They're incentivized to help you get it decided clearly as quickly as possible.  Because they want to realize that income sooner rather than later.  Take advantage of that.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Very good.
              MR. FIGUEIREDO:  On the other point also, is the experience that the accreditation bodies in the U.S. has, that they have, that we have with scheme owners.
              Like ANSI, we have memoranda of understanding with more than 36 scheme owners.  We have with EPA, EnergyStar, Water Sense, FCC, go on and on.

              And we got not only ANSI but other ABs in the U.S.  We got a lot of knowledge on how to deal with the scheme owners.  Because it was a learning curve for us in the beginning on how to deal with scheme owners.
              And also, you're going to see, in some regions of the world, that you're going to go there and you're going to put your requirements on the table.
              They're going to say, look, I'm not going to use this, I cannot use.  You're going to see this.  And then you need to be prepared for this type of situation.
              And another point on what Peter Unger brought about the qualification of assessors.  That is a key also, not only for your scheme, but all the other schemes that exist today, qualification and competence of the assessors, of the accreditation bodies.
              If it's going to be used, that's going to qualify them, or you're going to accept another certification body that do personal certification.  You need to start to think of that as well.

              MR. ROBINSON:  Thank you.  I think  we've beaten this one up a little bit.  Are there any other questions?  There's a lot more information we need to get.  But I want to move on.  Are there any other questions that we have from out in the audience?  Yes?
              MS. MALAKHOVA:  Hi, Natalia Malakhova with ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board.  I just wanted to piggyback on what Reinaldo has said, is that we are in this business.
              We've been doing this for a long time.  We have experience, and we can help you set up the program any way you want to.  For example, you know, you've mentioned some of the factors that you were walking into facilities where, you know, there are 17025 accreditation, but they're missing X, Y and Z.
              The question that I would think about is like are they accredited for that specific test method under 17025 accreditation?

              Because under 17025 accreditation, we go out there to ensure that they have the calibrated equipment.  But it is focused for that specific test method.  So just because the facility is 25 accredited, doesn't mean that the facility can do anything under the world, under, you know.  It has to be accredited for that specific test method.
              And then we would ensure that it has the equipment to do that.  It has the trained personnel, it has the procedures, whatever you name, whatever you want us to verify, we would do that.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Any other questions.  Everyone's hungry.
              MR. NATHAN:  Kevin, I do have --
              (Laughter)
              MR. NATHAN:  I have one final urgent plea to you that please get involved as we are involved with you as a stakeholder.  Please to get involved with the international accreditation group, because they're looking for regulators to participate.

              And again, I keep saying that in APLAC meetings, Asia Pacific, that folks like you need to be on the table to talk about it.  Because there are a lot of international ABs that will get impacted by it.
              More importantly, you can get your message across.  It's too bad that last week you could not go to the ILAC meeting in Vancouver.  But please do get involved.  Because I think you will get much more robust feedback on this, not only from the international but certainly from the U.S. ABs.
              MR. ROBINSON:  And I would say I think we certainly appreciate that.  The challenge we face is, right now with a staff of three, four, I'm sorry, with a staff of four, our time is extremely limited.
              And we really have to pick which groups are going to give us the best value for our time.  And to that end, I would say if there are groups that anyone feels that we should be involved in, please let us know.

              Because, you know, we try to be involved, and we are trying to be involved as much as we can.  But we really do need to pick our battles and which is going to give us the best benefit.
              But oftentimes, we may not necessarily be aware that there are certain group meetings that are happening or, you know, that they might be beneficial to us.
              So I would call upon our stakeholders, if there are some things that you believe that we should be involved in, let us know.  Then we can certainly take that into consideration.
              Any other questions?  Okay.  I just want to thank our panel.  It is currently 10:45 (sic).  I would suggest, if you do want to grab lunch, that you run upstairs before the mass crowd hits at noon.  The cafeteria is up on the sixth floor.

              If you do want to go external, there are some restaurants around.  But you would need to go through security again.  So just keep that in mind.  And we'll meet back here, let's meet back here at about 12:00, about 12:40.  All right.
              (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 11:45 a.m. and resumed at 12:45 a.m.)

	A-F-T-E-R-N-O-O-N  S-E-S-S-I-O-N
	(12:45 p.m.)
              MR. ROBINSON:  Okay.  As we are getting seated again, the next topics that we will be discussing are options that were presented for certification marks.
              The speakers for this session are Paul Moliski from Intertek, Shawn Paulsen from CSA, Todd Lucey from MCAA, Jorg Hartge from ZVEI, Keith Mowry from UL and Milton Bush from ACIL.
              Before we move into the topic, I just want to take a few moments to review the questions that we asked and the options that were being proposed.

              The first question we asked was is an entity owned by, or the option rather, was if an entity owned by an NRTL owns a certification mark, and the NRTL uses that certification mark for its NRTL certification, the entity owned by the NRTL could no longer use the mark for any other purpose, including marketing or advertisement.
              So it really comes down into the structure of ownership, and who is the actual owner of that mark and then what is it actually used for?  So that's one option that was being proposed and we're considering.
              The second option that we're presenting was OSHA's considering making the following policy change.  Any mark owned by an NRTL and used for its NRTL certifications would need to be clearly distinguishable from the mark of another entity owned or affiliated with that NRTL.
              For example, a mark used by an entity that is not a recognized NRTL would need to be clearly distinguishable from the mark used by the entity recognized as an NRTL. And a product certified by a non-NRTL could not appear to be a product certified by the NRTL.

              So in this situation, we have an NRTL mark, simply changing the color, making minor cosmetic changes would not be acceptable.  However, having a unique certification mark would be acceptable under this option we're proposing.
              And this third option which is based on some of the comments we received, I wanted to provide a little clarification for what OSHA's thought was when we were writing this and making this option.
              Under current OSHA policy, NRTLs need not add a unique identifier to the certification mark to signify work conducted under the NRTL program and compliance to particular product safety-based test standards.
              We're proposing to add a unique identifier similar to the C mark that is used in the 8 o'clock position to indicate compliance with Canadian regulations.

              Currently, this is a sampling of the NRTL marks that we currently recognize.  As you can see, some use a U.S. designation, some use an NRTL designation, some use no designation.
              The concept that we were thinking of when we were making this proposal was doing something like this, just simply adding on a small identifier, the external, the certification mark.
              I put N there, just because it's neutral for NRTL.  But the specifics are certainly open for discussion. But that is conceptually an identifier that we were considering.
              So there's the summary of all the questions.  And for this session, each presenter will have a total of about five minutes to speak.  And up on the block is Paul Moliski from Intertek.
              (Off microphone discussion)

              MR. MOLISKI:  Thank you, Kevin.  It seems that the two most sensitive areas that get discussed in scheme ownership are marks and the surveillance mechanism.  We're going to talk about surveillance after this topic.
              Thank you, Kevin, for clarifying those questions.  I was, myself, confused with the first item.
              We can talk about the identifier question.  I think, when you're comparing an identifier here in the U.S. with the C identifier in Canada, we want to make sure we're comparing apples to apples.
              I think the C is designated to show compliance with the Canadian standard.  And if we're thinking about an identifier with the NRTL program, if we're just showing a designation with a U.S. standard or the U.S. consensus standard for that product area, I think most of the NRTLs, well, from my recollection, are already using the initials US to show designation with a U.S. standard or designation with a Canadian standard.

              I think when we started applying the C, the mark looked a little naked without the US.  So we're, you know, we're including that designation to make it very clear to the authorities, retailers, buyers, that this product meets both a U.S. standard or a Canadian standard.  We can talk more about that as we get on with this.
              The marks, this first question, a little complicated to understand.  We took our best shot at it.  We approached it from, I think as you would expect, from our program perspective and tried to think of what other NRTLs would be doing and what our customers would be thinking that we should be doing.
              A lot of NRTLs have offered their marking, their marking schemes for 50 plus years.  To make a change to that could have long lasting effects that really need to be sorted out prior to making any change.

              The markings have been developed closely with industry, and we never make a change to our mark without first understanding what our customer and the industry needs.  So prior to making any change, we really want to evaluate what the next step would be.
              I can speak for Intertek when it comes to our mark.  That is one of our most valuable assets.  We applied tight controls over the use of the mark, and we expect our customers to do the same.
              So, you know, if part of the intent in changing is trying to find a tighter enforcement mechanism over the marks, I think most NRTLs would already be doing that.
              Our marks are registered.  There's a U.S. trademark law, Lanham Act, that governs the use and protection of our marks.  I mentioned that it's one of the most valuable assets we have.
              We are spending significant time, resources in protecting the mark.  We participate on Interpol counterfeit programs.  A change to the marking scheme, again, could have long lasting effects over the control and implementation long term.

              Next item, any mark owned by the NRTL and used for its NRTL certifications would need to be clearly distinguishable from the mark of any other entity owned or affiliated with the NRTL.
              We thought that creating additional marks or new marks could add to some confusion in the market.  The marks now are recognized in principle by electrical inspectors, retailers, some consumers, industry.
              To make a change would have a ripple effect.  And believe me, it's difficult enough to get a group of inspectors in Southern California or Los Angeles to understand what marks you need to recognize.  If we should say -- right, oh, we have five minutes, we only have five minutes?  Okay, got it.  To make that change could, you know, could not only cause significant trouble for the NRTL but for our customers.

              Unique identifier, I touched on that.  We're not, you know, I think your explanation cleared up some of the questions as to why you would want to have this identifier.
              And if it's something as simple as a US to signify testing to a U.S. standard, fine.  But again, if you're looking for a mandated NRTL marking, there could be other issues with real estate or with control of the mark.  So we would, again, caution against implementing additional marking requirements, because it's complicated enough.  Okay.
              MR. ROBINSON:  And next up is Shawn Paulsen with CSA.
              MR. PAULSEN:  Thank you.  I guess after Paul's presentation I could probably just say ditto.
              (Off microphone discussion)
              Anyway, again, looking at the request for the information that OSHA was seeking for this particular item, we weren't really sure on what was being proposed, I guess, for the first part.

              So we're focusing primarily on two of the items, which is basically the use of a clearly distinguishable mark for NRTL certifications.
              And then the second one is a unique identifier that would be used for the certification mark related to the NRTL program.
              So again, just looking at some of the comments that we had put forward, basically accreditation bodies utilize the ISO/IEC 17065 for accreditation and certification bodies.  And that standard also covers marks of conformity.
              So marks of conformity are also covered in a number of other international standards, such as ISO/IEC 17030 and also Guide 27 for corrective action in case of misuse of the mark.

              So it's interesting to note as well that ISO/IEC 17065 also mandates that certification bodies have a directory of certified products.  And that directory has to include basically the identification of the product, the standard or standards, and other normative documents to which conformity has been certified and also identification of the client.
              So we certainly feel that a, you know, well maintained certified product listing would be a valuable tool, not only for the regulators but also for OSHA to be able to identify standards that are used for the certification, and also the intended program that it's intended to cover.
              So we really don't see any benefit to requiring a unique NRTL mark or an identifier on a product in order to prove the NRTL coverage.  Again, we think it can be covered through the certified product listing.
              So the marks used by certification bodies is their identity in the marketplace, and I think Paul is alluding to this, you know, with consumers, with retailers, with regulators.

              And it's often used by industry to promote their products and also for industry to promote their products by acceptance of the regulators.  So basically, our certification mark is our identification, is our identity.
              There are many NRTLs with international operations, and these international ops may be certifying product for the U.S. market using the certification body's mark.
              I guess in the end it could result in multiple marks from a single certification body being applied.  You could have one mark for the NRTL mark and one mark for the non-NRTL mark basically on the same product, and even using the same evaluation data, possibly certified in different locations but certainly coming to the U.S.
              As Paul mentioned also, multiple marks can create a real estate issue on products and create confusion in the marketplace with the regulators.

