Richard - For a long time, UL (and I believe CSA) thought any device deriving power from a Class 2 source needed listing. In fact, they were adamantly opposed to it, even when requests for such certification were made. UL's primary basis was that the NEC didn't care what was supplied by a Class 2 source.
To follow Ron Pickard's line, along came UL1459, where there is a presumption of risk of fire and electric shock from some source other than electrical connection to a public power utility. As UL1459 came into use, it was applied to POTS telephones, with no power source apart from the PSTN, and feature phones that derived power primarily from plug-in power supplies, most commonly Class 2. UL1459, Supplement A, is titled Requirements for Instrument batteries, "Enclosed Batteries and Battery-Operated Products." Keep in mind, though, that these battery-operated products also have means for connection to a public or private telecommunications network in most cases (I say in most cases, because handsets of cordless telephones obviously don't and Supplement A would apply to such a handset since it's part of an overall product that does so connect). Table SA12.1 indicates that single alkaline-magnesium dioxide D cells, nickel-cadmium AA, C and D cells are all capable of delivering greater than 8A at one minute of loading. I find this strange, but my discussions with Randy Ivans indicate that there is data to support these claims. It is interesting to note that in no other case that I am aware of is there any impetus or legal requirement for a battery operated product to be listed (I am assuming, of course, that you don't mean equipment supplied by large battery plants or rectifiers, because the NEC does cover that issue). Not to give these guys any ideas, but using NiCd batteries in the transistor radio on my desk at work supposedly presents a risk of fire. I think not. On the other hand, when I was a teenager, I bought a battery from a military surplus store, out of curiosity. If memory serves, it was rated 14.4V and had some series/parallel arrangement of a bunch of individual cells. I accidentally placed a short across the output and the insulation (nothing special) on the wire went up in flames within a few seconds. Peter L. Tarver Nortel [email protected] > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [SMTP:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, September 17, 1998 12:33 PM > > Hi Tania: > > Thanks, this is very interesting (and well stated as your comments usually > are). Particularly section 90-4 and the summary document you refer to. > > > Let me take this opportunity to present another point for anyone who cares > to give it some thought. > > The NEC and/or local electrical requirements come into play because the > product connects to the local electrical supply. > > What about battery operated products ? Is there then nothing that says > that > a battery operated product needs any third-party safety approvals ? > > > Richard Payne > Tektronix, Inc. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Grant, Tania (Tania) [SMTP:[email protected]] > > Sent: Thursday, September 17, 1998 11:37 AM > > To: [email protected]; Payne, Richard > > Subject: RE: US NRTL required ? > > > > Richard, > > > > The sections in the NEC you are looking for might be the following, > > including the definition section. (References are to the 1996 NEC.) > > > > Labeled: Equipment or materials to which has been attached a label, > > symbol, or other identifying mark of an organization that is acceptable > > to the authority having jurisdiction and concerned with product > > evaluation that maintains periodic inspection of production of labeled > > equipment or materials and by whose labeling the manufacturer indicates > > compliance with appropriate standards or performance in a specified > > manner. > > > > Listed: Equipment or materials included in a list published by an > > organization acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction and > > concerned with product evaluation, that maintains periodic inspection of > > production of listed equipment or materials, and whose listing states > > either that the equipment or material meets appropriate designated > > standards or has been tested and found suitable for use in a specified > > manner. > > > > (FPN): The means for identifying listed equipment may vary for each > > organization with product evaluation, some of which do not recognize > > equipment as listed unless it is also labeled. The authority having > > jurisdiction should utilize the system employed by the listing > > organization to identify a listed product. [FPN, per NEC, means "Fine > > Print Note" and provides explanatory material.] > > > > 90-4. Enforcement: > > This Code is intended to be suitable for mandatory application by > > governmental bodies exercising legal jurisdiction over electrical > > installations and for use by insurance inspectors. The authority having > > jurisdiction for enforcement of the Code will have the responsibility > > for making interpretations of the rules, for deciding upon the approval > > of equipment and materials, and for granting the special permission > > contemplated in a number of the rules. > > > > The authority having jurisdiction may waive specific requirements in > > this Code or permit alternate methods where it is assured that > > equivalent objectives can be achieved by establishing and maintaining > > effective safety. > > > > 90-6. Formal Interpretations. > > To promote uniformity of interpretation and application of the > > provisions of this Code, Formal Interpretation procedures have been > > established. > > > > (FPN): These procedures may be found in the "NFPA Regulations Governing > > Committee Projects." [NFPA stands for National Fire Protection > > Association.] > > > > 90-7. Examination of Equipment for Safety. > > For specific items and materials referred to in this Code, examinations > > for safety made under standard conditions will provide a basis for > > approval where the record is made generally available through > > promulgation by organizations properly equipped and qualified for > > experimental testing, inspections of the run of goods at factories, and > > service-value determination through field inspection. This avoids the > > necessity for repetition of examinations by different examiners, > > frequently