In response to the 9/27/02 post from Gregg at Test4safety.com: There are some serious questions and there is a lot of information missing from your description of the situation. I'll try to address your statements one by one and offer my reaction as a former certification agency manager:
>>>>Can someone advise if the importer or manufacture takes the product to a test house and asks to test to a certain standard is there any legal obligation on the test house to advise of other implications or standards.<<<< This is entirely dependent on what kind of service the test house is being asked to provide. If the test house is being asked to certify to a standard and issue a certification mark, then the test house is obliged to ensure that the product complies with the standard(s) as specified under that certification program. If the the test house is being asked to issue a statement of conformity to a European Directive, then the test house must ensure that a representative sample is in compliance with the technical requirements of that particular Directive. Note that there may be other Directives that apply to the product, and the test house is under no obligation to ensure compliance to those Directives, nor is it under any obligation to ensure ongoing production compliance, unless it takes control of ongoing production through ongoing quality audits. If the test house is being asked to simply test the product to a standard and issue a test report, then the test house is liable for doing only that. And in that case, the test report applies only to the particular unit that was tested, not the ongoing production. >>>>This could be tricky - the Directive place liability on ALL IN THE SUPPLY CHAIN and additional duty of care on THOSE WHO SHOULD BE AWARE OF DANGERS.<<<< < I can assure you that no third party test house will assume liability for the compliance of any product to any directive. The test house is not part of the supply chain, nor is it an entity that should be "aware of the dangers" of any product for which it has no oversight over production or distribution. How could it? >>>>The non-EU lab might be involved under EU legislation; I do not see how a US lab could be involved.<<<<< I'm not an attorney, but I suspect that it would be extremely difficult for an EU court to prosecute a US test lab. >>>>TS had been to a UK test lab and it had been given a "it looks alright to the standard" response.<<<<< I have no idea what this means. Was the product physically investigated by the test lab? Was it tested to a standard? Was there a test report generated? Was a written statement provided by the test lab? Was the product given a certificate of compliance? Was it given a certification mark? Was it placed on ongoing production surveillance? My guess: None of the above. >>>>>>It took me all of 30 minutes to list several Electric Shock hazards (including direct operator contact to hazardous voltage over the entire surface of the heating element) - Wiring incorrectly rated and a likely source of fire - incorrect power rating. Flammability hazards within the heating element - and major parts - no fire enclosure - and single pieces of PVC tape (rated 80 °C) used to provide Reinforced insulation at 120 °C. All in all it was a lethal.<<<<< Doesn't sound to me like the test lab ever saw this product. Some test labs are more thorough than others, and all test labs make mistakes, but how long can an accredited test lab stay in business if it issues compliance statements on products that are "lethal"? >>>>I do not think it would have mattered if the original test lab had given a report - the product was obviously defective - the importer would have placed lives at risk so WELL DONE TSO's.<<<<< I think it would have mattered a great deal if the test lab had issued a test report. At least then you'd have something that I might call *information*. >>>>Perhaps the question SHOULD BE what liability do the Test Lab have to VICTIMS of non-compliant products???? Any takers??? <<<<< Yeah, I'll be a taker. Based on the clues you've provided, here's my guess. The non-compliant product in this case was never investigated by a third party. It was never certified by a third party. No test report was ever issued by a third party. No third party ever authorized its placement on the market. Therefore, no third party can be considered liable for it. Greg Galluccio www.productapprovals.com ------------------------------------------- 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"
