Product Safety Laboratories: OSHA's Accreditation Process Needs Reexamination
Published: 2012-12-11T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: American workers interact with many types of products that could pose risks to their safety. The NRTL program, administered by OSHA, works to support employers and workers by establishing a process for safety-testing certain equipment and other products for use in the U.S. workplace. Under this program, which is supported by user fees, OSHA accredits third-party labs as NRTLs, which then determine whether certain types of products meet safety standards. Because the availability of NRTLs is essential to ensuring that employers have timely access to products that meet safety standards, GAO was asked to examine (1) how long it takes to make accreditation decisions and the key factors that affect timeliness, and (2) the extent to which OSHA has adopted commonly used strategies for improving timeliness. GAO reviewed relevant documents and data from OSHA; interviewed OSHA officials, other NRTL stakeholders, and officials from four federal agencies that administer accreditation programs for other purposes; and reviewed information on strategies for improving timeliness from past GAO reports and other sources.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Department of Labor's (Labor) Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) process for accrediting Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories (NRTL) is lengthy due to the scope of staff members' responsibilities and unclear application procedures for accreditation. Among the 13 recently approved applications, OSHA took between 1 and 5 years to make accreditation decisions. All of these applications took much longer to approve than OSHA's desired time frames, and in some cases, years longer. In addition, 12 of the 29 applications that were awaiting final decisions by OSHA as of June 2012 had been under review longer than the 5-year period for which the accreditation decision would be valid. This lengthy process has potentially negative economic consequences for laboratories and requires OSHA staff to divert their time from other oversight activities. Two key factors led to the long time frames:
Imbalance between staffing levels and scope of responsibilities : The way that OSHA has designed the NRTL program requires its four staff members to balance many wide-ranging responsibilities. These responsibilities include: reviewing all aspects of accreditation, auditing existing laboratories, and responding to information requests from other federal agencies. Consequently, accreditation applications were sometimes set aside for significant amounts of time while OSHA personnel attended to their other responsibilities.
Unclear application requirements : OSHA's requirements for the content and level of detail to be provided in accreditation applications--such as detailed information to assess independence--differ in important ways from international standards used for accrediting safety labs. Lack of clarity in guidance about these and other requirements create confusion among applicants and extend both the amount of time applicants spend preparing the applications and the time OSHA officials spend reviewing them. OSHA said its additional requirements are important to the agency's mission, but it has not formally compared them to current international standards or recently assessed the risks, costs, and benefits of any procedures that deviate from international standards.
While OSHA plans to take some steps to improve timeliness, it has not taken advantage of a range of promising strategies, including some that might address its resource constraints and improve efficiency. GAO identified three key strategies for improving timeliness: (1) aligning program design with program mission and resources; (2) providing clear guidance and timely communication to stakeholders; and (3) developing performance measures and using data to identify inefficiencies. GAO found that OSHA has not evaluated the NRTL accreditation process to assess whether its current structure is the most efficient for processing and approving applications in a timely manner and meeting the program's goals. Consequently, OSHA's processes may be slower than necessary and planned hiring may not adequately address timeliness issues. Since the NRTL program was created in 1988, several new approaches to accreditation have been developed. For example, some federal agencies have collaborated with outside entities to complete select tasks in the accreditation process while continuing to make key oversight decisions in-house. The NRTL staff's current workload has made it difficult for them to implement other timeliness strategies, such as providing timely communication to stakeholders. In addition, OSHA recently stopped using its NRTL performance measures because officials believed that meeting them was impractical.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that Labor review its current structure and procedures for accrediting NRTLs and implement alternatives that would maintain effectiveness while improving timeliness. Labor agreed with the recommendations and described its plans to address them.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: American workers interact with many types of products that may pose  risks to their safety on the job. Accordingly, the Department of Labor’s  Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires that  certain types of safety equipment and other products be safety-tested and  approved by a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) before  employers may use them in the workplace. Currently, there are 15  NRTLs. OSHA recognizes, or accredits, laboratories as NRTLs that have  met the necessary qualifications and requirements specified in program  regulations and agency guidance. In turn, NRTLs determine whether  certain types of products—ranging from fire extinguishers to coffee  makers to power transformers—meet appropriate safety standards. If  approved by an NRTL, the products are accepted by OSHA for use in the  workplace.
Because the availability of such labs for product safety testing is essential  to ensuring employers have timely access to products that meet safety  standards, you asked that, within the context of OSHA meeting its  mission, we examine (1) how long it takes to make accreditation  decisions and the key factors that affect timeliness and (2) the extent to  which OSHA has adopted commonly used strategies for improving  timeliness.
