# UL Listing Importance



## dannyn (May 5, 2011)

Hello,

I was wondering what the importance of making sure that all products used are UL listed is to our industry. Also wondering what the regulations that we have are, and what our responsibility to make sure that the products that we use are UL Listed are.


Thanks,

Dan


----------



## shiben (May 5, 2011)

dannyn said:


> Hello,
> 
> I was wondering what the importance of making sure that all products used are UL listed is to our industry. Also wondering what the regulations that we have are, and what our responsibility to make sure that the products that we use are UL Listed are.
> 
> ...


 
Its pretty important. If something catches on fire, and it wasnt UL listed, you can bet that an army of lawyers will be on your tail so fast you cant even think.


----------



## dannyn (May 5, 2011)

This is very true, but they are lawyers, they would take any opportunity to capitalize on something like that.

Is there any requirements or laws, or insurance regulations(this could be based on which policy the company has) that are in place for this? Would I be taking heat from a fire marshal inspection if I didn't have all the devices on the rig UL listed?

Thanks for your reply, I really appreciate it.


----------



## chausman (May 5, 2011)

A lot of school districts require that anything used in the space is UL listed.


----------



## RonaldBeal (May 5, 2011)

While rare, I have had both fire marshals and electrical inspectors refuse to allow non UL/ETL listed gear to be used. One gig, a VERY large national audio company had an older P.A. system, using some Crown non-listed amps. The inspector required them to pull EVERY amp out of their rack, and open them up so he could visually inspect the grounding of each one. He granted a field waiver to allow them to be used.
Ultimately it is up to the Authority Having Jurisdiction(AHJ)... but most go by NFPA 70 and NEC. These generally require anything using AC power to be UL listed.
RB


----------



## xander (May 5, 2011)

I just want to clarify. There are no laws or regulations that can require specifically Underwriters Laboratories (UL) listing. What they do require is a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratry (NRTL) listing. There are a whole bunch of labs out there that do testing, but they all have specific things that they are certified to test. In our industry, the labs most likely to be involved are UL and ETL. They are of equal standing (neither is better than the other), they just have different contracts with different companies. They may cover different things, they may overlap and the manufacturer gets to pick which one they want to use. These companies are charged with testing equipment supplied by manufacturers to make sure they meet standards for safety. Why is this necessary? Well, practically speaking, you want to use listed equipment because it tells you that the equipment is safe to use. Without a listing, you have no independent assurance that the equipment will not malfunction. You are just going on the manufacturer's word. Legally speaking, you are required to use listed equipment by the NEC under Article 520 if you are a place of assembly, such as a theater, place of worship, club, etc.

-Tim


----------



## derekleffew (May 6, 2011)

xander said:


> I just want to clarify. There are no laws or regulations that can require specifically Underwriters Laboratories (UL) listing. What they do require is a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratry (NRTL) listing. There are a whole bunch of labs out there that do testing, but they all have specific things that they are certified to test. In our industry, the labs most likely to be involved are UL and ETL. *They are of equal standing (neither is better than the other),* ...


I respectfully disagree.

From the wiki entry UL Listed :

> No other third party safety evaluation in North America provides the withering peer review of a UL listing.
> 
> Other Nationally Recognized Testing Labs (NRTL's) like ETL (Intertek) also test products to UL standards.
> 
> However, for the best verification of a product's safety, especially in high power products like dimmer racks and switchboards, many experts suggest that end users insist on the "UL Listed" Label.


-----
dannyn, see this post. Also, this thread: http://www.controlbooth.com/forums/question-day/14879-ul-listed-vs-ul-recognized.html .


----------



## DavidNorth (May 6, 2011)

Over the last 3 years, we have been seeing a large number of inspections of equipment in Canada. This can occur not only on installed sites but on sites with portable gear as well. inspectors are coming out to sheds, tents, open-air and other portable venues to take a look at equipment, wiring and safety.

