What's Inside The P roduct S afety N ewsletter Vol. 8, No. 4 Sept.-Oct. 1995 Chairman's Message .................................. 1 Officers of the PSTC's ............................... 2 Letters to the Editor ................................... 3 IECEE/CB .................................................. 5 News and Notes ......................................... 6 Japan Changes Safety Certificatio Requirements ......................... 7 Institutional Listings ................................ 22 Chairman's Message I am very pleased to report that the Atlanta meetings, including the Product Safety Technical Committee (TC-8) annual meeting, went very well. Almost all of the previously reported con- cerns our parent Society had about our operations have been resolved. Even more satisfying was the high level of support we clearly have from the entire chain of society leadership. I want espe- cially to thank Todd Hubing, Technical Activities Committee Chairman, and Warren Kesselman, EMC Society President, for their time, attention and support which served to reenergize our opti- mism and commitment to growth and success. The issue of individual IEEE and EMC Society membership relating to participation in TC-8 has been clarified. Members of TC-8 con-sist of TC-8 central officers and the chairpersons of the local chapters. Other participants are officially described as members of the Product Safety Working Group, an independent function with close linkages to TC-8. Supporting the PSWG through this newsletter and other coordi- nation activities are included in the responsibili- ties of TC-8. We are also responsible for the normal technical committee activities of workshops, tech- nical paper review, paper sessions and other sym- posia support, in addition to standards activities. Continued on Page 20
I am very pleased to report that the Atlantameetings, including the Product Safety TechnicalCommittee (TC-8) annual meeting, went verywell. Almost all of the previously reported con-cerns our parent Society had about our operationshave been resolved. Even more satisfying was thehigh level of support we clearly have from theentire chain of society leadership. I want espe-cially to thank Todd Hubing, Technical ActivitiesCommittee Chairman, and Warren Kesselman,
EMC Society President, for their time, attentionand support which served to reenergize our opti-mism and commitment to growth and success.
The issue of individual IEEE and EMCSociety membership relating to participation inTC-8 has been clarified. Members of TC-8 con-sistof TC-8 central officers and the chairpersonsof the local chapters. Other participants areofficially described as members of the ProductSafety Working Group, an independent functionwith close linkages to TC-8. Supporting thePSWG through this newsletter and other coordi-nation activities are included in the responsibili-ties of TC-8. We are also responsible for the normaltechnical committee activities of workshops, tech-nical paper review, paper sessions and other sym-posia support, in addition to standards activities.
Continued on Page 20
Product Safety Newsletter • Page 2
TheProductSafetyNewsletter
The Product Safety Newsletter is published bimonthly by the Product Safety Technical Committee of the Institute ofElectronic and Electrical Engineers EMC Society. No part of this newsletter may be reproduced without writtenpermission of the authors. All rights to the articles remain with the authors. Opinions expressed in this newsletter arethose of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the Technical Committee or its members. Indeed,there may be and often are substantial disagreements with some of the opinions expressed by the authors. Permissionto copy without fee all or part of any material without a copyright notice is granted provided that the copies are notmade or distributed for direct commercial advantage, and the title of the publication and its date appear on each copy.To copy material with a copyright notice requires specific permission. Please direct all inquiries or requests to IEEECopyrights office. Subscriptions are free and may be obtained by contacting Dave McChesney at 1865 Farndon Ave.,Los Altos, CA 94024
Chairman: Brian Claes Phone: (510) 659-6574Fax: (510) 659-6852
Vice Chair: Richard Pescatore Phone: (408) 447-6607 e-mail: [email protected]/ John McBain Phone: (408) 746-5016Treasurer: Fax: (408) 746-5551 e-mail: [email protected]: Mark Montrose Phone: (408) 247-5715 email:[email protected]
Central Committee
Local GroupsChicagoChairman: John Allen Phone: (708) 238-0188Southern California/Orange CountyChair/Secretary: Charlie Bayhi Phone: (714) 367-0919Vice-Chair/Treas: Ercell Bryant Phone: (714) 589-0700PortlandChairman/ Scott Varner Phone: (503) 656-8841 e-mail: [email protected]/Treasuer: Scott VarnerSanta Clara ValleyChairman: Murlin Marks Phone: (408) 985-2400x2353 e-mail: [email protected] Chair/Program: Edward Karl Phone: (408) 986-7184Treasurer: Mark Montrose Phone: (408) 247-5715Secretary: Parviz Boozarpour Phone: (510) 527-7593SeattleChairman: Walt Hart Phone: (206) 356-5177 e-mail: [email protected] Chair: John Quigley Phone: (206) 226-1660Texas (Central)Chairman: Vic Baldwin Phone: (512) 990-6145Vice Chair Charlie GoertzSecretary/Treasurer: Daniece CarpenterColoradoChairman: Richard Georgerian Phone: (303) 417-7537 e-mail: [email protected]
Fax: (303) 417-7829
Editor: Roger Volgstadt Fax: (408) 285-2553 e-mail: [email protected]
Subj: May-August 1995 Newsletter “News and Notes”, Using the CE Mark
1. Para. 4, “Most companies are choosing to have their productstested and certified by an independent agency to ensure unfetteredaccess to their chosen markets.” - This is not true in our customerbase, as no particular agency marking is required for placing the CEMarking on a product. Many companies are preparing their TechnicalFile using data they prepared or contracted themselves. I do not knowwhether> 50% (i.e. most) of the companies preparing a Declarationof Conformity are using agencies or not; but there are other optionsthat should be explored.
