[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 156 (Saturday, November 8, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2238]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION REQUIRING THAT OSHA PROVIDE ADEQUATE NOTICE 
         AND INFORMATION FOR INDUSTRIES AFFECTED BY RULEMAKING

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. CASS BALLENGER

                           of north carolina

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, November 7, 1997

  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, one of President Clinton's promises for 
reinventing OSHA in 1995 was that OSHA regulations would be made ``as 
simple and sensible and flexible as they can be.'' That is a good goal. 
Unfortunately, the administration and OSHA have done little to 
implement it.
  One of the ways that OSHA standards become nonsensible is when these 
standards are enforced and applied to industries--industries had little 
notice that they were covered by the standard. As a result, the 
industry must often spend millions of dollars, either in trying to 
comply with a standard that is not feasible or necessary in their 
workplaces, or in legal fees, in order to get the courts to overturn 
OSHA's rule.
  Recently, for example, the court of appeals ruled against OSHA with 
regard to inclusion of the roof coatings industry under the asbestos 
standard. The court found that ``there is no evidence in the record 
that asbestos fibers can ever escape from roofing sealants and become 
airborne'' (Asbestos Information Assn/North America v. Secretary of 
Labor, 7/24/97). Yet, OSHA insisted on covering the industry with the 
standard until the court ruled otherwise. Fixing the problem caused by 
an overreaching OSHA cost the industry thousands of dollars in 
litigation fees.
  Similarly, the airplane maintenance industry is now faced with 
coverage under OSHA's Methylene Chloride standard, even though OSHA 
itself acknowledged in testimony before my subcommittee that it did not 
thoroughly analyze the impact of the rule on that industry.
  In contrast, OSHA's recent proposal on tuberculosis does list the 
specific industries to which the standard would apply. So, the 
requirements of my bill are not unique or radical. They simply assure 
that the practice of notifying the specific industries, and analyzing 
the effect of the standard on them, is consistently followed in OSHA 
rulemakings.
  Mr. Speaker, this is one of several changes which would help to 
fulfill the President's promise to make OSHA's rules ``as simple and 
sensible and flexible as they can be.'' I invite my colleagues to 
cosponsor and support this change.

                          ____________________