              When we look at labeling costs for the NRTL and retooling cost to the manufacturers, these could be substantial.
              So another concern is when a product is being certified to binational standards.  And I think Paul alluded to this as well.  We could have product where the standard is a binational standard.  It's got the C designation and the U.S. designation.
              And now do we have to introduce another designation or another mark on the same product?  We don't see any real tangible benefit for this.
              So we feel that the country identifiers should be sufficient for the marking and where product is certified for the U.S., such as with CSA, we would have the U.S. designation on it.

              Now, the product has been found to meet the applicable requirements of the specified product standards.  So this does not change whether it's certified under OSHA or under a 17065 program.
              So certification bodies have invested heavily in the programs for mark recognition and mark acceptance related to the registered marks.  And, as Paul mentioned again, introducing new marks will add considerable cost to the NRTLs.
              So looking at the resource and cost implications, again the costs associated with registering new marks are considerably high and very time consuming.
              There are also considerable costs to the NRTL to develop, maintain and monitor additional marks or labels.  And again, with any new mark the NRTL is responsible to obtain the acceptance of those marks and recognition by regulators and by industry.
              So this could, you know, often this is done through, either through direct contact, through notices, external training, which again is all considerable cost to the NRTL.

              With any new marker indicator, manufacturers would be required to retool for new or added requirements, again, a considerable cost.
              So in closing, we certainly aren't supporting any of the changes related to the certification marks for the NRTL program.  We feel that certification bodies already have a well established process in place.
              And other methods can be used to indicate compliance to the NRTL program, again, such as the certified product listing if needed.  Thank you.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Thank you, Shawn.  Next up is Todd Lucey from MCAA.  Todd?
              MR. LUCEY:  Okay, so coming at it from again the manufacturer's perspective, and I'm going to give a couple examples from a customer standpoint, our perspective is a little different than the first two speakers.

              Realizing all the things that have been said, we certainly respect and understand those assets.  We feel the same way about our brand and our imagine so we're respectful for that in trying to find a way to address that concern along with what we see in the customer side is what we're trying to shoot for.
              So first and foremost we want to make sure that we reduce the amount of confusion that already exists today in the customer base.  Today the customer base, and I'll just give you an example, is we have customers like BSF, like Dow Chemical, like DuPont.
              When they're specifying hazardous locations approvals, they will actually use the trademark or the name of the nationally recognized testing lab as that in their specifications.  I.e., in other words, we need it to be FM approved, Class 1, Division 1.

              We're working as manufacturers to educate the end-user base, that it doesn't have to be FM, it could be CSA, it could be UL, it could be ETL.  However, the customer base is confused because they get different messages from the people that are going out and assessing and auditing their plants.
              So if they have FM as a insurance carrier and the FM inspector states that they won't approve that installation with a CSA mark, only with an FM mark, now we talk about the cost to the manufacturers is even higher because we got to get multiple approvals, even though we shouldn't, under the NRTL program.  So it is already an issue for us, it's an issue for customers.
              And specifically from a cost standpoint, it actually increases the cost.  Especially again from the end-user perspective.

              And we go back to what I said earlier this morning is that when we're really looking at safety, we're not looking at safety just at the component level, i.e. what we manufacturer, we're looking at safety from the customer perspective.  And if it costs them more to implement these kind of things, then they have to make decisions on whether they do that or not.  And so by default we're creating that dynamic for them in the field.
              So we do support a unique identifier along with the asset.  So, and we already saw some examples that were put up by Kevin that show the asset identifier but also the NRTL designation on that mark as well.
              Cost to us, as a manufacturer to make that change, is reactively speaking insignificant.  The way software programs are today to etch the labels to make that change, yes there is some change, but relatively speaking it's not a huge change from a manufacturing perspective.  So we have a little different opinion and view on that.

              Another example I can give you is a company called Gilbarco.  Many of you may know they make dispensers.  Pretty much any gas station you go to have Gilbarco fuel dispensers with the whole implementation of diesel exhaust fluid, DEF.
              They manufacture this dispenser and it was using one of our products.  Our product had the designation of FM approved Class 1, Division 1.  Which was the hazardous location approval.
              Their particular factory was getting certified by UL.  And the UL inspector came back and said they would not certify that dispenser for use under the UL name unless that product, our product, our flow meter, got recertified with the UL mark instead of an FM mark.
              Now under the NRTL program, to us that shouldn't happen.  We should be able to have a UL inspector accept the unit as a FM identifier and be able to accept that and put it under the UL.

              So what it meant to the customer, nine months delay and almost a $100,000 between their cost and our cost to implement that solution.  We had to go back and get that product recertified through a UL label versus a FM label.
              So I think what we see, again, from this morning and what we're seeing here now, is there's a difference between, let's say the internal world, which is the accrediting bodies AB to the certification bodies, and when you turn it around and say from a demand side certification bodies out to the market, to us as manufacturers and ultimately the consumer, you get two totally different pictures.  So I find it interesting that we're, you know, think that's where these discussions are good.
              So again, last point is, clearly we know that there's still education that has to happen.  So if we introduce the NRTL identifier along with the assets label, that's what we're proposing to start with as a first step, ultimately we would like to see just one identifier.  NRTL as an example.

              Just like ATEX.  So the ATEX, they can go anywhere, get the approval and have the ATEX stamp on it.
              What we ultimately want to get to is a global perspective.  It goes far reaching in this situation.
              I was just with Proctor & Gamble last week, they're manufacturing skids in China that they want to ship anywhere in the world and know that it meets the proper hazardous locations approval.  And today, the way we as manufacturers designate that is we've got probably ten, 15, 20 different options codes that they have to select, depending on where that skid is going to.
              If it's going into the U.S., they have to establish the FM code or the UL code that's going for the U.S.  If it's going into Brazil they have to specify that option code.
              So for them it's very confusing, it's very time consuming and it's a big expense for them to engineer these products all the way through.

              So coming up with a universal identifier is ultimately where we'd like to go.  Thanks.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Thank you.  And going to ask our next speaker to, if I mispronounce his name, to please correct me.  Jorg?
              DR. HARTGE:  Jorg.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Jorg, thank you.  Jorg Hartge from ZVEI.
              DR. HARTGE:  ZVEI, yes.
              MR. ROBINSON:  ZVEI.
              DR. HARTGE:  It's the association of German electrotechnical and electronic manufacturers comprising about 1,500 companies and 22 sectors and having many companies, German based with American subsidiaries and vice versa.

              So when we look on certification marks we see all over the world three meanings go these marks.  This product fulfills certain technical requirements, this product has been tested by an independent party and this product fulfills certain legal requirements.  These are the main meanings.
              And the tasks of the mark is not, to assure the safety.  We just talk about an element in the mark, in the market.
              It's in general to show retailers that they can supply the product in certain areas, to show users that they can use the product in certain purposes and show authorities or supervising parties this product is okay and shall indicate responsibilities concerning the conformity.
              And there are some special interest, which have nothing to do with the regulation.  It's to create confidence on the customers side or to permit the surfaces of the specific certifiers, as you mentioned before.

              When we look in the world we find four types of marking systems to fulfil these tasks.  The first one is, each certifier uses his own mark.  This, in the system is what is actual in the NRTL system.
              The other option is to have a totally unified mark for the system.  This you have with the Gost-R mark in Russia or the CCC mark in China.
              The third one is you have the unified mark but with an indication of the individual certifier.  This is for instance CE mark with a number when there's third parties involved in Europe.
              And the next one is you have a unified mark combined with the individual mark of the certifier.  This you have in Germany with the GS or the ENEC mark in Europe.
              When we look on these systems we find advantages and weaknesses.  The individual certification mark system has the advantage that you have a strong connection to the certifier and strong self, interest of the certifier to work against misuse and counterfeiting.

              But there are also some weaknesses.  There's a lack of knowledge, you mentioned it already about the marks which are in the system, difficulty for new competent certifiers to enter the market because the market is not known and unclarity for customers, which legal area, this certification and the product is accepted.
              When we look on the total, the unified mark, you have advantages as everybody knows the mark because there is only one.  And new competent certifiers can enter easily the market.
              On the other hand there is no indication of the individual certifier and therefore acting against misuse is very difficult.

              But we can combine both systems.  We have a unified mark, an NRTL mark for instance, and combine it with the mark of the certifier on other identifiers of the certifier then we see, we get all the advantages of the systems.  And not very much disadvantages.  We don't see them.
              So at the end our position is, if you have a certification mark in the system, this should be clear and unambiguous in its meaning.  It should be easily recognized in the market in its meaning, not create unnecessary barriers for new certifiers and show the individual responsible certifier and engage certifiers to act against misuse.
              And this leaves for us, what would be assessed best solution to have an unified NRTL mark with an individual identifier, maybe the individual mark of the certifier.  It is going in the direction of Option 3 and answering some questions of Option 1 and 2.
              It's what you mentioned in your slide, not a small N, but create an NRTL labeled combined with ZVEI certifier.  Thank you very much.
              MR. ROBINSON:  And next up is Keith Mowry from Underwriters Laboratory.

              MR. MOWRY:  Five minutes isn't much time so I'm going to have to go pretty quick.  This is where we get into acceptance of 17065 as one of our positions.
              Also two notes, 29 CFR 1910.7 doesn't actually require the use of a certification mark.  You can be an NRTL without a certification mark.
              We all have them because we're serving other stakeholders in the market that demand certification marks.  But right now you don't even need to have a certification mark to be an NRTL.
              Second, the Federal Register notice for this stakeholders meeting has a serious typo.  It says you can only use your certification mark for NRTL activities.
              They transposed a couple words and that is not true.  The current directive and the current regulations don't mandate that.

              So there are three topics that OSHA has raised.  The first is, what happens when a subsidiary owns the mark and the NRTL uses it?
              This seems frankly like a silly question.  Why isn't the subsidiary the NRTL?  That takes that problem away.
              Oh, well the reason is because OSHA has, what I would call, archaic and ineffective requirements about legal ownership as a means of control for sites operating NRTL activities.
              17065 doesn't have anything like that.  Embrace 17065.  There are very effective requirements for a certification body which is a single legal entity, in 17065, to control certification activities that you don't have to rely on legal control for.
              In that context, for item Number 5, the subsidiary that owns that mark and that's embedded in a family of companies, could be recognized as the NRTL.  Problem goes away.

              Item Number 6, differentiation of marks.  NRTL mark, an NRTL has a subsidiary, they each have a mark, what do we do about that?  17065 has a very clear requirement that you must deal with misleading use of marks.
              If those two marks are so similar that they're misleading, the only way to fulfil 17065 is to resolve that, rely on that, embrace, adopt 17065.  It's going to give you what you want.
              You don't have to mandate how that's going to be done, you just have to mandate compliance with that.
              The last, and really the message is very similar on the NRTL identifier.  It is perfectly legitimate that OSHA and lots of other people will want to know, is this certification under the scope of NRTL recognition?  That's what any scheme owner is going to ask for.
              If it's not clear that it's under the NRTL scheme, then you could consider it misleading.  We need to solve that.

