different for workers in light residential construction, changes are being developed.

Finally, new standards are being prepared to offer protection for potential hazards not covered under the present regulations. Thus, these standards will serve the interests of both employers and employees by clarifying the obligations of each and extending appropriate protection in situations unique to light construction.

Notwithstanding our efforts, there is no assurance that the Department will change its position and adopt separate standards when these standards have been completed and are submitted to the Department of Labor.

The separate standard approach is not without precedent. Similar efforts were recently undertaken in the area of building codes. In both cases, these model codes were subjected to a selection and simplification process, with the result that simplified model building and electrical codes for one- and two-family dwellings were developed.

Concurrent with our efforts to obtain correction action, we have gone to considerable lengths and expense to study and analyze the existing complex standards and attempt to educate our membership about their responsibilities for compliance.

Although the Congress clearly intended that the Department of Labor should develop educational programs, such action has never been taken to any significant degree. Therefore, we have spent some $70,000 to date on initiating and carrying out our own educational program. As soon as possible after the current standards went into effect, we prepared and made available to our entire membership, without charge, an interim guide to the construction standards.

In addition, we retained professional consultants to prepare a more complete manual. This is available to our membership for a nominal charge.

Also, we have prepared an audiovisual program in a further effort to illustrate more vividly the provisions of these complex regulations. Mr. Chairman, I have taken the liberty of asking the clerk to distribute these manuals to the members of the subcommittee. I hope that you will have an opportunity to look them over. I will not ask that you make them a part of the record because they are so voluminous, but if choose to do so, that is your privilege.

Mr. DANIELS. Thank you, sir.

I have been furnished with a copy.

I have instructed the staff to make sure every member of the subcommittee receives a copy.

Mr. WARANCH. Thank you.

If you need additional copies, we shall be glad to make additional copies available to you.

Despite these massive efforts to communicate to our membership a full understanding of the present construction safety standards, the complexity and confusion persists, especially among small builders. These are the ones you have been hearing from.

There is simply no way to ascertain, with any reasonable degree of certainty, which of the enormous number of regulations apply to light residential construction. Furthermore, there is no flexibility for interpreting protection requirements designed to avoid hazards that may be present in huge buildings but which are highly unlikely to occur in the construction of homes and garden apartments. Some standards

obviously do not apply; many others are doubtful in their applicability.

The ambiguity of the situation is heightened by the fact that the inspectors who are supposed to enforce the law are frequently unable themselves to shed much light on the applicability of many provisions, Yet, they have the power to cite violations and assess penalties.

The real key to assuring employees a safe and healthy working environment lies with the ability of employers to take the necessary steps to remove hazards. Yet, the immnese complexity of the construction safety standards makes it impossible for the sincere employer to be sure of what he is supposed to do to protect his workers.

Even when an employer has developed what he believes to be a proper safety program, he can obtain little, if any, help from the Department of Labor. Although he may secure consultative services froin the inspector, he must deal in the abstract in discussing his program, for inspectors are specifically prohibited from consultation on the job site, as you heard this morning.

An inspection begins when the inspector enters an establishment or appears on the construction site, and apparent violations must then be cited. Although advisory inspections would serve to reduce the confusion, we do not believe that these alone, without providing appropriate standards reasonably related to light construction, will achieve the objectives of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

We were delighted to hear this morning that Congressman Steiger has introduced an amendment to the act which will correct part of this problem.

We believe that one of the principal reasons the Department of Labor has refused to recognize the real differences between light construction and heavy construction is that it has had little experience with light construction. It has not even maintained separate records for each industry.

For instance, all construction-related accidents have been lumped together, with no distinction between the nature of the work being performed. Yet, it is our experience that the accident rate is significantly lower for light construction.

This is borne out by the rate schedules of insurance companies offering workmen's compensation coverage. These rates are developed on the basis of injuries in the various crafts. Within the crafts, there is frequently a different and substantially lower rate schedule for insurance of employees in light construction.

To illustrate this point, I am attaching a comparative chart of workmen's compensation insurance rates for carpenters employed in light residential construction and those employed in other forms of construction. You have that attached here as one of the exhibits. The same is often true for other crafts.

There is nothing altruistic about these rate differences; they arise out of the realistic experiences of insurance companies who must pay their expenses and make a profit on the rate they charge. They have recognized that there is an inherent difference in the hazards arising between the nature of the work taking place on the jobsite in the construction of a house, as compared with that on a large building or a bridge.

To begin with, light residential construction work is smaller in scope, in the number of employees on a given job and in the scale of activities.

Hence, the exposure of workers to the possibility of injuries is different.

In the construction of a large building, for instance, the number of people on the jobsite and the diverse activities in which they are engaged tends to create situations in which individuals are not aware of structural changes, changes in material placement, changes in crew locations, et cetera. Nor are they necessarily aware of the potential hazards posed by the many other workers engaged in diverse activities above, below and around them. All of this can lead to potentially dangerous conditions.

