passed any legislation for the UKCA labelling
>> easement until December 31, 2025? Otherwise, the UKCA labelling starts on
>> December 31, 2022.
>>
>> I went to the www.gov.uk website and there is no mention of the specific
>> legislation. Just the announcement that the UK *intends to submit*
>> legislation for the easement.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank-you,
>>
>>
>>
>> …Richard Georgerian
>>
>> Compliance Engineer
>>
>> HID Global
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* John E Allen <09cc677f395b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 4, 2022 9:01 AM
>> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> *Subject:* [PSES] FW: Intertek message FYI: Important Update: Pending
>> Regulatory Change to UKCA Program
>>
>>
>>
>> For 

Re: [PSES] Intertek message FYI: Important Update: Pending Regulatory Change to UKCA Program

[Lfresearch]

I think most people have learned to not listen to MSM, but rely on individuals 
in groups like this to further knowledge. It’s highly beneficial to have 
working members, most without a dog in the fight, in multiple economic zones.

That said, and to counterpoint a different position, I was originally in favor 
of England joining the EU many years ago since the idea of removing barriers to 
free trade is highly appealing.

HOWEVER, what has transpired while populations have been asleep at the wheel is 
nothing other than a power grab of sovereignty: Totally unacceptable and it was 
highly encouraging for England to exit from the EU and I hope other will 
follow. I have a hope that the UK and the rest of the world can work toward the 
removal of unnecessary trade barriers and standardization. Something I devote 
many hours a day promoting.

Cheers,

Derek.

> On Nov 7, 2022, at 11:45 AM, Doug Powell  wrote:
> 
> Thanks John,
> 
> As you can imagine mainstream media tends to give us a filtered view, with 
> various unspoken motivations.  This is the very reason I do not rely upon a 
> single source.  And of course, guidance provided on https://www.gov.uk 
>  should always be viewed in its official capacity.  
> 
> I appreciate your insider's perspective,  -Doug
> 
> 
> Douglas E Powell
> Laporte, Colorado USA
> LinkedIn 
> 
> (UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)
> 
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 9:58 AM  > wrote:
> Doug & co
> 
>  
> 
> I can only speak for myself and what I have seen & heard in the mainstream 
> broadcast media (don’t do Twitter, FB etc!).
> 
>  
> 
> The majority viewpoint seems to be that it is far too late to do anything in 
> the short-medium term about re-joining the EU, even if there was another 
> referendum on the subject that said “Yes, Rejoin”. None of the main-stream 
> political parties are pushing for it (at least those in England, but there 
> are very different views held by some parties in Wales, N. Ireland and 
> especially the SNP in Scotland!).
> 
>  
> 
> Thus I can’t see it happening “anytime soon”, if at all!
> 
>  
> 
> FWIW: To state my personal perspective, I was very much in favour of the UK 
> joining in the first place many years ago because of my experiences of the 
> many “technical barriers to trade” which made exporting to the then (IIRC!) 
> Common Market countries really difficult due to all the differences between 
> them. Then, in the Referendum I was very much in favour of Remaining in the 
> EC & very disappointed in the (marginal!) result (my opinion of those who 
> voted to leave was/still is fairly unprintable – something about “cutting off 
> your nose to spite your face”!)
> 
>  
> 
> John E Allen
> 
> W. London, UK
> 
> From: Doug Powell mailto:doug...@gmail.com>> 
> Sent: 07 November 2022 16:15
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
> Subject: Re: [PSES] FW: Intertek message FYI: Important Update: Pending 
> Regulatory Change to UKCA Program
> 
>  
> 
> I've been watching the latest UK news with interest.  From my perspective in 
> the US news media, it seems with the financial, energy, and PM woes, there is 
> a small movement discussing how BREXIT may have been a mistake.  Possibly 
> John Allen can elaborate about how the locals feel about this, Is there any 
> real possibility of reverting to EU membership, or not? 
> 
>  
> 
> thanks,  -Doug
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Douglas E Powell
> 
> Laporte, Colorado USA
> 
> LinkedIn 
>  
> 
> (UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 8:53 AM Richard Georgerian  > wrote:
> 
> Greetings all,
> 
>  
> 
> As a follow-up to John Allen’s email below –
> 
>  
> 
> Has the UK submitted and/or passed any legislation for the UKCA labelling 
> easement until December 31, 2025? Otherwise, the UKCA labelling starts on 
> December 31, 2022.
> 
> I went to the www.gov.uk  website and there is no mention 
> of the specific legislation. Just the announcement that the UK intends to 
> submit legislation for the easement.
> 
>  
> 
> Thank-you,
> 
>  
> 
> …Richard Georgerian
> 
> Compliance Engineer
> 
> HID Global
> 
>  
> 
> From: John E Allen <09cc677f395b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org 
> > 
> Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2022 9:01 AM
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
> Subject: [PSES] FW: Intertek message FYI: Important Update: Pending 
> Regulatory Change to UKCA Program
> 
>  
> 
> For anyone who has not seen this or something similar!
> 
>  
> 
> John E Allen
> 
> W.London, UK
> 
>  
> 
> From: Intertek mailto:nore...@e.intertek.com>> 
> Sent: 03 August 2022 12:58
> To: john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk 
> 

