WORKPLACE SAFETY 

AND HEALTH

Multiple Challenges 

Lengthen OSHA’s Standard 

Setting 

Statement of Revae Moran, Director 

Education, Workforce, and Income Security

Testimony 

Before the Committee on Health, 

Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

U.S. Senate

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT

Thursday, April 19, 2012

GAO-12-602T

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
 

Page 1 GAO-12-602T 

Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Enzi, and Members of the 

Committee:

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the challenges the Department 

of Labor’s (Labor) Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 

faces in developing and issuing safety and health standards. Workplace 

safety and health standards are designed to help protect over 130 million 

public and private sector workers from hazards at more than 8 million 

worksites in the United States, and have been credited with helping 

prevent thousands of work-related deaths, injuries, and illnesses. 

However, questions have been raised concerning whether the agency’s 

approach to developing standards is overly cautious, resulting in too few 

standards being issued. Others counter that the process is intentionally 

deliberative to balance protections provided for workers with the 

compliance burden imposed on employers. Over the past 30 years, 

various presidential executive orders and federal laws have added new 

procedural requirements for regulatory agencies, resulting in multiple and 

sometimes lengthy steps OSHA and other agencies must follow.

My remarks today are based on findings from our report, which is being 

released today, entitled Workplace Safety and Health: Multiple 

Challenges Lengthen OSHA’s Standard Setting.

1

 

1

For this report, we were 

asked to review: (1) the time taken by OSHA to develop and issue 

occupational safety and health standards and the key factors that affect 

these time frames, (2) alternatives to the typical standard-setting process 

that are available for OSHA to address urgent hazards, (3) whether 

rulemaking at other regulatory agencies offers insight into OSHA’s 

challenges with setting standards, and (4) ideas that have been 

suggested by occupational safety and health experts for improving the 

process. To determine how long it takes OSHA to develop and issue 

occupational safety and health standards, we analyzed new standards 

and substantive updates to standards finalized between calendar years 

1981 and 2010 and identified as significant by the agency. Through 

semistructured interviews with current and former Labor officials and 

occupational safety and health experts representing both workers and 

employers, we identified the key factors affecting OSHA’s time frames for 

issuing standards and ideas for improving OSHA’s standard-setting 

process. We reviewed relevant federal laws and interviewed current 

GAO-12-330 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 2, 2012). 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-602T 

OSHA staff and attorneys from Labor’s Office of the Solicitor to identify 

alternatives to the typical standard-setting process available for OSHA to 

address urgent hazards. To determine whether rulemaking at other 

regulatory agencies offers insight into OSHA’s challenges with setting 

standards, we conducted semistructured interviews with policy and 

program officials at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and at 

the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). For more information 

on our scope and methodology, see the full report. This testimony is 

based on work performed between February 2011 and April 2012 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

In summary, we found that, between 1981 and 2010, the time it took 

OSHA to develop and issue safety and health standards ranged from 15 

months to 19 years and averaged more than 7 years. Experts and agency 

officials cited several factors that contribute to the lengthy time frames for 

developing and issuing standards, including increased procedural 

requirements, shifting priorities, and a rigorous standard of judicial review. 

We also found that, in addition to using the typical standard-setting 

process, OSHA can address urgent hazards by issuing emergency 

temporary standards, although the agency has not used this authority 

since 1983 because of the difficulty it has faced in compiling the evidence 

necessary to meet the statutory requirements. Instead, OSHA focuses on 

enforcement activities—such as enforcing the general requirement of the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act)2

 

2

Pub. L. No. 91-596, 84 Stat. 1590.

that employers 

provide a workplace free from recognized hazards—and educating 

employers and workers about urgent hazards. Experiences of other 

federal agencies that regulate public or worker health hazards offered 

limited insight into the challenges OSHA faces in setting standards. For 

example, EPA officials pointed to certain requirements of the Clean Air 

Act to set and regularly review standards for specified air pollutants that 

have facilitated the agency’s standard-setting efforts. In contrast, the OSH 

Act does not require OSHA to periodically review its standards. Also, 

MSHA officials noted that their standard-setting process benefits from 

both the in-house knowledge of its inspectors, who inspect every mine at 

least twice yearly, and a dedicated mine safety research group within the 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), a federal 

research agency that makes recommendations on occupational safety 

and health. OSHA must instead rely on time-consuming site visits to 
 

Page 3 GAO-12-602T 

obtain information on hazards and has not consistently coordinated with 

NIOSH to assess occupational hazards. Finally, experts and agency 

officials identified several ideas that could improve OSHA’s standardsetting process. In our report being released today, we draw upon one of 

these ideas and recommend that OSHA and NIOSH more consistently 

collaborate on researching occupational hazards so that OSHA can more 

effectively leverage NIOSH expertise in its standard-setting process.

