Pages 1513-1947: Submissions To Darrell Issa Regarding Federal Regulation: February 7, 2011

January 11,2011
The Honorable Darrell Issa

Chairman
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Issa:
Knowing of your interest in assessing the impact of existing and proposed regulations on job
growth, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) would like to take this opportunity to
offer our views on this subject. We welcome the Committee's initiative to examine this critical issue
and explore potential regulatory reforms that may stimulate the economy and spur job growth. As
discussed in more detail below, our key concern is the potential for state regulations that would
undermine the ongoing effort to develop a single national program for motor vehicle fuel economy
standards in the 2017-2025 model years (MY).
Auto manufacturing is a cornerstone of the U.S. economy, supporting 8 million private-sector

jobs, $500 billion in annual compensation, and $70 billion in personal income tax revenues. The
automotive sector's ability to continue to add jobs and contribute to the health of the U.S. economy
depends on regulations that provide clarity and certainty, without pricing our customers out of the
market or preventing them from choosing vehicles that meet their diverse needs. To that end, the
single most important regulation facing automakers today is the upcoming joint rulemaking that will
establish fuel economy/greenhouse gas (GI-IG) emissions standards for MY 2017-2025.
Congress has long recognized the competing interests that require careful balancing in setting
fuel economy standards. As a result, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is
required by law to set maximum feasible fuel economy standards taking into account the impact of
standards on the economy and jobs. This is because fuel economy standards are by far the most
expensive regulations automakers face; the 2012-2016 standards are estimated to cost more than $50
billion, and the 2017-2025 standards are likely to be significantly more expensive.
Manufacturers have been working to make ever more fuel efficient vehicles affordable for
consumers; today, more than 160 models are on sale that achieve 30 miles per gallon (mpg) or greater
on the highway. But consumers ultimately will decide what types of vehicles succeed or fail in the
marketplace, based on the cost of ownership and other factors. For instance, in spite of considerable
media focus on advanced technology vehicles and many new hybrid electric vehicle entrants into the
marketplace, consumer purchases of hybrid and battery electric vehicles made up less than 3% of
vehicles sold in the U.S. in 2010. If consumers do not buy the vehicles that manufacturers are required
to produce, sales will fall, production will slow and manufacturers will be forced to eliminate jobs. It
BMW Group. Chrysler Group LLC • Ford Motor Company. Gencral Moto.'s Company. Jaguar Land Rover
Mazda. Mercedes-Benz, USA. Mitsubishi Motors. POl'sche. Toyota. Volvo. Volkswagen
1401 Eye Street, NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005-6562 • Phone 202.326.5500 • Fax 202.326.5567 • www.autoalliance.org
is imperative - and possible - to promote economic growth and consumer vehicle choice while
improving energy security.
Also important, for many reasons, is avoiding a patchwork of state and federal standards.
State-specific motor vehicle GHG regulations would subdivide the U.S. market for motor vehicles,
forcing manufacturers to alter and potentially restrict the mix of vehicles that they can sell in particular
states, which in turn would harm the dealers and consumers in those states. Consumers' needs vary
throughout the countiy based on geography, climate and local and regional economies. Allowing
automakers to achieve compliance on a nationwide-averaged basis will help preserve consumer
choice. Additionally, a single set of federal, nationwide requirements would significantly reduce
compliance complexity and costs. Finally, and especially relevant to the issue ofjobs, only the federal
govenunent can balance nationwide the need to reduce oil consumption and emissions with the
preservation of a vital manufacturing sector that is a cornerstone of a productive national
economy.
Last May, automakers committed to engage constructively with NHTSA, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), and other stakeholders, including the California Air Resources Board
(CARE), to develop a single national standard for MY 2017-2025. In the summer of2010, EPA,
NHTSA and CARB officials conducted a series ofjoint meetings with automakers, parts
manufacturers, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and others to gather information for the MY
2017-2025 timeframe. This work culminated in EPA and NHTSA issuing a "Notice oflntent" (NOI)
to conduct a joint rulemaking and an "Interim J oint Technical Assessment Report" (TAR).
Although CARE representatives participated in the meetings leading up to the NOI and TAR,
and had a role in preparing these documents, it appears that CARE intends to pursue the development
of its own separate rules for MY 2017 -2025 light-duty vehicles. Shortly after the NOI and TAR were
issued, CARB indicated that it would finalize California-specific 2017-2025 light-duty vehicle GHG
emission regulations early this year - more than a year ahead oftheftderal rule.
Such unilateral action by California is of great concern to us; in particular, a rushed effort
toward a state rulemaking is not in the spirit of a collaborative effort to develop a single national
program for fuel economy/GHG standards. The current federal rulemaking process is still in the early
stages. The NOI and TAR cite numerous instances where additional analysis is needed, including on
critical issues such as the costs of advanced vehicle teclmologies and the potential impacts on motor
vehicle safety and the broader economy andjobs. That work is ongoing and is not expected to be
completed before September 20 II. So, there is no reason at this stage for CARB to initiate its own
regulatory process in advance of the federal regulatory process.
Congress has expressly prohibited states and municipalities from adopting or enforcing laws or
regulations "related to" fuel economy standards. An effort by a single state to become the nation's de
facto regulator of fuel economy standards, using authority originally granted by Congress to regulate
smog-forming emissions, is wholly inconsistent with Congress's prohibition. A single state cannot
appropriately or adequately consider the consequences of its actions on critical national interests such
asjobs, the economy, costs to consumers, motor vehicle safety, or consumer acceptance of the types of
vehicles that their standards would require manufacturers to make. For example, in setting state-
specific regulations, CARE does not need to take into account their effect on the auto industry in other
states or even on the national economy. CARE is a state agency whose sole focus is on California's
environmental agenda. CARE does not need to take into account the economy or jobs in states like
Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, Missouri, Texas, Alabama, Indiana, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, North
Carolina, or other states with significant auto industry-related employment. And it is not required to
2
consider factors like highway fatalities on U.S. roadways. Thus, California should be fully engaged in
the effort to establish an effective and workable national program, rather than regressing to a
California-only approach.
Finally, under the Clean Air Act, California may establish emissions standards only when the
EPA Administrator grants California a waiver to do so. Section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act prohibits
a waiver if the Administrator finds that California does not need separate regulations to meet
compelling and extraordinary conditions, or if the Administrator finds that the California regulation is
not consistent with federal standards set under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. It is highly
doubtful that California could demonstrate a need for separate state-level GHG regulations to meet
"compelling and extraordinary conditions" once EPA and NHTSA have nationwide standards in place
for 2017-2025.
At the federal level, it is critical that standards carefully balance the important national interests
of reducing oil use and GHG gas emissions while supporting continued economic growth and jobs.
Great uncertainties for the 2017-2025 timeframe remain, and though some are acknowledged in the
NOI and TAR, neither document suggests a process for satisfactorily addressing them. For the
upcoming rulemaking, the federal government must develop a more integrated process that takes into
account factors upon which greater vehicle efficiencies depend, such as infrastructure, fuels and fuel
quality, and consumer acceptance.
The Alliance is concerned that the NOI and TAR systematically underestimate the costs of the
proposed standards and overstate the benefits to consumers. In several key areas, the agencies' analysis
departs significantly from a recently completed study by the National Academies of Sciences (NAS).
For example, the NAS estimates costs of more than $3,000 per vehicle to achieve fuel economy levels
of 40 mpg by 2035, while the Nor estimates costs of$I,OOO (or less) to achieve 47 mpg by 2025, ten
years earlier. Similarly, the NOI and TAR assume that all of the efficiency gains are converted into
fuel economy; in other words no advances in performance, comfort or safety technologies can occur in
the 2017-2025 timeframe. The NAS analysis is based on a much more realistic scenario that roughly
50% of efficiency gains will go to increase fuel economy, while the remaining 50% wi II offset other
important new features.
In addition, the Nor and TAR cost estimates of the MY 2025 scenarios for the entire new
vehicle fleet range from $770 to $3,500 per vehicle. The agencies also estimate a consumer fuel
savings range from $5,000 to $7,400 during the life of the vehicle. However, a recent Center for
Automotive Research (CAR) analysis calculates fuel economy costs to be from $4,190 to $6,435 per
vehicle and a lifetime fuel savings of only $1,690 to $2,693. The CAR analysis shows a 10.2% net
vehicle price increase at 41.7 mpg and a 22.3% net vehicle price increase at 60.1 mpg. According to
CAR's analysis, such a steep price increase could depress light vehicle sales by 25% and result in a
loss of as many as 220,000 automotive jobs.' .
While the NOI and TAR represent a good start for the continuation of the program for MY
2017-2025, it is clear that much work remains before new standards are proposed. The Alliance
remains committed to working constructively with EPA and NHTSA - and California - to develop a
national rule based on sound science and assumptions that fairly reflect the cost of technology and
consumers' willingness to pay for advanced teclmology. We are confident that a rigorous analysis and
IMcAlinden, S. 2010, \\Calculating the Net Cost or Price to the Consumer", CAR Breakfast Briefing Series: The U.S. Auto
Industry and the Market 012025, Ypsilanti, MI, Ann Arbor Marriott Ypsilanti at Eagle Crest, pp. 30-45.
3
a fair and open process will lead to standards that will deliver significant environmental and energy
security benefits for the entire nation without negatively impacting the economy or jobs.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide input on the impact government regulation has on the
economy and job growth and we would encourage the Committee to review the proposed EPA and
NHTSA MY 2017 -2025 fuel economy/GHG gas regulations in conjunction with this examination. It
is in the best interests of the economy, jobs, and consumers in the U.S. for all stakeholders to work
together towards a single national program that is both effective and workable. It would be
inconsistent with this approach for California to move forward unilaterally with its own rulemaking.
While the 2017 -2025 standards are our top priority, the industry is also facing new federal
regulations in a variety of areas, including mid-level blends of ethanol, fuel economy labeling, and
rearward visibility. These rules have the potential to impose significant additional costs on the car
buying public, and therefore also bear careful scrutiny. The Alliance is working closely with the
appropriate agencies to minimize any negative impacts that could be associated with these rules. We
will keep the Congress informed as the process moves forward.
We trust the information we have provided will be helpful. A similar letter has been sent to
Chairman Upton. Please contact me if you or your staff have any questions or need any additional
information. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Shane Karr
Vice President
Federal Government Affairs
cc: The Honorable Elijah Cummings
4
American
Architectural
Manufacturers
rI··
Association·
January 10,2011
The Honorable Darrell E. Issa, Chairman

House Committee Oversight and Government Reform
2157 Rayburn House otIkc building
Washington, DC 20515-6143
Re: AAMA Response to Committee on Oversight Request: EPA Regulations Impact
Dear Chairman Issa,
The American Architectural Manufacturers Assoeiation congratulates you on your appointment as

Chairman to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, and thanks you for the opportunity to
discuss the impact oIthe Environmental Protection Agency's July, 2010 promulgation ofEPA-HQ-
OPPT-200S-0049 - Lead; Amendment to the Opt-out and Recordl<eeping Provisions in the
Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program CLRRP). This decision continues to prevent the recovery
of the extremely hard-hit U.S. construction and renovation industries and the manufacturers that serve it.
AAMA represents more than 250 North American window, door and skylight manufacturers and industry
related suppliers. Collectively, AAMA memher companies are responsible for a workforce of
approximately 100,000 employees. AAMA also developed "Installation Masters," the country's
preeminent window installcrs training program. As snch, our interests are strongly tied to all aspects of
the home and commercial build and renovation industries.
Prior to the publication of the Final Rule, the original LRRP mandated cettain requirements for work on
pre-l 978 consiructed homes which housed children under the age of six and pregnant women. The home
renovation industry fully complied with the revised and costly requirements for renovation work
practices; training, dust sampling requirements and accreditation.
This original EPA ruling allowed an "opt-out" provision for homeowners residing in pre-1978
constructed homes with no children under the age of six or pregnant women Cat risk population) within
the residence. This opt-out provision, limited the cnforcement of this costly EPA rule to only those pre-
1978 homes with at risk population residents.
Following a 2008 lawsuit med by a special interest group, the EPA agreed to include several new
provisions with the LRRP. One of which, resulted in the promulgation of Lead; Amendment to the
Opt-out and Recordl<eeping Provisions in the Renovation, Repah', and Painting Program CLRRP),
which removed the original LRRP "opt-out" provision and immediately, and significantly increased the
cost of home renovations across the country.
page I 00
1827 Walden Office Square, Suite 550. Schaumburg, IL 60173-4268. Ph: 847/303-5664 • Fax: 847/303-5774
E-mail: webmaster@aamanet.org • Website: http://www.aamanet.org
The Honorable DalTell E. Issa, Chairman
House Committee Oversight and Govel'llment Reform
2157 Rayburn House Oftice building
Prior to the EPA's decision to impose this final rule, SBA Advocacy issued the attached notice to
Administrator Jackson, strongly discomaging the removal of the opt-out provision, based on a severely
lll1derestimated implementation cost analysis and the inclusion of unreliable lead studies coupled with the
exclusion of more reliable data.
The SBA also pointed out that the EPA " .. ,railed to perform needed outreach andfailed to examine
seriously several regulatOfT alternatives that would minimize the small business burdens while achieving
the same regulatory goals. "
The AAMA membership joined other building product trade organizations in vehement opposition to the
implementation of this ruling. The EPA, GBO aJid House and Senatc Committees were provided with
documentation confimling the severely underestimated field costs provided by the EPA, the EPA's lack
of preparation on rule implementation, and the unreliability ofthe EPA required lead testing kits.
Several members ofthc House and Senate sent letters to Administrator Jackson rcquesting the EPA NOT
proceed with the removal of the "opt-out" provision ...
. "At a time when the economy is seriously d~flated and the national unemployment rate is looming near
10%, our nation cannot qUiJrd tofurther distress businesses andjc/lnilies by mandating these particular
policies," Boehner wrote in a March 31 letter to EPA administrator Lisa Jackson. "1 strongly urge you to
consider re-visiting this issue to determine how to protect consumers from the hazards oflead-based
paint without increasing costs and harming businesses and consumers. "
With complete disregard toward documented concel1lS related to the removal of the provision, the EPA
promulgated the final rule. The fenestration industry witnessed an immediate and significant impact on
sales as a direct result. As renovators began to inform homeowners of the additional remodeling costs
now associatcd with renovations, window sales in some parts of the COlintry plunged by 20%.
Construction workers, among the first and hardest hit by the housing crisis and su bsequent reccssion,
continue to be turned away by homeowners who cannot afford to make necessary renovations due to the
increased costs associated with LRRP compliance.
As stated earlier, the EPA is now considering additional provisions to the LRRP. Considering the
mammoth costs associated with the implementation of each new provision, it is suspected that EPA is
introducing each proposal separately in order to avoid providing Congrcss and OMB with the cumulative
cost to small business and homeowners.
page 2 of3
1827 Walden Office Square, Suite 550 + Schaumburg. IL 60173-4268 + Ph: 847/303-5664 + Fax: 847/303-5774
E-mail: webmaster@aamanet.org + Website: http://www.aamanet.org
The Honorable Darrell E. Issa, Chairman
HOllse Committee Oversight and Government Reform
2157 Raybu1'l1 House Omce building
In addition to the economic downturn of the past 30 months which has had a severe impact on workers in
all aspects of the homebuilding and remodeling industry, the addition ofLRRP compliance costs have
proven to add substantially to the chronic unemployment of U.S. construction workers and layoffs within
U.S. home retrofitting products manufacturing companies.
AAMA and its membership, through past collaboration with EPA and other energy and environmental
governmental agencies, have proudly been at the forefront of addressing environmental and energy-
impacting issues in the U.S., and we fully support the intent of the original LRRP to safeguard the EPA-
deemed "at-risk" segmentofthe population from lead exposure. However, mandating these practices to
all pre-1978 housing stock based on questionable studies and grossly underestimated implementation
costs, exhibits a clear abuse of EPA's authority.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit infonnation on the industry impact of recent and proposed
mlings of the Environmental Protection Agency. Should you have any questions or comments or require
additional information, I can be reached at 330-242-1916 01' rwalker@aamanet.org.
Sincerely,
Richard Walker
AAMA President and CEO
Sincerely,
. Richard G. Walker
AAMA President and CEO
cc: The Honorable Edolphus Towns, Ranking Member
attachments: May 21, 2010 GAO Major Rule Report

Apri128, 2010 EPA Website Response to Cost Question
. November 27,2009 SBA Advocacy Letter to EPA
Page 3 of3
1827 Walden Office Square, Suite 550. Schaumburg.IL 60173-4268 • Ph: 847/303-5664 • Fax: 847/303-5774
E-mail: webmaster@aamanet.org • Website: http://www.aamanet.org
United States Government Accountability Office
B-319689
May 21, 2010
The Honorable Barbara Boxer

Chairman
The.Honorable James M. Inhofe
Ranking Member
Committee on Environment and Public Works
United States Senate
The Honorable Henry A. Waxman

Chairman
The Honorable Joe Barton
Ranking Member
Committee on Energy and Commerce
House of Representatives
Subject: Environmental Protection Agency: Lead; Amendment to the Opt-Out and

Recordkeepjng Provisjons jn the Renovation, Repalr, and Palnting Program
Pursuant to section 801(a)(2)(A) of title 5, United States Code, this is our report on a
major rule promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), entitled
"Lead; Amendment to the Opt-Out and Recordkeeping Provisions in the Renovation,
Repair, and Painting Program" (RIN: 2070-AJ55). We received the rule on April 28,
2010. It was published in the Federal Regjsteras a final rule on May 6,2010. 75 Fed.
Reg. 24,802. The final rule is effective July 6, 2010.
The [mal rule revises the Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program (RRP) rule
that was published in the Federal Regjsteron April 22, 2008. The [mal rule
eliminates the "opt-out" provision that currently exempts a renovation firm from the
training and work practice requirements of the rule where the firm obtains a
certification from the owner of a residence that no child under age 6 or pregnant
woman resides in the home and the home is not a child-occupied facility. The [mal
rule also requires renovation firms to provide a copy of the records demonstrating
compliance with the training and work practice requirements of the RRP rule to the
owner and, if different, the occupant of the building being renovated or the operator
of the child-occupied facility. In addition, the final rule makes minor changes to the
certification, accreditation, and state authorization requirements.
GAO-1O-734R
Enclosed is our assessment of EPA's compliance with the procedural steps required
by section 801(a)(1)(B)(i) through (iv) of title 5 with respect to the rule. Our review
of the procedural steps taken indicates that EPA complied with the applicable
requirements.
If you have any questions about this report or wish to contact GAO officials
responsible for the evaluation work relating to the subject matter of the rule,.please
contact Shirley A. Jones, Assistant General Counsel, at (202) 512-8156.
signed
RobertJ. Cramer
Managing Associate General Counsel
Enclosure
cc: Nicole Owens

Director, Regulatory
Management Division
Environmental Protection Agency
Page 2 GAO-I0-734R
ENCLOSURE
REPORT UNDER 5 U.S.C. § 80l(a)(2)(A) ON A MAJOR RULE

ISSUED BY THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ENTITLED
"LEAD; AMENDMENT TO THE OPT-OUT AND
RECORDKEEPING PROVISIONS IN THE RENOVATION,
REPAIR, AND PAINTING PROGRAM"
(RIN: 2070-AJ55)
(0 Cost-benefit analysis
EPA performed a cost-benefit analysis in cor\iunction with the final rule. The
benefits of the final rule result from the prevention of adverse health affects
attributable to lead exposure from renovations in pre-1978 buildings. The adverse
health affects include impaired cognitive function in children and several illnesses in
children and adults, such as increased cardiovascular outcomes (including increased
blood pressure, increased incidence of hypertension, cardiovascular morbidity, and
mortality) and decreased kidney function. EPA determined that annualized benefits
from the final rule may range from approximately $870 million to $3.2 billion
assuming a discount rate of 3 percent, and $920 million to $3.3 billion assuming a
discount rate of 7 percent.
The costs of the final rule result from removing the opt-out provision and requiring
firms performing renovation, repair, and painting work for compensation in housing
previously eligible for the opt-out provision to follow the training, certification, and
work practice requirements of the Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting (RRP) rule.
In addition, the final rule adds recordkeeping requirements that will increase costs of
renovations in all target housing and child-occupied facilities. EPA estimates that
the final rule will cost approximately $500 million in the first year, with the cost
expected to drop to approximately $300 million per year starting with the second
year, when improved test kits for detecting the presence of lead-based paint are
assumed to become available. Training for renovators and workers and certification
for firms working in housing previously covered by the opt-out provision is
estimated to add approximately $50 million per year to the cost, and requiring
renovators to provide owners and occupants with copies of the recordkeeping
required to document compliance with the RRP rule training and work practice
requirements costs approximately $30 million per year, with about two-thirds
incurred in housing that was previously eligible for the opt-out provision.
GAO-IO-734R
(iO Agency actions relevant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 5 U.S.C. §§ 603-605,
607. and 609
EPA prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis for the final rule. EPA
detennined that the vast majority of the entities in the industries affected by this rule
are small, and that the rule will affect approximately 289,000 small entities. EPA
determined that an estimated 101,000 small businesses could be affected by the
removal of the opt-out provision, with average impacts of 1.10 percent of revenues.
EPA further detennined that an estimated 189,000 small entities could be affected
solely by the additional recordkeeping requirement, with incremental cost impacts
ranging from 0.0001 percent to 0;08 percent of revenues. Combining the removal of
the opt-out provision with the new recordkeeping requirements, a total of 289,000
small entities could be affected by the rule, including 266,000 small businesses with
average impacts of 0.4 percent, 17,000 small non-profits with average impacts of
0.0005 percent, and 6,000 small goverrunents with average impacts of 0.0001 percent.
The removal of the opt-out provision will also affect an estimated 75,000 non-
employer renovation contractors, with an average cost to such contractors estimated
to be $1,193 apiece, which represents 1.3 percent to 4.7 percent of reported
revenues, depending on the industry sector. The new recordkeeping requirement is
estimated to affect approximately 96,000 additional non-employer renovation
contractors, with an average estimated cost of $42 apiece, which represents 0.05
percent to 0.17 percent of reported revenues, depending on the industry sector.
(iii) Agency actions relevant to sections 202-205 of the Unfunded Mandates Refonn
Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. §§ 1532-1535
EPA determined that this final rule contains a federal mandate that may result in
expenditures that exceed $100 million by the private sector in anyone year, but will
not result in such expenditures by state, local, and tribal governments in the
aggregate.
(iv) Other relevant infopuation or requirements under acts and executive orders
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et l©l.
EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking on October 28, 2009. 74 Fed. Reg.
55,506. EPA received comments on the proposed rule and responded to those
comments in the final rule. 75 Fed. Reg. 24,802.
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. §§ 3501-3520
The final rule contains infonnation collection requirements that are subject to Office
of Management and Budget COMB) review under the Paperwork Reduction Act. EPA
has submitted the requirements to OMB for approval, and they have been assigned
OMB Control Number 2070-0155. EPA detennined that the infonnation collection
Page 2 GAO-IO-734R
requirements may affect training providers as well as firms that perform renovation,
repair, or painting for compensation. EPA estimates that the total respondent
burden for training providers and certified firms from the final rule will average
approximately 1,647,000 hours per year during the 3 years covered by the
information collection request.
Statutory authorization for the rule
The final rule is authorized by sections 402(c)(3), 404, 406, and 407 of the Toxic
Substances Control Act, codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 2682(c)(3), 2684, 2686, and 2687.
Executive Order No. 12,866 (Regulatory Planning and Review)
The final rule was determined by EPA to be significant under Executive Order 12,866
and was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Executive Order No. 13,132 (Federalism)
EPA determined that the final rule does not have "federalism implications" because
it will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
Page 3 GAO-IO-734R
Contact Us I Pollution Prevention and Toxies I US EPA Page 1 of2
http://loxics, custhelp, coml c9i-bin/loxics,cf9/php/end user/old_adp, php7p_faq id = 6660

L~st updaled on Weelnesday, April 28, 2010
Pollution Prevention an d TaXies
You are here: EPA Prevention. Pesticides and Toxic Substances Pollution Prevention and
Taxies Contact Us Frequent Questions
Frequent Questions
JlII
Answers
"6Ask a Question
. My Stuff
1:';. f.1 hi
Help
Search by Topic 0 Search by Keyword Search Tips

All 6earch
AnswerlD How much will it cost contractors to comply with the RRP
6660 Rule?
Lasl Updated
04/22/2010 0 Question
j~ How much will It cost conlractors to comply with the Renovation, Repair, and
~ Print Answer Painting (RRP) Rule?
! v"! Email Answer,
Answer
Information collected by EPA for the purposes of the rulemaking indicates

that many contractors already follow some of the work practices required by
the rule, such as using disposable plastic sheeting to cover floors and objects
in the work area, These estimates do not include the costs of those
practices,
EPA estimates that the costs of containment, cleaning, and cleaning

verification will range from $8 to $187 per job, with the exception of those
exterior jobs where vertical containment would be required, This includes:
Costs of equipment (for example, plastic sheeting, tape, HEPA vacuums
and tool shrouds - the equipment varies by job),
Costs of labor (for example, the time required to perform cleaning and
cleaning verification).
In addition to work practice costs, your costs will include training fees and
certification fees, The costs include:
Training costs to individual renovators working in pre-1978 housing or
child-occupied facilities who must take a course from an accredited training
provider (cost is set by the training provider; estimated to be about $200 for a
5-year certification).
Certification costs to firms to obtain certification from EPA ($300 fee to the
U.S. Treasury for a 5-year certification. (This fee is required by law to cover
program administration),
I: Nolify Me by Email if this, Answer is Updaled . :I
http://toxies.eusthel p,eom/egi-bin/toxies,efg/php/enduserlstd_adp,php?p_fagid=6660 4/28/2010

Contact Us I Pollution Prevention and Toxics I US EPA Page2of2
How well did this answer your question?

r100% (' 75% (' 50% 25% (' 0% [~"-;;-S~ub:-m-'i""t-;:;R::Cat;;:in-g"---'
r
Users who viewed this answer have also viewed
• Does the RRP rule apply to simple painting activities that occur when rental
properties turn over?
• If a general contractor hires a subcontractor to work at a renovation site,
does the subcontractor need to be a certified firm if the subcontractor does
not disturb any paint?
• Must my firm be certified if we are performing a renovation that started in
March but will not be completed until June 2010?
• Does the RRP Rule require a certified state lead inspector or risk assessor,
who does not do renovation work, to become a certified renovation firm in
order to take dust wipe samples?
• Is the fee for firm certification waived for self- employed individuals or
landlords? .
Back to Previeus Document ¢Jl
http://toxics.cus1help.com/cgi-bi n/toxics.cfg/php/endu serfstd_adp.php?p_ faqid=6660 4/28/2010

Small Business Administration: Office of Advocacy - Letter dated 11/27/09 - Environme... Page I of 9
;~
aftic", of Advocacy
L'!WW'~".il.vj<Jdi'."J Advocacy: the yoice of small business in government
November 27, 2009
By Electronic Mail
Document Control Office (7407 M)

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460 .
Re: Amel1dm.eJ!t.t!!1b_e_QI!!=Q!!t~JldRecor!!keWing ProvisionsJ1Ltl.!.eJ,ead RcnoVDtiillh

Rel1ai e.and.. PDintin.g]'rogrl1mlI;!IH.e);DQck.e.tm. NlLl1!!!.e.r.. ,I<;!~.A-tlQ:QppT-2ooS,004.9
Dear Administrator Jackson:
The U.S. Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Advocacy (Advocacy) is pleased to submit the
following comments on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed amendment to eliminate
the "opt-out" option in the Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program (LRRP) Rule promulgated in April
2008. The current LRRP rule is designed to reduce exposure to lead hazards created by renovation, repair, and
painting activities that disturb lead-based paint. This proposal would result in an EPA estimated increase of costs
on regulated finns from $800 million (current LRRP) to $1.3 billion (LRRP with new proposal) in the first year
of compliance.
The current LRRP rule establishes requirements for renovation work practices; training renovators and dust
sampling technicians; certifying renovators, dust sampling technicians, and renovation firms; and accrediting
providers of renovation and dust sampling technician training. The proposed rule would eliminate the current
opt-out for renovation jobs where no children under six years old or pregnant women reside.(!)
Advocacy supports EPA's effort to impose reasonable minimum work practice standards, including clean-up
standards that will ensure protection of the health of young children and pregnant women. However, Advocacy
opposes the expansion of this expensive rule to extend to dwellings of persons above the age of six (including
nonpregnant women). This proposed change would almost double the cost of the current rule, without any
serious examination of whether there will be additional benefits due to the expansion of this regulation.
Furthel1l1ore, EPA failed to include the cumulative impact of eliminating the "opt-out" option from the current
ride, and two additional costly future rulemakings. Nor did EPA consider altematives that would address these
multi-billion dollar cumulative impacts. By segmenting these rulemakings, EPA reduces the apparent costs of
each individual rulemaking and overlooks the serious consequences to small businesses, job creation and
housing affordability in America.
Given the much lower level of exposure of older children and adults, EPA could retain the existing rule, or limit
the new rule to providing notification to the owners and providing a checklist for lead-safe practices for the
renovator to complete. Alternatively, EPA could simply prohibit the several lead dust generating practices that
were prohibited or restricted in the current LRRP rulemaking, thereby capturing most, if not virtually all, of the
bcnefits anticipated by this rule, without the additional regulatory baggage of the remainder of the rule.ill In
addition, EPA should seriously consider extension of the compliance date for any opt-out changes to assure
adequate training capability and lower costs to small businesses. In short, EPA can substantially alter this
proposed rule and preserve.substantially all of the benefits in a variety of ways.
Office of Advocacy
http://www.sba.gov/advo/laws/comments/epa09_1127.html 4/26/2010
Small Business Administration: Office of Advocacy - Letter dated 11/27/09 - Environme... Page 2 of 9
Advocacy was established pursuant to Pub. L. 94-305 to represent the views of small entities before Federal
agencies and Congress. Advocacy is an independent offIce within SBA, so the views expressed by Advocacy do
not necessarily reflect the views of the SBA or the Administration. The RFA, as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA),Q) gives small entities a voice in the rulemaking
process. For all rules which will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
EPA is required by the RFA to assess the impact of the proposed rule on small business and to consider less
burdensome alternatives. Moreover, Executive Order 13272,(4) requires Federal agencies to give eVeIy
appropriate consideration to any comments on a proposed or final rule submitted by Advocacy. The agency must
include, in any explanation or discussion accompanying publication in the Federal Register of a final rnle, the
agency's response to any written comments submitted by Advocacy oil the proposed rule.
Background
SBREFA Panel
In developing the predecessor proposed LRRP rule, EPA convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel in
accordance with the reqnirements of SBREFA to obtain advice and recommendations about how the proposed
rnle might affect small entities. The panel inclnded representatives from EPA, Advocacy, and the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget and was assisted in its work
by several small entity representatives (SERs) of the various entities that poientially would be snbject to the rule.
The panel met in 1999 and reviewed various regulatory options developed by EPA, but did not address the series
of regulatory changes now being considered by the agency.(~
EPA issued a fmal LRRP rule in April 2008. The LRRP rule applies to "target housing," defined in section 401
of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) as any housing constructed before 1978, except housing for the
elderly or persons with disabilities (unless any child under age 6 resides or is expected to reside) or any 0-
bedroom dwelling. The final rule also applies to housing where a pregnant woman resides.
Consent Decree
In a consent decree reached with public interest groups, EPA committed to a series of rulemakings where it will
consider establishing additional requirements potentially involving billions of dollars in increased costs over
several years. In our view, none of these planned changes are likely to produce any significant benefits to
society. EPA has agreed to issue the following proposals over a period of time: (I) eliminating the opt-out, (2)
applying the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) clearance test(6) to these renovation activities, and (3)
expanding the LRRP requirements to commercial and other non-residential buildings.
When EPA completed the current LRRP, these sarne requirements were considered and squarely rejected by the
agency as offering no significant benefits and inconsistent with the Toxics Substances Control Act (TSCA). Yet,
EPA committed to these new rulemakings, and did so without consulting with small businesses, our office, and
without benefit of convening a SBREFA panel to address the potential impact of these new requirements. By
EPA's own estimate, these rules would add hundreds of millions of dollars in annual costs to small firms.(1)
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatmy Flexibility Act, and Executive Order 12866, EPA is required to examine the costs and
benefits ofregulatory alternatives. In tbis case, EPA failed to perform needed outreach and failed to examine
seriously several regulatmy alternatives that would minimize the small business burdens while achieving the
same regulatory goals. Further, there is no new science that EPA relies upon to make changes to the opt-out rnle,
and its re-evaluation of the science and tbe projected benefits is unconvincingly thin in its endeavor to
demonstrate that real benefits to society will accrue.
EPA's proposal attempts to add environmental protection by extending application of these comprehensive
regulatory requirements to more renovation activities. Advocacy is concerned that removal of the opt-out option
will result in more, not less, lead contamination because it will lead to unregulated renovation by homeowners
and disreputable firms, rather than better performance by regulated firms.ig)
http://www.sba.gov/advo/laws/comments/epa09_1127.html 4126/2010
Sinall Business Administration: Office of Advocacy - Letter dated 11127/09 - Environme... Page 3 of9
Proposal Inconslslenl with TSCA
In the original April 2008 finalmle, EPA stated, "[i]n addition, EPA made a concerted effort to keep the costs
and burdens associated with this rule as low as possible, while still providing adequate protection against lead-
based paint hazards created by renovation activities. Indeed, as part of this rulemakingEPA has, as directed by
TSCA section 2(c) considered the environmental economic and social impacts of this rule."(9) The agency also
previously recognized that "[i]n the Senate report on Title X, Congress noted the need 'for a flexible, targeted
approach for protecting children from exposure to lead hazards while maintaining housing affordability. "'CUI)
This statutory framework provided the legal rationale for the 2008 opt-out provision.
In the current proposal, the agency again declares in the preamble that " ... EPA has also taken into consideration
the environmental, economic and social impact of today's proposed rule as provided in TSCA § 2(c)."0ll Yet,
unlike the approach in the 2008 rule, EPA makes no further mention of this requirement in the remainder of the
2009 preamble or anywhere in the extensive Economic Analysis, and provides no factual basis for its
declaration. The agency's legal obligation is not discharged merely by mentioning the applicable legal standard.
This strongly contrasts with the 2008 final rule preamble, where the TSCA provision is significantly addressed
and applied.(IZ.")
Advocacy believes that the proposed rule imposes substantial burdens on small businesses, home owners and
building owners, without any significant expectation of addressing real lead hazards, in contravention of TSCA,
the underlying statute.
Discussion
I. The Evidence of Risk to Yonng Children from Renovation Activity is Weak; Evidence of Benefils to
Older Children and Adnlts is Merely Specnlative.
As we pointed out in our earlier comments on the proposed LRRP,Ol.l Advocacy believes that while some
renovation activities can generate significant amounts of lead dust that could pose a human health hazard, there
is not sufficient evidence that renovation activities by private contractors or building owner personnel, as
opposed to homeowners, contribute to an increased risk of elevated blood levels (EBL) in children. EPA's final
rule relies on both the Phase III study!,l'!) and two New York State Department of Health studies(lS) to show a
relationship between renovation activities and children's health. The Phase III study was addressed in the
SBREFA panel report. While these studies provide some evidence that renovation by homeowners (or sloppy
work by contractors) can result in EBL, they do not provide evidence that the proposed procedures will enhance
public health. Advocacy believes that the evidence in fact shows that private contractors (Le., professional
renovators) subject to reasonable cleanup standards, including the "no visible dust or debris" standard, do not
create additional health hazards. Since the evidence was so weak for young children, it is much weaker for older
children and adults who do not ingest lead dust from the floor, windowsills or soil.
Further, while EPA states that the phase III study shows that children subject to remodeling were 30 percent
more likely to have EBLs than other children, there is not a significant correlation when the sample was limited
to the persons regulated by this rule - namely apartment building owners, apartment building staff, and
professional contractors. On the other hand, renovations involving relatives and friends not residing in the
household (Le., those not subject to this rule) showed the highest correlation with EBL. Based on the foregoing,
Advocacy is still concerned that the final LRRP rule could unnecessarily raise costs and drive homeowners from
using professional contractors (renovators), who work more carefully, to inexperienced and nntrained
individuals. The current LRRP rule would also encourage do-it-yourself work by untrained individuals, which
could actually endanger children's health, not improve them. Now, EPA proposes to vastly increase d,e cost of
this rule, with only the hope that some benefits might accrue.
Finally, EPA cited two additional references in the LRRP final rule to demonstrate that EBL is associated with
renovation. However, the first study by the New York State Department of Health, found that 6.9 percent of the
children had EBL, and this was associated with renovation. Unfortunately, this study is not reliable since it did
not compare the 6.9 percent EBL with a control group of New York households that had not nndergone
renovation within the two year period.(t6) Given the large magnitude of residences studied that undergo
renovation each year, Advocacy does not believe that this figure reveals a relationship witb renovation activities.
Small Business Administration: Office of Advocacy - Letter dated 11127/09 - Environme... Page 4 of 9
The follow-up study by New York State remedied the first elTor, and did include a control group.flU While this
study did find EBL associated with renovation, the increase disappeared when the study excluded the test
samples that did not follow the study protocol: clean the floor until there is no visible dust. EPA's attempt to
dismiss the study in the final rule by stating that the "study did not measure dust lead levels" does not address
the fact that there was no effect shown when there was no visible dust.(!S) This is consistent with our contention
that a "no visible dust" standard is all that is needed here. Under the CUlrent LRRP and any modification to the
opt-out provision, there is no need for an additional cleaning verification step, if there is no visible dust, and the
film follows lead-safe practices (whether under EPA rules or lead-safe guidance). The lack of visible dust can be
easily handled using an EPA-specified checklist, without the need for comprehensive panoply of EPA
paperwork, cleaning verification and training requirements.
For example, Advocacy found data from the City of Milwaukee, a city with a very active lead paint program, to
be very instructive, and consistent with the analysis that lead renovation contributes very little to health hazards.
This data was submitted to EPA in the initial rulemaking, and shows that of the 577 cases of lead poisoning
reported to the Health Departtnent in 2004-2005, only four of the cases, or 0.7 percent, were linked to renovation
or remodeling activities. In each of those four cases, do-it-yourself (DIY) occupants performed the projects.
These cases are not addressed by the current LRRP rule nor the proposed elimination of the "opt-out."(19) This
result is consistent with contractors nsing reasonable care to clean up and eliminate all visible dust, care that is
not being used by DIYers.
Despite the Execntive Order 12866's reqnirement to include a benefits analysis, EPA's original OMB
submission contained no benefits estimates.(20) The agency frankly acknowledges that its attempt at estimating
benefits was "crudell .@ The estimates are, therefore, extremely speculative, at best.
II. EPA Should Delay Implementation of Any Opt-out Revisions Until the New Test Kits Are Ready and
Renovators Are Trained.
EPA can significantly rednce the cost of this rulemaking by delaying the compliance date for any rule revisions.
EPA estimates that the first year $500 million LRRP opt-out annual costs would be reduced to $300 million in
the second year when the new test kits are expected to be available.Gll The test kits would allow renovators to
avoid the costs ofthis rule if the low cost test kits verify that the affected unit was free of lead paint. Thns, given
the fact that the opt-out universe costs are otherwise extremely high, and the lead exposure extremely limited, a
delay of the opt-out portion of the rule, at least to the second year, to assnre that ti,e lower cost test kits wonld
become available, would save $200 million annually, while still accomplishing statutory goals.
In addition, as the National Association of Home Builders points out in detail, it is highly unlikely that the
300,000 contractors affected by EPA's removal of the "opt-ont" provision will be sufficiently trained by the
April 20 I0 compliance date.(~~ Rather than create this large shortfall in trained workers and risk additional
noncompliance, EPA should delay any expansion of the LRRP rule.
III. EPA Should Retain the Current Opt-out Provision.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), EPA is to considenll significant regulatory alternatives that
achieve the statutory purpose.(:2,4) Clearly, EPA determined that the current rule complied with the requirements
of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and certainly should remain among the regulatory options
available for decision makers. EPA's failure to seriously consider the obvious alternative of retaining the current
opt-out provision is a clear violation of the RFA's requirement to examine significant alternatives that would
minimize the burden on small entities. .
In addition, EPA's reasoning for rejecting the current opt-out provision is extremely weak. EPA indicates that it
is concerned that "future tenants could unknowingly move into a rental unit where dust-level hazards created by
the renovation are present. .. [or that] hazards created during renovations in an owner-occupied residence
conducted prior to a sale will be present for the next occupants ...."(25) In addition, "Visiting children who do
not spend enough time in the housing to render it a child-occupied facility may nevertheless be exposed to lead
from playing in dust-level hazards ... , snch as [spending time] in the home ofgrandparents."(Z6l Surprisingly,
these very concerns were addressed in the final LRRP preamble, yet EPA does not explain this complete
reversal in position from April 2008 and October 2009.
Small Business Administration: Office of Advocacy - Letter dated 11/27109 - Environme... Page 5 of9
In 2008, EPA was concemed about the Congressional intent behind the lead legislation, and was mindful of the
Congressional instruction to focus on the target housing (children under 6 years old), and to account for costs
and affordable housing. EPA explained that "it does not believe it is an effective use of society's resources to
impose this final rule requirements [sic] on all renovations in order to account for the portion of homes without
young children that will be sold to families with young children following renovations."(U) EPA further
informs the reader that the lead disclosure rule, under 40 CFR §745, is designed to address this situation to
apprise prospective buyers about lead-based paint hazards.(~8) It is difficult to reconcile those 2008 statements
with EPA's 2009 approach without further explanation, or any new science, in the proposal.
To illustrate the point, it seems overly burdensome for awindow installer who is replacing a single window (or a
wallpaperer disturbing more than six square feet) for a home with two resident 50 year-old adults to comply with
the entire LRRP rule requirements, but that is exactly what EPA would be requiring here. The lead-safe
pamphlet and knowledge about lead-safe practices should suffice for the population that is not the focus ofthis
rule. This differential approach makes sense to us and made sense to Congress because adults and older children
do not ingest lead dust from the floor or soil, as younger children do.
IV. EPA Should Consider a Disclosure Option rather than the Opt-out Provision,
One of the classic forms of less intrusive regulatory alternatives that minimize costs and provides benefits is an
information disclosure rule, instead of the traditional command and control regulation now being considered by
the agency. In this case, EPA and HUD could revise the cW'rent lead disclosure form for the opt-out situation by
adding the phrase "other than remodeling" after the word "hazards" and before the first parenthesis in line (a)
and after the word "seller" and before the first parenthesis in line (b). A new line (c) would be entered in the
section of "SellerDisclosures" as follows: '
(c) Remodeling (check i, ii, or iii, and check iv. if applicable):
(il-There has been no remodeling or renovation to this unit while I have owned it since {effective
date of rule}.
(iil-All remodeling or renovation to the unit while I or my company has owned it since {effective
date of rule} has been done by lead-certified contractors; a copy of each contractor's certificate is
attached.
(iitThere has been remodeling or renovation to the unit while I or my company owned it since
{effective date of rule}, but it was not done by lead-certified contractors or I cannot find the
certificate(s).
(iv)_The unit has been cleared as lead-safe under the applicable HUD clearance procedure.
This disclosme rule would reduce the incentive to hire uncertified contactors or to do the work oneself without
lead-safety training. The rule would be self-enforcing, requiring no expenditure or personnel by EPA or state
. agencies beyond administration of training programs. The disclosure rule, in lieu of all the complex EPA
requirements, is particularly appropriate where the evidence of expected benefits are likely to be minimal or
nonexistent, and where lead-safe practices are well known and in common practice.
V, EPA Can Simply Prohibit the Lead-Generating Practices Excluded by the Current LRRP fOl' the Opt-
out Scenario. '
EPA did solicit comments on one alternative that Advocacy supports. Specifically, we support the alternative of
simply prohibiting the individual practices that EPA identified as producing excessive lead dust for the opt-out
situation. It would vastly simplify compliance with the rule by limiting it to exclusion of these practices, which
is very familiar to persons who already follow lead-safe practices, and does not require papelwork, extra
training, certification, etc. This would also substantially lower the costs of compliance, compared to EPA's
proposal. Such an alternative would very likely capture almost all the lead reduction benefits without the
remaining regulatory requirements.(:?91
http://www.sba.gov/advo/lawsicomments/epa09~1127.html 4/26/2010
VI. EPA Needs to Address the Cumulative and Overlapping Impacts of the Series of Planned LRRP
Amendments, and not just the Opt-out Proposal Alone.
EPA's has decided to divide the LRRP-related rulemakings into three separate rulemakings, and therefore, has
not accounted for the cumulative or overlapping impacts of these connected rules. In the absence of a consent
decree, in the normal course, this would be a single rulemaking addressing all forms of lead renovation
activities, just as the current LRRPwas done. However, by separating these provisions into three separate
rulemakings l EPA avoids the accumulation of economic impacts.
In this opt-out rulemaking alone, EPA finds that the 75,000 non-employer impacts (mostly single employee
firms) would face economic impacts of 1.3 percent to 4.7 percent of revenues, which is extremely high.Qill If
EPA had added the additional expenses of the current LRRP rule, the projected economic impact would likely
significantly exceed the range for ,this single rule. Furthelmore, the expense of adding the HUD clearance
procedure to all LRRP and opt-out renovations would further exacerbate the problem. Thus, EPA and the public
is denied the opportunity to explore the actual cumulative impact of these requirements because EPA decided to
consider these revisions separately, rather than at one time, as is more appropriate.
As a result, EPA did not have the opportunity to develop any alternatives that address, for example, the overlap
between the opt-out situation and the costly HUD clearance process. The purposes of the RFA include
consideration of both cumulative and overlapping Federal regulations in some organized fashion to aid the
development of reasoned decision making.
EPA should consider all three rulemakings at one time, and reissue this proposal after consideration of the
cumulative and overlapping impacts of the rules yet to come.(Jl)
VII. EPA Needs to Comply with SBREFA Panel Procedures for FntureRule Amendments.
EPA has the opportunity to profit from using the SBREFA panel process for the remaining regulations, and
possibly the opt-out, if it so chooses. Under section 609(b) of the RFA, EPA is required to convene a SBREFA
Panel any time "a rule is promulgated which will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities," At a minimum, the agency should use this process for the consideration of the remaining LRRP
amendments.
Since EPA had already signed a consent decree requiring the proposal to be issued by last month, without
consulting with this office, Advocacy did not have a timeiy opportunity to discuss the SBREFA panel
requirement with EPA before this proposal was issued. Given the numerous inadequacies and iost opportunities
discussed above under both TSCA and the RFA, and the historical utility of SBREFA panels to EPA decision
making, EPA could have, benefited substantially from a SBREFA panel proceeding. It is useful to remember that
considerations ofRFA principles in 1980 through 1982, in consultation with this Office, led directly to EPA's
more aggressive removal of lead from gasoline, possibly EPA's most important contribution to human health
since the founding of EPA. This clearly demonstrated that the RFA and environmental principles can be
accommodated.
While it is stili timely, however, we wish to address the issue of the applicability of the SBREFA'process to the
two future rulemakings. Initially, we restate that tl,ese two rulemakings and the cun'ent rulemaking should all be
combined. There should not be any question that the last planned rulemaking, involving commercial and other
nonresidential buildings, which are entirely outside of the scope of "target housing" as defined in TSCA, was
not the subject of the panel in 2000. EPA needs a panel to address that unanticipated issue, Having established
the need for one panel, it malees the most sense that EPA convene a panel, as expeditiously as possible so that it
may consider, pre-proposal, changes to the clearance procedure, and secondly, post-proposal, changes to the opt-
out provisions, Even though EPA has already issued the opt-out proposal, the small entity representatives
advising the SBREFA panel, may have some very useful targeted advice that could be helpful as EPA develops
a final rule.
Furthelmore, despite the fact that the "clearance" issue was addressed in the earlier 2000 SBREFA panel,
substantial new information has been developed since 2000. A different economic climate currently exists today
that warrants consideration of this issue by a new panel. More significantly, if EPA determines that it will be
Small Business Administration: Office of Advocacy - Letter dated 11127/09 - Environme... Page 70f9
going forward with a panel, it would be more efficient to address all possible issues at one time, and to hold the
panel as early as reasonably possible.
VIII. Conclusion.
EPA's plans to promulgate a series of additional requirements to supplement the already costly LRRP rule will
impose substantial burdens on small firms, homeowners and building owners, with questionable benefit. In
compliance with the RFA, EPA should move expeditiously to initiate SBREFA panels for these rules, in time to
receive advice on the existing proposal.
We urge EPA to delay any rulemaking changes for at least one year until more trained personnel and the new
test kits become available.
With respect to the proposal to eliminate the "opt-out" option, EPA fails to explain its 180 degree reversal,
without any new science. The agency also fails to take into account, in any discernible manner, the negative
effect on small businesses and affordable housing. Lastly, the agency's evidence supporting the estimated
benefIts is extremely speculative, at best.
EPA's proposal would instead impede low-income residents from improving their residences by imposing
unnecessarily costly requirements. In 2008, EPA declared "that homeowners without young children or where
expectant mothers do not reside should be able to choose whether or not work done in their own homes
conforms to the requirements of the rule."(32) This proposal removes this choice from the homeowner. We
respectfully urge the agency to reconsider its decision on this important rule, and take other appropriate action
on the remaining issues.
Sincerely,
lsi
Susan M. Walthall
Acting Chief Counsel
Office of Advocacy
lsi
Kevin Bromberg
Assistant Chief Counsel for Environmental Policy
Office of Advocacy
cc:
Steven Owens, Assistant Administrator, Office of Pollution Prevention

And Taxies, EPA
Cass Sunstein, Administrator

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
Office of Management and Budget
Docket ill Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049
ENDNOTES
I. Under the current "opt-out" provision, the homeowner may choose whether or not to comply with the full set
of LRRP requirements.
2. The LRRP already prohibits or restricts a series of work practices that generate excessive amounts of lead
dust.
Small Business Administration: Office of Advocacy - Letter dated 11/27/09 - Environme... Page 8 of9
3.5 U.S.C. §§ 601 et seq.
4.67 Fed. Reg. 53461 (August 16, 2002).
5. The Panel solicited comments from the SERs and prepared a report of its deliberations that included a number
of recommendations on how to reduce the potential impact of the rule on small entities. The report is available in
the docket and on EPA's website. Final Report of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on EPA's Planned
Proposed Rule: Lead-Based Paint; Certification and Training; Renovation and Remodeling Requirements,
March 3, 2000. http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/rrp-sbrefa.pdf
6.45 C.F.R. § 35.1320.
7. The current proposal alone imposes $500 million in first year costs according to EPA's estimate. See infra, fn.
22.
8. See National Association of Home Builders Comments in Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049, filed
November 20, 2009,at p. I.
9.73 Fed. Reg. 21692, 21701 (April 22, 2008).
10.73 Fed. Reg. 21692, 21710 (April 22, 2008).
11. 74 Fed. Reg. 55506,55518 (October 28, 2009).
12. See above discussion of the 2008 rule.
13. http://www.sba.gov/advo/laws/comments/epa06_0525.pdf.
14. USEPA. Lead Exposure Associated With Renovation and Remodeling Activities: Phase III, Wisconsin
Childhood Blood- Lead Study (EPA 747-R-99-002, March 1999).
15. I-II-IS, PHS, CDC. Children with Elevated Blood Lead Levels Attributed to Home Renovation and
Remolding Activities-New York, 1993-1994. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (45(51); 1120-1123,
January 3, 1997).
16. I-II-IS, PHS, CDC. Children with Elevated Blood Lead Levels Attributed to Home Renovation and
Remolding Activities-New York, 1993-1994. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (45(51); 1120-1123,
January 3, 1997).
17. Reissman, Dori B., Thomas D. Matte, Karen L. Gumite, Rachel B. Kaufmann, and Jessica Leighton. "Is
Home Renovation or Repair a Risk Factor for Exposure to Lead Among Children Residing in New York City?"
Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine. Vol. 79, No.4, 502-511, (December
2005).
18.73 Fed. Reg. 221692, 221740 (April 22, 2008).
19. U.S. E.P.A., City of Milwaukee Health Department, Wisconsin, Comment: Lead; Renovation, Repair, and
Painting Program; Proposed Ruie. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049-0602 (2006).
20. See redlined version of EPA Economic Analysis in EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049.
21. Sectiori 5.2 of the Economic Analysis states that "EPA has calculated crude benefit numbers, for several
groups of individuals protected by removing the opt-out provision".the average benefits per individual from the
previous analyses have not been modified to reflect any differences in exposure between populations protected
by the 2008 rule and those protected by the removal of the opt-out provision ....The amount of error in these
values is unknown," In sum, the estimates are of unknown accuracy, and the estimates were not adjusted
downward to reflect the much larger exposures of the 2008 rule.
http://www.sba.goy/advo/laws/comments/epa09_1127.html 4/26/2010
22. 74 Fed. Reg. 55506, 55516 (October 28, 2009).
23. See fn. 8.
24.5 U.S.C. §603.
25.74 Fed. Reg. 55506, 55509 (October 28, 2009).
26.74 Fed. Reg. 55506, 55509 (October 28, 2009);
27.73 Fed. Reg. 21692, 21710 (April 22, 2008).
28.Id.
29. In the April 2008 LRRP Economic Analysis, EPA found that the majority of the benefits were accounted for
simply by the prohibited practices provisions (see Table 5-13). We also note, however, that this particular
analysis showed large unexplained inconsistencies, and is subject to considerable uncertainty.
30.74 Fed. Reg. 55506, 55519 (October 28,2009). Also, EPA points out that this may be an overestimate of
impact because some non-employers "have significant issues related to understatement of income". However,
EPA fails to add that the data supporting the nnderestimation of income shows that, but for a velY small minority
of firms, there is not a very significant nnderstatement in comparison to total income. Therefore, these estimated
average costs/revenue economic impacts, across firm types, are unlikely to be significantly affected.
31. EPA explicitly excluded comments on the LRRP work practices, which includes the new and elaborate
clearance verification procedure, which has been almost universally criticized by all interest groups. EPA needs
to take the opportunity to defer implementation of this procedure until it completes the upcoming rulemaking
regarding a new clearance procedure or take other action before the LRRP becomes effective in Apri12010.
32. Apri12008 Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis, EPA Docket #EPA-HQ-2005-0049-095 1.5, at p. 8.
american cleaning institute"
for beUer living
January 13,2011
The Honorabie Darren Issa

Chairman
B 350A Rayburn House Office Building
Dear Chairman Issa:
Thank you for your letter of December 29,2010. ACI® appreciatesthe interest which prompted
you to write. We seek an open channel of communication with you, your coneagues, and your
staff.
The American Cleaning Institute® (ACI) is the trade association representing the $30 billion U.S.
cleaning products market. ACI members include the formulators of soaps, detergents, and
general cleaning products used in household, commercial, industrial and institutional settings;
companies that supply ingredients and finished packaging for these products; and oleochemical
producers.
ACI seeks to advance policies that enhance our members' ability to innovate and do not obstruct
their speed to market. ACI is currently addressing a variety of issues with relevant federal
government regulatory agencies through normal channels. At this time, we believe our concerns
win be addressed. Toward that end, ACI does not have a specific matter to bring to the attention
ofthe Committee at this point in time.
If you should have further questions or comments please do not hesitate to contact me at
erosenberg@cleaninginstitute.org or Douglas Troutman, ACI's Senior Director of Government
Affairs dtroutman(w,cleaninginstitute.org at your convenience or at (202) 347-2900.
Sincerely,
7-
L., . . . . . .(...111.'
Ernie Rosenberg
President and CEO
1331 LStroot NW, Su~o 650 () Washington, DC 20005 ~. 202.347.2900

www..doaninginstitutG.org
AmericanCoatings
ASS elATiON
January 10, 2011
The Honorable Darrellissa

Chairman
Committee on Oversight & Government Reform
Dear Chairmanissa:
On behalf of the American Coatings Association (ACA), thank you for the opportunity to identify
proposed pr eXistin,g regulatio~s that are negatively impacting our industry and our continued
ability (0 innovate In a giobally competitive economy.
As you pursue the larger reform agenda, we believe that some concrete oversight action is
needed on the following areas of health, safety and environmental policy being actively pursued
by the current administration. While ACA will continue to pursue all available redress for our
concerns, we welcome your consideration and support, in particular as the nation seeks to
expand what appears to be an emerging but stili fragile economic recovery.
DOT Special Permits
In order to obtain a Special Permit, applicants must submit an application containing specific
information regarding transporting the hazardous material at issue. US DOT is required to
make a finding that the applicant is "fit" prior to granting a Special Permit. During 2009, the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration issued guidance which sUbstantialiy
changed the criteria upon which a "fitness determination" is made. The guidance, however,
articulates criteria that appears to be beyond, PHMSA's authority and, in addition, does not
articuiate what constitutes fitness or a finding of "unfit."
ACA is signatory to a coalition effort designed to convince PHMSA to initiate a rUiemaking to

articulate the fitness criteria more clearly, This petition for rulemaking was filed in mid-
December.
In addition, the coalition has also sought a legislative amendment to the Hazardous Material
Transportation Act (it is up for reauthorization) to require PHMSA to establish fitness criteria for
a Special Permit by rulemaking. Representative Graves (R-MO), Chair of Small Business
Committee, has indicated his support for such an amendment and has drafted such iegislation.
It has not been introduced. The desired solution is a rulemaking to establish these criteria. This
can be accomplished by PHMSA responding positively to the petition for rulemaking, It could
also be accomplished by the Graves Amendment. At this point in time, PHMSA has Indicated
that a rulemaking is appropriate yet there is no evidence that a rulemaking has been initiated.
1500 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N.W.· WASHINCTON, DC ,~0005 ' T 202A6Z,oc72 • F 20:2.452.a549 • www.oalol.Qrg
The final rule issued earlier this week (HM-233B) did not address the fitness criteria. It did
address information that is required to be included in the application. The final rule requires
significantly more information on the application and makes the process more complex. There
is a significant backlog of applications and renewal applications (over 2500) at PHMSA and this
final rule wili only add to that backlog.
National Aerosol Coatings Rule
The nallonal rule for aerosol coatings contains a very short list of compounds (169) that can be
. used In aerosol ooatln9s formulas. This is in contrast to the California rule where the Table of
MIR Values contains overSOO (and soon will be expanded to include over 1200). If a company
wants tou.se aoompound that is i\Ot on the EPA list, the unlisted compound must be assigned a
default value of 22.04, rllgardless of the actual MIR value on the ARB Table. A default value of
22.04 makes It impassible for any formulator to use an "unlisted EPA compound."
We have petitioned EPA to add compounds to this Iistanct at least one of these petitions was
flied over a year ago. EPA hBs not responded; even to acknowledge the filing of the petition.
The a~ros'ol coatings regulation should be amended toinciude a mechanism to add compounds
tolhls list more efficiently. As it currently stands, In order 10 add compounds to the list, it must
be done In a fUII'-hlown l'l.Ilemaking with a NPRM, notloe and comment, etc. As you know, this
lBkes EPA \lears 10 oomlilete. In Ine meanllme,fcrmVlators are prevented from using theSe
compounds that have been tested afldassigned reactivity values in the California rule.
EPA Boiler MACT
Tne Envinmmental Protection Agency (EPA) tras proposed a rule that would establish
stringent emissions standards on Industrial and commert;ial boilers and process heaters (I.e.
Soller MACT). This broad-reacning proposal win directly Impact paint manufacturers with new
bolier operating and compliance costs wIth resuitant Impflcts on economic recovery and jobs in
the industry. RecognizIng the signlfloanlimpacts of Its initial proposal, EPA has asked the
federal DIs1rict Court for 1M Dlstrictof Columbia for an extension to re-propose the rule. While
tnls may b.e taken as a nopeM sign, any new EPA proposal must ensure tnat the standards are
economicaliy feasible and acnievable in practice for ali manufacturers that operate boilers.
EPA NAAQS for Ozone
The EPA in January 2010 issued a proposal to tignten the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NMQS) lor grouncHevel ozone standard from tile existing 75 parts per biliion (ppb)
to a range between 70 ppb .and60 ppb, ACA'slollgstanding concern witn such a move is the
Impact on many of our ir\dustry's produots whlen necessarily conlainsome voiatile organic
compounds (VaC's), precursors teO ozone formation, whien are used to protect Ine sUbstrates
upon whidn 1l1eyare applied.. Often in Ine debate on tightening air quality standards the EPA
has ITot rully considered fhelife-cycle impacts of their proposals including tna potential impact
on too efficacy of tne reformuiated products and their ability to forestall deterioration of our
nation's Infrastructure, While our Industry contInues to innovate enctflnd ways to reduce vac
emissibnsand maintain product quality, tl1eSelar-reaching proposals by the agency may prove
impossible to meet We bet/eve it Is Imporlant fhat any action by EPA to reduce the ozone
standard weigh the hS'Blth an.d environmental benefits as well as tne economic and
infrastruoture Impacts.
2
OSHA On-5ite Consultation
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has recently moved to a more
adversarial approach toward business, issuing enforcement notices as a result of employers, in
particularly small businesses, seeking to consult with OSHA to better understand and comply
with existing workplace safety standards. As a result, businesses will likely cease reaching out
to OSHA for heip and be less likely to cooperate with OSHA programs seeking to foster
improved compliance.
OSHA Noise Proposal
OSHA recently indicated that it plans to enforce noise level standards by redefining what is
deemed "feasible" for employers to do in their workplace using engineering controls, unless an
employer can show the effort is not feasible (i.e. will "put them out of business".) OSHA's
proposal would alter a long-running and effective policy that allows employers to use
administrative controls (limit exposure times) and provide "personal protective equipment," such
as ear plugs and ear muffs, if they are more cost-effective than engineering controls. Such
changes would need to be made by employers of all sizes, regardless of their costs. OSHA is
pursuing this change outside the formal ruJemaking process and, as such, and has not provided
opportunity for input from the regulated community.
OSHA InjUry and Illness Protection Program
OSHA is also developing a new regulation that wouid mandate a standard for employers'
Injury and Illness Prevention Programs (12P2). The regulation is expected to be proposed in the
spring of 2011 and would have sweeping ramifications on all aspects of both workplace safety
enforcement and the promulgation of new regUlations. ACA believes the efforts made by
employers operating effecUve safety and health programs should not be disrupted by this new
mandate.
Cleaning Product Claims Policy under FIFRA at EPA, '
ACA contimles to explore Its options and coordinate activities with other industry trade
associations with an interest in amending the EPA new guidance on cleaning product labels.
The new agency guidance changes longstanding practice that allowed cleaning products to
make label claims regarding cleaning of mold and mildew stains, instead requiring that
cleaning products making such claims be registered as pesticides under the Federal Insecticide
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). This has the potential to affect companies that
manufacture or distribute cleaning products required for surface preparation prior to the
application of new finishes, FIFRA registration of a pesticide product is a detailed and costly
regulatory requirement that requires speciaIlzed knowl.edge. and expertise, and failure to
conform properly carr1es significant penalties, Thtschange in "agency guidance" can result in
significant adverse impacts to industries relying on longstanding practices,
TSCA Inventory Update Rule
On August 16, 2010 EPA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) to amend the current
Inventory Update Rule (IUR) which serves to direct the collection of information on chemical
manufacturing, import, and processing activities In the US, The proposed rule is a dramatic
departure from current practice as it expands the scope of the rule, requiring additional
information on an increasingly broad array of chemical manufacturing activities, but also will
3
compel more affirmative efforts on the part of raw material (chemical) suppliers to secure
information from their customers on their use chemicals. This latter activity would move forward
without the opportunity, as the current regulation provides, for claims of confidential business
Information (CBI). ACA has commented on the proposal, seeking to re-establish longstanding
practice In this area.
Once again, we thank you for the opportunity to provide our Input and we look forward to a
continued dialogue with you and your committee about these 'Important regulatory policy
mallers,
Sincerely,
J. An~rew Doyle
President and CEO
4
American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute
1140 Connecticut Ave. N.W. - Suite 705 • Washington, DC 20036
202-452-7198' Fax 202-463-6573' Website: www.accci.org
January 10, 2011
The Honorable Darrell Issa, Chairman

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
2157 Rayburn House Office Building
Submitted electronically to sharon.utz@mail.house,gov
Dear Chairman Issa:
On behalf of1he American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute (ACCCI), I am pleased to
respond to your inquiry regarding existing and proposed regulations that negatively impact the
economy and jobs. ACCCI represents 100% of the producers ofthe nation's metallurgical coke,
including integrated steel companies and independent producers, and 100% ofthe nation's
producers of coal chemicals derived from byproducts of cokemaking. Our producer members
operate facilities in 12 states. Coke is an essential raw material for the production ofiron and
steel, and ACCCI fully supports the response to your inquiry by the American Iron and Steel
Institute,
Both the U.S, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) have recently promulgated or proposed or have pending
numerous regulations that will have a negative impact on the ability of coke producers to operate
cost-effectively and supply needed raw materials to allow the iron and steel industry to remain
competitive in the international marketplace, We appreciate the opportunity to provide a few
details below on some of the more salient regulations of concern,
In recent months, EPA has undertaken an unprecedented regulatory agenda by

promulgating or proposing a host of rules in the areas of air, water, solid waste, greenhouse
gases, and toxic chemicals, and ACCCI has filed comments and taken other actions to
demonstrate the adverse effects of those regulatory initiatives on our members, In a nutshell,
these new regulations will create permitting obstacles to expand and modernize our facilities and
will impose significant additional costs that are difficult recoup in the face of iniense
international competition, Examples follow,
Greenhouse Gas (GI-IG) Regulations
Effective this month, under its perceived Clean Air Act authority, EPA will begin
regulating GHG emissions from large emitters, which will impact most coke producers. The
requirements are largely undefined by guidance issued by EPA in December and are subj'ect to
decisions by individual permitting authorities, but the uncertainty of implementation raises
significant industry concerns with the potential for permitting delays and the prospect of
significant added costs of operation. The technical support document for the iron and steel (and
. cokemaking) industry failed to reflect the current status of technologies employed. Carbon is a
necessary raw material for production ofiron and steel, and coke is the dominant source of that
carbon. Regulation of carbon through GHG regulations applicable to domestic producers when
no comparable regulations apply to foreign producers will have an adverse effect on the ability
of U.S. companies to remain competitive.
Boiler MACT Regulations
The regulations proposed by EPA for Maximum Achievable Control Technology

(MACT) for existing and new boilers and process heaters and scheduled for finalization in the
near future (subject to an extension request to the Court) would not only have an inordinate cost
impact on the industry but would have perverse and unintended environmental and energy
consequences. Coke oven gas is a valuable byproduct of coke production and is a valuable fuel
that takes the place of other fuel requirements in coke plants and integrated steel plants, typically
in coke oven gas-fired boilers. There are approximately 75 coke oven gas-fired boilers in the
U.S. EPA has proposed emission limits for coke oven gas-fired boilers that have not been
demonstrated in the record to be achievable, even if control equipment with annualized costs of
approximately $600 million, by EPA's own estimates, are installed. Given these costs and
compliance uncertainties, companies would likely opt to flare the coke oven gas and substitute
natural gas (at an estimated annualized cost of approximately $300 million) on these units to
meet the rule's proposed requirements for natural gas-fired units. The result would be increased
emissions of GHGs and hazardous air pollutants from flaring the coke oven gas and the wasteful
depletion of natural gas that could be used elsewhere. ACCCI has called on EPA to re-propose
the boiler rule to acknowledge and reflect the environmentally beneficial and energy-conserving
use of process gases, and we support the agency's request to the Court for such an extension.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
EPA is in various stages of reviewing and proposing revisions to ambient air quality
standards for criteria pollutants. New one-hour standards have been promulgated for nitrogen
dioxide and sulfur dioxide. In the latter case, EPA has adopted a new approach for designating
nonattainment areas by relying on modeling instead of monitoring, which appears to be
inconsistent with language in the Clean Air Act and is being litigated. In addition, the one-hour
standards make permitting of new or modified combustion sources exceedingly difficult because
ofthe conservative, worst-case conditions that are built into the models. EPA is also slated to
propose a more stringent ozone standard in the near future. The tighter standard will make
almost the entire country nonattainment and require states to develop implementation plans that
will impose even tighter restrictions for nitrogen oxides, which are precursors for ozone. The
agency also is considering tighter ambient standards for fine particulate matter (which will mean
more stringent controls for fine particle precursors, i.e., sulfur and nitrogen oxides) and carbon
monoxide. These increasingly more stringent ambient standards will impact a wide variety of
existing industry combustion sources and create permitting obstacles for applying new
technology. For example, these new regulations and the threat of impending regulations caused
one member company to delay a new $700 million coke plant with over 120 new jobs and an
annual payroll, including benefits, of $8 million.
2
Proposed Listing of Hydrogen S!Jlfide (H2S)as a Hazardous Air Pollutant
In the 1990s, EPA proposed adding H2S to the list of chemicals requiring reporting under
the Toxic Release Inventory, but the action was stayed in response to industry's demands that
more scientific investigation was needed into the health effects of the substance. Recently,
however, EPA proposed lifting the stay despite having not developed any additional scientific
support for the listing. This is of concern to ACCCI because of the presence ofH 2S in coke oven
gas and would be an unnecessary and unjustified additional administrative burden for the
industry.
TSCA Test Rule for Coal Tar and Coal Tar·Derived Chemicals
Under authority of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) EPA can demand testing of
human and ecological effects of chemicals in situations where the agency believes exposure of a
chemical is substantial and there is insufficient health or ecological data to assess risks. EPA has
proposed such testing for coal tar, a byproduct of cokemaking, and five other chemicals derived
from coal tar and processed by tar refiners. The extent of required testing amounts to several
million dollars that would have to be borne by coke and coal chemicals companies. ACCCI has
submitted extensive comments demonstrating that these chemicals have minimal exposure
potential that does not justify testing under tenns ofTSCA, and, moreover, that existing
scientific data on the health effects of these chemicals are sufficient to identify risks without
imposing additional costly testing. Final action by EPA is pending.
Conductivity (Total Dissolved Solids) Water Quality Standards
EPA has proposed exceedingly stringent conductivity standards (a measure of total

dissolved solids) for streams in the Appalachian region, ostensibly targeting coal mining
operations. However, this action, apart from impacting the coal industry, on which the coke
industry depends for its basic raw material, has the potential for broader adoption on a national
scale. This would impose unrealistic dissolved solids limits, in some cases tighter than natural
levels, and force the installation of expensive control systems for a wide variety of industry
installations, including cokemaking operations. Some states are beginning to adopt stringent
total dissolved standards in anticipation of EPA regulation.
U.S. Geological Service (uSGS)
One of the products produced from coal tar, a cokemaking byproduct, is a refined tar
product used in the formulation of emulsions that are used as pavement sealants, which are
periodically applied to prolong the life of asphalt driveways and parking lots. Over the past few
years, employees of the USGS have been conducting studies and publishing papers implicating
refined tar pavement sealants as a major source of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in
the environment, despite evidence that PAHs are ubiquitous in the environment and have many
sources attributed to societal activities generally. Other studies show sealants to be but a minor
source ofPAHs, but the USGS has identified the sealants to be the dominant source. Because
PAHs have been identified as hazardous to health and aquatic life, the USGS has assumed an
advocacy role in promoting bans of refined tar pavement sealants, and in response to USGS
3
claims several communities have taken actions to restrict or outright ban the use of such sealants.
These actions have serious implications for our industry's marketing of these sealants and
threaten the economic viability and jobs of hundreds of small businesses that distribute and apply
sealants. ACCCI believes that the USGS plays a valuable role in identifying threats to waters of
the U.S. but that it oversteps its predominantly scientific and monitoring role by advocating
regulation, much less bans, of products. This issue has not been addressed by the EPA, which is
the proper regulatory agency to deal with these concerns. We believe oversight investigations
into the USGS's actions in this matter are in order.
OSHA
ACCCI acknowledges that it is the policy of the federal government to ensure safe and
healthy workplaces and that OSHA is the agency to implement this policy. The coke and coal
chemical industry places the highest priority on the very same goal and has made monumental
strides in improving workplace safety in our industry. However, OSHA has recently proposed a
number of regulatory changes that we believe overreach and have the potential for significant
economic consequences for industry.
Noise Policy Reinterpretation
OSHA has proposed to adopt a revised enforcement policy that will require the
installation of "feasible" engineering or administrative controls before accepting the use of
personal protective equipment to limit the effects of noise in the workplace. The new policy
reverses decades of agency precedent and policy that recognized the cost-effectiveness of
personal protective equipment for hearing protection by defining "feasible" as "capable of being
done without threatening the viability of the company." This unreasonable ~hift in emphasis
stands to add substantial costs in terms of engineering controls or decreased productivity by
virtue of administrative controls and threatens the global competitiveness of our industry and the
industries we supply.
Recording of Musculoskeletal Disorders
OSHA has proposed the addition of musculoskeletal disorder injuries to its requirements
for reporting of other injuries and illnesses. We are concerned that this new reporting
requirement is a predicate for using OSHA's general duty clause to cite violations in lieu of a
national ergonomics standard, which contravenes the Congressional overturning of that standard
under terms of the Congressional Review Act in 200 I.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide the coke and coal chemicals industry's input to
your critical review of regulations that may affect the economy and jobs. We have touched on
just a few ofthe more pressing regulatory issues with significant impacts, but there are many
more. We heartily support your comprehensive oversight and review of the government's
environmental and safety and health regulations. While protection of the environment and
4
workplace safety are of great importance, it is also essential that both costs and benefits of
regulations be cautiously evaluated and considered.
Sincerely,
Bruce A. Steiner
President
5
January 11, 2011 Konneth I. ChonauU
Chllirman an~ Cllief Executivu Officer
Amorican ExproslI: Company

Chairman Darrell E. Issa 200 Vasey Straot
New York. NY 10285
Committee on OVersight and Government Reform rBi: 2\2540.5023
2157 Rayburn House Office Building fa~ 212.640,0128
Dear Chairman Issa:
Thank you for your letter of January 6 asking for our assistance In Ideptifying
regulations that have undermined job creation. As we look for ways to accelerate
economic growth, regulatory reform can playa k,eY'role In making our economy
more efficient and dynamic. •
As a Vice Chairman of the Business Roundtable, I have wo'rked with other CEO's over
the last two years to identify regulations across different sector" of the economy
that are having a negative impact on competitiveness and job creation. That work
led to a submission to OMB Director Peter Orszag las,t'June by the Business
Roundtable that identified dozens of regulations in need of reform,tne collective
impact of which is enormous. The letter is at:
http://businessroundtable.org!uploads!hearings-
letters/downloads!20100621 Letter to OMB Director Orszag from BRT and
BC with Attachments.pdf.
More recently, the Business Roundtable released 'a policy position on existing
a'nd proposed regulations that focused particularly on environmental regulation,
financial reform, and health care and retirement benefits. In financial services
alone, we expect over 200 new regulations to be promulgated as a result of the
Dodd-Frank Act. The impact, of course, will go far beyond financial services
firms to the industrial users of derivatives and to small businesses that need
reliable credit to survive and expand. I am enclosing a copy of the Roundtable's
paper.
'TnanR you'f5f youraIfenti'onTcnfils mnportanrtssue.-rf'yOlJllave a-nY'"fUrrlief'
questions, please fee·1 free to conta~t Arne Christenson, who is Senior Vice
President for GovernmentAffairs at American Express, at 202-434-0160.
<.
Enclosure
Business
Roundtable"
Business Roundtable Policy Positions on
Existing and Proposed Regulations
Environmental Regulations
The EnvlrDnmental PrDtectlDn Agency has unveiled an aggressive Clean Air Act and Clean Water
Act regulatDry agenda that, cumulatively, threatens a significant number of electric power
plants and industrial bDliers. MDst Df these regulatiDns are scheduled to be finalized Dver the
next tWD years_
NESHAPS for Utility Boilers: Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (eM) requires EPA tD establish
NatiDnal Emissions Standards for HazardDus Air PDllutants (NESHAPS) fDr majDr (and area)
SDurces of hazardDus air pollutants (HAPS) that are subject to regulation. 'Pursuant tD a
consent decree approved by the U.S. District CDurt for the District of Columbia, EPA is
required to Issue a prDposed rule for the regulation Df HAPS emlssiDns from cDal and oil-
fired utility bDliers by March 16,2011 and tD finalize the rule by November 16, 2011. It is
anticipated that any final rule wlil require the InstaliatiDn of CDStly new cDntrol equipment
at virtually every existing cDal-fired utility bDiler. In additlDn, it Is not clear If technDIDgy Is
available to meet the anticipated standards if EPA dDes not use its authority tD sub-
categDrize Dr tailDr Its regulatlDns depending Dn cDal types. Regardless Df the final fDrm Df
the rule, it Is anticipated that significant cDal generating capacity wi,lI be at risk fDr closure as
a consequence of the rule.
NESHAPS for Industrial, Commercial.and Institutional Boilers: In two separate rulemaking

prDceedings, EPA prDpDsed rules In April 2010 that would reduce HAM'S emissiDns frDm
existing and new Industrial, cDmmerclal and institutiDnal bDilersand process heaters IDcated
at major SDurces and reduce HAPS emisslDns frDm existing and new industrial" cDmmercial
and institutional bDilers IDcated at area sources. On December 7, 2010, EPA petitioned the
federal court fDr an extension of the deadline for Issuance Df a final. rule to April 13, 2012,
EPA argued that it needed additional time tD review over 4800 public cDmments filed In the
rulemaking prDceedings. .In additlDn, EPA indicated that the final rules wDuld reflect material
changes frDm the proposed rules. AccDrdlng tD an EPA Fact Sheet on the NOPR fDr maJDr
SDurces, there are apprDxlmately 13,555 bDiler and prDcess heaters at maJDr SDurces in the
U.S. The Fact Sheet estimates that the tDtal natiDnal capital cost fDr a final majDr source rule
wDuld be apprDximately $9.5 billion In 2012, and the total national annual cost would be
$2.9 billiDn in 2013. EPA also estimated that fDr area SDurces, there are apprDxlmately
183,000 bDilers at 92,000 facilities. MDst Dfthese area SDurces are Dwned and Dperated by
small entities. EPA estimates that the tDtal natlDnal capital CDSt fDr a final area SDurce rule
wDuld be apprDximately $2.5 blillDn, and the tDtal natlDnal annual CDSt wDuld be $1.0 blliiDn.
Given the number of industrial sources affected and the potential severity of the final rule,
this proposed regulation could be extremeiy costly and disruptive, Moreover, a number of
older facilities could be expected to close given the magnitude olthe capital and annual
operating costs anticipated, Permitting the numlier of upgrades that will be required under
these regulations will present a significant challenge,
Regulation ofGreenhouse Gas Emissions Under the Clean Air Act: The EPA has finalized
regulations under the Clean Air Act requiring major sources of greenhouse 'gas (GHG)
emissions to be subject to the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and permit
rd
programs of the Clean Air Act, On December 23 , 2010, EPA also indicated that it intended
to promulgate New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) regulations for major sources. In
general, the PSD program requires sources to apply. the best available control technology
(BACT) to limit emissions of air pollutants, determined on a case-by-case basis, and the
NSPS program establishes a "floor" on what this technology can be, At this time, there is no
readily available commercial technology to limit GHG emissions. On November 10, 2010, '
EPA issued BACT gUidance for the states to Implement. In general, this guidance calls for a
reliance on efficiency measures, rather than fuel switching or entirely new, unproven
technology to control GHG emissions. EPA has made it clear, however, that through
subsequent rulemaklngs, the universe of affected, facilities is likely t,o expand, thus
subjecting'more and more facilities to new case-by-case regUlatory reviews. EPA is being
challenged in court on every significant decision involving this program,
The Clean Air Act was not designed and is ill-suited to regulate a ubiqUitous pollutant like
CO2. C02 emissions do not pose a locai or even national problem; w'hatever Impact there
may be is global. EPA's current regulations require potentially lengthy'BACT case-by-case
reviews for new facilities or major modifications of existing facilities, thus further delaying
investment in new manufacturing plants, In addition, EPA has made it clear that its current
regulations are just the first step In what will be a series of, further rulemaklngs potentially
expanding the scope, severity and cost of the program.
Cooling Water Intake Structures: The withdrawal of cooling water from rivers, lakes or oceans
by electric power plants or manufacturing facilities may result in adverse environmental
impacts on aquatic life. These impacts may be greater at facilities with open-loop, or once-
through, cooling water systems, which withdraw water from a source, use it to cool and
then discharge it back Into the source. Other facilities use closed-loop cooling water
systems, in which cooiing water,is itself cooled, e,g., In cooling towers, and then recycled for
further cooling purposes. ApprOXimately 43% of electric power plants in the U.S, with
cooling water systems use an open-loop system, On December 3, 2010, the District Court
for the Southern District of New York approved a settlement agreement which requires EPA
to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking'under the Clean Water Act for existing facilities by
March 14, 2011. It also requires EPA to issue final rules by July 27, 2012, If final rules in the
rulemaking proceeding require electric power plants and manufacturing facilities with open-
loop, or once"through, cooling systems to install closed-loop cooling systems, then the
potential retrofit costs could be substantial. The massive cost of retrofits could cause the
Page 2
premature retirement of power,plants. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation
recently estimated that the costs of rules could cause 32,500-36,000 MW of capacity to be
vulnerable to retirement If EPA requires the conversion of open-loop cooling water systems
to closed-loop systems. The premature retirement of that capaclty.would have implications
for the reliability of the electric power grid. Finally, some power plants may simply not have
the space required for the Installation of cooling towers and other associated equipment.
Revised National Ambient Air Quality Sta'ldard for Ozone: Under section 109 of the Clean Air
Act, EPA is required to Issue natlonal}mbient air quality standards (NAAQS) for six air
pollutants: ozone, particulate maller, NOX, CO, sulfur dioxide and iead. EPA is required to
issue both primary and secondary standards. Primary standards are requisite to protect the
pUblic health with an adequate margin of safety. Secondary standards are requisite to
protect the public welfare,from any known or anticipated adverse effects of the pollutants.
On March 27, 2008, EPA, under the Bush Administration, finalized primary and secondary
NMQS for ozone. EPA established a new primary NAAQS for ozone of 0.075 parts-per-
million (ppm) using an eight-hour dialing averaging time. This standard was at variance With
the recommendations of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee for a standard of 0.060-0.070
ppm. These NAAQs were appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals forthe D.C. Circuit. When
the Obama Administration assumed office, EPA requested that the D.C. Circuit hold the
'appeal In abeyance with EPA officials appointed by the Obama.Admlnistration reviewed the
2008 standards. In September 2009, EPA Advised the D.C.'Clrcult that It would reconsider
the 2008 NAAQS for ozone and would propose revised standards. On January 6, 2010, EPA
proposed to revise the NAAQS for ground-level ozone to the level initially proposed by the
Advisory Board. In November, 2010, EPA advised the 'D.C. Circuit that it would issue a finai
rule by December 31,2010. On December 8, 2010, EPA requested a continued abeyance
from the D.C. Circuit, Indicating that it Intends to Issue a final rule by July 29,2011.
Compliance with the proposed NAAQSfor OlOne, If finalized, is expected to pose
considerable challenges. According to EPA, 253 of the 675 counties In the U.S. with ozone
monitoring equipment have not yet achieved compliance with the NAAQS for ozone Issued
In 1997. One half of the counties will be nonattainment areas under the standard of 0.07S
ppm issue,d in 2008 and over 80% of the counties could be In nonattalnment under the
, standard of 0.060 proposed last January: Nonattainment status requires reasonable further
progress toward meeting the standards, which makes permitting new sources of ozone'
pollution virtually impossible unless offsets or other reductions are found and the lowest
achievable emissions rate for a proposed facility is achieved.
Financial Regulatory Reform
There are a number of provisions stemming from the Dodd/Frank Financial Regulatory Reform
legislation that are unnecessary, do not constitute "reform" in any recognizable sense, and are
burdensome and costly. Below are examples of regulations stemming from the Dodd/Frank
legislation that have negative consequence to the economy and jobs.
Page 3
Proxy Access: The SEC has created a new federal right to proxy access. This undermines .
decades of state law, precedent and organic evolution of corporate law. The rules will
result in short term focus by boards of directors, turn director elections into political
contests, and could have serious consequences for economic growth and job creation. The
BRT and the Chamber of Commerce have sued the SEC to vacate the rules and the issue Is
pending in the courts.
CEO Pay Ratio Disclosure: Section 953(b) of Dodd/Frank requires disclosure of the ratio of CEO
compensation to the median of the compensation of all the company's employees. The
statute sets forth a very specific calculation and, as such, it Is a very difficult and expensive
undertaking. It could potentially cause companies to take actions that result in less
employment, such as outsourcing, to produce better ratios. Less specificity In the
calculation is necessary.
Disclosure of Conflict Minerals: Section 1502 relating to conflict minerals will require any
company that uses one of a number of commonly used minerals In the production of not
only its products, but also potentially those it has contracted to manufacture, to conduct an
inquiry to determine If the mine'rals came from the Congo, and if It cannot determine that
they did not, to engage in a costly due diligence procedure, including an audit.
Reporting of Payments: Section 1504 requires resource extraction issuers to report payments
to foreign governments, including t"xes, royalties, fees and other material benefits. Such
information will be competitively sensitive In many cases and Its public disclosure may
violate the laws of foreign countries.
Neither Section 1S02 or 1S04, as well Section 1503 relating to disclosure of mine safety
violations to the SEC, have anything to do with the protection of investors. They are costly
requirements that have been attached to the federal securities laws to address unrelated
concerns. The SEC has no expertise to regulate In this area.
Other corporate governance provisions: Other sections of Dodd-Frank relating to executive

compensation, including the advisory vote on compensation (Section 951) and mandatory
stringent c1awbacks (Section 954), will interfere with the ability of boards of directors to
hire, retain and motivate the most qualified senior management teams to produce growth
and jobs.
Whistleblower bounty: Pursuant to Section 922, the SEC has proposed rules which provide a
substantial financial bounty to company employees who go directly to the SEC and report
violations of·the securities laws. These rules would circumvent and render ineffective
company whistleblower and compliance'programs and deprive companies of the ability to
promptly address improper activities by their employees.
Derivatives Regulation: It is crltlc"1 that end users of derivatives -- companies that employ
derivatives to manage risk, not create It through speculative trading -- should have a clear
Page 4
exemptlDn frDm margin, capital, and clearing requirements impDsed by the DDdd,Franl< Act.
We urge the CDmmlttee tD fDcus Dn the dDzens Df regulatiDns that have been Dr will be
prDpDsed tD Implement the Act's derivatives title (Title VII), which will unnecessarily burden
end-user cDmpanles. There are a number Df regulatiDns, including prDpDsals impDsing
margin, capital, and clearing requirements and defining the terms "majDr swap participant"
and "swap dealer", which cDuld cause end-user companies to be subject tD bank-like
derivatives regulation, when Increased transparency cDmblned with regulatlDn Df true swap
dealers wDuld address any systemic risks caused by derivatives use. '
When cDnsldering the need'fDr and effects of derivatives regulatiDn Dn end-users, It is

impDrtant tD bear In mind the fDIIDwlng:
• End-users aCCDunt fDr apprDximately 10% Df derivatives use and largely dD nDt
invest in derivatives tD speculate fDr prDfit.
• A BRT study shDws that a 3% margin requirement cDuld result In the IDss Df
100,000 jDbs and tie up an average Df $269 mllliDn per year per'cDmpany. These
results are cDnservatlve as they reflect Dnly the ImpDsition Df an "Initial" margin
requirement, thDugh "varlatIDn" margin charges cDuld be much higher, tying up
mDre capital and cDsting mDre jDbs.
Health Care and Retirement Benefits
The fDIlDwing are key regulatDry issues that have been raised by Business RDundtable member
cDmpanles In the area Df health and retirement benefits.
ERISA PreemptlDn: It is critically impDrtant that ERISA preemptlDn be preserved in health care
reform regulatiDns under the Patient PrDtectiDn and AffDrdable Care Act (PPACA). One Df
the key features Df ERISA is the ability of an emplDyer tD design a plan to fit the
prDfile/needs Df Its workfDrce. The ImpDsitiDn Df emplDyer mandates inhibits an emplDyer's
ability tD dD this and will likely result In cost increases fDr large, self-funded plans withDut
CDmmensurate benefits tD emplDyees.
"Grandfathering": These rules from the PPACA were tDD cumbersDme and didn't allDw plans
tD cDmply with "the early requirements Dver a periDd Df time."
"Cadillac Plan" Tall: This new tax in the PPACA will divert reSDurces away frDm Investment in
new technology, prDcesses and Jobs, and will significantiy raise CDStS, harming global
cDmpetitiveness. As a result Df efforts ,tD aVDid the tax, Dne Df theTevenue SDurces that
suppDrts health refDrm will be significantly red'uced.
Page S
Health IT: The CMS Notice of Proposed Rlilemaking (NPRM) and the Interim Final Rule (IFR)
are creating uncertainty and confusion, Jeopardizing the goal of the rapid adoption of
electronic health records. Without policy changes, Innovation will be marginalized and Job
creation threatened,
RDS: Due to the elimination of the tax-free aspect of Retiree Drug Subsidy (RDS) in the PPACA,
employers may be more likely to drop retirees into the open market, where costs to 'the
Federal government (i.e., under' Part D of Medicare), could exceed those to the Federal
government under RDS,
Limited Plans: PPACA provides the Secretary transitional authority to allow benefit limits up
until 2014. We support the "mlni-med waiver authority" to allow employers to continue to
offer limited benefit plans - to current categories of employees - until 2014 to ensure
continued affordable coverage of part-time, seasonal, temporary and full-time employees in
a waiting period; and vital services such as maternity coverage'- a benefit that Is generally
not available In the individual market. We believe this waiver authority should be extended
beyond 2014.
Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) Requirements: Careful consideration should be given to these
requirements. They may:
'" Increase premiums,
" Reduce competition in the marketplace, and
• Narrow prOVider choice for consumers.
Premium Increase Reporting: A new federal rate review regime would:

• Threaten carrier solvency leaving consumers and prOViders with unpaid claims,
• Decrease competition,
'. Decrease choice of providers, and
• Add unnecessary administrative burden.
Administration and Reporting:

• The Health Care Reform bill includes a provision that requires more companies to file
1099 tax forms; the cost to modify systems to collect the data and send the additional
1099s will be significant.
• The short amount of time In which plans are required to comply with new ICDlO and
SOlO coding requirements Imposes an incredible administrative burden that will
Increase administrative costs significantly. '
Retirement Policy Regulations:

• Proposed PBGC regulations under ERISA section 4062(e) would hinder normal business
transactions In ways that are not sup'ported by the language or intent of the statute.
The rules were intended to apply only when an employer ceases operations at a facility,
Page 6
but the proposed regulations would apply in many cases where <no operations were'shut
down and would expose plan sponsors to potentlall/ability that is disproportionate to <
the size of a transaction, By placing a significant toli charge on customary and
economic business transactions, employers wil/ be limited in their flexibility to redirect
capital and efforts Into job formation., .
• Regulations governing cash balance and other hybrid pension plans, including
Interpretations of market rate of return standards and conversion requirements, are
requiring unnecessary expenditures by employers and are disrupting pension benefit
plans, adding costs and diverting resources from job deat/on.
<. Ongoing regulatory projects with respect to pension plan funding should seek to
minimize year-to-year volatility and maximize the employer's ability to predict costs,
Without appropriate smoothing of asset values and Interest rate swings, volatile funding
requirements will intensify the cyclical nature of the U.S. economy -- forcing employers
to make larger contributions when the economy is at its weakest. This, In turn, would
deepen recessions and slow Job growth. In contrast, more predictable, steady funding
rules provide employers with the certainty they need to hire new employees and to
make capital investments.
Page 7
~
ahma" American Hardware Manufacturers Association
Jnnn!lry 7, 20 II
The Honornble Darrell Issa

The House of Rel,rescnt.tives
Committee on Oversight !llld Gcvemment Reform
2157 Rayburn Hmlse Offico Building
WashIngton, D.C. 20515·6143
Deln' Congressman Issa:
]n responso to your leltornf Decomber 29, 20 I0 askIng for assistnnccin identll)dng !l~isting tUld
proposcdlcglslatioll that have negatively impacted job growth ill our inchlstl'Y, the Amel'ienll
Hardwltl'e Mannfactlu'cr.Q Association CARMA) did n llHllling requcstiug feedback f!'Om our BOllrd
of Directors and Officers plus a separate maUing to approximately 350 top level execntives In 0111'
member companies.
BAscd Oil responses received to date, the top cOllcern,q lIIe:
• Thc Health Clire Act: Too costly lUld cmnbcrsomc to comply with,
• Taxes, both personal nnd COI'porata: Too high and llllti-businessin tcrms (ll' global
competitiveness.
• Cap & Trade legislntlon I reglliatlons: Make it 1110rc C()stly to prod uee products due to
increascd encl'gy prices,
• EPA I VOC-related l~glsJation I regulations: Most new reglilations arc too costly for
smillieI' mallllfactlwcrs to cllmply with nnd remllin competitive.
Congressman IS]lI, we nppreciate yOlll' etl'orts as Chllinnl1l1 of the Committee on Oversight and
G.ovctllm~DtRofotm to help AI1l11ricaretUI'D to an econOllIY thnt is froe ttl grow lind create .lobs
without U11l1000sSArily btll'dtlnsome government lntorfel'ance in terms of Im!i-bllsilless lews lind
regulatiolls.
Thnnk you for tho opportunity to provide you with alii' views on tbese very important matters" If
we can be of lIny assIstance inlhe f1Jtlll'e, plcnsodo no, hesitate to contact us as we are engel' to
ho II' move the conntry forwHl'd to 1I morc pl'llspcrous erll.
Sincerely,
Timothy S. Parrell
President lind Chief Executive Officer
AttllchltlJ;lnt: Abont tbe Americlln HHrdware MlInl1fnctl1rer,~ Association (AHMA)
80 I i'l01·,11 Plaza Drive I Schaumburg, Illinois 60 173 I ahnla.org I 84"7.605.1025 I Illf,,@ahnlil.org

About thc AlllcrlculI Hllrdworc MR.nllfactlircrs Association (AlIMA)
AHMA is a. globally fOCL\Sed trucle associatiOll of nJl\l\ufaCllu'ers, or providers, of

hardware, home improvement, Illwn llnd garden, paint find decorating, building and
constrllction find related products, as well as manufacturers' representative's agencies and
trade publications,
AlIMA offers tIl any valuable member llnd Industry progrllms, services ami activities
including the AHMA Bardl/nes Technology Forum, AHMA I USA International
Pavillo.ns, AHMA Advlll1tflgC GPO, the AHMA eAGLE, The Hm'd Fax: Home
Improvement Industry News, Tho Hflrd Fax Internllt/oMI: Home Improvement Industry
News from Around dIe WOl'ld, tbe AHMA Home Improvement Industry Confidenoe
Index, the AHMA Home 1I11provetllGnt Industry Dashboard, Government Relations
Pl'Ogmms, Member Bend! t Vendor Programs, the AHMA Hardware Illdustry Relief
Effort (HIRE) and the AHMA I Habitat for HUtll!mity Pwtnership,
For more inIormatiol1llbout AHMA, j1lease visit l!"Ijxyv.ahfTH~,Qrg,

10 January 2011

Chairman
Chairman Issa:
I am writing today in response to your letter dated December 29, 2010

requesting that the American Home Furnishings Alliance (the AHFA) identify
317 W, I-Ilgl1 Ave., 10 th Floor
existing and proposed regulations that have negatively impacted job growth
P.O, Box I-IP·7
within our membership. Please find enclosed a brief summary of two
High PolnL NC 27261
Phone 336,884,6000 regulatory initiatives the industry is facing that underscore the overreach of
Fax 336-884-5303 regulators and highlights the downward pressure the regulatory burden is
having on job growth.
The American Home Furnishings Alliance (AHFA) is the world's most

influential trade organization serving the home furnishings industry. The 372'
member companies operate5,384 domestic wood furniture and upholstery
manufacturing facilities and comprise an extensive global supply chain that
provides a wide variety of home furnishings to the US consumer. Member
2
companies provide approximately 300,000 manufacturing jobs throughout the
US and represent a $35 billion dollar segment ofthe nation's economy.
Emissions Standards for Major Source Industrial/Commercial and Industrial

Boilers and Process Heaters (Boiler MACT)
The AHFA is deeply troubled by the potent'lal economic effects on the

domestic furniture manufacturing industry of the proposed Emissions
Standards for Major Source Industrial/Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and
Process Heaters, (the "Boiler Rule") and the Identification of Non-Hazardous
Materials That Are Solid Waste (the "Waste Rule"). As proposed, these two
rules threaten to eliminate the long-standing and environmentally beneficial
practice whereby furniture companies generate heat and process steam at
their plants by com busting wood fuel generated from the furniture
manufacturing process. The proposed rules are of great concern to those of us
who represent furniture manufacturers and the employees of those
companies.
Unless altered, the rules could actually have the perverse

environmental effect of forcing the transition of furniture manufacturing
I 220 manufacturing and 152 supplier members

2 Estimated $4.4B payroll
1
facilities from the use of wood 'biomass' as a fuel to the combustion of fossil
fuels while simultaneously forcing the disposal into landfills of a clean, high BTU
value, renewable fuel in the form of wood 'biomass' generated from the
furniture manufacturing process.
One of our major concerns with the proposals is the effect of the rules
on wood-fired boilers commonly used by the furniture Industry. Under current
practice, boilers in the furniture industry are typically small and combust a kiln-
dried wood fuel which is generated during the furniture manufacturing
process. This wood 'biomass' fuel is very dry, burns cleanly, has a neutral C02
emissions scoring, and has a high heat value. However, as we understand it,
the Boiler Rule as proposed would combine these smaller dry wood 'biomass'
fuel boilers used in the furniture industry into a broader biomass subcategory,
that includes boilers fired by wet fuel used in other industries, thereby creating
a single subcategory of emission sources for evaluation. By establishing a single
large group of boilers that use both dry wood fuel and wet wood fuel, EPA
effectively ignores the benefits and unique characteristics of dry wood boilers
by imposing a single set of emissions standards on the entire category.
Larger boilers burning wet biomass fuels have historically required more
costly controls as a result of their inherently higher emissions. The cost for
small dry-fuel boilers to meet standards that have historically applied to wet
biomass boilers is prohibitive, and the incremental air quality benefit that
would come from lumping drive fueled boilers into such a category is
negligible. The estimated cost associated with these 'end of pipe' controls for a
typical wood fired boiler in the furniture industry is estimated to be $3.3M per
stack 3 .ln fact, rather than make costly investments in new 'end of pipe'
controls, a more likely outcome is that furniture manufacturers would retire
their wood-fired boilers, replace them with natural gas or fuel oil boilers, and
simply dispose of the dry wood fuel generated by the furniture manufacturing
process. A greenhouse gas neutral fuel would be replaced with a fuel that emits
substantial amounts of greenhouse gases. Cost associated for a typical boiler at
a furniture facility4 to 'fuels switch' is estimated to be $1.8M and includes the
cost to landfill the ready available dry, high BTU, carbon neutral fuels and find
the equivalent BTU value in natural gas, if it is available. This predictable
outcome would not be consistent with the intent of the rule.' To prevent this
likely outcome from occurring, we request that EPA revisit the proposal and
establish a distinct low moisture (less than or equal to 30 percent) biomass
subcategory for dry wood fuel. Having a subcategory which considers the
3 Estimate includes $1.3M for an ESP (particulate) and $2.3M for CO controls
4 A 40-45 mBTU wood fired boiler
5 Fuels switching to the BTU equivalent for natural gas in this typical boiler would increase C02
emissions by 23,000 T
6 EPA has stated in their GHG/BACT guidance to State regulators, 'that based on these
considerations, permitting authorities might determine that, with respect to the biomass
component of a facility's fuel stream, certain types of ~lomass by themselves are BAcT for
GH G. (http://www.epa.gov/regulations/guidance/byoffice-oar.html)
2
unique characteristics of these boilers and the heat content of dry wood fuel 7
would enable a far more desirable economic and environmental outcome.
We are also concerned with the exclusion of the Health Based

Compliance Alternative (HBCA) from the proposed Boiler Rule. Section 112
(d)(4) of the Clean Air Act establishes a mechanism for EPA to exclude facilities
from certain pollution control regulations in circumstances when those
facilities can demonstrate that emissions do not pose a health risk. Using the
discretionary authority allowed under Section 112(d)(4), EPA may allow
facilities to demonstrate the potential risk posed by emissions of certain
pollutants such as manganese and hydrogen chloride from the facility. If the
facility can show that its emissions are below the established threshold for the
levels posing a risk to human health, EPA can use these data to exclude from
requirements sources from which emissions do not pose a risk. Using HBCA at
the outset would allow facilities to comply based on health based data rather
than taking the interim step of installing emissions control technology before
determining if the facility meets the health based standard. We believe that
use of the HBCA is a logical tool and that when a facility can meet a more
stringent health based standard without the necessity of expensive emissions
control equ'lpment, the HBCA should be allowed. We ask that EPA reinstate the
HBCA as part of the Boiier Rule.
Identification of Non·Hazardous Materials That Are Solid Waste (the "Waste

Rule")
Finally, with regard to the related Waste Rule indentifying non-

hazardous secondary materials that are solid wastes, we applaud EPA for the
inclusion of fuel generated from engineered wood products in the classification
of dry wood fuel generated at furniture plants as "fuel" rather than "waste."
This distinction allows these materials to be properly regulated under Section
112 of the Clean Air Act as a fuel burned in a combustion unit rather than being
subject to the solid waste requirements as waste being incinerated under
Section 129. Dry wood fuel is clearly a fuel and not a waste product, and we
appreciate that EPA has structured its proposal in a manner which
acknowledges this common sense fact. We understand that there is some
component of engineered wood in all wood fuel generated at furniture plants
today. The engineered wood component certainly should remain classified as
"fuel" like the solid wood components of the fuel generated at furniture plants
in the final Waste Rule. We believe that EPA's proposal on this point is well
thought out, and we encourage you to retain this portion of the proposal.
Wood furniture manufacturing has experienced a recent downturn in

the United States. Domestic employment in this industry has declined from
7 AHFA, in collaboration with EPA, established a unique AP-42 emission factor for 'dry wood' ...
Table 1.6-1 'EMISSION FACTORS FOR PM FROM WOOD RESIDUE COMBUSTION'.
(http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/op42/ch01/finol!cOls06.pdf)
, 3
620,000 jobs in 1990 to approximately 360,000 jobs today. There has been a
519% increase in wood casegoods furniture imports between 1998 and 2007.
8etween 2000 and 2008, 270 domestic furniture manufacturing operations
have closed, including 112 plants in North Carolina, 31 in Virginia, and 30 in
Mississippi. The industry cannot afford another factor which would place
additional stress on these jobs. In this instance, EPA has the ability to achieve
the environmental goals required by the Boiler MACT process while still
preserving the economic viability of this vital domestic industry and the
valuable American jobs it prOVides.
The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSJA)
Another critical regulatory initiative that adds to the regulatory burden

and rapidly increasing 'cost of compliance'S is the Consumer Product Safety
Improvement Act (CPSIA). It is critical that the House gives CPSIA its immediate
attention. Our industry, as well as other industries, has been severely impacted
by the unintended and unforeseen consequences of this legislation and relief is
urgently needed to prevent further damage to our economy. Of particular
interest to the furniture industry are the definition of children's products,
testing and labeling, and the public database. Therefore, we would ask that
you bring this subject to the attention of your colleagues and make the CPSIA
one of the Committee's priorities for the 2011 term. We believe the sweeping
scope of the CPSIA across all consumer products requires a more in-depth
explanation of our unique product lines, manufacturing and quality control
processes, to understand the impact of a "One Size Fits All" regulatory
approach.
CPSIA is not the only major piece of legislation to affect furniture

manufacturers. Newly enacted, promulgated and proposed rules from multiple
points of State and Federal authority have created many challenges within our
industry, and affected all in the US manufacturing industry. Furniture
manufacturers have long been aware that our existence and success are
directly linked to a single perspective: "Do we increase the comfort and
satisfaction of our customers' lives?" Without question, the safety of our
products is paramount to the comfort of our customers. It is with that intrinsic
commitment to safety that we continue to seek clarity, reason and exemption
where indicated, for our products. Regulation for regulations' sake, where
there is no inherent change to a bill of materials, a process or a product
indicated after extensive, statistically significant testing across multiple points
of input and verification, is simply wasteful. Classifying products to inclu'de the
broadest possible interpretation, rather than the most logical or appropriate,"
again creates waste, for those who must meet the requirements and then
again for those who must enforce them.
8 For every $18 spent on upgrades and compliance cost! 16,000 jobs are at risk and US GDP is
reduced by as much as $1.2B ... economic impact study by IHS Global Insight for elBa
4
Every enterprise comes with a price tag, including regulation. It is
imperative if we as manufacturers wish to remain in business that we do
nothing in the course of producing our goods that cannot be justified to a
consumer as adding value to their purchase. The same rules should apply
within the "production" of regulations. The cost of both meeting and enforcing
the regulation MUST bring added value to the country and its citizens, who
bear both costs, the first cost as an increase in purchase price and the second
cost as a tax-supported government action.
It is within the context of the above that the industry sought greater
clarity around some of the CPSC proposals to implement the CPSIA. Many of
the proposed rules address things that the industry already does with respect
to routine quality control, and we are pleased to bring these results forward.
However, many others impose enormous additional costs without ANY
additional safety benefits. It adds an additional layer of difficulty that all of this
new regulatory activity has taken place during the worst economic recession in
memory. For example, Furniture Brands International has only reported three
profitable quarters in the last ten. In order to survive declining sales and the
recession, they have significantly downsized and implemented deep cost
cutting measures. There has been no price increase in three years and the
company has withheld employee raises for the iast four. It closed many of its
domestic factories and consolidated its remaining manufacturing facilities. It
cut production run quantities significantly to reduce inventories and eliminated
over 3,000 US jobs during the past two years. In the past decade, most
domestic furniture production has shifted off-shore. Hooker Furniture
Corporation had five manufacturing facilities In Virginia and North Carolina
seven years ago. Then economic conditions and the overburden of regulation
forced them to 'off-shore' their production eliminating 1800+ jobs. Lea
Industries had five manufacturing facilities in NC, TN, and VA with 1500+
employees five years ago. Today its domestic manufacturing is limited to one
facility In Hudson, NC with 280 employees with the remaining production
shifted offshore. Vaughan-Bassett Furniture had to "mothball" its Elkin, NC
plant which at one time had over 450 employees. That left the company with
one manufacturing plant in Galax, VA with 634 employees, and SO employees
in Elkin for support and warehousing operations. Finally, Thomasville Furniture,
in 2005, employed approximately 10,000 people in 4 states. It had 10 case good
production plants, 12 support plants, and 4 upholstery plants. In 2010, its
employees had been reduced to 1,082 and its manufacturing operations
reduced to 2.5 case good plants. The balance of production had also shifted off-
shore. The stories of Furniture Brands, Hooker, Lea and Thomasville, while
unique and highly personal to the employees, families and stockholders of
these respected American brand names, is all too common in its 'core facts'
throughout the furniture Industry.
5
CONCLUSION
We hope that our discussion contributed to your understanding of the

way in which the furniture industry markets its productsto the American
consumer. Its current quality control/assurance practices insure the safety of
its products for consumers while providing a wide variety of choices at various
price points for its customers. It is critical for this industry that the pending
rules to implement CPSIA and the proposed boiler MACT remain sufficiently
flexible to allow current practices to continue without forcing the loss of more
U.S. jobs or forcing more furniture production-overseas. The agencies should
take a hard look at the cost benefit analysis of these rules because this industry
is not finding any corresponding safety or health benefit, despite the huge costs
required to demonstrate compliance. We would urge the Congress to restore
some discretion to the CPSC and EPA in order to determine when testing,
certification, fuels switch, controls are necessary In order to insure the safety of
certain category of products and protect human health and the environment.
Finally, we would like to offer our assistance to you, in the form of continued
information flow, conversation, and/or outreach to the Committee in order to
ensure the most pragmatic solutions are provided in your efforts to review the
implementation of the boiler rule and the CPSIA. It is our desire that these
issues are heard and acted upon by the broadest possible audience to impact
meaningful change.
Thank your for the opportunity to provide these comments. Please

contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or need
additional information.
Regards,
Bill Perdue
VP Regulatory Affairs
bperdue@ahfa.us
336.884.1017
6
~?~=
L1b,rtj PI"" Sull' 700
328 S"anlli St,~,t, NW
Washlngl,n, DC 20004·2802
(202) 838·1100 PlIO"'
www,aluwrg
American Hospital
Association
January 14, 2011
The Honorable Darrelllssa

