Form-Agenda

761(2020Web/Secretariat)13

®

61(2020Web/Secretariat)13

October 2020

INTERNATIONAL ELECTROTECHNICAL COMMISSION

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE NO.61: SAFETY OF HOUSEHOLD AND SIMILAR ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES

Daily Report for TC 61 Web Meeting on 27 October 2020

Attendees of TC61 Meeting Web Meetings on 27 October 2020

____________________________________________________________________________________

Fabio

GARGANTINI

ITALY (CHAIR)

Dejun

MA

CHINA (VICE CHAIR)

Randi

MYERS

UNITED STATES (SECRETARY)

Grace

ROH

UNITED STATES (ASSISTANT SECRETARY)

NC/ organization

Last name

First name

Role[footnoteRef:1] [1: For example: Chair, Secretary, Technical Officer, Head of delegation, Delegate, Guest, Observer]

October 27

AU

Booth*

Geoffrey

Head of Delegation

X

AU

Murdoch

Adam

Delegate

X

BE

Meier

Matthias

Delegate

BE

Vankerkhove

Philippe

Delegate

X

CA

Brière

David

Delegate

X

CA

Martin*

Ken

Head of Delegation

X

CN

Bi

Chongqiang

Delegate

CN

Chen

Dongpo

Delegate

X

CN

Chen

Cankun

Delegate

X

CN

Chen

Jian

Delegate

CN

Chen

Huafang

Delegate

CN

Ding

Xiaobo

Delegate

CN

Feng

Caiyun

Delegate

CN

Feng

Longbiao

Delegate

CN

Gai

Qigao

Delegate

CN

Gao

Jiajia

Delegate

CN

Hao

Dapeng

Delegate

CN

Huang

Wenxiu

Delegate

X

CN

Jian

Pengfei

Delegate

X

CN

Leng

Xiaozhuang

Delegate

CN

Li

Shanshan

Delegate

X

CN

Liu

Jian

Delegate

CN

Liu

Xu

Delegate

CN

Liu

Zhenquan

Delegate

X

CN

Mao

Lili

Delegate

X

CN

Miao

Shuai

Delegate

CN

Sheng

Ri

Delegate

CN

Shi

Yanling

Delegate

CN

Sun

Guozhen

Delegate

CN

Wan

Xuelong

Delegate

X

CN

Wang

Kun

Delegate

CN

Wang

Jing

Delegate

CN

Wang

Binhou

Delegate

CN

Wu*

Meng

Head of Delegation

X

CN

Xie

Runqing

Delegate

CN

Xiong

Haoping

Delegate

CN

Xu

Yi

Delegate

CN

Xu

Fang

Delegate

CN

Yang

Ying

Delegate

CN

Yang

Xingguo

Delegate

X

CN

Yang

Bin

Delegate

CN

Yuan

Wangtan

Delegate

X

CN

Zeng

Jian

Delegate

CN

Zhang

Ge

Delegate

X

CN

Zheng

Wenwei

Delegate

CN

Zhou

Yanwu

Delegate

DK

Amundesen

Helen

Delegate

X

DK

Bruus-Jensen

Jørgen

Delegate

DK

Christensen

Hans Schou

Observer

X

DK

Dalgas-Madsen

Per

Delegate

X

DK

Krzywkowski

Anders

Delegate

DK

Nielsen

Henning

Delegate

X

DK

Tychsen*

Jørn

Head of Delegation

X

FI

Mattinen*

Reijo

Head of Delegation

X

FI

Söderblom

Kurt

Delegate

X

FI

Vesa

Juha

Delegate

FR

Boileau*

Yohann

Head of Delegation

X

FR

Bottollier

Stéphane

Delegate

X

FR

Cheynel

Vincent

Delegate

FR

Margas

Jacques

Delegate

X

FR

Thierry

Julien

Delegate

DE

Baur

Ralf

Delegate

DE

Dreyer

Markus

Delegate

X

DE

Fischer

Klaus

Delegate

DE

Freier

Heinz H.