2. “Notified vs. Competent Bodies”; {Para. 2, “you must use a Competent Body for allapprovals required under the EMC Directive.” Not true; a Competent Body is the only authoritythat can authorize limited testing for product families or similarities. If this type of limited testingdetermination is not equired by a company, they can obtain a Test Record from any competentEMC lab. There is not a requirement that the Laboratory be affiliated with a Competent Body asdefined in the EMC Directive.
Thank you again for the work you put in on this magazine. It is always informative andthought provoking.
Best regards,
Jeff LindCompliance WestSan Diego, CA �
Letters to the Editor
The Product Safety Newsletter Com-mittee is looking for someone inter-ested in writing the News & Notes
column. If interested contact RogerVolgstadt, Editor,at (408) 285-2540.
Product Safety Newsletter • Page 4
Technically Speaking
Recently, a colleague remarked to me, “Philo-sophically, of course, there is no such thing asabsolute safety.”
Could this be true? Is there a situation wherea man could not possibly injure himself?
After considering this for a while, I thoughtthat a man in straight jacket in a padded cell wouldbe pretty close to absolute safety. There isnothing in the room that could cause injury, and,with the straight-jacket, there is nothing the mancould do himself to cause injury.
What is absolute safety? I suppose we coulddefine absolute safety as the possibility of injuryfrom all possible causes as being zero.
I thought my example of the padded cellcame pretty close to considering all possible causesof injury. But, my colleague replied: “Your man inthe padded call could not be struck by a fallingmeteor, among many other things from which hispadded cell could not protect him.”
True enough. There are many “unsafe”things over which an individual has little or nocontrol, meteors being one. There is simply noway, today, to avoid injury from a meteor. I
Absolute Safety
Copyright 1995 by Richard Nutevoice: (34) 3-582-13-89; fax: (34) 3-582-25-15e-mail: [email protected]
suppose that some time in the future we may beable to detect incoming meteors and predict theirpaths. If so, we could board spaceships and dodgemeteors in a cosmic game of dodge-ball. Thisalternative may not be absolute safety, but it isbetter than the certainly of being hit by a meteor.
Let’s further consider the problem of themeteor. To date, there have been few, if any,injuries due to being struck by meteors. Most of usconduct our lives on the basis that we do not indeedhave absolute safety from meteors.
To do any productive living and thinking, wemust put some bounds or limits on our Ii ves and onour contemplations. Without those bounds, wewould, for example, live in continual fear of beingstruck by a meteor. Our lives would be driven andconsumed by this fear. I suppose that a few peopleare indeed consumed by such fears, in which casesthose people are probably not contributing to oursociety. Rather, they are probably requiring full-time care from some of the rest of us. They mayindeed take some degree of comfort in living in apadded room.
Continued on page 8
Product Safety Newsletter • Page 5
Certification Bodies (CB) Scheme for elec-trical and electronic products is the only interna-tional system for the mutual acceptance (recipro-cal recognition) of test reports by Member Certi-fication Bodies (test houses) located in differentparts of the world for obtaining certification atNational level. Officially, the scheme is called“Scheme of the IECEE for Recognition of Resultsof Testing to Standards for Safety of ElectricalEquipment”. In short, it is commonly known asIECEE/CB Scheme or simply CB Scheme. TheScheme is based on CB Test Certificates provid-ing evidence that representative samples of theequipment have successfully passed tests to showcompliance with the requirements of the relevantIEC Standard.
The Scheme is administered by a Committeeof Certification Bodies (CCB) reporting to aManagement Committee (MC) of the IECEE Sys-tem. The MC in turn operates under the authorityof the Council of International ElectrotechnicalCommission (IEC). CCB consists of representa-tives of National Certification Bodies (NCBs) andis entirely managed and run by member NationalCertification Bodies (test houses). MC consists ofrepresentatives from National organizations ofmember countries. Both the CCB and MC meet atleast once a year. The CCB and MC had their lastmeeting in September 1995 in Germany.
The CB Scheme applies to electrical andelectronic equipment covered within the scope ofan IEC Standard accepted for use in the IECEESystem and to which at least three member orga-nizations participating in the CB Scheme adhere.At present there are more than 30 member coun-tries and more than 36 NCBs participating in theCB Scheme. A minimum of 3 countries mustadapt the IEC Standard as their National Standardand be willing to participate in the CB Schemebefore the IEC Standard becomes part of the CBScheme.
EMC is not covered by the CB Schemeunless specifically mentioned in the IEC Standardunder consideration.
WORKING RULES AND PROCEDURES
The working rules and procedures of the CBScheme are published in two IEC Publicationstitled as follows:
• Publication IECEE 01 (1986): BasicRules of Procedures of the System
Continued on page 12
Product Safety Newsletter • Page 6
News and Notes
Continued on page 21
NEW SAFETY STANDARD
CSA and UL have published a new stan-dard, Safety of Information Technology Equip-ment including Electrical Business Equipment.This standard combines UL 1950 and CSA 950and was published July 28, 1995. For moreinformation, you can call the UL Northbrookoffice at (708) 272-8800 x 42068.
TUV RHEINLAND ACHIEVESNRTL STATUS
TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc.was recognized as a Nationally Recognized Test-ing Laboratory (NRTL) by the OccupationalSafety and Health Administration (OSHA), U.S.Department of Labor. As an accredited NRTL,TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc. can testand certify Information Technology Equipment(ITE), including Electrical Business Equipment.
ANOTHER SAFETY SITEON THE WWW
Art Michael of Product SafetyInternational has created a new World Wide Webfor those of you with access to the internet.That address is as follows:
hup://www.safetylink.comThanks go to Art for creating a valuable
tool of use to those in the Product Safety profes-sion.
NEW EMC PUBLISHED STANDARDS
The Official Journal of the European Com-munities has published a list of new EMC Standards.
