ulstandards.ul.com€¦ · web viewin wellington it was agreed to remove the word “only” in...

61/MT23(Convenor) 499A

61/5833/RVC

RESULT OF VOTING ON CDV (RVC)

PROJECT NUMBER:

IEC 60335-1/FRAG5 ED6

DATE OF CIRCULATION:

2019-04-19

REFERENCE NUMBER OF THE CDV:

61/5734/CDV

IEC TC 61 : SAFETY OF HOUSEHOLD AND SIMILAR ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES

SECRETARIAT: SECRETARY: CHAIR:

United States of America Ms Randi Myers Mr Fabio Gargantini

OF INTEREST TO THE FOLLOWING COMMITTEES: HORIZONTAL STANDARD:

SC 61B, SC 61C, SC 61D, SC 61H, SC 61J

FUNCTIONS CONCERNED:

EMC ENVIRONMENT QUALITY ASSURANCE SAFETY

SUBMITTED FOR CENELEC PARALLEL VOTING NOT SUBMITTED FOR CENELEC PARALLEL VOTING

The CDV document was distributed to National Committees with a request that voting take place for circulation as a FDIS or publication as an International Standard.

P-MEMBERS VOTING

MEMBERS VOTING P-MEMBERS IN FAVOUR IN FAVOUR % CRITERIA RESULT

35 31 88.6 ≥66,7 % APPROVED

ALL VOTES

TOTAL VOTES CAST TOTAL AGAINST AGAINST % CRITERIA RESULT

38 4 10.5 ≤25 % APPROVED

The chair (in cooperation with the secretariat and the project leader) has taken the following course of action:

WHEN THE APPROVAL CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET:

A1 THE COMMITTEE DRAFT FOR VOTE (CDV) WILL BE REGISTERED AS A FDIS BY 2019-07-31

A2 THE COMMITTEE DRAFT FOR VOTE (CDV) WILL BE REGISTERED AS AN IS BY

WHEN THE APPROVAL CRITERIA HAVE NOT BEEN MET:

B A REVISED COMMITTEE DRAFT FOR VOTE (CDV) WILL BE DISTRIBUTED BY

C A REVISED COMMITTEE DRAFT (CD) WILL BE DISTRIBUTED BY

D THE COMMENTS WILL BE DISCUSSED AT THE NEXT MEETING OF ON

A2 When proceeding directly to publication, no changes to the technical content of the enquiry draft shall be made.

In the case of a proposal B or C made by the chair, if two or more P-members disagree within 2 months of the circulation of this compilation, then the draft shall be discussed at a meeting.

TITLE:

Household and similar electrical appliances - Safety - Part 1: General requirements

NOTE FROM TC/SC OFFICERS:

This document will be discussed during the TC 61 Plenary meeting in Bled, Slovenia, 3-7 June 2019. After the meeting, a revised RVC document will be circulated with the confirmed Observations of the Secretariat included.

Annexes: Result of voting, Comments received

61(Bled/MT23)32

June 2019

61/5833/RVC 61/MT23(Convenor) 499A

of 15


Voting Result on 61/5734/CDVCirculation Date: 2018-12-28 Closing Date: 2019-03-22IEC 60335-1/FRAG5 ED6: Household and similar electrical appliances - Safety - Part 1: General requirements

Country Status Vote Comments ReceivedAlbania P -Argentina O -Australia P Y Y 2019-03-06Austria P Y - 2019-03-21Belarus O Y - 2019-03-22Belgium P A - 2019-03-22Brazil O A - 2019-03-22Bulgaria O -Canada P Y - 2019-03-12China P Y - 2019-03-11Czech Republic P Y - 2019-03-15Denmark P Y Y 2019-03-22Egypt P Y - 2019-03-20Finland P Y - 2019-03-21France P Y Y 2019-03-19Germany P N Y 2019-03-22Greece P Y - 2019-03-21Hungary P Y - 2019-03-22India P Y - 2019-03-19Indonesia P A - 2019-03-19Iran P N Y 2019-03-17Ireland P A - 2019-01-04Israel P A - 2019-03-21Italy P Y Y 2019-03-21Japan P N Y 2019-03-22Korea, Republic of P Y - 2019-03-22Kuwait O -Malaysia P Y - 2019-03-21Mexico P Y - 2019-03-22Netherlands P Y Y 2019-03-18New Zealand P Y Y 2019-03-10Norway P Y - 2019-03-07Pakistan P Y - 2019-03-19Philippines, Rep. of the P Y - 2019-03-19Poland P Y - 2019-03-19Portugal P A - 2019-03-22Qatar O Y - 2019-03-19Romania O -Russian Federation O Y - 2019-03-21Saudi Arabia O -Serbia P Y - 2019-03-15Singapore O -Slovakia O -Slovenia P Y - 2019-03-21South Africa P A - 2019-03-22Spain P A - 2019-03-22Sweden P N Y 2019-03-19Switzerland P Y Y 2019-03-20Thailand P Y - 2019-02-26Turkey P Y - 2019-03-20Ukraine P Y - 2019-03-21United Arab Emirates - - - 2019-03-17United Kingdom P Y - 2019-03-20United States of America P Y Y 2019-03-12Vietnam P Y - 2019-03-14

