Re: [PSES] Certification of Unique Equipment
Hi Kevin, Thanks for the input. Does OSHA provide any guidance on what test data can be considered sufficient to demonstrate safety in order to satisfy item 3? On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 7:06 PM, Kevin Robinson kevinrobinso...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Rick, I work in the office that administer's OSHA's NRTL Program, so my answer will be focused exclusively on product safety of equipment intended for use in a U.S. workplace. OSHA only has regulatory authority over employers, so from OSHA's perspective, you as an equipment manufacturer have no legal requirement to have your equipment tested or certified. The employer (your customers) have the legal requirement to demonstrate to OSHA that the equipment is Acceptable as defined in 29 CFR 1910.399 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2014-title29-vol5/pdf/CFR-2014-title29-vol5-sec1910-399.pdf which reads: Acceptable. An installation or equipment is acceptable to the Assistant Secretary of Labor, and approved within the meaning of this subpart S: (1) If it is accepted, or certified, or listed, or labeled, or otherwise determined to be safe by a nationally recognized testing laboratory recognized pursuant to §1910.7; or (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 (3) With respect to custom-made equipment or related installations that are designed, fabricated for, and intended for use by a particular customer, if it is determined to be safe for its intended use by its manufacturer on the basis of test data which the employer keeps and makes available for inspection to the Assistant Secretary and his authorized representatives. However, as you are likely aware, most manufacturers take on the burden of having their products certified to minimize liability, to minimize problems with local inspectors, and as a selling point to their clients. One of a kind equipment would fall under item 3 above. To be acceptable (to OSHA), you as the manufacturer must evaluate and test the equipment and provide the data to your customer so they can provide it to OSHA if asked. While there has been no official interpretation, the general feeling within OSHA is if you make 1 product, you are fine with option 3 above. If you make 2, you now must comply with option 1 above (certified by an NRTL). Of course, the requirements imposed by a local AHJ may be different, and my responses do not consider any liability risks. If you have nay further questions, feel free to contact me at my OSHA account: Kevin Robinson OSHA NRTL Program robinson.ke...@dol.gov 202-693-1911 On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Rick Busche rick.bus...@qnergy.com wrote: It is always my desire to provide products that are CE Marked for Europe and NRTL listed for North America. That said, I continue to find products delivered for our own production environment that carry no safety marking that I can identify. I have discussed this concern with other engineers who worked in previous companies who indicated that they NEVER were required to have certification on their products. As I understand it I could deliver a one of a kind system to a unique customer without certification in North America. At what point is certification required? Is it based on the quantity of systems, the customer, the AHJ, OSHA or marketing? Is it allowable to ship a unique, prototype system to a specialized customer, without NRTL? Thanks Rick - 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 LT; emc-p...@ieee.orgGT; 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 LT;sdoug...@ieee.orgGT; Mike Cantwell LT;mcantw...@ieee.orgGT; For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher LT;j.bac...@ieee.orgGT; David Heald LT;dhe...@gmail.comGT; - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc
Re: [PSES] Certification of Unique Equipment
Hi I would suspect that someone supplying equipment, clearly designed for use by employees of a company, shpould meet the below requirements regadless as to supply equipment not meeting this would deem the product unsuitable for use. In such a suituation the user would likely have a claim against the supplier. John From: Scott Aldous [mailto:0220f70c299a-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org] Sent: 15 December 2014 16:35 To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Certification of Unique Equipment Hi Kevin, Thanks for the input. Does OSHA provide any guidance on what test data can be considered sufficient to demonstrate safety in order to satisfy item 3? On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 7:06 PM, Kevin Robinson kevinrobinso...@gmail.commailto:kevinrobinso...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Rick, I work in the office that administer's OSHA's NRTL Program, so my answer will be focused exclusively on product safety of equipment intended for use in a U.S. workplace. OSHA only has regulatory authority over employers, so from OSHA's perspective, you as an equipment manufacturer have no legal requirement to have your equipment tested or certified. The employer (your customers) have the legal requirement to demonstrate to OSHA that the equipment is Acceptable as defined in 29 CFR 1910.399 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2014-title29-vol5/pdf/CFR-2014-title29-vol5-sec1910-399.pdf which reads: Acceptable. An installation or equipment is acceptable to the Assistant Secretary of Labor, and approved within the meaning of this subpart S: (1) If it is accepted, or certified, or listed, or labeled, or otherwise determined