# "UL Listed" vs. "UL Recognized" ?



## derekleffew

What's the difference between "UL Listed", "UL Recognized", and "Assembled from UL (Recognized/Listed/Approved) Components"?


----------



## sk8rsdad

The short answer:

UL Listed means that samples of the product has been tested and found to meet applicable standards.
UL Recognized applies to components that meet applicable standards but they may need to be incorporated in specific ways in order to be safely used. For example, a UL Recognized switch may require an enclosure, faceplate, and proper assembly.
Assembled from UL Recognized parts doesn't mean much of anything. The components may be UL Recognized but the finished product might be a disaster waiting to happen... or not. For example, a switch may be UL Recognized, and duct tape may be UL Recognized, but wrapping a switch in duct tape... well I'll leave you to decide.
The long answer.
UL Marks


----------



## STEVETERRY

sk8rsdad said:


> The short answer:
> 
> UL Listed means that samples of the product has been tested and found to meet applicable standards.
> UL Recognized applies to components that meet applicable standards but they may need to be incorporated in specific ways in order to be safely used. For example, a UL Recognized switch may require an enclosure, faceplate, and proper assembly.
> Assembled from UL Recognized parts doesn't mean much of anything. The components may be UL Recognized but the finished product might be a disaster waiting to happen... or not. For example, a switch may be UL Recognized, and duct tape may be UL Recognized, but wrapping a switch in duct tape... well I'll leave you to decide.
> The long answer.
> UL Marks



What he said.

Plus, a UL Listed product is subject to ongoing inspection by the UL Followup Service. This insures that not only was it made safely when initially inspected, it is being made safely on a continuing basis.

Also, "Assembled from UL-recognized components" is actually well-known marketing-speak for the actual meaning:

"Manufacturer was either: 

a. too ignorant, and/or 
b. too cheap

to go through the very difficult and expensive process of getting third-party NRTL review of the safety of their product that results in a Listing."


ST


----------



## David Ashton

The idea that UL listing is a safety measure is largely illusory as UL make their own standards and test themselves and then charge a fortune to "inspect" factories around the world to maintain "safety".Small scale manufacturers cannot afford to comply with this protectionist rort.If countries around the World each brought in their own "safety" measures to control US imports into their countries the US would go ballistic.
The European system where there is a Standard and a product either complies or not is much more transparent, fairer and cost effective.
I make safe equipment in small quantities which complies with European/Australian standards and is much cheaper than the US gear because I refuse to donate to the UL ripoff.
This self imposed cost on US manufacturers is in effect a tax, collected by UL for a very minimal gain.
Steve Terrys' perspective would be very different were he not a major US manufacturer, I would suggest.


----------



## derekleffew

David Ashton said:


> ...Steve Terrys' perspective would be very different were he not a major US manufacturer, I would suggest.


I've known Mr. Terry since long before 2001, when he began working for "a major US manufacturer," and I don't believe his commitment to safety and standards has changed from the time I used to rent (radial, with asbestos leads) Lekos from him in 1983.


----------



## STEVETERRY

David Ashton said:


> The idea that UL listing is a safety measure is largely illusory as UL make their own standards and test themselves and then charge a fortune to "inspect" factories around the world to maintain "safety".Small scale manufacturers cannot afford to comply with this protectionist rort.If countries around the World each brought in their own "safety" measures to control US imports into their countries the US would go ballistic.
> The European system where there is a Standard and a product either complies or not is much more transparent, fairer and cost effective.
> I make safe equipment in small quantities which complies with European/Australian standards and is much cheaper than the US gear because I refuse to donate to the UL ripoff.
> This self imposed cost on US manufacturers is in effect a tax, collected by UL for a very minimal gain.
> Steve Terrys' perspective would be very different were he not a major US manufacturer, I would suggest.



The fundamental issue here is that Self-certified equipment simply does not enjoy the safety benefit of a stringent third-party review. From a personal point-of-view, before I came to ETC, I caused Production Arts to become a listed UL508 assembler, so that we could build custom distro that was third- party certified to a UL standard. 

My experience in Europe is that manufacturers think that a UL Listing is easy--until they try to get one. Then they experience the painful requirements of an objective third party review.

As to the standards--under the new system at UL, they are governed by Standards Technical Panels (STP's) made up of industry representatives. UL itself only gets one vote on an STP--so while UL guides the content of the standards, they cannot act unilaterally.

Our products in the US are safer and better due to UL listing. It has nothing to do with trade protectionism, like, for instance, CE marking.

ST


----------



## STEVETERRY

derekleffew said:


> I've known Mr. Terry since long before 2001, when he began working for "a major US manufacturer," and I don't believe his commitment to safety and standards has changed from the time I used to rent (radial, with asbestos leads) Lekos from him in 1983.



Err...by 1983, asbestos was gone from Production Arts.

ST


----------



## David Ashton

"Manufacturer was either:

a. too ignorant, and/or
b. too cheap

to go through the very difficult and expensive process of getting third-party NRTL review of the safety of their product that results in a Listing."
Quote Steve Terry
I am neither ignorant nor cheap, the UL system is purposely designed to make it prohibitively expensive for small run manufacturers to import into the US.
And it works.


