Views: 0 Author: J-VALVES Publish Time: 2026-11-11 Origin: Site
Every valve project document review eventually meets the same sentence: "EN 10204 material certificates will be provided." EN 10204:2004 is a short European standard that defines four types of inspection documents for metallic products, and that sentence is not a commitment to any one of them. The four types are not a quality ladder rising from weak to strong. Each type is a statement about who performed the tests, on which material, and who validated the results. A purchase order that asks for "a material certificate" without naming a type will legitimately receive a Type 2.2 - a real document making a real claim, but a claim about the production run, not necessarily about the heat inside the crate. This article walks through what each type asserts, what a Type 3.1 is not, how the stockist clause limits what a distributor can certify, where PED 2014/68/EU turns the certificate type from a preference into a legal requirement, and how to review the certificate that actually arrives.
EN 10204:2004 defines four inspection document types. The dividing line that matters runs between the 2-series and the 3-series, and it is drawn on how the test results were obtained - not on how many tests were performed.
Type | Name | Test results | Results obtained from | Validated by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
2.1 | Declaration of compliance with the order | None | Not applicable | Manufacturer only; no independence requirement on the signatory |
2.2 | Test report | Yes | Non-specific inspection: tests on material representative of the production process, not necessarily the delivered heat or lot | Manufacturer only; no independence requirement on the signatory |
3.1 | Inspection certificate | Yes | Specific inspection: tests on the products supplied, or on test units of which the supplied products form part | Manufacturer's authorised inspection representative, independent of the manufacturing department |
3.2 | Inspection certificate | Yes | Specific inspection, identical test basis to 3.1 | As 3.1, plus the purchaser's authorised inspection representative or an inspector designated by official regulations |
Read the table the way an auditor does. A Type 2.2 test report is a legitimate document - it is also a document that may report a heat that is not in your shipment, and the standard permits exactly that. This is why the phrase "mill certificate attached" on a quotation, with no type named, resolves nothing. The type field on the certificate itself is the first field to check when the documents arrive, because a 2.2 and a 3.1 both look like a sheet of paper with chemistry and mechanical values on it, and substituting one for the other is the single most common documentation failure in valve procurement.
The standard separates non-specific inspection from specific inspection. Non-specific means the tests were carried out on material representative of the production process - a prior pour from the same grade, a routine production check - and the document then extends those results to the delivery. Specific means the tests were carried out on the material being supplied, or on a test unit of which the supplied material forms part, traceable to the heat or lot. The product specification, the applicable rules or the order defines what a test unit is: it may be a heat, a lot, or another defined unit, and on small components the controlling unit may not be the one you assume.
Why does this distinction carry so much weight? Because a failure investigation later asks one question: what was the material in this joint, this body casting, this stem. A non-specific document cannot answer that question, no matter how complete its test data looks. For the everyday commodity valve, a 2.2 may be a commercially reasonable choice. For pressure-retaining parts on any project with a formal quality regime - PED Category II and above, offshore packages, sour service, anything with a defined inspection and test plan - only the 3-series documents connect the paper to the metal.
A Type 3.1 certificate is issued by the manufacturer and validated by the manufacturer's own authorised inspection representative - someone inside the manufacturer's organisation who is organisationally independent of the manufacturing department. That independence is the entire mechanism of the type: the person signing holds an inspection role that does not report to production. It is also the most widespread misunderstanding in procurement. A 3.1 certificate is not a third-party document. Nobody outside the mill has verified anything. When a supplier brochure says "we provide third-party certified material to EN 10204 3.1," the sentence is internally contradictory, and the correction is not pedantry - it defines what you may assume about the data on the sheet.
When the certificate arrives, look at the signature block, not just the data. A valid 3.1 carries the name, role and stamp of the authorised inspection representative. Certificates that arrive as unsigned electronic scans, or signed by a sales function, or stamped with a seal whose company name does not match the issuing manufacturer, have lost the one property that separates a 3.1 from a 2.2 - and that property is exactly what an owner's auditor will check first.
A Type 3.2 certificate adds a second validating party to the same specific-inspection data: either the purchaser's authorised inspection representative, or an inspector designated by official regulations, depending on what the order specifies. The difference is witnessing, not testing. A 3.2 does not mean more tests were run; it means someone from outside the manufacturer was present at, or reviewed, the tests and put their name beside the manufacturer's. Two practical consequences follow.
