[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 23, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65767-66078]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-28981]
[[Page 65767]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Department of Labor
_______________________________________________________________________
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
29 CFR Part 1910
Ergonomics Program; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 23, 1999 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 65768]]
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Part 1910
[Docket No. S-777]
RIN No. 1218-AB36
Ergonomics Program
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), Department of Labor.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments;
scheduling of informal public hearing.
---------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health
Administration is proposing an ergonomics
program standard to address the significant
risk of work-related musculoskeletal
disorders (MSDs) confronting employees in
various jobs in general industry workplaces.
General industry employers covered by the
standard would be required to establish an
ergonomics program containing some or all of
the elements typical of successful ergonomics
programs: management leadership and employee
participation, job hazard analysis and
control, hazard information and reporting,
training, MSD management, and program
evaluation, depending on the types of jobs in
their workplace and whether a musculoskeletal
disorder covered by the standard has
occurred. The proposed standard would require
all general industry employers whose
employees perform manufacturing or manual
handling jobs to implement a basic ergonomics
program in those jobs. The basic program
includes the following elements: management
leadership and employee participation, and
hazard information and reporting. If an
employee in a manufacturing or manual
handling job experiences an OSHA-recordable
MSD that is additionally determined by the
employer to be covered by the proposed
standard, the employer would be required to
implement the full ergonomics program for
that job and all other jobs in the
establishment involving the same physical
work activities. The full program includes,
in addition to the elements in the basic
program, a hazard analysis of the job; the
implementation of engineering, work practice,
or administrative controls to eliminate or
substantially reduce the hazards identified
in that job; training the employees in that
job and their supervisors; and the provision
of MSD management, including, where
appropriate, temporary work restrictions and
access to a health care provider or other
professional if a covered MSD occurs. General
industry employers whose employees work in
jobs other than manual handling or
manufacturing and experience an MSD that is
determined by the employer to be covered by
the standard would also be required by the
proposed rule to implement an ergonomics
program for those jobs.
The proposed standard would affect
approximately 1.9 million employers and 27.3
million employees in general industry
workplaces, and employers in these workplaces
would be required in the first year after
promulgation of the standard to control
approximately 7.7 million jobs with the
potential to cause or contribute to covered
MSDs. OSHA estimates that the proposed
standard would prevent about 3 million work-
related MSDs over the next 10 years, have
annual benefits of approximately $9.1
billion, and impose annual compliance costs
of approximately $900 per covered
establishment and annual costs of $150 per
problem job fixed.
OSHA is scheduling informal public
hearings to provide interested parties the
opportunity to orally present information and
data related to the proposed rule.
DATES: Written comments. Written comments,
including materials such as studies and
journal articles, must be postmarked by
February 1, 2000. If you submit comments by
facsimile or electronically through OSHA's
internet site, you must transmit those
comments by February 1, 2000.
Notice of intention to appear at the
informal public hearing. Notices of intention
to appear at the informal public hearing must
be postmarked by January 24, 2000. If you
submit your notice to intention to appear by
facsimile or electronically through OSHA's
Internet site, you must transmit the notice
by January 24, 2000.
Hearing testimony and documentary
evidence: If you will be requesting more than
10 minutes for your presentation, or if you
will be submitting documentary evidence at
the hearing, you must submit the full
testimony and all documentary evidence you
intend to present at the hearing, postmarked
by February 1, 2000.
Informal pubic hearing. The hearing in
Washington, DC, is scheduled to begin at 9:30
a.m., February 22, 2000 at the Frances
Perkins Building, U.S. Department of Labor.
The hearing in Washington, DC, is scheduled
to run for 4 weeks. It will be followed by a
hearing March 21-31, 2000, in Portland OR,
and April 11-21, 2000, in Chicago, IL. Time
and location for the regional hearings will
be announced later in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Written comments: Mail: Submit
duplicate copies of written comments to: OSHA
Docket Office, Docket No. S-777, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue,
N.W., Room N-2625, Washington, DC 20210,
telephone (202) 693-2350.
Facsimile: If your written comments are 10
pages or less, you may fax them to the Docket
Office. The OSHA Docket Office fax number is
(202) 693-1648.
Electronic: You may also submit comments
electronically through OSHA's Homepage at
www.osha.gov. Please note that you may not
attach materials such as studies or journal
articles to your electronic comments. If you
wish to include such materials, you must
submit them separately in duplicate to the
OSHA Docket Office at the address listed
above. When submitting such materials to the
OSHA Docket Office, you must clearly identify
your electronic comments by name, date, and
subject, so that we can attach them to your
electronic comments.
Notice of intention to appear: Mail:
Notices of intention to appear at the
informal public hearing may be submitted by
mail in quadruplicate to: Ms. Veneta Chatman,
OSHA Office of Public Affairs, Docket No. S-
777, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room N-3647,
Washington, DC 20210, Telephone: (202) 693-
2119.
Facsimile: You may fax your notice of
intention to appear to Ms. Chatmon at (202)
693-1634.
Electronic: You may also submit your
notice of intention to appear electronically
through OSHA's Homepage at www.osha.gov.
Hearing testimony and documentary
evidence: You must submit in quadruplicate
your hearing testimony and the documentary
evidence you intend to present at the
informal public hearing to Ms. Chatmon at the
address above. You may also submit your
hearing testimony and documentary evidence on
disk (3\1/2\ inch) in WP 5.1, 6.0, 6.1, 8.0
or ASCII,
[[Page 65769]]
provided you also send the original hardcopy
at the same time.
Informal public hearing: The informal
public hearing to be held in Washington DC
will be located in the Frances Perkins
Building, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC
20210. The locations of regional hearings in
Portland, OR, and Chicago, IL, will be
announced in a later Federal Register notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: OSHA's
Ergonomics Team at (202) 693-2116, or visit
the OSHA Homepage at www.osha.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
The preamble and proposed standard are
organized as follows:
I. Introduction
II. Events Leading to the Proposed Standard
III. Pertinent Legal Authority
IV. Summary and Explanation
V. Health Effects
VI. Risk Assessment
VII. Significance of Risk
VIII. Summary of the Preliminary Economic
Analysis and Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis
IX. Unfunded Mandates
X. Environmental Impacts
XI. Additional Statutory Issues
XII. Federalism
XIII. State Plan States
XIV. Issues
XV. Public Participation
XVI. OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995
XVII. List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1910
XVIII. The Proposed Standard
References to the rulemaking record are in
the text of the preamble. References are
given as ``Ex.'' followed by a number to
designate the reference in the docket. For
example, ``Ex. 26-1'' means exhibit 26-1 in
Docket S-777. A list of the exhibits and
copies of the exhibit are available in the
OSHA Docket Office.
I. Introduction
A. Overview
The preamble to this proposed ergonomics
program standard discusses the data and
events leading OSHA to propose the standard,
the Agency's legal authority for proposing
this rule, requests for information on a
number of issues, and a section describing
the significance of the ergonomic-related
risks confronting workers in manufacturing,
manual handling, and other general industry
jobs. The preamble also contains a summary of
the Preliminary Economic and Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, a summary of
the responses OSHA has made to the findings
and recommendations of the Small Business
Regulatory Fairness Enforcement Act Panel
convened for this rule, a description of the
information collections associated with the
standard, and a detailed explanation of the
Agency's rationale for proposing each
provision of the proposed standard.
B. The Need for an Ergonomics Standard
Work-related musculoskeletal disorders
(MSDs) currently account for one-third of all
occupational injuries and illnesses reported
to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) by
employers every year. These disorders thus
constitute the largest job-related injury and
illness problem in the United States today.
In 1997, employers reported a total of
626,000 lost workday MSDs to the BLS, and
these disorders accounted for $1 of every $3
spent for workers' compensation in that year.
Employers pay more than $15-$20 billion in
workers' compensation costs for these
disorders every year, and other expenses
associated with MSDs may increase this total
to $45-$54 billion a year. Workers with
severe MSDs can face permanent disability
that prevents them from returning to their
jobs or handling simple, everyday tasks like
combing their hair, picking up a baby, or
pushing a shopping cart.
Thousands of companies have taken action
to address and prevent these problems. OSHA
estimates that 50 percent of all employees
but only 28 percent of all workplaces in
general industry are already protected by an
ergonomics program, because their employers
have voluntarily elected to implement an
ergonomics program. (The disparity in these
estimates shows that most large companies,
who employ the majority of the workforce,
already have these programs, and that smaller
employers have not yet implemented them.)
OSHA believes that the proposed standard is
needed to bring this protection to the
remaining employees in general industry
workplaces who are at significant risk of
incurring a work-related musculoskeletal
disorder but are currently without ergonomics
programs.
C. The Science Supporting the Standard
A substantial body of scientific evidence
supports OSHA's effort to provide workers
with ergonomic protection (see the Health
Effects, Preliminary Risk Assessment, and
Significance of Risk sections of this
preamble, below). This evidence strongly
supports two basic conclusions: (1) There is
a positive relationship between work-related
musculoskeletal disorders and workplace risk
factors, and (2) ergonomics programs and
specific ergonomic interventions can reduce
these injuries.
For example, the National Research
Council/National Academy of Sciences found a
clear relationship between musculoskeletal
disorders and work and between ergonomic
interventions and a decrease in such
disorders. According to the Academy,
``Research clearly demonstrates that specific
interventions can reduce the reported rate of
musculoskeletal disorders for workers who
perform high-risk tasks'' (Work-Related
Musculoskeletal Disorders: The Research Base,
ISBN 0-309-06327-2 (1998)). A scientific
review of hundreds of peer-reviewed studies
involving workers with MSDs by the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH) also supports this conclusion.
The evidence, which is comprised of peer-
reviewed epidemiological, biomechanical and
pathophysiological studies as well as other
published evidence, includes:
More than 2,000 articles on work-
related MSDs and workplace risk factors;
A 1998 study by the National
Research Council/National Academy of Sciences
on work-related MSDs;
A critical review by NIOSH of
more than 600 epidemiological studies (1997);
A 1997 General Accounting Office
report of companies with ergonomics programs;
and
Hundreds of published ``success
stories'' from companies with ergonomics
programs;
Taken together, this evidence indicates
that:
High levels of exposure to
ergonomic risk factors on the job lead to an
increased incidence of work-related MSDs;
[[Page 65770]]
Reducing these exposures reduces
the incidence and severity of work-related
MSDs;
Work-related MSDs are
preventable; and
Ergonomics programs have
demonstrated effectiveness in reducing risk,
decreasing exposure and protecting workers
against work-related MSDs.
As with any scientific field, research in
ergonomics is ongoing. The National Academy
of Sciences is undertaking another review of
the science in order to expand on its 1998
study. OSHA will examine this and all
research results that become available during
the rulemaking process, to ensure that the
Agency's ergonomics program standard is based
on the best available and most current
evidence. However, more than enough evidence
already exists to proceed with a proposed
standard. In the words of the American
College of Occupational and Environmental
Medicine, the world's largest occupational
medical society, ``there is an adequate
scientific foundation for OSHA to proceed
with a proposal and, therefore, no reason for
OSHA to delay the rulemaking process * * *.''
D. Employer Experience Supporting the
Standard
Employers with companies of all sizes have
had great success in using ergonomics
programs as a cost-effective way to prevent
or reduce work-related MSDs, keeping workers
on the job, and boosting productivity and
workplace morale. A recent General Accounting
Office (GAO) study of several companies with
ergonomics programs found that their programs
reduced work-related MSDs and associated
costs (GAO/HEHS-97-163). The GAO also found
that the programs and controls selected by
employers to address ergonomic hazards in the
workplace were not necessarily costly or
complex. As a result, the GAO recommended
that OSHA use a flexible regulatory approach
in its ergonomics standard that would enable
employers to develop their own effective
programs. The standard being proposed today
reflects this recommendation and builds on
the successful programs that thousands of
proactive employers have found successful in
dealing with their ergonomic problems.
E. Information OSHA is Providing to Help
Employers Address Ergonomic Hazards
Much literature and technical expertise
already exists and is available to employers,
both through OSHA and a variety of other
sources. For example:
Information is available from
OSHA's ergonomics Web page, which can be
accessed from OSHA's World Wide Web site at
http://www.osha.gov by scrolling down and
clicking on ``Ergonomics'';
Many publications, informational
materials and training courses are available
from OSHA through Regional Offices, OSHA-
sponsored educational centers, OSHA's state
consultation programs for small businesses,
and through the Web page;
Publications on ergonomics
programs are available from NIOSH at 1-800-
35-NIOSH. NIOSH is also a ``link'' on the
OSHA ergonomics Web page;
OSHA's state consultation
programs will provide free on-site
consultation services to employers requesting
help in implementing their ergonomics
programs; and
OSHA is developing a series of
compliance assistance materials and will make
them available before a final ergonomics
standard becomes effective.
II. Events Leading to the Proposed Standard
In proposing this standard, OSHA has
relied upon its own substantial experience
with ergonomics programs, the experience of
private firms and insurance companies, and
the results of research studies conducted
during the last 30 years. Those experiences
clearly show that: (1) Ergonomics programs
are an effective way to reduce occupational
MSDs; (2) ergonomics programs have
consistently achieved that objective; (3)
OSHA's proposal is consistent with these
programs; and (4) the proposal is firmly
grounded in the OSH Act and OSHA policies and
experience. The primary lesson to be learned
is that employers with effective, well-
managed ergonomics programs achieve
significant reductions in the severity and
number of work-related MSDs their employees
experience. These programs also generally
improve productivity and employee morale and
reduce employee turnover and absenteeism (see
Section VIII of this preamble and Chapters IV
(Benefits) and V (Costs of Compliance) of
OSHA's Preliminary Economic Analysis (Ex. 28-
1).
OSHA's long experience with ergonomics is
apparent from the chronology below. As this
table shows, the Agency has been actively
involved in ergonomics for more than 20
years.
OSHA Ergonomics Chronology
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Early 1980s OSHA begins discussing ergonomic
interventions with labor, trade
associations and professional
organizations. OSHA issues citations to
Hanes Knitwear and Samsonite for
ergonomic hazards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 1983 The OSHA Training Institute offers its
first course in ergonomics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 1986 OSHA begins a pilot program to reduce back
injuries through review of injury records
during inspections and recommendations
for job redesign using NIOSH's Work
Practices Guide for Manual Lifting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 1986 The Agency publishes a Request for
Information on approaches to reduce back
injuries resulting from manual lifting.
(57 FR 34192)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 1990 OSHA/UAW/Ford corporate-wide settlement
agreement commits Ford to reduce
ergonomic hazards in 96 percent of its
plants through a model ergonomics
program.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 1990 The Agency publishes ``Ergonomics Program
Management Guidelines for Meatpacking
Plants.''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 65771]]
Fall 1990 OSHA creates the Office of Ergonomics
Support and hires more ergonomists.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 1990 OSHA/UAW/GM sign agreement bringing
ergonomics programs to 138 GM plants
employing more than 300,000 workers.
Throughout the early 90s, OSHA signed 13
more corporate-wide settlement agreements
to bring ergonomics programs to nearly
half a million more workers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 1991 OSHA publishes ``Ergonomics: The Study of
Work,'' as part of a nationwide education
and outreach program to raise awareness
about ways to reduce musculoskeletal
disorders.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 1991 More than 30 labor organizations petition
Secretary of Labor to issue an Emergency
Temporary Standard.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 1992 OSHA begins a special emphasis inspection
program on ergonomic hazards in the
meatpacking industry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 1992 Secretary of Labor denies petition.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 1992 OSHA publishes an Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking on ergonomics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993 OSHA conducts a survey of general industry
and construction employers to obtain
information on the extent of ergonomics
programs in industry and other issues.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 1995 OSHA begins a series of meetings with
stakeholders to discuss approaches to a
draft ergonomics standard.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 1997 OSHA/NIOSH conference on successful
ergonomic programs held in Chicago.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 1997 OSHA introduces the ergonomics web page on
the Internet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 1998 OSHA begins a series of national
stakeholder meetings about the draft
ergonomics standard under development.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 1998 OSHA releases a video entitled ``Ergonomic
Programs That Work.''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 1999 OSHA begins small business (Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA)) review of its draft ergonomics
rule, and makes draft regulatory text
available to the public.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 1999 OSHA's Assistant Secretary receives the
SBREFA report on the draft ergonomics
program proposal, and the Agency begins
to address the concerns raised in that
report.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 1999 OSHA publishes proposed ergonomics program
standard.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Regulatory and Voluntary Guidelines
Activities
In 1989, OSHA issued the Safety and Health
Program Management Guidelines (54 FR 3904,
Jan. 26, 1989), which are voluntary program
management guidelines to assist employers in
developing effective safety and health
programs. These program management
guidelines, which are based on the widely
accepted industrial hygiene principles of
management commitment and employee
involvement, worksite hazard analysis, hazard
prevention and control, and employee
training, also serve as the foundation for
effective ergonomics programs. In August
1990, OSHA issued the Ergonomics Program
Management Guidelines for Meatpacking Plants
(Ex. 2-13), which utilized the four program
components from the safety and health
management guidelines, supplemented by other
ergonomics-specific program elements (e.g.,
medical management). The ergonomic guidelines
were based on the best available scientific
evidence, the best practices of successful
companies with these programs, advice from
the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH), the scientific
literature, and OSHA's experience with
enforcement actions. Many commenters in
various industries have said that they have
implemented their ergonomics programs
primarily on the basis of the OSHA ergonomics
guidelines (Exs. 3-50, 3-61, 3-95, 3-97, 3-
113, 3-121, 3-125), and there has been
general agreement among stakeholders that
these program elements should be included in
any OSHA ergonomics standard (Exs. 3-27, 3-
46, 3-51, 3-61, 3-89, 3-95, 3-113, 3-119, 3-
160, 3-184).
OSHA has also encouraged other efforts to
address the prevention of work-related
musculoskeletal disorders. For example, OSHA
has actively participated in the work of the
ANSI Z-365 Committee, which was tasked with
the development of a consensus standard for
the control of cumulative trauma disorders.
1. Petition for Emergency Temporary Standard
On July 31, 1991, the United Food and
Commercial Workers Union (UCFW), along with
the AFL-CIO and 29 other labor organizations,
petitioned OSHA to take immediate action to
reduce the risk to employees from exposure to
ergonomic hazards (Ex. 2-16). The petition
[[Page 65772]]
requested that OSHA issue an emergency
temporary standard (ETS) on ``Ergonomic
Hazards to Protect Workers from Work-Related
Musculoskeletal Disorders (Cumulative Trauma
Disorders)'' under section 6(c) of the Act.
The petitioners also requested, consistent
with section 6(c), that OSHA promulgate,
within 6 months of issuance of the ETS, a
permanent standard to protect workers from
cumulative trauma disorders in both general
industry and construction.
OSHA concluded that, based on the
statutory constraints and legal requirements
governing issuance of an ETS, there was not a
sufficient basis to support issuance of an
ETS. Accordingly, on April 17, 1992, OSHA
decided not to issue an ETS on ergonomic
hazards (Ex. 2-29). OSHA agreed with the
petitioners, however, that available
information, including the Agency's
experience and information in the ETS
petition and supporting documents, supported
the initiation of a rulemaking, under section
6(b)(5) of the Act, to address ergonomic
hazards.
2. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
At the time OSHA issued the Ergonomic
Program Management Guidelines for Meatpacking
Plants, (Ex. 2-13), the Agency also indicated
its intention to begin the rulemaking process
by asking the public for information about
musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). The Agency
indicated that this could be accomplished
through a Request for Information (RFI) or an
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR)
consistent with the Administration's
Regulatory Program. Subsequently, OSHA
formally placed ergonomics rulemaking on the
regulatory agenda (Ex. 2-17) and decided to
issue an ANPR on this topic.
In June 1991, OSHA sent a draft copy of
the proposed ANPR questions for comment to
232 parties, including OSHA's advisory
committees, labor organizations (including
the petitioners), trade associations,
occupational groups, and members of the
ergonomics community (Ex. 2-18). OSHA
requested comments on what questions should
be presented in the ANPR. OSHA received 47
comments from those parties. In addition,
OSHA met with the Chemical Manufacturers
Association, Organization Resources
Counselors, Inc., and the AFL-CIO and several
of its member organizations. OSHA reviewed
the comments and submissions received and
incorporated relevant suggestions and
comments into the ANPR.
On August 3, 1992, OSHA published the ANPR
in the Federal Register (57 FR 34192),
requesting information for consideration in
the development of an ergonomics standard.
OSHA received 290 comments in response to the
ANPR. Those comments have been carefully
considered by the Agency in developing the
proposed ergonomics program standard.
3. Outreach to Stakeholders
In conjunction with the process of
developing the proposed ergonomics rule, OSHA
has established various communication and
outreach efforts since publication of the
ANPR. These efforts were initiated in
response to requests by individuals who would
be affected by the rule (stakeholders) that
they be provided with the opportunity to
present their concerns about an ergonomics
rule and that they be kept apprised of the
efforts OSHA was making in developing a
proposed rule. For example, in March and
April 1994, OSHA held meetings with industry,
labor, professional and research
organizations covering general industry,
construction, agriculture, healthcare, and
the office environment. A list of those
attending the meetings and a record of the
meetings has been placed in the public record
of this rulemaking (Ex. 26-1370).
In March, 1995, OSHA provided a copy of
the draft proposed ergonomics rule and
preamble to these same organizations.
Thereafter, during April 1995, OSHA met again
with these groups to discuss whether the
draft proposed rule had accurately responded
to the concerns raised earlier. A summary of
the comments has been placed in the public
record (Ex. 26-1370).
During 1998, OSHA met with nearly 400
stakeholders to discuss ideas for a proposed
standard. The meetings were held in February,
July and September of 1998. The first series
of meetings was held in Washington, DC and
focused on general issues, such as the scope
of the standard and what elements of an
ergonomics program should be included in a
standard. The second series of meetings was
held in Kansas City and Atlanta and focused
on what elements and activities should be
included in an ergonomics program standard.
The third set of meetings was held in
Washington, DC and emphasized revisions to
the elements of the proposal based on
previous stakeholder input. A summary of
those meetings has been placed on the OSHA
web site and in the public docket (Ex. 26-
1370). After OSHA released a working draft of
the proposed ergonomics standard to members
of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act Panel for review under that
Act., the draft was posted on the OSHA web
site (February 9, 1999).
4. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act (SBREFA) Panel
In accordance with SBREFA and to gain
insight from employers with small businesses,
OSHA, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), and the Small Business Administration
(SBA) created a Panel to review and comment
on a working draft of the ergonomics program
standard. As required by SBREFA, the Panel
sought the advice and recommendations of
potentially affected Small Entity
Representatives (SERs). A total of 21 SERs
from a variety of industries participated in
the effort. The working draft, supporting
materials (a brief summary of a preliminary
economic analysis and risk assessment and
other materials) were sent to the SERs for
their review. On March 24-26, 1999,
representatives from OSHA, SBA, and OMB
participated in a series of discussions with
the SERs to answer questions and receive
comments from the SERs. The SERs also
provided written comments, which served as
the basis of the Panel's final report (Ex.
23). The final SBREFA Panel Report was
submitted to the Assistant Secretary on April
30, 1999. The findings and recommendations
made by the Panel are addressed in the
proposed rule, preamble, and economic
analysis (see the discussion in Section VIII,
Summary of the Preliminary Economic Analysis
and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis).
B. Other OSHA Efforts in Ergonomics
In 1996, OSHA developed a strategy to
address ergonomics through a four-pronged
program including training, education, and
outreach activities; study and analysis of
the work-related hazards that lead to MSDs;
enforcement; and rulemaking.
1. Training, Education, and Outreach
a. Training. The OSHA ergonomics web page
has been an important part of the Agency's
education and outreach effort. Other OSHA
efforts in training, education and outreach
include the following:
Grants to train workers and
employees about hazards and hazard abatement;
Training courses in ergonomics;
[[Page 65773]]
One day training for nursing home
operators in each of five targeted states;
Booklets on ergonomics,
ergonomics programs, and computer
workstations; and
Videotapes on ergonomics programs
in general industry and specifically in
nursing homes.
OSHA has awarded almost $3 million for 25
grants addressing ergonomics, including
lifting hazards in healthcare facilities and
hazards in the red meat and poultry
industries. These grants have enabled workers
and employers to identify ergonomic hazards
and implement workplace changes to abate the
hazards.
Some grant program highlights follow.
The United Food and Commercial
Workers International Union (UFCW) conducted
joint labor-management ergonomics training at
a meatpacking plant that resulted in a major
effort at the plant to combat cumulative
trauma disorders. The program was so
successful that management asked the UFCW to
conduct the ergonomics training and work with
management at some of its other facilities.
The University of California at
Los Angeles (UCLA) and the Service Employees
International Union (SEIU) both had grants
for preventing lifting injuries in nursing
homes. SEIU developed a training program that
was used by UCLA to train nursing home
workers in California. UCLA also worked with
some national back injury prevention
programs. At least one of the nursing home
chains has replicated the program in other
states.
Mercy Hospital in Des Moines,
Iowa, had a grant to prevent lifting injuries
in hospitals. It trained over 3,000 hospital
workers in Des Moines and surrounding
counties. It had a goal of reducing lost work
days by 15 percent. The goal was surpassed,
and, six months after the training, none of
those trained had had a lost workday due to
back injury.
Hunter College in New York City is
training ergonomics trainers for the United
Paperworkers International Union. The
trainers then return to their locals and
conduct ergonomics training for union
members. As a result of this training,
changes are being made at some workplaces.
Examples include purchasing new equipment
that eliminates or reduces workers' need to
bend or twist at the workstation, rotating
workers every two hours with a ten-minute
break before each rotation, and modifying
workstations to reduce worker strain.
b. Education and Outreach. To provide a
forum to discuss ergonomic programs and to
augment information in the literature with
the experience of companies of different
sizes and from a variety of industries, OSHA
and NIOSH sponsored the first in a series of
conferences that brought industry, labor,
researchers, and consultants together to
discuss what works in reducing MSDs. The 1997
OSHA and NIOSH conference was followed by 11
more regional conferences across the country.
OSHA and NIOSH held the second national
conference on ergonomics in March of 1999.
More than 200 presentations were given at the
conferences on how companies have
successfully reduced MSDs. Presentations were
made by personnel from large and small
companies in many different industries.
Other examples of successful ergonomics
programs have come from OSHA's Voluntary
Protection Program (VPP). The VPP program was
established by OSHA to recognize employers
whose organizations have exemplary workplace
safety health programs. Several sites that
have been accepted into VPP have excellent
ergonomics programs.
2. Ergonomics Best Practices Conferences
During the period from Sept. 17, 1997
through Sept. 29, 1999, OSHA and its Regional
Education Centers co-sponsored 11 Ergonomics
Best Practices conferences. These Conferences
were designed to provide good examples of
practical and inexpensive ergonomics
interventions implemented by local companies.
The concept was that if OSHA and its Regional
partners could initiate the development of a
network of local employers, contractors, and
educators to provide practical information to
solve ergonomics problems, it would be
assisting employers in providing a workplace
for employees that would be ``free of
recognized health and safety hazards.'' To
date, attendance has exceeded 2,400
participants, including employers,
contractors, and employees. Finally, OSHA has
made numerous outreach presentations to
labor, trade, industry and professional
organizations during the development of the
proposed rule.
3. Studies and Analyses
Throughout the 1990s and continuing to the
present, OSHA staff have monitored the
ergonomics literature, developed analyses,
and reviewed the work of other Federal and
non-Federal agencies and organizations
related to ergonomics issues. In some cases,
OSHA staff have conducted site visits to
observe ergonomics programs at first hand.
Much of the information learned through these
activities is reflected in the material in
this preamble.