Delegate

DE

Kaim

Leo

Delegate

DE

Landgräber

Josef

Delegate

X

DE

Mayle*

Andreas

Head of Delegation

X

DE

Perroni

Dario

Delegate

X

DE

Pohl

Klaus-Dieter

Delegate

DE

Reiter

Bruno

Delegate

DE

Richarz

Frank

Delegate

X

DE

Seiffert

Edmund

Delegate

GH

Dowuona

Moses

Delegate

GH

Eklemet

Ebenezer Afari

Delegate

X

IR

Sharifi

Hamid

Delegate

X

IE

Betz

Martin

Delegate

IE

Clarke

Joanne

Delegate

IT

Aloisi

Alberto

Delegate

X

IT

Cecchinato*

Gianluca

Head of Delegation

X

IT

Maman

Marco

Deelgate

IT

Marino

Michele

Delegate

IT

Orlandi

Maurizio

Delegate

IT

Reina

Luca

Delegate

X

IT

Sinatra

Fabio

Delegate

X

IT

Stella

Salvo

Delegate

X

IT

Togni

Silvia

Delegate

X

IT

Vit

Stefano

Delegate

JP

Jema

Delegate

JP

Abe

Shuji

Delegate

X

JP

Harashima

Keisuke

Delegate

X

JP

Ikeno

Tomoaki

Delegate

X

JP

Kodama

Masachika

Delegate

JP

Maekawa

Yasunori

Delegate

JP

Oura

Koichi

Delegate

JP

Sasaki

Akitsugu

Delegate

X

JP

Sato*

Masahiro

Head of Delegation

X

JP

Suzuki

Yusuke

Delegate

X

JP

Tanabe

Masatada

Delegate

X

JP

Ueda

Kazuhiro

Delegate

X

JP

Ujita

Ryota

Delegate

X

KR

Choi

Hyunho

Delegate

KR

Hong

Junil

Delegate

KR

Kim

Jihan

Delegate

KR

Kim

Sung Kwan

Delegate

KR

Lee

Juchan

Delegate

KR

Lee

Kun-Mo

Delegate

KR

Lee

Siock

Delegate

KR

Nam*

Sihyun

Head of Delegation

MY

Chin Hui

Chia

Delegate

MY

Lu Min

Linda Wong

Delegate

MY

Soon Ann

Ng

Delegate

MX

Aquino Díaz

Daniel

Delegate

MX

Fabián Vázquez

Juan Israel

Delegate

X

MX

García Cortés

Mariana

Delegate

X

MX

Rosales Salazar*

Juan Manuel

Head of Delegation

X

MX

Sandoval Carreño

Omar Alejandro

Delegate

X

MX

Vega Alcántara

Aliscair

Delegate

X

NL

Van Aalderen*

Dinand

Head of Delegation

X

NL

Van Zanten

Thijs

Delegate

NZ

Johns*

Derek

Head of Delegation

X

NO

Oynes

Tor

Delegate

X

NO

Salater

Trond

Delegate

NO

Ulsrud*

Terje

Head of Delegation

X

PH

Desamito

Oliver

Delegate

PH

Jornales

Daniel Collin

Delegate

PL

Wozny*

Krzysztof

Head of Delegation

X

PT

Cabral

Paulo

Delegate

X

SI

Atelsek

Marko

Delegate

X

SI

Kraner*

Danilo

Head of Delegation

X

SI

Kuzner

Janez

Delegate

SI

Zontar

Matej

Delegate

ZA

Kabini

Vusi

Delegate

ZA

Kubeka

Sekwanele

Delegate

ZA

Mabena*

Thabo Isaac

Head of Delegation

X

ES

Guirado Torres*

Rafael

Head of Delegation

X

ES

Ondiviela Serrano

Esther

Delegate

X

SE

Kindblad*

Daniel

Head of Delegation

X

SE

Mattsson

Leif

Delegate

X

SE

Salomonsson

Johan

Delegate

CH

Dietschi*

Fabian

Head of Delegation

X

CH

Gromov

Alexey

Delegate

X

CH

Pastorelli

Sarah

Delegate

CH

Roos

Marcel

Delegate

X

CH

Russeau

Wanessa

Delegate

CH

Stolz

Eduard

Delegate

X

TR

Güdücü

Ceren

Delegate

TR

Gürpınar

Cansu

Delegate

X

TR

Doğan*

Nilay

Head of Delegation

X

TR

Ilbay

Fatma

Delegate

X

TR

Kayikci

Bora

Delegate

TR

Koyuncu

Ünsal

Delegate

TR

Özkırım

Hilmi Gürkan

Delegate

X

TR

Sagir

Zeynep

Delegate

TR

Yıldırım

İbrahim Oğuz

Delegate

GB

Greenman

Colin

Delegate

X

GB

Harris

Richard

Delegate

X

GB

Jones

Nicholas

Delegate

X

GB

Larkin

Matthew

Delegate

GB

Pahlavanpour

Behrooz

Delegate

GB

Rustemi

Irma

Delegate

X

GB

Sellers

Alan

Delegate

GB

Skinner*

Clem

Head of Delegation

X

US

Albert

Larry

Delegate

US

Andersen*

Michelle

Head of Delegation

X

US

Chiang

Flore

Delegate

US

Cooper

Randall

Delegate

US

DeSilvia

Tom

Delegate

US

Hon

Charlie

Delegate

X

US

Hoyer

David

Delegate

X

US

Puckett

Kenneth

Delegate

US

Williams

Matthew

Delegate

X

Consumers International

Evans

Chris

Liaison

X

TC 72

Schwendemann

Eckhard

Liaison

X

40. IEC 60335-2-15: Particular requirements for appliances for heating liquids

40b. 61/5861/DC – Compilation of Comments 61/5914/INF

China, 22.108

Also taking into consideration 61(2020Web/CNNC)90, 61(2020Web/CNNC)91

The results of discussions will be recorded in 61/5914A/INF

MB/NC

Line number

(e.g. 17)

Clause/ Subclause

(e.g. 3.1)

Paragraph/ Figure/ Table/

(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment

Comments

Proposed change

Observations of the secretariat

1

FR01

te

FR NC supports the proposal.

Noted

2

AU01

te

We understand the issue at hand but doubt that the proposal is an adequate solution. If AU2 is not accepted the standard should be kept as is but increase the force to 150N.

Keep the standard how it is but Increase the force to 150N

Not accepted.

But the following modification is made for the fourth and fifth paragraphs in 22.108:

The pressure cooker is then disconnected from the supply and the pressure allowed to decrease to 4 kPa. A force of 150 N is applied to the most unfavourable point where the lid or its handle can be gripped or a torque of 15 N·m is applied to the shaft of the mechanism that drives the lid opening, applying the most unfavourable condition. It shall not be possible to remove the lid.

The internal pressure is then gradually reduced, the force of 150 N or the torque of 15 N·m being maintained. There shall be no hazardous displacement of the lid when it is released.

3

AU02

In Australia we have found that there is also a hazard after the appliance is de-energised

at the end of the cooking cycle, due to residual heat of the contents. We have catered for this hazard with the following variation.

Change to proposal to the following

AZ 22.103 To avoid a pressure build up in the container after the appliance is de-energised at the end of the cooking cycle, due to residual heat of the contents, pressure cookers shall be constructed so that

− the lid cannot be removed while the pressure within the container is excessive;

− there is no build-up of pressure within the container unless the lid is locked.

They shall incorporate a means to release the pressure to a value such that the lid can be removed without risk.

Compliance is checked by inspection and the tests of AZ.22.103.1 and AZ.22.103.2.

AZ.22.103.1 The pressure cooker is operated as specified in Clause 11 until the pressure

regulator operates for the first time.

The pressure cooker is then disconnected from the supply and a force of 150 N is immediately applied to the most unfavourable point where the lid or its handle can be gripped. It shall not be possible to remove the lid.

The internal pressure is then gradually reduced, the force of 150 N being applied taking care to ensure that the force is applied in a manner that does not prevent a lid locking mechanism from operating to release the lid before a safe internal pressure is obtained. The internal pressure is allowed to decrease until the internal pressure does not exceed 4 kPa when thetest is stopped.

