virtually impossible to understand unless you have a library of legal documents: for cross reference purposes. Most employers are unable to determine which standards apply to them once they do understand what is meant by the regulation. Too often the cost of compliance outweighs any benefits gained. The act's. review and appeal processes create havoc with the Fifth Amendment's due process guarantees in that arbitrarily fixed time limits are mandated for contesting citations, and limitations are put upon the employer as to evidence for his defense.. Only after the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission renders a final decision can the cited individual gain the constitutional guaranteed protection of due process by seeking judicial review of his case in an appellate court.

In order for the act to maintain a semblance of positive and helpful intent, certain reforms must be made. The goal of creating safe and healthful working conditions can better be attained by aiding and cooperating with the employers of businesses and their employees. The following are my suggestions for reform which in most cases have been widely agreed to by others in Congress and the business-labor community.

INSPECTIONS

The act should provide for announced inspections affording the employer the opportunity to be present during the inspections as well as afford him the opportunity to have available on the "walk-around" his own expert in the safety and health field. By having his own man, per se, the employer could be advised of the significance and professionalism of the inspector's notations of supposed violations.

CITATIONS

The punitive nature of the citation process accompanied with mandatory fines for "serious" violations and discretionary fines for "non-serious" ones should be removed and replaced by the positive method of no penalty unless abatement has Lot been carried out in the specified time limit. Such a provision is provided in H.R. 2448. The OSHA inspector should also at the time of the citation of violations provide expert advice as to how the employer may come into compliance and thus meet the time limit for abatement. Congress should provide the legislative authority needed for advising compliance in order to achieve the intended purpose of the act. To ignore this badly needed service to an employer, we state. in essence, that the government is more interested in finding fault and collecting fines than it is in attempting to provide safe and healthful working conditions. The burdensome costs to the employer, especially the small businessman, in hiring a private engineering and safety consulting firm drains financial resources and may cause plant closings and labor layoffs.

STANDARDS

As proposed in H.R. 2449, there should be a separation of applicable standards for the varying aspects inherent within the differences of small and large businesses. In one specific case, separate standards should be written for "light residential construction" and "heavy construction." Generally, standards are too complicated for the individual to understand. They should be written in lay language with specific delineation and separation into the various business enterprises. All proposed standards and regulations should be subject to an economicimpact study which would afford facts for the determination of the cost benefit as well as needed background for applicability to business concerns. The enforcement of some standards would in some instances drive businesses out of business with little increase in the safety factors.

ON-SITE CONSULTATIONS

H.R. 6592 provides for "on-site consultations" by the OSHA inspectors to busiTesses employing 25 or fewer employees. This is badly needed in that, above all else, it provides for the employer to see what he is doing wrong and how to correct the situation without being subject to a fine.

REVIEW AND APPEAL

The time period for contesting citations of violations should be changed from the present 15 days to 30 working days. The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission should not have the power to increase fines, as this presently

acts to deter one from taking advantage of the proper review and appeal rights he does have however limited. Final decisions by the Review Commission should be immediately stayed upon appeal of the case to the appellate court. Presently OSHA cannot withdraw mistakenly cited violations without a hearing in an appeal nor can the employer withdraw from his contest without proving abatement, fines paid, or employees notified. The strict restrictions on withdrawal should be removed, thus saving money and ending burdensome time consumption.

Further, a thorough review should be given to overall enforcement procedures of OSHA. It would behoove Congress to remove the onerous "Guilty Until Proven Innocent" implication this act carries. Provisions should be made providing for judicial review in the first instance rather than the last. OSHA should be vested with the powers to conduct hearings and issue orders directing specific compliance with legislation or regulatory standards, only after the proper Judicial Review rights are provided as in the cases of the Federal Trade Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Finally, the Subcommittee will find of interest the following selected letters and cases from my files regarding OSHA. The letters briefly noted are representative of the feelings toward OSHA as expressed by my constituents. I would like to bring special notice to the case of the S & L Millwork Company, Inc., of Rapid City, South Dakota.

Thank you for affording me this opportunity to testify on the need to change a law abridging the rights of individuals in order to achieve a meritorius goal. I believe this goal could better be achieved by other means while yet maintaining all rights of due process.

