Lauren,
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.
<<<krobinson>>> Correct. As Field inspections/certifications are not a
function of OSHA's NRTL Program, if an NRTL is offering such an evaluation
(and most do), they are issuing it based on the reputation of their brand,
or possibly as accredited by an accreditation body to NFPA 790 & 791. They
are however not operating as an NRTL.
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.
<<<krobinson>>> OSHA has not said officially (in the form of an official
interpretation)
https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/standardnumber/1910 to
what end a manufacturer must go to prove that no NRTL can certify a piece
of equipment, but yes, that is generally correct that you should reach out
to all of the NRTLs before invoking this clause.
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.
<<<krobinson>>> Correct.
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 3:52 PM <lauren.cr...@us.tel.com> wrote:
> 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 <kevinrobinso...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, February 21, 2020 10:49 AM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> *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 robinson.ke...@dol.gov, 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 <bkundew...@gmail.com> 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 <kevinrobinso...@gmail.com>
> 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 <ri...@ieee.org>
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 20, 2020 8:15:36 PM
> *To:* EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG <EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> *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 <reganar...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 20, 2020 1:22 PM
> *To:* Richard Nute <ri...@ieee.org>
> *Cc:* EMC-PSTC@listserv.ieee.org
> *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; o*r
>
>
>
> 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 <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> 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 <sdoug...@ieee.org>
> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org>
> David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com>
>
> -
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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 <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> 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 <sdoug...@ieee.org>
> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org>
> David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com>
>
> -
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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 <
> emc-p...@ieee.org>
>
> 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 <sdoug...@ieee.org>
> Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>
>
> For policy questions, send mail to:
> Jim Bacher <j.bac...@ieee.org>
> David Heald <dhe...@gmail.com>
>
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
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
<emc-p...@ieee.org>
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 <sdoug...@ieee.org>
Mike Cantwell <mcantw...@ieee.org>
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher: <j.bac...@ieee.org>
David Heald: <dhe...@gmail.com>
