Document ID: OSHA-2012-0055-0018
Agency: osha
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2013-05-14T04:00Z

OSHA NRTL Program Stakeholder Meeting

10:03 a.m. to 12:57 p.m.

Friday, March 15, 2013

U.S. Department of Labor

Francis Perkins Building

200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Room C-5515, Conference Room 1A/B

Washington, D.C.  20210

C O N T E N T S

                                            PAGE

Opening and Introductions                      3

Overview                                      14

Issue 1:  Independence                        18

Issue 2:  Application Processing              47

Issue 3:  Other Issues                        92

NRTL Program Way Ahead                       117

Open Discussion and Wrap-Up                  149

P R O C E E D I N G S

Opening and Introductions

	[OSHA Staff]:  Welcome, everyone.  My name is [OSHA Staff].  I am the
Director of the Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency
Management, which is where -- I won't say the whole name of their office
-- the NRTL office resides.

	I would just like to thank everybody for being very flexible.  We had a
nice meeting planned about a week or so ago, and then we had our
so-called snowstorm of the century came in.  I saw at least a half an
inch at my house.  I don't know about the rest of you.  I think we did
make the good decision.  It was kind of hard to tell what was going to
go on, so I do appreciate everybody being willing to adjust their
schedules to come this morning.

	I am not going to spend a lot of time, because I know we have a lot of
things to cover in a very short period of time, and I want to really let
most of that time be spent listening to your folks, because what this
is, is an opportunity for us to start to engage our stakeholders.  We
have done a lot of it informally.  This is a more formal sort of a
setting.  I know you may have a lot of questions about what we are going
to do in the future.  We really haven't made any decisions, but we are
just really trying to take a critical look at  the program and see where
we can make it more efficient and better, with still not jeopardizing
any worker's safety and health, because we are at the end of the day
OSHA.  We want to make sure that we do have that focus.

	But at the same time, I think we realize that there are some places
where we can improve the program.  I think even before the GAO study
came out, we were starting to look at things.  We recognize that we have
some internal processes that could be improved and maybe some policies
that we could take a second look at that deserve some thinking about.

	What we'd like to do is, hopefully, to have most of the day for you
guys to participate, not for us to talk a lot.  We will have a few
presentations, short presentations to sort of open up and get the topic
started.  We have sort of focused this meeting on particular topics.  As
I say, it's the beginning of a process.  We have some particular topics
we want to discuss today, but as we move on, there's some other topics I
know that groups are interested in that we hope to maybe have future
stakeholder meetings or other types of venues where we can get ideas and
some suggestions for how you think we can improve the program.

	Just some more mundane housekeeping rules, [Moderator] will do some of
the ground rules for the stakeholder meeting, but just so you know where
the bathrooms are, if you haven't already discovered where they are,
they're at the end of the corridors.  There's sets of bathrooms, men and
women, on each end of the hall.  If you do at the break want to get
water, there is a snack bar right beneath us and a cafeteria right
above.  It says fifth floor only, but I don't think they are going to
tackle you or anything if they see you getting a bottle of water to come
back to the meeting.  Feel free to do that.  Keep in mind we do have a
tight schedule.

	The other thing is in the unlikely event that we do have an emergency,
there are a couple kinds of emergencies.  If we have to evacuate the
building, we are here in the middle of the center of the corridor.  I
think they took the picture down, but basically, if you follow most of
the folks, you won't be able to take the elevators, of course, but walk
down the stairs.  What we would like to suggest is you go out the same
entrance that you came in this morning where the fountain is, and we'll
go across and get away from the building and hopefully congregate over
in the area where the courthouses are.

	We do have a sign-in sheet, so we'll be checking to make sure we've got
everyone in the event that we have to evacuate the building.

	Now, there's another type of situation where we shelter in place, and
luckily for you, we are in a shelter-in-place place, so you don't have
to go anywhere.  Now, there might be some other people that are going to
come in here.  We can continue our NRTL meeting in the shelter in place.

	[Laughter.] 

	[OSHA Staff]:  And they can observe as we move on.

	If you do get hungry and we get shelter in place for a long time, there
are some supplies in the corner there.  I can't vouch for their
edibility.

	I think that's all the sort of housekeeping things I have, and I will
turn it over to [Moderator].

	[Moderator]:  Actually, you have done such a good job, obviously you've
done this before.

	Good morning, everyone, and especially to the panelists at the table. 
[Moderator] and I frequently facilitate stakeholders meeting for OSHA. 
My role is to help keep the agenda flowing and the communication going. 
I'm definitely not an expert on this subject, so don't look at me for
that part.

	What I wanted to do is begin by seeing who we have in the room.  We
know whose names are on various pieces of paper, but particularly
beginning around the table, this is not a time for a brief bio.  This is
really just your name and the organization you are representing, and
that way, we will have a picture.  I would double-check to see if we
have any participants sitting behind me.

	[NRTL Stakeholder], would you be kind enough to go first, please. 
There is a microphone, so be sure you speak clearly into it, because we
have transcribers.

	[NRTL Stakeholder]:  Good morning.  [NRTL Stakeholder].  I am
Certification Manager for [NRTL association], and I am also representing
[NRTL Association], so I've got two NRTL hats on.

	[NRTL Stakeholder]:  I'm [NRTL Stakeholder] with [NRTL Association].

	[Testing Industry Stakeholder]:  I am [Testing Industry Stakeholder]
with the [Testing Industry Association], and I'm Director of
Accreditation of Product Certification.

	[NRTL STAKEHOLDER]:  [Name], [NRTL Association].

	[[NRTL STAKEHOLDER]]:  [Name], [NRTL Association].

	[NRTL STAKEHOLDER]:  [Name], [NRTL Association].

	[NRTL STAKEHOLDER]:  [Name], [NRTL Association].

	[OSHA Staff]:  I'm [Name], a program analyst with OSHA's NRTL program.

	[OSHA Staff]:  I'm [Name].  I'm the program manager for the NRTL
program.

	[Solicitor of Labor Staff]:  [Name] with the Solicitor's Office.

	[Testing Industry Stakeholder]:  [Name] with [Testing Industry
Association].

	[NRTL STAKEHOLDER]:  [NRTL Stakeholder] from [NRTL Association], the
first NRTL.

	[NRTL STAKEHOLDER]:  [NRTL Stakeholder], [NRTL Association].

	[NRTL STAKEHOLDER]:  [NRTL Stakeholder], [NRTL Association].

	[Trade Association Stakeholder]:  [Trade Association Stakeholder],
[Trade Association].

	[NRTL Stakeholder]:  [NRTL Stakeholder] representing [NRTL
Association].

	[NRTL STAKEHOLDER]:  Good morning.  [NRTL Stakeholder], General Manager
of [NRTL Association].

	[NRTL STAKEHOLDER]: [NRTL Stakeholder] representing [NRTL Association].

	[Moderator]:  Do we have other participants, [OSHA], or is everyone who
is a participant at the table now?  We might have one other?

	You know, there is a place right up there in the corner, if you would
be so kind, and then I'll get a name tent to you.  Giddyap. 

	Go ahead.

	[Trade Association Stakeholder]:  [Trade Association Stakeholder],
[Trade Association].

	[Moderator]:  Excellent.

	So, as always with meetings, there's sort of rules of the road, which I
just wanted to run by you.  Some of you can see them, some of you not,
but I will post them in a moment, so that you can tell.

	One is, as [OSHA Staff] said, this is an opportunity for those of you
particularly seated at the table to make comments on proposals and
things that OSHA is thinking about.  So participate actively, which does
have a definition, and that is no speechifying.  If you have prepared
remarks, you can submit them, but we are not looking here for somebody
to suddenly pull out three or four pages and get it into the record that
way.  There are other ways to do that.

	So please be as full in your comments as you can be while at the same
time being concise.  There's a little bit of tension there, because you
can see there are a lot of people here and a lot of people in the
observers' deck who may want to participate later.

	The other is to please speak one at a time, and one way to do that is
to put your name tent this way if you want to make a comment.  That way,
I can see.  You don't have to sit there.  No one wants to do it like
that.  I can see, and I will try to go, relatively speaking, in the
order in which you have put your name tents up, so I'll be watching. 
That also helps our transcribers who are trying to capture what people
are saying.

	That reminds me.  There are the transcribers.  So we will remind you to
use the --

	[Cell phone ringing.]

	[Moderator]:  And my very last ground rule.

	[Laughter.]

	[Moderator]:  I know, I know.  Hush!

	And the transcribers, if they can't hear, we do have the mics, so
please be sure to use them and/or your outdoor voice, so that we can
really get your comments.

	We also have people who are on the teleconference and WebEx, and maybe
they'll be listening in.  So there's yet another reason to be sure that
people can year you.

	Observers.  You will have an opportunity, assuming we have time, and we
expect to, to make any comments you wish at the end, but until then, if
you will do the observing part versus the speaking part.

	Transcriptions will be posted as soon as possible to the website, and
[OSHA Staff] is going to speak a little bit more about that.

	While the transcribers are particularly interested in names, when the
transcriptions go out, there will not be attribution to individuals who
make comments, but rather just the straight transcription.  So if there
are journalists in the room, if you would please remember that as well
if you're reporting on the story not to directly quote people by name. 
That's not what this is about, and people didn't necessarily sign up for
that.  So that's important.

	Cell phones.  Cell phones.  If you will take a look -- does everybody
have an agenda?  You will notice in the 11:40 range, we will take a
10-minute break.  As [OSHA Staff] said, up or down if you need water and
rest rooms, but, of course, if you are in dire need, you can leave the
room discretely if you need to.  And please come back because, as [OSHA
Staff] said, we're on a somewhat tight schedule.

	Anything else we need to know?  Otherwise, all known rules of civilized
behavior apply.

	Okay.  [OSHA Staff], you're on.

Overview

	[OSHA Staff]:  Thank you.

	Next slide, please.

	We are not really going to brief to the slides today.  We're just going
to kind of have a placeholder, so the folks that are out on WebEx will
know the topics we are talking about.

	That being said, we are not really going to speak that much at all, we
hope.  As [OSHA Staff] had said, we want to get your input.

	These are ideas.  The stuff that we post on our website are ideas that
we had to address some of our problems.  Also, as [OSHA Staff] said, we
started identifying our problems before the GAO report came out, but the
GAO report kind of gave us some significance, and so we are going to be
looking at the issues that were specifically highlighted that we
identified and within the report that we feel are the most critical to
getting the program in a stable status, so we can move forward to
address some of our more significant challenges.

	What we are going to specifically talk about today is independence and
how -- as all of you know that the rule talks about what independence
is, but there's some flexibility in the rule, and we are going to
discuss that, and we are going to talk about how we can recognize the
changes that are going on in the NRTL community and how we can still
stay within the boundaries of the rules and still meet your needs.

	Another thing we are going to look at is application processing. 
There's been a lot of two-way back and forth with applications that make
the applications drag on for sometimes years.  We are going to look at
ways to put some hard deadlines on them, so we will talk specifically
about those issues, and then we are going to look at NRTL renewal and
auditing issues.  Those are about the three areas that have held us back
from being most responsive to your guys' needs, and so that's what we
want to focus on today.

	At the end, I will discuss a little bit about what's going to happen
after that.

	What we are hoping to get out of this is to get feedback from your
folks and to help supplement the ideas that we have and maybe introduce
new ideas, so can come out with an interim policy guide.

	One of the complaints that we have heard is that this policy is kind of
scattered in different places.  With the Interim Policy Guide, we want
to consolidate some of those pieces of policy that have come out
sporadically over the years, and we also want to incorporate the things
that we are talking about.  We hope to get that out soon.

	We didn't want to wait on a directive that would take much longer to
complete.  We wanted to address the most critical issues as soon as we
possibly could.

	Most of all, we want to hear what you guys have to say.  We are not
here, as [OSHA Staff] said, to answer questions about what our policies
are going to be.  We have introduced some ideas, and we want to hear
your comments on those ideas and any new ideas that you may have related
to these policies.

	With that, anybody have any comments before we get started?

	[No audible response.]

	[OSHA Staff]:  All right.  [OSHA Staff] will follow with independence.

Issue 1:  Independence

	[OSHA Staff]:  Hi, everyone.  I am [OSHA Staff].  I am a program
analyst with the NRTL program, and I will be speaking toady about
independence.

	So I just want to draw your attention -- you should have two documents
in your folder.  One is the Draft NRTL Summary for NRTL Independence,
and the other is the Proposed Draft of the Independence Worksheet.

	I just want to start by saying that these documents are in their very
early stages.  They are drafts.  We are still working on them.  They are
changing constantly.  They are draft proposals that we are considering,
and so they are really just here more as a basis for our discussion
today.  Nothing has been decided yet on these subjects.

	So I just want to provide a brief overview.  I know this is a very
large topic, and you have been presented with a very long document.  So
I am going to do my best to sort of condense it for you all, and then we
will take comments and feedback.

	As you know, the regulations for the NRTL program require the NRTLs to
be completely independent, and as [OSHA Staff] mentioned, there really
isn't much more in the regulation that sort of explains what that means.

	There is an existing policy in our directive that does provide some
additional guidance, and if you want to reference that, it is in the
draft summary.

	But in the last couple years as we began to work on the NRTL's
independence and define it against this policy, we began to feel, as
[OSHA Staff] mentioned, for a variety of reasons that this policy needed
some clarification.  So that's why we are considering revising this
policy, is really to provide you all with that clarification.

	And more specifically, what we want to clarify are the situations in
which an NRTL would be out of compliance with the NRTL independence
requirement, as well as the process we would undertake to review each
NRTL's independence, and then our policy and procedure for when an NRTL
is actually out of compliance, how we would handle those types of
situations.

	So to turn your attention to the Draft Summary on NRTL Independence,
this is basically providing a high-level overview of what we are
considering in terms of clarifying our policy.  So what it does is it
lays out some of the types of situations in which an NRTL would be out
of compliance, and you can see that towards the bottom of the sheet
that's A through F.  That's what we are proposing.

	It goes on to discuss our ability under certain circumstances to impose
conditions that would allow an NRTL to stay in compliance and maintain
their recognition even when one of these situations may exist.  It
references our Independence Worksheet and talks about what it does and
when the NRTLs would need to complete that.  So that's the summary in a
nutshell.

	So to move on to the Independent Worksheet, which is really the big
item here, this is something that we are considering.  It is just a
proposal at this stage, so we would really encourage your feedback on
it.

	What the Independence Worksheet would do is it would assess each NRTL's
compliance with the NRTL independent requirement.  It actually provides
some additional guidance on the process we are considering for each of
those situations that we have identified in the Draft Summary for when
an NRTL does not comply, and really what it does is it's a
question-and-answer-type approach that we are taking.  So we would ask
questions about your ownership structure, and then you would be required
to respond.  You may be required to provide information and then verify
that information.

	Based on your answers, you would be directed to additional questions. 
You may be asked to provide additional information, as well, and what
these questions do is they track the nonconforming situations that are
identified in that summary, and I know you are all seeing this for the
first time, so...

	And then, so as you go through the questions, based on your responses,
what it should do for you is it should help you identify when you have a
situation that does not comply with the NRTL independence requirement.

	So for nonconforming situations, as I said, you should know when you
have a nonconforming situation as you are walking yourself through that
worksheet for the most part, and then what it does is it directs you to
what we have labeled as "outcomes," and there are currently four
outcomes.  This is an area that we are still working on.

