Conformity Magazine - November 2007 - (Page 26)

What this means is that a product is “listed” if a NRTL tests and approves a product as meeting published safety standards, performs periodic reviews of the compliance of continuing production, and then lists that approval in a publication by the NRTL. In actual practice, the NRTL performs at least two follow-up inspections per year to verify continued compliance with the safety requirements, and the publication of listed products is commonly performed via the Internet. The NEC also defines a method for labeling approved equipment. The NEC, in Article 100, defines labeling as: “Equipment or materials to which has been attached a label, symbol, or other identifying mark of an organization that is acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction and concerned with product evaluation, that maintains periodic inspection of production of labeled equipment or materials, and by whose labeling the manufacturer indicates compliance with appropriate standards or performance in a specified manner.” This means that a product is “labeled” if a NRTL tests and approves a product as meeting published safety standards, performs periodic reviews of the compliance of continuing production, and then affixes on each approved product a mark indicating compliance. Again, in actual practice, the NRTL performs at least two follow-up inspections per year, and each product manufactured is marked with the NRTL’s trademarked listing symbol indicating compliance. Often a product is both listed and labeled, that is, it is both listed in a publication (or online directory) and bears the NRTL listing mark. The AHJ requires that products which connect to the electrical system or which have electrical power within them be listed or labeled. Again, the NEC is the guiding document for this requirement. The NEC, Article 90.7, requires that: “…examinations for safety made under standard conditions provide a basis for approval where the record is made generally available through promulgation by organizations properly equipped and qualified for experimental testing, inspections of the run of goods at factories, and service-value determination through field inspections.” This requirement is in accordance with the OSHA requirement that products with electrical connection or usage be approved by an NRTL—the NEC refers to “organizations properly equipped and qualified,” which is what an OSHA approval of an testing organization as an NRTL provides. Of particular note is that Article 90.7 allows field inspections to be performed in order for an NRTL to grant approval for a product. The NEC, in Article 110.3, spells out clearly the requirement for products to be listed or labeled: 26 Conformity noVEmBEr 2007 “Suitability of equipment use may be identified by a description marked on or provided with a product to identify the suitability of the product for a specific purpose, environment, or application. Suitability of equipment may be evidenced by listing or labeling.” Taken together, the requirements of the NEC indicate that, for equipment to be approved for use by an AHJ, the equipment must be listed or labeled by an NRTL. A field inspection by the NRTL is an acceptable basis of approval. A “field label” then is a field inspection performed by an NRTL in order to fulfill the requirements of the National Electrical Code, and the federal regulations mandated by OSHA, that equipment with electrical energy be labeled. Field labeling is required anytime a machine that utilizes electrical energy is placed into operation in the workplace and lacks any other approval by an NRTL. Minimizing Product Liability A field label is also required in order to reduce liability exposure if a safety-related incident occurs during use of the machine. A good understanding of products liability requirements in the United States may be gained from understanding the document Restatement of the Law, Third, Torts: Products Liability, published by the American Law Institute. While not having legal standing in itself, the Restatement is the basis of products liability law adopted by the federal and state governments. The Restatement, in §1, states that “a commercial seller or distributor is liable for harm to persons or property caused by defects in its products.” In particular, if the product “departs from its intended design,” it is considered defective (see §2(a) of the Restatement). This article does not require that such a departure from the intended design be proven to be “unreasonably dangerous,” but merely that a departure from the intended design has occurred. This is important, because it is quite simple to demonstrate that a machine which allows a safety accident causing injury or death to occur has, indeed, deviated from its intended design (after all, no machines in the workplace are intentionally designed to cause accident or injury!). The plaintiff in a liability suit does not have to prove that a machine was unreasonably dangerous; they merely have to prove that: a) an injury or death has occurred; and b) the machine was not intentionally designed to cause injury or death. If both of these can be proven, then the manufacturer will be held liable in most jurisdictions within the United States. In addition, the Restatement states, in §2(b), that a product will be considered defectively designed if the foreseeable risks “. . . could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design . . . and the omission of the alternative design renders the product not reasonably

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Conformity Magazine - November 2007

Conformity - November 2007 Contents Editor’s Note Commission Sets Date, Terms for 700 MHz Auction FCC Reaffirms Roaming Obligations Commission Moves to Improve USF Management FCC Proposes Fines for Violations of E911 Handset Requirements Commission Levies $1 Million Plus Fines for Unsolicited Fax Advertisements GR-3150 - Lithium Battery Certification Levels Based on Criteria for General Product, Safety, and Performance, Part 2 ESD Open Forum Machinery Field Evaluation for the United States Validation, Verification, and Immunity Testing Techniques for EMC for Functional Safety Thermal/EMC Simulation Addresses New Mechanical Design Challenges Product Safety Equipment Buyer’s Guide FCC Releases Report on Telephone Numbering Resource Utilization Canada Still Has PCS Spectrum to Assign Updated Standards List for the EU’s Medical Devices Directive Updated Standards List for EU Directive on Active Implantable Medical Devices Call for Papers for the 2008 EOS/ESD Symposium Announced Mobile Phone Use in Hospitals May Be Dangerous CPSC Actions in the News IEC Standards Update UL Standards Update Telcordia Standards Update From Our “You Can’t Make This Stuff Up” Department Product Reviews Looking Back: Items from Past Issues of Conformity Upcoming Events Advertisers

Conformity Magazine - November 2007

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.