for the MD.
Lauren Crane
KLA-Tencor
From: Crane, Lauren [mailto:lauren.cr...@kla-tencor.com]
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 9:56 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Partly Completed Machinery...or not???
UK's HSE has several guidance documents related to lifting operations an
UK's HSE has several guidance documents related to lifting operations and
lifting equipment regulations that frustratingly do not specifically address
pulleys or sheaves.
Ref http://www.hse.gov.uk/work-equipment-machinery/loler.htm
The site I posted earlier with a ce marked pulley was
John,
I am inclined to agree with you - that a pulley can/should be CE marked as
lifting equipment, though I can't quite connect the dots.
I do see many adverts for CE marked pulleys using EN 13157 and citing the MD.
e.g., http://www.harkenindustrial.com/product/ce-pulleys/
Lauren Crane
Thank you, Nick!
Lauren Crane
KLA-Tencor
From: Nick Williams [mailto:nick.willi...@conformance.co.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 3:29 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] EC Blue Guide
A new edition of the Commission’s Blue Guide has been published:
I thought some in this group might be interested in this FCC proposal
(notification is from the EU WTO monitor).
Lauren Crane
KLA-Tencor
-Original Message-
From: grow-tbt-mail...@ec.europa.eu [mailto:grow-tbt-mail...@ec.europa.eu]
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 11:31 AM
To: Crane
Hello all,
I am looking for some insight on how to understand the certification status of
a UPS that was originally UL Certified but is being resold after having spent
some time with another owner.
I see in the UL YEDU.GuideInfo for Uninterruptible Power-supply Equipment a
paragraph which
Thanks all for the great feedback. You've provided exactly the information and
ideas I was looking for.
Lauren Crane
KLA-Tencor
-
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post
Note that the EU RTTED is replaced by RED this year in June.
DIRECTIVE 2014/53/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 16 April
2014 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
making available on the market of radio equipment and repealing Directive
There is an intriguing aspect of Michaels original question. He states the
object is an “industrial personal computer in an industrial plant for
measurement purposes.” There seems to be significant ambiguity related to what
“test” means in 15.103c… particularly, is it to mean A. test device for
, February 04, 2016 11:16 AM
To: Crane, Lauren
Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Updated ECHA REACH guidance
Hi Lauren,
Does the amendment become effective immediately? ECHA just amended the
guidance document after a couple of months. Does EU need to amend the
regulation later
I’ve been tracking this for a year or so now and working with a SEMI industry
working group to follow it. The European Court of Justice did issue their final
opinion and it does introduce a disruptive understanding of ‘article’. The
evolving vocab. Is now ‘simple’ articles vs. ‘complex’
All the issues being raised regarding possible variability must be known to the
members of various standards committees. Does anyone know that the issues are
*not* taken into account when the committees set test levels? If standards are
followed, including any instructions regarding EUT
Hello all,
Does anyone know of a good reference document for RoHS compliant materials
(e.g. grades of steels and aluminums) and finishes (e.g., gold chromate
conversion), or even one stating which common materials and finishes are *not*
RoHS compliant?
Regards,
Lauren Crane
KLA-Tencor
-
It's likely fairly easy for an importer to label the product if they just have
a good space to put it.
The new blue guide paints a slightly different picture of when an item is
placed on the market vs. imported.
Regards,
Lauren Crane
KLA-Tencor
From: Jim Hulbert [mailto:jim.hulb...@pb.com]
A Declaration of Incorporation is only applicable to the Machinery Directive.
All other CE Marking directives applicable to a product must have a Declaration
of Conformity. I have seen some all in one documents that are titled as
Declarations of Incorporation but have compliance declarations
Dave,
The MD applies to equipment put into service even for own use. The
Commission's MD guide contains a lot of explanation about this concept.
Regards,
Lauren Crane
KLA-Tencor
-Original Message-
From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 21,
Yes,
That's the latest edition I know of.
Regards,
Lauren
-Original Message-
From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 12:36 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG; Crane, Lauren
Subject: RE: EU Machinery directive scope for in-house use
If I have a product that uses ISM frequencies but can pass Part 15 testing
criteria, can I simply consider it a Part 15 device? This would, for example,
allow me to ignore the unique Part 18 documentation criteria in 18.213
Regards,
Lauren Crane
KLA-Tencor
-
I think common sense dictates the word ‘translation’ should translated to the
intended reader’s language so they know they are not viewing the original.
