Re: [PSES] Marking on Remote Controls

[Scott Douglas]

We don't consider it an accessory. We don't ship it inside any product 
packaging, It is boxed separately and sold either separately, or with 
other products on a larger order.



On 9/22/2017 11:13 AM, Nyffenegger, Dave wrote:


If the remote is an accessory to the primary product I’d think the 
certification labeling would be on the primary product and not needed 
on the accessory.


-Dave

*From:*Scott Douglas [mailto:sdouglas...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Thursday, September 21, 2017 6:25 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Marking on Remote Controls

We are located in the US but market primarily in the US, Canada, EU, 
Australia, New Zealand. We sell in other countries too, but those 
listed here are the main concern.


I did lift battery covers. Most only had information about the 
batteries (after removing them). One or two had what I call full 
compliance labels under the battery cover. But our remote has a very 
small battery cover and no place for any markings at all.


On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Michael Derby > wrote:


Hi Scott,

Did you try removing the battery cover, taking the batteries out, and 
looking for a label under the batteries?


That would be a ‘permanent’ part of the product (the battery cover 
itself would not), and as long as the remote control is shipped 
without the batteries in it, then it’s ok to have the label in there.


Also, where are you?   For example, if you’re in the USA, it’s 
possible the manufacturer chose not to include the IC number, CE Mark, 
etc.


(We’re assuming it uses RF communication, not infra-red, of course)

Michael.

*From:*Scott Douglas [mailto:sdouglas...@gmail.com 
]

*Sent:* 21 September 2017 23:00
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG 
*Subject:* [PSES] Marking on Remote Controls

Hi All,

We have a dilemma. We are making a new high-end remote control similar 
to those used with your TV or cable box or DVR, etc. I am asked what 
compliance markings are required to be on the outside of the remote 
control. The case is textured a bit and pad printing will be 
problematic. Thinking the usual ITE kind of stuff I said the model 
name, FCC and IC ID, company name, address, CE Mark, wheelie bin, and 
so on.


But I just surveyed 8 or 10 remotes in our PV lab from the big names 
in TV's and blue-ray players, etc. The markings ran the gamut from 
nothing to company name and model number, just a wheelie bin, one had 
a CE mark and wheelie bin. None had FCC orIC ID's, none had safety 
agency logos, and none had sticky labels with this kind of info.


We are willing to put all of this in a manual or paper insert in 
the box if necessary. But what can we legally get away without 
printing on the remote?


Looking forward to the interesting replies from this august body. And 
many thanks in advance for your comments.


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 >


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 >
Mike Cantwell >

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher >
David Heald >

-


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 >


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 >
Mike Cantwell 

Re: [PSES] Safety critical component part #'s and Agency approvals

[John Allen]

Velly Good J

 

From: John Woodgate [mailto:jmw1...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: 22 September 2017 21:20
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety critical component part #'s and Agency approvals

 

All fluxed up!

 

With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only

  www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and 
Associates Rayleigh England

 

UK is a sovereignty, not a Zollverein-ty

 

From: John Allen [mailto:09cc677f395b-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 9:05 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety critical component part #'s and Agency approvals

 

And, as an example of “sorting” a supplier,  we began to get hipot failures on 
a product and tracked it down to a simple IEC power outlet which was flashing 
over – the problem was finally tracked down to the supplier of the outlet 
assembly having changed the flux used for soldering wires to the outlet pins to 
one where the residue was conductive! When we “persuaded” them to change the 
flux back to the original type, the problem disappeared J.

 

John E Allen

W. London, UK

 

From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] 
Sent: 22 September 2017 20:13
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety critical component part #'s and Agency approvals

 

 

Back when I was working…

 

For each of our part numbers, we had a drawing (spec).  For purchased parts, 
the drawing was a cut and paste of the part manufacturer’s spec.  This drawing 
equated our part number to the manufacturer’s part number.  If the part was 
required to be certified, such was indicated on the drawing.  This drawing was 
used for purchasing the part.

 

Then, the company did away with incoming inspection.  The certification houses 
had a fit, and threatened to appeal to the president of the company.  I told 
the certification houses that I couldn’t justify setting up an inspection 
process and hiring people to look for the certification mark (for which we 
never had a failure).  (The certification houses had no sympathy for our 
expenses.)  Instead, I invited the certification house inspectors to the 
production line where they could look at the parts as they were being installed 
in the product.  This worked.

 

(Some parts are bulk-marked, so the certification mark is on the package.  In 
one inspection, the package had been discarded to the compactor.  Our 
manufacturing host climbed into the compactor and retrieved the package!)

 

We installed process measurement.  My process measurement was the number of 
inspection deficiencies, any one of which threatened to shut down the 
production line.  So, I instituted a periodic line inspection in anticipation 
of a certification house inspection.  I was much more thorough and detailed 
than the certification house inspectors.  I drove the deficiencies to zero.  
This infuriated the inspectors, so the certification houses sent managers to 
see why their inspectors could find no deficiencies.  Sigh.

 

Rich

 

 

From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 5:44 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety critical component part #'s and Agency approvals

 

We address this possible issue in two ways.