              Don't tell us how, we've got lots of other stakeholders involved that are demanding our certification marks.  We will satisfy you, you are the scheme owner, we will fulfil 17065.  We may find a better way to do it then an identifier.
              In particular, an identifier that's the same for all NRTLs is in effect or does in effect have the same problems as an own owned and a uncontrolled mark.
              Let's say the identifier is X23.  That's the now, the magic identifier that signifies it's under the scope of NRTL recognition.  Who's going to take action when a certification body registers a mark at the Office of Patent and Trademarks that embeds X23 in it?  Has nothing to do with the OSHA NRTL program.

              Who's going to take action with X23 appears on a product all by itself?  Who's going to take action when X23 appears beside the manufactures trademark from another country because they haven't quite figured out the regulations they think that's what they're supposed to do for NRTL compliance.
              Those things happen.  So until you're ready to deal with those issues, you're not ready to deal with a common identifier.
              So don't labor under the impression that unique identifier is somehow different than an unknown and uncontrolled mark.  They're exactly the same.
              In my view you, as the scheme owner, have every right to expect an NRTL to make it clear to you and the market which marks fall under their scope of NRTL recognition.  Demand that, let us figure how.  You get to be in the driver seat about whether we succeed or not.
              MR. ROBINSON:  So we should adopt 17065?
              MR. MOWRY:  There's an idea.
              MR. ROBINSON:  That was just too easy.  Sorry, Keith.  Next up is Milton Bush from ACIL.

              MR. BUSH:  Has OSHA taken a position on the Redskins name?
              MR. ROBINSON:  I don't follow football so I don't care.
              MR. BUSH:  Oh, no, no.  I can't really add much to what's already been said, we support everything that the certification bodies have stated regarding certification masks and requirements of 17065.
              I will say some, you know, my joke about the Redskins name is not without some merit.  There is a reason why Dan Snyder is fighting for use of the Redskins name.
              It's the amount of time, effort, money that's gone into creating something unique and valuable and OSHA needs to think real, think this thing really through seriously.
              And of course I know it will go through legal, but before they decide to make any changes here.  That's it.

              MR. ROBINSON:  I wasn't expecting that.  So with that, do we have any questions?  For the Panels or comments that we want to discuss? I guess just because the presenters aren't saying anything.  I won't always, but.
              MR. WITT:  My name is Steven Witt, former director of Tech Support and responsible NRTL program in the late '90's.  It seems to me that the Panel has lost sight of something.
              They all express some very clear vested interested, whether it's in NRTL or a manufacturer, as to how a change would affect them.  But we seem to have lost sight of the purpose of the NRTL program and OSHA's mission.  And that is safety of workers in the workplace.

              I know you all have a vested interest of maintaining, especially, let me give credit to Keith, to UL, maintaining and have clear recognition for your particular mark.
              But the purpose of the NRTL program is to ensure the products that are used in the workplace, under subpart (s), have been certified and are safe and the workers in those workplaces are protected.
              One of the problems OSHA has had for many years, with the NRTL program, is compliance officers who are, who's role is it to inspect, identify hazards and hopefully protect employees, employees by their actions, have not really focused on the NRTL program.
              The only, if you ask most OSHA compliance officers they have no idea that the NRTL marks are listed on OSHA's web page.  And when they look at products in the workplace, they're to take that list of NRTL marks and confirm that those products in the workplace have been certified.

              I think if we focus on the purpose of OSHA and OSHA's mission, the purpose of the NRTL program, I'm pleased that from a financial standpoint many labs and associations and manufactures have been able to sell their products and benefitted by the program.
              But if we focus on safety, what is the best way to ensure that products that are required to be tested and certified under subpart (s), for use in the workplace in this country, have a clear and understandable mark that owners of those workplaces can confirm that their products have been tested and have certified and OSHA compliance officers can readily confirm that the products have been tested and certified.
              It seems to me, and now I'm an outsider, it seems to me the most reasonable way to pursue this and proceed is a unified mark and to protect the interest of the labs to have a specific identifier for those labs that want it as an adjunct to a unified mark.

              For purposes of safety, enforcement of standards and recognition and acceptance of products in the workplace, something that is clear, easier to understand, and in this case, possibly would be followed and more attention paid to those products and their certifications.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Okay.  Any other questions or comments?  Yes.
              MR. LUCEY:  So I appreciate, is this on?  I appreciate the remark there and I think coming back to the discussion and the point that we made earlier this morning is that speaking from a manufacturer's perspective, this is all about safety.  And we really take this seriously.  The industry is taking it seriously.
              You saw some of the example with Nexeo, how much money they're spending on safety initiatives and safety issues.  And I can tell you, coming back to Brandon, imagine and these kind of things, it's very critical for us as manufacturers.

              If there's a plant explosion or a plant fire or anything that goes on, no matter if our product was the cause or at the heart of those matters or not, we still get brought to the table.  Everybody comes in, you have to walkthrough, you know, step by step what was the issue.
              So if we find that for some reason we're not using appropriate, let's say testing agencies, we talked about that this morning, there's no advantage for us to try to circumvent going to a testing organization that's not doing the proper testing procedures, that's not taking it seriously.  We can sense that.
              If an assessor is coming in and they're not doing their job properly, we don't want to use those agencies.  It's not worth it for us to save a little money or to save a little time only to expose ourselves.

              You talk about risk, certainly the NRTLs have risk.  There's no question, okay.  But first and foremost, we have risk as manufacturers.
              We will get brought to the table with lawsuits and legal issues.  And that's not even the worst of it.
              The worst of it is brand and image that our product, and then I can say from an Endress+Hauser perspective, the company I work for, we're a privately owned company.  And Klaus Endress, the CEO of organization, has stated from the very beginning that they can't separate the family from the business.
              The name of, the family name is on every product that goes out the door.  It's on every business card we pass out, it's on the side of every building that we build.  And therefore if we have a product quality issue that actually caused a safety problem, that's a huge problem for us as a manufacturer.  So we're all about safety.  We're all in.

              I think we speak for all the manufacturers in being able to do that.  However, having said that, is we need to make the system a lot less complex and a lot less convoluted than it currently is.
              Because right now the customer base, the point that you're making, that's what we're here to protect.  They are confused.
              And they're doing things and making decisions everyday that's causing safety issues as a result of what we're sitting here talking about.  So I think it's very critical to your point that we address this issue and find the solution to that problem.
              But we absolutely 100 percent behind this being a safety issue first and foremost.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Okay.  Keith?
              MR. MOWRY:  Yes, just to go back to this morning.  This is what scheme owners do.  Get everybody around the table, get all the perspectives.  You can't get into all the details in a situation like this.

              How prescriptive do you be, how general do you be?  The more general you are the more you allow innovation.  Two words, Apple Pay.
              The more prescriptive you are the more consistency you're going to get.  It's a balance.  Always has been, always will be and it will need to be rebalanced on an ongoing basis.
              The only way to achieve the balance effectively, in any kind of timely manner is, get us altogether as a group, we come together as a group.
              You got to the Federal Register notice process, you have no choice.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Right.
              MR. MOWRY:  But that's not what I'm talking about.  And you can't do hub and spoke communication, just interacting with each individual stakeholder, because that, then you lose the synergy of everybody talking at the same time.

              MR. ROBINSON:  The challenge that we have with that is that there are certain legal requirements that do not allow us to go in and create that.  But yes, certainly appreciate it.
              MR. MOWRY:  I understand that.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Any other questions or comments?  Mr. Buzard?
              MR. BUZARD:  Mike Buzard from A2LA again.  I know we've had a lot of direction and suggestions going towards the unified mark, and we had also, one of the presenters mentioned earlier about keeping a database of certified products available.
              Now some of the systems currently in place in other regulators agencies, the FCC grant program, the FCC owns and holds maintenance over the FCC mark that we have, you know, within our iPhone's and the Galaxy's and everything.  And there's a unique FCC id number to every single product.  All those you can find on a FCC database.

              EnergyStar, very similar thing.  EnergyStar or EPA holds the mark for that.  They give permission to use the mark directly to the manufacture after the CB submits evidence of certification.
              And then the EPA has their database of certified products.  And I think, it's been a couple weeks, couple months since I've looked at that particular thing, but I think they also include the CB that certified that particular product.
              Now we get into some of the other schemes where it's the individual CB who's going to keep their database, use their mark, things like that.
              So going in the direction of the unified mark, is OSHA prepared to take ownership, take the legal responsibility behind it that's been discussed?

              Do you guys want to hold onto the database or if you use that unified mark but expect these guys to have the database, you get your end-user, which of these 14, 20, 30 in the future CBs do I go to to check and see, did they certify this correctly or not?  So there's a little bit more to consider on that as well.
              MR. ROBINSON:  And I, you know, I don't want to speak for all of OSHA but I would simply say that we have had those discussions internally.
              We are aware and, you know, having a OSHA owned mark that is used in conjunction with the NRTL mark or used by the NRTLs or however would end up being worked, has a whole slew of challenges associated with it.  And I will just leave it at that.
              Anything else up front?  And if not I'll go to the back just because the observers are having more questions than the presenters.  I'm going to have to switch you guys next session.

              MR. REGO:  Well it's more of, it's a statement, maybe a rhetorical question of the Panel as though, on the subject of unified marks --
              MR. ROBINSON:  I'm sorry, before you begin --
              MR. REGO:  Oh, I'm Charlie --
              MR. ROBINSON:  -- can you just state your name please?
              MR. REGO:  Yes, Charlie Rego from UL.  And the idea of a unified mark, my question really is, is what would a unified mark actually be declaring?
              You know, any of the CBs that put their mark on a product will tell you they're not quality assurance for that factory or manufacturer.  It's the manufacturer putting the mark on their product that's declaring they meet the requirements.
              So if you go to a unified mark, is it OSHA declaring the manufacturer meets their requirements and do we really want to go down that path?
              MR. ROBINSON:  Right.  And --

              MR. REGO:  It's, we're a piece of the puzzle but we're not the whole, I always like to tell people, the certifiers and ULs are a piece of the puzzle, but they're not the whole puzzle.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Right.  And which is partially the reason why historically OSHA has always had the NRTLs utilize their certification marks.  Because historically we've not wanted to touch that with a 1,000 foot pole.  Yes?
              MR. LUCEY:  So maybe I'd like to just ask the CBs real quick as kind of playing off of that because it's absolutely right.  Is, you know, we see the benefit if we go down what we were talking about as a first step to have a, you know, an NRTL unique identifier with the assets, the FM or UL mark in association with that.

              So from a customer base they can understand now that I don't have to specify UL or FM or CSA, I just need to specify NRTL Class 1, Division 1 and whoever the approving agency is then is there.
              So if I ask the question, because we had this example, as I mentioned earlier with Gilbarco, is it, does it make sense from the CBA perspective, or I guess even OSHA, to weigh in that you would expect that if an NRTL has approved a device for Class 1, Division 1 and it's marked with that assets, in this case it was FM, and we went into a UL situation where the UL inspector said they would not accept the FM stamp as, you know, being able to then say that this is going to be a UL certified complete dispenser, is that something that you would expect the NRTL program to account for?  Because we would as a manufacturer.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Keith, don't answer yet.  You can respond after I say something first.
              MR. MOWRY:  Yes.  Well your question.

              MR. ROBINSON:  I would simple say that it's important to realize why the NRTL program exists and how it's being used in manners in which it was never expected or never designed to function.
              The NRTL program exists to satisfy OSHA.  That is it.  I don't care about anything else.  It is designed to satisfy OSHA.
              It is being used however by retailers.  It is being used by local AHJs, it is being used by distributors, it is being used by marketing folks, it's being used by everyone.  It was designed to satisfy OSHA.
              MR. MOWRY:  Yes.
              MR. ROBINSON:  And for that reason, because OSHA is not concerned about trade, OSHA is not concerned about competition, there are other federal agencies that are concerned about that, OSHA is concerned about worker safety.
              MR. MOWRY:  Right.