to be safe by a nationally recognized testing laboratory recognized pursuant to §1910.7; or (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 (3) With respect to custom-made equipment or related installations that are designed, fabricated for, and intended for use by a particular customer, if it is determined to be safe for its intended use by its manufacturer on the basis of test data which the employer keeps and makes available for inspection to the Assistant Secretary and his authorized representatives. However, as you are likely aware, most manufacturers take on the burden of having their products certified to minimize liability, to minimize problems with local inspectors, and as a selling point to their clients. One of a kind equipment would fall under item 3 above. To be acceptable (to OSHA), you as the manufacturer must evaluate and test the equipment and provide the data to your customer so they can provide it to OSHA if asked. While there has been no official interpretation, the general feeling within OSHA is if you make 1 product, you are fine with option 3 above. If you make 2, you now must comply with option 1 above (certified by an NRTL). Of course, the requirements imposed by a local AHJ may be different, and my responses do not consider any liability risks. If you have nay further questions, feel free to contact me at my OSHA account: Kevin Robinson OSHA NRTL Program robinson.ke...@dol.govmailto:robinson.ke...@dol.gov 202-693-1911tel:202-693-1911 On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Rick Busche rick.bus...@qnergy.commailto:rick.bus...@qnergy.com wrote: It is always my desire to provide products that are CE Marked for Europe and NRTL listed for North America. That said, I continue to find products delivered for our own production environment that carry no safety marking that I can identify. I have discussed this concern with other engineers who worked in previous companies who indicated that they NEVER were required to have certification on their products. As I understand it I could deliver a one of a kind system to a unique customer without certification in North America. At what point is certification required? Is it based on the quantity of systems, the customer, the AHJ, OSHA or marketing? Is it allowable to ship a unique, prototype system to a specialized customer, without NRTL? Thanks Rick - 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 LT;emc-p...@ieee.orgmailto:emc-p...@ieee.orgGT; 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
Re: [PSES] Certification of Unique Equipment
Rick, et al, You have produced an itch that has already provided some good comments regarding how to handle them. Here's a little more info based upon my experience. The US rules are quite clear and well described by Kevin Robinson; the US enforcement is the key issue and depends quite heavily upon whether or not your customer gets a permit for electrical changes that might be needed to install your equipment in that location. If the formal permit process is invoked then the AHJ electrical inspector will be looking at your equipment to see if it is 'listed labeled' before accepting it as part of the installation. This 'small detail' catches up quite a few installation projects; it's quite frustrating to have to deal with all of this long after the equipment has been shipped away. A common solution is to get an acceptable NRTL or state(-by-state) approved lab to do a Field Inspection and label the product as being acceptable under the NEC. This activity transfers the equipment inspection away from the AHJ inspector to another body which claims to have more experience in determining adequacy of equipment. This Field Inspection Labelling can only be done at the installation site. A common requirement is to evaluate the equipment to NFPA 79, Electrical Standard for Industrial Machinery; this standard is harmonized with EN 60204, Electrical Safety of Machines. The difference in the Euro and the NA practices need to be understood to properly apply the requirements for each respective market. It is possible, working the a Field Labeling supplier who has National (or international) offices to get them to do a preliminary inspection at the factory to ensure that there are no outstanding issues that will 'bite you' during the installation on-site inspection and labeling (the preliminary results/report are shared with the person doing the final inspection to smooth the path). The technical report developed (which describes the machine and includes some test results) is provided to the local AHJ inspector as proof of conformance to the needed requirements. Finally, this Field Labeling only applies to that one particular machine and the process will have to be repeated for any other similar unique machines. Hopefully the unique equipment customer knows ahead of time that the installation will be AHJ inspected and will let the unique equipment supplier know up-front that the equipment will be subjected to inspection and that a proper NEC certification will be required. In the same way that it is quite a bit of work to CE mark one unique machine, this is a similar process. If this needed certification comes up after the fact at the point of installation there is a lot of unhappiness on both sides; the customer is chagrined in having the installation stalled while these details are being straightened out and the manufacturer is unhappy to have to spend the additional, unplanned $$$ to get this certification done before being paid for the fine work to provide this unique capability to this customer. I'd be surprised if most equipment manufacturers don't get caught up in this problem from time to time. To insure adequacy of the equipment that your company buys the purchasing process should include wording in the procurement specification that the equipment must be properly Listed and Labelled as compliant with the NEC requirements. Hopefully this provides some detail that will be helpful as the cases arise. :) br, Pete Peter E Perkins, PE Principal Product Safety Engineer PO Box 23427 Tigard, ORe 97281-3427 503/452-1201 fone/fax p.perk...