The most important reports and studies to
appear in the last few years are listed
below. OSHA has reviewed each of these
documents in detail, and findings from them
that are relevant to the discussions in this
preamble are referenced in the text.
Important recent studies that have supported
the conclusion that ergonomic interventions
and programs are a successful way to reduce
MSDs:
Elements of Ergonomics Programs,
NIOSH, 1998 (Ex. 26-2);
Musculoskeletal Disorders and
Workplace Factors, NIOSH, 1997 (Ex. 26-1);
Worker Protection: Private Sector
Ergonomics Programs Yield Positive Results,
GAO 1997 (Ex. 26-5); and
Work-related Musculoskeletal
Disorders, NRC 1998 (Ex. 26-37).
Other reports that support the use of
ergonomic interventions in the context of an
ergonomics program include:
ASC Z-365 draft, Control of
Cumulative Trauma Disorders, June 1997; and
Applied Ergonomics, case studies,
Volume 2 (case studies from the OSHA/NIOSH
conference 1999).
In addition, in 1994, OSHA conducted eight
site visits to companies that have
implemented ergonomic controls. These site
visits were at the invitation of companies in
industries including meatpacking,
manufacturing, and automotive manufacturing.
In conjunction with three of these site
visits, OSHA also held ``town meetings'' with
other industry, labor and professional
representatives in the geographical area.
These meetings allowed OSHA to learn about
other ergonomic programs that have been
implemented by companies in the same area as
well as issues regarding an OSHA ergonomics
rule.
4. Enforcement
In the absence of a federal OSHA
ergonomics standard, OSHA has addressed
ergonomics in the workplace under the
authority of section 5(a)(1) of the OSHAct.
This section is referred to as the General
Duty Clause and requires employers to provide
work and a work environment free from
recognized hazards that are causing or are
likely to cause death or serious physical
harm.
[[Page 65774]]
OSHA has successfully issued over 550
ergonomics citations under the General Duty
Clause. Only one case has been decided by the
Occupational Safety and Health Review
Commission. In the majority of these cases,
employers have realized that the
implementation of ergonomics programs is in
their best interest for the reduction of
injuries and illnesses. Examples of companies
cited under the General Duty Clause for
ergonomics hazards and which then realized a
substantial reduction in injuries and
illnesses after implementing ergonomics
programs include: the Ford Motor Company,
Empire Kosher, Sysco Foods, and Kennebec
Nursing Home.
When serious physical harm cannot be
documented in the work environment but
hazards have been identified by OSHA,
Compliance Officers both discuss the hazards
with the employer during the closing
conference of an inspection and write a
letter to the employer. These letters are
called ``ergonomic hazard alert letters.'' As
of June 1, 1999, approximately 260 letters
had been sent to employers. Ergonomic hazard
alert letters have been sent to employers in
approximately 50% of OSHA ergonomic
inspections.
Since ergonomic solutions vary from one
industry to another, OSHA has provided both
general and industry-specific training to
compliance officers. There are currently
three main ergonomic courses offered to OSHA
compliance staff: Introduction to Ergonomics,
Ergonomics in Nursing Homes, and Ergonomics
Compliance (an advanced ergonomics course).
Over 600 compliance staff have been trained
in just the past three years. These courses
cover three weeks of material.
In addition, OSHA has appointed one Area
Office Ergonomic Coordinator and a Regional
Ergonomic Coordinator in every region. These
coordinators meet monthly to discuss recent
case developments and the scientific
literature on ergonomics, share knowledge of
ergonomic solutions, and ensure that
enforcement resources are provided to
compliance staff for enforcement. A PhD
level, professionally certified ergonomist
serves as the National Ergonomics Enforcement
Coordinator in OSHA's Directorate of
Compliance Programs.
5. Corporate Wide Settlement Agreements
Among the companies that were cited for
MSD hazards, 13 companies covering 198
facilities agreed to enter into corporate-
wide settlement agreements with OSHA. These
agreements were primarily in the meat
processing and auto assembly industries, but
there were also agreements with
telecommunications, textile, warehousing
grocery, and paper companies. As part of
these settlement agreements, the companies
agreed to develop ergonomics programs based
on OSHA's Meatpacking Guidelines (Ex. 2-13)
and to submit information on the progress of
their program.
OSHA held a workshop in March 1999, in
which 10 companies described their experience
under their settlement agreement and with
their ergonomics programs. All the companies
that reported results to OSHA showed a
substantially lower severity rate for MSDs
since implementing their programs (Ex. 26-
1420). In addition, most companies reported
lower workers' compensation costs, as well as
higher productivity and product quality. A
report from the March 1999 workshop on
corporate wide settlement agreements
summarizing the results from 13 companies
involved in the agreements has been placed in
the docket (Ex. 26-1420). Only 5 of the 13
companies consistently reported the number of
MSD cases or MSD case rates. All five
companies that reported data on MSD-related
lost workdays showed a significant decline in
the number of lost workdays. None of the
companies that reported severity statistics
showed an increase in lost workdays as a
result of the ergonomics program.
C. Summary
As this review of OSHA's activities in the
last 20 years shows, the Agency has
considerable experience in addressing
ergonomics issues. OSHA has also used all of
the tools authorized by the Act--enforcement,
consultation, training and education,
compliance assistance, the Voluntary
Protection Programs, and issuance of
voluntary guidelines--to encourage employers
to address musculoskeletal disorders, the
single largest occupational safety and health
problem in the United States today. These
efforts, and the voluntary efforts of
employers and employees, have led to a recent
5-year decline in the number of reported lost
workday ergonomics injuries. However, in
1997, more than 626,000 such injuries and
illnesses were still reported. Promulgation
of an ergonomics program standard will add
the only tool the Agency has so far not
deployed against this hazard--a mandatory
standard--to these other OSHA and employer-
driven initiatives. Over the first 10 years
of the standard's implementation, OSHA
predicts that more than 3 million lost
workday musculoskeletal disorders will be
prevented in general industry. Ergonomics
programs can lead directly to improved
product quality by reducing errors and
rejection rates. In an OSHA survey of more
than 3,000 employers, 17 percent of employers
with ergonomics programs reported that their
programs had improved product quality. In
addition, a large number of case studies
reported in the literature describe quality
improvements. Thus, in addition to better
saftey and health for workers, the standard
will save employers money, improve product
quality, and reduce employee turnover and
absenteeism.
III. Pertinent Legal Authority
The purpose of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act (``OSH Act''), 29 U.S.C. 651 et
seq., is ``to assure so far as possible every
working man and woman in the nation safe and
healthful working conditions and to preserve
our human resources.'' 29 U.S.C. 651(b). To
achieve this goal Congress authorized the
Secretary of Labor to promulgate and enforce
occupational safety and health standards. 29
U.S.C. 655(b) (authorizing promulgation of
standards pursuant to notice and comment),
654(b) (requiring employers to comply with
OSHA standards).
A safety or health standard is a standard
``which requires conditions, or the adoption
or use of one or more practices, means,
methods, operations, or processes, reasonably
necessary or appropriate to provide safe or
healthful employment or places of
employment.'' 29 U.S.C. 652(8).
A standard is reasonably necessary or
appropriate within the meaning of Section
652(8) if:
A significant risk of material
harm exists in the workplace and the proposed
standard would substantially reduce or
eliminate that workplace risk;
It is technologically and
economically feasible;
It is cost effective;
It is consistent with prior
Agency action or supported by a reasoned
justification for departing from prior Agency
action;
It is supported by substantial
evidence; and
If this standard is preceded by a
national consensus standard, it is better
able to effectuate the purposes of the OSH
Act than the standard it supersedes.
[[Page 65775]]
International Union, UAW v. OSHA (LOTO II),
37 F.3d 665 (D.C. Cir. 1994); 58 FR 16612--
16616 (March 30, 1993).
OSHA has generally considered an excess
risk of 1 death per 1000 workers over a 45-
year working lifetime as clearly representing
a significant risk. Industrial Union Dept. v.
American Petroleum Institute (Benzene), 448
U.S. 607, 646 (1980); International Union v.
Pendergrass (Formaldehyde), 878 F.2d 389, 393
(D.C. Cir. 1989); Building and Construction
Trades Dept., AFL-CIO v. Brock (Asbestos),
838 F.2d 1258, 1264-65 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
A standard is technologically feasible if
the protective measures it requires already
exist, can be brought into existence with
available technology, or can be created with
technology that can reasonably be expected to
be developed. American Textile Mfrs.
Institute v. OSHA (Cotton Dust), 452 U.S.
490, 513 (1981), American Iron and Steel
Institute v. OSHA (Lead II), 939 F.2d 975,
980 (D.C. Cir. 1991).
A standard is economically feasible if
industry can absorb or pass on the costs of
compliance without threatening the industry's
long-term profitability or competitive
structure. See Cotton Dust, 452 U.S. at 530
n. 55; Lead II, 939 F.2d at 980.
A standard is cost effective if the
protective measures it requires are the least
costly of the available alternatives that
achieve the same level of protection. Cotton
Dust, 453 U.S. at 514 n. 32; International
Union, UAW v. OSHA (LOTO III), 37 F.3d 665,
668 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
All standards must be highly protective.
See 58 FR 16612, 16614-15 (March 30, 1993);
LOTO III, 37 F.3d at 669. However, health
standards must also meet the ``feasibility
mandate'' of section 6(b)(5) of the OSH Act,
29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5). Section 6(b)(5) requires
OSHA to select ``the most protective standard
consistent with feasibility'' that is needed
to reduce significant risk when regulating
health hazards. Cotton Dust, 452 U.S. at 509.
Section 6(b)(5) also directs OSHA to base
health standards on ``the best available
evidence,'' including research,
demonstrations, and experiments. 29 U.S.C.
655(b)(5). OSHA shall consider ``in addition
to the attainment of the highest degree of
health and safety protection * * * the latest
scientific data * * * feasibility and
experience gained under this and other health
and safety laws.'' Id.
Section 6(b)(7) authorizes OSHA to include
among a standard's requirements labeling,
monitoring, medical testing and other
information gathering and transmittal
provisions, as appropriate. 29 U.S.C.
655(b)(7).
Finally, whenever practical, standards
shall ``be expressed in terms of objective
criteria and of the performance desired.''
Id.
IV. Summary and Explanation
Based on the best currently available
evidence, OSHA has preliminarily concluded
that the requirements of the proposed
Ergonomics Program Standard are reasonably
necessary and appropriate to provide adequate
protection from hazards that are reasonably
likely to cause or contribute to work-related
musculoskeletal disorders.
In developing this proposed rule, OSHA has
carefully considered the large body of
scientific articles and studies, as well as
other data that OSHA has collected since the
initiation of the Agency's ergonomic efforts
more than a decade ago. In particular, OSHA
has carefully considered the large number of
pathophysiological, biomechanical and
epidemiologic studies on MSD hazards,
including those that were reviewed by NIOSH
and NRC/NAS in their comprehensive studies in
1997 and 1998, respectively. Examples of
other data OSHA has carefully considered in
developing the proposed rule include case
studies, papers, and ``best practices'' about
ergonomics programs and controls that have
been successfully implemented by a number of
establishments.
OSHA also met with more than 400
stakeholders in several informal meetings
during the development of the proposed rule,
and considered the major points raised by the
stakeholders during these meetings. In
addition, the proposed rule has undergone the
Panel review process required by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) 5 U.S.C. Chapter 8. All of the
information developed to assist the small
entity representatives (SERs) involved in the
SBREFA process, the comments of the
representatives, and the Panel's report and
recommendations to OSHA have been placed in
the rulemaking record (Ex. 23). Moreover, in
conjunction with the SBREFA process, OSHA
released a draft, on the OSHA web page, of
the proposed rule and carefully considered
stakeholder comments on that draft.
When a final standard is published, OSHA
will undertake a number of outreach and
compliance assistance activities. These will
be particularly beneficial to small
businesses. Outreach and compliance
assistance activities OSHA intends to make
available include:
Publication of booklets
summarizing the standard and providing
specific information about different ways in
which employers can comply with the standard;
Development of computer-based
materials to help small businesses identify
and respond to MSDs and MSD hazards;
Development of a Small Entity
Compliance Guide, as required by SBREFA; and
Development of a compliance
directive that answers compliance-related
questions about the standard.
In this summary and explanation for the
proposed rule, OSHA has provided a number of
examples of practices and controls that the
Agency believes will work to reduce MSDs and
exposure to MSD hazards. Although these
certainly are not the only ways employers
could comply with the proposed rule, the
discussion provides information that
employers can use or adapt for their
workplaces. OSHA has used a variety of
methods to help stakeholders understand the
proposed requirements. For example, the
summary and explanation includes a number of
tables, exhibits and figures to show data,
examples, requirements and ways to comply
with the requirements. To make the preamble
easier to use, the discussion of each
provision of the proposed rule begins with a
reprint of that provision from the proposed
rule. In addition, the summary and
explanation is included at the beginning of
the preamble so stakeholders understand what
the proposed rule would require when they
examine other sections of the preamble, such
as the information on the costs and impacts
of the proposed rule.
OSHA believes that this proposed
ergonomics program standard fulfills a
promise President Clinton and Vice-President
Gore made in the 1995 National Performance
Reveiw document, ``The New OSHA: Reinventing
Worker Safety and Health.'' That document
promised that OSHA would address the issue of
ergonomics by working with business and labor
to develop a flexible, plain-language
ergonomics standard. The standard being
proposed today reflects OSHA's commitment to
common-sense rulemaking.
[[Page 65776]]
Does This Standard Apply to Me?
(Secs. 1910.901-1910.904)
The discussion of ``Does this standard
apply to me?'' (i.e., Scope of the proposed
ergonomics program rule) is divided into
three parts. Part A explains what employers
and jobs the proposed standard covers. Part B
discusses the definitions of the covered jobs
and the other sections related to the Scope
of the standard. Part C addresses OSHA's
authority to limit the scope of the
ergonomics program standard.
A. Industries, Employers and Jobs This
Standard Covers
1. How Serious Is the Problem of Work-Related
MSDs?
The problem of occupational
musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) is serious
and widespread, and the scope of the proposed
standard is also broad, so that it will
capture a substantial portion of these MSDs.
Lost workday MSDs constitute one-third of all
job-related injuries and illnesses reported
to BLS every year.
a. MSD cases. Since 1993, the first year
BLS began reporting data on musculoskeletal
disorders, private industry employers have
reported more than 620,000 MSDs every year
that have been serious enough to result in
days away from work for the employee,
according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS). (These MSDs are referred to in this
preamble as ``lost-workday MSDs'' or ``LWD
MSDs.'') MSDs now account for one-third of
all reported LWD injuries and illnesses. The
total number of reported MSDs, lost-time and
non-lost-time MSDs combined, is much higher.
The combined total is estimated to be almost
three times higher than the number of LWD
MSDs. (BLS data indicate that about two-
thirds of all injuries and illnesses do not
involve days away from work.)
b. Annual MSD rates. In addition, BLS data
shows that annual incidence rates for LWD
MSDs are high. In 1996, LWD MSD rates were as
high as 36.58 per 1,000 full-time employees
(FTE) (SIC 45--Transportation by Air). For a
number of 2-digit industry sectors, LWD MSD
rates exceeded 10 per 1,000 FTE. And only
three industry sectors had an annual rate of
less than 1 LWD MSD per 1,000 FTE. (A
detailed discussion of LWD MSD cases and
rates by industry and occupation are
presented in the Preliminary Risk Assessment
Section VI.)
c. Lifetime MSD rates. The lifetime rates
for LWD MSDs are substantially higher. The
estimated probability that a worker will
experience at least 1 work-related MSD during
a working lifetime (45 years) ranges from 24
to 813 per 1,000 FTE, depending on the
industry sector. In addition, it is possible
for a worker to experience more than one MSD
in a working lifetime. There is evidence in
the record indicating that many employees
working in establishments without an
ergonomics program have suffered more than
one serious MSD (Exs. 26-23, 26-24, 26-25,
26-26, 26-1263, 26-1370). For example, a
number of employees have had multiple
surgeries for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS).
The expected number of MSDs that will occur
during a working lifetime among 1,000 FTE
workers who begin working in an industry at
the same time ranges from 24 to 1,646, for
various general industry sectors (see Section
VII, Significance of Risk).
d. MSD costs. Each year MSDs alone account
for about $15-20 billion in workers'
compensation costs, which is roughly $1 of
every $3 spent for workers' compensation. The
average costs for MSD cases are higher than
those for other injuries. For example, the
average per case costs for carpal tunnel
syndrome cases are $8,070, which is more than
double the $4,000 average per case costs for
all other injuries and illnesses (Exs. 26-43,
26-1286). According to Liberty Mutual
Insurance Company, low-back pain is the most
prevalent and costly work-related MSD in the
nation. Low-back pain MSDs account for 15% of
all Liberty Mutual workers' compensation
claims and 23% of the costs of these claims
(Ex. 26-54).
e. MSDs widespread. Data and other
evidence show that the problem of work-
related MSDs is widespread. Stakeholders have
told OSHA that MSDs and MSD hazards are found
in every industry in the nation (Ex. 3-59, 3-
183, 3-184, 3-217). And each year employers
in every industry report substantial numbers
of LWD MSDs. In 1997, more than 626,000 LWD
MSDs were reported in private industry, about
567,000 of which were in general industry.
(See Section VI, Preliminary Risk Assessment,
for a more detailed discussion of the number
and rates of MSDs reported to the Bureau of
Labor Statistics.)
2. Why and How Is OSHA Limiting the Scope of
the Proposed Ergonomics Program Standard?
Although these and other data indicate
that the problem of MSDs is serious and
widespread, for several reasons OSHA believes
it is prudent to proceed with the ergonomics
rulemaking in phases. Regulating workplace
exposure to MSD hazards presents special
problems. In particular, the analysis and
control of MSD hazards involves complex
issues, because most often several ergonomic
risk factors combine to create an MSD hazard,
and these risk factors occur in many
different combinations. The multi-factoral
nature of MSD hazards also makes the
development of a rule to address these
hazards more complex, because it requires
more Agency resources for the rulemaking, for
additional analyses, and for materials for
effective outreach and training.
OSHA applied two general principles in
determining the scope of the first phase of
the Ergonomics Program Standard. OSHA decided
to focus on those areas where: (1) The
problems are severe, and (2) the solutions
are well-understood.
These principles are consistent with
statutory factors governing OSHA rulemakings,
including the criteria in section 6(g) of the
OSH Act that OSHA must consider when setting
rulemaking priorities. 29 U.S.C. 655(g). They
are also consistent with the feasibility and
substantial evidence requirements in the OSH
Act. 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5).
Applying these principles, OSHA made two
basic decisions on the scope of the first
phase of the Ergonomics Program Standard.
OSHA first decided to limit the proposed
standard to general industry because that is
where the Agency has the most data and
evidence on ergonomics solutions. And OSHA
decided to focus on three areas within
general industry where the problem is likely
to be severe.
a. General industry. The vast majority of
the large body of evidence and data showing
that ergonomics programs and control
interventions are successful in reducing MSDs
pertains to general industry. (Exs. 26-1, 26-
37). For example, the vast majority of
studies reviewed in the NIOSH and NRC/NAS
reports pertain to general industry. Almost
all of the studies on the effectiveness of
ergonomics programs and control interventions
focused on general industry (see Section VI,
Preliminary Risk Assessment). The vast
majority of the success stories OSHA has
gathered on the accomplishments of employers
with ergonomics programs pertain to general
industry employers. (See discussion of Job
Hazard Analysis and Control below in this
section, and the Preliminary Economic
Analysis, for control scenarios and success
stories.)
[[Page 65777]]
Evidence on ergonomic solutions from
OSHA's own experience dealing with MSD
hazards is also primarily derived from
general industry. For example, all of OSHA's
ergonomics enforcement experience under the
General Duty Clause is in general industry.
This includes more than 550 uncontested cases
and 13 corporate settlement agreements
covering 198 facilities.
Information about ergonomic solutions that
OSHA has derived from the hundreds of
ergonomics consultations the Agency pertains
primarily to general industry. OSHA's
ergonomics guidance and outreach efforts have
been directed to general industry because
most of the data and information are there.
For example, the ergonomics program
management guidelines OSHA published in 1990
focused on the red meat industry (Ex. 26-3).
OSHA's other major ergonomics initiative
targeted the nursing homes industry, a
service industry within the general industry
sector.
OSHA recognizes that MSD problems are also
serious in the construction, maritime and
agricultural industries. In 1996 alone,
employers in these industries reported more
than 60,000 LWD MSD. In the Construction--
Special Trades industry sector (SIC 17), more
than 35,000 LWD MSDs were reported, and the
incidence rate was 11.57 per 1,000 FTE. OSHA
intends to conduct rulemaking for those
sectors at a later date. However, at this
time the Agency has less well-developed data
on ergonomics solutions in the construction,
maritime and agriculture industries, and
these industries have unique characteristics
that warrant separate rulemakings. (Part C
discusses the characteristics in those
industries.)
b. Covered jobs. Within general industry,
OSHA is applying the proposed rule to the
following three areas where the problem is
especially likely to be severe:
Manufacturing production jobs;
Manual handling jobs requiring
forceful exertions; and
Jobs where ``OSHA recordable''
MSDs meeting the screening criteria are
reported.
Manufacturing and manual handling jobs.
Data and other evidence in the record
indicate that in these jobs MSD hazards are
especially likely to be present. (In the
proposed rule MSD hazards are defined as
``physical work activities and/or physical
work conditions in which risk factors are
present, that are reasonably likely to cause
or contribute to a covered MSD.''). BLS data
and evidence in the record indicate that
there is a heavy concentration of reported
MSDs and MSD hazards in manual handling and
manufacturing jobs. These jobs account for
about 60% of all reported MSDs that are
severe enough to have resulted in days away
from work, even though manufacturing and
manual handling jobs employ less than 28% of
the general industry workforce, according to
BLS.
For many occupations involving
manufacturing or manual handling, MSD rates
are high. In 1996, LWD MSD rates for
occupations involving manufacturing and
manual handling were as high as 30.4 and 42.4
per 1,000 FTE, respectively. For example,
among nursing aides, orderlies and
attendants, the LWD MSD rate was 31.6 per
1,000, and about 58,400 cases were reported.
(For the entire health services industry
sector, which involves a variety of patient
handling tasks, more than 103,000 LWD MSDs
were reported, or almost 15% of all private
industry cases.)
The fact that manufacturing production and
manual handling jobs account for the largest
share of workers' compensation costs is
another indication that there is likely to be
a high concentration of MSD hazards in those
jobs. MSDs of the back are one of the most
costly workplace injuries and account for a
very large percentage of permanent
occupational disability cases and costs. As
mentioned above, according to Liberty Mutual
Insurance Company (1988, Ex. 26-54), MSDs of
the back are the most prevalent and costly
work-related MSD in the nation.
Other general industry jobs in which
covered MSDs occur. In general industry jobs
other than manufacturing and manual handling,
exposure to MSD hazards is more variable,
depending on particular work activities and
conditions. There are, however, a very large
number of MSDs reported outside manufacturing
and manual handling jobs. An employer's
report of a work-related MSD that is serious
enough to result in work restrictions, days
away from work or medical treatment, is a
logical indicator that MSD hazards are likely
to be present in a job. OSHA is therefore
extending coverage to jobs in which covered
MSDs occur. This scope of coverage will reach
jobs in which MSD hazards are likely to be
present while excluding other jobs unless and
until a covered MSD occurs in them.
Evidence of the severity of the MSD
problem outside of manufacturing and manual
handling includes the following. In 1996,
about 230,000 LWD MSDs were reported in jobs
other than manufacturing and manual handling.
The annual LWD MSD rates that year exceeded 1
per 1,000 in all but three general industry
sectors that typically do not involve
manufacturing or manual handling jobs.
A significant percentage of carpal tunnel
syndrome (CTS) cases, the type of MSD
generally requiring the most extensive
recovery time, is found in jobs other than
manufacturing or manual handling. In 1996,
CTS cases resulted in the highest median
number of days away from work for any injury
or illness: 25 days for CTS compared to 5
days for all injuries and illnesses combined.
That year, more than 57% of lost-workday CTS
cases involved more than 20 days away from
work, and more than 42% of all lost-workday
CTS cases involved more than 30 days away
from work. For amputations and fractures, 32%
and 36% of cases, respectively, involved more
than 30 days away from work.
In conclusion, although the proposed rule
applies to only three categories within
general industry, it will capture those jobs
in which 90% of LWD MSDs have been reported
in recent years in private industry. And
because there are so many well-recognized
ergonomic solutions to MSD problems in
general industry, OSHA believes the proposed
standard should substantially reduce MSD
hazards as well as the number and severity of
work-related MSDs in covered industries. OSHA
requests comment on the scope of the proposed
rule, particularly on whether and to what
extent the scope of the rule should be
expanded or reduced.
B. Definitions of Manufacturing Jobs, Manual
Handling Jobs and Jobs With MSDs and
Explanation of Other Scope Sections
Part B discusses the Scope sections of the
proposed rule. The first section explains the
definitions of the jobs the proposed rule
covers: manufacturing jobs, manual handling
jobs, and jobs with covered MSDs. The second
section discusses the other sections of the
Scope of the proposed rule (Secs. 1910.901-
1910.904).
1. Definitions of Covered Jobs
The proposed rule is job-based, and the
scope of the proposed rule is defined in
terms of jobs: manufacturing jobs, manual
handling jobs, and jobs in which an employee
has experienced a covered MSD. The proposed
rule applies
[[Page 65778]]
to employers who have any of these jobs, but
only to the extent that their workplaces have
such jobs. Where employers do not have manual
handling or manufacturing jobs that have
given rise to a covered MSD, the Ergonomics
Program Standard would not apply at all.
a. Why is OSHA using a job-based approach
for defining the scope of the proposed rule?
OSHA is proposing a job-based approach for
defining the scope and application of the
ergonomics standard because this approach
focuses on areas where MSD hazards are likely
to be present, is relatively easy to apply,
and appears to be more cost-effective than
other approaches. OSHA believes employers
should be able to determine whether the
standard applies to them without having to do
a job hazard analysis for all jobs in their
workplace. In addition, the three job
categories addressed by the scope should
include most jobs in which MSD hazards are
present.
Easy to apply. The three job categories
OSHA is proposing to cover should help
employers quickly focus on the areas where
they need to be looking for ergonomic
problems. Employers should know whether they
have manufacturing production jobs or jobs
where employees are regularly handling heavy
loads. In addition, it should not be
difficult for employers to determine whether
they have OSHA recordable MSDs, since most of
them are already familiar with recording
work-related illnesses and injuries in order
to comply with the OSHA recordkeeping rule,
29 CFR Part 1904. Even employers who do not
keep OSHA 200 logs should not have difficulty
identifying whether any of their employees
has been injured to the extent that they
require medical treatment, restricted work,
transfer to an alternative duty job, or time
away from work to recuperate.
``Proxy'' for MSD hazards. These three job
categories are appropriate because each is an
accurate and reasonable proxy for an
increased risk of exposure to ergonomic
hazards that are reasonably likely to cause
or contribute to serious physical harm, that
is, to a covered MSD. For example,
manufacturing production jobs frequently
involve repetition of the same task
throughout the workday, without much
variation. A large body of evidence, which is
discussed in greater detail in the Health
Effects section (Section V), shows that
employees who have frequent and/or prolonged
exposure to highly repetitive motions
(particularly when they are carried out in
combination with high force and/or awkward
postures) have a much higher risk of
developing an MSD as compared to employees
with lower levels of exposure (See e.g.,
NIOSH, 1997, Ex. 26-1; Bernard, 1993, Ex. 26-
439; Higgs et al. 1992, Ex. 26-1232; Burt et
al. 1990, Ex. 26-698; deKrom et al. 1990, Ex.