              MR. ROBINSON:  And it is for that reason why we do not have the authority to require one NRTL to except testing certification marks or testing the certification from other NRTLs.  We certainly allow it.
              It is in out regulation, or rather not in our regulations, it is in our directive and is being clarified in our new directive that we are proposing.  But it has to do with what the NRTL program was designed to do and what it is doing.
              And what it was designed to do is a much smaller subset that what it's actually doing.  So we get that question a lot.
              MR. MOWRY:  Yes.

              MR. ROBINSON:  And it's simply, OSHA doesn't have that authority to make that mandate.  But we recognize that it is advantageous to manufacturers and we therefore do allow it because we believe that it is, we consider NRTLs equal, but ultimately it is the NRTLs decision on what to do and how to do that to control their certification mark.
              Now you can answer, Keith if you want.
              MR. MOWRY:  About what I was going to say.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Any other questions or comments?  Wow.  Okay, next up, we were scheduled to go to a break but we are way ahead of schedule so I'm just going to move right in with the next topic which are Options for Factory Inspections.
              The speakers for that topic are Todd Lucey, from MCAA, Stina Wallstrom from Orgalime and Keith Mowry from Underwriters Laboratories.

              And as they are getting settled in, the questions that OSHA was asking, as part of the Federal Register notice were essentially, we were considering modifying our policy regarding the frequency of inspections to allow each NRTL to adopt its own risk based approach to determine the frequency with which OSHA, with which it performs its factory inspections.
              This question was largely initiated by one of our NRTLs.  And the NRTL posed this question to us and it happened to be about the right time frame so we've decided to push it out there just to see what sort of comments and feedback we would have on that.
              The second question that we asked was, OSHA is considering modifying its policy regarding factory inspections such that OSHA may specify the activities NRTLs need to perform during each factory inspection and delineate how documentation should occur.  And I think that's it, so --
              MR. MOWRY:  Field inspections.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Oh, field inspections, yes see, you know I jump around.  The third option was --
              MR. MOWRY:  Different.  Different issue, right?
              MR. ROBINSON:  It is.

              MR. MOWRY:  But you lumped it into --
              MR. ROBINSON:  Oh, I did.  Yes I did because there were two separate issues.  But yes.
              The third issue is with field inspections.  Field inspections, just to clarify, NRTLs are required to have procedures to conduct field inspections.
              And when we say field inspections we're not talking what many of you may be familiar with, for uncertified equipment that's out in the field and a testing certification body comes in and evaluates and tests that product.
              When we say field inspections we are actually meaning going to retailer shelves, going to distributor shelves, pulling a sample back and having it tested or verification of products after a product has left the factory.

              The regulations require that the NRTL have procedures to conduct field inspections, but they don't actually require that NRTLs conduct field inspections.  So we were posing the question, should we eliminate that requirement that was in the regulations?
              So with that I'll turn it over to our presenters.  Each speaker will have five minutes, the first presenter is Todd Lucey.  Todd?
              MR. LUCEY:  Thank you.  Okay, this is the last time I'll be up here, so sorry about that.  But we do, again, we appreciate this open discussion.
              It really feels good from an overall, you know, industry standpoint as manufacturers to get a voice maybe that we haven't necessarily had in the past.  Partly I'm sure because of our actions or inactivity in that area.

              I would say that we, as manufacturers, have been trying to work these issues as individual manufacturers and now coming together under MCA as a total umbrella, with 160 of us pulled together, I think we kind final get an opportunity, as a gentleman from UL talked about, to get all stakeholders around the table and get this things, you know, figured out.
              Okay, so we look at the last component option or Item C and what we state overall is we do support the idea of risk based opportunities to look at how often the CB comes in to do an audit of our factories.
              So by the rules and regulations today, recommendation is four times a year.  Worse case or minimum is two times a year.
              And we do have some NRTLs that come in and look at us four times a year and we have other NRTLs that come and look at us two times a year.  So there is a difference depending on that.

              Where it gets difficult, from a manufacturing standpoint, is this is a per product, of course, and per factory.  So if we talk about four times a year, we manufacture level and pressure products in four different locations.
              We manufacture flow products in three different locations.  And you can see that when you start to do the math on this and start to talk about it, when we have to go to more than one NRTL.
              So again, going back to the example I had before, is if we have to have FM inspectors come, if we have to UL inspectors come in, we have to have CSA inspectors come in, we have three different NRTLs, depending on who we use, four times a year for all those manufacturing sites, it's a huge burden for us.
              And it's not so much the raw cost of the inspection itself that's an issue, it's the time.  It's the time and the energy to prepare for the inspection, to get ready for the inspection.

              And to do that, literally we have sub-manufacturers that have a NRTL inspector in one of the factories every single day which gets to be overwhelming burden for us.
              So what we would support is not only a risk-based assessment of that, but also looking at the option and idea that we look at the inspections also as a standalone service and that if an NRTL comes in, like we do for ISO 9001, we happen to contract out with FM in that case, they come in, they do an audit, they do an assessment, they do the same kinds of things with training records and calibration records and these things, and then they specify that we pass and meet ISO certification.

              Now realizing ISO certification 9001 is, you know, quite a bit different than safety, but nonetheless concept is the same.  We would like to contract out with one NRTL to come in either two or four times a year and have that NRTL be able to stamp that this is a certified facility without having to go to each and every NRTL that we use for that statement.
              So therefore that's kind of our position as manufacturers.  So again, if FM came in they would actually be able to certify that we're meeting the standards from an NRTL perspective and that the other NRTLs then would recognize that a proper audit and assessment has been done for the manufacturer.
              Okay.  So last thing, again, just to take the time, so that's our position to restate all three positions that we have.  We do believe in separation of the testing and certification components with the caveat that standards have to be developed for the testing agencies and that the test reports and the testing information would be recognized by any of the NRTLs in the equation.

              We do understand that there sometimes are benefits to going to one NRTL that does testing and certification, but there's also many, many benefits to separating those two.  So we want to make sure that the test data is recognized and share then with all the NRTLs.
              Unique NRTL identifier, along with the asset, we think is a great place to start.  So we've talked about that just here a little bit ago, and making sure customers understand that that means safety NRTL.  Putting it on there means that they're meeting the safety standards and that know what that all means.
              And we allow trying to continue to work to get fewer certifications than are required.  You know, right now as I said we've got probably 12 to 15 different option codes in our product.  Each one has to be maintained, depending on where the product is going to end up.

              So you complicate that by having to use different NRTLs, back to the previous discussion.  If we have to use UL and FM because of the dialogue that we just had, it gets to be even more complicated for our customers to specify.
              And then clearly Number 7 is one of the things, competitiveness.  Right now other manufacturers outside the U.S. are able, because of their certification systems and how it's setup, to get products to market quicker, faster and more reliably.  And that's an issue for us that we have to deal with, so that's why we're glad to have all these discussions.
              And then the factory audits we just talked about, to summarize that.  And then ultimately, if I listen to what our customers are telling us, again I used Proctor & Gamble as an example, they would like to have ultimately one global mark that could be recognized as safe and meeting all the safety criteria, no matter where that product ends up in the world.

              Like they said, they want to build the skids in China, and they want to ship anywhere in the world and they don't want to have to order six, or seven or eight different model codes to be able to do that.
              Ultimately that's what the customer base wants to do.  That's where they want to go.
              Our job, as an industry, is to figure out how to do that safely and reliably to make sure safety is not circumvented.  Okay, thank you.
              MR. ROBINSON:  All right, thank you.  Next up is, again all ask, please correct me if I mispronounce it, Stina Wallstrom from Orgalime.
              MS. WALLSTROM:  Thank you.  So I'm very happy to be here.  My name is Stina Wallstrom representing Orgalime, and I will try to give you European perspective on the purposed new OSHA regime in general and on the factory surveillance in particular.  And I stand here now representing Orgalime.

              We are the European engineering association and representing about 100 to 30,000 companies employing 10.3 million employees.  In addition to that it seems like I am representing the female race on this stage, so I have a heavy burden on my shoulders.  But the burden is considerably lightened by Todd, who has said everything that I would want to say.
              So obviously even if the systems in the U.S. and in the E.U. are very different, the companies suffer under the same kind of pressure.
              We have walked before into the globalized world.  And what we think is needed is more cooperation.  You have to cooperate a lot more, authorities to authorities and NRTL to NRTL.
              And even in standardization, we have to cooperate a lot to make sure that there is one standard for one purpose.  Because if you have 100 standards for one purpose you don't have a standard anymore.  It's not standardized anymore.

              And today that is almost the case for some of the companies.  They can be, as you told us earlier on, they can inspected by several different authorities by several different standards and several different regimes.
              And everybody wants the same thing.  They want safety products, safe workers.  So there has to be a way to find common ground.
              And one issue, where it is a real difference, is factory inspections.  In Europe very few products need factory inspections to be accepted on the market while in U.S. it's a very common demand.  So perhaps you could start your discussions there.
              We also need more trust.  NRTL said need to trust other NRTLs.  We have to be able to rely on the data we have.

              I mean I appreciate that OSHA doesn't have the power to force your NRTLs to accept one another's test result, but maybe with a little bit more cooperation with the bodies that past that force, talk to the other buildings in Washington and make sure that there is a demand to accept one another's test results.  Because we trust that OSHA only nominates NRTLs that are good enough to be trusted.
              You should also trust the businesses more than you do today.  I mean to stipulate that you were four inspections per year is needed, that doesn't give benefits to companies that show themselves time after time to be trustworthy.
              If you have a solid quality management system, if you show, perform well in several inspections on the road, maybe there is no need for inspections every year.  And if you perform poorly maybe you should be inspected more often.  We trust that NRTLs can't tell the difference between a trustworthy company and a company that you should not trust.

              We also think that you should trust your NRTLs in knowing what to be expected.  If factory inspections are needed we want them to be re-spaced.  We don't want them to be a form filling exercise.
              So even if some guidance from OSHA could be needed to guarantee that everybody get a fair and equal treatment, do not over detail your instructions to the NRTLs prior to a factory inspection.  Because then they might be forced to checked things they know has no impact on safety just to check the form.
              We also believe strongly in flexibility.  Today we need to be able to very quickly use another production facility.  We changed the design of our product and changed the NRTL we are using.
              Today we cannot allow the OSHA procedures to slow this down.  So if you have shown to be a trustworthy company, it should be very, very easy to change production side, change your product and it has to be easy to change which NRTL you are using.

              Today many of our companies say that we don't have, we cannot change from this NRTL to that one because it cost us frankly too much effort.  We don't like them but we have to stick with them.  That is not a good way of doing things.  We want the best NRTL to win.
              So the key message is, more cooperation, recognition between governments, promote regulatory cooperation, use ISO/IEC standards.  We are very happy that you use ISO/IEC standards as a basis for this new regulation.  It's a great step forward, we thank you for it.
              Trust the factory of quality management.  The test laboratory expertise.  And make sure there is flexibility in kind of product side, product design modifications and the choice of test laboratory.  We need it if we want to keep riding the global wave.
              So warm thanks, keep in touch.

              MR. ROBINSON:  Thank you.  And Keith Mowry from UL.
              MR. MOWRY:  So we have three topics.  By now you're well about into adopting 17065 of course, and then you discover it tells you nothing about surveillance because it doesn't.  It doesn't even require surveillance.
              That's what a scheme owner does.  One of the biggest jobs of the scheme owner is to decide if surveillance is needed and what it should be.
              Now I have good news, bad news and old news.  When you use certification bodies as NRTLs you get all the resources of the private sector and all the competitive pressures that come with it.
              That's the good news, it's also the bad news.  It's also the old news.  It's always been this way.

