Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Commonwealth’s Emergency Temporary Standard/ Emergency Regulation Infectious Disease Prevention: SARS-CoV-2 Virus That Causes COVID-19. On behalf of the PRINTING United Alliance (PrUA), we submit the following comments and suggestions.
As background, PrUA represents the interests of facilities engaged in the production of products through screen, digital, flexographic, and lithographic printing processes. This includes facilities engaged in garment decoration, production of membrane switches, decals, all types of signage, as well as paper products, such as books, pamphlets, and other marketing materials. Our industry is comprised primarily of small businesses, with about 80 percent of establishments employing 20 or fewer people.
We understand the concern of the Commonwealth regarding the safety of the workforce during this time of pandemic. However, we believe, it must be tempered with common sense and recognition of costs associated with the compliance of a regulation.
We are not against protecting our workforce against this or any other infectious disease. PrUA has a long history of providing safety compliance information to our industry with the goal of reducing workplace injuries and illnesses. Over the past three months of this pandemic, PrUA has, through its media partner NAPCO Media, provided up to date information to the industry on state emergency orders, safe work practices based on guidance by both the Center for Disease Control and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, as well as critical employment information. Our goal continues to be one of providing information to members of the printing community on safe operation while adhering to reopening guidelines established by state agencies.
We believe there is not a need for a formal rulemaking to address safety and health practices for this pandemic. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration recently testified, before the House Education and Labor Committee’s Workforce Protections Subcommittee, that they would not be pursuing an emergency regulation as the Agency felt that they had enough regulatory oversight to address these issues. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on June 11, 2020 also agreed as they denied a petition by the AFL-CIO that would have required OSHA to develop an emergency regulation. OSHA’s position is that its existing statutory and regulatory tools are protecting America’s workers and that an emergency temporary standard is not necessary at this time and PrUA agrees with that position.
We believe that VOSH has adopted all of the relevant federal standards and already has the authority and regulatory oversight to address safety and health issues associated with this pandemic situation. An additional regulation is unnecessary and would impose significant costs on businesses at a time when many cannot afford it as they are on the verge of bankruptcy or in a situation where their income is significantly lower than the pre-pandemic period. Many of our members are reporting that sales and income are between 40-60% of pre-pandemic levels.
In addition, the proposed regulation contains many provisions that are quite onerous for small business and need to be revised or eliminated. We also offer the following comments on the proposal itself.
The requirement to ask employers to designate and document employees as either “very high,” “high,” “medium,” or “lower” exposure risk assumes that the small business would have a person on staff capable of making these type of subjective judgement calls. The addition of a staff person, knowledgeable in the area of infectious disease, imposes a significant economic burden. Alternately, hiring a consultant to perform this analysis also requires taking on significant economic burden and is cost prohibitive. State guidance that clearly identifies what businesses must do is a much more economical and straightforward mechanism for the small business community.
While it is appropriate for the VOSH to propose regulations regarding the safety of employees in the workplace, the requirements proposed regarding return to work (40.B) should not be included in a safety regulation. These requirements are personnel related and do not have a role in this type of regulation. There are no other safety regulations that address how an employer is to address back to work requirements for an employee that experiences an injury or an illness. There are a plethora of issues and concerns that must be considered beyond the scope of VOSH’s authority and would not be able to adequately assess compliance.
Section 50 Requirements for hazards or job tasks classified at “very high” or “high” exposure risk.
As stated above, it is not feasible for small businesses to accurately evaluate and designate the jobs in their businesses as a certain risk level. Therefore, this section has the potential to apply to any business, including printing operations. In Sections 50.A.1 and 50.A.2, it is specified that businesses in the categories of “high” or “very high” must have medical-grade air filtration systems installed that “are appropriate to address the SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 related hazards and job tasks that occur at the workplace”.