26-41; Silverstein et al. 1987, Ex. 26-34;
Armstrong et al. 1987, Ex. 26-48). The high
incidence rates in manufacturing production
occupations confirm this. OSHA is not saying
that all manufacturing jobs present MSD
hazards. OSHA is saying that manufacturing
jobs present an increased risk of such
hazards, and it is therefore logical to cover
them in the proposed standard.
The same is true for manual handling jobs.
Manual handling jobs typically involve
regular lifting of heavy loads. A large body
of evidence shows that doing forceful
exertions repeatedly or for a prolonged
period of time significantly increases the
risk of developing an MSD of the back (See
e.g., NIOSH, 1997, Ex. 26-1; Holmstrom et
al., 1992, Ex. 26-36; Punnett et al., 1991,
Ex. 26-36; Liles et al., 1984, Ex. 26-33).
Occupations and industries where these
hazards are present have very high LWD MSD
rates and a large number of cases. As
mentioned above, in 1996, nurses aides,
orderlies and health care attendants, who
spend much of their time doing patient
lifting tasks, had an annual LWD MSD rate of
31.6 per 1,000 FTE, and the health services
industry alone accounted for almost 15% of
all LWD MSD cases. Finally, the report of an
MSD that is serious enough to warrant
recording on the OSHA 200 log is a logical
indicator that MSD hazards may be present,
especially since assessing the work-
relatedness of the MSD for the purposes of
this standard involves a determination by the
employer about whether the MSD has a
connection to the activities and conditions
of the job.
More practical and less-burdensome.
Although not a perfect indicator of the
presence of MSD hazards, reliance on the
these job categories to determine the scope
of the proposed standard is more practical
than other approaches. Using this approach,
employers do not have to do a job hazard
analysis of their facility or use a checklist
to screen all of their jobs, and do not have
to measure the total weights lifted by an
employee or the number of repetitions made,
to determine whether the standard applies to
them. Thus, the job-based approach does not
require employers to spend much time and
resources reviewing the standard to determine
whether they are covered or reviewing jobs
where no hazard exists. OSHA believes that
determining in the first instance whether the
standard applies should require nothing more
of employers than a common sense
determination as to whether they have
manufacturing productions jobs, forceful
manual handling jobs, or jobs with OSHA
recordable MSDs. OSHA anticipates that
employers should be able to make this
determination based on existing knowledge
rather than on formal job analysis.
OSHA agrees with stakeholder and SBREFA
Panel comments to the effect that the scope
should be easy to understand. Accordingly, to
help employers understand the scope of the
rulemaking, the definitions of manufacturing
and manual handling jobs include examples of
jobs that would typically be included in and
excluded from the definition (see
Sec. 1910.945).
b. What about other methods for defining
scope? OSHA believes the job-based approach
is superior to other ways of defining
coverage, because, on balance, it is the most
accurate of the cost-effective approaches to
reducing MSD hazards. OSHA presents
alternative approaches below and requests
comment on this issue.
Preliminary job hazard analysis. OSHA
considered requiring all general industry
employers to do an initial job hazard
analysis for all jobs in the workplace to
identify those jobs where MSD hazards are
present. That approach is similar to the
approach OSHA uses in other health standards.
In those standards, employers make an initial
assessment about the presence of hazardous
substances in the workplace (i.e., ``Do I
have operations that involve formaldehyde in
my workplace?''). Requiring a preliminary job
hazard analysis to screen for ergonomic
hazards is analogous to this initial
assessment for toxic substances. Although
conducting a preliminary analysis is the most
thorough and accurate way to initially
determine whether MSD hazards are present, it
is more resource-intensive for employers. To
the extent that doing an initial job hazard
analysis would require employers to expend
considerable resources and efforts where no
MSD hazards are present, it would not be
cost-effective. In contrast, the practical
design of the proposed job-based approach
allows employers to make common sense
determinations about whether the proposed
rule applies, rather than requiring that the
determination be based on a formal job hazard
analysis. At the same time, since evidence in
the record shows that MSD hazards are likely
to be present in these jobs and that these
three categories account for such a large
proportion of all
[[Page 65779]]
reported MSDs, using the three job categories
is a reasonably accurate approach.
Specification. OSHA also could have used a
specification approach in the proposed rule,
defining coverage by specific measurements
such as weight limits, number of repetitions,
or number of hours performing a certain job
or task demand. A number of studies have
identified exposure-response relationships in
particular circumstances (Holmstrom et al.
1992, Ex. 26-36 ; Punnett et al. 1991, Ex.
26-39; de Krom et al. 1990, Ex. 26-41; Liles
et. al. 1984, Ex. 26-33), and a number of
models exist for equating safe levels of
exposure (e.g., NIOSH Lifting Index, Ex. 26-
572; Snook ``Push-Pull'' tables, Ex. 26-
1008).
Specification approaches, however, are
more likely to be overinclusive or
underinclusive. See International Union, UAW
v. OSHA (LOTO II), 37 F.3d 665 (D.C. Cir.
1994). For example, if the proposed rule were
to cover any task that required lifting a
certain weight (e.g., more than 40 pounds),
the proposed rule might not cover a number of
very hazardous lifting tasks in which MSDs
are reasonably likely to occur. This is
because the weight limit might not adequately
consider the impact of other factors on the
force required to complete a lift. To
illustrate, a task requiring an employee to
lift 40 pounds may be safe if twisting,
bending or reaching is not involved, but it
could be unsafe if long horizontal reaches or
bending is required.
On the other hand, a proposed rule that
defined coverage in terms of a weight limit
that takes other ergonomic risk factors into
account could be overinclusive because the
recommended lift weight could vary greatly
with each lifting task. For example, a
lifting task that does not involve any risk
factors other than force would be treated the
same as a lift involving many risk factors.
However, to expand a specification approach
to make it more precise (i.e., so that it was
not underinclusive or overinclusive) would
necessarily make the approach more complex.
It would require employers to determine what
risk factors are present in order to
determine their impact on the weight limit,
and thus would essentially require a basic
job hazard analysis simply to make a decision
about whether they are subject to the rule.
Checklist. OSHA could also have used a
checklist approach for defining coverage
under the proposed ergonomics standard. A
simple checklist has advantages: it can be
administered by a person with limited
training and is simple and fast to
administer. However, some checklists are not
designed to capture complex situations and
thus might be underinclusive. For example, a
simple checklist that omits questions that
are important to a particular job might
erroneously exclude a hazardous job or treat
it as no more hazardous than another job. On
the other hand, making a checklist more
thorough and accurate would make it harder to
use and more costly and complex.
Industry. Finally, OSHA could have defined
the coverage of the standard purely by
industry (i.e., industries with the highest
MSD rates), as some stakeholders have
recommended. For several reasons, however,
OSHA believes that this approach would not be
as accurate as the proposed approach in
focusing the standard on areas where the
problem is severe. Regardless of the industry
in which employees work, they face a
significant risk of material harm when they
are exposed to physical work activities and
conditions that are reasonably likely to
cause or contribute to a covered MSD. For
example, in an industry where manual handling
is rarely performed or is restricted to a
small group of employees, the overall
incidence rate for the industry is likely to
be low. But even if the overall industry
incidence rate is low, those employees who do
perform manual handling and are exposed to
MSD hazards are at significant risk of
material health impairment. Conversely, an
industry-based approach would result in low-
hazard jobs in a covered industry being
included, while employees performing
identical jobs in other industries would be
excluded. Defining coverage by industry,
therefore, would make the standard both
underinclusive and overinclusive.
In addition, using industry incidence
rates is not necessarily an accurate measure
of the prevalence of MSD hazards. For
example, even where large numbers of MSDs are
reported in an industry, the rate may still
be low because the industry employs so many
workers, some of whom are not exposed to the
same degree to MSD hazards. In part, this is
due to the fact that available industry
classifications were established for purposes
other than occupational safety and health
analysis. Therefore, the courts recognized
that such classifications ``appear
essentially irrelevant'' to the task of
regulating hazards. LOTO II, 37 F.3rd at 670.
In the remainder of this discussion, OSHA
will describe the specific provisions of the
proposed standard that deal with Scope.
c. Manufacturing jobs. Section 1910.901
Does this standard apply to me?
This standard applies to employers in
general industry whose employees work in
manufacturing jobs or manual handling jobs,
or report musculoskeletal disorders
(``MSDs'') that meet the criteria of this
standard. This standard applies to the
following jobs:
(a) Manufacturing jobs. Manufacturing jobs
are production jobs in which employees
perform the physical work activities of
producing a product and in which these
activities make up a significant amount of
their worktime;
There are many kinds of jobs in
manufacturing firms (e.g., production,
professional and technical, maintenance,
repair, sales, etc.), some of which do not
have exposure to MSD hazards. The proposed
rule focuses on manufacturing jobs involving
the physical work activities of production
because these jobs present an increased risk
of MSD hazards.
Production jobs. The manufacturing jobs
the proposed rule covers are production jobs
in manufacturing, those that directly involve
production work tasks; they are the hands on
jobs of processing, assembling, or
fabricating finished or semi-finished
products (durable and non-durable).
Production work involves the range of tasks
from handling raw materials or components
through packaging the final product to leave
the production facility. Manufacturing
production jobs are frequently referred to as
assembly line, production line, paced work,
piecework, or factory jobs.
Evidence in the record indicates that MSDs
reported in manufacturing are heavily
concentrated in production jobs. All of the
manufacturing occupations, as defined by the
BLS, with high LWD MSD rates are production
jobs. In 1996, for instance, the
manufacturing jobs with the highest LWD MSD
rates were the following production
occupations:
Machine feeders 34.6 per 1,000 FTE
and offbearers
Punching and 30.4 per 1,000 FTE
stamping machine operators
Sawing machine 18.9 per 1,000 FTE
operators
Furnace, kiln, 18.0 per 1,000 FTE
oven operators (except
food)
Grinding, 17.9 per 1,000 FTE
abrading, polishing
machine operators
Assemblers 16.2 per 1,000 FTE
[[Page 65780]]
The rate for each of these manufacturing
production occupations substantially exceeded
and in some cases was 5 times as high as the
rate for all manufacturing injuries and
illnesses combined (10.3 per 1,000 FTE).
These rates were also more than 4 times
higher than the LWD rate for all injuries and
illnesses combined (2.5 per 1,000 FTE).
MSDs reported in manufacturing are heavily
concentrated in production jobs because these
are the jobs that are likely to involve
significant exposure to the combinations of
ergonomic risk factors that are associated
with significantly elevated risks of harm.
Studies show that production work tasks,
which frequently involve highly repetitive
tasks and are often combined with high force
and awkward postures, are the jobs in
manufacturing that are most closely
associated with significantly-elevated risks
of harm (See e.g., NIOSH, 1997, Ex. 26-1;
Bernard et al. 1993, Ex. 26-439; Higgs et al.
1992, Ex. 26-1232; Silverstein et al. 1987,
Ex. 26-34; Armstrong et al. 1987, Ex. 26-48).
Duration. The manufacturing production
jobs that the proposed standard covers are
those in which employees perform production
tasks for a ``significant amount'' of their
worktime. In general, significant amount
means that performing production tasks is a
key or characteristic element of the
employee's job. It will probably be obvious
that employees are performing production
tasks for a significant amount of their
worktime. The purpose of the significant
amount of the worktime aspect of the
definition of manufacturing jobs is to
reinforce that the definition is intended to
include jobs in which production work is
characteristic of the job, while excluding
jobs in which an employer might, on rare
occasions, perform production tasks. This is
illustrated by the examples of jobs that are
and are not typically included in the
definition (see discussion of Sec. 1910.945).
Evidence in the record, including that
discussed in the Health Effects section
(Section V), indicates that MSD hazards may
be present where production work is performed
for a significant amount of time. Job tasks
that require the use of the same muscles or
motions for long periods of time increase the
likelihood of both localized and general
fatigue. In general, the longer the period of
continuous exertion, the longer the recovery
or rest time required (NIOSH , 1997, Ex. 26-
1). Studies show that one of the biggest
contributors to the occurrence of MSDs in
manufacturing production jobs is lack of
adequate recovery time (Exs. 26-1, 26-1275).
Inadequate recovery time may be the result of
the length of time work tasks are performed
(deKrom et al. 1990, Ex. 26-102), or the
frequency with which job cycles are
performed.
For example, the risk of developing carpal
tunnel syndrome (CTS) increases steadily with
increases in daily exposure to flexed or
extended wrist postures (deKrom et al. 1990.
Ex. 26-102). The odds ratio for wrist
disorders for a group of employees exposed to
flexed wrist postures between 8-19 hours a
week (i.e., an average of 1 to <4 hours per
day) was 3, while that for employees exposed
to these postures for between 20-40 hours a
week (i.e., an average of 4 to 10 hours per
day) was 9 (deKrom et al. 1990, Ex. 26-102).
Other studies reach the same general
conclusions. Researchers who reviewed the
literature found that exposure to a
combination of repetitive motions and either
high forces, awkward postures or vibrating
tools, or to various combinations of risk
factors, for more than 4 hours a day puts
workers at high risk of developing MSDs (Exs.
26-1163, 26-1352). (The relationship between
duration of exposure to repetitive tasks and
the occurrence of MSDs is discussed in
greater detail in the Section V, Health
Effects, of this preamble.) Although adverse
effects have been reported following
extremely high levels of exposure for very
short durations (Hagberg, 1981, Ex. 26-955),
studies show that exposure to workplace risk
factors for less than 2 hours normally
permits sufficient recovery time for the
muscles, nerves and tendons in most workers
to prevent chronic adverse health effects
(Punnett et al., 1991, Ex. 26-39; Punnet,
1998, Ex. 26-38)).
To clarify further the definition of
manufacturing job, the proposed rule includes
a list of examples of jobs that typically are
included in and excluded from the proposed
definition. This list is intended to be a
practical guide about the kinds of jobs that
OSHA intends to include as manufacturing
production jobs. Table IV-1 includes this
list:
[[Page 65781]]
Table IV-1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXAMPLES OF JOBS THAT TYPICALLY ARE NOT
EXAMPLES OF JOBS THAT TYPICALLY ARE MANUFACTURING JOBS MANUFACTURING JOBS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assembly line jobs producing: Administrative jobs
Products (durable and non-durable) Clerical jobs
Subassemblies Supervisory/managerial jobs that do
Components and parts not involve production work
Paced assembly jobs (assembling and disassembling) Warehouse jobs in manufacturing
Piecework assembly jobs (assembling and disassembling) facilities
and other time critical assembly jobs Technical and professional jobs
Product inspection jobs (e.g., testers, weighers) Analysts and programmers
Meat, poultry, and fish cutting and packing Sales and marketing
Machine operation Procurement/purchasing jobs
Machine loading/unloading Customer service jobs
Apparel manufacturing jobs Mail room jobs
Food preparation assembly line jobs Security guards
Commercial baking jobs Cafeteria jobs
Cabinetmaking Grounds keeping jobs (e.g.,
Tire building gardeners)
Jobs in power plant in manufacturing
facility
Janitorial
Maintenance
Logging jobs
Production of food products (e.g.,
bakery, candy and other confectionary
products) primarily for direct sale on the
premises to household customers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Manual handling jobs.
(b) Manual handling jobs. Manual handling
jobs are jobs in which employees perform
forceful lifting/lowering, pushing/pulling,
or carrying. Manual handling jobs include
only those jobs in which forceful manual
handling is a core element of the employee's
job;
Note: Although each manufacturing and
manual handling job must be considered on the
basis of its actual physical work activities
and conditions, the definitions section of
this standard (Sec. 1910.945) includes a list
of jobs that are typically included in and
excluded from these definitions.
The second group of jobs OSHA is proposing
to cover are manual handling jobs. Manual
handling is the forceful movement (i.e.,
lifting, lowering, pushing, pulling,
carrying) of materials, equipment, objects,
people or animals. The movement may be done
by hand, as in lifting an object or pushing
hand carts or pallets. The movement can also
be done with the help of automated equipment
or aids, such as forklift trucks, storage and
retrieval systems, conveyors, and mechanical
lift devices; such assisted handling would be
considered manual handling as long as the
movement still required forceful exertions by
the employee.
The vast majority of MSDs reported in
manual handling jobs are back disorders
(i.e., overexertions). For example, the jobs
with the highest rate of time-loss injuries
due to overexertion are those in nursing and
personal care facilities, where employees are
required to do frequent patient handling and
lifting. Manual handling tasks are also
associated with back pain in 25-70% of all
worker's compensation claims (Snook and
Ciriello, 1991, Ex. 26-1008; Cust et al.,
1972, Ex. 26-1194). There is also strong and
consistent evidence that MSDs of the lower
back are associated with work-related lifting
and forceful exertions (see Section V below).
Most employees handle and move objects
occasionally at the workplace. A number of
stakeholders have expressed concern that the
ergonomics standard would apply to any
lifting, lowering, pushing, pulling or
carrying tasks (collectively referred to as
lifting) that employees do. That is not
OSHA's intention, and the proposed definition
of manual handling jobs clarifies that. Table
IV-2 contains the examples of jobs from the
definition that typically would be included
in and excluded from the proposed rule:
Forceful lifting. Manual handling jobs are
defined to include only those jobs that
require forceful manual handling tasks. Force
is the mechanical effort required to carry
out a specific movement (NIOSH Elements of
Ergonomics Programs, 1997, Ex. 26-2).
Forceful exertions place higher loads on the
muscles, tendons, ligaments, and joints
(NIOSH 1997, Ex. 26-1; see also section V,
Health Effects, of this preamble. Increasing
the force required to lift a load also means
increasing body demands (i.e., greater muscle
exertion is necessary to sustain the
increased effort), and imposing greater
compressive forces on the spine (Marras et
al. 1995). As force increases, muscles
fatigue more quickly. Prolonged or recurrent
exertions of this type can also lead to MSDs
where there is not adequate time for rest or
recovery (NIOSH 1997, Ex. 26-1).
Studies indicate employees who perform
forceful manual handling tasks face a
significant risk of developing an MSD (See
Health Effects, Chapter V). The majority of
epidemiologic studies (13 of 18 studies) in
the 1997 NIOSH review show that odds ratios
are higher--in the range of 5.2 to 11--for
employees who have high exposure to force and
lifting. (These results are consistent with
biomechanical and other laboratory evidence
regarding the effects of lifting and dynamic
motion on back tissues.) NIOSH also found
that the high odds ratios for employees with
high exposure were ``unlikely to be caused by
confounding or other effects of lifestyle
covariates'' (NIOSH 1997, Ex. 26-1).
[[Page 65782]]
Table IV-2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXAMPLES OF JOBS/TASKS THAT TYPICALLY ARE NOT
EXAMPLES OF JOBS THAT TYPICALLY ARE MANUAL HANDLING JOBS MANUAL HANDLING JOBS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patient handling jobs (e.g., nurses aides, orderlies, Administrative jobs
nurse assistants) Clerical jobs
Package sorting, handling and delivering Supervisory/managerial jobs that do
Hand packing and packaging not involve manual handling tasks or work
Baggage handling (e.g., porters, airline baggage Technical and professional jobs
handlers, airline check-in) Jobs involving unexpected manual
Warehouse manual picking and placing handling
Beverage delivering and handling Lifting object or person in
Stock handling and bagging emergency situation (e.g., lifting or
Grocery store bagging carrying injured co-worker)
Grocery store stocking Jobs involving manual handling that
Garbage collecting is so infrequent it does not occur on any
predictable basis (e.g., filling in on a job
due to unexpected circumstances, replacing
empty water bottle, lifting of box of copier
paper)
Jobs involving manual handling that
is done only on an infrequent ``as needed''
basis (e.g., assisting with delivery of
large or heavy package, filling in once for
an absent employee)
Jobs involving minor manual handling
that is incidental to the job (e.g.,
carrying briefcase to meeting, carrying
baggage on work travel)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Core element. Manual handling jobs are
jobs in which manual handling tasks are a
core element of the employee's job. A core
element of a job refers to the tasks or
physical work activities that are a key
function of a job. Manual handling tasks may
be a core element because they are a basic or
essential function of a job. They may be a
core element because they are frequently
repeated or performed for a period of time.
The following are examples of jobs in which
manual handling would typically be considered
a core element:
Jobs where the basic purpose is
to lift loads. These types of jobs include
furniture moving, package and product
delivery, and airline baggage handling;
Jobs where lifting or pushing/
pulling is an essential function of the job.
Patient lifting, for example, is an essential
element of nurse aide or health aide jobs and
pushing is an essential element for
orderlies;
Jobs where manual handling is a
regular element of the job cycle. These types
of jobs typically include bringing supplies
to a production workstation, loading machines
for processing, and moving partially
assembled products to the next workstation or
onto or off a conveyor;
Jobs where forceful exertions
comprise a significant amount of the
employee's work time. These jobs typically
include warehousing, stocking and garbage
collection;
Jobs where employees end up doing
manual handling on a routine or regular basis
even if manual handing is not included in
their job description. These jobs typically
include unloading supplies or products that
are delivered on a regular basis.
Including the concept of core element in
the definition of covered manual handling
jobs serves several purposes. First, it helps
to ensure that employer attention is focused
on those manual handling jobs for which data
indicate that MSD hazards are most likely to
be present: manual handling jobs with high
MSD rates and numbers of cases. Studies
indicate that manual handling jobs in which
employees do forceful exertions repeatedly or
for an appreciable period of time are
associated with elevated risks of harm. For
example, studies show a positive association
between duration of exposure to workplace
risk factors during manual handling and back
pain (Wild 1995, Exs. 26-1104, 26-1105, 26-
1106; Liles et al. 1984, Ex. 26-33). Studies
also show that odds ratios for back MSDs
increase significantly as daily duration of
exposure to forceful manual handling
increases (Holmstrom et al. 1992, Ex. 26-36;
Punnett et al. 1991, Ex. 26-39; Liles et al.
1984, Ex. 26-33). Other studies indicate that
the rate and duration of continuous lifting
significantly reduces the worker's lifting
capacity, making the worker more susceptible
to MSDs associated with lifting (Snook and
Ciriello, 1991, Ex. 26-1008).
Second, OSHA used core element rather than
a duration component because, while duration
and frequency play a role in determining
whether the manual handling job imposes a
risk of harm, studies show that employees can
be at risk of developing an MSD at relatively
short durations of lifting if the tasks
involve extreme force (Hagberg 1981, Ex. 26-
955) (see Section V of the preamble).
Finally, core element is a reasonable,
shorthand way to inform employers that OSHA
does not intend to cover manual handling that
is so isolated or so incidental to the job
that it is not reasonably likely to lead to
an MSD. These types of jobs are not
associated with high numbers or rates of
MSDs.
OSHA requests information and comments
about whether the Ergonomics Program Standard
should include manual handling jobs. If so,
how should manual handling jobs be defined?
Should the definition use a flexible approach
or be based on quantitative methods such as
the NIOSH Lifting Equation?
c. Jobs with MSDs.
(c) Jobs with a musculoskeletal disorder.
Jobs with an MSD are those jobs in which an
employee reports an MSD that meets all of
these criteria:
(1) The MSD is reported after [the
effective date];
(2) The MSD is an OSHA recordable MSD, or
one that would be recordable if you were
required to keep OSHA injury and illness
records; and
(3) The MSD also meets the screening
criteria in Sec. 1910.902.
[[Page 65783]]
Note to Sec. 1910.901(c): In this standard,
the term covered MSD refers to a
musculoskeletal disorder that meets the
requirements of this section.
The final group of jobs this standard
proposes to cover are those in which an
employee reports a musculoskeletal disorder
(MSD).
What is an MSD? Musculoskeletal disorders
are injuries or disorders of the:
Muscles
Tendons
Joints
Spinal discs
Nerves
Ligaments
Cartilage
MSDs develop as a result of repeated
exposure to ergonomic risk factors. The
proposed rule covers the following ergonomics
risk factors:
Force (including dynamic motions)
Repetition
Awkward or static postures
Contact stress
Vibration
Cold temperatures
MSDs covered by the proposed standard do not
include injuries to muscles, nerves, tendons,
ligaments, or other musculoskeletal tissues
that are caused by accidents such as slips,
trips, falls, being struck by objects, or
other similar accidents.
Table IV-3 contains examples of MSDs that
may develop as a result of exposure to the
ergonomic risk factors the proposed rule
covers:
Table IV-3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXAMPLES OF MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS THE ERGONOMICS PROGRAM STANDARD
WOULD COVER IF CONDITIONS OF THE STANDARD ARE MET
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carpal tunnel syndrome
Epicondylitis
Herniated spinal discs
Tarsal tunnel syndrome
Raynaud's phenomenon
Sciatica
Ganglion cyst
Tendinitis
Rotator cuff tendinitis
DeQuervain's disease
Carpet layers knee
Trigger finger
Low back pain
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The presence of MSD signs and/or symptoms
is usually the first indication that an
employee may be developing an MSD. The
proposed rule defines both terms.
MSD signs are objective physical findings
that an employee may be developing an MSD.
MSD symptoms, on the other hand, are
physical indications that an employee may be
developing an MSD. Symptoms can vary in
severity, depending on the amount of exposure
to MSD hazards. Often symptoms appear
gradually, for example, as muscle fatigue or
pain at work that disappears during rest.
Usually symptoms become more severe as
exposure continues. For example, tingling in
the fingers that formerly occurred only when
the employee was doing a repetitive task
subsequently continues even when the employee
is off work or at rest. If the employee
continues to be exposed, symptoms may
increase to the point that they interfere
with performing the job. For example, as
exposure continues the employee's grip
strength (e.g., ability to hold or grip an
object or exert pressure with the hand) may
decrease to the point where the employee has
difficulty holding tools or gripping objects.
Finally, pain may become so severe that the
employee is unable to perform physical work
activities). Table IV-4 includes examples of
MSD signs and symptoms that OSHA is proposing
to cover in this standard:
Table IV-4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXAMPLES OF MSD SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
MSD SIGNS MSD SYMPTOMS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deformity Numbness
Decreased grip strength Tingling
Decreased range of motion Pain
Loss of function Burning
Stiffness
Cramping
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What MSDs does this standard cover? The
proposed rule does not cover all MSDs, and
thus a report of an MSD would not
automatically require the employer to set up
an ergonomics program or to provide MSD
management. The proposed rule only covers
those MSDs that meet all of the following
requirements:
They are ``OSHA recordable''
MSDs, and
They are reported after the
effective date of the standard, and
They meet the screening criteria
in Sec. 1910.902 (i.e., physical work
activities and/or conditions are reasonably
likely to cause the type of MSD reported and
are a core element of the job and/or make up
a significant amount of the employee's
worktime).
OSHA recordable MSDs are those that meet
the recording criteria of the OSHA
recordkeeping rule, 29 CFR Part 1904. These
MSDs must be recorded on the OSHA injury and
illness logs, or are MSDs that would have to
be recorded if the employer were obligated to
keep such logs.
The OSHA recordkeeping rule does not
require that every MSD be recorded.
The OSHA Meatpacking Guidelines explain
what MSDs employers must record under the
recordkeeping rule. A recordable MSD is a
work-related MSD that results in one or more
of the following:
A diagnosis of an MSD by a HCP; or
At least one positive physical
finding, or
An MSD symptom plus:
Medical treatment,
Restricted duty,
One or more lost work days, or
Transfer/rotation to another
job.
Positive physical finding. A positive
physical finding is a report of any of the
MSD signs listed above that is observable
[[Page 65784]]
by the employer and/or HCP. It is also a
positive result on a medical test (i.e.,
Finkelstein's, Phalen's or Tinel's test)
conducted by an HCP. Because a positive
physical finding is able to be observed by
others, unlike a symptom, OSHA considers
positive physical findings to be a recordable
MSD, even if the employee has not missed
work, been placed on work restrictions, or
received medical treatment for the problem.
