Typed letter signed dated 17 August 1976 from William Lilley, III, Acting Director of Council on Wage & Price Stability, re: Occupational Safety & Health Administration\u27s proposal to mandate sanitation facilities for agricultural field workers. Attached: Council on Wage & Price Stability press release dated 6 August 1976, re: above topic; 6 pages.https://egrove.olemiss.edu/joecorr_g/1013/thumbnail.jp

Lilley, William

English

eGrove (Univ. of Mississippi)

University of MississippieGroveEastland Correspondence: Ford Administration James O. Eastland Executive BranchCorrespondence8-17-1976William Lilley, III to Senator James O. Eastland, 17August 1976William LilleyFollow this and additional works at: https://egrove.olemiss.edu/joecorr_gPart of the American Politics CommonsThis Book is brought to you for free and open access by the James O. Eastland Executive Branch Correspondence at eGrove. It has been accepted forinclusion in Eastland Correspondence: Ford Administration by an authorized administrator of eGrove. For more information, please contactegrove@olemiss.edu.Recommended CitationLilley, William, "William Lilley, III to Senator James O. Eastland, 17 August 1976" (1976). Eastland Correspondence: FordAdministration. 14.https://egrove.olemiss.edu/joecorr_g/14EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRE SIDENT COUNCIL ON WAGE AND PRICE STABILITY 726 JAC KSON PLACE, N.W. WASHINGTON, D .C. 20506 Honorable James O. Eastland United States Senate Washington, D. C. 20510 Dear Senator Eastland: AUG 1 7 1976 -----------~------------------------~\ ""--Because of your interest in OSHA's recent proposal to mandate sanitation facilities for field agridultural workers, I thought you would find our filing before OSHA on this . . matter of interest. As you know, the Council on Wage and Price Stability Act directs the Council to review and comment on the infla-tionary impact of proposals made by federal departments and agencies. We are also mandated to examine alternatives to proposed government actions that may be less costly, which we have done in our filing on the OSHA proposal. I f you have any questions or comments about this matter, please let me know. Enclosure Sincerely, William Acting DI · ' ley ector i EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRE SIDENT COUNCIL ON WAGE AND PRICE STABILITY 726 J A C K SON P LA C E, N. W . WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Friday, August 6, 1976 FOR INFORMATION CALL: (202) 456-6757 COUNCIL CRITICIZES OSHA'S PROPOSAL TO MANDATE SANITATION FACILITIES FOR AGRICULTURAL WORKERS IN THE FIELD The Counci 1 on ~Jage and Pri ceStabi 1 i ty today sharply cri ti ci zed certain provisions of ' OSHA's recent proposal to mandate sanitation facilities for agricultural workers in the field. While noting public health and cultural reasons for having such facilities, the Council's analysis concluded that application of the standards in many areas would be inflationary, since costs would greatly exceed benefits . . Council Acting Director ~Jilliam Lilley III said, "The OSH/l. proposal is premature and unrealistic; it treats all of U. S. agriculture as if it were one homogeneous unit." . The OSHA proposal was first published in the Federal Register on April 27 of this year. Briefly, OSHA would require farmers to provide employees working in the field with potable drinking water and toilet and hand-washing facilities within five minutes walking distance. OSHA estimates the cost of the proposal to be between $8 million and $16 million for the first year and lower amounts subsequently. As the Council pointed out in its filing, however, these cost estimates are on the low side since they neglect certain costs, such as the cost of transporting field sanitation facilities back and forth to follow the agricultural operation. Also, the Council noted that OSHA apparently made little attempt to quantify the cultural benefits of the proposal and provided no epidemiological information substantiating the claim that the proposal would improve workers' and consumers' health. \ In its analysis, the Council noted that working conditions are a major portion of the wage bargain and that it is in the self-interest of the employer to provide reasonable sanitation facilities for employees. The Council also pointed to the diverse character of agricultural operations. It suggested that where land is intensively utilized, with a large number of workers of both sexes, a strong (MORE) CWPS-176 • I -2-argument can be made for the proposed standard. But where the opera-tion is "spread out over a large area, as iri the case of cattle-grazing and wheat-growing, the proposal makes little sense. Moreover, the Council noted that the proposal would apply to nonfood crops such as forestry and to food crops that "are later washed or otherwise sanitized. In