To address both research questions, we reviewed relevant federal laws,  regulations, and OSHA publications on the NRTL program. We also  interviewed key program stakeholders such as OSHA officials, eight  NRTL program applicants, and select public and private organizations,  including non-profits, that accredit safety labs for other programs or  purposes. To determine how long it took OSHA to approve accreditation  applications, we reviewed data from OSHA and analyzed time frames for  applications approved between June 2007 and June 2012. We also  analyzed the length of time that applications for which OSHA had not  made a final determination as of June 11, 2012, had been pending. After  comparing the data to Federal Register notices, which identified key  application dates, and through interviews with OSHA officials, we  determined that the data provided by OSHA were sufficiently reliable for  our purposes. To identify promising strategies for improving timeliness,  we reviewed and synthesized findings from various sources, including  GAO reports, international standards, guidance on accreditation, and  materials from other organizations and federal agencies. We also  interviewed officials from public and private accreditation programs and  organizations, including consortiums of accreditation organizations, about  their processes and practices to identify examples of promising strategies  and learn how they have been implemented by others. We selected other  accreditation programs and organizations to review based on  recommendations from NRTL program stakeholders and gave priority to  those accreditation programs that are similar to OSHA’s accreditation  program in terms of mission or scope. While no other accreditation  process is completely comparable to OSHA’s, the experiences of others  provide illustrative examples of actions that federal agencies have taken  to adapt the accreditation process to their own unique missions and  circumstances. For more information about our sources and methods for  identifying promising strategies for improving timeliness, see appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from April 2012 to December 2012  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: NRTL Program
paragraphs: As authorized by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, OSHA  issues and enforces workplace safety and health standards (OSHA  standards). Some OSHA standards require that certain products used in  the workplace, such as a variety of electrical equipment, be safety-tested  and approved by OSHA-accredited laboratories. To serve this purpose,  OSHA established the NRTL program by regulation in 1988. The program  is currently administered by four staff members and a director who was  hired in August 2012. The NRTL accreditation process is designed to  determine whether an organization has the capability and independence  to test and certify (“approve”) that products meet consensus-based safety  standards (test standards). The main purpose of the NRTL accreditation  process is to ensure that these organizations are and remain qualified to  test and certify products used in the workplace.
OSHA makes three types of accreditation decisions, which are generally  valid for 5 years:  1.  Initial: Determinations about whether to accredit an organization  as an NRTL for the first time.  2.  Expansion: Determinations about whether to expand the purview  of an accredited NRTL to include other categories of products to  be tested or to allow an accredited NRTL to conduct testing  activities at additional sites. For example, an NRTL that is already  accredited by OSHA to test electric clothes washing machines  may apply to add additional test standards to its NRTL scope,  such as standards for testing heat detectors for fire. The duration  of expansion accreditations may be shorter than 5 years because  expansion decisions expire at the end of the current accreditation  period.  3.  Renewal: Determinations about whether to continue accrediting a  lab as an NRTL once its previous accreditation has expired. An  NRTL that submits a sufficient renewal application 9 months to 1  year before its existing accreditation expires retains its NRTL  accreditation until the final renewal decision is made.
OSHA also conducts regular onsite audits of accredited NRTLs. The  NRTL accreditation process generally includes the steps outlined in figure  1.
OSHA collects fees from applicants and accredited NRTLs, and uses the  fees for program expenses. OSHA first instituted fees in 2000 and  calculated them with the intention of covering core application processing  costs and audits of accredited labs. In 2011, OSHA revised its  calculation of these fees to cover additional program costs, with the intent  that the NRTL program would be almost entirely funded through fees paid  by the labs. Under the revised fee structure, the fee for application  review will be $17,750 for an initial NRTL application, $8,280 for  applications to expand to additional sites, and $300 for renewals and  other expansion applications, in addition to fees for other stages of the  process. Once fully implemented, OSHA expects that the fees will cover  approximately 95 percent of program costs, but revenues from fees and  the percentage of program costs they cover will vary from year to year  based on the number of applications submitted and audits performed. conform to the test standards.during follow-up inspections at the manufacturing facilities, where staff  ensure that the mark is being controlled properly and that products are  consistently being manufactured to meet safety standards.
section_title: Scope of Staff Responsibilities and Unclear Application Procedures Lengthen the Accreditation Process
subsections: section_title: Application Processing and Approval Times Are Lengthy Compared to OSHA’s Desired Time Frames and Other Benchmarks
paragraphs: None of the accreditation applications approved in the last 5 years were  processed and approved within the time frames that OSHA officials  consider desirable, and the time frames for some applications were  significantly longer. In the 5-year period from June 2007 to June 2012,  OSHA approved 13 applications. Processing and approval times ranged  from 1.2 to 5 years (see fig. 3).
OSHA officials told us that the desirable time frame for processing and  approving applications is 12 to 18 months for initial applications, 6 to 8  months for expansion applications, and 3 to 4 months for renewal  applications. OSHA officials said they expect an application to fall within  this range if there are no major delays or application deficiencies. For all  13 applications processed during the 5-year period we reviewed, it took  much longer to process and approve the application than the desirable  time frames, and in some cases, years longer (see table 2).
The NRTL accreditation process is also lengthy in relation to the amount  of time that NRTL accreditations are valid. Our analysis of the processing  time frames for these initial, expansion, and renewal applications showed  that it took OSHA 2.5 years or more to complete about half of them.  These time frames signify a relatively long application period for an  accreditation term of 5 years and, for some renewal applications, a  lengthy period in which an existing lab is operating under an extension of  its existing accreditation.
In addition to these lengthy time frames for approving applications, many  application decisions have been under review by OSHA for substantial  lengths of time and remain pending. Of the 29 applications pending  approval as of June 2012, 12 had been pending for between 5 and 10  years. Therefore, they had been under review by OSHA for at least as  long as the term of the 5-year accreditation (see fig. 4). Almost all of the  applications pending for this long were renewal applications. Further, the  number of pending applications may underestimate the total number of  accreditation cases that are awaiting review. At least two of the eight  laboratories we interviewed had chosen not to submit new expansion  applications until their earlier expansions were approved because they  said that it is not productive to have multiple expansion applications going  through OSHA’s process at once. Officials from one lab noted that they  decided not to submit a second application to OSHA while the first was  under review because they did not want OSHA to divide its time between  the two applications.
