RE: NRTL acceptance
Hi Vitaly! Again, to clarify, no one except CSA can issue a CSA mark. The CSA mark is the copyrighted property of CSA that CSA allows a manufacturer to affix to declare the product has been certified by CSA. The CSA mark is one example of an authorized CO mark for Canada. UL also has an authorized CO mark for Canada. The UL-c mark is the copyrighted mark owned by UL that they allow a manufacturer to affix to declare the product has been certified by UL. The UL-c mark is another example of an authorized CO mark for Canada. TUV Rheinland is in the process of being approved to issue CO marks for Canada. Our intended copyrighted mark will be our normal NRTL mark with a small -c affixed, vis a vis the UL mark. There are no rules whatsoever (that I know of) dictating what the marks look like. Each lab as part of their approval process to become a CO submits and has copyrighted an exclusive mark. The labs choose the mark design for the usual purposes--marketing and brand recognition! UL established a precedent with the UL-us and UL-c marks, and I would expect many new CO submittals (such as ours) to copy that method as UL has made it recognized by many manufacturers. Hope the above was not to wordy, and was helpfull. Regards, Frank West Sr. Engineer TUV Rheinland NA --- Gorodetsky, Vitaly vgorodet...@canoga.com wrote: George, You would further clear confusion if you would comment on the following. Let's say, TUVR and MET are both NRTLs. On the other hand, they are recognized COs (for TUVR status, see ITEM UPDATE 1999, p.9). They both offer their own NRTL/ marks for ITE compliance with UL1950. My understanding is that they are authorized to issue CSA marks (vs. c-UL) as no mark such as c-NRTL/TUVR or /MET exists. What's the meaning of a US subscript if, as we all know, NRTL mark demonstrates compliance with US standards only? I've seen NRTL mark with an identifier for specific Lab name: MET, TUVR, etc. Thanks again -Original Message- From: geor...@lexmark.com [SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 11:22 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:RE: NRTL acceptance Vitaly, Allow me to try and clear some confusion over NRTLs and marks. NRTL is not a mark. An NRTL is an OSHA Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory accredited to evaluate products to specific standards for the U.S. Each NRTL can authorize the use of its own mark for use on U.S. products, e.g. UL, CSA, MET, ITS, TUVR, and SGS. At one time, some chose to add the subscript NRTL beside their mark. Now it is more common to use a subscript US indicating testing to U.S. standards. The term NRTL has no meaning for Canadian compliance. Canada uses the term Certification Organizations (COs) for those test houses accredited by the Standards Council of Canada (SCC) for test houses that can assess products to Canadian standards. Examples: UL can authorize use of the UL (U.S.) and c-UL (Canada) marks by virtue of their SCC accredited CO status. CSA can authorize use of the CSA (Canada) and CSA/US (U.S.) marks by virtue of their OSHA NRTL status. There is no literal NRTL or c-NRTL mark issued by CSA or any other agency. The agency marks of all NRTLs could be called NRTL marks when used for U.S. products, but none must use NRTL as part of the mark. I hope this does not further confuse the issue! George Alspaugh -- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on 11/23/99 02:03 PM --- vgorodetsky%canoga@interlock.lexmark.com on 11/23/99 12:44:02 PM To: grdulmage%sympatico...@interlock.lexmark.com cc: George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark@LEXMARK, emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: RE: NRTL acceptance Graham, In the second paragraph, I said CSA is recognized NRTL. Thus, CSA can issue both NRTL and c-NRTL marks (as well as UL and c-UL marks as far as I know). I would appreciate if you would mail me information on these two NRTL marks. My mailing address is: 20600 Prairie Street Chatsworth, CA 91311 Best Regards, Vitaly Gorodetsky - 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
Re: NRTL acceptance
Hello Tac I am sure that you will get many answers to this question. The short answer is it's only important if you wish to sell any! Any PC manufacturers that you supply who are attempting to get their end product certified will require your power supply to be also certified. To cover all your bases I would recommend: UL and C-UL (or equivalents!) for US and Canada GS (or equivalent!) for Germany (and by extension Europe) CB for everywhere else. This would allow your end users to attempt any required certification projects and not worry about your power supply holding them up. Regards, Frank West Sr. Engineer TUV Rheinland NA --- Tac Pham tp...@hcpower.com wrote: Hello all, Would the NRTL program be a big plus for the ITE certified component, such as power supply??? Tac Pham HC Power, inc. 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.) - 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). = Frank West Senior Engineer TUV Rheinland of North America NW/Portland OR Office __ Do You Yahoo!? Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one place. Yahoo! Shopping. - 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).