Re: [PSES] Magnetic fields, human exposure standards, and pacemakers

[Dan Roman]

Hi Charles,

 

Yes, that would be my take.  They know a magnet is used to perform some tasks 
and they can’t be expected to investigate every fitness tracker or earbud 
magnet so a blanket CYA is appropriate.  If you think about the number of 
gadgets that have magnets in them it is really up to the pacemaker owner to 
watch out for themselves otherwise everything that had a magnet would have a 
warning sticker on it, furniture, jewelry boxes, speakers…

 

I think if I had one of these in my chest I would try it out by putting the 
charging cord in various positions but I am not going to subject my relative to 
that!

 

Dan

 

 

From: Chas Grasso [mailto:charles.gra...@dish.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2022 10:16 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Magnetic fields, human exposure standards, and pacemakers

 

Hello Dan, 

Dont you think that (irrespective of the warning ) the magnet on the DC cord is 
*much* weaker than a magnet used to penetrate through the thickness of the 
human body and then trigger the reed switches? My first thought is that the 
warning is there as a CYA? Perhaps?

 

On Sun, Nov 6, 2022 at 2:06 PM Dan Roman 
<0d75e04ed751-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org 
 > wrote:

 This message originated outside of DISH and was sent by: 
0d75e04ed751-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org 
  

 

  _  

Thank you everyone for the responses.  Contacting the customer support number 
gets you to someone who basically reads back what is on the website and the 
user manual, so it was not particularly helpful when trying to get to the 
specifics.

 

In a roundabout way through a friend of a friend I managed to arrange a phone 
call with someone from Boston Scientific that had technical engineering 
knowledge and could answer my questions.  The device in question is a 
pacemaker/defibrillator.  It happens to be MRI compatible but I didn’t get into 
what that means with respect to magnetic fields, I think it probably has a lot 
to do with not getting ripped out of your chest if you get an MRI.

 

Anyway, it has two sets of reed switches embedded in it.  One reed switch will 
react to a lower level magnet placed over it and that puts it into a fixed 
pacing mode.  This is used for diagnosing in the doctor’s office.  The magnet 
in a fitness tracker is not likely to be strong enough or to get close enough 
to turn on the fixed pacing mode during normal wear, but they still will tell 
you not to wear it to bed in case you contort in such a way when sleeping to 
cause an issue.

 

The second reed switch reacts only to a much stronger magnetic field and this 
is used to disable the defibrillator if you go in for an operation.  The 
anesthesiologist will apply a strong magnet over the device to disable it for 
the duration of the operation.  Makes sense that as that is easier than 
connecting up a programming device to disable it and then re-enable it and it 
can be easily turned off in an emergency situation with no need for a 
make/model specific programming set.

 

So the relative is going to keep the fitness tracker and not wear it to bed 
(most of the time).  They lose the sleep tracking but that is not of as much 
interest to them and they don’t have it when sleeping every few days to charge 
it overnight anyway.

 

Not sure if all devices work the same way but sounds like for simplification 
reasons this might be a standardized practice to make surgeon’s and other 
health care work easier.

 

I should have asked about how “MRI compatible” works!  Now I’m curious.

 

Dan

 

 

From: MIKE SHERMAN [mailto:msherma...@comcast.net 
 ] 
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2022 8:52 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: Re: [PSES] Magnetic fields, human exposure standards, and pacemakers

 

Dan -- 

 

I'd suggest that you have your relative call Support at the pacemaker/defib 
manufacturer. On a slightly different project, I found a lot of on-line 
information about device immunity, and I think we even called Support and got 
additional clarifying information. Go to the source!

