RE: Got another beef about an NRTL....

[Grant, Tania (Tania)]

All right, let's get specific here and actually use some names!   UL has a
Mutual Recognition Agreement with CSA to accept each other's test reports.
This agreement also specifies details about how they conduct the various
tests (it used to be that earth leakage current measurements were performed
differently by the two agencies).   The agreement also allows them to
"harmonize" standards, and many have been harmonized since the MRA was first
signed.   Where the standards still differ, my understanding is that both UL
and CSA will perform both sets of test to satisfy both agencies'
requirements.

I am not aware that MRAs exist between the different NRTLs.   And how is one
NRTL going to know whether the test procedures are the same between the
different NRTLs?   In other words, there is no allegiance between them.
And yes, they do compete.   But so did UL and CSA, but now they sing the
same tune.   

Any NRTL mark is good, per OSHA and the U.S. NEC, for end-use product.   But
if you are incorporating components and other equipment into your systems,
you need to specify your expectations when you purchase parts.   We specify
X NRTL and we get that.

Tania Grant,  tgr...@lucent.com
Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group
Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions


-Original Message-
From: duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com [ mailto:duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com
 ]
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 3:58 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Got another beef about an NRTL



Group,

 What about another scenario that I have been in with two NRTL's.
For the sake of embarrassment,lets call them 'NRTL A' and 'NRTL B'

Firstly any components or equipment recognised or listed by an NRTL are
deemed
'acceptable' to OSHA so long as it is used as prescribed in its conditions
of
acceptability or use. so can I presume that as OSHA accepts any NRTL mark
they
are all of equal standing.

Why is it then that NRTL A will not accept a power supply approved by NRTL
B.
The latter is true for NRTL B who will accept NRTL A's mark with no problems
(in
all cases the conditions of acceptability are followed)

So long as the conditions of acceptability are followed and there are no
engineering reasons for NRTL A to reject NRTL B's approval then what happens
next. Is there any recourse or would we have to go to one NRTL and get the
whole
lot retested. If there is no engineering reason, can an NRTL reject anothers
recognition just because it distlikes it or maybe sees it as competition!

Has anyone else had a similar experience, if so what did you do to resolve
it
without paying out for more NRTL approvals on an already recognised
component.

Any comments would be greatly recieved.

Regards,

Duncan Hobbs, Product Safety Engineer
Snell and Wilcox Ltd.
   


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org




---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: Got another beef about an NRTL....

[Grant, Tania (Tania)]

Chris,

The NRTL mark is not for your pleasure and convenience.   It is for
consumers who don't want their Christmas lights to light up their whole
house.   And it also is for whatever local authorities that want to go after
the negligent manufacturer to recall product and/or bring him to justice.


Tania Grant,  tgr...@lucent.com
Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group
Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions


-Original Message-
From: Maxwell, Chris [ mailto:chr...@gnlp.com  ]
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 10:47 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Got another beef about an NRTL



This argument highlights why I like the "self-declaration" route to
conformance. 

If I was NRTL A, I would be VERY cautious about accepting data from NRTL B
for a product that will be sold with my (NRTL A) mark on it. 

I beleive that the system is much more practical when self declaration is
used.  Then, we as the manufacturer take responsibility for selecting an
approved part (approved by NRTL A).  We then take responsibility for either
selecting an accredited lab (for instance, NRTL B) to test the entire
product  or  we test the product in house using approved equipment and
methods.  We then self declare our product based upon sound engineering test
data, regardless of whether it's from NRTL A, NRTL B or Sam's Discount
Compliance Lab (assuming Sam is accredited).  I don't even bother with
putting the NRTL's mark on the product.  After all, if there is a problem,
the customer is coming after my company (maybe even me), not the NRTL.
Also, most NRTL's limit their liability by saying that they have only
performed a type test on a single unit, ...  (insert lots of legal blah,
blah, blah here)

So, why should I worry about an NRTL's legal anxiety about putting their
mark on my product?  I'm not sure what protection it affords my company (as
suming we already have test data from an accredited lab).