Approval Criteria ResultP-Members voting: 35P-Members in favour: 31 = 88.6% >=66.7% APPROVEDTotal votes cast: 38 Total against: 4 = 10.5% <=25% APPROVEDFinal Decision: APPROVED

of 15

61/5833/RVC 61/MT23(Convenor) 499ANotes

1. Vote: Does the National Committee agree to the circulation of the draft as a FDIS: Y = In favour; N = Against; A = Abstention.2. Abstentions are not taken into account when totalizing the votes.3. P-members not voting: Albania(1).

*Comments rejected because they were not submitted in the IEC Comment form. **Vote rejected due to lack of justification statement.

of 15

61/5833/RVC 61/MT23(Convenor) 499ADate Document Project Nr.2019-03-22 61/5734/CDV 60335-1/FRAG 5 ED6

# MB/NCLine

number(e.g. 17)

Clause/ Subclause(e.g. 3.1)

Paragraph/ Figure/Table(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment Comments Proposed change Observations of the secretariat

1 CH01 ge The CN NC supports this document with the following comments.

Noted

2 CI/ANEC01

ge Consumers International and ANEC support IEC 60335-1/FRAG5 ED6 ‘Household and similar electrical appliances - Safety - Part 1: General requirements’

Noted

3 IT01 ge The Italian NC is in favour of proposed document 61/5734/CDV and submits the following comments.

Noted

4 ZA01 ge ZA NC accept 61/5734/CDV the no technical comment:

Noted

5 DE01 ge The DE-NC is not in favour with the proposed CDV for the following reason:

Noted

6 SE01 ge The Swedish NC put a negative vote on the document for the reasons specified below.

Noted

7 JP01 Foreword of the existing standard

te In TC61/WG39, for Part 2-6 and Part 2-31, requirements against optical radiation hazard are under discussion and Lamps based on Risk Group 1 and 2 are permitted. For Part 2-24, Part 2-25, and Part 2-89, the discussion will be started.

The proposed requirement for Part 1 should be only applied after the Part2 has been established on the basis of the sixth edition of Part 1 and has specified application of the proposed requirements in 24.1.10 and 32.2.

Add the following to Foreword.

“The application of 24.1.10 and 32.2 of Part 1 only apply when the Part 2 has been established on the basis of the sixth edition of Part 1 and has specified application of the requirements in 24.1.10 and 32.2 of Part 1.”

Not accepted. Parts 2 can be modified if necessary.

8 IT02 9-11 3.1.6 te Due to the tolerances of heating elements in the sample under test the measured current can be lower or higher than the current calculated from the rated power input.

Delete lines from 9 to 11. Not AcceptedSee comment 9

9 IR01 10,11 3.1.6 te For more clarity and also fulfilling all measurement details it is recommended the text of Note 1 to be changed.

Replace the text of the Note1 with the following sentence:If no current is assigned to the appliance, the rated current is the current measured under conditions specified in clause 10

Not AcceptedSee the decision on comment 16 on 61/4957/DC in 61/5006A/INF and the decision on comment 9 on 61/5582/CD in 61/5636/CC

10 IR02 12-15 3.1.XX ge It seems not necessary to add this definition to the standard, and it is better to be deleted

Not accepted. See comment 11

11 IT03 16-17 3.1.XX Note 1 te “similar outlet” can be misunderstood, we believe that a reference to a maximum voltage is needed.

