(60 FR 12980) Clarification or Types and Programs and Procedures

12980

Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 46 / Thursday, March 9, 1995 / Notices

partnerships, and (3) expediting the
development and promulgation of
OSHA standards.
Committee Members
MACOSH is composed of
approximately 15 members who have
been selected to represent the divergent
interests of the maritime community.
The makeup of the membership
complies with Section 7 (b) of the OSH
Act which requires the following: at
least one member who is a designee of
the Secretary of Health and Human
Services; at least one designee of a state
safety and health agency; and equal
numbers of representatives of
employees and employers, respectively.
Other members have been selected
based on their knowledge and
experience and include representatives
from professional and other
governmental organizations with
specific maritime responsibilities.
MACOSH is a comprehensive
representation of the maritime
community.
Appointees to the Committee include
these representatives from labor,
industry, public interests and
government agencies. The appointees
represent groups interested in or
affected by the outcome of rulemaking.
The 15 members are:
Labor Representatives
Charles Brasford—Director of
Occupational Safety and Health,
International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers.
Al Cernados—Executive Vice President,
International Longshoremen’s
Association.
Chico McGill—Chairman, Safety and
Health Committee, Local 733,
International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Ingalls Shipyard
Richard Olsen—Coastal Committee,
International Longshoremen’s and
Warehousemen’s Union
Industry Representatives
Katherine Chumley—Chair,
Environmental Safety and Health
Committee, Shipbuilders Council of
America, Atlantic Marine.
John Faulk—Safety and Health Director,
Ryan Walsh Stevedoring.
Chet Mathews—Safety and Health
Director, Bath Iron Works
Frank Scanlan—General Counsel and
Secretary, National Maritime Safety
Association.
Government and Professional
Organizations
Lieutenant Julie Gahn—Hazardous
Materials Division, U.S. Coast Guard.

Alexander Landsburg—Systems Safety
and Human Factors Division,
Maritime Administration.
Fran Lavelle—American Association of
Port Administrators.
Elsie Munsel—Safety and
Environmental Programs, U.S. Navy.
Larry Reed—Assistant Director for
Policy, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health.
Pete Schmidt—Specialty Compliance
Programs, State of Washington.
James Thornton—American Industrial
Hygiene Association.
Signed at Washington, DC this 3rd day of
March 1995.
Joseph A. Dear,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.
[FR Doc. 95–5894 Filed 3–8–95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–26–M

Maritime Advisory Committee for
Occupational Safety and Health, Notice
of Meeting
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), U.S.
Department of Labor.
ACTION: Maritime Advisory Committee
for Occupational Safety and Health
(MACOSH); notice of meeting.
AGENCY:

Notice is hereby given that
the Maritime Advisory Committee for
Occupational Safety and Health,
established under section 7(a) of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (29 U.S.C. 656) to advise the
Secretary of Labor on matters relating to
occupational safety and health
programs, policies, and standards in the
maritime industries of the United States
will meet March 22 and 23, 1995 in
Room C–5320, Seminar Room No. 6, of
the Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC.
ADDRESSES: Any written comments in
response to this notice should be sent to
the following address: OSHA, Office of
Maritime Standards, Room N–3621, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20210. Phone (202) 219–7234, fax
(202) 219–7477.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Larry Liberatore, Office of Maritime
Standards, OSHA, (202) 219–7234.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The first
meeting of the Marine Advisory
Committee on Occupational Safety and
Health will be held March 22 from 1 to
5, and March 23 from 9 to 5 in Room
C–5320, Seminar Room 6, of the
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC. At this
first meeting the newly appointed
members will be introduced and then
SUMMARY:

the Committee will establish committee
goals, plan for future meetings, discuss
OSHA’s compliance programs, outreach
and training initiatives, and standards
setting process, and hear about the
current agenda and direction of OSHA.
All interested persons are invited to
attend the public meetings of MACOSH,
including the first one at the time and
place indicated above. Seating will be
available to the public on a first-come,
first-served basis. Individuals with
disabilities wishing to attend should
contact Theda Kenney at 202–219–8061,
no later than March 17, 1995, to obtain
appropriate accommodations.
MACOSH will meet as a whole and
also in small focus groups. Written data,
views or comments for consideration by
the Committee may be submitted,
preferably with 20 copies, to Larry
Liberatore at the address provided
above. Any such submissions received
prior to the meeting will be provided to
the members of the committee and will
be included in the record of the
meeting. Members of the general public
may request an opportunity to make oral
presentations at the meeting. Oral
presentations will be limited to
statements of fact and views, and shall
not include any questioning of the
committee members or other
participants unless these questions have
been specifically approved by the
chairperson. Anyone wishing to make
an oral presentation should notify Larry
Liberatore before the meeting. The
request should state the amount of time
desired, the capacity in which the
person will appear and a brief outline of
the content of the presentation. Persons
who request the opportunity to address
the Advisory Committee may be
allowed to speak, as time permits, at the
discretion of the Chair of the Advisory
Committee.
Signed at Washington, DC this 3rd day of
March 1995.
Joseph A. Dear,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.
[FR Doc. 95–5895 Filed 3–8–95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–26–M

[Docket No. NRTL–1–95]

Nationally Recognized Testing
Laboratories; Clarification of the Types
of Programs and Procedures
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Department of Labor.
ACTION: Notice of interpretation.
AGENCY:

This notice announces the
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration’s (OSHA) clarification of
the types of programs and procedures
SUMMARY:

Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 46 / Thursday, March 9, 1995 / Notices
that Nationally Recognized Testing
Laboratories (NRTL) may engage in
under the OSHA/NRTL recognition
program, 29 CFR 1910.7. This notice
addresses in particular those programs
under which the NRTL controls and
audits, but does not itself generate, the
data relied upon for product
certification. OSHA invites currently
recognized NRTLs as well as new
applicants to request approval for any of
these acceptable procedures.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Office of Variance Determination, NRTL
Recognition Program, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Room N3653,
Washington, DC 20210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background
On March 6, 1984, (49 FR 8326), the
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration proposed a
comprehensive overhaul of its
regulatory procedures related to OSHA’s
requirements for safety testing or
certification of certain workplace
equipment and materials. The goals of
the proposal were:
(1) To assure that products required to
be tested and certified would be reliably
tested and certified;
(2) To implement testing and
certification requirements and
procedures which would be
administratively workable; and
(3) To take advantage of developments
by others in organizing and evaluating
product certification systems and in
accrediting laboratories for testing.
In the proposal, OSHA stated that it
was attempting to build upon the self
regulatory efforts of the private sector,
particularly in the fields of electrical
and fire safety. OSHA intended to take
full advantage of the mechanisms which
existed in the private sector or in
government, and to keep its long-term
involvement in these activities to a
minimum (see 53 FR 12103 second
column, first paragraph). A three day
informal public hearing was held on
September 25, 26, and October 1, 1984.
Based on the comments received and a
review of the testimony in the record,
the Agency modified its original
proposal and, on April 12, 1988, (53 FR
12102), promulgated a new section,
1910.7—Definition and requirements for
a nationally recognized testing
laboratory, and a new Appendix A to
section 1910.7—OSHA Recognition
Process for Nationally Recognized
Testing Laboratories.

The cornerstone of this regulation is
the definition of the regulatory term
‘‘NRTL’’, with respect to specific
elements. There are four elements that
are identified as NRTL requirements:
capability to test and evaluate
equipment; control of certified products;
independence; and procedures to
produce creditable findings. These four
elements that define an NRTL are
incorporated into the criteria for the
various types of procedures which
OSHA approves and, when followed,
provide OSHA with a reasonable degree
of assurance that the products may be
used safely in the workplace.
As noted above, capability to test and
evaluate equipment, and independence
are two of the elements required of an
NRTL. These elements are discussed in
the preamble to the final rule.
Capability to test does not mean that
all testing will be done by the NRTL.
OSHA stated in the preamble that while
it expected generally that most
applicants would do the testing inhouse this was not a requirement of the
standard. OSHA recognized that, in
some cases, laboratories would
subcontract out the testing of a certain
product or aspect thereof due to unique
or special testing needs. Anticipating
this occurrence, OSHA stated that the
laboratory actually doing the work must
have the necessary capability to conduct
the tests, and the laboratory applying for
recognition would retain primary
responsibility for fulfilling the
requirements of the standard and
complying with the procedures set out
in Appendix A.
Independence also does not mean that
an NRTL has to carry out all of its
functions totally separate from other
entities, including the manufacturer.
Simply put, the independence
requirement means that the analytical
and decision making processes, which
are the critical functions that must be
performed, are accomplished by an
organization which is financially
independent of manufacturers, vendors,
and users of certified products. As long
as the NRTL retains these functions, the
credibility of the testing and approval
process will be maintained.
OSHA believes that this
understanding of the concept of
independence was implicit in the rule
from the time of its adoption. Thus the
OSHA rule was intended to build upon
the system of testing and certification
already in existence, not to supplant it.
The existing system did not require a
rigid barrier between NRTL and
manufacturer, for example, which
would completely prevent the NRTL
from utilizing the manufacturer’s testing
or other information sources. As long as