Mike Sherman 

Sherman PSC LLC 

Product Safety and Compliance Consulting 

On 11/03/2022 11:32 AM Dan Roman 
<0d75e04ed751-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org 
 > wrote: 

 

 

Hello list!

 

I have a relative with an implanted pacemaker/defibrillator who recently got a 
fitness tracker that has a magnet for attachment/alignment of the charging 
cord.  There are warnings in the user manual advising against people with 
pacemakers using this product because of the magnets, which I assume are fairly 
strong rare earth types.  I looked up the DoC for the tracker and the EM field 
human exposure standards EN 50663 and EN 62479 are listed on the DoC.  My 
question 

Re: [PSES] FW: Intertek message FYI: Important Update: Pending Regulatory Change to UKCA Program

[Doug Powell]

Thanks John,

As you can imagine mainstream media tends to give us a filtered view,
with various unspoken motivations.  This is the very reason I do not rely
upon a single source.  And of course, guidance provided on
https://www.gov.uk should always be viewed in its official capacity.

I appreciate your insider's perspective,  -Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
LinkedIn 

(UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)

On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 9:58 AM  wrote:

> Doug & co
>
>
>
> I can only speak for myself and what I have seen & heard in the mainstream
> broadcast media (don’t do Twitter, FB etc!).
>
>
>
> The majority viewpoint seems to be that it is far too late to do anything
> in the short-medium term about re-joining the EU, even if there was another
> referendum on the subject that said “Yes, Rejoin”. None of the main-stream
> political parties are pushing for it *(at least those in England, but
> there are very different views held by some parties in Wales, N. Ireland
> and especially the SNP in Scotland!).*
>
>
>
> Thus I can’t see it happening “anytime soon”, if at all!
>
>
>
> FWIW: To state my personal perspective, I was very much in favour of the
> UK joining in the first place many years ago because of my experiences of
> the many “technical barriers to trade” which made exporting to the then
> (IIRC!) Common Market countries really difficult due to all the differences
> between them. Then, in the Referendum I was very much in favour of
> Remaining in the EC & very disappointed in the (marginal!) result *(my
> opinion of those who voted to leave was/still is fairly unprintable –
> something about “cutting off your nose to spite your face”!)*
>
>
>
> John E Allen
>
> W. London, UK
>
> *From:* Doug Powell 
> *Sent:* 07 November 2022 16:15
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] FW: Intertek message FYI: Important Update: Pending
> Regulatory Change to UKCA Program
>
>
>
> I've been watching the latest UK news with interest.  From my perspective
> in the US news media, it seems with the financial, energy, and PM woes,
> there is a small movement discussing how BREXIT may have been a mistake.
> Possibly John Allen can elaborate about how the locals feel about this, Is
> there any real possibility of reverting to EU membership, or not?
>
>
>
> thanks,  -Doug
>
>
>
>
>
> Douglas E Powell
>
> Laporte, Colorado USA
>
> LinkedIn 
>
>
>
> (UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 8:53 AM Richard Georgerian <
> richa...@mesanetworks.net> wrote:
>
> Greetings all,
>
>
>
> As a follow-up to John Allen’s email below –
>
>
>
> Has the UK submitted and/or passed any legislation for the UKCA labelling
> easement until December 31, 2025? Otherwise, the UKCA labelling starts on
> December 31, 2022.
>
> I went to the www.gov.uk website and there is no mention of the specific
> legislation. Just the announcement that the UK *intends to submit*
> legislation for the easement.
>
>
>
> Thank-you,
>
>
>
> …Richard Georgerian
>
> Compliance Engineer
>
> HID Global
>
>
>
> *From:* John E Allen <09cc677f395b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 4, 2022 9:01 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] FW: Intertek message FYI: Important Update: Pending
> Regulatory Change to UKCA Program
>
>
>
> For anyone who has not seen this or something similar!
>
>
>
> John E Allen
>
> W.London, UK
>
>
>
> *From:* Intertek 
> *Sent:* 03 August 2022 12:58
> *To:* john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk
> *Subject:* Important Update: Pending Regulatory Change to UKCA Program
>
>
>
> The UK Government has announced its intention to introduce new regulation
> as a principle ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌
>
>
>
>
>
> [image: Intertek]
> 
>
> [image: Total Quality. Assured.]
>
>
>
>
>
> *The UK is pending a regulatory change to their UKCA Program*
>
>
>
>
>
> The UK Government has announced its intention to introduce new regulation
> as a principle so to reduce the costs involved for the
> re-certification/re-testing of products for UKCA marking. This new
> regulation, when introduced (no timelines given), and based on the summary
> notice criteria, will effectively increase the acceptance of CE marking of
> products as a means of meeting UKCA marking requirements.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Until this new regulation is introduced, the current framework, timelines
> and conformity assessment process for UKCA 

[PSES] Intertek message FYI: Important Update: Pending Regulatory Change to UKCA Program

[Richard Georgerian]

Greetings all,

 

My apologies for sending the message again. I shortened the mail.