Replace Note 1 with the following:“A Universal Serial Bus (USB), ethernet and similar outlet with a voltage lower than XX V is not considered to be an appliance outlet.”

To be discussedSee the decision on comment 12 on 61/5582/CD in 61/5636A/INF

of 15


# MB/NCLine

number(e.g. 17)




12 AU01 33 7.1 te All appliance outlets should be marked with their rated load because of 10.1, 10.2 and 11.7.

Delete “complying with the standard sheets in IEC 60320”

Accepted

13 IR03 37 7.1 te Because the load that can be connected to the appliances socket outlet in accordance with clause 7.1 may be marked with input watt or ampere, therefore and for reduce the risk of hazard, it is better to replace “watts or amperes” with “ max watts or amperes”

Replace “watts or amperes” with “ max watts or amperes”

The term max is not necessary.

14 DK01 38 7.12 te In Wellington it was agreed to remove the word “only” in the last paragraph in 7.12. This is recorded in the “A-version” of the compilation of comments for the 61/5582/CD to fragment 5 “61/5636A/CC”.This decision is not included in this CDV

Remove the word “only” so the last paragraph in 7.12 reads:“The instructions for appliances incorporating a functional earth shall state the substance of the following:This appliance incorporates an earth connection for functional purposes only.”

Accepted

15 DE02 38-40 7.12 te The proposed change does not add any additional value.

Leave the standard as it is. Not accepted.See the decision on comment 8 on 61/5583/CD in 61/5637A/CC

16 CH02 40 7.12 ed Typo. Insert a full stop “.” at the end of sentence. Referred to EG117 DE03 41-42 7.12.9 te The proposed change does not add any

additional value.Leave the standard as it is. Not accepted.

See the decision on comment 8 on 61/5583/CD in 61/5637A/CC

18 IR04 44,45 7.15 ge The text should be modified as follow: The marking of the maximum load of appliance outlet or socket-outlet shall be on the appliance close to them

See comment 13

19 CH03 47 10.1 ed Misleading formulation. Delete “Replace” and replace “in” with “In”. Accepted20 DK02 47 10.1 ed/te The proposed text includes both “replace”

and “add” and DKNC are in doubt what is meant.

Please clarify the change See comment 19

21 FR01 47, 57 te The proposal is not understood, “Replace” and “add” doesn’t fit together.

Delete 'Replace' See comment 19 and comment 29

22 IR07 47,57 ed It seems "Replace" redundant and should be deleted

See comment 19 and comment 29

23 US01 47 10.1 ed Typo Delete “Replace” after 10.1 See comment 1924 IR05 47,48 10.1 te It is suggested to add this text and modify this

paragraph of part 1 as follow:If the power input varies throughout the operating cycle and the maximum value of the power input for more than 10 % of the representative period exceeds, by a factor greater than two, the arithmetic mean value of the power input occurring during a representative period, then the power input is the maximum value. Otherwise the power input is taken as the arithmetic mean value.

Not accepted. Refer to the decision on comment 11 on 61/5583/CD recorded in 61/5637A/INF

of 15


# MB/NCLine

number(e.g. 17)




25 NL01 47-48 10.1 ed Unclear sentence. Does it concern an addition or a replacement?Further we are not in favour of making this long sentence even longer.The proposal also seems to add no further information.

Delete the proposal. Not accepted

26 DK03 48 10.1 te The proposed addition to be included in the end of the sentence does not appear to make sense. It is understood that “this value” in the proposed addition relate to the “maximum value” in the existing text.However, the maximum value is always higher than the arithmetic mean value

Rephrase and explain the proposed addition so that it is clearly understood.

The text is clear.Refer to Annex YYY

27 IR06 50,60 10.1, 10.2 ge The Note is not necessary Accepted to delete the Note in 10.2. See comment 70

28 IR08 55,65 ge The sentence after "are not loaded during the test" is not necessary and it is better to deleted

Not accepted. Refer to the decision on 61/4957/DC recorded in 61/5006A/INF and 61/5582/CD recorded in 61/5636A/INF

29 CH04 57 10.2 ed Misleading formulation. Delete “Replace” and replace “in” with “In”. Accepted30 DK04 57 10.2 ed/te The proposed text includes both “replace”

and “add” and DKNC are in doubt what is meant.

