| <<< Back to
NRTL Updates - NRTL Update on the MRA (May 26, 1999) |
Printing Instructions
|
NRTL Update on the MRA (May 26, 1999)
|
Hello Everyone:
I understand from conversations with several of you that there has been a lot of discussion about the current state of implementation of the electrical safety annex of the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA). Apparently, much of this conversation has taken place in meetings where OSHA has not been present-including meetings on telecom and EMC in April, as well as a more recent Trans-Atlantic Business Dialogue (TABD) meeting. As a result, we have received some reports that indicate misleading information has been disseminated about OSHA's activities, and want to make sure that the NRTLs have the most current and accurate information. We have met ourselves with our European colleagues in April, and this week had a follow-up teleconference to discuss a number of issues.
OSHA's positions on the MRA have remained consistent throughout the process, and of course our positions are motivated by our underlying concerns for maintaining the protection of US workers. The MRA establishes reciprocity for laboratories applying from the EU Member States. We do not have to go through a country-by-country determination on this issue as a result of the MRA. The MRA states that the OSHA regulations and associated procedures will apply to the EU laboratories. We negotiated the agreement in good faith, and are ready to process any complete applications we receive from the European Union (EU) through the MRA process. While it is not our policy to discuss the details of any particular application, we can tell you that to date we have not received any such complete application. We did receive a submission of 13 applications earlier this year, but they were not complete and have been returned to the Commission to obtain further information for processing purposes.
In terms of implementation, we were aware early last year that there were many misunderstandings in the EU about the NRTL Program requirements and thus the terms of implementation for the MRA. Almost a year ago, we began asking for the opportunity to have a workshop to explain these requirements to the Commission, the Member States, and potential laboratory applicants. As you know, that workshop finally took place in December 1998-just after the MRA went into effect. At that time, we gave a detailed presentation on the NRTL Program requirements.
In addition to the workshop, we developed application guidelines, including a list of documents required to process an application, and provided them to the Commission about a year ago. These guidelines are now available on our web site as well.
Despite this early provision of information, there remain misunderstandings about the NRTL Program. In addition, the EU appears to have a different interpretation of the agreement than we do. The primary issues at this point are as follows:
- Onsite Assessments by OSHA
The EU is maintaining that onsite assessments should routinely be done by the competent authorities in the EU, rather than by OSHA. There is a provision in the MRA that states that OSHA will rely on such assessments when done by competent authorities. OSHA and the US agreed to that provision on the basis that such assessments may be done prior to a laboratory being designated for consideration by OSHA-and that we would certainly review and give great credence to those assessments in our own review process. However, it was always clear in the negotiations that these assessments do not supplant the procedures OSHA follows under 1910.7, including performance of onsite assessments. In other words, the EU is free to follow whatever process it deems necessary to select the laboratories in Europe they wish to designate to us under the MRA. However, we will apply our regulations and procedures when processing the applications received.
OSHA has made it clear to the EU that we are more than willing to do joint onsite visits with representatives from the competent authority in the country where the lab is located. We also believe that it is a possibility that sometime in the future, after we gain experience with procedures in the Member States and they learn more about the requirements of the NRTL Program, we may rely on them for some of this work. But that possibility is some years into the implementation process and will not apply to the initial laboratory processing.
- Conformance with ISO 45000 or Other Standards
The MRA discusses consistency with ISO 45000 and other standards. The NRTL Program is consistent with such international approaches. However, consistency does not mean identical requirements. We have always indicated that the NRTL Program has additional requirements that must be met-including those for complete independence. Thus prior accreditation to ISO 45000, for example, does not mean that a laboratory meets all of the NRTL Program requirements although it is likely that many will have been met.
- Testing to US-Based Standards
A recurring issue has been the requirement of the NRTL Program to test to US-based standards. While there are internationally harmonized standards in this area, they generally have US deviations when applied in the US. These US deviations must be included in the test standards recognized for the EU-based laboratories. In order to sell products in the US market with NRTL certification, the testing will have to be done to US-based standards.
The EU would like to raise the issues related to implementation of the electrical safety annex to the Joint Committee established under the MRA. OSHA is the US government spokesperson when the Joint Committee discusses issues related to electrical safety. At this point, there has been no agreement to a Joint Committee discussion on these issues.
I hope this answers some of the questions that have been raised.
Jennifer Silk
Acting Deputy Director
Directorate of Technical Support
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
|
| |
|