----------



## STEVETERRY

David Ashton said:


> "Manufacturer was either:
> 
> a. too ignorant, and/or
> b. too cheap
> 
> to go through the very difficult and expensive process of getting third-party NRTL review of the safety of their product that results in a Listing."
> Quote Steve Terry
> I am neither ignorant nor cheap, the UL system is purposely designed to make it prohibitively expensive for small run manufacturers to import into the US.
> And it works.



Hmm...US manufacturers have to pay the same tariff to UL, so how does this prohibit imports? When one compares the cost of a full suite of CE (or indeed C-Tick) tests on a given product, it cannot be much different than a UL evaluation.

The difference is that (present company excepted, I'm sure!) abuse of the CE self-certifcation system is likely widespread. CE labels go on equipment that was never objectively third-party tested. With UL, there is no "almost pass". Either the gear meets the standard, or it doesn't.

ST


----------



## David Ashton

An example, I had made a batch of lamp bases for old Strand lights, the batch will probably take about 10 years to use up.Now there's only so much testing to approve a lamp base, dimensions, insulation,etc and it would be pretty simple to test and comply, BUT before I can get compliance I need to agree to have the factory in China inspected every year, with, no doubt, business class air fares 5 star hotel plus a healthy fee to keep my accreditation, the annual fee would exceed the cost of the lamp bases and of course have no relevence because the factory is probably not make me any more bases for 10 years, if ever.
I get curtains certified by a testing lab, they test, it's fire retarded, it's certified, I don't have to pay annual protection money.
UL STP's are mainly industry manned, how many German, Japanese or Chinese companies are represented?
The UL tariff may be the same but what about the annual factory inspection costs for the US as compared with overseas?


----------



## STEVETERRY

David Ashton said:


> An example, I had made a batch of lamp bases for old Strand lights, the batch will probably take about 10 years to use up.Now there's only so much testing to approve a lamp base, dimensions, insulation,etc and it would be pretty simple to test and comply, BUT before I can get compliance I need to agree to have the factory in China inspected every year, with, no doubt, business class air fares 5 star hotel plus a healthy fee to keep my accreditation, the annual fee would exceed the cost of the lamp bases and of course have no relevence because the factory is probably not make me any more bases for 10 years, if ever.
> I get curtains certified by a testing lab, they test, it's fire retarded, it's certified, I don't have to pay annual protection money.
> UL STP's are mainly industry manned, how many German, Japanese or Chinese companies are represented?
> The UL tariff may be the same but what about the annual factory inspection costs for the US as compared with overseas?



I agree that UL Listing may not be practical for one-time, low volume products. However, the Followup Service is actually one of the ways that the buyer of a UL product can be sure that the safety of the product has not "drifted" over a number of years.

I find UL to be responsive to STP membership applications and the "new" UL goes out of its way to solicit industry participation in the standards process--which is a far cry from 10 years ago when they ran it with an iron fist. I suggest that maybe not many foreign manufacturers have expressed interest in participating in the STP process.

ST


----------



## David Ashton

Whilst we have the experts on hand, is there a voltage below which UL listing is not required?


----------



## STEVETERRY

David Ashton said:


> Whilst we have the experts on hand, is there a voltage below which UL listing is not required?



Actually, no--since there are many UL Standards which apply to even low voltage items like Ethernet switches and other data-processing equipment. Also, certain low-voltage devices still carry risk of fire due to high currents. A photovoltaic power generation system is a good example.

The National Electrical Code will not have anything much to say about listing items below 42VAC, or those that are energy-limited to Class 2 requirements, but that does not mean that some other body or local AHJ will not want to see a listing. For instance, our Smartfade line is Listed, even though it uses a wall-wart transformer already listed by the transformer manufacturer to deliver low voltage to the desk itself.

Generally, to be accepted in all local jurisdictions in the US, a listing by an NRTL is a wise choice for any piece of electrical equipment, US or foreign made.

A couple of things to consider if you are thinking about obtaining a listing:

1. An NRTL other than UL (like Intertek ETL) may be a lot cheaper, faster, and just as good in the eyes of the market and local AHJ's for certain types of equipment. If you are making a 3000 amp switchboard or the like, however, UL is probably the wisest choice.

2. Consider hiring a UL consultant who specializes in helping manufacturers obtain listings.

ST


----------



## David Ashton

I make a low cost headset intercom which runs off a 24 volt plugpack and I had not considered the U.S. because of the UL complication and expense.
What is an NTRL and AHJ?


----------



## STEVETERRY

David Ashton said:


> I make a low cost headset intercom which runs off a 24 volt plugpack and I had not considered the U.S. because of the UL complication and expense.
> What is an NTRL and AHJ?



NRTL=Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (UL, ETL, and others)

AHJ=Authority Having Jurisdiction (generally the municipality or their inspector)

ST


----------