There shall be no hazardous displacement of the lid or of the pressure cooker contents when the lid is released.

AZ.22.103.2 The pressure cooker is tested by placing the lid on the appliance in the most unfavourable position without allowing the lid safety locking mechanism to lock. Attempts are made to pressurise the container hydraulically. The internal pressure of the container shall not exceed 4kPa.

See the discussion in 61/6071/DC and the resulting 61/6117A/INF.

4

CA01

-

22.108

te

The use of the term “torque” is confusing. Almost all pressure cookers require a rotating force to open the lid.

The CANC does not fully understand the rationale presented in the introduction and why, based on the referenced standards and tests, 10Nm was chosen.

Delete the proposal.

See 2

5

NZ01

te

We do not agree with this proposal. The current test is completely suitable for products with a torque opening lid.

The only problem we have found is that the force of 100 N is not enough. In our national standard we require the force to be 150 N.

Delete this proposal but increase the force applied to the most unfavourable point where the lid or its handle can be gripped to 150 N.

See 2

6

JP01

12

22.108

te

The definition of "pressure cookers with a torque to open lid" is confusing because there are various types of pressure cookers which lids need to be rotated to open them.

Change the proposed requirement as underlined.

For pressure cookers that have the torque applied directly on the axis in the center of the lid to open it pressure cookers with a torque to open lid (opening requires the application of a torque), the above test is repeated…..

See 2

7

GB01

12-13

ge

The British NC supports the concept of reviewing the torque values in this test but clarification is required.

From the values stated we are unable to determine what is attempting to be achieved.

Clarification required.

See 2 and tabled document 61(2020Web/ CNNC)91 for explanation of the different types of appliances.

8

NL01

12-13

22.108

te/ed

The rational of the proposal is that there are pressure cookers on the market with a lid construction for which the current lid-opening-test isn’t suitable.

(Outside) stick type handle

Bail type handle

It is then strange to see that the current lid-opening-test still has to be performed by the test is to be repeated but then applying a torque.

Delete lines 12-13

Change the sentence “A force of 100N is applied to the most unfavourable point where the lid or its handle can be gripped.”:

A force of 100N is applied to the most unfavourable point where the lid or its stick type handle can be gripped or a torgue of 10 Nm is applied at the middle of the bail type handle. See figure 102.

Change the sentence “The internal pressure is then gradually reduced, the force of 100N being maintained.” by:

The internal pressure is then gradually reduced, the force of 100N or the torque of 10 Nm (whichever is applicable) being maintained.

See 2

9

US01

12-13

te

The Introduction indicates that the lid can be removed under pressure with 10 Nm force.  The data also suggests that 25 Nm is more appropriate.  The proposal should better define the different types of lid assemblies for clarification of which force is applied to each.  The location of the applied force/torque should so be clarified for each (e.g. outer most edge or center).

Modify proposal to:

· Increase the applied torque to 25 Nm

· identify how pressure cookers with various handle configurations are to be evaluated.

· Include the location for the applied torque

For pressure cookers requiring the application of a torque to open the lid, the above test is repeated while applying a torque of 25 N.m to the most unfavourable point where the lid or its handle can be gripped. 

See 2

10

DK01

13

22.108

ge

The DK NC support the proposal and agree that EN 12778 prescribe a torque of 10Nm as an additional test.

We are of the opinion though that the force of 100N as described in the existing standard could also be applied to the lid handle from a direction that result in a turning force (torque). With the typical geometries of existing pressure cookers, this would result in a torque around the proposed 10 Nm.

However based on the described laboratory test that resulted in an average of 22.7Nm from the male testers, we wonder if the existing force and proposed torque in reality are representative across the population or if higher values should be proposed?

See 2

11

JP02

13

22.108

te

The proposed torque of 10 Nm is too small.

According to the laboratory test results shown in the introduction, a male can generate 27.8 Nm as shown in column 5# of the table. When the pressure regulator on the appliance reduces the pressure after operated, it is necessary to prevent the lid from opening even if applied by the above torque 27.8 Nm.

Change the proposed requirement as underlined.

….. the above test is repeated with applying a torque of 30 Nm 10N.m which replaces the force of 100N.

See 2

12

NL02

16

Figures

ed

Add figure to explain different types of handle.

Add:

(Outside) stick type handle

Bail type handle

Figure 102 – Handle constructions

See 2

DECISION: Proceed to CDV and to be aligned with IEC 60335-1 ED6.

--------------------

40d. 61/6071/DC – Compilation of Comments 61/6117/INF

Australia, Pressure cookers and kitchen machines that heat liquid

The results of discussions will be recorded in 61/6117A/INF

MB/NC

Line number

(e.g. 17)

Clause/ Subclause

(e.g. 3.1)

Paragraph/ Figure/ Table/

(e.g. Table 1)

Type of comment

Comments

Proposed change

Observations of the secretariat

1

CH01

ge

The CH NC supports this proposal with the following comment(s).

Noted

2

ZA01

We support the document without any comment

Noted

3

TR01

ge

TR NC does support this proposal with below comment.

Noted

4

CA01

-

-

-

ge

The CANC understands that these “all-in-one kitchen appliances” are not new. These products have been evaluated to both IEC 60335-2-15 and 60335-2-14 in the past. As such, the CANC suggests for MT-46 to review this proposal.

Refer to MT46.

Noted

5

CA02

-

-

-

ed

Defined terms shall be bolded.

Bold all occurrences of “pressure cookers” and “pressure cooker” in the proposal.

See lines 46, 53, 55, 62, 64, 69 and 70.

Accepted; refer to EG1

6

DK01

-

-

-

ge

The proposal contains several additions related to "all in one kitchen appliances". However, it is not clear from the scope that such appliances are covered by this standard. In fact, the current scope would not necessarily include such appliances.

To encompass the purpose as indicated in the rationale of covering requirements for all in one kitchens appliances, the scope of the standard will need to be modified to clear include such appliances

Accepted to add in Note 102:

· all-in-one kitchen appliances

Also, to add to 3.115 the following note to entry:

Note 1 to entry: Soy milk makers are considered to be all-in-one kitchen appliances.