	And it does that based on the particular type of nonconforming
situation that's at issue, and they were sort of broken down a bit.  If
people would like some clarification about how they are broken down, I
can absolutely do that for you.

	In terms of what would happen, if there is a nonconforming situation,
what we are proposing is that once you finish the worksheet, the NRTLs
would actually propose a resolution to that nonconforming situation, and
you would submit that to us with the worksheet.  It would all be one
package.

	We just wanted to give the NRTLs room to come up with their own ways to
resolve a situation, propose their own types of conditions, and then we
would meet with you, have a discussion.  So you are not alone in the
process.  We are there to help you along the way, but we wanted to give
you all that opportunity up front.

	We would also want -- we are thinking about having the NRTLs also
provide with that resolution.  We would also need to know how OSHA could
monitor that situation, and so how it could monitor your resolution, any
conditions that are imposed, and that's a really important aspect of
dealing with any sort of nonconforming situation.

	As I said, we would ask you all to submit this as part of the
worksheet.  It would be one big packet, and then we would process it
from there and meet with you all, and then NRTLs would have an
opportunity to make changes and sort of work with us to come up with a
resolution.

	In terms of process and when NRTLs would be expected to complete this
worksheet, if you were planning for initial recognition, you would need
to complete the worksheet.

	Previously, we were doing independence as part of renewals.  We are
considering changing that process and actually incorporating this as
part of audits, and that [Name] may be explaining that in a little more
detail than I'm going to do right now.  

	And we would also expect the NRTLs to use this to monitor their own
situation.  So when there are changes in your organization, we would
hope that you would complete this and use it as a guide, so you can
alert us when there is a nonconforming situation, and then we can work
together to resolve it.

	I know I went over a lot very quickly, but I know it's a big topic, and
I wanted to give everybody an opportunity to provide comments and
feedback.  And I can clarify anything that I brought up, so...

	[Moderator]:  So what [Name] has just invited is questions for
clarification versus questions to challenge.  I think you know the
difference, right?  Okay.

	Need a minute?

	[NRTL Stakeholder].

	[NRTL Stakeholder]:  [NRTL Stakeholder], [NRTL Association].

	[OSHA Staff], I have a question on the independence.  I can recall for
the last couple of years, we have been sending information from
approvals to demonstrate our independence with other companies and
customers and so forth, and I'm wondering, was that information used to
develop this form here, or was it for our 5-year renewal and that we're
already recognized as a NRTL?  Are we going to have to fill out this
going in the future, or is it just going to be at the 5-year or for new
agencies applying to be a NRTL?

	[OSHA Staff]:  So the information that you submitted before, that was
part of renewals, and that process is we are still reviewing that
information.  We are finishing that up right now, and that will be
something separate.

	This is our idea for going forward.  This is what we are proposing as
something new.  So we wouldn't be doing that same process as before. 
The way that process sort of informed this one is, as I'm sure you're
all aware, it took us a very long time -- it is taking us a very long
time to process that information, because there was a lot of
back-and-forth, and it was unclear about what types of information
people needed to provide.

	And we're hoping our idea that perhaps having a worksheet could sort of
speed up that process, and that's kind of how it informed this, but the
two would be separate.  This is what we are proposing for going forward,
if that makes sense.  Does that answer your --

	[OSHA Staff]:  And I think to answer the other part of your question is
that, as [OSHA Staff] mentioned, it's going to be tied to the audit
process.  So at some point during your 5-year, 5 years' worth of audits,
one of the issues that would be asked would be say, okay, you are going
to need to do your independence review, and so it won't necessarily be
scheduled.  You will be told well in advance when this is going to
happen, and then again, as [OSHA Staff] mentioned, it's also -- our hope
is to get this tool, is that you would take a look at any changes that
you might be considering with your organization and be able to evaluate
what our analysis of it would be, and then if you looked at the -- our
goal with the outcome is that if -- with the worksheet and the outcomes
in the back is that you could actually work within your own organization
with a consultant and reasonably expected to come up with the same
conclusions that we would.

	[Moderator]:  Does that answer your question?  Okay.

	Anyone else with a comment or question for clarification?

	Yes, [NRTL Stakeholder].

	[NRTL STAKEHOLDER]:  [NRTL Stakeholder], [NRTL Association].

	First off, I just wanted to thank OSHA for holding this meeting.  We
are very excited to be able to participate and look forward to the
changes that we're seeing.

	My question is regarding monitoring of noncompliant situations.  It
seems that with OSHA's limited resources, there's a lot of different
ways that we could look at monitoring those situations, whether it's
providing you data that we've collected ourselves or having a third
party collect data.

	What I'm wondering is, does OSHA have an idea of what they'd be
expecting to see as far as these monitoring reports go?  Would it be
appropriate to provide data ourselves?  Should we be having a third
party monitor it?

	And I guess, as you have maybe multiple NRTLs in similar situations,
would it make sense to coordinate them to provide similar solutions to
allow you guys to monitor more effectively similar cases?

	[OSHA Staff]:  I think one of the things, our concept is here is there
needs to be some sort of independent validation, and in the past, we had
taken it on ourselves.  But I don't have the resources to do that, and
some of the company organizations are very large, and trying to chase
down those resources can be very challenging.

	Basically, if you were to make a recommendation, it has to be zero cost
to OSHA.  I cannot take on any more resource commitments.  So it would
have to be some way to independently verify whatever you came up with,
without us taking on any more costs, and so that's kind of our concept.

	[Moderator]:  So, given that answer, do you have a recommendation?

	[NRTL Stakeholder]:  Well, certainly, there are other organizations
even within the U.S. Government that perform independence analysis
through simply looking at international standards.  I know I have seen
it as part of possible future topics about harmonization with the
international standards.

	Certainly, I think the FCC may be a good example of how you can use a
third party to review compliance, whether it's technical or independence
or whatever.  So I think there are certainly answers that exist out
there already that are working, but maybe the NRTL program is a little
different.  

	I think that there is enough to draw on that's out there, and I think
there's certainly enough people who have been in this business a long
time to come up with solutions that are mindful and are zero cost to
OSHA, and it's just a matter of figuring out which ones work best.

	[OSHA Staff]:  And kind of our approach is what works best for you and
meets our requirements at the same time, and that's why we were really
avoiding dictating you had to do A, B, C, D.  We wanted you guys to have
the flexibility to come back and say, "This is what works best within
our structure, and if you approve it, then we're both in agreement that
it's an acceptable way of doing it."

	[NRTL STAKEHOLDER]:  Great.  Thank you.

	[Moderator]:  Other comments?  Clarification for sure.  Challenge, put
it nicely.

	[Laughter.]

	[Moderator]:  Okay, your turn.

	[NRTL STAKEHOLDER]:  First, let me apologize.  I can't turn my head
much, so it's not disrespect.  It's doctor's orders.

	I will be very direct.  Independence isn't the issue.  The worksheet
you handed out are the problems we were wrestling with 10 years ago, not
the problems we are wrestling with today.

	Independence was really good in the '80s when these regulations were
written.  Certification bodies were singled legal entities that operated
at a national level.  You verified their independence.  You get what
you're really after, I think, all of us, which is impartiality.  So
there was an equation there of independence equals impartiality that was
true in the 1980s because of the nature of certification bodies that's
not true -- well, hasn't been true for a long time.

	Not that independence isn't important.  Of course, it's important. 
It's just not the story.  What you really want is impartiality.  You
want freedom from bias in the decisions and the testing and the
evaluation of the products, because that's what this whole thing is
based on.  You lose that, it's no good.  Everybody is wasting their
money.  The clients are wasting their money.  OSHA is wasting their
time, and it all folds up, and we all go home.

	What's my basis for saying that it's impartiality that needs to be the
focus instead of independence?  This is exactly the question we wrestled
with in Geneva when we wrote this new standard, ISO/IEC 17065.  There
were a lot of people that had the exact same focus.  We need to write
independence requirements.

	[Testing Industry Stakeholder] was in the room with me.  There are
others who were in the room with me.

	After a couple years of work, we realize we can't write anything about
independence anymore that's really going to assure impartiality.

	So my suggestion to you is take a more fundamental look at what you are
trying to achieve, and at the risk of sounding like a commercial, take a
really good hard look at what 17065 already is going to require us to do
with regard to impartiality.

	What you believed today in the worksheet is a risk assessment tool that
we're already required to implement under 17065.  It's a good one.  I
applaud you.  I'd like to take it back and show it to some folks in my
organization.  It's good.

	But there are dozens and dozens of these risk assessment tools that
we're going to need to implement to satisfy 17065 and protect our
impartiality according to that.

	I just jotted down four different kinds of problems that we face with
impartiality that independence doesn't get at, okay?  And the guys
around the room who work for NRTLs, they know, and where does it come
from?	

	I know.  I'm almost done.

	[Laughter.]

	[NRTL STAKEHOLDER]:  Where does it come from?  It comes from the
demands we get from our clients.  They need more and more and more value
out of what we deliver.  They are pushing us for more and more and more
different kinds of services and bundles of services, and see?  The heads
are shaking, "Yeah, I know," because we all hear it, and that's what
drives us into other business ventures where we need to start to be
careful about our impartiality.

	So it's a much bigger problem.  I'm ready to help you and I think
[Testing Industry Stakeholder] is ready to help you and a lot of people
are ready to help you in maybe exploring 17065 in greater detail to see
how that's a more comprehensive approach, and I think you'd be surprised
at -- maybe some of us around the table would be surprised at exactly
what it is we need to do and how much that could serve you.

	Thanks.

	[OSHA Staff]:  What were the four things you've done?

	[NRTL STAKEHOLDER]:  Sure.

	[Moderator]:  Go for it.

	[NRTL STAKEHOLDER]:  Yeah, I'll be happy.  I jotted them down before
the meeting, and these are examples.  And I'm guessing that most of the
NRTLs around the table are going to say, "I know that one, and I know
who it's from."

	There are demands for marketing services and promotional services we
get from our clients, all the way up to co-branding.  We're completely
independent of our clients, but that leads us to impartiality concerns,
non-conflicting services whose values far exceed the value of the NRTL
services.

	We make $100,000 a year off of an NRTL service to the client, and the
same client delivers us $50 million a year in a different service.  It
doesn't conflict.  It doesn't directly affect our independence, but do
you see the problem that that can create?  You would want to be assured
that the NRTL is aware that that can create an impartiality risk and
what they're doing about it.  Your Independence Worksheet?  You never
get there.

	Competition among NRTLs.  Come on, this has been since early 1990s. 
Clients do what clients do.  God bless them.  They should.  They demand
excellent service, but some clients demand excellent service, and they
want us to do inappropriate things.  And then they start shopping around
until they find an NRTL that will do that, and that can be an
impartiality risk.  You should be assured that we are protecting
ourselves against that, all of us.

	Here's a kicker.  This just came up about a year and a half ago.  Our
delivery of NRTL services in a certain foreign country are regulated by
that government, and they can tell us what to do that contradicts what
you tell us what to do.  Otherwise, we can't deliver the service in that
country. 

	Fair assessment, [Testing Industry Stakeholder]?

	That can be an impartiality risk if they are directing us to do things
that we feel aren't appropriate.  Independent Worksheet will never get
you there.

	These are the issues we are dealing with today, just examples.  I'm
sure the folks around the table, other NRTLs, have other examples.

	So, to be blunt, your requirements are a little out of date.  They are
not matching the challenges that we are really facing today.  I think
17065 is up to date.

	Now, 17065 was written specifically to give folks like you who operate
what 17065 refers to as "schemes."  They give you the ability to add on
any requirements you feel are necessary beyond 17065, and all schemes do
that. 

	Every organization around this table works with dozens and dozens of
schemes.  So if you explore 17065 and you feel it's good, but not quite
enough or even not enough, add on.  Feel free.  Join everybody else. 
They do it.

	[OSHA Staff]:  I think to address your comments, first of all, we are
working with NIST.  We are actually going through the exercise of going
line by line in 17065 and comparing to what we're doing.  Our hope down
the line is to align our independence and impartiality issues with
17065.

	One of the challenges we have now is staying within the confines of the
rule.  Now, that doesn't mean that in the future, we can't address
rulemaking, and I'm going to talk more about both harmonization and
about rulemaking later on in the course of discussion, but I think you
brought up some really important points, and those are things that we
are actually looking at, and those are the things that -- I'm glad you
volunteered it, because we are going to be coming back to all of you for
asking the really tough questions.  And we will be sending out -- we
hope to send out questionnaires, and again, I will talk more about that,
but you are absolutely right.

	But I think everybody needs to understand that rulemaking takes a long
time, and we have to stay within the process of the rules that exist
today and still try to incorporate as much flexibility as we can without
going beyond the boundaries of the rule, and that's really what we are
trying to do.

	We realize these problems, and the reality is we think that -- and what
we hope this will do is stimulate the after-talk, stimulate the
discussions that are going to come about the future and some of the more
challenging issues, and that was really what we really wanted, to make
sure that we're able to stimulate with this, this meaning today also.

	[Moderator]:  How about other comments?  Are there comments on what
[Name] said, although not just "me too," but more than that if you can
do that, or other comments for OSHA?

	[OSHA Staff]:  Well, I would like to just sort of maybe challenge [OSHA
Staff] a bit.

	Given what you articulated and then sort of the parameters that [OSHA
Staff] just outlined, if -- I mean, you don't have to do it right now,
but if you could think about and maybe get to us comments later about --
if rulemaking is really the thing that is going to do to get yours, are
there interim steps we can take that still address some of the
impartiality issues which you are driving at and still let us figure out
some interim things we can do prior to trying to move down a regulatory
path, if that's what we determine we need to do. 

	So it might be sort of a hybrid of what [OSHA Staff] is doing or has
articulated and sort of what you see as maybe the ultimate solution.  If
you can think about -- and anybody around the table or out in the
audience, if you can think of sort of some alternative options for us to
work with the policies that we currently have, because [OSHA Staff] is
absolutely right.  Changing policy and directives is a lot easier than
regulation, and I've spent 27 years doing rules, so I know how hard they
are to get through.  So that would just be what I'd want people to sort
of think.

	Just because you are here, the other thing is you don't have to get all
your comments in today.  Even though we have a Federal Register Notice
out there, there is nothing that stops you from giving us e-mails,
whatever kinds of suggestions you have.  We're in the listening mode for
the long term here.

	[Moderator]:  Anybody else before [NRTL Stakeholder]?  I mean, just to
be fair.

	[NRTL STAKEHOLDER]:  No, absolutely.

	[Moderator]:  Is this going to be The [NRTL Stakeholder] Show?

	[Laughter.]

	[OSHA Staff]:  I think everybody else is just like great with our
stuff, or not?  The silence --

	[Moderator]:  It is going to be a very short meeting.

	Okay.  [NRTL Stakeholder], speak.

	[NRTL Stakeholder]:  Well, here is an idea.  Your directive right now
references Guide 65.  As a matter of fact, it specifically invokes every
single Guide 65 clause, except 15, and you can tell in my
day-in-and-day-out work, I do this.

	[Moderator]:  Can you say what 15 is?

