DON H. CLAUSEN, Representative in Congress. WAINSCOTT STATIONERY, Healdsburg, Calif., September 14, 1972. DEAR MR. CLAUSEN: In reply to your letter dated September 6, 1972 regarding the OSHA program I would like to make the following remarks. I have not been contacted by OSHA officials personally, my only contact regarding their regulations was through a seminar put on by our local insurance agents. This contact awakened many business houses in this area and they immediately, including myself, began to fix their stores to meet these stringent requirements. Actually my business is not completely prepared for an investigation but I feel I will get by an investigator because on my known shortcomings, I have programmed them for repair as soon as funds become available. Your last question "am I familiar with the regulations", only up to a point. These regulations are too long and leave too much to be interpreted by the inves tigator, and his right to fine businesses without giving them due and proper notice of their deficiencies. I cannot help you with constructive suggestions for changes in this law except for giving notice of deficiencies prior to assessing a fine. I, like you, feel that there is a way through reasonable and realistic means to cut the accident rate through proper legislation of safety measures. RAYMOND R. WAINSCOTT. FRANK'S EQUIPMENT RENTAL, DON H. CLAUSEN, Representative in Congress, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: I have had no direct involvement with the O.S.H.A. Act but bing closely associated with larger yards and fellow members of CRA, and A.R.A. some of the situations are a bit ridiculous. Personally I think the act is a good one if it were administrated in a reasonable order. We need safety and there is no one more conscious of this than the rental people but for gosh sakes let's do it at a reasonable rate and make it have some sense and hold to it. Yours truly, FRANK EDDLEMAN, DONALD H. CLAUSEN, Congressman, House Office Building, EUREKA, CALIF., September 15, 1972. DEAR DON: Thank you for your letter concerning O.S.I.A. I am certain that I will come under O.S.H.A., but to this date I have received no information concerning it. I am not familiar with the regulations since I have not received any information from them, and consequently I have made no preparation for the investigation. I do intend to comply when I get word of the regulations. I do feel that O.S.H.A. has been very dictatorial in many cases here. The companies involved should have time to comply without penalty after the O.S.H.A. inspection. According to the information I have received, O.S.H.A. has not been reasonable or realistic. You may enter this correspondence into the official hearing record if you wish. Respectfully, CHESLEY N. GAYLORD, D.P.M. TWIN PARKS LUMBER Co.. Arcata, Calif., September 22, 1972. Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN, Representative in Congress, First District, California DEAR MR. DON CLAUSEN: In regards to a letter you wrote to Mr. Watson D. Poole, Realtor & Public Accountant on September 6, 1972, concerning the OSHA program, of which Mr. Watson D. Poole gave to me, I would like to offer the following suggestion: We most emphatically feel that the particular investigator or inspector should more or less be thoroughly educated in that particular industry for which he is inspecting. If I can be of any assistance to you in the future, please feel free to ask. Yours truly, GERALD F. JACKSON, Manager. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA Mr. Chairman and Members of the Select Subcommittee on Labor, I appreciate having this opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of an amendment to the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 which makes a distinction between the light residential and the heavy construction industries for the purpose of promulgating appropriate health and safety standards. This amendment has been the source of heated discussion for some time. I have no wish to add fuel to the fire, but I feel compelled to mention that much of the criticism leveled at the amendment has been done so without due consideration to the very real hardships suffered by the light residential construction industry, as it attempts to comply with the provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. When the Congress originally considered the Occupational Safety and Health Act. I was strongly in favor of its intent and urged its passage. I know of few persons who did not favor some sort of health and safety regulations for the construction industries; the overwhelming vote in favor of this measure's passage certainly stands as a testament to the need for such standards. However, the need for the law not withstanding, certain imperfections have come to light which we in the Congress had not anticipated two years ago. This is not the first time that we have found provisions in the law unworkable, nor will it be the last time. My concern at this point is that we single out those provisions and attempt to derive new language which will prove to be satisfactory. The amendment which is under consideration by this Subcommittee represents, in my opinion, a workable solution. It instructs the Secretary of Labor to “recognize the difference in hazards to employees between the heavy construction industry and the light residential industry." In my judgment, this delineation is completely justified. It