Disclaimer: I'm not arguing for one system or another. I'm only trying to provide a bit more background for the differences in the two systems based on personal experience. I've worked with both systems for a while, and I've had my share of problems with NRTLs. I also recognize that my opinions may not be shared by everybody. However, I'm interested in a good discussion and I'm open to alternate views. Read on and then fire away.
One of the reasons third-party certification persists in the United States is because there is very little market surveillance. Electrical inspectors may check for a third-party approval if the inspector is closing out an electrical permit. However, this doesn't always happen. Consumer products almost never get checked unless there is a reported problem. Retailers may enforce their own standards, and most large retailers will require manufacturers to have third-party approval before the retailer will carry the product. Smaller stores often don't have any requirements and electronics that have never been tested can easily be purchased in the United States. The United States also generally enforces electrical codes at the city or county level. There are cases where cities have their own code or you may have rules common state-wide. The federal requirements were partly imposed because there was such a disparity in practice from one jurisdiction to another. Employees in one state or city might have local inspectors who ensure that there is a safe workplace while employees in another jurisdiction might be exposed to far more hazardous equipment. In my opinion, if the United States switched to a self-declaration system, greater market surveillance would be required to prevent unscrupulous manufacturers from selling their products. I see far more product recalls on the EU RAPEX site than from the CPSC. Let me add a few items about the Nationally Recognized Test Laboratories (NRTLs). I've worked with quite a few of them and they all have a few things in common. First, none of them will stand behind a customer in court. If you have an NRTL Listed system, and it fails, it is fully your responsibility. The NRTL operating agreements and contracts provide liability protection. The manufacturer agrees to take full responsibility when they sign the contract with the NRTL. If your product fails, you are responsible. Companies can use NRTL Listing to show that they did due diligence in trying to design a safe product, but NRTL Listing won't get you much more in court. Under the U.S. system, the manufacturer and their liability insurance carrier feel the responsibility and they pay if something goes wrong. The NRTL Listing is only another piece of evidence you have to try to convince the jury to see things your way. Second, I've never had a significant problem when an alternate part was used in manufacturing before the NRTL report could be updated properly. At a previous employer, a sourcing manager would occasionally find a cheaper part. The review system wasn't prefect and parts could be put into production without notifying the safety engineering department. When the NRTL found it during an inspection, hassles were minimal. The NRTL inspector could make the determination on the spot that the new part was as acceptable as the old part. In that case, the manufacturer was given a fixed amount of time to update their report, but no production was held up. If the NRTL inspector couldn't make the determination, I was able to work quickly with the NRTL engineering office to show that the new part was acceptable. This could usually be completed within 24 hours. The NRTL would restrict shipments from the factory of the products with their mark until the issue was resolved. However, production! could continue. I've never worked for a company where a component substitution could result in a potential hazard, so I can't comment on that from personal experience. However, if that should happen, the NRTL can determine what level of rework is required. If there is no significant hazard, the NRTL may require rework to current inventory and new production. If the hazard is more significant, the NRTL might request some type of field action. However, in this case, the NRTL might actually be preventing potentially hazardous products from being shipped. This system does raise the cost of using alternate components. If you find a part that is better due to cost, quality or performance, you still have to pay a fee to demonstrate this to the NRTL. This does affect the company's ability to make nimble changes and that is definitely a drawback. The NRTL inspections are also based on the risk. For most product types, the NRTLs will inspect about 4 times a year. However, if a manufacturer repeatedly has problems, the NRTL will typically increase the frequency of the inspections. If the problems are not resolved in a satisfactory timeframe, the NRTL may withdraw their approval for the product. The NRTLs will also perform more frequent inspections on products that have a greater safety impact, such as circuit breakers. If something goes wrong with a circuit breaker, a house could burn down. The NRTLs typically will inspect far more frequently than once every three months. I have worked for a small company where the cost of NRTL approval was very high compared to the revenue derived from a product. However, the cost did not significantly restrict the company's ability to innovate or reach the market. As a small company, there were few employees with the knowledge or experience to truly understand safe product design and the NRTL oversight ended up being beneficial. Personally, I would prefer a self-declaration system with a reasonable amount of market surveillance and oversight. However, with the current political climate, I don't see the U.S. implementing permanent system that provides the increased surveillance. Ted Eckert Compliance Engineer Microsoft Corporation ted.eck...@microsoft.com The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. -----Original Message----- From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk] Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 9:07 AM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: CE Marking Provoqium In message <502fb647.26423.642b...@ptarver.ieee.org>, dated Sat, 18 Aug 2012, Peter Tarver <ptar...@ieee.org> writes: >100% to 400% more often. How often would give you confidence? Actually it's 100% to 300%, but never mind. It's not about confidence, it's whether another approach is better. > >As a former NRTL (noninspecting) employee, I was subjected to noise >from some manufacturer's about how intrusive quarterly inspections >were. Yes, they are; my point is that they aren't a good way to control conformity either. > >I suspect there's no system that will satisfy all players. I'm sure we can agree on that! > >> With self-certification, the appropriate action is to determine >> whether the product is still compliant when the XY23C is introduced, >> or when the substitution is discovered, with tests if necessary, and >> if it is, no further action is necessary. > >At another former employer, I heard a story of a moderately large piece >of rack mountable equipment designed by an European subsidiary intended >for the European market that could not be brought into compliance with >radiated emissions limits using standardized test methods without >significant revisit to the drawing board. Their solution? >Place the unit on its back. Et voila! A self certification was >emitted. If the product was going to Germany or Austria, there is a risk that the product would be rejected by active surveillance. In other countries, it would only be rejected if it actually caused interference. Autre pays, autre moeurs. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk Instead of saying that the government is doing too little, too late or too much, too early, say they've got is exactly right, thus throwing them into total confusion. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <emcp...@radiusnorth.net> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <j.bac...@ieee.org> David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com> - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <emcp...@radiusnorth.net> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <j.bac...@ieee.org> David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>
