George, Canada is not as straight forward as that. There is not a mutual
agreement. In order for a lab to issue a Canadian Approval Mark, the lab
must be accredited as a CO(Certifying Organization) by the SCC(Standards
Council of Canada). The CO must use data that has come from a TO(Testing
Organization) that is also accredited by the SCC. Most labs that issue
their Canada Mark are both a CO and TO so it is very easy for them. The
critical item is that the product has to have been tested against the
relevant Canadian National Standard(very easy for ITE as 1950 is a joint
standard).
If you want to do everything by the book, your US Mark should be from an
NRTL certified by OSHA to the standards that apply to your product and the
Canadian Mark must be from a CO accredited by the SCC.
Please respond to geor...@lexmark.com
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
cc: (bcc: Steve Williams/SDD/NAM/APCC)
From: geor...@lexmark.com on 11/22/99 03:42 PM
Subject: RE: NRTL acceptance
I tried to recall NRTLs that were approved for asessments of ITE to
UL1950. I did not overlook MET (listed in my note), but may have
missed NTS which may fit this description. I'm not sure the others
are sanctioned for listing of ITE under UL1950.
There are many NTRLs, including UL. There is no "NRTL" mark, as all
NRTLs are legally equal. The mark of some NRTLs has included the
letters "NRTL" as part of their mark, apparantly by choice. The
CSA/NRTL mark is an example. To my knowledge, the use of "NRTL" in
an agency's mark is not mandatory. CSA has recently changed their
mark to drop the "NRTL" and simply show the CSA mark with "US"
subscript for assessment to the U.S. stadnard.
However, Canada does not recognize the U.S. NRTLs to assess an ITE
product to the Canadian standard. There is a mutual agreement between
Canada and the U.S. that "allows" a UL assessment to the Canadian ITE
safety standard. This results in the UL mark with a subscript "C",
often called the "c-UL" mark. It is my understanding that when the
Canadian government bids out ITE for its own use, they tend to prefer
the CSA mark over the c-UL mark. This seems to violate the "spirit"
of the agreement, but who can force them to do otherwise?
George Alspaugh
(Some or all of the above may reveal ignorance on my part, which can
be "cured" by more enlightened appends to follow.)
---------------------- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on 11/22/99
03:11 PM ---------------------------
vgorodetsky%canoga....@interlock.lexmark.com on 11/22/99 03:10:00 PM
To: George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark@LEXMARK,
emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee....@interlock.lexmark.com
cc: (bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark)
Subject: RE: NRTL acceptance
George,
You have overlooked MET, NTS, WYLE, SWRI and others. For a complete list
and the scope of recognition, go to the OSHA website.
Though, CSA is recognized NRTL, I am afraid, that the issuance of the NRTL
mark does not necessarily mean that CSA mark can be automatically affixed
to
a product. There should be Mutual Recognition Agreement between a
particular NRTL and the CSA. Is it correct?
Regards
> -----Original Message-----
> From: geor...@lexmark.com [SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 5:11 AM
> To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject: RE: NRTL acceptance
>
>
> Actually, the following NRTLs are approved by OSHA for evaluation
> to UL 1950:
>
> UL, CSA, ITS (former ETL), TUV Rheinland, MET, and SGS.
>
> There may be some I have overlooked.
>
> George Alspaugh
>
> ---------------------- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on
> 11/22/99
> 08:09 AM ---------------------------
>
> vgorodetsky%canoga....@interlock.lexmark.com on 11/19/99 04:57:29 PM
>
> Please respond to vgorodetsky%canoga....@interlock.lexmark.com
>
> To: George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark@LEXMARK,
> emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee....@interlock.lexmark.com
> cc: (bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark)
> Subject: RE: NRTL acceptance
>
> Terry and George,
>
> In this country of ours, there are three equally acceptable safety marks:
> UL, ETL and NRTL. But, as we all know, some acceptable marks are more
> equal than others.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: geor...@lexmark.com [SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com]
> > Sent: Friday, November 19, 1999 11:02 AM
> > To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> > Subject: NRTL acceptance
> >
> >
> > Terry,
> >
> > You have raised a very good question. The problem is that the U.S.
> > had only one approved safety agency for so long, that it is
> > difficult to wean non-laymen away from that one agency mark. This
> > includes your (and my) management, marketing, customers, etc. Few
> > of these understand the meaning of NRTL, with its variety of agency
> > approvals and marks.
> >
> > I did fight this battle over an off-the-shelf peripheral we needed
> > to market which did not have the "traditional" safety mark, but an
> > acceptable NRTL mark. One of the positions I to confront was that
> > many Federal, state, or local "government" bids require "the" mark.
> >
> > I referenced the Code of Federal Regulations, OSHA sections, citing
> > acceptable U.S. authorized NRTLs. I pointed out that compliance to
> > UL 1950 was the needed requirement, not which agency did the actual
> > assessment. One problem is that those who write the specifications
> > for government bids are not aware of this fact, and do continue to
> > list only one agency mark into the document. In a way, this is
> > probably a violation of federal law, i.e. requiring vendors to do
> > "business" with a specified private company, thus stifling any
> > competition. Isn't this what the goverment is accusing Microsoft
> > of doing?
> >
> > You are exactly right. As PSE professionals, we should be able to
> > look for and use whatever options are legally available to meet our
> > employer's certification needs in the most timely and cost effective
> > manner. Unfortunately, in the U.S. this requires a significant
> > amount of internal and external education as to the actual legal
> > options.
> >
> > George Alspaugh
> > Lexmark International Inc.
> >
> > ---------------------- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on
> > 11/19/99
> > 01:41 PM ---------------------------
> >
> > tjmeck%accusort....@interlock.lexmark.com on 11/19/99 12:25:38 PM
> >
> > Please respond to tjmeck%accusort....@interlock.lexmark.com
> >
> > To: emc-pstc%ieee....@interlock.lexmark.com
> > cc: (bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark)
> > Subject: NRTL acceptance
> >
> > Hi:
> >
> > We have been using an old reliable but very busy Safety agency to
> > review our products and apply their safety mark.
> >
> > From time to time we are approached by their competitors, NRTLs, or
> > European soon to be NRTL labs for our business.
> >
> > My question is in this `NRTL enlightened market are there still
> > inspectors out there that will still require education about the NRTL
> > status and the acceptability of an NRTL lab Listing vs the old familiar
> > ones?
> >
> > As you all know time to market is critical and 3 to 6 months is too
> > long to wait. We will need to look for other solutions and I am trying
> > to review the whole range of issues involved in changing the primary
> > NRTL.
> >
> > I hope this is not too commercial a question! If you feel it is please
> > reply to me directly.
> >
> > Thank you!
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Terry J. Meck
> > Senior Compliance/Test Engineer
> > Phone:215-721-5280
> > Fax:215-721-5551 hard copy;
> > Fax PC: 215.799.1650 To my desk PC
> > tjm...@accusort.com
> > Accu-Sort Systems Inc.
> > 511 School House Rd.
> > Telford, PA 18969-1196 USA
> >
---------
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
---------
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
