Hello from San Diego:
There have been a number of interesting points of view
expressed here on the various world safety certification
schemes.
Let's review the various schemes:
1. Third-party certification.
This scheme involves one or more third-party
organizations, one who tests the product and one who
issues the certification. There are three variations:
a) Test entity: Third-party private house.
Certification entity: Third-party private house.
Mandated by: (None.)
Example: "Key" mark.
b) Test entity: Third-party private house.
Certification entity: Third-party private house.
Mandated by: Government.
Example: USA OSHA-operated NRTL scheme.
c) Test entity: Third-party private house.
Certification entity: Government.
Mandated by: Government.
Example: Korea, Mexico.
d) Test entity: Government.
Certification entity: Government.
Mandated by: Government.
Example: Singapore.
2. First-party (manufacturer) certification.
This scheme involves the manufacturer who is held
responsible for for both testing and certification.
Test entity: Manufacturer or third-party.
Certification entity: Manufacturer.
Mandated by: Government.
Example: European Union LVD (CE-mark).
3. Second-party (buyer) certification.
This scheme involves the buyer, who voluntarily holds
himself responsible for the safety of the equipment.
Test entity: Buyer or third-party.
Certification entity: Buyer.
Mandated by: (None).
Example: Medical products.
For safety purposes, causes for injuries to the human body
are independent of national origin (of the human body).
Therefore, ONE safety standard SHOULD suffice for all
countries (and for all products). Gradually, nations are
adopting IEC safety standards. So, we are on our way to
one safety standard worldwide (at least for product groups
such as ITE, T&M, medical, and home appliances). And, ECMA
is developing a single standard for electronic products.
So, we are on our way towards a single safety standard for
all products.
Test entities are gradually accepting one another's test
report. The CB Scheme is the major effort here. Many
third-party test entities are publishing MOUs with other
third-party test entities. Gradually, we are on our way
towards a single test.
As for a single mark... this exists in the EU and
neighboring countries (e.g., Norway) in the CE mark. But,
this mark is based on FIRST-PARTY certification. Many
governments don't trust manufacturers to know safety, so
they require a third-party (who specializes in safety) to
at least test the product, if not also certify it. I think,
however, these governments have not figured out the proper
laws to unequivicably place responsibilty for safety onto
the manufacturer.
This probably is based on the idea, promoted by some
safety professionals and by some third-party certifiers,
that safety is an art rather than a science. This
attitude is probably further supported on the fact that
product safety is rarely taught in our engineering schools,
and there is no formally established engineering body
dealing with product safety as there is with EMC (i.e.,
the IEEE EMC Society).
So, I would suggest that, until we get our act together
and develop product safety into a true engineering
discipline, taught in engineering schools, and
represented in engineering societies, we are stuck with
multiplicity of regional and national marks.
(The lack of development of a product safety engineering
discipline lies with the managers of product manufacturers.
The bottom-line is that safety certification is a cost
without a benefit to either the manufacturer or the customer.
So, the least cost for product safety certification is the
principal path for most manufacturers.)
A final thought: If you are a product manufacturer,
consider how many people in your organization spend their
time solving EMC problems and obtaining EMC certification
versus solving product safety problems and obtaining safety
certifications. Yet, the consequences of failing EMC are
relatively cheap monetary fines, while the consequences of
a customer injury can cause deadly publicity and bankruptcy!
Best regards,
Rich
-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Nute Product Safety Engineer
Hewlett-Packard Company Product Regulations Group
All-In-One Division Tel : +1 619 655 3329
16399 West Bernardo Drive FAX : +1 619 655 4979
San Diego, California 92127 e-mail: ri...@sdd.hp.com
-------------------------------------------------------------
---------
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).