Regards,
Lauren
From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 8:51 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject:
Be sure to take a look at the new version of the LVD directive 2014/35/EU
effective April 2016.
There is significant new content about such administrative issues (formal
non-compliance).
Regards,
Lauren Crane
KLA-Tencor
From: Ron Baugh [mailto:ron...@verifone.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015
Michael,
Do you think this applies to the case for installing a finished product? For
example if I make and industrial machine and install a wireless keyboard that
is already RTTE certified, have I created a new item (i.e. the machine) that
must be assessed for RTTE conformance?
I think the
Does anyone know of any conformance assessor certification schemes that have
provisions requiring the applicant to demonstrate familiarity with the
standards to which they will be assessing?
I am familiar with a couple lab certification schemes that appear to focus on
general business
When having a computer system EMC tested, and different hard disk options are
expected to be used over time, but the exact details (e.g. part number) of
those hard disks is not yet known other than the requirement that they be
certified on their own to relevant EMC standards, is there a
Experts,
I am considering industrial machinery that might include as components all
manner of devices (fluorescent lights, control computers, monitors, PWM motor
drives, various sensors) and what radiated emission limits might be in either
the CE or FCC realm.
In the case that ISM devices
I was just strolling through this part of WEEE2 (2012/19EU) last week. EN 50419
has the black-bar requirement and says it represents a product which entered
the market after 13Aug2005.
WEEE2 says Member States shall ensure that producers appropriately mark -
preferably in accordance with the
TOB,
The EU legislature faces this same problem (many other official documents
reference a particular directive by number) and nicely declares e.g. in Article
45 of the EMC Directive “References to the repealed Directive shall be
construed as references to this Directive and shall be read in
Those of you who muck around with REACH candidate list concern might be
interested in this
On February 12, 2015, the Advocate-General, an advisor to the court, issued an
opinion on this issue.
article from Hunton and Williams -
06, 2015 2:35 PM
To: Crane, Lauren; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] Where to find National Deviations in English?
Hi Lauren,
I am curious if you have received any other responses. Over the years I have
collected the following deviations/definitions for South Korea per KN 22 and KN
Experts,
I would like to know the South Korean national deviations to CISPR 22 and 24.
Should I expect to find them in the IEC English publication of those standards,
or are they only available in an English translation of the related Korean
Norms (e.g., KN 22 and KN 24)?
Regards,
Lauren
Experts,
EN 60825-1:2007 is currently listed to the LVD as providing presumption of
conformity.
I was expecting to find, but do not see, an Annex in EN 60825-1:2007 stating
which LVD essential requirements it addresses.
EN 60825-1:2014 is published but is not yet listed to the LVD. It also
Dave
A DoI is only defined for the Machinery Directive, it has no application for
other directives (though perhaps your suppliers are not aware of this).
I would not pass-on a supplier's paperwork (e.g., DoCs) with your own product,
but retain them in your technical file as a partial basis
Hi, Richard,
For sure the EU Pressure Equipment Directive. I know Japan and Singpore both
have high pressure gas laws but I'm less familiar with their scopes (i.e.,
equipment design vs. bottles for transportation).
Regards,
Lauren Crane
KLA-Tencor
From: W Richard Gartman
Pete,
I do not think seismic stability is in scope of the MD concerns, nonetheless
for EU seismic concerns take a look at EN 1998-1: Eurocode 8: Design of
structures for earthquake resistance - Part 1: General rules, seismic actions
and rules for buildings and consider the requirements for
Tony,
The ‘trick’ is that directives are not “addressed” to manufacturers, or any
other economic actor, but rather they are addressed to member states of the EU.
Therefore, ‘coming into effect’ means member states have to consider themselves
put on notice to do what the directive instructs
Dear Experts,
I am doing a deep dive into ISM equipment requirements for the first time. I
*think* I see a difference in interpretation of ISM equipment between the US
and EU regulations.