              With regard to Item 8 on risk based frequency of the inspections, if you put no parameters around that, competitive pressures will be a dive to the bottom.  You'll just see risk, you'll just see the frequency of inspections go up, up, up and up.
              But we've been talking about this all morning.  This is what a scheme owner needs to do.
              A scheme owner needs to design the scheme so that there's appropriate competition but competitive pressures don't degrade the scheme.  That's the scheme owner's job.
              Just throwing out risk basic frequency isn't enough.  You're going to have to put some content around that.
              And in the end, and maybe I'm wrong, I hope I am, how do you do that without putting in a floor?  I don't know, maybe there's a way to do that.
              So that's risk based frequency.  In the end it's going to be risk based frequency.

              The way the scheme owner defines and describes risk based frequency, again, balancing specificity so there's consistency, but not too much specificity so you don't kill innovation.  I suspect we're all doing factory inspections differently today than we were in 1988.
              Item 9 was standardized inspection processes and forms.  You know the answer to this by now already, it's just the balance.  How far do you go, how far do you go in specifying a process, or a content of inspection or forms to use so that you get consistency and yet you don't constrain everybody to the point where they can't innovate and improve?
              On another angle on this, I'm frankly, you know, I'm trying to envision a single form or process that would be equally applicable to a factory inspection of a wire nut and a nuclear magnetic resonance imagining equipment for, as a medical device.  At some point, if you have a single process that covers both of those, you got to question what value that single process is going to provide.

              It's probably, surveillance is the toughest place to strike that balance between general and specificity.
              If you don't specify anything, and this applies to the risk based frequency as well, if you don't specify anything, and you literally just go out and say every NRTL should do the smart thing and what it thinks is best, then in effect what you're saying is the market will decide, and we are not going to engage in trying to change whatever the market arrives at.  We want to have a scheme then.
              The last is field inspections, which is Item 10.  And again, this relates to oversight of the use of the mark.
              This is another opportunity where we do go back to 17065, because 17065 has clear requirements about protecting the use of the mark, addressing misleading and unauthorized uses of the mark.

              So Item 10 is along the lines of something more specific in the scheme about how to do that.  17065 simply says a CB has to do that.
              When they are assessed to 17065 they have to provide evidence and convince the assessor that they are doing something reasonable in relation to those requirements.
              It's completely up to OSHA as a scheme owner to say, well in addition to 17065 we want a little more detail, we want these characteristics to be embodied in the activities of the NRTL.
              So I'm back to where I started.  There's a lot of ramifications to embracing 17065.  There are a lot of ramifications to being the scheme owner.
              I think they'll both serve you well if you go down that path with all of us together as a group.

              MR. ROBINSON:  All right, thank you.  All right.  Okay, here's where I am going to ask for a consensus.  Do we want to take a break or do we want to continue with discussions?  Continue, all right.  Is this yours?  Okay.
              All right, so I'll open the floor up.  Are there any questions that anyone has after hearing the presenters on this topic?
              MR. MOLISKI:  Hi, thank you.  Paul Moliski with Intertek.  Getting back to the question about modifying the policy regarding the frequency of inspections to a risk based approach, the question about workplace safety has come up a couple of times in the discussion today.
              I think from our perspective, Intertek's perspective, adopting that approach could degrade the NRTL program.  The program has had a great deal of success using the methods that they've had.

              There are clear instructions as to when you can reduce a factory inspection from four to two or even increase two additional inspections other than four.  So those guideline have been in place for a number of years.
              One, going back to the question about adding an identifier or an additional OSHA mark, there are countries that, several countries that employ additional marks.  For example in Mexico we add a country mark, the NOM mark, to our own certification mark.
              The level of safety does not change.  You still get the same level of safety with the certification mark whether there's a country identifier with it or not.
              I don't think we would say that system in Mexico is safer than the U.S. because we use a NOM identifier.
              So again, all of these things need to be taken in balance and need to understand keeping the end goal in mind of how we're going to maintain and improve the workplace safety.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Okay.  Question for Stina?

              MS. WALLSTROM:  Yes, if I can respond to your question or statement that it's important that OSHA give clear guidelines on how often factory inspections shall be had or, I think that of course there need to be a clearly statement in the OSHA guidelines.  But to equalize a clear statement with a number of inspections is a bit raw I think.
              I mean you should really try to encourage companies to have solely the quality management systems.  And I'm sure, I'm certain that you will be able to see both Intertek and UL.
              You can see if a quality management system is a good one or a bad one.  And you should reward good quality management systems by fewer inspections.

              And also you should, if you say that, okay, we have to inspect you more often because of your bad quality management system, then it's an incitement for the company to actually make better to the next time.  So it would be good for safety as well, not only for us as companies, that it doesn't have to have one or another nation in our facilities every day.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Now we'll, if you can just hold your thought I do have one question.  For the NRTLs that are here, just a question just to help me put things into perspective.
              When you are conducting factory surveillance, would you say that the rate of compliance is greater than 50 percent or where you can go in and find no non-conformances or is it less than that or maybe between 50 and 75?  I'm just trying to get a feel for how good or bad manufacturers are.  That's worded wrong but --
              PARTICIPANT:  We get it though, that's --
              MR. ROBINSON:  Yes.

              MS. STERLING:  Thanks, Joan Sterling with Intertek but representing IFIA today.  IFIA has done a number of studies on product compliance.  And we're in the middle of another for the U.S. and we've shared those results with a number of groups, and OSHA is one.
              And the compliance projects that we've undertaken have primary been in the E.U. at this point in time because the system is very different.  In the U.S. the requirement for third-party certification of course drives the level of compliance.  In the E.U. there is, in most areas, not a requirement for that.  So there's been many difference.
              Those studies have produced some startling results and it doesn't have only to do with factory surveillance it has to do with products on the market that are non-compliant.  And those studies are public and as I said OSHA has seen them.

              To further address your question, I mean those are very difficult questions.  You know, manufacturers, and I don't have the answers --
              MR. ROBINSON:  Okay.
              MS. STERLING:  -- to the question you just --
              MR. ROBINSON:  And that's fine.
              MS. STERLING:  Yes.
              MR. ROBINSON:  I'm not necessarily expecting anyone to have them.
              MS. STERLING:  Yes, I don't have the answers to that but I do want to address the idea of quality management systems.
              And as we all know, sitting in this room, quality management systems, while they can be effective in helping manufacturers do a very good job at what they do, at the end of the day quality management systems means you build the same product the same way theoretically all the time.  And that could either be a very good product or a very bad product.

              Quality management systems do not address that.  The difference was the factory inspection programs are really looking at product to see if it continues to comply.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Okay, and then we have a question over there.
              MR. TALKA:  Yes, I'm Don Talka with UL.  I think we're maybe mixing up the what and the how.
              You know, the first question that needs to be answered by OSHA, the scheme owner, is what should a surveillance program do, what are you trying to accomplish with a surveillance program.  And then leave it up to CBs to figure out how they're going to accomplish that and allow their innovation to take root.
              And there's many variables that they have to consider as they're going through that.  They're dealing with what's the risk associated with the product, what's the characteristics of the manufacturer I'm concerned with.

              And so there's never going to be a one size fits all solution to your surveillance answer, but it's all going to be founded on what am I trying to do in the first place.  And without that you're just picking spots in space and hoping that's right.
              To get back to the second part, and Keith touched on it with, I referred to it as market surveillance going out and picking up product.  Not only does it assist in the counterfeiting piece, but it also serves as a check and balance to your surveillance program.
              It allows you to see how well your surveillance program is doing, what your intending it to do.  So I would really suggest that you don't, you know, discard that because it is a very important aspect.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Okay, thank you.  There was another question I think in the middle somewhere, yes.

              MS. MALAKOVA:  I just have a couple comments to make, just to continue what Paul was saying.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Can you state your name, just --
              MS. MALAKOVA:  Oh, I'm sorry, I apologize.  Natalia Malakova, ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board.
              Just want to make a comment on what Paul mentioned about the safety of the use of NOM mark in Mexico as well as the use of C identifier in Canada.  I don't think the issue is really as much as safety but as much as identification of products on the market.
              So as a consumer when I pick up that mark, the product and I see the NOM or a C, I know that it's been certified under that program.  But it also tells me that that organization is qualified for that scope of accreditation or recognition, whatever you call it.

              Because as we know, let's say for certification body 17065, I'm going to use Canada as an example.  You can be qualified for electrical, you can be qualified for plumbing, you can be, whatever you want.
              FCC mark tells me that their certification body is actually accredited by FCC for that specific scope of accreditation, for that specific accreditation.  And it becomes their responsibility if they, you know, somehow that got misplaced or whatnot.
              So as a consumer I would like, I feel comfortable knowing that this identifier is on a market.  And as for the inspectors it's easily identifiable.
              For the factory inspections, although I understand with, there is base approach, I agree a hundred percent it should be used.  However, I do believe, again, as a consumer that there is some kind of oversight.

              And what you're going to get with, currently I believe there's 15 NRTLs that if every single NRTL is doing their risk based approach, Approach of A is not going to be the same as Approach B and it's not going to be the same as Approach C.  And what you're going to end up is with a huge difference between how one NRTL handles their inspection program to another.
              That's one of them.  Also there's so many changes in the manufacturing process that's happening constantly.  And, you know what, there's a lot of great manufacturers out there, and I agree, but manufacturer changes, could change within, you know, weeks if not days.
              The only way to really eliminate that risk is by having those mandatory X amount of inspections out there.  One way of that you might consider actually looking at the program, if you really want to take program, inspection program as a separate kind of activity, is looking at the requirements of ISO 17020.

              So Keith was a hundred percent right.  17065 kind of very vague about what you have to do in that area.  And it's up to each individual certification body to determine what they want to do and how they're going to do it.
              But it does reference ISO/IEC 17020, which is actually an inspection as a standard.  So you can look at it and take a look at some of the key elements that that standards calls out.
              Such as, you know, what has to be in a report, how you qualify your inspectors and so on.  And there's also accreditation programs that are available by their accreditation ABs for that, for that standard.
              That also could be used as basis for what you were saying for recognition.  So right now if you don't have the equality, maybe under 17020 you would have that equality between the NRTLs where they would be implementing the same type of program and that could aid in accepting a result.  Similar as we see right now with 17025 under 65.

              MR. ROBINSON:  All right, thank you.  Yes?
              MS. WALLSTROM:  Thank you for raising all these very valid comments and I totally agree with you.  And I just wanted to add, I only had five minutes, so I had to be quick.
              But on the fact that, I can understand it was perceived like we don't want OSHA to meddle with the NRTLs inspection, that they shouldn't be given guidance.  But what we really want is that they are given enough guidance but not too much.
              So if OSHA could provide NRTLs with some general guidance and criteria to follow, we think that would be really good.  We think it be necessary even.

              And we want these, we want to challenge you because we would want these guide and the instructions could be used, not only by the NRTLs but also by the factories, to understand the priorities of the NRTLs and maybe perhaps even question them from time to time.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Okay.  Yes?
              MR. EVANS:  Andrew Evans from GAMBICA.  Just a quick, the UL comment to my right, whose industry totally supports improved market surveillance.
              And, you know, most manufacturers are conscientious, they're putting safety first, as Todd was saying.  We need a level playing field so that products, which haven't even seen any kind of conformity assessment, are taken off the market so that, yes, I think that's the wider issue, for public safety.
              And in terms of non-compliance or non-conformity with factory inspections, there's got to be some differentiation between a non, an administrative non-compliance and an actually safety critical non-compliance.
              Because you could find lots and lots of administrative details which aren't quite right that takes in the wrong vote sort of.  But it's not actually safety critical.