The basic process by which all federal agencies typically develop and 

issue regulations is set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA),3

and is generally known as the rulemaking process.4 Rulemaking at most 

regulatory agencies follows the APA’s informal rulemaking process, also 

known as “notice and comment” rulemaking, which generally requires 

agencies to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal 

Register, provide interested persons an opportunity to comment on the 

proposed regulation, and publish the final regulation, among other 

things.5 Under the APA, a person adversely affected by an agency’s 

notice and comment rulemaking is generally entitled to judicial review of 

that new rule, and a court may invalidate the regulation if it finds it to be 

“arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in 

accordance with law,” sometimes referred to as the arbitrary and 

capricious test.6

 

3

Pub. L. No. 79-404, 60 Stat. 237 (1946), codified in 1966 in scattered sections of title 5, 

United States Code. Agencies may follow additional or alternative procedures if certain 

exceptions apply, or when required by other statutes. 

In addition to the requirements of the APA, federal 

agencies typically must comply with requirements imposed by certain 

other statutes and executive orders. In accordance with various 

presidential executive orders, agencies work closely with staff from the 

Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, who review draft regulations and other significant 

4

The APA defines a rule as “the whole or part of an agency statement of general or 

particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law 

or policy or describing the organization, procedure, or practice requirements of an 

agency.” 5 U.S.C. § 551(4). For this testimony, we use the terms rule and regulation 

interchangeably.

5

The APA also provides for formal rulemaking in certain cases. Formal rulemaking 

includes a trial-type hearing, and if challenged in court, the resulting rule will be struck 

down if unsupported by substantial evidence. 5 U.S.C. § 553.

6

5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 706(2)(A).

Background
 

Page 4 GAO-12-602T 

regulatory actions prior to publication.7

The process OSHA uses to develop and issue standards is spelled out in 

the OSH Act. Section 6(b) of the act specifies the procedures OSHA must 

use to promulgate, modify, or revoke its standards.

Most of the additional 

requirements that affect OSHA standard setting were established in 1980 

or later.

8 These procedures 

include publishing the proposed rule in the Federal Register, providing 

interested persons an opportunity to comment, and holding a public 

hearing upon request. Section 6(a) of the act directed the Secretary of 

Labor (through OSHA) to adopt any national consensus standards or 

established federal standards as safety and health standards within 2 

years of the date the OSH Act went into effect, without following the 

procedures set forth in section 6(b) or the APA.9

 

7

A regulatory action is “significant” if it will (1) have an annual effect on the economy of 

$100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 

economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, 

local, or tribal governments or communities (sometimes referred to as “economically 

significant”); (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, 

grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of the recipients; or (4) 

raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, 

or the principles set forth in the executive order. Exec. Order No. 12866, 58 Fed. Reg. 

51,735 (Sept. 30, 1993). The principles, structures, and definitions established in 

Executive Order 12866 were reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563, 76 Fed. Reg. 3821 

(Jan. 18, 2011).

 According to an OSHA 

publication, the vast majority of these standards have not changed since 

originally adopted, despite significant advances in technology, equipment, 

and machinery over the past several decades. In leading the agency’s 

standard-setting process, staff from OSHA’s Directorate of Standards and 

Guidance, in collaboration with staff from other Labor offices, explore the 

8

Codified at 29 U.S.C. § 655(b).

