We would do that if we had first-hand knowledge that it was someone that we should be careful with. We have a monthly publication that includes advertising in it. In some ads, we've had a serious question about whether what he says about his product and OSHA is in fact true. As a result we have gotten into some problems trying to determine if the advertiser's claims can really be substantiated. Questioning these claims is better than distributing our magazine to 15,000 people saying in effect: AMSA endorses this as a good product. So as a national organization, we have to be careful what we recommend to our members.

Mr. BERGLAND. Does Counsel have any questions?

Mr. ROE. No questions, Mr. Chairman; but just a comment with respect to your observations on the type of equipment that will meet the requirements of the law. I think it is a very excellent point and one that pertains to all small businessmen. A manufacturer in good faith may believe that his equipment will meet the requirements, but he still has to have OSHA take a look at it, and we've seen variances of opinion on this point.

OSHA has not made any regulations whatsoever providing for approval of equipment similar to the approval of the National Fire Protection Association which will certify a fire extinguisher to be in complaince, or like U.L. OSHA won't do that.

Mr. KEITH. Well, there is one thing. There are some new developments in the area of accident prevention devices that seem to have just the things that some people in our industry are looking for. But whether they are acceptable or not is being judged upon the standards that are already in existence, and we've got to wait an unspecified period of time for someone to determine whether such a device will really be acceptable or not.

This is a problem; and I recommend it to the President's Committee on Research and Development that they consider investing some of the research funds they were expecting or hoping to get from Congress in the area of helping us determine some of the solutions to these problems.

I think this is the kind of research that is far more important than something in the area of blue sky. We have a problem now that we need assistance with.

Mr. BERGLAND. Well, thank you very much, gentlemen. We appreciate your appearance here today and your statement. It will be most helpful.

Our next and concluding witness today is Mr. J. Brannon Murray, the first vice president of the Southern Tile, Terrazzo & Marble Contractors.

Mr. Murray, we're delighted to have you.

TESTIMONY OF J. BRANNON MURRAY, JR., FIRST VICE PRESIDENT, THE SOUTHERN TILE, TERRAZZO & MARBLE CONTRACTOR'S

ASSOCIATION

Mr. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the permanent Select Committee on Small Business.

I am J. Brannon Murray, Jr., executive vice president of the Murray Tile Co., Inc., of Charleston, S.C., and appearing today as first

vice president of the Southern Tile, Terrazzo & Marble Contractors Association with headquarters in Jackson, Miss.

Our organization represents 400 marble, tile, and terrazzo contractors in 16 southeastern and Southern States. Our entire membership is comprised of small business concerns and on behalf of our association, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present the views of our association concerning the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.

Our association believes that it is the responsibility of each member firm to provide a safe environment, proper tools, and equipment to perform our work and not endanger the health and safety of our respective employees. Further, the views expressed here represent the general consensus of the membership and not my own personal opinions. There are, however, certain areas covered by the present law that we feel are not constructive or helpful in any way. They are extremely punitive and create a great burden on the small businessman.

Our main concern lies within the area of administration, enforcement, and in the fact that the act does not adequately cover partially built structures.

I will now state our association's recommendations to specifically improve this law:

Abolish the administrative functions of the law vested in the U.S. Department of Labor. Everyone knows by prior testimony what a mess the Department of Labor has made of the standards and enforcement procedures.

Establish a National Occupational Safety and Health Bureau to administer the law. In particular, vests, grants, moneys, et cetera, to private enterprise and private trade associations, to educate small business in OSHA. We do not need to provides this service through the Government which insurance companies, private industry, and trade associations have the people and talent to do the job.

Our members have been getting courtesy inspections from private insurance companies, our association's safety consultant, and by assistance from the association's safety committee. There is no need for the Government to perform these functions and thereby duplicate the effort at the expense of the taxpayers.

Provide certification of products so the small businessman in purchasing machines and equipment can be assured that products meet the OSHA standards. Here, there possibly may be a need for additional legislation. What we are saying, gentlemen, is that when the small businessman purchases machines and equipment for use in his normal activity, the manufacturer should give written certification that the produte meets the required safety standards of OSHA.

Establish enforcement procedures providing for normal judicial relief-specifically: trial by jury. Fines collected should go to the Treasury of the United States and not to the agency administering the law. Abolish the secrecy section of the act and let an employer have the right to face his accusers.

Abolish the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. Provide that the fines collected should be returned to the employer provided be abates the violation within a reasonable time. Establish a reasonable grandfather clause granting the employer sufficient time to get into compliance with the act.

Abolish all existing standards and have the new Bureau establish proper, reasonable standards, taking into consideration all classes, types, and sizes of businesses in order that they would be fair to all. Provide that any person or organization that files a complaint against an employer for personal gain would be subject to prosecution. Establish a formal procedure whereby a person and/or firm may obtain information on interpretations of the standards, laws, rules, and regulations without fear of placing himself in jeopardy.

Provide for distribution of all material published by the Bureau in a manner that standards, rules, and regulations are available to everyone at a reasonable price.

Provide realistic rules and regulations for construction. Present rules and regulations do not consider properly how a construction job must be run.

The present law incorporates many existing standards and guidelines drawn up by private organizations by reference. These guidelines were never intended for application on the construction jobsite. conditions.

