U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR PRIVATE

	OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION

	Public Meeting

	Proposed Rule on

	Occupational Injury and Illness

	Recording and Reporting Regulation

	(29 CFR Part 1904)

	9:04 a.m. to 3:48 p.m.

	Tuesday, March 9, 2010

	Conference Room C-5521

	200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

	Washington, D.C.

	Conference Room C-5521

	C O N T E N T S

                                             PAGE

Welcoming Remarks

  Jim Maddux, Facilitator.......................3

Introductory Remarks

  Dorothy Dougherty.............................4

	Morning Public Comments

Peg Seminario, AFL-CIO.........................14

Pamela Vossenas, Unite Here....................37

Stephen Newell, ORC............................55

Andrew Langer, Institute for Liberty...........81

Patricia Seeley, Ergonomic Solutions..........103

Jacqueline Nowell,

  UFCW International Union....................125

	Afternoon Public Comments

Chris Trahan, Building and Construction.......156

Schott Schneider, AFL-CIO.....................157

Laura Welch...................................161

David LeGrande,

  Communication Workers of America............182

Karen Harned,

  National Federation of Independent Business.195

Lawrence Halprin,

  U.S. Chamber of Commerce and

  National Manufacturers Association..........222

Sheila Denman.................................267

	- - -

	P R O C E E D I N G S

	Welcoming Remarks

	MR. MADDUX:  Good morning, everybody.  I would like to welcome
everybody to our public meeting for the MSD Column rulemaking.

	Some of you may be familiar with, but some not, and you will hear more
about this as the day goes on, there are two different types of OSHA
rules.  There are regulations and there are standards.

	You are probably more familiar with the standards process where we have
what we call a public hearing.  At a public hearing, you have an
administrative law judge that oversees the proceedings as one of the
features of that, but because this is a regulation, and not a standard,
we have no administrative law judge, so I will be your facilitator for
the day to kind of help keep things on track.

	Just a couple of logistical things.  There is a sixth floor cafeteria
and a fourth floor snack bar almost directly beneath us where you can
get coffee or a snack or something.  Unlike a hearing in the auditorium,
you are welcome to bring coffee and such to this particular meeting.

	There are restrooms at either end of the hall next to the elevators,
and if there is an emergency, we are on the fifth floor.  The emergency
exits are very well marked, and so forth, but I would recommend that you
attach yourself to somebody with one of these DOL ID's and follow them.

	Of course, if something like that does happen, we will all have to
clear back through the security procedures, so it will be a major
disruption in the day. Hopefully, we will get lucky and we won't have
any of that.

	At this time, I would like to introduce Dorothy Dougherty, Director of
our Directorate of Standards and Guidance, and my boss, who will give
some opening remarks.

	Introductory Remarks

	MS. DOUGHERTY:  Thank you, Jim.

	There is a lot of noise or something in this room, but we were all
commenting up here every time we have one of these there is always
something interesting to keep us entertained.  The last one that I did
in Atlanta, our meeting was actually in a tent, so this is a little bit
better, but I am always prepared for something different.  Let me get on
with sort of the formal remarks here.

	Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.  I am Dorothy Dougherty, Director
of the Directorate of Standards and Guidance at the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration.

	On behalf of OSHA, I would like to welcome you to this public meeting
on the proposed rule to revise OSHA's Occupational Injury and Illness
Recording and Reporting regulation, which I will refer to as the
Recordkeeping rule.

	Your participation in this public meeting is greatly appreciated.  OSHA
considers your public participation in this rulemaking, whether at this
meeting or through written comments, to be an important step in
developing a complete and accurate record.

	To that end, OSHA is extending the public comment period until March
30, 2010.  The deadline extension ensures that stakeholders have a full
60 days to submit comments on this rulemaking.

	It also affords those of you attending today's meeting additional time
to incorporate your comments and your views on the information presented
here.  Let me assure you that OSHA will fully consider your comments,
presentations and recommendations as the Agency develops a final revised
Recordkeeping rule.

	With me today are:  Jim Maddux, the Acting Deputy Director of the
Directorate of Standards and Guidance; Ryan Tremain, Project Officer and
Health Scientist in DSG; Robert Burt, Director of the Office of
Regulatory Analysis; Tom Mockler, Project Economist in ORA; and Sarah
Shortall, Project Attorney from the Office of the Solicitor.

	The Occupational Safety and Health Act charges OSHA with requiring
employers to keep records of work-related injuries and illnesses.  Since
OSHA's inception, these records have helped OSHA, employers and workers
identify workplace safety and health concerns by identifying key
injuries and illnesses.

	Data from these records also form the basis for the statistics that the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, or BLS, publishes and are the Nation's
primary source of information on occupational injuries and illnesses.

	OSHA is proposing to revise the Recordkeeping regulation to restore a
column on the OSHA 300 Log that employers would check when recording
work-related musculoskeletal disorders, or MSDs.

	In 2001, OSHA revised its Recordkeeping regulation, including replacing
the old OSHA 200 Log with a revised OSHA 300 Log.  The OSHA 200 Log
included columns for recording certain illnesses and disorders,
including a column for work-related repeated trauma disorders (RTDs).

	Although the RTD column provided useful information on some MSDs, it
did not provide a completely accurate estimate of MSDs because the
column included hearing loss cases and excluded many back cases.

	When OSHA revised the Recordkeeping regulation in 2001, the Agency
divided the RTD column into separate MSD and noise columns.  In 2003,
after delaying the effective date of the MSD column, OSHA deleted it
from the OSHA 300 Log.

	Deletion of the MSD column did not affect employers' obligation to
record work-related MSDs.  Employers are and always have been required
to record work-related MSDs that meet the general criteria in the
Recordkeeping rule.

	The proposed rule would simply put the MSD column back on the OSHA 300
Log and have employers record work-related MSDs in that column instead
of on the one they currently mark.

	The requirements in the proposed rule are essentially identical to the
MSD provisions in the 2001 Recordkeeping rule - employers would have to
check the MSD column instead of the one they currently mark if the case:

	Meets the Recordkeeping rule's definition of injury or illness;

	Is work-related;

	Is a new case;

	Meets one or more of the recording criteria in the existing
Recordkeeping rule;

	And meets the proposed MSD definition.

	The proposed rule uses the same definition of MSD that was in the 2001
Recordkeeping regulation and that BLS has used for years:

	MSDs are disorders of the muscles, nerves, tendons, ligaments, joints,
cartilage and spinal discs;

	MSDs do not include disorders caused by slips, trips, falls, motor
vehicle accidents or other similar accidents.

	Examples of MSDs include carpal tunnel syndrome, rotator cuff syndrome,
De Quervain's disease, trigger finger, tarsal tunnel syndrome, sciatica,
epicondylitis, tendinitis, Raynaud's phenomenon, carpet layers knee,
herniated spinal disc, and low back pain.

	The proposed rule would not change when or under what circumstances
employers must record MSDs on their injury and illness logs.  Also, it
would not establish different recording criteria for MSDs.

	OSHA estimates that the economic impact of the proposed rule on any
establishment would be very small. The costs to employers would be the
time to familiarize themselves with the revised OSHA 300 Log and to
record cases in a different column than the one they currently mark.
OSHA believes such costs would not pose an economic difficulty for any
establishment.

	OSHA believes that putting the MSD column back on the OSHA 300 Log will
provide valuable information. First, it will improve the accuracy and
completeness of the Nation's occupational injury and illness statistics.

	An MSD column that includes back cases but not hearing loss will ensure
that national statistics more accurately reflect the extent of MSD
problems in U.S. workplaces.

	Data from the MSD column will allow BLS to publish the total number and
rate of MSDs in each industry, not just ones that result in days away
from work as is currently the case.  Having more comprehensive data also
will allow BLS to better analyze the magnitude of MSD problems and
trends across industries.

	Second, restoring the MSD column on the OSHA 300 Log will provide OSHA
with valuable information to assist our outreach, guidance and
evaluation efforts.

	Data from the MSD column would help OSHA to better target its guidance
and outreach efforts to industries that have the greatest problems.  In
addition, MSD column data will allow OSHA to better measure the
effectiveness of OSHA guidelines, such as the nursing home, poultry
processing and grocery store guidelines, in reducing MSDs.

