UL Not accepting ETL (or any other NRTL) testing to UL standards

Sounds about like what I would expect from UL. They are the big dog and get to play by their own rules. If your contract with the customer required UL listing, you'll probably have to submit your widget to UL and pay the piper.

We have no contract requiring UL specific listing but now we either fork over another LARGE chunk of cash to get approved to the standard we are already approved to or push that cost to our customer which isn't right either. UL will actually just list our product as a "non-approved" product in the system and require an additional cost to our customer to inspect our product to ensure its still being manufactured the same way. Of course our customer can just choose to use another vendor that actually drinks the UL koolaid.

I just was hoping others might have found a way to force UL to accept the approvals.

I also wanted to alert other companies that the UL monopoly is still alive and kicking strong no matter what other non-UL NTRL marketing jargon says. An ETL or MET or CSA listing mark/approval is NOT equivalent to a UL mark/approval.

Frankly I'm surprised that other NRTL's haven't already fought this battle.

Hi mcgyvr,

Years of learning the hard way here -- UL will never accept another lab's listing no matter what, unless it is CSA and it's within the list of OK UL category codes for such outside work. Note: check with the UL guy even before trying CSA. The list changes often.

Bad part is when desining a new product or control panel, or whatever -- all the parts within must be UL and no other, or they'll single those parts out for an expensive investigation.

Tough luck, old pal -- but they know they can keep on doing it.

Good on ya,

Goober Dave

Good on ya,

Goober Dave

Haven't see the forum policies? Do so now: Forum Policies

I feel like joining the silly liberal arts majors and starting my own "Occupy UL" protest.

Of course, your end user might be enlightened enough to use another NRTL to certify his equipment...

Yes we are really hoping they will stop using UL.. but I doubt it.

Here's what worked for my clients:

Go to ETL's web site and download a list of companies who have ETL listed stuff that's similar to yours. You'll find impressive ones like GE, Honeywell, etc...

I was able to convince several clients over the past few years to use ETL. It's their money, after all...

Goober Dave

Good on ya,

Goober Dave

Haven't see the forum policies? Do so now: Forum Policies

and I wonder what GE and Honeywell do in this situation. Surely their components suffer this issue too when used in end users equipment.

You're right about that, mcgyvr.

Maybe they're good at convincing the end user (who is using a Honeywell component as OEM) to use ETL as well...

Or, perhaps Honeywell makes it a point to use UL for stuff that would be sold as a component to an OEM, but they go to the less expensive labs for their own end products?

I dunno.

For end products, though, I've been seeing wide acceptance for ETL, TUV, CSA, etc...

I was amazed to see that most of the appliances sold by Sears have CSA but no UL.

The only thing consistently UL seems to be stuff sold to homeowners, stuff that is dangerous. You won't see a string of Xmas lights or a houselhold extension cord with anything but that holographic UL label, at least not at major retailers. I guess the other labs have stickers that are too easy to counterfeit.

Them's my thoughts, anyway. It's a pain for sure when you're forced to UL.




Good on ya,

Goober Dave

Haven't see the forum policies? Do so now: Forum Policies

I feel your pain, enough that I registered & posted a reply.

We manufacture end products with CSA or ETL markings, tested against 60950. Things go smoothly with electrical inspectors and most of our customers regarding our NRTL markings, but once in a while we run into a customer that wants to use our product as a component in a larger system which they wish to get re-list with UL. In that situation our customer's UL Engineer tells us that our CSA and ETL marks are not adequate as "UL does not recognize CSA's (or ETL's) factory follow-up services", and thus our product would require special considerations when the cabinet is re-listed with UL. Our NRTL report (from CSA/ETL) might be accepted by UL (after review by UL), but during any future UL factory follow-up inspection at our customer's factory, our product would need special inspection and may need to be taken out of the system and tore apart to verify construction. Basically sounds like UL needs to re-do the factory follow-up service of our product at our our customer's site. This is a major headache/risk for the customer, and thus not acceptable. So, 99% of the time we are fine with either ETL or CSA, but when we get into what I call a situation where "the customer is re-listing our product as a component within their UL system", things get ugly, and we have to handle that in a special way.

I suspect UL is using their size and dominance to try and protect their turf and keep out the other NRTL labs,,, at least tripping up the other labs that try to do component level recognitions. I understand why UL is doing, but I too find it frustrating in that they don't play well with the other labs. Unfortunately (LOL) the smaller labs have to accept UL, but UL is not accepting their marks,,, it not good being the little guy. It's poor for us in that it limits our choices as a manufacture. Best of luck with it. Please post any tips you learn. I can only hope that with time UL will loose its strangle hold on component recognitions and plays as an equal with the other labs.
Good luck with your certifications,

This is not a defense of UL due to my deep love of their policies, requirements, inspections, attitudes, CRDs, pricing structure spasm...

but they are playing the OSHA NRTL game as everyone else is entitled to do. OSHA does not obligate NRTLs to accept each other's data. UL apparently does not believe anyone else does as good a job as they do, and therefore they believe only their own testing.

The MoU with CSA always surprised me; unfortunately it did not extend to my industry. CSA for example does not acknowledge UR components - it's end-use that matters. Some of their standards are just plain wacky (no offense meant to any Northern Neighbors present). I've worked with Intertek and MET before, and sometimes looked askance at their test plan. Everyone is a little different.

I'm required, at a very high level, to use only UL. Ninety-nine and six nines percent of the time, the specifying engineers contacting us require a UL-Listing only. Items we have that (were) CSA-Listed were not acceptable, even though they complied with the requirements of both.

Anyway, I'm sure none of this is helpful to anyone, but you are indeed stuck with the UL situation.

Keep in mind though: there is always someone bigger than you. GE forced UL to buckle on a few issues some years back. You never know.

Thanks,