Lightsblog861

• Field Evaluation Ul
• Field 1 Evaluation Tool

Page 1 of 23 Revised March 2006 BC Faller Training Standard – Field Examination & Evaluation General Objective: Qualified Supervisor Trainer will complete a thorough examination of the faller’s work preparation and practice, and will identify deficiency issues as applied to the BC Faller Training Standard. Raghavendra Yaligar, Basavaraj S Kalmath, Radha J, Vinoda, Jyothi R. Field evaluation of profenofos 40% + cypermethrin 4% (44%) ec against lepidopteran pests of rice. J Entomol Zool Stud 2021;9(1):105-109. Field Evaluation Air Quality Egg Monitor (Version 1) AQ-SPEC. Background 2.From 6/5/2015 to 8/5/2015, three Air Quality Egg v1 (w/ Particulate and Ozone add. Performance reviews are an important feature in any organization since it determines the future growth of an employee. Performance review examples help in guiding people responsible for drafting performance evaluations to effectively appraise an individual and draft their assessments. Annual appraisals can be a time of great strain not only on the employee whose growth in the organization is.

Ensuring Safety Meets Standards

In Canada, the Canadian Electrical Code requires manufacturers or importers of electrical products to get them “approved” for electrical safety. For a large volume of units, a certification company like Canadian Standards Association (CSA) or UL make sure the product meets an acceptable level of safety specified in the Canadian standards. For smaller quantities of electrical products, this approval is done by field evaluation. The field evaluation process follows the CSA SPE-1000 standard, which has three mandatory and non-destructive tests. Upon successful inspection, ESAFE will deem your electrical equipment to be “approved” and label it on the spot. If equipment does not meet Canadian Codes and Standards, ESAFE’s inspectors will provide you with a report detailing the required alterations. We will support your staff throughout the process until your equipment is approved. ESAFE’s expertise can help you avoid unnecessary delays in using or selling your electrical equipment in Canada.

If your electrical equipment or safety needs fall into any of the categories below, ESAFE is your best solution for fast, expert, and cost-effective service:

• Low volume and “one-of-a-kind” equipment
• Prototypes and innovations
• Equipment already shipped or onsite
• Witness Testing
• Pre-construction drawing review

ESAFE is accredited by the Standards Council of Canada to field evaluate a broad scope of electrical equipment. Our experience is vast and includes assembly line machinery and material handling equipment, extrusion and injection equipment, plant automation equipment, used and/or retrofit equipment, robotic technologies, renewable energy equipment (e.g. solar wind turbines), and automotive manufacturing and their suppliers.

When To Call Us

All too often, companies call us when their electrical equipment has been cited for non-compliance. This can result in lost time and revenues in utilizing or selling your electrical products. We recommend that you call ESAFE as early as possible in your process to avoid unnecessary delays.

• Development Stage – ESAFE’s inspectors understand how equipment is built from the ground up. They can review plans and provide technical assistance to define equipment requirements necessary to meet Canadian CSA Codes and Standards.
• Upon Arrival in Canada – When your equipment arrives in Canada, it must be inspected and approved before it can be used or sold. ESAFE inspectors will respond to your request within two business days to help you get the approval you need.
• Before Shipping to Canada – Our inspectors will service you anywhere in the world to test and pre-approve equipment before arrival in Canada. This allows you to make any adjustments on location and avoid business delays.
• Non-Compliance Citation – If a regulator has found your equipment to be non-compliant, you will not be able to use it until it meets standards and has been approved. ESAFE inspectors will work with you to find technical solutions and help you achieve compliance.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. I have many items for inspection that are identical. Can you inspect one and, if it passes, just provide labels for the rest?

No, this is not permitted for two reasons. First, the SPE-1000 code requires all products to be inspected, prototype testing is not allowed. Secondly, our rules of accreditation prohibit an inspection agency from leaving labels with the customer, or for anyone other than an inspector to apply a label.

2. Is there a maximum number of items that can be inspected?

Quantities vary by Jurisdiction. In Ontario and most other provinces, the maximum per model per year is 500 units. Please contact us for the limit that applies to your product.

3. If I get ESAFE approval, do I still need to get a CSA label as well?

No, the CSA and ESAFE labels represent approval to the same standard and both are recognized in all jurisdictions in Canada.

4. What tests do you perform?

At a minimum, the inspector will perform a hi-pot test. Other common tests that may be performed depending on the design of the product are the flame test and strain relief test. Other testing may be required depending on the nature of the product and the applicability of other technical standards, if any.

