The What's Inside Product Safety...

Product Safety Newsletter •

What's InsideTheProductSafetyNewsletter

Vol. 8, No. 1 January-February 1995

Chairman's Message

Important Message:Please Read and Respond

In the near future, the Product Safety TechnicalCommittee (EMC TC-8), as we now know it, willcease to exist. For the last six years we haveformally existed as a technical committee of theEMC Society but in reality have functioned moreas an IEEE society. The EMC Society leadership

in the past has been very tolerant in allowing us thefreedom to function as we have; however, therehas been a change of leadership and TC-8 has beendirected to reform itself to function as a traditionaltechnical committee. A typical technical commit-tee has six to ten members whose primary focus ison technical programs and publications associ-ated with the annual International EMC Sympo-sium. TC-8’s scope will be restricted to electro-magnetic safety and all who participate must bemembers of IEEE’s EMC Society. As a normaltechnical committee, there is no framework forlocal chapters, substantial publications and otherfeatures of a Society. So it’s clear there will bechanges ahead.

Continued on Page 16

Chairman’s Message ................................... 1Officers of the PSTC’s ................................ 2Lighting Emitting Diode ............................. 3Area Activities ............................................ 4

CB Scheme Primer ...................................... SNews and Notes ........................................... 6Product Safety via Internet ......................... 7Article Abstracts ......................................... 8VLF, ELF & Laser Publications ................ 9Laser Safety Standards in Europe ............ 10

Institutional Listings ................................. 22Employment Wanted ................... back page


The

ProductSafetyNewsletter

Central CommitteeChairman: Brian Claes Phone: (510) 659 6574

Fax: (510) 659 6852Vice Chair: Richard Pescatore Phone: (408) 447 6607 e-mail: [email protected]/ John McBain Phone: (415) 919 8426 e-mail: [email protected]: Fax: (415) 919 8504Symposium: Murlin Marks (408) 985 2400 e-mail: [email protected]

Local GroupsCHICAGO

Chairman: John Allen Phone: (708) 238 0188SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA/ORANGE COUNTY

Chair/Sec.: Charlie Bayhi Phone: (714) 367 0919Vice-Chair/Treas: Ercell Bryant Phone: (714) 589 0700PORTLAND

Chairman: Scott Varner Phone: (503) 656 8841 e-mail: [email protected]/Treasure:SANTA CLARA VALLEY

Chairman: Murlin Marks Phone: (408) 985 2400x2353 e-mail: [email protected] Chair/Program: Edward KarlTreasure: Mark Montrose Phone: (408) 247 5715Secretary: Parviz BoozarpourPhone: (510) 527 7593SEATTLE

Chairman: Walt Hart Phone: (206) 356 5177 e-mail: [email protected] Chair: John Quigley Phone: (206) 226 1660TEXAS (CENTRAL)Chair Vic Baldwin Phone: (512) 990 6145Vice Chair Charlie GoertzSecretary/Treasure: Daniece Carpenter

Newsletter CommitteeEditor Roger Volgstadt Fax: (408) 285 2553 e-mail: [email protected]

Tandem ComputersM/S 55-5310300 North Tantau Avenue,Cupertino, CA 95014

News & Notes David Edmunds Fax: (716) 422 6449 e-mail: [email protected] Editor: John Reynolds Fax: (408) 526-8348 e-mail: [email protected] Layout: Kristin Eckhardt Fax: (804) 560-5342Subscriptions Dave McChesney Fax: (408) 296 3256Institutional Listings Ervin Gomez Fax: (408) 553 7694 e-mail: [email protected]

The Product Safety Newsletter is published bimonthly by the Product Safety TechnicalCommittee of the IEEE EMC Society. No part of this newsletter may be reproduced without writtenpermission of the authors. All rights to the articles remain with the authors.

Opinions expressed in this newsletter are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the Technical Committee or its members. Indeed, there may be and often are substantialdisagreements with some of the opinions expressed by the authors.

Subscriptions are free and may be obtained by contacting Dave McChesney at 1865 FarndonAve., Los Altos, Ca. 94024


Beware the Light Emitting Diode

A recent development has caused a greatdeal of intense activity by a standards body. TheInternational Electrotechnical Commissions Tech-nical Committee 76 (IEC TC76) found itself thefocus of worldwide concern over itsamended stan-dard IEC 825-1, Safety of Laser Products - Part l.Published in November 1993, 825-1 cancels andreplaces IEC 825, published in 1984 and sinceamended. In section 1.1 Scope, the followingstatement appears in 825-1: “Throughout thispart I light emit-ting diodes(LED) arc in-cluded wher-e ever the wordlaser is used.”Thus, IECTC76 not onlyregulated LEDs for the first time, but, by applyingthe same classification criteria to LEDs as to la-sers, LEDs were severely overclassified. SafeLED applications, such as infrared remote con-trols and visible LED front panel displays wouldnot be Class I (safe under reasonably foreseeableconditions of operation), but could be as high asClass 3 (Direct intrabeam viewing of these lasers{LEDs} is always hazardous.). Any classificationabove Class I requires labeling at least, and mayin some cases, prevent operation at all!

While IEC Standards are intended to beinternational, they are usually adopted on a coun-try by country basis. However, the EuropeanCommunity for Electrotechnical Standardiza-tion (CENELEC) has taken IEC 825-1 and has

published it as a European Norm, EN60825-1.Thus, for most European countries, LEDs wouldbe regulated after I March 1995.

To be fair to the IEC, 825-1 should nothave been a surprise to companies around theworld, yet it was. Members of IEC TC76 madeattempts to enlist participation by members ofindustry during the formulation of the new stan-dard. Whether industry turned a deaf ear to theIEC TC76 entreaties (how often do mid and high

levc1 managersassign re-sources to non-i m m e d i a t eproblems?), orthe entreatiesthemselves werenot effectively

m a d e (most TC76 mem-bers are far removed fromthe manufacturing world), industry remainedmainly ignorant of the impending standard change.

To be fair to industry, TC76 could havemade more of an effort to become aware of theover classification of safe LED applications bythe new standard. The committee understandsoptics and human physiology quite well. How-ever, this did not happen during the creation of825-1.

