Mr. SEACOR. And I would go one step further to also indicate that there was a roofer code 5547. So through experience they have determined that there is a difference.

Now, the rating difference between the sheet metal roof worker code 5538, which is the HVAC contractor type, and the sheet metal worker, currently is this; current effective rates per hundred dollars of payroll for a sheet metal worker, under HVAC work, $3.60.

Current effective rates per hundred dollars of payroll for the sheet metal roofer code, $8.50.

It kind of tells the message. And we have the other figures.
Mr. HUNGATE. That is very helpful.

Mr. SEACOR. Finally, we object to the total lack of enforcement procedures under the act to insure employee compliance with its provisions and regulations. We readily accept the responsibility of the employer to provide a safe and healthful workplace. And we understand the administration's reluctance to dictate labor-management relations. At the same time, though, we think it is unfair and inequitable for an employer to be subject to a fine simply because an employee was acting in callous disregard of his own welfare. All the safety meetings, workshops, posters, and reprimands in the world will not force some employees to work in a safe manner or keep their personal tools in safe condition. Should the employer, then-who may well be contractually bound to keep the man-be penalized for the employee's disregard? We think not, and urge legislative modification of the act to provide for a reduction or dismissal of penalties against the employer under these circumstances.

Mr. HUNGATE. Would it be an improvement in these instances only, the instances involving the wearing of the safety equipment hardhats, for example? Or other devices, masks, or certain gloves, or boots, in those instances where the violation could come from two ways, it could come from two ways, it could be the employers didn't give it to him, or told him, you work quicker if you don't wear it, or it could come from the employee who has been told again and again to wear it, but just wouldn't do it, but if you are gone he takes it off, would it be an improvement if the penalties in those cases were openhandedly assessed, nevertheless, not as now just a penalty on the employer, if that penalty were split, so the employee, too felt part of the pain for violating the regulation?

Mr. HENSLEY. That would definitely help.

We had one situation in your particular State, Mr. Chairman, where a sheet metal employer was fined. In our trade, the men are required to keep and maintain certain personel handtools. The compliance officer went to his toolbox and found a cold chisel with a mushroom head, and fined the employer. Now, really, to logically police this kind of thing you would really have to invade the privacy of the individual man.

Mr. HUNGATE. I would think in some of these things the man brings his own tools.

Mr. HENSLEY. That is it exactly. These are tools to be provided. We have a scheduled list in all labor areas of personal tools that the men shall provide for themselves. And cold chisels happen to be one of them, crimping hammers, and things like this.

Mr. SEACOR. I would mention that these are the personal tools supplied by the men themselves. I might also add that hardhat question was just recently brought up, wherein the employer sitting at the desk in his office working hard at collecting money to pay the payrolls, is fined for a workman in the jobsite some 45 or 50 miles away who is saying to himself that it is ridiculous hat to wear, and I don't want to wear this stinking helmet, and these also are too one sided, I think, that business of being fined for what is just a loss to him.

Mr. HUNGATE. It seems to the Chair that we have a discretionary problem in the enforcement of this act that has not been mastered, probably because the complaints you make along that line-what we have heard now-this is starting the fifth day of what to the employers and to others seems to be unreasonable enforcement of some of the regulations.

Now, we had a case of some fellow in North or South Dakota, a contractor somewhere-and I am not clear whether he was on a farm tractor or one for a construction company-but he was supposed to wear a hardhad, and it was 20 below zero, and he was wearing a hat that kept his ears from freezing. You could have instances where the safety of getting your head mashed against having your ears freeze. That is a silly sample. But it shows that there must be discretion.

Mr. HENSLEY. The basic problem is that so much of the cheap stuff undermines the basic confidence of contractors like Roy in the overall larger intent.

Mr. HUNGATE. This effects their attitude toward the whole act. Mr. HENSLEY. That is the problem.

Mr. SEACOR. In conclusion, we wish to reiterate our commitment to safety, our historical record of dedication of providing a safe and healthful workplace for our employees, and our complete intention to continue helping our contractors comply with the Occupational Safety and Health Act. At the same time, we respectfully urge the committee to consider legislative recommendations to correct the inequities we have described above.

We appreciate having had this opportunity to make our views known, and we will be glad to answer any questions the committee may have.

(The statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF ROY SEACOR ON BEHALF OF THE SHEET METAL AND
AIR-CONDITIONING CONTRACTORS' NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, INC.

Good morning. Mr. Chairman. I am Roy Seacor, president of P. & P. Sheet Metal Works, Hawthorne, N. Y., and chairman of the Construction Safety Task Force for the Sheet Metal and Air-Conditioning Contractors National Association (SMACNA). I am accompanied today by Mr. James P. Hensley, director of legislative affairs for our National Association.

