U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

94–131 PDF 2004

RED TAPE REDUCTION: IMPROVING THE COMPETITIVENESS OF AMERICA’S SMALL MANUFACTURERS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 19, 2004

Serial No. 108–65

Printed for the use of the Committee on Small Business

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois, Chairman 

ROSCOE BARTLETT, Maryland, Vice 

Chairman 

SUE KELLY, New York 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

EDWARD SCHROCK, Virginia 

TODD AKIN, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

MARILYN MUSGRAVE, Colorado 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

JEB BRADLEY, New Hampshire 

BOB BEAUPREZ, Colorado 

CHRIS CHOCOLA, Indiana 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

THADDEUS MCCOTTER, Michigan 

NYDIA VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD, 

California 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

FRANK BALLANCE, North Carolina 

ENI FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa 

DONNA CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

DANNY DAVIS, Illinois 

GRACE NAPOLITANO, California 

ANI ́BAL ACEVEDO-VILA ́ , Puerto Rico 

ED CASE, Hawaii 

MADELEINE BORDALLO, Guam 

DENISE MAJETTE, Georgia 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

MICHAEL MICHAUD, Maine 

LINDA SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

[VACANCY] 

J. MATTHEW SZYMANSKI, Chief of Staff 

PHIL ESKELAND, Policy Director 

MICHAEL DAY, Minority Staff Director

(II) 

C O N T E N T S 

WITNESSES

Page 

Graham, Hon. John, Ph.D, Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget ............................................. 4

Arnett, Mr. John, Government Affairs Counsel, Copper & Brass Fabricators 

Council, Inc. .......................................................................................................... 14

Mason, Mr. B.J., President, Mid-Alantic Finishing .............................................. 16

Bopp, Mr. Andrew, Director of Public Affairs, Society of Glass and Ceramic 

Decorators ............................................................................................................. 19

APPENDIX

Opening statements: 

Manzullo, Hon. Donald A. ................................................................................ 30

Velazquez, Hon. Nydia ..................................................................................... 33

Tiahrt, Hon. Todd ............................................................................................. 35

Prepared statements: 

Graham, Hon. John, Ph.D, Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget ................................... 39

Arnett, Mr. John, Government Affairs Counsel, Copper & Brass Fabricators Council, Inc. ........................................................................................... 42

Mason, Mr. B.J., President, Mid-Alantic Finishing ....................................... 54

Bopp, Mr. Andrew, Director of Public Affairs, Society of Glass and Ceramic Decorators ........................................................................................... 61

(III) 

(1)

RED TAPE REDUCTION: IMPROVING THE 

COMPETITIVENESS OF AMERICA’S SMALL 

MANUFACTURERS 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:34 p.m. in Room 2360, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Donald Manzullo [Chairman 

of the Committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Manzullo, Chabot, Velazquez, 

Christensen and Tiahrt. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Good afternoon. We had a series of five 

votes and so we are running late. We were advised that it will be 

at least three hours before the next series of votes and we should 

be out of here way before then. 

Good afternoon. I want to especially welcome Dr. John Graham, 

the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs or OIRA for being here to discuss the review of manufacturing 

regulations. The initiative addresses an often-lamented but rarely 

examined issue—the regulatory burdens facing America’s manufacturers and, in particular, its small manufacturers. 

Recent economic indicators demonstrate that the President’s economic policies are having a positive impact on manufacturing. Production is up and firms have even begun to hire new workers. But 

more must be done to ensure that the seed of recovery in America’s 

small manufacturers takes firm hold and grows long. To do that, 

America’s manufacturers must maintain their edge in productivity 

and competitiveness against firms throughout the world. 

Yet, that remains markedly difficult when the regulatory regime 

is far more complex and daunting than those in many other parts 

of the world. The approximately 22 linear fee of the Code of Federal Regulations is just the starting point for regulatory compliance. Agencies then issue hundreds of thousands of pages of supposedly ‘‘non-mandatory’’ guidance documents. Further complicating the situation is the continued updating and issuance of new 

regulations and guidance. And while not all regulations and guidance documents apply to all manufacturers or in all situations, deciphering this hoard of information is more than a full-time job. 

For small businesses, this is an arduous task where reaching the 

mountaintop of compliance is met with an avalanche that puts 

these small businesses back at the base of the mountain requiring 

them to start the process again. 

2

No person is suggesting a return to the Dickensian nightmare of 

unending labor in dark factories amid soot-induced nights at noontime and fetid pools of water surrounding unceasing dilapidated 

tenements. That is almost poetic, isn’t it? Pretty good. 

The question is not whether some regulation is necessary to 

maintain—We have got to put some, you know, I mean we just 

read these terse words all the time. It is important to get this out. 

The question is not whether some regulation is necessary to 

maintain the standard of living and life that we enjoy in this country. Rather the question is whether the marginal gains of regulation come at too high a price. To anyone who has followed the activities of this Committee, it comes as no surprise that the high 

price may be the loss of America’s small business industrial base. 

Without a healthy small business industrial base, this country will 

not be able to provide the high quality jobs that allow people to buy 

homes, cars, eat in restaurants, travel and purchase consumer 

goods that are part and parcel of our standard of living. Dr. 

Christensen should notice I threw in the world ‘‘travel,’’ slightly important to the Virgin Islands, isn’t it? 

More importantly, without the underpinnings of a sound manufacturing economy, it is highly unlikely that America will have the 

resources to maintain the health of its people and environment 

that it currently enjoys. 

America’s small manufacturers should not have to fight their 

own government along with foreign competitors and foreign governments. They can succeed if they only have to cope with the market 

and not the predilections of federal regulatory agencies. 

I will recognize now the ranking member of the full Committee, 

the distinguished young lady from New York for her opening statement. 

[Chairman Manzullo’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Small businesses, our main job creator, face a significant number 

of challenges today, many more than those of their corporate counterparts. And one of the biggest barriers that they have to overcome is federal regulations. These are placing a heavy burden on 

our nation’s small enterprises, particularly those in the manufacturing sector. 

A recent study reported that for firms employing fewer than 20 

employees the annual regulatory burden is nearly $6,975 per employee, almost 60 percent more than that of firms with more than 

500 employees. This is not right and something needs to be done 

to change it. 

Although the Bush Administration has acknowledged this unfairness and promised to help, nothing has been done. While republicans claim that reducing the regulatory burden is a priority, the 

Bush Administration holds the record for the largest increase in 

federal paperwork in a single year. This Committee is very aware 

of these regulatory burdens. We have held several hearings on this 

topic. And I was fortunate to be able to sit on Congressman 

Schrock’s Subcommittee hearings on this very issue. 

In those hearings we learned that small businesses do not have 

the proper points of contact within these agencies. And in addition, 

a number of federal agencies are not complying with current laws 

3

which intend to reduce the regulatory burden that oftentimes affect 

these small firms. Through the convergence of this failure to comply with current law and the sudden explosion of paperwork, the 

Bush Administration has managed to worsen the situation for 

small firms. This has created a paper storm for our nation’s small 

businesses, leaving them submerged in paperwork and seeing no 

assistance from the federal government. 

Today we will look at the effects that the paperwork burden is 

having on our economy, particularly within the manufacturing sector. This sector cannot afford to be overwhelmed and burdened by 

paperwork and regulations. Employment within the manufacturing 

sector remains at a 53 year low with 2.7 million manufacturing 

jobs lost over the past three years. It is unclear at this point just 

how much of an impact these increasing paperwork requirements 

are having on our nation’s small manufacturers. But clearly given 

the tenuous state of this sector even minor impact can resonate 

throughout the whole industry. 

Under the direction of President Bush, Dr. John Graham has undertaken an effort to identify those regulations that create the 

most barriers for manufacturing and the process for evaluating and 

developing less burdensome rules. To explore this issue more we 

will be hearing from Dr. Graham, the Administrator for the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs. This office is in charge of reviewing regulations and then providing relevant feedback on how 

these regulations will comply under current law. 

The OIRA’s primary responsibility is to reduce the paperwork 

burden in small businesses that has resulted from the federal government. Through this examination and discussion it is my hope 

that we can find a balanced solution to reduce the regulatory burden on our country’s small manufacturers. There has been an overwhelming spiral of paperwork that has been thrown onto our small 

enterprises. And I hope that we will specifically improve those regulations that are impacting small businesses. 

There is no reason that these vital businesses should be carrying 

the disproportionate weight of these regulatory burdens, wasting 

valuable time and money on paperwork requirements. The strength 

and recovery of our economy depends on the vitality of our nation’s 

small businesses and small manufacturers. And we must work to 

ensure that they are not drowning in these regulations. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Ranking Member Velazquez’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman MANZULLO. Thank you. 

We have invited to sit on our panel Congressman Todd Tiahrt 

from Kansas. Todd leads the Task Force on Competitiveness. Our 

hearing today is one of seven hearings that deal with this issue of 

making America’s businesses more competitive. And I would recognize Congressman Tiahrt. 

Mr. TIAHRT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is very appropriate, I 

think this is a debate that we should be having in America. We 

have in Congress over the last generation created barriers that 

keep us from bringing jobs back into America. And I think that 

Congress needs to take on the responsibility of undoing what has 

4

been done to some degree so that we can free up people who keep 

and create jobs here in America so that they can go out and do 

what they do best. 