Late in 1993, several companies had po-tential impact of the new standard brought to theirattention through customer inquiries. A field sales

“While IEC Standards are intended tobe international, they are usuallyadopted on a country bycountry basis...”

Continued on page 18


Northwest Chapter


Area Activities

Committee Business: Jim Pierce has re-signed as the committee chairman due to addi-tional commitments. In order to continue the meet-ings, Scott Varner will act as temporary chair-man until a new chairman can be elected or the groupcan decide the next course of action.

Subject: “On going developments in ITErequirements: Looking at the next incarnation ofIEC 950 by TC74”

The presentation was a review of theweek-long meetings of TC74/WG7 and WG8followed by the TC74 Plenary. These groups aredeveloping the next update to IEC 950, which willbe the 3rd edition of the standard. Since the detailsare voluminous, the presentation focused on thestrategy for moving ahead and gave examples ofsome of the standard.

The speaker was Mr. Peter E. Perkins.Mr. Perkins was a staff member at Tektronix for34 years, 17 as Manager of Corporate ProductSafety and Regulatory Affairs. Mr. Perkins is aregistered Professional Electrical Engineer in thestate of Oregon, a registered Professional QualityEngineer in the state of California and a CertifiedProduct Safety Manager.

Regular meetings will resume in Januaryafter the Holiday season. [Thanks to Scott Vamerfor the info on the Northwest Chapter - Ed.]

The November meeting of the PSTC washeld at Hewlett Packard in Cupertino. The meet-ing started with chapter Chairman Murlin Marksgiving a short overview of the local chapteractivities. Dan Wienberg made another solicitation forvolunteers to set-up and man demonstrations atthe San Jose Museum of Science and Technology.Vice-Chair, Edward Karl, then went over theupcoming year’s schedule of speakers.

Ms. Kathy O’Connor of Applied Materi-als, Inc. gave a presentation on Risk Assessment.Ms. O’Connor discussed how to determine whethera hazard presents an acceptable or unacceptablelevel of risk. How do you prioritize known hazardsfor corrective action? When do we decide whichone to pursue? The risk presented by a hazard is

by John Reynoldsvoice: (408) 526-8364; fax: (408) 626-8348e-mail: [email protected]

Santa Clara Valley Chapter



CB Scheme Primerby Gene Panger,TUV Product Services

The CB Scheme is a group of certificationbodies organized to provide mutual recognitionof tests performed in accordance with InternationalElectrotechnical Commission (IEC) standards.‘CB Scheme’ is shorthand for “The Scheme of theIECEE for the Recognition of Results of Testingto Standards for Safety of Electrical Equipment.”Originally organized under the International Com-mission for Conformity Certification of ElectricalEquipment (CEE), the CB Scheme was blendedinto the IEC in 1985. The organization’s charter isspelled out in the IEC document “IECEE 02:Rules and Procedures of the Scheme of the IECEEfor the Recognition of Results of Testing to Stan-dards for Safety of Electrical Equipment, SecondEdition, May 1992 (Sections 1-6 and Annexes A,B, C).” The Scheme is supervised by the Commit-ties of Certification Bodies (CCB) which reports tothe Management Committee (IECEE-MC) which,in turn, reports to the IEC Council. Regularupdates of CB Scheme activity are found in itspublication, “CB Bulletin.”

The following 30 countries arc repre-sented in the CB Scheme by one or more members:Austria, Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, CzechRepublic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany,Greece, Hungary, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy,Japan, Korea, Netherlands, New Zealand (Asso-ciate), Norway, Poland, Russia, Singapore, Swe-den, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom,United States, and Yugoslavia.

In simple terms, all National Certifica-tion Bodies (NCBs) of thc CB Scheme are com-mitted to providing their certification marks basedon a single set of tests done by one of the membersprovided that the originating member tested all ofthe appropriate differences relevant to the countryin which certification is being sought. Confidencewithin the group is based on the fact that eachmember’s laboratory has been approved by theCB Scheme’s assessment group. While existingaccreditation is expected to be taken into account(Section 5.3.ld), the Scheme was organized be-fore broad-based, mutually recognized accredita-tion schemes were developed across Europe.

The mechanics of the Scheme are suchthat:

1) Test is done at an Issuing NCB(Body One)

2) CB Test Report and CB Certifi-cate arc requested in addition tocertification mark

3) CB Test Report and CB Certifi-cate are taken to a RecognizingNCB (Body Two)

4) Body Two reviews results andperforms any additional testingdue to country differences. If nodifferences, Body Two acceptsBody One’s results and issuesits certification license and mark.

This means that, in theory, re-testingshould never be necessary-particularly if coun-try differences have been considered. This would


by Dave Edmundsfax: (716) [email protected]


News and Notes

IEC PRESIDENT ELECT

Mr. Bernard H.Falk begins a one yearterm of office as President elect of the IECeffective January 1,1995. Mr.Falk replaces Dr.Hans Gissc1 whose term one year term expires.

HORIZONTAL COMMITTEES

The Committee of Action (COA) of theTEC is emphasizing the importance of horizon-tal work by assigning horizontal functions to 12TC (Technical Committees). Some of these TCand their horizontal function are:

TC 74 - Preparation of requirements forthe safety of products to be connected to telecom-munication networks, including requirements tomaintain safety levels of such networks.

TC 77- Electromagnetic compatibilitySC 65A - Functional safety of electrical elec-tronic/programmable electronic systems, in-cluding safety related software.

LIGHTNING SIMULATOR

Inchape’s ETL Testing Laboratories in Cortland,NY announced on November 7th, 1994 the open-ing of anew lightning testing facility. This facility

will focus on products such as tools for electricalworkers and household lightning protection equip-ment. For additional information contact CheriHart at (508) 689-9353

The editor wishes to thank Mr. MoeLamothe of M. A. Lamothe and Associates Inc. ofOntario, Canada for permission to extract thefollowing material from their “Approvals Re-view” newsletter, Vol. 6, Issue No.4, Fall, 1994:

UL 1459

Section 70 of UL 1459 covers the specificrequirements for DC powered telephone equip-ment. Par. 70.5 via para. 14.2 requires that equip-ment intended for field wiring provide a termina-tion method consistent with the NEC. For fieldwiring, this has been interpreted to mean thatequipment must provide for the use of conduit,raceway or armored cable to terminate the fieldwiring. UL has reviewed this restriction for equip-ment intended for installation in restricted accesslocations. The NEC allows exposed wiring sys-tems as long as the wiring is “protected againstphysical damage” and the maintenance of thesystem is by ‘qualified Personnel.’ UL will nowaccept the systems that are intended to be poweredfrom centralized DC power systems and whicharc marked for ‘use in restricted access locations’without requiring these systems to have specialwiring boxes, fittings for conduit, knockouts. etc.


