OSHA's renewed mandate for Regulatory Flexibility review: In support of the 1984 ethylene oxide standard

Abstract Background The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires that all federal agencies consider the impact of regulations on small entities. One of the provisions of the Act requires review of regulations every 10 years to determine whether such regulations should be continued without change, rescinded, or amended to make them more effective or less burdensome on businesses. The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 amended and expanded the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Most significantly, SBREFA entitles aggrieved small entities or their representatives (e.g., trade associations) to sue OSHA for failure to fulfill Regulatory Flexibility Act requirements. In response to this new political reality, OSHA held the first public meetings of their kind in June of 1997 to gather information on the ethylene oxide and lock‐out/tag‐out standards for the purposes of Regulatory Flexibility review. Method This paper presents the development of the Regulatory Flexibility review process and details our analysis of the ethylene oxide standard using OSHA's eight Regulatory Flexibility review criteria. Results Great progress in ethylene oxide health and safety has been made since the promulgation of the standard in 1984, including a considerable decrease in average workshift exposures. Yet, important concerns remain, such as the lack of safer substitutes for EtO's most common uses, the widespread occurrence of accidental exposures to EtO that are not captured by personal monitoring, and the recent increase in the occurrence of catastrophic EtO explosions. Conclusions Because of the considerable study that has been devoted to EtO and to the EtO standard, there is a very strong case for either making the EtO standard more worker protective, or continuing the standard without change while improving outreach and enforcement efforts to address shortcomings. Other valuable standards for which fewer data exist may be inappropriately threatened by the Regulatory Flexibility review process. Importantly, Regulatory Flexibility review could be constructive if accompanied by appropriations to fund sound evaluation studies. Instead, it will likely divert OSHA's limited resources from the numerous urgent health hazards that await initial rule‐making. As signified by the designation of “intervention effectiveness research” as one of the 21 priorities on the National Occupational Research Agenda, evaluation studies of OSHA standards and other interventions are urgently needed. The occupational health community's response to this need will play a crucial role in preserving hard‐won protections, as well as in developing other urgently needed protections in the future. Am. J. Ind. Med. 34:95–104, 1998. © 1998 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.