 

1.  We list the certification markings that are on Safety Critical 
Components on our purchase print as “incoming inspection requirements”. When 
parts are received, our IQA department visually verifies that the certification 
markings on the parts match the print. If they are different, the parts are 
rejected until this issues has been resolved (possible the manufacturer changed 
the certification body, etc.). 
2.  The purchase print also has a statement that says that the supplier 
must notify us in advance of any changes to the part including regulatory 
certifications and status. The purchase print is a type of contract between the 
supplier and the purchasing company.  
3.  Our Compliance Department performs Production Audits (usually on an 
annual bases) on all families of products. During these audits, all safety 
critical components are verified that they are what they are supposed to be and 
verifies the certification markings.  The certification markings is also a type 
of contract or declaration from the manufacturer.  

 

Datasheets and pages from the manufacturer’s catalog that shows certification 
marks, symbols, or a list of standards are really meaningless and as others 
have already pointed out this information can change without warning.  

 

The Other Brian

 

From: Regan Arndt [mailto:reganar...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 4:39 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Safety critical component part #'s and Agency approvals

 

Greetings everyone,

 

My experience in regulatory compliance dates back to 1994 where it was a 
foregone conclusion that most component manufacturers did not identify their 
agency 

Re: [PSES] Safety critical component part #'s and Agency approvals

[John Woodgate]

All fluxed up!
 
With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only
  www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and 
Associates Rayleigh England
 
UK is a sovereignty, not a Zollverein-ty
 
From: John Allen [mailto:09cc677f395b-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org] 
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 9:05 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety critical component part #'s and Agency approvals
 
And, as an example of “sorting” a supplier,  we began to get hipot failures on 
a product and tracked it down to a simple IEC power outlet which was flashing 
over – the problem was finally tracked down to the supplier of the outlet 
assembly having changed the flux used for soldering wires to the outlet pins to 
one where the residue was conductive! When we “persuaded” them to change the 
flux back to the original type, the problem disappeared :).
 
John E Allen
W. London, UK
 
From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] 
Sent: 22 September 2017 20:13
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety critical component part #'s and Agency approvals
 
 
Back when I was working…
 
For each of our part numbers, we had a drawing (spec).  For purchased parts, 
the drawing was a cut and paste of the part manufacturer’s spec.  This drawing 
equated our part number to the manufacturer’s part number.  If the part was 
required to be certified, such was indicated on the drawing.  This drawing was 
used for purchasing the part.
 
Then, the company did away with incoming inspection.  The certification houses 
had a fit, and threatened to appeal to the president of the company.  I told 
the certification houses that I couldn’t justify setting up an inspection 
process and hiring people to look for the certification mark (for which we 
never had a failure).  (The certification houses had no sympathy for our 
expenses.)  Instead, I invited the certification house inspectors to the 
production line where they could look at the parts as they were being installed 
in the product.  This worked.
 
(Some parts are bulk-marked, so the certification mark is on the package.  In 
one inspection, the package had been discarded to the compactor.  Our 
manufacturing host climbed into the compactor and retrieved the package!)
 
We installed process measurement.  My process measurement was the number of 
inspection deficiencies, any one of which threatened to shut down the 
production line.  So, I instituted a periodic line inspection in anticipation 
of a certification house inspection.  I was much more thorough and detailed 
than the certification house inspectors.  I drove the deficiencies to zero.  
This infuriated the inspectors, so the certification houses sent managers to 
see why their inspectors could find no deficiencies.  Sigh.
 
Rich
 
 
From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 5:44 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety critical component part #'s and Agency approvals
 
We address this possible issue in two ways.
 
1.  We list the certification markings that are on Safety Critical 
Components on our purchase print as “incoming inspection requirements”. When 
parts are received, our IQA department visually verifies that the certification 
markings on the parts match the print. If they are different, the parts are 
rejected until this issues has been resolved (possible the manufacturer changed 
the certification body, etc.). 
2.  The purchase print also has a statement that says that the supplier 
must notify us in advance of any changes to the part including regulatory 
certifications and status. The purchase print is a type of contract between the 
supplier and the purchasing company.  
3.  Our Compliance Department performs Production Audits (usually on an 
annual bases) on all families of products. During these audits, all safety 
critical components are verified that they are what they are supposed to be and 
verifies the certification markings.  The certification markings is also a type 
of contract or declaration from the manufacturer.  
 
Datasheets and pages from the manufacturer’s catalog that shows certification 
marks, symbols, or a list of standards are really meaningless and as others 
have already pointed out this information can change without warning.  
 
The Other Brian
 
From: Regan Arndt [mailto:reganar...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 4:39 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: [PSES] Safety critical component part #'s and Agency approvals
 
Greetings everyone,
 
My experience in regulatory compliance dates back to 1994 where it was a 
foregone conclusion that most component manufacturers did not identify their 
agency certification as a unique identifier in their part number.
 
I have seen some good progress over the years, but I also believe that the 
industry 

Re: [PSES] Safety critical component part #'s and Agency approvals

[John Allen]

And, as an example of “sorting” a supplier,  we began to get hipot failures on 
a product and tracked it down to a simple IEC power outlet which was flashing 
over – the problem was finally tracked down to the supplier of the outlet 
assembly having changed the flux used for soldering wires to the outlet pins to 
one where the residue was conductive! When we “persuaded” them to change the 
flux back to the original type, the problem disappeared J.

 

John E Allen

W. London, UK

 

From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] 
Sent: 22 September 2017 20:13
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety critical component part #'s and Agency approvals

 

 

Back when I was working…

 

For each of our part numbers, we had a drawing (spec).  For purchased parts, 
the drawing was a cut and paste of the part manufacturer’s spec.  This drawing 
equated our part number to the manufacturer’s part number.  If the part was 
required to be certified, such was indicated on the drawing.  This drawing was 
used for purchasing the part.

