| <<< Back to
NRTL Updates - NRTL Update #10 (March 29, 2004) |
Printing Instructions
|
NRTL Update #10 (March 29, 2004)
|
Hello Everyone,
We wish you a belated Happy New Year and thank you for your continued interest in OSHA's NRTL Program.
We sent our last update, NRTL Update #9, to you last March. Since that time, we have encountered a number of issues and topics that we want to bring to your attention. However, to reduce the length of this update, we have not included all of these new items. We intend to send you another e-mail update in the near future to present the remaining items.
In this update, we first provide some background information regarding our use of the terms "policy" or "policies". Next, we present the new issues and topics and then revisit three items that we covered in the last update. Two of the new items included below (#3 and #4) are proposed changes in our policies, and we seek your informal comments on them. Please e-mail any comments to me. We would appreciate receiving any comments by Tuesday, April 20. If you want to discuss these proposed changes, for item #3, please contact Ken Klouse, and for item #4, Dave Loebach).
Please contact me if you need any of our previous updates. We will be making all of our updates available on the NRTL Program's website in the near future.
As usual, please distribute this update to everyone within your organization that may need the information. Thank you.
Background Information on NRTL Program policies
In previous updates, we have referred to our "policy" or "policies" in a few of the items we presented, and will do so in this update. We want to make it clear exactly what we mean when we use these terms. Many of our policies relating to the NRTL program are contained in a document called the NRTL Program Directive, CPL 1-0.3. This document, is available on our program's website). Appendix C of the NRTL Program Directive sets forth most of the major policies of the NRTL Program. Other major policies are found in documents that are incorporated by reference in Appendix C. Two of these documents are of particular note: (1) the NRTL Program Application Guidelines; and (2) OSHA's March 9, 1995 Federal Register (FR) notice on Supplemental Programs (60 FR 12980). Both of these documents are also available on our program's web site. The Guidelines describe the information that must be submitted in an application and provide a detailed listing of the criteria we use for evaluating applications. The Supplemental Programs notice describes 8 programs (designated as Programs 2 through 9) that NRTLs may be authorized to use in order to accept test data, product evaluations, and certain services from sources outside the NRTL itself. The notice spells out the criteria that an NRTL must meet in order for OSHA to authorize it to use each of the supplemental programs. Many of you have already been approved to use one or more of these programs.
Occasionally we encounter questions that are not specifically or completely addressed in any of our policies. One of the purposes of these e-mail updates is to inform you of these situations as they arise, and to provide you with our responses to any issues that have been raised. We consider these responses to constitute our interim policies on these issues until such time as we can amend the NRTL Program Directive.
The present update does not establish any new interim policies of this sort, but it does attempt to clarify several current policies that are already set forth in the NRTL Program Directive and related documents.
- UL 913 test standard change issue
This item is intended for those of you who are fairly knowledgeable about the testing and other technical requirements under UL 913 Intrinsically Safe Apparatus and Associated Apparatus for Use in Class I, II, and III, Division 1, Hazardous (Classified) Locations.
Recently, we became aware that the 6th edition of UL 913 (dated August 8, 2002) contains labeling requirements that could be misinterpreted by personnel not completely familiar with the development of the standard. UL 913 requires that warning labels be applied to intrinsically safe products to show whether or not "live maintenance" is permitted, i.e., maintenance that is performed while the equipment is still energized. If an intrinsically-safe product has infallible circuits that have not been tested, UL 913 requires the product to have a warning label that prohibits live maintenance on that product. We have obtained the following clarification of the labeling requirements of the 6th edition of UL 913 from Edward M. Briesch of UL:
UL's intent in the application of the requirements in the new edition of UL 913 and the corresponding effective dates for certain paragraphs is as follows:
- If a manufacturer submits a product today, includes infallible circuits in their design, and does not specify live maintenance procedures, then the spark test apparatus is not applied across infallible separations per 8.1.1.4.b), and the manufacturer is required to include the warning label in accordance with 38.2.a.5 at the time of Listing.