7

FR01

ge

FR NC welcomes this proposal as it would clarify the requirements applicable to “all-in-one kitchen appliances” (AIOKM). Nevertheless, as the 60335-2-14 standard contains requirements for each type of appliance (liquid and food blender, mixers, food processor), FR NC believes that it will be easier to include in 2-14 specific requirements for “AIOKM” based on the current requirements of this standard.

We recommend to task MT46 to work on this topic.

Ask MT46 to work on the requirements applicable to “all-in-one kitchen appliances”.

Not accepted. It was agreed that “all-in-one kitchen appliances” will fall under 2-15 which will include all appropriate cross-references to 2-14.

8

JP01

ge

We do not support the proposal that introduce “all-in-one kitchen appliances” for the following reasons.

- The existing standard have requirements for “soy milk makers”, which are a kind of all-in-one kitchen appliances. The proposal will give confusion.

- It is not practical to apply the same requirements for various kinds of all-in-one kitchen appliances. Necessary requirements should be developed for each type of appliances.

Delete the proposal for all-in-one kitchen appliances.

Not accepted, but see 6.

In addition, it was agreed that when the proposal is finalized and editorially prepared for the next edition, the compatibility of the resulting document and of the existing requirements for soy milk makers and the new requirements for all-in-one kitchen appliances will be verified by EG1 with the support of MT46.

It was also agreed to add in 60335-2-14 that for appliances for heating liquids, the requirements in 60335-2-15 are applicable. MT 46 will consider this point when reviewing 2-14.

9

NL01

ge

NLNC is in favour of the proposal but has the following comments to clarify better its applicability

Noted

10

NO01

ge

In our opinion we are here talking about kitchen appliances with a heating function, so the requirements for the all-in-one kitchen appliances should be moved to 2-14.

See 7

11

US01

Introduction

ge

The Introduction to the Standard already covers the situation where more than one Part 2 standard is applicable:

If an appliance within the scope of this standard also incorporates functions that are covered by another part 2 of IEC 60335, the relevant part 2 is applied to each function separately, as far as is reasonable. If applicable, the influence of one function on the other is taken into account.

These additional statements proposed for inclusion in -2-15 do not provide any additional clarity on how to apply the applicable requirements. In addition, the proposed additions are restricted to certain types of constructions that may or may not be applicable and excludes some constructions, such as coffee makers with incorporated coffee grinders.

If needed, the requirements in -2-15 should clarify applicable requirements where use of the two standards together is not clear for known constructions without restricting other constructions and include requirements to address the influence of one function on the other.

Delete 5.102, 11.7.107, 22.116

.

Not accepted; see also 6

12

CH02

Before 1

1

ed

In order to improve completeness and clarity, add “all-in-one kitchen appliances” to NOTE 102.

Add the following text as penultimate dashed item to NOTE 102:

all-in-one kitchen appliances;

See 6

13

US02

7-13

3.115

te

The term all-in-one kitchen appliance is a marketing term, but not really what is being described. These appliances do not include all kitchen appliances into one appliance. They may incorporate multiple functions into a single appliance.

For example, as currently defined, a coffee maker with an incorporated coffee grinder would be an all-in-one appliance, but the additional requirements are not appropriate and seem to be contemplating something else entirely.

Instead of the defined term, the additional requirements should be applicable to a liquid heating appliance with a stirring, blending or chopping function

Delete 3.115 and replace this term in the rest of the proposal with ‘liquid heating appliance with a mixing, cutting or stirring function’

Not accepted

14

CH03

8

3

ed

According to rules dealing with drafting of IEC standards line 8 is superfluous.

Delete line 8.

Refer to EG1

15

CA03

10-13

3.115

-

te

According to the rationale and the use of the defined term “all-in-one kitchen appliance”, it seems that the concerned products are only those which have heating and machine functions operating within the same food container.

Additionally, it is not necessary to specify “for household and similar purposes” in this new definition as this is already defined by the scope of this standard.

Modify lines 11 to 13 as follows:

combined appliance that incorporates within the same container both the functions of an electric kitchen machine and an appliance for heating liquids for household and similar purposes but does not include a pressure cooking function

See 16

16

GB01

10-13

3.115

te

The kitchen appliance and heating functions shall be executed in the same container of the appliance consider to be a risk.

There are appliances having both heating function and kitchen machines function but these functions are in different containers or locations for example fully automatic coffee machines grinding coffee grains is a separate function and multi-functional kitchen appliances with blending, food processing, grinding, mixing may not all have the heating function and therefore would not present the risks mentioned in the rationale (expulsion of hot liquid due to the mechanical movement).

Revise the definition as follows:

"combined appliance that incorporates in the same container both the functions of an electric kitchen machine and an appliance for heating liquids for household and similar purposes but does not include a pressure cooking function.”

Note: Coffee machines equipped with a coffee grinder are not considered All-in-one kitchen appliances.”

Accepted with the following wording:

"combined appliance that incorporates in the same container both the functions of an electric kitchen machine and an appliance for heating liquids for household and similar purposes but does not include a pressure cooking function.”

Note: Coffee machines equipped with a coffee grinder are not considered all-in-one kitchen appliances.”

17

IT01

10-13

3.115

te

There are kitchen appliances with a low-temperature heating function (for example for melting chocolate) that are not able to reach boiling point. They shall be excluded from the scope.

Revise the definition as follows:

"combined appliance that incorporates both the functions of an electric kitchen machine and an appliance for heating liquids to 70 °C or more for household and similar purposes but does not include a pressure cooking function”

Not accepted, but see the decision taken on 22.117 in xx.

(Note, this observation will be completed once discussion of comments 65 to 70 is completed during the next meeting.)

18

IT02

10-13

3.115

te

The kitchen appliance and heating functions shall be executed in the same container of the appliance to be a risk. There are appliances (fully automatic coffee machines for example) having both kitchen appliance function (for grinding coffee grains) and heating function (for boiling water) but they do not happen in the same location and they do not present the risks mentioned in the rationale (expulsion of hot liquid due to the mechanical movement).