If the product does not have a cUL sticker on it they start asking questions. They often demand the sticker be on the product and in some cases have still gone into listed equipment to look at wiring.

One last note....UL and cUL, while very simlar, are not the same. Grounding impedance and wire size, leakage current values and devices such as safety cables and plugs are often more stingent for cUL than they are for UL.

So, to the OP and the question of UL being mandated. No, except for where it is. It is up to indiviual jurisdictions and sometimes even AHJs. They only way to know is to ask your AHJ, but be prepared, because if you ask, they will tell you it is required. The liability chain not only rests with the product manufacturer and the owner, but also the AHJ and the municipality they work for.

When in doubt, get listed equipment. It takes a lot of time and money for a manufacturer to get something listed so likely the product will be designed and built better.....and who wouldn't want to get that for their money.

David


----------



## church (May 6, 2011)

DavidNorth said:


> Over the last 3 years, we have been seeing a large number of inspections of equipment in Canada. This can occur not only on installed sites but on sites with portable gear as well. inspectors are coming out to sheds, tents, open-air and other portable venues to take a look at equipment, wiring and safety.
> 
> If the product does not have a cUL sticker on it they start asking questions. They often demand the sticker be on the product and in some cases have still gone into listed equipment to look at wiring.
> 
> ...



The requirement in Ontario is defined in the Ontario Rlectrical safety Code and cUL is not the only accepted approval. The code is very clear: Rule 2-022 prohibits the sale, disposal and use of any un approved equipment unless it complies with Rule 2-024. Rule 2-024 provides for field inspection by the Electrical Safety Authourity or by an approved Field Evaluation Agency. Note use of equipment with only a UL approval violates this rule. The ESA publishes the list of approved certification marks and evaluation agencies on their website one of these marks must be on your equipment:

Recognized Certification Marks for Electrical Products in Ontario

If you are touring a show into Ontario you need to check your equipment against these marks. Non compliance can result in the following:


_Failure to comply with these Rules or the Regulation is an offence and upon conviction, a person or director/officer of a corporation could be found liable to a fine of up to $50,000 and/or imprisonment of not more than one year. A corporation may be found liable to a fine up to $1,000,000.

ESA also has the authority to order products be quarantined, seized or forfeited to the Crown for disposal.​_


----------



## xander (May 6, 2011)

derekleffew said:


> I respectfully disagree.
> 
> From the wiki entry UL Listed :
> 
> ...


I guess I would modify my statement to be, "Legally, the listings are equal." I have never had an "expert[] suggest that end users insist on the 'UL Listed' Label." So, considering STEVETERRY an expert, I will now take that suggestion.

-Tim



Perhaps I should clarify. I am not trying to put words in STEVETERRY's mouth, he simply created the wiki article in which this quote comes from. This in and of itself does not mean that Mr. Terry, himself, makes this suggestion. I am just assuming he does.


----------



## STEVETERRY (May 6, 2011)

xander said:


> Perhaps I should clarify. I am not trying to put words in STEVETERRY's mouth, he simply created the wiki article in which this quote comes from. This in and of itself does not mean that Mr. Terry, himself, makes this suggestion. I am just assuming he does.


 
I absolutely do.

ST


----------



## dannyn (May 7, 2011)

Thank you all for the very useful information. I really appreciate it.


----------



## gordonmcleod (May 7, 2011)

For years we used Warnock Hersey which is now part of Intertek to do testing and labeling or I take it to CSA for testing
Also I believe LA requires a LA firedeptartment sticker as well


----------



## dannyn (May 16, 2011)

So, is the general consensus that CE and RoHS is not enough? But on the other hand, if CE and RoHS was the only two there is no law that I would be breaking for just having those two on a product I'm using and omitting the UL?


----------



## sk8rsdad (May 16, 2011)

RoHS is only concerned with whether the goods contain unacceptable levels of hazardous substances, mostly heavy metals like lead, arsenic, and mercury.