- If a manufacturer submits a product today, includes infallible circuits in their design, and specifies live maintenance procedures, then the spark test apparatus is applied across infallible separations per 8.1.1.4.c), and the manufacturer is required to include the warning label in accordance with 38.2.a.6 at the time of Listing. In addition, the manufacturer's instructions for live maintenance procedures are reviewed and a redesign of the equipment may be required.
- Products listed to the previous edition of the standard were not exempt from spark testing based on "infallible circuits". The new edition of UL 913 now contains guidance concerning the introduction of the spark test mechanism based on whether live maintenance is specified for the equipment. The appropriate warning requirements 38.2.a.5 or 38.2.a.6 will have to be included on these products by the effective date.
In reviewing your comments and the bulletin announcing the effective date of Clauses 8.1.1.4 c), 38.2 a. 5. and 38.2 a. 6. we realize that UL's intentions concerning live maintenance requirements may have been clearer if Clause 8.1.1.4 b) had also been included in the effective date. However, UL is, and will be applying the requirements as stated above.
We hope this addresses your concerns on this matter but, should it not, we will be glad to consider whatever else is necessary to address the issues.
Mr. Briesch is UL's Principal Engineer for Hazardous Locations. If you have any questions about the above discussion, feel free to contact him at Edward.M.Briesch@us.ul.com, or by phone at (847)-664-3174.
- Clarification on accepting test data for hazardous location products
In an earlier update, we noted that our policy (under Supplemental Program 5) prohibits NRTLs from accepting "client-generated" test data (i.e., test data generated by a product manufacturer but not witnessed by the NRTL) and using it to certify any product intended for use in hazardous locations. Please note that this restriction addresses not only explosion or ignition testing, but could also address fire, shock, construction, temperature, or cosmetic provisions of the hazloc standard.
We have been asked whether NRTLs may accept client-generated test data for the limited purposes of meeting a provision or clause of a hazardous location (hazloc) test standard if that test data is currently being used to meet exactly the same provision of an ordinary location test standard. As an exception to the general prohibition, NRTLs approved to use Program 5 may accept such test data from qualified manufacturers for hazloc products, but only if such data is used for a test that is identical to the test that would be used to certify the product for ordinary location use. The test data must have been generated for that ordinary location standard, must reference the applicable test provision of that standard, and must be clearly identified as to its origin. Because hazloc testing is usually highly-specialized, we do not anticipate that many ordinary location test results will qualify for this exception under Program 6.
Client-generated test data that does not meet the above criteria must not be accepted under Program 5 for hazloc certification purposes. In those cases, the data must be either generated by the NRTL, witnessed by the NRTL, if it is approved for Program 4, or generated by and accepted from an independent laboratory, if the NRTL is approved for Program 2.
- Use of the IECEx Scheme under Program 8 (informal comments requested)
One of our supplemental programs, Program 8, permits acceptance of data generated under the "IEC-CB" Scheme. In case you are unfamiliar with the abbreviation, it stands for the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Certification Bodies. The IEC-CB scheme is an international system that specifies rules for the acceptance of test data reports and is administered by the IEC. Under Program 8, NRTLs do not need to qualify and monitor the IEC-CB independent member laboratories, which NRTLs would normally need to do to accept test data from other independent laboratories under Program 2. Instead, Program 8 relies on the qualification and monitoring of the laboratory based on the CB control programs. Program 8 also requires certain additional controls (e.g., NRTLs must physically evaluate each product - not just accept a certificate), and we urge you to review all the criteria for this program if it is currently under your scope of recognition.
The IEC also administers the "IECEx" Scheme, which covers products certified for use in "explosive atmospheres (Ex equipment)", i.e., certified for use in hazardous locations. Manufacturers of Ex equipment who use the IECEx Scheme are able to obtain certificates of conformity that are accepted at national level[s] in participating countries. While the IECEx Scheme is similar to the CB scheme in many respects, it requires additional expertise and controls that are specific to hazardous locations product testing. Our current policies do not yet authorize NRTLs to use the IECEx Scheme.
We are considering whether to modify our current policy to permit NRTLs to make limited use of the IECEx Scheme for hazloc testing. To be approved to use this scheme, NRTLs would have to meet the following criteria:
- Comply with all existing criteria under Program 8.