 

Then, the company did away with incoming inspection.  The certification houses 
had a fit, and threatened to appeal to the president of the company.  I told 
the certification houses that I couldn’t justify setting up an inspection 
process and hiring people to look for the certification mark (for which we 
never had a failure).  (The certification houses had no sympathy for our 
expenses.)  Instead, I invited the certification house inspectors to the 
production line where they could look at the parts as they were being installed 
in the product.  This worked.

 

(Some parts are bulk-marked, so the certification mark is on the package.  In 
one inspection, the package had been discarded to the compactor.  Our 
manufacturing host climbed into the compactor and retrieved the package!)

 

We installed process measurement.  My process measurement was the number of 
inspection deficiencies, any one of which threatened to shut down the 
production line.  So, I instituted a periodic line inspection in anticipation 
of a certification house inspection.  I was much more thorough and detailed 
than the certification house inspectors.  I drove the deficiencies to zero.  
This infuriated the inspectors, so the certification houses sent managers to 
see why their inspectors could find no deficiencies.  Sigh.

 

Rich

 

 

From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 5:44 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety critical component part #'s and Agency approvals

 

We address this possible issue in two ways.

 

1.  We list the certification markings that are on Safety Critical 
Components on our purchase print as “incoming inspection requirements”. When 
parts are received, our IQA department visually verifies that the certification 
markings on the parts match the print. If they are different, the parts are 
rejected until this issues has been resolved (possible the manufacturer changed 
the certification body, etc.). 
2.  The purchase print also has a statement that says that the supplier 
must notify us in advance of any changes to the part including regulatory 
certifications and status. The purchase print is a type of contract between the 
supplier and the purchasing company.  
3.  Our Compliance Department performs Production Audits (usually on an 
annual bases) on all families of products. During these audits, all safety 
critical components are verified that they are what they are supposed to be and 
verifies the certification markings.  The certification markings is also a type 
of contract or declaration from the manufacturer.  

 

Datasheets and pages from the manufacturer’s catalog that shows certification 
marks, symbols, or a list of standards are really meaningless and as others 
have already pointed out this information can change without warning.  

 

The Other Brian

 

From: Regan Arndt [mailto:reganar...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 4:39 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Safety critical component part #'s and Agency approvals

 

Greetings everyone,

 

My experience in regulatory compliance dates back to 1994 where it was a 
foregone conclusion that most component manufacturers did not identify their 
agency certification as a unique identifier in their part number.

 

I have seen some good progress over the years, but I also believe that the 
industry still continues to eliminate redundant certification (due to standards 
harmonization) or sometimes complete agency certification (for the sake of cost 
reduction) on components without changing their respective part number. Or even 
worse, continue to advertise that the component is approved but in reality, it 
is not.

 

Has anyone experienced anything recently that they wish to share? 

 

P.S. I am updating my old safety presentation and need some good examples 
before I present again to our local 

Re: [PSES] Marking on Remote Controls

[Nyffenegger, Dave]

If the remote is an accessory to the primary product I’d think the 
certification labeling would be on the primary product and not needed on the 
accessory.

-Dave

From: Scott Douglas [mailto:sdouglas...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 6:25 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Marking on Remote Controls

We are located in the US but market primarily in the US, Canada, EU, Australia, 
New Zealand. We sell in other countries too, but those listed here are the main 
concern.

I did lift battery covers. Most only had information about the batteries (after 
removing them). One or two had what I call full compliance labels under the 
battery cover. But our remote has a very small battery cover and no place for 
any markings at all.

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Michael Derby 
> wrote:
Hi Scott,

Did you try removing the battery cover, taking the batteries out, and looking 
for a label under the batteries?

That would be a ‘permanent’ part of the product (the battery cover itself would 
not), and as long as the remote control is shipped without the batteries in it, 
then it’s ok to have the label in there.

Also, where are you?   For example, if you’re in the USA, it’s possible the 
manufacturer chose not to include the IC number, CE Mark, etc.

(We’re assuming it uses RF communication, not infra-red, of course)


Michael.



From: Scott Douglas [mailto:sdouglas...@gmail.com]
Sent: 21 September 2017 23:00
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Marking on Remote Controls

Hi All,

We have a dilemma. We are making a new high-end remote control similar to those 
used with your TV or cable box or DVR, etc. I am asked what compliance markings 
are required to be on the outside of the remote control. The case is textured a 
bit and pad printing will be problematic. Thinking the usual ITE kind of stuff 
I said the model name, FCC and IC ID, company name, address, CE Mark, wheelie 
bin, and so on.

But I just surveyed 8 or 10 remotes in our PV lab from the big names in TV's 
and blue-ray players, etc. The markings ran the gamut from nothing to company 
name and model number, just a wheelie bin, one had a CE mark and wheelie bin. 
None had FCC orIC ID's, none had safety agency logos, and none had sticky 
labels with this kind of info.

We are willing to put all of this in a manual or paper insert in the box if 
necessary. But what can we legally get away without printing on the remote?

Looking forward to the interesting replies from this august body. And many 
thanks in advance for your comments.