9

Codified at 29 U.S.C. § 655(a). In general, national consensus standards are voluntary 

safety and health standards that a nationally recognized standards-producing organization 

adopts after reaching substantial agreement among those who will be affected, including 

businesses, industries, and workers. For purposes of section 6(a) of the OSH Act, a 

national consensus standard must have met certain requirements. See the full report for 

more information on national consensus standards. The OSH Act defines an “established 

Federal standard” as any operative occupational safety and health standard established 

by any federal agency or contained in any Act of Congress that was in effect on the date 

of enactment of the OSH Act. 29 U.S.C. § 652(10). Prior to the enactment of the OSH Act, 

other federal laws included provisions designed to protect workers’ safety and health, 

such as the 1936 Walsh-Healey Act. 
 

Page 5 GAO-12-602T 

appropriateness and feasibility of developing standards to address 

workplace hazards that are not covered by existing standards. Once 

OSHA initiates such an effort, an interdisciplinary team typically 

composed of at least five staff focus on that issue.

We analyzed the 58 significant health and safety standards OSHA issued 

between 1981 and 2010 and found that the time frames for developing 

and issuing them averaged about 93 months (7 years, 9 months), and 

ranged from 15 months to about 19 years (see table 1).10

Table 1: Significant OSHA Safety and Health Standards Finalized between 1981 and 

2010

Decade/year

Number of standards 

finalizeda

Average number of 

months from 

initiation to final ruleb

Average number of 

months from 

proposed rule to 

final rule

1980s 24 70 30

1990s 23 118 50

2000s 10 91 36

2010 1 —c —c

Overall 58 93 39

Source: GAO analysis of Federal Register. 

a

For the purposes of this analysis, we considered a standard to have been finalized on the date it was 

published in the Federal Register as a final rule. 

b

For the purposes of this analysis, we considered a standard to be initiated on the date OSHA publicly 

indicated initiating work on the standard in the Federal Register, by publishing a Request for 

Information or Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. In cases where OSHA mentioned neither of 

 these in the final rule, we used the date the standard first appeared on OSHA’s semiannual 

regulatory agenda. 

c

Because only one standard was finalized in 2010, we did not list the average number of months. 

However, the overall calculations include the 2010 standard. 

 

10We included in our review standards that OSHA considered to be important or a priority, 

including but not limited to standards that met the definition of “significant” under 

Executive Order 12866. 

OSHA’s StandardSetting Time Frames 

Vary Widely and Are 

Influenced by the 

Many Procedural 

Requirements and 

Other Factors
 

Page 6 GAO-12-602T 

During this period, OSHA staff also worked to develop standards that 

have not yet been finalized. For example, according to agency officials, 

OSHA staff have been working on developing a silica standard since 

1997, a beryllium standard since 2000, and a standard on walking and 

working surfaces since 2003.11

Experts and agency officials frequently cited the increased number of 

procedural requirements established since 1980 as a factor that 

lengthens OSHA’s time frames for developing and issuing standards. 

They indicated that the increased number of procedural requirements 

affects the agency’s standard-setting time frames because of the complex 

requirements OSHA must comply with to demonstrate the need for new 

or updated standards (see fig. 1). For example, OSHA must evaluate 

technological and economic feasibility of a potential standard

For a depiction of the timelines for safety 

and health standards issued between 1981 and 2010, see appendix I. 

12 using data 

gathered by visiting worksites in industries that will be affected, on an 

industry-by-industry basis.13 Agency officials told us this is an enormous 

undertaking because, for example, it requires visits to multiple worksites. 

In addition to the feasibility analyses, OSHA staff generally must also 

conduct economic analyses, including assessing the costs and benefits of 

significant standards,14

 

11Agency officials told us that OSHA issued a proposed standard on beryllium in 1975, but 

it was never issued as a final rule. Staff started collecting information on beryllium again in 

2000. In addition, they told us that a 2010 proposed rule on walking and working surfaces 

replaced an outdated proposed rule from 1990 that was never issued as a final rule 

because of other regulatory priorities.

and may be required to initiate a panel process 

that seeks and considers input from representatives of affected small 

12These analyses are necessary because the Supreme Court has held that the OSH Act 

requires that standards be both technologically and economically feasible. Am. Textile 

Mfrs. Inst. v. Donovan, 452 U.S. 490, 513 n.31 (1981).

