them all the time-an outsider can come in and see something we overlooked. If he would say, Mr. Wheaton, this ought to be turned around the other way, and we say, all right, it will take us 3 days to do that, if he comes back the fourth day and we have not done that, he can fine the daylights out of us. I am not objecting to the fine, if we have something in our plant that could cause an accident and we know about it, and we do not do something about it. You can fine the daylights out of it, you would not hear any complaints from me. I can tell you my foreman would not be there long that has charge of that department. Again, I reiterate that I welcome the Government to help us on this subject.

That is basically the only thing I do not know, Senator, whether you were here when I mentioned that it is possible for anybody to call up and talk about any company and say, I work for Joe Blow Co., and there is a bad fume situation in their plating department. OSHA does not ask the man's name. They just assume he does work for that company. But they must send an OSHA inspector out to inspect that company. That takes time away from the company's people to take this man through. We have had three such visits in the last 10 days at one of my plants.

Senator HAYAKAWA. These are anonymous reports?

Mr. WHEATON. That is right. It is not necessary under the present law for anybody to state, I am Frank Wheaton, I think there is something wrong in the Wheaton Glass Co. If you wanted to harass a competitor, this would be an ideal way to do it.

Senator HAYAKAWA. It is this punitive aspect of OSHA behavior that bothers me. I do not know if it requires a rewriting of the law or not. But if the OSHA inspector were to understand clearly that his function is to help all the plants, factories, and stores that he visits, and presumably he is an expert on safety issues and can help you out and your neighbor down the street and the storekeeper and the warehouse, then if you knew that was his intention, he would be welcome with open arms all around the place, would he not? And perhaps it is necessary to give him punitive powers, authority, and so on, to use in the case of the individual who simply resists all attempts?

Mr. WHEATON. I agree.

Senator HAYAKAWA. This is not the way it is working now?

Mr. WHEATON. Definitely not. They come in on the first offense, and again it depends on how the man feels, or it depends on the man taking him through. Let us say a man came to work at 8 o'clock in the morning, one of our foremen, and he had a full day's work outlined for himself. At 9 o'clock in comes an OSHA man. In the first place, our foreman sort of backs away from him immediately when he hears an OSHA man is coming in, but then he starts to think, by golly, he is going to take up my time. Here is what I have to do this morning. How can I get rid of him fast?

He rushes him through. That has a tendency to make the inspector feels he is not getting the cooperation he wants, so, instead of fining him $50, he fines him $500.

Again you were not here when I-I have been before a Federal judge three times on different companies of mine, one of them in Trenton, N.J. We had even gone so far as to write to the OSHA people

and tell them that we were not contesting that the contents of the citation were wrong. We agreed with it. But we had corrected these. The only thing we were contesting was the fact that they should not fine us on a first offense.

Now that costs the U.S. Government a whole day of the judge's time to come up out of Washington to Trenton-a $600 fine, by the way. The person in charge of the legal department of OSHA in the Department of Labor in New Jersey sent one of his gals down, who was a lawyer. They spent a half hour in Trenton, going over this with me. I told them what the story was. When it was all over, the young lady said, Mr. Wheaton, I can understand your feeling on this subject, but said you must understand my situation.

This is typical, word for word I am talking about here now. "When I get back to New Jersey, if I told them I let you off the hook, as you might call it, I would get reprimanded and told, 'You should have socked it to them.'

Those are the exact words the young lady said. "I am in jeopardy of my job if I do not try to get you fined, somewheres along the line." I do not need any of this. In the first place, I admit I am a maverick, but I do not need all this harassment.

I would like to feel that the Government feels they need people like Frank Wheaton out there who are entrepreneurs and have built businesses, because all they have to do is turn around and keep harassing me, my father and myself-we just say the heck with it. It is just not worth the effort. I have lots of things I like to do. But I spend most of my time in business.

