This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-13-88 
entitled 'Product Safety Laboratories: OSHA's Accreditation Process 
Needs Reexamination' which was released on December 11, 2012. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

December 2012: 

Product Safety Laboratories: 

OSHA's Accreditation Process Needs Reexamination: 

GAO-13-88: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-13-88, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

American workers interact with many types of products that could pose 
risks to their safety. The NRTL program, administered by OSHA, works 
to support employers and workers by establishing a process for safety-
testing certain equipment and other products for use in the U.S. 
workplace. Under this program, which is supported by user fees, OSHA 
accredits third-party labs as NRTLs, which then determine whether 
certain types of products meet safety standards. Because the 
availability of NRTLs is essential to ensuring that employers have 
timely access to products that meet safety standards, GAO was asked to 
examine (1) how long it takes to make accreditation decisions and the 
key factors that affect timeliness, and (2) the extent to which OSHA 
has adopted commonly used strategies for improving timeliness. GAO 
reviewed relevant documents and data from OSHA; interviewed OSHA 
officials, other NRTL stakeholders, and officials from four federal 
agencies that administer accreditation programs for other purposes; 
and reviewed information on strategies for improving timeliness from 
past GAO reports and other sources. 

What GAO Found: 

The Department of Labor’s (Labor) Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration’s (OSHA) process for accrediting Nationally Recognized 
Testing Laboratories (NRTL) is lengthy due to the scope of staff members
’ responsibilities and unclear application procedures for 
accreditation. Among the 13 recently approved applications, OSHA took 
between 1 and 5 years to make accreditation decisions. All of these 
applications took much longer to approve than OSHA’s desired time 
frames, and in some cases, years longer. In addition, 12 of the 29 
applications that were awaiting final decisions by OSHA as of June 
2012 had been under review longer than the 5-year period for which the 
accreditation decision would be valid. This lengthy process has 
potentially negative economic consequences for laboratories and 
requires OSHA staff to divert their time from other oversight 
activities. Two key factors led to the long time frames: 

* Imbalance between staffing levels and scope of responsibilities: The 
way that OSHA has designed the NRTL program requires its four staff 
members to balance many wide-ranging responsibilities. These 
responsibilities include: reviewing all aspects of accreditation, 
auditing existing laboratories, and responding to information requests 
from other federal agencies. Consequently, accreditation applications 
were sometimes set aside for significant amounts of time while OSHA 
personnel attended to their other responsibilities. 

* Unclear application requirements: OSHA’s requirements for the 
content and level of detail to be provided in accreditation 
applications—such as detailed information to assess independence—
differ in important ways from international standards used for 
accrediting safety labs. Lack of clarity in guidance about these and 
other requirements create confusion among applicants and extend both 
the amount of time applicants spend preparing the applications and the 
time OSHA officials spend reviewing them. OSHA said its additional 
requirements are important to the agency’s mission, but it has not 
formally compared them to current international standards or recently 
assessed the risks, costs, and benefits of any procedures that deviate 
from international standards. 

While OSHA plans to take some steps to improve timeliness, it has not 
taken advantage of a range of promising strategies, including some 
that might address its resource constraints and improve efficiency. 
GAO identified three key strategies for improving timeliness: (1) 
aligning program design with program mission and resources; (2) 
providing clear guidance and timely communication to stakeholders; and 
(3) developing performance measures and using data to identify 
inefficiencies. GAO found that OSHA has not evaluated the NRTL 
accreditation process to assess whether its current structure is the 
most efficient for processing and approving applications in a timely 
manner and meeting the program’s goals. Consequently, OSHA’s processes 
may be slower than necessary and planned hiring may not adequately 
address timeliness issues. Since the NRTL program was created in 1988, 
several new approaches to accreditation have been developed. For 
example, some federal agencies have collaborated with outside entities 
to complete select tasks in the accreditation process while continuing 
to make key oversight decisions in-house. The NRTL staff’s current 
workload has made it difficult for them to implement other timeliness 
strategies, such as providing timely communication to stakeholders. In 
addition, OSHA recently stopped using its NRTL performance measures 
because officials believed that meeting them was impractical. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that Labor review its current structure and procedures 
for accrediting NRTLs and implement alternatives that would maintain 
effectiveness while improving timeliness. Labor agreed with the 
recommendations and described its plans to address them. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-88]. For more 
information, contact Revae Moran at (202) 512-7215 or moranr@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Scope of Staff Responsibilities and Unclear Application Procedures 
Lengthen the Accreditation Process: 

Strategies for Improving Timeliness Exist, but OSHA has Taken Limited 
Steps to Implement Them: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Labor: 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Accreditation Processes Used by Selected Federal Agencies, 
for Various Purposes: 

Table 2: Actual vs. Desirable Processing Time Frames for Applications 
Approved from June 11, 2007 to June 11, 2012: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Summary of OSHA's Process for Initial, Expansion, and 
Renewal NRTL Accreditation Decisions: 

Figure 2: Examples of NRTL Certification Marks: 

Figure 3: Duration of Application Processing Times for Applications 
Approved from June 11, 2007 to June 11, 2012: 

Figure 4: Length of Time Pending Applications Had Been under Review, 
as of June 11, 2012: 

Abbreviations: 

CPSC: Consumer Product Safety Commission: 

FCC: Federal Communications Commission: 

HHS: Department of Health and Human Services: 

ISO: International Organization for Standardization: 

NIST: National Institute of Standards and Technology: 

NRTL: Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory: 

ONC: Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information 
Technology: 

OSHA: Occupational Safety and Health Administration: 

SNAP: Satellite Notification and Acceptance Program: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

December 11, 2012: 

The Honorable Darrell Issa: 
Chairman: 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable John Kline: 
Chairman: 
Committee on Education and the Workforce: 
House of Representatives: 

American workers interact with many types of products that may pose 
risks to their safety on the job. Accordingly, the Department of 
Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires 
that certain types of safety equipment and other products be safety-
tested and approved by a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory 
(NRTL) before employers may use them in the workplace. Currently, 
there are 15 NRTLs. OSHA recognizes, or accredits, laboratories as 
NRTLs that have met the necessary qualifications and requirements 
specified in program regulations and agency guidance. In turn, NRTLs 
determine whether certain types of products--ranging from fire 
extinguishers to coffee makers to power transformers--meet appropriate 
safety standards. If approved by an NRTL, the products are accepted by 
OSHA for use in the workplace. 

Because the availability of such labs for product safety testing is 
essential to ensuring employers have timely access to products that 
meet safety standards, you asked that, within the context of OSHA 
meeting its mission, we examine (1) how long it takes to make 
accreditation decisions and the key factors that affect timeliness and 
(2) the extent to which OSHA has adopted commonly used strategies for 
improving timeliness. 

To address both research questions, we reviewed relevant federal laws, 
regulations, and OSHA publications on the NRTL program. We also 
interviewed key program stakeholders such as OSHA officials, eight 
NRTL program applicants, and select public and private organizations, 
including non-profits, that accredit safety labs for other programs or 
purposes. To determine how long it took OSHA to approve accreditation 
applications, we reviewed data from OSHA and analyzed time frames for 
applications approved between June 2007 and June 2012. We also 
analyzed the length of time that applications for which OSHA had not 
made a final determination as of June 11, 2012, had been pending. 
After comparing the data to Federal Register notices, which identified 
key application dates, and through interviews with OSHA officials, we 
determined that the data provided by OSHA were sufficiently reliable 
for our purposes. To identify promising strategies for improving 
timeliness, we reviewed and synthesized findings from various sources, 
including GAO reports, international standards, guidance on 
accreditation, and materials from other organizations and federal 
agencies. We also interviewed officials from public and private 
accreditation programs and organizations, including consortiums of 
accreditation organizations, about their processes and practices to 
identify examples of promising strategies and learn how they have been 
implemented by others. We selected other accreditation programs and 
organizations to review based on recommendations from NRTL program 
stakeholders and gave priority to those accreditation programs that 
are similar to OSHA's accreditation program in terms of mission or 
scope. While no other accreditation process is completely comparable 
to OSHA's, the experiences of others provide illustrative examples of 
actions that federal agencies have taken to adapt the accreditation 
process to their own unique missions and circumstances. For more 
information about our sources and methods for identifying promising 
strategies for improving timeliness, see appendix I. 

We conducted this performance audit from April 2012 to December 2012 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Background: 

NRTL Program: 

As authorized by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, OSHA 
issues and enforces workplace safety and health standards (OSHA 
standards).[Footnote 1] Some OSHA standards require that certain 
products used in the workplace, such as a variety of electrical 
equipment, be safety-tested and approved by OSHA-accredited 
laboratories.[Footnote 2] To serve this purpose, OSHA established the 
NRTL program by regulation in 1988. The program is currently 
administered by four staff members and a director who was hired in 
August 2012. The NRTL accreditation process is designed to determine 
whether an organization has the capability and independence to test 
and certify ("approve") that products meet consensus-based safety 
standards (test standards).[Footnote 3] The main purpose of the NRTL 
accreditation process is to ensure that these organizations are and 
remain qualified to test and certify products used in the workplace. 
[Footnote 4] 

OSHA makes three types of accreditation decisions, which are generally 
valid for 5 years: 

1. Initial: Determinations about whether to accredit an organization 
as an NRTL for the first time. 

2. Expansion: Determinations about whether to expand the purview of an 
accredited NRTL to include other categories of products to be tested 
or to allow an accredited NRTL to conduct testing activities at 
additional sites. For example, an NRTL that is already accredited by 
OSHA to test electric clothes washing machines may apply to add 
additional test standards to its NRTL scope, such as standards for 
testing heat detectors for fire. The duration of expansion 
accreditations may be shorter than 5 years because expansion decisions 
expire at the end of the current accreditation period. 

Renewal: Determinations about whether to continue accrediting a lab as 
an NRTL once its previous accreditation has expired. An NRTL that 
submits a sufficient renewal application 9 months to 1 year before its 
existing accreditation expires retains its NRTL accreditation until 
the final renewal decision is made. 

OSHA also conducts regular onsite audits of accredited NRTLs. The NRTL 
accreditation process generally includes the steps outlined in figure 
1. 

Figure 1: Summary of OSHA's Process for Initial, Expansion, and 
Renewal NRTL Accreditation Decisions: 

[Refer to PDF for image: process illustration] 

1) Application: A laboratory that wants to become a Nationally 
Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) submits an application to OSHA; 
NRTL applications include:
* Types of products to be tested; 
* Consensus-based safety standards to be used for testing products; 
* Process purposed for testing and certifying products. 

