The first broadcasting station in Japan went on-air in 1925, a scant five years after the first radio station went live in the United States. A year later, Nippon Hōsō Kyōkai (NHK) was chartered by the Japanese government and is still the official public broadcast entity. The build-out of NHK’s network into the Pacific was extensive in the 1930s and during the early years of WWII and followed the expansion of Japan’s imperial armed forces across the Pacific.

“Tokyo Rose,” a nom d’aether attributed to several different NHK “correspondents,” was a famous voice of propaganda that teased and titillated US troops in the Pacific. After the war and during the subsequent occupation by Allied forces, all radio broadcasting was controlled by the U.S. and for some years international broadcasting by NHK was severely limited.

The rise of broadcasting naturally created a need for radio receiving equipment and the radio manufacturing industry in Japan was heavily influenced by Mr. Tokuji Hayakawa, who developed the first tube radio set (patterned after more expensive import versions). (A fascinating history of the Sharp Corporation can be found by clicking here.) Hayakawa-san was a creative, driven individual who began his long career of design and development with the patented “Ever-Sharp Pencil” (a breakthrough in the development of mechanical pencils—engineers everywhere should thank him for that). After shifting from pencils to power tubes, Hayakawa appropriated the word “SHARP” for his growing radio business and developed numerous models of broadcast receivers under that name, now a global brand for everything from components, cameras, phone and solar products.

In 1950, the first legislation governing the operation of radio stations (Law Number 131) came into being. This wide-reaching Radio Law may be considered a parallel of the Communications Act of 1934, which established the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The Japan Radio Law has been amended numerous times and was followed, in 1984, by the Telecommunications Business Law (Law Number 86). Both the Japan Radio Law and the Telecommunications Business Law are key parts of the requirements for certification of telecommunications products in Japan.

Under the Japanese system, there are specific levels of regulations that govern approvals for wired and wireless equipment. They are structured as specific laws and ordinances (Table 1). The Ordinances contain the technical requirements and the process for approvals (conformity assessment).

Table 1 

Certification Body processes are outlined in the “Ordinances regarding Conformity Assessment Procedures” which applies to all RCBs, including MIC’s own TELEC.

Another critical ordinance is MIC Notice 88, January 26, 2004 (Test Methods and Appendix to Post of the Ministerial Ordinance No. 37, November 21, 1981). These documents contain the test methods for the various types of radio equipment. Original Japanese documents cab be found by clicking here. Very few official English-language texts of the test methods are available, which has been a challenge for the English-speaking-only test industry.

One source of documents that can be used for reference purposes are available through the Association of Radio Industries and Businesses (ARIB). This organization has translated several of the common documents, however, it is important to note that the MIC procedures must be referenced or cross-referenced to equivalent methods. This cross-reference protocol was agreed to because of the challenge of translation of test methods and procedures.

Mutual Recognition Agreements Open Markets

These past dozen years or so have seen the successful implementation of Mutual Recognition Agreements and Arrangements across multiple economies, spurring trade between the United States, European Union and Asia. MRAs, as they are called, are high-level agreements that are signed by regulatory bodies in each economy.

The MRA between the United States and Europe is an example of one of the most successful cross-barrier agreements for technology product, allowing manufacturers to test products in their home countries for international markets. This has added to the expansion of global trade since the arrangement was first implemented in December 1998. For the past fifteen years, the trade between the US and Europe has expanded many fold, notably in the critical industries of high technology, electronics and communications. Coupled with the EU’s CE Marking, the MRA has dramatically increased market access for domestic and European manufacturers.

The US-Japan Mutual Recognition Arrangement has been active for the past five years, with real implementation coming on-line around 2010. Negotiated, in part, under the umbrella of the multi-lateral Asia-Pacific Telecommunications MRA, the bilateral agreement was staked out to cover both wireless and wired telecom products and is the sixth such MRA covering certification.

Certification for the Japan market, regulated by Japan’s Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC) is directly available for US manufacturers and laboratories.

This has opened the door for manufacturers to get access to the Japan technology market, and “is expected to enhance speed to market, and lower costs in the $2.2 billion trade in telecommunications equipment between the two countries. Japan is now the fifth largest export market for U.S. telecommunications equipment manufacturers, and this agreement is particularly important given the innovation and fast paced growth that characterized both markets.”

Under the terms of the US-Japan MRA, Recognized Certification Bodies (RCBs) have the authority to issue certifications directly. The process lays out the now well-worn path that Certification Bodies have been taking for years: accreditation by an approved Accreditation Body and Designation by (in the US) NIST. The agreement specifies the objective “…to designate private-sector entities in their respective territories to test and certify telecommunications terminal and radio equipment as meeting the technical requirements of the other country.”

Products covered by the MRA include unlicensed and licensed devices. The range of the agreements covering both regulatory structures is summarized in Table 2 (from the MRA).

Table 2

Note the designation of “Specified Radio Equipment” which is a listing of devices according to function in each of three categories. In Japanese parlance, every radio device is a somewhat anachronistic “Station”. The three categories of equipment are as follows:

• Category 1: Unlicensed station: 17 classes (Specified Radio Equipment specified in Article 38-2, paragraph 1, item 1 of the Radio Act). These are generally low power (< 1W) devices.
• Category 2: Licensed station (Blanket License): 31 classes (e.g., mobile phones) (Specified Radio Equipment specified in Article 38-2, paragraph 1, item 2 of the Radio Act).
• Category 3: Licensed station (Others): 75 classes (e.g., basestations) (Specified Radio Equipment specified in Article 38-2, paragraph 1, item 3 of the Radio Act).

Processes

The process for Japan Certification has some unique aspects, at least in terms of practice (when compared to the US/Canada system and the Notified Body process for the EU). This is largely because of the way the system evolved; the radio testing and certification community in Japan is relatively close-knit and the processes were built around the notion of trust, confidence and mutual agreement within that community.

Some of the primary characteristics of the Japan certification system, in practice, are:

1. The RCBs have the authority to directly certify, using forms and formats of their own design.
2. The Certification Number is required on the product, but the number is issued by the RCB (contrast that with the system in the US wherein the grantee chooses the FCC ID and the system in Canada where IC issues the IC number. Further contrast that with the notion of the TCF number under the EU Directives)
3. There is no accreditation requirement for the test lab. The RCB must establish “trust” with the test provider. This became a bit of a complication when implementation discussions were underway; the US system is heavily dependent on accreditation and the ‘chain of authority’.
4. US RCBs are obligated to report to the MIC the certifications performed in a given month. All information on the device (reports, manuals, technical information) stays with the RCB and there is no formal “dismissal” process as with the FCC. Compliance is typically monitored once a device hits the Japan market.
5. MIC grants more ‘interpretation’ powers to the RCB. This is largely due to the manner in which the system evolved.

Documents Required for Certification

Many of the same documents and information required for Japan certification are also required for other regulatory regimens. The primary information is as follows:

1. Application Form
2. Agency Letter (if needed)
3. Quality Management System Declaration and Letter of Quality Control Management
4. Manufacturer’s ISO 9001 Certificate
5. Construction Protection Confirmation
6. Schematics, BOM and Block Diagram
7. Antenna Information
8. Internal and External Photos
9. Label Information and Location
10. Test Report
11. User’s Manual

Note: RF exposure requirements are currently being developed with potential implementation in the first half of 2014. It is understood that Japan will follow, more or less, the European model for dealing with RF hazards.

Japan Label

There are a few items that are somewhat unique, notably the requirement for directly addressing the manufacturer’s quality assurance processes. An ISO 9001 certificate is usually all that is necessary, but lacking that, a definitive statement and/or process that address QA management needs to be supplied. Another requirement is the “Construction Protection Confirmation” which states that the radio section of the device must not be easily opened, must have a unique type of fastener, or must be manufactured such that opening the enclosure would render it inoperable (by potting, ultrasonic welding or gluing).

There are also requirements for measuring all parameters when the input power to the device is subject to +/-10% input voltage variation. The input voltage variation test can be limited, however, if the unit employs a regulator that keeps the output voltage to less than 1% variation when the input is varied by +/-10%. This is not a very difficult control, frankly, and can limit the number of tests that have to be performed on the device.

There are also specific variations on output power, wherein the device must “hold” the power between plus 20% minus 80% variation across the operating band.

There is an allowance for equipment in Japan that does not need any certification. These devices can radiate anywhere in the spectrum as long as the field strength limits at 3 m are very, very low (on the order of Class B emissions limits). These devices are referred to as “extremely low power radio stations.”

Extremely low power radio stations

Modular Approvals

The Japan regulations refer to radio modules as stations that are “Independent of Host” and allow modular approvals. This simplifies the devices approvals for many end-integrators. The module must be tested as a stand-alone device and must be labeled with the certification number assigned by the RCB. There is no provision for the host device to be marked in any way, however additional guidelines are being developed for modular approval certification.

Permissive Changes

The process for handling permissive changes is similar to the FCC/IC process, that is, a certain limited number of changes can be applied to the device before a new certification number is needed, namely: 1) additional antennas (as long as EIRP limits are observed), and 2) changes in RF components that occupy the same footprint, perform the same function, and donot alter the characteristics of the radio.

Since the certification process is generally a close coordination between the applicant (or agent of the lab), the process for amended certificates is usually not filed with MIC as the basic information on the certificate is not supposed to change (operating power, frequency of operation, model name).

Equipment Connected to the Public Network

The Telecommunications Business Law, introduced earlier in this article, is primarily directed at TTE equipment and other devices that connect to the public networks. Common examples include wired TTE equipment as well as wireless devices (such as mobile phones). In addition to the requirements for conformance with the Radio Law, wireless phones and devices that provide public connectivity (public “hotspots” that are common in coffee shops and the like) must also conform to the Telecommunications Business Law. The primary requirements include protocols and related matters that dictate device connection to the public network. These devices must also have an additional label element, which consists of a “T in a box”.

A Note on Electromagnetic Compatibility

EMC in Japan is largely unregulated and is under the auspices of the Voluntary Control Council for Interference (VCCI), which has been operating with great effectiveness since 1985. The requirements deal solely with emissions from equipment and, as the name of the council states, compliance is voluntary. Most adherents to the VCCI process use it for market-acceptance. As one might imagine, the VCCI mark is very important in the Japanese consumer marketplace.

Summary

The access for obtaining wireless certifications for Japan has been opened up significantly. The United States has joined the European Union in signing an MRA that allows for mutually acceptable conformity assessment procedures. In addition to the simple fact that market access has improved for Japanese and American manufacturers, the opening of these requirements has also led to further cooperation and participation in global forums, such as the APEC TEL MRA Working Group, whose purpose is to examine ways to enhance the MRAs and look at matters that arise from the regulatory regimens, representing a firm example of cooperation and underscoring the access that powers global trade in the high technology industry. 

Mike Violette is Director and Founder of American Certification Body. He can be reached at mikev@wll.com.

While product safety and reliability are core principles of virtually every manufacturer designing equipment for the telecom industry, the Telcordia Generic Requirements (GRs) that ensure the integrity of such devices and systems are not commonly understood by manufacturers around the globe.

As an increasing amount of equipment used in telecommunications networks is being produced in different parts of the world, recognizing and adhering to these standards and requirements is essential to competing in this ever-expanding market.

Among these requirements is the NEBS family of requirements, which stands for Network Equipment Building System. Unlike more traditional product safety standards, compliance to the NEBS family of standards ensures the personal safety of equipment operators and service technicians and the protection of facilities housing equipment, all while ensuring the integrity of an overall telecommunications network. This family of requirements is what members of the Telecommunication Carrier Group (TCG), such as Verizon and AT&T, and smaller local service providers use to evaluate telecommunications equipment to ensure network integrity and protect against hazards associated with the location of equipment.

It is this all-encompassing focus on safety, reliability and performance of network equipment and its impact on the environment of telecom facilities that distinguishes NEBS requirements from other telecommunications standards. NEBS requirements are designed to:

• Protect personnel
• Streamline equipment design and installation
• Prevent service outages and interference in a network caused by incompatible equipment
• Reduce the risks of fire in network facilities
• Guard against the potential negative impacts on equipment from extreme temperatures, vibration and airborne contamination
• Support equipment compatibility with the network’s electrical environment.

Like other industry requirements, meeting NEBS requirements can positively impact a manufacturer’s bottom line. NEBS requirements consist of three levels of compliance, each ensuring a different stage of network protection. Understanding in advance the required level of compliance for a particular product can help a manufacturer minimize product development, installation and maintenance costs. Increasingly, telecommunications equipment manufacturers around the world are requiring their component suppliers to demonstrate compliance with NEBS and including this stipulation in requests for proposal (RFPs) and supplier contracts. In fact, requirements are beginning to apply to both wire line installations as well as wireless applications.

Understanding Levels of Compliance

As most TCG members require demonstration of NEBS compliance prior to the purchase and/or deployment on their telecommunication network infrastructure, equipment manufacturers document compliance to NEBS requirements by having testing performed by an ISO 17025 accredited third-party test laboratory. In certain circumstances, NEBS-related testing can be performed in-house, assuming an internal laboratory is properly accredited to ISO 17025. However, some TCG members require all testing to be performed or witnessed by an accredited independent test laboratory (ITL).

NEBS requirements apply to telecommunications equipment installed in a Central Office (CO) environment, certain Outside Plant applications (OSP), and Customer Premises Equipment (CPE). There are generally two primary GRs that apply to most equipment designated for use in a CO: GR-1089-CORE (Issue 6), which covers electromagnetic compatibility, electrical transients and electrical safety; and GR-63-CORE (Issue 4), which covers physical requirements. GR-1089-CORE and GR-63-CORE together are commonly referred to as the “NEBS Criteria.” It’s important to understand that individual TCGs may have additional requirements beyond those found in GR-1089-CORE and GR-63-CORE.

Helping to speed and simplify the compliance process without jeopardizing network reliability in the deployment of new equipment, the Telcordia special report SR-3580, NEBS Criteria Levels, divides NEBS requirements into three levels of compliance.

• Level 1 is the minimum acceptable level of NEBS environmental compatibility needed to preclude hazards and degradation of a network facility and hazards to personnel. Level 1 comprises only safety and risk criteria. Conformance to Level 1 does not assure equipment operability or service continuity. Level 1 is typically used by service providers for early deployment into their COs and/or interoperability laboratories, and to allow collocaters to install equipment in a central office. A collocater is a company that rents space in a central office and provides some type of communications service (such as Internet access or long distance).
• Level 2 is the minimum level of NEBS environmental compatibility needed to provide some limited assurance of equipment operability within the network facility environment. This assurance of operability is limited to the controlled or normal environments as defined by the criteria. Rarely a focus of customers, Level 2 includes all requirements of Level 1 with some added level of operability reliability.
• Level 3 is the minimum level of NEBS environmental compatibility needed to provide maximum assurance of equipment operability within the network facility environment. The Level 3 criteria provide the highest assurance of product operability. Level 3 criteria are suited for equipment applications that demand minimal service interruptions over the equipment’s life. Most TCGs require NEBS Level 3 prior to acceptance/installation on the network as they require this level of compliance for equipment operation in the central office, but not collocated equipment.

While SR-3580 identifies the tests required by the three levels, most equipment manufacturers submit their equipment to be evaluated to NEBS Level 3. Even in pursuing the highest assurance of product operability that Level 3 provides, manufacturers should know where their product is going to be deployed on a network: in a CO operated by telecom carriers, outside plant environment or customer premises. The setting of product deployment determines the tests that need to be performed to meet NEBS requirements. For example, specific environmental testing, in accordance with GR-63-CORE, simulates exposure to extreme environments that include high/low temperatures, high humidity, shock and exposure, fire ignition and flame spread, seismic conditions and airborne contaminates. By understanding the testing process, and the additional tests that may be required by specific carriers, manufacturers are better able to work most effectively and efficiently with third-party testing laboratories.

Exploring Qualified NEBS Testing Laboratories

Choosing the right NEBS testing laboratory to work with involves considering a host of issues, from laboratory capabilities and accreditations to staff expertise. Equipment manufacturers might also examine whether a provider is able to outline start dates and availability for project planning well before testing actually begins.

In assessing provider capabilities, manufacturers should:

• be aware that product size and weight limitations might preclude some laboratories from completing certain test profiles.
• make sure the NEBS test facility is ISO 17025 accredited and qualified under any carrier specific laboratory accreditation programs, such as the Verizon ITL program.
• inquire about the training and expertise of testing staff and ensure engineers are actively engaged in industry technical committees, regularly attend industry symposia and are current with any applicable professional certifications.

It’s important to note that a comprehensive, full service laboratory will support NEBS testing with the following:

• Full EMC test facility capable of conducting both immunity and emissions testing
• Environmental chambers to conduct temperature and altitude testing
• Vibration and seismic test facilities
• Full-scale fire facility
• Facilities to support acoustic power measurements
• Various test facilities to support lightning surge and power fault simulations, DC power measurements
• Conditioning chambers to support mixed flowing gas testing and test apparatus to support hygroscopic dust exposure

These laboratories should document and deliver a test report that outlines an overall test strategy and contains individual test methods and results. The test laboratory should also include separate videos of the large-scale fire tests and seismic tests.

In addition to the Telcordia Generic Requirements, a testing laboratory should be familiar with the related American National Standards developed by the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS). These standards, such as ATIS-0600319, Equipment Assemblies – Fire Propagation Risk Assessment, or the ATIS-0600015 series of energy efficiency testing standards are often referenced in the Telcordia GRs or, in some cases, are specifically required by the service provider community.

A full service laboratory should also be able to support testing to international standards for manufacturers that seek compliance for the global marketplace. Examples of these standards include the ETSI 300 019 and 300 386 series of standards dealing with the physical and EMC environments, respectively. No matter the current or future setting of laboratory testing, telecom equipment manufacturers should ensure that their equipment undergoes proper NEBS and customer specific required testing. Viewing this commitment as an important part of product investment, manufacturers should seek out an ITL with the technological tools and expertise to carry out the testing process, including test methods that address any modifications to requirements.

In understanding and achieving NEBS compliance, a manufacturer gains standing as a company whose equipment enhances rather than jeopardizes network integrity and protects the safety of the personnel who operate it. The return on this product investment not only includes reduced design and related costs over the long term, but the advantage of being positioned to make great strides in an evolving worldwide marketplace that presents exciting, new opportunities every day.

UL is a premier global safety science company with more than 100 years of proven history. A pioneer in NEBS testing since 1992, UL operates three full service EMC facilities located throughout North America. Each has a variety of NEBS capabilities and is staffed with highly trained, experienced, and NARTE certified engineers.

© UL LLC 2013. Reprinted with permission.

Matt Marotto
is currently the North American Wireless & EMC Quality Manager for UL. In 2008, Marotto served as Global NEBS Program Development Manager and was responsible for developing and implementing UL’s NEBS Fastrack Program, which enables international Telecom manufacturers to perform NEBS and telecom related testing in their own laboratories under the witness of UL staff. Prior to that, Marotto was Operations Manager for UL’s EMC and NEBS testing laboratories in Research Triangle Park, N.C. Matt received his bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering from the University of Alabama and is an iNARTE certified product safety engineer.

Randy Ivans
is UL’s Principal Engineer in the high tech and telecommunications area. He is responsible for the development, implementation and maintenance of various UL Standards and certification programs including UL’s NEBS Mark program. Randy is a member of the National Electrical Code, NFPA 70, Code Making Panel No. 16 that is responsible for Chapter 8 covering communications systems. He is chairman of the TIA TR41.7 Committee on Environmental and Safety Issues and is a member of the ATIS Sustainability in Telecom: Energy and Protection Committee (STEP) in which he chairs the NPP subcommittee on physical protection. Randy received his bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering and his master of science in technology management from Polytechnic University and is an iNARTE certified product safety engineer.

“Today knowledge has power. It controls access to opportunity and advancement.” – Peter Drucker

In the age of “The Internet of Everything” and an increasingly networked world, our neighbors and trading partners to the south are joining in and demanding access to the same electronic products and associated services that we enjoy in the US and Canada. As the economies in Mexico and the countries of Central and South America grow and develop, so do their wages and middle class populations, becoming an ever-larger source of new customers and profits for global companies and corporations. Those wanting to enter these markets need to understand the legislation, regulations, and certification programs for each.

A good place to start is with the regulatory agencies, which will be discussed in this overview article, along with the basic compliance requirements for ITE and consumer electronics products

We will see many differences in compliance programs, as we look at Mexico, the seven countries in Central America, and the ten largest countries in South America. Some, such as Mexico and Brazil, have comprehensive regulatory compliance programs and modern telecommunications systems in place, similar to the US and Canadian systems, with regulatory requirements for EMC, product safety, wireless, and telecom, and will be covered in more depth. Others have only limited compliance requirements and outdated communications infrastructures, perhaps only concerned with frequency spectrum, and accepting proof of compliance from the regulatory engineering reports of other countries. What they all share in common are citizens that want access to the wealth of information, entertainment, and communication services that are readily available to others, so they can have the opportunity to join in, benefit from, and contribute to our ever-increasingly wired (and wireless) world.

Please note that this article should not be your sole source of information when you begin seeking product approvals. This is just a high-level overview of the national agencies and requirements; the official standards should be obtained for each country, and an experienced regulatory consultant should be utilized if in-house expertise is not available. Also remember that local customs facilitators can be a valuable source of information on the importation of products.

So let’s get started on our southbound trip, and see if we can map out the path for offering our products to our hemispheric neighbors.

Mexico

As a NAFTA trading partner, Mexico enjoys economic ties to the US and Canada, and has similar regulatory structures, although with more government involvement. While the US and Canada have worked out Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRA) for the acceptance of regulatory compliance approvals between their countries, the development of a similar agreement with Mexico is still in the beginning stages, so for now electronic product approvals must be obtained from the regulatory bodies for telecommunications and national standards.

Telecommunications Federal Institute – IFT
www.ift.org.mx/iftweb

The Instituto Federal de Telecomunicaciones (IFT) is the telecom authority of Mexico, translated in English as the Telecommunications Federal Institute. This agency was recently created, in September of 2013, to completely replace the previous telecom agency, the Federal Commission of Telecommunications (COFETEL). As with the previous COFETEL agency, IFT will be the responsible agency for all type approvals for specified telecom equipment imported into Mexico.

IFT will also take over all other agency duties, such as radio frequency spectrum management and assignments for telecommunications and broadcasting, publishing telecom regulations and updates, telecom and broadcast concession grants and transfers, and regulating any telecom or broadcasting monopolies in Mexico. “Grandfathering” does apply to products approved under the previous COFETEL system, with the same previous requirements for displaying the COFETEL homologation number on the product label.

IFT defines the mandatory approval requirements for wireless and telecom products in Mexico, including requirements for product safety. The existing NOM national regulations and approval requirements will continue to be used until IFT publishes replacements.

The typical “PEC” approval process, which is the conformity assessment evaluation process for most consumer electronic products with telecom or wireless features, starts with the receipt of required test samples, which must be tested in authorized labs in Mexico. Under the “traditional” approval process, which applies to specific types of short range wireless devices, no sample testing is needed, and FCC or CE R&TTE reports can be accepted for proof of compliance. The next step is for an authorized Notified Body, such as NYCE or ANCE, to review the test reports and issue a Certificate of Conformity. The final stage is the IFT review, which will issue a Certificate of Homologation, containing an IFT certificate number, which must be displayed on the product label. This entire process typically takes 6 to 8 weeks, but can take much longer depending on seasonal factors, such as in advance of the December holiday selling season.

A local representative is required in Mexico, to serve as an official company representative, and also to retain the original product certifications. This can be a person at a branch office from a company, or a third-party who is registered as a business in Mexico. In either case, the certificate holder must be registered with IFT.

Certificates issued under the PEC program are permanent, as long as the product does not change, but under the traditional program they are only valid for one year, and must be renewed if the product will continue to be sold in Mexico. It is recommended to start the renewal process at least 60 days before the certificate expires.

Mexican National Standards – NOM
www.economia.gob.mx/standards/national

Norma Oficial Mexicana (NOM) are the official national standards of Mexico. Each NOM is the official standard that contains the mandatory requirements and regulations for specific types of products or activities.

For electronic products, the NOM standards define and establish minimum product requirements in the areas of product safety, telecom, and EMC, depending on the specific type of device. Beyond these attributes, compulsory requirements for user manual warning statements and packaging labeling requirements are also provided.

These standards are available for free from the referenced NOM website in this article, albeit in Spanish-language. Here are some of the more common NOM standards applicable to consumer electronics:

• NOM-001-SCFI-1993, “Household electronic and similar appliances” (IEC 60065)
• NOM-008-SCFI-1993, “NOM label marking requirements”
• NOM-016-SCFI-1993, “Electronic office equipment” (IEC 60335)
• NOM-019-SCFI-1998, “Safety in Data processing equipment” (IEC 60950)
• NOM-121-SCT1-2009, “Radio communication systems operating in the bands 902-928 MHz, 2400-2483.5 MHz and 5725-5850”

Central America

Belize
www.puc.bz

In Belize there are only regulatory compliance requirements related to the frequency spectrum and telecommunications infrastructure for most consumer electronics. The Public Utilities Commission is the government agency that grants and regulates telecom and wireless approvals, and in most cases they will allow regulatory reports from other countries to be submitted as proof of compliance, such as FCC or CE R&TTE compliance reports.

There are no requirements in Belize for local testing, marking/labeling, or a local in-country representative, and the certificate remains valid as long as the product remains unchanged. Approval times can range from 4 to 12 weeks, but typically are completed in less than 6 weeks, if the agency payment is included with the documentation submittal package.

Costa Rica
www.sutel.go.cr

Costa Rica is also mainly concerned about telecommunications equipment and radio frequency spectrum usage. Superintendenci de Telecommunicaciones (SUTEL) is the body that grants and regulates telecom and wireless approvals, and they specifically allow FCC reports and grants to serve as proof of compliance in their country.

A local importer is required in Costa Rica and multiple distributors are allowed. Fully-configured product samples are required for in-country testing, and the software operating system version must be documented, as it will appear on the SUTEL approval certificate. The equipment code listed on the certificate must be printed on the product label, along with the SUTEL logo or name. One unique requirement is for notarized letters for the local representative, product label, product information, and estimated quantities of product to be sold. It is important to consult with an experienced regulatory consultant to verify the specific requirements for your product.

Once issued by SUTEL, the certificate remains valid indefinitely, unless the product design is changed. Approval times are typically 6 to 8 weeks, after the agency has received all of the required documentation and samples, including the notarized letters.

El Salvador
www.siget.gob.sv

Superintendencia General de Electricidad y Telecomunicaciones (SIGET) is the government regulating body tasked with managing the electricity generation and telecommunications infrastructure and industries in El Salvador, including radio spectrum usage and assignments for the frequencies from 3 KHz to 3000 GHz. SIGET accepts CE R&TTE reports to be submitted as proof of compliance for telecom products, allowing for importation of products into the country.

In practice, this means that SIGET certification is not required. For example, for a WLAN device operating in the 5 GHz frequency bands, if the product has a CE report showing that it meets the criteria of the R&TTE Directive, then this is accepted as proof of product compliance, allowing registration of the device for use and importation in El Salvador.

Guatemala
www.sit.gob.gt

The Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones (SIT) is the high-tech body of the Ministry of Communications, Infrastructure, and Housing. SIT manages and oversees the operation of the radio spectrum and telecommunications register, and is the enforcement agency for the General Telecommunications Law. While the General Telecommunications Law of Guatemala does not specifically require prior approval of electronic equipment that is imported into the country, the SIT approval can be requested by sending a letter of inquiry to the agency, along with the technical specifications for the product.
There are numerous exemptions for most common wireless telecom products; for example, Wi-Fi products used indoors with transmitted power output less than 500 mW can be imported without notifying SIT. However, for transmitting outdoors, especially in regulated bands such as 2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz, an inquiry should be made to SIT to obtain their ruling on the specific product. In most cases SIT will accept proof of compliance from other countries, such as CE R&TTE compliance reports.

Honduras
www.conatel.gob.hn

Comison Nacional de Telecomuncaciones (CONATEL) is the national telecommunications commission and regulatory authority of Honduras. CONATEL is a decentralized government agency that issues regulations and technical standards required for telecommunications services and adopts rules concerning the approval of telecommunications equipment and apparatus. While requirements for telecom and product safety compliance are legally required in this country, the CE R&TTE compliance report is allowed to satisfy the telecom for importation, and the CE mark is accepted as proof of product safety compliance.

Nicaragua
www.telcor.gob.ni

TELCOR is the Nicaraguan Institute and Regulatory Agency for Telecommunications and Postal Services. Tasked with managing the telecommunications sector, it seeks to encourage technology access for all of its citizens, while insuring compliance by service and equipment providers. Nicaragua does not have a comprehensive regulatory scheme in place, and will allow FCC grants and compliance reports and US Nationally Recognized Test Laboratories (NRTL) certification to serve as proof of product compliance when importing products.

Panama
www.asep.gob.pa

Autoridad Nacional de los Servicios Públicos (ASEP) is the national public services authority in Panama, responsible for water, electricity, and telecommunications infrastructure and services. Our interest lies with the telecom section of this agency, which manages and enforces the telecom equipment requirements, along with management and allocation of the radio frequency spectrum. ASEP recognizes FCC grants and reports to demonstrate compliance for telecom and wireless product certification applications, and a US NRTL certification is allowed to show product safety compliance for importation. The normal timeline for certification is 4 to 6 weeks after ASEP receives all of the required documentation

South America

Argentina
Our first country in South America has mandatory approval requirements for telecom and product safety, with two separate agencies. Argentina is a modern, Internet-savvy, country with a robust telecommunications infrastructure, and an attractive pool of consumers for electronic devices.

The National Telecommunications Commission – CNC
www.cnc.gov.ar

Comision Nacional de Telecomunicaciones (CNC) is the government telecom authority for Argentina. CNC approvals are a mandatory requirement for any device that connects to telephone lines, or that utilize radio frequency spectrum for the transmission of information. CNC publishes standards (Normativa) for each type of regulated product, which can be downloaded for free from their website at this location: www.cnc.gob.ar/infotecnica/homologaciones/normativa.asp

The applicant for CNC approvals must be the local company-authorized importer in Argentina, in order to receive the homologation certificates. The equipment must be tested according to the CNC standards at an authorized in-country test lab; they do not accept foreign test reports, except for allowing FCC or CE compliance test reports for GSM technology. Thus, product samples will be required for these approvals, and the number will depend on the type of product.

Along with the device samples, all of the typical items for a regulatory agency submittal package are required, such as technical specs, user manual, schematics, block diagrams, internal and external photos, and test setup instructions. In addition, the local importer will have to provide signed copies of authorization letters.

After a normal approval cycle of 8 weeks, the CNC certificate will be issued within an additional 4 to 6 weeks. The certificate will remain valid for three years from the date of issue, and must be renewed if the product will continue to be sold in Argentina. CNC requires that the product label contain the company trademark, model number, CNC registration number, and serial number.

The Argentina Institute of Standards and Certification – IRAM
www.iram.org.ar

Resolution 92/1998 requires all electric and electronic products to be safety certified under IRAM or the international IEC standards. The S-Mark Certification Scheme is the product safety approval to be obtained for ITE and specified consumer electronics products.

In Argentina the manufacturers or importers, depending on the type of product, can choose one of three categories of certification schemes for products sold in the Argentina Marketplace, as detailed in Resolution 197/2004. The first category is ISO 4, Type certification, where the product is marked based on compliance of IRAM or IEC standards, the certificate number is labeled on the product, and market surveillance is performed on two selected test samples per year, and there is no factory follow-up inspections. Category ISO 5, Mark certification, requires factory quality system evaluation and approval, market surveillance on a product sample once a year, factory follow-up inspections, and a full technical file submittal, including either a CB report or a product sample. And the third option, ISO 7, is Lot certification, where the product is marked based on compliance of IRAM or IEC standards, the lot number and certificate number is labeled on the product, and there is no market surveillance and no factory follow-up inspections.

Bolivia
www.att.gob.bo

Autoridad de Telecomunicaciones y Transporte (ATT) is the telecommunications and transportation authority of Bolivia, which recently mandated type approval requirements for wireless and telecom products. Local testing is not required, and FCC or CE R&TTE compliance reports are accepted as proof of compliance, along with the required application letter. An in-country local representative is not required, but an agent registered with the ATT agency must make the application. Factory inspections are not required, nor are there any labeling requirements. The initial estimates are 6 to 8 weeks for receiving approval, starting from the time the agency receives the full submittal package. Once issued, the certificate will be valid for 5 years, and can be renewed if needed.

Brazil
Brazil has mandatory approval requirements for wireless, telecom, EMC, and product safety, with the applicability depending on the specific type of device.

The National Telecommunications Agency – ANATEL
www.anatel.gov.br

Agencia Nacional de Telecomunicacoes (ANATEL) is the telecom authority in Brazil, responsible for setting the requirements for telecommunication products, including the establishment of authorized bodies for certification and testing activities for EMC, wireless/telecom, product safety, and SAR. Testing must be performed in authorized labs in Brazil, according to the standards, which are called “Resolutions.” The most common of these for consumer electronics and ITE are:

• Resolution 442: Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC)
• Resolution 506: Wireless/Telecom
• Resolution 529: Product Safety
• Resolution 533: Specific Absorption Rate (SAR)

Once the required tests are completed, and a test report generated it is reviewed by an authorized in-country Organismo de Certificacao Designado (OCD), or Designated Certification Body. If the documentation passes review, the OCD will issue a Certificate of Conformity (CoC) which is then submitted to ANATEL, on behalf of the local company representative, along with the complete technical documentation package. Please note that this means a local in-country company representative is required for ANATEL certification. After passing a review by ANATEL, they issue a Certificate of Homologation, which completes the initial approval process. All of this typically takes from 8 to 10 weeks to complete, starting with the receipt of all the required items by the authorized test lab.

While factory inspections are not required, submittal of factory ISO 9001 certificates are required for products that are connected to the telecommunications infrastructure, such as cell phones or fax machines, or when the CoC will list two or more factories. Labels with the ANATEL logo and required certification numbers and assigned bar code must be on each approved product. Depending on the specific type of product, certificates will remain valid for one year, two years, or indefinitely if the product is not changed. Any of the expiring certificates can be renewed, if the product is still sold in the Brazil market.

The National Institute of Metrology, Standardization and Industrial Quality – INMETRO
www.inmetro.gov.br

Instituto Nacional de Metrologia, Normalização e Qualidade Industrial (INMETRO) is the governmental agency that was established to develop and implement the certification system in Brazil. Tasked with maintaining the national standards, INMETRO is also the national developer of conformity assessment programs as well as the main Accreditation Body of certification bodies and laboratories.

INMETRO has mandatory certification requirements for 80 products with potential critical safety impacts, including medical products, hazardous location equipment, electrical cords, circuit breakers, and electrical switches, among others. The approval process is very similar to the ANATEL process, with a requirement to interface with a Product Certification Body (OCP) accredited by INMETRO, and the product testing must be performed by a laboratory from RBLE (Brazilian network of testing laboratories) which are also accredited by INMETRO, in accordance with the ISO/IEC 17025 quality management systems standard for test labs.

Chile
www.subtel.gob.cl

Subsecretaria de Telecomunicaciones (SUBTEL) is the telecommunications regulatory agency for Chile, mandating approval requirements for wireless and telecom devices. FCC or CE test reports are accepted as proof of compliance for most products, with the exception of hard-wired devices that connect to the telecommunications network, such as analogue telephones or fax machines, which must be tested in-country.

A local representative is not required, and factory inspections are also not required. There is not a product labeling requirement for wireless devices, however, there is for analogue telephones and printers; for those products the SUBTEL certification number must be on the label, preceded by the acronym “SUBTEL”. The normal approval cycle is 4 to 6 weeks from the time of delivery of the submittal package to the agency, and the certificate has no expiration date, with no need for renewals.

Colombia
www.crcom.gov.co

The Comision de Regulacion de Comunicaciones (CRC) is the telecom regulatory commission of Colombia, which has voluntary approvals for all telecom equipment except for products that have voice communication functions, such as mobile phones, and for specific types of satellite communication products. All other products can simply obtain a “Letter of Voluntary Approval” from the CRC, in which they state that the product is exempt from type approval requirements, and may be imported and sold in Colombia, and this letter can usually be prepared by CRC within 2 weeks.

For those products that do require type approvals, note that local testing, factory inspections, product labels, and a local company representative are all not required. FCC grants and reports, or CE R&TTE reports, can be used to obtain the type approvals for these regulated devices. The typical turnaround time for completing the mandatory type approval certification is 4 to 6 weeks, and it has no expiry date, so renewals are not required.

Ecuador
www.supertel.gob.ec

The telecom authority in Ecuador is Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones (SUPERTEL), and there are mandatory approval requirements for wireless, telecom, and product safety. However, if the output transmit power of any radio device is below 50 mW EIRP, or for any telecom product, approval is voluntary, and voluntary approval letters can be obtained, if desired.

For any type of radio communications product which has an output transmit power higher than 50 mW EIRP, SUPERTEL certifications is mandatory, so product samples are required for in-country testing. Proof of compliance can be shown through other national approvals, such as an FCC grant and report, or EU Notified Body certificate along with the associated test reports.

There are no requirements for factory inspections, local company representative, or product labeling. Once the certificate is issued, it never expires, so there is no need for certificate renewals. The typical timeline from start to finish is 4 to 6 weeks for approval.

Paraguay
www.conatel.gov.py

Comision Nacional de Telecomunicaciones (CONATEL) is the national telecommunications commission of Paraguay, which mandates wireless and telecom approvals for products sold in this country. Local testing is not required, and FCC or CE R&TTE reports can be used as proof of compliance with CONATEL. A local company representative is required, and they must have a letter of authority that is issued directly to them by the product manufacturer. Factory inspections and product labeling are not required, but having the FCC mark or CE mark on the label will insure smoother entry of the product through the customs importation process. The entire approval process will normally take around 8 to 10 weeks, and the certificates are valid for a period of 5 years. Renewals can be submitted at any time prior to or after the expiration date, but if a certificate expires products can not be sold until the renewal certificate is issued.

Peru
www.mtc.gob.pe

Ministerio de Transportes y Comunicaciones (MTC) is the Ministry of Transportations and Communications, with mandatory compliance requirements for wireless and telecom products. No factory inspections or in-country representatives are required, nor is in-country testing required, as this agency recognizes FCC or Industry Canada (IC) grants as proof of compliance, which can be submitted with the required submittal documents detailing the company name, brand name, product name, and model number, along with internal and external product photos. The FCC or IC marking must be on the product label, depending on which agency grant was used to obtain approval with MTC. There will not be a certificate issued, as the approval information, including the MTC registration number, is posted on the MTC website. This registration number will be needed by the importer in order to clear customs. These approvals are permanent, making renewals unnecessary, and take from 2 to 4 weeks on average. One exemption to note: if the output transmit power is below 10 mW, and it operates in unlicensed bands, then approval is voluntary.

Uruguay
This country has two regulatory bodies for telecommunications approvals, one for wireless, and the other for hard-wired telecom equipment.

The Communications Regulatory Agency – URSEC
www.ursec.gub.uy

Unidad Reguladora de Servicio de Comunicaciones (URSEC) is the telecommunications regulatory agency of Uruguay, which grants approvals for wireless devices. A local company representative and factory inspections are not required by this agency. URSEC recognizes FCC and CE R&TTE reports as adequate demonstration of product compliance, meaning that no local testing is required. There is no product labeling requirement, but it is highly advised to include the FCC or CE marking on the product, depending on which report the URSEC approval is based on. Approvals typically take about 2 weeks for wireless devices.

