Is it CE Marked product sufficient to be imported/cross borders without
barrier? It may mislead non technical people to believe CE mark is the only
requirements for EU. What about REACH, Food Contact Materials, Packaging &
packaging waste, energy label, etc. directives/regulations? Is there any
In message
,
dated Sat, 25 Aug 2012, Pat Lawler writes:
CE marking allows a product to be imported/cross borders without
barrier.
Correct.
If something is assembled and sold inside the same EU country (the
product never crosses borders), who is responsible for CE enforcement?
Is it only
CE marking allows a product to be imported/cross borders without barrier.
If something is assembled and sold inside the same EU country (the
product never crosses borders), who is responsible for CE enforcement?
Is it only complaint-based, or are there authorities who scan the
marketplace?
Pat L
In message
lectric.com>, dated Thu, 23 Aug 2012,
ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com writes:
I'm surprised that customs are looking for the CE mark. I didn't think
it was necessary for import, I thought it was only needed if the
product was placed on the market or put into service in an E
ject:
Re: [PSES] CE Marking Provoqium
In message <1284c8ec9fbe4d24b6397106a3caa...@tamuracorp.com>, dated Sat,
18 Aug 2012, Brian Oconnell writes:
> Note that the U.S. OSHA has (figuratively) declared war on the
>self-declaration process, and has specifically published stuff sayi
.
-Original Message-
From: Ted Eckert [mailto:ted.eck...@microsoft.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 3:45 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CE Marking Provoqium
Canada excels at domestic ice and snow production and doesn't need to import
them. Domestic prices are alrea
Canada excels at domestic ice and snow production and doesn't need to import
them. Domestic prices are already so low that Canada doesn't have to impose
excessive tariffs or regulations on imported ice and snow.
Ted Eckert
Compliance Engineer
Microsoft Corporation
ted.eck...@microsoft.com
The o
All,
This is pretty interesting, since CBSA (Canadian Border Services Agency,
formerly Customs), does not have the authority to inspect for regulatory
compliance. If this is true, the CBSA Agents were acting well outside their
authority.
Only the AHJ, in this case Hydro Québec, has the authori
In message <4532b7d6b39370164f98f16a9a6a3...@mail.gmail.com>, dated Tue,
21 Aug 2012, Peter Tarver writes:
When ice storms took out the power lines in the Montreal metro area, a
number of US generator manufacturers donated use of truck scale
generators to get locals up on at least a subsisten
sumer product
safety...not sure if enforcement will still be left to the Provinces and
Territories to enact.
Kaz Gawrzyjal
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Peter Tarver
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 3:53 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] CE Ma
Brian –
When ice storms took out the power lines in the Montreal metro area, a
number of US generator manufacturers donated use of truck scale generators
to get locals up on at least a subsistence level of power. These trucks
were denied entry into Canada because they didn't bear CSA marks, tho
by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original
message.
-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Knudsen,
Patricia
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 12:02 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] CE Marking Provoqium
t: Sunday, August 19, 2012 1:03 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CE Marking Provoqium
Significance of CE mark to EU customs/surveillance is obvious and not point
(other than my head). Need to understand why there are different or no
surveillance systems in place in North Ame
While the US has a confusing patchwork of jurisdictions, Federal, State
and local, for product safety, there is action to stop counterfeit
marking of products sold. See for example,
http://www.esfi.org/index.cfm/page/Consumer-Safety-Alert:-Counterfeit-Electrical-Products/cdid/10361/pid/3001
http
: Saturday, August 18, 2012 10:43 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CE Marking Provoqium
In message <1284c8ec9fbe4d24b6397106a3caa...@tamuracorp.com>, dated Sat,
18 Aug 2012, Brian Oconnell writes:
> Note that the U.S. OSHA has (figuratively) declared war on the
>se
dgate
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 10:43 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CE Marking Provoqium
In message <1284c8ec9fbe4d24b6397106a3caa...@tamuracorp.com>, dated Sat,
18 Aug 2012, Brian Oconnell writes:
> Note that the U.S. OSHA has (figuratively) declared war on th
The NRTLs have responsibility. OSHA regularly each NRTLs to determine if the
NRTL is properly capable of assessing products to the standards for which OSHA
has authorized the NRTL. If the NRTL fails the audit, it loses its standing as
an NRTL. It will then lose customers and revenue. If the NRTL
In message
rosoft.com>, dated Sat, 18 Aug 2012, Ted Eckert
writes:
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.
So the NRTLs have power without responsibility.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www
In message <1284c8ec9fbe4d24b6397106a3caa...@tamuracorp.com>, dated Sat,
18 Aug 2012, Brian Oconnell writes:
Note that the U.S. OSHA has (figuratively) declared war on the
self-declaration process, and has specifically published stuff saying
that the 'CE' does not indicate the any specific sa
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
vernment's product compliance policy and law.
Brian
-Original Message-
From: Dward [mailto:dw...@pctestlab.com]
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 8:41 PM
To: oconne...@tamuracorp.com; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: RE: [PSES] CE Marking Provoqium
Let's not confuse a CFR wi
In message <502fb647.26423.642b...@ptarver.ieee.org>, dated Sat, 18 Aug
2012, Peter Tarver 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 NRT
Date sent: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 08:56:30 +0100
Send reply to: John Woodgate
> In message
> qSKmE4BAA==@blueyonder.co.uk>, dated Sat, 18 Aug 2012, John Allen
> writes:
>
> >NRTLs inspect from 2 to 4 times a year, often on an unannounced basis,
> >and that does keep manuf
ommercial locations?
