Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories; Satellite Notification and Acceptance Program, 923-927 [E9-163]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 6 / Friday, January 9, 2009 / Notices
appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms
of information technology, e.g.,
permitting electronic submission of
responses.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
(1) Type of Information Collection:
Extension of a Currently Approved
Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection:
Immigration Practitioner Complaint
Form.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and
the applicable component of the
Department of Justice sponsoring the
collection: Form EOIR–44, Executive
Office for Immigration Review, United
States Department of Justice.
(4) Affected public who will be asked
or required to respond, as well as a brief
abstract: Primary: Individuals who wish
to file a complaint against an
immigration practitioner authorized to
appear before the Board of Immigration
Appeals and the immigration courts.
Other: None. Abstract: The information
on this form will be used to determine
whether or not, assuming the truth of
the factual allegations, the Office of
General Counsel of the Executive Office
for Immigration Review should conduct
a preliminary disciplinary inquiry,
request additional information from the
responding complainant, refer the
matter to a state bar disciplinary
authority or other law enforcement
agency, or take no further action.
(5) An estimate of the total number of
respondents and the amount of time
estimated for an average respondent to
respond/reply: It is estimated that 500
respondents will complete the form
annually with an average of thirty
minutes per response.
(6) An estimate of the total public
burden (in hours) associated with the
collection: There are an estimated 1000
total burden hours associated with this
collection annually.
If additional information is required,
contact: Lynn Bryant, Department
Clearance Officer, United States
Department of Justice, Justice
Management Division, Policy and
Planning Staff, Patrick Henry Building,
Suite 1600, 601 D Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530.
Dated: January 5, 2009.
Lynn Bryant,
Department Clearance Officer, PRA, United
States Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. E9–133 Filed 1–8–09; 8:45 am]
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:16 Jan 08, 2009
Jkt 217001
Office of the Secretary
Submission for OMB Review:
Comment Request
January 5, 2009.
Overview of This Information
Collection
BILLING CODE 4410–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
The Department of Labor (DOL)
hereby announces the submission of the
following public information collection
request (ICR) to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
A copy of this ICR, with applicable
supporting documentation, including
among other things a description of the
likely respondents, proposed frequency
of response, and estimated total burden
may be obtained from the RegInfo.gov
Web site at https://www.reginfo.gov/
public/do/PRAMain or by contacting
Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on 202–693–
4223 (this is not a toll-free number)/email: DOL_PRA_PUBLIC@dol.gov.
Interested parties are encouraged to
send comments to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the
Department of Labor—ETA, Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10235,
Washington, DC 20503, Telephone:
202–395–7316/Fax: 202–395–6974
(these are not toll-free numbers), E-mail:
OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov within
30 days from the date of this publication
in the Federal Register. In order to
ensure the appropriate consideration,
comments should reference the OMB
Control Number (see below).
The OMB is particularly interested in
comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology,
e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses.
Agency: Employment Training
Administration.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
923
Type of Review: Revision of a
Currently Approved Collection.
Title of Collection: Migrant and
Seasonal Farmworker (MSFW)
Monitoring Report and One-Stop Career
Center Complaint/Referral Record.
OMB Control Number: 1205–0039.
Agency Form Numbers: ETA 8429 and
ETA 5148.
Affected Public: Individuals and
households and State, Local or Tribal
Governments.
Total Estimated Number of
Respondents: 2,194.
Total Estimated Annual Burden
Hours: 1,566.
Total Estimated Annual Costs Burden:
$0.
Description: These forms are
necessary as part of Federal regulations
at 20 CFR Parts 651, 653 and 658. The
Form ETA 5148 collects data which are
primarily used to monitor and measure
the extent and effectiveness of State
Workforce Agencies’ service delivery to
migrant and seasonal farm workers
(MSFWs). The Form ETA 8429, the OneStop Career Center Compliance Referral
Record, is used to collect and document
complaints filed by MSFWs and nonMSFWs regarding service delivery. For
additional information, see related
notice published at Volume 73 FR
37499 on July 01, 2008.
Darrin A. King,
Departmental Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. E9–207 Filed 1–8–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
[Docket No. OSHA–2007–0053]
Nationally Recognized Testing
Laboratories; Satellite Notification and
Acceptance Program
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), Labor.
ACTION: Implementation of the Satellite
Notification and Acceptance Program.
SUMMARY: This notice announces
OSHA’s implementation of the ninth
supplemental program under its
Nationally Recognized Testing
Laboratory (NRTL) Program. This
supplemental program is the Satellite
Notification and Acceptance Program
(SNAP), and participation by NRTLs in
the SNAP is voluntary. The SNAP
Description for this program specifies
the conditions under which NRTLs may
use SNAP sites to perform equipment
testing and certification functions.
E:\FR\FM\09JAN1.SGM
09JAN1
924
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 6 / Friday, January 9, 2009 / Notices
DATES: The SNAP will become effective
on May 11, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
MaryAnn Garrahan, Director, Office of
Technical Programs and Coordination
Activities, NRTL Program, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Room N–3655,
Washington, DC 20210, or phone (202)
693–2110.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
I. Background
On April 21, 2008, OSHA published
in the Federal Register a notice
proposing the SNAP, and requested
public comment on the proposal (73 FR
21378). OSHA made the proposed
SNAP Description available on its Web
site at https://www.osha-slc.gov/dts/
otpca/nrtl/, but did not
provide this document in the published
proposal. OSHA received seven
comments to the proposal, and has
made a number of revisions to the
proposed SNAP based on these
comments.
The SNAP will become the ninth
supplemental program available to
NRTLs under the NRTL Program. In
general, supplemental programs permit
an NRTL to use the services of other
facilities to test and certify products
used in the workplace. OSHA formally
established the initial eight
supplemental programs after publishing
a description of these programs in the
Federal Register (60 FR 12980, March 9,
1995). The current notice sets forth the
criteria and conditions that an NRTL
must meet to use the SNAP.
To use a supplemental program, an
NRTL must receive approval from
OSHA and, once approved, the
supplemental program becomes a part of
the NRTL’s scope of recognition. In
general, each NRTL is approved by
OSHA for a scope of recognition that
identifies the following three elements:
(1) The types of products the NRTL may
approve, (2) the NRTL’s ‘‘recognized
sites,’’ that are the NRTL’s wholly
owned sites that can perform the full
range of product-testing and
-certification activities necessary in
approving those products, and (3)
‘‘supplemental programs,’’ that, unlike
the other two elements, are optional.