First, the second signatory must hold a specific role. A well-known inspection company qualifies only when acting in that defined role for your order. Naming an agency in your specification without naming the role does not create a valid 3.2. Second, 3.2 does not automatically mean someone physically witnesses every test. What is witnessed, and at which hold points, comes from the inspection and test plan - not from the certificate type.
The hardest consequence is timing. A 3.2 cannot be retrofitted after despatch. The classic failure sequence: the purchase order asks for 3.2, but the ITP attached to it contains no third-party hold point and no notification period. The manufacturer runs the tests on schedule, because nothing told them to wait. At final documentation review the certificates come back signed 3.1, because there was never a second party present to sign anything else. The material is complete, the heat is cast, and the options reduce to concession, re-test where a re-test is even meaningful, or replacement. A purchase order that will actually produce a 3.2 states four things, not one: the certificate type against the standard; the validating party by name or category; the notification period the manufacturer must give before tests requiring witnessing; and the witnessing obligations marked as hold or witness points in the ITP. Expect the coordination to cost lead time - a commonly cited addition is two to four weeks when a third party must be mobilised, though the real figure depends on the inspection agency's schedule in the producing region. If the project cannot fund an inspector's attendance, the honest answer is to specify 3.1 and invest the effort in reviewing the certificates properly - not to specify 3.2 and discover at despatch that nobody was ever going to attend.
EN 10204 draws a sharp line between the manufacturer, who makes the product, and the intermediary, who supplies it without changing its properties. A stockist is an intermediary. The obligation the standard places on an intermediary is narrow and explicit: pass on the manufacturer's inspection document - as an original or as an unaltered copy - together with suitable means of identifying the product so that traceability between product and documentation is maintained. Two consequences follow, and they are among the most useful things a valve buyer can know.
An intermediary cannot issue an EN 10204 3.1 or 3.2 certificate. If a distributor offers to "provide a 3.1," the compliant answer is the manufacturer's 3.1, forwarded. A certificate printed on distributor letterhead attesting to material properties falls outside EN 10204 altogether - it is not a 3.1 with worse handwriting, it is a different instrument with no standing under the standard, and no standing under PED either. The copy rules also have detail worth knowing: where the delivery is a part of a batch, the delivered quantity may replace the ordered quantity on the copy, but the original must remain retrievable and the copy must be otherwise unaltered.
Two further cases complete the picture. Where material is processed further - cut to size, machined - the marking must be transferred so the link to the original certificate survives the cutting operation; heat-number identity is routinely lost in machining, and the supplier's marking-transfer procedure (who may transfer a number, how it is verified, which marking methods are allowed, how small parts are controlled) is what keeps the chain alive. And spare parts inherit the documentation duty of the original part: because certificates can hardly be obtained afterwards, ask the stockist, before ordering, who the manufacturer of record is and whether the manufacturer's certificate exists. "Will you stamp the heat number on it" is a sensible contractual demand, but it is one you impose - the standard itself requires suitable identification, not a specific marking scheme.
For equipment placed on the EU market, PED 2014/68/EU converts the certificate type from a commercial preference into part of a legal conformity chain. Valves are pressure accessories and are treated as piping. Article 4(1)(c) of the directive defines, by fluid group, when a valve enters the PED regime at all - below those thresholds the valve falls under Article 4(3), sound engineering practice, with no conformity assessment and, per the directive's own text, no CE marking.
Fluid group | Valve enters PED scope when | Below the threshold |
|---|---|---|
Group 1 gases (flammable, toxic, oxidising, explosive) | DN greater than 25 | Article 4(3) SEP - no CE marking |
Group 2 gases (including steam, air, nitrogen) | DN greater than 32 and PS x DN greater than 1,000 bar DN | Article 4(3) SEP - no CE marking |
Group 1 liquids | DN greater than 25 and PS x DN greater than 2,000 bar DN | Article 4(3) SEP - no CE marking |
Group 2 liquids | PS greater than 10 bar, DN greater than 200 and PS x DN greater than 5,000 bar DN | Article 4(3) SEP - no CE marking |
Three quick cases show the arithmetic doing unexpected work. A DN 25 natural-gas valve at PS 100 bar reaches PS x DN = 2,500 bar DN - but DN is not greater than 25, so it sits outside the PED regime entirely. A DN 50 compressed-air valve at 25 bar gives PS x DN = 1,250 bar DN with DN greater than 32, so it is inside scope and lands around Category II. A DN 100 gas valve at 100 bar gives PS x DN = 10,000 bar DN; on the Group 1 gas chart that is Category III territory, where a Notified Body examines the design and audits production. Exact category boundaries belong to the Annex II charts and should be confirmed against the chart in force for the project - but the certificate consequences below do not move with the boundary cases.
