U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

93–732 2015

TANGLED IN RED TAPE: NEW CHALLENGES FOR 

SMALL MANUFACTURERS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

UNITED STATES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

MARCH 18, 2015 

Small Business Committee Document Number 114–006 

Available via the GPO Website: www.fdsys.gov 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Congress.#13
(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio, Chairman 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri 

RICHARD HANNA, New York 

TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

CHRIS GIBSON, New York 

DAVE BRAT, Virginia 

AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, American Samoa 

STEVE KNIGHT, California 

CARLOS CURBELO, Florida 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

CRESENT HARDY, Nevada 

NYDIA VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York, Ranking Member 

YVETTE CLARKE, New York 

JUDY CHU, California 

JANICE HAHN, California 

DONALD PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

GRACE MENG, New York 

BRENDA LAWRENCE, Michigan 

ALMA ADAMS, North Carolina 

SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts 

KEVIN FITZPATRICK, Staff Director 

STEPHEN DENNIS, Deputy Staff Director for Policy 

JAN OLIVER, Deputy Staff Director for Operation 

BARRY PINELES, Chief Counsel 

MICHAEL DAY, Minority Staff Director 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Hon. Steve Chabot ................................................................................................... 1 

Hon. Nydia Vela ́zquez ............................................................................................. 2 

WITNESSES 

Ms. Cynthia Reichard, Executive Vice President, Arylessence, Inc., Marietta, 

GA, testifying on behalf of the International Fragrance Association of North 

America ................................................................................................................. 5 

Ms. Janis Herschkowitz, President & CEO, PRL, Inc., Cornwall, PA, testifying on behalf of the American Foundry Society ............................................. 6 

Mr. Viktor Anderson, P.E., Director of Engineering, Structural Concepts, 

Muskegon, MI, testifying on behalf of the Air-Conditioning, Hearing nd 

Refrigeration Institute ......................................................................................... 8 

Mr. James Goodwin, Senior Policy Analyst, The Center for Progressive Reform, The Center for Progressive Reform, Washington, DC ............................. 10 

APPENDIX 

Prepared Statements: 

Ms. Cynthia Reichard, Executive Vice President, Arylessence, Inc., Marietta, GA, testifying on behalf of the International Fragrance Association of North America ................................................................................... 29 

Ms. Janis Herschkowitz, President & CEO, PRL, Inc., Cornwall, PA, 

testifying on behalf of the American Foundry Society ............................... 36 

Mr. Viktor Anderson, P.E., Director of Engineering, Structural Concepts, 

Muskegon, MI, testifying on behalf of the Air-Conditioning, Hearing 

and Refrigeration Institute .......................................................................... 51 

Mr. James Goodwin, Senior Policy Analyst, The Center for Progressive 

Reform, Washington, DC .............................................................................. 56 

Questions for the Record: 

None. 

Answers for the Record: 

None. 

Additional Material for the Record: 

None. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

(1) 

TANGLED IN RED TAPE: NEW CHALLENGES 

FOR SMALL MANUFACTURERS 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:00 a.m., in Room 

2360, Rayburn House Office Building. Hon. Steve Chabot [chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Chabot, Huelskamp, Hardy, 

Radewagen, Vela ́zquez, Huizenga, Adams and Lawrence. 

Chairman CHABOT. Good morning. The hearing will come to 

order. 

Over the next hour or so, we are going to talk about federal regulations and our small manufacturers. Regulations are not just 

words on paper; they impact the way millions of Americans try to 

earn a living every day. We have always been a nation of makers 

and builders. That is why American manufacturers, including, and 

especially small manufacturers, are critically important to the 

American economy. The term ‘‘Made in the USA’’ is a source of 

pride for so many people. It is a reminder that if we want, we can 

build our own future. These days, unfortunately, a lot of people feel 

they cannot build their own future. It is not for lack of ideas; it is 

oftentimes because of the burden of federal regulations. I look forward to hearings like this one because it gives us the chance to 

hear from real people about the real life impact of regulations. 

In a survey by the National Association of Manufacturers last 

year, 88 percent of manufacturers said federal regulations were a 

significant challenge. When the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) surveyed its members, they overwhelmingly responded that ‘‘government requirements and red tape are 

the biggest problems they face.’’ These are regulations that came 

out of the Federal Government in the last month alone. February. 

The shortest month of the year. How can we expect our small businesses to focus on creating jobs and bringing new ideas to life when 

odds are something in these pages will have a substantially negative impact on them? And even worse, they likely had no input at 

all in what these regulations say. 

Let me say at the outset, I am not against all federal regulations. 

I am against dumb federal regulations. That is, for example, why 

I hope the Senate will soon take up the Small Business Regulatory 

Flexibility Improvements Act. We passed that bill in the House recently to bring our regulatory system into the 21st century and 

stop putting small businesses at a competitive disadvantage. The 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

2 

regulatory burdens currently fall most heavily on small businesses, 

particularly manufacturers like those who are with us today because they have to pay for compliance costs just like their larger 

competitors but with only a fraction of the resources. The Small 

Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act would give small 

businesses the input in the regulatory process they should have 

had all along. That input cannot come soon enough. 

One of the best things about being a member of Congress is that 

we get to see many perspectives. We talk to small business owners 

and employees like our witnesses today and we get to see how 

other countries approach their regulatory process. While many of 

our international economic competitors are making way for innovative cutting-edge reforms, the United States has changed little 

about the way it regulates since the 1980s. If we want to remain 

a global economic leader, we have to modernize. We have to make 

the small businesses that provide livelihoods for about half of all 

American families a part of the solution, not the biggest loser in 

an economy that desperately needs them to succeed. 

Ms. Reichard, Ms. Herschkowitz, and Mr. Anderson, thank you 

for taking what I know is very valuable time away from your workplaces today to share your stories with us, and Mr. Goodwin, I look 

forward to hearing your thoughts on the difficulties your fellow witnesses face. 

With that, I yield to the ranking member, Ms. Vela ́zquez. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome to 

all the witnesses. 

Recent economic data makes clear that small businesses continue 

to be a driving force in our economy. Small firms added 191,000 

workers to their payrolls in the first two months of this year. We 

must continue fostering this type of growth. The regulatory process 

is important to our nation’s small businesses in many ways. How 

regulations are formulated and approved can affect entrepreneurs’ 

bottom lines very directly. This is especially true in the manufacturing sector, which is the focus of many worker protection, environmental, and energy regulations authorized by Congress. Did you 

hear me well? Those regulations are authorized by Congress. It is 

not a cabinet member who is sitting there and out of the air decides to enact regulation. We, members of Congress, we pass legislation, and that is the basis of those regulations. 

In that regard, this committee has taken an active role in ensuring more companies’ needs are taken into account during the federal rulemaking process. I think it would be safe to say that in 

some instances, agencies have endeavored to examine how new regulations impact small firms. Unfortunately, in other cases, agencies 

have sidestepped their statutory responsibility to weigh how new 

rules will impact small entities and consider policy alternatives 

that might prevent economic harm. It is important we continue our 

work to ensure agencies pay close attention to small companies’ 

needs. Lacking the economies of scale enjoyed by the larger competitors, small businesses often face higher compliance costs. Overall, when it comes to the regulatory environment, the challenge is 

balancing the benefits of important worker protections, environmental safeguards, and consumer safety measures against economic consequences. Too often, this debate is framed in a strictly 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

3 

either/or context, meaning we must choose between harming small 

businesses and preserving important protections that keep workers 

and consumers safe. Instead of taking that tact, it seems a better 

option is focusing on regulating in a thoughtful manner that is sensitive to the burden imposed on small companies. 

The regulatory review process that Congress and the president 

have updated is meant to achieve that goal, taking small firms’ 

needs into account. In that regard, it is my hope we can learn more 

about how mechanisms, like regulatory flexibility and the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement Act are minimizing the regulatory impact on small companies. Likewise, there may be other 

ways that federal agencies can lessen small business compliance 

costs. Whether it is through technical assistance, legal advice or 

other steps, I would hope this sort of proactive thinking can also 

be part of the discussion. 

All of us share the goals of protecting workers, preserving our environment, and keeping consumers safe. Additionally, none of us 

want these protections to hurt small companies or impede job 

growth, and by working together, I think we can achieve both 

goals. 

With that, I yield back the balance of my time and again, I welcome all the witnesses, and I thank you for being here. 

Chairman CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

If Committee members have an opening statement prepared, I 

would ask that they be submitted for the record. 

And I will take just a moment to refer to our timing and lighting 

system here. Each witness gets five minutes, as I am sure you 

know. The green light will be on for four minutes. The yellow light 

will come on to let you know you have got a minute to kind of wrap 

up. The red light will come on and we would ask you to wrap up 

your testimony as close to that time as possible. We will give you 

a little bit of flexibility but not a whole not. 

And I would now like to introduce our panel, or at least portions 

of it, and a couple other members will also introduce other members. 

Our first witness is Cynthia Reichard. She is executive vice 

president of Arylessence. I want to make sure I pronounce it. 

Arylessence. And it is a flavor and fragrance company in Marietta, 

Georgia. Arylessence was founded by Ms. Reichard’s uncle in 1977, 

and it is a family-owned and operated small business. She leads 

the company’s teams of perfumers, evaluators, and marketing experts to develop innovative ideas for signature fragrances. Ms. 

Reichard is actively involved in several industry trade associations 

and is testifying on behalf of the International Fragrance Association of North America, and we welcome you here this morning. 

Our next witness will be Janis Herschkowitz. She is the president and CEO of PRL, Inc., in Lebanon County, Pennsylvania. PRL 

makes and supplies high quality metal castings for the defense, nuclear, and petrochemical industries. PRL was founded in 1972, 

when Ms. Herschkowitz’s father purchased a small company with 

13 employees. She became the president of PRL in 1989. Ms. 

Herschkowitz is testifying on behalf of the American Foundry Society, and we thank you for being here today as well. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

4 

I would now like to turn to my colleague from Michigan, Mr. 

Huizenga, to introduce our next witness. I do that all the time, and 

I apologize. 

Mr. HUIZENGA. That is all right, Mr. Chairman. Well, we know 

that everybody from Ohio has got a thing against Michigan anyway. We will see what happens in the tournament here. 

Well, I do deeply appreciate the opportunity to come here and be 

here with this Committee today, and I appreciate you holding this 

important hearing. Additionally, I appreciate you allowing me to 

introduce my friend, Viktor Anderson, who is an engineer with a 

company called Structural Concepts, which is located in Norton 

Shores, Muskegon area, in my district, along Lake Michigan. 

Structural Concepts is an innovative manufacturer that has been 

operating for 43 years. I have had a number of chances, opportunities to go in and meet with them and kind of keep appraised of 

what is going on. And Structural Concepts is a market leader in 

energy-efficient, temperature-controlled food cases for florists, supermarkets, and food service retailers. Little companies you may 

have heard of, like one from Seattle called Starbucks, they are 

main suppliers for them. They have developed the industry’s most 

energy-efficient and lowest life-cycle cost refrigerated food display 

cases, and I know that we have all seen and experienced and 

interacted with their products or the products of someone like 

them. 

And because of newly proposed regulations, actually, not legislation implemented by Congress or passed by Congress, but in fact, 

regulations proposed and developed by EPA and the DOE, which 

are in conflict with each other, Structural Concepts’ ability to 

produce their most self-contained equipment is in jeopardy. 

I look forward to having Viktor and the other witnesses share 

more about the challenges facing small businesses as they are holding Washington, D.C. bureaucrats accountable so employers like 

Structural Concepts and the others can grow, thrive, and create 

jobs in communities across this country. So again, Mr. Chairman, 

I appreciate the opportunity to be here with you, and Viktor, welcome. 

Chairman CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

Now I will yield to the ranking member so she can introduce our 

next witness. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I present to the committee Mr. James Goodwin. He is a senior 

policy analyst for the Center for Progressive Reform where he provides counsel on regulatory matters with a focus on environmental 

and energy policy. Prior to joining the center in 2008, he worked 

at the Environmental Law Institute. He is a published author with 

articles on environmental law and policy, appearing in the Michigan Journal of Public Affairs and the New England Law Review. 

He graduated Magnum Cum Laude from the University of Maryland School of Law, and also the University of Maryland School of 

Public Policy where he graduated as valedictorian. 

Welcome, and thank you for being here today. 

Chairman CHABOT. Thank you very much for that introduction. 

And we will now go to our witnesses and we will begin with you, 

Ms. Reichard, and you are recognized for five minutes. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

5 

STATEMENTS OF CYNTHIA REICHARD, EXECUTIVE VICE 

PRESIDENT, ARYLESSENCE, INC.; JANIS HERSCHKOWITZ, 

PRESIDENT & CEO, PRL, INC.; VIKTOR ANDERSON, P.E. DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING, STRUCTURAL CONCEPTS; JAMES 

GOODWIN, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, THE CENTER FOR 

PROGRESSIVE REFORM 

STATEMENT OF CYNTHIA REICHARD 

Ms. REICHARD. Thank you. Good morning. My thanks to Chairman Chabot, Ranking Member Vela ́zquez, and the members of the 

Small Business Committee for inviting me to testify. 

My name is Cynthia Reichard. I am the executive vice president 

of Arylessence, and we are a Georgia-based manufacturer that 

works in partnership with consumer product companies to develop 

fragrances that transform products into winning brands and consumers into passionate fans. 

I can unequivocally state that Arylessence is hindered by increasing regulatory burdens. Today, I will focus on one in particular administered by OSHA. I am proud to say that we are a familyowned and operated small business. As you said, my uncle founded 

Arylessence in 1997. He had a dream. He borrowed against everything he owned and opened with three employees. We now have 

120, supplying 1,000 manufacturers in the U.S. and abroad. We 

care deeply about our employees. We train and promote from within. We provide excellent benefits, tuition reimbursement, and offer 

onsite educational and fitness programs. 

I am also proud to speak for the International Fragrance Association North America (IFANA), which represents the fragrance supplier industry in the U.S. Like all IFANA members, Arylessence 

sources ingredients from around the globe and crafts unique formulations incorporated into everything from perfumes and lotions to 

candles and cleaning products. In the U.S., IFANA’s members market more than 90 percent of all scents, and support more than 

240,000 American small businesses. 

Creating a fragrance is a marriage of art and science. We work 

with thousands of ingredients, like natural essential oils, such as 

lavender and rose, and manmade ingredients developed from sustainable raw materials. We, and our clients, face extensive regulations across agencies, including EPA, OSHA, FDA, DEA, DOT, and 

FAA. Plus, all of the state and local regulations. We have the 

equivalent of six full-time employees who are dedicated solely to 

regulatory compliance. Ever-increasing burdens raise the cost of 

doing business in the U.S., limiting reimbursement in our company 

and our employees. In 2008, we planed to expand by building a 

large R&D facility and hiring 50 more. Due to the economy, the effect of increased taxes and costly compliance with regulations, we 

have delayed many of these plans. 

Today, I want to share our experiences in complying with 

OSHA’s hazard communications standard, OSHA’s interpretation 

of the globally-harmonized system for classification and labeling of 

chemicals or GHS. It began as a U.N. harmonization initiative 

billed as a cost-saving device that would provide consistency and 

ensure workers clearly understand the materials they are in conSBREP-219 with DISTILLER

6 

tact with. In 2011, the Obama administration estimated it would 

realize 585 million in annualized savings for employers. 