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 
>

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 >
Mike Cantwell >

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher >
David Heald >

-


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 
>

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 >
Mike Cantwell >

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher >
David Heald >

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion 

Re: [PSES] Safety critical component part #'s and Agency approvals

[John Allen]

Rich & Friends

 

I, too in a past life at HP at Bristol, took the same approach of making sure 
that our processes and productions were  well in excess of what past experience 
had shown that UL/CSA inspectors had looked for – and, albeit with a couple of 
minor “glitches”, that resulted in a pretty “smooth ride” thereafter (even much 
earlier on, when things were quite good, a BSI inspector, on behalf of CSA 
IIRC, commented that if the inspectors “look down” a couple of layers and find 
little or nothing then they won’t look much lower – on the basis that they 
found that if there were companies where the first or second layer highlighted 
serious discrepancies then those do have “problems”, whereas with a company 
like us (then) they could probably find issues if they looked deep enough and 
hard enough, but that would not be “fair” and not be an “even playground”).

 

So, the moral is (if you can persuade the management to support you!) to sort 
your potential issues to a deeper level than you can expect from the inspectors 
(OR the “law” if a real problem appears to have surfaced) and then you can rest 
reasonably “easy” – and you hope that your suppliers have done the same! In 
other words, be rigorous with yourselves and check out your suppliers in a 
similar manner, and if they are not then sort or ditch them!

 

John E Allen

W. London, UK

From: Richard Nute [mailto:ri...@ieee.org] 
Sent: 22 September 2017 20:13
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety critical component part #'s and Agency approvals

 

 

Back when I was working…

 

For each of our part numbers, we had a drawing (spec).  For purchased parts, 
the drawing was a cut and paste of the part manufacturer’s spec.  This drawing 
equated our part number to the manufacturer’s part number.  If the part was 
required to be certified, such was indicated on the drawing.  This drawing was 
used for purchasing the part.

 

Then, the company did away with incoming inspection.  The certification houses 
had a fit, and threatened to appeal to the president of the company.  I told 
the certification houses that I couldn’t justify setting up an inspection 
process and hiring people to look for the certification mark (for which we 
never had a failure).  (The certification houses had no sympathy for our 
expenses.)  Instead, I invited the certification house inspectors to the 
production line where they could look at the parts as they were being installed 
in the product.  This worked.

 

(Some parts are bulk-marked, so the certification mark is on the package.  In 
one inspection, the package had been discarded to the compactor.  Our 
manufacturing host climbed into the compactor and retrieved the package!)

 

We installed process measurement.  My process measurement was the number of 
inspection deficiencies, any one of which threatened to shut down the 
production line.  So, I instituted a periodic line inspection in anticipation 
of a certification house inspection.  I was much more thorough and detailed 
than the certification house inspectors.  I drove the deficiencies to zero.  
This infuriated the inspectors, so the certification houses sent managers to 
see why their inspectors could find no deficiencies.  Sigh.

 

Rich

 

 

From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 5:44 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety critical component part #'s and Agency approvals

 

We address this possible issue in two ways.

 

1.  We list the certification markings that are on Safety Critical 
Components on our purchase print as “incoming inspection requirements”. When 
parts are received, our IQA department visually verifies that the certification 
markings on the parts match the print. If they are different, the parts are 
rejected until this issues has been resolved (possible the manufacturer changed 
the certification body, etc.). 
2.  The purchase print also has a statement that says that the supplier 
must notify us in advance of any changes to the part including regulatory 
certifications and status. The purchase print is a type of contract between the 
supplier and the purchasing company.  
3.  Our Compliance Department performs Production Audits (usually on an 
annual bases) on all families of products. During these audits, all safety 
critical components are verified that they are what they are supposed to be and 
verifies the certification markings.  The certification markings is also a type 
of contract or declaration from the manufacturer.  

 

Datasheets and pages from the manufacturer’s catalog that shows certification 
marks, symbols, or a list of standards are really meaningless and as others 
have already pointed out this information can change without warning.  

 

The Other Brian

 

From: Regan Arndt [mailto:reganar...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 4:39 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Safety 

Re: [PSES] Safety critical component part #'s and Agency approvals

[Regan Arndt]

LOL.great story! Thanks for sharing!
Damned if you.damned if you don't.

On Sep 22, 2017 12:13 PM, "Richard Nute"  wrote:



Back when I was working…



For each of our part numbers, we had a drawing (spec).  For purchased
parts, the drawing was a cut and paste of the part manufacturer’s spec.
This drawing equated our part number to the manufacturer’s part number.  If
the part was required to be certified, such was indicated on the drawing.
This drawing was used for purchasing the part.



Then, the company did away with incoming inspection.  The certification
houses had a fit, and threatened to appeal to the president of the
company.  I told the certification houses that I couldn’t justify setting
up an inspection process and hiring people to look for the certification
mark (for which we never had a failure).  (The certification houses had no
sympathy for our expenses.)  Instead, I invited the certification house
inspectors to the production line where they could look at the parts as
they were being installed in the product.  This worked.



(Some parts are bulk-marked, so the certification mark is on the package.
In one inspection, the package had been discarded to the compactor.  Our
manufacturing host climbed into the compactor and retrieved the package!)



We installed process measurement.  My process measurement was the number of
inspection deficiencies, any one of which threatened to shut down the
production line.  So, I instituted a periodic line inspection in
anticipation of a certification house inspection.  I was much more thorough
and detailed than the certification house inspectors.  I drove the
deficiencies to zero.  This infuriated the inspectors, so the certification
houses sent managers to see why their inspectors could find no
deficiencies.  Sigh.