2) Application review: OSHA reviews the application and may ask the 
laboratory for more information or a revised application. 

3) Site visit: OSHA conducts an on-site visit of the laboratory and 
inspects its facilities and equipment; 
OSHA does not always conduct a site visit for expansion or renewal 
applications. 

4) Preliminary decision: OSHA makes a preliminary finding about 
whether to approve the application and publishes it in the Federal 
Register. 

5) Public comment: OSHA solicits comments n its preliminary 
accreditation decision through a public comment period. It then 
compiles and reviews any comments received to inform its final 
decision. 

6) Final decision: OSHA makes a final determination on the application 
and published its decision in the Federal Register. 

7) Renewal or expansion: The laboratory must apply for renewal if its 
accreditation every 5 years and submit an expansion application before 
expanding its activities. 

Source: GAO review of OSHA documents. 

[End of figure] 

OSHA collects fees from applicants and accredited NRTLs, and uses the 
fees for program expenses.[Footnote 5] OSHA first instituted fees in 
2000 and calculated them with the intention of covering core 
application processing costs and audits of accredited labs.[Footnote 
6] In 2011, OSHA revised its calculation of these fees to cover 
additional program costs, with the intent that the NRTL program would 
be almost entirely funded through fees paid by the labs.[Footnote 7] 
Under the revised fee structure, the fee for application review will 
be $17,750 for an initial NRTL application, $8,280 for applications to 
expand to additional sites, and $300 for renewals and other expansion 
applications, in addition to fees for other stages of the process. 
Once fully implemented, OSHA expects that the fees will cover 
approximately 95 percent of program costs, but revenues from fees and 
the percentage of program costs they cover will vary from year to year 
based on the number of applications submitted and audits performed. 

Fifteen labs are currently accredited by OSHA as NRTLs. Combined, 
these labs approve hundreds of types of products for use in the 
workplace. All NRTL-approved products are labeled with the lab's 
certification mark, so that employers and other consumers can identify 
them in the marketplace (see figure 2).[Footnote 8] 

To maintain its accreditation, an NRTL is required to protect its 
certification mark by implementing control procedures and conducting 
inspections to monitor its proper use. NRTLs are also required to 
inspect manufacturers to ensure that products conform to the test 
standards[Footnote 9]. NRTLs carry out these responsibilities during 
follow-up inspections at the manufacturing facilities, where staff 
ensure that the mark is being controlled properly and that products 
are consistently being manufactured to meet safety standards. 

Figure 2: Examples of NRTL Certification Marks: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Illustration contains 13 certification logos. 

Source: Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories and OSHA. 

Note: The certification marks listed above reflect marks that were in 
use as of October 2012. Certification marks are generally registered 
by the NRTL with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office or an equivalent 
national or international body. While 15 labs are currently accredited 
by OSHA as NRTLs, only 13 marks are shown because two labs share the 
same certification mark with other labs. 

[End of figure] 

Accreditation Processes at Other Selected Federal Agencies: 

In addition to OSHA, many other federal agencies administer programs 
that require laboratories to receive accreditation to approve 
products. Under these programs, labs are accredited for specialized 
purposes, such as to approve children's products or ensure that 
electronic systems for records are consistent with federal 
standards.[Footnote 10] Labs accredited by OSHA are sometimes also 
accredited to participate in other federal agencies' programs to 
perform product approval activities for different types of products or 
purposes. 

While the specific purposes of these accreditation programs differ, 
the various activities performed during the accreditation process are 
similar. Whether a particular activity is performed by federal agency 
staff in-house, or by external entities, varies by agency. First, 
regulatory agencies establish the requirements that a lab must meet to 
determine whether manufacturers are making products that meet the 
program's standards.[Footnote 11] Agencies may require that labs 
approve products by "testing" a sample of a product onsite within the 
lab's facilities, "certifying" that products meet specific standards 
based on testing or activities such as inspecting the manufacturers' 
facilities, or both.[Footnote 12] An NRTL accreditation by OSHA 
signifies that the lab is approved by the agency to both (1) conduct 
product safety tests and (2) certify that products meet relevant 
consensus-based safety standards. 

After the regulatory agency establishes its requirements, 
accreditation organizations then review the operations of specific 
labs to determine whether they are meeting the requirements of the 
regulatory agency. A federal agency may act as the accreditation 
organization, or an agency may designate outside entities to perform 
the accreditation function. Once accredited, the lab follows these 
requirements to test and certify whether products meet program 
standards. In some cases, the regulatory agency will require that 
separate entities perform the testing and certification functions, 
which is intended to increase the transparency and rigor of the 
process. Regulatory agencies may exercise various types of oversight 
or ongoing monitoring of the other actors in the accreditation process 
to ensure that each of the actors in the process is meeting the 
program's requirements. 

Federal agencies and offices may take on different roles in 
accrediting labs depending on a variety of factors, including resource 
constraints, statutory requirements, and decisions on how to manage 
risks associated with non-compliance. In the case of the NRTL program, 
OSHA acts as both the regulatory agency and the accreditation 
organization, with support from fees paid to OSHA by applicants and 
participating NRTLs. In contrast, some other agencies establish the 
requirements that labs must meet, but designate one or more outside 
entities--such as private organizations or other government entities--
to perform the accreditation function. Officials at selected agencies 
we interviewed explained that, under this model, the outside 
accreditation organizations, rather than the regulatory agency, are 
responsible for charging and collecting fees from labs in order to 
cover the cost of accreditation application processing and approval. 
The agencies we interviewed do not pay the external organizations for 
performing accreditation duties. See table 1 below for a brief 
description of selected agencies' accreditation processes. 

Table 1: Accreditation Processes Used by Selected Federal Agencies, 
for Various Purposes: 

Federal agency: OSHA; 
Program name: NRTL Program; 
Brief description of program: Labs are accredited to test and certify 
that products used in the U.S. workplace meet appropriate consensus-
based safety standards; 
Designates an external entity or entities to assist with accrediting 
labs for product approval activities: No. 

Federal agency: Federal Communications Commission (FCC); 
Program name: Equipment Authorization Program; 
Brief description of program: Labs are accredited to test or certify 
that certain devices using the radio frequency spectrum meet FCC's 
technical standards to prevent harmful interference; 
Designates an external entity or entities to assist with accrediting 
labs for product approval activities: Yes[A]. 

Federal agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); 
Program name: Health Information Technology Certification Program; 
Brief description of program: Labs are accredited to test or certify 
that health information technology systems meet HHS's relevant 
standards and certification criteria; 
Designates an external entity or entities to assist with accrediting 
labs for product approval activities: Yes[B]. 

Federal agency: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC); 
Program name: Conformity Assessment Body Recognition Program; 
Brief description of program: Labs are accredited to test children's 
products for compliance with CPSC's safety rules; 
Designates an external entity or entities to assist with accrediting 
labs for product approval activities: Yes[C]. 

Source: GAO review of OSHA, FCC, HHS, and CPSC documents and 
interviews with officials. 

[A] FCC regulations may require a given piece of equipment to meet one 
of three levels of review before it can be imported or sold. According 
to officials, whether a given product requires testing or 
certification depends on FCC's assessment of its risk. The agency has 
designated the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program, 
administered by the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
(NIST) of the U.S. Department of Commerce and two private 
organizations to accredit testing laboratories. NIST has currently 
designated two private organizations to accredit certification 
organizations for FCC's purposes. For both testing and certification, 
FCC must agree with the accreditation recommendation made by the 
external organization before the decision is finalized. See 47 U.S.C. 
§ 302a, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.241(f)-(g), 2.960, 2.962, 2.948(d). 

[B] HHS's Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information 
Technology (ONC) has designated two different accrediting 
organizations to accredit labs to perform different types of 
activities. First, NIST's National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation 
Program accredits laboratories to test products. Second, for product 
certification activities, one accreditation organization is approved 
by ONC through a competitive process held every 3 years. Currently, 
the approved accreditation organization is a private organization. See 
generally 42 U.S.C. § 300jj-11(c)(5), 45 C.F.R. §§ 170.500-170.599. 

[C] Accreditation organizations must be a signatory to the 
International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation-Mutual Recognition 
Arrangement.16 C.F.R. § 1112.3. Signatories have been peer-reviewed 
and determined to meet the International Laboratory Accreditation 
Cooperation's criteria for competence. Once a testing lab has been 
accredited, the accreditation must be registered with, and accepted 
by, CPSC. All regulated children's products are required to be tested 
by third-party laboratories, but the manufacturers and private 
labelers certify the products. See 15 U.S.C. § 2063(a)(2). CPSC's 
requirements for accreditation and testing were published in separate 
notices specific to particular safety rules. In May 2012, CPSC 
published a notice of proposed rulemaking that would establish general 
requirements consistent with these notices. 77 Fed. Reg. 31,086 (May 
24, 2012). 

[End of table] 

Guidance issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
(NIST), in accordance with the National Technology Transfer and 
Advancement Act of 1995, encourages federal agencies to conduct their 
accreditation processes in a manner that promotes collaboration, 
reduces duplication, and harnesses the private sector, as appropriate. 
[Footnote 13] Many agencies, including OSHA, have incorporated aspects 
of these principles into their program design, such as by requiring 
the use of consensus-based standards developed by the private sector 
for product safety testing. Unlike OSHA, however, some accreditation 
programs explicitly require that labs meet international standards and 
guidelines developed by the International Organization for 
Standardization (ISO) as a condition of accreditation.[Footnote 14] 
This can reduce duplication and promote consistency among 
accreditation processes within and across countries. In addition to 
developing and disseminating guidance, NIST provides technical 
assistance services to federal agencies upon request to assist with 
designing and implementing accreditation processes.[Footnote 15] This 
technical assistance often takes the form of one-on-one consulting, 
and NIST may help agencies start new accreditation programs or tailor 
an agency's existing program to meet the agency's specific needs. 
NIST's National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program also 
assists other federal agencies by performing testing lab 
accreditation. HHS and FCC, for example, utilize NIST's National 
Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program to accredit testing 
laboratories. 