The lengthy NRTL accreditation process results in negative economic  consequences for applying labs, according to most of the applicants with  whom we spoke. Lab officials said that NRTL accreditation processing  times make it difficult to attract or retain customers or hire and retain  technical experts. For example, an official with a lab that had a pending  NRTL expansion application told us that his lab had already been  accredited by another organization to test and certify the same products  for use outside the workplace. However, OSHA had not approved the  lab’s application to test and certify these same products for use in the  workplace although the lab’s application had been under review for  several years. He said OSHA’s lengthy NRTL accreditation process hurt  the lab’s relationship with clients because many manufacturers do not  want to work with a laboratory unless it can approve products for use  within the workplace. An official from another laboratory said that the  company had lost staff members who were hired specifically to support  the lab’s application for an expanded scope of work. Given the length of  time that the lab’s expansion application has been under review, it could  not retain these specialized staff members while it waited for NRTL  approval. The laboratory will ultimately need to rehire individuals with this  type of expertise if the application is approved.
section_title: Imbalance between Program Staffing Levels and Scope of Responsibilities Led to Long Time Frames and Delayed Approval of Applications
paragraphs: The way the NRTL program is designed requires its four staff members to  balance many wide-ranging responsibilities and can lead to delays in  approving accreditation applications. Two senior engineers and two junior staff members share responsibility for all aspects of the NRTL program.Labor attorneys also assist the NRTL program. The program is structured  so that these staff members are responsible for the following:
All aspects of approving accreditation applications. This includes  reviewing all aspects of the accreditation applications; communicating  with applicants regarding questions and application status; conducting  site visits; making preliminary accreditation decisions; and preparing  the Federal Register notices that formalize accreditation decisions.
Oversight activities for existing labs. According to NRTL program  policy documents, accredited labs and satellite offices should be  audited by OSHA personnel. In total, this includes auditing  approximately 120 sites worldwide. The staff are also responsible for  investigating any complaints OSHA receives about accredited labs.
Updating program guidance and procedures. This includes making  revisions to program documents including the NRTL program directive  on program policies, procedures, and guidelines, as well as other  guidance on the application review process. Staff must also update  OSHA’s NRTL website to provide information such as the names and  approved products for each NRTL.
Responding to requests from other federal agencies. OSHA staff  told us that federal entities such as the Office of Management and  Budget and the Office of the United States Trade Representative  frequently request NRTL program staff input on questions related to  international trade and product safety.
OSHA officials told us that balancing these responsibilities can be  challenging and leads to difficult decisions about how to prioritize their  tasks. They said that their workloads are often affected by tasks that  originate outside the NRTL program office. For example, staff reported  having to postpone accreditation work when urgent requests came in  from the Office of the United States Trade Representative or other federal  agencies.
Given these wide-ranging duties, NRTL program staff sometimes set  aside applications for significant amounts of time while they attend to their  other responsibilities. OSHA often cited these competing demands when  explaining to applicants its slow process for approving their applications.  For example, one applicant said that when he asked for a status update  on his organization’s application several months after submitting it to  OSHA, an agency official told him it had not yet been opened because no  one had had time to start processing the application. OSHA officials also  told us that more complex applications, which may take a lot of time to  process, are sometimes set aside in order to process applications that are  more straight-forward, but there is no formal method of prioritizing  applications for review.
While OSHA does not systematically collect data on the proportion of time  an application is being actively processed versus the time it is waiting for  review, available information supports applicants’ concerns that OSHA  may not be actively reviewing applications for a significant amount of the  time they are at the agency. OSHA processing, applicant revisions, and  public comment periods accounted for some, but not all, of the total  duration of recent application reviews. The estimated time frames for  each of these steps are described below, but the full duration of  application processing and approval times for most applications approved  between June 2007 and June 2012 took months or years longer than the  estimated time frames for each of these steps combined. This suggests  that a given application may be set aside for significant amounts of time  while OSHA personnel attend to their other responsibilities.
OSHA’s average processing times: OSHA documents show that,  on average, staff actively work on initial applications for the equivalent  of about 2.5 months and expansion or renewal applications for the  equivalent of about 1 month.
Applicant revisions: OSHA officials noted that labs often have to  revise their applications after deficiencies are identified, which  extends the duration of the time frames for approving applications.  This may involve two rounds of OSHA comments on written  applications and two rounds of related applicant revisions. OSHA  officials said they have sometimes allowed up to 1 year and 2 months  for applicants to complete such revisions. Applicants may also correct  deficiencies identified by OSHA during site visits, and OSHA allowed  approximately 1 month for one recent initial applicant to do so. In our  analysis of the application processing files for three recent initial  applications, we found that all three applicants revised their  applications at least once and the total revisions for each application  took from 6 to 11 months.
Public comment period: For all types of applications, OSHA  provides a public comment period that begins when it publishes its  preliminary accreditation decision in the Federal Register. According  to OSHA’s regulations, the minimum period for public comment on  initial applications is 30 days, while the minimum period for public  comment on renewal or expansion applications is 15 days.
In addition to extending the time it takes OSHA to approve applications,  staff workload also leads to delays in responding to applicants’ questions  about the status of their applications. Almost all of the applicants we  interviewed expressed frustration about the amount of time it took to  receive responses from OSHA and often said that OSHA officials  attributed slow response times to their workload. Officials at one  laboratory stated that there was about a 50/50 chance of ever receiving a  response from OSHA when they contacted program staff. Officials of  another laboratory described the OSHA accreditation process as a “black  box” because applicants were uncertain about when their applications  would reach the next milestone. Several applicants said that this  uncertainty made the long application processing time frames even more  difficult for their businesses because they could not plan for budgetary  needs or update their clients on when they would offer new services.  Several labs also noted that other accreditation programs respond to  questions within a few days, so the delays in receiving responses from  OSHA staff make the program an outlier. OSHA officials told us they used  to provide applicants with quarterly updates that included projected target  dates for the various stages of the application approval process, but they  stopped providing these quarterly updates because the agency could not  meet its projected target dates.