Product Safety Via Internet

Effective December 1, 1994, individualsinterested in discussing product safety issues amongtheir peers may do so on the Internet, thanks to theIEEE. By simply following the directions notedbelow, IEEE Members and non-members alikecan now draw on the vast resources and talent ofeach other to discuss product safety related topics.

The following is a brief background. Sev-eral months ago, the staff at the PSN recognizedthat an un moderated discussion group on e-mailwould help members in our professioncommuninicate with each other. Additionally, ifthose discussions were subsequently archived, wecould form a database from which to draw forfuture reference. None of us had access to be kindof hardware it would take to make the above areality. That is when we turned to the IEEE andasked for their help. They responded with a de-scription of various services that they offered andthe PSN staff chose the “Unmoderated DiscussionGroup” e-mail forum. The following are the sa-lient features of the group.

1. Anyone can join. By simply sending amessage to the IEEE, (see below for details),anyone interested in product safety topics can beadded to the discussion group. This activity iscompletetly automated by the IEEE.

2. Any user can send to the distributionlist. By simply addressing the server at the IEEE,your message is automatically distributed to ev-eryone who has joined.

3. Any replies are sent to the list. Bysimply addressing the IEEE’s server from whichyou receive a message, all users will see anyresponses you send. Of course, you can alsoaddress just the author, but then the group lossesthe benefit of your insight.

4. Archiving occurs. Messages are auto-matically archived. Following the directions notedin the help file (see item 3), you can view a list offiles in the the archive as well as request themessage(s) themselves.

HOW TO USE THE DISCUSSIONGROUP:

1. How to Subscribe and Unsubscribe:The only way to subscribe is to send an e-mailmessage to: [email protected] place the following command in the body ofthe message:

subscribe emc-pstc <your - email_address>

(Do not include the brackets < or >. Theonly way to unsubscribe (ie: remove your namefrom the EMC-PSTC) is to send an e-mail mes-sage to: [email protected] place the following command in the body ofthe message:

unsubscribeemc-pstc <your - email_address>

(Do not include the brackets < or > ).Please note that if you have a registered IEEE E-Mail alias, you should use your alias as the e-mailaddress for the subscription. ie:



Continued 19

Product Safety Article Abstracts

by Dave Lorusso(508) 435-1000x2130(508) 435-5067 (fax)

“The Design of Manual Handling Tasks; Re-vised Tables of Maximum Acceptable Weightsand Forces” Stover H. Snook and Vincent M.CirielloLiberty Mutual Insurance Company,71 Frankland Road, Hopkinton, MA 01748“Ergonomics, 1991”, Vol. 34, No. 9, 1197-1213

Abstract: Four new manual handling experimentsare reviewed. Thc experiment used ma]e andfemale subjects to study lifting, lowering, push-ing, pulling, and carrying tasks. Each experimentused a psychophysical methodology with mea-surements of oxygen consumption, heart rate, andanthropometric characteristics. Independent vari-able included task frequency, distance, height andduration; object size and handles; extended hori-zontal reach; and combination tasks. The resultsof the four experiments were integrated with theresults of seven similar experiments publishedpreviously by this laboratory. The integrated datawere used to revise maximum acceptable weightsand forces originally published in 1978. Therevised tables are presented and compared withthe Original tables.

“Revised MOSH Equation for the Design andEvaluation of Manual Lifting Tasks” ThomasR. Waters+, Vern Putz-Anderson+, ArunGarg*, and Lawrence J. Fine++National Insti-tute for Occupational Safety and Health, 4676Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, OH 45226 *De-partment of Industrial and Systems Engineer-ing, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, WI53201“Ergonomics, 1993”, Vol. 36, No.7, 749-776

Abstract: In 1985, the National Institute for Occu-pational Safety and Health (NIOSH) convened anad hoc committee of experts who reviewed thecurrent literature on lifting, recommend criteriafor defining lifting capacity, and in 1991 devel-oped a revised lifting equation. Subsequently,NIOSH developed the documentation for the equa-tion and played a prominent role in recommendingmethods for interpreting the results of the equa-tion. The 199] equation rcf1ects new findingsand provides methods for evaluating asymmetricallifting tasks, lifts of objects with less than optima:hand-container couplings, and also provides guide-lines for a larger range of work durations andlifting frequencies than the 1981 equation. Thispaper provides the basis for selecting the threecriteria (biomechanical, physiological, andpsychophysical) that were used to define thc 1991equation, and describes thc derivation of theindividual components (Puz-Anderson and Waters1991). The paper also describes the lifting index(LI), and index of relative physical stress, thatcan be used to identify hazardous lifting tasks. Al-

Product Safety Newsletter • Continued on page 11

VLF, ELF and Laser Publications

by David Baldwin, Hewlett Packard

Guidance to protect workers from radiationemissions from VDTs and the possible effects ofelectric and magnetic fields to workers health areaddressed in two new publications available fromthe UN’s International Labor Office. Workingconditions and procedures needed to safety manu-facturer, maintain, and operate laser devices arccovered in another new guide, the ILO said in arecent announcement.

ILO has a series of publications aimed exclusivelyat occupational safety and health. The publica-tions are based on results of ILO research andstudies. Among the new titles:

* Visual Display Units; Radiation ProtectionGuidance (53 pages; OS&H series, No. 70;ISBN 92-2-10862-8; $12);

* Protection of Workers From Power FrequencyElectric and Magnetic Fields; A Practical Guide(62 pages; OS&H Series. No. 69; ISBN 92-2-108261-X; $16); and

* The Use of Lasers in the Workplace; A Practi-cal Guide (62 pages; OS&H Series, No. 68; ISBN92-2-108260-1; $14).