Please clarify the change See comment 29

31 US02 57 10.2 ed Typo Delete “Replace” after 10.2 See comment 2932 NL02 57-58 10.2 ed Unclear sentence. Does it concern an

addition or a replacement?Further we are not in favour of making this long sentence even longer.The proposal also seems to add no further information.

Delete the proposal. Not accepted.Refer to comment 29 and the decision on comment 12 on 61/5583/CD recorded in 61/5637A/INF

33 IR09 69,70 11.7 te The text should be replaced by follow Are loaded with maximum load in ampere which is marked

See comment 13

34 IR10 11.7 te It is suggested to add a Note immediately after this paragraph

Note X: A resistive load or any load that allowed by the manufacturer in the instruction can be used.

Not accepted. A resistive load gives reproducibility.

35 IT04 71-74 11.8 ed The temperature rise limits are reported in table 3.

Delete lines from 71 to 74, and add the following:“replace the third entry to Table 3 with the following:Pins of appliances for insertion into socket-outlets, pins of plug connectors inserted into appliance outlets accessible to the user and plugs inserted into socket-outlets accessible to the user.”

Referred to EG1

of 15


# MB/NCLine

number(e.g. 17)




36 IR11 78~80 11.8 ge The text is not clear. For example, vacuum cleaner motors sufficient airtight by an enclosure but air flow that coming to the motor cause the motor windings to cool down and also exit from other side. however, is this limit will be applied or not?

No – if they are not hermetically sealed. See comment 37

37 NZ01 78-80 11.8 Table 3 te Because of the method used to measure winding temperatures, instead of allowing the temperature rise of the winding to align with the insulation class follow the example of motors not considered air tight.

Replace the proposed sentence by the following

For hermetically sealed motors, the temperature rise limit may be increased by 10 K.

To be discussed

38 NZ02 15.1 te The decision taken by TC 61 in Frankfurt on the compliance criteria for appliances with pins for insertion into socket-outlets rated at up to IPX4 is missing.See 61(Frankfurt/Chairman)02g NZ inquiry response to Q1.

Add the following text to the test specification in 15.1 as follows.

For appliances and parts of appliances with pins for insertion into socket-outlets an inspection shall show that no water has entered the enclosure.

Accepted

39 DE04 89-91 15.1.2 ge The text of this paragraph has not been part of the original proposal IEC 61/5597/DC and the decisions laid down in 61/5655A/INF.

Delete the text in lines 89-91. Not accepted.Refer to 61(Frankfurt/Chairman)02g NZ inquiry response to Q1.

40 DK05 99 15 ed The headline for §15 is already mentioned in line 82

Delete line 99 Accepted

41 IR12 105-112 19.1 ge Pervious text in part 1 is clear and no needed to change

Not accepted.Refer to the decision on 61/5177/DC recorded in 61/5247B/INF and 61/5585/CD recorded in 61/5683A/INF

42 IT05 108-112 19.1 te The test can be repeated changing only the sample with intentionally weak part blowed up or heating part opened. Also, in case of changing of the appliance, all relevant parts must be re-thermocoupled without any benefit.

Replace the sentence as follow:"If a heating element or an intentionally weak part becomes permanently open-circuited, the relevant test is repeated on a second sample. If in the first test a heating element or intentionally weak part becomes permanently open-circuited that same part on the second sample shall also become permanently open-circuited in the second test, unless a non-self-resetting thermal cut-out operates or steady conditions are established".

To be discussed

of 15


# MB/NCLine

number(e.g. 17)




43 FR02 114 19.11.3 te To specify that the compliance criteria are defined in 19.13 is redundant with the clause 19.1 and creates confusion for the other clauses where 19.13 is not specified.

Keep only the following text : “Delete the note”

Not Accepted.See the decision on comment 7 on 61/5452/DC in 61/5504A/CC

MT23: Fully support with the Observation

44 DK06 116-121 19.11.4 ed The understanding is that the proposal was only intended to clarify which appliances are exempt from the tests in cl. 19.11.4However, the proposed new text does not have the same meaning as the existing text.

