Items in this E-Mail Alert:

• Performance Specifications: New Proposals Issued
• Compliance Mechanisms: New Proposals Issued
• Update on CFL Test Protocol
• Protocol Verification Testing

Performance Specifications: New Proposals Issued

A revised document has been issued proposing a series of increasing "Tiers of Performance" that will allow the fair comparison of existing CFLs and provides a framework for the gradual harmonisation of schemes (MEPS, Certification/Recommended, Procurement, etc) in the future. Proposals are made for both 3 and 4 Tier systems. Further, the document also makes proposals for an international marking system for CFLs to assist scheme managers and enforcers in specifying products and policing the marketplace.

We welcome comments on all the proposals. In particular we seek views on:

• Is a 3 or 4 Tier system to characterise CFL performance is preferable?
• How should the individual criteria thresholds be amended (ie at what levels should they be set) within each Tier?
• Is it reasonable to allow products qualified for existing schemes to be categorised within a specific Tier, even when the scheme does not specify all the core criteria? If so, what time limit should be place on such "exemptions", eg, 1 year after adoption by the IEC?
• How and where should products be marked to show declared performance levels?

Back to top

Compliance Mechanisms: New Proposals Issued

The compliance framework currently envisaged by the CFL Harmonisation Initiative I is an incremental "staircase" approach, ie, it is being designed such that basic compliance actions can be adopted irrespective of the current knowledge base or financial capacity of enforcers/regulators, and as resources become available, more robust compliance actions can be adopted. The proposed framework addresses several different elements of compliance: Initial Product Access to the Initiative Supervision and Administration and Data Exchange

Comments are welcomed on all the proposals. In particular views are sought on:

• Does this staircase approach seem to be a reasonable methodology/mechanism through which to develop the individual compliance protocols?
• Are the steps in the staircase case correct, or are there steps to be added/deleted?
• Are there important elements missing in either the framework, or the outline of the "Protocol for CFL Initiative Entry/Initial Product Compliance"?

The proposal may be downloaded from the CFL site.

Back to top

Update on CFL Test Protocol

In line with commitments made at the 4th International CFL Stakeholder Forum in London, Version 13 of the Protocol was finally formally submitted (September 2006) to the IEC as a proposed set of revisions to IEC 60969. However, the CFL Initiative will provide ongoing comments for consideration by the IEC, as these comments are received from the CFL Network and from other stakeholders, and collated with results from the verification testing as they become known.

Back to top

Protocol Verification Testing

Due to capacity restrictions at a number of laboratories taking part in the verification testing process, and some difficulty reaching consensus on a robust verification protocol, this task has been somewhat delayed. However, following the completion of the Testing Protocol (version 13), verification testing has begun in a number of laboratories and will begin soon in the remainder. First results from the 100 hour tests have been received and analysis by an independent testing expert is underway and will be published soon.

The Instructions to Laboratoriescan be found on the CFL Harmonisation web site. It contains the following information:

• a detailed breakdown of the aims of the comparative testing
• a listing of the laboratories involved (drawn from three continents) and
• details of the methods of data collection and analysis