@ieee.org From: Rick Busche [mailto:rick.bus...@qnergy.com] Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 12:33 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Certification of Unique Equipment It is always my desire to provide products that are CE Marked for Europe and NRTL listed for North America. That said, I continue to find products delivered for our own production environment that carry no safety marking that I can identify. I have discussed this concern with other engineers who worked in previous companies who indicated that they NEVER were required to have certification on their products. As I understand it I could deliver a one of a kind system to a unique customer without certification in North America. At what point is certification required? Is it based on the quantity of systems, the customer, the AHJ, OSHA or marketing? Is it allowable to ship a unique, prototype system to a specialized customer, without NRTL? Thanks Rick - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post
Re: [PSES] Certification of Unique Equipment
And I'll throw in one more twist, We have customers who relocate existing equipment they have had in operation for many years that to a new facility. The new facility often must have all the equipment installed for final inspection before COO is issued. The AHJ will fail the inspection when they find the older equipment does not have a listing mark on it. Then the customer has a mad rush to get the equipment field labeled that they assumed was fine all along. -Dave From: Pete Perkins [mailto:0061f3f32d0c-dmarc-requ...@ieee.org] Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 1:27 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Certification of Unique Equipment Rick, et al, You have produced an itch that has already provided some good comments regarding how to handle them. Here's a little more info based upon my experience. The US rules are quite clear and well described by Kevin Robinson; the US enforcement is the key issue and depends quite heavily upon whether or not your customer gets a permit for electrical changes that might be needed to install your equipment in that location. If the formal permit process is invoked then the AHJ electrical inspector will be looking at your equipment to see if it is 'listed labeled' before accepting it as part of the installation. This 'small detail' catches up quite a few installation projects; it's quite frustrating to have to deal with all of this long after the equipment has been shipped away. A common solution is to get an acceptable NRTL or state(-by-state) approved lab to do a Field Inspection and label the product as being acceptable under the NEC. This activity transfers the equipment inspection away from the AHJ inspector to another body which claims to have more experience in determining adequacy of equipment. This Field Inspection Labelling can only be done at the installation site. A common requirement is to evaluate the equipment to NFPA 79, Electrical Standard for Industrial Machinery; this standard is harmonized with EN 60204, Electrical Safety of Machines. The difference in the Euro and the NA practices need to be understood to properly apply the requirements for each respective market. It is possible, working the a Field Labeling supplier who has National (or international) offices to get them to do a preliminary inspection at the factory to ensure that there are no outstanding issues that will 'bite you' during the installation on-site inspection and labeling (the preliminary results/report are shared with the person doing the final inspection to smooth the path). The technical report developed (which describes the machine and includes some test results) is provided to the local AHJ inspector as proof of conformance to the needed requirements. Finally, this Field Labeling only applies to that one particular machine and the process will have to be repeated for any other similar unique machines. Hopefully the unique equipment customer knows ahead of time that the installation will be AHJ inspected and will let the unique equipment supplier know up-front that the equipment will be subjected to inspection and that a proper NEC certification will be required. In the same way that it is quite a bit of work to CE mark one unique machine, this is a similar process. If this needed certification comes up after the fact at the point of installation there is a lot of unhappiness on both sides; the customer is chagrined in having the installation stalled while these details are being straightened out and the manufacturer is unhappy to have to spend the additional, unplanned $$$ to get this certification done before being paid for the fine work to provide this unique capability to this customer. I'd be surprised if most equipment manufacturers don't get caught up in this problem from time to time. To insure adequacy of the equipment that your company buys the purchasing process should include wording in the procurement specification that the equipment must be properly Listed and Labelled as compliant with the NEC requirements. Hopefully this provides some detail that will be helpful as the cases arise. :) br, Pete Peter E Perkins, PE Principal Product Safety Engineer PO Box 23427 Tigard, ORe 97281-3427 503/452-1201 fone/fax p.perk...@ieee.orgmailto:p.perk...@ieee.org From: Rick Busche [mailto:rick.bus...@qnergy.com] Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 12:33 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Certification of Unique Equipment It is always my desire to provide products that are CE Marked for Europe and NRTL listed for North America. That said, I continue to find products delivered for our own production environment that carry no safety marking that I can identify. I have discussed this concern with other