Chairman
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Chairman Issa:
On behalf of the 5,000 members of the American Hospital Association (AHA), I am

writing to thank you for the opportunity to identify existing and proposed regulations that
have negatively impacted the hospital field. Regulatory relief is of great importance to
our members and one of our major legislative priorities this year. We appreciate your
invitation to share our views and concerns.
Hospitals are major employers and economic engines in communities across the country.
In 2009, hospitals employed more than 5.3 million people, making hospitals the second-
largest source of private-sector jobs. The goods and services hospitals purchase from
other businesses create additional economic value. With these ripple effects included,
hospitals support nearly one in nine U.S. jobs and more than $2 trillion of economic
activity. During the recent recession, hospitals remained a source of employment growth.
In addition, between now and 2018, the Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that about 26
percent of all new jobs created in the U.S. economy will be in the health care and social
assistance sector. This industry-which includes public and private hospitals, nursing and
residential care facilities, and individual and family services-is expected to grow by 24
percent, or4 million new jobs.
At the same time, hospitals are highly regulated at the federal level and, at times, those
regulations place impediments in our members' paths as they continue to provide both
jobs and health care to their communities. Below we suggest a number of areas where
regulatory change could help our members achieve the dual objectives of better care for
patients and job creation.
January 14,2011
Page 2 of5
CLINICAL INTEGRAnON
Clinical integration is needed to facilitate the coordination of patient care across

conditions, providers, settings and time in order to achieve care that is safe, timely,
effective, efficient, equitable and patient-focused. At its heart, clinical integration is
teamwork: hospitals, doctors, nurses and other caregivers working together to make sure
patients get the right care, at the right time, in the right place. Hospitals are trying to spur
this kind of teamwork, but regulatory barriers stand in the way. The barriers to clinical
integration range from confusing antitrust policies to outdated rules governing
relationships between hospitals, doctors and other caregivers. Even Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) rules can be a barrier because they are applied by an agency largely
removed from health care delivery and how it is evolving.
There are solutions. They range from creating user-friendly antitrust guidelines and safe
harbors, to providing clear congressional direction on existing rules that promote instead
of hinder clinical integration·efforts. We have identified specific barriers and provided
suggested solutions to the Administration:
Antitrust Laws. Recently, the antitrust agencies have become more receptive to clinical
integration. However, instead of simply issuing guidelines to help caregivers better
understand how the laws are applied, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has issued
lengthy staff opinion ietters that are expressly limited to the facts contained in the opinion
letter and that warn that the "Commission is not bound by the staff opinion and reserves
the right to rescind it at a later time." The result is that caregivers can neither readily
understand, nor completely rely on, those opinion letters. The solution is to issue user-
friendly, officially backed guidance that clearly explains to caregivers what issues they
must resolve to embark on a clinical integration program without violating antitrust laws.
The Ethies in Patient Referrals Aet (The 8tarl{ Law). The Stark Law was originally
enacted to bara doctor from referring patients to a facility in which the doctor had a
financial interest. However, the tight web of regulations and other prohibitions that have
grown up around the law can now ban arrangements designed to encourage hospitals and
doctors to team up to improve patient care in a clinical integration program. The law
should be returned to its original focus by removing compensation arrangements from the
definition of "financial relationships" that are subject to the Stark Law. These same
compensation arrangements would still be regulated, but by other federal laws already on
the books, such as anti-kickback and Civil Money Penalty laws, that are better equipped
to do so.
The Civil Money Penalty Law (CMP). This law prohibits hospitals from rewarding
physicians for reducing or withholding services to Medicare or Medicaid patients. The
Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Office ofInspector General (OIG),
however, has taken the CMP law a step further, claiming that the law prohibits any
incentive that affects a physician's delivery of care. The result: a clinical integration
program that, for example, rewards a doctor for following an evidence-based timetable
January 14, 2011
Page 3 of5
for the administration of beneficial drugs could be in violation ofthe law. The CMP law
should be amended to make clear it applies only to the reduction or withholding of
medically necessary services.
The Anti-Kickback Law. The law's main purpose is to protect patients and federal
health programs from fraud and abuse. Today, the law has been stretched to cover any
financial relationship between hospitals and doctors. Congress, recognizing that the anti-
kickback statute sometimes thwarts good medical practices, periodically has created "safe
harbors" to protect those practices. However, there is no safe harbor for clinical
integration programs that reward physicians for improving quality. Congress should
create a safe harbor to allow all types of hospitals to participate in clinical integration
programs, establish core requirements to ensure the program's protection from anti-
kickback charges, and allow flexibility in meeting those requirements so that the
programs can achieve their health care goals.
The IRS Code. The majority of the nation's hospitals, as not-for-profit organizations,
are exempt from federal income taxes. To maintain that not-for-profit status, these
hospitals must abide by certain restrictions in the Internal Revenue Code, including one
that addresses the payments they provide to physicians, nearly all of whom are not tax-
exempt. The rules in question prevent a tax-exempt institution's assets from being used
to benefit any private individual, including physicians.
The IRS should issue an Advisory Information Letter or a Revenue Ruling with guidance
on payments from a tax-exempt hospital to physicians in clinical integration programs,
ensuring that the payments do not violate private-benefit and inurement rules.
RECOVERY AUDIT CONTRACTORS
Recovery Audit Contractors (RACs) were authorized as a Medicare demonstration

program under the Medicare Modernization Act of2003, and made permanent by Tax
Reliefand Health Care Act of2006. They are charged with identifYing improper
Medicare fee-for-service payments - both overpayments and underpayments. RACs are
paid on a contingency fee basis, receiving a percentage of the improper payments they
identify and collect. RACs were extended to the Medicaid program through 2010's
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The Medicare RAC demonstration program
suffered from improper oversight by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
(CMS) and resulted in overzealous claim denials. The fundamental flaws in the design and
operation ofthe Medicare RAC demonstration program led to provider appeals, 64 percent of
which were decided in favor of the provider ("CMS Update to the RAC Demonstration
Report," June 2010). While CMS listened to provider concerns and made several
important changes in the permanent RAC program, the permanent program's rollout was
nevertheless beset by problems and delays. Most importantly, more than 50 percent of
hospitals report a significant increase in administrative burden due to the RAC program,
including employing additional compliance staff and consultmits. Hospitals strive for
January 14, 20 I I
Page 4 of5
payment accuracy and are committed to working with CMS to ensure the validity of
Medicaid payments; in fact, providers already work with multiple CMS contractors to
identify inappropriate payments. .
ABUSE OF THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT
The Department of Justice and certain Assistant United States Attorneys are abusing their
authority by initiating False Claims Act (FCA) investigations of hospitals upon the
discovery of evidence of a mistake or overutilization. These government officials have
seized upon data analysis that flags billing errors and/or over-utilization and converted it
into a presumption of FCA liability. FCA cases pose great risk to hospitals in terms of
monetary and administrative sanctions. The threat ofFCA liability leads hospitals to
incur massive expenses related to retaining specialized counsel and outside forensic
accountants and, in the event an overpayment is discovered, to negotiate a formal FCA
settlement where a simple cost report adjustment is all that is really necessary.
MEDICARE AND MEDICAID ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD INCENTIVES AND

CERTIFICATION
Use of electronic health records (EHRs) can improve care quality, efficiency and
coordination. Hospitals have been leaders in health information technology (IT)
development and use. But the high cost of acquiring and maintaining these systems has
been the key barrier for broader hospital adoption. The American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act 0/2009 authorized incentive programs under Medicare and Medicaid
that will pay bonuses to "meaningful users" of certified EHRs beginning in fiscal year
(FY) 2011, then phase-in penalties for those failing to meet "meaningful use" beginning
in FY 2015. To be eligible for the incentives, hospitals must useEHRs that have been
certified through a new federal process established by the Office ofthe National
Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONe). When Congress and the
President passed this landmark program, hospital leaders were excited about the
opportunity to be rewarded for their efforts to adopt health information technology.
However, the rules set out to manage this program by CMS and ONC are overly complex
and confusing, leaving many hospitals concerned about their ability to meet the
programs' demands. However, in a new AHA survey conducted over the past week, 53
percent of hospitals cite lack of clarity in regulatory requirements as a barrier to
achieving meaningful use in a timely manner, while 52 percent cite complexity as a
barrier. These barriers were cited slightly more often than upfront capital costs (52
percent) and ongoing costs (51 percent). Simplified regulations that recognize how health
IT is really acquired, used and implemented are needed for this program to fully succeed
and for hospitals to be able to meet the national goals of an e-enabled health care system.
January 14, 2011
Page 5 of5
CLINICAL LADORATORY SIGNATURE ON REQUISITION
CMS recently set a new requirement that a physician or qualified non-physician

practitioner must sign requisitions for clinical diagnostic laboratory tests paid through the
Clinical Lab Fee Schedule in order for the test to be payable. This policy change is
unnecessary, redundant with common practice, and contrary to the agreement struck in
the Clinical Laboratory Negotiated Rulemaking. It will result in delays in hospital
laboratory testing resulting from labs having to track down the ordering physicians'
signature that will be harmful to beneficiaries, and would unfairly hold hospital
laboratories financially accountable for non-compliance that is outside of their control.
In finalizing this policy, CMS has not presented an adequate rationale to merit such an
onerous system change.
Thank you for the opportunity to share our concerns about the mounting regulatory
burden faced by America's hospitals. It is our belief that this burden can be addressed
considerably through a critical examination of the current rules and regulations and a
common-sense approach to removing barriers to improving patient care.
Sincerely,
~~~~t-
Rich Umbdenstock
President and CEO
~I~~~I
801 North Fairfax street
Suite 211
Alexandria, VA 22314-1757
AMERICAN Phone: 703-299-4434
WIRE Fax: 703-299-9233
PRODUCERS Email: info@AWPA.org
ASSOCIATION Kimberly A. Korbel
"Steel Wire and Wire Products
for North America and tha World" Executive Director
January 14, 2011

Chairman, House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform
United States House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Chairman:
On behalf of the member companies of the American Wire Producers Association

(AWPA), I want to first thank you for your leadership on the issue of the burden of
regulation on US employers. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on some
proposed regulations which will have a serious and detrimental effect on wire and
wire products manufacturers, while offering minimal benefit to our nation overall.
Background
The AWPA is a trade association which represents companies which collectively
produce more than 80% of all carbon, alloy and stainless steel wire and wire products in
the United States, and the steel wire rod companies and that supply the raw material for
wire and wire products. The 80 member companies of the AWPA employ more than
19,000 workers in over 220 plants and facilities located in 33 states and 130
Congressional Districts and representing over $7.5 billion in annual sales.
American wire and wire products manufacturers are entrepreneurial and work hard to
maintain their competitive market position despite heavy import competition in their
products, and the products of their customers. AWPA members pride themselves on .
high levels of productivity and constant reinvestment in the latest technology and
equipment, keeping the American wire industry one of the most globally competitive
segments of the steel industry.
There are two proposed rules of particular concern to AWPA member companies:
Combustible Dust and the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Program Articles
Exemption Clarification.
OSHA - Combustible Dust- Proposed Rule Making

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is developing a rule to
address the hazards of combustible dusts which encompass a wide variety of materials,
industries and processes. It is understood that OSHA is anticipating much more
AWPA Letter to Chairman Issa
January 14, 2011
Page 2
stringent limits on dust in the workplace and that the rule will be inclusive of ALL dusts
regardless of their composition. AWPA member companies cannot accept OSHA's goal
to create a "one size fits all" standard with respect to dust generated by very diverse
types of manufacturing facilities.
The problem is that OSHA is making no exception for dust that is neither combustible
nor explosive (Le., steel dust). Instead they are assuming that all dust is similar to that
found in grain handling or wood manufacturing facilities. This is not only unscientific but
also unreasonable for the many businesses that will have to comply with this rule, even
though there is no danger of explosive incidents in their manufacturing facilities.
The Administration fails to acknowledge the significant differerices between dust from
steel facilities (which is not combustible) and the timber or paper industry (which is
highly combustible). The dust from steel scrap and steel products is not combustible
because most of the material is already oxidized due to the fact that its major
component is iron oxide.
In addition, dusts generated in steelmaking processes vary greatly in chemical

composition, particle size and shape, moisture content and other factors. Therefore,
these dusts are already subject to numerous environmental regulations regarding both
air emissions and waste disposal. As a result, the wire industry has made substantial
efforts at reduction, recycling and other initiatives to reduce the hazards associated with
handling and disposing of steelmaking dusts. Again, these efforts which are already in
place are not being considered by OSHA in the draft of a new combustible dust rule.
Furthermore, according to draft documents prepared by OSHA, officials are considering

a "zero dust" standard. Therefore, elimination of non-combustible and non-explosive
dust from all beams, joists and other high-level surfaces of a wire manufacturing facility
is not practical and not possible on a continuous basis. Rather, exposing the workers to
the other hazards in the facility in order to remove the dust accumulations would be a
step backward with regard to worker health and safety.
Finally, the wire industry puts worker safety at the top of the list. The industry cannot
afford, and should not expend limited resources for hazards that do not exist in their
facilities. These funds could better be used in safety initiatives that can provide the
greatest good to worker safety and health. The adoption of a "one-size-fits-all"
combustible dust standard will require the wire industry to design and retrofit
manufacturing operations to eliminate all dust greater than zero. This will be
astronomically expensive, if not impossible to achieve.
OSHA should first investigate whether a combustible dust standard is even needed for
steel industry employees before developing any standard for this industry. A thorough
and specific scientific analysis should be conducted to determine any potential risk to
20GR546
January 14, 2011
Page 3
steel-making industry workers. There should also be an examination of the compliance

costs which includes a cost benefit analysis.
Furthermore any final regulation should be commensurate with the degree or level of
possible explosion of the dust, instead of a "one-size-fits-all" dust standard. Any
standard should also provide maximum flexibility for companies to individually achieve
the greatest control over the hazard of accumulated dust in their facilities.
EPA - Taxies Release Inventory (TRI) Articles Exemption Clarification

Proposed Rule
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has drafted a proposed rule that would
change the definition of the "articles exemption" provision which in essence would
negate the provision overall. The articles exemption is a fundamental provision of the
TRI Program, which has long acted to set reporting parameters and reconcile
competing societal interests: protecting the public's right-to-know while minimizing the
reporting burden on industries that produce finished goods. EPA is proposing to
remove a paragraph of guidance dealing with relea~es due to natural weathering of
product, thereby requiring the reporting of releases from finished goods in storage at
manufacturing sites.
EPA has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a proposed rule to
clarify the articles exemption of the Toxics Release Inventory. Since 1988, the Agency
has interpreted the articles exemption as follows: "to exempt from TRI reporting the
normal migration of reportable chemicals from finished goods that have completed the
manufacturing process." The fundamental precept underlying this position has been that
such migration is not caused by the "processing" or use of the item, but occurs
continuously throughout the life of an article. Accordingly, any item of this nature should
retain its status as an exempt article once manufacturing has been completed unless
the item is subsequently processed or used at the facility and such activity causes
additional emissions from the product beyond those that normally occur.
Under EPA's proposed clarification, however, emissions of chemicals from finished

goods that are not processed or used or when sitting in storage would be reportable in
the TRI. Such an interpretation contradicts the plain and common sense reading of the
articles exemption. This proposed clarification would greatly increase reporting burdens
on many wire producing companies and their customers, even though there is no
demonstrable new emissions into the air of stored products.
In its justification, EPA has asserted that only an additionai 158 entities would be
affected by this clarification. We firmly believe this is grossly under-estimated as
virtually all of the AWPA member company facilities would have to re-determine their
status, resulting in the need to fully review the establishment's TRI compliance system.
For a typical wire facility undertaking this review for the first time, approximately 2.5 man
weeks would be required. We argue that this increased reporting burden will not make
20GR546
January 14, 2011
Page 4
our environment any safer or cleaner. Wire products and the wire rod used as raw
material, while sitting in storage, are not and should not be considered a toxic release.
Although billed as an effort to clarify how the articles exemption applies to the treated
wood industry, EPA's proposed interpretation would have broad applicability and far-
reaching and unintended consequences for a host of industries, including the wire and
wire products industry.
Furthermore, if these same finished products were en route to a retailer or sitting in a

store, they would not be considered to be leaching toxics into the environment. We
question the difference between a storage facility and shipment on a flat bed truck.
Finally, many of the raw materials used by wire and wire products manufacturers sit in
outside storage before use. If this clarification was promulgated, these companies would
have to calculate, on a case-by-case basis, how fast the steel rusts which would change
day-by-day depending upon the weather and the material composition. This would be a
monumental reporting headache and almost impossible to calculate.
Conclusion
The additional man hours and millions of dollars that would be required in order to
comply with just these two regulations would seriously and adversely impact wire and
wire products companies. The industry is already reeling from the depressed economy;
a serious drop in the construction and automotive industries; and unfair Chinese trade
policies that have negatively impacted many of the product sectors in the wire industry.
Unnecessary and unfair regulations that cannot be proven to demonstrably
improve worker safety or our environment are not the answer.
In addition, AWPA concurs with the broader and more comprehensive comments
submitted by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM).
Thank you again for this opportunity to discuss two proposed regulations that will have a
serious and adverse impact specifically on the domestic wire and wire products
industry. If you have any questions about these proposals or need more information,
please contact AWPA's Executive Director Kimberly Korbel at 703-299-4434.
Sincerely,
Walter Robertson
AWPA President
20GR546
APA
Dennis J. Hardman
President
January 10,2011

Congress of the United States
Dear Congressman Issa:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on federal regulations that negatively impact the
wood structural panel and engineered wood products industry. It is refreshing to know that
Congress is examining the burden of regulations on jobs and our fragile economy.
APA represents plywood, oriented strand-board (OSB) and other engineered wood product
manufacturers. Our industry employs a significant portion of the 900,000 forest products jobs in
the United States.
In response to your request we polled our membership and several common concerns surfaced:
• Formaldehyde Reassessment: In June of 2010 EPA concluded that formaldehyde (FA)

causes nasopharynx cancer, all ieukemias, myeloid leukemia and Iymphohematopoietic
cancers as a group. This finding ignored, or did not properly cite, several recently published
independent studies. EPA also proposed a maximum FA exposure level of 0.007 ppb, far
below naturally occurring levels including exhaled human breath at 2.0 ppb. In response to
. these questionable conclusions, the National Academy of Sciences is currently reviewing
EPA's reassessment with a final report expected in February, 2011. We are confident that
the NAS findings will not support EPA's recommendations. Should EPA ignore the NAS
findings, a broad array of industries, well beyond just forest products, will be faced with
extraordinary burdens and costs.
• Boiler MACT: EPA is in the process of setting emission limits for several hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs) from industrial boilers under a court ordered deadline. EPA is also setting
HAP limits for solid waste incinerators and boilers at smaller sites. The June, 2010 proposed
rules would impose over $6 billion in capital costs on the forest products industry and over
$20 billion on a wide array of manufacturers. Those costs put tens of thousands of jobs at
risk due to mill closures.
REPRESENTING THE ENGINEERED WOOD INDUSTRY
7011 South 19th Street. Tacoma, WA 98466-5333. Phone: (253)565.6600. Fox: (253) 565.7265 • www.apawood,org
January 10,2011
Page 2 of 3
• Ozone NAAQ: EPA is considering significantiy tightening the already tougher 2008 ozone
standard two years ahead of schedule. Once EPA issues a new ozone standard, states will
identify non-attainment areas and then develop implementation plans to reduce emissions of
nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) - the precursors to ozone.
Cost to the forest products industry could approach $3 billion in new capital expenditures
and lead to additional national rules that control cross-boundary transport of air emissions
(so called "Transport Rule II"). According to an API/NAM study, the costs could approach $1
trillion over 10 years to meet a 60 ppb ozone standard. EPA should defer any action until
2013 on its usual 5 year review cycle and reexamine the health science behind the
standard.
• EPA Greenhouse Gas (GHGl regulation under the Clean Air Act: Effective January 2,
2011, EPA's regulation of GHGs from stationary sources under the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration and Title V programs breaks with long standing precedent for biomass carbon
neutrality and treats the combustion of biomass identically to the combustion of fossil fuels.
EPA chose not to exempt sources of biogenic emissions in its preceding Tailoring Rule.
Two-thirds of the energy needs of forest products mills are met through wood biomass
residuals. Counter to Administration objectives, EPA's treatment of biogenic emissions
ignores the renewability of the resource and stymies investment in renewable energy. EPA
should recognize the principle of carbon neutrality under the Clean Air Act.
• EPA Greenhouse Gas Mandatorv Reporting Rule: Facilities must report their 2010 GHG
emissions beginning April 1,2011. Unlike other regulations, EPA has not allowed facilities
to propose alternative methods for calculating emissions or allowed de minimis emissions
levels under which reporting is unnecessary. This inflexibility makes the rule inherently
more expensive to implement than is necessary. EPA has also proposed to make public
inputs to GHG emissions calculations which are traditionally considered confidential
business information.
• Combustible Dust. OSHA issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on combustible

dust in October, 2009. Complying with the new rule could potentially cost the forest
products industry and numerous other industries many millions of dollars in capital
expenditures and higher operating costs without materially improving worker safety. To be
most cost-effective, combustible dust regulations should rely on performance-based
approaches rather than proscriptive standards and that engineering controls should only be
required for new facilities or if major renovations are made to existing facilities.
• Noise Enforcement. OSHA issued a notice on October 19, 2010, indicating that it plans to
change its official interpretation of workplace noise exposure standards. Until now, OSHA
allowed the use of "personal protective equipment" such as ear plugs and ear muffs as the
first means of reducing workplace noise exposure to acceptable levels. Now, the Agency is
reinterpreting an existing rule to say that companies will need to use administrative changes
and engineering controls and a first line of defense. According to the notice, these changes
must be adopted regardless of the costs unless an employer can prove that making such
chang.es will "put them out of business" or severely threaten the company's "viability.
OSHA's new enforcement policy disregards costs and is at odds with the common-sense
hearing protection approaches that have been used successfully for decades.
January 10, 2011
Page 3 of 3
• Endangered Species Act: Overly burdensome requirements that the Fish & Wildlife Service
(FWS) is placing upon the potential habitat for listed species.' For instance, the Spotted Owl
recovery plan is restricting activity on lands that may be suitable habitat for the Spotted Owl,
irrespective of whether the Owl is present in that region. The new Draft Plan rejects the
current strategy which is based on the assessment that the owl can be recovered by
establishing a network of Late Successional Reserves (LSR's) on federal lands. No
supporting scientific analysis was given, and the FWS is calling for the protection of all owl
sites and all high quality spotted owl habitat on all lands regardless of ownership. This Draft
Plan has the potential to shutter mills and destroy jobs as fiber supply from both federal and
private lands is constrained.
• Health Care: Although the full impact of recently passed health care legislation is still
uncertain, it is clear that additional employer costs will be substantial, as will the burden of
what promises to be extreme complexity in compliance.
• Transportation: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration CSA 2010 imposes new
regulations on truck drivers that will drive up transportation costs, as will Positive Train
Control's impact on railroads.
• Labor: Card-Check (Employee Free Choice Act) gives union organizers an unfair
advantage in any attempt to unionize an operation.
Taken indiVidually these regulations are onerous and expensive to industry, often with
questionable cost/benefit rationalizations. Collectively they consume extraordinary time and
capital that could be better used to increase our global competitiveness and create U.S. jobs.
Again, thank you for the chance to provide input on regulations impacting our industry. And
best of luck in your committee's efforts to provide meaningful government oversight and reform.
Sincerely,
Dennis J. Hardman
President
cc: The Honorable Edolphus Towns

I Q AGRICULTURE
CONSTHUCTION
AEM ASSOCIATION OF
FOHESTRY
MINING
t S EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS UTILITY
January 24, 2011

Chairman
Dear Chairman Issa:
Thank you for your letter concerning the Committee's interest in examining existing and proposed regulations that negatively
impact the economy and jobs. All sectors of equipment manufacturing have been hit especially hard by these difficult
economic times and are just now stabilizing and showing some positive trends.
The Association of Equipment Manufacturers and its members take great pride in the promotion of safety in the workplace and
the proper use of equipment. We represent manufacturers who buiid equipment in the agriculturai, construction, forestry,
mining and utility sectors. I believe the two alliances we signed with federal agencies (OSHA and MSHA), positively brought
companies and regulators together to promote and improve workplace safety. In addition, AEM annually produces and
distributes thousands of safety manuals and has many product-specific committees that review and discuss best practices.
During some recent committee meetings, the following regulations were identified as concerns among our members:
1) OSHA Noise Standard: The proposed changes to the OSHA Noise Standard interpretation would have been very
burdensome. We were pleased to hear this potential costly interpretation was withdrawn. It could have impacted all five
sectors.
2) The New OSHA Crane Rule: The latest changes introduced in the new crane regulation will impact products outside the
area of conventional cranes, including some agricultural and utility applications. In some cases, the inclusion in this
reguiation is by identification and others by possible job function. This new revision will impact additional products like
rough-terrain forklifts, end-loaders, excavators and skid steer loaders, none of which have a record of safety issues that
would warrant these new regUlations. Under the new crane rule, all above products would require conditional licensing of
operators in the future.
3) MSHA Regulation Interpretations: Some recent MSHA regulation interpretations are overly burdensome to industry.
These are not new regulations, but rather interpretations of existing regulations, such as fall protection on mobile
equipment and access systems.
4) Emission RegUlations and Reguired Reporting including:
a. Reporting requirements for engines installed in equipment under the EPA's flex scheme will create an expensive
clerical burden that will linger for years. (In practice, almost all of our members who manufacture whole goods
are impacted by these regulations.)
b. New greenhouse gas reporting regulations concerning the use offuel in asphalt plants.
c. Regulations concerning the use of waste oil for fuel in asphalt plants. EPA now lists waste oil as a hazardous
material, so asphalt plants burning waste oil (an efficient and sensible use of a waste product) will be considered
hazardous waste incineration sites.
While we have not taken steps to quantify the job and economic impacts of the above regulations, we wanted to share them
with you and commit that we will continue our internal research and discussions on existing and proposed regulations.
Sincerely,
~p~
Dennis J. Slater
President
AIAIVI
January 13,201]
Chairman
S. BECKER
NIs5an
Presldellt
M. STANTON
Chairman
VEHICI~E
MANUFACTURERS
Aston Martin
Ferrari Dear Chairman Issa:
Honda
Hyundal
lauzu The Association of International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM)l appreciates
Kia
your December 29, 2010 letter seeking our assistance in identifying existing and
Mahlndra
Masorati
proposed regulations that have or could negatively impact job growth. Though
McLaren there are a large number of regulations affecting Olll' industry, we will focus on the
Mltsublshl
Nissan
two most critical ones:
Peugeot
Subaru • standards limiting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and fuel consumption
Suzuki
Toyota
of light vehicles .munufactlll'ed in model years 2017-2025; and
• authorization of the use of gasoline with up to 15 percent ethanol content.
AFFIUATES
ADVICS
Bosch
AIAM companies are committed to building affordable, reliable, fuel efficient
Delphi vehicles for U.S. consumers and doing so in a socially responsible manner. We
Deliso have long supported a single, national program to improve fuel economy and
JAMA
reduce GHG emissions, and are committed to working with Congress, the
Administration, California and other stakeholders in laying out a coordinated path
towards a cleaner, more fuel efficient and less energy-dependent future.
AIAM also agrees that the use of alternative fuels and technologies for
transportation offers potential energy security, environmental, and economic
benefits by reducing U.S. dependence on petroleum. Accordingly, we support
performance-based, technology-neutral policies with respect to alternate fuels as a
way to maximize opportunities for innovation.
It is with these objectives in mind, we offer the following comments.
1 The Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. (AIAM) is a trade association

representing 15 International motor vehicle manufacturers who account for 40 percent of all passenger
cars and light trucks sold annually in the United States. Nationwide, international autornakers have
invested over $43 billion in U.S.-based production facilities, have a combined domestic production
capacity of 4.2 million vehicles, directly employ over 80,000 Americans, and generate almost 600,000 U.S.
jobs in dealerships and suppliers nationwide.
ASSOCIATION OF INTEI~NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS, INC.

1050 KSTREET, NW - SUITE 650 ' WASHINGTON, DC 20001
202.650.5555 PHONE" WWW,AIAM,ORG
I. Motor vehicle greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards
On May 21, 2010, the White I-louse directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue joint standards limiting
the GHG emissions and fuel consumption of passenger cars and light duty trucks manufactured
in model years 2017-2025, The Memorandum directs the agencies to "produce joint federal
standards that are harmonized with applicable state standards, with the goal of ensuring that
automobile manufacturers will be able to build a single, light-duty national fleet." Our members
strongly supported the President's Memorandum and the AdminisU'ation's efforts to achieve
harmonized standards.
On September 30, EPA and NHTSA issued a Notice of Intent (supplemented on November 30)
to establish these standards and they also issued a related Technical Assessment Report (TAR).
The agencies plan to issue proposed standards by September 30, 20ll, and final standards by
July 31, 2012. In these Notices and the TAR, EPA and NHTSA assessed the impacts of an
increase in stringency of the standards at tates ranging from 3 - 6 percent annually over the 2017-
2025 peliod. The agencies currently estimate that achieving these reductions would increase
new vehicle costs by up to $3,500 per vehicle,
AIAM has supported, and in fact encouraged the efforts of EPA, NHTSA, and the State of
California to achieve harmonized light vehicle standards, in order to reduce the inefficiency and
waste associated with having to meet separate, inconsistent, and potentially contlicting
regulations regmding GHG emissions and fuel efficiency that accomplish the same
environmental goal. In our view, the National Program approach that has emerged from
negotiations involving the Obama Administration, States, vehicle manufacturers, and otller
parties that resnlted in the 2012-2016 standards has been a positive step, However, we are
concerned that EPA, NHTSA and California do not appear similarly aligned on the 2017-2025
rulemaking,
We also note tlult tlle broad range of standards being analyzed by the agencies could result in
widely vllrying degrees of compliance obligations and costs. Our goal is to work with the
agencies to enSlll'e that the final stlmdards meet our national needs, are technologically feasible
and resnlt in costs and benefits that are aligned. The challenge in this proceeding is to ensure
that the technology benefit and cost asseSSjnents that form the basis for the 2017-2025 standards
are reasonable and reflect the inevitable uncertainty in projecting the costs and effectiveness of
new technologies and market conditions, inclnding the price of carbon fuels,
II. Blending of ethanol in gasoline
On October 13,2010, EPA partially granted a waiver request application from Growth Energy, a
manufactlll'er and strong proponent of corn-based ethanol, to allow gasoline that contains up to
15 percent ethanol content (E15) to be used in model year 2007 and newer vehicles. EPA
granted the partial waiver to passenger cars and light-duty trncks currently on the road, even
though these vehicles were certified and wa.rranted only for gasoline with a maximnm of 10
percent blended ethanol (EJO), While this waiver is limited to model year 2007 and newer
ASSOCIATION OF INTEI~NATIONAI. AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS, INC,

1050 KSTREET, NW· SUITE 650 • WASHINGTON,DC 20001
202.050,5555 PHONE • WWW.AIAM.OHG
vehicles, EPA is currently assessing the appropriateness of extending it to older 2001-2006
model year vehicles. EPA declined to allow the use of EI5 in model year 2000 and older light-
duty motor vehicles, heavy-duty gasoline engines and vehicles (e.g., delivery trucks), highway
and off-highway motorcycles, and nonroad engines, vehicles, and equipment (e.g., boats,
snowmobiles, and lawnmowers). There is very strong evidence that higher level ethanol blends
can cause significant environmental, emissions, engine durability, operational and potentially
safety problems in many gasoline engines.
As leaders in the development of fuel efficient vehicles, AIAM member companies are
pioneering technologies to advance tile goals of increasing fuel economy and reducing GHG
emissions. We continue to support the use of alternative fuels, including ethanol. However,
before any new fuel is introduced into the mal"ketplace, we believe comprehensive, independent
and objective scientific testing must be completed to show that the fuel will not increase air
pollution, harm engines, or endanger consumers. In our view, EPA prematurely granted tile
partial waiver before critical studies on the effects of EI5 use were completed and should have
applied it prospectively, if at all.
In addition, assuming tile Clean Air Act even permits this partial waiver, it requires EPA to
develop effective countermeasures to prevent misfueling (I.e., the intentional or inadvertent
introduction of fuel blends that are approved for one category of vehicles into other vehicles or
engines that are not designed to accommodate such fuels). We do not believe that EPA's planned
measures to address ll1isfueling are adequate. The result is an Agency decision and
administrative procedure not authorized or supportable under current law. Moreover, AIAM has
serious concerns about the potential product damage, emissions increases, safety problems, and
resulting liabilities for auto manufacturers that will stem from rnisfueling, which EPA has so far
failed to adequately address.
Therefore, AIAM, as part of a coalition of automobile and engine product manufacturers, has
filed a petition challenging EPA's decision to grant the partial waiver approving tile salc of EI5
for 2007 model year and newer passenger cars and light trucks. We encourage your Committee
to consider the potential impacts of the EI5 waiver On consumers and manufacturers.
We appreciate your efforts to eliminate unnecessary burdens associated with government

regulations and to improve U.S. economic conditions. We would be pleased to provide you with
any additional information to help you in these efforts. Please feel free to contact me at 202-650-
5550 if you have any questions on these matters.
Sincerely,
~~~
Michael J. Stanton
President & CEO
ASSOCIATION OF INTERNATIONAL AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS, INC.

1050KSTREET,NW~ SUITE 650 WASHJNGTON,DC 20001
202.650.5555 PHONE WWW.AIAM.DRG
TEL:,Ol ,G54,1]664
fAX 301.6M.32fJ!l
WE~ www.aftormurkoLofU
E~MAll ijaia@a!lermarket.orn
DRIVING THE AP'l']I,HMARKgT INDUSTl\Y
January 11, 2011
Dear. Chairman Issa:
Thank you for reaching out to the Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association (AAIA)
for out· input on currcnt and upcoming regulatory proposals that will have a negative
impact on the economic well being of our industry.
AAIA is a Bethesda, Md.-based association whose more than 23,000 members and
affiliates manufacture, distribute and sell motor vehicle parts, accessories, service, tool,
equipment, materials and supplies. Through its membership, AAIA represents more than
100,000 repair shops, parts stores and distribution outlets. Not only is our industry
important to ensuring the mobility of Americans: but it is a leading participant in thc U.S.
cconomy, with ovcr $285 billion in sales, contributing two percent to the Nation's Gross
Domestic Product and cmploying 4 million peoplc.
AAIA's members are particularly concerned about a proposed I'lllemaking that is being
undertaken by the Environmental Protection Agency that would categorize used oil as a
Non-Hazardous Secondary Material rcquiring it to be managed as a solid waste. This
rulc was designed to define the telm "solid waste" and to determine whethcr "solid
waste," if com busted, is required to be combusted in a unit meeting emissions standards
specified under section 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for solid waste incinerators or
for commercial, industrial, and institutional boilers wlder section 112 of the Clc.an Air
Act.
The used oil regulations developed in 1985 have encouraged recycling by establishing a
reasonable regulatory scheme which then has encouraged the development of markets for
"On-Specification" and "Off-Specification" used oils. As a result, used oil is now
considered a traditional fuel and has become valuable commodity. These rules have been
strengthened over thc years to continue the success of the program while protecting
human health and the environment. The current EPA proposal will undue much of this
progress and will have extensive negative environmental consequences, likely leading to
the improper disposal of used oil by do-it-yourselfers (DIY).
Specifically, the changes being proposed would mean that a servicc station 01' repair shop
that receives D1Y oil would have to send it out for tcsting before they could bum it. Ifit
turns out to be off-specification (a possibility in a very l.imited number of cascs), thc
service station then would havc to send that used oil to a commercial and industrial
incinerator.
-
11i11,iWJSCl,PNStN AVE I SUITE l300 I BETHESDA, MO 2D814
Quite simply, this rulemaking will add COsts to the bollom line of many small businesses
in the vehicle repair business who will now will be forced to either test the product 01' not
have it available as a cost effective fuel. It will also place an undue economic burden on
industry, states, and local communities who also rely on this valuable commodity. This
is a clear example of an ill-advised rulemaking that not only halms small business but the
environment as well.
As second regulatory proposal that could have far-reaching in the automotive aftermarket
and many other industries is the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's
(OSHA) proposed rulcmaking regarding occupational injury and illness Recording and
Reporting Requirements, specifically the proposed requirement of a separate colUmn in
OSHA 300 recordkeeping and recording illness and injury log to record "work-related"
musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). Our primary concerns are that OSHA will go
forward with a rule that relies upon an unclear, unagreed upon definition of
musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). Use ofa flawed definition will lead to an
overstatement of the incidence of workplace-reIatcd MSDs. We are extremely concerned
that these figures will then be used by OSHA in the promulgation of an ergonomics rule
at some point in the not-too-distant future.
While our member's workplaces are committed to ensuring the safety and health of our
employees, the requirements that OSHA is proposing regarding the recording of MSD
incidences will be costly and difficult for our members to implement. We are furthcr
unclear as to whether the information that will be obtained will be useful 01' extremely
misleading as to extent of MSD related injuries in the workplace.
MI'. Chairman, we applaud your effort to indentify and take a closer look at existing and
proposed regulations that are likely to do harm to employers, industry, and the economy.
A great many of the goals of such reb'Ulations are laudable, but these goals need to be
pursued using reasonable, responsible, and wel1-infonned regulatory frameworks.
Thank you for the opportunity to help indentify regulatory measures that may negatively
impact the automotive aftennarket. If you need any further infonnation, please feel free
to contact me at aaron.1owe@aftermarket.g.Ig of (301) 654-6664.
Sincerely,
Aaron Lowe
Vice President, Government Affairs
~OE'NG Tim Keating
SenIor VIce President
TIre Boelnf) Company
1200 Wilson Blvd MC RS·OO
Government Operattons Arlington, VA 22209
January 11, 2011
The Honorable Darrell E. Issa

Chairman
Dear Chairmanlssa:
Per your request for informetion regarding existing and proposed major regulations that have
negatively impacted job growth for our Industry, I have attached our written response and
relevant materials for your review.
The Boeing Company and its subsidiaries directly employ over 150,000 people, and support
approximately 1.2 million more supplier-related jobs In all fifty states. The Boeing Company Is
thus affected by many regulations that compromise our ability to grow and add jobs. We have
Identified five major areas of concern: government acquisition, financial regulatory reform,
commercial Intellectual property, OSHA, and aviation. Information regarding the Impact of
proposed and existing regulations In these five areas Is Included in the written response and
attachments.
If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me In the future..
Sincerely, _--
---~
/;;:/[~ 0Jl
/ TI~ Keating
cc: The Honorable Elijah Cummings, Ranking Member·
Acquisition Polley
There are hundreds of statutory and regulatory requirements that have been enacted
over the years that are part of the Government's acquisition process. These
requirements have many purposes, such as providing a framework of processes for how
agencies conduct acquisitions and enter Into and oversee contracts. These
requirements also address many socIal policies that are implemented by Imposing
requirements on government contractors with the laudable goal of improving labor or
environmental standards, or human trafficking, for example, by in effect having
contractors take on the responsibility to implement those social policies on contracts and
employees working on government contracts. For each of these requirements there are
also oversight organizations to ensure the implementation and effectiveness of the rules.
The cost and benefit of these statutory and regulatory requirements has often been
studied to ensure that the acquisition process works as intended, without unnecessary
complexity while ensuring transparency, accountability and public trust. In December
1994 Deputy Secretary of Defense Wiliiam Perry commissIoned a study of the complex
regulatory environment intended to maintain public accountability In defense acquisition
and prevent contractor abuses. The goai of the study was to assess the industry cost
Impact of specific regUlations unique to Government contractors, to measure the overall
Impact of the regulatory environment on contractors' costs and to identify the key
regulatory cost drivers and how they impact contractors' business processes. The study
concluded that there was a significant cost premium from the extra regulatory
requirements for government contractors - an 18% cost premium. This assessment led
to many efforts to streamline and simplify the acquisItion process.
Now decades later there continue to be new reqUirements added with more complexity
and cost associated with each requirement. We are not questioning the need
for appropriate acquisition processes and controls. Wedo question whether the cost
Impact of the layers of complexity and the rIpple effect throughout the government
contract supply chain Is clear, Its impact on global competitiveness, on jobs and the
industrial base. We know there is no easy solution, and over a hundred studies have
been done on this subject.
One recent example highlights the ripple effect of a law, one having to do with conflict
minerals. The intent was to implement a social policy, not through international
treaties but through private companies, Including government contractors, by Imposing a
requirement for all companies that are subject to filing with the Securities and Exchange
CommissIon. The SEC rule implementing the Dodd-Frank conflict minerals provision Is
expected to require each SEC filer whose products contain certain minerals (tin,
tantalum, tungsten, or gold) to:
• Determine Whether any of these mInerals used In Its products originated in the
Congo or adjoining countrIes
• Disclose In Its annual report whether the minerals did or did not originate in the
Congo or adjoining countries
• Disclose In its annual report what measures it took to determine the country or
countries of origin
• Maintain audltable records to verify the determination
If the filer determines that Its products contain minerals from the Congo or adjoining
countries (or if the fiier is unable to determine whether or not they do), the filer must also:
• Add a Conflict Minerals Report In Its annuai report, describing due diilgence on
the source and chain of custody of the minerals, an Independent private sector
audit of such report, a description of ail products containing the minerals, and a
descriptfon of the efforts to determine the country and mine of origin
These requirements will be extremely burdensome and costly, if not Impossible, for a
com pany like Boeing to comply with, as they require visibility many tiers down a complex
and International supply chain,
This Is a good example of the ripple effect throughout the supply chain of requirements
that may be weil intentioned but have a huge cost and negative Impact on giobal
competitiveness, making it harder to win business that enables us to retain our
workforce and keep our plants and suppliers operating, including ail the smail
businesses that are a critical part of Boeing's success.
Financial Regulatory Reform
Derivatives-Mandatory Ciearing
The Boeing Company pension trust uses over-the-counter derivatives to manage and
hedge pension plan assets. Unlike public pension funds, private pension trusts are
subject to ERISA and Department of Labor fiduciary responsibility requirements, and the
use of swaps must be made solely In the interest of the plan's participants and
beneficiaries.
Under the Dodd-Frank Act, ERISA-covered private pension plans are treated as
"financial entitles". Therefore, any swap used by the trust must be cleared and margin
requirements will be imposed. If the trust is required to clear ail swaps, these
requirements would be very costly to both pension fund operations and would reduce the
amount of pension assets available to payout to their beneficiaries.
2
Derivatives-Determination of Foreign Exchange Swaps and Forwards
The Boeing Company uses over-the-counter derivatives primarily to stabilize production

and operating costs, We procure parts globally for the manuJacture of our products,
some of the procurement contracts are priced In foreign currencies, We use OTC
derivatives to minimize the variability of the U,S, dollar cost of these foreign currency
denominated procurement contracts.
The Dodd-Frank Act requires the Department of Treasury to Issue regulations regarding
whether Jorelgn exchange ("FX") swaps and forwards should be exempt from the
maridatory clearing and trading requirements under the Commodity Exchange Act.
Although Boeln'g Is considered a "commercial end-user" and is therefore not required to
clear Its swaps, transactions with our Gounterpartles are not exempt from margin
requirements, if FX swaps are subject to the reqUirements under the Act, these margin
requirements couid be significant and would therefore Impact our business operations If
such cash is no longer avaiiable for our day to day business needs.
Whistiebiower Rules
The SEC will shortly Issue regulations Implementing the Dodd-Frank law's whlslleblower
b9unty provision, which guarantees whlstleblowers 10-30% of any fine over $1 million
atlr!bu!able to original information they provide the Commission. Unless carefUlly
implemented, this provision has the potential to eviscerate Internal compliance
organizations that companies have spent decades creating in response to longstanding
federal pUblic policy. It also threatens to overwhelm the Commission with an avalanche
of tips and complaints that will frustrate Its ability to prioritize high-quality leads,
President's Working Group on Money Markel Funds-Floating Rate NA V
Under the proposals discussed In the Report of the President's Working Group on
Financial Markets on Money Market Fund Reform Options, the recommendation would
move from the current stable NAV to a floating NAV. Changing the nature of money
market funds will disrupt funding and cash management, and companies like Boeing
would be less likely to Invest. A floating rate NAV issue could potentially be a drain on
cash flow.
Commercial Intellectual Property (",P"l
Boeing supports engagement globally on developing rigorous IP legal norms, standards

of practice and underlying legislative requirements to enJorce those IP protections
domestically and abroad, both to enable a valid IP licensing business model and to
prevent counterfeiting of aerospace and defense components and piece parts. In the
federal market space, Including the Department of Defense, those same global
3
enforcement mechanisms are critical for similar reasons. Additional focus Is needed
however, to prevent the "taking" of private sector IP by the United States Government in
the form of statutory changes to the "developed at private expense" doctrine currently
embedded In the federal acquisition regulations (including Impacts to "Independent
Research and Development" contract cost allowabllity). It Is also Important to prevent
regulatory implementation of changes contractually favoring the USG when acquiring
licenses and rights In technical data from commercial item providers, Including contract
clauses disproportionately and unfairly shifting the burden of proving rights ownership
from the USG to federal contractors, both commercial and USG unique suppliers.
The' OSHA reinterpretation of Its "Noise Standard" would reinterpret the term "feasible" to .
require manufacturers to Install/Institute costly engineering or administrative controls to
lower the noise In manufacturing and other operations. Currently, employers are
allowed to use personal protective' equipment to control noise and are only required to
Implement englnearing/admlnlstrative controls where the personal protective equipment
Is ineffective. Under the reinterpretation, however, manufacturers such as The Boeing
Company will likely be required to either Institute engineering controls (e.g., changes to
the facility, noise drapes, etc.) or administrative controls (rotating employees In and out
.of noise producing
. environments), where engineering controls are not feasible. It Is
difficult to see how any type of engineering control would work on an airport runway.
Aviation
Lack of prioritization of NextGen for national airspace system Infrastructure
NextGen Implementation has the potential to be a catalyst for tens of thousands or good-
wage aerospace jobs over the next decade, However, the FAA continues to drag its feet
on Implementation of NextGen. If airlines are to realize the vaiue and promise of a new
air traffic control system, they have to be assured that the promises of NextGen will be
actual, rather than theoretical. An excellent example of this Is the need of airlines to
invest in aircraft avionic teChnology to access NextGen technology, Airlines are
reluctant to Invest the estimated $4 billion dollars In new technolOgY unless they know
they system will actually enhance safety, reduce fuel burn and create new efficiencies
allowing more direct routes and reduced flying time.
Excessive burden of direct end Indirect security costs on U,S, airlines
Carriers are concerned about a proposed Increase In the 9/11 security fee. The
President's budget proposes a $1 Increase in 2012, 2013 and 2014. Airlines are also
concerned about an Increase In the Passenger Facility Charge that airports are allowed
4
to charge on a per-passenger basis. Airlines are expected to pass these fees along to
consumers. However, when airline pricing power declines, carriers are often forced to
avoid fare increases and government mandated fees are actually not passed on to the
passenger in the form of a higher ticket fee.
5
Bio·
BIOTECHNOLOGY
INDUSTRY ORGANIZATION
.!. . Im:s C. Greenwood January 20, 20 II

l'!Udtl\'~ CH)

Chairman
U,S, House of Representatives
2157 Rayburn Office Building
Washington,D,C, 20515
Dear Chairman Issa:

I am writing in response to your December 29,2010 letter regarding proposed or existing
. federal regulations that negatively impact private sector job growth in the United States, As
President and CEO ofthe Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), I am writing on behalf of
more than 1,100 biotechnology companies, academic centers and research institutions across
America representing the fields of human health, food and agriculture and industrial and
environmental biotechnology,
America leads the world in biotechnology innovation and our industry holds great
potential for future economic growth and job creation while already employing, directly and
indirectly, millions of U.S. workers at wages that are roughly 70 percent above the national
average. I share your concerns that our federal regulatory apparatus, while necessary, should not
impede robust economic growth and job creation, As such, please see below some of the
regulatory malleI'S of concern to the biotechnology industry grouped according to the sector of
the industry they most impact. I look forward to working with you and other Members of
Congress to .ensure that federal regulations serve their intended purpose without hampering job
creation and economic development.
Regulations Impacting Small, Emerging Healthcare Companies
• The Small Business Innovation Research Program (SBIR) is administered by SBA

and sets aside 2.5 percent of each federal agency's extramural R&D budget for grants
to innovative small businesses. This program, while very worthwhile, has
unfortunately been undermined by a regulatory interpretation that currently excludes
many of the most innovative small businesses, especially in the area of
biotechnology. Specifically, the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) ruled
in. 2003 that a business majority-owned by venture capital investors would no longer
qualify for the program regardless of number ofemployees or any other traditional
small business standard. This ruling was subsequently implemented through SBA
regulations. We believe the ruling and subsequent regulations unnecessarily and _. ;c:-:.~i;.,"'t-r-
unwisely restrict the flow of SBIR funds to some of our nation's most cutting-edge c·_"..
innovations. Given that the venture capital restriction is 'not embodied in statute, w~,::f~?; __ -
believe the SBA has amply authority to repeal OHA's misguided ruling by regulatii>n ";'
and allow all small businesses to compete for SBIR funds on a level playing field.y'""
r; ~~~; ;:,:p~,
'----' ::;.-~:,
.,-,c·.~:~.",.c:.:c·
- -
12111 MarylantlAv€IIllC SW • Suite'lllO • Washington, DC 2111f24-;U4'l • 202.962.9200 • www.b16.org

• Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires public companies to perform an
extel1lal auditor attestation of a company's internal financial controls in addition to all
the nOlmal audit work expected of a public company. This work, which can add as
much as a million dollars to a company's yearly accounting costs, is required even for
small public biotech companies that have not commercialized an initial product and
do not yet have revenues from sales. While BIO applauds the SEC for
implementation ofa permanent exemption from Section 404(b) of SOX for
companies with public floats of$75 million or less, we believe the SEC has authority
to broaden this exemption so as to lessen the burden on small companies attempting
to commercialize new innovations. Specifically, as the SEC conducts its analysis on
compliance costs associated with Section 404(b), BIO believes the public float cap
should be raised to $250 million. This could be accomplished either by amending
Section 404(b) of Sarbanes.Oxley 01' by amending the definition of "smaller reporting
company" under Securities Exchange Act Rule 12b-2. Currently, 66 percent of
public biotech companies fall under the $250 million public float threshold and an
exemption would help these companies continue to grow jobs during this rough
economic climate.
Regulations Impacting Rood and Agricultural Biotechnology Companies
• Plant Protection Act regulation for agricultural biotechnology (7 CFR 340): The United
States Department of Agriculture's authorizations for agricultural biotechnology products
has significantly slowed down for a variety of reasons, including issues related to the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) lawsuits, resulting in a large backlog of
products awaiting decisions, reduced investment in research and development and
companies looking to conduct research and development of innovative products in other
countries. Moreover, USDA has now proposed to mandate additional, non-scientific
measures on agricultural biotech products in the name of coexistence. Matters related to
coexistence and market demands should be left to farmers to choose their production
methods.
• Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act regulations for Plant Incorporated
Protectants: The Environmental Protection Agency is considering substantially
expanding its authority to regulate all agricultural biotechnology products beyond those
that have pesticidal properties. In addition, BIO has requested over several years that
current regulations be amended to recognize that plants are not chemical manufacturing
buildings.
• Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals for genetically engineered (OE)
animals: FDA approvals of GE animals are not occurring on a timely basis, and BIO's
concern is that FDA is more worried about consumer acceptance rather than science-
based safety decision. NEPA requirements are resulting in even more extended delays.
These extended delays are drying up investment in research and development of these
products which leads to companies struggling to stay in business. .
~~1
1ft.. PRfNTEO ON
" ... REc~r.um I'APEA
Regulations Impacting Industrial and Environmental Biotechnology Companies
• We are concerned about the Department of Energy's implementation of its loan guarantee
program for clean energy facilities. Specifically, we believe the program's overly
restrictive and inflexible eligibility criteria exclude promising advanced biofuels projects
-- contrary to Congressional intent •• frustrating industry efforts to secure private
financing and create thousands of high quality jobs through construction of first-of·a-kind
advanced biofuels facilities.
Sincerely,
James C. Greenwood
President and CEO
Biotechnology Industry Organization
#'! PAINTEO OH
"I RECYCLED PAPER
Bumble Bee Foods, LLC
P.O. Box 85362
Srm DIego; CA 921 86~5362
9655 Granite"Ridge Drive, Suite 100
Slm DiegO, CA 92]23
(858) 715·4000 Ph.
(858) 560·6045 Fx.
http://wwwhumbJehee.com
January 14,2011

U.s. House of Representatives
Dear Chalrman Issa:
Congratulations on your re-election and your ascension to Chainnan of the House Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform! We look forward to yoUI' leadership.
As you may Imow, Bumble Bee Foods (BBF) is headquartered in San Diego, California, and a
number of OUl' workers reside in your congressional district. We are the largest shelf stable seafood
company In North America and one of the top 10 seafood companies In the world. Our company
manages almost $1 billion In annual sales of seafood including canned tuna, salmon, sardines, clams,
shrimp and other species of seafood. In addition to our San Diego offices, we operate a state-of-the
art tuna cannery In Santa Fe Springs where we produce more than 354 mlllion cans of tuna annually,
worth close to $200 million.
As a California company, BBF is seeking your assistance to COrrect the anticompetitive government
purchasing policies of the U,S, Department of Agriculture (USDA), The change we are seeking to
USDA's Buy America policy wlll increase competition in its canned tuna purchase program,
Increase the supply available to the program, increase support for U,S, tuna fishing vessels, benefit
hundreds of tuna cannery workers in the U.S, and save taxpayers millions of dollars.
BBF is the last U.S,-owned tuna processing company; our competitors have been purchased by
Korean and Thai seafood companies. Within the three major companies that sell calliled tuna in the
U,S., only the Korean owned company, StarKist, currently qualifies for sales to our government.
This Is due to a regulatory deviation tl1a:t USDA has taken from fue goverlll11ent wide Buy America
policy that requires all fish products to be "completely processed" in the U.S.
The "completely processed" requirement excludes canned tuna produced in the U,S, by BBF bccause
a small component of our processing cost (abont 10%) has foreign content. BBF operates tuna
canneries in Puelto Rico and California and each of our plants receives it supply of tuna harvested by
U.S, flag tuna vessels after the tuna has been partially processed Into frozen loins (fillets) in
processing plants close to the fishing grom1ds, The frozen loins are then sent to our U,S. canneries
where processing is completed and they are convelted Into canned tuna, By partially processing tuna
~
~
81lmble Bee Foods, LLC .
P.O. aox 85362
S,n Diego, CA 92186-5362
965S GranJte Ridge Drlve, Suite 100
San DlegD~ CA 92123
(858) 715-4000 Ph.
(858) 560-6045 Px.
hup'/Iwww bumblebee com
near the fishing grounds and completing the processing and canning in the U.S., our domestic
facilities have been able to survive the intensely competitive environment caused by low cost foreign
imports. Our canneries are located in the U.S., we employ US citizens, we adhere to the U.S.
minimum wage requirements and are subject to all OSHA requirements, yet we can't sell our tuna to
the government. This is the same high quality.canned tuna that consumers purchase in local grocery
stores.
More than 2 years ago, BBP petitioned the USDA to change their j'egulatiollS to reflect the standard
USDA Buy America requirements imposed by Congress. We have provided them with
documentation demonstrating that under the existing monopolistic situation USDA is paying more
than retail prices for canned tuna. After a number of meetings and calls with USDA officials, it has
become clear that without congressional intervention the agency will not amend their regulations.
The regulatory change we seek does not guarantee that BBP will be successful in selling even one
can oftuna to the USDA, but it does guarantee that there will be competition in the program. I am
hopeful that oversight of this program by your committee will convince the USDA to amend their
anti-competitive regulations.
I would enjoy the opportunity of speaking with you or your staff further about this very critical issue
and I want to thank you in advance for your personal attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
G/ib/
Christopher D. Lischewski
President and CEO
~WBRICK
~rNDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION
January 10, 2011
The Honorable Darrell E. lssa

Chairman
Dear Chairman lssa:
On behalf of the Brick Industry Association, representing U.S. clay brick manufacturers,
distributors, and suppliers that generate jobs for approximately 200,000 Americans, we appreciate
the opportunity to assist the Committee's oversight of regulations that negatively impact brick
industry jobs and economic recovery. We are deeply concerned about the cumulative burden of
costly regulations that provide no commensurate benefit to environment, health and safety, yet
further jeopardize the economic viability of brick companies and domestic brick jobs.
According to the 2009 Annual Brick Industry Report, approximately 9,000 direct manufacturing jobs
and approximately 86,000 indirect brick jobs in distribution, design, installation and related fields
have been lost since the construction recession began in 2006. Because small companies
comprise more than half of the industry, our recovery is particularly threatened by current
rulemaking. The list below begins with two regulations currently being developed that will have th,e
greatest industry-specific negative impact on jobs unless changes are made to the agencies'
signaled approaches, followed by broader rules that will intensify the disproportionate regulatory
burden the industry faces. As requested, we also list suggested reforms to the regulatory process.
EPA Brick MACT Rulemakinq

Pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) is working on reissuing a Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) rule for clay
brick and tile in 2011/early 2012. EPA finalized the original Brick MACT in 2003 to regulate
hydrogen fluoride (HF), hydrogen chloride (HCI), and particulate matter (PM) that might be
produced when the mined raw materials (clay and shale containing natural minerals) are fired in
kilns to make bricks. The industry spent over $100 million to install and operate required control
devices to meet the 2006 compliance date. In 2007, more than a year after states had been
enforcing Brick MACT, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated the rule and
instructed EPA to more closely follow the CAA.
EPA now is developing a new Brick MACT that penalizes the industry for its previous good faith
compliance. EPA is using the reduced emission levels from kilns with controls installed for the
vacated rule to calculate a more stringent baseline for all kilns. In March 2010, EPA estimated the
revised Brick MACT would cost the industry $188 million per year. Based on data from the U.S.
Census Bureau, brick manufacturers' total revenue in 2009 was approXimately $940 million. EPA's
estimate results in an unsustainable 20 percent cost-to-sales ratio for this regulation alone. The
outcome will be higher prices and lost jobs as some brick companies may be forced to close plants
because they cannot afford or borrow the money required to replace existing controls or add newly
mandated controls. BIA is urging EPA to include the follOWing reasonable approaches in the
1850 Centennial Park Drive, Suite 301, Reston. VA 20191-1542 1 Phone: 703-620~0010 I Fax: 703-620-3926 I www.gobrick.com
January 10, 2011
Page 2
revised Brick MACT, as allowed under the CM: exclude non-major sources when calculating the
MACT floor for a category of "rnajor" sources; base the MACT floor on emission limits that real-
world best performing sources can actually achieve; exclude mined, mineral-based raw materials
from the MACT limit evaluation; and include a health-based standard for pollutants that do not pose
a risk because concentrations are below an established safe threshold.
OSHA Crystalline Silica Rulemaking

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is expected to propose a rule in 2011
on occupational exposure to crystalline silica to sUbstantially decrease the Permissible Exposure
Limit (PEL) across general industry. However, extensive scientific evidence demonstrates that the
risks from exposure to silica from quartz in brick clays and shale are not the same as risks from
quartz used in other industrial settings. Decades of studies indicate that silicosis caused by
exposure to crystalline silica is essentially non-existent in brick industry workers. BIA is concerned
that OSHA has undertaken the peer review process for the silica risk assessment document
without providing an opportunity for input from potentially impacted industries to ensure that this
brick-specific evidence is considered prior to the proposed rule.
The current crystalline silica PEL is amply protective of brick workers, and any reduction in the PEL
for the brick industry would be unwarranted. The increased cost burden of new control
requirements would prOVide no demonstrated health benefit for brick workers and jeopardize jobs.
Based on a preponderance of evidence, OSHA should differentiate brick operations from other
industries for the silica PEL. OSHA has the statutory authority to maintain the current crystalline
silica PEL for brick manufacturing workers, even if OSHA reduces the PEL for industry in general.
EPA Greenhouse Gas Emission Regulations

Like many other industries, brick manufacturing jobs will be impacted by EPA's regulation of
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from stationary sources under the Clean Air Act's New Source
Review (NSR) program. Although only the largest industrial sources are impacted by the GHG
regulations that began on January 2,2011, under EPA's NSR/Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD), the groundwork is set for smaller sources such as brick kilns to be regulated
in the nex1 few years. The brick industry could be qUickly enveloped, resulting in lengthy permit
review processes as states struggle to keep pace with the new permitting requirements. While
EPA may ultimately require little or no change to brick operations, partiCUlarly because more than
80 percent of brick kilns are fired by natural gas, significant permitting delays will stifle job creation
and the industry's recovery. EPA also has indicated its intent to begin regulation of GHG
emissions from specific industrial categories under other sections of the CAA, e.g., Part 60 New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS). While the brick industry is not the first industry for which
NSPS and other rule$ will be developed, it is an energy-intensive industry that likely would be
targeted soon.
EPA NAAQS Review of SO, and PM

EPA is tightening all of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NMQS) which set maximum
allowable air concentrations of sulfur dioxide (S02), particulate matter (PM), ozone, nitrogen
dioxide, carbon monoxide and lead. BIA is concerned that EPA's approach could cause significant
permitting issues for facilities that are considered "major" sources for each of these pollutants, as
well as impact smaller brick kilns. In the past, state programs to address NMQS levels were
generally able to demonstrate that they could reach "attainment" levels by focusing on regUlation of
"major" sources. However, some of the reduced levels that EPA is considering, such as for S02,
are so close to current "background" levels that EPA's potential new standard could virtually
The Honorable Da1'l'ell E. Issa
January 10,2011
Page 3
eliminate future job growth in certain states and regions. EPA also is changing how "attainment"
with these standards is determined. Under the S02 NAAQS, an area could not certify that it is in
"attainment" with the new levels if a computer model shows that there could be non-compliance,
even when all existing actual monitors show the area to be in compliance with the new ievel.
EPA Case-by Case MACT Regulations for States

While EPA is redeveloping the federal Brick MACT rule, the agency also Is currently finalizing
regulations to modify the implementation of the case-by-case MACT review required under CAA §
112j. Once finalized, these regulations would require every major source facility within four source
categories, including the brick industry, to conduct a case-by-case MACT analysis with the state's
environmental division. The paperwork burden of developing individual permit applications to meet
the requirements of specific states would be significant and unnecessary because EPA has
acknowledged that the revised federal Brick MACT likely will be promulgated before any CM §
112j permits would be issued. Once the federal Brick MACT rule is reissued and finalized, any
CAA §112j permits by states that are not finalized would not be completed. As BIA and other
stakeholders noted in comments filed with EPA, EPA should not finalize these regUlations because
the agency is incorrectly interpreting that a rule's vacatur triggers CAA § 112j in the first place.
OSHA Noise Proposal

In October 201 0, OSHA issued a notice for a new interpretation of economic feasibility relating to
engineering and administrative controls for its current noise reduction standard, 29 CFR 1910.95.
While the proposal is neither a proposed regulation nor standard and does not lower the threshold
for employee noise exposure, it would be a dramatic change in long-standing OSHA enforcement
policy. Currently OSHA allows employers to provide personal protective equipment (PPE) such as
ear plugs and headphones if they are more cost-effective noise reducers than expensive
engineering controls. OSHA pians to abandon this common-sense practice by requiring employers
to implement all "feasible" controls regardless of costs (or the effectiveness of currently-used PPE)
unless an employer can prove that making such changes would "put them out of business" or
severely threaten the company's "viability." This reinterpretation of existing policy has the potential
to be extremely subjective, disruptive and expensive, diverting resources away from job creation
for no additional reduction in noise exposure. Although the original comment period has been
extended to March 21, 2011, BIA is concerned that OSHA is not compelled to consider stakeholder
feedback because it is attempting these changes outside the formal rulemaking process. This
reinterpretation of policy is an example of federal government regulation without agency
compliance with the full requirements of rule development and should not be allowed.
Suggestions on Reforming RegUlations and the Rulemaking Process

Consider Controls and Standards Required by Rules Vacated After the Compliance Date
BIA encourages the Committee to explore possible legislation to prevent the negative economic
impact that industries bear when a regulation is vacated by the courts after the compliance date.
Brick MACT is an ideal example of why Congress should require agencies to 'grandfather' or give
special consideration to controls, equipment, and work practices that were installed or undertaken
to comply with a regUlation that was subsequently vacated after the compliance date. Such a
reform would avert considerable uncertainty and expense for companies and jobs when the
regUlatory goalposts are moved despite good faith compliance.
Require Full and Formal Rule making Process

Another helpfUl reform would require agencies to make guidance, interpretations, or proposed
changes to standards or enforcement authority using the full rulemaking process. Formal
The Honorable Darrell E. Iss.
January 10, 2011
Page 4
rule making compels public comment and review, as well as oversight by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) to ensure maximum benefit per dollar invested to comply with regulations. BIA
encourages Congress to examine ways to prevent agencies from regulating through backdoor
"guidance," "interpretation" or "proposals" outside the formal process because such measures can
create enormous burdens and be even more difficult to challenge legally.
Ensure Regulatorv Costs are Reasonable

BIA also supports the goal of the REINS (Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny) Act,
by Congressman Geoff Davis and Senator Jim DeMint. If Congress were required to pass a joint
approval resolution for any regulation costing more than $100 million, without inhibiting
stakeholders' legal rights to challenge regulations, the regulatory burden from across agencies
could be reduced. Congress also should consider adopting a second criterion to ensure that no
regulatory requirement would cost the targeted industry more than five percent of its gross annual
revenue without congressional approval. This reform would ensure that smaller, but still vital,
industries cannot be regulated out of existence without oversight.
Thank you for your leadership and the opportunity to submit our concerns about the negative
economic impact on brick jobs from existing and pending regulations. Because brick jobs are
dependent on a still-recovering residential and commercial construction market, regulatory
overload that further depletes limited resources is a critical industry issue. We look forward to
providing additional details to you and your staff as the Committee undertakes its oversight work in
the months ahead. Please let us know how we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
J. Gregg Borchelt
President and Chief Executive Officer
Associated Industries of Florida
CF Industries Holdings, Inc.
Florida Farm Bureau
Florida Water Quality Coalition
January 6, 2011

Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Washington, D.C. 20515-6143
Re: EPA Nutrient Rulemaking Poised to Stymie Job Growth in Florida
Dear Chairman Issa:
We were pleased to learn of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform's

plans to examine existing and proposed regulations that negatively impact the economy and jobs.
We ask that your evaluation include consideration of a critically important issue to Florida
businesses, industry, agriculture, and local governments: the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) unprecedented numeric nutrient (I.e., nitrogen and phosphorus) water quality
standards rulemaking. As explained in this letter and the attached materials, this EPA
rulemaking is an unwarranted federal takeover of the state's nutrient water quality program.
This rule will choke job growth in Florida and Floridians need your help.
Florida Cannot Afford this Litigation-Driven, Multibillion Dollar EPA Rulemaking
EPA's decision to promulgate federal nutrient mandates for Florida's lakes, rivers,
streams, and estuaries is in response to litigation initiated by environmental special interest
groups. The schedule for imposing the federal standards was set by a bilateral settlement
agreement between EPA and those environmental litigants. On August 2, 20 lOa bipartisan letter
from 21 members of the Florida Congressional Delegation requested that EPA delay this
rulemaking schedule until the rulemaking's economic impacts and scientific underpinnings were
reviewed independently.! EPA declined to honor that request2 and, in accordance with its
agreement with the environmental litigants, EPA finalized the first phase of its nutrient rules for
Florida freshwaters on November 14,2010. Phase two of the rulemaking for Florida's marine
waters will conclude on August 15, 2012.
Although EPA refused to commission an independent review ofits nutrient rulemaking,

various Florida governmental and private entities have performed economic analyses. The
results are astounding. One privately funded independent economic analysis concludes that in
the "most likely scenario," the first phase of the EPA rulemaking will impose statewide costs
1 Rep.Adam Putnam, et ai, Letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson (August 2, 20 I0).
2Pete Silva, Letter from EPA to the Florida Congressional Delegation (September 2, 20 I0); see also, FWEA Utility
Council, LeIter to Members oflhe Florida Delegation regarding EPA's Denial of Request for Review of its NNC
Rule (October 7,2010).
ranging from $3.1 to $8.4 billion per year for the next 30 years.' Another study by the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) estimates that the EPA mandates will in part
impose $21 billion in capital costs on municipal wastewater treatment and storm water utilities. 4
And yet another study by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
concludes that Florida's agricultural community will lose 14,545 full-time and part-time jobs and
lose $1.148 billion annually.5 For the phosphate fertilizer industry alone, compliance with
EPA's nutrient criteria is estimated to require $1.6 billion in capital costs and $59 million in
annual operating and maintenance expenses. 6 Despite the economic projections of Florida
professional economists and engineers, EPA internally calculated and published a total economic
impact of$135.5- $206.1 million per year on the state's economy. 7 The EPA projection is over
an order of magnitude lower than that provided to EPA by state experts. This disparity
underscores the need for Congressional oversight of EPA's nutrient rulemaking.
Another factor supporting Congressional oversight is the precedent set by this nutrient
rulemaking. Recent developments indicate that Florida is likely the first in a long line of states
that will be subject to EPA nutrient rulemaking initiatives. In an August 2009 EPA publication,
the agency identifies the promulgation of nutrient rules in various states as a national priority,
and the document specifically identifies "EPA determinations to establish numeric standards in
response to litigation" as an agency strategy for developing nutrient policies. s Apparently taking
this cue, environmental groups have already filed notices of intent to sue EPA to force the
establishment of similar nutrient rules in Kansas and Wisconsin. 9 This innovative approach by
EPA of using special interest litigation to advance a regulatory agenda is the antithesis of how a
transparent and fair regulatory process should be conducted.
EPA's Litigation-Based Nutrient Rules are Divorcedfrom Science and Disrupt Successful State
Programs
EPA's nutrient mandates are not only extraordinarily costly, but they also lack the sound
scientific underpinnings necessary to create environmental benefits. EPA has continued to rely
on a scientifically flawed methodology that is not site specific for Florida's waters. EPA's own
Science Advisory Board has criticized EPA's method for developing rivers and streams nutrient
standards. 1O The result is a set of standards that are well below reasonable and natural conditions
3 Cardno-ENTRIX, &onomic Analysis ofthe Proposed Federal Numeric Nutrient Criteriafor Florida (Nov. 2010).
<1Florida Department of Environmental Protection, FDEP Review ofEPA's "Preliminary Estimate ofPotential
Compliance Costs and Benefits Associated with EPA's Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida" (April
2010); compare with FWEA Utility Council, Costs for Utilities and their Ratepayers to Comply with EPA Numeric
NutrientCriteriafor Freshwater Discharges (November 1,2010) (engineering analysis that calculates capital and
operating costs projections for Florida's wastewater treatment utilities that are all par with FDEP's cost projections).
5 Richard Budell, Economic Impacts and Compliance 'Costs ofProposed EPA Water Quality Standards for the State
ofFlorida's Lakes and Florida Waters, FDACS (2010).
6 Environ International Corporation, Assessment ofFinancial Impact on Phosphate Mining and Mineral Processing:
Complying with EPA's Proposed Nutrient Water Quality Standards for Florida (April 2010).
7 EPA, Economic Analysis ofFinal Water Quality Standards for Nutrients for Lakes and Flowing Waters in Florida
(November 2010).
8 State-EPA Nutrient Innovations Task Group, An Urgent Call to Action: Report ofthe State-EPA Nutrient
Innovations Task Group, 30 (August 2009).
9 The notices of intent to sue were filed on November 23,2009 in Wisconsin and on June 2, 2010 in Kansas.
10 EPA, Science Advisory Board, Processes and Effects Committee AdvisOlY Report, SAB Review ofEmpirical
Approachesfor Nutrient Criteria Derivation (April 27, 2010).
2
for many water bodies in Florida which will require utilities, local governments, agriculture, and
industry to attempt to reduce nutrient concentrations below needed -- and even natural-
conditions. In the words of former FDEP Secretary Mike Sole, "Compliance [with the
standards] will force an investment of billions of dollars without environmental benefit."!! The
Florida Attorney General recently filed a lawsuit against EPA's new nutrient rules. This
complaint similarly focuses on the absence of demonstrated environmental benefits and the
rule's unwarranted disruption of successful state nutrient water quality programs.!2 The State of
Florida's concerns are shared by numerous private and public entities and associations that filed
extensive comments expressing concerns about the scientific validity and negative policy
consequences of EPA's nutrient mandates. 13
EPA thus far has ignored 01' discounted these concerns. Despite the voluminous public
comments that were filed when the proposed rules were first announced, EPA's nutrient rules
finalized in November 2010 look almost identical to EPA's initial rule proposals.
Florida Needs Your Help
The threat this rulemaking presents to Florida cannot be overstated. These rules are
poised to create regulatory barriers and avenues of litigation for a broad spectrum ofjob-creating
projects. We respectfully ask that the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform use its
oversight powers to examine this rule in detail. Among other things, EPA should explain to the
Committee the purported urgency ofits takeover of Florida's program; why EPA continues to
use scientific methods that have been criticized by its own Science Advisory Board; why EPA
calculated a compliance cost projection that assumes widespread variances and exceptions from
its rule; why EPA acquiesced to the demands of special interest environmental litigants while
discounting the input of other affected parties; and why this rulemaking could not be delayed to
allow the independent review requested by Florida Congressional Delegation members.
We would be happy to provide further information on this rulemaking process. For

further information, please do not hesitate to contact Rosemary O'Brien, Vice President, Public
Affairs, CF Industries, at 1401 Eye Street N.W. Suite 340, Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 371-
9279 or robrien@cfindustries.com.
Sincerely yours,
Barney Bishop, President, Associated Industries of Florida

Stephen R. Wilson, Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer, CF Industries Holdings, Inc.
(a major Florida phosphate fertilizer producer)
John Hoblick, President, Florida Farm Bureau
Jim Spratt, President, Florida Water Quality Coalition
11 FDEP Secretary Sole, Presentation before the Florida I-louse Agriculture & Natural Resources Policy Committee,
(Feb. 3, 2010).
12 Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, Press Release, Florida Officials File Lawsuit Against EPA Over
Federal Intrusion into State's Clean Water Program (Dec. 7. 2010).
13 See EPA, Docket Folder containing Technical Support Documents & Public Comments, available at
http://www.regulations.gov/#ldocketDetail;D~EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596.
3
cc: Florida Congressional Delegation
Paul Steinbrecher, President, FWEA Utility Council
Enclosures: Rep. Adam Putnam, et aI, Letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson (August 2,
2010); Pete Silva, Letter from EPA to the Florida Congressional Delegation (September 2,
2010); FWEA Utility Council, Letter to Members of the Florida Delegation regarding EPA's
Denial of Request for Review of its NNC Rule (October 7, 2010); Summary of Economic
Findings; List of Entities Expressing Concerns Regarding EPA's Freshwater Nutrient Rule
4
3.ttlemen's Association DU_~fi1t-~lUIl ffA~ Ullll~_ ~,1 _ IVICUllc:lllU . : :', ..' uc:lllUIU '" r. ,<~Iay County ~!!l8,~ of cO'rT1r#f$sloner~_::,_,' Becker Holding
hamber of Commerce Bonit~}~iP8~gs, '~:;II~.~en '?~,':$~Win.?s ~:f\:,"'1h Mi~~..i icf~ .' ;;~i1:>:'~~~\~~e,~Bea~o _. _ 1 _:Il~; ),: Clay Co~ <~-:F;arrT'lB.ureal~ ~::iil[.('-~ Corporation
ida Citrus Mutual Bonita:iI$,P!~'~~I~" !':::" ',' HolJY'1qp~' ~y~rc Na~!i~~ JJlt~,:S~l'!InC[[i!'~U~:!i:-,,:':St;::9!pud ':~,_:I;.\ :\f!" ':"l~::titizens of Char1Wrt~':c.PUrltY"=a'rTnBure~iJt Bright Hour Ranch
:; processors Association Utilities!!]"j ,i, Utilitie's Dept' INorthport ,. St'Petei~sburg"" Collier 'C'o~'j,ty ",.. ~ . Buckeye Florida
Group Environmental Committee Casselberry Jacksonville Orlando Utilities Sunrise Desoto County Board of Commissioners Carroll Brothers Nursery
ry Products Association CJearwate~ City Kissimmee Commission Tallahassee Duval County Farm Bureau Certi-Fine Fruit a
l.rtment of Transportation Council Lakeland Orlando Tampa Hernando County Utilities Dept CI Groves
Ag and Consumer Services . Clearwater~W&l>" Lakeland Div ~f <~a:rt~~ater".,*" ,,~Tarpo~"~~r~n~_ ~.'~ -'T'''' Highla Qpunty "'C'"'''''' Clint Nurseries
i:L~:-qtormwa,ter";'II·,!;:::'I.:' ~""'ter I..'l-!""" ';'l!.!ri':; DJVJSlo.n:,:_:'J.!(:::;~J,t:::,.. TitusvtlJ~11':';·'·:".:;;:::: ':'''.'';i':,II~1T,.,· ,..:',':" . 1·llsbOrO~g"h;~~-unty
1,'% i1'
Engineering Society " .",:',>': ':'1'
bakes & ~~i!!:'l'~';t,
">'," "',',1 ,:'.. '11", '·.:",'10. ..',: '.'~'''''·:,i''·'I''': I :>" :'.lli''''· I<',J,:":-,:,,,;I\;!"I;' "~''''''''. ,,,,'''',..,'F:ltR:'H· , ifli i
8'f L'\:A) ';Xl!w
'.'\'.,: .. of Florida
~"',,' 1Eng D'eptii---' ,. ·"':,;:(;',of the Depti-of!tl, :,:,"t:, Palm Ba:t:',:':f""~' ""I;:::,WinterIHave'n ,"",:'., ,:", I'~I"":"""~:'" :,":'·':i. ::''''. ,:;:1<,::>, :.... ,·.'.t'l
Irm Bureau Federation ""'.,,:,,;:, ~'P~ '!d:'pil.::.'" _ ':j;,;ili/litll',;': ," !,jl!: ;'t''''''"i~!::' 'U :',:' .:" ij!!:' :1'1 Hlllsborough'GOunty EPG:':!ll m,1 Collier Enterprises
. Cqtti:a:,:! 'i':~';·P.~bl!c W.O'tKS:i'iii'i'i' :~:::iD'tmties~Dept ,<:r:i;'H :"":,,:;'_ :::1;;:"1'1\' "I,,!:::"l'(k,_.'~ i' I!""'''\'' ;"]:'
- & Agrichemical Association ;l,:;t;','!!' Ul;ihl,": ':;;';<1!L, ',;iL,:~,;;-, ;,,;1, ,;i:il~,i:H::,1 ~" ",,,;,,.' I: (j1:Ji;llllsb~r,o,lJ9fi COUt;l~ ,PUl:>llclWqrl!'sDept ?1' Consolidated Citrus
F" 't:·-H"ml·I:·"b1i, ,~",.,,,!, C r, ,-, '~,.; ,;(r.I',t·'R' :,e,I"';!! "
Idlife Conservation Commissidh,':;;dl .. ,,;,', ,"1' •. " ,n . "".,,,,' -,,,tn',,,,,· ;'w' " , , , , . , , '11ll·'L';" .-\:·:;'.,11' ,; I. S .o(ough ounw'tWater:, . es.ouree Davie Dairy Pr
Forestry Association :;;:~W\"r!,,;:;!W"''L'Y .\/;Fi;::i:l!id'l~ifinli:il~ ~:liF!\,:\IL -" ,;~'mi\\::'i, l';i~m~r::;:;I):;:i;i~;jir>, S~!~~8eS ':"~~::i;tH:;~;'mm: ... OCR Services Re
& Vegetable Association
,mmental Utility Authority
!·!~1ijli!Vii1;i::<ln::lli!~eglg~i~1 p:.~'!:li~latl~!]'~?::J,;a.'!ligiHH:j i{h '.J IThm1rl 'i "!~I,:+~lj Ja~!~~~i~,Cou!J!~!Fann ~Pr~r~~r: ml\ Delray Plants
""~:'!\::i;;iHH:';~J~:':""i::;::i:i; '.ll'il:·\l\gj "';':~~;Jiii~lli\ljh:',' ," J, ~j,il' ~'t ,I ,:~ ",,:,t,·tt, .'it;:~';';;!:J,~eeJ~p':~nty
L;!};r;:'1 ,::;: Deseret Farms of Ruskin
ne Builders Association Lake Okeechobee Westchester Master Treasure Coast Regional Lee County Division of Natural Resources Destin Water Users Sc
ida Land Council Regional Economic Alliance Association Planning Council Lee County Board of Commissioners Eastern Associated
a League of Cities Chamber of Commerce of Okeechobee Area Southwest Florida Regional Manatee County Terminals Company
3ls and Chemistry Council Southwest Florida Agri-Council Planning Council Manatee Chamber of Commerce Fellsmere Farms
V¥:~,~~9.qg.,~andscape J\:~~H,?l,ation C~9i~:i9ff~~D,west CltizensfB~ Yfg,~tltution?lw~ "F~l1]inole Tribe ofnF}~iQ~~" ,ii;",,::,,~,'t;m~!lrion Cou~~~~:N~:'" i~r:."",~l9Pg~.,Pow~~89;~"r.:rFI
~'~~i~~!rfiP::,~t ~SOCi~~~d:?:>i:~ ,;:::l~:!~!f>'~id,al:Y:'::::; I Rrop~,rty ~~gIPt,~ , ,\tHaEast~~eptral Region~aJ ~ater I :):':'/':I:;~!:mh'MJ~,lJ:!i~Dad~8~:~Mlilh!):W1n',>, ;:p~,,:;-qgrt',~om~;~~y.i}!::;~,;!j,j~""
,',~OUltlY'~j~!~erratlon ,:!'.r:1.iii'Wli:'!':' Alr.lance of Deli-aS'
,..""",,,[,!.
Florida,Jl!:ake Watch,at UF.7L 1
'I' "", I
Reblamatiorl,EaCllity
1'I"lj
,~,jl' r;,.,,:~:,;"Okaloosa:!Co. u..nli!:.··..JBoarcl Of~i:i!i:rH.~,
'''''~li''c '·~h·",," ·:j!"'~~'l"
:'i:t Gilkey'tOrganii4tipn Trc
;)i!nd P~$mr:i~SSoci~:ti?;~j i::;::~W::,
>f ' ""<1"",'1
Resid~pJi,c~J:~!~~P.9!.~tions Gulf(lPltrus q~'1:f'ers ' dJ I ,Ha!r.is'Chain,ofll:.akes :: ~::>:l':: ,,!~~q,tn:mi~j~i~,Vi¥rs:Y1<1;m ';;::.\H,&,H SOQ CoTi)panYF7"
:!=i!JO:1;r{,~t~r:~sociaW~'h~" '!i:;;}~(;:: coalitidn';9~:§:~:)Tm,~:!xvest ~!L' l~r6C,',F,ltdn' 1111 : I;I!; ,m:;,; j' R~l~torationGp~~nCi1 :;!;:9~~!R'8:~~\(G,o'untYY~¥~ter & Sew~·~:J;lid
',I;'" :...."... ,I!,I1~.. "'·":".,lllm·,:.-(. :', .
j:f ,~;I(:~'!:;;!.~,~9~1~:~W N~~~:~iY,!~' .:~.'",i;~1i
I
~§tiY'G'rowers ASS:b:9,i:?~!~W:".';':"",'·:;; Residential Associations Indian ,RiverlCitrlfs Leaguell,l St M::Irys River Management \-r k:,:'j;(~!:"h~I:~::'."" System';!:-;i~,tt,,1t',:gh) .. ~~·;ilHlghland;or"i_"
Sugar Cane Leag~e:{!:~,ili:';;li;f,j ;.'ii;i:'! :""".,.'1'1 I! Ii ,.,I'.! ",~"", , ' 'I' ' :i'I:'" '.' ""',i'I'~:, ',.
§i~:~~~~u?~~;\:~::((RI:T~7;1
In.. "r,!1!I' ' , '.. ,,". ,It. ,,:',,',',. ':'
Pine 9m~~:.~U~,~.~\\'?eard of No:~m::ffi:lorida Growers~:;;1:!fJ!il;'ijlfti!;p:pr:nmittee:I.:!:::L;;t::Hi~\n\;;: :'jj~r~nge County PuqM~1V;y'?I~,.BrtB,~~·
~:~ Grass ASS09\~h~n ;:~:,itlli:':I: ',;:JIl:I~~£~9r.s,' '\ii!li,:E:xchange i~~ili:I,t- Hrlls.p.9.f()ugh RiV~Mlt' _ ::,~;~ i:,' ihw~!,:'; Orange County Utl!~!~~;ill,:1> f,
...ironment Association Reuse Riverbend Homeowner's Peace River Valley Watershed Alliance Osceola County
Committee
nment Association Utility Council
Association Citrus Growers Association Tampa Bay Nitrogen Palm Beach County ,-
San Marco Homeowner's Northwest Florida Utility Management Consortium Palm Beach County League of Cities National Coml
vater Qualtty Coalition Association Managers Council Niceville-Valparaiso-Okaloosa Palm Beach County NPDES
ndustry, Jobs, and Gro'N1:h AbitibiBowater
;i:'?f~!outher~p:k Phm~8~_ ~W.lf.~rast ~~'¥~~ Utility .7:s~oun~.~mAlP1!7:r",§,nwer $eJJ~\7Bnpounty,::::,:::r~~.,:?,:", Alcoa
~rs Association of Florida
'h~~,~m.eowqf:'!m~fCoal.~~pp:~ ~1!~\:I'~::i COM,~,~,'!!lB\h y::r!im(.!~: :\~!l;:~:~)~'~fi't,,~:.;:,:~ ::::l;:~I:ry,~I,§!§r,Coun~y,:~~ti!W:YI':"';.;JJ): CF Industries I
,rowers Cooperative of FL ,. "" ~K"II!\ ·t~I~'~,1 It"'~.ml '!H;iI1~j;',''''': iUilli'lili,'::;' ",Ij!,h" COQnW;'EJept of.En~lrpnmentah
',;mll'; ,,,'IIII'!I' ""i.",; I!!!"'''';~' . "'~''''''''':'~ :i~.~nageme;8~'\:';1V CH2M HILL rJ
Coeur D'Alene
:11 District
FI:!'~.:·\fi~'-d'j!!if:s···.':~
on a 'peCla
,:"-,,:
i';
"1,1./,,;
jj!i:l;m~:. I ulS
.'<",:."",
r:S.'.::.'::ii . "'!!'!I;I!I\!.,~
t
".I;,\j!:,~.·,.:'
nC~'C1J"i'i
{;;"'-:'~;! ".:'.::.;::'
~1":i;.'.'i'.1~1'.·,::i.li1,':;:;il,:n.]1tt11!::::,::fJh.1':illj
Lii l ',!,!, ,',I,,,,:;, {J':::!!'I!
::Sd~t.hwes:t.,," ..:\1(.,:
:t:l.,.o.".rida Water
Pinell.~'.S.'!~countyUtil'ities
" " " : : \ " . , , ,..,; I"~
COUnty;iGhambe:.(lPf~,~ . o.mmerce,
Mines CorPoration
Freeport-McMoRan
Nestl
Nt
"'''''I!; ',,".'(,1\1':"""" "",''':'..''. .;.,:.,'I.'~" ', . .'.:';l'JI '''''J'''':o '","""'.' I·I.",!,.., '. ~
Water Highlands
.
Soil and.';,V\1ater
,H" ,
·:!1ht,:;'.i~'(!!PeaCehRiver.
',,1"'.•",,::
Manasota Regidnal
"_jl"'::< i"',:,ni>,c--'i'i' ,,, . ."l,l:',,~.
:::i.i:';Manage·ment:61s.lJi
:'.'~., .. ,,,:
.•.·etll,
,:·"".'W;UI~:"",~":·I",.,,,
.• :.
::. .'
,,,,,,':'::ilF;r;9,lkJ;1punty';':~':,l~!i.':!:.~':'."L'~"I."'/.
H' --"'S' ,To; "~ot,h." Cit',',., ;".. '" ,',.<',..,,,, Copper & Gold
let Conservation DistriCt" 'I;;' 'Wate~!$(JpplY)A.uthority',~i';:~l St:IJ.ol)hs Imptovement-District! Jl ,JiH ,;~.@.$~ •.g oun ·i'<';:ditl;.:/:::':::~' General Electric F
-Association Joshua Water Control District Plantation Acres St. Johns River Water Seminole County
Company
C\.uthority Lake Worth Drainage District Improvement District Management District Seminole County Public Works Georgia-Pacmc
Ie District Loxahatchee Groves Water Sarasota Bay Estuary Program SuWannee River Water St. Johns County Glatfelter
1ge District Control District Sebastian River Water Management District St. Lucie County GROWMARK
,s Authority Loxahatch~,~R!Mer Dist~i~,:,~ q~~~~;f,ll 9i~'~TII~7:~,:t:;'~;;fliT': ~:37~P,ii~~~ EstuaB>.\fSn~fi~'F ~ ~,-;fwr- T ~C!'~~t~r Co~,. Gulf Power
ilArea EPD Northwes~!:~I,~~ig~iWat~~hi!~li Brd~N~ Dr~~b'.;;l91\i~iiMdCh:':'iii~,:::';ik,::!~ijrp:gC\l::'~.ort Aiuffi:9r,~1;!,::;i i ~"I:~l' ~:~fii~~~9,!H~~a Cocmw:
Company
and Water Managerirr~~,t18i$trict \1\:(:':: Soyth"~lbrida Water(:, ':!r.i~~iTjndall\:~~·~mock Irri~ati.on . ,. . Walt9~:'Gw,I.J;lo/ Farr:n:~ureau Hecla Mining Company Cc
iet Orange:,9~~ntX,i~~~!? :~'Ii~i;,i Mall,~g~ent DisfQ:#{bi ';'11(\~~qi[~~il;ig:~:9'servatio~1!9.!~trict <:~;;;:h;~ashi~~~~p' '~:¢:~,~W ':Fc~f!r1 BU~u HSA Engineers Son(
:ion District Palm Beach Cg~trty S9jJ:1~:YY:?rer South~:lnpJ~n River VVi~t,elr:,.'::J::¢,h,qp'~k~liga Water A;~t~ority ,~.)ddci~i',Wash[ry~~9r CC?H,~txl~y~nlemen s and Scientists n
~ Authority Conser\!~t,I,9J1 Dist~l::Li;::::::i GQ,QUbl Distric~: ':::/1:, ,Jib:%;,"'-~'~'i:iliI1:iili1, '~:l~':i(;i~' ;L, ;i~SSOq,~,~!P.';l;u;:,
",'iit:','~1 """t,!!: :;". -~J~!:i!:,:, N f ih/:t:':i O~1H:;;",~;'~ ;f,ii::i;!iti:;lli\'; ,'; ;.:;:~jliU;U\lL~ !iu;:':>'i ~~,i-'iill,':; -,ItO!
Association Association of Metropolitan a lona rganlza Ions. National Mining Association
lironmental Water Agencies The Georgia Paper and Forest Minnesota Environmental Science National Pork Producers Council Southern Crop Pr,
nent ASIWPCA Products Association and Economic Review Board National Potato Council The Fertil
,er Council Orange County, California, Illinois Fertilizer & Chemical Association Missouri Agribusiness Association Nebraska Agri-Business Association Tri
\i1anufacturers Santtat~,<?~~f:S:!m~1;"Jr r.:~H~mi:,.;,~:',~;n~, '\.. Ind~~l~~~;GqR,~gi~T~j;>~":~' ~'l'ry:J, ;0,1,~'r\tIT~~1 ASf,l~~~:fe'~~'11}, ~,!~r,:'(~~~J;ng[and I~~~ Water Pollution United Eg
y Council Sanitation,;q~'ritts:,of.,lo's I,:''''~,',: (,>,1. "j~ '1,.~:diana"Plart,Fpb6 &:;Ag:CtiE3irl~i: ;,~::i~f :::;t1iY':"·:',:CI'ean'TWate{~~gen'cie5!!;":i':. ,:, :,:<nH11~.\;'· Co~~rQI;c;bmmission Un"ed Stales •
lal Chemicals Ang,~!~s;C'ounty "~;." il!~ ','q~!:; :':';~ !\A~~ociatJon 1!!\L::",) N'a*j9;n~J.8ss~ciatiohlpf~om~·i~,~',~?ers Wi1.\\L N~~!::,YO'rk!'S~ate United States;
City of San Be:m'ardino, Califomia;;!'"",!lh::,,::' Irrigati8In,Association:'i;::'~:iJ Na'tlO'rial Associati6ri!'o'f'Jndustria~and ;;:North Carolina-Divislon-!of Water Quality UtllltyWat
u Federation Edison:'Eleclric Institute ;:' ::'\:(,:!, nj1';~,:';.:.Kansas Aci':rt8Usiness Retailejj,:: I'i''':i~;::,~ :;'1',AitOfficej::p'rdpe'itj~§1r ,,'" ".::»Yi?ackaQing.:Gda,or~ti6r{,of America Virainia AQrib
FWEA Utility Council
Protecting Florida's Clean Water Environment
P.O. Box 10755. Tallahassee, Florida 32302 • (850) 425-3428
.",' www.fweauc.org
October 7,2010
Members ofthe Florida Delegation

United States Senate & United States House of Representatives
Washington,D,C.
REo' EPA's Denial ofthe Florida Congressional Delegation Members' Requestfor

Independent Scientific and Economic Review of it:.' Numeric Nutrient Criteria Rule
Dear Senators and Representatives:
The Florida Water Environment Association (FWEA) Utility Council appreciates the opportunity
to provide this letter regarding the U,S, Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) decision not
to commission an independent scientific or economic review of its proposed numeric nutrient
criteria rule now scheduled to be finalized on November 14, 2010, By way ofbackground, the
FWEA Utility Council is an association of 66 local govcrnment and private utilities in Florida
that own and operate domestic wastcwater treatment, disposal, reuse, and recycling facilities,
serving 8 million Floridians, The corc mission of our utility members is to protect the public
health and the environment by safely collecting and treating domestic wastewater, and
beneficially reusing it or safely returning it to the environment, Our utility members and the
Floridians we serve stand to be significantly impacted by EPA's pending finalization of its
numeric nutricnt criteria rule for Florida's lakes, rivers, streams, and springs, We ask that YO\l
continue to demand that EPA conduct a meaningful scientific and economic rcview of this
unprecedented rulemaking,
EPA should not have denied the bipartisan request for a scientific and economic review ofits
rulemaking
As you know; on August 2,2010, twenty-one members of the Florida Congressional Delegation
sent a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson urging her to delay finalizing EPA's proposed
numeric nutrient criteria rule until EPA could subject its proposed rule to a thorough scientific
and economic review, The Delcgation members madc this bipartisan request, bccause EPA's
rulemaking is unprecedented and projected to dramatically impact Florida's economy. In this
context, it is essential to ensure that the standards will create meaningful environmental benefits
and that the costs are well-understood, In a letter datcd September 2, 2010, EPA Assistant
Administrator Peter Silva denied this request. The FWEA Utility Council is disappointed by
EPA's denial and the confusing manner in which EPA communicated its decision. Most
disconcerting is that the EPA letter creates the incorrect impression that the Florida
Congressional Delegation members had asked EPA to do something the agency had already done
or was doing, That is simply not true,
EPA's numeric nutrient criteria rule for Florida's lakes, rivers, streams, and springs has never
been scientifically peer reviewed
The Delegation members' letter requested a scientific review by the Science Advisory Board
(SAB) of EPA's proposed numeric nutrient rule -- both the criteria and the underlying derivation
methodologies -- to determine whether the proposed standards reflect a cause and effect
relationship between nutrients and biological harm, and importantly, the Delegation letter asked
EPA to consider such independent review prior to deciding whether to finalize its proposed rule.
Again, the Delegation members made the request because EPA has never conducted such a
review. Two review actions were cited by EPA in its September 2nd response, and both fall far
short of the review requested by Delegation members.
The so-called "peer review comments" cited by EPA involved an unstructured assortment of
anonymous comments regarding an early technical support document for Florida's proposed
nutrient criteria rule, Importantly, those ad hoc comments did not include any consideration of
the reasonableness or effectiveness of thc criteria ultimately derived and proposed by EPA.
While such limited, non-transparent review is acknowledged as a review of sorts in EPA's Peer
Review Handbook, it is the lowest level of review available and is obviously inadequate for an
unprecedented rulemaking of this magnitude.
The other review cited by EPA is the SAB's review of EPA's gencral nutrient criteria
development guidance document. This SAB review did not consider EPA's proposed numeric
nutrient criteria for Florida. Rather, the April 2010 SAB review document considered -- and
criticized -- EPA's statistical nutrient criteria development methods, because the methods were
not based on cause and effect relationships bctween nutrients and biological harm. EPA
admitted in January 2010 tlIat its proposed rivers and streams standards were based on statistical
assumptions, not cause and effect relationships, and EPA did not correct this fundamental
problem when it released alternative proposed standards in August 2010 (four months after the
SAB review now cited by EPA). So, on the one hand, EPA is touting the indirect limited SAB
review that did occur, and on the other hand, EPA is declining to acknowledge that the review
resulted in criticism of its methodology. As the Delegation members correctly noted in their
letter to EPA, "a peer review process is only meaningful if the agency is prepared to be
responsive to the comments of independcnt experts." The facts demonstrate that EPA has not
engaged in any meaningful peer review of its proposed numeric nutrient criteria rule; instead,
EPA has been dismissive of the indirect SAB review that did occur.
EPA must commission an independent economic review that considers the substantial regulatory
consequences ofthe rule
In addition to refusing to come to terms with the significant scientific flaws of its proposed rule,
EPA has not conceded the proposed rule's extraordinary compliance costs.. The Florida
Department of Environmental Pr(ltection (FDEP) conducted an analysis indicating that the
2
criteria set to be finalized on October 15, 2010 will impose $4.167 billion in capital costs on
Florida's domestic wastewater treatment utilities. EPA, however, estimated that its rule would
impose only $52 million of capital costs for domestic wastewater treatment utilities, Thus,
FDEP's capital cost projections for domestic wastewater treatment utilities alone is over 80 times
higher 1:Pan the EPA estimate. EPA and FDEP's cost projections -- for agriculture and other key
economic sectors of Florida -- are similarly disparate, These extreme disparities demonstrate the
pressing need for an independent economic analysis. Florida is the only state subject to EPA's
unprecedented nutrient criteria, and Floridians deserve clear and consistent answers regarding the
economic implieations,
Floridians deserve regulatory policy based on sound science with well-understood costs
The FWEA Utility Council appreciates the efforts of the Florida Congressional Delegation to
inteIject commonsense into this EPA rulemaking. Unfortunately, EPA is poised to finalize its
numeric nutrient criteria rule on November 14 without conducting the scientific and economic
review of the rule requested by twenty-one members of the Florida Congressional Delegation in
their letter dated August 2, 2010, The September 2, 2010 letter from Peter Silva creates the
impression that EPA has responded to the bipartisan request when fact they have not, I These
federal standards are the result of litigation. They are unprecedented. They are not peer-
reviewed. The environmental benefits are questionable. And the projected economic impacts
are staggering, particularly at a time when Florida's unemployment rate is 11.7 percent. We ask
that you please continue to demand that EPA conduct a thorough independent scientific and
economic peer review of this proposed rule and to modify its rulemaking in accordance with the
outcome of the analysis,
[)iL£~
Paul Steinbrecher
FWEA Utility Council President
Enc1: Letter from Florida Congressional Delegation Members to EPA (Aug. 2, 2010)
Letter in Response from Peter Silva to the Florida Congressional Delegation (Sept, 2,
2010)
I EPA has not signaled that it will use its most recent 3D-day extension for ·finalizing the freshwater criteria to
conduct any of the independent scientific and economic review requested by the Florida Congressional Delegation
members. Instead, EPA's press release announcing the 30-day delay included EPA's conclusion that the proposed
rule is ~'cost-effcctiven and needed to prevent I'toxic microbes that can cause damage to ilie nervous system or even
death; and from byproducts in drinking water from disinfection chemicai" ,omo of which have been linked with
serious human illnesses like bladder cancer," EPA's unsubstantiated and sensationalistic rhetoric demonstrates the
need for third party review of EPA', propo,ed miemaking,
3
ilillllgrl!(l).' of ti'l' llllitl'i'l :§itt1tl'~,
ttlni,lril1!Jloll, D<£ 20515
August 2, 20 I0
The Honorable Lisa Jackson