Rarely do more than a few people work on a house at one time, and they know the condition of the worksite while they are there. Each phase is essentially completed by a small crew of workers in turn, before the next phase is begun; thus they normally do not have other crews working above, below and around them creating hazards for which they are not prepared.

In light of this contrast between the working environment in heavy construction and that in light construction, I would like to cite some specific examples of how requirements which make sense for protection of workers in heavy construction are excessive, become a hardship, and constitute a needless waste of time and money in the construction of a home.

First are the present requirements in the regulations governing the installation of some type of catching mechanism below those working above a certain height. Where skeleton steel construction is being employed in tiered buildings and scaffolds are not used and temporary floors are not in place, safety nets must be installed when the potential fall distance exceeds two stories or 25 feet.

A change is pending which would raise this fall distance to 30 feet. This type of construction is not employed in light residential construction.

On the other hand, a different section of the regulations requires that a catch platform be installed below the working area of roofs without a parapet, when the distance to the ground from the eaves is more than 10 feet and the slope is greater than 3 inches in 12 inches.

This 3 in 12 pitch is common in houses but in very few is the parapet

common.

This covers all homes more than one story in height.

A proposed change to raise the distance to 16 feet would still not exempt most homes of two stories. Thus, we have a more stringent requirement for protection from falls in light residential construction than we have in connection with heavy construction.

Also troublesome is the unrealistic slope rate which triggers the requirement for a catch platform. Slopes of 4 inches and 5 inches in 12 are quite common and have proven to be quite safe for experienced roofers.

Another example of the failure to recognize the difference between light and heavy construction is the requirement for the installation of a guard rail over any wall opening at least 30 inches high and 18 inches wide, if the opening is less than 3 feet above the working surface and there is a drop of more than 4 feet outside the opening. Where wall openings are left uncovered in a high-rise building for weeks, and sometimes many months, while the remainder of the construction is carried on and many diverse crews are working around these openings, such a requirement makes sense.

But, in connection with the construction of a home, where 24-inch stud spacing is used-more and more common-this requirement necessitates the placing of temporary guard rails around the whole periphery of the structure.

These guard rails will be taken down within a few days, or a week or two at the most, since the opening will be covered in the next process of construction as opposed to the long period that such openings will remain uncovered in a high-rise building.

From my personal experience, I might say usually when the studs. are put up it is a matter of usually less than 2 days before the studs are closed except in conditions of inclement weather when nobody is working anyhow.

But, in fact, a literal reading of the regulation would require that, if a few hours elapse between the erection of the studs and the installation of the sheathing, such rails would have to be installed. This makes absolutely no sense and adds significantly to the cost of constructing a single-family home.

Equally unrealistic is the requirement that all open-sided floors more than 6 feet above the ground, or an adjacent floor level be guarded.

Again, on the second floor of a home, as soon as the rough flooring is installed such rails must be erected, even though the sheathing will be put in place the next day or shortly thereafter. Then, if 24-inch stud spacing is used, additional guard rails will again have to be installed.

All of these regulations, which make sense in connection with heavy construction, reflect a total lack of understanding of the home industry and the significant difference in hazards occurring in light residential construction as opposed to heavy.

They are unnecessary and unreasonable when viewed with an understanding of the uncomplicated working conditions that are present in constructing homes and garden-type apartments. Additional unreasonable regulations are spelled out in the attached rationale for separate standards prepared by our staff.

All of the evidence points to the fact that light residential construction is an entirely separate and distinct industry from heavy construction. This is recognized almost everywhere except in the Labor Department. Why, we are not quite sure.

However, this failure of the Labor Department has worked a real injustice on the homebuilding industry, an injustice which will become more pronounced and evident as the Department expands its inspection staff and steps up enforcement.

The natural result of continuing to apply to light residential construction the same voluminous standards that were designed for heavy construction will be to force many homebuilders out of business. Those who survive will see their costs unnecessarily increased and the price of their product, housing, increased without warrant.

This makes no sense, when it all can be avoided by developing realistic safety standards that will adequately and appropriately protect the worker, while not unduly and unnecessarily overburdening the employer.

Because the Department of Labor has failed to provide our industry with the necessary relief by developing and adopting separate standards, we believe that legislation such as H.R. 12296 is the only remaining alternative.

Accordingly, we urge the subcommittee to report favorably this legislation which would correct the injustice that the Department of Labor has imposed on builders in light residential construction.

Thank you for this opportunity to present to you today our plea for assistance.

Mr. DANIELS. Thank you, Mr. Waranch. The attachments to your statement will be made a part of the record at this point. (The attachments referred to follow :)

ATTACHMENT 1

CODE 5645-CARPENTRY, DETACHED PRIVATE RESIDENCES; CODE 5403-CARPENTRY NOC (BASICALLY HEAVY CONSTRUCTION)