REACHING A CONSENSUS TO UPDATE OSHA’S 

PERMISSIBLE EXPOSURE LEVELS 

HEARING

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND 

THE WORKFORCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JULY 16, 2002 

Serial No. 107-72 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education 

and the Workforce

82-140 pdf 

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

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

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

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, Chairman 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin GEORGE MILLER, California 

MARGE ROUKEMA, New Jersey DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina MAJOR R. OWENS, New York 

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

HOWARD P. “BUCK” McKEON, California PATSY MINK, Hawaii 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas TIM ROEMER, Indiana 

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania ROBERT C. “BOBBY” SCOTT, Virginia 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan 

CHARLIE W. NORWOOD, JR., Georgia RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas 

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York 

FRED UPTON, Michigan JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee RON KIND, Wisconsin 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee 

JIM DeMINT, South Carolina DENNIS KUCINICH, Ohio 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia DAVID WU, Oregon 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania SUSAN DAVIS, California 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota 

 RIC KELLER, Florida 

 TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska 

 JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

 Paula Nowakowski, Chief of Staff 

 John Lawrence, Minority Staff Director

 SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS 

 CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia, Chairman

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois, Vice Chairman MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina DENNIS KUCINICH, Ohio 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

RIC KELLER, Florida HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 
iii

Table of Contents 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CHARLIE NORWOOD, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE

........................................................................................................................................................ 2

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER MAJOR OWENS, SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE 

WORKFORCE ............................................................................................................................... 4

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE EDWIN G. FOULKE, JR., JACKSON, LEWIS, 

SCHNITZLER & KRUPMAN, LLP, GREENVILLE, SC, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE 

UNITED STATES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, WASHINGTON, D.C. ................................ 6

STATEMENT OF MARGARET M. SEMINARIO, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF 

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH, AFL-CIO, WASHINGTON, D.C. ...................... 9

STATEMENT OF FRANK A. WHITE, ESQ., VICE PRESIDENT, ORGANIZATION 

RESOURCES COUNSELORS, INC., WASHINGTON, D.C..................................................... 10

STATEMENT OF RICHARD SCHWARTZ, PARTNER, CROWELL & MORING, LLP, 

TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN IRON AND STEEL INSTITUTE, 

WASHINGTON, D.C................................................................................................................... 13

APPENDIX A - WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CHARLIE 

NORWOOD, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE................................................................................... 33

APPENDIX B - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE EDWIN G. FOULKE, JR., 

JACKSON, LEWIS, SCHNITZLER & KRUPMAN, LLP, GREENVILLE, SC, TESTIFYING 

ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, WASHINGTON, 

D.C................................................................................................................................................ 39

APPENDIX C - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF MARGARET M. SEMINARIO, DIRECTOR, 

DEPARTMENT OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH, AFL-CIO, WASHINGTON, 

D.C................................................................................................................................................ 55

APPENDIX D - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF FRANK A. WHITE, ESQ., VICE PRESIDENT, 

ORGANIZATION RESOURCES COUNSELORS, INC., WASHINGTON, D.C. .................... 65
iv

APPENDIX E - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF RICHARD SCHWARTZ, PARTNER, 

CROWELL & MORING, LLP, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN IRON 

AND STEEL INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, D.C...................................................................... 73

APPENDIX F – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN 

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS, 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE................................................... 85

Table of Indexes............................................................................................................................ 90 
1

HEARING ON REACHING A CONSENSUS TO UPDATE 

OSHA'S PERMISSIBLE EXPOSURE LEVELS 

Tuesday, July 16, 2002 

____________________

Subcommittee on Workforce Protections 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

 U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 

 The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m., in Room 2175, Rayburn House 

Office Building, Hon. Charlie Norwood, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

 Present: Representatives Norwood, Owens, Kucinich, Woolsey, and Sanchez. 

 Staff present: Stephen Settle, Professional Staff Member; Loren Sweatt, Professional Staff 

Member; Travis McCoy, Legislative Assistant; Molly Salmi, Professional Staff Member; Scott 

Galupo, Communications Specialist; Patrick Lyden, Professional Staff Member; Allison Dembeck, 

Executive Assistant; Deborah L. Samantar, Committee Clerk/Intern Coordinator.

Peter Rutledge, Minority Senior Legislative Associate/Labor; Maria Cuprill, Minority Legislative 

Associate/Labor; and, Dan Rawlins, Minority Staff Assistant/Labor.

Chairman Norwood. The Subcommittee on Workforce Protections of the Committee on 

Education and the Workforce will come to order. 

 We're meeting today to hear testimony on permissible exposure levels standards set by 

OSHA. Under Committee rule 12(b), opening statements are limited to the Chairman and Ranking 

Minority Member of the Subcommittee. Therefore, if other Members have statements, they will be 

included in the hearing record. 
2

 With that, I ask unanimous consent for the hearing record to remain open for 14 days to 

allow Member statements and other extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be 

submitted in the official hearing record. Without objection, so ordered. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CHARLIE NORWOOD, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

Good afternoon to all. Thank you, witnesses, for taking your time and coming today to 

testify before us.

The title of my opening statement is “Can A Consensus Be Reached To Update OSHA's 

Permissible Exposure Levels (PELs)?'' I'd like to keep our hearing on that subject. Today, the 

Subcommittee will begin a dialogue intended to test three preliminary findings from our previous 

hearings and the research undertaken by the Subcommittee on OSHA rulemaking. The following 

preliminary findings frame our inquiry for today: 

 Preliminary finding # 1, OSHA standards covering workplace air contaminants, or what are 

commonly referred to as PELs, or permissible exposure levels, are simply out of date. Based upon 

what we have been advised to date, evidence suggests that these standards are out of date because 

PELs were established in 1971. The original OSH Act permitted the Secretary of Labor to 

incorporate, without change, certain existing national consensus standards. These were established 

as the federal standards during the first two years of OSHA's operation. Because this means that 

most of these PELs are based upon scientific data and research conducted before 1970, it is argued 

that those PELs are out of date in the face of industrial experience, new developments in 

technology, and more recent scientific studies. 

 Our second finding was because of the rigorous statutory rulemaking requirements of the 

Act, OSHA has not been able to update these PELs. This preliminary finding is based in large part 

on the obvious. Despite attempts to do so, OSHA has simply failed in efforts to update these PELs. 

This may be due to the extensive nature of the Secretary's current rulemaking burdens. For 

example, in 1988, OSHA attempted to undertake a “generic” rulemaking for more than 300 

substances. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, however, vacated the standard on the grounds that 

OSHA had not properly made the statutorily required determinations of “significant risk” or 

“feasibility” for each individual chemical. 

 Preliminary Finding # 3 is, as a result of this failure to update standards there is arguably 

inadequate protection for many workers in terms of their exposure to hazardous airborne 

contaminants. 

 Now, I intend to have a dialogue that addresses the merits and/or shortcomings of these 

preliminary findings. As the announced title for this hearing suggests, the ultimate goal is to 
3

determine whether or not it is possible to develop a widespread consensus that something should be 

or can be done. It is obvious to me that our challenge is to garner the approval of most 

stakeholders. That, in essence, is what a consensus is all about. It is also obvious to me that, 

without developing this consensus, we probably cannot avoid the litigation that could negate any 

effort in this area, despite the best of all of our intentions. The recipe for achieving this, I suggest, 

is for us to begin with this dialogue and earn the trust of the stakeholders. 

 Now, let me make it clear that I am on record as having stated that if we truly seek to 

develop a widespread consensus to update the PELs, I support that effort. I meant that, and I 

strongly believe that, but I want to underline, widespread consensus. 

 I think we all understand going into this, however, that the devil will be in the details 

necessary to facilitate and guarantee the development of any consensus. At the outset, then, I 

simply want to share my vision of the necessary ground rules for developing a genuine consensus. 

 First and foremost, wherever this dialogue leads the Subcommittee, the Minority and the 

Majority Members must journey together, in partnership and in full agreement. We will 

accomplish this through mutual respect, honesty, and a promise to listen as well as talk. 

 Eventually, after we have the support of our colleagues on the Full Committee, I hope we 

can invite Senate Republicans and Democrats to join this partnership. Without their willingness to 

partner with us, there really can be no final agreement. 

 Second, there are three general criteria, in my mind, at least, that must guide this consensusbuilding process. This process must be inclusive. The participation of all stakeholders, large and 

small, across all affected industries, must be encouraged, and that participation must be made 

meaningful and possible for all. 

 The process must be transparent. There must be no hidden agendas, no secret meetings, and 

no mysterious outcomes. The key to success is trust, and this means that all meetings must be 

open, noticed well in advanced, and that all decision-making must be well documented, with such 

rationales available to all stakeholders. Finally, the process must respect individual due process 

rights. No one should be divested of the procedural protections currently available, without their 

approval, and even then, we should ensure adequate and effective alternative protections. 

 With that said, I honestly look forward to working with my colleague from New York, Mr. 

Owens, and each of the Members on his side, and I want to thank Mr. Owens for the constructive 

cooperation and courtesy that he and his staff have exhibited to this point. It is greatly appreciated. 

