[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 156 (Saturday, November 8, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2244]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION REQUIRING PEER REVIEW IN OSHA RULEMAKING

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. CASS BALLENGER

                           of north carolina

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, November 7, 1997

  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to 
require that future occupational safety and health standards be subject 
to peer review as part of the rulemaking process.
  Part of the Clinton Administration's promise to reinvent OSHA was the 
commitment to commonsense regulations. Whatever else that might mean, 
surely it must mean that such regulations are based on sound science.
  The congressionally mandated Presidential-Congressional Commission on 
Risk Assessment and Risk Management said this about peer review in its 
recent report: ``Peer review is an important and effective mechanism 
for evaluating the accuracy or appropriateness of technical data, 
observations, interpretations, and the scientific and economic aspects 
of regulatory decisions. Peer review should provide balanced, 
independent views. When used well, peer review can serve as a system of 
checks and balances for the technical aspects of the regulatory 
process'' (Risk Assessment and Risk Management in Regulatory Decision-
Making, Volume 2, page 103).
  While other Federal regulatory agencies have adopted politics on peer 
review of major regulatory actions, OSHA has not adopted such a policy 
and only rarely has conducted peer review in conjunction with 
regulations. A draft policy circulated near the end of the Bush 
administration, was left unfinished and never implemented by the 
Clinton administration.
  It will no doubt be alleged by some that requiring peer review is 
intended to delay or draw out the rulemaking process. In fact, peer 
review can prevent OSHA from errors that can save years of controversy 
and litigation. As the Presidential-Congressional Commission on Risk 
Assessment and Risk Management noted: ``An open process of sharing the 
findings and conclusions from peer review can increase the credibility 
of a risk assessment and stakeholders confidence in the conclusions. 
Peer review might even be useful in the first stage of putting a 
problem in context, drawing in experienced health officials and 
researchers'' (Volume 2, page 103).
  The legislation generally requires that peer review be part of OSHA's 
rulemaking process. However, where the rule is adopted through 
negotiated rulemaking, conducted in accordance with the Negotiated 
Rulemaking Act which insures that affected persons are adequately 
represented in the negotiations, a separate peer review of the 
scientific and economic basis for the standard is not required.
  Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with my colleagues in adopting 
this important legislation.

                          ____________________