Decisions about how to prioritize staff workload also affect the amount of  internal review that accreditation decisions receive before they are  finalized and can have negative impacts on applicants’ trust of program  operations. GAO guidance on internal controls highlights the importance  of separating key duties such as initial decisions and reviews of those  decisions. International accreditation standards also require that final  accreditation decisions be made by competent individuals or committees  different from those who carried out the assessment. However, OSHA’s  accreditation decisions for NRTLs are not consistently reviewed by a  second technical reviewer before being finalized. OSHA officials said that  the decisions are reviewed for legal accuracy, and are approved by upper  management, but given the small size of the NRTL staff and their heavy  workload, the person who conducts the initial reviews of applications is  often the same person who makes the final recommendation about  whether a lab should be accredited. While this might decrease the  processing time for some applications or be the most feasible approach  given program staffing levels, it can create a greater potential for error or  bias. Two applicants we spoke with expressed concern about the  absence of a second technical reviewer.
Further, staffing roles and responsibilities affect the level of oversight  OSHA provides once an accreditation application is approved. For  example, to reduce the number of pending applications, OSHA staff  reprioritized their duties so that a senior engineer could spend the  majority of his time processing and approving applications. While this  provided more resources for the application process, officials said it  reduced the time they can spend auditing existing NRTLs, and several  labs we interviewed confirmed that they had been audited less frequently  in recent years. Auditing the NRTLs less frequently increases the  likelihood that any problems with an accredited lab will go unnoticed. The  extensive time it takes OSHA to approve renewal applications also means  that labs are sometimes operating under previous accreditations for much  longer than the 5 years for which they are valid because OSHA  regulations generally allow labs to retain their accreditation and continue  approving products while they wait for OSHA’s decisions on their  applications for renewal. This can minimize the impact that processing  delays have on a lab’s business operations, but it also means that a lab  with performance problems could operate for an extended period of time  after its 5-year accreditation period, even if the lab’s renewal is ultimately  rejected. For example, one lab’s recent renewal application was pending  for 8 years before OSHA ultimately rejected it.
section_title: Unclear Application Requirements Further Increase the Length of Accreditation Reviews
paragraphs: Most of the applicants we spoke with told us that OSHA’s guidance does  not always provide adequate information about the program’s application  requirements, which creates confusion and adds time to the review  process. Applicants found the guidance particularly confusing because  OSHA’s requirements for the content and level of detail labs must provide  in their accreditation applications differ in important ways from those of  many other organizations that accredit safety labs by using current  international standards for accreditation. For example, several NRTLs  noted that the types of product approval activities they conduct or are  applying to conduct for the NRTL program are similar to the work that  they do under other accreditation programs. Some of the information  OSHA requires during its application process to test those products  differs from what other programs require in ways that applicants believe  are not clearly articulated in NRTL guidance. When the program last  updated its application policies in 1999, OSHA developed these  deviations from international standards in order to ensure that NRTLs  were qualified to meet all aspects of the program’s mission and  requirements. At the time they completed their applications for the NRTL  program, most applicants said they were unclear about how and why the  NRTL requirements differed from international accreditation standards,  which led to confusion and affected the timeliness of the process. For  example, officials at a lab that recently submitted an initial application to  OSHA said the agency required them to provide additional detail about  the work procedures they planned to use when conducting tests of  equipment. This information was not required when they submitted similar  applications to other accreditation organizations and lab officials were  unaware of this difference when they initially prepared and submitted their  accreditation application to OSHA. The lab ultimately had to revise its  application to meet OSHA’s requirements, extending both the amount of  time lab staff spent preparing the application and the time OSHA officials  spent reviewing it. OHSA officials told us that such detail is key to  ensuring that lab staff have the knowledge to perform the required safety  tests. Officials stated that the agency intends to revise its policies and  guidance to better convey its application expectations, but has not yet  done so due to workload issues.
Confusion resulting from OSHA’s unclear guidance is compounded in  cases where OSHA’s requirements are evolving. For example, OSHA has  been revising its process for verifying the independence of labs since  2008, but it has not updated the independence policies in its policy   OSHA officials said that the  directive or other application guidance.agency continues to process renewal applications while it revises its  independence policies, but they have delayed making final decisions until  the requirements are finalized. They noted that this process is time- consuming. There were 13 renewal applications pending in June 2012, 10  of which were pending for 5 years or more. Officials from several labs  said that they have not received clear guidance from OSHA on the level  of information required to illustrate independence and, therefore, they  have had to provide several rounds of information to OSHA in their  applications. One lab said that gathering this additional information is time  consuming because it often involves obtaining information about  individuals and companies with a minority financial interest in the labs,  some of whom are located in different countries. Several applicants with  pending expansion or renewal applications also said that some of  OSHA’s requirements seem to have evolved over time and OSHA has not  revised its guidance to include these new requirements. Representatives  from these labs said OSHA identified deficiencies in their most recent  expansion applications although they provided similar types of information  in previous years on applications accepted by OSHA.
