Document r6dbOj4ypNGeBpmGbpvdRnqva

Page -6- part of the coke oven standard, especially since such a con- > cept would most likely be quickly extended to other OSHA ' standards. Yet, OSHA was sympathetic to the dilemma the unions raise: in the absence of such economic protection, workers, fearing loss of their jobs, would be unlikely to take the very medical exams that they needed to protect themselves. OSHA therefore decided to issue the final coke oven standard without any mandatory removal requirement and to consider further rate retention but as a separate issue. III. Status OSHA has since decided to form an ad hoc advisory com mittee to address this issue not just in the context of coke oven emissions but as a basic part of what OSHA will re quire in all standards regarding employers' medical sur veillance programs. The issue is particularly prickly, however, because of Us impact on collective bargaining relationships. Numerous delicate questions regarding seniority, working conditions, skill ladders, etc., will be in troduced but OSHA is still committed to a thorough and open examination of exactly what rate retention would involve. IV. Critical Dates Fall 1977 -- When the advisory committee completes its work, OSHA will have to decide whether to require'rate retention or not. THE OSHA-NJOSH RELATIONSHIP I. Statement of Issue Should the OSHA and NIOSH relationship be changed and, if so, how? II. Background The research capacity relating to occupational safety and health is not located in OSHA. Instead, under the OSH Act of 1970, there was a separate National Institute for Oc cupational Safety and Health created in a different Depart ment. Worse, NIOSH is several levels down in the HEW bureaucracy, with different objectives, a different set of bosses, insufficient resources and geographic separation. It is no surprise that, despite the good intentions of the current agency heads, the efforts at coordination still are hot yielding proper results. There are a number of basic questions to be an- j swered. Where will OSHA get the scientific expertise and background that it needs to operate? NIOSH just does not have enough resources. It is not very responsive to our needs. In effect, it has a separate agenda. In spite of this, does it make any sense for OSHA, on its own, to get deeper into applied research to satisfy its own needs? ; Transfer of NIOSH to OSHA has been discussed for a 1 number of years. Until recently, OSHA had been opposed to such considerations on the general grounds that it was against opening the Act to any amendment. Now, with I several potential amendments being considered, it might be I useful to start thinking of such a transfer. j HI. Status Regular monthly meetings now occur between the agency heads and are supplemented with numerous staff and informal contacts. Still, there is no real system for establishing priorities for research, criteria documents and standards. Both agencies also need to coordinate the collection of data describing health and safety hazards and related matters. Finally, there is a need to forge a stronger joint effort, ; 1 through contract and grant programs, to develop the recruiting/training of industrial hygienists and to cer tify/evaluate safety and health protective equipment. IV. Critical Dates There are no pressing decision dates but the question should be considered in conjunction with any proposed legislative changes. TRANSFERRING MESA TO OOL I. Statement of Issue What should the Administration's position be regarding the proposal to transfer the Mine Enforcement and Safety Ad ministration (MESA) to the Department of .Labor? II. Background Bills to transfer MESA from Department of the Interior tr DOL were introduced in both Houses, of the 94th Congress. The House passed a MESA transfer bill, which also constained several amendments to the Federal Metal and Nonmetallie Mine Safety Act, by 309-83; the Senate bill mandating transfer and strengthening mine safety laws was reported out of Committee but did not receive floor con sideration before Congress adjourned: Both bills also con tained provisions delineating jurisdictional areas between OSHA and MESA, a point of contention with the mining in dustry, unions and the agencies. The Ford Administration and the mining industry opposed MESA transfer, main taining that the Interior Department had the requisite ex perience and expertise to administer mine safety laws; segments of organized labor, especially the United Mine Worl .-rs and the United Steelworkers, pressed for transfer to DOL, claiming that Interior's responsibilities for energy resources development conflicted with its safety duties. III. Status of Work on the Issue If the basic issue is to support transfer to DOL, a number of corollary organizational issues will require decisions; a series of issue papers on MESA transfer have been prepared by DOL during discussions with OMB and Interior this year. IV. Critical Dates Although the sponsor of the MESA transfer bill in the House, Congressman Dominic Daniels (D. N.J.), has retired, it is likely that similar legislation will be introduced in both the House and Senate immediately after Congress resumes. Tiie issues to be resolved include the Ad ministration's position on the transfer issue; the ad ministrative location of MESA within DOL if transfer is ap proved and the position to be taken regarding the provisions which add OSHA-like features to the current mine safety laws (e.g. employee walkaround rights, general duty clause, etc.). SPNY 003435