In the end, Duncan.  If I was in your position, I would ask your NRTL to
produce a sound ENGINEERING, not legal, not commercial reason that your NRTL
should not accept the other NRTL's data.  I would also consider reminding
them that their mark on your product is a form of free advertising for them
and that your product would look just as good to a customer with the other
NRTL's mark on it.  (Maybe that's a little harsh).  I would also consider
the option of self declaration (if possible) it may lessen your NRTL's
anxiety enough that they would accept the other NRTL's data.  I caution
that, if you consider self declaration, you really need to know that the
product is safe and the NRTL is only holding out to either protect their
name or jack up their invoice.  This would be a hard call to make.  My
experience is that the laboratory and its personnel that I have dealt with
are sincere when they have a concern about one of our products.

Good luck

Chris

The views expressed here are mine alone, neither my employer or any NRTL is
taking responsibility for them :-)

> -Original Message-
> From:John Juhasz [SMTP:jjuh...@fiberoptions.com]
> Sent:Tuesday, October 24, 2000 9:58 AM
> To:   'duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  RE: Got another beef about an NRTL
>
> Duncan,
>
> I've had the scenario with my end product (very simple product - metal
> enclosure, SELV printed circuit,
> 150W Recognized component Power Supply, Recognized Input module. That's
> it.)
>
> I had it listed with NRTL B. Market pressure forced me to get NRTL A's
> listing mark -
> to the same standard. NRTL A would not accept ANY data (not just test
> data, even part
> number info - I had to send the complete package again).
>
> While I don't like to pay twice for the same thing, and while I was
> exposed to
> what amounted to be different interpretations (between the NRTLs) of the
> specifications
> causing great frustration . . . I looked at it from a different point of
> view.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I do sympathize with you, and I wish they had an MRA
> between
> them - it would save a lot of time, money, and frustration . . . but I can
> see
> NRTL A's point.
>
> If a customer came to me with a product and wanted it listed with my mark,
>
> before I put MY mark on it (which, historically, most consumers consider a
> quality
> indicator) I would make damn sure that the product was compliant, lest I
> incur
> the wrath if it fails. I wouldn't take anyone's word for it (report or
> not)
> and rubber stamp it.
>
>
> John Juhasz
> Fiber Options
> Bohemia, NY
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com [
> < mailto:duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com
 >]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 6:58 AM
> To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject: Got another beef about an NRTL
>
>
>
> Group,
>
>  What about another scenario that I have been in with two NRTL's.
> For the sake of embarrassment,lets call them 'NR

RE: Got another beef about an NRTL....

[Grant, Tania (Tania)]

My understanding is that NRTL marks are supposed to have equal value for
adherence to National Electrical Code and OSHA requirements.   In other
words,-- this is O.K. for end-use applications only.However, this is as
far as it goes.   Nowhere does it state that NRTL X has to accept NRTL's Y
marked equipment, especially when incorporated into a composite system that
NRTL X is evaluating and where their mark will "bless" the complete system.
 
My recommendation is, if you have other NRTL marked equipment than the one
you are dealing with, call your NRTL first before springing such a surprise
on them.   Depending upon the agency, they may or may not accept part of the
report from the other NRTL.   
 
Did you know that some 10 years ago, the German VDE safety agency would NOT
necessarily accept the also German TUV Rheinland test reports of components
(such as fans, filters, power supplies) that were incorporated in your
equipment??   Much to my chagrin, I found that out.  (We quickly
replaced fans!)

Tania Grant,  tgr...@lucent.com 
Lucent Technologies, Switching Solutions Group 
Intelligent Network and Messaging Solutions 

 
-Original Message-
From: John Juhasz [mailto:jjuh...@fiberoptions.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 6:58 AM
To: 'duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: RE: Got another beef about an NRTL



Duncan, 

I've had the scenario with my end product (very simple product - metal
enclosure, SELV printed circuit, 
150W Recognized component Power Supply, Recognized Input module. That's it.)


I had it listed with NRTL B. Market pressure forced me to get NRTL A's
listing mark - 
to the same standard. NRTL A would not accept ANY data (not just test data,
even part 
number info - I had to send the complete package again). 

While I don't like to pay twice for the same thing, and while I was exposed
to 
what amounted to be different interpretations (between the NRTLs) of the
specifications 
causing great frustration . . . I looked at it from a different point of
view. 

Don't get me wrong, I do sympathize with you, and I wish they had an MRA
between 
them - it would save a lot of time, money, and frustration . . . but I can
see 
NRTL A's point. 

