8(d) of the act. Consistent with this provision, we recently published a proposal in the Federal Register that would exempt from the recordkeeping requirements all employers with fewer than eight employees. However, a few of these establishments, on a random sample basis, will be asked to keep records, to allow the annual survey to be complete. As I indicated earlier, many States have their own safety and health legislation, and the Congress made it clear that the Secretary should encourage "the States to assume the fullest responsibility for the administration and enforcement of their occupational safety and health laws." We are doing everything we can, therefore, to encourage the development of State plans for programs that are at least as effective as the Federal effort. By the end of this year, we should have a good idea of how much success to expect from our efforts. Until December 28. States with 18 (h) agreements will be allowed to enforce their own standards, irrespective of the existence of Federal standards in the same area. After December 28, only Federal enforcement and standards will apply, unless there is approval of an acceptable State plan. Thus, although States may submit plans at any time in the future, this is the year in which we should expect most of them to submit their plans in order to avoid Federal preemption.

Planning grants totaling some $8.5 million have been made to all of the States and four other jurisdictions. To date, 11 plans have been received from the States-from South Carolina, Oregon, Montana, New Jersey, Washington, Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Delaware, Vermont, and North Carolina. However, 48 States have submitted a formal letter of intent to develop and submit plans. We anticipate that about 30 State plans will have been submitted, reviewed, and approved or rejected by June 30, 1973. Already we have 11 States who have submitted such plans, including your State of New Jersey, Mr. Chairman, through the review and approval process.

Mr. DANIELS. At that point, Mr. Secretary, can your statement reflect the names of the other States?

Mr. GUENTHER. Yes. South Carolina, Oregon, Montana, New Jersey, Washington, Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Delaware, Vermont, and North Carolina.

Mr. DANIELS. Have any plans received approval up to this date? Mr. GUENTHER. No, sir.

SOME MAJOR PROBLEMS

In summary fashion, this indicates what we have done, and why. Two interrelated problems stand out from this review-the need for development of standards materials in a useful format for all employers and employees, and the need for provision of more assistance to employers to aid them to come into compliance voluntarily. We are working on both of these problems. It will take time, more than anything else, to really solve them. With regard to a more usable format for the standards, we must break down the existing volume of standards in such a way as to make it easier for an employer in a given industry to find out those which particularly apply to him. While trade associations have been of great assistance in providing this kind of standards analysis, we are also actively at work in categorizing the existing standards into broad industry groupings. In addition, we will be moving as rapidly as possible to issue interpretive

bulletins on specific aspects of the standards, and we intend to publish as many informational pamphlets as are needed by the public. One complaint we have had is that the standards themselves just are not available. To the extent that this is true, we recognize it to be an intolerable situation, and we are doing everything possible to insure adequate supplies of the standards published in the Federal Register. A subscription service through the Government Printing Office is being implemented, and copies of all standards and changes will automatically be provided to subscribers. We have a handy reference guide to the act and its requirements, and we are now developing a new pamphlet which will explain in more specific terms the responsibilities and rights of both employers and employees. This will be a further aid to employers in determining exactly what they must do to be in compliance. We plan to make a general distribution of this new guide to employers in the next several months.

Voluntary compliance is essential to the achievement of the act's goals. When the initial standards were issued, a 90-day familiarization period was provided, which gave us an opportunity to provide direct consultation to many establishments. We found this very useful, and so did employers. We continue to provide consultative services to the maximum extent possible. However, whenever a Department official goes into an employer's premises for any purpose under the act, except for an inspection in connection with the issuance of a variance, he or she is required to note any violations, and, as provided by section 9 of the act, an appropriate citation and proposed penalty shall be issued. Since section 8 makes it clear that any entering upon the employer's premises is regarded as an inspection as provided for in section 9, we have been legally precluded from providing any consultation in the workplace. Therefore, as I indicated earlier, we would support an amendment to provide for workplace visits, upon request, for specific consultative purposes. Congressman Steiger has introduced such an amendment, which we would support, and we would hope that this committee would look favorably upon that amendment, and, indeed, that it would be

Mr. DANIELS. I am not sure I heard you correctly. Did you say there is no authority under the act for you to sit down and consult and give advice to an employer?

