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. OSHA makes three types of accreditation decisions, which are generally  valid for 5 years:  1. 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. 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). Of the 29 applications pending  approval as of June 2012, 12 had been pending for between 5 and 10  years. 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. The program is structured  so that these staff members are responsible for the following:
All aspects of approving accreditation applications. Oversight activities for existing labs. Responding to requests from other federal agencies. This suggests  that a given application may be set aside for significant amounts of time  while OSHA personnel attend to their other responsibilities. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. other agencies such as NIST.thought that OSHA should reevaluate its approach to accreditation. OSHA’s current structure and workload have made it difficult to provide  clear guidance and timely communication to applicants. It remains unclear,  however, whether planned hiring efforts will adequately address  timeliness issues or how OSHA plans to reinstitute its performance  measures. 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. 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. 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.
Why GAO Did This Study

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

What GAO Found

The Department of Labor's (Labor) Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) process for accrediting Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories (NRTL) is lengthy due to the scope of staff members' responsibilities and unclear application procedures for accreditation. Among the 13 recently approved applications, OSHA took between 1 and 5 years to make accreditation decisions. All of these applications took much longer to approve than OSHA's desired time frames, and in some cases, years longer. In addition, 12 of the 29 applications that were awaiting final decisions by OSHA as of June 2012 had been under review longer than the 5-year period for which the accreditation decision would be valid. This lengthy process has potentially negative economic consequences for laboratories and requires OSHA staff to divert their time from other oversight activities. Two key factors led to the long time frames:
Imbalance between staffing levels and scope of responsibilities : The way that OSHA has designed the NRTL program requires its four staff members to balance many wide-ranging responsibilities. These responsibilities include: reviewing all aspects of accreditation, auditing existing laboratories, and responding to information requests from other federal agencies. Consequently, accreditation applications were sometimes set aside for significant amounts of time while OSHA personnel attended to their other responsibilities.
Unclear application requirements : OSHA's requirements for the content and level of detail to be provided in accreditation applications--such as detailed information to assess independence--differ in important ways from international standards used for accrediting safety labs. Lack of clarity in guidance about these and other requirements create confusion among applicants and extend both the amount of time applicants spend preparing the applications and the time OSHA officials spend reviewing them. OSHA said its additional requirements are important to the agency's mission, but it has not formally compared them to current international standards or recently assessed the risks, costs, and benefits of any procedures that deviate from international standards.
While OSHA plans to take some steps to improve timeliness, it has not taken advantage of a range of promising strategies, including some that might address its resource constraints and improve efficiency. GAO identified three key strategies for improving timeliness: (1) aligning program design with program mission and resources; (2) providing clear guidance and timely communication to stakeholders; and (3) developing performance measures and using data to identify inefficiencies. GAO found that OSHA has not evaluated the NRTL accreditation process to assess whether its current structure is the most efficient for processing and approving applications in a timely manner and meeting the program's goals. Consequently, OSHA's processes may be slower than necessary and planned hiring may not adequately address timeliness issues. Since the NRTL program was created in 1988, several new approaches to accreditation have been developed. For example, some federal agencies have collaborated with outside entities to complete select tasks in the accreditation process while continuing to make key oversight decisions in-house. The NRTL staff's current workload has made it difficult for them to implement other timeliness strategies, such as providing timely communication to stakeholders. In addition, OSHA recently stopped using its NRTL performance measures because officials believed that meeting them was impractical.

What GAO Recommends

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