The bill which was passed by the House during the last Congress was far different from that which was finally signed into law. Furthermore, the administration of the Act has been far different from that envisioned even in the measure drafted by the conference committee. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 is imperfect legislation and should be amended. In this regard, I have introduced two bills which would correct some of the more glaring deficiencies of the present Act. The first measure 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. There is little question that light residential construction is vastly different from heavy construction both in the type of projects undertaken and the exposure to possible injury. It is hard for me to imagine the need for idential regulations for firms in the business of constructing single unit family dwellings where a worker probably never works at a heighth of more than six to eight feet above ground-and a firm involved in the construction of towering skyscrapers.

But then I learn from the distinguished Chairman of the Select Labor Subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee that the Secretary of Labor is empowered to eliminate this gross discrepancy by his own initiative. The light construction people have petitioned the Secretary to establish the necessary standards reflecting the difference in light and heavy construction and have received absolutely no relief. I think it is high time that the people downtown, including the Secretary of Labor, take a much closer look at congressional intent and implement regulations that are constant with that intent. The Secretary is most derelict in ignoring the needs of the light construction industry and if it is necessary to amend the law to make it crystal clear to him the intent of the Congress, then I am more than prepared to contribute to such action.

Although it was necessary for me to be in my congressional district last Thursday when the House adopted the amendment providing relief for companies employing fewer than twenty-five persons, I strongly endorse the amendment. In line with this amendment, I introduced legislation to exempt from the Act those business establishments employing fewer than fifty employees and are located in a state which has in effect occupational safety and health standards applicable to such establishments. If the language which was adopted by the House during the previous Congress had been preserved by the conference committee, and if the Department of Labor was more circumspect and just in the administration of OSHA, there would be no need for my bill. Unfortunately, we hear of more and more cases of abuse in the administration of OSHA and the unreasonable requirements which have been thrust upon countless numbers of business establishments. Again, if remedial legislation is necessary to correct the numerous inequities of the Act, I am more than prepared to introduce and work for the enactment of these amendments.

The final regulations issued by the Department of Labor are contained in a voluminous publication, compounded by technical and complex requirements, and oftentimes are open to widely divergent interpretations about application of the Act to particular firms. And yet, the Department of Labor sends hundreds of inspectors into the field fully authorized to levy stiff fines under the most arbitrary circumstances. A large number of my constituents have contacted me expressing helplessness and hopelessness as a result of the roughshod treatment they have received at the hands of these inspectors. Many of my colleagues have related similar abuses and I feel strongly that the time has come to take affirmative action to assure that the punitive nature of the Act and the rude and offensive manner of too many of the inspectors is brought to an end.

There are none among us that do not want strong and effective occupational safety and health protection for our workers. I supported the bill that passed the House because I felt that federal legislation was necessary to provide adequate protection. Unfortunately, the bureaucrats downtown have once again exceeded congressional intent and, to add insult to injury, have done so in an abrasive and insolent manner. The owners of businesses in this country are not sinners who have strayed from the path of righteousness to be brought to absolution by officious federal inspectors. To the contrary, the vast majority of these people share our desire for safe and healthful working environments for their employees and I feel strongly that they would cooperate, and have done so, so long as the Act is administered properly. Once again, I would like to thank the members of the committee for providing me this opportunity to participate in these hearings. I heartily encourage the members to take your findings to the legislative committee and request that appropriate action be taken.

STATEMENT OF HON. J. KENNETH ROBINSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

Mr. Chairman, the conscientious small businessmen, who does not want to run afoul of the law, has been placed in an untenable position, facing economic extinction in many cases, by regulations promulgated pursuant to the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.

It is obvious that modification of many of these regulations, on a realistic basis, is essential to the survival, in a lawabiding status, of many small businesses. Additionally, evidence is mounting that the Act itself may require amendment in the interest of reasonable protection of workers without undue hardship on the employer of modest resources, perhaps through one of the bills which would exempt businesses of modest size from the requirements of the Act-leaving them subject, of course, to state laws and local ordinances. I recognize, of course, the limitations of the Subcommittee in this regard.

Additionally, consideration should be given to exemption of voluntary labor, such as traditional exchanges of work among neighbors engaged in agriculture. This situation is addressed by H.R. 14408, of which I am a co-sponsor, but it possibly could be cured by reasonable administrative interpretation.

There appears need, too, to provide specifically for a differentiation between the degrees of hazard present in the light and heavy construction industries. As to this, I invite the examination by the Subcommittee of H.R. 12679, of which I also am a co-sponsor, and suggest that its objective probably could be accomplished by administrative action, if the Secretary of Labor were so persuaded. As of possible interest to the committee, I cite examples of the concerns expressed to me by small businessmen who have come under the impact of the act: 1. A grace period is needed, during which employers would be protected from penalty while they undertook to come into compliance.

2. When compliance would require a small business virtually to rebuild its premises, or relocate, a "grandfather clause" should be provided.

3. Drafters of the regulations need to seek consultation with responsible members of specific industries, in order to avoid impractical regulations.