In truth, GHS is the opposite. It is neither global, nor harmonized. And it has taken us three years to implement and cost 

us over half a million hard dollars in untold labor hours, all without safety benefits to employees. 

Complying is complex and requires extensive operational 

changes. Manufacturers and distributors must identify and classify 

chemicals based on a complicated GHS hierarchy. All of this information must be included on safety data sheets (SDS) and labels 

which must be affixed to workplace products. Labels must include 

color pictograms, and informational symbols, and signal words, and 

lengthy hazard statements. 

OSHA’s different treatment of samples is problematic for industry. Canada and the EU allowed for small package exemptions. Despite pleas from manufacturers, OSHA did not, resulting in a costly 

and incredibly burdensome process. 

When asked to create a rose sence—I think, Arylessence typically 

sends two to five samples to a potential client, all containing different ingredients. Unlike industries that ship in large sample 

quantities, ours sends extremely small half-ounce bottles. Now, 

rather than requiring a SDS only on products purchased, each 

small sample must include the complex labeling and safety data 

communications. Arylessence sends 10,000 samples per year, requiring thousands of safety data sheets and labels for half-ounce 

samples that may never be sold. 

In addition, OSHA has issued no guidance as to how labels are 

to be affixed to small packaging. Without this label attached to this 

bottle, we are going to be subjected to severe OSHA fines. This is 

just one example of how small businesses like ours continue to 

struggle due to the increasing costs of unnecessary regulations. 

Regulation without representation needs to be replaced with clear 

understanding of the impacts and proactive solutions that do not 

unfairly disadvantage small firms. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

Chairman CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Herschkowitz, you are recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JANIS HERSCHKOWITZ 

Ms. HERSCHKOWITZ. Thank you, Chairman Chabot, Ranking 

Member Vela ́zquez, and members of the Committee. Thank you for 

the opportunity to testify before you to discuss regulatory burdens 

impacting the U.S. metal casting industry. 

I am Jan Herschkowitz, president of PRL, Inc., which is a holding company of a foundry and upgrading facility and two machine 

shops. My family moved to the States from Bolivia in 1971 to live 

the American dream. In 1972, my father purchased a small company with 13 employees, which he quickly expanded. After leaving 

Zenith Electronics, I became president following his death in 1989. 

PRL currently has four manufacturing locations and is a proud 

supplier of high specification castings for the military, nuclear, and 

energy sectors. Our foundry, which is our smallest company, only 

has 13 employees. I am very proud of our highly-skilled workforce 

who play a critical role in our nation’s defense and their dedication 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

7 

to quality is reflected in our customer base which includes Northrop Grumman, Curtis Wright, and PSE&G. I am testifying before 

you today as upcoming proposed regulations, although well intended, are so threatening that I fear it may jeopardize the future 

of the U.S. foundry industry. 

I am here on behalf of the American Foundry Society, our industry’s trade association, comprised of more than 7,500 members, 

over 80 percent of U.S. metal casters and small businesses employing 100 workers or less. Again, over 80 percent of foundries employee 100 workers or less, with Ohio having the most foundries in 

the country. Over 90 percent of all manufactured goods and capital 

equipment are in some way dependent on castings. Our military 

utilizes metal castings in all sectors, including submarines, tanks, 

and other components, making the need for domestic production 

vital for our national defense. 

Metal casters are the world’s original recyclers as we make new 

castings by remelting scrap metal and recycling the majority of the 

sand that we use. AFS members are highly committed to protecting 

their employees and implementing sound safety policies. PRL’s culture is one of safety first as the risks of pouring molten metal are 

taken very seriously by every coworker, and we continually invest 

in safety equipment, consultants, and training. 

I will only discuss a few regulations that will impact us as my 

submitted testimony reviews the regulations in detail. Our biggest 

concern is OSHA’s proposed crystalline silica rule, which would create a massive and complicated new regulatory structure for the 

control of silica. Under this ‘‘one size fits all’’ rule, it would ban dry 

sweeping and compressed air usage. Like all foundries, we manually clean out all of our mold using a small compressed air hose 

and we use dry vacs to keep our foundry clean. This is standard 

practice. Under this proposal, we would no longer be allowed to use 

dry sweeping and our only alternative would be to use wet 

vacuuming. As a foundry person, you know you never, ever want 

to introduce water into a foundry environment as an explosion 

could occur and lives would be at stake, yet this regulation requires 

it. It dismisses the use of personal protective equipment as a primary approach to protecting employees. Many employers have invested in clean air respirators, which are utilized where there is a 

substantial increased risk of silica exposure. Unfortunately, 

OSHA’s proposal measures the air outside of the respirator, which 

is not indicative of what the coworker is inhaling. 

Expected cost of compliance for just the dust collection systems 

required are estimated at million dollars. This does not even include the cost of engineering time; obtaining new permits, which 

may not even be granted; administrative costs; and new ventilation 

and cleaning systems. Under this regulation, there is also no guarantee that the lower standard can be met, and there is uncertainty 

that it can even be properly measured. The estimated cost of this 

regulation by OSHA for the foundry industry is 43 million, while 

outside analysts estimate the cost to be over 2.2 billion annually. 

Obviously, the impact on small business was not properly taken 

into account. 

Foundries are also concerned with new regulations that the EPA 

is imposing on utilities. In order to compete in a global marketSBREP-219 with DISTILLER

8 

place, U.S. foundries need adequate and affordable electric power. 

EPA has proposed two regulations to limit carbon emissions on 

new and existing power plants and have proposed an ozone regulation that could be the most expensive rule ever imposed. Our concern is that these costly regulations will hit foundries the hardest, 

increasing our energy costs and driving us offshore. We would like 

to see the OMB and other federal agencies also take into account 

the cumulative impact of all the regulations. 

In closing, keep in mind that the United States has the cleanest, 

safest, and most efficient foundries in the world. Adding more regulations which may not be verifiable and perhaps cost prohibitive 

will force some of our foundries to shut down and products will be 

taken offshore. This will have the unintended consequences of increasing world pollution, rewarding countries with unsafe work 

practices at the expense of diminishing our country’s own economic 

growth and putting our national defense at stake. 

Thank you again for this opportunity, and I would gladly answer 

any questions. 

Chairman CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Anderson, you are recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF VIKTOR ANDERSON 

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you, Congressman Huizenga for that 

kind introduction, and thank you, Chairman Chabot, Ranking 

Member Vela ́zquez, and members of this Committee. I appreciate 

the opportunity to testify today on behalf of Structural Concepts 

Corporation and the HRI. 

Structural Concepts was founded in 1972 and is located in Muskegon, Michigan. We manufacture commercial refrigerated equipment. Basically, we make the refrigerated merchandiser or display 

that you would find at your local grocery store or restaurant. Our 

products ensure that food is stored safely and is accessible in all 

corners of our country, from mom and pop shops to the largest supermarket chains. 

Like so many small businesses across the country, Structural 

Concepts is deeply rooted in our community. Our friends, our 

neighbors, and our town depend on jobs we provide. Unfortunately, 

small businesses like ours are facing significant new regulatory 

burdens from federal agencies, and that is why I am here today. 

First, it is important for me to tell you that my company is not 

anti-regulation. Like many of our fellow HRI members, we consider 

ourselves to be concerned citizens, responsible neighbors, and leading innovators. We have complied fully with previous regulations, 

and even exceeded our obligations. What I am here to talk about, 

however, is the burden of conflicting regulations on businesses like 

mine and the need for regulatory certainty. President Obama 

talked about this burden in Executive Order 13563 when he required federal agencies to tailor regulations to impose the least 

burden on society, taking into account among other things the cost 

of cumulative regulations. My hope is that this hearing can help 

illuminate the need for federal agencies to live up to this obligation. 

In 2009, DOE finalized energy efficiency standards for commercial refrigeration equipment. Our industry was required to come 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

9 

into compliance in 2012. Over those three years, we developed energy-efficient solutions, engineered them into 400-plus refrigerated 

display cases, and tested them for energy consumption while still 

upholding our most important regulations pertaining to food and 

product safety. To accomplish all this, we had to dedicate thousands of engineering and testing hours that would otherwise be 

used for customization or developing products to increase sales and 

grow our company. We had to increase our capacity, accuracy, and 

throughput of our test labs. We had to develop new manufacturing 

processes and supply chains to produce our own condenser units. 

In the end, we reduced the carbon footprint of our entire self-contained product offering by approximately 50 percent. We felt proud 

of this fact that we complied with the new DOE energy levels, and 

in most cases, went above and beyond. 

Unfortunately, we soon found out that was not enough. Last 

year, only two years after the compliance deadline for the old rules, 

DOE again updated its standard with more stringent energy efficiency criteria. The new standards, which have to be met by 2017, 

obviate many of the investments that were made to comply with 

the 2012 rule. Quite simply, after making huge investments based 

on regulatory reality, DOE moved the goalposts. 

To make matters worse, the EPA proposed a rule last year that 

will take away the current refrigerant used in all of our self-contained refrigerated systems on January 1, 2016. That is only nine 

months away. The alternative refrigerants EPA proposed were either too flammable and limited the amount of refrigerant we could 

use in each system, or they increased the energy consumption in 

our application. If finalized, EPA’s proposal would have significantly raised energy consumption of all of our products and violated the new DOE energy regulations. 

After we submitted comments to the EPA, the agencies offered 

up alternative refrigerant we could use, our 450A. Although this is 

much better than the previous alternatives, it still has its challenges. Production of the new refrigerant and regulatory approval 

of compressors can take years to implement. All of our systems will 

again need to be redesigned and tested to see how the new refrigerant impacts energy efficiency. 

Here is our primary problem. DOE is requiring us to comply with 

new energy standards on January 1, 2017. EPA is proposing compliance with their new rule on January 1, 2016. While it is possible 

the EPA’s compliance date will slip, DOE is mandated to review 

energy levels every five years. This means that in 2022, we may 

have to review our product yet again. 

My point is this. If DOE and EPA do not coordinate their efforts, 

we could potentially be redesigning our product every two to three 

years for 12 or more years in a row at great expense. Combining 

the compliance burdens associated with these two rules could devastate our industry. 

My purpose today is to draw the Committee’s attention to the 

regulatory burdens faced by small businesses everywhere. The regulations I just described both specifically designed to address the 

commercial refrigeration industry will not only increase our costs 

but will force Structural Concepts to reduce the number of products 

manufactured, throw uncertainty into the current and future prodSBREP-219 with DISTILLER

10 

ucts offered, and overall result in reduced employment. We are not 

a large corporation with a plethora of resources to redirect towards 

the review, testing, and compliance of new rules. We are a small, 

innovative manufacturer that makes refrigerated display cases, 

hardly the nexus point of the nation’s energy and environmental 

policy battles. 

Our company and thousands of companies like ours across the 

nation make a big difference in the stability of the economic recovery which has only just begun to take hold. Again, we are not antiregulation. We are simply asking federal agencies to consider the 

impacts of cumulative regulations on businesses like ours and live 

up to the guidelines articulated in President Obama’s executive 

order. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today, and 

I look forward to answering questions. 

Chairman CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Goodwin, you are recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES GOODWIN 

Mr. GOODWIN. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Vela ́zquez, and members of this 

Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on why ensuring a robust regulatory system is both necessary to and consistent with a strong economy in which smaller manufacturers can 

thrive and prosper. 

In my testimony today I will make three points. One, regulations 

are essential for safeguarding the public. Two, regulations can and 

do provide important economic benefits for smaller businesses, including those in the manufacturing sector. And three, the SBA Office of Advocacy appears to be working against the interests of 

smaller businesses and requires enhanced oversight from this Committee. 

Based on these three points, I will conclude by proposing an alternative approach to balancing strong public safeguards with the 

unique interests of real smaller businesses. 

Point one. Over the past four decades, U.S. regulatory agencies 

have achieved remarkable success in establishing safeguards that 

protect people and the environment against unacceptable risks, but 

serious hazard remain. By addressing these hazards, Americans 

would be even better protected. 

A case in point is OSHA’s pending rule to protect workers 

against harmful silica exposures. Roughly two million U.S. workers 

toil in workplaces with silica levels high enough to threaten their 

health. OSHA estimates that thousands of workers die every year 

because of silica exposures that are within the current legal limits 

which were set more than 40 years ago. These workers suffer just 

the same whether they work for smaller businesses or larger ones. 

Once in place, OSHA’s pending silica rule is expected to save up 

to 700 lives and prevent up to 1,600 cases of a deadly lung disease 

called silicosis every year. And these protections cannot come a moment too soon. 

This rulemaking has been in the works for over 18 years now, 

and the cost of these unnecessary delays has been thousands of 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

11 

deaths and debilitating illnesses that were not prevented but 

should have been. 

Point two. The economic benefits of regulation of businesses can 

be significant but are all too often overlooked. Here are just four 

types of these benefits. First and foremost, smaller businesses receive a significant productivity dividend when their workers and 

their workers’ families are healthy and safe. Second, regulations 

can help to create new markets and opportunities for entrepreneurs. Third, regulations can even spur businesses to revolutionize their production processes in ways that lead to greater productivity and profitability. In my written testimony, I discuss in detail how OSHA’s 1978 cotton dust rule has precisely this kind of 

effect. Fourth, as recent episodes illustrate, when industrial-scale 

catastrophe results from a failure to regulate adequately, the attendant costs tend to fall disproportionately on smaller businesses. 

Here I can speak from personal experience. My uncle in Alabama 

has struggled to keep the doors open to our family’s decades-old 

restaurant supply company after the 2010 BP oil spill as the resulting downturn in tourism has obliterated much of the company’s 

customer base. Stronger regulations that are necessary for preventing these catastrophes or for minimizing their harmful effects 

with us deliver particularly large benefits to many small businesses 

like his that might otherwise be caught in harm’s way. 

Point three. In a recent GAO report, the GAO raised serious concerns about the Office of Advocacy’s job performance. Among other 

things, the report describes how the GAO could find no evidence 

that the Office of Advocacy ever interacts with smaller businesses 

in the course of conducting its duties, such as developing comment 

letters on pending rulemakings. Yet, investigative work by my organization and by the Center for Effective Government has found 

copious evidence of communications between the Office of Advocacy 

staff and large trade associations that are dominated by their large 

business members. The bottom line is that smaller businesses continue to lack a voice in government, while the larger businesses 

they compete against have their already large voice amplified on 

the taxpayers’ dime. 

In the brief time I have remaining, I would like to make a modest plea that we hit the target on this ongoing regulatory debate 

so that we can chart a new path forward. Moving forward means 

finding ways to help smaller businesses meet the regulatory obligations and to do so in ways that will not undermine their ability to 

compete with larger firms in their industry. 

Over the years, Congress has taken some small steps towards enhanced compliance assistance for smaller businesses. With some 

creative thinking, these efforts can and should be expanded. I will 

highlight just a few potential creative solutions here. First, providing monetary assistance in the form of grants or subsidized 

loans to truly small businesses so they can be at higher regulatory 

standards. Second, expanding existing regulatory compliance assistance programs. And third, partnering small businesses to promote beneficial synergies on regulatory compliance. 

Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you 

might have. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

12 

Chairman CHABOT. Thank you very much. I appreciate your 

testimony. I appreciate the testimony of all the witnesses, and Ms. 