13See United Steelworkers v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1301 (D.C. Cir. 1980), quoted in 

AFL-CIO v. OSHA, 965 F.2d 962, 980 (11th Cir. 1992). Assessing feasibility on an 

industry-by-industry basis requires that the agency research all applications of the hazard 

being regulated, as well as the expected cost for mitigating exposure to that hazard, in

every industry. 

14Executive Order 12866 requires that OSHA provide an assessment of the potential 

overall costs and benefits for significant rules to OMB. For rules that are “economically 

significant,” the agency must also submit a more detailed cost-benefit analysis. See 58 

Fed. Reg. 51,735 (Sept. 30, 1993).
 

Page 7 GAO-12-602T 

businesses.15 According to agency officials, the small business panel 

process takes about 8 months of work, and OSHA is one of only three 

federal agencies that is subject to this requirement.16

 

15Under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, this panel 

process is required if OSHA determines that a potential standard would have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, such as businesses. OSHA 

staff must work with the Small Business Administration to set up the small business 

panels. 5 U.S.C. § 609(b),(d). 

16The other two agencies that are subject to this requirement are EPA and the Consumer

Financial Protection Bureau.
 

Page 8 GAO-12-602T 

Figure 1: Steps in a Typical OSHA Standard-Setting Process

Note: This figure is for illustrative purposes only. Not all steps identified here may be performed for all 

standards and some standards may involve additional steps not included here. 
 

Page 9 GAO-12-602T 

Experts and agency officials also told us that changing priorities are a 

factor that affects the time frames for developing and issuing standards, 

explaining that priorities may change as a result of changes within OSHA, 

Labor, Congress, or the presidential administration. Some agency officials 

and experts told us such changes often cause delays in the process of 

setting standards. For example, some experts noted that the agency’s 

intense focus on publishing an ergonomics rule in the 1990s took 

attention away from several other standards that previously had been a 

priority.17

The standard of judicial review that applies to OSHA standards if they are 

challenged in court also affects OSHA’s time frames because it requires 

more robust research and analysis than the standard that applies to many 

other agencies’ regulations, according to some experts and agency 

officials. Instead of the arbitrary and capricious test provided for under the 

APA, the OSH Act directs courts to review OSHA’s standards using a 

more stringent legal standard: it provides that a standard shall be upheld 

if supported by “substantial evidence in the record considered as a 

whole.”18

According to OSHA officials and experts, two additional factors result in 

an extensive amount of work for the agency in developing standards:

According to OSHA officials, this more stringent standard 

(known as the “substantial evidence” standard) requires a higher level of 

scrutiny by the courts and as a result, OSHA staff must conduct a large 

volume of detailed research in order to understand all industrial 

processes involved in the hazard being regulated, and to ensure that a 

given hazard control would be feasible for each process.

• Substantial data challenges, which stem from a dearth of available 

scientific data for some hazards and having to review and evaluate 

scientific studies, among other sources. In addition, according to 

agency officials, certain court decisions interpreting the OSH Act 

require rigorous support for the need for and feasibility of standards. 

 

17OSHA issued a final standard just 1 year after publishing the proposed rule, but, 

according to agency officials, in order to develop the rule so quickly, the vast majority of 

OSHA’s standard-setting resources were focused on this rulemaking effort, including 

nearly 50 full-time staff in OSHA’s standards office, half the staff economists, and 7 or 8 

attorneys. The rule was invalidated by Congress 4 months after it was issued under the 

Congressional Review Act. Pub. L. No. 107-5, 115 Stat. 7 (2001).

1829 U.S.C. § 655(f).
 

Page 10 GAO-12-602T 

An example of one such decision cited by agency officials is a 1980 

Supreme Court case, which resulted in OSHA having to conduct 

quantitative risk assessments for each health standard and ensure 

that these assessments are supported by substantial evidence.19

• Response to adverse court decisions. Several experts with whom we 

spoke observed that adverse court decisions have contributed to an 

institutional culture in the agency of trying to make OSHA standards 

impervious to future adverse decisions. However, agency officials said 

that, in general, OSHA does not try to make a standard “bulletproof” 

because, while OSHA tries to avoid lawsuits that might ultimately 

invalidate the standard, the agency is frequently sued. For example, in 

the “benzene decision,” the Supreme Court invalidated OSHA’s 

revised standard for benzene because the agency failed to make a 

determination that benzene posed a “significant risk” of material 

health impairment under workplace conditions permitted by the 

current standard.20 Another example is a 1992 decision in which a 

U.S. Court of Appeals struck down an OSHA health standard that 

would have set or updated the permissible exposure limit for over 400 

air contaminants.21

 

19Indus. Union Dep’t, AFL-CIO v. Am. Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607, 639 (1980). Although 

the decision interpreted a provision of the OSH Act that applied only to health hazards, 

Labor officials said that there is little practical distinction between the evidence OSHA 

must compile to support health standards and the evidence it must compile for safety 

standards.