Rich





*From:* Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com]
*Sent:* Friday, September 22, 2017 5:44 AM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* Re: [PSES] Safety critical component part #'s and Agency
approvals



We address this possible issue in two ways.



   1. We list the certification markings that are on Safety Critical
   Components on our purchase print as “incoming inspection requirements”.
   When parts are received, our IQA department visually verifies that the
   certification markings on the parts match the print. If they are different,
   the parts are rejected until this issues has been resolved (possible the
   manufacturer changed the certification body, etc.).
   2. The purchase print also has a statement that says that the supplier
   must notify us in advance of any changes to the part including regulatory
   certifications and status. The purchase print is a type of contract between
   the supplier and the purchasing company.
   3. Our Compliance Department performs Production Audits (usually on an
   annual bases) on all families of products. During these audits, all safety
   critical components are verified that they are what they are supposed to be
   and verifies the certification markings.  The certification markings is
   also a type of contract or declaration from the manufacturer.



Datasheets and pages from the manufacturer’s catalog that shows
certification marks, symbols, or a list of standards are really meaningless
and as others have already pointed out this information can change without
warning.



The Other Brian



*From:* Regan Arndt [mailto:reganar...@gmail.com ]
*Sent:* Thursday, September 21, 2017 4:39 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] Safety critical component part #'s and Agency approvals



Greetings everyone,



My experience in regulatory compliance dates back to 1994 where it was a
foregone conclusion that most component manufacturers did not identify
their agency certification as a unique identifier in their part number.



I have seen some good progress over the years, but I also believe that the
industry still continues to eliminate redundant certification (due to
standards harmonization) or sometimes complete agency certification (for
the sake of cost reduction) on components without changing their respective
part number. Or even worse, continue to advertise that the component is
approved but in reality, it is not.



Has anyone experienced anything recently that they wish to share?



P.S. I am updating my old safety presentation and need some good examples
before I present again to our local IEEE chapter meeting.



Thanks for sharing whatever you can. (privately or within this forum)



Cheers!

Regan
-


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

Re: [PSES] Safety critical component part #'s and Agency approvals

[Richard Nute]

 

Back when I was working…

 

For each of our part numbers, we had a drawing (spec).  For purchased parts, 
the drawing was a cut and paste of the part manufacturer’s spec.  This drawing 
equated our part number to the manufacturer’s part number.  If the part was 
required to be certified, such was indicated on the drawing.  This drawing was 
used for purchasing the part.

 

Then, the company did away with incoming inspection.  The certification houses 
had a fit, and threatened to appeal to the president of the company.  I told 
the certification houses that I couldn’t justify setting up an inspection 
process and hiring people to look for the certification mark (for which we 
never had a failure).  (The certification houses had no sympathy for our 
expenses.)  Instead, I invited the certification house inspectors to the 
production line where they could look at the parts as they were being installed 
in the product.  This worked.

 

(Some parts are bulk-marked, so the certification mark is on the package.  In 
one inspection, the package had been discarded to the compactor.  Our 
manufacturing host climbed into the compactor and retrieved the package!)

 

We installed process measurement.  My process measurement was the number of 
inspection deficiencies, any one of which threatened to shut down the 
production line.  So, I instituted a periodic line inspection in anticipation 
of a certification house inspection.  I was much more thorough and detailed 
than the certification house inspectors.  I drove the deficiencies to zero.  
This infuriated the inspectors, so the certification houses sent managers to 
see why their inspectors could find no deficiencies.  Sigh.

 

Rich

 

 

From: Kunde, Brian [mailto:brian_ku...@lecotc.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 5:44 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety critical component part #'s and Agency approvals

 

We address this possible issue in two ways.

 

1.  We list the certification markings that are on Safety Critical 
Components on our purchase print as “incoming inspection requirements”. When 
parts are received, our IQA department visually verifies that the certification 
markings on the parts match the print. If they are different, the parts are 
rejected until this issues has been resolved (possible the manufacturer changed 
the certification body, etc.). 
2.  The purchase print also has a statement that says that the supplier 
must notify us in advance of any changes to the part including regulatory 
certifications and status. The purchase print is a type of contract between the 
supplier and the purchasing company.  
3.  Our Compliance Department performs Production Audits (usually on an 
annual bases) on all families of products. During these audits, all safety 
critical components are verified that they are what they are supposed to be and 
verifies the certification markings.  The certification markings is also a type 
of contract or declaration from the manufacturer.  

 

Datasheets and pages from the manufacturer’s catalog that shows certification 
marks, symbols, or a list of standards are really meaningless and as others 
have already pointed out this information can change without warning.  

 

The Other Brian

 

From: Regan Arndt [mailto:reganar...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 4:39 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG  
Subject: [PSES] Safety critical component part #'s and Agency approvals

 

Greetings everyone,

 

My experience in regulatory compliance dates back to 1994 where it was a 
foregone conclusion that most component manufacturers did not identify their 
agency certification as a unique identifier in their part number.

 

I have seen some good progress over the years, but I also believe that the 
industry still continues to eliminate redundant certification (due to standards 
harmonization) or sometimes complete agency certification (for the sake of cost 
reduction) on components without changing their respective part number. Or even 
worse, continue to advertise that the component is approved but in reality, it 
is not.