Replace the proposed text by the following:“However, the tests for electromagnetic phenomena are not applied to protective electronic circuits that operate during the test of cl. 19.7 in appliances that are used while attended and not incorporating a programmer or timer”

See comment 45MT23: Accepted in principle, but modify 116 up to 121 by “However, the tests for electromagnetic phenomena are not applied to protective electronic circuits that operate during the test of clause 19.7 in appliances that are used while attended.”

Refer to MT 2345 DE06 118-119 19.11.4 te The Danish comment DK03 in IEC

61/5683A/CC was accepted at the meeting in Wellington, but is not considered in this CDV.

Add the following dashed item after line 119:- and other appliances that are operated while attended;

EG1 did not completely understand the proposal or decision.The last dashed item proposed covers attended that operate for 5 min and those that operate until steady conditions are reached. If it is intended to cover both of these attended appliance types.If so then the dashed items in the CDV text should be replaced by “attended appliances” which is a relaxation for attended appliances that are operated until steady conditions are reach.Please confirm the intent of the original DK proposal.See also DK06

MT23: Secretary comment is not accepted. See comment 44.

of 15


# MB/NCLine

number(e.g. 17)




46 IT06 117-119 19.11.4 te According to the standard “appliances that are operated for 30 s or 5 min during the test of 19.7 are not subjected to the tests for electromagnetic phenomena”.5 min applies for other appliances that are operated while attended so also such appliances shall be excluded - See decision related to comment 12 (DK03) of document 61/5683A/CC.

Add the following dashed item after line 119:“- other appliances that are operated while attended”.

See comment 45


47 US03 120 19.11.4 te All hand-held appliances and appliances kept switched on or continuously loaded by hand or foot should be excluded from tests for the electromagnetic phenomena. The proposed wording would exclude heating appliances and appliances with motors that are not required to be subjected to the test of 19.7 due to Part 2 modifications.

Delete “that are subjected to the tests of 19.7”

See comment 45


48 US04 120-121 19.11.4 te As was previously proposed in 61/5585/CD due to a TC61 Inquiry, the applicable tests should be specified by clause.

Replace “for electromagnetic phenomena” by “of 19.11.1 to 19.11.7”

AcceptedMT23: Secretary comment is not accepted. See comment 44.

49 DE05 123-125 19.13 te Since the aim of this new requirement is to avoid potential damage (risk of fire) due to a too high voltage under fault conditions of external device connected to the household appliances via accessible general purpose outlets or connectors, e.g. for the purpose of communication, charging them.Considering this target, connectors or outlets which are used for connecting peripheral devices e.g. a room thermostats to a heating appliance are excluded from those requirements because such an outlet are for specific use for dedicated system components. Considering this, it is suggested to specify the new compliance criteria for outlets or connector for general purpose, since the dedicated outlets for the known system components outlets are already part of the test of the household appliance.We therefore suggest to replace the proposal by the proposed one.

Modify the text as follows:During and after the tests the no-load output voltage of an accessible safety extra-low voltage outlet or connector for general purpose or Universal Serial Bus (USB) outlet shall not have increased by more than 3 V or 10% of its no-load output voltage in normal use, whichever is higher. Excluded from this compliance criteria are outlets or connecters differently to general purpose outlets (e.g. USB), used for connecting of household appliance peripheral devices which are tested with the appliance.

Not accepted. See and comment 50 and comment 51

MT23 observation:Not accepted, delete modification to clause 19.13.

of 15


# MB/NCLine

number(e.g. 17)




50 DK07 122-125 19.13 te The proposed limitation of the voltage increase of SELV outputs during abnormal operation does not align with the existing requirement in 19.13 for compliance with cl. 8 which allow (accessible) SELV to be max 42.4VIf the SELV voltage is 39V or higher in normal operation, then the proposed change will allow the voltage to exceed the SELV limit during abnormal operation and so the appliance can no longer be considered as safe.

add “with a max of 42.4V”at the end of the proposed new text.

To be discussed

MT23 observation:See comment 49.

51 NL03 125 19.13 ge Background for 3 V increase allowance? This would allow the USB output voltage to rise to 8 V which seems to be significant.

Refer to the decision on comment 36 on 61/5078/DC recorded in 61/5158A/INF and comment 33 on 61/5585/CD recorded in 61/5683A/INF

MT23 observation:See comment 49.

