UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

	+ + + + +

	OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND
	HEALTH ADMINISTRATION

	+ + + + +

	NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED TESTING LABORATORY
	STAKEHOLDER MEETING

	+ + + + +

	WEDNESDAY
	OCTOBER 22, 2014

	+ + + + +

              The Stakeholder Meeting met in the Frances Perkins Building, Cesar Chavez Auditorium, 200 Constitution Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C., at 8:58 a.m., Kevin Robinson, facilitator, presiding.

STAFF

KEVIN ROBINSON, Facilitator
AMANDA EDENS
LEE GRABEL
TOM HANNIGAN
TERRANCE ROACH

PRESENTERS

MILTON BUSH, American Council of Independent 	Laboratories
MIKE BUZARD, American Association for 	Laboratory Accreditation
ANDREW EVANS, GAMBICA
JÖRG ED. HARTGE, ZVEI
TODD LUCEY, Measurement, Control & 	Automation Association
PAUL MOLISKI, Intertek
KEITH MOWRY, Underwriters Laboratories
RAJ NATHAN, International Accreditation 	Service
STINA WALLSTRÖM, Orgalime

	T-A-B-L-E  O-F  C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S

Introduction & Opening Remarks

       Amanda Edens	5

       Dr. David Michaels	5

       Kevin Robinson	13

Options for Using the Private Sector to
Increase the Efficiency of the NRTL Program

       Keith Mowry, Underwriters
       Laboratories	21

       Andrew Evans, GAMBICA	31

       Raj Nathan, IAS	39

       Shawn Paulsen, CSA Group	52

       Paul Moliski, Intertek	63

       Milton Bush, ACIL	70

       Todd Lucey, MCAA	76

       Mike Buzard, A2LA	88

Open Discussion	97

Options for Certification Marks
       Paul Moliski, Intertek	153

       Shawn Paulsen, CSA	157

       Todd Lucey, MCAA	164

       Jorge Hartge, ZVEI	171

       Keith Mowry, UL	176

       Milton Bush, ACIL	181

Questions & Comments	182

Options for Factory Inspection
       Todd Lucey, MCAA	201

       Stina Wallstrom, Orgalime	208

       Keith Mowry, UL	214

Questions & Comments	219

Option for Fees
       Kevin Robinson	256

NRTL Directive Update
       Kevin Robinson	257

Questions & Comments	271

	P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
                                                                    (8:58 a.m.)
              MS. EDENS:  Good morning, glad to see you made it on an icky rainy day.  I'd like to kick it off, before I do some opening things, and Kevin sort of tells you about what the day is going to be like, we have a pretty full schedule.
              But first I'd like to introduce our Assistant Secretary, Dr. David Michaels.  He's been here, he's the longest running Assistant Secretary for OSHA.  And he's done a lot of great things.  And one of them is sort of pushing us to be more innovative in the NRTL program.  So, David?
              DR. MICHAELS:  Thank you, Mandy.  Kevin, and Tom and Lee, thank you all.  Thank you all for being here.  This is, we like doing these stakeholder meetings.  We always like to have input.

              OSHA listens, is one of our many slogans.  And you're very important NRTL stakeholders.  We work closely with you, and we really tried to refocus this program a little bit.  I think Mandy's done an excellent job thinking about ways we can move in some new directions.
              The testing industry, in fact all of industry, has changed in the last 25 years. But the NRTL program hasn't changed very much.  And we recognize that we really have to do things differently.
              We need to be more efficient, we need to be able to think about how our work interacts with you and how your work interacts with all the manufacturers and the users in all these electrical products around the world.
              So we're glad that so many people are here from laboratories.  Some of the international stakeholders have all come today to give us some input.

              Now, I know that we've made some changes in tracking which I think have made us much more efficient.  And we're now, we've cut down our average review time by about 50 percent since Mandy has joined the, has headed up our directorate that includes the NRTL program.
              So I think we're very proud of what we've done.  But I think we recognize we have a long way to go.  And we really are looking to you for some help.
              So what we did, as you all know, because that's why you're here, we issued this request for information to get some input from you.  We've asked a lot of questions, some questions about how we can work more closely with the private sector and make use of private sector data, how do we align our program with international standards?

              Because we have a very different economy than we did 25 years ago.  And we really, you know, the globalization that we've seen, that we've been a part of in many parts of OSHA, really have to be a part of the NRTL program as well.  We want to see how we can accept data from other testing organizations.
              So these are tough questions.  We're very optimistic that we can get some very good answers from you and begin this discussion.  And out of it will come a better program, better for you, better for the manufacturers and better for the workers in the United States who'll be safe, more safe as a result of this.
              So again, thank you all so much.  Thank you.  I think we have a great team who's going to listen to you and ask some questions of you.  And I think you'll have a very productive day.  So thank you so much.
              (Applause)

              MS. EDENS:  And thanks, David, for coming in.  I think that just shows sort of our Assistant Secretary's commitment to the program.  David is very busy.  He just spent three hours in an airport trying to get to our state planning meeting up in Niagara Falls and then came here.
              And then we have a lot of stuff going on, as you might imagine, with the recent sort of events around Ebola.  OSHA's been engaged in that process.  So David is, his time is very limited in where he can go out and do these things.  So I was very glad that he could come.
              You know, like he said, when I first came one of the things we talked about was a number of different programs within the directorate, and NRTL was one of them, where we wanted to push to be more innovative, to be more efficient.
              And that's the charge I gave to Dave Johnson when he came and when he left.  And that's the same charge that I'm giving to Kevin and whoever the new director is who we hope to get very soon.

              So, you know, I think at the heart of this, it is an OSHA program, so the heart of this is always worker safety.  So we always are bearing that in mind when we look at that.
              But we are very interested.  And I think some of you have seen the commitment we've put to improving the program and making it more efficient.  And I think some of you have benefitted by that.
              One thing I'd like to do is I would like to acknowledge some of the assistance we've had from NIST, Amy Phelps here, take a bow and get some applause here.  She's helped us a lot.
              We've turned to some of our interagency partners to sort of look at the ways they do things to give us some help about how we might align with international standards.

              And Amy has been very helpful to us, to help us think about ways to look at the ISO standards and how we can make our NRTL program more transparent so that people have an easier way of knowing what it means to be an applicant and what it takes to get approved.
              Because I think in the past you sort of had to dig through lots of Federal Registers to try to figure out what our policies were.
              And so I think what we're trying to do is put them all in one document, align them with ISO standards, where you're already doing some of those programs, so that you don't have to sort of double your efforts to comply with sort of the OSHA program.
              So those are some of the things we're doing.  And as David said, we have just sort of got some of the low hanging fruit at first, and now we're trying to get at some of the harder issues.  And that's the things we'll be working on the next few years.

              And Kevin has been instrumental in that.  He's been with the OSHA program for awhile.  And though Dave was sort of a very good process man, Kevin is really sort of the, and Tom, and Bernard you know, are sort of the brains of the outfit.
              They do have a lot of in depth electrical engineering experience and experience with NRTL's inside OSHA and outside OSHA.  So I think they bring a lot to bear, have really been the people, the knowledge that have been able to enable us to move forward.
              So I, without further ado, I'll just turn it over to Kevin to tell you about what our day's going to be about and how we hope to engage you and get some really good ideas and to respond to some of the things that we've sort of thrown out for thought.  So, Kevin?
              MR. ROBINSON:  Thank you.  Before we begin, I just want to orient you.  We are in the middle where the big smiley face is.  The first question I was asked today are where are the bathrooms?  There they are.

              If you go out to the elevator lobby, if you go out the doors, either go left or right, go past the elevator lobbies, they're sort of hidden in the hallways, you'll find the restrooms.
              The next question I was asked was where can I get coffee?  Take the elevators upstairs to the sixth floor.  There's a cafeteria up there, full service cafeteria.  It's also probably the easiest place for lunch.
              If you happen to be a smoker and this meeting just gets to you and you do need that break, again, the easiest place is upstairs on the sixth floor.  If you go out onto the outside terrace on the side that's overlooking the Washington Monument, that is the designated smoking area up on the sixth floor.

              In case of an emergency, we have two basic processes here.  First is a shelter in place.  We will stay here, we will not move.  We will, however, be joined by the children from the day care center.  Hopefully we don't have to do that today.
              If there is an emergency and we're asked to evacuate, we're going to actually go out the doors and we'll be exiting the doors behind the auditorium.  And we'll actually be meeting at the southwest corner Louisiana and C Street.
              It's probably about three blocks away from here.  Just follow the masses of people.  And we'll stay out there until such time as an all clear is given by a DOL representative.
              Just some of the players, my name is Kevin Robinson.  I'm the acting director for the Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities.
              Tom Hannigan is an electrical engineer, also with the NRTL program.  Lee Grabel is our lead attorney for the NRTL program, and Mandy Edens is the director of the Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management.

              Not here are Lee Anne Jillings,  our deputy director who helps Mandy out a lot.  Bernard Pasquet was unfortunately not able to be here today.  He's also an electrical engineer with the program.
              And Terrance Roach, who is probably still outside signing people in, he will be starting with OSHA, I'm sorry, with the NRTL program the first week of November.  We stole him from another directorate, so we're very happy to have him onboard, and you'll probably be interfacing a lot with him in the future.
              Just to give you an idea, sort of the time lines for some of the improvements that we are moving forward with, the draft NRTL directive or an excerpt of the NRTL directive was published on our Website in August for informal comments.

              If there are any comments on that, we would certainly appreciate you providing them to us.  It will be going into a more formal notice and comment period, published in the Federal Register, but having an informal comment period just to address some first round of questions that you may have.  It's certainly going to be helpful to us to guide that directive.
              Obviously, we've got the stakeholder meeting here today.  Approximate time frames for everything, we hope to have the NRTL directive published for preliminary notice in the spring, probably March time frame is what we're shooting for.
              It'll be published with a 60 day notice and comment period.  Following that comment period, we'll address any questions or concerns that were raised during that comment period.  And our goal is to have the final directive published sometime around this time next year, a very aggressive schedule.

              Once we get the directive out and finalized we will be starting to conduct assessments of the NRTLs with that new directive.
              We'll probably start off doing sort of a gap analysis, and we'll be certainly reaching out to stakeholders to see how long it might take to implement the changes that we may make.
              Following the assessments where we get to figure out exactly where we may need to make some modifications, we'll probably then publish a second update in the 2017/2018 time frame.
              And if it's ultimately needed to move some of the options that we are presenting here today, we may need to go into rulemaking, regulatory change, which is a much longer process.

              It goes without saying, if you can just silence your electronic devices, we are going to be recording this and providing a transcription.  So any participants and speakers, before you do speak, if you could just kindly state your name and the organization that you're with.  It will make things a lot easier for our transcriptionist.
              And if you do have any questions, if you can hold them until we get to the open discussion format it'd be greatly appreciated.
          And finally the legal, today we are not looking for a consensus.  We're simply looking for individual stakeholder views on the issues that we're presenting here today.
              Documents that have been distributed online and documents that are presented in the folders are simply for informational purposes only.  And they only represent the potential actions that OSHA might take.
              If OSHA decides to take any actions on these matters, we will issue both a preliminary and a final Federal Register notice with an opportunity for public comment.  And that was it.

              So with that, I think we're going to get into our first round of presentations.  Presenting today for the first topic will be Keith Mowry from Underwriters Laboratories, Andrew Evans from  GAMBICA, Raj Nathan from IAS, Shawn Paulsen from CSA Group, Paul Moliski from Intertek, Milton Bush from ACIL, Todd Lucey from MCAA and Mike Buzard from A2LA.
              So if those folks wouldn't mind coming up, and we'll exit the stage here.  And while those guys are coming up, I'm just going to go through a brief presentation of what we're going to be discussing with this first presentation.
              So OSHA, in the Federal Register notice that announced this meeting, we proposed several options for the use of private sector accreditation bodies.

