feel that this increased input of cases is a long-term trend. Because of our analysis of this trend and the serious effects to the safety of the coal miners, I sincerely urge favorable consideration of these supplemental requests by this committee. I will be happy to answer any questions which you, Madam Chairman, or any members of your committee might have. Thank you.

ANALYSIS OF REQUIRED OFFSETS IN OUTLAYS

Mrs. HANSEN. Now Mr. Bodman, which is the correct answer in regard to the offsets in outlays?

Mr. BODMAN. You are correct.

The document which was transmitted to you was approved with the words "to be offset elsewhere within the Department." That is contrary to what we believed the situation to be last night.

The administration's decision is to leave the required offsets within the Department's totals. I am not in a position to offer up offsets in the outlays at the present time and would like to request to do so for the

record.

Mrs. HANSEN. Yes. I think it is important that the committee have some idea since you are requesting that fiscal year 1973 appropriations, which the committee reviewed rather carefully be reduced to offset this supplemental. The committee's review process occupied a period of several months.

So when we know that the supplemental provides that we are going to rob Peter to pay Paul, we would like to know what Peter is losing. Mr. BODMAN. I agree with you; your request is perfectly valid and I shall attempt to get it for the record.

Mrs. HANSEN. We would appreciate it.

I may say the Department of Interior's activities are near and dear to the heart of this committee and cuts in certain areas will be more than dismally entertained. I think I speak on behalf of the committee. Mr. WYATT. Certainly cuts that would involve add-ons made by the subcommittee would be particularly resisted.

Mr. BODMAN. I shall respond in the record. (The information follows:)

The outlays associated with the supplemental requests as submitted are estimated at $1,589,000. It is anticipated that these additional outlays or whatever amount may be required based on the action of Congress on the requests will be offset elsewhere within the Department by delaying the award of construction contracts thereby reducing the payment of contractors' earnings to the extent needed to offset the outlays.

Mrs. HANSEN. We cannot talk back to the record, that is the unfortunate part.

Mr. BODMAN. You have me right now.

CASELOAD STATISTICS

Mr. DAY. The committee requested certain statistics. The first item is a list of the number of pending cases as of August 31, in the Bureau of Mines, Office of Hearings and Appeals, and the Office of Solicitor. The second item is the caseload report going back over the last year on a month-by-month basis.

Mrs. HANSEN. We will insert that information in the record.

(The information follows:)

REVIEW OF ACTIONS LEADING TO AN APPEAL

Mrs. HANSEN. In order to establish a background for the record please summarize the action which results in these cases being presented to the Office of Hearings and Appeals.

Mr. DAY. The cases that come up are mainly penalty assessment cases under section 109 of the act. After the Bureau of Mines inspectors go through a mine they issue a violation. That notice of violation is transmitted to Washington, where an assessment is given on each violation. The operator has the opportunity to protest that assessment with the Bureau of Mines informally. If he can't settle with the Bureau, then he has the right, under section 109, to demand a public hearing, and then file a petition with our Office demanding the hearing. Therefore we must conduct the hearing and the Office of the Solicitor must represent the Bureau in all cases.

GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE REPORT CITING NEEDED PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS

Mrs. HANSEN. There has been considerable criticism of your operations in this connection during the past several months. Describe in rather full detail the current situation with regard to this phase of your operations.

Mr. DAY. Could you be more specific on the criticism, Madam Chairman?

Mrs. HANSEN. I am quoting from a GAO report to the Conservation and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Government Operations, House of Representatives. It is entitled "Improvements Needed in the Assessment and Collection of Penalties-Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969," dated July 5, 1972.

GAO sampled assessments and found that: (1) about 4 months elapsed from citation of a violation by a mine inspector to assessment of a penalty: and (2) about 10 weeks elapsed from the request for a hearing by a mine operator to the referral to the Solicitor's Office ***.

That is one comment.

Mr. DAY. I am very pleased to be able to call on Mr. Muchunas of the Bureau of Mines, because that occurs before it gets to us.

Mr. MUCHUNAS. Madam Chairman, which question do you want me to answer first, the one about the 129 days?

Mrs. HANSEN. The report says: "About 4 months elapsed from citation of a violation by a mine inspector to assessments of a penalty." Mr. MUCHUNAS. Two distinct time periods are involved in this situation. The first period is the date of issue of the violation to the time given the mine operator for corrective action; district office processing time.

Mrs. HANSEN. What time is allowed?

Mr. MUCHUNAS. It varies. It is basically a statutory one. It could be a couple of hours or a month, depending on the nature of the violation.

Mrs. HANSEN. In other words, if the nature of the violation is such that a disaster might occur because of the violation, you want it answered immediately?

Mr. MUCHUNAS. Yes; and also if it is a piece of equipment that is needed, obviously they can't get it right away. In this instance the operators may be given months to obtain the equipment. Before we can assess a penalty in the Assessments Office, we have to have the abatement, which goes along with the notice of violation.

ELAPSED TIME AFTER REQUEST FOR HEARING

Mrs. HANSEN. The second item is: "About 10 weeks elapsed from the request for a hearing by a mine operator to the referral to the Solicitor's Office."

Mr. MUCHUNAS. That was true in the past. It is no longer true. Since, I believe it is June 15 of this year, the rules and regulations were changed, so that we now must forward the case to the Solicitor's Office and to the Office of Hearings and Appeals within 20 days. They have 30 days but we must get it to them so they have time to prepare.

BUREAU OF MINES MANAGEMENT CONTROL SYSTEM

Mrs. HANSEN. Another statement is made:

The Bureau's management control system was not adequate to readily identify the status of cases and to provide data needed to identify and correct the causes of processing delays.

Mr. MUCHUNAS. The key word there, of course, is "readily." We could always identify cases that required action. However, readily, it is true as the GAO report states, it was not that quick. However, we have developed and are using a managements control system that readily identifies cases requiring action as pointed out in the GAO report itself. They state that we do have the system. We have two methods. One is a manual case control system used for the day-to-day processing of cases. This system consists of a single card and visual file. It contains all the necessary status information, and in addition has a "tickler" system that designates when action is required on any particular stage in the assessment process.

The ADP system we utilize provides management with an overview of the case status and will be invaluable in maintaining control when the four Bureau assessment field offices are fully operational. This program has proved itself time and time again when special requests for information are received from Congress, mine operators, and other Government agencies. I receive a summary of current case status each month, from this ADP system.

DELAYS IN CONDUCTING HEARINGS

Mrs. HANSEN. The report also states: "Significant delays in referring cases for hearings and in conducting hearings on cases disputed by mine operators resulted in a backlog of 1,062 cases awaiting hearings $2.8 million in assessments-by December 31, 1971."

Mr. MUCHUNAS. I believe that is Mr. Day's department right now, because the case is now out of our office, isn't it?

Mr. DAY. Yes. However, we have since changed our procedures. Prior to the date this report came out we have shifted the burden on