The Uruguayan Communications Company – ANTEL
www.antel.com.uy/antel

ANTEL is the government-authorized sole telephone company in Uruguay, which serves as the telecom authority for all non-wireless telecom equipment. FCC or CE R&TTE reports can normally be utilized to prove compliance, making local testing unnecessary. Local company representatives are not needed, and factory inspections are not required for ANTEL approvals. While product labeling requirements are not mandatory, it is best to make sure the FCC or CE marking is present on the label, dependent on which agency report was used to show compliance. The ANTEL certificates are valid for five years, and renewals must be submitted prior to the expiration date on the current certificate. The approval timeline is typically around 4 weeks.

Venezuela
www.conatel.gob.ve

Comision Nacional de Telecomunicaciones (CONATEL) is the national telecommunications commission of Venezuela, dictating the mandatory certification requirements for wireless and telecom products. FCC or CE R&TTE reports are accepted as proof of compliance, eliminating the need for local in-country testing. Local company representatives are not required, and neither are factory inspections. CONATEL does not have their own logo labeling requirement, but they do require the FCC or CE mark to appear on the product label, depending on which agency report was used as proof of compliance.

One item to note is that CONATEL will issue a stamped receipt upon receipt of the application package, which the manufacturer can use to start the importation of the product into Venezuela, while it is still in the agency review process at CONATEL. The agency does not provide certificates, instead the approved products are listed on the CONATEL website. The entire approval process normally takes from 4 to 6 weeks to complete, and once the approval is issued it is permanent, so there is no need for renewals.

We have now followed our path, all the way from Mexico down to the southern tip of South America, but we have not yet completed our journey, for the regulatory compliance landscape is constantly changing, especially in dynamic and growing countries such as these. While we have identified the current regulatory agencies and examined their certification and approval programs, giving us a foundation and review of the requirements in place today, we must stay connected to our own communications networks in the regulatory field, so we can continue to learn and adapt in order to help our companies grow and prosper.

Engineering and regulatory compliance affinity groups are an invaluable resource in staying current on the latest changes to the regulatory compliance standards and processes. The local chapters of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), such as the IEEE EMC Society and the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society, provide presentations and opportunities for networking with regulatory compliance engineers on the shifting certification requirements. In addition, social media site Linked In has a wealth of different regulatory compliance related groups that can be joined at no cost, such as the “International Approvals/Certifications” group, where the latest news on country-specific regulatory criteria is shared with other group members.

Mark Maynard is a Director at SIEMIC, a global compliance testing and certification services firm with strategic locations worldwide. He is also an IEEE Senior Member, iNARTE Certified Product Safety Engineer, and a certified Project Management Professional (PMP). Mark holds two degrees from Texas State University, a BS in Mathematics, and a BAAS in Marketing and Business. Prior to SIEMIC, he worked for over 20 years at Dell, in international regulatory compliance and product certifications, with various compliance engineering positions including wireless, telecom, EMC, product safety, and environmental design. He can be reached at mark.maynard@siemic.com.

Industry standards play a major role in providing meaningful metrics and common procedures that allow various manufacturers, customers, and suppliers to communicate from facility to facility around the world. Standards are increasingly important in our global economy.

In manufacturing, uniform quality requirements and testing procedures are necessary to make sure that all involved parties are speaking the same language. In ESD device protection, standard methods have been developed for component ESD stress models to measure a component’s sensitivity to electrostatic discharge from various sources. In ESD control programs, standard test methods for product qualification and periodic evaluation of wrist straps, garments, ionizers, worksurfaces, grounding, flooring, shoes, static dissipative planar materials, shielding bags, packaging, electrical soldering/desoldering hand tools, and flooring/footwear systems have been developed to ensure uniformity around the world.

The EOS/ESD Association, Inc. (ESDA) is dedicated to advancing the theory and practice of electrostatic discharge (ESD) protection and avoidance. The ESDA is an American National Standards Institute (ANSI) accredited standards developer. The Association’s consensus body is called the Standards Committee (STDCOM) which has responsibility for the overall development of documents. Volunteers from the industry participate in working groups to develop new and to update current ESDA documents.

STDCOM is charged with keeping pace with the industry demands for increased performance. The existing standards, standard test methods, standard practices, and technical reports assist in the design and monitoring of the electrostatic protected area (EPA), and also assist in the stress testing of ESD sensitive electronic components. Many of the existing documents relate to controlling electrostatic charge on personnel and stationary work areas. However, with the ever increasing emphasis on automated handling, the need to evaluate and monitor what is occurring inside of process equipment is growing daily. Since automation has become more dominant, the charged device model (CDM) has become the primary cause of ESD failures and thus the more urgent concern. Together, the human body model (HBM) and charged device model cover the vast majority of ESD events that might occur in a typical factory.

The ESD Association document categories are:

• Standard (S): A precise statement of a set of requirements to be satisfied by a material, product, system or process that also specifies the procedures for determining whether each of the requirements is satisfied.
• Standard Test Method (STM): A definitive procedure for the identification, measurement and evaluation of one or more qualities, characteristics or properties of a material, product, system or process that yield a reproducible test result.
• Standard Practice (SP): A procedure for performing one or more operations or functions that may or may not yield a test result. Note: if a test result is obtained it may not be reproducible.
• Technical Report (TR): A collection of technical data or test results published as an informational reference on a specific material, product, system or process.

The ESDA Technology Roadmap is compiled by industry experts in IC protection design and test to provide a look into future ESD design and manufacturing challenges. The roadmap previously pointed out that numerous mainstream electronic parts and components would reach assembly factories with a lower level of ESD protection than could have been expected just a few years earlier. This prediction has proven to be rather accurate. As with any roadmap, the view of the future is constantly changing and requires updating on the basis of technology trend updates, market forces, supply chain evolution, and field return data. An updated roadmap has been published in March 2013 and industry experts extended the horizon beyond the 2013 predictions. It contains, for the first time, a roadmap for the evolution of ESD stress testing. This includes forward looking views of possible changes in the standard device level tests (HBM and CDM), as well as the expected progress in other important areas, such as transmission line pulsing (TLP), transient latch-up (TLU), cable discharge events (CDE), and charged board events (CBE). A view of work on electrical overstress (EOS) has also been included. EOS is an area that has long been overlooked by the industry, not because it was not important but because it could be a difficult threat to define and mitigate. Recently, a working group has been focusing on this area and will soon be publishing a Technical Report (TR) that helps establish some fundamental definitions and distinctions between various EOS threats. The TR will be followed up with a “best practices” document outlining ways to mitigate EOS threats. Another development has been a request by the aerospace industry for an ESD control document that defines more definitively what ESD controls need to be in place in factories that are in the aerospace industry. This document will be predicated on ANSI/ESD S20.20 but will introduce further limits and controls.

The ESDA Standards Committee is continuing several joint document development activities with the JEDEC Solid State Technology Association. Under the Memorandum of Understanding agreement, the ESDA and JEDEC formed a joint task force for the standardization work in which volunteers from the ESDA and JEDEC member companies can participate. This collaboration between the two organizations has paved the way for the development of harmonized test methods for ESD, which will ultimately reduce uncertainty about test standards among manufacturers and suppliers in the solid state industry. At the time of this publication, ANSI/ESDA/JEDEC JS-001-2012, a third revision of the joint HBM document, has been released for distribution. This document replaces ANSI/ESDA/JEDEC JS-001-2011, the current industry test methods and specifications for human body model device testing. A second joint committee is currently working on a joint charged device model (CDM) document with a goal of publishing in 2014. These efforts will assist manufacturers of devices by providing one test method and specification instead of multiple, almost – but not quite – identical, versions of device testing methods.

The ESDA is also working on a process assessment document. The purpose of this document is to describe a set of methodologies, techniques, and tools that can be used to characterize a process where ESD sensitive items are handled. The goal is to characterize the ability of a process to safely handle ESD sensitive devices that have been characterized by the relevant device testing models. The document will apply to activities that manufacture, process, assemble, install, package, label, service, test, inspect, transport, or otherwise handle electrical or electronic parts, assemblies, and equipment susceptible to damage by electrostatic discharges. At the present time, this document will not apply to electrically-initiated explosive devices, flammable liquids, or powders.

The ESDA standard covering the requirements for creating and managing an ESD control program is ANSI/ESD S20.20 “ESD Association Standard for the Development of an Electrostatic Discharge Control Program for – Protection of Electrical and Electronic Parts, Assemblies and Equipment (Excluding Electrically Initiated Explosive Devices)”. ANSI/ESD S20.20 is a commercial update of and replacement for MIL-STD-1686 and has been adopted by the United States Department of Defense. In addition, the 2007-2008 update of IEC 61340-5-1 edition 1.0 “Electrostatics – Part 5-1: Protection of Electronic Devices from Electrostatic Phenomena General Requirements” is technically equivalent to ANSI/ESD S20.20. A five-year review of ANSI/ESD S20.20 has begun and technical changes are being made to the document based on industry changes and user requests. There are unique constraints with the revision that must be taken into account, including facility certification and continued harmonization with other standards – IEC 61340-5-1 and newly revised JEDEC 625B. A target date of September 2013 has been given for the release of a draft document.

In order to meet the global need in the electronics industry for technically sound ESD Control Programs, the ESDA has established an independent third party certification program. The program is administered by EOS/ESD Association, Inc. through country-accredited ISO9000 certification bodies that have met the requirements of this program. The facility certification program evaluates a facility’s ESD program to ensure that the basic requirements from industry standards ANSI/ESD S20.20 or IEC 61340-5-1 are being followed. More than 519 facilities have been certified worldwide since inception of the program. The factory certification bodies report strong interest in certification to ANSI/ESD S20.20, and consultants in this area report that inquiries for assistance remain at a very high level. Individual education also seems of interest once again as 46 professionals have obtained Certified ESD Program Manager status and many more are attempting to qualify as Certified ESD Control Program Managers. A large percentage of the certification program requirements are based on Standards and the other related documents produced by the ESD Association Standards Committee.

Current ESD Association Standards Committee Documents

Charged Device Model (CDM)

ANSI/ESD S5.3.1-2009 Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Charged Device Model (CDM) – Component Level
Establishes the procedure for testing, evaluating, and classifying the ESD sensitivity of components to the defined CDM.

Cleanrooms

ESD TR55.0-01-04 Electrostatic Guidelines and Considerations for Cleanrooms and Clean Manufacturing
Identifies considerations and provides guidelines for the selection and implementation of materials and processes for electrostatic control in cleanroom and clean manufacturing environments. (Formerly TR11-04)

Compliance Verification

ESD TR53-01-06 Compliance Verification of ESD Protective Equipment and Materials
Describes the test methods and instrumentation that can be used to periodically verify the performance of ESD protective equipment and materials.

Electronic Design Automation (EDA)

ESD TR18.0.01-11 – ESD Electronic Design Automation Checks
Provides guidance for both the EDA industry and the ESD design community for establishing a comprehensive ESD electronic design automation (EDA) verification flow satisfying the ESD design challenges of modern ICs.

ESD Control Program

ANSI/ESD S20.20-2007 Protection of Electrical and Electronic Parts, Assemblies and Equipment (Excluding Electrically Initiated Explosive Devices)
Provides administrative and technical requirements for establishing, implementing, and maintaining an ESD Control Program to protect electrical or electronic parts, assemblies, and equipment susceptible to ESD damage from Human Body Model (HBM) discharges greater than or equal to 100 volts.

ESD TR 20.20-2008—ESD Handbook (Companion to ANSI/ESD S20.20)
Produced specifically to support ANSI/ESD S20.20 ESD Control Program standard, this 132-page document is a major rewrite of the previous handbook. It focuses on providing guidance that can be used for developing, implementing, and monitoring an ESD control program in accordance with the S20.20 standard.

Flooring

ANSI/ESD STM7.1-2012 Resistive Characterization of Materials – Floor Materials
Covers measurement of the electrical resistance of various floor materials, such as floor coverings, mats, and floor finishes. It provides test methods for qualifying floor materials before installation or application, and for evaluating and monitoring materials after installation or application.

ESD TR7.0-01-11 Static Protective Floor Materials
This technical report reviews the use of floor materials to dissipate electrostatic charge. It provides an overview on floor coverings, floor finishes, topical antistats, floor mats, paints and coatings. It also covers a variety of other issues related to floor material selection, installation and maintenance.

Flooring and Footwear Systems

ANSI/ESD STM97.1-2006 Floor Materials and Footwear – Resistance Measurement in Combination with a Person
Provides test methods for measuring the electrical system resistance of floor materials in combination with person wearing static control footwear.

ANSI/ESD STM97.2-2006 Floor Materials and Footwear – Voltage Measurement in Combination with a Person
Provides for measuring the electrostatic voltage on a person in combination with floor materials and footwear, as a system.

Footwear

ANSI/ESD STM9.1-2006 Footwear – Resistive Characterization
Defines a test method for measuring the electrical resistance of shoes used for ESD control in the electronics environment (not to include heel straps and toe grounders).

ESD SP9.2-2003 Footwear – Foot Grounders Resistive Characterization
Provides test methods for evaluating foot grounders and foot grounder systems used to electrically bond or ground personnel as part of an ESD Control Program. Static Control Shoes are tested using ANSI/ESD STM9.1.

Garments

ESD DSTM2.1-2013 Garments – Resistive Characterization
Provides test methods for measuring the electrical resistance of garments. It covers procedures for measuring sleeve-to-sleeve resistance and point-to-point resistance.

This is a draft document.

ESD TR2.0-01-00 Consideration for Developing ESD Garment Specifications
Addresses concerns about effective ESD garments by starting with an understanding of electrostatic measurements and how they relate to ESD protection. (Formerly TR05-00)

ESD TR2.0-02-00 Static Electricity Hazards of Triboelectrically Charged Garments
Intended to provide some insight to the electrostatic hazards present when a garment is worn in a flammable or explosive environment. (Formerly TR06-00)

Glossary

ESD ADV1.0-2012 Glossary of Terms
Definitions and explanations of various terms used in Association Standards and documents are covered in this Advisory. It also includes other terms commonly used in the electronics industry.

Gloves and Finger Cots

ANSI/ESD SP15.1-2011 In-Use Resistance Testing of Gloves and Finger Cots
Provides test procedures for measuring the intrinsic electrical resistance of gloves and finger cots.

ESD TR15.0-01-99 ESD Glove and Finger Cots
Reviews the existing known industry test methods for the qualification of ESD protective gloves and finger cots. (Formerly TR03-99)

Grounding

ANSI/ESD S6.1-2009 Grounding
Specifies the parameters, materials, equipment, and test procedures necessary to choose, establish, vary, and maintain an Electrostatic Discharge Control grounding system for use within an ESD Protected Area for protection of ESD susceptible items, and specifies the criteria for establishing ESD Bonding.

Handlers

ANSI/ESD SP10.1-2007 Automated Handling Equipment (AHE)
Provides procedures for evaluating the electrostatic environment associated with automated handling equipment.

ESD TR10.0-01-02 Measurement and ESD Control Issues for Automated Equipment Handling of ESD Sensitive Devices below 100 Volts
Provides guidance and considerations that an equipment manufacturer should use when designing automated handling equipment for these low voltage sensitive devices. (Formerly TR14-02)

Hand Tools

ESD STM13.1-2000 Electrical Soldering/Desoldering Hand Tools
Provides electric soldering/desoldering hand tool test methods for measuring the electrical leakage and tip to ground reference point resistance, and provides parameters for EOS safe soldering operation.

ESD TR13.0-01-99 EOS Safe Soldering Iron Requirements
Discusses soldering iron requirements that must be based on the sensitivity of the most susceptible devices that are to be soldered. (Formerly TR04-99)

Human Body Model (HBM)

ANSI/ESDA/JEDEC JS-001-2012 ESDA/JEDEC Joint Standard for Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Human Body Model (HBM) – Component Level
Establishes the procedure for testing, evaluating, and classifying the electrostatic discharge sensitivity of components to the defined human body model (HBM).

ESD JTR001-01-12, ESD Association Technical Report User Guide of ANSI/ESDA/JEDEC JS-001 Human Body Model Testing of Integrated Circuits
Describes the technical changes made in ANSI/ESDA/JEDEC JS-001-2011 contained in the new 2012 version) and explains how to use those changes to apply HBM (Human Body Model) tests to IC components.

Human Metal Model (HMM)

ANSI/ESD SP5.6-2009 Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Human Metal Model (HMM) – Component Level
Establishes the procedure for testing, evaluating, and classifying the ESD sensitivity of components to the defined HMM.

ESD TR5.6-01-09 Human Metal Model (HMM)
Addresses the need for a standard method of applying the IEC contact discharge waveform to devices and components.

Ionization

ANSI/ESD STM3.1-2006 Ionization
Test methods and procedures for evaluating and selecting air ionization equipment and systems are covered in this standard test method. The document establishes measurement techniques to determine ion balance and charge neutralization time for ionizers.

ANSI/ESD SP3.3-2012 Periodic Verification of Air Ionizers
Provides test methods and procedures for periodic verification of the performance of air ionization equipment and systems (ionizers).

ANSI/ESD SP3.4-2012 Periodic Verification of Air Ionizer Performance Using a Small Test Fixture
Provides a test fixture example and procedures for performance verification of air ionization used in confined spaces where it may not be possible to use the test fixtures defined in ANSI/ESD STM3.1 or ANSI/ESD SP3.3.

ESD TR3.0-01-02 Alternate Techniques for Measuring Ionizer Offset Voltage and Discharge Time
Investigates measurement techniques to determine ion balance and charge neutralization time for ionizers. (Formerly TR13-02)

ESD TR3.0-02-05 Selection and Acceptance of Air Ionizers
Reviews and provides a guideline for creating a performance specification for the four ionizer types contained in ANSI/ESD STM3.1: room (systems), laminar flow hood, worksurface (e.g., blowers), and compressed gas (nozzles & guns). (Formerly ADV3.2-1995)

Machine Model (MM)

ANSI/ESD STM5.2-2012 Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Machine Model (MM) – Component Level
Establishes the procedure for testing, evaluating, and classifying the ESD sensitivity of components to the defined MM.

ANSI/ESD SP5.2.1-2012 Human Body Model (HBM) and Machine Model (MM) Alternative Test Method: Supply Pin Ganging – Component Level
Defines an alternative test method to perform Human Body Model or Machine Model component level ESD tests when the component or device pin count exceeds the number of ESD simulator tester channels. (Formerly ANSI/ESD SP5.1.1-2006)

ANSI/ESD SP5.2.2-2012 Human Body Model (HBM) and Machine Model (MM) Alternative Test Method: Split Signal Pin – Component Level
Defines an alternative test method to perform Human Body Model or Machine Model component level ESD tests when the component or device pin count exceeds the number of ESD simulator tester channels. (Formerly ANSI/ESD SP5.1.2-2006)

ESD TR5.2-01-01 Machine Model (MM) Electrostatic Discharge (ESD) Investigation – Reduction in Pulse Number and Delay Time
Provides the procedures, results, and conclusions of evaluating a proposed change from 3 pulses (present requirement) to 1 pulse while using a delay time of both 1 second (present requirement) and 0.5 second. (Formerly TR10-01)

Ohmmeters

ESD TR50.0-02-99 High Resistance Ohmmeters–Voltage Measurements
Discusses a number of parameters that can cause different readings from high resistance meters when improper instrumentation and techniques are used and the techniques and precautions to be used in order to ensure the measurement will be as accurate and repeatable as possible for high resistance measurement of materials. (Formerly TR02-99)

Packaging

ANSI/ESD STM11.11-2006 Surface Resistance Measurement of Static Dissipative Planar Materials
Defines a direct current test method for measuring electrical resistance, replacing ASTM D257-78. This test method is designed specifically for static dissipative planar materials used in packaging of ESD sensitive devices and components.

ANSI/ESD STM11.12-2007 Volume Resistance Measurement of Static Dissipative Planar Materials
Provides test methods for measuring the volume resistance of static dissipative planar materials used in the packaging of ESD sensitive devices and components.

ANSI/ESD STM11.13-2004 Two-Point Resistance Measurement
Measures the resistance between two points on a material’s surface without consideration of the material’s means of achieving conductivity. This test method was established for measuring resistance where the concentric ring electrodes of ANSI/ESD STM11.11 cannot be used.

ANSI/ESD STM11.31-2012 Bags
Provides a method for testing and determining the shielding capabilities of electrostatic shielding bags.

ANSI/ESD S11.4-2012 Performance Limits for Bags
Establishes performance limits for bags that are intended to protect electronic parts and products from damage due to static electricity and moisture during common electronic manufacturing industry transport and storage applications.

This is a draft document.

ANSI/ESD S541-2008 Packaging Materials for ESD Sensitive Items
Describes the packaging material properties needed to protect electrostatic discharge (ESD) sensitive electronic items, and references the testing methods for evaluating packaging and packaging materials for those properties. Where possible, performance limits are provided. Guidance for selecting the types of packaging with protective properties appropriate for specific applications is provided. Other considerations for protective packaging are also provided.

ESD ADV11.2-1995 Triboelectric Charge Accumulation Testing
Provides guidance in understanding the triboelectric phenomenon and relates current information and experience regarding tribocharge testing as used in static control for electronics.

Seating

ESD DSTM12.1-2013 Seating – Resistive Measurement
Provides test methods for measuring the electrical resistance of seating used for the control of electrostatic charge or discharge. It contains test methods for the qualification of seating prior to installation or application, as well as test methods for evaluating and monitoring seating after installation or application.

This is a draft document.

Socketed Device Model (SDM)

ANSI/ESD SP5.3.2-2008 Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Socketed Device (SDM) – Component Level
Provides a test method for generating a Socketed Device Model (SDM) test on a component integrated circuit (IC) device.

ESD TR5.3.2-01-00 Socket Device Model (SDM) Tester
Helps the user understand how existing SDM testers function, offers help with the interpretation of ESD data generated by SDM test systems, and defines the important properties of an “ideal” socketed-CDM test system. (Formerly TR08-00)

Static Electricity

ESD TR50.0-01-99 Can Static Electricity Be Measured?
Gives an overview of fundamental electrostatic concepts, electrostatic effects, and most importantly of electrostatic metrology, especially what can and what cannot be measured. (Formerly TR01-99)

Susceptible Device Concepts

ESD TR50.0-03-03 Voltage and Energy Susceptible Device Concepts, Including Latency Considerations
Contains information to promote an understanding of the differences between energy and voltage susceptible types of devices and their sensitivity levels. (Formerly TR16-03)

Symbols

ANSI/ESD S8.1-2012 Symbols – ESD Awareness
Three types of ESD awareness symbols are established by this document. The first one is to be used on a device or assembly to indicate that it is susceptible to electrostatic charge. The second is to be used on items and materials intended to provide electrostatic protection. The third symbol indicates the common point ground.

System Level ESD

ESD TR14.0-01-00 Calculation of Uncertainty Associated with Measurement of Electrostatic Discharge (ESD) Current
Provides guidance on measuring uncertainty based on an uncertainty budget. (Formerly TR07-00)

ESD TR14.0-02-13 System Level Electrostatic Discharge (ESD) Simulator Verification
Developed to provide guidance to designers, manufacturers, and calibration facilities for verification and specification of the systems and fixtures used to measure simulator discharge currents. (Formerly ANSI/ESD SP14.1)

Transient Latch-up

ESD TR5.4-01-00 Transient Induced Latch-Up (TLU)
Provides a brief background on early latch-up work, reviews the issues surrounding the power supply response requirements, and discusses the efforts on RLC TLU testing, transmission line pulse (TLP) stressing, and the new bi-polar stress TLU methodology. (Formerly TR09-00)

ESD TR5.4-02-08 Determination of CMOS Latch-up Susceptibility – Transient Latch-up – Technical Report No. 2
Intended to provide background information pertaining to the development of the transient latch-up standard practice originally published in 2004 and additional data presented to the group since publication.

ESD TR5.4-03-11 Latch-up Sensitivity Testing of CMOS/Bi CMOS Integrated Circuits – Transient Latch-up Testing – Component Level Supply Transient Stimulation
Developed to instruct the reader on the methods and materials needed to perform Transient Latch-Up Testing.

Transmission Line Pulse

ANSI/ESD STM5.5.1-2008 Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Transmission Line Pulse (TLP) – Component Level
Pertains to Transmission Line Pulse (TLP) testing techniques of semiconductor components. The purpose of this document is to establish a methodology for both testing and reporting information associated with TLP testing.

ANSI/ESD SP5.5.2-2007, Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Very Fast Transmission Line Pulse (VF-TLP) – Component Level
Pertains to Very Fast Transmission Line Pulse (VF-TLP) testing techniques of semiconductor components. It establishes guidelines and standard practices presently used by development, research, and reliability engineers in both universities and industry for VF-TLP testing. This document explains a methodology for both testing and reporting information associated with VF-TLP testing.

ESD TR5.5-01-08 Transmission Line Pulse (TLP)
A compilation of the information gathered during the writing of ANSI/ESD SP5.5.1 and the information gathered in support of moving the standard practice toward re-designation as a standard test method.

ESD TR5.5-02-08 Transmission Line Pulse Round Robin
Intended to provide data on the repeatability and reproducibility limits of the methods of ANSI/ESD STM5.5.1.

Workstations

ESD ADV53.1-1995 ESD Protective Workstations
Defines the minimum requirements for a basic ESD protective workstation used in ESD sensitive areas. It provides a test method for evaluating and monitoring workstations. It defines workstations as having the following components: support structure, static dissipative worksurface, a means of grounding personnel, and any attached shelving or drawers.

Worksurfaces

ANSI/ESD S4.1-2006 Worksurface – Resistance Measurements
Provides test methods for evaluating and selecting worksurface materials, testing of new worksurface installations, and the testing of previously installed worksurfaces.

ANSI/ESD STM4.2-2012 ESD Protective Worksurfaces – Charge Dissipation Characteristics
Aids in determining the ability of ESD protective worksurfaces to dissipate charge from a conductive test object placed on them.

ESD TR4.0-01-02 Survey of Worksurfaces and Grounding Mechanisms
Provides guidance for understanding the attributes of worksurface materials and their grounding mechanisms. (Formerly TR15-02)

Wrist Straps

ESD DS1.1-2013 Wrist Straps
A successor to EOS/ESD S1.0, this document establishes test methods for evaluating the electrical and mechanical characteristics of wrist straps. It includes improved test methods and performance limits for evaluation, acceptance, and functional testing of wrist straps.

This is a draft document.

ESD TR1.0-01-01 Survey of Constant (Continuous) Monitors for Wrist Straps
Provides guidance to ensure that wrist straps are functional and are connected to people and ground. (Formerly TR12-01)

About the EOS/ESD Association, Inc.
Founded in 1982, the EOS/ESD Association, Inc. is a professional voluntary association dedicated to advancing the theory and practice of electrostatic discharge (ESD) avoidance. From fewer than 100 members, the Association has grown to more than 2,000 throughout the world. From an initial emphasis on the effects of ESD on electronic components, the Association has broadened its horizons to include areas such as textiles, plastics, web processing, cleanrooms, and graphic arts. To meet the needs of a continually changing environment, the Association is chartered to expand ESD awareness through standards development, educational programs, local chapters, publications, tutorials, certification,
and symposia.

While product safety and reliability are core principles of virtually every manufacturer designing equipment for the telecom industry, the Telcordia Generic Requirements (GRs) that ensure the integrity of such devices and systems are not commonly understood by manufacturers around the globe.

As an increasing amount of equipment used in telecommunications networks is being produced in different parts of the world, recognizing and adhering to these standards and requirements is essential to competing in this ever-expanding market.

Among these requirements is the NEBS family of requirements, which stands for Network Equipment Building System. Unlike more traditional product safety standards, compliance to the NEBS family of standards ensures the personal safety of equipment operators and service technicians and the protection of facilities housing equipment, all while ensuring the integrity of an overall telecommunications network. This family of requirements is what members of the Telecommunication Carrier Group (TCG), such as Verizon and AT&T, and smaller local service providers use to evaluate telecommunications equipment to ensure network integrity and protect against hazards associated with the location of equipment.

It is this all-encompassing focus on safety, reliability and performance of network equipment and its impact on the environment of telecom facilities that distinguishes NEBS requirements from other telecommunications standards. NEBS requirements are designed to:

• Protect personnel
• Streamline equipment design and installation
• Prevent service outages and interference in a network caused by incompatible equipment
• Reduce the risks of fire in network facilities
• Guard against the potential negative impacts on equipment from extreme temperatures, vibration and airborne contamination
• Support equipment compatibility with the network’s electrical environment.

Like other industry requirements, meeting NEBS requirements can positively impact a manufacturer’s bottom line. NEBS requirements consist of three levels of compliance, each ensuring a different stage of network protection. Understanding in advance the required level of compliance for a particular product can help a manufacturer minimize product development, installation and maintenance costs. Increasingly, telecommunications equipment manufacturers around the world are requiring their component suppliers to demonstrate compliance with NEBS and including this stipulation in requests for proposal (RFPs) and supplier contracts. In fact, requirements are beginning to apply to both wire line installations as well as wireless applications.

Understanding Levels of Compliance

As most TCG members require demonstration of NEBS compliance prior to the purchase and/or deployment on their telecommunication network infrastructure, equipment manufacturers document compliance to NEBS requirements by having testing performed by an ISO 17025 accredited third-party test laboratory. In certain circumstances, NEBS-related testing can be performed in-house, assuming an internal laboratory is properly accredited to ISO 17025. However, some TCG members require all testing to be performed or witnessed by an accredited independent test laboratory (ITL).

NEBS requirements apply to telecommunications equipment installed in a Central Office (CO) environment, certain Outside Plant applications (OSP), and Customer Premises Equipment (CPE). There are generally two primary GRs that apply to most equipment designated for use in a CO: GR-1089-CORE (Issue 6), which covers electromagnetic compatibility, electrical transients and electrical safety; and GR-63-CORE (Issue 4), which covers physical requirements. GR-1089-CORE and GR-63-CORE together are commonly referred to as the “NEBS Criteria.” It’s important to understand that individual TCGs may have additional requirements beyond those found in GR-1089-CORE and GR-63-CORE.

Helping to speed and simplify the compliance process without jeopardizing network reliability in the deployment of new equipment, the Telcordia special report SR-3580, NEBS Criteria Levels, divides NEBS requirements into three levels of compliance.

• Level 1 is the minimum acceptable level of NEBS environmental compatibility needed to preclude hazards and degradation of a network facility and hazards to personnel. Level 1 comprises only safety and risk criteria. Conformance to Level 1 does not assure equipment operability or service continuity. Level 1 is typically used by service providers for early deployment into their COs and/or interoperability laboratories, and to allow collocaters to install equipment in a central office. A collocater is a company that rents space in a central office and provides some type of communications service (such as Internet access or long distance).
• Level 2 is the minimum level of NEBS environmental compatibility needed to provide some limited assurance of equipment operability within the network facility environment. This assurance of operability is limited to the controlled or normal environments as defined by the criteria. Rarely a focus of customers, Level 2 includes all requirements of Level 1 with some added level of operability reliability.
• Level 3 is the minimum level of NEBS environmental compatibility needed to provide maximum assurance of equipment operability within the network facility environment. The Level 3 criteria provide the highest assurance of product operability. Level 3 criteria are suited for equipment applications that demand minimal service interruptions over the equipment’s life. Most TCGs require NEBS Level 3 prior to acceptance/installation on the network as they require this level of compliance for equipment operation in the central office, but not collocated equipment.

While SR-3580 identifies the tests required by the three levels, most equipment manufacturers submit their equipment to be evaluated to NEBS Level 3. Even in pursuing the highest assurance of product operability that Level 3 provides, manufacturers should know where their product is going to be deployed on a network: in a CO operated by telecom carriers, outside plant environment or customer premises. The setting of product deployment determines the tests that need to be performed to meet NEBS requirements. For example, specific environmental testing, in accordance with GR-63-CORE, simulates exposure to extreme environments that include high/low temperatures, high humidity, shock and exposure, fire ignition and flame spread, seismic conditions and airborne contaminates. By understanding the testing process, and the additional tests that may be required by specific carriers, manufacturers are better able to work most effectively and efficiently with third-party testing laboratories.

Exploring Qualified NEBS Testing Laboratories

Choosing the right NEBS testing laboratory to work with involves considering a host of issues, from laboratory capabilities and accreditations to staff expertise. Equipment manufacturers might also examine whether a provider is able to outline start dates and availability for project planning well before testing actually begins.

In assessing provider capabilities, manufacturers should:

• be aware that product size and weight limitations might preclude some laboratories from completing certain test profiles.
• make sure the NEBS test facility is ISO 17025 accredited and qualified under any carrier specific laboratory accreditation programs, such as the Verizon ITL program.
• inquire about the training and expertise of testing staff and ensure engineers are actively engaged in industry technical committees, regularly attend industry symposia and are current with any applicable professional certifications.

It’s important to note that a comprehensive, full service laboratory will support NEBS testing with the following:

• Full EMC test facility capable of conducting both immunity and emissions testing
• Environmental chambers to conduct temperature and altitude testing
• Vibration and seismic test facilities
• Full-scale fire facility
• Facilities to support acoustic power measurements
• Various test facilities to support lightning surge and power fault simulations, DC power measurements
• Conditioning chambers to support mixed flowing gas testing and test apparatus to support hygroscopic dust exposure

These laboratories should document and deliver a test report that outlines an overall test strategy and contains individual test methods and results. The test laboratory should also include separate videos of the large-scale fire tests and seismic tests.

In addition to the Telcordia Generic Requirements, a testing laboratory should be familiar with the related American National Standards developed by the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS). These standards, such as ATIS-0600319, Equipment Assemblies – Fire Propagation Risk Assessment, or the ATIS-0600015 series of energy efficiency testing standards are often referenced in the Telcordia GRs or, in some cases, are specifically required by the service provider community.

A full service laboratory should also be able to support testing to international standards for manufacturers that seek compliance for the global marketplace. Examples of these standards include the ETSI 300 019 and 300 386 series of standards dealing with the physical and EMC environments, respectively. No matter the current or future setting of laboratory testing, telecom equipment manufacturers should ensure that their equipment undergoes proper NEBS and customer specific required testing. Viewing this commitment as an important part of product investment, manufacturers should seek out an ITL with the technological tools and expertise to carry out the testing process, including test methods that address any modifications to requirements.

In understanding and achieving NEBS compliance, a manufacturer gains standing as a company whose equipment enhances rather than jeopardizes network integrity and protects the safety of the personnel who operate it. The return on this product investment not only includes reduced design and related costs over the long term, but the advantage of being positioned to make great strides in an evolving worldwide marketplace that presents exciting, new opportunities every day.

UL is a premier global safety science company with more than 100 years of proven history. A pioneer in NEBS testing since 1992, UL operates three full service EMC facilities located throughout North America. Each has a variety of NEBS capabilities and is staffed with highly trained, experienced, and NARTE certified engineers.

© UL LLC 2013. Reprinted with permission.

Matt Marotto
is currently the North American Wireless & EMC Quality Manager for UL. In 2008, Marotto served as Global NEBS Program Development Manager and was responsible for developing and implementing UL’s NEBS Fastrack Program, which enables international Telecom manufacturers to perform NEBS and telecom related testing in their own laboratories under the witness of UL staff. Prior to that, Marotto was Operations Manager for UL’s EMC and NEBS testing laboratories in Research Triangle Park, N.C. Matt received his bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering from the University of Alabama and is an iNARTE certified product safety engineer.

Randy Ivans
is UL’s Principal Engineer in the high tech and telecommunications area. He is responsible for the development, implementation and maintenance of various UL Standards and certification programs including UL’s NEBS Mark program. Randy is a member of the National Electrical Code, NFPA 70, Code Making Panel No. 16 that is responsible for Chapter 8 covering communications systems. He is chairman of the TIA TR41.7 Committee on Environmental and Safety Issues and is a member of the ATIS Sustainability in Telecom: Energy and Protection Committee (STEP) in which he chairs the NPP subcommittee on physical protection. Randy received his bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering and his master of science in technology management from Polytechnic University and is an iNARTE certified product safety engineer.

Industry standards play a major role in providing meaningful metrics and common procedures that allow various manufacturers, customers, and suppliers to communicate from facility to facility around the world. Standards are increasingly important in our global economy.

In manufacturing, uniform quality requirements and testing procedures are necessary to make sure that all involved parties are speaking the same language. In ESD device protection, standard methods have been developed for component ESD stress models to measure a component’s sensitivity to electrostatic discharge from various sources. In ESD control programs, standard test methods for product qualification and periodic evaluation of wrist straps, garments, ionizers, worksurfaces, grounding, flooring, shoes, static dissipative planar materials, shielding bags, packaging, electrical soldering/desoldering hand tools, and flooring/footwear systems have been developed to ensure uniformity around the world.

The EOS/ESD Association, Inc. (ESDA) is dedicated to advancing the theory and practice of electrostatic discharge (ESD) protection and avoidance. The ESDA is an American National Standards Institute (ANSI) accredited standards developer. The Association’s consensus body is called the Standards Committee (STDCOM) which has responsibility for the overall development of documents. Volunteers from the industry participate in working groups to develop new and to update current ESDA documents.

STDCOM is charged with keeping pace with the industry demands for increased performance. The existing standards, standard test methods, standard practices, and technical reports assist in the design and monitoring of the electrostatic protected area (EPA), and also assist in the stress testing of ESD sensitive electronic components. Many of the existing documents relate to controlling electrostatic charge on personnel and stationary work areas. However, with the ever increasing emphasis on automated handling, the need to evaluate and monitor what is occurring inside of process equipment is growing daily. Since automation has become more dominant, the charged device model (CDM) has become the primary cause of ESD failures and thus the more urgent concern. Together, the human body model (HBM) and charged device model cover the vast majority of ESD events that might occur in a typical factory.

The ESD Association document categories are:

• Standard (S): A precise statement of a set of requirements to be satisfied by a material, product, system or process that also specifies the procedures for determining whether each of the requirements is satisfied.
• Standard Test Method (STM): A definitive procedure for the identification, measurement and evaluation of one or more qualities, characteristics or properties of a material, product, system or process that yield a reproducible test result.
• Standard Practice (SP): A procedure for performing one or more operations or functions that may or may not yield a test result. Note: if a test result is obtained it may not be reproducible.
• Technical Report (TR): A collection of technical data or test results published as an informational reference on a specific material, product, system or process.

The ESDA Technology Roadmap is compiled by industry experts in IC protection design and test to provide a look into future ESD design and manufacturing challenges. The roadmap previously pointed out that numerous mainstream electronic parts and components would reach assembly factories with a lower level of ESD protection than could have been expected just a few years earlier. This prediction has proven to be rather accurate. As with any roadmap, the view of the future is constantly changing and requires updating on the basis of technology trend updates, market forces, supply chain evolution, and field return data. An updated roadmap has been published in March 2013 and industry experts extended the horizon beyond the 2013 predictions. It contains, for the first time, a roadmap for the evolution of ESD stress testing. This includes forward looking views of possible changes in the standard device level tests (HBM and CDM), as well as the expected progress in other important areas, such as transmission line pulsing (TLP), transient latch-up (TLU), cable discharge events (CDE), and charged board events (CBE). A view of work on electrical overstress (EOS) has also been included. EOS is an area that has long been overlooked by the industry, not because it was not important but because it could be a difficult threat to define and mitigate. Recently, a working group has been focusing on this area and will soon be publishing a Technical Report (TR) that helps establish some fundamental definitions and distinctions between various EOS threats. The TR will be followed up with a “best practices” document outlining ways to mitigate EOS threats. Another development has been a request by the aerospace industry for an ESD control document that defines more definitively what ESD controls need to be in place in factories that are in the aerospace industry. This document will be predicated on ANSI/ESD S20.20 but will introduce further limits and controls.