 

Has anyone experienced anything recently that they wish to share? 

 

P.S. I am updating my old safety presentation and need some good examples 
before I present again to our local IEEE chapter meeting.

 

Thanks for sharing whatever you can. (privately or within this forum)

 

Cheers!

Regan


-

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 


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.

Re: [PSES] Safety critical component part #'s and Agency approvals

[Nyffenegger, Dave]

I run into the marketing BS data sheet issue quite often.  Glad to see I’m not 
the only one.  It becomes clear that whomever is drafting the data sheets does 
not understand the compliance specifications.  They will list standards in a 
section  called Approvals or such for example a UL standard implying that a 
product is UL approved when often it’s not, possibly approved by another lab, 
and some of the standards are not lab certified at all.  They will ambiguously 
list NRTL names.  Some data sheets will only show the NRTL logos somewhere on 
the data sheet and nothing more.   Some manufacturers produce excellent data 
sheets with clearly stated approvals and standards.  The rest need to be 
researched to validate their approvals and file numbers on the NRTL web site.  
I’ve caught several OEMs loosely claiming approvals that in fact did not have 
them.  Some power supply data sheets will list UL/EN 60950-1 as a standard but 
not indicate the class of supply or whether or not it was approved as SELV 
outputs which is optional to the standard.  Some of the most ambiguous products 
are those with multiple components such as IT equipment with external wall 
warts or brick power supplies or line cords where the external items are 
outsourced.  Some of those OEMs will claim an NRTL approval on the core product 
but when contacted can’t produce the NRTL approvals for their outsourced 
components supplied with it, sometimes they don’t even have the full electrical 
ratings.  That’s usually when I say goodbye and pick an alternative.

-Dave

From: John Allen [mailto:09cc677f395b-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org]
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 4:48 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety critical component part #'s and Agency approvals

Datasheets!

Mainly marketing “BS”!

Never believe them until you have checked in DETAIL with the mfr AND the 
certification bodies!

John E Allen
W. London, UK
From: IBM Ken [mailto:ibm...@gmail.com]
Sent: 21 September 2017 21:44
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Safety critical component part #'s and Agency approvals

I have run into this a lot:  I don't have any specific example part numbers 
saved, but often I will be given a datasheet that claims certification with a 
certain NRTL standard but I can't validate it online.  When asked, the 
manufacturer either says they dropped that certification, or it applied to only 
one particular part in the series.  In my experience, datasheets and marketing 
materials are often misleading (at best) about component certification.

-Ken A

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 4:38 PM, Regan Arndt 
> wrote:
Greetings everyone,

My experience in regulatory compliance dates back to 1994 where it was a 
foregone conclusion that most component manufacturers did not identify their 
agency certification as a unique identifier in their part number.

I have seen some good progress over the years, but I also believe that the 
industry still continues to eliminate redundant certification (due to standards 
harmonization) or sometimes complete agency certification (for the sake of cost 
reduction) on components without changing their respective part number. Or even 
worse, continue to advertise that the component is approved but in reality, it 
is not.

Has anyone experienced anything recently that they wish to share?

P.S. I am updating my old safety presentation and need some good examples 
before I present again to our local IEEE chapter meeting.

Thanks for sharing whatever you can. (privately or within this forum)

Cheers!
Regan
-


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 sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.com

-


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 
>

All emc-pstc postings are archived and 

[PSES] Class A Group 2 Registration??

[Kunde, Brian]

Our company makes an instrument that has uses an RF Isolator Power Amp and 
induction coil to heat up a small metal sample for analysis purposes (Lab 
Equipment).

By definition within the IEC/EN 55011 standard, this equipment would be 
classified as Class A Group 2. (hang in there; it’ll get more interesting)

However, because we shield the amp and coil so well, we do not need to take 
advantage of the relaxed Emissions Limits for Group 2 or use the ISM 
Frequencies.  The Instrument passes the Class A Group 1 requirements, so that 
is how we record it and claim compliance to within our documentation.  (almost 
there)

Every now and then, when we ship one of these instruments to another country 
(most currently, Russia), they recognized the instrument as a Group 2 product 
by nature of what it is. They Demand that we provide them with information 
regarding the RF Frequencies and Radiated Power Levels the instruments 
generates.  This appears to be some kind of Registration so the authorities 
know where the Group 2 product is located and what frequency it may emit high 
levels at.

(Finally, my question)
Is there a common way of providing the required information for Class A Group 2 
products?  Can anyone supply me with an example report or form that we can 
complete and have translated into different languages? (in this case, it has to 
be in Russian). Is there a better way of handling these requests regarding 
Group 2 products?

Thanks to all.
The Other Brian

LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: 

Re: [PSES] [BULK] Re: [PSES] Safety critical component part #'s and Agency approvals

[Regan Arndt]

Thanks Brian, so you are telling me that they did not change their part #
when they changed the hipot value?

If so, that's another interesting scenario to keep tabs on.

On Sep 22, 2017 7:20 AM, "Kunde, Brian"  wrote:

Regan,



I do not recall a case where a manufacturer completely removed a
certification, but I have seen the following scenarios:



1.   Where a certification will change, such as from the separate UL
 and CSA marks to a joined cULus or cCSAus mark. I’ve also seen marks
change from one agency to another like TUV:SUD to VDE or TUV Rheinland,
etc..