20Indus. Union Dep’t, AFL-CIO v. Am. Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607, 639 (1980).

21AFL-CIO v. OSHA, 965 F.2d 962, 986-87 (11th Cir. 1992). 
 

Page 11 GAO-12-602T 

OSHA has not issued any emergency temporary standards in nearly 30 

years, citing, among other reasons, legal and logistical challenges.22

OSHA uses enforcement and education as alternatives to issuing 

emergency temporary standards to respond relatively quickly to urgent 

workplace hazards. OSHA officials consider their enforcement and 

education activities complementary. It its enforcement efforts to address 

urgent hazards, OSHA uses the general duty clause of the OSH Act, 

which requires employers to provide a workplace free from recognized 

hazards that are causing, or are likely to cause, death or serious physical 

harm to their employees.

OSHA officials noted that the emergency temporary standard authority 

remains available, but the legal requirements to issue such a standard—

demonstrating that workers are exposed to grave danger and establishing 

that an emergency temporary standard is necessary to protect workers 

from that grave danger—are difficult to meet. Similarly difficult to meet, 

according to officials, is the requirement that an emergency temporary 

standard must be replaced within 6 months by a permanent standard 

issued using the process specified in section 6(b) of the OSH Act.

23 Under the general duty clause, OSHA has the 

authority to issue citations to employers even in the absence of a specific 

standard under certain circumstances. Along with its enforcement and 

standard-setting activities, OSHA also educates employers and workers 

to promote voluntary protective measures against urgent hazards.

OSHA’s education efforts include on-site consultations and publishing 

health and safety information on urgent hazards. For example, if its 

inspectors discover a particular hazard, OSHA may send letters to all 

employers where the hazard is likely to be present to inform them about 

the hazard and their responsibility to protect their workers.

 

22Section 6(c) of the OSH Act authorizes OSHA to issue these standards without following 

the typical standard-setting procedures if certain statutory requirements are met. 

29 U.S.C. § 655(c).

2329 U.S.C. § 654(a)(1). 

OSHA Has Authority 

to Address Urgent 

Hazards through 

Emergency 

Temporary Standards, 

Enforcement, and 

Education
 

Page 12 GAO-12-602T 

Although the rulemaking experiences of EPA and MSHA shed some light 

on OSHA’s challenges, their statutory framework and resources differ too 

markedly for them to be models for OSHA’s standard–setting process. 

For example, EPA is directed to regulate certain sources of specified air 

pollutants and review its existing regulations within specific time frames 

under section 112 of the Clean Air Act, which EPA officials told us gave 

the agency clear requirements and statutory deadlines for regulating 

hazardous air pollutants.24 MSHA benefits from a narrower scope of 

authority than OSHA and has more specialized expertise as a result of its 

more limited jurisdiction and frequent on-sight presence at mines. 

Officials at MSHA, OSHA, and Labor noted that this is very different from 

OSHA, which oversees a vast array of workplaces and types of industries 

and must often supplement the agency’s inside knowledge by conducting 

site visits.

Agency officials and occupational safety and health experts shared their 

understanding of the challenges facing OSHA and offered ideas for 

improving the agency’s standard-setting process.25

• Improve coordination with other agencies: Experts and agency 

officials noted that OSHA has not fully leveraged available expertise 

at other federal agencies, especially NIOSH, in developing and 

issuing its standards. OSHA officials said the agency considers 

NIOSH’s input on an ad hoc basis but OSHA staff do not routinely 

work closely with NIOSH staff to analyze risks of occupational 

hazards. They stated that collaborating with NIOSH on risk

assessments, and generally in a more systematic way, could reduce 

Some of the ideas 

involve substantial procedural changes that may be beyond the scope of 

OSHA’s authority and require amending existing laws, including the OSH 

Act. 

