ulstandards.ul.com€¦ · Web viewSo unless reference to 19.5 is introduced it makes it...

61/MT23 (Convenor) 498B

61/5832/RVC

RESULT OF VOTING ON CDV (RVC)

PROJECT NUMBER:

IEC 60335-1/FRAG4 ED6

DATE OF CIRCULATION:

2019-04-19

REFERENCE NUMBER OF THE CDV:

61/5733/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

37 32 86.5 ≥66,7 % APPROVED

ALL VOTES

TOTAL VOTES CAST TOTAL AGAINST AGAINST % CRITERIA RESULT

40 5 12.5 ≤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)33

June 2019

61/MT23 (Convenor) 498B61/5832/RVC

Voting Result on 61/5733/CDVCirculation Date: 2018-12-28 Closing Date: 2019-03-22IEC 60335-1/FRAG4 ED6: Household and similar electrical appliances - Safety - Part 1: General requirements

Country Status Vote Comments ReceivedAlbania P -Argentina O -Australia P Y - 2019-03-06Austria P Y - 2019-03-21Belarus O Y - 2019-03-22Belgium P Y - 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 Y 2019-03-21France P N Y 2019-03-21Germany P Y 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 N Y 2019-03-22Mexico P Y - 2019-03-22Netherlands P Y Y 2019-03-18New Zealand P Y - 2019-03-04Norway 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 Y Y 2019-03-22Sweden P N Y 2019-03-19Switzerland P Y Y 2019-03-19Thailand 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 2019-03-15Vietnam P Y - 2019-03-14

Approval Criteria ResultP-Members voting: 37P-Members in favour: 32 = 86.5% >=66.7% APPROVEDTotal votes cast: 40 Total against: 5 = 12.5% <=25% APPROVED

of 16


Final Decision: APPROVEDNotes

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 16


Date Document Project Nr.2019-03-22 61/5733/CDV 60335-1/FRAG 4 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 CH NC supports this proposal with the following comment.

Noted

2 CI/ANEC01

ge Consumers International and ANEC support IEC 60335-1/FRAG4 ED6 ‘Household and similar electrical appliances - Safety - Part 1: General requirements’

Noted.

3 DE01 ge The DE-NC is in favour with the proposed CDV but wishes to submit the following comments:

Noted

4 FI01 ge The Finnish NC is in favour of this document but wishes to submit the following comment.

Noted

5 IT01 ge The Italian NC is in favour of proposed document 61/5733/CDV and submits the following comment.

Noted

6 ZA01 ge ZA NC accept 61/5733/CDV the no technical comment:

Noted

7 FR01 ge FRNC casts a negative vote on the fragment 4 according to the comments below.

Noted

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

Noted

9 ES01 18-19 Foreword ed Use and application of appropriated standards and Parts 1 and 2 in conjunction is given in lines 15-18, as usually. There is no reason to make additional clarifications for this specific clause 8.

In addition, application of test probes is given in clause 8, not in the foreword.

Delete text on lines 18 and 19. Not accepted, Refer to the decision on 61/5697/CD as recorded in 61/5722A/INF in the cover page Note From TC/SC Officers

Also as recorded under item 6b in 61/5737/RM

10 JP01 18-19 Foreword ed We propose to modify the text as follows according the decision in the Busan meeting.(1) The text “in Part 2” should be deleted because the sentence should limit the application of test probe 18 requirements in Part 1, not in Part 2.

(2) Clarify that test probe 18 is applied only when the Parts 2 specifically refer to these requirements in the Part 1.

The decision in 61/5722A/CC for 61/5697/CD states;“Decision: Proceed to incorporate in

Delete the text as follows.

The application of test probe 18 requirements in Part 2 concerning 8.1.1, 8.2 and 20.2 of Part 1 only apply when the Part 2 has been established on the basis of the sixth edition of Part 1 and required the application of test probe 18.

