"[P]eople acting in a group can accomplish things which no individual acting alone could even hope to bring about." - FDR

News & Analysis | REG•WATCH Blog | Press Room

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Lawmakers Unhappy with Workplace Risk Rule

Yesterday, a House panel held an oversight hearing concerning Labor Secretary Elaine Chao's proposal to change the way the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Mine Safety and Health Administration calculate on-the-job risks. Occupational health advocates and good government groups, such as OMB Watch, oppose the controversial rule. However, Bush officials are aggressively pushing the new policy through the rulemaking pipeline.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), chair of the House Education and Labor Committee subcommittee on Workforce Protections, opened the hearing by airing her concerns with the speed of the rulemaking and the Labor Department's priorities:

I am troubled by the Agency's attempt to rush through this rule without a full consideration of its effect on the health and safety of the American worker. This proposed rule has without explanation leapfrogged ahead of many other worker protection standards that OSHA should have been working on for the last 8 years, including a standard for diacetyl, the long delayed silica standard, the long delayed beryllium standard, and the long delayed crane standard…[The rule] is being propelled forward at lightning speed.

Celeste Monforton, a health and safety advocate and a researcher from George Washington University, testified before the panel. She reminded committee members that OMB had tried to impose on regulatory agencies a politically-driven set of risk assessment mandates, but the National Academies of Science trashed the proposal forcing OMB to abandon it. Monforton pointed out that DOL's proposed rule ignores many of the important recommendations NAS articulated in its critique of the earlier OMB proposal.

Peg Seminario, director of safety and health for AFL-CIO, discussed the delay the proposed rule would cause. OMB Watch has complained that future administrations will have to grapple with these new requirements anytime they want to address new workplace hazards. But Seminario wisely noted that current rulemakings would also be affected:

The proposal doesn't apply only to future rules, it applies to those in process as well. We have three important health rules moving along at OSHA: one on silicia, one on beryllium, another on diacetyl…This rule requires that OSHA go back to square-one and start all over…This will result in dozens and dozens of unnecessary deaths.

DOL is only accepting public comment on the proposed rule for 30 days. (The standard comment period lasts 60 days.) Occupational health advocates want this rule abandoned altogether, but at the very least, they hope the comment period will be extended to allow for full examination.

A group of advocates, led by the Center for Progressive Reform, wrote to DOL requesting an extension. A DOL spokesperson said, "[W]e will evaluate their letter, along with the hundreds of other letters the department receives," according to BNA news service.

But another request for an extension may not be brushed off so easily. Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) shined a spotlight on the controversy yesterday when he wrote to Chao requesting an extension:

In the interest of transparent governance, an informed process, and an informed public, I strongly urge you both to release the results of the review the Department commissioned and extend the comment period for another 30 days.