The ESDA Standards Committee is continuing several joint document development activities with the JEDEC Solid State Technology Association. Under the Memorandum of Understanding agreement, the ESDA and JEDEC formed a joint task force for the standardization work in which volunteers from the ESDA and JEDEC member companies can participate. This collaboration between the two organizations has paved the way for the development of harmonized test methods for ESD, which will ultimately reduce uncertainty about test standards among manufacturers and suppliers in the solid state industry. At the time of this publication, ANSI/ESDA/JEDEC JS-001-2012, a third revision of the joint HBM document, has been released for distribution. This document replaces ANSI/ESDA/JEDEC JS-001-2011, the current industry test methods and specifications for human body model device testing. A second joint committee is currently working on a joint charged device model (CDM) document with a goal of publishing in 2014. These efforts will assist manufacturers of devices by providing one test method and specification instead of multiple, almost – but not quite – identical, versions of device testing methods.

The ESDA is also working on a process assessment document. The purpose of this document is to describe a set of methodologies, techniques, and tools that can be used to characterize a process where ESD sensitive items are handled. The goal is to characterize the ability of a process to safely handle ESD sensitive devices that have been characterized by the relevant device testing models. The document will apply to activities that manufacture, process, assemble, install, package, label, service, test, inspect, transport, or otherwise handle electrical or electronic parts, assemblies, and equipment susceptible to damage by electrostatic discharges. At the present time, this document will not apply to electrically-initiated explosive devices, flammable liquids, or powders.

The ESDA standard covering the requirements for creating and managing an ESD control program is ANSI/ESD S20.20 “ESD Association Standard for the Development of an Electrostatic Discharge Control Program for – Protection of Electrical and Electronic Parts, Assemblies and Equipment (Excluding Electrically Initiated Explosive Devices)”. ANSI/ESD S20.20 is a commercial update of and replacement for MIL-STD-1686 and has been adopted by the United States Department of Defense. In addition, the 2007-2008 update of IEC 61340-5-1 edition 1.0 “Electrostatics – Part 5-1: Protection of Electronic Devices from Electrostatic Phenomena General Requirements” is technically equivalent to ANSI/ESD S20.20. A five-year review of ANSI/ESD S20.20 has begun and technical changes are being made to the document based on industry changes and user requests. There are unique constraints with the revision that must be taken into account, including facility certification and continued harmonization with other standards – IEC 61340-5-1 and newly revised JEDEC 625B. A target date of September 2013 has been given for the release of a draft document.

In order to meet the global need in the electronics industry for technically sound ESD Control Programs, the ESDA has established an independent third party certification program. The program is administered by EOS/ESD Association, Inc. through country-accredited ISO9000 certification bodies that have met the requirements of this program. The facility certification program evaluates a facility’s ESD program to ensure that the basic requirements from industry standards ANSI/ESD S20.20 or IEC 61340-5-1 are being followed. More than 519 facilities have been certified worldwide since inception of the program. The factory certification bodies report strong interest in certification to ANSI/ESD S20.20, and consultants in this area report that inquiries for assistance remain at a very high level. Individual education also seems of interest once again as 46 professionals have obtained Certified ESD Program Manager status and many more are attempting to qualify as Certified ESD Control Program Managers. A large percentage of the certification program requirements are based on Standards and the other related documents produced by the ESD Association Standards Committee.

Current ESD Association Standards Committee Documents

Charged Device Model (CDM)

ANSI/ESD S5.3.1-2009 Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Charged Device Model (CDM) – Component Level
Establishes the procedure for testing, evaluating, and classifying the ESD sensitivity of components to the defined CDM.

Cleanrooms

ESD TR55.0-01-04 Electrostatic Guidelines and Considerations for Cleanrooms and Clean Manufacturing
Identifies considerations and provides guidelines for the selection and implementation of materials and processes for electrostatic control in cleanroom and clean manufacturing environments. (Formerly TR11-04)

Compliance Verification

ESD TR53-01-06 Compliance Verification of ESD Protective Equipment and Materials
Describes the test methods and instrumentation that can be used to periodically verify the performance of ESD protective equipment and materials.

Electronic Design Automation (EDA)

ESD TR18.0.01-11 – ESD Electronic Design Automation Checks
Provides guidance for both the EDA industry and the ESD design community for establishing a comprehensive ESD electronic design automation (EDA) verification flow satisfying the ESD design challenges of modern ICs.

ESD Control Program

ANSI/ESD S20.20-2007 Protection of Electrical and Electronic Parts, Assemblies and Equipment (Excluding Electrically Initiated Explosive Devices)
Provides administrative and technical requirements for establishing, implementing, and maintaining an ESD Control Program to protect electrical or electronic parts, assemblies, and equipment susceptible to ESD damage from Human Body Model (HBM) discharges greater than or equal to 100 volts.

ESD TR 20.20-2008—ESD Handbook (Companion to ANSI/ESD S20.20)
Produced specifically to support ANSI/ESD S20.20 ESD Control Program standard, this 132-page document is a major rewrite of the previous handbook. It focuses on providing guidance that can be used for developing, implementing, and monitoring an ESD control program in accordance with the S20.20 standard.

Flooring

ANSI/ESD STM7.1-2012 Resistive Characterization of Materials – Floor Materials
Covers measurement of the electrical resistance of various floor materials, such as floor coverings, mats, and floor finishes. It provides test methods for qualifying floor materials before installation or application, and for evaluating and monitoring materials after installation or application.

ESD TR7.0-01-11 Static Protective Floor Materials
This technical report reviews the use of floor materials to dissipate electrostatic charge. It provides an overview on floor coverings, floor finishes, topical antistats, floor mats, paints and coatings. It also covers a variety of other issues related to floor material selection, installation and maintenance.

Flooring and Footwear Systems

ANSI/ESD STM97.1-2006 Floor Materials and Footwear – Resistance Measurement in Combination with a Person
Provides test methods for measuring the electrical system resistance of floor materials in combination with person wearing static control footwear.

ANSI/ESD STM97.2-2006 Floor Materials and Footwear – Voltage Measurement in Combination with a Person
Provides for measuring the electrostatic voltage on a person in combination with floor materials and footwear, as a system.

Footwear

ANSI/ESD STM9.1-2006 Footwear – Resistive Characterization
Defines a test method for measuring the electrical resistance of shoes used for ESD control in the electronics environment (not to include heel straps and toe grounders).

ESD SP9.2-2003 Footwear – Foot Grounders Resistive Characterization
Provides test methods for evaluating foot grounders and foot grounder systems used to electrically bond or ground personnel as part of an ESD Control Program. Static Control Shoes are tested using ANSI/ESD STM9.1.

Garments

ESD DSTM2.1-2013 Garments – Resistive Characterization
Provides test methods for measuring the electrical resistance of garments. It covers procedures for measuring sleeve-to-sleeve resistance and point-to-point resistance.

This is a draft document.

ESD TR2.0-01-00 Consideration for Developing ESD Garment Specifications
Addresses concerns about effective ESD garments by starting with an understanding of electrostatic measurements and how they relate to ESD protection. (Formerly TR05-00)

ESD TR2.0-02-00 Static Electricity Hazards of Triboelectrically Charged Garments
Intended to provide some insight to the electrostatic hazards present when a garment is worn in a flammable or explosive environment. (Formerly TR06-00)

Glossary

ESD ADV1.0-2012 Glossary of Terms
Definitions and explanations of various terms used in Association Standards and documents are covered in this Advisory. It also includes other terms commonly used in the electronics industry.

Gloves and Finger Cots

ANSI/ESD SP15.1-2011 In-Use Resistance Testing of Gloves and Finger Cots
Provides test procedures for measuring the intrinsic electrical resistance of gloves and finger cots.

ESD TR15.0-01-99 ESD Glove and Finger Cots
Reviews the existing known industry test methods for the qualification of ESD protective gloves and finger cots. (Formerly TR03-99)

Grounding

ANSI/ESD S6.1-2009 Grounding
Specifies the parameters, materials, equipment, and test procedures necessary to choose, establish, vary, and maintain an Electrostatic Discharge Control grounding system for use within an ESD Protected Area for protection of ESD susceptible items, and specifies the criteria for establishing ESD Bonding.

Handlers

ANSI/ESD SP10.1-2007 Automated Handling Equipment (AHE)
Provides procedures for evaluating the electrostatic environment associated with automated handling equipment.

ESD TR10.0-01-02 Measurement and ESD Control Issues for Automated Equipment Handling of ESD Sensitive Devices below 100 Volts
Provides guidance and considerations that an equipment manufacturer should use when designing automated handling equipment for these low voltage sensitive devices. (Formerly TR14-02)

Hand Tools

ESD STM13.1-2000 Electrical Soldering/Desoldering Hand Tools
Provides electric soldering/desoldering hand tool test methods for measuring the electrical leakage and tip to ground reference point resistance, and provides parameters for EOS safe soldering operation.

ESD TR13.0-01-99 EOS Safe Soldering Iron Requirements
Discusses soldering iron requirements that must be based on the sensitivity of the most susceptible devices that are to be soldered. (Formerly TR04-99)

Human Body Model (HBM)

ANSI/ESDA/JEDEC JS-001-2012 ESDA/JEDEC Joint Standard for Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Human Body Model (HBM) – Component Level
Establishes the procedure for testing, evaluating, and classifying the electrostatic discharge sensitivity of components to the defined human body model (HBM).

ESD JTR001-01-12, ESD Association Technical Report User Guide of ANSI/ESDA/JEDEC JS-001 Human Body Model Testing of Integrated Circuits
Describes the technical changes made in ANSI/ESDA/JEDEC JS-001-2011 contained in the new 2012 version) and explains how to use those changes to apply HBM (Human Body Model) tests to IC components.

Human Metal Model (HMM)

ANSI/ESD SP5.6-2009 Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Human Metal Model (HMM) – Component Level
Establishes the procedure for testing, evaluating, and classifying the ESD sensitivity of components to the defined HMM.

ESD TR5.6-01-09 Human Metal Model (HMM)
Addresses the need for a standard method of applying the IEC contact discharge waveform to devices and components.

Ionization

ANSI/ESD STM3.1-2006 Ionization
Test methods and procedures for evaluating and selecting air ionization equipment and systems are covered in this standard test method. The document establishes measurement techniques to determine ion balance and charge neutralization time for ionizers.

ANSI/ESD SP3.3-2012 Periodic Verification of Air Ionizers
Provides test methods and procedures for periodic verification of the performance of air ionization equipment and systems (ionizers).

ANSI/ESD SP3.4-2012 Periodic Verification of Air Ionizer Performance Using a Small Test Fixture
Provides a test fixture example and procedures for performance verification of air ionization used in confined spaces where it may not be possible to use the test fixtures defined in ANSI/ESD STM3.1 or ANSI/ESD SP3.3.

ESD TR3.0-01-02 Alternate Techniques for Measuring Ionizer Offset Voltage and Discharge Time
Investigates measurement techniques to determine ion balance and charge neutralization time for ionizers. (Formerly TR13-02)

ESD TR3.0-02-05 Selection and Acceptance of Air Ionizers
Reviews and provides a guideline for creating a performance specification for the four ionizer types contained in ANSI/ESD STM3.1: room (systems), laminar flow hood, worksurface (e.g., blowers), and compressed gas (nozzles & guns). (Formerly ADV3.2-1995)

Machine Model (MM)

ANSI/ESD STM5.2-2012 Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Machine Model (MM) – Component Level
Establishes the procedure for testing, evaluating, and classifying the ESD sensitivity of components to the defined MM.

ANSI/ESD SP5.2.1-2012 Human Body Model (HBM) and Machine Model (MM) Alternative Test Method: Supply Pin Ganging – Component Level
Defines an alternative test method to perform Human Body Model or Machine Model component level ESD tests when the component or device pin count exceeds the number of ESD simulator tester channels. (Formerly ANSI/ESD SP5.1.1-2006)

ANSI/ESD SP5.2.2-2012 Human Body Model (HBM) and Machine Model (MM) Alternative Test Method: Split Signal Pin – Component Level
Defines an alternative test method to perform Human Body Model or Machine Model component level ESD tests when the component or device pin count exceeds the number of ESD simulator tester channels. (Formerly ANSI/ESD SP5.1.2-2006)

ESD TR5.2-01-01 Machine Model (MM) Electrostatic Discharge (ESD) Investigation – Reduction in Pulse Number and Delay Time
Provides the procedures, results, and conclusions of evaluating a proposed change from 3 pulses (present requirement) to 1 pulse while using a delay time of both 1 second (present requirement) and 0.5 second. (Formerly TR10-01)

Ohmmeters

ESD TR50.0-02-99 High Resistance Ohmmeters–Voltage Measurements
Discusses a number of parameters that can cause different readings from high resistance meters when improper instrumentation and techniques are used and the techniques and precautions to be used in order to ensure the measurement will be as accurate and repeatable as possible for high resistance measurement of materials. (Formerly TR02-99)

Packaging

ANSI/ESD STM11.11-2006 Surface Resistance Measurement of Static Dissipative Planar Materials
Defines a direct current test method for measuring electrical resistance, replacing ASTM D257-78. This test method is designed specifically for static dissipative planar materials used in packaging of ESD sensitive devices and components.

ANSI/ESD STM11.12-2007 Volume Resistance Measurement of Static Dissipative Planar Materials
Provides test methods for measuring the volume resistance of static dissipative planar materials used in the packaging of ESD sensitive devices and components.

ANSI/ESD STM11.13-2004 Two-Point Resistance Measurement
Measures the resistance between two points on a material’s surface without consideration of the material’s means of achieving conductivity. This test method was established for measuring resistance where the concentric ring electrodes of ANSI/ESD STM11.11 cannot be used.

ANSI/ESD STM11.31-2012 Bags
Provides a method for testing and determining the shielding capabilities of electrostatic shielding bags.

ANSI/ESD S11.4-2012 Performance Limits for Bags
Establishes performance limits for bags that are intended to protect electronic parts and products from damage due to static electricity and moisture during common electronic manufacturing industry transport and storage applications.

This is a draft document.

ANSI/ESD S541-2008 Packaging Materials for ESD Sensitive Items
Describes the packaging material properties needed to protect electrostatic discharge (ESD) sensitive electronic items, and references the testing methods for evaluating packaging and packaging materials for those properties. Where possible, performance limits are provided. Guidance for selecting the types of packaging with protective properties appropriate for specific applications is provided. Other considerations for protective packaging are also provided.

ESD ADV11.2-1995 Triboelectric Charge Accumulation Testing
Provides guidance in understanding the triboelectric phenomenon and relates current information and experience regarding tribocharge testing as used in static control for electronics.

Seating

ESD DSTM12.1-2013 Seating – Resistive Measurement
Provides test methods for measuring the electrical resistance of seating used for the control of electrostatic charge or discharge. It contains test methods for the qualification of seating prior to installation or application, as well as test methods for evaluating and monitoring seating after installation or application.

This is a draft document.

Socketed Device Model (SDM)

ANSI/ESD SP5.3.2-2008 Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Socketed Device (SDM) – Component Level
Provides a test method for generating a Socketed Device Model (SDM) test on a component integrated circuit (IC) device.

ESD TR5.3.2-01-00 Socket Device Model (SDM) Tester
Helps the user understand how existing SDM testers function, offers help with the interpretation of ESD data generated by SDM test systems, and defines the important properties of an “ideal” socketed-CDM test system. (Formerly TR08-00)

Static Electricity

ESD TR50.0-01-99 Can Static Electricity Be Measured?
Gives an overview of fundamental electrostatic concepts, electrostatic effects, and most importantly of electrostatic metrology, especially what can and what cannot be measured. (Formerly TR01-99)

Susceptible Device Concepts

ESD TR50.0-03-03 Voltage and Energy Susceptible Device Concepts, Including Latency Considerations
Contains information to promote an understanding of the differences between energy and voltage susceptible types of devices and their sensitivity levels. (Formerly TR16-03)

Symbols

ANSI/ESD S8.1-2012 Symbols – ESD Awareness
Three types of ESD awareness symbols are established by this document. The first one is to be used on a device or assembly to indicate that it is susceptible to electrostatic charge. The second is to be used on items and materials intended to provide electrostatic protection. The third symbol indicates the common point ground.

System Level ESD

ESD TR14.0-01-00 Calculation of Uncertainty Associated with Measurement of Electrostatic Discharge (ESD) Current
Provides guidance on measuring uncertainty based on an uncertainty budget. (Formerly TR07-00)

ESD TR14.0-02-13 System Level Electrostatic Discharge (ESD) Simulator Verification
Developed to provide guidance to designers, manufacturers, and calibration facilities for verification and specification of the systems and fixtures used to measure simulator discharge currents. (Formerly ANSI/ESD SP14.1)

Transient Latch-up

ESD TR5.4-01-00 Transient Induced Latch-Up (TLU)
Provides a brief background on early latch-up work, reviews the issues surrounding the power supply response requirements, and discusses the efforts on RLC TLU testing, transmission line pulse (TLP) stressing, and the new bi-polar stress TLU methodology. (Formerly TR09-00)

ESD TR5.4-02-08 Determination of CMOS Latch-up Susceptibility – Transient Latch-up – Technical Report No. 2
Intended to provide background information pertaining to the development of the transient latch-up standard practice originally published in 2004 and additional data presented to the group since publication.

ESD TR5.4-03-11 Latch-up Sensitivity Testing of CMOS/Bi CMOS Integrated Circuits – Transient Latch-up Testing – Component Level Supply Transient Stimulation
Developed to instruct the reader on the methods and materials needed to perform Transient Latch-Up Testing.

Transmission Line Pulse

ANSI/ESD STM5.5.1-2008 Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Transmission Line Pulse (TLP) – Component Level
Pertains to Transmission Line Pulse (TLP) testing techniques of semiconductor components. The purpose of this document is to establish a methodology for both testing and reporting information associated with TLP testing.

ANSI/ESD SP5.5.2-2007, Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Very Fast Transmission Line Pulse (VF-TLP) – Component Level
Pertains to Very Fast Transmission Line Pulse (VF-TLP) testing techniques of semiconductor components. It establishes guidelines and standard practices presently used by development, research, and reliability engineers in both universities and industry for VF-TLP testing. This document explains a methodology for both testing and reporting information associated with VF-TLP testing.

ESD TR5.5-01-08 Transmission Line Pulse (TLP)
A compilation of the information gathered during the writing of ANSI/ESD SP5.5.1 and the information gathered in support of moving the standard practice toward re-designation as a standard test method.

ESD TR5.5-02-08 Transmission Line Pulse Round Robin
Intended to provide data on the repeatability and reproducibility limits of the methods of ANSI/ESD STM5.5.1.

Workstations

ESD ADV53.1-1995 ESD Protective Workstations
Defines the minimum requirements for a basic ESD protective workstation used in ESD sensitive areas. It provides a test method for evaluating and monitoring workstations. It defines workstations as having the following components: support structure, static dissipative worksurface, a means of grounding personnel, and any attached shelving or drawers.

Worksurfaces

ANSI/ESD S4.1-2006 Worksurface – Resistance Measurements
Provides test methods for evaluating and selecting worksurface materials, testing of new worksurface installations, and the testing of previously installed worksurfaces.

ANSI/ESD STM4.2-2012 ESD Protective Worksurfaces – Charge Dissipation Characteristics
Aids in determining the ability of ESD protective worksurfaces to dissipate charge from a conductive test object placed on them.

ESD TR4.0-01-02 Survey of Worksurfaces and Grounding Mechanisms
Provides guidance for understanding the attributes of worksurface materials and their grounding mechanisms. (Formerly TR15-02)

Wrist Straps

ESD DS1.1-2013 Wrist Straps
A successor to EOS/ESD S1.0, this document establishes test methods for evaluating the electrical and mechanical characteristics of wrist straps. It includes improved test methods and performance limits for evaluation, acceptance, and functional testing of wrist straps.

This is a draft document.

ESD TR1.0-01-01 Survey of Constant (Continuous) Monitors for Wrist Straps
Provides guidance to ensure that wrist straps are functional and are connected to people and ground. (Formerly TR12-01)

About the EOS/ESD Association, Inc.
Founded in 1982, the EOS/ESD Association, Inc. is a professional voluntary association dedicated to advancing the theory and practice of electrostatic discharge (ESD) avoidance. From fewer than 100 members, the Association has grown to more than 2,000 throughout the world. From an initial emphasis on the effects of ESD on electronic components, the Association has broadened its horizons to include areas such as textiles, plastics, web processing, cleanrooms, and graphic arts. To meet the needs of a continually changing environment, the Association is chartered to expand ESD awareness through standards development, educational programs, local chapters, publications, tutorials, certification,
and symposia.

While product safety and reliability are core principles of virtually every manufacturer designing equipment for the telecom industry, the Telcordia Generic Requirements (GRs) that ensure the integrity of such devices and systems are not commonly understood by manufacturers around the globe.

As an increasing amount of equipment used in telecommunications networks is being produced in different parts of the world, recognizing and adhering to these standards and requirements is essential to competing in this ever-expanding market.

Among these requirements is the NEBS family of requirements, which stands for Network Equipment Building System. Unlike more traditional product safety standards, compliance to the NEBS family of standards ensures the personal safety of equipment operators and service technicians and the protection of facilities housing equipment, all while ensuring the integrity of an overall telecommunications network. This family of requirements is what members of the Telecommunication Carrier Group (TCG), such as Verizon and AT&T, and smaller local service providers use to evaluate telecommunications equipment to ensure network integrity and protect against hazards associated with the location of equipment.

It is this all-encompassing focus on safety, reliability and performance of network equipment and its impact on the environment of telecom facilities that distinguishes NEBS requirements from other telecommunications standards. NEBS requirements are designed to:

• Protect personnel
• Streamline equipment design and installation
• Prevent service outages and interference in a network caused by incompatible equipment
• Reduce the risks of fire in network facilities
• Guard against the potential negative impacts on equipment from extreme temperatures, vibration and airborne contamination
• Support equipment compatibility with the network’s electrical environment.

Like other industry requirements, meeting NEBS requirements can positively impact a manufacturer’s bottom line. NEBS requirements consist of three levels of compliance, each ensuring a different stage of network protection. Understanding in advance the required level of compliance for a particular product can help a manufacturer minimize product development, installation and maintenance costs. Increasingly, telecommunications equipment manufacturers around the world are requiring their component suppliers to demonstrate compliance with NEBS and including this stipulation in requests for proposal (RFPs) and supplier contracts. In fact, requirements are beginning to apply to both wire line installations as well as wireless applications.

Understanding Levels of Compliance

As most TCG members require demonstration of NEBS compliance prior to the purchase and/or deployment on their telecommunication network infrastructure, equipment manufacturers document compliance to NEBS requirements by having testing performed by an ISO 17025 accredited third-party test laboratory. In certain circumstances, NEBS-related testing can be performed in-house, assuming an internal laboratory is properly accredited to ISO 17025. However, some TCG members require all testing to be performed or witnessed by an accredited independent test laboratory (ITL).

NEBS requirements apply to telecommunications equipment installed in a Central Office (CO) environment, certain Outside Plant applications (OSP), and Customer Premises Equipment (CPE). There are generally two primary GRs that apply to most equipment designated for use in a CO: GR-1089-CORE (Issue 6), which covers electromagnetic compatibility, electrical transients and electrical safety; and GR-63-CORE (Issue 4), which covers physical requirements. GR-1089-CORE and GR-63-CORE together are commonly referred to as the “NEBS Criteria.” It’s important to understand that individual TCGs may have additional requirements beyond those found in GR-1089-CORE and GR-63-CORE.

Helping to speed and simplify the compliance process without jeopardizing network reliability in the deployment of new equipment, the Telcordia special report SR-3580, NEBS Criteria Levels, divides NEBS requirements into three levels of compliance.

• Level 1 is the minimum acceptable level of NEBS environmental compatibility needed to preclude hazards and degradation of a network facility and hazards to personnel. Level 1 comprises only safety and risk criteria. Conformance to Level 1 does not assure equipment operability or service continuity. Level 1 is typically used by service providers for early deployment into their COs and/or interoperability laboratories, and to allow collocaters to install equipment in a central office. A collocater is a company that rents space in a central office and provides some type of communications service (such as Internet access or long distance).
• Level 2 is the minimum level of NEBS environmental compatibility needed to provide some limited assurance of equipment operability within the network facility environment. This assurance of operability is limited to the controlled or normal environments as defined by the criteria. Rarely a focus of customers, Level 2 includes all requirements of Level 1 with some added level of operability reliability.
• Level 3 is the minimum level of NEBS environmental compatibility needed to provide maximum assurance of equipment operability within the network facility environment. The Level 3 criteria provide the highest assurance of product operability. Level 3 criteria are suited for equipment applications that demand minimal service interruptions over the equipment’s life. Most TCGs require NEBS Level 3 prior to acceptance/installation on the network as they require this level of compliance for equipment operation in the central office, but not collocated equipment.

While SR-3580 identifies the tests required by the three levels, most equipment manufacturers submit their equipment to be evaluated to NEBS Level 3. Even in pursuing the highest assurance of product operability that Level 3 provides, manufacturers should know where their product is going to be deployed on a network: in a CO operated by telecom carriers, outside plant environment or customer premises. The setting of product deployment determines the tests that need to be performed to meet NEBS requirements. For example, specific environmental testing, in accordance with GR-63-CORE, simulates exposure to extreme environments that include high/low temperatures, high humidity, shock and exposure, fire ignition and flame spread, seismic conditions and airborne contaminates. By understanding the testing process, and the additional tests that may be required by specific carriers, manufacturers are better able to work most effectively and efficiently with third-party testing laboratories.

Exploring Qualified NEBS Testing Laboratories

Choosing the right NEBS testing laboratory to work with involves considering a host of issues, from laboratory capabilities and accreditations to staff expertise. Equipment manufacturers might also examine whether a provider is able to outline start dates and availability for project planning well before testing actually begins.

In assessing provider capabilities, manufacturers should:

• be aware that product size and weight limitations might preclude some laboratories from completing certain test profiles.
• make sure the NEBS test facility is ISO 17025 accredited and qualified under any carrier specific laboratory accreditation programs, such as the Verizon ITL program.
• inquire about the training and expertise of testing staff and ensure engineers are actively engaged in industry technical committees, regularly attend industry symposia and are current with any applicable professional certifications.

It’s important to note that a comprehensive, full service laboratory will support NEBS testing with the following:

• Full EMC test facility capable of conducting both immunity and emissions testing
• Environmental chambers to conduct temperature and altitude testing
• Vibration and seismic test facilities
• Full-scale fire facility
• Facilities to support acoustic power measurements
• Various test facilities to support lightning surge and power fault simulations, DC power measurements
• Conditioning chambers to support mixed flowing gas testing and test apparatus to support hygroscopic dust exposure

These laboratories should document and deliver a test report that outlines an overall test strategy and contains individual test methods and results. The test laboratory should also include separate videos of the large-scale fire tests and seismic tests.

In addition to the Telcordia Generic Requirements, a testing laboratory should be familiar with the related American National Standards developed by the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS). These standards, such as ATIS-0600319, Equipment Assemblies – Fire Propagation Risk Assessment, or the ATIS-0600015 series of energy efficiency testing standards are often referenced in the Telcordia GRs or, in some cases, are specifically required by the service provider community.

A full service laboratory should also be able to support testing to international standards for manufacturers that seek compliance for the global marketplace. Examples of these standards include the ETSI 300 019 and 300 386 series of standards dealing with the physical and EMC environments, respectively. No matter the current or future setting of laboratory testing, telecom equipment manufacturers should ensure that their equipment undergoes proper NEBS and customer specific required testing. Viewing this commitment as an important part of product investment, manufacturers should seek out an ITL with the technological tools and expertise to carry out the testing process, including test methods that address any modifications to requirements.

In understanding and achieving NEBS compliance, a manufacturer gains standing as a company whose equipment enhances rather than jeopardizes network integrity and protects the safety of the personnel who operate it. The return on this product investment not only includes reduced design and related costs over the long term, but the advantage of being positioned to make great strides in an evolving worldwide marketplace that presents exciting, new opportunities every day.

UL is a premier global safety science company with more than 100 years of proven history. A pioneer in NEBS testing since 1992, UL operates three full service EMC facilities located throughout North America. Each has a variety of NEBS capabilities and is staffed with highly trained, experienced, and NARTE certified engineers.

© UL LLC 2013. Reprinted with permission.

Matt Marotto
is currently the North American Wireless & EMC Quality Manager for UL. In 2008, Marotto served as Global NEBS Program Development Manager and was responsible for developing and implementing UL’s NEBS Fastrack Program, which enables international Telecom manufacturers to perform NEBS and telecom related testing in their own laboratories under the witness of UL staff. Prior to that, Marotto was Operations Manager for UL’s EMC and NEBS testing laboratories in Research Triangle Park, N.C. Matt received his bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering from the University of Alabama and is an iNARTE certified product safety engineer.

Randy Ivans
is UL’s Principal Engineer in the high tech and telecommunications area. He is responsible for the development, implementation and maintenance of various UL Standards and certification programs including UL’s NEBS Mark program. Randy is a member of the National Electrical Code, NFPA 70, Code Making Panel No. 16 that is responsible for Chapter 8 covering communications systems. He is chairman of the TIA TR41.7 Committee on Environmental and Safety Issues and is a member of the ATIS Sustainability in Telecom: Energy and Protection Committee (STEP) in which he chairs the NPP subcommittee on physical protection. Randy received his bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering and his master of science in technology management from Polytechnic University and is an iNARTE certified product safety engineer.

While product safety and reliability are core principles of virtually every manufacturer designing equipment for the telecom industry, the Telcordia Generic Requirements (GRs) that ensure the integrity of such devices and systems are not commonly understood by manufacturers around the globe.

As an increasing amount of equipment used in telecommunications networks is being produced in different parts of the world, recognizing and adhering to these standards and requirements is essential to competing in this ever-expanding market.

Among these requirements is the NEBS family of requirements, which stands for Network Equipment Building System. Unlike more traditional product safety standards, compliance to the NEBS family of standards ensures the personal safety of equipment operators and service technicians and the protection of facilities housing equipment, all while ensuring the integrity of an overall telecommunications network. This family of requirements is what members of the Telecommunication Carrier Group (TCG), such as Verizon and AT&T, and smaller local service providers use to evaluate telecommunications equipment to ensure network integrity and protect against hazards associated with the location of equipment.

It is this all-encompassing focus on safety, reliability and performance of network equipment and its impact on the environment of telecom facilities that distinguishes NEBS requirements from other telecommunications standards. NEBS requirements are designed to:

• Protect personnel
• Streamline equipment design and installation
• Prevent service outages and interference in a network caused by incompatible equipment
• Reduce the risks of fire in network facilities
• Guard against the potential negative impacts on equipment from extreme temperatures, vibration and airborne contamination
• Support equipment compatibility with the network’s electrical environment.

Like other industry requirements, meeting NEBS requirements can positively impact a manufacturer’s bottom line. NEBS requirements consist of three levels of compliance, each ensuring a different stage of network protection. Understanding in advance the required level of compliance for a particular product can help a manufacturer minimize product development, installation and maintenance costs. Increasingly, telecommunications equipment manufacturers around the world are requiring their component suppliers to demonstrate compliance with NEBS and including this stipulation in requests for proposal (RFPs) and supplier contracts. In fact, requirements are beginning to apply to both wire line installations as well as wireless applications.

Understanding Levels of Compliance

As most TCG members require demonstration of NEBS compliance prior to the purchase and/or deployment on their telecommunication network infrastructure, equipment manufacturers document compliance to NEBS requirements by having testing performed by an ISO 17025 accredited third-party test laboratory. In certain circumstances, NEBS-related testing can be performed in-house, assuming an internal laboratory is properly accredited to ISO 17025. However, some TCG members require all testing to be performed or witnessed by an accredited independent test laboratory (ITL).

NEBS requirements apply to telecommunications equipment installed in a Central Office (CO) environment, certain Outside Plant applications (OSP), and Customer Premises Equipment (CPE). There are generally two primary GRs that apply to most equipment designated for use in a CO: GR-1089-CORE (Issue 6), which covers electromagnetic compatibility, electrical transients and electrical safety; and GR-63-CORE (Issue 4), which covers physical requirements. GR-1089-CORE and GR-63-CORE together are commonly referred to as the “NEBS Criteria.” It’s important to understand that individual TCGs may have additional requirements beyond those found in GR-1089-CORE and GR-63-CORE.

Helping to speed and simplify the compliance process without jeopardizing network reliability in the deployment of new equipment, the Telcordia special report SR-3580, NEBS Criteria Levels, divides NEBS requirements into three levels of compliance.

• Level 1 is the minimum acceptable level of NEBS environmental compatibility needed to preclude hazards and degradation of a network facility and hazards to personnel. Level 1 comprises only safety and risk criteria. Conformance to Level 1 does not assure equipment operability or service continuity. Level 1 is typically used by service providers for early deployment into their COs and/or interoperability laboratories, and to allow collocaters to install equipment in a central office. A collocater is a company that rents space in a central office and provides some type of communications service (such as Internet access or long distance).
• Level 2 is the minimum level of NEBS environmental compatibility needed to provide some limited assurance of equipment operability within the network facility environment. This assurance of operability is limited to the controlled or normal environments as defined by the criteria. Rarely a focus of customers, Level 2 includes all requirements of Level 1 with some added level of operability reliability.
• Level 3 is the minimum level of NEBS environmental compatibility needed to provide maximum assurance of equipment operability within the network facility environment. The Level 3 criteria provide the highest assurance of product operability. Level 3 criteria are suited for equipment applications that demand minimal service interruptions over the equipment’s life. Most TCGs require NEBS Level 3 prior to acceptance/installation on the network as they require this level of compliance for equipment operation in the central office, but not collocated equipment.

While SR-3580 identifies the tests required by the three levels, most equipment manufacturers submit their equipment to be evaluated to NEBS Level 3. Even in pursuing the highest assurance of product operability that Level 3 provides, manufacturers should know where their product is going to be deployed on a network: in a CO operated by telecom carriers, outside plant environment or customer premises. The setting of product deployment determines the tests that need to be performed to meet NEBS requirements. For example, specific environmental testing, in accordance with GR-63-CORE, simulates exposure to extreme environments that include high/low temperatures, high humidity, shock and exposure, fire ignition and flame spread, seismic conditions and airborne contaminates. By understanding the testing process, and the additional tests that may be required by specific carriers, manufacturers are better able to work most effectively and efficiently with third-party testing laboratories.

Exploring Qualified NEBS Testing Laboratories

Choosing the right NEBS testing laboratory to work with involves considering a host of issues, from laboratory capabilities and accreditations to staff expertise. Equipment manufacturers might also examine whether a provider is able to outline start dates and availability for project planning well before testing actually begins.

In assessing provider capabilities, manufacturers should:

• be aware that product size and weight limitations might preclude some laboratories from completing certain test profiles.
• make sure the NEBS test facility is ISO 17025 accredited and qualified under any carrier specific laboratory accreditation programs, such as the Verizon ITL program.
• inquire about the training and expertise of testing staff and ensure engineers are actively engaged in industry technical committees, regularly attend industry symposia and are current with any applicable professional certifications.

It’s important to note that a comprehensive, full service laboratory will support NEBS testing with the following:

• Full EMC test facility capable of conducting both immunity and emissions testing
• Environmental chambers to conduct temperature and altitude testing
• Vibration and seismic test facilities
• Full-scale fire facility
• Facilities to support acoustic power measurements
• Various test facilities to support lightning surge and power fault simulations, DC power measurements
• Conditioning chambers to support mixed flowing gas testing and test apparatus to support hygroscopic dust exposure

These laboratories should document and deliver a test report that outlines an overall test strategy and contains individual test methods and results. The test laboratory should also include separate videos of the large-scale fire tests and seismic tests.

In addition to the Telcordia Generic Requirements, a testing laboratory should be familiar with the related American National Standards developed by the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS). These standards, such as ATIS-0600319, Equipment Assemblies – Fire Propagation Risk Assessment, or the ATIS-0600015 series of energy efficiency testing standards are often referenced in the Telcordia GRs or, in some cases, are specifically required by the service provider community.

A full service laboratory should also be able to support testing to international standards for manufacturers that seek compliance for the global marketplace. Examples of these standards include the ETSI 300 019 and 300 386 series of standards dealing with the physical and EMC environments, respectively. No matter the current or future setting of laboratory testing, telecom equipment manufacturers should ensure that their equipment undergoes proper NEBS and customer specific required testing. Viewing this commitment as an important part of product investment, manufacturers should seek out an ITL with the technological tools and expertise to carry out the testing process, including test methods that address any modifications to requirements.

In understanding and achieving NEBS compliance, a manufacturer gains standing as a company whose equipment enhances rather than jeopardizes network integrity and protects the safety of the personnel who operate it. The return on this product investment not only includes reduced design and related costs over the long term, but the advantage of being positioned to make great strides in an evolving worldwide marketplace that presents exciting, new opportunities every day.

UL is a premier global safety science company with more than 100 years of proven history. A pioneer in NEBS testing since 1992, UL operates three full service EMC facilities located throughout North America. Each has a variety of NEBS capabilities and is staffed with highly trained, experienced, and NARTE certified engineers.

© UL LLC 2013. Reprinted with permission.

Matt Marotto
is currently the North American Wireless & EMC Quality Manager for UL. In 2008, Marotto served as Global NEBS Program Development Manager and was responsible for developing and implementing UL’s NEBS Fastrack Program, which enables international Telecom manufacturers to perform NEBS and telecom related testing in their own laboratories under the witness of UL staff. Prior to that, Marotto was Operations Manager for UL’s EMC and NEBS testing laboratories in Research Triangle Park, N.C. Matt received his bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering from the University of Alabama and is an iNARTE certified product safety engineer.

Randy Ivans
is UL’s Principal Engineer in the high tech and telecommunications area. He is responsible for the development, implementation and maintenance of various UL Standards and certification programs including UL’s NEBS Mark program. Randy is a member of the National Electrical Code, NFPA 70, Code Making Panel No. 16 that is responsible for Chapter 8 covering communications systems. He is chairman of the TIA TR41.7 Committee on Environmental and Safety Issues and is a member of the ATIS Sustainability in Telecom: Energy and Protection Committee (STEP) in which he chairs the NPP subcommittee on physical protection. Randy received his bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering and his master of science in technology management from Polytechnic University and is an iNARTE certified product safety engineer.

Environmental compliance is a moving target — each region can impose unique environmental requirements on products sold in their market and new regulations continue to emerge. Different global substance regulations create significant challenges for all actors in the electrical and electronics industry. Substances added twice a year to the EU REACH¹ SVHC Candidate List and the potential additional RoHS2 substances are prime examples of new or changing regulatory requirements.

The first step in regulatory compliance evaluation for substance restrictions is to determine the substances of concern contained within the parts that comprise a finished electronic product. This article describes an internationally recognized standard that is available to engineers to help identify the substances of concern that need to be taken into consideration when designing, procuring, and manufacturing electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) products for a global marketplace. It also presents a summary of the updates made to the industry Declarable Substance List (DSL) in 2013 and early 2014 to meet the changes in global requirements.