I think this administration is, if you look at the average numbers 

of pages of regulations released is down from previous administrations. And I am interested to hear the testimony that we have. 

But I think that the 8,000 pages of regulations that were left behind by the previous administration and forced this Bush 43 to implement has been responsible for the increasing amount of paperwork that has come from this administration. So I think we look 

at the causes, root causes obviously in Congress, and we need to 

address that. The administration though can multiply the number 

of pages or reduce them. And I think these hearings are going to 

help point out where we can reduce the paperwork burden and 

make a difference for those people who want to keep and create 

jobs. 

I do have a formal testimony that I would like to submit for the 

record if it is okay and then go ahead with the witnesses. 

Chairman MANZULLO. That will be submitted without objection. 

[Representative Tiahrt’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Mr. TIAHRT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And just in closing, we have come up with eight issues along 

with bureaucratic red tape that you are dealing with and paperwork burden. Our Careers for the 21st Century also addressed 

keeping healthcare costs down, lifelong learning, trade fairness, tax 

relief and simplification, energy self-sufficiency and security, research development and innovation and, in conclusion, lawsuit 

abuse and litigation management. All these things are issues that 

are driven by Congress. And over the last generation Congress has 

raised the bar for small businesses especially and it has made it 

difficult to keep and create jobs in America because of that. 

So as we go through these hearings that you have scheduled and 

as we go through legislation on the House I hope that we will find 

it in our heart to reduce the burden for people who keep and create 

jobs. And this is a very good initiative and I strongly support what 

you and the minority are doing here. 

And with that I will just pass it back to you. Thank you. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Thank you, Congressman Tiahrt. 

It is my pleasure to introduce Dr. John Graham who is the head 

of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Dr. Graham 

has appeared before our Committee I think at least two or three 

different occasions. He has a reputation as a person who likes to 

resolve disputes. And done a tremendous job off on a journey to examine every regulation as it pertains to manufacturing. And that 

is his own initiative. 

So we are just really pleased and blessed to have him working 

with us. And, Dr. Graham, we look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN D. GRAHAM, PH.D., 

OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Dr. GRAHAM. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. It is an honor to be here at a 

5

Committee hearing on regulatory reform of the manufacturing sector, particularly with the Chairman himself well-recognized as Mr. 

Manufacturing in the House of Representatives, at least by some 

people. And we appreciate the advocacy you have given to this 

cause for many years. 

I am going to say a few words about what we have done in the 

Administration to date in the area of regulatory reform. What we 

have is a huge plate of unfinished business and there certainly is 

a large portion of that. And then say a few words about our recent 

manufacturing initiative. 

The approach in this Administration toward regulatory reform 

has been a hard look, science-based approach at regulations. We do 

this through OMB enforcement of our executive orders and our regulatory analysis requirements. And, quite frankly, we are not interested in regulatory proposals that do not have a sound basis in 

science, in engineering and in economics. 

We enforce that through OMB Circular A4 which now defines 

state-of-the-art cost/benefit analysis for regulatory proposals. As 

you know, Mr. Chairman, we work closely with Tom Sullivan and 

his colleagues at the SBA Advocacy Office and they help target for 

us proposals that are likely to be harmful to small businesses and 

they help us generate alternatives that can mitigate that burden 

while fulfilling important public objectives of regulation. 

While these are the process activities we have under way, the 

question is do we have any evidence of any results from this activity? Now I would like to talk with you about this chart that is on 

my right here, to give you a historical perspective on how the 

growth of the regulatory state has been restrained under this administration and under this Congress. 

If you look over the last 15 years or so at the unfunded mandates 

these are the regulations imposed on the private sector or on state 

and local government but for which the federal government does 

not send a check to pay for them. So I am excluding the whole 

budgetary part of the debate and will let my OMB budget side colleagues have that discussion. But this is the private sector unfunded mandate for growth that has occurred over the last 17 

years. And it is about $100 billion per year total extra burden of 

regulation, of unfunded mandates. And it is not distributed evenly 

across those previous administrations. 

There was a substantial amount during the Reagan years. Those 

are only the last two years of Reagan for which we have data. We 

are trying to dig back further and go all the way back through the 

eight years of the Reagan Administration. 

Then we have the Bush 41 years. And this is obviously not a partisan chart because the most heavily regulation-oriented administration in this period quite frankly is the Bush 41 years. 

The Clinton Administration is quite substantial. 

In this Administration we are adding regulatory burdens at the 

level of about $1.8 billion per year. 

When you say to me, Dr. Graham, how can you be here to say 

that that is an accomplishment that we are adding $1.8 billion a 

year? First point is, that is an 80 percent reduction in the growth 

rate of major federal regulations in this Administration. If you 

6

imagine if we had that success on the budget side of this fiscal 

house where we would be today in comparison to that chart. 

The second point, which is a cautionary remark, is that we are 

in the fourth year of this Administration. The data historically 

show that it is the fourth year that is often the worst from a standpoint of increasing regulatory costs on the private sector and state 

and local governments. 

Now, these are the new burdens of federal regulations. Where is 

the unfinished business? The most significant area of unfinished 

business is the sea of existing regulations that are already out 

there from the previous 100 or so years of federal regulatory activity. In fact, since OMB began taking records in 1981 there have 

been 100,000 new regulations cleared through the Office of Management and Budget. About 1,000 of them were estimated to cost 

the economy more than $100 million. 

To the best of our knowledge most of these rules have never been 

evaluated to determine what their actual effectiveness was or what 

their costs were. In this Administration we have taken the modest 

step of asking for public nominations of rules that need to be reformed or modernized or outmoded rules that can simply be eliminated. 

In the year 2001 we received 71 nominations—excuse me, we received 23 nominations from 71 commentors. In the year 2002, after 

a greater outreach, we received 316 nominations from 1,700 

commentors. This 2002 solicitation quite frankly overwhelmed the 

meager staff of OMB to handle this exercise. And we referred these 

proposals to the federal agencies for evaluation. We have now 

roughly 100 of these regulatory reforms under way or recently completed. 

Let me conclude with a few remarks about our most recent manufacturing initiatives. In our report to Congress this year we have 

asked for public nomination of regulations, guidance documents 

and paperwork requirements that impact the manufacturing sector 

that need a hard look to determine whether they are necessary or 

whether they can be made less burdensome. 

Why have we selected the manufacturing sector of the economy? 

The data show quite clearly when you compare the different sectors 

of the American economy the one sector that bears the disproportionate burden of regulatory costs is the manufacturing sector. And 

as you have noted, Mr. Chairman, it happens that this is the same 

sector that has been the slowest from an employment perspective 

to move out of the recession we were in. Though it is good news 

recently that we have seen additional employment in this sector as 

well. 

This hearing comes at a very good and interesting time. We are 

due to receive the nominations from the public tomorrow on reforms of the manufacturing sector. And we are looking forward to 

a large number and substantial number of nominations that will 

have merit. 

We will then compare these nominations with the agencies, 

evaluate them and develop a final report to both the president and 

the Congress on which of these reforms should be implemented and 

can make a difference. The good news is this Administration is 

making progress in slowing the growth of the regulatory state. It 

7

is a critical part of the President’s Six-Point Plan to stimulate the 

economy. While we are making progress we have, as you know, a 

long way to go and we will need your help in this Committee to 

give us the kind of support we need to make this happen. 

Thank you very much. And I look forward to comments and questions. 

[Dr. Graham’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman MANZULLO. Thank you, Dr. Graham. 

When is the—let me rephrase that. I believe it was an executive 

order of the president that asked you to undertake this review? 

Dr. GRAHAM. Well, there was an executive order from the president strengthening the role of small business evaluation with regard to regulatory impacts. But actually this particular initiative 

came out of a Commerce Department comprehensive evaluation of 

the state of the manufacturing sector of the economy and recommended a hard look by the Administration at the existing regulatory systems impacting manufacturing. 

So in fairness, I think the Commerce Department had a very important role to play in the development of this. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Doctor, could you walk us through how 

you evaluate these regulations? I know you are looking at thousands of regulations and in the process you are trying to at least 

call Congress’ attention to the conflicting ones and to try to resolve 

them. How do you manage that volume of regulations? 

Dr. GRAHAM. Well, Mr. Chairman, quite candidly, you referred to 

thousands. And even the hundreds that we are evaluating now, the 

hundreds of new regulations being developed by the agencies and 

sent to us, that work load is substantial with regard to the several 

dozen people we have at OMB to evaluate those rules. 

So when we take a special initiative like this and say we are also 

going to look at existing regulations that are nominated, quite 

frankly we need to reach out to our agency colleagues, whether 

they be in the Labor Department, whether they be in the Environmental Protection Agency, to help us evaluate these nominations. 

And, quite frankly, that is where the tension begins because there 

are lots of people in the agencies, quite frankly, who have a strong 

stake in those existing regulations. Yet we are asking them to go 

in and look at those and take a serious look at whether they can 

be made less burdensome. 

Chairman MANZULLO. And then as you—let us take a look just 

call it regulation X just for the heck of it, that a company will I 

guess call it a nomination will say, Dr. Graham, this is the burden 

is oppressive here. It is called regulation X and it impacts two or 

three or four different agencies. Then do you have team meetings 

on these with agencies? How does that work? 

