Countdown to compliance

Dashboard Log out

Is it possible to use some of the latest provisions in Ed. No. 3 IEC 62368-1 for Ed. No. 2 IEC 62368-based certifications of AV/ICT equipment while industry waits for Ed. No. 3-based versions of EN, CSA, UL and other national standards?

Based on several discussions at technical committee meetings, the generally accepted viewpoint is that it would not be appropriate to use the provisions from the latest version of an IEC standard that has not been widely adopted yet when applying an existing standard that has been adopted widely, unless there were some industry-wide initiative and agreement to do so.  Although IEC TC108 recently has published an international standard, IEC 62368-1:2018 (Ed. No. 3), formal adoption processes still need to take place before it can be said that Ed. No. 3 is accepted/approved for use in specific countries/regions for global AV/ICT products.  In addition to restrictions on this sort of practice within the IECEE CB Scheme, there could be added national differences, national conditions and other reasons why a country may not adopt some or all provisions of Ed. No. 3 as a national standard.  Additionally, it can be problematic picking & choosing limited sets of pending requirements from one standard for use with another standard since the user of the standard may not be aware of how selected requirements rely on other related changes not selected.  Allowing for one provision without also considering related provisions could lead to gaps in safety.  


Ideally, if there were an established need for such cross-edition provisions to be used as common practice, there would be both international agreement (both IEC TC108 and IECEE CTL) and a published roadmap for selecting such allowances (similar to the hybrid TRF concept).  No such agreements exist.


Note, a case can be made for an exception to the above principle when a change associated with the latest standard has been adopted to provide ‘clarification’ to unclear content in the previous standard.  For such a case, allowing for such clarifications from the latest standard simply would be demonstrating the practical application of the current technical committee viewpoint on the legacy requirement that was unclear.  However, even when done in this limited case, one still needs to be careful that the clarification is used in the appropriate context and that other related considerations are not missed.

Back to "You ask, we answer"