No "countries have banded together" for the CB scheme whatsoever, this is an agreement between agencies or NCB's (national certification bodies) promoted by the IEC. The CB scheme is not a substitute for the CE mark. I am not sure how the acceptance of a CB certificate (by agency Nr.955) to issue a NRTL mark would play with OSHA. As to the future of the scheme with the confusing array of thousands of NCB's (some countries have laws to protect "their" monopoly NCB), I am a little concerned with the value of these approvals.
As for the EU, there is very little if any money generated for "government bureaucrats" by these certifications. The only real government agencies left are the accreditation (in some cases) and surveillance bodies. In the US, to name the more important ones, we have OSHA, FCC and the FDA. The FDA is special in that it does everything under one roof, from writing standards to assessments, testing and enforcement. The current system in the EU is fairly market oriented with multiple agencies and open certification schemes. It is not that much different from the way the rest of society works, the best agency (service, name recognition, market value and quality) wins. The universal EMC/product safety certification is the CE mark. As to the agencies involved, who can blame the Swedish if the like SEMKO better or have a better recognition of the brand name, (same for UL in the US)? I believe that it is far more difficult to trade with the US with multiple jurisdictions, state laws and the city of LA. Have a look at the switch gear used in the US and the one used in the EU. This stuff not only looks better in the EU you will also find more suppliers in that market (with all those nice test marks). The general proliferation of safety and environmental (i.e. EMC, acoustics) standards and regulations is what make it almost impossible for small and medium sized companies to comply unless they use specialists. And in many instances the same person (a US company representative in many cases) sits at different committees that write different standards for the same thing. I did not count it, but my guess is that the UL deviations to IEC 950 occupy more paper then the standard itself. The EU (or the organization on their behalf) has done a fairly good job in adapting IEC, CISPR and ISO standards (maybe not true for telecom world) and as more countries get added to EU and EFTA this has made it much easier for suppliers. Many simply adapt the attitude that not knowing is the best means of defense. Ergo, there is plenty of work for Pete Perkins (and TUV). Matthias R. Heinze TUV Rheinland --------- 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).