Dr. GRAHAM. Well, I think the——

Chairman MANZULLO. Without getting specific because I know 

that you cannot. 

Dr. GRAHAM [CONTINUING] Right. Well, we are in the process of 

designing how we will handle the nominations this year. In 2001, 

which was the first year we engaged in this activity, we had, as 

I mentioned, we had 23 nominations from 71 commentors. That 

was a sufficiently manageable number of nominations that my staff 

at OMB made an initial evaluation of those nominations and we 

8

identified prior rules for reform. OMB designated priority rules for 

reform. 

In 2002 we had 316 nominations from 1,700 commentors. That 

overwhelmed our ability to competently try to develop and OMB 

designated priority list. So, quite frankly, we are going to look very 

hard at the nominations we get this year, the quality of them, the 

level of thought provided by the commentors. And then we need to 

make a decision about whether we are going to rely primarily on 

OMB evaluations first or whether we are going to collaboratively 

work with the agencies to identify those priorities. 

Chairman MANZULLO. What authority, if any, does OMB have to 

take let us just call it an agricultural regulation that there has 

been a lot of comment on, a lot of friction, and let us say there is 

an agreement for some resolution; what do you do in a case like 

that? 

Dr. GRAHAM. Well, the authority to ultimately make the regulatory decisions in almost all instances resides in the responsible 

regulatory agency. So our role is as a persuader, a cajoler, in some 

cases an instructor to take a hard look at a specific matter. But in 

the final analysis it is the agency that makes that decision. And 

that is the role that we have had at OMB for a substantial period 

of time. 

Chairman MANZULLO. So the office in the federal government 

that would be best at calculating the cumulative cost of regulations 

on manufacturers would be your office? 

Dr. GRAHAM. Well, actually there is a developing capability in 

the Commerce Department I should add on that subject. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Could you develop that for us? 

Dr. GRAHAM. One thing I want to make clear is that the two 

dozen professionals in OMB who review regulations they are generalists. They are not specialists in small business. They are not specialists in manufacturing. They are not specialists in any particular 

kind of regulation, whether it be homeland security or whatever. 

They have an overall generalist background and they, of course, try 

to learn over time and with experience how to evaluate these proposals. 

But it is very critical when we get, for example, a rule where 

there may be a small business impact we go right to the SBA Advocacy Office to Tom Sullivan and his specialists and we look for 

guidance from them on whether this is an important one for the 

small business community? 

What is encouraging about the Commerce Department development is they are talking about developing a specialized staff in the 

Commerce Department that has expertise, data and experience on 

manufacturing related issues. That will be of enormous value to 

OMB if they can follow through and make that happen. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Congressman Velazquez? 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Graham, I commend you for your seeking regulatory review 

from nominations that recommend improvements on regulations 

that have an impact on manufacturing and small businesses. My 

staff attended some of the sessions and they were filled with businesses nominating regulations to be reviewed. 

9

We have looked at your previous solicitations in 2001 to 2003 

and we note that you have had some 1,800 recommendations over 

those two years. From what we can tell you categorized 23 recommendations in 2001 as new high priority projects and 34 in 2003 

as new high priority projects with some carry-over from 2001. Almost most of these applied to four agencies: Transportation, EPA, 

Labor and HHS. And I am really surprised that the IRS had very 

few of those nominations. 

Judging by what I hear from small businesses I would have 

thought that IRS would have led the list. What is the explanation 

for that? 

Dr. GRAHAM. That is an excellent question. We have looked historically at the kinds of proposals that have been made for reform 

of IRS to reduce paperwork burden, to reduce burden on business. 

What you find when you look very carefully at a host of IRS issues 

is that, quite frankly, the Congress through the tax code has done 

most of the damage right in the way the tax code is written. And 

once you have the tax code written in some way, while IRS does 

have some discretion in how they write their regulations and their 

interpretative regulations, oftentimes that discretion is not large. 

I think a lot of people in the business community realize that in 

order to make major fundamental change in the burdens from 

Treasury regulation and IRS regulation in particular you are going 

to have to have a much simpler tax code than we have today. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I understand the part that the Congress played 

in terms of the tax code. But we conducted one of the hearings in 

the Subcommittee on Small Businesses with Congress Schrock and 

IRS was testifying, and some of the regulations did not have anything to do or they were just it is their attitude and disregard for 

the impact, the economic impact that those regulations will have 

on those small businesses. 

Dr. Graham, it is also surprising that you were able to get 1,700 

nominations last year and ended up with only 34 new reform 

projects. Do you feel you have the staff resources to oversee current 

regulations, rules plus do all the reports and studies that you are 

called upon to do and oversee these projects? 

Dr. GRAHAM. Let me start by making sure we are talking about 

the same numbers and the same facts. The way we look at it, OMB 

did designate in 2001 23 of the reforms as high priority. 

In 2002 we never did designate any of the 316 as high priority. 

We did notice that a number of those 316 were already being 

looked at by federal agencies in various ways and, hence, we simply have asked them to provide us status reports on those. And it 

may be that you are referring to the others that we asked them to 

evaluate. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. And those various agencies like which ones, for 

example? 

Dr. GRAHAM. I think the list of agencies that you gave actually 

those are the busiest regulators in town. And it should not surprise 

us that most of the reform nominations we are getting are in 

Transportation, EPA, Labor and Health and Human Services. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. And then at the end of your testimony you said 

that you needed support from Congress. That is in terms of the 

laws that we pass or resources and the budget? 

10

Dr. GRAHAM. Well, I think it is important that we get support 

in all of those dimensions. And even modest things like this hearing we think this is very important to providing an understanding 

for the public of why are we focusing on manufacturing regulation. 

Because the rising cost of producing goods and services in this 

country is in fact related to employment, to jobs, to community welfare. We need at the most modest level of hearings like this an understanding of why it is that we are reforming manufacturing regulations. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. It takes more than hearings, Dr. Graham. 

Dr. GRAHAM. It does. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. It also takes resources and money. 

Dr. GRAHAM. Right. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. We are voting on the budget today. Is the budget adequate? 

Dr. GRAHAM. Well, we are going to look at the nominations we 

get, which are due in tomorrow, and we will make a careful determination. And if we cannot handle it all within OMB we will recruit Commerce and SBA Advocacy and the agencies. And if we determine that is not adequate I will be back here asking the Congress for more resources, I can assure you of that. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. That, if you do not get other directives coming 

from the White House. 

Thank you, Dr. Graham. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Congressman Tiahrt. Congressman 

Chabot has no questions. Go ahead. 

Mr. TIAHRT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Graham, it seems like if I was going to focus on where regulatory problems were the greatest I would look at which agency 

was delivering the most regulations. And Transportation according 

to CRS is way above most other agencies. 

In 2003, for example, DOT released 1,141 regs. And the next 

closest was Treasury which was 402 and then Department Commerce was then 272. So there are a huge number of rules I should 

say, not regs, rules that are released. 

How do you determine where you are going to target your efforts 

because you cannot take them all on? And is it what OMB recommends or do you go targeting on your own and figure out areas 

like hours of service? Hours of service is going to be a big problem 

for small businesses. Small business trucking companies and delivery companies. And it seems like that would be one where, you 

know, we could target other transportation issues they want to retire. How do you determine which ones you are going to look at? 

Dr. GRAHAM. Well, the nomination process is wide open with regard to any agency’s regulations. And in both 2001 and 2002 we 

have received a significant number of nominations that relate to 

the Department of Transportation. And there is a lot of regulation 

coming out of the Department of Transportation. So I think your 

basic premise of your question is correct. 

Now, we will analyze the quality of the technical and economic 

case that underpins each of these nominations in order to determine which of the ones we ought to push the hardest on agencies 

to move in the near term and which can be moved on a more delibVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:54 Oct 07, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\HEARINGS\94131.TXT MIKEA
11

erate pace. So the case that these nominators make for these particular reforms are very important. 

Mr. TIAHRT. Do you do a cost/benefit analysis when you look at 

rules and regulations? 

Dr. GRAHAM. Our role at OMB is actually review the cost/benefit 

case that agencies make for a regulation or for a reform of a regulation. So my two dozen staff we are engaged in reviewing those 

cost/benefit analyses. 

Mr. TIAHRT. According to data I got from CRS, the source was 

OMB, they say the last ten years between October 1, 1993 and September 30, 2003, the benefit from rules and regulations versus the 

cost of all agencies, and they put a range, so the benefit was from 

$62 billion to $168 billion. The costs were from $34 billion to $39 

billion. So if you take care of the midpoint of those two ranges it 

says that you get a $3 benefit for $1 cost. 

I don’t know exactly how you estimated benefit for regulation because if this is true all we have got to do is write, you know, another $200 billion worth of—$100 billion worth of rules and regulations then we will get enough benefit to balance the budget. So I 

am not sure we can really regulate our way into benefits. I am not 

sure where the concept of, you know, the benefit that we get by it 

comes from or how you estimate that. And I would be curious, how 

to you estimate a benefit from a rule or regulation? 