these areas, the Council ~aid, the justification for the standard is considerably weaker. The Council's analysis concluded by recommending that OSHA consider the diversity of U. s. agriculture and examine the standards promulgated by State and local governments and appraise them before issuing a national standard. It "also urged OSHA "to reformulate the present proposal to reflect more clearly the divergencies of working condi-tions noted by the Council. Acting Director Lilley said, liThe Council appreciates that there are certain types of agricultural operations which require the sort of sanitary standards proposed in this regulation from both a standpoint of public health and the human dignity of "the farm worker, and we applaud OSHA's concern with these objectives. However,until a much better attempt is made. to focus the standards more sharply, introduce the needed degree of flexibi:l Jity to reflect the great diversity of American agriculture, and analyze the actual benefits more carefully, "the Council believes it would :',"-be imprudent and premature" to promulgate these standards." 000 BEFORE THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS FOR AGRICULTURE 29 CRF " PART 1928 COMMENTS OF THE COUNCIL ON WAGE AND PRICE STABILITY* The Council on Wage and Price Stability (IiCouncilll) hereby . submits its comments to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (IIOSHAII) concerning a proposed rulemakingwhich would require certain sanitary facilities for employees engaged in agricultural work in the field. OSHAls proposal was published in the Federal Register of April 27, 1976 (41 FR 17576). The date for filing comments has been extended to -August 16, 1976. Introduction According to the announcement, inadequate sanitation is a principal factor in the transmission of parasitic infections and other bacterial and viral diseases (ibid.). Poor sanitation often gives rise to the pollution of soil with human wastes, creating a situation that increases the possibility of contaminating drinking water, food, and * Neither the Secretary of Labor nor the Secretary of Agriculture, both of whom are Members of the Council, participated in the preparation of th-tS statement. -2~ workers' hands, 1/ and of attracting flies and other health problems . ..... Moreover, there are cultural reasons for the provision of adequate toilet and sanitation facilities, particularly where work is carried on under crowded conditions and where sexes are mixed. Standards for sanitation have been in effect for all permanent workplaces since OSHA began promulgating regulations in 1971 (41 FR ........ 17577). Sanitary facilities have also been required in the construction industry and in temporary labor camps (ibid.). At the present time there are no Federal health standards for agricultural employees working in the field. The OSHA proposal would eliminate this disparity. (It should be noted, however, that a number of States -- such as California and New Jersey -- have established regulations pursuant to their specific cir-cumstances.) The OSHA proposal, which establishes' a uniform nationwide standard, is addressed to the health and cultural problems described above. It also represents a response to petitions submitted by the Migrant Legal Action Program, Inc., and several other labor organizations on behalf of migrant and seasonal farm workers for, among other things, a standard on field sanitation. . The proposed OSHA standard was developed by a subcommittee of the OSHA Standards Advisory Committee on Agriculture (SACA) and is patterned after a standard that has been in effect in the State of . California for a number of years. The basic features of the proposed standard are summarized as follows: 11 In some instances food crops are harvested and packed in the field ready for delivery to the consumer without being washed or processed . • --3-(1) Potable water for drinking purposes must be provided to all employees engaged in agri-cultural work in the field. (2) Toilet and handwashing facilities must be provided for all agricultural employees engaged in agricultural field work. Facil-ities must be made available in a ratio of one facility for each 40 employees or frac-tion thereof, must be within a five-minute walk of the place of work, and must be kept clean and in good working order. For groups of fewer than five employees, facilities need not be physically provided in the field as long as they are otherwise easily acces~ sible by readily available transportation. In cases where the work is to be performed in two hours or less, toilet and handwashing facilities are not required. (3) Field food service, if provided, must be carried out in accordance with sound hygiene principles. The proposed regulations are comprehensive and apply across the board, irrespective of the particular circumstances surrounding the agricultural operation. -4-The Council's Interest The Council has an interest in the instant proceeding. The Council was created by the Council on Wage and Price Stability Act of 1974 (IiAct ll ). 