MSD symptom plus other action. Under
OSHA's recordkeeping rule, MSD symptoms are
recordable if they have resulted in medical
treatment beyond first aid, restricted duty,
one or more days away from work or transfer/
rotation to another job. For example, where
an employer responds to an employee report of
symptoms (e.g., numbness in the fingers or
pain in the wrist) by putting the employee in
a light duty job or by directing the employee
to stay at home to rest the injured area, the
event must be recorded.
When an employee requires medical
treatment to obtain relief from and resolve
MSD signs or symptoms, the condition is a
recordable MSD. Conservative medical
treatment of MSDs, for example, may include
prescription anti-inflammatories, splints or
braces to immobilize movement of the injured
area while at rest or sleeping, and/or
physical therapy.
There are several reasons why OSHA is
proposing to use an OSHA recordable MSD as an
initial trigger, rather than other incident
triggers (e.g., MSD rates, any report of MSD
signs or symptoms, accepted workers'
compensation claims) to determine coverage.
First, using an OSHA recordable should not be
difficult or burdensome for most employers
because they are familiar with this
definition from their OSHA injury and illness
logs. This is why many stakeholders said they
supported using an OSHA recordable MSD in the
ergonomics rule. Using the same definition
for both rules (the recordkeeping and
ergonomics rules) would reduce employer
burdens in complying with the ergonomics rule
because employers would not have to develop
or learn a new recordkeeping system. In
addition, it would reduce paperwork burdens
because the OSHA logs would satisfy both the
ergonomics rule and also the OSHA
recordkeeping requirement.
Second, a number of stakeholders support
using an OSHA recordable MSD because they
believe it is a reasonable, objective
definition. For example, a number of
stakeholders oppose using any report of MSD
symptoms because they are concerned that such
reports may be subjective, and, unless the
symptoms are persistent, may not really mean
that an injury is present. These stakeholders
also said that an OSHA recordable is more
objective than other measures, such as the
results of discomfort surveys.
Third, limiting coverage to jobs with a
high incidence rate would have limited value.
The typical job has between 1 to 10
employees, i.e., between 1 and 10 employees
in a given establishment perform the same
job. Even if one of these employees has an
MSD, the annual rate would be an unacceptably
high incidence rate of 10%. For all except
rare situations in which there are more than
100 employees with the same job, defining the
trigger in terms of a rate is not
fundamentally different from a one-incident
trigger (see the discussion in Chapter VII of
the Preliminary Economic Analysis, Ex. 28-1).
Defining coverage in terms of a job with a
workers' compensation award would result in
unequal treatment of employees and employers
covered by the ergonomics standard. State
workers' compensation laws vary significantly
and the same MSD may not be compensable in
all States. For example, some States
compensate an injured employee only if MSD
hazards are the predominant cause of the MSD
or if there is clear and convincing evidence
that the MSD hazard caused the MSD. In
Virginia, a number of MSDs are not
compensable (e.g., rotator cuff syndrome).
Moreover, defining an MSD in terms of
workers' compensation claims puts employers
who willingly acknowledge the work-
relatedness of an MSD at a disadvantage
compared to those employers who discourage
claims and challenge compensation awards.
Finally, using an OSHA recordable MSD as
the initial trigger would make the ergonomics
rule more protective than using a number of
the other MSD measures. Using an OSHA
recordable MSD would require employers to
respond to every MSD that is sufficiently
important to warrant recording. In contrast,
using multiple MSDs or incidence rates would
mean that the ergonomics rule would not
require some employers to provide protection
or MSD management for the first employee who
reports an MSD, even if the MSD is clearly
work related or has resulted in severe
permanent damage. (See OSHA's Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in Chapter
VII of the Preliminary Economic Analysis, Ex.
28-1, for an analysis of the potential
impacts of alternative triggers.)
OSHA requests information and comment on
its proposal to base coverage on the
occurrence of an OSHA recordable MSD and an
employer determination that the recordable
also meets the screening criteria, as well as
on alternative definitions of the term MSD
that would be as protective as the proposed
definition.
Reported after effective date. OSHA is
also proposing to limit the MSDs that the
standard would cover to those that are
reported after the standard becomes
effective, which is 60 days after the final
Ergonomics Program Standard is published in
the Federal Register. Coverage of the
standard would not be triggered for MSDs that
occurred before that date.
f. Screening criteria. The last
requirement is that MSDs meet the criteria in
Sec. 1910.902. If the criteria are not met,
the employer has no further obligation under
the proposed rule.
Section 1910.902 Does this standard allow
me to rule out some MSDs?
Yes. The standard only covers those OSHA
recordable MSDs that also meet these
screening criteria:
(a) The physical work activities and
conditions in the job are reasonably likely
to cause or contribute to the type of MSD
reported; and
(b) These activities and conditions are a
core element of the job and/or make up a
significant amount of the employee's
worktime.
The screening criteria limit coverage of
the proposed standard to jobs where exposure
to MSD hazards is reasonably likely to cause
or contribute to the type of MSD reported,
and the job activities are a core element of
the job and/or make up a significant amount
of the employee's worktime. Because MSD
hazards are physical work activities or
conditions that are reasonably likely to
cause MSDs, normally the occurrence of a
recordable MSD is a good indicator that an
MSD hazard is present. However, there are
occasions in which MSDs result from
idiosyncratic or unusual work circumstances.
While work-related, such an MSD may not
evince underlying hazards of the type an
ergonomics program is designed to address.
For example, if an employee who routinely
does heavy lifting incurs work-
[[Page 65785]]
related low back pain, that is precisely the
type of MSD the work activities of the job
are reasonably likely to have contributed to
and would be the type of MSD hazard the
ergonomics program is designed to control. If
the same employee reports carpal tunnel
syndrome, however, the situation is
different. Of course, the condition may not
be work-related. Even if it is, however, it
is likely to be related to physical work
circumstances or reactions that would not
normally be taken into account in designing
ergonomic controls. Because the occurrence of
a recordable MSD is not a good proxy for an
underlying hazard in this circumstance, the
MSD would not be a covered MSD for purposes
of this standard. For the reasons described
in the explanation of manufacturing and
manual handling jobs above, covered MSDs are
limited to those that have a good nexus with
the physical work activities and conditions
of the job; that is, the physical work
activities and conditions that are reasonably
likely to result in the occurrence of an MSD
are (1) a core element of the job, and/or (2)
make up a significant amount of the
employee's worktime.
2. Other Sections on Scope
Section 1910.903 Does this standard apply
to the entire workplace or to other
workplaces in the company?
No. This standard is job-based. It only
applies to jobs specified in Sec. 1910.901
not to your entire workplace or to other
workplaces in your company.
Section 1910.903 specifies that the
ergonomics rule would apply only to those
jobs OSHA explicitly identified as covered
jobs and ensures that the presence of a
covered job does not bring the rest of the
workplace under the ergonomics standard. This
means that employers would not have to
develop an ergonomics program that covers all
jobs and employees in the workplace merely
because one job in the workplace is covered
by the ergonomics standard. Other jobs in the
workplace would only be included under the
standard if they meet the definition of a
covered job or if they involve the same
physical work activities and conditions as
the job in which the employee experienced the
covered MSD.
Some stakeholders recommended that if an
ergonomics program is required in a
workplace, it should cover the entire
workplace. They said that a whole-workplace
approach would be easier because it would
eliminate the need to determine whether
certain jobs are covered by the ergonomics
rule or involve the same physical work
activities and MSD hazards as the covered job
(Ex. 26-1370). Some said that a facility-wide
program achieves greater employee buy in and
support for the ergonomics program. It would
also create employee goodwill because all
employees would be part of the program and
would be provided protection, as opposed to a
situation in which employees working side-by-
side would not necessarily both be covered by
the ergonomics program. Finally, stakeholders
said they found that developing a facility-
wide program was as a more efficient use of
resources, because it eliminated duplication
of efforts such as training. For these
reasons, they said, many employers have taken
this approach in their own workplaces.
OSHA agrees with stakeholders that there
are advantages to facility-wide ergonomic
programs and OSHA encourages employers to
consider a facility-wide approach. However,
OSHA is not proposing to require a workplace-
wide approach because the risk factors are
not present in every job to the extent that
an MSD is reasonably likely to occur. The
job-based coverage of the proposed rule
ensures that employers focus first on the
jobs where intervention is needed the most;
that is, jobs in which the employees'
exposure to the risk factors is significant
enough that MSDs are occurring or reasonably
likely to occur if exposure continues
unabated. In any event, if other jobs in the
workplace are or become problem jobs, those
employees would also be included in the
program required by the standard and would
thus be provided protection from MSD hazards.
Job-based coverage assures that employers are
not required to expend resources on jobs in
which there is little likelihood that MSD
hazards are present.
The remaining half of section 1910.903
informs employers that their program for
addressing problem jobs does not have to be
applied corporate-wide. That is, the
existence of a problem job in one workplace
does not mean that employers have to set up
an ergonomics program in every facility owned
by the company in which that job is
performed. OSHA is proposing to limit
employer obligations to the facility in which
the problem job is identified. At the same
time, OSHA recognizes that a number of
employers have developed corporate-wide
ergonomics programs. OSHA notes that while
the general program and protocols of such
corporate programs are applied to all
workplaces, job hazard analyses and
determinations about whether and what actions
are needed in specific jobs are usually made
at the workplace level.
OSHA notes that, although the ergonomics
rule would not apply corporate-wide, the
employer will need to take action in other
company-owned facilities if they have any of
the problem jobs this standard covers (e.g.,
if a covered MSD occurs there).
Section 1910.904 Are there areas this
standard does not cover?
Yes. This standard does not apply to
agriculture, construction or maritime
operations.
OSHA is proposing to exclude firms engaged
in agriculture, construction and maritime
operations from the scope of the first phase
of this ergonomics rulemaking. OSHA
acknowledges that LWD MSD rates are also high
in firms engaged in agriculture, construction
and maritime operations. However, the unique
problems (e.g., jobs of very short duration,
no fixed workstations) and the more limited
information available on effective ergonomic
controls in these workplaces have convinced
OSHA that it must, for resource and priority-
setting reasons, limit this first phase to
general industry. OSHA has preliminarily
decided to address the MSD hazards in firms
engaged in these operations in a separate
rulemaking. (OSHA's reasoning is discussed in
detail in Part C below.)
OSHA intends to develop a separate
ergonomics rule that can be tailored to the
conditions that are unique to firms in these
industries. In addition, OSHA believes that
the experience it gains from the first phase
will provide valuable assistance in
developing an effective ergonomics rule for
agriculture, construction and maritime.
OSHA requests comments and information
about whether firms engaged in agriculture,
construction and maritime operations should
be included in this ergonomics standard at
this time. In particular, OSHA requests
comments and information about whether, for
example, manual handling operations in
agriculture, construction and maritime should
be included in this first phase of the
ergonomics rulemaking.
[[Page 65786]]
C. Authority and Reasons for Limiting
Coverage of the Proposed Ergonomics Standard.
This section discusses OSHA's authority
under the OSH Act to promulgate the
ergonomics standard sequentially, and its
reasons for limiting the proposed ergonomics
standard at this time to the three types of
jobs discussed above. This discussion focuses
on the following questions:
What authority and reasons
support promulgating the Ergonomics Program
Standard sequentially, and limiting the first
phase to manufacturing jobs, manual handling
jobs, and other jobs where an OSHA recordable
MSD is reported?
What authority and reasons
support exclusion of the agriculture,
construction and maritime industries from the
proposed ergonomics standard?
1. Section 6(g)--OSHA Authority to Limit the
Scope of Rulemakings
The OSH Act authorizes OSHA to use a
phased approach to rulemaking, including
focusing first on areas where the problem is
severe and solutions are well-known. Section
6(g) of the OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. 655, permits
OSHA to set priorities in establishing
standards, including limiting the scope of
particular standards and promulgating
standards in phases. Section 6(g) provides:
In determining the priority for
establishing standards under this section,
the Secretary shall give due regard to the
urgency of the need for mandatory safety and
health standards for particular industries,
trades, crafts, occupations, businesses,
workplaces or work environments. The
Secretary shall also give due regard to the
recommendations of the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare regarding the need for
mandatory standards in determining the
priority for establishing such standards.
In proposing the addition of section 6(g)
to the OSH Act, Senator Jacob Javits
explained that its purpose was ``to relieve
the Secretary of the necessity of waiting to
promulgate whatever standards he wishes
across the board [by] allowing him to yield
to more urgent demands before he tries to
meet others. * * *'' Legislative History,
505.
The courts have broadly interpreted
section 6(g) as ``clearly permit[ting] the
Secretary to set priorities for the use of
the agency's resources.'' United Steelworkers
of America v. Auchter (Hazard Communication),
763 F.2d 728, 738 (3rd Cir. 1985); Forging
Industry Association v. OSHA (Noise), 773
F.2d 1436, 1455 (4th Cir. 1985); United
States Steelworkers v. Marshall (Lead), 647
F.2d 1189, 1309-1310 (D.C. Cir. 1980), cert.
denied, 453 U.S. 913 (1981); National
Congress of Hispanic American Citizens v.
Usery (Hispanic II), 626 F.2d 882 (D.C. Cir.
1979); National Congress of Hispanic American
Citizens v. Usery (Hispanic I), 554 F.2d
1196, 1199 (D.C. Cir. 1977). Section 6(g)
authorizes OSHA to ``alter priorities and
defer action due to legitimate statutory
considerations,'' Hispanic II, 626 F.2d at
888 n. 30. In the PELs rulemaking, for
example, the court upheld OSHA's decision to
exclude exposure monitoring and medical
surveillance provisions from the rule as
being ``purely a matter of regulatory
priority.'' AFL-CIO v. OSHA (PELs), 965 F.2d
962, 985 (11th Cir. 1992).
Section 6(g) also permits OSHA ``to
promulgate standards sequentially.'' Hazard
Communication, 763 F.2d at 738. See, PELs,
965 F.2d at 985 . For example, the courts
have upheld OSHA's decisions to issue
standards for general industry first and
thereafter to develop separate rules for
those other industries that may have unique
problems requiring special consideration
(e.g., mobile jobs of very short duration in
the construction industry). Lead, 647 F.2d at
1309-10. (See Confined Spaces standard, 29
CFR 1910.146.) Section 6(g) also authorizes
OSHA to ``act in its legislative capacity `to
focus on only one aspect of a larger
problem.' '' Lead, 647 F.2d at 1310 (citing
Chief Justice Burger concurring in Benzene,
448 U.S. at 663 (1980)) (emphasis added). In
the PELs rulemaking, OSHA limited the
standard solely to revising exposure limits
and excluded ancillary provisions designed to
provide further protection even though most
other health standards included such
provisions. See, PELs, 965 F.2d at 985.
Although OSHA's discretionary authority
under section 6(g) is quite broad, it is not
absolute:
The scope of an agency's discretion is
bounded by law; an agency cannot justify a
decision by reference to its discretionary
authority, if the decision lies beyond the
scope of agency's discretion. (citations
omitted) A statute may define as off-limits
to an agency a particular basis for a
decision, just as it may foreclose a
particular result altogether. Farmworkers
Justice Fund, Inc. v. Brock (Field
Sanitation), 811 F.2d 613, 620 (D.C. Cir.),
vacated as moot, 811 F.2d 890 (1987).
The Supreme Court has made clear that an
agency's decision will be set aside if it
relied on factors which the Congress did not
intend it to consider. Motor Vehicle
Manufacturers Assn. v State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43
(1983). In section 6(g), Congress established
factors OSHA must consider in setting its
priorities: OSHA must give ``due regard to
the urgency of the need'' for a standard in,
among others, particular industries,
occupations, workplaces, or work
environments.1 The court in Hazard
Communication said that this language
suggests a statutory standard by which to
measure the exercise of OSHA's discretion.
Hazard Communication, 763 F.2d at 738.
Authorizing rulemaking priority for the most
severe hazards also comports with the
criteria of section 6(c), which authorizes
OSHA to pursue expedited rulemaking (i.e.,
emergency temporary standard) but only where
employees are exposed to ``grave dangers.''
Hispanic II, 626 F.2d at 889 n.36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See also, Hispanic I, 554 F.2d at 1199
(``The Act has built in flexibilities that
the Secretary may use, such as * * * the
priorities between the various occupations
that require standards. * * *'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Third Circuit has held that there is
another limit on OSHA's 6(g) authority
depending on where OSHA is in the rulemaking
process. Hazard Communication, 763 F.2d at
738. The court said that, in situations where
OSHA is setting priorities for future
rulemaking, the agency has great latitude
under section 6(g) to address greater hazards
first. Id. However, the court held that where
OSHA has decided to promulgate a standard to
address an issue it is not enough for the
agency to declare that it has selected
certain industries or jobs for coverage
because they present greater hazards. Id.
Where significant risk exists in other
industries and a standard is feasible there
as well, OSHA may exclude those industries
only if covering them would ``seriously
impede the rulemaking process.'' Id.
The standard in question, Hazard
Communication (29 CFR 1910.1200), only
required employers to provide employees with
information and training about hazardous
chemicals in the workplace, based on analyses
generally conducted by the chemical
manufacturer or importer. The standard did
not require employers to analyze jobs,
implement controls, or provide medical
management. The court apparently believed
that there was no substantial question about
the feasibility of the rule, and therefore no
question about whether the rule could be
expanded without impeding the rulemaking
process. It is not clear the court would have
reached the same result or announced the same
principle if the standard
[[Page 65787]]
in question had posed more complex scientific
and feasibility issues. In any event, OSHA's
decision to limit the proposed standard is
consistent with the Hazard Communication
decision because, as discussed below,
expansion of the rule at this time to include
construction, maritime and agriculture would
seriously impede the rulemaking process.
2. Focus on Jobs Where Problems Are Severe
and Solutions Are Well-Understood
OSHA has developed a general principle,
based on the underlying legislative intent
and the case law interpreting section 6(g),
that it proposes to follow in determining
what jobs should be covered in the first
phase of this rulemaking. As mentioned above,
that principle is: Focus on areas where
problems are severe and solutions are well-
understood. OSHA's decision, based on this
guiding principle, to cover manufacturing,
manual handling and general industry jobs
where there are MSDs is consistent with the
language and legislative intent of section
6(g).
3. Reasons for Excluding Agriculture,
Construction and Maritime Industries From the
Proposed Standard
Some stakeholders recommended that the
proposed rule be expanded to include all
industries. They said that the number and
rates of MSDs in the construction industry
are very high. They added that incidence
rates for some construction industries are
higher than for some manufacturing industries
that are to be covered in the first phase.
However, for the reasons set forth below,
OSHA is not proposing that the first phase of
the Ergonomics Program Standard cover these
other industries.
a. Unique problems. OSHA acknowledges that
employees in the agriculture, construction
and maritime industries face significant risk
of harm due to exposure to MSD hazards. In
1996, for example, almost 65,000 employees in
these industries reported MSDs that were
serious enough to result in days away from
work, according to OSHA's analysis of BLS
data (Ex. 1413). This means that 10% of all
reported lost-workday MSDs occurred in just
three industry sectors. Nonetheless,
consistent with its discretion under section
6(g), OSHA proposes to exclude these
industries from this proposal and to give
them special consideration in subsequent
rulemaking. Lead, 647 F.2d at 1310.
First, work conditions and factors present
in agricultural, construction and maritime
activities often are quite different from
those of general industry. To illustrate,
much of construction work involves or is
affected by an interaction among several
factors. These factors include the following
aspects or conditions of work:
Consisting primarily of jobs of
short duration;
Under a variety of adverse
environmental and workplace conditions (e.g.,
cold, heat, confined spaces, heights);
At non-fixed workstations or non-
fixed work sites;
On multi-employer work sites;
Involving the use of ``day
laborers'' and other short-term ``temporary
workers,'';
Involving situations in which
employees provide their own tools and
equipment; and
Involving employees who may be
trained by unions or other outside certifying
organizations.
While some of these factors may be present
at times in other industries, they are
continuously present in construction. OSHA
may need to develop an ergonomics standard
that takes this range of special conditions
into account. For example, OSHA may also need
to revise job hazard analysis and hazard
control provisions in the current proposal so
they are effective for industries where jobs
are of such short duration that they may be
completed before analysis and control can be
implemented. These and other unique work
conditions also are present in agricultural
and maritime activities. For example, in
longshoring, quite often workers are obtained
from union hiring halls where they have been
trained and certified in the use of certain
machinery.
In addition, as compared to the very large
body of evidence that exists for general
industry, OSHA's experience with and
information about ergonomic solutions in the
agriculture, construction and maritime
industries are relatively limited. OSHA
believes that the information it does have
will support the promulgation of an
ergonomics standard in these industries in
the second phase of this rulemaking. However,
the Agency needs more time to gather and
analyze this evidence to develop an effective
ergonomics standard for agriculture,
construction and maritime. For example, OSHA
must gather and examine information on the
types of ergonomic controls that would work
in an industry with a high number of non-
fixed workstations.
Because of the unique problems in these
industries, it could take considerably more
time to gather the needed information. And
after waiting until an equivalent body of
evidence is gathered and analyzed for these
industries, the evidence might still show
that separate ergonomics rules are warranted
for construction, agriculture and maritime in
any event.
b. Substantially impede the rulemaking.
Implicit in setting rulemaking priorities
based on the urgency of the need for action
is whether a standard can be issued in a time
frame that is responsive to the urgent need.
Another reason OSHA is proposing to limit the
ergonomics rule to general industry is that
OSHA believes that expanding the rule to
cover agriculture, construction and maritime
would seriously delay addressing the urgent
need for protection in the covered jobs. This
is because information and experience on
ergonomics in these industries is more
limited than is the case in general industry.
Expanding the scope could place substantial
additional burdens on an already complex
rulemaking. For example, if OSHA must first
gather and analyze evidence for every
industry before it may propose an ergonomics
standard, 90% of the employees who already
have been injured and for whom a standard can
be promulgated now may be forced to wait for
their urgently needed protection until OSHA
is also able to provide it to the remaining
employees exposed to MSD hazards. Also,
expanding the scope of this proposed standard
could strain OSHA's limited resources to the
detriment not only of the ergonomics
rulemaking but to other OSHA priorities as
well, including other priorities for the
construction, maritime and agricultural
industries.
On the other hand, focusing on areas where
a large body of evidence of effective
ergonomics programs and control interventions
exists should help OSHA to respond quickly to
urgent situations where worker protection is
needed now. Limiting the scope of the
proposed rule at this time is thus fully
consistent with OSHA's obligations under
section 6(g).
By contrast, in agriculture, construction
and maritime, the information on ergonomics
programs and interventions is more limited.
Only now is NIOSH conducting a study on
ergonomic problems and interventions in the
shipyard
[[Page 65788]]
industry, and the results of that study are
not expected for more than a year.
How Does This Standard Apply to Me?
(Secs. 1910.905-1910.910)
OSHA's proposed ergonomics program
standard has several unique features. First,
it is a job-based standard. As the preamble
sections for 1910.901 through 1910.904 of the
proposed standard make clear, the standard
applies to general industry employers whose
employees: (1) Work in manual handling jobs;
(2) work in manufacturing jobs; and (3) work
in other general industry jobs and experience
a musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) that is
covered by this standard. Second, employers
within the scope of the standard are required
only to implement the ergonomics program
required by the standard for those jobs
specifically listed above; they are not
required to have a program for all of the
jobs in their workplace. Third, the
requirements of the standard apply
differently to different general industry
employers, because the standard is also risk
based. That is, for employers whose employees
perform manual handling or manufacturing
jobs--jobs which together account for a
disproportionate share (60%) of all reported
work-related MSDs--employers are required to
implement only those elements of the proposed
standard that will prepare them to deal with
a covered MSD should one occur. Thus,
employers whose employees work in these high-
risk jobs must put several of the required
program elements in place even before their
employees experience a covered MSD, because
the likelihood that they will do so is great.
If an employee in a manual handling or
manufacturing job subsequently experiences a
covered MSD, the employer would then be
required to implement the remaining elements
of the ergonomics program required by the
standard, including job hazard analysis and
control, MSD management, training, and
program evaluation.
For general industry employers without
manual handling or manufacturing jobs in
their workplace, however, the proposed
standard would not require action until an
employee actually experiences such an MSD. In
other words, for general industry employers
with other types of jobs, the event that
``triggers'' coverage by the standard is the
occurrence of an MSD that the employer
determines to be covered. As explained above
in the summary and explanation for sections
1910.901 through 1910.904, such an MSD could
occur in any general industry job, e.g.,
grocery store cashier, newspaper reporter,
secretary, cafeteria worker, restaurant
server, computer programmer, mail sorter,
janitor, etc. Relying on the occurrence of a
covered MSD to trigger the standard's
coverage for non-manual handling, non-
manufacturing jobs is consistent with the
risk-based design of the standard: The
occurrence of an MSD that is determined by
the employer to be, first, an OSHA-recordable
MSD, second, an MSD that has occurred in a
job in which the physical work activities are
reasonably likely to cause or contribute to
the type of MSDs reported, and third, an MSD
that has occurred in a job where the physical
work activities and conditions are a core
element of the job and/or make up a
significant amount of the employee's
worktime. The scope provisions of the
standard (sections 1910.901 through 1910.904)
also indicate that employers whose employees
engage in construction, agricultural, or
maritime operations are not covered by the
scope of the rule.
Sections 1910.905 through 1910.910 of the
proposed standard, titled ``How does this
standard apply to me?,'' determine how
various elements of the proposal would apply
to these three different groups of general
industry employers, depending on the jobs
their employees perform and/or whether their
employees experience a musculoskeletal
disorder that is covered by the standard.
These sections of the proposal thus contain
the internal ``action levels'' or
``triggers'' that OSHA has built into the
standard to tailor its requirements to the
extent of the ergonomics problem present in a
given workplace.
Specifically, these sections of the
proposal contain the following requirements:
Section 1910.905 describes the
elements of a complete ergonomics program;
Section 1910.906 establishes the
requirements of the program that apply to all
general industry employers that have manual
handling or manufacturing production jobs in
their workplaces;
Section 1910.907 sets forth the
requirements of the rule applying to general
industry employers whose employees experience
a covered MSD in jobs other than manual
handling or manufacturing;
Section 1910.908 establishes the
criteria general industry employers wishing
to avail themselves of the proposed
standard's ``grandfather'' clause must meet
in order to qualify for grandfather status;
Section 1910.909 provides general
industry employers with a Quick Fix option,
which would allow them to avoid setting up an
ergonomics program for any problem job that
they can fix completely within a short period
of time, provided that they also meet the
other requirements delineated in this
section; and
Section 1910.910 specifies the
requirements applying to employers whose
Quick Fix controls have not eliminated MSD
hazards in the problem jobs they tried to
address through the Quick Fix option.
The following paragraphs explain OSHA's
rationale for each of these sections of the
proposed rule.
Section 1910.905 What are the elements of
a complete ergonomics program?
In this standard, a full ergonomics program
consists of these six program elements:
Management Leadership and Employee
Participation;
Hazard Information and Reporting;
Job Hazard Analysis and Control;
Training;
MSD Management; and
Program Evaluation.