Administrator
United States Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, l)C 20460
Dear Administrator Jackson,
As yOll know, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued a proposed rule establishing
federal numeric nutrient criteria for Florida water bodies. In accordance with a consent decree EPA
entered into 'with several litigants, EPA committed to issue a final rule for Florida lakes and streams by
October 2010 and for Florida canals, coastal waters, and estuaries by August 2012.
EPA's numcric nutrient criteria rulemaldng will impact all Florida citizens, local govemments, and
vital sectors of Florida's economy, including agriculture. It is thus imperative that EPA ensure that its
federal criteria are based on sound scientific rationale; necessary to protect the applicable designated
uses of Florida waters; and renective of the range of natural variability associated with state waters.
To that end, we applaud I,PA's decision to delay finalization ofcrileria for Florida's canals, coastal
waters, and estuaries to August 2012 to allow EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) to conduct a peer
review of EPA's data and methodologies for deriving criteria for these waters. It is our expectation
that the SAn's peer review will consider the appropriateness of the numerical limits proposed for
canals, estuaries, and coastal waters and analyze whether the proposed criteria are sufficiently based on
or correlated with cause and effect relationships between nutrients and biological responses in these
Florida waters. Also, because a peer review process is only meaningful if the agency is prepared to be
responsive to the comments of independent experts, we expect that EPA will modify its rulemaking in
accordance with the SAB's analysis and rccommendations.
In addition to reviewing the proposed criteria for Florida's canals, estuaries, and coastal waters, we
strongly urge that EPA extend the scope of its SAB peer review to include examination of the
reoposed numeric nutrient criteria and underlying derivation methodologies lor Florida's rivers,
streams, and lakes. We believe that the SAB peer review process is important, and it should apply to
all of the criteria to be imposed in Florida, lJotjust criteria for canals, coastal waters, and estuaries. We
strongly urge that EPA delay eequirements (0 implement its proposed streams and lakes criteria until
the peer review concludes, and EPA should adjust its rulemaking in accordance with the peer review
analysis and recommendations.
Lastly, we strongly urge that EPA provide for an independent analysis to assess the economic impact
of the proposed rule on Florida and adjoining states. The assessments sh.ould consider economic
information submitted by Florida govenunental entities and the public in EPA's rulernaking process;
compare the proposed rule to C\ILTent law in Florida; ancl account for the potential need to retrofit
pollutant reduction measures taken in response to TMDLs and estuary programs for nutrients in
Florida.
Again, EPA's unprecedented nutrient criteria ruJemaking appears poised to impose substantial
regulatory and economic consequeilces on Floridians. We ask that prior to deciding whether to
implement numeric nutrient criteria, you ensllre that all aspects of EPA's rulemaking are based on a
sound scientific rationale and that the costs and potenlialunintended consequences associated with the
rule are well understood.
Sincerely,
---'-~-
TOM ROONEY
Member of Congress .I ~~
GEO~E~~~
United States Senator .
,Bo:AI c~/}
CORRINE B~-'
..
Member of Congress Member of Congress
A3' . "~
~~
Member of Coogress
CL
Me
~~~; .
-G~ji]:f~ C,W.BILL G
Member of Congress Member of ongress
11.~_
VERN BU"lANAN
Ci-)///
CON ," E~A:(I6!.e "ll~~~~
~• • ofC~y~ M'T(~
Mem ' of Congress
'~~
ILEANA ROS-U,r:lTlNEN ~ON KLEIN
Member of Congress Member of Congress Member of Congress
___ ,_~~_~~~\:.
/1Ir24'/flMJMJ
.DIAZ- ALA., "/~'- HASTINGS
bel' of' gl'eS,"' Member of Congress
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
SEP ~ 2 201D
of'flcEOF
WATER
The Honorable Tom Rooney
Deal' Congressman Rooney:
Thank you for your letter ofAugust 2, 2010, to Administrator Lisa P. Jaokson, regarding
the Environmental Proteotion Agency's (EPA) proposed rule to establish numerio nutrif;nt
criteria for Florida'S lakes and flowing watet·s. This rule is intended to Jlrotect human health,
aquatic life, and recreational uses of Florida's waters, a critical part of the State's economy. In
your letter, you request tha.t EPA: I) ensure its federal cl'itel'ia are based on sound scientific
rationale, necessary to protect the applicable designated uses of Florida waters, and reJleotive of
the range ofnatural varia.bility associated with State waters; 2) expand the scope of EPA's
Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) review to include EPA's proposed numeric nutrient oriteria for
Florida's rivers, streams, and lakes; and 3) provide for an independent analysis to assess the
economic impact of the proposed rule on Florida and adjoining states. EPA recognizes the
concerns expresse<l by the Florida Congressional Delegation and is committed to ensuring that
the federal criteria resulting from'this regulatory process ate consistent with the requirements of
Section 303(0) ofthe Clean Water Act and EPA's implementing'regulations at 40 CFR Part 131.
, ~ .~'I '
As you are aWllfe"we have 'cxtended the Beadlines·fot promulgating numeric nutrient
C!iteria,for'Florida'~
estllaties, flowing waters'in South Florida (includfng'canals), and the
downstream protection valtles for flowing waters into estuaries. The new deadline for proposing
the criteria is November 14, 2011, and August 15, 2012, is the deadline for promulgating a final
rule. This will allow EPA to hold a publicpeerreview by EPA's SAB ofthe scientific
methodologies for these criteria.
The underlying methodologies for the Agency's proposed numerlc nutrient criteria for
Florida's rivers, streams, and la1,es, also underwent scientiJ:lc peel' review. First, the SAD
reviewed EPA's draft technical guidance on Empirical Approaches for Numeric Nutrient
Criteria Derivation. The SAB's peel'1'evlew repott was provided to EPA in dmft form in
Novembel' ~OOQ 'and in fina1 form in April 201 O. EPA has considered thcse peer review
comments in this.rulemaking. In addition, EPA followed the procedures outlinetl in its Peel'
Review Handbook (EP All OO/B-06/002) by having the methods EPA used in its proposal
reviewed by an independent, external peer review panel.' This independent, external peer review
. , .
was completed in July 2009 and the results were Inade available through EPA's docket for the .
;., . . '
Inlemel Add'ee, IURLl • http://www.epa.gov

AccyolecURllcyololllll • Prlnledwllh Vogolabl6 OJI Based Inl<s on RSl;lycled Paper (Mh11rnUITl 30% I?08!Consllmer)
proposed Florida nutrients rule (Peer Review Comments,Flnal: External Peer Review ofEPA's
Propo~'edMethods and Approachesfor Developing Numeric Nutl'lent Criterlafor Florida's
Inland Waters, EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-001O), EPA considered and responded to these peer
review comments prior to proposal in January 2010 (EPA Responses to External Peer Review of
EPA, EPA-HQ~OW-2009-0596-0155), We believe the comments provided by the SAB on the
Empirical Approachesfor Numeric Nutrient Criteria Derivation, coupled with the external peel'
review panel, ensure that the criteria dewloped have a strong scientific basis,
Regarding an independent analysis to assess the economic impact of the proposed rule on
Florida and adjoining states, EPA does not foresee the need to provide for an independent
analysis, EPA conducted an analysis ofthe potential economic impact ofthe rule on entities in
Florida and is in the process 'ofrevising and refining that analysis based on comments, data, and
infOimation submitted by many stakeholder groups in Florida including Florida's Agriculture
and Environmental Agencies, as well as members of the public. This informationwill be
included in the economic analysis accompanying EPA's final rule in October 2010, Economic
information pertaining to the impact of EPA's numeric nutrient criteria on estuary programs will
be addressed in EPA's rulemaking for coastal and estuarine waters, downsn'eam protection of
estuaries, and flowing waters in South Florida, to follow in November 2011 as a proposal, and
August 2012 as fInal.
Again, thank you for your tetter. If you have further questions, please contact me or your
stllff may cail Denis Borum in EPA's Office of Congressional and Intergovermnental Relations
at (202) 564-4836.
etel' S, Silva
Assistant Administrator
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
SEP ~ 22010
OffICE OF
WATER
The Honorable Tom Rooney
U,S. House of Representatives
Dear Congressman Rooney:
Thank you for yow' letter of August 2,2010, to Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, regarding
the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed rule to establish nwneric nutrient
criteria for Florida's lakes and flowing waters. This rule is intended to protect hwnan health,
aquatic life, and recreational uses of Florida' s waters, a critical part ofthe State's economy. hl
your letter, you request that EPA: 1) ensUl'e its federal criteria are based on sound scientific
rationale, necessary to protect the applicable designated uses of Florida waters, and reflective of
the range of natural variability associated with State waters; 2) expand the scope oEEPA's
Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) review to include EPA's proposed nwneric nutrient criteria for
Florida's rivers, streanlS, and laI(es; and 3) provide for an independent-analysis to assess the
economic impact of the proposed rule on Florida and adjoining states. EPA recognizes the
concerns expressed by the Florida Congressional Delegation and is committed to ensuring that
the federal criteria resulting fromithis regulatory process are consistent with the requirement~ of
Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act and EPA's implementing'reglJiations at 40 CFR Part 131.
. ;,. I .
As you are aware, :we have extended the t1ei\dlihes·fot promulgating nwneric nutrient
c;iteria,for Florida'S' estuaties, flowing wateridn South Florida (incluc1inibanals), and the
downstrerun 'protection values for flowing waters into estuaries, The new deadline for proposing
the criteria is November 14, 20 II, and August 15, 2012, is the deadline for promulgating a final
rule. This will allow EPA to hold a public peer review by EPA's SAB of thc scientific
methodologies for these criteria.
The Wlderlying methodologies for the Agency's proposed numeric nutrient criteria for
Florida's rivers, streams, and lal(es, also underwent scientific peer review. First, the SAB
reviewed EPA's draft technical guidance on Empirical Approaches for Numeric Nutrient
Criteria Derivation. The SAB's peer review report was providec1to EPA in draft fmID in
Novembel' ~OOQ"and in fiMI form in April 2010. BPA has considered these peer review
comments in this,rulemaldng. In addition, EPA followed the procedUl'es outlinel:l in its Peer
Review Handbook (EPAll 001B-06/002) by having the methods EPA llsed in its proposal
reviewed by an independent, extei'nal peer review panel, .This independent, cxternal peer review
was completed in July 2009 and the results were made available through EPA's docket for the'
.,
~ I • •
{ ;
Inlamet Address (URL). hl1p:l/www.epa.gov

RecyclodfRoeyelabJe 'Printed with Vogolable. OR Oased Inks on Recycled paper(Mltlhnum 30'% poalconsUmer)
proposed Florida nutrients rule (Peer Review Comments Final: External Peer Review ofEPA's
Proposed Methods and Approaches for Developing Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida's
Inland Waters, EPA-I-IQ-OW-2009-0596-0010). EPA considered and responded to these peer
review comments prior to proposal in January 2010 (EPA Respon:;es to External Peer Review of
EPA, EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0596-0155). We believe the comments provided by the SAB on the
Empirical Approaches for Numeric Nutrient Criteria Derivation, coupled with the external peer
review panel, ensure that the criteria developed have a strong scientific basis.
Regatding an independent analysis to assess the economic impact of the proposed rule on
Florida and adjoining states, EPA does not foresee the need to provide for an independent
analysis. EPA conducted an analysis of the potential economic impact of the rnle on entities in
Florida and is in the process of tevising and refining that analysis based on comments, data, and
infonnation snbmitted by many stakeholder groups in Florida including Florida's Agriculture
and Environmental Agencies, as well as members of the public. This information will be
included in the economic analysis accompanying EPA's final rule in October 2010. Economic
information pertaining to the impact of EPA' B numeric nutrient criteria on estuary prqgrams will
be addressed in EPA's l'lIlcmaking for coastal and estuarine waters, downstream protection of
estuaries, and flowing waters in SOllth Florida, to follow in November 2011 as a proposal, and
August 2012 as final.
Again, thank you for your letter. If you have further questions, please contact me or your
staff may call Denis Borum in EPA's Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
at (202) 564-4836.
eter S. Silva
Assistant Administrator
QtUllgrrz£i uf t11l~ 3Jtnih.'1I ~tnte.5
1Il!fllnllingfoll, lIill 20515
August 2, 2010
The Honorable Lisa Jackson

Administrator
United States Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Dear Administrator Jackson,
As you know, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued a proposed rule estabHshillg
federal numeric nutrient criteria for Florida water bodies. In accordance with a consent decree EPA
entered into with several Jitigants, EPA committed to issue a final rule for Florida lakes and streams by
October 2010 and for Florida canals, coastal waters, and estuaries by August2012.
EPA's numeric nutrient criteria rulemaking will impact all Florida citizens, focal governments, and
vital sectors of Florida's economy, including agriculture. It is thus imperative that EPA ensure that its
federal cri.teria are based on sound scientific rationale; necessary to protect the applicable designated
uses of Florida waters; and reflective ofthe range of natural variability associated with state waters.
To that end, we applaud EPA's decision to delay finalization of criteria for Florida's canals, coastal
waters, and estuaries to August 2012 to allow EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) to conduct a peer
review of EPA's data and methodologies for deriving criteria for these waters. It is our expectation
that the SAB's peer review will consider the appropriateness of the numerical. limits proposed for
canals, estuaries, and coastal waters and analyze whether the proposed criteria are sufficiently based on
or correlated with cause and effect relationships between nutrients and biological responses in these
Florida waters. Also, becausc a peer review process is only meaningful if the agency is prepared to be
responsive to the comments of independent experts, we expect that EPA will modify its rulemaking in
accordance with the SAB's analysis and recommendations.
In addition to reviewing the proposed criteria for Florida's canals, estuaries, and coastal waters, we
strongly urge that EPA extend the scope of its SAB peer review to include examination of the
proposed numeric nutrient criteria and underlying derivation methodologies for Florida's rivers,
streams, and lakes. We believe that the SAB peer review process is important, and it should apply to
all of the criteria to be imposed in Florida, not just criteria for canals, coastal waters, and estuaries. We·
stTongly urge that EPA delay requirements to implement its proposed streams and Lakes criteria until
tl,e peer review concludes, and EPA should adjust its rulemaking in accordance with the peer review
analysis and reconunendations.
Lastly, we strongly urge that EPA provide for an independent analysis to assess the economic impact
of the proposed rule on Florida and adjoining states. The assessments should consider economic
information submitted by Florida govemmental entities and the public in EPA's rulemaking process;
compare the proposed rule to CUITent law in Florida; and account for the potential need to retrofit
pollutant reduction measures taken in response to TMOLs and estuary programs for nutrients in
Florida.
Again, EPA's unprecedented nutrient criteria rulemaking appears poised to impose substantial
regulatory and economic consequences on Floridians. We Ilsk that prior to deciding whether to
implemertt numeric nutrient criteria; you ensure that all aspects of EPA's rulemaking are based on a
sound scientific rationale and that the costs and potential unintended consequences associated with the
rule are well understood.
Sincerely,
CORRINE BROWN
M.ember of Congress
~
~B~ ~ CL
Member of 0I1gress Me
GUS M. ILlRAKIS
Member of Congress
•
ILEANA ROS-L TINEN RO KLEIN

. Member of Congress Member of Congress
AI., E L. HASTINGS
Member of Congress
EPA Numeric Nutrient Criteria Rulemaking
Economic Consequences for Floridians 1
EPA 2 Florida Citrus

Total Projected Annual Cost for Compliance with Rivers, Streams, Capital Cost for Compliance: $325 Million
and Lakes Criteria: $135.5- $206.1 Million Annual Cost for Compliance: Over $100 Million
Florida Department of Environmental Protection Florida Dairy

Total Projected Annual Cost for Compliance with Rivers, Streams, Capital Cost for Compliance: $222.8 Million
and Lakes Criteria: $5.7-$8.4 Billion/year Annual Cost for Compliance: $70.8 Million
Total Projected Capital Cost for Compliance with Rivers, Streams,
and Lakes Criteria: $61.6-$78.8 Billion Agricultural Industry
Total Projected Cost per Household for Compliance with Rivers, Total Initial Cost for Compliance: $855 Million to $3.069 Billion
Streams, and Lakes Criteria: $657-$962/year Total Annual Cost for Compliance: $902 Million to $1.605 Billion
Annual Impact on Florida's Economy: $1.148 Billion
Statewide Costs (Cardno-ENTRIXI Loss of Full-Time and Part-Time Jobs: 14,545
Total Projected Annual Cost Compliance Costs for Rivers, Streams,
and Lakes Criteria: $3.1-$8.4 Billion/year Florida Sugar Cane
Capital Cost for Compliance: $150 Million
Domestic Wastewater Treatment Utilities Annual Cost for Compliance: $50 Million
FDEP Total Utility Capital Cost for Compliance with Rivers, Streams,
and Lakes Criteria: $4.167 Billion Fertilizer Industry
FDEP Total Operating Cost for Compliance with Rivers, Streams, and Capital Cost for Compliance: $1.35 Billion
Lakes Criteria: $185 Million Annual Cost for Compliance: $40 Million
FWEA Cost for All Criteria over 30 Years: $47.6-$98.7 Billion
FWEA Utility Bill Increase per Household: $673-$726/year Phosphate Industry
Capital Cost for Compliance: $1.6 Billion
Florida Local Governments Annual Cost for Compliance: $59 Million
Capital Cost for Compliance with Rivers, Streams, and Lakes Criteria:
Over $75 Billion Florida Pulp & Paper Association Mills
Capital Cost for Compliance: Over $288 Million
Annual Cost for Compliance: $169 Million
1 EPA finalized its proposed criteria for rivers~ streams, springs, and lakes on November 14,2010. EPA will finalize criteria for Florida's estuaries, canals, and coastal waters on
August 15, 2012.
2 EPA cost projections assume that FDEP has already adopted numeric nutrient criteria. However, FDEP has NOT adopted numeric nutrient criteria. FDEP abandoned its nutrient
criteria development when EPA settled its nutrient criteria litigation with environmental litigants. EPA's and all other cost projections are available on EPA's public docket.
The House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Goverrunent Reform
Att: Kristina Moore
I have in hand your 12/29/10, letter dircctcdto Mr. Timothy Farrell of

The American Hardware Manufacturers Association...for response to yoUI' inquiry asking for
identification of existing and proposed regulations that impact job growth in the U.S.
I am responding to you directly and. copying MI'. Farrell due to thc very short time you have
allowed for response (you want responses in hand by 1/10 i).
Channellock, Inc is a family owned, 125 year old manufacturer (yes, manufacturer, one ofthc
few leftl) of high quality pliers and hand tools. Wc are located in Meadville, Pa and employ
about 400 people. Many of OUl' folks are represented by The United Steelworkers of America
and havc bcen since 1935. We have nevcr missed a payroll, always paid our taxes and are, I
would like to think, what our goverrunent would like more of... makers of products that are sold
globally. It sure does not currently feel that way.
You ask for inputs on existing and proposed regs that stifle job creation:
Existing regs...
I) IRS Tax Codc. Draconic. Ambiguous. Confusing. Flawed. We spend too much time trying
to meet the intent ofthe code. CPA's, Auditors cannot decipher/detinc/undcrstand this monster.
It is philosophically flawed. It rewill'ds consumplion and penalizes production, productivity, and
success. (Capital Gains Taxes, Estate Taxes, Dividend Taxes, Corporate Income Taxes, etc.)
This code needs to be abolished. Replaccd with national sales tax.
That would reward success, production, productivity and tax consumption.
2) Obarna Care...Bad Law. We have a private medical carc program at Channellock. Our
associates participate in the cost. We like it. Can, so far, afford it. Do not want this nationalized
health care program, period! Repeal it. Under Obama Care we havc no idea what the futm'e is
William S. DeArment, President & Chief Executive Oflieer
CHANNELLOCK, INC. 1'306 South Main Street, Meadville, Pa. 16335-0519
Phone: 814-724-8700, ext. 213 Fax: 814-337-0685
lf7120U 11:53AM
~_gr-.&.;&iil""""""""
for our medical costs. This looms large when time tor consideration of any new hires. We need
less governrnentmanipulation of health care and more competition in the healthcare market(s).
3) Pension Protection Act of2006. This is a disaster for anyone with a defined benefits pension
program. Up until passage of this law/reg, Channellock had an adequately funded DB Plan.
With the stroke of a pen (which changed the criteria for calc\llating the pension liability and the
related asset level coverage of the ongoing pension liability) ... we became immediately
underfunded. This forced us to freeze our plans. We are now faced with funding frozen DB
plans (millions of dollars involvedl) ... when these plans have plenty of assets already in them.
These are dollars that could/should be used for capital additions, hiring more people, paying
incrcasing medical plan costs...or...payulg our folks some more money in the their paychecks.
Please look into some relief for existing defined benefits pension programs and for frozen DB
programs...by providing relief in the funding criteria.
4) R&D Tax Credits...nice plan...does not work. We have been under IRS audit for the tax
years ending 2005,06,07,08 for over two years. Part of the problem is the IRS agent does not
llOderstand the R&D Tax Credit tax law and how it is to be applied. Example...we installed 3
robots on a forging drop hammer. To our knowledge, never been done before. 'They have put
robots on forging PRESSES, but not drop hammers. This is the FIRST application. Do you
think there might be some research and development involved? Of course.
The agent disallowed the whole project.
The whole 4 year audit is up for appeal. A matter of over $1,200,000.00 in tax is involved. By
the way, we retained a weIlrccognized consultant in the R&D tax law to steer us through the
record keeping, so we would do everything correctly. Even brought them in (from Texas) to
explain the law to the agent. Sir, this is time and money, staff man-hours spent digging up
useless info ete. We should be making pliers and focusmg on becoming more competitive with
our Chinese competitors rather than fighting with our own government! SimplifY the R&D tax
code regs, and for God's sake, get agents that understand it.
5) DeathfEstate Tax ... As stated above, Chmmellock is a fUIllily owned husiness and has been for
125 years. The writer is fourth generation and my 3 children are all very involved in the
management of this business. The elimination of this tax is very near and deal' to our hearts. We
use all legal methods of minimizing estate taxation. This basically am01mts to shoving it on to
the next generation or delaying payment via generation
skipping teclmiques, GRAT's, split dollar life insurance etc. But you basically .have to buy a
LOT of life insurance to pay the potential death taxes. These prellliwlls
couId/should be plowed back into the busilless to make this company more competitive and able
to hire lUore folks. By the way, this is being done without UIly government "stimulus". DOlle by
just leaving us alone and not taxing us to death and at death. Eliminate the Estate 'I'lL"', NOW!
William S. DeArment, President & Chief Executive Officer

CHANNELLOCK, INC. 1306 South Main Street, Meadville, Pa. 16335-0519
Phone: 814-724-8700, ext. 213 Fax: 814-337-0685
If7f2011 1l:53 AM
Proposed regs ...
I) Cap and Trude Tax ... Chal111cllock uscs a lot of electricity to nrn equipment, hcat stecl for
forging. Wc are customers First Energy/Penelec. Most of their powcr for this region comcs from
thc Homer City. Pa. COAL-FIRED generation facility ...
Think large carbon footprint. Our clectrical costs will skyrocket. Docs not hclp us at all. This is
bad law. A boondoggle. Do not pass it.
2) Employee Free Choice Act/Card Check... what a misnomer! Union powcr grab. As stated
above we have been 11nionized since 1935, so this Act does not mean a whole lot to us. But there
are provisions within the bill that hurt all ffiarlufacruring.
Again, bad law. Do not pass it.
SOITY to be so long, but you asked.
Anything you can do to create some sort of manufacturing policy, stimulating the manufacturing
base in this country will pay big dividends for thc citizens of the country. We have lost
thousands of factories over the last 5 years. With that continuing loss goes the standard of living
for the citizens of this country.
'The current administration has NO MANUFACTURING POLICY or PLAN. Not good.
Why not eliminate the Department of Energy and
create a "Uepllrtmcnt ofManufactUling" to be an inside the government advocate for the
creation of a globally compctitive manufacturing basc in the United States?
This agency would bc staffed by folks that have met payrolls in the private sector and understand
how free enterprise and business works ...
Thank you for reading this. lfyou have any questions, please, call.
Best regards,
W.S. DeArment
William S. DcArment, President & Chief Executive Officer

CHANNELLOCK, INC. 1306 South Main Street, Meadville, Pa. 16335-05 I 9
Phone: 814-724-8700, ext. 213 Fax: 814-337-0685
1/7/20n 11:53 AM
m __
~?I1C 0 M P SV~n~i~9~'" ~(;;b~e~p~l1el~~d~;2Ii~S,llrt}glin2st~s
19465 Deerfield Avenue, Suite 306, Leesburg, Virginia 20176
Tel 703.724.1128 • 866.4COMPOSITES • Fax 703,724.1588
•
January 10, 2011

Chairman
Dear Chairman Issa,
The Composite Panel Association (CPA) appreciates the opportunity to share

our perspective on existing and proposed federal regulations that have or
would negatively impact job growth in our industry.
CPA represents more than 90% of manufacturers of composite 'wood panels

in the United States, as well as the broader value chain of businesses
(suppliers, vendors, downstream manufacturers, etc.) that are directly
affiliated with the industry. Our members are concerned with the continued
promulgation of federal regulations that threaten the viability of small, rural
and mature industries such as ours, and we are bringing your attention to a
few of these in this letter.
For decades, US composite panel manufacturers have used wood mill by-
products, including chips, sawdust, shavings and trim, in the production of
particleboard, medium density fiberboard (MDF) and hardboard. Almost all
composite panels made in the United States are consumed by the domestic
economy - first by manufacturers of finished goods like those described
above, then by American retailers and consumers themselves. Most US
panel manufacturers have their production facilities in rural areas where
they are among the largest local employers.
You will undoubtedly receive feedback from other organizations regarding

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) actions on greenhouse gas emissions
as well as the utilization of wood byproducts as a power source under Boiler
MACT; the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) policy
update on noise abatement; and, perhaps, the Federal Trade Commission's
(FTC's) rewriting of its "Guides for Environmental Marketing Claims." CPA is
concerned about these and other rulemakings and updates in administrative
policy. However, the continued existence of the US panel industry - and the
CANADA
Post Office Box 747, Sialion "B", ottawa, Ontario K1P SPB. Tel 613.232,6782' Fax 703,724.1588
INTERNATIONAL TEmNG AND CERTIFICATION CENTER
73 lawson Road, Suite 101, Leesburg, Virginia 20175· Tel 703.724.1128· Fax 703.724.1588
www.pbmdt".com
many thousands of domestic businesses we serve - is directly and uniquely
affected by two current regulations that merit specific mention.
EPA: Formaldehyde Emissions from Pressed Wood Products
On December 3, 2008, EPA issued an advanced notice of proposed

rulemaking to investigate the risks posed by formaldehyde emissions from
pressed wood products. Concerned. that the EPA would impose a
burdensome, unworkable federal regulatory regime to replace the de facto
national standard developed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB),
CPA led a coalition of manufacturers, suppliers, retailers and environmental
groups to support the bi-partisan "Formaldehyde Standards for Composite
Wood Products Act. ff This landmark legislation, H.R. 4805 and S. 1660 from
the 111 th Congress, was signed into law by President Obama on July 7, 2010
(P.L. 111-199).
P.L. 111-199 directs EPA to promulgate regulations to implement this law by

January 1, 2013. CPA supports this approach and is actively working with
the agency. The legislation, developed with input from all relevant
stakeholders, essentially mirrors the established CARB standard for
achieving public health goals related to composite wood products. More
importantly, it creates a national standard that is rigorous, verifiable
and that protects domestic manufacturers from competing with
imported products that fail to meet these ambitious but achievable
emission levels.
The current regulatory process at EPA must not morph into a final regulation
that results in aggressive enforcement against domestic-based industries
and little or no enforcement against those based offshore. It is the latter that
has been the focus of concern about high-emitting products entering the
domestic marketplace, and thus the latter against which enforcement of the
EPA regulation must be assured.
USDA: Biomass Crop Assistance Program
On October 27, 2010, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) published a

final rule related to the Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP). The
program, established in the 2008 Farm Bill, was intended to provide
incentives to farmers, ranchers and forest landowners for the establishment
and cultivation of biomass crops for heat, power, bio-based products and
biofuels. Unfortunately, this was the first formal rulemaking that USDA had
undertaken for BCAP.
Seventeen months earlier, on June 11, 2009, USDA issued a Notice of Funds
Availability for the Collection, Harvest, Storage and Transport (CHST)
Matching Payments portion of BCAP. The matching payments, dollar for
dollar up to $45 per dry ton, totaled nearly $250 million before BCAP was
abruptly suspended on February 4 of last year. Without entering a formal
rulemaking process, and without a public comment period, USDA began
expending unlimited matching payment funds through its local Farm
Services Agency (FSA) offices for materials and wood fiber upon which our
industry, and other industries, solely rely. Without chips, sawdust, shavings
and trim, there would be no domestic composite panel industry.
CPA commended the USDA for its efforts to address industry's concerns in
the October 27, 2010 final rule. However, a newly released report by the
USDA Office of Inspector General on the CHST Matching Payments Program
(attached) underscores CPA's concerns about how USDA Intends to
implement its final rule. Beyond the reasonable questions raised in the OIG
report, and USDA's brief response, CPA and other industries that rely on
wood fiber are concerned with how USDA intends to establish "existing
. markets for 'higher-value materials' to avoid fraudulent activity that could
once again put our wood fiber supply at severe risk. We believe that further
oversight of the BCAP program in coordination with Chairman Lucas is
essential.
Thank you again for the opportunity to address these issues and for your
well-founded concern about the impact of federal regulations on domestic-
based industries and American jobs. Please ask your staff to contact me if
you have any questions or require more information.
Sincerely,
...
USDA
United states Department of Agriculture
Office of Inspector General
DATE: December 9, 2010
AUDIT
NUMBER: 0360 1-28-KC (I)
TO: Jonathan Coppess

Administrator
Farm Service Agency
ATTN: Philip Sharp

Acting Director
Operations Review and Analysis Staff
FROM: Gil H. Harden lsi

Assistant Inspector General
for Audit
SUBJECT: Recommendations for Improving Basic CHST Program Administration

Biomass Crop Assistance Program Controls over Collection, Harvest, Storage,
and Transportation Matching Payments Program
Summary
The Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP) was authorized by the Food, Conservation, and
Energy Act of2008 (2008 Farm Bill) to support the establishment and production of eligible
crops of renewable biomass.] Biofuel production ~lays a key role in the Administration's efforts
to achieve homegrown sustainable energy options. One portion of BCAP involves provisions
for matching payments to assist agricultural and forest land owners and operators with the cost of
collection, harvest, storage, and transportation (CHST) of eligible material for use in a qualified
biomass conversion facility. This provides an incentive for collecting underutilized biomass,
such as crop residue and wood waste, for energy production. 3 Before the program was
I Biomass is organic mllterial that can be converted into heat, power, bio~based products, or advanced biofuels,
2"Memorandum on Biofuels and Rural Economic Development," Daily Compilation of Presidential Documents, dated May 5,
2009,
3 Pm'm Service Agency. "Fact Sheet: The Biomar;s Crop Assist'lt1ce Progrlltn," dated June 20 IO. Congressional Research Service,
"lliomass Crop Assistance Program: Status nnd Issues," dated August 13, 2010,
Jonathan Coppess 2
terminated, 4 the Farm Service Agency (FSA) spent a total of over $243 million on the CHST
portion in 2009 and 2010. 5
BCAP is a brand new program unlike any other that FSA has historically delivered.
Additionally, the CHST portion ofBCAP resulted in very high FSA county offtce workload in
many areas minimally staffed because of limited production agriculture activities and
participation by a producer base not normally accustomed to doing business with FSA. At the
request ofFSA, OIG performed a review of the CI-IST portion ofBCAP, focusing on the efftcacy
of processes and controls FSA used in implementing the program. Based on our review of
12 county offtce operations in 4 States, as well as overall administration of the program ljt the
national offtce, we found wide-ranging problems in how the CHST program was operated.
These included inconsistent application of program provisions across State and county offtces,
varying methods for measuring biomass moisture levels,6 inconsistent use of program forms, and
data errors. These problems occurred because FSA, in an effort to quickly implement the
program to comply with a deadline established by Presidential Directive, was unable, in the
limited timeframe, to develop a handbook, specialized forms, or a computer support system that
was suited to the specific requirements ofthe CHST program. Due to these problems, FSA
implemented a program that encumbered the efforts ofits field-level personnel and resulted in
inequitable treatment of program participants, improper payments, and reduced scope for
oversight and accountability.
In order to correct these problems, we are recommending that FSA develop a program-specific
handbook, program-specific forms, and a program-dedicated data system that includes suitable
edit checks and reporting functions. These issues are being provided in a Fast Report format to
aid FSA as it moves forward with re-implementation of the CHST program. This Fast Report
provides only a few examples of the problems and deficiencies found by OIG; a full report with
greater scope and detail will be provided at the completion of our fieldwork. Agency managers
were previously briefed on these findings and were in general agreement with the facts.
Background
The 2008 Farm Bill authorized such sums as are necessary to carry out BCAP, and in 2009, it
received $25 million in funding. The 2010 Supplemental Appropriations Act? set BCAP funding
at $552 million in fiscal year 2010.
<IThe pl'Ogram was terminated after the proposed mle was issued on February 3, 2010; however, deliveries were allowed to
continue through ApI'il30, 2010, The final rule was issued on October 27, 20ID. With the final rule announcement the
collection, harvest, storage, and transportation program hils been reauthorized, but is cUlTcntly awaiting implcmcntcltion
guidance.
s Fal1n Service Agency, "BeAP CHST Summary Report," dated October 20, 2010. .
6 All moisture measurements were performed by biomass conversion facilities. These data were then submitted to FSA to
support matching payment disbursements.
7 Public Law 111-212.
Jonathan Coppess 3
BCAP supports two sets of activities. First, it provides funding for "matching payments" for
certain eligible material sold to qualified biomass conversion facilities. CHST matching
payments are made at a rate of $1 for each $1 per dry ton 8 paid by a qualified biomass
conversion facility, in an amount up to $45 per dry ton. Second, BCAP provides funding for
producers to establish and maintain renewable biomass crops in specified project areas. The
second part of the program had not yet been implemented at the time of our review.
On May 5, 2009, the President issued a directive calling for the acceleration of investment in and
9
production ofbiofuels. In particular, the directive called for the issuance of guidance and
support related to the collection, harvest, storage, and transportation of eligible materials for use
in biomass conversion facilities within 30 days. In order to meet this directive, on June 11,2009,
the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) published a BCAP notice of funds availability in the
Federal Register for the collection, harvest, storage, and transportation of eligible materials.
FSA administers this program on behalf of CCC.
We initially selected Missouri for our review because it allowed us to test our audit program and
it was in close proximity to our office conducting the field work. We then selected FSA offices
in Alabama, California, and Maine because they distributed the largest amounts of matching
payments to program participants. They also represented a diverse range of biomass industries
and varying geographical regions. County offices were selected primarily based on payment
volume. The national office was reviewed to gain perspective on overall program
administration.
Results
The expedited manner in which the CI-IST program was implemented created confusion among
field. level personnel on program requirements, methods of administration, and data system use.
Our review found that, among other issues, county offices allowed different standards for
acceptable moisture levels in biomass shipments, which resulted in inequitable treatment of
program participants. We also found that county offices used forms inconsistently, with one
scenario resulting in improper payments. Finally, we found data errors in the computer system
used for the program that often reported payment amounts violating program requirements.
These problems occurred because FSA was unable to develop a handbook, a specialized form for
the program, or a program-specific database. FSA usually develops program handbooks to
instruct county office personnel in the day-to-day administration of a major program. However,
FSA officials explained they did not have the time to develop a handbook for the CHST
program.
IIThere is no definition of "dry ton" in the notice offunding availability or statute. The final rule states that one dry tOI1 means
"one U,S, ton measuring 2,000 pounds. One dry ton is the llmount of renewable biomass that would weigh one U,S. ton at zero
percent moislUl'c content." It is important to note that the final rule was not issued during the period uncleI' study. However,
Notice BCAP-2, "Implementing the BCAP's CHST Matching Payment Program," doted July 12, 2009 defined a dry ton [IS the
weight of actual biomass with zero percent moisture.
, Published in the Federal Register (FR) on May 7, 2009 (74 FR 21531-21532).
Jonathan Coppess 4
Second, FSA used an existing form developed for the implementation of conservation cost-share
programs that did not fit the particular requirements ofthe CHST program. On the pre-existing
form AD-245, 10 FSA made a single modification in order to administer the CHST program,
adding a program-specific certification in the "remarks" section. FSA officials explained that
creating new forms would involve obtaining approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), II which can take from 6-9 months. Given the time constraints imposed by the
Presidential Directive, FSA explained that it did not have the time to develop and implement a
properly approved CHST-specific form.
Third, FSA did not develop a program-dedicated data management system with fields
appropriate to the requirements of the CHST program, and did not create edit checks to catch
data entry errors and ensure that data did not violate program provisions. Instead, FSA used the
existing Conservation, Reporting, and Evaluation System (CRES) to monitor CHST program
allocations and expenditures. CRES was originally created to support conservation cost share
programs and the form AD-245. FSA stated that it lacked resources to timely create a new data
.system.
Ifthese three elements are not developed before the CHST program is re-implemented, FSA runs
the risk of continuing to encumber the efforts of its field level personnel, potentially resulting in
further inequitable treatment of program participants, improper payments, and reduced oversight
and accountability.
FSA Did Not Determine Adequate Standard Definitions ofMoisture Levels
We found that county offices accepted differing methods used by biomass conversion facilities
for determining what levels of moisture in biomass loads would qualify as dry. The moisture
levels were measured by the biomass conversion facilities and then shared with the county
offices on a periodic basis.
During our review, OIG found 5 different methods for measuring moisture levels. For example,
some facilities would individually test each load delivered by a program participant, while others
would combine samples of all shipments from one participant in a given day and then measure
the resulting moisture content. One facility recorded every load delivered as having the same
moisture content rate. 12
The CHST program was required to account for moisture levels when calculating matching
payments. Measuring by dry weight serves to equalize payments for different materials, which
naturally have different moisture rates. Loads with moisture levels higher than zero percent are
10Page 1 is called \'USDA Request for Cost Shares," and page 2 is called "Practice Approval and Payment Application."
JJPursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, agencies must go through a public comment and OMB~approvaI process fbr
all new [OI'ms that will collect information from 10 or more respondents in a 12 month periOd.
12<yhis facility would often measure moisture content ofnon-BeAP materials along with nCAP-eligible materials. Also,
regardless of the actual measurement.,>. the facility made the decision to apply a single moisture content rate, explaining that
they believed it to be a historical avemge.
Jonathan Coppess 5
paid based on adjusted weight, which is calculated in proportion to the moisture percentage
measured. For example, if a biomass load is measured as having 15-percent moisture, then the
gross weight is reduced by roughly 15 percent. However, one facility used a 12-percent moisture
rate as standard, despite the BCAP Notice which specified that a dry ton should have zero
percent moisture. 13 At this facility, a biomass load having a 15-percent moisture rate would have
had its gross weight reduced by only 3 percent. The county office where the facility in question
was located allowed this practice per advice from the State office and pending the development
of more definitive guidance by the National Office. This practice resulted in overpayments for
biomass loads that would have received less in other areas. For instance, one participant was
overpaid by over $679, while another was overpaid by at least $828. In total, there were 24
program participants who received matching payments for deliveries to this facility for the
county office in question.
Due to these uncertainties over moisture content, program participants received inequitable
treatment. OIG concluded that FSA, as part of developing a handbook for the program, needs to
consistently define and apply the levels of moisture appropriate for the program.
FSA Used an Unsuitable Formfor the Program That Resulted in Improper Payments
The form FSA used to administer the CHST program is not tailored to a program that requires
multiple payments over time. Throughout our review, we found inconsistent use of the form
AD-245's page 2, which is used for supporting program payments.
In the CHST program, county offices receive settlement sheets on a periodic basis which detail
the number of loads received from a program participant and the amount paid for each.
Matching payments are then disbursed based on this information. Unfortunately, within the
structure of the form AD-245, FSA personnel are unable to correct for errors in one payment
disbursement without starting over and detailing all previous payments again. Many county
offices started keeping records by hand to account for errors. In one case, an error in a payment
resulted in two subsequent payment errors before it was finally corrected.
In an extreme example, a county office did not require a completed page 2 to support each
matching payment. Instead, it made an arrangement with the biomass conversion facility where
it would email copies of delivery documents to the county office, and the county office would
generate checks to program participants using information from the documents. During this
arrangement, the county office overlooked some payments when it failed to recognize at least
one email containing copies of delivery documents. This resulted in five producers with eligible
deliveries who did not receive matching payments of over $18,500. Also, at least one program
participant was not paid because the biomass conversion facility did not realize that participant
was approved for the program, and did not forward the payment information to FSA. This
program participant did not receive matching payments totaling over $3,400 for his eligible
deliveries.
['Notice BCAP-2, dated July 12, 2009.

Jonathan Coppess 6
Due to the unsuitable nature of the form used to administer the program, improper payments
were made. OIG concluded that FSA should ensure that day-to-day program administration is
easily facilitated on forms used for the CHST program.
FSA Used an Unsuitable Data System That Hinders Monitoring and Reporting
Because the CRES computer system was not created specifically for the CHST program,
misunderstanding by personnel led to erroneous data being entered .into it. To administer the
CHST program correctly, the quantity of dry tons delivered and the payments made both need to
be accumulated for each matching payment. However, some county offices.did not know that
CRES automatically adds entries within the dollar field, but not the quantity field. Therefore,
when they would enter the correct quantity and payment for each individual matching payment,
CRES would then show quantities that did not correspond to the total quantities they had entered.
In many cases, this led to performance reporting data showing payment rate amounts
significantly higher than the maximum payment rate of$45 per dry ton. In one instance, the data
indicated a payment rate exceeding $12,000 per dry ton. 14
With inadequate edit checks on the data within the system, discrepancies often occurred that
make it more difficult to monitor compliance with the maximum payment rate. OIG concluded
that as part of developing a program-specific data system, FSA should create appropriate edit
checks for critical and necessary data fields to ensure the data entered are properly validated and
reliable.
Given the problems we found, we are recommending that FSA take the following steps before
any future implementation of the BCAP CHST program:
Develop (I) a program handbook setting forth policies and procedures governing
program administration; (2) forms specifically tailored to facilitate day-to-day
administration and capture relevant program data; and (3) a data system with applied edit
checks and a designed structure to facilitate data validation, management reporting, and
data analysis.
Please provide a written response within 5 days outlining your proposed corrective action for this
issue. 1fyou have any questions, please contact me at (202) 720-6945, or have a member of your
staff contact Ernest M. Hayashi, Director, Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services, at
(202) 720-2887.
14 After conducting our dato analysis and discovering these potential en'ars, we provided FSA with the results of our analysis for
follow-up.
Agency's Response
USDA'S
FARM SERVICE AGENCY'S
RESPONSE TO AUDIT REPORT

United States
Department of
Agriculture
December 16,2010
Farm and
Foreign
Agricultural
Services
TO: Director, Farm and Foreign Agriculture Division
Farm Office ofInspector General '
Service
---
~0
Agency
Operations Review FROM: Philip Sharp, Acting Director

and Analysis Staff Operations Review and Analysis Staff
1400 Independence
Ave, SW SUBJECT: Responding Your Memorandum Dated December 9: Recommendations for
Stop 0540
Washington, DC Improving Basic CHST Program Administration Biomass Crop Assistance Program
20250-0540 Controls over Collection, Harvest, Storage, and Transportation Matching Payments
Program, Audit 03601-28-KC (I)
A final rule was published in the Federal Register on October 27, 20 I 0, and new internal guidance,
forms, and software are scheduled to be released for matching payments in early January 201 I
which will satisfY the three OIG recommendations. However, as of December 14, FSA has
received all required OMB clearance to make the program available and intends to do so
immediately. In the interim period before the new software is available, FSA intends to deliver the
matching payments portion ofBCAP using the same forms and information systems as were used
for previous CHST implementation. Use of the old forms is not likely to be widespread because
biomass conversion facilities must first become "qualified" before an eligible material owner could
apply for a matching payment.
The initial software release scheduled for early January 201 I will be for matching payments. A
future software release is planned for the project portion ofthe program which includes mid- to
long-term contracts and establishment payments. The release date may be adjusted to
accommodate funding availability for software development.
USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

CompTIA
January 7,2011

Chairman
Dear Chairman Issa:
We thank you for your letter dated January 5, 2011, requesting our comments on exist'lng and
proposed regulations that negativeiy impact the economy and jobs. We are certainly pleased to
provide this response, and we stand ready to discuss the following two issues with you at your
convenience:
Form 1099 IRS Reporting Requirement. For 2011, the most pressing issue on the business
agenda, especially for small businesses, is repeal of the new Form 1099 reporting requirement
enacted under §9006 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Under this provision,
beginning in 2012, any business that pays a singie vendor for goods or services valued at $600
or more must provide that vendor with a Form 1099-MISC, and this Form 1099-MISC must also
be provided to the IRS. Whether a business pays for goods or services - either to a corporation
or individual, payments tallying $600 or more during a calendar year must be reported both to the
IRS and the recipient on a Form 1099-MISC. CompTIA believes this provision has a
disproportionately negative effect on small businesses and should be repealed immediately.
While some assert this provision was enacted in an effort to close the tax gap, CompTIA believes
this assertion is debatable, and also that the compliances costs required of businesses would
surpass projected revenue gains.
3% Federal Income Tax Withholding on Government Contracts. Next, we support repeal of a

provision enacted in 2006 that would require all federal, state and local government entities and
instrumentalities to withhold 3% of payments made for goods and services for federal income tax
liabilities. Enacted into law on May 17, 2006, section 511 of the "Tax Increase Prevention and
Reconciliation Act of 2005" (Public Law No.1 09-222), will become effective for payments made
after calendar year 2011. We note that this withholding requirement departs from the traditional
scheme of federal tax payments, because the static 3% withholding rate bears no relation to
anticipated taxable income. Indeed, a small business working under a government contract with
a slim profit margin could actually experience a net loss for the tax year; even so, that business
would still be subject to the 3% withholding. For small businesses, this provision will:
• Reduce Federal procurement opportunities for small businesses that cannot carry the
increased financing requirements;
• Cause cash flow problems for both prime and sUbcontractors, jeopardizing the
smooth/timeiy execution of the contract;
• Increase interest costs to small businesses for operating funds needed to cover the 3%
withholding; and
• Cause higher contract costs for government.
Accordingly, CompTIA believes this 3% withholding requirement must be repealed. It is unfair to

small businesses and will force more and more small business out of the competition for federal
government procurement opportunities.
Again, on behaif of our membership, we thank you for the opportunity to share these issues with
you. We would certainly appreciate the chance to meet and discuss these matters further.
515 2nd St., N.E. Washington, DC 20002
www.comptia.org
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at MEvans@comptia.org or
202-543-3003 x202.
Sincerely,
Matthew L. Evans
Manager, Public Advocacy
CompTIA
A~J(!! ~ A'ff C~ - .~ " flglWou
~llI(O\ThQtil'e<:~ ~ Amblll'trobl'/il ~ Pom.j<tilill~MlInt
D. Christopher Cathcart
President .
January 14, 2011

Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Washington DC 20515
Dear Chairman Issa:
I am writing in response to your effort to examine existing and proposed Federal regulations to help
ensure a balanced approach in agency implementation that will serve the public interest while also
supporting U.S. innovation and jobs.
The Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA) is the premier trade association representing
the interests of some 240 companies engaged in the manufacture, formulation, distribution and
sale of $80 billion annually in the U.S. of hundreds of familiar consumer products that help
household and institutional customers create cleaner and healthier environments. Our products
include disinfectants that kill germs in homes, hospitals and restaurants; candles, and fragrances
and air fresheners that eliminate odors; pest management products for home, garden and pets;
cleaning products and polishes for use throughout the home and institutions; products used to
protect and improve the performance and appearance of automobiles; aerosol products and a host
of other products used every day. Through its product stewardship program, Product Care·, and
scientific and business-to-business endeavors, CSPA provides its members a platform to effectively
address issues regarding the health, safety, sustainability and environmental impacts of their
products. For more information, please visit www.cspa.org.
Our industry leaders greatly appreciate your leadership on these important business issues and this
opportunity to identify some specific agency actions that would warrant additional congressional
oversight and agency review. We offer six issues for your consideration:
Issue 1. Ensuring accurate and quality data is provided under the Publicly Available Consumer
Product Information Database of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC);
Issue 2. Promoting necessary and reasonable revisions to the National Volatile Organic
Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products;
Issue 3. Supporting feasible emissions reductions under the EPA National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS);
Issue 4. Protecting U.S. competitiveness in global markets through U.S. leadership in the
implementation of GHS for consumer products;
900 17TII STREET, NW, SUITE 300, WASHINGTON, DC 20006 (P) 202.672.8110 (F) 202.872.8114 WWW.CSI'A.ORG
January 14, 2011
Page2of6
Issue 5. Validating test methods adopted for endocrine disruption testing requirements at U.S.
EPA; and
Issue 6. Ensuring trans'parency and due process in the development and implementation of
Federal regulations.
A brief description of our concerns and recommendations for oversight on these issues follows.
Issue 1: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission implementation of the Publicly Available
Consumer Product Information Database
Agency/law: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission); Consumer Product Safety
Act (CPSA).
Background: Section 212 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSiA) requires the
Commission to establish and maintain a product safety information database that is available and
searchable to the public. Specifically, section 212 of the CPSIA amended the CPSA to create a new
section 6A of the CPSA, titled "Publicly Available Consumer Product Safety Information Database."
Section 6A of the CPSA sets forth specific content, procedures, and search requirements for the
publicly available database. On December 10, 2010 the Commission published a final rule on the
implementation of this database. The regulations impose new requirements and costs on industry
to provide data to the government; however, CSPA feels that, as currently constructed, the incident
database will fail to provide the Commission or the public with accurate and high quality data about
the risks of consumer products. In particular, changes to the scope of those individuals eligible to
submit claims and also regarding the procedures for correcting inaccurate information in such
claims are absolutely necessary to better reflect the goals of Congress with development of such a
database.
Action: Instruct the Commission to postpone regulations on the implementation of the database to
address accuracy and quality of product safety information available to the public in the database.
Issue 2 : U.S. EPA Should Revise the National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for
Consumer Products
Agency: U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning Standards; Clean Air Act
Background: In 1998, EPA promulgated the first national volatile organic compound (VOC) emission
standards for certain categories of consumer products pursuant to Section 183(e) of the Clean Air
Act. See 40 C.F.R. Part S9 Subpart C. During the past 21 years, CSPA member companies spent
hundreds of millions of dollars to lower VOC content in consumer products to help improve air
quality while maintaining our industry's ability to supply effective products that consumers can rely
upon to contribute positively to their health, safety, and quality of life. Since many consumer
products are manufactured for a nationwide or regional market, CSPA supports uniform regulations
that improve air quality without imposing unnecessary impediments to interstate commerce. Thus,
CSPA worked cooperatively with the EPA to assist development of the current regulation; CSPA also
supports EPA's action to make reasonable revisions to its national regulation.
January 14, 2011
Page 3 of 6
To date, 15 states have promulgated final regulations based on the Ozone Transport Commission's
(OTC) Model Rule for Consumer Products. These state regulations cover more categories of
consumer products and generally impose more stringent limits than the current EPA rule. These
regulations are an integral part of the states' comprehensive strategy to reduce ground-level ozone
to demonstrate attainment of the federal eight-hour ozone air quality standard. CSPA worked
cooperatively with these states to encourage the development of consistent regional regulations
since even slight differences between state regulations can make it very difficult for medium and
small-size companies to comply with the stringent VOC limits.
At the present time, EPA is developing revisions to the current national regulation that incorporate
provisions of the OTC Model Consumer Products Rule. EPA had planned to publish a proposed
regulation in 2009; however, the Agency has taken no action on this regulatory proposal.
Action: Congressional oversight should seek to expedite the EPA rulemaking process to develop
appropriate and necessary revisions to the national consumer products regulation. This affirmative
regulatory action to the national regulation will help states comply with the federal air quality
standard. It is estimated that these revisions to EPA's current regulation would allow states to claim
up to approximately 40 percent total emission reduction credits toward their SIP commitments in
the consumer products inventory. In addition, consistent national regulatory standards will help
product manufacturers avoid the potential problem that would be caused by a patchwork of
different (and potentially conflicting) state-specific regulations.
Issue 3: EPA Reconsideration of the National Ambient Air Qualitv Standard for Ozone
Agency/Law: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/ Federal Clean Air Act
Background: U.S. EPA is required to periodically review National Ambient Air Quality Standards,
including the NAAQS for Ozone. In 2008, EPA completed a review and announced its decision to
reduce the standard from 84 ppb to 75 ppb. In 2009, however, EPA began work to reconsider its
decision, and instead set a lower standard. In 2010, EPA proposed for comment setting a new
standard somewhere between 60 and 70 ppb, while acknowledging that a 60 ppb standard could
cost $90 billion annually by 2020. CSPA and other industries potentially even more highly impacted
urged EPA to implement the standard set in 2008 to allow states and regions to determine what
emission reductions would be required and what would be feasible over what time period, which
occurs during the State Implementation Plan revisions in implementation of a new NAAQS for.
Ozone. Consumer product emissions playa very minor role in ozone formation, but would likely be
targeted by states. Premature implementation of lower ozone standards could force states to seek
emission reductions from consumer products that are not feasible. EPA announced in December
2010 that they planned to finalize a new ozone standard by July 2011.
Action: Congress should encourage EPA to move deliberately in reviewing and revising the NAAQS
for ozone to allow time for state and regional implementation and for necessary new technologies
to be developed and commercialized, especially in the transportation and energy generation sectors
whose emissions play the major role in ozone formation.
January 14, 2011
Page 4 of 6
Issue 4: Need for more U.S. government leadership in international negotiations to create and
implement chemical management systems, and to harmonize the labeling of imported and
exported goods.
Agency/Law: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission); Federal Hazardous
Substance Act (FHSA) as a proposed vehicle for implementation of the U.N. Globally Harmonized
System of Classification and Labelling (GHS).
Background: Beyond any existing or proposed regulations (i.e., action by our government), U.S.
industry has and continues to be impacted negatively due to inaction by our government,
particularly in the effort to reduce barriers for U.S. exports and trade. More and more individual
and unions of nations around the world are creating and implementing chemical management
systems and, in the process, implementing measures to harmonize the labeling of imported and
exported goods. Unless the U.S. government exercises that leadership via both domestic action
and international outreach, the vast knowledge we possess about these issues and their
complexities will be lost. A very negative impact could be that the assessment criteria upon which
international regulatory actions are predicated might be limited to a misguided interpretation of the
precautionary principle. This would put our industries, and the consumer products industry, in
particular, in an untenable position. The concept of risk-based assessments and its focus on sound
science, which are the bedrock upon which U.S. regulations are based, will recede in the global
marketplace, taking the pre-eminence of the U.S. as a global economic force with it.
OSHA and the DOT have been working both to complete GHS implementation under their
jurisdictions and to remain engaged in the international negotiations on GHS at the UN. However,
despite industry calls for making this a priority, the Commission has taken no discernible action to
engage either domestically in GHS implementation or internationally in terms of outreach to other
economies. GHS implementation for consumer products, in line with the concepts contained in the
FHSA regulations, would importantly enhance the ability of our industry to innovate and grow in the
global marketplace. Without the Commission demonstrating leadership by implementing GHS
domestically in an appropriate way and engaging internationally to influence other countries to
follow our lead, U.S. industry will be required to defer to practices defined by our trading partners-
this will negatively impact jobs and the U.S. economy.
Action: Congressional Committee(s) should undertake oversight to determine the priority and
capacity for GHS implementation at the CPSC in order to elevate it on the Commission's regulatory
agenda. If necessary, appropriators should prioritize the dedication of Commission resources to the
implementation of this core mission that will promote job creation and retention through increased
trade and global competitiveness.
Issue 5: EPA Implementation of the Endocrine Disruptor Screen Program

Agency/Law: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/ Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act and Safe Drinking Water Act
Background: Amendments to FIFRA and SDWA more than a decade ago mandated development of
a program to screen chemicals in' pesticides and in drinking water for possible endocrine system
effects that could lead to human health or environmental effects. The intention at that time was to
January 14, 2011
Page 5 of 6
develop scientifically-validated, low-cost screening test to evaluate seiected chemicals. After a

dozen years of scientific and policy deliberations, EPA developed an extensive battery of expensive
($1 million per chemical) tests which mayor may not be interpretable in triggering requirements for
even more expensive toxicity tests costing many more millions of dollars. In 2009 and 2010, EPA
implemented the Endocrine Disruptor Screen Program (EDSP) by sending out a test order covering
approximately 70 pesticide chemicals (Phase 1). In late 2010, EPA issued a policy document that
tacitly acknowledges that it is uncertain how the eventual results of those tests will be interpreted,
but nevertheless also proposed to issue test orders for 120 more pesticide and drinking water
chemicals.
Action: Congress should question EPA's decision to move forward with requiring additional
chemicals to undergo testing without first having determined that it can interpret the results of the
first phase of chemicals tested. Congress should urge the Agency to act more deliberately and
assure that the results of this extensive and expensive testing are interpretable and scientifically
valid.
Issue 6: Negative Economic Effects of Regulation by Letter

Agency/Law: U.S. EPA; Administrative Procedures Act
Background: The Administrative Procedures Act (APA) provides clear guidance to federal agencies
on how to develop and codify regulations Combined with the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the
Paperwork Reduction Act, the APA ensures that the regulated community has sufficient notice of an
agency's proposed action, opportunity to comment, and an avenue for appeal if the stakeholder
disagrees with the action. In short, these administrative laws and procedures guarantee due
process for the regulated community.
When an agency decides to make substantive changes in regulations by sending registrants a "Dear
Registrant" letter, that agency action abrogates or short-changes due process. This has far-reaching
effects for the economy and for the product regulated. For the consumer products industry, in
particular, such unanticipated regulations can have a negative economic impact across the entire
supply chain for each affected product. Starting with the business plan of the manufacturer(s) of
the raw material to the formulator of the product to the packaging supplier and the distributor or
shipper, each business that supplies a component of the product will be negatively affected. In
addition, the seasonal nature of some consumer products heightens the impact since changes in
seasonal product schedules mean that at least one (1) season/year is lost. Such an unanticipated
disruption in production means that the whole sector of the economy is negatively impacted.
Abrogated administrative procedures also increase the likelihood that agencies may unwittingly
deviate from sound science and use anecdotal data or unverified information when good science
and documented experiences are available from registrants in the regulated industry.
Action: Oversight hearings should focus on how agency actions, such as those at the U.s. EPA,
under the Administrative Procedures Act, serve to circumvent the law and its regulatory safeguards.
These actions could compromise the legitimacy of agency actions, as well as the ability of the
regulated community to efficiently coordinate compliance measures and business plans. This would
January 14, 2011
Page 6 of 6
inhibit performance and growth. Improving these systems will benefit consumers and business
through the adoption of regulations based on sound science and thathave received appropriate
notice and comment to allow all stakeholder input.
In summary, we believe these six issues offer examples of how Federal regulatory action, or
inaction, present significant concerns to our industry from a compliance angle. We greatly
appreciate an opportunity, through oversight hearings, to provide additional input on the impacts
they will have on our industry, as well as our recommendations for a more reasonable approach
that can help us meet the requirements of the law(s) while also protecting jobs, U.S. innovation and
competitiveness. Thank you again for your leadership and please feel free to contact me for
additional information.
Sincerely,
D. Christopher Cathcart
President
~ffiJ
~
:. -
.J ~- Ll
.FORGING
INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION
January 14, 2011

Chairman
Committee on Oversight & Govemment Reform
Dear Chairman Issa:
On behalf of the Forging Industry Association (FIA), thank you for this opportunity to provide you with our
comments on existing and proposed regulations that negatively impact the economy and jobs, and ways in
which the rulemaking process can be reformed.
Forging is one of the oldest known metalworking processes, where metal is pressed, pounded or squeezed
under great pressure into high-strength parts known as forgings. The process is usually performed by
preheating the metal to a desired temperature before it is worked. Forged parts are strong and reliable and
therefore, vital in safety-critical applications. Rarely seen by consumers, forgings are normally component
parts inside assemblies. For example, forgings are necessary components in the following applications:
• Automotive - A single car or truck may contain 250 forgings, and 40% of all truck axle assemblies
are comprised of forged components;
• Ae~ospace - structural, engine and landing gear parts of commercial and military aircraft are
forged;
• Defense - a heavy tank contains over 550 separate forgings, the 120mm gun tube on the M1A2
battle tank is forged, the US Navy's Aegis Class guided missile destroyers are steered by 2 forged
rudder stocks approximately 20 feet in length and weighing 35,000 pounds each, cruise missile
warheads and all penetrator bomb cases are forged, and a standard artillery shell usually contains
at least 2 forged components;
• Power Generation - safe and reliable pressure vessels, generator rotors, pump shafts, valve
manifolds, valve bodies, turbine blades and shafts, pipes, and fittings are forged for nuclear
(commercial and naval), land, and marine power gen'eration equipment;
• Wind Energy - about 20 metric tons of forgings are used in a typical large wind turbine;
• Oil and Gas Exploration - hundreds of forgings are used in both an oil rig tension leg platform and
land-based drilling rigs;
• Mining - forgings up to 70,000 pounds are used in surface and underground mining equipment. A
forged drill bit was used to rescue the Chilean miners;
• Rail - The Association of American Railroads requires ali axles to be forged for railcars and
locomotives. In locomotives, the traction gears and the engine crankshaft and camshaft are all
forged;
• Medical - Quality surgical tools and joint replacements require strong, light-weight forgings;
• Tools - Hammers and wrenches are forged; and
• Sports - Forged golf clubs allow more efficient transfer of energy from clubs to ball than traditional
clubs - that equals more distance without swinging harder.
The NDrth American fDrging industry is comprised Df approximately 500 forging operations in 38 states,
Canada and MexlcD. Forging presence In the United States Is cDncentrated In Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois,
Michigan, California, Texas, New York, Indiana, and WiscDnsin. The modern forging process is capital
intensive, and most fDrging plants are small businesses.
U.S. Manufacturers Need a Regulatory System That Works
FIA member companies pride themselves on providing well-paying jobs in their communities and ensuring that
they are in CDm piiance with all necessary health, safety and environmental regulations. Appropriate
regulations that improve health, safety and the environment are a necessary part of doing business in the U.S.
However, when the regulatory process produces new regulations that dD not provide additional benefits for the
attendant costs, and the regulated community has little to no opportunity to participate in that process, the
system is broken.
First, we would like to bring to YDur attention some overarching problems with the rulemaking process itself.
1. Overall lack of understanding of the manufacturing supply chain and the effects of regulations on that
supply chain.
From the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the Department of Energy (DOE), the
Department of Interior (001) and the Occupationai Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), there
appears to be little to no understanding of the manufacturing process and the unintended
consequences of certain actiDns throughout the supply chain. For example, forged parts are critical
components of alternative energy sources such as wind turbines and nuclear power plants. However,
natural gas and induction furnaces are required to make forged parts. As EPA regulates greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions and potentially requires small and medium sources to comply with GHG emission
limits, fDrging operations may have to comply with these limits solely because they use natural' gas in
the making of forged parts. So while on one hand the Administration and others trumpet the need fDr
increased use of alternative energy sources, agency proposals are poised to make the very U.S.
manufacturers necessary to build those alternative sources less competitive. Similarly, regulations
aimed at the oil and gas industry or the automotive or aerospace industries are often proposed without
regard to the potentially devastating downstream effects on their suppiiers.
To truly support U.S. manufacturing and jobs, we must insist on a full vetting of all the potential
consequences, intended and unintended, of proposed regulatiDns.
2. Lack of transparency and sufficient stakeholder involvement in the regulatory process.
There has been an alarming trend over the last 2 years for agencies to issue "interpretations" Dr
"interim final rules", which eitherrequire no, or very iimited, public comment. The Administrative
Procedures Act (APA), when followed appropriately throughout the rulemaking process, allows for
numerous oppDrtunlties for stakeholder involvement, as well for the effects on small businesses and a
cost-benefit analysis to be taken into account. The only way that an agency can adequately assess the
effects of new regulations or changes to existing regulations is to fully cDnsult with the regulated
community and other stakeholders.
Specific Current and Proposed Regulations of Concern to the Forging Industry
Following are three examples of current and proposed regulations that we believe will negatively impact our
ability to compete in the U.S.
2
1. EPA Regulation of GHG Emissions
Most forging work is done at temperatures up to 2300° F, with subsequent heat treating done at up to
1900° F, using natural gas, electric and/or induction fumaces. There are no altemative technologies
available. As outlined above, FIA members are making critical parts for not only the energy sector, but
for other sectors such as aerospace, defense, medical, and transportation. We cannot build those
necessary components without adequate and affordable supplies of natural gas and electricity. While
EPA's decision to start with large stationary sources means forgers only currently have to worry about
the potential effect of these regulations on its suppliers in the metals industry, we are very concemed
about future regulation of smaller sources. We should not be pushed into a regulatory system merely
because we must use natural gas to make critical components. In addition, attempts to address climate
change in a domestic manner rather than a global one will only succeed in making U.S. manufacturers
less competitive.
2. OSHA - Proposed "Reinterpretation" of Noise Standard Enforcement
In general, the shift at OSHA from a more collaborative posture to a more adversarial approach toward
business is very alarming. Many FIA members participate in federal and state OSHA voluntary
programs, which are helpful to both the employer and employees. We would echo those points made
by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) regarding a need for continued cooperation among
OSHA and employers, regardless of the specific program.
Because of the noise inherent in forging processes where metal is pounded and pressed, we wanted to
provide you with some specific comments on OSHA's recent announcement that it intends to redefine
what is deemed "feasible" for employers to reduce overall noise in the workplace and requiring
implementation of all such "feasible" engineering and administrative controls prior to allowing the use of
personal protective equipment. OSHA's announcement states that all such "feasible" actions must be
taken unless an employer can prove that making such changes will put it out of business. This action is
a perfect example of an agency issuing what amount to significant rule changes with enormous
consequences outside of the formal rulemaking process.
Today, OSHA allows employers to provide "personal protective equipment" such as ear plugs and ear
muffs as part of an overall hearing protection program. In many cases, employers use a combination of
engineering controls like sound-enclosures, noise-dampening equipment and muffting systems;
administrative controls, and personal protective equipment. OSHA's announcement in October
potentially means that it intends to enforce this new interpretation of "feasible" by issuing cttations to
employers without all "feasible" engineering and administrative controls in place, unless employers can
prove to OSHA inspection officers that the changes would put their company out of business or would
be impossible to make - a task for which there are no clear guidelines or standards. The OSHA notice
included no data indicating that additional engineering and administrative controls are necessary to
better protect workers' hearing, only that "feasible" should be defined as "can be done", regardless of
benefit or cost.
Only after pressure from many stakeholders has OSHA agreed to extend the public comment period
until March 21, 2011, and to hold one stakeholder meeting. However, it must be noted that because
this announcement was made outside of the formal rulemaking process, OSHA is not required to take
into account the stakeholder comments it receives and could begin enforcing its new interpretation as
soon as March 22.
Because noise levels at 90 decibels or greater are an inherent part of our operations, the forging
industry is well-versed in appropriate hearing conservation programs, inclUding appropriate annual
monitoring of our employees to ensure the effectiveness of our programs. But even with the use of
state-of-the-art sound-dampening technology and appropriate administrative controls, in some cases,
with some equipment, personal protective equipment will be necessary in place of engineering and
3
administration controls or in addition to them. Manufacturing in general and basic building blocks of
manufacturing like forging in particular, are highly competitive global markets. Forgings can be made
anywhere in the world. We need a regulatory process that allows for protection of our workers, which
we think we currently do, without imposing undue burdens that don't provide additional protection but
will negatively impact global competiveness.
3. National Labor Relations Board Overreach
The following text is found on the website for the NLRB: "In its statutory assignment, the NLRB has two
principal functions: (1) to determine, through [secret-ballot elections,] the free democratic choice by
employees whether they wish to be represented by a union in dealing with their employers and if so, by
which union; and (2) to prevent and remedy unlawful acts, called [unfair labor practices,] by effher
employers or unions. The agency does not act on Its own motion in either function. It processes only
those charges of unfair labor practices and petitions for employee elections that are filed with the NLRB
in one of its 51 Regional, Subregional, or Resident Offices"
In spite of this clear definition of its role, today's NLRB appears ready to allow union organizers access
to private property during working hours in order to attempt to organize employees; to promulgate
regulations requiring private sector employers to notify employees of their rights to unionize under the
National Labor Relations Act; and to constantly look for ways to increase the rights of labor unions over
those of private sector employees. If the U.S. Congress believes that the National Labor Relations Act
should be amended, then a transparent and deliberative legislative process should take place during
which such legislation would pass or fail. Until then, the NLRB is supposed to ensure that secret-ballot
elections are conducted freely and fairly In cases where employees are asked whether they wish to be
represented by a union, and to rule on cases of alleged unfair labor practices when brought forth by
employers or unions. That should be the extent of their activities.
FIA members have both union and non-union operations. Our members believe strongly in the rights of
our employees to fair compensation and benefits, regardless of union affiliation. However, as
employers, we must be able to operate our businesses without fear of retaliation, boycotts, and unfair
actions by non-employee unions. We urge the Committee to remind the NLRB of its statutory role.
Chainman Issa, thank you for the opportunity to provide you with infonmation on the forging industry and our
concerns with current and pending regulations that threaten our ability to remain competitive in the U.S. We
would be happy to provide you and your staff with additionai information and we look forward to working with
you in the future. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 216-781-6260 or roy@forging.org; or Jennifer Baker
Reid, FIA's Washington Representative, at 202-393-8524 or jreid@thelaurinbakergroup.com.
Sincerely, /1
;J
;/f/h/w/~
~'~ardY cF
Executive Vice President
1111 Superior Avenue, Suite 615, Cleveland, Ohio 44114. USA

Phone: +1 (216) 781-6260 Fax: +1(216) 781-0102 E-Mail: info@forging.org Web: www.forging.org
4
The Association 01 Food, Beverage
and Consumer Products Companies
January 14,2011
The Honorable Darrelllssa

Chairman
House Committee On Oversight and Investigations
lJnited States House of Representatives
B350A Rayburn 1·louse Office Building
Dcar Chairman Issa:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments about the potential ovcrsight of regulations
which impact thc members of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA).
GMA represents more than 300 food, beverage and consumer products companies that cmploy
more than 1.6 million Americans in 30,000 facilities in ali 50 statcs.
We believc the f()llowing areas would be appropriate for Congressional oversight:
• Obesity..svcnding -- The American Recovery and Rcinvestmcnt Act of 2009 grantcd

$650 million to local communities to fight obesity through the CDC's Communities
Putting Prevention to Work initiative. In addition, the Patient Protection and AJ111rdable
Care Act estHblished a $2 billion Prevention and Public Health Fund through which CDC
awards grants for similar programs.
• Biofuels Policy -- In November 01'2010, EPA granted a Clean Air Act waivcr that would
allow fuel distributors to increase the amount of ethanol in gasoline from 10 to 15
percent. In addition, Congress has extended l11r one year corn ethanol subsidies, at a cost
of nearly $6 billion, and a tariff on imported biofuels.
• EPA Chemical Action Plans -- In September 01'2009, EPA announeed a comprehensive

strategy for ehemieal management under the Toxic Substances Control Aet (TSCA),
including "action plans" for 12 chemical frunilies.
GROCERY MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

1350 I Street. NW;' Suite 300:: Washington, DC 20005:: ph 202~639-5932:: www.gmaonline.org
• Livestock Marketing -- In June of201 0, the United States Departmcnt of Agriculture's
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) proposed a rule that
woul.d change the way livestock is marketed in the United States.
• Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act Implemcntation -- In 2008, Congress passed

the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), which is currently bcing
implemented by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. GMA believes it is
important for Congrcss to fully review this law to determine its impact on businesses and
consumers.
• Mexican '[rucking -- The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) required the
United States to allow Mexican trucks to operate across the border. In 2009, the
elimination ofa pilot project thatallowed Mexican lIucks to operate within the U.S.
resulted in $2 billion a year in retaliatory tariffs on many U.S. products.
• Honrs.ofService -- In December of2010, thc Department of Traosportation proposed

changes to regulations governing trucking hours of service. Proposed changes could
increase transportation costs and ultimately the cost of many household products.
• Plant and Plant Product Imports -- The Fooe!, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
amended the Lacey Act to place ncw requirements for importers of plants and plant
products to provide detailed information about such imports with the goal of curbing
illegal logging and plant harvesting activities.
We look forward to working with you on these and other important issues. Please do not hesitate
to contact us for any additional information.
Sincerely,
Of_~
SCUFah;-
Vice President, Federal Affairs
GROCERY MANUFACTURERS ASSOCiATiON

1350 I Street, NW :: Suite 300 ;: Washington, DC 20005:: ph 202~639w5932 :: W"N'W.gmaonllne.org
Industrial Energy Consumers of America
The Voice of the Indus/rial Energy Consumers
th
1155 15 Street, NVV, Suite 500' Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone 202-223-1661' Fax 202-530-0659' www.ieca-us.org
January 10,2011

Chairman
2157 Rayburn House Office BUilding
On behalf of the Industrial Energy Consumers of America (IECA), thank you for the
opportunity to comment on the economic and jobs impact of existing and proposed
regulations. We hope that your review will catalyze needed regulatory reform that
focuses on costs and benefits. Industry data illustrates that operating in the US does
place manufacturing at a competitive disadvantage and regulatory costs are a part of
this cost disadvantage. The US has led the world in establishing environmental and
safety regulations. It is now time for the US to lead again by reforming our regulatory
system to one that is cost effective while achieving our nation's environmental and safety
goals.
The Industrial Energy Consumers of America is a nonpartisan association of leading -

manufacturing companies with $800 billion in annual sales and with more than 850,000
employees nationwide. It is an organization created to promote the interests of
manufacturing companies through for whom the availability, use and cost of energy,
power or feedstock playa significant role in their ability to compete in domestic and
world markets. IECA membership represents a diverse set of industries inclUding:
plastics, cement, paper, food processing, brick, chemicals, fertilizer, insulation, steel,
glass, industrial gases, pharmaceutical, aluminum and brewing.
It is essential that manufacturers lower costs in order to compete globally and increase
jobs. However, regulatory reform should not mean sacrificing the environment or safety.
Common sense least-cost solutions that take life-cycle costs and benefits into
consideration are desperately needed. We need to step back and set a new approach
to how new regulatory requirements are structured and implemented.
IECA companies are proud of their environmental achievements. Many companies have
corporate environmental goals that go beyond existing regulations. Companies have
found cost effective ways to reduce their environmental footprint - take action and do so
willingly. Our members understand that stewardship of the environment is everyone's
responsibility and is not to be taken lightly.
First, we must recognize that existing environmental regulations have been successful at
improving and are expected to continue to improve the environment across the board.
EPA data shows remarkable and consistent national improvement which is why we are
at an Important cross road. Industry has been continuously reducing their environmental
footprint, which results in the next increment becoming increasingly costly in new capital
and operating costs. There is a desire by manufacturing to continue to improve the
environment but it must entail a cost effective solution. The reality is that if the costs are
too high, manufacturing will not operate in the US. Plus, in the end, all costs are paid for
by the ultimate consumer of the goods we produce. This delicate balance between
higher costs and how much more is society willing to pay to reap a relatively small and
smaller environmental gain is an increasingly difficult issue.
Attached is a list of the new regulations that confront IECA companies. We are cautious
about classifying these as a priority because there are proposed rules that are not
included that have serious implications for some companies and dire impacts. Additional
information related to each of these initiatives can be found in the attached document.
Environ mental Regu lations:

• NAAQS revisions (short-term NOx, SOx, CO, Ozone and PM 2.5, PM coarse,
and secondary NOxlSOx)
• Industrial Boiler MACT Standards
• Greenhouse Gas Regulation Under PSDmtle V; NSPS
• TSCA
• Clean Air Transport Rule
• Utility Boiler MACT Standards
• Coal Combustion Residual Rules
• Cooling Water Intake Regulations
• CISWI MACT
• Effluent stream conductivity limits proposed for CAPP coal
• Coal fly ash
Energy Regulations:
• FERC allocation of transmission costs
To be sure, the list is staggering and of great concern because each come with a cost
and regulatory uncertainty. However, there are two critical aspects that can be lost in
just looking at the list. First, each of the initiatives will result in significant costs in their
own right, but taken together they will be devastating. The phrase "dying of a thousand
cuts" has been used thru out industry to describe the concern. Secondly, the fact that
many of these programs are interrelated, but have very different solutions, timetables
and goals have resulted in so much regulatory uncertainty that investments in growth
projects are virtually at a standstill.
Regulatory uncertainty is a major contributor to the dilemma as to why manufacturing

companies are not investing capital in the US while they continue to spend capital in
other countries. It takes several years and significant cost to get an environmental
permit to modify an existing facility or build a new one - versus build right away in other
countries. As a result, too often the US loses out to foreign countries and the product is
imported versus produced here.
• A good example is New Source Review (NSR). When asked about NSR delays,
IECA companies indicate that it takes less than a year to engineer a major
project but the NSR permit can take between 18 - 24 months and cost hundreds
of thousands of dollars. When you consider that most major projects will take a
2
year to construct, these delays mean that projects can take three to four years to
complete. The implications of this time delay are great. We urge policy makers
to fully understand that these companies are in competition with non-US
companies who would be able to bring their new facility on line in less than two
years. The significant time delays become a competitiveness issue for IECA
companies and the US as a country who needs economic growth and jobs.
The cost of existing and proposed regulation is a serious issue. We do not know the
basis of your cost estimate of $28 billion for the 43 new regulations and $1.75 trillion for
existing regulations. We believe that this estimate is low especially if you add the lost
~conomic opportunity costs of these regulations. As you will see from the data below,
the manufacturing sector has been steadily under-investing in the US for some time.
The truth is that the US has not been a good place for manufacturing to invest for a long
time and regulatory costs are an important piece of those costs. Compared to nine
major industrialized countries, US structural costs put the US at a 17.6 percent cost
disadvantage.
• The proposed Industrial Boiler MACT regulation is another good example to

illustrate why reform is needed. Industry data indicates that the proposed rule
would cost $20 billion in compliance costs and threaten thousands of jobs. IECA
and many of its member companies have commented heavily on this proposal.
The proposed regulations require significant capital investment that does not
provide an economic return on capital and increases operating costs with
relatively minor environmental gain if any. Even after making these capital
expenditures it is uncertain that compliance with the standards can even be
achieved. To expect the manufacturing sector to expend so many resources on
a regulation to which compliance is uncertain is a clear indication that reform is
necessary.
We often refer to capital expenditures without an economic return on capital as "dead

money". This is capital that has many positive alternative potential uses such as building
new facilities, increasing R&D, rewarding our employees or proViding dividends to
shareholders. For facilities on the margin, regulations like this are a catalyst for shutting
down the facility.
Energy regulations that threaten to increase the cost of electricity are also a concern.
• A recent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) decision is also on our
list of proposed regulations because it will drive up the cost of electricity.
Socialization of the costs of transmission upgrades at the wholesale level based
on energy withdrawals from the system as advocated by the FERC in a recent
decision in a MISO case (Docket No. ER10-1791-000) will burden high load
factor industrial customers with a disproportionate share of the cost for any
expansion project. Broad socialization of costs based on energy does not bear
any rational relation to the drivers that motivate transmission expansion. An
energy allocator is inconsistent with cost causation, is contrary to the FERC's
development of locational based markets, is contrary to and in conflict with
traditional cost allocation under the Open Access Transmission Tariff, will lead to
wasteful usage of the transmission system and will disfavor efficient citing
decision by generation sources. On the other land, major allocation of costs on a
differential basis to particular loads and resources provides an incentive for
closer scrutiny of costs and much less Willingness of utilities to push suboptimal
3
transmission projects through because it will only cost its ratepayers some
diminimus amount of the total since the same customers must subsidize the cost
of every other utilities' transmission project.
There are several reasons why it is important for Congress to carefully review the
cost and benefit of existing and new regulations.
1. Our country and the manufacturing sector are locked in global competition with other
countries and their manufacturing facilities - and both are losing relative economic
ground.
Policy makers have taken US economic dominance and the manufacturing sector for
granted for a long time and can no longer afford to do so. We must once again become
a country that embraces the manufacturing sector with policies that foster capital
investment, innovation and, when needed, implement cost effective regulations. Policy
makers must act on a host of cost issues of which regulatory costs are one - and do so
quickly to establish the US as a low cost place to operate.
For perspective, in 2000, the US was the world's largest supplier of manufactured goods
at about 27 percent of the total. In 2008, the US dropped to 17.7 percent. Meanwhile,
the Chinese government and many other countries in transition, hungry for economic
grow1h and jobs, placed a priority on their manUfacturing sector. China for example,
supplied only about 8 percent of the worlds manufactured goods in 2000 and by 2008
rose to 17.3 percent. China's economic growth has increased between 8-10 percent per
year in 2009 and 2010, China, not the US is now the largest supplier of manufactured
goods.
2. The US needs jobs.
Because of the relative high cost of producing products in the US, the manUfacturing
sector has lost 5.4 million jobs in the last ten years. That is a 31 percent decline and
represents the loss of about 600,000 jobs per year. Industry data indicates that each
manufacturing job creates about three non-manufacturing jobs. This means the loss of
5.4 million manUfacturing jobs impacted an additional 16.2 million non-manufacturing
jobs for a total of 21.6 million jobs. It is estimated that about 47,000 manufacturing
facilities have been shut down and with significant economic and social costs to the
country. During this entire ten year pr;Jriod the pleas from the manufacturing sector went
unheeded. We urge attentive listening and then political action because there is no
guarantee that job losses have bottomed out or that imports have peaked.
3. The US needs the manUfacturing sector capital investment to spur long term
economic growth.
We are all aware that many manufacturing companies, at this time, have significant cash
reserves. So why aren't they spending in the US? The fact is that in general, the US
has not been a good place to invest, versus other countries because of high costs.
This is not new. Manufacturing companies began to under-invest starting in the late
1990s. The Bureau of Economic Analysis indicates that long term investment in
industrial equipment as a percent of GOP averaged about 2 percent of GOP. Since
4
2000, manufacturing industrial equipment investment dropped significantly by about one-
third and continues to accelerate.
4. Confidence is needed in EPA's modeling of costs versus benefits.
Industry views EPA's modeling of costs and benefits as controversial. We urge the
Congress to examine EPA's methodology and take action to provide oversight and
confidence that regulations are needed and that the costs are a fair estimate.
In closing, we urge you to review the policies in the IECA's Sustainable Manufacturing &
Growth Initiative (SMGI) that illustrates how environmental improvement can be
achieved thru incentives and removal of regulatory barriers while significantly increasing
capital investment, economic growth and jobs. SMGI illustrates that the US can reduce
energy-related GHG·emissions by 13% in 2020 thru industrial energy efficiency. This
reduction level is about equal to what the cap & trade bills proposed to do. However, our
approach has other significant economic beneftts, such as:
• Increased real GDP by $77 billion in 2020.
• Increased cumulative employment by 9.4 million job-years in 2010-2030.
• Increased cumulative private investment by more than $1 trillion in 2010-2030.
• Increased family income by an average of $788 (0.68%) in 2020.
• Increased cumulative net exports by $392 billion in 2010-2030.
Furthermore, it is estimated that the net fiscal cost associated with the IECA policy
recommendations will be less than 0.1 % of discretionary government spending between
2011-2030. And, it is estimated that the policies will result in a cumulative increase in
real GDP growth that is approximately 20 times greater than the cumulative net fiscal
cost - providing U.S. taxpayers with significant "bang for the buck".
We look forward to working with you in the weeks and months ahead to examine the
relationship between economic growth, jobs and existing and proposed regulations. We
believe that economic growth should not jeopardize the clean environment that we all
desire.
Sincerely,
CiJJrJ(j~
Paul N. Cicio
President
Attachment
5
Major Rule Rule Timeline Reasons affect Value-added Beuefits to
Cate~or" ~rowth & iohs Society
MACTIGACT Boiler MACT: Final Rule?/ll Significant capital Debatable and theoretical
Related rules (a and operating health gains at enormous
suite) are definition costs and job costs.
of solid waste losses.
(NHSM), and
Commercial and
Industrial Solid
Waste Incinerators
(CISWn
Cement Final Rule
8/10/10
Steehnakers Final Rule 07/11
NAAQS Ozone Final Rule? Tightening Debatable and theoretical
standards health gains at enormous
provides little or costs.
no health effects
over current
limits.
Extending 1100-
attainment areas
and forcing
LAERand
offsetting
emissions
requirements
instead of BACT,
caps growth and
impedes
economic
progress over
much of the
countrv.
I-Hr N02/S02 Rules Final in Use of modeling None. Modeling results are
2010 results instead of conservative and will identify
monitoring data more non~attainment areas
to identifY non- resulting in higher costs for
attainment areas, business and discouraging
economic growth and
development.
Secondary Draft Rule 07111 Tightening Debatable and theoretical
N02/S02 Final Rule 03112 standards health gains at enormous
no health effects
over current
limits.
Extending non~
attainment areas
and forcing
LAERIoffsets
instead of BACT
impedes growth
in many areas.
PM Final Rule 07/1 1 Tightening Debatable and theoretical
6
standards health gains at enormous
provides little or costs,
no health effects
over current
limits.
Extending 110n-
attainment areas
and forcing
LAER instead of
BACT impedes
growth in many
areas.
CO Draft Rule 02/11 Tightening Debatable and theoretical
Final Rule 07/12 standards health gains at enormous
no health effects
over current
limits.
Extending non-
attainment areas
and forcing
LAER instead of
BACT impedes
growth in many
areas.
Transport Rule Draft Rule Limits NOx and
912010 S02 emissions
Final Rule within 32 states in
expected early the eastern US to
2011 attain and
maintain
compliance with
the PM2.5 and
ozone NAAQS.
The proposed rule
addresses utilities
but EPA may
address industrial
I·
sources in future
rulemakings (e.g.
Transport 2)
C02/GHG Rules Reporting Rule Rule
Implementation
03111
Tailoring Rule Rule
Implementation
01111
Carbon Neutrality Call for Current EPA No health benefit. Without
Information on regulation of recognizing the long standing
GI-IG Emissions GHGs under the principle of carbon neutrality,
Associated with Clean Air Act permitting biogenic
Bio-energy and (CAA) does not renewable energy projects
Biogenic differentiate will be more difficult.
Sources. 8110 biogenic from Renewable energy projects
fossil-based using biomass may be
carbon dioxide, disadvantaged.
7
EPA will be
developing an
accounting
approach for
biogenic
emissions under
theCAA
Prevention of
Significant
Deterioration
(PSD) and Title V
programs and
issuing guidance
to States in early
2011. EPA has
indicated not all
biomass is created
equal in terms of
carbon neutrality.
Tailpipe Rule Rule

Implementation
01111
Johnson Memo 7/11
reconsideration
GHGNSPS Utility rule-
standards for draft July 2011;
Utilities and Final May 2012
refineries
Refineries - draft
. December 2011;
Final November
2012
NSPS Utility Power Plant Draft Rule 12/10

Final Rule
Refinery Draft Rule 07/11
Final Rule 07/12
Oil & Gas Draft Rule 01/11
Final Rule 11/11
Cement Final Rule
8/10110
Pulp and paper Final rules 20 II
Integrated Rules Pul p and Paper Final Rule 05111 EPA requiring very extensive
Clean Air Act 114 survey
request to gather data from
individual facilities that EPA
claims is needed for this rule
making. Very short survey
turn~around time and a lot of
data and information
gatherIng required by each
facilIty.
Wood Products 2012
8
Air Toxics Iron & Steel 07/13
Foundries Residual
. Risk Rule
AI Residual Risk 2013
Rule
Polymers and 2013
Resins Residual
Risk Rule
Auto and Truck 2013
Painting Residual
Risk Rule
Pulp & Paper Draft Rule 6/11
Residual Risk Final Rule 12/1 1
(Court ordered
deadlines)
Cluster Rule and 7 Petitions filed by
other 34 existing ENGOs based on
MACT rules re-do recent court
decisions on
MACT rules.
SSM Provisions Due court Little or none. Increased
vacating SSM administrative burden ~or
provisions in business and potential loss of
2008, EPA has operating flexibility.
begun including
affirmative
defense to address
emissions that
occur during
malfunctions.
With the vacating
of the SSM
provisions, excess
emissions at any
time are
violations.
Regional Haze SIP uodates Due 05/13
Area Source Rule 40 CFR 63, Sobpart 7/11 Imposes tighter Tightening Hg standards
YYYYYEAF limits and provides little or no health
steel makers unproven APC effects over eurrent limits.
technology on
market~stTessed
.
indusu·y.
RCRA, Haz. Mat. Definition of Solid Revised Rule Keeps current None. Limits new recycling
Waste 12/12 inflexibility in technology and material
RCRA rules for handling business startups.
recycling
materials. Prior
rule was 15 yr
public process
product with
stakeholder
approval
spanning Clinton
and Bush
9
Administrations.
TCSA Inventory Use Rnle Final Rule, 07111 Administrative Little or none. IUR is a
(IUR) burden and waste redundant rule. Information
of resources. on risks of substances in
Tracking uses of products available thm
substance thru Product Lahels, MSDS, and
entire supply Product Safety documents.
chain is of no-
value added to
society.
CERCLA Financial Assurance
Effluent Steam Electric
Limitations Power Plants
Guidelines
Nutrient water Industry Florida, Stringent Improvements to already
standm'ds Manufacturing Chesapeake Bay modeled waste productive fisheries in the
(TMDLs mld Agriculture under water load gulf, hay and other affected
NPDES permits) Forestry. development, allocations stifle water systems. Search for
Farming Mississippi River growth and may near zero impact is
Animal Hushandry system and Gulf eliminate existing . impractical,
of Mexico under industry. Area
study sources
(agriculture)
affected too.
Listing of Refining Possihly 2011/12 Debatable science Wider margin of safety for
hydrogen sulfide Oil and gas on chronic health public.
as a HAP production affects and
Pnlp and paper threshold effect
levels.
10
ISHI
January 10, 2011
Chairman Darrell Issa

Dear Chairman Issa:
Thank you for the opportunity to identify existing and proposed regulations that have negatively
impacted job growth in the United States and suggestions for reforming these regulations and
administrative practices. Job growth in the scrap recycling industry has been negatively affected by
a number of regulations over the years. We highlight three specific examples in our response:
1. Regulatory uncertainty created by EPA under TSCA, impeding expanded plastics recycling
and the resultant investments in building, equipment and jobs;
2, Proposed legislative and regulatory efforts to restrict the global electronics recycling
marketplace, including the export of electronics for recycling; and
3, Misguided interpretation of §199 of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 by the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) to exclude recyclers as manufacturers, resulting in significant
increased tax liabilities and potential job losses within the recycling industry.
ISRI represents nearly 1,600 private, for-profit companies operating at more than 7,000 facilities in
the United States and 30 countries worldwide that process, broker, and industrially consume scrap
commodities, including ferrous and non ferrous metals, paper, plastics, glass, textiles, rubber and
electronics, It is estimated that ISRI members directly employ more than 100,000 people with well-
paying jobs here in the United States, and their companies range in size from small, family-owned
businesses, to large, publicly-held corporations with multiple facilities worldwide,
The chart below illustrates the size and scope of the scrap recycling industry, including the
contribution the industry makes to the United States' balance of trade. Presented is two years
worth of data in an effort to illustrate the industry's contribution to the United States economy both
before and after the onset of the most recent global recession.
$84 Billion $54 Billion

114,300 105,400
85,000,000 71,000,000
$28,6 Billion $21.4BlIHon
44,000,000 46,000,000
Iron & Steel ~~ c ~- ~~ ~ ~ 18,865,413 20,011,795
Paper ~ ~
18,255,326 19,142,093
Aluminum 1,981,644 1,657,606
I Copper ~ ~ 908,103 842,573
Nickel,Stainle~~ and Alloy 2,717,708 2,419,904
Plastic (Bottles onlv1 472,766 579,568
Number of Countries Scrap Was Exported to and Leading 154 Countries
DestinationslValue ~ ~. . 153 Countries
Cbina ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ $8.0 Billion $7.4 Billion
Canada -~ $4.0 Billion $2.6 Billion
Turkev $2.0 Billion $0.9 Billion
South Korea _ ~ ~ ~ $2.0 Billion $1.48i1lion
United Kingdom $1.9 Billion $0.7 Billion
Swiizerland $1.7 Billion $3.3 Billion
Taiwan, $1.6 Billion $0.9 Billion
lapan $1.0 Billion $0.3 Billion
~
• Germany $1.0 Billion $0.4 Billion
~
MeXico_' • $0.98illlon $0.6 Billion
The scrap industry is an important contributor to this country's international competitiveness. At

a time when the U.S. economy is struggling, and a premium is being placed on creating economically
and environmentally sustainable jobs, the scrap recycling industry is providing solutions.
Impact ofTSCA Regulations on Investments/Job Creation Related to Plastics Rel;ycling

The implementation by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the regulations
promulgated under the Toxics Substances Control Act (TSCA) has been a longstanding regulatory
barrier to the beneficial recycling of plastics from automobiles and appliances and the related
investment by the industry in equipment, buildings and jobs. A recently completed economic
impact study performed by Nathan Associates Inc. documents the following economic benefits of
allowing the recycling of the estimated 1.75 million tons of plastics that are available to recover and
process annually (see AppendiX A for the study's executive summary)-
• $946.7 million of new spending on equipment;

• $247.9 million of new spending on construction industry services;
• 23,746 new jobs; and
• $1,1 billion of additional gross earnings of employees
These economic benefits are all in addition to the environmental benefits of recovering and using
the plastic, rather than throwing it away in landfills and using imported oil to manufacture new
plastic.
The regulatory uncertainty of whether or under what conditions one may physically separate
plastics from shredder aggregate for purposes of recycling is frustrating since there have been a
number of attempts over the past decade or so to resolve this issue with EPA. This regulatory
uncertainty has halted the separation and recovery of these valuable materiqls. Moreover, though
the United States is the leader in this technology, other nations are moving ahead and gaining a
global competitive advantage, and in many instances are even using US technology in their
countries (including in both Europe and Asia), to recover these materials. Achieving regulatory
certainty would lead towards the creation of literally thousands of "green collar" jobs in the United
States.
2
Background· It has been more than 30 years since the passage of TSCA and the subsequent
promulgation of regulations implementing the statute. In the interim period, there have been
significant developments in our understanding of PCBs in the environment, as well as their
presence in the stream of commerce. During this time there also have been technological
developments within the recycling industry that now allow for the environmentally beneficial
separation and recycling of plastics from the shredding of automobiles and appliances, using
processes that also are able to reduce the level of PCBs that may be present to a level at or below
that which poses no unreasonable risk.
ISRI's members playa major role in the recycling of vehicles, appliances and other manufactured
products. The recycling rate for appliances In the US is 90%, and for automobiles it is 106% (more
automobiles are recycled than are manufactured in the U.S.). This is accomplished through a long-
standing, market-driven recycling infrastructure, with no added cost to consumers or taxpayers.
Most recently, this recycling infrastructure was central to the U.S. government's "cash for clunkers"
programs for automobiles, Intended to create jobs and conserve energy through the sale of new and
more efficient products.
The scrap recycling industry operates over 240 automobile/appliance shredders in the U.S. Their
operations are responsible for the recycling of between 12 and 17 million automobiles, as well as
45 million appliances, each year, producing up to 18 million tons of the approximately 80 million
tons of ferrous scrap produced in the U.S. every year. Shredded scrap metal is the primary feedstock
to the mini-mill (electric arc furnace) steel industry, and is the source for two out of every three
pounds of neW steel produced in the U.S. The recycling of metals produced from shredding
operations eliminates the need to mine, transport, and refine vast quantities of metal ore, thus
significantly decreasing the environmental impacts and energy consumption associated with virgin
metal production.
A number of shredders and others in the U.S. have made multi-million dollar investments in
research and development to determine the most economical and technologically feasible manner
for the separation of the plastics out of the shredder aggregate stream to meet growing market
demand for the material. A number of proprietary technologies have been developed for
successfully recycling the plastic into c;ommercial grade feedstock. The U.S. government itself, led
hy Argonne National Laboratory, has been involved in a nearly 20-year effort to develop such
technologies, and has evaluated a variety of technologies that can separate many types of polymers
from shredder aggregate.
TSCA prohibits the use or distribution in commerce of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in any
concentration unless EPA has authorized such activities, based upon a finding that they do not pose
an unreasonable risk. ISRI believes that EPA's existing PCB regulations do provide the necessary
authorization to allow for the recovery and reuse of plastics that may contain very iow levels of
PCBs, but there is sufficient ambiguity to discourage the necessary investments. Unfortunately, EPA
has been unwilling to confirm that the recycling of plastics from automobile and appliance
shredding is authorized under TSCA. This has discouraged the sIgnificant capital investments
necessary for the widespread recycling of plastics from shredder aggregate and the environmental
and economic benefits that would result. The construction and implementation ofa plastics
separation and recycling plant requires multimillion dollar investments in highly technIcal
equipment as well as infrastructure, buildings, land and labor. No one is willing to make that kind of
investment without the certainty that doing so will not run afoul of EPA's regulations governing
PCBs.
3
Technologies exist today to separate recyclable plastics from shredder aggregate and reduce levels
of PCBs in the plastic down to trace levels. For example, grants from the U.S. Department of
Commerce have helped fund the development of a proprietary technology by one private company
based in the United States that reduces the concentrations of PCBs in plastics recycled from
shredder aggregate down to trace levels. Ironically, that technology, developed in part with the
assistance of the U.S. government, is now used commercially in Europe, but is difficult to fund and
install in the U.S. because of the uncertainty over the TSCA regulations.
Other technologies have been and are being developed in the private sector that are the result of
ingenuity and innovation both within the scrap recycling industry itself and by others using quite
advanced proprietary technology available. for use in Europe and elsewhere but not in the U.S. due
to the existing regulatory uncertainty. The U.S. government, through the Argonne National
Laboratory, has worked closely with the recycling industry to evaluate some of these technologies,
finding that they can consistently reduce PCB concentrations in recycled plastics to very low levels.
However, these opportunities cannot effectively be financed and realized here in the U.S. without
EPA confirming that such recycling activities are allowed in order to provide the certainty that will
support the hundreds of millions of dollars in capital investments necessary to commercialize this
technology.
Summary - The recycling industry needs the Congress to step in and indicate that EPA should
remove the current regulatory barriers that are impeding the investment in plastics recycling
plants and related jobs by promptly clarifying that current regulations allow the beneficial recycling
of plastics.
Electronics Recycling and Exporting

Background -In today's global economy, voluminous amounts of new and used electronic devices
are being manufactured, sold and used and ultimately meeting the end of their useful lives.
Obsolete consumer electronic equipment levels are expected to increase to 400 million units
annually during the rest of the decade, including 100 million units of computer equipment. Industry
experts estimate that by combining both consumer and non-consumer computer equipment
(commercial, industrial and government sectors), that more than 2 billion will become obsolete
over the next five years.
Recycling obsolete electronics is the fastest growing sector in the recycling industry. Electronics
recyclers make their living scrubbing and reselling hard drives, by testing and then reselling cell
phones, monitors and CPUs that are in good working order, and using machinery and equipment to
shred or otherwise process electronics to extract the various commodities that are contained in
electronic equipment including steel, aluminum, gold, silver, titanium, copper, nickel, plastic and
glass - for use as valuable raw material feedstock in the manufacture of new products.
Accordingly, exporting is vital to the electronics recycling industry because most markets for these
refurbished products and recycled materials are outside of the U.s. As a result of this global
demand, there exists today a vibrant, established, global recycling infrastructure that relies on
environmentally sound management practices for the recovery of the various commodities that are
contained in electronic eqUipment-including steel, aluminum, gold, silver, titanium, copper, nickel,
plastics and glass-for use as valuable raw material feedstocks in the manufacture of new products.
4
Unfortunately, there remain a few bad actors or "sham" recyclers on the global marketplace that
engage in illegal pollution practices under the guise of reuse and recycling. As such, ISRI and its
members developed comprehensive policy that strongly condemns "sham" recycling and illegal
exports to countries and faci,lities that lack the necessary expertise to properly recycle or use the
materials. ISRI members also condemn the export of electronics intended for landfilling or
incineration for disposal.
Consequently, at the behest of the EPA, ISRI along with electronics manufacturers, states, and
consumer protection and environmental non-governmental organizations, worked together over
the past three years to develop sustainable and responsible recycling practices to help ensure that
used and end-of-life electronics are properly recycled to protect the environment and health and
safety of workers. The result is a voluntary consensus stilndard, the Responsible Recycling
Practices of Electronics Recyclers (R2), that was facilitated and supported by the EPA and has
been accredited by the ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board (ANAB) as a third party auditable
standard. ISRI has since combined the R2 program with its Recycling Industry Operating
Standard® (RIOS) to create the Certified Electronics Recycler® (see
www.CertifiedElectronicsRecycler.com).This program allows recyclers to integrate the sustainable
practices of R2 into a comprehensive quality, environmental, and health & safety management
system provIded within RIOS. Many of the 350 ISRI member companies that handle electronics are
already certified or working hard to be certified to R2. These companies have embraced R2
because the standard protects the environment and health and safety of workers and was
negotiated inan open, transparent process in concert with a multi-stakeholder group, most
importantly the federal government led by EPA.
Proposed Regulatory Efforts - Unfortunately, some in the environmental community abandoned

the EPA-led initiative before its completion and have instead worked to undermine the regulatory
certainty this certification program presents to recyclers, exporters and global consumers of scrap.
These environmental groups have urged EPA to eliminate the R2 program and codify an industry
wide ban on exports of used and end-of-life electronics that would disrupt legal trade and
undermine longstanding, hard-fought regulation within the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act. These groups have also convinced a few Members of Congress to introduce ill-conceived
legislation that would place unnecessary restrictions on recyclers who lawfully and responsibly
export their prod ucts.
Eric Williams of Arizona State University writes in a March 2010report that, "Trade bans will
become increasingly irrelevant in solving the problem" and argues that a complete ban on export of
used and end-of-life electronics to developing counties fails to solve the problem because the
developing world will generate more used and end-of-life electronics than developed countries as
early as 2017.
Economic Impacts - Banning exports of end-of-life exports will detrimentally harm the fastest
growing sector of the US recycling industry, reduce important US exports, and slow the further·
creation of these "green jobs" in the United States. Additionally, the regulatory uncertainty caused
by these harmful efforts could possibly extend to other sectors of the scrap recycling industry that
have relied on exports for over 100 years by restricting access to ever-growing overseas markets.
5
Section 199 of the Internal Revenue Code and the Internal Revenue Service's Interpretation
Thereof
Background - A little over six years ago Congress passed the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004
("Jobs Creation Act"). Title I of the Jobs Creation Act had two purposes: first, it repealed the
Exclusion for Extraterritorial Income as required by a decision of the World Trade Organization and
second, it added § 199 to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Section 199 was intended, in part, to
compensate U.S. exporters forthe tax benefits they would lose as a result of the repeal of the
exclusion for extraterritorial income and also to encourage certain businesses to create jobs.
Unfortunately, the IRS has interpreted § 199 to effectively read it out of the statute for scrap
recyclers, subjecting scores of recyclers to millions of dollars of back taxes.
Misguided Regulatory Interpretation - The Jobs Creation Act grants the deduction to those who
lease, license, rent or sell "qualifying production property which was manufactured, produced,
grown, or extracted by the taxpayer in whole or in significant part within the United States:" The
term "qualified production property" (QPP) is defined as tangible personal property, computer
software and "any property described in section 168(f)(4).2 The Congress did not define the terms
manufacture, produce, grow or extract. However, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), when writing
the regulations for § 199 elected to define those terms as follows:
(e) Definition ofmanufactured, produced, grown, or extracted-ell In general. Except

as provided in paragraphs (e)(2) and (3) of this section, the term MPGE includes
manufacturing, producing, growing, extracting, installing, developing, improving,
and creating QPP; making QPP out of scrap, salvage, or jun~{ material as well as from
new or raw material by processing, manipulating, refining, or changing the form of
an article, or by combining or assembling two or more articles; cultivating soil,
raising livestock, fishing, and mining minerals... 3
The exceptions contained in paragraphs (e)(2) and (3) of § 1.199-3 relate to packaging,
repackaging, labeling, or minor assembly and installation, respectively. The regulation explicitly
provides that QPP made out of scrap or salvage qualifies for the deduction and nowhere does it
specifically exclude scrap recycling from the definition of manufacturing or producing.
Unfortunately, the IRS, in its ultimate wisdom apparently issued instructions from headquarters to
the field staff directing the field staff to deny, out of hand, any §199 deduction taken by a scrap
recycler. The result has been that scores of our members are facing millions of dollars in back taxes
for having, in good faith, taken the § 199 deduction.
IRS' denial of these deductions is inconsistent with Congressional intent, IRS' own regulations, and
common sense. The scrap recycling industry is one of the nation's leading exporters. A significant
number of our members had benefitted from the exclusion of ETI without any challenge. Congress
created §199 not only to compensate for the loss of the ETI exclusion by industries that claimed it,
but to aiso benefit a much larger group of manufacturers. Yet, under IRS' arbitrary reading, the
recycling industry that had benefitted from the ETI exclusion, and therefore was clearly intended to
benefit from § 199, is being excluded by the IRS from the benefit of the § 199 deduction!
Further, at the common sense level, Webster's New Col/eglate Dictionary defines manufacture as,
among other things, "to make into a product suitable for use" or "to make from raw materials by
hand or by machinery." Webster's goes on to define "produce as, among other things, "to give being,
' 26 U.S.C. 199(c)(4)(A)(i)(1)

'26 U.S.C. 199(C)(5)
3, 26 C.F.R. 1.199-3(e)
6
form or shape to." It is plainly evident that a scrap recycling facility is engaged in manufacturing.
Indeed, to our knowledge, every state that offers an exemption from sales tax for manufacturers'
purchases of machinery and equipment used in themanufacturing process has afforded that
exemption to scrap recyclers. In seven states where the issue was litigated, the state supreme
courts ruled in favor of the industry. Another eight states have granted the exemption through
Administrative decisions. At least two states, Utah and Arkansas, actually passed legislation
specifically addressing the issue-the Arkansas legislature having taken action as a result of a
judicial decision to the contrary! While the federal government is not bound by state precedent, I
would contend that ifreason prevailed the IRS would at the very least give credence to the fact that
this issue has been vetted a significant number of times.
We have been negotiating with the IRS on behalf of our industry for over one year now and have
made little substantive progress. If the IRS does not act in a sensible manner, we are sincerely
concerned about a significant loss of U.S. jobs and exports. Any assistance you or your committee
could provide with regard to this issue could stave offthese potential losses.
Conclusion
The scrap recycling industry greatly appreciates your interest in investigating and exploring ways
to remove or reduce unnecessary regulatory uncertainties that harm the US economy and job
growth. We look forward to working with you and your staff over the coming months to explore
how we can help remove these regulatory uncertainties that hamper job creation in the United
States.
Sincerely,
Robin K. Wiener
President,ISRi
cc: The Honorable Edolphus Towns, Ranking Member
7
Attachment A
Executive Summary
Economic Impacts and Environmental Benefits of Separating, Sorting, Processing,

and Recycling Plastics in the Automobile and Appliance Shredders Aggregate
Prepared By Nathan Associates, Inc.
December 21, 2010
8
FINAL REPORT
Economic Impacts and Environmental

Benefits of Separating, Sorting, Processing,
and Recycling Plastics in the Automobile and
Appliance Shredder Aggregate
Robert Damuth
Economist and Principal Consultant
Nathan Associates Inc.
NATHAN DECEMBER 21, 2010
Executive Summary
Current Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations create uncertainty over and
barriers to recycling plastics in the appliance and automobile shredder aggregate. The result is
that these plastics are disposed of in landfills.
If material separation facilities were allowed to separate plastics from the shredder aggregate
and sell the material as recycled plastics, they would have an incentive to invest in new
equipment and facilities to house the equipment. Such investment would stimulate the
economy.
In addition, recycling the plastics instead of disposing of them in landfills would have
environmental benefits.
The economic and enviromnental benefits would be in keeping with economic policy goals of
spurring innovation and growth.
Nathan Associates Inc., an economics research firm founded in 1946, analyzed and estimated
the economic impacts and environmental benefits of separating, sorting, processing, and
recycling plastics in the shredder aggregate currently disposed of in landfills. Using expert
opinions of material separation industry leaders, Nathan Associates quantified the amount of
plastics likely to be recovered annually, the new investment spending on equipment
embodying the technologies capable of separating, sorting, and processing plastics in the
shredder aggregate, and the new construction spending on facilities that would house the
new equipment. Nathan Associates also analyzed spot prices of virgin plastic resins to
determine a price of recycled plastics and material separation industry sales revenue.
Once new spending on equipment, facilities, and recycled plastics were estimated, Nathan
Associates .applied the industry-by-industry total requirements table of the U.S. input-output
accounts, which is published by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, to estimate total
industry output1 generated directly and indirectly by the new spending. Using ratios of jobs
1 Output includes intermediate and final sales of goods and services. Intermediate sales are indust.ry~to~
industry. Final sales are indushy to consumer,
IV
per million dollars of output and employee earnings per million dollars of output, Nathan
Associates also estimated total jobs and earnings effects.
On the basis of industry expectations of 1.75 million tons of plastics separated, sorted,
processed, and recycled fllIDually, Nathan Associates estimated the following initial economic
impacts:
• $946.7 million of new spending on equipment produced by machinely manufactures,
• $247.9 million of new spending on construction industry services, and
• $1.3 billion of additional material separation facility sales revenue from sales of recycled
plastics.
This new spending will have total economic impacts of
• $5.3 billion of additional economic output,
• 23,746 new jobs, and
• $1.1 billion of additional gross earnings of employees..
Approximately half ($2,4 billion of output, 12,471 jobs, and $529,2 million of earnings) of the
total economic impacts are generated by new spending on recycled plastics. Unlike the
economic impacts of neW investment spending on equipment and facilities, which are impacts
that expire once the equipment is manufactured and sold and the consh'uctiol1 of new
facilities is completed, new spending all recycled plastics occurs annually. Hence, impacts
occur annually. In addition, an annual supply of less costly recycled plastics will spur new
product innovation. Already, recycled plastics have promoted development of plastic lumber.
There are additional economic impacts not included in the Nathan Associates study. Chief
among these are tax revenues collected on industry sales and business and household
earnings, as well as U.S. balance of b'ade effects. Exports of recycled plastics or substilu Hon of
domestic recycled plastics for imports would make a positive contribution to the U.S. trade
balance.
And finally, environmental benefits will accrue from using 1.75 million tons of recycled
instead of virgin plastics. Such benefits include:
• Annual savings of 171.5 trillion Btus of energy, which is equivalent to the energy content of
1.5 billion gallons of gasoline. 2 At an average fuel efficiency of 21 miles per gallon and an
average of 12,000 miles traveled per year, an auto consumes 571 gallons of gasoline
annually. An annual savings of 1.5 billion gallons of gasoline is equivalent to removing
2.6 million autos from the road each year.
2 One U.S, gallon of gasoline is equivalent to 115,000 Btu. See Bioencrgy Conversion Factors at
http://bioenergy.nr.nl.gov Ipapel's/miscl energy cnov.html.
v
• A savings of 28,525,000 barrels of oil each year.3 At $75 per barrel, the savings is equivalent
to $2.1 billion.
• A savings of 52.5 million cubic yards of landfill space each year. For significance, consider
the fact that, in Michigan, 50 million cubic yards of solid waste are produced annually and,
each year, 57 million cubic yards of solid waste are added to Michigan landfiIls,4
• Each year, 1.75 million to 5.25 million tons of carbon dioxide would be saved. An average
medium size automobile with fuel efficiency of 21 miles per gallon traveling 12,000 miles
per year emits 6.6 tons of carbon dioxide,S Hence; the carbon dioxide savings is equivalent
to removing 265.2 thousand to 795.5 thousand automobiles from the road each year.
• Recycling 1.75 million tons of plastics alIDually will save 39.9 billion gallons of water each
year. In the United States, a typical person consumes 123 gallons of water daily or 44,895
gallons per year. 6 The water savings of recycling 1,75 million tons of plastic alIDually is
equivalent to the amount of water used each year by 888,740 people.
In sum~ary, as the U.s. economy works its way out of the global recession, the economic
impacts and environmental benefits of allowing separating, sorting, processing, and recycling
of plastics ill the shredder aggregate would provide new jobs and incomes, promote
innovation and growth, and help achieve a greener economy.
3 Barrels saved are equivalent to nearly one-half of one percent of the total number of barrels of crude oil and
petroleum products consumed in the United States in 2009 (6,851.6 million baaels). See
http://tonto.cia.doe.!,c)V/clnav/pet/pel cons psvp de nus mbbl a.hlm.
4 See http://www. michiganwasteindustries.org-( abot! t( industry-backgrOlUld I faq-frequently-asked-
tluestionsl.
5 See l1Up: II www.carbOl1ify.com/~~arbon-calculator.htm.
6 See IIEnergy - How Much Water Does An Avel'age Person Use Each Day?" Science Fact Finder, Phillis
Engelbert, ed., UXL-Gale, 1998, eNotes,com, 2006, October 17, 2010 available at
b!hllL Iwww.enot~.~ ...com/science·fad-finde:.rL.~nergy/how~llluch:1Y.ater-dOetHm~aVe1'age-pel'son,.use-each~
~.
ICPI
INTIlRL<Q:KlNG CONCRilm
PAVEMENT INS'I1TUTIl ®
U,S. OFFICES CANADA
13923 P,uk Center .Road, Suite 270 P.O. Box 85040
]-l'emdon, VA 20171 561 [IranI Street
Email: JCPl<tiJicpl.org 13urlington, Ontario
January 7, 2011 Web: www.ic:pLorg CANADf\ L7R 4K"2
Tel, (705) 657-6900 Fax: ClO,3) 657-6901

The Honomble Darrell Issa
Chairman
Committee on Oversight and Government Refbrm
U.S. ITouse of Representatives
Washington DC, 20515
Del'll' Mr. Chairman,
On behalf oIthe Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute (ICPI), 1 woulcllike to

congratulate you for your selection as Chairman of the Committee for the 11 i" Congress,
Further, I thank you for your kind outreach to ICPI soliciting key regulatory issues for
oversight hearing consideration, per your letter of December 29,201 O.
ICPI represents over 150 manufaetmers and suppliers and over 14,000 contractors in the
eonstl'llction and construction products UIl1l1ufacturing industrics. In the U.S., the
interlocking concrete pavement industry employs circa 154,000 people and generates
over $5 billion in revenues per year.
Concrete paver manufilctnrers make concrete paving units that are placed into
interlocking concrete pavement systems fbI' low speed roacls, peclestrian sidewalks,
plazas, driveways and patios. These pavement systems are the preferred choice [ill'
sustainable and environmentally fhendly pavements in North America.
Interlocking concrete pavement systems arc a "green" pavement technology, tilcilitating

public policy initiatives to reduce stormwater runofl: improve water quality, reduce
l'Jooding, and enable increllseduse of trees and shrubbery in construction/development.
As you know, OSHA is in the process of promulgating a major regulation regarding

exposures to respirable silica in the wOI'kplace. OSHA has indicated in its latest public
communications that it hopes to publish a proposed regulation in April 20 II.
Of course, the regulation has not been Pllblisbed at this time; its substance is not yet
available tor comment. However, many in thc rcgulated eomlllUnity have been
concerned with the nU.lIlner in which OSHA has conducted its peer revicw process which
provides the fbundation for a proposed regulation.
The Honorable Durrell IssB
January 7, 20 I I
Page 2
In brief, many in industry arc conecrned that the peer review process did not actively
seek, nor occept requests from, industry representotives to participate in the peer review,
OSHA's execution of the peer review process itselfhas raised questions,
To the extent that the proposed regulation establishes a critieal baseline for regldation
even in the pre-publication stage, the peer review·- and its dominant influence on an
ultimatc silica proposal -- is a key stage and should include active, robust involvement
Ii'om the economic conununity that the silica regulation will seek to regulate,
OSHA observes that a silica rcgulation will he "economically signil1canl", which is an

understatement. As you know, silica is one of the 1l10~t abundant substances on earth and
is ubiquitous in the environment Tens of thousands oflirms, and a large portion ol'the
economy, could be impacted by an unduly broad silica regulation.
The peer review process is a key tool in enforcing regulatory discipline and souncl agency
practice, As most the fcderal agencies arc engaged in a spike of regulatory activity at this
time, an oversight hearing on the silica regulation peer review process might have utility
in ensuring that other federal agencies implement robust and efl'eetive peer review on a
host of regulatory actions in the planning phase.
ICPI is one of many stakeholder groups that \vill absorb heavy impact From a silica
regulation. Should the Committee wish 10 lake up this issue for possible oversight
activity, lePI could be helpf\:tl in recommencling indnstry gronps ill Washington DC who
are'subjeclmatter experts and have even great"r, more direel "xposnre to a silica
regulation that lacks sufftcienl input 1'1'0111 industry.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your kind attention. III case your staff' have any questions
and would appreciate pursuing this malleI' further, please direct them to contact ICPI's
Government Relatiolls Counsel: Randall G. Pence, Esq .. Cupitnll··lil.l Advocates, Inc .. at
(703) 534-9513.
Sincerely,
~W:4
Charles A. McGrath, CAE
Executive Director
IBWJrl
1700 Diagonal Road, Suite 650
Alexandria, VA 22314
Ph: 703-683-5213
Fax 703-683-4074
International Borded \VaterAssodadoll Web: www.bollledwater.org
January 13,2011

Dear Chainnan Issa,
On behalf of the International Bottled Water Association (IBWA), I want to thank you for the
. opportunity to identify proposed or existing regulations that may negatively impact job growth
and economic competitiveness within the United States bottled water industry. IBWA commends
you for your efforts on this very important issue, and we look forward to working with you on
this and other matters affecting the bottled water industry.
IBWA is the national trade association representing all segments of the bottled water industry,
including spring, artesian, mineral, sparkling, well, groundwater and purified bottled waters.
Founded in 1958, IBWA's approximately 750 member companies include bottled water
producers, suppliers and distributors in the United States and throughout the world.
Bottled Water Industry Jobs and Economic Impact
In 2009, the bottled water industry was responsible for as much as $130 billion in total economic
activity and generated over $12.7 billion in property, income and sales taxes in the United States
(John Dunham and Associates, New York, 2009). Companies that produce, distribute and sell
bottled water products in the United States employ as many as 163,000 people and generate an
additional 530,000 jobs in supplier and ancillary industries. These include jobs in companies
supplying goods and services to bottled water manufacturers, distributors and retailers, as well as
those that depend on sales to workers in the bottled water industry. Not only does the
manufacture of bottled water create good jobs in the United States, but the industry also
contributes to the economy as a whole.
Most IBWA members are small businesses. In fact, 60% of our members have less than $2
million in annual gross sales, and 90% of our members have less than $10 million in annual
gross sales. Many of these companies are locally-based family entrepreneurs with deep roots and
strong ties within their communities. The impacts of costly and unnecessary regulatory burdens
affect these small businesses most severely.
1B WA Letter to Congressman 1ssa
January 13, 2011
Page 2 of5
While not an exhaustive list, provided below are several proposed or existing regulations that
may negatively impact IBWA member companies in terms ofjob growth and economic
competitiveness.
Bottled Water Safety and Regulation
Bottled water is a safe, healthy, and convenient packaged food product that is comprehensively
and stringently regulated by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and state
governments. IBWA is committed to working with federal and state officials to establish and
implement stringent standards that help ensure the production of safe, high-quality bottled water
products. IBWA members must also comply with the IBWA Code of Practice which, in some
cases, is even more stringent than federal and state regulations for bottled water and tap water.
As a condition of membership, IBWA bottlers must submit to an annual plant inspection by an
independent third-party organization to determine compliance with all FDA regulations and the
IBWA Code of Practice.
Some consumer activists and environmental groups have previously lobbied for legislative and
regulatory mandates on bottled water products that would do nothing to enhance their safety. At
the federal level, bottled water is regulated as a packaged food product under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. §§ 301 et seq., and several parts of Title 21 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). There are four pillars that support the federal bottled water
regulatory framework: general food regulations, specific bottled water Good Manufacturing
Practices regulations, bottled water Standards of Identity regulations, and bottled water
Standards of Quality regulations.
IBWA supported the Food Safety and Modernization Act (HR 2751), which was recently signed
into law by President Obarna. This new statue will give FDA stronger enforcement powers over
. our nation's food supply and tighten controls over food imports. The new law also mandates
additional responsibilities for food manufacturers and food producers, iucluding hazard analysis
and identification of preventive controls, supply chain management, and records maintenance
and access.
IBWA has enjoyed a strong and productive working relationship for many years with FDA and
its Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), which oversees federal bottled water
regulations. Moreover, the bottled water industry has an excellent track record of complying with
those regulations. However, we are concerned that bottled water critics may try to push an
unnecessary and over-zealous agenda upon FDA as the Agency develops regulations to
implement the new food safety law. We hope that your Committee will monitor FDA regulatory
activity on this matter to ensure reasonable .regulations are implemented.
Unreasonable Testing Requirements
We are also concerned that some consumer activists and environmental groups are pushing state
and federal regulators to adopt substance testing requirements that are not achievable and/or
scientifically sound. In their flawed view, any detectable level of a substance poses a health risk,
IBWA Letter to Congressman Issa
January 13, 20Il
Page 3 of5
despite scientific evidence otherwise. This is the case in California, where regulators are
adopting extremely low public health goals (PHGs) for drinking water. Because United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) often looks to California for guidance when developing
regulations, we are concerned that these PHGs will subsequently be incorporated by EPA into
federal drinking water standards, These same activist groups may then ask FDA to develop
similar standards for bottled water that are unachievable and without scientific basis. This could
be very costly, ifnot impossible, for the bottled water industry to comply.
A similar debate is occurring at the state and federal levels with regard to bisphenol A (BPA), a
chemical building block used primarily to make polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resins.
Polycarbonate is a strong, clear and reusable type of plastic that is used to make many different
products, including food storage containers, medical devices, lab equipment, sports equipment,
and even eye glasses. Many of the bottled water industry's 3- and 5-gallon bottled water
containers are made of polycarbonate plastic, which has been approved by FDA as a food-
contact plastic based on migration and safety data. This clearance process includes stringent
requirements for estimating the levels at which such materials may transfer to the diet. FDA's
safety criteria require extensive toxicity testing for any substance that may be ingested at more
than negligible levels. This means FDA has affirmatively determined that, when cleared plastics
are used as intended in food-contact applications, the nature and amount of substances that may
migrate, if any, are safe.
Polycarbonate plastic has been the material of choice for food and beverage product containers
for nearly 50 years because it is lightweight, highly shatter-resistant, and transparent. During
that time, many international studies have been conducted to assess the potential for trace levels
of BPA to migrate from lined cans or polycarbonate bottles into foods or beverages. The
conclusions from those studies and comprehensive safety evaluations by government bodies
worldwide are that polycarbonate bottles are safe for consumer use.
FDA is supporting further studies, by both governmental and non-governmental entities, to

provide additional information and address uncertainties about the safety ofBPA. FDA's
National Center for Toxicological Research is pursuing a set of studies on the safety of low doses
ofBPA, and studies are being pursued in collaboration with the National Toxicology Program
and with support and input from the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences. The
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences is also providing $30 million in funding to
study BPA, which includes support both for FDA studies and external grants.
Even so, consumer and environmental NGOs are successfully pushing state and federal
legislators and regulators to restrict the use of BPA in food and beverage containers. At least
eight states now have some sort of BPA restriction in place, with legislators and regulators
rushing to judgment based far less on science and far more on emotion. Similar proposals are
gaining traction at the federal level. A proposed amendment to the Food Safety and
Modernization Act that would have restricted the use of BPA in certain consumer products failed
to gain traction during 2010, but the debate is clearly not over. In May of2010, EPA sent a
proposal to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (which is still under
review) that would add BPA to EPA's "chemicals of concern" list. And less than a month ago,
1BWA Letter to Congressman 1ssa
January 13, 2011
Page 4 of5
EPA requested that OMB review its plan to solicit comments this year about a new BPA
screening framework in order to determine the potential for BPA to disrupt hormonal functioning
at lower levels.
IBWA is very supportive of FDA's extensive ongoing research regarding the safety ofBPA, and
strongly believes that this work must be completed before any federal regulations affecting its
use are implemented. As consumer and environmental NOOs continue to push state and federal
regulators to adopt substance testing requirements that are not achievable and/or scientifically
sound, the bottom line risk to the bottled water industry is the replacement of realistic, science-
based toxicology with emotional and perceived political correctness. That is simply a risk the
bottled water industry cannot afford to take.
Workplace Safety
The bottled water industry has a good working relationship with the United States Department of
Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which has even developed
bottled water industry web-based training tools on occupational safety and health topics.
IBWA understands that OSHA is in the process of changing its noise standard and ear protection
rules. Currently, employers may use effective personal protective equipment (PPE), like earplugs
and ear muffs, to protect employees from excessive levels of noise if they are more cost-effective
than using extensive engineering and administrative controls that involve noise-dampening
technologies for machines and work scheduling. The Agency recently announced that it intends
to reinterpret noise control standards to now require employers to reduce noise levels in the
workplace through any possible engineering and administrative overhauls that are possible. This
would be instead of accepting the use of devices like earplugs, and the Agency has further
indicated that it plans to enforce these changes by instructing OSHA inspectors to cite employers
with OSHA violations should they fail to make the required changes or cannot prove such
changes will put the employer out of business.
IBWA understands that OSHA is changing these noise standard and ear protection rules outside
any formal rulemaking process that would allow for public comment and analysis of the impact
of such changes on small businesses. We believe that implementation of such changes would be
extremely cost-prohibitive to the bottled water industry, and with little to no benefit to its
employees.
OSHA also recently published a proposed rule (Proposed Consultation Agreements: Proposed
Changes to Consultation Procedures Rule) that seeks to increase the amount of information
shared between its on-site consultation and enforcement programs. OSHA's on-site consultation
program has historically been very beneficial for small business, providing, at no cost to the