is a request not for exemption of the light residential construction industry, but for a set of standards which is geared to the particular hazards which are presented by light construction work. The greatest objection which I have heard put forth to this amendment is that the degree of safety and protection assured under the law should not vary with the size and type of employer, and that this amendment would, in fact, offer a greater degree of protection to those employed in the heavy construction industry than to those employed in the light residential construction industry. This argument does not take into account the different hazards presented by the two types of work; it insists instead on treating the two industries as one, with similar potentials for injury. This is as far from being the truth in the construction industries as it is in the transportation industries. It is obvious that we do not require the same standards in bicycles as we do in automobiles; the hazards presented to the operator are, of course, different. The same is true of the construction industries. The safety requirements for a thirty story building are naturally different than those for a three story building. To require identical safety regulations for the two is like requiring reinforced bumpers, seat belts and harnesses for bicycles because they are required on cars, without any regard to the perils which are peculiar to the bicycle and not to the automobile. I believe that we in the Congress have an obligation to the construction industries and to their workers to recognize their differences as well as their similaries. Since the effects of this law first began to make themselves felt, I have received many letters from home builders throughout the Seventh District and the State of Georgia, all of them strongly in favor of a revision of the law. Among the most common complaints are: specific safety requirements which are financially prohibitive for the smaller builder and which represent "overkill" in terms of providing adequate precautions against injuries on the job; and the confusion which now exists as to which regulations are in fact applicable in varying instances. To elaborate on this last point, the Deputy Assistant Secre tary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health has stated that what an employer must do is to pick out those standards which apply to his own situation. This is well and good, but if he chooses wrongly, he is then subject to stringent penalties for non-compliance. Furthermore, some OSHA officials have admitted that certain of the regulations are not designed to apply to light residential construction, but they further admit that there is no definite way of determining this from the regulations themselves. As to the regulations, I will not reiterate all of those which I deem harsh or over-precautionary, but I would like to cite one which was brought to my attention by home builders in Georgia. This is the requirement which demands the placement of one fire extinguisher per each 3000 square feet of the protected building area, with travel distance to the nearest fire extinguisher not exceeding 100 feet. One 55 gallon drum with two pails can be substituted for one fire extinguisher. I would like to quote what one Georgian had to say of this requirement: "We are anticipating the beginning of construction on a subdivision containing 260+ lots with an average per lot size of 1500 sq. ft. (rounded) protected building area. Taken literally, as provided in the above referenced section, we would be required to provide 134 fire extinguishers at a cost of $30.00 each for this subdivision. This is a total of $4,020. Further, these extinguishers would have to be dispersed throughout the new subdivision in such a way as not to be further than 100 feet from each house. At the end of the day, our project superintendent would be faced with the problem of whether to take the chance of leaving the expensive extinguishers dispersed through the night at the mercy of wouldbe vandals or to involve even more expense through the timely collection of the extinguishers each night. When the morning comes, he would either have to re-disperse the extinguishers from a central storage point (storage shack additional expense) or cruise the entire area checking for stolen extinguishers. I have expanded this section only to demonstrate how COMPLETELY unsuited these regulations are for the light residential construction industry. This is not the only section which is ridiculous when applied to our industry; there are many, many more." I want to further point out that the regulations themselves are not specific in stating at which point in construction fire extinguishers must be placed, nor when they may be removed. It is also of interest to me that this requirement for fire extinguishers in a home under construction far exceeds building codes and regulations for an occupied house. Mr. Chairman, as I stated at the outset, I know of few persons who are not concerned for the health and safety of America's workers. Certainly, those of us who wish to see a clear distinction made between light and heavy construction do so not with the goal of reducing safety precautions for employees. I am convinced that a separate category for light residential construction will, if anything, improve the quality of safety precautions, not hinder them. I also believe that we in the Congress have an obligation