Answer: OSHA's policy research studies now focus on increasing the efficiency of inspections, on internal workplace safety programs, and on the training of workers as a way of reducing injuries. OSHA's policy research effort has evolved from one which focused primarily on the question "what standards should be enforced" to one which asks "what can be done to ensure compliance with standards between inspections?" The agency is convinced that this latter approach has greater potential for solving workplace problems. OSHA conducted demonstration projects which led to modification of inspection policies, including adoption of the "records check' in place of complete inspection of safe workplaces. Similar demonstration projects are being considered in the occupational health area. OSHA's developmental voluntary protection programs now being developed will test the strength and effectiveness of internal workplace safety and health programs as a supplement to regularly scheduled inspections. OSHA's demonstrations in this area are intended to provide an incentive to employers to have comprehensive safety and health programs. Bureau of Labor Statistics studies indicate a clear need to focus attention on new workers and especially on young workers. OSHA's construction standard, cotton dust standard, and other new standards focus on employee training as an important aspect of injury preven tion. SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS Question: Why have you assigned only seven workers, or 20 percent of your health standards staff, to develop new health standards? How many workers, by comparison, are assigned to developing new safety standards? Answer: There are 46 positions associated with health standards and another 45 budgeted for safety standards. Though staff members focus their efforts on particular projects, there is no specific designation of personnel to exclusively develop new or revise existing standards. Instead, the entire staff of both safety and health standards is involved in the full range of activities for standards promulgation. Question: What new standards (safety and health) are expected in the coming year? Answer: We plan to initiate rulemaking action on 16 safety standards in FY 1983. There will be nine standards proposed and six standards finalized. In addition, we will issue an advance notice of intent to propose rulemaking on one other standard. The standards planned to be proposed are: 1. 2. 3. 4. Oil and Gas Well Drilling and Servicing 5. Electrical, Part II, Safety-Related Work Practices Excavation, Trenching and Shoring (Construction) Revision 6. The standards anticipated to be issued as final rules are: 1. Commercial Diving 2. 3. 4. Exemption of Scientific/Education Diving Operations from Revocation of Advisory "Should" Provisions Marine Terminals 5. Removal of the Prohibition on Latch-Open Devices for Gasoline Dispensing Nozzles 6. The Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking will cover power platforms for exterior building maintenance. In addition, rulemaking action for 13 health standards will be initiated. Eight standards will be proposed and five finalized. The standards planned to be proposed are: 4. 5. Revision Engineering Control vs. Personal Protective Equipment 6. Toxic Chemicals in Laboratories The standards anticipated to be issued as final rules are: 3. 4. Access to Employee Exposure and Medical Records Revision 5. Coal Tar Pitch Volatiles (Amendment of definition) CONTESTED CITATIONS Question: A recent GAO report stated that employers who do not contest citations are required to pay the full penalty, but GAO's review of selected case files showed that most employers who contest citations receive substantial reductions. Doesn't this practice result in inequitable treatment for those employers who pay the full amount of the penalty without contesting it? Are the initial penalities too stiff, or the appeals process too lenient? Answer: In FY 1980, employers were contesting the results of almost one-fourth of all OSHA inspections that yielded citations. That meant that the cited hazards, at times, remained uncorrected until the dispute was resolved in the legal process. Consequently, steps were taken to place increased emphasis on the use of informal conferences between employers and OSHA Area Directors. These conferences are intended to clarify the basis for the agency's decisions, address employer grievances, and ultimately, whenever possible, arrive at settlement agreements under which the employer agrees to comply. The result has been a dramatic drop in contested cases, from 22 percent of all OSHA inspections in FY 1980 to 11 percent in FY 1981; through February of this year, the contest rate has been seven percent. The result of this change has been immediate abatement of the hazards in question and a better atmosphere in which employers, employees and the agency can work constructively to solve their mutual problems. Those employers who choose to contest either a citation or penalty or both are exercising a legal right. This does not result in inequitable treatment since the right to exercise this option is equally available for all employers to choose. Further the low rate of contest does not appear to suggest that either the size of the penalties or the appeals process are motivating factors in initiating employer contests. Question: To what extent do you think employers without valid complaints are filing appeals, just because the chances are so good for reduced penalties? Answer: OSHA has no way of prejudging the validity of employer appeals prior to a hearing on the matter. The law presumes that the employer's notice of contest is based on his belief that his position is defensible. Question: COST ANALYSIS After the Supreme Court's ruling on OSHA's cotton dust standard, you indicated you would substitute a "cost-effectiveness" approach for the "cost-benefit" approach. Accordingly, what type of cost-effectiveness studies are you conducting on OSHA standards? Answer: OSHA's analyses first seek to demonstrate the existence of a significant risk. Next, they must show that the standard will reduce that risk. Third, the economic and technological feasiblity of the standard is evaluated. Finally, both the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Executive Order 12291 require careful and systematic consideration of the economic and social consequences of the rulemakings. Therefore, once OSHA has determined the appropriate level of protection based on the three criteria outlined above, the costeffectiveness of the various means of achieving that level of protection will be analyzed. The cost estimates are generally developed through the analysis of data obtained from OSHA-initiated industry surveys and submissions by the affected industries and other interested parties. The analyses also include estimates of the reduction in risk that would occur from the regulatory alternatives under consideration. For example, reduced risk may be achieved by requiring better worker training, more intensive medical surveillance, improved engineering controls, safer work practices or requirements for personal protective equipment. All or any combination of these approaches are evaluated as the Agency attempts to select the most cost-effective means of eliminating workplace hazards. Question: How much is budgeted for cost-effectiveness studies in fiscal 1983? Answer: In FY 1983, OSHA is requesting $4,394,000 for regulatory analysis. These funds for regulatory analysis encompass cost-effectiveness studies as well as regulatory flexibility statements, environmental impact statements, industry profile studies and economic and technological feasibility assessments. PENALTY RECEIPTS Question: What actions have been taken to improve accounting controls over OSHA penalty receipts being transmitted between OSHA offices? Answer: OSHA has taken positive steps to improve its accounting controls over penalty receipts transmitted between area offices and the National Office. New penalty collection procedures have been promulgated that put into place OSHA's first unified debt collection system for all regions. In addition, the accounts receivable and management systems have been consolidated into one system to assure proper tracking and handling of all penalty receipts. Question: What has OSHA done to expedite the deposit of penalty receipts into the U.S. Treasury? Answer: OSHA has recently updated its procedures for handling penalty receipts. All area offices are required to forward penalty checks to the National Office on the same day that they are received. These receipts are transmitted to the Federal Reserve Bank on a daily basis. MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION STATEMENT OF FORD B. FORD, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ACCOMPANIED BY: RICHARD L. BAKER, BUDGET OFFICER, DIVISION OF BUDGET AND FINANCE, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT JOSEPH A. LAMONICA, ADMINISTRATOR, COAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ROY BERNARD, ADMINISTRATOR, METAL AND NONMETAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH MARY ANN WYRSCH, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE PROCEDURE Senator SCHMITT. Our next group is the Mine Safety and Health Administration, represented by Ford B. Ford, Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health Administration. Mr. Ford, if you would come forward. Welcome, sir. Good to have you here. If you would introduce your associates and proceed with your opening statement. INTRODUCTION OF ASSOCIATES Mr. FORD. Thank you, sir. To my immediate left is Joe Lamonica, Administrator of Coal Mine Safety and Health. To his left is Roy Bernard, Administrator, Metal and Nonmetal Mine Safety and Health. To my right is Richard Baker, Chief of Budget and Finance, and Mary Ann Wyrsch, Director, Office of Budget for the Department of Labor. If I may summarize my opening statement and have the full statement in the record. Senator SCHMITT. I hope that you will, and then we'll have some questions for you. Please go ahead. SUMMARY STATEMENT Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. I would like to briefly outline MSHA's budget request. MSHA is required by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Amendments Act of 1977 to conduct four annual inspections of all underground mines, two annual inspections of all surface mines, as well as additional inspections of especially gassy or hazardous mines. The Mine Act also provides for the participation of miners in promoting health and safety activities in the mines. Another feature of the Mine Act is section 115, the mandatory education and training provisions. In addi |