Reichard, I will go to you first, if that would be okay. 

You mentioned in your testimony about Canada and the European Union providing an exemption for labeling for small bottles 

while OSHA did not. How does this put the United States manufacturers like yourself at an economic disadvantage when you are 

trying to compete in international markets? 

Ms. REICHARD. Okay. From an economic disadvantage standpoint, our competitors do not have to also provide the same labeling. The process of producing that labeling for us means that we 

have had to buy new printers that are very expensive. We have 

had to make all that investment. We have to take the labor cost 

to produce all of those labels. And because OSHA gave no guidance, 

we have had to figure out a way to properly attach those labels to 

our product. And I can show you for us what that looks like. We 

have had to take our bottle, produce our printed material—in color 

now—and have the labor to fold it into four squares so that it fits 

into this chemically impervious pouch and attach it, each one, 

10,000 of those products per year, and our competitors do not have 

to do so. 

Chairman CHABOT. Thank you. 

Ms. REICHARD. It is a complete disadvantage for us. 

Chairman CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Herschkowitz, let me return to you. You talked about the 

silica rule. If that rule were finalized—you mentioned about the 

significant cost to you and the fact that it is arguable whether safety would be improved; in fact, in many instances, it might be just 

the opposite effect. If that rule went into effect, how would that impact your ability to grow, create more jobs? And I also noted, when 

Mr. Goodwin was talking about the silica rule, you seemed to 

cringe a little bit. And so if you would like to comment on that I 

would be happy to hear your—— 

Ms. HERSCHKOWITZ. Absolutely. And again, this is a ‘‘one size 

fits all’’ rule. And we have 13 employees in our foundry. We pour 

one heat a day, and we are now being lumped in with the Bethlehem Steels of the world and all those other companies to be able 

to have to comply. We currently have three dust collection systems—one over our furnaces and we have what is called an AOD 

refining vessel which collects all the dust. We are also putting in 

a heat exchanger, which is going to get rid of some of the small 

fines and also get us a better quality casting. 

So we have a very strong safety program. We have employees internally. We have a Safety Committee. We have safety leaders. 

Anybody can stop a heat at any time if they feel that it is unsafe. 

They have OSHA masks that are qualified. We also have a clean 

air mask at the cost of, I think it was $10,000 in the powder burning area to be able to do that. So I do feel that our foundry environment is very, very safe and there is very little risk of silicosis. But 

realize that it is still a foundry. And if we were to implement this, 

if the four dust collection systems that we have already invested 

in, whether or not you can get a used one because foundry dust collection systems have to be much stronger. So if we could get a used 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

13 

one, maybe we would be looking at half a million dollars. And if 

not, it would be up to a million dollars. 

Now, realize this is a 13-person foundry with revenue of just over $4 million. So it becomes very, very difficult. And introducing water 

into a foundry process is terrible. As soon as you put water into 

molten metal you get a huge explosion. So if this regulation is 

passed, I am going to face the conundrum of whether or not we 

even adhere to it. Are you better off risking the lives of your employees to meet a regulation? I do not think so. I am very proud 

of our employees. They are very highly skilled, and I just very 

much fear that it could also not impact the foundry, but the foundry provides castings for our other employees. We have a total of 

150 employees and all their jobs would be in jeopardy. 

Chairman CHABOT. Thank you. And the government should not 

put you in that position, in my opinion. 

Ms. HERSCHKOWITZ. Thank you. 

Chairman CHABOT. I have got little more than half a minute 

left. So Mr. Anderson, let me turn to you quickly. 

Do you have an estimate of how much time and money it will 

take for your company to reengineer its products to comply with 

the new energy conservation standard? And did anybody from the 

Department of Energy reach out to you to find out how it was going 

to affect a business like yours? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes. We were reached out to by a consulting 

company called Navigant Consulting early on. What we have invested, we probably—we have had thousands of manhours into it. 

So four engineers, four technicians working for nine months to 

comply with the 2009 rule. The 2017 rule is going to be slightly different where it is somewhat less of a leap since the last rule, but 

the problem lies in that we are gridlocked because the EPA now 

is requiring a new refrigerant. Or they actually took our refrigerant 

away. So we actually have no certainty on whether or not or what 

to engineer. So as far as how much will it cost, I guess it depends 

on—we might not even have the opportunity to do it. 

Chairman CHABOT. For what it is worth, that is the same thing 

I have been hearing from the heating and air conditioning folks in 

my district as well, and they are very concerned about it. 

My time is expired. I will now yield to the ranking member for 

five minutes. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Goodwin, many observers have noted the massive amount of 

statutory and presidentially-issued requirements and hurdles that 

agencies are subject to in the regulatory process. Some have even 

suggested that this has resulted in the ossification of the rulemaking process. To this point, research had found that it takes an 

average of 10 years for OSHA to develop and promulgate a health 

or safety standard. Do you believe that the regulatory process itself 

has become so overly burdened that it is in effect ossified? 

Mr. GOODWIN. Yes, I do share that view. Agencies do work 

under a large welter of procedural requirements that they have to 

satisfy during the rule-making process. I think a lot of these 

sprouted from good ideas but they have reached this point where 

they become duplicative and ultimately counterproductive so that 

they distract agencies from considering what is really important 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

14 

when developing a rulemaking and sort of send them off on these 

wild goose chases that ultimately do not lead to better regulatory 

solutions for the folks they are trying to protect or the small businesses that are ultimately subject to them. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Can you please explain how many regulations, and you mentioned it in your statement, benefit businesses, 

both big and small, especially when it comes to increasing the productivity of their employees? Can you elaborate on that? 

Mr. GOODWIN. Sure. You know, I think one of the best examples I have seen is a couple of years ago I was looking at the Regulatory Flexibility Act reviews that OSHA does on its existing regulations and there was this really interesting case study about 

OSHA’s cotton dust rule. And what it found was that this rule directed the textile industry to institute new processes in manufacturing, and it reduced the workers’ instances of this lung disease 

called brown lung disease. But what they also found—by 99 percent. It was by all accounts just a huge public health victory. But 

what they also found was this really interesting economic side benefit. Prior to the rule’s implementation, the industry’s productivity 

gain was increasing year over year by 2.5 percent. After the rule’s 

implementation, their productivity gains were increasing by 3.5 

percent, and that was because this rule largely led these industries 

to sort of revolutionize their manufacturing processes and it was a 

win-win for workers. It was a win for the manufacturers and their 

productivity gains led to more profitability and increased employment rates. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Can you discuss your perspective as to how 

fuel standard regulations have been a real driver when it comes to 

the development of advanced technologies, energy technologies, and 

how have rules such as these contributed to the U.S. standing globally? 

Mr. GOODWIN. Sure. You know, as we tackle climate change, 

one of the simplest ways, the cheapest ways of reducing our global 

climate footprint is to adopt energy-efficient products. It is unavoidable. And what regulation can do is sort of help us move along that 

path in a more predictable, ultimately cheaper way I would say because the process will be smoother. And I think energy efficiency 

regulations in particular can help there by specifying clear rules of 

the road for everybody. And the manufacturers in the U.S. that are 

subject to them will ultimately be better positioned to manufacture 

the best, cheapest, most effective energy-efficient products, not only 

for folks at home, but also, ultimately, for markets abroad. And you 

know the manufacturers of these products in China and stuff, they 

are working hard on developing these products and they want to 

sell them to us. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. 

Mr. GOODWIN. I think we should sell them to them. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Mr. Anderson, the Department of Energy estimated that the commercial refrigeration rule will result in substantial energy savings to customers, many of which include small businesses, like restaurants, grocers, and convenience stores. However, 

there are significant costs on the other side of the equation to small 

manufacturers like yourself, as well as transitional costs to conSBREP-219 with DISTILLER

15 

sumers. How do you propose that we best balance these costs and 

benefits in the rule-making process? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Well, as far as balancing the costs, for small 

manufacturers, I would like to ask DOE—I would like to have DOE 

make some changes as far as the 2017 rule and ask Congress to 

create a bill to actually remove the 2017 restrictions, change the 

timeframe in between the intervals for when we have to redesign 

our product. Right now we have to redesign every five years. That 

does not give us any breathing room. 

Now there are cumulative regulations with the EPA. So the EPA 

is throwing in that we have to change our refrigerants. I am not 

off the subject. So we have to take into account what the energy 

efficiency will be with a new refrigerant. So they need to have a 

coordinated effort at some point in time. Right now we will be out 

of business if we are supposed to use R450A on January 1, 2016. 

What I suggest is that some type of bill be written so that in 

2022, when the DOE needs to have their next revision of the standards, that they couple that with the EPA’s proposal, and whatever 

refrigerant they may come up in between then, that way we can 

work on a supply chain, we can work on all the new innovations 

within the same amount of timeframe that we can have a good efficient product. 

Chairman CHABOT. Thank you. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. 

Chairman CHABOT. Thank you. The gentlelady’s time is expired. 

If the ranking member is okay with it, I am going to yield to the 

gentleman from Michigan who is not on this Committee, but we 

would extend the same courtesy to members on the democratic side 

if you would like to do that in the future. 

The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chairman, I deeply appreciate that, and 

my other colleagues that are on the Committee, allowing me to 

sneak out of our other hearing and come here. 

I just want to get this straight. We just heard that in battling 

our climate footprint, having regulations in conflict like this, help 

move along in a more predictable and cheaper way American business, there are clear rules of the road, and that your employees 

have become more productive as you have been trying to build your 

businesses. I am just curious what your response is to that. And 

if we can start with Ms. Reichard. 

Ms. REICHARD. Okay. So we are more productive at less cost, 

et cetera. I do not think regulations actually accomplish that. Let 

me say that we support strong health and safety regulations based 

on sound science that protect consumers. 

Mr. HUIZENGA. And by the way, if I can just jump in. 

Ms. REICHARD. Yeah, sure. 

Mr. HUIZENGA. It is kind of sad that everybody—— 

Ms. REICHARD. I know. It is sarcasm. 

Mr. HUIZENGA.—has to put this disclaimer in. 

Okay. You are looking at the grandson of a man who was part 

of the original sit-down strikes with Oldsmobile in Flint, Michigan. 

All right? My family is directly tied to those first needs of safety 

and concern for employees. We are well beyond the discussion 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

16 

about safety for employees when we are talking about the EPA and 

DOE not getting on the same sheet of music here and as you are 

dealing with your regulations. But please, quickly go ahead. 

Ms. REICHARD. Right. So we are not asking for regulations to 

be eased in regard to health and safety; we are asking for them to 

be worked on in partnership with industry so that they do not end 

up being unnecessarily burdensome and complex. A more complex 

program does not always compute to a better program, understanding that nothing has changed in regard to the materials that 

we are delivering or that our workers are handling. It is simply 

more complicated, and now they have to be trained. They have got 

a lot more training. They have to be using different systems. We 

have taken perfectly good printers, and I am a huge advocate for 

sustainability, and we have had to throw them away. They have 

been obsolete. 

Mr. HUIZENGA. There is a little bit of irony there. 

Ms. REICHARD. So nothing good has come out of this particular 

regulation as far as health and safety goes. 

Mr. HUIZENGA. Ms. Herschkowitz? 

Ms. HERSCHKOWITZ. Congressman, first, I would submit to 

you that we never would have won World War II had we had—I 

will start over. Congressman, I would submit to you we never 

would have won World War II had we had half these regulations 

in place. 

But having said that, we are in a global marketplace. A friend 

of mine was recently in a foundry in China and they were pouring 

molten metal without shoes. And he asked them, ‘‘How can they 

not have on safety equipment?’’ And the response was, ‘‘There are 

20 people that want that particular job.’’ So we have to absorb that. 

We have to—— 

Mr. HUIZENGA. It is an unlevel playing field. 

Ms. HERSCHKOWITZ. It is a very unlevel playing field. And 

what we are doing is we are pushing jobs to China. We are pushing 

jobs to India where they do not have these regulations. 

Mr. HUIZENGA. And Mr. Anderson, I am assuming that hiring 

consultants to figure out the labyrinth of new federal regulations 

is not exactly viewed as job growth; correct? 

Mr. ANDERSON. No, it is not. We wear many hats in our company. I wear a lot of hats myself. It is not easy reading through 

6,000 pages of regulatory rules of that stack over there. 

Mr. HUIZENGA. And again, this was just February. And by the 

way, February, there was a federal holiday, so thank the Lord, because there would be another stack on top of here. 

Mr. ANDERSON. Yeah, we absorb all the cost of regulatory, so 

as far as reducing the costs or making us more competitive, regulations do not do that for Structural Concepts. And to increase energy efficiency in our product, we typically have to go to the next 

technical component. Take it from a fluorescent light to an LED 

light, and we have to wait for that lifecycle curve for the cost to 

come down. And with the speed at which all this stuff is coming 

at us, that lifecycle cost gets pushed into our product. It will come 

down and it has come down, but we still have to absorb a lot of 

that cost in the meantime. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

17 

Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chairman, coming from industrial states 

like Ohio and Michigan, and even that little place called Indiana 

down below us I think, the states and the people that come from 

states that build things understand what it means to have a supply 

chain. And I think so often these regulations do not reflect that reality. And I am sure all three of you have dealt with that. 

And I know, going to Structural Concepts, that has been expressed explicitly. It is not just good enough to have a product to 

use; you then have to have people that are going to manufacture 

it. You are then going to have the people that are going to be supplying it. And you have to have critical mass on it. You have to 

then reengineer all of your equipment. Is that not, and maybe just 

in closing you can touch on that. And again, thank you. 

Mr. ANDERSON. Yeah, for 2017, or even the EPA, we will have 

to go through and look at every single refrigeration component in 

each of our 400—or actually, probably 600 models now. That is no 

small chore. Machine-size compartments can change. The physical 

cabinets inside can change dimensions, so we will have to change 

the whole product structure potentially. It is not an easy task to 

accomplish this. 

Chairman CHABOT. Thank you very much. The gentleman’s 

time is expired. 

The gentlelady from North Carolina, Ms. Adams, is recognized 

for five minutes. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to all of you 

who testified today. 

Mr. Goodwin, during your testimony you touched on some very 

troubling tales regarding the Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy Works and the apparent lack of input from actual 

small businesses in the decisions that are made. This office is 

meant to serve as a voice for small businesses within the Federal 

Government, and obviously it is necessary to ensure that the office 

carries out this directive. But more importantly, we must ensure 

that small businesses have adequate representation. In your opinion, what are some steps that can be taken to ensure that the SBA 

Office of Advocacy Works is listening and speaking for real small 

businesses? 

Mr. GOODWIN. Well, I would echo a lot of the recommendations 

that were made in the GAO report, and they called upon the Office 

of Advocacy to do a better job documenting their outreach efforts 

in developing recommendations that they include in their comment 

letters. So I think just greater transparency would go a long way 

because if people know who they are talking to, then they will be 

much more strongly encouraged to talk to small businesses. So I 

think that is a big part of it. 

I think a big part of it would be certain agencies have to do 

something known as—or I call them SBREFA panels. Under 

SBREFA, they have to do panels where they discuss rules before 

they are formally proposed, and they could take steps to make sure 

that actual small businesses are participating in those panels rather than representatives of large trade associations. 