Scope of Staff Responsibilities and Unclear Application Procedures 
Lengthen the Accreditation Process: 

Application Processing and Approval Times Are Lengthy Compared to 
OSHA's Desired Time Frames and Other Benchmarks: 

None of the accreditation applications approved in the last 5 years 
were processed and approved within the time frames that OSHA officials 
consider desirable, and the time frames for some applications were 
significantly longer. In the 5-year period from June 2007 to June 
2012, OSHA approved 13 applications. Processing and approval times 
ranged from 1.2 to 5 years (see figure 3).[Footnote 16] 

Figure 3: Duration of Application Processing Times for Applications 
Approved from June 11, 2007 to June 11, 2012: 

[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph] 

Application date: January 27, 2006; 
Application type: Initial application; 
Elapsed time: 5 years. 

Application date: July 29, 2008; 
Application type: Initial application; 
Elapsed time: 2.6 years. 

Application date: July 18, 2007; 
Application type: Expansion; 
Elapsed time: 3.2 years. 

Application date: August 25, 2005; 
Application type: Expansion; 
Elapsed time: 3 years. 

Application date: October 6, 2005; 
Application type: Expansion; 
Elapsed time: 2.9 years. 

Application date: February 20, 2008; 
Application type: Expansion; 
Elapsed time: 2.8 years. 

Application date: June 25, 2008; 
Application type: Expansion; 
Elapsed time: 2.3 years. 

Application date: September 28, 2005; 
Application type: Expansion; 
Elapsed time: 2.3 years. 

Application date: October 6, 2008; 
Application type: Expansion; 
Elapsed time: 2.2 years. 

Application date: November 3, 2008; 
Application type: Expansion; 
Elapsed time: 2.1 years. 

Application date: April 25, 2006; 
Application type: Expansion; 
Elapsed time: 1.7 years. 

Application date: October 23, 2007; 
Application type: Expansion; 
Elapsed time: 1.2 years. 

Application date: February 13, 2003; 
Application type: Renewal; 
Elapsed time: 4.4 years. 

Source: GAO analysis of PHSA data. 

Note: These time frames include the time that the applications were 
with OSHA for review as well as any time that the applicants were 
addressing deficiencies identified by OSHA. 

[End of figure] 

OSHA officials told us that the desirable time frame for processing 
and approving applications is 12 to 18 months for initial 
applications, 6 to 8 months for expansion applications, and 3 to 4 
months for renewal applications. OSHA officials said they expect an 
application to fall within this range if there are no major delays or 
application deficiencies. For all 13 applications processed during the 
5-year period we reviewed, it took much longer to process and approve 
the application than the desirable time frames, and in some cases, 
years longer (see table 2). 

Table 2: Actual vs. Desirable Processing Time Frames for Applications 
Approved from June 11, 2007 to June 11, 2012: 

Type and number of approved applications: Initial (2); 
Range of processing times for approved applications: 2.6 years and 5 
years; 
Desirable processing times identified by OSHA: 12 to18 months; 
Number of applications approved within the desirable processing time 
frames: 0. 

Type and number of approved applications: Expansion (10); 
Range of processing times for approved applications: 1.2 years to 3.2 
years; 
Desirable processing times identified by OSHA: 6 to 8 months; 
Number of applications approved within the desirable processing time 
frames: 0. 

Type and number of approved applications: Renewal (1); 
Range of processing times for approved applications: 4.4 years; 
Desirable processing times identified by OSHA: 3 to 4 months; 
Number of applications approved within the desirable processing time 
frames: 0. 

Source: GAO analysis of OSHA data. 

[End of table] 

The NRTL accreditation process is also lengthy in relation to the 
amount of time that NRTL accreditations are valid. Our analysis of the 
processing time frames for these initial, expansion, and renewal 
applications showed that it took OSHA 2.5 years or more to complete 
about half of them. These time frames signify a relatively long 
application period for an accreditation term of 5 years and, for some 
renewal applications, a lengthy period in which an existing lab is 
operating under an extension of its existing accreditation. 

In addition to these lengthy time frames for approving applications, 
many application decisions have been under review by OSHA for 
substantial lengths of time and remain pending. Of the 29 applications 
pending approval as of June 2012, 12 had been pending for between 5 
and 10 years. Therefore, they had been under review by OSHA for at 
least as long as the term of the 5-year accreditation (see figure 4). 
Almost all of the applications pending for this long were renewal 
applications. Further, the number of pending applications may 
underestimate the total number of accreditation cases that are 
awaiting review. At least two of the eight laboratories we interviewed 
had chosen not to submit new expansion applications until their 
earlier expansions were approved because they said that it is not 
productive to have multiple expansion applications going through 
OSHA's process at once. Officials from one lab noted that they decided 
not to submit a second application to OSHA while the first was under 
review because they did not want OSHA to divide its time between the 
two applications. 

Figure 4: Length of Time Pending Applications Had Been under Review, 
as of June 11, 2012: 

[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph] 

[12 applications pending in June 2012 had been pending for at least as 
long as the 5-year accreditation period itself] 

Date of initial application: 10/2/2002; 
Application type: Renewal; 
Elapsed time as of 6/11/12: 9.6 years. 

Date of initial application: 6/4/2004; 
Application type: Renewal; 
Elapsed time as of 6/11/12: 7.9 years. 

Date of initial application: 3/14/2005; 
Application type: Expansion; 
Elapsed time as of 6/11/12: 7.1 years. 

Date of initial application: 8/25/2005; 
Application type: Renewal; 
Elapsed time as of 6/11/12: 6.7 years. 

Date of initial application: 10/3/2005; 
Application type: Renewal; 
Elapsed time as of 6/11/12: 6.6 years. 

Date of initial application: 10/10/2005; 
Renewal; 
Elapsed time as of 6/11/12: 6.6 years. 

Date of initial application: 11/29/2005; 
Application type: Renewal; 
Elapsed time as of 6/11/12: 6.4 years. 

Date of initial application: 2/17/2006; 
Application type: Renewal; 
Elapsed time as of 6/11/12: 6.2 years. 

Date of initial application: 2/24/2006; 
Application type: Expansion; 
Elapsed time as of 6/11/12: 6.2 years. 

Date of initial application: 6/6/2006; 
Application type: Renewal; 
Elapsed time as of 6/11/12: 5.9 years. 

Date of initial application: 6/12/2006; 
Application type: Renewal; 
Elapsed time as of 6/11/12: 5.9 years. 

Date of initial application: 7/27/2006; 
Application type: Renewal; 
Elapsed time as of 6/11/12: 5.8 years. 

Date of initial application: 6/8/2007; 
Application type: Expansion; 
Elapsed time as of 6/11/12: 4.9 years. 

Date of initial application: 3/21/2008; 
Application type: Expansion; 
Elapsed time as of 6/11/12: 4.2 years. 

Date of initial application: 4/7/2009; 
Application type: Initial application; 
Elapsed time as of 6/11/12: 3.1 years. 

Date of initial application: 8/28/2009; 
Application type: Renewal; 
Elapsed time as of 6/11/12: 2.7 years. 

Date of initial application: 11/12/2009; 
Application type: Expansion; 
Elapsed time as of 6/11/12: 2.5 years. 

Date of initial application: 11/16/2009; 
Application type: Renewal; 
Elapsed time as of 6/11/12: 2.5 years. 

Date of initial application: 12/20/2010; 
Application type: Expansion; 
Elapsed time as of 6/11/12: 1.5 years. 

Date of initial application: 2/18/2011; 
Application type: Expansion; 
Elapsed time as of 6/11/12: 1.3 years. 

Date of initial application: 4/11/2011; 
Application type: Expansion; 
Elapsed time as of 6/11/12: 1.2 years. 

Date of initial application: 5/26/2011; 
Application type: Renewal; 
Elapsed time as of 6/11/12: 1 years. 

Date of initial application: 6/13/2011; 
Application type: Expansion; 
Elapsed time as of 6/11/12: 1 years. 

Date of initial application: 8/22/2011; 
Application type: Expansion; 
Elapsed time as of 6/11/12: 0.8 years. 

Date of initial application: 10/11/2011; 
Application type: Expansion; 
Elapsed time as of 6/11/12: 0.7 years. 

Date of initial application: 11/14/2011; 
Application type: Expansion; 
Elapsed time as of 6/11/12: 0.6 years. 

Date of initial application: 12/13/2011; 
Application type: Expansion; 
Elapsed time as of 6/11/12: 0.5 years. 

Date of initial application: 1/4/2012; 
Application type: Expansion; 
Elapsed time as of 6/11/12: 0.4 years. 

Date of initial application: 1/4/2012; 
Application type: Initial application; 
Elapsed time as of 6/11/12: 0.4 years. 

Source: GAO analysis of OSHA data. 

Note: This figure includes all applications for which OSHA had not 
made a final decision as of June 11, 2012. For each application, it 
shows the elapsed time between the date it was submitted and June 11, 
2012. 

[End of figure] 

The lengthy NRTL accreditation process results in negative economic 
consequences for applying labs, according to most of the applicants 
with whom we spoke. Lab officials said that NRTL accreditation 
processing times make it difficult to attract or retain customers or 
hire and retain technical experts. For example, an official with a lab 
that had a pending NRTL expansion application told us that his lab had 
already been accredited by another organization to test and certify 
the same products for use outside the workplace. However, OSHA had not 
approved the lab's application to test and certify these same products 
for use in the workplace although the lab's application had been under 
review for several years. He said OSHA's lengthy NRTL accreditation 
process hurt the lab's relationship with clients because many 
manufacturers do not want to work with a laboratory unless it can 
approve products for use within the workplace. An official from 
another laboratory said that the company had lost staff members who 
were hired specifically to support the lab's application for an 
expanded scope of work. Given the length of time that the lab's 
expansion application has been under review, it could not retain these 
specialized staff members while it waited for NRTL approval. The 
laboratory will ultimately need to rehire individuals with this type 
of expertise if the application is approved. 

Imbalance between Program Staffing Levels and Scope of 
Responsibilities Led to Long Time Frames and Delayed Approval of 
Applications: 

The way the NRTL program is designed requires its four staff members 
to balance many wide-ranging responsibilities and can lead to delays 
in approving accreditation applications. Two senior engineers and two 
junior staff members share responsibility for all aspects of the NRTL 
program.[Footnote 17] Labor attorneys also assist the NRTL program. 
The program is structured so that these staff members are responsible 
for the following: 

* All aspects of approving accreditation applications. This includes 
reviewing all aspects of the accreditation applications; communicating 
with applicants regarding questions and application status; conducting 
site visits; making preliminary accreditation decisions; and preparing 
the Federal Register notices that formalize accreditation decisions. 

