Mr. ROLSTON. I think my statement amplifies this, but we did not do this alone. We had the State extension people work with us.

The Wisconsin-Michigan Timber Association was helpful.

As I said before, our workers are unorganized. So, we put out a onesheet publication to be distributed to the worker because he didn't have a trade union to tell him about what his responsibilities and rights were under the act.

In addition, we have a considerable segment of our workers who don't understand or speak English. They speak a sort of boquillon French, woods-type French. So, they could not understand the poster that was supposed to be displayed.

We translated the poster and published it at our own expense so that our French-Canadian extraction workers in the Northeast could handle it. So, I think it can be done.

For our particular industry, we think we can do it. Perhaps some other industries need consultation. We do not pretend to judge that. But when it comes to the logging industry, unless it can be proven otherwise to us, we believe we can do our job; we believe it is the job of the trade association to do this. In fact, we think if it were not for trade association programs aimed at informing members, working on standards and interpreting Government regulations, there might be very little need for trade associations except to come and testify before committees.

I would like to go on to the next point.

Loggers can comply with OSHA requirements. One of the reasons they can comply is that 5 years before the act, at the instigation of the Department of Labor, we started to work on the standards. It took us 5 years. By the time we got through with it and it was incorporated in the initial standard package, it was and is something that we can live with.

The wording in the standards is very complex and with technological changes it is more difficult.

We are currently engaged in the revision of the logging standards. This is the fifth draft of the standards. We are committed, ourselves, to improving it.

We have also taken up another area of pulp concentration and we are working with ANSI Committee consensus, representation from all groups to improve these standards. So, it can be done, and, again, trade associations have a constructive, positive role here.

We haven't had any complaints from our members. We have had no contest from the logging industry. Yet, we are in the target area. We are getting more than the usual share of inspections in our industry, and righly so. OSHA compliance officers have been reasonable. I say that in my statement. They have been fair and courteous and, in situations that I have been familiar with, they do consult and many of them are charitable because our business is small business.

I heard this morning testimony that there is no opportunity for onthe-job consultation. This must be the official statement. But I can document two instances, one in the State of Maine and one in the State of South Carolina, where our industry organized a pseudologging operation and invited all the compliance people and took them out there to familiarize them with what was going on in the logging operation and ask all the questions. There were no citations involved. So, it can be done.

There is a way to communicate with the Department of Labor constructively to enter into the voluntary compliance situation.

We think that our standards are something we can live with. One of the reasons is that we participated in it. We did not wait for somebody else to do it. We hope that we will continue to participate in standards making.

I think the last thing in the world we want to do is to throw the particular problems of our industry at the mercy of the Labor Department. We think they might be merciful but they don't understand logging. We do. Our members are doing it every day.

I think again we would like to talk about cost. Perhaps this does not refer to injuries with low frequency rates. I have heard of workmen's compensation rates quoted here in the $4 and $7 range. Mississippi is $26; up in the Lake States there are $26 per $100 of payroll workmen's compensation rates. When we talk about cost, the cost of compliance is nothing compared with the opportunity to save money if we can do something about reducing injuries in the logging business. That is the goal and it is the goal of our members.

In conclusion, the administration of this legislation is in its infancy. Yet, we are already certain that it has had a constructive impact on our specific industry. More logging workers are wearing personal protective equipment than ever before and more safety practices are being followed. Some of the more hazardous aspects of logging equipment have been improved.

Today a D-8 caterpillar sounds like a mouse in comparison with a D-8 caterpillar several years ago. The equipment manufacturers, and it certainly has gotten their attention, are putting research and time in improving many of the features of their machinery.

OSHA has created a vital new interest in safety at all levels in our industry.

If the majority of employers, and it would be the majority with us, are exempted from enforcement, even if only for a year, we are going to lose the needed momentum. As a target industry, we can't complain about the pace of enforcement. We understand this procedure very well but we can't say it is too slow or too fast.

But I would, in closing, like to repeat the statement that Mr. Steiger made that we certainly hope that whatever decision comes out of this committee it won't include gutting this most valuable act.

Thank you very much.

Mr. DANIELS. Thank you, Mr. Rolston.

I wish to commend your association for the work it is doing in the field of safety.

I listened with great interest to what you had to say about what your association was doing to educate the people engaged in the logging industry. I want to commend you and your association for such activity. If other organizations would do the same thing, perhaps you would not hear so many loud cries of protest against this act. Mr. ROLSTON. Thank you.

Mr. DANIELS. Mr. Steiger, do you have any questions?

Mr. STEIGER. I can only say "Amen" to what the chairman has said. I am tremendously impressed by the constructive response that your association has had, by the kind of work which has gone into this, by your statement in support of this act and what it can do to improve an important part of the logging industry in this country.

I will be in touch with you immediately to see if we can't get something worked out for Adams County.