52 NL04 128 21.xx ge What is meant with pins capable of rotation? We assume plug-part is meant.

Modify the sentence as follows:21.xx Appliances with pins for insertion into socket-outlets where the pins are plug-part is capable of rotation shall be….

To be discussedRefer to comment 5 on 61/4879/DC recorded in 61/4916A/INF

53 IR13 22.2 te If "all-pole disconnection" replaced by "disconnection" , the third dash item also should be modified as follow:

a statement in the instructions that an all-pole disconnection incorporated in the fixed wiring is to be provided;

Not accepted.It is covered by the statement required in 7.12.2. “The means for disconnection must be incorporated in the fixed wiring in accordance with the wiring rules.”The local wiring rules will state if the means must be all-pole.

54 NL05 142 - 145

22.2 te Due to the deletion of the words ‘all pole disconnection’ the requirement for all pole disconnection needs to be added to the third dashed item.

Modify the 3rd dashed item by:

-a statement in the instructions that an all-pole disconnection device incorporated in the fixed wiring is to be provided;

See comment 53

55 NL06 152 22.3 ed A point is missing at the end of the sentence. Add point at end of the sentence. Accepted

of 15


# MB/NCLine

number(e.g. 17)




56 NL07 166-168 22.xxx ed The requirement states that PELV circuits shall be separated by supplementary insulation (SI) from circuits operating at SELV.However a PELV circuit is also a circuit operating at SELV, see definition of PELV (3.4.4):earthed circuit operating at safety extra-low voltage that is….As a consequence the proposed text requires SI from a PELV circuit to a PELV circuit.Obviously SI would only be required between PELV and a SELV circuit.

Add the words ‘other than protective extra-low voltage circuits’ at the end of the first sentence:

22.xxx Protective extra-low voltage circuits shall be separated by at least supplementary insulation from circuits operating at safety extra-low voltage other than protective extra-low voltage circuits.

See comment 57

57 SE02 166-167 22.xxx te We cannot see the reason for this requirement since we don´t have applicable insulation requirements for SELV to protective earth.In addition, supplementary insulation requirements are not specified for SELV or PELV circuits.

Delete sub-clause 22.xxx from Part 1 and apply it to Part 2 if necessary.

IEC 60335-2-29 have a similar requirement in sub-clause 22.26, however there is no isolation requirement specified.

Not accepted.Refer to the decision on comment 7 on 61/5083/DC recorded in 61/5153A/INF

58 AU02 177 - 180

22.zzz 2nd para te We don’t agree that only appliance outlets complying with the standard sheets in IEC 60320-3 need protective devices.

Replace line 177 by the following “Appliance outlets accessible to the user, other than those intended to supply accessories supplied with the appliance”

To be discussed

59 DK08 178 22.zzz ed Typo: Missing “r” in “user” Replace “use” with “user” Accepted60 US05 178 22.zzz ed Correction Replace “use” with “user” See comment 5961 NL08 182 22.zzz ed The term ‘non user replaceable’ for the fuse

link is superfluous considering the requirement that such a protective device shall be placed behind a non-detachable cover.

Delete the words ‘non-user replaceable’. To be discussed

62 IR14 185,186 22.zzz ge These two line are not necessary and should be deleted

Not acceptedRefer to the decision on 61/4970/DC recorded in 61/5019A/INF and 61/5582/CD recorded in 61/5636A/INF

of 15


# MB/NCLine

number(e.g. 17)




63 JP02 190-203 24.1.10 te In TC61/WG39, for Part 2-6 and Part 2-31, requirements against optical radiation hazard are under discussion and Lamps based on Risk Group 1 and 2 are permitted. For Part 2-24, Part 2-25, and Part 2-89, the discussion will be started.


Add the underlined text as follows.

24.1.10 If the Part 2 specifies application of the requirements in 24.1.10 of Part 1, lamps and lamp systems that have not been previously tested and found to comply with the exempt group classification of general lighting systems (GLS) regarding ……….

See comment 7

64 NZ03 190-197 24.1.10 te Reference to IEC 62471 is missing concerning the limits for exempt group

Add “in IEC 62471:2006” after “classification” in two places.

Accepted

65 DE07 207-208 25.8 Table 11, footnote e

The Australian comment in IEC 61/5653A/INF was accepted at the meeting in Wellington, but was not completely considered in this CDV.

Delete the wording “or cord guard” from the text.