This, gentlemen, concludes my remarks. It is our sincere hope that you will accept our views as constructive criticism. We ask that you go on from here and establish a law that is reasonable and fair to all.

Mr. BERGLAND. Mr. Murray, I want to commend you on taking a very forthright position on this matter, and for a series of recommendations.

I have just a few questions.

You recommended that the authority for the administration of this program be transferred from the Department of Labor and vested in a National Occupational Safety and Health Bureau.

Why would you recommend this?

Mr. MURRAY. Well, I think at this stage of the game it is rather obvious that the general attitude of the Department of Labor has been antagonistic more than helpful.

Mr. BERGLAND. You have reason to believe if it were vested in some other agency that there would be a different attitude?

Mr. MURRAY. I feel as a businessman that we would get a better shake, so to speak, from an agency that was not prolabor.

Mr. BERGLAND. On your second item you said, and I'm reading:

Our members have been getting courtesy inspections from private insurance companies, our Association safety consultant, and assistance from the Association's Safety Committee.

Are you aware of any employer who has been inspected by a professional safety engineer, whether he be employed by an insurance company or whomever; and the employer followed the advice of the consultant and was later cited for violations by an OSHA compliance inspector?

Mr. MURRAY. No, sir, I am not. Our own firm has been inspected by our insurance inspector.

They gave us what we felt was a fair and equitable inspection. They pointed out numerous areas where we were not in compliance, such as one thing that sticks out in my mind is the ladies restroom for the ladies that work in our office.

He wrote us up for not having a lid on the waste container in the ladies restroom. He did get us in compliance insofar as we did not have a seatbelt on our forklift.

We have not had, to my knowledge, any of our members yet inspected by an OSHA inspector.

Mr. BERGLAND. I have no questions.

Counsel?

Mr. ROE. Just one, if I may, Mr. Chairman.

We have hear, Mr. Chairman, testimony from Oregon and Massachusetts, and a considerable amount in the Midwest; and this gentleman represents an organization from the South, and of course, we've heard in this particular area you say you have no inspections in your organization that you know of other than in your own company? Mr. MURRAY. No inspections other than invite inspections that we know of.

Now, I must say that we do quite a bit of Government contract work. Mr. ROE. So you have been familiar to some extent with WalshHealy in the construction industry?

Mr. MURRAY. And we had been inspected on one job at Charleston Air Force Base where we were putting down a new terrazzo floor in an existing building in such a manner that you worked in this area. over here while we use this area over here in the building.

We were cited by the Government safety inspector for not wearing hardhats. I had an audience with the base engineer concerning this, and he laughed.

Here we were working on floors in a room such as this, and people using the room in normal activity; and at the same time the inspector was going to put hardhats on us. And my position was you put hardhats on everybody else in the building, and I'll put hardhats on my people.

Mr. ROE. But in general, the companies that you've been aware of in the South, has there been a problem or not?

Mr. MURRAY. Not in our particular industry. Thank goodness we enjoy an outstanding safety record. Our workman compensation rates are among the absolute lowest in the construction industry.

We, thus far with the target industries drawing the main attention, we have been pretty lucky. Of course, in certain cases there have been people on jobs that were written up generally by OSHA inspectors. We had a contract on one that was written up by an OSHA inspector. It was our good luck to be not on the job the day the inspector visited the job.

Mr. ROE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FINN. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BERGLAND. We thank you for coming today, Mr. Murray, and we appreciate your testimony and your very forthright and direct set of recommendations.

Mr. MURRAY. Thank you, sir.

Mr. BERGLAND The subcommittee will stand in recess until 9 tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon, the hearing was recessed at 6 p.m., June 27, 1972, to reconvene at 9 a.m. the following day.)

SMALL BUSINESS AND THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY

AND HEALTH ACT OF 1970

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 1972

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS

AFFECTING SMALL BUSINESS,

SELECT COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 9 a.m., in room 2359, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. William L. Hungate (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Hungate, Smith, Bergland, Horton, and Conte.

Also present: Donald B. Roe, subcommittee counsel; John M. Finn, minority counsel, and Myrtle Ruth Foutch, clerk.

Mr. HUNGATE. The subcommittee will come to order.

And the first witness to be called this morning will be Mr. James P. Hensley, director, legislative affairs, Sheet Metal and AirConditioning Contractors, accompanied by Roy Seacor, of Sheet Metals Works, Hawthorne, N.Y.

Mr. Hensley, I am pleased to have you with us.

Mr. HENSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Seacor will be the next witness.

Mr. HUNGATE. I appreciate you gentlemen holding over. And we will proceed.

TESTIMONY OF ROY SEACOR, PRESIDENT, P. & P. SHEET METAL WORKS, HAWTHORNE, N. Y., ACCOMPANIED BY JAMES P. HENSLEY, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, SHEET METAL AND AIR-CONDITIONING CONTRACTORS' NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

INC.

Mr. SEACOR. First, Mr. Chairman, we want to thank you for the opportunity of being able to make our statement.

On that basis, I would say that there is no question in my mind that there is a good deal of basic repetition in our testimony. Not being an articulate speechmaker by any means, perhaps I can better communicate the specifics of my presentation by means of the statement. If someplace along the way a point in question should come to mind, by all means please interrupt, and ask whatever questions you have on the statement.