	[NRTL Stakeholder]:  Sure.  Section 15 in Guide 65 is a requirement
about complaints to suppliers and the fact that the CB has to require
the supplier, the manufacturer, to keep records about the complaints of
their products, and Section 15 also requires the CB to decide when it's
going to look at those complaints and information.  So that's -- for
whatever reason, that one clause in Guide 65 is not referenced in the
directive, but all the other Guide 65 clauses are.

	Now, I mention Guide 65 because that's the document that 17065 is
replacing.  So it seems to me, you have an opportunity to really
incorporate 17065 by reference based on your precedent over
incorporating Guide 65 by reference.  What that gives you is it gives
you the assurance of all -- you are going to sweep in all the 17065
requirements through that reference.

	An idea to explore is -- and you have already kind of alluded to it,
and it's been referred to here by my colleague, is what do you want to
see from the NRTLs about 17065 compliance that doesn't cost you
anything.  Okay, come on.  Now, there's only a finite number of answers,
and we know what most of them are.

	That doesn't require a rule change, and I don't think it's out of line
with your program and the way that you've used Guide 65 in the past. 
It's a way for you to get all that good 17065 compliance that would work
for you without rulemaking or really without a significant change in
your program.

	The key element is who is going to assess the NRTLs for compliance with
17065.  I think you need to open yourself up to some other options other
than you doing it yourself, because that's not a zero-cost solution.

	[OSHA Staff]:  And we are going to talk about that.

	[NRTL STAKEHOLDER]:  I figured you might.

	[Laughter.]

	[Moderator]:  So this may -- I think I may already know the answer to
this question, but is there anyone who has a different perspective on
this discussion or the worksheet or something else or additional
comments?

	[OSHA Staff]:  Does anyone have issues with his suggestion?

	[OSHA Staff]:  I think I just want to kind of close up some of the
stuff to kind of get everybody kind of in the mindset of what our path
going forward is, what we're working on doing.

	As I mentioned, we're coming out, we're working on an Interim Guide. 
This is going to address the most critical things that we can address. 
Then we are going to keep -- you know, as [OSHA Staff] said, we are
going to continually solicit information from you.  You will see us at
the ACES conferences.  You will see us at the [Testing Industry
Association] meetings.  You will see us wherever there is a chance to
solicit dialog between your needs and our program.

	We may even do some more formal stuff, and we'll talk about that in a
moment, but our goal down the line is -- as soon as we get the Interim
Guide out is to start working on a complete directive that will
incorporate as much as we can without going into rulemaking.

	The decision for rulemaking, no decision has been made, and it is going
to be based upon a lot about what you feed us.  If you don't feed us
anything, then we're happy with the rule.  If you feed us something that
makes challenges, that's challenging your business that you think needs
more flexibility, then that's when we'll explore it. 

	So we want to make sure that you guys keep that mindset on that this is
a continuous process, that we're not going to just do this Interim Guide
and then we're doing.  We are going to work at finishing the directive
right after that and start handling some of the more difficult issues,
like harmonization with 17025 and 17065 and those things, and we'll talk
more about that in a moment.

	[Moderator]:  Anything more on the independence issue, as [OSHA Staff]
presented it?  Going once, going twice.

	[No audible response.]

	[Moderator]:  Okay.  Then the application processing, [NRTL
Stakeholder] is going to --

	[OSHA Staff]:  I'm sorry.  As [OSHA Staff] is coming up, I just want to
put in, please take a look at the worksheet.  Take it apart.  Really
give it a hard, hard look, and apply it to your situation.

	If you find that it's going to create problems for you or if you find
issues with what we're asking or if you find something that's your
situation that's not on there, but you still have questions about your
situation, please let us know.  This is just nothing more than an
information gathering tool to help us facilitate the process, and the
better it is, the better it captures the way you guys are set up and
incorporates as much of what [NRTL Stakeholder] talked about in it, the
better off we are going to be, and we will have a tool that functions
both for us but also something that you can utilize in keeping track of
what your status is.

	[Moderator]:  [OSHA Staff]

Issue 2:  Application Processing

	[OSHA Staff]:  Well, good morning.  My name is [OSHA Staff].  I'm an
electrical engineer with the program, and while my main job is to
process applications, although I do a number of other things too.

	What I'm going to do, of course, is introduce the topic now.  We posted
the timelines and the summary on the web, and you can take a look at the
summary.  What I'm going to do is to highlight the differences between
what we are proposing and what we currently do.

	[Moderator]:  Is there material in their folder they should go to?

	[OSHA Staff]:  Yeah.  There's a summary.  It's titled "Draft Initial
and Expansion Application Processing Summary."

	[OSHA Staff]:  Are there timesheets in there too?

	[OSHA Staff]:  Timelines.

	[OSHA Staff]:  We also included the timelines that actually break down,
section by section, what we are doing, and those were not on the web. 
Those are just first coming out today.

	Everything that we are introducing today will be on the web, or it
either went on last night or it will be on today sometime.

	[Moderator]:  So one is marked Draft Initial and the other, Draft
Expansion?

	[OSHA Staff]:  Correct.

	[OSHA Staff]:  Yes.

	Our process is really driven by our regulations.  We break it down into
three phases:  the application review phase, on-site review phase is the
second, and the third is the final evaluation or final notice and
evaluation.

	The application review phase has been the phase where the length of
time for processing has been the longest, and that was the focus of the
GAO report, of course, is the amount of time that it has taken us to
process applications.

	But that's basically our constraints.  The regulations basically break
down our process into those three phases.  The first phase, of course,
application review, we take a look to see whether or not the applicant
has addressed our evaluation criteria appropriately, correctly and
adequately, and whether or not the application is complete.

	We do what we call a preliminary or -- excuse me -- a limited review
when we get an application to determine if it's complete, and we make
basically a basic determination about adequacy too.  If the information
is insufficient, even though you may have in the documents, in your
applications, but if it appears to be insufficient, we might not
consider that to be adequate.

	So during this limited review, we will determine whether or not to
continue and od a full review or to return the application.

	We are proposing a slight change, and I will go over that in a minute.

	After we do the full review, if we find out there is deficiencies, we
will write back to the applicant, and we will give them an opportunity
to correct those deficiencies.  When the response comes back, depending
on what the applicant has done, we will take a look to see whether or
not they adequately addressed all the deficiencies.

	What's happened with some recent applications is, since the initial
application had major deficiencies, the response comes back with a
completely revised application, basically a new application again.  So
it's basically doubling the time that it takes us to process, and if we
find major deficiencies at that point, we give the applicant one more
opportunity, but a limited opportunity to revise their application. So
that's what the current scheme is.

	If you look at the initial application draft timeline, what we have
done or we are proposing to do -- or this is our idea at this point, is
that when we get in an application and we'll do what we call an
administrative review, that is basically to determine if the application
is complete, has all the information been submitted.

	Now, one of the things we're not touching on today, but we will -- I
will get your input on in the future -- is the documentation that needs
to be submitted, the requirements that we have for documentation, for
application, as well as our evaluation method that we are using.

	We are talking about aligning our criteria with 17065 and 17025, and
some of the things that we're asking for in terms of documentation for
applications might change.  And we'll get your input on that in the
future, but that is not the topic of this presentation or this topic
today, not the subject of this topic.

	After we do the administrative review, if we find out the application
is deficient significantly, well, basically we plan to return the
application or reject it.

	If it is complete, the next step would be to do the independence audit,
which [OSHA Staff] has talked about.

	During that point, if we find that there's an issue with independence,
we'll give the applicant an opportunity to address it.  If they can,
then we'll go on to the next step of our process.  If they are not able
to address the independence issue adequately, then we will also reject
or return the application.

	The next step is to do the full review.  Currently, as I mentioned
before, we'll do a full review, and then we get to opportunities, but
our idea at this point is after we do the initial application review,
full review, if we find there's major deficiencies, we would basically
return the application rather than going on to an extended set of
opportunities.

	If we find that there are not major deficiencies, but they are
basically minor in nature, then we will give the applicant an
opportunity to correct them.  And that's our thought at this point.

	I think there's good reason for that too, because what we found in the
past is when you have major deficiencies in the application, in the very
initial part of it, it's a very clear indication that the applicant has
not understood the requirements adequately or does not have all of the
capability that is necessary in order for them to meet our requirements.
 So we're trying to reduce the amount of back-and-forth, back-and-forth
we have with applications, which really has consumed a large, large
chunk of the time that it takes to process applications.

	Once we go through, if it is generally minor in nature, we will give
the opportunity to correct those, and then we will take a look at the
responses.  If it appears like they have adequately addressed all the
deficiencies, then we'll go on to the next phase.  So all this point,
I've just been talking about the application review phase of the
process.

	We do have some time frames that we are -- targeted time frames, but we
are going to do our best to try to adhere to those time frames when we
are processing applications.  Of course, some things may get in the way,
but anyways, we do have these targeted time frames, and we believe they
are fairly realistic, as long as we can -- as long as the workload and I
suppose other things that may come into the picture while we're doing
our application review doesn't interfere.

	Now, there is the expansion timeline too.  If you look at the expansion
timeline and the initial application timeline, the only thing that
really differs is the fact that under the initial, we do the
independence audit.  Other than that -- and the time frames involved --
the application review phase is the same between both.

	The next part or the next two phases, basically there is no major
changes that we are envisioning at this point in either of those two
phases.  The only difference between the initial and the expansion
application process is that for expansion, sometimes we don't do an
on-site review.  We don't go do the actual audit.  If we can determine
that the lab has comparable capability in its scope already, then
basically we will just do an office determination and won't go on site. 
So that reduces the amount of time overall for that process.

	And the last part again is basically the same.  The only difference
between the initial and the expansion time frame is the comment period
that we allow for, and we are required to publish two public notices. 
And the comment for the initial application is 30, and for the
expansion, it's 15.

	So that in a nutshell is what we are -- in terms of the differences is
what we are proposing at this point.

	In the summary, there is some information that we are providing about
the fees, as to what we are going to do when we reject application, how
much fees we would reject, but I tell you that the fees is something
that we'll be taking a look at.  And more than likely, we'll be
proposing some changes to that as we make changes to the process, since
the fees will be tied to the process that we'll be using for
applications.

	[Moderator]:  I need to introduce a process point.  I'm just realizing
that the people who are listening in are having a little bit of trouble
hearing sometimes.  So we really need you to do two things.  One is say
your name, because, of course, they don't know who it is, and the other
is really speak very directly into the microphone.  They just requested
it of [OSHA Staff], so forgetting that it's not just people in the room
who can hear.  I need to remind you about that, and myself.

	So comments or questions for clarification -- you've done great on that
-- for [OSHA Staff]?

	Yes.

	[Testing Industry STAKEHOLDER]:  Hi, [OSHA Staff]. This is [Testing
Industry Stakeholder] with [Testing Industry Association].  I've got two
questions, if I may.

	The first one would be to the OSHA folks, based especially on [NRTL
Stakeholder]'s earlier comments about impartiality and independence.  I
am very curious why, with the exception of simple scope of recognition
expansions, why during the renewals it sounds like you would not be
doing the independence audit as well.

	[OSHA Staff]:  During the renewals, do you want to --

	[OSHA Staff]:  This is [OSHA Staff] speaking.

	We are going to talk more about renewals in the next topic, and we are
going to discuss some of the flexibility we're trying to get in
renewals.

	But to wrap it up real quick, we are looking at kind of a running
renewal process that's tied directly to audits, and that's why the
independence is going to be tied to the audit process instead of tying
to a separate renewal process.

	Some of you guys have been getting continuations on your renewals every
year, because you haven't gotten a formal renewal process.  That's going
to end.  We are going to have a very -- a much more simplified renewal
process that will facilitate you guys knowing what your status is very
quickly.  Most of you have been in the program for a very long time, and
so there's no need in playing games with the renewal process.  And
again, we'll talk about that more when we get to the renewals.

	But to go back to what you're saying, the renewal process is no longer
part of -- you know, before, we would see renewals tied to the initial
application, the expansion, then you'd see renewals.  Think of renewals
as part of the audit process, and so therefore the independence is going
to be tied in with that, that process.

	I think it will clarify it as we get to the next topic.  You will see
much more how it works.

	And there's something I wanted to add to what [OSHA Staff] said also. 
As we go through this process, one of the things that we -- some
comments we got back after the last time we attended an ACES conference
was to improve our communications with you.  It's that you didn't want
to wait until you got a formal letter from [OSHA Staff] saying it didn't
work.

	So you are going to hear us talking to you a lot more.  At the end of
every phase, you will get a phone call.  We will e-mail you, and we will
call you.  At some point, we hope to get a website up that actually
gives you real-time tracking of it, but the funds aren't there for that
yet.

	We will communicate at each phase, and we are proposing that we
increase our dialog.  So if there is something that we are missing,
like, "Hey, do you got this test data sheet?" and you can e-mail it to
us right then, it's not going to get to that technical review all the
way down to having to do the formal letter.  Wherever we can facilitate
those simple things, we are going to facilitate it through the process. 
That's what you guys asked for, and I think that would be easy for us to
do.

	If you can't facilitate it when we ask for it short term, that's when
we will go into the formal timeline piece and start holding -- and we
are going to hold you to those timelines.  That is one of the key things
on here.

	So pretty much, unless there's a Hurricane Sandy coming into your lab
facilities, we are going to be very inflexible with continuous
extensions onto the process.  That is what we intend to include as part
of this proposal.

	[Moderator]:  Does that get you close?

	[Testing Industry Stakeholder]:  The second question I was going to
ask, the second question would be more directed, I guess, toward the
NRTLs sitting around the table.

	I know most of your names, if not most of your faces, and you guys are
all accredited certification bodies, testing laboratories, between
either [Testing Industry Stakeholder] and [Testing Industry
Association], ourselves and [Testing Industry Association], or any of
the other various accrediting bodies here in the states.

	The times I'm seeing here and comments I've heard in passing over the
past few years indicate that even these proposed timelines seem to be
longer than what the accreditation bodies can do.

	I don't know if any of the NRTLs want to make additional comments on
that or if you guys want to touch on what the ABs can offer for
turnarounds for the NRTLs later.  That's also an option.  But as an AB,
I can speak and say I think we can make these turnaround times a lot
faster.

	[Moderator]:  Okay.  Two people out their name tents up before that
question, and then somebody came in afterwards.  So let's hear from them
in that order, and then anybody who wants to respond can do so.

	[Trade Association Stakeholder].

	[Trade Association Stakeholder]:  Thank you.  [Trade Association
Stakeholder].  I'm representing [Testing Industry Association]. 
[Testing Industry Association] is the trade association which many of
the NRTLs are members around the table.  That's [NRTL Association],
Intertek, UL, CSA, TUV, SGS, and BV.

	My question has to do with something that constantly is a thorn in our
side and holds us up, and that's a double register notice.

	You mentioned, [OSHA Staff], that there is a comment period of 30 days
for initial and then 15 days for the expansion.  Some of the register
problems are clearly not within your control, and it lands in the
Solicitor's Office.  It takes a significantly long time to get those
notices published to begin with.  Many times, there's no comments that
come in, and we still have to re-wait again for the second notice.

	So is there anything that you can do to improve that situation?

	[OSHA Staff]:  Lawyer question.

	[Solicitor of Labor Staff]:  You know, the Department has an internal
review process, and the Solicitor's Office is part of that.  We work
very closely with the client to ensure we get it -- that the notices are
put out as quickly as possible, but also to make sure that they are
legally correct.