employer, worksite visits to identify hazards and advice on compliance with OSHA regulations
and standards.
Part of this program's success has been based on the understanding that an employer does not
have to worry about being reported to OSHA's enforcement program - information is kept
IBWA Letter to Congressman Issa
January 13, 2011
Page 5 0/5
confidential as long as workers are not in imminent danger and the employer agrees to follow the
advice. Some bottled water adversaries have tried to use historical OSHA data and reports to
claim that bottled water industry facilities are hazardous to employees. In reality, the bottled
water industry has worked closely and cooperatively with OSHA to ensure its facilities and
practices are safe for its employees. IBWA is concerned that proposed changes to the rule may
discourage bottled water companies from participating in the on-site consultation program out of
fear of being subject to additional and unnecessary OSHA enforcement inspections. We hope
that your Committee will encourage OSHA to consider our concerns.
Conclusion
Thank you, Chairman Issa, for considering our comments. We look forward to continuing a
dialogue with you and your staff on the impact of regulations on bottled water production and
distribution in the United States. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or
if we can ever be of any further assistance to you.
Sincerely yours,
ISPA
~
INTERNATIONAL
SLEEP
PROOUCTS
ASSOCIATION
January 11, 2011

Chair
, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Dear Chairman Issa:
Thank you for your letter dated December 29, 2010 and the opportunity to provide input on
areas where government regulation is harming U.S. mattress manufacturers and limiting job
growth in this industry.
The International Sleep Products Association (ISPA) represents mattress manufacturers and
their suppliers. Of particular concern to our industry are several costly and unnecessary
regulations administered by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), summarized
below. The mattress industry is nearly 97% composed of small businesses. Therefore, even
incremental increases in costs weigh heavily on our members.
The mattress industry supports practical regulations that protect consumers, improve safety,
and allow manufacturers to make a product that consumers will find safe, comfortable and
affordable. However, we do not support superfluous requirements that impose costs and other
regulatory burdens, and provide no discernable safety benefit.
We urge your committee to consider the impact of the following regulations on mattress
manufacturers.
The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act

Many requirements in the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) initially were
intended to target safety issues related to children's toys, infant products and the like. For
example, in reaction to incidents involving lead in children's toys, Congress decided to require
that these products be tested for lead content by labs accrediied by the CPSC.
The CPSIA as enacted, however, set numerous new mandates that have imposed added
costs on manufacturers of "general purpose" products like mattresses that are used by both
adults and children. As a consequence, the CPSC's new regulations implementing the
accredited lab requirements treat those adult-size mattresses that are marketed primarily to
consumers 12 and under as a "children's product." In practical terms, this means that for a
mattress manufacturer to comply with the CPSC's two mattress flammability standards, all fire
testing related to these "children's mattresses" now must be conducted by accredited labs.
Until this point, these tests were performed either "in house" or by third parties that were not
accredited by CPSC at the time.
501 Wythe Street· Alexandria, Virginia 22314-1917. (703) 683-8371 • Fax (703) 683-4503
........----. www:sleepproducts.orgiiinfo@sfe-,ippro<:!ucls:org . .- .
Chairman Issa
1/11/11
Page 2
Unlike the incidents of excessive levels of lead in toys that first motivated Congress to
commence work on the CPSIA, the mattress industry has a laudable reputation for meeting its
obligations under the CPSC's flammability standards. Furthermore, since the first of these
standards went into effect in the mid-1970s, the incidence of mattress fires, deaths, and injury
and property damage, have dropped substantially.
Nevertheless, given the strict manner in which the CPSC has applied its new CPSIA authority,
a number of mattress manufacturers have had to retest prototypes they use to make adult-size
mattresses that are intended primarily for use by consumers 12 and under. The costs of these
flammability tests can range from to $1150 to $2650 per mattress prototype. Depending on
the size and product range of a given producer, a typical mattress manufacturer will need to
retest between 12 and 42 prototypes to meet this new arbitrary CPSIA rule.
While this rule will certainly impose new costs on manufacturers already strained by the
recession, it will not improve safety. Instead, the manufacturers will simply repeat tests
already conducted. This is a clear example of government action that has forced mattress
manufacturers to incur additional costs and regulatory burdens with no discernable safety
benefits to the consumer.
In implementing other CPSIA provisions, the CPSC has set or proposed further testing,
recordkeeping and labeling requirements on mattress manufacturers that will impose other
costly redundancies on the current product safety regime for mattresses, once again without
offering any discernable improvement in consumer safety. For example, the CPSC has issued
a proposed rule titled "Testing and Labeling Pertaining to Product Certification.,,1 The two
flammability standards that apply to mattresses already include rigorous testing, quality control,
documentation, recordkeeping, labeling and certification requirements. Furthermore, as noted
above, the record shows that the incidence and consequences of residential mattress fires
have fallen substantially since the first of these standards was promulgated in the 1970s.
Nevertheless, the CPSC has proposed additional testing for these products in this rule. Once
again, this regulation, if adopted, would increase mattress manufacturers' costs and regulatory
burdens without improving safety.
Likewise, the CPSC interprets the CPSIA to require that all mattresses be accompanied by a
"certificate of conformity," which must contain manufacturer, testing and contact information.
Like the other examples discussed above, this rule imposes added regulatory obligations and
associated costs on the manufacturer without improving product safety. Virtually all of the
information required to be on the certificate is already contained on a label that the CPSC has
required on all mattresses since well before the CPSIA took effect. Furthermore, the certificate
serves no safety purpose. A manufacturer must furnish the certificate to retailers and
distributors, but those parties have no obligation to read or retain it. Likewise, the
manufacturer must keep the certificate on file and make it available to the CPSC on request,
but this new document merely references information already documented elsewhere by the
manufacturer.
Other CPSIA-mandated requirements include a product safety database that will list prodUct
safety complaints that consumers send to the CPSC. While the mattress industry does not
I 75 FR 28336.
Chairman Issa
1/11/11
Page 3
oppose such a database in principle, the Commission has not implemented sufficient
precautions to assure that the information contained in the database is accurate. Instead, the
CPSC's system may allow the posting of erroneous and possibly fraudulent data that could
harm a company's reputation or result in costly litigation. The system is also vulnerable to
manipulation by competitors or others submitting false or inaccurate data to the CPSC for anti-
competitive or political reasons. Neither consumers nor industry are well served by inaccurate
information being posted on the CPSC's database. Additional precautions are needed to
address these risks.
Each of these examples of wasteful, superfluous or ill-considered regulations has resulted from
the CPSC's implementation of the CPSIA. The mattress industry is far from unique in being
hurt by these new rules. In combination, these requirements have imposed significant new
costs on manufacturers during this current recession, impairing our industry's ability to recover
from the poor economy, to expand, and to increase our labor force.
ISPA urges your Committee to use its oversight and legislative authority to encourage and
(when needed) require the CPSC to undertake more balanced and nuanced rulemakings in
which the agency may use its discretion to promulgate rules that take into account existing
regulatory mechanisms that are working efficiently. We also think it is imperative that CPSC
have the discretion to make reasoned exceptions to new statutory requirements that would
otherwise impose wasteful costs without improving consumer safety.
Mattress Flammability Standards

In addition to the CPSIA-related issues identified above, the mattress industry also believes
that its products are subject to duplicative flammability standards that impose additional and
unnecessary costs and regulatory burdens on mattress manufacturers. As a result, ISPA has
requested that the CPSC rescind a 35-year old cigarette test standard that is now outdated
and redundant in light of a new mattress flammability standard that took effect three years ago.
Furthermore, the way that cigarettes burn has changed substantially in recent years, making
the old standard even iess relevant to today's real world safety risks. Rather than rescind the
redundant standard, however, the Commission has proposed to amend the old requirements
to make them even more stringent.
By way of background, all new mattresses at present must meet the following flammability
standards:
o 16 CFR Part 1632: Promulgated in the mid-1970s, this standard requires that a mattress
resist ignition from a smoldering cigarette heat source. It requires that a mattress
prototype be exposed to at least 18 ignited cigarettes that are unfiltered and meet
specified dimension and tobacco density requirements.
o 16 CFR Part t 633: This standard, which became effective in 2007, requires that a
mattress resist ignition from an open-flame heat source (such as a match, cigarette
lighter or a candle). This testis conducted by exposing a mattress prototype to a large
ignited burner that is intended to represent the type of fire that occurs when a pillow or
comforter has been ignited by a candle or a child playing with matches.
Two years before Part 1633 became effective, ISPA, on behalf of the mattress industry,
requested that the CPSC rescind the old Part 1632 standard because the new open-flame
Chairman Issa
1/11/11
Page 4
standard embodied in Part 1633 made the cigarette-ignition standard redundant. Although
CPSC published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 2 requesting public comment
on ISPA's request, the Commission has taken no further action.
Instead, the CPSC proposed in November 201 0 to amend Part 1632 to require the use of a
new cigarette developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).3 The
CPSC justifies its proposed action on the grounds that the fire properties of cigarettes have
changed substantially in recent years with the introduction of the so-called Reduced Ignition
Propensity (RIP) cigarette (also sometimes called "self-extinguishing" or "fire safe"
cigarettes). The RIP cigarette is designed to stop burning when left unattended, and is
intended to reduce the number of residential fires caused by smoldering cigarettes. RIP
cigarettes have essentially replaced all other cigarette types sold in the United States.
RIP cigarettes are intended to address exactly the same types of fires that are the focus of
Part 1632 - that is, house fires ignited by smoldering cigarettes, making Part 1632 even less
relevant. Nevertheless, rather than rescind the old standard - or at least allow
manufacturers to perform the Part 1632 tests using RIP cigarettes (as is now possible under
the standard) - the CPSC has instead proposed that Part 1632 be amended to require the
use of the new NIST cigarette noted above.
ISPA opposes this action for the following reasons:
1. Both the open-flame standard set in Part 1633 and the advent of the RIP cigarette make
Part 1632 redundant (for the reasons noted above). As a result, CPSC should rescind Part
1632, not amend it.
2. In developing the new NIST cigarette, NIST deliberately selected a material that burns
hotter than the non-RIP cigarettes that were in use immediately before RIP cigarettes
replaced all other cigarette types. Rather than attempt to preserve the "status quo" that
existed before the transition to RIP cigarettes, the CPSC proposes using a more intense
test method without any evidence that this will improve product safety.
3. Even if CPSC can document that both the Part 1632 smoldering cigarette test and the Part
1633 open-flame test are needed for consumer safety (which it has not), the 1632 test
should reflect today's "real world" ignition risk. Today's smoker uses the RIP cigarette,
NOT the NIST product. That means, at minimum, the Part 1632 tests should be performed
with the RIP cigarette, not the new and hotter NIST cigarette.
4. The NIST replacement cigarette costs considerably more (at $249/carton plus special
shipping) than the price of commercially available cigarettes that are currently used.
5. The Flammable Fabrics Act (which provides the legal authority under which the CPSC
administers both Parts 1632 and 1633, and which governs how 1632 may be amended)
requires that CPSC justify why a given safety standard is necessary whenever that
standard is amended. The CPSC has not met these requirements in proposing to amend
Part 1632. Therefore, its proposed amendments to Part 1632 do not meet the applicable
legal requirements.
2 70 FR 36357.
J 75 FR 67047.
Chairman Issa
1/11/11
Page 5
For these reasons we believe Part 1632 should be rescinded. Lifting this redundant standard
will free up resources that mattress producers can use to expand their businesses and hire
more employees.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this information. Please contact me if you should
require any further information in this regard.
Sincerely,
~. -
Ryan Trainer
President
Internationai Sleep Products Association
Association Connoctino Electronics Industries
GO\'6rnmoRtH Illl\llons 703-522-0225 tol

1901 N. Mooro Strllet, Suite BOO 703~522·054B fEHC
Arlin'ltDn, VA 22209 wwwJpc.oro
January 7, 2011
Representative Darrell E. Issa

Dear Chairman Issa,
IPC - Association Connecting Electronics Industries thanks you for the opportunity to provide
insight on existing and proposed regulations that have negatively impacted the economy and job
growth.
We would like to call your attention to three regulations that will have a significant negative
impact on manufacturers, and therefore warrant oversight:
• The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) proposed modifications to the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) Rnle (EPA-HQ-.
OPPT-2009-0187). By requiring all manufacturers that recycle byproducts to report
those byproducts as new chemicals, the EPA will create burdensome, costly and
unnecessary regulatory requirements that penalize manufacturers for doing the right thing
- recycling.
• The EPA's reopening of the Definition of Solid Waste (DSW) role (EPA-HQ-RCRA-
2002-0031). The EPA's decision to reopen the DSW rule, which was finalized in
October 2008 to lessen regulatory burdens blocking the recycling of secondary materials,
would impose significant regulatory burdens on recycling.
• The Security and Exchange Commission's (SEC's) proposed regnlations on conflict
minerals (SEC Release No. 34-63547; File No. S7-40-10). The regulations being
developed by the SEC under Section 1502 of the recent Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform
and Consumer Protection Act could impose extremely burdensome reporting
requirements on manufacturers, such as electronics manufacturers, that use tin, gold,
tantalum, and tungsten in their products.
Our concerns regarding these regulations are detailed below. Additionally, the comments we
submitted to the respective agencies on these issues are attached for your reference.
January 7, 2011
Page 2
About IPC and the Electronic Interconnect Industry
IPC represents all facets of the electronic interconnect industry, including design, printed board
manufacturing and electronics assembly. Printed boards and electronic assemblies are used in a
variety of electronic devices that include computers, cell phones, pacemakers, and sophisticated
missile defense systems. IPC has 1,795 member companies located in the U.S. which employ an
estimated 90,000 people.
The U.S. has a competent, competitive and organized electronic interconnect industry. However,
an ever increasing number of regulatory burdens placed on companies have resulted in lost
business opportunities, lost revenue, lost jobs, and a dramatic consolidation of the industry. The
number of U.S. companies in the electronic interconnect industry has been significantly reduced
over the past twenty years.
In just the printed board industry alone, costly regulatory burdens combined with intense global
competition has resulted in a fifty percent reduction iu the number U.S. PCB companies
and associated high-quality U.S. jobs. The ongoing reduction is troubling since U.S.
electronics companies provide much-needed jobs in the U.S. Companies comprising the U.S.
electronic interconnect industry need Congressional oversight on regulations impacting their
ability to conduct business, remain viable, and keep their staff employed.
EPA's Proposed Modifications to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory Update
Reporting (IUR) Rule
We strongly believe that the EPA's proposed modifications to the TSCA IUR rule warrant
oversight. We are concerned that EPA has proposed a number of changes to the TSCA IUR
reporting requirements that are extremely burdensome and provide no clear benefit to the public
or the environment. If finalized as proposed, the rule would subvert Congress' original intent to
exempt byproducts from burdensome TSCA reporting requirements. The IUR rule is intended to
regulate new chemicals that are produced for a commercial intent/purpose; not byproducts.
EPA's absurd interpretation that would render a byproduct a new chemical feedstock undermines
Congress' intent and overreaches beyond TSCA's mandate. If the TSCA IUR nIle is finalized as
it currently reads, manufacturers that recycle byproducts will be required to submit costly, time-
consuming reports that may be useless due to poor data quality. We strongly encourage you to
conduct oversight of EPA's proposed modifications to the TSCA IUR rule to ensure
manufacturers are not unduly burdened by erroneous reporting requirements.
Additionally, EPA's proposed modifications to the TSCA IUR rule raise significant timing and
data quality concerns. The proposed modifications will apply to data collected in 2010, yet EPA
has not finalized the reporting requirements. EPA expects to finalize the rule in May 2011 that
will require reporting to begin on June I, 20 II, less than a month after the rules are promulgated.
This unfeasible short period will leave manufacturers with scant time to gather the required new
data or even understand the complex new reporting requirements. In addition to imposing a
significant and disruptive burd~n on manufacturers, it is likely that the data quality will be poor
January 7, 2011
Page 3
due to the extremely limited time provided for manufacturers to gather and report data. We hope
that as a result of your oversight, EPA will delay the reporting requirements under the new
TSCA IUR guidelines by a minimum of one year to provide a more reasonable timeframe for
data gathering and reporting.
EPA's Re-opening of the Definition ofSolid Waste (DSW) Rule

Congress should also conduct oversight on EPA's decision to reopen the DSW rule, a rule
finalized in October 2008, due to Environmental Justice (EJ) concerns raised by environmental
groups. The DSW rule was published to address multiple court decisions that EPA had
overreached their authority by regulating recycled secondary materials as hazardous waste. By
de-regulating secondary materials that are legitimately recycled, the DSW rule reduced
regulatory burdens on manufacturers recycling secondary materials. Now, in re-opening the rule
to readdress EJ issues that were already adequately addressed, EPA would greatly increase the
burden on manufacturers that are recycling secondary materials. We encourage you to conduct
oversight on the EPA's attempts to undermine the ability of the DSW rule to promote the
recycling of secondary materials.
Proposed Security and Exchange Commission's Regulations on Conflict Minerals

While !PC supports the underlying goal of Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which is to
prevent the atrocities occurring in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), we are concerned
about the potential significant effects that the implementation of the regulations may have on
U.S. manufacturing industries.
We are also concerned that the proposed regulations may cause unnecessary disruptions of the
minerals trade, which is vital to the livelihood of the people of the DRC. In order to minimize
these effects, without undermining the underlying legislative goals, IPC has recommended that
the SEC allow companies the flexibility to develop appropriate due diligence measures,
recognize ongoing efforts to improve the transparency of the supply chain, address the need to
phase in requirements, and provide the necessary time to implement these measures.
It is important that the regulations acknowledge the realities of the situation on the ground in the
DRC, the complexities oftheinternational minerals trade, and the broad and diverse global
electronics supply chain. We encourage your office to work with the SEC in an oversight
capacity to ensure the development of regulations meet legislative intent without uhduly
burdening U.S. manufacturing.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to identify proposed and existing regulations that will be a burden
to industry, job creation and the economy. We believe that the EPA's proposed modifications to
the Toxic Substances Control Act Inventory Update Reporting rule, EPA's re-opening of the
Definition of Solid Waste rule, and the SEC's proposed regulations on conflict minerals all
would impose costly and unnecessary regulatory requirements on U.S. manufacturers in
January 7,2011
Page 4
electronics and other industries. We therefore encourage you to conduct oversight ofthese
burdensome regulations and the implementing agencies.
We would be pleased to discuss the aforementioned issues in more detail. Fern Abrams, IPC's
director of government relations and environmental policy will contact your office to schedule a
meeting in the coming weeks.
Sincerely,
LC?)7}r~
Dennis P. McGuirk
President
Attachments
I. Comments ofthe IPC - Association Connecting Electronics Industries on the SEC

Regulatory Initiatives Under the Dodd-Frank Act Title XV: Miscellaneous Provisions-
Section 1502 Conflict Minerals
2. Comments of the IPC - Association Connecting Electronics Industries on the TSCA

Inventory Update Reporting Modifications Proposed Rule
3. Comments ofIPC - Association Connecting Electronics Industries on the Definition of Solid

Waste Rule
EOQLPUUBlOWNtl, Ni;W YORK, OAl'1fl~lLIO. IBM, CIIlJI'ORN1A,
OHAIRMAN fW'l1(1{>l(l MINOHm' MEMBER
PAULE, I<ANJORIOO, f>tNN&~LVANIJ\ ONE HUNDI1ED ELEVENTH CONGRESS OANBURTON, INDIANA

C/lROL'iN D. MALONEY, Nl!W i'OIl" JOHN.!.., MICA:, FLORIDA
Gl.lJAit 1:. OlJMM1NotJ, MMYI.ANQ JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR" TUNNESSEE
DeNNIS J. lWClNlCl-l,OH!O
JOHN F. TIERNEY, MA,SSA(:t1USl.::Tr3
WM. lAC'( ClAY, MISSOUfl]
OIAfillfE WATI,lON, GAl.lFOI1NIi\
(,onRte1\s' ot tbe Wntteb ~tate1\ MICHAEL R. TURN(in, OHIO
I.:iNNA. ~OAEAND. OEOR,(!llA
PAll'lICN I. M!ItlENAY. NORTH CMQI.JNA
ORlAN p, BILOAAY, CALIFORNIA
aTEPHEN r~ LVNCH, MI\SSA01JUSETTa
J!M CQOPa\, Tf.NNI,i.SSEB ~olll.leof ~cpreflelttlltfbel.l "I1M,JOBQAN, OHIO
JEI'!' !'LAKE, ARIZONA
t:lEAAl.O E. C,oNNl)U.Y. VIRGINIA Jt'fl' J'ORTENEERflY, Nr;:flRIISKA
MIKl!OUlGlBV, ILlINOIS ,JASON OHArfETZ, trfAH
1<,1.l\RCV KAPTUfI, OHIO COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM MROIJ.sQHOGK, IUJN01S
Elll\INE; WETKeMl.'Vl:1R, MIBflOUAI
l.!lEANClR HOI.Mf(1 NORTON,
DISTRICT Of COLUMBIA
PA11UCKJ. KENNEDY, Rl-lOfjE1SLAND
2157 RAYBURN HQUSE OFFICE BUILDING ANH ',IOSEPH" ,"'0,LOUISIANA
BllLSHlJSTr,fl, PF.NN1;oYIJ/ANJfI
OANNYltOAVIS, ilLINOIS
CHI'llS VAN HOLLl:N, MAAY!.ANO WASHINGTON, DC 205'15-6143
Hl!N1W CUl;I.LAR, 'rnXAS
PAUL W. Hom,s, /'n".,..UAMP"SIIlAl' Ml'JOlll'!\' l202lJl2(>-500'1
CHAIS1:{)f>HErl S. MURP/olY,.C',QNNECncl,JT 1'I'£.1IlMU< (ltl2} ~1f11l
PEHiB WELCH, VIillMONT MIN',>;lf'n' ~Nl:!.i 2,21h!'ltl14
BILLFOSTEH, lLUNOts
IN"~'1<.l'' Sl'EI\£!t dAUFORNIA www,overslohf.h.l2us6 ,g..ov
STINE DRlEHAU$, OHIO
JUlWQHU, ('.ftlJF{lnNIA December 2'1, 2ulO
Denny McGuirk
IPC, The Association Connecting Electronics Industries
3000 Lakeside Drive 309 S
Bannockburn, IL 60015
Dear Mr. McGuirk,
The Committee on Oversight and Government Refolln is ex.amining existing and

proposed regulations that negatively impact the ecollDmy and jobs.
In fiscal year 2010, federal agencies promulgated 43 major new regulations.

These regulations ranged ii'om new limits on "effluent" discharges to new rules for
Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations. The new limits on "eftIuent"
discharges from construction sites will cost $810.8 million annnally resulting in the
closure of 147 constmctiollfirrns and the loss of7,257 jobs. In total, the administration
estimated the cost, often referred to as the hidden tax, of the 43 new regnlations to be
approximately $28 billion, the highest single year increasein estimated burden on record,
resulting in thousands of lost jobs. This new burden is on top of the $1.75 trillion
estimated burden of existing regulations.
As a trade organization comprised of members that must comply with the

regulatory state, I ask for your assistance in identifYing existing and proposed regulations
that have negatively impacted job growth in your members' industry. Additionally,
suggestions on reforming identified regulations and the rule.making process would be
appreciated. Please submit your response as soon as possible, preferably before January
10,2010. IfyoLJ have any questions, please feel free to contact Kristina Moore at (202)
225-5074 or via email at Kristina.Moore@maII.house.gov.
arrelJ Issa
Ranking Member
cc: The Honorable Edolphus Towns, Chairman

Comments of
IPC - the Association Connecting Electronics Industries
on the
TSCA Inventory Update Reporting Modifications Proposed Rule
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0187
October 12, 2010
1901 North Moore Street
Suite 600
Arlington, VA 22209
IPC - Association Connecting 'Electronics Industries
October 12, 2010
Pg.1
Table of Contents
I. Introduction and Summary of Comments 2

II. Byproducts Should Not Be Regulated Under the IUR Rule .4
III. Proposed Changes Impose Unnecessary Burdens 5
IV. The Economic Analysis Is Inaccurate Due to Reliance on False Assumptions 8
V. The Instructions for 2011 Inventory Update Reporting as Proposed in the IUR
Modifications Rule Guidance Document is Confusing and Inconclusive 9
VI. Conclusion 11
Attachment A - Letter from IPC to EPA staff, Robert Lee dated March 12,2007 13
Attachment B - Letter from IPC to EPA staff, Robert Lee dated July 20, 2007 13
Attachment C - Letter from EPA staff, Robert Lee to IPC dated November 30, 2007 13
Attachment D - Letter from IPC to EPA staff, Robert Lee dated December 11, 2007 13
Attachment E - Letter from IPC to EPA staff, Robert Lee dated February 12,2008 13
IPC - Association Connecting Electronics Industries
October 12, 2010
Pg.2
I. Introduction and Summary of Comments
IPC - Association Connecting Electronics Industries appreciates the opportunity to comment on the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) proposed rule for the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) Modifications (hereafter referred to a~ the proposed
rule). IPC believes that the proposed rule will have a detrimental effect on the entire U.S.
manufacturing sector, including electronics, without providing commensurate benefit to human
health or the environment. IPC is seriously concerned that EPA's decision to treat byproducts sent
for recycling as new commercial chemicals subject to the IUR rule because byproducts are not new
chemicals intentionally manufactured for a commercial purpose. IPC is also concerned that the
proposed changes to the reporting requirements are extremely burdensome and would not serve to
enhance human health and environmental protection. Furthermore, the guidance documents on
byproducts reporting are insufficient and will only further confuse the regulated community. IPC
and its members strongly urge EPA to reconsider its interpretation that byproducts sent for
recycling are subject to the IUR rule, altering the proposed burdensome reporting requirements, and
improving the guidance documents to more clearly articulate the reporting requirements.
IPC, a global trade association, represents all facets of the electronic interconnection industry,
including design, printed board manufacturing and electronics assembly. Printed boards and
electronic assemblies are used in a variety of electronic devices that include computers, cell phones,
pacemakers, and sophisticated missile defense systems. IPC has more than 2,700 member
companies, 1,700 of which are located in the U.S. As a member-driven organization and leading
source for industry standards, training, market research and public policy advocacy, IPC supports
programs to meet the needs of an estimated $1.7 trillion global electronics industry.
IPC members are strong supporters of cost effective environmental protection. IPC and its members
are heavily involved in a number of voluntary environmental initiatives that promote cost effective
environmental protection, including several of EPA's Design for the Environment partnership
projects, the development of the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT)
standard I, and the development of a green chemistry standard through the National Standards
Foundation and Green Chemistry Institute. IPC members are dedicated to enhancing environmental
protection.
Byproducts should be exempt from the IUR rule. While byproducts are a direct result of non-
chemicals manufacturing, they are produced unintentionally, without a separate commercial intent.
IPC and its members strongly believe that Congress' original intent was to exempt most
manufacturing byproducts from TSCA regulations, including the IUR rule. While byproducts sent
for recycling should be exempt from reporting by the generator, any component chemical
substances extracted from the byproduct and manufactured for commerce by the recycler should be
reported as new chemicals under the IUR rule by the recycler. Many byproducts from industrial
manufacturing operations contain valuable materials that make them attractive for recycling and
reuse. For example, byproducts from printed circuit board (PCB) manufacturing contain a
1 http://www.epeat.net/
October 12, 2010
Pg. 3
considerable amount of copper compounds that can be extracted from the byproduct for reuse and
recycling. According to EPA's flawed logic, if a generator sends a copper containing byproduct for
recycling, these copper compounds become component chemical substances produced for a
commercial purpose and therefore subject to IUR reporting requirements by the generator. EPA has
wrongly interpreted the act of finding a useful purpose for what would otherwise be a waste
product, otherwise known as recycling, as somehow changing and transforming the byproduct into
an intentionally manufactured chemical. The regulatory burden imposed by this flawed
interpretation creates a strong disincentive to recycle. Given EPA's overall goal of promoting
recycling, EPA should strongly consider the implications of incorporating recycled byproducts
under TSCA IUR. Additionally, the treatment of byproducts sent for recycling as new chemicals
under the IUR rule, may have untended effects on other EPA rules. Some manufacturers may stop
reporting these byproducts under other programs such as the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCM) and the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) because they are now considered by EPA to
be new chemicals. IPC strongly urges EPA to exclude the reporting of all byproducts by the
generator from the IUR rule, regardless of whether they are disposed or sent for recycling.
EPA has proposed a number of changes to the reporting requirements which are extremely
burdensome and provide no clear benefit to the public or the environment. Many of the proposed
changes will inundate EPA with data that may not be useful or accurate. Both, the proposed
elimination of the threshold for reporting processing and use data and the proposed changes in the
methodology for determining whether a facility must report; will drastically increase the amount of
data received. IPC believes that EPA has not clearly assessed whether all of this data is needed, nor
has the Agency articulated how it will be able to efficiently and effectively utilize all ofthe data. If
EPA collects copious amounts of data without a clear plan for how that data will be used, industry
and Agency resources will be wasted. EPA should review appropriate changes, such as a reduced
reporting threshold, which will provide the rieeded data without imposing unnecessary burdens.
The Economic Analysis for the Proposed Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) Modifications Rule 2
conducted by EPA inadequately estimates the burdens and costs of the proposed rule on industry.
EPA has inaccurately assumed that the proposed rule will only impact chemical manufacturers and
the number of reports submitted in 2011 will remain unchanged from the number of reports
submitted in 2006. If EPA insists that byproducts sent for recycling are new chemicals reportable
under the IUR rule, EPA must address the fact that the proposed rule will impact countless industry
sectors and that the number of reports submitted will inevitably increase. EPA must revise their
economic analysis to include many additional industry sectors that will be impacted by the proposed
rule.
The Instructions for the 2011 Inventory Update Reporting as Proposed in the IUR Modifications
Rule3 guidance document does not provide the regulated community, specifically generators of
byproducts, with clarity on reporting obligations. Since TSCA IUR was originally intended to
regulate chemicals. If EPA insists that byproducts sent for recycling must be reported by their
generators as new chemicals under the IUR rule, the guidance document should clearly detail
2 http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#docu menlOetai I? R=0900006480b221b2

3 http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#docu menlOetaiI? R=0900006480b221af
October 12, 2010
Pg.4
reporting requirements for generators of byproducts. EPA must be extremely clear that byproducts
sent for recycling are subject to reporting under the IUR rule by both the generator and the recycler.
II. Byproducts Should Not Be Regulated Under the IUR Rule
A. Byproducts Sent for Recycling Should Not Be Subject to the IUR Rule
Byproducts should not be regulated under the IUR rule. Congress originally intended to exempt
byproducts under TSCA by providing broad exemptions. Most manufacturing byproducts sent for
recycling meet the byproduct exclusions in 40 CFR Section nO.3(g) of the IUR regulation:
"Any byproduct if its only commercial purpose is for use by public or private
organizations that (l) bum it as fuel, (2) dispose of it as a waste, including in a landfill or
for enriching soil, or (3) extract component chemical substances from it for commercial
purposes. (This exclusion only applies to the byproduct; it does not apply to the
component chemical substances extracted from the byproduct)." (Emphasis added.)
The act of sending a byproduct for recycling does not change the fact that Congress intended to
exempt byproducts. EPA's interpretation that byproducts sent for recycling are reportable under the
IUR rule subverts Congress' intent and TSCA's mandate. The IUR rule is intended to regulate new
chemicals that are produced for a commercial intent/purpose. Byproducts are produced .
coincidentally and do not have a commercial intent. PCB manufacturers do not generate these
byproduct mixtures for commercial purposes. Rather, the byproducts are unintended consequences
of the manufacturing ofarticles.IPC does not believe TSCA's· intent and mandate is to regulate
byproducts as new chemicals. These arguments were made to EPA in 2007 and 2008 and can be
found in the attachments. We urge EPA to exempt all byproducts, including those that are recycled,
from TSCA IUR.
B. Recycling ofByproducts Into New Chemicals Should Be Reported By the Recycler
Although IPC does not believe byproducts sent for recycling are new chemicals reportable under
the IUR rule, if EPA insists that data is needed on the recycling of byproducts, the reporting should
be provided by the recycler, not the· byproduct generator. In a letter from EPA to IPC on November
·30, 200'f, EPA stated, "When a manufacturer recycles a byproduct, the manufacturer needs to
consider whether any obligations arise under TSCA... " (Emphasis added.) Manufacturers do not
recycle the byproducts they generate, recyclers do. The regulation clearly states that excluding
byproducts when component chemical substances are extracted from it applies to the byproduct, not
the component chemical substances. The component chemical substances are extracted, processed,
and resold on the market by the recycler and therefore, the reporting requirements should be the
responsibility of the recycler. Furthermore, recyclers will have data on the processing and use of the
component chemical substances that are extracted, since they would be selling the final chemical
product. Recyclers should be required to report on the byproducts they recycle under the IUR rule,
not the generator ofthe byproduct.
, See Attachment C.
October 12, 2010
Pg.5
C. The Proposed Rule Contradicts Other EPA Regulations and Programs
The proposed rule appears to contradict other EPA regulations and programs. According to the
proposed rule, if a manufacturer decides to send a byproduct for recycling they are subject to IUR
reporting. The significant burden of meeting both existing and proposed additional reporting
requirements creates a disincentive to recycle, which directly contradicts EPA's overall goals of
promoting recycling and enhancing human health and environmental protection. Exemption of all
byproducts that are recycled for the IUR rule would unify EPA's policies and send a clear message
of EPA's support for recycling.
The proposed rule would impact other EPA regulations. Some manufacturers may stop reporting
these byproducts under other EPA programs such as RCRA and TRI because they are now
considered by EPA to be new chemicals. The inherent contradiction of simultaneously regulating
byproducts as new chemicals and wastes will cause significant confusion among manufacturers in
many industries and impact the data quality for multiple EPA regulations. EPA should exclude all
byproducts from the IUR rule, including those that are recycled, in order for Agency regulations to
be harmonized.
D. EPA Should Conduct an Environmental Justice Study ofthe Proposed Rule
EPA should conduct a thorough environmental justice analysis of the potential adverse impacts of
this proposed rule on disadvantage communities. If the proposed rule goes into effect, the
disincentive to recycle will increase the volume of materials in landfills. Landfills are typically
located in disadvantage communities. Sending more materials to a landfill will have adverse
impacts on the environment (air and soil contamination) and human health. All EPA agencies are
required to do an environmental justice analysis of every proposed rule. IPC strongly believes that
EPA has not tal(en into consideration the disincentive to recycle fostered by the increased cost and
paperwork burdens of the proposed rule; and therefore request EPA conduct a thorough
environmental justice analysis ofthe proposed rule.
III. Proposed Changes Impose Unnecessary Burdens
The proposed changes to the IUR reporting requirements are extremely burdensome and do not
ensure enhanced human health and environmental protection. Many of the proposed changes will
impose a significant reporting burden without providing a clear and compelling explanation of the
need for the data. EPA should identify how the extra data they are requesting will be used and limit
the required reporting to only the data needed in order to not waste industry and EPA resources.
A. The Proposed Method/or Determining Whether a Facility Must Report is

Burdensome
EPA's proposal to require manufacturers to report under the IUR rule if the production volume ofa
reportable chemical is above the threshold during any year since the last principal reporting year is
unrealistic and burdensome. Generators of byproducts have not collected data on the production
volumes of the component chemical substances contained within their byproducts because they
October 12, 2010
Pg.6
never considered themselves to be subject to TSCA IUR. Identifying and tracking the volume of
each component chemical substance within each byproduct on an annual basis would require costly
analysis and analytical verification of the component chemical substances within the byproducts.
Analyzing the byproducts may not produce accurate determinations of the amount of each
component chemical substance present in the byproduct. The byproduct generator cannot determine
what component chemical substances will be extracted and in what quantities. Manufacturers
should only be required to report under the IUR rule if the production volume of a reportable
chemical substance is above the threshold during the principal reporting year only.
B. The Proposed Definition of "Manufacture" is Inaccurate
The proposed definition of "manufacture" improperly combines the act of manufacturing with the
act of extracting. The proposed definition is:
"[T]o manufacture, produce, or import for commercial purposes. Manufacture includes the
extraction, for commercial purposes, of a component chemical substance or a complex
combination of substances. When a chemical substance, manufactured other than by import,
is: I) Produced exclusively for another person who contracts for such production 2) That
other person specifies the identity ofthe chemical substance and controls the total amount
produced and the basic technology for the plant process, that chemical substance is jointly
manufactured by the producing manufacturer and the person contracting for such
production."
Extraction is different from manufacturing and therefore should not be included in the definition of
"manufacture." According to the Webster Dictionary5, manufacture is defined as:
"[T]he operation of making wares, or any products by hand, by machinery, or by other

agency. Anything made from raw materials by hand, machinery, or by art." (Emphasis
added.)
Extraction, according to the Webster Dictionary6, is defined as:
"To draw out or forth; to pull out; to remove forcibly from a fixed position, as by traction or
suction."
Manufacturing deals with making a new entity from raw materials; it does not encompass
removing something from a product or chemical mixture. If EPA considers it necessary to collect
data on extracted chemical substances, they should state that the person doing the extracting is
required to report under the IUR rule. EPA should remove all references to "extraction" from their
proposed definition of "manufacture."
C. Proposed Changes to Increase Data Collected are Burdensome and Unnecessary
5 http://www.webster-dictionary.net/definition/manufacture
6 http://www.webster-dictionary.net/definition/Extract
October 12, 2010
Pg. 7
The proposed changes to eliminate the 300,000 lb. threshold for requiring processing and use data
and increase the reporting frequency are burdensome and unnecessary. The extra data EPA would
receive will require expeditious analysis of the data by the Agency in order to have an immediate,
direct benefit to the public. EPA has not stated whether additional staff will be hired in order to
analyze and evaluate the copious amomlts of data that will be submitted. If EPA cannot rapidly
expedite the data analysis to the public then more frequent data collection will represent a burden to
industry with no commensurate benefit to society. EPA should gather data that is needed for
specific purposes and programs, rather than requesting a vast data set from which the Agency may
pick and choose pieces for undefined future uses. EPA should not increase the reporting frequency
or eliminate the 300,000 lb. threshold for reporting processing and use data.
D. The Proposed Rule Requires Duplicative Reporting
The proposed rule violates the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) by requiring duplicative reporting.
According to the PRA, the proposed rule cannot require data to be reported that is already collected
through other agencies. The proposed lOR rule requires manufacturers to report worker exposure
data - information that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) currently
collects through existing regulations and standards. At a minimum, EPA must explain how their
data needs cannot be met with the OSHA data on worker exposures. Under EPA's interpretation
that byproducts are new chemicals reportable under the IUR rule, many data elements would be
reported by the recycler ofthe byproduct as well as the generator of the byproduct. EPA should
only require recyclers of byproducts to report under the lOR rule in order to avoid duplicative
reporting. EPA should reevaluate the data elements they are proposing to collect to ensure
duplicative reporting does not occur among Federal agencies and industry.
E. The Timing ofThis Rulemaking is Extremely Late; 2010 Data Should Not Be
Reported
EPA should change the reporting year to 2011 since the Agency has yet to finalize reporting
requirements. Requiring manufacturers to go back and gather data will cause significant data quality
issues because of unreliable estimates. Since manufacturers did not know at the beginning of2010
what data they should be collecting in order to comply with the lOR rule, they will be forced to
estimate data elements that were not required during the last reporting cycle. Manufacturers that
never reported under the IUR rule will be forced to estimate all data elements required to be
reported. For example, manufacturers that produce chemicals below 300,000 pounds per year will
face a host of new processing and use data requirements under the proposed rule. Although
postponing the submission period to a later four-month period in 2011 would be helpful to give
manufacturers more time to gather data, it will not solve data quality issues. To avoid potential data
quality issues, EPA should strongly consider postponing the reporting year to 20 II with reports due
in 2012.
F. Mandatory Electronic Reporting is Unreasonable and Could Cause Legal

Complications
October 12, 2010
Pg.8
Electronic reporting should not be mandatory. There are significant timing, reliability, and legal
issues with requiring all manufacturers to submit IUR reports electronically. EPA will have limited
time to develop and test the software since the reporting period will begin, at best, only a few
months after a final rule is published. EPA must also train their staff on how to use the software and
assist manufacturers that may have difficulties using the software. With the increased number of
manufacturers likely to report under the IUR rule, EPA will need to ensure the electronic reporting
system can handle the massive increase in the number of reports. Mandatory electronic reporting
leaves no other legal way for manufacturers to comply with the law if the electronic reporting
system does not function properly. Due to the limited amount of time EPA has to guarantee the
functionality and reliability of the electronic reporting system so that all manufacturers can comply
with the law, EPA should not require electronic reporting for the 2010 IUR reporting year.
IV. The Economic Analysis Is Inaccurate Due to Reliance on False Assumptions
The Economic Analysis for the Proposed Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) Modifications Rule
relies on several false assumptions that result in a significant underestimation of the burden and
costs to industry. The methodology discussion in Section 4, Industry Burden and Cost Estimates,
identifies only chemical companies as affected entities. Based on EPA's interpretation that
byproducts sent for recycling are new chemicals reportable under the IUR rule, the economic
analysis of the proposed changes to the IUR rule must address the wide range of industries that
manufacturebyproducts in order to accurately estimate the burden of the proposed rule. EPA must
identify all affected industries, facilities that will be reporting for the first time, and the additional
burdens imposed by the changes in the reporting requirements. If the entire economic analysis is
based on the assumptions that the revised IUR rule will only impact chemical manufacturers and
that the number of reports submitted will not increase, all estimations and predictions are
misleading or wrong. EPA must redo the economic analysis to incorporate all affected industries,
not just chemical manufacturers, and the likelihood of an increase in the number of reports
submitted.
A. EPA Underestimates the Burdenfor Providing Mamifactured Production Volumes
EPA underestimates the burden on manufacturers to provide manufactured production volumes.

The estimated burden of 1.5 hours may be accurate for chemical manufacturers, but it greatly
. underestimates the burden to many byproducts generators who would be reporting for the first time
if EPA insists tlmt byproducts sent for recycling are new chemicals reportable under the IUR rule.
Many manufacturers reporting under the IUR rule for the first time in 20 I I have not been collecting
data on production volumes. Many electronics manufacturers have never considered the byproducts
they generate to be new chemicals and therefore have not been collecting and tracking the
production volume of each component chemical substance which mayor may not be recovered
from their byproducts. Determining the volume for each component chemical substance will require
labor and analytical testing. For example, each container of electronics manufacturing byproducts
contains different concentrations of component chemical substances. It would talce considerably
longer than 1.5 hours for electronics manufacturers to detennine the production volume of each
component chemical substance in all the byproducts recycled ·in a single year. EPA's estimate of the
total burden for providing production volumes is not even close to being appropriate for all affected
industries and must be recalculated.
October 12, 2010
Pg.9
B. EPA Should Not Assume the Number ofReports in 2011 Will Not Change From 2006
EPA makes an extremely poor assumption (page 4-10) that the baseline number of reports
submitted will not change from the 2006 submissions. If the proposed rule is enacted as it currently
reads, hundreds of manufacturing facilities that never previously reported under the IUR rule will be .
required to report. Additionally, there are several proposed changes to the IUR rule that will cause
an increase in the number of reports submitted during 2011. Eliminating the 300,000 lb. threshold
for processing and use data will increase the number of full reports submitted in 2011. Proposed
changes in the methodology for determining if a manufacturer is required to report will also cause
an increase in the number of reports submitted. Estimates EPA made on the burden and cost to
industry that were based on 2006 submissions are inaccurate and should be recalculated.
C. EPA Does Not Adequately Assess the Burden ofCollecting and Reporting Processing and
Use Data
EPA's assumptions on the burden for reporting detailed processing and use data is grossly
underestimated. For electronics manufacturers, the task to determine if reporting is required is
neither simple nor straightforward because the component chemical substances within the
byproducts they produce will vary from batch to batch. In the same regard, reporting processing and
use data for the component chemical substances within the byproducts would be speculative and
most likely inaccurate. Processing and use ofthe component chemical substances is determined by
the recycler and typically proprietary. In most instances, the recycler will know the processing and
use information of the chemicals; therefore, the reporting requirements should be the responsibility
ofthe recycler. EPA should recalculate the expected burden on industry to provide processing and
use data to include manufacturing sectors that recycle their byproducts and were never subject to the
IUR rule in the past.
V. The Instructions for 2011 Inventory Update Reporting as Proposed in the IUR
Modifications Rule Guidance Document is Confusing and Inconclusive
The Instructions for 2011 Inventory Update Reporting as Proposed in the IUR Modifications Rule
guidance document is confusing and inconclusive because it does not provide clear, uniform
guidance on byproducts reporting and contradicts reporting requirements put forth in the proposed
rule. EPA should ensure that the guidance documents provided are clear, straightforward, and align
with the proposed changes to the IUR rule.
A. EPA's Explanation ofByproducts Reporting is Unclear
In the guidance docwnent, EPA does not clearly state that byproducts sent for recycling are subject
to the IUR rule. The definition of an IUR reportable chemical does not include byproducts sent for
recycling. The definition in the guidance document states that an IUR reportable chemical is:
"[AJ chemical substance that is domestically manufactured or imported into the US, is listed
on the TSCA Inventory, and is not exempted by 40 CFR 711.6 in TSCA."
October 12, 2010
Pg. 10
Electronics manufacturers do not consider the byproducts or the component chemical substances
contained within byproducts as, "a chemical substance that is domestically manufactured or
imported into the U.S." If EPA insists that byproducts sent for recycling are new chemicals
reportable under the IUR rule, EPA should require the recycler to report the component chemical
substances extracted from the byproduct.
IPC has repeatedly requested clarification of the Agency's byproduct reporting guidance. IPC and
its members strongly encourage EPA to issue broad guidance on byproducts reporting rather than
trying to evaluate thousands of byproducts produced by hundreds of processes in dozens of
industries on an individual basis. EPA would be undertaking a huge task if every manufacturing
byproduct needed to be individually evaluated to determine whether it was reportable under the IUR .
rule. Since 2007, IPC has sent several letters and met with EPA on multiple occasions requesting a
clear and logical explanation of why all byproducts should not be excluded from the IUR rule. 7 IPC
has also asked EPA to provide examples of a byproduct that would be exempt from TSCA IUR
other than by disposal. In other words, we request examples of byproducts that meet the
byproducts exclusion in 40 CFR nO.3(g)(3). EPA should include these examples in the guidance
document to assist generators of byproducts in determining whether they are obligated to report
tinder the IUR rule. EPA must provide clear guidance on byproducts reporting that addresses the
issue broadly to cover all byproducts, rather than on an individual basis.
The guidance document is confusing because it references contradictory definitions of byproducts.

EPA should always refer to the definitions in 40 CPR Section 704.3 8 in order to provide consistent
definitions to the regulated community. Section 2. J.1.2 ofthe guidance document, Byproducts and
Impurities, states that byproducts:
"[A]re produced for the purpose ofobtaining a commercial advantage because they are
part of the manufacture of a chemical product for a commercial purpose." (Emphasis added.)
However, in 40 CPR 704.3 byproducts are defined as:
"[A] chemical substance produced without a separate commercial intent during the
manufacture, processing, use, or disposal of another chemical substance(s) or mixture(s)."
(Emphasis added.)
The definition in the guidance document states that byproducts are intentionally produced while the
definition in 40 CPR Section 704.3 states that byproducts are coincidentally produced. The
definition of byproducts in the proposed IUR rule and corresponding guidance should exactly match
the definitions currently under 40 CPR Section 704.3 of TSCA.
B. The Guidance Document Confuses the Definition of "Manufacture for Commercial

Purpose"
7The attachments contain correspondence letters between IPC and EPA's Office 01 Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
8Title 40 Protection 01 Environment Chapter 1 Environmentai Protection Agency Part 704 Reporting and
Recordkeepi ng Req uirements. http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_OS/40cI004_0S.html.
October 12, 2010
Pg.ll
The definition of "manufacture for commercial purpose" in the guidance document is likely to
confuse readers. EPA contradicts itself by first stating that "manufacturing for a commercial
purpose/advantage" is intentional and then stating that "manufacturing for a commercial
purpose/advantage" is coincidental. On page 2-3 of the guidance document, EPA first states that
the term "manufacture for commercial purpose" means "that the chemical is produced for the
purpose of obtaining a commercial advantage." (Emphasis added.) As EPA does not define
commercial advantage, determining whether a manufacturer is obtaining a commercial advantage
from the manufacture of a chemical creates ambiguity through its subjectivity. Later on page 2"3,
EPA references 40 CFR Section 704.3 noting, "chemicals that are produced coincidentally during
the manufacture, processing, use, or disposal of another substance or mixture, including both
byproducts that are separated and impurities that remain in a substance or mixture." (Emphasis
added.) The guidance document does not help manufacturers determine whether a chemical is
manufactured for a commercial purpose because the two definitions referenced on page 2-3 are
contradictory. EPA should only refer to the definitions in 40 CFR Section 704.3 ofTSCA to avoid
confusion and ambiguity.
C. The Methodfor Determining Whether a Facility Needs to Report Contradicts the Proposed
Rule
The portion of the guidance document that discusses the method for determining whether a facility
is required to report under the IUR rule contradicts the proposed rule. The guidance document states
that manufacturers are required to report if the chemical is produced above the 25,000 lb. threshold
in the principal reporting year. The proposed rule states that:
"the proposed method [for determining whether a facility must report] would be to
determine whether, for any calendar year since the past principal reporting year, a
chemical substance was manufactured (including imported) at a site in production volumes
25,000 Ibs. or greater. ..Ifthe production volume for a reportable chemical substance were
25,000 Ibs. or greater for any calendar year during the 4-year period [2006-2010] then
it would be necessary to report the chemical substance unless it were otherwise exempt"
(pg. 49633). (Emphasis added.)
On page 1-3 of the guidance document in Table I-I Who is Required to Report it states that
manufacturers of chemical substances over 25,000 Ibs. per site per year are required to report ifthe
production volume of a chemical substance met or exceeded the 25,000 lb. threshold during the
principal reporting year. Also, the second example in Table 2-3 on page 2-13 further contradicts the
proposed rule. The example states that Company B has one manufacturing site, which manufactured
26,000 Ibs. of Chemical X in 2009 and 20,000 Ibs. of chemical X in 2010. The reporting
requirement stated in the table is that Company B is not required to report for Chemical X because
it manufactured less than 25,000 Ibs. of Chemical X in 2010. In order for the guidance document to
be effective in assisting manufacturers in submitting IUR reports, it must be consistent with the
proposed rule.
VI. Conclusion
October 12, 2010
Pg. 12
IPC and its members strongly urge EPA to exclude all byproducts, including those that are recycled,
from reporting under the IUR rule because they do not serve a commercial purpose. If EPA
maintains their interpretation that byproducts sent for recycling are new chemicals reportable under
the IUR rule EPA will discourage recycling and may negatively impact other EPA programs by
generating confusion about the reporting status of byproducts. If EPA determines that data is needed
on byproducts sent for recycling then EPA should require the recycler to report under the IUR rule,
. not the generator. IPC also encourages EPA to review the proposed changes to the reporting
requirements to ensure minimal resources are expended by industry and EPA to obtain only the data
that is needed. In reevaluating the impact of the proposed rule on generators of byproducts, we
expect EPA to recalculate the burden and costs to industry and modify their guidance documents to
adequately guide the regulated community.
October 12, 2010
Pg.13
Attachments
Attachment A - Letter from IPC to EPA staff, Robert Lee dated March 12, 2007
Attachment B - Letter from IPC to EPA staff, Robert Lee dated July 20, 2007
Attachment C - Letter from EPA staff, Robert Lee to IPC dated November 30, 2007
Attachment D - Letter from IPC to EPA staff, Robert Lee dated December 11,2007
Attachment E - Letter from IPC to EPA staff, Robert Lee dated February 12,2008
Comments
· of
IPC - The Association Connecting Electronics Industries
on the
Definition ofSolid Waste Rule
EPA-llQ-RCRA-2009-0315
AUGUST 13,2009
1901 NORTH MOORE STREET SUITE 600
ARLINGTON, VA 22209
IPC- the Association Connecting Electronics Industries believes that the EPA has carefully
balanced the promotion of recycling through the removal of regulatory barriers with necessary
protections ofthe environment, thus offering strong environmental benefits with limited impact
to society. We therefore urge the EPA to deny the Sierra Club's petition to reopen the Definition
of Solid Waste (DSW) rule.
IPC is a global trade association representing over 2,700 member companies, approximately 75
percent of which are in located in the United States. IPC represents all facets of the electronics
interconnect industry, including design, printed circuit board manufacturing and electronics
assembly. Printed circuit boards and electronic assemblies are used in a variety of electronic
devices including cell phones, computers, pacemakers, automobiles, and sophisticated missile
defense systems. Although IPC members include electronic giants, sixty percent of IPC members
are small businesses. The typical IPC member has one hundred employees and a profit margin
of less than four percent.
IPC believes the DSW rule is an important step towards more fully realizing the resource
conservation goals of RCRA. EPA's analysis indicates that over two thousand industrial
.facilities are expected to switch from disposal to recycling under the provisions of this rule. In
particular, the transfer-based exclusion provides an important and significant opportunity for
increasing the recycling of secondary materials.
IPC believes that the rule strikes a delicate and appropriate balance between removing regulatory
barriers in order to encourage recycling and EPA's mandate to maintain environmental
protections. Contrary to the Sierra Club's characterization of the 2008 DSW rule as a "Midnight
Rule," the EPA staff has been working on the definition of solid waste since the early 1980's.
EPA has amassed a significant and thorough docket to support the provisions selected, including
transfer-based exclusions, codification of mandatory and for-consideration criteria for
legitimacy, and notification requirements. Through selection of these protective requirements to
prevent impacts to human health, EPA has addressed the issue of environmental justice, as there
can be no disparate negative impacts ifthere are no negative impacts. We believe that EPA
should not contradict its previous judgment by reopening the rule, nor should it entertain
additional provisions which would overregulate the excluded materials.
IPC appreciates the opportunity to offer these Comments in support of the DSW Rule.
I. General Comments
In 1976 when Congress passed RCRA, it was directed at addressing very real environmental
concerns related to improper releases of hazardous materials. The rwe's stated intent was not.
only to prevent improper management of hazardous waste, but to encourage material reuse and
recovery:
1
"As originally conceived, RCRA was designed primarily as a system of controls
over the management of wastes in this country, with two fundamental mandates:
protect human health and the environment, and conserve resources." I
Over the years, a number of independent published studies, summarized in EPA's Regulatory
2
Impact Analysis , identified theRCRA regulatory structure as a barrier to recycling. In 1999,
the Energy & Environmental Research Center found, "Regulatory barriers result from the EPA
RCRA designation [coal combustion byproducts] as solid wastes even when they are utilized
rather than disposed of. In the absence of special approval and permitting procedures that
discourage. the use of coal combustion byproducts because of cost and the time required to
complete adjudicatory processes.,,3 .
In 1995, the Reason Foundation stated,
"So whatever recycling is, RCRA applies to it and doesn't apply to virgin
materials used as commercial products - even though recycling operations are
already subject to the same environmental regulations as comparable activities
using virgin materials, like the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the
Occupational Safety and Health Act, Superfund, and the Emergency Planning and
Community Right to Know Act, and the Toxic Substances and Control Act.
Many perfectly acceptable and reusable (and regulated) raw materials - salts of
heavy metals, acids, toxlc solvents, water-reactive material, and so on - become
RCRA hazardous wastes the moment they are 'discarded,' whatever that means,
which virtually guarantees that few people will recycle them ....The EPA's
distinctions are important because they affect all recycling operations - and
sometimes they destroy the incentive to recycle instead of throw away.,,4
In EPA's July 2003 publication, Beyond RCRA, Waste and Materials Management in the Year
2020, EPA recognized the need for reform stating,
"Creating.a system truly oriented towards efficient use of resources could also
require fundamental changes ... so that materials now considered wastes would
be seen, whenever possible, as commodities with potential uses. One approach to
making such a system work would be to identify materials as "wastes" only when
they are clearly destined for disposal; ... that is "materials management" rather
than "waste management." Reducing distinctions between wastes and materials
'Beyond RCRA, Waste and Materials Management in the Year 2020, US EPA, Office of Solid Waste, EPA530-R-
02-009, April 2003. ,
2 Regulatory Impact Analysis, USEPA's 2008 Final Rule Amendments to the Industrial Recycling Exclusions of the
RCRA Definition of Solid Waste, September 25, 2008.
3 EERC, Barriers to the Increased Utilization of Coal Combustion/Desulfurization By~Products by government and
Commercial Sectors - Update 1998, EERC Topical Report, July 1999.
4 The Reason Foundation, "Recycling Hazardous Waste: How RCRA Has Recyclers Running Around in
CERCLAS, October 1995.
2
could dramatically improve recycling and reuse rates and, therefore, make great
contributions towards conservation ofresources."s
II. The DSW Rule Provides Important Environmental Benefits
We believe the 2008 DSW rule represents an essential step in enabling EPA to move toward a
future where the focus of RCRA is on resource conservation. Under the rule, secondary materials
that would be considered hazardous waste if discarded will increasingly be recycled, reclaimed,
and otherwise beneficially re-used. EPA's Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA)6 estimates that in
addition to providing valuable economic benefits to the beleaguered manufacturing sector, over
2,400 industrial facilities are expected to switch from disposal to recycling, resulting in the
diversion of over 20,000 tons per year of waste from landfills into beneficial reuse. By
reopening the rule, EPA would be delaying the significant benefits identified in the RIA.
Metal sludge, created through the treatment of wastewater from the electroplating of printed
circuit boards and other items, is one of the secondary materials that will more commonly be
recycled under the provisions of DSW. Electroplating wastewater treatment sludge represents
one of the largest sources of untapped metal-bearing secondary material in the United States. As
a result of the cost of recycling under RCRA hazardous waste regulations, landfilling has been
the dominant choice for final disposal of electroplating sludge. 7 This sludge often contains
metals at a concentration that is significantly higher than that occurring in nature. For example,
copper ore normally contains less than one percent copper, whereas copper sludge from the
printed circuit board industry averages 10 to 15 percent copper. However, because landfilling is
generally less expensive than metals recovery under RCRA hazardous waste regulations, most
metals-rich sludge has been landfilled, wasting valuable resources.
Under the restrictions allowing recycling only by heavily regulated RCRA Treatment, Storage
and Disposal facilities, very few companies have undertaken the recycling of electroplating
sludge, creating monopoly-like conditions and monopolistic prices. The transfer-based exclusion
in the DSW rule empowers the marketplace to create new and cost-effective recycling options
that produce the win-win situation of reducing the mining of virgin metals and saving money.
Suppliers of etching solutions are a potential new recycler of electroplating sludge from PCB
manufacturers. However the need to become a RCRA-permitted Treatment, Storage and
Disposal Facility (TSDF) in order to perform recycling under EPA's RCRA hazardous waste
regulations has deterred these facilities from pursuing this type of copper recycling. When
electroplating sludge is mixed into spent etchant, the residual acid or alkaline content in spent
etchant dissolves the electroplating sludge to produce the same dissolved copper compounds as
the spent etch contains. Under current RCRA regulations, etchant suppliers have not been
interested in receiving this mixture, as it would require them to operate under costly and
5 Beyond RCRA, Waste and Materials Management in the Year 2020, US EPA, Office of Solid Waste, EPA530-R-
02-009, April 2003.
6 Regulatory Impact Analysis, USEPA's 2008 Final Rule Amendments to the Industrial Recycling Exclusions ofthe
RCRA Definition of Solid Waste, September 25, 2008.
7 EPA Common Sense Initiative, Metal'Finishing Sector, Workgroup Report: F006 Benchmarking Study, September
1998. Available from the at National Metal Finishing Resource Center at http://www.nmfrc.org/pdf/ftl06fin,pdf
3
burdensome TSDF regulations. Under the DSW rule, this combined mixture could be shipped to
the etchant supplier for recycling, allowing the PCB manufacturer to eliminate separate
shipments of electroplating sludge and etchant.
III. The Transfer-Based Exclusion is a Critical Part of the DSW Rule
The transfer-based exclusion provides the greatest opportunity for increasing the recycling of
secondary materials. As the Regulatory Impact Analysis makes clear, 92% of the cost savings
from the DSW rule are expected to be realized at facilities using the transfer-based exclusion, at
a value of over $87 million per year. Many of the secondary materials produced in the
electronics interconnect and other manufacturing sectors are most efficiently recycled or
reclaimed by manufacturers of other products or goods. Economies of scale, along with differing
input needs, allow manufacturers in one sector to make efficient use of secondary materials
produced by another manufacturing sector. Because the generator of secondary materials views
them as such, they do not retain control of these materials, but provide them to other companies
whose recycling and reclamation processes lay outside their line of business. By excluding
materials manufactured by one company and transferred to another company for recycling or
reclamation from RCRA hazardous waste regulations, this rule will greatly increase the
opportunity and likelihood that secondary materials will be recycled.
Repealing the transfer-based exclusion, returning to the anachronistic NAICS code system as
proposed in 2003, or limiting the exclusion to situations where the generator is paid for the
secondary materials, or any combination thereof-all options proposed by EPA-would render
the DSW rule effectively meaningless. We strongly urge EPA not to take any of these actions.
Similarly, we urge the EPA not to repeal the provisions under the transfer-based exclusion
applicable to intermediate facilities. Not only has the EPA required the same strict management
conditions for intermediate facilities to ensure legitimate, recycling as it did for reclamation
facilities, this provision is necessary for many ofthe small business entities that do not generate
enough secondary materials at one time to make recycling economically effective. EPA
.recognized this in the preamble to the rule stating,
"We believe that such facilities make it easier for generators that generate smaller
quantities of hazardous secondary materials to send these materials for
reclamation and that storage at such facilities under the conditions designed to
address discard is completely consistent with handling the hazardous secondary
materials as valuable commodities." 8
Repealing this provision would have a large, and unforeseen, impact on the ability of many;
otherwise legitimate generators, especially small businesses, to use the exclusion.
IV. Legitimacy Criteria
8 73 Fed. Reg. at 64730
4
As EPA recognizes, the four criteria as promulgated "are substantively the same as the existing
legitimacy policy.,,9 EPA's codification of both mandatory and for-consideration criteria as
promulgated has the benefit of promoting national consistency while providing enough
flexibility to address individual circumstances. Moreover, as EPA notes in the preamble to the
DSW rule, "it is well understood throughout the regulated community" that all recycling must be
"legitimate," and any recycling that is not, is "discarded" and subject to RCRA Subtitle C
regulation. None of these principles have changed, and re-opening the rule to turn the two non-
mandatory legitimacy criteria into mandatory criteria serves no beneficial purpose, and would
come at a significant cost.
For example, while economic factors may be used to establish the usefulness of the secondary
material to the recycling process, variations in the prices of transportation, recycled materials and
raw materials, render the requirement to meet a specific economic test inappropriate.
Furthermore, as is the case under the current regulatory scheme, recycling a material may be
more costly than disposal. Nonetheless, a company, wishing to lessen its environmental
footprint, may choose to pay for recycling. This decision should not be deemed to render the
recycling illegitimate. Requiring that recycling always result in positive payments to the
generator would inappropriately shift the focus of the regulation to economic factors, as opposed
to environmental ones.
The requirement that a product not contain significant levels of toxic constituents as compared to
analogous products, if rigidly implemented, could result in missed recycling opportunities that do
not constitute a risk to human health or the environment. In some cases, products made from
recycled materials may contain higher levels of hazardous constituents than those made from
virgin materials. Because ofthe importance of recycling and reusing materials, a case-by-case
evaluation as to the significance of the hazardous constituents, given particular focus to the risk
presented by the product may be most appropriate.
V. EPA Does not Need to Further Define Contained
The Sierra Club petition argues that the terms "contained" and "significant release" are
intpermissibly vague. On the contrary, EPA has clearly identified the applicable performance
standard for determining when material is contained stating,
"Generally, such material is "contained" ifit is placed in a unit that controls the
movement of the hazardous secondary material out ofthe unit and into the
. ,,10
environment.
The EPA further states,
9 See 73 Fed. Reg. 64,708 (Oel. 30, 2008).

10 73 Fed. Reg. at 64681.
5
"A hazardous secondary material is "contained" ifit is placed in a unit that
controls the movement of that material out of the unit. This requirement is
consistent with the idea that normal manufacturing processes are designed to use
valuable material inRuts efficiently rather to than allow them to be released into
the environment." I .
EPA should not, as suggested in their federal register notice, further define "contained." If EPA
takes this path, it will change the concept of contained from a way of identifying materials that
have not been discarded to an inappropriate regulatory condition on material that isthat it has
already determined is not discarded.
In the preamble to the rule, EPA stated that,
"After evaluating these comments, the Agency has decided not to add
performance standards or other requirements for managing hazardous secondary
materials excluded under any of the exclusions promulgated today (§§
261.2(a)(2)(ii), 261.4(a)(23), or 261.4(a)(24)). Such detailed measures are
unnecessary for hazardous secondary materials that are handled as valuable
products that are destined for recycling. Under today's rule, regulatory authorities
can determine whether such materials in a unit are contained by considering all
such site-specific circumstances. For example, local conditions can greatly affect
whether hazardous secondary materials managed in a surface impoundment are
likely to leale and cause damage, and, therefore, whether the unit could be
considered contained. Similarly, facilities may employ such measures as liners,
leak detection measures, inventory control and tracking, control of releases, or,
monitoring and inspections. Any or all ofthese practices may be used to
determine whether the hazardous secondary materials are contained in the unit.,,12
We agree with EPA's analysis and urge the agency not to change its well thought-out position.
However, should the agency feel the need to further clarify what it means by contained, we
encourage the agency to provide clariflcation through guidance.
VI. Notification
The notification requirement is sufficient as structured and already enforceable under RCRA.
Facilities will comply with the notification provisions whether they are a condition of the
exclusion or not. Failure to do so would constitute a violation of RCRA notification provisions
and subject the facility/operation to an enforcement action.
VII. Environmental Justice
11 73 Fed. Reg. at 64703.

12 73 Fed. Reg. at 64729.
6
Environmental Justice is an important issue affecting all Americans. For many years,
economically disadvantaged Americans served as the proverbial canary in the coal mine, alerting
America to the dangers posed by misuse of environmental resources. Happily, with the creation
of the EPA, protection of all ,Americans is now a foremost goal of the EPA.
In the many years during which this rule was developed, EPA carefully studied the history of
environmental'damage associated with waste management and developed appropriate controls to
prevent further damage under the conditions of this rule.
As discussed in chapter 11 of the RIA 13 which addresses countervailing risks and demonstrates
how the rule protects against the risks identified by the damage cases studied by EPA, EPA
, concluded that:
"As displayed at the bottom of Exhibit llC, this comparison (i.e., gap analysis)
reveals that the DSW final rule conditions address the damage causes for all three
exclusions, which suggests a high level of protection from future recycling
operation-related damages to the environment and human health. Furthermore,
most all exclusions have three or more protective conditions which address each
of the five known primary causes of historical recycling damages."
Because the rule has been designed to prevent environmental damage and associated impacts to
human health, EPA, as stated in the response to comments, believes there are no disproportionate
impacts on disadvantaged populations.
"As explained in Chapter 11 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis found in the

docket to today's rule, EPA has performed an assessment of potential
countervailing risks and has determined that the conditions included in the rule
address those potential risks and no net impact is expected. Thus, overall, no
disproportionate impacts to minorities or low income communities are expected."
Therefore, EPA has already conducted appropriate analysis of environmental justice issues.
In fact, implementation of this rule may have a beneficial impact on minority and disadvantaged
communities, as some quantities of secondary materials are expected to be diverted away from
disposal facilities, often located in minority and disadvantaged communities..
IPC therefore urges EPA to conduct any additional analysis supporting the rule as expediently as
possible so as not to further delay the environmental benefits of this rule.
VIII. Conclusion
13 Regulatory Impact Analysis, USEPA's 2008 Final Rule Amendments to the Industrial Recycling Exclusions of
the ReRA Definition of Solid Waste, September 25,2008.
7
IPC believes that, with the DSW rule, EPA has taken an important step towards relieving
unnecessary regulatory burdens on the manufacturing sector while at the same time furthering its
mission of protecting the environment and human health by encouraging increased recycling.
We urge EPA to reexamine the strong regulatory record it has amassed in support of this .
carefully calibrated rule and deny the Sierra Club's petition to reopen the Definition of Solid
Waste Rule.
8
Comments on SEC Regulatory Initiatives Under the
Dodd-Frank Act Title XV: Miscellaneous Provisions- Section 1502 Conflict
Minerals (P.L. 111-203)
IPC-Association Connecting Electronics Industries
November 22, 2010

Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary 1
II. Description of Industry and Supply Chains l
III. Establishing a Minerals Chain of Custody is Nearly Impossible for an Electronics
Manufacturer 3
A. Producers of Products Containing Conflict Minerals Do Not Have Visibility to the
Entire Supply Chain .4
B. Identification of Conflict-Free Conflict Minerals is Nearly Impossible under Current
Conditions 5
IV. Ongoing Initiatives to Create Supply Chain Transparency 5
A. Ongoing Industry-Lead Efforts to Improve Supply Chain Visibility 6
1. ITRI Tin Supply Chain Initiative (iTSCi) Process 6
2. The Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition! Global e-Sustainability Initiative 7
3. IPC Materials Declaration Standard 8
B. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Framework Due
Diligence Guidance 8
V. Specific Recommendations for the SEC in Developing Regulations 8
A. Timing oflmplementation of the SEC Regulations 9
B. Rules Are Needed to Phase in the Requirements 9
C. Due Diligence 10
D. Exemption for Recycled Minerals II
VI. Economic Impact ~ 12
VII. Conclusion 12
I. Executive Summary
IPC - Association Connecting Electronics Industries is writing to articulate issues and concerns
that we believe should be addressed by the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) during the
upcoming rule-making process mandated under Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter financial reform bill).
IPC, a U.S. headquartered global trade association, represents all facets of the electronic
interconnect industry, including design, printed board manufacturing and electronics assembly.
Printed boards and electronic assemblies are used in a variety of electronic devices that include
computers, cell phones, pacemakers, and sophisticated missile defense systems. IPC has over
2,700 member companies. As a member-driven organization and leading source for industry
standards, training, market research and public policy advocacy, IPC supports programs to meet
the needs of an estimated $1.7 trillion global electronics industry.
IPC supports the underlying goal of Section 1502, which is to prevent the atrocities occurring in
the Congo. We understand that those perpetrating the atrocities are obtaining funding from the
minerals trade and that the aim of Section 1502 is to cut offthis funding. The electronics
industry, including IPC members, is actively involved in a number of initiatives that seek to
improve control and transparency in the mining and refinement of conflict minerals.
IPC encourages the SEC to implement the requirements of Section 1502 in a manner that
supports the goals ofthe statute without unduly burdening U.S. manufacturing industries or
causing unnecessary disruptions of the minerals trade, which is vital to the livelihood ofthe
people of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). We are concerned about the potential
significant and unintended effects that the implementation of the regulations may have. In order
to minimize these effects, IPC recommends that the SEC allow companies the flexibility to
develop appropriate due diligence measures, recognize ongoing efforts to improve the
transparency of the supply chain, address the need to phase in requirements, and provide the
necessary time to implement these measures. It is important that the regulations acknowledge
the realities of the situation on the ground in the DRC, the complexities ofthe international
minerals trade, and the broad and diverse global electronics supply chain.
II. Description oflndustry and Supply Chains
Supply chains in the electronics industry are extremely complex. At each step of the chain there
are multiple suppliers, which are often located around the globe. Figure 1 provides a very
simple version of the global electronics supply chain. Most printed board assemblies contain
dozens of components, often from several or more suppliers. Some complex printed board
assemblies contain hundreds of components.
I
Figure 1
Simplified Electronics Supply Chain
Original
Equipment
Provider
t
Electronic
Manufacturing
Service
Printed Board Solder Component Component Component.

Manufacturer Manufacturer Distributor Manufacturer Manufacturer
I I
Component Component Component
Manufacturer Manufacturer Manufacturer
I
Chemistry Chemistry Chemistry Material Chemistry
I--
Supplier Supplier Supplier Supplier Supplier
t .
Metals Metals Metals

Supplier Supplier Supplier
DOWNSTREAM SUPPLY CHAIN
UPSTREAM SUPPLY CHAIN

Smelter, Mines, Comptoirs, Negociants etc.
2
At the most downstream position in the supply chain is the Original Equipment Manufacturer
(OEM). This is the company responsible for specifying, marketing, and distributing the product.
The OEM's name is on the product. Some OEMs assemble or manufacture the final product
internally, but the majority of OEMs outsource manufacturing to an Electronics Manufacturing
Services (EMS) provider or contract manufacturer.
The EMS firm is often responsible for all manufacturing ofthe product sold by the OEM. In
some cases, the OEM is responsible for subassembly design, for example a disc drive or memory
card in a laptop computer, but in many cases, the OEM specifies all parts in the product through
an Approved Supplier List (ASL). One of the key manufacturing steps carried out by the EMS is
to attach components to printed boards with solder. Although each of these italicized items
contains conflict minerals, the EMS typically does not control selection of suppliers or materials
sources. The U.S. EMS industry has annual revenues of approximately $43 billion.
Component manufacturers manufacture a broad variety of electronic components including

integrated circuits (chips), connectors, capacitors, batteries, etc. Many of these products
contain one or more conflict minerals. EMS firms may obtain components directly from
component manufacturers or from component distributors.
Printed Board (PB) manufacturers manufacture bare printed boards. The U.S. PB industry is
approximately a $3.1 billion per year industry. Many printed boards are finished with tin surface
finishes. A number of printed boards also contain gold plating for specific electrical
connections.
Solder manufacturers formulate and sell bar and paste solder to EMS firms for use in soldering
components to printed boards. Almost all solders today contain significant levels of tin.
Chemical suppliers formulate and sell chemistry for gold and tin plating ofprinted boards.
Metals suppliers provide tin, gold, tantalum, and tungsten to chemical suppliers, component
manufacturers and solder manufacturers.
While many members of the supply chain are large companies, some are very small companies
with little leverage over their suppliers, let alone their suppliers' suppliers.
III. Establishing a Minerals Chain of Custody is Nearly Impossible for an Electronics

Manufacturer
Due to the complexity of the supply chain, there are major challenges for downstream users
attempting to establish a chain of custody from the mine to the product: I) tracing conflict
minerals from finished products back through complicated supply chains to the smelter, 2)
tracing ores from the smelter back to the mines of origin; and 3) identifying which mines are
conflict mines--that is, mines whose output is controlled by or taxed by warring factions.
3
A. Producers of Products Containing Conflict Minerals Do Not Have Visibility to the
Entire Supply Chain
The assumption that downstream users are able to trace the metals in their products back to the
mine assumes a supply chain is a transparent, linear process. In fact, it is a complex, multi-
layered network of trading companies and suppliers where products are sourced and consolidated
from multiple countries and multiple manufacturers.
Tracing metals fi'om the smelter to mines is complicated by several factors. First and foremost is
the nature of the metals themselves. While minerals are mined from the ground, it is metals
refined from these minerals that are used in products built by companies subject to the reporting
requirements. The smelting process, which converts minerals to useable metals through
alteration of physical properties, combines minerals from many sources, making continuance of a
chain of custody for original mineral lots impossible.
Typically; companies who purchase products that may contain conflict metals only have direct
contact with the first tier supplier or company immediately upstream from themselves. In the
case of OEMs utilizing an ASL, there may be selection of second tier suppliers and contact with
these suppliers. However, the vast majority of upstream companies in the supply chain are often
unknown or unavailable to the ultimate downstream user.
The complexity and length of the supply chain represents a real challenge when attempting to
trace specific metals and the minerals from which they are refined. Although one might expect
that a purchaser of products would know what is in the products they purchase, that is often far
from the truth, especially in electronics manufacturing. In addition to the complexity of the
supply chain, a desire to protect intellectual property often contribntes to the lack of knowledge
regarding product material content. Purchasers typically do not have the necessary leverage to
force a supplier to disclose material content. This is particularly true for small and medium
manufacturers (SMMs) in the snpply chain, which typically have little leverage over their
suppliers. Companies throughout the supply chain face significant challenges when trying to
trace the conflict metals in their prodncts.
Companies' attempts to gather data regarding the use of the six substances restricted under the
European Union Restriction on Hazardous Substances (RoHS) Directive illuminates the
difficulties involved in working with highly complex supply chains. When RoHS was first
implemented, many electronics OEMs found themselves unable to assess whether their products
contained the six substances restricted under RoHS. It took several years for the supply chain to
develop knowledge and information regarding the presence ofjust six substances. Entire
computer programs and databases needed to be developed to allow companies to efficiently
query and store compliance data from hundreds of suppliers. The difficulty in gathering
information regarding the nse of conflict metals is expected to be similar.
4
B. Identification of Conflict-Free Conflict Minerals is Nearly Impossible under
Current Conditions
Without improved governance and tracking from the mine to the smelter, it is nearly impossible
for downstream users to certify with any level of credibility that their products are conflict free.
The problems associated with minerals originate significantly upstream from the companies that
are subject to the new legislation. Before the actions of downstream companies can have any
effect, more must be done on the ground to: I) accurately identify good versus bad mines; 2)
implement a stronger system of governance to regulate the mineral trade; and 3) work with
refiners and smelters to create a process for validating the source of minerals to downstream
users. A study by the RESOLVE group found that,
"While expressing a desire to source responsibly, GeSI and EICC companies have
found three major challenges for transparency down to the mine level: their
supply chains are not sufficiently transparent to this level; their tracking capacity
and accountability mechanisms to this level are missing or limited; and the on-
the-ground capacity (in conflict regions) to differentiate sources and ensure
independence from operations that may support warring groups does not exist.
Metals from multiple mines and other sources are typically undifferentiated and
mixed at various points in the supply chain, including by negociants, comptoirs,
traders, and smelters."
IPC members are participating in several multi-stakeholder efforts to address and improve
transparency in the trade and manufacture of conflict minerals from the DRC and adjoining
countries. These efforts are described in Section IV. We encourage the SEC to review the efforts
of these groups and recognize their contribution to addressing the underlying goals of Section
1502.
IV. Ongoing Initiatives to Create Supply Chain Transparency
IPC members are committed to addressing the issues associated with conflict minerals and are
actively working on both a domestic and international level to craft solutions. IPC member
companies are participating in a variety of initiatives to develop industry wide protocols for
removing conflIct minerals from supply chains. These initiatives are systematically evaluating
supply chains to determine the most effective measures to combat trade in conflict minerals.
Through these efforts, many obstacles have been identified and we are working together with
non-governmental organizations (NGOs), international organizations, and other groups to
overcome them. These efforts, though, highlight the difftculty in crafting a solution and further
indicate the need for the SEC to talce a measured approach with its rule making. Moreover, while
it is important to look to these initiatives for guidance, until there is confidence that those
processes are workable, the SEC should not create obligations or set standards for companies
based on the industry or international organization initiatives. A phased approach should be
considered until the activity currently under exploration creates accepted systems or processes.
.The RESOLVE group has also pointed out the difficulty in establishing a chain of custody
stating,
5
"Currently, large-scale smelting facilities typically mingle materials from multiple
sources as they are processed. Tracing a metal in a given product is also complex
because the material sources vary, and can vary over the life of the product. A
given product will often have several suppliers for a particular component, and
thus tracing or tracking one supply chain is a snapshot unlikely to remain static or
represent a complete supply chain picture."l. . .
IPC urges the SEC to be cognizant of these difficulties and to provide sufficient time for the
industry to build necessary compliance systems.
A. Ongoing Industry-Lead Efforts to Improve Supply Chain Visibility
1. ITRI Tin Supply Chain Initiative (iTSCi) Process
ITRI, a global organization representing the tin industry, has been working since early 2009 on
the ITRI Tin Supply Chain Initiative (iTSCi), a phased approach towards improved due
diligence, governance, and traceability of cassiterite from the DRC. 2 IPC's Solder Products
Value Council (SPVC), representing the world's leading solder manufacturers, believes that
smelters and mines are in the best position to develop and implement a system to ensure mineral
traceability from the exporter back to the mine site and to develop chain of custody data.
Furthermore, the IPC SPVC supports ITRI's efforts to achieve that goal.
The iTSCi initiative has been widely welcomed with constructive feedback from the United
Nations, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and a number of
specialist non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Michael Biryabarema, director of Rwandan
Geology and Mines Authority (OGMR) recently commented, "The recently agreed U.S. 'conflict
minerals' bill presents many challenges to African mining and mineral trading businesses, not
least the implementation offull and complex due diligence procedures that have not yet been
prescribed in detail by relevant authorities. The iTSCi scheme can.assist in mitigating the
impacts of such regulation by meeting the anticipated requirements as far as possible within the
exceedingly short timescales for compliance available to industry and national Governments
alike.,,3
The first phase ofthe iTSCi scheme began operation in July 2009. The goal of this phase is to
ensure that all official export and evaluation documentation is available with mineral shipments
for export. The first phase focuses on the immediate supply chain from the DRC
exporter/comptoir to smelter and introduces due diligence procedures, which will ensure the
legitimacy of suppliers and the mineral, which they export. A newly agreed procedure for
recording a range of export documents, as well as a specially designed "comptoir certificate,"
forms the basis ofthe first phase. The comptoir's certificate will record a physical description of
I Resolve, Tracing a Path Forward: A Study ofthe Challenges ofthe Supply Chain for Target Metals Used in
Electrontcs, April 20 I O.
2 http://www.itrLco.ukIPOOLED/ARTICLES/BF PARTARTNJEW.ASP?O~BF PARTART 310250
3 10 Sep 20 I0 Press Release, "ITRI and Rwandan Government to co-operate on iTSCi conflict mineral traceability
scheme." http://www.itrLco.uk/pooled/articles/BF_NEWSAR T/view.asp?Q~BF_NEWSART_320726
6
the material, together with the declared mine origin and transport route via the intermediate
'negociant' supplier.
Implementation of the iTSCi process in the eastern ORC is currently suspended because all
mining activity in the eastern ORC has be.en temporarily suspended by the government of the
ORC since September, 20 10. In September and October 20 I0, the tin, tantalum and electronics
industry project partners spent 10 days visiting the ORC and Rwanda in order to see recent
progress in the iTSCi mineral traceability project implementation on the ground. The delegation
also attended the joint International Conference on the Great Lakes Region (ICGLR) and OECO
meeting in Nairobi to discuss due diligence guidance on mineral sourcing from conflict-affected
areas.
Future phases of iTSCi will extend the level of knowledge by collating upstream supply chain
information from mine to exporter/comptoir. At that stage ITRI intends to work with project
partners within the ORC from relevant technical organizations and official services. A third
phase of the project is envisioned to develop a more detailed set of supply chain performance
standards and ratings that will allow both qualitative and quantitative assessment of a range of
factors at each level ofthe supply chain.
2. The Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition/ Global e-Sustainability Initiative
In 2009, the Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition (EICC) and Global e-Sustainability
Initiative (GeSI) launched a project to improve visibility in the minerals supply chain, with
particular focus on identifying sources of specific minerals and understanding how the minerals
move through their lifecycles - from mine to electronics manufacturing. A number oflPC's
larger members are directly participating in and supporting the EICC/GeSI initiative. A
summary report ofthat research project, Tracing a Path Forward: A Study ofthe Challenges of
the Supply Chain for Target Metals Used in Electronics, was published in April 20 I0 by the
RESOLVE group, which lead the project. The RESOLVE group found that despite companies
best efforts they, "face significant challenges due to a lack of transparency and complex structure
and relationships in particular metals supply chains."
RESOLVE's research was built around an effort to trace the supply for these metals beginning
with suppliers for GeSI and EICC member companies and then pursuing suppliers upstream in
the supply chain. RESOLVE also undertook a review of supply chain initiatives relevant to the
tin, tantalum, and cobalt supply chains, and the supply chain for other metals in electronics such
as gold.. RESOLVE sought input from a stakeholder advisory group of diverse organizations
including GeSI and EICC members, international and local NGOs, mining companies, investors,
and trade associations.
In 20 I0 EICC/GeSI launched a pilot tantalum smelter validation process. This process will
identify smelters that can demonstrate through third party validation that they only source
conflict-free material. Over the course of the next few quarters the program will be expanded to
include tin and possibly other metals. The group continues to engage companies from all levels
7
of the tantalum mining and processing industry to drive toward a credible solution that promotes
the responsible sourcing of tantalum.
3. IPC Materials Declaration Standard
IPC 1752 Materials Declaration standard for electronic data exchange of product materials
information is expected to be modified to assist the electronics industry in validating supply
chain compliance with conflict metals legislation and regulation. IPC 1752 Materials
Declaration standard was developed to assist the electronics industry in exchanging data related
to compliance with the RoHS Directive. When the RoHS Directive was first implemented, the
electronics industry faced an enormous challenge in identifying the presence of six prohibited
substances throughout a broad and deep supply chain. As a result of company's efforts to assess
their use of these substances, members of the supply chain were sending and receiving dozens of
materials declaration inquiries each week. In order to make this process more efficient and allow
data to be shared across the supply chain, IPC formed the IPC Supplier Declaration Committee
(IPC 2-18). The IPC 2-18 task group on materials declaration, which was responsible for
development ofIPC 1752 and the recently published revision, IPC 1752A, has begnn
conversations regarding the exchange of data related to compliance with the forthcoming SEC
regulations on conflict minerals. It is expected that changes to the standard will be implemented
once the SEC has finalized their regulations.
B. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Framework

Due Diligence Guidance
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is currently developing
practical guidance for managing the supply chain of key minerals from conflict-affected and
high-risk areas, with particular regard to the DRC, including relevant aspects of conflict
financing, extortion, corruption/financial crime, human rights, security and transparency. OECD
findings will be forwarded to the UN Group of Experts for consideration. While much attention
is being paid to OECD efforts, IPC is concerned that this ongoing effort is only in the middle
stages of development. Although much work has gone into the drafting of the guidelines, they
have yet to be tested in any way. The current draft framework will be the subject to a twelve
month pilot program to determine if the guidelines are feasible and implementable. Since the
pilot program does not conclude nntil after the SEC will presumably issue a final rule, the SEC
should not promulgate the OECD requirements into law as that would be premature.
v. Specific Recommendations for the SEC in Developing Regulations
The SEC should use its discretion in developing regulations that talce into account the current
lack of accurate information and the deficiency in the transparency associated with the tracking
of conflict minerals. Given the reality of trade in minerals, we have identified the following areas
in which we believe the SEC should apply their discretion during the rule-making process.
By adopting the recommendations set forth below, the SEC will sharpen the regulation, target the
requirements, and minimize the burden on those practicing legitimate trade. Without addressing
the issues of timing, transition, due diligence, and recycled materials, the regulation could have a
8
substantial negative impact on the health of the U.S. economy, jobs, manufacturing, and exports
while negatively impacting the welfare of the very people Section 1502 was intended to assist.
A. Timing of Implementation of the SEC Regulations
As discussed (Section IV), a number of governmental and non-governmental initiatives are

underway to increase supply chain transparency for conflict minerals. These systems are in their
infancy. Further, they are hampered by insecurity on the ground in the DRC as well as
governmental actions that have shut down some of the mines for an unknown period oftime. It is
highly unlikely that a full scale-up ofthese programs will be possible by the April 20 II deadline
imposed by Section 1502. The SEC should therefore use its discretion to implement a phased-in
approach to the regulations requiring OEMs to declare whether the minerals used in their
products are conflict-free or not.
Failure to establish a realistic, implementable time-line for required supply chain transparency
will result in significant, negative untended consequences for those engaged in legitimate
minerals trade. As it will be impossible to implement measures to provide chain of custody from
all conflict mines to smelters by April 2011, companies required to declare the conflict status of
their products will likely seek supply chains outside of the DRC and the adjacent countries.
While the minerals trade represents a significant, and often only, source of income for many in
the region, the supply of minerals from this region is not critical to world markets. In order to be
able to label their products conflict-free, OEMs will have no choice but to impose a de-facto ban
on minerals originating in the DRC. This will impose real financial hardship the thousands of
legitimate miners, traders, comptoirs and negociants in the region that depend on the minerals
trade. In order to avoid these consequences, we recommend that the SEC adopt a schedule that
will allow enough time for the implementation to supply chain traceability in the DRC so that
legitimate trade can continue to provide critical financial support for individuals in the region.
B. Rules Are Needed to Phase in the Requirements
In order to make the reporting requirements useful and practicable, it is necessary for the SEC to
implement transition rules to address minerals already present in the supply chain when the
regulation is implemented. Additionally, regulations will be needed to address minerals from a
mine that changes status from "non-conflict" to "conflict." Without these transition rules, users
of conflict metals will not be able to identify themselves as "conflict-free," until the regulations
have been in place for a number of years.
Although a number of efforts to institute smelter verification programs and thereby establish a
supply of "conflict-free"minerals and refined metals are underway, it will be some time before
these processes have been fully implemented and validated. It is therefore necessary to establish
a transition period that exempts minerals or processed metals already at smelters, processing
centers, or other downstream positions in the supply chain that was obtained prior to a specified
implementation date. If there is no transition rule for materials already in the supply chain prior
to a validation program then all smelted metals for the initial reporting will have to be reported
as being of unknown origin. This is because manufacturers will be unable to obtain the
information as all minerals are comingled without respect to country or mine of origin.
9
Similarly, products manufactured with the refined metals already incorporated in finished goods
or from conflict minerals already in the suppliers' inventories prior to an established cutoff date
should be exempt. This exemption will allow for the design and implementation of programs to
impose identification requirements on their upstream supply chains. Again, absent a transition
rule, filers will be forced to identify all products as containing conflict minerals of unknown
origin in the initial reporting period.
We encourage the SEC to adopt a no-transubstantiation rule stating that if a mineral is 'conflict-
free" when it arrives at the smelter, it cannot become "conflict-full" if it's mine of origin changes
status during the period that the mineral/refined metal is moving through the supply chain.
The State Department identified this as a challenge to properly identifying which mines are
controlled by parties perpetrating atrocities. From the extraction of the minerals from the mines
to the incorporation of the refined metals into products manufactured in the United States,
significant time will pass and "conflict mines" will change status. For this reason, a no-
transubstantiation rule is recommended.
C. Due Diligence
Section 1502 requires filers to report on the due diligence they have exercised over the source
and chain of custody of minerals mined in conflict regions. It has been suggested that due
diligence requires the company filing with the SEC to identifY all parties between the mine and
the SEC filer, i.e. the entire supply chain. This is both impracticable and inefficient due to the
complexity of the supply chain and the nature of minerals processing. Instead, we encourage the
SEC to allow companies to develop supply-chain implemented solutions that are efficient and
effective
We urge the SEC to avoid defining "due diligence" in a manner that prescribes specific
requirements for due diligence. Each company in the electronics supply chain is unique and has
their own unique supply chain. Some companies are quite large and have extensive resources,
while others do not. Given the diversity of companies and products impacted by future
regulations regarding Section 1502, the SEC should avoid defining the particular details of what
constitutes due diligence. We urge the SEC to provide companies the flexibility to develop a due
diligence plan that is consistent with their supply chain and information available within.
Requiring each company filing with the SEC to identifY and audit their entire supply chain is
exceedingly inefficient. Rather, we submit that the filer work with its direct suppliers to
promulgate requirements to use conflict free minerals/metals upstream. Specifically, we
encourage the SEC to recognize the following elements of due diligence:
• Contractual obligations on direct suppliers to exclude conflict minerals mined in the

Democratic Republic ofthe Congo or an adjoining country from goods supplied to the
company subject to the SEC.
• Implementation of a risk-based program that uses company control processes to verify that
suppliers are providing credible information and pushing contractual obligations upstream.
IO
• Participation in, or reliance on, information gained from an industry wide or smelter
validation process such as those described in Section IV of these comments.
• Reliance on government-produced information, such as the mapping of conflict regions
assigned to the Departments of State and Commerce, should be presumed to satisfy the
requirement that due diligence be reliable for those elements of due diligence that require
working with suppliers'to prevent sourcing from conflict mines or refiners using conflict
minerals. In addition, the governments of the DRC and adjoining counties are engaging in an
evolving set of measures to suppress trade in minerals from conflict mines.
The legislative requirement for companies to exercise due diligence over the source and chain of
custody of conflict-minerals should not be interpreted to require the establishment of a chain of
custody reaching from the product to the mine. Establishing a chain of custody over the metals
that have been refined from conflict minerals must be recognized as impossible. While we
recognize that the problem of conflict minerals originates in conflict mines, we also recognize
that the mine of origin is often very far removed from the manufacturer required to report under
the law. Further, once minerals have been processed into metals, individual lots of minerals can
no longer be isolated. In such scenarios, tracing the chain of custody requirement to the smelter
is exceedingly difficult, while tracing it beyond the smelter is nearly impossible. Any chain of
custody for the origin of minerals must be recognized to end at the smelter. Therefore, we urge
the SEC to clarifY that the legislative requirement for companies to report to the SEC the
measures they have taken to exercise due diligence on the source and chain of custody of
minerals to mean that persons covered by the Act will report on the measures they have taken to
ensure that the mineral processors involved in their supply chains identify the sources of conflict
minerals in their products.
Given the nature of the situation on the ground in the DRC, it is important for the regulation to
recognize that due diligence does not require 100% accuracy, given that certainty is not possible
with the situation on the ground and the fluid nature of supply chains. Evidence that conflict
minerals may have entered a supply chain despite the exercise of due diligence should not render
a report unreliable if the reporting person has exercised reasonable care in conducting its due
diligence process. As stated by RESOLVE, "Processed material can be deemed "conflict free"
only if all material entering a processing facility is tracked or batched and handled separately
from materials of different origin...This means that, today, while end-use companies have the
potential to establish and have confidence in sources for some percentage of the metals in their
products, they cannot assert 100% sourcing certainty about individual metals or the product as a
whole without significant alterations and/or assurance mechanisms in their supply chains.
Success requires confidence in supply chain relationships and new strategies, such as direct
sourcing, or innovations, such as minerals tagging or fingerprinting. Movement is likely to come
in a step-wise manner." We urge the SEC to be cognizant of existing limitations and developing
compliance schemes when developing requirements.
D. Exemption for Recycled Minerals
The regulations should specifically exempt recycled or reclaimed metals, as downstream users
have no ability to trace the origin of the original minerals. The traceability of the reclaimed
11
metals is impossible to track due to the various forms of recycling and thousands of
consolidators, reclaimers, and scrap dealers both foreign and domestic.
We believe Congress intended to regulate ore and metal refined directly from minerals mined
from the DRC and adjoining countries. Exempting recycled or reclaimed metals does not
contradict the congressional intent, to stop funding the atrocities in the DRC. The DRC rebel
groups are funded by operating mines to extract and sell ore, and by extracting tariffs from those
transporting ore. The DRC rebel groups do not obtain revenue from trading in recycled materials.
Accordingly, recycled metal was not intended to be covered by the statute and should be .
excluded in the SEC's regulations.
Furthermore, given other government efforts to encourage recycling in electronics and other
industries, we presume that the SEC would not wish to contradict recycling promotion by failing
to provide necessary exemptions for recycled metals.
VI. Economic Impact
We believe the regulation should be implemented in a manner that minimizes costs and the
burden on companies without diminishing the intent of the legislation. We encourage the SEC to
conduct a thorough cost analysis on the impact of this regulation before issuing a final rule. The
overall impact on the economy is likely greater than $100 million (the threshold established in
E.O. 12866 to warrant further scrutiny of a proposed rule by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB)). Expected costs to comply with the regulation include new computer systems to
track, store and exchange data regarding mineral origins; evaluation of products; review ofthe
supply chain; modification of supplier contracts; participation in smelter validation programs;
and independent third party audits.
SMMs will be disproportionately affected by the requirements under this regulation. SMMs will
face larger per unit compliance costs because they have smaller business volumes and more
limited resources with which to conduct audits and manage the required documentation.
Additionally, SMMs may have difficulty in controlling their suppliers sourcing of conflict
minerals as their small size affords them limited leverage over their suppliers. SMMs do not have
the customs and compliance staff typical of larger corporations and companies thus making
compliance efforts even more difficult. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the SEC
must provide economic analysis on the impact to small businesses. To ameliorate the impact on
SMMs, we encourage the SEC to allow maximum flexibility in the implementation of Section
1502.
VII. Conclusion
IPC is committed to addressing the use of conflict minerals and is actively working with many of
its members on both a domestic and international level to address the issue. IPC member
companies are participating in a variety of sector specific initiatives to develop industry wide
protocols for removing conflict minerals from supply chains as well as with international
12
organizations. Given the broad potential impact of these regulations on the day-to-day
operations of manufacturing companies throughout the United States, and the impacts on
legitimate trade in the DRC, we urge the SEC to exercise caution when implementing regulations
under Section 1502 ofthe Dodd-Frank Act. Specifically, we encourage the SEC to allow
maximum time and flexibility for industry to implement these potentially far-reaching rules. We
encourage the SEC to allow companies the flexibility to develop appropriate, supply-chain-based
due diligence processes. We also encourage the SEC to develop appropriate exemptions for
recycled materials and materials already in the manufacturing supply chain at the time these
regulations are implemented. Finally, we ask the SEC to conduct a thorough economic analysis
of the draft regulations to ensure that they have implemented the underlying goals of the
legislation without imposing undue burden on manufacturers and the American economy.-
We look forward to continuing to work with the SEC. Please contact me should you have any
questions.
Fern Abrams
Director of Government Relations and Environmental Policy
13
• • QlIALLTY. ADVOCACY. LEADEns"""
KITCHEN CABINET MI\NUFAcrUOf:fl,S ASSOCIATiON
The Honorablc Danell Issa, Chail'111an

Comnlittce on Oversi ght and Govel'llmel1t Reform January 21, 2011
U.S. House ofRepl'esentatives
Dear Chairman Issa:
The Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association (KCMA) is the national tmcle

association for kitchen anel bath cabinet manufacturers lllld key suppliers to the industry.
KCMA has 350 members evenlydivideel between cabinet manufacturers and suppliers to
the industry. Sixty percent of KCMA cabinet manufacturer members teport sales under
$10 million. There lIre qvel' 5,000 cabinet makers located in virtually every zip code in
the U.S. according to the Depllrtment ()fCOImnerce. Most ofth~ cabin~t l1wkem are
small businesl!cs with twenty or fewer employees.
We ate an important part of the forest products industry ~"ith virtually all of our products
produced from wood. As yon would expect, KCMA metnbers havesutlei'ed greatly as a
result of the economic downtul'l1 and most ai'e sti'uggIing to survive.
Thei'e are a host of pending rcgulatory and legislative proposals that could negatively
impact industry effortl! to recover fmll1 the devastating effects of the recession.
We appreciatc the cIforts of the Committee and others to address regulatory chl\llenges
and finding a satisfactory balance between protecting the public health and safety and
improving the economy and protecting jobs.
In.l'esponse to yom request, KCMA has identified several fedemlregulfltlons that could
negatively affect economic I'ecovery and jobs in the future. Key examples foUow:
I. EPABoUer MACT •• would set stringent new emission Iirnits for several
hllzardous ail' poUutants {I-IAP's)tI'oIl1 boilers, solid wastc incinerators llnd
Jlrocess heaters. Estimatcd to cost the forcst pJ'oducts industry over $20 billion.
Would sevcrely impact small businesses and jeopardize thousands ofjobs.
2. EPA Resid\lal Risk Standards-·changes proposed to industry MACT standard for

FlAP's and VaG's adopted in 1995 through a unique negotiated consensus process
involving aU stakcholdcrs. Changes could rcduce the flexibility to operate
provided by C\lrrent guidelines and force changes to a key chemical used in
i1nishes that affcct their performance and cost. Extension ofthc current regulation
with no changes should be sufficient.
1899 PresIon White Drive, Reston, VA 20181·5435 '. PI1. 703,264.1(}f)O ~ Fx.703,620.6530 . www,kCn~fl,Qrg
January 21, 2011
Page 2
3, EPA IRIS Update for Formaldehyde-key decisionl:lxpected I:larly this Spring as

to whl:lther formaldehyde will be declared to cause lenkemia which would have a
huge negative impact on industry with potential to cost thousands ofjobs. Sound
sCience at issue here,
4. EPA Regulations to Implement FOl'lilRldehydl:l for Composite Wood Products Act

(Pt 111·199) - EPA authorized to excmpt veneered hardwood plywood
components defined as "Laminated Products" fi'om coverage under the Act as
plywood, This should be done in order to protect a key snpply chain and those
few KCMA members (cabinet manufacturers) who do limited veneering for
spl:lciaI projects (usually high end) from being rl:l(]uired to undel'go expensive
testing, recordkeeping and other paperwork required.ifthey are regulated as a
plywoodlllanllfac.(urer, EPA should adopt thc California Ail' Resonl'ces Boatd
(CARE) regulation as much as possible for this is what prompted the federal
ll:lgislation, This approach would provide a nearly seamless transition for those
being l'egulatlOd. Federal preemption was not part of 1'1. 111·199,
5, OSHA Combustible Dllst-· advance notice of proposed rulemaking on

combustible dust issued in October 2009. Compliance with the new rule estimated
to cost industry millions of dollars in capital expenditures and higher operating
costs with negligible improvement to workl:lr safety. Perfortnance based standards
Ilu' 1110re practical than prescriptive approaches,
6, OSHA Noisl:l Enforcetnl:lnt - notice issued on October 19, 2010, indicating that
plans Hrc to change the official "interpretation" of workplace noisl:l standards so as
to require expensive enginel:lring controls and administrativl:l controls as opposed
to utilization of personal protectivc equipment. Changes required I'egardkss of
cost unless thl:l changes would "put them 011t ofbusinl:lss" or severdy affect a
company's "viability," This approach would evade open rull:ll11aking process,
impose hugl:l additional cost on our industry, and is bad policy,
Thank you vl:lry much for the opportunity to provide infOl'mation tothl:l committee
regarding these important topics. WI:l would be pleased to provide further information or
othl:lrwise assist the committee,
Yours truly,
r:. ;f?d~-;;~
C. Richard Titus
Cc: The Honorable Elijah Cummings, Ranking Member

Feedback on what regulations have a negative growth effect on job creation:
• In many states Workers Comp insurance provides a tremendous disincentive in

hiring due to the cost. In our line of business (sales) there is seldom a WC claim
and this should not be a significant cost in running our business.
• Taxes/Costs on employment that rise even when our basis for determination
decrease. State and Federal unemployment tax, as well as an increase in Social
Security caps are examples.
• New ways to tax businesses like CAT taxes- "for the privilege of doing business"
in the state of incorporation.
• The lack of traffic safety funding due to SAFETEA-LU expiring over a year ago
w/o any plan. This category has been a significant part of our business and we
have not rehired 2 people in part because the whole traffic safety industry is in a
wait and see mode without a long-term funding program in place.
• Our employment of sales and support people is directly related to the employment
of workers in industry, construction, utilities, and public safety. We sell products
that are used by people in their job (disposable safety products like gloves and
safety glasses). Supporting these industries by focusing on THEIR needs in
employing more will have a double benefit by allowing us to hire people to
support the increased demand for our products.
JilIY Anmsloy
VlC~ IJr!;'$I(ltltll
Mazda North American Opel'allona Publl(: <lnd GOVf/rnllll:ln\ AljalJ e·
JanUilrY 10, 20 II

Chailman
Dear Chairman Issa:
In light of your committee's interest in receiving information related to regulations that have
unintended adverse consoquences on the U,S, economy, we offer the following background
infurmation related to EPA's October 2010 decision to grant a partial waiver approving the sale of
gasoline containing IS percent ethanol (EI5) for 2007 model year (MY) and newer passenger cars
and light trucks. Mazda supports efforts to increase the usage of biofuels and understands the need to
meet the renewable fuels standards of the Energy Independence aod Security Act (EISA), To that
end, there are about 8 mlllion flexible fuel vehicles (l'PYs) on the road today -including some
Mazda models - that have beim built to use up to 85 percent ethanol.
Unfortunately, the recent El5 waiver aod the accompanying mlsfueling rule are fraught with
problems. They wllI not accomplish the goals of EISA, and they will create confusion and disputes
that could sour consumers on mid-level ethanol blends. The Cieutl Air Aot does not authorize EPA
to issue any "partial waiver" decisions. This argument is at the heart ofseveral lawsuits thai have
been filed challenging the BPA decision.
Additionally, EPA's own statute passed by Congress in 2007 slates that fuels cannot be approved for
the market that could cause any failures. Further, administrative records fail to demonstrate that even
new model year motor vehicles (other than FFYs) would not be damaged and result in failures when
run on El5.
The waiver allows introduction ofEI5 for sale in vehicles dating back to 2007 MY. EPA is
considering a further waiver covering 2001·2006 MYs and is expeoted to annOWloe this decision in
late January. All of the vehicles on the road today can use a gasoline blend of up to 10 percent
ethanol without voiding the warranty the manufacturer provides to consumers. Such vehicles were
designed to use a maximum ofBl O.
775511\'1ne Cenler Dlive If\llfla,CA92B1e-2922 Telephone 949 7271990

P080x 1973<1 IrvinG, CA 92623-9734 Facs\mlle 949 727 6813 Inlomfll hllp:llwww rna.zllausfl.oom
Tho Honorabl. Om.1I B. [ssa
lllll"1lI')' 7, 2011
pg.2
Because ethanol is more corrosive than gasoline, damage to vehicles nl;l! designed to run on El5 is
anticipated. The study EPA has relied on to demonstrate the ability of such vehioles to accommodate
E15 is limited and not conclusive and EPA has declined to wait for additional studies in the pipeline.
In any case, such sludies cannot establish the absence of problems with specific vehicles or under
specific circumstances. When E15 llll'!ves in the marketplaoe, problems with past vehicles are
virtually certain to arise; manufacturers and consumers wlll be forced to sort them out. Dealers and
manufacturers will be faced with unhappy customers ifvehicle damage occurs. Moreover, comumer
dissatisfaction will inevitably occur when they re-fuel with E15 only to discover that it degrades
both vehicle perfonnance and fuel economy.
Furthermore, the conflict between the proposed pump labels (at1ached) and vehicle owner guides
will create significant confusion. EPA's waiver deolslon only addresses what fuel may be offered for
sale; it does not address vehicle maintenance and fueling inSl:ruotions. EPA's proposed pump labels
will indicate tbatconsumers may fuel 2007 MY and later vehicles with Eis. Yet all, or virtually all,
owner guides for past model year gasoline-powered vehicles direct consumers nlI1 to use ethanol
blends higher than ElO (and El5 was not even in the marketplace when the owner guides were
written). Inasmuch as the vehicles were not desi(llled to run on E15, the direction in the owner
guides remu.lns valid, EPA regulations allow manufaoturers to deny wllll'anty coverage for vehicles
damaged due to misfueling (based On the owner guide insl:ructions). The disparity between the pump
labels and the pre-existing owner guides wlll, at the very least, cause confusion; it may well lead to
disputes among consumers, manufacturers, service stations and fuel providers.
The proposed misfuellng rule will not be effective In preventing widespread misfueling. Whatever
the language ofthe new El5 pump label, many consumers will ignore the label and put Els in
vehicles (and other products) not Intended to recelVtl it. The mlsfueling that occurs will likely
damage some vehicles, many of which are out ofwlUl'anty; it wlIl also compromise Bome emission
control systems and lead to higher emissions.
In sum, EPA has failed to define a long-tenn strategy for meeting the EISA alternative fuel mandates
and instead has taken to a band-aid approach to address this important Issue, leaving auto
manufacturers, Cl;ll\sumers, fuel suppliers and distributors to deal with the fallout. The Eis waiver
decision wllI almost certainly lead to increased costs for consumers, vehicle servlcers including
dealerships and independent shops, manufacturers and fulll providers. These costs threaten to inhibit
economic growth and the continued recovery of our ftalllle economy,
Thank you for considering our views. Ifyou have any questions about this infonnation, please
contact Barbara Nocera at bnoeera@mazdausa,com or 202.467.5096.
Sincerely,
Jay Amestoy
Vice Presid~nt, Public and Oovernmel).t Affairs
Mazda North American Opemtiol).s
EPA's Proposed E15 Misfueling Label
Useonlyin:
2007 and newergasoline cars
2007 and newerlight-duty trucks
Flex~fuel vehicles
This fuel might damage other veh'lcles.
Federal law prohibits its use in other
vehicles and en ioes.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION Of
Manufacturers
Jay Timmons
January 7, 2011
The Honorable Darrell lssa

Chairman
Dear Chairman lssa:
On behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the largest manufacturing

association in the United States, thank you for the opportunity to identify proposed or existing
regulations that are negatively impacting jobs, the economy and our economic competitiveness.
This list is not exhaustive but represents high priority regulations that will have a significant
impact on our ability to compete globally and create jobs. We look forward to a continuing
dialogue on the impact of regulation on manufacturing.
In your letter, you cite the statistics from the Small Business Administration's (SBA)
Office of Advocacy analyzing the impact of regulatory costs on small firms. The study
represents the best research available to identify the disproportionate burden placed on small
business by reguiation and the even more disproportionate burden placed on small
manufacturers. Manufacturers bear the heaviest burden from environmentai regulation, while
facing similar or more stringent regulations in workplace safety, health, transportation, financial,
trade, tax administration, homeland security and export controls. A study by the Man~facturing
Institute and MAPI indicates that structural costs imposed on U.S. manufacturers including
regulation create a 17.6% cost disadvantage when compared with nine major industrialized
countries. For these reasons the NAM developed a strategy to enhance American
manufacturing.
The NAM pUblished its "Manufacturing Strategy for Jobs and a Competitive America" in
June 2010. In that Strategy, we identified three overarching objectives: 1) to be the best country
in the world to headquarter a company; 2) to be the best country in the world to do the bulk of a
company's research and development; and 3) tq be a great place to manufacture goods and
export products. Comprehensive action is needed to counter the impact of unnecessarily costly
regulation to achieve these objectives. We look forward to partnering with your committee,
Congress and the Executive Branch to reform the regulatory policies outlined below, additional
existing regulations and the regulatory process to produce a more thoughtful regulatory
environment that encourages rather than discourages job creation in the United States.
While working on a larger reform agenda, immediate action and attention is needed on
the following areas of regulatory policy this Administration is in the midst of proposing or
implementing. If they are not substantially changed from their present form, they could cost
millions of jobs and weaken an economy in a still fragile recovery.
Leading innovation. Creating Opportunity. Pursuing Progress.

1331 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20004 P 202·637·3043 F 202·637·3182 W'N'N.nam.org
January 7, 2011
Page 2
EPA Regulation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
On January 2, 2011, the EPA began regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from
stationary sources under the Clean Air Act. While only the largest facilities will be regulated at
first, this action sets the stage for future regulation of much smaller sources. Manufacturers are
also concerned that states are unprepared for the new permitting requirements, which will cause
significant delays. This permitting gridlock will discourage manufacturers from building new
facilities or expanding their current facilities, hurting competitiveness and discouraging job
creation. Furthermore, additional facilities - including hospitals, agricultural establishments and
even the smallest businesses - will be phased in to the onerous permitting requirements In the
near future.
EPA Boiler MACT
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed a rule that would establish
more stringent emissions standards on industrial and commercial boilers and process heaters
(i.e. Boiler MACT). This broad-reaching proposal could cost manufacturers over $20 billion in
compliance costs and place hundreds of thousands of jobs in jeopardy. Furthermore, the NAM
expressed concerns to the EPA that the proposed standards could almost never be achieved by
any single, real-world source. In December 2010, the EPA asked the federal District Court for
the District of Columbia for an extension to re-propose the rule, take industry comments and
then finalize the package by April 2012. We welcome the additional time for a review, but the
new proposal must ensure that the standards are economically feasible and achievable in
practice for manufacturers.
EPA NMQS for Ozone
The EPA in January 2010 issued a reconsideration of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone. Despite continued improvement in the nation's air
quality, the EPA has proposed to tighten the standard from the existing 75 parts per billion (ppb)
to a range between 70 ppb and 60 ppb. The NAM's overriding concern with the proposal is that
the high compliance costs associated with the more stringent ozone standard will hinder
manufacturers' ability to add jobs and hurt our global competitiveness. One study estimated 60
ppb would result in the loss of 7.3 million jobs by 2020 and add $1 trillion in new regulatory
costs per year between 2020 and 2030. The Agency has delayed finalizing the rule until July
2012 to allow for continued analysis of the epidemiological and clinical studies used to
recommend the ozone standard.
SEC/CFTC Derivatives Regulation
As end-users of over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives to manage risk, manufacturers in the

United States have a strong interest in the implementation of the new rules on OTC derivatives
in the Dodd-Frank Act. In drafting these regulations, we urge the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (CFTC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to avoid any new
regulations on derivatives that inadvertently harm economic growth. In particular, it is crucial
that new regulations on derivatives include a strong and workable exemption for end-users, like
manufacturers, that use derivatives to hedge commercial risk. In contrast, rules that impose
margin requirements on manufacturers or that impose financial regulation (such as a swap
dealer or major swap participant) on non-financial businesses, could seriously harm the
January 7, 2011
Page 3
recovery by qiverting companies' financial resources from much-needed business investment

and job retention and creation. Similarly, regulations that make hedging too expensive will place
manufacturers in the uncomfortable position of either having to divert additional money away
from production or discontinue hedging business risk, which would require liabilities to reappear
on corporate balance sheets, driving up the cost of capital.
OSHA On-Site Consultation
There has been a significant shift by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) from a more collaborative posture to a more adversarial approach toward
business. Employers, particularly small businesses, should be able to consult with OSHA and
receive its assistance to better understand and comply with existing workplace safety standards
to enhance the safety of their workplaces without fear of citations and fines. Recently, OSHA
proposed a rule that would subject small businesses to enforcement based on their voluntary
participation in these programs. As a result, businesses will be more reticent to reach out to
OSHA for help and less likely to participate in this program. We are troubled that OSHA
performed no analysis to determine the impact of the proposed changes on small business
participation in the On-Site Consultation Program. Instead of deterring participation in these
effective programs, OSHA should focus on developing incentives and strategies that will
encourage as many employers as possible to participate in these programs.
OSHA Noise Proposal
OSHA recently indicated that it plans to enforce noise level standards in a dramatically
different way by redefining what is deemed "feasible" for employers to reduce overall noise in
the workplace and requiring implementation of these actions unless an employer can prove
making such changes will put it out of business. OSHA's proposal would alter a long-running
and effective policy that allows employers to provide "personal protective equipment," such as
ear plugs and ear muffs, if they are more cost-effective than engineering controls like noise-
dampening equipment and muffling systems in order to protect their employees from high noise
levels. Such changes would need to be made by employers of all sizes, regardiess of their
costs. We are concerned that preliminary estimates by ma~ufacturers demonstrate that total
compliance costs for fully implementing this proposal may reach billions of dollars. We are
troubled that OSHA is pursuing this change outside the formal rulemaking process and, as
such, is not following the Administrative Procedures Act that provides opportunity for full and fair
public input and requires sensitivity to small entities.
OSHA Injury and Illness Protection Program
OSHA is also developing a new regulation that would mandate a standard for employers'
safety and health programs, referred to as an Injury and Illness Prevention Program (12P2).
Such a concept is expected to be proposed in the spring of 2011 and would have sweeping
ramifications on all aspects of both workplace safety enforcement and the promulgation of new
regulations. We are concerned that this new proposal from the Agency may not take into
account the efforts by employers who already have effective safety and health programs in
place or how this new mandate would disrupt safety programs that have measurable successes.
Based on preliminary information from the Agency, this proposal may allow OSHA investigators
to substitute their judgment of the employer's plan on how to achieve compliance and whether
some "injury" in the workplace should have been addressed in some way even if it was not
January 7, 2011
Page 4
regulated under a specific standard, or did not amount to a "significant risk" as required under
the aSH Act.
Commerce/State/Defense Export Control Regulations
U.S. export control regulations have not been significantly revised since the Cold War.
The result is a system that no longer fully protects our national security, has not kept up with
accelerating technological change and does not function with the efficiency and transparency
needed to keep the United States competitive in the global marketplace. The current regulations
are eroding America's global technology leadership, harming the defense industrial base and
costing U.S. jobs. Recent studies by the National Academies of Science and the Defense
Science Board have concluded that the current export control regulations and system are a
threat to national security. The Milken Institute estimates that if the export control regulations
are modernized, U.S. high-tech exports could increase by $60 billion, resulting in 350,000 new
jobs. Modernization will enhance the government's ability to protect national security interests
while removing the burdens and disadvantages placed on U.S. high-technology manufacturers.
The government should thoroughly modernize export controls to strengthen the industrial base,
enhance national security and improve economic competitiveness. In this area, we applaud the
ObamaAdministration for the steps it has taken thus far to modernize the export control system,
but more is needed to improve the system in 2011 to protect manufacturing jobs.
DOT Transportation of Lithium Batteries Rulemaking
The Department of Transportation's (DOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety

Administration (PHMSA) proposed new shipping and handling requirements for the
. transportation of lithium ion and lithium metal batteries in January 2010. The rule mandates
changes in the way lithium batteries and cells and products containing these batteries are
transported in passenger and cargo aircraft. Of note, the PHMSA rejected all requests for
extensions of the comment period and has severely limited industry input and technical
discussions in what is an extremely complicated proposal that creates serious inconsistencies
between international an.d U.S. aviation regulations. The proposed rule impacts a variety of
products and manufactured goods ranging from everyday consumer items to implantable
medical devices. Billions of lithium batteries and products containing them are shipped annually
by air without incident. The costs of the current proposal are conservatively estimated at a billion
dollars annually. If implemented as currently written, manufacturers will face reductions in
existing air freight capacity, new costs associated with massive supply chain redesigns,
additional training costs, inefficiencies that could cause confusion with international partners
who adhere to alternate standards and lost business to foreign companies who are not subject
to these proposed rules. Manufacturers strongly support a rule that instead achieves
harmonization with internationally agreed-upon requirements for lithium battery transport.
DOT Hours of Service Rulemaking
The DOT's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has announced
changes to the trucking hours of service rules first implemented in 2004. It has proposed to
reduce well-established 11-hour driving and 14-hour on-duty times for truckers and to introduce
new rest mandates. Over the past six years, driver and motor carrier safety performance has
improved, and truck-involved fatalities and injuries have markedly declined. For manufacturers
and those dependent on a healthy manufacturing economy, changes to the rule will have major
January 7, 2011
Page 5
impacts on distribution patterns, supply chains, just-In-time delivery standards, trucking capacity
and ultimately will add operational costs to be borne by shippers and motor carriers. In 2005,
the American Trucking Association estimated that reducing the driving time by one hour and
eliminating the 34-hour restart provision would cost over $2 billion to impacted industries. While
the DOT is adhering to the terms of a 2009 court negotiated settlement reached with Public
Citizen by reviewing and reconsidering the 200B Final Rule on Hours of Service, the
Department is not obligated to alter the rule. The Department's recent public commentary on
poor truck driver health and longevity is drawing some concern because the scientific data to
justify a change in the current rule is not strong. Approximately BO percent of the nation's freight
by value moves by truck.
CPSC Product Safety Information Database
In 200B, Congress passed and the President signed the Consumer Product Safety
Improvement Act (CPSIA), which, among other provisions, directed the Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC) to produce a product safety database that would provide
consumers with a meaningful tool to research product safety information that is accurate and
includes first-hand accounts of consumers and public safety entities. There was significant
debate in Congress on the appropriate types of reporters to include in the database. The final
CPSC rule, however, recognizes that Congress provided an exhaustive list of reporters but
strains credulity by expanding the definitions of consumers and public safety entities beyond
their clear public meaning and the intent of the drafters ofthe legislation. It redefined the terms
"consumer" to include trial attorneys and pUblic safety entities to include "consumer advocacy
organizations." As a result, the database will be filled with bogus reports inspired by political or
financial motives rather than safety. Congress also struck an appropriate balance between the
speed of publication of reports and the desire for accuracy as well as the protection of
confidential business information. The final rule provided for no such balance and creates a
default for immediate publication before any meritorious claims regarding trade secrets or
material inaccuracy are resolved. Once a trade secret is posted within a report, for example, no
remedy is available to undo the damage. These claims as well as claims of inaccuracy,
impossibility, or product misidentification must be resolved before the information is made public
if the database is to provide helpful information to the public.
We look forward to continuing a dialogue with you and your committee about regulation
and regulatory policy. In future communications, we will outline additional regulations in need of
reform and recommend options for reforming the regulatory process. Together we can help
make the United States the best place in the world to do business and create jobs. But a very
different approach to regulation will be necessary to accomplish this important objective.
JT/rp
Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association
"
Dhzr
Your First Call for Global Intelligence on the Motor Vehicle Supplier Industry
,A, 1030 15 th Street, NW, Suite 500 East. Washington, DC 20005

202-393-6362. Fax: 202-737-3742. www,mema.org
January 10, 2010

Chairman
Dear Chairman Issa:
The Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA) represents over 700
companies that manufacture and remanufacture motor vehicle parts for use in the light vehicle
and heavy-duty original equipment and aftermarket industries. Motor vehicle parts suppliers are
the nation's largest manufacturing sector, directly employing 685,892 U.S. workers and
contributing to over 3.2 million jobs across the country. On behalf of this industry, I thank you
for your letter, dated December 29,2010, regarding the efforts of the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform to examine existing and proposed regulations that have negatively
impacted the motor vehicle parts manufacturing industry.
MEMA believes that regulations must provide a balanced framework from which
manufacturers can operate and flourish while addressing statutory requirements outlined by
Congress. MEMA member companies are not opposed to regulations when applied in this
manner, but the industry opposes legislating through the regulatory process. Motor vehicle parts
manufacturers have worked closely with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) on the implementation of rules focused on updating the stopping distance
requirements for heavy-duty vehicles and adding the stability control technology requirement for
passenger vehicles. These rules have not created onerous costs to industry or the economy and
will make our roads safer. At the same time, MEMA has raised objections regarding the
proposal and implementation of rules from agencies when the burden on manufacturers
outweighs the stated policy objectives. Without appropriate regulatory policy, the global
competitiveness of the United States will continue to decline and more manufacturing jobs will
be lost.
I MEMA represents its members through four affiliate associations: Automotive Aftermarket Suppliers Association (AASA),
Heavy Duty Manufacturers Association (HDMA), Molor & Equipment Remanufacturers Association (MERA) find Original
Equipment Suppliers Association (OESA). The motor vehicle parts supplier industry is a leader in developing technologies
critical to making today's vehicles safer and more fuel efficient and is investing in product development to help mcet future
consumer demond. Suppliers also manufacture the aftermarket products necessary to repair and Jnaintain over 247 million cars
illld trucks on the road today.
AutomotIve Aftennarket Heavy Duty Original Equipment

Suppliers Association Manufacturers Association Suppliers Association
MEMA Letter to Chairman Issa
January 10,2011 Page 2
Environmental Protection Agency
A number of regulations from the EPA would have significant negative impact on the
industry. The most troubling of these are the greenhouse gas (OHO) regulations on stationary
sources, which will dramatically increase the cost for suppliers to manufacture components,
systems and parts. While this rule will not directly apply to the vast majority of motor vehicle
supplier facilities, the indirect costs will be substantial. Price increases for fuel and electricity
will in turn lead to increased manufacturing costs. Furthermore, the price of feedstocks, such as
steel, glass, aluminum, chemicals, plastics, etc., that are necessary to manufacture motor vehicle
parts, will also increase.
Although MEMA is concerned about the OHO regulations on large stationary sources and
believes that the regulation should be delayed, MEMA supports the implementation of the
national program for light-duty vehicle emissions and fuel efficiency requirements, a
collaborative, joint rulemaking between NHTSA and EPA. Without this national program
approach, there will be no national certainty in vehicle emissions and fuel efficiency
requirements from state to state. The current program, which covers vehicle model years 2012 to
2016, requires emissions and fuel efficiency standards that are attainable by the auto industry
while also improving our air quality and decreasing our reliance on foreign oil. As EPA and
NHTSA begin work on the next phase of light vehicle emissions and fuel economy standards,
MEMA has continued to support a uniform program that not only allows vehicle manufacturers
to invest in the appropriate technologies needed for their vehicles to reach or exceed fuel
economy and emissions targets, but also to help the supplier base convert research technologies
into commercially viable products.
Additionally, EPA and NHTSA are working to develop a joint national program to establish
the first-ever fuel efficiency and OHO emissions standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles
and are currently accepting comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking covering model
years 2014 to 2018. While MEMA applauds the proposal as the appropriate first step, we are
concerned about the impact and feasibility of future mandates addressing vehicles beyond model
year 2019. Historically, EPA regulations have had a dramatic impact on employment and
vehicle sales within the heavy-duty sector. For example, the 2002,2007 and 2010 EPA
requirements to lower heavy-duty engine emissions of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter had
a direct, negative impact on the employment and financial viability of many heavy-duty parts
manufacturers.
MEMA objected in part to the new and overly stringent standards for industrial boilers from
