COMMENTS (Part II) REGARDING DRAFT REGULATIONS GOVERNING MEDICAL SERVICES & FIRST AID STANDARDS FOR THE GENERAL & CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

On behalf of the Virginia Retail Merchants Association (“VRMA”), the Virginia Hospitality & Travel Association (“VHTA”), the Virginia Manufacturers Association (“VMA”), and the National Federation of Independent Business (“NFIB”), we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Draft Regulations Governing Medical Services and First Aid Standards for the General and Construction Industry (“Proposed Regulations”). 

(continued from Part I)

II.  DOLI fiscal analysis:

VRMA, VHTA, VMA and NFIB believe that the DOLI fiscal analysis of the proposed regulation grossly underestimates the number and degree to which this proposed regulation will affect existing small and large businesses in Virginia. There appears to have been little, if any, realistic cost benefit analysis performed or documented before this regulation was published.  As your comments clearly state, a “disadvantage is that some employers would have to incur the additional cost of securing such training” and as DPB recognizes “there is insufficient data to accurately compare the magnitude of the benefits versus the costs.”

There also is a tremendous difference in the number of businesses affected by the current federally imposed regulation and the number that will be affected by the proposed DOLI change.  As DPB explained  “[i]n sum, under current regulations, most firms…are required to have a first-aid-trained employee on site only if medical attention…is not in near proximity or reasonably accessible.” (emphasis added).  The new proposal, according to DPB, “will affect all employers in Virginia” (emphasis added).  To force such a sweeping change, with little or no cost data, on Virginia employers is extremely problematic. Given the current state of economic affairs in the Commonwealth such a change evidences an extreme disregard and disrespect for the financial health and well-being of all Virginia businesses and for the people who are trying to make every dollar count by providing jobs to Virginians in this time of unprecedented economic downturn.

Furthermore, reading through the explanation provided, one could surmise that the regulation was intended to primarily affect industrial users.  Most of the sited data analyzes only response times for industrial sites.  Many businesses in Virginia, however, are not “industrial sites” but are simply small businesses. The associated cost of implementing this regulation to these businesses seems to have been given little or no weight in proposing the current regulatory scheme. As DPB mentions, there are reasonable alternatives to the single mandate contained  in this proposal, including a requirement that medical services be provided only if a business could not meet the current delineated four and fifteen minute thresholds.

II.                Conclusion:

While VMRA, VHTA, VMA and NFIB all agree in principal with creating a safer workplace for all employees and clarity in government regulations, we do not agree with the promulgation of a confusing regulatory scheme in troubling economic times.  What Virginia employers need are precise rules and guidance. This proposed regulation provides neither.  What it does do is add costly, unclear, and potentially weaker regulations to many large and small businesses at a time when government should be helping to remove additional costs and burdens on the citizens of this Commonwealth.  We respectfully ask that you reconsider the implementation of this regulation, in its current form or at least provide for some common sense alternatives to the training and personnel expenditures contained in your proposed regulation.

Thomas A. Lisk, Esquire

LeClairRyan, A Professional Corporation

951 East Byrd Street, 8th Floor

Richmond, VA 23219

(804) 343-4087

Thomas.Lisk@leclairryan.com