In addition to my earlier mail:
I am not even sure IF the GS mark truly addresses overall safety, I presume so. About the under exposition of EMC aspects in product safety: The EMC-directive addresses functional aspect only. Although one may argue that a functional equipment MUST be safe, the verification is not part of any evaluation (performance criteria) within the EMC directive harmonized standards that are not also meant for safety. Some standards mention: “the equipment must remain safe”; which to my opinion is not enough to assure safety. Which of us ever verified that surface temperatures remained below limits under 10V/m stress ?? Which of us ever verified if accessible parts were within voltage limits under 10 V/m stress ? Any part of equipment or device, not operating under standard conditions, but meant for safety (think of over temperature protection) could easily be disabled during immunity testing and go unnoticed because of the equipment operating within specs. I mean to say, there is much more to do then just check the performance of an equipment during tests, to make sure it is safe. Some of the LVD harmonized standards begin to address this topic seriously ; but still a long way to go…. Regards, Gert Gremmen Approvals manager ====================================================== ce-test, qualified testing Member of EMC committee CENELEC/IEC + Independent Consultancy Services + Compliance Testing and Design for CE + Improvement of product quality and reliability + Testing services according to: Electro magnetic Compatibility 89/336/EC Electrical Safety 73/23/EC Medical Devices 93/42/EC Radio & Telecommunication Terminal equipment 99/5/EC Website: www.ce-test.nl Phone : +31 10 415 24 26 Fax : +31 10 415 49 53 ====================================================== _____ From: [email protected] mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ken Javor Sent: woensdag 26 mei 2004 15:44 To: Ing. Gert Gremmen; [email protected]; Gary McInturff; EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: Re: Legal requirements linking GS and EMC The original posting stated that EMC emissions data had been requested for a safety certification. It is true, as Ing. Gremmen points out, that immunity performance can bear directly on safety, but that was not part of the original question. on 5/26/04 3:31 AM, Ing. Gert Gremmen at [email protected] wrote: Within the European safety regulations, no mark has a legal background but the CE-mark. All marks like KEMA,VDE,TUV,GS (and other) are private marks with no EC-legal value, and they indeed may require anything from the applicant they want to , including John's Pound of Flesh (JOPOF) ;<). Before CE, these marks and the associated test houses were the only way to obtain any proof of safety for your product, and thats why these marks obtained some type of market domination. For historic or other reasons, many companies still require one of these marks, if you want to qualify for their purchases..... You may contest or comply , depending on your position in negociation. Of course, the requirements to go with these marks may include more severe testing, and possibly enhanced safety, to be judged by you and your clients. Inside any EC-country, no LEGAL requirements MAY exist that demand more then CE requirements, unless aspects are adressed, not regulated under the CE new approach directives. The CE mark was meant to GUARANTEE free movement of goods between EC members, addressing consumer SAFETY as a main goal. I do not know much about the legal backgrounds of the GS mark in Germany, but these laws may in some aspects be contradictory to EC-law, if they prohibite free movement of goods. Anyway, some EC members still do not fully comply to EC regulations, ate least not to the spirit of it. Regarding Ken's remark: Safety of a product may well be influenced by EMC (mainly Immunity), and the EMC directive does NOT address product safety specifically. So in order to obtain an overall view of a product's safety, EMC reports may be valuable. ( althoug the emission data may not be the first to address) The GS mark does address overall safety, and therefore requires EMC data. Many Low Voltage Harmonized standards do however, address safety aspects, and many of these standards have also been harmonized under the EMC directive. The safety aspects of EMC are still underexposed , however, within EC regulations. Regards, Gert Gremmen Approvals manager ====================================================== ce-test, qualified testing Member of EMC committee CENELEC/IEC + Independent Consultancy Services + Compliance Testing and Design for CE + Improvement of product quality and reliability + Testing services according to: Electro magnetic Compatibility 89/336/EC Electrical Safety 73/23/EC Medical Devices 93/42/EC Radio & Telecommunication Terminal equipment 99/5/EC Website: www.cetest.nl (english) www.ce-test.nl (dutch) Phone : +31 10 415 24 26 Fax : +31 10 415 49 53 ====================================================== From: [email protected] mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Horst Haug Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 8:33 AM To: Gary McInturff; EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: AW: Legal requirements linking GS and EMC Gary, as one of the GS mark certification organisations I like to give some explanations. The GS mark is the only safety mark backed up by laws in Europe. The regulations for the GS-mark are defined in the German law for safety. It is possible to apply for the status as a GS mark certification body and test lab by all test and certification organisations located in Europe. The audits are done by the German government. The GS mark is a mark for the user. It should show the conformity to safety, EMC, it includes to check the user manual, it contains somehow the functionality of the product to be checked. The safety check should be based on standards, but the law defines an overall safety for the user, so sometimes GS means to check more like for example misuse. GS is not a quality mark, so we do not check, if a product lasts for one year of for longer time. The GS mark test houses and certification bodies are required to have an insurance. In case of issues on the market there is a defined escalation path. By law, it is not allowed to issue a GS mark only based on safety testing without taking care of EMC. If there is no EMC report available, then you might get a trade mark label like INNOVA mark, VDE, TÜV or others, but this is just showing, that one test house has done testing for safety. With best regards Horst INNOVA Product Service GmbH Ampferweg 6 87677 Stöttwang Tel: 08345-952727 Fax : 08345-952729 Von: [email protected] [ ailto:[email protected]]Im Auftrag von Gary McInturff Gesendet: Mittwoch, 26. Mai 2004 01:13 An: EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Betreff: Legal requirements linking GS and EMC Gents, The claim has once more been put forth by a major European based NRTL doing business in the us that they cannot grant a GS mark for ITE equipment unless they have the emissions data during the safety review. I believe that they may want it but it is not required under statutes, and in fact can hamper the certification process by turning a somewhat parallel process into an absolutely serial process. About the only connection that comes to mind is the X and Y capacitors - at least in most cases. They have safety requirements as well as EMC requirements. So if one goes through safety with parts that are identified as safety critical items and then have to make changes because of EMC one has to return to the safety agency and have a review of those components. If not the factory inspections would show a non-approved (sorry not a good choice of words) to maintain the agency mark. But the EMC data does not need to be presented. In my opinion, and you all may well be about to change that, is that the safety NRTL has no rights under the LVD, EMC, or the CE marking process to tie the two processes into their approval. If there isn't such a legal requirement I will be dropping the vendor and move on to one of the many others who can now provide the same services. If there is such a law I'm stuck and grudgingly concede. Thoughts? Thanks Gary McInturff