From Mr. and Mrs. Don Erickson, Don's Custom Cabinet Shop, Route 2, Box 198, Rapid City, South Dakota : “We as a small business employing 2 full-time men, feel that OSHA has been very unreasonable and dictatorial. The little busi ness is being cited and fined for such petty and insignificant things as no lid on a waste receptacle in the ladies' room. Complying with real safety and health law: is acceptable but we feel that these penalties and harassments are just out of line and a bit unconstitutional."

From Gordon Thune, Vice President, The Thune Hardware, 815 North Main Mitchell, South Dakota, addressed to the Occupational Safety and Health Admin istration in Billings, Montana: “Enclosed please find our check for ninety dollar in payment of the so-called violation to the safety of our employees. We feel it i cheaper to pay the fine, rather than take such matters to court. However, our Con stitution gives us the right to protest what we feel to be an injustice to our righ to live and earn a living.

"We have been in the hardware business in the Mitchell area since 1937, wit my father's original time dating back over fifty years. In all that time we hav never had a so-called reportable injury.

"The operation of this store has not been or will it be to run a business hazard ous to our employees or customers.

"Local independent hardware stores throughout the country are usually famil affairs, with customers service as a very important facet-bolts on a wagon sharpen mower blades, or oil a mother's stroller, etc. We do not operate a man facturing or assembly plant. We merely try to give the service that larger chai and discount stores don't give.

“The number of employees can vary here in our store according to the season but even with ten or twelve employees, we only have one man in our repair shop He is a qualified repairman and knows his tools and what to do with them. Th female employees in this store do not operate, nor do they want to be involve with, the service department.

'We were very displeased to learn that institutions were given five days t comply with the citation issued to them and we were not given that sam courtesy. We do want to comply, and we have corrected the non-serious citatio from your office.

"Safety is important. Most stores of our type would gladly try to comply. W think, however, they could be inspected and given the citation-then if they c not comply or correct the situation, a fine would be necessary.

"Copies of this letter have been sent to Washington in hopes that this law ca be amended to take care of retail stores in a different manner than manufacturin firms.

"Thank you for letting me print my thoughts and for your courtesy in readin this letter."

From David Richards, Howes Route, Box 30, Sturgis, South Dakota: 'Since I employ youth and am an advisor to the Meade 101 Vo-Tech school on agriculture. I could offer some suggestions.

"1. Children need to learn to work early in life to establish good work habits for later occupations. I suggest that freshmen in high school be allowed to work on farms and ranches provided that they have been given some safety training through either 4-H clubs or a school ag course.

**2. Most farmers and ranchers have learned safety through experience. They teach the youth employed as fast as they can how to handle machinery, tools, chemicals, or livestock because injury or damage to livestock or machinery is costly. I suggest that rural employment of youth from high school freshmen on up be exempt from the OSHA regulations except where more than two youth are employed at a time for 12 months of the year.

"3. OSHA regulations pertaining to tools and conditions of machinery should be exempt on farms and ranches or feed lots where no more than one or two youth are employed. This would be satisfactory since when a youth is going through apprenticeship a farmer tells him what to do and farmers can teach safety as well as an instructor."

From Mr. and Mrs. Frank Hoffmeyer, Vanco Motor, Inc., 30-5th Avenue, Belle Fourche, South Dakota: "I would like very much to see the entire law repealed. There is nothing fair about the way the regulations are enforced. A criminal guilty of drug, robbery or murder charges is shown more consideration for his Constitutional rights than the owner of a business. For example, an OSHA inspector can enter your place of business without a search warrant. Try that on a drug pusher and the whole thing is thrown out of court.

"A law as far reaching as this should never have been passed as a rider to something like the E.P.A. legislation. If any one of the senators or congressmen would take the time to read even one of the many booklets of regulations, and they are written in very fine print, and then try to enforce or cover all of them, maybe they could better understand the problems a small businessman faces in having to deal with a created monster like OSHA.

"As for the fines and penalties, one is fined more for not having a three-pronged plug on an adding machine than you would be fined for speeding in a school zone, including court costs. The whole thing smells like complete government control over anyone who has the courage to try to make something of himself."

