Question. Are there any Black Lung Field Offices that are currently unstaffed?

Answer. All offices are staffed. The Morgantown and Elkins offices, however, are staffed by the same individual, who spends four days per week in Morgantown and one day per week in Elkins.

BLACK LUNG CLAIMS PROCESSING

Question. What is the current length of time of black lung claims processing at the Office of Administrative Law Judges.

Answer. At the present time, a total of 13 months is required for the processing of black lung claims at the Office of Administrative Law Judges. This case-processing timeframe represents an improvement of three months from actual timeframes recorded during fiscal year 1990. With the completion of the transfer of pending 'Lukman' cases from the Benefits Review Board, case processing timeframes for the black lung caseload within the Office of Administrative Law Judges are projected to improve to 11 months in fiscal year 1992 with the current level of authorized staff.

Question. What is the current status of the black lung claims backlogs at the Benefits Review Board, and what steps are being taken to ensure that those backlogs are eliminated.

Answer. The backlog of black lung cases at the Benefits Review Board was reduced significantly during fiscal year 1990, and is in the process of being sharply reduced again during fiscal year 1991. The Benefits Review Board projects that the backlog of its black lung cases will be eliminated during fiscal year 1992. An average of slightly more than two years was required for the processing of black lung cases in the Benefits Review Board (BRB) during fiscal year 1990. By the end of fiscal year 1991, the average caseprocessing timeframes at the BRB will be reduced to 14 months. This case-processing timeframe is projected to be reduced to 10 months by the end of fiscal year 1992.

A total of 5,662 black lung cases were pending before the BRB at the beginning of fiscal year 1991. By the end of the fiscal year, only 4,137 black lung cases are projected to be pending without disposition. This total represents a drop in the pending caseload of 1,525 cases during fiscal year 1991, a reduction of 27%. Only 2,913 black lung cases are projected to be pending at the BRB without disposition at the end of fiscal year 1992.

The sharp reduction in the backlog of cases projected for fiscal year 1991 reflects, in large pact, the impact of the

additional funding provided for the BRB by the Congress in fiscal year 1991. With the additional funding provided by the Congress, the BRB has been assured of stable staffing levels during the fiscal year. The budget request pending before the Congress at the present time continues these staffing levels into fiscal year 1992 and provides adequate funding for these positions. The BRB is in the process of recruiting staff attorneys to further reduce the backlog of pending black lung cases. The requested staff level is needed to continue reducing the backlog in FY 1992.

Question. Are there any staffing cuts proposed at the Benefits Review Board in FY 1992? If so, please provide a list of FTE's and costs associated with restoring those positions.

Answer. There are no staffing cuts proposed for the Benefits Review Board in FY 1992. Approval of this budget request as presented would enable the BRB to staff to its authorized level of 181 FTE.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BUMPERS

LIMITED SCOPE AUDITS

Question: I am a co-sponsor of the measure to eliminate the limited scope audits in which the independent auditors may be instructed not to examine the safety of assets held in federally regulated entities such as savings and loans. What is your position on this legislation?

Answer: Generally, under ERISA, employee benefit plans which hold their assets in trust and have more than 100 participants are required to engage an independent public accountant (IPA) to conduct an annual financial audit. Audited financial statements (and accompanying schedules) together with a report on the fairness and consistency of their presentation, must be filed with the Form 5500 Annual Report. The audit requirement is intended to ensure the integrity of the plan's recordkeeping and the financial reporting and disclosure process which is incorporated in the Form 5500 annual reports.

ERISA, however, also includes the so-called "limited scope exemption" which allows plan administrators to exclude assets held by regulated financial institutions (banks, insurance companies or similar entities) from the scope of the audit. In lieu of examination of the records of the financial institution, the auditor accepts the financial institution's certification that the statement of assets received by the plan is accurate for purposes of the plan's audit. This limitation generally results in the issuance of no opinion by the auditor, since he cannot accept liability for the accuracy of the certification. The net effect of the limitation and qualified opinion is to obviate much of the value of the audit.

During the last Congress, the Department proposed enforcement legislation, which included an amendment to ERISA, consistent with your proposal, to repeal the "limited scope exemption." I am currently reviewing the specific elements of the proposal to determine whether any modification should be made in the Department's proposal. I intend to re-propose legislation to strengthen the enforcement provisions of ERISA.

HAZARD COMMUNICATION

Question. I understand that DOL received numerous responses to OSHA's May 17, 1990, request for public comment and information on improving the presentation and quality of information

What

transmitted under the Hazard Communication Standard. problems with the Hazard Communication Standard were most frequently mentioned?

Answer. OSHA received nearly 600 responses during the 90 day comment period on the May 1990 notice. While the Agency has not yet completed its analysis of the comments, preliminary findings indicate that the issue of greatest concern to the respondents was the format or order of information for the material safety data sheet (MSDS). The majority of the commenters suggested that a standardized format or order of information be developed. Many respondents also supported standardization of label information. Commenters also indicated that improvements in the presentation of information on the MSDS would be helpful. These would include reviewing the type of language used to convey information about hazards and precautionary measures.

Question. What is OSHA planning to do in response to these

comments?

Answer. OSHA has not completed its determination as to what action will be taken to respond to the comments.