	Finally, data from the MSD column will be useful at the establishment
level for employers and workers alike.  Having an MSD column on the OSHA
300 Form will provide useful information that both employers and workers
can quickly and easily identify at a glance.

	That data will help employers and workers identify whether there are
MSD problems in their workplace.  Moreover, the MSD column data will be
a good evaluation method employers can use in determining the
effectiveness of their workplace programs in reducing MSDs.

	In closing, I want to emphasize the importance of the public
participation component of this rulemaking. The rulemaking is still in
the proposal stage, which means you should not regard it as OSHA's
"final" determination.

	The purpose of today's public meeting is to provide a forum to discuss
the proposed revision to the Recordkeeping rule and to receive oral
comments and additional evidence to assist OSHA in developing a final
Recordkeeping regulation that accurately describes the nature of MSD
problems in the Nation.

	Thank you for your attention and presence here today.  At this time we
will answer any questions you may have about the proposal.

	MR. MADDUX:  I would just like to go through just a little bit of kind
of how we are going to conduct the meeting since it's not the hearing
process that many of you are probably used to.

	We are going to sort of use some of the same process in terms of we are
going to have a session now where we will take questions from the
audience about the rulemaking, and then we will get into each one of the
speakers.

	We have only 10 speakers today.  We are asking that people keep
themselves to something around 15 minutes, so that we will have a
chance, then, to ask a few questions of each speaker, sort of clarifying
their comments or remarks, and depending on how the day goes, and we get
to the end of the day, if there are people who haven't signed up to
speak, but wish to say something, we will give people an opportunity to
do that.

	So, for now, could I have a show of hands of people who are going to be
commenting later, who would like to ask the OSHA panel a question?

	Well, it is going to go pretty fast.

	Is there anybody who is not speaking today, who would like to ask the
OSHA panel a question?  Moving right along.  The first presenter is Peg
Seminario from the AFL-CIO.

	MS. SEMINARIO:  I will get organized here, I wasn't quite expecting to
be on at 9:15.

	MR. MADDUX:  Caught you all by surprise.

	MS. SEMINARIO:  Good morning.  My name is Peg Seminario.  I am Director
of Safety and Health for the AFL-CIO.  Thank you for the opportunity to
participate in this public meeting on OSHA's proposed rule on
Recordkeeping, that would restore the column on musculoskeletal
disorders on the OSHA Log.

	First, let me say that the AFL-CIO strongly supports the proposal to
add the column back to the log. We believe it will serve as a very
useful tool both to help identify and address MSDs in the workplace and
provide more complete information about the extent of MSDs in individual
workplaces, in different industries, and the United States.

	We think the column is needed.  As was pointed out in OSHA's opening
remarks, the whole point of the injury and illness Recordkeeping system
that has existed since the enactment of OSHA is to provide a base of
information on injuries and illnesses both in the workplaces, that can
be used by employers, workers, unions, to identify and address problems,
but that system of recording on the logs has always been collected and
captured by the Department of Labor through the work of BLS in capturing
the information to develop both national statistics, as well as industry
statistics, State-based information, and more specific, information on
particular demographics of types of injuries, demographics concerning
worker characteristics.

	So, the whole system has been established with a view towards getting
the best information we can at a level of specificity that is useful for
addressing injuries and illnesses.

	With respect to musculoskeletal disorders, clearly, they are a big
problem.  The data that we do have available, that comes out of the BLS
survey on the case and demographic data, shows that in 2008, there were
over 317,000 cases of days away from work cases that BLS classified,
coded as musculoskeletal disorders, still making them the biggest single
type or source of work-related injuries and illnesses.  It is clearly a
problem that needs to be addressed.

	Now, some have said that this rule is an ergonomic standard, it's the
camel's nose under the tent.  It isn't.  I mean an ergonomic standard
again is needed, but this is not an ergonomic standard.

	It will provide better information, but it does not create any new
obligations on employers to address or control ergonomic hazards in the
workplace than already exist under existing OSHA authority under the
general duty clause, but it will provide useful information again to
employers, workers, and unions, and the Government, additional
information about MSDs in the workplace that will allow these problems
to be addressed more effectively.

	So, what does the rule propose to do?  It proposes to add a column to
the OSHA 300 Log, to simply identify which recordable injuries and
illnesses are MSDs. As the Agency has pointed out, it doesn't change the
basic recording requirements about what has to be recorded.  It only
requires the identification of those injuries and illnesses that are
MSDs.

	This is not a new concept.  For decades, the OSHA Log required
employers to identify illnesses that were disorders associated with
repeated trauma.  This captured illnesses like carpal tunnel, but also
hearing loss, but it didn't capture injuries, such as back injuries, and
that information that was collected on a national basis under the BLS
survey, coming off of the OSHA 200 Log really was incredibly valuable
back in the 1980s when we saw an increase in the reports of those cases.

	We saw an increase in poultry, we saw an increase in the auto industry,
and it was that information that formed the basis of a lot of the
policies that OSHA implemented back in those years both with respect to
enforcement under the general duty clause, and also with respect to the
initiation of rulemaking back in I believe it was 1989 by then Secretary
Elizabeth Dole.

	So, that information actually was incredibly useful at an industry
level, as well as at the national level for developing interventions,
enforcement policy, and regulatory policy.

	Since 2001, with the Recordkeeping rule, when OSHA in 2001, in the
final rule, had proposed to essentially separate the column on disorders
related to repeated trauma into two pieces, one on hearing loss and then
another on MSDs to capture that information, we thought that that was a
very positive thing to do.

	Again, hearing loss is a big problem, doesn't have enough of a
regulatory base.  The same thing with respect to musculoskeletal
disorders.

	Unfortunately, after the ergonomic standard was repealed in 2001, the
Bush Administration decided that it didn't even want this better data to
address the problems and repealed the column, which has left us even
with less information than we had for decades under the previous rule.

	So, the only information coming forward on a national basis today is
the days away from work cases collected and coded by BLS, and there is
no easy way in the workplace for workers, unions, employers, who are
addressing safety and health, to easily identify, eyeball cases on the
log for addressing musculoskeletal disorders.

	There is no national data, and there is no industry data on the extent
of MSDs.  This rule would address both of those problems.

	So, in the workplace, first, it would provide a useful tool to identify
which injuries and illnesses are MSDs.  As we know from our efforts on
ergonomics over the years, that review of the OSHA Logs in looking at
cases involving musculoskeletal disorders is the first step in many
ergonomics programs.  It is the first step of recommended action under
all of OSHA's guidelines on ergonomics.

	Currently, without that tool, it is required that you have to go
through the logs and search case by case to determine whether or not
these are a problem, and you will hear from a number of unions who have
been involved in that work just how difficult and cumbersome that is.

	The other thing, by having to identify these cases, it will help
employers see how big of a problem they have, where these problems are
occurring, and by doing so, I think increase the focus on the extent of
the problems, and with this information, hopefully be able to identify
cases early in the workplace before they end up in the days away from
work column and address problems before they get worse.

	As I said, on a national level, currently, we only have information on
days away from work cases, and that is only a small part of the overall
injury and illness problem.

	Overall, we know that days away from work cases account for about 28
percent of all reported work-related injuries and illnesses based on
2008 data.  I am not talking about MSDs, I am talking about all
work-related injuries and illnesses.

	But in may industries where we know that musculoskeletal disorders are
a significant problem, the information we have from days away from work
cases is even smaller.  For example, looking at the 2008 injury and
illness data, in poultry, the total injury recordable case rate is 6.1
per 100 workers.

	The job transfer restricted activity is 3.2.   The days away from work
case rate is 0.8, which is only 13 percent of all the injuries and
illnesses in that sector. So, all that we are capturing from a BLS
survey that looks at days away from work cases is only 13 percent of all
the injuries.

	Now, we don't know if that is the exact proportion with respect to
MSDs, but we do know that if we are only getting 13 percent of the
injury experience in poultry, that we are missing 87 percent, and not
knowing what is going on with the cases.