              First is OSHA's considering a model that will use private sector accreditation as evidence of conformance to ISO 17025, ISO 17065 to facilitate the processing of applications and performing onsite assessments.
              Although OSHA would continue to conduct onsite assessments to NRTL program-specific requirements, inclusion of accreditations may facilitate validation of generic ISO 17025 and 17065 requirements under this approach.
              The second option was a model under which we would make use of one or more private sector accreditation bodies as part of accreditations.
              The third option is we were considering a model under which OSHA would contract with independent contractors to assist us in some capacity with the conducting of onsite assessments.
              And the fourth option that we're considering is the separation of testing and certification functions.  Right now, NRTLs are required to have both testing and certification activities.

              So we've proposed an option for consideration under which we would accredit, or recognize rather, testing organizations and certification bodies.
              So with that, I can give it up to our first presenter.  Our first presenter is Keith Mowry from Underwriters Laboratories.  You can stay there or you can come up here, whichever you prefer.
              MR. MOWRY:  No, I'll stand up.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Okay.
              (Pause)
              MR. MOWRY:  Well, good morning.  My name is Keith Mowry.  I'm manager of accreditation services with UL.  I'm involved with the full range of accreditation activities all the way from helping to write the international standards to actually posting individual audits of UL by accreditation bodies.

              All our comments today on all the topics are going to start from two basic positions.  First, we completely support the use of 17065 as requirements for NRTLs.  But when you use 17065, for those of you who are using it and have read it, you know there has to be a certification scheme.  Because 170675  keeps referring to the certification scheme.  You have to do things in accordance with the scheme.
              So our second position is that OSHA needs to develop, and maintain and, as necessary, clarify the NRTL scheme.  So that's where all of our positions start from.
              We're going to be coming back to these two points over and over again.  And the ramifications and implications of them are going to be woven into all of our comments.
              With regard to this first topic, I'm not sure exactly that our views fit into, neatly, any one of the four options.  So what I'm going to do is I'm going to give you a summary of what we envision and then comment a little bit on each of the four options.

              What we envision is that a certification body that wants to be an NRTL would be accredited to 17065 specifically for their performance of the NRTL scheme by an accreditation body acceptable to OSHA.
              They would bring that accreditation to OSHA as a prerequisite for being recognized by OSHA as an NRTL.  They would maintain that accreditation, and again it's specific for operation of the NRTL scheme, they would maintain that accreditation.
              And when it's time to be renewed, they would bring OSHA the evidence that they have continued to be accredited by this accreditation body acceptable to OSHA.  And that would be the basis for the renewal.

              OSHA would keep making the decisions.  OSHA would be the one deciding who's recognized and who's not.  But all the assessment to 17065 and the NRTL scheme, which I believe in this Federal Register notice is often referred to as NRTL program-specific requirements, to me that's the same thing.  That's what the scheme is.  But it's the private sector accreditation body that would be assessing the NRTL.
              OSHA should retain the right to assess whatever it wants to, not as part of the normal recognition and renewal process, but on an as-needed basis for issues that they think are worth looking at.  It keeps everybody honest.
              We think OSHA should use NVCASE to qualify the accreditors who are going to be acceptable to OSHA.  That's what it was designed and built for.  We think that NVCASE can actually look at an accreditor's ability and capability to address the NRTL specific scheme.
              Other means of evaluation and assessment of accreditation bodies don't get to that scheme level.  And we think that's important.

              We're going to assume that OSHA will continue to approve the standards that are acceptable for use in the program.  So as a result, OSHA's going to need to play some sort of role in scope expansions.  We don't have the details on that sorted out yet.  I think that needs a little bit more discussion.
              But it only makes sense that if OSHA is making the decision on what standards are acceptable, then they're going to need to be involved in scope expansions as well.  For those of you who go through the OSHA scope expansion process, I think you see the connection there.
              Now, with regard to the four options, I think what we've described might be somewhat aligned with Option 2.  But we've gone into a lot more detail.

              With regard to Option 3, we don't support that.  We think that the time you're going to save using technical experts is about the same amount of time you're going to spend identifying, qualifying, contracting and managing those technical experts.  So we think it's going to be a wash.  You know, we don't really think it's going to make a significant difference in the efficiency of the program.
              With regard to Option 1, the big concern we have here is the mandatory use of laboratory accreditation.  We get assessed to 17025 requirements a lot.  It's built into the 17065 assessments we undergo.  They're all brought together under one process.
              We think that's more efficient.  It's, frankly, the way we run our business.  We don't run it as separate activities.  It's a continuous process that we use to serve our clients.  And we'd like to be able to be assessed like that.
              Now, if laboratory accreditation works for others, great.  But mandatory laboratory accreditation would create a lot of costs and disruption for us in terms of how we're already assessed by private sector accreditation bodies.

              Option 1 doesn't really talk about the use of laboratory accreditation for external sources of test data that we all accept test data from.  That's the big question mark.  It's hard to embrace Option 1 without knowing what that impact would be.
              The references to laboratory accreditation in the actual Federal Register Notice are a little unclear.  They confuse us.  So we'd want to get those straightened out.
              Option 1 notes that audit reports findings and corrective actions might be findable and releasable under the Freedom of Information Act.  That's not generally conducive to good accreditation processes.
              The international standard for accreditation talks about confidentiality.  I think everybody recognizes that for accreditation to be effective there needs to be confidentiality.

              Now as the scheme owner, relying on accreditation, you usually have access to everything.  But trying to conduct accreditation out in the public, like under Freedom of Information Act, we don't think that's going to work.
              And finally, Option 1 identifies actually redundant assessment by OSHA and private sector accreditors.  And it might just be a wording issue, but of course we wouldn't want to see that.
              With Option 4, our concern is that Option 4 notes that OSHA would be assessing even more bodies than it's doing today.  It would be assessing individual laboratories as well as NRTLs.
              Given the external sources of test data we accept from, that could run to thousands of laboratories.  We don't think that's very realistic for OSHA to tackle that.
              In terms of Option 4, we really wonder whether there's a need for NRTL program-specific policy for laboratories for 17025 compliance.

              When you take 17025 and couple that with the product standard that's being used for testing, we really wonder if there's more that needs to be added on top of that.
              Now, if the intent in Option 4 that was that OSHA would be relying on external accreditation bodies to accredit test labs and CBs, then that looks a lot like Option 1.  But our concerns about Option 1 would then apply to Option 4.
              Really the key problem we see, at least as far as we're concerned in Option 4, is the idea of mandatory acceptance of test data from authorized labs.

              This is practiced in other schemes.  We certainly recognize that.  But in terms of product safety certification, it's really incompatible with our liability risks.  It's incompatible with our reputation risks.  It's incompatible with the demands that others are placing on us as a certification body for safety certification.  And frankly, it's incompatible with the requirements of 17065.
              Now, in terms of that last piece, OSHA's the scheme owner.  They can contradict 17065 all they wish.  Scheme owner is the king of the mountain.  Anybody who knows me knows I say that all the time.
              Also, laboratory accreditation and 17025 requirements were never written and were never intended as a basis to transfer the responsibility for the test data.
              When certifiers use test data, there's legal precedent and there's expectations in the market that we take responsibility for that test data.  That's not what laboratory accreditation was designed to be a basis for.
              It's a good tool.  It does what it's supposed to do.  But all you've got to do is read the laboratory accreditation contract between an accreditor and a lab, and you know there's absolutely no responsibility of it being transferred at all.

              So that's a run-down of what we envision would be a way to use the private sector resources and our comments on each of the four options.  I think we're a hybrid, somewhere in between.  And I'll look forward to going into more details if there are questions.  Thank you very much.
              (Applause)
              MR. ROBINSON:  Thank you, Keith.  Next up is Andrew Evans.  And just a reminder to all the presenters.  Keith, you did well, but --
              MR. MOWRY:  I was too long.
              MR. ROBINSON:  No, you weren't.  Actually you were under.  That's why feel horrible saying this.  But just a reminder to all the speakers for this section are limited to about ten minutes of speaking time.  So Andrew?

              MR. EVANS:  Thank you.  I'm Andrew Evans from GAMBICA in the U.K.  Thanks to Kevin and -- shall I see if that works, there we go -- GAMBICA in the U.K.  Thanks to Kevin and OSHA for this opportunity to speak to you all.
     	So just as a brief intro, as we haven't got that much time, just background is that we're the U.K. trade association for instrumentation, and control, alternation and laboratory equipment in the U.K.
              We have about 200 members which range from small laboratory equipment manufacturers to huge multinationals like ABB, Siemens, Snyder, Thermo Fisher, Honeywell and those sorts of companies.  So it's quite a cross section.  And we manage that by splitting it into different sectors.
              So I look after the process control, process instrumentation and control sector.  There's a test and measurement sector, laboratory equipment sector and the industrial automation sector.  But we also have cross-sector roles.

              Mine is the technical and standards part.  So I cover all sectors for technical and standards which involves me spending a lot time at meetings in Brussels on different directives, task forces.
              So in the U.K. we have imaginatively titled United Kingdom Accreditation Service, UKAS.  So that's the sole national accreditation body.  And that accredits the test labs for certification, and testing and calibration.
              And since the introduction of the new approach directives and Decision 768 of the European Commission which is the marketing of products, that's backed up by a regulation for improved accreditation and market surveillance which is Regulation 765.
              And part of that, it puts requirements on member states to have an accreditation process and improved market surveillance.

              And part of that is that each member state can only have one accreditation body per state.  And it's a not-for-profit enterprise so that there can be no competition.  It's free from any competition and commercial activity.
              And UKAS are a signatory to the multilateral agreement of the EA, the European Corporation for Accreditation.  So each member state in Europe has an accreditation body.  They're signatory to the EA.
              And that exists, this has to exist for the regulation 765 to work.  So it coordinates the European accreditation infrastructure so that the results of conformity assessment services in one country can be accepted in other countries without further examination.  And this is for the benefit of the European community and the global economy.

              So the EA members use these international standards.  So we've already mentioned 17025 for testing and calibration.  And for certification bodies, it's 17065.  And there are various other international standards used for different activities.
              And for it to work, the mission is that there's harmonization across all member states.  There's consistency in accreditation, so that there's an even playing field and transparency in the operation.  So everybody can see what's going on and, of course, the reciprocal acceptance.  So there's a mutual recognition between the different member states.
              Also the EA is part of ILAC, so the International Laboratory Accreditation Corporation.  So it conforms with the international view of accreditation as well.  And it also acts as a technical resource.
              So just to talk briefly about ILAC, the International Laboratory Accreditation, that's been formed for 30 years.  And it was originally set up to remove technical barriers to trade.

              And it was in 2000, 36 members signed a mutual recognition agreement here in Washington, D.C., to promote the acceptance of technical testing calibration data.  So that came into effect in 2001.
              But then in October 2012, two years ago, that was extended to include the accreditation of inspection bodies.  I think the IAAC, the Inter-American Accreditation Corporation, which was recently set up for cooperation between the Latin American countries, they are signatories to ILAC.
              So how do we make sure that the EA functions in the way that we expect it to?  And we do that by having an advisory board.  So the advisory board is made up of the stakeholders.

