Re: U.S. Safety Regulations
I read in !emc-pstc that nickjro...@cs.com wrote (in 16.1c718a0e.29d24...@cs.com) about 'U.S. Safety Regulations', on Tue, 26 Mar 2002: John, I have heard you express these sorts of ideas before. Can I ask you if you have any authority you can quote to back them up? I think you want to get into a legalistic argument, and I doubt that you are qualified to do so. I am not a lawyer either. But what I do know is that a defence is whatever you can get the court to accept. I did not say that a bald statement about a Directive would succeed; that's why one is 'represented' in court. The precise way of presenting the argument is all-important. As a fairly crude example, one might say that the words in the SI don't mean what the prosecution says that they mean. You refer to the words in the Directive from which the words in the SI were derived, and claim that they prove that the words in the SI mean what you say they mean. Now the prosecution has a problem. They can't admit that the SI is more stringent than the Directive, so they have to show that the Directive has that stringent meaning, which, if this is a case of 'gilded gold', they can't do. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org 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
Re: U.S. Safety Regulations
John, I have heard you express these sorts of ideas before. Can I ask you if you have any authority you can quote to back them up? To the best of my knowledge (and that may not be all that good) the only law that can be tried in a UK is UK law (English or Scottish where they are different) The directives are not UK law. Use of the European Convention on Humans Rights was only possible when that was written into UK law. Yet you claim that you could appeal directly to the Directive in a UK court. In an e-mail to me that was not copied to the forum you stated that you could put up a defence of the inadequacy of a harmonised standard if equipment was causing interference despite conformance to the standard saying such a prosecution would be fatally flawed. Yet all the cases I have read about such as the first prosecution in the UK of computer superstores in Cardiff on 8th october 1997 the defendants were accused of contravention of specific regulations of the UK Electromagnetic compatibility regulations 1992. In this case regulations 28 and 33 with a charge of contravening regulation 34 dropped. Certainly you could appeal to a European court if you thought that the UK court had not dealt properly with you and I believe it is possible in principle for an individual to take a country to the European court for improperly applying a directive. However it is the normal principle in a court that you cannot challenge the law itself. The court decides only on the law as it is You can claim that one law that that court has competence to judge has priority over another that is within its competence but as far as I know there is not way in a court that you can challenge the sovereign right of parliament to have cast the law in the way that it did, even if it is treaty bound to implement them in another way. To the best of my knowledge it is simply not within the competence of the UK courts to judge the UK parliament's compliance with international treaties. This must be judged elsewhere If you have case history or can quote any UK statutes to the contrary John I would be very interested to hear them. To George Alspaugh who said I know of no national laws that take precedence over the EU Directives for IEC/EN 60950. I would say that all of these laws take precedence over the EU Directives in the individual countries because all of them are law in those countries and the EU Directives are not law in any of them Only in the European Courts do the EU directives take precedence and those courts do not prosecute individual cases. (IEC standards by the way have no legal authority anywhere they are purely advisory for those setting standards that do have some legal authority)
Re: U.S. Safety Regulations
I read in !emc-pstc that Doug McKean dmck...@corp.auspex.com wrote (in 000401c1d4da$9a8f5bd0$cb3e3...@corp.auspex.com) about 'U.S. Safety Regulations', on Tue, 26 Mar 2002: John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk wrote: This *might* be significant in the UK, because the parliamentary draftsmen who interpret the Directives as Statutory Instruments, under the guidance of Ministers, have been accused of 'gold-plating' the Directives, i.e. 'stretching' the provisions in the direction of higher stringency. This criticism may be justified, but it may also be balanced by an official reluctance to prosecute unless advice and warnings are disregarded. But John, isn't that simply the method for all statutes? Aren't officials allowed to follow the letter of the law OR demand a stricter interpretation (within reasonable limits) rather than a weakened interpretation? I'm not sure quite what you mean by 'statutes' in this context. It is certainly NOT allowed to make the national law overtly more stringent than the Directive, because the whole point is to eliminate national laws that are technical barriers to trade, e.g. the former German EMC requirements, at least partially a legacy of the Adenaur government period, when the Allies wouldn't let Germany have any very usable LF or MF broadcast allocations, and what were allowed were jammed by the eastern powers. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org 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