ILO also has reference books on job safety issues,including a five-language glossary containingwords and expressions used in workplace safetyand health (530 pages; ISBN 92-90]6-002-2;

$76) and a two-volume encyclopedia of occupa-tional health and safety totaling more than $2,500pages (ISBN 92-2-103289-2; $250).

To purchase these books, or for further informa-tion, contact the ILO Publications Center, 49Sheridan Avenue, Department A, Albany, N.Y.,12210; (418) 436-9686, ext. ]23; fax: (518) 436-7433. Orders must include the ISBN number.

•••••••••••••••••••••••“The Questions of Health Effects from Exposureto Electromagnetic Fields.” W.R. Hendee andI.C.Boteler;HealthPhys.,66(2): 127-136(1994).Possible health effects of exposure to low-inten-sity electric and magnetic fields (EMFs) are re-viewed, with many references, due to increasedattention in the scientific literature and, especiallyin the public media. Lab research at the cellularand whole animal 1evel has demonstrated variousbiological effects that may be related in somemanner to the effects of EMF exposure on people.However, the exact mechanisms of this relation-ship are far from clear. The studies suggest thatEMFs might be cancer promoters but are unlikelyto be cancer initiators. At the level of humanepidemiology, about 50 studies have examined thepossible correlation of EMF exposures with adultand childhood cancers. Although the possibilityof a correlation is weak, it cannot be discouragedand further research is needed. In the meantime,a practice of “prudent avoidance” of prolongedexposure to EMFs is warranted. �


Laser Safety Standards in Europe

This paper reviews the present state of the stan-dards-making process in Europe, explaining sucharcane terms as ‘CEN’, ‘CENELEC’, ‘Euronorm’and ‘directive’. Standards-making bodies inEurope work to strict guidelines with regard totheir relationship to member countries of theEEC and EFTA, and work closely with the inter-national standards bodies, IEC and ISO, to mini-mize duplication of effort and to ensure minimumconflict with international standards. The cur-rent situation with regard to laser safety stan-dards in Europe is reviewed, and the authorspeculates on some possible future developments.

INTRODUCTION

The process of standards-making in Eu-rope changed radically in recent years as theEuropean Community moved towards the singlemarket. The changes, which are intended toensure that differing national standards will notnegate the intentions of the move to a single marketby continuing to impose effective barriers to trade,are as yet little understood within Europe let alone

in the USA. In this paper I attempt to shed somelight on this obscure, essential1y boring, but com-mercially important subject.

EUROPEAN STANDARDSORGANIZAIONS

Supranational bodies

There are three supranational standardsorganizations within Europe: CEN, CENELEC’and ETSI. In 1982, an agreement on workrepartition was signed between CEN andCENELEC, but it was not until 1991 that the threeorganizations reached agreement defining the ba-sis of their cooperation. An important element ofthe agreement is that every effort should be madein planning the technical work to ensure thatexperts are not obliged to deal with a subject in_ more than one technical body. The substance ofthe tripartite agreement is summarized in thefollowing statement in the agreement: ‘The for-

B.A. TozerLasermet Ltd. and City University, London, UK

[Permission to reprint this article has been granted by the Journal of Laser Applications. The Journal

of Laser Applications /., the official publication of the Laser Institute of America (LIA), and publishes

both basic and applied technical papers covering all applications or laser and electro-optics. Safety

and regulatory interest articles (not necessary for review) are welcome. LIA is a secretariat to the ANSI

2136 Sate Use of Lasers accredited standards committee. For a sample copy of their publication, author

information, or Laser Institute of America membership, please contact John R. Dyer, Managing Editor,

3763 Sylvan Wood Dr., Sylvania, Ohio 43560, Phone/Fax: 419-841-7404.]



Note the following points:

- Provision must be made for separationof conductors and circuits.

- A suitable terminal block or wire forwhich wire splicing devices are avail-able must be provided.

- Physical protection of the wiring andaccessibility to parts involving a risk ofelectric shock or energy hazards needs tobc considered.

- Grounding of the enclosure must beprovided for in an acceptable manner.

Adoption of IEC Standards

CSA is continuing to adopt IEC standards withlittle or no change to their wording. This policyhas several advantages.

- A common worldwide standard willallow manufacturer’s to make one product tosatisfy North American, European and otherworldmarkets.

- Adoption of the IEC standard as aCanadian standard allows CSA to participate inthe CB scheme for the product covered by thestandard.

Standards identified with the C22.2 des-ignator have been changed to comply with thespecific requirements of the Canadian ElectricalCode. Standards identified with ‘E’ before thenumber are IEC developed standards adopted by

CSA without change.

A few of the new standards are:

• CAN/CSA-C22.2 No. 1010, Equipmentfor Control, Measurement and Labora-tory Use

• CAN/CSA-E730, Electric Controls forHousehold Use

• CAN/CSA-ElO29, Portable ElectricTools

CSA Standard Test Procedures:

CSA has published a number of labora-tory test procedures. These guides are intended tocover all aspects of testing products products to aspecific standard. They include the proper set-upand test methodology to get consistent results. Thelatest procedures to be published include:

- PRO-012: Hazardous Locations- PRO-013: Environmental

Products/Locations- PRO-0I4: Electromedical and

Laboratory Equipment- PRO-0l5: Consumer Commer-

cial Products - HV AC & R- PRO-0I6: Environmental

Products - HV AC & R- PRO-017: Radio, Television,

and Electronic Apparatus- PRO-018: Consumer and

Commercial Products -Electronic, Miscellaneous

News and NotesContinued From Page 6



defined as the combination of the potential sever-ity of loss/damage should a mishap occur and thelikelihood that it will occur. Assessing the riskpresented by a hazard first requires that the cred-ible severity and likelihood levels for that hazardbe determined. The hazard can then be mapped onto a risk matrix of severity/likelihood combina-tions which defines acceptable and unacceptablezones.

The next meeting on Deccmber 13, 1994will be a joint meeting with the EMC Society atRolm, Bldg.. 2 (Cafeteria Conference Room).Design & Synthesis of Compact Absorber forEMC Chamber Applications by Mr. Tom Ellam,Rantec Anechoic/Shielding Systems. Mr. Ellamwill discuss the development of hybrid absorbersto meet ANSI C63.4 site attenuation and IEC 8013/1 000-4-3 field uniformity requirements. Thesehybrids use ferrite tiles and multilayered, carbon-loaded dielectric cones. For more informationcontact Mr. Jeff Evans at (415) 390-1696.