From James Bruns, President. Hazard Specialists, Inc., 3209 South Prairie Avenue, Sioux Falls, South Dakota: "Recently the Occupational Safety and Health Association under the Department of Labor proposed new safety standards for farmstead equipment, farm field equipment and other agricultural equipment. These proposed regulations and I assume penalties could have serious effects on the American farmer and his ability to produce. In this time of shortages. I feel that a serious study should be taken into the actual need for this type of legislation in which the average farmer has no voice. I am also wondering if the Committee which was appointed to proclamate these regulations ever considered the cost of having the necessary guards installed, or for that matter the feasibility of even getting someone to design, manufacture and install all of these guards. According to these regulations, all farm machinery comes under the guarding requirements. I'm sure that the committee never considered the amount of machinery which a small farm must have for occasional use. If he is required to install the guards, there is a good possibility that he will try to do the job himself and will create more of a hazard than what he already has.

"I personally think that if the committee had considered the cost, feasibility, the possible hazards which the average do-it-yourself farm could create they would not have proposed these regulations.

"Perhaps as I mentioned earlier in this letter, a cost and feasibility study should be undertaken. A similar study was undertaken by a private company of the costs in the reduction of the maximum noise levels allowed for the industry. The proposed reduction was from the present 90 dB to 85 dB. The results of the study indicated that for the benefits gained the costs were unjustified. Consequently, the regulation has remained unchanged."

From H. P. Howard. Argus Printers, P.O. Box 37, Stickney, South Dakota : The trouble with OSHA it seems is that the inspectors are too anxious to find Something wrong (to build up their reputations for efficiency) and unable to distinguish between the dangers in a small plant with a few pieces of equipment and a large one with many pieces. So they end up by hurting small business.

I don't think Congress intended to do anything but make plants safe. I don't think Congress intended nitpicking.

"Mainly where the law could be amended is in that feature where inspectors have judge-and-jury powers. That's not right at all. And the inspectors ought to give plant owners a chance to rectify whatever is wrong."

From Linus Storms, Winner, South Dakota: "I just listened to a program on the radio that motivated me to write this letter. It had to do with OSHA. I have always been opposed to this bill, and now that there is an effort to get rid of it, I urge you to join it. I was employed by a pole building company before coming to the farm. One of OSHA's laws nearly caused a serious accident to me. I am not accustomed to wearing glasses and when I was forced to wear safety glasses at all times on the job it was pure discomfort. One day we were putting steel on the roof and I was walking down the 2x4 spaced about 21" apart. I started walking down them when all of a sudden I fell through. I saw the rim of the glasses and mistook it for a 2x4. I had walked up and down a thousand times before and had never done anything like that before.

"There is a time and a place for all safety measures and the workmen should be able to choose for themselves when and where to use them. If a man isn't smart enough to protect himself against obvious dangers, then no law in the world can protect him from his ignorance. I urge you to strike this law from the books." From Mr. and Mrs. Lyle Stoner, Lyle's Red Owl, Gettysburg, South Dakota: "I feel this is the worst piece of legislation ever passed. An inspection was made of my business on October 25, 1973. The alleged violations were: fire extinguisher had no inspection date entered on the durable tag; there were three pieces of equipment not properly grounded. I agreed to fix these immediately which I did. Two weeks later I received a citation from the U.S. Department of Labor, Suite 525, Petroleum Building, 2812 First Avenue North, Billings Montana. They informed me that I had been fined $30.00. I paid the fine but feel this is as undemocratic as things can become. Several businesses were fined in Gettysburg. One businessman has refused to pay his fine.

"I have four full-time and three part-time employees. I am a small business struggling to stay in business during these turbulent times. Also, I was sent a record-keeping booklet which stated I would be required to make a report early in 1975 on occupational illnesses and injuries. I have been in business since 1968 and have not had an occupational illness or injury occur in my business. I do not feel small businesses should be subjected to this type of requirement.

"A few years ago this type of harassment by the mobsters was considered illegal. Today the U.S. government does it, and it is legal.

"I can't imagine how such poor legislation can be permitted to become law. When will one of their inspectors decide to inspect my place of business and fine me again? You get no warning or opportunity to correct the error. It doesn't seem possible this type of action is happening here in the United States. In Russia, yes, but in the United States? Goodness knows what will be next."

From Hiram Dutton, South Dakota: "I think it would be a good idea to repeal the OSHA law. I like to give high school boys work in the summer, and with this law you don't dare take a chance."