Accepted

66 JP03 238-251 32.2 te In TC61/WG39, for Part 2-6 and Part 2-31, requirements against optical radiation hazard are under discussion and Lamps based on Risk Group 1 and 2 are permitted. For Part 2-24, Part 2-25, and Part 2-89, the discussion will be started.


Add the underlined text as follows.

32.2 If the Part 2 specifies application of the requirements in 32.2 of Part 1, appliances shall not present an optical radiation hazard.

See comment 7

67 DK09 248 32.1 ed In Wellington a MT16 comments regarding how to read UVA etc. was accepted This is recorded in the “A-version” of the compilation of comments for the 61/5582/CD to fragment 5 “61/5636A/CC”.This decision is not included in this CDV

Replace “UVA” with “UV-A” Follow the style in IEC 62471 and useEs and EUVA

of 15


# MB/NCLine

number(e.g. 17)




68 DE08 259-260 Annex Q According IEC 61/5529A/INF the decision for comment GB1 was not implemented according the decision.

Follow the decision.The text should be as follows:“Are Table 8 of 19.7, if applicable, and 19.13 fulfilled?”

MT23:In the box it cannot be “is 19.11 fullfilled” as 19.11 includes also 19.11.2 and it will start a new evaluation including 19.11.3The only correct solution is 19.13 as no other protective means has operated in this case

Referred to MT23When EG1 reviewed the decision they considered it was necessary that at this point in the flow chart to cover all of the compliance criteria listed in the last two paragraphs in 19.11 of the published standard and not only the additional item identified in the UK comment.

MT23: Replace 19.11 by the Table 8 of 19.7, if applicable, and 19.13 fulfilled.

69 DE09 263-264 Annex Q According IEC 61/5529A/INF the decision for comment JP1 was to implement a second box. This was done, but now the line between box “IEC 60127….” and box “Does appliance comply …” should be deleted.

Delete the connection line between the box “IEC 60127….” and the box “Does appliance comply …”

Accepted

70 DK10 267-275 Annex YYY

te When using the RMS value and the arithmetic mean value in the context of the flowchart, this provide confusion to the meaning of the arithmetic mean value and lead to an incorrect measurementAccording to §3 all measured values are understood to be RMS values and so there is no need to include RMS in the flowchart.

Delete the term “RMS” as used throughout the flowchart (3 times).

Not accepted but delete reference to current since the Annex title refers to power input.

of 15


# MB/NCLine

number(e.g. 17)





te The two first boxes of the flow chart use different terms for the maximum value (“maximum” is used in the first box; “largest” is used in the second).For consistency the same term should be used.

In the first line of the second box and in the second line of the third box replace the word “largest” with “maximum”

Not accepted.See 61/5396/INFThe power input can vary over the representative period. So in the first box we need the maximum value.In the second box we need the largest value the is exceed for a time exceeding 10% of the representative period since there maybe many values that exceed the AMV for a time exceeding 10% of the representative period.


te The text in the second box of the flow chart is not clear and is open-ended (if…but no then…) and is not a question that can be answered YES or NO

In the second box replace the first word “If” with “Is”Add “arithmetic mean value” (or “AMV”) at the end of the text after the “>”.

Accepted


ed If DK10, DK11 and DK12 are accepted the final text should be the following:First box:“Is the maximum value of the power input or current > 2 times AMV during the representative period”Second box:“Is the maximum value that is exceeded for a time that exceeds 10% of the time of the representative period > Arithmetic mean value”Third box:“Then the power input or current is the maximum value that is exceeded for a time that exceeds 10 % of the time of the representative period”

See comment 70, 71 and 72

74 IR15 268 ge This annex is not necessary and it is better to deleted

Not accepted.Refer to the decision on comment 10 on 61/5583/CD recorded in 61/5637A/INF;See also 61/5396/INF

75 JP04 275 Annex YYY2nd diamond

ed The word “AMV” is missing. Add “AMV” as follows.

Is the largest value that is exceeded for a time that exceeds 10% of the time of the representative period > AMV

See comment 72

76 US06 275 Annex YYY

ed In the second decision block, the statement is incomplete

Add “AMV” after “>” See comment 72

of 15

ulstandards.ul.com€¦ · web viewin wellington it was agreed to remove the word “only” in...

Documents