A THE ADMINISTRATION AND CONGRESSIONAL INITIATIVES TO REFORM OSHA, AND THEIR IMPACT ON SMALL BUSINESSES Y 4.SM 1:104-42 The Adninistration and Congressiona. HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION WASHINGTON, DC, JULY 26, 1995 Printed for the use of the Committee on Small Business Serial No. 104-42 Jm 2 6 1996 Boston Public Uhr^n, U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 92-764CC WASHINGTON : 1996 ForsalebytheU.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice SuperintendentofDocuments,CongressionalSalesOffice,Washington,DC 20402 ISBN 0-16-052640-X V THE ADMINISTRATION AND CONGRESSIONAL INITIATIVES TO REFORM OSHA, AND THEIR IMPACT ON SMALL BUSINESSES 1:104-42 Y 4.SI1 The Adninistration and Congressiona. HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION WASHINGTON, DC, JULY 26, 1995 Printed for the use of the Committee on Small Business Serial No. 104-42 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 92-764CC WASHINGTON 1996 : ForsalebytheU.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice SuperintendentofDocuments,CongressionalSalesOffice,Washington,DC 20402 ISBN 0-16-052640-X COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS JAN MEYERS, Kansas, Chcdr JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado JOHN J. LaFALCE, New York WILLIAM H. ZELIFF, Jr., New Hampshire IKE SKELTON. Missouri JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri RON WYDEN, Oregon DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois NORMAN SISISKY, ViTiginia PETERG. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts KWEISI MFUME, Maryland ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland FLOYD H. FLAKE, New York LINDA SMITH, Washington GLENN POSHARD, Illinois FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey EVA M. CLAYTON, North Carohna ZACH WAMP, Tennessee MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts SUE W. KELLY, New York NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York DICK CHRYSLER, Michigan CLEO FIELDS, Louisiana JAMES B. LONGLEY, JR., Maine WALTER R. TUCKER III, California WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama MATT SALMON, Arizona DOUGLAS "PETE" PETERSON, Florida VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas KEN BENTSEN, Texas STEVEN J. CHABOT, Ohio WILLIAM P. LUTHER, Minnesota SUE MYRICK, North Carolina PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island DAVID FUNDERBURK, North Carolina JOHN ELIAS BALDACCI, Maine JACK METCALF, Washington STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio Jenifer Loon, StaffDirector Jeanne M. Roslanowick, Minority StaffDirector Robert E. Coakley, Professional Staff Patricia Hennessey, Professional Staff (II) CONTENTS Page Hearingheldon July 26, 1995 1 WITNESSES Wednesday, July 26, 1995 Norwood, Charlie, aRepresentative in Congress fromthe State ofGeorgia 3 Panel Coratolo, Giovanni, PortofItalyRestaurant, Springfield, Virginia 14 Dear, Joseph A., Assistant SecretaryofLabor and Occupational Health 11 McGeady, Eamonn, President, Martin Imbach, Inc., Baltimore, Maryland 17 Palmer, Richard, Vice President and Secretary Treasurer, Palmer Painting Co., Inc.,Amarillo, Texas 22 Roth, William, Finite Industries ofNewJersey 24 Stone, William, president, Louisville Plate Glass Co., Louisville, Kentucky 19 APPENDIX Openingstatements: Meyers, Hon.Jan 48 Poshard, Hon. Glenn 51 Prepared statements: Coratolo, Giovanni 52 Dear,JosephA 60 McGeady, Eamonn 75 Norwood, Charlie 77 Pahner, Richard 83 Roth, William I 91 Stone, William 94 Additional material: Characteristics ofBlood ContainingAerosols Generatedby Common Pow- ered Dental Instruments 105 Letter to Chair Meyers from Assistant Secretary Joseph A. Dear clarify- ingissues raised duringhearing 112 Remarks by President Clinton on the National Performance Review, May 16, 1995 132 TheNew OSHA, ReinventingWorkerSafety andHealth 136 Statement by The National Roofing Contractors Association (NRCA) con- cerningoverhaul ofOSHA and Implications forSmall Business 170 Comments on Federal Regulations with Adverse affects on member agen- cies by the American Network of Community Options and Resources (AVCOR) 177 Statement by Frank Bomlter, president ofAutomotive Oil Change Asso- ciation 248 (III) THE ADMINISTRATION AND CONGRESSIONAL INITIATIVES TO REFORM OSHA, AND THEIR IMPACT ON SMALL BUSINESSES WEDNESDAY, JULY 26, 1995 House of Representatives, Committee on Small Business, Washington, DC. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:03 p.m., in room 2359, Raybum House Office Building, the Honorable Jan Meyers (chairwoman ofthe committee) presiding. Chair Meyers. Good afternoon. Today, the Small Business Com- mittee will hold a hearing on the Administration's and Congres- sional initiatives to reform OSHA, and their impact on Small Busi- nesses. This is the second of what I anticipate will be a continuing series ofoversight hearings, which will focus upon what is actually happened to reduce paperwork and regulatory burdens upon small business. As I mentioned during last week's hearing, congressional over- sight may not attract the press interest that some other legislative activities do, but I believe oversight should be a hallmark activity ofthe Small Business Committee activity. This fall, we will hold hearings on EPA and IRS initiatives. My