EPA. These standards will have an immediate impact on our members' bottom line without
demonstrated environmental benefits. Compliance costs associated with these harsh and
inflexible proposed rules will cost U.S. manufacturing jobs and hurt global competitiveness, just
as the economic recovery attempts to gain more traction.
Changes to how EPA categorizes "Used Oil" are opposed by MEMA. Last year, EPA took
steps to reclassify used oil as a solid waste. The Used Oil regulations, which were developed in
1985, have encouraged recycling by allowing for the development of markets for which both
"On-Specification" and "Off-Specification" used oils are now considered traditional fuels and
have become valuable commodities as a result. This proposed rule will have unintended
consequences that could negatively affect the used oil and used oil filter recycling efforts in the
United States, cause negative environmental impacts and place economic burdens on industry,
January 10,2011 Page 3
states, and local communities that rely on these valuable commodities for cost-efficient
production purposes.
MEMA has also raised questions about EPA's decision to clarify the Toxic Release
Inventory (TRI) article exemption. Since 1988, EPA has interpreted the articles exemption to
exempt from TRI reporting the normal migration of reportable chemicals from finished goods
that have completed the manufacturing process. The fundamental precept underlying this
position has been that such migration is not caused by the "processing" or use of the item, but
occurs continuously throughout the life of an article. Under EPA's proposed clarification,
emissions of chemicals from finished goods that are not processed or used, or that are sitting in
storage, would be reportable to the TRI. This proposed clarification would greatly increase
reporting burdens on manufacturers.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
There are three potentially problematic issues emerging from OSHA. The agency published
an interpretation notice (outside the normal rulemaking process) that will dramatically change
the way it enforces noise level standards. This change would impact businesses of all sizes and
replace a currently effective policy under which employers may provide cost-effective and
efficient personal protective equipment to protect their employees from exposure to high noise
levels. Under the new proposal, employers must do what is "feasible" to reduce overall noise in
the workplace, regardless of cost.
Additionally, MEMA fears that OSHA's anticipated rulemaking on employer's safety and
health programs, the Injury and Illness Prevention Program (I2P2), will not take into
consideration the significant efforts that employers are already making in this area and leaves
definitions such as "injury" and "significant risk" open to interpretation by OSHA investigators.
Employee health and safety is a priority for our member companies. However, MEMA views
both of these proposed changes as too broad and overreaching as well as financially .
unsustainable for businesses of any size to comply.
In addition, MEMA believes that OSHA is taking a moreadversarial approach with

employers, particularly small employers, in Its consultation practices. Employers should be able
to consult with OSHA to gain a better understanding of how to comply with workplace safety
standards without fear of citations and fines. A recently proposed rule would subject small
businesses to enforcement based on their voluntary participation in these types of programs.
This action would create a strong disincentive to participate in consultation programs, which can
be a valuable resource for employers.
National Labor Relations Board
MEMA is carefully watching activity from the NLRB. In December, the NLRB proposed a
rule that would require employers to post a notice to employees about their rights to unionize
under the National Labor Relations Act. Moreover, the notice must be posted like other required
employee rights posters and must also be posted electronically, if employers use electronic
communications. Additionally, the Board has proposed establishing a new "unfair labor practice"
liability on employers for failure to comply with this proposal's requirements for posting. As the
landscape on Capitol Hill has changed, MEMA worries that the Administration may seek to
January 10, 2011 Page 4
advance issues related to the Employee Free Choice Act through regulatory channels and
believes that the Board's authority to issue this proposed rule is unclear.
DOT Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
MEMA believes that the new shipping and handling requirements for the transportation of
lithium ion and lithium metal batteries is unnecessarily excessive in light of existing, stringent
international standards. These regulations will be inconsistent with those previously adopted by
international regulators and U.S. trading partners. Each year, billions of lithium batteries and
products containing them are shipped by air without incident. The estimated cost to shippers to
comply with this proposal would be significant, impacting manufacturers, retailers and
consumers. MEMA would support a rule that seeks to harmonize U.S. rules within the existing
international framework.
In closing, MEMA welcomes the opportunity to provide input to your Committee on existing
and proposed regulations that have or will negatively impact job growth in the motor vehicle
supplier industry. Thank you for your consideration ofthe issues raised in this letter. If you
require additional information, please contact me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
~ W,'!s-v--
Ann Wilson
Senior Vice President, Government Affairs
!III'(l]J NAND
! i,j~
alklc;nce
January 7, 2011
Via E-Mail

Chair, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Re: Response to December 29, 20 IO. Letter to Trade Associations
The NanoBusiness Alliance is an industry association founded to advance the

emerging business of nanotechnology and microsystems for corporations, start-ups, researchers,
universities, investors, and other stakeholders. We know your Committee has asked various
industry groups for suggestions relating to, among other things, policies or regulations issued by
the current Administration that may be having a negative impact on job creation or otherwise
stifling continued American economic growth.
The NanoBusiness Alliance would like to draw your attention to the issue of
nanotechnology, which holds great promise for continued innovation across many sectors of our
economy. Unfortunately, as nanotechnology cuts across various sectors of our economy, it has
become subject to differing interpretations, definitions, and regulatory approaches across
government agencies. This alone would be an appropriate subject for your Committee's inquiry,
which we would hope can result, at minimum, in a better coordinated approach to the
government's regulation of nanomaterials.
Of perhaps greater concern, however, are some developments at the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that may adversely impact the nanotechnology industry
through direct regulatory compliance costs, or more dangerously, by raising unnecessary public
alarms through unfounded and inconsistent characterizations of nanotechnology materials.
Specifically, we understand EPA is working on several proposals under the Toxic

Substances Control Act (TSCA) that could have an immediate and significant impact on the
commercialization of nanoscale materials. These are proposals to impose regulatory
requirements on manufacturers of nanoscale materials and/or the nanoscale products they
produce. In some cases, such products might warrant further testing or scrutiny, and the
NanoBusiness Alliance would welcome an opportunity to work with EPA and other stakeholders
to ensure EPA has the information it needs to assist with commercializing products of
nanotechnology. Because EPA's current approach to implementing its authority is unclear, we
are concerned that regulatory requirements may be imposed unnecessarily.
ReviwHzing the Economy Through Nanotechnology Innovation
6045 LtlrllOn Ave. Suite Q~~606. Skokie, IL 130077 312.224.8319
January 7, 20Il
Page 2
Part of our concern 'is that the cost for compliance is potentially very high and in
some instances, given the lack of accepted analytical methods, test results may not yield accurate
safety data, This could result in prohibitive compliance costs for uncertain improvements in
environmental outcomes, and reinforce unfounded characterizations that all nanoscale materials
are likely to be environmental or health threats.
Likewise, EPA's pesticide program has discussed its intention to label the
presence of any nanoscale component in any pesticide product as needing to file an "adverse
effect report" -- regardless of any indication or evaluation of risk. Such a regulatory
determination will negatively impact the innovation of nanoscale materials in the pest control
industry.
We would also like to note that while many countries have been moving forward
on the commercialization of nanomaterials (and creating jobs) without regulatory obstacles,
much of the development work for the initial research was funded by U.S, taxpayers through
activities like the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Certainly, it would be important for the
U.S, to benefit from the research funded by taxpayers through job creation here rather than
sending the new jobs to other parts of the world that can capitalize on our investments without
facing regulatory obstacles.
Sincerely,
Vincent Caprio
Executive Director
0502.133/7/00070248,DOC
NAPA
=-=
NATIONAL ASPHALT PAVMENT ASSOCIATION
NAPA Building _ 5100 Forbes Boulevard _ Lanham, Maryland, USA 20706-4407
Toll Free: 888-468-6499 _ Tel: 301-731-4748 _ Fax: 301-731-4621
Mike Aeott, President
January 24, 2011

Chairman
B350A Rayburn House Office Building
Dear Chairman Issa:
Thank you for this opportunity to identify eXisting and proposed regulations that
have the potential to negatively impact job growth in the asphalt pavement
industry. The National Asphalt Pavement Association represents the asphalt
pavement producer and paving contractor on the national level. The United
States has more than 2 million miles of paved roads and highways, and 94
percent of those roads are surfaced with asphalt.
While asphalt pavements serve a national market, they are built by people who
live and work in these areas. Asphalt jobs truly are Main Street jobs that cannot
be outsourced overseas. Asphalt jobs are also green jobs; asphalt is America's.
most reused and recycled material, and virtually every worker in the industry is
involved in reusing and recycling. The asphalt industry workforce includes
asphalt plant managers, administrators, road crews, researchers, engineers, and
support personnel, all of whom play critical roles in building and maintaining the
roads used by commuters and business every day.
The asphalt pavement industry provides hundreds of thousands of good paying

American jobs to workers in communities, towns, and cities across the United
States. As production of materials used in the construction of our nation's roads,
highways, and bridges declined, so have the jobs. There are now over 1.7
million unemployed construction workers in the U.S., many of whom work in the
asphalt pavement industry.
The enclosed chart describes the relationship between asphalt production and
unemployment. From 2006 thru 2010, asphalt pavement used in constructing
and maintaining roads, highways, and bridges was down 31 percent while
construction unemployment increased over 200 percent. There are currently
three pending regulations that will impact job creation in the asphalt pavement
industry that I would like to bring to your attention. .
..&. ASPKA.~
~ 1DD% RECYCLABLE
E-mail: napa@hotmix.org www.hotmix.org
January 24, 2011
Page 2
EPA's Proposed Rule to Reduce National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
for Particulate Matter (PM1 0)
The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) recommendation to reduce Particulate

Matter (PM10) from the present level of 150 to either 65 or75 micrograms of dust per
cubic meter of air would be difficult, if not impossible, for many industries to meet,
including aggregate facilities which supply stone, sand, and gravel in the manufacture of
asphalt pavements. Asphalt pavements consist of approximately 95 percent aggregate
and five percent asphalt cement. Aggregate facilities already use the best available
control technologies to control air emissions from rock crushing facilities. According to
the Nationai Stone, Sand and Gravel Association, the only option for aggregate
producers to reduce PM1 0 under the proposed standard would be to reduce aggregate
production and/or limit sales. A reduction in aggregate production would lead to a
shortage of asphalt pavement used in the construction and maintenance of our nation's
highways, roads, and bridges and would lead to significant job loss in the asphalt
pavement industry.
Regulation of small combustion engines, boilers, and process units within Area
Sources
EPA's Final Rule on setting emission and performance standards for reciprocating
internal combustion engines (RICE) in Area Sources would ratchet down emissions at
significant cost to the asphalt pavement industry while achieving minimal environmental
benefit. EPA's success in air quality improvement has typically come from regulating
large stationary or mobile sources, sometimes referred to as Major Sources under parts
of the Clean Air Act. Emissions from smaller sources, such as asphalt plants, are often
regulated at the state level and often fall under Area Source categories. Typical Area
Source industrial source categories adhere to stringent and appropriate emissions
requirements -- similar to asphalt plants. However, the most recent proposed and final
rulemaking from EPA attempts to restrict use of very small combustion engines, boilers,
and process units including those at Area Source categories.
Regulating emissions from these small sources, like small stationary generators, is of
limited environmental value. The actual reduction in the level of emissions from a small
generator at an Area Source pales in comparison to any slight emissions reductions at
larger Major Sources. In addition, the cost borne by small industries such as ours
affected by Area Source rules will further depress an industry that is already
experiencing significant job loss.
January 24, 2011
Page 3
3% Withholding Tax.
On January 1, 2012 a new law will require federal, state, and local governments to
withhold 3-percent from all payments for goods and services as a guard against
possible business tax evasion. The law requires withholding of 3% on all government
payments for products and services made by federal, state, and local governments with
total expenditures of $100 million or more and affects payments for goods and services
under government contracts.
The 3 percent withholding applies to the total contract. For construction contractors,
this means the government is withholding funds necessary to complete a project, such
as those necessary to pay for materiel and suppliers. Most contractors do not make
.3% profit on a contract. This burden calculates to 350 percent withholding on
government construction contractors' net income until such time as the government
repays what is owed.
In addition, access to capital is a major concern for the businesses in the asphalt
pavement industry. The 3% withholding will further compound this problem for
businesses by limiting their operating capital and cash-on-hand. The cash flow of each
company will be reduced and force the contractor to borrow more money from the
banks in a tight lending market. This is not the time to place additional limits on capital
while the economy begins to recover.
While the withholding requirement is not scheduled to go into effect until January 1,
2012, it is already proving costly, and such costs will increase exponentiallyas the
implementation deadline moves closer. Businesses are starting to expend resources
now in preparation for implementation due to major system and process changes
needed for withholding, reporting, and reconciling the hundreds of thousands of affected
payments annually. Action is urgently needed to prevent companies from incurring
these costs.
In summary, these three regulations will create business uncertainty and barriers to job
creation in the asphalt pavement industry. I sincerely appreciate this opportunity to
present the asphalt pavement industry's perspective and look forward to working with
you during the 11ih Congress to generate growth and jobs in the U.S. economy.
President
EnClosure
HMA Tons Produced Annually
Annual Unemployment Rate - Construction Industry
2006-2010
600 25.00%
500
- -
521
.......... 20.6%
20.00%
400
~2
.-I
~362
.
360
Vl .
/
C 15.00%
0
r::-
C
300
~
0
10.00%
~ 200
......
..- 7.4%
6.7%
5.00%
100
o 0.00%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
-e-HMA Tons _ _ Unemployment

National Association of Home Builders
1201 15th Street NW

Wastllnn1on, DC 20005
T 800 358 5242
F 202 266 8400
w,,'A"I.nahb,org
-
HAMB January 20,2011

Chairman
Dear Chairman Issa:
On behalf of the over 160,000 members of the National Association of Home Builders,
I want to thank you for your aggressive efforts to reach out to the business community
for thoughts on federal rules and regulations that should be a part of Congress'
oversight efforts in the 112th Congress. As you know, NAHB represents all aspects of
the residential construction industry and our members have daily interaction with
scores of federal regulations. Because of their experience, our members have an
acute understanding of how the federal government's regulatory process impacts real-
world small businesses. Given the regulatory environment we face as an industry and.
as small businesses, we would like to share with you our thoughts on some key
regulations that we believe should receive increased federal oversight.
First and foremost, our members remain incredibly concerned about the ongoing credit
crisis impacting our industry. As a lawmaker in California, you are well aware of the
devastating state of the housing market, and the ripple effect that a poor housing
market has on the health of the local and national economy. One key factor in
housing's current depressed state has been continued confusion and roadblocks in the
banking community over the issue of Acquisition, Development and Construction
(AD&C) lending. The lack of lending has stymied recovery of our industry and scores
of others. Specific to AD&C lending, our members have spent over two years caught
in an 'argument' between banks and federal regulators who take turns pointing fingers
at one another when we try to seek answers to the questions of who exactly is to
blame for the lack of lending to the construction sector. Our members have been run
around a hamster wheel on the question of whether federal banking regulators are
pressuring the banks not to lend, whether the local examiners are 'acting rogue
against the wishes of the DC chiefs', or if institutions are overhauling and downsizing
portfolios independent of regulator/examiner pressure. As citizens, we are limited in
our ability to push for answers to this problem, but we believe that Congress has the
authority to get to the bottom of the problem and help us to jumpstart our industry a~d
the national economy.
Additionally, we remain vitally concerned about the implementation of the EPA Lead
Renovation Repair and Painting Rule (LRRP). The final rule, which took effect April
22,2010, requires renovation work that disturbs more than six-square feet in a pre-
1978 home to follow new lead-safe work practices su pervised by an EPA-certified
renovator and performed by an EPA-certified renovation firm. Poor development and
implementation by EPA has resulted in considerable compliance costs and has
hindered both job growth and energy efficiency upgrades in older homes. Worse yet,
EPA has proposed additional job-kiliing amendments to the rule to require abatement-
style clearance testing for post-renovation work and new work practices rules and
regulations for public and commercial buildings.
Further, our members have been particularly frustrated with efforts by DOE to push for
significant increases in energy code requirements at the recent national model code
development hearings, while simultaneously ignoring pleas from the regulated
community on how to implement such requirements. Specifically, NAHB and DOE
both supported an increase of 30% in minimum energy code compliance for the next
edition of the energy code (IECC), but DOE refused to provide NAHB with any
information on how it calculated the 30% increase, even though NAHB made the
request both formaliy (through FOIA) and informally (directly to DOE staff) on many
numerous occasions. It is unrealistic to expect the reguiated community to comply
with an energy code mandate if the Agency in charge refuses to even share with
builders how to achieve the mandate in the first place.
We know that your request for input has likely generated hundreds, if not thousands,
of suggestions from all of the various sectors and industries touched by the federal
regulatory structure. We have highlighted several key items in the body of this letter,
but also for the sake of thoroughness, we have attached some additional suggestions
for your potential review. The items included in the following pages reflect key
regulatory items that our membership continues to have concerns about. We look
forward to continuing to discuss those Items, as well as the items contained in the
body of this letter, as you move forward into the 1st Session of the 112th Congress.
We thank you again for your efforts to reach out to industry to bring concerns to light,
and we wish you much success as Chairman as your Committee attempts to tackle
some of these difficult issues.
Thank you for giving consideration to our views and concerns. Please do not hesitate
to contact me at 202-266-8470 or jstanton@nahb.org to further our conversation on
the items of concern to the residentiai construction industry.
Sincerely,
Joseph M. Stanton
Senior Vice President and Chief Lobbyist
Government Affairs
__ ... .... Natlona.l
A,"oolatlon
Onerous Regulations for Home Building &
NAHB. of Horne
Bullt;lers
Remodeling Industries
January 2011
Acguisition, Development and Construction (AD&C) Lending

• Agencies. FDIC, Office of the Comptroller of Currency (OCC), Office of
Thrift Supervision (OTS), Department of Treasury, Federal Reserve Bank
• Background. NAHB urges cDngressiDnal Dversight intD federal bank regulatDr
activity that withDut immediate actiDn will be a majDr impediment tD the hDusing
recDvery and an increasing threat tD the ability Df many small builders tD survive
the eCDnDmic dDwnturn. The hDme bUilding industry cDntinues to experience a
significant adverse shift in terms and availability Dn land acquisitiDn, land
develDpment and hDme cDnstructiDn (AD&C) loans, and builders with
outstanding IDans are facing mDunting challenges.
• Impact. Lenders are refusing to extend new AD&C credit or tD modify
outstanding AD&C loans in Drder tD provide mDre time tD complete prDjects and
pay Dff IDans. Lenders themselves often cite regulatDry requirements or
examiner pressure Dn banks tD shrink their AD&C IDan portfoliDs as reasons fDr
their actiDns. While federal bank regulatDrs maintain that they are nDt
encDuraging institutiDns to StDP making IDans or tD indiscriminately liquidate
Dutstanding loans, repDrts frDm NAHB members in a number Df different
geDgraphies suggest that bank examiners in the field are adopting a significantly
mDre aggressive pDsture. MDreDver, SDme institutiDns appear tD be Dverhauling
and dDwnsizing portfDlios independent Df regulatDr/examiner pressure.
• Impact on Home Building. As a result Df this regulatDry pressure, the hDme
building industry is having extreme difficUlty in Dbtaining credit fDr viable
prDjects. Builders with outstanding cDnstructiDn and development IDans are
experiencing intense pressure as the result Df reqUirements for significant
additiDnal equity, denials Dn loan extensiDns, and demands fDr immediate
repayment. In short, the credit windDw seems tD have been slammed shut for
builders all Dver the cDuntry.
Lead-Based Paint - Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule (RRP), Clearance

Testing
• Agency. U.S. EnvirDnmental ProtectiDn Agency
• Background. EPA finalized the RRP in 2008 requiring remDdelers tD be trained
and certified, use lead-safe work practices, and keep recDrds fDr remDdeling and
renDvatiDn wDrk performed in pre-1978 homes. As part Df a settlement
agreement with interest groups, EPA agreed tD amend the 2008 rule by
eliminating the "Dpt-OUt" provision aliDwing homeDwners with nD children under
six living in the hDme tD waive the rule's requirements, and dDubled the amount
Df hDmes subject tD the rule. EPA has aisD prDpDsed amendments tD require
abatement-style clearance testing as a requirement fDr certain renDvatiDn
prDjects and tD establish an RRP rule fDr public and cDmmercial bUildings.
Lastly, EPA's Driginal eCDnDmic analysis relied heavily upDn the availability Df an
imprDved pre-renDvatiDn test kit, supposed to be available in September 2010,
but such kit dDes nDt exist and EPA has not agreed tD adjust its cDrrespDnding
eCDnDmic analysis abDut the burden Dn businesses.
• Impact. EPA estimated the 2008 RRP rule cost at $490.7 million in the first year
and between $279.1-30-1.2 million in subsequent years once fully implemented
with a fully qualifying test kit (identified and commercially available). EPA's
removal of the opt-out provision and its failure to develop or identify a test kit has
resulted in a regulation that will cost an estimated $826.7 million in the first year
and between $722.1-779.2 million in subsequent years. [The removal of the opt-
out, according to EPA, adds $336 million in the first year of the regulation and $194-209
million in SUbsequent years once fully Implemented. The lack of a qualifying test kit alone
is responsible for an added cost of $250-270'million per year.]
• Impact on remodeling. The remodeling industry is impacted because the rule
does not apply to home owners, who can undertake the work themselves without
following the rule, thereby increasing the risks of creating a lead hazard and
harming children, or choose uncertified "black market contractors" who do not
comply with the rule's requirements and avoid the additional costs, making
uncertified work cheaper to consumers. This impairs the ability of professionally-
trained and certified remodelers to undertake critical energy efficiency and
upgrade work in older homes who must compete with DIY and non-compliant
"contractors; "
Construction & Development Effluent Limitation Guidelines

• Agency. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• Background. In December 2009, EPA finalized Effluent Limitation
Guidelines (ELGs) for the Construction and Development (C&D) Industry.
The ELG establishes minimum control requirements for anyone requiring
a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction
stormwater permit issued by EPA or an authorized state. The new rule
contains two basic parts: (1) requires all construction sites to use best
management practices; and (2) demands a vast majority of developers
ensure that stormwater leaving their sites does not exceed a turbidity
(essentially a measure of clarity of water) limit of 280 nephelometric
turbidity units (NTU) - a standard virtually impossible to meet. NAHB told
EPA that the numeric limit was unattainable on most construction sites
and costs would be exorbitant, but EPA finalized the rule anyway. NAHB
and the Wisconsin Builders Association challenged the ELG in federal
court, arguing that EPA relied on improper data and miscalculated the
appropriate numeric limit. After reading NAHB's brief and consulting with
the EPA, the Department of Justice (DOJ) realized it could not defend
EPA's position in court, and EPA had to admit that "the calculations in the
existing administrative record are no longer adequate to support the 280-
NTU effluent limit." Additionally, EPA stayed the numeric portion of the
rule until it can develop a new one. OMB is now reviewing EPA's new
draft numeric limit.
• Impact. EPA expects all states to incorporate the ELG rule into all
NPDES permits by 2014. EPA stated that it believes the 280 limit can be
met through a combination of Best Management Practices (BMPs), such
as limiting the amount of land disturbed at anyone time, or phasing
construction activities. Because EPA has limited data regarding the
efficacy of these techniques, it is unclear whether the use of these
practices will meet the 280 NTU limit on a consistent basis. Although the
numeric limit, a crucial part of the ELG rule, has been stayed by EPA, the
Agency plans to keep all other aspects of the ELG rule in place, including
compliance deadlines, monitoring, record-keeping, and reporting
requirements.
• Impact on Home Building. The ELG rule will become a legally binding
permitting requirement for all residential construction activities with a
project size of 1O-acres or greater. This size parameter will include most
homebuilding projects. According to the Small Business Administration,
the C&D ELG will cost the construction industry $10 billion annually, or up
to $15,000 per developed acre. NAHB remains concerned that EPA's
"new" NTU limit will also be based on unreliable data and require
unfeasible technology to achieve the limit, and therefore continue to have
a large price tag.

• Background. On May 7, 2010, EPA issued its first regulation setting limits on
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from cars (the "Auto Rule"), as part of a suite
of regulations focused on curbing GHGs. Although the Auto Rule is for mobile
sources (cars), EPA has interpreted this regulation to trigger requirements for
stationary sources, which could include single family and multifamily dwellings,
beginning January 2, 2011. In an effort to temporarily exempt small stationary
sources, EPA issued the GHG Tailoring Rule in June 2010, however, the
. Tailoring Rule still allows EPA to revise emissions' thresholds downward to
include small sources such as single family or multifamily projects over time.
NAHB, along with a coalition of others, filed a legal challenge to EPA's
interpretation and NAHB's policy opposes using existing environmental statutes
to regulate GHGs. In September 2010, NAHB filed a motion to stay EPA's GHG
regulations and on December 10, 2010, the court denied that motion. NAHB
supported legislation (5. 3072), sponsored by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), to
set a two-year moratorium on EPA reguiating stationary sources, preventing EPA
from taking any action under the Clean Air Act with respect to stationary source
permitting or standards of performance relating to carbon dioxide or methane, but
the legislation did not receive a vote in the 111 th Congress.
• Impact. By regulating GHGs from mobile sources as a pollutant under the Clean
Air Act, EPA believes it is essentially bound to regulate GHGs from stationary
sources as well. This establishes the debate over whether or not GHGs are
considered traditional "pOllutants" for purposes of regulating stationary sources
and, if so, it would be extremely challenging for the Agency to propose things like
permitting, new source performance standards, and non-attainment areas for
naturally-occurring and globally-constant gases like carbon dioxide, for example.
• Impact on Home BUilding. EPA data shows that 515 new single family homes
and 6,400 new multifamily dwellings would exceed the statutory 250 ton-per-year
threshold triggering pre-construction permitting under the Clean Air Act for
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD). If these new developments require
federal permitting, it could thwart the delicate housing recovery that is expected
in the next few years.
Stormwater Regulations Revision to Address Discharges from Developed

Sites
• Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• Background. Under section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act, the
Environmental Protection Agency regulates stormwater discharges from
municipal separate storm sewer systems (publicly owned conveyances or
systems of conveyances that discharge to waters of the U.S. and are
designed or used for collecting or conveying storm water, are not
combined sewers, and are not part of a publicly owned treatment works),
stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity, and stormwater
discharges from construction sites of one acre or larger. Under EPA's
regulations, these stormwater discharges are required to be covered by
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. EPA
has initiated a national rulemaking to establish more stringent
requirements on stormwater discharges from new development and
redevelopment and make other regulatory changes to municipal separate
storm sewer systems. It is expected that these regulations will take into
account the potential discharges from the site after construction is
completed, which is an unprecedented level of regulation. EPA intends to
propose a rule in September 2011 and to take final action by November
2012.
• Impact. By developing a new stormwater rule, EPA could significantly
increase the costs associated with stormwater management for new
development and redevelopment.
• Impact on Home Building. The homebuilding industry will have to
implement long term stormwater flow controls and design sites to manage
long term stormwater flow. The cost of homebuilding could rise'as these
new systems are implemented. The administrative burden on state and
local government will also increase as they adopt and manage the
implementation of these new policies.
Ozone NAAQS Reconsideration

• Background. EPA originally promulgated a new national ambient air quality
standard (NMOS) in 2008, resulting in a more stringent 0.075 ppm (the previous
standard was 0.08 ppm). A number of groups (including NAHB) and states filed
litigation challenging the 2008 NMOS. Then in September 2009, EPA
announced it would "reconsider" the 2008 standard while still keeping it in place-
despite the fact that the Clean Air Act contains a specific procedure EPA must
use to develop a new or revised NAAOS. EPA originally intended to issue this
reconsidered NMOS in August 2010, but has now twice delayed its release.
The Agency now states it will return to its science advisors and issue the
reconsideration by August 2011.
• Impact. EPA is expected to lower the NAAOS from 0.075 ppm to somewhere
between 0.070 and 0.060 ppm. A reduction at these extremely low levels would
regulate some naturally occurring ozone and would cost states and industries
hundreds of millions of dollars to try and comply with the NAAOS. Many more
areas of the U.S. would be plunged into nonattainment.
• Impact on home building. Home building is affected because construction
equipment emissions contain one of the chemical precursors to ground level
ozone. States attempting to meet EPA's NMOS may impose construction
restrictions or even outright bans on the use of construction equipment during
certain times of the day or during certain seasons. Additionally, tighter controls
on other supplier industries results in increased prices for building materials,
raising the cost of a home.
Proposed Rule for Coal Ash Residuals ICCR) under RCRA

• Background: In June 2010, EPA proposed a rule to reverse longstanding
"beneficial use" policy exempting electric utilities that generate vast quantities of
coal ash residuals (CCR) from strict permitting and disposal requirements under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA previously
recognized labeling CCR as a "hazardous waste" under RCRA could halt the
emerging "beneficial use" market for products containing CCR, such as drywall,
concrete, soil conditioners, and road material aggregates. An amendment to
RCRA (BeVill amendment), authorized by Congress, allowed EPA to exempt
specific waste streams from RCRA based on eight criteria under which EPA
conducted two analyses and concluded CRR and products containing CCR
wastes did not pose a threat to human health or the environment. As a result,
CCR wastes are covered under Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), enforced by
States, not EPA. EPA's current proposal reverses the two Bevill analyses and
seeks to regulate "un-encapsulated" (utility wastes) CCR wastes under RCRA,
but not CCR wastes that are "encapsulated" (used in construction materials),
without clarifying if it would regulate CCR wastes in disposed building materials
(after demolition). While EPA recognizes using CCR waste in construction
material (wallboard and cement) actually reduces GHG emissions between 12.5-
25 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent per year, the reversal on the "beneficiai
use" policy risks undermining EPA's efforts to encourage the use of construction
material containing CCR and creates confusion for the industry and consumers
about whether or not construction materials containing CCR are considered
"hazardous wastes" by EPA.
• Impact. According to EPA, approximately 40% of all drywall contains CCR
wastes and CCR wastes replaces 15% to 30% of cement binding agents used in
the formation of concrete. Because various green building rating systems and .
standards (including the NGBS) give reference to products containing CCR, and
award points for its use in programmatic benchmarks for green construction as a
recyclable material, the impact of this regUlation could be broad.
• Impact on Home BUilding. NAHB members face regulatory uncertainty under
EPA's proposal over the long term RCRA status of CCR containing construction
materials at demolition and disposal. Builders also face confusion and potential
consumer liability risks arising from EPA's position that drywall and concrete
containing CCR wastes could be safe in residential use, but is considered a
"hazardous waste" under RCRA if stored on an industrial site.
Other Regulatory Concerns
Federal Energy Efficiency Standardj National Energy Building Code

• Agency. U.S. Department of Energy
• Background. For years, the home building industry has relied upon and
participated in the development of consensus-based building and energy
codes for new home construction. Most recently, this process has been
managed by the International Code Council (ICC). Over the past few
years, efficiency advocates, environmentalists, and product manufacturers
have used this process to dramatically increase minimum energy code
requirements that often outpace afford ability and reasonable cost-benefits
to consumers. Furthermore, interest groups have lobbied Congress to
pass minimum energy code mandates federally and push States to adopt
aggressive energy codes in order to receive federal incentive funding.
Because the ever-increasing energy code requirements are disconnected
from reasonable energy savings payback to consumers, and
unnecessarily increase the cost of new, more energy-efficient homes,
NAHB has opposed federal legislation, and has argued against code
proposals with ICC, that set unreasonable energy efficiency minimums.
Lately, an emboldened DOE, also a stakeholder in the ICC proce?s, has
been sponsoring and promoting aggressive energy code proposals (also
considered by Congress). In doing so, DOE has purposefully been
unwilling, even after receiving Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
requests, to provide calculations and methodologies on how the regulated
community can meet the most aggressive energy code increases in .
history.
• Impact. Because the ICC process is not a program with federal oversight,
there is little recourse. Until recently, Congress had never considered
usurping a State's right to set its own building and energy codes. With
renewed lobbying by interest groups, and a federal agency that supports
the interest groups' efforts, it has become more challenging to forestall
substantial increases in energy efficiency for new homes that have
appeared in several pieces of legislation, and that have recently been
approved by the ICC. The federalization of the building energy code
process will be critical as Congress continues to grapple with setting
minimum efficiency standards.
• Impact on Home Building. Significant increases in minimum energy
code requirements can raise the costs of a new home from $3,000-
$15,000, depending on the increase and area. This substantial price jump
makes the newest, most energy-efficient homes harder to sell, or
completely unaffordable, particularly for lower-to-moderate income
families. Reiegating families that are the hardest hit by higher energy bills
to the least-efficient, older housing is unfair and actually wastes energy.
Energy efficiency has to be reasonable and affordable to the consumers
that ultimately pay the co.sts for such requirements - i.e., future
homebuyers and homeowners.
Federal Sustainability and Transportation Initiatives

• Agencies. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Dept. of Housing
and Urban Development, U.S. Department of Transportation.
• Background. Ongoing efforts by the Administration to promote an urban-
centric, dense, and "green" development standard, called "sustainable
communities," have been increasing over the past two years. Combining
housing, transportation and energy efficiency/green into one initiative
under the term "sustainability" would be handied by a joint, intra-agency
program to provide grants, funding, and other government support for
housing and development projects meeting specific "sustainability" criteria.
The Administration has promoted this approach as a way to both address
climate change and to calculate the true "cost" of housing by including
transportation using a proprietary model ("housing and transportation
index" or "H&T index"). This calculation tool and methodology is notpeer-
reviewed and appears to be disconnected from market realities for both
builders and consumers. Additionally, such government programs have
proven to be heavily reliant upon LEED and other non-ANSI green rating
systems without giving equal recognition for the ANSI-approved National
Green Building Standard.
• Impact. Because the Administration wants to promote the sustainability, it
. could easily become a criteria requirement for accessing a variety of
federal funding and grant opportunities for housing and development
projects. This process largely exists outside of the legislature and is often
voluntary. However, funneling the government's limited resources for
housing by forcing developers to use proprietary standards and calculation
modules could prove to be unnecessarily costly, restrictive, and
unaffordable for consumers in the long term.
• Impact on Home Building. Although efforts and initiatives to promote
sustainability have been largely voluntary until now, it could become
mandatory in the future. If this federalization of land use and
"sustainability" concept filters down and becomes the requirement for
accessing all federal housing funds, it could create problems for builders
using other green programs that are not proprietary (like the NGBS) and
that may not use the H?<T index, particularly in rural, non-urban areas, for
which the H&T index model is unworkable and inappropriate.
EPA Guidance Concerning Clean Water Act Geographic Jurisdiction

• Background. The Clean Water Act (CWA) provides EPA and Army Corps of
Engineers with authority over "navigable waters," which Congress defines as "the
waters of the United States." The U.S. Supreme Court has issued three main
cases concerning the government's geographic jurisdiction under the Clean
Water Act:
1. United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U. S.121 (1985)
2. Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook Cty. v. Army Corps of Engineers,
531 U. S. 159 (2001), and
3. Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006).
In Rapanos, Chief Justice Roberts suggested that the government develop a
regulation that establishes the scope of its authority. SUbsequently, (December
2007 and June 2008) the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers developed
guidance (not a regUlation) concerning the government's jurisdiction. These
guidance documents attempted to interpret all three of the Court's opinions.
NAHB understands that EPA has drafted a new guidance document that focuses
on CWA geographic jurisdiction and this third gUidance document has been
developed without input from the land development community.
• Impact. In Rapanos, the plurality noted that "[t]he average applicant for an
individual [CWA section 404] permit spends 788 days and $271,596 in
completing the process, and the average applicant for a nationwide permit
spends 313 days and $28,915-not counting costs of mitigation or design
changes." Furthermore, the Court recognized that each year over $1.7 billion Is
spent obtaining wetland permits.
• Impact on Home Building. Currently, there is broad interpretation of the term
"the waters of the United States" and broad regulations governing stormwater
discharges. Subsequently; a large majority of home builders are required to
obtain CWA discharge permits and many land developers must often obtain
federal permission to use their private property. Therefore, increasing the
number of federal permits required for a construction project would force even
more home builders to deal with the federal permitting backlog and the high price
of getting a permit. Such costs and time delays will affect the availability and
affordability of new homes.
NCPA
NA'TIONAL COMMUNITY
WWW.i'U: P A I( Ii T, 0 lUI
PHARMACI,g.'f:!3 AJ!;B(,CIATlON
January 12,2011

Subject: Regulations Negatively Impacting Independent Community Pharmacy
Dear Chairman Issa:
Thank you for the opportunity to submit our views on existing and proposed regljlations that
have negatively impacted the independent community pharmacy industry, as well as our
suggestions on reforming these regu lations.
As background, NCPA represents the interests of America's community pharmacists, including

the owners of more than 23,000 independent community pharmacies, pharmacy franchises, and
chains. Together they represent a $93 billion health-care marketplace, have more than 315,000
employees including 62,400 pharmacists, and dispense over 41 % of all retail prescriptions.
NCPA members are the primary providers of drugs and pharmaceutical supplies to millions of
Americans.
Per your request, NCPA is most concerned about the negative impacts of the following
regulations:
Imposing Competitive Bidding for Diabetic Testing Supplies on Independent Community

Pharmacies
Future CMS regulations, pursuant to the new health care reform law, will either require
independent community pharmacies to participate in competitive bidding for diabetic testing
supplies and other products or impose aggressive competitive bidding pricing on independent
community pharmacies.
Pending these future regulations, upcoming intermediate regulations will prohibit independent
community pharmacies from providing delivery of diabetic testing supplies to homebound
beneficiaries. Medicare patients with diabetes rely on convenient access to community
pharmacies and homebound patients rely on home delivery by their independent community
pharmacist to obtain diabetes testing supplies. However, competitive bidding threatens access to
these supplies for patients that obtain them from local neighborhood pharmacies and through
home delivery from these trusted pharmacies.
100 D.aingerfield Road

Alexandria, VA22314-28B8
(703) 6~3·8200 PN 0 N'
THE VOICE Of THE COMMUNITY PHARMACIST
(703) 683-3619 FA x
NCPA supports a permanent exemption for independent pharmacies from competitive bidding,
as well as authorization to continue providing home delivery outside of the competitive bidding
program. Be·cause small independent pharmacies do not get the discounts that large mail order or
chain pharmacies do, if they are not permanently excluded from the competitive bidding program
and are not authorized to provide home delivery, this will mean that they will likely drop out of
the program, reducing Medicare beneficiaries' access to these supplies.
Burdensome IRS 1099 Reporting Requirements
NCPA supports bipartisan calls for the repeal of the new IRS 1099 reporting requirements on
businesses that purchase goods and services ($600 or more) from corporations. These new
expanded requirements will result in significant additional paperwork for small businesses, such
as independent community pharmacies. Independent community pharmacies anticipate having
to file an additional 100 to 200 new Form 1099's under the new law and regulations. To impose
this new significant paperwork burden upon small business independent pharmacies only serves
to divert resources away from patients and improving health outcomes, and instead directs those
resources of time, money and effort toward bureaucratic tax requirements.
Reduced Access to OTC Medicines through Flexible Spending Accounts (FSA)
NCPA supports policies that encourage the use of over the counter (OTC) medications. For that
reason, we are concerned with the new healthcare law's provision and IRS regulations, which
prohibit consumers from using their pre-tax flexible spending accounts (FSAs) to pay for OTC
medicines unless the patient has a prescription. This new requirement will make it more difficult
for consumers to access lower-cost OTCs and will possibly discourage them from purchasing
such OTC medicines, thereby having a negative impact on independent community pharmacy
OTC sales.
Access to the 340B Drug Discount Program by Insured Patients
NCPA supports reforms to the 340B program to assure that these 340B medications, which are
required by law to be sold at a significant discount by the manufacturer to Federally-funded
clinics and certain disproportionate share hospitals, are used only for the intended populations:
uninsured and underinsured Americans.
Within the 340B program, the existing definition of the term "patient" allows certain insured
patients to receive low-cost 340B drugs. These insured patients represent significant profits
because the 340B entity purchases the drugs from the manufacturers at low cost 340B prices and
will receive the same level of reimbursement from insurers as they would have received if the
drugs were not purchased at 340B prices. Independent community pharmacies are losing insured
patients to 340B entities because the entities are luring patients away through co-pay discounts.
We seek to define the term "patient" to include only patients that do not have prescription drug
insurance.

1112/2011
Page 2 of3
NCPA appreciates the opportunity to demonstrate the regulatory burdens faced by independent
community pharmacies, as well as the opportunity to propose suggestions and solutions to
eliminate these burdens. We appreciate your effort and interest and please do not hesitate to
have your staff contact me by email at john.coster@ncpanet.org, or by telephone at (703) 600-
1184, if you have any questions. Thank you for your interest in independent community retail
pharmacy and the patients that we serve.
Sincerely,
~ YV1. 0JS'-14.
John Coster, Ph.D., R.Ph.

1/12/2011
Page 3 on
PHARMACIBT8 ARAOC1ATlON
January 12,2011

Committee on Oversight and Govemment Reform
Dear Chairman Issa:
Thank you for the opportunity to submit our views on existing and proposed regulations that
have negatively impacted the independent community pharmacy industry, as well as our
suggestions on reforming these regulations.
As background, NCPA represents the interests of America's community pharmacists, including

the owners of more than 23,000 independent community pharmacies, pharmacy franchises, and
chains. Together they represent a $93 billion health-care marketplace, have more than 315,000
employees including 62,400 pharmacists, and dispense over 41 % of all retail prescriptions.
NCPA members are the primary providers of drugs and pharmaceutical supplies to millions of
Americans.
Per your request, NCPA is most concerned about the negative impacts of the following
regulations:
Imposing Competitive Bidding for Diabetic Testing Supplies on Independent Community

Pharmacies
Future CMS regulations, pursuant to the new health care reform law, will either require
independent community pharmacies to participate in competitive bidding for diabetic testing
supplies and other products or impose aggressive competitive bidding pricing on independent
community pharmacies.
Pending these future regulations, upcoming intermediate regulations will prohibit independent
community pharmacies from providing delivery of diabetic testing supplies to homebound
beneficiaries. Medicare patients with diabetes rely on convenient access to community
pharmacies and homebound patients rely on home delivery by their independent community
pharmacist to obtain diabetes testing supplies. However, competitive bidding threatens access to
these supplies for patients that obtain them from local neighborhood pharmacies and through
home delivery from these trusted pharmacies.
100 DaingerHeld Road

Alexandri", VA 22314·2888
(703)683·8200 PHON'
THE VOICE OF THE COMMUNITY PHARMACIST
(703) 683-3(;19 FA X
NCPA supports a permanent exemption for independent pharmacies from competitive bidding,
as well as authorization to continue providing home delivery outside of the competitive bidding
program. Because small independent pharmacies do not get the discounts that large mail order or
chain pharmacies do, if they are not permanently excluded from the competitive bidding program
and are not authorized to provide home delivery, this will mean that they will likely drop out of
the program, reducing Medicare beneficiaries' access to these supplies.
Burdensome IRS 1099 Reporting Requirements
NCPA supports bipartisan calls for the repeal of the new IRS 1099 reporting requirements on
businesses that purchase goods and services ($600 or more) from corporations. These new
expanded requirements will result in significant additional paperwork for small businesses, such
as independent community pharmacies. Independent community pharmacies anticipate having
to file an additional 100 to 200 new Form 1099's under the new law and regulations. To impose
this new significant paperwork burden upon small business independent pharmacies only serves
to divert resources away from patients and improving health outcomes, and instead directs those
resources of time, money and effort toward bureaucratic tax requirements.
Reduced Access to OTC Medicines through Flexible Spending Accounts (FSA)
NCPA supports policies that encourage the use of over the counter (OTC) medications. For that
reason, we are concerned with the new healthcare law's provision and IRS regulations, which
prohibit consnmers from using their pre-tax flexible spending accounts (FSAs) to pay for OTC
medicines nnless the patient has a prescription. This new requirement will make it more difficult
for consumers to access lower-cost OTCs and will possibly discourage them from purchasing
such OTC medicines, thereby having a negative impact on independent community pharmacy
OTC sales.
Access to the 340B Drug Discount Program by Insured Patients
NCPA supports reforms to the 340B program to assure that these 340B medications, which are
reqnired by law to be sold at a significant disconnt by the manufacturer to Federally-funded
clinics and certain disproportionate share hospitals, are used only for the intended populations:
uninsured and underinsured Americans.
Within the 340B program, the existing defll1ition of the term "patient" allows certain insured
patients to receive low-cost 340B drugs. These insured patients represent significant profits
because the 340B entity purchases the drugs from the manufacturers at low cost 340B prices and
will receive the same level of reimbursement from insurers as they would have received if the
drugs were not purchased at 340B prices. Independent commnnity pharmacies are losing insured
patients to 340B entities because the entities are luring patients away through co-pay discounts.
We seek to define the term "patient" to include only patients that do not have prescription drug
insurance.

1112/2011
Page 2 of3
NCPA appreciates the opportunity to demonstrate the regulatory burdens faced by independent
community pharmacies, as well as the opportunity to propose suggestions and solutions to
eliminate these burdens. We appreciate your effort and interest and please do not hesitate to
have your staff contact me by email at john.coster@ncpanet.org, or by telephone at (703) 600-
1184, if you have any questions. Thank you for your interest in independent community retail
pharmacy and the patients that we serve.
John Coster, PhD., RPh.


1/12/2011
Page 300
NATIONAL 13750 Sunri,. Vancy Iklvc
CONCRETE MASONRY Herndon, VA 20171-4662
ASSOCIATION 703.713.1900
Sustainable Concrete ProdU!~ls for struotures and Hards[mpes Fax: 703.713.1910
www.ncllln.org
January 7,2011
The Honorable Darryllssa

2157 Rayburn House Office Buiiding
Dear Chairman lssa,
The National Concrete Masonry Association is pleased that your committee is examining existing
and proposed reguiations that negatively impact the economy and jobs and that you have asked
for our assistance in identifying exam pies and explaining their effect. NCMA, established in 1918,
is the national trade association representing the concrete masonry industry. Collectively, the
masonry industry represents $23 billion in construction annually and employs 550,000 people in
all 50 states.
Presentiy, two regulations are in the rulemaking process at EPA and OSHA and another being
"reinterpreted" at EPA and OAHA that, if they turn out as intended by those agencies, will have
significantiy negative effect upon job growth in the concrete masonry manufacturing industry:
Coal Combustion Residuals ICCRs), Disposai of - EPA Rulemaking.
Issue. The EPA, with heavy encouragement from forces determined to destroy
America's coal industry by political and regulatory means, has zeroed in on the electric
power generation industry, which uses an immense amount of coal to produce eiectricity,
seeking to regulate disposal of coal combustion residues (CCRs) under RCRA ·as a
hazardous waste. Associated high handling and disposal costs from such a rule would
increase the cost of electric power production as electricity. producers convert existing
facilities to comply with hazardous waste regulations or convert from coal to other fuels.
These costs would be .passed on to all consumers, including producers of concrete
masonry. In addition to paying more for electricity, concrete masonry producers that
consume a considerable amount of recycled fiy ash would face the even greater burden
of retrofitting plants and equipping workers to handle a "hazardous" waste. EPA appears
to favor hazardous waste reguiation of CCRs, in spite of intense opposition from industry,
consumers, and virtually all the States and other federal agencies (e.g., DOE, DOl,
Department of Agriculture), and, if that were not enough, two of its own previous
regulatory determinations that fiy ash does not warrant regulation as a hazardous waste.
Background. CCR (fly ash) is used in considerable quantity in the manufacture and
placement of concrete masonry in the construction industry. Substitute materials are
more expensive and less effective than fly ash, putting our industry at a competitive and
possibly fatal disadvantage. Despite significant opposition, EPA has continued
undeterred for several years and rulemaking is expected to culminate with promulgation
of a final rule later this year.
Position. NCMA strongly opposes regulation of fly ash as a hazardous waste, with or
without special use exemption.
National Concrete Masonry Association Letter to Rep. lssa Page {PAGE} of {NUMPAGES}
· Impact of Job Growth if Adopted. It is conceivable that a sizeable portion of the concrete
masonry industry would be significantly Impacted by this rule because the expense of
handling fty ash as a hazardous waste. Resulting increased costs could drive concrete
users to alternate construction means like building with wood and steel, which could be
inferior to concrete products for their applications, more expensive, or both. Job loss
could be overwhelming and occur in every state, dramatically affecting an industry
already crippled by the lingering effects of the recession.
Occupational Exposure to Crystalline Silica - OSHA Ruiemaking
Issue. OSHA is scheduled to publish a proposed standard for occupational exposure to

crystalline silica in April. We expect that it will cut in half the existing permissible
exposure limit (PEL) for crystalline silica. Workers exposed to excessive levels of
respirable crystalline silica for long periods of time can develop silicosis and, according to
OSHA, may face an increased risk of lung cancer as well. But the evidence does not
establish that these increased risks will be found in workers whose exposures are
maintained at or below the current PEL
Background. Though OSHA has been working on a crystalline silica standard for many
years, it has not sponsored a study to determine whether American workers today are at
increased risk of developing silicosis (or possibly lung cancer) if their exposures do not
exceed the current PEL Indeed, there is good reason to believe that complying with the
current PEL is sufficient to prevent cases of silicosis. And even if crystalline silica
exposures can cause lung cancer, a position that remains controversial, exposures that
are not high enough to cause siiicosis will not increase the risk of lung cancer either.
Position. Health and welfare of workers in our industry is of utmost importance. If

scientific studies showed that reducing the PEL is necessary to reduce cases of silicosis
and risks of lung cancer, NCMA would be more receptive to OSHA's expected proposal.
However, we do not believe the body of science shows thano be the case. The public
would be better served, in our opinion, if OSHA focused its resources upon ensuring that
all employers are complying with the current PEL This, we believe, will adequately
address any health risks associated with exposure to crystalline silica. Though
supplementing the current standard with certain ancillary requirements, e.g., exposure
monitoring and medical surveillance, is a separate question, but cutting the current PEL
in half is not justified by supporting evidence at this time.
Impact on Job Growth if Adopted. Any further lowering of the PEL will only iead to
increased costs for employers, passed-on costs to consumers, lost jobs for workers, and
more community hardship - all without doing a thing to provide more protection to
workers.
Workplace Noise Control Rule. Reinterpretation -- OSHA
Issue. OSHA has announced its intent to change its official interpretation of existing
federal noise exposure standards in a way that wouid, among other things, fundamentally
change the hierarchy of controls to now require "engineering and administrative controls"
to maintain noise levels below a minimum daily dose. These controls mean noise
cancellation technologies for the individual worker and broad noise reduction for the
entire worksite or plant setting. Assuming that meeting these requirements is
technologically possible at all, the costs to employers in our industry would be
astronomical. .
Background. Construction and manufacturing work sites are inherently noisy. Employers
have long recognized, if for none other than a productivity standpoint, the importance of
National Concrete Masonry Association Letter to Rep. Issa Page {PAGE} of {NUMPAGES}
shielding workers from noise as much as possible. Existing noise regulations have
worked well. For nearly three decades OSHA has aiiowed employers to develop hearing
conservation programs that rely on "personal protective equipment" if they are more cost-
efficient than other engineered and administrative controls but as effective. Our industry
is not sure why OSHA has chosen to ratchet up the noise protection regulations at time
when hearing loss injuries are low and steadily improving. We do know that the
movement has priority at OSHA and suspect, as indicated by the fact that OSHA is
attempting to "reinterpret" an existing rule rather than engage appropriately in rule making
for a new one, that OSHA wants to railroad this through a path of least resistance,
namely by reinterpreting an existing rule rather than subjecting a proposed new one to
the scrutiny of rulemaking that would require the agency to take stakeholder input into
consideration.
Position. Existing hearing proteCtion programs and procedures are effective in protecting
workers' hearing. OSHA would not have adopted the existing rules if it thought
otherwise. The agency has failed to produce any evidence to justify the proposed
reinterpretation. The magnitude of noise mitigation intended by this reinterpretation will
significantly increase manufacturing costs for masonry producers and construction costs
for contractors building with concrete,
Impact on Job Growth if Adopted. Manufacturing and construction process flexibility

would be limited to the point of non-competitiveness for employers, resulting in massive
layoffs in our industry,
If you or your staff would like additional assistance in engaging these issues, please contact me
or Bill Plenge, Director of Government Relations, at rthomas@ncma,org or bplenge@ncma.org,
respectively.
Sincerely,
Robert D. Thomas
President
cc: William H Plenge
National Concrete Masonry Association Letter to Rep. 18sa Page {PAGE} of {NUMPAGES}
January 20,2011

Oversight and Government Refo'rm Committee
Dear Chairman Issa:
On behalf ofthe domestic textile industry, I would like to congratulate you on your recent
appointment to the Chairmanship ofthe Oversight and Government Reform Committee. On
behalf of the domestic industry, the National Council of Textile Organizations (NCTO)
appreciates the opportunity to provide information to the committee regarding costly government
regu lations.
NCTO is extremely concerned with the scope and impact of the volume of regulations that are
being proposed or are under review by the federal government. NCTO is carefully assessing the
impact of excessive regulations on the U.S. textile industry as a whole. We are concerned that
Administrative agencies are working on two separate but itnportant fronts, to create new
regulatory burdens through implementing legislation recently passed by Congress or to
reinterpret existing regulations in a manner that increases employer cost and reduces
competitiveness. These recent actions are causing enormous concern and are creating a
tremendous amount of uncertainty among U.S. textile manufacturers. Both aforementioned
scenarios have the potential to increase significantly the cost of manufacturing in the United
States. As the cost of manufacturing increases, our member companies are forced to reduce or
eliminate operations and cut their workforce. Mr. Chairman, we do not believe that a textile mill
should close nor should its workers lose their jobs due to government regulation that is over
burdenso·me. Following is an initial list of the major regulatory issues that concern the industry
at the current time; we will keep you updated as we obtain additional information about other
proposed regulations from our member companies.
NCTO has outlined the Top Five Regulatory Burdens to the U.S. Textile Industry:
1. Customs and Border Protection - Textile and Apparel Fraud

The Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency estimates that $1 billion in duties goes
uncollected by the general Treasury each year due to illegal entry of textile and apparel items
into the United States.
910 17th St., NW. Suite 1020. Washington. DC 20006

202-822-8028 • fax: 202-822-8029 • www,ncto,org
Over the past several years, the U.S. textile and apparel industry has been plagued by high levels
of fraudulent activity by an increasing number of importers. This has included duty evasion in
trade preference areas, undervaluation of apparel from China and front companies posing as U.S.
manufacturers. These schemes have had a damaging effect on the domestic textile industry
while also cheating the U.S. Treasury out of an estimated $1 billion or more in uncollected duties
and penalties in textiles and apparel.
A recent analysis of Mexican denim figures showed that as many as one·third of all denim
trousers imported from Mexico were illegally made with Chinese fubric. This single instance
cost the U.S. Treasury approximately $50 million in uncollected duties. Mexican Customs
reports that billions of dollars worth of Chinese yarns and fubrics are suspected of using the "in
bond" system to bring Chinese yarns, fabrics and apparel into Mexico where it is then
repackaged as "Made in Mexico" and sent to the U.S. duty free.
In addition, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) textile verification teams are routinely
reporting non·compliance rates averaging 40 percent during plant visits to the CAFTA and
Andean countries.
These non·compliance rates are occurring while U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has
steadily moved resources and attention away from commercial textile enforcement. In the
Textile/Apparel Policy & Programs Division at the national headquarters staffing is down 40
percent, compared to five years ago, despite an increase in imports and the removal of quotas.
While our national security must always be the top priority, our economic security is also
important. We urge you to investigate whether U.S. Customs textile and apparel enforcement
focus and capabilities have been allowed to erode to the point that they have damaged our
industries economic competiveness and are causing enonnous revenue losses to the U.S.
Treasury.
2. Consumer Product Safety Commission - Consumer Product Safety Improvement

Act
The Consumer Product Safety Commission has issued regulations to implement the Consumer
Product Salety Improvement Act (CPSIA) passed by Congress in 2008. The original intent of
the statute was to address lead in toys imported to the U.S. from China. However, the law
applies to all items, including textiles and apparel, for children up to age 12. In 2010, the
commission issued a stay of enforcement on the testing and certification rule for one year after
fiber, yarn, fabric, apparel, and retail companies provided the agency extensive testing
documentation proving that textiles and apparel do not contain lead regard less of whether the
products were made of natural or manmade fibers. Unless the stay of enforcement is renewed,
testing and certification will be required beginning in February 201 I. Testing and certification
costs for companies are staggering, totaling tens of millions of dollars each year. Such tests will
be required for every type of product, in every color and style. Companies at each stage of the
supply chain will have to conduct the necessary testing to document that their products are lead
free.
Even ifthe stay of enforcement is extended for testing, the law requires that companies must
permanently affix tracking labels to every product sold to consumers. The tracking label must
include the source ofthe product, the date of manufacture, and other information such as a batch
or run number. Adding tracking labels will cost industry millions of dollars each year as
companies are forced to adapt manufacturing and recordkeeping processes to comply with the
law.
3. Environmental Protection Agency - Greenhouse Gases

In 2010, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the controversial American Clean Energy and
Security Act, which would have put our domestic manufacturing sector at a significant
competitive disadvantage in the growing global economy. The legislation would have increased
the industry's energy costs dramatically, while providing China and our other principal overseas
competitors with new competitive advantages.
The House of Representatives did pass a comprehensive energy bill that the Administration
bolstered as a priority yet in the absence of Senate approval, the Environmental Protection
Agency has begun implementing regulations based on the Administration's energy policy: In
December, the EPA announced that it plans to begin regulating emissions from power plants and
oil refineries. NCTO is deeply concerned that the EPA will use this recent regulatory action as
precedent for regulating industrial sources in the future. In addition, these regulations would
directly impact our b4siness costs and ability to remain competitive globally.
The new Congress, not the EPA, should develop energy policies that have a business-minded
approach that achieves the goal of substantially reducing greenhouse gases and carbon
emissions. Because of the issue's complexity, Congress should legislate a solution that
simultaneously supports economic growth while making U.S. manufacturing more competitive
globally.
In addition, the EPA is also considering regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions from
industrial boilers, which would have a direct impact on textile companies. Boilers are costly and
vital components in the production of textile and fabric products. The proposed EPA regulations
would force companies to spend time and money to prove to regulators that the fucility is below
the standards set in the proposed regulation. Regulations are in place already that require
companies to meet strict standards, but the new rules would expand coverage of the regulations
to minor sources and require extensive testing to verifY compliance. Companies have three years
to bring existing boilers into compliance, but new and rebuilt boilers will have to comply as soon
as the rule is finalized. Compliance costs and paperwork burdens will be prohibitive for small
companies. We must ensure that these unnecessary burdens and regulations are not imposed on
businesses.
4. National Labor Relations Board - Posting of Employee Rights

The National Labor Relations Board has proposed a rule that would require virtually all U.S.
employers to post information about employee rights under the National Labor Relations Act.
Companies that communicate via email or electronic means with employees would also be
required to send this information electronically. Unlike other mandatory information that must
be posted for employees, the NLRB does not have direct statutory authority to mandate this
action. NLRB has proposed the rule because the Board believes (without citing actual evidence)
that American workers are largely unaware of their collective bargaining rights. This assertion is
widely disputed and NCTO believes that workers are fully aware of their rights in the workplace
and clearly understand that workplace complaints can be filed with the NLRB, the U.S.
Department of Labor, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Further,
NCTO members strive to fulfill the letter and spirit of the laws meant to protect the health and
safety of the workers who are employed by the industry. This rule is a clear overstep on the part
of the NLRB and means more regulatory burdens on U.S. businesses.
5. Occupational Safety and Health Administration - Occupational Noise Standard

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has issued a new interpretation of its
provisions for "feasible" administrative or engineering controls of occupational noise. Current
OSHA regulations allow for workers to utilize personal protective equipment (PPEs), such as
earplugs, to be used to block out excessive noise. OSHA regulators are proposing to require
businesses to go even further. Incredibly, the proposed regulatory change does not regard the
cost of compliance as a major consideration. The proposed regulation provides for two types of
controls: administrative and engineering controls. An example of an administrative control
could be rotating workers in and out of no isy areas, a sure fire way to disrupt already safe and
productive operations by requiring that workers be cross trained on multiple types of machinery.
An example of engineering controls could mean installing expensive noise dampening
equipment or requiring that machinery and workers be housed in separate locations. This type of
'fix' could be extremely expensive and seems to be a solution in search ofa problem that has
already been solved by existing workplace practices. Further, these regulations would be
economically devastating for those smaller-sized manufacturers that make up the bulk ofthe
U.S. textile industry.
Chairman Issa, NCTO appreciates the opportunity to provide both you and the committee with
feedback regarding costly government regulations and waste. As we noted, NCTO will be doing
an intensive review of other regulatory burdens and will update you further as we progress.
NCTO wou ld be pleased to meet with you or a member of your committee staff to discuss
further our regulatory concerns. If you or your staff would like to be in contact with NCTO,
Sarah F. Pierce can be reached at (202) 822-8026 or fipJ9I99@nctQ.org.
Sincerely,
!At. ~V7Y /Io1tr

David Hastings
Chairman
Mount Vernon Mills - CEO
The Association of Electrical and Medical
irE'.
Setting Standards for Excellence
Imaging Equipment Manufacturers
www.nema.org
January 19,2011

Chairman
Dear Chairman Issa,
On behalf of the National' Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), thank you for the
opportunity to identify existing and proposed federal regulations that negatively impact jobs, the
economy, and competitiveness. NEMA commends you for reaching out to the regulated
community to ascertain the real world impacts such regulations have.
NEMA is the association of electrical and medical imaging equipment manufacturers. Founded
in 1926 and headquartered near Washington, D.C., its approximately 450 member companies
manufacture products used in the generation, transmission and distribution, control, and end use
of electricity. These products are used in utility, industrial, commercial, institutional, and
residential applications. The association's Medical Imaging & Technology Alliance (MITA)
Division represents manufacturers of cutting-edge medical diagnostic imaging equipment
including MRI, CT, x-ray, and ultrasound products. Worldwide sales ofNEMA-scope products
exceed $120 billion. In addition to its headquarters in Rosslyn, Virginia, NEMA also has offices
in Beijing and Mexico City.
NEMA has identified several regulatory initiatives that have a significant impact on electrical
manufacturers' ability to compete globally and create jobs, with no apparent benefit to the end
users of our products. While this list is not exhaustive, it reflects key priority regulations that
serve as a good starting point in the ongoing dialogue about the impact of regulation on
manufacturing.
General Regulatory Trends
The current regulatory environment can be characterized by several emerging trends which
threaten the ability of U.S. electrical manufacturers to remain competitive in the global
marketplace. These are summarized briefly below.
Cumulative Effect of Regulations and Timing
Of primary concern is the sheer volume of regulatory initiatives that may affect a particular
industry or product sector and the lack of coordination in and among various federal agencies to
mitigate the cumulative effect such regulations have on manufacturers. A single facility can be
regulated by any number of federal regulators-and their state counterparts-including, but not
limited to, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Occupational Safety and
1300 North 17th Street, Suite 1752 - Rosslyo, VA 22209 - 703.841.3200 - 703.841.5900 fax
January 19,2011
Page 2
Health Administration (OSHA), U.S. Department of Transportaiion (DOT), and others. The rate
at which new regulations are developed and become effective causes numerous burdens for
businesses, which often find themselves scrambling to understand the regulations, plan for
compliance, educate their workforce, and meet complicated recordkeeping and reporting
requirements. This problem is particularly compounded for a small business or manufacturer that
lacks the financial and personnel resources to effectively "keep up" with the avalanche of new
regulations.
For example, the lighting industry currently is dealing with multiple rulemakings and regulatory
activities from within and among various federal agencies that cumulatively strangle its ability to
grow and create jobs. The Department of Energy (DOE) has issued a series of rulemakings in the
past two years that impact lighting manufacturers, including separate regulations impacting
fluorescent lamps, incandescent reflector lamps, high intensity discharge (HID) lamps,
. fluorescent lamp ballasts, and metal halide fixtures. The lighting industry also is impacted by
additional rulemakings mandated by the Energy and Independence Security Act of 2007 (EISA),
the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) lamp labeling rule, new Energy Star requirements, and
numerous other environmental, health and safety regulations that have been issued recently or
are expected in the near future.
The regulated community would be better served by increased coordination among the agencies
in the Executive Branch to time rulemakings and regulatory actions so that a single product
sector or industry is not deluged by multiple new regulations all at once.
Failure to Measure Success ofRegulatorv Actions in "Tiered" Rulemaking
Another regulatory trend that has the potential to severely disrupt the ability of electrical
manufacturers to create jobs and remain economically competitive is the "tier" approach to
rulemaking. Several agencies have enacted regulations that are phased in over a period of years
and have pre-set dates for future rulemakings. However, there is no time built into this approach
to evaluate the success of one tier before proceeding to the next. Federal agencies do a disservice
to themselves, the regulated community, and the American public by failing 10 adequately
measure whether regulations meet the goals for which they are intended. Regulators should
refrain from proceeding to a subsequent tier or phase of a rulemaking until it can be
demonstrated that earlier actions proved successful in achieving the projected aims.
Examples of Key Priority Regulatioris
On December 7, 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized its so-called
"endangerment finding," paving the way for the regulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
under the auspices ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA). Since then, EPA has proceeded with issuing
January 19,2011
Page 3
numerous rules and, as of January 2, 20 II, began regulating GHG emissions from stationary
sources. While only the largest facilities will be regulated at first, EPA anticipates expanding
such regulation to smaller sources at some point in the future.
NEMA has joined with others in the business community to intervene as a party in a pending
lawsuit to review EPA's decision to regulate GHG emissions from stationary sources under the
Clean Air Act. NEMA continues to hold that GHG emissions and climate change policy would
be better addressed by Congress through the deliberative legislative process than through EPA's
misapplication of CAA provisions.
SEC Conflict Minerals Rulemaking
As part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act of201O, Congress directed the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) to write regulations that would require all U.S. issuers that use any
elements of gold, tantalum, tin or tungsten in their manufactured goods (whether they
manufacture them or contract their manufacture) to disclose that to the Commission and to
determine whether or not the minerals were mined in the Democratic Republic of Congo or an
adjoining country. If a regulated company is not able to determine the origin of the minerals, the
company would be required to report on and audit annually the measures it takes to attempt to
determine the origin and chain of custody of the minerals and a description of the products
manufactured using the minerals. The SEC issued a proposed rule in December 20 I0 and a final
rule is expected in spring 2011.
On its face, compliance V{ith rules such as those proposed by Congress and the SEC will cost
each U.S. issuing company significant financial and time resources. In addition, companies not
subject to the rules - many of them being small and medium-sized businesses - will be impacted
significantly because they are suppliers of components to larger companies thatare issuers.
These smaller companies especially do not have sufficient resources to reach back many steps up
their supply chains to verifY origin of minerals.
OSHA Updates to Standards
The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has recognized the importance
of voluntary national consensus standards and has adopted many of them by reference in its
regulations. NEMA supports OSHA's reliance on voluntary national consensus standards, which
are effective and relieve the burden on OSHA to "reinvent the wheel" in establishing different
product/equipment standards. Unfortunately, many ofthe references in OSHA's regulations are
woefully outdated, and OSHA's failure to update them has prevented advances in workplace
safety.
For example, OSHA's current regulations for safety signs in the workplace reference the 1968
version ofthe American Standard Association (ASA) 235.1 standard, which in itselfis based on
January 19,2011
Page 4
sign formats originally adopted in 1941. A lot has changed in America's workplaces since the
original sign parameters were set, and safety signs associated with more modern and complex
workplaces are needed to communicate critical-and often detailed-safety messages to an
increasingly multicultural workforce. However, while OSHA currently allows the use of the
successor standard (American National Standards Institute Z535.2, Standardfor Environmental
and Facility Safety Signs, 2007) because it shares the same basis document as the present OSHA
regulation, this acceptance is accomplished via the "de minimum situation" provision, meaning
that employers using the modern, more effecti,ve signs are found in violation of the existing
OSHA regulation. Although no fine is issued, employers are hesitant to use signs that result in a
"non-compliance" mark on their records, and OSHA's use of this approach creates obstacles to
enhancing safety.
This is only one example of OSHA's regulations reflecting outdated standards. NEMA supports
any assistance Congress oan provide to OSHA to update its regulations to incorporate current
references to voluntary national consensus standards. Reliance on such standards helps reduce
the need for agencies to set their own standards, resulting in less regulation and lower costs.
. DOT Proposed Rule on Transportation of Lithium Batteries
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) of the Department of
Transportation (DOT) has to date refused to harmonize its transportation safety regulations for
lithium batteries with international regulations that are in place virtually everywhere else in the
world and that are supported by, among many others, the U.S. dry battery industry. Instead,
PHMSA has pursued a separate rulemaking process, marked by a proposed rule of January II,
20 10, that would go far beyond regulations necessary for safe transport of lithium batteries and
severely restrict (and some cases effectively ban) air shipment of lithium batteries and many
types of equipment that use lithium batteries. This would have a significant negative impact on
U.S. companies' ability to satisfY customers abroad that demand efficient delivery, withknock-
on effects for competitiveness and employment. In addition, the safety and economic analyses
upon which PHMSA's proposals rely are deeply flawed. In the meantime, the U.S. has fallen
behind: its safety regulations now in place for lithium batteries provide less protection than the
state-of-the-art and the differences in approach between the u.s. and its trading partners are
causing costly friction and uncertainty for U.S. companies that manufacture or use lithium
batteries. .
CPSC Publicly Available Consumer Product Safety Information Database
With enactment of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2007 (p.L. 110-314),
Congress directed the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to create a product
safety database that would provide consumers with a meaningful tool to research accurate
product safety information and understand any reported problems or dangers associated with the
use of products. Congress had a robust debate about the database, including discussions about the
January 19,2011
Page 5
types and categories of rep011ers to the database and how inaccurate infonnation would be
handled. Many of the details were left to CPSC to address via rulemaking.
Congress did not intend to pose limits on who could enter reports of hann into the database;
however, the final rule issued by CPSC expanded the definitions of certain categories of
submitters to implicitly invite reports of halm from reporters who might be politically or
financially motivated to populate the database with reports ofhann for specific products. For
instance, the final rule expanded the definitions of "consumer" to include trial attorneys and
"public safety entities" to include consumer advocacy organizations, both of which go beyond
their clear public meaning. In addition, while Congress struck an appropriate balance between
the speed of publication of reports ofhann and the need to ensure accuracy ofthe database, the
CPSC's final rule creates a default for immediate publication of reports of harm, regardless if
they remain under review for claims oftrade secrets or materially inaccurate infonnation. CPSC
should resolve such claims before the reports of harm are published if the database is to provide
accurate and useful information to consumers.
NEMA looks forward to continuing a dialogue with you and the Committee about regulation and
regulatory policy. In addition, we will be sharing similar examples with your colleagues who
serve on many ofthe respective authorizing committees as you work together to evaluate and
improve the regulatory process. To that end, we hope that you will continue to rely on NEMA as
a resource and contact us for additional input as needed..
*~
Kyle Pltsor .
Vice President, Government Relations
NG/\
NATIONAL GLASS ASSOCIATION
B200 Green~b(lro !)til'e. S\litc 302 McLean. VA 22102·nsl • pO;ij 442·4890· Fax (703) 442-{I(~,~O' w\\'\~,gll\$.s.{)rg
January 6, 2011
The HDnDrable Darrellissa

HDuse Df Representatives
2157 Rayburn HDuse Office Building
WashingtDn DC 20515
Dear CDngressman Issa,
On behalf Df America's architectural glass fabricatiDn and InstaliatiDn firms, wlndDw and dDDr
dealers, and autD glass replacement and repair firms, we applaud YDU for YDur Initiative In
examining existing and prDpDsed regulatlDns that may have an adverse Impact Dn jDb grDwth.
In respDnse tD YDur December 29 th request, Dur Industry can identify several regulations that are
in need Df change. One in part'lcular, however, is causing cDnsiderable adverse cDnsequences
tD Dur members' revenue and jDb grDwth - namely the Environmental ProtectiDn Agency (EPA)
RenDvatlDn, Repair and Painting (RRP) PrDgram, which applies tD residential properties built
priDr tD 1978.
UnfDrtunately, the EPA is nDW pDlsed tD add anDther Dnerous mandate tD this prDgram in july,
2011: the Lead Clearance and Testing Requirements rule. TD aggravate the matter even
further, the EPA is expected tD apply the entire program tD cDmmercial glazing and cDnstructiDn.
It is Dur view that the propDsed lead clearance testing and third-party validatiDn amendment tD
the lead paint regulatlDns (which tDDk effect Dn July 6,2010) gDes tDD far; is causing substantial
harm tD the vast majDrity Df Dur natiDn's windDw and dDDr dealers; and, Is pDlsed to inflict similar
harm Dn cDmmercialglazing and constructiDn companies as well.
We recently surveyed the wlndDw and dDDr industry tD gauge the impact Df the new lead paint
rules.and to seek Input Dn EPA's latest proPDSal. RespDndents prDvided a wealth Df feedback-
Dverwhelmingly negative - abDut the new rules, ranging frDm substantial increases in bDth hard
and SDft CDStS (averaging about $750 per job, far abDve EPA's Dwn original estimate Df a $250
incremental increase), tD anecdDtal accDunts Df IDst business and Dther serlDus repercussiDns
resulting directly from the rule.
We have dDcumented Dur CDncerns essDclated with the existing lead paint rule, and the
projected deleterlDUs effects of the new propDsals, directly with the Obama Administration. We
implored the EPA tD either eliminate the RRP prDgram altDgether Dr, at a minimum, defer its
implementatiDn until sufficient data can be collected and analyzed to determine whether or not
the new requirements are cost-effective. Our pleas have fallen on deaf ears.
I have attached some Df the dDcuments we presented tD the EPA and the White House Office Df
InfDrmatlDn and RegulatDry Affairs (OIRA) Dn this issue. If It Is appropriate, we can alsD supply
copies of the many real-world Illustrations of harm done by the regulations, which we presented
to the EPA staff last year.
While we understand that EPA's lead paint rules were designed to address a defined health
concern with respect to lead poisoning abatement, both the rule's broad application and Its lack
of flexibility have generated unintended consequences that are costing jobs, harming our
Industry and, by extension, hurting the nation's economic recovery.. Several other options, as
reported In the Federal Register, were suggested by EPA, which would have safeguarded the
public while maintaining Job growth. Regrettably, the EPA chose the least practical path for all
concerned.
We would be happy to discuss our concerns in more depth with you or your staff at any time.
Thank you for your leadership on this issue, andOr1 behalf of our country.
Philip J. James
President & CEO
National Giass Association and Window and Door Dealers Alliance
1300 L Street NW Suite 1020 • Washington DC 20005-4168
phono 202.842.0463 • fax 202.842.9126
nopa@nopa.org • www.nopa.org
January 10, 2011

Chairman, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Re.: NOPA Response to December 29,2010, Letter Requesting Identification of Existing and
Proposed Regulations that Negatively Impact the Economy and Jobs
Dear Chairman Issa:
The National Oilseed Processors Association (NOPA) appreciates being included as a stakeholder
in the important effort being undertaken by the House Committee on Oversight and' Government
Reform to examine existing and proposed regulations that negatively impact the economy and jobs.
We hope the information included in our letter will help the Committee better understand the
regulatory issues and concerns of the industry we represent.
NOPA is a national trade association that represents 14 companies engaged in the production of
food, feed, and renewable fuels from oilseeds, including soybeans. NOPA's member companies
process more than 1.7 billion bushels of oilseeds annually at 63 plants located in 20 states
throughout the country, including 58 plants that process soybeans. .
Several regulatory issues now before EPA and OSHA are of serious concern to NOPA and its
members:
EPA Regulations/Rulemakings
• EPA's Regulation of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions. On January 2, 2011, EPA began
regulating GHG emissions from stationary sources under the Clean Air Act. While only the
largest facilities will be regulated at first, this action sets the stage for the Agency's future
regulation of much smaller sources. Additionally, states are unprepared for the new permitting
requirements, which will cause significant delays in permitting of new or modified facilities. This
permitting gridlock will discourage manufacturers from bUilding new facilities or expanding their
current facilities, hurting competitiveness and discouraging job creation. In the near future,
these onerous permitting requirements will be phased in for additional facilities, including
hospitals, agricultural establishments and even the smallest businesses.
Like other sectors of the food industry of which i(is a part, the U.S. oilseed processing industry
is a high volume, low margin business that operates in an extremely competitive international
marketplace. Our industry is also very energy-intensive in terms of power produced onsite and
power purchased off the grid. As a consequence, costs commensurate with any carbon
reduction program, inclUding the GHG regUlatory programs which EPA is pursuing, will threaten
the viability of not only the oilseed processing industry and the oilseed growers which supply it
with oilseeds, but other sectors of manufacturing in the U.S.,.encouraging companies to
consider moving their operations out of the country.
NaPA Response to December 29,2010, Letter Requesting Identification of EXisting and Proposed
Regulations that Negatively Impact the Economy and Jobs .
January 10, 2011
F'ag e 12
Two of the largest U.S. customers of the U.S. oilseed processing industry are the domestic
livestock and poultry industries. These industries consume over 45 percent of domestic
soybean production in the form of soybean meal produced by our industry. A U.S. carbon
reduction program would have a dramatic cost impact on food production from farm to fork,
including the livestock and poultry industries, and would likely lead to carbon "leakage" to
countries with no equivalent carbon reduction programs.
A case in point is Brazil and Argentina, which are home to the principal competitors of both the
U.S. oilseed processing industry and the U.S. livestock and poultry industries. Both of these
countries have the capacity to expand not only crop production and processing, but livestock
and poultry production; neither has a meaningful carbon reduction program. Should a U.S.
carbon reduction program increase costs on U.S. oilseed processors and U.S. livestock and
poultry producers/processors to the degree that they lose their competitive advantage relative to
Brazil and Argentina, all three industries, which are import/export-sensitive, will be forced to cut
back their domestic production or consider moving out of the U.S. altogether. Brazil and
Argentina will be the likely beneficiaries.
• EPA's Boiler MACT (Maximum Achievable Control Technology) Rulemaking. The Boiler
MACT rule that EPA is developing will set emission limits for hazardous air pollutants from a
vast array of industrial, commercial and institutional boilers using fossil fuels and biomass, to
address concerns raised about EPA's original rule in recent court decisions. The ruie that EPA
proposed in the Federal Register on June 4, 2010, could severely harm our nation's
manufacturing sector and those who make their living from it at a time when our economy can
least afford any further loss of jobs. Achieving the proposed limits would require mandatory
plant upgrades, which would impose tens of billions of dollars in capital costs at thousands of
facilities across the country. This would affect a wide range of manufacturing industries,
municipalities, universities, and others. According to the EPA, this is the most costly MACT rule
ever proposed. Industry estimates the economic impact will be about $21 billion in capital
expenditures and billions more in annual costs.
The standards set forth in the proposed rule do not reflect what real, best performing boilers
actually can achieve. These new limits are unsustainable for many facilities and would
discourage the use of biomass as a renewable energy source. Oilseed processors support
efforts to address serious health threats from air emissions, but we also believe that there are
much better ways to accomplish this than EPA has proposed.
Our industry is not opposing the Boiler MACT rule; rather, we are only asking that EPA use all
legal authority provided it in the Clean Air Act to take a more reasonable approach in its
rulemaking. In Section 101 of the Clean Air Act, Congress declared that one of the fundamental
purposes of the Act is "to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources so as to
promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population." Congress
proVided EPA with discretion in certain areas to carefUlly design regulations that protect health
and the environment while promoting the productive capacity of the Nation. The Boiler MACT
rule can and should be redrafted in a more balanced way that protects the environment; jobs,
and the industries that are vital to our country's economy.
1929-1989 • National Soybean Processors Association

NOPA Response to December 29, 2010, Letter Requesting Identification of EXisting and Proposed
Regulations that Negatively Impact the Economy and Jobs
January 10, 2011
P a e 13
In December 2010, EPA asked the federal District Court for the District of Columbia for an
extension to re-propose the rule, take comments and then finalize the package by April 2012.
We welcome the additional time for a review, but the new proposal must ensure that the
standards are economically feasible and achievable in practice for manufacturers.
• EPA's Ozone NAAQS (National Ambient Air Qualitv Standards) Rulemaking. The Clean
Air Act requires that EPA conduct a detailed review of each NMQS every five years. EPA last
completed a review of the ozone NMQS in March 2008, following an extensive public input and
comment process. At that time, EPA strengthened the existing 0.084 ppm standard to a much
more stringent 0.075 ppm; declared that level as adequately protective of human health and the
environment; and commenced preparation for the next five-year review.
In January 2010, the Agency, despite having no new information and being midway through its
ongoing five-year review process, proposed lowering the 2008 ozone standard to within the
range of 0.060-0.070 ppm. Any standard within EPA's proposed range would dramatically
increase the number of "non-attainment" areas nationwide. For local communities, a non-
attainment designation can mean a loss of industry and economic development; plant closures;
loss of federal highway and transit funding; and increased fuel and energy costs. EPA
estimates that the cost of the proposed new standard could add as much as $90 billion per year
to the already high operating costs of manufacturing, agriculture, and other sectors. Changing
the 2008 standard outside of the normal five-year review process is unfair to businesses and
consumers, and unwise.
EPA has delayed finalizing the rule until July 2012, to allow for continued analysis of the
epidemiological and clinical studies used to recommend the ozone standard. We welcome the
additional time for a review; however, as with EPA's Boiler MACT Rulemaking discussed above,
the final rule must ensure that the standards are economically feasible and achievable in
practice for manufacturers.
OSHA Rulemakings
• OSHA's Combustible Dust Rulemaking. On October 21,2009, OSHA pUblished an Advance

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) requesting public comment on a standard to address
the hazards of combustible dust. On January 19, 2010, NOPA joined two other associations in
commenting to OSHA on the ANPRM.
The' associations agreed with OSHA's statement in the ANPRM that the Agency's grain handling
standard, 29 C.F.R. 1910.272, has proven to be an outstanding example of successful
government regulation. We urged OSHA not to propose any significant changes to the grain
handling standard and to exempt industries within the scope of 29 C.F.R. 1910.272 from any
general industry combustible dust standard that might be adopted. We invited discussion with
OSHA about the potential of extending the applicability of 29 C.F.R. 1910.272 to the portions of
our facilities where it does not currently apply. We concluded by stating that we saw no basis for
additional regulation of the grain handling and related industries, or for a new grain handling
standard, or a new general industry standard that overlaps and in some respects substitutes for
the grain handling standard. Finally, we endorsed a conclusion reached by OSHA in the
ANPRM that National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) consensus standards do not make
1929-1989' National Soybean Processors Association

NOPA Response to December 29,2010, Letter Requesting Identification of Existing and Proposed
January 10, 2011
Page 14
effective or appropriate regulatory standards, whether adopted by reference or incorporated in

an OSHA regulation directly. It is unclear how OSHA will respond to our comments.
We hope that OSHA gives serious consideration to our comments and avoids a regulation that
would severely harm our industry and those who make their living from it at a time when our
economy can least afford any further loss of jobs.
• OSHA Injury and Illness Protection Program. OSHA is also developing a new regulation that
would mandate a standard for employers' safety and health programs, referred to as an Injury
and Illness Prevention Program (12P2). Such a concept is expected to be proposed in the
spring of 2011 and would have sweeping ramifications on all aspects of both workplace safety
enforcement and the promulgation of new regulations. We are concerned that this new
proposal from the Agency may noi take into account the efforts by employers who already have
effective safety and health programs in place or how this new mandate would disrupt safety
programs that have measurable successes. Based on preliminary information from the Agency,
this proposal may allow OSHA investigators to substitute their judgment of the employer's plan
on how to achieve compliance and whether some "injury" in the workplace should have been
addressed in some way, even if it was not regulated under a specific standard, or did not
amount to a "significant risk" as required under the OSH Act.
• OSHA's MSD Recordkeeping Rulemaking. On January 29,2010, OSHA published a notice in

the Federal Register announcing a proposal to revise the Agency's Occupational Injury and
Illness Recording and Reporting Rule by restoring a column on the OSHA Form 300 to better
identify work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). On March 30, 2010, NOPA joined 18
other associations on extensive comments to OSHA raising a wide array of concerns with the
proposal, including concerns that:
o It contains no workable definition for MSDs that will allow employers to identify and record
them, as they would with other injuries. This will result in employers recording injuries that
will be inconsistent with OSHA's statutory authority, which allows the Agency to require
employers to record only significant injuries related to the workplace.
o It would remove an exemption currently in place that allows employers to not record "minor
musculoskeletal discomforts" even if they put the employee in some form of restricted duty to
keep the condition from worsening, or for the employee's comfort (such moves would
ordinarily trigger a recording requirement). This will result in a great expansion of the cases
employers will have to consider and record - literally any level of musculoskeletal discomfort
would now trigger the recording requirement if there is an appropriate relationship to the
workplace - but the Agency did not include it in the regulatory changes, or request comments
on this change.
The comments also point out how OSHA has grossly underestimated the costs of this proposal,
particularly on small businesses, and accordingly should have conducted a small business
review panel to learn more about how small businesses would deal with this regulation.
'1929-1989 • National Soybean Processors Association

NOPA Response to December 29, 2010, Letter Requesting Identification of Existing and Proposed
January 10, 2011
Page 15
• OSHA's Proposed Interpretation Entitled "Interpretation of OSHA's Provisions for

Feasible Administrative or Engineering Controls of OccLipational Noise." On October 19,
2010, OSHA published a notice announcing its intention to change its official interpretation of
workplace noise exposure standards and enforcement. Currently, OSHA regulates the
acceptable levels of noise to which employees are exposed in the workplace. To protect
employees against hearing loss, the Agency has maintained a decades-old policy that allows
employers to provide "personal protective equipment" such as ear plugs and ear muffs as well
as engineering controls like noise-dampening equipment and muffling systems to effectively
supplement their operating practices. However, OSHA now plans to abandon this 'practice in
favor of requiring employers to implement all "feasible" controls - with "feasible" meaning
"capable of being done" - regardless of the costs or effectiveness of currently-used personal
protective equipment.
According to the notice, these changes must be adopted regardless of the costs unless an
employer can prove that making such changes will "put them out of business" or severely
threaten the company's "viability." If the Agency implements the proposal, employers that have
not made every systematic change "capable of being done" will be forced to divert resources
away from job creation, investment and expansion, to make sweeping changes to their
workplaces. We are troubled that OSHA is pursuing this change outside the formal rulemaklng
process and, as such, is not following the Administrative Procedures Act that provides
opportunity for full and fair public input and requires sensitivity to small entities.
• • • • • •
Thank you again for including NOPA as a stakeholder in the important effort being undertaken by
the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to examine. existing and proposed
regulations that negatively impact the economy and jobs. Please do not hesitate contact me or
David Ailor, Executive Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
~~,411~
Thomas A. Hammer
President
1929-1989' National Soybean Processors Association

Charles T. Drevna
President
National ~etrochemlcElJ & F~efiners Association 1667 K 5'tmet NW 202.457,0480 voice

Suite 700 2(Y2A67.0486 fax
Washington, DC cdrevna@npra.org
20006
January 10,2011

Chairman,
. Dear Chairman Issa:
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your December 29, 20 I0 letter regarding
regulations that have the potential to impact job growth and job retention for domestic fuels
and petrochemicals manufacturers. Fuels and petrochemical manufacturers are certainly
facing challenging economic and international competitiveness times. We look forward to
working with you and other Members of Congress to help sculpt a regulatory environment
that provides the maximum protection to public health and welfare without destroying
existing or obstructing the creation of new jobs in the United States and adversely impacting
our nation's energy and manufacturing needs.
NPRA, the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, represents high-tech

American manufacturers fueling and building America's future by producing reliable,
affordable and efficient refined petroleum products and petrochemicals. Every hour of every
day, millions of Americans use products made by the members ofNPRA. NPRA members
serve the American people responsibly and effectively by manufacturing virtually all the fuel
and petrochemicals produced in the United States to meet the nation's needs, strengthening
economic and national security, and providing jobs directly and indirectly for over 2 million
people. .
NPRA members companies have made significant investments to enhance air quality
and overall environmental protection in the United States. Fuels manufacturers alone have
spent nearly $50 billion to remove sulfur from gasoline and diesel fuel and to provide
reformulated gasoline. NPRA members have additionally addressed requirements for low
Reid Vapor Pressure gasoline, including specially-blended fuels required under State
Implementation Plans pursuant to the Clean Air Act ("CAN'), and have enabled advanced
vehicle exhaust systems to achieve greater efficiencies in reducing air emissions from
combustion. These efforts have contributed to substantial local and national air quality
benefits. Overall, total emissions of the six principal air pollutants in the United States have
been reduced by 54 percent since 1980 and our nation's citizens have experienced a two
decade-long drop in ozone levels across the country.
Page 2
While domestic fuels and petrochemical manufacturers have invested and will
continue to invest substantial capital on environmental protection, NPRA member companies
are now facing a tremendous onslaught of regulatory activity aimed at both the creation of
new regulations and the expansion and modification of existing ones. We understand various
regulatory agencies have a difficult task of balancing the need for effective regulation with
the demands of meeting sometimes conflicting decisions from the courts, positions of public
interest groups and even newly enacted laws. However, the size, scope, and cumulative
burden of current and impending regulatory activity is creating significant uncertainty and
could, if left unchecked, threaten the continuation of a substantial portion of domestic
refining and petrochemical production and well-paying existing American jobs, and the
security of the nation.
EPA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Regulation through the Clean Air Act
As you know, EPA early last year issued greenhouse gas ("GHG") standards for cars,
which EPA contends automatically triggers Clean Air Act ("CAN') regulation of aII newly
constructed or significantly modified stationary sources that produce GHG emissions. Under
the language of the CAA, millions of businesses will eventually be required to obtain GHG
permits and tens of thousands would need additional permits before moving forward with
ANY construction and modification projects. EPA attempted to limit the scope of the
regulation by "tailoring" the rules so that they would only apply to sources with the potential
to emit 100,000 tons per year ("tpy") of GHGs. However, we believe this "tailoring" action
is illegal under the language of the CAA, which requires regulation at much lower thresholds
(250 tpy for small sources and 100 tpy for large sources). Even if EPA's tailoring rule were
deemed to be legal and state concerns with EPA actions were somehow set aside, targeting
larger sources would still result in negative consequences for states and the recovering
economy. These larger businesses not only provide jobs of their own, but also the raw
materials, fuels and supplies small businesses require and demand for the goods and services
they provide. EPA's move will likely create significant delays in the state permitting
process. It also creates significant uncertainty that will undoubtedly hamper job growth and
business investment.
Further, contrary to statements from a few state air quality agencies, vague federal
guidance on how to regulate these stationary sources coupled with other CAA permitting
requirements (New Source Review, Maximum Achievable Control Technology or "MACT,"
revised S02 and N02 National Ambient Air Quality Standards or "NAAQS") will likely
overwhelm state and local permitting offices, hampering business growth and expansion. As
a South Carolina official eloquently pointed out, "the permitting process will become so
backlogged as to create a permitting moratorium. New business and industry will not be
built; existing business will not expand; and existing business and industry will not [make
repairs] if such repairs require a permit."
Page 3
In addition, EPA's vague federal guidance on how to implement GHG regulations

provides no certainty regarding what measures businesses can actually employ to control
emissions and whether or not permits will actually be approved and issued in certain
circumstances. The new regulations will require businesses to implement Best Available
Control Technology ("BACT") for GHGs. The problem is that BACT is not yet established
for GHGs. EPA provided, at best, vague guidance regarding what could constitute BACT.
The Agency noted it will be up to states to determine whether or not permit applications
indicate a clear plan for implementing BACT. EPA's actions create significant uncertainty
and threatens to delay permitting decisions due to what will likely be a slew of new litigation
concerning whether or not issuance of a particular permit will actually lead to the
employment of the "best" achievable control technology. One example of this BACT
uncertainty is availability of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology. In the
recently issued BACT guidance and a recent BACT training video, the Agency identified
CCS as a "demonstrated" technology. Yet as recently as 2008, the Agency acknowledged
that the technology would not be commercially available until 2025. Experts in other
agencies, particularly the Department of Energy ("DOE") concur'with this assessment.
Formosa Plastics, an NPRA member company located in Texas, recently sent the
Texas delegation a letter detailing the impact of the uncertainty associated with EPA's GHG
regulations. Formosa has been planning a $1 billion expansion of its operations in Point
Comfort, Texas. The expansion would create between 700 and 800 construction jobs, 357
service jobs and another 125 full time industrial operations and maintenance jobs. Formosa
Plastics noted that the uncertainty associated with EPA's GHG regulations will effectively
"kill these pending new U.S. based manufacturing projects ...prevent the creation of new
construction and manufacturing jobs... [and] eliminate the additional property and income
taxes the projects and jobs will generate."
GHG New Source Performance Standards for Refineries and Utilities
In addition to the previously mentioned GHG regulations for new or significantly

modified sources, EPA has recently agreed to a settlement with environmental activist groups
and several states that will require EPA to propose regulating GHGs under a section of the
CAA that calls for the creation of New Source Performance Standards ("NSPS"). EPA is
initiating this action solely focusing on electric utilities and refineries at this time. NSPS
requires specific environmental emissions performance standards for new and existing
facilities that are subject to regulation under the act. A GHG NSPS would require any
regulated facilityto install Best Demonstrated Technology ("BDT"). EPA is required to
consider cost when developing an NSPS.
NPRA members have several concerns with this action. First, the Agency
continuously mentions that utilities and refiners together account for upwards of 40 percent
of GHG emissions. This statement is misleading, because the overwhelming majority ofthat
figure is attributable to utility emissions. Stationary source refinery GI-IG emissions are
Page 4
roughly 4 percent of our nation'sGHG emissions. More importantly though is the Jact that
as with BACT, the industry does not know what will constitute best "demonstrated" GHG
control technology. Like BACT, such a situation could lead to significant delays as the
interpretation of "demonstrated" is litigated throughout various courts. In addition, while
EPA does have to conclude that BDT is actually economically feasible, the statute allots EPA
a fair amount of discretion on this front. The refining industry frequently has significant
disagreements with EPA over the Agency's interpretation of what is and what is not actually
cost-effective. Given these factors, a GHG NSPS may create just as much uncertainty as
BACT, threatening jobs and investment.
Conflicting Regulations
The challenges EPA's impending GHG regulations pose are exacerbated by the fact
that they actually create conflicts with existing regulations. These conflicts could jeopardize
a refiner's ability to comply with federal fuel formulation regulations. Refiners will
occasionally have to make modifications to our operations that are necessary to make clean
fuels. Such upgrades could trigger CAA GHG regulation, putting these projects in jeopardy.
The regulation ofGHGs under the CAA creates the opposing situation of requiring
facilities to install advanced technologies that increase energy use for the formulation of
increasingly complex motor fuels, while simultaneously penalizing these same facilities by
requiring them to control GHGs, emitted by this same required technology, through
excessively expensive and intrusive regulation. For example, sulfur is a component of crude
oil. "Hydrotreating" is the principal technology used to reduce sulfur in petroleum products
(I.e., gasoline, home heating oil or diesel). This and other such technologies, in turn, require
encrgy consumption with associated greenhouse gas emissions. The production of extra
hydrogen necessary for the hydrotreater results in an increase in GHG emissions because the
hydrocarbon source (natural gas or refinery fuel gas) must be "cracked" to recover the
hydrogen - releasing large amounts of CO2 • Therefore, a petroleum fuel sulfur reduction
standard will increase the carbon footprint at refineries.
A similar scenario applies to reducing the benzene content of gasoline. Benzene-

reduction technologies exist, but at a "cost" of a larger carbon footprint at refineries. EPA is
considering "Tier 3" standards that could reduce the sulfur and benzene content of gasoline.
Several states have passed laws or promulgated regulations to reduce the sulfur content of
home heating oil. Production of cleaner petroleum fuels means an increase in GHG
emissions at refineries. Therefore, refineries will be penalized for installing expensive
equipment to produce cleaner-burning petroleum fiJels and will be discouraged from making
additional investments in these technologies in the future. A recent example of this was a
refinery expansion project which was publically criticized for increasing its carbon footprint
even though the expansion would result in the reduction of each of the criteria pollutants that
it emitted.
Page 5
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
An existing requirement ofthe CAA calls on EPA to revise National Ambient Air
Quality Standards ("NAAQS") every five years and revise them "as may be appropriate" in
accordance with sections 108 and 109(b) of the CAA. NAAQS regulates six criteria
pollutants, namely ozone, carbon monoxide, lead, sulfur dioxide ("S02"), nitrogen oxides
("NOx") and particulate matter ("PM"). In relation to ozone regulation, the NAAQS
primarily deals with controlling emissions of volatile organic compounds ("VOCs") and
NOx, because they are ozone precursors. Primary NAAQS must be set at a level "requisite
to protect the public health" with "an adequate margin of safety." Secondary NAAQS must
specify a level of air quality "requisite to protect the public welfare from any known or
anticipated adverse effects." Failure to achieve NAAQS has significant ramifications for
states and localities. If an area is designated "non-attainment," it becomes subject to several
new regulations, such as a requirement to use reformulated gasoline ("RFG") in a given area,
much more stringent permitting, and required implementation of "Reasonably Achievable
Control Technology" ("RACT") on major stationary sources emitting VOCs and NOx.
Depending on the level of non-attainment severity, states and localities can actually be
denied federal transportation funding.
EPA recently finalized a new NAAQS ozone standard of 0.075 ppm in 2008
following substantial and rigorous scientific review. This standard itself is extremely
stringent and will be difficult to meet. Despite this recent move, EPA decided to ignore the
regular five year review cycle and revisit this recently enacted standard - before it is even
implemented. The Agency has suggested it would impose a 0.060 or 0.070 ppm ozone
NAAQS requirement. It is making this reconsideration without the review or evidence of
any new science that would indicate the need for such a move. Setting NAAQS at such
levels would establish a standard that in some areas is approaching current ozone background
levels, even in rural areas. In other words, even if every industrial source of ozone-producing
emissions in some areas shut down, it would still be difficult for those areas to comply with
an ozone NAAQS at the low end.ofthe range being considered. Such a standard would have
a significant and adverse impact on the economy. A Manufacturers Alliance study found that
a 0.060 ppm standard would cost over $1.6 trillion and could lead to the loss of7.2 million
jobs economy wide over the next decade. EPA's own numbers indicate the cost ofa revised
ozone NAAQS standard will range from $19-$90 billion annually.
As with the GHG standards, the new ozone NAAQS will pose challcnges in relation
to other regulations. The federal Renewable Fuel Standard ("RFS") will require increasing
the amount of ethanol in the fuel supply each year for the next 25 years. The more ethanol
there is in a region's gasoline, the higher evaporative, or VOC, emissions from automobile
engines will be. Further, ethanol-fueled vehicles tend to run "hotter", with resultant increases
in NOx emissions. In other words, the ethanol mandate will make it more difficult to meet
the new ozone NAAQS requirements over the coming years because emissions of both ozone
Page 6
precursor pollutants will increase. Fuel modifications to meet these divergent regulatory
objectives will come at a considerable cost and will likely lead to higher consumer fuel costs.
In relation to the ozone NAAQS, the facts are that ambient air quality has been
dramatically improving, even as the nation's economy has grown. Even EPA highlights the
fact that between 1980 and 2008, total emissions of the six principal air pollutants has
dropped 54 percent. Measures of ambient concentrations of ozone have dropped 25 percent
in that time, while national GDP has increased 126 percent, vehicle miles traveled are up 91
percent and energy consumption has increased 29 percent. In addition, EPA's decision to
reconsider standards for ozone NAAQS continues to ignore the vast majority of new studies
which indicate current standards are protective of public health. However, there could be
significant adverse health and welfare impacts asso.ciated with continued unemployment and
economic decay. Given these facts and the recent revision to the standard, there is no need
for EPA to pursue a more stringent standard and threaten economic harm; particularly
because the CAA does not mandate an ozone NAAQS review at this time.
EPA Disapproval of Texas "Flex" Permits Under the CAA
Texas has one of the most stringent air permitting programs in the nation - a program
that actually predates the CAA. Facilities in Texas have been receiving CAA operating and
construction permits from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality under a "flexible
permit" (or "flex" permit) framework. In 1994, Texas submitted its State Implementation
Plan ("SIP") to EPA as required under the CAA. The SIP tells EPA how a state plans to
meet its obligations under the CAA. The Texas SIP proposed providing air permits to
facilities in a manner that allowed them to make changes to certain units in a facility without
having to go through an extensive permitting process, provided the change would not result
in an emissions increase that would exceed the facility's plant-wide emissions allowance.
Although EPA is technically supposed to approve or deny a SIP within 18 months, the
Agency did not initiate any action on the Texas permit in this time frame. However, in order
to avoid a de facto permit moratorium, the Agency expressed support for the state rules and
indicated that Texas could issue "flex" permits in accordance with the regulatory
requirements of the CAA. Given these assurances, Texas moved forward with its "flex"
permit program.
The Texas "flex" permit program was successful in reducing both air emissions and
regulatory costs. From 2000 to 2008, the state experienced a 46 percent decrease in NOx
emissions and a 22 percent drop in ozone. These reductions are significantly better than the
national average of an eight percent ozone decrease and a 27 percent drop in NOx emissions.
Despite this success, EPA decided last year that the Texas program was not permissible
under the CAA. The Agency told the state "flex" permits would not be valid and that EPA
would take over permitting if the state did not tell facilities to "de-flex," or completely retool
their operating permits. Permitting inconsistency and delays that will result from this action
Page 7
will create significant investment uncertainty around compliance, growth and efficiency
projects - hampering job and economic growth in the process.
E15 and the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS)
In November, the EPA published a decision for approval of a partial waiver, with
conditions, that would allow gasoline containing 15 percent ethanol- known as "EI5" - to be
sold into the marketplace for use in vehicles that are model year ("MY") 2007 and later. This
decision could create significant problems in the marketplace. First of all, EPA does not
have the legal authority to grant a partial waiver. Section 21 I(f)(4) ofthe CAA is clear on
this point, since it states EPA has to determine that any fuel or fuel additive 'will not cause or
contribute to a failure of any emission control device or system (emphasis added)"; not just
whether or not a fuel or additive will cause or contribute to the failure of some emission
control devices and not others. NPRA is suing EPA based on this fact. More importantly,
because El5 would theoretically be sold under the same canopy as regular gasoline, there is a
high likelihood of consumer misfueling. This is a concern because several studies show
gasoline blends containing more than 10 percent ethanol could lead to engine damage in
older vehicles and non-road engines, such as those in chainsaws, lawnmowers, boats and
snowmobiles.. Ironically, an increased ethanol blend could also damage older cars' catalytic
converters, installed to reduce emissions. In addition to engine and catalytic control damage,
studies have shown that as ethanol content in fuel increases, it burns hotter and is more
corrosive. This combined effect creates the possibility for serious physical injury to persons
who may misfuel and potential physical damage to tanks and fuel dispensing equipment.
Sufficient testing to assess the impact of these fuel blends on all automobiles - both old and
new - and non-road engines has not been completed.
Industries ranging from outdoor power equipment manufacturers, to automakers to

food producers have all expressed concern over EPA's El5 waiver. However, EPA has
ignored ongoing testing related to EI5 and made a premature decision to approve the fuel.
The same decision to approve EI5 also contains a proposal for El5 misfueling mitigation.
Therefore, EPA made a decision knowing that it would cause problems and initiated a
rulemaking at the same time to mitigate the problems that the Agency created. The Agency
could have decided to deny the request to approve EI5 as gasoline, but chose to approve it
partially and conditionally. This decision has put the petroleum industry and cOnsumers at
significant risk and the mitigation proposal, a cautionary label posted at retail, is a woefully
ineffective warning device.
The previously mentioned problem with EPA's El5 decision is one example ofthe
numerous problems associated with an ill-crafted federal renewable fuels standard ("RFS").
The existing program contains an extremely aggressive schedule for introducing a fairly large
amount of ethanol into the marketplace. Such an implementation schedule raises questions
of feasibility, liability and other economic costs for both refiners and consumers. If the
existing RFS program is carried out without changes, it will create great market and
Page 8
economic uncertainty, which will in turn threaten additional refining investment and job
growth.
Chemicals Regulation
In relation to chemicals regulation, there has been little transparency into the
regulatory process at EPAin recent years. For example, EPA no longer holds public
meetings when crafting regulations. In the past, EPA routinely held public meetings to allow
policy debates to be conducted in an open and transparent manner. To further highlight the
lack of transparency, EPA has announced plans to "manage" the risks of certain chemicals in
commerce, but the regulated community has no idea how EPA has come to select the
chemicals for management. EPA lacks any kind of consistent and transparent manner in
which to identify and prioritize chemicals for regulation. In fact, the current administration
abandoned the chemical prioritization process the Agency had committed to under the Safety
& Security Partnership of North America, in favor of a behind-closed-doors process that
relies more on the media than science to identify chemicals of concern.
EPA also expects the chemical manufacturing sector to shoulder the lion's share of
the burden for the entire economic supply chain by increasing reporting and other regulatory
requirements, even though chemical manufacturers cannot control how chemicals are used
and distributed after they are sold in commerce. Under the key law that allows EPA to
regulate chemicals in commerce, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA has
proposed requiring chemical companies to report information on how every chemical is sold
and used in this country, which is impossible for those companies to know. EPA also
expects chemical manufacturers to pay for all very costly chemical testing based on
parameters and assumptions of use not established or vetted by these manufacturers.
Therefore, this testing likely will yield very little benefit in determining risks associated with
the intended use of these chemicals. Further, EPA-designed testing may produce results
modeled on use scenarios not intended by these manufacturers, potentially misinforming or
misleading consumers regarding the actual risk associated with a product or chemical.
The lack of transparency and manufacturer engagement coupled with the proposed
regulatory burden and unsubstantiated tested associated with chemicals management create
great uncertainty for our nation's chemical manufacturers. With chemicals being one of our
country's top ten exports, it is imperative that any update to TSCA or other chemical
regulation be based on sound science, involves all stakeholders, and recognize the
importance of chemicals to continued innovation and the health of our economy.
On the chemical facility security front, the Department of Homeland Security

("DHS") seems to be moving forward with regulatory attempts to require Inherently Safer
Technology ("1ST") mandates. While 1ST sounds good in concept, proposals to mandate
such a practice have essentially equated to backdoor chemical substitution proposals that do
. not actually address security risks. Rather, they simply shift risks to different parts of the
Page 9
supply chain. An 1ST mandate could cause some companies to abandon billions of dollars of
investment in refinery units, ultimately leading to closure of refineries that could not afford
to replace those units with unproven technologies or operate without the unit. NPRA
member companies have raised questions as to why DHS is proceeding down this path and
under what authority.
Additional Environmental Challenges
In addition to these major issues, domestic fuels and petrochemical manufacturers

also are facing additional environmental challenges. EPA continues to work on a Boiler
MACT rule that has been criticized for being overly stringent, costly, and in many cases
simply unachievable; several studies by CIBO, AF&PA and even the Commerce Department
have shown the proposed boiler MACT rule could lead to significant job losses. Reasonable
revisions to the proposal could prevent potential job losses due to onerous regulations that do
not result in significant health benefits. Finally, while information requests, recordkeeping
and reporting are necessary aspects orany environmental program, we are concerned about
onerous requirements that simply demand significant company staff time, but yield little
benefit. NPRA's refming member companies are subject to a new information collection
request (ICR) as part of EPA's re-proposal of its refinery Residual Risk Rule. The Agency is
requesting a significant amount of information from every refinery in the US, even though
the Agency already has much of this information already available. Theinformation and
testing required to complete this request is burdensome and costly, particularly to smaller
refining companies. The ICR seeks far more information than is needed as the basis for the
rules that EPA is required or reasonably expected to develop over the next few years.
Thank you once again for allowing me to provide you with information on how the
current regulatory environment is impacting domestic fuels and petrochemical
manufacturers. If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me
directly or have the appropriate staff person contact NPRA's Senior Director of Government
Relations, Brendan Williams, at 202-457-0480.
Sincerely,
Charles T. Drevna
President, NPRA
Non..Ferrous Founders' Society
1480 Renaissance Drive' Suite #310' Park Ridge, IL 60068
Phone: 847-299O{)9S0' Fax: 847-299-3598' E-mail: nffsl.f!@nffs.org· hltp:llwww,nffs,org
January 13, 2011

Chairman, Committee on Oversight & Government Reform
Dear Chairman Issa:
The Non-Ferrous Founders' Society (NFFS) is pleased to respond to your request for comments
identifying proposed or existing regulations that are negatively impacting jobs, the economy and'
our economic competitiveness. While our list of regulations is certain to encompass several that
will be cited by other organizations, we trust we will not be overly duplicative in our comments. To
begin, therefore, allow me to provide some background on our industry as a point of reference.
As a Whole, the foundry industry has played an important role in the history of industrial progress,
invention, and innovation. It is not an exaggeration to state that metal castings have been the
engine that has driven the American economy for the past 225 years. Castings have been part of
nearly every new industrial and technological development, and figure prominently in virtually every
other segment of the economy - whether industrial or agricultural.
Non-ferrous castings in particular are found almost everywhere - from your kitchen sink and
kitchen appliances to the engine, drive train, and dashboard of your automobile. While primarily
small businesses, non-ferrous foundries operate in nearly every state of the union, collectively
employ more than 150,000 workers, contribute more than $20 billion to the nation's Gross National
Product, and are believed to produce as many as 100,000 distinct products and/or components.
Your letter cites administration estimates as to the cost (referred to as the hidden tax) of the 43
new regulations promulgated by federal agencies in Fiscal year 2010 to be more than $28
BILLION - on top of the estimated $1.75 TRILLION burden from existing regulations. -. Too often,
the cost of government regulations places a disproportionate burden on small business, and that
burden creates an even more significant impact on small manufacturers like non-ferrous foundries.
The Non-Ferrous Founders' Society and its members endorse and support your committee's
efforts to implement a broad program of regulatory oversight and reform of new and existing
regulations that negatively impact the economy and jobs. Our organization has been tracking
several proposed regulations and new initiatives by federal agencies that are of immediate concern
to our members, and to which we therefore now draw the committee's specific attention.
OSHA's Noise Proposal
OSHA has stated that it plans to enforce noise level standards in a dramatically different way by
redefining what is deemed "feasible" for employers to reduce overall noise in the workplace. More
troubling, the agency plans to require implementation of these actions unless an employer can
prove making such changes will put it out of business.
The Honorable Darrell lssa January 13, 2011 Page 12
OSHA's proposal discards a long-running and effective policy that allows an employer to provide
"personal protective equipment" such as ear plugs and ear muffs to protect its employees from
high noise levels if such devices are more cost-effective than engineering controls like noise-
dampening equipment and mUffling systems. The proposed definition change would force
employers of all sizes to make physical plant changes regardless of costs - even if such changes
would not be fully effective in reducing noise levels in the plant, thus requiring that PPE must
continue to be used. Preliminary estimates by manufacturers estimate that total compliance costs
for fully implementing this proposal could reach billions of dollars.
Perhaps most troubling, OSHA is pursuing this "reinterpretation" outside the formal rulemaking
process and therefore is not following the Administrative Procedures Act that provides the
opportunity for full and fair public input. While OSHA has recently extended the deadline for
stakeholder comments (the Non-Ferrous Founders' Society is currently gathering data from our
industry to file comments by the March 21 51 deadline), the agency is under no obligation to actually
consider the comments they receive prior to enacting the change in the definition of "feasible
engineering controls." Moreover, the requirements of SBREFA would also not apply.
OSHA Recordkeeping and Enforcement
In 2010, OSHA issued a proposed rulemaking indicating their intent to pursue broad regulation
of ergonomics issues. The proposal called for changes to recordkeeping rules and added a new
column to OSHA 300 logs to require employers to track "work-related" musculoskeletal
disorders (MSDs).
The proposal uses a very broad definition of recordable MSDs which could lead to a significant
expansion of the conditions that must be captured on employer logs and require employers to
treat subjective symptoms as potential recordable incidents. It can also result in inaccurate data
regarding the degree to which incidents are work related. The new requirement also forces
employers to make medical determinations regarding the nature of potential MSDs and whether
or not they are work related. It also undermines an employers' ability to conduct preventive work
transfers to help keep more serious conditions from developing.
Despite decreasing injury and illness rate statistics, in an effort to address perceived safety and
health problems in the workplace OSHA implemented a new Severe Violator Enforcement
Program (SVEP) and increased civil penalty amounts. Comments from the Assistant Secretary
of Labor for OSHA at the time stated "OSHA penalties must be large enough to discourage
employers from cutting corners or underfunding safety programs to save a few dollars."
The SVEP included a more intense examination of an employer's practices for systemic
problems, increased inspections in these worksites, including mandatory follow-up inspections
and inspections of other worksites of the same employer where similar hazards and deficiencies
might be present.
Being "pro-safety" is no more "anti-business" than being "pro-business" means one is "anti-
safety." Workplace injuries are expensive, and high accident rates cause insurance premiums
to soar. A commitment to increased safety actually helps create a better business environment.,
but the Non-Ferrous Founders' Society rankles at the presumption by some policymakers at
OSHA that most employers don't care about safety, and the only way to change that is to adopt
a "you're guilty unless you prove yourself innocent' regime of regulatory enforcement.
The Honorable Darrell Issa January 13, 2011 Page 13
OSHA's Proposed Combustible Dust Rule
On October 21, 2009, OSHA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM)
requesting public comment on a standard to address the hazards of combustible dust (29 CFR
Part 1910, RIN 1218-AC 41). The Non-Ferrous Founders' Society submitted comments on
January 19, 2010. Some of the points raised in our comments include:
• That no single definition of Combustible Dust can accurately cover all materials, and that any
combustible dust standard for non-ferrous foundries enacted by OSHA should clearly define
which metals are and which are not known to be combustible rather require that determination
to be made separately by each and every non-ferrous foundry or ingotmaker that mayor may
not be subject to the rule.
• That OSHA should set industry-specific standards for combustible dust rather than attempt to
create a single, all-encompassing, one size fits all approach to the issue. OSHA has already
followed that approach by creating industry-specific standards for combustible dust in grain
handling, sugar refining, wood milling, and other industries.
• That incorporating consensus standards developed by other non-government organizations by

reference into an OSHA standard often serves no useful purpose other than to provide a
baseline for the imposition of fines and penalties after an incident or explosion occurs.
OSHA held a series of follow-up Stakeholder Meetings in support of the Combustible Dust
rulemaking, but there has been little recent progress on the proposed rule. The Society has'
been told that the agency plans to convene a SBREFA review, though perhaps not until April.
Given the significant impact that the proposed rule would have on .small foundries, OSHA must
be required to conduct a full and open SBREFA review before proceeding.
EPA Re-Definition of Solid Waste
. During the final months of the previous administration, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
finalized the Definition of Solid Waste rule, aimed at promoting recycling by providing new
exemptions to its Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations for wastes now
considered to be "solid" wastes. But Earthjustice, on behalf of the Sierra Club, filed suit over the
rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, alleging the exemptions went
too far and could lead to dangerous "sham" recycling at facilities located disproportionately near
low-income and minority communities.
In a settlement with environmentalists, EPA has since committed to propose a new rule revising its
regulatory definition of solid waste by June 2011. This move builds on steps the agency had
already iaken in response to the activists' lawsuit since the current administration took office, but
sets aside nearly two years of collaboration with industry that went in to the development of the
2008 rule. At that time, EPA had estimated that about 5,600 facilities handling approximately 1.5
million tons of hazardous secondary materials annually would be impacted by this rule and that the
regulation would save approximately $95 million per year for the affected industries. Announcing
the new rule, the assistant administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
said, "Removing barriers to legitimate recycling is good for business and the environment. This
rule will help conserve natural resources, save energy, and reduce costs."
The Honorable Darrell Issa January 13, 2011 Page [4
EPA Boiler MACT Rule
EPA has estimated that there are more than 200,000 boilers operating in industrial facilities,
commercial buildings, hotels and universities located in highly populated areas and communities
across the country. The agency is under a current court order to issue final rules on January 16,
2011 and is asking the court to extend the schedule to allow the agency to finalize the rules by
April 2012. This broad-reaching proposal could cost manufacturers over $20 billion in
compliance costs and place hundreds of thousands of jobs in jeopardy. Furthermore, many
manufacturing groups have expressed concerns that the proposed standards could almost
never be achieved by any single, real-world source.
. After reviewing the data and more than 4,800 public comments, the agency believes it is
appropriate to issue a revised proposal that reflects the new data and allows for additional public
comment. EPA has therefore asked the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia for an
extension to re-propose the rule, take industry comments, and finalize the rule by April, 2012,
but the Sierra Club filed a motion with the court opposing the delay request, saying that the
agency is already 10 years overdue issuing the ruies and any further delay would harm public
health. NFFS supports the agency's request for an extension and welcomes the additional time
for a review, but maintains that any new proposal must ensure that the standards are
economically feasible and achievable in practice for manufacturers.
Revised EPA NAAQS for lead
In October, 2008, EPA SUbstantially reduced the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
for lead. The revised standards are 10 times tighter than the previous NAAQS. The agency
reduced the level of the primary (health-based) standard from 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter
(lJg/m3), to 0.15 IJg/m3 (measured as total suspended particles, or TSP). EPA also revised the
secondary (welfare-based) standard to be identical in all respects to the primary standard, and
revised the averaging time and form of the lead NAAQS. These are the air quality statistics that
are compared to the level of the standards to determine whether an area meets or violates the
standards.
EPA changed the calculation method for the averaging time to use to 'rolling' three month period
with a maximum (not-to-be-exceeded) form, evaluated over a three-year period. This replaced the
prior approach of using calendar quarters. A rolling three month average considers each of the 12
three-month periods associated with a given year, not just the four calendar quarters within that
year.
The agency also announced plans to redesign the lead monitoring network to assess compliance
with the revised the standard, requiring state and local monitoring agencies to conduct monitoring
taking into account lead sources that are expected to, or have been shown to, exceed the
standards. At a minimum, monitors were recommended to be placed in areas with sources of lead
emissions greater than or equal to one ton or more per year, to measure the maximum
concentration. The agency estimated that 236 new or relocated monitoring sites would be needed
to satisfy the monitoring requirements, but in December of 2010 EPA issued a final rule requiring
far fewer lead monitors in large urban areas and other sites than initially proposed.
EPA had originally estimated that at full implementation of the final lead NMQS in 2016, the costs
that year would fall somewhere in a range from $150 million to $2.8 billion. Of course, the Clean
Air Act expressly prohibits EPA from considering costs in setting or revising National Ambient Air
Quality Standards.
National Labor Relations Board Rules
Efforts to pass the Employee Free Choice Act (aka the "Card Check" Rule) failed In the last
Congress. As a consequence, labor unions and the administration have begun turning to the
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and other federal agencies to help reverse what they view
as an increasingly hostile atmosphere for organizing new members.
Addressing the AFL-CIO's Executive Council last August, the President made it clear that if card
check legislation could not pass in Congress, his Administration would use to use executive
orders and federal agencies like the NLRB to implement the goals of the legislation. His recess
appointment of Craig Becker - a former associate general counsel for the SEIU and later staff
counsel for the AFL-CIO - to the NLRB had given clear early evidence to the administration's
intent, and NLRB's decisions since Mr. Becker's appointment have clearly demonstrated his
pro-union bias. Most recent among those actions is the planned rule announced by the NLRB
requiring businesses to post notices in employee break rooms or other prominent locations to
explain a worker's rights to bargain collectively, distribute union literature, or engage in other
union activities without reprisal.
We believe the move to issue this broad rule signals a more aggressive posture by the labor board,
which has typically made policy on a case-by-case basis after deciding individual labor-
management disputes. The notices under the latest proposed rule also make clear that workers
don't have to join a union and outline other legal protections against union intimidation or
misconduct. Similar posters are already required to be displayed in the offices of government
contractors and subcontractors under a White House executive order that took effect in June. That
directive was one of the first executive orders the president signed shortly after taking office.
Last November, NFFS joined in filing an amicus brief in response to the National Labor
Relations Board's request for advice on its 2007 decision in the Dana Corp. case. In that case,
the Board had ruled that employees must have 45 days after their employer recognizes a union
based on card-check authorizations to file a petition to decertify the union or to support an
election petition from another union. The Board underscored having a secret election as the
preferred method of determining the majority status of a union. The majority found that card-
check procedures are much less reliable as indicators of employee free choice on union
representation than secret elections.
The NLRB is now reconsidering that ruling. The amicus brief argues that Dana should not be
overruled. Individual free choice regarding whether to be represented by a third party is a
necessary precondition to collective bargaining. In nearly 25 percent of the 54 Dana elections
conducted by the Board, employees exercising free choice voted to reject the employer's initial,
voluntary recognition.
While some NFFS members are already unionized, but nonetheless the Society believes that a
private ballot remains the fairest way to determine whether or not a company's employees
support union certification. The brief as filed argues that without a card-check review process in
the form of a secret election, "employees are left ... with the likelihood of peer pressure and/or
coercion, lack of information, no measurement of unit-wide employee sentiment at the same
point in time, and no assurance that the alleged, resulting majority is an accurate reflection of
free choice." .
Mr. Chairman, our list of proposed or existing regulations that negatively impact jobs, the economy
and our economic competitiveness could certainly go on, but rather than continue in that vein at
this juncture the Non-Ferrous Founders' Society would simply like to restate that we fully endorse
and support your committee's efforts to implement a broad program of regulatory oversight and
reform. This is a fresh change from the current regulatory environment, which seems to equate
seeking input from manufacturers and employers as equivalent to collaborating with the enemy.
The Society, its members and I will welcome any opportunity to continue to dialogue with you and
your committee about specific regulations or regulatory policy in general. Please do not hesitate
to call upon us again if you feel the input andlor comments of our association and its members
may be of value to your committee's efforts.
Sincerely,
~~~ James L. Mallory, CAE