Ms. ADAMS. Okay. And do you think it is important to see that 

not only small businesses have a voice but also that small commuSBREP-219 with DISTILLER

18 

nities within small businesses, such as black, women, minorityowned business, have guaranteed representation within this office? 

Mr. GOODWIN. You know, I have not really thought about minority representation but it certainly would make sense. I think it 

is important to have, I mean, in particular to have small businesses. I mean, if their statutory mission is to serve as a voice of 

small businesses, then they should at least be listening to the 

voices of small businesses. And from what I have seen and from 

what the GAO has seen, that is just not happening. Instead what 

we are seeing is emails between the Office of Advocacy staff and 

these lobbyists for large trade associations. At the very minimum, 

that needs to change. 

Ms. ADAMS. All right, the black and the minority-owned business voices matter as well. Thank you for our comment. 

Mr. GOODWIN. I do not disagree. 

Ms. ADAMS. You spoke of some ways that we can avoid an either/or mentality when it comes to protecting the public and empowering small businesses. One was to partner small businesses to 

promote beneficial synergies on regulatory compliance. So can you 

expand just a little bit upon what it would look like and how it 

would benefit small businesses in meeting regulation standards? 

Mr. GOODWIN. Sure. You know, I was just trying to think of 

creative solutions for how regulatory compliance, you know, which 

nobody likes, could be turned into a plus for folks. And I know that 

the Small Business Administration, which is distinct from the Office of Advocacy, runs contract programs in connection with government services. So building off those contracting programs, perhaps 

a program could be designed where the SBA would identify the 

kinds of small businesses that might provide compliance assistance, so things like small law firms, small accounting firms, that 

sort of thing, engineering consultant firms, that sort of thing. And 

then they could be partnered up with small businesses in this way 

where, you know, one small business’s compliance provides business for another small business. Everybody wins. 

Ms. ADAMS. Okay. You also spoke about how regulatory benefits 

exceed regulatory costs by almost eight to one, reducing the burden 

to not only small businesses but the American public in general. So 

can you speak more to the savings that can be achieved by regulatory regulation compliance, for instance, lost workdays, less hospital visits, et cetera? 

Mr. GOODWIN. Sure. One thing that is worth emphasizing on 

that eight-to-one cost benefit analysis is that it is highly skewed 

away from benefits and in favor of costs. So that probably understates it a great deal. But taking on your question, one of the big 

costs that the Clean Air Act has been able to address over the last 

20 years or so is reducing missed workdays, reduced activity days, 

missed school days. If a kid is sick, his parents have to take time 

off. All these sorts of things are important benefits of these public 

health regulations that save society a lot of money and do a lot of 

good for business as well. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you. I think I am just about out of time. I 

yield back. 

Chairman CHABOT. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

19 

I will now yield five minutes to the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. 

Huelskamp. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your 

technical language. It was either stupid or dumb regulation. 

Chairman CHABOT. Dumb. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Dumb. And for the record, with unanimous 

consent, I am opposed to ‘‘dumb’’ regulations as well. 

But ma’am, if I might, can you hold up your bottle and the big 

sheet? And as you understand the regulations, these are coming— 

and I did not catch, which agency is requiring this? 

Ms. REICHARD. This is the GSH regulation out of OSHA. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Okay. OSHA is requiring that. How did they 

tell you to wrap that around the bottle? 

Ms. REICHARD. That is an excellent question. There is actually 

no guidance given from OSHA in regard to applying this label to 

this bottle. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Okay. 

Ms. REICHARD. So every single company has had to adopt their 

own avenue for accomplishing that. Some companies wrap—— 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. And what would OSHA—what would they 

fine you if you did not comply with some mysterious regulation? 

Ms. REICHARD. Well, OSHA files—I cannot answer that question because OSHA files are typically done on a basis where they 

do an analysis of each individual time that it happened and how 

many times you shipped. It would be a lot of money. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. And what is toxic in that bottle? 

Ms. REICHARD. Pardon me? 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. What is toxic in that bottle? 

Ms. REICHARD. There is nothing toxic in that bottle. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. There is nothing toxic in that bottle? 

Ms. REICHARD. No, there is nothing toxic in this bottle. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Okay. I want to clarify that. 

I had a letter from a manufacturer, National Association of Manufacturers member. I was at, at least in their community last week 

and they had an OSHA inspection, and this is a little sticker on 

a shift knob on a forklift, and it is a $1.41 sticker, and they received about an $800 fine, multiplied by two. But OSHA had been 

by the facility numerous times and they did not see it missing, I 

guess, until this time. Before they left the facility, OSHA had— 

they had actually put the sticker on the gearshift, but that was not 

good enough. So I would take an exception with Mr. Goodwin’s 

comment that nobody likes regulatory compliance. From what I understand for OSHA, they love regulatory compliance. 

Ms. REICHARD. Yes. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. And from what I hear from my manufacturers and the other businesses subjected to this compliance, to quote 

my manufacturers, ‘‘I have never been through an inspection when 

issued citations were directly related to the actual hazards we work 

with.’’ 

Ms. REICHARD. Exactly. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. And the whole issue here is to reduce hazards. From what I hear from OSHA and other numerous agencies, 

it is not about the hazards; it is about the enforcement. 

Ms. REICHARD. Yes. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

20 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. And so you run in these crazy situations 

where you have the administration as you indicated, going after 

raising our costs of electricity, and the end result is we drive your 

business offshores. And we drive them to other countries, like 

China, that have a much lower standard. And so no new coal-fired 

power plants, but they build them every day in China. The end result is we worry about global pollution supposedly, but the end result is we make that happen. 

But I wanted to ask Mr. Goodwin, if I could, an issue is the Waters of the U.S. Rule, and I see the Center for Progressive Reform 

has been strongly in favor of that rule. Is that still your position? 

Mr. GOODWIN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Okay. And I would say I totally disagree with 

that position. If you want to create uncertainty in the agricultural 

industries, small manufacturing industries, construction industry, 

the industries here, every industry is using some type of water. It 

is going to be devastating, not because of the impact but because 

we do not know what it is. No one knows. And it might create tremendous jobs in Washington, D.C., and creates jobs for think 

tanks, but at the end of the day, you folks have to comply. 

Who here—and Mr. Anderson might read the Federal Register. 

I am sorry you have to do that, but what about you two ladies? 

Who regularly reads the Federal Register in your shops? 

Ms. REICHARD. We cannot actually spend the time reading the Federal Register. Our company spends over $750,000 a year belonging to different trade associations. I heard some comments in 

regard to trade associations should not be able to call on SBA, and 

I thoroughly disagree with that. Small businesses lack resources. 

We have to band together in order to be able to afford the cost to 

analyze all of these bills that are coming out of Washington, D.C., 

and we have to band together to have the bandwidth, for lack of 

a better word, to approach Washington, D.C., to try to work with 

the agencies, to create better regulations that are not too complex, 

that actually improve safety and health and wellness of the employees they are working for every day. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Yes, Janis? 

Ms. HERSCHKOWITZ. We rely on our trade association, the 

American Foundry Society. We also have an outside safety consultant who is available 24/7 that we can call at any time if any of our 

plants have a concern. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Is he paid for by the government, I guess? Of 

course not. Of course not. And that is my concern because these 

regulations—I think Mr. Goodwin even agreed with that—they hit 

harder on small businesses than the big guys. 

Ms. HERSCHKOWITZ. Oh, my gosh, yes. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. And you will see many of the larger companies, they actually lobby in favor of these regulations because they 

fear competition from the small businesses. 

Ms. HERSCHKOWITZ. Interesting. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. And I have seen that again and again. And 

so I appreciate your testimony, and continue to do that. I would 

also appreciate you, if based on your testimony, you do get harassment back from your regulatory agencies. I am certain the chairman—I definitely would like to know about that. I have members, 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

21 

I have constituents that are afraid to tell me and let me make public about outrageous actions by agencies because they fear the harassment and regulatory retaliation. And there is no room for that. 

So I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CHABOT. Thank you. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

The gentlelady from Michigan, Ms. Lawrence, is recognized for 

five minutes. 

Ms. LAWRENCE. Thank you, Chairman, and Ranking Member. 

I wanted to say hello to Mr. Anderson. I am from Michigan, and 

I am really glad to see a Michigander her. 

As you know, I represent the state of Michigan, which ranks 

among the top five states in manufacturing employment. I strongly 

believe that manufacturers are the backbone of this nation’s economy. And as we grow manufacturing, we always see an uptick in 

our economy. 

But I also strongly believe in the efficient use of energy and reducing waste. Both of these efforts have generated billions of dollars in savings for Michiganders. So what I want to talk to you 

about is the Department of Energy, the DOE’s revision of energy 

conservation standards for commercial refrigeration equipment, 

which is your industry; correct? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Correct. 

Ms. LAWRENCE. Can you briefly walk me through and make 

me understand or explain the real impact your company obtained 

by complying with the 2012 DOE rule, and then secondly, the impact that the DOE’s justification, or what you felt was the justification in issuing a new rule in 2014? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes. The 2012 rule, Structural Concepts, we 

embraced that rule. We are a company that strives to make our 

product more efficient. So we went above and beyond what was required by the standards. Sometimes we went probably, in some 

cases, 15 percent below what was required, maybe even more in 

some equipment classes. That took us three years to do. First, you 

had to develop all the concepts and components that would achieve 

this energy efficiency. Then you had to review the current product 

to see how you could engineer that in to each refrigerated display 

case. And then you physically had to do it. Once you got it, you had 

to build the case, and then you had to test it and verify it. So there 

was a lot of time, a lot of money spent on building equipment, 

building test labs to achieve all that. 

Self-contained, we do make the most efficient refrigeration selfcontained open display case in the U.S., we believe. So when 2017 

came along, they took another 20 percent out. In most cases we can 

still achieve that energy with minimal engineering, so it will not 

affect us that much. But we still have to review every single model. 

We still have to go through all the bills and review what is in it, 

review the energy, and our remote units, they are self-contained, 

and remote is a machine room compartment that is separated from 

the display case. Remote units, those suffer the most. So to comply 

with the 2017 rule, we will have to switch as a standard to acrossthe-board LED lights in all of our product. So fluorescent lights will 

go away in 2017 as the rule stands. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

22 

So reviewing every single, all 600 models, will put another burden on us, and it will actually eliminate another product in the 

United States of, at least for us, the fluorescent light bulb. 

Ms. LAWRENCE. Do you agree that the three years it took for 

you to comply and verify that you are now realizing a reduction in 

energy costs, so there has been a savings to you? 

Mr. ANDERSON. There has been a savings to our customers in 

terms of lifecycle costs. 

Ms. LAWRENCE. But to you as an industry? 

Mr. ANDERSON. To us as an industry, we as an industry have 

reduced the energy costs in the United States; yes. 

Ms. LAWRENCE. Okay. 

Mr. Goodwin, frankly, the burden on small manufacturing 

caused by overregulation is a term that we hear far outweighs the 

burden that agencies face in complying with rulemaking requirements. Do you agree with that? 

Mr. GOODWIN. So the question is that the cost that regulations 

impose on small businesses are greater than the costs—— 

Ms. LAWRENCE. Of rulemaking? 

Mr. GOODWIN. Sure. Yeah, I guess. Yeah, of course. I have 

never thought about the question, but yeah, of course. 

Ms. LAWRENCE. Okay. 

But what are the costs to our environment, our economy in that 

continually challenging current energy efficient standards and improving them? 

Chairman CHABOT. The gentlelady’s time is expired but you 

can answer the question. 

Ms. LAWRENCE. Thank you. 

Mr. GOODWIN. Thank you. 

The cost of not complying with some of these regulations, the 

cost of inaction or the cost of delay can be huge, you know, in terms 

of regulations to address climate change, obviously. Well, not obviously, but they are, I mean, it could mean the difference between 

avoiding the worst consequences of climate change or not. For 

something like a workplace health and safety standard, the inaction on certain standards could mean the difference between hundreds or even thousands of lives saved or illnesses prevented every 

year. So, I mean, they are huge; yeah. 

Ms. LAWRENCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield my time. 

Chairman CHABOT. Thank you very much. The gentlelady’s 

time is expired. 

The gentlelady from American Samoa, Ms. Radewagen, who is 

the chair of the Subcommittee on Health and Technology, is recognized for five minutes. 

Ms. RADEWAGEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My question is for all three small manufacturer witnesses—Ms. 

Reichard, Ms. Herschkowitz, and Mr. Anderson. What could the 

Federal Government do to make it easier for your companies to 

grow, remain competitive, and create new jobs? 

Ms. REICHARD. Okay. Well, I will agree with Mr. Goodwin at 

the end of the table, that a SBREFA panel would have absolutely 

been beneficial in this process. The panel certainly would have revealed the reality that there would be no cost savings in a nonharmonized system and could have brought to life proactive solutions 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

23 

that industry could have provided to actually benefit worker safety. 

Some of the best ideas come from our workers or they come from 

consumers. Why should industry not be at the table? 

Ms. RADEWAGEN. Ms. Herschkowitz? 

Ms. HERSCHKOWITZ. I agree also, a SBREFA panel. Getting 

more input upfront because this regulation with the silica obviously 

you do not introduce water into that environment. As I said earlier, 

you should not have ‘‘one size fits all’’ regulations. It should be consistent across the board, and it should also look at the regulations 

where these jobs might be going, which are not even close to what 

we are being able to do now. And you should make sure that the 

existing regulations are in place and are being adhered to before 

we add on more, which I do not think is the case with the silica 

sand. Thank you. 

Mr. ANDERSON. I kind of mentioned it before, but the EPA for 

us—the EPA and the DOE need to have a coordinated front for us 

to be able to efficiently move forward with energy efficiency and environmental protection. 

The other thing that could be done is a more in-depth look—and 

this is specifically for the DOE—of equipment—there are 49 equipment classes, and I am of the belief that there was not a deep 

enough look or, nor they based some of their validation on one data 

point. I have been in the industry for 23 years. I have grown up 

in test labs. I am a hands-on guy. I do not see how the Department 

of Energy can come up with a standard based on calculations and 

validate that with one point. I do not care how good of an engineer 

you are. Yeah, it boggles my mind. 

Ms. RADEWAGEN. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman CHABOT. The gentlelady yields back. 

The gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Hardy, who is chair of the Subcommittee on Investigations, Oversight, and Regulations is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. HARDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This conversation really gets me. I have a million questions to 

ask being a former business owner myself. 

I am going to go to Ms. Herschkowitz first, and talk about the 

silica sand. 

Ms. HERSCHKOWITZ. Okay. 

Mr. HARDY. In my industry, we are unable to have a confined 

space, so we have to provide a uniform any time we have to do any 

sandblasting with silica sands. So we provide a uniform, do such. 

But where you are having to do full intakes, do you think it is fair 

that all I can do is with a uniform and there is no shop that I am 

in, do you think that I should be required to do the same that you 

are and all industry and have the same requirements you do in the 

manufacturing end to have full-blown evacuation systems, I guess? 

Or whatever you are having to do? 

Ms. HERSCHKOWITZ. Well, it would be ludicrous but I think 

that Congress should be able to do that to see how difficult it is. 

But the one thing about the silica sand is with the respirators, for 

instance, when you said about sandblasting, we have respirators 

where the person—and it cost $10,000 a piece two years ago to be 

able to put them in and it is $5,000 a year to maintain—but someSBREP-219 with DISTILLER

24 

body that goes into a sandblasting facility actually puts on this respirator and they are breathing clean air. 