 I now yield to the distinguished Ranking Minority Member from New York, Mr. Owens, 

for whatever opening statement he wishes to make. 

WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CHARLIE NORWOOD, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE – SEE APPENDIX A 
4

Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 At the outset, I'd like to apologize to you and to the witnesses for the probability that I'm 

going to have to be absent for a little while, due to the fact that I am scheduled to manage a bill on 

the floor that may come up in the next 30 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER MAJOR OWENS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

 OSHA has 470 permissible exposure limits, PELs as we call them, for various forms of 

approximately 300 chemical substances. I'm going to be repeating some of the things you've said 

already, but I think that, for a subject as complex as this with such serious consequences based on 

our actions, some repetition is in order. 

 The potential health effects of exposure to these chemicals are extremely varied, but taken 

altogether, include chronic and acute effects on virtually every part of the body, including sensory 

irritation, metabolic disturbances, reproductive dysfunctions, cardiovascular, neurological, 

respiratory, liver, and kidney diseases, as well as cancer. Exposure limits, such as OSHA's PELs, 

are a primary tool in preventing occupationally related diseases. 

 However, the OSHA PELs were established in 1971 and have not been updated since.

Since then, much new information has become available indicating that in most cases, OSHA's 

PELs are outdated and do not adequately protect workers. 

 In 1989, OSHA issued a final rule that sought to update the PELs for 428 toxic substances.

That rule was vacated in a decision by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, AFL-CIO v. OSHA, in 

1992, because the agency had failed with regard to each separate PEL to adequately support its 

determination that the existing exposure limits posed a significant risk of material health 

impairment, or that the new standard eliminated or reduced the risk to the extent feasible. 

 At the time, the court stated, and I quote: “We have no doubt that the agency acted with the 

best of intentions. It may well be, as OSHA claims, that this was the only practical way of 

accomplishing a much-needed revision of the existing standards and of making strides toward 

improving worker health and safety. 

 Given OSHA's history of slow progress in issuing standards, we can easily believe OSHA's 

claim that going through detailed analysis for each of the 428 different substances regulated was 

not possible. 

 Unfortunately, OSHA's approach to this rulemaking is not consistent with the requirements 

of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Before OSHA uses such an approach, it must get 
5

authorization from Congress by way of an amendment.” 

 The issue before us today is whether this Congress can find a means that will permit OSHA 

to update its obsolete and ineffective PELs. Last Congress, your predecessor, Mr. Ballenger, and I 

worked together to craft bipartisan legislation to improve OSHA's blood borne pathogen standard 

by requiring the use of safe needles. Last year, at a hearing on OSHA's rulemaking process, I 

committed to work with you, Mr. Chairman, to try to improve other OSHA standards, and I 

reiterate that commitment today. 

 Before concluding, I do want to express my appreciation to Peg Seminario and Frank White 

for the efforts to try to find common ground between labor and management on this issue. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman Norwood. Thank you very much, Mr. Owens. 

 The lights in front of you, ladies and gentlemen, are timed in such a way that you will be 

given five minutes for your testimony. The red light means time is up which is rather important, 

but I'm not going to be a stickler on it. Just try not to take too much advantage of that. 

 I can think of no better panel of experts than the panel that's with us to lead us in this 

discussion we are assembled here to begin today. Working with the Minority, I think we have 

chosen a balanced panel that will address all sides of this issue. I welcome each of our panelists, 

and thank you for joining us today. We really mean it, and we're appreciative. 

First, we have Mr. Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., from the law firm of Jackson, Lewis, Schnitzler & 

Krupman from Greenville, South Carolina, right up the road from me. Mr. Foulke is former 

Chairman of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, and is with us today 

representing the United States Chamber of Commerce, and we're glad you're here. Thank you. 

Next, we want to welcome back Ms. Margaret Seminario. Ms. Seminario represents the 

AFL-CIO here in Washington, D.C., where she serves as the Director of Occupational 

Safety and Health. 

 And then, Mr. White, we're glad you're here. Mr. Frank White is Vice President of 

Organizational Resource Counselors, Inc., also located here in Washington, D.C. Mr. White, like 

Ms. Seminario, has appeared before this Committee before, and we thank you. 

 Lastly, we have Mr. Richard Schwartz of the law firm of Crowell and Moring here in 

Washington, D.C. Mr. Schwartz represents the American Iron and Steel Institute today. 

 We welcome you all, and with that Mr. Foulke we would like to begin with you. 
6

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE EDWIN G. FOULKE, JR., JACKSON, 

LEWIS, SCHNITZLER & KRUPMAN, LLP, GREENVILLE, SC, TESTIFYING 

ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee. I'd like to thank 

you for allowing me this opportunity and privilege to present my views on this important issue 

involving permissible exposure levels. I have provided some written testimony for the Committee, 

and I would like to have that moved into the record. Thank you. 

 I'm here today on behalf of the United States Chamber of Commerce. As you're aware, the 

Chamber is the world's largest business federation, representing more than 3 million businesses and 

organizations of every size throughout the entire country. 

 I would like to start out by thanking the entire Subcommittee, first for their interest in and 

commitment to improving the workplace safety and health for all employees in this country, but 

even more importantly, I thank them for their willingness to look at the current status of 

permissible exposure limits on hazardous chemicals in the workplace, and to examine possible 

options that could be instituted to assist making possible updates in those levels. 

 This brings me to the first point that I would very much like to make to this Subcommittee, 

specifically, that the Chamber is very much in favor of a serious review of the PELs issue. They 

think that this is something that deserves serious consideration; but, while we may be in agreement 

on this issue for the review, there seems to be no universal agreement on the procedures to get us 

there.

 The Chamber is not, at this meeting, recommending any specific proposal for how the 

change or update, if any, should be made. However, we are identifying specific considerations that 

we feel need to be addressed if some form of expedited PELs review procedure is to be considered 

and/or implemented. 

 Unfortunately, as you will see from my written testimony, we've raised more issues and 

questions than we've probably provided answers for, but we felt it was important that the Congress 

and the Committee be aware of these issues in determining what type of legislation should be 

crafted.

 The second major point I'd like to make is that when the Act was passed in 1970, Congress 

clearly recognized and clearly intended that the rulemaking process for the new standards, 

especially health standards, dealing with toxic materials and harmful physical agents, under Section 

6(b)(5) of the Act, would and probably should be more difficult; and it was this Congressional 

intent that was actually demonstrated in the context of the Act. 
7

 If you look in Section 6(a), Congress gave OSHA a two-year period when the Act was 

enacted, which amounted to an expedited rulemaking, to allow the adoption by OSHA of any and 

all national consensus standards that had been published at the time. Clearly, Congress intended 

this to be kind of a one-time exception to the rulemaking requirements. 

 Another indication of the Congressional intent is found in Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which 

outlines what OSHA is required to do in developing standards involving toxic materials and 

hazardous physical substances. 

 Finally, Congress intended for a more detailed rulemaking for toxic materials, as is 

demonstrated from the fact that the Secretary specifically required, in making rulemaking, under 

Section 6(f), that the records show that there is substantial evidence, when considered as a whole, 

for the standard that's being promulgated. 

 While there are other sections of the Act that demonstrate this intent for requiring a more 

detailed rulemaking process in this area, these three sections, I think, provide sufficient evidence to 

substantiate this position. 

 The next logical point to raise is that yes, detailed rulemaking was obviously the intent of 

the Congress, but Congress probably could not envision the court challenges and the judicial 

roadblocks that would arise under the OSHA rulemaking process. The response, I think, is that 

Congress did envision the court challenges being made to OSHA rulemaking, in fact provided for it 

in the Act, because once again, in Section 6(f) of the Act, Congress specifically allowed court 

challenges.

 Section 6(f) specifically states, any person who is adversely affected by the standard issued 

under this section may, at any time prior to the 60th day of such standard being promulgated, file a 

challenge to the validity of such standard. It is clear from this section that Congress, in the Act, 

realized that court challenges would be made to OSHA rulemaking. 

 Turning to the claim about the judicial roadblocks being raised to rulemaking, I would 

argue that clearly they are manageable and have been managed by OSHA in the past. I believe that 

if you did a careful analysis of the case law involving challenges to the OSHA standards over the 

years, to OSHA standard rulemaking, it would show that OSHA is victorious in most cases that are 

brought. While, in general, the courts have held to that substantial evidence rule, the courts 

generally give substantial deference to OSHA in providing evidence, throughout most of the cases. 

 Even in those cases where OSHA has lost, the courts were, in part, sympathetic to OSHA. I 

will point to the case Industrial Union Department v. the American Petroleum Institute, also known 

as the Benzene standard, or the “Benzene”' case, where the U.S. Supreme Court vacated OSHA's 

Benzene standard in a plurality decision. However, in that plurality opinion, written by Justice 

Stevens, the Court held that a reviewing court must provide OSHA some freedom in promulgating 

standards where the evidence is on the cutting edge of scientific knowledge; clearly once again, 

OSHA receiving deference in this area. 
8

 Finally, in the case that has arguably brought us here today, the 11th Circuit, which vacated 

the PELs decision in AFL-CIO v. OSHA, if you read the decision there, I think you can see that 

specifically the court has determined that OSHA failed to meet its rulemaking responsibilities, and 

basically is saying, “OSHA, we will not allow you to take these shortcuts. You need to do your 

homework, or at least demonstrate to us that you have done your homework.'' 

