Public Participation and Claimsmaking: Evidence Utilization and Divergent Policy Frames in California's Ergonomics Rulemaking

Notice and comment provisions in agency rulemaking provide animportant mechanism for the public to contribute to policy.Yet there is limited research on how interest groups participatein this process. California's passage of an ergonomics standardin 1997, the only current state statute in the country, providesa useful, high salience policy case for examining public commentary.Between an initially proposed comprehensive standard and theenactment of a much weaker regulation occurred the largest publicresponse in California's state Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration history. Through a detailed content analysisof the notice and comment submissions we identify features ofparticipation and claimsmaking that differ between businessand nonbusiness submissions. Business groups were the largemajority of participants and also presented a disproportionateamount of evidence, using an "abstract-technical" policy frameto assert the illegitimacy of the ergonomics standard. Labor,public health organizations and private citizens representedless than one-third of the participants and relied primarilyon experiential information and a "concretized-moral" characterizationof policy issues in support of the standard. The existence ofthese distinct "interpretive communities" that mobilize differentresources raises questions about whether public commentary canfulfill its purported "democratic accountability" purpose aswell as underline the limitations of appealing to scientificexpertise for solving complex policy problems.