	Similarly, if you look at the data in auto and meat processing, number
of other sectors where we know from experience we have major problems
with musculoskeletal disorders, we see a similar situation.

	Some of this I think reflects the fact that employers are engaging in
medical management practices to try to keep workers on the job, so they
ended up in job restriction as opposed to day away from work.

	But again, because of the nature of the data collection and limitations
we now have, we are capturing none of that experience in any way, shape,
or form, and this is a real problem.

	It was actually something that the NAS recognized in its 2001 report on
work-related musculoskeletal disorders.  One of its recommendation was
that the Labor Department collect more information on non-days away from
work cases.

	While this rule does not address the full data of those, it doesn't
change the BLS survey to start getting information on restricted cases
as opposed to days away from work cases.  It helps provide information
on the total scope of the problem, which we currently don't have,
nationally, as well as in industry level.  It will help better define
the problem, where it is occurring and what kind of interventions are
needed.

	Turning for a moment to the definition of MSDs that OSHA has proposed,
we believe that this is a workable definition.  It captures the type of
disorders that are largely covered by many ergonomic programs.  When we
were looking at this issue back in 1999 and then again in 2000, 2001,
2002, we looked at all the definitions of MSDs or cumulative trauma
disorders that were used both by the Agency in its settlement agreements
on ergonomics back in the 1980s and the 1990s, looked at definitions
that were used in various guidelines, by various employers, definitions
that were used to describe the problem by the National Academy of
Sciences, and what the Agency has proposed here is very, very consistent
with those definitions.

	I think it is important to stress here that what you are requiring of
asking for on the log is not necessarily a diagnostic criteria tied
directly to ICD-9 or ICD-10 codes.  It is basically an identification
tool, and again will be very, very helpful.

	One last point here.  One of the problems that we see in Recordkeeping
overall is a problem with the under-reporting of injuries and illnesses.
 This particular rule is not addressing that specifically, but you do
have other initiatives that are underway at this point in time - your
national emphasis program which I believe will be continuing into next
year, as well, if this final rule takes place.

	Just to comment, enforcement and oversight on recording injuries and
illnesses is important.  I think there is a lot of industries where many
injuries and illnesses are not being fully captured in the Recordkeeping
and on the OSHA Log, and not captured in the BLS data.

	So, I would just encourage the Agency to be looking at MSDs as part of
its overall initiative on Recordkeeping in an attempt to get better and
more complete and accurate information on MSDs.

	So, in conclusion, we support the rule.  It is a first step, a
necessary step in addressing MSDs.  We must identify the problem, the
scope of the problem, both in workplaces and at a national level, and
this proposed rule will give us the tools that we need and the
information that we need to take that first step.

	Thank you.

	MR. MADDUX:  Any questions from the panel?

	One thing that I am going to ask you for, and probably you will hear
this question a lot through the day, is for sort of concrete examples of
people using the data and analyzing MSDs, you know, in sort of real
world circumstances, and what you can tell us about how it actually has
utility in the workplace.

	MS. SEMINARIO:  All right.  I think you will hear from some of the
unions who do that work, I mean they work in workplaces, addressing
these issues, and we have asked them in our discussions preparing for
that, to provide that.

	At the National AFL-CIO, we use the data a lot. We use the date, I mean
every year we put together a big report, death on the job, the toll, and
neglect, looking at a whole variety of information and data, and it is
very frustrating that you can't get a picture of what is going on with
the bigger source of workplace injuries and illnesses, and we try and
make some estimates of what the total problem might be, looking at
proportions of MSDs are this part of the problem in days away from work
cases, and what they might be with respect to total cases.

	But you really can't get full, complete information, and one of the
things that I would suggest to both OSHA and to BLS, once you begin
capturing this information is to provide more of this information at an
industry level with both numbers and rates.

	It is very difficult going through even the BLS data that is captured
now and reported.  You get a lot of number data, but you really can't
get a lot of rate data, so you have this dysjunction really, looking at
the total cases that are reported in rates by industry, and the days
away from work rates, but then you get into specific industries and
types of injuries, and you basically get numbers.

	So, trying to get a better handle on injuries overall, but particularly
if you are then able to capture the information on MSDs, of providing
rates as you used to when you had the column on disorders associated
with cumulative trauma would be very, very helpful at getting
information on what is really going on across industries, what is going
on over time.

	So, that is how we would use this data at a national level to get a
better handle and a more complete picture in time, but also in trends
over time.

	Thank you.

	MR. MADDUX:  We will be sure to pass on your recommendations on the BLS
survey to the folks there.  Kate Neuman, I think is with us today, so
she is hearing them first hand.

	MS. SHORTALL:  I have a few questions, too.  Ms. Seminario, first of
all, thank you for appearing today. Also, do you happen to have a
written comment of your presentation that you would like to enter into
the record?

	MS. SEMINARIO:  We are actually preparing more detailed written
comments, which we will be submitting to the record that will be similar
to what I outlined, and some more sort of analysis of some of the data
by industry as to how the days away from work cases, what proportion of
injuries they represent, what we are missing by only looking at that
particular indicator with respect to MSDs.

	MS. SHORTALL:  I have a couple of questions to ask.  The first one is
one of the comments we have heard from particular employers is that it
is very difficult to identify an MSD if our definition includes
subjective symptoms such as pain, tingling, numbness.

	How do the industries that you have members working in go about
currently now identifying MSDs?  What do they use, do they use
subjective symptoms, and if they do, how do they end up using them?

	MS. SEMINARIO:  I can't speak to specific employers.  Again, that is
not something that we, at the AFL-CIO, engage with individual employers.
 I do know from all the work that we have been involved with over the
years on ergonomics, that looking at what is captured and what is looked
at in ergonomics programs is that people, they do look at subjective
symptoms, and if you go back to your old recordkeeping rule prior to
2001, that was the definition, the definition that was recordable, was
basically if you had -- well, both some objective findings, but you also
had symptoms related to if it had resulted in medical treatment or
restriction, so this has been in place for 40 years perhaps.

	So, I think, yes, there are probably some difficult areas here, but the
fact of the matter is, is that these are the kind of criteria and
definitions that have been used forever under the OSHA recording
systems, and so while, you know, again, this isn't necessarily a strict
diagnostic criteria, it is, again, trying to give the employers the
guidance, the criteria that should be used to at least try to identify
these problems.

	MS. SHORTALL:  When your members report pain or other types of
subjective symptoms of MSDs, are employers generally referring them to
health care providers for examination?

	MS. SEMINARIO:  I couldn't say as a general matter.  I think some
employers do, and I think some employers don't, and I think you will
hear that from some of the individual unions, and the practices I think
do -- I think the practices do vary.

	One of the things that we have seen in recent years, and it is not just
related to MSDs, it is related to the whole issue of injury recording.
It is more and more of an attempt to keep things off the OSHA Log, and
it doesn't matter if it's an MSD or anything else.

	So, we have workers who don't come forward, or if they do, an attempt
not to provide medical treatment. We heard this actually at a
congressional hearing that occurred I think two years ago from the then
President of the American College of Occupational Environmental
Medicine, who came forward and said that their members were being asked
and told not to provide medical treatment for cases, and again, not
specifically MSDs, so that they wouldn't go on the OSHA Log.

	So, I think that there is a lot of things that are going on in
workplaces around injuries and illnesses in the recording of those, and
that impacts obviously MSDs as it does everything else, and we need to
be aware of that.  This rule won't fix that, but again, this rule will
at least allow us, for what is recorded, to get a better sense of the
identification of which of those are MSDs.

	MS. SHORTALL:  Are your members going through injury and illness logs
to try to identify MSDs, or have they determined it is too difficult for
them to glean the information from the log?

	MS. SEMINARIO:  I think what you will again hear from some of the
unions who attempt to do that, they try, but trying to get a sense of
exactly what is considered to be an MSD, and you can use the criteria
off of the BLS definition, and a number of the unions use that in trying
to identify which cases are MSD.

	But the fact that we don't have an ergonomics standard anymore, we
haven't had a requirement on the log, that there hasn't been any clear
guidance.  So, one of the things that I think is important, that with
this rule, in coming out with a new definition, is for OSHA to provide
as much clarity as they can, training to employers, examples, so again
we are capturing as much information as we can.