 The next point I would like to make with respect to legislative action regarding the PELs is 

there is much if not more agreement than there is disagreement. 

 In examining the points made in the written testimony on this issue, we have much to agree 

on. Specifically, we agree that any PELs legislation must minimize the potential for amendment to 

the Act. Such action would cause, I think, the different parties to call out their troops on both sides 

for fear that they may somehow be put at a disadvantage. But we also agree that any procedure for 

updating PELs must include all interested parties and have full disclosure. We further agree that 

any updating procedures must include all the best evidence, available data, and information, both 

pro and con, in order to fairly evaluate any new PELs. Finally, we agree with the contention this 

process is critical, that the potential on small businesses be given special attention. 

 Specifically, in my written testimony, I talk about the importance of the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, that they be incorporated in any type of change that would 

be contemplated by the Committee. Finally, my written testimony ends up by stating our belief that 

probably the most logical solution to this issue is to direct OSHA to do its job and make the 

necessary PELs updates and provide additional funding to be able to meet this in an expedited 

manner. 

 As I mentioned earlier about the case law, it is clear that OSHA can be successful in 

handling standard rulemaking, especially health standards. The question, I guess, to be asked is 

why little has been done with the PELs since the court decision in 1992. 

 In conclusion, again I'd like to thank the Committee for its interest in this important area, 

and especially in giving me this opportunity to speak. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE EDWIN G. FOULKE, JR., 

JACKSON, LEWIS, SCHNITZLER & KRUPMAN, LLP, GREENVILLE, SC, 

TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES CHAMBER OF 

COMMERCE, WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE APPENDIX B 

Chairman Norwood. Thank you very much, Mr. Foulke. 

Ms. Seminario, you're next. 
9

STATEMENT OF MARGARET M. SEMINARIO, DIRECTOR, 

DEPARTMENT OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH, AFL-CIO, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Representative Owens. Thank you for the 

opportunity to testify, and I just wanted to say that we appreciate your interest in and particularly 

your leadership on this issue. 

 I’d just like to make a couple of summary points of my written statement. First, that 

exposure to toxic chemicals is a major problem for workers in this country. There are estimates of 

50,000 to 60,000 deaths every year from occupational diseases. This compares to 6,000 deaths 

from traumatic injuries, so this is a big problem. 

 The standard-setting apparatus of OSHA has not kept pace with the need to protect workers. 

We've had 31 years of experience under the statute, and as of today, OSHA has set standards to 

address 29 toxic substances, so that's been the track record in 31 years. 

 In 1988, at the time when they considered updating PELs, a colleague from industry said 

that the situation at that point was an embarrassment to industry and OSHA, and I would say it was 

an embarrassment to the country, so addressing this issue indeed is important. As everyone has 

noted, OSHA did try to update these limits in 1988 and 1989, and was unsuccessful, due to a court 

challenge and the regulation being overturned. At this point in time, we believe that legislation is 

indeed needed from the Congress, direction from Congress, and authorization to provide for an 

expeditious process for updating the permissible exposure limits. 

 Ideally, we would like to see legislation that updates the existing limits, and which would 

provide for keeping them up to date on an ongoing basis, but we understand and recognize that 

doing all of this at once is a fairly heavy lift. So what we have discussed with colleagues, the safety 

and health professionals with different industry groups, is looking at this as a staged process, trying 

to go at this in stages, gain some experience, build some trust, and then see if we can move on. 

 What we have talked about is a process that as a starting point recommended standards of 

various standard-setting organizations, possibly the ACGIH, AIHA, and recommended standards 

by NIOSH. We would start there, but we certainly wouldn't stop there, because, as has been pointed 

out, if this process is going to be successful, it is one in which there's got to be broad agreements 

reached in the comfort level with the standards that are, indeed, adopted. 

 So what we have talked about is the establishment of an advisory committee under the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, that would essentially serve as a review and screen of these 

various recommended levels to look at the data that had been relied upon in setting these levels, to 

look at additional data evidence submitted by interested parties, and to determine, based upon a 

review of that evidence, whether or not these limits were ones that indeed should be supported, but 

that the process would still end up going through a rulemaking for further public comment and 

input. We are continuing to have these discussions, and reaching out to a broader group to get input 
10

on this particular proposal. 

 As Mr. Foulke said, there are a lot of very knotty issues that I think need to be dealt with 

here, but I think that we have to set certain goals and proceed with certain principles, and those 

goals should be trying to come up with a process, as you said, Mr. Chairman, that tries to bring the 

protection we are providing to workers up to date, but to do so in a way that provides interested 

parties, all interested parties, a real right to participate that is fully open and maintains people's 

legal rights. 

 Again, we have been engaged in these discussions organized by the AIHA for the last year.

We think that they have been quite constructive, and we hope that these discussions can continue 

with others, with yourselves, with Mr. Owens, to see if, indeed, we can reach a consensus on a 

process to update the standards and provide workers much-needed protection. 

 Thank you very much. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF MARGARET M. SEMINARIO, DIRECTOR, 

DEPARTMENT OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH, AFL-CIO, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. - SEE APPENDIX C 

Chairman Norwood. Thank you, Peg. 

Mr. White, you're now recognized. 

STATEMENT OF FRANK A. WHITE, ESQ., VICE PRESIDENT, 

ORGANIZATION RESOURCES COUNSELORS, INC., WASHINGTON, 

D.C.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and Mr. Owens for your willingness to 

discuss this issue and for your leadership, as well. 

 For the past six years or so, ORC has been part of an inter-industry group that's been tilting 

at this windmill of updating the PELs, which are now, we agree, seriously antiquated. As the 

Chairman knows, ORC members comprise about 160 large, sophisticated companies that are pretty 

progressive in their commitment to superior safety and health, and we sort of tested your first 

assumption, that the PELs are out of date, by doing a short survey of our members, and we got 

about 80 responses, and I'll just tell you what the results were. I think they're fairly interesting, 
11

although maybe not surprising. 

 The first question was: “Where your employees are exposed to substances that are covered 

by OSHA's PELs and are also covered by lower alternative limits, non-mandatory, consensus, or 

other standards, what exposure limits does your company generally apply?” Only about a quarter of 

ORC members used the PELs. Three-quarters of ORC companies use some alternative, lower limit. 

 When we asked, secondly, “Well, what are your sources for those alternative limits?” we 

found that about half of them rely on consensus or other voluntary standard organization limits like 

ACGIH and AIHA, about 30 percent set their own internal limits with their own data and 

information, and about 20 percent rely on other sources, for example, international limits. 

 Finally we asked, “Well, what if there is no PEL? What do you do for substances where 

there is no PEL, but your employees are exposed?” We specifically asked them, “Do you rely on 

ACGIH limits?” and virtually every company who responded said, “Yes, we do to some extent at 

least rely on ACGIH limits.” 

 I guess I'd note that one of the bases for challenging the 1989 PELs was that people were 

uncomfortable with the ACGIH limits, and you're familiar with some of those reasons. I think it's 

sort of ironic that we're in a situation now where maybe companies are relying on the ACGIH 

limits more than ever. I think it is clear that companies are searching for credible, more protective 

limits, and I think updating the PELs is certainly one way to do that. So that's one reason why 

ORC, along with American Chemistry Council and American Petroleum Institute and others, have 

sought to advocate for OSHA to re-engage, as Mr. Foulke has suggested, and work on and tackle 

this issue again. 

 Unfortunately, up to this point, we've had little success. We've had some resistance for a 

variety of reasons, and so when AIHA convened a small group to talk once again about what the 

options are, we eagerly participated in those discussions. While our initial expectations weren't 

very high, I must say, like Ms. Seminario, that I think we've had a productive series of 

conversations, and I think there are some possible areas of consensus on an approach to updating 

the PELs. 

 So I think there may be a limited role for Congress in setting up a process that would help 

us update PELs. I'd like to discuss, as you did at the outset Mr. Chairman, some of our own 

suggested ground rules or principles that any legislative or administrative process could adopt. 

 First, we agree with Mr. Foulke that any PEL legislation must minimize the possibility of 

“opening up” the Act. Maybe some freestanding legislation using the needlestick legislation as a 

model might be an appropriate way to go. 

 Second, we totally agree that any process for updating the PELs must be open and 

transparent and inclusive of all the parties. It's absolutely essential that there be no barriers to 

active participation in the process. 
12

 Third, any updating process must encourage the submission of the best available data. 

We've got to look at the data and have a process that fairly evaluates both scientific and 

technological data and economic data. 

 Then we believe the PEL process should be consensus-driven. We believe that, at this 

point, if you're going to have a one-time update to raise the bar that the process needs to be 

consensus-driven. For example, an advisory committee is one approach to doing that. 