Through these programs, an NRTL can
use other resources in performing
activities necessary for product testing
and certification. OSHA maintains a
Web page for each NRTL describing its
scope of recognition.
For more information about
supplemental programs and the NRTL
Program in general, see the 1995
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:16 Jan 08, 2009
Jkt 217001
Federal Register notice cited above, and
Chapters 1 and 2 of the NRTL Program
Directive (hereafter, ‘‘the NRTL
Directive’’; CPL 01–00–003—CPL 1–0.3
(‘‘NRTL Program Policies, Procedures,
and Guidelines’’)), which is available on
OSHA’s Web site at https://
www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/
index.html. This site also provides a
listing of the types of products that
OSHA requires to be approved by
NRTLs and the regulations of the NRTL
Program (29 CFR 1910.7)
II. Summary and Analysis of Comments
OSHA provided 30 days for the public
to submit comments on the proposed
SNAP, with the comment period ending
on May 21, 2008 (73 FR 21378, April 21,
2008). We received seven comments—
six from currently recognized NRTLs,
and one from an independent
consultant who is a former staff member
of OSHA’s NRTL Program. In the
remainder of this section, we discuss
the comments made on the key
conditions described for the proposed
SNAP.
A. Limiting use of an NRTL’s mark to
wholly owned SNAP sites. In the notice
proposing the SNAP, OSHA stated that
it ‘‘would allow SNAP sites that are
wholly owned by the NRTL to authorize
the use of the NRTL’s mark.’’ (Ex.
OSHA–2007–0053–0001, p. 21380.)
OSHA proposed this condition because
it believes that NRTLs must retain
control of this final step of their
product-approval process. This step
identifies them as the entity that tested
and approved a product for use in the
workplace. However, several
commenters opposed this condition. For
example, the Canadian Standards
Association (CSA) stated that this
condition was ‘‘overly restrictive and
could prevent expansion of SNAP
internationally.’’ (Ex. OSHA–2007–
0053–0007.) Underwriters Laboratories
(UL) noted that this condition could
weaken the approval process because a
majority-owned SNAP site would lack
‘‘authority to grant or withdraw use of
the NRTL[’s] mark.’’ In addition, UL
noted that the ‘‘[a]uthorization to use
the mark is an administrative, not
technical, task that follows the critical
technical review and decision on
certification.’’ Thus, if maintained as a
final and administrative step, allowing a
majority-owned site to grant the mark
would not compromise the testing and
certification process. UL also
commented that this condition would
make auditing the entire process
impractical because ‘‘OSHA must audit
2 separate sites to review the complete
certification process.’’ (Ex. OSHA–
2007–0053–0006.) These comments
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
made clear that OSHA does not have to
limit the authorization function to
SNAP sites owned solely by an NRTL,
especially when the decision on
certification can occur at a majorityowned site. Thus, OSHA removed this
condition from the SNAP.
B. Definition of SNAP sites. OSHA
proposed that NRTLs, or organizations
in which NRTLs have a majority
interest, own or lease SNAP sites.
Several NRTLs stated that this condition
eliminated the option of using sites
owned or leased by their parent
company. (See Exs. OSHA–2007–0053–
0002 and –0003.) Intertek Testing
Services NA (ITSNA) also noted that
current NRTL Program policy
(paragraph X, Appendix C, NRTL
Directive) allows NRTLs to either
wholly own or ‘‘organizationally
encompass’’ their recognized sites.
Thus, the policy does not require the
NRTL to demonstrate ownership of sites
that are organizationally encompassed.
(Ex. OSHA–2007–0053–0003.) This
comment indicated that OSHA should
allow NRTLs to similarly encompass
their SNAP sites or allow SNAP sites
that are not majority-owned by the
NRTL. NSF International (NSF) pointed
out that the majority-ownership
condition makes it impossible to have
SNAP sites in foreign countries that do
not permit majority ownership by
outside entities. (OSHA–2007–0053–
0009.)
OSHA proposed the majorityownership condition to ensure that
NRTLs would have administrative and
operational control over the SNAP site.
OSHA believes that this condition
would maintain the same degree of
control that NRTLs must now exercise
over their recognized sites. This policy
specifies that the NRTL must wholly
own or ‘‘organizationally encompass’’
its recognized sites, and ‘‘have
administrative and operational control
over these sites.’’ (As explained below,
the term ‘‘organizationally encompass,’’
when used in this context, is equivalent
to the NRTL completely owning the
site’s legal entity.) The policy also states
that ‘‘the NRTL must clearly
demonstrate control in its operating
policies and procedures and quality
assurance program documentation.’’
OSHA requires this policy largely to
ensure that a site that it recognizes as
part of the NRTL (i.e., a recognized site)
constitutes the NRTL’s technical
capabilities, which is necessary to
determine that the NRTL meets the
capability requirements under 29 CFR
1910.7. However, as explained in the
notice proposing the SNAP, a SNAP
site’s technical capabilities are not
considered in making this
E:\FR\FM\09JAN1.SGM
09JAN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 6 / Friday, January 9, 2009 / Notices
determination. Thus, majorityownership ensures that NRTLs maintain
administrative and operational control
over their SNAP sites, thereby providing
NRTLs the flexibility under SNAP to
conduct their certification activities at
more locations than had been
previously possible.
As used in OSHA’s policy on Sites,
the term ‘‘organizationally encompass’’
means that a site is within the NRTL’s
organizational structure and subject to
the NRTL’s control. This term covers
situations in which a state or region of
a country issues a license to the NRTL
that identifies its legal name, and allows
it to establish an office or facility in this
state or region to conduct business
without requiring the NRTL to establish
the office or facility as a subsidiary with
a headquarters located outside the
country. Because the site’s legal entity is
the NRTL, the entity is in effect wholly
owned by the NRTL. Thus, the NRTL’s
control over a SNAP site would not
diminish if OSHA permits an NRTL to
establish a SNAP site that is
organizationally encompassed by the
NRTL. Therefore, the definition of a
SNAP site in the final SNAP Description
will provide for this option.
With respect to the comments
suggesting that OSHA allow SNAP sites
that are owned by the NRTL’s parent
company, ITSNA stated that it has
‘‘significant experience’’ that
demonstrates ownership by ‘‘a common
parent’’ of both the site and the NRTL
‘‘can provide the same level of control’’
as direct ownership of this site by the
NRTL. (Ex. OSHA–2007–0053–0003,
p. 2.) In reviewing this condition, OSHA
agrees that the requisite control would
exist provided that the NRTL’s parent
company wholly owns or
organizationally encompasses the site,
and delegates or otherwise assigns
responsibility for the site’s SNAP
functions to the NRTL. This control
must be demonstrated in the parent’s
and the NRTL’s policies or procedures,
as appropriate. Under these
circumstances, OSHA would be assured
that NRTLs exercise the same degree of
control that OSHA now requires by
NRTLs over their recognized sites.