	Is it going to be perfect?  No, but right now we don't have anything.

	MS. SHORTALL:  So, when they take the criteria that could be used for
identifying MSD, is like BLS uses, have they been able to, in looking
through logs, come up with --

	MS. SEMINARIO:  I think it is very difficult because what is on the log
itself is generally, there is not a lot of information.  I mean
basically, in some cases, they are very good, and in some cases, they
are really pretty bad, and then you have to go to the 300 to look behind
that.

	So, no, I don't think it's an easy task at all, and again you will hear
from every union who has been trying to do this both for workplace
activities, as well as for research, as to how time-consuming this is.

	By simply putting the column on the log, I think it will help focus
employers, you know help union, et cetera, at the time the injury is put
on the log to make the determination rather than having to figure out
after the fact whether or not that is the case.

	MS. SHORTALL:  One last question.  Is your union or other unions, are
they providing training for their members on how to identify MSDs or how
to track injuries and illnesses in their work environments?

	MS. SEMINARIO:  We, through the AFL-CIO, my colleague Bill Kojola has
developed a course on recordkeeping in conjunction with our National
Labor College, which we offer to union stewards and others, which is
trying to explain to people what actually has to be recorded, how you
collect that information, as well as how you analyze that information.

	It is not specific to MSDs, but it is really on the whole system of
recordkeeping and what is required.  I think one of the things that has
happened with the promulgation of the recordkeeping rule, at the time
that the ergonomics standard was repealed, and then removing the column,
that a number of things happened, first of all, that took attention off
of MSDs, because you no longer had to look at that on the log, and there
was no longer an ergonomic standard, but with the criteria changes in
the 2001 recordkeeping rule, that narrowed the definition of what had to
be recorded particularly with respect to MSDs, but also the introduction
of the concept of a new case and whether MSDs, because they actually,
many of them are cumulative, they do go on over time, I think there has
been a lot of confusion over time as to actually whether a new case has
to be on the log or doesn't have to be on the log, and there wasn't the
kind of focus on the implementation on recordkeeping by the Agency in
2001 and beyond, and that with this rule change, it would be very
important to get out there and do some education about what is require,
refresher training on what is a new case, what is not a new case,
because we see very different practices among employers as to what they
consider to be a new case, what they consider to be something that is a
recurring case, particularly in the area of MSDs.

	You can put the logs of two employers side by side, and get very
different representations as to what has to be recorded.  So, clarity
from the Agency about where those lines are, and examples, I think would
be very, very helpful to employers.

	MS. SHORTALL:  Thank you.

	MR. MADDUX:  Thanks, Peg, appreciate it.  In your written comments, if
you have any ideas about what components of outreach programs would make
sense, we would certainly welcome those.

	Our next speaker is Pamela Vossenas from Unite Here.

	MS. VOSSENAS:  Good morning, everybody.  Unite Here is very happy to be
here and have the opportunity to give our perspective  on the value of
adding an MSD column to the OSHA 300 Log.

	I am going to have a hard time doing this because I need to look over
my shoulder, but these are the reasons that we think adding an MSD
column would be helpful.  We feel that unless you can count an injury,
then, you can't prevent it, and unless you can count an injury, you
can't find solutions to mitigate the damage that that injury causes.

	So, without having an MSD Log, our experience shows that it is very
difficult to get an accurate accounting of these types of injuries.

	Next slide.

	For all of us who have either a concern or responsibility, a legal
mandate to protect workers' health and safety, then, the ability to have
this information is essential.

	Next.

	As you all know, musculoskeletal disorders are disabling injuries.
They are preventable, and I would say as the union that has done a
significant amount of research on hotel worker injuries, particularly
housekeeper injuries, the real tragedy is that we are way behind the
times.  We are way behind the times in the service sector to identify
these injuries, way behind the times to prevent them.

	We are really way behind the times in having these injuries being
diagnosed accurately, and the real tragedy is, is that remedies do
exist, and there seems to be a significant problem between identifying
and then solving these injuries.

	Next.

	So, what we found looking at BLS data for a code 72.111, which is
hotels and motels, is that there is higher rates of incidence of days
away from work, restricted days compared to private industry.

	Next.

	Particularly in the types of injuries that are described, using BLS
terminology, that would be an MSD column if we had one.

	What I think is particularly disturbing about this slide is that these
are the only two statistics where hotel/motels don't have a higher
injury rate than private industry, which is good news if it is accurate,
but I really question if they are accurate, because these are the types
of injuries that require a medical diagnosis, and our experience at
Unite Here is that you have a problem with workers being afraid to
report injuries, we have problems with employers intimidating workers or
using disincentive programs like Safety Bingo to discourage workers from
reporting.

	When workers do get to go to a physician, we have problems with them
being diagnosed as work-related injuries to begin with, never mind
musculoskeletal disorders, and that has been raised at meetings of the
Academy of Occupational and Environmental Medicine conferences.

	We also have a problem related to this is when workers are injured, and
there is difficulty in finding them what is called light duty,
restricted days of work employment, and so workers either work hurt or
they don't work at all, and they lose income from that.

	If we could just go back, some of the research we have done, and in
responding to the question you had of Peg Seminario about the ability to
identify as a union these types of injuries.

	We have actually had to hire additional staff. We have been at the
appreciative mercy of interns to be able to record, you know, transfer
from OSHA logs thousands of entries into a database and analyze them.

	What we have found is that there seem to be a pattern that, for sprain,
strain, or tear injuries, those are the injuries most likely not to have
any event exposure information at all on the log.

	So, either the employers don't understand what causes these types of
injuries, but they are certainly not getting that type of information
put on the log.  So, if we had a column, I think it would be a way to
focus on those injuries.

	We would identify them as MSD, and then we would know what causes MSDs,
so I think that would solve this problem that we are finding.

	Next.

	So, then, the concern is, you know, if we have these higher rates in
hotel and motel industry, what is causing them.

	Next.

	Bill Marras from the Ohio State University, who you are familiar with
the lumbar motion monitor, did at least three evaluations of hotel
housekeeping.  This is what he found.

	There are high-risk jobs for low back disorders, they had higher rates
of probability of a low back disorder than truck door assembly, than car
assembly, and even patient handling.  The only thing that they didn't
exceed in his studies to date were warehouse work, which we all know has
very high rates of musculoskeletal disorders.

	Next.

	This is an example of some of the data we have been able to generate
using OSHA logs, and again we found for housekeepers, that sprain,
strain, tears are a leading cause of injury.  Overexertion has been the
leading injury offense, and worker motion accounted for 40 percent of
injuries.

	Next.

	Most recently, in the current American Journal of Industrial Medicine,
where we were able to do a very large-scale study using OSHA 300 Logs
from full-service hotels that we represent in the U.S., we focused on
not just housekeepers, but additional job titles that are primarily food
service workers in hotels.

	Next.

	We used the BLS definition of MSDs and we categorized our injuries.
There were approximately 2,800 injuries into three categories of MSD,
acute trauma, and other.  We actually needed additional resources to do
this.

	We had a health and safety professional go through the logs and
categorize all of those injuries as either MSD, acute, or other.  This
just points to the need for a column.  If we had a column, we wouldn't
have needed that extra resource.

	Quite honestly, we don't have those types of resources in our union,
and most unions don't have those types of resources.

	Next.

	So, in the study, we found that housekeepers had the highest injury
rate, but more specifically, for the purpose of this hearing, they had
the highest rate of MSDs.

	Next.

	For the entire study, for those workers who had an MSD, this is the
body parts that were affected.

	Next.

	This is one of the conclusions of our study.

	Next.

	So, just recently, in the past few months, we took a look at the food
service workers employed in the hotel and expanded the descriptive data
from the logs.  We took a look at those and this is what we found.

	Next.

	So, this is where, let's say, the damage was done.  We can see that
compared to BLS data, that all three job titles had higher median of
days away from work and restricted days than we find in the BLS data.

	You can see they are significantly higher, you know, in some places,
they are four times as much, twice as much, and so the question is I
think for all of us is why are they so high and what are we doing about
it.

