1
\$\begingroup\$

We are bringing a wearable product to the market that is powered by a 3.7V LiPo battery. The product will be sold initially only in the EU and US markets. We are currently in the process of performing the necessary tests and assessments with a test lab to certify that the product complies with the necessary Radio, EMC and Safety standards.

As part of this process, I know that certain tests are required for the LiPo battery. The battery supplier has provided the following reports for the battery:

  • UN38.3 report
  • 1.2M Drop Test report
  • Report for safe transport of goods
  • MSDS report
  • IEC 62133-2: 2017 report

Now the problem:

The test lab says they can accept the IEC 62133 report for the safety requirements in the EU. However, they insist that the above are not sufficient for the US and more testing is needed according to the UL 1642 standard (which also they cannot perform, as they are not accredited to do so, i.e. we need to find another lab to perform that testing).

The battery supplier however is based in the US and sells the same LiPo batteries directly to customers there, without experiencing any problems.

Who is at wrong here? Is the test lab exaggerating a bit here about the need for UL 1642 or is the battery supplier selling products that have not actually passed the safety requirements for the US?

One thing to point out for clarity, that the battery supplier sells standalone batteries, while we are certifying (and intend to sell) the product as a whole (not just the batteries).

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Is the battery RU-Recognized? Can you get one that is? The NRTL that inspects your item will breeze it through a lot faster if it is. \$\endgroup\$ – Harper - Reinstate Monica May 15 at 16:17
  • \$\begingroup\$ No it's not RU-Recognized and we cannot change the design unfortunately. Is either UL 1642 or UL 2054 really needed for the US? Is IEC 62133 not enough? \$\endgroup\$ – DimP May 15 at 16:20
  • \$\begingroup\$ I agree it's astonishing that a "US maker" can't answer US safety standards, but SMH nothing surprises me anymore. I just researched a supposedly-US maker of "smart" 240V contactors. Their Belgian address was a 600sq.ft. office (probably a maildrop). Their US address was literally an apartment. It was all a fake front; it was really a Chinese company in Shenzhen (assuming that's not a front too). Their entire business model was mail order including via Amazon fulfillment, which does an end-run around safety standards. \$\endgroup\$ – Harper - Reinstate Monica May 15 at 17:37
  • \$\begingroup\$ And in both cases they had bought the leftover corporate-shell relic of a defunct US and German company. So cursory efforts at diligence would reveal a mature domestic company with a storied past. \$\endgroup\$ – Harper - Reinstate Monica May 15 at 18:10

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.