Mr. GUENTHER. Not in a workplace. We have authority to consult in any other place, and, indeed, we have consulted extensively in our offices, in meetings at other locations, by mail, by telephone. We have provided tremendous quantities of consultative services, but not in the employer's workplace. And the purpose of the amendment introduced by Congressman Steiger would be to give us the authority to provide this type of consultative service in the workplace.

Mr. DANIELS. Thank you.

Mr. GUENTHER. We would also support legislation which would allow us to administratively decline to assert jurisdiction over certain employers. The original administration bill submitted in 1969 contained a similar provision, and we feel that this would allow us the flexibility to resolve many of the difficulties which we face in trying to apply all of the requirements of the act to all employers. It would also obviate any need for wholesale exemption of small employments via legislation.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we are a new organization attempting

to do things, many of which have not been systematically attempted before. As a result, some have reacted violently to our existence and activities, and, being human, our mistakes have sometimes added fuel to the fire. Despite this, we believe that real progress is being made toward safer and more healthy American workplaces. We have shouldered a great deal of criticism, Mr. Chairman, and it may come as no surprise to you that we sometimes find ourselves in agreement with our critics. But we continue to look ahead. We are committed to accomplishing the objectives of the Williams-Steiger Act. The American worker deserves no less.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DANIELS. Thank you, Mr. Guenther.

Mr. Guenther, as you are aware, there has been a great deal of criticism leveled at this legislation, ranging from almost outright repeal of the act to making substantial amendments.

But from the testimony I have heard so far, it would appear that a great deal of the criticism has been level at the Department of Labor in the manner in which they have handled their inspections, how they have reacted to the employers, and many of the witnesses have testified to outright harassment.

Now, I think that is a matter that your office should give due consideration to. I know you have a limited number of inspectors. Congress has appropriated x amount of dollars for rendering this inspection service.

I would like to know what is your reaction to the numerous complaints that have been heard. You have indicated that you have been following these proceedings, and have listened or received reports as to the complaints of the various witnesses who have appeared here.

What do you have to say about the actions of your inspectors in this regard?

Mr. GUENTHER. Mr. Chairman, my reaction to every complaint that we have received with regard to the actions of our compliance personnel in the course of carrying out their duties has been to have an immediate investigation made by the regional administrator in the particular area where the compliance officer works.

We have investigated dozens of such allegations. We have found a number to have been an accurate description of the action of the compliance officers. In those cases, appropriate disciplinary or other action has been taken to change the situation.

In a large number of alleged cases, we find that in fact the allegations are not what took place, and we therefore have taken no action with regard to the compliance officer himself.

Now, that is action in particular cases. Above and beyond that, we meet on a regular basis with our senior field people, our regional administrators, our regional directors, and we have made it a fundamental part of every one of those meetings to discuss in detail the manner in which our compliance officers handle themselves, how they present themselves upon their entry into a work place, the elements of courtesy, the elements of respect, the elements of reasonableness. We have gone to great lengths to make certain that our people are aware of my views as to how we conduct ourselves in the American workplace, and so far as I can tell at this point in time, Mr. Chairman, I believe our compliance officers, in carrying out their duties are doing so responsibly and intelligently, and, indeed, we can produce a lot

of correspondence to that effect, that, "We were opposed to this law, and your man came in, and I want to tell you that he was professional and reasonable, and he found some things, and what he found was right, and we were pleased to have him."

Mr. DANIELS. In regard to another point, a great deal of criticism has been leveled at the standards. Some of these standards which were promulgated by the National Consensus Association go as far back as maybe 25 or 30 years ago.

It has been brought to our attention that these standards, due to change and automation, and new technology, are no longer practical. Has a review been made of those old standards which have been put into effect, and consideration given to the elimination of those that are outdated?