CE is a self-declaration, and unfortunately the logo is easy to abuse. You will see something that looks sort of like the CE logo on many inferior products made in China but it is slightly different than the European marking and carries none of the legal obligations of an official CE mark.

Using a product that is not UL approved may be lawful, but not necessarily wise. Consult with your local AHJ and insurer for an answer that applies to your circumstances. Your insurer may consider it a good excuse to refuse to pay out on a claim. Liability lawyers may consider it grounds to launch a lawsuit.


----------



## church (May 17, 2011)

sk8rsdad said:


> RoHS is only concerned with whether the goods contain unacceptable levels of hazardous substances, mostly heavy metals like lead, arsenic, and mercury.
> 
> CE is a self-declaration, and unfortunately the logo is easy to abuse. You will see something that looks sort of like the CE logo on many inferior products made in China but it is slightly different than the European marking and carries none of the legal obligations of an official CE mark.
> 
> Using a product that is not UL approved is may be lawful, but not necessarily wise. Consult with your local AHJ and insurer for an answer that applies to your circumstances. Your insurer may consider it a good excuse to refuse to pay out on a claim. Liability lawyers may consider it grounds to launch a lawsuit.


 
Good advice and to expand further.

UL is not intended to be the same as CE marking. If you are in Europe you must comply with the European Regulations and CE is a requirement in Europe. If you are in the US then you comply with the US regulations where UL applies if you are in Canada then you comply with CSA and the other acceptable Canadian certifications etc. 

The challange is that equipment moves from one country to another on tours via internet sales etc. Manufacturers often obtain multiple approvals to maximise the markets they can sell their equipment to - but the market in a country may not justify the cost of getting the required approval - leaving the purchaser the option of complying with the local regulations through field approvals at their own cost or buyimg a product with the required approvals. 

There are many readers of this website from countries other than the U.S.A. and to avoid confusion a UL approval does not mean you can use equipment in any jurisdiction you have to check the applicable regulations for you. In Canada the situation is more complex because equipment approved for use in one province may not be approved for use in another province.


----------



## STEVETERRY (May 17, 2011)

church said:


> Good advice and to expand further.
> 
> UL is not intended to be the same as CE marking. If you are in Europe you must comply with the European Regulations and CE is a requirement in Europe. If you are in the US then you comply with the US regulations where UL applies if you are in Canada then you comply with CSA and the other acceptable Canadian certifications etc.
> 
> ...


 
So, this gives me an opportunity that I cannot pass up to climb onto my soapbox.

1. US and Canada are on a common electrical grid, yet we have two separate electrical codes with material differences. If anyone can provide a reason why this is a good thing, I'd like to hear it.

2. US and Canada have different certification requirements from UL and CSA. Why?

3. Electrical rules and approvals differ materially in various Canadian provinces. Why? Oh, right...see items 1 and 2 above...now it all becomes clear.

ST


----------



## sk8rsdad (May 17, 2011)

STEVETERRY said:


> So, this gives me an opportunity that I cannot pass up to climb onto my soapbox.
> 
> 1. US and Canada are on a common electrical grid, yet we have two separate electrical codes with material differences. If anyone can provide a reason why this is a good thing, I'd like to hear it.
> 
> ...


 
Does your question mean the U.S. is prepared to adopt Canada's standards. 

Perhaps it is because standards bodies are not always altruistic and changes to standards have implications that go beyond motives such as safety. Sometimes standards are used as a barrier to trade, sometimes there is a disagreement about how safe is safe enough. Where this is particularly prevalent is in the pharmaceutical industry where Canada is usually slower to adopt the latest miracle cure, having been burned in the past with such wonder drugs as Thalidomide.

BTW, all but one of the major blackouts in 1965 and 2003 were traced to faults on the U.S. side of the border. Just saying...