Mr. ROLSTON. Thank you very much.

I wish there were more loggers in New Jersey, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DANIELS. Thank you.

Mr. DANIELS. Our next and final witness here for the day is Mr. Wilson S. Johnson, president of the National Federation of Independent Business.

STATEMENT OF TOM RAY, ON BEHALF OF WILSON S. JOHNSON, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS

Mr. RAY. Mr. Chairman, I am Tom Ray of the Washington staff of the NFIB.

Mr. Johnson, who was supposed to appear here today, ran into some very unexpected scheduling difficulties and had to leave Washington sooner than expected.

Mr. DANIELS. Mr. Ray, you were present and observed what the previous two witnesses did. They thought it advisable to submit their statements for the record and then they summarized and highlighted what they had in their statements.

Do you desire to do the same thing?

Mr. RAY. Yes, sir.

As a matter of fact, I am prepared to do so.

Mr. DANIELS. Without objection, your statement will be incorporated in the record at this point.

(The statement referred to follows:)

TESTIMONY OF WILSON S. JOHNSON, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF

INDEPENDENT BUSINESS

Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Committee, I am Wilson S. Johnson, President of the National Federation of Independent Business. Accompanying me is Tom Ray of our Washington staff, who assisted in the preparation of this testimony.

The Federation represents the small enterprises of this Nation, with two-third's of our 318,000 members employing fewer than nine workers, and 60 percent of them having gross annual receipts of under $200,000. Because of the deep concern these small firms have shown in their vote on our Mandate ballot, and in the high volume of mail they have sent in to us, we are particularly grateful for this opportunity to testify before you today on the Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA).

May I begin, Mr. Chairman, by emphasizing that the independent business community is greatly concerned about industrial safety. Frankly, a safe working place is desirable to the small businessman from an economic as well as from a humanitarian point of view. Our Federation members, writing about the Occupational Safety and Health Act have said

"I feel there is a need for this law..." (Mr. Henry W. Berounsky, Ben's Auto Body, Inc., Portsmouth, New Hampshire).

"I am in complete accord with the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. . .” (Mr. Arthur C. Boggs, Boggs Industries, Inc., Hollywood, Florida). "This law was enacted in order to protect employees from injury and death on the job due to unsafe working conditions. No one can quarrel with that goal." (Mr. James H. Williams, Fred Williams, Inc., North Randolph, Massachusetts.) (See Appendix A to this testimony for full text of these letters.) Despite this attiutde, however, the Williams-Steiger Act and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration have become the most controversial issues to hit the business community in recent years. The three businessmen quoted above went on in their letters to condemn the present program as a threat to the existence of some small businesses, in need of improvement, and "unrealistic."

A poll by Mandate ballot indicates that 79 percent of NFIB members favor H.R. 12068, a bill that would reduce the coverage of OSHA to manufacturing businesses having more than 25 employees. Thus, the Federation supported the recentlypassed amendments to the Labor-HEW appropriation to temporarily exempt small businesses from inspection by OSHA. Although small businesses do not seek to shun their responsibilities to provide a safe working environment, such action was necessary to provide relief from the whims of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION

The prevailing bitterness in the business community stems, more than any other factor, from this agency. OSHA even threatens to undermine the faith in the American system of the small businessmen, the very backbone of that system. "Gestapo" is a word being used constantly, and our members are asking, “Is this still America?"

PUBLICATION OF THE RULES

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration's primary failure has been in communication. For example, Mr. Lester S. Harner, an interior decorator and general painting contractor in Newark, Ohio, wrote in April, 1972 (after the law had been in effect one year): "Last night I attended two meetings-one a demonstration meeting by a paint manufacturer and the other by a local Home Builders' organization. The first meeting was comprised mostly of painters, and I was astonished to hear that only two of these men had even heard of the Williams-Steiger Act. It seems that I was the only one in our craft to receive one of the forms from the Department of Labor ...

"The speaker at the second meeting devoted his time exclusively to this law ... He did state, in effect, that the Federal law was controversial as to interpretation by even Government lawyers, that many points are not yet clear, and that all employers should go by the State code until more information is available." (See Appendix A.)

Mr. Harner wrote to us because of the problems he was having getting a copy of OSHA regulations from his state labor department. We can report that the situation is no better at the Federal level. Private concerns, including this Federation, are becoming accustomed to hearing the Department of Labor and the Government Printing Office say that no copies of OSHA reference material are available. A firm that is inspected before receiving a copy of the rule book cannot, of course, plead ignorance.