              So I am part of the indirect customers, which is what they call the industry college, which isn't an educational establishment, but it's just the term for that part of the group.  So there's the conformity assessment bodies, the industry and the NABs. the National Accreditation Bodies, as well.
              And we set out, we've recently revised our expectations of what we expect the EA to deliver for us.  And we want to see transparency in the functions and confidence in the competence of each accreditation body, and integrity.
              It has an important role, not just safeguarding of the public, but also there's a certain regulatory role that it provides as well.
              So from my perspective and the industry college, our expectation, our ultimate aim is that we would have one-stop assessment and testing so that we could get a product conformed, you know, conformed to,  product's assessed.
              And then the results of that would be accepted internationally, so we wouldn't have to repeat the process for each world area.  And this should be done in reasonable time at a reasonable cost.

              Also for accreditation to work, there should be no accreditation of accreditors.  So it's the last level of conformity assessment.  So we are in favor of a model where OSHA uses private sector accreditation.
              And I think, for the last point to work with industry expectations, there needs to be peer evaluation, or there is peer evaluation across the EA so that at a maximum, about four years, there's a peer review of an accreditation body in another state.
              And that body is assessed to 17011 which is the standard for accreditation of conformity assessment bodies.  So that body's assessed against that, at least every four years.  We think that it would introduce flexibility and efficiency.

              And in these tough economic times, in high wage economies like Western Europe and America, we feel that accreditation has an important role to play in improving the time to market for new product development.
    	So to compete in a global economy, I think accreditation has got an important role to play in the efficiency of new product development.  Thank you.
              (Applause)
              MR. ROBINSON:  Next up is Raj Nathan from IAS.  Raj?
              (Pause)
              MR. NATHAN:  Good morning.  My name is Raj Nathan.  I'm the vice president for International Accreditation Service.
              At the outset, I'd like to thank Kevin for outstanding work.  I mailed him yesterday at about 10 o'clock my Power Point.  At 10:15 I got an email back from him.  That's a model bureaucrat, I guess.  Thank you, Kevin, for your responsiveness all along.  I appreciate that.

              Bear with me, I'm still on California time with my thought processes three hours behind, so I appreciate you following us.
              So hopefully some of the issues can be clarified during the question and answer session.  We certainly know what the subject here today is.  We are from California.  We have been headquartered in Southern California for a little over 40 years.
              And two weeks back, we decided to move from where we were headquartered and 15 miles away to Orange County from Las Angeles County.  But we're still in Southern California, one of the oldest accreditation bodies in the United States.
              We used to be called, for some of the folks here, in the very old, old days back when dinosaurs used to walk the earth, ICBO.  And since about at least a dozen years we are IAS, International Accreditation Service.

              We are a subsidiary of ICC, again, to throw some more acronyms, International Code Council, what is one of the largest, I guess, building codes and mechanical codes and so forth, writing organization, membership organization.
              We accredit a wide range of companies.  And one of the slides down here will tell you our activity in accreditation.  As a matter of fact, looking around this auditorium, and to my left here, Paul, Keith, colleagues we've worked with for more than 25 years when I had a full head of dark hair.
              We, you know, we are very much connected with the whole international conformity assessment process for many, many years.  We are one of the original signatories for the international conformity practices that was signed, I believe, in '95 or '96 in Bandon, Indonesia.
              So we were there, as they say, at the inception, the conception.  So we know about the conformity assessment practices predating the Guide 25, and Guide 25, and 17025 and all that stuff.

              We know about Guide 39, and precursor to Guide 39 and, of course, now 17065 and so forth.  So this business comes relatively easy to us.
              We understand the dynamics of it, we understand the complexity of it.  And we can talk more about it during the Q and A, hopefully.
              A couple of speakers have already alluded to some of the acronyms.  We are throwing some acronyms around this morning, so let me add a few more to that, PAC, ILAC which the previous speaker mentioned, IAF and APLAC.
              These are four acronyms, I think, generally speaking, the audience here needs to be aware of.  ILAC for labs, International Accreditation Cooperation, APLAC, regional body, Asia Pacific Lab Accreditation Cooperation, performs -- you talked about IAC.

              The previous speaker talked about EA.  IAF, International Accreditation Forum for product certifications, management system certifications and so forth.  PAC is a regional body within IAF for Pacific Accreditation Cooperation.
              So keep these acronyms in mind.  And also keep a couple of more acronyms in mind, MRA, Mutual Recognition Arrangements and Multilateral Recognition Arrangements.
              I know that sort of language is not in these draft documents, and obviously the intent is different.  I notice my colleague here, Roger Muse, in the audience who we worked very closely with all of the U.S. accreditation bodies.
              And one of the things for our colleague from U.K. is we do have a number of private sector accreditation bodies in United States.  We're not a sole, single non-competitive kind of accreditation scheme in the United States.

              So we do have, within the private sector, within the accreditation community, a very robust, I believe, competitive and technically vigorous process with a variety of accreditation bodies.  I do want to acknowledge that fact.  And there are other accreditation bodies who may not be present in this audience today.
              That provides, I guess, a variety.  It provides a certain level of diversity, if you will, on the technical side.
              Just as an illustration, a number of federal, state, private regulatory organizations we've been involved with for, as I said, a little over 25 years, some later than others.
              For instance, there's one in the middle which is LA DBS, Los Angeles Department of Building Services.  New York City Building Department, for instance, is another one.

              Of course, you recognize some of the federal organizations, EPA with EnergyStar, Water Sense, those sort of programs, Caltrans for California Transportation, Department of Transportation, and so forth.  And this list is obviously very limited.
              There's hundreds and hundreds of those kind of -- so you are not, you won't be the first and certainly you won't be the last within the federal hierarchy to do these sort of things.
              And you can talk to your compadres in EPA.  And, I guess, FDA is going through the same process.  So keep that in mind as you explore this framework you're trying to go into.
    	I think the previous speaker kind of mentioned about some of these things.  But very quickly, AB stands for Accreditation Bodies.  I think it's clear 17011 is the other ISO standard that was mentioned.
              The other standard that you need to be aware of is 17021, also which is the counterpart.  And Paul and Keith can talk about it.

              But anyway, standard process, technical competency, somebody mentioned duplication, certainly minimize the duplication, time, time is very big.
              Because the key element in your proposal was timeliness and efficiency which really translates to time.  Of course, I think it really translates to time element.
              And that's one of the things IAS has been very successful.  We have now 900 clients, accredited organizations, in 36 countries.  We have clients all over the world.
              We, at any given time, we have assessment teams deployed in, you know, virtually any part of the world.  So one of the things is, and historically, you know, based on anecdotal evidence, that's one of the challenges OSHA always will have, and any organization of your size and complexity will have.

              Ninety days is just incredible.  I know I travel all around the world evaluating other accrediting bodies.  I was in Japan recently evaluating them.  I mean, they fell off the chair when I told them 90 days.
              And I think that's, frankly, other organizations can do better than that.  I think today it's global world.  In any other sector, if you're in, I see a gentleman is from Apple, 90 days is probably next year.
              In this business, I got an email yesterday from a lab in Qatar which said can you come next week?  I said, no, I can come in three weeks.  Now some organizations will say three weeks, how can you get to Qatar?  But that's what we have to do in a global alignment.
              Commercial customers, we put a strong team, we're able to deploy, we have the resources.  More importantly, we have the infrastructure and the commitment to do that.

              So again, that's just an average.  It certainly exceeds that when you have complex scopes, you have problems with the customers.  And I challenge many organizations to meet those sort of metrics in terms of timeliness and certainly the robustness of the assessment.
              And again, interestingly the last point is very important.  If there is a scope change, somebody said about scope change, we can literally do that on a 24/7 basis.  We can't quite match what Kevin is doing, but we'll get pretty close to that in terms of scope changes and any divisions to the scope.
              This is kind of a complex flow chart.  You have it on the Power Point.  But all is says is what is the process?  And this is a very standard process, I'm sure, with A2LA, or ANSI, ANAB, any of these organizations.

              There is one minor point, and I'll allude to that a little later, but you can look at it.  This is a generic flow chart for all of our programs.  And there are some variations to it, protesting labs, or inspection bodies or product certification.  But this process really achieves that 90 day goal or less.
              We don't have to go through all this, but essentially 17025, 2005 version is the effective standard.  We all know about it. We accredit little over 350 labs, as I said, in about 35 or 36 countries now.
              Calibration labs, 17025, 2005 again, a very critical component, and I notice your draft document talks about a number of things.  I have some questions, but I'll hold off during the discussion time on that.
              Product certification, I think he did an excellent review of that whole thing.  I won't get into that, but it's a 2012 standard.
              And again, IAF and PAC, inspection agency which is not quite mentioned, it's a very large program.  We are one of the oldest accrediting bodies.  Obviously, it's a very critical component of product certification.

              Current requirement is based on '98 policy.  Our policy, international policy, is 2012 standard, will kick in on March 1, 2015.  So both the standards are working in tandem.  So if you go to our Website and look at an inspection agency, you'll see both these standards, again, ILAC and APLAC, and it's a very, it's a growing area for it.
              I just give you a flavor here of all the accrediting, I mean all the CBs we have accredited for 30 years, even before I joined this company.  And this very much is the who's who, you know.  I'm not, you know, preaching to the choir here, but I think you recognize most of the names.
              I do recognize some individuals in the audience from here too.  And there are other individuals I notice who, in your list, that have applied and hopefully will get the NRTL.

              But I did a quick review.  And my number, the 54, is an estimate.  We noticed that 54 of the NRTL lead organizations are already accredited by us in one fashion.  And the bulk of them testing labs.
              And what's interesting is each one of these, if you go down to our Website you will see each one of the locations will have a corresponding scope.
              And I didn't necessarily see that kind of delineation in the OSHA NRTL listing.  In other words, accreditation is specific to the standard and so forth.
              But we pretty much cover, as we speak.  Now whether we cover specifically the technical methods and standards, I don't know that.  Paul, and Keith and others can talk about it.  But if the organization requests that scope, we have the ability to do that.  We have the technical wherewithal to do it.

              So just to summarize, the resources collectively in United States is very much there.  We also have a private sector infrastructure which is very robust, which has been vetted.
              Somebody mentioned, a speaker mentioned that we get evaluated every four years.  You are welcome to join us in the evaluation anytime, see how in the back end the sausage is made.
              But the point about Keith on confidentiality is an interesting and important issue.  Hopefully you'll discuss it during discussion.
              As I was speaking, I noticed Peter Unger walked into the auditorium.  Peter Unger is the chair of ILAC, also president of A2LA.  And he can obviously throw some more light on the private sector model.  And again, thank you for the time, Kevin.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Thank you.
              (Applause)
              MR. ROBINSON:  Next up is Shawn Paulsen from CSA.  Shawn?

              MR. PAULSEN:  Good morning.  My name is Shawn Paulsen.  I'm the manager of conformity assessment with CSA Group.  I'd like to start by thanking, again, OSHA for putting on this stakeholder event and allowing our organization to speak on a couple of topics.
              So to start off with, I just wanted to give you a very brief overview of the CSA Group and then focus on the use of the private sector accreditation for ISO/IEC 17025 and 17065 recognition and then on OSHA's proposal for the delegation and use of the private sector accreditation bodies to assess the NRTLs for recognition to the NRTL program.
              So just very briefly, a couple words about CSA Group.  We were formed in 1919 as a Canadian engineering standards association, primarily as an SDO at that time.

              We did obtain national certification or recognition as a national certification body for Canada in 1947.  We are an independent, not-for-profit membership-based organization with offices located around the world.
              We became an NRTL in 1992 and have actively participated in that program ever since.  CSA labs are accredited to the ISO/IEC 17025 by various accreditation bodies globally.  And we also recently completed our assessment 17065.
              So just to give you an idea on some of the accreditation bodies that we do use, these are primarily in Canada and the U.S.  We are also actively involved in international schemes, such as the IECEE, the CB scheme, the IEC Ex and also the recently established IECRE.
              So now to focus on the use of private sector accreditation for 17025 and 17065, so we realized that, again as mentioned before, that 17025 and 17065 are documents that are utilized by accreditation bodies globally currently.