----------



## JD (May 17, 2011)

sk8rsdad said:


> BTW, all but one of the major blackouts in 1965 and 2003 were traced to faults on the U.S. side of the border. Just saying...



That may be true for the same reason you are more likely to see a greater number of accidents on a road that is traveled by 100,000 cars than one traveled by 1000 cars, with all other factors the same.


----------



## derekleffew (May 17, 2011)

sk8rsdad said:


> ...Perhaps it is because standards bodies are not always altruistic and changes to standards have implications that go beyond motives such as safety. ...


Indeed, not a day goes by that I don't curse those USITT/ESTA/PLASA/ANSI/NFPA/NEC bastard ambers who forced DMX512 down our throats, yet can't/won't legislate the gender of green and white Cam-Loks or demand everyone use the pin connector for dimmable, incandescent loads.

/sarcasm


----------



## church (May 17, 2011)

STEVETERRY said:


> So, this gives me an opportunity that I cannot pass up to climb onto my soapbox.
> 
> 1. US and Canada are on a common electrical grid, yet we have two separate electrical codes with material differences. If anyone can provide a reason why this is a good thing, I'd like to hear it.
> 
> ...




thats what make's us different countries,seperated by a common language and the world's longest undefended border and why we have a prime minister and you have a president. Enjoy the following TV advert:

YouTube - I Am Canadian


----------



## mstaylor (May 17, 2011)

Not to get political, I have always been intrigued that while Canada seems to prefer a nationalistic style of govt but their standards seem to be left to individual providences. It seems an oxymoron or perhaps a conumdrum. I am involved with baseball and am a well known interpreter of rules at many levels and the same seems to run true to Canadian baseball. They use pro rules with their own national twist but then each province seems to have their own derivatives. 
While I can appreciate a certain amount of decentralization in govt, the electrical code is not one.


----------



## sk8rsdad (May 17, 2011)

mstaylor said:


> Not to get political, I have always been intrigued that while Canada seems to prefer a nationalistic style of govt but their standards seem to be left to individual providences. While I can appreciate a certain amount of decentralization in govt, the electrical code is not one.



I think your spell checker needs a service call, it's "province" not "providence".

Our laws reflect our history. There are clear lines between what is managed at a federal level, and what is the jurisdiction of the provinces. In some ways it is very similar to the U.S. but provincial jurisdiction is much more limited. For example, provinces do not have their own militia. At the time of the founding of Canada, the U.S. had just finished their civil war. This was a big influence on how Canada structured its government, hoping to avoid the same mistakes. Bearing in mind the politics of the day, Quebec and the Maritimes were adamant about retaining control of things like labour and education. That led to trade-related legislation like the electrical code being the jurisdiction of the provinces. There are recognized federal standards that most provinces accept, in part because federal funding is tied to it, and in part because it is just plain sensible, but local variances can and do happen. 

In the U.S., the NEC is considered the standard. In Canada, we have the CEC, which is closely aligned with, but not identical to the NEC. The CEC, which is published by CSA forms the basis of all other electrical codes, but regional variances are permitted. The fact is, CSA has no power to enforce compliance. That authority comes from the provincial legislature. 

In Ontario, the laws are enacted via the OESC which references the CEC and makes amendments. Much of the variance in the OESC is clarification of definitions and injection of rules around inspections, licensure, and authorities having jurisdiction. Some of the variances are due to the rate at which the CEC changes, the rate at which the AHJ adopts them, and not a willful desire to flaunt the federal standard. Other variances are due to geographic or climatic differences. For instance, Ontario has had some bad experiences with ice storms and modifies the CEC requirements on span and sag for overhead wires in order to reduce the risk of a similar incident. Frost heave impacts the rules for installation of grounding rods. Here's the provincial variances from CEC for Ontario if you want a little light reading.

CANENA is the organization working toward harmonized standards for Canada, the U.S.A., and Mexico. IEC is working on world-wide standards. We're closer than not on most things.