 Next I think, and this is a difficult one and we all acknowledge it, that somehow the legal 

standards for determining whether a proposed PEL is scientifically supported and capable of being 

achieved must be somewhat less stringent than those in the current Act, because I think you're 

right. As you said at the outset, there are barriers in the Occupational Safety and Health Act to 

doing other than a case-by-case or substance-by-substance evaluation, which isn't going to get us 

where we want to be. 

 Next, I think any updating process must strike a balance, on the one hand, between the need 

to look at science and evaluate the science on one side, and at the same time expedite the process. 

We can't have an open-ended, interminable process for updating these PELs. There has got to be 

some time limits placed on it, so that balance has to be struck. 

 I think also and I agree again with Mr. Foulke, that the potential burdens on small business 

really must be given special consideration, and we've had some discussions about how to do that. 

But we've got to assure that businesses of all sizes and all types can achieve whatever new PELs 

this process comes forward with. 

 Finally, I think you hinted at this, there must be due process rights preserved. To us, that 

means ultimately there must be some right to challenge a limit through the judicial process. Those 

are some of the ground rules we would suggest. 

We thank you and look forward to continuing to work with you and other stakeholders on 

this, and would be happy to answer any questions. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF FRANK A. WHITE, ESQ., VICE PRESIDENT, 

ORGANIZATION RESOURCES COUNSELORS, INC., WASHINGTON, D.C. – 

SEE APPENDIX D 

Chairman Norwood. Thank you very much, Mr. White. 

Mr. Schwartz, you're now recognized. 
13

STATEMENT OF RICHARD SCHWARTZ, PARTNER, CROWELL & 

MORING, LLP, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN IRON AND 

STEEL INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Richard 

Schwartz. I'm here on behalf of the American Iron and Steel Institute, and I know that I'm here 

because I argued the industry position that prevailed in AFL-CIO v. OSHA. I think there are certain 

lessons we can get from that case, and I'm going to try to describe those to you this afternoon. I also 

want to note that when I argued it I had 15 minutes and today I have only five, but I didn't have the 

benefit of the court's opinion when I argued it, so I may be able to do this. 

 I want to talk first about the rulemaking procedures that were used in that case; second, the 

court's findings; third, the role of judicial review in developing OSHA standards; and finally, the 

leeway that OSHA has under the current law. 

 Now, with respect to the procedures that were followed in that rulemaking, those were 

procedures that gave AISI a lot of trouble. On June 7, 1988, OSHA issued 428 standards at one 

time. The proposal covered 400 pages of the Federal Register, and on top of those 400 pages, there 

were thousands of studies that were cited and relied upon for the standard. 

 We had 30 days to develop comments, write them up, and submit them to OSHA. The 30 

days were followed by a two-week period to prepare for hearings on these 428 substances. As a 

result, although the steel industry was affected by scores of these substances, they only had time to 

comment on nine, and barely time enough to do that. 

 So a lot has been said about the fact that, well, these are really non-controversial substances 

and so many of these standards were just ones that nobody cared about, but in fact, it was really the 

time constraints of the hearing that prevented parties like AISI from commenting on all of the 

standards that affected them. 

 I think, from our perspective, we felt that OSHA was time-driven. They wanted to get these 

done quickly, and parties' participation simply got in the way, and they didn't do that. They didn't 

allow enough time for meaningful public participation. 

 One interesting sidelight of that is that the law is very favorable to agencies with respect to 

procedures. There's a case called “Vermont Yankee” that the Supreme Court decided, that said that 

the courts cannot require the agencies to allow more procedural safeguards than the statute 

required, which meant that OSHA, in fact, could allow 30 days for 428 standards and probably be 

upheld by the courts, because that's what the statute provided. 

 The second thing I'd like to talk about is what the 11th Circuit found. What it found was 

that OSHA said all the right things. They have to make three findings related to significant risk, 

technological feasibility, and economic feasibility, and OSHA made all of those findings, but the 

court looked behind what OSHA said and found that it really didn't do the analysis that was 
14

required.

 With respect to significant risk, the court found that OSHA cited some studies at very high 

levels of exposure and then, without explanation, issued a much more stringent PEL without 

explaining how the high exposure in the studies justified the low number that was in the PEL. 

 With respect to technological feasibility, OSHA cited generally available engineering 

controls such as ventilation, isolation of workers, and substitution of products and said, “Oh, these 

things are available for all these substances,” but what they didn't do is any analysis to determine 

whether these generalized controls would actually meet the specific PELs that they had issued in 

the specific industries that would have to meet them, and the court found that that was lacking. 

 With respect to economic feasibility, what OSHA did was analyze costs of compliance on 

what it called an industry sector basis, which is much broader than individual industries, and the 

court cited the most egregious example, which was for perchloroethylene, which is used as drycleaning fluid. 

 They spread the cost of complying with the perchloroethylene standard over the entire 

sector, which was personal services, when all the costs would be borne only by the dry-cleaning 

industry, and the court pointed out that averaging the costs masks hardships to individual 

industries, and so it rejected that method, as well. 

 The one last sidelight comment I want to make relating to the court's decision is, I'm not an 

industrial hygienist, but in developing the case, I looked at a lot of the studies, and I actually read 

the evidence that OSHA had cited for many of the PELs. What we found was that, in many 

instances, although the number was lower, the studies they were relying on were the same studies 

that were used to develop the 1971 PELs. In other words, the evidence hadn't changed, only the 

judgments about how protective we should be had changed. 

 The lesson from that for me was that, while the PELs are old and some of them may be 

outdated, it's wrong to say that they're all outdated simply because they're old. In many cases, the 

underlying evidence really is no different from what it was before. 

 So from that, I wanted to comment briefly on the role of judicial review, and from our 

standpoint, the active judicial review provided by the court was very helpful. The court looked 

behind the formal findings that OSHA made. Even though OSHA had hampered public 

participation, from our viewpoint, and the court allowed that to happen, it did not allow the agency 

simply to pay lip service to the findings that had to be made, and we found it was an important 

safeguard for us with respect to that rule. 

 Lastly, I want to talk about the leeway that's left to OSHA under the current law. From the 

11th Circuit decision, you can see that the courts will defer to OSHA's priorities in terms of what it 

wants to address and how many substances at one time. For example, it said OSHA is perfectly 

free to issue standards for groups of substances at one time. That's up to the agency. 
15

 What it did require was some explanation of what OSHA was doing, which goes to the 

issue of transparency that you mentioned as one of the requirements for a consensus standard. We 

think that's very important, too. 

 What the court found in this case was that OSHA did not have that transparency, not only in 

development of the rule, but even after it issued the rule. The court couldn't tell how OSHA got to 

the numbers that it actually chose. What the court did find was that OSHA simply didn't follow the 

law. It invented shortcuts, and the court found that those shortcuts didn't comply with the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act. 

 But the conclusion that you can get from reading the opinion is that, in fact, the law does 

give OSHA a lot of leeway. The standards of review are deferential, and given OSHA's discretion 

to group substances, there's a lot of room between 428 and one at a time, and AISI feels that OSHA 

could issue a lot more PELs by using that leeway and grouping PELs, but not simply 428 at once. 

In fact, 428 in six months, we figured is about one every 12 hours. We figure they could give them 

a day. They may be able to do a lot better. 

 Thank you very much. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF RICHARD SCHWARTZ, PARTNER, CROWELL & 

MORING, LLP, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN IRON AND 

STEEL INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE APPENDIX E 

Chairman Norwood. Thank you, Mr. Schwartz. 

 Let me ask you something right up front, Mr. White, to get it straight in my mind. You 

were at DOL, I think, at one time, were you not? 

Mr. White. I'll admit that, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Norwood. Other than the PELs standards that were incorporated under Section 6(f), 

how many PELs standards has OSHA actually promulgated in its history, do you know? 

Mr. White. I think Ms. Seminario addressed that, and as a matter of fact I sat with her and went 

over the list, and I think she's correct. I think it is 29 that deal with specific substances. There are 

other, more generic rules, but 29 is a pretty good number. 

Chairman Norwood. And there are approximately 450 existing PELs? 

Mr. White. Roughly. 

Chairman Norwood. The staff keeps telling me that out of 450 PELs, as you pointed out Mr. 

Schwartz, some are not outdated and it should not be that difficult to come to some reasonable 
16

percent of those on a consensus basis. 

 I'm not saying that there won't be plenty of them over which we will have a real dogfight, 

but each of you talk to me a minute about that. Is the staff right? Do you think there is a possibility 

to come to a consensus on half of them, on a third of them, or some idea of consensus fairly easily? 

Mr. White. I'm willing to start because I've sort of taken on the task of trying to assess just that 

question, and I think it's incumbent on all of us who want to participate in this process to try to 

make that assessment. The short answer is, I don't know how many there are. I would have to guess 

and surmise. 

 Let me say first that my understanding is at the time OSHA issued its 1989 PELs, there 

were about 200 that received no comment at all from the public. Not only weren't they sued over 

them, but also they received no comment. 