Revise the definition as follows:

"combined appliance that incorporates in the same food container both the functions of an electric kitchen machine and an appliance for heating liquids for household and similar purposes but does not include a pressure cooking function.

Note: Coffee machines equipped with a coffee grinder are not considered All-in-one kitchen appliances.”

See 16

19

NL03

9-13

3.115

te

NLNC committee understands the purpose of the proposal but considers that clarification is needed with respect to the definition.

As there are appliances like coffee makers that are grinding coffee beans and have a heating function but are not subject to the hazards as mentioned in the rationale.

Replace by the following

"combined appliance where that incorporates both the functions of an electric kitchen machine and an appliance for heating liquids are combined in the same container for household and similar purposes but does not include a pressure cooking function.”

See 16

20

IT03

17-18

5.2

te

Subclause 21.1 of Part 1 do not specify to perform the test on several samples.

Delete lines 17 and 18.

Accepted

21

JP02

17-18

5.2

te

We cannot understand why ten additional samples are required.

Delete the proposal.

See 20

22

GB02

19-21

5.102

te

There is no need for such requirements because the introduction of Part 1 states:

“If the functions of an appliance are covered by different parts 2 of IEC 60335, the relevant part 2 is applied to each function separately, as far as is reasonable. If applicable, the influence of one function on the other is taken into account.”.

Delete lines 19 to 21

Not accepted; see also 6

23

IT04

19-21

5.102

te

There is no need for such requirements because the introduction of Part 1 states:

“If the functions of an appliance are covered by different Parts 2 of IEC 60335, the relevant Part 2 is applied to each function separately, as far as is reasonable. If applicable, the influence of one function on the other is taken into account.”

Delete lines from 19 to 21.

Not accepted; see also 6

24

DK02

20

5.102

te

The text is requiring that the tests of 60335-2-14 for both blenders, mixers and food processors. However, depending on the construction of the appliance all of these tests might not apply.

Instead it will be necessary to indicate that only applicable test is applied, depending on the construction of the appliance

Additionally, with this new proposal IEC 603352-15 becomes the standard for all in one kitchen appliances. IEC 60335-2-15 takes care of the requirements for the heating part of the appliance, but there may be a need to consider other requirements of IEC 60335-2-14 as well in addition to those indicated in 5.102This could for example be requirements for protection against hazardous moving parts.

Modify the text so that it reads:

"All-in-one kitchen appliances are also subjected to the requirements and tests specified in IEC 60335- 2-14 that are applicable to the relevant function of the appliance (e.g. food blenders, liquid blenders, food mixers or food processors)."

See 26

25

CH04

21

5.102

ed

“Food blender”, “liquid blender”, “food mixer” and “food processor” are defined terms in IEC 60335-2-14, so follow formatting rules.

Format “food blender(s)”, “liquid blender(s)”, “food mixer(s)” and “food processor(s)” in bold.

Refer to EG1

26

US03

5.102, 11.7.107, 22.116

te

If US1 is not accepted:

Why would the appliance be required to be tested as a food blender, liquid blender, food mixer and food processor? A slow cooker with a mixing function would be tested with a water load per 3.1.9.101 of -2-15. Should it also be tested with carrots and water (blender), sand (mixer), and dough (mixer/food processor) per -2-14?

The appliance should only be tested with the loads that most closely represent the intended kitchen machine function of the appliance. If the appliance is a blender with a heating function, it should only be tested with the load specified for a blender per -2-14. Where the kitchen machine function does not align with an existing function in -2-14, the appliance would be operated in accordance with the instructions according to 3.1.9 and 11.7.2.

Replace

“for food blenders, liquid blenders, food mixers and food processors”

With

“for the kitchen machine functions of the appliance.’

Accepted with the following wording to be introduced in 5.102, 11.7.107 and 22.116:

“for the kitchen machine functions of the appliance as applicable.”

EG1 to editorially arrange.

27

DE01

24-26

7.12

te

It cannot be expected that the user knows the meaning of the term “element”. Further, there are kettles on the market whose heating elements are not visible to the user. Furthermore, there are cordless kettles in the market that can be turned off through lifting them from their base.

Therefore, this proposal does not reflect the situation on the market.

Delete the lines 24-26.

Not accepted, but modify lines 25 and 26 as follows:

CAUTION: Do not operate the kettle on an inclined plane. Do not switch-on the kettle if there is no water in the kettle. Do not move the kettle while it is switched on.

EG1 to editorially arrange.

28

IT05

24-26

7.12

te

It seems that the warnings are intended to avoid usage of the kettle without water (also happening when the kettle is moved while operating).

However, kettles are protected by dry-boil protectors, which are tested during subclauses 19.101 and 19.102 so such warnings are not needed.

Delete lines from 24 to 26.

See 27

29

CH05

26

7.12

ed

Improve clarity, avoid misinterpretation.

Insert “heating” before “element”.

See 27

30

JP03

26

7.12

te

We cannot understand The caution “Do not move the kettle while it is switched on.” is required. If necessary, the cautionary sentence should be modified more concrete.

Delete “Do not move the kettle while it is switched on.”

See 27

31

GB03

27-30

7.12

te

To ensure the instructions for 27- 30 are not read to kettles only change the order of the paragraphs

For clarity it would be better to place lines 27-30 before 24 - 26.

Accepted with the following wording:

The instructions for appliances with liquid containers made from polycarbonate material which are accessible to the user shall state the substance of the following.

CAUTION: To prevent damage to the appliance do not use aggressive cleaning agents when cleaning, use a soft cloth and a mild detergent.

CAUTION: Do not use the appliance if the enclosure is damaged or has visible cracks.

32

IT06

27-30

7.12

te

Not clear which hazard should be covered by this warning. If the test is aimed to reduce crack damages of PC-body kettles (which may potentially lead to water leakage), the word "enclosure" is too generic and it is not correctly addressed to the water container.

Delete lines from 27 to 30 or give a rationale for the warning and limit the requirement to kettles only.

See 31

33

JP04

29-30

7.12

te

We propose an additional caution because polycarbonate material is degraded due to hydrolysis in the atmosphere of water vapour.