US (FCC Part 18) seems to limit the ISM concept to equipment that essentially
uses radio frequency to do
The manufacturer stated on a nameplate can be entirely different from the
formal country of origin (coo). Thus my iphone manufactured by Apple USA
probably has a coo (according to US rules) of China.
My little experience of coo designation rules is that they can be very tricky.
Regards,
Lauren
The market surveillance regulation (for all kinds of non-consumer products) is
split from the consumer product safety regulation
You can find a lovely map of legislative progress for the CPSR in the
“Legislative Observatory” here
Estonia might give you an answer. My experience is their help desk responds to
questions within 2 days.
Regards,
Lauren Crane
KLA-Tencor
-Original Message-
From: Rick Busche [mailto:rick.bus...@qnergy.com]
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 8:33 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
I recently received notice that a new version of EN IEC 61000-4-5:2014 (based
on IEC ed. 3) is released.
I see that this standard does not (directly) give presumption of conformance to
the EMC directive (i.e., it is 'unlisted'), but a standard that *is* listed
(61000-6-2) references it as an
the standard has physically been made available on or after the
'dav' date, it has not officially been published until the dop date.
Regards,
Lauren
From: Crane, Lauren [mailto:lauren.cr...@kla-tencor.com]
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 12:33 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES
published edition available), it seems I must use that edition immediately!?
Yuck.
But perhaps no one enforces to this fine point detail?
Regards,
Lauren
From: Crane, Lauren [mailto:lauren.cr...@kla-tencor.com]
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 12:58 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES
, 8 Sep 2014, Crane, Lauren lauren.cr...@kla-tencor.com
writes:
And then cites IEC 61000-4-5 as an undated reference (which indeed has
a new ?published? edition available), it seems I must use that edition
immediately!?
When this, or a similar, issue has been raised in CENELEC in the past, it has
It seems to me the only reasonable interpretation is A (All symbols).
If that were *not* the correct answer it would imply either 1) the IEC/ISO
symbols were perfectly self-explanatory (and I think they are not), or 2) that
users of the product would know to go to the specific IEC/ISO
Having tracked development of the proposed Market Surveillance Regulation, and
stared for hours at NLF model language now incorporated in LVD... it is
frustrating how ambiguous the actionable criteria are for this sort of thing.
Authorities may act on Risk, but there is no risk assessment
The RTTE is replaced, in part by the RED (Radio Equipment Directive –
2014/53/EU) which covers the ‘use of spectrum’ topic and no longer calls for
the alert symbol.
From RED …
“Article 50
Repeal
Directive 1999/5/EC is repealed with effect from 13 June 2016.
References to the repealed Directive
Jim,
Was this for an EMCD issue, or other? The reason I ask is I think that only the
EMCD explicitly presses for keeping up with state of the art in its essential
requirements (e.g., LVD and MD do not). Which might mean that an insistence on
latest-and-greatest is reasonable for EMC
Carl,
Is this item a finished product or a component? The MD guide suggests
components are not in scope (though contracts might require conformance as much
as practicable to help ensure the final finished product conforms ).
“The Machinery Directive does not apply as such to separate machinery
CENELEC has a corrigendum that is free through many standards distributors (I
got mine from Estonia)
Corrigendum to EN 60204-1:2006
English version
___
Annex ZZ
(informative)
Coverage of Essential Requirements of EC Directives
This European Standard has been prepared under a mandate
July 2019.
Hope that helps
Regards,
Lauren Crane
KLA-Tencor
-Original Message-
From: Nick Williams [mailto:nick.willi...@conformance.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 6:53 AM
To: Crane, Lauren
Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] RoHS on Hardware
Lauren,
Are you able
Thanks very much, Brian.
Regards,
Lauren Crane
KLA-Tencor
-Original Message-
From: Brian Jones [mailto:e...@brianjones.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 3:37 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] New Radio Equipment Directive
Everyone
The Radio Equipment Directive
I am puzzling over a notion that it is prudent to exercise connectors in power
circuits every once in while (e.g., disconnect and reconnect them). I suppose
the underlying idea is to scrape the touching surfaces and potentially disrupt
forming oxides or accumulated pollution. I saw the other
One nuance of the RoHS challenge, is its potential impact to the used equipment
market. As recent discussions here have shown, it's hard enough to 'prove'
conformance for products currently in production. Even more so for used
products that will be newly on the EU market (imported). Since it
Of course, RoHS applies to all otherwise-in-scope second-hand products made at
any time that are newly placed on the EU market (from a per-unit perspective,
not a per-model line perspective).
