Doug, and Scott,
Thanks for the input.
I guess I should learn to rant and rave with clarity. You both are
correct but I should have pointed out that 1) these are self contained laser
optics modules, and 2) I should have said the letter of accession without the
CDRH or test data acceptable to UL.
I agree with the position the NRTL takes without having any data in
front of them that supports the manufacturers claims of eye safeness. Some of
these things even have class II lasers, but are internally constructed so that
they can only output class I levels. So as a NRTL I certainly would want to
have some verification. other than just a letter than basically says we
received some information from and we'll let you know.
I have explained more times than I care to remember, that I will even
take the unrecognized component route if they will simply provide UL (yeah I
guessed from the clues Scott), with a copy of the CDRH and the letter. The
information contained in the CDRH stays proprietary to the laser vendor because
it goes direct to UL and not me. They release no information to me, just review
the document for their needs and accept the module for use in my equipment. If
I'm the only guy buying their modules they are done, if not they are going to
have to keep repeating this process but that is their worry not mine.
The only exception to the case is where I have an "array" of these
modules sticking out the front of the box. Then I worry about the flammability
of the parts as well. Look at the front of medium and large switches and
routers you'll be impressed by the number of these things bridging the
enclosure inside to out.
I have even spent a 1/2 hour or so with one of the district sales guys
for one of these companies reviewing all of the requirements, how the NRTL's
investigate and verify components, and why. He charged out here all set to go.
6 months later still no progress and I disqualified the company. Basically, we
don't even look at this vendor for new parts. They check in with the component
guys every so often and the first question is have you completed the necessary
steps to provide proof of certification acceptable to the NRTL. The
conversations is generally halted about that time.
So if you provided both, the letter and the CDRH test data I can be
happy, but not just the letter by itself. I just keep seeing that fool letter
stand alone.
Thanks
Gary
-------------------------------------------
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:
Ron Pickard: [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://ieeepstc.mindcruiser.com/
Click on "browse" and then "emc-pstc mailing list"
