Most countries have binding regulations for making plant and machinery safe. After all, safe machinery plays a part in increasing the motivation and productivity of staff. This type of regulation varies from region to region and is designed to suit the respective legal and cultural environment, ranging from mandatory laws to recommendations of a non-binding nature. Even the level of jurisdiction to guarantee compliance varies enormously. Self certification is enough in some countries, while others have commercial institutions which carry out inspections in accordance with their own rules. in other parts of the world, certification is carried out by state-authorized institutions.
USA
The legal basis in the USA can be regarded as a mix of product standards, fire codes (NFPA), electrical codes (NEC) and national laws. Local government bodies have the authority to monitor that these codes are being enforced and implemented. People there are mainly familiar with two types of standards: OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) and ANSI (American National Standards Institute). Government bodies publish OSHA standards and compliance is mandatory. OSHA standards are comparable with European directives, although OSHA is more concerned with describing technical property requirements than with abstract requirements.
ANSI standards, on the other hand, are developed by private organizations and their application is, generally, not absolutely mandatory. However, ANSI standards are still included in contracts and OSHA frequently adopts ANSI standards. You can also still come across the NFPA (National Fire Protection Association), which developed NFPA 79 as a counterpart to EN 60204-1, for example.
Canada
Although the situation in Canada is comparable to that of the USA, there are a few differences. The central standards' organization in Canada is the CSA (Canadian Standards Association). ANSI and NFPA are much less important in Canada. However, it's important to note that a considerable number of standards are published in identical form by CSA and ANSI, making portability between the two somewhat easier. The CSA and its standards have no legal character in Canada.
On the legal side there is CCOHS (Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety), which is the Canadian equivalent of OSHA. This organization and its regional branches establish the formal reference between the standards and the law. However, as in the USA, this is a much more individual approach than that taken by the European directives.
Brazil
The Brazilian Tecchnical Standards Association (ABNT) has incorporated the standards ABNT NBR/IEC 61508-1 and ABENT NBR/IEC 61058-2. However, the possibility of harmonizing the standards IEC 61508, IEC 61511 or IEC 62061 has not yet been analyzed. Due to increasing globalization and market requirements, the larger Brazilian companies are independently changing to ISO/IEC standards before ABNT has the chance to incorporate them into Brazilian legislation. Multinational companies or businesses working in the process industry, such as oil and gas, often apply international ISO/IEC standards such as IEC 61508.
Argentina
The situation in Argentina largely corresponds to that of Brazil, indeed, the Argentina Institute of Standardization and Certification (IRAM) has placed advertisements advising companies to adopt the standards at national level. However, only a few companies from the oil and gas industry implement them, even in part.
Chile
The Chilean National Standards Institute (INN) has adopted some of the standards from the IEC field of electrical engineering. However, a study of IEC 61508, IEC 61511 or IEC 62061 is neither being developed nor is its implementation planned.
Russia and the CIS States
Russia and the CIS states have implemented GOST-R certification for some years now. Under this procedure, technical devices included on a specific product list must undergo a certain certification process. A European notified body performs a type-examination on machinery and any corresponding technical accessories. The Russian based approvals body generally recognizes this examination. From a safety point of view, therefore, the same requirements apply as in Europe.
Japan
The Industrial Safety and Health Law places demands on design issues relation to certain machinery (crane, lift, etc.). The law also states that the machine operator is responsible for carrying out risk analyses. He also has to ensure safety in the workplace. It is assumed that the machine operator will ask the machine manufacturer to issue a risk analysis report at the time of purchase and that the machine is designed safely. The law also contains requirements for pressure vessels, personal protective equipment, packaging machines for the food industry and machines that are moved on the public highway.
Japan adopts most of the IEC and ISO standards as JIS standards (Japan Industrial Standards); however, the Industrial Safety and Health Law does not yet refer to each of these standards. There are plans to publish a supplementary law to this one, which will look specifically at the issue of performing risk analyses. It is anticipated that this law wil refer to JIS (or ISO).
China
China has introduced CCC certification. Similar to the position in Russia, technical products are subject to mandatory certification through a national approvals body, production sites are also inspected. If a technical device falls within the scope of the product list, which is subdivided into 19 categories, certification is mandatory. In all other cases it is necessary to supply a type of "declaration of no objection" from a national certified body.
Australia
In Australia, states and territories have the responsibility of drafting and implementing safety laws. Fortunately the individual laws on industrial safety and their requirements
are very similar. The relevant legislation is based on the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act. This defines the obligations and duty of care of people with various responsibilities. Numerous regulations and codes of practice for the various safety areas fall under the state OHS legislation. These regulations are legally binding.
Although the codes of practice are not generally legally biding they are frequently consulted as a benchmark in the respective legal system, whenever it is necessary to assess whether sufficient measures have been taken to design a safe workplace. For this reason, failure to comply with codes of practice can have very serious consequences. As well as referring to the codes of practice, regulations also sometimes refer to the Australian standards drafted by an independent organization called "Standards Australia". However, with a few notable exceptions, Australian standards are not legally binding, although courts frequently consult them in order to assess the measures that have been taken to reduce risks. The most important machinery safety standard in Australia is AS4024. 1. Although compliance is not strictly mandatory, it does represent an excellent difference in case of any action relating to neglect of duty of care. Failure to comply may have serious legal consequences.
Many Australian standards are based on international standards. Standards Australia's official policy is to adopt international standards (IEC or ISO) where possible in the interests of international alignment. In contrast, American standards (ANSI) rarely correspond to Australian, ISO or EN standards and are of little relevance in Australia.
Summary
The comparison illustrates key differences in the way standards are applied. It makes clear that knowledge of the respective national circumstances is indispensable when exporting. In particular it illustrates the importance of European standards. In most countries, certification in accordance with IEC, EN and even ISO standards is now hugely
important, as these standards are often used as the basis for national regulations. It doesn't automatically mean that certificates will be accepted, but certification in these countries will be considerably easier if certification to European standards is in place.