OSHA is proposing in this standard that
employers implement an ergonomics program
that contains well-recognized program
elements. OSHA is not alone in believing that
all of these core elements are essential to
the effective functioning of ergonomics
programs. Many private sector companies, OSHA
stakeholders, insurers, employee and employer
associations, safety and health
professionals, and other Federal agencies
(e.g., NIOSH, GAO) have endorsed these
elements as key to ergonomic program
effectiveness. Evidence of the widespread
acceptance of these program elements and
their effectiveness is reflected in the
following documents, regulatory actions, and
sources of expert opinion: 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There is no provision for WRP in the
OSHA safety and health program guidelines,
state safety and health programs, nor the
ASSE program; of these, the OSHA guidelines
and ASSE program are voluntary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 65789]]
They track OSHA's 1989 voluntary
Safety and Health Program Management
Guidelines (54 FR 3904), which were well
received and widely adopted by employers and
other stakeholders;
State safety and health program
regulations, most of which address ergonomic
issues. Of the 32 states that encourage or
mandate workplace safety and health programs,
21 have provisions corresponding to the core
elements in this proposal;
OSHA's Ergonomics Program
Management Guidelines for Meatpacking Plants
(Ex. 2-13 ), which includes all of these core
elements. Facilities that have developed
programs based on the meatpacking guidelines
have experienced dramatic reductions in the
severity and number of MSDs (Ex. 26-1420);
Consensus among occupational
safety and health professionals that these
are the elements needed in an effective
safety and health program. (see, e.g., the
American Society of Safety Engineers Safety
and Health Program Manual). The core elements
in this proposal are also similar to the
components in the approach used by the
Accredited Standards Committee in developing
the draft consensus standard, ``Control of
Cumulative Trauma Disorders'' for the
American National Standards Institute (Z-
365);
A study by the General Accounting
Office of ergonomics programs, which found
that effective programs include the same set
of core elements as OSHA has proposed; and
The 1997 NIOSH document titled
``Element of Ergonomics Programs,'' which
outlines the ``approach most commonly
recommended for identifying and correcting
ergonomic problems.'' Thus, OSHA finds that
these elements are the ones needed for an
effective ergonomics program and represent
the tried and true mainstream approach to
ergonomic programs.
The core elements in this proposal will
allow employers to manage all aspects of the
process of protecting workers from MSDs and
are a way of organizing that process into
parts that can be meaningfully understood and
implemented. All of the elements are
important, although many safety and health
professionals believe that management
leadership and employee participation are the
keystone of an effective ergonomics program
(OSHA/NIOSH conference 1997). OSHA believes
that all of the elements are necessary to
achieve the overall goal of managing MSDs and
ensuring that MSD hazards are systematically
and routinely prevented, eliminated, or
controlled.
Many OSHA stakeholders and respondents to
the ergonomics ANPR published in 1992 (57 FR
34192) have endorsed the program approach.
For example, the M & M Protection Center (Ex.
3-51) stated: ``Generic components described
in the ANPR and in the Meat Packing
Guidelines are feasible and necessary
elements of an ergonomic hazards control
strategy. These form a practical foundation
from which to build a more industry-specific
program.''
Another commenter, Arvin Industries, Inc.
(Ex. 3-46) emphasized the value of the
program approach to companies engaged in
different businesses:
The use of the * * * [program] approach has
been shown to provide effective solutions and
a significant reduction in ergonomics hazards
in jobs in many different industries.
Employees, represented by the AFL-CIO (Ex.
3-184), urged OSHA to include all of the
program elements in the Meatpacking
Guidelines in any future ergonomics standard:
The AFL-CIO strongly supports the inclusion
of the listed elements in OSHA's proposed
ergonomics standard.
OSHA has been responsive to these
commenters by including the six core elements
listed above in the ergonomics program
required by the proposed standard for jobs
where the hazards present are such as to pose
a reasonable likelihood of lending to a
covered MSD, or have already caused or
contributed to such an MSD.
The summary and explanation sections of
the preamble for each program element
describe OSHA's reasoning for including each
element in the proposed program.
Section 1910.906 How does this standard
apply to manufacturing and manual handling
jobs?
You must:
a. Implement the first two elements of the
ergonomics program (Management Leadership and
Employee Participation, and Hazard
Information and Reporting) even if no MSD has
occurred in those jobs.
b. Implement the other program elements
when either of the following occurs in those
jobs (unless you eliminate MSD hazards using
the Quick Fix option in section 1910.909):
1. A covered MSD is reported; or
2. Persistent MSD symptoms are reported
plus:
i. You have knowledge that an MSD hazard
exists in the job;
ii. Physical work activities and conditions
in the job are reasonably likely to cause or
contribute to the type of MSD symptoms
reported; and
iii. These activities and conditions are a
core element of the job and/or make up a
significant amount of the employer's
worktime.
Note To Sec. 1910.906: ``Covered MSD''
refers to MSDs that meet the criteria in
Sec. 1910.901(c). As it applies to
manufacturing and manual handling jobs,
``covered MSDs'' also refers to persistent
symptoms that meet the criteria of this
section.
This section of the rule sets out the
requirements applying to general industry
employers whose employees perform the high-
risk jobs of manual handling or product
manufacturing. As discussed in the Risk
Assessment and Benefits chapter of the
preamble and Preliminary Economic Analysis,
respectively, these two jobs account for 60%
of all reported general industry MSDs but
employ only 28% of all general industry
employees. Section 1910.901(a) defines
manufacturing jobs as production jobs in
which employees perform the physical work
activities of producing a product and in
which these activities make up a significant
amount of their worktime, and section
1910.902(b) defines manual handling jobs as
those in which employees perform forceful
lifting/lowering, pushing/pulling, or
carrying and in which such forceful manual
handling is a core element of the employee's
job.
Examples of jobs that are typically
manufacturing jobs include assembly line
jobs, product inspection jobs, and jobs
involving machine operation, meat packing,
and tire building, among others. Examples of
manual handling jobs are those involving
patient handling, baggage handling, grocery
store stocking, garbage collecting, and
janitorial work, among others. Examples of
other jobs that would typically be considered
manual handling or manufacturing jobs, and
examples of those that would not be so
classified, can be found in proposed section
1910.945, Definitions.
Paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 1910.906
mandate that employers whose operations
involve manual handling or manufacturing
jobs, as defined by the proposed standard,
implement the first two elements of the
ergonomics program required by the standard
in these jobs. These elements are:
[[Page 65790]]
(1) Management leadership and employee
participation, and (2) hazard information and
reporting. Each general industry employer
whose operations involve either or both of
these types of jobs would be required to
implement these two program elements in these
jobs within one year of the standard's
effective date (see proposed section
1910.942). Compliance with these two elements
is required even if no employee in these jobs
has experienced a covered MSD. As discussed
above, OSHA is requiring that these basic
elements of an ergonomics program be in place
in these jobs because of the high-risk nature
of the physical work activities associated
with these jobs. Having these elements in
place ensures that employers and employees
are informed and aware of MSD hazards and the
signs and symptoms of MSDs and have
established the management structure and
employee participation mechanisms necessary
to respond quickly if the need arises.
This section of the proposal also requires
employers with manual handling or
manufacturing jobs to comply with the other
elements of an ergonomics program, including
MSD management, job hazard analysis and
control, training, and program evaluation, if
an employee in a manual handling or
manufacturing job experiences an MSD that the
employer determines, in accordance with
proposed sections 1910.901 (c) and 1910.902,
to be covered by the proposed standard. As
explained in the summary and explanation for
those sections, a covered MSD, as defined by
this standard, is one that occurs after the
effective date of the standard, is an OSHA-
recordable MSD (as defined by OSHA's
recordkeeping rule, 29 CFR part 1904), and is
determined by the employer to have occurred
in a job in which the physical work
activities and conditions are reasonably
likely to have caused or contributed to the
type of MSD reported, or to have aggravated a
pre-existing MSD. For manufacturing or manual
handling jobs, it is important to note that
covered MSDs also include: (1) Reports by
employees of persistent symptoms of MSDs
(persistent is defined as lasting for 7
consecutive days), (2) where the employer has
knowledge that such jobs pose MSD hazards to
employees, (3) where the job is one in which
the physical work activities and conditions
of the job are reasonably likely to cause or
contribute to the type of MSD reported, and
(4) where the activities and conditions are a
core element of the job and/or make up a
significant amount of the employee's
worktime. By ``have knowledge,'' OSHA means
that the employer has been provided with
information that MSD hazards exist in that
job by personnel from an insurance company,
or by a consultant, a health care
professional, or a person working for the
employer who has the requisite training to
identify and analyze MSD hazards. Inclusion
of this action trigger in the proposed
standard is consistent with OSHA's risk-based
approach, because the occurrence of
persistent symptoms, such as constant pain,
tingling, or numbness, coupled with
information from a knowledgeable source that
the employee's job is one that poses an
ergonomic hazard, is strong evidence that the
job is one that is reasonably likely to cause
or contribute to a covered MSD. OSHA believes
that employers generally accept and rely on
information from these sources because they
are perceived of as unbiased, knowledgeable,
and aware of conditions in the employer's
specific workplace.
Section 1910.906 of the proposal would
allow employers whose work involves
manufacturing or manual handling operations
to limit their ergonomics program for those
jobs to two elements, management commitment/
employee participation, and hazard
information and reporting, until a problem
job (i.e., one held by an employee who has
experienced a covered MSD, or a job in the
workplace that has the same physical
activities and conditions as the job held by
such an employee) has been identified. If no
covered MSD occurs in the manufacturing or
manual handling job, the employer is not
required to implement the other elements of
the program.
By requiring employers whose employees
work in manual handling or manufacturing jobs
to implement the first two elements of an
ergonomics program even before a covered MSD
occurs among the employees in that job, OSHA
is requiring these employers to establish a
basic surveillance system for MSDs. This
basic system consists, under the management
leadership element, of assigning
responsibilities for the ergonomics program
to managers, supervisors, and employees so
that these individuals know what their role
in the program is, providing these
individuals with the information, resources,
information and training they need to carry
out these responsibilities effectively, and
communicating with employers on a regular
basis about the program and their concerns
about ergonomics issues. In addition, the
employer must, as part of management
leadership, make sure that its existing
policies and procedures do not discourage
employee reporting of MSDs or participation
in the program. By following these
requirements, employers will have established
the management process necessary to a
functioning ergonomics program: management at
the workplace will have a basic system in
place to ensure that employee concerns about
MSDs are being expressed and responded to,
program responsibilities are understood,
resources have been made available to the
program, and no barriers stand in the way of
early and full employee reporting.
The employee participation component of
this first program element is the other side
of the basic surveillance system the standard
requires employers with these two kinds of
high-risk jobs to implement. To comply with
the employee participation provisions of the
standard, employers must set up a way for
employees and their designated
representatives to report MSD signs and
symptoms to the employer, receive prompt
responses to these reports, have access to a
copy of the ergonomics standard (either
through posting or by providing hand copies
to employees) and to information about the
employer's ergonomics program, and ways to
participate in the development,
implementation, and evaluation of the
ergonomics program.
By implementing these provisions, the
second half of the first program element will
be put in place: employees will know how to
report MSDs and their signs and symptoms,
they will expect to receive responses to
those reports from management, they will
understand their employers' ergonomics
program, and they will know how they can
participate effectively in making the program
a success.
Section 1910.906 also requires, at
paragraph (b), that employers with these jobs
comply with all of the other elements of an
ergonomics program--job hazard analysis and
control, MSD management, training, and
program evaluation--if a covered MSD occurs
in a manual handling or manufacturing job.
(As discussed above, for these jobs,
persistent MSD symptoms are considered
covered MSDs if they also meet the criteria
specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this
section.) There is one exception to
compliance with paragraph (b) of this
section: employers who choose the proposed
rule's Quick Fix option (described below) do
not have to implement the other program
elements.
Section 1910.907 How does this standard
apply to other jobs in general industry?
[[Page 65791]]
In other jobs in general industry, you must
comply with all of the program elements in
the standard when a covered MSD is reported
(unless you eliminate the MSD hazards using
the Quick Fix option).
As discussed earlier in this section of
the preamble, employers with other jobs
(i.e., jobs that do not involve either
manufacturing or manual handling) are not
required by the proposed rule to take any
action until and unless a covered MSD occurs
in such a job. Thus, for most employers in
general industry in a given year, no action
is required by the standard. However, if a
covered MSD occurs in one of these ``other''
jobs, it becomes a ``problem job,'' as
defined in the standard, and the full
ergonomics program must be implemented for
that job and all jobs in the workplace that
involve the same physical work activities.
OSHA has included section 1910.907 in the
proposed standard to provide employees who
have experienced a covered MSD in these other
jobs with the same program protections
afforded to manual handling and manufacturing
employees who have suffered a covered MSD.
Section 1910.908 How does this standard
apply if I already have an ergonomics
program?
If you already have an ergonomics program
for the jobs this standard covers, you may
continue that program, even if it differs
from the one this standard requires, provided
you show that:
a. Your program satisfies the basic
obligation section of each program element in
this standard, and you are in compliance with
the recordkeeping requirements of this
standard (Secs. 1910.939 and 1910.940);
b. You have implemented and evaluated your
program and controls before [the effective
date]; and
c. The evaluation indicates that the
elements are functioning properly and that
you are in compliance with the control
requirements in Sec. 1910.921.
This section of the proposed standard is a
limited grandfather clause that is designed
to permit employers who have already
implemented and evaluated an ergonomics
program in those jobs covered by the standard
to continue their program, if: it has been
shown to eliminate or materially reduce MSD
hazards according to Sec. 1910.921, it has
the core elements of the program OSHA is
requiring, and it meets the basic obligation
of each of the core elements in the proposed
rule.
By requiring that grandfathered programs
meet the conditions set out in paragraphs (a)
through (c) of section 1910.908, OSHA is
affirming the importance of each of the core
elements, as well as recordkeeping, to the
proper functioning of an effective ergonomics
program. OSHA is also emphasizing the
importance the Agency places on the basic
obligation sections of the proposed standard
(sections 1910.911, 1910.914, 1910.917,
1910.923, 1910.929, and 1910.936). These
sections establish the basic requirements
employers must follow to implement each core
element but do so in less detail than the
implementing requirements that follow the
basic obligation section for each core
element. OSHA believes that the requirements
identified in the basic obligations sections
of the proposal are the minimum requirements
needed to effectively implement the core
element to which they pertain. In other
words, although OSHA is proposing to grant
grandfather status to effective ergonomics
programs, it believes that the requirements
set forth in each basic obligation section
must be present in an ergonomics program for
that element to be effective. Thus, employers
whose existing programs meet the conditions
of the limited grandfather clause in section
1910.908 are free not to implement the more
detailed provisions that follow the basic
obligation section, provided that they comply
fully with the basic obligation section's
provisions.
OSHA has several reasons for including the
standard's core elements in any ergonomics
program that is grandfathered in under the
standard. OSHA's reasoning is discussed
below.
First, except for WRP, the core elements
(management leadership and employee
participation, hazard identification and
assessment, hazard prevention and control,
MSD management, training, and evaluation) are
included in the safety and health programs
recommended or used by many different
organizations (the ergonomics standard uses
slightly different terminology for some of
these elements):
OSHA's VPP, SHARP, and
consultation programs;
The safety and health programs
mandated by 18 states;
The safety and health programs
recommended by insurance companies for their
insureds (many of which give premium
discounts for companies that implement these
programs or impose surcharges on those that
do not);
The safety and health programs
recommended by the National Federation of
Independent Business, the Synthetic Organic
Chemical Manufacturers Association, the
Chemical Manufacturers Association, the
American Society of Safety Engineers, and
many others;
The strong recommendations of
OSHA's Advisory Committees (NACOSH, ACCSH,
and MACOSH), which consider these program
elements essential to effective worker
protection programs.
Second, OSHA believes, and most
stakeholders agree, that enforcement of the
standard will be more consistent and more
equitable, as well as less time-consuming,
for employers and compliance officers alike,
if the test of an employer's program is
whether the program contains the core
elements, rather than whether it is
effective. The term effectiveness is subject
to many different interpretations.
Effectiveness can be measured in many
different ways (e.g., decreases in the number
of MSDs, decreases in the severity of MSDs,
increases in product quality, decreases in
insurance premiums, decreases in the number
of claims, decreases in turnover, decreases
in absenteeism, increases in productivity,
increases in the number of MSDs reported
early, etc.), several of which have built-in
incentives to discourage reporting of MSDs
(as discussed in the Significance of Risk
(Section VII) section of the preamble,
underreporting of MSDs is already extensive.
In addition, there are no data that would
allow OSHA to evaluate or to choose among
these various effectiveness measures. OSHA
solicits comments on measures of program
effectiveness that are not susceptible to
underreporting and that can be used reliably
and simply by establishments of all sizes.
For example, are there measures of
effectiveness that OSHA could use as a
measure of effectiveness when determining
whether to allow a program to be
grandfathered in?
In addition, evaluating programs using the
core elements test is administratively
simpler, both for OSHA personnel and
employers. The Agency is in the process of
validating a measurement tool for compliance
officers and employers to use in assessing
the effectiveness of ergonomics programs.
This tool, which is based on the consultation
program's Form 33, has been tested for face
validity and is being tested for construct
validity at the present time; OSHA intends to
disseminate it to employers, so that both
OSHA personnel and employers will be
operating from the same ``sheet of music.''
OSHA believes that use of a tool based on the
core
[[Page 65792]]
elements rather than on unproven measures of
effectiveness will thus benefit OSHA,
workers, and their employers.
OSHA is including WRP, or equivalent
protections against wage loss, as a
requirement for all programs because, without
it, OSHA believes that there will be
increased pressure on employees not to report
once an enforceable standard is in place.
There is strong evidence that such
underreporting is currently taking place (see
the table summarizing the many articles on
this topic in Section VII of the preamble),
as well as evidence that protecting workers
from wage loss increases reporting (the
Krueger studies). OSHA's purpose in proposing
a WRP provision in this standard is to ensure
employee participation and free and full
reporting of MSDs and MSD hazards. The
ergonomics standard depends, more heavily
than any OSHA health standard promulgated to
date, on employee reporting for its
effectiveness. Absent such reporting, the
standard will not achieve its worker
protection goals. The success of the
standard, like that of the many effective
ergonomics programs our stakeholders have
told us about, depends on it.
The proposed grandfather clause is also
limited in its applicability to programs that
are in place and have been evaluated and
found to be working properly by the effective
date of the standard. OSHA believes that this
provision is appropriate because it will
encourage employers to be proactive and
establish programs to protect their employees
before the effective date. It will require
these programs to have been evaluated before
they qualify for grandfather status, which
will avoid a last minute rush to implement
programs before the effective date and ensure
that those programs allowed under the
grandfather clause are mature, fully
functioning programs. It will also avoid the
administrative and compliance problems that
would arise if OSHA permitted employers to
establish ergonomics programs that differ
from the one in the standard even after the
effective date.
OSHA seeks comment on all aspects of the
grandfather clause provisions, particularly
on the protectiveness and appropriateness of
including such a provision in a final
standard.
Section 1910.909 May I do a Quick Fix
instead of setting up a full ergonomics
program?
Yes. A Quick Fix is a way to fix a problem
job quickly and completely. If you eliminate
MSD hazards using a Quick Fix, you do not
have to set up the full ergonomics program
this standard requires. You must do the
following when you Quick Fix a problem job:
(a) Promptly make available the MSD
management this standard requires;
(b) Consult with employee(s) in the problem
job about the physical work activities or
conditions of the job they associate with the
difficulties, observe the employee(s)
performing the job to identify whether any
risk factors are present, and ask employee(s)
for recommendations for eliminating the MSD
hazard;
(c) Put in Quick Fix controls within 90
days after the covered MSD is identified, and
check the job within the next 30 days to
determine whether the controls have
eliminated the hazard;
(d) Keep a record of the Quick Fix
controls; and
(e) Provide the hazard information this
standard requires to employee(s) in the
problem job within the 90-day period.
Note to Sec. 1910.909: If you show that the
MSD hazards only pose a risk to the employee
with the covered MSD, you may limit the Quick
Fix to that individual employee's job.
OSHA is permitting employers who meet all
the requirements of this section to refrain
from setting up the full ergonomics program
otherwise required. For example, employers
can avoid the training and program
requirements of the standard if they can
eliminate the MSD hazard in the problem job
(including other jobs meeting the ``same
job'' definition in the standard) quickly.
The Quick Fix option is designed for those
problem jobs where the hazard can be readily
identified, the solution is obvious, and the
solution can be implemented within 90 days
after the covered MSD is identified. OSHA has
heard repeatedly from stakeholders and others
that a large number of jobs will fall into
this category. The proposed Quick Fix process
differs from the job hazard analysis and
control process described in sections
1910.917 through 1910.922, which is
appropriate for MSD hazards and jobs
requiring iterative changes or extensive
analysis to resolve.
The proposed rule requires that employees
in problem jobs receive MSD management,
including work restriction protection, for
their injuries without regard to whether the
job is controlled using the Quick Fix option
or the full job hazard analysis and control
approach. In addition, employee(s) in problem
jobs that are fixed through the Quick Fix
process must be involved in the Quick Fix
process, just as they are involved in the
full job hazard analysis and control process.
In other words, employers choosing the Quick
Fix option must demonstrate management
leadership and implement employee
participation for the problem job, but would
not have to continue these elements after the
job is fixed (unless they are employers with
manual handling or manufacturing jobs).
The Quick Fix controls must be implemented
within 90 days to qualify for this option.
OSHA believes that this period is sufficient
for employers to identify appropriate
engineering controls, to eliminate the MSD
hazards entirely, and to order and implement
those controls. Again, this time period is
consistent with the principal concept behind
Quick Fix: that the problem job be fixed
quickly, simply and completely. Examples of
Quick Fixes include purchasing an adjustable
VDT workstation, placing a box under the work
surface of an employee who must bend down to
see the work, and tilting the work surface
toward the employee to prevent long reaches.
As stated in paragraph (b) of this
section, if the employer can demonstrate that
the MSD hazard that caused or contributed to
the MSD only poses a risk to the particular
employee with the MSD, the employer may limit
the Quick Fix to that individual employee's
job. In other words, in this limited case,
the employer would not be required to fix the
jobs of others in the problem job, because
the hazard is one unique to the employee
rather than the job. For example, a very tall
employee might only need to have the work
surface raised, and a very small employee
might only need to have the work surface
repositioned closer to his or her body.
Paragraph (c) of section 1910.109 requires
employers using the Quick Fix option to
evaluate the controls within 30 days to be
sure that they have eliminated the hazard.
One of the best ways to determine whether the
Quick Fix has worked is to ask the injured
employee. Employers typically can tell almost
immediately that the MSD hazard has been
eliminated; however, it may take a week or
two for the symptoms to resolve.
NIOSH recommends that employers wait a
minimum of two weeks before evaluating
control effectiveness, because employees need
time to acclimate to the changes. NIOSH
[[Page 65793]]
also recommends, and the proposed standard
would require, that employers not wait longer
than 30 days to evaluate controls, to enable
changes to be made if they are not working.
Paragraph (d) of section 1910.909 requires
employers who avail themselves of this option
to keep records of the Quick Fix controls
they implement. This means that employers
must document the controls they have
implemented, when they are implemented, and
the results of the 30-day evaluation. These
records are essential to document the
employer's choice of this option and to
support the employer's decision not to
implement the other components of the
ergonomics program.
Section 1910.910 What must I do if the
Quick Fix does not work?
You must set up the complete ergonomics
program if either of these occurs:
(a) The Quick Fix controls do not eliminate
the MSD hazards within the Quick Fix deadline
(within 120 days after the covered MSD is
identified); or
(b) Another covered MSD is reported in that
job within 36 months.
Exception: If a second covered MSD occurs
in that job resulting from different physical
work activities and conditions, you may use
the Quick Fix a second time.
This section requires employers who have
chosen the Quick Fix option but have not been
successful in eliminating the MSD hazards in
the job to implement the full ergonomics
program. The employer must implement the full
ergonomics program for a job either where the
Quick Fix fails to eliminate MSD hazards
within 120 days, or if another covered MSD
occurs in that job within 36 months after
implementing the Quick Fix.
This paragraph of the proposed standard
contains an exception: where an employer has
implemented a Quick Fix in a job and another
covered MSD occurs in that job, the employer
may may use the Quick Fix approach a second
time if the second covered MSD is one caused
or contributed to by work activities that are
different from those that caused or
contributed to the first covered MSD in that
job. The exception to section 1910.910 would
apply when, for example, a particular job
requires the employee to perform a
manufacturing assembly or data entry job for
a significant amount of their worktime and
also to perform forceful lifting as a core
element of the job. In such a situation, an
employee in that job could experience a case
of carpal tunnel syndrome, and the employer
could use a Quick Fix to control the MSD
hazard. If any employee in the same job
subsequently (e.g., 2 years later) develops a
lower back injury, the exception to section
1910.910 would permit the employer to use a
Quick Fix to address the manual handling
hazard. However, the proposed standard would
only permit the Quick Fix option to be used
twice in the same job because, if covered
MSDs continue to occur in the same job, job
hazard analysis and control, as well as the
other provisions of the full program, must be
implemented.
Evidence of the failure of the Quick Fix
approach could take two forms: the evaluation
performed within 30 days of the
implementation of the Quick Fix reveals that
the control has not eliminated the hazard
(e.g., the employee reports that his/her
signs or symptoms have worsened) or an
employee in that job suffers a covered MSD to
which the exception does not apply. Where the
Quick Fix option has failed, the employer
would be required to move into the full
program, i.e., job hazard analysis and
control, training, and program evaluation.
Management Leadership and Employee
Participation (Secs. 1910.911-1910.913)
Sections 1910.911-913 of the proposed
standard describe and explain the proposed
requirements for the management leadership
and employee participation element of the
Ergonomics Program standard. These two
program components are critical to the
successful implementation of an ergonomics
program in any workplace. The importance of
management leadership is well-recognized
(Exs. 26-17; 26-10; 26-27; 26-22; 26-18; 26-
13; 26-14). Likewise, the importance of
employee participation in ergonomics program
success is also well-documented (Exs. 26-30;
26-17; 26-4; 26-21; 26-19; 26-10; 26-15; 26-
16; 26-20; 26-27; 26-22; 26-11; 26-12; 26-18;
26-13; 26-14).
Management leadership and employee
participation are complementary (Exs. 2-12;
2-13). Management leadership and commitment
provides the motivating force and the
resources for organizing and controlling
activities within an organization (Ex. 2-12).
In effective ergonomics programs, management
regards the protection of employee health and
safety as a fundamental value of the
organization, and incorporates objectives for
the success of this program into its broader
company goals (Ex. 2-12). Employee
participation provides the means through
which workers develop and express their own
commitment to safe and healthful work, as
well as sharing in the overall success of the
company (Ex. 2-12).
OSHA has decided to include a management
leadership component in its proposed
Ergonomics Program standard because the
importance of management leadership has been
emphasized throughout the literature on
ergonomics programs (Exs. 2-13; 26-2; 26-5;
26-9; 26-17; 26-10; 26-27; 26-22; 26-18; 26-
13; 26-14). For example, OSHA's Ergonomics
Program Management Guidelines for Meatpacking
Plants (``Meatpacking Guidelines'') states
that an ``effective ergonomics program
includes a commitment by the employer to
provide the visible involvement of top
management, so that all employees, from
management to line workers, fully understand
that management has a serious commitment to
the program'' (Ex. 2-13, p. 2). NIOSH also
emphasizes management commitment in its
primer, Elements of Ergonomics Programs (Ex.
26-2). According to NIOSH, the ``occupational
safety and health literature stresses
management commitment as a key and perhaps
controlling factor in determining whether any
worksite hazard control effort will be
successful'' (Ex. 26-2, p. 6). Adams (Ex. 26-
9, p. 182) states simply that ``to launch an
ergonomics process, management support is
key.'' In its report titled, ``Worker
Protection: Private Sector Ergonomics
Programs Yield Positive Results,'' the
Government Accounting Office (GAO) also found
management commitment to be a key component
for program success (Ex. 26-5). The GAO found
that ``management commitment demonstrates the
employer's belief that ergonomic efforts are
essential to a safe and healthy work
environment for all employees' (Ex. 26-5,
letter:3.1).