Organizations need to implement internal processes that are flexible to accommodate new regulations and to leverage information from a global supply chain. The new International Standard IEC 62474 Ed. 1.0 titled Material Declaration for Products of and for the Electrotechnical Industry (hereafter referred to as IEC 62474)3 described in this article is invaluable in assisting organizations to meet these global requirements.

The Market Need for Material Declarations

Restricted substance compliance is a challenge that is continuing to grow – Manufacturers need to be aware of the substances of concern in their products.

A key benefit of the IEC 62474 material declaration standard is that it includes an internationally recognized DSL specific to the electronic industry. The IEC 62474 DSL is based heavily on the Joint Industry Guide (JIG-101), which was the EEE industry’s de-facto substance list from 2005 through 2012. The JIG 101 substance list maintenance activity has now been officially sunset and transitioned to the IEC 62474 validation team (for more on this visit http://www.incompliancemag.com/press/1404_F2.)

The IEC 62474 DSL contains information on what substances to declare and the conditions under which they need to be reported. To help users, it also includes information about common uses of the chemicals in electronic products. The information in the IEC 62474 DSL helps companies to design and manufacture their products to meet global market requirements.

Manufacturers need to know the materials contained in their products. This is important input for environmentally conscious design (ECD) to understand opportunities to improve environmental performance.

Organizations with ECD processes need to understand environmental aspects associated with their products across the various product life cycle stages. A robust ECD process will collect data to understand which environmental aspects are significant during each life cycle stage and evaluate what may be done to improve these aspects. Examples of common environmental aspects include material use, energy use, water use, waste generation, and wastewater and air emissions.

IEC 62474 can assist organizations determine their global regulatory compliance status, as well as to declare data on the type of materials that are contained in their products. With this information product design teams may better understand the opportunities available to improve environmental life cycle performance. For example, the data may indicate that several different types of plastics are present in certain parts and indicate there are opportunities to reduce these materials to improve overall product recyclability.

The IEC 62474 standard supports ECD through the establishment of fifteen defined material classes. These classes are defined non-overlapping categories of materials that can be used to fully describe the contents of an electronic product. The material classes cover both inorganic and organic material categories.

EU RoHS 2 has new CE marking technical documentation requirements — material declaration can play a significant role

RoHS 2 – the recast of the EU RoHS Directive (2011/65/EU) – is a CE Marking Directive that introduced new obligations for manufacturers, importers, and distributors. In particular, manufacturers now have obligations for conformity assessment of products, marking, manufacturing, technical documentation and notification and tracking of any possible non-conformances.

RoHS 2 specifies that manufacturers must carry out conformity assessments based on internal production control procedures in conformance with EU Decision 768/2008/EC and EU Regulation (EC) No 765/2008. It also specifies that manufacturers must compile technical documentation that demonstrates conformity of their products before the products are put on the EU market. To assist manufacturers with understanding the expectations for technical documentation, the European Commission issued a Communication specifying the CENELEC standard EN 505814 as the RoHS 2 harmonized standard for technical documentation.

EN 50581 Technical Documentation for the Assessment of Electrical and Electronic Products with Respect to the Restriction of Hazardous Substances specifies minimum requirements for technical documentation. In determining the information that is needed, EN 50581 suggests that manufacturers use a risk assessment approach to consider the probability of restricted substances being present in the product and also the trustworthiness of the supplier.

To demonstrate the absence of restricted substance content in materials, parts, and sub-assemblies, EN 50581 identifies three types of information that may be appropriate for the technical documentation:

1. Supplier declarations and/or contractual agreements;
2. material declarations; and
3. analytical test results.

For materials declaration, the standard references EN 62474, the European version of IEC 62474. An IEC 62474 material declaration will communicate information about all instances of RoHS substances in the product above the restriction threshold, allowing the downstream manufacturer to determine conformity and assess the applicability of any RoHS exemptions that have been identified by the supplier. This makes IEC 62474 material declarations suitable as RoHS 2 technical documentation.

Manufacturers may also test their products for RoHS restricted substances, but this can become expensive very quickly and is not always practical, making material declarations a cost effective way to meet the technical documentation requirements.

REACH SVHCs require a systematic and flexible approach

Organizations that manufacture or import products into the European Union must comply with the EU REACH regulation (EC) No 1907/
2006 – this includes manufacturers of EEE products. REACH is a comprehensive chemicals regulation with many requirements. For EEE manufacturers, the most common requirement is the obligation to communicate information about the presence of any Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC). SVHCs include substances that are carcinogenic, mutagenic, toxic to reproduction, persistent, bioaccumulative and/or endocrine disrupting. Only the SVHCs on the SVHC Candidate List that is published by the European Chemical Agency (ECHA) incur this obligation, but as of April 2014, the SVHC Candidate List had grown to 151 entries with additional substances added twice a year. When new SVHCs are added, the communication requirements are immediate.

Maintaining REACH compliance is a challenge given the large number of SVHCs on the Candidate List and the frequent additions. A systematic and flexible approach is needed 5, 6. Good communication of substance content information down the entire supply chain is invaluable. Also, awareness of which SVHCs can occur in EEE versus those that are not realistically present helps narrow the focus to specific substances of concern. For example, many of the current 151 SVHCs are manufacturing intermediate chemicals that are not expected to remain in a finished electronic product. One way that the IEC 62474 DSL provides value-added information for the electronics industry is by identifying most likely uses of REACH SVHCs.

Challenges with Material Declaration

There are many challenges to get the substance and material data needed by electronics manufacturers. These include:

• Suppliers do not know the countries that a downstream manufacturer will sell to, and even if they did, they usually do not have the resources to research and know all substance restriction regulations.
• Without a standardized list of minimum substances to report, each customer requests the substances it wants its suppliers to report. This means many different variations and details as to what a supplier has to report, making it difficult and costly to prepare.
• Without a standardized way to exchange material declaration data, suppliers receive customer-specific forms and formats to report in. Many suppliers provide hardcopy data that has to be entered again manually for the next declaration down the manufacturing chain. This leads to extra effort, costs and reporting errors.
• There have been no internationally accepted rules to report substances or materials, and this leads to variation and data errors.
• Suppliers provide information on a case-by-case basis according to individual contracts. In some cases, the data is provided at no cost, in some cases it is provided at additional cost and in some cases, not provided at all. This leads to market barriers that tend to give advantage to larger organizations and to those that purchase in large quantities.

How IEC 62474 Helps Organizations Obtain Material Declaration Data

The IEC 62474 Standard on material declaration includes an internationally recognized DSL, a material declaration procedure and a data exchange format.

The standardized rules and data exchange format provided by IEC 62474 enables manufacturers and suppliers to exchange material and substance information using a common language. A supplier that prepares their material declarations in conformance with IEC 62474 enables their customers to correctly interpret the information to assess conformance of the product against substance restrictions.

The requirements for creating a material declaration that conforms to IEC 62474 are listed in the various parts of the standard. The declaration rules specified in Clause 4 of the IEC 62474 standard ensures that specific minimum information about substance content in the product is provided and specific requirements are followed for declaring optional information. The DSL in the IEC 62474 database specifies the minimum set of substances that must be declared if they are present in the product above the reporting threshold; and the data exchange format (specified by the XML schema and developer’s table) allows supplier and customer to exchange the data using a common format. Several of the features and benefits of IEC 62474 material declaration are discussed below.

IEC 62474 is an International Standard recognized by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and is therefore intended to have a harmonizing effect across the global industry. It has been adopted by the EU and several other countries as a national standard, including China. Japan is adopting the International Standard for their JGPSSI and JAMP material declaration systems. And IPC 1752 is now referencing the IEC 62474 DSL. The IEC 62474 and IPC 1752 (class D) XML formats are already quite similar and efforts are underway to bring these further into alignment.

The IEC 62474 DSL has already gained significant adoption within the EEE industry – many organizations are now using the DSL for engineering and procurement specifications— and Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) standards are referencing the list in their environmental performance criteria. Nevertheless, it takes time and effort to implement new functionality in IT systems; therefore the adoption of IEC 62474 by manufacturers may take some time. However, once the standard is widely adopted, the efficiency of data exchange throughout the supply will enable companies to meet expanding regulatory requirements in a timely and cost-efficient manner.

A unique aspect of IEC 62474 compared to most other IEC and ISO standards is that it not only includes the International Standard document, but is designed to work with a companion publicly available online database for information that needs to be updated regularly. The IEC 62474 database is publicly available at http://std.iec.ch/iec62474. The business rules governing the reporting and how declarable substances are added/removed from the list are more stable and, consequently, are contained in the standard itself.

Declarable Substance List (DSL)

The DSL is a list of substances and substance groups (e.g. lead and lead compounds) that a manufacturer is required to declare if present in the product at a concentration level above the reporting threshold. Figure 1 provides a screen capture of the main web page of the IEC 62474 database. The DSL may be accessed from the IEC 62474 database via the menu bar on the left side of the web page – click on Declarable Substance Groups and Declarable Substances and then select the substance from the drop down list. There is also an option to export the entire DSL in Excel or XML format.

Figure 1: Introduction Page of IEC 62474 database

Each substance or substance group entry in the list is accompanied with a reportable application and a reporting threshold level. For example, selecting Lead/Lead Compounds presents five entries with different reportable application/reporting threshold combinations – the first entry corresponds to the RoHS restriction. Clicking on the Details button reveals information about reference substances, typical EEE applications, regulations, and other information (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: IEC 62474 DB entry for RoHS Lead Restriction

The reportable application and reporting threshold level fields provide criteria for a supplier to determine whether they must report the presence of a substance or substance group in their product.

The declarable substances are categorized in three criteria levels: criteria 1 currently regulated; criteria 2 for assessment; and criteria 3 for information only. For a supplier to declare that their material declaration conforms to IEC 62474, they must declare all criteria 1 or 2 substances that are present in their product above the threshold level for the specified reportable application. The declaration of criteria 3 substances is optional.

Key functionality, flexibility and power of IEC 62474

A strength of the IEC 62474 International Standard is the flexibility in material declaration reporting. A supplier may declare just the mandatory declarable substances/declarable substance groups or they may provide a full declaration of all materials and substances in the product using the same XML-based data exchange format.

Data Exchange
The information in an IEC 62474 material declaration is captured in a tree data structure using an XML format. Figure 3 illustrates a simplified conceptual representation of the elements in the tree data structure. The product is at the top of the tree with product parts, materials, substance groups and substances underneath. In most circumstances, declaring product parts and materials is optional; however, there are occasional circumstances when a product part must be declared – these circumstances are described below. There may also be information on material classes in the declaration, although this information is not shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Example Material Declaration with Optional Declaration of Product Parts and Materials

The XML schema specifies the basic format of the XML file but must be used in conjunction with the developer’s table, which specifies additional rules that must be met in an XML material declaration file – for example, the multiplicity of data fields and the maximum number of characters allowed in text fields (i.e., maximum string length). The multiplicity of data fields refers to whether only one instance of a specific data field is allowed or if multiple instances may be provided. Multiplicity of greater than one is important for information such as RoHS exemptions for which multiple entries may need to be reported. The developer’s table is also available from the IEC 62474 database.

IEC 62474 states that material declarations should be exchanged between supplier and customer using the data format provided in the XML schema; but it also allows a paper format to be used. The paper format capability was provided because not all organizations around the world have the computer tools available for electronic data exchange. A paper-based material declaration must still provide all of the information specified in the standard.

For an electronic material declaration to conform to IEC 62474, it must meet all of the applicable requirements in the XML schema, the developer’s table and the IEC 62474 document.

Declaration Procedure
The declaration procedure (rules), as defined in Clause 4 of the IEC 62464 document, is partitioned into base requirements for a minimum declaration and additional requirements that must be met when a supplier provides additional (optional) information. The requirements identify key information that must be provided in the material declaration and how the information must be organized. Following these requirements is necessary to ensure that the recipient is able to interpret the information and assess conformity of the product.

IEC 62474 material declarations allow conformity to be calculated

An important objective for the development of IEC 62474 was to ensure that the recipient of a material declaration has sufficient information to properly assess the conformity of a material or product – this overcomes a limitation of several earlier material declaration specifications. For example, a material declaration that reports only a single highest concentration of lead in the product can be deceiving when assessing RoHS compliance, which is based on homogeneous materials. The highest concentration may be covered by a RoHS exemption, potentially masking a lower concentration of lead in another material. The IEC 62474 DSL listing of lead and lead compounds for EU RoHS requires that all instances of lead in homogeneous materials above 0.1 mass percent must be declared. This requires the supplier to provide more information about declarable substances in their product, but it significantly improves what the recipient can do with the information.

There are also a few circumstances when a product part must be declared. For example, when the substance reporting threshold is mass percent of a battery, a battery included in a product is a product part and it must be explicitly declared so that the recipient of the material declaration can properly assess conformity.

In the case of REACH SVHCs, the threshold of the substance is based on the mass percent of the article1; thus, in general, only one declaration of the substance is required if the SVHC substance declaration is assigned directly to the product. However, if product parts, materials or substance groups are declared, then the SVHC must be allocated and assigned to each applicable product part, material and/or substance group that contains the SVHC. Note that even if the SVHC is allocated across several materials or parts, the reporting is still based on 0.1% of mass (w/w) of the entire article and not the mass percent of individual occurrences.

Keeping the Declarable Substance List Up-to-Date

The key challenge with publishing a list of substances is keeping the list up to date with environmental regulations. The IEC 62474 DSL is maintained by a Validation Team (VT 62474) that currently consists of 39 representatives from 14 countries  (including the authors of this article) covering North and South America, Europe, Asia and Australia. VT 62474 includes experts from chemical manufacturers, component manufacturers, finished product manufacturers, and consultants.

The VT 62474 typically conducts maintenance cycles to update the database content two or three times per year. The update process is triggered when a National Committee or a VT 62474 member submits a formal change request. The VT 62474 will also pro actively screen new substances added to existing regulations (such as substances being considered for the EU REACH SVHC Candidate List).

The IEC 62474 standard specifies the rules that the VT 62474 follows to evaluate a change request and the decision criteria it uses to determine whether or not a substance should be included on the DSL. Two key evaluation criteria used by VT62474 are:

• Is the substance contained in electronic products; and
• Does the substance remain in the product above the regulatory threshold?

After the VT evaluates the change request and supporting evidence, a final validation phase requires each participating country to vote on the change.

Updates to the IEC 62474 database content were made in June 2013 and September 2013. Another maintenance cycle was launched in October 2013 with final validation voting just completed at the time that this article was being written. The update to the IEC 62474 database is expected in March 2014. The June and September 2013 updates included 35 additions and 10 modifications to the DSL. Most of the updates were the result of additional substances added to the REACH SVHC Candidate List, but there were also a few modifications and a couple of substance deletions. The maintenance cycle that was started in October 2013 focused on the REACH SVHCs that were added to the SVHC Candidate List on December 16, 2013. A comprehensive summary of the changes is available at: http://rohs.ca/IEC62474.html.

How to Get More Information

The IEC 62474 International Standard is available from the IEC webstore or your favorite reseller of standards documents. The IEC 62474 database containing the DSL, XML schema and developer’s table is publicly available at http://std.iec.ch/iec62474. A user guidance document is also in the works. The user guidance, which will be designated IEC 62474-1 has an expected publication date of late 2014.

The online database includes a news page that provides information on the status of the database and a summary of updates and a contact page. Additional information and a discussion forum are also available on a blog hosted by ECD Compliance at http://iec62474.rohs.ca.

Summary

Maintaining the compliance of products to environmental regulations has become a significant challenge and effort for product manufacturers. Internal processes are needed to identify requirements, obtain information from a global supply chain, assess conformity/risks, and to maintain documentation (particularly for the RoHS 2 technical documentation requirement). This needs to be accomplished efficiently and cost effectively and be flexible enough to accommodate new regulations. Leveraging industry best practices, including the use of risk assessment can be particularly valuable.

For substance restrictions and disclosure, identifying the substances of concern that need to be considered during the design, procurement, and manufacturing phases of a product is an important and practical first step to help focus the conformity efforts. The Declarable Substance List (DSL) included in IEC 62474 provides a convenient starting point for engineering and procurement specifications and helps organizations focus on key substances for market acceptance. The standardized rules and data exchange format provided by IEC 62474 enable manufacturers and suppliers to exchange material and substance information using a common language and rules. A supplier that prepares their material declarations in conformance with IEC 62474 enables their customers to interpret the information to assess conformance of the product against substance restrictions.

References

1. EU Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), 18 December 2008.
2. EU Directive 2011/65/EU, on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (recast), 8 June 2011.
3. IEC 62474 Material declaration for products of and for the electrotechnical industry may be purchased from the IEC webstore at http://webstore.iec.ch or a reseller of IEC International Standards.
4. EN 50581 Technical documentation for the assessment of electrical and electronic products with respect to the restriction of hazardous substances is available in English as BSI EN 50581:2012 from the British Standards Institute (BSI)
5. W. Jager, J. Langton, and T. Norlem, “Identifying and Managing Substances of Concern in Electronics”, Electronics Goes Green, Berlin, September 2012.
6. W. Jager, “Where are REACH SVHC in Electronic Products and Parts?” IPC APEX, Las Vegas, April 2010.

	Walter Jager Walter Jager is principal consultant at ECD Compliance where he has worked extensively with product manufacturers and suppliers on regulatory requirements and implementation of environmental compliance such as RoHS, REACH, energy efficiency and ecodesign. He also has significant experience with product verification to environmental product declarations (EPDs) such as EPEATTM. Mr. Jager has contributed to the development of International Environmental Standards and guidance documents and he administers the IEC 62474 database. He holds Master’s Degrees in Electrical Engineering and in Business Administration and has held positions in product development, quality and reliability engineering, supply chain management, and environmental compliance.
	Rob Friedman Rob Friedman is currently Sr. Principal, EHS for Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics. He has more than 25 years’ experience in technical, systems and standards EHS support. Rob co-chairs the US Technical Advisory Group (TAG) to TC111 Environmental standardization for electrical and electronic products and systems, and is convenor for both the Working Group that developed the IEC 62474 standard and Validation Team 62474 that maintains the list of declarable substances and data exchange format requirements. Rob has a BS degree in Chemical Engineering from the University of Pennsylvania and a MS degree in Environmental Engineering from Illinois Institute of Technology.
	Linda Young Linda Young has over 25 years experience in the environmental field. She is currently Intel’s Global Product Ecology Manger; responsible for developing product ecology vision and direction for Intel and establishing strategies for addressing emerging regulatory and customer requirements. She represents Intel in external forums to set industry environmental standards for products. Linda has participated as US technical representative on various IEC TC111 Environmental Committee working groups/project teams. Linda has been a member of the IEC TC111 US TAG since 2006 and a co-chair since 2010. Linda has a BS degree in Chemical Engineering from Oregon State University.

Intentional RF transmitting devices seem to be everywhere. Smart phones, tablets and similar devices provide the ability for users to be connected to the internet any time, from any location using nearly any device. Other than the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and the inner canyon of the Grand Canyon, it may be difficult to find any location without WiFi available.

RFID tags and transponders are used for inventory in retail stores, monitoring the location of equipment of all kinds and tracking patients in medical settings. We even see active RFID tags imbedded in electronic equipment undergoing EMC testing. (The experienced EMC professional can probably imagine the challenge this practice creates during an RF emission test!)

A sampling of transmission systems is shown in Table 1.

Table 1: A sampling of transmission systems

No doubt, the great expansion of this technology has improved society in many ways. The benefits of these devices are quite significant. An unintended side effect of the proliferation of transmitting devices, however, is the increased potential for malfunctions of electronic equipment in operation close to where the transmitters are used. Not only are more transmitting devices in use in all environments, the separation between any given transmitter and equipment that may be affected is generally decreasing. The separation distance is often uncontrolled with separations of a few centimeters not being uncommon. Contrast this proximity with the several meters or more of separation typical in the days before the use of portable devices with transmitters became so prevalent.

The types of equipment that may be adversely affected is nearly endless, including desk-top computers, point-of-sale terminals, gas pumps, vehicle control systems, computer systems and other portable electronics, to name just a very few.

This new-world reality creates some interesting challenges and opportunities for EMC professionals. What are the devices we must consider as sources of interference? What devices need to be hardened against new or changing interferences? How do we determine adequate immunity levels? Are existing test methods and standards sufficient? If not, are wholesale modifications required, or can existing standards be used with some (minor?) modifications? Which characteristics of the transmitted signals are important to the evaluation of disturbance potential?

These questions, and more, are being considered in multiple segments of industry, including standards developing organizations and various user segments. This article will explore some of the aspects of this situation, including the possibility of developing a new international test standard focused on close proximity immunity. The challenges that will need to be addressed to provide repeatable, meaningful test results will be explored.

Another Standard?

One may ask why do we need a new test standard for this phenomenon. IEC 61000-4-3 covers immunity of electronic equipment to radiated RF electromagnetic energy, establishing both test levels and test procedures. The current edition of this standard even states “Particular considerations are devoted to the protection against radio-frequency emissions from digital radiotelephones and other RF emitting devices.” [1]. IEC 61000-4-21 includes a detailed description for the test setup, chamber validation procedure and test procedures required to perform radiated immunity testing in a reverberation chamber [2]. IEC 61000-4-20 provides details for performing immunity tests on in-scope equipment in transverse electromagnetic (TEM) devices. [3]

These standards are excellent documents for their intended purposes and certainly can be used to simulate disturbances created by portable transmitters used at distance from equipment potentially suffering interference. They may not always produce a satisfactory characterization of equipment immunity to portable transmission sources used within a very short distance, say 20 cm or less. Test limits in the range of 3 to 10 volts/meter are typical when the disturbance source is a fair distance away. However, field intensities in close proximity to smart phones can be 100 volts/meter or more. Some equipment manufacturers and users reduce the risk of interference by specifying minimum separation distances that must be maintained between their equipment and portable transmitters. A typical specified separation distance is in the range of 1 to 3 meters. At the same time, we are seeing a move toward having service personnel use their smart phones very close to installed equipment while performing service. A practice gaining popularity is to place QR codes on equipment covers for service personnel to scan for accessing service information related to the equipment. Doing so while keeping smart phones 3 meters from the equipment would be, shall we say, a challenge.

Multiple industry segments have highlighted the problems of trying to use these existing standards to evaluate immunity of equipment to cell/smart phones used in close proximity. Notably, the automotive industry and the medical device industry have raised concerns with the suitability of existing test methods that could be used for this purpose. Groups within these industry segments reached the conclusion that the existing RF immunity test standards do not represent the close-proximity electric and magnetic field characteristics accurately enough and could produce results that are not fully in line with malfunctions created by interference sources used in close proximity in real-world situations.

The concerns raised by these groups helped initiate a new project in IEC to develop a new basic standard for immunity to devices used in close proximity. This project is in its early stages in Working Group 10 (WG10) of IEC SC77B.

WG10 is considering all aspects of interference caused by portable transmitting devices in close proximity and comparing them with characteristics of existing standards to determine where those standards are a good match and where they are not appropriate. The characteristics that need closer scrutiny include:

• Field strengths very close to cell/smart phone versus common test levels
• Input power levels required for achieve those very high field strengths
• The significance of using near field sources as opposed to far field sources
• The significance of the source type, such as electric field or magnetic field and
• Modulation schemes.

One of the first things we considered was whether the existing IEC standards could be used for this purpose, either wholly or in part.

Existing Standards

The practice of using a linearly polarized antenna to create a uniform field area (UFA) in which the equipment being evaluated is immersed is described in IEC 61000-4-3. The standard states its test methods can be applied up to 6 GHz and that disturbances from portable transmitting devices such as cell phones have been given consideration. The method of independent test windows facilitates testing at frequencies greater than 1 GHz, the frequency typical for many types of portable transmitters. These factors certainly seem to indicate this standard could be used to test for immunity to disturbances from portable RF transmitting devices. Some test labs have had good experience in doing just that. However, the input power levels required to establish field strengths on the order of 100 volts/meter can be quite large. They are possible to achieve, but large. For the independent windows method, the test distance between the transmitting antenna and EUT is 1 meter. Consequently, this method does not reproduce the near-field effects that exist in real-world close proximity situations. In some cases, not reproducing the near-field effects may not be an issue, particularly for equipment where the intensity of the disturbances is the predominant effect. In such cases, IEC 61000-4-3 could be applied. Where this is not so, a different test method and standard would be needed.

Reverberation chambers can be used to immerse the equipment under test (EUT) in a field that is statically isotropic, homogeneous, unpolarized and uncorrelated. As described in IEC 61000-4-21, the entire EUT is exposed to simulated disturbances without the need to rotate the EUT or to move the transmitting antenna to multiple, discrete positions. Fairly high field strengths can be generated using moderate input power levels, thereby avoiding input power level concern when testing according to IEC 61000-4-3. Similar to the practice of using a linear antenna to generate a uniform field area, the near-field effects that happen when the transmitting device is very close to the equipment experiencing interference are not reproduced in a reverberation chamber.

Based on the analysis that is summarized briefly here, the current position is that these standards certainly can be used to evaluate the immunity of equipment to interference from portable transmitting devices, including cell phones. However, they are best suited to evaluate situations when the transmitting device is far enough away that it would not be considered as being used in “close proximity.” Therefore, an independent standard defining a test method that more fully replicates the particular characteristics of disturbances from transmitting devices used in close proximity to the equipment suffering interference and can be used when the test methods in the existing standards is not appropriate, adequate or sufficient should be developed.

Test Methodology and Challenges

One of the challenges to be worked through is how to define what it means for the transmitting device to be in close proximity to the equipment experience the disturbance. We could consider the transition from near field to far field, the intensity of the disturbance signal, an arbitrary physical separation or some other characteristic. However it is defined, this characteristic is important to establishing all the technical details in the standard.

An international standard must meet certain formal and informal criteria before it can be published and put into use. This requirement is especially true for a basic standard that is likely to be applied to a wide variety of equipment types. Test methods that are perfectly acceptable for a small, hand-held device may be totally impractical and produce questionable results for large industrial equipment. The people tasked with writing the standard must always keep in mind the bigger picture, considering how the standard may be used, the types of equipment that are likely to be evaluated against it and the state of the art in test equipment and the disturbance sources the standard intends to simulate.

The future standard is in the early stages of development. The work so far has identified some possible test methodologies as well as a number of issues that must be resolved before publication.

The test method being considered is based on the concept of a small RF coupler or antenna being scanned across the surface of the EUT. The coupler would be located some small distance away from the EUT surface, perhaps on the order of a few centimeters. To aid in repeatability of test results, the surface to be tested would be divided into a rectangular grid pattern and the coupler moved in discrete steps according to the size and shape of cells in that grid. See Figure 1 for an example of how the EUT may be partitioned into test grids. The RF coupler shown is intended to be of generic design and not an indication of what an actual coupler would be.

The test is conceptually simple, but some specific details are not quite so simple to develop. The details that need to be resolved before a useful basic test standard can be published include the following.

Defining the RF coupler
The coupler could be defined in terms of its electrical or mechanical parameters. It needs to be defined in a manner that allows commercial production by multiple suppliers. Facilitating construction by individual test laboratories could be considered as well. It must be able to withstand the input power needed to meet expected test levels. Some degree of uniformity of the field generated is also a must. Given the wide frequency range that must be considered, which could include approximately 800 MHz to 6 GHz, it is likely that multiple couplers would be needed. The definition would need to support this practical reality.

Calibration or verification of the RF coupler
Verifying that the RF coupler is functioning is not likely to be a major challenge. Defining a calibration procedure that will satisfy the rigors of laboratory accreditation requirements will probably be more difficult, not to mention essential to the reproducibility of test results.

Establishing a level-setting procedure
Given that the RF coupler will be placed very close to reflecting surfaces that may be very large relative to the size of the coupler, the effects of reflections from those reflecting surfaces must be considered. Can test levels be established in an environment
with no reflecting surfaces nearby? Can forward power to the coupler be used as the test level without regard to effects from the reflecting surfaces under test?

Test time
Stepping the RF coupler across the surfaces to be tested will take some time. The amount of time, of course, depends on the size of the cells in the rectangular grid and the total size of the surfaces to be tested. Larger cells will reduce test time but must be balanced against the uniformity of the field radiated by the coupler. Add in a number of discrete frequencies or multiple frequency ranges, and the time required for the test can be very long, especially for large equipment being tested. One estimate for a full rack of computer or telecommunication equipment pegged test time in terms of days not hours.

Modulation schemes
Traditionally, amplitude modulation (AM) with a 1 kHz tone has been used for RF immunity testing. Evaluations and experiments have shown that AM sufficiently predicts performance for many other modulation signals. Is this still true given the large number of different modulation schemes being employed in RF transmitting devices today? If additional modulation schemes will be required, which ones need to be used and how do we decide how many difference schemes are necessary and sufficient?

Conclusion

Technology – isn’t it grand? As technology evolves at a pace that seems only to get quicker, society reaps many benefits and improvements to daily life. For new technologies and applications to continue providing benefits, the unintended consequences must be considered. The test methods and associated standards for quantifying the effects of unintended consequences must also be examined and, in some cases, evolve along with the technology.

The proliferation of portable intentional RF transmitting devices is one of those shifts providing significant benefits and the potential for undesired consequences. The standards community recognizes these consequences and the need for test standards to evolve to address them. The future standard for close proximity immunity testing will be one more tool in the EMC professional’s toolkit to facilitate a seamless transition and enable progress well into the 21st century and beyond.

References

1. IEC 61000-4-3:2006, Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 4-3: Testing and measurement techniques – Radiated radio-frequency, electromagnetic field immunity test, Amendment 1:2007, Amendment 2:2010
2. IEC 61000-4-21:2011, Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 4-21: Testing and measurement techniques – Reverberation chamber test methods
3. IEC 61000-4-20: 2010, Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) – Part 4-20: Testing and measurement techniques – Emission and immunity testing in transverse electromagnetic (TEM) waveguides

John Maas is a Senior Technical Staff Member and Corporate Program Manager for EMC at IBM Corporation, where he has responsibility for IBM’s worldwide EMC regulatory compliance programs. John has more than 30 years of EMC experience including hardware design and test. He is a senior member of the IEEE and has been involved in international standardization for much of his career, with his contributions to EMC standardization being recognized by the IEC when he received the IEC 1906 Award. John is currently convenor of IEC SC77B/WG10, Technical Advisor of the US technical advisory group (TAG) for IEC SC77A and a member of the US TAGs for IEC TC77, SC77B and CISPR/I. Mr. Maas can be reached at johnmaas@us.ibm.com.

Can thousands of regulations be harmonized?

Last summer, the European Union (EU) and the US took the first steps to establish a partnership between the two markets that together account for almost half the world’s economy. Teams of negotiators met in Washington to talk about how best to take the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) forward, and even though the second round of negotiations was canceled due to pressing political issues, both sides expressed a firm commitment to the TTIP process.

The possibility of TTIP is important as the partnership promises both sides significant economic benefits. According to US Trade Representative (USTR) Michael Froman, trade and investment between the US and the EU currently far exceeds any other bilateral relationship, with $2.6 billion worth of goods flowing between the two sides each day. Many Americans do not realize that more than 13 million people in two countries owe their jobs to the transatlantic economic relationship.

At the time when the American and European governments are working to stimulate economic growth and job creation, regulatory inefficiencies can hardly boost their efforts. Some products have to go through two separate testing procedures even where the requirements on both sides of the Atlantic are the same, leading to vast inefficiencies in trade, and making it particularly difficult for small and medium sized enterprises to expand their markets.

The TTIP would address two areas: tariff-related trade barriers such as customs duties; and non-tariff-related trade barriers such as licensing regulations, compulsory certifications and standards. In the global economy, harmonization of standards becomes, in a way, a precondition for the free trade with a mutual recognition and eventual alignment of standards defining the traffic of goods. Greater harmonization would allow manufacturers to save costs by reducing the number of certificates and tests their products need to pass.

Should the agreement become reality, manufacturers would benefit from scalable effects. For them, the need for only one test instead of many means faster time to market and lower testing costs. These benefits will help the economy as a whole as new markets open up and various industries grow. This would also lead to growth in the testing and certification business, as there would be increased mid- to long-term development in the transatlantic economic zone. Consumers would also benefit as product prices go down and increased competition enhances product quality and selection. This article will discuss the potential of TTIP to change for the better not only the US and EU economies but also economies of their trade partners.

Economic Growth

GDP
The study by the Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), an independent, non-profit research organization based in London, estimates that an ambitious and comprehensive TTIP could bring significant economic gains for the US ($129 billion) and the EU (about $163 billion) once the economies implement fully the agreement. These economic gains would translate into a 0.5% and 0.4% increase in the EU and US GDP respectively by 2027 as compared to their levels without TTIP. The gains will be increasing every year from the moment the agreement comes into force until it reaches its full level by 2027.

While the CEPR study is based on an advanced computable general equilibrium model to simulate the impact of TTIP and is a standard tool of trade economists, keep in mind that these are ballpark estimations, not precise predictions.

Tariffs
The CEPR study assumes that the tariff barriers be reduced to zero, non-tariff barriers in goods and services be reduced by 25% and public procurement barriers reduced by 50%. The assumptions are based on the commitment expressed by both parties: Office of the USTR announced that the TTIP would eliminate all tariffs on trade as well as tackle costly “behind the border” non-tariff barriers that impede the flow of goods. Reducing non-tariff barriers is a crucial driver of the economic gains. According to the CERT analysis, as much as 80% of the total potential gains could come from reducing costs imposed by duplicative bureaucracy.

Companies would benefit from more variety and lower prices for the parts, components and services that they use in their business. As a result, they would be better able to compete on their home markets and around the world.

Consumer
Increases in GDP translate into a permanent increase in wealth for more than 800 million people on both sides of the Atlantic. The CEPR study found that the TIPP would have a positive impact both on skilled and less skilled workers’ wages, raising each by about the same amount, roughly 0.5%. The assumption is that the industries growing thanks to the TTIP would be able to offer higher wages to attract employees.

As with any trade deal, both imports and exports would increase, giving consumers more choices at lower prices. It is estimated that the average American family of four will see an increase in disposable income of $865 annually, with its European counterpart adding about $720. This figure accounts for both an increase in wages and price reductions.

The Cascading Effect of TTIP

The TTIP benefits are not limited to the US and Europe but extend to their trading partners around the world by the estimated $137 (€99) billion. Predicted economic growth of the two powerful economies, coupled with an increase in the household income, will allow consumers and businesses to purchase more products, made both domestically and abroad.

Any joint regulatory approaches or streamlined certifications between the EU and the US will reduce costs for manufacturers trading in these markets. Eliminating or reducing regulatory barriers will allow for improved market access for manufacturers from other countries. Many companies around the world that export to both Europe and the States currently have to comply with two sets of standards and regulations, often requiring separate production processes. Two specific examples are the IT and automotive industries, which are highly bound to regional standards and must go, at times, through duplicate tests for each region.

Moreover, one needs to keep in mind the highly interdependent nature of the world economy, with complex global value chains. As American or European companies produce more products, the demand for components and services from their suppliers in other countries will also increase.

Standard-Setting Prerogative

World-class safety and quality standards are indispensable for successful economies. Competent and rigorous certification builds confidence in products and brands in developed and emerging markets. The economic powers of the US and EU have a strong bearing on the emerging international standards. Their combined influence in bodies such as the American National Standards Institute and Deutsches Institut für Normung (DIN), or the German Institute for Standardization, affords them the potential to create a universally acceptable set of regulatory practices that could be adopted internationally. Manufacturers and suppliers from outside the TTIP economic zone will have an incentive to move towards product standards agreed between the Europe and America. This would improve market access between the EU, US and their third-party partners, and may even reduce trade barriers among those countries themselves.

While sophistication and expertise of the two developed regions positions them to lead in the standard setting area, they must not take this position for granted. With so much manufacturing focused in China, and the emergence of premium brands such as Huawei and Lenovo, the US and EU risk gradually losing influence and control over the standard creation for products they are importing.

The Virtue of Competition

Lowered tariffs and easier market access bring about an increase in imports, which naturally escalates competition. The benefit of increased competition is that companies have to work harder (or smarter) to stay efficient, enhancing productivity of both economies and fostering a culture of innovation. Of course, in a more competitive environment, the least efficient companies are likely struggle to stay afloat.

One Standard, One Test?

Despite all TTIP’s professed benefits, the countries will need to overcome major hurdles to enjoy them. Apart from political uncertainties, both markets, embedded in their respective cultures, have developed their own licensing regulations, compulsory certifications and standards over decades. They have differing safety philosophies for product testing or certification that cannot simply be reduced to a common denominator.

What are the negotiators to do when it comes to discussing all the cases with differing norms for the same products? Which safety standards should they adopt within the agreement – the higher, or the lower ones?

The Solution Begins with Trust

Ideally, a harmonized standard would include all worthy safety practices from both members to create a single comprehensive approach to ensure consumer safety. However, this does not mean that a single standard needs to be introduced. Nor is it absolutely essential to harmonize all standards for evaluating the safety of products.

Legislators, standard writing organizations and testing and certification companies across the Atlantic need to cooperate when it comes to testing and compliance methodology. A practical first step in the right direction is to have a Mutual Recognition Agreement. Mutual recognition only works well if both sides have confidence in the competence of the other certification body and acknowledge their know-how.

The second step is to establish Notified Bodies and allow them to perform conformity assessments and certification. It is also important to create uniform standards and apply comparable procedures when it comes to accrediting laboratories and appointing or licensing certification bodies to prevent the distortion of competition despite the free trade area.

Thus, the two markets will need mutual confidence – whether it concerns aligning existing regulations and allowing for mutual recognition of certification or cooperation on drawing up new national or international standards, if the latter should be necessary. Achievable and practical goals could be set as follows:

• Common rules, standards, and test procedures with the aim to establish uniformly high levels of quality and safety;
• Effective and efficient regulation of safety and testing standards on both sides of the Atlantic;
• Unburdening of the authorities by an independent conformity assessment system; and
• Strengthening the competences and expertise of standard setters.

Many independent testing and certification bodies are working now to make sure that future negotiations succeed in making the world a safer place. They will play a major role in establishing the success of what will surely be a very complicated and, at times, frustrating process of aligning more closely the different approaches to product safety standards and testing in the two markets. There is a strong support from the industry for a functioning and flourishing single market across the Atlantic, based on mutual trust and confidence.

Stephan Schmitt As Chief International Officer of TÜV Rheinland AG, Stephan Schmitt has overseen business in the USA, Canada and Mexico since October 2011. An electrical engineering graduate of Trier University of Applied Sciences in Germany, he joined TÜV Rheinland in 1986 as a technical expert in Japan and has held various positions with the company ever since, including as CEO of TÜV Rheinland of North America.

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” – George Bernard Shaw

The current European Union (EU) Directive for Radio and Telecommunications Terminal Equipment (R&TTE), was originally adopted by the European Commission (EC) in 1995, almost two decades ago. As I am sure you have noticed, there have been a multitude of engineering advances in radio and telecom devices in that time, and the industry stakeholders have been clamoring more and more for a major overhaul of these requirements, to ensure that compliant products utilizing the latest technologies are safe for consumers, and are efficiently and quickly brought to the EU market countries, without undue or unnecessary regulatory hurdles.