Mr. HARDY. I will interrupt you right there. I understand where 

you are at. 

What I am trying to get to with this situation, there are different 

applications all over this country of how we do it. 

Ms. HERSCHKOWITZ. Right. 

Mr. HARDY. We do bridges, all kinds of projects. Before you can 

pour concrete, you have to evacuate any rust on that, which you 

have to go through that system. 

Ms. HERSCHKOWITZ. Sure. Sure. 

Mr. HARDY. Or we have heavy-duty equipment. We have to 

clean parts. It cannot be done in a shop, so you are out in the 

desert. 

So my comment is, when regulators come up with these ideals, 

the desert southwest, which is California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona. You can go on and on and on. Major pockets of recreation areas that are nothing more than silica sand. We play on 

them. We go to our beaches. We play on them. 

Ms. HERSCHKOWITZ. Correct. 

Mr. HARDY. Should there be a regulation there to force people 

to have to stay off that? Because I believe that silica sand is probably more dangerous from the environmental side, from our use of 

recreation, than it is—— 

Ms. HERSCHKOWITZ. Yeah, it would be ludicrous. Absolutely 

not. 

Mr. HARDY. So let us force all our businesses back down to California or down to New Mexico or Mexico or someplace else. Is that 

not what you feel like is happening to you sometimes? 

Ms. HERSCHKOWITZ. Exactly. We get our wedron sand out of 

the Midwest, which is the cleanest, roundest sand that you can 

have, and that is what we utilize. 

Mr. HARDY. All over the desert southwest. Sand dunes just 

drift. 

Ms. HERSCHKOWITZ. Absolutely. 

Mr. HARDY. From spot to spot. 

Ms. HERSCHKOWITZ. And we have this better sand trucked in 

from Chicago area. 

Mr. HARDY. I want to hurry and change gears before I lose my 

time. 

Ms. HERSCHKOWITZ. Okay. 

Mr. HARDY. Okay. As a small businessperson, I have found over 

the years that what made my success as a business competing 

against another was utilizing my employees to come up with a better mousetrap, to constantly talk about safety issues and things 

like that, and try to implement those OSHA regulations, but also 

make sure that we were even safer than what OSHA did. Would 

you say that most businesses strive to do that because that is a 

competitive environment; we do it naturally on our own? 

Ms. HERSCHKOWITZ. Absolutely. 

Mr. HARDY. All three of you can answer that. 

Ms. HERSCHKOWITZ. You want to protect the welfare of your 

employees. And we have huddles. We can bring up safety ideas. We 

have safety committees with managers and hourlies. Yes. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

25 

Mr. HARDY. Anybody else want to address that? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes. We are a continuously-improving environment, and we look for innovation, and we are fierce competitors 

when it comes to reducing energy and complying to regulatory. 

Mr. HARDY. Thank you. And I think that is the way things 

should be done. And we just talked about it just a second ago. 

Thank Ms. Radewagen for that comment. But that is what I believe needs to happen from the Federal Government side. The Federal Government continues to try to grow its overreach of us instead of working with the departments or the businesses to find 

out how they can do a better job. I think business would like to 

work to make sure it is a safe environment, but do you believe you 

also continue to have accidents no matter how many safety regulations you have got? What my comment is there is can we regulate 

people against their own stupidity, so to speak? 

Ms. HERSCHKOWITZ. No, you cannot. 

Mr. HARDY. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Chairman CHABOT. Okay. The gentleman yields back. 

We will go to a brief second round, and I will yield to the ranking 

member if she has any questions. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. I take offense when people say that it is stupidity. I can’t look in the eyes of the children of my sister-in-law 

who is dying of asbestos exposure and tell her that regulations are 

stupid or are dumb. Even if it means saving one life. When you 

look at West Virginia, or the BP oil spill and the impact that it 

had—— 

So Ms. Reichard—— 

Chairman CHABOT. Will the gentlelady yield for just one second? 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Sure. 

Chairman CHABOT. Okay. I think just to clarify on behalf of a 

number of my colleagues, I think what we were referring to is we 

are not against regulations; we are against dumb regulations. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. I understand. 

Chairman CHABOT. That does not mean all regulations are 

dumb. Thank you for yielding. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. But what I am saying is the lessons that we 

have learned from the past have told us that even when it means 

saving one life—and let me just say that I am very proud that 

workers in America wear shoes and masks. 

Ms. HERSCHKOWITZ. So am I. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. I do not want them like in China. 

Ms. HERSCHKOWITZ. I agree. 

If I could just—— 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Ms. Reichard? 

Ms. REICHARD. Sure. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. I am at that age where I get prescription 

drugs almost every month, and I am very happy when I go to the 

pharmacy to get my prescription drugs and see prints or instructions or do’s and dont’s that are written in a label or papers because the print does not fit the small package, the small bottle. So 

what is the difference between that? When you go to the pharmacy, 

you would like to get as much information as you need to have in 

order to make sure that you follow the prescription instructions. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

26 

What is the difference between what is required from pharma or 

the pharmacy industry and the fact that you need to add that label 

to your little bottle? 

Ms. REICHARD. Sure. 

Well, first and foremost, the difference between pharmaceuticals 

and fragrance ingredients is extreme. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Yeah, but the fact is that the label and the 

information that is required because it does not fit on the label, it 

has to be printed. 

Ms. REICHARD. Before we had the new GHS program, we were 

already providing appropriate labeling information our products. 

What I am saying is now the information that we are providing is 

much more complex, and that complexity is unnecessary in our 

particular case. You know, there is a crisis of misinformation and 

scientific misunderstanding in this country regarding chemicals 

and toxicity, and the chemicals that we have, as they are being 

used, are not toxic. So having to provide this extensive toxicity information is just distracting. It does not provide for additional 

health and safety information. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZUEZ. And so you have the scientific information that 

says that none of the ingredients or elements in that little bottle 

could cause reactions, allergy reactions? 

Ms. REICHARD. Let me expand on that. It is important to know 

that everything is made of chemicals, and anything can be toxic at 

a certain level. But as we use them, they are not toxic. Oxygen and 

water can be—either if you do not have enough of them it is a 

problem; if you have too much of them it can be deadly. In order 

for an ingredient to affect a human or its toxicity to be determined. 

You cannot just look at the presence of a chemical. So labeling 

based just upon a presence—— 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. I hear you. I hear you, and I do not have 

much time. 

Ms. REICHARD.—is not beneficial. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. All I can say is that I have not heard anyone 

saying that they are allergic to water or oxygen. 

I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CHABOT. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. 

As far as, the ranking member is clearly very passionate about 

safety, and I would agree with her on that, and I think we all are 

on this Committee on both sides of the aisle. Mr. Huizenga mentioned that his grandfather had been one of the strikers on one of 

the issues on the auto lines when they were striking relative to 

safety issues, and so I think we all feel that way. 

Just to give some of the panel members an opportunity to respond to some of the concerns that were raised, I would ask Ms. 

Herschkowitz first if you would like to—— 

Ms. HERSCHKOWITZ. Yeah. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. 

I just wanted to clarify. Our company is not advocating that we 

do not wear shoes or protective masks. We spend over $100,000 a 

year on safety to make sure that our employees are safe. We are 

always looking for ways to improve upon. My intent on saying that 

was only to give an analogy as to the other countries that we are 

competing against. But it is safety first at our place, and I just 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

27 

wanted to make that clarification. I care very much about our employees. 

Chairman CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

Ms. HERSCHKOWITZ. Thank you. 

Chairman CHABOT. Ms. Reichard? 

Ms. REICHARD. In addition, I would like to respond and say 

that the fragrance industry absolutely provides all the information 

regarding potential fragrance allergies and that is part of our process. So that information is included within our information. 

Chairman CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

I want to thank all the witnesses for their participation today. 

I have a couple more to respond. Mr. Goodwin, did you want to 

say something? Go ahead, and then I will go to Mr. Anderson. I am 

going to give this side the opportunity to close. 

Go ahead, Mr. Goodwin. 

Mr. GOODWIN. You know, I guess just building off what was 

just discussed, that is why we like small businesses, because they 

do—one of the many great things that they do is they are closer 

to their customers, they are closer to their employees. So ultimately, they are the ones that are in compliance. They are the ones 

that are going above and beyond what regulations as of them, and 

that is great. And, you know, there is nothing you can criticize 

about that, obviously. 

What I would say is that what regulations can do is they level 

the playing field. They make sure that those businesses that are 

not so upstanding can be held to account, and they ultimately level 

the playing field. You know, I think that is just one of the additional benefits that regulations can provide for small businesses. 

Chairman CHABOT. Thank you. 

Mr. Anderson? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes. Safety is our primary concern at Structural Concepts. I do not think that anybody in this room would 

want to pull a tuna fish sandwich out of one of our cases that were 

made so energy-efficient that it could not hold temperature anymore. So what would Structural Concepts do? We would have to obsolete that product. 

I failed to mention that we comply to the FDA food code for 41 

degrees. We use regulatory UL standards to make sure that our 

product is mechanically and electrically safe so our customers do 

not get shocked, do not have shelves fall on them, so on and so 

forth. Now the DOE is obviously pushing for energy, so we have 

to balance that, and the EPA is pushing for new refrigerants. We 

have to balance that as well. So we have four regulations that we 

have to comply to on our product and balance all of those. And 

safety is the highest. 

Chairman CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

And I am almost out of time myself. I would just conclude that 

mention that we, certainly on both sides, we have heard the testimony of all the witnesses. I think all four of you did a very commendable job, and thank you for coming and telling us what you 

are dealing with. 

We passed legislation in the House recently, the Regulatory 

Flexibility Improvements Act, and in general, what that would do 

is it would require when the federal regulators, the agencies that 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

28 

write all these regulations that one month down there, when they 

write these regulations, they have to reach out to small businesses 

who are going to be dramatically impacted by these regulations, 

and get some input. You know, how they might adversely, both directly and indirectly, impact your businesses because you are, after 

all, the job creators. You create seven out of 10 jobs in the new 

economy, and we ought not to be making your ability to grow and 

prosper and creates jobs for more people more difficult. And I think 

that is evidence down there that oftentimes we do. And that is not 

to say there are not important safety regulations that you should 

have to follow. My analysis is that in general, the vast majority of 

businesses do try to follow the regulations. You look out for your 

safety. You are not the bad guys. 

So anyway, all members will have five legislative days should 

they want to revise or extend their remarks. 

And if there is no further business to come before the Committee, 

we are adjourned. Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

29 

A P P E N D I X 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 29 here 93732.001
30 

Good Morning. My thanks to Chairman Chabot, Ranking Member Vela ́zquez and the members of the Small Business Committee 

for inviting me to testify today on the regulatory challenges that 

small businesses like mine face. 

My name is Cynthia Reichard, and I am the Executive Vice 

President of Arylessence. Arylessence is a leading and creatively 

driven U.S.-based fragrance and flavor company. We work in close 

partnership with our clients which include major consumer product 

and cosmetic companies to develop strategically inspired fragrances 

and flavors that transform our client’s products into winning 

brands and consumers into passionate, loyal fans. 

On behalf of Arylessence, I commend the efforts made by the 

Committee to alleviate burdensome regulations that significantly 

hinder innovation and growth, particularly for small businesses. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I can unequivocally say that Arylessence has been hindered by unintended regulatory burdens. I would like to discuss a few of these with you 

today and focus on one in particular that my company and other 

fragrance houses continue to struggle with that is administered by 

the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA). 

First, let me provide some background information on our company and the broader fragrance industry. Arylessence is a flavor 

and fragrance company that was founded in 1977 by my uncle. I 

am proud to say that we, like the majority of companies within our 

industry, are a family-owned and operated small business. When 

my uncle founded the company thirty eight years ago, he had a 

dream. He took out a mortgage on his house and a loan on his car, 

borrowed money from friends, and opened up shop with three employees. I am proud to say that Arylessence now has 120 full-time 

employees, 3 part-time employees and many contract employees at 

our headquarters in Marietta, Georgia. We develop and ship fragrances to over 1000 different manufacturers in the U.S. and 

across the globe. As a family-owned company, Arylessence cares 

deeply about its employees: we train and promote from within, 

offer excellent benefit programs at minimal costs, provide tuition 

reimbursement, and offer financial education, nutrition education, 

and on-site exercise programs. 

I am proud to be here representing not only my company, but 

also the International Fragrance Association of North America or 

IFRA North America. IFRA North America is the principal trade 

association for the fragrance supplier industry in the U.S. and Canada. Like all IFRA North America members, Arylessence sources 

ingredients from around the globe and crafts unique fragrance formulations that are incorporated into a variety of consumer products including fine fragrances, personal care products such as lotions, soaps and shampoos, household and institutional cleaning 

products, and home care products including candles and air fresheners, just to name a few. Collectively, IFRA’s North America’s 

members comprise a $1.6 billion industry responsible for more than 

90 percent of all scents marketed in the U.S. and Canada. The fragrance industry directly supports more than 720,000 jobs and an 

additional 240,000 small businesses in the U.S. alone. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

31 

You may not have ever thought about how scent plays an important role in the purchase of products, however, 75 percent of 

human emotions can be triggered by our sense of smell. Our sense 

of smell is critical to our well-being, and scent alone is a key consumer purchase driver. 

Creating a fragrance requires a marriage of art and science. We 

deal extensively with thousands of different ingredients including 

natural materials such as essential oils like lavender and rose oils 

as well as man-made materials developed in laboratories and 

sourced from a variety of sustainable raw materials. As such, we— 

and our clients—face extensive regulations across several agencies 

including EPA, OSHA, FDA, DEA, DOT, and FAA. It’s important 

to point out that these are just the federal regulations and that 

this list of acronyms does not include the myriad of extensive state 

and municipal regulations of which we must be prepared to comply. 

The impact of complying with these regulations continues to 

raise the cost of doing business in the United States. Quite frankly, 

the cost associated with complying with the current regulatory 

landscape can effectively bar new companies from entering our industry today. These ever increasing burdens limit our reinvestment 

in our company and our ability to take even better care of our employees who have worked so hard to help us be where we are today. 

Arylessence employs the equivalent of six full-time employees 

whose job functions are dedicated solely to regulatory and compliance issues. In addition, we are currently in the process of hiring 

an additional regulatory professional to ensure our ability to track 

and comply with all of the different regulations our industry and 

our clients industries face. 

When the state of Georgia’s unemployment rate more than doubled to over 10%, we worked hard to ensure that we did not have 

to lay off a single person within our workforce. Although it meant 

making difficult choices for our business, we are proud of the job 

security that we were able to afford our employees and their families. 

While I can give you many examples of how existing laws and 

regulations have impacted our operations I will focus on one in particular. In 2008 we planned to purchase land and expand our operations by building a large new facility for research and development and hiring an additional 50 employees. As a result of the economic downturn and further exacerbated by costly compliance with 

new laws and regulations taking effect, we have delayed many of 

those plans for several years. Despite an improving economy, regulatory and compliance costs continue to limit our capital resources, 

and, unfortunately, our expansionary plans have been reduced and 

many of them remain in the planning stage today. Just think about 

how many jobs would have been created by that expansion and 

how this is happening across the USA. 