It has recently been interpreted (by Commission and other authorities) as
prohibiting the resale of
Thanks, Mike.
Regards,
Lauren
From: Mike Sherman - Original Message - [mailto:msherma...@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 8:27 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN 60204-1 Degrees of Protection
Jim --
Yes, but surprises do happen. I once had some very
In the eyes of the new legislative framework (and other legislation groups),
retailers are the same as distributors (or at least a retailer is a type of
distributor). A specific natural or legal person might be a couple economic
operators. It is possible to be both a manufacture and a
With regard to determining whether the gas is Class 2 or not (as required by
the TPED), the UN ADR is essentially equivalent to the relevant annex of the
Inland Transport of Dangerous Goods. Ref
http://www.unece.org/trans/danger/publi/adr/adr2013/13contentse.html
Regards,
Lauren Crane
Adding to John's comments
Responsibilities for economic operators (manufacturer, importer, authorized
representative, distributor) are given in fairly fine detail. If the company
importing your product into Europe is not closely affiliated with your extra-EU
manufacturing site (e.g., if
Dear Experts,
I have some questions about 61010 creepage and clearance testing...
It looks like much of the testing requirements apply to over voltage category
(OVC) II circuits (e.g., 6.7.2 6.7.3).
a) How does one demonstrate a circuit is OVC I instead?
b) If it is OVC I, are
Hello, Experts,
I was just working on an internal RoHS guidance document and was struck by an
idea out of the blue that might make a good topic for EMC-PTSC Friday
discussion
Wouldn't an analog compass be considered in scope of RoHS?
It seems to meet the EEE definition as it is dependent
Thanks, Doug. That's a much more precise description (and exactly what I was
thinking of).
Regards,
Lauren
From: Douglas Nix [mailto:d...@mac.com]
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 12:24 PM
To: Crane, Lauren
Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Compases and RoHS
Lauren,
Great topic
Amund,
I think the key to the spare parts issue for the EMC directive is in the
definition of apparatus. Flowchart 2 in the guidance document does a good job
of helping with classification of items as apparatus or not. The answer depends
partially on what *you* mean by spare part, and
Does anyone have a clear idea as to what regulating network means in
61010-1:2010 section 9.4?
The Other Brian asked a similar question in 2009, but did not get an answer
(ref https://www.mail-archive.com/emc-pstc@listserv.ieee.org/msg60829.html )
Borrowing from his message (and updating to
, Crane, Lauren lauren.cr...@kla-tencor.com
writes:
Does anyone have a clear idea as to what ?regulating network? means in
61010-1:2010 section 9.4?
It's not a defined term, so any static 'network' (circuit) that meets the
electrical requirements is acceptable. But something that depends on software
See
http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/energyefficiency/sites/energyefficiency/files/files/documents/ICT_CoC/code_of_conduct_for_eps_version_5_-_final.pdf
Search term was EU external power supplies 2014
Note Tier 1 on page 4 has a date of 1/1/2014.
I have no idea what legal weight a Code of Conduct
Dear Experts,
I am now facing a decision that had until now been nicely absent from my
work Is a *slightly* mechanical piece of laboratory equipment (a microscope
with an automated stage) a machine in scope of the MD?
I have reviewed the archived PSTC discussions about fans, and similar
3b7899306eab4de3946ef526fd0c7...@blupr03mb119.namprd03.prod.outlook.com
, dated Mon, 9 Dec 2013, Crane, Lauren lauren.cr...@kla-tencor.com
writes:
Does anyone know where these type-designators come from and what they
mean
Probably from a manufacturer's catalogue. 'What they mean' is surely given
Hello experts,
I am dealing with a client specification where they indicate which types crimp
on terminal lugs they can and cannot accept in their product. It is a Korean
company and they are using the following designations (the description is from
an accompanying illustration)
R-Type - all
IME CCC works/applies by HTS code. The US Dept. of Commerce site on CCC has a
list of Chinese HTS codes in scope. See what HTS code your product is shipped
as, and check it against the list.