The CHAIRMAN. You know, Frank, I will say, you are a most credible man, but superficially there would be those who would question your credibility. You are very disturbed about harassment and all of this. You are one of the most healthy, most vigorous men I have seen at this table. Your father is 97 and goes to work every day. So harassment must be good for the system or something. [Laughter.]

Mr. WHEATON. I sit here with a broken collarbone and two broken ribs.

The CHAIRMAN. You have been an excellent witness and very helpful. I know you approach this from the point of view of the citizen. You want to have a safe place for your workers. You are a great employer, we know that. Of the administrative situations you have addressed yourself to, many not only can be defended, but I think are necessary; some cannot be defended, are unnecessary, and should be dealt with. Harassment is one, and nitpicking is another.

Secretary Marshall was very persuasive here yesterday when he addressed himself to some of this. The harassment was one he had not heard. He will hear about this directly from me quoting you.

There is a way to reach this. Nobody should be harassed by a competitor or anonymous harasser, right?

Mr. WHEATON. Right.

The CHAIRMAN. There should be a way to meet that. I do not have anything further, by the way, Senator Hayakawa, do you?

Senator HAYAKAWA. No, I think I said what I wanted to say. I just want to add that far too many businessmen are made to feel that the Government is their enemy, and I would like the Government to see to it that Mr. Wheaton and other people with perfectly respectable businesses should prosper. If the Government has a role, it is to help you

to have successful businesses. So long as we, the Government, seem as the enemy, it creates a division in our society that is not at all healthy for the country.

The CHAIRMAN. I will say we learn and we respond after learning. We have responded to the concern that there are a lot of business people, generally smaller businesses, that really do not have the personnel and the time to understand all that the law demands. Therefore, we have applied resources-$15 million has just been appropriated-to provide for consultants to go to businesses upon their request to advise them, no penalty-advice and consultation. We are learning. We learned a lot today.

Mr. WHEATON. Just as a matter of interest, in conclusion, I have three Federal judge decisions against me at the present time, three different plants. When the decision was rendered, I sent it right back to Judge Gann. I do not know where I end up with all of this. But I have not heard from-it has been 2 or 3 months in most of them.

The CHAIRMAN. You might hear about this. If President Carter should find you worthy to represent our country abroad as an Ambassador, this would all come up, you know, Frank, all of these things. Then that kind of record would be a problem for you. I think you would be a good Ambassador.

Mr. WHEATON. I do not want to be an Ambassador. I would be happy to help, because I think I know what is going on around the world.

Senator HAYAKAWA. I am very grateful to Mr. Wheaton for his testimony.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

We are going to have the American Pulpwood Association as our next witness.

Mr. Rolston?

Senator HAYAKAWA. Before Mr. Rolston starts, I want to apologize for having to leave, because I want to tell you, Senator Williams, that the State Department has issued those visas for visits from Rhodesia, and this results in all kinds of uproar in my office, in meeting the press and so on. If you will excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I will go back to my other concerns.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand and appreciate that, Senator Hayakawa.

Mr. Rolston, I know perhaps you did not expect to come on this late in the day.

I appreciate your patience.

STATEMENT OF K. S. ROLSTON, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN PULPWOOD ASSOCIATION

Mr. ROLSTON. It is my pleasure.

I appreciate the opportunity.

I am the executive vice president of the American Pulpwood Association, an organization supported by producers and consumers of pulpwood, the basic raw material for the Nation's paper industry. APA has a record of support for OSHA and we have a record of cooperation with the Agency dating back to the passage of the act.

We are supportive of those "first recommendations" of the Interagency Task Force on Workplace Safety and Health which would apply to pulpwood logging injury prevention and control. We oppose any attempt to remove or limit the application of the Occupational Safety and Health Act to logging operations, virtually all of which are very small businesses.

To set the stage for my remarks, I'd like to first make it clear that I am here to speak for logging injury prevention. Logging work, if it is not the most hazardous occupation in the world, is certainly a close runner-up. The high cost of logging injuries in terms of human suffering, lost production, and high worker's compensation premiums has been a major focus point for our association and our membership since World War II.