From Wallace F. Sweetland, Executive Secretary, Training Director, Electrical Contractors of South Dakota, P.O. Box 926. Mitchell, South Dakota : “You might consider the obvious problems which will be created if OSHA compliance officers are recruited from union ranks as indicated in the attached informational sheet. There is no doubt that another "in-house labor council" is being developed within the Labor Department. Most affected will be manufacturing and construction."

From Brian Crane, Crane Publishing Company Inc., P.O. Box 822, Rapid City, South Dakota: "Naturally everyone should be aware of safety on the job and it should be a continuous effort for everyone to work toward this goal. I think that if you will check some of the statistics on industry over the last 40 years, there are less accidents per man hour than ever before. Naturally, we want to make them even less yet, and I am sure that the William Steiger Act was brought about to accomplish this goal, however, it is an unconstitutional act. Free enterprise system must be allowed to cleanse itself and government intervention and govern ment control will only make the problem worse. The William Steiger Act should be declared unconstitutional and we should rid our country of this gross inadequacy."

From Charles J. Root, Route 1, Box 450, Rapid City, South Dakota: "The most dastardly program any branch of our government has ever foisted upon its small businesses, contractors, and industries is that program executed by OSHA. No man can know what all their regulations are nor can he meet their demands even if he did know, nor can they possibly execute them in any sort of a fair

fashion. Conceived by the Communist leadership of the Health, Education, and Welfare Department and handed to the Labor Department to give it some sort of excuse for its necessity. It stands hated by all persons with any ambition to build any kind of a business of their own and even feared by most because of its wicked looking teeth. The only answer to it that I know of aside its death is a good ever loaded shotgun."

From Gerald K. Miller, Miller Equipment Inc., Rapid City, South Dakota: "We were fined $25.00 for the noted violations, after being given a reasonable amount of time to come into compliance. We did correct the so-called violations in the time given, and were fined anyway.

"It seems to us that this is certainly not the American way. If the legislators in Washington have to resort to this kind of law and have the power to fine American business even after they come into compliance with the OSHA laws, we had better replace them with people that have been in business. These people at least understand how to make their time count. They understand that a person should usually get a chance to correct a mistake."

From Donald Haedt, dba Haedt Sash and Door Company, 110 E. St. Louis Street, Rapid City, South Dakota: "On July 3, 1973 we were inspected by an OSHA compliance officer and received a citation with a list of 14 non-serious violations, and fined a total of $155.00.

"We are a small company only employing two people and have an excellent safety record. This is not a large fine but the parts and labor to bring these so-called violations into compliance amounted to $1100.00 and left some of our machines practically useless.

"I do not believe this kind of control has any positive results in a small business that employs skilled help and has a good safety record. The very fact that you are fined and then told what to do instead of consulted and helped makes the whole program dictatorial and leaves the employer with an even more negative attitude, with more paper work, less efficient machinery, and less incentive than before."

S & L MILLWORK COMPANY, INC.

The following are the documented citations, petitions for variance, and employee statements relative to the S & L Millwork Company's contest of their Case. Thus far in the proceedings OSHA has noted that they make a mistake in citing the company but are unable to withdraw from their actions without the Review Commission's decision to do so. Hearings on the case will occur on March 21, 1974.

It should be noted that in order for this company to complete its type of work of cabinet making by the use of the rip saw, anti-kickback dogs and guards cannot be used. OSHA has recognized this and does have a standard which provides that in the cases of grooving, dadoing, rabbeting, slotting, and kurfing, no guards are required, but in inspecting the company noted citations were issued for the hek of anti-kickback dogs and guards on the rip saw. This case clearly points ent the need for reform of the review and appeal processes of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.

Mr. DANIELS. I notice that the witnesses that accompany you have prepared statements, do they propose to read the statements in full or intend to summarize them? If you read them in full, I must announce to von in advance I have to limit the witnesses this morning to onehalf hour which will include not only the opportunity afforded them to testify, but also subject to questioning by the members of this Committee. We have a long list of witnesses and that is the reason for imposition of that rule this morning.

STATEMENT OF GARY ENRIGHT, ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTH DAKOTA FARM BUREAU

Mr. ENRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I would summarize mine, if you please.

Mr. DANIELS. I would appreciate that if you would. If there is no obiection, your statement will be printed in the record in full at this