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

Letter

Background

NRTL Program

As authorized by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, OSHA issues and enforces workplace safety and health standards (OSHA standards). 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.

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

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

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

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

The way the NRTL program is designed requires its four staff members to balance many wide-ranging responsibilities and can lead to delays in approving accreditation applications. Two senior engineers and two junior staff members share responsibility for all aspects of the NRTL program.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.

Unclear Application Requirements Further Increase the Length of Accreditation Reviews

Most of the applicants we spoke with told us that OSHA’s guidance does not always provide adequate information about the program’s application requirements, which creates confusion and adds time to the review process. Applicants found the guidance particularly confusing because OSHA’s requirements for the content and level of detail labs must provide in their accreditation applications differ in important ways from those of many other organizations that accredit safety labs by using current international standards for accreditation. 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.

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

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

OSHA’s Program Design is Not Aligned with Program Resources

Past GAO work on program management has found that agencies can improve efficiency, including timeliness, by aligning program design with resources through various actions. 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.

OSHA Lacks Clear Guidance and Timely Communication with Applicants

Clear guidance and communication with applicants can also serve to improve the timeliness of the accreditation process. Guidance that does not give applicants the information they need to submit an acceptable application can delay approval. GAO’s internal control guidance states that program managers should ensure there are adequate means of communicating with, and obtaining information and feedback from, external stakeholders who may have a significant impact on the program achieving its goals. 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.

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

Our research on program management underscores the importance of developing performance goals and measures to track progress and evaluate program performance. Developing a range of related performance measures and balancing these measures to address quality, timeliness, efficiency, cost of service, and outcomes also allows a program to balance priorities among other demands and gives managers crucial information on which to base their organizational and management decisions. 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.

Conclusions

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

Recommendation for Executive Action

To improve the timeliness of the NRTL accreditation process, we recommend that the Secretary of Labor direct the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health to: Review the NRTL program’s structure and accreditation application procedures to identify and implement any alternatives that better align program design with resource levels and improve program timeliness while remaining consistent with the agency’s mission. This review should draw upon the expertise of NIST or other organizations that provide guidance on developing effective and efficient accreditation schemes. It should include: 1. Identifying and evaluating the risks, costs, and benefits of various structural approaches for making accreditation decisions in terms of both timeliness and effectiveness in achieving OSHA’s mission. Approaches could include using an external accrediting organization to implement some or all of the lab accreditation duties, using contractors to support in-house portions of the accreditation process, or separating testing from certification accreditation activities. 2. Reviewing OSHA’s current regulations and procedures to identify areas where increased alignment with international standards on accreditation may result in time savings without impairing the agency’s mission to protect workers’ safety and health. This could include analyzing the risks, costs, and benefits to effectiveness involved in making any program modifications or changes to existing regulations. 3. Ensuring that all lab accreditation decisions are reviewed by an independent technical reviewer in order to better align the accreditation decision process with internal controls principles for separating key duties and international standards on making accreditation decisions. OSHA should evaluate options for achieving independent review based in part on their effects on process duration. 4. Improving overall program guidance and transparency to help prevent delays in the approval process. 5. Establishing program goals and performance measures, including timeliness goals for the approval of accreditation applications, and analyzing resulting performance measurement data to identify potential inefficiencies in the application process.

Agency Comments

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

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees and the Secretary of Labor. In addition, the report is available at no charge on GAO’s website at 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.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

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

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

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

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.

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Labor

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

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