Information and standards follow:
Comission communication in the framework ofCouncil Directive No. 89/336/EEC of 3 May1989 (*), as amended by Council Directive No.92/31/EEC (*), in relation to the electromagneticcompatibility.
Publication of titles and references ofharmonized standards under this Directive
Reference: EN 50082-2 Body: CENELECElectromagnetic compatibility - GenericImmunity Standard. Part 2: IndustrialEnvironment. Year of Ratification: 1994.
Reference: Amendment A 12 to EN 55013Body: CENELECLimits and methods of measurement of radiodisturbance characteristics of broadcast receiversand associated equipment.Year of Ratification: 1993
Product Safety Newsletter • Page 7
Continued on page 10
The following article is reprinted here from the ULpublication “On the Mark” with permission of Under-writers Laboratories, Inc. The editor wishes to thankUL for their contribution to the PSN.
MITI Approval No Longer Required for ManyElectrical Products
On July 1, 1995, as part of the Japanesegovernment’s recent move to deregulate thecountry’s mandatory product safety certificationsystem and institute a voluntary, US style systemin Japan, the Japanese Ministry of InternationalTrade and Industry (MITI) dropped its require-ment for manufacturers to gain government ap-proval of the safety of many electrical productsthey export to Japan. This development willstreamline the process manufactures were previ-ous required to follow when exporting these prod-ucts to that country. In addition to this change, thepreviously mandatory Category B “T-Mark sig-nifying MITI approval of these products will bediscontinued, and a new, voluntary certificationmarking known as the “S- Mark” will be available- and should provide a marketing advantage - tomanufacturers whose products comply with exist-ing requirements.
One hundred and seventeen appliancesaffected by this change, originally classified as“Category A” products under Japan’s ElectricalAppliance and Material Control Law (known asDENTORI), fall mostly into the following groups
of electrical and electronic products:
* heaters and electric blankets;* cooking/heating utensils and coffee
makers;* electric ranges and microwave ovens;
refrigerators and freezers; * irons, wash-ing machines and dryers; * fans, roomair conditioners and dehumidifiers;
* curling irons, electric shavers and otherappliances for personal care; * lightfixtures;
* photocopying machines;* photographic and audio/visual equip-
ment;* television receivers and portable tv cam-
eras;* electronic and electro-magnetic
toys; and* other miscellaneous products.
Japan Changes SafetyCertification Requirements
Product Safety Newsletter • Page 8
Continued
In practice, each one of us conducts most ofour life as if we Ii ved in absolute safety with regardto most hazards.
The newborn child starts his life with thebelief of absolute safety without any bounds.Parents provide that safety. As the child grows,parents teach the child about the hazards in hisworld. They gradually transfer the responsibilityfor his safety to him.
Certainly, when we sleep, we consider our-selves as being in the state of absolute safety. Aswe grow, we put bounds on our lives, decidingwhat kinds of activities are not worth riskinginjury.
Ultimately, for many of the hazards of thisworld, each of us, individually, is responsible forprevention of injury to ourselves and to others. Forexample, when we drive a car, we must do so in amanner that does not injure us or others.
Since we can’t define all possible causes ofinjury, then the probability of injury cannot bezero, and we cannot have absolute safety. Fairenough. Full stop. Fin. End of discussion.
And THAT is the problem. If we defineabsolute safety in terms of all possible causes,then we have nothing left to talk about. There isnothing we can do to accomplish absolutesafety. And if we can’t accomplish abso-lute safety, then is there any good reasonto attempt any safety whatsoever? Sincewe are facing death at any instant due toa meteor, then why should we take carein crossing a street?
Well, we DO take care in cross-ing a street. For the most part, we DOact as if we are in a state of absolute safety. (Thereare exceptions where we voluntarily place our-selves in risky situations for the challenge. But, we
accept such jeopardy only at given times and ingiven places. For example, sky-divers deliberatelyjump into risky situations, but they don’t spend,their entire lives in such situations.)
So, we put bounds on “absolute” safety.And, when we talk about probability, we
must put some bounds on the problem. We candiscuss the probability of injury from a meteor.We cannot discuss the probability on injury with-out regard to its cause.
Carrying this thought a bit further, if we canidentify a particular cause of injury, then can weever accomplish absolute safety for that particularcause? That is, for a particular cause of injury,can the probability of injury from that cause bezero?
Consider the Golden Gate Bridge. When youcross that bridge, do you consider the probabilityof its failure while you are on it? Maybe. But, ifyou do, it is a very abstract consideration. Youcan’t really imagine the failure of the bridgewithout also imagining some cause for that fail-ure, such as failure of a cable. But the cable iscomprised of individual wires. So, the cable can’tfail without also the failure of each and everyindividual wire. What would cause the failure ofone or more individual wires?
With a bridge, we can declare that if thedesign conditions are not exceeded, we have
absolute safety with regard to the perfor-mance of that bridge. In other words, the
bridge will not fail given the particulartraffic and weather conditions ac-
counted for in the design.A few years ago, the Golden
Gate Bridge turned 50 years old.On that occasion, the authorities
closed the bridge to automobile and truck traffic,
Teaknically Speaking Continued Frorn page 4
Product Safety Newsletter • Page 9
and opened it for pedestrian traffic. During themidst of the festivities, the authorities suddenlyrealized that the bridge was being loaded fargreater than any traffic load! The bridge designdid not account for the tremendous pedestrianload. Under these conditions, the bridge COULDfail.
