Seems strange that the IECEE allowed an EMC requirement to be added as a national deviation to a Safety Standard, but they did, and it's even more bizarre that Japan has the same deviation and has no national mandatory EMC requirement. But anyway;
There is no requirement that to meet the requirements for the Korean deviation in a CB report that the EMC report must come from a Korean lab. Also, having a CB safety report that shows the EMC deviation as passing has nothing to do with meeting the Korean national requirements for EMC. So in actuality there is a 4th option. 4- Have an EMC report from any recognized lab - Pass I routinely obtain CB reports from UL, CSA or TUV that meet this requirement with a CISPR test report from our OATS. Dave Clement Motorola Inc. Test Lab Services Homologation Engineering 20 Cabot Blvd. Mansfield, MA 02048 P:508-851-8259 F:508-851-8512 C:508-725-9689 mailto:dave.clem...@motorola.com http://www.motorola.com/globalcompliance/ -----Original Message----- From: Gary McInturff [mailto:gary.mcintu...@worldwidepackets.com] Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 12:52 PM To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: Korea Deviation to IEC60950 CB report. Korea - Differences to IEC60950, Third Edition (1999) 7 Addition: EMC. The apparatus shall complies with the relevant CISPR requirements As I understand it there are three options for this deviation. 1 - Have a Korean Test Report - Pass 2 - Don't have a report - Fail 3- Write a letter to the CB author stating you meet the requirements - pass Seems to be a particularly interesting case of circular reasoning going on here. Korea requires test data from a Korean approved lab to be submitted to them for EMC approval. Basic property of approval is that one meets the EMC requirements as demonstrated by a test report from a Korean authorized laboratory and also meets the Safety requirements as documented in a CB report. Most often these documents are obtained from different companies, but all nicely bound in one documentation bundle by the manufacturer when they submit for Korean acceptance. Assume one has Korea as a market then this section in the CB report makes no sense. For the first option Korea already requires that one verifies emissions with a test report from a Korean approved laboratory and presumably they read it or at least check it off their bureaucracy forms when it arrives. The equipment still can' t be imported until they see a CB report they accept. If they have the emissions report and the CB report in front of them then the first condition of this requiring the safety evaluator to confirm that they also have a copy of this report is non-sensical. In fact I suspect that as proof they have done their job the safety evaluator would include as an appendix a copy of the emissions report. So know the Korean officials have two copies of the same report. For option 2, Either one doesn't have Korea as a market and is not interested in meeting any of their deviations so the clause isn't needed, or they are interested, have the report, and send it to CB author. So now we are back to circular reasoning item 1. Option 3 may be my favorite. They authorize only a few labs to submit data. The only reason to require a Korean certified lab test is that they don't trust manufactures when they simply tell them the requirements are met. On Its own that is not an unreasonable request, independent verification of test results is always better than just trusting the manufacturer. But now in the CB report, that as I noted before either provides a copy of the emissions report as an annex or amendment to the CB report because of circular reasoning item 1 or Circular reasoning item 2 comes into play, and defaults to item 1. But if either of those two useless clauses isn't enough now there is a third option. Just write a letter that says trust us. It will be included in the CB report as an appendix or an annex. Of course this letter doesn't make any sense either because they require along with the CB report, a test report from a previously Korean approved lab. This requirement is because they ! obviously don't trust a manufacturer to just say they meet the requirements. And back to useless option 1. What am I missing here? Seems like its time to break out the old Fecalencephalometer ( a large painful instrument intended to measure just how far your head is up your rear end! ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list" ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/ Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"
