11 hidden costs in OSHA Walkaround rule, says Advocacy
OSHA must estimate the cost of regulations. The agency reports its Walkaround Representative proposal does NOT place costs on employers. Yet, the Office of Advocacy argues that costs flow directly and foreseeably from the rule.
The Advocacy is an independent voice within the Small Business Administration. It ensures that small business concerns are heard in the regulatory process. In comments submitted this month, the Advocacy explains that several small businesses suggest that the proposal will levy clear and quantifiable costs.
What change is OSHA proposing?
Right now, if an OSHA officer inspects a workplace, workers get to choose a representative to join the walkaround portion. On August 30, the agency proposed to clarify who they can choose — an employee of the employer OR a third party. OSHA took out examples cited in 29 CFR 1903.8(c) from the proposed text. This was intended to broaden workers’ choices. Learn more about the proposal by clicking on the following:
- “OSHA to expand rule for non-employee representatives during inspections,” 10/11/2023.
- “OSHA official grilled on three contentious rules,” 10/4/2023.
- “OSHA: Worker Walkaround Representative Designation Process,” 8/30/2023.
- “Surprise! OSHA to issue walkaround and subpoena rules in Quarter 2,” 2/23/2023.
While the comment period has closed, the proposal drew 11,530 comments.
OSHA’s zero-cost estimate
OSHA claims that the proposal, when final, would impose no extra burden on employers. It would not require them to take any action to comply, points out the agency. OSHA interprets a regulatory impact analysis to be an estimate of the costs of a change from the current situation without the rulemaking to a hypothetical environment where the new rule exists.
In looking at potential costs, OSHA says it considered that employers may have policies and rules for third parties, such as for:
- Personal protective equipment (PPE),
- Safety briefings before entering, and
- Confidential business information procedures.
However, OSHA contends these measures are not required by the proposed regulation, and, even so, there would be no real cost to an employer to have an additional visitor onsite. PPE could be supplied from extra equipment that might be available onsite for visitors. The third party could also supply its own PPE. Any potential safety briefing would be held regardless of the number of individuals present. Moreover, the proposed rule does not require the employer to:
- Make a third party available, nor
- Pay for that third party’s time.
Advocacy lists proposal’s potential costs
After meeting with small business representatives, the Advocacy submitted comments to the docket on November 13. Those comments list 11 costs related to the proposal:
- Advanced planning and coordination,
- Additional screening and security,
- Revising third-party access policies and procedures,
- Training workers on new third-party visitor protocols,
- Obtaining legal advice and consultation,
- Additional protections for confidential business information,
- Preparing additional non-disclosure and other forms,
- Additional staff and internal or external experts to correspond to the variety of non-employee third-party participants during inspections,
- Potential liability for injuries to third parties during their presence during the inspection,
- Additional insurance, and
- Providing additional personal protective and other safety and health equipment.
Advocacy calls for OSHA to reassess cost estimates
The Advocacy admits that the cost of the rule may be small in many instances but not a zero amount. Therefore, the office recommends that OSHA:
- Conduct additional outreach to small employers concerning the impact of the proposed rule;
- Revise and republish a cost analysis with a “valid” assessment of costs to small entities before proceeding with the rule; and
- Determine whether the added costs represent a significant economic impact on some number/percent of small firms.
In the proposal, OSHA had certified that, if promulgated, the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Advocacy, however, charges that the certification is “improper” because OSHA failed to consider direct/foreseeable costs incurred by small employers. These costs, the Advocacy asserts, result from the new categories of non-employee third-party representatives, beyond safety and health experts, who could join OSHA during workplace inspections.
The Advocacy cautions that OSHA may need to convene a “small business advocacy review panel” before proceeding, if the agency cannot factually estimate the added costs to small entities. If a panel is convened, OSHA would need to weigh regulatory alternatives. The Advocacy said one alternative might be to limit non-employee third parties to those with essential technical safety and health expertise.
OSHA must give every appropriate consideration to comments provided by the Advocacy.
Key to remember
While OSHA finds no new cost burden in the Walkaround rule, the Advocacy projects costs related to screening, processing, and accompanying third parties during inspections. OSHA must contemplate these comments as it works on this rulemaking.