Consider the case of the “unsinkable” Ti-tanic. The Titanic was unsinkable given the con-ditions specified by the designers. The Designersdid not consider the situation in which the Titanicwas damaged, and it did sink. No probabilitiesinvolved. If the Titanic was subjected to theconditions specified by the designers, then theprobability of sinking was O. However, it wassubjected to other conditions, so the probability ofsinking was 1%.
Consider the infamous skywalk in the Kan-sas City Hyatt Regency Hotel. While under de-signed, it nevertheless probably would not havecollapsed. But, the original design was difficult ifnot impossible to assemble. So, the design wasmodified. And, the modified design failed.
In most cases, safety of products and manyother things is provided by one or more safe-guards. For example, one of the safeguards againstelectric shock is insulation. If we are dealing withsolid insulation, then we know the electric strengthof that insulation. Disregarding other deteriorat-ing factors, if we never exceed the electric strengthof that insulation, then the insulation will notbreak down. Therefore, we have absolute safetyagainst electric shock - - provided the electricstrength of that insulation is never exceeded.
Safeguards have bounds. No matter thesafeguard, we can always subject it to a stimuluswhich will cause it to fail. For example, we cansubject an insulation rated 3,000 volts to a 10,000
volts and it will fail. When the safeguard fails, itis no longer a safeguard, and we no longer have asafe situation. But, if we stay within the boundsor limits of the safeguards, then we have absolutesafety.
Absolute safety from specified causes orhazards does indeed exist, provided that the con-ditions of the design of the safeguards are notexceeded, and provided that the safeguards aremanufactured accordingly. �
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
“To engineer is human, the role of failure insuccessful design,” by Henry Petroski, St. Mar-tins Press, New York. ISBN 0-312-80680-9.
******
Your comments on this article are welcome.Please address your comments to the ProductSafety Newsletter, Attention Roger Volgstadt, c/o Tandem Computers Inc., 10300 N. TantauAvenue, Location 56, Cupertino, California95014-0708. For e-mail, address your commentsto [email protected].
If you want to discuss this article with yourcolleagues as well as with the author and editor, e-mail your comments to [email protected].
Product Safety Newsletter • Page 10
These products, previously subject to ap-proval by the Japanese Ministry of InternationalTrade and Industry (MITI) and identified with aCategory A “T-Mark,” were reclassified on July 1as “Category B” products, which do not requireMITI approval. In addition, Category B productswill no longer be allowed to bear the Category B“T- Mark’ after a one-year phase out period.
Manufacturers of these reclassified prod-ucts are required, however, to notify MITI thatthey comply with applicable DENTORI Techni-cal Requirements or International ElectrotechnicalCommission (IEe) Standards adopted by MITI.
This change is one of the Japanesegovernment’s recent initiatives to deregulate thecountry’s current, mandatory safety certificationsystem and create a voluntary, third-party system(similar to the U.S. safety system) in Japan.
New Japanese “S-Mark” Certification System
In response to these changes to DENTORI,three Japanese testing agencies - the Japan Elec-trical Testing Laboratory (JET). the Japan QualityAssurance Organization (JQA), and the JapanCamera and Optical Instruments Inspection andTesting Institute (JCll) - have developed a thirdparty safety certification program that includes anew certification marking known as the Japanese“S-Mark.”
Products tested by these agencies anddetermined to comply with applicable standards.-- DENTORI Technical Requirements, IEC Stan-dards and Japanese National Deviations adoptedby MITI, or other requirements deemed appropri-ate by these agencies- are eligible to bear this newMark.
Testing will be primarily done by JETand JQA. For identification purposes, the name ofthe laboratory invol ved in testing the product willappear along with the S- Mark.
Japanese-S Mark- a Marketing Advantage
The Japanese public has become accus-tomed to seeing the government-mandated T-Mark on Category A and B electrical appliances.MITI’s removal of the requirement for this Markon Category B appliances will not eliminate thetendency of Japanese distributors, retailers andconsumers to look for a product safety mark onthese appliances. For this reason, manufacturersof Category B electrical appliances and otherproducts sold in Japan bearing the Japanese-SMark will have a marketing advantage over thosemanufacturers selling self-declared, unlabeledproducts.
UL’s S-Mark Certification Services for Clients
UL can work directly with JET and JQAto help manufacturers receive authorization todisplay the Japanese S-Mark on their electricalappliances and other products sold in Japan. Thisis possible due to the long-standing relationshipsand Memoranda of Understanding UL has withJET and JQA.
Japan Changes, Continued From Page 7
Continued
Product Safety Newsletter • Page 11
UL can assist manufacturers by:
� testing products and issuing test reports;� preparing application documents for the
S-Mark in Japanese;� translating required markings;� preparing test programs for specific
compatibility (EMC) testing;� contacting MITI or a designated
Japanese testing laboratory for informa-tion or clarification regardingDENTORI Technical Requirements; and
� performing annual factory follow-upinspections.
UL will continue to assist manufacturersof those of appliances remaining in Category Awho are still required to gain MITI T-Mark ap-proval for their products.
To find out if your products are affectedby these developments, or for more informationabout Japanese product certification requirementsand UL’ s certification services for Japan, contact1 staff member in the International ComplianceServices department at the UL office nearest you:
Northbrook, Ill.Phone: (708) 272-8800
Fax: (708) 272-9562
Melville, N.Y.Phone: (516) 271-6200
Fax: (516) 271-8265
Santa Clara, Calif.Phone: (408) 985-2400
Fax: (408) 556-6032
Research Triangle Park, N.C.Phone: (919) 549-1400
Fax: (919) 556-6049
Camas, Wash.Phone: (360) 817-5500
Fax: (360) 817-6020
Or contact the staff at UL’s Japanese subsidiaryoffice:
• Publication IECEE 02 (1992): Rules andProcedures of the Scheme of the IECEE forRecognition Results of Testing to Standards forSafety of Electrical Equipment (CB Scheme)
IECEE 01 describes the CB Scheme in de-tail, its organization, Management Committee(MC), Committee of Certification Bodies (CCB),Committee of Testing Laboratories (CTL), mem-bership, roles and responsibilities of the chairper-son, secretary, etc.