Mr. GUENTHER. Yes, sir. There are a variety of standards presently in the process of being removed or modified to make them more reflec tive of the present time.

I would say, however, that the great majority of the standardsI could almost call it the silent majority of the standards-are in fact applicable and appropriate to the times.

The vocal minority are the standards such as the split toilet seats and the height of toilet partitions, ice in the drinking water. This is a standard which goes back to the late 1800's, when the ice that was used was cut from the rivers, which obviously contaminated the

water.

Well, we don't have that kind of ice in drinking water any more, so obviously we don't need that kind of standard.

Mr. DANIELS. How about the toilet seat?

Mr. GUENTHER. Well, we don't believe that a toilet seat, be it a split one or an oval one, has a significant relationship to the occupational safety and health of workers. Therefore we are removing that standard.

Mr. DANIELS. Well, how does your Department look upon that? Do you look upon that as a serious violation?

Mr. GUENTHER. At most we look upon it as de minimis, but in no case is a citation or penalty proposed.

Mr. DANIELS. Now, as you already have indicated in your testimony, the standards and literature emanating from your Department are couched in language, technical language that is not understandable by the layman.

Is any effort being made to correct this?

Mr. GUENTHER. Yes, sir. As I mentioned, we are coming out with a simplified document which will be a guide to the use of standards for the employer. We are coming out with a simplified document that will be a guide to the rights and responsibilities of employers and employees in regard to the act, and will tell them where they may obtain assistance.

There is a limit as to how far we can go in paraphrasing or simplifying the language of the standards, because, as you well know, the standards are a legal document in addition to an engineering docu

ment.

But the National Safety Council is publishing an extensive document explaining just what each standard means, and how an individual employer can check his workplace to see whether or not he is in compliance.

There is a tremendous amount of literature coming out, Mr. Chairman. I would not be in a position to say that it has all been simplified, yet, because it involves explaining a complicated bit of business. But there are sources to which an employer can go for assistance in better understanding the standards.

Mr. DANIELS. I am sure you must be aware of the fact that substantial criticism has been leveled at this act due to the fact that standards have been promulgated relating to the construction industry.

Now, the light construction industry, particularly the small home industry, feels that the standards are too strong, too rigid, and there should be a distinction made between the light construction industry versus the heavy construction industry.

Has your Department given any consideration to these complaints? And they have been quite numerous. I think almost every Member of Congress has heard this complaint.

Mr. GUENTHER. I know you would not believe me if I said we are not aware of them.

We e are very well aware of the problem, Mr. Chairman. We have been aware of it since the beginning of the program.

We have made every effort to work with representatives of the light residential construction industry to examine the existing standards, to give them opportunities to present their proposals for modification of those standards in the interest of equity to the light residential construction industry as compared to the heavier construction industry. We have, in fact, on two occasions made substantial amendments to the construction standards, responsive to the requests they have made. We continue to have an open door policy with regard to listening to their problems. We relate to the major trade associations in that particular area, and I can honestly say that I think we have given them every opportunity to let their concerns be known, and that we have responded affirmatively in every possible situation where we could.

We have requested that we be informed-indeed, we make this request to any trade association. But, in particular, in the construction area, we have requested that we be informed where inspections take place which are considered to be harassment or an abuse of our authority under the act. And as of this point in time, we have not been informed of any such inspections.

Mr. DANIELS. Is it proposed to develop a separate set of standards for this industry?

Mr. GUENTHER. If I understand correctly, Mr. Chairman, the industry itself is working on such a separate set of standards, but as of the present time, we continue to operate with the 1.26 Code of Federal Regulations which applies generally to construction and has within it numerous specific standards which may or may not apply to light or heavy construction.

The use of basic construction tools applies in all types of construction. There are only certain elements of the standards which clearly apply to high rises which would not apply to one or two-story houses, and we think that there is sufficient differentiation within part 1926, itself, to provide for fair standards for both heavy and light construction.

Mr. DANIELS. You mentioned that 11 States have filed plans for health and safety laws, and to obtain approval by your department.