Re: U.S. Safety Regulations
John Woodgate j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk wrote: This *might* be significant in the UK, because the parliamentary draftsmen who interpret the Directives as Statutory Instruments, under the guidance of Ministers, have been accused of 'gold-plating' the Directives, i.e. 'stretching' the provisions in the direction of higher stringency. This criticism may be justified, but it may also be balanced by an official reluctance to prosecute unless advice and warnings are disregarded. But John, isn't that simply the method for all statutes? Aren't officials allowed to follow the letter of the law OR demand a stricter interpretation (within reasonable limits) rather than a weakened interpretation? Regards, Doug McKean --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org 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
Re: U.S. Safety Regulations
Nick, Thanks for your comments. However, I like to simplify things to their essential ingredients. Whatever I may fail to understand, I do understand that my products will have no import within EU states if: 1. They are designed with IEC 60950 and common sense in mind. 2. They are third party certified via a CB Report to IEC 60950. 3. Similarly to 1 and 2 above for EMC. 4. A EU DoC is appropriately held within the EU. We do obtain certifications for Germany (GS mark) and Sweden (S mark), not because they are mandatory, but for ease of marketing. I know of no national laws that take precedence over the EU Directives for IEC/EN 60950. For the U.S. and Canada, one may follow a similar path: 1. Design to UL/CSA 60950 and common sense in mind. 2. Obtain either UL or CSA approval for both countries. 3. Submit EMC data to the U.S. FCC and Canada ICES. 4. No DoC required. A CB Report from a Euro test agency may be used to obtain either the UL or CSA blessing, or conversely, a UL or CSA CB may be used to support the EU DoC. George Nick Rouse nickjrouse%cs@interlock.lexmark.com on 03/25/2002 06:28:35 PM To: emc emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com, George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark.LEXMARK@sweeper.lex.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: Re: U.S. Safety Regulations George I fail to follow your argument, The fact that you have not been challenged or taken to law by any member state does not mean that it is not the laws of the member states that have legal juristriction. You have not been taken to the European courts of justice either. you say:- For ITE, the EU requires compliance to the Low Voltage and EMC Directives No, the EU requires that member states put in place national laws requiring compliance in that country of the requirements of the Low Voltage and EMC Directives. This is somewhat different. Had you transgressed and been prosecuted you would have been prosecuted under the national law of the country. If for instance you had been taken to court in the UK in relation to EMC problems you would not be accused of contravening directive 89/336/EEC, you would be accused of contravening the UK Electromagnetic Compatibility Regulations 1992 (SI 19992/2372) In Germany the same action will have you in conflict with Gesetz über die elektromagnetische Verträglichkeit von Geräten, (EMVG) In Belgium you will run foul of Royal decree of May 18th 1994 concerning electromagnetic compatibility; and in Greece Ministerial Decision number 94649/8682/ 93/25-8-94 And in each case it is you the manufacturer dealer or user that will be taken to court. It is not the country that will be prosecuted and it is not a matter of allowing entry. Crossing borders as such is not an offence either for an individual or a member state. The offence is placing on the market or taking into service non-compliant equipment at any point in the EU. The fact that you have not had any trouble with any of these national laws is good news, long may it remain so. However this does not change the fact that these are the laws under which manufacturers, dealers and users operate in the various countries and you should beware of the subtle differences between them. Nick Rouse - Original Message - From: geor...@lexmark.com To: Nick Rouse nickjro...