As usual, Mr Nute finds the good stuff. The root problem may be in the historical process - back when FM and UL were explicitly stated in OSHA code. This is no longer the case, but continues when the phrase "UL approval" is used to indicate 'NRTL' approval.
My employer has problems with this, but perhaps not at the same critical level as larger companies. As most of my employer's products are not catalog items (custom), we educate the customer about the NRTL system. We send people to some customers' end-users to gently explain that forcing products to bear the UL mark can be considered a trade restraint or illegal elimination of competition for most government projects. But the customer is always right, so if they insist, we submit to UL. As for test process, I see no significant difference among the four NRTL labs, including UL, that I use. Some test or construction data may be presented differently, but their reports all contain the same wondrous information. For critical components, UL response has been that they cannot, as a matter of internal policy, accept the factory audits for other NRTLs, so some components that do not bear the UL mark shall be subject to special factory audits. The bottom line is the bottom line - prove that if affects cost without affecting safety or reliability and it becomes a done deal. But when I defeat Palpatine and the sith lords and become emperor and control Google, this will all change... Brian -----Original Message----- From: emc-p...@ieee.org [mailto:emc-p...@ieee.org]On Behalf Of Richard Nute Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 3:23 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: Orgalime: UL an "effective barrier to trade" Orgalime position paper: "EU manufacturers suffer from malfunctioning of the US certification market: potential abuse of dominant position" http://www.orgalime.org/Pdf/PP_possible_abuse_of_dominant_position_in_US_cer tification_market_oct11.pdf "This practice of denying recognition of component certificates delivered by other NRTL's causes de facto a quasi monopoly situation from the component manufacturers' viewpoint. In practical terms, all products need to be re-evaluated by UL or a UL-certified supply must be sourced and incorporated. The result is that all products within the electrical component market must be certified by UL and UL's share of the component market is ever increasing. "This behaviour not only restricts the freedom of choice of manufacturers, but also proves to be expensive and causes delays in the development process of a machine." "...the current [OSHA] rules governing the market have one fundamental shortcoming, namely the lack of obligatory recognition among the NRTLs of component certificates." "Orgalime suggests that the European Commission encourages the US authorities to study the facts and correct the malfunctioning of their certification market." My comment: OSHA rules do not govern the product safety certification market in the U.S.A. U.S.A. certification houses are private entities subject to the usual business rules. How they conduct product certifications is not regulated -- by OSHA or any other regulatory body. Indeed, here is OSHA's statement on certification house function: "". . . while the record indicates that current safety testing standards and practices may vary slightly among the third party safety testing organizations, the testing laboratories themselves indicate that they have compensating mechanisms and controls built into their particular systems which are intended to assure that the ultimate result will fall within an acceptable range" http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=FEDERAL_REGIST ER&p_id=13454 With respect to a component, testing by one party may be different than that of another party. Such differences may result in different testing of the end-product but result in the same end-point. Here is OSHA's statement on an NRTL accepting data from another NRTL: "The first or basic program stipulates that the NRTL that will certify the product must perform all product testing and evaluation itself. An NRTL's initial recognition will always include this first program. The other eight, called "supplemental programs," involve the NRTL's acceptance of testing and evaluation data or services, or certain contract services, from outside parties. An NRTL must apply for recognition to use any of the supplemental programs. OSHA will grant the request if the NRTL has met the criteria for the specific program." "One issue that often surfaces is whether an NRTL must accept the product testing, certifications, or approvals of another NRTL. OSHA has no authority to require such acceptance. An NRTL may accept the work output of another NRTL. However, this is solely a business decision of each NRTL." See: www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/faq_nrtl.html Also: OSHA "...has previously determined that an NRTL may, but is not obligated to, accept test data, component or product approvals, or other information or data from another NRTL, as long as it is satisfied with their appropriateness. The NRTL has the prerogative to retest or reapprove, as it deems necessary." The answer to the Orgalime paper is to use a different certification house for both components and end-products. Competition determines who wins. Best wishes for the holiday season, Rich - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <emc-p...@ieee.org> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <emcp...@radiusnorth.net> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <j.bac...@ieee.org> David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>