SMACNA is the national trade association spokesman for America's 30,000 mechanical specialty construction contractors engaged in the fabrication and installation of residential, commercial, institutional and industrial warm air heating cooling, ventilating and air handling systems; architectural sheet metal and roofing; industrial sheet metal; air pollution control and specialty fabrication. The majority of the firms we represent-including my own-are definitely small businesses.

On behalf of the Association, we would like to comment today on the administration of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, including various legislative measures currently under consideration by the Congress to remedy inequities under OSHA.

Let me say at the outset that SMACNA and our counterpart union-the Sheet Metal Workers International Association-enjoy a long history of cooperative efforts to enforce safety and safety awareness both in our shops and on our jobsites. Long before OSHA became the law of the land, we were requiring intensive safety instruction as a key element in our Apprenticeship Training Courses throughout the country, preparing and distributing a well-received Construction and Shop Safety Practices Guide, and participating in the development of Safety Workshops for the industry.

Since the signing of the Williams-Steiger Safety Act in December of 1970, we have invested literally thousands of hours of staff time and thousands of dollars of Association funds in assisting our industry to comply. We concentrated initially on bringing the Act and the resultant standards to the attention of all contractors in our industry through the preparation of guidelines, interpretive digests of standards, evaluations, and special hazard mailings.

We have prepared and distributed thousands of copies of our Layman's Guide to The OSH Act (copy attached) as well as a slide presentation and script on OSHA. We are now in the process of shooting a 20-minute color, sound movie on particular hazards in our industry, and SMACNA has inaugurated a monthly membership newsletter devoted exclusively to safety through the efforts of our top-level Construction Safety Task Force. Finally, we have filed comments on all major OSHA proposed rulemakings and worked closely with the Administration to assist in defining our role as a Target Industry. In short, SMACNA has enthusiastically accepted our responsibility under the new safety act and worked diligently to insure the awareness and compliance of our contractors across the country.

At the same time, however, we have come to feel strongly that current enforcement of the Williams-Steiger Act has been inequitable and capricious in many respects, and that many enforcement activities and attitudes have betrayed the original Congressional intent behind passage. Specifically, we object to: 1. Inconsistent enforcement policies and procedures.

2. Promulgation and enforcement of unrealistic and unnecessary standards. 3. Undue emphasis on issuing citations rather than on overall compliance. 4. Unrealistic inclusion of Sheet Metal with Roofing as a Target Industry category.

5. Lack of any enforcement procedures to insure employee compliance. OSHA's enforcement of their 300-plus pages of detailed standards has been capricious and inconsistent throughout our industry. We have seen, for instance, the same, identical violation cited as "de minimis" in one western state but as "serious" in New York, with a $100 fine assessed. We have seen, also, two different compliance officers-working under the same Area Director-assess two different fine amounts for the same violation by two different employers of roughly the same size and category. In one case in the mid-west, one employer was given a week to apply a fan guard on a belt on his compressor, yet a neighbor was told to abate the same violation "immediately." There are many, many more examples similar to these that we could site, but these few point-out the need for greater uniformity in standards and consistency in their interpretation and application throughout the country.

Our second major objection to the current administration of OSHA concerns the adoption and enforcement of ridiculous and unnecessary regulations. In this connection we have specific reference to the much discussed prohibition against ice in drinking water, the requirement for self-closing toilet stall doors, the requirement for toilet paper holders and there are numerous examples in other areas including general housekeeping and stairway guarding. Not only is this type of regulation picayune and hardly in the serious interest of increased health and safety, its enforcement tends directly to reduce overall confidence in and compliance with other basically worthwhile standards.

Thirdly, we feel that the Congressional intent behind OSHA's passage is being severely undermined by present enforcement procedures. That is, the logic for passage of the Williams-Steiger Act was specifically stated to be the providing of a safe and healthful working place for employees. We feel that too much emphasis is being placed on citations and fines and too little on the overall subject of compliance. In most cases, the employer has had little or no opportunity to review the standards and determine which apply to his particular operations until the compliance officer walks in to fine him. Copies of the standards were not furnished to the employer by OSHA in advance, OSHA has consistently refused to conduct "courtesy inspections" and fines are being assessed regardless of the

employer's intention to abate or other evidence of good faith to comply. SMACNA strongly urges the passage of legislation (like H.R. 13562 by Rep. Charles Thone and H.R. 15399 by Rep. Fish) that would allow an employer the opportunity to correct a cited violation during the period prescribed for its abatement without being subject to a fine. If, of course, he failed to correct the violation during this period, he would then be subject to a fine. We feel that this legislation is fully consistent with the intent of the Act and would assist immeasurably in improving health and safety in the workplace.