 Now, part of that might be a reflection, as Mr. Schwartz says, on people not having time to 

assess what the problems were. But if you begin with that number of 200 nobody commented on, 

there's probably some subset of that. Maybe it's 25, maybe it's 250, in some range like that, where 

there's probably a group of substances on which there may be some possibility of consensus. 

 I'd be interested to see what others have to say. 

Chairman Norwood. Mr. Foulke, do you have an opinion about that? 

Mr. Foulke. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would say that probably some of the chemicals that you could 

look at there would be some consensus that could be worked out. But unfortunately there are 

certain problems that come into play in getting to that consensus, because there are some industries, 

as has been stated in some of the testimony, that already are actually below and have a stricter limit 

for employee exposure. So there is no impact on them if we do go to a lower PEL, or if we went to 

the ACGIH, they would be able to meet those. So that would be no problem. 

 Part of my concern really is with the small businessperson, because you have a lot of people 

out there that are probably complying with the current PELs. There's some concern that if we go to 

a lower PEL that they will be able to meet whatever is going to be required of them. Usually for 

most employers to reach that PEL, there's normally engineering controls that are instituted. That 

means new equipment, whatever, new type of ventilation. 

 So those are some of the concerns I think I have with getting consensus. How are we going 

to make sure that the small businessperson is not left out in this whole process? 

Chairman Norwood. Do you plan to be at the table when we do this? 

Mr. Foulke. I'll be there. 

Chairman Norwood. Mr. White, are you going to be there? 
17

Mr. White. Yes, sir. 

Chairman Norwood. I encourage you both. That's a very, very important part of this, and that 

ought to be built into the process of us coming to some type of consensus here, because we're not 

going to get anything done if we don't reach consensus. 

 But Mr. Foulke I’d like you to give me your best guess. Out of 450 some of these have got 

to be easy.

Mr. Foulke. I'm sure there are some PELs where the NIOSH PELs are all the same, so I assume 

we can check those off the list. 

Chairman Norwood. I'm a big checker of lists. You know, let's cut this baby in half, and then 

we've got some real work in front of us. 

Mr. Foulke. That's correct. Then the question is the opposite. There's probably some that have 

some really large differences from the PEL to the other different limits, and I think you would have 

a lot of conflict there. 

Chairman Norwood. And we may not get there on those. 

Mr. Foulke. We may never get to that point. 

Chairman Norwood. I'm not saying we're going to get all 450 done, but when I look back at what 

OSHA's done, I bet we can do better than 29. 

Mr. Foulke. I think probably the best way to start would be looking at the new chemicals that have 

come into deployment at the workplace that had no PELs at all. That, to me, probably would be the 

best starting point. 

Chairman Norwood. Well, that's going to be part of this solution, too, which ones are not there. 

Ms. Seminario and then Mr. Schwartz, if you will both just give me a feel for how you 

think this thing could go. 

Ms. Seminario. The best sense that I can give you, again, is based upon the experience from 1988-

1989. Looking at those chemicals that are high-volume chemicals in widespread use there's lots of 

different potential exposure context. Those are going to be the most difficult ones to get agreement 

on most likely. 

 Ironically, for us those are probably the most important to deal with, and we said so back in 

1988-1989. We're now taking a somewhat different approach to this. Just to be clear on this, we're 

saying, let's try and go at those where we can reach some agreement. Maybe they're not the most 

important ones, but the approach that we're looking at now is trying to come to agreement on as 

many as we can through some expedited process, get some experience, build some trust and

hopefully focus most of our energy on the ones that really do matter. Those are going to be a 
18

tougher lift, and those, at least in my view, probably get put off to some other process. So we do 

this in bits and we do it in stages. 

 We had some discussions earlier, and there's really a couple of ways you can come at this. 

You can come at it by focusing on the ones that are the most difficult first and have the most 

widespread exposures, and probably make the most difference to workers, as well as employers, 

and limit it to that and forget the ones that everybody can reach agreement on. Or you can try to 

focus on the ones that are the easier lift and try and get those done, and get them out of the way so 

you can really focus the agency's efforts and resources on the ones that really do matter. 

Chairman Norwood. Well, let's practice on the easy ones. You know, 450 is a heavy load to lift.

All of you help me. Let's get it down to 200, and work through the other 250. Maybe we will have 

learned to trust each other enough to work through the hard ones you're talking about. 

Mr. Schwartz. 

Mr. Schwartz. I have a couple of observations. 

 One is that Mr. White was correct about the fact that even if a PEL didn't receive a 

comment during that period it did not mean that there wasn't concern about it. The time constraints 

were, in fact, too severe to use that as a reliable indicator. 

 Secondly, AISI has been advocating probably for about 10 years that the PELs that would 

be easiest to do are the ones for substances that right now have no PEL, because those are ones 

where industries look around for control references so that the references will be some sort of 

consensus standard. It will probably be a lot easier to develop a consensus around developing a 

PEL for a substance that doesn't have one at all than it will be to try to change a PEL when industry 

has been controlling to meet that level. So to lower it will cause the industry to incur greater control 

costs, and that makes the industry people look at those things very carefully. The recommendation 

that we would have would be to look first at the substances that have no PEL. 

Chairman Norwood. Well, if we've got 450 now, how many more are you going to add on to my 

shoulders? How many more don't have a PEL, for Pete's sakes? 

Mr. Schwartz. I don't know. Mr. White might know. 

Mr. White. At the time, in 1989, the 450 included approximately 160 for which there were no 

PELs. Now, that has changed since then. There may only be 100-plus. But there is some 

substantial number now, where there is no PEL but there is some other consensus limit. 

Chairman Norwood. Well, part of this consensus means process, too, and we'll figure out how all 

of us want to work through this. 

 I'd like to yield my time now to Ms. Sanchez for questions. 
19

Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 I want to begin by asking to insert in the record a statement by Mr. Kucinich, who is not 

here currently. 

Chairman Norwood. So ordered. 

Ms. Sanchez. Let's see. First of all, I want to thank the panel for being here. I missed some of your 

testimony, although I have read some of it. I want to ask Mr. Foulke a question, and then have Ms. 

Seminario comment on the same question. 

Mr. Foulke, you suggested that one method of addressing the PEL problem is for Congress 

to allocate additional resources to OSHA so that OSHA could form a specific task force and 

develop these new PELs within the existing statutory framework that we have. The universe of 

possible PELs is, I gather, around 500 or more given these new ones. 

 How many staff do you think this task force would have to have in order to review the 

existing PELs, compare them to other existing consensus standards, analyze new chemicals that 

might require new PELs, identify significant risk, and develop the safest, most feasible standards 

possible? Realistically, how many PELs do you think OSHA could be expected to issue a year and 

still meet all the other things that it's supposed to do, considering I think it's an under funded 

agency at this point? 

Mr. Foulke. Well, I would first note that OSHA has lost 10 or 11 years since 1992 when the case 

by the 11th Circuit put out the original PELs standard, where they could have been working on 

them. Even if they had been working on 40 a year, they would have had over the 400. So that's the 

first point, I'd say. 

 I haven't done any type of cost analysis as to how much staffing, but what I'm saying in my 

testimony is that first of all, when it's all said and done, this is OSHA's job. I mean you can't get 

around that. That's what they were supposed to be doing. They had the opportunity. If you look at 

the case law, they don't lose that many cases on standard rulemaking, or on health standards. They 

get a tremendous amount of deference. 

 They could have been doing this. I don't know why they haven't been doing this, to tell you 

the truth. 

Ms. Sanchez. Well, the truth is, they haven't been doing that, because they've had a cut in OSHA 

funding, and they haven't had any increases. I mean, during the six years I’ve been here, I've seen 

nothing but trying to eliminate OSHA in my first few years here. 

 So I'm not arguing about what they could have done in the past. I think they've updated 29 

PELs, maybe, over the last 30 or 31 years. I'm asking what you realistically think in your mind, if 

you've taken a look at this. I haven't. How many a year do you think they could do? 
20

Mr. Foulke. With the work that they're doing, to a certain degree, I think they've had a little tunnel 

vision with respect to ergonomics. They've focused strictly in that area, and I think that was a 

mistake. We now have some form of rulemaking, and are attempting to deal with the ergonomics 

issue, so hopefully they could focus on these other issues and start working on them. 

 The other thing is, with respect to even the proposal that we're making, or the proposal 

that's been kind of formulated here, you're still going to have a series of PELs that is going to have 

to take some serious rulemaking. There are just a lot of issues. There's a lot of the cost analysis and 

those types of things that only OSHA is going to be able to do. The Committee won't be able to get 

into cost analysis, or feasibility studies. They're just not going to be able to do it. So those cases, I 

think, still need pushing. 

 We're here because I think there is agreement that we need to look at the PELs, and we need 

to do something. I just am saddened in a way that OSHA has let this area drop. I have actually no 

reasoning to explain why that happened, because like I said, if you look at the case law, most 

lawyers would be happy to have their record of wins/losses when it comes to the standard rule 

makers in the courts. 

Ms. Sanchez. Well, again, I think if you fund an agency, maybe they can do some of the work 

that's designated under their workload. 

