As OSHA and proponents of a rule get more efficient about collecting data and doing such analysis, opponents now want to raise the target by adding net benefits analysis, regulatory flexibility analysis, comparative risk analysis, and substitution risk analysis. . . The legislation tilts the playing field further in favor of those who wish to block new protections and roll back those protections we have now. In sum, it will make it harder to protect workers from serious safety and health hazards. It will result in preventable injuries, illnesses and deaths on the job. This bill, like all recent regulatory change or risk assessment legislation, seems based on the assumption that public health agencies order overly-protective limits on exposure too fast and too frequently based on extreme interpretations of science.
Real experience is just the opposite.
Under present OSHA procedures, proposed standards must be presented in a public hearing. OSHA must present evidence supporting the proposed standard, including witnesses and documents explaining the health risks, control measures, cost analyses, and every detail of the rule. Any participant in the rulemaking can ask questions of OSHA and its witnesses, as well as present their own evidence and comments. In turn, participants can be questioned by OSHA and each other. This round robin process is open, on the record, and exhaustive.