Bravo Robert - you're right on the mark. Dan Kinney Horner APG > -----Original Message----- > From: Loop, Robert [SMTP:rl...@hnt.wylelabs.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 11:58 AM > To: tgr...@lucent.com > Cc: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org > Subject: RE: Got another beef about an NRTL (haven't we all?) > > > Hi Tania, > > At Wyle Laboratories (one of the many NRTL's), we typically will accept > test > data from another NRTL. Our assumption is that other NRTL demonstrated > proficiency to OSHA requirements and probably many others (A2LA, NVLAP, > ISO > Guide 25, etc.), hence their test data is assumed to be valid. > > It is not practical to retest every approved component or sub-assembly as > if > it had never been investigated by another NRTL. The time and cost to the > customer would put us out of the product safety business. Each standard > that we investigate a product to is done on a clause-by-clause basis to > ensure nothing is missed. And the test methodology is adequately > described > in the standard to ensure uniformity of testing. > > As long as the COA's are reviewed and tested accordingly in the > end-product > application, we have done our job in ensuring the safety of the final > assembly. > > One of the complaints from industry that has lead to worldwide harmonized > standards was that different countries were using safety marks as a trade > barrier. My personal opinion is that this holds true with any NRTL that > will not accept test data from another NRTL without a signed MRA in place. > It is not an easy accomplishment to achieve NRTL status, OSHA holds the > bar > pretty high up. Refusing to accept test data from another NRTL, is a way > of > saying that OSHA doesn't know its business on how to qualify a lab (again, > my opinion). > > UL has a stranglehold on component recognition by requiring retesting of > any > component approved by another NRTL. The net effect is that this denies a > large segment of business to its competitors. Fair? Hardly. Smart > business > strategy? Absolutely! > > That is my not-for-profit opinion and not my employers. > > Sincerely, > Robert Loop > Engineering Supervisor > Wyle Laboratories > Product Safety > ph - (256) 837-4411 x313 > fax- (256) 721-0144 > e-mail: rl...@hnt.wylelabs.com > > > > ---------- > > From: Grant, Tania (Tania)[SMTP:tgr...@lucent.com] > > Reply To: Grant, Tania (Tania) > > Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 5:37 PM > > To: 'duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org > > Subject: RE: Got another beef about an NRTL.... > > Importance: High > > > > > > All right, let's get specific here and actually use some names! UL has > a > > Mutual Recognition Agreement with CSA to accept each other's test > reports. > > This agreement also specifies details about how they conduct the various > > tests (it used to be that earth leakage current measurements were > > performed > > differently by the two agencies). The agreement also allows them to > > "harmonize" standards, and many have been harmonized since the MRA was > > first > > signed. Where the standards still differ, my understanding is that > both > > UL > > and CSA will perform both sets of test to satisfy both agencies' > > requirements. > > > > I am not aware that MRAs exist between the different NRTLs. And how is > > one > > NRTL going to know whether the test procedures are the same between the > > different NRTLs? In other words, there is no allegiance between them. > > And yes, they do compete. But so did UL and CSA, but now they sing the > > same tune. > > > > Any NRTL mark is good, per OSHA and the U.S. NEC, for end-use product. > > But > > if you are incorporating components and other equipment into your > systems, > > you need to specify your expectations when you purchase parts. We > > specify > > X NRTL and we get that. > > > > Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com > > Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group > > Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com [ mailto:duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com > > <mailto:duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com> ] > > Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 3:58 AM > > To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org > > Subject: Got another beef about an NRTL.... > > > > > > > > Group, > > > > What about another scenario that I have been in with two NRTL's. > > For the sake of embarrassment,lets call them 'NRTL A' and 'NRTL B' > > > > Firstly any components or equipment recognised or listed by an NRTL are > > deemed > > 'acceptable' to OSHA so long as it is used as prescribed in its > conditions > > of > > acceptability or use. so can I presume that as OSHA accepts any NRTL > mark > > they > > are all of equal standing. > > > > Why is it then that NRTL A will not accept a power supply approved by > NRTL > > B. > > The latter is true for NRTL B who will accept NRTL A's mark with no > > problems > > (in > > all cases the conditions of acceptability are followed) > > > > So long as the conditions of acceptability are followed and there are no > > engineering reasons for NRTL A to reject NRTL B's approval then what > > happens > > next. Is there any recourse or would we have to go to one NRTL and get > the > > whole > > lot retested. If there is no engineering reason, can an NRTL reject > > anothers > > recognition just because it distlikes it or maybe sees it as > competition! > > > > Has anyone else had a similar experience, if so what did you do to > resolve > > it > > without paying out for more NRTL approvals on an already recognised > > component. > > > > Any comments would be greatly recieved. > > > > Regards, > > > > Duncan Hobbs, Product Safety Engineer > > Snell and Wilcox Ltd. > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > > This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety > > Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. > > > > To cancel your subscription, send mail to: > > majord...@ieee.org > > with the single line: > > unsubscribe emc-pstc > > > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > > Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com > > Michael Garretson: pstc_ad...@garretson.org > > > > For policy questions, send mail to: > > Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > > This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety > > Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. > > > > To cancel your subscription, send mail to: > > majord...@ieee.org > > with the single line: > > unsubscribe emc-pstc > > > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > > Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com > > Michael Garretson: pstc_ad...@garretson.org > > > > For policy questions, send mail to: > > Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety > Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. > > To cancel your subscription, send mail to: > majord...@ieee.org > with the single line: > unsubscribe emc-pstc > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com > Michael Garretson: pstc_ad...@garretson.org > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org >
------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: majord...@ieee.org with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com Michael Garretson: pstc_ad...@garretson.org For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org