Thank you the many comments relative to your NRTL experiences. The number
of responses thus far is more than adequate, and we can cease this
discussion.
A few comments and observations:
1. My objective was to shed a little light on the "dark" side of NRTLs
which
do not always act in a re
_
Our Customers Expect the Best, Let's Do It Together
> -Original Message-
> From: Mowbray, John H [SMTP:jmowb...@exchange.waterloo.ncr.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 1998 7:58 AM
> To: 'EMC-PSTC'
>
George -
While I have not found myself in quite the same predicament as you describe,
I have had good success with your Option D. This quite often clarifies the
applicable requirements for a product's audit and has also quite often
exposes misunderstanding on the part of the inspector as to what
April 27, 1998 12:14 PM
> To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject: NRTL Value
>
>
> Here's a situation that I find very frustrating.
>
> Suppose a (leading) National Recognized Test Laboratory (NRTL)
> assesses a product and issues an authorization letter
George,
Can't say I have had the same experience. But, I have
had experience with two different safety NRTLs each with
their own label. Anytime something did come up I always
referred the issue to the supervisor of the test engineer
of the approval to make the call. My experience was that
> -Original Message-
> From: Steel, Howard F
> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 1998 8:32 AM
> To: 'geor...@lexmark.com'
> Cc: Vyas, Arvind; Mowbray, John H
> Subject: RE: NRTL Value
>
> We have particular difficulty with an agency in the past, mostl
our design, unless it was a part
of a major UL "File review" due to changes in the standard.
Good luck to you.
Tania Grant, Lucent Technologies, Octel Messaging Division
tgr...@lucent.com
__ Reply Separator
______
F: Argue the notices with the orginal NRTL engineer or his manager.
> --
> From: geor...@lexmark.com[SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com]
> Reply To: geor...@lexmark.com
> Sent: Monday, April 27, 1998 4:14 PM
> To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subjec
Hi George:
With respect to the VN issued by the NRTL...
The inspection process is to compare the product to
the report.
Following this comparison, the "inspector" simply
reports any discrepancies. By reference to page and
paragraph of the product report. Black and white.
Then, the manu
George,
You hit a nerve here. I could tell you a story about a certain NRTL
(remaining nameless here). I have had my go rounds with them and have
taken all but Step A below. I have had un-realistic tests performed, been
told to make inappropriate design changes, have had their own reports
conflict
Hello George. Technically speaking, an inspector is not in a position to
dictate constructional changes. The inspector is further not supposed to
interpret or apply requirements during inspection. In short, the
inspector's job is to read and follow the descriptive report of a product.
Unless what
Here's a situation that I find very frustrating.
Suppose a (leading) National Recognized Test Laboratory (NRTL)
assesses a product and issues an authorization letter for the
use of their "mark".
Suppose a year or so later, during a routine follow up service
inspection, a dozen or so "variation n
12 matches
Mail list logo
