This is being proposed to Mr. George Guenther, Assistant Secretary of Labor and Mr. Chain Robbins, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor and Administrator of the Occupational Safety and Health Institute.

An advisory committee could review citations-if there would be some way to get the citations to the central office-issued against dealers so that all dealers could be advised as to what the more common violations have been for dealers. In this way, dealers could more quickly and easily understand the standards and effect compliance. I recognize that all these standards on my right, about 3-feet high, incorporated by reference, and a 248-page book; a dealer simply cannot cope with them.

But if we could have a dealer advisory group to work with OSHA to get a list of the more common violations, our association would be more than happy to disseminate this information to all dealers in the country, to encourage dealers to inspect these areas first because they are obviously the problem areas.

We think this could bring about a great deal of safety, a great deal of compliance, in a practical way.

The committee could also provide the Occupational Safety and Health Administration with valuable information as to the practicality and effectiveness of the standards as they apply to dealers.

We don't find fault with the inspectors. We recognize when any big program is undertaken by the Federal Government they have a problem of going out and finding qualified people. There are so many different types of businesses that must be inspected there is no way an inspector can be an expert in all these fields.

What we suggest is that we make a group of dealers available to the OSHA people. We propose that citations be referred to this group and just get their opinion. It would not be binding, but get their opinion as to whether these citations made sense or not.

I have talked to any number of dealers, and the general attitude is this, that many of the citations found were legitimate and they make the statement "I probably should have corrected this some time ago.'

But invariably there are three or four that in their opinion they say are ridiculous. If we could eliminate those few standards through a dealer advisory group that could advise the OSHA people, in that way we could get the dealers to accept this program in the proper spirit and in the long run provide the safety that everybody wants. Dealers are anxious and willing to voluntarily assist the OSHA Administration in the administering of a fair and equitable health and safety program.

No member of our dealer community is attempting to escape the intent of this law, but they need help in order to comply with it.

We sincerely hope, through the efforts of industry. Government, and the OSHA Administration, itself, that information will be made available to dealers and revisions will be made in the present standards that will result in an effective safety and health program.

We thank you for this opportunity to present our views.

Mr. BERGLAND. Thank you very much, Mr. McCarthy, for a very useful statement.

You have recommended to the administrators of OSHA that an automobile dealers advisory committee be created to consult with the people in charge of the program, to develop a more practical set of rules.

Mr. MCCARTHY. That is correct.

Mr. BERGLAND. Have you heard from the administrators of the program yet?

Mr. MCCARTHY. In fairness to them, the letter of transmittal is being presented about the same time we are presenting it to you. Time did not permit us to hear an answer from them. In fairness to them we didn't expect to before appearing here.

Mr. BERGLAND. To the best of your knowledge, was your industry counseled by the administrations of OSHA when the rules were being promulgated?

Mr. McCARTHY. When the rules were being promulgated we were not counseled. We have received quite a deal of cooperation from them since we are a national association based in Washington.

Before we went out on our programs to make speeches around the country and to conduct workshops on this program, the OSHA Administration and officials provided us with a great deal of documents, slides and other information that was helpful.

The problem is that we can't get everybody through these meetings and these seminars. We make an attempt to get to as many as we can. But the problem is that the dealers and the small businessman out in the field have to have access to this information through the regional offices, which to date does not exist.

Mr. BERGLAND. You made reference to a relaxation in the toilet requirements. What are they?

Mr. MCCARTHY. I am not familiar with them in great detail. My prepared text actually explained the problem dealers would have with structural changes if these were imposed on a dealer. I was informed just before presenting my testimony that there has been relaxation in this area. So rather than be unfair to the administration, I deleted that part from my remarks.

Mr. BERGLAND. An automobile dealer informed me that under the rules, as he understood it, no customer would be permitted in the shop. Do you know anything about this?

Mr. MCCARTHY. The troublesome area is in the service department of a dealership. There are so many regulations that even though we have hired consultants, and I personally have read most of the regulations pertaining to this, we haven't yet culled out all the regulations that apply to the service department of a dealership.

We are quite concerned that a dealer in order, you might say, to be sure that he eliminates any possible danger to customers, would have the practical thing to do, to eliminate the customer from coming into the shop. This would be very troublesome in the rural areas and even in the metropolitan areas.

A new type of service facility that many dealers are going to is the long rectangular building. Many dealers encourage the customer to watch the repair work being done on their car.

I am not sure that there is any specific regulation, itself, that would preclude them from coming in, but I am reasonably sure that a dealer,

in order to be on the safe side, would probably preclude service customers from coming into the shop.

Mr. BERGLAND. If I took my automobile into the local garage to have it serviced, I would not be able to inspect my car to determine whether or not I may need a new muffler?

Mr. MCCARTHY. I can't say there is any specific regulation that would prevent that. On the other hand, it may be necessary for that particular customer to wear goggles, to have other types of safety clothing to be in that area of the shop, so it wouldn't be practical in the long run for him to do it.

Mr. BERGLAND. On this matter of paint booths, there are 300 small towns in my district, 250 of which have no major paint facility. Most of these small towns will have one or more small automobile dealers.

The common practice is if there is a major paint job to be performed on a car, they will take it to a town where there is a shop with all of the necessary equipment. Customarily, for a person who may bring a car in with a minor dent in the car, the garage is equipped to make the necessary minor repairs and they just spray over the area.

Under the rules, would this be no longer permitted?

Mr. MCCARTHY. That is correct. As we understand the rules, spot painting, as you have identified, would no longer be permitted. This works a tremendous hardship on the customer as well as the dealer because the dealer would simply have to discontinue spot painting. It is not worth it to him to put up an $8,000 or $10,000 paint booth to do this type of work.