 

As a follow-up to John Allen’s email below –

 

Has the UK submitted and/or passed any legislation for the UKCA labelling 
easement until December 31, 2025? Otherwise, the UKCA labelling starts on 
December 31, 2022.

I went to the www.gov.uk   website and there is no mention 
of the specific legislation. Just the announcement that the UK intends to 
submit legislation for the easement.

 

Thank-you,

 

…Richard Georgerian

Compliance Engineer

HID Global


-

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

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:
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 
_
To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC=1

Re: [PSES] FW: Intertek message FYI: Important Update: Pending Regulatory Change to UKCA Program

[John E Allen]

Doug & co

 

I can only speak for myself and what I have seen & heard in the mainstream 
broadcast media (don’t do Twitter, FB etc!).

 

The majority viewpoint seems to be that it is far too late to do anything in 
the short-medium term about re-joining the EU, even if there was another 
referendum on the subject that said “Yes, Rejoin”. None of the main-stream 
political parties are pushing for it (at least those in England, but there are 
very different views held by some parties in Wales, N. Ireland and especially 
the SNP in Scotland!). 

 

Thus I can’t see it happening “anytime soon”, if at all!

 

FWIW: To state my personal perspective, I was very much in favour of the UK 
joining in the first place many years ago because of my experiences of the many 
“technical barriers to trade” which made exporting to the then (IIRC!) Common 
Market countries really difficult due to all the differences between them. 
Then, in the Referendum I was very much in favour of Remaining in the EC & very 
disappointed in the (marginal!) result (my opinion of those who voted to leave 
was/still is fairly unprintable – something about “cutting off your nose to 
spite your face”!)

 

John E Allen

W. London, UK

From: Doug Powell  
Sent: 07 November 2022 16:15
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] FW: Intertek message FYI: Important Update: Pending 
Regulatory Change to UKCA Program

 

I've been watching the latest UK news with interest.  From my perspective in 
the US news media, it seems with the financial, energy, and PM woes, there is a 
small movement discussing how BREXIT may have been a mistake.  Possibly John 
Allen can elaborate about how the locals feel about this, Is there any real 
possibility of reverting to EU membership, or not? 

 

thanks,  -Doug

 

 

Douglas E Powell

Laporte, Colorado USA

  LinkedIn

 

(UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)

 

 

 

On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 8:53 AM Richard Georgerian mailto:richa...@mesanetworks.net> > wrote:

Greetings all,

 

As a follow-up to John Allen’s email below –

 

Has the UK submitted and/or passed any legislation for the UKCA labelling 
easement until December 31, 2025? Otherwise, the UKCA labelling starts on 
December 31, 2022.

I went to the www.gov.uk   website and there is no mention 
of the specific legislation. Just the announcement that the UK intends to 
submit legislation for the easement.

 

Thank-you,

 

…Richard Georgerian

Compliance Engineer

HID Global

 

From: John E Allen <09cc677f395b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org 
 > 
Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2022 9:01 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: [PSES] FW: Intertek message FYI: Important Update: Pending Regulatory 
Change to UKCA Program

 

For anyone who has not seen this or something similar!

 

John E Allen

W.London, UK

 

From: Intertek mailto:nore...@e.intertek.com> > 
Sent: 03 August 2022 12:58
To: john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk  
Subject: Important Update: Pending Regulatory Change to UKCA Program

 

The UK Government has announced its intention to introduce new regulation as a 
principle ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌  




 

 



 

 


   




 

 



The UK is pending a regulatory change to their UKCA Program

 





 


The UK Government has announced its intention to introduce new regulation as a 
principle so to reduce the costs involved for the re-certification/re-testing 
of products for UKCA marking. This new regulation, when introduced (no 
timelines given), and based on the summary notice criteria, will effectively 
increase the acceptance of CE marking of products as a means of meeting UKCA 
marking requirements.