Dr. GRAHAM. Well, if every regulation proposed had the same 

ratio of benefit to cost as the ones that you are describing then the 

logic of what you are saying would be infallible. But in fact we 

know that regulations vary enormously in how much benefit they 

have and what their burdens are. 

And in fact the majority of those $100-plus billion in benefits are 

attributable to a handful of regulations from one office in one agency, the Clean Air Office within EPA that is reducing the amount 

of diesel exhaust and other forms of particulate pollution in the air. 

That is where most of those benefits are from. 

If you look at all the other regulations that are covered in that 

report the benefit/cost case is much murkier. 

Mr. TIAHRT. So it is not as clear? 

Dr. GRAHAM. That is right. 

Mr. TIAHRT. One of the things we addressed yesterday on the 

Floor when we voted in trying to clean up some of the regulatory 

problems are just the frequency of reports. Some small businesses 

are burdened with quarterly reports. And, you know, is there some 

breakpoint like 200 employees, 150 employees, 100 employees 

where we can say this data really is not that essential that we 

have a quarterly report? Perhaps an annual report would be better. 

In doing so we could reduce their regulatory burden on that particular rule or regulation by 75 percent. 

Is that part of the scenario you looked at is frequency of rules 

and regulations? 

Dr. GRAHAM. Yes. And that is the kind of a proposed reform that 

one of the commentors might suggest in a particular regulation. 

Maybe the reporting requirements should be annual rather than 

quarterly. Those would be quite sensible kinds of suggestions. 

Mr. TIAHRT. We wish you the best of luck. 

Dr. GRAHAM. I will be needing your help, sir. 

12

Mr. TIAHRT. Please call. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Thank you. Congresswoman Christensen, 

who was a physician, knows something about regulations. I look 

forward to your questions. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. I have been on the bad side of it when I was 

in practice. I hope we will have CMS, the new CMS administrator 

come in also. 

Good afternoon, Dr. Graham. There was a study done by I guess 

it was the Committee on Government Reform that says that total 

government paperwork had increased substantially under the Bush 

Administration to an estimated 8.1 billion hours in fiscal year 

2003. How much—And last year Americans spent over 700 million 

more hours filling out government paperwork than in the last year 

of the Clinton Administration. So it also says the largest annual increase in paperwork burden ever measured occurred under this 

Bush Administration in fiscal year 2002. 

How do you reconcile that with what we see on the graph? 

Dr. GRAHAM. Right. Paperwork burdens are an important cost of 

regulation but they are only one element of the cost. So, for example, if you require a manufacturing enterprise to install new equipment or new machines in order to address an issue that is also a 

cost of the regulation. 

This chart shows the total extra cost of major rules, not just the 

paperwork. What is driving your numbers is changes in the tax 

code, okay, which cause more people to have to fill out more detailed tax forms. Okay. Whereas this is including all the regulatory 

costs whether they be paperwork, equipment, capital or labor or 

whatever. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. So when Congresswoman Velazquez asked 

you about IRS and you said that, well, Congress is the one that 

created all of that paperwork——

Dr. GRAHAM. Not all of it but a good chunk of it. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN [CONTINUING] Well, a good chunk of it. So you 

do not automatically or periodically do a review regardless of where 

those regulations emanate from? 

Dr. GRAHAM. Yes, to give you a feel for it, of the total paperwork 

in the American economy that you are referring to if you look at 

all agencies, 80 percent of it is attributable to the Treasury Department. Most of that——

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. And you do not review it? 

Dr. GRAHAM [CONTINUING] Most of that is due to IRS. And most 

of that is attributable to the way the tax code is written itself. 

We do review in the cases where IRS has discretion on exactly 

how to frame a regulation based upon the tax code we do review 

those paperwork burdens. But let us not confuse big versus small 

issues. The big issue is you have got a complicated tax code, you 

make it more complicated through tax cuts sometimes, and you will 

increase paperwork burden. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Okay. I am not sure, I was trying to get an 

answer to this. Those graphs are in 2001 dollars? 

Dr. GRAHAM. Correct. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Would it look the same—would not that blue 

line, the last Bush 43 be higher if you did it in today’s dollars? 

13

Dr. GRAHAM. All of the, all of the charts would go up a little bit 

if you used today’s dollars because they are all being expressed in 

2001 dollars. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Yes. 

Dr. GRAHAM. So it would not affect the relative heights of the 

chart. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. It would not affect the relative. 

Dr. GRAHAM. Right. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Seems to me it would. 

You also said in response to the Chairman that you make the 

recommendations to the agency. What are you expectations of that 

agency when you make those recommendations? 

Dr. GRAHAM. Our expectations either——

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Yes. And what action do you take, what follow-up kind of action would you take after those recommendations 

are made if there is no response from the agency? 

Dr. GRAHAM [CONTINUING] We are looking for either implementation on behalf of the agency of the recommendation or, alternatively, a cogent rationale for why it is they have chosen not to 

implement the recommendations. 

In our report to Congress we publish each year a rule by rule explanation of what happened to each of the reform nominations that 

we have been discussing in this hearing so far. And, quite frankly, 

in some cases the agencies come back to us, CMS for example, 

thank you, Dr. Graham, we were very interested in your reform 

nomination but we do not think it is a particularly good idea. 

And I will let you be the judge if you want to look through some 

of those examples whether you thought the merits of that argument were with the commentor, with OMB or with the agency. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. So after you make the recommendations there 

is nothing that you can to enforce? 

Dr. GRAHAM. In some cases we will go further and we will have 

a comment—we will invite the agency over to OMB, we will have 

a more detailed discussion of that issue and try to persuade them 

that in fact that is appropriate. But when you are dealing with 316 

nominations you are only going to be able to have a detailed inquiry with regard to a modest number. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. And do you prioritize? I do not know where 

my time is. And do you prioritize these so that you would maybe 

focus on the ones that have been deemed for whatever reason to 

be more important? 

Dr. GRAHAM. In 2001 we did. In 2002 we had so many we simply 

referred them to the agencies for their evaluation. We have tried 

it both ways. This year with the manufacturing reforms we are 

going to look at what we have and we are going to take whatever 

strategy we think would be most effective in getting the work done 

by the agencies. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Okay. Thank you. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Dr. Graham, thank you for coming this 

afternoon. We are always excited about the way you go after all 

this paperwork. 

I recall about three years ago when—actually it was longer than 

that, during the Clinton Administration when the Hope Scholarship was passed this gives a $1,500 per child tax credit to families 

14

earning under X amount of dollars per year for higher education 

purposes. And the Senate asked I believe it was Treasury Secretary 

Rubin about a particular provision that required 7,000 colleges, 

universities, trade schools and community colleges within our country to report as to the source of the money that was coming to the 

school, I guess for the purpose of verifying that it was coming from 

the student. 

And he said, well, the cost of verification would be the cost of a 

stamp. Not criticizing the secretary, but that provision got written 

into the bill. And IRS took a look at it. And we were contacted by 

Northern Arizona University. The cost is about $100 million a year 

in regulatory compliance. 

And Charles Lazotti and I from the IRS and I sat down and he 

said this is not good. And for four years IRS withheld permanent 

regulations until we could come up with a legislative fix that eliminated that burden. 

And I think this is what happens when members of Congress 

say, well, let us just throw this provision in. Sometimes it is a last 

minute amendment and it causes that type of regulatory nightmare. 

So just when you said that Congress causes a lot of problems in 

the IRS code I will concur with you on that. 

Again thank you for your testimony. Your complete statement 

will be made part of the record. And thanks again for coming, Doctor. 

Dr. GRAHAM. Thank you. Appreciate it. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Appreciate it so much. 

If we could get the next panel to come up. 

Our second panel, we welcome the second panel here. The first 

witness is John Arnett, Government Affairs Counsel, Cooper and 

Brass Fabricators Council. And, John, look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN ARNETT, COPPER & BRASS 

FABRICATORS COUNCIL, INC. 

Mr. ARNETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, and good afternoon. I am, as the Chairman states, John 

Arnett, Government Affairs Counsel for the Copper and Brass Fabricators Council. The Council’s 21 member companies were listed in 

our submission. And we would like to thank you for inviting us to 

participate in this hearing today. 

The Council’s member companies collectively account for about 

80 to 85 percent of the brass milled products produced in the 

United States each year. These consist of copper plate, sheet, strip, 

foil, rod, bar, pipe and tube. And these products are used mainly 

in the automotive construction and electrical/electronic industries. 

Many of the Council’s members meet the definition of small business, but not all, under the Small Business Administration standards. 

The costs of regulatory compliance on manufacturers in the U.S. 

are, by any reasonable estimate, an enormous burden. As the Manufacturing Alliance recently concluded in a 2003 study, the compliance costs in the economy are in the order of $850 billion, $160 billion of that falls on manufacturing alone. And the burden is growVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:54 Oct 07, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\HEARINGS\94131.TXT MIKEA
15

ing larger. The net result is that, as the Manufacturing Alliance 

artfully stated, ‘‘compliance costs for regulations can be regarded as 

the ‘silent killer’ of manufacturing competitiveness,’’ particularly 

when you compare it to an industrial trade and some of the regulatory burden reductions that are being undertaken in other countries. 