12981

the NRTL, which was not economically
affiliated with the manufacturer, had
ultimate authority and responsibility for
the approval of the product and use of
the certification mark, the needs of
independence would be satisfied. The
current clarification is consistent with
and fleshes out the past practice.
OSHA intended a pragmatic
application of the elements of
independence and capability to perform
testing, as well as the other elements
that go into defining an NRTL. This can
be seen from the general discussion in
the preamble to the final rule, and
specifically from the decision to
grandfather the operations of UL and
FMRC for a five-year period.
Thus, in the final rule, OSHA
grandfathered some of the procedures
that were in existence at the time of the
rule. ‘‘It seems reasonable that product
testing systems already in place should
be able to continue their operations
without Agency rulemaking on the
testing standards, methods and
procedures they are using now and have
successfully used in the past. The
operation of already existing product
testing systems, such as UL and FMRC,
could be seriously disrupted if the
Agency attempted to undertake
rulemaking on the testing standards,
methods and procedures they are
using.’’ (See 53 FR 12108, second
column, last paragraph). The initial
assessment for renewal of UL and FMRC
in 1993 and 1994, identified mature and
functioning procedures, some over
thirty years old, which included the
acceptance of test data from other
sources and use of contract
organizations for other services.
In addition, OSHA’s intent in the
1988 rule was to allow a level of
flexibility in meeting the mandatory
requirements. OSHA recognized that
procedures may operationally vary from
laboratory to laboratory, and still be
acceptable. For example, the preamble
to the final rule stated that, ‘‘. . . while
the record indicates that current safety
testing standards and practices may vary
slightly among the third party safety
testing organizations, the testing
laboratories themselves indicate that
they have compensating mechanisms
and controls built into their particular
systems which are intended to assure
that the ultimate result will fall within
an acceptable range’’ (TR 534,550). ‘‘The
laboratories claim that they use those
testing standards, methods and
procedures which adequately address
all necessary safety concerns and
thereby justify their decision to ‘‘pass’’
the item in question and to allow the
use of the laboratory’s listing or
identifying mark’’ (Ex 38, p 3; TR 552,

12982

Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 46 / Thursday, March 9, 1995 / Notices

553). (53 FR 12108, third column, first
paragraph).
Thus, OSHA recognized that there
were testing practices that might vary
and differ among laboratories. OSHA
also recognized that the compensating
mechanisms and controls for each
system and laboratory depends upon the
confidence the laboratory has in the
final result leading to use of the mark.
OSHA’s review of the applications for
renewal of recognition submitted by UL
and FMRC have lead to the conclusion
that it is appropriate to provide further
clarification of acceptable NRTL
procedures. In order for other NRTLs
and future applicants to utilize these
types of procedures, OSHA has
provided specific criteria that will
identify the critical elements of the
various procedures. These criteria, as
discussed earlier, were derived from the
four elements that define an NRTL. By
providing such criteria, an NRTL may
tailor its methods and testing techniques
to any procedure the NRTL would like
to include.
The identification of criteria
discussed in this document will provide
guidance to applicants utilizing the
various procedures, while still allowing
the flexibility that was identified in the
discussion of the regulation.
Clarification
The Occupational Safety and Health
Administration is clarifying the types of
testing and certification procedures
which may meet the requirements for
acceptance under section 1910.7.
The Agency has previously
determined that an NRTL may, but is
not obligated to, accept test data,
component or product approvals, or
other information or data from another
NRTL, as long as it is satisfied with their
appropriateness. The NRTL has the
prerogative to retest or reapprove, as it
deems necessary.
OSHA is aware that in addition to the
procedures which were previously
clearly understood to be acceptable,
NRTLs also utilize procedures involving
entities such as contractors,
manufacturers, and other laboratories,
for the performance of many of their
functions. These other procedures are
acceptable with certain controls in
place. OSHA recognizes that to maintain
credibility of these procedures, a higher
level of expertise and controls by the
NRTL will be required. Therefore,
applicants for these will be assessed and
audited by OSHA to more stringent
guidelines. Generally, all acceptable
procedures fall within one or more of
the following.
1. The basic procedure where all
product testing and evaluation is