If a customer came to me with a product and wanted it listed with my mark, 
before I put MY mark on it (which, historically, most consumers consider a
quality 
indicator) I would make damn sure that the product was compliant, lest I
incur 
the wrath if it fails. I wouldn't take anyone's word for it (report or not) 
and rubber stamp it. 


John Juhasz 
Fiber Options 
Bohemia, NY 



-Original Message- 
From: duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com [ mailto:duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com
 ] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 6:58 AM 
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org 
Subject: Got another beef about an NRTL 



Group, 

 What about another scenario that I have been in with two NRTL's. 
For the sake of embarrassment,lets call them 'NRTL A' and 'NRTL B' 

Firstly any components or equipment recognised or listed by an NRTL are
deemed 
'acceptable' to OSHA so long as it is used as prescribed in its conditions
of 
acceptability or use. so can I presume that as OSHA accepts any NRTL mark
they 
are all of equal standing. 

Why is it then that NRTL A will not accept a power supply approved by NRTL
B. 
The latter is true for NRTL B who will accept NRTL A's mark with no problems
(in 
all cases the conditions of acceptability are followed) 

So long as the conditions of acceptability are followed and there are no 
engineering reasons for NRTL A to reject NRTL B's approval then what happens

next. Is there any recourse or would we have to go to one NRTL and get the
whole 
lot retested. If there is no engineering reason, can an NRTL reject anothers

recognition just because it distlikes it or maybe sees it as competition! 

Has anyone else had a similar experience, if so what did you do to resolve
it 
without paying out for more NRTL approvals on an already recognised
component. 

Any comments would be greatly recieved. 

Regards, 

Duncan Hobbs, Product Safety Engineer 
Snell and Wilcox Ltd. 



--- 
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety 
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. 

To cancel your subscription, send mail to: 
 majord...@ieee.org 
with the single line: 
 unsubscribe emc-pstc 

For help, send mail to the list administrators: 
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com 
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org 

For policy questions, send mail to: 
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org 


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send

Stored components

[SERGIO LUIZ DA ROCHA LOURES SERGIO]

Hello group

Anyone know how much time a component (any type) can be storaged before being 
used? Is there any standard about this subject?

Regards

Sérgio Rocha Loures
Siemens Ltda. - Brazil
ICN FL QEL
Tel:  +55 41 341-5755
Fax: +55 41 341-5058
E-mail: sergioro...@siemens.com.br


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: Thai and Korean EMC/EMI and Safety standards

[Joshua Wiseman]

Edward,
 
According to my sources in Singapore Korea will be implementing the
Harmonics and Flicker in approximately 2 yrs.
 
I will do some checking on Thailand.
 
Josh

-Original Message-
From: Edward Fitzgerald [mailto:edward.fitzger...@ets-tele.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 9:50 AM
To: EMC-PSTC (E-mail)
Subject: Thai and Korean EMC/EMI and Safety standards


Dear Colleagues,
 
I have just received advanced notification regarding the pending
implementation of the following EMC/Safety standards: -

The Thai Industrial Standards Institute (TISI) has proposed to enforce TIS
1956-2542 (1999) as a mandatory standard. The standard  covers limits for
radio disturbance (emissions) of information technology equipment (ITE).
Procedures are given for the measurement of the levels of spurious signals
generated by the ITE and limits are specified for the frequency range 9 kHz
to 400 GHz.
I have yet to confirm if this National standard is based upon an
International standard, can anyone else confirm this?

Korea is intending to introduce the following IEC EMC Immunity and Safety
requirements: -
IEC 61000-3-3: Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) - Part 3: Limits -
Section 3: Limitation of voltage fluctuations and flicker in low-voltage
supply systems for equipment with rated current 16 A 
IEC 61000-3-2: Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) - Part 3-2: Limits -
Limits for harmonic current emissions (equipment input current 16A per
phase) 
IEC 60536: Classification of electrical and electric equipment with regard
to protection against electric shock.

I have yet to confirm the timescales for each of the above, if anyone has
more detailed information I'd be glad to hear from you.