	I think this is information that, you know, OSHA needs to pay attention
to, employers need to pay attention to, and we, as the union, are paying
attention to.

	Next.

	This is where the guessing game begins.  You know, we have an idea, you
know, we know that sprains, strains, and tears, you know, this is a
guessing game for trying to assess what does it look like for MSDs in
the workplace.

	So, this is what was identified as sprain, strain, or tear injuries.
You can see that banquet servers had the highest, but still these are,
you know, 22 percent, that is basically 1 out of every 4 workers.  That
is a serious amount of injuries that could be reduced or prevented.

	Next.

	So, banquet servers have 25 percent of their injuries occur to the
trunk, dishwashers 19 percent, 13 percent cooks.  So, again, this is in
line with what we know about MSDs.

	Next.

	If you total these, you will see banquet servers 24 percent
overexertion, dishwashers 24 percent, and 19 percent cooks, kitchen
workers.

	So, again, if 1 out of every 4 injury is related to overexertion, then,
we have a problem.

	Next.

	Worker motion or position looks like cooks and kitchen workers were
more related to acute trauma, because that was the highest type of
injury that they had, but banquet servers 50 percent, those we know is
more related to overexertion, and dishwashers, stewards, a good chunk of
those would also be overexertion.

	Next.

	So, this is the type of data we would like to be able to have OSHA and
the BLS report to us.  This is the type of data we would like to be able
to see come up every year, and it would be incredibly important to be
able to have that data.

	This is extremely labor-intensive and it's as accurate as we can be,
but OSHA could do far more.

	Next.

	So, the MSD column would have a great benefit to employees as these are
disabling injuries.  It would have a great benefit to all of those who
have a responsibility to do workplace injuries, and based on what we
have seen on the logs, any revision of the recordkeeping rule must be
accompanied with outreach to employers and to unions as to how to make
this new addition feasible and make sure it is being implemented and
accurately so.

	Thank you very much.

	MR. MADDUX:  Thank you, Pamela.

	Does the rest of the panel have a question?  I will start off I guess.
Obviously, you have done a very detailed analysis here.  I am assuming
that this analysis is sort of focused on the hotels and motels where you
have workers that you represent?

	MS. VOSSENAS:  Yes.

	MR. MADDUX:  So, it is not really like a representative sample, but
it's a study you have been able to do on --

	MS. VOSSENAS:  It's a study we have been able to do and the article
published in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine was a
collaboration between the Unite Here and four leading occupational
health centers.

	I would like to point out it's Lowell, University of Massachusetts,
University of Illinois, Chicago School of Public Health, University of
California, San Francisco, and Hunter College School of Urban Health.

	So, we had I would say the cream of the crop as co-authors, and
although maybe an unrepresented sample, it's the only study that has
ever been done on the hotel industry.

	MR. MADDUX:  I am not saying that it doesn't have wide use, I just
wanted to make sure that we all understood what it did represent.

	MS. VOSSENAS:  Right.  Well, it does represent workers who are
currently employed in the hotel industry.

	MR. MADDUX:  Obviously, a very huge amount of work going into coding
all that data and getting it into a database, and all that.

	You don't have to give us this today, but in your written comments that
you submit later on, if you could give us some idea of sort of the cost
and the time involved, you know, your estimates, that would be I think
very, very helpful.

	MS. VOSSENAS:  Sure.  I complain to my bosses about it every day.  You
want human costs?  I could try to assess that.

	MR. MADDUX:  I thought you might have some general idea.

	The other question I have is obviously, this is a study that is
oriented around the hotel and motel industry as a whole.

	Do you or people at the local level, do any of these sorts of analyses
for MSDs at individual hotels?

	MS. VOSSENAS:  We use this data for individual hotels.  We obtain OSHA
logs for individual hotels.  We use this data to identify what type of
changes are needed in the workplace.  As a union, we use these as part
of collective bargaining.  As a union, we use it as part of training.

	So, this information is critical.

	MR. MADDUX:  So, you have found it to have utility at an individual
establishment?

	MS. VOSSENAS:  Extreme utility, yes.

	MR. MADDUX:  Okay.  I guess my last question is just did you bring a
hardcopy of your PowerPoint presentation?

	MS. VOSSENAS:  No, but I can make that available as part of my
comments.

	MR. MADDUX:  After we get through this session, we will take a break
and maybe we can work something out.  We will definitely need that for
our exhibits.

	MS. VOSSENAS:  Sure.

	MS. SHORTALL:  I just have one question I would like to ask.  There was
a comparison of the mean days of work between BLS --

	MS. VOSSENAS:  The median, yes.

	MS. SHORTALL:  The median, between BLS and the study that you did.  In
your study, did you come up with any reasons at all for why you felt
that there was such a disparity between your numbers on days away from
work and BLS?

	MS. VOSSENAS:  Well, that is a good question.  I don't really know the
answer to that question.  I don't know, maybe the sampling that is done,
you know, in hotels, I don't know if the sampling frame is different
from the BLS, what you are looking at in hotels.

	I mean one point to note is we looked at hotels from the five leading
hotel companies, so that is Marriott, Hyatt, Hilton, Starwood, and
Intercontinental. These are full-service hotels.  These are the hotels
that have six pillows on a bed, triple sheeting, dubais that weigh 7 to
15 pounds, 100-pound plus beds, increasing number of amenities.  Perhaps
this new level of luxury is extracting a toll that is not getting
captured in the BLS data.

	MS. SHORTALL:  That's very interesting.

	MS. VOSSENAS:  The other thing I want to point out about the value of
these findings, and I also want to note that the analysis was not done
by Unite Here, the analysis was done by an independent contractor
statistician affiliated with University of Illinois School of Public
Health.

	So, we assembled the database and just sent it off, and they did the
analysis.  But the findings also represent findings about food service
workers that you don't get because the food service industry isn't
required to maintain OSHA 300 logs.

	I think all the more need for an MSD column, because if we can identify
what is happening in kitchens in hotels, very likely we are not going to
be that far away from what is happening in the restaurant industry.

	There is 1.5 million workers in hotels and motels, but I mean roughly I
know there is at least 8 million restaurant workers in limited and
full-service restaurants in the U.S.  So, you could have a far greater
impact on more than one industry if you had a more accurate ability to
record MSDs.

	MS. SHORTALL:  Just one more question.  What type of training do you
give to your members about recordkeeping, how to look at OSHA records,
OSHA logs, how to analyze and track from them?

	MS. VOSSENAS:  Well, first, we teach them about the OSHA recordkeeping
standard, and we make sure they understand that the employer has the
responsibility to record injuries, and not only that, that an employer
has the responsibility to explain to workers how they can record
injuries.

	Most workers don't know that, and their experience indicates otherwise.
 So, that is the first thing we make sure they understand, and then
under that, we make sure they understand they have a right to obtain
those OSHA logs.

	So, when we obtain OSHA logs, for the most part, it's an actual worker
who requests from their employer their own OSHA log.  In this study, we
did this directly with the hotels and requested their OSHA logs, but
actually, we had to file a complaint with the National Labor Relations
Board to get those OSHA logs, and we did get them.

	So, we teach them about the Recordkeeping standard, we teach them about
what a workplace repetitive motion injury is, and what the signs and
symptoms are.

	If they are in California, we teach them about what standards are
there, that don't exist in other States, and then we train our union
reps and organizers about the same standards and how to access this
information, and then how to use it.

	MS. SHORTALL:  Thank you.

	MS. VOSSENAS:  You are welcome.

	MR. MADDUX:  Any other questions from the panel?

	Okay.  Thank you, Pamela.

	I am going to suggest that we take a 15-minute break at this time, and
we will resume at 20 after.

	[Break.]

	MR. MADDUX:  We would like to get started again, please.

	Is Andrew Langer present?

	[No response.]

	MR. MADDUX:  It looks like Andrew has not made it yet today, so we will
move on to the next speaker, Steve Newell from ORC.

	MR. NEWELL:  Thanks, Jim.

	Good morning, everybody.  The panel, I gave you guys a written copy of
the statement just in case you nod off while I am talking, you will have
something to refer to.