performed in-house by the NRTL that
will certify the product
2. Acceptance of testing data from
independent organizations, other than
NRTLs
3. Acceptance of product evaluations
from independent organizations, other
than NRTLs
4. Acceptance of witnessed testing data
5. Acceptance of testing data from nonindependent organizations
6. Acceptance of evaluation data from
non-independent organizations
(requiring NRTL review prior to
marketing)
7. Acceptance of continued certification
following minor product
modifications by the client
8. Acceptance of product evaluations
from organizations that function as
part of the International
Electrotechnical Commission
Certification Body (IEC–CB) Scheme
9. Acceptance of services other than
testing or evaluation performed by
subcontractors or agents
Certain procedures are unacceptable.
Included among these are manufacturer
self-declaration, client self-certification,
and other similar procedures that permit
non-NRTLs to determine conformance
with the product standard, i.e., certify
the product.
A number of procedures encountered
during on-site investigations by OSHA
assessors have existed in one form or
another prior to the existence of the
NRTL program in 1988. Most of these
procedures appear to have matured to a
degree necessary to maintain product
safety in the workplace and included
controls necessary for conformity with
NRTL program requirements.
This Notice discussed procedures and
criteria to be utilized by OSHA assessors
and auditors in evaluating each of them.
OSHA will continue to closely monitor
progress under these criteria and
evaluate the effectiveness of the
procedures.
The specific criteria utilized for
evaluating the procedures of an
applicant for recognition as a nationally
recognized testing laboratory are based
upon ‘‘national consensus standards
and international guides’’.
Three basic principles, to assure that
product certifications would provide
necessary levels of safety, were derived
from the rule.
These principles are as follows:
(1) The NRTL shall be capable of
performing all aspects of a product
certification scheme on its own.
• The NRTL shall be recognized to
perform the tests, evaluations, and other
services before it can accept such
services from other organizations.

(2) Where the services of other
organizations are used, the NRTL shall
retain control of, and responsibility for,
all aspects of the product certification
scheme.
• The NRTL shall have procedures
consistent with the appropriate national
standards and international guides for
granting, maintaining, and extending its
qualification of an organization or
service.
• The NRTL shall use assessors who
met the competence requirements of the
appropriate national standards and
international guides to evaluate the
organization.
• The NRTL shall ensure that all
aspects of certification work performed
by others—including participants,
locations of testing, witnessing, and
evaluations—are identified in the NRTL
and client records and reports.
(3) The NRTL shall ensure that each
organization providing data, product
evaluations, or other services to the
NRTL is capable of doing so, and that
the relationship between the NRTL and
the organization does not compromise
the NRTL’s independence.
• The NRTL shall be able to
demonstrate that each organization it
employs is capable of providing data,
product evaluations, or other services
that meet, or exceed, the quality of those
provided by the NRTL.
• The NRTL shall maintain reports of
its assessments of such organizations;
these assessments shall conform to
appropriate national standards and
international guides.
• The NRTL shall have a documented
surveillance program to ensure
continued compliance with the NRTL’s
qualification procedures; this
surveillance program shall be consistent
with the appropriate national standards
and international guides.
• The NRTL shall not be
economically affiliated with any of
these outside organization.
Procedures and specific criteria for
each, were then developed from the
basic principles. These principles,
wherever they are applicable, shall be
an integral requirement of the following
procedures.
1. The Basic Procuredure—All Product
Testing and Evaluation is Performed InHouse by NRTL That Will Certify the
Product
This is the basic procedure utilized by
an NRTL under conditions where it is
feasible. The first and second basic
principles are applicable to this
procedure.

Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 46 / Thursday, March 9, 1995 / Notices
2. Acceptance of Testing Data From
Independent Organizations, Other Than
NRTLS
As was noted previously in reference
to the preamble to the final rule, OSHA
anticipated that most testing by an
NRTL would be done in-house, but did
not make this a requirement of the
standard. Subcontracting out of some of
the tests was anticipated by OSHA,
when it noted that the laboratory
actually doing the work must have the
necessary capability to conduct the
tests, and the laboratory applying for
recognition would retain primary
responsibility for fulfilling the
requirements of the standard and
complying with the procedures set out
in Appendix A.
An NRTL may accept testing
conducted by an independent
organization provided the following
criteria are complied with:
The NRTL shall retain control of, and
responsibility for, all aspects of the
product certification scheme.
• The NRTL shall review each test
package and complete the product
evaluations required by the test
standards.
• The NRTL shall ensure that all data
in the test data package originated with
an organization that the NRTL qualified.
The NRTL shall ensure that each
organization providing testing data is
capable of conducting the test and that
the relationship between the NRTL and
the organization does not compromise
the NRTL’s independence.
• The NRTL shall have a written
program for assessing the qualification
of the organization to perform testing for
each product type it may be required to
test.
• This qualification program shall
include procedures for evaluating the
organization’s independence, facilities,
utilities, environmental controls,
personnel, testing and calibration
equipment, written testing procedures,
calibration procedures, quality
assurance program, and other elements
as outlined in the appropriate national
concensus standards and international
guides.
3. Acceptance of Product Evaluations
From Independent Organizations, Other
Than NRTLS
Although no clear distinction between
testing and evaluation is made in the
final rule (29 CFR 1910.7), such
distinction exists.
Many NRTLs utilize outside
organizations for specific or unique
tests. In these instances, the NRTL
stipulates the tests and defines the
testing procedures to be utilized and,

finally, evaluates the test results to
determine conformance of the product
to the product standard and certifies the
product where it does conform.
In this type procedure, the outside
organization both tests and evaluates the
results of the tests to determine
conformance of a product to a standard,
and them issues a test and evaluation
report to the NRTL. The NRTL, in
return, weighs the report for validity
and conformance of the product to the
product standard in order to decide
whether the product is certifiable.
Authorization for an NRTL to accept
product evaluations significantly
expands the scope of the services which
may be provided to the NRTL from an
outside source. Acceptance of product
evaluations will require the NRTL to
establish a more formalized, long-term
relationship with the independent
organization to acquire confidence in its
evaluation procedures.
An NRTL may accept product
evaluations prepared by an independent
organization provided the following
criteria, in addition to the requirements
in Procedure 1, are complied with:
The NRTL shall retain control of, and
responsibility for, all aspects of the
product certification scheme.
• The NRTL shall review each
evaluation package, and complete the
product evaluations required by the test
standards before the product
certification is issued.
• The NRTL shall ensure that
evaluations are obtained from an
organization which it has qualified.
• The NRTL shall ensure that data
relied upon have been developed under
the program established by the NRTL.
• The NRTL shall require the
organization to establish and maintain a
system to document technical
correspondence and test standard
interpretations.
• The NRTL shall assure that the
organization, in preparing the
evaluation package, follows the written
procedures established by the NRTL.
The NRTL shall ensure that each
organization providing product
evaluations is capable of conducting the
tests and performing the evaluations,
and that the relationship between the
NRTL and the organization does not
compromise the NRTL’s independence.
• The NRTL’s qualification program
shall be used to assess the organization’s
procedures and personnel to determine
its qualifications relative to each
product type it may be asked to
evaluate.
• The qualification program shall
establish a minimum period and level of
mutual effort between the NRTL and the
organization for confidence-building.

