LOOKING BACK OVER 2006, several significant developments highlight major changes in the way electrical apparatus standards are being created and their effect on the U.S. position in an increasingly global market.

Widespread standardization of such apparatus is no new thing. For both producers and users, its benefits are obvious. In much of the technology involved, the U.S. no longer leads the world, however, and the most widely adopted electrical standards are now those of the International Electrotechnical Commission. Its membership now includes 67 countries. Each of them, including the U.S., has one vote. Leadership of the IEC has been in the hands of the major European powers, such as the UK, Germany, and France.

For the past several decades, the IEEE and NEMA (representing respectively the concerns of the electrical engineering and electrical manufacturing communities in the U.S., even though the IEEE is an international organization) have been increasingly involved in harmonizationadjustments and compromises in published standards to make their requirements more nearly the same worldwide. That's a necessity for a truly global marketplace.

Some successes are worth noting. For example, NEMA has incorporated into its Motor & Generator Standards the enclosure and ventilation requirements of IEC standards. The IEEE now uses metric units in its publications. The National Electrical Code, after long acrimonious debate, accepted the IEC "Zone" method of classifying areas.

However, several comparative studies have shown that many standards cannot be moved into agreement. Apparatus designed for operation at 50 Hz and, say, 415 volts cannot simply be connected to a 60 Hz 480 volt system, or vice versa. Extensive tests made over many years, supporting current-carrying capacity of individual buswork, cannot be directly used for applying the slightly different metric sizes.

For any manufacturer, non-compliance with a "foreign" product standard is an economic choice. No legal problem, no governmental enforcement mandates compliance. The penalty may be no more than a market re-orientation. An alternative has been to buy into a firm in another country that is equipped to offer compliant products. In some market areas, though, local governments have made it increasingly difficult for outsiders to compete by any means with homegrown industry.

What's different now, as we look back at what's happened in 2006? With the IEC standards and organization as a base, the European Union-a powerful 25-nation bloc that didn't exist until the 1950's-is promulgating requirements, through the European Parliament, that do have legal force.

These take the form of "Directives," embodying deadlines for compliance, no exceptions for favored suppliers, and enforcement penalties. Technically, specific requirements are left for adoption by legislative bodies of individual EU nations. Practically, what the Directive says can be considered as mandatory. And if a member state fails to act, the European Commission can bring that state before the European Court of Justice. Although originating in Europe, the requirements tend to be adopted quickly in other parts of the world. More than 40 Directives now deal with technology and safety issues, such as measuring instruments, appliance efficiency, electromagnetic compatibility or EMC, and explosive atmospheres.

Directives have extremely broad implications. Two of them (2002/95/ EC and 2002/96/EC) that took effect during 2006 will be discussed at length in an upcoming article in EA. Manufacturers of electronic equipment throughout the world became directly affected at mid-year by the first Directive, known as RoHS, which limits the usage of half a dozen materials, principally heavy metals including lead, and which has been followed by similar restrictions issued in Japan, China, and many U.S. states. Accompanying that is the second Directive, known as WEEE, imposing recycling and waste-disposal regulations limiting the spread of hazardous materials when worn-out or obsolete apparatus must be disposed of. The cost to manufacturers of non-compliance with RoHS can reach many millions of dollars in addition to lost markets.

An even more restrictive Directive became the subject of intensive negotiation during 2006 between the European Community, NEMA, and the National Institute of Standards & Technology. For many years, scale markings, readouts, and other unit numbering on apparatus for the international market was allowed to use either English ("inch-pound") or metric units. Once the metric (SI) system was fully in place outside the U.S., "dual marking" was called for; English units could be used, but metric units had to accompany them.

The latest Directive, however, allows only metric units. Dual marking will become not merely "non-standard," but illegal as of Jan. 1, 2010-a deadline (already postponed several times) not as far off as U.S. manufacturers would like. The requirement applies not only to product labeling, but to drawings, catalog information, operating manuals, and other literature as well. During 2006, NEMA worked with the U. S. government, Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers towards further extension of dual marking. European Union "clarification of intent" on some details of the Directive, before the end of 2006, was sought at the U.S./EU Summit meeting in June. The Department of Commerce scheduled a public forum for Oct. 12, 2006, to receive input on the issue that "will be considered in the development of U.S. government views and actions."