              We feel the bigger issue is the growing number of products on the market that have no conformity assessment at all with counterfeit products.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Okay, thank you.  Keith?
              MR. MOWRY:  Well maybe a truism but it's, I think pretty obvious that the strongest advocates for NRTLs or any CB to go out and police their mark the people who legitimately are authorized to use it and don't want to see it used in an unauthorized manner.
              And if I wasn't, you know, again only five minutes --
              MR. ROBINSON:  Sorry.

              MR. MOWRY:  You know, given the shrinking world and technology and all the other challenges we face, counterfeiting, unauthorized use of marks, you know, I don't see how you can take away that requirement.  And I would think you would actually, again, in line with 17065, not just expect people to have procedures to do it but to do it.
              Because the people who are authorized to use anybody's mark are, I'm sure, very anxious to see that mark monitored so that people who aren't authorized don't use it.  That's probably more important to the manufacturers who are authorized to use it than anybody else.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Okay.  Paul?
              MR. MOLISKI:  Paul Moliski, Intertek, just to get back to your question, Kevin, about the numbers or percentage of errors we find during factory inspections, I don't have those numbers for you.  We did do a calculation on initial project submittals, what the level of errors were for that.

              I'll agree, and I'll go back to our followup services department see if we can get one quarter, get a snapshot and we can exclude administrative errors and see what the serious errors are on a factory inspection to see if we can get some type of percentage that you can use.
              MR. ROBINSON:  That might be helpful to us as we look into factory surveillance.
              MR. LUCEY:  Just a comment to add there too, is that from a manufacturer's perspective we want that too.  Because credibility of the program is everything.
              When we put that mark out there and we say it meets Class 1, Division 1 approvals, whoever, whichever NRTL we use, we want the program to be credible so that the end-users do know that it is a safety product going into that installation.
              So if we got manufacturers that, you know, like everything is going to be in a wide gamut, in a wide bandwidth, we want to be able to make sure that we're flushing out, you know, manufacturers that maybe don't have compliance on a product.

              So just to reiterate again that we're not sitting up here saying looking, we don't want any oversight, we don't want any inspections, that's not it at all.  What we're trying to do now is, again, going back to Keith's point about balance, is keep in mind that the whole, one of the benefits of the NRTL program is that it's a competitive landscape and we as manufacturers can go out to any of the NRTLs to do the certification and the testing.  Keeping in mind that these factory inspections do limit the ability to make those decisions.

              So if we're already using, let's say two NRTLs, FM and CSA as an example, for us to then say we want to go to UL or we want to go to Intertek, but now you opened up that we got eight more audits that have to take place because each NRTL is doing those inspections, we have found that manufacturers make the decision, I think as you said earlier, they make the decision to stay with who they got because the cost to invite more NRTLs in.
              So I go back to, is there a mechanism to balance the recognition of those factory inspections from one NRTL to another?  Right.  So we go back into some of those kinds of thoughts and processes.
              Because now all of a sudden what was a competitive landscape is now no longer competitive due to the pure financial and economics of the situation.  It's not an issue of whether we want to degrade safe, we absolutely don't, but we're trying to figure out how to balance those issues.
              MR. ROBINSON:  And to that I will simply say, OSHA does allow one NRTL to accept the factory surveillance from other NRTLs.
              MR. LUCEY:  Okay.  And then does it happen?

              MR. ROBINSON:  That's left up to the other individual NRTLs.  And again, each individual NRTL needs to take these steps that they believe are appropriate to control their certification mark.
              MR. LUCEY:  Right.
              MR. ROBINSON:  OSHA allows it.
              MR. LUCEY:  Yes.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Beyond that, Keith.
              MS. WALLSTROM:  But there has to be somebody in Washington that can force them.  I mean Obama must be having some powers --
              MR. ROBINSON:  Sorry, we're laughing because --
              MR. LUCEY:  That's a whole another --
              MR. ROBINSON:  We're all getting loopy.  All right.
              MR. MOWRY:  I think we're ending up at a point where we agree if we, well maybe we agree.  There's another balance.
              You know, and from the industry perspective, you get real benefits from competition among NRTLs.  You get real downsides from competition between NRTLs.  There's a balance.

              MR. ROBINSON:  Yes, that's true.
              MS. WALLSTROM:  But a little bit more is needed.
              MR. ROBINSON:  I will, go ahead.
              MS. WALLSTROM:  Sorry.
              MR. MOWRY:  Now as you travel around to different customers and industries, of course you get different perspectives.  I'm just saying that we all recognize there's a balance.
              Industry gets benefits from a competition between NRTLs.  Industry suffers from competition between NRTLs.
              One of the primary, this is a very fundamental question and I don't think it's purely up to OSHA, I think that because it really has to do, I think, I'm not an expert, but I think it more has to do with your legislation that your authority derives from, is whether OSHA has the authority to regulate NRTLs to effect that balance?

              I don't know the answer to that, I'm not sure Kevin knows the answer to that.  I'm sure there are smart people in OSHA who know the answer to that.
              MR. ROBINSON:  We're all looking at Lee because he's like --
              MR. MOWRY:  I didn't look at anybody.  So you know, but that's irrelevant.  I mean that makes all these other minor things we've been talking about today irrelevant.  The basic question of, of how much regulation in the competition between NRTLs is OSHA authorized to invoke and what should they do about that is not related to the scheme or 17065.
              MR. ROBINSON:  And as we are discussing my mind is racing about a million miles an hour about just different ideas that we might be able to do to take this forward.  But I'm trying to keep myself out of legal trouble here so I'm going to keep them to my, in my head for now.

              MR. GRABEL:  Just as a general manner, it all comes down to safety.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Yes.
              MR. GRABEL:  You know, that's where we have to start and that's where we have to end.  That's OSHA's regulatory authority.
              MR. ROBINSON:  And Lee Grabel with OSHA's Office of the Solicitor.
              MR. GRABEL:  I'm --
              MR. ROBINSON:  And I'm just thinking there's some ways that we might be able to, you know, leverage, have to work out the legal aspects, but again, working out leverage, you know, getting some different groups together and trying to work out some of these issues but that, I'll leave it at that for now.
              All right, any other questions, comments?  In the back.
              MR. REGO:  Todd, just for time --
              MR. LUCEY:  Yes.

              MR. REGO:  You know, asking the NRTLs to accept each other's factory inspections, but are the manufacturers willing to go on the hook then when NRTL one is asked to accept NRTL two's inspection that they don't control?
              MR. LUCEY:  I mean --
              MR. REGO:  Because I think you get back in this loop is, who's going to end up taking the responsibility then that they don't have any control over what goes on during that inspection.
              MR. LUCEY:  Right.  And I think, I mean it's understood.  I mean that is, again, going back to this balance and understanding that perspective, I mean it goes back, again, my colleague said here too, is figuring out how we can still from, again, risk mitigation side of the equation, how can we figure out to trust other NRTLs in this situation that don't minimize, that don't absorb risk or take away risk or add risk to the equation, like you're discussing.

              And we as manufacturers are on the hook no matter what.  I mean quite frankly we can put a stamp on the device and it's recognized in the marketplace, UL, FM and whether the NRTLs has it.
              But we are still on the hook.  I mean there maybe, as a result if something happened from a safety standpoint, there's a financial offset by the carrier, right, UL, FM or whoever, but we have additional costs well above and beyond that anyway.
              Again, we go back to imagine and assets and reputation and all those kind of things.  We have every vested interest to make sure we're doing this in the right way.
              And so, again, we go back to trying to get everybody together to figure out, how do we solve these problems because they're solvable.  They are solvable.  And not only from our perspective, the internal perspective, but the external perspective.

              Because one of the things that, you know, we don't have represented here is the end-user, is the customer.  We're all speaking on behalf of the customer, but I can tell you all these things that we're talking about internally, as complex as it is maybe for us, we're closer to the situation.
              Those customers out there really are confused because they're getting all, I can tell you all kinds of different messages.  We go back to not one NRTL, the messaging that even those people, those employees that are out there representing the NRTL, from one territory to the next, from one customer to the next, they get completely different messages.

              And so these are all things that we have to deal with.  And again, Proctor & Gamble, we have one representative in the room that said the NRTL told them that they have to use that particular NRTL for certification and you had another Proctor & Gamble person said, no, no, no these NRTL programs means you can go anywhere, which is correct, but you've got differences based on the people that are actually communicating it.
              So these are real issues and I'm glad we're talking about them and I think we'll find answers to that.  So I don't have an exact answer to your question but I think we got to figure that out.  We got to figure out how we're going to do that.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Okay.  About half way down from Terrance.
              MR. BUZARD:  Mike Buzard with A2LA again.  Kevin, this question is kind of be, going to be more directed to you.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Great
              MR. BUZARD:  It's okay, it's quick and simple.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Okay.
              MR. BUZARD:  When we're speaking about surveillance, and you've tossed around the idea of both a factory inspection as well as a market surveillance or I guess a field inspection --

              MR. ROBINSON:  Yes.
              MR. BUZARD:  -- it's called currently, what is the reasoning, or maybe I'll start off, has there been consideration moving more towards a lot more weight on the field inspection of the final product where the product type permits?
              Like you give the example of the MRI machine, you're not going to find those on the Home Depot shelf but --
              MR. ROBINSON:  Right.
              MR. BUZARD:  -- you can find hard hats and 9 to 5 masks and all those on the shelf and pick them up anywhere you go.  If you have considered that, why has it not really been brought up as an option to shift more towards that, which would alleviate probably a lot of the burden on both representative groups that are up at the Panel right now, instead of focusing more on the factory inspections?

              MR. ROBINSON:  And I think, you know, having worked in an NRTL and watching what the NRTLs are doing, I would say that as far as controlling the certification mark you, I think that you can get a better look at what is going on when you're actually going in the factory.  And in some situations I believe that there is a market for both and a need for both.
              You know, when you get into, while it's not directly OSHA requirements you get into everyone's favorite product, holiday lighting strings.  They are sometimes used in the workplace so therefore they would fall under that.
              I'm sure that, it's my understanding that several NRTLs have said we will not touch them because they come with such a high risk.  Others have taken that on just because that's what they feel they want or need to do.

              In a situation like that I think, I would suspect that many of the NRTLs are, who are certifying holiday lighting strings, are going to the dollar stores, you know, the Michaels, the Targets, the WalMarts and doing what we would consider a field surveillance.  Just simply because that's the nature of the product and sometimes it's the only way that you can get out and see the product.  You get a accurate representation.
              But when you get into MRI machines, you know, it's low volume you're not going to walk into, you know --
              PARTICIPANT:  Costco.  Walgreens.
              MR. ROBINSON:  You never know.  You're not going to walk into Johns Hopkins Medical Center and, you know, they're going, excuse me Mr. Patient, would you mind while I inspect this product.
              You know, so I think it does need to be balanced.  And each NRTL, generally looking, they tend to cater to, towards a niche market in some cases.