IECEE 02 describes in detail the functioningof the CB Scheme, criteria of acceptance forNCBs and CBTLs, procedures for handling CBtest certificates, etc.
OTHER CB PUBLICATIONS
CB Secretariat publishes CB Bulletins atregular intervals. These bulletins contain the fol-lowing information:
• Standards Accepted for use in the System• Statistics on CB Test Certificates issued
(CB Bulletin No. 81 published in May1994 gives list of a CB Certificatesissued in 1993).
• Deviations and Limitations for eachStandard and Country (CB Bulletin 80Bpublished in January 1994 givesNational Deviations and Limitations toIEC 335 Series Standards and Bulletin80A published in December 1993 givesNational Deviations and limitations to allother IEC Standards in the Scheme)
• Information on Participating memberNCBs (CB Bulletin No. 82 published in
August 1994 is the latest)• Names and addresses of suppliers of test
equipment (CB Bulletin No. 82).
TERMINOLOGY
National Certification Body (NCB) is anorganization that at National level, grants Certifi-cation of equipment. To be accepted as a memberof the CB Scheme and of the CCB, the NCB mustqualify by meeting specific requirements withregard to the quality system and technical compe-tence as stipulated in the IECEE Scheme. An NCBcan qualify either as a Recognizing NCB (RNCB)or an Issuing and Recognizing NCB (IRNCB). AnRNCB is prepared to recognize (accept) CB testcertificates and CB test reports as a basis forcertification or approval on a national level for oneor more categories of products. An IRNCB isentitled to issue CB test certificates and CB testreports for defined standards within the area ofproducts for which it is also prepared to recognizeCB test certificates and reports. CSA is an IRNCB.CSA is accredited for all electrical and electronicproducts under the scope of IEC Standards 601 -Medical Electrical Equipment; 950 - InformationTechnology Equipment and 1010-1 Measurement,Control and Laboratory Equipment.
Depending on the status of its accreditationunder the CB Scheme, and the specific situation ineach country, the NCB may carry out any of thefollowing activities, as may be the case:
• Testing of the product to the applicableIEC Standard
• Testing to the National Deviations of thecountry where the product is destined for
• Issuing CB Test Certificates• Issuing CB Test Reports
IECEE/CB Scheme, Continued From Page 5
Continued
Product Safety Newsletter • Page 13
• Issuing Supplements to CB Test Reports• Recognizing CB Test Certificates• Issuing local certification authorizing the
use of its mark.
In some countries the NCB does not engagein testing. In such countries testing is performedby a CB Test Laboratory (CBTL) which submits a CB Test Report to the NCB, which then issuesa CB Test Certi-ficate (if it is accred-ited as an Issuingand RecognizingNCB).
CertificationBody TestingL a b o r a t o r y(CBTL) is a labo-ratory who is ac-redited by the CBScheme to conducttesting in one or more product categories.
An NCB must accept test data from otherNCBs once testing of a product is completed andthe product is found to be in compliance with theapplicable IEC Standard (and applicable Na-tional Deviations if requested by the manufac-turer), the NCB in question, issues a CB TestReport and a CB Test Certificate. The manufac-turer can then present these documents, togetherwith a sample of the product, to the NCBs in othercountries whose certification marks he wants.
These other NCBs will visually verify thatthe product is the same as that tested. They mayevaluate the construction if they so wish. If veri-fication results are positive, no additional testingShould be carried out.
The National Deviations of all countries par-ticipating in the CB Scheme must be disclosedto other members of the Scheme, and are pub-
lished in the CB Bulletin. An NCB can test andverify to the requirements contained in the devia-tions if it has the necessary testing equipment. Thetest reports are then issued as a Supplement to theCB Test Report and should be accepted by thereceiving NCB.
Committee of Testing Laboratories (CTL)consists of members from member NCBs andCBTLs. CTL meets at least once a year. The lastmeeting of the CTL was during the week of May
15, 1995 inParis, France.CTL tries to re-solve issues re-garding test pro-cedures, inter-pretations, con-d i t ions o f t es t -ing, etc. I t alsoi s sues i t s dec i -sions in the form
of decision sheets which are then followed by allthe test houses when they conduct testing. In otherwords CTL ensures that the test procedures amongits members are harmonized.
CENELEC Certification Agreement (CCA)is a CENELEC body and should not be confusedwith the CB Scheme. It is a mini CB Schemeamong European test houses but is not part of theCB Scheme. Under CCA, the European test housesare obligated to accept test reports from otherparticipating test houses.
CB Test Certificate is a document issued byan NCB to inform other NCB’ s that a sample ofthe product under consideration was tested andfound to be in compliance with the applicablestandard. A CB Certificate is only valid togetherwith the relevant CB Test Report. CB Test Certifi-
Certification Bodies (CB) Scheme for elec-trical and electronic products is the only inter-national system for the mutual acceptance (re-ciprocal recognition) of test reports by MemberCertification Bodies (test houses) located indifferent parts of the world for obtaining certi-fication at national levels .
Continued
Product Safety Newsletter • Page 14
cates shall not be used in any form of advertising.However, this does not preclude the holder of acurrent CB Test Certificate from making refer-ence to the existence of this Certificate in profes-sional literature.
