This was mentioned by TSG in the big American Security thread.

I did some googling and came up with this:

https://www.ul.com/inside-ul/residential-security-container-standard-revised-to-give-manufacturers-and-consumers-increased-options/

I find it interesting that U/L has created a standard that's in between the legacy RSC and TL.  But, honestly, something like this is probably overdue when a Cannon sold at Costco has the same exact rating as a Ft Knox Titan or an AMSEC BF.

I never understood why UL had the RSC rating.  I assume that either UL believed that national legislation was going to pass similar to California, or that manufacturers petitioned for a do nothing rating so they could claim their safes were UL listed (misleading people into believing they were fire rated).

I welcome the new changes, but I believe that they overshot the standards a hair.  Before you had UL you had B, C, E, and F rate safes.  E was essentially a TL-15.  Now you have a RSC 5 minute do nothing rating, and then a TL-10.  Honestly, I believe there is some room for some middle ground there.  And any rating that exceeds a TL-15 is completely unnecessary as that rating already exists.  I would have made the RSC the entry level, and the TL-10 equivalent the highest.

TSG stated that the BF and even the BF HD are still considered level 1 RSC's, your comparison highlights a bit of disparity in the level system still, I think.

I guess it's probably minor tweaks to get the heavier safes to pass the level 2 attack.

I believe those safes are getting some boltwork and nasty "hard plate" that AMSEC uses in their TL rated safes.  These two things alone are a substantial improvement from your typical gun safe bolt work and hard plate.

The RSC history is like this...

One day in 1998-ish, a new up-start company in the Gunsafe industry decided that the way to make a splash and get attention was to go to UL and "negotiate" a new burglary safe rating. Since the player had a relationship with UL from "previous employment", he found the attention necessary to open a dialog. UL, a "non-profit" organization, employs something like 10,000 employees, so they are always up for a new revenue stream. A new listing brings in clients and money to test in the labs, and busy the expensive follow-up services that keeps the army in the field working. So, they are always open to new listing ideas that may exercise their resources.

The caliber of this listing was thought to be too low to fall into the regular UL687 TL safe family, and they grabbed the only other standard that fit, Theft Deterrent Devices, UL1037. The bar was low, and "calibrated" to the safes of the time with the appropriate test criteria. Hence, a new burglary rating was born. The UL1037 standard was not under the purview of the Burglary Safe's Industry Advisor Council (IAC), so the "safe makers" that were engaged in managing the TL safe ratings under UL687 had no opportunity to shape the new Standard. That was intentional.

Once the Standard was drafted, represented by a single paragraph buried inside a Standard that covered all kinds of unrelated products like car alarms and door locks, it was off to the races. It took a few years for most "players" to engage and go get listings as retail market pressure started to force the issue.

The change to split the RSC Rating was also a result of a closed process where safe companies, safe dealers and distributors, and consumers were left out. The successor to the IAC is the Standards Technical Panels (STP), which is now the organized process where the public has an opportunity to weigh in on Standards development. Again, without a single safe company, related market re-seller or consumer interest was consulted, the UL staff chose to split the levels out for the RSC rating. It's still not clear how this originated, and we found out from a dealer late last year that heard about it and inquired. We were never notified in any way, even though we have an active RSC rating.

The Levels don't all make much sense. Without saying anything bad about the UL organization, the authors didn't do much homework in building the new Levels. The existing RSC safes automatically earn the Level I rating. The Level II rating does fit in that void between the RSC and TL15, although inconsistent because the RSC LevII is a true six-sided rating and the TL15 is not. The Level III is, well... crazy out of place. The Level III Standard allows the TL-30 tool complement, and 6-sided performance for 10 minutes. That basically means the RSC Level III is WAY beyond a TL15X6 rating. The tool complement of the TL30 is robust with an array of badass power tools that can defeat 1" steel in under 3 minutes. Most, if not all TL15 safes would go down under such a test requirement...

So, now we have a Theft Deterrent Standard in direct contradiction, and competition, with the UL687 Burglary Safe Standard. I'm sure the authors never intended that result, but not a single member of the governing STP for UL1037 came from the safe industry, safe marketplace, or safe consumer population. So, it's no surprise there is an overlap and conflict.

Needless to say, this needs to be resolved. Last year I joined the STP for the UL1037 standard, and have made proposals to move the RSC rating into the UL687 Standard, and normalize the RSC levels to fit the existing ratings with continuity. Lot's of positive response within UL, but the wheels turn very slowly. I'll let you all know how this all tuns out.