Ms. Seminario? 

Ms. Seminario. I think the question becomes one that has to be answered, and it has to be 

answered whether it's done through new legislation or under the existing statute, and that is, what 

are the evidentiary requirements that have to be met with respect to setting these limits? What are 

the evidentiary requirements with respect to risk and with respect to feasibility? 

 I don't think that there's necessarily agreement or consensus on that point, and so that's still 

an open question, after the 11th Circuit's decision. Some people might argue they've got to make 

exactly the same showings they have to in a comprehensive 6(b)(5) standard for one chemical in 

doing group rulemaking. We wouldn't make that argument, but I think that's really the open 

question.

 So the discussions that we've had have focused on reaching some consensus, both sort of a 

technical consensus and a political consensus around some of these rules. Can that consensus help 

support, and not substitute, but form some of the basis for agreement on significant risk and 

feasibility, and maybe even get away from those terms for this particular group of chemicals? 

 We're not talking about changing the statutory requirements for all 6(b)(5) standards in the 

future, because the other thing that we've talked about is that the statute not only requires the 

agency to make these findings of significant risk and feasibility. It also requires that when OSHA 

sets a standard, it sets the standard that most adequately assures the greatest protection of workers 

to the extent feasible; so it's a very, very high level of protection. It's also a high burden. 
21

 What we have been willing to discuss is reducing the level of protection in exchange for a 

reduction in the burden, so we believe that we're being open and compromising in trying to get 

something established here as a baseline of protection from which we can work. 

Ms. Sanchez. So would it be your opinion, Ms. Seminario, that additional staff would have to be 

hired at OSHA in order to try to attempt to start working on this list of PELs? 

Ms. Seminario. Well, what they would have to do is devote some resources to it, and right now, 

they're not. It was removed from their regulatory agenda. So yes, it would need resources, and I 

think, again, depending upon the evidentiary burden, it might be a whole lot of resources that 

would be needed. 

Ms. Sanchez. And if the Chairman would indulge me just one more question, isn't it also true that 

this Administration has removed updating PELs from its regulatory agenda? 

Ms. Seminario. That's exactly right, they did. They removed it back in December of last year. It 

was on there. Some work was going forward on a few permissible exposure limits, and now it has 

been removed from the regulatory agenda, and to my knowledge, it's not being worked on. 

Mr. White. Ms. Sanchez, if I could address that? 

Ms. Sanchez. Yes. 

Mr. White. Yes, they have removed it. The reason given, or the reason I've heard is that they don't 

know how to tackle the issue, either, just like we're discussing how to tackle the issue, and Mr. 

Henshaw is not willing to put something on the agenda that he doesn't know how to address. 

 I think there's some legitimacy to that. However, going back to the prior question and 

having been at the agency for a while, I think primarily it's a question of priorities. What are 

OSHA's priorities? What are its standard-setting priorities? 

 It has a fair number of resources that it could devote to this issue. Could it do 20 a year or 

40 a year? I'm not sure there's an answer to that right off the top of anybody's head. But it certainly 

could do more than it's doing, if it were a top priority, and if it were willing to tackle the issue of 

setting up a process to do it. 

Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I might have some other questions if we have another 

round.

Chairman Norwood. Yes, we will. 

Ms. Woolsey, you are now recognized for five minutes. 

Ms. Woolsey. Thank you very much, and I'm sorry I missed your testimony, but I've heard it 

before, and I think I have the same questions I always have. But I can answer one of your 

questions, Congresswoman, as to why doesn't this happen? It doesn't happen because every time 
22

OSHA comes forward with standards that meet a need, the Administration and the Majority party 

say, “We can't afford it.” 

 Well, I'm sorry. Ergonomics has to be afforded. We can't afford not to do these things. It's 

costing us more in the long run. As a former human resources professional for 20 years during the 

1970s and the 1980s, I know absolutely that it pays to keep employees healthy. They miss less time 

due to illness; there are fewer workers’ comp claims, which is very expensive for organizations; 

and healthy employees produce a better service or product. There's no question that morale is 

improved when an employee knows for a fact that their company cares about them. 

 So I ask you, isn't it just good, plain business sense to invest in employee health plans 

coverage and good OSHA programs? I mean, if as soon as we get a PEL that's going to meet needs, 

but then we come out and say, “Well, we've got to cut that in half, we have to cut the baby in half,” 

excuse me, Mr. Chairman, a half a baby is worth nothing. So we need to put our energy and our 

funding where we can do something, and not just a bunch of compromises. 

 So I ask you, isn't it good business sense to invest in employee health and protection? I'll 

start down here, Richard. 

Mr. Schwartz. The answer is clearly yes, and the issue is at what level do you need to control to 

reach that protection? 

 The way standards are generally set is that there are studies where there are known effects 

from exposure at very high levels, and of course you wouldn't set a standard at that level, because 

you want to set a standard at a level where employees will not show health effects. The debates 

have been how far down do you go in order to ensure that there will be no health effects from the 

particular level, and that's where the debates are centered. 

Ms. Woolsey. Right, and, then, excuse me, isn't it true that then we have scientific studies, and 

when we get scientific results over and over again about a particular standard, then because the 

majority doesn't like the results, then we have to throw it out and start all over? I mean, what a 

waste of time. 

Mr. Schwartz. I don't think, actually, that's quite the way they're set. 

Ms. Woolsey. Well, it's happening with ergonomics. 

Mr. Schwartz. But when you have lots of studies that show health effects at a certain level, what 

will happen is the standard will be set tighter than that, and everyone agrees that it should be. So 

the question is, how much tighter? 

 In the case of occupational safety and health standards, there are consensus standard-setting 

organizations, and some are not technically consensus organizations, but individual companies will 

set standards for exposure; ACGIH will set standards; the AIHA will set standards; there are 

European standards. 
23

Ms. Woolsey. We're looking at OSHA standards. 

Mr. White? 

Mr. White. I think there's a fair percentage of business that really does believe that occupational 

health and safety standards are necessary, are important, are useful, are valuable, are economically 

important, and we support the setting of standards. 

 I think what we're trying to do here, in fact, is figure out a way to set more standards, not 

fewer, because there are some in business, believe it or not, who think that OSHA should have been 

more productive in the last several years, in setting reasonable health protections for workers, and 

there are a variety of reasons why that hasn't happened. We're here at the table, I think, to try to 

figure out a way to enhance OSHA's ability to set standards. 

Ms. Woolsey. But, Peg, as soon as a standard is set we start tearing it apart. How are we ever going 

to get there? 

Ms. Seminario. Well, I think you raise a good point, and I think that's one of the reasons why, in 

coming at this particular issue, we are starting with discussions to try and get some broader 

agreements at the get-go, and see if we can reach some agreements, and not an agreement on the 

lowest common denominator. 

 Let me say, we're not interested in a process that might change some limits in the Code of 

Federal Regulations but really have no impact in the workplace because the chemicals aren't really 

used. We want to deal with things that are real issues, real hazards, where we can get some real 

agreements for real protection. So that's our interest in proceeding with this. 

 Maybe, on this particular set of issues, because there has been support from different folks 

in the industry on trying to do this over the years, we can start with a base of agreement from which 

we can work. Will we be successful? I was saying to Frank, you get tired of working on things 

over and over again, and after 10 years, 20 years, you have nothing to show for it. But we're willing 

once again to try, and to work with you, and work with Mr. Norwood and Mr. Owens, to see if we 

can come to agreements on a process that will improve protection for workers and improve legal 

protections, as well. 

Chairman Norwood. And part of our job is to make sure we keep politics out of this. 

Ms. Seminario. Absolutely. 

Chairman Norwood. Ms. Woolsey missed the opening, but you know we don't need to have this 

be political. 

Ms. Woolsey. Oh. Well, I certainly haven't seen any of that. 
24

Chairman Norwood. What this is about is really making an honest effort to have consensus and 

try to make improvements, and the less politics. I know that's hard, with an election coming up. 

But if we're serious about this, then people at the table have to leave politics at home, and let's see 

if we actually can change these. 

Ms. Woolsey, your time has expired. Do you wish to respond, Peg? 

Ms. Seminario. I just wanted to respond to what you just said. You know, obviously there are a lot 

of issues in which there have been very, very strong disagreements, and there will be issues in the 

future. 

Chairman Norwood. Right. 

Ms. Seminario. But as I pointed out in my testimony, and you pointed out in your opening 

statement, there have been some areas where we have been able to come together, reach some 

agreements on the needle stick legislation; we reached agreements on legislation to expand health 

and safety protections to postal workers; some agreements on codifying certain aspects of the 

OSHA consultation program and providing workers more rights in that process. 

 So, you know, we have, working together, been able to do that, and we're willing to try, on 

this particular issue, to see if that's possible to do again. 

Chairman Norwood. Well, let the record show I'm not going to respond to Ms. Woolsey, in an 

effort to have a bipartisan, non-partisan meeting here. 

 I wanted to ask all of you a different question just out of curiosity, and I don't know the 

answer. If OSHA has been able to incorporate only 29 PELs, have they done any since 1988? 

