Avoidance of advisory duplication

It means OSHA will not create a new standards advisory committee if an existing committee already performs, or could perform, the same duties. See the avoidance of duplication rule in 1912.4.

• This prevents overlapping committees that would cover the same subject matter or tasks.
• If the existing advisory committee’s charter or membership can reasonably address the proposed duties, a new committee should not be formed.
• For general context on the part, see Part 1912 overview.

OSHA (or the agency office responsible for advisory committees) makes the determination that a proposed committee would duplicate duties of an existing section 7(b) advisory committee. See 1912.4.

• The decision is based on whether duties are currently performed or could be performed by an established committee.
• Documentation or a justification for the decision should come from the office managing advisory committees.
• For broader guidance, consult the Part 1912 overview.

It means that if an existing advisory committee has the authority, expertise, or scope that reasonably allows it to take on the proposed duties—even if it is not currently doing them—OSHA should not create a new committee. See 1912.4.

• Consider the existing committee’s charter, membership qualifications, and subject matter coverage.
• If the scope can be expanded or tasks reassigned without undermining effectiveness, duplication should be avoided.
• Refer to Part 1912 for context on advisory committee policy.

You should provide clear documentation showing that existing committees cannot perform the proposed duties and explain why the new committee’s scope is unique. See 1912.4.

• Include comparisons of duties, charters, and membership expertise of relevant existing committees.
• Explain why existing committees cannot reasonably expand to cover the new duties (e.g., conflict of interest, lack of technical expertise, geographic or stakeholder gaps).
• Reference the Part 1912 overview to align your proposal with OSHA’s advisory committee framework.

Yes — if an existing section 7(b) advisory committee can reasonably take on the new duties, OSHA should use the existing committee rather than create a new one. See 1912.4.

• This may involve amending the existing committee’s charter or expanding its membership.
• OSHA will assess whether such changes are feasible without causing conflicts or impairing the committee’s effectiveness.
• For overall policy context, see Part 1912.

A new committee may be allowed if its duties are distinct and cannot reasonably be performed by an existing section 7(b) advisory committee; mere subject overlap alone does not automatically block creation. See 1912.4.

• Document how the duties differ in tasks, deliverables, or required expertise.
• Show why the existing committee’s remit or membership prevents it from handling the new duties.
• Consult the Part 1912 overview for administrative considerations.

The rule applies to standards advisory committees established under section 7(b) of the Act, including situations where subcommittees or working groups would replicate the duties of an existing advisory body. See 1912.4.

• If a proposed subcommittee would perform duties already covered by a standing section 7(b) committee, OSHA should avoid creating it.
• Evaluate whether creating a subcommittee is necessary or if the standing committee can form an internal working group.
• See Part 1912 for the broader framework.

Stakeholder interests are relevant insofar as they affect whether existing committees can represent needed perspectives; if stakeholders are already represented in an existing section 7(b) committee, duplication should be avoided. See 1912.4.

• Document stakeholder representation gaps if you argue for a new committee (e.g., missing industry, labor, or technical expertise).
• OSHA will weigh whether existing committee membership can be adjusted to include underrepresented stakeholders instead of creating a new committee.
• For context, see Part 1912.

Agencies should produce a written determination showing analysis of duties, comparison to existing section 7(b) committees, and reasons why existing committees can or cannot perform the duties. See 1912.4.

• Include charters, scope statements, and membership lists for existing committees used in the comparison.
• State whether modifications to an existing committee were considered (and why they were insufficient).
• Keep this record to support transparency and future reviews; see Part 1912 for context.

Avoidance of duplication applies to standards advisory committees established under section 7(b) of the Act, so agencies should coordinate to prevent committees in different agencies from duplicating the same duties when those committees fall under the same statutory framework. See 1912.4.

• Interagency coordination or joint committees can be used to cover overlapping duties without creating duplicate bodies.
• Document coordination efforts and reasons for any separate committee if joint action is infeasible.
• For general policy framing, see Part 1912.

Yes — if an advisory committee later is determined to duplicate the duties of another section 7(b) committee, OSHA may choose not to continue or to reorganize it to eliminate duplication. See 1912.4.

• Options include merging duties into an existing committee, restructuring, or formally terminating the duplicative committee.
• Any reorganization should be documented with the rationale tied to avoidance of duplication.
• See Part 1912 for broader agency responsibilities.

If an existing section 7(b) advisory committee cannot or will not take on the new duties and there is a documented inability to perform them, OSHA may consider creating a new committee. See 1912.4.

• Document the offer to the existing committee, its response, and why delegation is impractical (e.g., conflicts of interest, capacity limits).
• Provide evidence that no reasonable modification of the existing committee would address the gap.
• Reference Part 1912 for process context.

No — the rule prevents redundant committees but does not remove requirements for public input or transparency for advisory committees established under section 7(b). See 1912.4.

• Any committee formed must still follow applicable public notice and transparency rules governing advisory bodies.
• Using an existing committee with appropriate public procedures can preserve transparency while avoiding duplication.
• For general policy context, see Part 1912.

Conflicts of interest should be assessed because if an existing section 7(b) committee has unavoidable conflicts that prevent it from effectively taking on the duties, creating a new committee may be justified. See 1912.4.

• Document specific conflict issues and whether they can be mitigated (e.g., recusal, membership changes).
• If conflicts cannot be resolved, explain why the duties cannot be assigned to the existing committee.
• See Part 1912 for related advisory committee considerations.

Exceptions can occur if the existing section 7(b) advisory committee cannot reasonably perform the duties due to scope, expertise, conflicts, or capacity; in such documented cases, a new committee may be appropriate. See 1912.4.

• Provide evidence that the existing committee cannot be modified to assume the duties.
• Justify why the new committee’s formation is necessary and how it avoids inefficiency.
• For the regulatory framework, see Part 1912.