RE: U.S. National Product Safety Laws

1999-08-19 Thread georgea
Art, You absolutely win the prize for the first truly definitive answer to my challenge! Obviously Mr. Blocher had the same trouble interpreting the meaning of utilization equipment. Note how simple it was for OSHA to clearly state that desktop computuers (PCs) are included. It is a shame

RE: U.S. National Product Safety Laws

1999-08-19 Thread Art Michael
Hello George, While I'm reluctant to flog a dead horse, somewhere along this discussion thread, someone was looking for a definitive statement regarding the subject at hand. After searching OSHA's Interpretation Letters I found the following letter relating OSHA's requirements and (desktop)

RE: U.S. National Product Safety Laws

1999-08-19 Thread georgea
...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: U.S. National Product Safety Laws To Rich et al (fancy way of saying and others): I was a little reluctant to fan the embers of this discussion the other day, but do not regret doing so based on the healthy discussion that followed. In any event, I shall blame Doug's append

RE: U.S. National Product Safety Laws

1999-08-19 Thread Grant, Tania (Tania)
Technologies, Communications Applications Group -- From: geor...@lexmark.com [SMTP:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 1999 2:02 PM To: ri...@sdd.hp.com Cc: private_u...@lexmark.com; emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: U.S. National Product Safety Laws To Rich et al (fancy

Re: U.S. National Product Safety Laws

1999-08-18 Thread georgea
To Rich et al (fancy way of saying and others): I was a little reluctant to fan the embers of this discussion the other day, but do not regret doing so based on the healthy discussion that followed. In any event, I shall blame Doug's append for peaking my interest. I assume we can all agree

RE: U.S. National Product Safety Laws

1999-08-18 Thread Doug McKean
Well, then it's resolved as far as I'm concerned. If anyone ever asks me to locate the law that requires approved equipment in a workplace, I'm going to point them to 29 CFR 1910.302(a)(1) - Covered. The provisions of 1910.302 through 1910.308 of this subpart cover electrical

Re: U.S. National Product Safety Laws

1999-08-18 Thread Rich Nute
Hi George: I've read these sections of the CFR many times, and always interpreted them to apply to end user equipment, as you imply. However, I am beginning to see that this may be somewhat like quoting the Bible out of context. The context in this section of the CFR (before

Re: U.S. National Product Safety Laws

1999-08-17 Thread georgea
@interlock.lexmark.com Subject: Re: U.S. National Product Safety Laws Hi George: So here is the challenge. Can anyone prove that 29 CFR 1900 or the NEC specifically requires ITE to meet more than some grounding/marking requirements, or be required to be approved by an NRTL. Proof

RE: U.S. National Product Safety Laws

1999-08-17 Thread Gail Birdsall
Birdsall Compliance Engineer Hach Co. -Original Message- From: geor...@lexmark.com [mailto:geor...@lexmark.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 1999 7:11 AM To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org Subject: Re: U.S. National Product Safety Laws This discussion is opening more issues than it is closing

RE: U.S. National Product Safety Laws

1999-08-17 Thread Nikolassy, Anton
%wwgsolutions@interlock.lexmark.com To: dmckean%corp.auspex@interlock.lexmark.com cc: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com Subject: Re: U.S. National Product Safety Laws Doug, I agree entirely! Yesterday I sent the below mail to a fellow emc-pstc groupie: I have

Re: U.S. National Product Safety Laws

1999-08-17 Thread Rich Nute
Hi George: So here is the challenge. Can anyone prove that 29 CFR 1900 or the NEC specifically requires ITE to meet more than some grounding/marking requirements, or be required to be approved by an NRTL. Proof is citing clearly stated sections obviously applicable to typical

Re: U.S. National Product Safety Laws

1999-08-17 Thread georgea
%wwgsolutions@interlock.lexmark.com To: dmckean%corp.auspex@interlock.lexmark.com cc: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee@interlock.lexmark.com Subject: Re: U.S. National Product Safety Laws Doug, I agree entirely! Yesterday I sent the below mail to a fellow emc-pstc groupie: I have

Re: U.S. National Product Safety Laws

1999-08-17 Thread roger . viles
...@majordomo.ieee.org cc:(bcc: Roger Viles/PLY/Global) Subject: Re: U.S. National Product Safety Laws Dear Fellow Professionals, Let me be the devil's advocate for the moment. I normally do not like to pick apart standards, but this one has been kicking around my mind for years. I will refer all

Re: U.S. National Product Safety Laws

1999-08-17 Thread Doug McKean
Dear Fellow Professionals, Let me be the devil's advocate for the moment. I normally do not like to pick apart standards, but this one has been kicking around my mind for years. I will refer all to the following websites so we're all on the same playing field.

RE: U.S. National Product Safety Laws

1999-08-17 Thread Grant, Tania (Tania)
George, To add to your statements;--- It is not just cities that may require NRTL marking on equipment, but also the insurance carriers of the various businesses where the equipment is installed. In many cities the Fire Department inspects for NRTL markings on business premises; they don't

Re: U.S. National Product Safety Laws

1999-08-17 Thread Chuck Seyboldt
On Mon, 16 Aug 1999 geor...@lexmark.com wrote: Here is my understanding of this issue relative to ITE. I post this both to inform, and solicit comments which could improve my understanding. The only U.S. Federal law I am aware of pertaining to product safety is that covered in 29 CFR

Re: U.S. National Product Safety Laws

1999-08-17 Thread Rich Nute
Hi George: Just a clarification and amplification or your message... There are TWO laws that govern product safety: 1) OSHA. Your remarks thoroughly covered this law. 2) The National Electrical Code. This is a model building code intended for adoption by local building