In response to questions raised in OSHA's
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR)
(Ex. 1), a number of comments were received
that addressed the issue of management
commitment for a successful ergonomics
program (Exs. 3-136; 3-173; 3-124; 3-27). For
example, the American Automobile
Manufacturers Association stated that an
ergonomics program should incorporate
``employer commitment in writing to health
and safety,'' and that management commitment
is an ``essential part of any
[[Page 65794]]
successful program'' (Ex. 3-173, p. 2). Ms.
Anne Tramposh, Vice President of Advantage
Health Systems, Inc., also wrote of the
importance of management commitment (Ex. 3-
124, p. 5). She stated:
At the risk of over-generalizing this
issue, we have found that companies lacking
management commitment will not truly
implement the comprehensive multi-
disciplinary program approach that is needed
to address the ``Ergonomic Disorders''
problem. These companies tend to look for
band-aids, not solutions.
On the other hand, companies with strong
top management commitment, that literally
cringe at [the] thought that they may be
injuring their employees, will seek the root
causes of the problem. They will dedicate
financial and personnel resources to the
program. They will not quit when the ``going
gets tough'' and more employees are reporting
injuries (at the beginning of a program).
Any standard or regulation for this problem
must ensure top management commitment. The
Ergonomic Disorder problem will not go away
without it.
Another statement of support for management
commitment was provided by Mr. Stephen
Rohrer, Section Head, EG&G Energy
Measurements, Inc. (Ex. 3-27). In explaining
the ergonomics program at his company, Mr.
Rohrer stated, ``[O]ne of the key components
of the program was obtaining upper management
support for ergonomics. This was accomplished
by a policy statement placing ergonomics at
the same level of importance as the company's
production processes' (Ex. 3-27, p. 2).
OSHA believes that employee participation
is as important for program success as
management leadership. OSHA's Meatpacking
Guidelines (Ex. 2-13) recommend employee
involvement as essential to the
identification of existing and potential
hazards and the development and
implementation of effective hazard abatement.
NIOSH found that promoting employee
participation to improve workplace conditions
has several benefits, including: enhanced
worker motivation and job satisfaction; added
problem-solving capabilities; greater
acceptance of change; and greater knowledge
of the work and organization (Exs. 26-2; 26-
4). Employee participation also helps to
secure employee buy-in to the ergonomics
program.
Section 8 of the OSH Act also recognizes
the value of employee involvement in
workplace safety and health. For example,
this section of the Act spells out specific
requirements for employee involvement in the
observation of employee monitoring to
identify employee exposure to workplace
hazards, obtaining and reviewing records,
receiving information, and reporting hazards.
Active employee participation is
especially important in the proposed
Ergonomics Program standard because this
standard, more than most OSHA standards,
depends for its effectiveness on the
voluntary reporting of MSD signs and symptoms
by employees. To ensure that employees
voluntarily participate when the signs and
symptoms of MSDs first arise, OSHA believes
they must be active participants in program
development, implementation, and evaluation,
and must be sure that they will not be
discriminated against for such participation
(see the discussion of proposed section
1910.911 below). Also, when it came to the
issue of employee participation, many of
OSHA's stakeholders said that this element is
essential to program success (Exs. 26-23; 26-
24).
Additionally, OSHA received many comments
in response to its ANPR that support the idea
of employee participation in ergonomics
programs (Exs. 3-27; 3-66; 3-94; 3-96; 3-98;
3-124; 3-136; 3-155; 3-173). For example, Mr.
James Torgerson, Director-Corporate Safety,
Sara Lee Corporation, stated (Ex. 3-66, p.
4):
Further, it is our belief that employee
involvement in the development and
implementation of a company's ergonomic
program is desirable for both the company and
for the employees. We believe that employers
should be encouraged to consider where
employee involvement can best be utilized in
their individual program. For example,
employees can be used as a resource to assist
in identifying and resolving ergonomic
problems. Mandatory joint labor/management
committees, however, should not be part of
the standard.
Dr. Tom Leamon, Vice President, Liberty
Mutual Insurance Company, also commented on
the need for an employee participation
requirement (Ex. 3-96). He stated, ``[t]he
effectiveness of regulations would be
enhanced by a provision for worker
participation, in particular the
identification of potential problems and
solutions and providing this information to
the management decision process within the
unit'' (Ex. 3-96, p. 2).
Additionally, Mr. Steve Trawick, Director,
Health and Safety, United Paperworkers
International Union and Mr. Daniel Kass,
Director of the Hunter College Center for
Occupational and Environmental Health,
clearly stated their support of employee
participation in ergonomics programs. In
response to the ANPR, they wrote ``[e]mployee
involvement is crucial to the success of the
ergonomic program. Workers know jobs in the
plant better than anyone and can offer
invaluable input in the analysis and decision
making process'' (Ex. 3-136, p. 4).
However, OSHA is aware that there is
opposition to the inclusion of the management
commitment and employee participation
provisions in the proposed Ergonomics Program
standard. For example, several stakeholders
have expressed concern about the
implementation and enforceability of the
management leadership requirements, asserting
that they amount to micro-management of their
business. Clearly, OSHA does not intend this
proposed program element to be a form of
micro-management. Precisely to avoid this
unwanted outcome, the requirements for
management leadership and employee
participation have been proposed in
performance oriented language. Thus,
employers covered by this standard may manage
their leadership of the ergonomics program in
whatever ways work best for their workplaces,
as long as the basic requirements are
satisfied.
Additional opposition to this proposed
provision was expressed in a stakeholder
meeting held in Washington, DC, when one
participant stated that legislation of
employer commitment and employee
participation is problematic because it is
not clear what these provisions require (Ex.
26-23). Other stakeholders have stated that,
in their opinion, employee participation is
not needed in successful programs (Ex. 26-
23). Still others have argued that employee
participation, as proposed by OSHA, is in
violation of the National Labor Relations Act
(NLRA) (Ex. 26-23).
Regarding conflicts with the NLRA,
testimony presented by Henry L. Solano,
Solicitor of Labor, Department of Labor,
before the Subcommittee on Workforce
Protections Committee on Education and the
Workforce in the House of Representatives on
May 13, 1999 (Ex. 26-29), clearly states that
``the interplay of the OSH Act and the
National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) does not
present an obstacle to progress in this area
[of employee participation in promoting a
safe and healthful workplace].'' Mr. Solano
identified many ways in which employers can
involve their employees in safety and health
matters without raising any concern that
[[Page 65795]]
they may be violating Section 8(a)(2) of the
NLRA. OSHA is proposing to require employee
participation but not to specify the form
that participation is to take. There are
several lawful forms of employee
participation that have been upheld or
described with approval by the National Labor
Relations Board (NLRB) in the course of
deciding cases under Section 8(a)(2).
According to Mr. Solano (Ex. 26-29, pp.
11-12), brainstorming groups are one such
example. A group of employees that
brainstorms about MSD hazards, for example,
presents management with a list of ideas or
suggestions. Management independently
considers the ideas and suggestions and may
or may not act on them. An information-
gathering committee that gathers and presents
information to the employer, who may or may
not take action based on the information, is
also a lawful form of employee participation
(Ex. 26-29, p. 12). Granting rights to
individual employees, such as rights to
report problems and make recommendations is
consistent with Section 8(a)(2).
Additionally, employers have the option to
assign safety-related duties to employees as
part of their job description (Ex. 26-29, pp.
12-13, 14). Other forms of employee
participation that have been approved by the
NLRB include safety conferences and all-
employee committees in which all employees
participate (Ex. 26-29, pp. 13-14). Although
in his testimony Mr. Solano was specifically
addressing safety and health programs in
general, his discussion of lawful forms of
employee participation applies equally to
ergonomics programs. Another mechanism is a
joint labor-management committee established
in compliance with the NLRA by bargaining
between the employer and the union
representing the employees. Thus, employers
complying with the proposed standard's
employee participation provisions have many
lawful ways of doing so.
OSHA notes that the proposed management
leadership provisions of the rule have been
written in performance language to allow
individual employers to implement them as
appropriate to conditions in their workplace.
This approach avoids the over specification
that some stakeholders were concerned about.
On the second point, the importance of
employee involvement to program
effectiveness, the discussion below makes
clear that OSHA, and many stakeholders,
safety and health professionals, and
ergonomists agree that this element is the
key to program success. OSHA has also been
careful to structure the proposed rule's
employee participation requirements so that
they are entirely consonant with the case law
based on the NLRA. The proposed rule does
not, for example, mandate any particular
method--such as employee committees--for
ensuring employee participation. This leaves
employers free to involve employees in the
program in ways that do not violate the NLRA
but will further meaningful employee
participation.
Section 1910.911 What is my basic
obligation?
You must demonstrate management leadership
of your ergonomics program. Employees (and
their designated representatives) must have
ways to report ``MSD signs'' and ``MSD
symptoms;'' get responses to reports; and be
involved in developing, implementing and
evaluating each element of your program. You
must not have policies or practices that
discourage employees from participating in
the program or from reporting MSD signs or
symptoms.
Section 1910.911 of the proposed
Ergonomics Program standard provides
employers with an answer to the question
``What is my basic obligation?'' First,
employers would be required to demonstrate
management leadership of their ergonomics
program. Management leadership is
demonstrated through personal concern for
employee health and safety, as evidenced by
the priority placed on the ergonomics
program. OSHA believes that, to be effective,
the demonstration of management leadership
must be active rather than passive.
Leadership that is limited to a ``paper
program,'' such as having written policies
and procedures neatly packaged in a three-
ring binder that sits on a shelf, would not
be viewed by OSHA as meeting the intention of
this provision. On the other hand, management
leadership that is known throughout the
organization via active engagement in the
ergonomics process, with appropriate follow-
through on commitments, would meet OSHA's
intention. Employers who comply with the
requirements of Section 1910.911 would
certainly be fulfilling the leadership
portion of the standard. Employers may
further demonstrate leadership, if they so
choose, by participating in plant
walkarounds, holding meetings with employees
on ergonomic issues, and monitoring reports
on program effectiveness.
Second, proposed section 1910.911 would
also obligate employers to create ways for
employees, and their designated
representatives, to report MSD signs and
symptoms, get responses to reports, and be
involved in the program. OSHA has vigorously
advocated employee participation in workplace
safety and health issues for many years and
is pleased by the growing recognition of the
importance of employee participation by
private-sector companies, trade associations,
safety and health professionals, and
employees themselves. OSHA supports employee
participation because employees have the most
direct interest in their safety and health on
the job, they have an in-depth knowledge of
the operations and tasks they conduct at the
worksite, they often have excellent ideas on
how to solve health and safety problems, and
their interest in the program is vital to its
success. If employees do not report their
injuries and illnesses or recognized job-
related hazards, any workplace program
intended to promote safety and health will
fail.
Congress also recognized the importance of
employee participation in safety and health
activities when it enacted the Occupational
Safety and Health Act in 1970. In section 2
of the Act, titled ``Congressional Findings
and Purpose,'' Congress declared that its
goal of assuring safe and healthful
workplaces was to be achieved by joint
employer-employee efforts to reduce hazards
and implement effective programs for
providing safe and healthful working
conditions. Additionally, Congress
acknowledged that employers and employees
have separate roles and rights connected with
the achievement of safe and healthful working
conditions. Thus, the Act offers employees
opportunities to become involved in setting
standards, variance processes, enforcement,
and training. To assist employees in
exercising these rights, Congress gave
employees access to a wide variety of
information. Employees were also given rights
to file complaints and to participate
actively in OSHA inspections, hazard
abatement verification, citation contests,
and the observation of the monitoring of
toxic substances.
The value of employee participation in
ergonomics programs has been recognized by
other federal agencies. The GAO concluded in
1997 that effective ergonomics programs must
include both management commitment and
employee involvement as two of the core
elements necessary to ensure that ergonomics
hazards are identified and controlled to
protect workers (Ex. 26-5). According to the
GAO (Ex. 26-5), some of the ways in which
employee participation can be demonstrated
include:
[[Page 65796]]
Creating committees or teams to
receive information on ergonomic problem
areas, analyze the problems, and make
recommendations for corrective action;
Establishing a procedure to
encourage prompt and accurate reporting of
signs and symptoms of MSDs by employees so
that these symptoms can be evaluated and, if
warranted, treated;
Undertaking campaigns to solicit
employee reports of potential problems and
suggestions for improving job operations or
conditions; and
Administering periodic surveys to
obtain employee reactions to workplace
conditions so that employees may point out or
confirm problems.
NIOSH also recognizes the benefits of
employee involvement in the publication
Elements of Ergonomics Programs (Ex. 26-2).
According to NIOSH (Ex. 26-2, p. 8) these
benefits include:
Enhanced worker motivation and
job satisfaction;
Added problem-solving
capabilities;
Greater acceptance of change; and
Greater knowledge of the work and
organization.
Further, NIOSH recommends that employees be
encouraged to provide input on defining job
hazards, controlling job hazards, and how
best to implement controls (Ex. 26-2). Forms
of employee involvement described by NIOSH
(Ex. 26-2, pp. 8-9) include:
Joint labor-management safety and
health committees;
Department or area work groups;
and
Direct individual employee input.
However, NIOSH clearly states that ``[n]o
single form or level of worker involvement
fits all situations or meets all needs. Much
depends on the nature of the problems to be
addressed, the skills and abilities of those
involved, and the company's prevailing
practices for participative approaches in
resolving workplace issues'' (Ex. 26-2, p.
9).
Employee involvement, along with
management commitment, is also one of the
major elements included in OSHA's Safety and
Health Program Management Guidelines,
published in January 1989 (54 FR 3904-3916).
Issued with strong public support, the
guidelines state, ``[e]mployee involvement
provides the means through which workers
develop and/or express their own commitment
to safety and health protection, for
themselves and for their fellow workers'' (54
FR 3909). At that time, OSHA stated that ``*
* * employee involvement in decisions
affecting their safety and health results in
better management decisions and more
effective protection'' (54 FR 3907). OSHA
continues to believe that employee
participation plays a crucial role in
protecting the safety and health of employees
and must be an integral part of any
ergonomics program.
A recommendation for employee involvement
was included in OSHA's ``Meatpacking
Guidelines'' as the complement to management
commitment (Ex. 2-13, pp. 2-3). The
Guidelines recommended:
An effective program includes a commitment
by the employer to provide for and encourage
employee involvement in the ergonomics
program and in decisions that affect worker
safety and health, including the following:
1. An employee complaint or suggestion
procedure that allows workers to bring their
concerns to management and provide feedback
without fear of reprisal.
2. A procedure that encourages prompt and
accurate reporting of signs and symptoms of
[MSDs] by employees so that they can be
evaluated and, if warranted, treated.
3. Safety and health committees that
receive information on ergonomic problem
areas, analyze them, and make recommendations
for corrective action.
4. Ergonomic teams or monitors with the
required skills to identify and analyze jobs
for ergonomic stress and recommend solutions.
Third, section 1910.911 of the proposed
standard informs employers that policies or
practices that discourage employees from
reporting MSD signs or symptoms or from
participating in the program would not be
allowed. Such actions on the part of the
employer would undermine the intention of
Sec. 1910.911. As discussed above, OSHA
believes that meaningful employee
participation in the ergonomics program is
essential both to identify existing and
potential MSD hazards, and to develop and
implement an effective solution to abate
these hazards.
In the ANPR, OSHA requested comments
related to early reporting of MSD signs or
symptoms (question D2), the developing and
implementing of ergonomics programs including
involvement on the ergonomics team (question
A6), and the benefits of an ergonomics
program (question A7). In response to this
request, OSHA received information that
supports the proposed requirements in Section
1910.911. For example, Mr. Rohrer of EG&G
Energy Measurements, Inc. commented (Ex. 3-
27, p. 3):
The main benefits of this [ergonomics]
program are educating employees and
empowering employees to recognized ergonomic
problems in their work environment while
helping to provide solutions to those
problems. The program invites employees to
make known work problems without fear of
retribution from management, even in a period
of size restructuring. One of the program
philosophies is quite simple--a problem can't
be solved unless it's identified.
Additionally, Mr. John Clark,
International Representative, International
Union, UAW provided this comment (Ex. 3-155,
p. 3):
The structured participation of workers is
needed for several reasons. Complaints of
symptoms will not be freely given if workers
fear reprisal by management. Workers know
their job best and must be brought into the
process of redesign. The close relationship
of this activity to work standards and
productivity issues requires prior
understandings and continuing oversight. The
program must maintain an emphasis on the
prevention of pain and suffering, not a cost
benefit calculation, and that requires worker
involvement.
Section 1910.912 What must I do to
provide management leadership?
You must:
(a) Assign and communicate responsibilities
for setting up and managing the ergonomics
program so managers, supervisors and
employees know what you expect of them and
how you will hold them accountable for
meeting those responsibilities;
(b) Provide those persons with the
authority, ``resources,'' information and
training necessary to meet their
responsibilities;
(c) Examine your existing policies and
practices to ensure they encourage and do not
discourage reporting and participation in the
ergonomics program; and (d) Communicate
``periodically'' with employees about the
program and their concerns about MSDs.
Proposed section 1910.912 provides
employers with answers to the following
question: ``What must I do to provide
management leadership?'' This section
explains four management leadership
responsibilities that employers
[[Page 65797]]
would have under the proposed ergonomics
standard. First, as stated in paragraph (a),
employers must assign and communicate
responsibilities for setting up and managing
the ergonomics program so that managers,
supervisors and employees know what is
expected of them and how they will be held
accountable for meeting those
responsibilities. Although proposed paragraph
(a) would require that ergonomics program
responsibilities be assigned, it does not
specify who should be assigned to carry out
what responsibility. OSHA believes that the
employer is in the best position to decide
who should have responsibility for the
various parts of the process of implementing
an ergonomics program, and the proposal gives
the employer great leeway in making these
decisions.
The proposed rule also does not describe
how safety and health responsibility is to be
allocated. In larger workplaces, where
responsibilities are described in writing,
the allocation might be accomplished through
official statements, such as job descriptions
or individual annual objectives. In very
small worksites, oral instruction would
suffice as long as everyone knows who has
been assigned what responsibilities. In fact,
in all cases, the key factor is that those to
whom responsibility has been assigned
understand that responsibility and take it
seriously.
Individuals with responsibility for the
ergonomics program must understand how they
will be held accountable for meeting these
responsibilities. OSHA has not specified how
employers should accomplish this proposed
requirement. Again, OSHA believes that
employers are in the best position to decide
how accountability should be determined and
evaluated. Some employers may chose to
incorporate accountability measures into
performance appraisals. For example, one
study reports that supervisor performance
evaluations had been modified to include an
assessment of whether or not ergonomic
problems had been addressed (Ex. 26-28).
Second, as stated in proposed paragraph
(b), employers must provide individuals
assigned responsibilities in the ergonomics
program with the authority, resources,
information and training necessary to meet
their responsibilities. Providing adequate
authority, resources, information and
training necessary to carry out program
responsibilities demonstrates management
leadership. If, for example, an employee is
assigned responsibility for evaluating a
potential MSD hazard, that employee would
need access to relevant information about the
job creating the potential hazard, adequate
knowledge to competently evaluate the job,
sufficient time to evaluate the job, and the
authority to recommend changes to the job if
it is found to present MSD hazards.
Authority, as used in this provision of
the proposed standard, means the delegated
ability to take action. Such delegated
authority is essential if decisions are to be
made in a timely manner and progress is to be
made in accomplishing ergonomic program
goals. Individuals assigned a particular
responsibility under the ergonomics program
must have the authority they need to
discharge those responsibilities.
Resources, as defined in this proposed
standard (see Sec. 1910.945, which contains
definitions of key terms), are the provisions
necessary to develop, implement and maintain
an effective ergonomics program. Resources
include money (such as the funds needed to
purchase equipment to perform job hazard
analysis, develop training materials, and
implement controls), personnel and the work
time to conduct program responsibilities,
such as job hazard analysis or training. The
resources needed to meet program
responsibilities under this standard will
vary with circumstances.
The proposed standard would also require
employers to provide individuals with
assigned responsibility for the ergonomics
program with the information and training
they need to meet their responsibilities. For
individuals involved in ergonomics program
implementation and management, employers
would be required to provide information and
training so that these individuals understand
and know, at a minimum:
The ergonomics program and their
role in it.
How to identify and analyze MSD
hazards.
How to identify, evaluate, and
implement measures to control MSD hazards.
How to evaluate the effectiveness
of ergonomics programs.
Sections 1910.923-928 of the proposed rule
provides additional information about
proposed requirements for ergonomics program
training.
Proposed paragraph (b) is written to allow
broad discretion for employers to decide just
what authority, resources, information, and
training are needed for the specific
responsibilities assigned. The employer is,
however, required by this paragraph to
provide the authority, resources, information
and training necessary to discharge the
responsibility the employer has assigned.
Problems in fulfilling program
responsibilities are often caused by lack of
the necessary authority or resources to
accomplish those responsibilities. For
example, an employee may be assigned the
responsibility for evaluating MSD hazards and
getting those hazards corrected. However, if
the same hazards are found on repeat
inspections, it may be that the employee
lacked the authority to require correction or
that no training or inadequate training in
the evaluation of MSD hazards has been
provided. In both of these examples, the
employer has not provided the authority,
resources, information and training necessary
for the employee to meet his or her assigned
responsibilities.
Third, as stated in proposed paragraph
(c), employers would be required to examine
their existing policies and practices to
ensure that they encourage the reporting of
MSD signs and symptoms and do not discourage
reporting and participation in the ergonomics
program. The intent of this proposed
provision is to inform employers that they
are prohibited by the proposed rule from
taking actions that might undermine or
otherwise interfere with the reporting of MSD
signs and symptoms or ergonomics program
participation by their employees.
OSHA has included this provision in the
proposed standard because the Agency believes
that such protection is needed to encourage
early reporting of the symptoms and signs of
MSDs and meaningful employee participation in
the ergonomics program. OSHA believes that
employees in all workplaces should be
encouraged by their employers to report
injuries, illnesses, and hazards of all
kinds--not just those related to ergonomic
issues--because only full and frank reporting
allows employers to identify hazards and do
something about them. In workplaces where
employees are discouraged, either implicitly
or explicitly, from participating fully in
all aspects of safety and health in the
workplace, deaths, injuries, and illnesses
will continue to occur, employers will
continue to pay high workers' compensation
premiums, worker morale will suffer, and
product quality will be below par.
Encouraging employee
[[Page 65798]]
participation, and particularly the reporting
of MSD signs and symptoms, is especially
important under the proposed ergonomics rule
because the success of the program depends on
such reporting. That is, the standard is
structured so that employee reports of MSD
signs and symptoms trigger employer actions.
OSHA is aware that some employers
discourage reporting unintentionally, and
that this can happen even in workplaces where
an ergonomics program has been implemented in
good faith. For example, employers may be
discouraging full and early reporting if they
have:
A policy that every employee who
reports MSD signs or symptoms must rest at
home without pay.
A policy that requires drug
testing of every employee who reports an
injury.
A supervisory practice of
withholding overtime work for anyone who
reports MSD signs or symptoms.
A policy that prohibits the use
of sick leave if an employee is off work
because of a work-related injury.
It should be noted that OSHA does not
consider that having a drug testing policy
is, in and of itself, a violation of the
standard. However, if the drug testing policy
was applied in a discriminatory way, or had a
chilling effect on employees' willingness to
report, the Agency would evaluate the
situation on a case-by-case basis.
Because the underreporting of occupational
illnesses and injuries is a widely recognized
problem, and is especially serious in the
case of ergonomic injuries and illnesses (see
discussion of underreporting in the
Significance of Risk section (Section VII of
this preamble), the purpose of this proposed
provision is to ensure that employees in jobs
covered by the standard will not be
discouraged from reporting problems to their
employers. For example, the use of incentive
or award programs that focus on achieving low
numbers or rates of reported MSDs may
discourage early reporting. Such programs,
although sometimes intended to improve
employee safety and health, may inadvertently
lead to the underreporting of MSD cases and
thus actually increase unsafe working
conditions. Programs that offer financial
rewards, such as individual or group
performance bonuses, management promotions,
or safety game awards (``safety bingo''), or
provide personal recognition of individual
employees (``safe employee of the month'') to
employees, groups, or supervisors if they
achieve a zero or low incidence of reportable
injuries or illnesses may put considerable
pressure on workers not to report and thus
discourage reporting, whether intentionally
or unintentionally.
OSHA's objective is that employees feel
free to report MSD signs and symptoms as
early as possible, because doing so prevents
pain and suffering, averts disability, and
reduces employer costs. To achieve this
objective, all MSDs must be reported so that
they can be assessed to determine whether
they are covered by the standard. Thus, the
Agency's concern is with the proper reporting
of MSD injuries and illnesses, not on the
design of the employer's incentive program.
If such programs have the effect of
discouraging reporting or employee
participation, however, employers would not
be in compliance with this section of the
standard. Thus, because these programs have
the potential to discourage reporting,
employers should take special care to ensure
that they do not do so.
In comments submitted to OSHA in response
to requests made in the ANPR, Martin Marietta
Energy Systems, Inc., among others, stated
that incentive programs may pose possible
barriers to early reporting (Ex. 3-151). The
International Union of Electrical, Salaried,
Machine and Furniture Workers urged OSHA to
discourage practices that inhibit early
reporting, and specifically pointed to the
use of safety contests (Ex. 3-183).
OSHA is not prohibiting the use of safety
incentive or award programs, and nothing in
the proposed rule would do so. However, OSHA
is encouraging employers who wish to use such
programs to design them to reward safe work
practices, such as active participation in
the ergonomics program, the identification of
MSD hazards in the workplace, and the
reporting of the early signs and symptoms of
MSDs, rather than to reward employees for
having fewer MSDs or lower rates of MSDs. The
differences in these two kinds of programs--
those that focus on safe work practices and
those that stress fewer reported MSDs--is
that the former, when coupled with
appropriate supervisory feedback to
employees, may actually reinforce and
encourage the kinds of safe practices and
participation that employers need to enhance
safety and health, while the latter too often
encourage employees not to report.
OSHA would not consider incentive programs
to be ``illegal'' under this rule except
where they are applied in a discriminatory
way or have a chilling effect on employees'
willingness to report. OSHA's practice is to
evaluate the recordkeeping system, and the
accuracy and completeness of reporting, when
it inspects facilities. If no underreporting
is apparent, OSHA does not inquire about any
incentive programs that may be in place at
the facility. However, if there does appear
to be underreporting, OSHA evaluates the
situation further to determine what is
contributing to the underreporting. OSHA
would not cite the employer under this
standard for having an incentive program
unless it was discouraging reporting or
participation in the program (Sec. 1910.912
(c)). OSHA would cite employers for failure
to record OSHA recordable injuries and
illnesses, but such a citation would be for a
violation of the recordkeeping rule, not the
ergonomics rule.
It is OSHA's experience that incentive or
award programs are not needed to motivate
employees who are active participants in
workplace safety and health programs, such as
the ergonomics program proposed by this
standard. Employees involved in effective
workplace programs already receive feedback
from their co-workers, supervisors, and
managers on safe work practices, regularly
provide such feedback to others, and are
``rewarded'' by being full participants in
achieving a safe and healthful workplace.
Likewise, only informed employees can
truly participate effectively in a workplace
ergonomics program. Employees who have
received adequate information and training on
ergonomic hazards in their workplace can act
as ``another pair of eyes and ears'' for
their employers. Informed and trained
employees can contribute to a workplace
culture that values safety and health.
Fourth, proposed paragraph (d) would
require that employers ``communicate
`periodically' with employees about the
program and their concerns about MSDs.''