              OSHA could recognize, I guess, accreditation to the ISO/IEC 17025 or 17065 without further evaluation.  That's one of the things that we hope that they would consider.  We do see this first option as a favorable option going forward.
              Just to look at some of the benefits that could be realized under the first option, there could be a reduction in the overall assessment time as part of the OSHA assessments.
              There could be a reduction in OSHA's resources required to carry out their assessments if they're not focusing on 17025 or 17065 components.
              There could also be a reduction in the NRTL resources to support the assessments and reduction in the overall assessment cost due to the reduced time of the assessment and also the duplication of the accreditation body assessments.

              Just looking at a few of the weaknesses, there are some potential weaknesses that we see with this approach as well in Option Number 1.  And we don't see that there'd be any real reduction in accreditation body or NRTL assessments.  So we're still going through the same number of assessments.
              Now, there could be significant cost to the labs that are utilized by the NRTL and where that site currently is not fully accredited to the ISO/IEC 17025.  However, they still operate under the NRTL program.
              We find that assessments can vary between accreditation bodies, and OSHA would need to be prepared to accept the accreditation body assessment reports without further scrutiny.

              There could also be an issue with accessing the full accreditation body report.  And I think Keith mentioned this.  These are considered confidential by a number of the accreditation bodies, and they could be difficult to access.  The NCRs, however, that we would have received could certainly be made available.
              Another potential weakness is on the treatment of the NCRs by the accreditation bodies.  And will OSHA be, you know, in a position to accept the NCRs that we may receive without further evaluation or scrutiny?
              So just to look at some of the resource and cost implications, we don't see any anticipated increase in the NRTL resources or costs associated with Option I.
              Again, there could be significant cost to labs that participate in the NRTL program that currently do not have 17025 accreditation.  And we feel that OSHA could benefit from a reduction in their time for assessments.

              So now looking at the use of private sector accreditation bodies as part of the NRTL recognition process, again, CSA could see this as a favorable path forward only after a number of concerns had been properly addressed.
              One concern is that OSHA would need to publish a clear set of guidelines on the NRTL specific requirement to ensure that all accreditation bodies are assessing in the same manner.
              Many labs that are certification bodies utilize multiple accreditation bodies for their scopes or portions of their scopes.  So some of the accreditation bodies, while they're a signatory to the ILAC or IAF MOUs, are located in different geographical locations and may not be fully trained to assess to the OSHA specific requirements.
              Also, for those NRTLs that utilize multiple accreditation bodies, will each of the accreditation bodies assess to the OSHA requirements, or will one be selected to perform that assessment?

              If this approach is considered, OSHA should also ensure that there are multiple options for recognized accreditation bodies.  So we don't want to lock in to one or two accreditation bodies.
              Also, as part of the program requirements, reciprocity would also need to be addressed, again, where the accreditation bodies or the NRTLs are operating outside of the U.S.  And, you know, OSHA would have to address that part of it if they can.
              So looking at the benefits, we do see a number of benefits with Option Number 2.  And that's where accreditation bodies would perform the entire assessment.  So they could perform 17025, 17065 and the NRTL requirements during one assessment.  That's reducing the overall assessments to the NRTLs.
              There could be a benefit to the NRTLs that are looking to expand scope.  And the standards could be assessed at the same time that the accreditation bodies are performing their assessment.  This would, again, help address timeliness to market for new technologies.

              There could be a reduction in NRTL resources and cost due to the reduction in the number of assessments.  There could be a potential resource savings for OSHA as well due to a reduction in the number of assessments.
              Private sector accreditation bodies could provide the technical support and technical experts that are needed.  And that's addressing OSHA's concerns, I think, for accessing technical experts.
              Now, looking at the weaknesses, there are a few weaknesses as well that are critical.  There needs to be multiple accreditation bodies that would be recognized by OSHA to ensure that there are options available to the NRTLs.  We wouldn't want to see that the entire process gets bottlenecked by only using one or two accreditation bodies.

              Assessments by different accreditation bodies can vary, as we know.  And different documentation is utilized by different accreditation bodies.
              So would OSHA be, you know, willing to accept the accreditation body reports, or would a separate OSHA report format also need to be completed?  If so, then that adds time and cost.
              So with the recognition of the accreditation bodies, we feel there needs to be an understanding if and how foreign-based accreditation bodies will be recognized, you know, if they'll be recognizing any AB that's a signatory to the ILAC or IAF MOUs?  And again, these are some of the questions that we feel need to be addressed.
              As I mentioned earlier, there would have to be a clear set of guidelines developed by OSHA to ensure that all accreditation bodies are assessing basically to the same set of requirements.

              So again, when we look at costs or resource implications, when we look at the proposed approach as an NRTL, we would see no anticipated increase in the NRTL resources or costs with Option Number 2.
              In fact, there could be significant NRTL savings provided that the overall number of assessments or reassessments can be reduced.
              There could be significant cost increases to the NRTL if the NRTL needs to transition to accreditation bodies that they currently do not utilize.
              OSHA could see a reduction in their resources due to the reduced time.  However, in place of the NRTL assessments, OSHA could be spending more time providing training, oversight and liaising with the various accreditation bodies that they might be considering.
              So when we look at the two options, our organization would certainly support Option Number 1 of the two options.  We feel Option Number 1 has the greater benefit, both to the NRTL and OSHA.

              You know, we do see many benefits to Option Number 2.  However in this case, I think if you look at the weaknesses and the concerns that, in this case, they outweigh the benefits.  Thank you.
              (Applause)
              MR. ROBINSON:  Next up is Paul Moliski from Intertek.
              MR. MOLISKI:  Good morning.  My name is Paul Moliski.  I'm with Intertek.  Intertek is an NRTL.  We were the, I believe, the second NRTL recognized after the grandfathering of UL.
              In fact, a mutual, in the early days, I think MET was the first NRTL.  Intertek was the second.  We're an international provider.  We have 13 NRTLs, about 40 sites included in our network of laboratories.

              I've had, you know, in the last 18 months or so, we have recognized improvement in the process of handling NRTL applications.  I think we have to congratulate OSHA on that.
              I think we've also seen periods of time where there's been significant challenges in managing those applications and scope extensions.
              So the idea of having this stakeholder meeting, I think, is great.  I think we're going to get valuable input.  And I think we can look forward to the next generation or the next phase of NRTL.
              Looking at this globally, it's really a cornerstone, it's really a program unique to the rest of the world.  And I think that the U.S. should be very proud of the success we've had with NRTL.
              The first question, increase the efficiency of the NRTL program, use of private sector accreditation is evidence of conformity to 17025, 17065.

              In my responsibility with Intertek, I've had the opportunity to develop certification programs in several other countries, other regions, visibility to six certification bodies using about eight accreditors in addition to OSHA.
              So we have a variety of experiences to pull from.  And some of those experiences, you know, may benefit our discussion today.
              In the first proposal, use of private sector, a very important role that OSHA's played since the beginning is creating a level playing field for all CBs to participate in.  And I think that's critical. And we should continue that model going forward.  Proposal A would continue this.
              The scoping within using private sector, there would have to be some guidelines as was mentioned earlier.  OSHA would have to map out what the expected scopes in the laboratories and in the certification body would be expected.

              I think Keith mentioned there would have to be some scheme guidelines developed also for the 17065 accreditation body to follow.
              In the 17025 scope for testing laboratory, I think it would have to be expected to see some of the core electrical standards used.  I don't know if you could expect to have every standard, but there would have to be some guidelines as to what the minimum technical scope is going to be required for that laboratory to operate.
              17065 allows the scheme to direct and guide in the compliance to 17025, which that would give OSHA some freedom to develop your guidance.  We are also in favor of using 17065 as the model going forward.
              In using private sector, and this would be challenging should you want to extend and use multiple ABs, the understanding of U.S. regulatory requirements would be critical in developing the NRTL program using private sector.

              I think we've, you know, we tried to make some recommendations here or statements that, you know, are realistic.  This proposal may lead to reduced NRTL assessment time only if ABs are required to accept current accreditations to 25 and 65 that the NRTL holds to reduce any duplication or redundancy.
              Proposal 2, OSHA would delegate responsibility to private sector accreditation bodies.  There would be a risk that this proposal would turn responsibility of compliance of NRTL over to third party ABs.  I'm not sure how far OSHA wants to push in that direction.
              The proposal will decrease OSHA interaction assessments with NRTLs.  One benefit now, I don't think anyone likes to have assessments, but having the interaction with OSHA is beneficial to NRTL sites, the certification bodies operating the NRTL program.

              Some of the, we received very good guidance from OSHA assessors.  One of the simplest rules of thumb that I've always been told is, when in doubt, think of your operation as an extension of OSHA.
              And, you know, if you're going to develop rules for your internal requirements, follow what the OSHA rules would be.  And that is a good direction to follow.  So, you know, that type of advice during assessments has been very useful.
              The idea of using a private sector process is used in other countries.  We've had varying levels of success in that.  There have been experiences in working with other countries when you successfully pass the private sector accreditation.
              And then you have to resubmit to the government agency responsible.  And we've actually had applications held up by the government because we're a foreign-owned company.

              And this is an area that, I think, OSHA would need to monitor.  It may work in your behalf, or it could turn in to be a political tug of war, so just a word of caution.
              OSHA contracts with independent technical experts.  I think it was mentioned earlier this could turn in to be a very big job for OSHA to manage, locating, training, maintaining this group of assessors.
              Maybe, I don't know if some of the ABs in the room would, you know, like to comment on that.  But I know there's challenges in maintaining a team of assessors.  And it's something to consider going forward.
              This is Option 4.  We were not in favor of this option.  The splitting of the testing and certification, we found several points that were, you know, questionable.

              We really don't see how it's going to help efficiency.  It could turn into additional legwork for NRTLs.  NRTLs now are permitted to accept third party test data.  There's a program allowing that.
              And when we need to use it for certain reasons, for certain test capability, certain location of testing, we do use that Program Number 2.  But we don't think it would be a benefit to broaden that approach than what's already in place.  And I guess that's the end of my slides.
              (Laughter)
              MR. MOLISKI:  Thank you.
              (Applause)
              MR. BUSH:  I'm Milton Bush from ACIL, thank you.  Thank you, Joan.  Well, this is a first.  I think I actually might be the oldest one on the panel for the first time.  So I'm going to sit.
              And I've got to congratulate Kevin in putting me, what, fifth on the panel, one, two, three, four, five, sixth on the panel.  Because as the only lawyer on the panel with a bunch of engineers, they wouldn't have had any time.  So you saved some time there.

              So ACIL is American Council of Independent Laboratories.  I'm the chief executive officer responsible for general oversight of the organization as well as government affairs.
              And ACIL is a 77 year old trade association.  And we have various committees and sections within ACIL, one of which is our conformity assessment section which covers both EMC and third party certification activities.
              We also have other sections in ACIL.  We're a mile wide and an inch deep in some instances.  We have food safety laboratories, construction materials and engineering testing laboratories, as well as environmental science laboratories.
              I think I'm going to use my time to talk a little bit about what may be some of the differences that ACIL has with some of the comments that were made up this point.