	I know I am not really answering your question, but those are all legal
responsibilities here.

	[OSHA Staff]:  I just would like to suggest, when you guys are asking
questions, what we'd try to say, if you're going to ask the question and
you're saying you're trying to allude to maybe a potential problem we
have, could you also maybe offer a solution?  What would you see us do
differently, or what could we consider differently?

	You suggested that accreditation organizations could do it better. 
What is your proposed solution?  Should we go down a different path?  If
the Federal Register -- are there different ways you think might be
better for us to consider?  Obviously, we have legal frameworks we have
to work within, but if you have some other things that could maybe be a
potential consideration, we would be interested in what your proposals
are, so...

	Now, I'm not trying to cut off your question, because it seems like
we're doing a lot of explanation.  We want to clarify, so that you can
give us better information.  We don't want to spend a lot of our time
saying why we're slow on Federal Registers, not that that's not
something we need to improve on, so any suggestions could be --

	[Moderator]:  Right.  What I heard was the beginning of a
recommendation, speed up the process.

	[Trade Association Stakeholder]:  What's the point of a double Register
notice?

	[Solicitor of Labor Staff]:  We have to make sure the public is given
an opportunity to comment.  So there's an initial decision, and then,
you know, the public has to comment on whether it agrees with our
initial decision or disagrees.  Then we have to issue a final decision,
which takes into account all the public comments.

	[Trade Association Stakeholder]:  Okay.  And so my point is that it is
extremely rare that any public comments come in, but that does not
improve the turnaround on the second notice.  So it would seem to make
sense to me that if there are no public comments on the OSHA
recommendation in the first notice, that immediately it would be
released as the final.

	[OSHA Staff]:  You are referring to direct final, and we are looking at
-- again, we are bound by the rules, and we are trying to look at the
flexibility of what's in the rule.  And we have talked with SOL on
several occasions about the possibility of doing that, and it is
something that we're investigating.  It frustrates us, because we have
to write those.  

	Yeah.  I mean, I understand what you're talking about, and we are
looking at to whatever bounds we can, and if we can't do it within the
boundaries of the rule now, then maybe that's something as we solicit
more information that you guys can really get -- drive home some more
ideas.

	[Moderator]:  Okay, new ground rule.  If you are asking a question
about a problem, tell us what it is you think would make that better. 
There we go.

	[Testing Industry Stakeholder].

	[Testing Industry Stakeholder]:  Thank you.  [Testing Industry
Stakeholder] [Testing Industry Stakeholder] with [Testing Industry
Association].

	After I went through this process for initial application and your
presentation, I think you follow all the requirements that are in 17011
that is a standard that defines the requirements for the accreditation
bodies.  I know that you are not accreditation body, but you act as an
accreditation body.

	I would just like to give you some suggestions in terms of to reduce
time on your process for application.  The first point is you need to
have clear requirements for your clients, and  you have guidance for
them as well.

	At [Testing Industry Association], we have experience that we deal with
CBs that they have one office and CBs that have 45 offices outside the
U.S.

	So my suggestion is -- we had this problem at the [Testing Industry
Association] that you are having now, like 5, 6 years ago, and the
solution that we had was a platform, that with that platform, we
increased the communication with our clients.  They have opportunity for
us to put the comments, regard their applications, and how they need to
upload their documents.

	I think if you use some IT solutions for this activity, you are going
to reduce 50 percent in this time here, because today, this CB is out
there.  They want to be accredited, and I'm talking about when they go
through [Testing Industry Association] process, and they have demands
for that.

	More clear requirements you give for them, it's easier for your part,
because you are going to have the documents that you needed.

	Thank you.

	[Moderator]:  Thank you.

	[NRTL Stakeholder].

	[NRTL Stakeholder]:  [NRTL Stakeholder], [NRTL Association].

	With these timelines that you are going to adhere to, I really didn't
hear anything in the background of what -- this is a question -- what is
going to be done in the background to really -- to ensure that these
timelines are met.  I really didn't hear anything of any substance
behind that.  If you could expand on that, please?

	[Moderator]:  Remember, if you have any suggestions?

	[NRTL Stakeholder]:  It's, more or less, a question.

	[Laughter.]

	[OSHA Staff]:  I think that one of the key things that we're going to
do, if you start -- I went back and looked at the history of the length
of times, and we keep track of whatever process we go through.

	And one of the things that I saw was, on the average, it's multiple
turnarounds between the NRTL and OSHA.

	Two things that we're going to do.  First of all, we want to make sure
we clarify.  A lot of the guidance -- some of the challenges that people
find is that the guidance had come out in various FRN notices associated
with recognizing expansions and other things.  Well, we're consolidating
all that.  So the guidance would be in one place.  So you're not going
to have to go searching through all these Federal Register Notices to
find specific guidance.  That should reduce some of that turnaround
time.

	The other thing that we would do, we have shortened the lengths of the
response periods significantly, and we have limited it to one.  In the
past, there was multiple, and if someone asked for another one and while
they're out there, "Well, we've been really busy.  Can we extend this
for another 6 weeks, 8 weeks, 10 weeks?" the answer is going to be no.

	A lot of times, we kind of take all the heat for it, but to be honest
with you, a lot of it is back in your court too, because you're busy
too.

	There are issues, though, with just this simple solution.  If you got
left here today and then all of you sent us an application and said, "We
want to do these 25 expansions," guess what?  We are going to be right
almost back where we were today, because we still only have four people
and a fifth person starting in 2 weeks.  So we still are limited by our
resources.

	Now, I heard some of you folks talk about -- particular [Testing
Industry Association] and [Testing Industry Association] talk about the
fast turnarounds.  Well, one of the things that's different than what
you guys do and we do is we do a very detailed technical evaluation of
the actual test standards themselves.  Every single test standard gets
reviewed, and the technical capability gets reviewed in detail.  That's
the biggest challenge that we have.

	So when you have lots and lots and lots of test standards on there, it
makes it even more so, more challenging, and verifying that you have the
right equipment, you know, right now we say you have to have the right
equipment, a management system to manage the test.  You have to have the
qualified people and test procedures to do it, and we look at all four
of those things in detail.  That's why I have electrical engineers on
staff.

	Our biggest challenge has been getting electrical engineers.  We have
solicited three times already, and we can't get electrical engineers
that have the qualifications to evaluate on whether these processes are
out there.

	We are looking at some of the third-party solutions, and we'll talk
about that in a moment, but we're still challenged.

	So the short answer, in the near term, there's not -- except beyond
adhering real tightly to the guidelines and clarifying our guidance,
you're probably not going to see a lot of immediate stuff that is going
to validate it.

	We are looking at things, as you talked about, IT solutions.  Again,
during sequestration and some of the things that we're looking at, we're
looking at getting the money.  It's going to take money to develop this
stuff.

	I would love to see it where you guys could apply something directly
online, and that it would go through the process, and you'd have
real-time feedback, and that we could get this more dynamic.  That is a
goal of ours.  We are not there yet, and it's not going to happen
overnight.

	Some of the things we're talking now, the reality is behind writing it
into the directive, this process, we're already trying to hold you as
tightly as we can to these pieces that we have shown.  If you have a
pending request, we are still a little bit flexible, but after today,
you submit a new request, we are going to try to hold you to those
timelines.  So that's kind of a long answer to your question, but --

	[NRTL Stakeholder]:  If I can just make one suggestion, is instead of
during the application phase, doing these details technical reviews
during the application phase, is to follow up on these technical --
these detailed technical requirements during the on-site assessments. 
This way, you could process these applications much quicker, and it
could be validated during the on-site assessment if you are current on
your on-site assessments.  That would be my suggestion to alleviate
these long timelines on these application phase.

	Just a general comment -- and I second that of [Testing Industry
Association]'s -- is these are still significantly long timelines that
you're proposing.  So that would be my suggestion.

	[Moderator]:  Thank you.

	[NRTL Stakeholder].

	[NRTL Stakeholder]:  Thank you.  [NRTL Stakeholder] with [NRTL
Association].

	All of these comments are relevant.  Regarding the application process
for expansion, inside expansions, I think the proposed changes are good.
 I mean, it's definitely going to slim things down.

	What I'm afraid or what I'm hearing is that for a number of reasons, it
still could be the same process.  So I would implore the acceptance of
having other outside agencies do the accreditations, certainly to
maintain all of the rules and regulations and everything that you need. 
I'm sure that [Testing Industry Association] audits or whatnot could
incorporate additional technical requirements or whatever that has to
happen to satisfy OSHA requirements.  So we would like to do anything
that we can to reduce the time frame, even from the proposed times.

	But now my question is, even with these proposed timelines, what is the
timeline for introducing these timelines?

	[Laughter.]

	[OSHA Staff]:  For implementing them?

	[NRTL Stakeholder]:  For making the changes.

	[OSHA Staff]:  For getting them in writing?

	[NRTL Stakeholder]:  Actually being able to do it, yes.

	[OSHA Staff]:  For getting them in writing, I can't give you an exact
date.

	Our targeting to get it through, to getting it to the Federal Register
process is going to be sometime this summer.

	As most of you know or some of you may know, the Paperwork Reduction
Act requires any forms that we would include to go through OMB review. 
So that's something that could delay this, because there are forms in
here.

	We think the forms will facilitate things faster for us, and that way,
we won't have to keep asking you for administrative information, but it
could delay some of this.	

	As far as trying to hold you to the timelines, I'd love to do it
starting tomorrow.

	[Moderator]:  Okay.  [NRTL Stakeholder] and then [NRTL Stakeholder],
and then we will go back to [NRTL Stakeholder] who has some
recommendations on his earlier set of questions.

	[NRTL Stakeholder]?

	[NRTL Stakeholder]:  Well, I'm cognizant of what [OSHA Staff] said
about how the discussion of what we submit for application expansions is
going to be a future topic, but I want to agree wholeheartedly with my
colleague from [NRTL Association].

	At some point, you can't review everything, and you've got to go to
auditing and sampling.  That is a choice that you guys need to make for
the NRTL program.  It is a level-of-control issue.  That is really what
it boils down to.

	Frankly, nobody expects the amount of detailed information on
applications or scope expansions that I work with that comes anywhere
close to what you guys want.

	Now, it doesn't mean it's wrong, okay?  It just means that's a way
higher level of control than other agencies we work with or looking for.
 The approach other agencies take is in an application -- generically,
in an application, they want to see some evidence that we are committed
to fulfilling the requirements we have, either process, procedure, or
records in place to fulfill those requirements, and that we're ready and
open for scrutiny.  So we stand up and we pledge, and we say, "You bet. 
That's what we do."

	But we are not required to submit all the details, all the records, all
the test datasheets, all the equipment lists.  That's not part of the
application process.  That comes in and that gets audited, like my
colleague said, during the audit process, and it's not 100 percent. 
It's sampled.  It's an audit.  That's the basic of how accreditation
actually works.

	And it's random, and you reach out to as many different locations and
labs and records and systems as you want, as you think is necessary, but
you don't cover 100 percent.  You audit, and then when you are satisfied
that what we said we'd do, we're actually doing, then you're ready to
move on.  

	So my suggestion is think about the level of control you feel you need.
 I would say benchmark that against what many other federal agencies who
rely on accreditation bodies, private sector accreditation bodies, peer
assessment mechanisms -- there's lots of benchmarking out there that you
can do to see what level of detail these processes get to before they
flip into that audit mode.

	Now, but this is a future topic, as [OSHA Staff] said.  I know it's not
for today.  So I'm just going to kind of put a marker out there that
this is the kind of thing that would be great for that future
discussion, I think.

	[Moderator]:  Thank you.

	[NRTL Stakeholder]?

	[NRTL Stakeholder]:  [NRTL Stakeholder] took most of my comment away
from me, but actually, you were talking about other agencies.  With the
NRTL program, a lot of emphasis is on the technical aspects, but if you
look at the FCC TCB program, there's a lot of technical aspects to that.
 The accreditation bodies make use of third-party or contract staff with
a lot of technical knowledge, and it's very technically intense if
you're a TCB.

	So I highly recommend that OSHA confers with their FCC colleagues and
see how the TCB program worked, because it's near identical to really
what OSHA is doing with the NRTL program and how I think it should go
forward in the future.

	Thank you.

	[Moderator]:  Thank you.

	[Testing Industry Stakeholder], do you want to expand on what was --
that point of question but sort of rephrase it as your proposal, please?

	[Testing Industry Stakeholder]:  Yeah.  I guess -- again, this is
[Testing Industry Stakeholder], [Testing Industry Association].

	I guess, again, the suggestion obviously would be putting forward try
and utilize as best you can the third-party accreditation bodies.  As
Barry and others have brought up, the FCC TCB program is a great
example.

	I know ANSI, A2LA, the other ABs have also been part of Energy Star's
recent revision to their entire program and really a complete overhaul
to it.

	There's another program out there who I will gingerly point you do, if
you're looking for ideas.  I cringe away from it myself, because some of
our assessors have not enjoyed the experience too much, but the OLAC,
IAF, IECEE joint assessments, if you were terribly worried.  But in
terms of actual technical assessors, as Barry and others have mentioned,
we contract all of our assessments out to technical.

	Our minimum consideration of [Testing Industry Association] is for a
person becoming an assessor, you must have 10 years at least for bench
experience in the field you would be assessing.  So anybody doing these
product certifications, anybody doing the electrical engineering,
10-plus years.  Most of our assessors in the TCB are looking at 15 to 20
average, and we have some people who are TCB assessors who I would
venture 25 to 30 years in the field.

	[OSHA Staff]:  I would like to ask you a question on that.  How do you
deal with -- talking about the technical people that are out there and
you are going to go out and contract them, how do you -- a lot of these
contractors are also consultants, and one of the problems that we're
running into, because we've done some informal sampling out there, is
that there's a very limited pool for the NRTL program, and virtually
every one that you guys would contract with are also consultants.  

	So how do you deal with that conflict of interest?

	[Testing Industry Stakeholder]:  [Testing Industry Association], I can
only speak for us.  We have a yearly whistleblower/conflict-of-interest
policy that every single assessor declares any conflicts of interest. 
They do declare any consulting they do.  They are also required to
notify us pretty much immediately if they do take on any new consulting
jobs, so that that assessor would not be assigned to assess that
laboratory, that certification body within -- I believe they are
required a 2-year period of cooling off, so to speak.

	[Moderator]:  [NRTL Stakeholder].

	[NRTL Stakeholder]:  Yes.  I was going to ask, back a couple months
ago, I remember -- [NRTL Stakeholder], [NRTL Association].

	Back a couple of months ago, I remember getting an e-mail, I believe it
was from [OSHA Staff] that was polling the difference in NRTLs about the
other accreditations that might be held.  I don't know if this is going
to be talked about later on, but I was thinking at the time that there
was going to open up the door in terms of looking at the other
accreditations, what you have, and perhaps taking advantage of those
accreditations.

	For instance, the SCC, the TL, they come in every 2 years.  They don't
come in every 2 years.  The IECEX, every 5 years, which is beautiful. 
I'm glad they don't come every year.

	[Laughter.]

	[NRTL Stakeholder]:  But they still send an invoice.  You still pay a
fee in the meantime.

	But with the IECEX, I would expect you not to come in every 5 years,
but they reserve the right to review the audit reports of other
recognized accreditors that come into [NRTL Association].