A different EC regulatory effort, started by the EU member states about fifteen years ago, was driven by a desire to institute a better way to make laws, by identifying all of the parties that were involved in the entire lifecycle of products placed into the EU marketplace, so specific roles and tasks could clearly be assigned to each. Other drivers included the need to clarify the definition for placing products on the market, the need for more robust market surveillance methods and activities, and clarification on the responsibilities of the national regulatory compliance authorities.

These two forces resulted in the release of a new Radio Equipment Directive (RED) this year, which will be replacing the R&TTE Directive over the next few years, so it is important for manufacturers, product developers, and all other interested parties to start preparing for this change. We’ll first look at the changes that have been made to the EU law-making processes and guidance, then look at the new RED, and how all the different groups will need to transition and adapt to the new regulatory landscape.

A New Framework for EU Legislation

Right around the millennium, the EC was able to obtain agreement from all of the EU member states for an initiative to perform a thorough review and extensive update of the regulations that were in place. The results of these efforts came in 2008, with the adoption of Regulation 765/2008/EC, which set the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance related to marketing of products in the EU, consolidated the meaning of CE marking, and at the same time repealed and replaced the previous Regulation 339/93/EEC, and Decision 768/2008/EC, which established a common framework for the marketing of products in the EU by harmonizing and consolidating the various directives with common definitions, conformity assessment procedures, conformity assessment bodies notification criteria, economic operator responsibilities, and rules for CE marking, and at the same time repealing and replacing the previous regulation Decision 93/465/EEC. Together, these two pieces of legislation established the “New Legislative Framework” (NLF), which provided all of the necessary elements for a robust and comprehensive regulatory framework.

One of the main pillars of the NLF is to ensure that the definitions and obligations of all of the “economic operators” are clarified; economic operators is the term used in the NLF for commercial business stakeholders such as manufacturers, authorized representatives, distributors, and importers. An emphasis is placed on the roles and responsibilities of the manufacturers and importers, as they are seen as the two groups that are the most accountable for any issues resulting from the placement of products into the EU.

A second NLF pillar can be seen in the comprehensive measures incorporated to trace the product supply chain, identifying all of the economic operators in the whole process, and their relation to the product and to each other. One key change is that the manufacturers and importers must provide more information to aid in their identification and contact by customers and other stakeholders.

Another NLF focus can be seen in the consideration given to the entire product life cycle, “from cradle to grave,” to enhance the market surveillance activities. This is being done to help prohibit non-compliant or risky products being placed in the EU. To support this, the responsibilities for all of the national authorities are clarified and defined, recognizing the variety of activities of the different groups, including regulatory authorities, notification authorities, national accreditation entities, market surveillance bodies, and importation agencies.

An additional key change is the legislative emphasis for EU market access. What is currently defined as “placing on the market” has changed in the NLF to the first “making available on the market” of a product in the EU. “Placed on the market” was defined as when it is made available for the first time on the EU market, so this created some ambiguity with those that thought this implied when it was first placed for sale, and some manufacturers would send product samples to customers for free, before it had been tested for conformity, since it wasn’t yet placed on the market for sale. The NLF removes this ambiguity with the phrase “made available on the market,” which is defined as when it enters the EU, whether it is supplied for distribution, consumption, or use on the EU market in a commercial activity, whether it is sold or is given away for free no longer matters; if you bring it into an EU member state, it must be in conformity with a full technical construction file and CE Declaration of Conformity to the applicable EU Directives.

Table 1: R&TTE Directive and Radio Equipment Directive Transition

Market surveillance policy has been revised, to make it more comprehensive, and to place equal emphasis on both setting product requirements and market surveillance enforcement criteria. The market surveillance authorities are now not only required to check the conformity of a product according to its intended purpose, as defined by the manufacturer, but also under the conditions of use, which can be “reasonably foreseen,” meaning when such use could result from predictable human behavior, but with the assumption that the product will be used in accordance with the applicable laws. A very helpful EC publication covering these topics is the “Blue Guide on the Implementation of EU Product Rules” that is also available for free download from the EC website referenced at the end of this article.

Becoming RED

Now we will take a look at the transition from the R&TTE Directive 1999/5/EC to the new Radio Equipment Directive 2014/53/EU, and some of the specific changes this will bring. One of the first questions is When do we have to change? There is a transitional grandfathering period given in RED, which addresses this concern. Any products that are placed on the EU market in R&TTE conformity prior to June 13, 2016, can continue to be placed on the market under R&TTE until June 13, 2017. However, any products placed on the market on June 13, 2016 or later must be in conformity to RED, and all grandfathered products must conform to RED by June 13, 2017.

Development of RED started in 2007, and the EC sent the first proposals to the European Parliament in 2011. Following the normal process of requesting feedback from stakeholders, and using the provided input to revise the requirements, a compromise on the final text was achieved in January 2014. As mentioned, this is a New Legislative Framework directive, and it was published on May 22, 2014 in the Official Journal of the European Union. It entered into force on June 11, 2014, and all EU member states must amend their national regulations before June 13, 2016 to align with the RED criteria.

One of the first things you may notice about RED is that “Telecommunications Terminal” has been dropped from the title of the previous R&TTE Directive. This is because telecommunications terminal equipment, such as wired telephones and fax machines, has been removed from the scope of RED, and has been transferred to the scopes of the EMC Directive 2014/30/EU and Low Voltage Directive 2014/35/EU. RED will only apply to wireless and radio devices and equipment.

There is specific definition given for radio equipment in RED, which is “an electrical or electronic product, which intentionally emits and/or receives radio waves for the purpose of radio communication and/or radio determination, or an electrical or electronic product which must be completed with an accessory, such as an antenna, so as to intentionally emit and/or receive radio waves for the purpose of radio communication and/or radio determination.” This definition is important in understanding the extent of the types of radio equipment to be covered under the scope of this directive.

The scope of RED will cover radio transmission, including both radio communication and radio determination. The term Radio Determination is used to make clear that equipment such as RADAR, RFID, movement detection, and velocity measurement are within the scope of RED. Equipment which is not for radio communication or determination is not in the scope, such as equipment classified for Industrial, Scientific, & Medical (ISM), EN 55011, and CISPR 11.

Also in the scope will be radio reception equipment, including receive-only radio devices. One key change to the scope is the inclusion of broadcast receivers in RED, which were specifically excluded in R&TTE. Broadcast receivers had been in the scope of the EMC and Low Voltage Directives, but this will no longer be the case. Some items specifically excluded from the RED scope include aeronautical radio equipment, and custom evaluation kits intended for professional Research & Development, which are used in actual R&D facilities.

The frequency range of RED is expanded, up to 3 THz (3000 GHz), with no lower limit, meaning that zero Hertz to 9 kHz is now included in the scope. So any radio technologies that operate below 9 kHz now fall under this directive, and other standards bodies such as ETSI and ECO will have to catch up to this change in a standard update.

Another big change is that radio equipment assessed must be able to operate in at least one EU country; if not, it cannot obtain CE Mark. While under the R&TTE Directive, products could obtain Notified Body opinions and CE Marking for non-European markets, without being authorized for use in any EU country or CE-marking country, but this is not allowed under RED.

The requirements for animal safety have been clarified in RED. Although the R&TTE Directive did include safety considerations for animals, it wasn’t clear. RED specifies and clarifies the requirements for the protection of the health and safety of persons, domesticated animals, and property, including the objectives with respect to safety requirements set out in Directive 2006/95/EC (Low Voltage Directive), but with no voltage limit.

One of the main changes was to clearly identify and define all of the economic operators involved in the process of placing products onto the EU market, so clear roles, obligations, and responsibilities could be assigned, and the market surveillance agencies would be able to assign accountability when issues are found. The four key economic operators are identified as manufacturers, authorized representatives of the manufacturers, distributors, and importers. The manufacturers and importers have been called out as being the two operators that will be held the most accountable for any conformity issues found in the EU, and their expanded roles spelled out in RED reflect this. The chapter 2 definitions in the directive should be closely studied by all of the identified groups, as there will be much more scrutiny and market surveillance activities associated with the different parties, and it will be vital to clearly understand what is required for each operator.

Another new requirement is RED is the mandate to provide more contact information for the economic operators. EU Member States will require the economic operators to include both website addresses and physical location postal addresses, in order to facilitate better communications between the member states, market surveillance authorities, economic operators, and consumers. The equipment must show the product identification numbers and contact information for the responsible parties. A contact name and details must be supplied with each device, and also placed on the device, or in documentation if it is a small device. Importers must show similar information on the equipment or on the packaging; the supply chain must accept the legal responsibility for providing valid contact information.

The conformity of equipment is covered in chapter 3 of RED, with two types of procedures. Internal production controls are covered in detail in Annex II, and the EU-type examination procedures are specified in Annex III. Information that concerns the continued conformity of the equipment will be reviewed, checking that specific precautions that must be taken when the device is assembled, installed, maintained, or used are included and valid. Any equipment that does not meet the requirements for residential areas must be accompanied by a clear indication in the user instructions on the restriction of use to non-residential areas only, and where appropriate it must also be on the packaging.

The requirements and procedures for the notification of Conformity Assessment Bodies (CAB) is found in chapter 4. This includes the requirements and obligations of notifying authorities and notified bodies, including information on applications, changes, operations, appeals, coordination, and notification procedures. Also included is information on challenging the competence of notified bodies, and how to make an appeal against a decision made by a notified body.

Chapter 5 covers market surveillance, which is an area that will be subject to much more activity under the NLF scheme. The national market surveillance authority will act on any product that presents a risk at the national level, and under the referenced procedure they will notify all member states and the EC. The specific definition of risk, however, is left open, so this presents some ambiguity on when the authority might act.

For any formal non-compliance, such as an incorrect CE mark, or a product that is missing manufacturer or importer details, the EU member states will require the relevant economic operator to correct the non-compliance. If the issue is not corrected, the member state must take all appropriate measures to restrict or prohibit the product being made available on the market, or they should ensure that it is recalled or withdrawn from the market. The member states have the authority to set the rules on penalties that are applicable to any national law violations by the economic operators, and they can take all necessary measures to ensure enforcement, including criminal penalties for serious infractions.

The updated requirements for the CE Declaration of Conformity (DOC) are found in Annex IV. The product model name and identification numbers are required as before, but it must also include all of the expanded contact information, to support the traceability requirements. A photograph of the equipment can be included in the DOC, but it must be in color, and of high enough resolution to clearly identify the product. One new benefit is that all of the applicable directives and standards can be listed on one DOC for the product, although it may need to include multiple pages for all of the required listings for the relevant harmonized standards used, including the date of the standard, or references to the other technical specifications, including the date of the specification, in relation to which conformity is declared. When it is applicable, the notified body that performed the type examination and issued the certificate should also be identified and listed. Also, the DOC must be translated into the language or languages required by the member states for which the apparatus is placed or made available on the market.

Universal charger requirements have been codified under RED. Presently, common or universal chargers are optional under industry memorandums of understanding, but it will be a requirement in RED for universal chargers for certain products, such as mobile phones, tablets, cameras, and music players. The intent is to reduce the environmental impacts of a multitude of chargers, and the inconvenience they present for consumers.

RED allows electronic labelling for certain appropriate types of equipment, such as devices with a built-in display screen. Other information may also be permitted electronically, such as the model and contact points. Devices requiring an initial charge could have a removable label for shipping.

Under RED there won’t be a requirement for EU member state notifications for non-harmonized Class 2 equipment, although this was required under the R&TTE Directive. In addition, the Class 2 Alert symbol (the circle with the exclamation mark) has also been removed from the requirements.

The CE Mark will no longer be required to be printed in the user manual. The R&TTE Directive had required the CE Mark in user manual, but RED removed this.

Figure 1: CE Mark for Non-Harmonized Class 2 Equipment with Alert Symbol

Where To Go From Here?

We’ve covered a lot of ground, but I’ve only provided a broad overview of the upcoming changes. You should start now to understand the impacts this will have for your organization, and start making your own transition plans and alerting your management of these upcoming requirements. The good news is you have at least a couple of years to get this all completed.

There is a wealth of information that can be found on the official European Commission website (ec.europa.eu), including EU compliance publications, such as free downloads of the EU Directives in PDF and HTML file formats, and Official Journal of the European Union documents. A very helpful EC publication is “Blue Guide on the Implementation of EU Product Rules” that is also available for free download. Two other official EU websites that are useful are the Official Journal of the EU website (www.eur-lex.europa.eu), and the official European Union website (www.europa.eu).

Internet Resources

The European Commission website
ec.europa.eu

The EU New Legislative Framework (NLF), European Commission webpage
ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/single-market-goods/documents/internal-market-for-products/new-legislative-framework/index_en.htm

The EU New Radio Equipment Directive (RED), European Commission webpage
ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/rtte/radio-equipment-directive/index_en.htm

EU Eur-Lex, the Official Journal of the EU, website
www.eur-lex.europa.eu

EUROPA, the Official EU website
www.europa.eu

Mark Maynard is the Director for Business Development and Marketing at SIEMIC, a global compliance testing and certification services firm with locations in the US, China, Taiwan, and South Korea. He is a Senior Member of the IEEE, and also on the Board of Directors for both the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society and the Telecommunication Certification Body Council. Mark holds two degrees from Texas State University, a BS in Pure Mathematics, and a BAAS in Marketing and Business. Prior to SIEMIC, he worked for over 20 years at Dell, in international regulatory compliance and product certifications, with various compliance engineering roles including wireless, telecom, EMC/EMI, product safety, and design for the environment. He can be reached at mark.maynard@siemic.com.

The electronics industry is continually shifting. Device circuitry density and technology is more complex. Electronics manufacturing is more heavily reliant on out-sourcing. The ESD industry seems to have jumped into this swirling eddy headfirst. ESD control programs have mushroomed. Black has been replaced by green, blue and gold. Shielding bags dominate the warehouse. Ionizers exist alongside wrist straps and ground cords. An early history of “smoke and mirrors,” magic and lofty claims of performance is rapidly being relegated to the past.

Today, more than ever, meeting the complex challenge of reducing ESD losses requires more than reliance on faith alone. Users require a way to legitimately evaluate and compare competing brands and types of products and ESD protection strategies. They need objective confirmation that their ESD control program provides effective solutions to their unique ESD problems. Contract manufacturers and OEM’s require mutually agreed-upon ESD control programs that reduce duplication of process controls.

That’s where standards come into play. They provide information in developing programs that effectively address ESD process control. They help define the sensitivity of the products manufactured and used. They help define the performance requirements for various ESD control materials, instruments, and tools. Standards are playing an ever-increasing role in reducing marketplace confusion in the manufacture, evaluation, and selection of ESD control products and programs.

The Who and Why of Standards

Who uses ESD standards? Manufacturers and users of ESD sensitive devices and products, manufacturers and distributors of ESD control products, certification registrars, and third party testers of ESD control products.

Why use ESD standards? They help assure consistency of ESD sensitive products and consistency of ESD control products and services. They provide a means of objective evaluation and comparison among competitive ESD control products. They help reduce conflicts between users and suppliers of ESD control products. They help in developing, implementing, auditing, and certifying ESD control programs. And, they help reduce confusion in the marketplace.

In the United States, the use of standards is voluntary, although their use can be written into contracts or purchasing agreements between buyer and seller. In most of the rest of the world, the use of standards, where they exist, is compulsory.

Key Standards and Organizations

Just twenty-five years ago, there were relatively few reliable ESD standards and few ESD standards development organizations. Today’s ESD standards landscape is not only witnessing an increase in the number of standards, but also increasing cooperation among the organizations that develop them.

Today’s standards fall into three main groups. First, there are those that provide ESD program guidance or requirements. These include documents such as ANSI ESD S20.20 – Standard for the Development of an ESD Control Program, IEC 61340-5-1 – Protection of electronic devices from electrostatic phenomena – General requirements, ANSI/ESD S8.1 – Symbols-ESD Awareness, or ANSI/ESD TR20.20 – ESD Handbook.

A second group covers requirements for specific products or procedures such as packaging requirements and grounding. Typical standards in this group are ANSI/ESD S6.1 –Grounding and ANSI/ESD S541 –Packaging Materials for ESD Sensitive Items.

A third group of documents covers the standardized test methods used to evaluate products and materials. Historically, the electronics industry relied heavily on test methods established for other industries or even for other materials (e. g., ASTM-257 – DC Resistance or Conductance of Insulating Materials). Today, however, specific test method standards focus on ESD in the electronics environment, largely as a result of the ESD Association’s activity. These include standards such as ANSI/ESDA-JEDEC JS-001– Device Testing, Human Body Model and ANSI/ESD STM7.1: Floor Materials – Resistive Characterization of Materials.

Who Develops Standards?

Standards development and usage is a cooperative effort among all organizations and individuals affected by standards. There are several key ESD standards development organizations.

Military Standards
Traditionally, the U.S. military spearheaded the development of specific standards and specifications with regard to ESD control in the U.S. Today, however, U.S. military agencies are relying on commercially developed standards rather than developing standards themselves. For example, the ESD Association completed the assignment from the Department of Defense (DoD) to convert MIL-STD-1686 into a commercial standard called ANSI/ESD S20.20 which was adopted by the DoD July, 7, 2000.

ESD Association
The ESD Association has been a focal point for the development of ESD standards in recent years. An ANSI-accredited standards development organization, the Association is charged with the development of ESD standards and test methods. The Association also represents the US on the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Technical Committee 101-Electrostatics.

The ESD Association has currently 32 standards documents available and 30 Technical Reports. These voluntary standards cover the areas of material requirements, electrostatic sensitivity, and test methodology for evaluating ESD control materials and products. In addition to standards documents, the Association also has published a number of informational advisories. Advisory documents may be changed to other document types in the future.

ESD Association Standards Classifications and Definitions
There are four types of ESD Association standards documents with specific clarity of definition. The four document categories are consistent with other standards development organizations. These four categories are defined below.

Standard: A precise statement of a set of requirements to be satisfied by a material, product, system or process that also specifies the procedures for determining whether each of the requirements is satisfied.

Standard Test Method: A definitive procedure for the identification, measurement and evaluation of one or more qualities, characteristics or properties of a material, product, system or process that yields a reproducible test result.
Standard Practice: A procedure for performing one or more operations or functions that may or may not yield a test result. Note: If a test result is obtained, it may not be reproducible between labs.

Technical Report: A collection of technical data or test results published as an informational reference on a specific material, product, system, or process.

As new documents are approved and issued, they will be designated into one of these four categories. Existing documents have been reviewed and have been reclassified as appropriate. Several Advisory Documents still exist and may be migrated to either Technical Reports or Standard Practices in the future.

International Standards
The international community, led by the European-based International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), also develops and publishes standards. IEC Technical Committee 101 has released a series of documents under the heading IEC 61340. The documents contain general information regarding electrostatics, standard test methods, general practices and an ESD Control Program Development Standard IEC 61340-5-1 that is technically equivalent to ANSI/ESD S20.20. A Facility Certification Program is also available. Global companies can seek to become certified to both ANSI/ESD S20.20 and to IEC 61340-5-1 if they so choose. Japan also has released its proposed version of a national electrostatic Standard, which also shares many aspects of the European and U.S. documents.

Organizational Cooperation
Perhaps one of the more intriguing changes in ESD standards has been the organizational cooperation developing between various groups. One cooperative effort was between the ESD Association and the U.S. Department of Defense, which resulted in the Association preparing ANSI/ESD S20.20 as a successor to MIL-STD-1686. A second cooperative effort occurred between the ESD Association and JEDEC, which started with an MOU and resulted in the development of 2 documents: a joint Human Body Model document was published in 2010; a joint Charged Device Model document will be published in 2014.

Internationally, European standards development organizations and the ESD Association have developed working relationships that result in an expanded review of proposed documents, greater input, and closer harmonization of standards that impact the international electronics community.

For users of ESD standards, this increased cooperation will have a significant impact. First, we should see standards that are technically improved due to broader input. Second, we should see fewer conflicts between different standards. Finally, we should see less duplication of effort.

Summary

For the electronics community, the rapid propagation of ESD standards and continuing change in the standards environment mean greater availability of the technical references that will help improve ESD control programs. There will be recommendations to help set up effective programs. There will be test methods and specifications to help users of ESD control materials evaluate and select ESD control products that are applicable to their specific needs. And there will be guidelines for suppliers of ESD control products and materials to help them develop products that meet the real needs of their customers.

Standards will continue to fuel change in the international ESD community.

Principal ESD Standards
U.S. Military/Department of Defense

MIL-STD-1686: Electrostatic Discharge Control Program for Protection of Electrical and Electronic Parts, Assemblies and Equipment (Excluding Electrically Initiated Explosive Devices)
This military standard establishes requirements for ESD Control Programs. It applies to U.S. military agencies, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers and vendors. It requires the establishment, implementation and documentation of ESD control programs for static sensitive devices, but does NOT mandate or preclude the use of any specific ESD control materials, products, or procedures. It is being updated and converted to a commercial standard by the ESD Association. Although DOD has accepted the new ANSI/ESD S20.20 document as a successor, it has not yet taken action to cancel STD-1686

MIL-HBDK-263: Electrostatic Discharge Control Handbook for Protection of Electrical and Electronic Parts, Assemblies and Equipment (Excluding Electrically Initiated Explosive Devices)
This document provides guidance, but NOT mandatory requirements, for the establishment and implementation of an electrostatic discharge control program in accordance with the requirements of MIL-STD-1686.

MIL-PRF 87893 — Workstation, Electrostatic Discharge (ESD) Control
This document defines the requirements for ESD protective workstations.

MIL-PRF-81705—Barrier Materials, Flexible, Electrostatic Protective, Heat Sealable
This documents defines requirements for ESD protective flexible packaging materials.

MIL-STD-129—Marking for Shipment and Storage
Covers procedures for marketing and labeling ESD sensitive items.

ESD Association
Standards Documents

ANSI/ESD S1.1: Evaluation, Acceptance, and Functional Testing of Wrist Straps
A successor to EOS/ESD S1.0, this document establishes test methods for evaluating the electrical and mechanical characteristics of wrist straps. It includes improved test methods and performance limits for evaluation, acceptance, and functional testing of wrist straps.

ANSI/ESD STM2.1: Resistance Test Method for Electrostatic Discharge Protective Garments
This Standard Test Method provides test methods for measuring the electrical resistance of garments used to control electrostatic discharge. It covers test methods for measuring sleeve-to-sleeve and point-to-point resistance.

ANSI/ESD STM3.1: Ionization
Test methods and procedures for evaluating and selecting air ionization equipment and systems are covered in this standard. The document establishes measurement techniques to determine offset voltage ion balance and discharge neutralization time for ionizers.

ANSI/ESD SP3.3: Periodic Verification of Air Ionizers
This Standard Practice provides test procedures for periodic verification of the performance of air ionization equipment and systems (ionizers).

ANSI/ESD SP3.4 Periodic Verification of Air Ionizer Performance Using a Small Test Fixture
This standard practice provides a test fixture example and procedures for performance verification of air ionization used in confined spaces where it may not be possible to use the test fixtures defined in ANSI/ESD STM3.1 or ANSI/ESD SP3.3.

ANSI/ESD S4.1: Worksurfaces – Resistance Measurements
This Standard establishes test methods for measuring the electrical resistance of worksurface materials used at workstations for protection of ESD susceptible items. It includes methods for evaluating and selecting materials, and testing new worksurface installations and previously installed worksurfaces.

ANSI/ESD STM4.2: Worksurfaces – Charge Dissipation Characteristics
This Standard Test Method provides a test method to measure the electrostatic charge dissipation characteristics of worksurfaces used for ESD control. The procedure is designed for use in a laboratory environment for qualification, evaluation or acceptance of worksurfaces.

ESDA-JEDEC JS-001: Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Human Body Model
This Standard Test Method updates and revises an existing Standard. It establishes a procedure for testing, evaluating and classifying the ESD sensitivity of components to the defined Human Body Model (HBM).

ANSI/ESD STM5.2: Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing Machine Model
This Standard establishes a test procedure for evaluating the ESD sensitivity of components to a defined Machine Model (MM). The component damage caused by the Machine Model is often similar to that caused by the Human Body Model, but it occurs at a significantly lower voltage.

ANSI/ESD STM5.3.1: Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Charged Device Model – Non-Socketed Model
This Standard Test Method establishes a test method for evaluating the ESD sensitivity of active and passive components to a defined Charged Device Model (CDM).

ANSI/ESD SP5.3.2: Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Socketed Device Method (SDM) – Component Level.
This standard practice provides a test method generating a Socketed Device Model (SDM) test on a component integrated circuit (IC) device.

ANSI/ESD STM5.5.1: Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Transmission Line Pulse (TLP) – Component Level.
This document pertains to Transmission Line Pulse (TLP) testing techniques of semiconductor components. The purpose of this document is to establish a methodology for both testing and reporting information associated with TLP testing.

ANSI/ESD SP5.5.2: Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Very Fast Transmission Line Pulse (VF-TLP) – Component Level
This document pertains to Very Fast Transmission Line Pulse (VF-TLP) testing techniques of semiconductor components.  It establishes guidelines and standard practices presently used by development, research, and reliability engineers in both universities and industry for VF-TLP testing.  This document explains a methodology for both testing and reporting information associated with VF-TLP testing.

ANSI/ESD SP5.6: Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Human Metal Model (HMM) – Component Level
Establishes the procedure for testing, evaluating, and classifying the ESD sensitivity of components to the defined HMM.

ANSI/ESD S6.1: Grounding
This Standard recommends the parameters, procedures, and types of materials needed to establish an ESD grounding system for the protection of electronic hardware from ESD damage. This system is used for personnel grounding devices, worksurfaces, chairs, carts, floors, and other related equipment.

ANSI ESD STM7.1: Floor Materials – Resistive Characterization of Materials
Measurement of the electrical resistance of various floor materials such as floor coverings, mats, and floor finishes is covered in this document. It provides test methods for qualifying floor materials before installation or application and for evaluating and monitoring materials after installation or application.

ANSI ESD S8.1: ESD Awareness Symbols
Three types of ESD awareness symbols are established by this document. The first one is to be used on a device or assembly to indicate that it is susceptible to electrostatic charge. The second is to be used on items and materials intended to provide electrostatic protection. The third symbol indicates the common point ground

ANSI/ESD S9.1: Resistive Characterization of Footwear
This Standard defines a test method for measuring the electrical resistance of shoes used for ESD control in the electronics environment.

ESD SP9.2: Footwear – Foot Grounders Resistive Characterization
This standard practice was developed to provide test methods for evaluating foot grounders and foot grounder systems used to electrically bond or ground personnel as part of an ESD Control Program. Static Control Shoes are tested using ANSI/ESD STM9.1.

ANSI/ESD SP10.1: Automated Handling Equipment
This Standard Practice provides procedures for evaluating the electrostatic environment associated with automated handling equipment.

ANSI ESD STM11.11: Surface Resistance Measurement of Static Dissipative Planar Materials
This Standard Test Method defines a direct current test method for measuring electrical resistance. The Standard is designed specifically for static dissipative planar materials used in packaging of ESD sensitive devices and components.

ANSI/ESD STM11.12: Volume Resistance Measurement of Static Dissipative Planar Materials
This Standard Test Method provides test methods for measuring the volume resistance of static dissipative planar materials used in the packaging of ESD sensitive devices and components.

ANSI/ESD STM11.13: Two-Point Resistance Measurement
This Standard Test Method provides a test method to measure the resistance between two points on an items surface.

ANSI ESD STM11.31: Evaluating the Performance of Electrostatic Discharge Shielding Bags
This Standard provides a method for testing and determining the shielding capabilities of electrostatic shielding bags.

ANSI/ESD S11.4: Static Control Bags
This standard establishes performance limits for bags that are intended to protect electronic parts and products from damage due to static electricity and moisture during common electronic manufacturing industry transport and storage applications.

ANSI/ESD STM12.1: Seating-Resistive Characterization
This Standard provides test methods for measuring the electrical resistance of seating used to control ESD. The test methods can be used for qualification testing as well as for evaluating and monitoring seating after installation. It covers all types of seating, including chairs and stools.

ANSI/ESD STM13.1: Electrical Soldering/Desoldering Hand Tools
This Standard Test Method provides electric soldering/desoldering hand tool test methods for measuring the electrical leakage and tip to ground reference point resistance and provides parameters for EOS safe soldering operation.

ANSI/ESD SP15.1: Standard Practice for In-Use Testing of Gloves and Finger Cots
This document provides test procedures for measuring the intrinsic electrical resistance of gloves and finger cots as well as their electrical resistance together with personnel as a system.

ANSI ESD S20.20: Standard for the Development of an ESD Control Program
This Standard provides administrative, technical requirements and guidance for establishing, implementing and maintaining an ESD Control Program.

ANSI/ESD STM97.1: Floor Materials and Footwear – Resistance in Combination with a Person.
This Standard Test Method provides for measuring the electrical resistance of floor materials, footwear and personnel together, as a system.

ANSI/ESD STM97.2: Floor Materials and Footwear Voltage Measurement in Combination with a Person
This Standard Test Method provides for measuring the electrostatic voltage on a person in combination with floor materials and footwear, as a system.

ANSI/ESD S541: Packaging Materials for ESD Sensitive Items
This standard describes the packaging material properties needed to protect electrostatic discharge (ESD) sensitive electronic items, and references the testing methods for evaluating packaging and packaging materials for those properties. Where possible, performance limits are provided. Guidance for selecting the types of packaging with protective properties appropriate for specific applications is provided. Other considerations for protective packaging are also provided.

Advisory Documents and Technical Reports
Advisory Documents and Technical Reports are not Standards, but provide general information for the industry or additional information to aid in better understanding of Association Standards.

ESD ADV1.0: Glossary of Terms
Definitions and explanations of various terms used in Association Standards and documents are covered in this Advisory. It also includes other terms commonly used in the ESD industry.

ESD ADV3.2: Selection and Acceptance of Air Ionizers
This Advisory document provides end users with guidelines for creating a performance specification for selecting air ionization systems. It reviews four types of air ionizers and discusses applications, test method references, and general design, performance and safety requirements.

ESD ADV11.2: Triboelectric Charge Accumulation Testing
The complex phenomenon of triboelectric charging is discussed in this Advisory. It covers the theory and effects of tribocharging. It reviews procedures and problems associated with various test methods that are often used to evaluate triboelectrification characteristics. The test methods reviewed indicate gross levels of charge and polarity, but are not necessarily repeatable in real world situations.

ESD TR5.4-04-13 Transient Latch-up Testing
This document defines transient latch-up (TLU) as a state in which a low-impedance path, resulting from a transient overstress that triggers a parasitic thyristor structure or bipolar structure or combinations of both, persists at least temporarily after removal or cessation of the triggering condition. The rise time of the transient overstress causing TLU is shorter than five μs. TLU as defined in this document does not cover changes of functional states, even if those changes would result in a low-impedance path and increased power supply consumption.

ESD TR53: Compliance Verification of ESD Protective Equipment and Materials.
This technical report describes the test procedures and test equipment that can be used to periodically verify the performance of ESD protective equipment and materials.

ESD TR20.20: ESD Handbook
ESD handbook provides detailed guidance for implementing an ESD control program in accordance with ANSI/ESD S20.20.

© 2014, ESD Association, Rome, NY

Industry standards play a major role in providing meaningful metrics and common procedures that allow various manufacturers, customers, and suppliers to communicate from facility to facility around the world. Standards are increasingly important in our global economy. In manufacturing, uniform quality requirements and testing procedures are necessary to make sure that all involved parties are speaking the same language.

In electrostatic discharge (ESD) device protection, standard methods have been developed for component ESD stress models to measure a component’s sensitivity to electrostatic discharge from various sources. In ESD control programs, standard test methods for product qualification and periodic evaluation of wrist straps, garments, ionizers, worksurfaces, grounding, flooring, shoes, static dissipative planar materials, shielding bags, packaging, electrical soldering/desoldering hand tools, and flooring/footwear systems have been developed to ensure uniformity around the world.

The EOS/ESD Association, Inc. (ESDA) is dedicated to advancing the theory and practice of ESD protection and avoidance. The ESDA is an American National Standards Institute (ANSI) accredited standards developer. The Association’s consensus body is called the standards committee (STDCOM), which has responsibility for the overall development of documents. Volunteers from the industry participate in working groups to develop new and to update current ESDA documents.

The ESDA’s standards business unit is charged with keeping pace with the industry demands for increased device and product performance and more effective control programs. The existing standards, standard test methods, standard practices, and technical reports assist in the design and monitoring of the electrostatic protected area (EPA), and also assist in the stress testing of ESD sensitive electronic components. Many of the existing documents relate to controlling electrostatic charge on personnel and stationary work areas. However, with the ever increasing emphasis on automated handling, the need to evaluate and monitor what is occurring inside of process equipment is growing daily. Since automation has become more dominant, the charged device model (CDM) has become the primary cause of ESD failures and, thus, the more urgent concern. Together, the human body model (HBM) and CDM cover the vast majority of ESD events that might occur in a typical factory.

The ESD Association document categories are:

• Standard (S): A precise statement of a set of requirements to be satisfied by a material, product, system or process that also specifies the procedures for determining whether each of the requirements is satisfied.
• Standard Test Method (STM): A definitive procedure for the identification, measurement and evaluation of one or more qualities, characteristics or properties of a material, product, system or process that yield a reproducible test result.
• Standard Practice (SP): A procedure for performing one or more operations or functions that may or may not yield a test result. Note: if a test result is obtained it may not be reproducible.
• Technical Report (TR): A collection of technical data or test results published as an informational reference on a specific material, product, system or process.

The ESDA’s technology roadmap is compiled by industry experts in IC protection design and test to provide a look into future ESD design and manufacturing challenges. The roadmap previously pointed out that numerous mainstream electronic parts and components would reach assembly factories with a lower level of ESD protection than could have been expected just a few years earlier. This prediction has proven to be rather accurate. As with any roadmap, the view of the future is constantly changing and requires updating on the basis of technology trend updates, market forces, supply chain evolution, and field return data. An updated roadmap was published in March 2013 and industry experts extended the horizon beyond the 2013 predictions to 2015. The Association is working on a revision to the technology roadmap that will extend the predictions out another 5 years.

EOS is an area that has long been overlooked by the industry, not because of any limited importance but rather because of its complex definition and multiple root causes. Recently, two working groups have been focusing on this area and both expect to publish TRs in 2015. One TR is expected to help establish some fundamental definitions and distinctions between various EOS threats and provide direction for further work. The second TR is focused on “best practices” that will outline ways to mitigate EOS threats in manufacturing.

Another area of development has been a request by the aerospace industry for an ESD control document that defines more definitively what ESD controls need to be in place in factories that are in the aerospace industry. The WG is working on a technical report that will provide some additional quality management specifications to the ESD control plan definition in ANSI/ESD S20.20.

The ESDA standards committee is continuing several joint document development activities with the JEDEC Solid State Technology Association. Under the memorandum of understanding agreement, the ESDA and JEDEC formed a joint working group for the standardization work in which volunteers from the ESDA and JEDEC member companies can participate. This collaboration between the two organizations has paved the way for the development of harmonized device test methods for ESD, which will ultimately reduce uncertainty about test standards among manufacturers and suppliers in the solid state industry. ANSI/ESDA/JEDEC JS-001-2014, a fourth revision of the joint HBM document, was published in September 2014.

A second joint working group is currently working on a joint charged device model (CDM) document. At the time of this publication, ESDA/JEDEC JS-002, the first revision of the joint CDM document, was in the final stages of the approval process with an expected publication date in early-2015. These efforts will assist manufacturers of devices by providing one test method and specification for each model instead of multiple, almost but not quite identical, versions of device testing methods.

The ESDA is also working in the area of process assessment. At the time of this publication, ESD TR17.0-01-14 was in the final stages of approval with an expected publication date of early-2015. The first TR published by the WG is a compilation of recent publications by members of the WG. The goal of the TR is to give the reader examples of “best practices” of process assessment methodologies and test methods. The WG is also working on a second TR with a goal of describing a set of methodologies, techniques, and tools that can be used to characterize the ability of a process to safely handle ESD sensitive items. It is expected that following the release of the second technical report, more work will be done to provide a more detailed and complete description of process assessment methods with a possible standard practice being published.

The ESDA standard covering the requirements for creating and managing an ESD control program is ANSI/ESD S20.20 “ESD Association Standard for the Development of an Electrostatic Discharge Control Program for – Protection of Electrical and Electronic Parts, Assemblies and Equipment (Excluding Electrically Initiated Explosive Devices).” ANSI/ESD S20.20-2007 is a commercial update of and replacement for MIL-STD-1686 and has been adopted by the United States Department of Defense. In addition, the 2007-2008 update of IEC 61340-5-1 edition 1.0 “Electrostatics – Part 5-1: Protection of Electronic Devices from Electrostatic Phenomena General Requirements” is technically equivalent to ANSI/ESD S20.20-2007.

ANSI/ESD S20.20 was revised during the five-year review and a 2014 version was published in August. The IEC document 61340-5-1 is currently being updated with a technically equivalent document targeted to be published mid-2015. Updates to ANSI/ESD S20.20 include changes in scope to address CDM and isolated conductors, changes to the qualification of footwear/flooring systems, process required insulators within 1 in of ESD sensitive devices and requirements on isolated conductors. A section was added on product qualification for clarification. In table 3, there were updates to ionization and the inclusion of wrist strap ground connection requirements and the addition of soldering irons. Formatting of table 3 was updated for clarity. For more information, please go to http://esda.org/Documents.html#s2020.

In order to meet the global need in the electronics industry for technically sound ESD control programs, the ESDA has established an independent third party certification program. The program is administered by EOS/ESD Association, Inc. through country-accredited ISO 9000 certification bodies that have met the requirements of this program. The facility certification program evaluates a facility’s ESD

program to ensure that the basic requirements from industry standards ANSI/ESD S20.20 or IEC 61340-5-1 are being followed. More than 673 facilities have been certified worldwide since inception of the program. The factory certification bodies report strong interest in certification to ANSI/ESD S20.20, and consultants in this area report that inquiries for assistance remain at a very high level.

Individual education also seems of interest once again as 58 professionals have obtained certified ESD program manager status and many more are attempting to qualify for this certification. A large percentage of the certification program requirements are based on standards and the other related documents produced by the ESD Association standards committee.

Current ESD Association Standards Committee Documents

Charged Device Model (CDM)

ANSI/ESDA/JEDEC JS-001 Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Charged Device Model (CDM) – Component Level
Establishes the procedure for testing, evaluating, and classifying the ESD sensitivity of components to the defined CDM.

Cleanrooms

ESD TR55.0-01-04 Electrostatic Guidelines and Considerations for Cleanrooms and Clean Manufacturing
Identifies considerations and provides guidelines for the selection and implementation of materials and processes for electrostatic control in cleanroom and clean manufacturing environments.

Compliance Verification

ESD TR53-01-06 Compliance Verification of ESD Protective Equipment and Materials
Describes the test methods and instrumentation that can be used to periodically verify the performance of ESD protective equipment and materials.

Electronic Design Automation (EDA)

ESD TR18.0.01-14 – ESD Electronic Design Automation Checks
Provides guidance for both the EDA industry and the ESD design community for establishing a comprehensive ESD electronic design automation (EDA) verification flow satisfying the ESD design challenges of modern ICs.

ESD Control Program

ANSI/ESD S20.20 Protection of Electrical and Electronic Parts, Assemblies and Equipment (Excluding Electrically Initiated Explosive Devices)
This standard provides administrative and technical requirements for establishing, implementing, and maintaining an ESD Control Program to protect electrical or electronic parts, assemblies, and equipment susceptible to damage by electrostatic discharges greater than or equal to 100 volts HBM, 200 volts CDM, and 35 volts on isolated conductors.

