Evaluation assurance level

Safety integrity levels (SILs) provide targets for risk reduction (Security EAL-Evaluation Assurance Level Correlation to SIL )... 

In reeent years there has been a growing trend of increased security in systems used in critieal national infrastrueture (ineluding the development and eertification of high-security systems to a Common Criteria Evaluation Assurance Level, often EAL 4 and above). This is due to the perceived growing threat of cyber warfare and cyber terrorism. This potential threat was predicted by US Congressional Joint Economic Committee, which also warned back in 2002 that the extent and effects of cyber terrorism on US infrastructure were not yet understood however, it was reported (Mann 2002) that... 

SRL Security Requirements Level Security functions and related Evaluation Assurance Levels according to ISO/IEC 15408 Hardware, software or ASICS and related Safety Integrity Levels according to ISO/IEC 61508... 

The sample mean for this example is 97.76%, so the upper limit for the sample RSD is 3.68%. It is recommended that the means always be rounded to the more restrictive RSD limit so that the assurance level and lower bound specifications are still met, so in this case 97.76% is rounded to 97.7%. Therefore, since the sample RSD of 2.70% is less than the critical RSD of 3.68, the acceptance criterion is met. This means that with 90% assurance, at least 95% of samples taken from the blender would pass the USP 25 content uniformity test for capsules. As mentioned in Sec. III.A., if the USP 25 tablet criterion were evaluated instead of the capsule criterion, the upper limit for the sample RSD would be 2.98% and would also pass. 

Systemic failures are due to human errors (e.g. mistakes, misconceptions, miscommunications, omissions) in the specification, design, build, operation and/or maintenance of the system. Errors in this case are taken to include both mistakes and omissions. Errors can be introduced during any part of the lifecycle and errors are caused by failures in design, manufacture, installation or maintenance. Systematic failures occur whenever a set of particular conditions is met and are therefore repeatable (i.e. items subjected to the same set of conditions will fail consistently) and thus apply to both hardware and software. It is difficult to quantify the rate at which systemic failures will occur and a qualitative figure based on the robustness of the development/build process is normally used. The probability of systemic failures is often evaluated by means of safety integrity (or development assurance) levels. 

An effective NDE program rehes heavily on periodic certification of the competence of its personnel (13,14). Certification programs designate levels of competence for all levels of personnel. Level I technicians are able to carry out instmctions in an NDE Level III supervisors are qualified to evaluate the needs of the test and devise a scheme that assures the desired level of quaUty or safety. 

It will be extremely difficult for the typical plant user to determine the level of accuracy of the various instruments that are available for predictive maintenance. Vendor literature and salesmen will assure the potential user that their system is the best, most accurate, etc. The best way to separate fact from fiction is a comparison of the various systems in your plant. Most vendors will provide a system on consignment for periods up to thirty days. This will provide sufficient time for your staff to evaluate each of the potential systems before purchase. 

Continue to monitor AED serum trough concentrations approximately every 3 to 5 days until the AEDs have reached steady-state concentrations. Give additional loading doses or hold doses as needed to maintain trough concentrations in the patient s therapeutic range. Be sure to evaluate the time the sample was drawn to assure it is a trough level. 

CPM is an important scheduling aid, but from it alone a schedule cannot be devised. To schedule a project, after a CPM or PERT diagram has been constructed the planner must evaluate the work force and special equipment needed for each activity. Then he must devise a scheduling plan that will maintain a fairly even level of labor and assure the most efficient use of specialty items. 

The validation process begun in Phase I is extended during Phase II. In this phase, selectivity is investigated using various batches of drugs, available impurities, excipients, and samples from stability studies. Accuracy should be determined using at least three levels of concentration, and the intermediate precision and the quantitation limit should be tested. For quality assurance evaluation of the analysis results, control charts can be used, such as the Shewart-charts, the R-charts, or the Cusum-charts. In this phase, the analytical method is refined for routine use. 

Effects. For each identified failure mode, the PrHA team should describe the anticipated effects of the failure on the overall system or process. The key to performing a consistent FMEA is to assure that all equipment failures are analyzed using a common basis. Typically, analysts evaluate effects on a worst-case basis, assuming that existing safety levels do not work. However, more optimistic assumptions may be satisfactory as long as all equipment failure modes are analyzed on the same basis. 

From the available literature it becomes clear that method evaluation studies do not surpass the level of within-laboratory performances. Although several of these (see Table 3.3.1) reveal satisfactory levels of quality and environmentally relevant limits of detection, a genuine quality assurance of these methods is still lacking. There are no reports of interlaboratory studies and certified reference materials for surfactants are not available on the market yet. It can therefore be concluded that there remains much to be done in the field of improving and evaluating quality of analytical measurements of surfactants in biota. 

System suitability tests serve to define the level of electrophoretic performance necessary to ensure valid CE assay results. System suitability of the method was evaluated by analyzing the symmetry of the IB-367 peak, theoretical plates of the capillary, and resolution between IB-367 and IB-300, the closest peak to IB-367. The sample concentration of the method was selected at approximately 0.5 mg/ml to assure symmetry below 3.5 and to assume sufficient sensitivity for detecting low... 

If a secondary method is required during early phase development, a level 3 method is developed and validated to support phase 2b or early phase 3 clinical studies. This method should be capable of separating all components of interest identified up to this stage of pharmaceutical development. In cases where the initial primary method is still viable, the level 1-level 2 method may be maintained. As in early development, the use of an orthogonal method to evaluate DS generated via new synthetic schemes and to evaluate new formulations remains an important means of assuring that the primary method is sufficient for characterizing DS and DP. 

All aspects of the electronic records and electronic signature systems in place have been designed to provide a level of security and control equal to or exceeding the equivalent controls inherent to manual (paper) systems. This equivalency principle provides evaluative criteria for all electronic signatures. There is not a mandate to make a system perfect, error-free, or completely hacker-proof, although these are all appropriate ultimate goals rather, sufficient controls are required to assure that an electronic system is as secure or more secure than an equivalent manual system. 

During a validation process, the products and processes are subjected to testing at extreme conditions of in-process limits and their performance is evaluated against the acceptance criteria. The parameters of different pharmaceutical operations are varied and product properties are recorded and evaluated (Figure 3). When it is found that adjustment is required, necessary actions are taken in consultation with R D personnel. Generally, validation data of three production scale batches are compared to generate a high level of quality assurance. 

In achieving this target, all countries should seek common, science-based, international standards. FSIS should continue to ensure that equivalent inspection systems and standards for meat and poultry products exist in all countries exporting such products to the United States, especially in light of the better US safety standards expected under Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP). FDA also should evaluate the food safety systems of other countries, with the purpose of entering into agreements with those countries having food safety systems that offer equivalent levels of public health protection to those of the United States or that can provide assurance that their products will be in compliance with FDA requirements. 

---