25
For all the latest energy safety news visit www . esv . vic . gov . au
Autumn / Winter 2018 energysafe issue 50
Continued from page 11 .
Prescribed and non-prescribed articles
Most prescribed appliances were , and remain , common household appliances . The prescribing definition for any class may also embrace several different types of articles . For instance , the definition for heating appliances includes several heating appliances such as electric kettles and coffee makers etc .
The list of prescribed articles was similar across all states , but not exactly the same . Differences were seen as being insignificant . Fifty-nine classes of appliances and equipment were prescribed including nearly all common household appliances .
A consultation process through the RAAC was formed to allow a state to put forward a proposition or case for the prescription of a new class of appliance or equipment , with a majority view prevailing .
For non-prescribed articles , each state had its own scheme .
Manufacturers and importers could voluntarily submit articles to ensure it complied with recognised Australian safety standards . This was to determine the suitability for connection to the supply mains , distinctly different to the requirement for approval to sell . In these cases when accepted a Certificate of Suitability could be issued .
In instances where no specific Australian safety standard or A & TS existed for an article , it was the responsibility of the concerned regulatory authority to determine relevant tests , which were generally from similar Australian safety standards .
In several states including Victoria , a letter of acceptance was issued for many non-prescribed articles .
Suppliers frequently obtained a letter of acceptance to show that their product was acceptable to the regulatory authority . Often due to the article ’ s size and complexity , field inspections were conducted to ensure it complied with basic safety principles , and if necessary limited testing was carried out .
Testing of electrical equipment
Test laboratories were located in every state . They were generally part of the electrical entity of the state and most were operating independently of the state ’ s Approvals Authority . Eventually these laboratories obtained National Association of Testing Authorities ( NATA ) accreditation .
Each laboratory carried out testing of electrical equipment in accordance with the requirements of the A & TS and supplied a test report . These test reports were submitted with the article to an approvals authority .
Australian regulatory authorities also accepted reports issued from international laboratories , provided they met the requirements set by the relevant Australian safety standards and had the relevant accreditation for those standards .
Any examination and testing carried out on electrical equipment by an Approvals Authorities within Australia was based on A & TS , with standards published by the SAA .
These standards are produced by committees set up by SAA consisting of representatives of stakeholders including Regulatory Authorities , manufacturers , importers and consultants , other government authorities , testing laboratories and users associations .
Originally , SAA published three sets of A & TS :
»»
AS 3100 – then known as ‘ Definitions and General Requirements for Electrical Materials and Equipment ’
»»
AS 3300 – then known as ‘ General Requirements for Household and similar Electrical Appliance ’
»»
AS 3200 – then known as ‘ Electro-Medical Equipment General requirements ’. The AS 3300 series was based on International Electro-Technical Commission ( IEC ) documents . It was the intention of SAA under guidelines issued by the Commonwealth Federal Government to supersede the AS 3100 series of documents with the AS 3300 series .
There were clear advantages in this as the IEC documents were an international document used by most countries , particularly the UK and Europe . For this reason , test reports from overseas were readily accepted in Australia and vice versa .
The third AS series of A & TS was AS 3200 . This series was the parent document of numerous electro-medical equipment standards and required reference to AS 3100 .
It is worth noting that the A & TS were relative to the safety of electrical products and not the performance aspect of the equipment . However , if performance requirements were to effect safety requirements , they were included .
These three A & TS have since evolved or been replaced by other sets of safety standards that have been added to cater for the complex global market and challenges faced with new technologies .
Methods for assessing safety risks introduced by new technologies required input from experts in varying fields and devising methods for ensuring elimination , or at least mitigation of associated risks became essential .
Increased involvement with international bodies such as the IEC was paramount in order to keep up with changes in the industry and ensure equipment supplied into the Australian market is designed for safe use in Australia .
In 1988 , Standards Association Australia ( SAA ) removed ‘ Association ’ from its name and became Standards Australia . It was recognised as the peak non-government Standards development organisation .
Regulatory Compliance Mark
In 1995 , an independent body formed by merging functions of RAAC and its counterpart for electrical licensing ( Regulatory Authorities Licensing Committee ) to create Electrical Regulatory Authorities Council ( ERAC ).
In the past , the Australian marketplace of electrical equipment was largely supplied by Australian-based companies and certified by its local regulator .
This trend began to shift , with most electrical equipment now manufactured offshore , usually in Asia . Importers of equipment encompass smaller Australian and New Zealand based suppliers , with little technical expertise or commercial backing . As the number of electrical equipment suppliers grew a means to identify suppliers was necessary . This need initiated discussions between ERAC , the Australian Electrical and Electronic Manufacturer ’ s Association ( AEEMA ) and the Consumer Electronics Supplier ’ s Association ( CESA ).
The aim was to develop a unique voluntary mark accepted by regulators across Australia and New Zealand . The discussions led to the proposal for the Regulatory Compliance Mark ( RCM ).
Over an 18-month period , the RCM standard AS / NZS 4417 was developed and published on 5 August 1996 in three parts .
»» Part 1 – general rules for the use of the RCM
»»
Part 2 – specific requirements for electrical safety regulatory applications
»»
Part 3 – specific requirements for EMC regulatory applications
A trademark owned by Australian and New Zealand regulators , the RCM would indicate a supplier ’ s claim that a product complies with the regulatory requirements as specified in the applicable parts of AS / NZS 4417 .
The RCM could only be used to show compliance with electrical safety and Electro Magnetic Compatibility ( EMC ) regulatory requirements .
Following the publication of AS / NZS 4417 , suppliers wishing to use the RCM had to register their intent with the Spectrum Management Agency ( SMA ) and advise if they would use the mark for electrical safety , for EMC or both .
The SMA became the Australian Communication Authority ( ACA ), and in 1997 , indicated it did not wish to continue managing the RCM registration facility , with the intent to expand the use of the RCM to other regulatory regimes . It was agreed that a single supplier registration facility , independent of a regulator , should be established .
Standards Australia agreed to take over the supplier registration scheme and did so in 1998 . At that time , the details of 48 suppliers registered with the SMA were transferred to the new Standards Australia RCM suppliers ’ registration database .
In 1999 , a fourth part of AS / NZS 4417 was added to cover specific requirements for radio apparatus regulatory applications . In 2003 , Standards Australia sold its commercial assurance business , to a newly formed company SAI Global . With this separation SAI Global maintained the RCM registration facility .
In 2006 , SAI Global did not wish to continue with management of the RCM registration facility and a private provider , Regulatory Compliance Management , took responsibility of the registration facility . From 1998 to 2006 , there were approximately 216 suppliers registered on the database .