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

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA), U.S.

Department of Labor.

ACTION: Maritime Advisory Committee

for Occupational Safety and Health

(MACOSH); notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: 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

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

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health

Administration, Department of Labor.

ACTION: Notice of interpretation.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration’s (OSHA) clarification of

the types of programs and procedures
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 46 / Thursday, March 9, 1995 / Notices 12981

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

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 12983

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.

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 12985

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

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.