 



 

 





 


Until this new regulation is introduced, the current framework, timelines and 
conformity assessment process for UKCA marking remains, in that from 01 January 
2023, CE marking will no longer be accepted when placing product onto the Great 
Britain Market.

 



 

 





 


The full details of the UK Government announcement can be found here 

 . Please refer to the 22 June update.

 





 



 

Re: [PSES] FW: Intertek message FYI: Important Update: Pending Regulatory Change to UKCA Program

[Doug Powell]

I've been watching the latest UK news with interest.  From my perspective
in the US news media, it seems with the financial, energy, and PM woes,
there is a small movement discussing how BREXIT may have been a mistake.
Possibly John Allen can elaborate about how the locals feel about this, Is
there any real possibility of reverting to EU membership, or not?

thanks,  -Doug


Douglas E Powell
Laporte, Colorado USA
LinkedIn 

(UTC -06:00) Mountain Time (US-MDT)



On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 8:53 AM Richard Georgerian 
wrote:

> Greetings all,
>
>
>
> As a follow-up to John Allen’s email below –
>
>
>
> Has the UK submitted and/or passed any legislation for the UKCA labelling
> easement until December 31, 2025? Otherwise, the UKCA labelling starts on
> December 31, 2022.
>
> I went to the www.gov.uk website and there is no mention of the specific
> legislation. Just the announcement that the UK *intends to submit*
> legislation for the easement.
>
>
>
> Thank-you,
>
>
>
> …Richard Georgerian
>
> Compliance Engineer
>
> HID Global
>
>
>
> *From:* John E Allen <09cc677f395b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org>
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 4, 2022 9:01 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* [PSES] FW: Intertek message FYI: Important Update: Pending
> Regulatory Change to UKCA Program
>
>
>
> For anyone who has not seen this or something similar!
>
>
>
> John E Allen
>
> W.London, UK
>
>
>
> *From:* Intertek 
> *Sent:* 03 August 2022 12:58
> *To:* john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk
> *Subject:* Important Update: Pending Regulatory Change to UKCA Program
>
>
>
> The UK Government has announced its intention to introduce new regulation
> as a principle ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌
>
>
>
>
>
> [image: Intertek]
> 
>
> [image: Total Quality. Assured.]
>
>
>
>
>
> *The UK is pending a regulatory change to their UKCA Program*
>
>
>
>
>
> The UK Government has announced its intention to introduce new regulation
> as a principle so to reduce the costs involved for the
> re-certification/re-testing of products for UKCA marking. This new
> regulation, when introduced (no timelines given), and based on the summary
> notice criteria, will effectively increase the acceptance of CE marking of
> products as a means of meeting UKCA marking requirements.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Until this new regulation is introduced, the current framework, timelines
> and conformity assessment process for UKCA marking remains, in that from 01
> January 2023, CE marking will no longer be accepted when placing product
> onto the Great Britain Market.*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The full details of the UK Government announcement can be found here
> .
> Please refer to the 22 June update.
>
>
>
>
>
> *READ THE UPDATE*
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *On Introduction of The New Regulation*
>
>
>
>
>
> In summary, product conformity assessment will see the following changes:
>
>
>
>- Completed conformity assessment activities carried out on product
>under EU requirements (including existing testing, certification, and
>contractual arrangements relating to the quality control or auditing of
>existing certificates) undertaken by non-UK conformity assessment bodies
>(EU Notified Bodies accredited by their national accreditation body) for CE
>certification before 1 January 2023 to be used by manufacturers to declare
>existing product types as compliant with UKCA.
>- Products must still bear UKCA marking and will need to undergo
>conformity assessment with a UK Approved Body at the expiry of the
>certificate or after 5 years (31 December 2027), whichever is sooner.
>- Manufacturers to apply the UKCA mark without the need for any
>UK-recognised CAB involvement and continue to place their goods on the
>market, on the basis of their existing CE type examination completed before
>31 December 2022, for the lifetime of the certificate issued, or until 31
>December 2027 (whichever is sooner).
>- Conformity assessment procedures not completed and supported by a CE
>certificate issued before 1 January 2023, 

Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] UKCA marking replaces the CE on 01/01/2023

[Lauren Crane]

Hi Amund,

This https://www.legislation.gov.uk/search is a good source and offer 
consolidated legislation. The documents are a bit of a mess of amendments 
because they took the base SIs that implemented CE and then did spot amendments 
to realize them as UKCA/UKNI documents. Most have sections aside for Great 
Britain (E+W+S) and Northern Ireland (N.I.), so read carefully.