While OSHA’s application requirements may differ from international  standards in order to meet the agency’s safety mission, OSHA has not  compared its requirements to current international standards to identify  differences and assess their costs and benefits in order to ensure that the  time devoted to assessing applicants against additional requirements is  well-spent. OSHA officials told us the additional information about work  procedures and independence they require of applicants is necessary to  ensure the quality of the product approval process and that applicants  follow program requirements. For example, OSHA officials said that the  requirement in OSHA regulations that labs be “completely independent”  of manufacturers presents a high bar for application review, and  international standards on accreditation do not include such extensive  requirements. When OSHA developed its NRTL policy directive in 1999  detailing the specific requirements for accreditation applications, it  modified the international standards that were available at that time to fit  NRTL program needs and requirements. However, subsequently, the  agency has not formally reviewed the NRTL procedures against the  current versions of international standards on accreditation or recently  assessed the risks, costs, and benefits of having procedures that deviate  from these standards. NIST guidance recommends that agencies  establish ongoing processes for reviewing their accreditation activities  and, to the extent possible, coordinate with federal, private, and  international organizations. Officials told us that they would like to  evaluate their procedures against current international standards, but  have not had time to do so. Without OSHA conducting a risk assessment  of its current requirements, the extent of any value added from the  program’s additional application requirements is unknown, as are any  trade-offs the agency makes by devoting more resources to the  application review. In addition, the rationale for these requirements may  be unclear to applicants. Perhaps as a consequence, about half of the  NRTL applicants we spoke with questioned whether all of OSHA’s  application procedures were necessary. For example, two applicants  questioned whether it was necessary for OSHA’s independence review to  cover individuals sitting on the boards of companies only marginally  affiliated with the testing lab. On the other hand, representatives from two  of the eight labs we interviewed said that certain OSHA requirements  enhanced the quality of the program by, for example, providing detailed  information about work procedures that was helpful in training new staff.  While additional requirements imposed by OSHA may have value, where  their purpose has not been articulated or their actual value has not been  assessed, applicants may be more likely to question whether the  requirements are justified and OSHA may not be expending its resources  to optimum benefit.
section_title: Strategies for Improving Timeliness Exist, but OSHA has Taken Limited Steps to Implement Them
paragraphs: While a range of promising strategies for improving timeliness exist,  including some that might help address resource constraints, mitigate  confusion over application procedures, and improve efficiency, OSHA has  taken limited steps to implement such strategies in its accreditation  process. Based on our review of various sources, including GAO reports,  we identified three promising strategies for improving timeliness: (1)  aligning program design with program mission and resources; (2)  providing clear guidance and timely communication to program  stakeholders; and (3) developing performance measures and using data  to track progress in meeting them to identify inefficiencies. For more  information on how we arrived at these three strategies and the sources  we reviewed, see appendix I.
subsections: section_title: OSHA’s Program Design is Not Aligned with Program Resources
paragraphs: Past GAO work on program management has found that agencies can  improve efficiency, including timeliness, by aligning program design with  resources through various actions. For example, in some instances,  streamlining procedures can save resources, improve productivity, and  help staff focus more time on performing essential program activities. In  other instances, a fundamental reexamination of program structure may  be appropriate and can provide insight into whether government  operations are outmoded and need to be restructured. According to  guidance from the Office of Management and Budget and previous GAO  reports on risk management, agencies can also benefit from evaluating  program procedures by analyzing the associated risks, benefits, and  costs of changes to program operations. Conducting such analyses  helps agencies effectively decide how to prioritize their work, consistent  with their mission and resources. Furthermore, collaborating with other  government agencies and similar industry organizations is another step  that agencies can take to improve program design and align program  structure with resources. Collaboration allows programs to capitalize on  the expertise of others, coordinate activities, and avoid unnecessary  duplication and complexity.
53 Fed. Reg. 12,102, 12,114 (Apr. 12, 1988). other agencies such as NIST.thought that OSHA should reevaluate its approach to accreditation. For  example, a few of the NRTL applicants we interviewed said there has  been a shift in accreditation approaches since the NRTL program started  in the late 1980s and OSHA has not always kept pace with these  changes.
The expenditure figure is based on the existing four NRTL program staff and includes  estimates of salary and benefits for the program staff and for one Labor attorney who  assists the program; travel expenses, mainly for performing audits; and general office  expenses.
2013. If the agency is successful in its hiring efforts, officials anticipate  holding extensive training sessions for new staff members to prepare  them for their responsibilities. While using higher fees to increase staffing  is promising in theory as a means of improving timeliness, GAO has  found in the past that, in practice, there may be problems associated with  this approach. For example, it can be difficult to hire and train people  quickly enough or retain them long enough to affect timeliness.  Furthermore, if fewer accreditation applications are submitted than  expected, fees may fall short of estimates, making it difficult to plan and  budget for the program. Due to the unpredictability of the volume of  applications received, OSHA cannot be certain that increased fees will  lead to higher revenues, as projected, and the outcome of OSHA’s efforts  to hire and retain additional staff remains unclear.
Unlike OSHA’s NRTL accreditation process, other federal agencies we  interviewed relied in part on other public or private organizations to carry  out the accreditation process and maximize their resources. The outside  accreditation organizations often charge and collect fees from the labs in  order to cover the cost of accreditation application processing and  approval, but according to the federal agencies we interviewed, these  organizations do not charge fees to the federal agencies. The federal  agencies we interviewed also worked with NIST to plan, design, and  develop their accreditation programs. Although each federal agency has a  unique mission and a distinct process for accrediting labs, the examples  below illustrate varied actions that agencies have taken in their efforts to  adapt their processes to maximize resources and meet their own unique  missions and circumstances.
FCC’s Equipment Authorization Program - FCC officials told us  the agency originally required labs to submit accreditation applications  directly to FCC, but then restructured its approach to address  resource constraints in the agency by collaborating with outside  accreditation organizations. In order to satisfy FCC’s requirements,  labs accredited through these outside accrediting organizations must  meet both international standards and additional program-specific  requirements. While the outside organizations evaluate labs and  make recommendations about whether a lab meets FCC’s criteria and  procedural requirements, FCC makes the final decision about whether  to accept the lab into its programs. An FCC official said that working  with outside accrediting organizations means that FCC has to  constantly educate these organizations about program changes and  new technology. However, the official said that using this structure  allows FCC to use its limited resources to focus on critical compliance  issues and the more technical aspects of the program while  capitalizing on the expertise of organizations that have specialized  backgrounds in accreditation.