(1) See comment 11(2) To be discussed.Is the proposed addition of “and require the application of test probe 18.” covered by lines 15-17. This was the understanding of EG1. So that when a part 2 is established on the basis of the Part 1 Ed 6 reference to Test probe 18 has to be removed if it is not necessary rather than included if it is.

of 16


# MB/NCLine

number(e.g. 17)




Fragment 4 CDV for ED 6 of 60335-1. Introduce in 60335-1 ED 6 a statement in Foreword to indicate that the application of the requirements in Part 1 concerning 8.1.1 and 20.2 only apply when the Parts 2 specifically refer to these requirements in the Part 1.”

11 ES02 20-22 Foreword ed These lines are the typical lines included in all Parts 2; this reference shall be given only in those Parts 2, not in Part 1.

Text is referring to Part 2, this is Part 1: “When a particular subclause of Part 1 is not mentioned in this part 2….”

Delete the text on lines 20-22. Accepted

12 DE02 57 ge Note of the Secretary to reconfirm the ‘in some countries’ notes (line 73-74).

We reconfirm the German ‘in some countries’ notes for 6.1.

Noted

13 DK01 73 Note of SEC

te DKNC confirm the in some country note in line 61The in some countries note in line 70 is withdrawn

Noted

14 FI02 61 Foreword te Finland should be added to a list of countries where the maximum inlet water pressure shall be at least 1,0 MPa.

Modify the existing text as follows:7.12.8: The maximum inlet water pressure shall be at least 1,0 MPa (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland).

Accepted

15 FR02 58, 63, 64

te FR deviations are confirmed Noted

16 NL01 57-59 & 73-74

3.10.2 Secretary note

ge/ed The national deviations for NL are reconfirmed.

Noted

17 US01 73 NOS ge Maintain the lines 53-54. The remaining US Notes can be deleted (lines 66-69 and 72).

Noted

18 US02 170 2 te ISO 4892-1 has been restructured between the 1999 edition previously referenced and the 2016 edition, including changes to clause numbering and naming. Therefore, Annex T will need to be updated to reflect the new edition.

Update Annex T to reflect changes in the new edition of ISO 4892-1.

AcceptedIn Annex TReplace “ Light source” by “Irradiance”Delete the last paragraph of existing 5.1.6Replace “5.1.6” by “5.1.1”Replace “5.2.4” by “5.2.5”

19 FR03 179 5.20 te It should be clarified that the value of 1N is to be used by default if no particular force is specified in the different clauses

Modify line 179 as follow :If a force is not specified, probes are applied with a force not exceeding 1N.

See comment 20

of 16


# MB/NCLine

number(e.g. 17)




20 IR01 179 5.20 ge For more clarity " unless otherwise specified " should be added to entry of this line

unless otherwise specified, probes are applied…

Not necessary. The first line in clause 5 states:Unless otherwise specified, the tests are carried out in accordance with this clause.

21 IT02 179 5.20 ed In many cases a different force is specified in other clauses of the standard.

Modify as follows:“Probes are applied with a force not exceeding 1 N unless a different value is specified”.

See comment 20

22 JP02 177-179 5.20 te We do not agree to the proposal for clause 5.20. It is unnecessary for the following reasons.

- In this CDV, clause 20.2 specifies forces to be not exceeding 5 N with test probe B, and not exceeding 2,5 N with test probe 18.

- In the existing Part 1, clause 22.11 specifies the push force to be 50N with test probe 11.

- In the existing Part 1, clause 29.1 and 29.2 specify the forces to be 2 N for bare conductors and 30 N for accessible surfaces with test probe B.

Delete the proposal for clause 5. Not accepted. See comment 20

23 NL02 181 8.1.1 ed As whether detachable parts need to be removed or not depends on which probe is used, the first paragraph of the current standard must be modified.

Add as a first sentence to the proposal:Replace the first paragraph by the following:The requirement of 8.1 applies for all positions of the appliance when it is operated as in normal use, and after the removal of detachable parts.