I've also noticed at least one, the Supply of Machinery Safety Regulations 
(read MD), need more work as it refers to "related state" in some areas where 
it should be either "Great Britain" or "United Kingdom".

The UK gov has a web page devoted to high level concerns for each Statutory 
Instrument. One point they make about the DoC is to *not* make a UKCA 
declaration with the CE Declaration. Use two separate documents.

Note also the promise on a few of those dedicated websites (e.g., for EMCD & MD 
& LVD equivalents) there is a promise the labeling transition period will be 
extended to Jan 2026. This means a physical UKCA (and other info) label is not 
required on the product as long as it appears in the product documentation. I 
have not, however, seen a draft SI amendment extending that date But then 
things are a mess in the UK right now.

Best Regards,
-Lauren

From: Amund Westin 
Sent: Sunday, November 6, 2022 10:27 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] SV: [PSES] UKCA marking replaces the CE on 01/01/2023



External Email: Do NOT reply, click on links, or open attachments unless you 
recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you believe this email 
may be unsafe, please click on the "Report Phishing" button on the top right of 
Outlook.



Where manufacturers are using existing CE certification completed before 1 
January 2023 as the basis to demonstrate compliance with UKCA for their 
products, we recommend that they include in the UK Declaration of Conformity 
the list of relevant UK designated standards and equivalent EU harmonised 
standards that apply to their product, as well as details of the EU CAB (or CAB 
recognised under an EU Mutual Recognition Agreement) which carried out the 
conformity assessment procedures.


  *   So, for the UK Declaration of Conformity, it could be a copy of existing 
EU/CE Doc, but with UK standards included together with the EN standards. Right?

BR
Amund



Fra: Amund Westin
Sendt: 7. november 2022 07:15
Til: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Emne: [PSES] UKCA marking replaces the CE on 01/01/2023

.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-make-it-simpler-for-businesses-to-apply-new-product-safety-markings

Where can we find the UK legislation which apply from 01/01/2023?



Best regards

Amund
-


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

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

Re: [PSES] FW: Intertek message FYI: Important Update: Pending Regulatory Change to UKCA Program

[Richard Georgerian]

Greetings all,

 

As a follow-up to John Allen’s email below –

 

Has the UK submitted and/or passed any legislation for the UKCA labelling 
easement until December 31, 2025? Otherwise, the UKCA labelling starts on 
December 31, 2022.

I went to the www.gov.uk   website and there is no mention 
of the specific legislation. Just the announcement that the UK intends to 
submit legislation for the easement.

 

Thank-you,

 

…Richard Georgerian

Compliance Engineer

HID Global

 

From: John E Allen <09cc677f395b-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> 
Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2022 9:01 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] FW: Intertek message FYI: Important Update: Pending Regulatory 
Change to UKCA Program

 

For anyone who has not seen this or something similar!

 

John E Allen

W.London, UK

 

From: Intertek mailto:nore...@e.intertek.com> > 
Sent: 03 August 2022 12:58
To: john_e_al...@blueyonder.co.uk  
Subject: Important Update: Pending Regulatory Change to UKCA Program

 

The UK Government has announced its intention to introduce new regulation as a 
principle ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌ ͏‌  




 

 



 

 


   




 

 



The UK is pending a regulatory change to their UKCA Program

 





 


The UK Government has announced its intention to introduce new regulation as a 
principle so to reduce the costs involved for the re-certification/re-testing 
of products for UKCA marking. This new regulation, when introduced (no 
timelines given), and based on the summary notice criteria, will effectively 
increase the acceptance of CE marking of products as a means of meeting UKCA 
marking requirements.

 



 

 





 


Until this new regulation is introduced, the current framework, timelines and 
conformity assessment process for UKCA marking remains, in that from 01 January 
2023, CE marking will no longer be accepted when placing product onto the Great 
Britain Market.

 



 

 





 


The full details of the UK Government announcement can be found  

 here. Please refer to the 22 June update.