* Oversight activities for existing labs. According to NRTL program 
policy documents, accredited labs and satellite offices[Footnote 18] 
should be audited by OSHA personnel.[Footnote 19] In total, this 
includes auditing approximately 120 sites worldwide. The staff are 
also responsible for investigating any complaints OSHA receives about 
accredited labs. 

* Updating program guidance and procedures. This includes making 
revisions to program documents including the NRTL program directive on 
program policies, procedures, and guidelines, as well as other 
guidance on the application review process. Staff must also update 
OSHA's NRTL website to provide information such as the names and 
approved products for each NRTL. 

* Responding to requests from other federal agencies. OSHA staff told 
us that federal entities such as the Office of Management and Budget 
and the Office of the United States Trade Representative frequently 
request NRTL program staff input on questions related to international 
trade and product safety. 

OSHA officials told us that balancing these responsibilities can be 
challenging and leads to difficult decisions about how to prioritize 
their tasks. They said that their workloads are often affected by 
tasks that originate outside the NRTL program office. For example, 
staff reported having to postpone accreditation work when urgent 
requests came in from the Office of the United States Trade 
Representative or other federal agencies. 

Given these wide-ranging duties, NRTL program staff sometimes set 
aside applications for significant amounts of time while they attend 
to their other responsibilities. OSHA often cited these competing 
demands when explaining to applicants its slow process for approving 
their applications. For example, one applicant said that when he asked 
for a status update on his organization's application several months 
after submitting it to OSHA, an agency official told him it had not 
yet been opened because no one had had time to start processing the 
application. OSHA officials also told us that more complex 
applications, which may take a lot of time to process, are sometimes 
set aside in order to process applications that are more straight-
forward, but there is no formal method of prioritizing applications 
for review. 

While OSHA does not systematically collect data on the proportion of 
time an application is being actively processed versus the time it is 
waiting for review, available information supports applicants' 
concerns that OSHA may not be actively reviewing applications for a 
significant amount of the time they are at the agency. OSHA 
processing, applicant revisions, and public comment periods accounted 
for some, but not all, of the total duration of recent application 
reviews. The estimated time frames for each of these steps are 
described below, but the full duration of application processing and 
approval times for most applications approved between June 2007 and 
June 2012 took months or years longer than the estimated time frames 
for each of these steps combined. This suggests that a given 
application may be set aside for significant amounts of time while 
OSHA personnel attend to their other responsibilities. 

* OSHA's average processing times: OSHA documents show that, on 
average, staff actively work on initial applications for the 
equivalent of about 2.5 months and expansion or renewal applications 
for the equivalent of about 1 month.[Footnote 20] 

* Applicant revisions: OSHA officials noted that labs often have to 
revise their applications after deficiencies are identified, which 
extends the duration of the time frames for approving applications. 
This may involve two rounds of OSHA comments on written applications 
and two rounds of related applicant revisions. OSHA officials said 
they have sometimes allowed up to 1 year and 2 months for applicants 
to complete such revisions. Applicants may also correct deficiencies 
identified by OSHA during site visits, and OSHA allowed approximately 
1 month for one recent initial applicant to do so. In our analysis of 
the application processing files for three recent initial 
applications, we found that all three applicants revised their 
applications at least once and the total revisions for each 
application took from 6 to 11 months.[Footnote 21] 

* Public comment period: For all types of applications, OSHA provides 
a public comment period that begins when it publishes its preliminary 
accreditation decision in the Federal Register. According to OSHA's 
regulations, the minimum period for public comment on initial 
applications is 30 days, while the minimum period for public comment 
on renewal or expansion applications is 15 days. 

In addition to extending the time it takes OSHA to approve 
applications, staff workload also leads to delays in responding to 
applicants' questions about the status of their applications. Almost 
all of the applicants we interviewed expressed frustration about the 
amount of time it took to receive responses from OSHA and often said 
that OSHA officials attributed slow response times to their workload. 
Officials at one laboratory stated that there was about a 50/50 chance 
of ever receiving a response from OSHA when they contacted program 
staff. Officials of another laboratory described the OSHA 
accreditation process as a "black box" because applicants were 
uncertain about when their applications would reach the next 
milestone. Several applicants said that this uncertainty made the long 
application processing time frames even more difficult for their 
businesses because they could not plan for budgetary needs or update 
their clients on when they would offer new services. Several labs also 
noted that other accreditation programs respond to questions within a 
few days, so the delays in receiving responses from OSHA staff make 
the program an outlier. OSHA officials told us they used to provide 
applicants with quarterly updates that included projected target dates 
for the various stages of the application approval process, but they 
stopped providing these quarterly updates because the agency could not 
meet its projected target dates. 

Decisions about how to prioritize staff workload also affect the 
amount of internal review that accreditation decisions receive before 
they are finalized and can have negative impacts on applicants' trust 
of program operations. GAO guidance on internal controls highlights 
the importance of separating key duties such as initial decisions and 
reviews of those decisions.[Footnote 22] International accreditation 
standards also require that final accreditation decisions be made by 
competent individuals or committees different from those who carried 
out the assessment.[Footnote 23] However, OSHA's accreditation 
decisions for NRTLs are not consistently reviewed by a second 
technical reviewer before being finalized. OSHA officials said that 
the decisions are reviewed for legal accuracy, and are approved by 
upper management, but given the small size of the NRTL staff and their 
heavy workload, the person who conducts the initial reviews of 
applications is often the same person who makes the final 
recommendation about whether a lab should be accredited. While this 
might decrease the processing time for some applications or be the 
most feasible approach given program staffing levels, it can create a 
greater potential for error or bias. Two applicants we spoke with 
expressed concern about the absence of a second technical reviewer. 

Further, staffing roles and responsibilities affect the level of 
oversight OSHA provides once an accreditation application is approved. 
For example, to reduce the number of pending applications, OSHA staff 
reprioritized their duties so that a senior engineer could spend the 
majority of his time processing and approving applications. While this 
provided more resources for the application process, officials said it 
reduced the time they can spend auditing existing NRTLs, and several 
labs we interviewed confirmed that they had been audited less 
frequently in recent years. Auditing the NRTLs less frequently 
increases the likelihood that any problems with an accredited lab will 
go unnoticed. The extensive time it takes OSHA to approve renewal 
applications also means that labs are sometimes operating under 
previous accreditations for much longer than the 5 years for which 
they are valid because OSHA regulations generally allow labs to retain 
their accreditation and continue approving products while they wait 
for OSHA's decisions on their applications for renewal. This can 
minimize the impact that processing delays have on a lab's business 
operations, but it also means that a lab with performance problems 
could operate for an extended period of time after its 5-year 
accreditation period, even if the lab's renewal is ultimately 
rejected. For example, one lab's recent renewal application was 
pending for 8 years before OSHA ultimately rejected it. 

Unclear Application Requirements Further Increase the Length of 
Accreditation Reviews: 

Most of the applicants we spoke with told us that OSHA's guidance does 
not always provide adequate information about the program's 
application requirements, which creates confusion and adds time to the 
review process. Applicants found the guidance particularly confusing 
because OSHA's requirements for the content and level of detail labs 
must provide in their accreditation applications differ in important 
ways from those of many other organizations that accredit safety labs 
by using current international standards for accreditation.[Footnote 
24] For example, several NRTLs noted that the types of product 
approval activities they conduct or are applying to conduct for the 
NRTL program are similar to the work that they do under other 
accreditation programs. Some of the information OSHA requires during 
its application process to test those products differs from what other 
programs require in ways that applicants believe are not clearly 
articulated in NRTL guidance. When the program last updated its 
application policies in 1999, OSHA developed these deviations from 
international standards in order to ensure that NRTLs were qualified 
to meet all aspects of the program's mission and requirements. At the 
time they completed their applications for the NRTL program, most 
applicants said they were unclear about how and why the NRTL 
requirements differed from international accreditation standards, 
which led to confusion and affected the timeliness of the process. For 
example, officials at a lab that recently submitted an initial 
application to OSHA said the agency required them to provide 
additional detail about the work procedures they planned to use when 
conducting tests of equipment. This information was not required when 
they submitted similar applications to other accreditation 
organizations and lab officials were unaware of this difference when 
they initially prepared and submitted their accreditation application 
to OSHA. The lab ultimately had to revise its application to meet 
OSHA's requirements, extending both the amount of time lab staff spent 
preparing the application and the time OSHA officials spent reviewing 
it. OHSA officials told us that such detail is key to ensuring that 
lab staff have the knowledge to perform the required safety tests. 
Officials stated that the agency intends to revise its policies and 
guidance to better convey its application expectations, but has not 
yet done so due to workload issues. 

Confusion resulting from OSHA's unclear guidance is compounded in 
cases where OSHA's requirements are evolving. For example, OSHA has 
been revising its process for verifying the independence of labs since 
2008, but it has not updated the independence policies in its policy 
directive or other application guidance.[Footnote 25] OSHA officials 
said that the agency continues to process renewal applications while 
it revises its independence policies, but they have delayed making 
final decisions until the requirements are finalized. They noted that 
this process is time-consuming. There were 13 renewal applications 
pending in June 2012, 10 of which were pending for 5 years or more. 
Officials from several labs said that they have not received clear 
guidance from OSHA on the level of information required to illustrate 
independence and, therefore, they have had to provide several rounds 
of information to OSHA in their applications. One lab said that 
gathering this additional information is time consuming because it 
often involves obtaining information about individuals and companies 
with a minority financial interest in the labs, some of whom are 
located in different countries. Several applicants with pending 
expansion or renewal applications also said that some of OSHA's 
requirements seem to have evolved over time and OSHA has not revised 
its guidance to include these new requirements. Representatives from 
these labs said OSHA identified deficiencies in their most recent 
expansion applications although they provided similar types of 
information in previous years on applications accepted by OSHA. 