The January 3rd meetingwill feature a discussionof the November 1994CBEMA Meeting.

The October/November newsletter fea-tured articles on the New, International StandardIEC 127-6 for Fuse-holders for Miniature Fuse-links by Jost Degen, Schurter, Inc.

The October 27th meeting of the AustinTexas TC-8 Committee was held at AcousticSystems, 415E. ST. ElmoRoad (Austin). Speaker:Branden Tinianow. Mr. Tinianow is the TechnicalLaboratory Director at Acoustic Systems. Acous-tic Systems docs merchant acoustical testing andmanufactures acoustic enclosures. The presenta-tion included a tour of the Acoustic Systemsfacility.

Want your name in print? Want your group to getin the lime-light? The only way is to send in thosenotes and articles. I have been receiving less andless information from the various groups. Let meknow if you feel that this column is filling a vitalpurpose or not.

Best regards,John Reynolds �

Area Activities, Continued from Page 4

** ATTENTION **

Northeast Product Safety Society

Orange County/ Southern California Group

Central Texas


subscribe emc-pstc [email protected] ‘i.namc’ is your IEEE E-Mail alias. In thisway, the subscription will “follow” any futurechanges to your E-Mail forwarding alias at theIEEE.

2. How to send a message to the EMC-PSTC discussion group:

Simply send an e-mail message to thefollowing address:

[email protected]

All mail sent to this Internet address willbe immediately echoed to everyone on the EMC-PSTC list by an automated list server.

3. How to Offer help:To get more information about using the

IEEE’s EMC-PSTC discussion group, send anemail message to:

[email protected]

and place the following command in the body ofthe message: help

Should you have any questions that arcnot answered in the above file, you may addressthem to the following:

Volgstadt [email protected]

The editor of the Product Safety Newslet-ter will be the designated owner of the list and hasthe ability to add and delete subscribers. As this isan unmoderated discussion group, no one will bereviewing or editing any messages sent out. How-ever, it is requested that the following guidelinesbe followed as a user of this discussion group:EMC-PSTC Regulatory E-Mail Grapevine.

Product Safety via InternetContinued, Page 7 Charter and Guidelines

5 December 1994

The EMC-PSTC is an informal group ofpeople interested in Product Safety regulationsand standards world-wide, networked electroni-cally by mailing list. Its purpose is to provide aforum for the sharing of public, but possiblyobscure Product Safety or Regulatory Compli-ance information, or related information withlimited natural distribution.

All mail sent to the Internet address willbe immediately echoed to everyone on the list byan automated list server.

DISCLAIMER: All postings arc the soleresponsibility of the message originators. TheIEEE PSTC and its volunteers, staff members andmembers of the PSN staff do not assure thecorrectness or viability of any information distrib-uted by the list server, nor accepts any responsibil-ity for the use of any distributed information.

MESSAGE CONTENT GUIDELINES:

I. Correspondence should be limited toinformation or queries relating to Product Safetyor Regulatory Compliance standards only. Anyinformation should not be confidential or in anyway proprietary. Please don’t use the EMC-PSTCfor simple correspondence - Private correspon-dence should be addressed directly, unless it hasbroad appeal or interest.

2. Blatant or overt advertising of goodsor services is not permitted. The list server isprovided as a service by the IEEE, whose policiesprohibit anything that might be construed as con-flict of interest.

Continued


Exceptions:a) Short, non-promo-

tional “trailers” or signa-ture lines for the sole pur-pose of identifying thesender and the senders or-ganization.

b) Answers to queriesabout goods or services,

where the intent of the answer is to inform, but notpromote. (When in doubt, send the questioner aprivate message.)

c) This guideline is specific to the use ofthe this list server, and in no way inhibits individu-als from contacting members privately and inde-pendently.

3. Posting of job openings is OK so longas they arc short (i.e., I paragraph), non-commer-cial (no agencies or headhunters - no fees in-volved), infrequent (about one out of every 10messages or less), and contain an off-EMC-PSTC contact name and phone number or e-mail ad-dress. Same goes for jobs-wanted (if you can fityour resume into one paragraph!).

4. Using key words in the title or subjectline will assist members who archive the messagetraffic and may wish to search it later. Suggestedkeywords include: SPACINGS, SHOCK HAZ-ARD, or a country name (where the information iscountry-specific).

5. Queries or requests for informationshould be focused and brief. Respondents shouldbe careful about endorsements - When in doubt,don’t.

We are very pleased to be able to offer thisdiscussion group and look forward to extensiveuse by the Product Safety community. However,we would like to emphasize that this discussion

group is simply a tool. Tell your co-workers andagency contacts about this new forum. The morepeople involved, the more valuable this tool willbe.

Best Regards,Editor, PSN �

Please send any ProductSafety related articles to:Dave LurussoEMC Corporation171 South StreetHopkinson, MA 01748

phone: (508) 435-1000x2130fax: (508) 435-5067


The guides are very good but suffer fromcontaining an over-abundance of detail for eachpossible test situation and product configuration.

UL/CSA Bi-National Standard for ITE:

[The November 17, 1994 UL bulletin onthe Bi-National ITE standard requests review andcomment of the proposed overvoltage require-ments. The bulletin also reminds recepients ofthe implementation of the new Bi-National standardwhich is as follows:

- Between standard publicationand 411/2000, new productsubmittals can be evaluated tocurrent standards.

- After 41112000, productspreviously evaluated to otherstandards can continue to beListed, Recognized or Certifieduntil 41112005 provided norevisions are made.

- As of 4/112005, all UL Listed,Recognized or Certifiedproducts must comply with theBi-National Standard. - Ed]

Several informative annexes have been added.These include:

• NAA covers the marking required by spe-cific clauses and provides the French trans-lation for equipment intended for use inCanada

• NAB covers special requirements for DCpowered equipment.

• NAC covers the telephone over voltagetest requirments in detail.

• NAD provides alternate terminologywhere the existing 950 wording is notacceptable in the USA for legal reasons.