RE: NRTL acceptance
Hi Vitaly! The recent agreement between CSA and TUV Rheinland was not to allow us to issue c- type marks (i posted an earlier comment on that). The agreement established a working relationship allowing CSA to easily offer TUV Rheinland GS licenses, and TUV Rheinland to easily offer CSA marks as part of integrated projects. I can fill you in on the Gory Details if you wish. Frank West Sr. Engineer TUV Rheinland NA --- Gorodetsky, Vitaly vgorodet...@canoga.com wrote: George, Do I have to feel sorry about opening this Pandora's Box (I seem to originate this turn in discussion)? I meant to make innocuous remark (referring to Orwell). Everyone benefits from clarification. c-ETL is perfectly OK. As to NRTL mark(s), I know of recent agreement between TUV Rheinland and CSA but have not seen the c-version of the mark yet. Hope someone from CSA would clarify for all of us who is recognized CO and who is not. Best Regards -Original Message- From: geor...@lexmark.com [SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 5:02 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:RE: NRTL acceptance S. William, Thanks for the words on COs and TOs and SCCs. Apparantly UL is one or more of these, as the c-UL mark is legally acceptable in Canada. Now, what other COs has the SCC accredited to issue an approved Canadian mark? Not CSA, but alternatives to CSA? George -- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on 11/23/99 07:57 AM --- swilliam%apcc@interlock.lexmark.com on 11/22/99 05:02:15 PM To: George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark@LEXMARK cc: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: RE: NRTL acceptance 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.) - 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
RE: NRTL acceptance
Hi all! I believe that we at TUV Rheinland are in the final stages of approval to be able to issue Canadian approvals. My understanding is that the approval process is complete but we are still getting the our mark trademarked. We may have this done early next year. Frank West Sr. Engineer TUV Rheinland NA --- geor...@lexmark.com wrote: S. William, Thanks for the words on COs and TOs and SCCs. Apparantly UL is one or more of these, as the c-UL mark is legally acceptable in Canada. Now, what other COs has the SCC accredited to issue an approved Canadian mark? Not CSA, but alternatives to CSA? George -- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on 11/23/99 07:57 AM --- swilliam%apcc@interlock.lexmark.com on 11/22/99 05:02:15 PM To: George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark@LEXMARK cc: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: RE: NRTL acceptance 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.) - 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). = Frank West Senior Engineer TUV Rheinland of North America NW/Portland OR Office __ Do You Yahoo!? Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one place. Yahoo! Shopping. - 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).