Accepted See also comment 27

24 JP03 182 8.1.18.1.38.2

te We propose to clarify that test probe 18 is applied only if the Part 2 requires it according the following decision in the Busan meeting.

The decision in 61/5722A/CC for 61/5697/CD states;“Decision: Proceed to incorporate in Fragment 4 CDV for ED 6 of 60335-1. Introduce in 60335-1 ED 6 a statement in Foreword to indicate that the application of the requirements in Part 1 concerning 8.1.1 and 20.2 only apply when the Parts 2 specifically refer to these requirements in the Part 1.”

Add the underlined text in the 1st paragraph of 8.1.1 in the CDV and accordingly modify 8.2.

Test probe B of IEC 61032 and test probe 18, if the Part 2 requires the application of test probe 18, are applied with a force not exceeding 1 N, .....................

See comment 10

of 16


# MB/NCLine

number(e.g. 17)




25 IR02 182 8.1.1 ge Due to subclause 5.20 , it is not necessary to repeat the requirement in this line

See comment 20

26 JP04 8.1.1 of the existing Part 1

ed The 1st paragraph of clause 8.1.1 of the existing Part1 states “and after the removal of detachable parts”, regadless of types of test probes.

However, the 2nd dash of CDV specifies;– test probe 18 the appliance shall be fully assembled as in normal use without any parts removed.

In the 1st paragraph of the existing Part1, delete the text as follows.

8.1.1 The requirement of 8.1 applies for all positions of the appliance when it is operated as in normal use, and after the removal of detachable parts.

See comment 23

27 US03 191 8.1.1 te “all detachable parts are removed” conflicts with the requirements in the 2nd paragraph of 8.1.1 for lamps. The 2nd paragraph should be relocated to be included with the instructions for tests with test probe B.

Replace the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of 8.1.1 (line 181) and replace lines 190-193 with the following:During the tests with test probe B, all detachable parts are removed except lamps located behind a detachable cover are not removed, provided that the appliance can be isolated from the supply mains by means of a plug or an all-pole switch. However, during insertion or removal of lamps which are located behind a detachable cover, protection against contact with live parts of the lamp cap shall be ensured.During the tests with test probe 18, the appliance shall be fully assembled as in normal use without any parts removed.

Accepted. See also comment 23

28 JP06 194-195238-239

8.1.120.2

te We propose to clarify the condition to apply test probe 18 for the following reason.

The requirement state “Test probe 18 is not applied to appliances for commercial use unless they are intended to be installed in an area open to the public.”, however, the underlined portion is unclear.

Add the following underlined text.Test probe 18 is not applied to appliances for commercial use unless they are declared by the instructions to be installed in an area open to the public.

Not necessary. It is covered by “intended to be installed” This means that unless the manufacturer states “suitable of installation in an area open to the public” the test probe would not be applied.It should be noted that some appliances such refrigeration display cabinets only have parts installed in areas open to the public.

of 16


# MB/NCLine

number(e.g. 17)




29 US04 194-195 8.1.1 te Portable cord-connected products for commercial use that are intended for use by the general public, such as hotel toasters, waffle makers, etc., should be subjected to evaluation with test probe 18. However, portable products not for use by the public, such as commercial floor finishing machines, should not be evaluated with test probe 18. The term “installation” needs clarification. “Installation” could also be misunderstood to apply to mobile or portable products that are only intended for use by professionals and not the general public. Therefore to avoid confusion and better defined when the probe is applicable for commercial appliances, it is the recommendation to change the text as shown. This would also prevent unnecessary updates to Part 2 standards for commercial appliances to address the use of test probe 18.

Test probe 18 is not applied to appliances for commercial use unless they are

- intended to be used by the public or,

stationary appliances or fixed appliances installed in an area open to the public.

The second dashed item is accepted.The first dashed item is not accepted.

Appliances intended for use by the general public are not commercial appliances. They come under the category of appliances for household and similar purposes.