Accordingly, OSHA concludes that the
NRTL has control of a SNAP site wholly
owned or organizationally encompassed
by the NRTL’s parent company when
the parent company delegates to the
NRTL operational and administrative
control over the SNAP site or the
functions performed on behalf of the
NRTL at the site.
C. Frequency of SNAP-site audits.
OSHA specified in the proposal that
NRTLs must perform an initial audit to
qualify a site for the SNAP, and then
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:16 Jan 08, 2009
Jkt 217001
perform two program audits and one
technical audit at the site each year.
OSHA proposed these conditions to
ensure that NRTLs timely identified
nonconforming situations at SNAP sites.
OSHA plans to audit each SNAP site
every two years and, therefore, is relying
on adequate oversight by NRTLs to
compensate for the reduced frequency
of OSHA audits. This proposed
condition seemed to be a reasonable
safeguard for assuring the NRTLs could
resolve problems before serious
consequences arose. Several
commenters opposed this condition as
excessive, and unnecessary for proper
oversight. (See Exs. OSHA–2007–0053–
0003, –0004, –0009.) In reviewing this
condition, OSHA concludes that the
distinction drawn between program and
technical audits is somewhat artificial,
and that some of those audits may
overlap. Thus, OSHA believes that it
would be adequate for NRTLs to
perform a minimum of two audits of
each SNAP site on a yearly (12-month)
cycle, provided that each audit reviews
all of the site’s SNAP operations, both
technical (e.g., staff competence,
equipment, facilities) and programmatic
(e.g., quality-control procedures,
internal audits, control of the
certification mark). However, if the site
only performs SNAP product testing
and no ‘‘SNAP function’’ (both
described later in this notice), then the
NRTL must perform a minimum of one
audit of the SNAP site, provided that
the audit reviews all of a SNAP sites
testing activities. This frequency is
consistent with the current practice
specified by OSHA for regular internal
audits by NRTLs of their testing
processes.
D. Location of auditors. OSHA
proposed that the program auditor for
SNAP sites be located at the SNAP
headquarters of the NRTL, which would
need to be located at a recognized site.
OSHA proposed this condition because
it believed that the headquarters would
have experienced and well qualified
auditors available, and using a
centralized pool of auditors would
maintain the continuity and reliability
of audits. In addition, locating the
NRTL’s auditors at a central location
would facilitate access to the NRTL
auditors and their reports by OSHA
auditors, especially when OSHA
auditors conduct annual audits at the
NRTL’s SNAP headquarters. NSF
believed that staff located at other sites
are as qualified to conduct audits as
auditors from the SNAP headquarters of
the NRTL. (Ex. OSHA–2007–0053–
0009.) Several commenters raised
concerns about the burden imposed on
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
925
auditors having to travel to many distant
SNAP sites from an NRTL’s
headquarters. (Exs. OSHA–2007–0053–
0003 and –0009.) Based on this travel
burden, ITSNA recommended that
auditors be located at the NRTLs’
regional headquarters.
After reviewing these comments,
OSHA believes that locating auditors at
a recognized site, as well as at the
NRTL’s SNAP headquarters, will not
compromise the effectiveness of the
audits. Accordingly, OSHA finds that an
NRTL can exercise adequate oversight
over its SNAP sites when the auditors
of these sites report their findings to the
NRTL’s SNAP headquarters, and when
OSHA annually audits any of these
locations annually. OSHA also is
assuring the effectiveness of the audits
by requiring that auditors be located at
any recognized site, and by requiring
the auditors at these sites to forward
audit records to the SNAP headquarters
of the NRTL and to keep a copy of the
audit report at the auditor’s location.
E. Independence of NRTL’s SNAP
auditors. OSHA proposed that an
NRTL’s SNAP auditors must be in an
organizational unit that is separate from
the NRTL’s operations, and that the unit
must report directly to a senior
executive of the NRTL. OSHA proposed
this condition to ensure that SNAP
auditors were independent of an NRTL’s
operational units, and that auditing
units had authority to compel
operational units to conform with the
prescribed SNAP conditions. Two
commenters opposed this condition.
(Exs. OSHA–2007–0053–0007 and
–0008.). The first commenter believed
this condition was inappropriate
because auditing units may report to a
team of executives instead of one
executive, while the second commenter
noted that the executive structure
envisioned in the proposal may not
exist in many NRTL organizations.
OSHA agrees with these comments, and
revised the condition to specify that
SNAP auditors cannot be under the
control or direction of any SNAP site,
and that auditors must report audit
results from a SNAP site to the SNAP
headquarters of the NRTL.
F. Policies and procedures for SNAP
operations. Footnote 4 in the proposed
SNAP Description states:
For purposes of participating in SNAP and
complying with the criteria in II.C and II.D
of this description, any [NRTL may] use
policies and procedures applicable to other
aspects of its operations provided they meet
or are tailored to meet the relevant criteria.
Under such conditions, the NRTL would not
need to develop separate policies and
procedures for its participation in SNAP.
E:\FR\FM\09JAN1.SGM
09JAN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
926
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 6 / Friday, January 9, 2009 / Notices
Thus, OSHA was trying to facilitate
NRTLs’ participation in the SNAP by
permitting the NRTLs to adopt alreadydeveloped policies and procedures. In
its comment, UL recommended revising
this footnote to allow NRTLs to use
‘‘alternate policies and procedures (e.g.,
those applicable to other aspects of its
operations) provided they meet or are
tailored to meet or exceed (in an
alternate way) the relevant criteria.’’
(Ex. OSHA–2007–0053–0007; emphasis
in original noting revised language.) UL
explained that the revisions would
allow NRTLs to use ‘‘individual level
qualification’’ for SNAP sites instead of
site-level qualification. However, OSHA
requires individual qualification under
the proposed SNAP as a condition for
qualifying a site. For example,
paragraph II.C.2 of the proposed SNAP
Description requires, ‘‘Detailed criteria
to grant a site’s qualification, addressing
both its capability to evaluate a product
with respect to the requirements in a
standard (i.e., technical capability) and
its capability to perform any of the
proposed SNAP functions (i.e., program
capability).’’ Such qualification must
ensure that a site has properly qualified
staff, equipment, and procedures to
perform technical and program
functions. OSHA is revising the
proposed SNAP Description to clarify
this point, while leaving the footnote in
its proposed form.