While OSHA's application requirements may differ from international 
standards in order to meet the agency's safety mission, OSHA has not 
compared its requirements to current international standards to 
identify differences and assess their costs and benefits in order to 
ensure that the time devoted to assessing applicants against 
additional requirements is well-spent. OSHA officials told us the 
additional information about work procedures and independence they 
require of applicants is necessary to ensure the quality of the 
product approval process and that applicants follow program 
requirements. For example, OSHA officials said that the requirement in 
OSHA regulations that labs be "completely independent" of 
manufacturers presents a high bar for application review, and 
international standards on accreditation do not include such extensive 
requirements. When OSHA developed its NRTL policy directive in 1999 
detailing the specific requirements for accreditation applications, it 
modified the international standards that were available at that time 
to fit NRTL program needs and requirements.[Footnote 26] However, 
subsequently, the agency has not formally reviewed the NRTL procedures 
against the current versions of international standards on 
accreditation or recently assessed the risks, costs, and benefits of 
having procedures that deviate from these standards. NIST guidance 
recommends that agencies establish ongoing processes for reviewing 
their accreditation activities and, to the extent possible, coordinate 
with federal, private, and international organizations. Officials told 
us that they would like to evaluate their procedures against current 
international standards, but have not had time to do so. Without OSHA 
conducting a risk assessment of its current requirements, the extent 
of any value added from the program's additional application 
requirements is unknown, as are any trade-offs the agency makes by 
devoting more resources to the application review. In addition, the 
rationale for these requirements may be unclear to applicants. Perhaps 
as a consequence, about half of the NRTL applicants we spoke with 
questioned whether all of OSHA's application procedures were 
necessary. For example, two applicants questioned whether it was 
necessary for OSHA's independence review to cover individuals sitting 
on the boards of companies only marginally affiliated with the testing 
lab. On the other hand, representatives from two of the eight labs we 
interviewed said that certain OSHA requirements enhanced the quality 
of the program by, for example, providing detailed information about 
work procedures that was helpful in training new staff. While 
additional requirements imposed by OSHA may have value, where their 
purpose has not been articulated or their actual value has not been 
assessed, applicants may be more likely to question whether the 
requirements are justified and OSHA may not be expending its resources 
to optimum benefit. 

Strategies for Improving Timeliness Exist, but OSHA has Taken Limited 
Steps to Implement Them: 

While a range of promising strategies for improving timeliness exist, 
including some that might help address resource constraints, mitigate 
confusion over application procedures, and improve efficiency, OSHA 
has taken limited steps to implement such strategies in its 
accreditation process. Based on our review of various sources, 
including GAO reports, we identified three promising strategies for 
improving timeliness: (1) aligning program design with program mission 
and resources; (2) providing clear guidance and timely communication 
to program stakeholders; and (3) developing performance measures and 
using data to track progress in meeting them to identify 
inefficiencies. For more information on how we arrived at these three 
strategies and the sources we reviewed, see appendix I. 

OSHA's Program Design is Not Aligned with Program Resources: 

Past GAO work on program management has found that agencies can 
improve efficiency, including timeliness, by aligning program design 
with resources through various actions.[Footnote 27] For example, in 
some instances, streamlining procedures can save resources, improve 
productivity, and help staff focus more time on performing essential 
program activities. In other instances, a fundamental reexamination of 
program structure may be appropriate and can provide insight into 
whether government operations are outmoded and need to be 
restructured. According to guidance from the Office of Management and 
Budget and previous GAO reports on risk management, agencies can also 
benefit from evaluating program procedures by analyzing the associated 
risks, benefits, and costs of changes to program operations.[Footnote 
28] Conducting such analyses helps agencies effectively decide how to 
prioritize their work, consistent with their mission and resources. 
Furthermore, collaborating with other government agencies and similar 
industry organizations is another step that agencies can take to 
improve program design and align program structure with resources. 
Collaboration allows programs to capitalize on the expertise of 
others, coordinate activities, and avoid unnecessary duplication and 
complexity. 

We found that OSHA has not formally revisited its structure for 
accrediting testing laboratories since the NRTL program started over 
20 years ago. Because the NRTL program was established by regulation 
and not by statute, OSHA has flexibility to define its requirements 
for accreditation. When the NRTL program was established in the 1980s 
and OSHA's current approach to accreditation was determined, OSHA said 
that it intended to monitor the program and look for alternatives to 
its accreditation approach, including investigating the possibility of 
using other entities to carry out NRTL accreditation activities. 
[Footnote 29] However, we found that OSHA has taken limited steps to 
think strategically about the future of the NRTL program and how 
alternatives to its current accreditation process may allow the 
program to fulfill its mission in a more efficient way. An NRTL 
official said there have been informal discussions at the staff level 
about working with an external organization to conduct aspects of the 
accreditation review process, but the agency has not formally assessed 
such approaches internally or in collaboration with other agencies 
such as NIST.[Footnote 30] Several NRTL applicants we interviewed 
thought that OSHA should reevaluate its approach to accreditation. For 
example, a few of the NRTL applicants we interviewed said there has 
been a shift in accreditation approaches since the NRTL program 
started in the late 1980s and OSHA has not always kept pace with these 
changes. 

Although OSHA has not recently revisited its overall approach to 
accreditation, it has begun implementing some steps to better align 
NRTL program design with its resources; the outcome of these actions, 
including how they will improve timeliness, remains unclear. For 
example, OSHA is in the process of phasing in increased fees for the 
NRTL program, which are intended to allow OSHA to recoup a larger 
percentage of the cost of administering the program, and OSHA plans to 
use that revenue to hire additional staff. However, even with these 
increased fees, OSHA estimates NRTL program expenditures for fiscal 
year 2012 to be almost $800,000 greater than the fees collected: 
revenues are estimated to be about $100,000 and expenditures to be 
$870,000.[Footnote 31] An NRTL program official said that the 
estimated revenues for fiscal year 2012 are relatively low mainly 
because staff were not able to perform many audits due to their 
workload.[Footnote 32] The revenues from increased fees are intended 
to be used to hire additional staff to improve the timeliness of its 
application review process and to perform other necessary program 
functions. However, OSHA has encountered difficulties trying to find 
senior level staff with engineering experience and has been unable to 
fill the positions to date. Therefore, OSHA plans to revisit its 
hiring strategy and seeks to hire four additional staff members in 
2013. If the agency is successful in its hiring efforts, officials 
anticipate holding extensive training sessions for new staff members 
to prepare them for their responsibilities. While using higher fees to 
increase staffing is promising in theory as a means of improving 
timeliness, GAO has found in the past that, in practice, there may be 
problems associated with this approach. For example, it can be 
difficult to hire and train people quickly enough or retain them long 
enough to affect timeliness. Furthermore, if fewer accreditation 
applications are submitted than expected, fees may fall short of 
estimates, making it difficult to plan and budget for the program. 
[Footnote 33] Due to the unpredictability of the volume of 
applications received, OSHA cannot be certain that increased fees will 
lead to higher revenues, as projected, and the outcome of OSHA's 
efforts to hire and retain additional staff remains unclear. 

Unlike OSHA's NRTL accreditation process, other federal agencies we 
interviewed relied in part on other public or private organizations to 
carry out the accreditation process and maximize their resources. The 
outside accreditation organizations often charge and collect fees from 
the labs in order to cover the cost of accreditation application 
processing and approval, but according to the federal agencies we 
interviewed, these organizations do not charge fees to the federal 
agencies. The federal agencies we interviewed also worked with NIST to 
plan, design, and develop their accreditation programs. Although each 
federal agency has a unique mission and a distinct process for 
accrediting labs, the examples below illustrate varied actions that 
agencies have taken in their efforts to adapt their processes to 
maximize resources and meet their own unique missions and 
circumstances.[Footnote 34] 

* FCC's Equipment Authorization Program[Footnote 35] - -FCC officials 
told us the agency originally required labs to submit accreditation 
applications directly to FCC, but then restructured its approach to 
address resource constraints in the agency by collaborating with 
outside accreditation organizations. In order to satisfy FCC's 
requirements, labs accredited through these outside accrediting 
organizations must meet both international standards and additional 
program-specific requirements. While the outside organizations 
evaluate labs and make recommendations about whether a lab meets FCC's 
criteria and procedural requirements, FCC makes the final decision 
about whether to accept the lab into its programs. An FCC official 
said that working with outside accrediting organizations means that 
FCC has to constantly educate these organizations about program 
changes and new technology. However, the official said that using this 
structure allows FCC to use its limited resources to focus on critical 
compliance issues and the more technical aspects of the program while 
capitalizing on the expertise of organizations that have specialized 
backgrounds in accreditation. 

* HHS's Health Information Technology Certification Program - Like 
FCC, HHS officials decided to collaborate with external organizations 
in order to maximize program resources and harness the expertise of 
others. HHS officials said that because health information technology 
systems are complex, have important implications for patient safety, 
and present a high risk for potential fraud and abuse, it was 
important for HHS to be involved in developing policies and to tailor 
HHS's accreditation processes to fit the unique needs of the program. 
[Footnote 36] For example, according to agency officials, HHS worked 
with NIST to develop sector-specific requirements for accrediting 
certification organizations in addition to using international 
accreditation standards. HHS officials said that by designating 
outside organizations to make accreditation decisions, they are better 
able to focus on the program's goals and strategic planning, and are 
less focused on administrative tasks, such as collecting and tracking 
fees. They also said that using this structure has allowed them to 
make decisions about how to design their accreditation approach based 
on what will best fulfill their mission, rather than what resources 
are available in-house. 

* CPSC's Conformity Assessment Body Recognition Program - Officials at 
CPSC recognized that their relatively small staff was not prepared to 
perform accreditations themselves and that there were not enough time, 
resources, and expertise within the CPSC to run a large-scale 
international accreditation program.[Footnote 37] After consulting 
with NIST and weighing its options, CPSC ultimately decided to 
leverage the expertise and experience of an international organization 
whose member accreditation organizations meet international standards 
for accreditation and have been deemed competent through a peer-review 
process. CPSC officials believe this approach provides additional 
transparency in the process. Although CPSC does not accredit labs 
itself, it maintains a list of approved labs by requiring labs to 
apply directly to CPSC and by verifying that different types of labs 
have been appropriately accredited. 

Another approach that may help a program align its design with its 
resources is to use contractors to supplement limited in-house staff. 
For example, representatives from some of the private accreditation 
organizations we interviewed, including some that conduct 
accreditation activities for the federal agencies discussed above, 
said they use individual contractors on an as-needed basis. This 
reduces the need for full-time staff and helps to ensure that those 
individuals performing accreditation activities possess the necessary 
expertise. These organizations said that using contractors provides 
organizations with the flexibility to quickly adjust staffing levels 
based on the amount of work, and the particular accreditation work 
that needs to be performed. It also allows them to retain 
appropriately skilled people to perform the accreditation work. 
However, federal agencies' use of private contractors is subject to 
various requirements, which limit the type of functions that may be 
performed by contractors and entail a commitment of time and resources 
to meet.[Footnote 38] In addition, an OSHA official told us that if 
the agency were to rely on outside individuals, it would need to 
ensure their competency and independence. 

