Kevin,
Thanks for this detailed assessment. I would like to make sure I understand
your guidance.
1. No NRTL per se offers field labeling because field labeling is not in
scope of NRTL ‘responsibilities’. An NRTL company might offer it, but it is not
an NRTL function.
2. {Quite to my surprise!} the implication of 29 CFR 1910.399(2) is that
a company essentially has to try each NRTL to see if it “accepts, certifies,
lists, labels, or determines to be safe” an equipment as part of their NRTL
scope. Only if all NRTLs are reasonably investigated could one ‘advance’ in the
clause to e.g., turning to a local authority (to the location of installation)
for enforcing occupational safety provisions of the National Electrical Code
etc… at which point field labeling could be acceptable if such authority found
it so.
3. 29 CFR 1910.399(3) is not really applicable to a case of equipment
customization such as adding customer specific bells or whistles to a product
that is otherwise common to units sold to other customers. It is focused on
‘extremely’ bespoke equipment essentially designed by the workplace owner.
Are those roughly correct? (any further clarifications welcome).
Regards,
-Lauren Crane
From: Kevin Robinson <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2020 10:49 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PSES] Mandatory certification
Brian,
I manage the NRTL Program for OSHA. As I am responding from my personal
address, nothing I say here can be considered as a response from OSHA (but if
you contact me at [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>, I will
state the same thing I say here.)
As for low production units, you might be able to save costs by utilizing
families. If you can determine the worst case condition(s) you might be able
to simply test a few products and have that representative of all of the units
you manufacture. As for costs, when I worked for a NRTL (granted this was 12
years ago), three field evaluations were about the same cost as a full
certification. Yes, you might have factory surveillance costs and
certification mark costs, but compared to the actual testing and certification,
those costs are minimal.
With regard to your interpretation of 29 CFR 1910.399:
1) This clause only covers NRTL Certification. Field evaluations are NOT part
of the NRTL program. NRTLs who are issuing Field certificates and labels are
doing so under their own name and not as a NRTL.
2) There are some products for which no NRTL has been able to demonstrate they
have the necessary test equipment and procedures for. For example, several
years ago, OSHA required crane insulating links to be tested and certified by
a NRTL. Until last year, there was no test standard for insulating links and
the equipment required is very specialized. OSHA has not yer recognized a NRTL
to test and certify these insulating links. There are other examples where
there are no standards for certain products, or where no NRTL has the
capability to test to the standard. In such an instance, the local AHJ may
approve of the installation, or if another Federal Agency has jurisdiction,
they may approve of the installation. In my experience, this is very rare, but
it is an option.
3) This option only applies to unique custom made equipment that is made
specifically for an employer. The example I always give is the requirement
would apply if a potato farmer contracted with a company to make a custom
machine that he designed to separate rocks from his potato crop. This was a
machine made to his exact and custom specifications, and there is nothing else
like it. The manufacturer could conduct some basic safety testing and prepare
a report to give to the employer to present to OSHA if they ever asked for it.
Either the manufacturer could do the testing themselves, or they could hire
someone to conduct the testing for them. The requirement however would NOT
apply if you created a "Custom" computer purchased from a major manufacturer
(ex Dell, Apple, Lenovo etc.) . While you can go to their website and build a
custom machine to your exact specifications, the big manufacturers aren't
really making custom machines.
Everything below this represents my own personal opinion and is something I
would not say in any official capacity (mostly because manufacturer self
declaration has so many implications in a broad spectrum of areas).
As for allowing manufacturer self declaration, I would encourage you to look at
a Request for Information (RFI) that OSHA published almost 10 years ago
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=OSHA-2008-0032-0099 You can review all
of the questions OSHA asked and the public responses here
https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=OSHA-2008-0032. The United States has a
very robust product safety system and as a result, there are very few injuries
as a direct result of products that are NRTL certified. While you may feel
that $6000 - 8000 is expensive to product certification, I have to ask, and I
don't mean to get dramatic, but what is the cost of the loss of someone's
vision because a centrifuge exploded and a piece of shrapnel landed in
someone's eye? What is the cost of someone losing the use of their hand due to
an electric shock that caused nerve damage? What is the cost of someone's life
because they received a lethal amount of leakage current from an equipment
enclosure and a nearby electrical conduit? Regulatory testing always seems
excessive, until it isn't. Every manufacturer and industry believes that their
products are "low risk", so where does the line get drawn?
Kevin Robinson
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 10:35 AM Brian Kunde
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Not all companies manufacturers high volume consumer goods. Our company designs
and builds analytical test equipment (laboratory equipment) which is very
expensive (relatively speaking) and built one at a time per our customer
requirements. We have about 50 Families of products; each with dozens of
variations. Even our best selling product family might only sell less than 50
units per year, and many models may not see a single sale in a year. Yet when
someone needs one, we build it.
Some of our customers require NRTL certification.
We have approached several NRTLs requesting Certification for our production
units. Nope. Their 'certification programs' do not accommodate low volume
production, such as ours. The ONLY option we have is NRTL Field Evaluations.
NOTE: If anyone out there in cyberland knows of an NRTL or other local
authority who can provide an alternate but acceptable service, please let me
know!!