For Category I equipment, internal production control applies and a Type 2.2 or 3.1 certificate is acceptable documentation; there is no Notified Body involvement. For Category II to IV equipment, the main pressure-bearing parts require a Type 3.1 certificate issued by the material manufacturer - and here PED carries a trap that catches Asian supply chains every year: Annex I, section 4.3 requires that the material manufacturer's quality assurance system be certified by a competent body established within the EU. In practice this means the mill's ISO 9001 certificate must have been issued by a certification body established in the EU - the address on the ISO 9001 certificate itself is the test. A 3.1 certificate from a technically excellent mill whose ISO 9001 was issued by a non-EU certification body does not satisfy PED for Category II-IV pressure parts. Mills that supply the European market routinely hold a second ISO 9001 certificate issued through an EU-established body for exactly this reason; ask for it at quotation stage, not after the order.
Where does 3.2 enter? PED itself does not impose Type 3.2 as a general rule - it is required where the applicable conformity module or the Notified Body's procedures demand independent validation of material tests, which occurs in practice for Category IV equipment and for many Category III packages depending on the module chosen and the project specification.
The second half of the PED material story concerns the material standards themselves. Materials conforming to harmonised EN standards published in the Official Journal benefit from a presumption of conformity with the material-related essential safety requirements: for valve bodies and internals the relevant set includes EN 10213 for steel castings, EN 10222-2, -4 and -5 for forgings (carbon, low-alloy, high-temperature and stainless), EN 10028 for flat products and EN 10216/10217 for tubes. ASTM and ASME grades - A216 WCB, A105, A182 F316 and their whole family - are not harmonised, so they carry no presumption of conformity. Using them on Category II-IV equipment requires a Particular Material Appraisal: a documented assessment, against the essential safety requirements, of chemical composition, mechanical properties including toughness at minimum design temperature, and fitness for the fluid. For Category III and IV, the PMA must be approved or verified by a Notified Body. Many nickel alloys (Alloy 625, 825, C-276) also lack a harmonised EN standard, which is why alloy valve packages routinely carry PMA paperwork. A PMA prepared only after the design is frozen is one of the most common schedule bombs on alloy projects - screen the alloy and the product form at quotation stage, and reuse an existing Notified-Body-held appraisal where one exists. A European Approval for Materials, the standing alternative to a project PMA, is a longer route - typically quoted at 6 to 18 months - and belongs to material producers, not to valve buyers.
Whatever the type, a certificate that satisfies the standard's format can still fail the order. A review-grade certificate carries, at minimum, the items below; a missing item is a finding, not a cosmetic defect.
Item | What to check |
|---|---|
Manufacturer identity | Name and address of the issuing manufacturer; for PED Category II-IV pressure parts, also the EU-established certification body behind the mill's ISO 9001 |
Document type | Type 2.1, 2.2, 3.1 or 3.2 stated explicitly - the first field to read, before any numbers |
Specification and grade | Matches the purchase order - not merely a grade adjacent to it; note dual-certified heats and which certification you are buying |
Product form and delivery condition | Plate, bar, forging, casting; heat-treatment condition stated (e.g. normalised, quenched and tempered) with actual treatment records behind it |
Heat or lot number | Unique to the delivered material; the same number must appear on the physical part or its traceable marking |
Chemical composition | All specified elements plus reportable residuals, with values inside the limits of the governing specification - and inside any additional limits the order or a service standard imposes |
Mechanical properties | Tensile, yield, elongation at the specified test temperature; impact energy and test temperature where the grade or the service requires; hardness where specified |
Heat treatment and NDT records | Batch heat-treatment records; radiographic, ultrasonic, magnetic-particle or penetrant results where the product standard or the order requires them |
Signature and role | Authorised inspection representative's name, role and stamp; for 3.2, the second signatory's name and their defined role |
Order linkage | Purchase order or contract reference tying the sheet to your shipment, not to an anonymous production run |
A certificate is only useful when it can be linked to the component installed in a particular valve - and a valve is not one heat. A DN 150 to DN 300 trunnion-mounted ball valve typically carries eight to twelve separate metallic heats or lots: body, closure or bonnet, ball, stem and trunnion, seat rings, pressure-retaining bolting, welded transition pieces and any corrosion-resistant overlay deposit, each with its own melt history. Soft seals, packing and gaskets are normally controlled by batch rather than heat. Multiply out the paperwork and the scale becomes concrete: a 100-valve order tracking ten metallic items per valve produces roughly 1,000 valve-to-component-to-heat-to-certificate links before test reports and coating records are counted.