OSHA Lacks Clear Guidance and Timely Communication with Applicants: 

Clear guidance and communication with applicants can also serve to 
improve the timeliness of the accreditation process. Guidance that 
does not give applicants the information they need to submit an 
acceptable application can delay approval. GAO's internal control 
guidance states that program managers should ensure there are adequate 
means of communicating with, and obtaining information and feedback 
from, external stakeholders who may have a significant impact on the 
program achieving its goals.[Footnote 39] Not only do clear guidance 
and communication contribute to timely processes, but they also serve 
to enhance the transparency of programs and policies by explaining 
program criteria and may increase trust and confidence among 
stakeholders.[Footnote 40] 

OSHA's current structure and workload have made it difficult to 
provide clear guidance and timely communication to applicants. Most of 
the NRTL applicants we interviewed stated that OSHA could enhance its 
guidance and communication in order to improve the timeliness of the 
accreditation process and to help make the accreditation process more 
transparent. The directive on NRTL program policies and procedures has 
not been revised since 1999, and OSHA has not updated its NRTL 
application guidelines since 2000. A new director assumed 
responsibility for the NRTL program in August 2012, and plans to focus 
on improving the consistency and clarity of program procedures and 
guidance, but it is too early to determine the timing and scope of 
such revisions. OSHA plans to issue interim program guidance in the 
short-term while later updating NRTL application guidelines and the 
directive on NRTL program policies and procedures. 

We also found that OSHA had not adopted some of the measures to 
disseminate information used by other accreditation organizations we 
interviewed. For example, one of the accreditation organizations we 
interviewed holds an annual meeting specifically to hear from clients, 
and FCC hosts workshops twice a year where it shares program updates 
and explains program requirements to stakeholders. OSHA, on the other 
hand, occasionally speaks at trade association conferences and 
participates in workshops sponsored by NIST, but it does not hold 
regular meetings to update stakeholders and solicit feedback. An OSHA 
official did say that about 2 years ago, he started to initiate phone 
calls with labs interested in applying to the NRTL program to clarify 
the requirements for applications, with the intention of minimizing 
the back and forth that takes place during the application process. In 
his opinion, applicants have found these calls useful. 

Other accreditation organizations we interviewed have taken steps to 
enhance guidance and communication with applicants, such as developing 
systems to provide applicants with status updates and information in 
"real time." For example, two accreditation organizations we 
interviewed maintain online portals that allow applicants to check on 
the status of their applications throughout the various stages of the 
application process. Furthermore, FCC manages a database for providing 
information to stakeholders. This database provides answers to 
frequently asked questions submitted by stakeholders and helps to 
ensure that FCC is giving consistent advice and answers to questions. 
FCC officials also said that input from stakeholders helps inform 
their guidance publications. 

OSHA Does Not Currently Track the Quality and Timeliness of Its 
Accreditation Process Using Performance Measures: 

Our research on program management underscores the importance of 
developing performance goals and measures to track progress and 
evaluate program performance. Developing a range of related 
performance measures and balancing these measures to address quality, 
timeliness, efficiency, cost of service, and outcomes also allows a 
program to balance priorities among other demands and gives managers 
crucial information on which to base their organizational and 
management decisions.[Footnote 41] In addition, using data to 
understand time frames offers an opportunity to identify potential 
inefficiencies and strategies for improving timeliness. 

OSHA developed performance measures for the NRTL program, including 
measures for timeliness of the approval process. However, it recently 
discontinued using these measures, because staff members' workload 
increased to the point that it was impractical to achieve the metrics 
established. Through informal monitoring of the time it takes to 
approve accreditation applications, OSHA recognizes that its 
accreditation process has been taking longer than expected, especially 
for those applications with no major deficiencies or issues. OSHA 
officials are hoping that their plans to hire additional staff will 
bring the NRTL program closer to achieving their timeliness goals. It 
remains unclear, however, whether planned hiring efforts will 
adequately address timeliness issues or how OSHA plans to reinstitute 
its performance measures. OSHA also collects some program data, but it 
does not currently use the data to track timeliness or analyze trends. 
For example, in response to one of the recommendations included in a 
2005 report by Labor's Office of Inspector General, OSHA developed a 
contact log so that the NRTL program could maintain a log of calls, e-
mails, and related details.[Footnote 42] However, the contact log was 
developed primarily to document that OSHA had responded to inquiries 
from NRTLs, not necessarily to track the amount of time it took OSHA 
to respond. In the fall of 2012, OSHA officials told us they began 
developing a more robust system to track timeliness data and to 
address inefficiencies identified through the data, but this 
initiative is in the early stages. 

OSHA does not have performance measures to assess the quality and 
timeliness of its accreditation process, although such measures have 
been adopted by most of the accreditation organizations we contacted. 
For example, one accreditation organization had target dates in place 
for each phase of its application process and tracked its performance 
in relation to the targets. Another accreditation organization with 
performance measures in place also had a corrective action system in 
place to review troubling data, identify the root cause of any 
problems, and implement solutions. This accreditation organization 
also measured customer satisfaction. 

Conclusions: 

The NRTL program provides an important mechanism for protecting 
workers' safety. However, if not addressed, the lengthy accreditation 
application processing and approval times resulting from the current 
scope of staff responsibilities and unclear guidance about the process 
will continue to have negative impacts on labs' business operations 
and OSHA's ability to conduct other oversight activities. Much has 
changed in the world of laboratory accreditation since the NRTL 
process was designed in 1988; for example, NIST issued guidance 
intended to reduce duplication and improve efficiency, in accordance 
with the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, and 
some federal agencies have used new approaches to accreditation to 
administer lab accreditation programs. This includes increasing use of 
new approaches for efficiently and effectively using resources and 
harnessing the expertise of other organizations, while retaining key 
oversight responsibilities within the federal government. While OSHA 
plans to take some actions to improve timeliness, it is too early to 
determine the extent of these actions and it is uncertain whether any 
incremental changes will be sufficient to fully address the program's 
challenges. Without thinking strategically about the program as a 
whole, the agency may be missing opportunities to implement more 
comprehensive strategies for improving timeliness, such as modifying 
its program structure in a manner that better serves its mission and 
capitalizes on the expertise of agency staff and external resources. 
Even if some of these strategies require initial time investments, 
thinking strategically about the program's structure can ultimately 
reap time savings and ensure that procedures and staff 
responsibilities are targeted in a way that optimizes the program's 
effectiveness in addressing workplace safety. 

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

To improve the timeliness of the NRTL accreditation process, we 
recommend that the Secretary of Labor direct the Assistant Secretary 
for Occupational Safety and Health to: 

Review the NRTL program's structure and accreditation application 
procedures to identify and implement any alternatives that better 
align program design with resource levels and improve program 
timeliness while remaining consistent with the agency's mission. This 
review should draw upon the expertise of NIST or other organizations 
that provide guidance on developing effective and efficient 
accreditation schemes. It should include: 

1. Identifying and evaluating the risks, costs, and benefits of 
various structural approaches for making accreditation decisions in 
terms of both timeliness and effectiveness in achieving OSHA's 
mission. Approaches could include using an external accrediting 
organization to implement some or all of the lab accreditation duties, 
using contractors to support in-house portions of the accreditation 
process, or separating testing from certification accreditation 
activities. 

2. Reviewing OSHA's current regulations and procedures to identify 
areas where increased alignment with international standards on 
accreditation may result in time savings without impairing the 
agency's mission to protect workers' safety and health. This could 
include analyzing the risks, costs, and benefits to effectiveness 
involved in making any program modifications or changes to existing 
regulations. 

3. Ensuring that all lab accreditation decisions are reviewed by an 
independent technical reviewer in order to better align the 
accreditation decision process with internal controls principles for 
separating key duties and international standards on making 
accreditation decisions. OSHA should evaluate options for achieving 
independent review based in part on their effects on process duration. 

4. Improving overall program guidance and transparency to help prevent 
delays in the approval process. 

5. Establishing program goals and performance measures, including 
timeliness goals for the approval of accreditation applications, and 
analyzing resulting performance measurement data to identify potential 
inefficiencies in the application process. 

Agency Comments: 

We provided a draft of this report to Labor for its review and 
comment. Labor's Assistant Secretary for OSHA provided written 
comments, which are reproduced in appendix II. Labor agreed with our 
recommendations and described its plans to implement them, citing a 
commitment to use the most efficient and effective strategies in the 
NRTL program. For example, Labor states that it is assessing the NRTL 
program against alternative approaches used by other testing 
laboratory accrediting organizations and that it is coordinating with 
outside agencies, including the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology, to seek ways in which the NRTL program can improve its 
processes. In response to our recommendation to improve program 
guidance and transparency, Labor stated that it plans to develop and 
issue policy guidance on NRTL program requirements to ensure the 
program is administered consistently, and it plans to actively engage 
NRTL stakeholders in the policy-development process. In addition, 
Labor intends to use performance measures for processing applications 
and to explore the development of a web-based customer service site 
where NRTLs could check the status of their applications throughout 
the review process. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 
committees and the Secretary of Labor. In addition, the report is 
available at no charge on GAO's website at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-7215 or moranr@gao.gov. Contact points for our 
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions 
to this report are listed in appendix III. 

Signed by: 

Revae Moran: 
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

This study's objective was to answer the following questions about the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) Nationally 
Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) program: (1) How long does it 
take to make accreditation decisions and what are the key factors that 
affect timeliness? and (2) To what extent has OSHA adopted commonly 
used strategies for improving timeliness? To address these research 
questions, we used a variety of methods including: analysis of OSHA's 
data on recently processed accreditation applications; reviews of 
relevant federal laws, regulations, and OSHA publications on the NRTL 
program; interviews with key program stakeholders including OSHA 
officials, eight NRTL program applicants, and other public and private 
organizations, including non-profits, that accredit safety labs for 
other programs or purposes; a review and synthesis of findings from 
various sources, including GAO reports, international standards, 
guidance on accreditation, and materials from other federal agencies 
to identify promising strategies for improving the timeliness of 
accreditation decisions; and interviews with officials from selected 
federal agencies about their accreditation processes and practices. 