Executive Director
JLMI
Owner-OperatorIndependent Drivers Association
National Headquflrtel's: 1 NW OOIDA Dl'ive, Gl'ain Valley, MO 64029
Tel: (816) 229-5791 Fax: (816) 427-4468
Washington Office: 1100 New JCl'sey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20003
Tel: (202) 347-2007 Fax: (202) 347-2008
January 10,2011

c/o Kristina M. Moore, esq
Re: Existing and proposed Regulatory Actions Impacting the Trucking Industry
Dear Mr. Chairman,

Thank you for your correspondence requesting assistance in identifYing existing and proposed
regulations that have and could potentially impact job growth in the trucking industry. We
welcome this opportunity and look forward to working with you in the future on this and any other
developing issues. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you require more information.
As you are aware, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association is a not-for-profit, non-
partisan organization representing the interests of small business trucking professionals and
professional truck drivers throughout the United States and Canada. Currently, OOIDA is
comprised of nearly 155,000 members nationwide, with more than 5,800 of those members residing
in the State of California. In order to effectively evaluate job growth or unemployment in the
trucking industry, one must look at the composition oftlle industry as a whole and understand it in
a larger context to truly see how deleterious excessive and unnecessary regulation can be to the
availability of drivers ready, willing, and able to accept shipments. In short, ilie overwhelming
majority of trucking companies based in the United States are small businesses, as 96% of all motor
carriers have less than 20 trucks in their fleet and 87% of motor carriers have fleets of just six or
fewer trucks. In fact, owner-operator fleets averaging little more than one truck represent nearly
half of the total number of Class 7 and Class 8 trucks operated in the United States. Unlike large
motor carriers who typically hire numerous employees and can offset overhead costs, the costs
associated with regulation are absorbed by ilie small business truckers and directly impact their
bottom line.
The trucking sector is a highly regulated industry and faces continual regulatory challenges in 2011
that are certain to adversely affect the profitability of small business truckers. In these economic
times, well intentioned efforts by regulatory agencies can often cause job losses downstream of
those regulatory actions. Specifically, OOIDA would like to address current regulatory actions
from tl,e United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).
Greenhouse Gas Emissions & Fuel Efficiency Standards for Heavy-DUty Vehicles.
USEPA and NI-ITSA have booth embarked on a regulatory effort to set both fuel mileage and
greenhouse gas (GHG) standards for newly manufactured heavy-duty trucks beginning in 2014.
While OOIDA does not disagree in concept with efficient use of energy resources and
OOlDA con/'d, page 2
commensurate reductions in OHO, we are not optimistic that this regulatory effort will do anything
more than significantly increase the cost of newer heavy-duty vehicles, perhaps even increasing the
purchase price of those vehicles beyond what many small businesses can afford. That eventuality
has dire consequences for employment in the manufacturing sector that builds new trucks and
ironically will achlally have the converse effect of not reducing OHO emissions by further
discouraging the purchase of new equipment that already has already seen significant cost mark-ups
related to previous USEPA emissions standards. This fear is not unfounded and in fact actually
played out in the marketplace during the past 4 years. In advance of USEPA 2007 and 2010 heavy~
duty truck engine emission standards, the trucking industry did a significant "pre-buy" of older
vehicles to avoid costly increases and uncertainty related to the newer technology.
The ,Truck Manufacturers Association reported that sales of Class 8 trucks, which weigh over
38,000 pounds, were down from nearly 284,000 trucks in 2006 to approximately 100,000 in
December of 2010. Not only has this decreased employment in the manufacturing sector of the
trucking industry, the decrease in sales has led to a significant drop in tax revenue provided to the
Federal Highway Trust Fund. The trucking industry contributes 36.1 % into the HTF and of that
percentage 7.8% is collected from truck and trailer sales not including a 12% Federal Excise Tax
collected when a new truck or trailer is purchased. An example of the loss of revenue that stems
from decreased truck sales comes from a study in 2008 by the American Road and Transportation
Builders Association (ARTBA). According to this study, there was a shortfall of $3 billion in the
Highway Trust Fund after the EPA implemented the 2007 NOX emission standards-$2.4 billion
ofthat total amount was associated with the decrease in truck and trailer sales.
The current USEPAINHTSA rulemaking is intended to emulate in large part a rulemaking from the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) to address OHO emissions from heavy-duty vehicles. In
spite of industry objections to the one-size-fits-all mindset exemplified by this type of rulemaking,
much less costly ways to achieve the goals of increased fuel efficiency and OHO reduction are
ignored in favor of a "command and control" regulatory structure. Some of the favored
technologies that will add to the cost of a new truck are speed limiters, super single tires,
aerodynaniic devices such as side skirts, Alternate Power Units (APUs) and associated 'automated
engine shut-down requirements. All the technological features will increase the cost of newer
trucks yet both agencies have purposely ignored the single greatest means' to increase fuel
efficiency and reduce OHO - that is drivel' training. The National Academy of Sciences identified
driver training as the single largest way to improve fuel efficiency - up to 35 percent - yet that has
been completely ignored by both agencies in their combined rulemaking.
Certain regulations being promulgated by agencies may at first glance not appear as financially
onerous until they are viewed from the cumulative burden placed on the trucking industry.
For example, FMCSA has promulgated a limited rulemaking that requires Electronic Onboard
Recorders (EOBRs) to be installed on trucks of certain motor carriers for compliance with federal
hours-of-service (I-lOS) regulations. The agency has communicated it will likely move towards a
wider mandate. This rulemaking is couched under the guise of improving highway safety even
though HOS violations or "fatigue" involvement in commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) involved
fatality accidents account for only 1.4 percent ofthe total.
This is a potential rulemaking that will cost the trucking industry well in excess of one billion
OOI[),! cOllt'd, page 3
dollars up front plus monthly fees. Considering how the trucking industry is constituted with its
reliance on small business motor carriers, the vast majority of these increased costs will fall on
small businesses for little or no appreciable benefit in highway safety.
FMCSA is also currently looking at banning the use of hand held cell phones by CMV drivers. In
the current rulemaking the agency is requesting comment on a wider ban that could include hands-
free cell phone use. While OOIDA provisionally believes in reducing activities that lead to
distracted driving, banning hands-free cell phone use will significantly burden small business motor
carriers who are dependent on that technology platform to efficiently operate their businesses.
Larger fleets subscribe to various fleet management systems that so far have escaped regulatory
oversight. Regulatory efforts that reduce the efficiency of how businesses operate should be based
on a conclusive con?ection between the distraction and accident causation, not just public opinions.
Collectively, these kinds of rulemakings are obtrusive and costly to small-business truckers with
little or no scientific substantiation regarding improved highway safety.
Cross Border Trucldng Program: A One Way Street.
As evidenced by the U.S. Department of Transportation's recent issuance of a "Concept

Document" for a future cross-border trucking program with Mexico, the Administration is pushing
forward with efforts to provide Mexico-domiciled trucking companies and truck drivers with full
access to U.S. highways. Theil' efforts are.an affront to U.S.-based small business truckers who
must contend with a consistently increasing regime of safety, security and environmental
regulations. Those regulations also significantly increase the cost of operations for U.S.-based
companies and drivers. Mexico-domiciled trucking companies and drivers simply do not contend
with a similar regulatory regime in their home country nor must they contend with the
corresponding regulatory compliance costs that encumber their U.S. counterparts.
Thus far Mexico has failed to institute regulations and enforcement programs that are even
remotely similar to those in the United States. To ensure the safety and security of U.S. citizens as
well as a level regulatory playing field with U.S. businesses, Mexico-domiciled trucking companies
and truck drivers should be required to comply with the same level of safety, security and
environmental standards that already apply to U.S.-based companies and drivers, not only while
they are operating in the U.S., but also in their home country.
Thc primary objective ofNAFTA is to ensure that the North American nations enjoy the prosperity
that would result from the free flow of goods across borders. In order to achieve this end the
agreement seeks to ensure that each country affords the others access to economic opportunity.
Under current conditions in Mexico there is little opportunity or willingness on the part of U.S.
truckers to compete there. Until the Mexican government is able to significantly diminish the
rampant crime and violence within its borders, commits to addressing its deteriorated infrastructure,
and promulgates regulations that significantly improve its trucking industry, U.S. truckers will be
unable to benefit from the anticipated reciprocity. If a new cross-border trucking program were
implemented in the near future, U.S. truckers would be forced to forfeit their own economic
opportunities while companies and drivers from Mexico, free from equivalent regulatory burdens,
take over their traffic lanes.
OOIDA COIU'd, page 4
To illustrate the folly and adverse impact for small-business U.S. truckers, much of the fresh
vegetables consunied in the U.S. during winter months originate in Mexico. Currently, U.S.
truckers pick up that produce at warehouses located in certain border cities and deliver to buyers
throughout the country. It is not an unfounded fear that significant volumes of imported produce
would bypass traditional distribution methods to take advantage of the unfair lower costs offered by
Mexico domiciled motor carriers. Many OOIDA members are certainly going to be displaced in
the market by foreign competitors that do not face the same regulatory burdens. Those burdens
extend well beyond safety oriented regulatory burdens. They include costs such as self-
employment taxes, unemployment taxes and workers compensation.
To date the Administration has failed to call upon the Mexican government to raise the regulatory
standards for its trucking industry or to establish a feasible work environment for U.S. truckers in
Mexico. Instead, the Administration has sought to find ways to accommodate the operations of
Mexico-domiciled trucking companies and drivers on our side of the border.
Conclusion.
While this letter does not constitute a complete list of the myriad of regulatory issues promulgated
by federal agencies that negatively impact the economy and job growth, they are examples of
certain issues that needlessly increase cost for small business truckers and in some cases will hann
job growth in our industry. When regulatory hurdles needlessly increase costs - especially when
alternatives exist that are significantly less onerous and costly, small business trucking
competitiveness is eroded and their communities are economically hurt by them having less of their
own money to spend as they see fit.
I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your inquiry of this topic and welcome any further
questions that would assist you in your capacity as Chairman.
Respectfully,
~ ~.Rd-'Aw~J-
Joseph F. Rajkovacz
Director of Regulatory Affairs
gm.• .
·WMOING
MANUFACTURERS
INTERNATIOl\lAL "'"
January 10, 2011
Chairman Darrellissa
Subject: DOE Proposed Definition on Showerheads & DOE Waiver ofFederal Preemption
Dear Chairman Issa:
Thank you for contacting Plumbing Manufacturers International (formerly Institute) to identify proposed
regulations that negatively impact the economy and jobs. PMI is the leading industry trade association of
plumbing products manufacturers in the United States. PMI has over 30 member companies who provide jobs to
thousands of workers in over 20 states and manufacture 95% of all the plumbing products sold in the United·
States.
I believe that we have two issues the Committee will want to examine in this regard. The first involves the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) unilateral action significantly changing the definition of a "showerhead". This is a
dramatic and highly visible case currently pending before OIRA. PMI has argued that the DOE action to
reinterpret their longstanding definition of "showerhead" without a formal rulemaking process constitutes a total
disregard ofthe Administrative Procedures Act and will result in hundreds of millions of dollars in recurring costs
and a corresponding loss ofjob to the plumbing industry and to plumbing contractors.
The-second issue involves the -recentnotice-issued-by DORou Decefiloer22;-20rOwaivingTeoefalpreernpfion -

for water conservation standards under 42 U.S. C. 6297 with respect to any state regulation concerning the water
use or water efficiency of faucets, showerheads, water closets and urinals.
In this letter, we offer you just a brief overview ofthe key facts on each of these issues. Should you desire, we
. can provide additional documentation for your review. Further, our industry is prepared to brief your staff and to
provide whatever additional support is necessary to advance your reforms.
DOE ACTION on SHOWERHEAD REDEFINITION: In May, the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Office
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy provided just a 30 day notice soliciting comments on their draft
"interpretative" rule which would significantly change the definition of "showerhead' (Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-
NOA-0016 [Federal Register -5/19/10 - Volume 75, Number 96, Page 27926]). It is noteworthy that with only 30 days notice,
over 1,000 comments were received from a broad cross section of the nation including: business, the public
sector, and citizens. Only a handful of the comments support the DOE's rule. The rule has been pending before
OIRA since early September 2010 with no determination as of this date. This issue has been highlighted by a
broad spectrum of the press.
PMI maintains that this DOE action will have the effect of eliminating various types of showering systems in
homes across America, including hand-held showers, body sprays, and shower systems. Many of these products
are also used in hospitals, nursing homes, schools, the military and other therapeutic and medical facilities.
Plumbing Manufacturers International

1921 Rohlwing Rd .• Unit G, Rolling Meadows, IL 60008, U.S.A. • Tel: 847-481-5500' Fax: 847-461-5501
Additionally. the ban on these types of shower systems would have a significant impact on plumbing
manufacturers, contractors, installers, and retailers across the country. Especially hard hit would be consumers,
particularly seniors and members of the disabled community who rely on these types of shower systems as a
functional necessity.
Chief among our concerns is the process DOE has relied upon to implement this proposal. We believe that a
change of this magnitude should NOT be exempt from the full and formal notice and comment requirements of
the Administrative Procedures Act. DOE's proposed "interpretative" rule would negate the generally accepted
definition of a showerhead that has existed for decades. With only a 30-day comment period and no stakeholder
meetings, DOE will effectively make it illegal for manufacturers to sell most, ifnot all, multi-head shower
systems in our country.
Moreover, by making this change via an interpretative bulletin, rather than formal rule making, DOE will
potentially jeopardize the validity of shower systems already installed and approved by code officials throughout
the country and interdict products already on order and on store shelves. Lastly, it will eliminate the opportunity
for consumers to have a choice in determining what type of showering system best suits their individual needs.
These showering systems have been available to consumers for over 40 years.
PMIand our member companies are WaterSense partners. We are committed to the efficient and sustainable use
of water; however, given the impact that the agency proposal will have on the American public, we strongly urge
your committee to examine DOE's attempt to redefine by fiat its showerhead rule.
DOE WAIVER OF FEDERAL PREEMPTIONfor WATER EFFICIENCY STANDARDS on PLUMBING

Pll0DUCTS (Docket No. EERE-2010-I3T-STD-WAV-0045): Right before the Christmas holiday, the U.S. Department
of Energy announced in a posting in the Federal Register that it is ending Federal preemption of state water
conservation requlations that has been in effect since Congress passed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(EPCA), Public Law 94-163. In so doing, DOE made the determination that this action is not a "significant
regulatory action" under Executive Order 12866. Furthermore, DOE waived prior notice and an opportunity for
the public to comment on this action. DOE cites the EPCA law as imposing a non-discretionary duty on DOE to
waive Federal preemption at this time due to facts and circumstances which have occurred. According to DOE
the states now have full jurisdiction to set whatever water efficiency standards for specific plumbing products as
they see fit, provided they are more stringent than the current federal standards.
National harmonization of performance standards is preferred by manufacturers in the name of manufacturing

efficiency, product availability performance and consumer safety. In the event that regulations are being
considered for revision, PMI advocates that manufacturers be included in discussions about adopting more
stringent efficiency standards to ensure maximum product performance and availability, as well as consumer
satisfaction and safety. As an example, PMI cautions that care must be taken to match lower flow showerheads
with proper valving to avoid scalding risks.
We hope that this summary information may be relevant to your examination. We welcome the opportunity to
meet with your staff and to provide further detail and documentation. We look forward to your response on this
important matter. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our PMI
Washington staff, Diana Waterman at 202898 1444 or dw@wafed.com
Sincerely,
~C-~
Barbara Higgens
Executive Director
BH/abf
PMPA~(
11=
PRECISlON
precisiOnMI\C:hlncdproductsAssOdlltltm@/
January 10, 2011

Chair
2 I 57 Rayburn House Office Building
RE: Sample ofImpact ofRegulations and Rule Interpretations on Metalworking Manzifacturers
. Dear Chairman Issa,
On behalf of the National Tooling and Machining Association (NTMA), the Precision Machined Products
Association (PMPA), and the Precision Metalforming Association (PMA), please accept these comments
in response to your request for examples of ill-conceived regulations and rules interpretations and their
impact on metalworking manufacturers.
Our members are small and medium sized manufacturers, averaging less than 75 employees and typically
family-owned, the majority of which are Subchapter S corporations. As you know, regulations impact
small businesses much greater then on large corporations who have the resources to reduce the burden on
their productivity. Many of the guidance opinions issued by federal agencies are overly broad,
encompassing production activity not even a focus of the regulation. Increasingly, over the past two years,
instead of issuing a new regulation to cover an activity, an agency will issue a new interpretation of an
existing rule. The slightest "interpretation" change can halt the production of a manufacturer and cost the
employer thousands of dollars a day.
Of particular concern is the increased lack of cooperation and partnership between businesses and agency
personnel. For example, for years metalworking industries have maintained an excellent partnership
through the OSHA Alliance Program where government, trade associations, and business owners come
together to improve worker safety and health. However, in the past couple of years, OSHA has reduced
the level of cooperation between government regulators and manufacturers, an alarming trend that
reduces the Agency's effectiveness while injuring manufacturers' ability to compete.
Small and medium sized middle market manufacturers such as our members companies are often trapped
between their much larger customers and suppliers and government regulators. Even if a regulation does
not specifically target small businesses or the metalworking industry, these businesses and their
employees still feel the trickledown effect. Broader government policies such as regulating large emitters
of greenhouse gases exempts many small manufacturers from direct penalties and fines but if the cost of
manufacturing in America increases for a key supplier or customer, then the cost also increases for small
businesses. All actions have unintended consequences and we encourage federal policymakers to examine
the impact their actions will have on all sectors of the economy even if targeting a specific industry.
,{fetalworldng Regulat;ons Letter JanualJ' 10. 2011
Below are four examples of existing and new regulations and rules interpretations that directly negatively
impact metalworking manufacturers, reduces our global competitiveness, and restrict our ability to hire
employees and invest in our facilities.
OSHA Noise Compliance

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is considering whether to change the way it
officially interprets workplace noise exposure requirements and enforcements. The new OSHA policy
would require employers to implement all "feasible" engineering and controls to protect employees from
loud workplace noises instead of primarily using effective personal protective equipment like earplugs
and earmuffs and noise-dampening equipment, enclosures, soond barriers, etc. already in place.
According to OSHA's notice published October 19, 2010, employers must adopt these chang'es regardless
of the costs unless an employer can prove that making such changes will "put them out of business" or
severely threaten the company's "viability." Engineering controls are expected to cost over $10,000 per
machine. Moreover, these controls have not been demonstrated to attenuate the noise to below the action
level, and make setup adjustment and operations slower and less efficient. The cost of capital to install
these controls is a significant hurdle, presuming it is available. Administrative controls would require
shutting down or idling of up to half or more of operating equipment lowering return on investment and
decreasing employment (If machines are idle, their operators are not needed. This is not a new regulation
that simply lowers the threshold for employee noise exposure; it changes how OSHA interprets
compliance and gives them the authority to dictate whether a company is capable of adding any new
safeguards regardless of whether it will improve workplace safety.
Action: OSHA should not move forward with this rule as broadly written which is not anticipated to
improve workplace safety but will result in increased production costs andfewer resources to invest in
employees and the facility. OSHA is accepting public comments on this proposed interpretation by March
21,2011.
EPA TRI Article Exemption Rule

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Office and Management and Budget (OMB) are in the
final stages of considering a "clarification" of the Articles exemption pertaining to the Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI) list. Should this clarification come into effect, virtually every manufacturer will be
required to evaluate whether to file a TRI 313 Report, a process which will take significant investment in
managerial, technical, and clerical training and assessment. The estimated cost of this new assessment and
reporting requirement on Fabricated Metals and Machinery Manufacturing companies alone is $209
million and using 2.5 employee weeks for first time filers. We agree that the Article Exemption rule is
broken, but the proposed clarification makes the situation for manufacturers more difficult. Currently,
manufacturers who send solid scrap metals to a scrapyard must report these items as a "release" under
TRI, despite the fact that this is the first step in the recycling process. Manufacturers face fines of$32,000
per day for paperwork violations, and for a small manufacturer, the stakes could not be higher for
company trying to understand what constitutes an Article and why they must report recycling a product as
a toxic release. Under community right to know regulations, manufacturers must report the amounts of
these metallic constituents to local firefighters, and State and Federal environmental agencies, despite the
fact that these ingredients are in solid form, noncombustible, and not 'released' in a fire or explosion,
except as solids. A broad interpretation of a "release" by EPA inadvertently creates alarm in the
surrounding community and jeopardizes the employers operations.
Action: EPA is better served by defining, for example, what is an actual release ofa toxic substance, and
exempting legitimately recycled materials such as scrap metal from TRJ reporting. EPA should not move
forward with this clarification.
PMA/NTi\;f,1. 6363 Oak Tree Blvd Independence. OH 44131 p,' (216) 9()1~8'800 lVH'l1'.meta{worIUJJgad\loctlte.org
I'MI'A: li700 /Vest Snowville Road BrecIrsl'ille. Of i 44141 p: !440) 526-0300 www.pmpa.org
Aletalworking Negulations [,etter JanUCl(l' 10. ]011
EPA Metalworl,ing Financial Responsibility Requirements Rule

On Jauuary 6, 2010, the Euvironmeutal Protection Agency (EPA) issued an advanced notice of proposed
rulemaking that would require select industries to carry additional financial assurances (insurance) under
environmental law if a company handles "hazardous substances". The EPA also announced businesses
classified as Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing (NAICS 332), Computer and Electronic Product
Manufacturing (NAICS 334) and Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing
(NAICS 335) as industries that the Agency would like to fU11her examine in 2011 and also require to
carry this additional insurance. The regulation would require facilities subject to the new requirements to
establish and maintain evidence of financial responsibility for potential releases of hazardous substances
(e.g., insurance policy, surety bond, trust fund, corporate guarantee). These requirements would
negatively impact many facilities, because financial assurance mechanisms for potential Superfund
liability can be very expensive and extremely difficult to obtain for most metalworking companies who
pose little risk and already carry insurance.
Action: EPA should stop this proposed rule before implementation and better understand the
manufacturing operations ofthe facilities it proposes to regulate, Expanding the requirement to
metalworking companies will not improve workplace or environmental safety and health while reducing
manufacturers' global competitiveness by increasing production costs.
OSHA Lockout Procedure Guidance

Without soliciting public comment, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has
taken an increasingly strict interpretation of lockout guidelines stating that all die setting requires
lockout. In 2008, OSHA issued a compliance directive which specifically made clear that any eff0l1 to
label die or tool changes as "routine, repetitive and integral to the production operation" and therefore not
subject to lockout would be rejected. Even now, this is the case despite the changes not being "service or
maintenance" related and even when alternative safeguarding is used and when there is no risk of
accidental release of energy which could cause a hazard to employees. Many OSHA offices have
historically not cited metal stamping companies when they have a specific lockout procedure using
supplemental safeguarding means to assure there is no hazard from accidental energization or release of
energy during die setting. However, without updated guidance and a realistic interpretation ofthe
procedures we are seeing more and more citations and less cooperation even when control systems are
already in place costing countless employee hours and thousands of dollars.
Action: OSHA must revert to cooperating with manufacturers as was practice for years under
industry/government partner sqfety programs. OSHA should clarifY the difference between processes that
are routine, repetitive, and are integral to the production operation, Strict interpretation ofrules that do
not provide additional workplace safety and cost metalworking companies thousands ofdollars in lost
productivity unnecessarily reduces our manufacturers' global competitiveness.
Thank you for your leadership on this important issue and we look forward to continuing to work with
you on behalf of small and medium sized businesses manufucturing in America.
Sincerely,
Dave Tilstone Mike Duffin William E. Gaskin

President Executive Director President
NTMA PMPA PMA
PMA,'NTM:-I: 6363 Oak Tree Blvd Independence, Of! 44131 p: (2/6) 901-8800 )l!J1.'w,meta{workinggQvocaJe.org
PMPA: 6 7 1)0 West Snowville "oad 1J,'ecksl'il!e, Of] -/4141 p.' !440j 526·0300 !!'ww,pmpa.o!g
111etalworking Regulations Letter janUaI)' /I), 201 I
AboutNTMA:
NTMA is the national association representing the precision custom manufacturing industry, which
employs more than 440,000 skilled workers in the United States, Its mission is to help members ofthe U,S,
precision ·custom manufacturing-industry achieve business success in a global economy through advocacy, advice,
networking, information, programs and services. Many NTMA members are privately owned small businesses, yet
the industry generates sales in excess of $40 billion a year. NTMA' s nearly 1,300 member companies design and
manufacture special tools, dies, jigs, fixtures, gages, special machines and precision-machined parts. Some firms
specialize in experimental research and development work.
AboutPMPA:
The PMPA is an international trade association representing the interests of the precision machined
products industry. While PMPA consists mainly of North America based manufacturers, its members also operate
facilities in various industrial markets around the globe. The precision machined products industry consists of a
diversified manufacturing base producing highly engineered components to customer specifications using a variety
of materials such as: steel, stainless steel, aluminum, brass, and aerospace alloys. Utilizing the latest technology,
including CNC turning and milling centers, rotary transfer machines, CNC and automatic screw machines, these
companies produce complex parts and complete assemblies for finished goods such as; automobiles, aircraft, heavy
truck, medical devices, appliances, construction equipment and much more. The industry is best described
statistically under NAICS 332721,
About PMA:
PMA is the full-service trade association representing the $113-billion metalforming industry of North
America-the industry that creates precision metal products using stamping, fabricating, spinning, slide forming and
roll forming technologies, and other value-added processes. Its nearly 1,000 member companies also include
suppliers of equipment, materials and services to the industry; PMA leads innovative member companies toward
superior competitiveness and profitabUity through advocacy, networking, statistics, the PMA Educational
Foundation, FABTECH and METALFORM tradeshows, and MetalForming magazine,
PMA/NTA/...1. 6363 Oak Tree Blvd. Independence, OH -1-4131 p: (216) 901-8800 IVH-'w.mefulworkingadvocale.org
PMPA: 6700 West Sl10wville Road Breck''I'iIle, Oil #141 fl.' (440j 526-0300 www.pmpa.org
January 10,2011

Chairman
Washington, DC 20515 -6143
Dear Chairman Issa:
On behalf of RISE (Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment)® and our member
companies, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to share our concerns about changes to existing
and newly proposed U.S. EPA regulatory requirements that will negatively impact job growth
and economic viability in the specialty fertilizer and pesticide industry. Our industry provides a
wide range of products used by consumers and professionals on lawns, gardens, sports fields,
golf courses, and to control pests of all types including mosquitoes, rodents and other public
health threats.
Under our primary pesticide statute, The Federal Insecticiqe Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), our industry works collaboratively with U.S. EPA and the states to ensure products are
rigorously regulated and available when consumers and professionals seek them. However, there
are areas where EPA can provide greater transparency and certainty within that regulatory
process. I wish to highlight three such areas where EPA needs to establish a much higher degree
of regulatory certainty and rigor: Issuing Clean Water Act National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits for certain pesticide applications; proposals calling for
changes to pesticide brand names; and the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load
requirements under the Clean Water Act.
NPDES Permit
Our industry is concemed with EPA's approach to regulating pesticides under its NPDES permit
program, which Congress never intended to regulate pesticide applications. In fact, EPA had no
concerns in this area, but must now comply with a court order that requires the agency and the
states to create and implement an NPDES permit program and accompanying enforcement for
applications of pesticides "to, over or near water" by April 9, 2010. RISE members and their
applicator customers - most of whom are small businesses -- are directly impacted by EPA's
draft NPDES pennit and the neW and duplicative regulatory compliance and reporting burden it
imposes upon them outside of FIFRA.
For example, the majority of aquatic weed control treatments are performed by some 300 small
businesses across the United States each with less than IS employees. According to our analysis,
the NPDES permit will require virtually every aquatic applicator company in the U.S. to submit
a Notice of Intent triggering compliance with burdensome paperwork requirements. Such
requirements mean the loss of one full-time employee providing service in the field to handle the
additional paperwork and ensure compliance. The reassignment of staff to meet the paperwork
requirements is estimated to cost these small businesses approximately $50,000 annually. Many
applicators are struggling to survive as their municipal and community customers scale back on
service, so reassigning one employee to comply with NPDES pennit paperwork will effectively
put many out of business or limit their ability to grow their business. Applications of pesticides
"to, over or near water" are already well-regulated under FIFRA. Yet, EPA's proposed permit
takes no account of existing regulatory activities.
Pesticide Brand Names

EPA issued its draft Pesticide Registration Notice (PR Notice) 201O-X entitled False or
Misleading Pesticide Product Brand Names on May 19,2010. This PR Notice threatens to
undennine companies' investments in long-standing consumer products, creating a potential loss
of approximately $2.5 billion in brand equity for our industry. The notice by EPA is not in
reaction to public concern and is duplicative of regulatory activities already under the purvue of
the Federal Trade Commission, Patent and Trademark Office, and State Attorneys General. EPA
is beyond the boundaries of its regulatory authority by asserting long-standing pesticide products
are misbranded, especially given that the agency is responsible for approving all product label
language before a pesticide can be offered for sale.
Additionally, EPA's proposal would modify regulations without formal rulemaking, thus
violating the Administrative Procedures Act and explicit requirements for such activity under
FIFRA. Further, there are numerous instances of EPA trying to, implement this draft policy
during routine product registration actions prior finalizing the guidance. It appears EPA is
exerting its authority to influence consumer preference among pesticide products - an activity
clearly outside of it~ regulatory remit and well beyond Congressional intent.
Chesapeake Bay TMDL

Finally, RISE is concerned with EPA's regulatory approach to managing nutrient and sediment
runoff in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Our members support efforts to restore the
Chesapeake Bay and are active stewards of this national treasure. Our concern is with the lack of
transparency and lack of appreciation of the value of turfgrass as a vegetative buffer to protect
the bay. The creation and implementation of the TMDL has the potential to arbitrarily take away
people's ability to maintain their home property values and surroundings through unnecessary
restrictions on pesticide and fertilizer products. Data show restrictions on these products will not
be meaningful to Bay restoration efforts. However restrictions will have a significant economic
impact on the numerous lawn and landscape companies who provide services to homeowners
and businesses in the region, golf courses that need products to maintain playing surfaces and
homeowners whose property values will suffer loses as the quality of their lawns and landscapes
deteriorate.
In summary, RISE would like to thank you and the committee for your efforts to identify and
address regulations that negatively impact the economy and jobs. RISE members are committed
to working with EPA to meet the requirements of FIFRA and provide pesticide and fertilizer
products to meet the needs of our customers. Your efforts will help provide greater regulatory
certainty and rigor allowing our members and customers to grow their businesses and add
employees to their payrolls. We look forward to being a resource to you and the committee as
you proceed with review of EPA regulatory activities.
Sincerely,
Aaron Hobbs
President
Responsible Industry for a Sound Enviromnent
Cc: The Honorable Elijah Cummings, Ranking Member

Silver Nanotechnology Working Group
A Program of The Silver Research Consortium LLC
1822 East NC Highway 54, Suite 120

Durham, NO 27713
Tel: (919) 361-4647
Fax: (919) 361-1957
Cbairmon Darrell Iaaa

House ofRepresentll.tives
Committlle on Oversight and Government Reform
Januaxy 14, 2011
Dear Mr. Chairman,
I understand that the Committee onOverslght and OovllJ:ll1llent RefonD is

examining proposed and existing regulati01lll ihat negatively implllll the ec0lWl!lY and
jobs. Recently, the White House Office of MlIllag6111ent WId Budg<lt (OM») under
Executive Order 12866 revi0Wed a Nanopeslicide Policy that was proposed by ihe
Environmental Pro"OOclion Agency, Office ofPeslicide Progtllll1S (EPA OPP) In April
2010. The Silver Nanoteohnology Working Group (SNWG) and ihe nanopesticide
industry brought this proposed policy to the attention ofthe White House Office of
Science lllId Technology Policy for the following reasons:
• The planned polley would require the presence of a nanomaterilll in a registered

pesticide to be reported under ihe 'unreasonable adverse effect' provision (FlFRA
Seotlon 6(a)(2) ihough EPA acknowledges that there Is no nexUB to risk.
• The new policy would lnlqueBtionably stigmatize Ihe use ofnanomaterlals lIS
cammelllators will eqllste nllllOmalerials with "adverse effect reports." Consumers
11lay avoid all produots because ofthe general beliefthat such prooucls are not
safe. Investors will nat invest because 111e perception is that all nano-products are
unsafe.
• By publishing this new policy, EPA would be endangering ohemical innovation

and progress. EPA has indicated ihat additional datu requil'ellloots will be imposed
on nanosoale pcsticide products, bnt has not clarified the types of dala that will be
required or the rcgulatory path illat EPA intends to ~ with respect to these
materials. In essence the new policy constitutes an indefinite suspemion ofnew
pestioide uses ofnanomoterials. This cloud of uncertainty is decreasing the
incent!vo of potential cOnllllercilllization, and creating a serious impeditnent to tho
.. '
furlber development ofinnovative technology, particularly in green chemistry,

Wifuont the incentive ofpotential commercialization, industry leaden will be
unwllling to oontlnue or increase inve9tment into research and developmellt of
sustainable pesticides.
• Nanomaterlals are emerging as fue cornerstone of sustainable pestioide

development- where the "less" is "more" aspeot ofnanomuterials provides real
benefits. The use of1lllll0scale pesticides allows more efficient and targeted
application with lower qUllJltitles of Ingredients IUId most importantly has fue
potentia! to l'Opllllle more toxic materials currently in use.
• The proposed policies threaten U.S. small business and have already resulted in
lost jobs. Companies suoh as Ourw Sciences have put their antlmieroblal busilless
on hold und staffhave been let go. With such dramatio loss oftime to market, it is
,.not clear that this remains an attraotive opportunity. The very fl1'St manufacturer
ofa 1llIIl0silver product from 1954 expects that the new polioy will put them oul
ofbIlSjJy;ss, 'I1lls win snowball as mare and more nnnomaterial oomplll1ies and
Investors become dlscollI'llged from fue uncertainty and cloud ofadverse
perception surrolIDding nsnopesticides and nlll1oma1l'lrials.
The SlIver Nanotechnology Worldng Gtoup was fonned In January, 2009 in direct
response to both fue challenges that companies were facing In reglsllll'ing new products
containing sliver nanoparticles willi fue U.S. Environmental Pl'oteotlon Agency (EPA) .
under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodentioide Act (FlPRA) and also increllSed
adverBe press coverage of environmental and health effects ofsliver nanoparticles.
'I'he SNWG's main focus over the last 2 years has been to push EPA fOr a clear and
reasonable regulatory path for nsnoscale silver additives.
We are very grtileful that OMB has had thfl opportunity to review this proposed EPA
policy and we hope that your Committee can also take II look at this policy and help
direct EPA OPP towards developing a timely Illld reasonable regulatory path not only fOr
nanoscale silver pesticides but ether nanopestieldes.
Best Regards,
~tJ~
tallDd Volpe, D.PH
F,xecutive Dirootor,
Sliver Nanoteclmology Working Group
rvol;pe@caa·columbia.edu
pLG£9 0~:Lt tt0~/pt/t0 a3AI303~

SOCMA
So~iety of Chemical Manufatturers 8< Affiliates
January 10,2011

Chairman
Dear Chairman Issa:
The Society 9f Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA) appreciates the opportunity
to provide you, at your request, with existing and proposed regulations that have negatively
impacted job growth in our industry. SOCMA is the U.S. trade association representing
specialty, batch, and custom chemical manufacturers, which collectively employ over
100,000 workers in 2,000 sites and contribute $60 billion annually to our economy in
products manufactured. Our membership includes many small manufacturers but also some
multinational companies. U.S. batch producers are highly innovative and are at the cutting
edge of new technology, providing products often made nowhere else in the world. The depth
and expertise ofthis industry sector are vital components of the U.S. chemical industry and
contribute significantly to U.S. global competitiveness.
SOCMA welcomes Congress' interest in examining existing and proposed regulations that
negatively impact the economy and jobs. In fact, last year SOCMA called on policymakers
and administration leaders to cease, for the remainder of the year, further consideration or
advancement of legislation that would add to the regulatory burden facing small
manufacturers. SOCMA's request was spurred, in part, by the high unemployment rate, the
tendency in Washington to grow regulatory burdens, and evidence that smaller companies
bear a disproportionate cost to comply with federal laws. According to 2005 research by the
Small Business Administration (SBA), small companies face an annual regulatory cost of
$7,647 per employee, which is 45 percent higher than the regulatory cost facing large firms.
Compliance with environmental regulations, like those issued by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) under the Toxic Substances Control Act, costs 364 percent more for
small companies.
Many of the job-impacting regulations our members face are implemented or have been
proposed by the U.S. EPA, including two of the three regulations that we highlight below.
1
EPA's Proposed Maximum Achievable Coutrol Techuology Rule for Industrial,
Commercial aud Institutioual Boilers aud Process heaters. This proposed "Boiler MACT"
rule, which seeks to reduce em issions of certain hazardous air pollutants from major sources in
this category, could impose billions of dollars in capital and operating costs at thousands of
facilities across the country at a time when our already hurting manufacturing sector can least
afford such costs. An accompanying rule that targets smaller, "area" source boilers will affect
even more SOCMA members, and could impose a very significant regulatory burden if the
proposed exemption for natural-gas fired boilers is removed.
We at SOCMA support efforts to address significant health threats from air emissions in a cost-
effective manner, but also believe that this can be done while still protecting jobs and economic
growth.
Regarding the MACT rule, SOCMA shares the concerns of numerous other industry groups that
several of the standards proposed by EPA - such as those for dioxin, mercury, and carbon
monoxide, cannot be met in practice by even the best-performing boilers and process heaters.
These unachievable standards resulted from the agency's improper pollutant-by-pollutant
approach and an inadequate database. We also believe the agency should adopt a health-based
emissions approach for qualifYing low-risk emissions. The agency acknowledged that its initial
proposal was deeply flawed in its recent court request for an extension until April 2012 (from the
looming January 16 court-ordered deadline) so that it can repurpose the rule.
EPA's Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources Final Rule. This rule, which was finalized in
response to a court order in October 2009, establishes national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants from smaller, "area" chemical manufacturing sources. It will impact the vast
majority of SOCMA members.
While the final rule was an improvement from the initial proposal- a cost impact study
commissioned by SOCMA helped persuade the agency to alter some of the most egregious
provisions in the proposed rule - SOCMA believes that it still is excessively burdensome and
costly. For example, the rule incorporates a "family of materials" concept that unnecessarily
limits operational flexibility. The agency also refused to establish a comprehensive de minimis
threshold, which could have exempted some of our smaller emitters from the burdens of the rule.
Finally, the final rule includes numerous challenging provisions which were not contained in the
proposal rule, thereby depriving us of the opportunity to comment on those provisions. One
such provision would require certain area sources to get a costly Title V permit. The agency has
acknowledged the validity of our concerns about these "surprise" provisions; last summer, it
accepted our petition for reconsideration and will be proposing a revision to the rule.
OSHA's Occupational Injury and Illness Recordkeeping Proposed Rule. This proposal
would require employers to record employee musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) in their OSHA
300 recordkeeping log. SOCMA is concerned that this rulemaking is a backdoor way of reviving
the ergonomics rule that OSHA issued in 200 I and that Congress subsequently invalidated.
Because of the uncertainty about how MSDs should be defined and the difficulty of determining
when an MSD is workplace-related, OSHA underestimates the cost to employers to comply with
this additional recordkeeping. Specifically, OSHA has not sufficiently accounted for burdens on
2
employers to (i) create a formal reporting system for employees to notify management, (ii)
conduct investigations when workers report potential MSDs, (iii) develop an action plan based
on the findings of these investigations, and (iv) create a follow-up system to track
recommendations. Overall, this seemingly innocuous recordkeeping proposal carries a costly
price tag that neither is captured in OSHA's economic analysis nor necessarily correlates with a
more effective ergonomics program. Our recommendation is to remove from further
consideration this proposed revision to the OSHA 300 recordkeeping form.
* * *
When new regulations are proposed or implemented, they create much uncertainty among
chemical manufacturers, especially small companies. The more that they spend complying with
regulations, the less they have available to spend on conducting critical research and
development activities to develop innovative products that h.elp companies expand their
businesses. Thus it is especially crucial that rules be c'rafted to address recognized problems and
do So in the least costly fashion possible. Otherwise, chemical manufacturers could be forced to
discontinue supplying a particular market or producing a specific product, either of which could
negatively impact jobs in the industry or elsewhere in the value chain.
Please feel free to contact me with questions or ifI may be of further assistance in your effort to
examine regulations that impact our industry.
Sincerely,
William E. Allmond, IV
Vice President, Government Relations
3
Textile Rental Services Association Of America
Reprewnting Thf~ Text!i(~ Service-Ii lndus1ry': Linen Supply, Unfforrn Servfee, PH'" Control, .M COG
January 14, 2011
The Honorable Darrell lssa

Chairman .
Dear Chairman Issa:
On behalf of the Textile Rental Services Association (TRSA), thank you for the
opportunity to identify proposed or existing regulations that are negatively impacting
jobs, the economy and our industry.
TRSA represents a $16·blllion industry employing nearly 200,000 people at more than
1,500 facilities nationwide. These Independent and national companies provide
laundered, reusable textiles and other products and services that help businesses
project a clean and attractive pUblic image. The industry reaches every major business
and Industrial region and municipality in the country. Most Americans benefit at least
once a week from the cleanliness and safety provided by the indUStry through its
laundering and delivery of reusable linens, uniforms, towels, floor mats and other
prodUcts for the healthcare, hospitality and industrial/manufacturing sectors. TRSA
member companies' services minimize environmental impacts on air, water and solid
waste disposal while reducing costs for millions of customers.
In your letter, you cite the statistics from the Small Business Administration's (SBA)
Office of Advocacy analyzing the Impact of regulatory costs on small firms. The study
represents the best research available to identify the disproportionate burden placed on
small business by regulation. Textile Rental Operators bear a heavy burden from
environmental regUlation, while facing similar regUlations in workplace safety, health,
financial and tax administration. RegUlatory burdens represent an added 17.6% cost
annually for operators.
We look forward to partnering with your committee, Congress and the Executive Branch
to reform the regulatory policies outlined below and the regulatory process to produce a
more thoughtful regulatory environment that encourages cooperation between Industry
and government and increases job creation In the United States.
The following issues are a few of the regUlatory burdens TRSA is working to improve.
We look forward to a continuing dialogue on the impact of regulation on the industry.
OSHA Noise Proposal
OSHA recently indicated that it plans to enforce noise level standards in a dramatically
different way by redefining what is deemed "feasible" for employers to reduce overall
noise in the workplace and requiring Implementation of these actions unless an
employer can prove making such changes will put it out of business. OSHA's proposal
HlOO [)iaf}tmal Road, Suite 200, AJoxundria, VA 223'14 a (an} nO·9214_ (70S) 519-0029 !ill Fax: (7(3) 519.:(l026 'tl hUp:/~.tf"E;a.org
January 14, 2011
Page 2
would alter a long-running and effective policy that allows employens to provide
"pensonal protective equipment," such as ear plugs and ear muffs, if they are more cost-
effective than engineering controls like noise dampening equipment and muffling
systems. Such changes would need to be made by employens of all sizes, regardless of
their costs. Compliance costs for fully implementing this proposal are prohibitive to
industry and economic growth. We are troubled that OSHA is pursuing this change
outside the formal rulemaking process and, as such, is not following the Administrative
Procedures Act that provides opportunity for full and fair public Input and requires
sensitivity to small businesses.
OSHA On-Slte Consultation.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration(OSHA) has shifted significantly from
a more collaborative posture to a more advensarial approach toward business.
Employens, particuiarly small businesses, should be able to consult with OSHA and
receive Its assistance to better undenstand and comply with existing workplace safely
standards to enhance the safety of their workplaces without fear of citations and fines.
Recently, OSHA proposed a rule that would subject small businesses to additional
enforcement based on their voluntary participation In these programs. As a result,
businesses will be more reticent to reach oul to OSHA for help and less likely to
participate in this program. We are troubled that OSHA performed no analysis to
determine the impact of the proposed changes on small business participation In this
On-Site Consultation Program. Instead of deterring participation in these effective
programs, OSHA should focus on developing incentives and strategies that will
encourage as many employers as possible to participate in these programs.
OSHA Injury and Illness Protection Program
OSHA is also developing a new regulation that would mandate a standard for an
employer'S safety and health program, referred to as an Injury and Illness Prevention
Program (12P2). Such a concept is expected to be proposed in the spring of 2011 and
would have sweeping ramifications on all aspects of both workplace safety enforcement
and the promulgation of new regulations. We are concerned that this proposal may not
take into account the efforts by employers who already have effective safety and health
programs in place or how this new mandate would disrupt safety programs that have
measurable successes. Based on preliminary information from the Agency, in the event
of a workplace "injury" not regulated under a specific standard or not resulting from a
"significant risk," this proposal may allow OSHA Investigators to overturn an employer's
12P2 the agency preViously deemed sufficient. Blaming the employer's entire plan for as
Ilttle as one alleged deficiency and requiring the entire 12P2 to be rebuilt on this basis is
draconian.
NLRB Poster Rule
The National Labor Relations Board published a proposed rule that would require all
private sector employers covered by the National Labor Relations Act to post a notice
informing employees of their NLRA rights. This requirement would be imposed on all
January 14, 2011
Page 3
employers covered by the NLRA even if there is no union in place. This proposed rule
would apply to the vast majority of private sector employers and would create significant
compliance obligations, along with serious potential non-compliance liability, on most
employers.
An employer's failure to post the notice under the proposed rule would be treated as an
unfair labor practice and could warrant tolling of the six-month statute of limitations for
filing unfair labor practice charges. The proposed rule here would further impose unfair
. labor practice liability for any failure to post a notice and would also suspend the Section
10(b) limitations period for any unfair labor practice charge against a noncompliant
employer.
The Board lacks the statutory authority to promUlgate or enforce this type of rule. As
mentioned, this would increase businesses already over burdensome cost of compliance
obligations hindering the creation of more jobs.
Deduction and Capitalization of Expenditures Related to Tangible Property
. The Department of Treasury and the IRS are currently considering a final rule on the
Deduction and Capitalization of Expenditures Related to Tangible Property. The
composition of the rule will have tremendous impact on TRSA member companies. The
industry processes more than six billion pounds of laundry at 1,500 facilities across the
country. This translates into hundreds of thousands of items passing through those
1,500 facilities each day.
Most of those products rented and laundered are low-cost items. Typical examples
Include table cloths, napkins, uniforms and towels. If the new rule were to force
companies to account for these items indiVidually it would be an unwarranted, costly
burden on textile services companies that must keep on-hand all these low-cost goods
to meet customers' needs for sufficient quantities of hygienic textiles to keep their
workplaces operative and sanitary.
Reduce the Impact of the Frank - Dodd Act
Due to the large number of regulations coming out of Washington, pUblic boards are
spending way too much time trying to understand their responsibilities. This uncertainty
creates doubt about the future and the fear of shareholder or class action lawsuits. This
gives companies that have the opportunity to invest outside of the United States one
more reason to do so. In addition, rules that impose financial regulation on non-financial
businesses could seriously harm the recovery by diverting companies' financial
resources from much-needed business investment and job retention and creation to
reporting and other activities needed only for compliance with this rule.
January 14, 2011
Page 4
Tax Policy
Allow US based companies to re-patrlate their cash held In other countries without
paying a tax on It. Now is the time to allow US based companies to bring their cash held
In other countries back here to be re-Invested here Instead of in other countries.
EPA Boiler MACT
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed a rule that would establish
more stringent emissions standards on industrial and commercial boilers and process
heaters (I.e. Boiler MACT). This broad-reaching proposal could cost Textile Rental
Operators several million dollars In compliance costs and place thousands of jobs in
jeopardy. Furthermore, the TRSA expressed concerns to the EPA that the proposed
standards could almost never be achieved by any single, real-world source. In
December 2010, the EPA asked the federal District Court for the District of Columbia for
an extension to re-propose the rule, take industry comments and then finalize the
package by. April 2012. We welcome the additional time for a review, but the new
proposal must ensure that the standards are economically feasible and achievable.
Thank you for this opportunity to weigh in on these important issues, we look forward to
working with you and your committee dealing with regulatory polley impacting our
industry In the future.
JOHN F. BURIK II, MED
LiCENSED PROFESSIONAL CLINICAL CoUNSELOR
4308 JOAN PLACE
CINCINNATI, OH 46227
(513) 271.-4716
January 20, 2011
The Honorable Darrel Issa, Chairman

Re: Government Holding Back Progress
Dear Chairman Issa:
The federal agencies Veterans Administration, Tricare, and Medicare either have limited, or
continue to limit, my ability to grow my small business as a professional counselor or hire
qualified mental health care personnel. The VA delayed for years the development of a job
description for counselors qfter President Bush signed legislation recognizing counselors.
Similarly, Tricare has not recognized counselors and will do so by June 20 II only after
congressional action last month. Medicare does not recognize professional counselors and may
be unable to do so without appropriate legislation.
Two areas in which this limits my ability to provide valuable services-and grow my business,
are to veterans and senior citizens. I cannot tell you that recognizing professional counselors as
employees, contractors, or for reimbursement will be budget- or deficit neutral, but these federal
programs do already exist with 'funds allocated. I can state that many vets and seniors in the more
rural counties adj acent to Cincinnati and Hamilton County miss out on services due to their
choice or inability to come into the city. For example, I briefly see some members of these
populations at Mercy Hospital Clermont, yet cannot provide follow-up care due to the current
lack of Tricare or Medicare reimbursement.
There are currently about 3500 licensed counselors in Ohio who can independently diagnose and
treat mental health issues. Removing bureaucratic stumbling blocks would help all of us not only
grow our businesses but provide beneficial services.
~Home SERVICES
January 20,2011
Dear Representative Issa and Burton:
At Home Services is a Personal Service Agency that provides services to the

elderly and persons with disabilities, so they can remain in their own home, verses an
institutional setting. These services, simple put, are daily tasks the consumer cannot
do themselves. Our Vision " To enable and empower the elderly and persons with
disabilities to achieve independence and live barrier free in their own home. Mission-
To increase the quality of life and independence for the elderly and persons with
disabilities by providing support services needed to stay in their home.
Our services are provided by a trained Personal Care Attendant and can include
tasks such as personal hygiene, bathing, cooking, meal planning, shopping, laundry,
house cleaning, lawn care, snow removal, bill paying, maintenance, transportation
(medical appointments, visiting, community activities promoting socialization),
spiritual companion, reading companion, educational companion, new moms/multiple
babies, music therapy and art therapy.
Services can be paid for through Medicaid Waiver, CHOICE, Social Service Block
Grants, some commercial insurance and by private pay.
Being a new small rural business is challenging as I am sure you can imagine. We
decided to make a connection with our local Veterans Administration, because we had
heard that services such as ours are much needed by vets. I went through the
process of filling out paperwork and waiting. However, to my dismay, yesterday I was
informed by the VA program director that agencies who are not Medicaid or Medicare
certified can't be approved as a VA vendor. Our Medicaid Waiver certification doesn't
count, so we do not qualifY. Our agency is a member of the Indiana Association for
Hospice and Home Care (IAHHC), so I contacted Jean MacDonald from IAHHC and she
explained this was a federal rule and advised me to contact our state representatives.
129 S. 9th Street 0 Richmond, Indiana 47374 0 765-939-1309 (p) 0 www.athomeservices.org

Our program is important to the residents of Wayne County, which include many
veterans. According to Statemaster.com, the American Community Survey conducted
in 2004 shows 11.3% ofIndiana's population is veterans.
(http://www.statemaster.com/graph/peo per of civ pop who are vet-percent-
civilian-population-who-veterans) Over the past 7 years we know that number has
risen dramatically. In addition, as of 2008, Wayne County has over 67,795 residents
age 65 and over. And statistics from 2000 revealed Wayne County has 14,202 people
from age 5 and up living daily with a disability. The seroices provided by this program
will enable our neighbors to live a better quality life and help them to be an active part of
our community.
In addition, with Wayne County at 11.4% unemployment rate, according to the
Indiana Department of Workforce Development's April 2010 statistics, At Home
Services will create more jobs. Putting people back to work and giving them the
opportunity to experience a rewarding job which will promote a quality life for the
employee as well as the consumer. (The state ofIndiana is'at 9.8% and the US rate is
9.5% for this same time frame.)
Please help us voice our concern with the federal rule regarding Personal Service
Agencies being unable to provide care to veterans.
I can be reached at 765-939-1309 ext. 112 or by email at
. cynthiaW@athomeservices.org. Thank you.
Sincerely,
0j.ntIiia £. Wcwten
Director, At Home Services
129 S. 9th Street 0 Richmond, Indiana 47374 0 765-939-1309 (p) 0 www.athomeservices.org

EC &RC Zones
The approval of the Economic Zone Tax Incentive Bills has been in limbo for over a year.
When will the House & the Senate reconcile and approve them. Preferably for morethan just 1 year.
Sincerely;
Gary R.
This is now in the past too far to make a difference to me, but maybe it could help someone else.
I bought an eighteen acre farm in 1976 that I had figured out would be in the line of development as the
area to the west continued to grow. I decided in 1995 that it was time to start the development. My
plans included thirteen homesites on the hillside four acres and 110,000 square feet of "incubator"
warehouse buildings. After review by the country it was determined that there was 0.41 acres of
wetland in a 0.29 area and a 0.12 area that would be disturbed by the development. I had a wetland
specialist develop a plan for relocating those small areas into a new developed wetland area of 0.87
acres. This was far in excess of what the wetland regulations required; the rules did not require
mitigation for less than 0.50 acres. I believed that doing that anyway would improve the time required
for the review and approval. However; that was not true. There was a person at the Army Corps of
Engineers and another with the Oregon Department of State Lands that were dead set against any
disturbance of wetlands. They continued to nitpick the proposals and require change after change to
the relocation proposal and then review after review of the area suspected of being wetiand.
I did alii could do to meet their requests but could make no headway for over three years to get
approval for moving the wetland. Meanwhile I was trying to get a building design done and had to make
many changes to meet county requirements. And then the sewer agency decided I needed to pay a
tremendous system development fee, and the county decided that I should pay a much larger property
tax because I was changing the use from a farm to residential and commercial uses. The county also
decided I needed to build a very wide industrial road through the project which took almost two acres
and complete an extensive traffic study and other work. All this was costing me a lot of money which I
was financing by the property. Finaliy the bank decided that they could not fund the project anymore
and wanted their money back.
I had to find someone to buy the property and get the bank paid off so ended selling to a local buyer for
about one-half at which it was appraised. After I finally had a signed deal on the property, the Corps of
Engineers person was reassigned to projects in the southern part of the state and a week later I received
the permit to relocate the wetland and the county gave me the go ahead on that part of the project.
But it was too late for me.
The houses weren't built, those jobs were lost. The warehouses weren't built, the construction jobs and
the empioyment in them did not happen. After paying off all my debts I am now living on social security
and a little bit of retirement. The stress caused my wife all kinds of illness and finally she died of cancer"
in 2005.
Page 1 of 1
Current Federal regulations prevent business growth in general aviation air taxi operations. As an aicraft owner
federal law allows me to only fly paying passengers on sight seeing tours that are within 25 miles of the airport
I took off from, and must then return to that same airport. If I want to take a paying passenger 26 miles, or to another
airport then r must became a "part 135" air taxi operation, The requirement to become an air taxi operation is an automatic
"dream"killer" for a "mom and pop" flying business. I think the current laws reguarding paying passengers in very small
Cessna type aircraft is preventing small business creation. Additionally the current laws are totally unnecessary .. ,why is
it ok to fly 25 miles but not 26 miles, or even more? Why is it ok for me to take off and land at my home air field with
paying passengers but not to land at another airport? Remember, the aircraft are safe enough for me to fly my own family in,
but are not allowed to carry paying passengers in. Please change this so that small mom and pop flying operations have
a chance to pursue an American dream. .
http://www.jotform.com/uploads/JLoFranco/lO 1117125 03/1613 899669824252171AirTaxi.txt 2/3/2011

Bottom Line: Government has become massive, meddling, and for the most part useless. It's a parasite
that takes and takes and gives next to nothing back. 90% of what government tries to do, it does so
poorly, inefficiently, and at far too great of an expense. The Constitution limits government for that
reason, and I contend that most of what government is trying to do today is patently unconstitutional.
Government is nothing but a parasite feeding the the taxpayer host, robbing people of their substance,
and depleting the will to work, the will to be charitable, and the ability to provide for our families and
commtmities.
If you want business to prosper, shrink government by 90%--just abolish all these useless agencies,
including the IRS-replace that behemoth with a flat consumption tax, and get back to the basics.
National Defense, Securing the Borders, Interstate Commerce, Federal Law Enforcement. No welfare,
no freebies, no meddling in the affairs of the states.
We all know that no one is willing to do this, and that's why our country is failing, our economy is in
shambles, and effectively-we are doomed as a nation. Survival takes courage and vision. Our leaders
have neither.
Steve Towe
I recently lost my job teaching Computer Technology when my department was killed by budget changes
intended to inprove math and science scores and job preparation in the high schools. Do you see the
irony?
The Department of Education was created to inprove math and science test scores, and the countries
competitiveness in science and engineering. Since its creation scores have dropped.
How about a results oriented approach. If scores don't improve in 5 years, eliminate the entire
departmentand send the money directiyto the states, no string attached. Local schools would improve
and the unintended consequences like cutting computer programs to inprove math education might
stop.
INFINITY MORTGAGE CORPORATION
6605 CYPRESSWOOD DRIVE, SUITE 425
SPRING, TEXAS 77379
(281) 826-0030 FAX: (281) 826-0301
E-MAIL: rniltonw2@juno.com
Dear Congressman Issa,
While HUD has good intentions with HVCC and the new changes in the
TIL, SAFE act and the new compensation reform, the federal government is
killing us with burdensome regulation. They have done a tremendous job of
stifling the consumer and the mortgage industry in the name of "helping"
the consumer. We used to be able to close loans in one week ... now with
the burden of waiting periods, our buyers and refinance customers are lucky
to close in 30 days. The consumer is more confused than ever before and
you have eliminated thousands ofjobs in the mortgage industry. Why not
put your energy and money into educating the consumer so they can shop
for the best mortgage financing and then stay out of the way and let us close
the loan for the consumer. Our federal government has made the housing
industry worse not better with all the regulations imposed on us.
Sincerely,
Milton Wynne
President
The Gold Standard The Gold Standord Institute
Issue #1 • 15 January 2011 I
Table of Contents
Frotn The Editor..... ,.... ,.. "...... .. ,.. 1
Gold News From Around the World " 1
TGSI in the News.... . .. 2
Should We Welcome or Mistrust a Surrender by Monetary Authorities? 3
Myth Buster: The Gold Standard is only for the rich "."."" ."" .. ,..4
False Beliefs........ .. 5
The Gold DinQ.f flS Money in MalaysiD ..,,,, """,,,,,,,,,,,6
The Gold Standard From London......... .. .. ..6
The joumal of The Gold Standard New Austrian School of Ecollomics - Course II - Adam Smith's Real Bill Doctrine..... 9
Institute
From The Editor Gold News From Around the
Editor
Philip Barton World
We hope that you enjoy the new
format for the newsletter of The Gold The Federal Reserve's Thomas
Layout Standard Institute.
Bran Suchecki Hoenig says gold standard is a
Illegitimate" system, reports Reuters
News on the Gold Standard is, whilst on Jan. 5, 2011:
Regular contributors
still scarce on the gl'Ound, noticeably
Rudy Fritsch
increasing in the world's media. It is A gold standard that forces countries
Sandeep Jaitly
hard to gather it all from one spot, so to back their currency reserves with
Louis ~oulanger
if you come across anything in yoUI' bullion is a Illegitimate" monetary
part ofthe world that may appeal to system, though it would not prevent
Occasional contributors
our readers then please submit it. financial crises, Kansas City Federal
Philip T
Publius Reserve President Thomas Hoenig
You m'e all hereby appointed as news said on Wednesday.
gatherers for \The Gold Standard'.
The Gold Standard Institute
'IThe gold standard is a very
Email: pb(@!Donetmymetals,org legitimate monetary system, 'I Hoenig
The purpose of the Institute is t6
said, adding: "We're not going to
promote an unadulterated Gold
have fewer crises necessarily, Y0/.f
Standard
will have a longer ofperiod ofprice
The refusal by governments and stability or price level stability, but 1
Ii ttl': IJ11'0 j dstandul'd institute.org
mainstream economists to inspect the don't know that you'll have lower
problems associated with unemployment, 1 don't know that
Patron
irredeemable paper money ensures you'll have fewer bankfailures, It
Professor Antal E, Fekete
that the situation will continue to
deteriorate until the day the system Comment [TOm Rudy Fritsch:
. President and Senior Editor
collapses. That is nota gloomy
Rudy Fritsch
prediction, it is a mathematical Even the old, imperfect gold standard
certainty. The debts grow ever larger kept the 'crises I to short, moderate
Treao$urer and Website
and ever more un-payable. levels. A modern, unadulterated 'Gold
Petal' Brekalo
standard would indeed prevent
Our job at The Gold Standard, and 'crises',
Director
your job, is to disseminate the virtues
Thomas Buchheimer
of an unadulterated Gold Standard, Remember, the cause ofthese crises
was loosening and subsequent
Head ofMonetary Research
The Gold Standard is coming, tightening of credit or 'monetary
Sandeep Jaitly
whether people like it or not. There policy' through the fiduciary or
are many forms of a Gold Standard 'printed money' component ofthe old
Membership Levels
that won't work, and no shortage of Gold Standard.
people who would love to see that
Annual Member €75 per year
happen. An unadulterated Gold The New, unadulterated Gold
Lifetitne Member €2,500
Standard is a model that will work. Standard would have zero fiduciary
Gold Member €25,000
That, and only that, is why The Gold or l printed promises' component; thus
Gold Knight €250,000
Standard Institute promotes it. expansion and contraction of credit
'money' is impossible. This would
The Gold Standard The Gold Standard Institute
Issue #1 • 15 January 2011 2
pre-empt periodic inflation and It has been confirmed that Ron Paul
contraction. will aSSUlne the chairmanship of the Then Prichard did something that
He mentions stable price structure Domestic Monetary Policy SlIb~ pension experts say they have never
but not stable interest rates and committee of the House Committee seen before: it stopped sending
stable, moderate interest rates are the on Financial Services when the US monthly pension checks to its 150
key to ongoing prosperity through Congress resumes in January 2011. . retired workers, breaking a state law
capital accumulation. Steady interest requiring it to pay its promised
rates are the real benefit afthe Gold Ron Paul has maintained a consistent retirement benefits injull.
Standard, iri paJticular of the line that the Federal Reserve Bank
Unadulterated Gold Standard as should be abolished and that a gold The situation in Prichard is
proposed by The Gold Standard standard should be re-adopted. extremely unusual - the city has
Institute. sought bankruptcy protection twice -
Most people recognize that the but it proves that the unthinkable
Wild swings in interest rates lie at the dollar reserve standard... there's can, inlact, sometimes happen. And
root of ongoing capital destruction, nothing permanent about it. Even the it stands as a warning to cities like
rampant speculation and the gI:owing international bankers are talking Philadeiphia and stales like Illinois,
derivatives tower. With steady about a new currency or using gold whose pension funds are under great
interest rates, speculation does not even. The big question is should we strain: if nothing changes, the money
pay... therefore it dies out. If .move further away from national eventually does run out, and when
speculation dies out, then there is no sovereignty and our constitution and that happens, misery and turmoil
need for derivatives to insure or give it to an international body and follow.
'hedge' leveraged speculative try some crazy Bretton Woods
positions; and finally, human energy standard again, which is doomed to
and ingenuity will be channelled into fail. Or should we look to our
truly productive avenues, not into traditions and have sound money. A new D y.[! has been put out by
creating ever more devious and ever Mike Maloney explaining the simple
more dangerous derivative paper Ron Paul in an interview with the Wall
virtues ofthe Gold Standard.
instruments. Street Journal.
Understanding Money:
11111'0
fu:U
Malaysia's former Prime Minister It is not only the 2 trillion US$ debt Part 2
and elder statesman Mahathir crisis that threatens dozens of US Part 3
cities. European cities such as
Mohmmned addressed the 5th rm!.A
International Shariah Scholars Forum Madrid, Barcelona, Venice and
in KualaLumpur in October 2010. It Florence are also in big trouble.
TGSI in the News
was held in conjunction with the
Global Islamic Finance Forum The Guardian reports that:
TOSI director Thomas Bachhcimer
(GIFF). In an outspoken attack he
Since 1937, 61910cai US has been busy writing articles and
warned that: plugging The Gold Standard Institute
government bodies, mostly small
utilities or districts, havefiledfor in Europe. Recent examples (in
"(the) collapse of conventional German) are in the paper Lex'press:
banking, finance and the monetary bankruptcy, Bloomberg News
system has exposed their weakness recently reported. US cities tend to
default more than European Lexpress Nr.62 August 2010
and the 'ease with which they can be Lexpress Nr.64 October 2010
abused. " municipalities as they usually rely on
bonds issued to investors, which Lexpress NI'.65 Novembcr2010
He also recommended a return to a enter into a default if the creditor

misses payments. European towns, Thomas also gave a CNBC interview
Gold Standard, but only for lise in
by contrast, traditionally depend on on 14th Oct, 2010.
international trade between nations.
Not for the lise of the people of bank loans and government bailouts.
course, that would involve
governments losing their power. The Nev-" York Times reports:
Philip T discussed the Malaysian This struggling small city on the

Gold Dinar on page 6. outskirts qf Mobile was warned/or
years that ifit did nothing, its
pension fund would run out ofmoney
by 2009. Right on schedule, its fUnd
ran dry.
The Gold Standard The Gold Stondord Institute
Issue # 1 • 15 JOUUOI'Y 2011 3
Should We Welcome or Mistrust a Surrender by Monetary Authorities?