We heartily endorse a redirection of OSHA's enforcement thrust toward the most serious workplace hazards.

In our industry the necessity to cut a tree loose from its stump produces the most fatalities and serious injuries. Our efforts, and we hope OSHA's efforts to assist our industry, should concentrate on the activities where the most damage is going to be done. We have identified the three areas that most need improvement:

One: Safe action-correct felling practices must be used.
Two: Protective equipment-hard hats must be worn.

Three: Safe condition-overhead steel canopies must be on all logging equipment.

If these three goals could be met, it is quite possible that the cost of logging injuries could be reducer by one-third and serious injuries and fatalities could be reduced by one-third and serious injuries and fatalities could be even more dramatically reduced. It makes good sense for a safety regulatory agency, organizations promotion for logging safety, and first and foremost, the owners and operators of logging jobs to concentrate on the most serious problems first.

Standards are the first step.

The pulpwood logging safety standards, which are a part of the OSHA standards package, were developed under the auspices of the American Pulpwood Association. The consensus process took 5 years and we continue to be proud of the results. I would recommend a closer look at these standards because I feel they may have some unique features:

One: The pulpwood logging safety standards address unsafe action as well as unsafe conditions.

Two: Our standards are complete. An exhaustive NIOSH study of them failed to come up with any substantive recommendations for addition or change.

Three: To our knowledge no one has ever requested a variance from the pulpwood logging safey standards.

The most important work that OSHA has done for us is to legitimize and give force of law to what we feel is an excellent package of fully comprehensive safety standards. OSHA has raised these standards from the level of recommendations to mandatory logging practices. Inspections have been fair.

Because of the scattered nature of logging operations, their location off the paved road, and their size in terms of numbers of employees there haven't been too many inspections of logging operations. How

ever, with one exception, we consider inspections of logging jobs with which we are familiar to have been conducted in fair and impartial manner. The exception I referred to was contested and the citation overturned, proof to us that the appeal process can function as it should. We have received a number of reports of instances where the employer felt that his visit from an OSHA compliance officer had been quite beneficial. One logging contractor said that, although he had to pay a penalty, he learned a lot of other things that needed doing to improve safety and he felt that the penalty had been cheap in comparison to the free safety consulting service he received.

I think the intent of my comments about inspections should be viewed with the knowledge that logging is a part of the former OSHA target industry category "lumber and wood products", and therefore during those years, received much more attention than many other business categories.

Cost has not been a problem.

With the cost of worker's compensation insurance for logging currently in some States more than $20 per $100 per payroll, the cost of meeting OSHA pulpwood logging safety standards safety requirements has been insignificant by comparison.

Employees on small logging operations still need OSHA.

The exemption of small employers from certain OSHA recordkeeping requirements was a fair and welcome move, but we feel that any attempt to exempt small employers from inspections or compliance with standards would deny the employees of small logging contractors an essential component for future reduction in logging injury frequency and severity.

First recommendations of the interagency task force:

We endorse these following recommendations listed by short title: One: Increased accident investigation as a means to identify most serious standards violations.

Two: Expansion of telephone reporting of serious injuries.
Three: "Substantial equivalent to cited standards" relief.

These three areas either have direct application to the logging business or we believe might be of future benefit. We are not qualified to comment on the other recommendations since we don't see any application to our industry.

I'm not a safety professional and there are relatively few employed in the logging industry. I found section two entitled, "Likely Causes and Cures" and section three, "The Larger Picture" very interesting and enlightening. I suggest that this type of information, written for the layman, might be incorporated into a publication for wider distribution.

Expectations must be realistic.

Those who may have expected that OSHA would, by itself, make substantial improvement in injury prevention have been laboring under unrealistic expectations. Safety is first and foremost a management responsibility and opportunity.

We feel that the vision of OSHA partnership, government, industry, and labor is unrealistic. We've got natural adversaries involvedbut why be concerned? Progress is often achieved at the expense of conflict.