safety and health were adopted by the Appropriations Committee for the fiscal year 1973 budget, and an amendment adding $10 million for the Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, providing technical backup, including labor services and hazard, advises:

All N.I.O.S.H. programs need upgrading, Senator Case told the Committee, but, more importantly, there is a critical need to care for those already afflicted with occupational diseases such as those caused by asbestos.

Do either of you gentlemen have asbestos in your operation?
Mr. WEISS. No.

Mr. PITTMAN. No.

Mr. HUNGATE (resuming quotation).

Early action is necessary to save the lives of thousands who are expected to become affiliated with mesothelioma and other cancers caused by asbestos. Part of the N.I.O.S.H. increase will be used to fund treatment and cures for industrially caused illness.

In another amendment, an additional $5 million over the Senate appropriation was added to provide additional inspectors who enforce the standards of the Occupational Health and Safety Administration. "Some of this money can also be used to assist small business organizations to comply with modern safety and health standards," Senator Case told the committee.

Senator Case also announced that his amendment will ease the burden for small businessmen since the Senate committee struck the House restrictive language which would have exempted many small business and agricultural firms. "Clearly the House action was contrary to the intent of the law," Senator Case said, "but providing additional assistance to conform to modern safety standards is in complete harmony with the goals of this legislation.

You were, I take it, aware of the provisions in the House Legislature?

Mr. GOLDBERG. Yes.

Mr. HUNGATE. Would you express your opinion on it?

Mr. GOLDBERG. Speaking from a small retailer standpoint, Mr. Chairman, obviously it is a beneficial solution. The disadvantages, of course, are that it is a 1-year moratorium on inspection. Also looking at it quite objectively, while many small retailers don't have very high injury frequency rates, and, therefore, would be helped by such an amendment, I can conceive of other industries, small industries, where the injury frequency rate is very much higher. Such an amendment might run contrary to the intent of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and its enforcement. So, we are kind of caught betwixt and between as to what we would like for our industry, but what we know the Government wants in terms of assuring that all workers perform their jobs under safe conditions.

Mr. HUNGATE. Have you furnished all your members with this booklet?

Mr. GOLDBERG. Yes, we have.

Mr. HUNGATE. I commend you on attempting to give some assistance where it was badly needed. It looks like a forward-looking procedure. I don't know if any can be complete when you consider the volume of the regulations, but at least you attempt to give guidelines.

Mr. GOLDBERG. We tried. Fortunately, it has met with very good reception in the retail industry. If any of the members of the committee

would like extra copies for their constituents, we will be happy to make them available.

Mr. HORTON. I will place my bid right now. I would like to say that I think it is a very fine book and one that can be very helpful. Although I haven't had a chance to study it thoroughly, I noticed in glancing through it that there is a lot of information. The book seems to be in a pretty readable form and gives valuable information, especially the location of the different agencies and so forth.

Mr. HUNGATE. Did you have a comment ?

Mr. PITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, if I may take one more minute, our Merchants Association wrote, 6 weeks ago, for copies of this and we have never received them yet. We were going to distribute them to our membership, copies of this Federal Register.

Mr. HUNGATE. In the interest of time, I think we will move along. We certainly appreciate the contribution you gentlemen have made in helping us to solve this problem.

Mr. GOLDBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HUNGATE. The next witness will be Stanley Waranch, president of the National Association of Homebuilders.

TESTIMONY OF STANLEY WARANCH, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOMEBUILDERS; ACCOMPANIED BY NATHANIEL H. ROGG, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, HERBERT COLTON, GENERAL COUNSEL, CARL A. S. COAN, JR., STAFF VICE PRESIDENT AND LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, AND RICHARD CANAVAN, STAFF VICE PRESIDENT FOR BUILDER SERVICES

Mr. HUNGATE. If you will, identify the gentlemen with you. Mr. WARANCH. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: My name is Stanley Waranch and I am a homebuilder from Norfolk, Va. I appear here today as president of the National Association of Homebuilders. Our association has a membership of almost 62,000 in 518 associations throughout the 50 States and Puerto Rico.

I have with me Nathaniel H. Rogg, our executive vice president, Herbert Colton, our general counsel, Carl A. S. Coan, Jr., our staff vice president and legislative counsel, and Richard Canavan, our staff vice president for builder services.

Our members build approximately two-thirds of all the single and multifamily housing built annually by professional builders in this country. Those who are engaged in light residential construction, which includes construction and remodeling of homes and apartments of three stories or less, without elevators, are chiefly small businessmen. Although there are some corporate giants engaged in home building, about 65 percent of the builders of single-family homes construct less than 25 units per year. They employ, on a year-round basis, an average of 4.3 carpenters, 2.7 masons, 2 painters, 3.3 laborers and 1.4 supervisors.