12983

During this period the NRTL will
witness evaluations, verify the
evaluations through inter-organizational
comparisons, and validate the
competence of personnel to perform
product evaluations.
4. Acceptance of Witnessed Testing
Data
This procedure involves technical
personnel from the NRTL witnessing
product testing generally carried out at
a location other than that of the NRTL.
The organization carrying out the tests
may or may not be independent.
The majority of testing witnessed by
representatives of the NRTL is
consistent with the statement in the
preamble to the final rule that * * * in
some cases, laboratories may wish to
subcontract out the testing of a certain
product or aspect thereof due to unique
or special testing needs.
Representatives of an NRTL may
witness testing provided the following
criteria are complied with:
The NRTL shall retain control of, and
responsibility for, all aspects of the
product certification scheme.
• The NRTL shall train its own
personnel to take an active role in
witnessing each phase of the tests.
• This training shall include specific
testing procedures for each product type
the trainees may witness.
The NRTL shall assure that the
organization providing the testing data
is capable of conducting the tests and
that the relationship between the NRTL
and the organization does not
compromise the NRTL’s independence.
• The NRTL shall have a written
program for assessing the qualification
of the organization to perform testing for
each product type it may be required to
test.
• This qualification program shall
include procedures for evaluating the
outside organization’s facilities,
utilities, personnel, testing and
calibration equipment, written testing
procedures, calibration procedures,
environmental controls, and other
elements as outlined in the appropriate
national consensus standards and
international guides.
• The NRTL shall qualify the outside
organization using the NRTL’s own
staff.
5. Acceptance of Testing Data From
Non-Independent Organizations
This program involves test data
generated by an organization that has a
vested interest in the outcome of the test
results.
Data submitted under this program
shall not include products intended for
use in hazardous (classified) locations

12984

Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 46 / Thursday, March 9, 1995 / Notices

(see 29 CFR 1910.307). A substantial
number of tests of products intended for
use in hazardous locations involves
subjective analysis and have levels of
complexity well beyond that required
for tests of products meant for use only
in ordinary locations.
An NRTL may accept testing
conducted by a non-independent
organization provided the following
criteria are complied with, in addition
to the requirements in Procedure 1, with
the exception for the need to document
the independence of the organization:
The NRTL shall establish procedures
and maintain records which will
demonstrate that the test data are
unbiased.
The NRTL shall ensure that the
organization providing the data is
capable of conducting the tests and that
the relationship between the NRTL and
the organization does not compromise
the NRTL’s independence.
• The NRTL’s qualification
procedures shall establish a minimum
time period for confidence-building.
During this period the NRTL will
witness tests and verify them by
duplicate testing at the NRTL’s facility.
• The NRTL’s surveillance program
shall include annual site evaluations,
review of test packages, random samples
and retests by the NRTL, and other
controls outlined in the appropriate
national standards and international
guides.
6. Acceptance of Evaluation Data From
Non-Independent Organizations
(Requiring NRTL Review Prior To
Marketing)
This type of procedure enables an
organization to evaluate a product in
which it has a vested interest. However,
the product shall not be released to the
market until the NRTL has reviewed
and concurred with the evaluation.
An NRTL may accept product
evaluations prepared by a
nonindependent organization provided
the following criteria are complied with:
Except for the requirement for
independence, the specific program
criteria in Procedures 1, 2, and 4 shall
apply to product evaluations by nonindependent organizations. The
following additional program criteria
shall also be required:
The NRTL shall retain control of, and
responsibility for, all aspects of the
product certification scheme.
• The NRTL shall establish and
maintain records of procedure and
product deficiencies identified, and the
corrective actions taken by it and the
organization.

• The NRTL shall establish and
maintain a program to monitor and
confirm the organization’s evaluations.
• The NRTL shall assure that no
product is released to the market until
it has verified the organization’s testing
data and concurred with its evaluation
of the product.
The NRTL shall assure that each
organization providing data and
evaluations is capable of performing
these functions and that the relationship
between the NRTL and the organization
does not compromise the NRTL’s
independence.
• The NRTL shall establish and
maintain records that demonstrate that
the organization continues to be
proficient in testing and evaluation.
• The NRTL shall demonstrate that
the organization’s laboratory has
sustained the quality of its performance
in testing before being considered for
this program.
7. Acceptance of Continued
Certification After Minor Product
Modifications by the Manufacturer
This type of procedure would allow a
manufacturer to make minor changes to
a certified product, test and evaluate the
change or changes, and continue to use
the certification mark on the modified
product.
With all the controls in place and a
clear understanding of what a ‘‘minor’’
product modification encompasses,
there should be no reason to consider
this procedure as not falling within the
scope of the NRTL program. A minor
product modification is one which
involves the use of an interchangeable
component in a previously accepted
product. Examples are the substitution
of an equivalent switch from a different
manufacturer, or the replacement of a
motor with a comparable one of
different horsepower.
An NRTL may accept minor product
modifications from a manufacturer
without requiring recertification
provided the following criteria, as well
as the criteria in Procedures 1, 2, 4, and
5 (except for the requirements for
independence), are complied with:
The NRTL shall retain control of, and
responsibility for, all aspects of the
product certification scheme.
• The NRTL shall clearly define what
is meant by ‘‘minor’’ modifications.
• The NRTL shall review each test
and evaluation report for each product
modification.
The NRTL shall assure that each
manufacturer providing the test data
and evaluation is capable of conducting
the tests and making the product
evaluations, and that the relationship
between the NRTL and the organization