RE: NRTL acceptance
George, You would further clear confusion if you would comment on the following. Let's say, TUVR and MET are both NRTLs. On the other hand, they are recognized COs (for TUVR status, see ITEM UPDATE 1999, p.9). They both offer their own NRTL/ marks for ITE compliance with UL1950. My understanding is that they are authorized to issue CSA marks (vs. c-UL) as no mark such as c-NRTL/TUVR or /MET exists. What's the meaning of a US subscript if, as we all know, NRTL mark demonstrates compliance with US standards only? I've seen NRTL mark with an identifier for specific Lab name: MET, TUVR, etc. Thanks again -Original Message- From: geor...@lexmark.com [SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 11:22 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: NRTL acceptance Vitaly, Allow me to try and clear some confusion over NRTLs and marks. NRTL is not a mark. An NRTL is an OSHA Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory accredited to evaluate products to specific standards for the U.S. Each NRTL can authorize the use of its own mark for use on U.S. products, e.g. UL, CSA, MET, ITS, TUVR, and SGS. At one time, some chose to add the subscript NRTL beside their mark. Now it is more common to use a subscript US indicating testing to U.S. standards. The term NRTL has no meaning for Canadian compliance. Canada uses the term Certification Organizations (COs) for those test houses accredited by the Standards Council of Canada (SCC) for test houses that can assess products to Canadian standards. Examples: UL can authorize use of the UL (U.S.) and c-UL (Canada) marks by virtue of their SCC accredited CO status. CSA can authorize use of the CSA (Canada) and CSA/US (U.S.) marks by virtue of their OSHA NRTL status. There is no literal NRTL or c-NRTL mark issued by CSA or any other agency. The agency marks of all NRTLs could be called NRTL marks when used for U.S. products, but none must use NRTL as part of the mark. I hope this does not further confuse the issue! George Alspaugh -- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on 11/23/99 02:03 PM --- vgorodetsky%canoga@interlock.lexmark.com on 11/23/99 12:44:02 PM To: grdulmage%sympatico...@interlock.lexmark.com cc: George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark@LEXMARK, emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: RE: NRTL acceptance Graham, In the second paragraph, I said CSA is recognized NRTL. Thus, CSA can issue both NRTL and c-NRTL marks (as well as UL and c-UL marks as far as I know). I would appreciate if you would mail me information on these two NRTL marks. My mailing address is: 20600 Prairie Street Chatsworth, CA 91311 Best Regards, Vitaly Gorodetsky - 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).
Re: NRTL acceptance of component certifications
Tac PSNet, Altho we've discussed this here at some length before, the certification and marking of components is intended to simplify the evaluation and certification of equipment because the component doesn't have to be evaluated again. This works well if the test house that is certifying the equipment accepts the certification of the component at face value. My experience is that the 800 pound gorilla test house will only accept those certifications from test houses with which it has a contractual MRA; meaning that most other certifications aren't worth much... The converse is not universally true... so, for component suppliers, don't waste your time looking for clever alternatives to component certifications... you'll spend more time than it's worth helping many of your customers trying to get around re-evaluating your component in their application as part of their product certification program... - - - - - Peter E Perkins Principal Product Safety Consultant Tigard, ORe 97281-3427 +1/503/452-1201 phone/fax p.perk...@ieee.org email visit our website: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/peperkins - - - - - - 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).
Re: NRTL acceptance
Hello all, Would the NRTL program be a big plus for the ITE certified component, such as power supply??? Tac Pham HC Power, inc. 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.) - 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).
RE: NRTL acceptance
Vitaly, Allow me to try and clear some confusion over NRTLs and marks. NRTL is not a mark. An NRTL is an OSHA Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory accredited to evaluate products to specific standards for the U.S. Each NRTL can authorize the use of its own mark for use on U.S. products, e.g. UL, CSA, MET, ITS, TUVR, and SGS. At one time, some chose to add the subscript NRTL beside their mark. Now it is more common to use a subscript US indicating testing to U.S. standards. The term NRTL has no meaning for Canadian compliance. Canada uses the term Certification Organizations (COs) for those test houses accredited by the Standards Council of Canada (SCC) for test houses that can assess products to Canadian standards. Examples: UL can authorize use of the UL (U.S.) and c-UL (Canada) marks by virtue of their SCC accredited CO status. CSA can authorize use of the CSA (Canada) and CSA/US (U.S.) marks by virtue of their OSHA NRTL status. There is no literal NRTL or c-NRTL mark issued by CSA or any other agency. The agency marks of all NRTLs could be called NRTL marks when used for U.S. products, but none must use NRTL as part of the mark. I hope this does not further confuse the issue! George Alspaugh -- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on 11/23/99 02:03 PM --- vgorodetsky%canoga@interlock.lexmark.com on 11/23/99 12:44:02 PM To: grdulmage%sympatico...@interlock.lexmark.com cc: George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark@LEXMARK, emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: RE: NRTL acceptance Graham, In the second paragraph, I said CSA is recognized NRTL. Thus, CSA can issue both NRTL and c-NRTL marks (as well as UL and c-UL marks as far as I know). I would appreciate if you would mail me information on these two NRTL marks. My mailing address is: 20600 Prairie Street Chatsworth, CA 91311 Best Regards, Vitaly Gorodetsky - 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).