Regards,
Lauren Crane
KLA-Tencor
From: McInturff, Gary [mailto:gary.mcintu...@esterline.com]
Sent:
Perhaps discussion of DoI vs. DoC is getting tangled. A DoI is a concept only
available to the MD, and because it is related to a machine that is partly
complete, it must include a list of the MD Annex I essential heath and safety
requirements that have been applied and fulfilled. The
, November 19, 2013 10:02 AM
To: EMC-PSTC; Crane, Lauren
Subject: Re: [PSES] EN 50581 part/range of parts
Lauren and others,
I have read (I believe carefully) this FAQ.
From Q8.14 and Directive Article 7(g) I see that product identification can be
batch number. For my understanding it is not unique
Piotr,
Reading the EU Commission's FAQ on RoHS2 might help you
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/rohs_eee/pdf/faq.pdf.
Components (i.e. things not intended for direct sale to the end user) are not
considered to be in scope of RoHS (even though they fit the definition of EEE).
It has to do
Think of REACH as a broad collection of requirements loosely related by the
topic of concern over substance properties. Some, like registration have
tonnage thresholds. Others, like notifying recipients of Candidate List
substances making up more than 0.1% of an items weight, do not have any
I think the only correct answer is it depends. Perhaps the best practical
answer is You should always be concerned to the extent you learn how a
particular regulation treats spare parts
Each destination country regulation will treat spare parts differently. Some
regulations are silent, some
In a previous thread I noted EN 61000-6-4:2007 now had A1:2011 as the cited
reference for EMCD presumption of conformity. I was trying to understand if
this absolutely meant retesting of products conforming to EN 61000-6-2:2007
was needed.
The sage advice I got from the group was
1. The
Experts,
I'm getting into some new (for me) territory, looking at a system with a
battery charger and a sealed, no maintenance, lead acid battery. The battery
charger claims an IUU charging profile and assessment to the subject standards.
I have read the standard's abnormal operation section
The description of needing a test plan may be a fair summary of the forth
bullet in the declaration requirements.
2. EC declaration of conformity
The EC declaration of conformity must contain, at least, the following:
- a reference to this Directive,
- an identification of the apparatus to which
For those who have a penchant for developing regulations, or have legal or
policy groups you can set on the challenges, the EU is rapidly working on a new
market surveillance regulation that will amend all CE marking directives and a
bit more. The base Commission proposal as well as the 300+
Yes, Richard, this is a fun one! It is related to a so-called
“safe-for-transport certificate” (very rough English translation). If an item
looks like it could be a DG you need to get a cert saying that it is not. Li
batteries are particularly difficult.
Only certain recognized labs/companies
Thanks for the helpful replies so far. I should clarify in this case the
regulatory context is Korea – ENs are essentially equivalent to KNs.
Regards,
Lauren Crane
KLA-Tencor
From: msherma...@comcast.net [mailto:msherma...@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 3:18 PM
To: Crane, Lauren
Cc
Dear Experts,
A test lab is suggesting that because EN61000-6-4:2007 will be superseded in
2014, all conforming products must be retested to the new standard, even if no
changes have occurred in the product.
Is this a fair claim?
Regards,
Lauren Crane
KLA-Tencor
-
It is important to note that when the scope shift happens in WEEE (in 2018, I
think), the old RoHS-like categories dies, and new ones are born. Two new
categories come on line that are essentially large things and small things.
I figure everything will fit in either of those two buckets, if not
A great source for WEEE and batteries MS info.
http://www.b2bweee.com/
Regards,
Lauren Crane
KLA-Tencor
From: Dan Roman, N.C.E. [mailto:danp...@verizon.net]
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 8:59 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Databases of WEEE registrations
Hello list members.
Dear Experts,
Do any of you have experience using SafeGard CC-3400 - an electrically
conductive RoHS compliant chemical conversion coating for aluminum,
particularly as a substitute for gold alodining?
I am particularly interested in an technical challenges for conversion, chassis
supplier
Brian,
Regarding #1, note that directives (like RoHS2) now end in EU instead of EC.
John W. can probably correct this, but I believe there was a change in the
founding documents for the European Region (e.g., Treaty of Rome is replaced by
Treaty of Lisbon, or some such formality) and it may
thousands of products labeled and warehoused ready to be shipped to
the EU when the person quits. Nightmare.