@cs.com Cc: emc emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 5:16 PM Subject: Re: U.S. Safety Regulations Nick, To some degree, I beg to differ with your explanation, particularly with the following: It is these national regulations that have direct force of law on manufacturers, traders and users of equipment in that member state. It is not a matter of crossing boundaries into the EU or between member states, and not a matter of it being just wise to meet the various requirements. Wherever you are in the EU you will be breaking a local national law if you do not. For ITE, the EU requires compliance to the Low Voltage and EMC Directives. They have further listed harmonized standards which are deemed sufficent to comply. Under the present process, a manufacturer can obtain a CB Report of create a Technical Construction File to meet the LVD, and take EMC data at an authorized test site to meet the EMC Directive. At that point the manufacturer can apply the CE marking, and file a EU Declaration of Conformity within the EU. Since this process was adopted by the EU, we have not had a single EU member state ask to see either our DoC or our background test data/reports. So, there are no national regulations, but only the EU regulations, which were designed to do away with the many diveregent national regulations. Again, the EU law applies to member states, over which the EU has some power. There is no law pertaining to mfrs, but the Directives as to what the member states are to do to ensure safe products. If a mfr manages to place a product on the market that does not meet
Re: U.S. Safety Regulations
I read in !emc-pstc that Nick Rouse nickjro...@cs.com wrote (in 000f01c1d454$c9b2e390$0c4aacac@nick) about 'U.S. Safety Regulations', on Mon, 25 Mar 2002: I fail to follow your argument, The fact that you have not been challenged or taken to law by any member state does not mean that it is not the laws of the member states that have legal juristriction. You have not been taken to the European courts of justice either. you say:- For ITE, the EU requires compliance to the Low Voltage and EMC Directives No, the EU requires that member states put in place national laws requiring compliance in that country of the requirements of the Low Voltage and EMC Directives. This is somewhat different. Had you transgressed and been prosecuted you would have been prosecuted under the national law of the country. Well, you are BOTH right, and the difference is one of 'de facto' versus 'de jure'. If one were to be prosecuted under any of the cited national laws, one *could*, if it was appropriate, present a prima facie defence of compliance with the Directive in question, not with the national law, accompanied by a claim that the national law did not interpret the Directive correctly. This *might* be significant in the UK, because the parliamentary draftsmen who interpret the Directives as Statutory Instruments, under the guidance of Ministers, have been accused of 'gold-plating' the Directives, i.e. 'stretching' the provisions in the direction of higher stringency. This criticism may be justified, but it may also be balanced by an official reluctance to prosecute unless advice and warnings are disregarded. -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org 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
Re: U.S. Safety Regulations
George I fail to follow your argument, The fact that you have not been challenged or taken to law by any member state does not mean that it is not the laws of the member states that have legal juristriction. You have not been taken to the European courts of justice either. you say:- For ITE, the EU requires compliance to the Low Voltage and EMC Directives No, the EU requires that member states put in place national laws requiring compliance in that country of the requirements of the Low Voltage and EMC Directives. This is somewhat different. Had you transgressed and been prosecuted you would have been prosecuted under the national law of the country. If for instance you had been taken to court in the UK in relation to EMC problems you would not be accused of contravening directive 89/336/EEC, you would be accused of contravening the UK Electromagnetic Compatibility Regulations 1992 (SI 19992/2372) In Germany the same action will have you in conflict with Gesetz über die elektromagnetische Verträglichkeit von Geräten, (EMVG) In Belgium you will run foul of Royal decree of May 18th 1994 concerning electromagnetic compatibility; and in Greece Ministerial Decision number 94649/8682/ 93/25-8-94 And in each case it is you the manufacturer dealer or user that will be taken to court. It is not the country that will be prosecuted and it is not a matter of allowing entry. Crossing borders as such is not an offence either for an individual or a member state. The offence is placing on the market or taking into service non-compliant equipment at any point in the EU. The fact that you have not had any trouble with any of these national laws is good news, long may it remain so. However this does not change the fact that these are the laws under which manufacturers, dealers and users operate in the various countries and you should beware of the subtle differences between them. Nick Rouse - Original Message - From: geor...@lexmark.com To: Nick Rouse nickjro...