CB Test Report is a standardized reportconsisting of a checklist, referencing clause byclause, the requirements of the standard in ques-tion. it gives clearly and unam-biguously the results of the testsas well as conformity assess-ment of the product, made inaccordance with the relevant IECstandard. It also contains one ormore photographs, circuit schematics, artworkdrawings, as well as a brief description of theequipment concerned. A CB Test Report not at-tached to a CB Certificate cannot be consideredas being issued within the CB Scheme.
OBJECTIVES OF THE SCHEME
Main objectives of the scheme are to:
• Facilitate international trade bypromoting harmonization with the IECStandards
• Achieve reciprocal acceptance of testreports among participating countries
• Simplify local certification throughelimination of duplicate testing
PARTICIPATION IN THECBSCHEME
A National Organization of the country un-der consideration, (such as the Standards Councilof Canada (SCC) in Canada) must be a member ofthe IECEE System. The National Organizationthen must designate a National Certification Body.
(NCB). The National Organization in a country isallowed to designate more than one NCB. TheNational Standards of the country in questionmust be reasonably harmonized with the corre-sponding IEC Standards for which participationin the CB Scheme is desired. The NCB mustspecify the standards for which it intends to par-ticipate in the Scheme. It must also publish and
make available to other coun-tries any differences or devia-tions from the IEC Standardsfor which it has agreed toparticipate in the CB Scheme.
Mutual acceptance oftest data by the NCB within the CB Scheme islimited only to these IEC standards.
NATIONAL DEVIATIONS
National deviations from an IEC Standardaccepted for use in the CB Scheme are thoserequirements in the corresponding National Stan-dard which, when applied to a product complyingwith the IEC Standard in question, might entailnon-compliance of that product with the relevantNational Standard. That may mean redesign bythe manufacturer and extra testing/evaluation bythe NCB.
NATIONAL LIMITATIONS
National limitations are those restrictive re-quirements in a National Standard which do notdeviate from the criteria of the corresponding IECStandard, but which limit the possibility to offerthe relevant equipment for sale in the country
Continued
Product Safety Newsletter • Page 15
concerned. Such limitations may arise from legis-lative or historical reasons.
APPLICATIONS UNDERTHE CB SCHEME
The procedure for obtaining a CB Test Cer-tificate and local certification/approval is graphi-cally illustrated in Fig 1.
The following important points must be noted:
• An application for obtaining a CB TestCertificate may be made by an applicantto any “Issuing and Recognizing” NCBaccepted for the relevant standard.
• The applicant may be manufacturer orauthorized to act on behalf of amanufacturer.
• The application may cover one or morefactories in one or more countries wherethe product is manufactured.
• An applicant in a country with no memberNCB for the standard concerned must paya surcharge (approximately $330.00 U.S.per application) as contribution to thecosts of the CCB. The surcharge iscollected by the NCB handling theapplication, and remitted to the CCB.
The NCB tests the product to the IEC Stan-dard and any relevant national deviations if re-quested by the manufacturer and upon successfulevaluation of the product under consideration,issues the CB Test Certificate, report and supple-ments to the report, as applicable.
The procedure for obtaining a local listing orcertification mark is as follows:
• Apply to the local NCB (or to a local NCBif there are more than one such as is the
case in the U.S.)• Submit the CB Test Certificate, report
and supplements to the report to the localNCB
• Submit a sample of the product to thelocal NCB
The local NCB verifies that the product isthe same as tested and grants local certificationmark.
All the rules and regulations of the localNCB for follow up service, annual retesting,initial factory inspection, etc., will apply as usual.
BENEFITS OF THE CB SCHEMETO THE MANUFACTURER
The CB Scheme is of a great benefit to thosemanufacturers who wish to export their productsto countries that participate in the Scheme.
Such manufacturers can:
• Select and deal with one NCB (the NCBof their choice)
• have their products tested only by thatNCB, including testing to NationalDeviations of the countries to whichthe product is exported.
• Use the CB Test Report and Certificateobtained from the issuing NCB to obtainnational approvals in the relevantcountries through local NCB’ s adheringto the CB Scheme for the standardconcerned.
Although the manufacturer has to make anapplication and submit a sample in each countryof destination, no additional testing should be
Continued
Product Safety Newsletter • Page 16
conducted and only administrative work should beinvolved in handling such applications. Applica-tions for obtaining local listing marks for whichCB certificates and reports are available, aregiven priority over other applications by the NCB’ sas no testing is involved.
CB SCHEME SITUATIONIN NORTH AMERICA
CSA is the only NCB in Canada. It isaccredited for IEC 601-1, 601-2 Series, 950 and1010-1 (and IEC 65, 335-1 and 335-2 Series -forthcoming). In the U.S.A., the various NCB’sare D.S. & G., Met Labs, ETL, UL and FM. D.S.& G., Met Labs and ETL are accredited for IEC950. UL is accredited for IEC 601-1, 950 and1010-1. FM is accredited for IEC 1010-1. Mexicois planning to join the CB Scheme and has alreadystarted to work on developing its national devia-tions to IEC Standard 950.
OBLIGATIONS OF NORTH AMERICANBASED NCB’S
Upon request, by a manufacturer, NorthAmerican NCB’ s will evaluate the manufacturer’sproduct and issue a CB test certificate and a CBtest report, which the manufacturer can present toany other NCB in the world to obtain local certi-fication.
Similarly a manufacturer can obtain the CBtest report and certificate from an NCB located inEurope or in the Far East (which includes China,Singapore, India, Korea and Japan) and presentthe same to an NCB based in North America.North American NCB’ s are obligated to acceptthe CB test report and certificate (i.e. the test datagenerated by foreign laboratories not accreditedunder the NRTL system) and issue their respective
certification marks without repeating any of thetests. See Fig 2 for a list of National Certifica-tion Bodies.
