who wish to sell products in the USA. Do we
need this oversight? Will necessitating UL
approval process affect the USA market, for good
or bad? Have we been at risk for the past many
years without UL doing their "not for profit"
role on LED luminaires? Is this tantamount to
restraint of trade for non USA mfgs.? I guess
we'll never know if USA manufacturers can fend
for themselves without UL keeping the rest of
the world at bay. Has this post been provocative
enough? Here's a link to LEDs magazine where the
announcement was reported
http://www.ledsmagazine.com/features/4/1/3

Bonus Physics Question: Could rational LED
fixture engineering produce a viable design that
violates UL's 90 degree C. rule?

who wish to sell products in the USA. Do we need this oversight? Will
necessitating UL approval process affect the USA market, for good or bad?
Have we been at risk for the past many years without UL doing their "not
for profit" role on LED luminaires? Is this tantamount to restraint of
trade for non USA mfgs.? I guess we'll never know if USA manufacturers can
fend for themselves without UL keeping the rest of the world at bay. Has
this post been provocative enough? Here's a link to LEDs magazine where
the announcement was reported
http://www.ledsmagazine.com/features/4/1/3
Bonus Physics Question: Could rational LED fixture engineering produce a
viable design that violates UL's 90 degree C. rule?

"Jeff Engel" <searcher...@comcast.net> wrote in message
Manufacturers don't have to meet U.L. standards. They're voluntary. Yes,
some jurisdictions require that lighting fixtures meet U.L. standards, but
the manufacturer doesn't have to sell in that market.

U.L. has competition in the form of CSA, ETL SEMKO and other testing
organizations for the testing business. The standards are written by
carefully balanced committees in an open process.

Buildings which use
listed products and pass inspections are rewarded with low insurance rates.

Costs are paid by the industry which also gets the sales dollars for the
products.

The government is not involved.

More than 60% of residential lighting fixtures are now made off shore, so
it's hard to see how any non-US manufacturer is the victim of restraint of
trade.

U.L. has competition in the form of CSA, ETL SEMKO and other testing
organizations for the testing business. The standards are written by
carefully balanced committees in an open process. Buildings which use
listed products and pass inspections are rewarded with low insurance rates.
Costs are paid by the industry which also gets the sales dollars for the
products.

More than 60% of residential lighting fixtures are now made off shore, so
it's hard to see how any non-US manufacturer is the victim of restraint of
trade.

In article <2TsGh.96815$5j1.79385@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "TKM" <noname@no.net> writes:

U.L. has competition in the form of CSA, ETL SEMKO and other testing
organizations for the testing business. The standards are written by
carefully balanced committees in an open process. Buildings which use
listed products and pass inspections are rewarded with low insurance rates.
Costs are paid by the industry which also gets the sales dollars for the
products.

In the U.S., I really don't see any competition to U.L. Many
devices are also stamped CSA so they can be sold in Canada, but
something stamped CSA and not UL would have little chance of
selling here (I think).

I agree that an inspection process by an independant
organization is generally a good thing. Overall, I think U.L.
has a good reputation, though some doubt if eveything they do is
what it should be. The "carefully balanced committees in an open
process" may be the case for some standards organizations, but
I'm not sure if it applies to U.L.


More than 60% of residential lighting fixtures are now made off shore, so
it's hard to see how any non-US manufacturer is the victim of restraint of
trade.

One problem that has been reported several times in the past
few years is that manufactuers in other countries simply put the
markings on their stuff without actually doing any testing or
submitting any samples for validation. Bogus FCC radio
interfearence compliance statements are fairly common on computer
equipment, and counterfeit U.L. stickers have also been found.

I'm sure many regular readers of this news group have probably
encountered imported lighting equipment or components that was of
very poor or outright defective quality, which also had on it
markings indicating that it met U.L. or other standards.