              I agree with almost all of UL's comments, IAS, GAMBICA, CSA, ITS.  One of the differences in ACIL's position is that we don't specify any particular recognition authority.
              What we say as a trade organization is that we will support any recognition program that meets the requirements of ISO/IEC 17011.
              And there're a number of recognition authorities operating in the United States and around the world that meet those requirements.  And in fact, our constituencies within ACIL support more than one recognition authority.  And we think that's a good thing.
              And overall, we think that competition at all levels, and always has been our position, that competition at all levels, both at the recognition, accreditation, certification and laboratory levels is a good thing.

              And in fact, you'll find it in all of our position statements over the years.  Accreditation is a good thing, but it's better done if it's not sole source.  It's better done if there's allowed to be competition in the marketplace.
              I really liked your idea, Shawn, about -- and this is not an ACIL position, of course -- I liked your idea of OSHA accepting, I use the word virgin, 17025 or 17065 programs with then the OSHA-specific requirements then being OSHA's focus.  And I thought was a good idea, not necessarily and ACIL position, but it was a good idea.
              Another good idea that I thought, that was pointed out, that Paul stated, was really we've seen this over the years in a lot of different sectors, is when ABs don't really understand U.S. regulatory requirements there can be some real serious repercussions in the marketplace.

              So I thought that was an excellent point.  And it has to be something that OSHA needs to take into serious consideration.
              One of the things that came to mind was during Paul's presentation.  And I think the reason it brought to mind an idea, and ACIL has not taken a formal position on this, is regarding separating accreditation from the assessment.
              The bulk of the work is in doc review, and onsite visits and the follow-up associated with that.
              ACIL has been involved in the last five years in privatizing the environmental laboratory accreditation programs in various states.
              Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the states operate laboratory accreditation programs.  And there's 50 of them.  And it's a mess.  So what we've tried to do is to create a national program by use of a private sector laboratory.

              And most recently, last year, Florida privatized their environmental laboratory accreditation program.  But they did not delegate the accreditation function.  They privatized the assessment function and therefore kept the accreditation function, met its requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act, as well as their state requirements.
              So there's an option there that could save OSHA a heck of a lot of money and time, especially when you're operating in a global program without giving away what could be regulatory authority and would not, maybe not require a rule change.
              Now, the one area that we do disagree with most of the panelists is then in separating the testing and certification functions.
              We represent both certification bodies and laboratories.  Most of our members are accredited to 65 and 25.  I go back to the guide days, so that's what they mean to me.

              So when you're a trade association that represents diverse interests, you either run like hell, you don't take a position, you wax philosophic or you get very practical.  And I think OSHA's going to have to look at all those options, particularly the one that's practical.
              And fundamentally, as a regulator and as a specifier, if the separation of those two functions does not improve worker safety, then that should be the standard that you should be looking at, from my experience in dealing with regulators, is what's the agency's mission?
              And if that improves by separating those functions, and that improves worker safety, then that should be your vanguard.  If not, then it shouldn't happen.  I think that's it.  Thanks.
              (Applause)
              MR. ROBINSON:  Thanks, Milt.  And next up is Todd Lucey from MCAA.

              MR. LUCEY:  Good morning, everybody.  My name is Todd Lucey.  I am currently the chairman of Measurement Control Automation Association.
              I'm here with Bob Carrell, a vice-chair, and also President Cynthia Esher and a number of other colleagues that we have in the audience.
              So appreciate the opportunity to come in and speak.  And, Kevin, thank you for that opportunity and, OSHA, the opportunity to have the stakeholder meeting.
              We've talked a lot in our organization really for the last decade of trying to get our hands around, as manufacturers, what we can do to support -- and we certainly do support the NRTL program -- but what we can do to help improve the process' efficiency.  And most important is it's all about safety, and I'm going to talk about that.

              So we're going to have time in each of the three sections, A, B and C.  We'll start and focus in on the first proposal and the draft on Section A.
              But I do want to give a quick introduction.  And the first thing before I do that is I want to show a short video.  So, Kevin, if you can help me out and start that video.
              (Video Playing)
              MR. LUCEY:  So what you're witnessing here, it's just a one minute video.  But this is a plant in Garland, Texas.  The customer is Nexeo.  They're one of the three largest chemical distribution companies in the world, Univar, Brenntag and Nexeo.
              Formerly the Ashland Chemical Distribution arm of Ashland is now Nexeo, a customer of ours, and that we work with.  And you're going to hear us refer to a number of customer examples throughout the day today.
              But I think what you see and what's happened is this was an explosion that occurred in a tanker as they were mixing chemicals in the tanker itself.

              The tanker built up static electricity charge because of the way the tanker was being filled.  They were not regulating the initial flow into the tanker, so when it was empty what they got is splashing in the tanker and droplets were forming.
              So it's basically like a rain storm, right.  So when you see lightening happening in a rain storm, that's in essence what happened inside the tanker.
              And then as a result of that fire, it expanded out to the two tankers next to it and ultimately caught the methanol pump on fire and then resulted in what you see here.
              My point in bringing all of this up and in showing -- is this working, I might have to just click on the screen one more time, just get it back in the presentation mode.  There you go, that works.

              Okay.  So I'm going skip through this real quick, because I've pretty much explained it.  But there was two trucks parked next to the tanker.  They were mixing Toluene, Lacolene and Methanol.  The tank that they were pulling out of, Methanol was actually being filled by the rail cars that you see here.
              I should point out that Nexeo did give us permission to talk about this.  They knew we were going to be here today.  Because they want to help us as an industry move forward as well with these kinds of issues.
              So once the explosion occurred, the Methanol pump, the one in blue, is what caught on fire, caught the other trucks parked then on fire.
              Unfortunately, all the emergency stops and things worked in the tanker area.  But the e-stops weren't connected to the rail cars and out to the tank farm system.

              So unfortunately, the fire had fuel from the tank farm system and the railcars throughout this process.  So they weren't able to shut off the fuel source.
              I talked about how the explosion actually occurred.  What we did, working with Nexeo, is we solved the safety issues.  But, in addition to that, and what we see with our customers, what they're looking for, is they're all focused on safety and spending money.
              And I'll show you how much Nexeo has spent over the last couple of years in this area.  But they also want to see economic benefit.  So it's about spending money, but they also want to see improvements in what they're doing.  And I'll talk about that here in just a second.
              Over the last two years, Nexeo's spent $25 million on this particular issue alone in further automating and improving safety at each one of their truck loading bays throughout the country and in Canada as well.

              Ultimately, the solution is doing the mixing and blending prior to putting it into the tanker and a number of other safety issues that were implemented, like fireproof valving systems and other things that were put together like that.
              So my purpose, again, why are we bringing that up and just using it as an example?  I think maybe for a period of time there was a lot of view that the manufacturing input was either missing or was self-serving.
              From our perspective, we work with customers every day in the petrochemical oil and gas industry.  And for us, it's all about safety.  How do we improve safety for the personnel.
              Fortunately, in this incident, there was no loss of life.  But I can tell you, in the videos that we're taking, just ten seconds prior to the explosion one of the operators walked out of the bay.  So they were within ten seconds of a loss of life incident which clearly is a very bad thing.

              So one of the things that we believe is that we see, as voice of the industry, that it is time that we continue to address, which is why we appreciate this stakeholder meeting by OSHA, to fix a very complex, confusing and outdated system.
              So we're very glad to see movement in this area.  And especially in the last three years, we feel like we're starting to get some traction and want to see that going forward.

              We are however, and I think it's important to note, we see it every day as manufacturers, that we are putting customers, the Dows of the world, the Nexeos of the world, the Proctor and Gambles of the world, in a bad place with making decisions on do I spend money and how much money do I spend in safety versus what's the economic benefit, and how much money and what kind of returns do I get for those investments.

              We need to eliminate that.  We need to be better as an industry to help through this issue.  And I think some of these core things we're dealing with will improve that.
              And the last point, we also believe that, as a leader from the U.S. perspective in this area, we should be better through the NRTL program and the OSHA initiatives, along with all my colleagues sitting over here, to help participate in the overall world view in bringing all that together.
              We should be leading more of that effort and making sure that we're not a barrier to the global marketplace.

              Okay, so no doubt that we have equipment that we manufacture that does come under the NRTL approach and program.  A number of the things that we want to address, and we're going to comment here on Number A, but especially the inefficiencies that it causes for us and each one of these A, B and C sections we're going to talk about.
              MCAA, as I mentioned, we're a trade organization, not-for-profit.  We're 160 members strong, and we do serve all of these different industries.
              And so our comment on Number A, and we're going to focus in on Option 4, is that we do believe that separation of testing and certification is something that is a benefit, again, going back to comments that were just being made about competition.
              We feel that opening it up so that we can go to different testing organizations that are certified and then those testing organizations being recognized by each of the certification members or accrediting bodies is a positive thing for the speed to market and the timeliness of what we're doing.
              Key to that however, and fundamentally back to the comment that was made about everything should focus in on safety, we agree with that as well.

              And we believe that the testing organizations should all be testing to the same standards.  And those standards are critical to set and make sure are clear.
              We don't need to have different testing agencies testing to their own standards or proprietary standards.  We feel that accrediting bodies should differentiate themselves in a competitive marketplace on other factors besides which testing standards that they're using, their own or others.
              Especially important then is that they are able to be recognized transparently from one accrediting body to the other, so one certification company to the other.

              So if we're going to use a testing agency and the accrediting body is FM or UL, they should recognize any of the testing bodies' work as long as those testing bodies are maintaining the standards and testing to the same standards that we would set as an industry, so that we're not giving up anything on the safety side, but we're gaining, as manufacturers, flexibility, opening up to the competitive marketplace.
              And then the accrediting bodies and certification bodies would differentiate themselves in customer service, time to market, opportunities then to work from a costing standpoint.  These would be all things of where you can differentiate yourself as a competitive agency.
              Okay, so that kind of gives a first statement.  We don't have much comment on Options 1, 2 and 3 as we feel those are more in the realm of the certification bodies.  However, in general, we would support, you know, the private sector being involved in that to help speed the process up.

              And again, this time to market and being competitive in the global marketplace, when I come back in Section B and C, we'll talk a little bit about some customer comments that we have from Proctor and Gamble, Gilbarco and others, of the real limiting factors that exist in the marketplace.  Thank you.
              (Applause)
              MR. ROBINSON:  Thanks, Todd.  And hiding in the back is Mike Buzard from A2LA.  Mike?
              MR. BUZARD:  Again, my name's Mike Buzard, and I'm from A2LA, a senior staff member.  I've been with the company about five years.
              You have a blurb in your packet about who A2LA is.  We are a non-profit third party accreditation body, private sector.  The names of the folks up here are very familiar to me in my five years.  And I also see some other names and faces out in the crowd that are familiar.
              We've talked about confidentiality.  I'm wondering how all these guys got my notes about what I was going to speak about.  So now I'm fishing for something to fill ten minutes with.

              I guess, very briefly and kind of to take the 10,000 foot view first, Option Number 3 is one, as a third party accreditation body, we would recommend staying away from.
              As mentioned three or four other times ahead of us, or ahead of me, excuse me, OSHA taking on the role of almost essentially what the ABs do right now in terms of hiring technical contractors to go out and do your assessments, it is very onerous, it's costly.
              You go through training, and retraining, and retraining and turnover among your assessors for us.  So that, I think, would be the most burdensome prospects to change to this program overall.
              Option Number 4 is kind of, almost like an add-on to Options 1 and 2.  You've heard some input from the folks who would be directly affected by it.  From an AB standpoint, it's kind of a double-edged sword.