	We are really glad to be here today.  My comments are going to be
brief.  Frankly, when I heard Peg talk, I thought if she had circulated
her remarks, we probably could have signed off and just said ditto to a
lot of what Peg had to say.

	I will read the statement.  I guess you guys can ask questions.

	ORC appreciates what OSHA is attempting with this rulemaking, and we
also appreciate the Agency's openness in scheduling this public dialogue
here and discuss comments from the regulated community.

	Many of you might not know who ORC is.  By the way, I am Steve Newell.
I am the Director for EH&S Networks for ORC Worldwide.  I have been with
ORC over a decade.  When I first took the job, I said I will do anything
other than OSHA Recordkeeping, and here I am. What can I say?

	ORC provides a broad range of services to more than 120 large global
corporations on workplace safety, health, and environmental matters.

	Our primary focus is on promoting best practices among our member
companies, and we also keep them abreast of legislative and regulatory
developments and strive to maintain a constructive dialogue with
governmental agencies and others in the workplace safety and health
community.

	Members trying to assure compliance contact us daily for assistance on
injury and illness recordkeeping. We probably average four to six calls
and e-mails on recordkeeping a day, every day.

	So, recordkeeping is an issue that is near if not dear to us.  The OSHA
data, for better or for worse, are really the primary data that are used
in this country, and really by many of our member companies on a global
basis to drive and gauge safety and health performance.

	So, when we talk about making a modification to the OSHA system, it is
important, because it can have an impact on performance.  It is
important that we get this rulemaking right.

	As a reminder, ORC consults with members before participating in
sessions like this, however, we don't put these up to a vote.
Basically, we do what we think is right, period.

	So, the views we share today are really our own, they don't represent
the views of all of our individual member companies.

	Our brief comments are as follows.

	ORC generally supports the idea of an MSD column being added to the log
even though MSD cases already receive significant attention from ORC
member companies.  In many companies, it is through application of their
safety and health management system.

	The data show that we have an aging work population, so ailments of
this sort are likely to be on the rise.  Industry needs to better
understand the problem if we are going to deal with it effectively.

	Why is that important?  First, most of our companies want to do all
they can to protect and promote their most important asset, the health
and well-being of their workers.

	Second, from a pure business sense, ergonomic cases represent a
substantial cost for industry above and beyond worker's compensation
costs and lost work time.  An ergonomics case frequently serves as a
leading indicator of a business or work process that is inefficient and
needs to be improved.

	Now, ORC does have concerns about the implementation and timing of the
proposal.  The data derived from this column will only have value if the
criteria for recording these cases are reasonable and clear.  I think
Peg mentioned that in her comments, as well.

	Capturing the right mix of MSD cases is challenging.  In many
instances, the nature and extent of the work contribution will not be
clear, and the subjective nature of the symptoms for the more minor
cases makes it difficult to clearly distinguish between cases that are
personal and cases that have meaningful connection to work.

	Again, to be clear, despite the inherent softness of the data, we
believe that the column will help some employers have a better
understanding and appreciation for these types of conditions in the
workplace, but for the column to have a positive impact, OSHA really
needs to be thoughtful about how broad to cast the recordable MSD net.

	In this regard, there are two specific issues with the proposal that
concern us.  The first has to do with eliminating the current provision
that says that a temporary transfer for minor musculoskeletal discomfort
is not recordable under 1904.7(b)(4) as a restricted work activity case
if a health care professional determines at the time of the transfer
that the employee was fully able to perform all of their routine job
functions, and none of the OSHA severity criteria met.

	ORC submitted a letter to OSHA in 1998 supporting this concept, and we
still support it.  Why? Because it removes a barrier to employers
conducting work hardening and taking other precautionary measures before
any of the recordability criteria are really met.

	Now, we believe that the reasons are clear for maintaining the
provision, and that a few long-standing recordkeeping concepts may help
OSHA better understand our rationale.

	In the proposal, OSHA was drawing kind of a connection or pointing out
to the confusion between pain and discomfort, that term, and we think,
you know, if you go back and look at the way recordkeeping has addressed
some of these issues in the past, it kind of helps work through that
issue.

	Historically, the concept of -- there is a couple of examples here --
historically, the concept of medical treatment versus First Aid focused
on the level of treatment that was required by the case.  Hence,
employers could not avoid recording a case by simply refusing to apply
appropriate treatment.

	Similarly, the concept of days away from work and days of restricted
work activity or job transfer focused on the impact of the injury and
illness on the employee's ability to do their work.  That is why, under
the OSHA rules, restricted activity or motion in the abstract was never
deemed OSHA recordable.

	To have a case be OSHA recordable, you have to have a restricted work
activity before the case was entered in a log.  The provision for
allowing preventive transfers is very narrowly drawn to only include
situations involving minor musculoskeletal discomfort where the transfer
is not required by the case.

	In fact, for the provision to apply, the employer first must have the
case assessed by a health care professional, and that health care
professional must render an opinion to that effect.

	Now, when we do training on this, and we do a lot of training on
recordkeeping we counsel our clients to get that opinion in writing.  In
addition, the provision only applies to the most minor situations where
none of the other OSHA severity criteria have been met.

	OSHA's arguments for eliminating the provision are not persuasive.
OSHA expresses concern over possible confusion that could result from
its application, but the Agency produces no study findings or other data
to support its beliefs about the degree or prevalence of the confusion
even though the provision has been in effect for more than a decade.

	To the contrary, we think the provision is very clear, perhaps one of
the clearest provisions associated with the entire Recordkeeping rule.
Furthermore, OSHA's logic for eliminating the provision seems unclear.

	The Agency seems to be saying that the provision is not needed because
minor musculoskeletal discomfort would not be covered since it would not
be considered a case under the OSHA rules, but the rule contains a
section on subjective symptoms where the definition of a case includes
pain, tingling, or -- and this is the part that gives us heartburn -- or
any other subjective symptom of an MSD.

	We are curious as to how OSHA proposes to reconcile that language with
the issues around minor musculoskeletal discomfort.

	Finally, we have concerns about the implementation time frames for
implementing the proposal.  Since OSHA records are kept on a calendar
year basis, the Agency seems to be working -- maybe this has changed
with the extension -- towards a January 1st, 2011, effective date.

	That would not give many employers sufficient time to train their staff
and modify their systems to collect and process the data, and with a lot
of large companies, they have combined their health information systems
with their workplace injury and illness data systems, and so it is not
small feat to get changes made in some of those big systems.

	The Federal and State rulemaking process takes time to complete and
employers will not know the final requirements until later this year.

	In closing, I would like to offer one final thought, and this is really
from an old data guy.  You know, I have worked on data issues for years.
 I have been in this business over 35 years.  That is, capturing more
data does not always add value.

	For example, under the old Recordkeeping guidelines, an occupational
illness was defined as any abnormal condition or disorder other than an
occupational injury, and was recorded without applying the OSHA severity
screens of death, days away from work, restricted work activity, medical
treatment, et cetera.

	And what was the result?  Users really didn't know where to draw the
line for recordability.  The very broad definition of illness produced
inconsistent data for some conditions that had very limited utility, so
much so that OSHA abandoned the concept in 2001 when it revised the
rule.

	Again, we support the concept.  The idea is to get the definition
right, and I think that requires some thought.  My hope is that OSHA
doesn't make the same mistake with the criteria for the new MSD column.

	I thank you for accepting our preliminary comments, and ORC will submit
more detailed written comments during the extended comment period.

	That is it.  Any questions?

	MR. MADDUX:  I don't know how many members ORC has, or if you know this
right now, but can you tell us or give us some idea of how many or what
percentage of the employers already track MSDs?

	MR. NEWELL:  Gee, of our member companies?

	MR. MADDUX:  Yes.

	MR. NEWELL:  I would say almost all of them do, and most of them have
incorporated that.  It's not they can't break it out from the existing
law, but most of them have incorporated that in the risk part of their
safety and health management system.

	Most of them realize that ergonomics cases can be big cost drivers.

	MR. MADDUX:  No doubt.