              Some are geared very heavily into the consumer products or consumer type products.  Others are very high end in, very complex, very costly industrial equipment.
              So I don't think there's necessarily a one size fits all.  I think it does need to be looked at with, looking at the type of product and then how best to control that certification mark.  Joan?
              MS. STERLING:  Thanks.  Joan Sterling from Intertek representing IFIA.  Todd, I think some of your issues are probably specifiers issues where they've written in particular NRTL into a specification as opposed to the actual standard that's recognized under OSHA.
              MR. LUCEY:  Yes.
              MS. STERLING:  And that's something that NRTLs really can't fix.  I mean that has to come from the manufactures who work with the specifiers.
              MR. LUCEY:  Yes.

              MS. STERLING:  So I mean those issues are really sort of outside what we maybe talking about today, but they certainly do exist.
              MR. LUCEY:  Yes.
              MS. STERLING:  If in fact and NRTL gives you, gives someone bad information about, less than truthful information, I would assume that there's a process for complaint to OSHA to handle that and hopefully fix that particular problem.
              MR. LUCEY:  Right, right.  And you're absolutely right.  And we have quick forward issues as we confront them in the field where we do have an NRTL employee or individual making statements that are not factual around this program because that's where the customers get confused.
              And it goes even steps further where you get into some of the NRTLs are broad insurance carriers, that if they're the insurance carrier for that plant.

              So Dow Chemical Freeport has FM as their carrier and now we get into, okay, so I specify NRTL Class 1, Division 1 doesn't matter.  But if it comes in with some other than FM, the inspector, again going back saying flag it, I've got a problem with this as an insurance carrier.
              So all of these issues are what, this is a specification issue, it's a messaging issue, it's a training issue, which is we take very seriously to do that.
              And customers want us because their view is on the same position OSHA does on the other side, is they say, look, it's not our problem, the industry, you guys need to fix it.  You know, the industry needs to fix it, the manufacturers need to fix it, because we just want to specify products and make sure that they work, and make sure that they're safe and do all those kinds of things.

              So that's where it gets dicey or it gets more complicated for the customers when what is true, what do they believe, what do they know.  And if we don't take a position in total as an industry on both NRTLs and OSHA and the manufacturers, I think that's what hurts the customer base.
              And then I go back to safety as a broad issue.  They have to spend a lot more money to be safe and they start making decisions on how much money are they willing to spend versus how safe can they be versus the economics.
              And that's a bad, that's a very bad place for putting some of these customers in to make that decision.  We shouldn't be doing that.
              So it's a safety on a component level but it's a broader issue in terms of safety in total.  And if they believe that they're not safe because the inspector has told them it doesn't have the right NRTL stamp on the product, then it's a bigger issue and there's more cost.

              MS. STERLING:  Right.  And, you know, secondarily I mean there are mechanisms within the OSHA programs for example that reflect the CB scheme where NRTLs have had a history of sharing the data and you can obtain other marks.  And I think the Ex is being considered in --
              MR. LUCEY:  Very good.
              MS. STERLING:  -- your particular industry and in some future work that's being done at OSHA.
              MR. LUCEY:  Yes.
              MS. STERLING:  So I think there are other mechanisms that can help alleviate some of the concerns that the manufacturers have raised.
              MR. LUCEY:  Yes.
              MS. STERLING:  And help, you know, promote an easier path to workplace safety and making more --
              MR. LUCEY:  Yes, we welcome that.  Absolutely.

              MR. ROBINSON:  Okay, any other questions?
              MR. SULLIVAN:  Hi.  Dan Sullivan, TUV Rheinland, talking about the surveillance and the report acceptance.
              If I look at the new draft requirements the two, the report acceptance from one NRTL for another one to maintain their certification, the requirements seems to kind of contradict themselves.  Or there just seems to be some misunderstanding, because if I have to be, me, as the issuing NRTL, use another NRTL's report and they have to evaluate all the components in that particular product as part of my surveillance activities, then how does that other NRTL receive the critical components list and things like that?
              So that's my first question is, or just bringing that point up --
              MR. ROBINSON:  Yes.
              MR. SULLIVAN:  -- there seems to be a contradiction.  Maybe it's my misunderstanding.

              Second thing I wanted to bring forward is, it's probably more for the manufacturers to alert them to the fact that the new draft requirement, when scheduling a factory or a surveillance inspection, has done away with the word, minimal notice.  It is now, it is, shall be no notice.
              And I just wanted to raise those couple of points for possible discussion.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Okay.  And your first point, we'll hit that on the next session.  So don't let me forget.
              MR. SULLIVAN:  (Inaudible).
              MR. ROBINSON:  That's fine.  And if there is no other comments or question I think we'll take a break.  It is, call it 2:30.  Let's say 2:00, let's go 2:45.
              And we'll hit fees really quickly and then talk about the new directive.  So meet back here at about 2:45.

              (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 2:29 p.m. and resumed at 2:53 p.m.)
              MR. ROBINSON:  All right, so before we move onto the last section, which is the directive update, I did want to discuss the last topic that was in the Federal Register notice, which was the subject of fees.
              PARTICIPANT:  Abolish them.
              MR. ROBINSON:  What?
              PARTICIPANT:  Abolish them.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Abolish them. So earlier, actually last year OSHA initiated payment through pay.gov.  We finally moved into the 21st Century and started accepting credit cards.

              The question that was proposed, which based on the comments we received I believe may have been misinterpreted about what we were proposing.  But the question was basically looking for, should OSHA no longer accept payments from NRTLs for services by means of check and just use the pay.gov system, which allows for credit cards payments and electronic fund transfer?
              And if we were to cease the use of accepting checks, what hardship would that cause the NRTLs that are currently in the program or anyone who's currently think about applying?
              So with that I'll open it up to see if anyone has any comments or questions or wants to convince us not to do that?  As I said, this was only going to take about two minutes.  So okay, I think that's it.
              The final topic on the agenda for the day is the much anticipated NRTL Directive Update.  Before I begin I just need to extend an enormous thanks to the folks at NIST and everyone on the NRTL team.

              We started off, we started off the last year actually after the stakeholder, the last stakeholder meeting intending to put a few bandages on the NRTL directive.  And we quickly moved into, let's just rewrite the whole program from the ground up.  And we did it in record time.
              The fact that we are at this point where we actually have a solid working draft, in our opinion, less than 18 months after we started this process, speaks volumes.  So just thank you to Amy from NIST and everyone else who is on the NRTL team who has probably read this document about 2,000 times combined.  So with that let's get into it.
              Hopefully it will work form here.  Of course not.  Okay, I'm going over here.  It wants me to stand at the podium.  Or not.  Or it's not working.  If you want to work on that I'll just read.

              So just as we had for this morning we're not looking for consensus really, all we're doing right now is just looking to get some thoughts and opinions on the document.  And the document that was posted up on our website and is also included in your folder is simply for information purposes only to give you an idea of the current thought process for OSHA.
              We will be publishing a preliminary Federal Register notice, as I mentioned earlier this morning, probably early spring for posting it for public comment.  And then wrap-up those comments with the final Federal Register notice.
              Try it now and see, yes, all right.  So just a history of how we got to this point.  The NRTL program was established in 1988.  Eleven years later we published the NRTL directive.
              So for 11 years we were running pretty much off the regulations which are really a very high level overview of what an NRTL actually is in the requirements that they have.
              Since 1999, over 15 years, we've done only minor updates to the directive.  So it's been long overdue for update.

              In combination with the NRTL directive we also have the NRTL application guideline, which are really meant to help guide an NRTL through how to apply to become an NRTL.  But over the years it's sort of developed a lot of policy in that document.
              So what we started to do, as a result of a GAO or Government Accountability Office study of the program in 2012 is we really looked, took a very hard look at the program and the documents that we're using to control and manage the program.
              As I mentioned, we held a stakeholder meeting in March of 2013.  The initial plan was to just simply stop the bleeding.
              At the time we had a multi-year backlog of applications and we just simply needed to implement some very quick fixes to get the program moving in the forward direction, moving in the right direction.

              So we initially started off trying to make some very quick fixes to some major problem areas.  But we very quickly decided that it was going to be better for everyone to take a few extra months and rewrite the directive, aligning it completely with ISO 17025 and ISO 17065.
              Some of the major proposals, in addition to the alignment with the ISO standards that we're going to be discussing today, and then we'll open up to more general discussion, Number 1 is the, we're looking to revise OSHA's policy on independence.
              Second we're looking to revise OSHA's policies on supplemental programs and the use and acceptance of the IECEx scheme.  Currently we do a lot, we do a lot of NRTLs to accept data through the IEC-CB scheme, but the IECEx scheme has, we have not yet formally adopted.

              We're also looking at making some changes on our policies for equipment and calibration.  And we're looking at implementing a revised definition for a recognized site and eliminating what we are currently calling as SNAP sites.
              With the alignment to the ISO standards we are proposing to accept or to adopt, rather, and that's going to be the wrong term, sorry Lee.  We're looking to integrate ISO 17025 and 17065 as the minimum level of performance for NRTLs.
              And along with that providing some NRTL specific requirements and interpretations.  And that, those specific NRTL specific requirements and interpretations and policies are what's contained in the blue folder and what's been posted up in our website since late August.
              And wherever possible we're looking, we took the approach to change NRTL specific terminology to align as closely as possible with ISO terminology.  Which should hopefully make everyone very happy.

              Policy on independence.  OSHA required or actually requires that NRTLs and applicants be completely independent of employers that are sub, employers subjected to OSHA's tested equipment requirements and any manufacturers, vendors of the equipment and materials that are being tested for these purposes.
              The NRTLs must be free from commercial, financial and other pressures that could comprise the results of testing certification process.
              We presume that these conflicts existed if there was a substantial relationship between the NRTL or the NRTL applicant and the manufacturer, a vendor or major user of products that must be certified.  Which could comprise the objectivity and impartiality of that NRTL.
              It was a very, very tight requirement.  And in today's society not many NRTLs could actually meet those requirements.
              To address this we are proposing to align our existing independence policy with ISO 17025 and ISO 17065.

              You'll notice in the specific NRTL requirements that all we've done is provide some clarification on what we mean.  We're not adding any additional criteria which should hopeful make everyone happy.
              So with that, that's the first proposal on independence.
              Supplemental programs.  Under the NRTL program, back in '95, we created what are, what we call supplemental programs.
              But essentially what supplemental programs are is they allow an NRTL accept evaluation and test data from external sources or outside sources.  Which could include independent laboratories, it could include manufacturers through the CB scheme and also SNAP sites.
              Under our current policies NRTLs apply for recognition to these specific policies.  Or these specific programs rather.

              Under our new proposal, and with the proposed adoption of the ISO standards, supplemental programs or at least the concept of supplemental programs would disappear.
              It was our belief that the ISO standards actually addressed and wrapped up all the requirements in the supplemental programs.  And they provided some clarification on how to accept data from external sources.
              Under our proposed policy, rather than having an NRTL opt into a supplemental program or accepting data from outside sources, we would presume that every NRTL had the policies and procedures in place to accept that data.  Or if they chose not to accept data, say from manufacturers or they chose not to accept data from external independent laboratories or did not want to participate in the acceptance of data under the CB scheme, they're policies and procedures would simply state, we will not do this.

              And along with that is the IECEx acceptance.  Manufacturers have been asking for this for years.
              The first step was actually recognizing the IECEx scheme or harmonized standards for equipment intended for use in hazardous location.  So since we adopted those standards or recognized those standards earlier this year, this now sets the stage for allowing acceptance of data under the IECEx scheme.
              Equipment calibration.  Under our current directive an NRTL must have an adequate calibration program in order to meet the capability requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7.  This is contained in the current NRTL directive.
              What we are proposing to do is implement a new policy.  OSHA is proposing to include new requirements that require the NRTL or applicant to use an accredited calibration laboratory for the calibration of its test equipment.