The bottom line is that there are far too many regulations that 

impose far too heavy a burden on American small businesses like 

Arylessence. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

32 

In the last five years, our company has been facing some of the 

most economically significant laws and regulations. In particular 

we have faced rising health insurance premiums under the Affordable Care Act, higher income taxation rates and a variety of rules 

and regulations administered by the Occupational Safety & Health 

Agency (OSHA). 

Impact of the Affordable Care Act 

Ninety-six percent of small businesses have faced rising health 

insurance premiums in the wake of the Affordable Care Act, and 

Arylessence is no different. Between 2012 and 2014 we experienced 

an average 13.6% annual increase in our health insurance premiums. For 2015, our provider has given us a premium increase of 

41 percent. These increases have been discouraging and are detrimental to our bottom line. We are continuing to look at options and 

regrettably we are now in the position of having to pass some of 

these additional costs on to our employees. 

Rising Income Tax Rates 

Also like many small businesses, Arylessence has had to pay 

higher taxes. We are an S-Corporation and our income tax rate was 

raised from 35% to 39.6% to fund the Affordable Care Act. In 2014, 

our Federal tax bill alone increased exponentially. Think about how 

many people that would employ or how much equipment that 

would buy. 

OSHA & The Globally Harmonized System of Classification & Labeling 

Today I would like to focus my testimony and share our experience in complying with the OSHA’s regulation known as the Hazard Communication Standard. This standard is OSHA’s interpretation of the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS). An experience, that serves as an example of a burdensome regulation that has not resulted in safer workplaces. In fact, it has caused significant cost increases for our company. 

GHS began as an international initiative to standardize the labeling and classification of hazardous chemicals in the workplace. 

GHS was billed and sold to the industry as a cost saving device 

that would make it easier for companies to exchange information 

globally. But the truth is the exact opposite: it has cost Arylessence 

significant amounts of money without adding any safety to consumers or employees. 

In order to comply with GHS, a manufacturer or distributor must 

identify the chemicals present in their product shipments, and classify the risk of those chemicals based on a hierarchy established by 

GHS. 

All of this information must be included on safety data sheets or 

‘‘SDSs’’ and labels which must be affixed to product containers in 

the workplace. The labels must include color pictograms and a 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

33 

number of other informational elements including symbols, signal 

words, and lengthy hazard statements. 

This is a complicated set of forms that required us to adjust our 

operations to comply. 

Prior to GHS, most countries had their own individual regulations addressing the handling of chemicals in the workplace. With 

the increase in global commerce, the United Nations began a new 

initiative, known as GHS, which aimed to ensure consistency and 

predictability for all companies that were operating globally and so 

that workers would have a clear understanding of what materials 

they were in contact with. The objective behind the regulation was 

reflected in its name; a Globally Harmonized System of the classification and labeling of chemicals. 

OSHA adopted GHS in March of 2012 and unfortunately, like 

many other countries, interpreted the regulation in a unique way 

resulting in nonconformity with the global system. OSHA is currently in the latter part of the implementation phase. 

Though there are many examples where OSHA deviated from 

GHS, one of the most difficult issues for my company, and the fragrance industry in particular, is the treatment of small or sample 

sized products. Despite the pleas of manufacturers to OSHA and 

even though other jurisdictions including Canada and the European Union allowed for an exemption for small bottles, OSHA 

elected to not give any special consideration. The result is a new, 

arduous, costly and incredibly burdensome process that has not increased safety and has hindered commerce. 

In creating a fragrance for a customer, such as a honeysuckle 

scent for a hand lotion, Arylessence may ship a batch of 2–5 samples of honeysuckle fragrances to a potential customer. Each fragrance will be unique and contain different ingredients. 

Unlike many industries that ship samples of chemical products 

in large containers, the fragrance industry typically deals in extremely small quantities. For example, the sample fragrances that 

are shipped generally measure 0.5–1.0 ounces and are contained in 

small vials. 

Now, under the new GHS regulation, rather than requiring a 

safety data sheets on only those products purchased, each individual sample, no matter how small, must include a label and safety data sheet in order to comply with GHS. 

On average, Arylessence sends out 10,000 samples per year, each 

of them a unique mixture of ingredients. And now, under the new 

regulation, on an annual basis we need to create 10,000 unique 

safety data sheets and labels for even half ounce samples of fragrances. And since the research and development of scents is done 

for no cost to our clients in the hopes of securing a production contract—this represents added cost that cannot be directly passed on 

to our customers. 

Adding to these new costs is the fact that OSHA has issued no 

guidance in regard to how the labels must be affixed to small packaging or containers. We must fasten these labels to half and oneSBREP-219 with DISTILLER

34 

ounce bottles. The practicality of this is almost impossible and we 

have received no guidance from OSHA other than it must be done. 

Despite our pleas, OSHA has not provided an exemption on this 

issue like other jurisdictions. If we do not affix the label on this 

vial we will be out of compliance and are subject to facing severe 

fines from OSHA. 

Additionally, there are significant implementation problems that 

OSHA has refused to address. 

The computer technology to comply with this law did not exist 

when the implementation dates were announced. The industry is 

required to comply with GHS by June 1st of this year. By not phasing in the requirements, Arylessence has had to develop and implement new computer systems, purchase and install new printing devices, and must simultaneously get information from suppliers, 

complete the analysis to fill out the datasheets and labels, and 

send it along to our customers who also have the same compliance 

date. 

GHS was sold to the industry as a cost savings initiative. In 

2011, the Obama Administration estimated that GHS implementation would realize $585 million in annualized savings for employers. In our experience, compliance with GHS has thus far taken us 

three years to implement and cost our small business well over 

$500,000 and untold labor hours to implement. 

The new GHS data sheet requirements have forced us to purchase databases of chemical ingredients. However, the information 

in these databases was not compatible with GHS formatting and 

so we had to marry the databases with our own proprietary software, which required a $200,000 investment. 

In addition, we had had to retool all of our hardware and documentation to meet the new GHS formats. Labeling has been a longstanding requirement for companies who deal with chemicals, and 

Arylessence previously invested in the requisite printing equipment, training, and supplies. Our equipment was effectively obsolete when the new regulations forced us to purchase new printers 

with enhanced color capabilities. The average cost of one of these 

industry-grade printers—capable of thousands of GHS labels per 

year is over $20,000. We require five. This is happening across the 

country. 

Arylessence and other members of IFRA North America have invested significant time and money literally reinventing the wheel 

to comply with GHS regulations, and yet, there is no clear solution 

in sight for many U.S. manufacturers with a looming implementation deadline of June 1, 2015. 

Conclusion 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, over the past eight 

years I have witnessed a shift in our industry. Associations like 

IFRA North America used to focus more resources on building business opportunities, networking, and raising awareness of this 

unique industry, but today they must largely focus on regulatory 

and policy issues. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

35 

Small businesses like ours continue to struggle despite a more 

positive economic outlook. This is largely due to the cost of increasing regulations: regulations like GHS that do not, in fact, result in 

safer workplaces, harmonized communications nor enhanced commerce. 

U.S. manufacturers simply need an environment conducive to 

growing and creating jobs. We need economic stability, certainty 

and predictability and common-sense regulations that don’t unfairly disadvantaged small firms. 

Arylessence along with all IFRA North America members follow 

the highest safety and environmental standards for fragrance manufacturing and fragrance ingredients. We are proud of this commitment and we are happy to comply with common sense regulations 

that ensure the safety of the environment, our employees, and our 

customers. 

Arylessence and IFRANA stand ready to work with you in helping to support legislation that insures regulation without representation is replaced with understanding of impacts and proactive solutions. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to share my experiences 

with the committee; I am happy to answer any questions you may 

have. 

About Arylessence 

Arylessence develops, creates and manufactures flavors and fragrances for a vast array of products including perfume and cologne, 

cleaning products, candles, shampoos, detergents, and lip balms. 

Our inventions are not sold directly to the consumer, but rather to 

an institutional or consumer product company where they are incorporated into the final product. 

Arylessence was founded in 1977 and is a family-owned and operated small business. We have 120 full-time employees at our 

headquarters in Marietta, Georgia, and we provide products to over 

1000 different customers in the U.S. and worldwide. 

About IFRA North America 

IFRA North America represents over 90% of all fragrances developed and sold in the United States and Canada. Their member 

companies create and manufacture fragrances and scents for home 

care, personal care, home design and industrial and institutional 

products, all of which are marketed by consumer goods companies. 

IFRA North America also represents companies that supply fragrance ingredients, such as essential oils and other raw materials, 

used in perfumery and fragrance mixtures. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

36 

Chairman Chabot, Ranking Member Vela ́zquez and members of 

the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you 

today to discuss significant concerns regarding growing regulatory 

burdens and a mounting wave of upcoming regulations that will 

face my company and the U.S. metalcasting industry. As you know, 

the burden of regulation falls disproportionately on manufacturers, 

particularly on small manufacturers because compliance costs typically are not affected by economies of scale. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 36 here 93732.002
37 

My name is Janis Herschkowitz, President and CEO of PRL Inc. 

PRL is a holding company for three subsidiaries, which includes a 

foundry, an upgrading facility and two machine shops. I am a second generation Pennsylvania small business metalcaster employing 

over 150 team members in Lebanon County, Pennsylvania. My 

mom, sister, and I are the sole owners of our business. 

Metal castings have applications in virtually every capital and 

consumer good and are truly the foundation for all other manufacturing. I am testifying on behalf of the American Foundry Society 

(AFS), our industry’s major trade and technical association, which 

is comprised of more than 7,500 individual members in every state 

in the country. Our industry is dominated by small businesses, 

with over 80 percent of U.S. metalcasters employing 100 workers 

or less. In fact, many are still family-owned, like mine, and oftentimes, simply don’t have the sales revenue or resources to implement a whole host of new regulations. 

My family moved to the States from Bolivia in 1971 for political 

reasons to live the American dream. In 1972, my father purchased 

a small company with 13 employees whose primary function was 

to x-ray and upgrade castings for the nuclear power industry. He 

expanded the core of his business and purchased two machine 

shops. Following his death in 1989, I became President and went 

on to open a new company, which was a foundry. This was considered a bold decision at the time, particularly since the number of 

foundries in the U.S. has been steadily declining. The foundry was 

the final piece of the puzzle which allowed PRL to provide our customers with full vertical integration capabilities. 

Today our foundry pours both ferrous and non-ferrous alloys to 

product metal castings ranging in weight from 10 to 12,000 pounds 

for the military, nuclear, energy, petro-chemical and commercial 

sectors. 

Due to size limitations, I was unable to bring any of the castings 

we produce. However, I have several pictures which are attached 

to my written testimony [Attachment A]. I also brought a small 

valve block that we machined out of a piece of bar stock for the 

military. Our companies are proud suppliers of high specification 

castings for many industries. As an example we manufacture high 

specification finished machined pump and valve bodies used in nuclear submarines and power plants around the world. We have a 

highly skilled workforce, and we play a critical role in our nation’s 

defense. Our team’s dedication to quality is reflected in our customer base which includes such important suppliers as NorthropGrumman, Curtiss-Wright, Electric Boat, and PSEG. 

Under my leadership PRL has overcome many challenges including opening a foundry, being highly leveraged while losing the majority of our customers due to defense cuts, and surviving the onslaught of foreign out sourcing. I know firsthand the challenges of 

trying to meet a payroll and the stress of having to borrow money 

to keep the doors open. 

In order to compete in the global marketplace, our companies 

have continually invested in our employees, and in new equipment 

and technology. We provide good paying life sustaining jobs and a 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

38 

strong benefit plan to our employees, who are highly skilled in 

their craft and are the main reason PRL is successful today. 

As an increasingly critical and growing supplier for our national 

defense, we are cautiously looking to expand our operations for the 

future. The fact is there are very few foundries remaining in the 

U.S. who are able to meet the high specifications standards required by our nation’s military. However, we are reluctant to invest 

too much in our businesses, given our concerns over new and upcoming costly federal regulations which I highlight below. 

We are already trying to cope with a significant increase in 

health care costs and now we are looking at additional regulations, 

which if imposed could easily cost us over one and half million dollars to implement with absolutely no guarantee that it will be effective. Of particular concern is our small foundry which only employs 

13 people. The bulk of the regulations would hit our small foundry 

the hardest, and to put it bluntly as a small business owner we 

would need to determine if it is even worth the cost of compliance. 

This is tragic. Our company operates off of a credit line, and in 

order try to be in compliance we would have to attain a capital 

equipment loan, which we would much rather invest in purchasing 

new production equipment, which would create new jobs. 

U.S. Foundry Industry is Critical to the U.S. Economy 

The U.S. metalcasting industry is the sixth largest industry in 

America and the second largest supplier of castings in the world, 

after China. U.S. metalcasters ship cast products valued at more 

than $20 billion annually and directly employ over 200,000 people. 

Today, there are 1,965 operating casting facilities, which is down 

from 2,170 five years ago and, 3,200 plants in 1991. This reduction 

can be attributed to the recession, technological advances, foreign 

competition and tightening of federal, state and local regulations. 

Nearly 600 foundries produce iron and steel castings, while another 

1,400 make aluminum, brass and bronze castings. 

More than 90% of all manufactured goods and capital equipment 

use metal castings as engineered components or rely on castings for 

their manufacture. The industry produces both simple and complex 

components of infinite variety. From key components for aircraft 

carriers and automobiles to home appliances and surgical equipment, cast metal products are integral to our economy and our way 

of life. 

The foundry industry is vital to the automotive and transportation sectors. In fact, automobiles, trucks, rail cars, and other 

transportation equipment utilize 38% of all castings produced in 

the U.S. These types of castings include engine blocks, crankshafts, 

camshafts, cylinder heads, brake drums or calipers, intake manifolds, transmission housings, differential casings, U-joints, suspension parts, flywheels, engine mount brackets, front-wheel steering 

knuckles, hydraulic valves, and a multitude of other castings. 

Foundries are also the mainstay of national defense. All sectors 

of the U.S. military are reliant on metal castings for submarines, 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

39 

jet fighters, ships, tanks, trucks, weapon systems and other vital 

components. 

The industry is widely dispersed throughout the country, with 

the highest geographic concentration of facilities located in Ohio, 

Alabama, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, California, 

Texas, and Wisconsin. In fact, Ohio is the leading metalcasting 

state in the nation. 

Metalcasters are experts in making new, engineered components 

by re-melting old ones. Discarded appliances, sewer grates, water 

meters, automobiles, and other metal objects once destined for the 

landfill are valuable materials to our industry. In fact, our industry 

uses scrap metal for 85% of its feedstock for iron and steel castings. 

This practice results in the diversion of 15 to 20 million tons of material from disposal in domestic landfills every year. 

Challenges Confronting PRL Inc & US Foundries 

Manufacturers rely on a stable, balanced and common-sense regulatory environment to create jobs and fuel economic growth. However, the burden of unnecessarily costly rules weighs heavily on 

their ability to grow and create jobs. Federal regulation is estimated to cost more than $2 trillion annually. 

The burden of regulation falls disproportionately on small businesses and manufacturers. Dollars spent by manufacturers on regulatory compliance for unnecessarily cumbersome or duplicative 

regulations are dollars not spent on capital investment or hiring 

new employees. 

