Workplace Safety and Health: OSHA's Oversight of Its Civil	 
Penalty Determination and Violation Abatement Processes Has	 
Limitations (13-AUG-04, GAO-04-920).				 
                                                                 
This report presents the findings of our study of the Department 
of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA)
determination of civil penalties and abatement of violations. The
objective of the study was to assess the extent of OSHA's	 
oversight of the civil penalty determination and the violation	 
abatement processes. In addition, we developed a statistical	 
model, known as a multivariate analysis, to better understand	 
factors that influenced variation in penalty amounts. On July 7, 
2004, we briefed Labor officials on the results of our study.	 
This letter report formally conveys the information we presented 
at that briefing. To assess the extent of OSHA's oversight of the
civil penalty determination and violation abatement processes, we
(1) reviewed 2002 and 2003 regional audits from the five regions 
with the most inspections, (2) visited one of these regional	 
offices and one area office within this region to interview	 
officials and review documents and procedures, (3) conducted	 
telephone interviews with the four remaining regional offices and
one area office within each of those regions, (4) interviewed	 
OSHA officials to identify relevant policies and procedures, and 
(5) reviewed relevant policies and procedures. In addition, we	 
explored another possible oversight technique--a quantitative	 
multivariate analysis to better understand factors that influence
variation in penalty amounts.					 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-04-920 					        
    ACCNO:   A11569						        
  TITLE:     Workplace Safety and Health: OSHA's Oversight of Its     
Civil Penalty Determination and Violation Abatement Processes Has
Limitations							 
     DATE:   08/13/2004 
  SUBJECT:   Fines (penalties)					 
	     Inspection 					 
	     Internal audits					 
	     Internal controls					 
	     Occupational health standards			 
	     Occupational safety				 
	     Policy evaluation					 
	     Safety regulation					 
	     Safety standards					 
	     Working conditions 				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-04-920

                 United States Government Accountability Office

                      GAO Report to the Secretary of Labor

August 2004

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND HEALTH

  OSHA's Oversight of Its Civil Penalty Determination and Violation Abatement
                           Processes Has Limitations

GAO-04-920

Contents

                                    Letter 1

Appendix I Briefing Presented on July 7, 2004

  Appendix II Comments from the Department of Labor

Abbreviations

FIRM Field Inspection Reference Manual
IMIS Integrated Management Information Systems
OEA Office of Evaluations and Audit Analysis
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548

August 13, 2004

The Honorable Elaine L. Chao Secretary of Labor

Dear Madame Secretary:

This report presents the findings of our study of the Department of
Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA)
determination of civil penalties and abatement of violations. The
objective of the study was to assess the extent of OSHA's oversight of the
civil penalty determination and the violation abatement processes. In
addition, we developed a statistical model, known as a multivariate
analysis, to better understand factors that influenced variation in
penalty amounts. On July 7, 2004, we briefed Labor officials on the
results of our study. This letter report formally conveys the information
we presented at that briefing (see app. I).

OSHA penalties are a critical enforcement strategy meant to deter
employers from violating safety and health standards. In fiscal year 2003,
OSHA proposed civil penalties that totaled over $114 million and conducted
inspections across approximately 40,000 employers. In determining the
penalty amount, OSHA inspectors must apply four factors identified in the
Occupation Safety and Health Act of 1970:1 (l) the gravity of the
violation, (2) the size of the business, (3) the employer's history of
previous violations, and (4) the good faith of the employer.2 OSHA's Field
Inspection Reference Manual (FIRM) contains the criteria inspectors should
use in applying each of these four factors. For example, in assessing
gravity, the manual instructs that the inspector consider two elements,
severity and probability, which are then to be analyzed on a

1Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, OSHA is authorized to issue
citations for violations of the act and propose penalties. Appeals are
heard by the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, an
independent federal agency, which has the authority to assess penalties.
If a penalty is deemed proper, the commission considers a number of
factors to determine the amount of the assessment. Citations and proposals
that are not appealed become final decisions of the commission. 29
U.S.C.S:S: 658, 659 (2000). Because most citations and proposed penalties
are not appealed to the Commission, we refer only to OSHA's enforcement
activities in this report.

229 U.S.C. S: 666(j).

scale of high to low. Application of the gravity criteria results in an
initial base penalty amount. The other factors, as described in the
manual, may then be used to reduce the amount if applicable and can result
in up to a 95 percent reduction in the base penalty amount.3 Given this
approach for establishing penalty amounts, it is essential that inspectors
apply the criteria for the four factors accurately and consistently.

