>>>>Scenario : Component A with rating mentioned in the UL's product report as 90-135/180-265 Vac, however in the phyical unit is written as 115/230 V . Q1 : Is this a non conformity ? Should a VN be raised ?<<<<<
Theoretically, it's a non-conformity, however if the component is being used within its ratings, the most appropriate action would be to request a change to the FUS procedure to indicate the actual ratings. My guess is the inspector would write a VN, but not hold up shipment. >>>>Scenario :In the report, it mentioned the marking on the label as 120-127V , however in the actual label on the unit it is written as 120-127V/220-240V. Q2. Is this a non conformity ? Should a VN be raised ?<<<< Is this the overall product rating? If the product is Listed with a voltage rating of 120-127, you cannot put a voltage rating outside of that range on the label unless or until the unit has been evaluated by UL at the new voltage rating. If the product was tested at the higher voltage rating as well as the lower one, then you need to have the FUS procedure revised to indicate the appropriate rating on the label. Otherwise, it's a non-conformity and you may be required to hold shipment or remove the labels. >>>>>Scenario : In the report, it mentioned component B carries many safety agency certification, however i the actual physical unit, it only containes one or two safety agency logos. Q3. Is this a non conformity ? Should a VN be raised ?<<<< Is it necessary for the component to carry "many safety certifications"? If not, then the Procedure should only indicate the one type of certification that matters. If the "one or two" safety agency logos are sufficient, it is redundant to mention others and will likely result in questions or confusion during the inspection. If, on the other hand, the other certifications were mentioned because they are relevant to the requirements of the standard, then they must be there. >>>>Q4. When an IPI ( Initial product inspection ) is carried out, should the UL's product report been approved by the UL ?<<<<< The IPI is usually carried out using a temporary or draft Follow Up Service Procedure that has gone through a final review at UL. The only thing that might remain to be done is to have the report typed in final form and uploaded into their systems. However, for a number of reasons, there may be minor typos or inconsistencies in the report. You need to immediately report any problems or mistakes you identify to the UL engineer who issued the Procedure. If the mistakes are UL's fault (in other words, the information in the report is different than the info you provided them ), then UL should not charge you to fix the report. >>>>Q5. Should the report used during IPI is a detailed report with Sec gene ral and condition of testing been included ?<<<< Yes. >>>>Q6. Can anyone share with me the correct ways the product report/FUS procedure for a product should be written so that we are not caught up with it, particularly on the rating,model and safety agency certification requirement for the product ?<<<<< One of the most common causes of variation notices is overly detailed information in the FUS procedure. Remember that the UL field inspector does not have engineering decision making authority, and was not involved in the original engineering investigation. Field Inspectors are trained to assume that anything called out in the FUS report is necessary to the safety of the product. If there is a question about the FUS procedure during the IPI that the inspector is not qualified to resolve, then the decision has to go back to UL engineering, which can cost you time and money. You should be concerned with any information in the FUS procedure that is not directly tied to the critical safety elements of the product design. For example, calling out transformer core dimensions to the hundredths of an inch is probably unnecessary, but some engineers may still do it out of habit. The fact that a component has 5 different certification marks on it may or may not be relevant. But if it's not relevant and it appears in the procedure, ask UL to take it out. I recommend you go through the Procedure with a fine-tooth comb and ask UL to make changes to it if there are any items that you think are not safety critical, or not consistent with the actual construction of the production unit. Hope this helps. Greg Galluccio www.productapprovals.com This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ 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: Ron Pickard: emc-p...@hypercom.com Dave Heald: davehe...@attbi.com For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: ri...@ieee.org Jim Bacher: j.bac...@ieee.org Archive is being moved, we will announce when it is back on-line. All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