In March of 2002 when the Office of Management and Budget 

and OIRA asked for public nominations of regulatory reforms the 

Council enthusiastically responded by submitting seven regulations 

that it deemed to be costly with little or no benefit. As Dr. Graham 

testified, and as outlined in OIRA’s 2003 Report to Congress or 

OMB’s report, they received a total of 316 distinct reform nominations and submitted 161 of those for agency review. The Counsel 

was heartened that five of their seven nominations were referred 

to EPA and to OSHA. 

Of the five Council nominations referred, one was deemed by 

EPA to be worthy of action and two were cast into the undecided 

category for further review. The Council is encouraged that three 

of the nominations were targeted for reform or additional study. 

However, we were disappointed that two—are disappointed that 

two years later, two years after the process began that none of the 

regulations have been changed in any way. Indeed, it is our understanding that of the 161 rules and regulations in total referred to 

the agencies, none of the referrals has resulted in any substantive 

changes to this point. Clearly, the goal of eliminating wasteful regulations has yet to be achieved. 

What then can explain the apparent encouraging procedure but 

the lack of substantive results. It is the Council’s view that the following problems with the procedures may have short-circuited the 

completion of reforms. And I think these problems need to be addressed in the current round of submissions: 

The method used by OMB and OIRA during the initial screening 

process is unknown, and there is no opportunity for input and clarification during this process from those of us who nominated the 

regulations; 

Once referred to agencies, there is no opportunity for the nominating entity to answer questions that may arise in the agency’s 

mind. If the agency is unclear on what we are saying there is no 

opportunity to contact us, there is no dialogue; 

There is no explanation for the agency decisions that they finally 

make, especially when the decision is not to pursue reform and the 

agency is completely in its right to make that decision; 

The agencies, finally, the agencies appear to be able to make any 

decision regarding referred regulations without justifying that decision or even explaining how they arrived at it. 

To correct this greater transparency in the screening process, 

some explanations by the agencies in support of their decisions, 

and a requirement that agencies justify a decision not to consider 

a proposed reform might help resolve these problems to some extent. Further, communications between the nominating entity and 

the agency and OIRA after the regulation is referred to the agency 

might improve the agency’s understanding of the problems cited 

and suggested solution. 

16

In spite of our reservations, the Council commends OMB and 

OIRA and the agencies for their execution of the initial 2002 process. We believe the process has the potential for illuminating regulatory provisions that create burdens with little or no gains. OMB 

this year seeks public nominations of regulations affecting manufacturing in particular. And tomorrow we will submit a list of eight 

regulations for consideration. 

Just very quickly, if adopted some of these eight would help, for 

example, eliminate unnecessary testing for pollutants in water discharges when it can be demonstrated that there is zero chance that 

the pollutants are in the water; 

Could remove from the definition of ‘‘volatile organic compound’’ 

those compounds that are not volatile. And it is true that the VOC 

has no—the definition of VOC has no volatility component; 

Third, focus the attention of the SPCC, the Spill Prevention, 

Control, and Countermeasure rule on larger facilities and away 

from the very small risks that have never, it has never been demonstrated they create a risk;] 

Fourth, focus storm water regulations on effective but inexpensive best practices, rather than focusing on construction of facilities 

for capturing and basically treating rainwater; 

Eliminate the ‘‘double’’ waste treating of water discharges due to 

lack of removal credits to Publicly Owned Treatment Works; 

Permit the concentration of hazardous waste through evaporative 

dryers, thereby reducing shipping volume to waste treatment facilities and resulting transportation and energy savings; 

And permit the use of ships stairs and spiral stairs instead of 

rung ladders in certain manufacturing situation with an improvement of safety in plant sites. 

We appreciate the Committee’s attention to inefficient and unnecessary regulations that are the silent killers of manufacturing 

processes and look forward to OIRA’s response to our submissions. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Mr. Arnett’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman MANZULLO. Thank you. 

Our second witness is B.J. Mason, President, Mid-Atlantic Finishing out of Capitol Heights, Maryland, on behalf of himself and 

the National Association of Metal Finishers. We look forward to 

your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF B.J. MASON, MID-ATLANTIC FINISHING 

Mr. MASON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the Committee. 

Chairman MANZULLO. B.J., do you want to pull the mike a little 

bit closer to you? 

Mr. MASON. There you are. Is this better? 

Mid-Atlantic Finishing in Capitol Heights, Maryland, is a corporation that I started about 28 years ago. We now have 35 employees down from four years ago of about 75. We have been providing gold, silver, nickel, tin, copper, conversion coatings for the 

defense industry, the medical, tooling, telecommunications, computer, electronics and a whole host of other industries. 

On the regulatory front my industry has worked closely with 

agencies like the EPA and the state and local regulators as well as 

17

environmental groups on many voluntary, cooperative projects to 

reduce the industry’s environmental footprint to the greatest extent 

possible. 

Before I go on I might just say too that it sounds to me like I 

am what everybody has been talking about here today, a small, a 

small industry. So I guess I feel kind of special. Thank you. 

Chairman MANZULLO. You are special. That is why you are here. 

Mr. MASON. Thank you, sir. 

We are pleased that in the late 1990s former President Gore formally recognized the finishing industry’s environmental leadership 

with his ‘Reinventing Government’’ award in response to our demonstration that it is indeed possible to reconcile environmental and 

economic and competitive goals. 

This experience, however, pointed out to me that there is much 

more room for improvement on how the federal government evaluates its own regulations and that it is absolutely essential to have 

a process in the big picture, can flag and change regulatory requirements that do not add value to either the environment, public 

health or the economy, and can identify with some reasonable level 

of accuracy the costs and benefits of regulations at every stage of 

the rulemaking process. 

I would point out that for my industry there are heavy consequences that ensue from not having rigorous, systematic review 

of a wide range of regulations, whether they are major rules or not. 

I would like to briefly illustrate with a specific example. In the 

past several years the metal finishing industry committed over $1 

million to challenge the rule called MP&M. This was an EPA regulatory issue which was imposed on top of already restrictive wastewater controls based and we felt the rule was based on improper 

science analyses. After a continuous series of deliberations over 

several years, EPA ultimately concluded that no further regulations was warranted for the metal finishing industry. 

In the end, while this was good news, I was troubled by two 

things: 

First, by the fact that even with a well run early SBREFA process to assess small business impact, the proposed rule’s estimates 

of costs and benefit was highly erroneous. In fact, EPA’s costs are 

vastly underestimated. And estimates of pollutants likely to be reduced from the industry were off by a few orders of magnitude. 

Second, I was troubled by the fact of one senior EPA official who 

I happen to respect very much—that was written for me—noted 

after completion of the rule that but for the fact that the metal finishing industry had to spend one million dollars on analysis, the 

regulatory process worked for this rulemaking. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, surely there is a 

better way to spend a million dollars. And that was a million dollars that was spent by owners of small businesses in a very troubling economic time the last three to four years which is the worst 

that I have seen in the 25 years that I have been in the business. 

And we were not making money to be able to spend that kind of 

money, but we did. 

In light of this experience the industry has reviewed several regulations that can be modified without causing adverse environmental or health impacts. We have focused more intently on the 

18

cost of these measures for several reasons, one being the fact that 

many of our competitors in the global economy do not carry the 

same obligations and responsibilities that we do. At the same time, 

we are not looking for environmental rollbacks or a ticket to pollute. 

In my written testimony I provided a brief sketch of the several 

regulatory reform nominations that we made to Dr. Graham and 

the White House Office of Management and Budget. They happen 

to cut across all major programs at EPA—air, water, waste—and 

if implemented could potentially achieve over $100,000 in savings 

for companies like mine with annual sales of between $2 and $3 

million. These changes in the written testimony are: streamline the 

EPA’s wastewater pretreatment program, allow an exemption for 

federal air permitting procedural requirements if companies are already complying with stringent federal air emission controls, and 

update the federal hazardous waste framework to allow recycling 

of our metals under certain conditions. 

I happened to be at another of these Committee meetings when 

one of my colleagues reported about the metals that are being 

forced to be put into landfills. As I have said for 12 years to EPA, 

we will mine those landfills one day when we run out of resources. 

Mr. Chairman, we determined that modest changes for these 

three regulations could provide significant savings of costs, could 

mean the difference between being profitable and being forced to 

shut down operations or lay off workers. 

I would like to close with an example of yet another critical regulation in the pipeline for my industry which raises the importance 

of an informed, rigorous review process. This is OSHA’s PEL proposal that will be proposed in October. The industry has presented 

a detailed analysis in the SBREFA panel process last month with 

analysis and documentation showing that all facilities with annual 

sales of $1.5 million and 20 employees, would have to spend 60 

times that, or over $300,000 per facility, to achieve the very low 

limits to be proposed by OSHA. We have submitted data that we 

are not opposed to lower limits, we are just opposed to anything 

that is really not necessary and ask them to look at our analyses. 

I hope that some of the issues I have raised today will point out 

the need for and the potential value of an improved process for regulatory review and oversight of federal agency actions. I believe 

this can be done responsibly and in a way that minimizes the regulatory burdens, protects human health and environment, and allows small businesses the opportunity to compete successfully in 

the global market. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee for 

the opportunity to appear today. 

[Mr. Mason’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman MANZULLO. Well, thank you very much. 