@cs.com Cc: emc emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 5:16 PM Subject: Re: U.S. Safety Regulations Nick, To some degree, I beg to differ with your explanation, particularly with the following: It is these national regulations that have direct force of law on manufacturers, traders and users of equipment in that member state. It is not a matter of crossing boundaries into the EU or between member states, and not a matter of it being just wise to meet the various requirements. Wherever you are in the EU you will be breaking a local national law if you do not. For ITE, the EU requires compliance to the Low Voltage and EMC Directives. They have further listed harmonized standards which are deemed sufficent to comply. Under the present process, a manufacturer can obtain a CB Report of create a Technical Construction File to meet the LVD, and take EMC data at an authorized test site to meet the EMC Directive. At that point the manufacturer can apply the CE marking, and file a EU Declaration of Conformity within the EU. Since this process was adopted by the EU, we have not had a single EU member state ask to see either our DoC or our background test data/reports. So, there are no national regulations, but only the EU regulations, which were designed to do away with the many diveregent national regulations. Again, the EU law applies to member states, over which the EU has some power. There is no law pertaining to mfrs, but the Directives as to what the member states are to do to ensure safe products. If a mfr manages to place a product on the market that does not meet the LV or EMC Directives, it is the member state which allowed entry of the product that is held accountable. Of course, a mfr found doing this would have to remove the product from the market and would have a hard time doing future business in the EU. George Alspaugh Nick Rouse nickjrouse%cs@interlock.lexmark.com on 03/22/2002 04:44:05 PM To: emc emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com, George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark.LEXMARK@sweeper.lex.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: Re: U.S. Safety Regulations Thanks George for your outline of the basic way US safety works. Perhaps I may expand a bit on how EU directives works. First the EU directives are, as you say, not in themselves directly law in any of the member states. What they do is to direct each of the member states to pass into their national laws regulations emboding the requirements of the directive and most importantly to repeal any other legislation that lays any requirement in the aera covered on anyone placing relavant products on the market or taking them into service. The member states are bound to do this under the terms of the treaty of Rome and other European treaties. Any member state not properly transposing a directive into national Law is in principle liable to be taken
Re: U.S. Safety Regulations
I read in !emc-pstc that geor...@lexmark.com wrote (in 200203251717.MAA 11...@interlock2.lexmark.com) about 'U.S. Safety Regulations', on Mon, 25 Mar 2002: Since this process was adopted by the EU, we have not had a single EU member state ask to see either our DoC or our background test data/reports. That could be 'who you are' effect. Set up a subsidiary 'Superprodduck (Ruritania) Inc. Co. Ltd.'. You might find a more sceptical attitude! -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to http://www.isce.org.uk PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL! --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org 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
Re: U.S. Safety Regulations
Nick, To some degree, I beg to differ with your explanation, particularly with the following: It is these national regulations that have direct force of law on manufacturers, traders and users of equipment in that member state. It is not a matter of crossing boundaries into the EU or between member states, and not a matter of it being just wise to meet the various requirements. Wherever you are in the EU you will be breaking a local national law if you do not. For ITE, the EU requires compliance to the Low Voltage and EMC Directives. They have further listed harmonized standards which are deemed sufficent to comply. Under the present process, a manufacturer can obtain a CB Report of create a Technical Construction File to meet the LVD, and take EMC data at an authorized test site to meet the EMC Directive. At that point the manufacturer can apply the CE marking, and file a EU Declaration of Conformity within the EU. Since this process was adopted by the EU, we have not had a single EU member state ask to see either our DoC or our background test data/reports. So, there are no national regulations, but only the EU regulations, which were designed to do away with the many diveregent national regulations. Again, the EU law applies to member states, over which the EU has some power. There is no law pertaining to mfrs, but the Directives as to what the member states are to do to ensure safe products. If a mfr manages to place a product on the market that does not meet the LV or EMC Directives, it is the member state which allowed entry of the product that is held accountable. Of course, a mfr found doing this would have to remove the product from the market and would have a hard time doing future business in the EU. George Alspaugh Nick Rouse nickjrouse%cs@interlock.lexmark.com on 03/22/2002 04:44:05 PM To: emc emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com, George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark.LEXMARK@sweeper.lex.