G. Other topics and issues. CSA (Ex.
OSHA–2007–0053–0007) noted that the
proposed SNAP Description did not
provide sufficient detail regarding the
qualification and requalification
requirements to ensure consistent
application of the requirements. In
response to this comment, OSHA will
update the application format
applicable for SNAP to specify the
minimum documentation needed to
apply, and the criteria OSHA will use to
determine if the application is
satisfactory.
ITSNA expressed concern that use of
the term ‘‘leased’’ in the definition of
SNAP in the proposed SNAP
Description could be interpreted to
exclude subleasing. (Ex. OSHA–2007–
0053–0003.) To avoid confusion, OSHA
is clarifying the definition to include
subleasing and renting.
UL took exception to a statement in
the preamble of the proposal that
appeared to require NRTLs to issue the
authorization of its mark
‘‘simultaneously or concurrently with
the final decision on certification.’’ (Ex.
OSHA–2007–0053–0007.) In taking
exception to this statement, UL noted
that ‘‘there is no realistic way to
concurrently or simultaneously decide
and authorize.’’ OSHA believes the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:16 Jan 08, 2009
Jkt 217001
preamble statement is ambiguous, and
agrees with UL that authorization must
follow the decision to certify a product,
even if, as UL noted, authorization
occurs immediately after the decision.
UL also opposed the condition in the
proposed SNAP Description requiring
NRTLs to post SNAP-site locations on
the NRTLs’ Web sites. (Ex. OSHA–
2007–0053–0007.) In this regard, UL
stated that the public will have
difficulty understanding the differences
between a SNAP site and an NRTL site,
and that ‘‘competitive issues between
NRTLs using SNAP may arise regarding
how their SNAP sites are referenced on
their respective Internet sites.’’ OSHA
agrees that the public may not readily
understand the differences between
NRTL sites and SNAP sites, and that
inconsistencies could arise among
NRTLs in describing SNAP sites on
their Web sites. Therefore, OSHA will
remove this condition from the final
SNAP Description, and will maintain on
its Web site a list of NRTLs and their
associated SNAP sites, as well as an
explanation of how NRTLs and their
recognized sites differ from SNAP sites.
Finally, UL noted that the proposed
SNAP Description allowed SNAP sites
to perform testing, which UL stated was
not a SNAP function. (Ex. OSHA–2007–
0053–0007.) However, OSHA proposed
the SNAP to allow NRTLs to perform
testing and certification functions at
sites in countries that do not permit
foreign entities to wholly own local
businesses, provided the NRTL has
qualified the sites as capable of
performing specific product testing.
OSHA revised the proposed SNAP
Description to make clear that SNAP
sites can perform testing when qualified
by an NRTL to do so.
III. Key Elements of SNAP
With this Federal Register notice,
OSHA announces implementation of the
SNAP. Implementation of the SNAP
will not change any of the requirements
for NRTLs found under 29 CFR 1910.7,
or any of OSHA’s requirements
governing product approval by NRTLs.
OSHA will implement the SNAP
through the NRTL Directive as part of its
NRTL Program policy.
The SNAP will allow NRTLs to use
SNAP sites to perform functions
necessary for the NRTLs’ testing and
certification operations. To receive
approval to participate in the SNAP,
NRTLs must ensure that the SNAP sites
meet the conditions specified in the
SNAP Description. These conditions
consist of controls and safeguards for
ensuring the efficacy of the functions
performed at SNAP sites. Accordingly,
an NRTL must qualify a prospective
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
SNAP site to ensure that the site can
perform one or more functions or
activities permitted under the SNAP
Description. Also, OSHA will audit each
SNAP site, as well as the NRTL’s
recognized site that centrally manages
the NRTL’s SNAP operations. If OSHA
finds that an NRTL or a SNAP site is not
in compliance with any condition
specified in the SNAP Description, it
may remove the NRTL or the SNAP site
from the SNAP.
After reviewing the entire record,
including the comments described
above in section II of this notice
(‘‘Summary and Analysis of
Comments’’), OSHA determined that
SNAP sites will be able to perform the
following SNAP functions (paragraphs
A to E) and product-testing activity
(paragraph F):
A. Qualify under Programs 2 through
7 and 9.1 Programs 2 through 7 address
NRTLs’ acceptance and use of testing
data and product evaluations from other
facilities that are not part of their
corporate structure, specifically
independent laboratories and product
manufacturers. Under these programs,
NRTLs must qualify each location (or
site) that generates testing data or
product evaluations. In qualifying such
a facility, an NRTL must ensure that the
facility meets the NRTL’s internal
criteria for conducting the tasks
necessary to collect testing data and
perform product evaluations.
Program 9 describes the procedures
followed by NRTLs when using other
facilities to perform specified services
such as equipment calibration and
follow-up inspections. NRTLs qualify
each of these facilities to ensure that the
facilities meet the NRTL’s internal
criteria for providing the specified
services. Implementation of the SNAP
will permit SNAP sites to qualify to
perform functions described under
Programs 2 through 7 and 9.
B. Accept data under Programs 2
through 8.2 In accepting testing data or
product evaluations under Programs 2
through 8, NRTLs must have
appropriate technical personnel to
review the adequacy and accuracy of the
data and evaluations, as well as clear
procedures for conducting these
reviews. The SNAP will expand this
capability from recognized sites to
SNAP sites.
C. Provide OSHA with access to
original product-testing and -evaluation
records. AN NRTL must maintain, and
make available to OSHA on request, the
1 The NRTL Directive contains information about
each of these programs.
2 The NRTL Directive contains information about
each of these programs.
E:\FR\FM\09JAN1.SGM
09JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 6 / Friday, January 9, 2009 / Notices
original records resulting from its
product testing and evaluation
functions. These critical documents
allow NRTLs to exercise quality control
over product testing and evaluation
functions, and permit OSHA to perform
an accurate audit of these NRTL
functions. SNAP sites must have the
capability to maintain, and provide
OSHA with access to, records of
functions performed on behalf of
NRTLs.
D. Perform final technical reviews and
make decisions on product certification.
Final technical reviews and subsequent
decisions regarding product certification
are the last functions performed in the
technical process for product
certification. To provide assurance that
a product meets the relevant test
standard(s), only a well qualified
technical staff can perform these
functions. As with recognized sites,
SNAP sites can perform these functions
only if they have demonstrated the
capability of doing so.