              There are benefits to separating them.  Some of them are that you would have more access for folks like the manufacturers.  Do we just want to go to a testing body?  Do we just want to go to a certifier, have them handle things?
              On the flip side of that you, as the regulator and recognition folks, you have a lot more paperwork to deal with when you've got the one person, one person, one person, one person rather than the NRTLs who are handling everything on their own right now.
              So it's a way, Option A or B, you know, are the values good to you?  Are they good to the other stakeholders?  We don't have much input beyond keep aware of the risks, and are they weighed out by the benefits with Option 4.
              So going back to speaking on Options 1 and 2, two is our preferred option that we would recommend going towards for changing the program.

              We feel that this has the most benefits to all the stakeholders in the program.  OSHA, this does remove some of your burden about worrying about going out and doing the audits or assessments yourselves.  You put that weight on the accreditation body's shoulders.
              You know, you've heard Mr. Nathan up here, IAS has been around for, what is it, 40 plus years?
              MR. NATHAN:  Yeah.
              MR. BUZARD:  And A2LA has been around for 30 plus.  We have the infrastructure in place.  We have the assessors in place.  We can do it.
              We do understand, I mean, we've had the comments up here, it's well aware that there are some challenges and some training that all of our accreditation body folks, assessors included, would need to go through to become aware of regulatory requirements, the specific program requirements that are involved with NRTLs.

              And then any oddities, aside from that, in terms of the scope layouts, things like the UL test methods which may need to be there, I know Paul and Keith have brought up scopes and schemes and how they would work out with the accreditation bodies and the organizations being accredited.
              All that stuff would be up to you guys to handle.  Do you want to specify only UL test methods, consistency among everybody, IEC, ANSI, the list goes on and on about all the published international methods to use.  We think Number 2 would be the best option for that.
              So we did have a comment earlier also, yes, this has the potential to take away your interaction with the NRTLs.

              But I'd kind of just like to flip that over as you're no longer spending a month ahead of time looking at their documents before going onsite for a week.  You've got that whole month now freed up to have that interaction with them and others.
              So again, a double-edged sword there.  I think you might have some benefits in removing yourselves from the assessments.  We absolutely would still encourage OSHA to contain or to hold onto that power of final recognition.
              Yes, you're assessed, yes, you've been accredited to 17025, 17065 by an accreditation body.  But does OSHA still recognize the certifier to participate in this program?
              You know, we fully support that kind of set up.  It's what most other regulatory bodies within the government and outside the government have still done with us.

              The FCC/TCB program is probably the most similar to what I think a lot of the comments are aimed at here.  And Keith, at the very first, mentioned the NIST and NVCASE program in terms of a way of evaluating the accreditation bodies.
              I think A2LA's evaluated by NIST on a two-year basis for the NVCASE program.  The peer evaluations from the regional ILAC and IAF folks are on a four-year.  And we've always had regulators and people like that coming in observing these assessments by our peers, by NVCASE.
              And that's something OSHA would still absolutely be involved in if they would want to be.  I think IAS would probably be willing to do the same thing and any other accreditation bodies you guys would be interested in bringing on to the program.
              Option Number 1, still viable.  You guys are still holding on to a lot of that extra burden though, of still going out and doing a second assessment to the technical competencies for the CBs and the testing labs.

              That's your choice.  You know, you've heard the costs, and the benefits and the drawbacks to that.  I won't go into that again.
              But Number 1, if nothing else, allow us to take some of that burden off of you.  We're already doing it for the guys who are out there accredited to 025 and 065.  Go ahead and cut a couple days of your time off on sites.  Spend it doing stuff at home with your families, back here in your offices.
              I guess, really, the last thing for me, since everybody else has taken everything I wanted to talk about, I do kind of want to focus on promoting the IAF and the ILAC MRAs.
              We do have the peer evaluations in those by other accreditation bodies within our regions.  A2LA, back in February I think, and we had to extend it into March due to the snow, we had over a dozen people coming in from the APLAC and IAC areas to evaluate testing, calibration, medical testing, inspection bodies, product certification, reference materials and PT providers.

              So we had quite the gamut of people coming in and seeing are we competent to offer these accreditations.  I don't know about all the other ones, you know, Milton recognized or had recommended using.
              Any accreditation body that demonstrates compliance to 17011, we would kind of push against that a little bit, because we don't know what the peer evaluations are, what the quality of these other ABs are that aren't part of that signatory status.
              That's about it for my comments, since everybody else has spoken.  Thank you guys for your time.
              (Applause)
              MR. ROBINSON:  Thank you.  Well, this will never happen.  We're actually way ahead of schedule.  So we are scheduled to take a break right now for about ten minutes.

              Again, coffee if you need it is upstairs on the sixth floor, elevator lobbies on either end.  And then when we come back from the break, we will start grilling these guys on questions.  So it is now, let's go, let's say 10:45, meet back here.
              (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 10:32 a.m. and resumed at 10:55 a.m.)
              MR. ROBINSON:  Okay, so I think I can speak for everyone that the presentations that were given were very informative.  And it will certainly help us as we move forward with making some of the decisions.
              I would like to open the floor up to questions again if you're registered as a participant.  Just to help control the questions, if you'd just raise your hand.  And Tom and Terrance will hand you a microphone.

              But I would like to throw out a hardball question here for you guys.  So one thing that OSHA has seen with regards to independent accreditation bodies, we have gone out to some of the NRTLs and will oftentimes hear that, oh well, insert an accreditation body name here, was just out here two weeks ago.
              They've just approved us for this particular standard.  And this is a standard that we have submitted to OSHA for consideration to add to our scope of recognition.
              While we're onsite, we start reviewing the NRTL's capabilities or the applicant's capabilities.  And we find that they do not have the necessary test equipment, they don't have the training records in place to support that an individual or that a laboratory has the capabilities to test and certify products to that.
              And this is something that we see fairly regularly.  And it's not just a minor issue.  These are major issues that speak to the capabilities.

              So I was wondering, what do you think could be done?  Or is there something more that could be done to help minimize the deficiencies that are seen out there?  And I'll open it up to anyone who want to tackle that question.
              MR. MOWRY:  Well, Kevin, let me ask a clarifying just to make sure we understand your question.  OSHA has requirements for in-house test capability, 17065 doesn't.  Is that the basis of your observation here?
              MR. ROBINSON:  Well, yes, perhaps.  You know, with 17025 you are required to have training records.  And not to the extent that the NRTL program goes, but you are, you know, we go deeper as far as what the capability requirements are.
              So if you have an independent accreditation body, and let's say that one of your laboratories is applying for standard for photovoltaic cells, new standard, new addition to that scope.

              What process do the accreditation bodies follow to have that standard added to their scope?  Is it just a paperwork process, reviewing procedures?  Or is it, you know, show me the money and move on?  Or what level of due diligence do the ABs do before adding a particular standard, or a set of standards or category of equipment to a laboratory scope?
              MR. NATHAN: I believe the question was addressed not to the CBs but the ABs.  And Keith can always support me.  He's very good with that.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Keith will join him whenever he wants something.
              MR. NATHAN:  Well, you know, no.  The process is very clear historically on these things.  It's really, it's a technical question as to, you know, what are the standards that could be added with what we call onsite assessment and what we term as desk assessments?

              And it all depends on the specificity of the standards.  If you're talking about a related standard where the technology is the same, the equipment is the same and the technical personnel have demonstrated competence to what I call critical methods within the current scope, then our technical team reviews that before we make a judgement whether we need an onsite or offsite.
              We have clear policies on our Website which says how do you do scope expansions?  There's a set of documents, records they have to submit.
              And once we get those documents, then we make the decision whether we can do an onsite or offsite.  So it really depends on the specific technical methods.  But it's fair to say that you have those options, both desk and onsite assessments.

              MR. ROBINSON:  Anyone else?  And I'll just remind everyone before you do speak if you can just state your name.  Keith, go for it.
              MR. MOWRY:  Well, Keith Mowry with UL.  Well, the North American accreditation bodies we work with, as a certification body, don't scope us by standard.  And so when we apply for a scope expansion, it's within the context of the scope mechanisms they use.
              Right now, that's ICS codes.  You know, we do have scope expansions for new ICS codes, because we're getting involved in new areas.
              But 17065 does not mandate that the certification body have an internal test lab.  It doesn't mandate that the certification body use an internal test lab for the testing that supports certification.
              There are other options.  There are plenty of examples where we certify products where we're going a lose our shirts if we actually go and buy the test equipment.  Because there just aren't any customers out there.

              There's only two or three manufacturers.  And the test equipment already exists someplace else, and frankly it's foolish for us to spend our resources on that when we could use those resources for other things that contribute to product safety.
              So the point is this, okay.  Oh, I'm sorry.  I'm puffing into the microphone again.  So the answer to your question is what do the accreditation bodies do to us, it depends on what we tell them in terms of how we're going to get the testing done to support that certification.
              If we're going to go out and witness the testing, and that's our plan, small category, market needs certification soon, we can't afford to buy the test equipment, we'll go out and witness it.

              And so the AB will expect us to be able to demonstrate that we have the technical capability to witness the testing.  And we're not going to qualify testing technicians for testing we're not going to do.  We're not going to give you equipment lists for testing we're not going to do.
              What we would tell the AB is, and this is usually the case, here's the technical capability we have in a very similar area.  The engineering capability and the technical qualifications for doing that work in certification easily qualifies to witness testing in this different area where we are not necessarily going to have the internal test capability.
              If we do have internal test capability, frankly it's very rare that it's anything terribly different than what we're already doing now, for the same economic and financial reasons.

              In order to invest in a substantially different and large new testing capability, you're going to have to have enough business to pay that off.  And those don't come down the pike all that often so much anymore.
              So that's how the ABs interact with us.  They expect us to be able to demonstrate competence that depends on where the testing is going to be done and how we're going to accomplish that.
              MR. NATHAN:  Four points that were raised, offsite witness testing, we have clear policies on what the offsite witness testing is.  And we have worked very closely with our certification bodies how this offsite witness testing is.
              You mentioned about training records.  Training records, again, the devil is in the details on what is the level of training records you need to see.
              If you go down and look at a particular technical person who has spent many years working on critical technologies, there is a level of -- because ultimately we are doing technical competence judgement.

              If you look at 17025, 6 (sic), it clearly talks about technical competence in the judgement.  So I think the details could be specified, for instance, in OSHA.  What is the expectation of the training records?
              I think we are very clear.  We are very comfortable when we accredit.  We feel that we have done a good judgement on that.
              Two other points, on the scope of the testing, remember that we look at this testing scope in it's entirety through what we call critical sampling methodology.
              So you need to understand all accreditation bodies in the world do that sort of analysis in terms of critical methods and critical technologies to arrive at the scope.
              Now, if you walk into a lab, and you find a particular equipment is missing and a scope is not there, that is obviously, there is something lacking there.  And I would then go back to the same question.

              The regulators need to provide us the feedback analysis.  Because we'll be on a flight next day to determine what went wrong there or what was the challenge.
              But again, the whole process of accreditation works by having that feedback loop between the regulators and accrediting bodies.
              We very rarely hear from regulators on what the issues are.  And we're waiting for them to join us.  We're waiting for them to let us know.  And we are very reactive, as I told you.  We are nimble, I mean, we can take a flight and head to China next week if we need to.
              So I think the process has to be used through that feedback and analysis.  And we're on standby to react to any regulator.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Mike?
              (Off microphone discussion)
MR. BUZARD:  Just a different accreditation body's perspective.  I know Keith had mentioned ICS codes for certification body scopes.