30 IR03 195,239 ge " used " should be added before " installed" … unless they are intended to be used or installed…

Not accepted See comment 28 and comment 29

31 JP05 195239

8.1.120.2

ed We propose to clarify that “an area open to the public” means“an area open to children of the public”.

Add the following underlined text.Test probe 18 is not applied to appliances for commercial use unless they are intended to be installed in an area open to children of the public.

See comment 28

32 US05 8.1.5 te The compliance criteria for 8.1.5 is evaluated to 8.1.1. This should only include evaluation with Test Probe B. This comment was accepted on the Part 2 proposals for adding test probe 18 to Clause 8 as discussed in Wellington (e.g. US2 in 61/5656A/INF)

Replace the compliance criteria with the following:

Compliance is checked by inspection and by applying test probe B of IEC 61032 as specified in 8.1.1.

To be discussed

of 16


# MB/NCLine

number(e.g. 17)




33 DK02 211-222 15.1.1 te The current text in IEC 60335-1 Ed.5.2 include specifications for testing of appliances classified IPX1; IPX2 etc. up to IPX7.The proposed text in 5733/CDV replaces the complete existing §15.1.1 but it should only replace specifications for IPX3, IPX4 and IPX7.With the proposed text the standard will have no specifications for testing for IPX2, IPX5 and IPX6.Similar comments/proposals to the 61/5579/CD from NLNC and TC72 was not accepted (recorded in 61/5635A/CC), but the DKNC is of the opinion that this was wrong.

To keep test specifications also for IPX2, IPX5 and IPX6 limit the proposed text only to replace the testing for the affected IP-classifications IPX3, IPX4 and IPX7 and not the entire §15.1.1

Not accepted. These classifications are included by the text in line 212 along with IPX9. The text in lines 213 to 220 clarifies the method of testing for IPX3, IPX4 and IPX7

34 DK03 212 15.1.1 te There is a minimum criterion in 60529 that is different from the criteria in 60335. To clarify add the reference to 60529 §14.3.

Add at the end of the sentence:” … §14.3 of IEC 60529 does not apply.”

Not accepted. Clause 14.3 states It is the responsibility of the relevant technical committee to specify the amount of water whichmay be allowed to enter the enclosure and the details of a dielectric strength test, if any.This is actioned in 15.1 of Part 1.

35 CH02 228 19.5 te This relaxation shall be limited to PEC which controls a heating element.

Insert “if it controls a heating element” after “be a protective electronic circuit”.

Not necessary – reference to a heating element is made in the first sentence of 19.5.

36 DE03 227-228 19.5 te For clarification and better understanding Modify the text as follows (changes are underlined):A control that operates during this test and the test of Clause 11 and that incorporates an electronic circuit is not considered to be a protective electronic circuit as long as a thermal cut-out is part of the test circuit .

To be discussed

MT23 observation:.See comment 37.

of 16


# MB/NCLine

number(e.g. 17)




37 ES03 226-228 19.5 te We do not accept the relaxation proposed for subclause 19.5. This will lead to a less safe condition.In addition, as the proposed text is written it will lead to misinterpretations with other tests. Same controls that can operate to comply with subclause 19.5 may operate too to comply with other tests in chapter 19. As an example, it does not make any sense that a control is not PEC when operate in subclause 19.5, and the same control is a PEC when operate in subclause 19.4.Therefore, we propose to delete lines 226-228 (delete the proposed text for subclause 19.5) or change the text by the following:“A control that operates during this test and the test of clause 11 and that incorporates an electronic circuit, is not considered to be a protective electronic circuit if there is an additional thermal cut out devices included in the circuitry”

Delete 226-228, or alternatively change the text by the following:

“A control that operates during this test and the test of clause 11 and that incorporates an electronic circuit, is not considered to be a protective electronic circuit if there is an additional thermal cut out devices included in the circuitry”

See comment 36

MT23 observation:Support comment 37, to be modified as proposed text.

38 NL03 229-241 20.2 ge What is the background of the different applied forces between 20.2 and 8.1.1?

The tests probes used are different.

