Well, my two cents says that it's not ONLY the voltage supply that decides safety by third parties. The safety effort we go through tests for hazards and shocks (all types): electrical, flame (really important), chemical, mechanical, ... to the end user.
I would ask how and why your people are absolutely certain the testing is unnecessary? If there were some accident in the workplace with the product, God forbid, would your people be willing to have the finger pointed at them for selling untested equipment? I think a previous incident years ago with a central office in Chicago burning down is a prime example. And don't get into 1910.399 making it the only requirement for testing product because I believe it covers only that which has to get connected to the mains, i.e. that which requires an electrician to connect, if you read it to the absolute letter. Pluggable or battery powered equipment gets more sticky with 1910.399. Be careful going down that road. OTOH, there have been some cases where successful NRTL safety testing didn't make a hill of beans during litigation. But that was a case of deep pockets. No, I'm not a liberty to say which company it was but I'm willing to bet it wasn't the only one. - Doug McKean ------------------------------------------- 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: [email protected] with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson: [email protected] Dave Heald [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] Jim Bacher: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.rcic.com/ click on "Virtual Conference Hall,"
