FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 27, 2006 |
CONTACT: Steve Forde Telephone: (202) 225-4527 |
Workforce Protections Subcommittee Examines Use of Non-Consensus Workplace Health and Safety Standards
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The House Workforce Protections Subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-GA), today heard testimony from industry experts on the logic behind the federal use of non-consensus standards in crafting workplace health and safety regulations. Concerns have been raised that regulations written without wide participation from the public, including both consensus and non-consensus standards-setting organizations, may not be as effective as ones which seek broader input.
“The ongoing practice by the Department of Labor, whereby it incorporates, standards set by outside standard-setting organizations is an issue of great interest and, frankly, of continued concern to me,” said Norwood, who also chaired a hearing on the issue several years ago.
Government development of safety standards typically involves rigorous examination to take into account the Data Quality Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, a small business impact analysis, stakeholder input, and judicial review before being finalized. The utilization of non-consensus standards – which may amount to little more than a literature review – without similar, stringent examination may inadvertently legitimize ineffective standards.
Testifying before the hearing were representatives of industries impacted by non-consensus standards and other experts in the field. Mr. James Ruddell, testifying on behalf of the National Stone, Sand, and Gravel Association, pointed to the need – and requirement – for greater openness in the federal rulemaking process.
“Today, the overall federal regulatory process is required to be more open – in the sunshine, so to speak – in order to allow for the input of all parties and consideration of data that is of high quality and scientifically valid in establishing a regulatory limit that everyone must meet,” said Ruddell. “Today’s regulatory process requires the consideration of all available technical and economic feasibility data when setting permissible exposure limits for American workers.”
Nearly half of all states – known as state-plan states – have adopted their own safety and health programs in lieu of federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards. These states must provide safety and health protection equal to or greater than what is required by OSHA. As a result, many states indirectly rely upon non-consensus standards to match or exceed OSHA regulations. Ms. Elizabeth Marcucci, representing the American Bakers Association, noted this during her remarks to the subcommittee.
“These states need to have confidence in the procedures and end results of the consensus standard setting organizations upon which they rely for guidance in developing their own standards and enforcement proceedings,” said Marcucci.
Mr. Henry Chajet, an attorney representing clients who oppose the use of non-consensus standards in the federal health and safety rulemaking process, discussed with the panel the clear difference in standards-setting approaches between consensus and non-consensus organizations.
“In contrast to non-consensus organizations, consensus organizations adopt standards according to strict procedures that are transparent, in open meetings, with a generous input and appeal process for all interested parties,” asserted Chajet. “The Occupational Safety and Health Act and other federal laws encourage agencies to use consensus standards, but unfortunately do not expressly prohibit their use of non-consensus organizations.”
“Our goal is to ensure transparency in the rulemaking process,” concluded Norwood. “The employees, their representatives, and the regulated industries have a right to provide input in the regulatory process.” # # # # # |