HHS’s Health Information Technology Certification Program -  Like FCC, HHS officials decided to collaborate with external  organizations in order to maximize program resources and harness  the expertise of others. HHS officials said that because health  information technology systems are complex, have important  implications for patient safety, and present a high risk for potential  fraud and abuse, it was important for HHS to be involved in  developing policies and to tailor HHS’s accreditation processes to fit  the unique needs of the program. For example, according to agency officials, HHS worked with NIST to develop sector-specific  requirements for accrediting certification organizations in addition to  using international accreditation standards. HHS officials said that by  designating outside organizations to make accreditation decisions,  they are better able to focus on the program’s goals and strategic  planning, and are less focused on administrative tasks, such as  collecting and tracking fees. They also said that using this structure  has allowed them to make decisions about how to design their  accreditation approach based on what will best fulfill their mission,  rather than what resources are available in-house.
CPSC’s Conformity Assessment Body Recognition Program -  Officials at CPSC recognized that their relatively small staff was not  prepared to perform accreditations themselves and that there were  not enough time, resources, and expertise within the CPSC to run a  large-scale international accreditation program. After consulting with  NIST and weighing its options, CPSC ultimately decided to leverage  the expertise and experience of an international organization whose  member accreditation organizations meet international standards for  accreditation and have been deemed competent through a peer- review process. CPSC officials believe this approach provides  additional transparency in the process. Although CPSC does not  accredit labs itself, it maintains a list of approved labs by requiring  labs to apply directly to CPSC and by verifying that different types of  labs have been appropriately accredited.
Another approach that may help a program align its design with its  resources is to use contractors to supplement limited in-house staff. For  example, representatives from some of the private accreditation  organizations we interviewed, including some that conduct accreditation  activities for the federal agencies discussed above, said they use  individual contractors on an as-needed basis. This reduces the need for  full-time staff and helps to ensure that those individuals performing  accreditation activities possess the necessary expertise. These  organizations said that using contractors provides organizations with the  flexibility to quickly adjust staffing levels based on the amount of work,  and the particular accreditation work that needs to be performed. It also  allows them to retain appropriately skilled people to perform the  accreditation work. However, federal agencies’ use of private contractors  is subject to various requirements, which limit the type of functions that  may be performed by contractors and entail a commitment of time and  resources to meet. In addition, an OSHA official told us that if the  agency were to rely on outside individuals, it would need to ensure their  competency and independence.
section_title: OSHA Lacks Clear Guidance and Timely Communication with Applicants
paragraphs: Clear guidance and communication with applicants can also serve to  improve the timeliness of the accreditation process. Guidance that does  not give applicants the information they need to submit an acceptable  application can delay approval. GAO’s internal control guidance states  that program managers should ensure there are adequate means of  communicating with, and obtaining information and feedback from,  external stakeholders who may have a significant impact on the program  achieving its goals. Not only do clear guidance and communication  contribute to timely processes, but they also serve to enhance the  transparency of programs and policies by explaining program criteria and  may increase trust and confidence among stakeholders.
OSHA’s current structure and workload have made it difficult to provide  clear guidance and timely communication to applicants. Most of the NRTL  applicants we interviewed stated that OSHA could enhance its guidance  and communication in order to improve the timeliness of the accreditation  process and to help make the accreditation process more transparent.  The directive on NRTL program policies and procedures has not been  revised since 1999, and OSHA has not updated its NRTL application  guidelines since 2000. A new director assumed responsibility for the  NRTL program in August 2012, and plans to focus on improving the  consistency and clarity of program procedures and guidance, but it is too  early to determine the timing and scope of such revisions. OSHA plans to  issue interim program guidance in the short-term while later updating  NRTL application guidelines and the directive on NRTL program policies  and procedures.
We also found that OSHA had not adopted some of the measures to  disseminate information used by other accreditation organizations we  interviewed. For example, one of the accreditation organizations we  interviewed holds an annual meeting specifically to hear from clients, and  FCC hosts workshops twice a year where it shares program updates and  explains program requirements to stakeholders. OSHA, on the other  hand, occasionally speaks at trade association conferences and  participates in workshops sponsored by NIST, but it does not hold regular  meetings to update stakeholders and solicit feedback. An OSHA official  did say that about 2 years ago, he started to initiate phone calls with labs  interested in applying to the NRTL program to clarify the requirements for  applications, with the intention of minimizing the back and forth that takes  place during the application process. In his opinion, applicants have found  these calls useful.
Other accreditation organizations we interviewed have taken steps to  enhance guidance and communication with applicants, such as  developing systems to provide applicants with status updates and  information in “real time.” For example, two accreditation organizations  we interviewed maintain online portals that allow applicants to check on  the status of their applications throughout the various stages of the  application process. Furthermore, FCC manages a database for providing  information to stakeholders. This database provides answers to frequently  asked questions submitted by stakeholders and helps to ensure that FCC  is giving consistent advice and answers to questions. FCC officials also  said that input from stakeholders helps inform their guidance publications.
section_title: OSHA Does Not Currently Track the Quality and Timeliness of Its Accreditation Process Using Performance Measures
paragraphs: Our research on program management underscores the importance of  developing performance goals and measures to track progress and  evaluate program performance. Developing a range of related  performance measures and balancing these measures to address quality,  timeliness, efficiency, cost of service, and outcomes also allows a  program to balance priorities among other demands and gives managers  crucial information on which to base their organizational and management  decisions. In addition, using data to understand time frames offers an  opportunity to identify potential inefficiencies and strategies for improving  timeliness.