Re: [PSES] Certification of Unique Equipment
There are several federal agencies that enforce safety regulations for specific types of workplaces in the U.S. (FAA, DOE, DOI,etc), but only the Dept of Labor has the general worker protection mandate by statutory law. Others have their authority through adjudication and administrative law, where enforcement is an 'ancillary' process. The respective agencies for Canada and Mexico were specified in my original reply, and have (somewhat) similar infrastructure and procedural systems as the U.S. DOL. The Canadian labor safety regulations are enforced by a governmental 'corporation'. Their labor law says something similar to The design, construction, and install of all electrical equipment shall comply with CEC part I if reasonably practicable (do not remember exact phrase but see section 8). NOMs, via the STPs are a bit more circuitous for electrical equipment certifications, but they exist as pro forma requirements. Brian -Original Message- From: Nyffenegger, Dave [mailto:dave.nyffeneg...@bhemail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 6:34 PM To: Brian Oconnell; EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: Certification of Unique Equipment In my research I have found only OSHA covers safety compliance regulations nationally in the US. And OSHA enforces their regulations on the employer not the manufacturer. Of course FCC requires compliance for EMC in the US but that can be self-certified. OSHA 29CFR1910 defines many things that must be approved and Subpart S-Electrical 1910.399 defines approved as Acceptable. An installation or equipment is acceptable to the Assistant Secretary of Labor, and approved within the meaning of this Subpart S: (1) If it is accepted, or certified, or listed, or labeled, or otherwise determined to be safe by a nationally recognized testing laboratory recognized pursuant to § 1910.7; or (3) With respect to custom-made equipment or related installations that are designed, fabricated for, and intended for use by a particular customer, if it is determined to be safe for its intended use by its manufacturer on the basis of test data which the employer keeps and makes available for inspection to the Assistant Secretary and his authorized representatives. Approved. Acceptable to the authority enforcing this subpart. The authority enforcing this subpart is the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. The definition of acceptable indicates what is acceptable to the Assistant Secretary of Labor, and therefore approved within the meaning of this subpart. This directly addresses your question on one of a kind system to a unique customer . I guess it's up to the manufacturer to determine what test data is relevant, I've not found further clarification on that from OSHA yet. Perhaps others can chime in on that. Beyond that you still need to satisfy the AHJ requirements. For a specific customer at a specific location you'd have to research what that may be and whether NRTL certification is required or not. The US NEC is national but it's enforcement is by the AHJ which can choose to do what it want's with it. I've not identified the specific requirements for Canada yet other than CEC CSA C22.1 which I think is similar to the US NEC which requires that all electrical utilization systems are listed, labeled, identified or approved as compliant to the requirements of relevant electrical safety standards. This statement to me reads that a manufacturer could self-certify to the safety standards for US NEC or Canada CEC. -Dave -Original Message- From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 5:18 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Certification of Unique Equipment A simple generic answer would not be practical for most cases. Depends on intended end user and intended end use. For EMC, see 47CFR, Ch I, Subch A, Pt2, Subpt K (specifically §2.1204)for import of stuff. For U.S. safety of products in the workplace, see 29CFR1910. Many, perhaps most, design engineers are not aware of North American (OSHA/CCOHS/STPS) requirements for safety of equipment and buildings in the workplace, so not surprising that typical Joe Engineer is not aware of compliance stuff. Nobody cares about 'certification' until there is an accident, which is when your insurance company is legally allowed to abandon its client due to failure to conform. As for never seeing a safety auditor in the workplace, the federal safety agencies tend to focus on work sites having known problems. State and local agencies may focus on work sites where the probability for extraction of fees and fines are higher. For what point is certification required depends on the local building code enforcement for some stuff, and various state and federal laws for other stuff. For equipment not intended to be placed on the market, and clearly marked for evaluation, there are few