Component | Typical traceability control |
|---|---|
Body and closure (bonnet, end pieces) | Heat number on certificate; heat number transferred by low-stress stamp or durable marking to the part; casting/forging certificate chain to the steelmaker |
Ball, disc, wedge, gate | Heat number plus forging/casting certificate; marking transfer through machining |
Stem and trunnion | Bar or forging certificate; heat treatment batch record; hardness on certificate where the service standard imposes limits |
Seat rings | Heat or lot certificate; small-part marking transfer procedure |
Pressure-retaining bolting | Heat certificate with chemistry and mechanicals; lot marking on fastener heads |
Welded transition pieces and overlay deposits | Base material heat numbers plus weld consumable lot records; overlay composition verified by the specified method |
The fragile link is marking transfer. Heat-number identity is lost easily in cutting and machining, and a single lost link voids the pedigree of that component - a certificate without a matching marking is a document about somebody's metal, not proof about yours. Even a 2 percent loss of marking transfer across a 100-valve order leaves roughly twenty components whose material pedigree is an assumption. The supplier's controlled system should answer, in writing: who may transfer a heat number, how the original number is verified against the certificate, which marking methods are permitted, and how small components are kept in the chain. Serial number to component number to heat number to certificate - a traceability matrix in that format is the deliverable that turns a folder of certificates into evidence.
Where the certificate meets the material route, the forged-versus-cast decision governs how long the certificate chain is: our forged versus cast valve body selection guide shows why a forged body may carry a steelmaker certificate, a forging certificate and a final heat-treatment record where a casting carries one. And when the alloy itself is the selection question - duplex and super duplex families where the PREN on the datasheet must be backed by the chemistry on the certificate - the material logic continues in our super duplex seawater material selection guide.
Reviewing a certificate properly means checking it against the order, not admiring it. The sequence below catches the failures that actually occur.
First, the type field - a 2.2 offered for a 3.1 requirement is a finding, and the most common one. Second, specification and grade against the purchase order, including dual certification: a heat certified to two grades is fine only if the certification you are buying is the one documented. Third, every required test present - not just the tests the mill runs by default; an impact test absent from the sheet is absent from the material, however complete the tensile data looks. Fourth, results inside the limits of the governing specification and of any additional limits the order imposes - values reported without limits met are not compliant values. Statistical plausibility matters too: a full set of six Charpy specimens from one batch all reporting exactly the specification minimum is, to a reviewer, more suspicious than a spread of values above it, and filtered data has a signature worth knowing.
Fifth, the heat number on the certificate against the marking on the part. Sixth, the certificate's product form against the delivered one: a bar-stock certificate is not a complete certificate for a finished forged component unless the ordered manufacturing route and final tests allow it - review the full chain, steelmaker to forging or casting to heat-treatment record to final component certificate, and treat unexplained edits, copied test results, inconsistent company names and impossible dates as grounds to request the originals from the mill.
Two verification tools deserve their limits stated. Positive Material Identification confirms alloy identity on the part itself - invaluable against mix-ups - but it does not prove tensile strength, impact toughness, heat-treatment condition or product form, and handheld XRF cannot reliably measure carbon, sulfur or phosphorus; where those elements matter, optical emission spectroscopy is the method. State the PMI scope as percentages in the purchase order and ITP - for example 100 percent of alloy pressure-containing parts, wetted alloy trim, and selected carbon-steel components - rather than leaving "PMI will be done" as a sentence. And where a service standard adds limits - NACE MR0175/ISO 15156 is the classic case - chemistry inside the grade limits on the certificate still does not prove compliance, because the service standard imposes its own restrictions on composition, hardness (the familiar 22 HRC ceiling in hard environments) and heat-treatment condition that the grade standard does not. The purchase order must name the service standard; the certificate plus hardness records plus heat-treatment records together are the evidence.
