Mr. CORN. That is an excellent question. I can't answer this at this point. I am sure we could provide that information. Mr. SHRIVER. All right. [The information follows:] DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SAFETY ENGINEER, SPECIALIST, AND OFFICER Based on the survey of 1974 occupational injuries and illnesses, the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated that approximately 100 employees were victims of occupational related fatalities in the finance, insurance, and real estate industry grouping. Based on an annual average employment size of 4,208,000, one fatality occurred for every 42,000 employees. This industry group traditionally has the lowest rates in all categories compared to other industry groups. Included in the new positions requested are safety engineers, safety specialists, and safety officers. How do these job descriptions differ from each other? What is the difference between a safety officer and a safety specialist? Mr. CORN. Where is that referred to in the request, sir? Mr. SHRIVER. I don't have it before me. I just have the question. Mr. CORN. This is not in the compliance effort. This is referring to the standards effort of the agency, where Mr SHRIVER. What is the difference between a safety engineer and a safety specialist? You have these engineers getting a total of $80,000, two others totaling $53,000. Mr. CORN. Mr. Wrenn is with, and I think he could address himself to the job description, differentiating between those two in the standards area. Mr. WRENN. It is really a very simple matter relating to the basic educational background of the two. The safety engineer, as I recall, to qualify within the civil service classification of safety engineer, one must be a graduate of an engineering curriculum. A safety specialist or a safety officer is one who had the basic educational requirements in a related field, and experience in the field of safety, but not a formal engineering degree.. DOWNGRADING NONSERIOUS VIOLATIONS Mr. SHRIVER. According to this, vou are contemplating downgrading nonserious violations which would not be likely to result in worker injuries and illnesses, so that there would be no penalties for those. What would be some examples of such violations? Mr. CORN. May I address myself to the downgrading characterization of this? The puzzlement to me-and I understand the puzzlement to many-is that 3 percent of our citations are serious, and 97 percent are nonserious. And to juxtapose this with the statistics of occupational safety and health, which you and I are familiar with, there is a dichotomy there. Now, what I have asked for is a critical review of the guidelines for serious and nonserious. Either we are not defining "serious," or we are missing something out there. Now, I would rather see less attention to "nonserious," and that term clearly defined, and more attention to those things causing loss of life or limb or disease. So that effort is underway. And I think that is a very important effort for guiding our compliance officers; 3-percent serious raises the question of what is happening out there, what are we calling serious and nonserious? That is certainly a question I have asked and others have asked. Mr. SHRIVER. Have some of these already been downgraded? Mr. CORN. We are really fairly clear in our mind in the health area of what serious and nonserious is. In the safety area it is a tough call. Something that could be nonserious because a moving part misses a man's head or scratches his forehead has the potential of being serious. And that is going to be a very close judgment call on the part of the compliance officer. But in the health area, any substance that is a systemic poison, any substance that is a carcinogen, any substance that causes dust disease of the lung, I think by definition, if it exceeds our standard, is a serious violation. And I think we will have some clarified lines in the health area. AGRICULTURAL MACHINE GUARDING Mr. SHRIVER. OK. Would you tell us more about your educational program on agricultural machine guarding that was to be carried out in cooperation with the State extension services? Mr. CORN. I can't address that answer as fully as I would. But we have taken on a new member of the staff who is an expert in agriculture. My perception is that the agency's efforts in agriculture have not been as intensive as they might be. But I can provide the answer to your question for the record. [The information follows:] EDUCATION PROGRAM WITH THE STATE EXTENSION SERVICE During 1973 the OSHA Standards Advisory Committee for Agriculture developed recommendations for the implementation of safety and health programs for farm employers and employees. These recommendations were based upon committee testimony which indicated that farm employers were hostile to OSHA because of the adversary relationship that seemed to develop as a result of emphasis on compliance activities rather than cooperative educational programs. The main theme of the recommendations was that less emphasis should be placed on compliance in agriculture and more efforts devoted to educational programs that use existing communications channels for the delivery of agricultural information; namely, the Extension Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. On January 31, 1974, OSHA approved a proposal by the Office of Training and Education to initiate a competitive bid contract to design and develop agricultural safety and health training materials. At the same time, negotiations were underway with the Extension Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to establish a memorandum of agreement through which the two agencies could cooperate to promote safety and health in agricultural operations. The agreement, signed in April 1974, provides that OSHA will develop educational material on OSHA standards and general hazard recognition, and the Extension Service will assist in delivering the materials through the county agent system and through the State safety coordinators. The Purdue Research Foundation was chosen from 10 bidders to complete the project and work under the contract began on July 1, 1974. Purdue is a well known land grant university that has an established reputation not only in agricultural extension work, but in agricultural safety as well. The specific materials to be developed by the contractors were not determined in detail beforehand. Instead, the first task of the contractor was to evaluate what usable materials were available and to recommend specific new materials to be developed. The contractor recommended a series of publications addressing 28 industryspecific topics. The contract specified that certain of these materials be written in a style designed for audiences with lower than average reading ability and were to be translated into Spanish as well. This requirement was intended to