( h$ o+ i" G/ [8 `' s; i 5 {. Z( o( V2 [Standards Update Notification8 n3 I4 p5 l' }0 Z7 B4 g
CSA C22.2 No. 68, 9th Edition with Revisions through and including September 2009# e7 z+ n' d7 l( m) j/ z( T8 H7 ~
Page 3 of 3# L0 H1 X m7 C5 {/ {
Overview and Description of Changes) D7 |6 s' v' [" @* D
Impact Statement: A review of all Listing Reports is necessary to determine which products already 9 d2 X; a4 V: x( |3 e8 L/ K9 F+ @: ucomply with these new/revised requirements and which products will require reevaluation and test. * j# K- }+ }3 u. h) FNote: Although some products are not affected by these revisions, at minimum, all Listing# F( f6 U. h1 p6 k% }* x
Reports will need to be revised to show the correct standard, edition and revisions through date. : e5 V2 u/ O7 [! d$ F6 T+ uNOTE: Effective immediately, this revised standard will be exclusively used for evaluation of new + C% C( w" ^9 c% [7 U5 k' ^products unless the Applicant requests in writing that current requirements be used along with their" Y2 ]1 K" k7 t% c- _9 I
understanding that their listings will be withdrawn on the Effective Date of April 7, 2011 unless product is+ F$ k" ?, B; I: d
found to comply with the new/revised requirements. 7 I, X' y7 p# H/ z6 s( {Summary of Changes: 8 C" @' ]4 V1 K5 x% m1. Section 7.16.4 – Revised to have GFCI’s be marked with the wording “RAINPROOF” or “SUITABLE " I, U; C! _# B1 ^' ^7 pFOR WET LOCATIONS”( f4 g; e& I4 r: M" J5 d
2. Section 5.20.1 - The requirements for high pressure washers have now been relaxed. This means that $ { X/ i9 v4 U- @) fhigh pressure washers do not have to meet clause 5.20.1 (b) because these products will never produce: X5 I9 Y8 N c! C
a flammable spray since the spray will consists of less than 10% of any flammable liquid that may be, H3 n* B- e, @3 R6 r. K# B$ ^
added to the liquid container. % t8 F- j$ u- ~0 t5 A3. Flammability requirements: Replace the obsolete standard C22.2 No. 0.6 with the new standard C22.2& ~+ B, r. ?# Q. ]
No. 0.17. # x8 }0 P0 ], O+ s0 u1 q" I0 {! A4. Replace the obsolete CSA standard C22.2 No. 66 with C22.2 No. 66.1 and 66.2. + k1 q" R# U" K' i5 C/ {5. Incorporated in the new standard the high pressure requirements on the type of cords as per T.I.L. 33. ( d" ^9 P! u9 V9 Z& X) \* p6. Added in the scope hand held engravers, which in the past were being covered by the tool standard. 4 b3 [1 j1 ^2 s c- L' e7. Changed the term “Pressure –Limiting device” to “Pressure –regulating device” to better understand$ v3 E a) W: H" t6 u3 `& B
the function of the device and at the same time harmonize with UL’s definition. The present term was0 J. Z+ V# B% Y( ^/ {: v
misleading since it did not state that it regulates automatically the pressure.) Y5 A$ r: M- E: E! d# Y; s' c; j
8. Deleted door operators from this standard. Door operators were transferred to C22.2 No. 247-92 in* F9 A8 j6 I0 M6 s, o
1992. , B" N/ G4 a- m2 X! y5 B9. Pressure regulating devices have to be investigated for 30,000 cycles to ensure that the calibration) l# ~2 r+ ~5 x. a# a5 T V
pressure is within 5%. In the past most pressure regulating devices were tested for current only and these , [1 r1 t/ G# Tdevices were never verified if they can pass the pressure requirements. 1 p' L3 O5 T" ~/ ] f1 [10. The water test for outdoor equipment are now covered in clause 5.2.15.1 and the applicable standard$ B2 x2 Z3 Q9 ^7 f
is C22.2 No. 94.2, which superseded C22.2 No. 94.8 T6 B- I! E6 m4 q( D l/ {
No samples are needed for this SUN. Review Listing report and add marking in item 1 above if needed. 8 d8 B6 M* W+ U4 m# E& K% sVerify compliance with item 5 for the cord used. 8 G1 ^* V5 s# e& I1 V- FReview Evaluation and testing of product to verify that pressure regulating devices have been . _& X8 R7 E o" U# O8 y, c/ Y7 U+ ] }investigated to 30,000 cycles. If not additional testing will be required. $ Z, n0 p: z. Y5 u! dOther requirements are relaxed or are replacements for obsolete standards so all products comply.作者: 杨柳风 时间: 2011-8-9 09:57
标题不对,应该是CSA标准升级作者: qxq2008 时间: 2011-8-9 09:58
标准变了，证书号在有效期内的话，只需要update就好，依然要申请，但是这个应该不是全新申请，故只需要两份报告+新的证书号。不晓得这个机构收费做一个全新的申请收费为多少，如果仅仅是出个报告和证书号，个人感觉这个机构收费堪比UL了。你的这个情况跟我们的一个产品有点类似，标准换版了，我们的工程师没来及的跟进，导致证书号从暂停转到撤销。我们的产品恰好不在标准更改项内，故属于Update, 只需要交个报告费和其他若干，比全新的省时省钱。以上仅我司情况供参考！如果你们的证书号还在有效期内，就尽快跟进！作者: 千里无痕 时间: 2011-8-9 11:09
楼主把我个菜鸟搞糊涂了。还真没有听说有ETL标谁。作者: qxq2008 时间: 2011-8-9 11:22
ETL 没有标准！他沿用的是UL的标准或是其他国际标准作者: TZX1976 时间: 2011-8-9 12:29
杨柳风: 呵呵, 是的, 应该是CSA标准升级, 因为我们做的是ETL & CETL认证, 所以没细想就写上ETL 标准了. 2 T" q( x3 c' X) X' L1 `% fqxq2008: 认证公司说是标准换版. 我跟他理论, 说我们的产品跟标准升级部分没多大关系, 但他说这是他们公司的规定, 不管有没有关系, 都是统一价: 1.5万/一份报告. 他补充说有些客户的产品和标准升级关系大, 他们测试的工作量大, 也是这个价, 我抗议说这不公平, 应该按具体测试工作量来区别收费. 他又重申这是他们公司的统一规定, 还说下次说不定标准升级就是我们的产品测试工作量大了. . N% J0 D3 t! K; \
千里无痕: 呵呵, 是我的错, 希望不再让你糊涂作者: Liu 时间: 2011-8-9 12:39
都是与高压力器具有关，很多产品都是改个标准号而已，15000等于在抢钱！# V+ y- L0 U' S& Z. u. K. v
你直接威胁他们的业务，如果Paper Work都收这么贵，所有项目一律转出。遇到这种情况，或者你可以考虑把ETL的报告转换成其他认证公司的报告，有些公司转个报告也就5000块之内，标准跟着也升级了。 作者: TZX1976 时间: 2011-8-9 13:16
Liu: 据我所知, ETL认证国内就一家能做, 如有其它家请告知, 谢谢!作者: 杨柳风 时间: 2011-8-11 21:48