E. Authorize use of an NRTL’s mark.
An NRTL’s mark symbolizes the final
decision to certify a product, and clearly
identifies the NRTL as the source
responsible for testing and certifying the
product. While the SNAP will permit a
SNAP site to authorize the mark of the
NRTL for which it performs producttesting and -certification functions, the
NRTLs must control the use of their
marks and ensure that SNAP sites
authorize this use only after the
decision to certify a product.
F. SNAP product-testing activity.
SNAP sites may perform product testing
within the scope of recognition of the
NRTL, provided that the NRTL qualifies
the site as having the capability for this
testing. This activity may be the only
activity performed by a SNAP site, or
supplement one or more SNAP
functions.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
IV. Submitting SNAP Applications
OSHA will begin accepting
applications from NRTLs for the SNAP
after its effective date of May 11, 2009.
At that time, OSHA will invite NRTLs
and NRTL applicants to apply for
approval to participate in SNAP and
establish SNAP sites. Prior to submitting
a SNAP application, applicants should
review the SNAP Description, which
OSHA will make available on its Web
site for the NRTL Program at https://
www.osha-slc.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/
index.html. This Web site will contain
instructions describing the information
to submit in a SNAP application and
will provide an application format that
may be used for this purpose.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:16 Jan 08, 2009
Jkt 217001
V. Authority and Signature
Thomas M. Stohler, Acting Assistant
Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, U.S. Department of
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210, directed the
preparation of this notice. Accordingly,
the Agency is issuing this notice
pursuant to sections 6(b) and 8(g) of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (29 U.S.C. 655 and 657), Secretary
of Labor’s Order 5–2007 (72 FR 31160),
and 29 CFR 1911.
Signed at Washington, DC, on January 5th,
2009.
Thomas M. Stohler,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. E9–163 Filed 1–8–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
Revisions to the Voluntary Protection
Programs To Provide Safe and
Healthful Working Conditions
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), Labor.
ACTION: Notice of revisions to the
program.
SUMMARY: This notice, which sets forth
the basic philosophy and requirements
of the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration’s Voluntary Protection
Programs (VPP), revises VPP’s
traditional focus on individual fixed
worksites by adding two new ways to
participate: Mobile workforce and
corporate. A significant reorganization
of the program helps clarify the multiple
participation options now available.
Additional changes include: Greater
flexibility in the VPP Demonstration
Program; modified provisions
concerning Star Program Rate Reduction
Plans and 1-Year Conditional status;
clarified requirements for Federal
agency participants performing
construction activities; and a new
expectation concerning outreach and
mentoring activities.
DATES: The revisions are effective 120
days from date of publication in the
Federal Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cathy Oliver, Director, Office of
Partnerships and Recognition,
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Room N3700, 200
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20210, telephone (202) 693–2213.
Electronic copies of this Federal
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
927
Register notice, as well as news releases
and other relevant documents, are
available at OSHA’s Web site, https://
www.osha.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
A. Background
The Voluntary Protection Programs
(VPP), adopted by OSHA in Federal
Register Notice 47 FR 29025, July 2,
1982, and subsequently revised, have
established the efficacy of cooperative
action among government, industry, and
labor to address worker safety and
health issues and expand worker
protection. VPP participation
requirements center on comprehensive
management systems with significant
management leadership and active
employee involvement to prevent or
control the safety and health hazards at
the worksite. Employers who qualify
generally view OSHA standards as a
minimum level of safety and health
performance and set their own more
stringent standards where necessary for
effective employee protection.
Continuous improvement is a wellestablished principle of VPP.
Participants strive to make ongoing
gains in performance and protective
systems, and OSHA strives to improve
the VPP, its policies and procedures,
and its impact on workplaces
throughout the United States.
The well documented success of VPP,
the applicability of VPP principles to
diverse industries and work situations,
and the presence within its ranks of
world-class models of safety and health
excellence have produced a continuing
stream of applications from small and
large businesses and Federal agencies,
both union and non-union. VPP,
OSHA’s premier recognition program,
has become a powerful tool for reducing
workplace injuries and illnesses.
VPP’s original focus was on
establishing effective safety and health
management systems at individual fixed
worksites where the employer had
responsibility and authority to control
safety and health. OSHA’s experience
with VPP Demonstration Programs and
other cooperative programs, and the
public comments on its proposal in the
Federal Register to establish a VPP for
Construction, 69 FR 53300, August 31,
2004, have demonstrated that the basic
principles of site-based safety and
health management apply equally well
to workforces that move from one work
project and location to another and
whose employers may not have
controlling authority for safety and
health.
E:\FR\FM\09JAN1.SGM
09JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 6 (Friday, January 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 923-927]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-163]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
[Docket No. OSHA-2007-0053]
Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories; Satellite
Notification and Acceptance Program
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
ACTION: Implementation of the Satellite Notification and Acceptance
Program.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces OSHA's implementation of the ninth
supplemental program under its Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory
(NRTL) Program. This supplemental program is the Satellite Notification
and Acceptance Program (SNAP), and participation by NRTLs in the SNAP
is voluntary. The SNAP Description for this program specifies the
conditions under which NRTLs may use SNAP sites to perform equipment
testing and certification functions.
[[Page 924]]
DATES: The SNAP will become effective on May 11, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MaryAnn Garrahan, Director, Office of
Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, NRTL Program,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210,
or phone (202) 693-2110.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On April 21, 2008, OSHA published in the Federal Register a notice
proposing the SNAP, and requested public comment on the proposal (73 FR
21378). OSHA made the proposed SNAP Description available on its Web
site at https://www.osha-slc.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/, but did not
provide this document in the published proposal. OSHA received seven
comments to the proposal, and has made a number of revisions to the
proposed SNAP based on these comments.
The SNAP will become the ninth supplemental program available to
NRTLs under the NRTL Program. In general, supplemental programs permit
an NRTL to use the services of other facilities to test and certify
products used in the workplace. OSHA formally established the initial
eight supplemental programs after publishing a description of these
programs in the Federal Register (60 FR 12980, March 9, 1995). The
current notice sets forth the criteria and conditions that an NRTL must
meet to use the SNAP.
To use a supplemental program, an NRTL must receive approval from
OSHA and, once approved, the supplemental program becomes a part of the
NRTL's scope of recognition. In general, each NRTL is approved by OSHA
for a scope of recognition that identifies the following three
elements: (1) The types of products the NRTL may approve, (2) the
NRTL's ``recognized sites,'' that are the NRTL's wholly owned sites
that can perform the full range of product-testing and -certification
activities necessary in approving those products, and (3)
``supplemental programs,'' that, unlike the other two elements, are
optional. Through these programs, an NRTL can use other resources in
performing activities necessary for product testing and certification.