	And so my suggestion is -- and hopefully, you are looking at that and
take advantage of those type of audits, because like my other colleagues
around here, we get audited to death.  Every month, somebody is coming
in, and it's something you should probably really look into.

	[Moderator]:  [Trade Association Stakeholder].

	[Trade Association Stakeholder]:  Thanks.	

	Are we going to talk a little bit about accreditation now or --

	[OSHA Staff]:  Let me just have a comment on what [NRTL Stakeholder]
said, is that we are looking into it.  The questions that [OSHA Staff]
asked were to kind of informally gather it.

	The main thing that we were trying to find out is are all your labs
accredited or are only part of your labs accredited, because it would be
an additional cost.  We don't want to put something out there that is
going to put an additional cost on you.

	So what we are looking at is if you are already all accredited, how
much of an impact would it be to make accreditation to 17025 and 17065
mandatory, and we will talk more about that harmonization.  We will talk
about how we are going to address those things in the future, but we are
very, very seriously looking at that, and that has been the foundation
to going to third party.

	[Trade Association Stakeholder]:  So that's sort of the crux of my
question, is are we talking about accreditation now, or do you have
another spot on the agenda where you'd prefer those questions.

	[OSHA Staff]:  We are going to talk about it in a few moments after we
talk about the renewal in the auditing process.

	[Trade Association Stakeholder]:  So then I can save my question.

	[Moderator]:  Okay, thanks.

	[Solicitor of Labor Staff]?

	[Solicitor of Labor Staff]:  I just wanted to sort of give a more
direct response to your question before.  In fact, I think OSHA is
already thinking of ways to streamline the timeline between the
preliminary finding and the final finding, and they are going to talk
about it today.  It is already permitted by the regulations. 

	Instead of doing a formal application, they are going to allow the
NRTLs to certify compliance, which should streamline -- and [OSHA Staff]
or [OSHA Staff] or [OSHA Staff] will talk more in depth about this.  But
that should streamline the process.  Would you agree with that?

	[OSHA Staff]:  And talk about renewals.  So for renewals, there won't
be any more Federal Register Notices at all, and we are going to talk
about that.

	[Solicitor of Labor Staff]:  And that would be allowed after the first
renewal.

	[Moderator]:  Are there more comments, suggestions?

	Yes.

	[OSHA Staff]:  We have a few comments from WebEx, if you would like to
address those at this time.

	[Moderator]:  Yes.

	[OSHA Staff]:  First, from [NRTL Stakeholder] with [NRTL Association],
she would like to say thank you for the time frames.  It's a great
start.  But who is held accountable when OSHA does not meet those time
frames?

	[OSHA Staff]:  I am.

	[Laughter.]

	[Moderator]:  Two-word answer.  Perfect.  Keep going.

	[OSHA Staff]:  Okay.  Then we have two comments.  First, [NRTL
Stakeholder] would like to say that using third-party accreditation
bodies would absolve NRTLs from time frame requirements, and we fully
support the comments from TUV Rheinland, TUV SUD, and UL.

	She would also like to say that all aspects of our lab are accredited
to 17025 and 17065, and they are audited yearly to keep those
accreditations current.

	[Moderator]:  Thank you.

	[OSHA Staff]:  The only comment -- I mean, [OSHA Staff] is very nice to
say the buck stops here, but I think my sense is that I'm not in the
business of saying you didn't meet it within 2 days, shame on you.  You
didn't meet it with 2 days.  I think what we're looking at is really
changing a mindset about this process, to take the big chunks of time,
and sort of make fundamental changes in time rather than saying who is
going to be held accountable if something is late for a week.  I just
don't think that's the right focus that I'd want to be on.

	I mean, what we are trying to figure out, are there changes in process
like accreditation that will make big changes in the way we do, such you
get fundamental changes I time and shorten up the process, rather than
saying I'm going to have this point in time and I'm going to like, you
know, give [OSHA Staff] three demerits if he's late.  You know, no means
no, because no doesn't always mean no, and you can't hold everybody
accountable for things that they can't control.

	There are things in the federal government I can't control.  There are
things in your business that you can't always control.  So I think we
need to be flexible a little bit when we talk about who is accountable. 
Let's try to think of constructive ways to make major changes that will
overall I think change the process.  That's what we're really I think
looking at.

	[Moderator]:  Any further comments or questions on this section?

	[OSHA Staff]:  We do have one more comment from WebEx.  It's a long
comment, so I might need to borrow your microphone to read into it,
because I can't write it down that fast.

	Thank you.  This comment is from [Trade Association Stakeholder].  She
says, as you remember, I work with a small technology firm that have
frequent NRTL submissions and certifications.  Further, I serve as the
vice chair for [Trade Association]'s 5VS, low-voltage, surge protective
device section.  An issue that has repeatedly come up relates to NRTL
reciprocity with regard to test data.

	This has been discussed in various forms and applies to all NRTLs in
one form or another.  If two OSHA-certified NRTLs are authorized to test
two and certify a product with the exact same standard, then
theoretically test data from one NRTL should be able to be reviewed for
acceptance by another.

	If as suggested in the future topic summary regarding NRTL factory
inspections, OSHA were to provide some guidelines regarding NRTL test
data review and acceptance, reciprocity, it would be helpful to the
small technology firms, as well as larger firms.

	So I don't know if you want to address that now or if you want to wait.

	[OSHA Staff]:  This is [OSHA Staff].

	Well, we do allow the labs, of course, to accept test data or test
reports from other NRTLs, but we can't require it.  There is nothing in
our regulations at this point that would require acceptance.

	[Moderator]:  If there are no further comments on this section, I am
going to make an executive decision and say that it's 11:30 on the clock
and on my watch and say instead of 10, let's take 15.  We will still be
ahead.  Come back in 15 minutes on your watch, not 20, which would be
quarter of eleven -- no -- quarter of twelve.  Sorry.  What time is it? 
Quarter of twelve.  And that gives you a little bit more time to get up
or go down, because it's right close on the lunch period, and it may
take you a little longer if you want to get something.

	Giddyap.

	[Break.]

	[Moderator]:  Okay, ladies and germs. Victor Borge.  You have to be
real old to remember that.

	We are back.  Thank you for being timely, and if you turned your cell
phone on, please remember to turn it off.

	Okay.  We are at the 11:50 mark on your agenda, in case you are looking
for where we are, and Issue No. 3, which is called Other Issues.

	[OSHA Staff], are you ready?

	[OSHA Staff]:  Sure.  Yes, I am.

	[Moderator]:  Will you speak into the magic mic pretty directly?

	[OSHA Staff]:  I will speak into the magic microphone.

	[Moderator]:  Thank you.

Issue 3:  Other Issues

	[OSHA Staff]:  My name is [OSHA Staff].  I am an electrical engineer
with the NRTL program, and I think I've probably graced most of the NRTL
stores.  A couple of them, I haven't been to yet.

	We are going to start off today talking about our plan for the 5-year
renewal and audit schedule.

	For about the past 15 months, we have been ever-changing the audit
process.  I've started off most of the audits that I've been on saying,
"Let me know your comments," and I've heard several comments.  About 6
months ago, we sort of nailed down the process pretty close.

	But it was with that change in audits that we were able to really move
forward with some ideas for changing how we handle renewals, and our
hope is to reduce the time and scope that is involved with processing
renewal applications.

	As we discussed, I think, before, the current process for renewals
requires NRTLs to submit an application package, detailed documentation,
addressing capability, control programs, independence, and your
complaint handling procedures, and this is all to ensure that the NRTL
still complies with the NRTL program requirements.

	We review all that information to determine if it's adequate.  We then
conduct an on-site assessment, and based on that, the application review
and the on-site assessment, we then will announce our decision to move
forward or deny renewal.  This is very time consuming, as I know you all
know, and it results in many delays.

	The way we are looking to move forward is to really restructure the
audit program, and the audit program then becomes sort of the driver
behind renewals.

	As part of the audit process, we are proposing to conduct desk audits
prior to arriving on site for certain programs, and those would be sort
of a targeted area that we would focus on during that given year.

	We are going to request documentation prior to arriving on site that
would generally come along with the daily audit schedule, and we would
anticipate to get this request for information out about 6 weeks or more
before the audit, provide you with about 4 weeks to compile that
information, send it back to us, which would give us an opportunity to
review that documentation and conduct our desk audit.

	Each on-site assessment would look at core requirements, such as the
testing facilities, test equipment, calibration, quality assurance,
training, and a variety of other areas.  However, we would also look at
some additional requirements that we would not necessarily look at every
year or during every assessment, but things such as records, your
standards process, your listening and labeling procedure, independence,
complaints, and some of the programs that really don't need a lot of
oversight, you know, minor modifications, Program 7, acceptance to CB
certificates and reports, Program 8, and contract services, Program 9,
looking at the detailed process for those.

	At the conclusion of the audit, we will present the final report of
findings to the NRTL, and we will not be issuing any -- or we will not
do any auditing after we leave site.  We will not issue any modified
reports.  We will not be modifying the report unless it's been agreed
upon during the audit, and what I mean by that is during a few audits
that I've done over the past year, we've requested information.  Maybe
it was from a laboratory in China, or we requested it at three o'clock
on the last day.  We weren't able to get the information right then and
there.  I would say, "I want to see this information by close of
business Friday or close of business next Tuesday, whatever the case may
be, some very short time frame, provide that information to us.  We
would review that, that supplemental information that you provided to
us, and then update as necessary the report.  That would be the only
exception when we would modify the report after we walk out the door.

	This will hopefully speed up that process, and you guys know exactly
where you stand when we walk out.

	As far as renewals are concerned, with this process, because we are
going to be looking at your entire program over the course of the 5-year
renewal cycle, the renewal application is mostly administrative.  We
request an administrative information, contact information, very similar
to -- I believe it's part one of the current application, name, address,
website information, who our primary points of contact are.

	We would also ask you to verify that we have the current names and
addresses for your recognized sites and your snap sites, simply a
verification of what we currently have on our website.

	And we would also be looking for a self-declaration that you comply
with all of the program requirements.  So we have listed all the
requirements that are in the regulations.  We are asking you to simply
initial or sign, attesting that you meet all of these requirements. 
That's it.  That's the entire renewal process.

	Right now, we would still have to publish a Federal Register Notice,
but it's a much simplified process. 

	This would apply -- I do need to clarify there are some things that
would require a little bit additional -- a little additional
documentation.  The process I described would apply to all NRTLs who
have already gone through a renewal process, so organizations who have
been an NRTL, while approaching their 10-year mark.

	For organizations who have not yet been through a renewal,
organizations who have been an NRTL for less than 5 years, we're not
allowed to go with that simplified process, but we're still carrying
that over.  We may ask for some additional documentation, additional
procedure, clarifications of certain areas, and those would be
highlighted well in advance of the renewal process starting.  We're
looking at that's starting for this situation, starting the renewal
process, about 18 months before your renewal actually expires.

	The other organizations that would need to provide some additional
information are ones where perhaps the NRTL has a less than stellar
track record.  If we've had problems, if we've had repeated problems
that continue to manifest themselves during the audit process and you're
right on the bubble of acceptance or denial of renewal, we would ask for
some additional documentation that would hopefully bring those issues
that we've previously highlighted to you during audits and assessments,
hopefully get some documentation to close those out.  So this is sort of
the last chance for recognition, but I would expect that that would be
very rare, because as part of the auditing process along with the
applications, we are starting to stick to some hard deadlines as far as
information that comes back to us.

	When we issue an audit report, we typically give the NRTLs 90 days to
respond to non-conformances, with your root cause analysis, and full
corrective action, or if it's a long-term corrective action, your plan
for implementing that corrective action.

	We review that.  At that point, generally what we are looking for, if
we do have some issues of clarification, we are looking for
clarification, or, "You mentioned you did this training.  Can I see
evidence of that training?"  "You mentioned that you modified your
procedure.  Can I see a copy of that procedure?"  That's the type of
information that we'd be looking for in that one go-back.	

	If we have comments that say you had this finding, but the root cause
doesn't address that non-conformance, we are going to reject it and move
on to the next step, which is starting the process of revocation, if
it's that serious.  So we really need to take a very hardline stance on
this, but there's still many opportunities for the NRTLs to bring
themselves into compliance and resolve these issues.

	And that in a very high-level nutshell is the audit and renewal
process.  That's a 5-year process.  We're basically -- we're continually
working on the renewal review.

	[Moderator]:  Okay.  I think you know the drill.

	[OSHA Staff]:  I'm leaving.

	[Laughter.]

	[Moderator]:  And the materials for this -- I meant to ask it at the
beginning -- were in the packet?

	[OSHA Staff]:  Yes, they are in the documentation.  They should be,
anyway.

	[Moderator]:  Okay.

	So comments, questions for clarification, and proposals, if any?

	[NRTL Stakeholder]:  This is [NRTL Stakeholder] with [NRTL
Association].  What are your plans to address renewals that are still in
process, pending with you currently, relative to this new program you're
proposing?

	[OSHA Staff]:  Right now, this rule -- the ability to do this exists in
the rule as it's written today.  For the folks that have already been
through their first renewal process, it's fully within the rules to do
it.

	Now, we can't make you use a form today, because it hasn't been through
the Paperwork Reduction Act requirements that go into OMB, but we can
suggest to you that if you filed out the form and followed the
guidelines, provided the information that's in the form, or if you
choose not to fill a form, but if you provide all that information,
because that's the information we need to make our decision, then we
will be processing very quickly.

	As a matter of fact, what we'd like to get back from you is how long
would it take for you to gather that information in, so we could make
one Federal Register Notice with multiple names on it, so everybody who
has a pending renewal that fits into this category can go ahead and
apply, and we can get to renewals off the table.

	[Moderator]:  Was that a question for the group?

	[NRTL Stakeholder]:  That was a question.  That was a request for
information.

	[Moderator]:  Okay.  Ponder and then offer some ideas, please.  Did
everybody hear the question and understand it?

	One more time.

	[OSHA Staff]:  You have a worksheet in front of you.  Right now, today,
we can't require you to use that worksheet, but that's the information
that we need to make our decisions.  We need to make sure our records
are accurate that encompasses all your organizations and the points of
contact, particularly points of contact because they change all the
time.

	You provide us with that information.  We would like to put a date out
on the wall.

	[Moderator]:  Looks like so, if you're looking for it.

	[OSHA Staff]:  That said, that would give you time to get that
information back to us, so we could collectively put it out in a single
Federal Register Notice that says these following NRTLs have
self-declared their compliance with the program, and they are being
renewed in a single Federal Register Notice to put out for comment
period.

	Whatever date you set, we can -- because we have been already looking
at the audit records.  We have been going over our audit records to be
able to facilitate this.  So it's a matter of getting the administrative
information up to date.

	Now, for those of you who have not been through a renewal process once,
we would still ask for the same information, but we may come back to you
for additional information where we have some things missing.  But the
majority of you have already -- have been in the program and have
already been through your first renewal process, and so we can pretty
well facilitate this process today as the rule stands.

	Am I missing anything, [Solicitor of Labor Staff]?

	[Solicitor of Labor Staff]:  Just to note that this form is still in
draft form.

	[OSHA Staff]:  Correct.

	[Solicitor of Labor Staff]:  So OSHA will make a final decision at a
later date in terms of how it wants to address the certification issue.