intent is that these hearings wiU provide the basis for the commit- tee to develop a report card a year from now on whether initiatives to reduce regulatory burdens on the small business are actually working. At the White House Conference on Small Business this past June, President Clinton spoke eloquently on his Administration's initiatives to reduce the regulatory burdens on small business. He referred to his March 1, 1995 memorandum, to Department and Agency heads, to make regulatory reform a priority. Agency heads were to read all their regn^^ations page by page, and indicate to him by June 1 which regulations they would elimi- nate, which they would modify, and which needed legislative atten- tion in this reinvention exercise. He demanded performance from the department heads, and promised results to the Small Business Delegates. Last week, Sally Katzen, the Administrator of OIRA, the President's regulatory traf- fic cop, presented a status report on the Administration's progress to implement the President's directive. She also joined in a panel with small business representatives to discuss how to evaluate the results. I thought we had a useful dia- logue between this committee, and the Administration, and the (1) small business community. I believe there was much common ground and common sense in this approach. Today, Secretary Dear will present a progress report on OSHA's reinvention initiatives, and participate in a panel with small busi- ness. The Reinventing OSHA Initiative, in response to the Presi- dent's directive, was announced May 5 and showcased at the White House Conference. I appreciate the Administration's and Secretary Dear's willing- ness to contribute to this kind offorum. I have asked him and our small business witnesses to address what questions would be ap- propriate to ask now, and 6 months from now, to determine wheth- er regulatory burdens on small businesses are actually reducing. Congressman Charlie Norwood will open our hearing. He brings his experience as a dentist to his work on the Workforce Protec- tions Subcommittee of the Committee on Economic and Edu- cational Opportunities, where he has been actively involved in the legislative effort sponsored by Congressman Cass Ballenger to re- form OSHA. Our witnesses today will be commenting on that legis- lative proposal as well. Let me turn now to our Ranking Minority Member, Mr. LaFalce, for any opening statement that he would wish to make. Mr. LaFalce. I thank you very much. Madam Chair. First of all, I would offer my opening statement in the record. Chairwoman Meyers. Without objection. So ordered. Mr. LaFalce. I would like to make some personal remarks. First of all, I want to congratulate you for continuing these oversight hearings. I have long believed that is the most important work that our committee could do, when we had oversight hearings on the im- plementation and Administration ofOSHA last year, and Assistant Secretary Joe Dear and many others came and testified, and so I welcome him back, and we should do this all the time. There is a difference this year though. I detect a gleam in the eyes of some individuals who are talking about reform, and that gleam tells me that they're not so much interested in reform. They would really like to emasculate OSHA, ifnot eliminate OSHA. They won't say that explicitly, but ifyou read between the lines, that's pretty clear. Now, there is a difference between making OSHA operate in a better manner something that I think we all want to do and really trying to emasculate it's effectiveness. Second, we very often pit employer against employees; saying the employee should be for OSHA, and the employers should be against it, and that is such a false dichotomy. It's in the interests of every single employee, and every single employer to have a good OSHA. A good OSHA is going to mean more knowledge, a better and safer work place, and that's going to make for a much better, safer, and more profitable business. My next point is sometimes we have to make judgment calls, and we make judgment calls which sometimes are very, very difficult. Sometimes we err, but if we have to err, then I believe we ought to err on the side of safety, and I'll tell you why I say that. I was the first in my family to even go to high school, much less college, law school, et cetera. My parents were very working class, and my father was exposed to cnemicals in the work place, and at a relatively young age he had industrial hepatitis, and it affected his liver for the rest ofhis life. My mom worked in a factory, and had her fingers taken off. Now, you can't really replace a liver too easily. They didn't have trans- plants in those days, and you can't replace fingers; and if we had a better, more effective OSHA, that wouldn't have happened in all probability. If we want to have a better OSHA, OK But if anybody has in mind emasculating OSHA, its Administration, implementation, or the law, they are going to have a mighty fight on their hands, not only from the head, but from the heart. Thank you. Madam Chair. Chairwoman Meyers. Thank you, Mr. LaFalce. Without objec- tion, all other opening statements will be put in the record. I don't want to turn the opening statements into an argument, Mr. La- Falce. Mr. LaFalce. You have agreed with me so far, I would