2.   Suppliers will notify us of a change in the standard that a part
is evaluated to or the test levels in which a part is specified for. One
example I recall is an opto-isolator where the manufacturer re-specified
the dielectric strength of the part due to a change in the standard they
use.  This flagged our R department to re-evaluate the part in the
application.

3.   The most common and recent change we had to deal with is where a
supplier first claims their parts to be RoHS-EU compliant. This is usually
done without any change to the part number. For us, how do we separate old
stock (where RoHS is questionable) from new stock? We had to make sure we
used up old stock prior to our declarations of RoHS or purge old stock
parts to insure we are using RoHS compliant parts.



I hope this was helpful.



The Other Brian



*From:* Regan Arndt [mailto:reganar...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Friday, September 22, 2017 9:48 AM
*To:* Kunde, Brian
*Cc:* EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org
*Subject:* [BULK] Re: [PSES] Safety critical component part #'s and Agency
approvals
*Importance:* Low



Thanks Brian. That's great you do this.

Can you share any examples of where they have removed agencies but still
retained the same part #?





On Sep 22, 2017 5:43 AM, "Kunde, Brian"  wrote:

We address this possible issue in two ways.



1.   We list the certification markings that are on Safety Critical
Components on our purchase print as “incoming inspection requirements”.
When parts are received, our IQA department visually verifies that the
certification markings on the parts match the print. If they are different,
the parts are rejected until this issues has been resolved (possible the
manufacturer changed the certification body, etc.).

2.   The purchase print also has a statement that says that the
supplier must notify us in advance of any changes to the part including
regulatory certifications and status. The purchase print is a type of
contract between the supplier and the purchasing company.

3.   Our Compliance Department performs Production Audits (usually on
an annual bases) on all families of products. During these audits, all
safety critical components are verified that they are what they are
supposed to be and verifies the certification markings.  The certification
markings is also a type of contract or declaration from the manufacturer.



Datasheets and pages from the manufacturer’s catalog that shows
certification marks, symbols, or a list of standards are really meaningless
and as others have already pointed out this information can change without
warning.



The Other Brian



*From:* Regan Arndt [mailto:reganar...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Thursday, September 21, 2017 4:39 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] Safety critical component part #'s and Agency approvals



Greetings everyone,



My experience in regulatory compliance dates back to 1994 where it was a
foregone conclusion that most component manufacturers did not identify
their agency certification as a unique identifier in their part number.



I have seen some good progress over the years, but I also believe that the
industry still continues to eliminate redundant certification (due to
standards harmonization) or sometimes complete agency certification (for
the sake of cost reduction) on components without changing their respective
part number. Or even worse, continue to advertise that the component is
approved but in reality, it is not.



Has anyone experienced anything recently that they wish to share?



P.S. I am updating my old safety presentation and need some good examples
before I present again to our local IEEE chapter meeting.



Thanks for sharing whatever you can. (privately or within this forum)



Cheers!

Regan

-


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: 

Re: [PSES] [BULK] Re: [PSES] Safety critical component part #'s and Agency approvals

[Kunde, Brian]

Regan,

I do not recall a case where a manufacturer completely removed a certification, 
but I have seen the following scenarios:


1.   Where a certification will change, such as from the separate UL  and 
CSA marks to a joined cULus or cCSAus mark. I’ve also seen marks change from 
one agency to another like TUV:SUD to VDE or TUV Rheinland, etc..


2.   Suppliers will notify us of a change in the standard that a part is 
evaluated to or the test levels in which a part is specified for. One example I 
recall is an opto-isolator where the manufacturer re-specified the dielectric 
strength of the part due to a change in the standard they use.  This flagged 
our R department to re-evaluate the part in the application.


3.   The most common and recent change we had to deal with is where a 
supplier first claims their parts to be RoHS-EU compliant. This is usually done 
without any change to the part number. For us, how do we separate old stock 
(where RoHS is questionable) from new stock? We had to make sure we used up old 
stock prior to our declarations of RoHS or purge old stock parts to insure we 
are using RoHS compliant parts.

I hope this was helpful.

The Other Brian

From: Regan Arndt [mailto:reganar...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 9:48 AM
To: Kunde, Brian
Cc: EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [BULK] Re: [PSES] Safety critical component part #'s and Agency 
approvals
Importance: Low

Thanks Brian. That's great you do this.
Can you share any examples of where they have removed agencies but still 
retained the same part #?


On Sep 22, 2017 5:43 AM, "Kunde, Brian" 
> wrote:
We address this possible issue in two ways.


1.   We list the certification markings that are on Safety Critical 
Components on our purchase print as “incoming inspection requirements”. When 
parts are received, our IQA department visually verifies that the certification 
markings on the parts match the print. If they are different, the parts are 
rejected until this issues has been resolved (possible the manufacturer changed 
the certification body, etc.).

2.   The purchase print also has a statement that says that the supplier 
must notify us in advance of any changes to the part including regulatory 
certifications and status. The purchase print is a type of contract between the 
supplier and the purchasing company.

3.   Our Compliance Department performs Production Audits (usually on an 
annual bases) on all families of products. During these audits, all safety 
critical components are verified that they are what they are supposed to be and 
verifies the certification markings.  The certification markings is also a type 
of contract or declaration from the manufacturer.

Datasheets and pages from the manufacturer’s catalog that shows certification 
marks, symbols, or a list of standards are really meaningless and as others 
have already pointed out this information can change without warning.