Periodic communication between an employer
and his or her employees means a regular,
two-way exchange of information in which
employees receive information about the
employer's ergonomics program and its
progress, and the employer receives
information about MSDs that is of concern to
the employees. Although OSHA does not specify
a time period for these communications, the
frequency of this exchange of information
should accurately reflect the needs of a
given workplace. For example, OSHA would
expect more frequent communication during the
start-up
[[Page 65799]]
phase of an ergonomics program, when MSD
signs or symptoms are reported, and prior to
the implementation of workplace changes. At a
minimum, communications must be often and
timely enough to ensure that employees have
the information necessary to protect
themselves from MSDs, and have effective
input into the operation of the ergonomics
program.
Employers will be able to demonstrate this
communication by periodically checking to see
whether their employees have accurate
information about the process for reporting
MSD signs or symptoms. Employees should be
able to state the various steps of this
process, or at a minimum, the first step in
the reporting process. Additionally,
employers will be able to inspect the reports
themselves (if they are in writing) to
determine whether employees are actually
reporting MSD signs or symptoms and if they
are reporting them early.
Section 1910.913 What ways must employees
have to participate in the ergonomics
program?
Employees (and their designated
representatives) must have:
(a) A way to report MSD signs and symptoms;
(b) Prompt responses to their reports;
(c) Access to this standard and to
information about the ergonomics program; and
(d) Ways to be involved in developing,
implementing and evaluating each element of
the ergonomics program.
Proposed section 1910.913 of the
ergonomics program standard informs employers
of OSHA's specific requirements for employee
participation. It provides an answer to the
question, ``What ways must employees have to
participate in the ergonomics program?''
Proposed paragraph (a) contains the
requirement that employees, and their
designated representatives, if the employees
are represented by a union or unions, must
have a way to report MSD signs and symptoms.
This proposed provision requires employers to
establish a clear process for reporting MSD
signs and symptoms and to make that process
known to his or her employees, so that
reports are received in a timely and
systematized manner. For example, employees
must know whom to make reports to. These
reporting systems may be either formal or
informal, depending on the nature and size of
the affected employee population. The
intention of this provision is for a means of
communication to be available and for
employees to know how to have access to the
system.
Prompt answers to employee reports are
necessary so that employees know that their
reports have been received and considered.
Paragraph (b) of section 1910.913 of the
proposed ergonomics program standard requires
that employees and their designated
representative(s), where applicable, receive
prompt responses to their reports. OSHA
believes that a timely and good faith
response is essential to reinforce the
reporting and information exchange process.
Quick responses to employee reports are a way
to demonstrate management leadership of the
ergonomics program. The requirements in
proposed paragraphs (a) and (b) of section
1910.913 are the complements to proposed
section 1910.916, which requires employers to
identify at least one person to receive and
respond promptly to employee reports of MSD
signs or symptoms, and to take the action
this standard requires.
Proposed paragraph (c) of section 1910.913
states that employees, and their designated
representative(s), if applicable, must have
``access to this standard and to information
about the ergonomics program.'' Such
information includes: the assignment of
responsibilities under the program; job
hazard analysis results; hazard control
plans; and records of reports related to the
occurrence of covered MSDs and the
identification of MSD hazards; ergonomic
program evaluation results; and lists of
alternative duty jobs. Additionally,
employees must be provided with access to a
copy of this Ergonomics Program standard.
Employers can comply with this provision by
posting a copy of the standard on the
bulletin board. OSHA believes that employees
must have this information to meaningfully
participate in the ergonomics program.
However, employee access to information does
not include access to confidential or private
information the employer may have that is of
a personal nature, such as medical records.
Assuring employee access to information
related to their safety and health on the job
is not unique to this proposed standard.
Employers are already obligated to provide
employees with access to their exposure and
medical records by the requirements set forth
in OSHA's standard ``Access to Employee
Exposure and Medical Records'' (29 CFR
1910.1020). Additionally, OSHA requires
employers covered by the Process Safety
Management standard (29 CFR 1910.119) to
provide employee access to process hazard
analyses and all other information required
to be developed under that standard.
Paragraph (d) of section 1910.913 proposes
that employees and their designated
representatives, if applicable, must have
``ways to be involved in developing,
implementing and evaluating each element of
the ergonomics program.'' Element of
ergonomics program refers to elements that
are required by this standard, as listed in
proposed section 1910.905. OSHA believes that
employees must be involved in these important
elements of an ergonomics program in order
for the program to be effective. For example,
when it comes to job hazard analysis and
control, no one knows the job better than the
employee(s) who does the job on a regular
basis. Employees are also most likely to have
valuable input regarding the most effective
and inexpensive solutions to MSD hazards
related to their jobs.
For example, employees must have input in
the development, implementation, and
evaluation of ergonomic training programs,
where training is required under this
standard. Employees themselves are the best
advisors regarding effective training program
content and level of understanding for
sometimes complex training material.
Obviously, in workplaces where the primary
language of some of the employees to be
trained is not English, employees must play a
critical role in assuring that the training
material is presented in language that is
understood by the employees. In many cases,
that language will be English, because many
workers will have acquired a good
understanding of English. The standard
intends, however, that the training program
content be understood by all employees who
are required to receive training.
Employees must also be involved in
evaluating the effectiveness of the
ergonomics program and the control measures
that are implemented. OSHA believes that the
employees who perform jobs that have MSD
hazards are in the best position to know
whether or not the ergonomics program and
control measures are effective as implemented
or if they need to be modified. To
effectively eliminate MSD hazards, employers
and employees must form a partnership, with
each contributing his or her unique expertise
to achieve the goals of the ergonomics
program.
[[Page 65800]]
The nature, form, and extent of how
employers must provide employees with
opportunities to participate will vary among
workplaces. Each workplace and workforce is
different, and what will be effective will
vary, depending on such factors as:
The nature of the MSD hazards;
The number and type of problem
jobs in the workplace;
Past experience with employee
participation programs;
The presence or absence of a
union;
The general safety and health
culture of the workplace;
Relevant state or local laws; and
The employer's financial
resources.
OSHA proposes to provide great latitude to
each employer, in consultation with
employees, to find the optimal means for
achieving the participation required by this
proposed standard in their workplace.
Hazard Information and Reporting
(Secs. 1910.914-1910.916)
Proposed sections 1910.914-1910.916 would
require employers whose employees work in
manufacturing or manual handling operations,
or in jobs in which a covered MSD has
occurred, to provide employees in those jobs
with basic information about musculoskeletal
disorders (MSDs), including their signs and
symptoms and how to recognize them. Some
signs and symptoms of MSD problems are
obvious, such as trigger finger, while
others, such as the early stages of
tendinitis, may be more subtle. However,
explaining the nature of the problem, the
characteristic signs and symptoms, and the
importance of early reporting is a necessary
component of any ergonomics program.
The proposed requirements in these
sections are designed to ensure that
employers with high-risk employees, such as
those in manual handling and manufacturing
jobs, have a system in place that will
respond appropriately if a covered MSD is
reported. In order for employees to report
the first signs or symptoms of an MSD, they
must recognize those signs and symptoms and
understand the urgency of reporting them to
the employer promptly. To achieve this end,
the proposed rule requires employers to
establish a system that includes an MSD
reporting system. These sections also require
that employers provide pertinent information
to employees in problem jobs; this
information must address the signs and
symptoms of MSDs and common MSD hazards.
These sections stress the importance of
early reporting to ensure that employees with
MSD signs or symptoms receive help before
serious damage occurs. Additionally, the
early reporting of MSDs helps to avoid the
development of MSD signs or symptoms in other
employees in the workplace in the same job.
Receiving reports from employees and
reviewing available information is an easy
and straightforward way to identify problem
jobs. For example, employers who follow up on
employee reports of MSD signs or symptoms,
such as undue strain, localized fatigue,
discomfort, or pain that does not go away
after overnight rest will be able to take
preventive action at the earliest stages.
OSHA's proposed reporting system is a tool
for secondary prevention of MSDs. Its purpose
is to identify employees with covered MSDs
before they would otherwise seek health care
for their signs or symptoms. Thus, by design,
the reporting system should be highly
sensitive, i.e., identify both those
employees who definitely have a covered MSD
as well as those who, upon further
evaluation, are found not to have a covered
MSD. OSHA believes this approach is
appropriate because certain requirements of
this proposed rule are triggered by the
occurrence of a covered MSD. Reporting all
signs or symptoms of MSDs will help to ensure
that covered MSDs are properly identified.
It is important to note that reporting of
all signs or symptoms of MSDs through this
system does not mean that all of these cases
will turn out, on further investigation, to
be OSHA recordable cases. Once an employee
reports signs or symptoms of an MSD, his or
her case would need to be evaluated for OSHA
recordability. If the case is determined to
be an OSHA recordable MSD and in addition
meets the screening criteria (see
Sec. 1910.902), it is a covered MSD as
defined by the proposed standard.
The information that employers would be
required to provide to employees under these
sections is general information about MSDs
and common MSD hazards. This information, for
example, would not have to be specific about
the precise conditions or MSD hazards of a
particular job. Job-specific training that
results from a job hazard analysis is only
required if the requirements in the sections
that address training (Secs. 1910.9 23-928)
are triggered by the occurrence of a covered
MSD. Examples of the ``big picture''
information that would be required by section
1910.915 include: general hazards associated
with MSDs; what musculoskeletal disorders are
and the signs and symptoms they cause; the
importance of early reporting of MSD signs
and symptoms to full recovery; and
information about the systems in place to
handle employee reporting of MSD signs and
symptoms. The intent of this section is to
make employees aware of MSDs and common MSD
hazards.
In debates over the OSH Act before its
passage, Senator Williams stressed that the
hidden nature of harmful physical agents made
employee awareness of these hazards
critically important to providing them with
adequate protection from excessive exposure
(Legislative History, at 415). MSD hazards
are an example of harmful physical agents.
This observation continues to be true today,
and is particularly apparent in the case of
MSDs, which are widely underreported, in part
because neither employers nor employees make
the link between workplace risk factors and
the signs and symptoms of MSDs.
Section 1910.914 What is my basic
obligation?
You must set up a way for employees to
report MSD signs and symptoms and to get
prompt responses. You must evaluate employee
reports of MSD signs and symptoms to
determine whether a covered MSD has occurred.
You must periodically provide information to
employees that explains how to identify and
report MSD signs and symptoms.
Proposed section 1910.914 informs
employers of what they are required to do to
facilitate employee reporting of MSD signs
and symptoms. There are three proposed
obligations under this section. First,
employers would be required to: ``set up a
way for employees to report MSD signs and
symptoms and to get prompt responses.'' By
using the word ``way,'' OSHA has created
flexibility for employers to use either
formal or informal approaches to establishing
a reporting system. Large employers may
decide that a formal system of reporting that
includes written documentation is appropriate
to ensure that nothing falls through the
cracks. Employers with fewer than 10
employees, on the other hand, may find that
oral reporting systems are adequate. Many
employers may already have reporting systems
in place that can be adapted to accommodate
the requirements of the proposed Ergonomics
Program standard. However, regardless of how
methods are tailored to meet the needs
[[Page 65801]]
of a specific workplace and workforce, the
process must be systematic and accessible to
all employees.
The MSD signs and symptoms to be reported
are defined in the section of this standard
that covers key terms (Sec. 1910.945). Signs
of MSDs are defined as ``objective physical
findings that an employee may be developing
an MSD.'' Examples of signs of MSDs include:
Decreased range of motion;
Decreased grip strength;
Loss of function; and
Deformity.
Symptoms of MSDs are more subjective physical
experiences that an employee may report that
indicate he or she may be developing an MSD.
Examples of MSD symptoms in the affected body
part include:
Numbness;
Burning;
Pain;
Cramping;
Tingling; and
Stiffness.
Symptoms can vary in their severity,
depending on the amount of exposure an
employee has had. Often symptoms may appear
gradually and be evidenced as muscle fatigue
or pain at work that disappears during rest.
Usually symptoms become more severe as
exposure continues. For example, at first
tingling may continue during rest, then
numbness or pain may make it difficult to
perform the job, and finally pain may be so
severe that the employee is unable to perform
physical work activities.
There are several reasons why OSHA
believes the proposed reporting system is
important for a successful ergonomics
program. First, an important trigger in this
proposed standard is the occurrence of an
MSD. In order for an employer to be made
aware of MSDs in his or her workplace,
employees must have a mechanism for reporting
this information. Second, if an accessible
reporting system is not made available to
employees, they will be discouraged from
reporting MSD signs and symptoms and the
ergonomics program will fail. A reporting
system that is well-known to employees is one
way to ensure employee participation in the
ergonomics program.
Section 1910.914 further proposes that
``you must evaluate employee reports of MSD
signs and symptoms to determine whether a
covered MSD has occurred.'' This requirement
has been written to allow maximum flexibility
for employers. In order to determine whether
an employee who has experienced MSD signs or
symptoms actually has a covered MSD, many
employers will choose to have employees who
report MSD signs or symptoms evaluated by an
ergonomist or health care professional. Other
employers will use ergonomics committee
members or other staff with appropriate
training. Some employers may have a health
care professional available on-site for
employee evaluations, and others may use a
contract provider to whom employees are
referred. Regardless of who does this
evaluation, employers would be required to
take reports of MSD signs or symptoms
seriously and to provide employees, when
appropriate, with early assessment and access
to prompt and effective evaluation at no cost
to the employees. When the occurrence of a
covered MSD is confirmed, employers would be
responsible for providing MSD management of
that MSD to the affected employee. Proposed
employer obligations for MSD management are
found in sections 1910.929-1910.935 and are
discussed below in connection with those
sections of the proposed standard.
As part of their basic obligation,
employers would also be required to
``periodically provide information to
employees that explains how to identify and
report MSD signs and symptoms.'' The
information that would be required to be
communicated to fulfill the basic obligation
under this section (Sec. 1910.914) differs
from the information to be provided through
the training provisions contained in sections
1910.923-1910.928 of the proposed rule. The
information to be shared with employees under
this section is general information related
to MSDs, MSD hazards, and the ergonomics
program. Employees need access to this
information in order to be alert to the onset
of MSD signs or symptoms and to effectively
participate in the ergonomics program, as
well as to protect themselves while at work.
In order to provide employers with maximum
flexibility, the time intervals for these
activities have not been specified in the
proposed rule. However, in the section on key
terms in this standard (Sec. 1910.945), OSHA
states that ``periodically means that a
process or activity, such as records review
or training, is performed on a regular basis
that is appropriate for the conditions in the
workplace.'' By using the term ``regular
basis,'' OSHA provides employers with a
flexible definition that is adaptable to an
employer's specific situation. OSHA proposes
that information for employees be provided
periodically because retention of information
diminishes over time.
The section on key terms in this standard,
Sec. 1910.945, further defines
``periodically'' to mean ``that the process
or activity is conducted as often as needed,
such as when significant changes are made in
the workplace that may result in increased
exposure to MSD hazards.'' Examples of
significant changes in the workplace include
the introduction of new equipment, new
processes, or new production demands that may
increase the likelihood that employees will
be exposed to MSD hazards.
Section 1910.915 What information must I
provide to employees?
You must provide this information to
current and new employees:
(a) Common MSD hazards;
(b) The signs and symptoms of MSDs, and the
importance of reporting them early;
(c) How to report MSD signs and symptoms;
and
(d) A summary of the requirements of this
standard.
Proposed section 1910.915 informs
employers of the specific information they
must provide to current and new employees in
manufacturing operations, manual handling
operations and other jobs with covered MSDs.
The provision of this information to
employees is necessary to facilitate their
active participation in the ergonomics
program. Additionally, since the
identification of problem jobs is triggered
by employee reporting of a covered MSD,
informed employees are critical to assure the
accuracy of the reporting system, regardless
of whether the system is written or oral.
OSHA considers ``current'' employees to be
those in either manufacturing operations,
manual handling operations, or other problem
jobs at the time this standard becomes
effective. ``New'' employees include newly
hired employees, as well as those who are new
to manufacturing and manual handling
operations or other jobs with covered MSDs,
but not necessarily new to the company.
[[Page 65802]]
At a minimum, OSHA would require that
employers provide their employees with
information that covers four topics. First,
proposed paragraph (a) would require that
employers provide information to current and
new employees in manufacturing operations,
manual handling operations, and other jobs
with covered MSDs so they know about the
``common MSD hazards.'' By using the word
``common'' OSHA means general, as opposed to
job specific, MSD hazards.
Second, as stated in paragraph (b),
employees must know ``the signs and symptoms
of MSDs, and the importance of reporting them
early.'' A discussion of MSD signs and
symptoms and the importance of early
reporting can be found in the summary and
explanation of section 1910.914.
The ultimate goal of early reporting of
signs and symptoms is to identify MSDs while
they are still reversible in order to prevent
pain, suffering, and disability due to MSD
hazards. Such a goal creates a win-win
environment for both employers and employees.
Employees are assured that their health and
safety will be protected, and employers will
benefit from the decreased occurrence and
costs of covered MSDs in their workforce.
Third, proposed paragraph (c) would
require employers to provide information to
their employees in manufacturing operations,
manual handling operations and other jobs
with covered MSDs so they know how to report
MSD signs and symptoms. OSHA does not specify
how this information must be shared. It can
be communicated either in writing or orally,
depending on the nature of the work
environment. However, employers must be sure
that their affected employees understand how
to access this reporting system. This
requirement complements the obligation set
forth in section 1910.914, which states that
employers must set up a way for employees to
report MSD signs and symptoms.
Fourth, proposed paragraph (d) would
require employers to provide ``a summary of
the requirements of this standard'' to their
employees in manufacturing operations, manual
handling operations, and other jobs with
covered MSDs. OSHA believes that employees
are entitled to information about the
ergonomic program elements and specific
requirements contained in this standard.
Moreover, employees must have this
information to meaningfully participate in
the ergonomics program.
OSHA believes that there are many
practical ways that employers would be able
to accomplish these proposed requirements.
One method that aids the understanding of
somewhat technical information is to allow
employees an opportunity to ask questions
about information presented to them and
receive answers to their questions. There are
many ways that question and answer sessions
can be incorporated into the work schedule.
Examples include question and answer sessions
that are: organized classroom style; part of
regularly scheduled meetings with employees
and their supervisors; an outgrowth of
informal talks with employees; and
incorporated into safety meetings. OSHA
believes that merely arranging for employees
to view a videotape on common MSD hazards,
without an opportunity for discussion or
questions and answers, is unlikely to ensure
that the necessary information has been
effectively communicated.
Another method critical to employee
understanding of information related to
common MSD hazards and the signs and symptoms
of MSDs is to provide the information in the
language and at levels the employees
comprehend. Commercially available
information related to common MSD hazards and
MSD signs and symptoms is often available in
languages other than English and at various
comprehension levels. When purchasing
prepared informational materials, employers
must consider language and comprehension when
making their selections. For employers with
predominantly non-English speaking workers,
an effective alternative to commercially
prepared informational material may be
selecting and training a worker who speaks
both English and the predominant language of
the workforce to deliver MSD hazard
information. For employers with workers who
cannot read, employers would be required to
provide information orally or through visual
displays or graphics.
OSHA recognizes that retention periods for
information, especially technical
information, can sometimes be short, and that
it often takes multiple presentations of
information before it is effectively
understood, processed, and applied.
Therefore, OSHA would expect employers to be
creative in meeting these proposed
obligations. Some additional ideas that
employers may consider include: posting
information in conspicuous locations as a
continuous reminder; frequently changing the
message conveyed in the posted information so
that it doesn't become stale and invisible;
using plain language and terms to communicate
the information; incorporating visually
appealing pictures or displays; and setting
up interactive displays of model work
stations so employees can experiment with
equipment while they are not engaged in
production or service provision.
Section 1910.916 What must I do to set up
a reporting system?
You must:
(a) Identify at least one person to receive
and respond to employee reports, and to take
the action this standard requires.
(b) Promptly respond to employee reports of
MSD signs or symptoms in accordance with this
standard.
Proposed section 1910.916 advises
employers of what they must ``do to set up a
reporting system.'' This section contains two
requirements that employers must meet. First,
proposed paragraph (a) would require that
employers ``identify at least one person to
receive and respond to employee reports, and
to take the action this standard requires.''
These proposed requirements provide
additional support and encouragement for
employees to report MSD signs and symptoms.
If employees are expected to report MSD signs
and symptoms, there must be at least one
person assigned the responsibility to receive
and respond to the reports and act upon them.
The employer may decide who the person or
persons to receive such reports should be and
how many persons are needed. In many places
of employment, all front-line supervisors
have the responsibility to receive and
respond to reports of work-related injuries
and illness. In other workplaces, a safety
officer or safety committee has the
responsibility to receive and respond to such
reports. In still other companies an
occupational health nurse may be available to
receive and respond to reports of MSD signs
and symptoms.
Small employers, on the other hand, may
choose to carry out these responsibilities
themselves instead of delegating them to
others. For example, a small employer could
simply make sure that all employees are
encouraged to report MSD signs and symptoms
directly to him or her. In response to those
reports, that same small employer would then
also be the designated individual to ensure
that the appropriate action, as required by
this standard, is initiated when the employee
has a covered MSD. In the proposed standard
the
[[Page 65803]]
choice of designee is left to the employer,
because OSHA recognizes that various
employers may elect to implement this
provision differently.
Second, proposed paragraph (b) of this
section would require employers to ``
promptly respond to employee reports of MSD
signs or symptoms in accordance with this
standard.'' The summary and explanation for
most of this requirement has been previously
discussed in section 1910.914, which covers
the employer's basic obligation. Any employee
reports of MSD signs or symptoms must be
taken seriously by the employer; if a covered
MSD has occurred, the employee's job is a
problem job, and the employer must then
comply with the job hazard analysis and
control provisions of sections 1910.917
through 1910.922. Such reports may also
indicate that an element(s) of the ergonomics
program is not properly functioning. Thus,
employers must critically evaluate employee
reports of MSD signs or symptoms and
determine what actions must be taken to
comply with the requirements of this proposed
Ergonomics Program standard.
Job Hazard Analysis and Control
(Secs. 1910.917-1910.922)
This part of the Summary and Explanation
discusses the proposed requirements for Job
Hazard Analysis and Control (Secs. 1910.917-
1910.922). It describes the proposed
requirements, provides information on the
process of job hazard analysis and control,
and presents examples of controls that have
been used effectively by employers to
eliminate or materially reduce MSD hazards.
Job hazard analysis and control is the
heart of any ergonomics program because it is
the first step in eliminating or materially
reducing MSD hazards. Through job hazard
analysis, employers identify and assess where
and how employees' physical capabilities have
been exceeded in a given job. It does this by
identifying what aspects of the physical work
activities and conditions of the job and what
ergonomics risk factors may be causing or
contributing to the MSD hazards.
Once MSD hazards have been identified, the
next step is to eliminate or control them. An
effective hazard control process involves
identifying and implementing control measures
to obtain an adequate balance between worker
capabilities and work requirements so that
MSDs are not reasonably likely to occur
(Karwowski and Salvendy, Ergonomics in
Manufacturing, 1998, Ex. 26-1419).
OSHA is proposing a flexible approach to
the analysis and control of MSD hazards. A
flexible approach helps to ensure that the
required job hazard analysis and control
process is appropriate for a diverse range of
employers and is applicable to a variety of
different jobs. For example, OSHA believes
that both small and large employers will be
able to use the job hazard analysis and
control provisions of the standard and will
be able to comply with them.
Section 1910.917 What is my basic
obligation?
You must analyze the problem job to
identify the ``ergonomic risk factors'' that
result in MSD hazards. You must eliminate the
MSD hazards, reduce them to the extent
feasible, or materially reduce them using the
incremental abatement process in this
standard. If you show that the MSD hazards
only pose a risk to the employee with the
covered MSD, you may limit the job hazard
analysis and control to that individual
employee's job.
OSHA is proposing that employers analyze
jobs in which a covered MSD is reported. (In
the proposed rule these jobs are called
``problem jobs.'') If employers determine,
through the job hazard analysis, that there
are physical work activities and work
conditions in the problem job that are
reasonably likely to be causing or
contributing to the covered MSD, they would
be required to implement controls to achieve
one of these control endpoints: eliminate MSD
hazards, reduce hazards to the extent
feasible, or materially reduce the hazard
(following the incremental abatement process
in Sec. 1910.922). (The control endpoints in
this basic obligation section would also
apply to those ergonomics programs that might
be grandfathered in under Sec. 1910.908.)
1. Covered MSDs
OSHA is proposing to limit employers'
obligation to analyze and control MSD hazard
requirements to jobs in which covered MSDs
have been reported after the date the
Ergonomics Program Standard becomes
effective. This means that the only employers
who would have to analyze and control jobs
are those who have determined that a covered
MSD has occurred in their workplace.
Many stakeholders support limiting job
hazard analysis and control to jobs in which
there is an identified MSD hazard, such as an
injury (Exs. 3-56, 3-99, 3-114, 3-133, 3-161,
26-1370). Other stakeholders suggested that
an ergonomics rule should require employers
to analyze and control any job in which
employees are exposed to MSD hazards (Exs. 3-
141, 3-183, 3-184). OSHA requests comment on
whether job hazard analysis and control
should be limited to jobs with covered MSDs
or expanded to include jobs in which
employees are exposed to MSD hazards, even if
no injuries have been reported.
2. Problem Jobs
OSHA is proposing that employers must do
hazard analysis and control in problem jobs.
The requirement that employers analyze jobs
with covered MSDs is not limited to the
injured employee's job or workstation. It
also includes the workstations of others in
that job in the establishment who are exposed
to the same physical work activities and
conditions and thus the same MSD hazards. If
the job is performed on more than one work
shift in the establishment, the analysis must
include employees from the other shifts who
are to exposed the same physical work
activities and conditions and thus the same
MSD hazards. Including in the analysis other
employees who perform the same physical work
activities is an important proactive measure
for preventing other employees from
developing the type of MSD that has already
occurred at least once among employees who
are doing the same type of tasks. (However,
the employer would not be required to analyze
the same job performed at other
establishments of the company.)
OSHA is proposing that the analysis must
include all jobs involving the same physical
work activities and conditions as those where
a covered MSD has occurred, regardless of
whether those jobs have the same job title.
Using job titles/classifications to determine
which jobs are analyzed is not necessarily
relevant in terms of safety and health
concerns. First, jobs involving the same
physical work activities and conditions may
have different titles if there are working
supervisors/managers, a seniority system, or
different work shifts. For example,
``Fabricator II'' on the overnight shift may
be performing the same physical work
activities as ``Junior Fabricator'' or
``Apprentice Fabricator'' on the day shift.
If so, they all may be at increased risk of
developing an MSD.
Second, relying on job titles may group
together employees who have the same title
but whose jobs are quite different. For
example, all ``assembler'' jobs on an auto
assembly line may not involve the same
physical work activities or conditions. One
assembler may bolt on a door, another puts on
the bumper, while the third one installs the
[[Page 65804]]
dashboard. Analyzing these jobs as one group
may not be helpful because the physical work
activities may be so different that the
employees are not exposed to the same risk
factors and, as a result, the same controls
will not work.
Although employees in jobs in the
workplace must be included in job hazard
analysis if their jobs involve the same
physical work activities and conditions, OSHA
recognizes that jobs may not have the same
activities and conditions just because
employees use the same equipment or are
working on the same product. For example,
employees do not have to be included if their
physical work activities differ in terms of
activities and conditions. For example, VDT
users may not be considered to be in the same
job where one user does inputting for more
than 4 hours a day at a modular VDT
workstation and the other uses the VDT on the
desk only to read and send e-mail messages.
These two employees have significantly
different levels of exposure to ergonomic
risk factors. The fact that employees are
working on the same motorcycle assembly line
does not necessarily mean they are performing
the same assembly job. One employee on that
line may be screwing on the shock absorbers,
where he is exposed to awkward postures and
force, while another employee is exposed to
forceful lifting and lowering while putting
on the wheels.