 





 



 

 READ THE UPDATE

 



 

 




 

 



On Introduction of The New Regulation

 





 


In summary, product conformity assessment will see the following changes: 

 

*   Completed conformity assessment activities carried out on product under 
EU requirements (including existing testing, certification, and contractual 
arrangements relating to the quality control or auditing of existing 
certificates) undertaken by non-UK conformity assessment bodies (EU Notified 
Bodies accredited by their national accreditation body) for CE certification 
before 1 January 2023 to be used by manufacturers to declare existing product 
types as compliant with UKCA.
*   Products must still bear UKCA marking and will need to undergo 
conformity assessment with a UK Approved Body at the expiry of the certificate 
or after 5 years (31 December 2027), whichever is sooner.
*   Manufacturers to apply the UKCA mark without the need for any 
UK-recognised CAB involvement and continue to place their goods on the market, 
on the basis of their existing CE type examination completed before 31 December 
2022, for the lifetime of the certificate issued, or until 31 December 2027 
(whichever is sooner).
*   Conformity assessment procedures not completed and supported by a CE 
certificate issued before 1 January 2023, these products are considered ‘new’ 
products. This also includes where goods are subject to important changes, 
overhauling its original performance, purpose, or type requiring new 
certification. Any ‘new’ good must comply with GB regulatory requirements, 
including the requirement for conformity assessment by a UK approved body from 
1 January 2023.

 



 

 





The new legislation when introduced concerning UKCA marking effect only the 
following UK Regulations: 

 

*   Noise Emission in the Environment by Equipment for Outdoor Use 
Regulations 2001
*   Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 

Re: [PSES] Magnetic fields, human exposure standards, and pacemakers

[Chas Grasso]

Hello Dan,

Dont you think that (irrespective of the warning ) the magnet on the DC
cord is *much* weaker than a magnet used to penetrate through the thickness
of the human body and then trigger the reed switches? My first thought is
that the warning is there as a CYA? Perhaps?

On Sun, Nov 6, 2022 at 2:06 PM Dan Roman <
0d75e04ed751-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:

> * This message originated outside of DISH and was sent by:
> 0d75e04ed751-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org
> <0d75e04ed751-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> *
> --
>
> Thank you everyone for the responses.  Contacting the customer support
> number gets you to someone who basically reads back what is on the website
> and the user manual, so it was not particularly helpful when trying to get
> to the specifics.
>
>
>
> In a roundabout way through a friend of a friend I managed to arrange a
> phone call with someone from Boston Scientific that had technical
> engineering knowledge and could answer my questions.  The device in
> question is a pacemaker/defibrillator.  It happens to be MRI compatible but
> I didn’t get into what that means with respect to magnetic fields, I think
> it probably has a lot to do with not getting ripped out of your chest if
> you get an MRI.
>
>
>
> Anyway, it has two sets of reed switches embedded in it.  One reed switch
> will react to a lower level magnet placed over it and that puts it into a
> fixed pacing mode.  This is used for diagnosing in the doctor’s office.
> The magnet in a fitness tracker is not likely to be strong enough or to get
> close enough to turn on the fixed pacing mode during normal wear, but they
> still will tell you not to wear it to bed in case you contort in such a way
> when sleeping to cause an issue.
>
>
>
> The second reed switch reacts only to a much stronger magnetic field and
> this is used to disable the defibrillator if you go in for an operation.
> The anesthesiologist will apply a strong magnet over the device to disable
> it for the duration of the operation.  Makes sense that as that is easier
> than connecting up a programming device to disable it and then re-enable it
> and it can be easily turned off in an emergency situation with no need for
> a make/model specific programming set.
>
>
>
> So the relative is going to keep the fitness tracker and not wear it to
> bed (most of the time).  They lose the sleep tracking but that is not of as
> much interest to them and they don’t have it when sleeping every few days
> to charge it overnight anyway.
>
>
>
> Not sure if all devices work the same way but sounds like for
> simplification reasons this might be a standardized practice to make
> surgeon’s and other health care work easier.
>
>
>
> I should have asked about how “MRI compatible” works!  Now I’m curious.
>
>
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* MIKE SHERMAN [mailto:msherma...@comcast.net]
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 03, 2022 8:52 PM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: [PSES] Magnetic fields, human exposure standards, and
> pacemakers
>
>
>
> Dan --
>
>
>
> I'd suggest that you have your relative call Support at the
> pacemaker/defib manufacturer. On a slightly different project, I found a
> lot of on-line information about device immunity, and I think we even
> called Support and got additional clarifying information. Go to the source!
>
> Mike Sherman
>
> Sherman PSC LLC
>
> Product Safety and Compliance Consulting
>
> On 11/03/2022 11:32 AM Dan Roman <
> 0d75e04ed751-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ieee.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Hello list!
>
>
>
> I have a relative with an implanted pacemaker/defibrillator who recently
> got a fitness tracker that has a magnet for attachment/alignment of the
> charging cord.  There are warnings in the user manual advising against
> people with pacemakers using this product because of the magnets, which I
> assume are fairly strong rare earth types.  I looked up the DoC for the
> tracker and the EM field human exposure standards EN 50663 and EN 62479 are
> listed on the DoC.  My question is do these standards and the similar IEC
> 62233 give a reasonable assurance that a pacemaker would not be interfered
> with or are these standards purely concerned with biological effects on the
> human body only?  I would expect the pacemaker to be immune to a certain
> extent if it is FDA listed and complies with IEC 60601-1-2.  I don’t know
> the model number of their device but I would expect them all to be
> similar.  Do they need to send back their fitness tracker?  Or is the
> warning just thrown in because the lawyers wanted it?
>
>
>
> Although products I work on need to meet these types of standards, I don’t
> have much familiarity with these exposure standards because my products
> have never failed
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> __
> Dan Roman, N.C.E.
>
> Senior Member
>
> IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society
>
> 