The Other Brian

From: Regan Arndt [mailto:reganar...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 4:39 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Safety critical component part #'s and Agency approvals

Greetings everyone,

My experience in regulatory compliance dates back to 1994 where it was a 
foregone conclusion that most component manufacturers did not identify their 
agency certification as a unique identifier in their part number.

I have seen some good progress over the years, but I also believe that the 
industry still continues to eliminate redundant certification (due to standards 
harmonization) or sometimes complete agency certification (for the sake of cost 
reduction) on components without changing their respective part number. Or even 
worse, continue to advertise that the component is approved but in reality, it 
is not.

Has anyone experienced anything recently that they wish to share?

P.S. I am updating my old safety presentation and need some good examples 
before I present again to our local IEEE chapter meeting.

Thanks for sharing whatever you can. (privately or within this forum)

Cheers!
Regan
-


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 
>

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, 

Re: [PSES] Safety critical component part #'s and Agency approvals

[Regan Arndt]

Thanks Brian. That's great you do this.
Can you share any examples of where they have removed agencies but still
retained the same part #?


On Sep 22, 2017 5:43 AM, "Kunde, Brian"  wrote:

We address this possible issue in two ways.



1.   We list the certification markings that are on Safety Critical
Components on our purchase print as “incoming inspection requirements”.
When parts are received, our IQA department visually verifies that the
certification markings on the parts match the print. If they are different,
the parts are rejected until this issues has been resolved (possible the
manufacturer changed the certification body, etc.).

2.   The purchase print also has a statement that says that the
supplier must notify us in advance of any changes to the part including
regulatory certifications and status. The purchase print is a type of
contract between the supplier and the purchasing company.

3.   Our Compliance Department performs Production Audits (usually on
an annual bases) on all families of products. During these audits, all
safety critical components are verified that they are what they are
supposed to be and verifies the certification markings.  The certification
markings is also a type of contract or declaration from the manufacturer.



Datasheets and pages from the manufacturer’s catalog that shows
certification marks, symbols, or a list of standards are really meaningless
and as others have already pointed out this information can change without
warning.



The Other Brian



*From:* Regan Arndt [mailto:reganar...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Thursday, September 21, 2017 4:39 PM
*To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
*Subject:* [PSES] Safety critical component part #'s and Agency approvals



Greetings everyone,



My experience in regulatory compliance dates back to 1994 where it was a
foregone conclusion that most component manufacturers did not identify
their agency certification as a unique identifier in their part number.



I have seen some good progress over the years, but I also believe that the
industry still continues to eliminate redundant certification (due to
standards harmonization) or sometimes complete agency certification (for
the sake of cost reduction) on components without changing their respective
part number. Or even worse, continue to advertise that the component is
approved but in reality, it is not.



Has anyone experienced anything recently that they wish to share?



P.S. I am updating my old safety presentation and need some good examples
before I present again to our local IEEE chapter meeting.



Thanks for sharing whatever you can. (privately or within this forum)



Cheers!

Regan

-


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher 
David Heald 
--
*LECO Corporation Notice:* This communication may contain confidential
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this
by mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.
-


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 sdoug...@ieee.org
Mike Cantwell mcantw...@ieee.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher j.bac...@ieee.org
David Heald dhe...@gmail.com

-

This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc 
discussion list. To post a message 

Re: [PSES] Safety critical component part #'s and Agency approvals

[Kunde, Brian]

We address this possible issue in two ways.


1.   We list the certification markings that are on Safety Critical 
Components on our purchase print as “incoming inspection requirements”. When 
parts are received, our IQA department visually verifies that the certification 
markings on the parts match the print. If they are different, the parts are 
rejected until this issues has been resolved (possible the manufacturer changed 
the certification body, etc.).


2.   The purchase print also has a statement that says that the supplier 
must notify us in advance of any changes to the part including regulatory 
certifications and status. The purchase print is a type of contract between the 
supplier and the purchasing company.


3.   Our Compliance Department performs Production Audits (usually on an 
annual bases) on all families of products. During these audits, all safety 
critical components are verified that they are what they are supposed to be and 
verifies the certification markings.  The certification markings is also a type 
of contract or declaration from the manufacturer.

Datasheets and pages from the manufacturer’s catalog that shows certification 
marks, symbols, or a list of standards are really meaningless and as others 
have already pointed out this information can change without warning.

The Other Brian

From: Regan Arndt [mailto:reganar...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 4:39 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [PSES] Safety critical component part #'s and Agency approvals

Greetings everyone,

My experience in regulatory compliance dates back to 1994 where it was a 
foregone conclusion that most component manufacturers did not identify their 
agency certification as a unique identifier in their part number.

I have seen some good progress over the years, but I also believe that the 
industry still continues to eliminate redundant certification (due to standards 
harmonization) or sometimes complete agency certification (for the sake of cost 
reduction) on components without changing their respective part number. Or even 
worse, continue to advertise that the component is approved but in reality, it 
is not.

Has anyone experienced anything recently that they wish to share?

P.S. I am updating my old safety presentation and need some good examples 
before I present again to our local IEEE chapter meeting.

Thanks for sharing whatever you can. (privately or within this forum)

Cheers!
Regan
-


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 
>

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 >
Mike Cantwell >

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher >
David Heald >


LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential 
information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by 
mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you.

-

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 


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 
Mike Cantwell 

For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher:  
David Heald: