LOOKS LIKE WE'VE GOT A SERIOUS SITUATION ON OUR HANDS: In the good old bad days there were three major standards.
The US controlled by UL a private corporation. Canada controlled by UL a quasi governmental organization. CANADA'S STANDARDS ASSOCIATION IS CSA NOT UL. WHILE CSA, LIKE UL IS A PRIVATE, NON-FOR PROFIT ORGANIZATION, NOT A QUASI GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION, STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT IN CSA IS DRIVEN BY THE MEMBERSHIP THROUGH AN ACCREDITED STANDARDS ORGANIZATION, AND STANDARDS ARE NOT WRITTEN BY STAFF AND BLESSED BY AN INDUSTRY ADVISORY COUNCIL. THE AUTHOR OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT KNOW WHAT SHE/HE IS TALKING OF. > CSA was very concerned about the industrial end and had a major focus on > wire and insulation. (This is a little unfair to Canada) > At one point in order to be cost effective you had to build at least two > products base on where your main market was. I certainly would not put > the cost of the double insulated transformers and increased spacing into > a product that was 90% US based. We built other more costly units for > Europe. THE AUTHOR EITHER TELLS US THAT HIS ORGANIZATION DOES NOT MIND SOAKING THE CUSTOMER FOR UNNEEDED PROTECTION WITHOUT DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT, OR HE TELLS US THAT HE DOES NOT MIND PUTTING PRODUCTS ON THE MARKET THAT HE KNOWS TO BE HAZARDOUS, AS LONG AS HE CAN GET AWAY WITH IT. > If you look at the standards now all of these things have been > incorporated along with some national deviations - primarily to account > for power distribution. > Even from a susceptibility standpoint, regardless of whether you believe > these to be rational requirements or quality issues, if you're really > playing the global game the standards become universal. I have to be > able to withstand all of the requirements of EN50082-1; or -2. > The only thing we are missing is the universal acceptance of the > independent test marks within all of the countries that have adopted the > same basic set of safety requirements. IN THIS INDUSTRY ALL REQUIREMENTS ARE DERIVATIVES OF IEC PUBLICATION 60950 AND WE'RE TESTING THE HELL OUT OF THEM TIME AND TIME AGAIN. UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE OF ALL INDEPENDENT TEST MARKS IS A PIPE DREAM. THE SHEER PROBLEM OF TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT ALL THESE MARKS MEAN (IF ANYTHING) IS DAUNTING. AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION NEED MORE THAN A MARK. THEY NEED TO HAVE ASSURANCES THAT THE MARK STANDS FOR AN ORGANIZATION WITH INTEGRITY, ETC., ETC. THAT LEADS TO THE CHURCH OF ACCREDITATION. SOME MANUFACTURERS NOW HAVE ON AVERAGE ONE AUDIT A WEEK IN THEIR LABS, FROM ACCREDITATION ORGANIZATIONS OF ONE STRIPE OR ANOTHER. WHAT IS NEEDED IS THE MOVE FROM INDIVIDUAL MARKS ON THE EQUIPMENT TO A GLOBAL MARK THAT INDICATES THAT THE MANUFACTURER MAKES CERTAIN CLAIMS FOR THIS EQUIPMENT, DESCIBED IN LITERATURE OR FOR AS FAR AS i AM CONCERNED IN A DATA HOLOGRAM. IF THE MANUFACTURER GETS CAUGHT MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS, THE FINES WILL SHUT HIM DOWN. THAT GETS US AWAY FROM THE MARK CONFUSION AND PUTS THE RESPONSIBILITY WHERE IT BELONGS, WITH THE MANUFACTURER. MARKS OF CERTIFICATION ORGANIZATIONS MAY STILL BE DISPLAYED IN THE CLAIM OF COMPLIANCE OF THE MANUFACTURER. I would love to pay only once for > the same service but right now I pay UL and TUV for the same service and > inspections. YOU COULD USE THE IECEE CB SCHEME TO OVERCOME MUCH OF THAT PROBLEM. UL AND TUV WILL ACCEPT EACH OTHERS TEST REPORTS UNDER THAT SCHEME, FOR PRODUCT SAFETY. (I don't believe that I can get products universally accepted without it because of local preferences whether they be > governmental or customer preferences - yes I know there are vendors out > there that say they can do this and I am watching and waiting but its > not here yet.) THE NOTION THAT CUSTOMERS GIVE A DAMN ABOUT WHAT MARK IS ON THE EQUIPMENT IS A MYTH PERPETUATED BY THE CERTIFICATION HOUSES WHO HAVE SUNK MILLIONS IN MARK RECOGNITION. THEIR RESEARCH AND OTHER INDEPENDENT RESEARCH SHOWS THAT USERS WILL PICK WHAT IS LESS EXPENSIVE, NOT WHAT HAS A SPECIFIC MARK. THERE IS A PROBLEM IN THE USA IN THAT THERE IS NO CENTRAL ACCREDITATION ORGANIZATION THAT IS RECOGNIZED BY THE 5000 AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION. YOU CAN ONLY HOPE THAT THE AUTHORITIES WILL ACCEPT THE NRTL MARK OF OSHA. > Okay so maybe that was more than 2 cents worth and feel free to blow > holes in the e-mail. Its a great debate. > > Let me add my 2cents worth. > I have to compete with UL and certainly think that CE marked > products must be accepted by US authorities having jurisdiction (as these > should be eliminated as well, I had trouble with the Hayward City > inspector at one time)? CE MARKED PRODUCTS ARE NOT GOING TO BE ACCEPTED READILY BY AUTHORITIES THAT KNOW WHAT THE MARK STANDS FOR. THE MARK MEANS THAT THE MANUFACTURER HAS MADE A CLAIM THAT THE EQUIPMENT MEETS THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPLICABLE EUROPEAN DIRECTIVES. THE EUROPEAN UNION HAS A POST MARKET SURVEILANCE MECHANISM IN PLACE THAT PERIODICALLY VERIFIES THESE CLAIMS AND PUTS THOSE WHO ABUSE THAT MARK OUT OF BUSINESS WITH HEFTY FINES. EVEN IF THE MANUFACTURER INDEED MEETS THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPLICABLE DIRECTIVES, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE EQUIPMENT MEETS APPLICABLE US REQUIREMENTS. THERE IS NO SURVEILLANCE MECHANISM IN THE USA AND I DON'T SEE A RUSH ON THE PART OF THE AUTHORITIES TO START SPENDING MONEY ON BUILDING SUCH A SCHEME. IN ADDITION, WHILE ABUSING THE CE MARKING IS A PUNISHABLE OFFENSE IN THE EU, IT IS NOT IN THE USA. > Maybe they have something similar to the Hayward city inspectors > in France (and about 20 other countries I know of), how do they feel about > UL, in France? ABOUT THE SAME AS THEY FEEL ABOUT AFNOR IN THE US, I WOULD IMAGINE. > And if standards, why US standards, why not the other way around, the US > adapting international standards (with one or two national deviations)? AS ALREADY MENTIONED, US REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS INDUSTRY ARE ALREADY HARMONIZED WITH THE IEC STANDARDS. AN ORGANIZATION KNOWN AS CANENA IS BUSILY ADOPTING IEC STANDARDS AS TRINATIONAL (US - MEXICO - CANADA) STANDARDS. CSA HAS ADOPTED SOME 200 IEC STANDARDS IN ELECTRICAL SAFETY AS NATIONAL STANDARDS OF CANADA IN THE LAST 18 MONTHS. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, OR WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN ??????? > I for one am glad that I can still find VDE or SEV etc. approved > components, maybe these approvals are not perfect but I am sure I have a > good defense built up should the unthinkable occur. PICK YOUR NRTL WITH CARE, SOME WILL AND SOME WILL NOT ACCEPT COMPONENT CERTIFICATIONS FROM RESPECTED HOUSES OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY.