4. There is need to equalize responsibility of employer and employee; the employer alone should not be subject to the penalty provisions of the Act for disregard of required safety precautions.

5. The principle of due process is not observed fully in the evaluation of complaints and assessment of penalties.

Apart from the problems which study by the Subcommittee might find approachable only through additional legislation, I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the findings of this Subcommittee could assist in bringing about a better appreciation, in the Congress and in the Executive Branch, of the very serious difficulties which small business is experiencing in its efforts to understand, and comply with, the complex regulations established subject to this far-reaching Act.

STATEMENT OF HON JAMES T. BROYHILL, A MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate this opportunity to comment on the affects the Occupational Safety and Health Act on small business.

The entire nation is vitally concerned with the safety and well-being of our workers. Injury rates have increased 29 percent during the last decade and approximately 14,000 workers annually lose their lives as a result of injuries sustained while on the job.

The Congress reacted to this alarming injury rate by enacting the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1972. Its purpose is to furnish each employee with a place of employment free of the hazards that caused or were likely to cause death of serious injury. This Act affects nearly every employee in the United States, from workers in agriculture, the professions, retail and service industries, to those jobs designated as industrial. Its goal is the protection of all workers and it is a goal that we all support.

As the Congressman from the 10th District of North Carolina I have received an ever-growing number of letters and inquiries from small businessmen regarding the implementation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act regulations. Most frequently, these inquiries relate to the confusion most feel about these regulations and the lack of adequate, simplified information. Interpretations of these regulations by Department of Labor officials seem to vary considerably.

In addition, small businesses find it difficult to secure competent legal advice to clarify these problems. Without this advice, many businessmen fear a violation of the regulations due to ignorance or misinterpretation.

Evidence is overwhelming to suggest that further clarification and study of the Occupational Safety and Health Act is essential. I am hopeful that hearings will lead to serious consideration of the problems involved and the possibility of granting to the states the jurisdiction over implementation of these regulations and standards.

Without a doubt, this legislation has had widespread impact on the nation's small business community. These hearings should contribute to a better understanding of the problems involved in the application of this Act and give direction to the Congress.

I am enclosing exerpts from several letters I have received from small businessmen in my District outlining their problems and questions. They are representative of the correspondence I receive on this important subject and the variety of the problems involved.

GASTONIA, N.C., March, 1972.

We solicit your help and hope that you can supply us with the much needed information. What can the little man do? No one seems to have the answer to our questions. Hopefully you can supply us with your interpretation of this law as to electrical requirements, first aid requirements, fire requirements, etc.

I am desperate to secure a copy of the Federal Register so that I might try to find out about the provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. I have had no directive from the federal government-only information in our local paper, probably written by a local reporter who knows less than I do about it.

SMALL BUSINESSMAN.

HICKORY, N.C., November 1971.

Another fallacy in the law is that there are no clear cut, definitive standards by which we can go in making improvements. Further, we business people do not know where to find the many varying sets of standards that are in existence now, even though none of them are specified as being Government choice of standards to go by. I guess all we can do is write to you when we need information along those lines every time we turn a page in the Federal Register. SMALL BUSINESSMAN.

VALDESE, N.C., October 1971.

Since mid-June our staff has spent literally hundreds of hours trying to educate ourselves and-in cooperation with state and federal agencies-our membership on the scope and coverage of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.

We have co-sponsored seminars and clinics for top managers, personnel and safety directors, and currently are working toward a 12-hour OSHA training program for supervisors.

This new law is the toughest industry has been faced with, and until the cost of the requirements is passed along to the consumer I predict it will become even tougher through its administration.

There is one aspect of the administration which I think you may be interested in and might even want to correct the situation. This has to do with the Safety and Health Standards as published by the Labor Department in the Federal Register (Part II) of May 29.

Throughout the 248 pages, certain requirements are given only in reference to certain parts of the national consensus standards of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the National Fire Protection Assn. (NFPA), the Department of Transportation (DOT), the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). and so on.

There is a big difference between these, Jim, and that difference is that an employer must purchase each part of the ANSI or NFPA codes used in reference while the federal agencies supply them on request. For an employer, most especially a small company such as a 12-man sheet metal shop, a 15-man saw milling operation or a 60-man machine shop, this places an undue burden and expense on the already vexing problem of compliance with the requirements of the OSHA law and its standards. Except for larger companies, few if any are set up to carry out the administration of such complicated processes.

My point, then, is simply that if the federal agency is going to hold a company responsible for compliance with a law which carries penalties as stiff as the OSHA, then that agency should publish and make available to employers all the standards with which he must live. He should not be held liable for a standard given only with reference to a series of members and abbreviations. Again, my reason for calling this to your attention is that I feel you will be interested since it affects so many companies, and, hopefully you might be able to clear up the muddle a little.

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

BUSINESSMAN AND CONSULTANT.

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D.C., July 13, 1972.