39 JP07 237 20.2 te We propose to clarify that test probe 18 is applied only if the Part 2 requires it according the following decision in the Busan meeting.

The decision in 61/5722A/CC for 61/5697/CD states;“Decision: Proceed to incorporate in Fragment 4 CDV for ED 6 of 60335-1. Introduce in 60335-1 ED 6 a statement in Foreword to indicate that the application of the requirements in Part 1 concerning 8.1.1 and 20.2 only apply when the Parts 2 specifically refer to these requirements in the Part 1.”

Add the underlined text in the 4th dash.

20.2............................– applying test probe 18 of IEC 61032 with a force not exceeding 2,5 N if the Part 2 requires the application of test probe 18.

See comment 10

40 MY01 237 –239

20.2 te We Do not agree with the proposal of applying test probe B 18 of IEC 61032 with a force not exceeding 2,5 N. Due to:1. This will affect performance when the space is narrow down.2. If the protect guard enlarge to comply with Test Probe B, resulted in weight increase and cause unbalance of motor and guard and lead the total appliances to overturn.

Delete the proposal. See comment 10

of 16


# MB/NCLine

number(e.g. 17)




41 US06 238-239 20.2 te Portable cord-connected products for commercial use that are intended for use by the general public, such as hotel toasters, waffle makers, etc., should be subjected to evaluation with test probe 18. However, portable products not for use by the public, such as commercial floor finishing machines, should not be evaluated with test probe 18. The term “installation” needs clarification. “Installation” could also be misunderstood to apply to mobile or portable products that are only intended for use by professionals and not the general public. Therefore to avoid confusion and better defined when the probe is applicable for commercial appliances, it is the recommendation to change the text as shown. This would also prevent unnecessary updates to Part 2 standards for commercial appliances to address the use of test probe 18.

Test probe 18 is not applied to appliances for commercial use unless they are

- intended to be used by the public or,

stationary appliances or fixed appliances installed in an area open to the public.

See comment 29

42 DK04 245-250 22.XX ed The proposal is not clearly understandable as written.

For clarification change the proposed text to:Appliances connected to the supply mains by an appliance inlet that does not comply with the standard sheets in IEC 60320-1 shall be provided with a cord set.For fixed appliances the appropriate matching connector with means for connection of a suitable flexible cord shall be provided

First paragraph Not Accepted. There are no standard sheets in IEC 60320-1 – they are in 60320-3Second paragraph Not Accepted. This would require even fixed appliances fitted with a standard sheet 60320-3 appliance inlet to be provided with a matching connector, which has never been necessary for safety reasons.

43 IR04 245,248 te " connected to the supply mains" should be replaced by " intended to be connected to the supply mains"

Not accepted. See 25.1 of the published standard.

44 SE02 246 22.xx te Multi-phase appliances are not covered by 22.xx

Add “or IEC 60309” after IEC 60320-1 To be discussed See also comment 51.Note that IEC 60320-1 is not mentioned in 22.xx.Also Note that IEC 60320-1 applies to appliances couplers for two poles and two poles with earth contact and rated current not exceeding 16A.

of 16


# MB/NCLine

number(e.g. 17)




Consideration should be given to deleting the first paragraph of the requirement and making the 2nd paragraph applicable to all appliances by deleting the word “Fixed”Then adding a new paragraph statingThe requirement is not applicable to

– multi-phase appliances connected to the supply mains by an appliance inlet complying with the standard sheets of IEC 60309-2;

– single phase appliances connected to the supply mains by an appliance inlet complying with the standard sheets of IEC 60309-2 having a rated current exceeding 16 A,

As a consequence, a change could be introduced into 24.1.xx by replacing “If a cord set is” by “For cords sets”

45 DE04 250 22:XX ed The term connector is defined in IEC 60320-1 as “part of the appliance coupler integral with, or intended to be attached to, one cord connected to the supply.”

