RE: safety testing in the USA

2002-09-20 Thread Rob . Humphrey
Dear All, Thank you for your postings, it has given me enough ammunition to persuade the supplier to change their point of view, they have now agreed to test correctly. Regards Rob - --- Visit our Internet site at http://www

RE: safety testing in the USA

2002-09-20 Thread Gary McInturff
ec.com -Original Message- From: John Shinn [mailto:john.sh...@sanmina-sci.com] Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 12:27 AM To: rob.humph...@reuters.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: safety testing in the USA There has been some good responses to this post. And it is

RE: safety testing in the USA

2002-09-20 Thread richwoods
: Gregg Kervill [mailto:gr...@test4safety.com] Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 6:53 PM To: richwo...@tycoint.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: safety testing in the USA Thanks for identifying the States Rich - I have tried to get that list for ages. BUT - There is an IMPORTANT caveat

RE: safety testing in the USA

2002-09-20 Thread Peter Merguerian
Shinn [mailto:john.sh...@sanmina-sci.com] Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 12:27 AM To: rob.humph...@reuters.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: safety testing in the USA There has been some good responses to this post. And it is, in general, true that a manufacturer is not mandated

Re: safety testing in the USA

2002-09-19 Thread Rich Nute
Hi Rob: > I am in discussions with a potential supplier of IT equipment, Its our > usual policy to request testing to a listed standard > such as UL 60950 for safety in North America. > > The supplier has replied that this is not mandatory. > > Is he correct? what compels saf

RE: safety testing in the USA

2002-09-19 Thread Gregg Kervill
2 12:48 PM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: safety testing in the USA Some states (e.g., North Carolina), counties (e.g., Orange, CA) and cities (e.g., Los Angeles and San Francisco)have a legal requirement that all electrical products for sale must be Listed. Some local electrical codes (e

RE: safety testing in the USA

2002-09-19 Thread John Shinn
There has been some good responses to this post. And it is, in general, true that a manufacturer is not mandated, by law, to have the product LISTED by an appropriate Safety Testing Agency (NRTL). However, it may be required by the local inspection agency prior to installation. (This was covered

RE: safety testing in the USA

2002-09-19 Thread Sam Davis
Another interesting point that can be made is "I didn't say it was law, I said List it or I won't buy it." Depending on the product (basically, if there's a Listed competitor product on the market), you can make it happen. In the US, often a Listing mark is enforced by marketing more than law. Ma

Re: safety testing in the USA

2002-09-19 Thread Rich Nute
Hi Rob: > I am in discussions with a potential supplier of IT equipment, Its our > usual policy to request testing to a listed standard > such as UL 60950 for safety in North America. > > The supplier has replied that this is not mandatory. > > Is he correct? what compels safe

RE: safety testing in the USA

2002-09-19 Thread richwoods
: rob.humph...@reuters.com; EMC-PSTC (E-mail) Subject: RE: safety testing in the USA Rob. Required is an interesting term, and this is a long debate involving OSHA, National Electrical Code, fire codes and when and if anybody inspects the equipment before its installed. There are places

RE: safety testing in the USA

2002-09-19 Thread richwoods
Some states (e.g., North Carolina), counties (e.g., Orange, CA) and cities (e.g., Los Angeles and San Francisco)have a legal requirement that all electrical products for sale must be Listed. Some local electrical codes (e.g., Oregon) require electrical equipment be Listed. Since my company sells p

RE: safety testing in the USA

2002-09-19 Thread Gary McInturff
Rob. Required is an interesting term, and this is a long debate involving OSHA, National Electrical Code, fire codes and when and if anybody inspects the equipment before its installed. There are places that you probably would be alright, some that you wouldn't probably be caugh