UL Listings vs. Standards

[jobber]

:? I deal with an item that is classified as a luminaire from two different manufacturers. The first mfg clearly displays a UL listing mark on each device. The second mfg displays no listing, but tags each device with "Conforms to UL Std 1598." .

The second mfg has modified the design of their device several times over the last few years without any change in labelling.

Is the mfg allowed to affix the "Conforms to UL Std 1598" label based on their own assessment of their compliance with the standard, or are they required to obtain a letter of compliance or some other certification of compliance from UL ?

 

[rbalex]

The ?legality? depends somewhat on the jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions would prohibit the sale of the second device, but most would only prohibit its use. (Caveat emptor) Others may have no documented restrictions at all.

As long as the second manufacturer?s tag does not use the UL logo or specifically indicate the luminare is UL ?listed? there is no fraud involved. Stating it conforms to a UL Standard is also generally OK. They are not required to indicate who made the evaluation.

 

[raider1]

:? I deal with an item that is classified as a luminaire from two different manufacturers. The first mfg clearly displays a UL listing mark on each device. The second mfg displays no listing, but tags each device with "Conforms to UL Std 1598." .

The second mfg has modified the design of their device several times over the last few years without any change in labelling.

Is the mfg allowed to affix the "Conforms to UL Std 1598" label based on their own assessment of their compliance with the standard, or are they required to obtain a letter of compliance or some other certification of compliance from UL ?

Is the second luminaire listed by any NRTL?

The manufacture may place a sticker on the product that says "Conforms to UL Standard XXX" but that does not mean the product is listed by a recognized testing laboratory.

Luminaires are required to be listed in accordance with 410.6.

Chris

 

[renosteinke]

Once upon a time, UL marketed itself as something special, something of value, something unique. This all began to change in the 70's, coming to a head in the 90's when UL obtained "ISO 9000" certification

What happened was that UL undertook to have as many of its' standards as possible recognised as ANSI or ASTM standards. Combined with ISO certification of the company operation, ANYONE can be a testing / listing / certifying agency.

Anyone can say something meets a certain standard- all they're doing is giving you the title of the standard. With the standard becoming an ANSI / ASTM standard, it doesn't even have the copyright protection it once had. If that 'anyone' has relevant ISO certification, they are -by definition- just as much an NRTL as UL.

Still, UL has long been the target of all manner of deceptive labelling. Manufacturers have been known to go so far as to point to the UL lable on the cord, and assert that the entire appliance was UL listed. Others have self-proclaimed that their product meets UL standards. Even "reputable" manufacturers will often offer you the same product, off the same line, with or without the UL sticker. (As you might guess, there's a price difference).

In marketing terms, we are witnessing the UL brand becoming a 'commodity,' with as little meaning as some other trademarks. Aspirin, Phillips, and Allen all went down this path. Others, such as Xerox, attempt even today to prevent this from happening to them.

Some of the best products ever made are not UL listed. Do not let the presence of such a mark lull you nto complacency.