ESD TR20.20-2008—ESD Handbook (Companion to ANSI/ESD S20.20)
Produced specifically to support ANSI/ESD S20.20 ESD Control Program standard, this 132-page document is a major rewrite of the previous handbook. It focuses on providing guidance that can be used for developing, implementing, and monitoring an ESD control program in accordance with the S20.20 standard.

ESD Foundry Parameters

ESD TR22.0.01-14 – Relevant ESD Foundry Parameters for Seamless ESD Design and Verification Flow
In this report the essential requirements on ESD-related technology data will be described which need to be delivered to design customers by a foundry vendor. Design customers can be design houses, IDMs following a foundry strategy or IP vendors. The purpose is to ensure seamless design integration and ESD EDA verification of IC level ESD concepts.

Flooring

ANSI/ESD STM7.1 Resistive Characterization of Materials – Floor Materials
Covers measurement of the electrical resistance of various floor materials, such as floor coverings, mats, and floor finishes. It provides test methods for qualifying floor materials before installation or application, and for evaluating and monitoring materials after installation or application.

ESD TR7.0-01-11 Static Protective Floor Materials
This technical report reviews the use of floor materials to dissipate electrostatic charge.  It provides an overview on floor coverings, floor finishes, topical antistats, floor mats, paints and coatings.  It also covers a variety of other issues related to floor material selection, installation and maintenance.

Flooring and Footwear Systems

ANSI/ESD STM97.1 Floor Materials and Footwear – Resistance Measurement in Combination with a Person
Provides test methods for measuring the electrical system resistance of floor materials in combination with person wearing static control footwear.

ANSI/ESD STM97.2 Floor Materials and Footwear – Voltage Measurement in Combination with a Person
Provides for measuring the electrostatic voltage on a person in combination with floor materials and footwear, as a system.

Footwear

ANSI/ESD STM9.1 Footwear – Resistive Characterization
Defines a test method for measuring the electrical resistance of shoes used for ESD control in the electronics environment (not to include heel straps and toe grounders).

ESD SP9.2 Footwear – Foot Grounders Resistive Characterization
Provides test methods for evaluating foot grounders and foot grounder systems used to electrically bond or ground personnel as part of an ESD Control Program. Static Control Shoes are tested using ANSI/ESD STM9.1.

Garments

ANSI/ESD STM2.1 Garments – Resistive Characterization
Provides test methods for measuring the electrical resistance of garments. It covers procedures for measuring sleeve-to-sleeve resistance and point-to-point resistance.

ESD TR2.0-01-00 Consideration for Developing ESD Garment Specifications
Addresses concerns about effective ESD garments by starting with an understanding of electrostatic measurements and how they relate to ESD protection.

ESD TR2.0-02-00 Static Electricity Hazards of Triboelectrically Charged Garments
Intended to provide some insight to the electrostatic hazards present when a garment is worn in a flammable or explosive environment.

Glossary

ESD ADV1.0 Glossary of Terms
Definitions and explanations of various terms used in Association Standards and documents are covered in this advisory. It also includes other terms commonly used in the electronics industry.

Gloves and Finger Cots

ANSI/ESD SP15.1 In-Use Resistance Testing of Gloves and Finger Cots
Provides test procedures for measuring the intrinsic electrical resistance of gloves and finger cots.

ESD TR15.0-01-99 ESD Glove and Finger Cots
Reviews the existing known industry test methods for the qualification of ESD protective gloves and finger cots. (Formerly TR03-99)

Grounding

ANSI/ESD S6.1 Grounding
Specifies the parameters, materials, equipment, and test procedures necessary to choose, establish, vary, and maintain an Electrostatic Discharge Control grounding system for use within an ESD Protected Area for protection of ESD susceptible items, and specifies the criteria for establishing ESD Bonding.

Handlers

ANSI/ESD SP10.1 Automated Handling Equipment (AHE)
Provides procedures for evaluating the electrostatic environment associated with automated handling equipment.

ESD TR10.0-01-02 Measurement and ESD Control Issues for Automated Equipment Handling of ESD Sensitive Devices below 100 Volts
Provides guidance and considerations that an equipment manufacturer should use when designing automated handling equipment for these low voltage sensitive devices. (Formerly TR14-02)

Hand Tools

ESD STM13.1 Electrical Soldering/Desoldering Hand Tools
Provides electric soldering/desoldering hand tool test methods for measuring the electrical leakage and tip to ground reference point resistance, and provides parameters for EOS safe soldering operation.

ESD TR13.0-01-99 EOS Safe Soldering Iron Requirements
Discusses soldering iron requirements that must be based on the sensitivity of the most susceptible devices that are to be soldered. (Formerly TR04-99)

Human Body Model (HBM)

ANSI/ESDA/JEDEC JS-001 ESDA/JEDEC Joint Standard for Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Human Body Model
(HBM) – Component Level
Establishes the procedure for testing, evaluating, and classifying the electrostatic discharge sensitivity of components to the defined human body model (HBM).

ESD JTR001-01-12, ESD Association Technical Report User Guide of ANSI/ESDA/JEDEC JS-001 Human Body Model Testing of Integrated Circuits
Describes the technical changes made in ANSI/ESDA/JEDEC JS-001 and explains how to use those changes apply human body model tests to IC components.

Human Metal Model (HMM)

ANSI/ESD SP5.6 Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Human Metal Model (HMM) – Component Level
Establishes the procedure for testing, evaluating, and classifying the ESD sensitivity of components to the defined HMM.

ESD TR5.6-01-09 Human Metal Model (HMM)
Addresses the need for a standard method of applying the IEC contact discharge waveform to devices and components.

Ionization

ANSI/ESD STM3.1 Ionization
Test methods and procedures for evaluating and selecting air ionization equipment and systems are covered in this standard test method. The document establishes measurement techniques to determine ion balance and charge neutralization time for ionizers.

ANSI/ESD SP3.3 Periodic Verification of Air Ionizers
Provides test methods and procedures for periodic verification of the performance of air ionization equipment and systems (ionizers).

ANSI/ESD SP3.4 Periodic Verification of Air Ionizer Performance Using a Small Test Fixture
Provides a test fixture example and procedures for performance verification of air ionization used in confined spaces where it may not be possible to use the test fixtures defined in ANSI/ESD STM3.1 or ANSI/ESD SP3.3.

ESD TR3.0-01-02 Alternate Techniques for Measuring Ionizer Offset Voltage and Discharge Time
Investigates measurement techniques to determine ion balance and charge neutralization time for ionizers.

ESD TR3.0-02-05 Selection and Acceptance of Air Ionizers
Reviews and provides a guideline for creating a performance specification for the four ionizer types contained in ANSI/ESD STM3.1: room (systems), laminar flow hood, worksurface (e.g., blowers), and compressed gas (nozzles & guns).

Machine Model (MM)

ANSI/ESD STM5.2 Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Machine Model (MM) – Component Level
Establishes the procedure for testing and evaluating the ESD sensitivity of components to the defined machine model.

ANSI/ESD SP5.2.1 Machine Model (MM) Alternative Test Method: Supply Pin Ganging – Component Level
Defines an alternative test method to perform Machine Model component level ESD tests when the component or device pin count exceeds the number of ESD simulator tester channels.

ANSI/ESD SP5.2.2 Machine Model (MM) Alternative Test Method: Split Signal Pin – Component Level
Defines an alternative test method to perform Machine Model component level ESD tests when the component or device pin count exceeds the number of ESD simulator tester channels.

ESD TR5.2-01-01 Machine Model (MM) Electrostatic Discharge (ESD) Investigation – Reduction in Pulse Number and Delay Time
Provides the procedures, results, and conclusions of evaluating a proposed change from 3 pulses (present requirement) to 1 pulse while using a delay time of both 1 second (present requirement) and 0.5 second.

Ohmmeters

ESD TR50.0-02-99 High Resistance Ohmmeters–Voltage Measurements
Discusses a number of parameters that can cause different readings from high resistance meters when improper instrumentation and techniques are used and the techniques and precautions to be used in order to ensure the measurement will be as accurate and repeatable as possible for high resistance measurement of materials.

Packaging

ANSI/ESD STM11.11 Surface Resistance Measurement of Static Dissipative Planar Materials
Defines a direct current test method for measuring electrical resistance, replacing ASTM D257-78. This test method is designed specifically for static dissipative planar materials used in packaging of ESD sensitive devices and components.

ANSI/ESD STM11.12 Volume Resistance Measurement of Static Dissipative Planar Materials
Provides test methods for measuring the volume resistance of static dissipative planar materials used in the packaging of ESD sensitive devices and components.

ANSI/ESD STM11.13 Two-Point Resistance Measurement
Measures the resistance between two points on a material’s surface without consideration of the material’s means of achieving conductivity. This test method was established for measuring resistance where the concentric ring electrodes of ANSI/ESD STM11.11 cannot be used.

ANSI/ESD STM11.31 Bags
Provides a method for testing and determining the shielding capabilities of electrostatic shielding bags.

ANSI/ESD S11.4 Static Control Bags
Establishes performance limits for bags that are intended to protect electronic parts and products from damage due to static electricity and moisture during common electronic manufacturing industry transport and storage applications.

ANSI/ESD S541 Packaging Materials for ESD Sensitive Items
Describes the packaging material properties needed to protect electrostatic discharge (ESD) sensitive electronic items, and references the testing methods for evaluating packaging and packaging materials for those properties. Where possible, performance limits are provided. Guidance for selecting the types of packaging with protective properties appropriate for specific applications is provided. Other considerations for protective packaging are also provided.

ESD ADV11.2 Triboelectric Charge Accumulation Testing
Provides guidance in understanding the triboelectric phenomenon and relates current information and experience regarding tribocharge testing as used in static control for electronics.

Seating

ANSI/ESD STM12.1 Seating – Resistive Measurement
Provides test methods for measuring the electrical resistance of seating used for the control of electrostatic charge or discharge. It contains test methods for the qualification of seating prior to installation or application, as well as test methods for evaluating and monitoring seating after installation or application.

Socketed Device Model (SDM)

ANSI/ESD SP5.3.2 Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Socketed Device (SDM) – Component Level
Provides a test method for generating a Socketed Device Model (SDM) test on a component integrated circuit (IC) device.

ESD TR5.3.2-01-00 Socket Device Model (SDM) Tester
Helps the user understand how existing SDM testers function, offers help with the interpretation of ESD data generated by SDM test systems, and defines the important properties of an “ideal” socketed-CDM test system.

Static Electricity

ESD TR50.0-01-99 Can Static Electricity Be Measured?
Gives an overview of fundamental electrostatic concepts, electrostatic effects, and most importantly of electrostatic metrology, especially what can and what cannot be measured.

Susceptible Device Concepts

ESD TR50.0-03-03 Voltage and Energy Susceptible Device Concepts, Including Latency Considerations
Contains information to promote an understanding of the differences between energy and voltage susceptible types of devices and their sensitivity levels.

Symbols

ANSI/ESD S8.1 Symbols – ESD Awareness
Three types of ESD awareness symbols are established by this document. The first one is to be used on a device or assembly to indicate that it is susceptible to electrostatic charge. The second is to be used on items and materials intended to provide electrostatic protection. The third symbol indicates the common point ground. 

System Level ESD

ESD TR14.0-01-00 Calculation of Uncertainty Associated with Measurement of Electrostatic Discharge (ESD) Current
Provides guidance on measuring uncertainty based on an uncertainty budget.

ESD TR14.0-02-13 System Level Electrostatic Discharge (ESD) Simulator Verification
Developed to provide guidance to designers, manufacturers, and calibration facilities for verification and specification of the systems and fixtures used to measure simulator discharge currents.

Transient Latch-up

ESD TR5.4-01-00 Transient Induced Latch-Up (TLU)
Provides a brief background on early latch-up work, reviews the issues surrounding the power supply response requirements, and discusses the efforts on RLC TLU testing, transmission line pulse (TLP) stressing, and the bi-polar stress TLU methodology.

ESD TR5.4-02-08 Determination of CMOS Latch-up Susceptibility – Transient Latch-up
Intended to provide background information pertaining to the development of the transient latch-up standard practice originally published in 2004 and additional data presented to the group since publication.

ESD TR5.4-03-11 Latch-up Sensitivity Testing of CMOS/Bi CMOS Integrated Circuits – Transient Latch-up Testing – Component Level Supply Transient Stimulation
Developed to instruct the reader on the methods and materials needed to perform transient latch-up Testing.

ESD TR5.4-04-13 Transient Latch-up Testing
Defines transient latch-up (TLU) as a state in which a low-impedance path, resulting from a transient overstress that triggers a parasitic thyristor structure or bipolar structure or combinations of both, persists at least temporarily after removal or cessation of the triggering condition. The rise time of the transient overstress causing TLU is shorter than five μs. TLU as defined in this document does not cover changes of functional states, even if those changes would result in a low-impedance path and increased power supply consumption.

Transmission Line Pulse

ANSI/ESD STM5.5.1 Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Transmission Line Pulse (TLP) – Component Level
Pertains to Transmission Line Pulse (TLP) testing techniques of semiconductor components. The purpose of this document is to establish a methodology for both testing and reporting information associated with TLP testing.

ANSI/ESD SP5.5.2 Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Very Fast Transmission Line Pulse (VF-TLP) – Component Level
Pertains to very fast transmission line pulse (VF-TLP) testing techniques of semiconductor components. It establishes guidelines and standard practices presently used by development, research, and reliability engineers in both universities and industry for VF-TLP testing. This document explains a methodology for both testing and reporting information associated with VF-TLP testing.

ESD TR5.5-01-08 Transmission Line Pulse (TLP)
A compilation of the information gathered during the writing of ANSI/ESD SP5.5.1 and the information gathered in support of moving the standard practice toward re-designation as a standard test method.

ESD TR5.5-02-08 Transmission Line Pulse Round Robin
Intended to provide data on the repeatability and reproducibility limits of the methods of ANSI/ESD STM5.5.1.

ESD TR5.5-03-14 Very-Fast Transmission Line Pulse Round Robin
Reviews the RR measurements and analysis used to support the re-designation of the VF-TLP document from SP to STM. It also discusses some of the lessons learned about VF-TLP and the performing of a RR experiment.

Workstations

ESD ADV53.1 ESD Protective Workstations
Defines the minimum requirements for a basic ESD protective workstation used in ESD sensitive areas. It provides a test method for evaluating and monitoring workstations. It defines workstations as having the following components: support structure, static dissipative worksurface, a means of grounding personnel, and any attached shelving or drawers.

Worksurfaces

ANSI/ESD S4.1 Worksurface – Resistance Measurements
Provides test methods for evaluating and selecting worksurface materials, testing of new worksurface installations, and the testing of previously installed worksurfaces.

ANSI/ESD STM4.2 ESD Protective Worksurfaces – Charge Dissipation Characteristics
Aids in determining the ability of ESD protective worksurfaces to dissipate charge from a conductive test object placed on them.

ESD TR4.0-01-02 Survey of Worksurfaces and Grounding Mechanisms
Provides guidance for understanding the attributes of worksurface materials and their grounding mechanisms.

Wrist Straps

ANSI/ESD S1.1 Wrist Straps
Establishes test methods for evaluating the electrical and mechanical characteristics of wrist straps. It includes improved test methods and performance limits for evaluation, acceptance, and functional testing of wrist straps.

ESD TR1.0-01-01 Survey of Constant (Continuous) Monitors for Wrist Straps
Provides guidance to ensure that wrist straps are functional and are connected to people and ground.

Founded in 1982, the EOS/ESD Association, Inc. is a professional voluntary association dedicated to advancing the theory and practice of electrostatic discharge (ESD) avoidance. From fewer than 100 members, the Association has grown to more than 2,000 throughout the world. From an initial emphasis on the effects of ESD on electronic components, the Association has broadened its horizons to include areas such as textiles, plastics, web processing, cleanrooms, and graphic arts. To meet the needs of a continually changing environment, the Association is chartered to expand ESD awareness through standards development, educational programs, local chapters, publications, tutorials, certification, and symposia.

A  five-year review of ANSI/ESD S20.20 was recently completed and the 2014 version of the standard was published in September 2014. The technical revisions in the 2014 version of the standard are highlighted in this article. A complimentary PDF copy of the new standard, and a table comparing the requirements of the 2014 version with those of the 2007 version is available at www.esda.org.

Standard Scope

The 2014 document scope now includes devices with withstand voltages greater than 100 volts HBM (no change), 200 volts charge device model (CDM), and 35 volts on isolated conductors. Changes in the standard were made to support these additions to the scope. The 200 volts for CDM is for the induced CDM event by insulators.

While some CDM control has always been implied in ANSI/ESD S20.20, the standard now explicitly states it in the scope. Changes in insulator control support the scope with the addition of controls within one inch of an ESD sensitive item. The 35 volts on isolated conductors acknowledges that all conductors may not be able to be grounded. There is a section added in ANSI/ESD S20.20 on the requirements for isolated conductors and what needs to be evaluated.

Tailoring Statements

The tailoring section of the document, Section 6.3, has been clarified to address misconceptions that tailoring is required if anything changes from the requirements of ANSI/ESD S20.20. This was not the intention. The section now clearly states that tailoring is needed only if the requirements are deleted or revised to exceed the limits in ANSI/ESD S20.20.

For example, the worksurface requirement of 0 to 1.0 x 10⁹ ohms for point-to-point resistance does not need a tailoring statement if a company’s internal control program document requires a point-to-point resistance between 1.0 x 10⁵ to 1.0 x 10⁹ ohms; these stated limits are within the ANSI/ESD S20.20 limits. However, if the point-to-point resistance in a company’s internal control program document is between 1.0 x 10⁵ and 1.0 x 10¹⁰ ohms, a tailoring statement is required because 1.0 x 10¹⁰ ohms is beyond the limit in ANSI/ESD S20.20.

Product Qualification

A new section on product qualification, Section 7.3, was added ANSI/ESD S20.20-2014 to emphasize the product qualification of ESD control items. The requirement to have ESD control items qualified was in the 2007 version but it was only in Tables 2 and 3 of the standard. Product qualification is an important part of ANSI/ESD S20.20 because all ESD control items need to be qualified to the ESD standards that are listed in Tables 2 and 3 of the standard. Typically, product qualification requires ESD control items to work in low humidity conditions. All qualification testing or testing done at environmental conditions that do not meet the referenced standards must be technically justified with a tailoring statement.

Flooring and Footwear Systems

The 2014 version of ANSI/ESD S20.20 includes a change to the qualification of flooring/footwear systems for grounding personnel. The 2007 version allowed for qualification based only on resistance if the total resistance was less than 3.5 x 10⁷ ohms from a person’s hand to ground. A walking test was required for resistance greater than 3.5 x 10⁷ ohms and less than 1.0 x 10⁹ ohms.

In the 2014 version, the resistance method (Method 1) has been eliminated and the requirement is now both a resistance and walking test. There has been data presented at various symposia that, even with a total system resistance of 3.5 x 10⁷ ohms, a person walking on the floor can generate sufficient voltage to exceed the 100 volt requirement. For comparison, the 2007 and 2014 tables for personnel grounding requirements are shown in Table 1 and Table 2.

Table 1: 2007 Personal Grounding Requirements

Table 2: 2014 Personal Grounding Requirements

Process-Required Insulators

In the 2007 version of ANSI/ESD S20.20, the requirement for process-required insulators within 30 cm (12 in) of an ESD sensitive device is a field of no more than 2000 volts/in. In the 2014 version of the standard, there is a new requirement that process-required insulators within 2.5 cm (1 in) of an ESD sensitive device have a field of not more than 125 volts/in. The change supports the addition of 200 volts CDM in the scope.

Isolated Conductors

The 2007 version of ANSI/ESD S20.20 did not allow for any isolated conductors in an ESD control program. Therefore, no requirements on isolated conductors were included in the document. However, there are situations where an isolated conductor must be in the ESD protected area (EPA). Accordingly, in the 2014 version of ANSI/ESD S20.20, isolated conductors in the EPA cannot have more than 35 volts on the conductor. The measurement of isolated conductors requires either an electrostatic non-contacting voltmeter or a high impedance contacting voltmeter. A field meter alone cannot make this measurement on very small conductors. This requirement applies only to isolated conductors that are in the EPA, and is only a qualification requirement.

Table 3 Changes

Changes to Table 3 in the 2014 version include the following:

Ionization

Ionization now has one offset limit instead of the two requirements in the 2007 version. The 2007 version has separate limits for room ionization and local ionization. The 2014 version now has only one limit. The intent of room ionization is mainly for cleanliness rather than ESD control. As such, it is not necessary to include room ionization in the ESD control plan unless it is expressly configured for ESD mitigation.

Tool Additions

Electrical soldering/desoldering hand tools were also added as a requirement to Table 3. This is new to the 2014 version and was not in the 2007 version. Revisions have also been included in ANSI/ESD S13.1 and ESD TR53 to support the additions to the Table.

Wrist Strap Changes

Another addition to Table 3 is the requirement to check the wrist strap connection for non-continuous monitored wrist straps. This is the connection from where the wrist strap is plugged in to ground.

Packaging Materials

The requirements on packaging materials has not changed but there have been accounts of packaging materials used as worksurfaces, such as placing ESD sensitive parts on top of static shielding bags or static dissipative pink foams. A note has been added to the packaging section which says, “When ESDS items are placed on packaging materials and the ESDS items have work being performed on them, then the packaging materials become worksurfaces. The worksurface requirements for resistance to ground apply.” This allows the use of packaging materials as long as they meet the requirements for worksurfaces and are tested as part of compliance verification.

The updates in the 2014 version of ANSI/ESD S20.20 will be reflected in the requirements for facility certification. There is a transition period to give process owners time to understand the new requirements and to update internal ESD control processes. For 2015, facilities may be certified to either the 2007 version or the 2014 version of ANSI/ESD S20.20. For this reason, both standards will remain on the ESD Association web site for 2015. Beginning in 2016, facilities will only be certified to the 2014 version of ANSI/ESD S20.20.

The EOS/ESD Association is the largest industry group dedicated to advancing the theory and the practice of ESD avoidance, with more than 2000 members worldwide.  Readers can learn more about the Association and its work at www.esda.org.

Historically, almost all equipment that uses the radio frequency spectrum to function has consisted of traditional communications and information technology, such as radio and television equipment, computers and telephony.

Now, as we enter the Internet of Things (IoT) age where you can turn on your oven using a mobile phone while still at your office, you are as likely to find home appliances, medical devices, your car’s satellite navigation system and even your running shoes transmitting and receiving data. In short, they are behaving like radio equipment.

The European Union’s new Radio Equipment Directive (RED) 2014/53/EU was published on April 16, 2014, and EU member states must adopt and publish the laws, regulations and administrative provisions needed to comply with the new Directive by June 12, 2016.

On June 13, 2016, the former Directive on Radio and Telecommunications Terminal Equipment (also known as the R&TTE Directive, 1999/5/EC) will be repealed and the new requirements will come into law. However, the RED stipulates a transition period of one year from the date of adoption, which gives the following dates for when manufacturers should use either directive in their Declaration of Conformity:

• Products placed on the market before June 13, 2016: R&TTE
• Products placed on the market between June 13, 2016 and June 12, 2017: R&TTE or RED
• Products placed on the market after June 12, 2017: RED

With less than a year until the old Directive is repealed, anyone involved in the design or compliance of electrical products that in some way utilize the radio spectrum should learn about the changes in the requirements to ensure their ongoing product compliance come June 2016.

This article is intended to provide a brief overview of the revised requirements of the EU’s RED.

Radio Equipment Directive (RED) 2014/53/EU

Examining the revised legislation, much of the content has been updated to reflect the current and possible state of the art in radio-using equipment. For example, the terms “apparatus” and “telecommunications terminal equipment” (TTE) have been removed to reflect a broader meaning of what is considered “radio equipment.” The legislation has also been brought into line with other recast directives, such as the Low Voltage Directive (LVD) and EMC Directive, in their use of terminology.

As you can see from the comparative table (Table 1), the RED now uses familiar terms such as manufacturer, importer and distributor to clarify the particular conformity responsibilities of these “economic operators” in the supply chain.

The role of Notified Bodies is explained in more detail, and a robust qualification and accreditation process for these organizations is highlighted.

Provisions are also included allowing the European Commission to adopt “delegated acts” at a later date, specifying which classes or categories of radio products must meet or can be excluded from specific essential requirements (see Articles 3 and 43). Therefore, manufacturers will need to keep a vigilant eye on the Official Journal of the European Union for additional updates.

Table 1

Scope of the RED

The scope of the Directive applies to all radio equipment being placed on the market in the EU with the exception of:

• Radio equipment used exclusively for activities concerning public security, defense, state security or for the economic well-being of the state
• Amateur radio kits
• Marine equipment
• Airborne products, parts and appliances (as regulated under Article 3 of regulation EC 216/2008)
• Custom built kits used solely for research and development activities

Summary of Key Changes

• All receivers (including broadcast radio and TV equipment) now fall under the scope of the RED instead of under the EMC Directive.
• The radio frequency spectrum governed within the scope of the Directive now has no lower limit. It was previously from 9KHz up to 3000GHz.
• There are no voltage limits for radio equipment regarding LVD safety requirements.
• Many of the descriptive terms from the R&TTE Directive have been changed or modified. “Radio equipment” now means an electrical product used for radio communication or radiodetermination. Manufacturers are solely responsible for conformity assessment, and cannot use the conformity procedures laid out in the LVD or EMC Directive to demonstrate compliance, but must use those outlined in the RED instead.
• The Directive opens up the possibility of requiring certain equipment (for example, mobile phones) to be designed to accommodate a common charging interface.
• Radio equipment using special software to enable functions must demonstrate compliance of the equipment together with the software. New versions of software must also prove compliant with the essential requirements.
• Radio equipment capable of taking different configurations must undergo conformity assessment in all possible configurations.
• Class 2 labelling ‘Alert mark’ and equipment notifications are removed.
• CE Marking needs to be on both the product (where possible) and the packaging. On the product, it will now be permissible to use a CE Mark that is smaller than 5mm providing it is still visible and legible.
• Radio equipment must bear the type, batch, model, serial number or other element allowing identification, as well as the name and address of the manufacturer on either the product itself, on the packaging or in the manual.
• Where technical documents do not comply, the surveillance authority may ask the manufacturer or importer to have the product tested by a body accepted by the authority at the expense of the manufacturer or importer.
• Compliance documents must be presented to a surveillance authority in a language easily understood by the authority.
• The manufacturer must inform the Notified Body of all modifications to the product that may affect compliance.
• If re-badging takes place (OEM), the company performing the OEM function undertakes all responsibilities of the original manufacturer.
• There are clear guidelines on market surveillance and how these authorities should operate.

The Routes to Compliance

Three options are now available for radio equipment manufacturers to prove compliance with the essential requirements. Two of those options involve the participation of a Notified Body.

Let’s look at the options.

1. Via Annex II – Internal production control (Module A)

The manufacturer undertakes the compilation of the technical documentation (testing can be internal or external), the manufacturing process (involving internal quality control) and the CE marking and issuing the Declaration of Conformity. No Notified Body involvement is needed. This option can only be used if harmonized standards have been applied in full for Articless 3.2 and 3.3.

2. Via Annex III – EU type examination (Modules B & C).

The manufacturer is responsible for the technical documentation (can be internal or external), the internal production control, the product CE marking and issuing the Declaration of Conformity. The Notified Body will be involved in examining the technical documentation verifying the design, testing and the issuing of an EU type examination certificate.

3. Via Annex IV – FQA agreement with a Notified Body (Module H).

The manufacturer comes into agreement with a Notified Body for a full quality assurance (FQA) program. The Notified Body takes part in the auditing of the manufacturing process, the quality system, the product design and testing, as well as taking on surveillance duties of the quality system. The Notified Body also oversees the CE marking and issuing of the Declaration of Conformity. The Notified Body’s numerals appear on the product labelling, only under an FQA agreement with the manufacturer.

Low Compliance Register for Radio Equipment

The RED recognizes that market surveillance of radio equipment will be significantly assisted if categories of radio products that have not achieved a high level of compliance are already registered centrally, giving surveillance authorities better visibility of what low compliance products are on the market.

The Commission will be identifying the categories of product that require registration and what documentation must be created in relation to them, as well as confirming whether they should undergo an evaluation of the risks they present in not implementing the essential requirements.

It is anticipated that the central registry will be made available by the Commission from June 12, 2018 onward.

Responsibilities of Economic Operators

The RED gives specific compliance responsibilities to each “economic operator” in the supply chain. First and foremost, the legislation deems the compliance of radio equipment to be the sole responsibility of the manufacturer.

To be compliant, the manufacturer must ensure the construction is appropriate so that ‘it can operate in at least one Member State without infringing applicable requirements’ ( Article 10, paragraph 2).

The manufacturer must also create all the appropriate documentation required for CE marking and required by the RED and make it available for 10 years after the product has been placed on the market. This documentation must include details of the frequency band in which the equipment operates and the maximum radio frequency power transmitted frequency band(s) in which the equipment operates.

The manufacturer must affix CE marking to the product and, depending on the route to conformity used, the Notified Body Number of the assessing Notified Body.

(Note: Previously in 1999/5/EC, under Article 12, paragraph 1, this was required when using the internal production control plus specific apparatus tests, the technical construction file or full quality assurance routes. In the RED, the Notified Body number should only be included when using the Annex IV route, conformity based on full quality assurance. See Article 20, paragraph 3.)

The manufacturer must also ensure products remain in conformity with the Directive during the period of its manufacture, and keep a record of complaints, investigating with further testing where appropriate.

Products should now also be traceable and carry a batch and/or serial number, as well as the name and contact address of the manufacturer. If the size of the product makes this unworkable, this information can be on the product’s packaging or on the accompanying documentation.

As you would expect, there is also a requirement to provide instructions for use and the Declaration of Conformity in appropriate EU languages. What is particularly interesting is that there is a provision to include a simplified Declaration of Conformity instead of the full version.

The simplified version is outlined in ANNEX VII, as follows:

“Hereby, [name of Manufacturer] declares that the radio equipment type [designation of type of radio equipment] is in compliance with the Directive 2014/53/EU. The full text of the EU declaration of conformity is available at the following internet address [insert actual email address of DoC].”

In this approach, the Declaration of Conformity must be available in full at an exact web address, so users can find it easily.

In EU member states where particular restrictions are in place for the use of that type of equipment, the manufacturer must also provide information on these restrictions in the instructions for use.

Previously under Article 6 of the R&TTE Directive, manufacturers had to notify relevant national authorities if their equipment used frequency bands not harmonized throughout the EU. This requirement has been removed in the RED.

(Note: Going forward, the European Commission could potentially allow the built-in screens of radio equipment to show the Declaration of Conformity on starting up, or for labels over the screens to carry it as an alternative to having it in the accompanying paperwork. These are options that are under consideration (see paragraph 47 of the Introduction).

The Distribution Chain

Authorized Representatives

Authorized representatives can take on many of the manufacturers’ compliance tasks on their behalf, but at the very least they should hold the CE conformity documentation for 10 years, provide the authorities with this documentation on request, and cooperate with the authorities on ‘eliminating risks’ that the products may pose.

Importers

Importers must only place compliant products on the market, and must check that the compliance work for the product has been completed. They must provide their contact details on the products alongside the manufacturers (to ensure traceability), or in the accompanying documentation if the product is too small.

Importers must also ensure that instructions and information issued with the product are in a language acceptable to the member state, and they must not jeopardize the product’s compliance in their storage or transportation of the product.

They also have an obligation to undertake investigative testing and corrective action where a product isn’t in compliance, or if it poses a risk to report it to the national authorities in all the countries in which it is available.

Finally, importers must hold documentation for 10 years and co-operate with national authorities upon request regarding risk elimination.

Distributors

Distributors must apply “due care” concerning the Directive, which basically means that they should verify that the product bears CE Marking, and is accompanied by the appropriate documentation in a language easily understood by the end users.

If a distributor believes a product is not compliant, it shall not put it on the market or, if it is already on the market, take corrective action, withdraw it or recall it. If a product poses a risk, the distributor must notify the appropriate national authority and provide them with all associated documentation upon request.

Like importers, distributors must not jeopardize product compliance during transportation or storage.

Technical Documentation Requirements (see Annex V)

The technical documentation shall cover, as far as relevant, the design, manufacture and operation of the apparatus, and include at least the following:

• A general description (including photographs or illustrations)
• Details of firmware or software affecting the compliance of the device
• User information and installation instructions
• Conceptual design and manufacturing drawings and schema
• Descriptions and explanation to understand the drawings
• A list of the harmonized standards applied in full or in part. Where those harmonized standards have not been applied, descriptions of the solutions adopted to meet the essential requirements. Where applied, parts of partly applied harmonized standards should be specified
• A copy of the EU Declaration of Conformity
• EU type examination certificate (where conformity assessment to ANNEX III has been applied)
• Results of design calculations made, examinations carried out, etc.
• Test reports and results
• An explanation of the compliance with the requirements of Article 10 (2) and of the inclusion or not of information on the packaging in accordance with Article 10 (10)

Declaration of Conformity (see ANNEX VI)

The Declaration of Conformity shall have the structure set out in Annex VI. This document shall be continuously updated as required. It must also be translated into the language or languages required by the member state in which the equipment is made available.

The new contents are as follows:

• Identification of object of the declaration, (the radio equipment type, batch and serial number). A color photograph is permissible for clarity
• Name and address of the manufacturer or his authorized representative
• The statement “This declaration is issued under the sole responsibility of the manufacturer”
• It should state: “The object of the declaration described above is in conformity with the relevant Union harmonization Legislation: Directive 2014/53/EU (include other Directives as applicable)”
• Reference to the relevant harmonized standards uses or references to other technical specifications used in the assessment (including their identification number and version)
• Details of the Notified Body name and number and a description of the assessment they undertook (and the resulting EU type examination certificate)
• Descriptions of accessories and software which allow the equipment to function as intended
• It should be signed and dated by the responsible person in the organization

Non-Conformity and Penalties

Where non-conformity becomes apparent, the authorities in most instances will give the manufacturers involved an opportunity to take corrective action and to bring the product into compliance. Where serious infringements occur, member states have the right to impose civil and criminal penalties, which are to be “effective, proportionate and dissuasive” (Article 46).

Summary

CE marking a product when it complies with all relevant Directives is not a new process, so meeting the RED requirements should be familiar ground for most companies.

“Radio equipment” is now a much bigger term, with all manner of products now covered by it, including web enabled appliances, home monitoring medical devices, navigation or tracking systems and mobile phones to name just a few. Anything that uses the radio spectrum to communicate (apart from those items specifically excluded in the Directive) falls within the scope of the legislation and must comply.

The Directive uses clearer language to explain the obligations of compliance and it breaks the responsibilities down by the parties in the supply chain. It leaves less room for misinterpretation and it is more explicit about how an organization communicates with its customers, the supply chain and the authorities.

The deadlines for compliance are approaching, but the one year grace/transitional period relating to the compliance of existing products should be a suitable window for manufacturers to ensure their existing products comply.

When you’re working to achieve compliance, remember that it is part of a suite of Directives that form the infrastructure of the CE marking regulations. Therefore, compliance work for the RED shouldn’t be undertaken in isolation. Other directives such as the Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) Directive and the EcoDesign Directive may also apply to a given product.

Successful testing to EU harmonized standards is widely used by manufacturers to provide specific evidence of conformity with EU directives. Manufacturers should use an appropriately constructed technical file as a basis of their CE marking and Declaration of Conformity activity. Getting the associated paperwork right is key, as incorrect or incomplete documentation can lead the authorities to requesting additional testing (at your expense) and then potentially to corrective actions.

The complete text of the RED is available at http://incompliancemag.com/eu-re.

Andreas Euripdou is the head of Notified Body EMC/R&TTE at Intertek in Leatherhead (Surrey) in the United Kingdom, and can be reached at andreas.euripidou@intertek.com.

Industry standards play a major role in providing meaningful metrics and common procedures that allow various manufacturers, customers, and suppliers to communicate from facility to facility around the world. Standards are increasingly important in our global economy. In manufacturing, uniform quality requirements and testing procedures are necessary to make sure that all involved parties are speaking the same language. In electrostatic discharge (ESD) device protection, standard methods have been developed for component ESD stress models to measure a component’s sensitivity to electrostatic discharge from various sources. In ESD control programs, standard test methods for product qualification and periodic evaluation of wrist straps, garments, ionizers, worksurfaces, grounding, flooring, shoes, static dissipative planar materials, shielding bags, packaging, electrical soldering/desoldering hand tools, and flooring/footwear systems have been developed to ensure uniformity around the world.

The EOS/ESD Association, Inc. (ESDA) is dedicated to advancing the theory and practice of ESD protection and avoidance. ESDA is an American National Standards Institute (ANSI) accredited standards developer. The Association’s consensus body is called the standards committee (STDCOM), which has responsibility for the overall development of documents. Volunteers from the industry participate in working groups to develop new and to update current ESDA documents.

ESDA’s standards business unit is charged with keeping pace with the industry demands for increased device and product performance and more effective control programs. The existing standards, standard test methods, standard practices, and technical reports assist in the design and monitoring of the electrostatic protected area (EPA), and also assist in the stress testing of ESD sensitive electronic components. Many of the existing documents relate to controlling electrostatic charge on personnel and stationary work areas. However, with the ever increasing emphasis on automated handling, the need to evaluate and monitor what is occurring inside of process equipment is growing daily. Since automation has become more dominant, the charged device model (CDM) has become the primary cause of ESD failures and, thus, the more urgent concern. Together, the human body model (HBM) and CDM cover the vast majority of ESD events that might occur in a typical factory.

ESDA’s document categories are:

• Standard (S): A precise statement of a set of requirements to be satisfied by a material, product, system or process that also specifies the procedures for determining whether each of the requirements is satisfied.
• Standard Test Method (STM): A definitive procedure for the identification, measurement and evaluation of one or more qualities, characteristics or properties of a material, product, system or process that yield a reproducible test result.
• Standard Practice (SP): A procedure for performing one or more operations or functions that may or may not yield a test result. Note: if a test result is obtained it may not be reproducible.
• Technical Report (TR): A collection of technical data or test results published as an informational reference on a specific material, product, system or process.

ESDA’s technology roadmap is compiled by industry experts in IC protection design and test to provide a look into future ESD design and manufacturing challenges. Earlier roadmaps had pointed out that numerous mainstream electronic parts and components would reach assembly factories with a lower level of ESD protection than could have been expected just a few years earlier. Those predictions have proven to be rather accurate. As with any roadmap, the view of the future is constantly changing and requires updating on the basis of technology trend updates, market forces, supply chain evolution, and field return data. An updated roadmap will be published in 2016 looking out to the year 2020. A key prediction from this new roadmap is that while the ESD protection level range may not change dramatically, the distribution of products within this range may change with a change in the mix of companies remaining on today’s traditional technologies while other companies continue to push for technology advancements through the need for higher performance devices.

EOS is an area that has long been overlooked by the industry, not because of any limited importance but rather because of its complex definition and multiple root causes. Indeed, it has proven difficult to find complete agreement among experts on even the fundamental definitions. Thus the language of EOS, EOS threats, and responsibility remains open for discussion. However, a working group is currently completing a TR that focuses on “best practices”, outlining ways to mitigate EOS threats in manufacturing, with an anticipated release in early 2017.