OSHA has delegated authority for overseeing its enforcement and program
activities to the 10 regional offices. The regional offices oversee
operations of 80 area offices. OSHA requires that regional offices conduct
annual audits of area offices' adherence to proper procedures for penalty
calculation, penalty collection, and abatement of safety and health
hazards found at work sites. OSHA allows regional offices to conduct these
audits in several ways, including reviewing area offices' statistical
reports or inspection case files and by administering questionnaires to
the area offices. In addition, every 2 years regional offices are required
to conduct on-site audits at all area offices. Each area office is
responsible for responding to recommendations for improvements that arise
from these regional audits. Moreover, regional offices are responsible for
sharing the results of their audits with OSHA's national office.

To assess the extent of OSHA's oversight of the civil penalty
determination and violation abatement processes, we (1) reviewed 2002 and
2003 regional audits from the five regions with the most inspections, (2)
visited one of these regional offices and one area office within this
region to interview officials and review documents and procedures, (3)
conducted telephone interviews with the four remaining regional offices
and one area office within each of those regions, (4) interviewed OSHA
officials to identify relevant policies and procedures, and (5) reviewed
relevant policies and procedures. In addition, we explored another
possible oversight technique-a quantitative multivariate analysis to
better understand factors that influence variation in penalty amounts. We
calculated differences in final penalty amounts for serious violations and
analyzed what might account for those differences. Using our statistical
model, we first estimated how the gravity of the violation and size of the
employer, two of the variables used to calculate penalties, affected
penalties. We then added other variables to the model, such as industry
type and region, to assess if and how other variables not formally used in

3For example, according to the FIRM, good faith of an employer refers,
among other things, to the extent to which an employer has implemented a
safety and health program.

calculating penalties affected penalty amounts. We based our multivariate
analysis on inspection and violation data (fiscal years 1999 to 2002) from
OSHA's Integrated Management Information System (IMIS). We assessed the
completeness of these data by reviewing OSHA's documentation on how the
data were collected and performed electronic tests to look for outliers,
missing values, or duplicate records. On the basis of these reviews and
tests, we found the data sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We
conducted our work between October 2003 and May 2004 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.

In summary, we found that OSHA's oversight for ensuring that penalties are
correctly determined and violations are properly abated has limitations.
While the national office receives copies of the regions' annual audits,
it does not review them or use them to monitor the extent to which
penalties are calculated correctly and violations are properly abated. The
national office's underutilization of audit results may be problematic
because audit results identified significant problems. For example, audits
found that some area offices miscalculated penalties and failed to conduct
required follow-up inspections to ensure the proper abatement of
violations. Even if OSHA were to use the results of annual audits for
oversight purposes, the information these audits provide may not always be
complete. In fact, four of the five regional offices we reviewed did not
conduct audits in full accordance with OSHA procedures during fiscal years
2002 and 2003. For example, one region did not routinely conduct any
on-site audits, while two regions failed to include all of their area
offices in their audit reviews.

OSHA has recently taken a significant step to improve its oversight
efforts by establishing an Office of Evaluations and Audit Analysis (OEA)
to focus on ways to better use data from regional audits. The OEA is in
the initial planning stages. As the formation of OEA continues, officials
may want to consider incorporating the use of multivariate analysis into
efforts to better understand the factors that influence variation in civil
penalty amounts. Such a statistical model would allow OSHA officials to
determine how much of the variation in penalty amounts is due to
established factors and how much is due to factors that are not used in
penalty calculations. To explore the viability of such an analysis, we
calculated how gravity of violation and employer size affected penalty
amounts and found that these two factors explained 48 percent of the
variation that existed among proposed penalty amounts for serious

violations. Using final penalty amounts, we found that the model explained
36 percent of the variation.4 When we expanded this model to include
factors beyond those explicitly used in the penalty assessment process, we
found that these factors explained some, but far less, of the variation in
final penalties than the two factors above. For example, even after we
controlled for differences in gravity and employer size, some industries
were assessed penalties that averaged $257 more than others. Overall, this
model explained 39 percent of the variation for final penalties. We
recognize this model captures only some of the factors that influence
penalty amounts and understand that area directors are given discretion in
determining final penalties in response to employers' efforts to ensure
abatement and improve the safety of their workplaces. Nevertheless, we
think that with additional data on factors like employer history and good
faith, models like this could provide OSHA with insight into the extent to
which penalties are being assessed correctly (including the degree that
unexpected variables are affecting penalty amounts).