	[Moderator]:  But as you see it now, can you scan it for a moment and
then offer about what you think would be the reasonable time frame?  Is
that what you are looking for?

	[Solicitor of Labor Staff]:  Correct.

	[Moderator]:  Okay.

	[Solicitor of Labor Staff]:  I am a senior solicitor here.

	[Laughter.]

	[Solicitor of Labor Staff]:  Please do not send in the form.  Just send
in the information that's on the form.  That's still a paperwork
requirement that we would have to address subsequently when we do the
paperwork package for the NRTL program, but this is not an official
form.  Please do not send it in.  You can send in the information on the
form.

	[Moderator]:  Excellent.

	Having said that --

	[Solicitor of Labor Staff]:  Preferable in a different format than the
form.

	[Laughter.]

	[Moderator]:  Having said that, about how long would it take you?

	[Solicitor of Labor Staff]:  My name is [Solicitor of Labor Staff].

	[Moderator]:  Thank you.

	About how long would it take you to pull all of that together?  That is
really what you're asking, correct?

	[OSHA Staff]:  Correct, yeah.

	[Moderator]:  What kind of time frame or range would you want?

	[OSHA Staff]:  Well, we would like to get --

	[Moderator]:  No.  I mean, that's what you're asking them.  What time
frame would you all think is reasonable based on what you're seeing,
don't use the form, we all heard?  Anybody?

	[NRTL Stakeholder]:  [NRTL Stakeholder] from [NRTL Association].

	I think most of the information on this form, at least for us, is
readily available.  It should be a short piece of work to put it in any
format and submit it.  So I would encourage a somewhat aggressive
timeline, if everyone else agreed.

	[Moderator]:  What are you calling aggressive?

	[NRTL Stakeholder]:  A couple weeks maybe?

	[Moderator]:  Okay. 

	[NRTL Stakeholder]?  I think 2 weeks might be reasonable from my
standpoint, I think.

	[Moderator]:  Okay.  [NRTL Stakeholder]?  Thank you.

	[Solicitor of Labor Staff]:  If I could, the regulations call for
certain time requirements in terms of when the certification has to be
sent.  So if you're not due for a renewal yet --

	[OSHA Staff]:  Everyone is.

	[Solicitor of Labor Staff]:  Everyone is?  Okay.

	[Laughter.]

	[Moderator]:  Other than that.

	Go ahead, [OSHA Staff].

	[OSHA Staff]:  Thirteen of the 15 are due for renewal, and the 2 that
are not due for renewal are new organizations who have not yet been
through the renewal process.  So then they still have a couple years to
go.

	[NRTL Stakeholder]:  Two things.  First, time-wise, give it a month. 
That should be more than enough, and if you really want to be aggressive
and do a couple of weeks, that's fine.

	The other suggestion I would make is on that certification statement,
that I would take as guidance and create my own and send to you.  At the
very last page, that should be meaningful, and to make that meaningful,
I would suggest that that statement should -- whoever makes one should
also include an indication that the NRTL has documentation and evidence
that it is ready to share about its fulfillment of the NRTL program
requirements.

	Now, I say that because that's just another set of words.  Who cares
about that?  Of course, we all have that.  We show you that one very
audit.  That's not the point.

	The point is who is signing this.  We all know who is going to sign
this.  It is going to go up the chain.  It is going to go up to somebody
at the top, and when they read those words, that executive-level person
is going to look somewhere and say, "I'm about to sign this.  Is this
true?"  And that drives a lot of accountability in the organization with
just a few extra simple words.

	Now, in the spirit of full disclosure, it also happens to satisfy a
17065 requirement, and that's kind of a nice thing.  So I get maybe a
double bang for my buck.

	Two to 4 weeks is fine, but I would add some extra words in that
certification statement, not only that we fulfill, but the remember has
evidence of fulfillment of all NRTL requirements.

	[Moderator]:  Did you get the wording, so to speak?  I know it was a
little bit general.

	[OSHA Staff]:  Yeah.  I think we got the general basis of it.

	[NRTL STAKEHOLDER]:  Well, of course, I would be drafting this, because
there is no form for me to fill out.

	[OSHA Staff]:  Absolutely.

	[Laughter.]

	[OSHA Staff]:  And if you can share that draft, we'd really appreciate
it.

	[NRTL Stakeholder]:  I'd be happy to share any drafts.

	[OSHA Staff]:  And I think that raises the good issue.  Eventually, we
would like to have a form if that's what works best for you.  If you
guys think that a form is the appropriate way to go, we do, but there
are legal requirements that we have to go through in order to make that
the case.

	So if you have ideas, please share them.

	[Moderator]:  Any other comments?

	Yes, [NRTL Stakeholder].

	[NRTL Stakeholder]:  Hi.  [NRTL Stakeholder], [NRTL Association].

	At the end of the packet, it talks about that you will no longer accept
expansions with renewals.  So it sounds like you are trying to keep
those separate.

	[OSHA Staff]:  Exactly, yeah.  Because really, what we want to do is be
able to take a renewal, and it's a very simple process, say yeah, all
the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed and move it out the door.  So
any sort of expansion, push it onto a separate expansion request, and
that would be handled separately because that can take several months,
depending on the scope.

	[NRTL Stakeholder]:  So with the expansion timeline being much longer,
will there be no interaction in between those two things?  They will be
parallel processes, not serialized in any way, or would it be handled by
the same person potentially?

	[Moderator]:  Do you have a recommendation embedded in there?

	[NRTL Stakeholder]:  Well, my recommendation is that they are handled
in parallel, particularly with the renewal process being so streamlined.
 I don't see why that can't occur on a separate path and not interfere
with the expansion piece.

	[OSHA Staff]:  You are absolutely right.  Think of the renewal as being
tied as part of the audit process.  It is what finalizes the 5-year
audit cycle.

	In the past, renewal was tied to almost like another form of
application.  So that's why we no longer have the expansions tied to the
renewals under this concept, because it is an application process,
completely done -- it may be done by different people, but think of it
is as being done in parallel.

	[Moderator]:  How about others?  It was all crystal clear, and you have
no recommendations or comments further.

	[OSHA Staff]:  I have a question. 

	[Moderator]:  Excellent.

	[OSHA Staff]:  This is [OSHA Staff].  This is for all the NRTLs.

	Currently, in the notices, the final notices that we publish, we have
conditions of recognition.  I hope all of you have seen those, and it's
standard language.

	If we were to ask you to include those conditions of recognition in
your statement of certification, how would you feel about that?

	[NRTL Stakeholder]:  [NRTL Stakeholder] from [NRTL Association].

	I'm sorry, [OSHA Staff].  I don't remember the conditions.  Can you
remind me?

	[OSHA Staff]:  Well, some of the conditions are that, for example, your
records are available for us to look at.  Another one is that you will
comply with all of our policies, and that you will notify us of changes
of ownership, things of that sort, fairly standard.

	[Moderator]:  Yeah.

	[NRTL Stakeholder]:  I have no problem if that was wording that you
would need to see in that kind of a statement.

	It is like the comment I made before.  It just opens eyes and creates
accountability within the organization.  I can tell you when a top
executive in my organization signs something, they read it, because it's
their name, and you better know where in the organization all that is
happening, so you can tell that executive.  Otherwise, it doesn't get
signed.  So it's a good tool.

	[Moderator]:  [OSHA Staff] is trying to tell me something.  What?

	[OSHA Staff]:  [OSHA Staff], when you speak into the microphone, can
you speak up a little bit?  The people on the phone are having a little
hard time.

	[OSHA Staff]:  I think there is one point that needs to be made out of
this.  If you look at the way the rule is written today, the renewal is
initiatives -- the way it's initiated is on you.  You don't request
renewal, you don't get renewed.  We will send out a courtesy information
letting you know that the window is coming up, but if you don't request
it, then we are going to assume that you don't want to be renewed.

	[Moderator]:  Did you get an answer to your question by way of [NRTL
Stakeholder], or are there others who have an opinion?

	[NRTL Stakeholder].

	[NRTL Stakeholder]:  [NRTL Stakeholder] from [NRTL Association].

	Yeah.  We agree that that would be fine.  We'd be happy to put that in
for the same reasons that [OSHA Staff] has alluded to.  It does provide
greater visibility within our organization, and it's things that we
commit to every day, anyway.  So there's really no problem with that at
all.

	Thank you.

	[OSHA Staff]:  [Solicitor of Labor Staff] was suggesting that I tell
you where you can find the conditions.  Well, each of the final public
notices that we publish for you, we could also make it available on the
website, but each of your final public notices would have the conditions
in them.

	We publish two notices a preliminary and a final.  So I'm talking about
the final notice.

	[Trade Association Stakeholder]:  But it will be in the form
eventually.

	[OSHA Staff]:  What's that?

	[Trade Association Stakeholder]:  It will eventually be in the form.

	[OSHA Staff]:  Yes.

	[Moderator]:  Well, actually, [OSHA Staff] had said we think it's a
good idea.  Do you?  Is there some sort of agreement or concern about a
form?  Let's start with do you agree.  A form, if it got all the -- pass
muster.  It's not consensus.  I know that.  Do some people here agree
for yourself that a form would be helpful?

	We don't have to have consensus.  Does anyone think a form is just let
us know what it is, and we will send it in?

	Either way?  Okay.

	[OSHA Staff]:  And I guess the one thing I would request is -- you
know, [NRTL Stakeholder] mentioned adding some additional language to
the final signatory or the final signature.  If anyone else has any
recommendations, we would certainly be interested in seeing what they
may be.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would say perhaps what we could
do is with those comments, update the draft form, post it up on the
website, so that people know what sort of information we want to see and
what sort of attestations we would look from the NRTLs, and then we
would alert everyone when we're ready to move forward with this mass
renewal process.

	[Moderator]:  Okay.

	Are there other comments for [OSHA Staff] or other OSHA people who have
something to add?

	[OSHA Staff]:  We do have a comment from the WebEx at [NRTL
Association], [NRTL Association] with [NRTL Stakeholder], does agree
that a form would be helpful.

	[Moderator]:  Okay.  If there are no more comments on this section,
then, [OSHA Staff], you are going to talk about the program way forward.

NRTL Program Way Ahead

	[OSHA Staff]:  Okay.  You know, a lot of what we're doing now, as I
mentioned at the very start, is going to address some of our most
critical needs.  We kind of look at it as a point of putting us on a
firm-enough foundation, so we can really tackle the really hard stuff,
to me the stuff that really excites me.  I think there's some real
potential here.

	And I've talked with a lot of you out there, and you guys got some
great ideas.  And as we get the ideas, we kind of matured our thoughts
on them.  Even today, you guys have shared some new ideas.

	But even when we get this Interim Guide out, obviously we are going to
fall short of the total aspects of the program, what it all needs.  We
will fall short of what was recommended in the GAO report.

	Some of the stuff recommended in the GAO report is fairly complex.  It
talks about third-party accreditation.  It talks about putting advanced
websites on that provide information and a series of other things.  So
we can't just say, yeah, we are going to do this overnight, partially
because we'd probably get everybody screaming.  

	Though you guys agree on many things, you are very different.  You have
different structures within your organization, and you aren't just
NRTLs.  We have the accreditation bodies, and we have the manufacturers,
who also have as big a play as you guys do.	

	So what we want to do is we want to -- as we move forward, the first
thing I want to say is we want to facilitate open discussion.  You guys
have got my business card in there.  I am always available.  We will do
our best, if you want to come and meet with us here, to arrange to meet
with you, to hear your ideas.

	We will do our best to attend some of the things like the ACES and the
[Testing Industry Association] and stuff where there is open sharing of
ideas.  It is a great chance to get out of the office.

	[Laughter.]

	[Moderator]:  What are you saying?

	[OSHA Staff]:  Oh, nothing.

	Some of the things that we know that we need to address and we have all
kind of touched on here are listed up on the slides right now, and the
first thing that we want to talk about is harmonization.

	[Moderator]:  [OSHA Staff], can I just say there is also a paper in
your folder.  It is the last page, which has a little more detail. 
Sorry.

	[OSHA Staff]:  Thank you.

	Well, let me say something about that.  Those are kind of framed. 
Those are different than some of the other pieces of paper in your
folder.  They're kind of framed as questions to kind of get you guys to
think about the information that we are looking for.

	These will be framed in a much more formal process in the future where
we go out and solicit it, but these are just some of the things that we
think we know we need to address, and these are some of our initial
ideas.  And what we are trying to get out of these initial ideas is to
stimulate feedback from you.

	I got to tell you, on these issues here, these are the farthest away
from making any decisions.  We are really in an information search mode
with these topics.

	And we've talked about harmonization.  As the folks from [Testing
Industry Association] had mentioned earlier, [OSHA Staff] had called
some of you -- I think it was [Testing Industry Association], or maybe
it was [NRTL Association].

	[OSHA Staff] had asked you about what you guys had for accreditation,
did you go out and have accreditation with 17025 and hopefully in the
future 17065.

	Right now, we reference Guide 25 and Guide 65, and as [NRTL
Stakeholder] mentioned, fairly completely, but what we don't do is we
don't require accreditation from the organization.

	One of the things we look at in harmonizing our program with it is
tying it to a requirement.  So we would be very interested to know how
that would impact you.  I know a lot of other federal programs already
require it.  They already require this type of accreditation, but not
all your labs are tied in with those other programs.  So how much
greater impact would this be?

	As you know, and as [NRTL Stakeholder] brought out, as a schema with
like 17065, it is kind of that agency's flavor of the standard too. 
There are things that we would need to look at that are specific to our
program.  We have been working with [Testing Industry Stakeholder] over
at NIST and his folks, and he kind of said, "Okay.  Here is your next
exercise.  Lay out 17065, and go line by line, and put what your version
of that is."  So we're doing that.  We think that's the initial piece
that we need to do.

	We'd also like to see what you think it should be too.  If you guys
could do the same type of thing and kind of provide back for us what you
think it should be, it would really help us to see what the impact of
this would be.

	So right now, we are soliciting general information, general comments
on it, but we look at it in the future that these would become more
formal comments.  And with all of these items, we haven't decided what's
the best venue for actually getting that information from you. 

	Would a formal RFI be the best venue from what you're concerned, where
it would be a formalized initial step to rulemaking or not rulemaking? 
But it would be more formalized, and it would be less -- it would be
much more formal than this type of discussion.  It would be a very
structured-type discussion on what we were doing.

	There would also be -- a formal RFI would include a detailed question
process.  So is that something that you think would be beneficial?  It
is probably the fastest way, or would you want to keep it kind of
informal and try to wing it as we go along?  Probably not my preferred
method, but we are open to whatever forms that you think would be most
productive to us facilitating.  So we are interested in your opinion,
and again, we're starting in this case with -- from a harmonization
point of view, we feel harmonization is first on here, because we feel
it is tied to several other things.  For us to go third party
accreditation and to even consider that, we'd want to look at one of the
foundational requirements would be already accredited under 17025 and
17065.  So that's the kind of ideas we're looking at.  We are looking at
trying to facilitate this as much without adding any new burden on your
organizations.

	[Moderator]:  Are you looking for some comments now?

	[OSHA Staff]:  Certainly.

	[Moderator]:  Taking that first question, which is harmonization of
requirements.  [Trade Association Stakeholder]?

	[Trade Association Stakeholder]:  Thanks.  I'd like to address that,
but I'm guessing it's for maybe all the questions.

