Washington Insider

Get used to hearing about ergonomics, because we’re in for a lot of talk on this issue over the next three years.

The Obama administration has consistently said that ergonomics must be addressed. Now, labor and industry are gearing up for a fight. Industry recently landed some punches by pointing to studies suggesting that ergonomics concerns aren’t as work-related as previously thought.

But is now the right time for OSHA to enter the fray? Under the leadership of Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis and Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Jordan Barab, the agency has done an excellent job collecting the low-hanging fruit of occupational health and safety issues. Why risk stalling that progress and creating a more adversarial relationship with industry by trying to address ergonomics now? A better approach might be to work with industry on some of the less complicated issues before turning to ergonomics.

And ergonomics will certainly be complicated. Even organizations that support an ergonomics standard— including AIHA—had concerns about the proposal ultimately rejected by Congress in 2001. But the administration is adamant: it will address ergonomics in the next three years.

So labor and industry are rolling up their sleeves. No matter who wins this fight, plenty of reports will be published and dollars spent.

Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Speaking of dollars: True to recent form, Congress failed to adopt a fiscal 2010 budget for most of the departments of the federal government. A

continuing resolution will keep the government afloat through Dec. 18, so Congress intends to stay in session at least until then. In the meantime, government departments and agencies will receive the same funding they received in 2009.

Protecting America’s Workers Act

Any serious consideration the Protecting America’s Workers Act receives will have to come from the House of Representatives. The Senate, wrapped up in health care and other issues, has little interest in this legislation, and no OHS champion has emerged to fill the role played by Senator Kennedy.

In the House, Rep. Lynn Wolsey will only move a bill that has a chance of passage, so the existing bill will probably be redrafted in some form. I’m hearing that the section of the bill that would expand OSHA coverage to public employees not currently covered by OSHA will probably be removed. Nearly everyone thinks this coverage is a great idea, but the potential cost and other factors will likely keep it out of the new bill.

Regarding the provision for an increase in criminal penalties, considerable discussion has centered on the definition of a “willful” violation. The wording will probably change to something like “knowingly violates any standard or rule,” which is presumably easier to prove in court than a willful violation.

The House remains convinced that sections regarding victim’s rights and whistleblower protections are the staples of the bill and should be kept intact. Even with these changes, the bill will be difficult to enact.

GHS

AIHA seeks members’ input on a major issue within OSHA’s proposal to align the hazard communication standard with the Globally Harmonized System for the Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS). The proposal states that, when GHS is adopted, the TLVs® will no longer be cited within the Hazard Communication Standard. OSHA is not required to cite the TLVs, but AIHA commented in 2006 that we hoped the agency would continue to do so, and if not, would at least reference the TLVs in an appendix. AIHA still believes the TLVs, as well as AIHA WEELs and other exposure guidelines, should be included in the Hazard Communication Standard.

If you have comments on this part of the proposal, please send them to AIHA. You can find the GHS proposal at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/ E9-22483.htm. OSHA will accept comments until Dec. 29.

Silica Correction

The Washington Insider column in the November issue stated that OSHA had finalized a silica rule and issued the proposed silica rule at the same time. This kind of rulemaking actually occurred with acetylene, not silica.

OSHA did say that it would expedite silica rulemaking by accepting comments on the preliminary health effects and quantitative risk assessment at the same time as the proposed rule. I apologize for the confusion.

Aaron Trippler directs government affairs for more than70localsectionsandservesasAIHA’schief liasonwithCongressandfederalagencies.Hecan be reached at (703) 846-0730 or atrippler@aiha.org.