96-23188. Laboratory Accreditation Working Group: Proceedings of Open Forum

[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 11, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47891-47892]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23188]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Institute of Standards and Technology
[Docket No. 960801215-6215-01]
RIN 0693-XX22


Laboratory Accreditation Working Group: Proceedings of Open Forum

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: A single copy of NIST Special Publication SP-902, 
``Proceedings of the Open Forum on Laboratory Accreditation'' may be 
requested from the NIST Office of Standards Services. Multiple copies 
may be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents.

DATES: Request for a single copy will be honored by NIST until the 
supply is exhausted.

ADDRESSES: At NIST: Office of Standards Services, National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, Building 820, Room 282, Gaithersburg, 
Maryland 20899, telephone [phone], e-mail [e-mail], or 
facsimile 301-963-2871. At Superintendent of Documents: P.O. Box 
371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250, telephone [phone].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Judith Baker, Office of Standards Services, National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, Building 820, Room 282, Gaithersburg, 
Maryland 20899, telephone [phone].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NIST SP-902, ``Proceedings of the Open Forum 
on Laboratory Accreditation'' includes presented papers and discussions 
at a meeting on the proposed development of a U.S. laboratory 
accreditation infrastructure, held at NIST on October 13, 1995.
    The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and ACIL (formerly 
American Council of Independent Laboratories) requested that the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) work with them in 
an informal Laboratory Accreditation Working Group (LAWG) to evaluate 
the current situation in laboratory accreditation in the United States. 
This group sponsored a Forum on October 13, 1995, to hear reports from 
various sectors and to arrive at some consensus on the need to improve 
the current situation and infrastructure for laboratory accreditation 
in the United States. Sectors included laboratories, accreditors, 
manufacturers, government (both federal and states), standards 
organizations, and international trade experts.
    In the Forum, reports from the different sectors focused on the 
need for agreement on common procedures, reduction of overlap and 
duplicate programs, and development of coordination among sectors. The 
invited speakers presented examples of the high price in both time and 
money, as well as in lack of domestic (and international) acceptance of 
accreditation, resulting from the multiple, often duplicative 
accreditation required by organizations in government and the private 
sector. Examples given by many of the speakers included:

--Multiple assessments of a single laboratory with similar testing 
protocols applied each time, increased total cost, and frequent 
conflicts among requirements;
--Programs tailored to narrow customer demands but lacking recognition 
by other bodies;
--Non-uniformity of requirements and lack of reciprocity among 
accreditors and those requiring accreditation;
--Failure to recognize U.S. accreditation in international trade; and
--Problems stemming from the need for compliance with regulatory 
programs without consideration of comparable private sector 
accreditation.

    Keynote addresses provided:

--Historical review of prior efforts to streamline the laboratory 
accreditation infrastructure;
--An overview of the effect of failure to accept testing by accredited 
laboratories on commercial trade relations, especially limits on the 
free trade of products designed for acceptance in overseas markets due 
to lack of common procedures and mutual recognition agreements; and
--A description of procedures used by both the United Kingdom 
Accreditation Service (UKAS) and

[[Page 47892]]

European Council on Accreditation of Laboratories (EAL) organizations.

    The LAWG Steering Group presented a ``Vision'' statement. This 
informal group consists of the three sponsoring organizations and 
representatives of each of the stakeholders: Laboratories, accreditors, 
and the government and private sector entities that require 
accreditation of laboratories for their own purposes. The Vision 
statement was intended to provide a philosophy for developing broad 
cooperation on accreditation procedures and infrastructure that would 
be much more effective than the present chaotic system and which would 
meet the needs of all those affected by laboratory accreditation. A set 
of ``Principles'' was also offered as a guide for developing a possible 
infrastructure. These principles include recognition of competent 
organizations that accredit laboratories, use of procedures and 
requirements based on international standards and guides, elimination 
of domestic barriers, and improved access to foreign markets for U.S. 
products.
    Throughout the Forum, speakers supported the opportunity to achieve 
a coordinated, cost effective system for unified procedures for 
determining the competency of laboratories by qualified accreditors.

    Dated: September 15, 1996.
Samuel Kramer,
Associate Director.
[FR Doc. 96-23188 Filed 9-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-13-M