Our next witness is Andrew Bopp. I have been given a phonetic. 

Mr. BOPP. Yes. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Obviously people mispronounce your last 

name. 

Mr. BOPP. It looks like ‘‘bop.’’

Chairman MANZULLO. On a few occasions. 

19

Andrew is the Director of Public Affairs for the Society of Glass 

and Ceramic Decorators in Alexandria, Virginia, been with them 

since 1995. And we look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF ANDREW BOPP, SOCIETY OF GLASS AND 

CERAMIC DECORATORS 

Mr. BOPP. Thank you, sir. And thank you, members of the Committee. 

The Society of Glass and Ceramic Decorators represents manufacturers that decorate glass——

Chairman MANZULLO. Andrew, could you pull the mike a little 

bit closer to you? 

Mr. BOPP [CONTINUING] Sure. 

Chairman MANZULLO. And then maybe tip it up a little. There 

you are. You have to speak directly into it. Go ahead. 

Mr. BOPP. The Society of Glass and Ceramic Decorators represents manufacturers who decorate glass and ceramic mugs, tumblers and similar items. Things like this, pretty basic things. There 

are 300 member companies nationwide that decorate these types of 

items and they are facing severe competition from overseas, primarily from China. The Chinese were first with ceramics, that is 

why it is called China. 

Most SGCD members are small, often family-owned companies. 

These companies cannot afford to hire staff to focus on regulatory 

compliance. In fact, many of these companies are unable to employ 

engineers at their facilities let alone environmental, safety or other 

experts. Regulatory burdens often fall on the owner or other key 

staff who are also responsible for production, purchasing, marketing, sales and other business functions. 

Burdensome and unnecessary regulations significantly contribute 

to the cost of doing business in the U.S. This leads to the loss of 

manufacturing jobs to overseas competition. It is critical that existing regulations undergo careful review to determine whether regulatory goals can be achieved in a less burdensome way. 

I am here today to encourage this Committee to support OIRA 

in its efforts to review burdensome regulations that have a major 

impact on small business. To illustrate, we believe OIRA has been 

and hopefully will continue to be helpful in reviewing EPA’s Toxic 

Release Inventory Lead Rule. This rule has proven to be extremely 

burdensome for small glass and ceramic printers and other small 

manufacturers. Some of the colors used in glass and ceramic decoration cannot be produced without lead. This does not create environmental risk and very little ends up as waste. 

When fired, the colors become chemically part of the glass or ceramic mug. Almost all of these colors are used to produce the ware. 

SGCD member companies work closely with FDA and other federal 

and state agencies to guarantee the safety of all these wares. 

In spite of this, hundreds of these small companies as well as 

small companies in other manufacturing sectors were entangled in 

EPA’s January 2001 lead rule changes that lowered the annual reporting threshold from 10,000 pounds to 100 pounds. I want to emphasize that that is lead used, not released to the environment. 

The TRI program is burdensome, especially for the 75 percent of 

lead filers that are small businesses due to the complicated analVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:54 Oct 07, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\HEARINGS\94131.TXT MIKEA
20

ysis and calculations that are required to comply. Classic paperwork burden. 

However, when lowering the reporting threshold, EPA disallowed 

existing burden relief options for small business such as a simplified Form A and de minimis allowance that are available for 

other TRI substances. A massive effort is being undertaken by 

small business operators to comply with this rule. A review of 2001 

TRI data, which is the latest available for this new rule, indicates 

that over 2,600 manufacturing companies reported zero environmental release of lead or lead compounds. All this work to show 

zero. 

In SIC 32, which includes glass and ceramic printers, 532 complicated Form Rs—and complicated, I should have brought in the 

book but it is a very big book, it is a very complex form. Think 

about your most complex IRS form and start there. Five hundred 

thirty-two complicated Form Rs were filed in 2001. The cost was 

estimated by EPA to be $7,400 per facility. Of these forms, 46 percent of companies reported on-site release to the environment of 

less than one pound in SIC 32. In a fairly typical case, a small 

decorator reported zero on-site release after spending more than 

180 hours to compile data and complete a TRI Form R. 

This is a type of program where you have to compile the information as you move through the year and then file the paperwork. 

You cannot just pay somebody to do it, which happens in a lot of 

IRS cases. 

Even after the forms are filed, the burdens continue. In December 2003, a glass decorator received a Notice of Significant Error 

from EPA for its 2002 TRI report. One week later, the company received a second copy of the same notice that finally listed the error 

which was then corrected. In February 2004, the company received 

yet another notice listing 12 new technical errors. Let me emphasize, this company was reporting zero environmental lead release. 

In addition to burdening small manufacturers, this appears to me 

to be inefficient use of EPA’s time also. 

It is encouraging, however, that EPA is now reviewing options, 

through its Stakeholder Dialogue, to simplify TRI reporting. Two 

elements under review are critical to reducing the reporting burden. A simplified Form NS for insignificant lead reporters is needed for companies that have shown on-site lead release of ten or 

fewer pounds. In addition, Form A, range reporting and de minimis 

allowances should be reinstated for lead reporters. Useful public information would not be lost, small business burden would be eased. 

It seems like a very good thing to do. 

This week, SGCD like many of the others is submitting comments to OIRA in response to their request for information on specific regulatory burdens. OIRA in our opinion is ideally positioned 

to review these regulations given their vantage point as an outside 

observer. An agency that is implementing a regulation, and the 

businesses or others who must comply, do not have this perspective. 

We believe this review process should be ongoing at OIRA so that 

the Administration can follow through on efforts to achieve burden 

reduction. In addition, I urge Congress to address staffing shortVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:54 Oct 07, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\HEARINGS\94131.TXT MIKEA
21

ages at OIRA. Lack of adequate staff is obviously a major obstacle 

to enabling the agency to fulfill its burden reduction mission. 

I appreciate the opportunity to address the Committee today. 

And I do believe that a cooperative effort by OIRA, EPA and stakeholders can lead to completion of the TRI burden reduction process 

within a year. I also believe that OIRA can be of great help in addressing the other rules that others have raised. 

Thank you very much. 

[Mr. Bopp’s statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman MANZULLO. Well, thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. Arnett, I would like to call your attention to page 2 of your 

testimony. Do you have it in front of you? 

Mr. ARNETT. Yes, sir. 

Chairman MANZULLO. It is if you go down to the second full 

paragraph where you state ‘‘indeed’’ at the bottom, ‘‘Indeed, it is 

our understanding, that of the 161 rules and regulations in total 

referred to agencies by the OMB, none of the referrals has resulted 

in any substantive changes.’’ Did you want to comment on that? 

Mr. ARNETT. Yes, sir. If you are wondering where I got that, I 

got that from the National Association of Manufacturers’ analysis 

I think——

Chairman MANZULLO. Okay. 

Mr. ARNETT [CONTINUING] In the comments that they, the draft 

comments that I reviewed from the NAM. That was a statement 

that they made and I took it from there. 

I think there were a lot of referrals to the agencies but I do not 

think any conclusive action, nothing has concluded on any of the 

measures that were referred, as I understand it. 

Chairman MANZULLO. I think that parrots Dr. Graham’s statement that he can only do so much. 

Mr. ARNETT. Exactly. 

Chairman MANZULLO. But here we have an outstanding public 

servant that obviously has the interests of business people at heart, 

reviews these regulations, kicks it back to the agencies and nothing 

happens. What suggestions would you have there? 

Mr. ARNETT. As we said in the comments here, I think opening 

up a line of communications. I think what happens possibly with 

some of these regulations—and I hope I have not given the impression in these comments that we are not appreciative of the efforts 

that OIRA and OMB in general made the last three years in gathering these and submitting to the agencies. We are very appreciative of that. And that is why we participated in 2002 and are 

doing so again this time because we think the system represents 

the potential for really shining a light on some ridiculous regulations. 

Once the regulations gets reviewed by OIRA and gets sent to the 

agencies this seems to be where it breaks down. And I think the 

problem is the communications. I would love to see a communications link from the agency to the entity that nominated the regulation so that perhaps it isn’t totally clear from a one or two page 

description of the problem and a recommended solution exactly 

what the nominating entity is proposing or is suggesting that it is 

a problem and a solution. And if we could get some line of communications with the agencies—and this could be breakdown on our 

22

end as well. Perhaps we need to step up to the plate better and 

be the aggressor here in contacting the agency, I don’t know. As 

this process unfolds this year we plan to be more aggressive. 

But I just think a communication to the agency. And then some 

method of holding the agency more accountable for the answer and 

for their analysis and the timing of their analysis. I mean maybe 

the agencies are still reviewing some of the ones from 2002. But 

it just seems like it is a pretty lengthy period of time and there 

should have been a response by now. 

Chairman MANZULLO. And I have a question for Mr. Bopp with 

regard to the—I will have to be frank with you, Society of Glass 

and Ceramic Decorators is a new one to me. We have a lot of associations in town. But these, these are companies, Andrew, that will 

either get a domestically made mug or mug made in China and 

then put, for example, what you have on there? 

Mr. BOPP. Yeah, that is correct. 

Chairman MANZULLO. What is the process of putting that, the 

eagle on there, how do they do that? 