	MR. NEWELL:  Yes.  In terms of the software requirements, in 2001, you
know, we had our final rule that was published, it would have had an MSD
column, and I know a lot of companies at that time had done the legwork
to incorporate data fields into their computer systems, and so forth.

	Is that legwork still able to be turned on in those computer systems?
I know that people are concerned about the difficulties with adding this
into some of their computerized systems, but it seems to me that a lot
of companies have already done this work.

	MR. NEWELL:  Well, that's a good question.  See, I think what a lot of
companies have done is their computer systems have really evolved, and I
am not sure that they have kept that kind of -- I mean you would think
it wouldn't be that big a deal, but a lot of the companies we are
dealing with now are integrating their systems across the board, and
they are really done by service companies that do it for them, and I
don't think that has been kept, I really don't.

	You know, it's part of the feedback.  One of the things we did was I
polled the members, you know, as I was developing my comments, and there
is a real concern I think about what is the final rule going to look
like.  We don't really have a specification, so it makes it hard for us
to go out and talk to our vendors.

	I said, well, you know, I have been talking to OSHA, you know, they
basically say it is going to look very much like what they did in 2001,
but they really need specifics.  So, I do think implementation will be a
challenge for some, not for all.

	MR. MADDUX:  I would also like to ask you a little bit about this idea
of minor musculoskeletal discomfort with restricted work, not being a
recordable injury, and I think you actually hit the problem pretty much
right on the head, that the problem is that -- number one, I would like
to make it clear that this is not a provision of the existing rule, this
is an interpretive statement concerning the existing rule.

	But then also, the difficulty that we have here is what some of the
behavioral economists might call a cognitive sort of disturbance where,
you know, your pain is my minor discomfort.

	MR. NEWELL:  Right.  It's a sticky problem, but, you know, part of this
is I think you have got to think about it in terms of application.

	You know, one of the concerns I have is I work with member companies
all the time, and there is other people, like Pat, do too, and, you
know, you have got to come up with something that is sustainable and
workable.

	Think about the definition that you guys are talking about now, and I
am not opposed to including something in there about subjective
symptoms, but when you include a statement like any other subjective
symptom of an MSD, and you go, yeah, but those aren't going to be
recorded unless they are work related.

	Well, under the OSHA system, work relationship occurs if there is even
a slight contribution from exposure in the workplace.  So take an aging
work population, tell them that any subjective symptom could be
potentially OSHA recordable, and that any contribution from anything in
the workplace could contribute to that case, and I would like to know
how many cases are not going to make it on the OSHA log.

	Part of the deal behind -- you know, one of the things where I think
the Agency suffers is that when you come out with rules like this, to
the people on the shop floor that have to implement them, you don't look
reasonable.

	I think one of the things that the preventive transfer interpretation
got you was it came out, you know, that the Agency was really trying to
take a reasonable approach to a very tough problem, because, you know,
you don't want to have this be only recording cases where there is, you
know, objective findings necessarily.

	You know, you want to have it a little softer than that, but the
preventive transfer gave you credibility I think with people trying to
implement it, and the question is kind of where are the struggle points
around that.

	I think you guys have focused on the wrong part of that, which is kind
of the where do you divide pain from musculoskeletal discomfort.

	You can't, but I think what you can focus in on is what is the impact
of the injury or illness on the workers' ability to do their job, and
the preventive transfer interpretation of what you said was as long as
somebody is able to do all the parts of their normal job for a full
shift, in short, the injury hasn't impacted them enough to prevent their
ability to do that job, we will allow for work hardening or proactive
transfer, not have a recordable case.

	That made sense in 1998, and it makes sense today.

	MR. MADDUX:  Well, what the interpretation does say is that if there is
minor musculoskeletal discomfort, and those other things, then, the
employer doesn't need to report the case, so the notion of minor
musculoskeletal discomfort is really part and parcel of this
interpretation.

	MR. NEWELL:  It is, but it's not the operative term.  The thing that
makes it applicable is that you have a determination from a health care
provider that the person is fully able to do all parts of their normal
job and none of the other criteria being met.

	Those are the operative terms, and that is where I think you guys are
hung up on discomfort versus pain, and trying to make that distinction,
which you will never do.  No one can do that.

	MR. MADDUX:  Well, I am not going to argue with you about it here, but
I am just going to say that in your written comments, if you have any
ideas about how to provide some kind of greater clarity to the issue, it
would be very, very helpful.

	MR. NEWELL:  Okay.  Glad to do it.

	MS. SHORTALL:  I have a few questions.

	I would like to follow up on your comment about older workers.  How do
your member companies now, when an older worker reports pain or tingling
or numbness, go about determining whether that is from a work-related
cause or something personal?

	MR. NEWELL:  That is a great question, Sarah, and I think that what
they have got to do, what they should do when they have a report of pain
or whatever, they need to do an instant investigation.

	A lot of them will go back and they will look and see if they can
identify risk factors, and I think for a lot of these companies, you
know, the world is changing.

	I remember we had one company that was really struggling with
ergonomics issues, and one of the things they said, and they said this
to the other ORC members in an open meeting, is, you know, we are having
really to struggle with this, because we have designed our workplaces
for 35-year-olds, and basically, now, the average age is 53.

	So, I think this is a real struggle, and one of the things that our
guys do, and it is part of a health and safety management system is
basically you have to have very effective risk identification and
elimination, and so that is the way they do it.

	So, they do go after this thing, but it is tough sometimes to make that
call.  One of the things that our companies are doing, too, is they are
looking at the intersection between their health information databases
and their workplace safety and health databases, and seeing what health
conditions tend to lead to more Workers' Comp cases and more loss, and
they are trying to get ahead of some of these.

	MS. SHORTALL:  Do you think that your member companies would follow the
same type of analysis for determining if an older worker was
experiencing MSD if we come out with a final rule to record them in a
special column, would they continue using the same system of analysis?

	MR. NEWELL:  I think for our guys, it won't make that much difference,
because the ones who are driving their systems effectively, they are
dealing with this now, so I don't think that it will, and that is why,
you know, in our comments, I think for some companies this is going to
make a big difference, because I think of increased awareness, they will
see the data.

	You know, for every case that is entered on the OSHA log, you know you
have got a first report of injury or supplementary record.  There is
case detail you can analyze, you can look for patterns.  It helps, but I
think most of our members are already doing that.

	MS. SHORTALL:  Jim already asked you a few questions about electronic
systems for recordkeeping.  Are there just general times that those
systems, aside from changes in OSHA recordkeeping regulations, where you
have to update those electronic recordkeeping?

	MR. NEWELL:  Oh, sure.

	MS. SHORTALL:  Can you tell me anything about the range of costs that
might be involved in doing something like that?

	MR. NEWELL:  I really don't know.  It's a good question.  That is
something the Agency might want to look into, but I think the more
sophisticated the system, I think the more difficult it is to change.

	A lot of large companies seem to be moving more towards an integrated
case management and integrated data systems, so I think it is going to
require some work.

	MS. SHORTALL:  But you are saying that as a general course of normal
operation of business, they are updating these systems anyway?

	MR. NEWELL:  Yeah, they are, but the question is really the timing.
It's not whether they would do it, it is how quickly can it be done.
Frankly I am not sure, if you go through the Federal rulemaking process,
and then you give the state plan States a certain amount of time to
adopt, in a way you don't have a baked cake for months.

	So, you could say to these companies, well, you know basically what the
requirements are, go out and make the investment now, but that could be
a very significant investment, and if for some reason there is a change
at the last minute, you know, somebody's head could roll.

	So, I think that timing is an issue.

	MS. SHORTALL:  I also wanted to ask you another question, but in a
little bit different way about the electronic recordkeeping systems.

	I know that ORC represents Fortune 100 companies.

	MR. NEWELL:  Right.

	MS. SHORTALL:  But OSHA is considering if it puts out a final rule to
add an MSD column of developing some software that could be distributed
for free to employers who would like to move to electronic
recordkeeping.

	MR. NEWELL:  It's great.

	MS. SHORTALL:  Okay.  So, you would find that even other companies that
aren't the Fortune 100 would find that useful?