              Additionally if calibrations are conducted by the NRTLs internal calibration laboratory, that laboratory must be accredited for the scope of calibrations it conducts with certain exceptions.
              The certain exceptions are detailed in the draft directive that you have, but it's essentially physical measurements, things that are unlikely to change, things that do not require a high degree of accuracy.  So that is proposal for calibration.
              Next is the definition of a recognized site.  How we got to this point was, in sort of a roundabout way, I mentioned that we had a great involvement with NIST.  Over the past 24 months our current directive and our current policies have been reviewed by people who've worked in laboratories, people who've worked in NRTLs, people who've been experts in conformity assessment systems and development of those systems.

              Absolute novices.  People with absolutely no knowledge of the program, no knowledge of conformity assessment schemes.  And every single one of those people offered an extremely unique perspective on our directive and got us to take an extremely hard look at our policies.
              And this was one of those things that came around.  The question was asked, as we were reviewing things internally, what's the difference between a recognized site and a SNAP site?
              And for those of you who don't know, a SNAP site is a program we implemented about five, six years ago.  It greatly summarized and greatly simplified, it basically is a program where NRTLs can apply to OSHA that will allow them to conduct their own review an assessment of their own laboratories to conduct NRTL specific activities.

              It was really developed as a work around for certain policies in countries that conflicted with OSHA requirements.  Certain countries required that the testing organization be owned by a locally based company that was very difficult to do under the NRTL program requirements so we developed the workaround.  That was SNAP.
              So the definition of a recognized site is one that is legally, a legal entity recognized by OSHA that the NRTL must wholly own, either directly or indirectly, or organizationally encompass the NRTLs laboratory and certification sites and have administrative and operational control over these sites.  Very restrictive.
              What we're proposing to do is to change the definition to a site that is administratively and operationally controlled by the NRTL that performs testing inspections and certification decisions and/or accepts data or inspections in accordance with the NRTL management system.  So effectively we are removing or proposing to removal the wholly owned requirement.

              The definition, the proposed definition of a recognized site closely matches that of a SNAP site.  And along with that we would propose, because now we would have a recognized site and an SNAP site, which are effectively the same thing, we would propose to eliminate the use of SNAP sites.
              And we would then develop, likely develop a process where currently NRTLs that have existing SNAP sites could easily convert those SNAP sites over to recognized sites to be integrated into the program under a recognized site scheme.
              So those are the proposals, the major proposals that we are presenting in the current draft directive.  And with that I'm just going to open the floor up to any questions, comments, concerns about anything on that directive.
              So I'm going to sit down now.  Press on the bottom.  Yes, you got to hold it for a second.  There it goes.

              MR. BLAIS:  Thank you Kevin.  Steve Blais with Appleton Group.  I'm here today as a, I'm a NEMA member so I'm participating under NEMA today.
              As you know NEMA has been working with OSHA through a task group, their codes of standards committee for about 30 months now to try to get OSHA to allow NRTLs to, under client test data programs, to allow NRTLs to allow non-independent test laboratories, such as manufacturers, to have the NRTLs be permitted to accept the hazardous location test data.
              MR. ROBINSON:  We're doing that.
              MR. BLAIS:  I figured that, I just wanted some clarification.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Yes.
              MR. BLAIS:  Because of the shift in the supplemental program, unless the NRTL of course comes out and says we're not going to do it --
              MR. ROBINSON:  Right.

              MR. BLAIS:  -- we understand that.  So I just wanted to get clarification.
              MR. ROBINSON:  So that is under the draft directive and, you know, the parts that have been released and the parts that we're still working on internally, that is something that we are going to be proposing in the Federal Registry notice to put out.
              DR. HARTGE:  Planning to propose at this time.
              MR. ROBINSON:  What?  Yes, we do need to --
              DR. HARTGE:  You're planning --
              MR. ROBINSON:  Oh, planning to proposal, I'm sorry.  See this is, this is where I'm going to get into trouble.
              MR. BUZARD:  Mike Buzard from A2LA.  My topic is going to be related to the calibration proposal change.

              A recommendation would not be to enforce accreditation under a calibration scope for the NRTLs that want to calibrate their own equipment.  Instead I'll leave out the assumption you're going to accreditation, but take a look at ILAC P10.
              This is ILAC's policy document that deals with traceability of measurements and deals with calibrations.  All the accreditation bodies here have to have our own policy that we enforce over test labs that essentially allows them to calibrate their own equipment.
              We still go in during a testing lab assessment, we assess them the same as we would a calibration laboratory essentially, but they are not getting a calibration scope because they wouldn't be offering those calibrations --
              MR. ROBINSON:  Right.
              MR. BUZARD:  -- to any customers.  It saves laboratories sometime, but it also saves them a lot of money in terms of that extra accreditation.

              MR. ROBINSON:  So the, and there was, I like E, as in elephant 10?
              MR. BUZARD:  P, as in policy.
              MR. ROBINSON:  P, as in Paul.  Okay.
              MR. BUZARD:  Yes.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Thank you.
              MR. BUZARD:  Yes, P10.  It's towards the end, each accreditation body has to have a policy that allows testing laboratories that want to calibrate their own equipment, only for themselves, to do so.
              We still go in, we still look at training records, reference standards for the calibration, the records of the calibrations of themselves, uncertainty budgets, all that, the whole list of things that 17025 would generally require of a cal lab, but because the test labs don't want to give these calibrations to the customers --
              MR. ROBINSON:  Right.

              MR. BUZARD:  -- no sense in having them pay extra fees every year for a whole separate field.
              MR. ROBINSON:  So a question, and we're looking at this, you know, sort of short-term today or next year assuming that we implement this, this policy when OSHA would still be conducting the assessments.  OSHA does not have the expertise to look at calibration laboratories.
              So for the short-term, that's an issue we would need to address.  Long-term, if we do decide to move into looking at third-party accreditation bodies in a situation like that, you as an accreditor, would you need to know ahead of time if an organization was doing calibrations internally to then, so then you could have, bring in the expertise to look at that calibration?
              MR. BUZARD:  Speaking only from A2LA's view --
              MR. ROBINSON:  Correct.
              MR. BUZARD:  -- yes we do --
              MR. ROBINSON:  Okay.

              MR. BUZARD:  -- actually require laboratories to go in brand new labs or renewal laboratories to send us an equipment list so we know if they are doing any in-house calibrations.
              Can we send just a testing assessor who's familiar with, for instance calibrating a power meter, or do we have to send one of our very highly knowledgeable high level calibration assessors if they're doing three quarters of their entire scopes worth of equipment on their own.  So it's going to depend on the individual laboratory.
              Can we send in, you know, the smart technical guys who've had 30 year's experience on a bench, they know how to do an oscilloscope on their own or are we sending in a fourth, fifth, second, maybe third assessor to combine with the testing team.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Okay, thank you very much, that's very informative.  Any other questions?  Keith, of course.

              MR. MOWRY:  So the draft directive looks like a scheme to me.
              MR. ROBINSON:  That's the intent.
              MR. MOWRY:  That's the idea.  Okay, I'm going to hammer away at this again.
              If you're going to use 17025 and 17065 you have got to get on the terminology that's used in those documents.  The draft directive doesn't do that yet.
              I'll give you one example.  In the draft directive that corresponds to 7.4 in 17065, you talk about evaluation of the test data.
              That's not what evaluation is in 17065.  You're really going to confuse the bejeepers out of us if you don't stay disciplined on the use of the terminology.
              Today the word laboratory has been thrown around to mean at least four different things.  A legal entity at NRTL.

              I mean in terms of 17025 the laboratory is a physical space with a controlled environment where you have test equipment and you conduct tests.  So that's the only thing you should call a laboratory, okay.
              The other thing that I will say about this as a scheme document is it, I think it reflects a lot of what the current scheme is, but it is accurately restated.
              There are, I mean Raj brought up just one issue this morning in our Panel about the questions and the demands that just one sentence in the draft directive raises.  I've got those kind of notes on every page of this draft directive.
              My strong plea is, please don't write this and take it out for a test drive as you assess NRTLs yourself.  That has got to be the most time wasting ineffective way to figure out what the directive should be.

              Please get us together as stakeholders.  If there's a way to do it, I know there's constraints, but please get us together as stakeholders so people like Raj can come and say, what in the world were you thinking when you wrote this because what these really means to me as an assessor is, duh ta duh ta duh ta duh.
              Because as a matter of fact Raj and I had the exact same reaction, we didn't compare notes.  And we think it would be far preferable, and frankly take no more time, to sort through those issues before you go to Federal Register notice publication than afterwards.  Thanks.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Okay, thank you.  Raj?
              MR. NATHAN:  You know, it's like Keith when he's diplomatic about his comments.
              MR. MOWRY:  Except for today.
              MR. NATHAN:  Expect for today.  No, thanks, Keith.  Yes, this certainly, that sentiment, you know, I spoke to quite a few people during the breaks here.

              Speaking for myself, you know, and I apologize, I was remiss and not able to review this document.  For whatever it went to a colleague of mine and yesterday when I looked at it my first reaction was, oh my God, why we were not involved much earlier than this.  And that certainly, it does not, it reflects on our not being actively engaged.
              But having being involved in this process with many regulators at many levels, including recently with Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC, has approached this process and for whatever it's worth, NRC has gone, not only with the U.S. ABs while their formulating this process, they actually accompanied me.  Six of them came down with me to an ILAC process in Japan.
              Six of the NRC individuals.  And they've been to two other international evaluations to see how this process works, not only in U.S. but across the world.

              The reason that's important to them, for instance, is because given their needs, they have significant reasons to be involved with other economies.  Their test data and, well I guess certification results and so forth, feed into the NRC evaluation process.
              I was quite impressed with not only NRC but the industry group, which is NEI, the Nuclear Energy Institute, whatever it's called.  And they've done this thing several times.
              So again, one of the things is to step back a little bit and see the process from that point of view but also see from the outside.
              And just to add a couple, again, just to give a couple of flavor, I didn't have a chance to talk during the discussions, discussion session.  For instance there are requirements for accrediting internal calibration in one of the sections.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Yes.

              MR. NATHAN:  That's a huge undertaking.  And the gentleman from A2LA pointed out, if that happens from an AB's perspective, do we need a metrologist to accompany and what is the mechanism of that?  It brings up a whole lead of secondary and tertiary questions.
              You have, for instance, a calibration interval.  I think Section 5.5(d).  You know, typically it's not incumbent on testing labs.  In fact to some extent it's prohibited for testing labs to specify the calibration intervals.
              And, you know, I mean there are certain technical challenges in 5.5(d) how that should be implemented and how it should be enforced.  And there are terminologies, like Keith alluded to, list of management personnel.
              Typically I believe you're talking about organizational chart, which is the terminology, organizational structure is another term that's used.

              So there's a lot of that stuff and again, I apologize that we haven't been engaged to provide that kind of feedback, but I certainly expect to do that working management colleagues.
              One last plead, again, Kevin, in your discussion questions you alluded to the fact that when you folks have been to a variety of CBs and NRTLs you've seen situations which are in variance with what the ABs have seen.  And I again urge you, request you to do two things.
              One, please have, join us when we do assessments.  Or if that, let us join you in those NRTLs we acquire.  Neither one of that is happening and we have an open process and I presume within your limitations you have some ability.  Because after all, it is our NRTLs in a sense.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Yes.

              MR. NATHAN:  So then all these questions could be answered.  And by God, you have an opportunity to tell us where we are messing up and what we need to do.