| 000 | 01787naa a2200193uu 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 7100516040010 | ||
| 003 | OSt | ||
| 005 | 20190211163152.0 | ||
| 008 | 071005s2007 xx ||||gr |0|| 0 eng d | ||
| 100 | 1 |
_aSHAPIRO, Stuart _99845 |
|
| 245 | 1 | 0 | _aThe Role of procedural controls in OSHA´s ergonomics rulemaking |
| 260 |
_aMalden, MA : _bBlackwell Publishers, _cJuly / Aug. 2007 |
||
| 520 | 3 | _aFew, if any, regulations over the past decade have received as much publicity or engendered such controversy as the ergonomics regulation of the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA). Some may see the ergonomics rule as the paradigmatic instance of procedural hurdles holding up and eventually destroying a regulation. This article examines the role that procedure played in the ergonomics rulemaking. Lessons are drawn from an analysis of the four publicly available versions of the regulation and interviews with seven high-ranking officials at OSHA and the Small Business Administration. Of the procedural hurdles faced by OSHA, the notice-and-comment requirement had the largest impact on the final rule. OMB review and requirements to conduct a cost-benefit analysis served largely as a fire alarm to political overseers, and the required small business panel had largely symbolic effects. The more traditional control of congressional budgetary oversight had the greatest effect by delaying the rule for three years, and thus eventually doomed OSHAs attempts to regulate | |
| 590 | _aPublic administration review PAR | ||
| 773 | 0 | 8 |
_tPublic Administration Review: PAR _g67, 4, p. 688-701 _dMalden, MA : Blackwell Publishers, July / Aug. 2007 _xISSN 00333352 _w |
| 942 | _cS | ||
| 998 |
_a20071005 _b1604^b _cTiago |
||
| 998 |
_a20090608 _b1635^b _cmayze |
||
| 999 |
_aConvertido do Formato PHL _bPHL2MARC21 1.1 _c24697 _d24697 |
||
| 041 | _aeng | ||