- Have written procedures to demonstrate that the product meets the requirements of the acceptable OSHA recognized hazloc standard including the testing required to evaluate the product to the appropriate US deviations. NOTE: The OSHA NRTL Program does not yet recognize IEC Standards or the IEC Zone classification system for hazardous location products.
- Have written procedures to ensure that the test data was generated ONLY in-house at a test laboratory that has been evaluated by the NRTL, or evaluated under the IECEx Scheme.
Please provide your informal comments on this proposed change. We will keep you informed of our progress in this area in future updates.
As an aside, please note that NRTLs may only use Program 8 to generate test data for use under that Program. You should further note that you must still obtain and retain copies of the test data sheets and other supporting documents for test reports. This applies now for the IEC-CB Scheme and would apply to the IECEx Scheme if and when we authorize its use.
- Witnessed Testing Data Policy (informal comments requested)
We are also considering a change to our criteria for authorizing NRTLs to use Program 4, which permits the NRTL to accept "witnessed testing data." Under this program, qualified personnel of the NRTL actually observe particular product testing as it is being performed at a testing location that the NRTL has qualified. The current policy is described in the March 9, 1995 Federal Register notice. We are planning to change the policy as follows:
Laboratories wishing to conduct witnessed testing must meet the following criteria:
- Have a written program to qualify test sites to perform the testing;
- Qualify the test site within one year prior to the testing; and
- Train the personnel who will perform the witnessed testing, following a program that covers the specific testing procedures that may be witnessed.
In addition, qualifying of the witness test site would need to include an on-site survey to determine that the site has all the essential elements needed to assure that products can be tested there according to the appropriate test standard.
If personnel other than those located at a recognized NRTL site are used to witness the test or to qualify the site, the written program would need to establish the qualifications of those performing the functions and the oversight of the program. Management and oversight of the witnessed testing program would need to be conducted by personnel located at a recognized NRTL site. Records of the following activities would need to be maintained at a recognized NRTL site: qualifications of personnel involved in witnessed testing; qualification of the witness test site, including the on-site surveys; and oversight activities.
For purposes of this policy, we would consider an individual to be "located" at a recognized NRTL site if s/he has an office space there that s/he occupies more than 50% of her or his regular work schedule and has his or her personnel records physically stored at the site.
Please provide your informal comments on this planned change. We will keep you informed of our progress in this area in future updates.
- Corrections to product category page
Recently we updated our web page to correct or delete a few of the product categories that require approval. The changes were made to reflect recent changes in certain OSHA requirements or to clarify our previous descriptions of these product categories.. In particular, we had previously shown one product category as follows: "Windows (frames)." This description indicated that windows must be NRTL approved. In fact, approval is required only for frames of windows used in a very specific and limited application, and the category as clarified now reads as follows: "Metal frames of windows in partitions of inside acetylene generator rooms used in oxygen-fuel welding and cutting." As you can see, there is a big difference between the two descriptions. As a result of this change, "windows" has been dropped from our list of products requiring universal NRTL approval.
Two other categories that are being dropped from our list, because of changes in our requirements, are "exit components" and "spray booth overspray filters". As a consequence of dropping these categories, we are deleting the corresponding test standards for these products from our master list and from the scope of recognition of applicable NRTLs. For example, regarding windows, we are eliminating UL 9 and ASTM E2010. We will be notifying all affected NRTLs of these changes, as we have done in the past. Please note that we are also clarifying the description of two other categories that we previously listed as "Self-closing fire doors" and "Fire (B) doors."
- Field Labeling
As you may know, OSHA does not specifically include field labeling activities under the NRTL's scope of recognition. Our requirements focus on the NRTL's product certification activities, involving its listing and labeling and follow-up inspection programs for the manufacturer. By contrast, field labeling usually involves approvals of products at the place of installation. However, we have received a request to include field labeling in the scope of qualified NRTLs. We will be exploring whether to create a new supplemental program for field labeling, specifying criteria that must be met for approval to use the program, as we now do with our other supplemental programs. If we decide to move forward with such a program, we intend to make use of a document entitled "Recommended Practice and Procedure for Unlabeled Electrical Equipment Evaluation." This document was developed by the American Council for Electrical Safety (ACES), an informal informational forum that is sponsored by the American Council of Independent Laboratories (ACIL). Also, similar to the approach we are using for our proposed SNAP proposal (see item #9 below), we would develop a program description and then provide it to you for informal and then formal comment.
