Ms. Randy Rabinowitz E. STATE PLANS Minnesota OSHA has had a fully approved state plan since July of 1985 and has consistently exceeded most Federal OSHA requirements for state plans. Many of the provisions of the OSHA Reform Bill have already been implemented to some extent in Minnesota. We look toward continued Federal OSHA support as we administer our progressive state program. F. RESEARCH, TRAINING, AND RECORDKEEPING 1. Training and Data Collection The Department has an adequate collection system for employer data through its Research and Education Division but has limited staff for education, consultation, and training activities. Further funding for these programs would greatly enhance Our effectiveness, especially since the requests for training and consultation have doubled in the last year. 2. National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) The state plan would benefit from increased data collection on a national basis. G. VICTIMS' RIGHTS H. Minnesota OSHA currently sends letters out to next-of-kin on all fatal accident investigations informing them that Minnesota OSHA is involved in an investigation and providing them with limited access to the inspection findings. There are, however, certain data privacy requirements that must be met by Minnesota statutes. WORKERS' COMPENSATION Minnesota OSHA is fortunate to have a good working relationship with the state Workers' Compensation Division. Not only does this afford Minnesota OSHA with valuable information, but it also enhances our inspection activities since we rely on this information to target our inspections to those employers with higher than normal workers' compensation claims. Yours truly, truly John B. Lenne's, Jr. Commissioner JBL/ts Enclosure TESTIMONY OF THE AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE ASSOCIATION TO THE UNITED STATES HOUSE EDUCATION AND LABOR COMMITTEE ON H.R. 3160. "THE COMPREHENSIVE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REFORM ACT" The American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) is a professional society dedicated to the prevention of workplacerelated injury or illness that may affect workers and members of the community. AIHA is comprised of more than 10.000 members drawn from academia, labor, industry, and the government. Many AIHA members and other safety and health professionals are state and federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) employees. AIHA seeks to bring good science to public policy and brings the vast experience and the diverse expertise of its members to assist Congress in examining the pros and cons of the proposed OSHA reforms. AIHA believes every effort should be made to prevent all workplace deaths, injuries, and illnesses. AIHA believes this is reflective of how Americans feel about the issue. AIHA commends Congress for examining in a comprehensive fashion the Occupational Health and Safety Act instead of attempting piecemeal changes. No other agency has the power to do as much good for the American worker's health and safety as does OSHA. Indeed, OSHA and its regulations serve as a model for the health and safety programs in many other countries (e.g.. Mexico, Ecuador, and Canada). No other agency of the federal government so strongly impacts the profession of industrial hygiene as does OSHA. Thus, Our participation in this process is important to our members. AIHA would like to assist Congress in every possible way in developing legislation that will best protect worker and public health. Section 27 Safety and Health Programs AIHA supports the concept of safety and health programs for all work sites and the flexibility given to the Assistant Secretary of Labor to modify application of Section 27 (2) to employers where such programs would not be beneficial. This allows flexibility for construction and other businesses where needed to make the idea workable. Work situations vary widely in America. AIHA believes that flexibility in improving employer/employee interaction for safety and health programs is necessary. AIHA supports the concept of improving this interaction but recommends that other sections of the bill that mandate that this interaction be accomplished by safety and health committees be modified to reflect this approach as one suggested alternative. AIHA requests that formal recognition be given in report language. if not directly in the bill. to industrial hygiene professionals, particularly to American Board of Industrial Hygiene (ABIH) Certified Industrial Hygienists (CIHs), described under Section 27 (b) (8) as a "suitable representative of the employer who has the qualifications... and authority to initiate corrective action where appropriate." AIHA believes it is critical that properly trained health professionals be used to ensure that health protection objectives are attained. AIHA does not request exclusivity but does request that recognition be given where appropriate. AIHA believes that the bill would be strengthened through recognition not only of CIHS but also of Certified Safety Professionals (CSPs), Certified Health Physicists (CHPs), and other established health and safety professionals. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and OSHA could be required to develop a definition of a competent person and to specify qualifications for professional categories, such as ABIH CIHS, ог educational and experience requirements. AIHA favors the language in Section 27 (b)(5), "Methods for Employee Participation in the Implementation of the Employer's Safety and Health Program," but suggests removing mandatory language thereafter referring to committee structure. The committee approach may not always be the best way to achieve employer/employee interaction in all workplace situations. AIHA further suggests the word initiate be changed to recommend in the Section 27 (b) (8) sentence: "the designation of a representative.... to initiate corrective action where appropriate." Safety professionals, quality teams, and IH professionals have a staff role and cannot assume management's responsibility to take action. AIHA suggests inclusion of the following under Section 27 (b) requirements: "methods and procedures for assessing worker exposure to chemical hazards, physical energy hazards, biological hazards. and ergonomic hazards where applicable in workplaces where such hazards exist." The above language clearly and comprehensively gives direction to the hazards that should be evaluated in safety and health programs when applicable to a specific work site. AIHA supports necessary funding and additional staff for OSHA to allow the agency an oversight mechanism to review the health and safety programs created by this title. Resource limitation has had a major impact on past OSHA accomplishments, especially in areas of oversight and enforcement. Annual refresher training, as with other committee requirements. may be unnecessary in some instances. Frequency of retraining should be adapted to the situation as appropriate for risk reduction or as determined by the Assistant Secretary. Title II Safety and Health Committees and Employee Safety and Health Representatives revised. AIHA suggests that Title II be AIHA strongly supports the concept of employee participation in safety and health programs in the workplace. AIHA is against the mandated use of a single management mechanism, such as committees or representatives, to achieve it. Flexibility must be incorporated into the legislation to achieve the objective of improved health protection. AIHA believes that a range of options should be available for large. medium. and small employers to facilitate the much-needed employee participation part of the safety and health plan. Experienced and well-informed employees can be a tremendous asset to the industrial hygienist in the accomplishment of goals. Many hygienists can attest to the useful suggestions of employees in solving health and safety problems. Employee participation could range from information transmittal by an employer to employees. to a full committee structure. ог even to the elevation of employee representatives to safety and hygiene technicians, with proper education and guidance. The size and type of the workplace. hazards faced. and labor-management relations that exist factors that must be individually addressed. Flexibility is the key. Again, the are all Inspections. assessments. etc.. may not be necessary in many workplaces at the frequency specified. A "one solution fits all" approach allows no room for professional judgment based on the hazards and needs of each workplace. Employee participation goes hand-in-hand with responsibility. This is not reflected in Title II. The legislation should address accountability of all parties in this process. as with the safety and health plans. Congress must provide adequate resources for OSHA to conduct oversight and ensure that this title is functioning properly. Title III Coverage AIHA supports the extension of the OSH Act to coverage of all federal, state, and local employees. including workers at nuclear facilities. The language allows delegation of regulatory jurisdiction if the Assistant Secretary of Labor deems equivalency to other agencies. The government is the largest employer in the U.S.. and its employees deserve coverage for health, safety. and hygiene under OSHA as do other Americans. Appropriate attention should be given by Congress to resource allocation to OSHA in order to handle additional responsibilities of coverage. Title IV Occupational Safety and Health Standards AIHA believes that timely, high-quality standards are necessary to protect the American worker. The OSHA standardsetting process needs to be refined so that it is less cumbersome and time-consuming. This must be done without sacrificing the necessary attributes of the current standard-setting process that permits information exchange and ensures employees, employers, industrial hygienists. and other health and safety professionals an opportunity to participate in the process, thus making a better rule. Mandated time frames. as proposed in Section 405 and in other sections of Title IV of H.R. 3160. would be an impediment to good rulemaking because time. rather than scientific technical excellence, will drive the process. Some technical portions of the rulemaking process. such as chronic animal toxicology studies. simply cannot be hurried; time frames simply cannot be imposed easily, if at all. if workers are to be protected. Instead of rigid timetables for standards. AIHA suggests that annually the authorizing committees for Congress hold open hearings on OSHA'S proposed regulatory agenda as published in the Federal Register. The purpose of these hearings would be to allow Congressional input as to whether OSHA's own agenda and timetable are appropriate or whether other issues have a higher priority than those proposed and to determine what other problems. resource or otherwise. OSHA will encounter in meeting its appointed obligations. Resources need to be provided to OSHA SO that all reforms proposed by Congress and. in particular, expedited standard setting can successfully be enacted. These resources are needed to improve OSHA standard setting and to propose further expansion of OSHA activities to a larger segment of America's working public. AIHA suggests the following both to expedite and to improve the OSHA standard-setting process. Streamline the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) review of proposed OSHA standards to avoid unnecessarily delaying the process. AIHA believes that curtailing, limiting, and setting strict deadlines on OMB administrative and review activities could expedite the process of moving a rule forward. AIHA strongly encourages the use of voluntary workplace guidelines, such as the American Conference of |