> or even by convoluted path to make a requirement for safety certs by 3rd
> party labs? ps. your business will suffer greatly if you don't, but that is
> a business issue.
>
>
>
> From: Peter Tarver
> To: eMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Sent:
In message <037701cd7d34$3926d4f0$ab747ed0$@mcauley>, dated Sat, 18 Aug
2012, John McAuley writes:
BTW, has a new word, ?Provoqium?, been invented? I can?t find it in any
dictionary. Comes up as a variation of provoke.
The spelling is 'unorfadox'! Provoquium would be legitimate classical
La
e standards into the law,
> would be very much more onerous and inflexible.
>
> John C
>
>
>
> From: Pearson, John [mailto:john.pear...@polycom.com]
> Sent: 17 August 2012 15:13
> To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [PSES] CE Marking Provoqium
>
>
&
the originator
_
From: Peter Tarver [mailto:ptar...@enphaseenergy.com]
Sent: 17 August 2012 21:57
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CE Marking Provoqium
There are several NRTLs in the US. Pick your poison.
With some, you pays yer money and you takes yer chances.
Pet
inal Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org] On Behalf Of John
Woodgate
Sent: 18 August 2012 08:57
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CE Marking Provoqium
In message
, dated Sat, 18 Aug 2012, John Allen
writes:
>NRTLs inspect from 2 to 4 times a year, often
In message
qSKmE4BAA==@blueyonder.co.uk>, dated Sat, 18 Aug 2012, John Allen
writes:
NRTLs inspect from 2 to 4 times a year, often on an unannounced basis,
and that does keep manufacturers ?on their toes?
I wouldn't call that 'far' more frequent, and that sort of control can
be deadly
has to safety marked by an NRTL?
From: Brian Oconnell
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 7:08 PM
Subject: RE: [PSES] CE Marking Provoqium
29 CFR 1910
-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On
? ps. your business will suffer greatly if you don't, but that is a
business issue.
From: Peter Tarver
To: eMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 1:39 AM
Subject: Re: [PSES] CE Marking Provoqium
Date sent: Fri, 17 Aug 20
Date sent: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 20:40:49
From: Dward
> Let's not confuse a CFR with law. While a Code of Federal Regulations may be
> backed up by a law, they are in themselves not law.
While not law in a technical sense, Congress, upon
creation the bureaucracies of th
e.
Thanks
-Original Message-
From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 4:39 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CE Marking Provoqium
The assertions were "In the USA, I think there is no law requiring safety
approval.
But local AHJ
ch new manager or executive - "There is no
law requiring any of this."
Ok, we will just sell this 500kVA, 477V transformer for use in private homes
only...
Brian
-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Peter
Tarver
Sent: Friday, August
which only applies to the work place.
> From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 16:09
>
> 29 CFR 1910
>
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not a
29 CFR 1910
-Original Message-
From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Bill Owsley
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 3:51 PM
To: ralph.mcdiar...@schneider-electric.com; Pearson, John
Cc: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] CE Marking Provoqium
In the USA, I
RV.IEEE.ORG
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 1:16 PM
Subject: Re: [PSES] CE Marking Provoqium
At least it is a self-declaration process
for safety and for EMC. In the USA and Canada, you must get product
certified by a 3rd party for product safety. No option but to drag
a product to a local test
In message ,
dated Fri, 17 Aug 2012, Nick Williams
writes:
Mebbe them 'uropeen's are on to something!
There's a fundamental reason for self-certification. If a certification
body takes responsibility for compliance for a significant number of
clients, its liabilities at law are huge. Some
Which takes us pretty neatly back to Caveat Emptor.
Mebbe them 'uropeen's are on to something!
Have a good weekend, all.
Nick.
On 17 Aug 2012, at 21:57, Peter Tarver wrote:
> There are several NRTLs in the US. Pick your poison.
>
> With some, you pays yer money and you takes yer chanc
There are several NRTLs in the US. Pick your poison.
With some, you pays yer money and you takes yer chances.
Peter Tarver
*From:* Brian Ceresney [mailto:bceres...@delta-q.com]
*Sent:* Friday, August 17, 2012 10:41
I agree with you Ralph. I’d like to see that type of approach here as w
'Natural EOL', per term in post by John Pearson, for the EU would have to be
codified (in a directive?) because this tends to vary from one CAB to
another. Many agencies immediately withdraw the cert when version of the
standard used in the test report is obsoleted by OJ. More laws?
For North Amer
rson, John"
To:
EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Date:
08/17/2012 07:15 AM
Subject:
Re: [PSES] CE Marking Provoqium
Hi
For the sake of discussion, I would like to open up for debate the
suggestion the EU process is one of the most unreasonably excessive in the
world.
With the exception of C
In message
<04cab9802ba27a409548dd47de1da7ef266d35e...@slomailprd01.polycom.com>,
dated Fri, 17 Aug 2012, "Pearson, John"
writes:
For the sake of discussion, I would like to open up for debate the
suggestion the EU process is one of the most unreasonably excessive in
the world.
We can
Hi
For the sake of discussion, I would like to open up for debate the suggestion
the EU process is one of the most unreasonably excessive in the world.
With the exception of China and Brazil this is the one major region that
imposes retrospective recertification costs due to the introduction of
44 matches
Mail list logo