RE: NRTL acceptance
Graham, In the second paragraph, I said CSA is recognized NRTL. Thus, CSA can issue both NRTL and c-NRTL marks (as well as UL and c-UL marks as far as I know). I would appreciate if you would mail me information on these two NRTL marks. My mailing address is: 20600 Prairie Street Chatsworth, CA 91311 Best Regards, Vitaly Gorodetsky -Original Message- From: Graham Rae Dulmage [SMTP:grdulm...@sympatico.ca] Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 7:06 PM To: Gorodetsky, Vitaly Cc: 'geor...@lexmark.com'; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: NRTL acceptance Vitaly, your comment regarding CSA is incorrect. CSA is an NRTL just like the others. CSA has a mark for NRTL approval. Regards G. Rae Dulmage Gorodetsky, Vitaly wrote: 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
RE: NRTL acceptance
George, Do I have to feel sorry about opening this Pandora's Box (I seem to originate this turn in discussion)? I meant to make innocuous remark (referring to Orwell). Everyone benefits from clarification. c-ETL is perfectly OK. As to NRTL mark(s), I know of recent agreement between TUV Rheinland and CSA but have not seen the c-version of the mark yet. Hope someone from CSA would clarify for all of us who is recognized CO and who is not. Best Regards -Original Message- From: geor...@lexmark.com [SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 5:02 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: NRTL acceptance S. William, Thanks for the words on COs and TOs and SCCs. Apparantly UL is one or more of these, as the c-UL mark is legally acceptable in Canada. Now, what other COs has the SCC accredited to issue an approved Canadian mark? Not CSA, but alternatives to CSA? George -- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on 11/23/99 07:57 AM --- swilliam%apcc@interlock.lexmark.com on 11/22/99 05:02:15 PM To: George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark@LEXMARK cc: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: RE: NRTL acceptance 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.) - 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).
RE: NRTL acceptance
Thanks for that link George. That was a quick/concise list that I was looking for. To get the information you mentioned (what the scope of each CO is), you go to the link that I mentioned http://www.scc.ca/search-front/index.html http://www.scc.ca/search-front/index.html , click on accreditations and then certification orgs, and type in the name of the Lab you are interested in, for the sake of argument, if you type MET, a list of all related links for MET Laboratories will show up. You should have a link to a MS Word document, which if you click on, will show you the scope of our laboratory, which includes all electrical equipment, (which includes CSA C22.2 No 950). Similar results would be obtained if you typed in the name for all the other COs. SCC is a bit more broad as they typically accredit labs for types of equipment (i.e. all electrical products etc.) vs. OSHA/NRTL which accredits based by standard. If you combine the NRTL list with the SCC list, by my count (correct me if I am wrong) you come up with about 5 labs (MET, CSA, Intertek, Entela, and UL) that can provide you with US Canadian certifications (including UL1950/CSA C22.2 No 950, among others) that from the legal aspect are equal. Hope this helps to answer your question. Kevin Robinson Project Engineer/QA MET Laboratories Phone: (410) 354-3300x361 Fax: (410) 354-3313 E-Mail: krobin...@metlabs.com mailto:krobin...@metlabs.com -Original Message- From: geor...@lexmark.com [SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 10:01 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:RE: NRTL acceptance Kevin, Thanks for the website pointer. I found the site nearly impossible to use via the search function. I got no hits for COs no matter what I tried, including UL and Underwriters Laboratories. Somehow I stumbled on to the following site which DOES list all COs. http://www.scc.ca/certific/colist.html There are 20 SCC accredited COs listed, including CSA, UL, ITS, and MET. Now, back to the original question. Who knows which of the 20 listed COs can authorize the use of a mark indicating compliance with CAN/CSA 22.2 950-95 for the safety of ITE, i.e. legally equivalent to the CSA mark? George -- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on 11/23/99 09:34 AM --- krobinson%metlabs@interlock.lexmark.com on 11/23/99 08:54:51 AM Please respond to krobinson%metlabs@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: RE: NRTL acceptance You can check out the SCC website at www.scc.ca http://www.scc.ca , click on accreditations and then certification orgs and type in the name of your favorite test lab (or your least favorite as the case may be :-) )to see if they are a CO. You can try a general search for laboratories but it did not tun up all of the laboratories that I knew were CO's, I had better luck searching for specific laboratories. Kevin Robinson Project Engineer/QA MET Laboratories Phone: (410) 354-3300x361 Fax: (410) 354-3313 E-Mail: krobin...