A rush to impose new rule relaxing job-safety standards

WASHINGTON — The Labor Department is racing to complete a new rule, strenuously opposed by President-elect Obama, that would make it much harder for the government to regulate toxic substances and hazardous chemicals to which workers are exposed on the job.

The rule, which has strong support from business groups, said that in assessing the risk from a particular substance, federal agencies should gather and analyze "industry-by-industry evidence" of employees' exposure to it during their working lives. The proposal, in many cases, would add a step to the lengthy process of developing standards to protect workers' health.

Public-health officials and labor unions said the rule would delay needed protections for workers, resulting in additional deaths and illnesses.

With the economy tumbling and U.S. troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Bush has promised to cooperate with Obama to make the transition "as smooth as possible." But that has not stopped his administration from trying, in its final days, to cement in place a diverse array of new regulations.

The Labor Department proposal is one of about 20 contentious rules the Bush administration is planning to issue in its final weeks. The rules deal with issues as diverse as abortion, auto safety and the environment.

One rule would make it easier to build power plants near national parks and wilderness areas. Another would reduce the role of federal wildlife scientists in deciding whether dams, highways and other projects pose a threat to endangered species.

Obama and his advisers have signaled their wariness of last-minute efforts by the Bush administration to embed its policies into the Code of Federal Regulations, a collection of rules having the force of law. The advisers also have said Obama plans to look at a number of executive orders issued by Bush.

A new president can unilaterally reverse executive orders issued by his predecessors, as Bush and former President Clinton did in selected cases. But it is much more difficult for a new president to revoke or alter final regulations put in place by a predecessor. A new administration must solicit public comment and supply "a reasoned analysis" for such changes, as if it were issuing a new rule, the Supreme Court has said.

In September, Obama and four other senators introduced a bill that would bar the Labor Department from issuing the rule it is rushing to complete. Obama also signed a letter urging the department to scrap the proposal, saying it would "create serious obstacles to protecting workers from health hazards on the job."

Administration officials said such concerns were based on a misunderstanding of the proposal.

"This proposal does not affect the substance or methodology of risk assessments," said Leon Sequeira, assistant secretary of labor for policy. The proposal, he said, would allow the department to "cast a wide net for the best available data before proposing a health standard."

The Labor Department regulates occupational-health hazards posed by a variety of substances, such as asbestos, benzene, cotton dust, formaldehyde, lead, vinyl chloride and blood-borne pathogens, including the virus that causes AIDS.

The proposal applies to two agencies within the Labor Department, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Mine Safety and Health Administration.

Under the proposal, they would have to publish "advance notice of proposed rule-making," soliciting public comment on studies, scientific information and data to be used in drafting a new rule. In some cases, OSHA has done that, but it is not required to do so.

The Bush administration and business groups said the rule would codify "best practices," ensuring that health standards were based on the best scientific information.

Randel Johnson, a vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said his group "unequivocally supports" the proposal because it would give the public a better opportunity to comment on the science and data used by the government.

After a regulation is drafted and formally proposed, Johnson said, it is "all but impossible" to get OSHA to make significant changes.

Critics of the rule said the additional step does nothing to protect workers.

Margaret Seminario, director of occupational safety and health for the AFL-CIO, said the proposal could add two years to a rule-making process that often takes eight years or more.