Certificate requirements fail at order stage or they fail at despatch - there is no third moment. The language that survives review does four jobs at once, and the clause list below is written to be pasted into an RFQ.
# | Purchase order clause | What it prevents |
|---|---|---|
1 | "Inspection documents to EN 10204:2004, type 3.1, for all pressure-retaining metallic components and specified wetted trim" - type named against the standard, scope listed by component, not by the word "material" | A 2.2 test report arriving in place of the 3.1 you believed you had bought |
2 | "Type 3.2 for [named components], validated by [purchaser's representative / named agency acting in the role of inspector designated by official regulations]; manufacturer to give [14] days notice before witnessed tests" | A 3.1 arriving at despatch because nobody was nominated, notified or present |
3 | "For PED Category II-IV pressure parts: material manufacturer's QA system certified by a competent body established within the EU; copy of the mill's ISO 9001 certificate to be included in the documentation package" | A technically sound 3.1 that fails the PED material clause on the certification body's address |
4 | "Materials per [EN harmonised standards] or, where ASTM grades are offered, a Particular Material Appraisal for PED Category [III] approved by the Notified Body prior to production" | A schedule bomb discovered after design freeze on non-harmonised grades |
5 | "Heat number of every pressure-retaining component marked on the part and recorded in a traceability matrix: valve serial - component - heat number - certificate reference" | A folder of certificates that cannot be connected to the valves shipped |
6 | "Marking transfer procedure submitted for approval; heat-number transfer through cutting, machining and heat treatment controlled under the approved procedure" | Pedigree lost in the machine shop, found at audit |
7 | "Certificates to state heat-treatment condition with batch records; impact test temperature and energy where the grade or service requires" | Blank delivery-condition fields and missing toughness data |
8 | "PMI on [scope percentages], method OES where carbon, sulfur or phosphorus are reportable; XRF permitted for alloy identity only" | A PMI scope that looks complete and cannot read the elements that matter |
9 | "Where NACE MR0175/ISO 15156 is specified: chemistry, hardness and heat-treatment evidence against the service standard, in addition to grade-standard compliance" | "Grade-compliant but service-non-compliant" material on sour packages |
10 | "Certificates forwarded by the supplier in original or unaltered copy with the original retrievable; distributor-letterhead material certificates not accepted" | Intermediary paper outside EN 10204 being accepted as a 3.1 |
Most certificate problems are not falsification - they are mismatches between what the purchase order asked for and what the manufacturing programme made possible. The patterns below cover the majority of findings an experienced reviewer raises, with the corrective action that actually works.
Signature | What it really is | Action |
|---|---|---|
Type 2.2 offered against a 3.1 requirement | The most common substitution; the 2.2 is legal paper, but it is a claim about the production run, not your heat | Reject the document package; verify with the mill that a 3.1 exists for the delivered heats; if not, the material cannot be proven - concession or replacement |
Certificate on distributor or stockist letterhead | Intermediary paper outside EN 10204; the intermediary cannot issue 3.1 or 3.2 | Require the manufacturer's original certificate or unaltered copy; identify the manufacturer of record |
Certificate signed 3.1 where 3.2 was ordered | No ITP hold point, no notification period, no nominated validating party - a coordination failure, not fraud | Concession review, or re-inspection where meaningful; fix the PO/ITP pair for future orders - the current heat cannot be retrofitted to 3.2 |
Heat number missing, blurred, "TBD" or "see attached" | Traceability broken between paper and part; the certificate proves nothing about the shipment | Request the original heat chemistry records from the mill; verify marking transfer; quarantine the affected components until the chain closes |
Impact values all exactly at the specification minimum; six identical results | Statistically implausible uniformity; filtered or copied test data | Request the original test records and machine charts; audit the laboratory; re-test on a sampled basis where the contract allows |
Third-party report identical to the supplier's self-inspection data | The second signatory did not review anything, or the report was not independently generated | Verify the report number with the inspection body; require the defined role of the signatory in writing |
3.1 with mill's ISO 9001 issued by a non-EU certification body, on a PED Cat II-IV order | Annex I 4.3 QA clause unsatisfied even though the material data is sound | Request the mill's EU-established certification body certificate; without it, the material cannot enter the PED documentation package - PMA or substitution follows |
PMI passes but carbon or sulfur unmeasured | XRF-only verification on elements XRF cannot read | Optical emission spectroscopy on affected heats; extend the PMI scope clause |
Certificate paperwork is not glamorous, but it is where projects are quietly won and lost: the type field, the stockist clause, the PED category, the PMA lead time and the traceability matrix all resolve to the same principle - the certificate must be a claim about the metal you received, made by someone qualified to make it. The hardness evidence behind service standards such as ISO 15156 is worked through in our hydrogen service valve material selection guide. Product ranges for the valve types covered by these documentation rules are on our ball valve and gate valve pages, and the wider engineering library is in our technical article collection.
