I agree. There is no relationship between EMI signatures and safety requirements. I could see a request to examine the EMI signatures being compliant in the sense that then the design is fixed, but that is a cumbersome, serial way of doing things. The processes ought to be parallel except where a design change affects a safety item, as in your example.
on 5/25/04 6:13 PM, Gary McInturff at [email protected] wrote: 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