Not necessary. Delete in the last sentence of the second paragraph the wording “for attachment to a suitable flexible cord”

Not accepted

46 IR05 22.XX ge Add the following text to the subclause 7.12.5:If a cord set is required to be provided with the appliance according to subclause 22.xx, the instructions shall contain the substance of the following:If the cord set is damaged, it must be replaced by a special cord set availablefrom the manufacturer or its service agent.

To be discussed

of 16


# MB/NCLine

number(e.g. 17)




47 DE05 258 24.1.3 ed As a consequence to the modification for switches in Annex H, subclause 24.1.3 should be updated.

Replace the first and second sentence of 24.1.3 as follows:The relevant standard for mechanical switches is IEC 61058-1-1. The number of cycles of operation declared for 7.4 of IEC 61058-1 shall be at least 10 000.

Accepted in principle. IEC61059-1-2 needs to be taken into account along with the number of cycles for switches breaking a locked rotor current under 4.7.9 – 50 is suggested as detailed 61/5733/CDV.

48 DK05 259 24.1.5 te It is not possible to track the origin of the deletion of “Class II” in this line. None of the referenced CC document mentions, and it’s not mentioned in the daily reports of the Wellington meeting. It is therefore not clear that this deletion originates from a TC 61 decision or that any rationale have been presented.The latest edition of 60320-1 now contains requirements for Class I appliances, however A1 of IEC 60335-1 does add “class II” in clause 24.1.5 and thereby provide continuity in the IEC 60335-1 despite the latest edition of IEC 60320-1.

Delete line 259 of the proposal. Not Accepted. It was deleted to align with IEC 60320-2-3:2018. This now covers two pole and two pole with earth contact appliance couplers. Refer to lines 86-88

49 FR04 259 24.1.5 te The proposal to remove the mention of the class II related to the IEC 60320-2-3 has been only made on the last CDV version. This point has not been discussed previously, no rational has been provided anymore.

Appliance couplers, for class I appliances higher than IPX0, have existed on the market for a long time, particularly for fixed appliances. They have been designed and they are dedicated for appliances to make easier their installation and to reinforce the safety with the installers or users, such as appliances covered by IEC 60335-2-41 and IEC 60335-2-51 (see the example in Annex to FR04). These dedicated appliance couplers are dependent on the (fixed) appliances and supplied with them.The design of these dedicated appliance couplers are different of ones described in the standards of the series IEC 60320 for general purposes. These dedicated appliance couplers, for class I (fixed) appliance higher than IPX0, meet the

In order to be in accordance with the 2nd § of the §22.xx on this fragment 4 and to clarify the position we suggest to amend the sub-clause 24.1.5 of the 61/5733/CDV as following :

“The relevant standard for appliance couplers is IEC 60320-1 for general purposes. However, for appliances classified higher than IPX0, the relevant standard is IEC 60320-2-3 or, IEC 61984 or IEC 61535 for fixed appliances with dedicated appliance couplers as defined in § 22.XX.”+ add the IEC 61984 and IEC 61535 in the list of standard in clause 2.

See comment 42 and comment 48.IEC 61535 applies to installation couplers – it does not apply for appliances connected to the installation.IEC 61984 only applies to connectors – it does not apply to appliance couplers.IEC 60320-1 applies to appliances couplers for two poles andtwo poles with earth contact and rated current not exceeding 16A.For clarification the first sentence of the test specification should be changed to read“The relevant standard for two poles and two poles with earth contact. appliance couplers and a rated current not exceeding 16 A is IEC 60320-1.

of 16


# MB/NCLine

number(e.g. 17)




requirements of the IEC 60335-1 and their parts 2 and meet the requirements of the IEC 61984 or IEC 61535. That is in accordance of the last paragraph of clause 25.3 in IEC 60335-1 and decision OSM/HA 473.