, Publius discusses Americll's Plan B
As many citizens struggle to· re lean1
M
America was essentially the only stll'l'ender / ceasefire in governments'
gold's importance, what are the nation with a Plan B for coping with war on gold, should citizens r~joice?
monetary experts - who never forgot the monetary crisis. The rest of the
gold's power - doing to preserve and world is at the mercy of the US. For the cnuse of freedom and
maximize their advantage? I am individual rights, the side effects
referring, without intended irony, to Rickards was referring to other would be mixed at best. Gold's
central bankers. Can we predict their nations' gold reserves stored on US image as a critical part ofthe financ~
next moves? soil. It would be easy for ial system can only be improved if its
Washington to declare a global dollar exchange rate were to increase
ShoJi-term fluctuations in the dollar/ monetary emergency, "temporarily" dramntically. It would also help the
gold exchange rate are of little take ownership of foreign govern- reputation of gold's intellectual
interest to holders of the physical ments' metal, and thereby double advocates, and hard money promot-
metal itself. And I take it for granted America's de facto gold holdings ional efforts should find better
that the expected long-term exchange overnight. If reported figures w'e f1l1ancing. Finally, depending on
rate is a meaningless number, as the accurate, the total amount would be how other asset class valuation levels
fiat dollar will eventually cease to over 16,000 tons, or roughly 10%' of adjust to gold's new prominence,
exist. By contrast, ifthe course of all above ground gold, including there might arise a whole class of
the dollar/gold exchange rate over jewelry. It might then be possible for suddenly wealthy investors. Many of
the medium term (1-3 years) can be the US Treosury I Fed to defend 0 these individuals, no matter how
projected, this is valuable to investors new dollar/gold exchange rate. boastful or modest, would become
and crusaders alike, implicit ambassadors for gold.
America could thus stabilize the
Monetary science cnnnot determine a dollar domestically with some sort of On the negative side there may be a
demonstrably correct e~change rate convel1ibility, and dictate to the loss of interest in how the monetary
value. We can, however, take a world how foreign~held dollars or system should operate. People might
central banker's perspective, and see dollar-denominated debts would be think government had already
where the thought experiment leads. valued in gold ounces. Alternately, admitted defeat and "returned to the
After limiting gold convertibility in America could neglect its own gold standard". That the offtcialre-
1933, abandoning full convertibility middle class and hand pick a new set introductionof gold into the fmaneial
in 1934, and from any convertibility of international allies with selective, system gave a merc figurehead role
in 1971, is there anywhere left for favorable restructuring of its foreign to'the metal would likely escape
governments to run? Theil' uncondit:- debts, poyohle in gold. notice, And, as Robert Landis noted,
ional surrender, and a return to gold if the fiat system collapsed totally a
and silver as the sale constitutional The dolior/goid exchonge rote few yenrs later, people may again be
mon\?y, would appear the only logical required, whether $5,000 per ounce under the false impression that gold
next step. 01' is it? 01' $50,000, would be detel'mined by deserved the blame.
an estimate of how much dollar
The dollar/gold exchange ratc was debasement must be recognized and A worse aspect comes to mind: silver
re-valued in gold's favor after '33 admitted in order to stabilize the might not benefit from dollar de-
and '71. Whether the full extent of fmancial system. If domestic und/or valuation. The Fed would likely
the debasement of the dollar in each foreign individuals are denied the prefer if silver lost ground on ~oth an
case was properly reflected is not . convertibility privilege, either absolute and relative basis. This
immediately relevant. Both times, formally or by setting" a 4000z bar as would keep the idea of bimetallism
the amount of the revaluation was the minimum amount redeemable, out of the public imugination. If
suffIcient to ovoid the necd to return the exchange I'ate could probably be bankers fcar recognizing gold as
to gold and silver as circulating set lower than otherwise necessary, money, they must really dread letting
currency. Would a third dollar de- silver join it. Silver coin circulating
valuation, combined with some sort We can't know whether dollar de- alongside gold, and once again
of formal re-linking to gold, do the valuation might buy global monetary becoming working wages, would
trick again? stability for 10 years or 10 weeks. recall a time when banks were
Would I'cturning to the .sort of foreign unnecessary to a healthy, growing
I used to assign a low probability to government-only dollm / gold economy.
this as a central bank strategy, as it convertibility prevailing from 1933
seems the process would be too to 1971 1'011 back uncertainty suffici- Overall, it saddens me to conclude, a
difficult for authorities to neatly ently to allow the rcquired global partial surrender by central banks in
manage, A recent Jim Rickards economic growth? If economic theil' war with gold could be a step
interview altered my estimates. He catastrophe could be postponed by backwards for gold money
explained how, despite appearances, the half-measure of a partial advocates.
The Gold Standard The Gold Stondard Institute
Issue #1 • 15 Jonuary 2011 4
Myth Buster: The Gold Standard is only for the rich
TIle gold standard protects the weak, writes TGSI's President Rudy Fritsch
This myth goes back at least to and to hoard the more valuable 'Good are referenced to Gold... including
William Jennings Bryants 'The Cross money' ... in this case Gold. prices ofpapel' instruments, equities,
of Gold' speech given at the bonds, etc and including the price of
Democratic National Convention in If the market value of Gold vs Silver Silver, This does not mean that Silver
Chicago on July 8, 1896. He ends his were to change to one oz Gold equals cannot be used to make payments ...
famous speech with this paragraph: 14 Oz of Silver, the opposite would just that the ultimate numeraire is
occur: the now undervalued Gold Gold, and Silver becomes a
IIHaving behind us the commercial coin would be used to ~ake subsidiary but still valuable-
w
interests and the laboring interests payments, and the more valuable adjunct to Gold. It certainly does
and all the toiling masses, we shall Silver coins would be hoarded. NOT mean that the Gold Standard is
answer their demands for a gold for the rich!
standard by saying to them, you shall In effect, Bryan was clamoring for a
not press down upon the brow of defective, unstable monetary system. Gresham's law is very much in effect
labor this crown ofthorns. You shall A workable Bimetallic system is just today. Both Gold and Silver are out
not crucify mankind upon a cross of fine only ifthe claim made for the of circulation, while the inferior
gold. " Gold and Silver coins were their currencies wall Legal Tender paper-
mass of pure Gold or Silver and the are in circulation, Only a fool would
William Jennings Bryan was railing exchange rate between the spend a $50 face value Gold coin to
against the 'Crime of 1873 1• This was purchasing power (value) of the two make a payment when the market
the year Congress passed the coins was left to the markets to value ofthe Gold money from which
Coinage Act of 1873, which dew determine, on a day by day basis, the coin was struck is priced over
monetized Silver and put the US on a This way both coins would circulate $1,300!
de facto Gold Standard. Bryan at their full current value, and
represented Western interests, So, after we get past this
including many Silver mining myth, that a gold standard is
states; the demonetization of The true burden of Fiat falls squarely on only for the rich, where do we
silver was fought as the price the shoulders of those least equipped to deal go? Perhaps here:
of Silver was on the decline,
with it.
"Ofall the contrivances of
What Bryan forgot, or did not mankindfor cheating the
understand, was that the system of GreshWll l s law would not come into laboring classes, none has been
'bimetallism' that was in effect until ploy, more effective than that which
1873 was deeply, Indeed fotally deludes them with paper money. II
flawed, The flaw was simple: Of course, Bryan did have a point, Daniel Webster
Congress had set the value of the and Silver has historically been
Gold/Silver spread, instead of considered 'poor man's Gold'. Its The reality is that the Gold Standard
allowing market forces to do so. In lower intrinsic value made Silver is NOT for the rich ... just the
effect, an arbitrary value was set for more suitable for smaller day to day opposite. Under Gold, a wage earner
the Gold/Silver ratio: the coinage act transactions, buying groceries for gets a true value for his work, either
of 1792 hod sel the Gold/Silvel' rotio example. Gold with its higher in Gold coins, or Silver. These coins
at fifteen to one, specific value was used fol' larger do not depreciate, they are never
transactions, say buying property or defaulted on, indeed history shows
This number was set by legislature; it similar items of great value. This that they tend to increase their buying
was a 'Fiat' decree and as the real sharing of monetary roles makes power over the years.
value of Gold vs Silver fluctuated, Gold and Silver a great monetary
Gresham's law kicked in. Gresham's partnership. By contrast, paper 'legal tender' is
law is best stated as /lEad money constantly. losing value... the only
drives out good if their exchange Where the myth comes in, is the question being how quickly; over
rate is set by law. " beliefthot the Gold Slondord is for decades, years, or a la Zimbabwe and
the rich whereas the reality is that Weimar Germany, days! Holders of
What this means is that iffor Gold Money is (more suited) for the paper money always lose, the only
example one ounce of Gold trades in 'rich' but the two stetements are question being how quickly; over
the markets at a value of 16 oz of utterly different. Gold Slondord decades, years, or days.
Silver, but the Fiat (face) value of means one thing, Gold Money
Gold coin is set at 15 oz of Silver, it another. The rich umong us have pretty good
suddenly makes economic sense to ways of dealing with this problem;
make payment with the Ibad ' or For example, if Gold is used as the with the help of financial advisors,
relatively undervalued Silver coins, basis for a standard, then all prices tax experts, etc., they ride out the
Issue #1 0 15 Jamtaly20II 5
depreciation of paper with few False Beliefs
losses. The Super rich profit from Ignorance is not bliss no matter how appealing it seems, says Louis BoulRngcl'
debtlsement; indeed they are the ones
"It is usually some quiet assumption we've become addicted to. Lifting
who create the very debasement
taken/or granted by men a/every that veil is our challenge.
itself, through the insidious work of
degree that blocks the road to the
Government (which they control) and
great advancements io which Sadly, ignorance can actually operate
Banks, including Central Bunks ...
mankind is capable. Thesefalsa quite powerfully under th~ guise of
which tlley OWN.
beliefs, if they persist too long, are education. Our ignorance cun even
very dangerous to human progress. " get stronger with ever 1110re
The true burden afFiat falls squarely
institutionalised education. This sad
on the shoulders of those least
Leon MacLaren, (1910 -1994), Founder state of affairs ensures our servitude
equipped to deal with it. 111e Gold of the London School of Economic to fl Isystem' which places debt at the
Standard protects the weakest among Science. very centre. Debt passes for money
us and motivates the strongest to put
now and so, debts are the shackles of
their energy into productive Time was when all men believed that oUl' slavery today. But true know~
enterprise, not into creating ever the earth wos flat. It would be ledge can set us free from this
more complex and sophisticated, difficult now to trace, as Leon delusion.
financial legerdemain. The Biblical MacLaren suggested in his essay
admonition that the 'Hottest part of 'N atme of Society' , all the errors into This self-perpetuating and unnatural
Hades is reserved for tormentors of which this assumption led the social, economic and political system
Widows and Orphans' comes into thinking ofthose days, 01' to ascertain will be very hard fol' us to challenge.
play here. Enemies ofGold beware. how many practical comforts and But challenge it, we must. .Indeed,
advantages which we now enjoy the Gold Standard Institute hos set
would have been missed had not this itself 0 formidable task: to educate
conceit been exploded... the world about the true role of gold
and disseminate the virtues of the
One can also easily imagine the Gold Standm'd so -that they become
storm of abuse that the first serious widely understood and appreciated
challenge to that theory raised! It and never agoin forgotten.
came not merely from the common
man ilnd the superstitious but also My personal contribution-to this
from the leaders of_society. Indeed, noble task will be to write about
Order Beyond Mises now from:
it must have been a great shock to prevailing and pervasive false beliefs
http://w\yw.heyonclmiscs.com/
human vanity to be told that the in the monetary realm. I will tackle
natural universe did not revolve some of what I consider to be today's
around m~n; mostly, I suspect, for quiet, yet harmful, assumptions that
the ruling elite of the, time. continue to be made even by those
who should know better; assumptions
Such is the fate offalse beliefs. that effectively block the road to
Ultimately, inevitably, the tl'llth is humanity's natural progress and keep
revealed for what it is and we all then us on the road to serfdom.
have a choice to make: consider the
new evidence presented for what it is I will attempt to trace some of the
or choose to ignore it. That most errors into which these assumptions
fundamental choice is an essential have led us when it comes to
personal mental activity for our financial decisions. But I will also
collective progress. Unf0l1unately, endeavour to asccrtoin how many
too many seem to have abdicated advantages we could all now enjoy if
their duty to act as such. these conceited false beliefs about
matters were shattered once
As a result, beliefs will tend to be
largely governed by what the ruling
elite chooses for us to believe. This
"Human stupidity manifests itself is where ignonmce can seem so
sometimes as a one offact and at appealing. Yet, ignorance is not
other times as an enduring strategy. bliss, as is often suggested. As I see
The experiment with fiat currency it, ignorance is like a veil that has
falls into the latter category. " been placed before our eyes and
distol'ts our perception of the natural
Peter Souleles order of things. It's like a drug
Issue #1 • 15 January 2011 6
Louis holds a B.Sc.from Laval From London
University in Canada; is a Fellow a/both Keeping in touch with the physical markets with Sandccp Jaitly
the Canadian Institute ofActuaries and
the New Zealand Society ofActuaries; The gold market quoted against fiat physical metal by the general public.
and is a Chartered Financial Analyst, currencies has had another record Are we getting any closer to this, as
year. With the first full. year of basis observed by basis observations? We
Prior to coming to New Zealand in 1986, calculations now on record, most certainly are: the recent
Louis worked/or nine years with a expectations about what might occur movements in the February 2011
global consultingflrm based in in 2011 can now be made. bases are already signalling as such.
Montreal, Canada. In New Zealand,
However, the United States Dollar
Louis worked/or another global
consuitingfirmfor 18 years, including as In the common gold press, 2010 was price of gold and silver may perform
ChiefExecutive ojNew Zealand dominated by the usual talk of the least well .. ,
operations for five years. In 2006, he banking conspiracies and, towards
launched his private practice. the end of the year, the potential fol' a
default 011 COMEX Silver, This did
Louis is also Founder & Director of LB not come to pass. Patrons ofthe
Now Ltd, which provides independent 'Gold Basis Service' are one step
investment advice to private and
ahead of such ignorant ruminations.
institutional clients, facilitates the
pu/'chase a/bullion/or private and
institutional clients as an authorized Default, by its very nature, will be
dealer for BMG BullionBars and also preceded by a sharp IU1'ch towards Sandeep Jaitly
helps firms come into compliance with backwardation. Throughout 2010,
GlPS, this did not occur in any noticeable The 'Gold Basis Service' is a monthly
measure. An often talked about subscription newsletter that describes
For more information ofLB Now1s backdrop to the silver default is the mQvements in the gold and silver bases.
services or 10 subscribed to Louis l e~ The service offers forewarning of
low stockpile of 'known' silver. This
letter 'Prosper!', see the contact details potential exchange default - as well as of
has been a theme for a number of sign(flcant changes likely In 'he gQld
below.
years, However, most surprisingly to price and gold-silver ratio from
the promoters of this idea, it has not movements in the bases. AIQngwilh the
louisboulanger now yet presaged a default. This shows
that the majority of standard analysis
monthly gold basis service is the
quarterly 'Course ofthe Exchange'
fUil):h!n~jf>g Inv{;slflHl111 $Irote(lio\
P.O. Box 25676, St Heliers about the dynamics of physical and eCQnomic commentary. This cQmmentmy
Auckland 1740, New Zealand futures markets in gold and silver are relates 10 general observationsfl'om a
Ph: +6495283586 completely misunderstood. Mel;lgerian perspective on the current
Mob: +64275665095 marke' place for global equities;
loujs(~£lbnoll',co n::: www lbnQ1V.co nz
government paper and other goods.
What fol' 2011? The essential
mechanism that will propel gold and Sandeep Jaitly '8 Gold Basis Service can
silver forward indefinitely against be subscribed tQ byemailing:
fiat currencies is the acquisition of wl1deeu!aitly(ijihotmqil com
The Gold Dinar as Money in Malaysia

Philip T gives a first hand view of the Gold Dinar
Introduction transactions, including payment of monarchy" system, with the King
salaries to civil servants. (The Agung) as the constitutional
In recent years there wel'e two head of state, and the federal and
official attempts to use gold as Are these two schemes anywhere state governments are elected by the
currency for tl'8de in Malaysia. The near a gold standard? What happened people every 5 years.
first was the proposal by the then to these two attempts to use gold as
prime minister Tun Dr. Mahathir payment for goods and services? The official religion is Islam, but
Mohmnad in 2002 to use the Gold other religions such as Buddhism,
Dinar fol' international trade (but not Malaysia Hinduism, Taoism and Christianity
for daily transactions in the are freely worshipped by the people.
country). The second offIcial Malaysia is a small country. with a
announcement was August 2010 by population of about 26 million Like the other countries in the world,
the Kelantan State Govermnent, people comprising three major races Malaysia is using a fiat currency
which is under the !'Ule of the of Malay, Chinese and Indians. It is system (irredeemable currency). It
opposition party; the Islan1ic Party of located in South East Asia, and is just has a central bank called Bank
Malaysia (PAS), The Chief Minister north of Singapore. Negara Malaysia, and the of1icial
of Kelantan State in August 2010 currency is Ringgit Malaysia (RM).
launched a campaign to use the gold There are 13 states in Malaysia. The
dinar and silver dirham in daily country has a "constitutional
Issue #1 o 15 January 2011 7
Asian Currency Crisis tnarkets in March 2002 in Kuala party president. His successor (Tun)
LumpUl;. "The risk a/speculation can Abdullah Badawi did not follow on
In 2002, the then Prime Minister of be reduced to almost nothing. World with his proposal. Abdullah retired
Malaysia Dr. Muhathir (Prime trade can actually expand because in 2009 and was succeeded by
Minister of Malaysia from 1981 to the cost ofbusiness will be mu~h (Datuk Seri) Najib Tun Razak as the
2003) proposed to tile world the use reduced as the need to hedge will sixth Malaysian Prime Minister.
ofthe gold dinar for payment of practically disappear," asserted Dr. It is unusual for (l head of a
international trade. His proposal was Mahathir. government of a fiat currency system
in response to the Asian currency to propose a gold payment system
crisis of 1997/98 which damaged Dr. Mahathir, who was also the and intend to link the local currency
many. South East Asian Economies. finance minister that time, said local to local gold prices. It would restrict
gold prices would determine the the ability of the government to print
In 1997, the Asian currencies were exchange rute for the local currency money.
under attack by currency traders I against the Gold Dinar.
speculators and many of these What went through Mahathir's mind
currencies dropped in value (against According to Dr, Mahathi!', partici. when he proposed that system? We
the USD) by 50% or more within a pating countries did not have to pay do not know, we can only guess. Dr.
few months. Dr. Mahathir blamed the for everything using the Gold Dinar, Mahathir has been known for his
currency traders, in particular George It would suffice for a nation to only excellent lateral thinking skill (a term
Sora8, for the crisis, He countered pay the difference, between its coined by Edward de Bono). Many
the attacks with capital controls and imports /exports to the other country. times in his political career he
pegged the Ringgit at RM3.80 to one encountered crisis l and with "out of
USD in 1998. The economy If a country exports 100 million Gold the box ll ideas l he emerged stronger
stabilized following the tough Dinars worth of goods to another each time.
measures, but it took many years for countryl and that second country
it to recover. e~x~p"o"_r"ts"t"'o_'t"h~e_'_fi"_rsO't_'o"_n.e."g"o..o"d"'s_'w"0O'r-,-tlcc'_ _'"['.is,,e"Cn.emy's
. enemy is Gold
What are Gold Dinars and It is possible that during the

His enemy in that crisis was the paper
Silver Dirhams? 1997/98 financial crisis which
aristocracy ... and the enemy of these nearly toppled him politically,
Dinars me coins minted using _ irredeemable money people is obviously the he realized that a solution had
gold and dIrhams are minted Gold Standard. to be found to prevent a
with silver. They were the repeat of attacks by the
currencies used in the old 110 million Gold Din~-s-,~th-e-n-tCCh-e - - - - currency t!'aders, whom he
days in the Muslim communities in balance needed to be paid by the first considered his enemies. Using the
the Middle East. According to country's central bank is only to lateral thinking method and working
Islamic Specifications, a Dinar is the million Gold Dinars. If there are no backward, he possibly looked for his
weight of one mithqal gold which is Gold Dinars available, then the first enemy's enemy. His enemy in that
equivalent to 4.25grams of 22 carat country will pay later with exports crisis was the paper aristocracy (as
gold (916). The Dirham is worth 10 million Gold Dinars, defined by the one-handed economist
2.975grams of pure sHver (999). Howard Katz), and the enemy of
these irredeemable money people is
He said that while there would be
By using the Gold Dinar system, Dr. obviously the Gold Standard. '
many teething problems l he was
Mahathir aimed to prevent a repeat of
confident that the expet1s would find
the currency crisis: "Paper money As the saying goes, his enemy's
ways to solve 01' overcome them. He
has no intrinsic value, making the enemy could be his friend. Hence he
also said the Central Bank (BNM)
exchange rate arbitrary and subject used gold. as one ofthe stal1ing
could negotiate with another country
to manipulation as we saw during points for his solution. Was this
on the usc of the Gold Dinar payment
the Asianjinancial crisis. In inside his mind? We don't know,
system.
comparison, the gold dinar has a Just like his sudden resignation in
definite value based on world 2003, we don't know the real reason.
Sudden Resignation in 2003
demandfor gold and any
fluctuations were minimal. II Kelantan State's Campaign To Use
Dr, Mahathir announced that
Gold Dinar For Daily Transactions
Malaysia was to start using the dinar
liThe propo~al is to make this dinar a in mid 2003, and many local "gold
currency for international trade In August 2010, the State
bugs" were looking forward to the
only. It is not meant to replace the Government ofthe Kelantan State of
"gold payment system ll , but alas,
currency ofany counfry'\ he said Malaysia launched a campaign to use
come 2003, Dr. Mahathir shocked
when launching a two·day the Gold Dinar and Silver Dirham os
the whole nation with his sudden
conference on Islamic Capital an alternative payment method in
resignation as the Prime Minister and
Issue #1 • 15 January 20ll 8
daily transactions, including the the use of Dinar in exchange for The following are some possible
payment of salaries to civil servants goods in a barter deal is a contract reasons for the slow adoption of the
in the state. between two parties. Hence there is Gold Dinar in daily transactions by
no issue as far us the law is the Malaysian public:
The Kelantan State is in the North concerned. It is similar to person A
East of Peninsular Malaysia, and exchanging a turkey for 2 ducks with 1. The Federal Govel'l1ment's
borders Thailand to the North, another person B. l'eluctance to support the opposition
Kelantan is under the rule of P81ty's proposal.
opposition party ~ The Islamic Party Public Response
of Malaysia (PAS) - whereas the 2. Most Malaysians are not aware of
Federal Government is controlled by Th,ere Eire 28 shops/outlets in the importance of the Gold Standard
the National Front (Barisan Kelantan participating in using to their society. with most not quite
National). DinarlDirham in daily transactions. understanding how the current fiat
These shops trade in items such as monetary system works.
The use ofDinar/Dirham in Kelantan cloths, food, travel, taxi fare,
raises a controversy between jewellery, medicine and books etc, 3. Many Non-Muslims perceive the
Kelantan state Dnd federal Kelantan's Dh1al' and Dirham coins
government. Prime Minister Najib From the feedback by some Kuala as religions items.
Tun Razak instructed Bank Negara Lumpur visitors to the state, the use
Malaysia to review the legal terms Dinars in transaction is not 4. Due to the-effect of Gresham's
regarding the Kelantan State widespread. Gold Dinars and Silver law: IIbad money drives out good". In
Govemment's move. Dirhams are'used by Muslitl1S to pay 2010, with the Ringgit price of gold
zalcat (tithes), dowry, and as savings went up 30% and silver up 80%,
In Kelantan l Dinm and Dirham are (traditional Islamic practices). many people with these gold and
issued by Kelantan Golden Trade silver coins prefer to h081'd them. and
Sdn. Bhd. a subsidiary olthe State In the capital city Kuala Lumpur, the use paper money to pay for goods
Government's Perbadanan Menteri writer has not seen or heElfd of any and services.
Besar Kelantan (PMBK). The coins use of Dinars to pay for goods and
are minted in a Middle East mint. services so far. 5. The Dinar and Dirham coins sold
There are several other local by local dealers carry a high
companies supplying the Dinar and Conclusions premium and spread, hence they are
Dirham in Malaysia and some of very costly to buy and liquidate.
them mint the coins locally, Dr.Mahathir's proposal did not take
off because he resigned in 2003, but For example, on the 5th January
The state government ofKelantan his gold dinar payment system for with spot gold trading at USD
argued that they were not breaking international trade, and linking the 1382.40 the Kelantan Gold Dinar
the law, The brochure of the Ringgit to local gold price, is un (minted overseas) was selling at
Kelantan Golden Trade states that interesting proposal. RM658 and buy back at RM573.
'lISyariah (Ed ~ Shariah in west) This is a high premium of22% and
currencies Dinar and Dirham duly Assuming his proposal would allow spread of 13%. In Kuala Lumpur. a
represents only one of the unrestricted ownership and the locally minted Gold Dinar had a
commodities which are used for minting of gold dinar coins by the premium 21 % w1d a lower spread of
exchanges in any transactions only. people, and the government 6%. These are still far too high. The
guarantees no price oontl'ol on local premium and spread for Silvel'
They claimed that the use of Dinar gold dinar prices, then his proposal Dirham are even higher by lTIany
and Dirham coinage did not would have clearly been a step away times. .
contravene any laws of Malaysia from the irredeemable currency
because it is not an enforced 'legal system and moving closer to a type To make the gold and silver coins
tender' like the Ringgit. The usc of of Gold Standard. affordable and functioning fol'
coins is similar to exchanging goods commercial transactions, the
with goods Le. barter trade, and the The Kelantw1 State's move to use Government would need to provide
use of Dinar and Dirham represents Dinar and Dirham for daily minting services to minimize the coin
merely a choice for payments in transaction is carried out under the premiums and to achieve a zero
transaction. banner of barter trade, as federal law spread for buying and selling coins at
<lllows only the Ringgit a "legal the official mint. <
Bank Negara Malaysia1s response tendel'lT. It is kind of guerrilla tactic

to use gold as payment to avoid But will Dny Govemment ofa fiat
When asked about the Dinar, one direct confrontation with the federal money system do that?
Central Bank officer said the official govcmment and its money law.
~U1'I'ency of Malaysia is Ringgit, and Philip T.• Malaysia
Issue #1 0 15 Januory2011 9
NEW AUSTRIAN SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS

Announcing:
Course II
at the
Martiueum Academy
Szombathely, Hungary
ADAM SMITH'S REAL BILLS DOCTRINE

AND THE SOCIAL CIRCULATING CAPITAL
March 5-13, 2011
Lecturer: Prof. Antal E. Fekete

Guest Lecturers: Sandeep ,Jaitly (United Kingdom)l DArryl Schoon (United States)
Rudy Fritsch (Canada)
This is the second in a four-course series on Austrian Economics, a branch of economic science
based on the work of Carl Menger (1840-1921). The school is meant for those (incl. beginners)
interested in the Austrian theory of money, credit, and banking, with special emphasis on the
present financial and economic crisis. The complete program consists of four courses (10 days,
20 lectures each). Completion of each of the four courses will earn one credit. Participants who
have accumulated four credits will earn a diploma signed by Professor Fekete.
The four courses are:
Course I: Disorder and Coordination in Economics
Course II: Adam Smith's Real Bill Doctrine
Course III: The Austrian Theory ofInterest and Discount
Course IV: The Austrian Theory of Money, Credit, and Banking
Course I was given in Budapest in August, 2010, and is available on DVD's.
Registratiou Information:
The fee for participation in Course II of NASE is EUR 1200. This includes tuition, plus
accommodation for ten nights (from Friday, March 4, through Sunday, March 13), breakfast
and lunch every day for the nine days. In addition to this, a closing banquet is also included in
the fee. The pmticipation fee does not include travel costs, nor the
evening meals, but dinner is available on the premises at approx. EUR
7 for those who order it in advance. Also there are restaurants outside
Martineum where you can sample traditional Hungarian cuisine.
There is a EUR 200 non-refuudable pre-registration fee that will be

credited toward the tuition fee.
Scholarships in the value of EUR 500 and EUR 1000 are available for
students, provided that they have paid the pre-registration fee.
We have been servicing the logistics industry since 1984.
We have specialized in same day services utilizing the commercial airlines.
As an example a customer would normally use us if they had an emergency situation where they
need a replacement part flown in to repair equipment that is impeding their normal operations.
We have to turn down quite a bit of business because if we accept something from a client, that is
not a known shipper to us, it would impact on our ability to retain our lAC certificate.
I agree that we are the first line of defence in the process of insuring that no dangerous cargo gets
on a passenger aircraft. Our staffs need to be trained to look for suspicious packages and to identify
situations that do not pass thesmell test for accepting cargo.
My problem with the process is that I believe massive amounts of taxpayers money is wasted
making sure that we have our I's dotted and our 1's crossed.
As an example there are times where several TSA agents are flown into another part of the country
to make surprise calls on lAC's to make sure their paperwork is up to date. This makes no sense to
me as a tax payer. My local TSA agent is quite capable of handling this routine process.
I'm not sure what the cost might be to fly 10 people to the Las Vegas area, put them up in hotels,
pay for their meals, and rent them cars to verify that the local agents are doing their jobs?
I personally believe this procedure it is a waste of time, and assets, and believe that it Is duplicated
throughout the country several times per year.
I would prefer to see these agents at the airports inspecting cargo, as that is realiy the last line of
defence to insure that dangerous articles are not put on passenger aircraft.
As a disabled Vietnam era vet, with a purple heart who utilizes, and has family who fly's on
passenger aircraft, I have a since desire to do everything humanly possible to protect passengers
who are flying on aircraft with cargo in the belly.
As a business person, who provides a valuable public service, I see our costs going up with additional
security fees, screening fees, and government imposed regulations that, in my opinion, are
restrictive, wasteful, and counterproductive.
These regulations have forced my business to contract and layoff workers.
Filling out paperwork improperly could lead to our life iong family business being shut down and the
livelihood of several families being impacted.
We cannot take the chance and therefore our business growth is impeded.
Thanks for at least asking the question. It gives me some hope that someone is actually interested in
moving our economy forward.
What would help my business?
We had. an assisted living business in Utah. When the economy started to go down so did our business
and we finally had to shut the doors.
One ofthe contributing factors was the slow payments from the Medicaid office. If one thing was
wrong the claim would be denied. There was no phone number to reach them and we went months for
a few clients without payments.
Here are some great ideas to help all US business especially manufacturing.
The price of any product made in the USA contains the following:
Social Security, Medicare, Business tax, Property tax, Unemployment insurance, Workers comp
insurance, Medical costs of all US citizens.
All of this together is a big price that makes US made items much more expensive.
What I would like: TAX REFORM (creative taxation to help US business)
Remove all taxes to business; stop withholding all money from wages.
We need a tax at the point of purchase, say 2.0%. This should be included in the retail price or by a VAT.
The price you see is the price you pay.
This will probably reduce US manufactured items by more than 2.0%
The VAT will increase the price of imported goods by 20%
We get a trade advantage of 40%!
All taxes on the state level should be encouraged to go to the VAT as well. The higher the VAT the more
protection the US has against imports.
The VAT is in reality a hidden trade tariff. This is why most countries have gone to this form of taxation.
Thanks
Gary W. Davis
Representative Issa,
I'm encouraged by the new direction yo.u are taking our government, by actually asking the governed
which direction they would like to go. Thank you!
With regard to your question about regulation, I would point to the regulations that have destroyed the
manufacturing sector in the United States of America. We used to make some of the finest products
around. Products that would last from grandfather to grandson. (I still have some of my grandfathers
tools that were made here). Products that were not going to potentially contaminate our children or
poison our pets.
In short, shipping our manufacturing sector to China is wrong. Make it affordable to build things here
again.
We need to institute a trade baiance, and if that means putting more tariffs on their goods, then fine.
Americans would pay more for a durable product made in America. I know this. There are far too many
unnecessary regulations that put American manufacturers at an unfair advantage.
Everyone wants a ciean and unpolluted environment, safe work conditions, and equality in the
workplace, but things have gotten ridiculous. The EPA, the EEOC, OSHA, et al. are strangling our job
sector. And don't get me started on unions. Are they really necessary anymore?
Has anybody considered encouraging (through incentives) more manufacturing in South America and
Mexico in particular? Why are we shipping products across a vast ocean when we could employ so many
people in South America. They are coming here for work already, so why not give them manufacturing
jobs in their own country? It would probably help the illegal immigration as well.
I appreciate the work you do, Rep. Issa, and thanks for the opportunity to chime in.
James Parker
17921 l27'h Ave NE
Arlington Washington 98223
RE: Your call for information on 'Which regulations hurt"
Dear Representative Issa,

Some years ago I closed my small business, Parker Computing, due to burdensome
recordkeeping requirements imposed by the Federal Government and its companion
Washington State. Most burdensome were the recordkeeping requirements of the
Internal Revenue Service.
In fact the entirety of Title 26 of the US Code is incomprehensible by the average person.
The length of time that the IRS estimates that it takes to comply with the regulations that
it imposes upon folks understates the burden significantly.
I calculated that after all was said and done that it was not profitable for me to comply
with state and federal law and remain in business as a small business owner. Compliance
with the regulatory requirements imposed by the IRS were the final straw that induced
me to go out of business and return the business license to Washington State.
Respectfully,
James Parker
Regulations that plague the Auto Industry
The CAFE regulations passed inthe last year will kill the economy because automakers will not
be able to produce vehicles that people want. We know that over 10% of the jobs in this country
are in or tied to the auto industry. It effects everyone.
Remove most restrictions in the Gramm Leach Bliley Act
Remove the Red Flags Rules
Risk Based Pricing Rule
Meet with National Auto Dealers Association to find out the things choking our business
The Free Enterprise Nation (FEN) is a non-partisan national membership/advocacy organization
representing the individuals and businesses that make up the private sector, the "free enterprise"
portion of the American economy. Basic membership is free, with other membership levels available
for those who wish to provide financial support and/or become actively engaged in the FEN mission.
Headquarters are located at Suite 700, 1511 N. Westshore Boulevard, Tampa, Florida, 33607, ph.
813-384-2400. It is represented in Washington, D.C. by the independent lobbying firm Three Bridges
Advisors Inc.
FEN is the unifier of, and provides the national meeting place for, all who believe in smaller, less
expensive, and less intrusive government, and in individual am~ business freedom, opportunity,
responsibility and self-determination.
The Free Enterprise Nation is not a "think tank," although it maintains a full-time research staff. It is
not aligned with any political party, as it is vested with the responsibility of representing the interests
of all who live and work in the private sector of the U.S. economy, regardless of political affiliation.
FEN can and does oppose policies that are injurious to those in the private sector whether these
policies are supported by Republicans, Democrats, or Independents.
The Free Enterprise Nation's primary mission is to:

• Educate Americans as to the true costs of federal, state, and local governments that
redistribute property from taxpayers to government employees and their allies. Educate
taxpayers to make them more informed and responsible voters.
• Unifv like-minded individuals and businesses to create an organization of strength and

mass in order to advance the common cause of the preservation of our free enterprise
economy.
• Advocate for the broad and common economic interests of the private sector using
every means available, including advertising, appearances by spokespersons on
television and radio, providing information to the press, and engaging lobbyists to
support or oppose legislation at federal and state levels.
Please feel free to contact us and use us a resource.

I was asked to open another dealership by one of my franchisors. Another dealership would create 50
to 100 jobs is the very near term. I am not opening that location at this time out of concern about:
o Health Care Act including: 1099 provision, 3.8% tax on sale of asset ove·r $500,000, unknown
premium cost increases associated with the Act.
o Uncertainty and dissatisfaction with long term income tax rates. My business is a sub-chapter S
organized company; raising rates on income over $250,000 only takes away from further
investment in my business. In my case, taxable income does not represent personal disposable
income.
o Status of, funding of and diversion of the surface transportation trust fund for other uses than
roadways.
o Involvement of EPA in setting medium and heavy duty truck fuel economy. Fuel expense is the
largest single variable expense for a truck owner. There is a natural incentive for truck owners
and manufacturers to achieve the highest possible fuel economy. EPA mandates and regulations
are not required by Congress to be technologically viableor economically feasible. Therefore,
EPA involvement only serves as an obstacle to natural progression.
o EPA Nox mandates over the last ten years have increased the price of a large commercial truck
by $25,000 with no increase in productivity. In addition the increased costs have raised the
average age of on highway trucks to nearly 10 years this has had at least two unintended
consequences: trucks are less safe and there are fewerindependent owner operators (job
losses).
1 Hassel VolVo Huntlnglon 3311
2 CherTY Hili Volvo 3406 "
62
15
15
1 Long Molor Company
2 Tho Premlor Collection
14'
129
19
29
19
29
3 Rod Bank Volvo 3466 60 19 3 Keystone Molors 119 34 34
Keystone Motors (Berwyn) 7308 60 14 4 Don BeyerVolvo la'
4 Smythe Volvo
5 VOlvovllle USA
3474
3366 "57 22 5 Hassel Motor Company 101 "
24 "
24
11 6 Chip OIt VCllvo 64 9 9
6 Mt. Kisco Volvo 3575 62 13 7 Kundert Volvo 73 26 26
7 BrldgewalerVCllvo 3449 51 B 8 Lovering Volvo 47 39
Volvo of Edison
8 Don Beyer MCltore Inc.
3460
7633
61 2 9 Mooers Motor Cars 44
" "
35
9 Volvo of Prlnoelon 3448 "

46
30
9
10 MHohelJ Volvo
11 Phillips
35
33
14
10
14
10
10 -Big Dee Aulo Sales 3514 46 5 12 Gen[lraS MCltors 32 42 42
11 Boslon Volvo Village 3B18 44 9 13 BarTY Group 23 15 15
12 Georgetown Volvo
Falrtax Volvo
3323
7B24 " 1
Oarcars of Rockville, Inc. 7B7a " 11
13 Volvo of FClrl Wllshlnglon 7304 "

42
3
7
Volvo of langhorne 7355 42 2
14 RamseyVolvo
Marlens Cars Clf Wllshlnglon
3484
7606
41
41 ,
10
Herb Gordon Auto Group, Inc 7644 41 19

Hi Volvo of Westport 3295
EnglelllUod Volvo 3426 "
39
9
11
stillman Volvo 7311 .39 15
16 MorllclalrVCllvo 3467 37 5
17 Karp Votvo Inc. 3332
18 126 Sales,lnc. Group 3677 "
35
2
21
19 Kundert Molors,lflo, 3436 34 14
20 Keystone Motols (Doylestown)
21 Hassel Volvo Glen Cove
7309
3312
33
32 ,
13
Bill Kldd's Volvo 7535 32 11

Mooers Motor CllrCompany,lnc. 7618 32 22
22 Garden Slate VolvG
Lee ImpClrled Cars
3451
3962
31
31 ,
19
23 Insklp Volvo 3261 30 29

Hudson Valley Volvo
24 Marlin Molor Sales tno
3579
3341
30
29 ,
3
Annapolis Volvo 7504 29 29

25 Jim Wynn Volvo 7313
Don Beyer Volvo· Dulles 7669 " 2
" 26
Don Beyer Volvo. Alexandria
26 Ollizell Volvo
7673
3B34 "
27 ,
34
21 Bay Ridge VolVO 3315 26 5

Jaffar1an Volvo 355' 26 2
Keystone Volvo. Monlgomeryville 7303 26 7
28 LoverlngVolvo
Eagle Auto-Mall corp.
3123
3355
25
26 ,
20
Prestige Volvo 34B1 26 7

Palisades Volvo 3688 25 3
29 Mllohell Volvo· Simsbury 3291 24 13
Paul's Motor Sales & 6eJ1llce 3468
South Shore Ford, Ino. 3479
24
24 ,
1
30 Merrlrnllck st. Volvo 3169 23 7

31 Volvo of Danbury 3233
KOClns Volvo 7644
22
22 ,
10
32 Lovering Volvo al Concord 3149 21 19

Tasca VollfCl
Stutz Volvo
3266
3687
21
21 ,
8
Jim Culligan. Inc.

Village Volvo
3709
7633
21
21 ,
7
33 Stamford Volvo 3286

South Shore Volvo 3691 " 14
Phillips Volvo Virginia Beech 7621 " 10
34 Connecticut's Own VCllvo 3299 "

19
8
12
3S Gongras Volvo 3241
Dartmouth Volvo
36 Bur(/urny Molors, Inc.
3924
7a19
"" 24
14
17 1
37 Secor's AulQ Cenler, Inc. 3261 16 10
Besl Motors. 3708 16 7
KeelerVQlvo 3744 16
,2
38 Wentworth Motor Co. Inc.
Farrell Molore
3196
3635 "15 ,
39 Portland VolvCl 3182 14 22
Gengras Volvo _ Meriden 3269 14
Brown-Daub V()lvo 7379 14 "
10
40 Union Par1l Volvo
Phillips Volvo Hllmpton
7331
7625 "
13 ,1
41 Almartln Volvo 3107

Sieingoid Volvo
David WhoeterVolvo
3288
7536
12
12
12
"8
1
Mooers VOIVCl Midlothian 7619 12 13
42 Mitchell Volvo _L1lchfield 3284 11 1
Alan Byer Auta Sates 3718 11 5
43 Nemet Matars 3352 10 0
44 Gaodwln's VolVo 3128 9 20
Nemlth Motor corp. 3572 9
,
19
Fathers & Sails, Illc.
45 Chase Parkway VCllvo
"'''
3224 ,
9
2
Allentown Volvo
NolJle Cers, Inc.
7317
7615 ,
0 2
6
48 Rutland Volvo 3116 7
,
0
Gallo Volvo 3639 7
,
47 Serafini Volva 3778 6
,
Volvo of Charlcttesville
48 Barl)' Volvo
7610
3205 ,
6
2
49 Darling's VolVo 3151
,
4 2
50 Volvo of Keene
Bedard Brolhers AtllCl SlIles Inc.
3Hl3
3606 , 0
2
51 MlllerVolvo 3159 2
,
0
Pioneer Valley Sales & Service
Trans-Atlantic Molonl
3684
3669
2
2 ,
Ertle VolvCl 7314 2 2
52 Lovering Volvo af Merideth 3146 1 0
53 Bill Cooke Imports, Inc. 3724 0 2
1 Philadelphia 7108 "6

"
2 Metro NY 7107
7105
072
'SO "
3 Metro NJ
"
4 Metro North
5 Mld-Atlantlc North
7108
7109 '"
241
88
76
8 Mld-Atlantlc South 7110 2" '59
7 Boston 7101 228 75
8 CTIRIIMA
9 NE Territory East
7103
7102
196
164
'"
,130
10 NE Territo West 7104 88 56
The ObamaCare law needs to be repealed. There are too many regulations and taxes in it.
The payroll tax needs to be done away with. It is punishment for employing someone.
We need to go with The FairTax. We should only have sales taxes.
We don't need income taxes. They are punishment for employment.
We don't need property tax. It is triple taxation.
We don't need the death tax. It's quadruple taxation.
. I'm spreading the word; I'm telling my friends.
Your action on lowering taxes & regulation will determine if you & the GOP gets re-
elected.
January 21,2011 BOYS & GIRLS CLUB
OF VISTA
Darrell Issa Boys & Girls Club of Vista

Congress of the U.S. 410 W. California Ave,
Vista, CA 92083
House of Representatives Tel 760-724-6606
Washington, DC 20515-0549 Fax 760-724-1159
www.bgcvista.org
Madison Middle School

Vista Magnet Middle School
Dear Congressman Issa, VAPA
Washington Middle School
Rancho Minerva Middle Schoo
Thank you for the opportunity to listen to provide some feedback

Board of Directors
regarding job creation. While my views are limited as a small business Victoria Waufle~ President'"
owner with a budget of $600,000, here are my thoughts. Mac Ghaderpanah- President Elect'"
Paul Eckert~ Past President
Sal Cirincione~ V.P,
As part of a non-profit sector, the biggest obstacle is that we're more Vernal Cole- Treasurer
Sarah Holt~ Secretary
concerned with job retention to survive these tough economic times. Howard Amend~Director at Large
Federal funding for job creation has hampered our ability to procure Bill Rawlings
Jeremy Raimo
funding for gang prevention and academic enrichment at a federal level. Jim Jardin
We were happy to accept ARRA funds for job creation/preservation Marques McCammon
Dr. Victoria Crooks
through Boys & Girls Clubs of America, however, it would have been John Rodriguez
more effective earmarked for specific existing Club programs. Kristina Nehls
Daniel Villasenor
However, if this path is taken, I am all in favor of stimulus funding being Executive Director
Matt Koumaras
used to fund specific capital projects to better the nation. I am a big fan
of Roosevelt's WPA plan. Efforts for energy efficiency, travel, and Foundation Board
Howard Amend -President
safety are to be applauded. These programs would put people to work Vic Freudenberger *- Secretary
on a consistent basis while boosting their self-esteem and improve the Sam Tapia~ Treasurer
Jim Minarik
country long-term. John Harmata
Victoria Waufle
Howard Amend
The proposed medical coverage bill is noble but shouldn't be at the Glen Hampton
expense of struggling business owners. Rising medical costs from -MGen. Wil Simlik (USMC Ret)'
pharmaceutical companies, medical providers and workers Fun Raisers

compensation costs are completely insane. There would be no incentive Pat Richardson~ President
Greta Trygstad~ Vice President
towards owning a business. Denise Koumaras- Secretary
Marjorie Cosh Treasurer
w
On a federal, local and state level, there is also too much paperwork to Honorary Board
file simple forms. Many of these policies make it very daunting towards John Cosh*t
Mrs. Bee Meyert
starting and maintaining a business. There is also a lack of accountability Robert Pope't
in all areas of government. Dr. Charles Shean*t
Rod Waufle t
We appreciate your consistent support to us which will help us to " Past Board President
t In Memoriam
continue to promote academic success, healthy' lifestyles and good RHonorary Board
character.
Tax 10# 95-2266749
Best Regards,
Be Great
Matt Koumaras
Executive Director
BOYS &. GIRLS CLUB
OF ViSTA
Boys & Girls Club of Vista

410 W, California Ave.
Vista, CA 92083
Tei 760-724-6606
Fax 760-724-1159
www.bgcvista.org
Madison Middle School

Vista Magnet Middle School
VAPA
The Boys & Girls Club of Vista is exempt from federal income tax under Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Washington Middle School
Revenue Code and contributions are tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law. Our IRS tax identification Rancho Minerva Middle Schoo
number is 95-2266749.
Board of Directors
Victoria Waufle- President*
Mac Ghaderpanah- President Elect'"
Paul Eckert- Past President
Sal Cirincione- V.P.
Vernal Cole- Treasurer
Sarah Holt- Secretary
Howard Amend-Director at Large
Bill Rawlings
Jeremy Raimo
Jim Jardin
Marques McCammon
Dr. Victoria Crooks
John Rodriguez
Kristina Nehls
Daniel Villasenor
Executive Director
Matt Koumaras
Foundation Board
Howard Amend -President
Vic Freudenberger *. Secretary
Sam Tapia- Treasurer
Jim Minarik
John Harmata
Victoria Waufle
Howard Amend
Glen Hampton
-MGen. Wil Simlik (USMC Rel.)'
Fun Raisers
Pat Richardson- President
Greta Trygstad- Vice President
Denise Koumaras- Secretary
Marjorie Cosh- Treasurer
Honorary Board
John Cosh"'t
Mrs. Bee Meyert
Robert Pope"'t
Dr, Charles Shean*t
Rod Waufle t
'" Past Board President

t In Memoriam
- Honorary Board
Tax 10# 95-2266749
Be Great
From: Austin Myers-Vice President
PSA Insurance Services
Po box 2410
Fallbrook CA 92088
To: Mr. Darrell Issa

Congressman 49th District
1800 Thibodo Road, Ste 310
Vista Ca 92081
Thank you for this opportunity to express my concerns, as a business owner, in regards to
government regulation and taxation. We are a second generation family owned and
operated insurance brokerage in Fallbrook CA. My brother and I have taken over the day
to day operations of the business since my Father passed away 3 years ago. We strive to
deliver the most excellent service we can to our customers and have been able to keep all
our employees on staff with no lay-offs projected for now. However, we are the
exception to our industry now, as many brokerage's are laying off employees and even
going out of business. We struggle as well to keep our long-time employees in ajob. We
consider many like family. We know many families depend on our long-tenn growth and
prosperity.
With this being said, I can tell you that we have great concern for the direction of our
Country and the economic implications of many Federal (and State), regulations and
taxes. First, we are concerned with the over-all Socialization of the American Economy
and the vast ideological differences between our current administration and our Founding
Fathers. Our Government has socialized a major part ofthe Auto industry, Health Care,
etc- where does it end? We. are printing money at an alarming rate and bankrupting
future generations. Taxes are of a major concern to us on the Federal side as all these
bail-outs and takeovers will eventually mean higher taxes. Higher taxes WILL mean that
we will have to let some employees go. Our business and revenues has decreased 50%
since 2007 and continues,to do so. Ifwe are further burdened with higher taxes while at
the same time seeing revenues decrease, we will have some serious issues in furthering
our business. While we are not directly impacted or overseen (yet) by any Federal
Regulatory Bureaucracy, we are indirectly impacted by all1hat happens in Washington
DC. It's a shame to see voters and politicians decrease incentives for those who work
hard, operate businesses 'such as ours, and create jobs, by perpetuating government
largesse. The Federal Government needs to make cuts such as we do. You can not spend
more 1han you take in arid you can not continue to increase taxes. I feel1hat even at a
100% rate oftaxation the Federal Government and 1heir Democrat cronies would not be
satisfied or able to make due with that amount of revenue. Cut taxes any place possible.
RefOlm Social Security & Public education, sell/privatize Am-trak, enforce our Borders,
and stop printing money!, These are a few things 1hat would be a good start for 1he USA
to recover. Politicians on the left (and some on the right) have been on a binge that
would make an alcoholic blush and it needs to stop I
On the State level, we are in even more dire straits. DO NOT BAlL OUT CALIFORNIA
iffuey go bankrupt. Let,the State be responsible for its own undoing. California is a
prime example of Government largesse, excess, waste and incompetence! I know you
have little to do with State Legislation but perhaps the Federal Government can lead by
example.
We have been open here in town since 1979 and we want to remain open for another 30
years. PleaEe do all that you can to ensure that happens.
Last Updated: January 21,2011
COnr:>OnATl:; TnAI'ISMITTAL
Global Stage Systems,LLC.

905 Tempera Court
Oceanside, CA 92057-7910
Mr.lssa,
Change is required to solve this problem. You must change the system. Obviously the current system does not work. You
need to think bigger! Much Much Bigger! I am an inventor of probably the most important system if implemented would
change the United States. The system speaks for itself. Many including the identity theft experts say I have done it
including one that is on the news always Robert Siciliano. This system can make our area the new Silicon Valley.
Have a tech guy watch my video. The people that would develop applications around it would be endless.
http://www.globalstagesystems.com/ldentlty.html
Dennis Lyon
Chief Executive Officer
Global Stage Systems, LLC.
760.429.5526
© 2011 Global Stage® Systems, LLC. All Rights Reserved, the Global Stage® logo are trademarks of Global Stage® Systems, LLC.
Our health insurance went up 28% this January.
Our unemployment Insurance went up last fall.
Our worker's comp insurance is up again this year without any claims.
Red flag rules require more time from myself and my employees.
Effective January 1, 2011 The Risk-Based Pricing Rule requires dealers and other
creditors to provide a notice to consumers when they are granted materially less
favorable terms than other consumers, based on data included in their credit report.
Dealerships have two options to comply with this rule:
1. Dealers can provide a Risk-Based Pricing Notice only to consumers who apply for
financing, and based on their credit report the financing rate is less favorable
than the financing rate of a substantial proportion of the dealer's customers
2. Dealers can provide an exception notice to every consumer credit applicant,
eliminating the need to determine which applicants must be provided with the
Risk-Based Pricing Notice.
All of the regulations are choking small business. I cannot afford to hire any more
employees and yet so much of my current employee's time is spent making sure we are
complying. J don't mind the workplace safety regs but the consumer regs have gone way
too far. When is the government going to stop thinking for the American people? It's
time the people start thinking for themselves, being responsible for themselves and not
relying on someone to do it for them.
It's time we put God back in schools and let those that don't believe be offended rather
than offending those that DO believe!
USA needs to produce our own oil, build refineries, all other types of energy (eg, Nuclear)
All 'regulations should be helping it, not making them more difficult!!
This is the priority #1!!!
Cheap reliable energy is the foundation of the economy, then the industry will need more educated
employees, the servise industries will follow,
Then unemployment compensation should not be so long, it gives people incentive to take the job,
Cap and trade, global warming etc, - this is not for the Federal govemment to regulate,
With the less government the technology will emerge to deal with them.
No money for foreign help - we do not have it!
Bring our troops from other countries !
Could be more ideas, but I think other people will write you too.
Thanks,
Yakov Pogorelis
We would be interested in sharing ideas, comments and concerns about the direction government is
taking, or not taking as the case really is, concerning industry and business development.
The idea that cities or states can take some form of bankruptcy to avoid their debts in complete
insanity! Yet, it does play into my thoughts about how the U. S. and the world can extinguish all debts,
which is through a total re-valuation of our currency.
When one starts to eliminate debt, for elimination purposes, one must somehow make the holders of
the debt instruments whole!!!
Keep in touch.
Terry Lotz
January 22,2011
Robert Wright
TPG, Incorporated (The Paradigm Group)
2828 Montecito Drive
Fallbrook, CA 92028
Robert.charles.wright@gmail.com
76-451-1525
Listening to Americas Job Creators:
I have spent the past twenty-five years designing, building and implementing
multientity financial and clinical systems. I spent the last ten years as an executive
consultant at Kaiser Permanente in Southern California implementing the Electronic
Healthcare System.
In healthcare, Washington controls the workflow of patient care. Unlike an

industrial environment, every product is a unique process. You can build models,
but each patient within that model takes a unique path through the process.
Regulation assumes the process fits into some model that results in definitive cost
buckets and or patient safety best practice.
Three things I have learned in nearly fifty years in healthcare are:
• The physician is the most important person in the workflow:

o His or her available time dictates access
o His or her personality and competence dictates the quality of the
experience and the patients path through the system
o His or her participation in management and change is critical to a
successful experience.
• Healthcare is a risk adverse environment that often sets aside best practice
for politically correct behavior or modified workfiow to comply with
government regulation.
• Unions are the greatest impediment to cost effective workflow. They often
support new technology and then obstruct the implementation by refusing to
accept changes in workflow that enables the technology to be cost effective.
The government assumes it can be effective by imposing top down process change
legislation. This is no different than an executive dictating workflow changes to a
complex manufacturing process without having buy inform all the business owners
within the process.
The Individual Patient is the most important component in the flow of the business
at anyone moment, but the physician is the one indispensable component. Without
the physicians dedication to his or her craft and the extensive education there would
not be a successful and sustainable healthcare experience.
January 22, 2011
Congressman Darrelllssa
49 th District, California
I am pleased that you have reached out to small business owners like me to get a pulse on what is
happening with our businesses. I am hopeful that I will be heard and will receive genuine
comments regarding the issues about which I am writing.
My wife and I bought this sleepy little Mexican Restaurant in February of2007. A little different
considering' we are both white Anglo Catholics. But our success tells us the community has
accepted this element of our restaurant. .
There are two major issues that have severely affected our success and bottom line over all.
1. The regulatory nature of and the bombardment of the EDD requirement is a waste of our
time ... most of the time. My wife handles this part of our business and is forced to act as a
part time EDD employee working about 10 hours per week on issues relating to child
support; alimony; credit issues; termination complaints and the like. I understand these
things happen to protect employees, but no measures are in place to protect employers
from bad employees.
2. ADA Lawsuits are going to kill this country if we do not change legislation soon. My
wife and I were served with a lawsuit that contends that we discriminate against the
handicap. This is ludicrous. The partitions in our bathrooms are 3 inches short of
compliance and the ADA says we have to remover them. This would make it necessary
that only one person enter the bathroom at one time instead of 3-4. With 8000 customers
each month, this would put my business at risk. Additionally, ADA requires that I spend
thousands of dollars to make our concrete ramps for wheel chair access at 8.3 degrees
instead of 12 degrees. Again, a ridiculous requirement. We had to pay offer/pay $6000.00
to make this lawsuit go away. And by the way, the plaintiff's attorney has 22 lawsuits
going on in California right now.
There are many government regulations that would absolutely kill you if you want to stay in
business here in California as well as the US. We are not as "business friendly" as I would like to
think.
I hope this gives you some good feedback.
Thank you for your interest.
Craig Puma
CNC Puma Corporation
Dba: The Barue of Mexican Food
CHINA
The biggest challenge facing US Domestic manufacturers is China. They do not have the
labor and environmental requirements that we have to deal with and pay for. The Chinese
currency is not aligned with worldwide markets. In water sports and surfboards there are
no import duties on Asian made products. Our areas of un-fair competition are China,
Thailand, and Viet Nam. .
I cannot sell my US made surfboards or Stand Up Paddleboards in Australia. The

Australian Government protects it's working people from foreign imports. Australian
companies can and do sell their products here.
A Governments main role should be to protect the borders and the people, The United
States Federal Government has turned it's back on the people of America. We are
spending billions of dollars fighting an overseas war while illegal aliens pour in from
Mexico and over 30 million Americans are without work.
We need to place heavy duties on China imports until China improves labor and
environmental standards and re-alignsit currency. This will create a flood of private
investment into the manufacturing sector. Not only would manufacturing jobs return to
the US, but raw materials, shipping, and construction will all explode as well. The cost of
consumer goods will go up sharply on some items, but the long-term boom to the
economy will offset the short-term retail slump.
Block China. Balance the Budget. We need to put America back on the path to greatness!
Byron Olson
Production Manager
King's Paddlesports
760994-7270
byrondesign@yahoo.com
JANUARY 24, 2011
EternaTlle Inc.
111 Brln!d Ave.
Suite ccD4
Pompano Beach.
FL 33144
41c-4D3-411D
To WHOM IT MAY CONCERN,
My PURPOSE IN WRITING THiS RESPONSE IN TO SHARE MY EXPERIENCE WITH YOU REGARDING THE LAUNCH
OF A NEW SPIN-OFF COMPANY, BASED ON A PRODUCT WE DEVELOPED FOR OUR INDUSTRY.
OUR COMPANY, ETERNATILE INC, IS ENTERING THE MANUFACTURING SECTOR WITH A PRODUCT WHICH
SHOULD LITERALLY CHANGE THE VALUE OF SOLAR WITH RESPECT TO REQUIRING SUBSIDIES, As YOU ARE
UNDOUBTEDLY AWARE, OUR GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN FUNDING "GREEN INITIATIVES" AS A WAY TO CUT
ENERGY DEPENDENCE AND CREATE HIGH TECH .JOBS.
You ARE ALSO PROBABLY AWARE THAT THESE PRO.JECTS COULD NOT BE VIABLE WERE IT NOT FOR THESE
SUBsiDIES. THAT BEING THE CASE, WE TooK A DIFFERENT APPROACH AND HAVE ACTUALLY DEVELOPED A
SYSTEM WHICH IS ACTUALLY CHEAPER THAN THE GRID NOW, CAN PUT MILLIONS TO WORK, AND LOCK IN
LONG TERM LOW COST ELECTRiCiTY PRICES FOR BUSINESSES AND CONSUMERS,
WITH A "GREEN PRODUCT" THAT DOES THAT, AND BY THE WAY MUCH MORE, I HAVE OBVIOUSLY BEEN
AWARDED ONE OF THOSE GIANT SUBSIDIES AND AM ROLLING OUR PRODUCT OUT ACROSS THE LANDS TQ THE
BENEFIT OF MY FELLOW CITIZENS, MY COUNTRY, AND MY COWORKERS,
I AM SORRY TO SAY NOT ONLY IS THAT NOT THE CASE, WE HAVE HAD ZERO INTEREST OR HELP FROM
ANYONE BEYOND THE EARLIEST CONTACTS, THE CALL BACK NEVER CoMES,
REGARDLESS, WE ARE NOW IN THE LATE STAGES OF ACQUIRING "PRIVATE FINANCING" AND HAVE RECEIVED
AN Lal FROM A FUNDING SOURCE,
AT THiS POINT, MY ONLY INTEREST IN WRITING TO YOU IS TWOFOLD, FIRST, JUST TO LET YOU KNOW THAT
OUR AGENCIES ARE LESS CONCERNED ABOUT THE VALUE THE FUNDS WILL RETURN AND MORE WITH WHO
GETS IT, AND SECOND, I WOULD MUCH PREFER THE REPUBLICAN PARTY TO GET OUT IN FRONT ON THiS
INSTEAD OF LETTING THE DEMS GAIN BY ASSOCIATION, THESE SUBSiDIES FOR GREEN ENERGY COULD AND
SHOULD END TOMORROW,
THE FOLLOWING IS AN OVERVIEW OF THE COST BREAKDOWN TO SUPPORT MY CLAIM REGARDING HALVING
THE COST OF OWNERSHIP WITH RESPECT TO ENERGY AND BUILDING COSTS,
UANUARY 24, 2011
EtE!rnaTile Inc.
III Briny AVE!.
SUitE! 2204
Pompano Beach.
FL 33144
412-403-4110
ETERNATILE PPA OPPORTUNrrlES
THE PPA AND SOLAR MARKET WILL COLLAPSE WITHOUT SUBSIDIES, UNTIL NOW,
THE TRADITioNAL PPA MODEL WORKS ON A VERY SLIM "FIXED" MARGIN. ETERNATILE DOUBLES THE LONG
TERM MARGIN AND NOW SOLAR IS NOT ONLY ON PAR WITH CURRENT ELECTRiCiTY PRiCES, IT HALVES THE
LONG TERM COST OF OWNERSHIP AND CREATES NEW MODELS FOR PPA, UTILITY J AND MORTGAGE BASED
FINANCiNG. IN SHORT, AN INVESTMENT IN AN ETERNATILE SOLAR ROOF SYSTEM FAR AND AWAY BEATS THE
GRID TODAY, EVEN WITHOUT SUBSIDIES,
Typical Solar Panels EternaTile Building Non-Solar
*30 Year replacement calculated at today's dollars; Includes electrical cost and current 30% rebate.
*'" Cost calculated at a steady $200 per month electric cost.
GOVERNMENTS, INSTITUTIONS, AND COMPANIES WHICH CAN SELF FINANCE OR ACQUIRE PRIVATE FINANCING
MAY ELECT TO PAY FOR AND OWN THEIR OWN SYSTEMS AS THEIR CASH MANAGEMENT POSITION AND
OBJECTIVES DICTATE, THESE SCENARIOS YIELD THE HIGHEST RATES OF RETURN ON INVESTMENT, LITERALLY
HALVING THE COST OF' LONG TERM ELECTRiCAL EXPENSES,
IMAGINE WHAT THE ABILITY TO SELL THE LOCKED IN SAVINGS COULD DO FOR TEMPORARY BUDGET
SHORTFALLS. EVEN HEDGING THE SALE AND RETAINING HALF OF ALL FUTURE ENERGY SAVINGS CAN YIELD
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN THE NEAR TERM, PROVIDE IMMEDIATE EMPLOYMENT, LOWER THE COST OF ENERGY
INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS, AND STILL LOCK IN LONG TERM SAVINGS FOR THE TAXPAYERS OR
SHAREHOLDERS,
uANUAPY 24, 2011
EternaTiJe Inc.
111 Briny AVE.
SuitE 2204
Pompano BeBch.
FL 33144
412-403-4110
ONE MODEL WOULD BE TO INTEGRATE THE PPA AND MORTGAGE "INTO A SINGLE DOCUMENT, WITH A
RENEWABLE LEASE OR PURCHASE OPTION OF THE ROOF SYSTEM AT THE END OF THE TERM. THE SYSTEM
OWNER SHOULD NEED TO ONLY REPLACE lOUT OF 3 OR 4 POWER CONTROL UNITS OF THE TOTAL
NUMBER OF TILES TO REPLENISH THE CAPACITY OF THE OLD SYSTEM, BECAUSE THERE'S NO NEED TO
REMOVE AND DISPOSE of THE ROOF OR ANY PANELS, THE SAVINGS ARE LITERALLY ENORMOUS, CREATING A
BETTER LONG TERM VALUE FOR THE LENDER/PPA AGENT AND THE BUILDING OWNER/ELECTRICITY USER.
THE PPA AGENT CAN "SELL" THEIR INTEREST IN THE ROOF SYSTEM OR PAY A PROCESSING FEE TO THE
MORTGAGE LENDER FOR COLLECTioN IN WHiCHEVER METHODS THE INTERESTED pARTIES MAY WISH.
ANOTHER MODEL IS TO HAVE SEPARATE MORTGAGE AND PPA AGREEMENTS. THIS SCENARiO IS MOST LIKELY
IN RETROFIT PROJECTS OF EXISTING BUILDINGS. A LONG TERM TRANSFERABLE PPA CAN BE DEVELOPED TO
SECURE THE INTERESTS IN THE ROOF SYSTEM AND POWER OUTPUT, AS WELL AS INCLUDE A
REPLACEMENT/UPGRADE PLAN, A SALE OF PROPERTY AND AN ABANDONMENT CLAUSE SHOULD BE
INCORPORATED SO THAT THE PPA OR MORTGAGE LENDER MAY CONTINUE TO RECOVER REVENUE FROM THE
SYSTEM VIA SELLING THE POWER GENERATED TO THE UTILITY DURING ANY TRANSiTIONAL PERIODS BETWEEN
OCCUPANCIES AS MAY OCCUR IN THE LIFETIME OF THE BUILDING,
ANOTHER MODEL WOULD BE TO LONG TERM LEASE THE ROOF SPACE AND RESELL ALL POWER TO A UTILITY
CoMPANY,
. ANOTHER MODEL WOULD BE TO LONG TERM LEASE THE ROOF AND CREATE A PPA FOR THE POWER FOR A
SPECIFIED PERIOD WITH AN OPTION TO EXTEND POWER PURCHASING OR LET THE POWER GENERATED BE
SOLD TO A UTILITY COMPANY, A LEASE BUYO.UT OPTION IS RECOMMENDED AND sHOULD BE CLEARLY
DEFINED IN THE INITIAL PPA.
POWER COMPANIES MAY WiSH TO EXPAND OFFERINGS TO INCLUDE VARiOUS PPA FINANCE MODELS FOR
THEIR CUSTOMERS AND WOULD BENEFIT FROM LOWER TRANSMISSION COSTS AND POWER LOSS.
As MORE MODELS DEVELOP AND SOLAR CELL EFFiCIENCiES INCREASE, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE ETERNATILE
SOLAR PLATFORM IS THE NEXT STANDARD IN BUILDING,
THE BEST INVESTMENT IS A SAFE, LONG TERM INVESTMENT, AND PREFERABLY HELPS GAIN ADVANTAGE IN
YOUR ENTERPRISE, AN INVESTMENT IN AN ETERNATILE SoLAR ROOF SYSTEM MEETS THESE OBJECTIVES AS
WELL AS CONTRIBUTES TO THE BETTERMENT OF OUR SOCIETY.
FIND OUT HOW AN INVESTMENT IN ETERNATILE CAN CREATE A POWERFUL RIPPLE IN YOUR COMMUNITY.
CALL DAVE HANSEN AT 4 I 2~403~41 10 FOR MORE DETAILS.

Is Government holding our business back? Yes.
Over the past two years cuts in government spending has cost 400,000 public sector jobs. Less
jobs means less business for us.
Unemployment insurance has lapsed for many who have no other options and failure to help
out the most needy, such as the 99ners, has cost us business
Since 2000, per pupil spending has increased at a rate lower than inflation leaving our local
schools to do more with less. This leaves us with a less educated work for to choose from.
Constant talk of repealing the health care reform bill has moral low as many of our employees
are already seeing the benefits of this legislation
Tax breaks for the super rich mean less money for the Infrastructure repair we so desperately
need here in Michigan. This leads to higher maintenance costs for our transportation
department.
Negative press over the government loans secured by GM and Chrysler has hurt their ability to
regain market share. True patriots should support our greatest American industry and
accentuate the positive of government and the private sector working together.
Gambling by Big Banks due to lessened regulations has cost many of our employees tens of
thousands of dollars invalue on their homes. This puts a strain on an already fragile workforce.
Constant attacks by Congressmen on the effectiveness of the US government have many of our
customers afraid to spend their money. These attacks lower confidence of our customers as
they are concerned the government is too splintered to function or too broken to fix the real
problems.
Fears of a government shut down due tothe failure to raise the debt ceiling over purely political
reasons have many of our customers taking a wait and see attitude.
Failure to address climate change legislation has some of our customers concerned over how
the changes In the climate will affect this business in the future. This leads to lower consumer
confidence
Many of our non-white and non-Christian employees and customers are concerned about the
intense rhetoric and violence against people like them. They are pulling back from society and
becoming segregated which only increases the problem while decreasing their involvement in
activist where they would typically spend their discretionary earnings.
We are finding that the current tax system has not fostered any growth of our business relative
to the previous tax system of the 1990's other than we are provided with a reduced level of
public service.
Allowing large business to avoid taxes by setting up overseas and giving tax breaks to companies
that send jobs overseas. This puts a higher burden on our company to make. up for the lost
government revenue that funds our valuable public services that we desire.
Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns over how government is holding back my business.
Please feel free to contact me at any time if you have any other questions I can heip the govern·ment
address.
Regards,
Dale Hansen
Tax rates are out of control. While I have taken $60,000.00 and turned it into a $6,000,000.00 company,
my government has'taken all the tax money that I have provide to it, and is deeper in debt. It is obvious
that I am better at managing the money I earn than the U.S. government. Taxes stifle the growth of the
company by taking away capital that would 'otherwise be used to reinvest in the company and hire
employees for growth purposes. it's really that simple.
Fax to: Speaker Boehner and Staff (202) 225-5117 (4 pages total)
PLEASE assist and save OH jobs and a Service Disabled Small Business
·Almost 30 Small Business Jobs in OH will be lost if you are uoable to help:Jan 23. llftime critical)
Dear Honorable Congressman John Boehner and Staff: Withoul your help OH and other
Slaies unemployment will increase/cilizens will suffer, tax revenue will decrease and a Service Disabled
Veteran Owned Small Business (Patriot Solutions, Inc) may have 10 shut down. We respectfully ask that
you please investigate and request contract be extended while under investigation prior to February, i h
of2011; any acrlon after thar time might be considered untimely by DFA8.
Subjeet: Federalization ofDFAS ratriot eontraet # H00423·10-D-OOOI
1. 27 citizens ofOH that work for a Small Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business are
scheduled to be laid off on the 28 th of Feb 2010 due to an unadvisable decision made to federlilize a not
inherently governmental function at the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (OFAS) in Colwnbus,
OR. We believe the notice (attached) and decision to federalize these positions is potentially in
violation of numerous federal laws, directives, policies, guidance and executive/presidential orders.
Patriot has received all excellent/exceptional ratings and maintained a 99.99% accuracy rating while
performing the contract reconciliation functions for DFAS -CO over the past 5+ years. We assisted in
decreasing the DFAS - - Government error rate from over 50% to under 1%. Also, Patriot's contract
reconciliation work/results covered the Patriot contract cost in full over the first five year period and also
added over $27 Million to DoD's Aceounts Receivable through demand letters. This contract
(H00423·10-D-OOOll paid for itself and made money fot the government.
2. We respectfully request that you and your staff please investigate this matter and have the
federalization decision reversed at your earliest convenience. A contract extension by DFAS during the
investigation period should be required. I believe all or some of the following Federal Laws.
regulations, directives, guidance, policies and presidential/executive orders may potentially be violgted
in making/implementing the subject federalization decision:
a) Apparently the two Federal guidelines on federalization of contract/private sector jobs were not
considered: 1.This work/project is not ulnherently Governmental'~ and has been perfonned by contract
employees since its inception. 2. Contractor performance is not in question or substandard. All of the
Patriot team's perfonnance ratings were excellent/exceptional with all positive comments
recommending Patriot for further work. Patriot consistently maintains a 99,99% accuracy rating and has
made only 3 material errors over the past almost 6 years. Patriot has received zero negative comments
to date from any of its clients.
b) Presidential! Executive Order 13360 (Providing Opportunities for Service Disabled Veteran
Businesses), 15g of use 644 (g) as well as 36 of 15 use 657fand others may be violated by the
implementation of this decision. The DoD standard of3% SDVOSB competitive/for bid contracts
appears to have always been and is below 2%. Implementation of this federalization decision will drop
that percentage even lower. Also, it could violate the DoD previously published, submitted, reviewed
and approved annual plan to achieve the 3% standard submitted to other federal agencies as directed by
Executive Order. This DoD plan is developed, submitted then ratcd and approved by an external federal
agency.
1013
c) Implementation of this federalization decision also risks violation of federal guidelineslFAR directing
timely closeout of government contracts. Reconciliation is a critical part of any valid contract closeout.
d) When Patriot leadership asked about II transition plan that might include its team in whole or part no
conclusive answer was provided. Evidently there have been no job announcements and there is no
t.ra.risition or continuity plan. Training for the lowest levelnllghly supervised position takes well over 30
days to complete, not including OJT. There is no Patriot training work authorized by the current
contract for other than Patriot personnel. The work also requires a government background
investigation that could take in excesS of30 days.
3) Our current contract Dumber for the DFAS reconciliation work is: HQ0423~10-D~OOOl. Please
confinn receipt of this assistancc request at your earliest convenience. Your assistance in this matter is
greatly appreciated. The contact information for DFA~ and other agencies we know of are below.
4) Please don't hesitate to contact me directly at (757) 564-1510 or admin@patriotsolutions us. I put
my all into making Patriot successful after being medically discharged shortly after returning from
Afghanistan with 15 years of Ilctive duty service; now I'm putting my all into keeping this small
business alive and our dedicated teams employed.
/L-c-7/Z----r Z;~ II
Marc C. Frandsen, CDFM
President and Founder
Patriot Solutions, Inc
"A Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business"
(Contact Information for some DFAS and other Government Contract Agencies)
• DFAS Congressional Liaison om.e: (703) 607-3783; fax'(703) 607-2130

• DFAS Contracting Omcer (Normand Gomolak, Jr.): (614) 693-1338; fax (614) 693-5674
• SBA Government Contracting Director (John Kline): (202) 205-6460; fax (202) 205-7324
• Deren.e Contract Management Agency (DCMA): Director Mark Olson (224) 625-8920
• 000 Small Bu.ine•• Dire.tor (Linda B. Oliver): (703) 604-0157; fax (703)604-0025
• President'. Small Bu.ine•• Director (Althea A. Kirem.): (202) 395-7669; fax (202) 395-3982
• DFAS Director (Overall)- Tere'a MeKay: (uoable to obtain contact inronnation)
• DFAS Director (Columbus)w Jonathan Witter: (unable to obtain contact information)
201-3
DEFENSE FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING SERVICE
DFAS Columbus
Contract 5erv1C811 Directorate (eSO)
Bldg. 21{8218
•
39&0 Ea_t Broad Stntet
Columbus, Ohio 43213·1UI2
DFAS·COICSD·HCMCOC January 10,2011
TO: Mr. Marc C. Frandsen, President

Patriot Solutions, Inc.
146 Penniman Rd.
Williamsburg. VA 23185-4536
SUBJECT: HQ0423-1 O~D~OOOl, Option Exercise (Contract Reconciliation Services)
Dear Mr. Frandsen:
I am writing to notify you that DFAS does not intend to exercise the contract option for the
subject con1rB.ct for the period ofperfonnance of March 1,2011 through February 29, 2012.
Thus, at the conclusion of tile current pe"riod of perfonnancc. which ends February 28, 2011, the
contract will be considered complete. .
Please address any questions regllrding this action to me at (614) 693~ 1338 or email:
Normand Gornolak@dfas,miJ.
~..o,b.,.....V.9
Nonnand G. Gomolak., Jr.
Contracting Officer
DFAS Contract Servlce.s Directorate
It's a very bad situation this building industry is in. We have many homes in foreclosure with many others
getting ready to enter, including homes with reverse mortgages.
I'm in my 35 th year in the constructionlbuilding industry and have weathered the ups and downs many
times. This time is not a good one. We are seeing home builders losing their company's, sub~contractors
losing theirs, and other members of the building industry suffering too. Many are ready to hang it up.
I don't see any incentive any more for purchasing a home. Why wouldn't Fannie Mae work with my
neighbor who wanted to adjust their mortgage down to $300,000? They wouldn't so my neighbors walked
away from their home. Now it's on the market, has been for about 10 months now and cannot sell for
$234,000!
For my industry to get better, this HUGE inventory of foreclosed homes will have to decrease. Get people
in them, allow them to fix the homes, buy materials and shop the nurseries and home improvement stores.
The whole economy gets better, just by addressing one element; the biggest and most out of control
component Fannie Mae.
I cannot do anything but try to market better, find that one avenue that perhaps leads to an open door and
give the best service I possibly can. Luck is another.
I have to spend money on better ways to expose my company, advertise and increase it's exposure. There
sure isn't much return for my investment. There are many Americans who are in this business who I know
that are hard working, knowledgeable and make great employees. There are many others who are working
in this industry who don't know much about it. Yet they're paid cheap, get taken adv'antage of and do
terrible work.
When I entered this field in 1976, I was an apprentice in the Carpenters union. It was a proud industry, with
proud members. We went to school one night a week for 4 years to become a journeyman carpenter. Now
it's gone. They come from Mexico to do one specific job and don't understand any other. And people hire
them. I have been involved with many Construction Defect cases and see the terrible work many bnilders
have pnt onto It's pathetic and what's even more disturbing is they tried to get away with it.
I've been lnckier then many and as I said earlier, I have been able to get throngh many tough times. The
government cannot help me other than give me a small loan or some kind of tax break bnt still, that won't
help if I can't get any clients 01' cnstomers. Who wants to take that chance? What's a tax break going to do
if! have no income to tax?
The reason to me is Fannie Mae and the housing dilemma is the result of this problem. I u'uly believe that
Fannie Mae at many levels is incompetent, corrnpt and has no idea what they need and should be doing.
Corruption feeds itself with more corruption and aligns itself with those who too are corrupt, Every
company dealing with this problem including the Congressman and Senators who claim there is no
problem, are either hiding something, don't know what they're doing either or in "bed" with Fannie Mae.
When this big old blob qnits sucking the oxygen out of the honsing market, things will probably get better
for me and others like me. I cannot turn this market aronnd I can only help it when it's got some legs and
things start to look brighter. I'm 56 years old and have never been so disgusted with what is going on in
this industry I've been a part of. One I've enjoyed and really wanted to succeed in, It hurts.
We are crushed by the current economy; our business has flat-lined. We used to employ three and now it is only my
husband and I trying to keep our business afloat.
Our business was wholesale and retail, the bulk was wholesale to other stores and holistic practitioners; we import
items from Australia and Switzerland, as well as from other countries.
The regulations after 9-11 really made it quite difficult to do business with our smaller trade partners, especially in
India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and other countries that we are now at war with and they are on the terrorist watch list.
We would source out and find exquisite essential oils, jewelry, crystals, and minerals from all around the globe and
bring them back into the US, needless to say that is not as easy as it was prior to 9-11 or as safe as it was for us to
travel. We still have our contacts worldwide and they are able to get some of their products into the US but the
prices are very high as you can imagine.
Our products would be considered discretionary so as the economy has suffered and businesses have closed, we
have lost hundreds of accounts. Currently we took our website down, as we are waiting to see what is in store for
the new'taxes that we keep hearing tossed about. Even though We are based out of NH which is tax-free we are
loathing the thought of haVing to collect taxes for shipping out to other states, that would be hideous and the $600
fee involved in the healthcare bill if that is not repealed we don't know if it is even worth staying in business any
more.
It was difficult for us to let go of our employees, they worked for us part-time and full-time for many years. My
husband actually went to work for Lowes so we keep folks on while they found work and we paid them and almost
lost our own home during these past few years.
We consider ourselves lucky that he is worl(ing full-time and we can now pay our mortgage maybe not on time but at
least within 30 days and have faith that if the laws do not become too restrictive we can rebuild and re-brand
ourselves. Phoenix rising but no one will be able to do this if spending in Federal and State governments is not
reigned in! Folks cannot be taxed into giving up their businesses and walking away. All the stores that we sold to
employed folks and all the smaller holistic centers hadoffice help, massage therapists, acupuncturists, etc working
and now they are either collecting unemployment or trying to cobble together a living by working multiple jobs. How
many of these folks are not counted in the 9.8% unemployment ranks?
I am sure there are many folks like my husband and lout there that are in a holding pattern, sitting on inventory
waiting to see when the next shoe will drop from DC and then make the final decision to shutter the business. Right
now, we still buy from some of our wholesalers and are making the decision whether or not to go to the huge gem
and mineral show that starts next week and runs through mid February out in Tucson. But it will hinge on the
email/mailer we sent out that questioned folks about what their needs would be in the upcoming year and what they
might be looking; and would they be starting to spend a bit more in their stores on x, y or z items. Depending on
what we get back on this survey, we will book our airfare, call friends and let them know we will be coming in to stay
for a few days to shop and visit and then fly home or we will be staying here in snowy NH contemplating our next
move.
Love what you are doing and hope it makes a difference. Kudos!
Sincerely,
Judy Gallauresi
Our company Bechtel Property Services, Inc. has been in business for 22-years. We maintain shopping
center in the Southern California area. The complaint I have is that as a small business owner, we are on
our own without help from the state of California or the Federal government. All they want is money.
Ok that's my complaint. What I would like to see is that the government would give larger companies 10
employee plus companies a tax break to hire smaller companies like ours. Also the SBA is not working
for the small businesses. We are just trying to make a living. The small business needs to be qualified by
the government. Let's face it there is small business out there that should not be in business, because
theY,don't play by the rules that a good small business needs to do. The Government should help to
promote by marketing. Once that small business becomes a larger company it will help the small
business. It's a domino effect. Give the small business promotions as for example. Our company could
help shopping centers be more green. I looked into having us become an Inspector. This cost to take this
class is $3,000.00, Too much. I know I am being very broad. I could give more detail if I had a chance to
talk to someone.
Hunter 3d Inc. is a small business started up by my husband, Dan Huston, and I in April
of 1994. We are both licensed geophysicist and consult for several companies located
here in the Houston, Texas area. We have seen our business income drop by almost 50%
in the past four months. What is killing our business is the Dept oflnterior's slow action
in evaluating drilling permits, seismic acquisition permits and just about anything to do
with the oil and gas companies from offshore Gulf of Mexico to Alaska. Since the larger
oil and gas companies are basically at a "stand-still" regarding domestic drilling, my
company, whom is subcontracted by Shell, BP, etc has seen our workflow drop
drastically. I know several contractors who have no work at all and since we are all self
employed, have no way to collect unemployment insurance. Our business is hurting and
we are in a panic trying to sell anything we can to try and pay our bills. Please help our
industry!
Sincerely,
Holly Hunter Huston
President
Hunter 3-D Inc.
5up.rS",,,~.~. (!~.
lillm 1'1'/7
455 E. CARMEL ST.

SAN MARCOS, CA 92078
PH: 760-752-3030
FAX: 760-752-3040
www.soundproofing.org
Email: support@soundproofing.org
January 24, 2011
I am just aghast at the new ocean wave of regulations

coming from the Federal Government and the State of
California, in addition to the thousands already in
place.
How am I to find the time to become proficient enough

to negociate the pitfalls and roadblocks they entail,
some with criminal penalties, without a mistake???
This uncertainty already has an impact on my

business as I am actually considering downsizing the
business to a more manageable size, with less
employees and associated risk of regulation
violations.
William Nash
Owner
To: Darrellissa, Listening to America's Job Creators
From: David Bengtson, Lighthouse Construction of North Carolina
Re: How Washington has hurt our business
Date: January 24, 2011
About us:
Lighthouse Construction of North Carolina is an award-winning remodeling contractor servicing

Charlotte and the surrounding communities. At Lighthouse, we're different because we listen.
Really! We pay close attention to your needs, the home environment you want to create, and
the way you want to live. The end result is a finished project that is exactly what you had
envisioned.
http://www.lighthousenc.com
1. Housing Bubble
The government created the entire housing crisis. As a result of the government's intrusion,
home values have declined more than 20% in our area and are still declining. Most of my
customers have used home equity to fund their projects. This equity has disappeared, and as a
result, the customers have disappeared with it. Because of the government's intrusion, we went
from 11-12 employees, to 1 employee.
2008 was one of the best years we had in our industry, until the housing bubble burst. In
September, things slowed down, and in November, our business stopped. We had 3 jobs in all
of 2009.
2. Lead paint rules
The Obama EPA has issued new regulations of lead paint, requiring special testing and
procedures for homes built more than 25 years ago. If lead is found, it must be removed. These
rules apply to interior work if more than 6 sq ft, and to exterior work if more than 20 sq ft on the
exterior are disturbed (basically all work).
We are a lead-certified company and have followed the rules for years, as have my peers.
However, because of the particulars of our liability insurance, our company will now not remove
components. containing lead. Rather, we will hire an abatement company, at significant cost, to
remove any lead-containing components. Many of my competitors, who are unaware of the new
lead requirements, will continue to operate as they have been and remove lead components
themselves. Consumers do not know about the new lead regulations, and will not understand
why my costs must now be higher than my competitors. This effectively eliminates pre-1978
houses from my market.
Basically, lead removal has been working fine for years, but the EPA decided to make the
regulations even more stringent. If you do not follow the procedures, you can be fined up to
$32,500 per violation, pius jail time, and if it's a willful violation, then the fine can be up to
$65,000. There are other fees to be paid to be certified and in compliance - that's another story,
but one which hurts my business even further.
3. Health Care
(Provision that requires 1099 for any purchase over $600)
I now have to get W-9 forms for everyone, including Staples, Home Depot, Lowe's, and all the
counties where I work. I spend more than $600 on permit fees from counties. Have you ever
tried to get a 1099 from a county office?
I've already spent more than 4 hours chasing 1099s so far this year, and we're only 3 weeks
into the month. It will be a whole work day they will have taken away from me per month.
4. Light bulbs
Have you read the EPA guidelines on how to clean up after dropping a CFL? My clients hate
them, and they cost more. These bulbs are much more harmful than incandescent. I have to
purchase, handle and install them as my clients expect light bulbs in the fixtures we install.
5. Social Security
As a self-employed person, I pay both parts: the employee's contribution and the employer
contribution. Let me keep the employer portion and contribute it to a Roth-type savings account.
I will not receive anything from Social Security, as it will be bankrupt by the time I retire. Not only
am I penalized twice as much as the normal person, but I have to save for my own retirement. I
should be able to keep that money which I have to contribute as an employer. It's double
taxation, because I have to pay twice what someone working for a company has to pay. Let me
keep that and save it.
Being able to keep that extra 6.2% would be a big incentive to people starting companies, and
would generate extra revenue, as company owners would be more likely to take income as
salary than as dividends.
6. Energy costs
I drive 100+ miles a days on average, and I have to drive an SUV or truck for my work. (A smart
car won't haul lumber.) Gas is now over $3.00 a gallon, increasing my overhead significantly.
Drill at home and build nuclear power plants, to lower fuel costs, employ more people and keep
this wealth in the United States. Americans will have more expendable dollars for major
purchases, including remodeling projects.
7. Housing tax credit and Energy credit
These credits did not "create" demand; they just pulled demand from the future. Housing sales
have slumped, as expected. The same thing will happen to the HVAC industry since the energy
tax credit just expired. HVAC companies replaced at least 5-7 years worth of heating/air
conditioning systems this year. Look for layoffs now from HVAC companies soon.
Summary
We business owners know what to do to create jobs. My company created wealth, and we
provided empioyment and health care. Lighthouse paid a premium salary and offered
outstanding benefits. We were known as one of the best employers in this field in this area. We
had to be to retain the best employees we could. Our customers demand this level of service.
In addition, we assisted our employees when they were sick or in need. For example, one of our
employees got cancer, and we kept him on salary and helped out his family after he passed
away. We started a scholarship fund for his children, for which donations eventually amounted
to over $200,000.
When we started having to layoff employees, my brother (and business partner) and I stopped
taking a salary so we could keep our employees on salary as long as possible. As a result,
when business got so bad that we were no longer bringing in any income, we were not eligible
for any unemployment compensation, because we had not drawn a salary for so long.
The media portrays business owners as "fat cats." We are not. We are hand to mouth, having
lived off of our savings and depleted that because the government has effectively put us out of
business, forcing us to use our "safety net.".l don't want the government to help me out; I just
don't want them to hurt us anymore than they already have. We need to get back to work; I
have a family to support.
My peers are in the same situations. Many deferred salaries to keep their employees on,
sacrificing personally to keep their companies alive and running. At this past fall's area home
show, I was the only remodeling contraCtor present. In the past, there would have been as many
as 20 companies represented there.
We would like to go back to employing people, providing benefits and a positive work
environment, as well as providing a service to people in this area. The government needs to get
out of the way so we can get to work.
Crippling Small Businesses
I am the first person in my family to start my own business. It started from the 4th bedroom in my house
after I had been let go and my wife was 9 months pregnant and we has just bought our house. I was 38
years oid. That was the first time I HAD TO file for unemployment and I was ashamed. It was a huge
motivational tool to, not only start my own business, but to make it successful quickly so I could get off
unemployment. My upbringing does not let me living off other people or the governments sit well in
my stomach. That is one thing this country needs to work on.
I believe government assistance should be there for people the truly need it, but the problem is we let
people live off these programs. Who pays for this I do twice be·cause I am a business owner and an
employee of my company. I have people come in to my office when I run a ad for a job and they haven't
worked in years. They didn't have to because the government was footing their bill. This is not a few
cases. I can honestly say out of 10 applications I get 2-4 have been living off the government for over a
year. Some have a reason, but at no time show we have 20- 40% of our work force out of work for over
a year. That is not why those programs where put into place.
Each profession is compensated in different ways. Our company is in the Commercial Collection
Industry. We help banks and business across the nation recover money that people promised to pay.
Not by strong armed tactics, not by yelling at them, not by doing the things wrong you read about in the
papers about collection firms. We negotiate, we listen, we counsel and we collect. What I am not able
to do is aliow my people to work the time they want to and they need to so they can make their full
potential of compensation. Since they are considered hourly employees and it would cost me more
than it would be worth to allow them, they can't work over time. So a willing person who I would give
the option to work if they wanted to or not cannot work to make the money they can and want to make.
I know the government does not set out to make sure I can't succeed, but they must take a better look
at their ways of making decisions. You make massive changes after talking to a few. This will never
work and has made it hard or impossible for small business to start or continue. Finding out today that
it costs about $8000 per employee for a small business to exisland more regulations and taxes are
coming so this will be gOing up is crazy.
Things need to be fixed and none of you want to be the first one to start it. You keep putting band aids
on severed artery. Start by hiring a few people to look at where all this $1.7S trillion dollars in expenses
are going to. Then cut out all the wasted spending. WE all know what that is and if you don't know then
please call me I will be more than happy to spend months on a list of things you have spent money on
and tell you what MUST be cut. ITS OBVIOUSI!
My wife and I have had our company now for 12 years and we love Southern California and our country.
I am a Cub Scout leader a Rotarian and we both like to volunteer. We are the type of people you never
hear from, we never complain, we don't protest, we vote; we raise our kids teaching them right and
wrong, and we should probably go to church more but we don't. When you tall< about voters we are in
the majority. We are part of the back bone of this country and we starting to realize that you are not
listening to us, you don't care about us, you send us or are kids to war, you tell us things during
campaign speeches you know you will never be able to do and then I know most of you go home or
somewhere and you look in the mirror and cry. You know what you are doing is wrong, but you just
thinking fighting between each other is what we want. No we want RESULTS that's why we sent you
there.
Actually, I am doing ok as a small business, keep the fees you are charging me in place, just use them for
things to help us. Set some asides to help new small businesses. Use it to help find a way to cut our
insurance costs, and when you're done I have a special place to spend the rest;
I know this will be a tuff road but we need to reel in our media. I am all about free speech and allowing
the papers to help police our society, but now they are gasoline of our family and international
problems.
Ask yourself if you're my age (48), "How many school shooting did you have when you were growing
up?" "How many mass killings were there when you were growing up?" What would the terrorists do if
no one knew what they were doing? If we never published anything about terrorist attacks why would
they continue to do them?
Just think how much extra money we would have if this war on terror was not advertised and ended.
Until today I had never wrote to my any elected official that I can remember and I probably should get
more involved. I really do appreciate what you do for us. Just want you to do it better.
Thanks
Mark Van Dinter
CEO
Van Dinter & Associates, Inc.