• NAE covers the US and Canadian regula-tory requirements which lead to countryspecific deviations in the standard.

Publication is planned for early 1995.

Mexican Safety Requirements

A letter to the editor of the above newslet-ter asks about safety approvals in Mexico. Theresponse included the following:

The requirements in Mexico are in a rapidstate of change because of NAFT A. The require-ment to register (our product in the name of aMexican company) will likely change in two orthree years. In the meantime, this is one of severalirritants that companies entering the Mexicanmarket early will have to contend with. Youshould also note that all products entering Mexicoas of Nov. 8, 1994 will have to have a NOM labelaffixed.

News and Notes, Continued From Page 11



As best we can tell, our organization is thelargest, longest-lived association of product safetyprofessionals ever and it would he unconscionableto allow all that we’ve accomplished to unravel.Consequently, we have to make some importantdecisions about our future and we’re approachingeach of you now to get your input.We have several options available to us, amongthem:

-Reform as an independent productsafety society

-Reform as an IEEE Technical Council-Align with IEEE Environmental Healthand Safety Committee

I’d like to summarize some of the keycharacateristics of each:

1. Independent Product Safety SocietyThis would be a return to our roots as our

association with the IEEE began quite some timeafterourformationinthemid-1980’s. Creation ofan independent society not affiliated with theIEEE is no small undertaking. It most likely willinvolve incorporation and will require an exten-sive ongoing in vestment in overhead and adminis-trative support. Some of these functions can becontracted out but doing so will increase adminis-trative financial outlay. Most of our revenue, atleast initially, would come from membership duesand consequently, most of our services and publi-cations would likely be available only to members.On the positive side, we would he relatively free tofunction as we saw fit. The biggest challenges tomaking this successful is mustering the volunteersupport to actively drive the formation of thesociety through to a point of stability and thenmaintaining the expanding levels of commitment

needed for continued growth. This is not a task tobe undertaken lightly; it is our observation thatprior attempts to establish and maintain profes-sionally oriented product safety societies gener-ally have not succeeded over an extended period.

2. Reform as an IEEE Technical CouncilThis has been on our agenda for quite

some time and we our continuing to explore howthis approach can work for us. IEEE TechnicalCouncils are bodies that have formal tics to morethan one IEEE Society. Technical councils haveno members of their own, but rather consist of oneor two appointees from each of the participatingsocieties to serve on the council. They function todirect the efforts of interested members from thevarious societies in the accomplishment of one ormore specific tasks or activities, most commonlythe publication of technical proceedings or puttingon conferences or symposia. Since technicalcouncils function as a creation of the participatingsocieties to meet specific inter-society needs thereappears to be little incentive to nurture the council'sgrowth into societyhood; reasons given includethe fear that the newly formed product safetysociety would draw members away from the origi-nal sponsoring societies.

3. Alignment with IEEE EH&S CommitteeThis is the newest alternative and the

subject of increased study and discussion. TheEH&S Committee reports into the IEEE Techni-cal Activities Board as do IEEE technical societ-ies (EMC, etc.). It was formed two plus years agoand currently has more than 150 members andaffiliates. They have a very active core group,have already sponsored a conference and haveexerted influence within and outside the IEEE. Todate, they have not functioned as a society (e.g., no

Continued From Page 1


local chapters or regular technical publications,etc.) nor is there an adopted plan to pursuesocietyhood at the present time. I have participa-ted in the Committee for a year and a half as TC-8 liaison so therehas been a lim-ited relationshipbetween the twogroups for sometime. In recentdiscussions aris-ing from the EMC Society’s decision, I can saythere is considerable interest from the EH&Scommittee leadership in exploring affiliation.

Thc EH&S Committee’s focus to datehas been mostly on environmental-related safetyissues surrounding the electronics industries. Interms of past technical focus we have little incommon, which is to say we may complementeach very well should we merge. Each groupwould bring a lot to the table that the other does notyet have. From our perspective, it would immedi-ately expand our strength into technical areaswhere we have been weak (environment, processsafety, etc.) and give product safety much morevisibility within the IEEE. From their perspec-tive, they would tap into an established distributedinfrastructure (local chapters, mass publication,etc.) and expand into untapped technical areas(product safety, product regulation, etc.)

What’s Ahead

In the weeks to follow, the TC-8 leader-ship will meet to study these and other possibilitiesand out of these discussions will arise a strategyand action plan. Concurrently, we will continuediscussions with other IEEE societies regardingtechnical council affiliation and with the leader-

ship of the EH&S Committee regarding a mergeror similar affiliation. If interest in independentsociety status continues we will continue to ex-plore that option also. By the time you read this,

a general plan ofaction (includingthe ongoing studyphase) will havebeen presented tothe EMC SocietyBoard of Directors.

I do want to take this opportunity to thankthe EMC Society for their support and patience inallowing a completely anomalous organizationlike TC-8 to live within their organization overthe years. We have benefited greatly from thespecial interest their leadership has shown inpromoting product safety practice. As we workwith the EMC Society on the transition, weexpect our special relationship to continue as weset out on our new course.

I strongly suggest that each of you,whether you are an IEEE member or not, provideus your views on the options we’re considering.All will be affected by the changes ahead. Per-sonally, I’m excited about the future; we willbenefit from a well-conceived and executed planof action. Some of our options did not exist untilrecently so the timing of the changes is fortunate.You can respond by sending your reply to anyoneof the following:

• Roger Volgstadt, Newsletter Editor,via e-mail: ([email protected])or fax: (408)285-2553)

• the Product Safety E-Mail Forum:([email protected]) or

• Brian Claes (fax number((510)770-5548)I’m looking forward to hearing from all of you.

Brian Claes �

In the weeks to follow, the TC-8 leadership willmeet to study these and other possibilities andout of these discussions will arise a strategy andaction plan.