Mr. Harner is luckier, for example, than Mr. Norman E. Smith, president of All-Size Corrugated Products, Inc., of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. "The inspector came into our plant in January, 1972," recounts Mr. Smith, "asked me I had heard of the Act, had I read the Act, did I have the rule book? I said, yes I knew about it, no I had not read it, no I had not received the rule book. He gave me a copy of the Act and Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 105. . . . Then the inspector and I toured our plant." The company was assessed a fine as a result of that inspection. (See Appendix A)

Actually, even if Mr. Smith had received the literature from OSHA in advance, it would not have been of great assistance, and if Mr. Harner ever obtains it, his questions probably will not be answered. The most elementary OSHA publication available is "A Handy Reference Guide to the William-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970." This booklet outlines the Act in the most general terms. Of the thousands of standards which the employer must meet, the "Guide" lists two.

Slightly more helpful is "Recordkeeping Requirements under the WilliamsSteiger Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970." Most of the text is taken from the "Handy Reference Guide," but the forms required are included and explained. Again, however, nothing tells a manager specifically how to make his shop safe.

The same is true of the "Compliance Operations Manual." In fairness, the "Manual" was originally published as an internal organ for use by the inspectors, not as an aid to the public. Unlike the other publications, it is not provided free, when available, by OSHA, but it does provide the most substantive information available on procedural matters.

The final information source available is at the opposite extreme from vagueness and utter simplicity, being instead microscopically detailed and excruciating technical. It is the Federal Register, beginning with Vol. 36, No. 105, Part II. The reliance of OSHA on the Federal Register as the only means of dis

87-382-73-26

seminating the standards illustrates its lack of realities of the business world. Although publication in the Federal Register meets the legal requirements for disseminating a law, realistically speaking it does not inform the public, since few independent businessmen have ever seen a copy of the Federal Register. While the Occupational Safety and Health Administration is correct technically, it is not really helping the workers of America by hiding the rules in a book that employers never read.

Sending a copy of the Register to every small businessman in the country would not remedy the situation, either. The original regulation consisted of 248 pages of fine print, charts, and technical diagrams. The Federal Register recently published a codification of the regulation, Title 29 of the United States Code, complete with amendments and applicable documents. The material is in three volumes totaling over 900 pages. The language is difficult reading for anyone but a lawyer or an engineer. This is no major problem for the largest firms, of course, but the firms this Federation represents frequently have a staff of one bookkeeper, if they have a staff at all.

Mr. David Kenniston of Seaboard Manufacturing, an NFIB member in Warren, Maine, wrote, "I suppose I should try to have everything in compliance before any inspection, but not only is this expensive, it's about impossible to interpret the requirements, nearly takes a full-time bookkeeper just to handle the paperwork . . ." (S ." (See Appendix A)

One barrier to understanding is the format of the regulations. For example, the most common type of query received by the NFIB is, "What are the requirements for a retailer?" or "a small manufacturer?" or other industrial classification. But no breakdown of the regulations by industries exists.

Format is not the only problem. Standards were adopted wholesale, with little apparent thought as to need, applicability or practicality. Assistant Secretary of Labor Guenther, for example, has tentatively admitted that portions of Section 1910.106 do not apply to occupational safety and health at all. (See Appendix B, letter of May 12, 1971, from Secretary Guenther to the National Oil Jobbers Council.) Most Members of Congress must by now be familiar with the problems created by the failure to distinguish between light and heavy construction. And of course, Mr. Guenther has now admitted that the notorious subsection entitled Toilet Facilities had "little direct relationship to occupational safety and health.” A more distressing subsection is 1910.25, "Portable Wood Ladders." This is obviously an extremely important regulation, pertaining to a very common, and potentially very dangerous, implement. But for a small businessmen, the requirement might as well be in Latin. (Indeed, there is some Latin terminology in this subsection.) Table D-5 lists the 55 types of wood permissible for the construction of ladders, and classifies them according to the stress to which they may be subjected. A formula is provided for determining stress, as follows:

Perhaps General Motors can buy its ladders based on such decision parameters. The corner grocery store cannot.

OSHA's inscrutable rules are creating a new industry in America. "OSHA can make your head hurt," begins an advertisement by an insurance company. The ad goes on to explain how the company will aid a business in the "formidable, even frightening task" of "coping" with the Williams-Steiger Act.

Keeping up with the voluminous changes in the standards is such a challenge. even for large businesses, that there are now at least three regular periodicals devoted to the Act. Along with the initial six months subscription (which costs $84), "Frontiers in OSHA," one of the periodicals, includes an index of the regulations and a list of most common violations under the Walsh-Healey Act. (See Appendix C.) This information is, of course, known by the Department of Labor, but is not made readily available.

OSHA'S attempts in providing helpful, meaningful guidance on safety and health are most disappointing. Mr. Guenther indicated in testimony before the House Small Business Committee that he expects trade associations to take the responsibility of extracting appropriate rules and providing them to their members.

We do not believe that "passing the buck" in this manner will accomplish the purpose of OSHA. Although various trade associations have made excellent efforts in this area, this is not a job for them. We understand that the Department of Labor has hired a staff of highly competent, professional and experienced