1/ The Council's purpose under the Act is, generally -summarized, to monitor the inflationary impact of activities in both the private and public sectors of the economy. With regard to the public sector, Section 3(a) of the Act expressly directs the Council to: (7) review and appraise the various programs, policies, and activities of the departments and agencies of the United States for the purpose of determining the extent to which those programs and activities are contributing to inflation; and (8) intervene and otherwise participate on its own behalf in rulemaking, ratemaking, ,licensing, and other proceedings before any of the depart-ments and agencies of the United States, in order to present its views as to the inflationary impact that might result from the possible outcomes of such proceedings. . ,. The Act, then, specifically directs the Council to examine alternatives ,', to proposed government actions -- "possible outcomes of such proceedings" -- and to detennine lithe ,extent to which" the proposed actions might contribute to inflation. The method the Council has adopted to implement this mandate is to examine the costs and benefits of alternative actions. To the extent that the benefits of a proposed regulation exceed its costs, that regulation is anti-inflationary. On the other hand, if the costs of a proposed regulation exceed the benefits, it is inflationary. 2/ -17 Public Law 93-387, as amended by Public Law 94-78, 12 U.S.C. 1904 -note. ~ This approach is superior to simply examining changes in conventional measures of inflation such as the Consumer Price Index (CPI). -5-A related criterion employed by the Council is that the IIcostll of a regulation may be the foregone opportunity of adopting a better regulation. Therefore, to the extent that the goals of a proposed regulation could be achieved in a more efficient, less costly manner than the method which the regulation contemplates, that regulation is, in a real sense, inflationary. The Council has a responsibility for administering the Presi-dent's Inflation Impact (lIS) Program with respect to proposed rules and regulations. 1/ OSHA has concluded that the proposed regulation is not -a II ma jor ll action requiring the preparation of an lIS. OSHA, nevertheless, has provided an estimate of the direct money costs which the standards would impose. 2/ For the first year, costs are estimated to range -between $7,800,000 and $15,750,000; for subsequent years, (incremental) costs would be considerably below these amounts.. Since these figures may not take all costs into account (e.g., the costs of moving portable · sanitation facilities back and forth where the agricultural operation is highly mobile), the real cost of the proposal could be considerably higher. An effort to measure benefits, in this case, obviously involves intractable problems. However, OSHA apparently has made little attempt to quantify the cultural benefits and has provided no solid epidemio-logical information relating to the possible impact on workers' and consumers' health . . 1/ See Executive Order 11821 and Office of Managemen~ and Budget Circular 1\-107. ~ OSHA, Infl~tionary Impact Assess~ent of the Propos~d Standard on Field San.itary. Facilities for Agricultural Employees, 29 CRF 1928.110. -6-In order to fashion a regulation to minimize its possible inflationary impact, a balance must be struck between benefits on the one hand and costs on the other. Though the Council is well aware of the significance of a clean, safe, and healthful environment for workers, it 'is concerned that the regulations as presently formulated may not represent the least costly method of achieving the general objectives of the regulations. The Council's Comments Where land is intensively utilized and large numbers of workers--often of both sexes--are concentrated on a relatively small amount of land at the same time (as in the case of harvesting many types of vegetable crops), the biological "need" and the epidemiological benefits would seem to be the greatest. Certainly it is in this sort of situation where a degree of personal privacy should be sought (the so-called "esthetic" reasons according to the SACA committee) . . However, in situations where the land is not intensively utilized, such as in cattle-grazing, wheat-harvesting, and other large-scale, mobile operations, both the health and cultural arguments are less persuasive. In many cases it is impractical to have facilities within five minutes walking distance of all workers, and, even if such facilities were available, it seems likely they would not always be used (this