              A2LA will, on our scopes for the CBs, we actually list the individual schemes.  So the FCC's scheme, the EnergyStar scheme and then the individual products within, Water Sense, we have some scheme owners that are also certifiers themselves.
              So in those cases, they'll have their own certification scheme listed rather than 14 pages of an ICS code which kind of ties a little bit into the way the Standard 065 is written.  At the same time, we kind of feel that the way we had it will still work.
              Keith had hinted at, you know, he's brought it up a couple of times, the scheme.  The Standard 065 does say that if you're going to use what's called an external resource, most of us in layman's terms call it subcontracting where you're going to use an outside test lab to do the testing, they have to meet appropriate requirements of 17025, usually going to be laid out by the scheme.

              So from OSHA, if you guys go to write the scheme, do you want full compliance to 17025?  If so, do you want it validated through accreditation, or through the CB to go out and audit or through a Self declaration, things like that?
              Going back into that, if we were to expand a CB's scope into a new product type or a new product scheme, most of the time if it's not at all related to what they've already been doing with us, we're absolutely going out onsite, taking a look through thorough document reviews, interviews to determine CB competency to review these things, test labs.
              Raj just kind of mentioned what we do already with test labs.  Everything with the accreditation bodies at least begins with paperwork at a minimum.

              It's never hand me money, we're just going take your word on this.  It's always a minimum of do you have, from A2LA experience, do you have a copy of the standard you're claiming to be able to perform?  Do you have training records?
              If you needed to procure new equipment, is it calibrated in accordance with 17025 and the ILAC traceability requirements?  So we're at least verifying records, competence, things like that.
              Same thing with CBs.  For test labs, if it's something unrelated to what you've been doing with us for years and no other accreditation body has already seen you do it, we're going to be coming out onsite with our assessors.  But we don't know that until we get all that paperwork ahead of time.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Okay.  Andrew?
              MR. EVANS:  Andrew Evans from GAMBICA.  We believe for accreditation to work the accreditation has to be separate from any conformity assessment activities.  Also that there's no competition and free from any commercial activities.

              The advantages of this are that, for example, in Europe you have an accreditation body in Spain, another one in Germany, because there's no competition.
              If the expertise lies in another member's state, they can cooperate with each other.  So one state can help another accredit laboratories within that state.
              So we see that as a major advantage in sharing resources.  Because there's no incentive there to hide anything, a completely transparent process.
              You could, for example, you could have a United States accreditation cooperation and have an accreditation body per state.  And then OSHA would be, say, a stakeholder in the advisory board for that cooperation.
              And then there's a cooperation between the different states.  So there's always the expertise there to accredit any type of laboratory.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Okay.  Joan?

              MS. STERLING:  Hi.  Joan Sterling with Intertek, but today representing IFIA, our trade association, International Federation of Inspection Agencies.  There's probably six of our members here, Intertek, UL, CSA, SGS, BV and TUV.
              But, Kevin, I just want to get a little clarification on your question.  Were you asking about the veracity of accreditations?
              In other words, in the discussion you just had, the quality of accreditations that are being done, are they all being done, are all accreditors accrediting in the same way?  And can they all be trusted, essentially, to do what needs to be done for a particular scheme?

              MR. ROBINSON:  Yeah.  And the experiences that OSHA has seen, and myself personally going out to laboratories, it's hard right now for us to pinpoint exactly where the problem lies.  But it is something that is on our radar screen as we start considering moving into the use of private sector accreditation bodies.
              I'm not saying we're perfect.  But generally speaking, you know, some of the deficiencies that we have seen have been rather significant.  And so that is something that, a concern that we do need to address.  So, you know, geez, I put my hands up everywhere.
              MR. MOWRY:  Keith Mowry with UL.  I guess the question is are the deficiencies you've seen, in the context of the current OSHA NRTL requirements, are those deficiencies just as valid in the context of 17065 requirements?
              MR. ROBINSON:  I would put the deficiencies from the testing side of things on 17025, 17065 or Guide 65, which is really where most labs or certification bodies have been accredited against, not so much there.

              It's more, the obvious deficiencies that we have seen have been more on the testing side and not having proper training records, not having equipment, not calibrating the equipment.  And not just one or two pieces of equipment, but occasionally, you know, just across the board significant deficiencies.
              MR. MOWRY:  Keith Mowry with UL.  And these are for internal labs that the NRTL intends to use to --
              MR. ROBINSON:  Correct.
              MR. MOWRY:  Oh, well --
              MR. ROBINSON:  In OSHA speak, these are recognized sites or SNAP sites.
              MR. MOWRY:  Okay.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Or candidate labs.  So, and I look at it as, you know, I truly believe there is the luck of the auditor.
              You are, you know, if I'm going onsite, I can guarantee you that if one of the ABs that were here were coming in the week after us, sure, there are certainly things that we would miss.  And, you know, there's that random piece of equipment.

              But on a scale of one to ten, I would put these up there at about a nine as far as things that we have seen, just anecdotally.
              MR. NATHAN:  Again, Raj Nathan from IAS.  The issue of, and Pete Unger is here from ILAC and can speak at the international level on some of the so-called variabilities if not inconsistencies in ABs in approach to accreditation.
              Again, as I keep saying to other regulators, whether it's the EPA, or New York City or any of the organizations, an assessment, you know, they're well laid out processes.  And that's for years on what the requirements on 170 -- we also have a variety of specific technical requirements.

              Now, if your technical team is out there at a particular facility, and you're finding out that equipment is not calibrating, now the question, really again, we're going back a little bit past in the history in terms of how these calibration equipments are dealt with.
              And I looked at, for instance, your document which Section 4.6, which is interesting.  And I have comments separately which I'll feed through email.  4.6 lays out, for instance, certain specific ways in which OSHA is approaching how calibration verification has to be done.
              Now, we all understand how equipment calibration has to be done.  But there are various tiers in how you approach those calibrations.  You could do through obviously an internal verification process.
              Now, there can be a very good assessment based on trend analysis and others how that equipment is validated.  So I think the devil really is in the details, Kevin.

              But if you're finding, from what I am hearing, a particular lab or labs that have quite a bit of equipment that's not calibrated, that's really staggering.  Because I haven't in years.
              So I think what, again, I go back to the situation where the regulators need to -- within, of course, their confidentiality allows -- share that with the ABs.
              Because believe me, the feedback loop is very critical.  And we are very reactive.  And I'm speaking on behalf of all the ABs here.  We are very quick on that.
              So I think we have seen this happen time and again and the effectiveness of that type of system quickly having that corrective mechanism.
              And then of course you, as the ultimate authority, you have the ability to, you know, do whatever penalties or corrective actions you need to do from your point of view.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Okay.  Terrance, we have a --

              MR. FIGUEIREDO:  Reinaldo Figueiredo with ANSI.  I'd just like to bring a point here in terms of this new approach that OSHA is going to take in the future and also for us to learn from other agents in the U.S., for instance the Federal Communication Commission, FCC, it starts its program in the year 2000.
              And on that time ANSI was evaluated by a very good program that exists here in the U.S., that's NVCASE that was already mentioned during the panel today.
              And I think if OSHA rely on NVCASE to assess the ABs, not only the ABs in the U.S. but outside of the U.S. as well, is going to give you much more credibility for your program.
              And another point is related to the OSHA as a scheme owner.  Because you are going to change your activity, you're going to -- because today you act as an accreditation body.

              And you're going to act in the future, if that's going to be your goal, you're going to be a scheme owner.  And then you need to learn how to act.
              You need to have meetings with accreditation bodies, because that helps your process.  This is a shifting of mind and shifting of process that you have to have in place.
              Because today you need to assess 20 labs or 100 CBs.  In the future, you have like five or ten ABs.  And you need to control them, you need to give guidance to those ABs on how to implement your process.  Thank you.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Okay.  Keith?
              MR. MOWRY:  Keith Mowry of UL.  And just to take that one step further and save me from blowing my five minute limit on a future time, when you have those discussions with ABs, get everybody in there.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Yes.

              MR. MOWRY:  Get everybody to hear the same thing at the same time.  It takes all the competitive, inappropriate competitive pressure out of competing, of NRTLs competing with each other.
              The ABs hear it, the CBs hear it, industry hears it, everybody hears it.  Everybody walks out saying, okay, we all know what the requirement is.  And we're not going to start trying to be clever with what it might mean for competitive reasons.
              So I agree with Reinaldo.  You interact with the ABs, you interact with all your stakeholders, interactively, collaboratively, as a group.  That's what scheme owners do.
              Because that is really cost effective in getting the scheme as consistent as it can be.  And it's a never-ending effort.  Being a scheme owner is a journey, it's not a destination.  You will always be clarifying, pulling people together.

              And you're going to be adjusting your scheme as conditions change.  So I'm fully onboard with what Reinaldo says, but get all the stakeholders in there.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Okay.  I've been beating these up.  Are there any other questions on different topics that we want to go?  Dave, oh --
              MR. UNGER:  Pete Unger,  A2LA.  I'm sorry, I'm going back to your original question.  The key issue is how well the assessors perform the assessments.
              If deficiencies aren't found, non-conformity's aren't found, the decision makers aren't going to know about it.  It's the assessors.
              I think, if you're going to rely on  multiple accreditation bodies, that OSHA could set up a scheme for, in effect, approving assessors, training the assessors, two-year particular requirements.

              This is similar to what the World Anti-Doping Agency does.  They rely on about a dozen accreditation bodies around the world that provide approximately 20 assessors or 30 assessors.
              They bring these assessors in and train them on their particular requirements, the particular test methods, how they want the assessments to be done, with a baseline being 17025.
              I think that model could very well be used by OSHA where the accreditation bodies pay for the participation of the assessors in that process.  And clearly, it's just not training records.  It's how well they actually perform.  So each AB really needs to watch how these folks perform.  Thank you.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Okay.  Dave Loebach is chomping at the bit here.
              MR. LOEBACH:  We've been talking about all the different proposals that OSHA has.  And something I think that's been missing, Keith kind of touched on it a little bit, and that's what expertise, what kind of staff level is OSHA going to have to have for each of these programs.

              I think OSHA might be served well if some of these people would comment on that.  OSHA knows what they're jumping into.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Yes.  And just to set the stage, before we got to this point with the assistance of NIST, OSHA did reach out to several federal agencies who are also operating conformity assessment scheme just to see what was out there, how our other federal agencies who face similar challenges as OSHA, how are they handling this?  How are they working with it?
              And we looked at everything from we just hand it over, and we've selected an accreditation body, they handle it, and we walk away and we're happy.

              And two things where there were, you know, the federal agency was hands-on and working with it.  There were some where the federal agencies were more involved than OSHA is currently right now, where the federal agency is doing the actual testing.  They're doing the onsite assessments.  They are the ones who are approving products.
              And, you know, OSHA is in a very unique position.  A lot of these agencies were setting things up for the first time.  We already have an existing program.  We generally know what is going to work and what doesn't, is probably not going to work.
              But Dave does bring up a point.  Certainly we were aware that there are going to be some resources that we need to have for this.
              But for the scope and size of the NRTL program, right now we have 15 organizations that have been recognized as NRTLs.  They operate about 160 sites on every continent except for Africa and Antarctica.  Please don't open a lab in Antarctica.