Re: [PSES] Certification of Unique Equipment
A simple generic answer would not be practical for most cases. Depends on intended end user and intended end use. For EMC, see 47CFR, Ch I, Subch A, Pt2, Subpt K (specifically §2.1204)for import of stuff. For U.S. safety of products in the workplace, see 29CFR1910. Many, perhaps most, design engineers are not aware of North American (OSHA/CCOHS/STPS) requirements for safety of equipment and buildings in the workplace, so not surprising that typical Joe Engineer is not aware of compliance stuff. Nobody cares about 'certification' until there is an accident, which is when your insurance company is legally allowed to abandon its client due to failure to conform. As for never seeing a safety auditor in the workplace, the federal safety agencies tend to focus on work sites having known problems. State and local agencies may focus on work sites where the probability for extraction of fees and fines are higher. For what point is certification required depends on the local building code enforcement for some stuff, and various state and federal laws for other stuff. For equipment not intended to be placed on the market, and clearly marked for evaluation, there are few federal requirements for any registered body to have performed an assessment where the usage is controlled for access and exposure (assuming medical or hazmat is not scoped). This is more than a compliance engineering issue - there are legal risks, some of which cannot be reliably mitigated in North America. In any case, once the equipment is sold for industrial use, even if a singular unit, it is typically subject to the federal regulations scoped for EMC and for the safety of equipment in the workplace. Brian From: Rick Busche [mailto:rick.bus...@qnergy.com] Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 12:33 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Certification of Unique Equipment It is always my desire to provide products that are CE Marked for Europe and NRTL listed for North America. That said, I continue to find products delivered for our own production environment that carry no safety marking that I can identify. I have discussed this concern with other engineers who worked in previous companies who indicated that they NEVER were required to have certification on their products. As I understand it I could deliver a one of a kind system to a unique customer without certification in North America. At what point is certification required? Is it based on the quantity of systems, the customer, the AHJ, OSHA or marketing? Is it allowable to ship a unique, prototype system to a specialized customer, without NRTL? Thanks Rick - 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
Re: [PSES] Certification of Unique Equipment
In my research I have found only OSHA covers safety compliance regulations nationally in the US. And OSHA enforces their regulations on the employer not the manufacturer. Of course FCC requires compliance for EMC in the US but that can be self-certified. OSHA 29CFR1910 defines many things that must be approved and Subpart S-Electrical 1910.399 defines approved as Acceptable. An installation or equipment is acceptable to the Assistant Secretary of Labor, and approved within the meaning of this Subpart S: (1) If it is accepted, or certified, or listed, or labeled, or otherwise determined to be safe by a nationally recognized testing laboratory recognized pursuant to § 1910.7; or (3) With respect to custom-made equipment or related installations that are designed, fabricated for, and intended for use by a particular customer, if it is determined to be safe for its intended use by its manufacturer on the basis of test data which the employer keeps and makes available for inspection to the Assistant Secretary and his authorized representatives. Approved. Acceptable to the authority enforcing this subpart. The authority enforcing this subpart is the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. The definition of acceptable indicates what is acceptable to the Assistant Secretary of Labor, and therefore approved within the meaning of this subpart. This directly addresses your question on one of a kind system to a unique customer . I guess it's up to the manufacturer to determine what test data is relevant, I've not found further clarification on that from OSHA yet. Perhaps others can chime in on that. Beyond that you still need to satisfy the AHJ requirements. For a specific customer at a specific location you'd have to research what that may be and whether NRTL certification is required or not. The US NEC is national but it's enforcement is by the AHJ which can choose to do what it want's with it. I've not identified the specific requirements for Canada yet other than CEC CSA C22.1 which I think is similar to the US NEC which requires that all electrical utilization systems are listed, labeled, identified or approved as compliant to the requirements of relevant electrical safety standards. This statement to me reads that a manufacturer could self-certify to the safety standards for US NEC or Canada CEC. -Dave -Original Message- From: Brian Oconnell [mailto:oconne...