does not compromise the NRTL’s
independence.
• The NRTL shall demonstrate that
the client has sustained the quality of its
performance in both testing and product
evaluation before being considered for
this program.
8. Acceptance of Product Evaluations
From Organizations That Function As
Part of the International
Electrotechnical Commission
Certification Body (IEC–CB) Scheme
The IEC–CB scheme authorizes
organizations accredited as certified
bodies to exchange product test data
and evaluation reports with each other.
An NRTL may accept product
evaluations from organizations that are
part of the IEC–CB scheme provided the
following criteria are complied with:
The NRTL shall retain control of, and
responsibility for, all aspects of the
product certification scheme.
• The NRTL shall physically evaluate
each product.
• The NRTL shall review each test
and evaluation report and certificate of
certification to determine that the
correct nationally recognized standards
has been used to test the product and,
where applicable, that the US deviations
have been properly applied.
• The NRTL shall have written
procedures for the evaluation of
products, and for the interpretation of
any results.
• The NRTL shall establish records
that demonstrate that the organizations
furnishing test and evaluation reports
continue to be competent. These records
will include documentation to
demonstrate that the organization
understands the US deviations and has
correctly applied them.
• The NRTL shall determine that the
components used in the product are
tested to a standard comparable to the
appropriate nationally recognized
standard.
• The NRTL shall determine that
components used in the product have
been certified through an appropriate
regulatory authority’s scheme, and that
the scheme includes routine evaluation
of the manufacturer’s process.
9. Acceptance of Services (Other Than
Testing or Evaluation) Performed by
Subcontractors or Agents
Services under this heading include
follow-up activities, calibration
activities, and equipment maintenance
accomplished by subcontractors or
agents.
Athough there do not appear to be any
references in 29 CFR 1910.7 or in the
preamble to the final rule that
specifically address this issue, testing

Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 46 / Thursday, March 9, 1995 / Notices
laboratories, including the larger
organizations, have historically
contracted for certain activities. Most
common are activities such as repair
and calibration of test and measurement
instrumentation, security services, and
quality system accreditation. Assuming
proper controls for such activities by the
NRTL, they should not affect the ability
of the NTRL to produce credible
findings. It was never OSHA’s intent to
discourage or limit activities such as the
use of national or international
standards for quality assurance
qualification and registration of a
manufacturer by organizations other
than the NRTL. Such accreditation and
services can be useful tools for an NRTL
as long as the NRTL retains ultimate
control and responsibility.
The NRTL shall retain control of, and
responsibility for, all aspects of the
product certification scheme.
• The NRTL shall assure that
subcontractors or agents performing
service which may affect the
certification of a product have been
assessed and qualified by the NRTL.
• The NRTL shall assure that
subcontractors agents use the follow-up
procedures established by the NRTL.
• The NRTL shall maintain records of
the results of the follow-up visits.
The NRTL shall assure that each agent
or subcontractor providing a service is
capable of performing that service and
that the relationship between the agent
or subcontractor does not compromise
the NRTL’s independence.
• The NRTL shall be able to
demonstrate that all subcontractors and
agents are capable of providing services
equivalent to that provided by the
NRTL.
• The NRTL shall have written
procedures to qualify subcontractors or
agents, to monitor their performance, to
communicate effectively with them, and
to maintain manufacturer
confidentiality.
• The NRTL’s qualification
rpocedures shall include: qualification
requirements; the subcontractor’s or
agent’s quality assurance and selfauditing programs; the NRTL’s
monitoring program; and the
documentation requirements for both
the NRTL and the subcontractor or
agent.
• The NRTL’s records shall include
documentation to demonstrate that the
subcontractor or agent complies with
the NRTL’s program.
• The NRTL shall use its own staff to
qualify the subcontractor or agent.
• The NRTL shall have the means to
ensure that only follow-up inspectors
who are qualified for the task are
utilized.

