Art,
You absolutely win the prize for the first truly definitive answer to my
challenge! Obviously Mr. Blocher had the same trouble interpreting the
meaning of "utilization equipment". Note how simple it was for OSHA to
clearly state that desktop computuers (PCs) are included. It is a shame
th
Hello George,
While I'm reluctant to flog a dead horse, somewhere along this discussion
thread, someone was looking for a "definitive statement" regarding the
subject at hand. After searching OSHA's Interpretation Letters I found
the following letter relating OSHA's requirements and (desktop) co
MTP:geor...@lexmark.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 1999 2:02 PM
To: ri...@sdd.hp.com
Cc: private_u...@lexmark.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: U.S. National Product Safety "Laws"
To Rich et al (fancy way of saying "and others"):
I was a little reluctant to fan t
Tania Grant, tgr...@lucent.com
Lucent Technologies, Communications Applications Group
--
From: geor...@lexmark.com [SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 1999 2:02 PM
To: ri...@sdd.hp.com
Cc: private_u...@lexmark.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Re: U.S. Na
To Rich et al (fancy way of saying "and others"):
I was a little reluctant to fan the embers of this discussion the other day,
but do not regret doing so based on the healthy discussion that followed. In
any event, I shall blame Doug's append for peaking my interest. I assume we
can all agree t
Well, then it's resolved as far as I'm concerned.
If anyone ever asks me to locate the "law" that
requires "approved" equipment in a workplace,
I'm going to point them to
"29 CFR 1910.302(a)(1) - Covered. The provisions
of 1910.302 through 1910.308 of this subpart cover
electrical install
Hi George:
> I've read these sections of the CFR many times, and always interpreted them
> to apply to end user equipment, as you imply. However, I am beginning to
> see
> that this may be somewhat like quoting the Bible out of context. The
> context
> in this section of the CFR (b
0:32 PM
To: George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark@LEXMARK
cc: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com
Subject: Re: U.S. National Product Safety "Laws"
Hi George:
> So here is the challenge. Can anyone "prove" that 29 CFR 1900
> or the NEC specifically requires ITE
y hazards such as unsafe equipment), but records (e.g.
training, injury, illness, etc.)as well.
Gail Birdsall
Compliance Engineer
Hach Co.
-Original Message-
From: geor...@lexmark.com [mailto:geor...@lexmark.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 1999 7:11 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subje
7/99
08:47 AM ---
roger.viles%wwgsolutions@interlock.lexmark.com on 08/17/99 05:03:28 AM
Please respond to roger.viles%wwgsolutions@interlock.lexmark.com
To: dmckean%corp.auspex....@interlock.lexmark.com
cc: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com
Subje
Hi George:
> So here is the challenge. Can anyone "prove" that 29 CFR 1900
> or the NEC specifically requires ITE to meet more than some
> grounding/marking requirements, or be required to be approved by
> an NRTL. Proof is citing clearly stated sections obviously
> applicable to t
roger.viles%wwgsolutions@interlock.lexmark.com on 08/17/99 05:03:28 AM
Please respond to roger.viles%wwgsolutions@interlock.lexmark.com
To: dmckean%corp.auspex....@interlock.lexmark.com
cc: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com
Subject: Re: U.S. National Product Safety &q
mo.ieee.org
cc:(bcc: Roger Viles/PLY/Global)
Subject: Re: U.S. National Product Safety "Laws"
Dear Fellow Professionals,
Let me be the devil's advocate for the moment.
I normally do not like to pick apart standards,
but this one has been kicking around my mind
for years.
Dear Fellow Professionals,
Let me be the devil's advocate for the moment.
I normally do not like to pick apart standards,
but this one has been kicking around my mind
for years.
I will refer all to the following websites so we're
all on the same playing field.
http://www.osha-slc.gov/
George,
To add to your statements;---
It is not just cities that may require NRTL marking on equipment, but also
the insurance carriers of the various businesses where the equipment is
installed. In many cities the Fire Department inspects for NRTL markings
on business premises; they don't n
On Mon, 16 Aug 1999 geor...@lexmark.com wrote:
> Here is my understanding of this issue relative to ITE. I post this both
> to inform, and solicit comments which could improve my understanding.
> The only U.S. Federal law I am aware of pertaining to product safety is
> that covered in 29 CFR
Hi George:
Just a clarification and amplification or your message...
There are TWO laws that govern product safety:
1) OSHA.
Your remarks thoroughly covered this law.
2) The National Electrical Code.
This is a "model" building code intended for adoption by
local building c
17 matches
Mail list logo