suspect. Chairwoman Meyers. I appreciate the personal experience that you have brought to this hearing. I've talked to a lot of small busi- ness groups, and they don't want to eliminate OSHA. They want to have a friendlier OSHA, an OSHA that we can work with. But that will undoubtedly come out in the hearing today. At this time, I would like to turn our attention to the Honorable Charlie Norwood, and we look forward to hearing from you, Mr. Norwood. TESTIMONY OF HON. CHARLIE NORWOOD, A REPRESENTA- TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA Mr. Norwood. Thank you, Chairwoman Meyers, and distin- guished members of this committee. I would first like to say what a distinct honor it is for me to appear before you this afternoon, and I do applaud you for the work that you are doing in investigat- ing the actions of OSHA, and the impact that OSHA has on srtiall businesses. I think that it is very appropriate that vou here in the Small Business Committee are taking a long, hard look at OSHA. Of the many things that OSHA does badly, and there are many, I guess one that has bothered me more than anything else is that OSHA hurts small businesses who cannot adequately defend themselves. Big businesses consider fighting OSHA a normal part of doing business every day. If you a Greneral Motors, or a Goodyear, or a U.S. Steel, you can afford to hire a flock oflawyers to keep up with all the dictates that OSHA sends down from on high. But small businesses don't have the resources to fight when OSHA comes knocking on their door. Over the past several weeks, we in the Workforce Protection Subcommittee of the Opportunities Committee, have been working very hard on legislation to reform OSHA. Chairman Ballenger's bill will go a long way toward correct- ing many ofthe excesses ofOSHA. Many of these reforms will have a very specific impact on small businesses. OSHA will be required to issue a warning for an al- leged violation, and allow an employer a reasonable time to fix a violation before fining an employer. The Ballenger bill will protect small businesses by requiring em- ployees to work with employers to fix a perceived problem before OSHA is called in. It is my understanding that the assistant secretary ofOSHA will be appearing before you later on today. We have had several hear- ings at which we have heard testimony from Mr. Dear, among oth- ers. Mr. Dear has stated time and time again that some 56,000 American lives are lost each year due to work-related accidents and illnesses. Now, I don't agree with Mr. Dear's numbers. In fact, the profes- sionals at the Department of Labor don't agree with his numbers either, but that's another story. We'll get into that another day. The important thing to understand, I believe, is that even if Mr. Dear and the Democrats are correct, then all that they really are demonstrating is that what we have done up to now has not helped us achieve safer and healthier work places. Work place deaths and injuries are a tragic event. For the past 25 years, I have earned my living as a dentist and a nurseryman. As an employer, I was very interested in providing the safest work place possible for myself and for my co-workers. I think we should remember that in small businesses often the employer is also the employee. The employer is the person doing the work. However, I do understand that I cannot legislate a perfect, acci- dent free world. We cannot legislate absolute safety. We all would ifwe could. Indeed, past Congresses have tried, but it has not worked as Mr. Dear and so many of our democratic colleagues will tell us. There are many anecdotal stories of tragic deaths and injuries at the work place that provide the evidence of our failure to legislate and bureaucratically mandate work place safety. So, as responsible, compassionate legislators, we have a duty, I think, to find better ways, more efficient ways to further work place safety and health, and that is why I and other members of the Workforce Protection Subcommittee have worked so hard to de- velop good, sound, reasonable legislation to reform OSHA. Interestingly enough, even the Clinton Administration has come around to agree that OSHA must be changed. In taking steps to create a new OSHA, the Administration has announced that it will be guided by three basic principles; more cooperation between OSHA and employers; the application of some good old fashioned common sense, and having results, not red tape. That certainly is a good start in the right direction. I would suggest that this committee look very closely at OSHA to ensure that its actions matches its rhetoric. To sum up, Madam Chairwoman, it is time for a new approach to work place health and safety. We need to depart from the present "command-and-con- trol" regulatory scheme. If we must have an OSHA, then we must change it from a police agency looking to hit small businesses with punitive fines, into a center for work place safety, designed to assist companies in achieving safer work places. In conclusion, I'd like to say to you that all of this to me, and including this hearing, is not really about occupational health and safety. I do not know one person in this Congress who is not for that. I do not know one person that I have ever worked with who was not interested in safety and health in the work place.