In a recently published GAO report, we recommended that OSHA create a
system to ensure that regions complete audits and that OSHA use audit
results to improve the consistency of the complaint process.5 Consistent
with those recommendations and on the basis of the findings presented
here, we are recommending that the Secretary of Labor direct the Assistant
Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health to

o  	ensure that regions complete audits in accordance with OSHA's required
audit procedures and

o  	monitor audit results in their overseeing of the civil penalty
determination and violation abatement processes.

In addition, we are recommending that the Secretary of Labor direct the
Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health to

o  	evaluate the feasibility of using statistical modeling to help OSHA
determine if penalties are being assessed correctly and identify if
unanticipated factors are influencing penalty amounts.

4For our research, final penalty is defined as an assessed penalty in a
case that has been closed.

5See U.S. General Accounting Office, OSHA Complaint Response Policies:
OSHA Credits Its Complaint System with Conserving Agency Resources, but
the System Still Warrants Improvement, GAO-04-658 (Washington, D.C.: June
18, 2004).

OSHA provided written comments on a draft of the briefing slides (see app.
II). We incorporated the agency's comments, including oral comments we
received during the briefing, into the briefing slides and this letter as
appropriate. In general officials agreed with our first two
recommendations regarding the better use of audit results, although they
questioned how we arrived at these recommendations. In particular they
were uncertain about which regions we reviewed and the magnitude of the
problems we identified. As documented in both the slides and this letter,
we based our findings on the key results of OSHA regional audits conducted
in the five regions with the most inspections during fiscal years 2002 and
2003. We reported on problems that appeared across regions and years but
did not report on the magnitude of the problems because the audits did not
always identify error rates or the total number of case files reviewed. We
commend OSHA for recognizing that more useful information can be gathered
from the audit reports.

Concerning the third recommendation, OSHA officials stated during the
briefing that the multivariate model could be useful but raised some
concerns in their oral and written comments. First, OSHA officials
questioned the validity of the model, given the fact that two of the
factors used in calculating penalty amounts could not be included.
Specifically, OSHA believed that these two missing factors would explain
additional variation among penalties and would decrease the amount of
variation we found attributable to nonstatutory variables. Though we
recognized that IMIS could not provide us with data on all four factors,
we pursued developing the model to test its potential value as an
oversight tool for OSHA. Based on the test, we believe that with
additional data, such as the two missing factors of history and good
faith, this type of modeling could provide OSHA with insight into the
extent to which penalties are being assessed correctly and the degree to
which unexpected variables are affecting penalty amounts.

OSHA was also concerned that the results of our model on final penalty
amounts did not appropriately capture the adjustments made by area
directors to proposed penalty amounts when employers abate their
violations and improve the safety of their workplaces. Currently, OSHA's
database does not capture area directors' negotiations of final penalties.
If OSHA chooses to explore the feasibility of using statistical modeling,
it may wish to consider the value of developing such a variable. On a
related issue, OSHA suggested that in this letter we provide the results
of the model for proposed penalty amounts, in addition to final penalty
amounts, to get a better sense of how consistently inspectors applied the
penalty factors. We added these results, which also showed a sizeable
amount of

unexplained variation in initial penalty amounts. Finally, OSHA was
concerned about the resources required to collect additional information
to make the model more robust. However, it is unclear at this time how
large the additional cost of this task would be, since the good faith and
history data are currently collected by the area offices and stored in the
same local data system from which other IMIS data are retrieved. As
requested by OSHA, we will be sharing our statistical model and
accompanying database with the agency so that it may further explore the
model's oversight potential.

We are sending copies of this report to the respective congressional
committees and to other interested parties and will make copies available
to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no
charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me on (202)
512-9889 or Brett Fallavollita on (202) 512-8507. Mikki Holmes and Linda
Stokes, as well as Catherine Hurley, Julian Klazkin, Luanne Moy, and
Douglas Sloane, made significant contributions to this report.

Sincerely yours,

Robert E. Robertson Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security
Issues

Appendix I: Briefing Presented on July 7, 2004

                                WORKPLACE SAFETY
                                   AND HEALTH

  OSHA's Oversight of Its Civil Penalty Determination and Violation Abatement
                           Processes Has Limitations

Briefing of Officials at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S.
                       Department of Labor, July 7, 2004

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Labor

GAO's Mission	The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation
and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO
documents at no cost

is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO postsGAO
Reports and newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its
Web site. To Testimony have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products
every afternoon, go to

www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

Order by Mail or Phone	The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: 	Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

  To Report Fraud, Contact:
  Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: [email protected] Programs Automated answering system: (800)
424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional 	Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4400 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125

Relations Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***