Many businesses, including printing operations do not currently have these systems installed as it is not necessary for their business functions. Installing portable units would be the only way to come into compliance with this requirement without having to completely redesign and install a new Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) system. The cost of installing a medical-grade ventilation portable air purifier for an entire manufacturing facility, which range from 25,000 to 100,000+ square feet, can be upwards of $10,500 to $41,650+. This does not include the maintenance cost of changing filters, filter costs, or the additional energy costs associated with a more intense system. Since some printing operations can generate smaller quantities of dust, it is anticipated that filter changing will be very frequent.
Furthermore, the National Air Filtration Association states, “in most buildings and in most situations, filters may be considerably less effective [in COVID-19 prevention] than other infection control measures including social distancing, isolation of known cases, and hand-washing.” Furthermore, hospitals often rely on other control strategies (e.g., UV lamps, humidity control, airflow management) to maximize the benefit from filtration, along with a staff dedicated to maintaining and operating the systems.
Because companies have implemented policies that required anyone with COVID-19 or close contact with a COVID-19 case to prohibited from entering their facilities, this heightened level of air filtration is unnecessary and the classification of “high” or “very high” in this case is too broad. Therefore, the regulation should specify that the requirement of air filtration systems with a medical-grade caliber is limited to facilities that actively care for and knowingly house persons with active illnesses of infectious diseases.
Section 60.A discusses engineering controls that facilities must undertake when employees are classified as “medium” exposure risk. The ventilation requirements listed are identical to those found in Sections 50.A.1 and 50.A.2 for health care facilities where airborne particulates of infectious diseases are expected to be encountered. Many printing operations could have employees in the medium exposure risk category, and it is important to understand that printing facilities have adopted ventilation systems appropriate for their facilities based on chemical use. The upgrading to this type of ventilation system is both unwarranted and expensive. For the same reasons stated above for Sections 50.A.1 and 50.A.2, this requirement should be removed from this section. Section 60.C discusses requirements for Personal Protective Equipment. It is unclear from the regulatory text whether Section 60.C.2 applies to employers that have already undertaken hazard assessments for PPE required in the workplace, which is required of general industry. It appears that this section was written for businesses that are not already covered by the mandatory assessment. And, if Section 60.C.2 does apply to general industry and a new hazard assessment is required, why is there an additional requirement that it be certified when that is already required? We recommend that this section be reworded to acknowledge industry sectors that are already required to conduct the written hazard assessment and conform this requirement to current regulation.
Section C.4 should be deleted as it is not a regulatory requirement but a statement of fact that should be included in a guidance document rather than a regulation.
Implementing Section 70 requirements will create a serious economic burden for small businesses to implement. The proposal states that a person “shall be knowledgeable in infection control principles and practices as they apply to the facility, service or operation.” This proposed standard seems to require businesses to train an existing staff person and dedicate their time to this effort or hire an outside consultant to develop a plan. Again, state guidelines have been issued that provide templates that can be adopted by the business sector that does not require the use of an expert in infectious diseases. In addition, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have issued numerous guidelines to assist businesses with creating plans so as not to require the need to hire outside consultants. Hiring such consultants places a significant financial burden on businesses that are trying to recover from the current economic crisis.
Further items included in this section are not related to safe work practices, but reflect general business practices, and therefore should not be included in this safety regulation. Specifically, Section 3.c and 3.d should not be included in a safety regulation.
Section 7 refers to “very high” and “high” employees, not “medium” exposure risks. This language needs to be clarified as to what training is being required by each level of exposure risk.
The current wording of this section is confusing. The indication is that this section only applies to “very high” and “high” exposure risks, however, further in the section it refers to “medium” exposure risks.
We believe that training requirements as outlined are already in place for printing establishments as required by the general industry standards. The addition of any new PPE requires training. And this training is already well documented. The requirements placed in this section are duplicative and do not reflect what is required by current regulation.
The PRINTING United Alliance remains committed to providing the graphic communications and printing industry with resources to address safety and health issues associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. However, we do not believe that a formal safety and health regulation is either appropriate or warranted as current general industry standards are comprehensive and sufficient. This position has been validated by both OSHA and U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit actions.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide our thoughts and comments on this important regulatory initiative.
Sincerely,
Marcia Y Kinter
Vice President Government & Regulatory Information