 

2442 U.S.C. § 7412. However, as GAO reported in 2006, EPA failed to meet some of its 

statutory deadlines under section 112 of the Clean Air Act. See GAO, Clean Air Act: EPA 

Should Improve the Management of its Air Toxics Program, GAO 06-669 (Washington, 

D.C.: June 23, 2006).

25The ideas presented here are those most frequently mentioned in our interviews by 

agency officials and experts that are not addressed in other sections of the full report. For 

more information on our methodology, see the full report.

Other Regulatory 

Agencies’ 

Experiences Offer 

Limited Insight into 

OSHA’s Challenges

Experts Suggested 

Many Ideas to 

Improve OSHA’s 

Standard-Setting 

Process, Including 

More Interagency 

Coordination and 

Statutory Deadlines
 

Page 13 GAO-12-602T 

the time it takes to develop a standard by several months, thus 

facilitating OSHA’s standard-setting process.

• Expand use of voluntary consensus standards: According to OSHA 

officials, many OSHA standards incorporate or reference outdated 

consensus standards, which could leave workers exposed to hazards 

that are insufficiently addressed by OSHA standards that are based 

on out-of-date technology or processes. Experts suggested that 

Congress pass new legislation that would allow OSHA, through a 

single rulemaking effort, to revise standards for a group of health 

hazards using current industry voluntary consensus standards, 

eliminating the requirement for the agency to follow the standardsetting provisions of section 6(b) of the OSH Act or the APA. One 

potential disadvantage of this proposal is that any abbreviation to the 

regulatory process could also result in standards that fail to reflect 

relevant stakeholder concerns, such as an imposition of unnecessarily 

burdensome requirements on employers.

• Impose statutory deadlines: OSHA officials indicated that it can be 

difficult to prioritize standards due to the agency’s numerous and 

sometimes competing goals. In the past, having a statutory deadline, 

combined with relief from procedural requirements, resulted in OSHA 

issuing standards more quickly. However, some legal scholars have 

noted that curtailing the current rulemaking process required by the 

APA may result in fewer opportunities for public input and possibly 

decrease the quality of the standard. 26

• Change the standard of judicial review: Experts and agency officials 

suggested OSHA’s substantial evidence standard of judicial review be 

replaced with the arbitrary and capricious standard, which would be 

more consistent with other federal regulatory agencies. The 

Administrative Conference of the United States has recommended 

that Congress amend laws that mandate use of the substantial 

evidence standard, in part because it can be unnecessarily 

Also, officials from MSHA told 

us that, while statutory deadlines make its priorities clear, this is 

sometimes to the detriment of other issues that must be set aside in 

the meantime.

 

26See, for example, Jacob E. Gersen and Anne Joseph O’Connell, “Deadlines in 

Administrative Law,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol. 156 (2007-2008).
 

Page 14 GAO-12-602T 

burdensome for agencies.27 As a result, changing the standard of 

review to “arbitrary and capricious” could reduce the agency’s 

evidentiary burden. However, if Congress has concerns about 

OSHA’s current regulatory power, it may prefer to keep the current 

standard of review.28

• Allow alternatives for supporting feasibility: Experts suggested that 

OSHA minimize on-site visits—a time-consuming requirement for 

analyzing the technological and economic feasibility of new or 

updated standards—by using surveys or basing its analyses on 

industry best practices. One limitation to surveying worksites is that, 

according to OSHA officials, in-person site visits are imperative for 

gathering sufficient data in support of most health standards. Basing 

feasibility analyses on industry best practices would require a 

statutory change, as one expert noted, and would still require OSHA 

to determine feasibility on an industry-by-industry basis.

• Adopt a priority-setting process: Experts suggested that OSHA 

develop a priority-setting process for addressing hazards, and as 

GAO has reported, such a process could lead to improved program 

results.29 OSHA attempted such a process in the past, which allowed 

the agency to articulate its highest priorities for addressing 

occupational hazards. Reestablishing such a process may improve a 

sense of transparency among stakeholders and facilitate OSHA 

management’s ability to plan its staffing and budgetary needs. 