OSHA maintains a Web page for each NRTL describing its scope of
recognition.
For more information about supplemental programs and the NRTL
Program in general, see the 1995 Federal Register notice cited above,
and Chapters 1 and 2 of the NRTL Program Directive (hereafter, ``the
NRTL Directive''; CPL 01-00-003--CPL 1-0.3 (``NRTL Program Policies,
Procedures, and Guidelines'')), which is available on OSHA's Web site
at https://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/. This site also
provides a listing of the types of products that OSHA requires to be
approved by NRTLs and the regulations of the NRTL Program (29 CFR
1910.7)
II. Summary and Analysis of Comments
OSHA provided 30 days for the public to submit comments on the
proposed SNAP, with the comment period ending on May 21, 2008 (73 FR
21378, April 21, 2008). We received seven comments--six from currently
recognized NRTLs, and one from an independent consultant who is a
former staff member of OSHA's NRTL Program. In the remainder of this
section, we discuss the comments made on the key conditions described
for the proposed SNAP.
A. Limiting use of an NRTL's mark to wholly owned SNAP sites. In
the notice proposing the SNAP, OSHA stated that it ``would allow SNAP
sites that are wholly owned by the NRTL to authorize the use of the
NRTL's mark.'' (Ex. OSHA-2007-0053-0001, p. 21380.) OSHA proposed this
condition because it believes that NRTLs must retain control of this
final step of their product-approval process. This step identifies them
as the entity that tested and approved a product for use in the
workplace. However, several commenters opposed this condition. For
example, the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) stated that this
condition was ``overly restrictive and could prevent expansion of SNAP
internationally.'' (Ex. OSHA-2007-0053-0007.) Underwriters Laboratories
(UL) noted that this condition could weaken the approval process
because a majority-owned SNAP site would lack ``authority to grant or
withdraw use of the NRTL['s] mark.'' In addition, UL noted that the
``[a]uthorization to use the mark is an administrative, not technical,
task that follows the critical technical review and decision on
certification.'' Thus, if maintained as a final and administrative
step, allowing a majority-owned site to grant the mark would not
compromise the testing and certification process. UL also commented
that this condition would make auditing the entire process impractical
because ``OSHA must audit 2 separate sites to review the complete
certification process.'' (Ex. OSHA-2007-0053-0006.) These comments made
clear that OSHA does not have to limit the authorization function to
SNAP sites owned solely by an NRTL, especially when the decision on
certification can occur at a majority-owned site. Thus, OSHA removed
this condition from the SNAP.
B. Definition of SNAP sites. OSHA proposed that NRTLs, or
organizations in which NRTLs have a majority interest, own or lease
SNAP sites. Several NRTLs stated that this condition eliminated the
option of using sites owned or leased by their parent company. (See
Exs. OSHA-2007-0053-0002 and -0003.) Intertek Testing Services NA
(ITSNA) also noted that current NRTL Program policy (paragraph X,
Appendix C, NRTL Directive) allows NRTLs to either wholly own or
``organizationally encompass'' their recognized sites. Thus, the policy
does not require the NRTL to demonstrate ownership of sites that are
organizationally encompassed. (Ex. OSHA-2007-0053-0003.) This comment
indicated that OSHA should allow NRTLs to similarly encompass their
SNAP sites or allow SNAP sites that are not majority-owned by the NRTL.
NSF International (NSF) pointed out that the majority-ownership
condition makes it impossible to have SNAP sites in foreign countries
that do not permit majority ownership by outside entities. (OSHA-2007-
0053-0009.)
OSHA proposed the majority-ownership condition to ensure that NRTLs
would have administrative and operational control over the SNAP site.
OSHA believes that this condition would maintain the same degree of
control that NRTLs must now exercise over their recognized sites. This
policy specifies that the NRTL must wholly own or ``organizationally
encompass'' its recognized sites, and ``have administrative and
operational control over these sites.'' (As explained below, the term
``organizationally encompass,'' when used in this context, is
equivalent to the NRTL completely owning the site's legal entity.) The
policy also states that ``the NRTL must clearly demonstrate control in
its operating policies and procedures and quality assurance program
documentation.''
OSHA requires this policy largely to ensure that a site that it
recognizes as part of the NRTL (i.e., a recognized site) constitutes
the NRTL's technical capabilities, which is necessary to determine that
the NRTL meets the capability requirements under 29 CFR 1910.7.
However, as explained in the notice proposing the SNAP, a SNAP site's
technical capabilities are not considered in making this
[[Page 925]]
determination. Thus, majority-ownership ensures that NRTLs maintain
administrative and operational control over their SNAP sites, thereby
providing NRTLs the flexibility under SNAP to conduct their
certification activities at more locations than had been previously
possible.
As used in OSHA's policy on Sites, the term ``organizationally
encompass'' means that a site is within the NRTL's organizational
structure and subject to the NRTL's control. This term covers
situations in which a state or region of a country issues a license to
the NRTL that identifies its legal name, and allows it to establish an
office or facility in this state or region to conduct business without
requiring the NRTL to establish the office or facility as a subsidiary
with a headquarters located outside the country. Because the site's
legal entity is the NRTL, the entity is in effect wholly owned by the
NRTL. Thus, the NRTL's control over a SNAP site would not diminish if
OSHA permits an NRTL to establish a SNAP site that is organizationally
encompassed by the NRTL. Therefore, the definition of a SNAP site in
the final SNAP Description will provide for this option.
With respect to the comments suggesting that OSHA allow SNAP sites
that are owned by the NRTL's parent company, ITSNA stated that it has
``significant experience'' that demonstrates ownership by ``a common
parent'' of both the site and the NRTL ``can provide the same level of
control'' as direct ownership of this site by the NRTL. (Ex. OSHA-2007-
0053-0003, p. 2.) In reviewing this condition, OSHA agrees that the
requisite control would exist provided that the NRTL's parent company
wholly owns or organizationally encompasses the site, and delegates or
otherwise assigns responsibility for the site's SNAP functions to the
NRTL. This control must be demonstrated in the parent's and the NRTL's
policies or procedures, as appropriate. Under these circumstances, OSHA
would be assured that NRTLs exercise the same degree of control that
OSHA now requires by NRTLs over their recognized sites. Accordingly,
OSHA concludes that the NRTL has control of a SNAP site wholly owned or
organizationally encompassed by the NRTL's parent company when the
parent company delegates to the NRTL operational and administrative
control over the SNAP site or the functions performed on behalf of the
NRTL at the site.
