The "Company" has the right to accept or not any component for any reason even though in this case the reason they give seems unreasonable. I expect there are other reasons they do not want to use this component and they are just using this as the excuse.
If the Company is trying to get NRTL approval on their product and their non-UL NRTL has a problem with this component, then their NRTL needs to contact UL and get things straitened out. I have seen competing NRTLs nit-pick over such things in the past and I think it shows a lack of professionalism. If they do not get resolve, I would contact OSHA and complain. The Components Manufacturer will have to decide if they are willing to lose such business over something so small. I think it would be a very simple paperwork process to re-list and document their components under the new standard with UL. In most cases, UL would not require additional evaluation or testing. The two standards are very similar. The Other Brian From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Robert Johnson Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 4:20 PM To: ieee Subject: When UL component recognition is not enough. I have a complaint about a certification process where agencies are providing approvals of little value. There are products for sale which have been reviewed (for example) to UL 1950, and are currently being manufactured and UL recognized. UL 1950 is a withdrawn standard, replaced by UL 60950. I have no problem with that since UL has conducted an IEC Sector Review Process which assures the product has no safety shortcomings with regard to the current standards. For standard changes affecting safety, a requirement effective date - RED is established and applied to the product. However a company wishing to use this product has a problem with the component recognition since it is to a withdrawn standard as is stated in the Certification Directory. The company using the component must either have the component manufacturer resubmit, or have the component reassessed as part of the end product evaluation. The result is, the component recognition is of no value to the new customer even though UL has gone through the work of assuring the component has no shortcomings with regard to the current standard. Apparently UL is reserving the step of updating the paperwork as an income source. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <[email protected]> David Heald: <[email protected]> LECO Corporation Notice: This communication may contain confidential information intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you received this by mistake, please destroy it and notify us of the error. Thank you. - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <[email protected]> David Heald: <[email protected]>