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: Re: U.S. Safety Regulations Thanks George for your outline of the basic way US safety works. Perhaps I may expand a bit on how EU directives works. First the EU directives are, as you say, not in themselves directly law in any of the member states. What they do is to direct each of the member states to pass into their national laws regulations emboding the requirements of the directive and most importantly to repeal any other legislation that lays any requirement in the aera covered on anyone placing relavant products on the market or taking them into service. The member states are bound to do this under the terms of the treaty of Rome and other European treaties. Any member state not properly transposing a directive into national Law is in principle liable to be taken by the Commission to the European Courts. The wording of the directives, heavy on permissive clauses and requirements on governments to allow goods to be moved, sold and put into service, surprises some people but it must be remembered that the wellspring of most of this legislation is the idea of a single European Market. The member states are not allowed to have local regulations that may act as an indirect trade barrier favoring local suppliers over those of other member states. By a having just a unified set of European technical requirements it is hoped to create a level playing field for all paticipants in the European market. The directives are usually implimented by some form of secondary legislation. Here in the UK we use things call statutary instruments. The Single European Market Act of 1987 was passed through the full legislative process but gives thereafter ministers of the crown the right to draft statutary instruments to impliment directives into UK law. They are placed in the libaries of both houses of parliment and it is in principle open to the members of parliament to pass a resolution anulling these instruments. In practice this never happens and after 7 days they automatically become statute law. It is these national regulations that have direct force of law on manufacturers, traders and users of equipment in that memmber state. It is not a matter of crossing boundaries into the EU or between member states, and not a matter of it being just wise to meet the various requirements. Wherever you are in the EU you will be breaking a local national law if you do not . The various national implimentations should all be the same but just to remind everyone that we still are 15 independant countries, there are small quirks in the the various implimentations that the Commission has not thought serious enough to stamp on. One such if the UK modified application of the EMC directive to educational establishments. In addition the member states may apply to the Commission for the right to have extra local laws to meet special local requirements An example of this is the UK 1994 Plugs and Sockets etc.(Safety) regulations that require
Re: U.S. Safety Regulations
Thanks George for your outline of the basic way US safety works. Perhaps I may expand a bit on how EU directives works. First the EU directives are, as you say, not in themselves directly law in any of the member states. What they do is to direct each of the member states to pass into their national laws regulations emboding the requirements of the directive and most importantly to repeal any other legislation that lays any requirement in the aera covered on anyone placing relavant products on the market or taking them into service. The member states are bound to do this under the terms of the treaty of Rome and other European treaties. Any member state not properly transposing a directive into national Law is in principle liable to be taken by the Commission to the European Courts. The wording of the directives, heavy on permissive clauses and requirements on governments to allow goods to be moved, sold and put into service, surprises some people but it must be remembered that the wellspring of most of this legislation is the idea of a single European Market. The member states are not allowed to have local regulations that may act as an indirect trade barrier favoring local suppliers over those of other member states. By a having just a unified set of European technical requirements it is hoped to create a level playing field for all paticipants in the European market. The directives are usually implimented by some form of secondary legislation. Here in the UK we use things call statutary instruments. The Single European Market Act of 1987 was passed through the full legislative process but gives thereafter ministers of the crown the right to draft statutary instruments to impliment directives into UK law. They are placed in the libaries of both houses of parliment and it is in principle open to the members of parliament to pass a resolution anulling these instruments. In practice this never happens and after 7 days they automatically become statute law. It is these national regulations that have direct force of