FORTHCOMING NEW PROGRAMSUNDER THE CB SCHEME
CCB and MC are considering to add 4 newprograms under the CB scheme in the near future.
TESTING AT MANUFACTURER’SPREMISES
Testing at the Manufacturer’s Premises(TMP) will be a new program where an NCB or aCBTL can conduct all the testing at amanufacturer’s test laboratory. The test labora-tory shall meet the criteria given in clauses 7 to 11of ISO/IEC Guide 25 - General Requirements forthe Competence of Calibration and Testing Labo-ratories. The only limitation of this is that alltesting must be carried out by the staff of the NCBor CBTL. Also, the ISO/IEC Guide 25 will berevised in the near future to have a clear distinctionbetween the requirements and guidance so that itcan be used either as a standard or as a guide.
SUPERVISED MANUFACTURER’STESTING
Supervised Manufacturer’s Testing (SMT)will also be a new program where the test datagenerated at the test laboratory of the manufac-turer will be acceptable under the CB scheme. Thetest laboratory must comply with the appropriateprovisions of ISO/IEC Guides 25 and 58 - Cali-bration and Testing Laboratory AccreditationSystems - General Requirements for Operationand Recognition There shall be an ongoing Veri-
Continued
Product Safety Newsletter • Page 17
fication of Compliance with these requirementsby the NCB. At the start of the program testsconducted by the manufacturer will be witnessed.After enough experience is gained by the NCBwith a particular manufacturer, the tests can beconducted by the manufacturer without the pres-ence of staff of the NCB.
CD-FULL CERTIFICATION SERVICE
The full certification for safety of electricaland electronic equipment, in short known as CBFull Certification Service (CB-FCS), is due to belaunched in 1995. In brief this scheme will requirean agreement between any two NCB’ s who wantto participate in such a scheme. The test labora-tory of the manufacturer will be required to com-ply with ISO/IEC guides 25 and 58 as coveredunder SMT above. In addition the manufacturermust have a documented Quality ManagementSystem (QMS) in operation based on Annex B ofISO/IEC Guide 53 - An Approach to the Utiliza-tion of a Supplier’s Quality System in Third PartyProduct Certification.
If a manufacturer is already registered to theISO 9001 or ISO 9002 series of standards with axxxly accredited registrar, then this is taken intoaccount when he tries to comply with the require-ments of ISO/IEC Guide 53: This will eliminatethe need for providing the sample to an NCB whenthe manufacturer wants the local certification mark. Only the CB test certificate, the CB testreport and a conformity assessment report will berequired to be submitted.
IECEE SCHEME
Scheme of the IECEE for certification tostandards for electrical equipment for explosiveatmospheres (IECEx), is due to be launched in
1995. Under this scheme, a single test housewould be able to test each product to the IECstandard and would produce a single globallyacceptable test report and certificate. The productis then allowed to carry an IECEx mark whichwould make it acceptable in all countries partici-pating in the scheme. Actual acceptance of theScheme may be several years away in the future.
Continued
Fig. 1
Sample
Applicant(Manufacturer)
CB Scheme Application Process
Country “A”(With orWithoutResidentNCB)
Issuing &RecognizingNCB of Choice
To Obtain CB TestCertificate
CB Documents CB Certificate& CB TestReport
To ObtainLocal Approval
Local Representative(Optional)
Country “B”Any ForeignCountry Im-porting Prod-uct Where anNCB Exists
Application and CBDocuments
Sample
NCB of Country "B"
National Approvaland National Mark
Product Safety Newsletter • Page 18
Fig. 2- NATIONAL CERTIFICATION BODIES
Country National CertificationBody
AT, Austria Osterreicher Verbandfur Elektrotechnik(OVE)
GB. United Kingdom ASTA CertificationServices;BEAR, BritishElectrotechnicalApprovals Board; BSI,Product Certification
GR, Greece The Hellenic organizationfor Standardization(ELOT)
HU Hungary Hungarian Institute forTesting and Certificationof Electrical Equipment(MEEI)
IR, Ireland The National StandardsAuthority of Ireland(NSAI)
IL, Israel The Standards Institutionof Israel (SII)
IT. Italy Instituto Italiano delMarchio di Qualita (IMQ)
IN, India Burueau of IndianStandards (BIS)
IS. Iceland The State ElectricalInspection (RER)
JP, Japan IECEE Council of Japan c/oJapan Electrical TestingLaboratory Continued
Product Safety Newsletter • Page 19
Electrical Humor?!!?
“Robert McCrindle forwarded us the fol-lowing article. Sometimes problem solving re-quires an adjustment of your expectations. - Ed. “
It is a common practice in England to ring atelephone by signaling extra voltage across oneside of the two wire circuit and ground (earth inEngland). When the subscriber answers the phone,it switches to the two wire circuit for the conver-sation. This method allows two parties on thesame line to be signaled without disturbing eachother.
Anyway, an elderly lady with several petscalled to say that her telephone failed to ring whenher friends called, and that on the few occasionswhen it did ring, her dog always barked first. Thetelephone repairman proceeded to the scene, curi-ous to see this physic dog. .
He climbed a nearby telephone pole, hookedin his test set, and dialed the subscriber’s house.The phone didn’t ring. He tried again. The dogbarked loudly, followed by a ringing telephone.
Climbing down the pole, the telephone re-pairman found:
a. A dog was tied to the telephone system’sground post via an iron chain and collar.
b. The dog was receiving 90 volts of signal-ing current
c. After several such jolts, the dog wouldstart barking and urinating on the ground.
d. The wet ground now completed the circuitand the phone would ring.