C. Frequency of SNAP-site audits. OSHA specified in the proposal
that NRTLs must perform an initial audit to qualify a site for the
SNAP, and then perform two program audits and one technical audit at
the site each year. OSHA proposed these conditions to ensure that NRTLs
timely identified nonconforming situations at SNAP sites. OSHA plans to
audit each SNAP site every two years and, therefore, is relying on
adequate oversight by NRTLs to compensate for the reduced frequency of
OSHA audits. This proposed condition seemed to be a reasonable
safeguard for assuring the NRTLs could resolve problems before serious
consequences arose. Several commenters opposed this condition as
excessive, and unnecessary for proper oversight. (See Exs. OSHA-2007-
0053-0003, -0004, -0009.) In reviewing this condition, OSHA concludes
that the distinction drawn between program and technical audits is
somewhat artificial, and that some of those audits may overlap. Thus,
OSHA believes that it would be adequate for NRTLs to perform a minimum
of two audits of each SNAP site on a yearly (12-month) cycle, provided
that each audit reviews all of the site's SNAP operations, both
technical (e.g., staff competence, equipment, facilities) and
programmatic (e.g., quality-control procedures, internal audits,
control of the certification mark). However, if the site only performs
SNAP product testing and no ``SNAP function'' (both described later in
this notice), then the NRTL must perform a minimum of one audit of the
SNAP site, provided that the audit reviews all of a SNAP sites testing
activities. This frequency is consistent with the current practice
specified by OSHA for regular internal audits by NRTLs of their testing
processes.
D. Location of auditors. OSHA proposed that the program auditor for
SNAP sites be located at the SNAP headquarters of the NRTL, which would
need to be located at a recognized site. OSHA proposed this condition
because it believed that the headquarters would have experienced and
well qualified auditors available, and using a centralized pool of
auditors would maintain the continuity and reliability of audits. In
addition, locating the NRTL's auditors at a central location would
facilitate access to the NRTL auditors and their reports by OSHA
auditors, especially when OSHA auditors conduct annual audits at the
NRTL's SNAP headquarters. NSF believed that staff located at other
sites are as qualified to conduct audits as auditors from the SNAP
headquarters of the NRTL. (Ex. OSHA-2007-0053-0009.) Several commenters
raised concerns about the burden imposed on auditors having to travel
to many distant SNAP sites from an NRTL's headquarters. (Exs. OSHA-
2007-0053-0003 and -0009.) Based on this travel burden, ITSNA
recommended that auditors be located at the NRTLs' regional
headquarters.
After reviewing these comments, OSHA believes that locating
auditors at a recognized site, as well as at the NRTL's SNAP
headquarters, will not compromise the effectiveness of the audits.
Accordingly, OSHA finds that an NRTL can exercise adequate oversight
over its SNAP sites when the auditors of these sites report their
findings to the NRTL's SNAP headquarters, and when OSHA annually audits
any of these locations annually. OSHA also is assuring the
effectiveness of the audits by requiring that auditors be located at
any recognized site, and by requiring the auditors at these sites to
forward audit records to the SNAP headquarters of the NRTL and to keep
a copy of the audit report at the auditor's location.
E. Independence of NRTL's SNAP auditors. OSHA proposed that an
NRTL's SNAP auditors must be in an organizational unit that is separate
from the NRTL's operations, and that the unit must report directly to a
senior executive of the NRTL. OSHA proposed this condition to ensure
that SNAP auditors were independent of an NRTL's operational units, and
that auditing units had authority to compel operational units to
conform with the prescribed SNAP conditions. Two commenters opposed
this condition. (Exs. OSHA-2007-0053-0007 and -0008.). The first
commenter believed this condition was inappropriate because auditing
units may report to a team of executives instead of one executive,
while the second commenter noted that the executive structure
envisioned in the proposal may not exist in many NRTL organizations.
OSHA agrees with these comments, and revised the condition to specify
that SNAP auditors cannot be under the control or direction of any SNAP
site, and that auditors must report audit results from a SNAP site to
the SNAP headquarters of the NRTL.
F. Policies and procedures for SNAP operations. Footnote 4 in the
proposed SNAP Description states:
For purposes of participating in SNAP and complying with the
criteria in II.C and II.D of this description, any [NRTL may] use
policies and procedures applicable to other aspects of its
operations provided they meet or are tailored to meet the relevant
criteria. Under such conditions, the NRTL would not need to develop
separate policies and procedures for its participation in SNAP.
[[Page 926]]
Thus, OSHA was trying to facilitate NRTLs' participation in the SNAP by
permitting the NRTLs to adopt already-developed policies and
procedures. In its comment, UL recommended revising this footnote to
allow NRTLs to use ``alternate policies and procedures (e.g., those
applicable to other aspects of its operations) provided they meet or
are tailored to meet or exceed (in an alternate way) the relevant
criteria.'' (Ex. OSHA-2007-0053-0007; emphasis in original noting
revised language.) UL explained that the revisions would allow NRTLs to
use ``individual level qualification'' for SNAP sites instead of site-
level qualification. However, OSHA requires individual qualification
under the proposed SNAP as a condition for qualifying a site. For
example, paragraph II.C.2 of the proposed SNAP Description requires,
``Detailed criteria to grant a site's qualification, addressing both
its capability to evaluate a product with respect to the requirements
in a standard (i.e., technical capability) and its capability to
perform any of the proposed SNAP functions (i.e., program
capability).'' Such qualification must ensure that a site has properly
qualified staff, equipment, and procedures to perform technical and
program functions. OSHA is revising the proposed SNAP Description to
clarify this point, while leaving the footnote in its proposed form.
G. Other topics and issues. CSA (Ex. OSHA-2007-0053-0007) noted
that the proposed SNAP Description did not provide sufficient detail
regarding the qualification and requalification requirements to ensure
consistent application of the requirements. In response to this
comment, OSHA will update the application format applicable for SNAP to
specify the minimum documentation needed to apply, and the criteria
OSHA will use to determine if the application is satisfactory.
ITSNA expressed concern that use of the term ``leased'' in the
definition of SNAP in the proposed SNAP Description could be
interpreted to exclude subleasing. (Ex. OSHA-2007-0053-0003.) To avoid
confusion, OSHA is clarifying the definition to include subleasing and
renting.