The Other Brian
From: emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto:emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On
Behalf Of Nick Williams
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 6:39 PM
To: Crane, Lauren
Cc: EMC-PSTC
In the Machinery Directive
1. If a manufacturer has designated an Authorized Representative, the AR
name must be marked on the machine (ref Annex I, 1.7.3 1st indent).
2. A person must be identified in the Declaration of Conformity who is
established in the EU and is
I have experience with the question, but no experience getting a good answer.
I have had the opinion that test and measurement equipment is different from
monitoring and control equipment, but apparently, many companies used the old
WEEE+RoHS exclusion from RoHS for monitoring and control
Dear Experts, I am looking for help in understanding how to correctly address
LVD concerns within the RTTED.
The RTTED has three main concerns (essential requirements),
1. Radio spectrum issues [art. 3.2]
2. Low voltage safety [art. 3.1.a] - LVD
3. Electromagnetic
Gary
AFIK none of the CE marking directives address replacement parts explicitly
(with a couple exceptions). Several of the directives have established in their
guidance materials that the directives apply only to so-called finished
products - which can be loosely defined (sometimes just by
Brian
Reselling some other company's product in another region is known as
gray-marketing. The model of laptop you acquire in the US might not be the one
intended by the OEM for sale in Europe. Just because the OEM might be well
established, does not mean your company is acting according to
Thanks for the links, Ted.
Some context on the EU legislative process - The document Ted provided the
links to is the input proposal from the EU Commission to the Council and the
Parliament. As those two houses debate things, amendments to the Commission
proposal will be put forward and argued
class.
Hi Lauren
Is this over the air 1700 kHz transmission or conducted over wire or AC mains?
best regards
Tom Cokenias
On Apr 10, 2013, at 4:00 PM, Crane, Lauren wrote:
I am looking for advice on how to determine the EU RTTE class of a product.
The product has a base station and a sensor
,
Lauren
-Original Message-
From: T.Sato [mailto:vef00...@nifty.ne.jp]
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 5:43 AM
To: Crane, Lauren
Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: How to determine EU RTTE class.
On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 23:00:27 +,
Crane, Lauren lauren.cr...@kla-tencor.com wrote
I am looking for advice on how to determine the EU RTTE class of a product.
The product has a base station and a sensor. The battery powered sensor can be
taken out of the base station and used elsewhere to do its sensing thing, and
then be brought back to the base station for charging and
Scott,
Thanks for sharing this.
I wonder how their exclusion logic works(rhetorical) If a RoHS exemptions
lets you put Hg in, does this, then make you take it back out? If you are
excluded from RoHS, even though your product is EEE, is it in scope of this
Danish legislation.
Regards,
Just got word of a proposed new EU market surveillance regulation amending
everything CE (including existing new legislative framework legislation?).
https://tsapps.nist.gov/notifyus/docs/wto_country/EU/full_text/pdf/EU99(english).pdf
It has some pretty big boots, including requiring economic
I received a nice response from Ms. Roithova (the parliamentarian who proposed
a change to point 1 language in the LVD recast). She says the LVD recast
language has been changed in negotiations and the current version does not
mention unique identification. So the problem may be solved for the
.namprd03.pro
d.o utlook.com, dated Mon, 25 Feb 2013, Crane, Lauren
lauren.cr...@kla-tencor.com writes:
John, since you ask...(but perhaps you only meant the re-scoping)...
I did mean the re-scoping.
The RTTE recast is also be stepping forward with the unique
equipment number requirement
John, since you ask...(but perhaps you only meant the re-scoping)...
The RTTE recast is also be stepping forward with the unique equipment number
requirement in the DoC which seems to require 1 DoC per unit (rather than 1 DoC
per model line).
As I've mentioned in a previous post, this is also
Is 'ELF' (as in 'ELF EMI testing') well established in any region(s) (US, EU,
etc...) as a particular frequency set, or is it primarily a subjective term for
low-ish frequencies?
If the former, document citations would be very much appreciated.
Regards,
Lauren Crane
KLA-Tencor
P.S. I
1 - 100 of 176 matches
Mail list logo