However, it may not immediately address OSHA’s challenges in 

expeditiously setting standards because such a process could take 

time and would require commitment from agency management.

 

2759 Fed. Reg. 4669, 4670-71 (Feb. 1, 1994). The Administrative Conference of the 

United States is an independent federal agency that makes recommendations for 

improving federal agency procedures, including the federal rulemaking process.

28 One suggested justification for judicial review of agency rulemaking is when there is 

genuine concern about the power agencies have in the regulatory process. Mark 

Seidenfeld, “Bending the Rules: Flexible Regulation and Constraints on Agency 

Discretion,” Administrative Law Review (spring, 1999).

29See GAO, Managing for Results: Enhancing Agency Use of Performance Information for

Management Decision Making, GAO-05-927 (Washington D.C.: Sept. 9, 2005).
 

Page 15 GAO-12-602T 

The process for developing new and updated safety and health standards 

for occupational hazards is a lengthy one and can result in periods when 

there are insufficient protections for workers. Nevertheless, any 

streamlining of the current process must guarantee sufficient stakeholder 

input to ensure that the quality of standards does not suffer. Additional 

procedural requirements established since 1980 by Congress and various 

executive orders have increased opportunities for stakeholder input in the 

regulatory process and required agencies to evaluate and explain the 

need for regulations, but they have also resulted in a more protracted 

rulemaking process for OSHA and other regulatory agencies. Ideas for 

changes to the regulatory process must weigh the benefits of addressing 

hazards more quickly against a potential increase in the regulatory 

burden imposed on the regulated community. Most methods for 

streamlining that have been suggested by experts and agency officials 

are largely outside of OSHA’s authority because many procedural 

requirements are established by federal statute or executive order. 

However, OSHA can coordinate more routinely with NIOSH on risk 

assessments and other analyses required to support the need for 

standards, saving OSHA time and expense. In our report being released 

today, we recommend that OSHA and NIOSH more consistently 

collaborate on researching occupational hazards so that OSHA can more 

effectively leverage NIOSH expertise in its standard-setting process. Both 

agencies agreed with this recommendation.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased 

to respond to any questions you or other Members of the Committee may 

have.

For questions about this testimony, please contact me at (202) 512-7215 

or moranr@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional 

Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this 

statement. Individuals who made key contributions to this statement 

include, Gretta L. Goodwin, Assistant Director; Susan Aschoff; Tim Bober;

Anna Bonelli; Sarah Cornetto; Jessica Gray; and Sara Pelton.

Concluding Remarks

GAO Contact and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments
Appendix I: Timelines of Significant OSHA 

Safety and Health Standards

Page 16 GAO-12-602T 

The following two figures (fig. 2 and fig. 3) depict a timeline for each of the 

58 significant safety and health standards OSHA issued between 1981 

and 2010.

Appendix I: Timelines of Significant OSHA 

Safety and Health Standards 
Appendix I: Timelines of Significant OSHA 

Safety and Health Standards

Page 17 GAO-12-602T 

Figure 2: Significant OSHA Safety Standards Timeline

Note: For the purposes of this analysis, we considered a standard to be initiated on the date OSHA 

publicly indicated initiating work on the standard in the Federal Register, by publishing a Request for 
Appendix I: Timelines of Significant OSHA 

Safety and Health Standards

Page 18 GAO-12-602T 

Information or Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. In cases where OSHA mentioned neither of 

these in the final rule, we used the date the standard first appeared on OSHA’s semiannual regulatory 

agenda. We considered a standard to be finalized on the date it was published in the Federal 

Register as a final rule. 

Figure 3: Significant OSHA Health Standards Timeline

Note: For the purposes of this analysis, we considered a standard to be initiated on the date OSHA 

publicly indicated initiating work on the standard in the Federal Register, by publishing a Request for 

Information or Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. In cases where OSHA mentioned neither of 

these in the final rule, we used the date the standard first appeared on OSHA’s semiannual regulatory 

agenda. We considered a standard to be finalized on the date it was published in the Federal 

Register as a final rule. 

a

These two health standards were wholly invalidated either by court decision or congressional action. 

Parts of other standards may have been invalidated but such analysis is beyond the scope of our 

review. 

(131170)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.