Add the following underlined text as follows.

CAUTION: To prevent damage to the appliance do not use alkaline cleaning agents when cleaning, use a soft cloth and a mild detergent.

CAUTION: Do not use the appliance if the enclosure is damaged or has visible cracks.

See 31

34

FR02

33

11.7.107

te

The proposal to operate the appliance until steady conditions are established using the liquid heating function with the most unfavourable load is not representative of the use of all in one kitchen appliances with food mixing and food processing function.

For most of the appliances, the heating function doesn’t work simultaneously with the mixing function. For some other, the two functions operate simultaneously but only during a limited time defined by a program or instruction (it makes no sense to heat yeast dough with a liquid heating function until steady condition while mixing).

Ask to MT46 to work on the requirements applicable to “all-in-one kitchen appliances”

Delete “food mixers” and “food processors” on line 35.

See 43

35

CH06

35

11.7.107

ed

See CH04.

Format “food blender(s)”, “liquid blender(s)”, “food mixer(s)” and “food processor(s)” in bold.

See 43

36

DK03

34-35

11.7.101

te

The tests for blenders, mixers and food processors might not all apply depending on the construction of the appliance. Instead the requirement needs to point to relevant requirements of 60335-2-14

Modify the text so that it reads:

"All-in-one kitchen appliances are operated until steady conditions are established using the liquid heating function with the most unfavourable load specified in IEC 60335-2-14 for the relevant function of the appliance."

See 43

37

GB04

33-35

11.7.107

te

Only the condition applicable to the unit under test shall be applied.

Revise the end of the paragraph as follows:

“...for food blenders, liquid blenders, food mixers and or food processors as applicable.”

See 43

38

GB05

33-35

11.7.107

te

The most unfavourable load specified in IEC 60335-2-14 may not align with liquid heating function.

An example is the standard dough load for a food mixer.

Revise the paragraph as follows

All-in-one kitchen appliances are operated until steady conditions are established using the liquid heating function with the most unfavourable load specified in manufactures instructions for food blenders, liquid blenders, food mixers or food processors.

See 43

39

IT07

33-35

11.7.107

te

Only the condition applicable to the unit under test shall be applied.

Revise the end of the paragraph as follows:

“...for food blenders, liquid blenders, food mixers and or food processors as applicable.”

See 43

40

JP05

33-35

11.7.107

te

The duration requirement of “until steady conditions are established” is not clear.

For each kind of appliances, in Part 2-15, clause 11.7 specifies:

“Appliances are operated for the duration specified in 11.7.101 to 11.7.106.”

In Part 2-14, clause 11.7 specifies:

“The appliance is operated for the period specified and where relevant the number of cycles as specified in 11.7.101 to 11.7.118.”

Test duration should be specified clearer and more concrete, and if not possible, delete the proposal.

See 43

41

NL05

33-35

11.7.107

te

In IEC 60335-2-14 there are different load conditions: 11.7.1, 11.7.2 or 11.7.3.

Furthermore, there are systems where:

· the food is first steamed. The water is heated in a container separate from the food container. This system is working under atmospheric pressure.

· The food is the processed (mixed) after the food container is turned.

So heating and processing is not possible at the same time.

Replace by the following:

All-in-one kitchen appliances are operated until steady conditions are established using the liquid heating function.

For All-in-one kitchen appliances where the heating is simultaneous with the mixing/cutting function the all-in-one kitchen appliances are operated until steady conditions are established using the liquid heating function with the most unfavourable load conditions as specified for food blenders, liquid blenders, food mixers or food processors in 11.7 of IEC 60335-2-14.

See 43

42

NL04

35

11.7.107

te

Not all conditions apply. “and” should be “or”

Replace “and” by “or”.

See 43

43

US04

11.7.107

te

The products may not be intended to be operated for extended periods, so operation until steady conditions are established may not be appropriate. For example, a blender with a heating element would be considered an ‘all-in-one kitchen appliance’. These appliances are typically intended to be operated for a limited period of time, e.g. 10 minutes. When test per -2-14, it would be operated based on the time allowed by the timer (or programmer) or the time specified in the instructions.

Replace ‘steady conditions’ with ‘for one cycle or steady conditions, whichever occurs first’

Accepted with the following wording:

All-in-one kitchen appliances are operated until steady conditions are established using the liquid heating function.

All-in-one kitchen appliances where the heating and kitchen machine functions are performed within the same cycle are operated for the most unfavourable cycle as specified in the manufacturer’s instructions or steady conditions, whichever occurs first, using the liquid heating function with the most unfavourable load specified in IEC 60335-2-14 for the kitchen machine functions of the appliance as applicable.

44

CA04

36-38

11.8.101

-

ed

The content of 11.8.101 should not be a stand-alone sub-clause but rather part of 11.8.

Move the content of 11.8.101 into the existing addition to 11.8.

*Resume here on 10 November 2020

45

FR03

37-38

11.8.101

te

The pressure requirement is not relevant for container that are not closed.

Add the following:

The pressure limit of 4 kPa is applicable to container opened the atmospheric pressure.

46

JP06

37-38

11.8.101

We do not support the proposal because all-in-one kitchen appliances are not pressure cookers, so a pressure limit is not necessary to specify.

Delete the proposal.

47

US05

11.8.101

te

The concern related to increased pressure within the vessel can be addressed by providing adequate ventilation opening(s) in the cover so that the vessel remains open to the atmosphere. This is common for blenders with a heating function and even blenders intended to blend hot liquids without an additional heating function. If adequate ventilation is provided, measuring the pressure would not be necessary.

11.8.101 During the tests for all-in-one kitchen appliances, other than those provided with a vented lid, no mixture shall be expelled from the container and the pressure in the container shall not exceed 4 kPa.

48

JP07

40-42

21.1

te

We cannot understand what the proposal intends to prevent (Electric shock, injury, or burn?), and do not support the proposal for the following reasons.

(1) There is no reason to increase an impact energy from 0,5 J (specified in Part 1) to 1 J.