@metlabs.com mailto:krobin...@metlabs.com -Original Message- From: geor...@lexmark.com [SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 8:02 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: NRTL acceptance S. William, Thanks for the words on COs and TOs and SCCs. Apparantly UL is one or more of these, as the c-UL mark is legally acceptable in Canada. Now, what other COs has the SCC accredited to issue an approved Canadian mark? Not CSA, but alternatives to CSA
RE: NRTL acceptance
Hi, For a list of Accredited certification organizations go to http://www.scc.ca/certific/colist.html For the scope of Accredited certification organizations go to http://www.scc.ca/search-front/indexacc.html Ned Devine Entela, Inc. Program Manager III Phone 616 248 9671 Fax 616 574 9752 e-mail ndev...@entela.com PS Yes, Entela is a CO. -Original Message- From: geor...@lexmark.com [mailto:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 8:02 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: NRTL acceptance S. William, Thanks for the words on COs and TOs and SCCs. Apparantly UL is one or more of these, as the c-UL mark is legally acceptable in Canada. Now, what other COs has the SCC accredited to issue an approved Canadian mark? Not CSA, but alternatives to CSA? George -- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on 11/23/99 07:57 AM --- swilliam%apcc@interlock.lexmark.com on 11/22/99 05:02:15 PM To: George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark@LEXMARK cc: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: RE: NRTL acceptance 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.) - 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).
RE: NRTL acceptance
Kevin, Thanks for the website pointer. I found the site nearly impossible to use via the search function. I got no hits for COs no matter what I tried, including UL and Underwriters Laboratories. Somehow I stumbled on to the following site which DOES list all COs. http://www.scc.ca/certific/colist.html There are 20 SCC accredited COs listed, including CSA, UL, ITS, and MET. Now, back to the original question. Who knows which of the 20 listed COs can authorize the use of a mark indicating compliance with CAN/CSA 22.2 950-95 for the safety of ITE, i.e. legally equivalent to the CSA mark? George -- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on 11/23/99 09:34 AM --- krobinson%metlabs@interlock.lexmark.com on 11/23/99 08:54:51 AM Please respond to krobinson%metlabs@interlock.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: RE: NRTL acceptance You can check out the SCC website at www.scc.ca http://www.scc.ca , click on accreditations and then certification orgs and type in the name of your favorite test lab (or your least favorite as the case may be :-) )to see if they are a CO. You can try a general search for laboratories but it did not tun up all of the laboratories that I knew were CO's, I had better luck searching for specific laboratories. Kevin Robinson Project Engineer/QA MET Laboratories Phone: (410) 354-3300x361 Fax: (410) 354-3313 E-Mail: krobin...@metlabs.com mailto:krobin...@metlabs.com -Original Message- From: geor...@lexmark.com [SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 8:02 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: RE: NRTL acceptance S. William, Thanks for the words on COs and TOs and SCCs. Apparantly UL is one or more of these, as the c-UL mark is legally acceptable in Canada. Now, what other COs has the SCC accredited to issue an approved Canadian mark? Not CSA, but alternatives to CSA? George Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on 11/23/99 07:57 AM - swilliam%apcc@interlock.lexmark.com on 11/22/99 05:02:15 PM To: George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark@LEXMARK emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com Subject: RE: NRTL acceptance 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. - 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).