law on manufacturers, traders and users of equipment in that memmber state. It is not a matter of crossing boundaries into the EU or between member states, and not a matter of it being just wise to meet the various requirements. Wherever you are in the EU you will be breaking a local national law if you do not . The various national implimentations should all be the same but just to remind everyone that we still are 15 independant countries, there are small quirks in the the various implimentations that the Commission has not thought serious enough to stamp on. One such if the UK modified application of the EMC directive to educational establishments. In addition the member states may apply to the Commission for the right to have extra local laws to meet special local requirements An example of this is the UK 1994 Plugs and Sockets etc.(Safety) regulations that require the fitting of UK style fused plugs to equipment solt to comsumers. Nick Rouse - Original Message - From: geor...@lexmark.com To: emc-p...@ieee.org Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 9:57 PM Subject: U.S. Safety Regulations There seems to be some confusion regarding U.S. product safety regulations. It is not as complicated as some have made it appear. I will try to simplify this topic. First, the European Directives may be EU law, but they are only directed to member states, not manufacturers, over which they have no legal authority. Read the text of some Directives. The EU Directives outline to member states what standards products must meet to enter the EU via any country border. Hence, manu- facturers who wish to market in the EU would be wise to adhere to the LVD and other applicable Directives. The U.S. OSHA regulations are virtually the same in this respect. These regs describe what employers must do to ensure a safe workplace. The employer is barred under OSHA rules from allowing employees to use specified products that do not meet OSHA require- ments. Hence, manufacturers who wish to market in the U.S. to businesses would be wise to adhere to OSHA requirements. Now, it is somewhat true that electrical products for the U.S. can either be NRTL approved for total U.S. distribution, or be approved by every local city/county electrical safety authority. BTW, this is an option that does not exist within the EU that I know of. Now, which method do you think is easier and less costly? Duh! I assure you it is the NRTL route, even if you desire to enter only one local market. There have been several opinions offered as to why any U.S. (or other) safety regs exist. My personal opinion is that manufacturers should apply the following concepts, in the order given: - provide products that will not cause injury or property damage - provide products that meet the standards - provide products that exceed the standards if appropriate
U.S. Safety Regulations
There seems to be some confusion regarding U.S. product safety regulations. It is not as complicated as some have made it appear. I will try to simplify this topic. First, the European Directives may be EU law, but they are only directed to member states, not manufacturers, over which they have no legal authority. Read the text of some Directives. The EU Directives outline to member states what standards products must meet to enter the EU via any country border. Hence, manu- facturers who wish to market in the EU would be wise to adhere to the LVD and other applicable Directives. The U.S. OSHA regulations are virtually the same in this respect. These regs describe what employers must do to ensure a safe workplace. The employer is barred under OSHA rules from allowing employees to use specified products that do not meet OSHA require- ments. Hence, manufacturers who wish to market in the U.S. to businesses would be wise to adhere to OSHA requirements. Now, it is somewhat true that electrical products for the U.S. can either be NRTL approved for total U.S. distribution, or be approved by every local city/county electrical safety authority. BTW, this is an option that does not exist within the EU that I know of. Now, which method do you think is easier and less costly? Duh! I assure you it is the NRTL route, even if you desire to enter only one local market. There have been several opinions offered as to why any U.S. (or other) safety regs exist. My personal opinion is that manufacturers should apply the following concepts, in the order given: - provide products that will not cause injury or property damage - provide products that meet the standards - provide products that exceed the standards if appropriate to achieve the first item - if the above are done, there is little else you can do to minimize product liability litigation [The above comments do not necessarily apply to extremely large and expensive products sold in volumes of only 1, 10, or so. These may best be handled by on-site installation approvals.] George Alspaugh --- 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: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@mediaone.net For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org 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