On the other side of the same job issue,
where employers show that the problem is
limited to the employee who reported the MSD,
they may limit job hazard analysis and
control to addressing the MSD hazards that
are affecting that individual employee. They
also may limit the remaining elements of
their program, such as training, to that
individual employee.
Evidence in the record suggests that there
are likely to be situations in which the
physical work activities or conditions only
pose a risk to the reporting employee. For
example, an employee in a commercial bakery
may report a back or shoulder MSD related to
extended reaches involved in sorting rolls.
However, other employees who have performed
the job for several years do not have (and
never have had) difficulties performing the
physical work activities of the job. In this
case, an employer might conclude that the
problem is limited to the injured employee.
In this situation, the employer could limit
the response (e.g., analysis, control,
training) to physical work activities and
conditions confronting that injured employee.
Another example might involve
manufacturing assembly line job where an
employee is much shorter than other
employees. The employee reports persistent
shoulder and elbow pain, which the employer
observes is caused by having to reach higher
than the other employees to perform the job
tasks. This may also be an appropriate case
for the employer to focus the analysis and
control efforts on the employee who reported
the problem.
Section 1910.918 What must I do to
analyze a problem job?
You must:
(a) Include in the job hazard analysis all
of the employees in the problem job or those
who represent the range of physical
capabilities of employees in the job;
(b) Ask the employees whether performing
the job poses physical difficulties, and, if
so, which physical work activities or
conditions of the job they associate with the
difficulties;
* * * * *
An ergonomics job hazard analysis is the
employer's process for pinpointing the work-
related causes of MSDs. It involves examining
the workplace conditions and individual
elements or tasks of a job to identify and
assess the ergonomic risk factors that are
reasonably likely to be causing or
contributing to the reported MSDs (Ex. 26-2).
Job hazard analysis can also be a preventive
measure. That is, it is used to identify jobs
and job tasks where MSDs and MSD hazards are
reasonably likely to develop in the future.
Job hazard analysis is an essential
element in the effective control of MSD
hazards. In many situations, the causes of
MSD hazards are apparent after discussions
with the employee and observation of the job,
but in other jobs the causes may not be
readily apparent. In part, this is because
most MSD hazards involve exposure to a
combination of risk factors (i.e.,
multifactoral hazard). For example, it may
not be clear in a repetitive motion job
whether exposure to repetition, force or
awkward postures is the risk factor that is
causing the problem.
The job hazard analysis is also important
to pinpoint where the risk of harm exists and
to rule out aspects of the job that do not
put employees at risk. In this sense, a job
hazard analysis is an efficient way to help
employers focus their resources on the most
likely causes of the problem so that the
control strategy they select has a reasonable
expectation of eliminating or materially
reducing the MSD hazards. It also provides
employers with the information they need to
target their efforts to those jobs or tasks
that may pose the most severe problems.
In this proposed standard, the job hazard
analysis also serves another purpose. It is a
systematic method for confirming whether the
employer's initial determination that the MSD
is work-related was correct. This is an
important step for those employers whose
ergonomics programs include early
intervention when employees report MSDs. For
example, a number of employers said that they
provide MSD management first (i.e., immediate
restricted work activity whenever an employee
reports MSD signs or symptoms), and afterward
look to see whether they need to take action
to fix the job. For these employers, the job
hazard analysis includes two parts: first,
after careful examination the employee is
determined by the analysis to be exposed to
ergonomic risk factors to the extent that a
covered MSD is reasonably likely to occur;
and second, the employers has determined that
no job fix is needed. The job hazard analysis
steps in such a case help employers who have
an effective reporting and MSD management
system and who have relied on a preliminary
determination to trigger medical intervention
not to go further than is necessary to
address the hazard.
The proposed rule does not require that
employers use a particular method for
identifying and analyzing MSD hazards.
Employers are free to select the method or
process that best fits the conditions of
their workplaces, and there are many
different approaches currently in use (see,
for example, Exs. 26-2, 26-5). Some employers
use simple and fairly informal procedures to
analyze their problem jobs. This is
especially true for employers who have only
limited or isolated problems. For example,
the United States General Accounting Office
reported that the job hazard analysis process
for the ergonomics programs they reviewed
often focused only on the particular job
element that was thought to be the problem
(Ex. 26-5). For other employers, the process
may be very detailed or more formalized. For
example, their process may include job-task
breakdown, videotaping or photographing the
job, job or hazard checklists, employee
questionnaires, use of measuring tools, or
biomechanical calculations (Ex. 26-2). For
example, checklists, together with other
screening methods such as walk-through
observational surveys, and worker and
[[Page 65805]]
supervisory interviews, employee symptom or
discomfort surveys, are recognized ergonomic
evaluation methods (Exs. 26-2, 26-3, ANSI Z-
365 Draft, 1997, Ex. 26-1264). A few of these
methods are described in this section.
Information on other methods of job hazard
analysis are included in the public docket of
this rulemaking. (Exs. 26-2, 26-5). According
to this information and stakeholder comments,
the job hazard analysis methods employers use
have the following steps or activities in
common. OSHA has designed the proposed job
hazard analysis requirements around these
steps:
Obtaining information about the
specific tasks or actions the job involves;
Obtaining information about the
job and problems in it from employees who
perform the job;
Observing the job;
Identifying specific job factors;
and
Evaluating those factors (e.g.,
duration, frequency and magnitude) to
determine whether they are causing or
contributing to the problem (Ex. 26-2, 26-5,
26-1370).
The proposed rule requires that the hazard
analysis and control of problem jobs be
conducted by person(s) who have received
training in the process of analyzing and
controlling MSD hazards (See Sec. 1910.925).
1. Paragraph (a)
Paragraph (a) of proposed Sec. 1910.918
would require that, if the employer does not
show that the MSD hazards only pose a risk to
the employee who has the covered MSD, the
employer must do a job hazard analysis for
other employees in the problem job as well as
for the injured employee. Doing a job hazard
analysis for all employees in a problem job
ensures that employers have available the
most complete information about the causes of
the problem when they are identifying and
assessing ways to control MSD hazards. Having
this information also helps to ensure that
the controls employers select will eliminate
or materially reduce MSD hazards for all
employees in the job.
At the same time, OSHA is aware that
conducting a job hazard analysis that covers
all employees in a problem job may be
burdensome for some employers. For example,
some employers may have large numbers of
employees who perform the same job at one
workplace (e.g., telephone operators,
customer service representatives, catalog
sales representatives, data processors,
nurses aides, package handlers, sorting and
delivery persons). Conducting a job hazard
analysis for each one of these employees
could be time and resource intensive. In
addition, if the controls are likely to be
the same for all of the employees in a
particular job, continuing to conduct job
hazard analyses after a certain point may
have diminishing returns.
Doing job hazard analysis for all
employees also may be difficult in jobs that
do not have fixed workstations (e.g.,
beverage delivery, package delivery,
furniture moving, appliance delivery, home
repair, visiting nurse, home health aide).
Some of these jobs may have constantly
changing work conditions, all of which it may
not be possible to analyze.
Therefore, OSHA is proposing in paragraph
(a) that employers not be required to conduct
a job hazard analysis for each employee in a
problem job. Under the Ergonomics Program
Standard, employers would be allowed to limit
the number of employees' jobs that they
analyze, provided that the jobs they do
analyze represent the range of physical
capabilities of all of the employees who
currently are in the job. The intention of
this provision is to reduce the job hazard
analysis burdens on employers, who would
otherwise have to do many individual hazard
analyses, while at the same time ensuring
that the process accurately identifies and
does not underestimate the exposure of
employees to the MSD hazards in the problem
job.
To ensure that the job hazard analysis is
an accurate estimate of exposure, employers
would be required to do a job hazard analysis
for a sufficient number of employees in the
job (from all work shifts) for the analysis
to be representative of all of the employees
in the problem job in terms of their physical
work activities. To illustrate, to get an
accurate estimate of exposure to MSD hazards
of all employees in an assembly line job, an
employer may have to include the following
employees in the hazard analysis group:
Shortest employees in the job
because they are likely to have to make the
longest reaches or to have a working surface
that is too high,
Tallest employees because they may
have to maintain the most excessive awkward
postures (e.g., leaning over the assembly
line, reaching down with the arms) while
performing tasks,
Employees with the smallest hands
because they may have to exert considerably
more force to grip and operate hand and power
tools,
Employees who work in the coldest
areas of the workplace because they may have
to exert more force to perform repetitive
motions, and
Employees who wear bifocals
because they may be exposed to awkward
postures (e.g., bending neck back to see).
2. Paragraph (b)--``Ask employees''
Paragraph (b) of this section would
require employers to consult with employees
as part of the job hazard analysis process.
Talking or consulting with employees in a
problem job helps to ensure that the employer
has the complete picture about the problems
in a job, especially if the job hazard
analysis includes only a limited number of
employees. Where the job hazard analysis is
limited, consulting with all employees during
the hazard analysis and control process is an
effective way to gain employee acceptance and
minimize resistance to change when
implementing controls and job modifications
become necessary. Nonetheless, for the
reasons discussed in paragraph (a) of this
section, OSHA is not proposing to require
that employers consult with every employee
during the job hazard analysis process,
provided that employers consult with at least
those employees whose jobs are being
analyzed.
Many employers have told OSHA that talking
with employees is a quick and easy way to
find out what kind of problems are in the job
(Ex. 26-1370). They said that talking with
employees is often the best way to identify
the causes of the problem and to identify the
most cost-effective solutions to it (Ex. 26-
1370).
Many stakeholders have said that employee
input at the job hazard analysis stage is
essential (Ex. 26-1370). A comment from
Johnson & Johnson sums up this opinion:
Hazards cannot be addressed efficiently
without an accurate evaluation of the
situation. The line employee is one of the
best sources of this information * * * [they
are] local process experts (Ex. 3-232).
Discussions with employers who have set up
ergonomics programs, pursuant to corporate
settlement agreements with OSHA, also confirm
the necessity of employee input in the
[[Page 65806]]
job hazard analysis (Ex. 26-1420). A number
of these employers said that employees need
to be involved in the analysis and control
process because ``no one knows the job better
than the person who does it'' (Ex. 26-1420).
Other stakeholders echo this belief, saying
that employees have the best understanding of
what it takes to perform each task in a job,
and thus, what parts of the job are the
hardest to perform or pose the biggest
difficulties:
``Job analysis should include input from
the workers themselves. The employees can
best tell what conditions cause them pain,
discomfort, and injuries. They often have
easy and practical suggestions on how such
problems can be alleviated.'' American
Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees (Ex. 3-164).
Involving employees, in addition to
helping to ensure that the job hazard
analysis is correct, can make the job hazard
analysis and control process more efficient.
Employees can help employers pinpoint the
causes of problems more quickly and,
according to a number of stakeholders,
employees often come up with some of the best
practical, no-cost or cost-effective,
solutions (Ex. 26-1370). The American Health
Care Association agrees:
Employers and employees alike who work in
the industry are in the best possible
position to identify risk factors in their
workplace and to develop prevention methods
that concentrate on the significant problems
unique to their particular industry's
environment (Ex. 3-112).
There are many different ways in which
employers can comply with the requirement to
ask employees about the problem job, and OSHA
does not intend to require employers to use a
certain method. Employers are free to use any
method to get information from employees
about the problems in the job. Employers may
do something as simple as informally talking
with employees while observing the job being
performed. Consulting with employees in the
problem job can be made part of a regular
staff or production meeting or ``toolbox
chat.'' Employers may ask employees through
surveys/questionnaires and more formal
employee interviews. Many employers have
developed very effective tools for gathering
important job information from employees who
do the job.
AMP Inc., a manufacturer of electronic
components, with 300 employees, uses a one-
page ``Ergonomic Evaluation Form'' that asks
employees to answer simple ``yes/no''
questions about the employee's ease and
comfort when performing certain job tasks.
After the company's ergonomics team
(comprised of line employees) reviews the
form, a member of the team interviews the
employee. (Ex. 26-5).
Paragraph (b) would require that employers
ask employees whether performing the job
poses physical difficulties. This language
should not be interpreted as requiring
employers to conduct symptom or discomfort
surveys. Rather, the intention of this
provision is for employers to ask employees
to help identify the physical work
activities, job conditions and ergonomic risk
factors that may be making the job difficult
to perform.
Section 1910.918 What must I do to
analyze a problem job?
You must:
* * * * *
(c) Observe the employees performing the
job to identify which of the following
physical work activities, workplace
conditions and ergonomic risk factors are
present:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHYSICAL WORK ACTIVITIES
AND CONDITIONS ERGONOMIC RISK FACTORS THAT MAY BE PRESENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Exerting considerable (i) Force
physical effort to (ii) Awkward postures
complete a motion (iii) Contact stress
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Doing same motion over (i) Repetition
and over again (ii) Force
(iii) Awkward postures
(iv) Cold temperatures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Performing motions (i) Repetition
constantly without short (ii) Force
pauses or breaks in (iii) Awkward postures
between (iv) Static postures
(v) Contact stress
(vi) Vibration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Performing tasks that (i) Awkward postures
involve long reaches (ii) Static postures
(iii) Force
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5) Working surfaces are (i) Awkward postures
too high or too low (ii) Static postures
(iii) Force
(iv) Contact stress
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(6) Maintaining same (i) Awkward posture
position or posture while (ii) Static postures
performing tasks (iii) Force
(iv) Cold temperatures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(7) Sitting for a long time (i) Awkward posture
(ii) Static postures
(iii) Contact stress
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(8) Using hand and power (i) Force
tools (ii) Awkward postures
(iii) Static postures
(iv) Contact stress
(v) Vibration
(vi) Cold temperatures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(9) Vibrating working (i) Vibration
surfaces, machinery or (ii) Force
vehicles (iii) Cold temperatures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(10) Workstation edges or (i) Contact stress
objects press hard into
muscles or tendons
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(11) Using hand as a hammer (i) Contact stress
(ii) Force
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(12) Using hands or body as (i) Force
a clamp to hold object (ii) Static postures
while performing tasks (iii) Awkward postures
(iv) Contact stress
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(13) Gloves are bulky, too (i) Force
large or too small (ii) Contact stress
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 65807]]
MANUAL HANDLING
(Lifting/lowering, pushing/pulling, and carrying)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(14) Objects or people (i) Force
moved are heavy (ii) Repetition
(iii) Awkward postures
(iv) Static postures
(v) Contact stress
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(15) Horizontal reach is (i) Force
long (Distance of hands (ii) Repetition
from body to grasp object (iii) Awkward postures
to be handled) (iv) Static postures
(v) Contact stress
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(16) Vertical reach is (i) Force
below knees or above the (ii) Repetition
shoulders (Distance of (iii) Awkward postures
hands above the ground (iv) Static postures
when object is grasped or (v) Contact stress
released)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(17) Objects or people are (i) Force
moved significant distance (ii) Repetition
(iii) Awkward postures
(iv) Static postures
(v) Contact stress
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(18) Bending or twisting (i) Force
during manual handling (ii) Repetition
(iii) Awkward postures
(iv) Static postures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(19) Object is slippery or (i) Force
has no handles (ii) Repetition
(iii) Awkward postures
(iv) Static postures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(20) Floor surfaces are (i) Force
uneven, slippery or sloped (ii) Repetition
(iii) Awkward postures
(iv) Static postures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
1. Paragraph (c)
Paragraph (c) of proposed Sec. 1910.918
requires employers to do the following:
Observe the employee performing
the job,
Identify whether any of the
physical work activities or conditions listed
in the section are present, and
Identify whether any of the
relevant ergonomic risk factors listed in the
section are involved in the particular work
activity or condition.
a. ``Observe'' employees performing the
job. The proposed rule requires employers to
watch employees perform the physical work
activities of the job and look at the
conditions under which the job is performed.
Job observation allows the employer to see
how the employee does the job and provides
information about the workstation layout,
tools, equipment and general environmental
conditions in the workplace.
There are several ways employers may
comply with the observation requirement of
the proposed standard. Employers may simply
watch employees perform the job tasks. Often,
all it takes to identify the problem and how
to solve it is to watch the employee do the
job. For example, watching a data processor
reaching to use the mouse because the
keyboard tray is not long enough to
accommodate it may be all it takes to
identify the likely cause of the employee's
shoulder pain.
Videotaping the job is a common practice
for ``observing'' jobs. A number of
employers, especially in situations where the
work activities are complex or the causes of
the problem may not be easily identifiable,
say that they videotape or photograph the
job. These employers find it helpful to be
able to refer to a record of the job while
evaluating the ergonomic risk factors or
identifying and assessing possible control
measures (Ex. 26-1370).
``Job task analysis'' is another job
hazard analysis process that is widely used.
This process involves breaking the job down
into its various discrete elements or actions
and then identifying and evaluating or
measuring the extent to which the risk
factors that are present in the physical work
activities and conditions are reasonably
likely to be contributing to the MSD hazard
(Exs. 26-2, 26-1247). To do a job task
breakdown, a number of employers look at the
job as a series of individual, distinct tasks
or steps (Exs. 26-2, 26-5, 26-1247, 26-1370).
Focusing on each task allows for easier
identification of the physical activities
required to complete the job. While observing
the job employers record a description of
each task for use in later risk factor
analysis as well as other information that is
helpful in completing the analysis:
Tools or equipment used to perform
task,
Materials used in task,
Amount of time spent doing each
task,
Workstation dimensions and layout,
Weight of items handled,
Environmental conditions (cold,
glare, blowing air),
Vibration and its source,
Personal protective equipment worn
(Ex. 26-2).
Many employers use hazard identification
and analysis checklists to help focus the job
observation process. OSHA agrees that well
designed checklists, when used in the context
for which they are intended, do provide a
range of employers, especially small business
owners, with effective alternatives to hiring
a consultant. There are many ways in which
checklists may be useful: identifying
physical work activities and conditions,
identifying ergonomic risk factors,
evaluating jobs, prioritizing jobs for
further analysis, and providing a systematic
review of risk factors.
b. Identify physical work activities,
workplace conditions and ergonomic risk
factors. Paragraph (c) would require that, as
part of the job observation, employers
identify the physical work activities,
workplace conditions, and ergonomic risk
factors present in the problem job that may
be causing or contributing to the MSD hazard.
Identifying the presence of physical work
activities and conditions is the starting
point for pinpointing the hazards the job may
involve. Once the applicable activities and
conditions are identified, employers would
have to determine whether any of the
ergonomic risk factors that OSHA has listed
as being potentially relevant to those
activities and conditions are present.
c. Ergonomic risk factors. Ergonomic risk
factors are the aspects of a job or task that
impose a biomechanical stress on the worker.
Ergonomic risk factors are the synergistic
[[Page 65808]]
elements of MSD hazards. In the Health
Effects section of this preamble (section V),
OSHA discusses the large body of evidence
supporting the finding that exposure to
ergonomic risk factors in the workplace can
cause or contribute to the risk of developing
an MSD. This evidence, which includes
thousands of epidemiologic studies,
laboratory studies, and extensive reviews of
the existing scientific evidence by NIOSH and
the National Academy of Science, shows that
the following ergonomic risk factors are most
likely to cause or contribute to an MSD:
Force
Repetition
Awkward postures
Static postures
Vibration
Contact stress
Cold temperatures
These risk factors are described briefly
below (a more detailed discussion of
ergonomic risk factors is included in the
Health Effects section):
Force. Force refers to the amount of
physical effort that is required to
accomplish a task or motion. Tasks or motions
that require application of higher force
place higher mechanical loads on muscles,
tendons, ligaments, and joints (Ex. 26-2).
Tasks involving high forces may cause muscles
to fatigue more quickly. High forces also may
lead to irritation, inflammation, strains and
tears of muscles, tendons and other tissues.
The force required to complete a movement
increases when other risk factors are also
involved. For example, more physical effort
may be needed to perform tasks when the speed
or acceleration of motions increases, when
vibration is present, or when the task also
requires awkward postures.
Force can be internal, such as when
tension develops within the muscles,
ligaments and tendons during movement. Force
can also be external, as when a force is
applied to the body, either voluntarily or
involuntarily. Forceful exertion is most
often associated with the movement of heavy
loads, such as lifting heavy objects on and
off a conveyor, delivering heavy packages,
pushing a heavy cart, or moving a pallet.
Hand tools that involve pinch grips require
more forceful exertions than those that allow
other grips, such as power grips.
Repetition. Repetition refers to
performing a task or series of motions over
and over again with little variation. When
motions are repeated frequently (e.g., every
few seconds) for prolonged periods (e.g.,
several hours, a work shift), fatigue and
strain of the muscle and tendons can occur
because there may be inadequate time for
recovery. Repetition often involves the use
of only a few muscles and body parts, which
can become extremely fatigued while the rest
of the body is little used.
Awkward postures. Awkward postures refer
to positions of the body (e.g., limbs,
joints, back) that deviate significantly from
the neutral position 1 while job
tasks are being performed. For example, when
a person's arm is hanging straight down
(i.e., perpendicular to the ground) with the
elbow close to the body, the shoulder is said
to be in a neutral position. However, when
employees are performing overhead work (e.g.,
installing or repairing equipment, grasping
objects from a high shelf) their shoulders
are far from the neutral position. Other
examples include wrists bent while typing,
bending over to grasp or lift an object,
twisting the back and torso while moving
heavy objects, and squatting. Awkward
postures often are significant contributors
to MSDs because they increase the work and
the muscle force that is required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Neutral posture is the position of a
body joint has requires the least amount of
muscle activity to maintain. For example, the
wrist is neutral in a handshake position, the
shoulder is neutral when the elbow is near
the waist, the back is neutral when standing
up straight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Static postures. Static postures (or
``static loading'') refer to physical
exertion in which the same posture or
position is held throughout the exertion.
These types of exertions put increased loads
or forces on the muscles and tendons, which
contributes to fatigue. This occurs because
not moving impedes the flow of blood that is
needed to bring nutrients to the muscles and
to carry away the waste products of muscle
metabolism. Examples of static postures
include gripping tools that cannot be put
down, holding the arms out or up to perform
tasks, or standing in one place for prolonged
periods.
Vibration. Vibration is the oscillatory
motion of a physical body. Localized
vibration, such as vibration of the hand and
arm, occurs when a specific part of the body
comes into contact with vibrating objects
such as powered hand tools (e.g., chain saw,
electric drill, chipping hammer) or equipment
(e.g., wood planer, punch press, packaging
machine). Whole-body vibration occurs when
standing or sitting in vibrating environments
(e.g., driving a truck over bumpy roads) or
when using heavy vibrating equipment that
requires whole-body involvement (e.g.,
jackhammers).
Contact stress. Contact stress results
from occasional, repeated or continuous
contact between sensitive body tissue and a
hard or sharp object. Contact stress commonly
affects the soft tissue on the fingers,
palms, forearms, thighs, shins and feet. This
contact may create pressure over a small area
of the body (e.g., wrist, forearm) that can
inhibit blood flow, tendon and muscle
movement and nerve function. Examples of
contact stress include resting wrists on the
sharp edge of a desk or workstation while
performing tasks, pressing of tool handles
into the palms, especially when they cannot
be put down, tasks that require hand
hammering, and sitting without adequate space
for the knees.
Cold temperatures. Cold temperatures refer
to exposure to excessive cold while
performing work tasks. Cold temperatures can
reduce the dexterity and sensitivity of the
hand. Cold temperatures, for example, cause
the worker to apply more grip force to hold
hand tools and objects. Also, prolonged
contact with cold surfaces (e.g., handling
cold meat) can impair dexterity and induce
numbness. Cold is a problem when it is
present with other risk factors and is
especially problematic when it is present
with vibration exposure.
Of these risk factors, evidence in the
Health Effects chapter shows that force
(i.e., forceful exertions), repetition, and
awkward postures, especially when occurring
at high levels or in combination, are most
often associated with the occurrence of MSDs.
Exposure to one ergonomic risk factor may be
enough to cause or contribute to a covered
MSD. For example, a job task may require
exertion of so much physical force that, even
though the task does not involve additional
risk factors such as awkward postures or
repetition, an MSD is likely to occur. For
example, using the hand or knee as a hammer
(e.g., operating a punch press or using the
knee to stretch carpet during installation)
alone may expose the employee to such a
degree of physical stress that the employee
has a significant risk of being harmed.
[[Page 65809]]
However, most often ergonomic risk factors
act in combination to create a hazard. The
evidence in the Health Effects section shows
that jobs that have multiple risk factors
have a greater likelihood of causing an MSD,
depending on the duration, frequency and/or
magnitude of exposure to each. Thus, it is
important that ergonomic risk factors be
considered in light of their combined effect
in causing or contributing to an MSD. This
can only be achieved if the job hazard
analysis and control process includes
identification of all the ergonomic risk
factors that may be present in a job. If they
are not identified, employers will not have
all the information that is needed to
determine the cause of the covered MSD or
understand what risk factors need to be
reduced to eliminate or materially reduce the
MSD hazards.
Although certain of the risk factors
described above are easy to identify and it
is not difficult to understand why they may
be likely to create hazardous exposures,
others are not as apparent or observable.
Employers who already have ergonomics
programs and persons who manage ergonomics
programs should not have difficulty
identifying risk factors in the workplace.
Because these persons have training and
experience, ergonomic risk factors are likely
to be familiar concepts for them. Through the
process of developing and implementing their
ergonomics programs these persons have gained
a good working knowledge of the ergonomic
risk factors that are most likely to be
present in their workplaces.
For those employers who are just beginning
their programs and have little or no training
and experience dealing with ergonomic risk
factors, OSHA has tried to make the process
of identifying them as workable as possible.
Therefore, in the proposed rule OSHA has
taken the ergonomic risk factors and the
combination of risk factors most associated
with the occurrence of MSDs and tried to
present them in ways that those with more
limited knowledge about ergonomics can
readily identify. In this way, the ergonomic
risk factors the proposed rule covers are
presented in terms of specific and physically
observable work activities and conditions. If
any of these activities or conditions are
present, the table in Sec. 1910.918(c) tells
employers which risk factors are likely to be
relevant.
OSHA is proposing that employers use this
list of physical work activities or
conditions as a starting point for hazard
evaluation, for several reasons. First, the
list of activities and conditions is easy for
employers to understand because they will be
able to translate them to their own
workplaces more readily than would be the
case for ergonomic to risk factors. For
example, ``hand used as a hammer'' is more
easily understood than the term ``contact
stress,'' and ``long reaches'' graphically
explains an ``awkward posture'' that may be a
problem.
Second, the list helps employers quickly
focus on the aspects of a job that are most
likely to be associated with covered MSDs. At
the same time, the list also identifies the
risk factors that are most likely to be
associated with the activities and/or
conditions, which should help employers
further focus their analysis. In this way the
list serves as a bridge to the combinations
of risk factors that studies have shown to be
associated with an increased risk of
developing work-related MSDs.
Third, having employers start the MSD
identification and evaluation process with
this list ensures that the analysis will be
comprehensive. This is because the list
includes the major components of work that
have been associated with MSDs.
c. Physical work activities and
conditions. The physical work activities and
conditions OSHA has included in the proposed
rule cover the basic physical aspects of jobs
and workstations. These aspects include:
Physical demands of work;
Workplace and workstation
conditions and layout;
Characteristics of object(s) that
are handled or used; and
Environmental conditions.
The following table shows the physical
work activities and workplace conditions that
are associated with those physical aspects:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHYSICAL ASPECTS OF EXAMPLES OF PHYSICAL WORK ACTIVITIES AND
JOBS AND WORKSTATIONS CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PHYSICAL ASPECT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physical demands of Exerting considerable physical effort
work to complete a motion