To determine how long it took OSHA to approve accreditation 
applications between June 2007 and June 2012--as well as how many 
applications were pending during that time--we analyzed Federal 
Register notices and information from an internal OSHA database that 
included key application dates, such as application submission and 
final accreditation decision dates. We analyzed timing data on all 
initial, expansion, and renewal decisions that were approved between 
June 11, 2007 and June 11, 2012. We also reviewed timing information 
for all applications that are currently pending. We selected this date 
range to ensure that our analysis included decisions for each of the 
three types of applications, reflected OSHA's most recent time frames 
and processes, and included decisions made under two administrations. 
After interviewing OSHA officials and comparing Federal Register 
notices that identify key application dates for approved applications 
to separately generated data from OSHA's internal database, we 
determined that the data on application submission dates and final 
decision dates were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. Our 
analysis focused primarily on application submission dates and final 
decision dates because the available data in OSHA's database for 
intermediary stages of the review process were less reliable. 

We used the following criteria to assess the length of OSHA's 
accreditation process: 

* for completed applications, duration of the accreditation 
application and approval process relative to duration of the 
accreditation itself (5 years); 

* for pending applications, existence and duration of application 
backlogs; 

* stakeholders' views; and: 

* OSHA's view on desirable time frames for accreditation reviews. 

To gather more information about the amount of time that initial 
applications were with applicants for revisions versus with OSHA 
during the accreditation review, we also reviewed the application 
files for the three initial applications processed by OSHA between 
June 2007 and June 2012. Two of these applications were approved by 
OSHA and one was withdrawn by the applicant after the initial review 
and revision stages of the process. 

To further understand the accreditation process and factors that might 
affect its timing, we interviewed OSHA officials and reviewed relevant 
federal laws, regulations, and NRTL program documents. We also 
interviewed eight NRTL applicants who represented a mix of initial, 
expansion, and/or renewal accreditation applications that have been 
pending, approved, or otherwise closed since June 2007. We selected 
labs so that our review would include the perspectives of applicants 
at different points in the decision-making process and with a variety 
of initial, expansion, and renewal applications. We also chose labs 
that represented a variety of sizes, as measured by the number of 
approved NRTL testing sites. In addition, we interviewed other 
stakeholders including a manufacturing organization and an employer 
organization to obtain information about any effects the duration of 
the NRTL accreditation process may have had on these sectors. 

To identify promising practices for improving timeliness, we reviewed 
and synthesized findings from relevant GAO reports,[Footnote 43] 
international standards and guidance on accreditation,[Footnote 44] 
and materials from federal organizations such as the Office of 
Management and Budget,[Footnote 45] the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology (NIST),[Footnote 46] and the National 
Research Council.[Footnote 47] We identified these sources through 
literature searches and discussions with stakeholders and individuals 
who are knowledgeable about management practices that could improve 
timeliness. We compared the strategies we identified with OSHA's 
current and planned actions to improve timeliness, as identified 
through interviews and relevant documentation. We also identified 
promising practices for improving the timeliness of the NRTL 
accreditation process by soliciting suggestions from the eight NRTL 
applicants that we interviewed. 

We also interviewed officials and reviewed relevant documents from 
seven public and private accreditation programs and organizations, 
including non-profit organizations, as well as two consortiums of 
accreditation organizations, to identify promising timeliness 
practices used by others. No other accreditation process is completely 
comparable to OSHA's given differences in scope or mission. However, 
the experiences of other programs and organizations provide 
illustrative examples of actions that agencies have taken to adapt to 
their own unique missions and circumstances. After compiling an 
extensive list of accreditation programs and organizations, we 
ultimately selected organizations to review in more detail based on 
the following: recommendations from NRTL program stakeholders, those 
programs we identified as using one or more of the promising 
strategies for improving timeliness included in our report, or those 
programs that are similar to OSHA's program in terms of mission or 
scope. We interviewed officials from four federal agencies with lab 
accreditation programs: the Consumer Product Safety Commission 
Conformity Assessment Body Recognition Program; the Federal 
Communications Commission Equipment Authorization Program; the 
Department of Health and Human Services Health Information Technology 
Certification Program; and the NIST National Voluntary Laboratory 
Accreditation Program. In addition to speaking with officials from 
these four federal accreditation programs, we also interviewed 
representatives from three accreditation organizations outside the 
U.S. federal government: the American Association for Laboratory 
Accreditation, Standards Council of Canada, and the American National 
Standards Institute. Finally, we spoke with representatives from two 
consortiums of accreditation organizations: the International 
Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation and the National Cooperation for 
Laboratory Accreditation. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Labor: 

U.S. Department of Labor: 
Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health: 
Washington, DC. 20210: 

November 28, 2012: 

Ms. Revac E. Moran, Director: 
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Moran: 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Government 
Accountability Office's (GAO) report, Product Safety Laboratories: 
OSHA's Accreditation Process Needs Reexamination. The following 
comments are submitted on behalf of the Department of Labor's 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 

OSHA appreciates the time and effort that GAO took to perform this 
study. OSHA recognizes the significance of the GAO findings and the 
impact timeliness in processing applications can have on the business 
of Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories (NRTL). OSHA also 
recognizes the impact unclear guidance can have on program 
transparency and the ability of NRTL's to ensure conformance to OSHA's 
NRTL Program. Better facilitating the NRTL's ability to comply with 
program requirements will also improve timely access to safety testing 
by product manufacturers. 

OSHA is committed to using the most effective and efficient strategies 
to implement the NRTI, Program. The GAO report is consistent with 
findings identified in OSHA's own internal assessment of the Program's 
management and oversight of policies and procedures, program 
consistency and resource allocation, and with program-improvement 
initiatives the Agency has already begun. Specifically, OSHA is 
assessing the NRTL Program against alternative approaches used by 
other testing laboratory accrediting bodies and is coordinating with 
outside agencies, including the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology, to seek ways in which the NRTL Program can improve its 
processes. To improve timeliness, OSHA is examining its internal 
business practices for reviewing applications and conducting audits. 
OSHA also intends to use performance standards and metrics to 
facilitate the management of application processing and to explore the 
development of a web-based customer service site that keeps NRTLs 
informed of the status of their applications. Finally, OSHA plans to 
develop and issue policy guidance on NRTL Program requirements to 
ensure the Program's consistent administration and to actively engage 
stakeholders in the policy-development and accreditation processes. 

The Agency strives continually to strengthen our operations and 
performance, while focusing our limited resources on OSHA's mission to 
keep America's workers safe and healthy. OSHA appreciates the 
opportunity to review and respond to GAO's draft report. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

David Michaels, PhD, MPH: 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Revae Moran, Director, (202) 512-7215 or moranr@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Betty Ward-Zukerman, Assistant 
Director; Elizabeth Dobrenz, Meredith Moore, Maria Stattel, and 
Barbara Steel-Lowney made significant contributions to all phases of 
the work. Also contributing to this report were James Bennett, Sarah 
Cornetto, Elizabeth Curda, Debra Johnson, Kathy Leslie, Jean McSween, 
Cathy Roark, Daren Sweeney, and Kate van Gelder. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Pub. L. No. 91-596, 84 Stat. 1590, codified as amended at 29 
U.S.C. §§ 553, 651-78. 

[2] In this report, we use the term "accredit" to mean the same as 
"recognize." OSHA officials told us that, while the program formally 
uses the term "recognize," it is appropriate to describe its process 
for recognizing third-party laboratories as an accreditation process. 
In addition, we use the term "approved" to include a number of terms 
used in OSHA's standards, including "approved," "certified," "listed," 
"labeled," and "accepted." 

[3] 29 C.F.R. § 1910.7 and app. A. OSHA standards that require NRTL 
approval do not specify the particular safety requirements that the 
products must meet; NRTLs generally test products against consensus-
based safety standards developed by standards-developing 
organizations. The process for developing these consensus-based safety 
standards involves soliciting input from various stakeholders. Only 
certain equipment and materials are required by OSHA standards to be 
approved by an NRTL. OSHA categorizes these products into 38 broad 
categories. The largest of these categories, according to OSHA, is 
electrical products and equipment. Other categories include portable 
fire extinguishers, employee alarm systems, and different types of 
scaffolding. 

[4] OSHA's regulations specify the criteria that NRTLs must meet, 
which include testing capability, implementation of certain internal 
controls, independence from employers or manufacturers, and 
maintenance of effective procedures for reporting and handling 
complaints. See 29 C.F.R. § 1910.7(b). 

[5] 29 C.F.R. § 1910.7(f). 

[6] 65 Fed. Reg. 46,798 (July 31, 2000). 

[7] 76 Fed. Reg. 10,500 (Feb. 25, 2011). Prior to adjusting the fees, 
OSHA recovered about half of the allowable reimbursable costs of the 
NRTL program. The 2011 revision to the fee structure, which will be 
phased in over 3 years, allows OSHA to recoup additional program 
costs, including personnel costs for leave and ancillary activities 
that support the NRTL program. Ancillary activities include program 
administration, training, interagency and international coordination, 
responding to information requests, handling complaints, website 
maintenance, and meeting with stakeholders and interest groups. 

[8] According to OSHA, the presence of the lab's mark on a product 
does not necessarily mean that it meets OSHA requirements because 
NRTLs sometimes use the same or similar marks to denote testing or 
certification performed in accordance with other accreditations. OSHA 
accepts only products that contain the NRTL's mark and that the NRTL 
has certified within its scope of accreditation, which includes the 
test standards and testing sites that OSHA has recognized for the 
NRTL. For information on each NRTL's scope of recognition, consumers 
and employers may visit the OSHA website. [hyperlink, 
http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/#nrtls]. 

[9] 29 C.F.R. § 1910.7(b)(2) (i)-(iii). 

[10] While similar accreditation processes may exist at the state or 
local government level, such processes are beyond the scope of this 
report. 

[11] Some requirements may be established by statute, depending on the 
structure of the program. 

[12] Entities that certify products but do not conduct testing may be 
called "certification bodies" instead of labs. In this report, we use 
the term lab to mean entities that test, certify, or both. 

[13] See Pub. L. No. 104-113, § 12(b), 110 Stat. 775, 783 (1996), 
codified at 15 U.S.C. § 272(b)(13) and NIST's Guidance on Federal 
Conformity Assessment Activities, 65 Fed. Reg. 48,894 (Aug. 10, 2000), 
codified at 15 C.F.R. pt. 287. The Act and guidance refer to 
conformity assessment, which NIST defines as any activity concerned 
with determining directly or indirectly that requirements are 
fulfilled. Conformity assessment includes accreditation and testing. 