LEDS, Continued From Page 3

or applications or marketing person would receivean inquiry from a customer or potential customer:What AEL (Accessible Emission Level) classifi-cation will your XXXX product have under IEC825-1? Soon realizing that LEDs wereabout to be covered by the previousexclusively laser standards, industrybecame aware of the impact of IEC825-1 in early 1994. Companies thatmanufacture LEDs or incorporate theminto products arc found in Europe, NorthAmerica and thc Pacific Rim. The national com-mittees of countries active on TC76 were sooncontacted by industry representatives, and thecommittees were made aware of the industryconcerns and the potential impact on nationaleconomies. Several proposals were made to TC76to correct the over classification of LEDs. Na-tional Committees met to discuss the issue. Alsothere were communications between members ofdifferent national committees. By the time Na-tional Committee delegates arrived in Kista, Swe-den for the 1994 TC76 meeting (10-14 October),everyone was aware of the LED issue and itsimportance. At a preceding the Monday openingPlenary Session, the Administrative AdvisoryCommittee agreed the main issue needing resolu-tion was LED over classification. Of the six activeworking groups within TC76, WGI, with Dr.David Sliney (US) as convener, had the responsi-bility for the LED issue.

While there had been much communica-tion on the issue prior to the TC76 meeting, therewas no consensus on a resolution. WG1 meetingsMonday through Wednesday of the week longTC76 meeting did make progress. Some of thedifferences among WG 1 members were removed,

and ground rules for resolving the issue wereapproved. Realizing that there was insufficienttime and expertise at the meeting (there were fewattendees with sufficient familiarity with currentLED technology and applications), an Ad HOCCommittee was authorized to be formed. Dr.Joseph Tajnai (US) is selected as chairman, and he

was to recruit members from the LEDindustry to investigate how the appli-cation of the WG I ground rules wouldimpact regulation of LEDs. Dr. Tajnaiwas to report the results and recom-mendations to WGI at a meeting to becalled in thc first quarter of 1995. It

was hoped that WGI would be able to issue aCommittee Draft for Vote (CDV) after the WG1meeting, which, if the voting results were positive,would lead to a Draft International Standard(DIS) being approved for circulation and votingafter the 1995 TC76 meeting on October 1995.

However, the above mentioned activitieswould produce results too late to prevent disrup-tion in the market place (CENELECs EN60825-lwould impact LEDs and LED products in March1995). To remedy this, TC76 passed a resolutiondesigned to allow manufacturers to sell safe LEDproducts in the interim: “IEC Committee TC76recognizes that the current measurement condi-tions applicable to the classification of LEDs mayover classify many LEDs which actually do notexceed current MPEs under any realistic viewingcondition. WG 1 is currently developing a revisedprocedure to alleviate this problem.”

This leaves it to the manufacturers todetermine and to attest to the safety of their LEDproducts. While referring to conformance to anexisting, established, accepted standard is thesimplest way to claim a condition is met (here, thecondition is eye safety from optical radiation),that is not available to manufacturers until IEC


News & Notes. Continued From Page 11

On February 17th, ACTE adopted NET 2,Layer I as the Interim CTR 2 approval for X.25equipment. This move enables European Noti-fied Bodies to issue pan-European approval forX.25 Packet Switching devices. There are nolonger requirements under the Interim CTR 2 toevaluate layer 2 and 3 for European EconomicArea approvals. As with ISDN Interim CTR’ s,it is likely that full CTR 2 will continue to bedeveloped and will be introduced at some time inthe future. For now, under the Interim CTR 2,manufacturers have a choice whether to applystated that they will upgrade national X.25 ap-provals to CE mark approvals upon request.

(The following comes from Dave Edmunds,Xerox Corp.- Ed.)

New York State code rule 50 (clause 50.7)has been revised so that laser equipment certifiedto CDRH Laser Product Performance require-ments (21 CFR 1010 & 1040, Classes 1,2, 2aor3a) no longer need to be approved in New YorkState.

Copies of the revised code can be obtainedfrom the following address:

Rita AldrichPrincipal RadiophysicistNYS Department of LaborBldg 12, Room 457State Officer CampusAlbany, NY 12340Phone: 518-457-1202

NET 2 Becomes Interim CTR2 for PTT Approvals in Europe

New York State Will AcceptCDRH approvals

Secondly, the ELV must have insula-tion interposed between it and its higher, non-ELVsource. The construction must account for failureof that insulation.

So, SEL V actually has at least three andpossibly four parameters that must be evaluated inits construction. First, the value of ELV. Second,the insulation between the EL V and the highernon-ELV. Third, the consequences of failure ofthat insulation. The fourth possibility is theevaluation of a fault that might increase the circuitvalue to greater than that of ELV.

My point is that the expression “twolevels” or “two measures” is rather vague andabstruse. A better expression is that protectionagainst electric shock is provided both for normaloperating conditions and for the case of an insula-tion fault.

Promulgating the idea of “two levels” or“two measures” can lead to ignoring other factorsthat determine electric shock.

By the way, we apply the same principleto the issue of electrically-caused fire. We deter-mine that the product will not ignite itself, or causeignition of nearby materials, under both normaloperating conditions and in the event of a failure.

*****

Your comments on this article are welcome. Pleaseaddress your comments to the Product SafetyNewsletter, Attention Roger Volgstadt, c/o Tan-dem Computers Inc., 10300 N. Tantau Avenue,Location 55-53, Cupertino, California 95014- 0708. Or, e-mail [email protected].

If you want to discuss this article withyour colleagues as well as with the author andeditor, e-mail your comments to

[email protected].


Continued From Page 5also make each subsequent certification submittalless expensive than the original certification sub-mittal because re-testing would not be required.Thus, the CB Scheme can be thought of as a globallaboratory accreditation scheme with the benefitof standardized test reports. The CB Scheme’sintent was to create an environment where datataken in Russia, Korea, and Greece is treated thesame as data taken from Sweden, Germany, or theUnited States.

Manufacturers experienced with the CBScheme often wonder why additional testing isperformed between NCBs even when countrydifferences have been taken into account. Section6.3.3 describes, “The NCB retains the right to testfurther the equipment to as certain whether or notthe equipment complies with thc relevant stan-dard.” (Section 6.3.2 also reaffirms this right.)Hence, under the CB Scheme, NCBs may ask forsamples or perform re-testing, and the costs ofthese actions are paid by the manufacturer.