@tamuracorp.com] Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 5:18 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: Re: [PSES] Certification of Unique Equipment A simple generic answer would not be practical for most cases. Depends on intended end user and intended end use. For EMC, see 47CFR, Ch I, Subch A, Pt2, Subpt K (specifically §2.1204)for import of stuff. For U.S. safety of products in the workplace, see 29CFR1910. Many, perhaps most, design engineers are not aware of North American (OSHA/CCOHS/STPS) requirements for safety of equipment and buildings in the workplace, so not surprising that typical Joe Engineer is not aware of compliance stuff. Nobody cares about 'certification' until there is an accident, which is when your insurance company is legally allowed to abandon its client due to failure to conform. As for never seeing a safety auditor in the workplace, the federal safety agencies tend to focus on work sites having known problems. State and local agencies may focus on work sites where the probability for extraction of fees and fines are higher. For what point is certification required depends on the local building code enforcement for some stuff, and various state and federal laws for other stuff. For equipment not intended to be placed on the market, and clearly marked for evaluation, there are few federal requirements for any registered body to have performed an assessment where the usage is controlled for access and exposure (assuming medical or hazmat is not scoped). This is more than a compliance engineering issue - there are legal risks, some of which cannot be reliably mitigated in North America. In any case, once the equipment is sold for industrial use, even if a singular unit, it is typically subject to the federal regulations scoped for EMC and for the safety of equipment in the workplace. Brian From: Rick Busche [mailto:rick.bus...@qnergy.com] Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 12:33 PM To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: [PSES] Certification of Unique Equipment It is always my desire to provide products that are CE Marked for Europe and NRTL listed for North America. That said, I continue to find products delivered for our own production environment that carry no safety marking that I can identify. I have discussed this concern with other engineers who worked in previous companies who indicated that they NEVER were required to have certification on their products. As I understand it I could deliver a one of a kind system
Re: [PSES] Certification of Unique Equipment
Hi Rick, I work in the office that administer's OSHA's NRTL Program, so my answer will be focused exclusively on product safety of equipment intended for use in a U.S. workplace. OSHA only has regulatory authority over employers, so from OSHA's perspective, you as an equipment manufacturer have no legal requirement to have your equipment tested or certified. The employer (your customers) have the legal requirement to demonstrate to OSHA that the equipment is Acceptable as defined in 29 CFR 1910.399 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2014-title29-vol5/pdf/CFR-2014-title29-vol5-sec1910-399.pdf which reads: Acceptable. An installation or equipment is acceptable to the Assistant Secretary of Labor, and approved within the meaning of this subpart S: (1) If it is accepted, or certified, or listed, or labeled, or otherwise determined to be safe by a nationally recognized testing laboratory recognized pursuant to §1910.7; or (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 (3) With respect to custom-made equipment or related installations that are designed, fabricated for, and intended for use by a particular customer, if it is determined to be safe for its intended use by its manufacturer on the basis of test data which the employer keeps and makes available for inspection to the Assistant Secretary and his authorized representatives. However, as you are likely aware, most manufacturers take on the burden of having their products certified to minimize liability, to minimize problems with local inspectors, and as a selling point to their clients. One of a kind equipment would fall under item 3 above. To be acceptable (to OSHA), you as the manufacturer must evaluate and test the equipment and provide the data to your customer so they can provide it to OSHA if asked. While there has been no official interpretation, the general feeling within OSHA is if you make 1 product, you are fine with option 3 above. If you make 2, you now must comply with option 1 above (certified by an NRTL). Of course, the requirements imposed by a local AHJ may be different, and my responses do not consider any liability risks. If you have nay further questions, feel free to contact me at my OSHA account: Kevin Robinson OSHA NRTL Program robinson.ke...@dol.gov 202-693-1911 On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Rick Busche rick.bus...@qnergy.com wrote: It is always my desire to provide products that are CE Marked for Europe and NRTL listed for North America. That said, I continue to find products delivered for our own production environment that carry no safety marking that I can identify. I have discussed this concern with other engineers who worked in previous companies who indicated that they NEVER were required to have certification on their products. As I understand it I could deliver a one of a kind system to a unique customer without certification in North America. At what point is certification required? Is it based on the quantity of systems, the customer, the AHJ, OSHA or marketing? Is it allowable to ship a unique, prototype system to a specialized customer, without NRTL? Thanks Rick - 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 LT; emc-p...@ieee.orgGT; 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 LT;sdoug...@ieee.orgGT; Mike Cantwell LT;mcantw...@ieee.orgGT; For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher LT;j.bac...@ieee.orgGT; David Heald LT;dhe...@gmail.comGT; - 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