Re: [PSES] SV: [PSES] UKCA marking replaces the CE on 01/01/2023

[James Pawson (U3C)]

Hi Amund,

 

The legislation used instead of the CE marking directives is almost identical 
to the EU Directives (pre-brexit we ‘nationalised’ EU directives like the EMC 
Directive), but with some post-brexit wording changes e.g.

 

Notified Body --> Approved Body

Harmonised Standards --> Designated Standards

 

The ‘electrical and electronic’ section of this guidance page 

  links to the equivalents for the LVD, EMCD and RED.

 

The list of Designated Standards can be found here 
 . You’ll notice that the 
references are mainly regular “EN x” and not “BS EN x”. I can’t find 
any BS EN in the EMC list. (I think they realised how much work it was going to 
be to update all references to BS EN and then decided to just adopt the 
existing EU HS list)

 

All the best

James

 

James Pawson

Managing Director & EMC Problem Solver

 

Office hours:

My mornings are reserved for full attention on consultancy, testing, and 
troubleshooting activities for our customers’ projects.

I am otherwise contactable between 1300h to 1730h from Monday to Friday.

For inquiries, bookings, and testing updates please send us an email on 
he...@unit3compliance.co.uk   or call 01274 
911747.

Our lead times for testing and consultancy are typically 4-5 weeks.

 

Unit 3 Compliance Ltd

EMC : Environmental & Vibration : Electrical Safety : CE & UKCA : Consultancy

 

  www.unit3compliance.co.uk  |   
 ja...@unit3compliance.co.uk 

+44(0)1274 911747  |  +44(0)7811 139957

2 Wellington Business Park, New Lane, Bradford, BD4 8AL

Registered in England and Wales # 10574298

 

 

 

From: Amund Westin  
Sent: 07 November 2022 06:27
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] SV: [PSES] UKCA marking replaces the CE on 01/01/2023

 

 

Where manufacturers are using existing CE certification completed before 1 
January 2023 as the basis to demonstrate compliance with UKCA for their 
products, we recommend that they include in the UK Declaration of Conformity 
the list of relevant UK designated standards and equivalent EU harmonised 
standards that apply to their product, as well as details of the EU CAB (or CAB 
recognised under an EU Mutual Recognition Agreement) which carried out the 
conformity assessment procedures.

 

*   So, for the UK Declaration of Conformity, it could be a copy of 
existing EU/CE Doc, but with UK standards included together with the EN 
standards. Right?

 

BR

Amund

 

 

 

Fra: Amund Westin 
Sendt: 7. november 2022 07:15
Til: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Emne: [PSES] UKCA marking replaces the CE on 01/01/2023

 

«The UK Conformity Assessed (UKCA) mark is a mandatory mark on certain 
products, for example mobile phones, to indicate that they conform to Great 
Britain legislation. Businesses have until 1 January 2023 to start using UKCA 
marking which replaces the CE and reverse epsilon markings now that we have 
left the European Union».

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-make-it-simpler-for-businesses-to-apply-new-product-safety-markings

Where can we find the UK legislation which apply from 01/01/2023?

 

Best regards

Amund

-


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

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:
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> > 

  _  

To unsubscribe from the EMC-PSTC list, click the following link: 
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=EMC-PSTC 
 =1 

-


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

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:
Mike