An area of concern that has been growing is the need to define upgraded control processes and tighter limits for high-reliability parts as well as devices that have ESD withstand voltages lower than those specified in the scope of ANSI/ESD S20.20. WG 19 initially was targeting process controls for aerospace only but this has been redirected to consider all high-reliability ESD process control. A document development effort has been initiated to specify “best practices” for high-reliability ESD control processes.

ESDA’s standards committee is continuing several joint document development activities with the JEDEC Solid State Technology Association. Under the memorandum of understanding agreement, the ESDA and JEDEC formed a joint working group for the standardization work in which volunteers from the ESDA and JEDEC member companies can participate. This collaboration between the two organizations has paved the way for the development of harmonized device test methods for both HBM and CDM ESD, which will ultimately reduce uncertainty about test standards among manufacturers and suppliers in the solid state industry. ANSI/ESDA/JEDEC JS-001-2014, a fourth revision of the joint HBM document, was published in September 2014. An update to ANSI/ESDA/JEDEC JS-001-2014 is currently in the works with an anticipated release in late 2016. This new release will introduce a new 50 volt classification level. A second joint working group has completed a joint charged device model (CDM) document. ANSI/ESDA/JEDEC JS-002-2014, the first revision of the joint CDM document, was approved and published in early 2015. These efforts assist manufacturers of devices by providing one test method and specification for each model. These joint documents are aligning the entire ESD community on standardized test methods. In addition, a new joint WG has been formed with a focus on aligning ANSI/ESD S20.20 and JEDEC JESD625B. While in this case not focusing on creating a single joint document, the intent will be to create technically equivalent documents for industry use.

The ESDA is also working in the area of process assessment. ESD TR17.0-01-14 was published in 2016. The TR is a compilation of recent publications by members of the WG. The TR gives the reader examples of “best practices” of process assessment methodologies and test methods. The WG is currently working on a Standard Practice on “Process Assessment Techniques”. The goal of the SP is to provide a set of methodologies, techniques, and tools that can be used by experienced users to characterize the ability of a process to safely handle ESD sensitive items with a given ESD robustness.

The ESDA standard covering the requirements for creating and managing an ESD control program is ANSI/ESD S20.20 “ESD Association Standard for the Development of an Electrostatic Discharge Control Program for – Protection of Electrical and Electronic Parts, Assemblies and Equipment (Excluding Electrically Initiated Explosive Devices)”. ANSI/ESD S20.20 is a commercial update of and replacement for MIL-STD-1686 and has been adopted by the United States Department of Defense. In addition, the 2016 update of IEC 61340-5-1 edition 1.0 “Electrostatics – Part 5-1: Protection of Electronic Devices from Electrostatic Phenomena General Requirements” is technically equivalent to ANSI/ESD S20.20.

The 2014 updates to ANSI/ESD S20.20 include changes in scope to address CDM and isolated conductors, changes to the qualification of footwear/flooring systems, process required insulators within 1 inch of ESD sensitive devices and requirements on isolated conductors. A section was added on product qualification for clarification. In table 3, there were updates to ionization and the inclusion of wrist strap ground connection requirements and the addition of soldering irons. Formatting of table 3 was updated for clarity. For more information, please go to https://www.esda.org/standards/factory/esd-control-program.

An update to ESD TR20.20 has been completed and was published in April 2016. ESD TR20.20 is a handbook providing significant detailed guidance that can be used for developing, implementing, and monitoring an electrostatic discharge control program in accordance with ANSI/ESD S20.20. Additionally, ESD TR53, Compliance Verification, was updated and published in spring 2015. ESD TR53 provides compliance verification test procedures and troubleshooting guidance for ESD protective equipment and materials. Test results may be used for the Compliance Verification Plan Requirements of ANSI/ESD S20.20 or those of the user if more restrictive. Changes to ESD TR53 reflect updates made to the compliance verification plan requirements of ANSI/ESD S20.20-2014.

To better serve the industry world-wide, the ESDA has begun the process of translating documents into other languages, including Simplified Chinese, Traditional Chinese, Korean, Thai, Polish, French, Spanish, and Japanese. ANSI/ESD S20.20-2014 is currently available in all eight languages. Other documents have also been translated or are in various stages of translation. The ESDA has formed a relationship with the China National Institute of Standardization (CNIS) for the translation and marketing of all of the ESDA documents in China. A Memorandum of Understanding has been signed between the two organizations and CNIS is currently working on translation.

In order to meet the global need in the electronics industry for technically sound ESD control programs, the ESDA has established an independent third party certification program. The program is administered by EOS/ESD Association, Inc. through country-accredited ISO9000 certification bodies that have met the requirements of this program. The facility certification program evaluates a facility’s ESD program to ensure that the basic requirements from industry standards ANSI/ESD S20.20 or IEC 61340-5-1 are being followed. More than 777 facilities have been certified worldwide since inception of the program. The factory certification bodies report strong interest in certification to ANSI/ESD S20.20, and consultants in this area report that inquiries for assistance remain at a very high level. Individual education also seems of interest once again as 95 professionals have obtained certified ESD program manager status and many more are attempting to qualify for this certification. A large percentage of the certification program requirements are based on standards and the other related documents produced by the ESD Association standards committee.

Current ESD Association Standards Committee Documents

Charged Device Model (CDM)

ANSI/ESDA/JEDEC JS-002 – ESDA/JEDEC Joint Standard for Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Charged Device Model (CDM) – Component Level
Establishes the procedure for testing, evaluating, and classifying the ESD sensitivity of components to the defined CDM.

Cleanrooms

ESD TR55.0-01-04 – Electrostatic Guidelines and Considerations for Cleanrooms and Clean Manufacturing
Identifies considerations and provides guidelines for the selection and implementation of materials and processes for electrostatic control in cleanroom and clean manufacturing environments.

Compliance Verification

ESD TR53-01-15 – Compliance Verification of ESD Protective Equipment and Materials
Describes the test methods and instrumentation that can be used to periodically verify the performance of ESD protective equipment and materials.

Electronic Design Automation (EDA)

ESD TR18.0.01-14 – ESD Electronic Design Automation Checks
Provides guidance for both the EDA industry and the ESD design community for establishing a comprehensive ESD electronic design automation (EDA) verification flow satisfying the ESD design challenges of modern ICs. 

ESD Control Program

ANSI/ESD S20.20 – Protection of Electrical and Electronic Parts, Assemblies and Equipment (Excluding Electrically Initiated Explosive Devices)
This standard provides administrative and technical requirements for establishing, implementing, and maintaining an ESD Control Program to protect electrical or electronic parts, assemblies, and equipment susceptible to damage by electrostatic discharges greater than or equal to 100 volts HBM, 200 volts CDM, and 35 volts on isolated conductors.

ESD TR20.20 – ESD Handbook (Companion to ANSI/ESD S20.20)
Produced specifically to support ANSI/ESD S20.20 ESD Control Program standard. The document focuses on providing guidance that can be used for developing, implementing, and monitoring an ESD control program in accordance with the S20.20 standard.

ESD Foundry Parameters

ESD TR22.0.01-14 – Relevant ESD Foundry Parameters for Seamless ESD Design and Verification Flow
In this report the essential requirements on ESD-related technology data will be described which need to be delivered to design customers by a foundry vendor. Design customers can be design houses, IDMs following a foundry strategy or IP vendors. The purpose is to ensure seamless design integration and ESD EDA verification of IC level ESD concepts.

Flooring

ANSI/ESD STM7.1 – Resistive Characterization of Materials – Floor Materials
Covers measurement of the electrical resistance of various floor materials, such as floor coverings, mats, and floor finishes. It provides test methods for qualifying floor materials before installation or application, and for evaluating and monitoring materials after installation or application.

ESD TR7.0-01-11 – Static Protective Floor Materials
This technical report reviews the use of floor materials to dissipate electrostatic charge.  It provides an overview on floor coverings, floor finishes, topical antistats, floor mats, paints and coatings.  It also covers a variety of other issues related to floor material selection, installation and maintenance.

Flooring and Footwear Systems

ANSI/ESD STM97.1 – Floor Materials and Footwear – Resistance Measurement in Combination with a Person
Provides test methods for measuring the electrical system resistance of floor materials in combination with person wearing static control footwear.

ANSI/ESD STM97.2 – Floor Materials and Footwear – Voltage Measurement in Combination with a Person
Provides for measuring the electrostatic voltage on a person in combination with floor materials and footwear, as a system.

Footwear

ANSI/ESD STM9.1 – Footwear – Resistive Characterization
Defines a test method for measuring the electrical resistance of shoes used for ESD control in the electronics environment (not to include heel straps and toe grounders).

ESD SP9.2 – Footwear – Foot Grounders Resistive Characterization
Provides test methods for evaluating foot grounders and foot grounder systems used to electrically bond or ground personnel as part of an ESD Control Program. Static Control Shoes are tested using ANSI/ESD STM9.1.

Garments

ANSI/ESD STM2.1 – Garments – Resistive Characterization
Provides test methods for measuring the electrical resistance of garments. It covers procedures for measuring sleeve-to-sleeve resistance and point-to-point resistance.

ESD TR2.0-01-00 – Consideration for Developing ESD Garment Specifications
Addresses concerns about effective ESD garments by starting with an understanding of electrostatic measurements and how they relate to ESD protection.

ESD TR2.0-02-00 – Static Electricity Hazards of Triboelectrically Charged Garments
Intended to provide some insight to the electrostatic hazards present when a garment is worn in a flammable or explosive environment.

Glossary

ESD ADV1.0 – Glossary of Terms
Definitions and explanations of various terms used in Association Standards and documents are covered in this advisory. It also includes other terms commonly used in the electronics industry.

Gloves and Finger Cots

ANSI/ESD SP15.1 – In-Use Resistance Testing of Gloves and Finger Cots
Provides test procedures for measuring the intrinsic electrical resistance of gloves and finger cots.

ESD TR15.0-01-99 – ESD Glove and Finger Cots
Reviews the existing known industry test methods for the qualification of ESD protective gloves and finger cots. (Formerly TR03-99)

Grounding

ANSI/ESD S6.1 – Grounding
Specifies the parameters, materials, equipment, and test procedures necessary to choose, establish, vary, and maintain an Electrostatic Discharge Control grounding system for use within an ESD Protected Area for protection of ESD susceptible items, and specifies the criteria for establishing ESD Bonding.

Handlers

ANSI/ESD SP10.1 – Automated Handling Equipment (AHE)
Provides procedures for evaluating the electrostatic environment associated with automated handling equipment.

ESD TR10.0-01-02 – Measurement and ESD Control Issues for Automated Equipment Handling of ESD Sensitive Devices below 100 Volts
Provides guidance and considerations that an equipment manufacturer should use when designing automated handling equipment for these low voltage sensitive devices. (Formerly TR14-02)

Hand Tools

ANSI/ESD S13.1 – Electrical Soldering/Desoldering Hand Tools
Provides electric soldering/desoldering hand tool test methods for measuring the electrical leakage and tip to ground reference point resistance, and provides parameters for EOS safe soldering operation.

ESD TR13.0-01-99 – EOS Safe Soldering Iron Requirements
Discusses soldering iron requirements that must be based on the sensitivity of the most susceptible devices that are to be soldered. (Formerly TR04-99)

Human Body Model (HBM)

ANSI/ESDA/JEDEC JS-001 – ESDA/JEDEC Joint Standard for Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Human Body Model (HBM) – Component Level
Establishes the procedure for testing, evaluating, and classifying the electrostatic discharge sensitivity of components to the defined human body model (HBM).

ESD JTR001-01-12 – ESD Association Technical Report User Guide of ANSI/ESDA/JEDEC JS-001 Human Body Model Testing of Integrated Circuits
Describes the technical changes made in ANSI/ESDA/JEDEC JS-001 and explains how to use those changes apply human body model tests to IC components.

Human Metal Model (HMM)

ANSI/ESD SP5.6 – Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Human Metal Model (HMM) – Component Level
Establishes the procedure for testing, evaluating, and classifying the ESD sensitivity of components to the defined HMM.

ESD TR5.6-01-09 – Human Metal Model (HMM)
Addresses the need for a standard method of applying the IEC contact discharge waveform to devices and components. 

Ionization

ANSI/ESD STM3.1 – Ionization
Test methods and procedures for evaluating and selecting air ionization equipment and systems are covered in this standard test method. The document establishes measurement techniques to determine ion balance and charge neutralization time for ionizers.

ANSI/ESD SP3.3 – Periodic Verification of Air Ionizers
Provides test methods and procedures for periodic verification of the performance of air ionization equipment and systems (ionizers).

ANSI/ESD SP3.4 – Periodic Verification of Air Ionizer Performance Using a Small Test Fixture
Provides a test fixture example and procedures for performance verification of air ionization used in confined spaces where it may not be possible to use the test fixtures defined in ANSI/ESD STM3.1 or ANSI/ESD SP3.3.

ESD TR3.0-01-02 – Alternate Techniques for Measuring Ionizer Offset Voltage and Discharge Time
Investigates measurement techniques to determine ion balance and charge neutralization time for ionizers.

ESD TR3.0-02-05 – Selection and Acceptance of Air Ionizers
Reviews and provides a guideline for creating a performance specification for the four ionizer types contained in ANSI/ESD STM3.1: room (systems), laminar flow hood, worksurface (e.g., blowers), and compressed gas (nozzles & guns).

Machine Model (MM)

ANSI/ESD STM5.2 – Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Machine Model (MM) – Component Level
Establishes the procedure for testing and evaluating the ESD sensitivity of components to the defined machine model.

ANSI/ESD SP5.2.1 – Machine Model (MM) Alternative Test Method: Supply Pin Ganging – Component Level
Defines an alternative test method to perform Machine Model component level ESD tests when the component or device pin count exceeds the number of ESD simulator tester channels.

ANSI/ESD SP5.2.2 – Machine Model (MM) Alternative Test Method: Split Signal Pin – Component Level
Defines an alternative test method to perform Machine Model component level ESD tests when the component or device pin count exceeds the number of ESD simulator tester channels.

ESD TR5.2-01-01 – Machine Model (MM) Electrostatic Discharge (ESD) Investigation – Reduction in Pulse Number and Delay Time
Provides the procedures, results, and conclusions of evaluating a proposed change from 3 pulses (present requirement) to 1 pulse while using a delay time of both 1 second (present requirement) and 0.5 second.

Ohmmeters

ESD TR50.0-02-99 – High Resistance Ohmmeters–Voltage Measurements
Discusses a number of parameters that can cause different readings from high resistance meters when improper instrumentation and techniques are used and the techniques and precautions to be used in order to ensure the measurement will be as accurate and repeatable as possible for high resistance measurement of materials.

Packaging

ANSI/ESD STM11.11 – Surface Resistance Measurement of Static Dissipative Planar Materials
Defines a direct current test method for measuring electrical resistance, replacing ASTM D257-78. This test method is designed specifically for static dissipative planar materials used in packaging of ESD sensitive devices and components.

ANSI/ESD STM11.12 – Volume Resistance Measurement of Static Dissipative Planar Materials
Provides test methods for measuring the volume resistance of static dissipative planar materials used in the packaging of ESD sensitive devices and components.

ANSI/ESD STM11.13 – Two-Point Resistance Measurement
Measures the resistance between two points on a material’s surface without consideration of the material’s means of achieving conductivity. This test method was established for measuring resistance where the concentric ring electrodes of ANSI/ESD STM11.11 cannot be used.

ANSI/ESD STM11.31 – Bags
Provides a method for testing and determining the shielding capabilities of electrostatic shielding bags.

ANSI/ESD S11.4 – Static Control Bags
Establishes performance limits for bags that are intended to protect electronic parts and products from damage due to static electricity and moisture during common electronic manufacturing industry transport and storage applications.

ANSI/ESD S541 – Packaging Materials for ESD Sensitive Items
Describes the packaging material properties needed to protect electrostatic discharge (ESD) sensitive electronic items, and references the testing methods for evaluating packaging and packaging materials for those properties. Where possible, performance limits are provided. Guidance for selecting the types of packaging with protective properties appropriate for specific applications is provided. Other considerations for protective packaging are also provided.

ESD ADV11.2 – Triboelectric Charge Accumulation Testing
Provides guidance in understanding the triboelectric phenomenon and relates current information and experience regarding tribocharge testing as used in static control for electronics.

Process Assessment

ESD TR17.0-01-15 – ESD Process Assessment Methodologies in Electronic Production Lines – Best Practices used in Industry
Gives the reader examples of “best practices” of process assessment methodologies and test methods.

Seating

ANSI/ESD STM12.1 – Seating – Resistive Measurement
Provides test methods for measuring the electrical resistance of seating used for the control of electrostatic charge or discharge. It contains test methods for the qualification of seating prior to installation or application, as well as test methods for evaluating and monitoring seating after installation or application.

Socketed Device Model (SDM)

ANSI/ESD SP5.3.2 – Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Socketed Device (SDM) – Component Level
Provides a test method for generating a Socketed Device Model (SDM) test on a component integrated circuit (IC) device.

ESD TR5.3.2-01-00 – Socket Device Model (SDM) Tester
Helps the user understand how existing SDM testers function, offers help with the interpretation of ESD data generated by SDM test systems, and defines the important properties of an “ideal” socketed-CDM test system.

Static Electricity

ESD TR50.0-01-99 – Can Static Electricity Be Measured?
Gives an overview of fundamental electrostatic concepts, electrostatic effects, and most importantly of electrostatic metrology, especially what can and what cannot be measured.

Susceptible Device Concepts

ESD TR50.0-03-03 – Voltage and Energy Susceptible Device Concepts, Including Latency Considerations
Contains information to promote an understanding of the differences between energy and voltage susceptible types of devices and their sensitivity levels.

Symbols

ANSI/ESD S8.1 – Symbols – ESD Awareness
Three types of ESD awareness symbols are established by this document. The first one is to be used on a device or assembly to indicate that it is susceptible to electrostatic charge. The second is to be used on items and materials intended to provide electrostatic protection. The third symbol indicates the common point ground.

System Level ESD

ESD TR14.0-01-00 – Calculation of Uncertainty Associated with Measurement of Electrostatic Discharge (ESD) Current
Provides guidance on measuring uncertainty based on an uncertainty budget.

ESD TR14.0-02-13 – System Level Electrostatic Discharge (ESD) Simulator Verification
Developed to provide guidance to designers, manufacturers, and calibration facilities for verification and specification of the systems and fixtures used to measure simulator discharge currents.

ANSI/ESD SP14.5 – Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Near Field Immunity Scanning – Component/Module/PCB Level
Establishes a test method for immunity scanning of ICs, modules and PCB’s. Results from scanning relate to the system level performance but cannot be used to predict system level performance using the IEC 61000-4-2 test method.

Transient Latch-up

ESD TR5.4-01-00 – Transient Induced Latch-Up (TLU)
Provides a brief background on early latch-up work, reviews the issues surrounding the power supply response requirements, and discusses the efforts on RLC TLU testing, transmission line pulse (TLP) stressing, and the bi-polar stress TLU methodology.

ESD TR5.4-02-08 – Determination of CMOS Latch-up Susceptibility – Transient Latch-up
Intended to provide background information pertaining to the development of the transient latch-up standard practice originally published in 2004 and additional data presented to the group since publication.

ESD TR5.4-03-11 – Latch-up Sensitivity Testing of CMOS/Bi CMOS Integrated Circuits – Transient Latch-up Testing – Component Level Supply Transient Stimulation
Developed to instruct the reader on the methods and materials needed to perform transient latch-up Testing.

ESD TR5.4-04-13 – Transient Latch-up Testing
Defines transient latch-up (TLU) as a state in which a low-impedance path, resulting from a transient overstress that triggers a parasitic thyristor structure or bipolar structure or combinations of both, persists at least temporarily after removal or cessation of the triggering condition. The rise time of the transient overstress causing TLU is shorter than five ns. TLU as defined in this document does not cover changes of functional states, even if those changes would result in a low-impedance path and increased power supply consumption.

Transmission Line Pulse

ANSI/ESD STM5.5.1 – Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Transmission Line Pulse (TLP) – Component Level
Pertains to Transmission Line Pulse (TLP) testing techniques of semiconductor components. The purpose of this document is to establish a methodology for both testing and reporting information associated with TLP testing.

ANSI/ESD SP5.5.2 – Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Very Fast Transmission Line Pulse (VF-TLP) – Component Level
Pertains to very fast transmission line pulse (VF-TLP) testing techniques of semiconductor components. It establishes guidelines and standard practices presently used by development, research, and reliability engineers in both universities and industry for VF-TLP testing.

ESD TR5.5-01-08 – Transmission Line Pulse (TLP)
A compilation of the information gathered during the writing of ANSI/ESD SP5.5.1 and the information gathered in support of moving the standard practice toward re-designation as a standard test method.

ESD TR5.5-02-08 – Transmission Line Pulse Round Robin
Intended to provide data on the repeatability and reproducibility limits of the methods of ANSI/ESD STM5.5.1.

ESD TR5.5-03-14 – Very-Fast Transmission Line Pulse Round Robin
Reviews the RR measurements and analysis used to support the re-designation of the VF-TLP document from SP to STM. It also discusses some of the lessons learned about VF-TLP and the performing of a RR experiment.

Workstations

ESD ADV53.1 – ESD Protective Workstations
Defines the minimum requirements for a basic ESD protective workstation used in ESD sensitive areas. It provides a test method for evaluating and monitoring workstations. It defines workstations as having the following components: support structure, static dissipative worksurface, a means of grounding personnel, and any attached shelving or drawers.

Worksurfaces

ANSI/ESD S4.1 – Worksurface – Resistance Measurements
Provides test methods for evaluating and selecting worksurface materials, testing of new worksurface installations, and the testing of previously installed worksurfaces.

ANSI/ESD STM4.2 – ESD Protective Worksurfaces – Charge Dissipation Characteristics
Aids in determining the ability of ESD protective worksurfaces to dissipate charge from a conductive test object placed on them.

ESD TR4.0-01-02 – Survey of Worksurfaces and Grounding Mechanisms
Provides guidance for understanding the attributes of worksurface materials and their grounding mechanisms.

Wrist Straps

ANSI/ESD S1.1 – Wrist Straps
Establishes test methods for evaluating the electrical and mechanical characteristics of wrist straps. It includes improved test methods and performance limits for evaluation, acceptance, and functional testing of wrist straps.

ESD TR1.0-01-01 – Survey of Constant (Continuous) Monitors for Wrist Straps
Provides guidance to ensure that wrist straps are functional and are connected to people and ground.

Founded in 1982, the EOS/ESD Association, Inc. is a professional voluntary association dedicated to advancing the theory and practice of electrostatic discharge (ESD) avoidance. From fewer than 100 members, the Association has grown to more than 2,000 throughout the world. From an initial emphasis on the effects of ESD on electronic components, the Association has broadened its horizons to include areas such as textiles, plastics, web processing, cleanrooms, and graphic arts. To meet the needs of a continually changing environment, the Association is chartered to expand ESD awareness through standards development, educational programs, local chapters, publications, tutorials, certification, and symposia.

“Today knowledge has power. It controls access to opportunity and advancement.” – Peter Drucker

In the age of “The Internet of Everything” and an increasingly networked world, our neighbors and trading partners to the south are joining in and demanding access to the same electronic products and associated services that we enjoy in the US and Canada. As the economies in Mexico and the countries of Central and South America grow and develop, so do their wages and middle class populations, becoming an ever-larger source of new customers and profits for global companies and corporations. Those wanting to enter these markets need to understand the legislation, regulations, and certification programs for each.

A good place to start is with the regulatory agencies, which will be discussed in this overview article, along with the basic compliance requirements for ITE and consumer electronics products

We will see many differences in compliance programs, as we look at Mexico, the seven countries in Central America, and the ten largest countries in South America. Some, such as Mexico and Brazil, have comprehensive regulatory compliance programs and modern telecommunications systems in place, similar to the US and Canadian systems, with regulatory requirements for EMC, product safety, wireless, and telecom, and will be covered in more depth. Others have only limited compliance requirements and outdated communications infrastructures, perhaps only concerned with frequency spectrum, and accepting proof of compliance from the regulatory engineering reports of other countries. What they all share in common are citizens that want access to the wealth of information, entertainment, and communication services that are readily available to others, so they can have the opportunity to join in, benefit from, and contribute to our ever-increasingly wired (and wireless) world.

Please note that this article should not be your sole source of information when you begin seeking product approvals. This is just a high-level overview of the national agencies and requirements; the official standards should be obtained for each country, and an experienced regulatory consultant should be utilized if in-house expertise is not available. Also remember that local customs facilitators can be a valuable source of information on the importation of products.

So let’s get started on our southbound trip, and see if we can map out the path for offering our products to our hemispheric neighbors.

Mexico

As a NAFTA trading partner, Mexico enjoys economic ties to the US and Canada, and has similar regulatory structures, although with more government involvement. While the US and Canada have worked out Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRA) for the acceptance of regulatory compliance approvals between their countries, the development of a similar agreement with Mexico is still in the beginning stages, so for now electronic product approvals must be obtained from the regulatory bodies for telecommunications and national standards.

Telecommunications Federal Institute – IFT
www.ift.org.mx/iftweb

The Instituto Federal de Telecomunicaciones (IFT) is the telecom authority of Mexico, translated in English as the Telecommunications Federal Institute. This agency was recently created, in September of 2013, to completely replace the previous telecom agency, the Federal Commission of Telecommunications (COFETEL). As with the previous COFETEL agency, IFT will be the responsible agency for all type approvals for specified telecom equipment imported into Mexico.

IFT will also take over all other agency duties, such as radio frequency spectrum management and assignments for telecommunications and broadcasting, publishing telecom regulations and updates, telecom and broadcast concession grants and transfers, and regulating any telecom or broadcasting monopolies in Mexico. “Grandfathering” does apply to products approved under the previous COFETEL system, with the same previous requirements for displaying the COFETEL homologation number on the product label.

IFT defines the mandatory approval requirements for wireless and telecom products in Mexico, including requirements for product safety. The existing NOM national regulations and approval requirements will continue to be used until IFT publishes replacements.

The typical “PEC” approval process, which is the conformity assessment evaluation process for most consumer electronic products with telecom or wireless features, starts with the receipt of required test samples, which must be tested in authorized labs in Mexico. Under the “traditional” approval process, which applies to specific types of short range wireless devices, no sample testing is needed, and FCC or CE R&TTE reports can be accepted for proof of compliance. The next step is for an authorized Notified Body, such as NYCE or ANCE, to review the test reports and issue a Certificate of Conformity. The final stage is the IFT review, which will issue a Certificate of Homologation, containing an IFT certificate number, which must be displayed on the product label. This entire process typically takes 6 to 8 weeks, but can take much longer depending on seasonal factors, such as in advance of the December holiday selling season.

A local representative is required in Mexico, to serve as an official company representative, and also to retain the original product certifications. This can be a person at a branch office from a company, or a third-party who is registered as a business in Mexico. In either case, the certificate holder must be registered with IFT.

Certificates issued under the PEC program are permanent, as long as the product does not change, but under the traditional program they are only valid for one year, and must be renewed if the product will continue to be sold in Mexico. It is recommended to start the renewal process at least 60 days before the certificate expires.

Mexican National Standards – NOM
www.economia.gob.mx/standards/national

Norma Oficial Mexicana (NOM) are the official national standards of Mexico. Each NOM is the official standard that contains the mandatory requirements and regulations for specific types of products or activities.

For electronic products, the NOM standards define and establish minimum product requirements in the areas of product safety, telecom, and EMC, depending on the specific type of device. Beyond these attributes, compulsory requirements for user manual warning statements and packaging labeling requirements are also provided.

These standards are available for free from the referenced NOM website in this article, albeit in Spanish-language. Here are some of the more common NOM standards applicable to consumer electronics:

• NOM-001-SCFI-1993, “Household electronic and similar appliances” (IEC 60065)
• NOM-008-SCFI-1993, “NOM label marking requirements”
• NOM-016-SCFI-1993, “Electronic office equipment” (IEC 60335)
• NOM-019-SCFI-1998, “Safety in Data processing equipment” (IEC 60950)
• NOM-121-SCT1-2009, “Radio communication systems operating in the bands 902-928 MHz, 2400-2483.5 MHz and 5725-5850”

Central America

Belize
www.puc.bz

In Belize there are only regulatory compliance requirements related to the frequency spectrum and telecommunications infrastructure for most consumer electronics. The Public Utilities Commission is the government agency that grants and regulates telecom and wireless approvals, and in most cases they will allow regulatory reports from other countries to be submitted as proof of compliance, such as FCC or CE R&TTE compliance reports.

There are no requirements in Belize for local testing, marking/labeling, or a local in-country representative, and the certificate remains valid as long as the product remains unchanged. Approval times can range from 4 to 12 weeks, but typically are completed in less than 6 weeks, if the agency payment is included with the documentation submittal package.

Costa Rica
www.sutel.go.cr

Costa Rica is also mainly concerned about telecommunications equipment and radio frequency spectrum usage. Superintendenci de Telecommunicaciones (SUTEL) is the body that grants and regulates telecom and wireless approvals, and they specifically allow FCC reports and grants to serve as proof of compliance in their country.

A local importer is required in Costa Rica and multiple distributors are allowed. Fully-configured product samples are required for in-country testing, and the software operating system version must be documented, as it will appear on the SUTEL approval certificate. The equipment code listed on the certificate must be printed on the product label, along with the SUTEL logo or name. One unique requirement is for notarized letters for the local representative, product label, product information, and estimated quantities of product to be sold. It is important to consult with an experienced regulatory consultant to verify the specific requirements for your product.

Once issued by SUTEL, the certificate remains valid indefinitely, unless the product design is changed. Approval times are typically 6 to 8 weeks, after the agency has received all of the required documentation and samples, including the notarized letters.

El Salvador
www.siget.gob.sv

Superintendencia General de Electricidad y Telecomunicaciones (SIGET) is the government regulating body tasked with managing the electricity generation and telecommunications infrastructure and industries in El Salvador, including radio spectrum usage and assignments for the frequencies from 3 KHz to 3000 GHz. SIGET accepts CE R&TTE reports to be submitted as proof of compliance for telecom products, allowing for importation of products into the country.

In practice, this means that SIGET certification is not required. For example, for a WLAN device operating in the 5 GHz frequency bands, if the product has a CE report showing that it meets the criteria of the R&TTE Directive, then this is accepted as proof of product compliance, allowing registration of the device for use and importation in El Salvador.

Guatemala
www.sit.gob.gt

The Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones (SIT) is the high-tech body of the Ministry of Communications, Infrastructure, and Housing. SIT manages and oversees the operation of the radio spectrum and telecommunications register, and is the enforcement agency for the General Telecommunications Law. While the General Telecommunications Law of Guatemala does not specifically require prior approval of electronic equipment that is imported into the country, the SIT approval can be requested by sending a letter of inquiry to the agency, along with the technical specifications for the product.
There are numerous exemptions for most common wireless telecom products; for example, Wi-Fi products used indoors with transmitted power output less than 500 mW can be imported without notifying SIT. However, for transmitting outdoors, especially in regulated bands such as 2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz, an inquiry should be made to SIT to obtain their ruling on the specific product. In most cases SIT will accept proof of compliance from other countries, such as CE R&TTE compliance reports.

Honduras
www.conatel.gob.hn

Comison Nacional de Telecomuncaciones (CONATEL) is the national telecommunications commission and regulatory authority of Honduras. CONATEL is a decentralized government agency that issues regulations and technical standards required for telecommunications services and adopts rules concerning the approval of telecommunications equipment and apparatus. While requirements for telecom and product safety compliance are legally required in this country, the CE R&TTE compliance report is allowed to satisfy the telecom for importation, and the CE mark is accepted as proof of product safety compliance.

Nicaragua
www.telcor.gob.ni

TELCOR is the Nicaraguan Institute and Regulatory Agency for Telecommunications and Postal Services. Tasked with managing the telecommunications sector, it seeks to encourage technology access for all of its citizens, while insuring compliance by service and equipment providers. Nicaragua does not have a comprehensive regulatory scheme in place, and will allow FCC grants and compliance reports and US Nationally Recognized Test Laboratories (NRTL) certification to serve as proof of product compliance when importing products.

Panama
www.asep.gob.pa

Autoridad Nacional de los Servicios Públicos (ASEP) is the national public services authority in Panama, responsible for water, electricity, and telecommunications infrastructure and services. Our interest lies with the telecom section of this agency, which manages and enforces the telecom equipment requirements, along with management and allocation of the radio frequency spectrum. ASEP recognizes FCC grants and reports to demonstrate compliance for telecom and wireless product certification applications, and a US NRTL certification is allowed to show product safety compliance for importation. The normal timeline for certification is 4 to 6 weeks after ASEP receives all of the required documentation

South America

Argentina
Our first country in South America has mandatory approval requirements for telecom and product safety, with two separate agencies. Argentina is a modern, Internet-savvy, country with a robust telecommunications infrastructure, and an attractive pool of consumers for electronic devices.

The National Telecommunications Commission – CNC
www.cnc.gov.ar

Comision Nacional de Telecomunicaciones (CNC) is the government telecom authority for Argentina. CNC approvals are a mandatory requirement for any device that connects to telephone lines, or that utilize radio frequency spectrum for the transmission of information. CNC publishes standards (Normativa) for each type of regulated product, which can be downloaded for free from their website at this location: www.cnc.gob.ar/infotecnica/homologaciones/normativa.asp

The applicant for CNC approvals must be the local company-authorized importer in Argentina, in order to receive the homologation certificates. The equipment must be tested according to the CNC standards at an authorized in-country test lab; they do not accept foreign test reports, except for allowing FCC or CE compliance test reports for GSM technology. Thus, product samples will be required for these approvals, and the number will depend on the type of product.

Along with the device samples, all of the typical items for a regulatory agency submittal package are required, such as technical specs, user manual, schematics, block diagrams, internal and external photos, and test setup instructions. In addition, the local importer will have to provide signed copies of authorization letters.

After a normal approval cycle of 8 weeks, the CNC certificate will be issued within an additional 4 to 6 weeks. The certificate will remain valid for three years from the date of issue, and must be renewed if the product will continue to be sold in Argentina. CNC requires that the product label contain the company trademark, model number, CNC registration number, and serial number.

The Argentina Institute of Standards and Certification – IRAM
www.iram.org.ar

Resolution 92/1998 requires all electric and electronic products to be safety certified under IRAM or the international IEC standards. The S-Mark Certification Scheme is the product safety approval to be obtained for ITE and specified consumer electronics products.

In Argentina the manufacturers or importers, depending on the type of product, can choose one of three categories of certification schemes for products sold in the Argentina Marketplace, as detailed in Resolution 197/2004. The first category is ISO 4, Type certification, where the product is marked based on compliance of IRAM or IEC standards, the certificate number is labeled on the product, and market surveillance is performed on two selected test samples per year, and there is no factory follow-up inspections. Category ISO 5, Mark certification, requires factory quality system evaluation and approval, market surveillance on a product sample once a year, factory follow-up inspections, and a full technical file submittal, including either a CB report or a product sample. And the third option, ISO 7, is Lot certification, where the product is marked based on compliance of IRAM or IEC standards, the lot number and certificate number is labeled on the product, and there is no market surveillance and no factory follow-up inspections.

Bolivia
www.att.gob.bo

Autoridad de Telecomunicaciones y Transporte (ATT) is the telecommunications and transportation authority of Bolivia, which recently mandated type approval requirements for wireless and telecom products. Local testing is not required, and FCC or CE R&TTE compliance reports are accepted as proof of compliance, along with the required application letter. An in-country local representative is not required, but an agent registered with the ATT agency must make the application. Factory inspections are not required, nor are there any labeling requirements. The initial estimates are 6 to 8 weeks for receiving approval, starting from the time the agency receives the full submittal package. Once issued, the certificate will be valid for 5 years, and can be renewed if needed.

Brazil
Brazil has mandatory approval requirements for wireless, telecom, EMC, and product safety, with the applicability depending on the specific type of device.

The National Telecommunications Agency – ANATEL
www.anatel.gov.br

Agencia Nacional de Telecomunicacoes (ANATEL) is the telecom authority in Brazil, responsible for setting the requirements for telecommunication products, including the establishment of authorized bodies for certification and testing activities for EMC, wireless/telecom, product safety, and SAR. Testing must be performed in authorized labs in Brazil, according to the standards, which are called “Resolutions.” The most common of these for consumer electronics and ITE are:

• Resolution 442: Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC)
• Resolution 506: Wireless/Telecom
• Resolution 529: Product Safety
• Resolution 533: Specific Absorption Rate (SAR)

Once the required tests are completed, and a test report generated it is reviewed by an authorized in-country Organismo de Certificacao Designado (OCD), or Designated Certification Body. If the documentation passes review, the OCD will issue a Certificate of Conformity (CoC) which is then submitted to ANATEL, on behalf of the local company representative, along with the complete technical documentation package. Please note that this means a local in-country company representative is required for ANATEL certification. After passing a review by ANATEL, they issue a Certificate of Homologation, which completes the initial approval process. All of this typically takes from 8 to 10 weeks to complete, starting with the receipt of all the required items by the authorized test lab.

While factory inspections are not required, submittal of factory ISO 9001 certificates are required for products that are connected to the telecommunications infrastructure, such as cell phones or fax machines, or when the CoC will list two or more factories. Labels with the ANATEL logo and required certification numbers and assigned bar code must be on each approved product. Depending on the specific type of product, certificates will remain valid for one year, two years, or indefinitely if the product is not changed. Any of the expiring certificates can be renewed, if the product is still sold in the Brazil market.

The National Institute of Metrology, Standardization and Industrial Quality – INMETRO
www.inmetro.gov.br

Instituto Nacional de Metrologia, Normalização e Qualidade Industrial (INMETRO) is the governmental agency that was established to develop and implement the certification system in Brazil. Tasked with maintaining the national standards, INMETRO is also the national developer of conformity assessment programs as well as the main Accreditation Body of certification bodies and laboratories.

INMETRO has mandatory certification requirements for 80 products with potential critical safety impacts, including medical products, hazardous location equipment, electrical cords, circuit breakers, and electrical switches, among others. The approval process is very similar to the ANATEL process, with a requirement to interface with a Product Certification Body (OCP) accredited by INMETRO, and the product testing must be performed by a laboratory from RBLE (Brazilian network of testing laboratories) which are also accredited by INMETRO, in accordance with the ISO/IEC 17025 quality management systems standard for test labs.

Chile
www.subtel.gob.cl

Subsecretaria de Telecomunicaciones (SUBTEL) is the telecommunications regulatory agency for Chile, mandating approval requirements for wireless and telecom devices. FCC or CE test reports are accepted as proof of compliance for most products, with the exception of hard-wired devices that connect to the telecommunications network, such as analogue telephones or fax machines, which must be tested in-country.

A local representative is not required, and factory inspections are also not required. There is not a product labeling requirement for wireless devices, however, there is for analogue telephones and printers; for those products the SUBTEL certification number must be on the label, preceded by the acronym “SUBTEL”. The normal approval cycle is 4 to 6 weeks from the time of delivery of the submittal package to the agency, and the certificate has no expiration date, with no need for renewals.

Colombia
www.crcom.gov.co

The Comision de Regulacion de Comunicaciones (CRC) is the telecom regulatory commission of Colombia, which has voluntary approvals for all telecom equipment except for products that have voice communication functions, such as mobile phones, and for specific types of satellite communication products. All other products can simply obtain a “Letter of Voluntary Approval” from the CRC, in which they state that the product is exempt from type approval requirements, and may be imported and sold in Colombia, and this letter can usually be prepared by CRC within 2 weeks.