Question. The Department has funded studies by outside contractors to evaluate different aspects of the Hazard Communication Standard. Are any of these studies complete? If so, what were the findings about the Standard's effectiveness?

Answer. Draft study reports have been received, and are being reviewed by OSHA. We do not have final reports for any of the studies upon which it would be appropriate to comment.

Question. Do you believe it will be necessary to revise the

standard?

Answer. Until the outside studies are completed and the public comments fully analyzed, it would be premature to speculate on whether it will be necessary to revise the standard.

INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITY

Question. I remain concerned about the 1989 opinion by the Justice Department regarding the scope of the investigative authority of the Inspectors General. What portion of the 1,200 cases that were suspended following that ruling dealt with worker health and safety?

Answer. The Office of Inspector General's Semiannual Report for the period April 1, 1989 through September 30, 1989 reported that the Office of Investigations initially suspended activity on approximately 1,200 (actual 1,192) criminal cases to determine the effect of the Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice opinion. Of that number, there was one Mine Safety and Health Administration related case and the U.S. Attorney requested that OIG continue its investigation. There were five Occupational Safety and Health Administration cases, of which two were closed and three were referred to the Deputy Secretary of Labor.

So

there was a total of six cases which bore on worker health and safety.

Question. How has this opinion affected OSHA's ability to protect the health and safety of workers?

Answer. OSHA's ability to protect workers' health and safety has not been compromised by this opinion. The opinion served to clarify both OSHA's investigative authority in safety and health cases and the appropriate role of the Office of the Inspector General. OSHA has been making full use of this authority, as it has in the past, to ensure firm, fair, and consistent enforcement.

OUACHITA JOB CORPS CENTER

Question: I am very pleased that the Ouachita Job Corps Center is aggressively moving ahead to expand into a coeducational facility. I understand that construction of the new coed dorm began in 1990 but has encountered delays because of the complexity of the design and the limitations of the VST program. Will the facility be completed for coed purposes as planned by 1992?

Answer: No. The dormitory is now scheduled for completion in 1993 using the vocational skills training (VST) approach in which much of the work is accomplished as hands on training by students in the construction trades. The estimated cost of this dormitory is approximately $200,000.

Question: If not, is contracting out for the completion of the facility an option?

Answer: We do not regard contracting out as a viable option. The cost for contracting out for the dormitory is estimated at $850,000. This would insure completion in 1992, but would escalate the cost by $650,000. We do not feel that activating the dorm a year ahead of the current schedule provides adequate justification for such a large cost increase.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR REID

LEAD STANDARD

Question. OSHA's general lead standard for workers was promulgated in 1978. Among other provisions, this standard requires removal of an employee from exposure to lead when his average blood lead level exceeds 50 micrograms of lead per 100 grams of blood. This general standard is criticized for no longer being adequately protective of workers. Since 1978 much work has been done to document the adverse effects of lead on both children and adults, and the Centers for Disease Control is now considering lowering the definition of childhood lead poisoning to as low as 10 micrograms per deciliter. It seems to be past time for OSHA to seriously and expeditiously review its general lead standard, especially the blood lead level that triggers removal of a worker from lead exposure. What plans does OSHA have to review and revise its general lead standard?

Answer. New lead health effects data is currently being reviewed by OSHA as part of the rulemaking for a lead standard in the construction industry. If the record in this rulemaking for the construction standard supports the establishment of different exposure limits or blood lead levels, such levels will also be considered for revision of the general industry lead standard.

Question. When will it propose and take final action on such revised regulations?

Answer. A revision of the general industry lead standard would be initiated if the record developed in the construction lead standard rulemaking sufficiently demonstrates that there is significant risk of material impairment to employees' health at the existing levels. If a revision were initiated, it would be difficult to project how long that process would take since any changes to the standard would follow the regulatory process required by the OSHAct, and a final standard would be promulgated at the conclusion of that process.

Question. What additional resources, if any, does OSHA need to conduct an expeditious review and revision of the regulation?

Answer. No additional resources would be required. Personnel would be made available to staff the lead rulemaking effort should a revision of that standard be initiated.

LEAD STANDARD ENFORCEMENT

Question. The Toxic Substances Subcommittee that I chair held a hearing on the Administration's lead strategy on February 21. At the hearing, Assistant Secretary of Labor Scannell's testimony recognized the importance of enforcement of the existing lead standard for workers. However, information furnished to the Subcommittee by OSHA indicates that the number of inspections for violations of the lead standard declined from 575 in FY 1988 to 424 in FY 1990, with a commensurate decline in the number of cited violations from 1940 to 1590. Why has OSHA decreased its enforcement effort concerning the existing lead standard?

Answer. Although the number of total inspections in which the lead standard was cited decreased in the past fiscal year, this should not be seen as a decrease in OSHA's enforcement of the lead standard. Rather, the decrease in inspections with lead violations more likely reflects a decrease in the number of complaints and referrals of violations of the standard received by OSHA. Such complaints and referrals often direct an unprogrammed OSHA inspection to a location at which a violation of the lead standard exists. The number of planned programmed inspections involving lead standard violations remained substantially the same, decreasing by only seven inspections nationwide between FY 1989 and FY 1990.

Question. What resources is OSHA devoting to enforcement of this standard in FY 1991? What resources will be allocated for such enforcement in FY 1992? How many inspections will be conducted in each of these years? If less than FY 1988, why?