The question which arises here is the definition of "utilization equipment" under OSHA regulations, specifically whether OSHA intended that computers and other plug connected devices fall under that definition.
The phrase was not one of OSHA's own creation. The preamble to the rules (the explanation in the Federal Register when the rule was adopted, that is) makes it clear that the phrase owes its origin to the NEC. Therefore, the intent of the NEC and its scope is relevant to the inquiry. The NEC, in its pre-1993 versions, defined utilization equipment to consist of "equipment which utilizes electric energy for mechanical, chemical, heating, lighting, or similiar purposes." (Article 100) No mention is made of computers. That problem was brought to the attention of the NEC code panel which advises the NFPA on Article 100 in 1992. They adopted a recommendation that the wording be changed to state that utilization equipment be defined as "equipment that uses electric energy for electronic, electromechanical, chemical, heating, lighting, or similiar purposes." The purpose, said the panel, was not to broaden the scope of the Code, but to clarify that the term utilization equipment does cover devices such as computers. (NEC Technical Committee Report 1992, Log #3262.) The few courts that have looked at the issue have seemed to be in accord. In one North Carolina case it was held that a freezer which had its third wire ground removed from its plug violated the electrical code, which was based on the pre-1993 definitions. OSHA has also taken that position. In a letter to a Philadelphia law firm on June 24, 1992, OSHA stated that a device which was connected between a modem and a telephone jack had to be listed. The same was true with nurse call systems (letter of Dec. 29, 1989). Even a "volt stick," a portable device that is used to find faults in cables must be listed, said OSHA, because it "may come in contact with a potential greater that 30 Vrms." (letter of Dec. 18, 1991) This does not mean that one could not challenge OSHA's interpretations of its rules, just that it would be a very difficult thing to do. In the end, I do not think such a challenge would prevail. Nonetheless, those critical of OSHA's current interpretations do make a valid point that the definitions used by any Federal agency need to be clear from the outset. Glen Dash