So the customer that has the damaged car would then probably have to drive 25 or 30 miles to the nearest town that has this facility. We believe it works a tremendous hardship on individuals. This is one of the few regulations that almost every dealer that I have talked to is concerned about.

Mr. BERGLAND. To the best of your knowledge, is this a hazardous enterprise? Do you know of anybody being injured or anyone whose health has been impaired as a result of this spray painting?

Mr. MCCARTHY. I know of nobody who has been injured as a result of the spray painting. Of course, that is not all-inclusive when I say that because I am not in touch with every dealer in the country on that particular problem. I do think this: I think that limited spot painting is in no way a danger.

I clearly recognize that when you paint the full car, it is reasonable to have a paint booth that has the adequate exhaust and adequate protection not only for the person performing that work but the surrounding employees doing other work.

Mr. BERGLAND. No distinction is made between the total overall paint job as opposed to maybe a 3-minute repair job?

Mr. MCCARTHY. That is correct. They say that all painting must be done in a paint booth. This, once again, is an area where a dealer advisory committee could work with the OSHA officials and they could come to some practical understanding of where it may present a danger to employees if a significant amount of a car is being painted and they could develop regulations along this line.

Mr. BERGLAND. Thank you very much, Mr. McCarthy.
Counsel, have you any questions?

Mr. ROE. Just one observation, Mr. Chairman.

In the material submitted by the National Automobile Dealers Association, and I understand they have distributed it to their members an informational booklet regarding OSHA, on page 3, in large bold print, they have:

Do not ask an OSHA officer to visit and review your dealership safety arrangements because this could involve an official investigation and the Compliance Officer would be required to record every violation.

Mr. McCARTHY. This is a practical point and I am glad you bring it out, for this reason: It goes back to what I said earlier. If a dealer is inspected and has a violation, he must be cited. In many ways, as that little piece of practical advice points out, it defeats the purpose of the act.

Mr. ROE. How will we get voluntary compliance if people are going to be cited?

Mr. McCARTHY. You are not going to get voluntary compliance when you invite somebody to come in and fine you. That is what it boils down to. We are willing to pay substantial sums for consultants, if necessary. We are conducting as many workshops as possible.

But in my position, if I say to a dealer "Call up the local OSHA inspector and he will advise us as to whether your place complies or not," and the OSHA inspector comes in and he is fined $5,000, that is a problem. It would work much better if they could do it where the OSHA inspector would come in, give a list of things to be corrected, give him a reasonable time to correct and if he doesn't, fine him.

I have attended a lot of meetings and this question has come up, and also in other industry groups. I don't know of anybody who will ask them to come in because they risk a fine.

Mr. ROE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BERGLAND. Thank you very much, Mr. McCarthy, for presenting the attitude and point of view of your industry.

Mr. MCCARTHY. We thank you very much for this opportunity. We really commend the committee for undertaking a very large task to review this whole problem.

Mr. BERGLAND. At this time I would like to ask unanimous consent that the testimony presented by John Melcher be inserted into the record at this point.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN MELCHER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA

Enactment by Congress of the Williams-Steiger Bill, the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, has led us to a series of stringent detailed regulations by the Department of Labor. The regulations, while well intentioned, have placed a hardship on small businesses in Montana and in other states.

The details of the regulations are so involved that few of us profess to know and understand all of the far reaching consequences as they affect businesses. Nevertheless, a busy and hard working businessman must quickly grasp all of the details involved with the Department of Labor regulations or when he is inspected find himself not in compliance and therefore subject to a fine.

When the bill was passed in Congress we did not envision that the consequence would be this type of abrupt procedures to confront conscientious and sincere business people who wish to comply with safety and health recommendations but find themselves harassed with a series of inconsequential regulations that seem to overburden them with changes and expenses without necessarily providing added margins for the health and safety of their employees.

I have heard from hundreds of business people in my district through direct communication, letters and telegrams, who express their frustrations with trying to comply with the regulations with which they are suddenly confronted by Labor Department spokesmen and inspectors. Here is a paragraph from a letter from Mr. Russell C. Clark, President of Parker Montana Company in Billings that illustrates the difficulty involved for small business people to comply:

"I want you to know that I have put a man full time in our small organization of 18 people working on different aspects in our building and warehouse to try to comply and bring up to standard some of the items pointed out to us as not complying with the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Believe me it is very costly, it is time consuming; and really, to say the truth, not really necessary on some of the items they are asking about.

"We need help to get the pressure off of our backs in trying to comply with something that may very well be impossible."

A group of merchants in Roundup, Montana included in their letter the following paragraph:

"We, the undesigned merchants of Roundup, Montana are very much concerned about the impact of the enforcement of this act on the small merchants of our town. We know that this act will mean the closure of numerous businesses. Whereas a number of us may be able to meet the O.S.H.A. requirements, any additional vacant buildings in our small community not only present an eyesore to Main Street, but a drain on the community's viability and a dilution of our morale. All of us believe in adequate safety and health measures but they must be tempered so that they do not suffocate the marginal operator."

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, the theme of all of the communications emphasize the unreasonableness of the regulations. It is my hope that through the hearings that you are conducting now that you will demonstrate to the Labor Department that the protection of the employees' health and safety on the job can be accomplished without harrassing small businesses and without causing excessive expense. Excessive or unnecessary regulations should be immediately revised or rescinded by the Department. If recognition of these facts cannot be quickly accepted by the Labor Department with modifications in their present regulations, then I believe it will be our responsibility here in Congress to promptly amend the Act so that it is reasonable and fair.

Mr. BERGLAND. The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock in the morning.

(Whereupon, at 6 p.m., June 21, 1972, the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, June 22.)