We appreciate this opportunity to bring to your attention the severe problems the average homebuilder faces, as a result of the implementation by the Department of Labor of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. These problems stem principally from the fact that these builders have been put in the same category with those who construct skyscrapers, bridges, and superhighways, for purposes of

the safety regulations issued under the 1970 act. As a result, small homebuilders are confronted with understanding, interpreting and complying with a lengthy, complex set of safety standards, designed for a completely separate and distinct industry-that of heavy con

struction.

At the outset, I should like to make it clear that we are in complete agreement with the objectives of occupational safety and health legislation. We believe every reasonable step should be taken, to assure that the working environment of employees in all industries is as free and clear as possible from hazards to the employee's health and safety. We recognize that the Occupational Safety and Health Act should and does in fact, apply to us, as well as to all other businesses in this country. We do not seek, nor have we ever sought, to exempt light residential construction from the application of standards that properly reflect the hazards and work conditions in our industry.

The problems we are faced with today have arisen because the Department of Labor has applied, to all construction, standards originally developed pursuant to the Construction Safety Act of 1969. The federally contracted for, or assisted, construction covered by that act is predominantly heavy construction. Thus, the standards developed under that act were designed with only heavy construction and its problems and hazards in mind. They were also developed without any consultation with representatives of the light residential construction industry, and the advisory committee established pursuant to the 1969 act contained no light residential builders.

Although the 1969 act became law in August, 1969, the standards under it were not put out for public comment until the end of January, 1971, the month after the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 was signed by the President. The following month we discovered that the Labor Department proposed to apply these complex standards, about 70 pages of Federal Register small print, to the construction of single-family homes and garden apartments covered by the 1970 act, as well as the high-rise office buildings and other heavy construction for which they were designed.

Upon learning of the Department of Labor's intentions, we immediately sought to demonstrate to the Department the problems this action would create for the average small homebuilder. We have corresponded extensively and have met in person with the Secretary, with Assistant Secretary Guenther and with many other officials of the Department in this effort. Although the Department has made several revisions to the construction safety standards as suggested by us and others, they have to this date refused to recognize the fundamental differences between light residential construction and heavy construction.

Instead of proceeding to develop separate standards, the Department has undertaken a piecemeal revision of the standards as they apply to all construction. This, we believe, serves neither the needs of the employee nor the employer. It has in fact caused needless hardship and expense to the small builder who constructs and rehabilitates most light residential structures.

The complete inappropriateness of the Department's position has been recognized by the Congress, where about 140 members of the House of Representatives have introduced legislation similar to H.R. 12296, directing the Department of Labor to adopt separate safety

standards for the light residential construction industry. A similar bill has been introduced in the Senate as S. 3630.

In realization that enactment of such legislation in itself would not be sufficient, NAHB last fall began working through the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) toward the development of consensus standards designed specifically for light residential construction. We hope to have the standards completed in late summer and to have ANSI's approval by the end of the year. Basically, what is being done is to lift from the current construction safety standards those which obviously apply to light residential construction. With respect to those where the hazard or potential harm is 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.

This approach is not without precedent. Similar efforts were recently undertaken in the area of building codes and electrical 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 corrective action, we have gone to considerable lengths and expense to study, analyze, and attempt to educate our membership about their responsibilities for compliance with the present construction safety standards. 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 in initiating 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.

Mr. HORTON. I might say that one of your finest is located in Rochester.

Mr. WARANCH. Yes, sir; I have a copy of this guide with me today, Mr. Chairman, which I would like to submit to the committee.

Mr. HUNGATE. Without objection, that copy will be filed as an exhibit.

Mr. WARANCH. Also, we have prepared an audio-visual program in a further effort to illustrate more vividly the provisions of these complex regulations.

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. 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 impose severe penalties for violations.

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 immense 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 from the inspector, he must deal in the abstract in discussing his program, for inspectors are specifically prohibited from consultation on the job site. An inspection begins when the inspector enters an establishment, and apparent violations must then be cited.

We believe that one of the principal reasons the Department of Labor has refused to recognize the real differences between light residential construction and heavy construction, is that it has had little experience with light residential construction and does not even maintain separate records for each industry. For instance, all constructionrelated accidents are lumped together with no distinction between the nature of work being performed. Yet, it is our experience that the accident rate is significantly lower for light residential 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 construction and those employed in other forms of construction. 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. 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, it is not uncommon to observe several phases of construction taking place at one time. At the topmost floor being worked on, the crews may be forming and tying in steel, below that they may be pouring concrete. Elsewhere, workers may be removing formwork. On the lower levels they may be installing heavy electrical conduit. The plumbing crews might be running up the plumbing; sheet metal crews may be making up or fitting ducts, and so forth. The number of people 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, and so forth. All of this can lead to potentially dangerous conditions.

These conditions do not exist in light residential construction. The excavation is completed before the masons lay up the basement walls.