UL Eliminates All VN Fees for Electric Sign Listing Program

[richgottwald]

The International Sign Association reported today that UL will eliminate all variation notice (VN) fees related to its electric sign certification program. Elimination of the fees is the result of ongoing discussions between UL and the Sign Industry Business Panel, chaired by ISA Executive Vice President Rich Gottwald.

When sign products do not comply with the UL Follow-Up Service Procedures, applicable standards or other requirements, UL field representatives issue VNs to document the nonconformance. A variation notice is a channel of communication between UL and a manufacturer that creates a record when nonconformance issues are discovered. Prior to this agreement, each variation notice had been accompanied, in most circumstances, by a fee of $580.

"We celebrate the end of the variation notice fees," Gottwald said. "However, it is important that manufacturers work to address not only the product nonconformance, but any underlying process or system issue that may have led to the nonconformance. We believe that elimination of the VN fee supports a collaborative relationship between the sign industry and UL, ensuring that we deliver products that consumers and end users can rely on."

The Sign Industry Business Panel was formed five years ago to represent the sign industry in discussions with UL on critical issues. The panel is made up of sign and sign component manufacturers from the International Sign Association (ISA), the United States Sign Council (USSC) and the World Sign Associates (WSA).

Edited January 17, 2013 by rich

[Erik Sine]

So what did you do or say to get them to drop this? I can't imagine they decided to give up revenue just to be nice guys.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tleaf28]

*Checks calendar to see if it's April 1st*

[richgottwald]

This has been a four year process by the three trade groups and UL. Over the course of many meetings, we were able to educate UL about the realities of sign manufacturing and the inconsistent enforcement by UL inspectors. UL, in turn, educated us about the types and number of VNs that they were seeing in sign shops, which we then shared with our members. The outcome is that UL knows the industry is committed to manufacturing quality products, and, I assume, they realized that the fees associated with VNs were no longer useful or necessary..

[Erik Sine]

I'm not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing.

Also not sure if it can be said ISA is solely responsible for this, I'm sure you guys played a small part and I applaud you for that. I just can't see UL removing possible revenue because a sign association says they should, or educated them in such a way.

A lot of things have changed in and outside of our industry in the past 5 years along side these talks between your panel and UL.

I think there is more truth to UL's decision based on the economy, UL loosing clients like wild fire and not just in the Sign Industry but from domestic manufacturing in general. I wasn't too long ago a UL field rep told me he's lost over 60% of his stops and they've had to move reps around to cover larger areas because the accounts shrunk.

One of the biggest complaints about UL has been the costs, and VN's. The truth is, competition is here now and many, many companies are going/looking towards MET Labs. In a matter of fact many Sign Association committee members are even looking to get out of UL for their companies and going MET. MET follows the standard and doesn't stray like UL and make up their own, stacking regulation on top of regulation and creating their own.

One other reason I'm sure for this pull back by UL may be the fact that MET is more lenient and not in a hurry to whip out a violation pending the matter , their also not as arrogant.


That aside, I'm not so sure it's a good thing to NOT have VN's. There are a lot of companies that produce crap, a lot by some of the biggest companies out there whom you would think would build a quality product. Maybe they did 15 years ago but standards have fallen short. It's not a BIG surprise that most signs listed in our "Hall of Shame" forum have UL labels on them. Just today I was doing a service job and the channel letters had UL labels on them, there is no way this sign would have passed a UL field inspection. No drainage, no caulking, no clearance for a power supply in a wet location raceway, etc etc.

Our sign industry produces a lot of crap, signs where a lot of corners have been cut, and this industry is being cheapened....so I'm not sure this is good idea other than it might help keep a few clients around from going to greener pastures....or not. I'm sure UL will be making it up somewhere, probably in more required programs. You know how "Non-Profits" like their "Programs".

I've never heard of a business giving away "free", or purposely giving up a way to make money unless it's marketed in one way that gives them an upper hand and to make it up in another.


If you can give us specifics (educate us) about your talks that would be great, I'm curious "who" at UL got educated (how, they go educated with...) that they should give up giving sign companies violations and trust that sign companies will comply on their own. Usually it takes a fine and money to be paid to learn a lesson, and the fear of that happening to do better. What was ISA's reason for wanting no VN's and why did you trust that companies can do this on their own without accountability and consequences?


Anyway, thanks for the news.

[Erik Sine]

Revisiting this again.

Now, a few months later and as announced out of the goodness of their heart U.L. and sole reason no doubtably after ISA's "all knowing" technical panel met with them and got them to to eliminate all VN's all together.......guess what appears to be happening after all?

So, as figured and as I said above, we all know that in business this world never or hardly ever gives something...for nothing.

From what I'm hearing now is that regular shop inspections have now picked up. Shops who used a lot of labels who got more inspections NOW have an even higher frequency of inspections and their charged on this.

The word on the street? Some shops are even NOW been visited every two weeks.

Just another "Marketing" scheme perhaps all to make you think something WAS being done, something is being dealt with, someone has your back, and saving to stay with someone is some how being passed on to you?

That's something I can't answer for you, it's nothing more than..."the word out on the street"

We're going to get a little deeper on this in different areas because I have more to share, stay tune!