Our fourth objection relates to OSHA's inclusion of both roofing and sheet metal in Target Industry category number two. There is little question but what roofing—and commercial and industrial roofing in particular-can be hazardous. Yet the vast majority of sheet metal work is not. It is not conducted at extreme heights, there is no hot tar used and the men employed are usually of a completely different trade. We feel that by lumping roofing and sheet metal together as they have for compliance and enforcement purposes OSHA has done the purely sheet metal contractor a tremendous disservice. We feel that OSHA should conduct an indepth study of both injury frequency and severity rates in this cate gory and make a more realistic realignment of their target industry categories. As we have repeatedly told Administration officials, SMACNA is willing to assist in this study and work with them to obtain meaningful industry statistics.

Finally, we object to the total lack of enforcement procedures under the Act to insure employee compliance with its provisions and regulations. We readily accept the responsibility of the employer to provide a safe and healthful workplace. And we understand the Administration's reluctance to dictate labormanagement relations. At the same time, though, we think it is unfair and inequitable for an employer to be subject to a fine simply because an employee was acting in callous disregard of his own welfare. All the safety meetings, workshops, posters and reprimands in the world will not force some employees to work in a safe manner or keep their personal tools in safe condition. Should the employer, then-who may well be contractually bound to keep the man-be penalized for the employee's disregard? We think not, and urge legislative modification of the Act to provide for a reduction or dismissal of penalties against the employer under these circumstances.

In conclusion, we wish to reiterate our commitment to safety, our historical record of dedication of providing a safe and healthful workplace for our employees and our complete intention to continue helping our contractors comply with the Occupational Safety and Health Act. At the same time, we respectfully urge the Committee to consider legislative recommendations to correct the inequities we have described above.

We appreciate having had this opportunity to make our views known and we will be glad to answer any questions the Committee may have.

Mr. HUNGATE. Thank you very much. Your statement is very helpful.

Mr. Finn, any questions?

Mr. FINN. No, sir.

Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Roe?

Mr. ROE. No questions.

Mr. HUNGATE. We have mentioned intents and things of that kind. What about health? In your industry is there any particular disease or illness that a guy is more apt to come down with then he would if he worked in another field?

Mr. HENSLEY. We have recently been discussing with the fellow who is head of the target health hazards program for OSHA this exact area. He was initially concerned that perhaps in the asbestos area we might run into it. We did quite a bit of research, and as a practical matter, our men are not exposed to asbestos. This gets down almost to a jurisdictional area. But in the interior insulating of HCVAC systems it is almost exclusively Fiberglas, which is an inert fiber, and of course does not pose a health problem. There are a few instances where a man might be installing hanger rods for duct systems when

the slab was being placed, or something like this. But normally the sequence of trades on a job is such that you don't run into this. We were concerned about this, since I guess we were psyched up originally as a target industry, because of the distinct statistics that they put together.

Mr. HUNGATE. Gentlemen, we have other testimony and exhibits of standards under this act. Somebody brought in 4 feet of standards. and regulations one day, and said they couldn't get all of them, that they would measure 6 feet altogether. Would you think that in the administration of the act it might be more effective if you had considerably fewer standards, maybe even too few standards; that men in the industry knew what they were, and could understand what they were, and what were directly related to the most serious safety problems. Would that perhaps be more effective than covering everything in such detail that nobody knows what they are supposed to do?

Mr. HENSLEY. New York is a perfect case in point. Roy was talking this morning at breakfast that the entire New York Code affecting our industry is this booklet, and it is very effective, it has been in effect for years.

Mr. SEACOR. I have here a booklet from the New York State Board of Standards and Appeals, Industrial Code Rule No. 23 entitled "Protection of Persons Employed in the Construction and Demolitions Work," and so forth. As you can see, it is a 71-page booklet slightly smaller in dimensional size than the Federal Register. And this without question

Mr. HUNGATE. For the purpose of the code printed record, it is considerably smaller.

Mr. SEACOR. It is considerably condensed. And without going into lengthiness and masses, what some people don't seem to understand about the OHRA standards, these are to the point.

Mr. HUNGATE. How long have they been in effect?

Mr. SEACOR. To the best of my knowledge, this was effective August 1963. But this was a rewrite. And if I am not mistaken, initially this came out back in the forties.

Mr. HUNGATE. Does that apply to all employees, or does it exempt those under certain numbers, or do you know?

Mr. SEACOR. This is no exemption.

Mr. HUNGATE. I asked because the Congressmen were playing with that idea, the House put one in with a 25-employee exemption, and the Senate reduced it to 15. And probably after conferences that may be reduced or further written out. But in our discussions of testimony here there has been considered the problem that there could be some industries that would have five employees and still be highly dangerous. Mr. HENSLEY. SMACNA is not convinced that that is the route to go. We feel that an administrative streamlining attempt at consistency is the way to go, and the abatement period.

Mr. HUNGATE. Could we have that pamphlet as an exhibit?

Mr. SEACOR. I will be glad to get you one.

Industrial Code No. 23 was made effective April 20, 1920, by the State industrial commission.

Mr. HUNGATE. I think that sort of suggestion is more helpful. If you will file that with us it will be fine.