• The NRTL’s surveillance program
shall include routine audits of the
facilities, staff, and procedures involved
in its follow-up program.
• The follow-up procedures in foreign
countries shall be as stringent as those
required in the US.
• The follow-up program shall
include an initial assessment of the
manufacturers’ procedures, the quality
control system, maintenance
procedures, recordkeeping and other
elements from the appropriate national
standards and international guides.
• The follow-up program shall have
the capability to identify variations in
the manufacturers’ ability to control the
quality of production.
• The NRTL shall periodically
inspect samples of products for
compliance.
The Use of An ‘‘NRTL’’ Certification
Mark for Products Tested and Certified
In Accordance With OSHA’s
Requirements
OSHA has received requests from
several NRTL participants to initiate
action that would implement a
requirement for the use of a unique
mark for the NRTL certified products.
As a result of these requests, OSHA will
publish a separate document in the
Federal Register explaining how such a
program may be implemented, as well
as describing the requirements which
are considered to be part of such a
program.
In this separate document, OSHA will
request comments on the advantages
and disadvantages of implementing
such a program and invite suggestions
as to the proper approach OSHA should
take. The document will include the
concerns of the Agency and will seek
public information that will enable it to
determine the appropriate action.
Authority
Section 6(b) of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970, (84 Stat.
1593, 29 U.S.C. 655), Secretary of
Labor’s Order No. 1–90 (55 FR 9033).
Signed at Washington, DC, this 3rd day of
March 1995.
Joseph A. Dear,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95–5780 Filed 3–8–95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–26–M

Maryland State Standards; Notice of
Approval
1. Background
Part 1953 of Title 29, Code of Federal
Regulations, prescribes procedures
under section 18 of the Occupational

12985

Safety and Health Act of 1970
(hereinafter called the Act) by which the
Regional Administrator for
Occupational Safety and Health
(hereinafter called the Regional
Administrator), under a delegation of
authority from the Assistant Secretary of
Labor for Occupational Safety and
Health (hereinafter called the Assistant
Secretary) (29 CFR 1953.4), will review
and approve standards promulgated
pursuant to a State plan which has been
approved in accordance with section
18(c) of the Act and 29 CFR part 1902.
On July 5, 1973, notice was published
in the Federal Register (38 FR 17834) of
the approval of the Maryland State plan
and the adoption of subpart O to part
1952 containing the decision.
The Maryland State plan provides for
the adoption of all Federal standards as
State standards after comments and
public hearing. Section 1952.210 of
Subpart O sets forth the State’s schedule
for the adoption of Federal standards.
By letters dated September 9 and
October 7, 1994, from Henry Koellein,
Jr., Commissioner of the Maryland
Division of Labor and Industry, to Linda
R. Anku, Regional Administrator, and
incorporated as part of the plan, the
State submitted State standards
identical to: (1) Amendments,
corrections, additions and revisions to
29 CFR 1910.132, 1910.133, 1910.136,
and 1910.138, pertaining to the Personal
Protective Equipment Standard for
General Industry, as published in the
Federal Register of April 6, 1994 (59 FR
16360); (2) amendments, corrections,
and additions to 29 CFR 1910.146,
pertaining to the Permit-Required
Confined Spaces Standard for General
Industry, as published in the Federal
Register of May 19, 1994 (59 FR 26115);
and (3) an amendment to 29 CFR
1926.62, pertaining to the Lead in
Construction Standard for the
Construction Industry, as published in
the Federal Register of May 4, 1993 (58
FR 26627). These standards are
contained in COMAR 09.12.31.
Maryland Occupational Safety and
Health Standards were promulgated
after public hearings on April 15 and
July 22, 1994. These standards became
effective on August 29 and September
26, 1994, respectively.
2. Decision
Having reviewed the State
submissions in comparison with the
Federal standards, it has been
determined that the State standards are
identical to the Federal standards and,
accordingly, are approved.