Even if the new IEC 60320-2-3 could also cover a part of the general appliance couplers for class I appliances higher than IPX0, there is a risk to broaden IEC 60320-2-3 at any kinds of appliance couplers. Indeed:1. The only application of the IEC 60320-2-3 on these dedicated appliance couplers would be partial and there would be a risk not to demonstrate their whole compliance;2. That means these dedicated appliance couplers already placed on the market for a long time and in large quantity should have a non-compliant status; and in the same time there have been no complaint & no question for safety reason until now;3. We need to be in accordance with the 2nd § of the 22.xx on fixed appliances on this fragment 4.

The last paragraph of the test specification should be changed to read

The relevant standard for two poles and two poles with earth contact. interconnection couplers and a rated current not exceeding 16 A is IEC 60320-2-2.

50 SE03 263 24.1.xx te We see no reason to specify one type of accepted cord as normative text.

Delete the last sentence of 24.1.xx or make add it as a note.

Not accepted. See the decision for comment 21 on 61/5579/CD as recorded in 61/5635A/INF

51 SE04 263 24.1.xx te Since IEC 60799 does not cover cord sets for IEC 60309 inlets a clarification is needed.

Add a second sentence.“This is not applicable for appliances with IEC 60309 inlet for single phase exceeding 16A.

Could be accepted. See also comment 44.

52 DE06 274-275 25.22 ed The term cord set is defined in IEC 60320-1 and IEC 60799 as “assembly consisting of one cable or cord fitted with one non-rewirable plug and one non-rewirable connector, intended for the connection of an electrical appliance or equipment to the electrical supply.”

Replace the wording: “flexible cord of the cord set” by “flexible cord of the power supply”

Not accepted. The suggested replacement has no meaning. Note there is a difference in the cord set definition between 60320-1 and 60799. The latter correctly references that the cable or cord is flexible.

53 US07 276-278 30.1 te 19.5 was added to 30.1 for the reason stated below:

Reason: During the test of 19.5 with the clause 11 control by-passed, the test result (temperature rise) will be the same as the test result during the test of 19.4

Delete lines 276-278 Not accepted.Because of the second paragraph of 19.5. In one of the connections, the clause 11 control will be by-passed. In the other connection it is not by-

of 16


# MB/NCLine

number(e.g. 17)




with the clause 11 control short-circuited. So unless reference to 19.5 is introduced it makes it meaningless to only make reference to 19.4 because the test result for 19.5 will require the BP test to be carried out.

However, the clause 11 control is not short circuited during the test of 19.5.

19.5 The test of 19.4 is repeated on class 0I appliances and class I appliances incorporating tubular sheathed or embedded heating elements. However, controls are not short-circuited but one end of the element is connected to the sheath of the heating element.

passed and clause 11 conditions exist.

54 FR05 313 Annex H 17 te It will create inconsistencies with part 2 requirements in clause 24.1.3

Maintain “unless otherwise specified in sub clause 24.1.3 of the relevant part 2 of IEC 60335"

See comment 55

55 US08 313 Annex H, Clause 17

te 10 000 cycles is the default in the Part 1, but many Part 2 standards modify the number of cycles in Clause 24.1.3. The wording at the end of the 1st paragraph of the current standard should be maintained as there were no comments suggesting that it be removed. If this is removed, then each Part 2 standard will have to modify the number of endurance cycles in multiple locations, instead of just modifying 24.1.3.

Add the following at the end of line 313:10 000 unless otherwise specified in subclause 24.1.3 of the relevant part 2 of IEC 60335.

Not accepted. It is covered by the text in lines 15- 17.

56 US09 360 Index of defined words

ed The definition for battery box (3.6.7) is proposed to be deleted in 61/5735/CDV

Delete line 360 It will be covered during FDIS preparation. Subject to review by EG1

of 16


Annex to FR04

Annex: example of class I appliances, stationary circulation pumps, with extracts of the instructions with a dedicated appliance

of 16

ulstandards.ul.com€¦ · Web viewSo unless reference to 19.5 is introduced it makes it...

Documents

Transcript of ulstandards.ul.com€¦ · Web viewSo unless reference to 19.5 is introduced it makes it...