might be particularly true of workers paid on a "piece" basis who would be sacrificing income by spending up to ten minutes walking to and from a sanitary facility). Even in a typical fruit or vegetable operation, workers move regularly and rapidly back and forth across fields, sometimes near a -7-particular location which contains facilities, other times quite distant. Thus, the requirement that the sanitary facilities be located within five minutes walking distance appears quite impractical and extremely arbitrary. In those circumstances where sanitary facilities are deemed to be truly necessary, it would seem as if a criterion of "reasonable access" would be superior to, even if less definitive than, the arbitrary and fixed five-minute rule. Moreover, where workers are paid on . an hourly basis, it is clearly in the grower1s interest to provide facilities in locations which will minimize the time spent away from the job. From an epidemiological standpoint, there appear to be major areas of agriculture where little or no case can be made for "the regula-tions--such as forestry and livestock grazing--and other areas where the need for such standards requires substantially more justification--such as crops which are later washed or otherwise processed prior to reaching the consumer. , Another factor that might condition the development of a standard is whether the work on a particular parcel of land is continuous from year to year, as in many fruit crops, or discontinuous as fields are rotated. From the point of view of cost, and quite possibly from an epidemiological standpoint as well, it would seem more reasonable to impose standards in the case where operations are continuous. The proposed regulations are based largely on sanitary facility standards developed in the State of California, primarily in response to the migrant labor situation which exists in that State.lJ Thus, the 11 liThe ratios, distances, and other compliance factors associated with these provisions are substantially based on the experience and record of the California Health and Administrative Codes" (41 fR 17577). -8-essentials of the California standard are applied uniformly throughout the nation. It is the Council's position that applying a fixed and fairly specialized set of standards to diverse types of agricultural operations that exist in the United States is entirely too arbitrary and unjustified, and certainly is not the most cost-effective way of achieving the legiti-mate objectives of the regulation. Moreover, no documentation has been brought to bear on the question of the epidemiological need ' for standards or on the development of the specific criteria embodied in the standards. As a result of this apparently oversimplified approach, the standards would be impractical in some situ-ations and would yield few, if any, benefits in others at not insignificant cost. The criteria seem especially unsuitable to large-scale, mechanized operations, cattle-grazing, and a number of field crops. Where diversities of the sort that exist in agriculture are found in a federalist system, States and local governments are usually relied upon to develop regulations appropriate to their own circumstances. The Council has not examined the extent or reasonableness of State and local responses to this problem but does note that States have adequate authority to develop such standards. Thus, it would seem reasonable for OSHA to make a determination (which it apparently has not done) that the States have not adequately responded and are not likely to respond before promulgating a nationwide standard. Conclusion The Council appreciates that there are certain types of agri-cultural operations which require the sort of sanitary standards proposed -9-.. :' .. . in this regulation from both a standpoint of public health and the human dignity of the farm worker, and we applaud OSHA's concern with these objectives. However, until a much better attempt is made to focus the . standards more sharply, introduce the needed degree of flexibility to reflect the great diversity of American agriculture, and analyze the actual benefits more carefully, the Council believes it would be imprudent and premature to promulgate these standards. .. Date: August 6, 1976 Respectfully submitted, Wi 11 i al.1 ·L i 11 y I I I Acting Director Ja s C. Miller III '--___ ...IiWI~!P't ant D i rec to r Government Operations and Research Peter H. Lowr Assistant General Counsel Milton Z. Kafog1is Economist Government Operations and Research 

William Lilley, III to Senator James O. Eastland, 17 August 1976

https://egrove.olemiss.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=joecorr_g

William Lilley, III to Senator James O. Eastland, 17 August 1976

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

eGrove (Univ. of Mississippi)