(2) If the proposal intends to prevent “burn” caused by hot water from a broken glass container, it is more effective to specify thickness of glass containers and thermal shock test.

Delete the proposal.

49

IT08

41

21.1

te

We do not see the need to deviate from the impact energy of 0.5 J specified in 21.1 of part 1.

Line 42 is in any case greatly increasing the severity of the test for kettles with glass container.

Delete line 41.

50

NO02

41

21.1

te

It is not clear if the test is to performed on the ten additional samples only, or on both the main sample and the ten additional samples.

Shall the kettles be empty or filled with water?

In addition, any pre-conditioning of the ten additional samples (heat, cold, …)?

To be clarified

51

TR02

41

21.1

te

The impact force shall be reduced 0,7J from 1 J with below rationale.

In IEC 60335-2-9 Ed 7, the force for glass surfaces has been defined as 0,7 J, the same perspective shall be applied for the kettles’ glass surfaces.

“For hotplates having surfaces of glass-ceramic or similar material, three blows are applied to parts of the surface that are not exposed to impacts during the test of 21.101, the impact energy being 0,7 J. The blows are not applied to surfaces within 20 mm of knobs.”

“The impact energy applied to kettles having a glass water container is increased to 0,7 J.”

52

NL06

44

22.108

ed

Clarify.

Modify as follows:

22.108 Replace by the following:

53

DK04

45-47

22.108

te

The requirements are phrased to include the reason for the requirement (to avoid a pressure build-up in the appliance after it has been de-energised). It is not a common approach in 60335 to include the background/reason for the requirement as part of the text. In this case it makes the test slightly confusing and a perception of being less specific.

This background information is not needed as part of the requirement and therefor a modification is proposed

Modify the text in line 45-47 so that it reads:

"Pressure cookers shall be constructed so that:"

54

NL07

45-47

22.108

ed

Make clear that sub clause 22.108 is applicable to pressure cockers and not for all-in-one kitchen appliances, by changing the order of words .

Replace by the following:

Pressure cookers shall have a construction, To avoid a where pressure build up in the container is avoided after the appliance is being de-energised at the end of the cooking cycle, due to residual heat of the contents, so that:

55

FR04

55

22.108.1

te

The value of 150 N seems to be excessive. The European standard related to non-electrical pressure (EN 12 778) cookers uses a force of 100 N.

Replace on line 55 and 58 “150 N” by “100 N”

56

JP08

55, 58

22.108.1

te

We do not support the proposal changing 100 N to 150N for the following reasons.

- No rationale is explained for the change.

- No accident has not been reported in Japan even though the relevant Japanese standard requires 100 N.

Change back to 100 N to leave the existing standard as it is.

57

DK05

58-61

22.108.1

te

The test description is not easily understood and there is a potential for misunderstandings and misapplications. The intent is agreeable, but the text needs some rework to be sufficiently clear.

Modify the text to make it more clearly understandable. In particular in connection with the way the 150N shall be applied while not preventing a lid locking mechanism from releasing.In addition it may also be relevant to consider the content of 61/5861/DC with regards to specification of a torque rather than a force for appliances where the lid is removed by a turning motion.

Also, the text in line 61 regarding when the test is completed could be better phrased. For example, it could be modified to read:

"...until the internal pressure does not exceed 4 kPa at which point the test is stopped."

58

JP09

62-63

22.108.1

te

We cannot understand the purpose of the criteria in the 4th paragraph. It is not clear to interpret.

Delete the following proposed requirement.

There shall be no hazardous displacement of the lid or of the pressure cooker contents when the lid is released.

59

JP10

64-67

22.108.2

te

We do not support the proposal because the additional requirements are covered by the existing 22.109.

Delete the proposal.

60

CH07

72

22

ed

According to rules dealing with drafting of IEC standards line 72 is superfluous.

Delete line 72.

61

CH08

74 to 75

22.116

See CH04.

Format “food blender(s)”, “liquid blender(s)”, “food mixer(s)” and “food processor(s)” in bold.

62

FR05

73-75

22.116

te

According to clause 5.102, the requirements of the 2-14 are applicable to “all-in-one-appliances”. Therefore, it is not needed to duplicate requirements from 2-14 into 2-15.

Delete clause 22.116

63

GB06

73-75

22.116

te

It is not clear because IEC 60335-2-14 does not specify which accessories shall be provided.

Please clarify or delete 22.116

64

IT09

73-75

22.116

te

Only the accessories applicable to the specific product shall be required.

Revise subclause 22.116 as follows:

“All-in-one kitchen appliances shall be provided with accessories to enable them to operate as an appliance for heating liquids and as a food blender, liquid blender, food mixer and or food processor as applicable as specified in IEC 60335-2-14.”

65

CN01

77-78

22.117

te

The standard cannot limit the product must use the interlock device, because interlock switch is only one way to ensure appliance safe. When All-in-one kitchen appliances are constructed so that accidental removal of the lid, the contents of the container will not ejection and meet the safety requirements.

All-in-one kitchen appliances shall be constructed so that accidental removal of the lid cannot cause ejection of its container contents.

66

CN02

79

22.117

te

A lid interlock required for compliance with the test of 22.117，which subjected to the tests of 22.117.1 and 22.117.2.

A lid interlock required for compliance with the test of 22.117，which subjected to the tests of 22.117.1 and 22.117.2.

67

GB07

77-104

22.117

te

There are numerous products in the All-in-one kitchen appliances category that do not have an interlock and would not require this type of interlock such as an appliance based on a food mixer.

Revise clause 22.117 as follows:

“22.117 All-in-one kitchen appliances shall incorporate a lid interlock that prevents accidental removal of the lid and ejection of its container contents if the pressure within the container can exceed 1kPa.”

68

IT10

77-104

22.117

te

Not all the product categories under IEC 60335-2-14 are required to have a lid (example: food mixers).

Revise the first part of 22.117 as follows:

“All-in-one kitchen appliances, different from those having the function of food mixers, shall incorporate a lid interlock that prevents ....”

69

IT11

77-79

22.117

te

Not all the appliances would have hazardous moving parts or eject boiling liquid during operations so the lid with the interlock would not be required.