For those products that do require type approvals, note that local testing, factory inspections, product labels, and a local company representative are all not required. FCC grants and reports, or CE R&TTE reports, can be used to obtain the type approvals for these regulated devices. The typical turnaround time for completing the mandatory type approval certification is 4 to 6 weeks, and it has no expiry date, so renewals are not required.

Ecuador
www.supertel.gob.ec

The telecom authority in Ecuador is Superintendencia de Telecomunicaciones (SUPERTEL), and there are mandatory approval requirements for wireless, telecom, and product safety. However, if the output transmit power of any radio device is below 50 mW EIRP, or for any telecom product, approval is voluntary, and voluntary approval letters can be obtained, if desired.

For any type of radio communications product which has an output transmit power higher than 50 mW EIRP, SUPERTEL certifications is mandatory, so product samples are required for in-country testing. Proof of compliance can be shown through other national approvals, such as an FCC grant and report, or EU Notified Body certificate along with the associated test reports.

There are no requirements for factory inspections, local company representative, or product labeling. Once the certificate is issued, it never expires, so there is no need for certificate renewals. The typical timeline from start to finish is 4 to 6 weeks for approval.

Paraguay
www.conatel.gov.py

Comision Nacional de Telecomunicaciones (CONATEL) is the national telecommunications commission of Paraguay, which mandates wireless and telecom approvals for products sold in this country. Local testing is not required, and FCC or CE R&TTE reports can be used as proof of compliance with CONATEL. A local company representative is required, and they must have a letter of authority that is issued directly to them by the product manufacturer. Factory inspections and product labeling are not required, but having the FCC mark or CE mark on the label will insure smoother entry of the product through the customs importation process. The entire approval process will normally take around 8 to 10 weeks, and the certificates are valid for a period of 5 years. Renewals can be submitted at any time prior to or after the expiration date, but if a certificate expires products can not be sold until the renewal certificate is issued.

Peru
www.mtc.gob.pe

Ministerio de Transportes y Comunicaciones (MTC) is the Ministry of Transportations and Communications, with mandatory compliance requirements for wireless and telecom products. No factory inspections or in-country representatives are required, nor is in-country testing required, as this agency recognizes FCC or Industry Canada (IC) grants as proof of compliance, which can be submitted with the required submittal documents detailing the company name, brand name, product name, and model number, along with internal and external product photos. The FCC or IC marking must be on the product label, depending on which agency grant was used to obtain approval with MTC. There will not be a certificate issued, as the approval information, including the MTC registration number, is posted on the MTC website. This registration number will be needed by the importer in order to clear customs. These approvals are permanent, making renewals unnecessary, and take from 2 to 4 weeks on average. One exemption to note: if the output transmit power is below 10 mW, and it operates in unlicensed bands, then approval is voluntary.

Uruguay
This country has two regulatory bodies for telecommunications approvals, one for wireless, and the other for hard-wired telecom equipment.

The Communications Regulatory Agency – URSEC
www.ursec.gub.uy

Unidad Reguladora de Servicio de Comunicaciones (URSEC) is the telecommunications regulatory agency of Uruguay, which grants approvals for wireless devices. A local company representative and factory inspections are not required by this agency. URSEC recognizes FCC and CE R&TTE reports as adequate demonstration of product compliance, meaning that no local testing is required. There is no product labeling requirement, but it is highly advised to include the FCC or CE marking on the product, depending on which report the URSEC approval is based on. Approvals typically take about 2 weeks for wireless devices.

The Uruguayan Communications Company – ANTEL
www.antel.com.uy/antel

ANTEL is the government-authorized sole telephone company in Uruguay, which serves as the telecom authority for all non-wireless telecom equipment. FCC or CE R&TTE reports can normally be utilized to prove compliance, making local testing unnecessary. Local company representatives are not needed, and factory inspections are not required for ANTEL approvals. While product labeling requirements are not mandatory, it is best to make sure the FCC or CE marking is present on the label, dependent on which agency report was used to show compliance. The ANTEL certificates are valid for five years, and renewals must be submitted prior to the expiration date on the current certificate. The approval timeline is typically around 4 weeks.

Venezuela
www.conatel.gob.ve

Comision Nacional de Telecomunicaciones (CONATEL) is the national telecommunications commission of Venezuela, dictating the mandatory certification requirements for wireless and telecom products. FCC or CE R&TTE reports are accepted as proof of compliance, eliminating the need for local in-country testing. Local company representatives are not required, and neither are factory inspections. CONATEL does not have their own logo labeling requirement, but they do require the FCC or CE mark to appear on the product label, depending on which agency report was used as proof of compliance.

One item to note is that CONATEL will issue a stamped receipt upon receipt of the application package, which the manufacturer can use to start the importation of the product into Venezuela, while it is still in the agency review process at CONATEL. The agency does not provide certificates, instead the approved products are listed on the CONATEL website. The entire approval process normally takes from 4 to 6 weeks to complete, and once the approval is issued it is permanent, so there is no need for renewals.

We have now followed our path, all the way from Mexico down to the southern tip of South America, but we have not yet completed our journey, for the regulatory compliance landscape is constantly changing, especially in dynamic and growing countries such as these. While we have identified the current regulatory agencies and examined their certification and approval programs, giving us a foundation and review of the requirements in place today, we must stay connected to our own communications networks in the regulatory field, so we can continue to learn and adapt in order to help our companies grow and prosper.

Engineering and regulatory compliance affinity groups are an invaluable resource in staying current on the latest changes to the regulatory compliance standards and processes. The local chapters of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), such as the IEEE EMC Society and the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society, provide presentations and opportunities for networking with regulatory compliance engineers on the shifting certification requirements. In addition, social media site Linked In has a wealth of different regulatory compliance related groups that can be joined at no cost, such as the “International Approvals/Certifications” group, where the latest news on country-specific regulatory criteria is shared with other group members.

Mark Maynard is a Director at SIEMIC, a global compliance testing and certification services firm with strategic locations worldwide. He is also an IEEE Senior Member, iNARTE Certified Product Safety Engineer, and a certified Project Management Professional (PMP). Mark holds two degrees from Texas State University, a BS in Mathematics, and a BAAS in Marketing and Business. Prior to SIEMIC, he worked for over 20 years at Dell, in international regulatory compliance and product certifications, with various compliance engineering positions including wireless, telecom, EMC, product safety, and environmental design. He can be reached at mark.maynard@siemic.com.

While product safety and reliability are core principles of virtually every manufacturer designing equipment for the telecom industry, the Telcordia Generic Requirements (GRs) that ensure the integrity of such devices and systems are not commonly understood by manufacturers around the globe.

As an increasing amount of equipment used in telecommunications networks is being produced in different parts of the world, recognizing and adhering to these standards and requirements is essential to competing in this ever-expanding market.

Among these requirements is the NEBS family of requirements, which stands for Network Equipment Building System. Unlike more traditional product safety standards, compliance to the NEBS family of standards ensures the personal safety of equipment operators and service technicians and the protection of facilities housing equipment, all while ensuring the integrity of an overall telecommunications network. This family of requirements is what members of the Telecommunication Carrier Group (TCG), such as Verizon and AT&T, and smaller local service providers use to evaluate telecommunications equipment to ensure network integrity and protect against hazards associated with the location of equipment.

It is this all-encompassing focus on safety, reliability and performance of network equipment and its impact on the environment of telecom facilities that distinguishes NEBS requirements from other telecommunications standards. NEBS requirements are designed to:

• Protect personnel
• Streamline equipment design and installation
• Prevent service outages and interference in a network caused by incompatible equipment
• Reduce the risks of fire in network facilities
• Guard against the potential negative impacts on equipment from extreme temperatures, vibration and airborne contamination
• Support equipment compatibility with the network’s electrical environment.

Like other industry requirements, meeting NEBS requirements can positively impact a manufacturer’s bottom line. NEBS requirements consist of three levels of compliance, each ensuring a different stage of network protection. Understanding in advance the required level of compliance for a particular product can help a manufacturer minimize product development, installation and maintenance costs. Increasingly, telecommunications equipment manufacturers around the world are requiring their component suppliers to demonstrate compliance with NEBS and including this stipulation in requests for proposal (RFPs) and supplier contracts. In fact, requirements are beginning to apply to both wire line installations as well as wireless applications.

Understanding Levels of Compliance

As most TCG members require demonstration of NEBS compliance prior to the purchase and/or deployment on their telecommunication network infrastructure, equipment manufacturers document compliance to NEBS requirements by having testing performed by an ISO 17025 accredited third-party test laboratory. In certain circumstances, NEBS-related testing can be performed in-house, assuming an internal laboratory is properly accredited to ISO 17025. However, some TCG members require all testing to be performed or witnessed by an accredited independent test laboratory (ITL).

NEBS requirements apply to telecommunications equipment installed in a Central Office (CO) environment, certain Outside Plant applications (OSP), and Customer Premises Equipment (CPE). There are generally two primary GRs that apply to most equipment designated for use in a CO: GR-1089-CORE (Issue 6), which covers electromagnetic compatibility, electrical transients and electrical safety; and GR-63-CORE (Issue 4), which covers physical requirements. GR-1089-CORE and GR-63-CORE together are commonly referred to as the “NEBS Criteria.” It’s important to understand that individual TCGs may have additional requirements beyond those found in GR-1089-CORE and GR-63-CORE.

Helping to speed and simplify the compliance process without jeopardizing network reliability in the deployment of new equipment, the Telcordia special report SR-3580, NEBS Criteria Levels, divides NEBS requirements into three levels of compliance.

• Level 1 is the minimum acceptable level of NEBS environmental compatibility needed to preclude hazards and degradation of a network facility and hazards to personnel. Level 1 comprises only safety and risk criteria. Conformance to Level 1 does not assure equipment operability or service continuity. Level 1 is typically used by service providers for early deployment into their COs and/or interoperability laboratories, and to allow collocaters to install equipment in a central office. A collocater is a company that rents space in a central office and provides some type of communications service (such as Internet access or long distance).
• Level 2 is the minimum level of NEBS environmental compatibility needed to provide some limited assurance of equipment operability within the network facility environment. This assurance of operability is limited to the controlled or normal environments as defined by the criteria. Rarely a focus of customers, Level 2 includes all requirements of Level 1 with some added level of operability reliability.
• Level 3 is the minimum level of NEBS environmental compatibility needed to provide maximum assurance of equipment operability within the network facility environment. The Level 3 criteria provide the highest assurance of product operability. Level 3 criteria are suited for equipment applications that demand minimal service interruptions over the equipment’s life. Most TCGs require NEBS Level 3 prior to acceptance/installation on the network as they require this level of compliance for equipment operation in the central office, but not collocated equipment.

While SR-3580 identifies the tests required by the three levels, most equipment manufacturers submit their equipment to be evaluated to NEBS Level 3. Even in pursuing the highest assurance of product operability that Level 3 provides, manufacturers should know where their product is going to be deployed on a network: in a CO operated by telecom carriers, outside plant environment or customer premises. The setting of product deployment determines the tests that need to be performed to meet NEBS requirements. For example, specific environmental testing, in accordance with GR-63-CORE, simulates exposure to extreme environments that include high/low temperatures, high humidity, shock and exposure, fire ignition and flame spread, seismic conditions and airborne contaminates. By understanding the testing process, and the additional tests that may be required by specific carriers, manufacturers are better able to work most effectively and efficiently with third-party testing laboratories.

Exploring Qualified NEBS Testing Laboratories

Choosing the right NEBS testing laboratory to work with involves considering a host of issues, from laboratory capabilities and accreditations to staff expertise. Equipment manufacturers might also examine whether a provider is able to outline start dates and availability for project planning well before testing actually begins.

In assessing provider capabilities, manufacturers should:

• be aware that product size and weight limitations might preclude some laboratories from completing certain test profiles.
• make sure the NEBS test facility is ISO 17025 accredited and qualified under any carrier specific laboratory accreditation programs, such as the Verizon ITL program.
• inquire about the training and expertise of testing staff and ensure engineers are actively engaged in industry technical committees, regularly attend industry symposia and are current with any applicable professional certifications.

It’s important to note that a comprehensive, full service laboratory will support NEBS testing with the following:

• Full EMC test facility capable of conducting both immunity and emissions testing
• Environmental chambers to conduct temperature and altitude testing
• Vibration and seismic test facilities
• Full-scale fire facility
• Facilities to support acoustic power measurements
• Various test facilities to support lightning surge and power fault simulations, DC power measurements
• Conditioning chambers to support mixed flowing gas testing and test apparatus to support hygroscopic dust exposure

These laboratories should document and deliver a test report that outlines an overall test strategy and contains individual test methods and results. The test laboratory should also include separate videos of the large-scale fire tests and seismic tests.

In addition to the Telcordia Generic Requirements, a testing laboratory should be familiar with the related American National Standards developed by the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS). These standards, such as ATIS-0600319, Equipment Assemblies – Fire Propagation Risk Assessment, or the ATIS-0600015 series of energy efficiency testing standards are often referenced in the Telcordia GRs or, in some cases, are specifically required by the service provider community.

A full service laboratory should also be able to support testing to international standards for manufacturers that seek compliance for the global marketplace. Examples of these standards include the ETSI 300 019 and 300 386 series of standards dealing with the physical and EMC environments, respectively. No matter the current or future setting of laboratory testing, telecom equipment manufacturers should ensure that their equipment undergoes proper NEBS and customer specific required testing. Viewing this commitment as an important part of product investment, manufacturers should seek out an ITL with the technological tools and expertise to carry out the testing process, including test methods that address any modifications to requirements.

In understanding and achieving NEBS compliance, a manufacturer gains standing as a company whose equipment enhances rather than jeopardizes network integrity and protects the safety of the personnel who operate it. The return on this product investment not only includes reduced design and related costs over the long term, but the advantage of being positioned to make great strides in an evolving worldwide marketplace that presents exciting, new opportunities every day.

UL is a premier global safety science company with more than 100 years of proven history. A pioneer in NEBS testing since 1992, UL operates three full service EMC facilities located throughout North America. Each has a variety of NEBS capabilities and is staffed with highly trained, experienced, and NARTE certified engineers.

© UL LLC 2013. Reprinted with permission.

Matt Marotto
is currently the North American Wireless & EMC Quality Manager for UL. In 2008, Marotto served as Global NEBS Program Development Manager and was responsible for developing and implementing UL’s NEBS Fastrack Program, which enables international Telecom manufacturers to perform NEBS and telecom related testing in their own laboratories under the witness of UL staff. Prior to that, Marotto was Operations Manager for UL’s EMC and NEBS testing laboratories in Research Triangle Park, N.C. Matt received his bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering from the University of Alabama and is an iNARTE certified product safety engineer.

Randy Ivans
is UL’s Principal Engineer in the high tech and telecommunications area. He is responsible for the development, implementation and maintenance of various UL Standards and certification programs including UL’s NEBS Mark program. Randy is a member of the National Electrical Code, NFPA 70, Code Making Panel No. 16 that is responsible for Chapter 8 covering communications systems. He is chairman of the TIA TR41.7 Committee on Environmental and Safety Issues and is a member of the ATIS Sustainability in Telecom: Energy and Protection Committee (STEP) in which he chairs the NPP subcommittee on physical protection. Randy received his bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering and his master of science in technology management from Polytechnic University and is an iNARTE certified product safety engineer.

Industry standards play a major role in providing meaningful metrics and common procedures that allow various manufacturers, customers, and suppliers to communicate from facility to facility around the world. Standards are increasingly important in our global economy.

In manufacturing, uniform quality requirements and testing procedures are necessary to make sure that all involved parties are speaking the same language. In ESD device protection, standard methods have been developed for component ESD stress models to measure a component’s sensitivity to electrostatic discharge from various sources. In ESD control programs, standard test methods for product qualification and periodic evaluation of wrist straps, garments, ionizers, worksurfaces, grounding, flooring, shoes, static dissipative planar materials, shielding bags, packaging, electrical soldering/desoldering hand tools, and flooring/footwear systems have been developed to ensure uniformity around the world.

The EOS/ESD Association, Inc. (ESDA) is dedicated to advancing the theory and practice of electrostatic discharge (ESD) protection and avoidance. The ESDA is an American National Standards Institute (ANSI) accredited standards developer. The Association’s consensus body is called the Standards Committee (STDCOM) which has responsibility for the overall development of documents. Volunteers from the industry participate in working groups to develop new and to update current ESDA documents.

STDCOM is charged with keeping pace with the industry demands for increased performance. The existing standards, standard test methods, standard practices, and technical reports assist in the design and monitoring of the electrostatic protected area (EPA), and also assist in the stress testing of ESD sensitive electronic components. Many of the existing documents relate to controlling electrostatic charge on personnel and stationary work areas. However, with the ever increasing emphasis on automated handling, the need to evaluate and monitor what is occurring inside of process equipment is growing daily. Since automation has become more dominant, the charged device model (CDM) has become the primary cause of ESD failures and thus the more urgent concern. Together, the human body model (HBM) and charged device model cover the vast majority of ESD events that might occur in a typical factory.

The ESD Association document categories are:

• Standard (S): A precise statement of a set of requirements to be satisfied by a material, product, system or process that also specifies the procedures for determining whether each of the requirements is satisfied.
• Standard Test Method (STM): A definitive procedure for the identification, measurement and evaluation of one or more qualities, characteristics or properties of a material, product, system or process that yield a reproducible test result.
• Standard Practice (SP): A procedure for performing one or more operations or functions that may or may not yield a test result. Note: if a test result is obtained it may not be reproducible.
• Technical Report (TR): A collection of technical data or test results published as an informational reference on a specific material, product, system or process.

The ESDA Technology Roadmap is compiled by industry experts in IC protection design and test to provide a look into future ESD design and manufacturing challenges. The roadmap previously pointed out that numerous mainstream electronic parts and components would reach assembly factories with a lower level of ESD protection than could have been expected just a few years earlier. This prediction has proven to be rather accurate. As with any roadmap, the view of the future is constantly changing and requires updating on the basis of technology trend updates, market forces, supply chain evolution, and field return data. An updated roadmap has been published in March 2013 and industry experts extended the horizon beyond the 2013 predictions. It contains, for the first time, a roadmap for the evolution of ESD stress testing. This includes forward looking views of possible changes in the standard device level tests (HBM and CDM), as well as the expected progress in other important areas, such as transmission line pulsing (TLP), transient latch-up (TLU), cable discharge events (CDE), and charged board events (CBE). A view of work on electrical overstress (EOS) has also been included. EOS is an area that has long been overlooked by the industry, not because it was not important but because it could be a difficult threat to define and mitigate. Recently, a working group has been focusing on this area and will soon be publishing a Technical Report (TR) that helps establish some fundamental definitions and distinctions between various EOS threats. The TR will be followed up with a “best practices” document outlining ways to mitigate EOS threats. Another development has been a request by the aerospace industry for an ESD control document that defines more definitively what ESD controls need to be in place in factories that are in the aerospace industry. This document will be predicated on ANSI/ESD S20.20 but will introduce further limits and controls.

The ESDA Standards Committee is continuing several joint document development activities with the JEDEC Solid State Technology Association. Under the Memorandum of Understanding agreement, the ESDA and JEDEC formed a joint task force for the standardization work in which volunteers from the ESDA and JEDEC member companies can participate. This collaboration between the two organizations has paved the way for the development of harmonized test methods for ESD, which will ultimately reduce uncertainty about test standards among manufacturers and suppliers in the solid state industry. At the time of this publication, ANSI/ESDA/JEDEC JS-001-2012, a third revision of the joint HBM document, has been released for distribution. This document replaces ANSI/ESDA/JEDEC JS-001-2011, the current industry test methods and specifications for human body model device testing. A second joint committee is currently working on a joint charged device model (CDM) document with a goal of publishing in 2014. These efforts will assist manufacturers of devices by providing one test method and specification instead of multiple, almost – but not quite – identical, versions of device testing methods.

The ESDA is also working on a process assessment document. The purpose of this document is to describe a set of methodologies, techniques, and tools that can be used to characterize a process where ESD sensitive items are handled. The goal is to characterize the ability of a process to safely handle ESD sensitive devices that have been characterized by the relevant device testing models. The document will apply to activities that manufacture, process, assemble, install, package, label, service, test, inspect, transport, or otherwise handle electrical or electronic parts, assemblies, and equipment susceptible to damage by electrostatic discharges. At the present time, this document will not apply to electrically-initiated explosive devices, flammable liquids, or powders.

The ESDA standard covering the requirements for creating and managing an ESD control program is ANSI/ESD S20.20 “ESD Association Standard for the Development of an Electrostatic Discharge Control Program for – Protection of Electrical and Electronic Parts, Assemblies and Equipment (Excluding Electrically Initiated Explosive Devices)”. ANSI/ESD S20.20 is a commercial update of and replacement for MIL-STD-1686 and has been adopted by the United States Department of Defense. In addition, the 2007-2008 update of IEC 61340-5-1 edition 1.0 “Electrostatics – Part 5-1: Protection of Electronic Devices from Electrostatic Phenomena General Requirements” is technically equivalent to ANSI/ESD S20.20. A five-year review of ANSI/ESD S20.20 has begun and technical changes are being made to the document based on industry changes and user requests. There are unique constraints with the revision that must be taken into account, including facility certification and continued harmonization with other standards – IEC 61340-5-1 and newly revised JEDEC 625B. A target date of September 2013 has been given for the release of a draft document.

In order to meet the global need in the electronics industry for technically sound ESD Control Programs, the ESDA has established an independent third party certification program. The program is administered by EOS/ESD Association, Inc. through country-accredited ISO9000 certification bodies that have met the requirements of this program. The facility certification program evaluates a facility’s ESD program to ensure that the basic requirements from industry standards ANSI/ESD S20.20 or IEC 61340-5-1 are being followed. More than 519 facilities have been certified worldwide since inception of the program. The factory certification bodies report strong interest in certification to ANSI/ESD S20.20, and consultants in this area report that inquiries for assistance remain at a very high level. Individual education also seems of interest once again as 46 professionals have obtained Certified ESD Program Manager status and many more are attempting to qualify as Certified ESD Control Program Managers. A large percentage of the certification program requirements are based on Standards and the other related documents produced by the ESD Association Standards Committee.

Current ESD Association Standards Committee Documents

Charged Device Model (CDM)

ANSI/ESD S5.3.1-2009 Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Charged Device Model (CDM) – Component Level
Establishes the procedure for testing, evaluating, and classifying the ESD sensitivity of components to the defined CDM.

Cleanrooms

ESD TR55.0-01-04 Electrostatic Guidelines and Considerations for Cleanrooms and Clean Manufacturing
Identifies considerations and provides guidelines for the selection and implementation of materials and processes for electrostatic control in cleanroom and clean manufacturing environments. (Formerly TR11-04)

Compliance Verification

ESD TR53-01-06 Compliance Verification of ESD Protective Equipment and Materials
Describes the test methods and instrumentation that can be used to periodically verify the performance of ESD protective equipment and materials.

Electronic Design Automation (EDA)

ESD TR18.0.01-11 – ESD Electronic Design Automation Checks
Provides guidance for both the EDA industry and the ESD design community for establishing a comprehensive ESD electronic design automation (EDA) verification flow satisfying the ESD design challenges of modern ICs.

ESD Control Program

ANSI/ESD S20.20-2007 Protection of Electrical and Electronic Parts, Assemblies and Equipment (Excluding Electrically Initiated Explosive Devices)
Provides administrative and technical requirements for establishing, implementing, and maintaining an ESD Control Program to protect electrical or electronic parts, assemblies, and equipment susceptible to ESD damage from Human Body Model (HBM) discharges greater than or equal to 100 volts.

ESD TR 20.20-2008—ESD Handbook (Companion to ANSI/ESD S20.20)
Produced specifically to support ANSI/ESD S20.20 ESD Control Program standard, this 132-page document is a major rewrite of the previous handbook. It focuses on providing guidance that can be used for developing, implementing, and monitoring an ESD control program in accordance with the S20.20 standard.

Flooring

ANSI/ESD STM7.1-2012 Resistive Characterization of Materials – Floor Materials
Covers measurement of the electrical resistance of various floor materials, such as floor coverings, mats, and floor finishes. It provides test methods for qualifying floor materials before installation or application, and for evaluating and monitoring materials after installation or application.

ESD TR7.0-01-11 Static Protective Floor Materials
This technical report reviews the use of floor materials to dissipate electrostatic charge. It provides an overview on floor coverings, floor finishes, topical antistats, floor mats, paints and coatings. It also covers a variety of other issues related to floor material selection, installation and maintenance.

Flooring and Footwear Systems

ANSI/ESD STM97.1-2006 Floor Materials and Footwear – Resistance Measurement in Combination with a Person
Provides test methods for measuring the electrical system resistance of floor materials in combination with person wearing static control footwear.

ANSI/ESD STM97.2-2006 Floor Materials and Footwear – Voltage Measurement in Combination with a Person
Provides for measuring the electrostatic voltage on a person in combination with floor materials and footwear, as a system.

Footwear

ANSI/ESD STM9.1-2006 Footwear – Resistive Characterization
Defines a test method for measuring the electrical resistance of shoes used for ESD control in the electronics environment (not to include heel straps and toe grounders).

ESD SP9.2-2003 Footwear – Foot Grounders Resistive Characterization
Provides test methods for evaluating foot grounders and foot grounder systems used to electrically bond or ground personnel as part of an ESD Control Program. Static Control Shoes are tested using ANSI/ESD STM9.1.

Garments

ESD DSTM2.1-2013 Garments – Resistive Characterization
Provides test methods for measuring the electrical resistance of garments. It covers procedures for measuring sleeve-to-sleeve resistance and point-to-point resistance.

This is a draft document.

ESD TR2.0-01-00 Consideration for Developing ESD Garment Specifications
Addresses concerns about effective ESD garments by starting with an understanding of electrostatic measurements and how they relate to ESD protection. (Formerly TR05-00)

ESD TR2.0-02-00 Static Electricity Hazards of Triboelectrically Charged Garments
Intended to provide some insight to the electrostatic hazards present when a garment is worn in a flammable or explosive environment. (Formerly TR06-00)

Glossary

ESD ADV1.0-2012 Glossary of Terms
Definitions and explanations of various terms used in Association Standards and documents are covered in this Advisory. It also includes other terms commonly used in the electronics industry.

Gloves and Finger Cots

ANSI/ESD SP15.1-2011 In-Use Resistance Testing of Gloves and Finger Cots
Provides test procedures for measuring the intrinsic electrical resistance of gloves and finger cots.

ESD TR15.0-01-99 ESD Glove and Finger Cots
Reviews the existing known industry test methods for the qualification of ESD protective gloves and finger cots. (Formerly TR03-99)

Grounding

ANSI/ESD S6.1-2009 Grounding
Specifies the parameters, materials, equipment, and test procedures necessary to choose, establish, vary, and maintain an Electrostatic Discharge Control grounding system for use within an ESD Protected Area for protection of ESD susceptible items, and specifies the criteria for establishing ESD Bonding.

Handlers

ANSI/ESD SP10.1-2007 Automated Handling Equipment (AHE)
Provides procedures for evaluating the electrostatic environment associated with automated handling equipment.

ESD TR10.0-01-02 Measurement and ESD Control Issues for Automated Equipment Handling of ESD Sensitive Devices below 100 Volts
Provides guidance and considerations that an equipment manufacturer should use when designing automated handling equipment for these low voltage sensitive devices. (Formerly TR14-02)

Hand Tools

ESD STM13.1-2000 Electrical Soldering/Desoldering Hand Tools
Provides electric soldering/desoldering hand tool test methods for measuring the electrical leakage and tip to ground reference point resistance, and provides parameters for EOS safe soldering operation.

ESD TR13.0-01-99 EOS Safe Soldering Iron Requirements
Discusses soldering iron requirements that must be based on the sensitivity of the most susceptible devices that are to be soldered. (Formerly TR04-99)

Human Body Model (HBM)

ANSI/ESDA/JEDEC JS-001-2012 ESDA/JEDEC Joint Standard for Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Human Body Model (HBM) – Component Level
Establishes the procedure for testing, evaluating, and classifying the electrostatic discharge sensitivity of components to the defined human body model (HBM).

ESD JTR001-01-12, ESD Association Technical Report User Guide of ANSI/ESDA/JEDEC JS-001 Human Body Model Testing of Integrated Circuits
Describes the technical changes made in ANSI/ESDA/JEDEC JS-001-2011 contained in the new 2012 version) and explains how to use those changes to apply HBM (Human Body Model) tests to IC components.

Human Metal Model (HMM)

ANSI/ESD SP5.6-2009 Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Human Metal Model (HMM) – Component Level
Establishes the procedure for testing, evaluating, and classifying the ESD sensitivity of components to the defined HMM.

ESD TR5.6-01-09 Human Metal Model (HMM)
Addresses the need for a standard method of applying the IEC contact discharge waveform to devices and components.

Ionization

ANSI/ESD STM3.1-2006 Ionization
Test methods and procedures for evaluating and selecting air ionization equipment and systems are covered in this standard test method. The document establishes measurement techniques to determine ion balance and charge neutralization time for ionizers.

ANSI/ESD SP3.3-2012 Periodic Verification of Air Ionizers
Provides test methods and procedures for periodic verification of the performance of air ionization equipment and systems (ionizers).

ANSI/ESD SP3.4-2012 Periodic Verification of Air Ionizer Performance Using a Small Test Fixture
Provides a test fixture example and procedures for performance verification of air ionization used in confined spaces where it may not be possible to use the test fixtures defined in ANSI/ESD STM3.1 or ANSI/ESD SP3.3.

ESD TR3.0-01-02 Alternate Techniques for Measuring Ionizer Offset Voltage and Discharge Time
Investigates measurement techniques to determine ion balance and charge neutralization time for ionizers. (Formerly TR13-02)

ESD TR3.0-02-05 Selection and Acceptance of Air Ionizers
Reviews and provides a guideline for creating a performance specification for the four ionizer types contained in ANSI/ESD STM3.1: room (systems), laminar flow hood, worksurface (e.g., blowers), and compressed gas (nozzles & guns). (Formerly ADV3.2-1995)

Machine Model (MM)

ANSI/ESD STM5.2-2012 Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Machine Model (MM) – Component Level
Establishes the procedure for testing, evaluating, and classifying the ESD sensitivity of components to the defined MM.

ANSI/ESD SP5.2.1-2012 Human Body Model (HBM) and Machine Model (MM) Alternative Test Method: Supply Pin Ganging – Component Level
Defines an alternative test method to perform Human Body Model or Machine Model component level ESD tests when the component or device pin count exceeds the number of ESD simulator tester channels. (Formerly ANSI/ESD SP5.1.1-2006)

ANSI/ESD SP5.2.2-2012 Human Body Model (HBM) and Machine Model (MM) Alternative Test Method: Split Signal Pin – Component Level
Defines an alternative test method to perform Human Body Model or Machine Model component level ESD tests when the component or device pin count exceeds the number of ESD simulator tester channels. (Formerly ANSI/ESD SP5.1.2-2006)

ESD TR5.2-01-01 Machine Model (MM) Electrostatic Discharge (ESD) Investigation – Reduction in Pulse Number and Delay Time
Provides the procedures, results, and conclusions of evaluating a proposed change from 3 pulses (present requirement) to 1 pulse while using a delay time of both 1 second (present requirement) and 0.5 second. (Formerly TR10-01)

Ohmmeters

ESD TR50.0-02-99 High Resistance Ohmmeters–Voltage Measurements
Discusses a number of parameters that can cause different readings from high resistance meters when improper instrumentation and techniques are used and the techniques and precautions to be used in order to ensure the measurement will be as accurate and repeatable as possible for high resistance measurement of materials. (Formerly TR02-99)

Packaging

ANSI/ESD STM11.11-2006 Surface Resistance Measurement of Static Dissipative Planar Materials
Defines a direct current test method for measuring electrical resistance, replacing ASTM D257-78. This test method is designed specifically for static dissipative planar materials used in packaging of ESD sensitive devices and components.

ANSI/ESD STM11.12-2007 Volume Resistance Measurement of Static Dissipative Planar Materials
Provides test methods for measuring the volume resistance of static dissipative planar materials used in the packaging of ESD sensitive devices and components.

ANSI/ESD STM11.13-2004 Two-Point Resistance Measurement
Measures the resistance between two points on a material’s surface without consideration of the material’s means of achieving conductivity. This test method was established for measuring resistance where the concentric ring electrodes of ANSI/ESD STM11.11 cannot be used.

ANSI/ESD STM11.31-2012 Bags
Provides a method for testing and determining the shielding capabilities of electrostatic shielding bags.

ANSI/ESD S11.4-2012 Performance Limits for Bags
Establishes performance limits for bags that are intended to protect electronic parts and products from damage due to static electricity and moisture during common electronic manufacturing industry transport and storage applications.

This is a draft document.

ANSI/ESD S541-2008 Packaging Materials for ESD Sensitive Items
Describes the packaging material properties needed to protect electrostatic discharge (ESD) sensitive electronic items, and references the testing methods for evaluating packaging and packaging materials for those properties. Where possible, performance limits are provided. Guidance for selecting the types of packaging with protective properties appropriate for specific applications is provided. Other considerations for protective packaging are also provided.

ESD ADV11.2-1995 Triboelectric Charge Accumulation Testing
Provides guidance in understanding the triboelectric phenomenon and relates current information and experience regarding tribocharge testing as used in static control for electronics.

Seating

ESD DSTM12.1-2013 Seating – Resistive Measurement
Provides test methods for measuring the electrical resistance of seating used for the control of electrostatic charge or discharge. It contains test methods for the qualification of seating prior to installation or application, as well as test methods for evaluating and monitoring seating after installation or application.

This is a draft document.

Socketed Device Model (SDM)

ANSI/ESD SP5.3.2-2008 Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Socketed Device (SDM) – Component Level
Provides a test method for generating a Socketed Device Model (SDM) test on a component integrated circuit (IC) device.

ESD TR5.3.2-01-00 Socket Device Model (SDM) Tester
Helps the user understand how existing SDM testers function, offers help with the interpretation of ESD data generated by SDM test systems, and defines the important properties of an “ideal” socketed-CDM test system. (Formerly TR08-00)

Static Electricity

ESD TR50.0-01-99 Can Static Electricity Be Measured?
Gives an overview of fundamental electrostatic concepts, electrostatic effects, and most importantly of electrostatic metrology, especially what can and what cannot be measured. (Formerly TR01-99)

Susceptible Device Concepts

ESD TR50.0-03-03 Voltage and Energy Susceptible Device Concepts, Including Latency Considerations
Contains information to promote an understanding of the differences between energy and voltage susceptible types of devices and their sensitivity levels. (Formerly TR16-03)

Symbols

ANSI/ESD S8.1-2012 Symbols – ESD Awareness
Three types of ESD awareness symbols are established by this document. The first one is to be used on a device or assembly to indicate that it is susceptible to electrostatic charge. The second is to be used on items and materials intended to provide electrostatic protection. The third symbol indicates the common point ground.

System Level ESD

ESD TR14.0-01-00 Calculation of Uncertainty Associated with Measurement of Electrostatic Discharge (ESD) Current
Provides guidance on measuring uncertainty based on an uncertainty budget. (Formerly TR07-00)

ESD TR14.0-02-13 System Level Electrostatic Discharge (ESD) Simulator Verification
Developed to provide guidance to designers, manufacturers, and calibration facilities for verification and specification of the systems and fixtures used to measure simulator discharge currents. (Formerly ANSI/ESD SP14.1)

Transient Latch-up

ESD TR5.4-01-00 Transient Induced Latch-Up (TLU)
Provides a brief background on early latch-up work, reviews the issues surrounding the power supply response requirements, and discusses the efforts on RLC TLU testing, transmission line pulse (TLP) stressing, and the new bi-polar stress TLU methodology. (Formerly TR09-00)

ESD TR5.4-02-08 Determination of CMOS Latch-up Susceptibility – Transient Latch-up – Technical Report No. 2
Intended to provide background information pertaining to the development of the transient latch-up standard practice originally published in 2004 and additional data presented to the group since publication.

ESD TR5.4-03-11 Latch-up Sensitivity Testing of CMOS/Bi CMOS Integrated Circuits – Transient Latch-up Testing – Component Level Supply Transient Stimulation
Developed to instruct the reader on the methods and materials needed to perform Transient Latch-Up Testing.

Transmission Line Pulse

ANSI/ESD STM5.5.1-2008 Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Transmission Line Pulse (TLP) – Component Level
Pertains to Transmission Line Pulse (TLP) testing techniques of semiconductor components. The purpose of this document is to establish a methodology for both testing and reporting information associated with TLP testing.

ANSI/ESD SP5.5.2-2007, Electrostatic Discharge Sensitivity Testing – Very Fast Transmission Line Pulse (VF-TLP) – Component Level
Pertains to Very Fast Transmission Line Pulse (VF-TLP) testing techniques of semiconductor components. It establishes guidelines and standard practices presently used by development, research, and reliability engineers in both universities and industry for VF-TLP testing. This document explains a methodology for both testing and reporting information associated with VF-TLP testing.

ESD TR5.5-01-08 Transmission Line Pulse (TLP)
A compilation of the information gathered during the writing of ANSI/ESD SP5.5.1 and the information gathered in support of moving the standard practice toward re-designation as a standard test method.

ESD TR5.5-02-08 Transmission Line Pulse Round Robin
Intended to provide data on the repeatability and reproducibility limits of the methods of ANSI/ESD STM5.5.1.

Workstations

ESD ADV53.1-1995 ESD Protective Workstations
Defines the minimum requirements for a basic ESD protective workstation used in ESD sensitive areas. It provides a test method for evaluating and monitoring workstations. It defines workstations as having the following components: support structure, static dissipative worksurface, a means of grounding personnel, and any attached shelving or drawers.

Worksurfaces

ANSI/ESD S4.1-2006 Worksurface – Resistance Measurements
Provides test methods for evaluating and selecting worksurface materials, testing of new worksurface installations, and the testing of previously installed worksurfaces.

ANSI/ESD STM4.2-2012 ESD Protective Worksurfaces – Charge Dissipation Characteristics
Aids in determining the ability of ESD protective worksurfaces to dissipate charge from a conductive test object placed on them.

ESD TR4.0-01-02 Survey of Worksurfaces and Grounding Mechanisms
Provides guidance for understanding the attributes of worksurface materials and their grounding mechanisms. (Formerly TR15-02)

Wrist Straps

ESD DS1.1-2013 Wrist Straps
A successor to EOS/ESD S1.0, this document establishes test methods for evaluating the electrical and mechanical characteristics of wrist straps. It includes improved test methods and performance limits for evaluation, acceptance, and functional testing of wrist straps.

This is a draft document.

ESD TR1.0-01-01 Survey of Constant (Continuous) Monitors for Wrist Straps
Provides guidance to ensure that wrist straps are functional and are connected to people and ground. (Formerly TR12-01)

About the EOS/ESD Association, Inc.
Founded in 1982, the EOS/ESD Association, Inc. is a professional voluntary association dedicated to advancing the theory and practice of electrostatic discharge (ESD) avoidance. From fewer than 100 members, the Association has grown to more than 2,000 throughout the world. From an initial emphasis on the effects of ESD on electronic components, the Association has broadened its horizons to include areas such as textiles, plastics, web processing, cleanrooms, and graphic arts. To meet the needs of a continually changing environment, the Association is chartered to expand ESD awareness through standards development, educational programs, local chapters, publications, tutorials, certification,
and symposia.