RE: NRTL acceptance
I know ETL is one because I used to work there. But, they are not the only ones. I assume reps from all the labs monitor this list and I am sure they can contact you with their accreditation( I think there are many) Please respond to geor...@lexmark.com To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org cc:(bcc: Steve Williams/SDD/NAM/APCC) From: geor...@lexmark.com on 11/23/99 08:02 AM Subject: RE: NRTL acceptance S. William, Thanks for the words on COs and TOs and SCCs. Apparantly UL is one or more of these, as the c-UL mark is legally acceptable in Canada. Now, what other COs has the SCC accredited to issue an approved Canadian mark? Not CSA, but alternatives to CSA? George -- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on 11/23/99 07:57 AM --- swilliam%apcc@interlock.lexmark.com on 11/22/99 05:02:15 PM To: George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark@LEXMARK cc: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: RE: NRTL acceptance 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.) - 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).
RE: NRTL acceptance
You can check out the SCC website at www.scc.ca http://www.scc.ca , click on accreditations and then certification orgs and type in the name of your favorite test lab (or your least favorite as the case may be :-) )to see if they are a CO. You can try a general search for laboratories but it did not tun up all of the laboratories that I knew were CO's, I had better luck searching for specific laboratories. Kevin Robinson Project Engineer/QA MET Laboratories Phone: (410) 354-3300x361 Fax: (410) 354-3313 E-Mail: krobin...@metlabs.com mailto:krobin...@metlabs.com -Original Message- From: geor...@lexmark.com [SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 8:02 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:RE: NRTL acceptance S. William, Thanks for the words on COs and TOs and SCCs. Apparantly UL is one or more of these, as the c-UL mark is legally acceptable in Canada. Now, what other COs has the SCC accredited to issue an approved Canadian mark? Not CSA, but alternatives to CSA? George -- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on 11/23/99 07:57 AM --- swilliam%apcc@interlock.lexmark.com on 11/22/99 05:02:15 PM To: George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark@LEXMARK cc: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: RE: NRTL acceptance 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
RE: NRTL acceptance
S. William, Thanks for the words on COs and TOs and SCCs. Apparantly UL is one or more of these, as the c-UL mark is legally acceptable in Canada. Now, what other COs has the SCC accredited to issue an approved Canadian mark? Not CSA, but alternatives to CSA? George -- Forwarded by George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark on 11/23/99 07:57 AM --- swilliam%apcc@interlock.lexmark.com on 11/22/99 05:02:15 PM To: George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark@LEXMARK cc: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: RE: NRTL acceptance 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.) - 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).