- Informing OSHA of NRTL changes
As you know, each NRTL must comply with our policies as part of meeting the terms of its recognition. It is incumbent on each NRTL to understand our policies and to consult those policies if it is uncertain about which one applies in a given area of its operations. When we find non-compliance with your terms of recognition or with any of our policies, we will provide you an opportunity to take corrective action. Failure to take corrective action may be a cause for revocation of your recognition, in whole or in part.
Each NRTL must notify us of any "major change" in its NRTL-related operations (i.e., a change to your key NRTL testing or certification activities) and submit appropriate details of these changes. Any such changes must be consistent with your terms of recognition and may not conflict with our NRTL Program policies. Please note that you may need to take corrective action whenever a change to your operations results in conflicts with either your terms of recognition or our NRTL Program policies. Therefore, to try to avoid such situations, we strongly encourage you to obtain our concurrence prior to making major changes to your NRTL-related operations.
- Status on SDOC notice
In our last update, we informed you that we were preparing a Request for Information (RFI), to be published in the Federal Register, regarding the Supplier's Declaration of Conformity (SDOC) and its relationship to the NRTL program. We indicated that this RFI would primarily serve as a vehicle for obtaining information and that it was NOT the commencement of any formal regulatory action, i.e., action on OSHA's part to change its requirements. At this time, the notice is still under internal review by OSHA, and we cannot yet give you an expected publication date. Once we know this date or if we have more information to share regarding its status, we will let you know.
- SNAP
In our last update, we told you about a possible change to our current policy on NRTL sites and the use of satellite facilities. That policy is paragraph X (roman numeral 10) under Appendix C of our NRTL Program Directive. Under this change, a qualified NRTL could use its satellite facilities to perform certain functions that, under the current policy, are only permitted at recognized NRTL sites. We requested your informal comments, and we thank those of you who provided them. We are now finalizing the structure of a proposed program that would implement this change in policy. We propose to call the program the Satellite Notification and Acceptance Program or SNAP. We have sent a letter to each NRTL and current applicant to discuss the SNAP proposal and solicit formal comments.
- Documentation for expansion requests
The final item from our last update concerned documents to be submitted by NRTLs for an expansion of recognition. We are providing this item again but with a couple of clarifications.
When you request an expansion for additional test standards, please make sure to submit sufficient information demonstrating your capabilities relative to the standards requested. To facilitate our review, you should identify the standards on your expansion list that are similar to those already included in your scope. For new test standards, i.e., those standards that represent a new area of testing for you under the NRTL Program, you need to submit the information detailed in the Applicable Test Standard (ATS) part of our Application Guidelines. Basically, the ATS provides a suggested format to detail the testing equipment and test procedures that will be used for each applicable section of a test standard. Although you do not need to follow our format, you need to submit the required information in the level of detail specified in the ATS. If you do not, we will have to write back to you to request it and this will delay the processing of your request. You also must submit the qualifications of personnel that will oversee and perform the testing. Examples of new areas of testing would be the testing of products under hazardous location standards when your current scope only includes ordinary location testing, or the use of standards requiring flammability testing when your current scope only includes electrical testing.
As an additional matter, if you request approval for a test standard that is new to the NRTL Program (i.e., it is not on our current master list), and that standard is not readily available to us, we will not be able to consider it for your expansion. In that case, we will inform you of this matter, and you may choose to submit the standard to us for review. We will include such a standard in the expansion only after we determine it is within your capabilities (i.e., by reviewing your applicable equipment, procedures, and personnel information, as mentioned above, or by determining that it requires capabilities comparable to those needed for standards already included under your scope).
As always, if you have any questions, please contact any member of the OSHA NRTL Program staff. If you have suggestions for topics to cover in our updates, please feel free to send them to us. Thank you.
Bernard Pasquet
OSHA
Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
|
| |
|
