Ray,
Turns out that UL just did an story on it in their On the Mark
magazine Summer 1998 Volume 2, Number 2, page 7. Makes interesting
reading particularly in the light of the discussion we have going. Here
is an interesting excerpt -
"Although the CE Marking was introduced by the EU to facilitate
free-trade throughout European countries, it is largely self-declared by
manufacturers, often without a basis in safety testing and requirements
to recognized standards, and often without a basis in independent,
third-party certification."
Somewhere along the line it points out two other items - its for
pan-European safety mark for household appliances, and get ready for
this, is in addition to the CE mark. The photo accompanying the article
shows a product with both.
Look out I gotta run to the production floor and spot weld on
some more metal for adding even newer marks! (Hmmm - maybe I should have
the manufacturing doors widened so that I can get the new safety mark
plate through the door.
Gary McInturff
-----Original Message-----
From: Russell, Ray [SMTP:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 6:05 AM
To: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]';
'[email protected]'
Subject: RE: Re[2]: Are all these agencies really
necessary?
Greetings,
A few years ago at a NEMKO seminar I attended, there was a
presentation on the "key mark". Because it looked like a key and
would
open doors to all markets. I believe this was a proposal from
the IEC.
Anyone hear any recent developments on this possibility? I
imagine
with the CE marking, that the push for something like the key
mark was
put aside in the EU.
Thanks,
Ray Russell
[email protected]
----------
From: [email protected][SMTP:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 5:27 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re[2]: Are all these agencies really necessary?
Dan et al,
Yes, OM, WM, or any other single mark would be much preferred
over
the current
system.
But, let's keep things in perspective. Years back (well, maybe
not
that far
back), it seemed that every counrty had its own unique approval
scheme, which
included unique standards, requirements and marks based on each
country's
bureaucratic policies. Now, at least, harmonizing of standards
and
requirements
are generally in place, which is a big step forward from what
was.
With this
being said, universal acceptance of a single globally accepted
approval scheme
is still years away and will be difficult to achieve due to the
human
bureaucratic parts of the equation (or until there's a single
world
government,
but we won't go there).
I think the USA - EU MRA is a step in the right direction to
accomplish this,
but I feel that the OM (one mark) idea is still far beyond the
MRA
once the MRA
completes. Wishing a thing to come true may be considered to be
a
goal. Working
to make that wish happen correctly is a means to that goal.
Just some of my humble thoughts on the subject. And, of course,
comments are
invited.
Best regards,
Ron Pickard
[email protected]
______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: RE: Are all these agencies really necessary?
Author: Dan Mitchell <[email protected]> at INTERNET
Date: 9/10/98 10:52 AM
The OM was just an example for purposes of illustration. A
better
name for
such a hypothetical beast would be World Mark (WM). If you read
the
earlier thread, you would have read that all the agencies are
getting
out
of hand and that it would be nice to do testing once, then apply
for a
OM?
or WM? and be allowed to sell your product any place in the
world
Daniel W. Mitchell
Product Safety
EOS Corp.
----------
From: Grasso, Charles
(Chaz)[SMTP:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 10:25 AM
To: Dan Mitchell; 'Peter E. Perkins'
Cc: PSNetwork
Subject: RE: Are all these agencies really necessary?
Would someone please explain the OM (Overall Mark)?
Thank you
Charles Grasso
(Captain Hook)
EMC Engineer
StorageTek
2270 Sth 88th Street
Louisville CO 80027 MS 4262
[email protected]
Tel:(303)673-2908
Fax(303)661-7115
> ----------
> From: Peter E. Perkins[SMTP:[email protected]]
> Reply To: Peter E. Perkins
> Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 11:57 PM
> To: Dan Mitchell
> Cc: PSNetwork
> Subject: Are all these agencies really necessary?
>
> PSNet & Dan,
>
>
> The OM (Overall Mark) is a good idea that continues to
be
promoted
> by industry, especially multinational businesses. Oh that
they had
> control
> to proscribe it... Remember that the underlying basis for all
of
this is
> a
> political issue in that nations want to control commerce in
some
manner -
> and many of the old-time controls have been taken away by
treaty
(the
GATT
> Treaty). We work in an arena where the high level politicians
tug
and
> pull
> to get their way. We see it in the expansion of the need to
have
a
> certification or mark on the products. Developing nations
have
figured
> out
> that they can easily play this game - just adapt the
international
> standards - ISO/IEC/CISPR, etc. - but demand a local mark of
approval.
The
> country supports a team of technical and bureauocratic
personel thru
the
> tax that you pay to get their bumper sticker. Americans,
especially,
like
> free enterprise = no restraints. Big business promoted the
use of
a
> manufacturer's based mark for Europe (the CE marking), but
were not
too
> happy that there is personal criminal penalty attached to
signing
the
MDoC
> and applying the mark. Much of the rest of the world isn't
ready
for
> the
> whole potato all at once either. Note the problems that the
Japanese and
> the Koreans are having trying to reform their old-boy networks
to
open
> their markets and offer opportunity for growth there... I
predict
that
it
> will get worse before it gets better... So, look at it as job
security,
> at
> least you're working (which is better than the alternative)...
>
>
> - - - - -
>
> Peter E Perkins
> Principal Product Safety Consultant
> Tigard, ORe 97281-3427
>
> +1/503/452-1201 phone/fax
>
> [email protected] email
>
> visit our website:
>
>
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/peperkins
>
> - - - - -
>
> ---------
> This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
> To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected]
> with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
> quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected],
> [email protected], or [email protected] (the list
> administrators).
>
---------
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected]
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected],
[email protected], or [email protected] (the list
administrators).
---------
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected]
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected],
[email protected], or [email protected] (the list
administrators).
---------
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected]
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected],
[email protected], or [email protected] (the list
administrators).
---------
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected]
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected],
[email protected], or [email protected] (the list
administrators).