	Having an RFI process could be very beneficial, because it will make
all of us sit down and focus and come together as a group and give some
suggestions that we think would be able to help improve the program, but
I don't think that has to be in a vacuum without an informal form also
and whether I would volunteer that maybe a working group can be set up.

	[Trade Association] would certainly participate or host even for the
interested NRTLs to work with OSHA and the accreditation bodies to find
some potential solutions to help improve the process and serve the needs
of everybody involved.

	[Solicitor of Labor Staff]:  A working group might be difficult, given
OMB regulations on the subject, so it would require OMB approval.

	[OSHA Staff]:  Basically, what he's talking about, when OSHA brings
people together, we have had expert forums.  We did one for combustible
dust.  We just had to make sure that we're not running afoul of the FACA
regulations, because that would require a whole nother process to get
the members and make sure you have all the members.

	Sometimes the amount of effort that gets the FACA together, we have to
make sure the time.  We might try to figure out some other mechanisms. 
We have done things in the past.  If it's like a one-time meeting to get
people's ideas and have the relevant people at the table, we've done
that in different things.  We did it for a PELS chat.  We did it for
combustible dust topic.  So it's not out of the realm.  You can do
things.  You can have some work groups.  You just have to be careful
about how we --

	[Solicitor of Labor Staff]:  Like stakeholder meetings don't run afoul
of FACA as long as we don't reach a consensus, and that's why [Solicitor
of Labor Staff] before said we're not reaching a consensus here.

	[Trade Association Stakeholder]:  Well, I think there's other options
besides going through the FACA route, because all of us as independent
organizations can work together in a working group.  Our federal
regulators, just like they sit on standards developing groups, do
participate in those groups as a sharing of opinion.

	I mean, I wouldn't assume that the outcome of whatever the working
group comes up with would automatically be accepted by OSHA in its
normal processing of those recommendations, but for all of us to be
around the table with OSHA representatives, hearing and giving their
opinions, could at the end of the process come up with something that we
would then recommend as a potential way forward, and OSHA then would
take that understand consideration in its normal proper way.

	[OSHA Staff]:  We've done that, and we're currently doing it with some
individuals in the beryllium industry, where they've done the exact same
thing.  They, without OSHA being the instigator, have taken it upon
themselves to get the relevant parties together and give us their
proposal about what they would like us to do.  So that's totally within
the realm of a possibility.

	[OSHA Staff]:  And I think that goes back to the meetings, why we've
participated in meetings with [Testing Industry Association] and ACES
and stuff like that is for that very reason.  It's meetings that you
guys are calling, and then we've just been invited to attend.  And
that's been beneficial to us.

	[Moderator]:  [Testing Industry Stakeholder]?

	[Testing Industry Stakeholder]:  Thank you.  It's [Testing Industry
Stakeholder] with [Testing Industry Association] again.

	I will speak only to the harmonization issue, unless the other NRTLs
have other questions about it.

	My recommendation here would be rather than reinventing the wheel,
which it sounds like Gordon was suggesting -- and I do apologize if I
misunderstood -- I would more encourage you guys actually just simply
review the standards.  Don't write your own version of it with tweaks
here and there.

	[OSHA Staff]:  And that's not what we're looking at doing.

	There are some unique aspects to our program.  For example, 17065
doesn't cover the factory inspection process.  So what would we have to
do in our program to supplement 17065?

	[Testing Industry Stakeholder]:  Exactly. 

	I will point you again towards the EPA's revised Energy Star.  They
actually had their conditions and criteria documents both on the side of
the testing laboratory and another document for the certification
bodies.  Those documents do hit on a couple of the major parts of the
respective standards, but they also outline a few additional
requirements.  For instance, one is a whistleblower policy, that the
laboratories have to be in place, and that's what I would encourage you
guys to do.

	[OSHA Staff]:  And that's the way we're leaning.

	[Moderator]:  [NRTL Stakeholder].

	[NRTL Stakeholder]:  [NRTL Stakeholder], [NRTL Association].

	You are talking about the implementation of 65 and 25, add an
additional burden, but to be honest, the burden is the amount of time
it's taking to do renewals, if it's going to take still 18 months
wherever this -- if getting 65 and 25 can reduce that time by 50
percent, then that's really what I'm looking for.  That burden is worth
it if we can get product to market sooner.

	[Moderator]:  [NRTL Stakeholder].

	[NRTL Stakeholder]:  Yeah.  My suggestion is -- [NRTL Stakeholder] with
[NRTL Association].  My suggestion is -- well, first, if we could get
away from the H word.  Harmonization, I don't think that's really what
you're doing.  You are looking to review 17065 and see how or to what
extent you want to use it, and as you do that, I would think that a
formal RFI process would be pretty cumbersome, because I think it's
going to be a lot more of a dialog, or you're going to need a lot more
of a dialog on any -- because we're all reading it.  We're all figuring
out what it means in any given situation, and I think that's where
you're going to get the value of the interaction with us, is bring into
a discussion, an informal discussion, here is what we think of it, here
is what we think it means, this is what we see, what do you guys see it
means, are we on track, do you think it's consistent with the way other
people are using it and reading it.

	As has been mentioned of course, you are going to add on requirements. 
You have to.  Nobody can get accredited or meet 17065 without a scheme. 
It's not possible.  So you have to provide the scheme to us.  Otherwise,
you know, we can't fulfill 17065.  That's the way the words are written.
 So that goes without saying.

	[Moderator]:  [Testing Industry Stakeholder].

	[Testing Industry Stakeholder]:  [Testing Industry Stakeholder],
[Testing Industry Association] again.

	Just briefly to expand a bit on what [NRTL Stakeholder] was talking
about there, ISO does have another guidance standard currently listed as
Guide 67.  It will soon be replaced with 17067 that does give
instructions, advice, guidance on how to create a scheme that would be
used by 17065 accredited CB.

	[Moderator]:  [Testing Industry Stakeholder].

	[Testing Industry Stakeholder]:  Yeah.  Just this information and
support the point that you need to have some additional guidance on the
accreditation requirements.  At [Testing Industry Association], we work
with more than 25 scheme owners that are not certification bodies.  All
of them, they have some caveat on some of those requirements that are
specific for that certification program.

	Thank you.

	[OSHA Staff]:  If we were to go out to a RFI process, it could be in
the form of a questionnaire or it could be the form of a questionnaire
with meetings to follow up behind that.  Would you think that he
meetings would be critical to part of that?  Any comments on that at
all?

	[NRTL Stakeholder]:  Yeah, I think the meetings are going to be
critical.  I think the dialog is where you are going to learn the most,
and I think you've gotten a really good bang for your buck out of 3
hours of your time this morning.  When you start to get into the details
of 17065, the rewards and the benefits are going to be 10 times what you
got today.

	[Moderator]:  Do you want to move on, on your agenda, [OSHA Staff]?

	[OSHA Staff]:  Yeah.  Why don't I move on, and then we can kind of do
some of this, because some of this is interrelated across all pieces of
the list.

	Mainly what I want to do with these is just introduce some of the ideas
for you, and then you can just kind of digest it and get back with us.

	We have talked about third-party accreditors.  One of the things that's
driving -- our biggest issue that we've talked about third-party
creditors is the technical -- are there enough technically qualified
people out there to do the technical aspect of it.  We understand that
there's plenty out there to do the management aspect of the program, but
there are those that have enough NRTL experience.  And we don't have the
answer.  We don't know how large the community of auditors would be out
there, and so that's something that we would look hard at, is are there
people with the technical capabilities to do that.

	You know, there's really two basic models when you start looking at
third-party accreditation.  You start looking at kind of what the NAVLAP
has where they go out and contract third-party people within NAVLAP, or
you could look at it, pass it on to an accrediting body.

	I think whatever we would do, we would be very interested in getting
feedback from you on this issue, is there's a wide range of what is used
to recognize accreditation.

	One extreme, it's if you're a member of ILAC, you're good to go, or a
signatory of ILAC, you're good to go, and at the other extreme, the
agency looks to validate and accredit the accrediting body.

	We'd be very interested in receiving your comments on where you think
the right balance to that would be.

	I think factory inspection, it goes along the same line.  There's some
challenges that we're having with factory inspections as far as trying
to define.  There is no standard out there.  I think the closest thing
is Guide 28 and Guide 53 that's going to be rewritten, but it won't come
out as a standard.  Correct me if I'm wrong.  It's going to be a
technical guide?  A technical specification.

	So it will provide guidance, but there's still no guarantee that it
will even include factory inspections in there.  I'd like to encourage
those of you participating it to influence in that way if you can,
because there is no definition of what a factory inspection is.  And
that is something that is really on the burden of OSHA to define what a
factory inspection process is.

	So right now, if we were to look at third-party accreditation and we
started looking at the 17065 piece and those pieces, those are pieces
that we would have to clearly design, and it would be important, when we
start looking at accreditation by a third-party creditor, that they
understand the full scope of what that factory inspection is.

	The other things we look at factory inspections are, you know, right
now we have a hard number.  You should do four, and there's some
exceptions that you could do with that, but you should do 4-year. 
Should we be more risk-based?  And if we are more risk-based, how do we
determine the variables that would generate how to calculate the risk to
determine how you would do the factory inspections?  So we are looking
at trying to get information in that area.

	We are also looking at supplemental programs.  There's some real
challenges that we're seeing in the supplemental programs.  First of
all, is it addressing the reality of the way  NRTLs are structured
today?

	We keep getting things that are in gray areas, and sometimes when we
get asked the questions to do expansions or to do a supplemental
program, we look at it, and it's like, "Well, there's no real rule on
this.  There is no real directive on this," and so we spin around.  Some
of the delays is trying to determine what is the right answer.

	So the reality is what we really need to do is get a firm, well-defined
supplemental program that is reflective of the way the industry is today
and the way the industry is moving in the future, and so gathering ideas
from you and recommendations from you folks are something we find
valuable.

	I'll give you an example of some things that we're challenged with. 
What about standards out there and markets out there that are so small,
it doesn't justify the cost of you buying the equipment and doesn’t'
justify the cost of even the standard development?  There are some
requirements out there that there are no standards for right now.  There
are requirements out there that there's no NRTL that will do the
testing, because the equipment is too expensive to go ahead and do it.

	Right now, our witness testing program doesn't provide for anything,
but you have to have the capability at least one of your facilities
before you can do witness testing somewhere else.  Are there other ways
to do it?  People have some ideas that have been thrown out, like the
IEC scheme method of validating the skills of the evaluator, and that's
really what we're concerned about, do you have the technical skills to
evaluate this test.

	So there are other methods for it.  Some people  have suggested that,
but there may be other ideas out there.  So we are looking at if we look
to expand this, who do we address some of these niche markets that there
are requirements out there, but the standards either don't exist or
there's not enough market for people to invest in the equipment that it
takes.  So we would need to address that.

	Some of you have parent companies that are not part of NRTLs, the NRTL
program, but you want to use their facilities, and you have asked us to
use your facilities out there, but there is no program in there to
address that right now.  How do you use sister facilities that are part
of the parent but not part of the piece?  We haven't addressed that yet.
 We get asked that type of question on a regular basis, so we're
interested in your ideas in these areas.

	We are not saying any idea is right and any idea is wrong.  We are just
asking for -- these are the areas that we don't have answers to, but you
guys keep hitting us with requests for these areas, and so we are
looking at how do we deal with these pieces.

	Something that we get hit with almost every single audit we do and
almost every single time you get a chance to voice your opinion is
enforcing -- having our CoSHOs enforce the use of certificated products
in the workplace.

	So you guys know where we are on that point, the CoSHOs come back to us
and say, "That's not a unique mark.  That mark can be used for other
types of testing done by the NRTL."

	In Canada, they put a small "c" in the lower left-hand corner of the
mark, and that way, you know it was to the Canadian Product Safety
Standards.

	Many of you voluntarily put "US" in the lower right-hand side to
indicate the same thing, but there's no requirements there.  Should
there be?

	And let me qualify this.  In order for there to be an ability for us to
really try to even begin to enforce that, there has to be something
unique.  So what's the best way to go down that route?  There is a cost
associated with changing certification marks and trademarks and all that
stuff.  So what is the right balance?  So we are interested in your guys
input on that.  I mean, they're your marks.  So how would you recommend
managing those pieces?

	These kind of where we are starting out at, but there's other issues
that you folks have, and we're interested in what those other issues
are, either share them with us now or afterwards, but these are just a
start of the issues that we want to address.

	We are going to try to address as many as we can outside of rulemaking,
but at some point, depending on what you guys say, maybe it is going to
be too complex.  Maybe it doesn't support it now, and maybe we will have
to review that and consider that.  So nothing is off the table, I guess
is what I am saying.

	[Moderator]:  Okay.  So how about if we start with some general
comments on the draft future topics, if there are any.  Do you recognize
these?

	Okay.  I don't hear a no -- [NRTL Stakeholder].

	[NRTL Stakeholder]:  How about [Trade Association Stakeholder] first?

	[Moderator]:  Oh, yeah.  Okay, [Trade Association Stakeholder].  Thank
you.

	[Trade Association Stakeholder]:  I just want to address one thing,
[OSHA Staff].  You said about the continuum of how to consider technical
qualifications of third-party accreditation and the other factors that
you would need to work through to potentially go down that path.  You
looked at it from the ILAC, [Testing Industry Association] blanket, kind
of lower common denominator acceptance on one side to the regulator
having to vet the accreditation bodies.

	But I would actually suggest that the regulator having to evaluate the
accreditation bodies would actually be in the middle, because really on
the other end of the spectrum is the regulator being the accreditor
themselves.  So I think it's a broader continuum.

	[Moderator]:  Other comments?  Thank you.	[NRTL Stakeholder].

	[NRTL Stakeholder]:  Yeah.  Those are all the kind of issues that I
hear people jawboning about.  I think you got them all.	

	The only one I would add is -- that I didn't hear, and I know it's
almost part of DNA in OSHA, because OSHA is all about workplace safety,
but certification doesn't happen at a place anymore.  Testing does,
sure.  I mean, you have got to have a facility generally to do testing,
but most of the other parts of the certification process don't happen in
a place.  They happened online.  They happen electronically.  The
information flows.  Gee, I mean, I've heard people that have Internet
access on the plane now, right?  I mean, a qualified person construction
be doing certification between Seattle and Tampa.  It's not at a place.

	So, you know, some of your requirements and some of your approaches to
auditing and to recognition still are based on -- appear to be based on
the assumption that people go to brick and mortar site, and that's where
they do their work, and that that somehow has relevance of the
competence of their ability to do that.

	In some activities, that's true, like testing, but in a bulk of
activities, it's not.  So some of the ideas of recognized sites and SNAP
sites -- I'm not saying you don't need to know where we are doing
things.  Of course, you do, because if we can't tell you that, then
we're not under self-control.  That's silly.

	But in terms of your recognition of us, I don't know that locations are
as meaningful as  they used to be, so...

	[Moderator]:  Does that lead to some suggestions about what OSHA could
do to adapt to that?

	[NRTL Stakeholder]:  Well, yeah.  I mean, you could benchmark against
what some of the other accreditation bodies to.

	For example, SCC and ANSI both, we have all of our sites listed in our
online directory under those accreditors.  They're all there.  All the
sites are there, but nobody pretends that they're anything other than
this is where we have people who do business.

