Rich, Thanks for your advice. It is unnecessary to re-test with previous version of standard since they did not find any non-conformance except the additional construction requirement. Thus they do not want to confirm we are right -> they are wrong. In next production, the product will comply with the latest version of standards.
Regards, Scott On 2 Aug, 2014, at 3:20 am, Richard Nute <ri...@ieee.org> wrote: > > > Hi Scott: > > > The product (which was certified to the version of the > standard that was in effect at the time) was tested by > a third-party laboratory (to a new requirement in the > current edition of the standard) and found non-compliant. > Somebody (either the laboratory or the authority) used > the descriptive term "unsafe" because it did not comply > with a safety standard. > > (To a naive person, non-compliance with a safety standard > makes an "unsafe" product.) > > Since the third-party lab was engaged by the authority, > you have no recourse to the lab (except on a friendly > basis). Re-test to the "old" version of the standard > can only be authorized by the authority (who has no > interest in your sales and trusts that the third-party > lab is testing correctly, including choice of standard). > > You can ask the authority to re-test to the "old" standard, > but I guess that they would rather you "fix" the non- > compliance and then they will authorize a re-test. The > authority is naive as to whether or not the product is > safe, and will go by the word of the third-party lab. > > As much as it hurts, I suggest that your only remedy is > to make the product compliant to the latest version of > the standard. > > > Good luck, > Rich > > > > On 7/31/2014 10:21 AM, Scott Xe wrote: >> Recently we received a sales ban from an authority. The authority took a >> sample from the market and appointed a 3rd party laboratory for verification >> of LVD conformity. They found a non conformance on construction according >> to the latest version of safety standard and concluded the product is >> unsafe. The requirement is new in the latest version and did not appear in >> the previous version. >> >> When our product was verified by the 3rd party test house, it complied with >> previous version of safety standard but was the latest version of the safety >> standard at time of testing. The new version was issued 2 months later and >> has an additional construction requirement. The DoW of previous version of >> safety standard is in 2016. We are at loss how come they consider our >> product unsafe with the latest version of the standard during this >> transitional period. Any previous experience to deal with such authority >> can be shared? It sounds ridiculous charge on our product. >> >> Thanks and regards, >> >> 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 <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 <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>