OSHA developed performance measures for the NRTL program,  including measures for timeliness of the approval process. However, it  recently discontinued using these measures, because staff members’  workload increased to the point that it was impractical to achieve the  metrics established. Through informal monitoring of the time it takes to  approve accreditation applications, OSHA recognizes that its  accreditation process has been taking longer than expected, especially  for those applications with no major deficiencies or issues. OSHA officials  are hoping that their plans to hire additional staff will bring the NRTL  program closer to achieving their timeliness goals. It remains unclear,  however, whether planned hiring efforts will adequately address  timeliness issues or how OSHA plans to reinstitute its performance  measures. OSHA also collects some program data, but it does not  currently use the data to track timeliness or analyze trends. For example,  in response to one of the recommendations included in a 2005 report by  Labor’s Office of Inspector General, OSHA developed a contact log so  that the NRTL program could maintain a log of calls, e-mails, and related   However, the contact log was developed primarily to document  details.that OSHA had responded to inquiries from NRTLs, not necessarily to  track the amount of time it took OSHA to respond. In the fall of 2012,  OSHA officials told us they began developing a more robust system to  track timeliness data and to address inefficiencies identified through the  data, but this initiative is in the early stages.
OSHA does not have performance measures to assess the quality and  timeliness of its accreditation process, although such measures have  been adopted by most of the accreditation organizations we contacted.  For example, one accreditation organization had target dates in place for  each phase of its application process and tracked its performance in  relation to the targets. Another accreditation organization with  performance measures in place also had a corrective action system in  place to review troubling data, identify the root cause of any problems,  and implement solutions. This accreditation organization also measured  customer satisfaction.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The NRTL program provides an important mechanism for protecting  workers’ safety. However, if not addressed, the lengthy accreditation  application processing and approval times resulting from the current  scope of staff responsibilities and unclear guidance about the process will  continue to have negative impacts on labs’ business operations and  OSHA’s ability to conduct other oversight activities. Much has changed in  the world of laboratory accreditation since the NRTL process was  designed in 1988; for example, NIST issued guidance intended to reduce  duplication and improve efficiency, in accordance with the National  Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, and some federal  agencies have used new approaches to accreditation to administer lab  accreditation programs. This includes increasing use of new approaches  for efficiently and effectively using resources and harnessing the  expertise of other organizations, while retaining key oversight  responsibilities within the federal government. While OSHA plans to take  some actions to improve timeliness, it is too early to determine the extent  of these actions and it is uncertain whether any incremental changes will  be sufficient to fully address the program’s challenges. Without thinking  strategically about the program as a whole, the agency may be missing  opportunities to implement more comprehensive strategies for improving  timeliness, such as modifying its program structure in a manner that  better serves its mission and capitalizes on the expertise of agency staff  and external resources. Even if some of these strategies require initial  time investments, thinking strategically about the program’s structure can  ultimately reap time savings and ensure that procedures and staff  responsibilities are targeted in a way that optimizes the program’s  effectiveness in addressing workplace safety.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: To improve the timeliness of the NRTL accreditation process, we  recommend that the Secretary of Labor direct the Assistant Secretary for  Occupational Safety and Health to:  Review the NRTL program’s structure and accreditation application  procedures to identify and implement any alternatives that better align  program design with resource levels and improve program timeliness  while remaining consistent with the agency’s mission. This review should  draw upon the expertise of NIST or other organizations that provide  guidance on developing effective and efficient accreditation schemes. It  should include:  1.  Identifying and evaluating the risks, costs, and benefits of various  structural approaches for making accreditation decisions in terms of  both timeliness and effectiveness in achieving OSHA’s mission.  Approaches could include using an external accrediting organization  to implement some or all of the lab accreditation duties, using  contractors to support in-house portions of the accreditation process,  or separating testing from certification accreditation activities.  2.  Reviewing OSHA’s current regulations and procedures to identify  areas where increased alignment with international standards on  accreditation may result in time savings without impairing the  agency’s mission to protect workers’ safety and health. This could  include analyzing the risks, costs, and benefits to effectiveness  involved in making any program modifications or changes to existing  regulations.  3.  Ensuring that all lab accreditation decisions are reviewed by an  independent technical reviewer in order to better align the  accreditation decision process with internal controls principles for  separating key duties and international standards on making  accreditation decisions. OSHA should evaluate options for achieving  independent review based in part on their effects on process duration.  4.  Improving overall program guidance and transparency to help prevent  delays in the approval process.  5.  Establishing program goals and performance measures, including  timeliness goals for the approval of accreditation applications, and  analyzing resulting performance measurement data to identify  potential inefficiencies in the application process.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to Labor for its review and comment.  Labor’s Assistant Secretary for OSHA provided written comments,  which are reproduced in appendix II. Labor agreed with our  recommendations and described its plans to implement them, citing a  commitment to use the most efficient and effective strategies in the  NRTL program. For example, Labor states that it is assessing the  NRTL program against alternative approaches used by other testing  laboratory accrediting organizations and that it is coordinating with  outside agencies, including the National Institute of Standards and  Technology, to seek ways in which the NRTL program can improve its  processes. In response to our recommendation to improve program  guidance and transparency, Labor stated that it plans to develop and  issue policy guidance on NRTL program requirements to ensure the  program is administered consistently, and it plans to actively engage  NRTL stakeholders in the policy-development process. In addition,  Labor intends to use performance measures for processing  applications and to explore the development of a web-based customer  service site where NRTLs could check the status of their applications  throughout the review process.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees and the Secretary of Labor. In addition, the report is available  at no charge on GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-7215 or moranr@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report  are listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: This study’s objective was to answer the following questions about the  Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) Nationally  Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) program: (1) How long does it  take to make accreditation decisions and what are the key factors that  affect timeliness? and (2) To what extent has OSHA adopted commonly  used strategies for improving timeliness? To address these research  questions, we used a variety of methods including: analysis of OSHA’s  data on recently processed accreditation applications; reviews of relevant  federal laws, regulations, and OSHA publications on the NRTL program;  interviews with key program stakeholders including OSHA officials, eight  NRTL program applicants, and other public and private organizations,  including non-profits, that accredit safety labs for other programs or  purposes; a review and synthesis of findings from various sources,  including GAO reports, international standards, guidance on  accreditation, and materials from other federal agencies to identify  promising strategies for improving the timeliness of accreditation  decisions; and interviews with officials from selected federal agencies  about their accreditation processes and practices.