	There aren't some that are recognized and some that aren't and some
that are SNAP and some that aren't, because frankly, a lot of those
people aren't sitting inside those place when they're doing their
certification work.  They may be sitting at the client location.  They
may be on an airplane.  They may be in another office.  

	So, in other words, the whole concept of recognized sites, except for
probably testing, actual physical testing, the concept of recognized
sites itself may be just an anachronism. 

	[OSHA Staff]:  I guess, just sort of a follow up or clarification, but
for those, you mentioned SCC.  You have all those sites or locations
where certification activities are taking place.  Does the accreditor
visit all of those facilities?

	I know that with SNAP sites, we say that we've identified that Site A
is a testing and certification.  Side B is only testing.  Site C is only
certification.  How do they handle that?

	[NRTL Stakeholder]:  Sure.  I'll be happy to answer that.

	But first, the words you just used --

	[OSHA Staff]:  Yeah, I know.

	[NRTL Stakeholder]:  Yeah. 

	[OSHA Staff]:  It's old habits.

	[NRTL Stakeholder]:  No, no, I understand, but it's a good example. 
The sites don't do certification.  The people do that.

	But anyway, to your point, our experience has been that the SEC is
vitally interested in knowing wherever we are doing activities.  They
want to know, and they want to know when something moves or there's
something new or there's an acquisition, sure, and that's all
understand.

	They sample our sites when they audit, I think.  I can't speak for SCC,
but my impression is they take account of some of the auditing ANSI
does, and I believe they actually try not to double-up.  They try to go
to some different sites that ANSI doesn't go to.  It's pretty informal,
but, you know, it's a wise approach from SCC's perspective, because for
that particular accreditation of our organization, they are both looking
at exactly the same thing, and they are both looking at what you look
at.  They look at more, of course, that you guys aren't interested in,
and that's fine too.

	But yeah, they go to different sites.  I don't know that -- I'm sure --
I know that every accreditor has a plan for hitting every site in some
programmed fashion.  So, yeah, they end up going everywhere sooner or
later.

	[OSHA Staff]:  I kind of want some clarification.

	I know our SNAP sites, for example, are not necessarily physical labs. 
Very oftentimes, there's a person sitting in the office who goes out and
does it.  Is this kind of the type thing you are talking about?

	[NRTL Stakeholder]:  Yeah.  That's an excellent example.

	All the NRTLs are the same.  You go where the customers are, and if you
got a nod of customers in Indonesia and you can support a couple of
full-time people there to service those clients, you are going to put
some people on the ground there and service them locally in the time
zone, currency, and language, because that's what globalized business
is.  They want it there.  They want it local.

	You are not going to build a lab.  It is a nice group of customers and
all, but you don't build a lab there.  So you rent some office space,
and you put people on the ground.  And you tie them into your systems,
your IT systems and everything.  You qualify them.  They're just as
capable as anybody else. 

	But you're right.  It's four or five people in a corner office in
Jakarta, and maybe it only lasts for 2 or 3 years.  Then those people
move, and they go to Delhi or someplace else.

	That is the extent of the location.  It's an office where people have a
really, really great Internet connection, and if it was some other
really, really great Internet connection, in fact, if it's a better
Internet connection, they will go there and do their work.  They won't
come into your office.  They will go to the coffee shop, because it's a
better Internet connection.

	So in that kind of an operating environment, the whole emphasis in
structure around sites and the attention to detail about what's
recognized and what's this, frankly it doesn't make much sense to us on
a day-in-and-day-out basis.

	It certainly makes sense -- and every accreditor does this.  It
certainly makes sense that we have to know where things are happening. 
I mean, that's ridiculous.  Why would you trust anybody who doesn't know
where their operations are taking place?  Of course.  But beyond that --
and so your ability to audit and select and sample.  Beyond that, I
don't know that there's a lot of relevance to the site.

	[Moderator]:  Okay.  We are approaching our stop time or wrap-up and
opportunity for people, but [Testing Industry Stakeholder]?

	[Testing Industry Stakeholder]:  [Testing Industry Stakeholder] with
[Testing Industry Association].

	Just one thought regarding  the sites.  Another suggestion is you need
to also -- if you in the future are going to use accreditation bodies,
define accreditation cycles, because it varies from the most tight cycle
that I know is 2 years to 5 years.  This, it is different among the
accreditation bodies.

	And another point as well, we have a tool that we are using since 2006,
and it's proved that it's a good tool.  It's to do remote assessments in
some sites that there is no labs there, and this is very good tool for
you to feel and have assurance that those people involved that
certification process, they have competence.

Open Discussion and Wrap-Up

	[Moderator]:  Okay.  Any other questions, first of all, from the OSHA
people, or [Solicitor of Labor Staff], for the group?  Anything else you
want to ask them about?

	[NRTL Stakeholder].

	[NRTL Stakeholder]:  Two quick questions.

	[OSHA Staff], you had mentioned something about the surveillance audits
in the future, that you make be risk-based, and being risk-based, would
that mean that the frequency might change?

	[OSHA Staff]:  This is something that you had shared with us earlier. 
We think that the frequency should be a risk-based model as opposed to a
fixed-number model.  Not that we think that way.  You guys have
suggested it.  So what are your thoughts on it, and how would that work
if we did that?

	I'm a 20-year safety person, so I'm really into risk-based concepts,
but that doesn't mean that it works for this industry.  So we would
really want to get you guys to give us feedback on how you think that
would work

	More so, it would kind of drive how often you go out there and do
surveillance based on the risk of the product.

	[NRTL Stakeholder]:  Okay.  And the second item was maybe directed to
[OSHA Staff].  Any latest information on the 6079 series of standards?

	[OSHA Staff]:  Yeah.

	[Laughter.]

	[OSHA Staff]:  Just to make sure that everyone is on the same page,
6079, which is for the hazardous location standards, right now we
currently do not recognize the 6079 series or the ICEX scheme.  We are
in the process of updating the list of recognized standards.  A couple
weeks, [OSHA Staff]?  Well, it still has to go through internal
clearances.  Is that correct?

	[OSHA Staff]:  In a couple weeks, it should be done in terms of
internal clearance.

	[OSHA Staff]:  Okay.  So at some point in the relatively near future,
there will be a Federal Register notice that will come out and will
touch on the 79 series as well as the AMI 60601.  I will leave it at
that.  I will not say any more than that.  Read into it what you want.

	[Moderator]:  [Testing Industry Stakeholder].

	[Testing Industry Stakeholder]:  Thank you.  [Testing Industry
Stakeholder] with [Testing Industry Association] again.

	I had a couple quick points.  First one, I know [Trade Association
Stakeholder had mentioned earlier about kind of an assessment of the ABs
or the various schemes or I should say slide you could go on.  Even
within some of the regulatory agencies, FCC has their NISNAV case
program where they come in every 1 or 2 years?  Every 2 years, they will
vent [Testing Industry Association]'s processes.  They will go through
our records related to the TCBs, and every 2 to 4 years, they will also
observe our assessors before making assessment.

	EPA simply, when they recognized us become an AB for certification and
laboratories for Energy Star, they simply went through paperwork for us.
 So, you know, even within your slot, you still got a wealth of gray
area.  At least [Testing Industry Association], I can only speak for us.
 We would invite you guys, even before deciding on using third-party
accreditors, come and watch an assessment, if you guys would like to.

	The second point, factory notes.  I know you guys has brought that up
in a couple of other comments that were made.  Build that into the
certification scheme if you guys would choose to go to a full-blown
17067 scheme, especially that helps out the ABs in keeping our processes
and how our auditors go and review those.  It keeps us all on the same
page, and you get relatively uniform data as much as can be done.

	The third thing, I know [NRTL Stakeholder] just talked about the
surveillance requirements.  Again, build that into the scheme.  Get the
input from these guys here who are the NRTLs and see what's their
feelings on it.

	I have got nothing to offer you guys right now particularly on it,
other than put in the scheme and get the input from these guys who
actually have to do the work.

	The fourth one, I know you guys were discussing a question about unique
certification marks.  A quick recommendation I would give is do
something similar to what Energy Star and -- make up your own. 
Copyright it.  I don't know what that cost is to you, and I know you
guys want to avoid costs.  If it's miniscule and it's something you can
squeak in by dropping Starbucks and going to Dunkin Donuts, that might
be something to consider.

	And the very last one, I know [NRTL Stakeholder] just spoke quite well,
and [Testing Industry Stakeholder] backed him up, on what are called
"foreign critical locations" or remote sites where it may be [NRTL
Stakeholder] or [Testing Industry Stakeholder] doing certification from
home when they are out sick for a weak.

	A lot of times, ABs will just simply do a remote assessment of the
person or people at those remote sites, their competence -- sorry.  They
will do the remote audit.

	I just took part in a certification body assessment last fall where a
person was in Singapore who did some of their technical reviews.  The
technical reviews were able to be done the exact same at their home
location here in the states.  We interviewed every single person at the
home location, and then we had our technical reviewer -- I'm sorry -- or
technical assessor do a Skype interview for about an hour and a half
with this person remotely and also review a sampling of records that she
had done there, technical reviews on -- and then, of course,
certification decision in accordance with Guide 65 done by somebody at
the home location only, so just a couple things to point out.  Thanks.

	[Moderator]:  [NRTL Stakeholder].

	[NRTL STAKEHOLDER]:  Yeah.  Actually, this is a little bit of a process
question.  I am very confident that I was not able to scribble down all
these questions as quickly as you ran them off.

	You know, gosh, just pages of stuff we could provide on any one of
them.  I assume this is all going to play out as we go along into the
future.  You will be soliciting us when you want us to start addressing
each of these.  This is more of a heads-up today.  Is that right?

	[OSHA Staff]:  Yes and no.  I mean, we'll be soliciting, but we'll
welcome --

	[NRTL Stakeholder]:  Oh, yeah.  We can do it at any time.

	[OSHA Staff]:  Our plan is to solicit the information from you.

	[NRTL Stakeholder]:  Okay, great, because I don't want to miss any. 
Knowing that you are going to reach out and invite us on each of these
topics gives me some comfort that I don't have to rely on my incomplete
notes.  Thanks.

	[OSHA Staff]:  Yeah.  I guess I would add to that, that the draft
future topics document is very high-level stuff.  These are things that
we're looking at, but that is up on the website.  So some of you have
provided some very brief comments, and I think we would certainly
welcome that from anyone at any point in time.

	[Moderator]:  We are maybe 9 minutes from when we promised to be
closed.  So, after [Trade Association Stakeholder], if there is anyone,
this is the opportunity for an observer to make a brief comment if they
would like to do that.

	[Trade Association Stakeholder]?  Thank you.

	[Trade Association Stakeholder]:  Great.  Thanks.  I'll be quick.

	[Testing Industry Stakeholder] mentioned that EPA, DOE process on the
Energy Star, which they used a combination to solicit information for
those changes under requesting RFIs to specific questions and then also
holding open meetings to get more input, and I think that's how they in
the big picture put their program together, to address some of the same
concerns that you have here.

	The mark issue, as [Trade Association], we would have to go on record
as appealing to OSHA to please not develop their own mark in any way,
shape, or form, and potentially look at some other options, maybe the
"c" and the "US" as many NRTLs are already using to kind of mitigate
some of the burden for changing marks in the big picture.

	Thank you.

	[Moderator]:  [Trade Association Stakeholder].

	[Trade Association Stakeholder]:  [Trade Association Stakeholder] with
[Trade Association].  I want to thank you guys for holding this and hope
that maybe at some future point, there might be one that could be
focused specifically on end users of NRTL services and some of the
concerns from manufacturers.

	[OSHA Staff] referenced the acceptance of the ICEX scheme which is very
important to [Trade Association] members, as is revision of program 5 to
allow for acceptance of manufacturer's test data for products intended
for use in hazardous or classified locations.

	I also just want to say with respect to this idea of a NRTL
certification market, I think from a manufacturer's perspective, our
concern would be there are many, many standards that OSHA doesn't
recognize, and so we would want to make sure that that path wouldn't
preclude a local authority having jurisdiction who relies on looking at
a certification mark to create confusion for them, whether or not
something has been tested and safe or isn't because it has -- it may not
have a NRTL mark if it's not part of the NRTL scope within OSHA, but it
still may have been, you know, tested by a certification body.  So that
would be something from an end user's standpoint and an inspection
standpoint that would need to be part of that discussion.

	[Moderator]:  Thank you, [Trade Association Stakeholder].

	[OSHA Staff], do we have anybody from the WebEx?

	[OSHA Staff]:  We have a question from [Trade Association Stakeholder].
 She wants to know if we are planning to schedule another meeting today.
 I believe the answer is no, but I wanted that to be addressed.

	[OSHA Staff]:  No.

	[Moderator]:  Meaning schedule another meeting, not for today but
another meeting, future?

	[OSHA Staff]:  There will be more in the future, but our plans are to
try to plan more in the future, but there's no commitments, no
schedules, no nothing.  We've got to digest what we have today,
functionally move forward with the information that we have, and then
look at what's going on in the future.

	But the communications will be out there.  We've got your e-mail
addresses.  Plus, there's the Federal Register notice.

	[Moderator]:  Anyone from the observers' deck?

	[No audible response.]

	[Moderator]:  Okay.  Who has the last word?

	[OSHA Staff]:  I'll take it.

	I'd just like to thank everyone for giving us all your ideas.  We look
forward to talking with you.

	Now, what you have before you, you have to keep in mind is, you know,
staff-level folks.  So what we still need to do, obviously, is digest
material.  One of the important steps we may have not really talked
about a lot is we do have political leadership, and we have to give them
our ideas and proposals, and ultimately, at the end of the day our
Assistant Secretary, Dr. [NRTL Stakeholder]s, will make the final
decisions about any of the proposals that we put forth to him.

	So a lot of the things you have been hearing today are things, as you
notice at the bottom of all of our materials, they don't really reflect
agency policy.  Our team is really trying to put some ideas forward to
get the discussion going.

	Obviously, we couldn't have had this meeting today without Dr.
Michael’s support.  He is in support of us, taking a
top-to-bottom-down look at the program, and he's excited about some of
the ideas that have been coming up.  Just keep in mind there's always in
the federal government a process that happens.

	But I would like to encourage you to keep the ideas coming, and
hopefully, when we get more focused topics, if we have future
stakeholder meetings, as [NRTL Stakeholder] mentioned, we will have even
more things to say.  Today, we have been sort of at the 30,000-foot
level and taking off some of the big ideas.  I think when we take
separate ideas, everybody will have some different spins on that, if
it's like anything else I've ever seen happen in a stakeholder meeting.

	So I just thank you.  I would mention if you have other comments, you
can stay around and talk to [OSHA Staff].  He's here, and anybody, if
you want to get some WebEx comments in, we can maybe do those after the
meetings is over.

	Safe travels to wherever it is you're going, and we look forward to
seeing you again.

	[Applause.]

	[OSHA Staff]:  The information that is in your packets, that wasn't on
our website, like I said, it is going to be added, and that website is
going to be around for a while.  So as long as we're addressing it, we
are going to try to keep new information that comes out, that once we
are allowed to release it, we will put it on the same website that you
have gotten this information from.

	[Whereupon, at 12:57 p.m., the meeting concluded.] 

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  88 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC.

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free:  888-445-3376