to examine the effects of the laws we write and to attempt to make them as workable as possible. It is my feeling that this law, as presently written, with regard to the light residential construction industry, serves only to penalize the home builder. For example. I have in my files many letters from different sections of Georgia, which categorically state that the costs of houses will rise approximately ten percent, solely because of the regulations of this law. Several of the writers expressed concern that this law might force them out of business, and all agreed that the end result will be to hurt the consumer. Mr. Chairman, I believe that it is in the best interests of the American construction worker, home builder, and consumer that this amendment be given all possible consideration. I appreciate having had this opportunity to submit my views to this Subcommittee, and I urge the amendment's adoption. STATEMENT OF HON. JACK EDWARDS. A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. This statement is in support of two bills which I have co-sponsored, H.R. 12677 and H.R. 13944, both of which would amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. The first of these bills, H.R. 12677, would require the Secretary of Labor to recognize the differences between hazards to employees in the heavy construction industry and to similar employees in the light residential construction industry. H.R. 13944 is more general in scope, requiring the Secretary of Labor to evaluate and review existing standards to see which of these standards are applicable to specific categories and classes of business concerns within each industry or form of business. Along with other provisions designed to inject more reason into the law, it calls on the Secretary of Labor to provide technical advice, assistance, and consultation to small employers to assist them in compliance efforts. Looking at H.R. 12677, the hard fact emerges that many of the hazards against which workers are protected under P.L. 91-586 simply are non-existent in the light residential construction industry. As a result, employers in the home construction industry can be forced to spend thousands of dollars and many manhours to meet requirements which do not, in their case, achieve the avowed objectives of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. This failure on the part of the existing law to discern between health and safety hazards of the heavy and light construction industries and similar failures in other industries and types of businesses present many employers in America with an automatic, bureaucratic, unseeing enforcement which taxes their spirit of cooperation and defies their ability to understand the worth of the law. These employers want to do the right thing and want to protect the health and safety of employees. But no purpose is served by wielding the same complex enforcement meat-ax against smaller, less hazardous businesses as is applied to large industry. It has been said that you cannot apply the same rule to a mule that you apply to a racehorse. Likewise, the purpose and effectiveness of government is defeated when it fails to recognize the need for different standards and enforcement procedures in entirely different situations. Mr. Chairman, I urge your favorable consideration of H.R. 12677 and H.R. 13944. These amendments will make the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 a more effective law. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN PAUL HAMMERSCHMIDT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS Mr. Chairman. I welcome this opportunity to submit testimony in support of several amendments which have been proposed to the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. I was gratified to learn of the scheduling of these hearings by the Subcommittee because of growing indications that the administration of this Act has resulted in difficulties and inequities not foreseen or intended by the Congress. A statute of the magnitude and complexity of the 1970 Act must be reviewed by the Congress and in this case I am hopeful that appropriate action will be taken to eliminate inequities and ensure the original legislative intent of the Act's provisions. Members of Congress need look no further than their own constituent correspondence on this subject for evidence of the tremendous concern, perplexity, and financial difficulty resulting from enforcement of the 1970 Act. This concern has, in turn, been reflected in the large number of bills introduced in the Congress to amend the Act. This widespread concern was also amply illustrated in the report and record of hearings held in June of this year before the Subcommittee on Environmental Problems Affecting Small Business of the House Select Committee on Small Business. That Subcommittee indicated that they were literally swamped with requests to testify on this subject and the report states that the 1970 Act “. . . is probably having the most extensive impact on the Nation's small business community of any legislation enacted in recent years." The hearing record of the above hearings contains numerous examples of problems resulting for our nation's small business concerns under the Act and the Subcommittee's findings and recommendations point the way toward several meaningful solutions to these problems. I know that this information will prove helpful in this Subcommittee's current investigation and