RE: NRTL acceptance
Hi all! I hope you were referring to Missouri in the best positive light. As you know, the Missouri ethic of denying everything until it is shown to them, hits them upside the head, and sits down to dinner with them makes for the best compliance engineers. Frank West Sr. Engineer TUV Rheinland NA Born and raised in Richland, MO. --- umbdenst...@sensormatic.com wrote: A corollary to Jim's comments -- We were using a non-traditional NRTL with favorable experiences -- rapid approval process, cost competitive, etc. Then a particular contract that we were bidding on specified the traditional NRTL. Our original NRTL was assisting us with the educational process until the customer came up with his own educational exposure. It seems that our previous NRTL had not applied or been approved for the specific standards (a new business that we had entered into at that time) required for this contract. They were more than willing to learn the process, but bottom line, they were not approved by OSHA for that standard at that time. The NRTL did not volunteer that information; the customer pulled it out of the NRTL in one of those I'm from Missouri -- show me challenges. So when investigating an alternative NRTL, be sure they have the correct approvals (documented) for the standards applicable to your product. Don Umbdenstock Sensormatic -- From: goedd...@sensormatic.com[SMTP:goedd...@sensormatic.com] Reply To: goedd...@sensormatic.com Sent: Friday, November 19, 1999 2:07 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject:RE: NRTL acceptance Terry, We have used four agencies through the years, and still have many products with other than our main agency. Over the past three years, there was one incident with a NEC inspector that did not correctly identify the backwards RU of a very famous NRTL. There were a couple of other times where the inspector was looking for a certain mark, and flagged us until we could explain that we used a different agency. So generally speaking, there is sometimes an education process required. On the positive side, the NRTL involved has always been very helpful in the education process. James Goedderz Sensormatic -- From: Terry Meck[SMTP:tjm...@accusort.com] Reply To: Terry Meck Sent: Friday, November 19, 1999 12:25 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org 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). - 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). = Frank West Senior Engineer TUV Rheinland of North America NW/Portland OR Office __ Do You Yahoo!? Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com - This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion
Re: NRTL acceptance
Vitaly, your comment regarding CSA is incorrect. CSA is an NRTL just like the others. CSA has a mark for NRTL approval. Regards G. Rae Dulmage Gorodetsky, Vitaly wrote: 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
RE: NRTL acceptance
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
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
RE: NRTL Acceptance
I received a 404 error on the URL given. I looked around and found this one does give the list mentioned. http://www.osha-slc.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html The error is /optsc/ which should read /otpca/ Scott s_doug...@ecrm.com ECRM Incorporated Tewksbury, MA USA -Original Message- From: oover...@lexmark.com [mailto:oover...@lexmark.com] Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 9:21 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: NRTL Acceptance Importance: Low Try this website for current information on approved NRTLs. http://www.osha-slc.gov/dts/optsc/nrtl/index.html; OO -- Forwarded by Oscar Overton/Lex/Lexmark on 11/22/99 08:46 AM --- George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark.LEXMARK@lexmta01.notes.lexmark.com on 11/22/99 08:10:59 AM Please respond to George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark.LEXMARK@lexmta01.notes.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: Oscar Overton/Lex/Lexmark) 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
RE: NRTL Acceptance
The link didn't work for me but I did find it at this alternate location. http://www.osha-slc.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html http://www.osha-slc.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html -Original Message- From: oover...@lexmark.com [mailto:oover...@lexmark.com] Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 7:21 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject:Re: NRTL Acceptance Try this website for current information on approved NRTLs. http://www.osha-slc.gov/dts/optsc/nrtl/index.html; OO -- Forwarded by Oscar Overton/Lex/Lexmark on 11/22/99 08:46 AM --- George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark.LEXMARK@lexmta01.notes.lexmark.com on 11/22/99 08:10:59 AM Please respond to George_Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark.LEXMARK@lexmta01.notes.lexmark.com To: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com cc:(bcc: Oscar Overton/Lex/Lexmark) 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
RE: NRTL acceptance