We started paying for NRTL FES (Field Evaluation Services) more than 20 years
ago. It started out maybe one per year at a cost of only a few hundred dollars
(US). Now we get 12-15 requests a year and the cost has sky-rocketed to nearly
$4000. We beg and plead to our NRTLs to do everything possible to keep down
the costs without success. AGAIN, if anyone knows of an acceptable
alternative, please let me know.
Ok, let's talk about the 3 definitions the Federal Register 29 section 1910-399
gives for Acceptable by OSHA. I will paraphrase below:
Number 1: Products must be tested and labeled by an NRTL. This can be done
through a Certification Program with an NRTL or by a Field Evaluation. Does
anyone know another way to get an NRTL sticker on your products? Please share.
Number 2: For products that no NRTL accepts, certifies, lists, labels, or
determines to be safe. What does this mean? In our case, if NRTLs will not
Certify our products because of how we manufacturer them in low volume, does
this section apply? And if so, who is the "federal agency, state, municipal,
or other local authority that will test my product and stick a label on it that
will be acceptable to our customers? Local to the manufacturer or local to the
customer purchasing the equipment? Can anyone provide me with a name, company
name, phone or email of such a person? Practically speaking, I don't think
this option will work. If anyone has a real-life example of how this works,
please fill me in. I would really appreciate it.
Number 3: Custom-made equipment is SUPPOSED to be "ACCEPTABLE" if it is
"determined to be safe for its intended use by its manufacturer". Is this
crazy or what? Can I be so bold as to say that THIS IS LAW??? Ok, so how is
this accomplished? The manufacturer has a top-notch safety compliance lab that
generates a test report with "test data" showing the product to be SAFE. Then
what? The manufacturer has no marking. How do I convince a Customer that this
method is or should be acceptable by OSHA? NOTE: In the last 25 years, I have
successfully used this approach. I sent a detailed safety test report in CB
(like) format to an OSHA inspector at our customer site and it was accepted.
But don't get your hopes up.
BOTTOM LINE: If you do business with customers who are associated with federal
or state organization, schools, universities, military subcontractors,
customers in California or Washington, etc., chances are you ONLY have Option
ONE above which can be accomplished by an NRTL Certification Program or by a
Field Evaluation. However, as I mentioned, either choice is getting crazy
expensive. Something has to be done and soon. Many test labs are struggling to
keep their doors open including NRTLs. Many have closed down in the last 10
years.
Final Comment: Last year we had a small supporting product that we sold to a
customer who wanted an NRTL Label on it. The retail price of the device was
only $2000 (US) but the NRTL charged us $4000 for the Field Evaluation. As a
federal subcontractor, the customer paid for it because they had no choice.
Something needs to be done. An alternative must be found. Like Europe, for
low-risk devices, OSHA should allow manufacturers to test their own products
and do a Manufacturer's Declaration of Compliance with some kind of recognized
marking.
This issue comes up about every year and I really really hope that someday
North American authorities will come up with a solution. It is a crazy and
very expensive mess for may manufacturers. Is there someone in the US
Government we can talk to, complain to, plead to?
I now return you to your regularly scheduled program.
The Other Brian
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 10:09 PM Kevin Robinson
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Clause 2 under the definition for “acceptable” can only be used under specific
conditions, specifically if no NRTL has the capability to test and certify the
equipment. In such cases, the equipment/installation would be acceptable to
OSHA if a state/federal agency determined it was safe. The reality is however
that most local jurisdictions don’t want to take on the liability of approving
non certified equipment, so they will require the owner/employer to get a field
evaluation.
OSHA has not made an OFFICIAL interpretation of the regulations to say that a
field evaluation could be used to meet the definition of “acceptable”.
https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/publicationdate/currentyear
Disclaimer: My positions posted here are my own and do not represent the
official positions of my employer the US Department of Labor or OSHA.
Kevin Robinson
Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
________________________________
From: Richard Nute <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 8:15:36 PM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [PSES] Mandatory certification
Hi Regan:
Yes, if that piece of equipment is not within any NRTL purview.
Best regards,
Rich
From: Regan Arndt <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 1:22 PM
To: Richard Nute <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PSES] Mandatory certification
Hi Rich.
If you are referring to clause (2):
(2) With respect to an installation or equipment of a kind that no nationally
recognized testing laboratory accepts, certifies, lists, labels, or determines
to be safe, if it is inspected or tested by another Federal agency, or by a
State, municipal, or other local authority responsible for enforcing
occupational safety provisions of the National Electrical Code, and found in
compliance with the provisions of the National Electrical Code as applied in
this subpart; or
Correct me if I am wrong, "BUT ONLY" if that piece of equipment cannot be
certified by the NRTL's, which is almost rare nowadays when you look at the
extensive scope of accreditation of the NRTL's.
Regan
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe)<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Mike Cantwell <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
David Heald <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe)<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Mike Cantwell <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
David Heald <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to
unsubscribe)<http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html>
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Mike Cantwell <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
David Heald <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to
<[email protected]>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <[email protected]>
Mike Cantwell <[email protected]>
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher: <[email protected]>
David Heald: <[email protected]>