trust that it will receive your careful attention. Mr. Chairman, I have cosponsored several bills which I feel would go a long way toward solving some of these problems and eliminating various inequities under the Act. Among these is a bill (H.R. 15353) providing that where violations are corrected within the prescribed abatement period no penalty shall be assessed. One of the biggest problems with respect to the occupational safety and health 87-382-73-11 program is the inability of employers to learn exactly what is expected of them under the Act until they are actually faced with a stiff penalty and fine. This problem is particularly acute for small businessmen, who simply do not have the time nor expertise to fully comprehend the law and to interpret how the various standards apply to their operations. In awareness of this problem. it would seem only equitable to provide reasonable opportunity for the correction of declared violations before a penalty is assessed. Two other bills which I have cosponsored (H.R. 13942 and H.R. 16750) contain provisions which are also addressed to the foregoing problem of compliance information. H.R. 13942 would require the Secretary of Labor to provide technical advice and consultation to employers of 100 or fewer employees to assist them in complying with the Act and H.R. 16750 would enable the Labor Department to provide on-site consultation without inspection upon request. As the situation now exists an employer cannot obtain such consultation and advice from the Department without risk of penalty for violations which may be discovered in the process. The Department of Labor has determined that the law does not permit on-site consultation without employing the full force and effect of the inspection process. Similarly, the problem of adequate information is compounded by the fact that the broad standards are applicable to all businesses and fail to distingush between the variations in risks from one industry to another and those which often exist within a single industry. The construction industry provides a glaring example in that standards applicable to construction do not make distinctions between the heavy construction industry and the light residential construction industry, even though the degree of risks are markedly different. H.R. 12678, which I have cosponsored, would require the Secretary of Labor to recognize the difference in hazards to employees between the heavy construction industry and the light residential construction industry. H.R. 13942 would also alleviate this particular problem by requiring the Secretary of Labor to evaluate existing standards in order to determine the applicability of each such standard to each class of business concern within each industry or form of business. The Secretary would have to determine as part of each standard, the class or classes of employers to which that standard is applicable and any class of employers to be excluded from the application of that standard, after a determination that the inclusion of any such class would be unreasonable. Such evaluation and determination would henceforth have to be a part of the establishment of all standards. Another important distinction omitted from the Act and subsequent regulations is that which exists between the employment hazards involved in manufacturing businesses and small retail establishments. A bill which I have cosponsored, H.R. 12700, would exempt from the federal standards created under the Act any nonmanufacturing business or any business having 25 or fewer employees, in states having laws regulating safety in such businesses. For purposes of this bill, the term "business" would mean "any individual business establishment whose major business activity is nonmanufacturing." The House of Representatives has gone on record quite clearly with respect to its support for an exemption of small firms from compliance with the Occupational Safety and Health Act. In the initial version of the Fiscal 1973 LaborH.E.W. Appropriations bill the House adopted an amendment exempting firms employing 25 or fewer persons, which figure was later reduced in conference to 15. In considering the revised version of the bill the House again adopted such an amendment, this time exempting firms employing 15 or fewer persons. Still another problem with respect to the compliance standards lies in the fact that the law provides for national consensus standards to be put into effect without the necessity of complying with the usual rulemaking procedures. The law provides only for publication of the safety requirements in the Federal Register, whereupon the employer is expected to know of them and to have complied with them the day an inspector happens to walk in. H.R. 13942 provides that these national consensus standards shall not have equal status with other requirements which were adopted in the usual rulemaking proceedings, by specifying that no penalty or other action will result unless the employer did receive at least 30 days' prior actual notice of the requirement. Failure of an employer or employee to comply with a standard adopted without compliance with the usual administrative procedures, furthermore, could not be used as evidence of negligence or wrongdoing on the part of the employer or employee. Another defect in the law exists with respect to the lack of an enforcement procedure against employees who willfully violate those standards relating to |