Today, the metalcasting industry continues to face major roadblocks—by both the most intense global competition in our history 

and the increasing costs associated with new and upcoming federal 

regulations and other actions, including executive orders, by our 

government. American metalcasters need sound policies in taxation, energy, labor, trade, health care, education, infrastructure 

and, most certainly, regulation. 

Highlighted below are some upcoming regulations that will significantly impact PRL and the foundry industry: 

U.S. Department of Labor—Occupational Safety & Health 

Administration 

AFS members, including our company, are highly committed to 

protecting their employees and developing and implementing sound 

policies that advance health and safety. AFS provides critical information and tools for its members to continuously improve their 

safety performance including in-plant consultation and safety 

courses. AFS publishes over 60 Health and Safety guides specific 

to the foundry industry. In addition, the association conducts an 

annual Safety Boot Camp and Environmental, Health and Safety 

Conference, as well as webinars on a variety of key foundry safety 

topics. 

Our culture is one of ‘‘SAFETY FIRST’’. PRL has a Safety Manager as well as Safety Leaders at each location. The provide safety 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

40 

1 U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s proposed rule Occupational Exposure 

to Respirable Crystalline Silica, Sept. 13, 2013, Docket No. OSHA–2010–0034. 

and health training for all employees on an ongoing bases. We have 

a safety committee, which is certified by the State of Pennsylvania, 

with representatives from every level of our organization, recommendations are encouraged and taken seriously, and more experienced workers are tasked with mentoring our younger co-workers. 

We send our personnel to outside safety conferences, including 

AFS’ Safety Boot Camp, and have a contract with an outside safety 

consultant who is available 24/7 to answer any questions which 

may arise. PRL has also brings in outside safety consultants as 

needed, including experts from Indiana University of Pennsylvania. 

However, of significant concern to the foundry industry is the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) proposed 

crystalline silica rulemaking.1 In 2013, OSHA proposed a comprehensive and complicated new regulatory structure for the control of crystalline silica. Silica (quartz), one of the most common 

minerals on earth, has a critical role in a wide spectrum of the 

economy, including construction, energy, foundries and manufacturing, consumer goods, agriculture, transportation, and technology. The U.S. foundry industry uses and recycles millions of 

tons of silica sand per year to produce critical metal castings. 

The proposed rule is potentially the most far-reaching regulatory 

initiative ever proposed. It would sharply reduce, by half, the existing permissible exposure limit (PEL) for crystalline silica. Not only 

will this require most foundries to spend an estimated million dollars on additional dust collection systems, but there is no guarantee that this standard can even be met. In addition to the significantly reduced PEL, OSHA’s proposal includes requirements for 

regulated areas or written access control plans, prohibitions on 

work practices, medical surveillance, mandates extensive and costly 

engineering controls respiratory protection, training and hazard 

communication, and recordkeeping. 

Key Foundry Concerns with OSHA’s Proposed Silica Rulemaking: 

• Prohibits Certain Work Practices Which Contradicts Existing Industry Safety Practices. 

Æ OSHA bands dry sweeping, compressed air and employee 

rotation as control methods. For many foundries, compressed 

air is the only feasible method to clean complex castings, particularly when the parts are going to support our nation’s defense. Wet vacuuming can damage equipment and create a significant explosion, which risks lives. Every foundry person 

knows you never introduce water in to a foundry environment, 

and yet this regulation requires it! 

Æ Dismisses the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) 

as a primary approach to protecting employees; instead, relies 

on the outdated ‘‘hierarchy of controls’’ that emphasizes much 

more costly, disruptive, and often less effective, engineering 

and work practice controls. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

41 

• Underestimates and/or Completely Omits Cost of Equipment & Processes. 

A number of pieces of equipment and system costs, such as a 

new dust collector, which can easily run over $1 million to install, 

were not accounted for by OSHA. Other examples include: 

• Cleaning—professional cleaning would cost $1 per 

square foot of facility, plus $400 million a year for downtime. 

• Ventilation—OSHA calculates annual cost of ventilation at $5.33 per cubic feet per minute (CFM) vs. the 

foundry experience of more than $20 per CFM, and completely omits engineering, air modeling and permitting 

costs. 

Æ OSHA failed to consider the effects of compliance on current EPA regulations. Many foundries will be forced to redesign and install new ventilation systems. This will trigger a 

large number of foundries to make changes to their air permits, which can take at least a year to obtain from their states. 

OSHA’s proposal provides just one year to come into compliance with the rule. In the case of PRL, if the permit cannot be 

attained we could conceivably be forced to shut down and over 

150 hardworking co-workers would lose their jobs. 

• Is Not Technologically or Economically Feasible. 

Æ Dust control, especially at the low exposure levels OSHA 

is recommending, is challenging and complex. The sharply reduced PEL presents enormous feasibility challenges. Foundries 

will have to exhaust all feasible engineering and work practice 

controls to meet the new reduced PEL. There is not a one-sizefits all solution that is guaranteed to work. Some foundries 

may spend millions of dollars retrofitting and/or rebuilding in 

order to implement the various types of engineering controls 

(essentially trial and error) while attempting to comply with 

the standard. [Currently, protective equipment (e.g., respirators) or other measure may be used to keep workers’ exposure below the PEL whenever engineering controls are not feasible.] 

Æ There are certain operations, such as grinding and knockoff/sorting, where no matter how much is spent on controls, 

consistent compliance will not be achieved. 

• Utilizes Outdated SBREFA Report. 

Æ OSHA declined to conduct a second small business panel 

review under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA), choosing to let stand the outdated 

2003 report. Reliance on a report that solicited input on a different proposal a decade ago is simply not adequate outreach 

to the affected stakeholders. Furthermore, it raises serious concerns that OSHA has not used the best available data or techniques to quantify the costs and/or benefits of the rulemaking. 

As a member of both AFS and National Federation of Independent Business, I worked hard to get this law passed, and 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

42 

now to see its original intent being totally disregarded is disheartening at best. 

• Fails to Examine the Adequacy of the Supply of Occupational Health Professionals. 

Æ There will be a need for a large number of industrial hygienists and labs in order for the impacted sectors to comply 

with the proposed regulation. There is a significant risk that 

the lack of available service providers or the resulting escalation in cost of their services will render compliance with the 

proposed rule within the schedule proposed by OSHA technically and economically infeasible. OSHA’s proposal would require employers to achieve complete compliance with the proposed PEL within one year of the effective date of a final rule. 

Exposure assessment would be required within six months of 

the effective date despite the fact that OSHA’s proposed laboratory testing standards have two years to come into compliance. 

• Drastically Understates Costs to Comply—Exceeds 9% of 

Foundry Industry’s Revenue. 

Æ OSHA’s estimated cost of the engineering/ancillary costs 

for the foundry industry is $43 million. Economic analysts estimate the cost to be more than $2.2 billion annually. This represents 9.9% of the foundry industry’s revenue and 276% of its 

profits. 

Æ Assumes the cost to comply with a new 50 PEL is the 

same as it is to reach the current 100 PEL. At these lower levels, it will be even more challenging and costly. 

Æ Economic impact will disproportionately affect small 

foundries, since the majority of the industry employs less than 

100 employees. 

Æ These substantial costs for this rule alone make the foundry industry one of the most heavily impacted industry sectors 

among all those affected by the rule. As currently proposed, 

OSHA’s rule will likely force some foundries to close, shift production offshore, and impact the long-term productivity, profitability and competitive structure of the metalcasting industry. 

An economic analysis performed by engineering and economic experts estimate that the annual compliance costs of the rule will 

likely reach over $5.5 billion for all industry sectors—manufacturing, construction, transportation, defense, and high-tech industries. Before moving to impose billions in costs on critical U.S. economic sectors, which OSHA estimates to employ about two million 

people, OSHA should significantly revise or abandon this rulemaking in favor of a more logical, data driven approach to OSHA’s 

goals. Significant progress has been made in preventing silica-related diseases under existing regulations, making proposed changes 

unnecessary. 

OSHA has two immediate, effective means, to improve upon current protective practices, which it dismisses in the proposed regulation: (1) providing compliance assistance for current exposure limits, for which OSHA documents a roughly 30% non-compliance rate 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

43 

2 78 FR 56274, 78: ‘‘OSHA would like to draw attention to one possible modification to the 

proposed rule, involving methods of compliance, that the Agency would not consider to be a legitimate regulatory alternative: To permit the use of respiratory protection as an alternative to 

engineering and work practice controls as a primary means to achieve the PEL.’’ 

across all impacted industries; and, (2) supporting new technology 

and policies favoring effective, comfortable, respirators and clean 

filtered air helmets, which provide full protection but are not favored by OSHA’s outdated ‘‘hierarchy of control’’ policy. Unfortunately, the Agency prejudged this issue by announcing in the Federal Register that it would not consider changing that policy, no 

matter how effective, efficient and economical the protective devices.2

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires federal agencies 

take into account the small business economic impact during the 

rulemaking process. The goal of the RFA was to create a process 

by which the needs and priorities of small business are better 

taken into account early in the rulemaking process in an effort to 

eliminate a one-size-fits-all approach in drafting new regulations. 

It is clear that OSHA has disregarded the RFA’s requirements as 

Congress intended and issued a one-size-fits-all silica proposal and 

failed to consider the costs of this comprehensive rulemaking on 

small business. AFS strongly supports the chairman’s bill, the 

Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2015 

(HR 527), which would close these RFA loopholes and ensure that 

all federal agencies appropriately consider the impact of their rules 

on small businesses. 

There are number of other U.S. Department of Labor and OSHA 

regulations that have been issued recently which I highlight in Attachment B which will impact foundries and other key industry 

sectors. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

We are alarmed by a wave of new regulations that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is imposing on the utility sector, despite greenhouse-gas emissions falling significantly in the 

U.S. As an energy-intensive industry, metalcasters are troubled by 

the increased electricity costs and reliability issues that will likely 

result from these new regulations. 

U.S. foundries cannot produce castings without adequate and affordable supplies of natural gas and electricity. For many 

metalcasters, energy is a key expense, only behind raw materials 

and labor in terms of costs of doing business. Melting is the most 

energy-intensive operation in metal casting operations, accounting 

for about 55% of the total energy use. Compared to other foundry 

sectors, energy costs are highest in iron foundries, since the melt 

temperature is much higher for this metal. 

Continued access to affordable energy sources help foundries better compete against growing global competition and allow us to 

keep and create more jobs. 

Unfortunately, over the last two years, there are numerous specific examples of regulations and proposed rules by EPA that have 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

44 

a particularly burdensome impact on our industry, with little regard for their impact on job creation and the manufacturing supply 

chain. There also seems to be no recognition of the cumulative impact of these regulations. I have highlighted just three EPA proposed regulations in my testimony, but have attached a much more 

detailed list of the regulations developed by EPA in recent years 

that will directly or indirectly impact the foundry industry, as well 

as the entire manufacturing sector. [See Attachment B.] 

In June of 2013, President Obama issued an executive memorandum directing the EPA to promulgate regulations to limit carbon emissions from both new and existing power plants. The 

memorandum called for the EPA to propose two regulations: a regulation for new power plants, and a similar regulation for existing 

power plants. 

These proposed regulations are the first among a suite of followon rules that would impact many industries twice—both as electricity customers and as industries next in line for subsequent regulations. It is critical that the Obama Administration adopt a more 

reasonable approach, promoting policies that support a true all-ofthe-above energy strategy and allow manufacturers the flexibility 

to continue unlocking solutions for a sustainable economy and environment. 

• EPA’s Proposed Rule for New Power Plants 

The proposed regulation bans the construction of new coal-fired 

power plants unless they are equipped with a technology known as 

carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). CCS is a promising system that would capture, transport and then store carbon underground. However, CCS is prohibitively expensive and not in use at 

a single commercial-scale power plant in the country. Given this restriction, the practical impact of the EPA’s proposed regulation for 

new power plants will be to block construction of coal-fired power 

plants in this country. A final regulation is expected this summer. 

• EPA’s Proposed Clean Power Plan 

In June 2014, EPA proposed a new rule to cut carbon dioxide 

emissions by a total of 30% from existing power plants by 2030 

compared with 2005 levels. Unlike the new power plants regulation, the existing power plants regulation will impact plants that 

are already supplying electricity to homes and businesses throughout the country. The United States relies on fossil fuels for about 

68 percent of the electricity that keeps the lights on in our homes 

and businesses. Quite simply, our country cannot operate without 

electricity from fossil fuels. Yet, this regulation threatens to shut 

down many of the plants that produce this low-cost, reliable electricity. For consumers, foundries and other manufacturers that 

could mean sharply higher electricity prices for everyone. Second, 

the steady stream of electricity that we depend on will be threatened. 

Since state laws allow the electric providers to pass all energy 

and environmental compliance costs through to the consumer, we 

expect our energy prices to increase substantially. Even a $0.01/ 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

45 

kWh increase in the cost of electricity imposes additional costs of 

nearly $9 billion per year on domestic manufacturing facilities. A 

final regulation is expected to be issued in the summer of 2015 and 

will require states to issue implementation plans to meet the EPA’s 

requirements by 2016. 

These GHG regulations have great potential to be devastating 

economically, increasing energy costs for every sector of the economy, and driving up the costs of goods and services. 

• EPA’s Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

The other proposed rule I want to mention is EPA’s National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone. In 

March 2008, the EPA lowered the 8-hour primary NAAQS for 

ozone to its current level of 75 parts per billion (ppb). In November 

2014, the EPA proposed lowering the ozone standard to a range between 65 to 70 ppb. By court order, the Agency must finalize the 

standard by October 1, 2015. 

Key Problems with the Proposed Ozone Rule: 

1. Will Affect Much of the Country - Lowering the standard 

from 75 ppb to a range of 65 to 70 ppb could cause large parts of 

the country to fall into nonattainment. Counties and areas classified as nonattainment can suffer stringent penalties; including: (a) 

EPA overriding states on permitting decisions; (b) new facilities 

and major modifications having to install the most effective emission reduction technologies without consideration of cost; and (c) 

federally supported highway and transportation projects being suspended. 

2. Has Significant Economic Consequences - According to a 

February 2015 economic study undertaken by the National Association of Manufacturers, a 65 ppb standard could reduce U.S. GDP 

by $140 billion, result in 1.4 million fewer jobs, and cost the average U.S. household $830 in lost consumption - each year from 2017 to 2040. That would mean a total of $1.7 trillion in lost U.S. 

GDP during that time period. 

3. May Be Impossible to Achieve Compliance - According to 

EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), EPA ‘‘is 

not clear as to how background estimates might impact the primary and secondary standards and whether these impacts may differ regionally. Also, EPA does not consider the impact of international border pollution; ozone and other pollutants are transported to the U.S. from other countries, thereby causing states and 

counties to be nonattainment. 

4. Current Standard Not Fully Implemented - EPA’s 2008 

ozone standard (75 ppb) still has not been fully implemented. 

States did not even find out which of their counties would be designated as nonattainment under the 2008 standard until April 

2012. Additionally, EPA did not finalize the necessary implementation regulations and guidance for the 2008 standard until just recently in February 2015. States are committing time and money to 

meet the 2008 ozone standard. Yet if EPA moves forward with its 

proposal to further reduce the ozone standard it fails to give states 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

46 

a chance to meet the current ozone where states already have limited resources for implantation. At this time, AFS believes EPA 

should retain the current standard. Yet EPA now wants to move 

the goal posts in the middle of the game. 