“If it’s good for Bossy, it’s good for youand me!”
J.J. Beann �
Fig. 2- NATIONAL CERTIFICATIONBODIES
Country National CertificationBody
KR, Rep. of Korea IECEE Council of Korea(Rep. of) Korea Academyof Industrial Technology(KAITECH)
NL, Netherlands KEMA Nederland B.V.
NO, Norway NEMKO
PL, Poland Polish Centre for Testingand Certification (PCBC)
RU, Russian Federation Gosstandard of RussiaGU lTEP
SE, Sweden SEMKO AB
SG, Singapore Singapore Institute ofStandards and IndustrialResearch
SI, Slovenia Slovenian Institute ofQuality and Metrology -SIQ
SR, YU Yugoslavia Federal Institution forStandardization �
Continued
Product Safety Newsletter • Page 20
We are accountable to the EMC Soc-iety toexecute those responsibilities successfully and wewill work on improving in these important areas.
The efforts of TC-8 over the next monthswill focus on two areas: 1996 International Sym-posium support and the incorporation of the Prod-uct Safety Working Group into the IEEE. By thetime you read this action will already have begunon:
1996 Symposium-The 1996 Symposium,which will be held in Santa Clara, CA, promisesto be the most successful symposium effort forTC-8 to date. Although planning is still in theearly stages, there will be at least one workshopand, depending upon the volume and quality ofsubmitted papers, both paper and poster sessionscovering product safety issues. I am urging eachof you to respond to the call for papers and shareyour knowledge and expertise with others. Look-ing back on past years, the number of productsafety papers has been embarrassingly small con-sidering that we are the largest group of productsafety professionals in the world. Please note thatthe paper submittal process schedule is very ag-gressive, with abstracts due by mid-October al-though poster session abstracts are due a bit later.Please contact Mark Montrose at (408)247-5715for details.
PSWG as IEEE Entity-We are continuingour drive for creation of a Product Safety Techn-ical Councilor Society. I am appointing two taskforces. One will assess the needs and concerns ofexisting societies with regard to product safety.The other will research and specify the functionsof the new organization and how it should be
structured within the IEEE. Reaching out to IEEEmembers with safety concerns in other Societies isa crucial goal. The existing PSWG has a strongITE/telecom bias and there is concern that pres-ently only the needs of this constituency are beingmet. We need to expand the scope of interest ofour membership to prevent complacency and tomeet the product safety needs and interests ofthose in other societies.
I am asking you to commit some of your timeand energy to these endeavors. Some of you haveideas on making this a reality—dont wait for acall! You can contact me directly as describedbelow. I urge each of you to consider how you cancontribute to your growth and the advancement ofthe profession by getting further involved in TC-8 and the PSWG.
Brian ClaesPhone (510)572-6574Fax (510)572-8260E-mail [email protected] �
Chairman’s Message,Continued From Page 1
Product Safety Newsletter • Page 21
Reference: Amendment A 2 to EN 55014Body: CENELECCISPR: 14: 1985/A2: 1989Limits and methods of measurement of radiointerference characteristics of household electri-cal appliances, portable tools and similar electri-cal apparatus. Year of Ratification: 1988
Reference: Amendment A 1 to EN 55014Body: CENELECCISPR: 15: 1985/Al: 1989Limits and methods of measurement of radiointerference characteristics of information tech-nology equipment. Year of Ratification: 1989
Reference: EN 55022Body: CENELECLimits and methods of measurement of radiodisturbance characteristics of information tech-nology equipment. Year of Ratification: 1992
Reference: EN 55104Body: CENELECElectromagnetic compatibility - ImmunityRequirements for household appliances, tools andsimilar apparatus – Product family standard.Year of Ratification: 1995
Reference: Amendment A 1 to EN 60555-3Body: CENELECIEC 555-3:1982/Al: 1990Disturbances in supply systems caused by house-hold appliances and similar electrical equipmentPart 3: Voltage fluctuations
Reference: EN 60602-1-2Body: CENELECIEC 601-1-2: 1993Medical electrical equipmentPart 1: Generic requirements for safety-2.Collateral standard: Electromagnetic compatibil-ity - Requirements and tests.Year of Ratification: 1992
Reference: EN 60945Body: CENELECIEC 945: 1988Marine navigational equipment - General require-ments - Methods of testing and required testresults. Year of Ratification: 1993
Reference: EN 61000 -3 -2Body: CENELECIEC 1000- 3 -2: 1995Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) Part 3:Limits - Section 2: Limits for harmonic currentemissions (equipment input current ≤ 16A perphase). Year of Ratification: 1994
Reference: EN 61000 -3 -3Body: CENELECIEC 1000 -3 -3: 1994Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) Part 3: Lim-its - Section 3: Limitation of voltage fluctuationsand flicker in low-voltage supply systems forequipment with rated current ≤ 16A.Year of Ratification: 1994
News & Notes,Continued From Page 6
Product Safety Newsletter • Page 22
Institutional Listings
"YOUR ONE STOP QUALITY
SOLUTION FOR ALL PRODUCTS
AND ALL MARKETS"
European Union Notifiedand Competent Body Services
We are grateful for the assistance given by these firms and invite application for Institutional Listings fromother firms interested in the product safety field. An Institutional Listing recognizes contributions tosupport publication of the Product Safety Newsletter of the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety TechnicalCommittee. Please direct inquiries to:
Ervin Gomez at (408) 553-7684 (phone) or (408) 553-7694 (fax)-
Give us a call andGive us a call andGive us a call andGive us a call andGive us a call andplace your listingplace your listingplace your listingplace your listingplace your listing