UL took exception to a statement in the preamble of the proposal
that appeared to require NRTLs to issue the authorization of its mark
``simultaneously or concurrently with the final decision on
certification.'' (Ex. OSHA-2007-0053-0007.) In taking exception to this
statement, UL noted that ``there is no realistic way to concurrently or
simultaneously decide and authorize.'' OSHA believes the preamble
statement is ambiguous, and agrees with UL that authorization must
follow the decision to certify a product, even if, as UL noted,
authorization occurs immediately after the decision.
UL also opposed the condition in the proposed SNAP Description
requiring NRTLs to post SNAP-site locations on the NRTLs' Web sites.
(Ex. OSHA-2007-0053-0007.) In this regard, UL stated that the public
will have difficulty understanding the differences between a SNAP site
and an NRTL site, and that ``competitive issues between NRTLs using
SNAP may arise regarding how their SNAP sites are referenced on their
respective Internet sites.'' OSHA agrees that the public may not
readily understand the differences between NRTL sites and SNAP sites,
and that inconsistencies could arise among NRTLs in describing SNAP
sites on their Web sites. Therefore, OSHA will remove this condition
from the final SNAP Description, and will maintain on its Web site a
list of NRTLs and their associated SNAP sites, as well as an
explanation of how NRTLs and their recognized sites differ from SNAP
sites.
Finally, UL noted that the proposed SNAP Description allowed SNAP
sites to perform testing, which UL stated was not a SNAP function. (Ex.
OSHA-2007-0053-0007.) However, OSHA proposed the SNAP to allow NRTLs to
perform testing and certification functions at sites in countries that
do not permit foreign entities to wholly own local businesses, provided
the NRTL has qualified the sites as capable of performing specific
product testing. OSHA revised the proposed SNAP Description to make
clear that SNAP sites can perform testing when qualified by an NRTL to
do so.
III. Key Elements of SNAP
With this Federal Register notice, OSHA announces implementation of
the SNAP. Implementation of the SNAP will not change any of the
requirements for NRTLs found under 29 CFR 1910.7, or any of OSHA's
requirements governing product approval by NRTLs. OSHA will implement
the SNAP through the NRTL Directive as part of its NRTL Program policy.
The SNAP will allow NRTLs to use SNAP sites to perform functions
necessary for the NRTLs' testing and certification operations. To
receive approval to participate in the SNAP, NRTLs must ensure that the
SNAP sites meet the conditions specified in the SNAP Description. These
conditions consist of controls and safeguards for ensuring the efficacy
of the functions performed at SNAP sites. Accordingly, an NRTL must
qualify a prospective SNAP site to ensure that the site can perform one
or more functions or activities permitted under the SNAP Description.
Also, OSHA will audit each SNAP site, as well as the NRTL's recognized
site that centrally manages the NRTL's SNAP operations. If OSHA finds
that an NRTL or a SNAP site is not in compliance with any condition
specified in the SNAP Description, it may remove the NRTL or the SNAP
site from the SNAP.
After reviewing the entire record, including the comments described
above in section II of this notice (``Summary and Analysis of
Comments''), OSHA determined that SNAP sites will be able to perform
the following SNAP functions (paragraphs A to E) and product-testing
activity (paragraph F):
A. Qualify under Programs 2 through 7 and 9.\1\ Programs 2 through
7 address NRTLs' acceptance and use of testing data and product
evaluations from other facilities that are not part of their corporate
structure, specifically independent laboratories and product
manufacturers. Under these programs, NRTLs must qualify each location
(or site) that generates testing data or product evaluations. In
qualifying such a facility, an NRTL must ensure that the facility meets
the NRTL's internal criteria for conducting the tasks necessary to
collect testing data and perform product evaluations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The NRTL Directive contains information about each of these
programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program 9 describes the procedures followed by NRTLs when using
other facilities to perform specified services such as equipment
calibration and follow-up inspections. NRTLs qualify each of these
facilities to ensure that the facilities meet the NRTL's internal
criteria for providing the specified services. Implementation of the
SNAP will permit SNAP sites to qualify to perform functions described
under Programs 2 through 7 and 9.
B. Accept data under Programs 2 through 8.\2\ In accepting testing
data or product evaluations under Programs 2 through 8, NRTLs must have
appropriate technical personnel to review the adequacy and accuracy of
the data and evaluations, as well as clear procedures for conducting
these reviews. The SNAP will expand this capability from recognized
sites to SNAP sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The NRTL Directive contains information about each of these
programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Provide OSHA with access to original product-testing and -
evaluation records. AN NRTL must maintain, and make available to OSHA
on request, the
[[Page 927]]
original records resulting from its product testing and evaluation
functions. These critical documents allow NRTLs to exercise quality
control over product testing and evaluation functions, and permit OSHA
to perform an accurate audit of these NRTL functions. SNAP sites must
have the capability to maintain, and provide OSHA with access to,
records of functions performed on behalf of NRTLs.
D. Perform final technical reviews and make decisions on product
certification. Final technical reviews and subsequent decisions
regarding product certification are the last functions performed in the
technical process for product certification. To provide assurance that
a product meets the relevant test standard(s), only a well qualified
technical staff can perform these functions. As with recognized sites,
SNAP sites can perform these functions only if they have demonstrated
the capability of doing so.
E. Authorize use of an NRTL's mark. An NRTL's mark symbolizes the
final decision to certify a product, and clearly identifies the NRTL as
the source responsible for testing and certifying the product. While
the SNAP will permit a SNAP site to authorize the mark of the NRTL for
which it performs product-testing and -certification functions, the
NRTLs must control the use of their marks and ensure that SNAP sites
authorize this use only after the decision to certify a product.
F. SNAP product-testing activity. SNAP sites may perform product
testing within the scope of recognition of the NRTL, provided that the
NRTL qualifies the site as having the capability for this testing. This
activity may be the only activity performed by a SNAP site, or
supplement one or more SNAP functions.
IV. Submitting SNAP Applications
OSHA will begin accepting applications from NRTLs for the SNAP
after its effective date of May 11, 2009. At that time, OSHA will
invite NRTLs and NRTL applicants to apply for approval to participate
in SNAP and establish SNAP sites. Prior to submitting a SNAP
application, applicants should review the SNAP Description, which OSHA
will make available on its Web site for the NRTL Program at https://
www.osha-slc.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/. This Web site will contain
instructions describing the information to submit in a SNAP application
and will provide an application format that may be used for this
purpose.
V. Authority and Signature
Thomas M. Stohler, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, directed the
preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this
notice pursuant to sections 6(b) and 8(g) of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655 and 657), Secretary of Labor's
Order 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), and 29 CFR 1911.
Signed at Washington, DC, on January 5th, 2009.
Thomas M. Stohler,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. E9-163 Filed 1-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