              Based on the applications that we see coming in, I anticipate that, probably by the end of next year, we're going to be pushing about 18 NRTLs and close to 200 sites that will be audited.
              So I guess, maybe sort of taking off what Dave said and what some of the presenters have said, roughly how many ABs do you think would be needed to handle that scope of work?
              And as well, what resources or how much resources, based on your work with other federal agencies, how many resources do you think OSHA would need to manage a scope of that size?
              MR. NATHAN:  Okay.  Again, I suppose the question is directed towards the AB.  I had a couple of questions for you, Kevin.  But I'll, in responding --
              MR. BUZARD:  I'm glad somebody else does?
              (Laughter)

              MR. NATHAN:  -- in responding to, as I mentioned in my presentation, I listed out all of the current certification bodies and testing organizations that we've already accredited.
              And that's a little over, I think, 55 sites which, one of my colleagues did the research, but we presume it captures the majority of your sites.  However, I haven't compared the scopes of what you have listed to the scopes we have listed or not.
              In terms of the resources, in United States it's safe to say that working in conjunction with all the accreditation bodies that the scope of work you're laying out would not be a challenge.
              And again, we are of course, to some extent, reactive.  But we do have current resources which we service.  So it's not that difficult.  I mean, if it goes from 100 customers to, let's say, 300 customers, then naturally there is a progression in how we can ramp up the resource.

              But speaking as an operations guy, we've handled these kind of things, you know, we've gone from a few hundred to almost approaching 1,000.  And we have done it reasonably well with enough resources.  So I don't think, within the United States, that's a challenge.
              But from your point of view or your staffing question, which the gentleman alluded to, I think those are requirements definitely, you know, can be laid out working with the ABs, what those sort of resources are.
              I take one small exception to what Pete Unger said.  Pete mentioned that OSHA may need to approve assessors.  And, Pete, respectfully, what I would simply say that OSHA needs to lay down the requirement for the assessors.
              I think the approving the assessors is a hugely complex task.  You may end up, you know, looking at resumes, and CVs and training records of several hundred.

              And I don't think, given just the ability to handle the assessments, you now take on the task of approving the assessors will be highly challenging.  I think if you lay the requirements out very clearly, that would be very useful.
              And one other speaker mentioned that you do need to lay out the guidelines and requirements for the ABs which you haven't laid out.  So I think the resource handling within United States, I don't see that as a challenge.
              One final point, international ABs, I am not aware of what their challenges would be.  Because they are governmental organizations.  They're not going to be as reactive to these type of resource issues.  So I think I can speak for the American ABs that we can easily do that.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Andrew?

              MR. EVANS:  Andrew Evans, GAMBICA.  If you had a cooperation of accreditation bodies, then OSHA would not need to accredit accreditors.  Because you'd have a peer-to-peer evaluation system in place.  That's the advantage of having the cooperation.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Okay.  And Mike, all right --
              MR. BUZARD:  Mike Buzard of A2LA.  Just kind of to expand upon Raj's comments and your question about, you know, in terms of the ABs staffing, I'll point back to the FCC/TCB program.
              We have 20 certifiers in the United States.  The FCC specifies your certification body has to be continentally located here.  Twenty certifiers, and I'm not quite sure how many labs -- I saw Gordon Gillerman out here somewhere, and maybe he's got a closer idea -- we might be at 200 plus for the individual testing site locations.
              But your numbers are certainly feasible.  Right now the FCC only recognizes three accreditation bodies to handle those.  And it's very little stress, at least on A2LA's part.  I know ANSI's one of the other recognized ones.  And is IAS the third?

              MR. NATHAN:  No, it's FCC, I think.
              (Off microphone discussion)
              MR. BUZARD:  They added one more  in maybe A Class last year.  But there's a third one that's recently been added.  Twenty CBs, close to 200 test labs.  I think it's not going to be an issue on the AB side of things.
              To the gentleman's question, what's OSHA staffing level going to need to be, how much handle do you want to have on the ABs and how much direct handle do you want to have on the CBs?  And if you chose to do so, accredited test labs or the individual NRTL SNAP sites.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Milton?
              MR. BUSH:  Yeah.  I would say that OSHA doesn't really need to worry about the private sector market, the ABs.  If there's a market there, the ABs will meet it.  They'll ramp up for it, they'll meet it.

              What OSHA needs to spend its time on is figuring out what model's going to work best for OSHA, okay.  I will tell you that ACIL is concerned, and correct me if I'm wrong on this, misunderstanding, is you intend to ramp up, internally staffing --
              MR. ROBINSON:  Yes.
              MR. BUSH:  -- to meet the requirements of the new directive.  And generally speaking, in most government organizations, once you ramp up it never ramps down.
              So there's a concern on the private sector side that once you ramp up that it won't get privatized.  And we'll spend a lot of resources, will have spent a lot of resources and time on this topic.
              But at the same time, if OSHA focuses more, forget about the private sector ABs and focuses more on what's an appropriate role for OSHA, then that model will tell you what your resources are and what will be needed.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Keith?

              MR. MOWRY:  And, you know, it's a good question, because it gives us an opportunity to go to another level of detail about OSHA and what your thinking about doing, and how that's different than some of the examples we've heard so far.
              When the FCC/TCB approach came on stream, nobody was really certifying products for FCC regulatory compliance.  It was a green field.
              FCC came along and said, well, we don't want to do this anymore.  We'd like to hand it off to private sector.  Let's have accreditation bodies, let's have a model, let's do all this stuff.  And the private sector responded, and we built all that.  And that was all great.

              You are in a very different situation.  There are lots of other demand drivers out there for safety certification of the exact same products that you regulate. Those demand drivers are demanding certification too.  They were there before OSHA, in the 70's, decided to do NRTL, right?
              We, I can tell you that we already hold accreditations that cover probably 90 to 95 percent of compliance with OSHA NRTL requirements.
              For the accreditation bodies we work with, it's going to be a very small delta of what they're going to audit us against if, if they are accepted by OSHA to accredit us as a CB for operating the NRTL program.  Because we're already doing all those activities for the other stakeholders, for the exact same standards, the exact same certification processes, essentially the same scheme.
              So this is not as if OSHA is going to be handing the private sector a big new activity to take care of.  They're already doing it.

              Now, this is also going to come back and impact some of the future questions.  OSHA is not the only stakeholder for product safety certification for the products you regulate.  There are other demand drivers, there are other demands for certification.
              A certification body, for its clients, will want to meet everybody's demands with a single service to the extent that they can.  If the demands go so far apart and get so divergent that's it not possible to offer a single service, we'll still meet our customers' expectations as best we can.
              But it might not be through a single service.  It's just not possible.  So far, it's been fairly homogenous about what electrical safety certification for all the various stakeholders in the United States should look like.
              And so the manufacturers of those products have the benefit of coming into a single certification process and even have multiple providers to choose from.

              Like Milt says, you get competition, appropriate competition, appropriate competition to drive innovation and drive efficiencies.  But you can go to a variety of service providers and get through a single certification process, and local jurisdictions, and retailers, and insurance underwriters, and federal regulators.  And lots of people involved with electrical safety are happy.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Okay.  Paul?
              MR. MOLISKI:  Thank you.  Paul Moliski, Intertek.  I partially agree with what Keith said.  I think if this remains domestic within the U.S., I think the delta will be very small.  I think there'd be adequate controls.
              But making a comparison in a slightly different form, if you compare with food safety, there are several large schemes operated globally in food.

              The food scheme owners had significant issues, similar issues that you raised regarding laboratory competency.  And the scheme owners went to the ABs.  They actually wrote their own guidance document for ABs to use.
              And acceptance of that document was met with resistance internationally.  Internationally, if you choose to use ABs from other countries, there is a risk that you'll see resistance in ABs adjusting their policies to meet all of the OSHA requirements.  So your selection of ABs will, I think, will be challenging should you choose to reach outside of the U.S.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Okay.  Raj had a comment, question.
              MR. NATHAN:  Just to, as I said, there are a few questions I would also have OSHA staff consider.  For instance, and I would like the ABs here and certainly the CBs here to look at this.

              In the requirements document, draft document, Section 5.4 is an example that I'm looking at.  And it says here each test procedure shall adequately address all the applicable requirements to a particular standard.
              As an AB, we have CBs that have hundreds and hundreds of test methods.  I read into that, and I say every one of those test methods you need a corresponding written test procedure.
              Now, that, if you walk in and you don't find that, you're going to cite that as a nonconformity, from the AB perspective.  And we accredit labs.
              If a test procedure, if you're doing continuity testing, for instance, those kind of test procedures are very self-evident.  I'm sure some test technicians would disagree.
              They don't need a written test procedure, because the test standard is self-evident.  So that particular clause imposes, in my estimation, and the CBs can talk about it, thousands and thousands of dollars.

              Because I can guarantee you, you walk into a CB, you're not going to find test procedures, unless that test procedure is not clear.  And therefore, a written test procedure is needed too.
              So just that requirement itself would be -- and I'm reading literally into what you have written.  And I read this late night, 11 o'clock, and I'm going no way.
              (Laughter)
              MR. NATHAN:  I am just saying that the requirements you have, and I have a number of points which I'll share this document -- I unfortunately didn't have a chance to look at it -- one other final point I have, you have a requirement for annual assessments.  And the other ABs --
              MR. ROBINSON:  Sort of.
              MR. NATHAN:  -- need to look at it.  Because in the international scheme, typically it's once every two years for the ABS.

              MR. ROBINSON:  Our targets, targets in reality are a little bit different right now.  But our targets are for recognized sites about every 18 months for what we are calling our SNAP sites.
              We're trying to shoot for about every 24 months.  We have 160 sites, three assessors.  Do the math, it doesn't work that way.  But that's our target.  Paul, Shawn, rather?
              MR. PAULSEN:  Yes.  Speaking as an NRTL, I guess, that's located outside of the U.S., you know, when we look at our lab scopes it's not too much of a concern.  I mean, we can get a 17025 accreditation from a variety of different accreditation bodies.  And these can be recognized.
              Again, I think there needs to be variety there.  We certainly don't want to, again, be locked into only one or two ABs.  Potentially, that would be required now to pick up all this work.

              But when we look at the certification side, or our 17065 accreditation, again, being located outside the U.S., it'd obviously be nice to be able to use an accreditation body that's located, you know, outside the U.S. or locally, for us, in Canada.
              There are a number of NRTLs, or I guess there are NRTLs in Canada and, I think, applications for a few more.  So obviously, it'd be beneficial to see something local.
              That being said, again, you know, the question to OSHA, I guess, is how are you going to ensure that ABs located in other geographical areas, you know, will get, are capable of performing the assessments that you need to be done?
              MR. ROBINSON:  And I would say that is certainly a challenge.  And we are at step 0.5 of 20.  And we have a long way to go.  And this is really the first step in saying, you know, we are the SS OSHA.  Which way do we need to go?

              And, you know, the comments that have been given as far as the presentations are concerned will give us a lot of information to chew on.  Internally, I think we have had some of our own thoughts and probably share some of the opinions that have been presented here.
              But it's simply just a matter of taking everything that we receive today, analyzing that.  And then the outcome would be, well, we're going to go with Option X.  Let's hold more stakeholder meetings, let's hold RFIs, let's collect and gather some more information and move through it very methodically.
              You know, it's sort of a long term goal.  This is a long term process.  This is not something that we're going to turn on next week.  Keith?

              MR. MOWRY:  Keith Mowry from UL.  Obviously there's a lot of work and a lot of discussion left to be done.  Let me encourage you to start acting like a scheme owner now.  Start pulling together the stakeholders to develop your scheme now, regardless of the model you follow.
              Don't do it the other way around.  Don't decide the model in a vacuum and then start acting like a scheme owner to pull together and collaborate with your stakeholders.
              You're going to get a lot more resources.  Yeah, you're going to get different opinions from different folks.  But you're going to get your scheme defined and effective far faster if you start acting like a scheme owner now, even though you're still doing the assessments.
              You know, in effect you're the accreditation body.  That's fine.  But as you develop your new model, develop it using the model of a scheme owner, and make sure that you interact collaboratively with all of us as a group.  It'll get done faster.

              And there are people here in this room, and this is the whole reason you're doing this, who are going to offer services and generate income because of the changes you're making.