Hon. WILLIAM L. HUNGATE,

House Select Committee on Small Business,
Rayburn, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. HUNGATE: Because I am very interested in the problems of small businessmen, I would be particularly grateful if you would have the enclosed statement made part of the record of the oversight hearings on the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

If there is any further information I can provide the Committee, please let me know.

Thanking you, I am
Sincerely,

TOM RAILSBACK,
Member of Congress.

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM RAILSBACK, A MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM THE STATE

OF ILLINOIS

Mr. Chairman, I commend the Committee for its oversight hearings on the problems small businessmen are having with the standards of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, I know your efforts are deeply appreciated by the small businessmen in this country, and I am particularly grateful for this opportunity to present the views of some of the businessmen of the 19th Congressional District on this matter.

In recent months, I have had a great many letters and personal visits from small businessmen vigorously and bitterly protesting the compliance standards and the procedures for enforcing them under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. A chief complaint is that the cost of compliance, in terms of the size and earnings of their establishment, is so high as to be prohibitive. Many have stated flatly that the cost would bankrupt them and that rather than comply, they will have to close their businesses. One of my constituents, owner of a farm equipment dealership, has estimated that he would have to spend at least $4,000 to fully comply. Other estimates run even higher.

For those who would comply, the costs would inevitably be passed on to those they serve. In the construction industry, for example, it has been estimated that the cost to consumers, particularly buyers of single-family dwellings, will increase 25-50%.

Other alternatives being considered by small businessmen are equally disturbing. One possibility is to discontinue some of the services they previously rendered but which would entail considerable cost in order to meet OSHA standards. Some small businesses in the past have painted various items for their customers. However, the expense of installing a sprinkler system, as required for such painting by the OSHA regulations, now makes such services impossible. The customer is left to seek the service from someone else, usually at greater expense, or must try to do it himself, perhaps creating an even greater hazard.

A final alternative is to discharge all employees but the immediate members of the family. With our present unemployment rate, I feel this is a very unpleasant possibility.

The effects of this kind of compliance greatly disturb me for several reasons. For one, with the present battle against inflation, it seems very unfortunate

that the goods and services provided by small businesses must increase in cost. Yet it is impossible to expect that small businesses will be able to absorb the cost of compliance without passing it on to the consumer, especially since wages have been increasing. In effect the standards discriminate against the small businesses, for with larger businesses with more employees the cost can be more easily justified and can be spread over a larger volume of goods.

More important, a considerable part of the 19th Congressional District is rural in nature. These areas depend heavily on small businesses who are located in, and able to serve, the smaller communities. If such businesses are forced to close, give up some of their services, or discharge their employees, it will, in my opinion, make it very difficult for people to live and work in such communities. We are already experiencing rural outmigration and the social and economic problems it creates for both rural and urban areas. To accelerate this trend would be a great misfortune.

If it were simply a matter of complying with obviously essential standards, cost perhaps would not be so great an issue. The businessmen with whom I have spoken though feel strongly that the standards which were developed were based on conditions in large industries, and have little relation to the safety of employees in small businesses. One owner stated that the new law requires him to provide safety equipment for every employee, despite the fact that no more than two at any one time would be working in the hazardous situation for which they are required. Another employer, commenting on the requirement to paint areas where there is fire equipment, first aid, possible fire hazards, etc., has said "Well I gues I'll paint the place polka-dotted." The light residential construction industry is particularly disturbed by the standards which have been set for them. As they point out, there is a tremendous difference in employee hazards between heavy construction, where a great many men are working in an area with heavy equipment and materials, and the building of residential houses, which have one or two stories with perhaps five or ten men working on them. These differences are not presently recognized in the regulations.

Most of the employers I have talked to support the intent of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. They realize that industrial accidents are far too frequent, and they recognize that action needs to be taken. However, they point to their individual safety records with pride and wonder what possible good some of the regulations they have been given can serve. I personally feel that small businesses should meet safety and health standards, but the standards set must be realistic. A final complaint is the way in which these standards are enforced and the penalties assessed. At present the procedure is that an inspector makes an unannounced visit, cites the business for the violations he finds, fines them for these violations, and promises that worse will follow should he return after the abatement period has expired to discover that some of the violations have not been corrected. All of this frequently occurs when the employer may not yet fully understand the standards which he is accused of violating. Suddenly, for the businessman, the Federal Government is no longer a government by and for the people, but a cold-hearted monster which can destroy his livelihood at the flick of a pen. While recognizing the difficulties which the OSHA Administration has had in staffing and training inspectors, I still believe that employers are entitled to some consultation, without fear of penalty, on the safety and health hazards that may be present in their businesses and on the ways in which these hazards can realistically be corrected. This is why I am supporting the proposal to eliminate fines when alleged violations are corrected within the prescribed abatement period.

In summary, I would like to say that I support the intent of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. I believe it is an important law and one which, properly enforced, will result in great good. But I also feel that the enforcement must be more realistically based if we are not to jeopardize the existence of many small businesses and thus the economic health of the country.

Thank you.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN B. ANDERSON, A MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to this Subcommittee for the opportunity to discuss the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA) and its implementation.