Indeed certificates and conditions of acceptability are available. However in referring to the original question of Mr. Donald McElhearn, the objective as I understood it was to determine whether a less expensive uncertified component replacement was designed to an equivalent level of safety (standard). To make this determination it is the construction descriptions and test records that would be required. Manufacturers will not readily provide these.
As to your comment about cost generally not being an issue. Certainly this is dependent on the component type, quantity, whether the vendor has an established follow-up etc. Finally, safety certification agencies like UL evaluate products in accordance with safety standards. If they are using dummy loads, that is because the standard allows them to do so. Quite often, product quality, reliabilty and safety are intermingled. An easy example would that of a medical theraupeutic system. Regards. ---------- > From: Gary McInturff <gmcintu...@packetengines.com> > To: 'rlanz' <rl...@concentric.net>; emc-p...@ieee.org > Subject: RE: Access to approval file. > Date: Wednesday, August 12, 1998 11:44 PM > > The answer to item 2 confuses me. Manufacturers of certified components > are very interested to provide you with copies of the certification > documents - if not delete them from your authorized vendor list. In fact > I have several folders of TUV and VDE certificates and copies of UL > Recognition reports with conditions of acceptability sitting in my > office. All of them supplied by manufacturers upon request. > They don't detail the construction or the test results of the approval > process, but the provide proof that that meet whatever standard they to > which they are subject. I don't know why you would want more detail than > that, but you could get a complete copy of the construction report from > the manufacturers as well. > It standard practice to ask for these certificates and if I don't get > them from a particular vendor they are removed from our approved vendor > list, unless this is a custom part. > Cost between approved components and non approved components is > generally not a real issue. The vendor amortizes the cost of the > investigation and follow up services over the life of the production > run. > Safety certificates should never be confused for any sort of quality > check. All the safety agencies want to know is does it perform without > hazard, and when it doesn't does it fail without hazard. Stereo's are > tested with dummy loads rather than speakers for example. They won't > hurt you but they sure may not have the sound quality you want, and they > might only work for a week before the break - but that is not a factor > in its safety approval. > > Gary McInturff > > > -----Original Message----- > From: rlanz [SMTP:rl...@concentric.net] > Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 1998 3:31 PM > To: emc-p...@ieee.org > Subject: Re: Access to approval file. > > 1. Certification bodies will not release such files unless > authorized in > writing to do so by the holder of the file. > > 2. Manufacturers of certified components will not feel compelled > to release > copies of their files since the certification marking is proof > enough of > certification. > > 3. If you are interested in having your new system certified by > an NRTL > then comparison cost data is incomplete without considering the > cost of > having an uncertified component evaluated. The NRTL is not > likely to > accept your product without the component being separately > evaluated. > > 4. If certification is not your dilemma, but you wish to be > sure that the > replacement part is held to the same standard as the original, > you can > evaluate the component (or have the vendor do so) to the > applicable > component safety standard. However be forewarned, depending on > the > component, this may not be a simple matter. Seemingly simple > components > like switches can have complicated compliance test schemes. > > Regards > Rich Lanzillotto > rl...@concentric.net > Regulatory Consultant > > ---------- > > From: Donald McElhearn <don...@hq.rossvideo.com> > > To: emc-p...@ieee.org > > Subject: Access to approval file. > > Date: Wednesday, August 12, 1998 2:18 PM > > > > > > Could someone perhaps provide some insight or share their > experiences > with > > obtaining copies of approval files on specific parts or > products. > > > > Is it a general practice to request approval files from > product > manufactures or is > > a service that the certifing bodies are better equipped to > provide? > > > > A little background maybe of some use to those of us that are > less > experience > > in these matters on this forum. > > > > As a manufacturer of products which primarily consist of other > manufacturer's > > discrete parts our experience has been when submitting product > for > testing > > approvals, is to provide the testing bodies with all available > information related > > to the discrete products approvals. This information typically > includes > some > > reference to a file prepared for the part by a each of the > certified > bodies and > > perhaps a reference to the thermal rating of material used in > it's > manufacture. > > > > Currently we are working through a process of cost reduction, > by > evaluating > > potential replacement parts used in a previously certified > product. We > have > > worked with a manufacturer which has produced, for all > external purposes, > a > > direct replacement part at a very attractive price. This part > unfortunately has not > > at this time been submitted for certified approvals, and may > never be. > > > > I has been my experience and I am under the impression that in > many cases > > > testing requirements can be minimized by the use of previously > approved > > individual parts. > > > > Where my difficulty arises is in how to base an evaluation of > whether or > not > > similar parts are considered to be equal as they relate to > safety. For > me, a > > reference to a certified bodies file number provide no > information as to > what test > > were conducted and the results of those tests. > > > > Is it assumed that a person wishing to make these comparisons, > obtain the > > > contents of these files? If so, is it intended that the source > of this > information > > be provided by the part manufacturer, which in this case > appears not to > be in > > their best interest, or are the certifing bodies equipped to > provide this > detail? > > > > Could anyone enlighten a confused soul. > > > > Donald McElheran > > > > > > --------- > > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. > > To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com > > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the > > quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, > > ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list > > administrators). > > > > --------- > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. > To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the > quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, > ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list > administrators). --------- This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators).