Mr. BOPP. In this case this would be actually a decal process. It 

is either done through screen printing directly onto the mug using 

ceramic colors or a decal is printed which is then either hand applied or machine applied to the mug. And that decal is printed with 

ceramic colors so basically it is the same as if it were screen printed. And that is generally for things like this with tighter registration, where the colors come closer. 

Interesting to say where they get the mug from, 95 to 98 percent 

come from China. Cost of labor, that is the way that market is 

going. It is very difficult to get a mug that would be made in the 

United States. A good deal of the decorated mugs still come from 

this country but that is something that is shifting pretty quickly 

also. 

Chairman MANZULLO. I guess my question, you anticipated my 

question, is that I am sure China does not have the same regulations that we do with regard to the environmental protection required of the people in your industry. That is not saying that we 

want to lower the standards. But if you can go back, if it is a decal 

of a company just pressing on a decal there would be no——

Mr. BOPP. Right. 

Chairman MANZULLO [CONTINUING] Emission of any type; would 

that be correct? 

Mr. BOPP. Exactly. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Okay. Now, does your association also represent the companies that make the decals? 

Mr. BOPP. Yes, we do. 

Chairman MANZULLO. So you do both steps? 

Mr. BOPP. Right. 

Chairman MANZULLO. So it would be in the companies that make 

the decals that would have the emissions? 

Mr. BOPP. In theory. There really are no emissions that you 

would think of with smokestacks with fumes going up. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Okay. Give me a better word? 

Mr. BOPP. Yes. It would be really just excess material——

Chairman MANZULLO [CONTINUING] Okay. 

23

Mr. BOPP.—which would be held until it is used again. I mean 

the colors are fairly expensive. If they are disposed of it is more in 

the way of rags and things like this. It is not—that is why almost 

half of the companies do not emit any, any excess lead to the environment, which is what makes this rule so burdensome. 

I mean it is paperwork, again it is comparing, this industry is 

really fiercely competing with China. Obviously it is very labor intensive so quite a few of the larger plants have already gone to 

China. Either Chinese competition or Western European and, 

American companies moving plants there. I mean it is the fact of 

the costs of doing business. And this is one more very costly step 

for companies that makes it that much harder to compete. And if 

you are a large company, that much more of a factor in deciding, 

well, where do we put our next plant? 

Chairman MANZULLO. I looked at the price of some mugs out 

there, some decorated mugs. And there are some that are still 

made in America. 

Mr. BOPP. Absolutely. There definitely are. And——

Chairman MANZULLO. But on the shelf the ones that come from 

China are not any cheaper. 

Mr. BOPP [CONTINUING] That is true. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Why is that? What is going on there? 

Mr. BOPP. Interestingly, the vast majority like I said do come 

from China. It may say ‘‘made in China’’ on the bottom because the 

mug is made in China but it was still decorated in the U.S. So 

there are some variables that occur there. 

As far as pricing, that could be built into our members are not 

the ones who then sell, they sell through distributor chains and 

things like this. So it would not necessarily hold that the wares 

sold in this country whether it is decorated here or in China would 

be that much of a different cost. The difference is in the cost in actually producing the mug. 

And of interest, one of the major manufacturers of domestic ceramic mugs is located actually in Arizona. And they are looked at 

quite often by groups who buy bulk mugs, let us say House of Representatives, that want it to say ‘‘made in the United States,’’ or 

let us say a labor union that wants it to say that. And they, they 

pay more. 

Chairman MANZULLO. What is the name of the company? 

Mr. BOPP. Catalina China. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Catalina China? 

Mr. BOPP. Right. It is in Tucson. 

Chairman MANZULLO. And they are, they are the only manufacturers of mugs in the United States? 

Mr. BOPP. They are the only large, significant, yes. 

Now, I do not want to confuse that with tableware companies. 

There are still companies like Homer Laughlin China--is a large 

company that does make tableware in this country. But as far as 

blank mugs that are then sold to the small printers, Catalina is 

pretty much it. 

Chairman MANZULLO. There are a lot of charitable and political 

organizations. 

Mr. BOPP. Yes. 

24

Chairman MANZULLO. I put on a golf event, that is the political 

side of being a member of Congress, and we order out hats and 

towels and keys and everything and I insist that it be made in 

America. And we found quite interesting in the first order of hats 

that came in I said wanted these made in America. And the vendor 

said, well, they are not made in America. 

Mr. BOPP. Right. 

Chairman MANZULLO. And so they came and they were shredded. 

And then we got a hold of Michelle Goodwin in Phoenix. 

What is the name of her company, Dan? Who makes hats and 

the same things that you have been having, we were trying to find 

out as to who is left in the industry in order to let people know 

who want to buy American that these companies should be patronized. 

Mr. BOPP. Absolutely. There are quite a few of them. In fact, previous testimony before the Subcommittee on Reg. Reform one of the 

decorators who actually does a lot of the House of Representatives 

mugs that you will find in the gift shop is from Baltimore, Maryland. So when you are buying from her you are buying an American decorated mug. 

However, when you would order something like that you should 

specify to her or whoever you order them from that their materials 

should come from the U.S. Because they, they are doing the work 

here but that blank mug itself very likely is coming from China, 

although it does not have to. Although, like I said, the vast majority of it does because it is a fairly labor intensive, fairly low tech 

process. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Okay. Mr. Mason, you have got an industry, the plating industry that gets creamed on everything. And your 

industry absolutely is necessary to manufacturing. Could you give 

us just a couple of examples of how your industry, the chemicals 

that you use? How does it, show us the processing of manufacturing as to how companies like yours come into play? 

Mr. MASON. Well, think about an aluminum machined housing 

that in my particular case is for the infrastructure of the telecommunication industry. The infrastructure is what is in the little 

shed or the little house underneath the cell tower that you see 

along the highways. And the towers themself pick up the signals, 

transport them down to the little room and then the frequencies 

start to change and the signals go out, whether it is Motorola or 

AT&T or Cingular, whoever it is. 

That particular little house contains filters and resonators and 

all these things that make all this work. And they are silver plated. 

And the reason they are silver plated, Mr. Chairman, is because 

the frequency travels very well on the silver surface because silver, 

even though it may tend to oxidize, it does not lose its electrical 

characteristics. Whereas gold, another noble metal, will lose its 

characteristics where silver does not as it starts to tarnish. 

Chairman MANZULLO. So your company would be involved in the 

silver plating of that housing? 

Mr. MASON. That is one particular instance. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Okay. 

Mr. MASON. And the chemicals that we have to use is to make 

this whole process work because we have a blank piece of aluVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:54 Oct 07, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\HEARINGS\94131.TXT MIKEA
25

minum that needs silver on it. But you cannot just take that blank 

piece of aluminum and dip it into the silver tank because nothing 

will happen to it. 

So you go through these various processes which we call 

pretreatment. And in our industry pretreatment is about 95 percent of what happens. The silver plating that we ultimately use is 

just the last step. But in that process going to the silver plating 

tank you have alkaline solutions, acid solutions, cyanide solutions, 

just about every nasty chemical that you can imagine or think of 

we use them all. And we use them all with caution and with understanding and knowing that we know what we are doing there. We 

take, obviously, safety precautions, and environmental precautions. 

I mean I am eight miles from right here so I cannot hide from 

EPA. In fact, I am very proactive, I have them in my facility as 

often as they will come so I can show them what we do. You know, 

the very idea of them writing regulations and not ever seeing an 

industry that they are writing regulations for, to me has always 

been silly. So we invite them to come and look. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Do they come? 

Mr. MASON. Yes, they do. It started about 12 years ago under a 

program called CSI, the Common Sense Initiative under Administrator Browner. And we started working very closely with the industry. Yes, they do come. They pay attention. And we have, I feel, 

a very good relationship generally with the agency. 

The problem, and I think it was said very clearly here today, the 

problem with the agency is that you have a lot of people within 

that particular agency that write regulations because that is what 

they want to do. And even though, I mean I testified that our industry spent a million dollars for a faulty regulation. I mean that 

regulation probably would have put 50 percent of us out of business. It was absolutely not necessary, it was done with poor 

science, yet it was ready to pass. 

And I would tell you, Mr. Chairman, if you would ask me what 

can you do? I hope we all do not have to spend a million dollars 

to stop a ridiculous regulation that would have meant nothing to 

anyone, not our industry, not the public, not the environmental 

people, no one. Yet that is what it took. 

So back to your issue with chemicals, yes, we work with them 

all. We treat them with the respect they deserve. We do not put 

them in the ground, the air or anything. We put them nowhere 

that we are not allowed to do. And our industry does a pretty good 

job. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Appreciate that. 

Congresswoman Velazquez? 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This question is really for any of you if you have followed the 

regulatory panel system that is run by OIRA and the Office of Advocacy, as you may know, there is a proposal before this Committee 

to increased the use of this process. And we may mark up the bill 

H.R. 2345 and vote on it in a few weeks. So if you or any of your 

industry have followed the panel process I would like for you to 

comment on these questions. 