Ms. Seminario. Just to be clear, there is a difference between PELs, which are simply an exposure 

limit, and the comprehensive 6(b)(5) health standards. 

 What they've been able to do is put out standards that deal with 29 toxic chemicals through 

comprehensive standards, so it's more than a PEL. They have done major chemicals, major 

hazards, major rulemakings, and so they have been able to do that. What they haven't done and 

been successful at is just updating the permissible exposure limits. 

 The last 6(b)(5) toxic chemical standard they issued was in 1997, and that was on 

methylene chloride; and the one before that was 1996 on 1(3) butadyne, and 1(3) butadyne was a 

standard that came about as a result of agreements between the industry and the unions on that 

particular standard. 

Chairman Norwood. Agreements, consensus got that done? 

Ms. Seminario. On that one. But on most of them, there's been a lot of contention. 
25

Chairman Norwood. So you're talking about two or three. Other than the rulemaking process, 

what is the difficulty? Anybody want to expound on that? 

 I mean the rulemaking process at OSHA is what makes it so difficult for us to deal with 

these 450 chemicals and not get very much done. I heard you mention 29 total. What else is the 

problem besides simply the rulemaking process? 

Mr. White. I'll take one stab at that. 

 There was a trend that began, oh, I guess in the early 1980s, to move away from substance 

by substance rulemakings, and hat what we ought to be looking at are so-called generic rules, 

because we could do more in a single rulemaking, if we had a mega-rulemaking. 

 That was one of the things that led to the PEL update. “Let's tackle a big issue.” And then 

along came issues like safety and health programs. “Let's establish a requirement that every 

employer in the country adopt a safety and health program.” Well, that's sort of a mega-rulemaking, 

and that and ergonomics is a similar type of issue. 

 Frankly, OSHA hasn't had a lot of success in hazard communications, which is a similar 

kind of mega-rulemaking, or generic rulemaking. OSHA hasn't had much success in tackling these 

very large issues. 

 So now, maybe we need to re-think whether that's the way to go, and maybe we ought to be 

looking more at the traditional OSHA rule of looking at difficult specific issues and substances and 

tackling them again. I think that's one reason why OSHA hasn't made much progress. 

Chairman Norwood. Peg, do you want to comment? 

Ms. Seminario. I would agree with that. I think the other thing that enters into it is not just the 

process itself. It really is the level of contention and opposition, and when you end up with a lot of 

opposition to a rule, it's just harder to set. The evidentiary burdens are higher as a practical matter, 

because the agency knows that it's going to be in court having to defend that rule. 

 So when you deal with some of these chemicals that I listed although they're major hazards, 

it's a limited group of employers who are affected. It's not the whole shebang; it's not every 

employer in the country. 

 When you deal with these larger rulemakings, whether it's on safety and health programs or 

ergonomics or a generic rulemaking on permissible exposure limits, there's a lot more people 

affected, and therefore, there's more contention, and there's potentially more impact, both with 

respect to protection, but also with respect to economic costs on employers. 

Mr. Foulke. And also part of the problem is, if you look at any of the rulemakings, the amount of 

information that is provided even as part of the public hearings. If you go back to the indoor air 

quality standard, the hearings on that lasted over four months, day in and day out, and then they 

went out on the road and did more hearings. Just the amount of time taken to digest that much 
26

information takes the staff a fairly significant long time. 

 Then, on top of that, is doing the economic feasibility analysis. OSHA probably is the only 

one that really has the wherewithal and the staffing and the money to be able to do that type of an 

analysis. 

Chairman Norwood. Can anybody give me some idea what it costs to update a PEL? What might 

OSHA spend for such an effort? 

Mr. White. My recollection is, and I'm determined not to look over my shoulder and ask some 

OSHA staff about this, but my recollection is that on the 1989 PELs, OSHA spent a couple of 

million bucks just to do the economic analyses and some of the risk assessments. And that was a 

big rulemaking, obviously, in a very compressed period of time. But that's not counting the OSHA 

staff time, and those kinds of costs. That's just counting out-of-pocket money to pay for 

consultants, essentially, contractors, to do a lot of work. 

 So if you look at one substance, a lead rulemaking or a benzene rulemaking, you're talking 

about a lot of money, particularly if you take into account staff time and out-of-pocket costs. You 

know I suspect you could be talking about a half a million dollars or more if it's a difficult 

substance. That's why I think we're looking at some kind of consensus approach, where we can 

reduce some of that burden. 

Mr. Schwartz. If I can add a little bit to the history of this, the trend of OSHA trying to find ways 

of shortcutting the process goes back at least before 1980, when OSHA spent an immense amount 

of time developing a carcinogen standard that the courts would not let it use as a default for all the 

carcinogen aspects of a rule. 

 And since the AFL-CIO - OSHA case, OSHA has looked at ways of prioritizing chemicals, 

and they've looked at ways of making a sort of a generic risk assessment procedure, which was 

something akin to what they tried to do with the carcinogen standard. 

 So the agency seems to have spent an immense amount of resources finding or looking for 

shortcut procedures, or looking for group ways of doing this as opposed to tackling particular 

substances at a time. 

 Of course, since the agency has limited resources, you know, every dollar it spends on a 

quixotic venture with respect to a carcinogen standard or other thing is a dollar that can't be spent in 

developing a PEL. So I think that's part of what's going on. 

Chairman Norwood. Is it possible that a federal agency actually wouldn't prioritize its spending 

correctly? 

Mr. Schwartz. We hope, Mr. Chairman. It could be a triumph of hope over experience. 

Chairman Norwood. Ms. Seminario? 
27

Ms. Seminario. One other point is that the process, as we've discussed, often takes very long. In 

this case, it was a shorter process, but for any one of the 6(b)(5) standards that have been set on a 

chemical, the process has generally taken anywhere from let's say three to eight years, depending 

on when they were set. In the early years of the Act, they were developing these standards in a 

more timely fashion. 

 But the result of that has been that there have been changes in leadership, and as Mr. White 

said, changes in priorities. So what may be a priority for one administration, what they start and 

they spend a lot of resources on another administration changes. There's a new head of OSHA who 

has different priorities, and so it goes, and gets pushed to the back burner. 

 So that's been another problem, that the time frame in standard setting doesn't allow these 

standards to be dealt with in any real time, in a way that maintains the prioritization, the leadership, 

and the consensus. People move on to other things. 

Chairman Norwood. Which is basically what this Committee is trying to figure out. 

Ms. Seminario. Right. 

Chairman Norwood. I don't know that we can. I don't know that we will. But I know what's been 

going on hasn't worked. 

 My time is way past due. Ms. Sanchez, it's your turn. 

Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Your time was well spent. 

 Maybe, Mr. Chairman, what we need to do is get your side to go over and talk to that 

Administration and get this back on priority, if in fact we can, and make some consensus happen 

and get all of these players to give a little and get to the table and try to do a little of this. 

Chairman Norwood. Would you yield just for a second? 

Ms. Sanchez. Yes, yes. 

Chairman Norwood. This is my Administration. I'm very fond of them and get along with them 

real well. 

Ms. Sanchez. So that's why I'm saying, you can help. 

Chairman Norwood. And it seems to me this is a priority of this Committee. 

Ms. Sanchez. I know it is, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Norwood. Well, that's the only thing I'm in charge of right now. 
28

Ms. Sanchez. I just suggested you might walk over to that White House on a not-so-hot day, and 

try to get that Administration to put it back on priority so we could all start to get this to work. 

Mr. Foulke, I've read your testimony, and you did a good job of explaining the requirements 

of the current law, but you didn't include any way in which we might waive or modify the 

rulemaking provisions. 

 I'm a little worried that as we move forward with the weight of this Committee to try to get 

some of this done, that we do need consensus. I gather because of your paper, that you're 

representing the Chamber of Commerce here today. 

Mr. Foulke. That's correct. 

Ms. Sanchez. Are we going to hear suggestions about what we might take a look at, because your 

testimony didn't have any of that? It just sort of laid out where we have been. I'm trying to find out 

and gauge, since I'm going to be asked to cast a vote at some point on this, whether the players 

involved are really going to come to the table ready to make suggestions and take a look at things. 

I'm assuming that our Chairman here would have the Chamber involved in some way. 

Mr. Foulke. Well, I think the points that I tried to make in my written testimony, and also in my 

oral testimony are to examine some of the issues I think that the Committee needs to examine, 

specifically with respect to issues involving evidentiary procedures, or how that's going to be 

handled. Probably one of my biggest concerns, and I mentioned it a little bit earlier, is about 

dealing with small businesses. 

 You know, if we're going to have a process here, are we still going to keep the SBREFA 

requirements or the SBREFA test? I gather that's kind of where we are, and from our earlier 

discussions among ourselves, I gather we had somewhat of an understanding that we weren't going 

to really change the significant evidence test, and those type of things. It was more focused maybe 

at the consensus level of identifying which chemicals. 

