Hi Scott:
The product (which was certified to the version of the standard that was in effect at the time) was tested by a third-party laboratory (to a new requirement in the current edition of the standard) and found non-compliant. Somebody (either the laboratory or the authority) used the descriptive term "unsafe" because it did not comply with a safety standard. (To a naive person, non-compliance with a safety standard makes an "unsafe" product.) Since the third-party lab was engaged by the authority, you have no recourse to the lab (except on a friendly basis). Re-test to the "old" version of the standard can only be authorized by the authority (who has no interest in your sales and trusts that the third-party lab is testing correctly, including choice of standard). You can ask the authority to re-test to the "old" standard, but I guess that they would rather you "fix" the non- compliance and then they will authorize a re-test. The authority is naive as to whether or not the product is safe, and will go by the word of the third-party lab. As much as it hurts, I suggest that your only remedy is to make the product compliant to the latest version of the standard. Good luck, Rich On 7/31/2014 10:21 AM, Scott Xe wrote:
Recently we received a sales ban from an authority. The authority took a sample from the market and appointed a 3rd party laboratory for verification of LVD conformity. They found a non conformance on construction according to the latest version of safety standard and concluded the product is unsafe. The requirement is new in the latest version and did not appear in the previous version. When our product was verified by the 3rd party test house, it complied with previous version of safety standard but was the latest version of the safety standard at time of testing. The new version was issued 2 months later and has an additional construction requirement. The DoW of previous version of safety standard is in 2016. We are at loss how come they consider our product unsafe with the latest version of the standard during this transitional period. Any previous experience to deal with such authority can be shared? It sounds ridiculous charge on our product. Thanks and regards, Scott
- ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <emc-p...@ieee.org> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe) List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <emcp...@radiusnorth.net> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <j.bac...@ieee.org> David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>