[UFB Fabrication]

I told my UL rep that if we got a VN that we had to pay for they were done. If they increase frequency to recoup revenue they are also done.

[Erik Sine]

If this isn't egg in the face I don't know what is.

"The service manager explained the rationale behind the new C-CAP Program (which will replace the new variation notice fee), this program was a total surprise to the sign association members since this was the first time we had ever heard of the new program"

Y'all just got ca-ca-ca-ca-ca-C-CAPP'ED.

[fishing nut]

Let me get this straight, You pay for the stickers and you have to pay for visits, unexpected and scheduled visits.

[garettc]

anyone who mentions 'extortion' will have their legs broken. ;)

[Snoochie]

"That aside, I'm not so sure it's a good thing to NOT have VN's."

"There are a lot of companies that produce crap, a lot by some of the biggest companies out there whom you would think would build a quality product. Maybe they did 15 years ago but standards have fallen short. It's not a BIG surprise that most signs listed in our "Hall of Shame" forum have UL labels on them. Just today I was doing a service job and the channel letters had UL labels on them, there is no way this sign would have passed a UL field inspection. No drainage, no caulking, no clearance for a power supply in a wet location raceway, etc etc."

"Our sign industry produces a lot of crap, signs where a lot of corners have been cut, and this industry is being cheapened....so I'm not sure this is good idea other than it might help keep a few clients around from going to greener pastures....or not. I'm sure UL will be making it up somewhere, probably in more required programs. You know how "Non-Profits" like their "Programs".

Erik;

I have been providing electrical service to some National sign companies for locations here in California. While I have moved away from the actual sign installation portion, I still have a strong background in signage and can tell you that you are correct. Some of the work I have seen is so unprofessional that i am amazed on a daily basis. The quality of the sign produced is not what I have been used to in the past and more important, the installation is done by what I can only describe as being installed by a series of Hacks. But the price of the sign might possibly be low, along with the installation, so I assume the system plods along as this incorrect path.

And yes, the signs were produced with a UL listing on them and I am sure the installer has a license. I have a slew of digital photos that I have taken and I archive them in case a lawsuit crops up in the future or when I need a good laugh on a gloomy day. I woner how effective any inspections really are if the type of garbage that I have seen exists in the marketplace. One day I am going to post the photos I have accumulated and some folks who have provided signage will not be too proud of the finished product that exists in the field and bears their name.

I agree with you on another thing, no entity such as UL drops a fee because they suddenly had an urge to become a knight in shining armour. They probably are being bit by economic considerations that are at work in our economy at large and affects all of us.

But be that as it may, I hope the Sign Syndicate keeps telling it like it is, no matter who gets their feathers ruffled.

Best to All

[alltex]

I can say I am happy with UL. Haven't had any issues with them. They do quarterly surprise inspections. Our inspector showed up the same morning I was dealing with our break in. And graciously agreed to come back and do his surprise inspection, which he did. The only VN we've received (not charged) was on our switch. They need to toggle sideways, instead of up and down. Which was news to us. I'd say 90% of the UL signs that ship to us, have their switches up and down.

As far as extra inspections beyond our quarterly, I'm unaware of those. If it's based off manufacturing, I wish I was busy enough for those.

[eng0270]

I can say I am happy with UL. Haven't had any issues with them. They do quarterly surprise inspections. Our inspector showed up the same morning I was dealing with our break in. And graciously agreed to come back and do his surprise inspection, which he did. The only VN we've received (not charged) was on our switch. They need to toggle sideways, instead of up and down. Which was news to us. I'd say 90% of the UL signs that ship to us, have their switches up and down.

As far as extra inspections beyond our quarterly, I'm unaware of those. If it's based off manufacturing, I wish I was busy enough for those.

Not true as far as UL is concerned ....

UL 48 15th Edition

Page 56

4.3.4 Disconnect Switch

4.3.4.2 - A disconnect switch shall have a marked "Off" position and shall disconnect the supply source by causing an air gap between opposing contacts in a circuit. When the switch is operated vertically rather than horizontally, the down position shall be the off position.

[alltex]

I can say I am happy with UL. Haven't had any issues with them. They do quarterly surprise inspections. Our inspector showed up the same morning I was dealing with our break in. And graciously agreed to come back and do his surprise inspection, which he did. The only VN we've received (not charged) was on our switch. They need to toggle sideways, instead of up and down. Which was news to us. I'd say 90% of the UL signs that ship to us, have their switches up and down.

As far as extra inspections beyond our quarterly, I'm unaware of those. If it's based off manufacturing, I wish I was busy enough for those.

Not true as far as UL is concerned ....

UL 48 15th Edition

Page 56

4.3.4 Disconnect Switch

4.3.4.2 - A disconnect switch shall have a marked "Off" position and shall disconnect the supply source by causing an air gap between opposing contacts in a circuit. When the switch is operated vertically rather than horizontally, the down position shall be the off position.

Kevin, you're correct, I was wrong. I just read my VN report again (from 4 months ago). As a practice, we always (in the past) put the ON position down. So birds, or what ever crap that hits switches can't turn it off. I remember this discussion with our UL inspector. He seemed to agree with us. And we concluded at that time, horizontal is the way for us to go.