with inadequate facilities for such work, and the confusion > > that would result from conflicting reports as to the suitability of > > devices and materials examined for a given purpose. > > > > It is the intent of this Code that factory-installed internal wiring or > > the construction of equipment need not be inspected at the time of > > installation of the equipment, except to detect alterations or damage, > > if the equipment has been listed by a qualified electrical testing > > laboratory that is recognized as having the facilities described above > > and that requires suitability for installation in accordance with this > > Code. > > -------------------------- > > There is a publication that may be of interest that provides information > > on electrical testing laboratory recognition and accreditation programs > > and a list of those laboratories from which certain product > > certifications are accepted: > > > > Summary of Electrical and Building Code Requirements, Licensing > > Provisions and Laboratory Recognition at State and Local Levels. This > > is available from > > > > International Association of Electrical > > Inspectors > > 901 Waterfall Way, Suite 602 > > Richardson, Texas 75080-7702;. > > > > Tania Grant, Lucent Technologies, Octel Messaging Division > > [email protected] > > > > > > ---------- > > From: > > [email protected][SMTP:[email protected]] > > Sent: Thursday, September 17, 1998 6:38 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: US NRTL required ? > > > > > > Well I think this has been a good discussion. I must confess > > first that > > there have been so many contributions that I have not been able > > to read them > > all completely. But it seems that there is still a connection > > missing > > (please correct me if I have missed something here), one which I > > Iooked into > > a bit a couple of years ago. > > > > The US National Electrical Code (NEC) requirements have been > > well and > > accurately stated (Thanks, Rich N. et al). But from what I have > > seen, it > > seems to me that the NEC never goes that final step and > > proclaims "YOU MUST > > LIST YOUR PRODUCT" in clear and absolute terms (LISTED being > > equivalent to > > CERTIFIED for those not familiar with US terms). Actually, that > > is not the > > role of the NEC itself. It is the responsibility of the > > Authorities Having > > Jurisdiction (AHJ) to mandate that, or not. The NEC in fact > > acknowledges > > that specoifically, though I can't seem to put my fnger on the > > exact > > paragraph right now (maybe someone could help me with that). > > These > > authorities must adopt the NEC for it to become a legal > > requirement in their > > jurisdiction. > > > > What this really means is that laws requiring approved products > > can be > > passed at the federal level, or at the state level, or by any > > city, county, > > parish, township, village, commonwealth, or whatever, as long as > > they have > > legal authority to make law within specified geographical > > boundaries. > > > > I called several local electrical building inspectors around the > > country > > (about 2 years ago now). I asked them directly if they believed > > that it was > > necessary for a product to have a safety approval to be sold in > > their > > jurisdiction. I spoke with a couple in Florida, a couple in > > Illinois, one > > guy in Chicago, another at the State of Oregon, and the manager > > of the > > building inspector's office at the City of Los Angeles. Chicago, > > Oregon and > > LA each have their own specific requirements that products be > > approved. > > These are requiremetns beyond what the NEC has. > > > > For those inspectors who basically relied on the NEC and local > > adoption of > > it or some variant, I asked them for their specific reference in > > the NEC. > > They referred me to the same paragraphs that have already been > > covered > > previously in this discussion. > > > > In every case, the inspectors believed that those paragraphs DID > > IN FACT > > require approval of products, and that the NEC requirements did > > apply within > > their jurisdiction (I understood because the NEC had been at > > some point > > officially adopted by that jurisdiction). > > > > In every case, they agreed that an NRTL Listing (to the > > appropriate product > > category) would almost always be acceptable. They never wanted > > to commit > > absolutely, just to not rule out that one odd-ball situation. > > > > In some cases, they would also do their own evaluation to > > determine if a > > product is acceptable as an alternative to an NRTL Listing (for > > a fee). > > Others did not even want to attempt such a thing. They do not > > have the > > resources to do it. They would refer me to an NRTL (usually UL > > was the main > > one they were familair with). > > > > When CSA applied to be accepted as an NRTL (at least this is the > > story they > > have told me) they not only went to OSHA for accreditation, they > > also went > > almost every legal jurisdiction in the US. The number I have > > heard quoted is > > 40,000 jurisdictions. > > > > It seems to me that the practical answer for a business that > > wants to market > > its product across the US and feel reasonably confident that it > > meets the > > legal requirements of all these local jurisdictions is to get an > > NRTL > > approval. > > > > > > Just my 2 cents worth, > > > > Richard Payne > > Tektronix, Inc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------- > > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. > > To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected] > > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the > > quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected], > > [email protected], [email protected], or > > [email protected] (the list administrators). > > > > > > --------- > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. > To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected] > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the > quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected], > [email protected], [email protected], or > [email protected] (the list administrators). --------- This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to [email protected] with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], or [email protected] (the list administrators).