accommodate a more diversified audience-for example, migrants and day laborers and has resulted in the development of 62 publications. Five slide sets were also specifically developed under the contract, and lesson plans suitable for use by county agents or vocational agricultural teachers were written and pilot tested. The contract was originally to last one year, but the duration of the contract is dependent on the amount and type of materials developed. The contract has been extended to March 31, 1976. At this time, it is planned that 100,000 copies of each of the publications be printed; 150 copies of each slide set will be given to the Extension Service for delivery to the States. CONSULTATION WORKSHOPS WITH STATE AGENCIES Mr. SHRIVER. All right. What is involved in the consultation workshops with State agencies in regard to the assistance they provide to small business? Mr. CORN. The entire matter of the way in which the consultation program is proceeding, as I indicated to Mr. Flood, is a matter on which I asked for a report 2 weeks ago, and the topic you just addressed will be addressed in that. I cannot answer that question yet. LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF SUBSTANCES Mr. SHRIVER. Do you have your own laboratories where potentially hazardous materials are analyzed? Mr. CORN. Yes; we do. I visited our laboratory in Salt Lake, and have been committing more resources to it. It is a laboratory which currently has approximately 36 persons. It shares a facility with the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. It is a crowded facility. Our people are now on a two-shift operation. All samples from our field compliance efforts go to that laboratory. And that laboratory will have to improve if we are to do the health problem. Mr. SHRIVER. That is the only one? Mr. CORN. Yes, sir. Mr. SHRIVER. You are not using any contractual services? Mr. CORN. No. And if I might, I would like to address myself to that. The quality control part of our laboratory analysis is extremely important. When you utilize outside laboratories, you run the risk of poor quality control. Our laboratory pays great attention to the consistency of analysis. It is monitored very closely, both by our sister agency and by us. I could contract services around the country, and possibly improve the time of response. But I think the quality would be a question mark-to get multiple laboratories analyzing consistently is a difficult technical task. The Environmental Protection Agency performed an exercise with water samples, which they split and sent to about a dozen labs. The results of this analysis, as I recall, spanned a 600-percent range. Mr. SHRIVER. We are in bad shape. Mr. CORN. If you don't keep that quality control tightly checked, you can be in bad shape. So I am reluctant as a policy to utilize outside laboratories in our regions. I would much rather centralize, and keep our laboratory function under our control. INFLATIONARY AND ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT Mr. SHRIVER. Have any inflationary impact statements or economic impact statements been issued in connection with OSHA standards? Mr. CORN. They have not been issued, but I have personally reviewed and been involved with two of those that are nearing completionthe statement on the coke oven, and the noise statement. And they are substantial efforts. They will be issued in the very near future. Mr. SHRIVER. You are required to do that, are you not? STATES WITHOUT APPROVED PLANS Mr. SHRIVER. Maybe you have been asked this: Have you put into the record yet the States that do not yet have State plans approved? Mr. CORN. We have not put it in the record. We can supply that. Mr. SHRIVER. Why don't you? Let me just ask you: Is Kansas one? Mr. ZEIGLER. Yes. • Rejection proceeding being held in abeyance pending decision on revised legislation. 2 States with "Operational Agreements" published in F.R. 3 States with different standards. July 23, 1973 Virginia.1 June 27, 1974 Mar. 31, 1975 June 30, 1975 No plans submitted (6): Ohio, Louisiana, do. do.. RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES Mr. SHRIVER. As OSHA gets more involved in health, as you indicate you intend to, and in identifying dangerous substances, how are your interests related to those of the Environmental Protection Agency, or other agencies? They all have environmental programs now. Mr. CORN. I have made every effort in the last 2 months to open up these communications. In fact, this morning I was meeting with the Science Advisory Board of the Environmental Protection Agency, with Mr. Train, in an effort to look at regulatory responsibilities and and how we might better coordinate. I have promoted ties with the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the FDA. I think the recent incident we saw pointed up individually to me how different Government agencies can go about their task and not communicate sufficiently with one another. I have been personally pursuing this matter. I bring to it many ties with these agencies from my former involvement in this field. I think we are going to have at least an alerting capability and an information exchange capability. We are also pursuing much closer discussion where there is overlapping regulatory authority. I am in communication with EPA on the coke oven standards, because they are also regulating coke ovens, and I think that would be a problem where we are in contradictory positions. We are also in communication on the noise standards, where they are regulating and we are. All I can say is it takes a great deal of patience and work. Mr. SHRIVER. It sounds to me like you are on the right track. Mr. CONCKLIN. Mr. Shriver, if I can follow up. Kansas does not have a State plan. Kansas does, however, have a 7(c) (1) consultation agreement. Mr. SHRIVER. Thank you. Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Natcher. Mr. NATCHER. No questions. Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Obey. ELIMINATION OF NUISANCE STANDARDS Mr. OBEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A number of questions I was going to ask have already been asked by the chairman. But let me ask a few more. One of the directions which the committee gave you in our report last year was to eliminate the nuisance standards. Can you just repeat again, for the benefit of the record, how those nuisance standards came into place? Mr. CORN. The act permitted the agency to adopt any health and safety standards in previously existing Federal statute, and that gave us the Walsh-Healey Contracts Act, and the Maritime Act. It also permitted us to adopt consensus standards, standards that had been adopted through procedures permitting public response to standards. proposed by professional organizations. It did not permit the adoption of proprietary standards that did not have public response. Under |