Regulatory Reform Needed 

AFS believes there is an appropriate role for regulation, but regulations promulgated without an analysis of the impact on the 

economy, in particular small businesses, and the impact on jobs, including how multiple regulations compound those impacts, can 

have quite the opposite effect. If manufacturing is to continue to 

make a significant contribution to the economic recovery, including 

the creation and maintenance of well-paying jobs, it is imperative 

that we have an accurate understanding of the impact of these proposed regulations. The full regulatory burden on any particular sector can only be known if that cumulative impact is assessed. 

The lack of cumulative-impact assessments is a fundamental 

shortcoming in the way government agencies develop and evaluate 

proposed rules. That shortcoming creates regulatory tunnel vision. 

It puts innovation, investment, and jobs at risk. 

AFS and its members have a keen interest in getting regulations 

right. So the compounding effect of those compliance costs diminish 

the resources available to make meaningful long-term investments 

that create jobs, promote innovation, and solidify our competitive 

position. 

The Federal regulatory process and analysis of regulations can 

be improved. We would like to see OMB and the individual agencies update their respective economic impact analysis guidance to 

require cumulative impact of multiple regulatory actions, particularly on small business. We would like to see agencies identify and 

catalogue the sectors impacted by a new regulation and even extend that approach into the paperwork burden. 

Agencies should seek input from the affected regulated community before developing a proposed regulation. It does to the win-win 

that is possible from an early engagement, so that the public, the 

government, and the regulated community all benefit. 

AFS would also like to see Federal agencies consider the regulatory-induced employment changes as either a cost or a benefit in 

their assessment and not consider them some indirect cost that is 

not routinely assessed. If our regulatory agencies are capable of assessing the cumulative benefit of their regulatory programs, surely 

they are capable of assessing the cumulative burden. 

Conclusion 

PRL understands and supports the need for reasonable regulations to protect the environment, worker safety and health. To continue manufacturing momentum and promote hiring, the nation 

needs not just improved economic conditions, but also government 

policies more attuned to the realities of global competition. The key 

is to find the balance between ensuring a safe and healthy workplace and allowing that workplace to compete in order to be able 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

47 

to continue to provide employment; that is where the current U.S. 

regulatory process is lacking. My fear for the industry is that we 

may lack the ability to meet many of these regulations which will 

force more foundries to shut down. This will not only cost the U.S. 

jobs, but could threaten our nation’s military supplier base, and 

would ironically cause more pollution in the world! 

The cumulative burden of a variety of new and proposed standards is nearing a tipping point. More than ever, it is critically important that we regulate only that which requires regulation, and 

only after a thorough vetting of potential benefits, impacts and 

costs of that regulation on businesses, particularly small businesses, as well as the manufacturing supply chain. Pro-growth policies will make our nation a more competitive place to do business. 

In this current economy, it is clear that cost-ineffective regulations and increases in taxes dampen economic growth and will continue to hold down job creation. For some foundries, it will be the 

final stake in their coffin. Thank you again for the opportunity to 

appear before you today. I would be happy to respond to any questions. 

Attachment A - Example of Castings Manufactured by PRL Inc. 

Attachment B - Key Regulations Impacting the Foundry Industry 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

48 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 48 here 93732.003
49 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 49 here 93732.004
50 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 50 here 93732.005
51 

Statement of Viktor Anderson 

Structural Concepts Corporation 

U.S. House Committee on Small Business 

March 18, 2015 

Mr. Chairman and Members of this Committee, I appreciate the 

opportunity to testify today on behalf of Structural Concepts Corporation and the Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI). Structural Concepts was founded in 1972, is located 

in Muskegon, Michigan and is a manufacturer of both remote and 

self-contained commercial refrigeration equipment. In terms that 

are likely more familiar to you, we are a company that makes the 

refrigerated merchandiser or display that you would find at your 

local grocery store or restaurant. Our products ensure that food is 

stored safety and is accessible in all corners of our country, from 

mom and pop bodegas to the largest supermarket chains. 

AHRI is the trade association representing manufacturers of 

HVACR and water heating equipment. AHRI’s 315 member companies manufacture quality, efficient, and innovative residential and 

commercial air conditioning, space heating, water heating, and 

commercial refrigeration equipment and components for sale in 

North America and around the world, and they account for more 

than 90 percent of HVACR and water heating residential and commercial equipment manufactured and sold in North America. 

Like so many small businesses across the country, Structural 

Concepts is deeply rooted in our community. Our friends, our 

neighbors and our town depend on the jobs we provide. Unfortunately, as suggested by the title of today’s hearing, small businesses like ours are facing significant new regulatory burdens from 

federal agencies. The agencies often show little regard for the impact new requirements can have on our business’ ability to stay 

afloat and continue creating these quality jobs. 

Today, I would like to draw the Committee’s attention to two recent regulations (one finalized, one proposed) that will have a particularly deleterious impact on Structural Concepts and our employees: 

(1) the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) revision to energy conservation standards for commercial refrigeration 

equipment, and 

(2) the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 

change of listing status for certain refrigerant substitutes 

under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (or SNAP) Program. 

Taken together, these two regulations will severely impact Structural Concepts’ ability to retain our current level of employees and 

to economically produce cost-effective, energy efficient and environmentally friendly refrigeration products. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

52 

EXECUTIVE ORDER 13563

In 2011, like other companies across the Nation, we were heartened by President Obama’s issuance of Executive Order 13563, 

which was designed to improve regulations and regulatory review 

across the Federal government. President Obama directed each 

Federal agency to ‘‘propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs’’ and to ‘‘tailor 

its regulations to impose the least burden on society...taking into 

account, among other things, ‘‘the costs of cumulative regulations’’. 

Concurrently, he issued a memorandum on ‘‘Regulatory Flexibility, 

Small Business, and Job Creation’’ that directed agencies to comply 

with an existing law, the Regulatory Flexibility Act. As you know, 

the RFA requires agencies to examine the impacts of regulations 

on small businesses and seriously consider how to reduce regulatory burdens through flexible approaches such as extending compliance deadlines, simplifying reporting and compliance requirements, or providing different requirements for small firms. 

Unfortunately for Structural Concepts and many others, Federal 

agencies have simply not abided by these extremely important 

principles in their rulemakings. For example, under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act review, the final rule for Energy Conservation 

Standards for Commercial Refrigeration Equipment clearly states 

that ‘‘the average small manufacturer is expected to face capital 

conversion costs that are nearly five times typical annual capital 

expenditures.’’ While capital conversion costs for large manufacturers are predicted to be 49 percent of annual capital expenditures, 

the review clearly states, ‘‘an average small manufacturer’s conversion costs are expected to be 278 percent of annual capital expenditures.’’ Despite the resulting difficulty in obtaining credit, increases 

in component costs and disadvantageous rise in sale prices, the 

DOE did not truly examine any alternative approaches to reduce 

the significant economic impacts on small businesses. 

As a result, small businesses like ours are burdened by multiple 

regulations that either contradict each other, have a high level of 

difficulty or are simply physically impossible to comply with in the 

given amount of time. We simply do not have resources to mount 

legal challenges and are therefore largely left to shoulder the resulting economic burden placed on our industry. 

DOE’S ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT

As part of its energy efficiency rulemaking program, DOE promulgated energy conservation standards for commercial refrigeration equipment. In 2009, DOE issued an initial set of standards 

with a compliance date for industry of 2012. Between 2009 and 

2012, Structural Concepts expended a significant amount of resources to comply with DOE’s rules. Thousands of hours of research and development, engineering, testing, supply chain and 

manufacturing work went into this effort. For example, we scaled 

up an existing technology to eliminate 99% of the electric condensate pans used to remove meltwater from the defrost cycle. This 

alone accounted for a 30–40% energy reduction in our self-conSBREP-219 with DISTILLER

53 

tained equipment. We improved the efficiency of our heat exchangers by enlarging them and using rifled tubing. We incorporated energy efficient compressors and motors. This all had to be developed 

first with initial verification through R&D testing. Then the implementation work began. All this new technology had to be engineered into over 400 existing models. Condensing units had to be 

developed for multiple product lines. Machine compartments needed to be either resized or reconfigured. Refrigeration systems for 

each case had to be rebalanced and it doesn’t stop there. The two 

most important regulations to Structural Concepts had to be re-approved for all of our products. These would be product and food 

safety regulations that ensure we continue to maintain the health 

and well-being of our customers and end users. This was done 

through the compliance with Underwriters Laboratory and National Sanitation Foundation standards. In addition to safety testing, additional energy testing was also performed for DOE compliance. 

To accomplish all of this we had to dedicate several engineers 

that would otherwise be customizing or developing products to increase sales and grow our company. We had to increase our capacity, accuracy and throughput of our test labs. We had to develop 

new manufacturing processes and supply chains to produce our 

own condensing units. In the end, we reduced our energy/carbon 

footprint of our entire self-contained product offering by approximately 50%. We felt proud of the fact that we complied with the 

new DOE energy levels and in most cases went above and beyond, 

only to find out it wasn’t enough. Last year, only two years after 

the compliance deadline for the old rules, DOE again issued even 

more stringent energy efficiency criteria. Unfortunately, the new 

standards, which have to be met by 2017, obviate many of the investments that were made to comply with the 2012 rule. Quite simply, DOE is not giving small businesses the Structural Concepts 

time to breathe between one rulemaking and the next. 

In developing their final rule, DOE employed questionable assumptions about the feasibility and economic viability of several 

technological options that were included in the standards-setting 

process. In some cases, DOE went so far as to require energy savings in excess of Energy Star levels, which is supposed to be a designation for products that go above-and-beyond industry norms. 

They verified their new energy levels in some cases with only a single data point. There are so many configurations for each equipment class I don’t know how they justified this. On the other hand, 

we, as manufactures, are required to have multiple data points if 

we want to use an alternative efficiency determination method 

(AEDM) to minimize the testing burden. DOE seems to be setting 

standards that utilize all of the most efficient technology in existence all at once, something we refer to as ‘‘max-tech.’’ Forcing our 

entire industry to adopt max-tech in a few short years is an extremely expensive way of incentivizing savings that will probably 

backfire. In fact, DOE’s demands are so onerous that many industry participants have decided their best recourse is to file a lawsuit 

against the agency’s final rule. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

54 

To comply with DOE’s new 2017 standards, Structural Concepts 

will again have to re-engineer many of our product components and 

cabinet designs, conduct new rounds of tests mentioned above, and 

potentially revamp our manufacturing processes. All of these activities will again sap resources that would otherwise be used towards 

innovation and product development, and will result in an increased price for our customers. 

EPA’S CHANGE OF LISTING FOR CERTAIN SUBSTITUTES UNDER

THE SNAP PROGRAM

The EPA’s SNAP program is the agency’s regulatory apparatus 

for phasing out ozone-depleting chemicals. The EPA proposed a 

rule last year that will take away the current refrigerant used in 

all of refrigerated systems on January 1st, 2016 (9 months from 

now). The alternative refrigerants they proposed are both highly 

flammable and, therefore, limited in the amount useable in each 

system. Ironically, many are actually less energy inefficient when 

used in our applications. The result they would have significantly 

raised the energy consumption and caused noncompliance to the 

DOE regulations. In fact, 60 percent of the display cases that we 

manufacture would not have complied with EPA’s new rules until 

they approved a new refrigerant. EPA approved the use of R450A, 

the day after comments were due. 

To make matters worse, R450A still has its challenges. The supply chain for this refrigerant will take time to develop. Production 

for the new gas will have to be scaled up. Compressors will have 

to be tested for safety and reliability. In some applications, the 

physical size of the compressor will increase to achieve the same 

refrigeration effect. This will require the machine compartment of 

each model to be reviewed for redesign. This of course is after each 

refrigeration system for all models are redesigned for balance. 

Again, all of the safety testing will need to be redone along with 

energy usage verification at great expense. In our response to EPA, 

Structural Concepts informed EPA that the agency’s proposed rule 

would result in more than half of our employees being permanently 

laid-off. 

Herein lies a new problem. When are we supposed to do all of 

this work? The DOE is requiring us to comply with the new energy 

levels on January 1st, 2017. The EPA is proposing compliance to 

their new rules on January 1st, 2016. (Again, only 9 months away). 

Let’s assume that for obvious reasons that date will be extended 

out. Will we be required to comply with the new EPA rules in 

2018? 2019? Currently we need to re-engineer our entire product 

offering to meet new energy levels by 2017. Then will we need to 

do it all over again a year or two later? The DOE is mandated to 

review energy levels every five years. This means that in 2022 we 

have to review our product yet again. 

My point is, if the DOE and EPA do not coordinate their efforts, 

we could potentially be redesigning our product every two to three 

years for more than 12 years in a row. When DOE determined that 

its new energy efficiency standards were feasible, the agency did 

not account for EPA’s new restrictions on allowable refrigerants. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

55 

Combined, the two rules will devastate our industry. Agency rules, 

as currently finalized, will operate at cross-purposes to one another 

and fail to accomplish their aims; all while reducing economically 

productive activity in our sector. 

The aggregate effect of the regulatory burdens being placed on 

the commercial refrigeration industry will not be limited to damage 

suffered by Structural Concepts. By increasing the cost of display 

cases and other refrigeration technology that so many Americans 

depend on for their groceries, the Administration risks increasingly 

placing fresh food out of reach for the average consumer. Many of 

the grocers who use our display cases are also small businesses, 

who can ill-afford the additional cost of more expensive refrigeration units. Furthermore if certain equipment classes are made obsolete due to technical and timely infeasibility, the billions of dollars of product not sold through this equipment will have a major 

economic impact on both major corporations and small mom and 

pop retailers. 

CONCLUSION

My purpose here today is to draw the Committee’s attention to 

the undue burdens faced by small businesses everywhere by the 

unrealistic rules that federal agencies promulgate without adequate regard for practicality. The reality of these regulations, both 

specifically designed to address the commercial refrigeration industry, will not only increase our costs, but will force Structural Concepts to reduce the number of products manufactured, throw uncertainty into the current and future products offered and, overall, result in reduced employment. We are not a large corporation with 

a plethora of resources to redirect towards the review, testing and 

compliance of new rules. We are a small innovative manufacturer 

that makes refrigerated display cases, hardly the nexus point of the 

Nation’s energy and environmental policy battles. Our company 

and thousands of companies like ours across the Nation, make a 

big difference in the stability of the nascent economic recovery 

which has only just begun to take hold. With its never-ending wave 

of new rules and ever-more-strigent standards, the Administration 

is threatening our ability to do business and provide critical products to American consumers. 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER

56 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 56 here 93732.006
57 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 57 here 93732.007
58 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 58 here 93732.008
59 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 59 here 93732.009
60 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 60 here 93732.010
61 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 61 here 93732.011
62 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 62 here 93732.012
63 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 63 here 93732.013
64 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 64 here 93732.014
65 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 65 here 93732.015
66 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 66 here 93732.016
67 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 67 here 93732.017
68 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 68 here 93732.018
69 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 69 here 93732.019
70 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 70 here 93732.020
71 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 71 here 93732.021
72 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 72 here 93732.022
73 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 73 here 93732.023
74 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 74 here 93732.024
75 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 75 here 93732.025
76 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 76 here 93732.026
77 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 77 here 93732.027
78 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 78 here 93732.028
79 

Æ 

SBREP-219 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 79 here 93732.029