----------



## church (May 18, 2011)

My earlier point about an Ontario field evaluation not being acceepted in another province is just another example of AHJ which from what I have read is no different to what happens in the U.S. The link I posted earlier in this thread shows that Canada has a number of approvals recognised in all the provinces and territories: CSA and cUL being two. In addition each province has a number of approved agencies who can perform field approvals. This approach addresses the the reality that with only 33million people spread across what is physically the second largest country in the world Canada is a small market for equipment manufacturers and it is not unusual for manufacturers to decide they do not want to cover the cost of a Canadian approval if the market for their product is small. The field evaluation system provides an accessible method for an importer to get a provincial field inspection to allow the equipment to be imported and used at a reasonable cost whilst ensuring compliance to a provincial electrical code which is traceable to the Canadian Electrical Code. The cost for doing this is reasonable.

As was mentioned above the code between provinces has variations because there are significant climatic and physical differences between provinces - even within provinces which have to be addressed. 

Canada is not uniques in this I believe our Australian friends also have code differences between their states.

Life would be very boring if we were all the same.


----------



## robartsd (May 18, 2011)

sk8rsdad said:


> In the U.S., the NEC is considered the standard. In Canada, we have the CEC, which is closely aligned with, but not identical to the NEC. The CEC, which is published by CSA forms the basis of all other electrical codes, but regional variances are permitted. The fact is, CSA has no power to enforce compliance. That authority comes from the provincial legislature.


 
For many (if not all) building codes in the USA a similar practice of state legislatures enacting the authority of national standards is involved. I'm more familiar with the structural parts of the code than electrical, so I'm not sure if there are any standards required by the Federal government in that area; however, I'm sure state and local jurisdictions can create their own requirements (in addition to the standards required from higher levels). Of course it is in the interest of industry to have standards that work in a nation wide market and the state legislatures don't want deal with the intricacies writing the technical standards, so it works best for everyone to have codes recommended by well recognized national organizations.


----------



## avare (May 18, 2011)

robartsd said:


> For many (if not all) building codes in the USA a similar practice of state legislatures enacting the authority of national standards is involved. I'm more familiar with the structural parts of the code than electrical, so I'm not sure if there are any standards required by the Federal government in that area; however, I'm sure state and local jurisdictions can create their own requirements (in addition to the standards required from higher levels). Of course it is in the interest of industry to have standards that work in a nation wide market and the state legislatures don't want deal with the intricacies writing the technical standards, so it works best for everyone to have codes recommended by well recognized national organizations.


Thank you for an objective summary of the various standards, their origins, and goals.

Andre


----------



## STEVETERRY (May 19, 2011)

sk8rsdad said:


> Does your question mean the U.S. is prepared to adopt Canada's standards.



That prompts me to jot down two key numbers in such a discussion:

34,030,589
311,382,559

Just sayin'.


----------



## sk8rsdad (May 19, 2011)

STEVETERRY said:


> That prompts me to jot down two key numbers in such a discussion:
> 
> 34,030,589
> 311,382,559
> ...


 
Aah, the old "might makes right" argument. Touché, sir.


----------



## church (May 19, 2011)

STEVETERRY said:


> That prompts me to jot down two key numbers in such a discussion:
> 
> 34,030,589
> 311,382,559
> ...



Canada 3 U.S.A. 2 

Just sayin.

Numbers are not everything as history and Shakespeare do tell.

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;


----------



## zmb (May 19, 2011)

robartsd said:


> I'm sure state and local jurisdictions can create their own requirements


See California for a state creating it's own requirements and see how many things in your house or workplace even if you're not in California carry a Prop 65 warning or something else similar, like: "This water heater must be anchored in the State of California."


----------



## gordonmcleod (Jun 3, 2011)

Also CSA testing standards on many electrical devices tended for years to be much more stringent than UL in the us was and more difficult to get


----------