5. What are the legalities relating to electrical product approval?

By law, all electrical products must be certified or field evaluated to electrical safety standards before they can be used or sold in Canada. An ESAFE approval meets the requirements of Rule 2-024 – Ontario Electrical Safety Code, and the requirements of all other jurisdictions in Canada.

Electrical equipment is deemed to be approved if it has been approved according to the process set out in section 2 of Ontario Regulation 438/07.

The Electrical Safety Authority (ESA) recognizes certification bodies and field evaluation agencies accredited by the Standards Council of Canada to certify or evaluate electrical products or devices. Only equipment bearing a recognized mark or label is deemed to be approved.

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.

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

The ESAFE Marks

ESAFE's labels are recognized across Canada under the Standards Council of Canada accreditation program. The following are our S and P Approval Marks.

When discussing evaluation, program coordinators identified several difficulties common to other service delivery arenas. These included lack of adequate funding for evaluation, lack of access to evaluation expertise inside or outside the program, concerns about the ethics of experimental designs, and general staff resistance to implementing evaluations.

Funding was the barrier mentioned most frequently by state adoption program managers and PAS coordinators and providers. Evaluation requires substantial resources, whether it is contracted out to an external provider or performed in-house by program staff. Given limited funding, program coordinators frequently place higher priority on meeting service needs than on evaluation. Their belief that 'we don't have enough funding for evaluation,' might more accurately be stated as, 'we don't have enough funding to provide the services that we know are really needed and are convinced to be effective and perform an evaluation.' Funding agencies contribute to this situation if they require evaluation without specifying the level at which it is to be done or do not allocate adequate resources for both service delivery and evaluation.

Among the case-study states, the one with the most sophisticated evaluation (and the only one with a specific budget line item for evaluation) allocated approximately 5 percent of its budget to evaluation. This is a rather modest chap151; and almost certainly inadequate chap151; amount, particularly in a new program area for which service delivery models and evaluation methods are not well established.

Evaluation expertise is in part related to funding. Contracting with an external evaluator requires a greater commitment of program funds but provides access to a higher level of expertise. Although program coordinators may have some experience and training in evaluation, it is unlikely to be at the same level as someone whose primary role is evaluation. Program staff with the skills needed to serve adoptive families may have limited qualifications in evaluation design, data collection, or analysis. In addition, in-house program staff may be less likely than external evaluators to implement more rigorous designs because of the tension that they might create among skeptical staff.

Even if a PAS program is willing to commit the resources to contracting with an external evaluator, finding an evaluator with adequate understanding of adoption issues may be difficult. The field of PAS is young, with neither a large base of published research nor an extensive network of experienced researchers. Program staff may need to invest considerable time in orienting their evaluators to issues that affect the choice of outcome measures, instruments, and timing of data collection. 'We learn from them,' said one program coordinator, 'and have to make sure they learn from us.'

PAS program staff identified several concerns about the impact of evaluation on their interactions with families. Some were concerned that the time required to collect evaluation data not only added to their workload but also impinged on their interactions with families. Time spent completing evaluation instruments was seen as encroaching on their opportunities for therapeutic interaction, without necessarily providing any direct benefit to the family. Some staff indicated concern that this would keep families from coming to, or remaining in, PAS.

Program staff were also concerned that evaluation activities introduced a clinical tone to their interaction that was at odds with their efforts to normalize the adoption experience, especially when the instruments used focused on child and family problems. Adding 'strength-based' instruments was a commonly suggested strategy, but these are not well developed and can make interviews unacceptably long.

Field Evaluation Ul

Case-study interviews revealed few instances in which PAS coordinators or providers identified ways in which evaluation findings had been useful to them or were expected to be. Some limited applications were noted. For example, data were cited to document the volume of services delivered or families' satisfaction with the program. In one program, staff reported having adjusted their training topics and schedule in response to client satisfaction surveys. But there were no reports of evaluation as a source of new and useful input on substantive questions of program design. If evaluation data are not useful to the program's own staff, they are unlikely to be seen as offering much to the larger field. Yet information from evaluations often accrues slowly into a focused message that may not be disclosed until years, or even decades, after the first rigorous evaluations are begun.

View full report

'report.pdf' (pdf, 399.11Kb)

Field 1 Evaluation Tool

Note: Documents in PDF format require the Adobe Acrobat Reader®. If you experience problems with PDF documents, please download the latest version of the Reader®