[14] ISO is the world's largest developer of voluntary international 
standards, including standards on testing and certification. 

[15] Congress established NIST (formerly the National Bureau of 
Standards) in 1901 to support industry, commerce, scientific 
institutions, and all branches of the government. It works with 
industry to develop and apply technology, measurements, and standards, 
among other activities. 

[16] Our analysis focused on applications with final approval 
decisions published in the Federal Register. The information above 
does not include cases in which OSHA denied accreditation or the 
application was closed before a final decision was made. Since 2007, 
one renewal application was formally denied by OSHA and it took OSHA 
over 8 years to complete its review of that application. In addition, 
OSHA closed some applications without publishing a final decision on 
them in the Federal Register. An application may be closed in this 
manner for reasons such as an applicant submitting a new application 
that supersedes the first; an applicant choosing to withdraw an 
application; or an applicant discontinuing communication with OSHA. In 
at least one case, OSHA suggested that an applicant withdraw an 
application partway through the review process because the agency 
deemed the application unlikely to ultimately receive approval. Seven 
applications submitted since June 11, 2007, were closed without OSHA 
issuing a final decision. 

[17] OSHA hired an NRTL program director in August 2012. According to 
OSHA staff, the director's responsibilities focus on providing 
direction and leadership for the office. According to OSHA officials, 
the individual is not involved in making specific accreditation or 
audit determinations. 

[18] In May 2009, OSHA implemented a new segment of the NRTL program 
called the Satellite Notification and Acceptance Program (SNAP), which 
increased the number of sites that can be operated by NRTLs. SNAP 
allows NRTLs to use facilities referred to as "SNAP sites," which the 
NRTLs control and audit, in order to perform particular functions 
necessary in the NRTL's testing and certification operations. 
Participation in SNAP is voluntary, and NRTLs must apply to OSHA for 
approval to participate in the program. 74 Fed. Reg. 923 (Jan. 9, 
2009). 

[19] Policy documents direct OSHA staff to conduct a combination of 
onsite and office audits of accredited labs. Onsite audits should be 
performed for each NRTL either annually or on another frequency as 
determined by the NRTL program director. OSHA may perform an office 
audit of each NRTL not scheduled for an annual onsite audit. According 
to OSHA documents, OSHA officials select SNAP sites to audit, in part 
based on previous audit results. The number of SNAP sites that OSHA 
audits in any year will not usually exceed 50 percent of the total 
number of SNAP sites. 

[20] OSHA calculated these estimates of the average time it takes the 
agency to approve applications in the course of establishing its new 
fees. See 76 Fed. Reg. 10,500, 10,505-07 (Feb. 25, 2011). For initial 
applications, these estimates assume that two OSHA staff conducted an 
onsite review of one site for 3 days each. For expansion applications 
that do not involve expanding the number of testing sites, these 
estimates assume that two OSHA staff conducted an onsite review of one 
site for 1 day each. The estimate for renewal applications includes 
one onsite visit of 3 days by one person. 

[21] We reviewed files of three initial applications approved or 
closed between June 2007 and June 2012; one of these was not included 
in our analysis of approval times because it was withdrawn before a 
final decision was made. This applicant only provided one round of 
revisions prior to withdrawing its application. We calculated these 
estimates by identifying the date that OSHA provided letters of 
deficiency to applicants and the dates that applicants submitted 
revised applications. In cases where OSHA provided two letters of 
deficiency and applicants provided two revised applications, we 
included both revision time periods in our calculation. This 
calculation does not account for any other time periods when OSHA may 
have been waiting on more informal email responses from applicants, 
etc. 

[22] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1] 
(Washington, D.C.: Nov.1999). 

[23] See ISO, Conformity Assessment--General Requirements for 
Accreditation Bodies Accrediting Conformity Assessment Bodies, ISO/IEC 
17011:2004, 4.3.5 and 7.8-7.9 (Geneva, Switzerland, February 2005). 

[24] The key international standards for conducting safety lab 
accreditation were developed by the International Organization for 
Standardization (ISO). ISO/IEC 17011:2004 provides standards for how 
accreditation organizations conduct their work, ISO/IEC 17025:2005 
provides standards for how testing laboratories should be assessed for 
accreditation, and ISO/IEC 17065:2012 provides guidance on how 
certification organizations should be assessed for accreditation. 

[25] OSHA's regulations require that an NRTL be "completely 
independent of employers subject to the tested equipment requirements, 
and of any manufacturers or vendors of equipment or materials being 
tested for these purposes." 29 C.F.R. § 1910.7(b)(3). A 2005 report by 
the Department of Labor's Office of the Inspector General was the 
impetus for the change to NRTL program procedures for verifying 
independence. Department of Labor Office of the Inspector General, 
OSHA Correctly Denied ED&D's Incomplete NRTL Application, 05-05-002-10-
001, (March 31, 2005: Washington, D.C.). This report had three 
recommendations related to independence: (1) make independence reviews 
a mandatory part of application reviews and periodic audits; (2) 
modify current policy to ensure that all areas related to an NRTL's 
recognition, including independence, are reviewed at least once during 
each 5-year recognition period; and (3) review two NRTLs' current 
business practices to ensure conformance with the independence 
requirement. 

[26] The NRTL program application requirements are described in OSHA 
Directive CPL 01-00-003: NRTL Program Policies, Procedures, and 
Guidelines. OSHA's regulations state that an applicant shall "provide 
sufficient information and detail" demonstrating that it meets NRTL 
program requirements, and identify the scope of recognition it is 
seeking, including the testing methods it will use. 29 C.F.R. § 
1910.7, app. A. 

[27] See GAO, Streamlining Government: Key Practices from Select 
Efficiency Initiatives Should be Shared Governmentwide, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-908] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 
2011). 

[28] See Office of Management and Budget, Updated Principles for Risk 
Analysis, M-07-24 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 19, 2007), and GAO, 
Strategic Budgeting: Risk Management Principles Can Help DHS Allocate 
Resources to Highest Priorities, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-824T] (Washington, D.C.: June 29, 
2005). 

[29] 53 Fed. Reg. 12,102, 12,114 (Apr. 12, 1988). 

[30] While NIST provides technical assistance services to federal 
agencies upon request to assist with designing and implementing 
accreditation processes, the Performance Management Center, which is 
housed within the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of the Assistant 
Secretary for Administration and Management, strives to improve 
Labor's program performance efforts through data-driven analysis and 
sharing best practices. Among its other activities, the Performance 
Management Center provides advisory services to those Labor programs 
seeking to improve performance, but only upon request. We found that 
OSHA has not consulted with the Performance Management Center. 

[31] The expenditure figure is based on the existing four NRTL program 
staff and includes estimates of salary and benefits for the program 
staff and for one Labor attorney who assists the program; travel 
expenses, mainly for performing audits; and general office expenses. 

[32] OSHA charges labs fees for the audits, which increases the 
agency's revenues for that year. 

[33] See GAO, Food and Drug Administration: Effect of User Fees on 
Drug Approval Times, Withdrawals, and Other Agency Activities, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-958] (Washington, D.C.: 
September 2002). 

[34] GAO did not evaluate the effectiveness of the selected agencies' 
accreditation programs and processes, but we analyzed them for 
variations in structure. For more information on how we selected 
federal agencies for review, see appendix I. 

[35] The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, authorizes FCC to 
regulate devices that may cause radio interference, 47 U.S.C. § 302a. 
FCC has developed two separate accreditation programs to support its 
equipment authorization activities, one focused on testing and one 
focused on certification. Information included in this section largely 
refers to FCC's certification program. For more information about 
FCC's equipment authorization activities, please see table 1 of this 
report. 

[36] The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical 
Health Act authorized certain Medicare and Medicaid incentive payments 
for the adoption and meaningful use of certified electronic health 
record technology, and required HHS to develop a voluntary 
certification program for health information technology. Pub. L. No. 
111-5, div. A, tit. XIII, div. B, tit. IV, 123 Stat. 115, 226-79, 467-
96 (2009). 

[37] Among other requirements, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement 
Act of 2008 established a third-party safety testing requirement for 
children's products (defined as consumer products designed or intended 
primarily for children 12 years of age or younger) and set deadlines 
for implementation. Pub. L. No. 110-341, § 102, 122 Stat. 3016, 3022. 
Prior to the passage of this act, CPSC had never participated in lab 
accreditation activities, according to officials. 

[38] For example, federal agencies generally must follow the 
procedures delineated in the Federal Acquisition Regulation. See, 
e.g., 48 C.F.R. § 7.5. 

[39] See GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 
Government, AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 

[40] See GAO, Certification Requirements: New Guidance Should 
Encourage Transparency in Agency Decisionmaking, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-99-170] (Washington, D.C.: 
September 1999). 

[41] See GAO, Tax Administration: IRS Needs to Further Refine Its Tax 
Filing Season Performance Measures, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-143] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 22, 
2002). 

[42] U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General, Office of 
Audit. Occupational Safety and Health Administration: OSHA Correctly 
Denied ED&D's Incomplete NRTL Application, March 31, 2005. Report 
Number: 05-05-002-10-001. 

[43] See, for example, GAO, Streamlining Government: Opportunities 
Exist to Strengthen OMB's Approach to Improving Efficiency, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-394] (Washington, D.C.: 
May 7, 2010) and GAO, Strategic Budgeting: Risk Management Principles 
Can Help DHS Allocate Resources to Highest Priorities, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-824T] (Washington, D.C.: June 29, 
2005). 

[44] See, for example, International Standard, ISO/IEC 17011: 
Conformity assessment - General requirements for accreditation 
organizations accrediting conformity assessment organizations, ISO 
2004. 

[45] Office of Management and Budget Circular A-119: Federal 
Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus 
Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities, 63 Fed. Reg. 8546 
(Feb. 19, 1998). 

[46] NIST's Guidance on Federal Conformity Assessment Activities, 65 
Fed. Reg. 48,894 (Aug. 10, 2000), codified at 15 C.F.R. pt. 287.  

[47] See, for example, Standards, Conformity Assessment, and Trade: 
Into the 21ST Century, National Research Council, National Academy 
Press (Washington, D.C.: 1995). 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the 
performance and accountability of the federal government for the 
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, 
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, 
and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is 
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 
reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
“E-mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

[End of document]