It is long overdue that the Govn't STOP hiring Co'.s and Agencies that are
UNIONIZED!! Unions have been obsolete since Labor Laws were
established. This notion that we need to have UNION WORKERS to get
things accomplished is and oxymoronic concept and has long outlived its
usefulness!
UNIONS ARE CORRUPT. Workers have become UNION BOSSES

slaves. The intimidation tactics and abuses are appalling. Unions should
be banned from GOVNM"T contracts!!
Govnm't employees SHOULD NOT be UNIONIZED!! This twisted concept

is destroying this countries work ethic, production, quality of product and
economy, with exorbitant salaries and benefit packages to boot!
Get Govm't OUT of BUSINESSES and out of RUNNING PRIVATE

BUSINESSES!
For this administration to take over any private businesses was

COMPLETELY ABSURD!
SOCIAL SECURTIY IS A MESS (&BROKE), POSTAL SERVICE IS A

MESS, (&BROKE), MEDICAID another mess - and Obummer thinks
'HE' can design and run a National Health system!! This man needs to get
a real job first! Make it be successful and then I will listen to 'Him' talk
reform, hope and change.
Once the above is accomplished BILLIONS will be saved OR JUST NOT

WASTED!! WHAT A CONCEPT!
Then, we can move on to the implementing of using our NATURAL

RESOURCES that have been denied the AMERICAN PEOPLE FOR
DECADES. OPEN the oil fields, DRILL BABY DRILL, INSTEAD of
paying billions to all these foreign DICTATORS and KINGS again, making
our citizens SLAVES to POLITICAL WHEELING AND DEALING.
Allowing our country to access our resources and stop the needless
outsourcing will reduce our debt and allow our country to grow and recover.
Get the politics out of our way. We the People, are feed-up with Govn't
JUST FLAYING POLITICS! Enough!!
Raise The FMLA Threshold to 100 employees.
A high-unemployment period is exactly the right time for Congress to revisit rules such as the 50-
employee FMLA limit. A labor econometrician could calculate quickly the number of jobs that would
be created if the limit were raised to 75, 100, or higher. It would also spark a healthy debate between
conservatives and liberals on the appropriate levels of workforce rules in a radically changed economy.
In a non rite to work state a Family shop or a shop with less than 25 employees should not have to
unionize or utilize union labor to perform or compete for Jobs of any sort especially Govemment Jobs.
Michigan, PA, NY for example are a nightmare for someone with a small shop or start-up shop to get a
foot in the door because of the union bullying.
lvI~to- UtI C/..t1.d(or Prcnpeawe-- InKLOVetitto11I
£~j'
For me, this year's Fourth of July was like no other I've ever experienced. During the long warm
holiday waekendl was a member of a team of rescuers working around the clock !Q.watch.Q.YQL
and care for nine nurse mare foals (baby horses) that were saved from euthanasia earlier In the
week. I'd like to share my experience with you and kindly ask for your assistance in turning my
Idea Into reality sooner"rather~than lateri ie. Having rescued foals playa therapeutic role for the
wellness of individuals challenged by numerous ailments.
The rescued foals range In age from 1 week to 3 weeks old and were taken from their mothers and
put in a pen and lett to starve. Wf:)QH •...·9 arrl'led-at the Siaug-hter Meuse, t!:u)Fe-ware 15 feals..... Due
to financial constraints. only 9 of the 15 abandoned foals were saved. We-.got,·t-hem baGlH.g-Bo1tGnr
MA-and-weflt ta 'Nark, Once the foals arrived at a stable in Bolton, MAl veterinarians assessed
their health. Three wera.in critical condition needing around the clock monitoring and intravenous
~ three were severeltdehydrated and had open wounds Including sun damage; and those 3
deemed to be the healthiest were severely malnourished and traumatized.
I cried all weekend and have decided to completely dedicate my time getting my Non~Profit
business, EPONA up and running so that I can at least help with the financial side of assisting
with the rescue. It's'clear to me that the biggest obstaclesfacing those involved with a rescue are
not where the foals are to be housed. not how and who will care for these foals. BUT where and
how will the funds be generated. Each foal cost $500. cash only. These rescue facilities do not
have the bandwidth or -tIme----te--€J(H)ut-a-n-d
Seek Corporate,Gr~nmvtdual'fundlng. My mission and vision of EPONA, LLC 1§..to be the resource
they come to for any type of financial need as it relates to the rescue and aftercare costs. There
are milliens of dollars in fedaral and local grants along with other monetary funding initiatives that
EPONA will apply for and manage. :r-lle--re6G-ua----faG-lUtl&sand coordinators wme-R-Iy-nood---ta work
with Epona's financial team on estimating the amount of rQscues they anticipate they will receive
calls on. Each rescue group will have access to funds mstaRtlyvia a debit card unique to their
organization. EPONA will take care of the justification once the foals are back safe and
sound. This alleviates the reactive panic these- groups experience whenever called upon since the
window to save the foals is onlv 48 hours.
Now that I am helping with the physical side of things, I clearly see how th-i&-Is-a-noverwhelmlng
ta&krbut"'60~rewarding a rescue can be. I went to the midnight feeding Saturday n~g-ht and
Jimmy, the foal that was only one week old when rescued and in the most critical condition, was
up and eating. He came right over tome, along with Velvet and Gilligan (the 2 other critical
foals). I was crouched down, my back turned putting food In a syringe and all 3 came up behind
me at the same moment, began to snort, blow and nuzzle my head and back. This is an inherent
action a horse does to show affection. I was JUNK.... DONEI I have been challenged; like many
Americans over the past few months affected by the economy and the plethora of emotions that
come with it. I have experienced some dark feelings that I have never been faced with. I've found
that when I'm challenged with these difficult emotions, I tend to dwell on the negative Instead of
focusing on the positive. This is a typical reaction of Humans due to the world we live in. We are
always preparing ourselves to fight through obstacles and protect ourselves from pain or
sadness. Negativity Is C,Q,ontagious and can fester and spread If allowed. Though natural," It's
detrimental to our mental wellbeing. The question I pose..•.How can we as a society of
professionals turn this around, if only on0--1· person. onG fescue at a time? How can we bottle It up
and prescribe It?
Since working on my EPONA Business Plan, I have spent 80% of my time doing research on
the Problem, and how I could turn it around to help people. I have personally felt emotions that,
even as a mother,l've NEVER experienced. It's crazy, but the positive emotions you receive
from these foals completely overwhelm you and nothing else in th.e world exists at that
moment. All of the negativity we receive outside of their world is forgotten and irrelevant. It's the
e..
recipe or prescription for success 't!()II~fi!~~" C?,fJ",~(~~.it:!~),.,
My mission of EPONA Is to eventually utilize the foals and train them In Equine Psychotherapy
philosophies, and provide them free of charge to anyone who needs therapy as it relates to
Mental, Physical, and Psychological disorders. I have created specification sheets on each of the
Topics within my plan and how they tie In together to deliver a true Innovative Healthcare Solution
that could be duplicated in ANY culture. It Is truly an idea that can be Global. The clinical studies
that have been instituted and documented for the past 20 years show an Autistic Patient
experienced a 20% increase In retention when utilizing Equine Assisted Therapy; versus a visit to
a Therapist in an office environment. These same philosophies can be applied In countless
scenarios and Industries including helping the handicapped to healing a soldier returning from
~.
If you look at the Federal Healthcare Budget, In relation to the Mental Health and Suicide
Prevention Budget, you will see that the total approved budget for 2010 is 3.5 BILLION. That has
an increase of 59 million over 2009. This is clearly shOWing signs that the Mental Wellbeing of the
US Population is teetering at Epidemic proportions. If these numbers were applied to a cost
saving model, that's a 13 Million dollar savings in Mental Health Alone. These same philosophies
can be applied In countless scenarios including rehabilitation for the Dept of Corrections.
With that said, I'm a technologlst..:..ldea gal, and have never launched a business. My original goal
was to do nothing but raise money for Nurse Mare Rescue Facilities. I have now created an
offering that Is utilizing organizations, who are subject matter experts, and who are already
operating as l!_eJ( ~i!~d. ~~f::t:H~,~~,·, ...I. ~l!I" ~,e.Y,e.!~P.!r:a,g. ~~~~~~JJ!~_ ~!I,I,~I1,<::~l;,t ,~I1.~ ~y,.~,!~,g" ~~,~~, ..,-"" '{~~~tte~: F?nt: Italic
together, you--havea complete Strategic Solution which will potentially reduce the cost of
Healthcare cost 'Nlt"'IR thls--depar-tmef1tby MILLIONSI All while making Individuals with physical
and mental challenges a little happier than they were before. If I can help those challenged by
aliments feel the way I ~t I felt during this Fourth of July weekend. I--fe.lt--las-t-nlght,·I-
Gan!t-lmagfR9 a bettel"--fee-tmg..-- perhaps some of their darkness. despair and sense of
hopelessness will dissipate.
The bottom line: (1) saving foals is the right thing to do; (2) Equine Therapy works. I'm
researching firms now that help launch innovative Ideas, but It's difficult to determine whose best
interest they have in mind. Does IHI or any other organization you are affiliated with do this? I
would also like to discuss with you, If you're Interested, being part EPONA at least as an Advisor,
I have discussedmmy Ideas with some highly educated individuals (who may be tempted to lock
me up and throwaway the key},-aooaftertheyread tHe:faGts I ha'le-as-sem-ble-G,the-y--Ft-Gw-have-
'*PFessed-an~me IflteFested iR-tIol9-Gompany:.- they have viewed my due diligence and have
agreed that your participation would be beneficial. Jeloweverj Please understand I want a select
number of individuals who bring a unique perspective and have experienced the good, the bad,
and the UGLY of US Healthcare. I wantffumanitarian souls with PitMbull bU~..il1ess senses as p,al1 .. ".-·~{F-;;;;;,tt;d;"'F~~t:I~'li;'-- """"~""-~
of my team. I will not compromise the Integ"rityormi;vislon:· ---------------.. . - ,.--------- .
Dl:PcJNA, tlc
PYOV~InN1.CVat'we-W~
veUv~QuaUtytf~
So, Lucky Youmanother really longmessag~ from Cindll I truly respect your opinion and value
your friendship. I'm thinking there was a reason that flight was cancelled in 'New Orleans. I have
never felt this kind of enthusiasm, passion, focus or clarity about anything. This js what I'm
supposed to do.
I would be happy to share the facts and details of EPONA, LLC if you are interested. I understand
that you are very busy, so any direction Is appreciatedI The pictures I've attached are from the
past 3 days. The last picture, which is a group photo, Is from our first rescue a few months
ago. As you can see, they are doing greatl .
-B-1W'j'"·How",are",you:7!·?· I wish you the best in your new endeavor and hope that DC treats you well.
Cindi
Dear Darrellissa,
#1. First off I believe all agencies of the federal government need to be
audited for government waste or for shutting down agencies that are not
really necessary.
#2. The Federal EPA, the gUidelines for the greenhouse emissions for
automobiles has caused our state of California to go completely
overboard.
#3. Healthcare Reform is an absolute must. It is killing jobs.
#4. Tort reform
#5. Amount of unnecessary paperwork to track new tires, junk tires and
the duplication of agencies that track it.
~ngagent®
January 25, 2011
Subject: Government Intrusion in Small Business
Engagent in 2008 missed submitting payroll withholding amounts I the IRS for the month of
July, 2008. Due to the excessive penalties and IRS harassment caused a significant distraction
from Engagent's business operation. The IRS are not nice people.
Much talk is given to how we create jobs in the USA. Give small businesses a payroll tax
holiday for several quarters. This would give EVERY small business the opportunity to hire.
The current program ofthe US government giving dollars to companies/industries it thinks
deserve it does not filter down to the smaller businesses that can really affect the job creation
opportunity.
• www.engagent.com • Voice: (877) 820-7980 • Fax: (425) 485-8804 •

Our company Bechtel Property Services, Inc. has been in business for 22-years. We maintain shopping
center in the Southern California area. The complaint I have is that as a small business owner, we are on
our own without help from the state of California or the Federal government. All they want is money.
Ok that's my complaint. What I would like to see is that the government would give larger companies 10
employee plus companies a tax break to hire smaller companies like ours. Also the SBA is not working
forthe small businesses. We are just trying to make a living. The small business needs to be qualified by
the government. Let's face it there is small business out there that should not be in business, because
they don't play by the rules that a good small business needs to do. The Government should help to
promote by marketing. Once that small business becomes a larger company it will help the small
business. It's a domino effect. Give the small business promotions as for example. Our company could
help shopping centers be more green. I looked into having us become an Inspector. This cost to take this
class is $3,000.00, Too much. I know I am being very broad. I could give more detail if I had a chance to
talk to someone.
Obama wants to get rid of cumbersome rules and regs yet his NLRB board is making
rules making it easier to join
. and organize unions. They want. us to post signs saying you
can join the union. Maybe we need signs telling them they can take a break, eat lunch or
quit. We don't need more distractions. Ifunions get into the service industry like they
have the government our country is done. Cause business owners like I will sell out to
conglomerates and not fight the fight with unions. Mr.. King claims they have learned yet
he threatens the imports with pickets and blackmail if they won't agree to their terms.
Autos has the new FACTA act which requires us to do the governments job of
paperwork. Kill the power of the overreaching NLRB.
From: Eric Basu, CEO, Sentek Global
To: Congressman Darryllssa
Subj: Request for input on government regulation impediments
Congressman Issa, Doug Sain from the New Majority asked the New Majority members to
provide input to you on restrictive regulations that are impeding business growth. Please find
my input, in bulletized format, below.
1. Obamacare - This leviathan of regulations has resulted in increased insurance premiums

of 25% .in CY 2011. Our premiums historically have increased between 6 and 12% per
year, which has always been an issue, but the dramatic increase in costs in 2011 will
force us to reduce our benefits to our employees. We have always paid 100% of our
employees' insurance premiums and 25% of dependents' insurance premiums, but
this most recent increase in costs will force us to eliminate the payment for dependent
premiums and possibly force us to require employees to pay a portion of their own
premiums. In addition, our ablility to move to a ·Iess expensive plan is restricted by
the "grandfather" status of our old plan. I can't find an adviser. who can explain to me the
ramifications of moving to a non-grandfathered plan which limits my ability to make an
informed decision of what to do with our health care plans. This is partly as a result of
the difficulty of understanding the legislation and partially because the implementation of
the legislation appears to include waivers for many categories of businesses that appear
to have the "proper" political connections, so the actual enforcement and execution of
the legislation is as yet not easily predicted. As a result we're simply holding what we
have and assuming continually increasing costs in the future.
2. Taxes - Between state and federal tax burdens and complexities I spend 20-35K1year on
accountants to advise me what I can and cannot do. Often even my tax experts need
to consult other experts to provide advice on a particular business decision. A simpler
. tax code, even if it resulted in slightly higher taxes would likely save us money if I didn't
need to spend as much money on advisers.
3. ITAR and FCPA - We are trying to expand into international markets, but the ITAR
export regulations and FCPA regulations are convoluted, contradictory, opaque and
often Orwellian in their application. As an example, an international firm is required
to voluntarily report any violations of the FCPA by their employees or affiliated parties
annually. A firm which does not voluntarily report "sufficient" violations will be targeted
for investigation. During investigations, the voluntarily reported violations are used to
assess penalties which often are so high as to force bankruptcy. The solution offered
by the government is then to assess the company's financials, then agree to a solution
that takes the majority of the company's profits for a period of several years, so this
effectively becomes a tax rather than a penalty for companies to try to disincentivise a
particular behavior. The cost to comply with ITAR and FCPA regulations in the form of
an internal set of policies and compliance is between 25K-60K for my company annually,
and offers no guarantees of not being targeted for investigation and the resulting
penalties. In addition, once targeted for investigation, investigators often become
emotionally invested and continue to investigate until they find something to which
they can assess the maximum penalty allowed in order to justify their efforts. Costs of
complying with investigations, regardless of the outcome, result in 100s of thousands
of dollars. The risks of attempting to do work overseas because of a prosecutorial U.S.
regulatory environment severely limits the ability of small U.S. companies to do business
overseas. Combined with the high tax rates of the U.S., if a business is going to do
the majority of its business overseas it makes much more sense to be based overseas,
which deprives the U.S. of both tax revenues and employment opportunities.
4. DCAA and Federal Acquisition compliance - As a 000 contractor, we spend about 25%
of our total overhead costs ensuring compliance with DCM and Federal Acquisition
regulations. We have had a junior auditor come to our office and pace out the square
footage to ensure that the space was appropriate for the work that we were performing.
The time and effort spent ensuring compliance with cost plus contract requirements,
both on the government and contractor side, could have been saved for the taxpayers
had the government simply let the cpntract for a fixed price vs. a cost plus contract.
Many of these contracts are easily defined (i.e. 12 engineers for a man year) and have
no reason to be let as cost plus contracts. The 000 has pushed all acquisitions to
Cost Plus in the last five years, ostensibly to lirnit "contractor profits", but efffectively
resulting in far greater costs to the taxpayer in the form of both compliance costs and
in an industry that has becorne accustomed to increasing their costs well above what
is required to perform the contract. In addition, the acquisition process has becorne a
joke, with 90% of contract acquisitions delayed 90 days or longer past the projected
date, an average of a 273 day delay being touted in government-industry events as "not
bad", and a not insignificant subset of acquisitions being delayed 24 rnonths or rnore.
This makes it very difficult to plan ahead with respect to hiring, business developrnent
investment, and capital investment as a business owner.
5. Government waste - although not a regulatory issue, government waste in the 000
would be considered criminal were it not institutionalized. At SPAWAR, it is an openly
stated fact that most civil servants cannot be fired (it's called a job benefit), they are paid
the same or rnore as their counterparts in industry, and most do not work even a full
40 hour week (rare itself in any professional industry), taking every other Friday off and
working in a culture where time off takes priority over getting work done. The insourcing
trend in the 000 recently typically resulted in contractor positions being converted to
governrnent positions, with the new government employee immediately turning around
and hiring a contractor to do their previous job so that they could enjoy their new-found
three day weekends. The "use or lose" mentality of the government is anathema to
efficient use of taxpayer dollars. As long as a program manager is incentivised to
spend his or her prograrn funds fully at the end of a quarter and offered no incentive
for actually saving the funds and putting them back into a pool to pay down the federal
deficit, we will always be fighting the system itself when we try to combat waste. There
are numerous examples in the 000, with combat troops dumping arnrno off the side of
ships because NALCOMIS would not accept the amrno back after a deployment, fighter
squadrons dumping fuel at the end of a quarter to ensure that they receive their full
allocation the next quarter, etc.
Jcan provide numerous other examples and would be happy to meet in person if you'd like
a business owner's perspective, from the trenches, on how much time I spend dealing with
nonsensical regulations rather than job creation.
Very Respectfully,
Eric Basu
President and CEO, Sentek Global
Financial Oversight Committee
Job Creation Needs:
I. Stop thinking big banks know everything about small business when they cannot
even run their own companies well.
2. Put an SBA loan officer in each bank to deal with small businesses. They already
guarantee the deal so let them work it closer.
3. Stop making every small biz owner or potential owner pledge his house. Today
with values down, how does he qualify?
4. How do people qualify with no house?
5. Make the EEOC do something other than sit on their ass. Age, race and sexual
discrimination is rampant. People that have many jobs should be fired as they
discriminate and then hire good people. It is TOO easy to discriminate - everyone
knows it is unlikely they will be caught - much less convicted.
6. Give special consideration to the small biz owner who has been driven out of
business when the economy failed. He likely only failed due to a bank pulling his
credit line or lack of sales due to the whole economy.
7. FIX the foreclosure mess. DEMAND that the banks modify loans and not
foreclose. Foreclosing is just going to keep dumping cheap houses on the market
and keep driving prices down and reducing owners equity further. As I said
above, no house, no equity - no loan - no business.
8. Not dumping houses on the market will mean they will start to build again sooner
and create jobs.
9. Tell OCC, FDIC and SEC to put the criminals in jail that caused the meltdown
and the ones that are continuing the economic frauds on the citizens. TELL these
agencies to do their job -AND THAT DOES NOT MEAN TO COZY UP TO
THE BANKS AND WALLSTREET THEIVES.
10. Business incubators are needed to teach potential entrepreneurs HOW to be in
business. TELL SBA to do that IF they know how. If they do not - CALL ME, I
KNOWHOW.
II. Make the Feds and GSA purchasing buy more from small biz. They need to
spread out the spend to more companies NOT less. They also need to re-define
what a small biz is - they deal with people who are too large. They also let many
get by with saying they are small or disadvantaged when they are not. There is no
real oversight on that.
12. STOP sending money to any foreign country that is not buying from the USA.
13. STOP the war in Afghanistan - that way we are not just throwing cash at
criminals to like us. If they cannot run their own country and are a danger to us,
bomb the mountains they hide in so they are flat. Same goes for Pakistan. Bring
the troops back and the $$$$$$
14. IF any company is employing overseas employees to replace American jobs, TAX
then an amount at least equal to the pay.
IS. Tax incentives do not mean jobs today - ONLY CASHFLOW AND CASH DO
THAT FOR SMALL BIZ..
16. Change the bankruptcy laws so that the personal mortgage can be handled there,
JUST LIKE COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE LOANS ARE.
17. Let Student loans fall under the bankruptcy as well, otherwise you are going to
have students and parents never get out of debt due to student loans. OBAMA
SAYS WE NEED TO EDUCATE BETTER - HOW IS THAT TO BE PAID
FOR ????? NO JOBS AND NO EQUITY IN A HOUSE - THAT WILL NOT
GET A KID THRU COLLEGE.
A hell of a way to run a railroad
Glenn Bogart, J.D.
The U.S. Department of Education (ED) has published, as a final regulation to take effect in just
four months, a definition of "credit hour" that will not just destroy a few programs - it will
render unprofitable nearly all programs that are offered by proprietary schools. In theory, it puts
all postsecondary institutions at risk, whether the school is for-profit, non-profit, or even
government supported.
No doubt your committee is aware ofthe controversy surrounding the gainful employment rule
that is to be published soon by ED. But you may not have heard much about the credit hour
definition, and it's even worse!
The new rules on defining the credit hour (34 CFR 600.2) were published as final regulations on
November 1, 2010, as scheduled, and are to take effect on July I, 2011 - a mere four months
from now.
Under the new credit hour definition, all schools will have to be able to demonstrate that students
spend at least two hours in lab or studying for every hour they spend in class. Of course that is
impossible. It may be that a college's best student spends that much time studying, but this is a
"minimum," - not even an average.
This time spent in outside preparation or lab will be evaluated by the accrediting agencies, and
those agencies will be required to report what they find to the colleges' federal masters lit the
U.S. Department of Education. Any valid inquiry into how much time students actually spend in
outside preparation is going to show that the students fall short of the requirement.
Then the accrediting agencies will be required under another section of the new regulations to
malce their reports to ED, and they will have to report that students at the school being reviewed
do not spend a minimum of 2 hours in outside preparation for every hour they spend in class, as
we all know.
ED will then undertalce administrative proceedings to take back a fair part of the school's PeU
Grant money, which was received for students who were full time according to historical
standards when they were attending during the period under review, but who are now deemed to
be % or Yz time based on how much, or how little, homework they reported having done when
they were asked by the accreditor (or, I suppose, by program review officers from the
Department of Education).
Do not suppose this is fanciful. I assure you, it is not. I have worked in Title IV compliance for
more than 30 years. I have seen cases where ED program reviewers have sought to denigrate the
credit hours awarded by a school in order to seek repayment of "liabilities," even under the
regimen currently in place. They did it, in that case, by getting instructors to brag about how
many "hands-on" hours their courses offered, and then claiming that there were too many hours
of Ia:b, and not enough hours of lecture, to justify the credit hours awarded. This new credit hour
definition will make it that much easier for the destroyers of schools at ED to do exactly the
same thing, only this time, it will be based on how much homework the students report.
Will Harvard or the University of Chicago or Stanford face such scrutiny? Will community
colleges? Well, the definition of the credit hour is supposed to apply to every institution that
participates in the Title IV programs. However, it is absurd to suppose that this will be enforced
equally to all participating institutions - even though the law says that it must be applied equally
throughout the 50 states.
I can just imagine ED telling the University of California and the California State University
system to pay back Pell Grant money for every student who carries 12 credits per term next Fall.
Yet, unless those schools can demonstrate that such students universally spend 24 hours per
week in lab or studying, their students will receive full-time Pell Grant payments but should be
ruled as eligible to receive only J/< time payments or less. If a reviewer can find just one student
who claims not to have spent any time at all on homework, then presumably every student in his
class may be deemed less than halftime, and the school will have to pay back all the federal
student aid except for a fourth of the Pell Grant money.
I'm not making this up. If you read the comments and the Secretary's responses to them in the
Federal Register, you will see that ED intends to cite liabilities in cases where schools cannot
demonstrate compliance.
What happens under the new definition of the credit hour at community colleges? They have
lots of students carrying 6 credits per term. If those students get Direct Loans, but it is found that
they did not spend a minimum of 12 hours per week in lab or doing homework, they become
less-than-half-time students, and are not eligible for student loans - so the school will be required
to purchase the loans - or at best, to pay estimated losses to the government on them. And to pay
back half of the Pell money they received, as well.
Look - I didn't spend two hours studying for every hour I spent in law school from 1982 thru
1986, and I still managed to get ajuris doctor degree at an ABA and AALS accredited law
school. Maybe you did spend that much time reading cases - but if you did, I can assure you that
you are in the minority.
But for-profit schools are the real target here, and in all likelihood, the new regulation, 34 CFR
600.2, definition of credit hour, will be ignored by nearly all institutions except proprietaries,
and will be enforced only at proprietaries. Why? Because proprietaries are always the target of
the U.S. Department of Education. ED wouldn't dare enforce this against traditional institutions
- because not a single one ofthem could meet the standard. Those kinds of schools will not
worry about it, because they know ED cannot go around demanding payment of liabilities from
every single state university, private non-profit college, and community college.
ED can do that to proprietary schools, though. And they will, unless they are stopped by
Congress.
I have been an independent consultant for private career colleges since 1992. I am a former
program review officer with the U.S. Department of Education, and I have a law degree, as
mentioned. I know what I am talking about, Congressman Issa, and I am telling you, this
regulatory definition of credit hour is giving fits to my industry - and they are the only ones who
are concerned about it, because they alone can see the danger of it and will suffer the brunt of
regulatory enforcement.
In order comply, most schools will have no choice except to abandon credit-hour measurement
and revert to clock-hour measurement. Under the current regulations, a degree-granting
institution (associate degree or above) generally uses a conversion ratio of 15 hours oflecture, or
30 hours of lab, or 45 hours of externship, or a ratable combination of these, to one semester
credit hour. This is required by diverse accrediting agencies, including ACCSC and ACICS, and
is even generally what regionally-accredited schools (such as the afore-mentioned Harvard,
University of Chicago, and Stanford) generally do.
Under the new definition of credit hours, all of these schools are in jeopardy, technically. The
new definition means that a student carrying 16 credits must spend at least 32 hours a week
outside of class or in lab, every week - not just some weeks, and not just on average. Every
week, and every student!
There may be a few students who do that, but I can guarantee you, there are not many. And
remember, the regulation requires this as the minimum, not even the average.
I should like very much for you to have a hearing on this, and have Education Secretary Arne
Duncan testify. Ask him how many hours he spent studying as an undergraduate at Harvard for
every hour he spent in class. What with basketball practice and most likely, a work-study job
handing out towels, I will bet you any amount of money that even he will not have the nerve to
tell your committee that he spent two hours studying for every hour he was in class. Bring in a
dozen or two U.S. Department of Education employees who have college degrees, especially the
moron who actually wrote this regulation. Ask them all. See what kind of "minimum" hours of
study for each hour in class you can come up with for ED employees with college degrees.
This is urgent, I repeat. My clients are, right now, trying to figure out how to comply - and they
are coming to the conclusic;m that there is no choice but to switch to clock hours. This will mean
either an increase of around 300 clock hours of instt'uction per academic year, or a reduction of
about 1/3 of the Title IV dollars their students can receive. When a school has to incur a loss of
almost 1/3 of its revenue, or has to pay instructors for Y2 more hours than they are currently
paying, there is a real question whether the school can continue to break even, much less earn a
profit.
My clients, everyone of them a proprietary school that tries very hard to operate in complete
compliance with all Title IV regulations, are sweating blood over this thing. Unless you can stop
this final regulation, here is what will happen. The conscientious schools will do their best to
comply, to their great financial detriment. The others will just hope they don't get caught. This
is a hell of a way to run a railroad.
Being taxed too much is definitely a hardship for any small company.
I employ 7-10 people plus individual outside sales reps and sports team.
I am barely holding on and have so much debt from this bad economy for 2 years.
Any little thing can send us into banIauptcy.
I hear the government is coming after small business' to get more revenue into the system by
scrutinizing their employee records.
I keep good records but am scared to death of our government. They seem to want to destroy the very
companies that are emplying people. If an agency is going out to generate money by fining small
business' you are going to find a lot of companies going under. They won't be able to afford a fine.
Not to mention health insurance, I can't afford to give my employees health insurance as of this year.
35% increase every single year from the health provider. It is just too much.
Add that China comes in with product that competes with my company and I can't raise prices, in fact I
have to bring prices down to compete with China product. .
So this year, less sales, more taxes, higher insurance. Very bleak for every business I know.
I.We are barely holding on. Please keep government agencies off our backs so we can keep people
employed.
2.00 something about healthcare prices. We just want affordable insurance.

January 26,2011
To Whom It May Concern:
My name is Clyde C. Kerns; I am president of Kerns Trucking, Inc. A

seventeen million gross sales 3'd generation family business founded in 1933.
Kerns is an equal opportunity employer whom values the qualities of hard work,
honesty and professionalism. Currently Kerns employees 50 drivers, managers,
and administrators, additionally Kerns contracts 55 independent owners to serve a
diverse business base in 28 states. Founded originally as a sand and gravel dump
truck operation, over the years Kerns has expanded to over the road operations
transporting recyclables, agricultural and aggregate materials; additionally Kerns
provides dry van, flat and logistics services all part of our attempt to diversify our
business to meet the challenges of the marketplace. This business model enables
us to serve both individuals and Fortune 500 companies. At Kerns, the company
is our employee and our employees have often worked for over four decades with
two decades of service commonplace. Kerns takes great pride in these
employees, as well as being safe, tax paying responsible citizens within all the
many communities we serve.
My purpose for this letter stems from the physical and laudable threat
excessive government regulation has rendered upon Kerns in recent years.
Government bureaucracies such as DOT, EPA, FMSHA, MSHA, NHTSA, OSHA
all are bringing ever heavy burdens upon Kerns business with redundant,
misguided, irresponsible regulation. Noteworthy are the following headlines:
(a) 11412011 NHTSA clears path for speed limiter proposal

(b) 12129/2010 FMSHA proposes seven changes in hours of
service rules
(c) 12117/2010 DOT proposes rule to ban hand held cell phone
use for commercial drivers.
(d) 121712010 FMSHA appoints 3 new members to medical
review board
(e) 12/112010 DERA reauthorization makes progress in senate
(f) 11119/2010 FMSHA makes changes in CSA2010
(g) 9/1012010 FMSHA amends performance standards for
EBORrules
(h) 712112010 Broad OSHA reform hidden in MSHA 2010 reform bill
(i) 6/2010 CSA severity scores released
G) 112010 CSA2010 anno\lnced by Secretary LaHood with
threat that 176,000 CDL drivers would loose their jobs and that many small
trucking companies would be closed but that needed to pe done for the
safety of our highways.
In closing government regulation is stifling entrepreneurial capability to create

jobs and generate profitable revenue. Government regulation issued under the
mantra words of clean air and safety are the greatest threat to our continued
success which enables Kerns Trucking to provide for its employees and share
with its community. Safety is a trained behavioral attitude, it cannot be achieved
with heavy handed ever changing one size fits all regulation.
Sincerely,
Clyde C. Kerns
President
CCKlag
2
3
Representative Issa,
My experience with prevailing wage jobs is that although it may have good intentions it creates an
atmosphere of cheating. it should be as simple as taking the amount that you would normally pay an .
employee and adding the difference between his or her normal wage and the prevailing wage. In the
public sector where I add my eight percent overhead cost and no profit I am consistently outbid by
fifteen to twenty five percent. This is a law in my opinion that takes honest business owners and makes
them compromise our values just to get a job.
Sincerely,
Jack Austhof
Sobie Company, Inc.
3276 Industrial Drive
Dutton, MI 49316
Ph: 616.698.9800
Sandra Moffitt Adams
2357 La Mirada Dr.
Vista, CA 92081
760-803-4454
Jan. 27,2011
In response to your request to hear from businesses throughout the country, I would like to submit a
few thoughts.
I own a promotional products business in the Vista Business Park that employs 14 people, and we have
been in business for 12 years. I am active in the community including the Chamber of Commerce and
Rotary, just to give some background on me. Directed Electronics is actually one of our customers.
Here are some regulations that come to mind that affect my business negatively:
-I have 3 full time employees, 3 Independent Contractor sales reps, and 7 part time employees that are
mostly college students; who work for my company while they go to school at either Cal State San
Marcos, Palomar or Miracosta. They work part time and get no benefits other than the fact that I work
around their school schedules and they all love working here. I cannot afford anymore full time
employees because I cannot afford it. My college workers make between 11-$15/hour, and I pay them
more than minimum w~ge because I want them to stick around - at least until they graduate and need
to get a full time job.
-The minimum wage .is for entry level workers who usually have no job skills and need to get some. I will
occasionally hire a high school kid at minimum wage to do low level work and as they become more
proficient and knowledgeable about my business, I pay them more because they are more valuable. The
minimum wage is not meant for a family to live on, but should be used as a way for employers to afford
entry level workers who have no job skills. The Democrats need to stop raising it.
-My 3 full time employees receive health insurance that the company pays 50% for, plus 401K. My
health insurance costs are almost double now than what they were a year ago. We need healthcare
reform but I think we could solve the problem with tort reform and opening up cross state completion.
The 1099 mandate will be incredibly costly for my business and very time consuming. And the
additional 16,500 IRS agents in the bill make me feel very much like a target.
-Prop 65 really affects my industry ( Promotional Products) which is a multi billion dollar a year industry.
Prop 65 mandates that any paint used in custom imprinting mugs and glassware needs to have a sticker
on each item saying "This paint might contain lead" or something like that. Now many of my mug
suppliers will not ship to customers in California.
-I like the Republican's ideas to cut spending 10% across the board. Every government agency has room
to cut 10%. We could even make it 1S%. Businesses have to cut back when they have less money.
Government should do the same.
-The drug cartels are taking over our border cities, and it is appalling that the Federal government would
actually sue Arizona when they came up with a bill to protect themselves. The Fed should be protecting
all of the borders.
-California and other states that are near bankrupt, should be able to file bankruptcy so they can re-do
their pension contracts and start over. It is not fair to taxpayers to have their taxes raised in order to
pay bloated pension costs. States need to bail themselves out because they got themselves into their
own mess. The Fed should not step in to bail out states because itis not fair for taxpayersin states that
spend within their means to help fund bailouts for states that are irresponsible.
-The real estate market will not come back until the paperwork becomes easier to process and we bring
back stated income loans, but require 2S% down and great credit. My husband and I own 7 rental
houses and would like to buy more, but will not even attempt it right now.
Thank you for taking the time to read my long letter. I really admire you and met you at the Meg
Whitman rally at Directed Electronics.
Repectfully,
.Sandra Moffitt Adams

President
LOGO Expressions Inc.
D. A. GRIFFIN FINANCIAL, llC
_""~~_ "._.." ~"."'""." .."'"" _" , __,,.._"'"." .•".'_".._" _," "."."",."_",, _ __., ,,,_.."""_,_."_ __""._.•""'"" _"".""."',,._""__""'' ,,.. ,,.~~. ,'_._"_<H_"._ _"._ __"""_"".",·,,,.. ·,·""·~, ..,_".'._ ~ ~.,, __ ,~
Dora Ann Griffin, Broker Phone: 859-442 9700 w
""" Por All Your 1Vlortgage Neec/J·!! 46 Sterling Avenue Fax: 859·442·970S
Ft. Thomas, KY 41075 E-matl: dora.griffin@insightbb.l;om
January 27, 20 II
Rep. Darrell Issa, CA
Dear Mr. Issa:
I am writing this In response to a you tube video I just watched regarding the subject of how the government
is stifling growth in my industry in general and my business in particular. I am a mortgage broker. I have over
13 years experience originating loans; I have always done conforming "An paper loans; all of my business is
referral based.
An issue that has had a deep impact on small businesses, and which started out as not a govemment regula-
tion is HVCC, which now is called Appraisal Independence. This ruling has had a huge impact on the lives and
businesses of brokers and appraisers. I never engaged in appraisal fraud and I am a firm believer that that is
not the source of the housing meltdown. I believe, as many in my industry do, that can be placed at the feet
of government regulators who did not do their jobs.
I personally lost $20,000 in income In the last year due to faulty appraisals. This is a result of appraisers who
do not know the market, or who give the lowest value possible, taking up to six weeks to deliver an ap-
praisal, or refusing to look at any other data. Slowly my base of business is eroding because iocal banks break
the rules and speak with appraisers, while I'm stuck using appraisal management companies with some lend-
ers. I will attach just such a scenario to this letter.
The appraisal problems are vast and never ending. You will note in the attached letter I sent to my Ky reps
in Washington the list of things I've seen happen since HVCC. Continuing with the current appraisal rules is
devastating to my brokerage and to the good, hard working, honest appraisers who cannot make a living be-
cause of Washington.
I am closing my Ohio branch office because I can no longer afford to keep it open. The extra fees for NMLS
plus the fact we had topay a full boat in costs to transition on the NMLS in the first half of 20 I0 and again in
December, I simply cannot afford to keep it open. I have worked hard to get where I am and every day a
situation like this
Now, with the HVCC/AIR problems we are faced with as brokers, the NMLS costs, and
numerous changes of good faith and TILA requirements, we are going to be hit with another
and perhaps a final blow to YSP payments on April I". Very aptly this is to happen on April
Fools' Day.
The latest is a Federal Reserve initiative I realize. It is not well thought out, as all the other
changes have not been. The good faith estimate went from one page to four. The TILA changes
have caused delays up to a week. Now if the Feds limit compensation to loan officers, there will
be a further increase in costs to the consumer.
In a nutshell, currently my company receives Yield Spread Premium. I receive wholesale pricing
from ienders, who pay me the YSP. On any given day in the current environment I am either
pricing exactly the same 91' better than the banks in my region. With the loan officer
compensation, I will no longer be able to adjust what I earn to get a loan closed. If, heaven
forbid, I made an error I could not make a correction to the benefit of the consumer to get
that loan closed. I cannot give the consumer funds from the YSP to get them to closing because
every loan has to pay exactly the same YSP to me.
With the April I" proposal, it likely will send many more brokers out of the business. From
what I lmderstand each lender can do it differently. Many of them will begin doing it in
February, not waiting fOl' April. Also, once I set what I want to get paid on every loan, I cannot
change it loan to loan. For instance if I say I%, then I won't have the funds to operate my
company. If I say 2%, then I won't be able to compete on the larger loans. This latest proposal
will increase costs to the consumer just as all the regulations have.
Lastly, you must realize that I agree housing was out of control, thus the melt down, however,
lenders have made the changes they needed and should have made. Now it is downright
punitive to brokers and appraisers when we were not the root of the problem. Wall Street,
rating agencies, the SEC, and some greedy banks are the problem. If we do make corrections
now, a valuable source of financing in an already depressed housing market will be gone. The
fix has been to geneJ<llize and punish the masses vs seeking out and punishing those who caused
the problem.
I thank you for the opportunity share this information with you. I am forever hopeful someone
in Washington will realize the damage being done to not only an industry, but that this is not
the American way. If income can be set for my industry, then where does it stop? It is seriously
a bad precedent.
Sincerely, .1
Dora Ann ~iffin
o A Griffin Financial, LLC
January 17,2011
Geoff Davis
Rand Paul
Mitch McConneli
Iam writing today about AiR (appraisai independence regulation) ..' HVCC reworked. 1 am one individual
but 1 assure you that my story and other versions of my story are prevalent In the lending industry
today.
I am an independent broker with a decent following of loyal customers who have a high degree of trust
in my ability to assist them with financing. I have had my own mortgage shop since 2007, but worked in
retail lending for 9 years prior. I am going to tell you about one situation I have just recently
encountered. I, like many in my industry, have many such stories.
I had a transaction I began working on with a past customer about a year ago. We discussed the
qualifications for a move-up buy many times overthe months leading up to November 2010. They are
very loyal customers.
These customers wrote a contract for a "for sale by owner" home in November with a sale price of
$382,500, it took them until December 20 to fuily work out the details. When I received the contract I
followed protocol, placed the appraisal order through my lender, who in turn gave it to an appraisal
management company (AMe) , JVI who assigned an appraiser.
The appraiser In this case took one week to view the property and about a week and half to prepare the
report. When the report came In the value was stated as $350,000; substantially less than the agreed
upon price. I delivered this Information to the borrower who was understandably upset. The borrower
called the seller and determined the seller had an appraisal done by Rodney Huff In November and the
value was $400,000. Rodney Huff did the appraisal for First Security Trust Bank in Edgewood KY.
The borrower further Informed me that the appraisal done by Huff was for a blanket loan for the seller.
Immediately this is a red flag since the lender would want the appraisal as high as possibie to make the
two deals work. Istated this to the borrower; that they may want to protect their interest by not putting
so much weight in that appraisal.
The borrower obtained a copy of the $400,000 appraisal. The camp properties used were dated and
none of the more current sales were used. They further stated they wanted the home even if they had
to over pay, so they called First Security Trust Bank to get an approval. The loan officer at First Security
called Rodney Huff. Rodney Huff called the borrower and assured them that the value would be high
enough for this transaction.
While this activity is taking place I am exploring other sales to see if the appraiser my lender used was
knowledgeable about the market and had found all the sales to determine if we had a valid appraisal in
our hands. It is commonplace In the market today that appraisers will vaiue the property at the lowest
possible price. i found a few sales for the AMC appraiser to consider. The AMc appraiser refuted all the
data provided to consider, so we hit a brick wall, very common result of any dispute.
I understand the borrower really wants this home. They proceeded with an application at First Security
and when I spoke with her last Friday she told me that she has again spoke with the appraiser who
assures her that even if he has to use newer camps than he used on the old appraisal his value will be
there forthls property.
So, as a result of all this activity, this borrower will most likely overpay for this home. The loan officer at
First Security Is hand picking and discussing the appraisal value with the appraiser. All the regulations
that are written to contain mortgage fraud and protect the housing market are for naught when this is
the result. Let me be clear, all the regulations do nothing to contain appraisal fraud at the banking level.
What has happened is that the brokers are forced into using the lender's AMC's who have hired the
bottom of the barrel. It puts the broker at a severe disadvantage to compete or stay in business.
In this particular case, I live in the neighborhood the subject property is In and I)1Y research indicates
that the value should have been in the neighborhood of $165,000 to $170,000. The a ppraiser my lender
used refused to consider any data to support these figures.
Appraisal independence is flawed Just as HVCC was flawed. It has been modeled after a program that did
not work. No one in my industry argues that there was appraisal fraud. The bigger issue is that the
wrong people are being punished for it. It was not 100% present at the broker ievel in years prior. i
would argue it was nearly 100% at the banking levei, such as it is today. When my company has to forgo
income because of fraud on the part of competition, when I risk losing my customer base because of the
appraisal value, it is not helping the economy. I am one person, but I can assure you I know many
appraisers and loan originators who have lost their livelihood. I am writing this on their behaif as well.
I actually closed less in volume last year due to appraisals. I am experienced in this business; I do my
homework before I submit loans. Here is what I dealt with in the last 12 months.
• Appraisers taking six weeks to deliver a report; in the meantime Interest rates increased
dramatically..
• . Appraiser who traveled 14 miles from the property to get the lowest comps, ignoring those
within Y, mile.
• Appraiserwho would not consider the sales within one block of the subject.
• Appraisers travel 50 miles plus from the subject
• Appraisers who consistently would not reconsider any additional data
• Appraisers who consistently used the very iowest sale price
• Multiple appraisers assigned to the task who would after weeks refuse to turn in a report,
sometimes even after showing up to inspect. Or who looked so unkempt the owner did not
want to let them In.
• Finally an appraiser who performed an appraisal for the seller, hand picked by the bank forthat
transaction to perform an appraisal for the buyer of that property.
What I have not witnessed is any increase in service or quality of the appraisal, or any reduction in fraud
or errors. As a matter offact I've seen an increase in fraud, considering I had no knowledge of these
issues prior to HVCC on transactions Iwas involved with. Appraisers routinely ask the. borrower about
value now and occasionally offer to expedite a report for a cash bonus. These bad appraisers were out
there prior to HVCC; Iwould not have used them on my jobs.
I am without a doubt living in a ppraisal hell. I have lots of company. I am so frustrated that we cannot
seem to get attention to this matter in Washington. Ithink the reason for that Is that each real estate
transaction can be difficult, but when it is done, buyers, sellers, Realtors, etc., chalk it up as a bad
experience, and turn the page on it and move on. Unfortunately, this leaves the next transaction open
forthe same problems and those of us who work every day in the industry unable to thrive in this
business through no fault of our own.
Dodd -Frank needs to be evaluated for the damage it is causing our industry. If the appraisal regs are
working as designed, then the design was to eliminate my job as well as the qualified appraisers' jobs.
have spent my life savings and am on the verge of bankruptcy because of primarily this issue. It is not
the way i envisioned ending up my career. Further I ask you to advise me as to how the enforcement
agencies are handling the cases of appraisal fraud. I can see from the regs who is supposed to police H,
but is it really happening? Does First Security Trust fall outside of the regs? I believe this FSBO sale I
discussed is one that needs investigated. I'd like to know if you agree.
The last thing Iwant is to cause a problem for by past customer, but I need to stand up for our industry.
If I have as many appraisal horror stories as Ido, imagine how many really exist. I believe there were
plenty of rules and regulations in place to police this industry, it waS simply not done. Mortgage brokers
and appraisers are paying the price for that failure.
Dora Ann Griffin
. DAGriffin Financial, LLC
8594429700
f !~NA~ t'\i~f t&\ If!\ t'm
,FwU\!JmU\!lmH~j~
lntjltJt1 j\Jjmi~.a!f2Mnlflr!lt1m.arJi J.\dlllJilllilY ~ AjJul:SlIi9 tiff/UP
3945 S. Allison Court • Lakewood, Colorado • 80235
January 24, 2011
The Honorable Ben S. Bernanlce

Chairman
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
20 th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW
Sandra F. Braunstein
Director, Consumer and Community Affairs Division
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
1709 New York Avenue, NW, Room 8021
Washington, D.C, 20006
Dear Chairman Bernanke and Director Braunstein:
IMPACT Mortgage Management Advocacy and Advisory Group (IMMAAG)! joins

other industry representatives in the request for a delay in the effective date of the final
compensation rule published by the Board in the Federal Register 75FR58509-58538 dated
September 24,2010.
However, beyond the request for a delay, which we beli<;;ve should serve the dual purpose of
meeting the SBA Office of Advocacy request to the Board to publish compliance guidelines and
providing formal written answers to the myriad industry questions regarding the implementation
of the rule; IMMAAG requests that the Board reevaluate the foundation for the rule and
withdraw the rule in its entirety.
IMMAAG and its users strenuously object to the rule on the grounds that the Board relies on
. authority offered in TILA 129(1) yet has failed to provide any empirical evidence of a correlation
between mortgage loan originator compensation and consumer abuse, unfairness or deception.
We further object to the totally unsupported (and unsupportable) characterization that loan
originator compensation, particularly for those representing the traditional broker channel, has in
any way abused, deceived or created unfairness with respect to consumers. The fact is that since
1992, traditional brokers have been required to fully disclose all fonns of compensation and
since 1996 non-depository based loan originators have, as a business practice, routinely provided
consumers a Mortgage Loan Origination Agreement which details the nature of both the
consumer/broker relationship and the manner of compensation. Lastly, in spite of assertions to
1 IMMAAG serves thousands ofmortgage loan originators and other industry professionais by providing timely,
concise, and actionable information regarding legislative, regulatory and mortgage industry activities.
(303) 674-1200 • Fax (303) 674-1664 • www.immaag.com

IMMAAG Request Page 2
the contrary there are no meaningful studies that empirically link originator compensation to
consumer abuse, deception or unfairness.
In the face of:
~ more than a decade of complete consumer disclosure by mortgage brokers

~ the total absence of any empirical link between originator compensation and the practices
that trigger any of the requisite FTC definitions of the offending criteria on which the Board
relies in its final rule,
~ the fact that the exclusive focus of what limited research has been done to support the rule's
assertion is based on HOEPA and subprime markets,
~ the Board's apparent disregard of its own 2004 collaborative (FDIC) interagency guidelines
requiring case law to substantiate abuse, deception and unfairness, .
~ the evidence produced in the 20 I0 Harvard study, Rebuilding the Housing Finance System 2
which clearly shows that originator compensation is no more than a footnote and not a
contributor to the root causes of the financial collapse of the housing market and the fact that,
~ the fact that the Board has repeatedly been made well aware that reliance on the existence of
deception, abuse and unfairness resulting from loan originator compensation is an
unsupported, unproven, untested hypothesis that will not stand up to empirical evaluation;
we ask the Board to withdraw the rule immediately.
The withdrawn rule should be followed by the commissioning of an independent third party
study coordinated with the Bureau of ConsUmer Financial Protection. The study should be
designed to gather and analyze as exhaustively as possible, empirical data that either support or
disprove the Board's heretofore unsupported assertions about the correlation between consumer
awareness of originator compensation and the ability for consumers to shop and make informed
decisions. Only after such a study is completed should a conclusion be drawn about the subject
of originator compensation in the context of its contribution to consumer abuse, deception and
unfairness.
To this point in time, the Board has chosen to handle inquiries infornlally and without broad
dissemination of its answers. The rule carries significant operational implications. The industry
impact is acknowledged in the body of the rule itself. While it is IMMAAG's primary desire to
see the rule withdrawn to allow for a meaningful independent study, if the Board refuses to
withdraw the rule, we reiterate our request to delay the effective date to allow for the publication
ofthe statutorily required compliance guidelines and formal, written answers to industry
questions. Further we suggest that efforts be made to coordinate with the Bureau of Consumer
2 Excerpt "... thts [Yteld Spread Premtum] may have provided brokers and loan officers an incentive to origtnate
loans in the 1W.nprime market where pricing was more opaque, although no studies have confirmed that this was the
""'&e. In fact, even in the FHA channel with simpler mortgages and easier price discovery, yield-spread premiums
show a wide dispersion (Woodward 2008). Also brokers do have offietUng incentives to treat customers fairly and
. transmit quality loans to aggregators. The mortgage lending business is highly competitive. Customer service and
referrals matter to brokers, and so act as a check on their rent-seeking behavior. In addition, many lenders monitor
the relative performance ofloans originated by brokers and loan officers and will cease doing business with those
with poor track records.
IMMAAG Request Page 3
Financial Protection to allow the new agency the opportunity to assess our requested study and to
have the opportunity to address its regulatory authority with respect to the Enumerated
Consumer Financial Laws as provided for in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act. The Board's rush to action is unsupported except for empty and unsubstantiated
claims of the need to act in the name of consumer protection.
Your attention to this serious request is appreciated. IMMAAG offers any assistance it might
provide and is available to answer any questions you may have.
Sincerely,
William F. Kidwell, Jr.

President·
I would like it if you had to go through a third party for your lively hood HVCC is going to put
me out of business by the end of this year. I am in honest appraiser and HVCC is trying to make
me a dishonest one! I will put it in simple terms, how would you like it I get to chose what
doctor you go to and I charge you $500 (what AMC charge the borrower) them I (the AMC) puts
it out to bid to the lowest person and he gets the job, now he has no idea how or what is wrong
with you (you still pay the ($500) and you die (don't get your loan). I use to get $350 to $500
depending on the property, now AMC's pay $100 to $225. What does that equal I have to do
twice as many in the same time I use to do one. Something has to give, I do it faster with less
research and or cut some other corner. Next USPAP says I have to disclose to the client if! ever
appraised tlie property in the last three years before I except the assignment, so that means the
AMC will kick you right out because they have to have a fast turn around time. WHAT has this
gotten US. I will teU you MORE FRAUD. IF YOU WOULD ruST ENFORCE THE RULE~
WE ALREADY HAVE THERE WOULD BE NO PROBLEM. BOTTOM LINE DISHONESTY
IS AWARDED AND THE REST ARE SENT TO HELL.
IF I COULD AFFORD IT I WOULD COME TALK TO CONGRESS IT WOULD BE NICE IF

THE CONGRESSMAN WOULD SIT DOWN AND TALK TO ME. As I see it, like my grand
mother said 30 years ago, THIS COUNTRY IS GOING TO HELL IN A HAND-BASKET.
January 28, 2011
Honorable Congressman Issa

211 Cannon Building
Re: Change in Regulations
Honorable Congressman Issa;
Our company manufactures soil amendments, playground wood chips, decorative bark
and stable bedding from 100% virgin wood. We are a secondary user purchasing these
materials from logging and lumber mills and manufacturers after thei{process (i.e.
trusses, cabinets, spas, etc.) are completed. We are on the front lines of recycling and the
front lines of both the recession and the recovery. As building comes back both our
supply and the demand for the products we produce will rise.
When you visited us in 2005 we had recently launched our own bagging label which is
now sold in three western states. And although we experienced tremendous growth in the
last decade we have also seen a tremendous constriction of our operation and are now
back to the size we were before the building boom.
While we are well positioned to take advantage of the recovery Government regulations
seem to be limiting the recovery as a whole:
Clean Air (Act)

Clean Water (Act)
Endangered Species (Act)
While everyone wants to protect the environment the good intentions of the 1970's have
morphed into something almost umeal. In California we now preserve Sage Scrub and
Kangaroo Rats. Yes, scrub brush & rats are sacred and must not be disturbed. Improving
an existing freeway interchange where these two species may have one day been present
can take a decade or more to move through the environmental review process.
The Army Corp of Engineers can rebuild a complete level system in New Orleans in a
matter of a few years, but hold individual (Public & Private) projects hostage to costly
requests for environmental mitigation sometimes killing the project altogether.
Rehabilitating a decaying boat launch (where 5 people drowned) in Lal(e Elsinore on a
one acre site required the "Donation" of II acres of mitigation lands before the ACE
would issue a permit.
In Iraq & Afghanistan our troops and contractors have built roads, sewer systems,
airports, hospitals, schools, electrical and water delivery systems all since 9-11. Yet an
interchange in Lake Elsinore that started through the permitting process in the year 2000
is still 4 years away from being cleared by the regulators to allow construction to start!
The Chinese have High Speed Rail because they don't have NEPA or CEQA! We need
to balance our concerns for the environment against our need to continue to improve our
Country and keep people working.
The EPA, The Army Corp. & FHWA all need to be reformed and streamlined.
Bureaucrats work to serve the people and guide projects forward not make entire careers
out of mindless processing of paperwork without any real net gain. We must stop trying
to save the fish by killing the trees.
The term "Shovel-Ready" meant something during the WPA era. It has no meaning now.
Even if you complete all your environmental reviews (hurdles) you could still wait years
for funding and then only if you agree to pay Prevailing Wage... yet another needless
increase in costs to the American public.
We could put people back to work tomorrow if Congress would simply move to table
these regulations for the next 12 months. Then you would see private business and local
government working together to build things again.
We have strangled our own potential with well meaning do-gooder regulations which
have created a noose around the throats of both entrepreneurs and local City leaders. The
time is right for the Federal Government to lead and roll back these regulations that are
crippling the American people.
Stop debating unemployment benefits and get us back to work and back growing again.
Respectfully Submitted,
Robert E. Magee
Executive Officer, Forest Wood Fiber Products
Mayor Pro Tern City of Lake Elsinore
To Darrell Issa
I am a member of the San Diego New Majority. I have been manufacturing here since
1963, employee 77 families and am the world leader in my field. I know how to create
jobs and I do compete all over the world effectively.
I am responding to your request to "listen to American Job Creators"
1. Much of our costs are to protect ourselves from frivolous law suits. In my industry
we spend 8% to 9% on unnecessary expenses just to foil groundless law suits. If
we adopt the British system in which the "Loser pays" and in the case of a
contingency lawyer the lawyer pays if the jury finds against the plaintiff.
2. Do not apply government social programs to be paid for by business. Our
competitors worldwide do not have that burden.
3. Make government workers compensation and benefits equal to the medium of
the privet sector. Put all government workers into the Social Security system and
have no retirement pensions just like the rest of the American population.
4. Do not allow government to spend more than it takes in just like U.S. business
must do.
5. The government is taking the money out of my customers pocket so that he
cannot buy our products or services. Making money available for small business
loans can not cure this practice.
If you need any backup information or testimony please contact me.
. Thank you for listening.
Dick Long
Chairman of the Board
Diving Unlimited International inc.
8312 Beaver Lake dr.
San Diego California 92119
Phone 619-742-197rlong@cox.net
For three years we worked with a young Venezuelan rider in the AMA Pro Superbike
Series, Robertino Pietri. His father Roberto Pietri was a racer in the series in the late
1970s and early 1980s and funded his son's racing in the U.S. We prepared racing
motorcycles and provided all the elements of a racing program, including transportation,
crew members, the works and we made money on the deal. However, the father Roberto
Pietri had so much trouble getting a U.S. Visa, and once he had a Visa had so much
trouble renewing it, that he took his son racing in Europe instead. I have corresponded
and have spoken with your office about this problem before. The majority of the
problems with his visa seem to stem with an encounter with one agent one time when he
landed in Atlanta en route from Caracas to a race his son was participating in. We lost
this valuable business, because a rogue agent at Atlanta decided to hassle Roberto Pietri
for no good reason. The wonder of it all is, individual agents apparently answer to no one
and have the unilateral ability to keep somebody out of the country for no good reason,
even if they have a valid Visa and even if they are a well-known sportsman with no
political involvement and even if they are spending money and providing jobs in the U.S.
This whole affair has me questioning the basic fairness of our government.
·-
SAFEA"D
SECURE
INTERNET G4MBlIIiG INI11ATIVE
January 31, 2011

Dear Chairman Issa,
As you gather input on the various government regulations that have negatively
impacted job growth, we would like to draw your attention to the opportunity to generate
tens of thousands of new jobs and tens of billions in domestic gross expenditures should
the federal government replace a failed attempt to prohibit Internet gambling with a
system to legitimize the thriving activity.
Existing government regulations prohibiting Americans who want to play games online
that involve placing bets of the kind they are allowed to make in casinos or on
reservations and in some states, even in airports, are having a ile.gative impact on both
jobs and the economy. Changing this to permit Internet gambling activity will not only
guarantee protections for American consumers, but will create jobs and generate billions
in new government revenue - money that could possibly be used to pay down the
deficit.
Prohibition of Internet Gambling Has Failed
In spite of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement and Protection Act (UIGEA) of
2006, which sought to prohibit Internet gambling activity, Americans continue to wager
close to $100 billion annually online without guaranteed mechanisms in place to protect
them from fraud, identity theft, and in some cases, themselves. The U.S. economy does
not benefit in any way from this thriving marketplace, based almost entirely offshore
(there is a federal exemption for wagers on horse racing and lotteries). The current
beneficiaries are offshore gambling operators.
Bi-Partisan Approach to Control Internet Gambling Activity
Last year, with Congress bitterly divided and only a handful of bi-partisan bills coming
out of the Financiai Services Committee, members of the committee from both parties
approved legislation (H.R. 2267) by a 41-22 vote to control Internet gambling activity in
the U.S.
The regulatory framework approved by the committee would have provided approved
gambling operators with federal licenses to accept bets and wagers from individuals in
. SAfe & SECURE INTERNET GAMBUNG IN'ITIAT'J\fE .. 1713.1/Ji""iM.

M STREET. NW .. NUMB ER 376 ..'. WASHiNGTON, DC 20036 -4 5 04
___ .,,"~.•..,:._•.. -_. .... .. "l~""';;;';';";';;"';;;M;";",""';,,:w;~~~~~
(202)872-0010
i nfQ@saf"andseenreilj.or9
A
~':J
SAFEAND
SECURE
IN1ERNEI GAMBLING INlliA1IVE
the U.S., subject to state laws. Importantly, the legislation required licensed operators to
establish safeguards to protect against compulsive and underage gambling, money
launderin9, fraud and identity theft. Additional provisions in the legislation reinforced the
rights of each State and Indian Tribe to determine whether to allow online gambling
activity within their jurisdiction and to apply other restrictions on the activity as
determined necessary. However, the legislation would have continued to ban online
betting on sports, which is currently only legal in Nevada's land-based casinos.
On the revenue side, a companion bill (H.R. 4976) was introduced to ensure individual
and corporate taxes owed from regulated Internet gambling activities would be collected,
as they currently are from the land-based casino industry.
Opportunity to Create Jobs and Stimulate the Economy
H2 Gambling Capital, the leading supplier of data and market intelligence regarding the
global gambling industry, projected in a report released last year that regulating all forms
of Internet gambling in the U.S., including sports wagering, would create close to 32,000
jobs over five years. Further, H2 concluded regulating all forms of Internet gambling
would generate up to a total gross expenditure of $94 billion over five years and $57.5
billion in new tax revenue as a result of the projected wagering activity, related job
creation and growth of supporting businesses over the same period.
A Joint Comrnittee on Taxation analysis performed on previously introduced legislation

to control the activity projected the new industry would generate up to $42 billion in new
federal government revenues. A separate estimate further projected up to $30 billion in
new state government revenues over 10 years would also be generated. And these
estimates exclude consideration of sports betting within the proposed regulatory
framework, a policy decision made to accommodate concerns of the major sports
associations..
Business Community Voices Support for Internet Gambling Expansion
Leading organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Financial Services

Roundtable, American Bankers Association, Americans for Tax Reform and National
Association of Federal Credit Unions, have endorsed previously introduced legislation
(H.R. 2267) to control Internet gambling activity. Many of these groups also expressed
. concern regarding implementation of UIGEA, which has forced the U.S. financial
services sector to police and block "unlawful" Internet gambling - a burdensome and
. difficult task especially since there is not a clear interpretation of which transactions
should be deemed "unlawful."
Request for Support
Rather than tell Americans what they can and cannot do online in the privacy of their
homes, we encourage you to support a federal frarnework to protect the rights of U.S.
& secURE • • 376 •

(202)872-0010
Info@saleandsectlreig.or9
SAFEAMD
SECURE
INTERNET G"'I-lSLING INmIiIlV.
consumers and legalize and control Internet gambling activity. This is simply a common-
sense approach to better protect American consumers, create thousands of new jobs
and generate billions in new revenue to support our economy.
For your reference, enclosed are letters in support of Internet gambling expansion from
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Financial Services Roundtable and Americans for Tax
Reform, op-ed columns by George Will, John Stossel and Bob Barr, and opinion pieces
in the Orange County Register, San Diego Union- Tribune and Los Angeles Times.
Thank you for your consideration.
Regards,
Michael Waxman
Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative
Enclosures (9)
SAFE & SECURE INTERNET GAf;.1BUNG INITIATiVE. 1718 M STREET,If'H .. NUMBER 376 It WASHINGTON. DC 2.0036-4504
"'' ' ' ' ' ' 'ffl'' ' ' ' ',*_ ¢.~~ :<== ~ . ,,;:. -7777 •... r:;;; """" ==" _""""""",,,;r,,~~."'.!!L "" eo
(202)872-0010
info@safeandsecureig.org
Thank you for your letter of January 20 inviting our comments on Federal regulations that are
impediments to our business. Since California and Federal regulations are literally killing our business,
let me get right to the matters not at all in order of importance:
ADA
The American Disabilities Act is a sleeping job killer.

Last summer we needed to repair some rotted planks on a wooden deck at our airport restaurant. We
began doing so. The city building inspector interrupted our work to inform us we needed a building
permit to do even this basic repair work. In order to get a building permit, we needed to hire an
architect to do an ADA study with detailed plans to show that we were accommodating wheelchair
access. Never mind that this had already been done when the building was originally built. Never mind
that we weren't reconfiguring the existing wheelchair ramp. We were already in full compliance with
ADA, we were simply making repairs.
When we complied with the request by providing plans of our repairs to basically replace rotten boards
with new ones and change some round pillars to square ones (or whatever it was we did with those), we
were informed by city planning that federal reg's required that we show ADA compliance all the way to
the parking lot (400 feet away). They sent us back for more studies.
To keep this story short, let me simply say we have since - in the middle of a recession when contractors
are starving for work - and when we should be taking advantage of that by hiring cheap out-of-work
contractors for a myriad of projects - we have put a stop to all but the most necessary projects because
of, and ONLY because of, the ridiculous red tape government has put in our way.
We will happily hire contractors to do productive work. We will not waste money on ADA studies.
FAA
We own the world's only jet airliner, a DC9, certified for skydiving. Because this aircraft is generally
classified and used as an airliner, the government regulates it to those standards. Since our aircraft does
not operate at the tempo of an airliner, it does not need the actual maintenance or management that an
airliner would need. Likewise, it does not generate the revenue that an airliner would generate to
support the cost of maintenance. As a result, this beautiful, unique, innovative aircraft that was
advancing the world of aviation (skydiving) is now parked in storage until the cost of unnecessary
"regulatory" maintenance can be justified. The crews have been laid off (flight and cabin) and
maintenance staff has been laid off or reassigned.
This aircraft should be hauling skydivers. It shouid be training military HALO ops. It should be used for
covert military insertions. It has a tremendous and unique "hide in plain sight" capability. Instead, it's
parked for no good reason.
Such current regulations and policies stifle the innovative, entrepreneurial spirit that built this country.
Insurance
We desperately need tort reform. Insurance is the single biggest waste of money for any business,
certainly ours. It costs a fortune and we gain nothing from it. The law is insane.
A pilot stole a single seat airplane at our airport, put two people in it, tried to land the wrong way with a
tailwind, and crashed due to his own lack of judgment and skill. He severed his foot. The FAA found him
at fault and revoked his license. He sued us (the airport). Our insurance, agreeing we are blameless,
agreed to a six-digit settlement to avoid a trial because, under the law, the claimant would only need to
prove us 1% liable to receive a substantial award. The law is crazy and It encourages such nonsense.
The government is even worse. Last year, we were forced by our bank to buy tens of thousands of
doliars worth of flood insurance. The bank was being forced to require it by the federal regulation
(FEMA). Never mind that it would be impossible to flood the building the loan was funding. It is a vertical
wind tunnel that sits 25-30 feet in the air and then extends upward to 96 feet. In a year when we were
lucky to be breaking even, FEMA put us in the red. We laid off people and froze hiring and raises to pay
for it.
Energy
Energy cost is Iiteraliy about to put us out of business.

Much of this is a State of California problem, but last year So Cal Edison (controlied by the state) almost
ran us out. As it is, our customers are fleeing out of state and out of country because of our
uncompetitive prices dictated in large part by energy cost.
We operate an indoor skydiving training facility (vertical wind tunnel) that is used to train skydivers from
around the world. The tunnel operates on five 200 horsepower electric fans. Last summer we were
operating through Q2 at a profit. Then So Cal Edison began slamming us with "summer demand
charges". Our roughly $800 cost per hour jumped to about $900/hr due to So Cal Edison's demand
charges alone! Our competitor in Arizona was, in the meantime, bidding military and international
business at $750/hr. California lost ali that business. Some of it went to Europe. Next year, some wili go
to the Middle East and Asia, where new tunnels are now open. We ended the year at a smali loss.
Energy costs wili kili us. State programs designed to encourage business to shift work to off peak hours
are penalizing us to literaliy death. That said, federal roadblocks to drilling, nuclear power, and other
energy programs must removed so there is enough power to go around. As for interstate energy issues,
I'd like to know why my competitor in AZ is able to get affordable power when Ican't seem to.
I could go on and on citing one after another government policy that directly or indirectly inhibits
productivity. The fact that I must carry staff in a business already barely breaking even or losing money
just to manage Human Resource issues (ali government regulation related), tax issues, compliance
issues, etc. is often the difference between profit and not. (i.e. When did it become MY job to coliect
and deliver state-ordered child support by setting up special withholding and payment programs)?
Thank you again for asking for our input. We appreciate.the job you're doing on our behalfl
Regards
Dave Cibley
General Manager
Perris Skyventure
Hi,
I'm not writing this on behalf of my current employer.
I have been providing labor and employment advice to small and Fortune 500
companies for over 25 years. Currently, I provide free legal services to small nonprofit
charities.
We need a comprehensive set of federal wage hour and family and medical leave laws
to replace differing, conflicting state laws. Small employers, many of whom have limited
HR resources, are having difficulty in complying with overlapping laws.
In NJ, for example, there is the NJ Family Leave Act (similar to the federal FMLA), the
NJ family leave insurance law (a/k/a paid family leave), the federal Family and Medical
Leave Act (FMLA), etc. Each law has nuances that differ from each other. This makes
compliance extremely difficult, especially since the government provides no guidance
on how to comply with all the applicable laws at one time. No sample letters and forms
that will satisfy all applicable federal and NJ leave laws.
Thank you.
Christine Michelle Duffy
978-317-4671
Posted at the request of Chairman Issa's staff
Sent': Monday, January 31, 2011 5:09 PM

To:
Subject: Regulatory impediments to economic expansion and job creation = Fw: 50% Reduction in
Petroleum Dependence by 2015
Importance: High
To: Chairman Issa, House Oversight Committee 202/225-5074
House Oversight, Minority 202/225-5051
So, one of the debate is "value" of 1 million plug-in/Volt vehicles in 5 years ... the relative
cost of such an effort .,. and whether that is ENOUGH to improve NATIONAL SECURITY and
OUR economy.
A similar situation applies to the FUEL FRUGAL, 45 and ABOVE mpg(US) "CAFE", small
displacement Euro type turbo diesels ... sadly ... not even avaiiable from VW and Mercedes
in the US yet.
Let's examine that possibility a little closer ...
In 2009, the US had the capacity to produce approximately 2 BILLION gallons of bio
diesel annually, only using 25% of that capacity.
That full capacity would be enough bio diesel to fuel about 8 MILLION ... fuel frugal
diesels ... PETROLEUM FREE ... saving about 5,.6 BILLION gallons of gasoline ...
roughly 290 million barrels of crude ANNUALLY ... eliminating about 36 days
worth of oil imports at current rates a 10% reduction in oil imports.
Think what that would do for the US balance of trade. Add in the jobs generated to
DOMESTICALLY build 8 million fuel frugal diesel vehicles ... might be something to seel And,
how about OUR economy? Balance of Trade?
That 8 MILLION FUEL FRUGAL diesel vehicles would be LESS THAN 3.2% of the current US
registered vehicle population "'. JUST FOR THOSE THAT NEED or want them! To
REDUCE oil imports 10%!!!?77
Note that the entire Department of Defense is operating under a directive to

reduce petroleum dependence 50% BY 2015!
And ... domestically (US) built FUEL FRUGAL, 45 and ABOVE mpg(US) "CAFE", small
displacement (below 2 Liters) Euro type turbo diesel vehicles would go a long way
toward meeting that INTERNAL objective for NON-TACTICAL vehicles! A further
opportunity to reduce petroleum demand! [VANs and pickups are aiready avaiiabie with
potentiai CAFE ratings ranging from about 30 mpg to ABOVE 50 mpg that may be applicable
as well.]
Failure to provide this level of technology to/for OUR NATION's DEFENSE ... in MY
opinion ... IS ... ANTI-AMERICAN!!!
This is one gap that plug-in/VOLT technologies are NOT mature enough to address in terms
of "readiness P (recharge time and grid dependence) and payload.
Now consider what would happen to oil import demand ... IF ... the US Postal Service also
adopted these fuel fugal diesel power trains and used blo diesel. How much would that
further REDUCE 011 imports?
Note that the designs for these types of vehicles and powertrains are already in production
elsewhere in the world by many OEMs with US presence, more than a few with US
manufacturing ... the primary issue is ENHANCING emissions abatement of Euro Step 5
certified power trains for US compliance.
Little Federal funding should be required ... maybe help with advanced emissions abatement
(although Bosch, Riccardo, and others may already have the needed emissions solutions "on
the shelf" for 2014 Euro step 6 production requirements).
It is my opinion that 8 million 45 (plus) mpg combined diesel vehicles would sell themselves
without incentives over the next 6 years (particularly if fuel prices continue to rise as
expected). Keep in mind that is roughly the number of small displacement diesels
manufactured and sold in the EU in 2010.
I'm guessing that would be far easier, faster, and more cost effective (for OEMs, consumers,
and Federal government) than 1 million plug-ins over 5 years.
Of course, just my observations/opinions ...
This material should be viewed in conjunction with my email of 5 January 2011:
Regulatory impediments to economic expansion and job creation = Fw: 50 0/0

Reduction in Petroleum Dependence by 2015
To: Chairman Issa, House Oversight Committee

% Seamus Kraft
If there are any concerns, questions, or I can be of further help ... please contact me
immediatelyl
Please share this and the previous information with othersl
Respectfully,
Houston Smith
Advisory Engineer/Scientist, IBM - Retired
Vehicles. Fuel Economy, Environment, Oil Imports, Auto Industry
Several Opportunities
These same companies (or their partners)
USA offerings over 30 mpg combined average: with signfficant sales in the USA have over
50 models 0ncluding the ONL Y over 3:5 47 models available in Europe that achieve
mpg combined average Prius, Camry, over 44 mpg combined average today!
Civic, Altima Hybrid, Corolla, & 2 Yans). j
Non Domestic
Aulo Indusll}'
",
,
,,
...7-.......;.... • , CO
I 2 less than 144 g1km
.
CO2 greater than 25~
(except 35+mpg~cles) \ I
OPPORTUNrry? ' ,
' . A
Appo]tunlty
. ,. • "
!' Opportunity B
/--;;-~ - - - - On'':'$hO'rel?:tiild:': / "
..;--" ".,,' "; <:,.:, ..... ".:,.,
Allow import
,'",,',?''': ".441' ITrpg by 2a~ O! ,iYsler, Ford;GM, Ot er?
y.,~hi"le,'~",:,";;.~._ ~al!Jep.!!a~k$Y i~ DC@202/225-2836 LiillitQLiantity: of'Time'

'ChOIces,':
:.::
~ \
\ /
~ -. - • - • - • 300k/model
or 40% less C02
.' Cansu er: er 60% '- /
want sigri{ica~-¥ higher
,36,'months? '~.':._."Emissions
mpg, notju'st 8%"'qIpg
increase.
U
IMPORTS
-60% of USA
consumption
Bio Diesel
Diesel
25 to 40% more mpg
Ethan~1 (Butanol?)
- 5 1 000 gallons/acre
- .-
u
Combustion Exhaust
-200 gallons/acre Bio Diesel
'-
ISSUES (next 24 months) \
- 2,000 gallons/acre
Opportunrl:ies
Rank available engineifuel techno!ogies for Ethanol 1 methane recovery/conversion,
minimum harm to man & environment -700 gallons/acre Ethanol (Butanol?) distributed cogeneration (electric)
maximum distance/unit FUEL (or ENERGY) -1,200 gallons/acre
Establish & executa best 2 sustainable strategies within next 24 months n
~democratically distributed energy
ResponsIble: supply with true "free mar1<ee
Auto Industry, EPA, DOE, Engineering/Scientific Community {Congress MUST demand it}
© Houston Smith 5/08/07
houston.smith@wave-net.net
1
Vehicles. Fuel Economy, Environment, Oil Imports, Auto Industry
Several Opportunities
Why the Interest
Since summer 2005, I have been sharing with others the warning given to me by a Congressional staffer in spring 2005 »$41gaJlon GASOLINE IS
EXPECTED IN 2007 «. I can't begin to guess how he knew. But, it certainly does cause one to wonder!
A further thought: Since gasoline prices are now hovering in the $3-4 range, it is only a "hiccup" (any where in the world) away from $6 per gallon. In the
absence of 50 mpg vehicles, this will cost the "average" censumer between $1,500 and $2,500 per year in fuel cost assuming cest remains $3-4 per gallon.
In the USA today there are no "domestic" vehicles that have greater than 35 mpg(US) cembined average, UNLESS you consider HON DA, NISSAN, and
TOYOTA "domestic" [Specifically: PRIUS, CAMRY, CIVIC, ALTIMA hybrids, COROLLA, YARIS(2)].
http://WVN/.fueleconomy.gov/fegfbyf\r1PG.htm
On the other hand, the auto companies with significant sales in the USA (or their Euro partners) have over 48 vehicles in Europe that achieve over 44
mpg(US) cembined average. A majority are diesels meeting Euro Step IV emission with C02 emissions below 140 glkm. By cemparison, the "domestics"
typically range between 240 and 480 glkm.
Here is a list of high mpo vehicles in EUfO08
htip:!fVvwwAOmpo.orglpdfsf021407 fuel efficient vehicle gap.xls
So, IF those that wantedlneeded higher mpg machines could actually acquire them; then fuel censumption and emissions would decrease about 50% for
every vehicie placed in operation. Further, if most of these vehicles were diesel, this would establish a clear path to and demand for bio diesel.
The problem of 44 mpg cembined average, or better, vehicle availability seems to be a political onel So, many are taking the actions noted below.
You can help by calling and use the key words "44 mpg(US) by 2010"
"... not for ALL ... not for average CAFE ... "
"JUST MORE CHOICES for those THAT WANT better than 44 mpg ..."
-" waive import restriction lfor 36 months - inclUding diesels) if that is the only way".
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's DC office at 202-225-4965

Speaker of the Senate Harry Reid's DC office at 202-224-3542
Rep. Ed Markey's DC office at 202-225-2836 or email him at ht!p:llaction.40mpg.org/campaignIMARKEY MOFIE MPG
Sen. Dan Inouye's DC office at 202-224- 3934
Senate Commerce Committee at 202-224-0411 and 202-224-1251
Rep. Bart Gordon's DC office at 202-225-4231
Rep. John Dingeli's DC office at 202-225-4071
If you think these ideas are worthwhile, please pass them on!
© Houston Smith 5/08/07
houston.smith@wave-net.net
2
-----oripinal Message -----
'F'roln : HO.ustonS
To: "BRC % Mary Woollen"
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 20112:41 PM
Subject: Deliberately Small (Less than 300MW), Modular, Mass Produced, Distributed, 4 Generation
Reactors and the Second Nuclear Era
To: BRC % Mary Woollen

mary.woollen@blueribboncommission.net
Subject: Delibel'ately Small (Less than 300MW), Modular, Mass Pl'Oduced, Distributed, 4
Genet'ation Reactors and the Second Nuclear Era
Attachment:
1) Deliberately Small Reactors and the Second Nuclear Era Daniel Ingersoll
ingeesolldt@oml.gov
2) Safety and Licensing Aspects ofthe Molten Salt ReactorChatles Forsberg, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory
The specific reactor technologies considered should include Molten Salt (J\1SRs), Liquid Fluoride
Thorium (LFTRs) ... other fission plus Polywell and other fusion.
Deliberately Small improves "granularity" of incrcmental capacity, cost, and time to start-of-
power-delivery/revenue.
Modularand Mass Produced results in better learning cm-ves, higher quality, lower manufacturing
cost, and quicker "power ON delivery".
Deliberately Small also allows LOWER implimentation cost for a smaller Distributed plant and
site footprint which could enable "waste heal" as a utility since placement could potentially be
closer to potential commercial/industrial consumers oflower grade heat. This increases overall
reactor efficiency while reducing water consumption and "wasted" thermal cnussions.
Further, a system of Distributed reaclors reduces transmission losses and grid vulnerability ...
strengthening the grid.
The fact that many designs of the DeJibel'ately Small (Less thall 300MW), Modular, Mass
Produced, Distributed, 4 Gelle1'atioll Reactol's alld the Secolld Nuclear E,'a lend themselves to
underground installations which improves security and safety, With proper site planning, additional
modules can be cost effectively added in minimum time and cost as needed,
RespectfUllY .., with HOPEfor the FUTURE,
Houston Smith
Advisory Engineer/Scientist, IBM - Retired
Mr.lssa:
I want to thank you for you efforts to ease regulatory pain on the business
industry. Government officials, generally, do not take into account the damages
inflicted on business from regulations imposed on us. You get it. I not only
applaud you for your efforts, but for having the courage to stand up to the rest of
government, and fight for what is right for the people.
I always knew that my biggest challenge in business would come from my

competitors. I never thought my biggest competitor would be my own
government. From taxes, to fees, to air pollution regulations from the EPA, it is
a wonder how any business could thrive in this country.
You, sir, are a breath of fresh air when it comes to politicians.
Thank you
Ruben Ayala
VP / Tippy's Tow Service
President / Riverside Community Parks Association
President / Reid Park Advisory Team
Board of Directors / California Riverside Ballet

City of Vista
Response to January 20, 2011 request from Congressman Issa's Office for feedback on existing and
proposed federal regulations that obstruct job creation.
Comments: While the City of Vista recognizes that Congressman Issa's request is primarily directed at small
businesses, the City's input is relevant because the staff time and costs associated with the City's compliance with
federal regulations will most likely have some impact on Vista's residents, businesses and taxpayers. The brief
descriptions below of regulation requirements includes a column for both Federal and State requirements, Both
columns are listed, even though the request is directed only at Federal regulations, as the most difficult regulation
compliance issue the City faces is the contradictory and\or duplicative State and Federal regulations that apply to
many programs.
Excessive or duplicate regulation requirements
Program Name I Agency Federal State
Community Development Block

Grant (CDBG) IU,S. Department of Inconsistent and contradictory guidance and
NIA
Housing and Urban Development enforcement of CDBG program requirements.
(HUD)
Although not reqUired by HUD, the 5 Year Regional Analysis of Impediments

to Fair Housing (AI) is approved by HUD, The April 2010 draft AI is still not
Fair Housing components I HUD approved by HUD. This delay causes a delay completing the HUD required
Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) as the AI
is needed to complete the CAPER.
Program developed at the Federal level. Based on allocated dollar amount

Neighborhood Stabilization either the Federal or State agency administers the program. Agencies, like
Program (NSP)I HUD Vista, under state administration had to meet additional program requirements
beyond Federal requirements,
._--------------~------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Housing element process
NfA has been onerous and
State Department of Housing and , ~_n.e:?_~~_~~~_:.~ _
Community Development (HCD)
Inconsistent Income Limits (e,g, Very Low, Low, Moderate, etc,) between HUD
and HCD.
Different Fair Prevailing Wages Schedules between Federal and State,
More intensive wage verification requirements.

Contractor's usually more
(Example: interview employees,. verify payroll
Miscellaneous construction and familiar with State wages,
records.)
infrastructure projects I various
agencies ARRA Stimulus Act - onerous reporting.
(Example: Various reports such as Job
tracking submitted to EPA in paper format N/A
where other Fed agencies require electronic,
on-line same reports.)
File: 020111_Response to Issa Reg Request Page 1 of 2

City of Vista
Response to January 20, 2011 request from Congressman Issa's Office for feedback on existing and
proposed federal regulations that obstruct job creation.
Comments: While the City of Vista recognizes that Congressman Issa's request is primarily directed at small
businesses, the City's input is relevant because the staff time and costs associated with the City's compliance with
federal regulations will most likely have some impact on Vista's residents, businesses and taxpayers. The br"lef
descriptions below of regulation requirements includes a column for both Federal and State requirements. Both
columns are listed, even though the request is directed only at Federal regulations, as the most difficult regulation
compliance issue the City faces is the contradictory and\or duplicative State and Federal regulations that apply to
many programs.
Excessive or duplicate regulation requirements
Program Name I Agency Federal State
Lack of strategic support and funding dollars to

Economic Development stimulate jobs and business growth. Need
Administration (EDA) I U.S. greater emphasis on and implementation of N/A
Department of Commerce initiatives to increase program's importance
and levels of support available for businesses.
Similar to EDA lack of support, Need

expansion of program services and loans
SBA (Economic Development available for "main street" businesses.
Administration) I U.S. Department (Example: Capital needs to be available at N/A
of Commerce reasonable rates for business operations and
expansion after the great recession versus the
bailout efforts for banks.)
Intra-federal agency inconsistencies in

program strategies. (Example: One agency
Federal Banking Regulators I
directed to implement very cautious loan N/A
Treasury Dept.
activity versus another directed to increase and
expand loan activity.)
No clear, single agency for

businesses to obtain
resources and/or assistance
to operate. (Example: Gov.
Businesses encounter complex system to
General bureaucracy issues Schwarzenegger created
obtain resources or assistance to operate.
GoED-Governor's Office of
Economic Development, but
has no line-item budget
appropriated.)
File: 020111_Response to Issa Reg Request Page 2 of 2

To whom it may concern:
In 2003 my wife and I poured our hearts, minds and souls in to the American dream. We
leveraged every financial avenue we could after educating ourselves as best we could when we
decided to build our salon. Our salon, Hair Body and Sol, supports the livelihoods of 13 families.
I am familiar with Congressman Issa's background and I am well aware that the speck of dust, if
that, our small business is in comparison to his empire and those whose opinions are truly
counted give us about that much say, worthy of a speck of dust. Our struggles are daily and
many. I am one of the statistics myself in regards to having lost my job, I have only been able to
find part time work since March 2010. I have had to work full time since 2007 so to help our
business make ends meet, while also working as many aspects of our business as I can to save
money as my Wife works our business full time. It's not because we have a poorly ran business,
quite the contrary, we are often sought after to coach others in growing their small business as
we have ours, we have solid systems in place. If you cannot keep the money you earn, how
strong your systems are mean nothing. We want profits, that goes without needing to be said,
however, we cannot achieve profit levels as we desire more to ensure our those who work for us
are taken care of. As you may know as vast as the hair services industry is very few are educated
outside of high school and many come from less fortunate backgrounds. Sadly this means barely
earning over poverty levels as we, even with all the sacrifices we make, cannot afford the
increased burdens of paying the state and federal obligations associated with paying more in
payroll. At the levels we currently are at it requires that my family goes without, which is often
the case, which we gladly sacrifice for those who honor us by being loyal to our business. Now
that I have been laid off and cannot find employment we are burdened even more so. Our house
is "upside down" every penny we malce goes to pay the mortgage's interest. I wish our story was
uncommon, sadly it is the norm. Though I am discouraged, I have faith that someone will one
day stand up for the small businesses of America, as we are the backbone of this state and great
nation. One day I hope that our governing bodies will walce up to the fact that should you lessen
the financial obligations on the small businesses of this nation the rewards to everyone will be no
less than tremendous.
Addressing your request of pointing out the federal regulatory agencies that impede our growth, I
cannot speak to that, though how very important all of your efforts in this battle are, are
immeasurable. It is a culmination of many, many aspects that have hindered us from assisting in
simple economic growth by hiring more and/or spending as the financial burdens increase daily.
We pay a very large percentage of our revenue to the federal government (and all the agencies
thereof), the rest to workers compensation and the plethora of state requirements, as all small
business do, seemingly baring the blunt of the financial burden. There is nothing I can say that
you do not already know. You know what has to be done.
Recycling for today's eloctronic world
February 1, 2011
Over a period ofthree years, E-World Recyclers participated in a multi-stakeholder

coalition of federal and state governments, electronics manufacturers, recyclers, trade
associations and public interest groups to develop a voluntary consensus standard, the
Responsible Recycling Practices of Electronic Recyclers (R2). This process was facilitated
and supported by the EPA and has been accredited by the ANSI-ASQ National
Accreditation Board (ANAB) as a third party auditable standard. The purpose of the R2
Standard is to provide a set of practical procedures for electronics recyclers to help
ensure that used and end-of-Iife electronics are properly recycled to protect the
environment and health and safety of workers.
E-World Recyclers, a California based electronics recycler, is one of several locations

across the nation who has achieved certification and is implementing these practices in
their recycling operations. We've learned that it's not an option for any of us in this
industry to act irresponsibly when managing this material. The R2 Standard is
comprehensive yet practical and provides electronic recyclers with an excellent tool for
proper environmental management of used electronics. Every R2 Certified Recycler is
expected to ensure worker safety, promote reuse and recovery of electronic
components, reduce emissions during recycling operations, and obtain assurances from
their downstream vendors regarding the disposal and export of material.
E-World is very much aware of the backyard smelting and processing operations that
occur in other countries as this has been in practice for many years. Several
environmental groups have brought awareness to the improper export and disposal of
ewaste in developing countries but they have also made it difficult on recyclers that are
responsible stewards of the environment. The sensationalism ofthis type of reporting
should be put into its proper perspective.
Unfortunately, some in the environmental community abandoned the EPA-led R2

Standard before its completion and have instead worked to undermine the regulatory
certainty this particular certification program presents to recyclers, exporters and global
consumers of scrap. These environmental groups have urged EPA to eliminate the R2
program and codify an industry wide ban on exports of used and end-of-life electronics
that would disrupt legal trade. These groups have also convinced a few Members of
Congress to introduce ill-conceived legislation that would place unnecessary restrictions
on recyclers who lawfully and responsibly export their products.
Recycling obsolete electronics is the fastest growing sector in the recycling industry. We
have discovered that if we take the time to dismantle materials, we can produce
valuable commodities such as gold, copper, aluminum, metal, glass and plastic. Some
recyclers will even process these materials to a raw material which is sold as feedstock
in the manufacturing of new products. Most markets for this material is outside the u.s
and because ofthis demand, there are established global markets for material in the
countries that still find it cost effective to manufacture. Our trade association, ISRI,
located in Washington D.C., has made this statement regarding the economic impacts:
Banning exports of end-of-life exports will detrimentally harm the fastest growing sector
of the US recycling industry, reduce important US exports, and slow the further creation
of these "green jobs" in the United States. Additionally, the regulatory uncertainty
caused by these harmful efforts could possibly extend to other sectors of the scrap
recycling industry that have relied on exports for over 100 years by restricting access to
ever-growing overseas markets.
We tend to agree with this perspective because at this time, the u.S. has too many
restrictions which make it cost prohibitive to participate in the manufacturing industry.
The demand for this type of scrap is primarily overseas, as the regulatory environment,
high insurance premiums, and cost of labor have made it impossible to compete with
other countries that use this as feedstock to produce their products.
Our strength in this industry is that we can supply these materials because we are a
country that consumes so much. Providing tax relief, low interest equipment loans and
workforce partnerships would be a worthwhile topic for further discussions.
Thank you for the opportunity to express our concerns.
Cindy Erie
President
E-World Recyclers, LLC
cindy@eworldrecyclers.com
Bombshelter
2091 Goetz Road
Perris, Ca. 92570
(951) 259-6750
February 1, 2011
To: House of Representatives, Darrell E. Issa
Dear Senator Issa,

First of all, Congratulations on being elected as a Member of Congress representing
the State of California. Myself and my entire family voted for you and are pleased to
see the positive action you are already taking to try to help small businesses in our
failing State.
My family has owned and operate the Perris Valley Airport for 34 years. It has been
through HONEST, hard work and our love for Aviation that we have survived this
many years and desire to continue for as long as possible.
We have created one ofthe largest and well- known skydiving centers in the World
in a little City called Perris in Riverside County. We employee just under 100
people, throughout all of the Airport business.
It has become increasingly more difficult and we are fearful of what's ahead. This
past year, all of our companies were audited for nearly 6 months to find an honest
and very minor discrepancy and all of the other businesses without a single issue.
We had to hire accountants and bookkeepers to work with the IRS auditor so we
could continue normal daily operations. The Board of Equalization (State level, but
still aggravating) has been auditing us for over a year and is draining to see the
amount of energy and manpower placed on prying to find errors with small
businesses.
We are very concerned about the ongoing Government scrutiny towards small
businesses, between that, the fear of increase taxes and potential health care
demands for our employees, not to mention inappropriate approved development
too close to airports, we know that our days, as a privately owned public use airport,
are numbered.
We hope that you can be the voice for small business owners, for those of us who
have believed in working hard, providing a good service and NOT living off the
Government dole.
Sincerely.
jjSignedjj
Melanie Peschio
Co-Owner
Bombshelter Restaurant & Sports Bar

Perris Valley Aviation Services, Inc.
P.M. Leasing, Inc.
Perris Valley Skydiving School, Inc.
Melanie@skydiveperris.com
(951) 259-6750
www.skydiveperris.com
Februa ry 1, 2011
To: Congressman Darrellissa
Cc: Fritz Hitchcock, Andy Gharakhani
From: David K. Hall, Senior Vice President, Hitchcock Automotive Resources
Subj: Governmental Strangulation of U.S. Economic Activity
Fritz Hitchcock, the Chairman/CEO of Hitchcock Automotive Resources and President of the los
Angeles New Majority, has asked me to pass on some of my personal thoughts regarding the
negative economic impact of federal and state laws and regulations. My qualifications for
doing this include prior employment as a Professor of Government at Brown University as well
as my current positions as Senior Vice President of Hitchcock Automotive Resources, publicly
elected Board of Trustee Member of Mt. San Antonio Community College, and Chairman of the
City of Industry's Human Resources Committee.
Cost of Medical Care Regulation

Hitchcock Automotive Resources and its employees will absorb a 20%--that is a $454,000-
increase in their medical plan costs for 2011 with no change in the company's medical plan
benefits from 2010. For the past decade Hitchcock medical plan costs have increased an
average of 8% per year. This tells me that approximately $250,000 of this year's medical
insurance premium increase is due to ObamaCare. This December a few of our employees
discontinued their medical insurance coverage because, even though our company agreed to
pay most of this staggering rate increase for 2011, some of our employees simply could not
afford an even marginal increase in their medical insurance cost because of the decline in their
income caused by the Great Recession.
In other words, American companies and their employees are now starting to absorb the
staggering new costs of ObamaCare regulations (the elimination of lifetime benefits, extending
coverage for young adults, etc.). Comparable insurance rate increases are likely to occur for
many more years to come, as ObamaCare is gradually phased in, and these anticipated
insurance costs are a major reason why many American businesses will be unable and/or
unwilling to add new employees to their payroll in coming years.
If ObamaCare is to remain national policy, then something must to be done to rein in the
medical care costs that ultimately drive insurance premiums. Medical malpractice reform-
through reasonable national caps on noneconomic and punitive damages, sanctions for
frivolous malpractice lawsuits and limits on attorney fees-are one of the most obvious ways to
attack U.S. medical care costs without doing serious damage to the amount and quality of U.S.
medical care. And, in fact, to the degree that such malpractice reform reduced malpractice
insurance costs and allowed some physicians to remain in practice, the amount of medical care
in America will actually expand because of malpractice reform.
Reining in Federal Regulatory Agencies
It is well understood. that the Obama Administration will make every effort to implement its
policy agenda through regulatory decision making now that it has lost control of the House of
Representatives. To prevent the Administration from imposing its agenda by administrative fiat
may require legislative action, as in the case of Senator Barrasso's recently introduced bill to
halt any action by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to limit greenhouse gas emissions
without specific Congressional authorization.
The U.S. auto industry is strongly in need of consistent government regulation, which is why the
industry is united in its support for one national fuel economy standard to regulate vehicle
emissions. In December 2007, President George W. Bush signed the Energy Independence and
Security Act (EISA), which fortified the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program's
preemption of state regulations and set a national CAFE standard of 35 miles per gallon for
2020. Following enactment of the EISA, the EPA denied California's request for a waiver from
the federal standard that would have allowed the California Air Resources Board to impose an
even higher state standard. In September 2009 the White House, automakers, governors, EPA
and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration all agreed on new federal standards that
would impose an average fuel economy of 35.5 miles per gallon by year 2016. And yet in 2009
the EPA also granted the State of California a waiver from federal CAFE standards, and did so
again in 2010. Given the need to balance job creation and environmental concerns at this
crucial point in our nation's history, the federal government and not individual states should be
in control of the regulatory process which sets fuel economy and greenhouse standards. The
alternative is a patchwork quilt of varying state standards which increases costs to
manufacturers, auto dealers and consumers.
A second area where American businesses are worried about rulemaking at odds with
congressional sentiment is the continuing struggle over the so-called Employee Free Choice Act
(EFCA), or whatis more commonly referred to as Card Check. Under the proposed Card Check
legislation, American workers would have been required to publicly declare their vote on
workplace unionization in front of union leaders and fellow workers and therefore lose their
historic right to a secret ballot election on such matters.
With the Democrat Party loss of control in the House of Representatives, the concern is now
that the National Labor Relations Board will use its rulemaking power to put in place various
elements of the EFCA that would never be approved by Congress. This potential threat became
real on December 22, 2010 when the NLRB began a 60-day comment period on its proposed
rule to require private sector employees to notify employees of their right to unionize through
various workplace postings and communications. This proposed notice ("at least 11 inches by
17 inches in size, and in such colors and type size as the Board shall prescribe") would state that
employees have the right to act together to improve wages and working conditions, to form,
join and assist a union, and to bargain collectively with their employer. The notice would also
provide examples of unlawful employer conduct and tell employees how to contact the NLRB
with questions or complaints. NLRB member Hayes dissented from the issuance .of the
proposed rule, stating that the NLRB lacks the statutory authority to issue or enforce this new
rule. To prevent piecemeal implementation of Card Check through administrative rulemaking,
Congress is going to have to rein in the NLRB.
A third area where administrative rulemaking is of particular concern to the retail automobile
industry is financial regulation. The industry is understandably worried about the regulatory
authority and actions of the new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection which was created in
the Dodd-Frank bill. Rather than allow the marketplace to govern credit availability and rates
for consumers, the Bureau may so regulate and limit auto finance contracts as to effectively
deny many Americans access to financing and thereby delay significantly the post-Recession
recovery of the retail automobile industry.
Efforts to Eliminate Pre-Dispute Arbitration Agreements

Every U.S. business owner knows that the heavy cost of litigation is one reason why job creation
has slowed in America. Hundreds of billions of dollars are spent annually in defending
businesses from various lawsuits. Anything that can be done to reduce the time and cost of
resolving these legal disputes will enable American businesses to put more of their money into
job creation. The best way to do this is to support the use of pre-dispute arbitration
agreements that allow parties to a conflict to resolve dispute through the use of an agreed-
upon, unbiased arbitrator rather than put their complaint into the slow and costly federal and
state court system. In the State of California the average court case is resolved in 3 years, while
the average arbitration case is concluded in 1 year.
In spite of the economic benefits of pre-dispute arbitration agreements, some elected

officials-at the encouragement of plaintiff lawyers-have tried to eliminate the use of pre-
dispute arbitration agreements in the retail automotive industry. During the lOath Congress,
Congresswoman Sanchez introduced H.R. 5312 for the purpose of effectively banning all pre-
dispute arbitration agreements in the sale or lease of a motor vehicle. The assumption that
somehow pre-dispute arbitration agreements favor business over consumer interests is simply
untrue. An Ernst & Young study of arbitration outcomes found that 79% of all arbitration cases
are resolved in the consumer's favor and 69% of consumers are satisfied with the arbitration
process. The real losers in pre-dispute arbitration agreements are plaintiff lawyers who make
less money in a swift-moving legal process. The U.S. Congress should do everything it can to
encourage and protect the use of arbitration agreements if the primary goal in America is to
support job creation.
The attack on pre-dispute arbitration agreements has also been seen in efforts (notably in
California) to invalidate the use of pre-dispute arbitration agreements between employers and
employees and to make it unlawful for employees to take any adverse action in retaliation for
an employee refusing to waive Fair Housing and Employment Act (FEHA) rights and procedures
at the time of their employment, Only a veto of SB 1538 (Burton) in 2003 by then-Governor
Gray Davis stopped SB 1538 from going into effect, even though the Federal Arbitration Act
allows for arbitration of discrimination claims and the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently
upheld the right of employers to require pre-dispute arbitration agreements at the time of
employment.
Again, it is widely understood that any successful effort to ,invalidate pre-dispute arbitration
agreements between businesses and customers or between employers and employees would
dramatically increase the cost of doing business in the U.S. and thereby make American
companies even less competitive than they currently are. The U.S. Congress must do
everything in its power to legitimate and defend the use of pre-dispute arbitration agreements.
Incompetent Federal Inspectors

The Chief Financial Officer of an Irvine, California defense contractor recently told me that a
federal inspector had accused his company of failing to pay employee overtime and as a result
served his company with the notice of a fine. Upon looking into this overtime dispute the CFO ,
came to realize that the federal inspector did not understand the weekly pay periods the
company was using (even though the coincided with some federal pay periods) and had
therefore mistakenly concluded that the company's employees had worked more than 40 hours
during a work week. Furthermore, when this CFO asked the inspector how he could appeal the
proposed penalty, the inspector was shocked to learn that the company planned to challenge
the fine. In fact the inspector could not tell the CFO how an appeal to the proposed fine could
be filed. After hiring a lawyer to assist in the appeal process, the proposed fine against the
company was completely rescinded, but of course this outcome occurred only after the
company had absorbed the considerable cost of legal defense.
The point I am making is that at least some American businesses are being "shaken down" by
federal inspectors (some of whom are clearly incompetent) just as surely as American
businesses are being shaken down by plaintiff lawyers. To the extent that the federal
government's dominance of the U.S. economy grows, so too will the economic costs associated
with poorly trained federal inspectors who must hand out fines to justify their existence.
Seldom do stories surface about misapplied federal rules and regulations because very few
businesses 'want to shoulder the expense and the risks associated with challenging the U.S.
I
Government.
Ignoring Market Forces and Signals

The recent proposal by Senator Carl Levin and Representative Sander Levin to double the
current $7,500 tax incentive to buy an electric car is an example of the tendency for some
lawmakers to ignore the basic principles of supply and demand and in so doing impose
enormous inefficiencies on the American private sector. To give away additional tax dollars to
pay for the purchases of electric vehicles by a few well-to-do Americans at a time when the
federal government is already running a $1.5 trillion dollar deficit is simply economically
irrational. (For an insightful column by George Will on this very subject, see Will's recent "Why
Liberals are the ones who cry for 'more: ") The use of federal tax subsidies to support the mass
production of ethanol as a vehicle fuel is a real life example of such Government-driven
inefficiency. If the American economy is going to regain its international competitiveness and
its job-creating ability, the U.s. Government must stop distorting the price system which has
historically guided the efficient use of scarce resources.
February 2, 2011
Dear Representative Issa:
My name is Clyde C. Kerns; I am president of Kerns Trucking, Inc. A

rd
seventeen million gross sales 3 generation family business founded in 1933.
Kerns is an equal opportunity employer whom values the qualities of hard work,
honesty and professionalism. Currently Kerns employees 50 drivers, managers,
and administrators, additionally Kerns contracts 55 independent owners to serve a
diverse business base in 28 states. Founded originally as a sand and gravel dump
truck operation, over the years Kerns has expanded to over the road operations
transporting recyclables, agricultural and aggregate materials; additionally Kerns
provides dry van, flat and logistics services all part of our attempt to diversifY our
business to meet the challenges ofthe marketplace. This business model enables
us to serve both individuals and Fortune 500 companies. At Kerns, the company
is our employee and our employees have often worked for over four decades with
two decades of service commonplace. Kerns takes great pride in these
employees, as well as being safe, tax paying responsible citizens within all the
many communities we serve.
My purpose for this letter stems from the physical and laudable threat
excessive government regulation has rendered upon Kerns in recent years.
Government bureaucracies such as DOT, EPA, FMSHA, MSHA, NHTSA, OSHA
all are bringing ever heavy burdens upon Kerns business with redundant,
misguided, irresponsible regulation. Noteworthy are the following headlines:
(a) 114/2011 NHTSA clears path for speed limiter proposal

(b) 12/29/2010 FMSHA proposes seven changes in hours of
service rules
(c) 12/17/2010 DOT proposes rwe to ban hand held cell phone
use for commercial drivers.
(d) 12/7/2010 FMSHA appoints 3 new members to medical
review board
(e) 12/1/2010 DERA reauthorization makes progress in senate
(f) 11/19/2010 FMSHA mal(es changes in CSA2010
(g) 9/10/2010 FMSHA amends performance standards for
EBORrules
(h) 7/21/2010 Broad OSHA reform hidden in MSHA 2010 reform bill
(i) 6/20 I0 CSA severity scores released
G) 112010 CSA2010 announced by Secretary LaHood with
threat that 176,000 CDL drivers would loose their jobs and that many small
trucking companies would be closed but that needed to be done for the
safety of our highways.
In closing government regulation is stifling entrepreneurial capability to create

jobs and generate profitable revenue. Government regulation issued under the
mantra words of clean air and safety are the greatest threat to our continued
success which enables Kerns Trucking to provide for its employees and share
with its community, please read enclosure. Safety is a trained behavioral attitude,
it cannot be achieved with heavy handed ever changing one size fits all regulation.
Sincerely,
Clyde C. Kerns
President
CCK/ag
Encl 3
2
Internalizing CSA 20 I 0
The cost dynamics of CSA 2010 lie in the assignment of severity codes to
each regulation in CFR part 49. The implementation of this law is not without
cost and has placed a huge financial burden upon small trucking companies
like Kerns. Each violation of code regardless of severity, implicates guilt and
demands immediate correction. Additionally CSA causes shared blame by
paint brushing responsibilities of both driver and employer making each other
responsible for the others offense. An example would be a seatbelt violation
by the driver adversely affects the safety rating of the employer. Further
complicating the implementation of CSA is the random assignment of severity
codes. A good example is a severity rating of 7 for the driver not wearing a
seatbelt CFR part 49 392.16, yet only a severity rating of 5 for running a stop
light CFR part 49 392.2c. In Kerns view the severity risk to the motoring
public is much greater for running the stoplight.
More direct cost damage to Kerns occurs by the multiple inspections

endured each and everyday on the nations highways and the immediate action
that must be carried out once the inspection is complete. An example
experienced by a Kerns contract hauler occurred recently during such an
inspection. The Kerns unit was cited the following violations
393.9ts Inoperative turn signal right rear of truck severity risk 6

393.9t Inoperative tail lamp on right rear of truck severity risk 2
393.25(f) Stop lamp violation right rear of truck severity risk 6
CSA indicates with the inspection a greater than average safety hazard to the
motoring public, however; the facts were that the vehicle had all other lights
in working order including turn signal, running light, and stop light on the
right rear of the trailer, as well as turn signal and clearance on the right side of
the trailer and running light and turn signal on the right front of the tractor
representing no safety hazard to the motoring public. Kerns in the end was
punished by having to cease operations seeking repair of the lights
immediately at a much higher repair cost to prevent the possibility of
incurring additional penalties.
3
Another example occurred when Kerns received the following citation:
392.9 Failure to secure load severity risk 10
This ticket was received transporting a load of gypsum from a power plant to
a farm. Gypsum is a high concentrate lime scattered on land to supplement the
soil. This product is powder dry and must be transported in an open top dump
truck to be dumped in the farmer's field. Despite being covered air circulating
over the sides of the load caused dust to escape. The severity index for this
violation is the most severe that can be accessed reflecting great danger to the
motoring public, however; it is Kerns' view that the danger to the motoring
public was non-existent, yet the implication under CSA is irresponsible
endangerment of the motoring public. Kerns' costs, $100 citation plus the
decision to never transport this product for any customer ever again.
Unfortunately I could write many examples where standard enforcement

under CSA 2010 has resulted in lost revenue, unnecessary expense, and
punitive damages to Kerns Trucking. In an attempt to quantify the true cost to
Kerns in calendar year 2010 due to CSA enforcement please notate the
following table.
I. 172 inspections on 74 units.

a. Average inspection I hour
b. Loss revenue per hour $75.00 cost $12,900
2. Every 4 inspections result in I loss load

a. 43 loads lost
b. Average revenue lost per load $500.00 cost $21,500
3. New employees hired to handle CSA 2010

a. Manager Cost $57,250
b. Mechanic Cost $49,000
c. Shop laborer Cost $27,500
4
4. Maintenance expense increase year ovel~ year in cost per mile
a. Total parts and service excluding wages 20 I 0 $.1099
b. Total parts and service excluding wages 2009 $.0771
c. Sum difference $.0328
d. Total cost $.0328 x 6,240,000 miles run $204,672
Total cost incurred by Kerns from CSA201 0 enforcement in calendar year

2010.
$372,822
Representative Issa I hope these examples drive home the threat continued
regulation has upon small business in our country. Unfortunately there are
many other regulatory threats to our business, CSA20 lOis by far the worst for
my industry but by no means is it alone. In closing Kerns Trucking closed out
2010 with sales of $17,560,230 and net profit of$222,848; obviously our
ability to continue investing in our people and company is threatened.
Sincerely,
Clyde C. Kerns
CCK/ag
5
6
To whom it may concern:
My name is Captain Steve Papen, owner and operator of Fintastic
Inc based out of St. Petersburg Florida. I have been in business
for 11 years. My business is offshore fishing charters here in the
Gulf of Mexico.
In the past few years I feel that my government has left me

out to dry, in more ways than lone. The National Marine Fisheries
has made it almost impossible for me to make a living fishing, by
the use of closed seasons on species of fish such as Grouper and
. Snapper that are in NO shortage. In the past 20 years offshore
fishing here in the Gulf I have seen numbers of these species
grow and grow.
The Red Snapper for instance are so great in numbers that
we are having to leave spots we Grouper fishing on just to get
away from them, and I am not talking about a few fish here, I am
talking about there being so many of them that we can't catch
anything else. Yet NOAA says they are overfished and there are
none out there. Our current Red Snapper season is only around
45 days per year.
Grouper is yet another species that has grown to numbers
this fisherman has never seen. These fish along without the Red
Snapper are in high demand in the commercial fishery. Our 2011
Gag Grouper season is currently dosed to all recreational
fisherman until further notice, yet the commercial fishery is open
for harvest.
Now I am no rocket scientist but I find myself asking: Why
would the Government shut down an industry like our fishing
business like this. These business generate billions upon billions
of dollars per year. I have just one customer that had so much fun
fishing down here that he bought 2 condo's on the water for over
1 million dollars each, a $230,000 boat, $35,000 in fishing gear, 2,
$50,000 dollar cars, ect. This one customer lives up north and
spends about 80 days a year here in Florida. When his boat
leaves the dock for a 1 day trip he spends in excess of $1500.00
in fuel, food, tackle, ect. This 1 person has said to me that if they
keep these regulations going like this he is going to sell
everything and start going out of the country to fish. In addition his
entire family eat out every night, pay unreal taxes on his
properties, and in general spend hundreds of thousands of dollars
here in this little area. How many others are like this one guy?
Our regulations and outdated regulatory methods are out of
control and we need the help of OUR government to make things
right. We are being exploited on every level and we too have the
right to make a living doing something we love. Is this so wrong?
We are being left out in the cold and uncle sam is doing nothing to
help us out. In fact NOAA is supposed to receive 40 million dollars
of our tax paying dollars to put all of us out of work this year, with
their new "catch shares" policy. There are many documented
fisheries around the globe that prove these catch shares DO NOT
WORK, and put many, many people out of work, all over the
country.
You said you were listening, well, we are asking for your
help. Please throw us a line, because we are all going to sink with
our vessels without some help from "Our Government".
Please feel free to contact me if you need more information.
Capt. Steve Papen

Fintastic Fishing Charters
BOB ZALES CHARTERS
This is a small family charter fishing business located in Panama City, FL. My father and mother started
this business when I was 12 years old in 1965. Until the passage of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery
Management and Conservation Act in 1976, the business did very well with little government intrusion.
Once the MSA was passed then implemented the business continued to do well. When the MSA was
amended in 1996 the fishing business began to slow down. After the last amended MSA in 2006 the
business is almost nonexistent. The NOAA/NMFS has used the amended MSA of 2006 to destroy small
family fishing businesses which is destroying local fishing communities.
The new regulations promulgated by the amended MSA are overly restrictive with no flexibility. The
NOAA/NMFS under the leadership of Dr. Jane Lubchenco (former Vice President of the Environmental
Defense Fund) is now pushing catch share management on fishing fleets which is drastically reducing the
number of vessels on the waterthus eliminating jobs. This reduces the number offish houses that
process fish, reduces the number of charterboats available to recreational angiers, and put more people
in the welfare line. On top of eliminating jobs, the NOAA/NMFS FY budgets for 2010 and 2011 contain
$54 million to push catch shares on people who do not want them. Now they are requesting an
additional $18 million to continue this push while small family businesses continue to go under.
Our charterfishing business grew from one vessel in 1965 to 5.vessels as off 1995. Since that t.ime we
have been reduced to only one vessel again. The NOA/NMFS has reduced our fishing season from year
round to 6 months and last year only 53 days. The NOAA/NMFS is too powerful, does not care about
people, and does not care about fishing communities. I could go on but will keep this short. Thank you
for this opportunity to tell our story.
Capt. Bob Zales, II

To whom it may concern
My business Mexico Beach Charters is being ruined by NOAA and the NMFS. They are
closing down business's by reducing the numbers of fish that we are allowed to catch.
This is being done to promote Marine spatial Planning(very bad. for the masses-will only
benefit a few) and catch shares(an idea that is proven not to work around the world.
We need changes in The Magnuson Stevens Act to let the fisheries rebuild at a slower
pace. We need NOAA and the NMFS to spend OUR money not pushing catch shares, but
on getting better data and better ways to collect data. In turn we will KNOW what shape
our fisheries are in and can adjust the daily bag limits and seasons accordingly.
For some reason NOAA and the NMFS are being pushed by privately funded groups like
the EDF and their many arms under differing names. These fishery closures are killing
the tourist industry along our coasts which is in turn killing our faltering economy.
Marinas, hotels,tackle shops, restaurants, not to mention charter fishing guides and the
likes are all slowly being strangled. Please get this Marine spatial planning and the
leaders of NOAA and NMFS to see the light-THEY are killing the US economy by
unneeded closures and laws. .
Thanks
Thomas e Adams
311 Nutmeg st
Port St joe, FI 32456
850-381-1313

Pages 1513-1947: Submissions To Darrell Issa Regarding Federal Regulation: February 7, 2011

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pages 1513-1947: Submissions To Darrell Issa Regarding Federal Regulation: February 7, 2011

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

January 11,2011

The Honorable Darrell Issa

Dear Chairman Issa:

Auto manufacturing is a cornerstone of the U.S. economy, supporting 8 million private-sector

cc: The Honorable Elijah Cummings

The Honorable Darrell E. Issa, Chairman

Re: AAMA Response to Committee on Oversight Request: EPA Regulations Impact

Dear Chairman Issa,

The American Architectural Manufacturers Assoeiation congratulates you on your appointment as

Re: AAMA Response to Committee on Oversight Request: EPA Regulations Impact

Re: AAMA Response to Committee on Oversight Request: EPA Regulations Impact

cc: The Honorable Edolphus Towns, Ranking Member

attachments: May 21, 2010 GAO Major Rule Report

May 21, 2010

The Honorable Barbara Boxer

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman

Subject: Environmental Protection Agency: Lead; Amendment to the Opt-Out and

cc: Nicole Owens

REPORT UNDER 5 U.S.C. § 80l(a)(2)(A) ON A MAJOR RULE

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et l©l.

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. §§ 3501-3520

Statutory authorization for the rule

Executive Order No. 12,866 (Regulatory Planning and Review)

Executive Order No. 13,132 (Federalism)

http://loxics, custhelp, coml c9i-bin/loxics,cf9/php/end user/old_adp, php7p_faq id = 6660

Search by Topic 0 Search by Keyword Search Tips

Information collected by EPA for the purposes of the rulemaking indicates

EPA estimates that the costs of containment, cleaning, and cleaning

I: Nolify Me by Email if this, Answer is Updaled . :I

http://toxies.eusthel p,eom/egi-bin/toxies,efg/php/enduserlstd_adp,php?p_fagid=6660 4/28/2010

How well did this answer your question?

Back to Previeus Document ¢Jl

http://toxics.cus1help.com/cgi-bi n/toxics.cfg/php/endu serfstd_adp.php?p_ faqid=6660 4/28/2010

November 27, 2009

Document Control Office (7407 M)

Re: Amel1dm.eJ!t.t!!1b_e_QI!!=Q!!t~JldRecor!!keWing ProvisionsJ1Ltl.!.eJ,ead RcnoVDtiillh

Dear Administrator Jackson:

Regulatory Flexibility Act

Proposal Inconslslenl with TSCA

III. EPA Should Retain the Current Opt-out Provision.

(c) Remodeling (check i, ii, or iii, and check iv. if applicable):

Steven Owens, Assistant Administrator, Office of Pollution Prevention

Cass Sunstein, Administrator

Docket ill Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049

3.5 U.S.C. §§ 601 et seq.

4.67 Fed. Reg. 53461 (August 16, 2002).

6.45 C.F.R. § 35.1320.

9.73 Fed. Reg. 21692, 21701 (April 22, 2008).

10.73 Fed. Reg. 21692, 21710 (April 22, 2008).

11. 74 Fed. Reg. 55506,55518 (October 28, 2009).

12. See above discussion of the 2008 rule.

18.73 Fed. Reg. 221692, 221740 (April 22, 2008).

20. See redlined version of EPA Economic Analysis in EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049.

22. 74 Fed. Reg. 55506, 55516 (October 28, 2009).

23. See fn. 8.

24.5 U.S.C. §603.

25.74 Fed. Reg. 55506, 55509 (October 28, 2009).

26.74 Fed. Reg. 55506, 55509 (October 28, 2009);

27.73 Fed. Reg. 21692, 21710 (April 22, 2008).

The Honorabie Darren Issa

Dear Chairman Issa:

1331 LStroot NW, Su~o 650 () Washington, DC 20005 ~. 202.347.2900

January 10, 2011