 My concern is that I want to make sure of the procedural safeguards that were set up in the 

original Act, and then the subsequent safeguards that have been added by the Congress. A lot of 

this stuff is pretty much in the SBREFA Act. The OSHA Act itself set forth things that were telling 

OSHA, “This is what you're going to have to do. You have to provide significant evidence to this 

standard.” Are we going to throw that out the door? 

If that would become the case, I think that makes it more difficult to achieve consensus. I 

think having these safeguards in place probably drives it, and makes it easier to get a consensus on 

some of these PELs. 

Ms. Sanchez. This is a question for any of you who want to answer, or maybe to all of you.

Thirty years ago, the Congress felt it was necessary to permit OSHA to adopt existing 

consensus standards in order to establish a regulatory base to protect safety and health. In the case 

of PELs, those standards have not been updated since then. Given this, for the same reasons it did 
29

so 30 years ago, why shouldn't the Congress provide OSHA a one-time opportunity to once again 

update its regulatory base? 

Ms. Seminario. I'll take a crack at that. 

 I think the Congress should. Whether it should be identical to what was done in 1970 or 

not, we know a lot more than we knew then. There's a lot of experience, and I think we need to 

draw on that experience. 

 That, I think, is what we've been attempting to do. We’ve been attempting to look at 

experience, look at what we know, and look at the political realities of today, and see if we can 

come up with some agreements on a proposal that would be another one-time update of the 

baseline. We would gain some experience from that, and then see what we could do to come to 

some agreements about keeping these limits up to date, because we believe there will be some 

changes that will be needed to make that work. But it makes sense to deal with this in two different 

stages.

Ms. Sanchez. Mr. White, why shouldn't the Congress take a look at this and get this done? 

Mr. White. Well, I think that's exactly what we're suggesting as I said in my testimony, that 

Congress may well have a role to play in attempting once again to update, on a one-time basis, the 

PELs.

 What we would strongly oppose, and I think anybody in business would oppose, is doing it 

in the same way it was done in 1970, and that's just taking some group of consensus limits or 

voluntary standards and plopping them in place in OSHA as mandatory standards. That's why we're 

suggesting some kind of middle ground that would use some current set of consensus or voluntary 

standards as a starting point and then have a consensus process for evaluating the science and the 

feasibility issues a little more thoroughly before we proceed to put those in place. 

 So we are looking at a modified version of what was done in 1970. 

Mr. Schwartz. If I may, I think the answer to your question, why shouldn't it be done, is that the 

genius of our administrative system is that it involves the public in making decisions that affect the 

public. What Congress did on a one-time basis was the exception to the way our administrative 

system usually operates, and would be an exception to the ideas behind consensus and transparency 

that have been suggested as being the way to actually develop the standards. 

 One thing I wanted to add is that others have mentioned that we met prior to this hearing to 

talk about how we would actually do this, which itself was an unusual step for us. One of the things 

that came out of it was that developing a consensus that people will rely on means that you really 

have to involve the people who are affected, which again, in the case of AISI, would be the 

employers and unions. Plus, it would point out that there are downstream users and sometimes 

upstream users of all the substances that affect companies like others and ours.
30

To have a successful consensus standard, you need to involve those people. You need to 

involve the little businesses that don't usually have time to send people to participate in meetings in 

a centralized place and spend the hours that it will take to understand what the issues are, and what 

is at stake. 

 So it's not an easy process, but I think that the generally accepted method of proceeding in a 

matter like this would be, in fact, to involve the public to the maximum extent, rather than 

minimum. 

Ms. Sanchez. Mr. Foulke didn't get a chance to answer that. Do you have any comment? 

Mr. Foulke. Well, I would just say, obviously doing this one more time would kind of be 

appealing, and it would be a quick fix. But generally, it's been my experience that when you do 

quick fixes it doesn't necessarily work. 

 It kind of goes back to my other point about the small business people, because at the time 

the Act was promulgated in 1970, and enacted in 1971-1972 when we allowed the incorporation of 

the national consensus standards, we did not have a lot of the other things that were in place, like I 

said, about the SBREFA Act, and all those type of things, where it took that into consideration. 

 Also, I think at the time most of the consensus standards that were adopted were already 

probably being met, whereas now a lot of small businesses are attempting to meet the current PEL. 

But to go to a more strict PEL would entail most likely engineering controls which would basically 

incorporate more/new equipment to meet the new levels, and could be a significant burden, 

especially on the small businesses. 

Ms. Sanchez. Well, I don't think this whole issue is supposed to be anti-small business, but its 

main purpose is to protect workers, protect their safety and their lives. 

Mr. Foulke. And I think that's part of what the whole rulemaking process does. It really gathers 

and examines that issue. It kind of goes back to what Mr. Schwartz was saying about what is the 

level that we have to have? What is the level? How strict do we have to have the PEL in order to 

provide the protection necessary so that there won't be any health hazards to employees? I think 

that's part of what the whole rulemaking process does. 

Ms. Sanchez. Well, I hope we can find some sort of consensus and do better than 28 standards 

over 30 years, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Chairman Norwood. There is no such thing as a quick fix. You can go home and not worry about 

that anymore. It’s not going to be a quick fix. We might fix some of it quickly, but to do all 450 

plus whatever new ones are out there, it isn't going to happen quickly, and this is about consensus. 

There has to be consensus. 

 I'd like to yield to Ms. Woolsey. You said you had another question? 
31

Ms. Woolsey. Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to move from being partisan to being sexist, so I'll 

fill all the roles today. 

 Women have been disproportionately affected by ergonomic injuries, so now, are there any 

of the PELs that we're looking at that affect women to a greater degree than their male counterparts, 

and what are we doing about it? 

 Okay, Peg? 

Ms. Seminario. I'm sure there are. I don't think any of us have looked at all the data behind all of 

these, but there are a number of these limits that deal with chemicals that are particularly 

reproductive toxins, particularly affecting women, and those effects were looked at in the, I think in 

the 1989 update. So there are some, but I couldn't tell you how many chemicals that we're talking 

about.

Ms. Woolsey. Well, so, in your review, would you recommend that you push those to the top? 

Because we're not just talking about the individual, we're talking about their reproductive future 

and the babies, if they're pregnant, and things like that. 

Ms. Seminario. Those have gotten attention by the agency, and I would expect that they would get 

attention in this process, as well. Whether they would move to the top or not, I don't know, but 

clearly, those effects would be looked at as a set of effects that need to be dealt with and addressed 

in setting these limits. 

Ms. Woolsey. Okay. Mr. Chairman. I'm through. Thanks. 

Chairman Norwood. Mr. Owens, I yield to you for a closing statement. 

Mr. Owens. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

 I did come back, because I wanted to reiterate my commitment to work closely with you to 

move this problem closer to solution. I too think we all are aware enough to know that it will 

require resources, and I look forward to you taking the leadership and getting the appropriate 

appropriations and moving it beyond the cheerleading stage to the actual working stage, and I'll be 

there, I assure you, to help. 

Chairman Norwood. Thank you very much, Mr. Owens, and I'm glad that you returned, because 

Ms. Woolsey really didn't believe we were going to try to work together on this. Now that you've 

confirmed it, that will be helpful for the next hearing. 

 This is of interest to me in a number of ways. It partly is going to allow me to look at 

something that I've always believed that, when the Federal Government has a problem, the first 

solution always is, we need more money. Now, this type of thing does cost money, but that doesn't 

necessarily mean it needs new money. It may well mean that some of the wasteful money that goes 

on in OSHA could be reprioritized into an issue that is very important to the health and well-being 
32

of the citizens of this country. 

 Since I'm not being partisan at all, I'm not going to list all the ways I know they've wasted 

money. I'm simply going to say we need to use the dollars we have a lot smarter. 

 I thank all of you very much. I think you're pre-hearing meeting is of interest, and is of 

value. I appreciate the Members being here. I think we really will have Members on both sides of 

the aisle interested in trying to see if we can't actually come to consensus on one thing. 

Mr. Owens. Mr. Chairman, I assume that the record will remain open for two weeks? 

Chairman Norwood. So ordered. 

Mr. Owens. And I want to thank my learned colleagues for joining us. 

Chairman Norwood. Amen. I think we made progress today. We had a good dialogue. I have 

some additional questions that I hope you will consider answering in writing for me, writing back 

to us. We don't have time to ask them all. 

 But we can work together, I believe, on updating these PELs, and we'll find out if we can. I 

don't see how we can do any worse than what's already been done. So if everybody will pitch in 

and understand that everybody's opinions are going to be very, very important in this, I think we've 

got some real grown-ups who want to sit down and work it out. I think we can do that. 

 If there is no further business, the Subcommittee is now adjourned. 

Whereupon, at 3:44 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned. 
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90

Table of Indexes 

Chairman Norwood, 1, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 32 

Mr. Foulke, 16, 17, 19, 20, 25, 28, 30 

Mr. Owens, 4, 31, 32 

Mr. Schwartz, 12, 18, 22, 26, 29 

Mr. White, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23, 25, 26, 29 

Ms. Sanchez, 19, 20, 21, 27, 28, 29, 30 

Ms. Seminario, 8, 17, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 31 

Ms. Woolsey, 21, 22, 23, 24, 31