Best regards,

Edward Fitzgerald
Director
Direct Tel. : +44 1202 20 09 22
Mobile Tel. : +44 7768 53 31 00 
European Technology Services (EMEA)
Specialist Global Compliance and Regulatory Consultancy
Regional/Associate Offices in Australia, Canada, Russian Federation and the
UK. 
GLOBAL   INtelLIGENCE Site <
http://www.ets-tele.com/tics   > pssst ...
spread the word 

 

RE: CISPR 22 am1 2000

[Helge Knudsen]

Hello Cyril,
CISPR 22/A1 address Subclause 10.4: Equipment set-up, Table top equipment: 
Main cable and cables connected to remote peripheral shall be fitted with 
ferrite clamps or tupes where the cable reaches the floor. Insertion loss > 
15 dB from 30 to 1000 MHz when measured in a 50 ohm system.
This amendmend is expected to make measurement easier to reproduce.
Best regards

Helge Knudsen
EMC Department
DELTA
Electronics Testing, EMC
Venlighedsvej 4, DK-2970 Hoersholm
Telephone : +45 45 86 77 22
Fax  : +45 45 86 58 98
Email : h...@delta.dk


--
From:   Binnom, Cyril A[SMTP:binno...@ems-t.com]
Reply To:   Binnom, Cyril A
Sent:   tirsdag, oktober 24, 2000 15:02
To: emc-pstc
Subject:CISPR 22 am1 2000


Group,

Is anybody aware of this new amendment, that could offer me a brief detail
of what it entails.

Any help will be appreciated.


Cyril A. Binnom Jr.
EMI/EMC Approvals Engineer
LXE, Inc.
(770) 447-4224 Ext. 3240
(770) 447-6928 Fax

Visit Our Website at:
http://www.lxe.com


---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org




---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: Got another beef about an NRTL....

[Maxwell, Chris]

This argument highlights why I like the "self-declaration" route to
conformance.  

If I was NRTL A, I would be VERY cautious about accepting data from NRTL B
for a product that will be sold with my (NRTL A) mark on it.  

I beleive that the system is much more practical when self declaration is
used.  Then, we as the manufacturer take responsibility for selecting an
approved part (approved by NRTL A).  We then take responsibility for either
selecting an accredited lab (for instance, NRTL B) to test the entire
product  or  we test the product in house using approved equipment and
methods.  We then self declare our product based upon sound engineering test
data, regardless of whether it's from NRTL A, NRTL B or Sam's Discount
Compliance Lab (assuming Sam is accredited).  I don't even bother with
putting the NRTL's mark on the product.  After all, if there is a problem,
the customer is coming after my company (maybe even me), not the NRTL.
Also, most NRTL's limit their liability by saying that they have only
performed a type test on a single unit, ...  (insert lots of legal blah,
blah, blah here)

So, why should I worry about an NRTL's legal anxiety about putting their
mark on my product?  I'm not sure what protection it affords my company (as
suming we already have test data from an accredited lab).

In the end, Duncan.  If I was in your position, I would ask your NRTL to
produce a sound ENGINEERING, not legal, not commercial reason that your NRTL
should not accept the other NRTL's data.  I would also consider reminding
them that their mark on your product is a form of free advertising for them
and that your product would look just as good to a customer with the other
NRTL's mark on it.  (Maybe that's a little harsh).  I would also consider
the option of self declaration (if possible) it may lessen your NRTL's
anxiety enough that they would accept the other NRTL's data.  I caution
that, if you consider self declaration, you really need to know that the
product is safe and the NRTL is only holding out to either protect their
name or jack up their invoice.  This would be a hard call to make.  My
experience is that the laboratory and its personnel that I have dealt with
are sincere when they have a concern about one of our products.

Good luck

Chris 

The views expressed here are mine alone, neither my employer or any NRTL is
taking responsibility for them :-)