The same goes for the traditional NRTL. Believe it or not, they are not approved by OSHA in all standards that they test to. In some case it does not mean that they or any other NRTL don't know how to test to that standard so please don't interpret this as a knock against anyone. It just means that legally, the mark is meaningless to OSHA but in all likelihood is accepted by the Authority Having Jurisdiction and the consumer. Please respond to umbdenst...@sensormatic.com To: emc-p...@ieee.org, goedd...@sensormatic.com cc:(bcc: Steve Williams/SDD/NAM/APCC) From: umbdenst...@sensormatic.com on 11/22/99 10:47 AM Subject: RE: NRTL acceptance A corollary to Jim's comments -- We were using a non-traditional NRTL with favorable experiences -- rapid approval process, cost competitive, etc. Then a particular contract that we were bidding on specified the traditional NRTL. Our original NRTL was assisting us with the educational process until the customer came up with his own educational exposure. It seems that our previous NRTL had not applied or been approved for the specific standards (a new business that we had entered into at that time) required for this contract. They were more than willing to learn the process, but bottom line, they were not approved by OSHA for that standard at that time. The NRTL did not volunteer that information; the customer pulled it out of the NRTL in one of those I'm from Missouri -- show me challenges. So when investigating an alternative NRTL, be sure they have the correct approvals (documented) for the standards applicable to your product. Don Umbdenstock Sensormatic -- From: goedd...@sensormatic.com[SMTP:goedd...@sensormatic.com] Reply To:goedd...@sensormatic.com Sent: Friday, November 19, 1999 2:07 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: NRTL acceptance Terry, We have used four agencies through the years, and still have many products with other than our main agency. Over the past three years, there was one incident with a NEC inspector that did not correctly identify the backwards RU of a very famous NRTL. There were a couple of other times where the inspector was looking for a certain mark, and flagged us until we could explain that we used a different agency. So generally speaking, there is sometimes an education process required. On the positive side, the NRTL involved has always been very helpful in the education process. James Goedderz Sensormatic -- From: Terry Meck[SMTP:tjm...@accusort.com] Reply To: Terry Meck Sent: Friday, November 19, 1999 12:25 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org 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). - 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
RE: NRTL acceptance
A corollary to Jim's comments -- We were using a non-traditional NRTL with favorable experiences -- rapid approval process, cost competitive, etc. Then a particular contract that we were bidding on specified the traditional NRTL. Our original NRTL was assisting us with the educational process until the customer came up with his own educational exposure. It seems that our previous NRTL had not applied or been approved for the specific standards (a new business that we had entered into at that time) required for this contract. They were more than willing to learn the process, but bottom line, they were not approved by OSHA for that standard at that time. The NRTL did not volunteer that information; the customer pulled it out of the NRTL in one of those I'm from Missouri -- show me challenges. So when investigating an alternative NRTL, be sure they have the correct approvals (documented) for the standards applicable to your product. Don Umbdenstock Sensormatic -- From: goedd...@sensormatic.com[SMTP:goedd...@sensormatic.com] Reply To: goedd...@sensormatic.com Sent: Friday, November 19, 1999 2:07 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org Subject: RE: NRTL acceptance Terry, We have used four agencies through the years, and still have many products with other than our main agency. Over the past three years, there was one incident with a NEC inspector that did not correctly identify the backwards RU of a very famous NRTL. There were a couple of other times where the inspector was looking for a certain mark, and flagged us until we could explain that we used a different agency. So generally speaking, there is sometimes an education process required. On the positive side, the NRTL involved has always been very helpful in the education process. James Goedderz Sensormatic -- From: Terry Meck[SMTP:tjm...@accusort.com] Reply To: Terry Meck Sent: Friday, November 19, 1999 12:25 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org 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). - 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).
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). - 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
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
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).
RE: NRTL acceptance
Terry, We have used four agencies through the years, and still have many products with other than our main agency. Over the past three years, there was one incident with a NEC inspector that did not correctly identify the backwards RU of a very famous NRTL. There were a couple of other times where the inspector was looking for a certain mark, and flagged us until we could explain that we used a different agency. So generally speaking, there is sometimes an education process required. On the positive side, the NRTL involved has always been very helpful in the education process. James Goedderz Sensormatic -- From: Terry Meck[SMTP:tjm...@accusort.com] Reply To: Terry Meck Sent: Friday, November 19, 1999 12:25 PM To: emc-p...@ieee.org 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).
