Agenda of the Laws and Regulations Committee Ken Butcher

We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse traffic. We share info about use of our site with social media, ads and analytics partners. By continuing to browse you are agreeing to use of cookies. See details or close this message.

Page

/12

100%

Specifications	Agenda of the Laws and Regulations Committee Ken Butcher
Business section

NTEP 2011 Interim Agenda NTEP - 10 3. NCWM Responsibilities: 3.1. For new certificate holders, ensure that VCAP certification

Specifications	Agenda of the Laws and Regulations Committee Ken Butcher
Outline	Table of Contents - Interim Agenda National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) Committee Interim Agenda 500 INTRODUCTION Table A. Index to Reference Key Items Table B. Glossary of Acronyms 500-1 Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA) 500-2 Mutual Acceptance Arrangement (MAA) 500-3 NTEP Participating Laboratories and Evaluations Reports 500-4 National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) Sector Reports 500-5 Conformity Assessment Program 500-6 NTEP Contingency 500-7 Publication 14 – NTEP Administrative Policy
Suggested Link Details/Purchase
Content	NTEP 2011 Interim Agenda NTEP - 10 3. NCWM Responsibilities: 3.1. For new certificate holders, ensure that VCAP certification has been completed within a one year cycle of the first maintenance fee, but not to exceed 18 months (example: if NTEP certified in July 2011. VCAP certification would be required by November 2012). 3.2. As part of annual maintenance, NCWM shall ensure that VCAP audit reports are on file, current, and that all non-conformances have been addressed. 3.3. Ensure that an appeals process is in place and made available to Certificate holders. [Note: The appeal and review process contained in section T. of this document shall be used.] 500-6 NTEP Contingency Source: NTEP Committee Purpose: NTEP Contingency, to keep NTEP operating and ensure NTEP services are available at an adequate level. The NTEP Committee wants to ensure there is an appropriate number of laboratories and personnel (evaluators) to maintain viable support for NTEP services, including MRAs, MAAs, and potentially to be an R 76 Issuing Participant. Item Under Consideration: The NTEP Committee discussed contingency planning for continuity of NTEP operations. With the state of today’s economy, what if NTEP lost a lab? How will NTEP maintain workflow? Are there additional states interested in applying to become an NTEP field lab or an NTEP brick-and-mortar lab? The NTEP Committee will continue to discuss these issues during a long-range planning session and welcomes comments from the membership. Issues under consideration include should the NCWM: 1. Employ NTEP evaluators to conduct testing at manufacturer’s facilities? 2. Have evaluators under contract to conduct testing at manufacturer’s facilities? 3. Employ NTEP evaluators or have evaluators under contract to assist the state NTEP laboratories? 4. Have a brick and mortar NTEP laboratory and NTEP evaluators? 5. Use a private third party laboratory to conduct NTEP evaluations? The Committee heard testimony expressing support and concerns pertaining to the options. Several stated that the Committee should consider adding OIML MAA participation as a Utilizing Participant to the list. Another urged the Committee to continue working on the idea of NCWM NTEP evaluators, an NCWM NTEP lab, and keeping all options open. One member asked the Committee to consider accepting manufacturer compliance data in lieu of hiring NTEP contractors. Another suggestion from the floor was to consider beefing up and utilizing “Initial Verification” as part of the NTEP process. A representative of a state brick and mortar NTEP laboratory asked the Committee to move cautiously forward and not destroy the state NTEP labs. He expressed concern that the establishment of an NCWM/NTEP brick and mortar lab could lead to significant legal complications for the states. Current Comment: The NTEP Committee wants the membership to know that, at this time, the preferred course of action would be the evaluators under contract option. The Committee recognizes the commitment states with NTEP laboratories have made over the years and would only resort to contingency measures in the event of a severe loss of state lab resources. Labs are handling current demand without a need for contingency measures. The Committee continues to keep NTEP contingency a top priority and watch over the status of the laboratories.
Navigation	Previous Page / Next Page
Suggested Link Details/Purchase

Following Datasheets	10-ntep-2010-annual-final (16 pages) 10-ntep-2011-annual-final (18 pages) 10-ntep-app-a-09-annual-final (20 pages) 10-ntep-app-a-11-pub15-final (28 pages) 10-ntep-app-a-grain-10-annual-final (30 pages) 10-ntep-app-b-09-annual-final (38 pages) 10-ntep-app-b-11-annual-final (46 pages) 10-ntep-app-b-11-pub15-final (46 pages) 10-ntep-app-b-meas-10-annual-final (96 pages) 10-ntep-app-c-09-annual-final (51 pages)
Check in e-portals	World-H-News Products Extensions Partners Automation Jet Parts
Sitemap Folder	group1 group2 group3 group4 group5 group6 group7 group8 group9 group10 group11 group12 group13 group14 group15 group16 group17 group18 group19 group20 group21 group22 group23 group24 group25 group26 group27 group28 group29 group30 group31 group32 group33 group34 group35 group36 group37 group38 group39 group40 group41 group42 group43 group44 group45 group46 group47 group48 group49 group50 group51 group52 group53 group54 group55 group56 group57 group58 group59 group60 group61 group62 group63 group64 group65 group66 group67 group68 group69 group70 group71 group72 group73 group74 group75 group76 group77 group78 group79 group80 group81 group82 group83 group84 group85 group86 group87 group88 group89 group90 group91 group92 group93 group94 group95 group96 group97 group98 group99 group100 Prewious Folder Next Folder