Manufacturers who submit their safetydata as part of an application for approval--forexample, telecommunications approvals--occa-sionally hear the request that their safety data andsubsequent certification license must bc from aNCB under the CB Scheme. However, thc LowVoltage Directive, 73/23/EEC (LVD) makes nosuch request and it is the prevailing European lawgoverning the safety of electrical and electronicproducts. In fact, the LVD does not mandate theuse of certification marks meaning that self-decla-ration for European electrical safety has been anoption for the past 21 years.

However, the LVD did provide for theoption of certification, and hence, the reason forpublishing the certification marks of the LVDNotified Bodies in the European Union’s OfficialJournal. Actual demand for these voluntary marks

is driven first by liability concerns and second bymarket demands. Given that any LVD NotifiedBody mark fulfills the first concern, use of mul-tiple marks has been market-driven.

How has the CB Scheme performed?Some of the figures from the CB Bulletin of June1994areinsightful.In 1989, 766 certificates wereissued and 1276 were recognized, This means that1276 additional marks were issued without re-testing based on the original 766 certificates. This is a recognition ratio of 1.65. The recognition ratiowas near I in 1991 and has been below 1.0 since.For example, in 1993, 3501 certificates wereissued and 2226 were recognized for a ratio of .64.(Revisions of the recognition numbers are ex-pected to increase this ratio to .76.) The June 1994report from the CB Secretariat indicates that while“the progress of the CB Scheme continues at leastwith regard to issued CB Test Certificates...[thesecertificates have] not been recognized to a satis-factory extent.”

Midway through the CB Scheme’s his-tory, the conformity assessment world has seenthe growth of private Memorandum Of Under-standing (MOU) networks. These networks pro-vide a similar outcome as promised under the CBScheme-mutual acceptance of test results creat-ing both time and cost savings-but the affilia-tions are based on the respective commercialstrategies of the partners involved. Some of thesenetworks have performed better than others de-pending on the degree to which the networkmembers have strategies that are interdependent orconsistent.�Gene Panger is Director of Sales and Marketingfor TUV Product Service, TUV Product Serviceoperates three CB Scheme Accredited Labs underthe VDE’s NCB and assists manufacturers in ac-quiring both UL and VDE CB certificates, He canbe reached at 6/26380254 or via e-mail: [email protected]_


CBEMA ADOPTS A NEW PURPOSE, ANEW MISSION, AND A NEW NAME-ITI

Washington, D.C.-Today CBEMA, theComputer and Business Equipment Manufactur-ers Association, will change its name to ITI, theInformation Technology Industry Council.

The announcement was made by DickBodman, AT&T Senior Vice President for Cor-porate Strategy and Development, who is ITIBoard Chairman.

“Our new name more accurately reflectsthe nature of the industry as it is today,” saidBodman. “We believe this change will allow us todo an even better job as IT! than we have asCBEMA in carrying out our purpose-promotingthe global competitiveness of the informationtechnology industry,” he concluded. ITI’ s missionis to shape policies and actions that:

0 Open global markets,0 Promote free and open competition,0 Rely on market based solutions,0 Protect intellectual property, and0 Develop and advance the use of voluntary standards.

“Our new name is only one of the majorchanges we have made this year,” said RhettDawson, ITI President. “Our Board approved ourbusiness plan, completely rewrote our purposeand mission and sharpened our focus on thoseissues essential to maintaining our members glo-bal competitiveness. We are now set on a courseto aggressively pursue our public policy agenda:the National Information Infrastructure, and itsglobal counterpart, the G11; export controls; mar-ket access; and intellectual property rights.”�

Continued From page 15

mar correspondence or partnership between Euro-pean and worldwide bodies shall be CEN withISO, CENELEC with IEC and ETSI with CCITT/CCIR.’

Membership of CEN, CENELEC and ETSI

Membership of the European standardsorganizations is limited to member countries ofthe European Community (EC) plus those coun-tries comprising the European Free Trade Area(EFTA). In addition, and exceptionally, five coun-tries have been granted Associate Membershipwith the clear understanding that this is intendedas a transitional status only. The countries con-cerned are

European Union:Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany,Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg,Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and theUnited Kingdom. Finland, Sweden andAustria as of January 1, 1995.

EFTA:Iceland, Norway and Switzerland

The five Associates:Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland,Romania and Turkey.

Each of these countries retains its ownstandards organizations, e.g. AFNOR (France),DIN (Germany), BSI(UK), which in the past havebeen free to publish national standards indepen-dently. These powers have now been severelyrestricted.

To Be Continued inNext Issue

Laser, Continued From page 10


CERTELECOM LABORATORIES INC.THE DOORWAY TO GLOBAL APPROVAL

USA CANADA 820 PROCTOR AVENUE 3325 RIVER ROAD, R.R. No. 5 OGDENSBURG, NY 13669 OTTAWA, ONTARIO K1G 3N3 1-800-348-6546 1-800-563-6336 315-393-7859 (fax) 613-737-9691 (fax)

INTERNATIONAL COMPLIANCE AND PERFORMANCE TESTING OF ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS--FCC, DOC, VDE, JATE, AUSTEL, UL, CSA, T¨UV, IEC, VCCI, CISPR, ANSI/IEEE

NVLAP ACCREDITATION

Your Listing Here?

Institutional Listings

NCB Laboratory for Global Certification

Call (408) 553-7684to advertise


We are grateful for the assistance given by these firms and invite application for Institutionallisting from other firms interested in the product safety field. An Institutional Listingrecognizes contributions to support publication of the Product Safety Newsletter of the IEEEEMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee. Please direct inquiries to:

Ervin Gomez at (408) 553-7684 (phone) or (408) 553-7694 (fax)

Call (408) 553-7684to Reserve

Space


BULK RATEU.S. POSTAGE PAIDCUPERTINO, CAPERMIT NO. 138

c/o Tandem Computers Incorporated10300 North Tantau Avenue, Loc 55-53Cupertino, CA 95014Attn: Roger Volgstadt

TheProductSafetyNewsletter

ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED

As a free service to our readers, the Product Safety Newsletter will periodically listRegulatory Compliance Professionals who are available for employment. Those withemployment opportunities are encouraged to contact the following individuals directly.

Mariano Fe de LeonGilroy, CA

(408) 848-3851

Bogdan M. MatogaHollister, CA

(408) 636-8182

Employment Wanted

The What's Inside Product Safety...

Documents

Transcript of The What's Inside Product Safety...