Provisional Translation
| OTO No. | 377 | Classification | MITI-101 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Date of Acceptance | August 11, 1989 | Ministry/Agency Receiving Complaint | Economic Planning Agency |
| Responsible Ministries | Ministry of International Trade and Industry | Related Laws | Electrical Appliance and Material Control Law |
| Complainant | US firm | Exporting Countries | USA |
| Subject | Simplification of examination of cord for electric cleaners | ||
| Details of Measures | The complainant applied for type designation in two stages, one for the cord itself and the other for the cord with the connector and the cord with the plug. The cord itself has already received type designation, and it was indicated that the complainant would like to skip the inspection of the cord in examining the cord with the connector and the cord with the plug. When the Ministry of International Trade and Industry asked the Japan Electric Testing Laboratory for a clarification, the Laboratory explained that it is impossible to tell whether or not the cord has passed inspection unless it is so marked, and that it is impossible for them to conduct tests of only the connectors and plugs attached to a cord that is unmarked, even if that cord has passed inspection. An applicant seeking type approval for an item with an unmarked cord is liable for the 129, 700 fee stipulated under the Cabinet Order Regarding Fees Payable Under the Electrical Appliance and Material Control Law. Subsequent to this, the officials at the Electrical Appliance Safety Office, which was handling this, asked for clarification from the complainant. Complainant said that, having previously received certification for an entire unit, he applied to the Laboratory for the same procedure this time but was told that they could not test entire units and that he would have to break the unit down into the cord, connector, and plug and to apply first for testing of the cord (since cords often prove not to be certifiable). Following these instructions, the complainant applied first for certification of the cord, finally receiving certification only two years later on the third time around. Following that, the complainant, as instructed, applied for testing of the cord with the plug and the cord with the connector, but was told by the Laboratory that, since the cord was not marked as having passed inspection, it would have to be treated as an unknown cord and tested along with the other parts. The Electrical Appliance Safety Office explained this situation to the Laboratory and received the reply that, in this one case and in light of the circumstances, the Laboratory would exempt the complainant's cord from the need from reins section as unmarked and would test just the connector and plug. |
||
| Classification of Processing | Ca | Directions | II-a |
| Remarks | |||