The need of the interlock for different functions should be assessed by the tests of 22.117.1 and 22.117.2 without the lid in place to confirm there is no access to hazardous moving part or ejection of the boiling liquid.

Add after subclause 22.117.2 the following subclause:

Appliances with attachments that comply with the test specified in 22.117.1 paragraph 1 (lines number 80-82) and 22.117.1 paragraph 3 (lines number 84-86) without the lid installed and comply with the requirements for access to hazardous moving parts per IEC 60335-2-14 shall not be required to provide a lid interlock

70

US06

22.117

te

This proposal requires the construction be such that there will be pressure build up in the container. A lid interlock is not always needed. A blender with a cover opening will not have pressure build up in the container, so not cover interlock is needed.

22.117 All-in-one kitchen appliances shall incorporate a cover opening to prevent excessive pressure in the container or a lid interlock that prevents accidental removal of the lid and ejection of its container contents.

The cover opening shall have a minimum dimension of 10 mm and a minimum area of at least 506 mm2.

Compliance is checked by inspection and, for appliances without a suitable cover opening, the tests of 22.117.1 and 22.117.2

71

JP11

80-93

22.117.1

te

We do not support the proposal for the following reasons.

- The force of 100 N is too much because those appliances are not pressure cookers.

- This test is not necessary and if necessary it is covered by instructions.

Delete the proposal.

72

CH09

86

22.117.1

ed

Follow rules dealing with drafting of IEC standards.

Delete the full stop after “5 s”.

73

CN03

87

22.117.1

te

Applying a force of 100N to the lid is not enough，we should add a lasting time，such as 10s.

An attempt is then made to open the lid with a force of 100 N lasting 10s and the lid shall not open.

74

DK06

87-92

22.117.1

te

With reference to DK-05 the test specification is not sufficiently clear and need some rework.

Also it may be necessary to specify a torque and not only a force for opening of the lid.

Modify the text to make it more clearly understandable. In particular in connection with the way the 100 N shall be applied while not preventing a lid locking mechanism from releasing.In addition it may also be relevant to consider the content of 61/5861/DC with regards to specification of a torque rather than a force for appliances where the lid is removed by a turning motion.

75

JP12

94-104

22.117.2

te

We do not support the proposal because this test is not necessary and if necessary it is covered by instructions.

Delete the proposal.

76

NL08

94-104

22.117.2

te

It is unclear how the stirring attachment should be stalled and then removed and what the purpose of this action is.

Delete lines 101 -102

77

US07

94-104

22.117.2

te

It is unclear why it is necessary to stall the moving parts and then remove the stall. This subclause in general is very difficult to understand what this test is attempting to accomplish.

Is the moving part stalled while it is operating? How will that be possible with a lid interlock. How will the stall be removed?

Delete lines 94-104 and remove 22.117.2 from the compliance criteria of 22.117.

78

CH10

100

22.117.2

ed

See CH09.

Delete the full stop after “5 s”.

79

CH11

102, 103

22.117.2

ed

A full stop is missing at the end of the sentence.

Insert a full stop at the end of the sentence (two times).

80

CN04

101-102

22.117.2

ed

This clause is considering the power accidental interrupted and restart the appliance，no water shall be ejected from the appliance. Why the mixing, cutting or stirring attachment provided is stalled？In normal use ，the mixing, cutting or stirring attachment provided in normal operation is most unfavourable condition.

Delete it.

81

DK07

101-103

22.117.2

te

The test description is not easily understood. In particular the intended sequence of operation and stalling and restarting of the appliance and subsequent interruption of the supply.

Also it is not clear how stalling of the mixing attachment is foreseen to be made and then removed considering that the appliance is full of hot water.

Modify the text so that the sequence is clearly and understandably described.In the description include how it is anticipated that the mixing attachement located in the hot water shall be stalled and later how the stall is removed again.

82

FR06

101

22.117.2

te

It is not understood which situation is covered by this test as there is a combination of several events in one test (misplacement of the lid, stall of the attachment, supply interrupted). This test seems not to be representative of a real use of the appliance.

Delete clause 22.117.2

83

NO03

101-103

22.117.2

te

We have problems to understand the meaning of these sentences.

To be clarified.

DECISION: To be determined; discussion continues on 10 November 2020

--------------------

66. Review of stability dates – [61(2020Web/Secretariat)06]

61/6061/Q – Compilation of Comments 61/6092/RQ

The stability dates in 61(2020Web/Secretariat)06 V1 were confirmed. However, concerning the alignment of the Part 2 standards with 60335-1 ED6 there are two options:

1) For those standards mentioned in 61/6092/RQ following the newly established stability date, the next stability date cycle to follow would be 2 years (rather than the usual 3 years).

2) Evaluate all Part 2 standards under TC 61 in terms of how to align with 60335-1 ED6 and modify stability dates accordingly.

The above will be discussed at the end of the meeting under Any other business when the overall situation concerning the alignment of Parts 2 to 60335-1 6th Edition will be clear resulting from the discussion at the web meetings and the stability dates will be confirmed accordingly (see also 70a).

In addition, during the 15 October 2020 web series meeting the following stability dates also noted in 61/6092/RQ were confirmed:

For 60335-2-14, it was confirmed the stability date is extended to 2023

For 60335-2-16, 60335-2-65 and 60335-2-98, it was confirmed the stability dates are extended to 2022

In addition, during the 27 October 2020 web series meeting the stability date for IEC 60335-2-80 was confirmed to be extended from 2021 to 2022.

The stability date extension for 60335-2-80 was based on the decision for agenda item 30 (61/6070/DC and 61/6115A/INF) where it states “Prior to circulating the CDV, the application of Annex B will be evaluated by EG1 and MT26 will be contacted to analyse the points that are mentioned in the rationale of 61/6070/DC, at top of page 2, considering that these types of appliances are not toys but are child-appealing.”, in particular with reference to the time needed for the evaluation in MT26.

--------------------

END OF DISCUSSION FOR 27 OCTOBER 2020

® Registered trademark of the International Electrotechnical Commission