Have you found the panel process useful? Is it costly to your 

members in terms of resources? Do you find that agencies do or do 

26

not do their homework in preparation for these panels? In other 

words, do they just rely on the panels to sort out the numbers and, 

therefore, do not do their homework? Has advocacy and/or OIRA 

been helpful to you in this process? Are there ways they can be 

more helpful? Do you think it is better for us and for you to spend 

the money up front when the regulation is promulgated in having 

a panel process or instead create a system that requires us to look 

back at a regulation after three, five or ten years when we have 

actual costs on which to base our review? 

Mr. Arnett? 

Mr. ARNETT. Yes. We have not participated. I assume you are 

talking about the regulatory or Flexibility Act SBREFA panel? 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Correct. 

Mr. ARNETT. And we have not had an opportunity as of yet to 

participate in any of those panels. I have been and participated 

with coalitions in a number of regulations where there had been 

panels. I came in toward the end. So I cannot—I am not in a very 

good position really to address the questions that you have raised 

on that. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Yes. Mr. Mason? 

Mr. MASON. I know our industry has participated. I personally 

have not. I know our lobbyists have and other members of our industry. 

If you would like we can get comments to you after the meeting 

and would be happy to. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. That would be helpful. 

Mr. Mason, I was interested in your industry’s job participation 

in the pilot process on the Regulatory Flexibility Act. In your case 

it was for the OSHA PEL rule? 

Mr. MASON. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. It surprises me that OSHA’s estimate of the cost 

for complying was off by a multiple of 60. It sounds as though that 

was not even helpful and it cost you a lot of money to hire analysts 

to help make your case. Is that common in your members dealing 

with federal agencies? 

Mr. MASON. Well, this was on top of just going through MP&M, 

the metal, products and machinery rule where we spent a million 

dollars. I would say it is getting more common because we are challenging today rules and regulations that will affect us going forward as opposed to maybe not having done that in years past, so. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Can you recommend any action that will help 

bring the estimates back to reality without causing all these costs 

for your businesses? 

Mr. MASON. The only thing that I would say is communications. 

If we have an opportunity to address a proposed rule before it is 

proposed, and we have gotten a lot of that help with EPA, if we 

have that opportunity I think that would help a lot. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Okay. 

Mr. MASON. But it takes a lot of work, a lot of time. And most 

of us who do this still have a business to run and a job to do at 

that business, so it is very difficult to be able to do that. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Arnett, let us talk about OIRA. And I heard 

you when you said that of the recommendations that you submitted 

after two years no action has been taken. What would you recVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:54 Oct 07, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\HEARINGS\94131.TXT MIKEA
27

ommend in terms of giving some teeth to this process to make it 

more than just window dressing? 

Mr. ARNETT. Yeah, the breakdown appears to be at the point 

after the referral has been made to the agency. I think OIRA and 

in consultation with the Small Business Administration Office of 

Advocacy does a very thorough analysis of the submissions. The 

only thing I would add there would be is participation by the nominating entity should come into play there in some way. 

The same when the submissions were made we did not hear anything for about a year and then we got the 2003 report and then 

we learned that we had pretty good success in getting referrals. Because not all submissions to OIRA were referred. Out of the 316 

I think only 162. 

So at that point that is the only thing I would suggest at that 

point. 

Now, in terms of I am not sure how you give OIRA more authority to force the agencies to take action and to take action in a particular length of time. I suppose it may involve some statutory 

changes. Congress may have to address that issue. In the Regulatory Right to Know Act I suppose it could be strengthened at that 

point because that I think is the vehicle that authorized OIRA to 

make these submissions to the agency. And I have not reviewed 

that act. A thorough review of that act might reveal some mechanism in there to give OIRA more authority. 

But I think it is clear that OIRA makes the submission and then 

I do not think they even feel that they have any recourse at that 

point to force the agency to take some kind of action. And they may 

not in all cases. It would require review and probably more manpower than OIRA presently has because I think they would have 

to determine in their own minds whether maybe the agency was 

realistic in its response not to take action. 

So it requires some judgment on their part. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I, you know, it just really when you come to 

OMB and OIRA being under OMB, heads of agencies are so fearful 

of OMB. So maybe the budget process might be an avenue. 

Mr. Bopp, you mentioned in you statement Congress needs to address staff shortages at OIRA. How do you know that? 

Mr. BOPP. We are aware that OIRA right now is below what it 

has been, its assigned staff level. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. How are you aware? Who told you? 

Mr. BOPP. I believe I heard that through a meeting at National 

Association of Manufacturers perhaps. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. So OIRA is telling that to the association? 

Mr. BOPP. I am not sure where they heard that. But someone at 

NAM brought that up. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. There has to be a staffing problem when two 

years later no action has been taken. And the problem that we 

have is that when we bring agencies to come before us and testify 

regarding the adequacy of the budget submitted by the president 

they say that everything is fine and that they can operate with 

that budget. 

So it is surprising for me to read or to listen to your testimony 

talking about the lack of staffing because when they come before 

us and we ask them, Do you have the resources? they say, Yes, we 

28

do. So if they are telling me that they do not need more money I 

am not going to fight with them to give them more money. 

Mr. BOPP. That is true. I mean they would have to ask. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MANZULLO. This Small Business Committee has oversight jurisdiction over any regulation or law impacting small businesses. So we are going to send a letter to all these agencies asking 

them to respond to us within 14 days as to what, if anything, they 

have done with regard to the recommendations that were made. 

John, if you want to work with Barry Pineles on that to help us 

bring together or have any other suggestions. And then we are 

going to send them over there and say we want you to answer. And 

then we will have a hearing and just bring them in, line them all 

up, What have you done? Seems to be the only thing that works 

around this place. 

I have a final question. Did any of you get involved in the 

ergonomics debate in 1990 when OSHA greatly underestimated the 

cost of that? Or was it—What did I say? 

Mr. ARNETT. I worked on that issue with the National Coalition 

on Ergonomics. And were you talking about the—there was a 

SBREFA panel I think on it. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Yes. 

Mr. ARNETT. But I was not involved in that. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Were any of you involved in that SBREFA 

panel? 

Mr. BOPP. No. 

Chairman MANZULLO. Okay. We had the head of OSHA at the 

time come out to Rockford, Illinois. I cannot think of his name. He 

had testified here. John Crenshaw or something like that, whatever 

his name was. And he came to Rockford. In fact, one of our manufacturers invited him and said why don’t you take a look at what 

we are doing. I told the manufacturer, I said you invite OSHA to 

come out. He said yes. 

So he came out and Cedric Blazer at Zenith Cutter and Tool 

showed him what he was doing. And then the administrator by coincidence was testifying before our Committee the next week. And 

he said it was very interesting because, he said, we just saw the 

most amazing thing at a constituent’s place. 

I said, What happened? Well, he said, they were working on 

some big piece on one bench and he said instead of picking it up 

and carrying it over to another bench for another machine application he said they put it on a cart and they shoved it off one table, 

put it on the cart, rolled it to another table and then did their sequential machine process there. 

And I said, Well, that is the reason we had you out there was 

to show that he does not need your ergonomics regulation, he in 

fact was doing everything possible himself to come up with these 

different plans. I said, how could you ever come up with some type 

of a plan to regulate that? 

I said, let me give you a hypothetical. I said, my brother has a 

restaurant and, I said, under this plan if somebody washing dishes 

develops carpal tunnel, I said, then Frank would have to file a report with the Department of Labor. And I said, how else could you 

wash dishes? 

29

He said, well, he said,—No, wait a minute, he did not give the 

answer. He refused to answer it. I only know of one way to wash 

dishes. 

And Congressman Bill Pascrell who was on the Committee at 

that time and a great friend of ours looked at me and he said, Don, 

he says, instead of washing dishes this way, he said, wash them 

this way. They can go in the opposite direction. And we had made 

our point. 

Well, listen, we appreciate your testimony. Would have been 

helpful with regard to today’s hearing from this panel is the fact 

that we will be sending a follow-up letter with a drop dead date 

on it as to why these agencies have not complied with these regulations or with the recommendations from OIRA from two years ago. 

I know that that will make them move faster on the new set of regulations that come about. That is the purpose of this hearing. 

Again we want to thank you for coming and the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

30


94131.001
31


94131.002
32


94131.003
33


94131.004
34


94131.005
35


94131.006
36


94131.007
37


94131.008
38


94131.009
39


94131.010
40


94131.011
41


94131.012
42


94131.013
43


94131.014
44


94131.015
45


94131.016
46


94131.017
47


94131.018
48


94131.019
49


94131.020
50


94131.021
51


94131.022
52


94131.023
53


94131.024
54


94131.025
55


94131.026
56


94131.027
57


94131.028
58


94131.029
59


94131.030
60


94131.031
61


94131.032
62


94131.033
63


94131.034
64


94131.035
65


94131.036
66


94131.037
67


94131.038
68


94131.039
69


94131.040
70


94131.041
71


94131.042
72


94131.043
73


94131.044
74


94131.045
75


94131.046
76


94131.047
77


94131.048
78


94131.049
79


94131.050
80


94131.051
81


94131.052
82


94131.053
83


94131.054
84


94131.055
85


94131.056
86


94131.057
87


94131.058
88


94131.059
89


94131.060
90


94131.061
91


94131.062
92


94131.063
93


94131.064
94


94131.065
95


94131.066
96


94131.067
97


94131.068
98


94131.069
99

Æ


94131.070