APPEAL TO COURTS Mr. FLOOD. What is the next level of appeal beyond the Review Commission? Mr. Zuck. The U.S. Court of Appeals. Mr. FLOOD. Thank you very much. [The following questions were submitted to be answered for the record:] Mr. CONTE. The three Coal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission members had an average of 13 support personnel each. Why are you requesting for the additional two Commission members an average of 18 support personnel each? Mr. Zuck. We are sorry if the budget justification was not clear regarding support personnel for the Commission members. There is no intent to have an average of 18 support personnel or even 13 for each of the Commissioners. The rather strict personnel ceiling constraints imposed by OMB would preclude such staffing levels even if they were desired. Each Commissioner will be provided one secretary or confidential assistant for direct support. We anticipate that there will be from 8 to 12 attorneys available for all of the Commissioners to use in preparing their decisions. This would amount to about two additional support personnel if they are ultimately assigned to individual members. Beyond that, the remaining support personnel for the Commission are assigned either directly to the Administrative Law Judges or to the entire Commission. Mr. CONTE. What is the attitude of Commission members regarding their goals, objectives, and philosophical direction of the Commission? Mr. Zuck. As of this date, the President has not nominated any Commissioners. Mr. CONTE. What means and methods will you use to increase the efficiency of handling operator appeals? Mr. Zuck. The new Act defines the basis on which ALJ decisions may be directed for review which should increase the efficiency of handing appeals. The limited review of ALJ decisions will almost certainly speed the handling of such cases. We are hopeful that the Commission, as soon as the members are named, will incorporate specific procedural guidelines that will increase the efficiency even more. Mr. CONTE. In your statement you indicate that the immediate workload of the Commission should double as the result of regulations of the metal and nonmetal industry. Does this mean you expect metal/nonmetal enforcement personnel, which are less than half the number of coal enforcement personnel, to issue twice as many violations? Why? Mr. Zuck. We have based our projections on the projections that the Mine Safety and Health Administration has made for number of violations they expect to issue in fiscal year 1979. There are already approximately 140,000 violations issued in the coal industry and MSHA anticipates issuing about the same number in the metal/ nonmetal industry. It was this projection upon which the estimates were based. Mr. CONTE. In what ways does your review function differ from that of OSHRC? Mr. Zuck. The primary difference in the review function of the new Commission is that specific statutory criteria must be satisfied before a review can be made. Further, no review can be made by the new Commission without the concurrence of at least two members. In the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, for all practical purposes, a review may be de novo and any single Commissioner may determine if a case will be reviewed. [The justification material follows:] FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION For expenses necessary for the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, $4,776,000. (91 Stat. 1313-15.) Explanation of Language Section 113 of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Amendments Act of 1977 established the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission as an independent agency. Section 114 of the Act authorized to be appropriated, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of the above-mentioned Act. The above appropriation language proposal is intended to carry out these provisions. 1/ Includes a fiscal year 1978 supplemental request of $1,036,000 and 38 positions and $903,000 and 43 positions to be transferred from the Department of the Interior, Office of Hearings and Appeals, effective March 9, 1978. |