> -Original Message-
> From: John Juhasz [SMTP:jjuh...@fiberoptions.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 9:58 AM
> To:   'duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Subject:  RE: Got another beef about an NRTL
> 
> Duncan, 
> 
> I've had the scenario with my end product (very simple product - metal
> enclosure, SELV printed circuit, 
> 150W Recognized component Power Supply, Recognized Input module. That's
> it.) 
> 
> I had it listed with NRTL B. Market pressure forced me to get NRTL A's
> listing mark - 
> to the same standard. NRTL A would not accept ANY data (not just test
> data, even part 
> number info - I had to send the complete package again). 
> 
> While I don't like to pay twice for the same thing, and while I was
> exposed to 
> what amounted to be different interpretations (between the NRTLs) of the
> specifications 
> causing great frustration . . . I looked at it from a different point of
> view. 
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I do sympathize with you, and I wish they had an MRA
> between 
> them - it would save a lot of time, money, and frustration . . . but I can
> see 
> NRTL A's point. 
> 
> If a customer came to me with a product and wanted it listed with my mark,
> 
> before I put MY mark on it (which, historically, most consumers consider a
> quality 
> indicator) I would make damn sure that the product was compliant, lest I
> incur 
> the wrath if it fails. I wouldn't take anyone's word for it (report or
> not) 
> and rubber stamp it. 
> 
> 
> John Juhasz 
> Fiber Options 
> Bohemia, NY 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message- 
> From: duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com [
> ] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 6:58 AM 
> To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org 
> Subject: Got another beef about an NRTL 
> 
> 
> 
> Group, 
> 
>  What about another scenario that I have been in with two NRTL's. 
> For the sake of embarrassment,lets call them 'NRTL A' and 'NRTL B' 
> 
> Firstly any components or equipment recognised or listed by an NRTL are
> deemed 
> 'acceptable' to OSHA so long as it is used as prescribed in its conditions
> of 
> acceptability or use. so can I presume that as OSHA accepts any NRTL mark
> they 
> are all of equal standing. 
> 
> Why is it then that NRTL A will not accept a power supply approved by NRTL
> B. 
> The latter is true for NRTL B who will accept NRTL A's mark with no
> problems (in 
> all cases the conditions of acceptability are followed) 
> 
> So long as the conditions of acceptability are followed and there are no 
> engineering reasons for NRT

Thai and Korean EMC/EMI and Safety standards

[Edward Fitzgerald]

Dear Colleagues,
 
I have just received advanced notification regarding the pending
implementation of the following EMC/Safety standards: -

The Thai Industrial Standards Institute (TISI) has proposed to enforce
TIS 1956-2542 (1999) as a mandatory standard. The standard  covers
limits for radio disturbance (emissions) of information technology
equipment (ITE). Procedures are given for the measurement of the levels
of spurious signals generated by the ITE and limits are specified for
the frequency range 9 kHz to 400 GHz.
I have yet to confirm if this National standard is based upon an
International standard, can anyone else confirm this?

Korea is intending to introduce the following IEC EMC Immunity and
Safety requirements: -
IEC 61000-3-3: Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) - Part 3: Limits -
Section 3: Limitation of voltage fluctuations and flicker in low-voltage
supply systems for equipment with rated current 16 A 
IEC 61000-3-2: Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) - Part 3-2: Limits -
Limits for harmonic current emissions (equipment input current 16A per
phase) 
IEC 60536: Classification of electrical and electric equipment with
regard to protection against electric shock.

I have yet to confirm the timescales for each of the above, if anyone
has more detailed information I'd be glad to hear from you.

Best regards,

Edward Fitzgerald
Director
Direct Tel. : +44 1202 20 09 22
Mobile Tel. : +44 7768 53 31 00 
European Technology Services (EMEA)
Specialist Global Compliance and Regulatory Consultancy
Regional/Associate Offices in Australia, Canada, Russian Federation and
the UK. 
GLOBAL INtelLIGENCE Site < http://www.ets-tele.com/tics > pssst ...
spread the word 

 

CISPR 22 am1 2000

[Binnom, Cyril A]

Group,

Is anybody aware of this new amendment, that could offer me a brief detail
of what it entails.

Any help will be appreciated.


Cyril A. Binnom Jr.
EMI/EMC Approvals Engineer
LXE, Inc.
(770) 447-4224 Ext. 3240
(770) 447-6928 Fax

Visit Our Website at:
http://www.lxe.com   
 

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

RE: Got another beef about an NRTL....

[John Juhasz]

Duncan,

I've had the scenario with my end product (very simple product - metal
enclosure, SELV printed circuit, 
150W Recognized component Power Supply, Recognized Input module. That's it.)

I had it listed with NRTL B. Market pressure forced me to get NRTL A's
listing mark - 
to the same standard. NRTL A would not accept ANY data (not just test data,
even part 
number info - I had to send the complete package again). 