What is the difference between EN 10204 type 3.1 and type 3.2 certificates?
Same tests, same specific-inspection data on the delivered heat or lot. The only difference is the second validation: a 3.1 is validated by the manufacturer's own authorised inspection representative - someone inside the manufacturer's organisation but independent of the manufacturing department - while a 3.2 adds the purchaser's authorised inspection representative or an inspector designated by official regulations. A 3.2 does not mean more tests were run; it means someone outside the manufacturer reviewed or witnessed the tests and signed beside the mill. It costs lead time (commonly two to four weeks when an agency must be mobilised) and it cannot be produced after despatch, because the witnessing either happened at manufacture or did not.
Can a distributor or stockist issue an EN 10204 3.1 certificate?
No. EN 10204 distinguishes the manufacturer, who makes the product, from the intermediary, who supplies it without changing its properties. The intermediary's only obligation under the standard is to pass on the manufacturer's inspection document - as an original or an unaltered copy - with suitable means of identifying the product so traceability holds. A certificate printed on distributor letterhead attesting material properties falls outside EN 10204 entirely. Where material is cut or machined, the marking must be transferred so the link to the original certificate survives, and for spare parts the manufacturer of record should be identified before ordering, because certificates can hardly be obtained afterwards.
Is a 3.1 certificate a third-party inspection certificate?
No, and correcting this matters. A 3.1 is validated by the manufacturer's own authorised inspection representative - the independence is organisational, inside the mill, and nobody outside the manufacturer has verified anything. What to check instead: the signature block (name, role and stamp of the inspection function), the seal matching the issuing manufacturer, and - for PED Category II-IV pressure parts - that the mill's ISO 9001 certificate was issued by a certification body established within the EU, as PED Annex I section 4.3 requires. Only type 3.2 adds a validating party from outside the manufacturer.
What certificate does PED 2014/68/EU require for valves?
Valves are pressure accessories treated as piping, and Article 4(1)(c) decides by fluid group whether a valve enters the regime at all - Group 1 gases from DN greater than 25; Group 2 gases above DN 32 and PS x DN greater than 1,000 bar DN; Group 1 liquids above DN 25 and 2,000 bar DN; Group 2 liquids above PS 10 bar, DN 200 and 5,000 bar DN. Below those thresholds the valve falls under Article 4(3) sound engineering practice with no CE marking. For Category I, a 2.2 or 3.1 is acceptable under internal production control. For Category II-IV, main pressure-bearing parts require a 3.1 issued by the material manufacturer whose QA system is certified by an EU-established body; where no harmonised EN standard covers the grade (the entire ASTM/ASME family and most nickel alloys), a Particular Material Appraisal - approved by the Notified Body for Category III-IV - is required instead, and Category IV and some Category III modules require a 3.2 in practice.
Why can't a 3.2 certificate be issued after the valve has been delivered?
Because type 3.2 is witnessing, not testing. The certificate asserts that a defined second party - the purchaser's authorised inspection representative or a regulator-designated inspector - was present at, or reviewed, the specific tests on the delivered material. If the inspection and test plan contained no hold point and no notification period, the manufacturer ran the tests alone, and the 3.1 they issued is the correct document for what actually happened - the heat was cast months earlier. Retro-fitting reduces to concession, re-test where a re-test is meaningful, or replacement. A purchase order that produces a real 3.2 names the type, names the validating party by role, sets a notification period, and marks the witnessing points as hold points in the ITP.