Oh, and BTW... the RSC ratings will start a regular cyclic "re-test program" in 2019. So, not only will the cheaters get called out, but the physical security bar will rise considerably for Level I.

Thanks for the history lesson.  It is always interesting to hear the backstory on this stuff.

I, for one, am glad to see the new ratings although I do see how the RSCIII rating might cause some confusion and overlap.  Anyway, I have posted here before wondering why there was no RSC "next level" rating with a longer attack time as something like this only makes sense as thieves become more bold and things like power tools become more and more commonplace.

Also, as mentioned, it only seems logical to have additional ratings.  It gives UL another revenue stream, as you mentioned, but it also gives manufacturers a rating that will help potential consumers make a more informed purchase.  As I've also said before it really seemed almost unfair that something like a National Security Magnum or an AMSEC BF has the same basic rating as a Liberty Colonial.  Not trashing on the Colonial as I'm sure it is a good little safe in its price class but, previously, there was really no way to judge what additional security was being purchased by spending more money.

Now if there was only a way to get some sort of standardized fire testing....

Yea, I keep asking at ETL if anyone has come in to test under our program. They said they had two test programs for new clients. It was not clear if they ran our test program or not. I got the impression they were terrible failures, as one would expect from a first effort without any experience, big expectations and a lack of data to build on. After three years, not a single listing announced that I know about. I'll be a the SHOT Show this week, and I'll walk all the competition and pay attention to the fire ratings and see if there is anything "new". I doubt I will find anything noteworthy. Getting a legitimate fire rating is expensive, and it drives the cost of the product up in many ways. This is a vicious market where cost is king, and few are willing to trade quality for attractive pricing.

True of most any market, I suppose.

I doubt there will be much interest in safes on the various 2018 SHOT threads.  If possible can you take photos of what's new in the industry and post them here for us?  I know I'd appreciate it.  I'm sure I'm not the only one.

If I were UL, I would have done this:

Residential Security Container 1:  Any locking device that is tamper resistant for say 10 minutes.  They may have to hire some high school kids to test these.  This would include all lock types (key, combo, electronic) and everything from pistol boxes to large gun safes.  The purpose is to verify that your kids aren't going to watch a Youtube video on how to bypass your security and use a paperclip, bouncing technique, or magnet to get in.  Sole purpose of this rating would be life safety.  Keeps kids and others who don't need access, but aren't really going to attack the safe out.

Residential Security Container 2:  Similar to current RSC

Residential Security Safe 1: (notice the switch from "Container" to "Safe").  Similar to RSC, but introducing real tools that may actually defeat the safe.  Big sledge, long pry pars, axe, maul, etc.

Residential Security Safe 2:  TL-10.  All of the big tools plus the aggressive power tools.

From there on up, existing ratings are already in place that cover those levels of protection.

Makes too much sense, which is why they didn't go that route.  Sounds just like my job...

I have a friend who's attending SHOT.  I asked him to run by a few of the safe manufacturers to see who's making (or planning to make) safes built to the RSC2 and RSC3 standards.

So far he says Fort Knox is doing a Level 2 in the Guardian series.  No word yet on others.

For clarity, the old RSC Label was always a 6-sided attack. Again, the UL1037 Standard made a departure from the UL687 safe ratings norms where there are X6 and non-X6 ratings.

The Re-Test Program for ALL RSC rated safes due to run next year (2019) will shake up the market considerably. Many of the early listings (late 90's) came when the testing tools and techniques were well below today's standards. There will be a number of companies that get a big surprise, particularly those that listed import products. UL always raises the bar with re-test programs, so they "push" the security levels sup gradually.

The "grace period" we are in now is allowing all regular RSC's to persist without changing the listing mark to Level 1 RSC. Technically, UL is considering this as equivalent. The re-test program will sort this out next year.  A new RSC Level 1 rating will be a good step up from and old rating. Expect the "Allowed Construction" metal thickness to rise too. If you tested an RSC safe last year, and brought in a 12 gauge body and 7 gauge door, you got a pass because that was the ongoing president. Expect change in 2020 RSC safes. Hopefully the efforts to sort out the new levels to "fit" the UL687 Standard conventions and graduated security lineup will make this better.

So the old RSC rating included a minimum body thickness of 12g? Is there anything in the II or III standard as far as minimum body thickness or is it just an attack resistance? Will stainless steel and AR500 start being more common as a result?

Expect costs to rise accordingly...

Here's a pretty good illustration of the RSC vs RSC II standard.