While I don't like to pay twice for the same thing, and while I was exposed
to
what amounted to be different interpretations (between the NRTLs) of the
specifications
causing great frustration . . . I looked at it from a different point of
view.

Don't get me wrong, I do sympathize with you, and I wish they had an MRA
between 
them - it would save a lot of time, money, and frustration . . . but I can
see 
NRTL A's point.

If a customer came to me with a product and wanted it listed with my mark, 
before I put MY mark on it (which, historically, most consumers consider a
quality
indicator) I would make damn sure that the product was compliant, lest I
incur
the wrath if it fails. I wouldn't take anyone's word for it (report or not) 
and rubber stamp it.


John Juhasz
Fiber Options
Bohemia, NY



-Original Message-
From: duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com [mailto:duncan.ho...@snellwilcox.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 6:58 AM
To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
Subject: Got another beef about an NRTL



Group,

 What about another scenario that I have been in with two NRTL's. 
For the sake of embarrassment,lets call them 'NRTL A' and 'NRTL B'

Firstly any components or equipment recognised or listed by an NRTL are
deemed
'acceptable' to OSHA so long as it is used as prescribed in its conditions
of
acceptability or use. so can I presume that as OSHA accepts any NRTL mark
they
are all of equal standing.

Why is it then that NRTL A will not accept a power supply approved by NRTL
B.
The latter is true for NRTL B who will accept NRTL A's mark with no problems
(in
all cases the conditions of acceptability are followed)

So long as the conditions of acceptability are followed and there are no
engineering reasons for NRTL A to reject NRTL B's approval then what happens
next. Is there any recourse or would we have to go to one NRTL and get the
whole
lot retested. If there is no engineering reason, can an NRTL reject anothers
recognition just because it distlikes it or maybe sees it as competition!

Has anyone else had a similar experience, if so what did you do to resolve
it
without paying out for more NRTL approvals on an already recognised
component.

Any comments would be greatly recieved.

Regards,

Duncan Hobbs, Product Safety Engineer
Snell and Wilcox Ltd. 



---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

Status of EN 61000-3-3

[Sandy Mazzola]

Members,

   There has been some very good and detailed information on EN 61000-3-2  
(Limits of Harmonic Current) of late.   My question is could someone kindly 
detail the status of EN 61000-3-3 Flicker.


Thank You

Sandy Mazzola




---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

Oct. 20, 2000 EMC/Telco/Product Safety Update Now Available

[Glen Dash]

The Curtis-Straus Update (formerly Conformity-Update) for the week
ending Oct. 20, 2000 is now available
at:

http://www.conformity-update.com

---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org

Got another beef about an NRTL....

[duncan . hobbs]

Group,

 What about another scenario that I have been in with two NRTL's. 
For the sake of embarrassment,lets call them 'NRTL A' and 'NRTL B'

Firstly any components or equipment recognised or listed by an NRTL are deemed
'acceptable' to OSHA so long as it is used as prescribed in its conditions of
acceptability or use. so can I presume that as OSHA accepts any NRTL mark they
are all of equal standing.

Why is it then that NRTL A will not accept a power supply approved by NRTL B.
The latter is true for NRTL B who will accept NRTL A's mark with no problems (in
all cases the conditions of acceptability are followed)

So long as the conditions of acceptability are followed and there are no
engineering reasons for NRTL A to reject NRTL B's approval then what happens
next. Is there any recourse or would we have to go to one NRTL and get the whole
lot retested. If there is no engineering reason, can an NRTL reject anothers
recognition just because it distlikes it or maybe sees it as competition!

Has anyone else had a similar experience, if so what did you do to resolve it
without paying out for more NRTL approvals on an already recognised component.

Any comments would be greatly recieved.

Regards,

Duncan Hobbs, Product Safety Engineer
Snell and Wilcox Ltd. 



---
This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety
Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list.

To cancel your subscription, send mail to:
 majord...@ieee.org
with the single line:
 unsubscribe emc-pstc

For help, send mail to the list administrators:
 Jim Bacher:  jim_bac...@mail.monarch.com
 Michael Garretson:pstc_ad...@garretson.org

For policy questions, send mail to:
 Richard Nute:   ri...@ieee.org