To determine how long it took OSHA to approve accreditation  applications between June 2007 and June 2012—as well as how many  applications were pending during that time— we analyzed Federal  Register notices and information from an internal OSHA database that  included key application dates, such as application submission and final  accreditation decision dates. We analyzed timing data on all initial,  expansion, and renewal decisions that were approved between June 11,  2007 and June 11, 2012. We also reviewed timing information for all  applications that are currently pending. We selected this date range to  ensure that our analysis included decisions for each of the three types of  applications, reflected OSHA’s most recent time frames and processes,  and included decisions made under two administrations. After  interviewing OSHA officials and comparing Federal Register notices that  identify key application dates for approved applications to separately  generated data from OSHA’s internal database, we determined that the  data on application submission dates and final decision dates were  sufficiently reliable for our purposes. Our analysis focused primarily on  application submission dates and final decision dates because the  available data in OSHA’s database for intermediary stages of the review  process were less reliable.
We used the following criteria to assess the length of OSHA’s  accreditation process:
OSHA’s view on desirable time frames for accreditation reviews.  for completed applications, duration of the accreditation application  and approval process relative to duration of the accreditation itself (5  years);  for pending applications, existence and duration of application  backlogs;  stakeholders’ views; and  To gather more information about the amount of time that initial  applications were with applicants for revisions versus with OSHA during  the accreditation review, we also reviewed the application files for the  three initial applications processed by OSHA between June 2007 and  June 2012. Two of these applications were approved by OSHA and one  was withdrawn by the applicant after the initial review and revision stages  of the process.
To further understand the accreditation process and factors that might  affect its timing, we interviewed OSHA officials and reviewed relevant  federal laws, regulations, and NRTL program documents. We also  interviewed eight NRTL applicants who represented a mix of initial,  expansion, and/or renewal accreditation applications that have been  pending, approved, or otherwise closed since June 2007. We selected  labs so that our review would include the perspectives of applicants at  different points in the decision-making process and with a variety of initial,  expansion, and renewal applications. We also chose labs that  represented a variety of sizes, as measured by the number of approved  NRTL testing sites. In addition, we interviewed other stakeholders  including a manufacturing organization and an employer organization to  obtain information about any effects the duration of the NRTL  accreditation process may have had on these sectors.
To identify promising practices for improving timeliness, we reviewed and   international standards  synthesized findings from relevant GAO reports,and guidance on accreditation, and materials from federal organizations  such as the Office of Management and Budget, the National Institute of  Standards and Technology (NIST), and the National Research Council.We identified these sources through literature searches and discussions  with stakeholders and individuals who are knowledgeable about  management practices that could improve timeliness. We compared the  strategies we identified with OSHA’s current and planned actions to  improve timeliness, as identified through interviews and relevant  documentation. We also identified promising practices for improving the  timeliness of the NRTL accreditation process by soliciting suggestions  from the eight NRTL applicants that we interviewed.
We also interviewed officials and reviewed relevant documents from  seven public and private accreditation programs and organizations,  including non-profit organizations, as well as two consortiums of  accreditation organizations, to identify promising timeliness practices  used by others. No other accreditation process is completely comparable  to OSHA’s given differences in scope or mission. However, the  experiences of other programs and organizations provide illustrative  examples of actions that agencies have taken to adapt to their own  unique missions and circumstances. After compiling an extensive list of  accreditation programs and organizations, we ultimately selected  organizations to review in more detail based on the following:  recommendations from NRTL program stakeholders, those programs we  identified as using one or more of the promising strategies for improving  timeliness included in our report, or those programs that are similar to  OSHA’s program in terms of mission or scope. We interviewed officials  from four federal agencies with lab accreditation programs: the Consumer  Product Safety Commission Conformity Assessment Body Recognition  Program; the Federal Communications Commission Equipment  Authorization Program; the Department of Health and Human Services  Health Information Technology Certification Program; and the NIST  National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program. In addition to  speaking with officials from these four federal accreditation programs, we  also interviewed representatives from three accreditation organizations  outside the U.S. federal government: the American Association for  Laboratory Accreditation, Standards Council of Canada, and the  American National Standards Institute. Finally, we spoke with  representatives from two consortiums of accreditation organizations: the  International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation and the National  Cooperation for Laboratory Accreditation.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Labor
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Betty Ward-Zukerman, Assistant  Director; Elizabeth Dobrenz, Meredith Moore, Maria Stattel, and Barbara  Steel-Lowney made significant contributions to all phases of the work.  Also contributing to this report were James Bennett, Sarah Cornetto,  Elizabeth Curda, Debra Johnson, Kathy Leslie, Jean McSween, Cathy  Roark, Daren Sweeney, and Kate van Gelder.