	MR. NEWELL:  We have said in meetings with David Michaels, if you
really want to fix recordkeeping, first of all, you have got to go after
the real drivers of underreporting, which I don't think the Agency has
stepped up to the plate yet to do that.

	Secondly, you really need to get some of the stupid stuff out of the
requirements, but then if you had an expert system that would help
people make the decisions, I think that would go a long way towards
improving the quality of the data, and I think our members would support
that.

	Frankly, some of our members would come up and they would even pay to
help develop something like that.

	MS. SHORTALL:  Do you also think that whatever an MSD column there
might be added to recordkeeping -- we won't know what the final details
would be -- but would you think that even Fortune 100 companies would
find it would make the tracking of MSDs a little bit easier?

	MR. NEWELL:  We support the column.

	MS. SHORTALL:  Okay.

	MR. NEWELL:  We support the column and I think a lot of the reasons for
the column that Peg enunciated I think were spot on.

	MS. SHORTALL:  In addition to the OSHA 300, to what extent do your
member companies use the summary data from the 300-A?

	MR. NEWELL:  Now, that is a good question.  I mean what companies tend
to do is they benchmark the OSHA data, and they use the OSHA data as the
trailing indicator to measure performance.

	So, they are using that internally, a lot of member companies are using
that data on a global basis, they use OSHA definitions globally.

	So, I am not so sure whether -- it doesn't really matter whether it's
the summary data or the data off the log, but they are using it site by
site.  They use it as a corporation to benchmark with other
corporations.

	Frankly, we don't think that is a good idea.  We think companies ought
to be looking at leading indicators, and not just a single trailing
indicator, so we work with our companies to benchmark where they are in
key elements of their safety and health management system, but companies
do use the OSHA data a lot.

	MS. SHORTALL:  Thank you so much.  Thank you for appearing here today,
and we look forward to receiving your more detailed comments, that you
have until March 30th --

	MR. NEWELL:  Thanks a lot.

	MR. MADDUX:  Next, Andrew Langer, I understand has joined us.

	Do you have copies?

	MR. LANGER:  No, I don't actually, I am still sort of working on that.
I apologize for being late.  I have a rather lengthy commute, it took a
little bit longer, and parking was a bit of a bear this morning.

	MS. SHORTALL:  You are not the only person to have said that.  Dorothy
Dougherty, who isn't here right now, indicated she was just coming down
the wire trying to get here, so I know it was a bad day.

	MR. LANGER:  It happens.  It is certainly much better than it was when
D.C. was surrounded by the impenetrable force called snow.

	In any case, thank you for having me here today. My name is Andrew
Langer.  I am President of the Institute For Liberty.  We are a
non-profit advocacy organization based here in Washington, D.C.  We
focus on Federal public policy specifically Federal regulatory policy,
and we inject the small business perspective.

	So, I am going to take it from the other end of where Steve was going,
go down from the Fortune 100 to the very smallest businesses that OSHA's
regulatory orbit entails.

	By way of background, I have been at IFL for two years.  Prior to that,
I was a regulatory person at the National Federation of Independent
Business, which is the Nation's largest small business issue, and I take
a particular interest in occupational safety and health related issues.
My dad's background is in that, so I grew up dealing with OSHA issues at
home.

	Anyway, I am here to sort of inject that small business perspective, as
I said, and we don't have member companies, we have individuals that
support us.  We approach things from a philosophical perspective, and we
are very interested in putting things in context.

	I think one of the great problems with public policy today is that
folks tend to get focused very parochially on particular issues.  One of
the things that we talk about is the general regulatory burden and the
general paper work burden at issue, because I think it is important as
we talk about the burden that this proposal might entail, and I will
talk more about it in a second because we really think that OSHA has
underestimated greatly the burden that this is going to impose.

	But to put it in general context, the cost of regulation today is
roughly a trillion dollars annually is the cost of Federal regulation to
businesses of all sizes.

	For small businesses, and that is businesses with fewer than 20
employees, my colleagues at the SBA's Office of Advocacy have estimated
that cost to be $7,700 per employee per year.  So, if you are a business
with 10 employees, which is the threshold limit for this rule, at
$77,000 per year, you are spending in Federal regulatory compliance.

	In terms of paperwork itself, it is funny because I went back and
looked at the numbers today, I have been using a three-year-old number
for a while.  In OMB's own information collection budget, so this is not
my number, this is not some far right wing thing tank number, but this
is OMB's own number, Federal recordkeeping, Federal paperwork
requirements are at 9.74 billion hours annually.

	That is a vast amount of time, that is, if you figure out man hours,
2,000 hours a year, I think that is roughly, what, 4.5 million hours
that we are talking about, or 4.5 million man years of time that
Americans are spending filling out paperwork for the Federal Government.

	That comes with a cost.  So, to sort of put it in general context
today, as we are talking about sort of the economic doldrums that the
Nation faces, these things have an impact on the economy.

	If we are talking about getting small businesses, the engine of our
economy, hiring again, putting additional mandates on those small
businesses right now, we don't think is the smartest thing to do.

	Let's talk for a moment about that issue of specific burden and this
regulatory proposal.  As was being discussed by my colleagues at ORC,
the fact is there is a whole host of things that are entailed in this
that aren't measured by the actual time spent filling out this form.

	I know that there are various interpretations of what paperwork burdens
entail, but the idea that someone can familiarize themselves with the
requirements of this rule in a matter of minutes is ludicrous when you
are talking about America's smallest businesses.

	With folks who hire ORC -- and I have nothing but respect for what the
folks at ORC do -- but for folks who are at ORC, or larger businesses,
you are paying ORC to figure out what your regulatory requirements are,
or you are hiring some sort of regulatory professional who spends
nothing but day-in, day-out figuring out what your regulatory
requirements are.

	Now, when I was at NFIB, we did survey data on the issue of -- I know
you are going to be hearing from Karen Harned, my former colleague here
later on, she may add to some of this -- but we know that generally,
when a business reaches the size of 35 employees, that they hire their
first regulatory professional.  Generally, that person is an HR
professional.

	Sometimes that HR professional deals with occupational safety and
health issues, but by and large, they are dealing with regular sort of
wage and hour issues, the EOC issues, those other compliance issues that
sort of capture businesses in a much greater regulatory orbit.

	The fact is that invariably, when you are talking about a business
between 10 and 20 employees, as literally we are talking about here, you
are generally finding that it's the owner of the business, his or her
spouse, or some other designated employee who is not a regulatory
professional, who is ferreting out what those regulatory requirements
are.

	Given the size of the Federal Register and the frequency with which
regulatory requirements are changing, we know that it takes a
considerable amount of time for folks to figure it out.

	You know, if you haven't heard of an OSHA log or you don't know what an
MSD is, and you may get something in the mail, it is going take you a
heck of a lot longer than five minutes to figure this thing out.

	Then, there is the issue of investigation of incidents which, while not
bound up in the actual filling out of paper, I agree that some
investigation ought to occur, so you can determine whether or not that
MSD injury is related to the business itself, but that is a
time-consuming process, as well.

	One of the things we like to express things in is getting to this time
issue, again putting it back into context.  If you assume that a work
year is 2,000 hours long, every 8 hours of burden that you place on a
business is half a percentage of productivity time.

	I mean I don't like framing things in cost issues, bare bones cost
issues, because I think that ignores the productivity side of it, so
whereas, I might be paying an employee $50 an hour or $20 an hour, or
what have you, let's say $30 an hour for a very skilled labor person,
you are talking about that productivity which may be billed out at
several hundred dollars an hour, hundred dollars an hour, so measuring
it in terms of wage time lost is an incorrect way of measuring it.

	It has to actually ought to be measured in productivity.  So, anyway,
putting it back in that context, when you are talking about
investigative time that is involved, while it may be important, there is
certainly a much greater burden involved in what is envisioned by this
rule.

	You know, getting down to this issue of whether or not the definitions
actually encompass what OSHA is trying to get at, one of the things that
we believe, in talking to small businesses, is that a lot of businesses
will err on the side of caution, and that they will include MSD injuries
that may or may not be related to the actual occupation itself.

	In that regard, I think two things may be envisioned by this.  Number
one is skewed reporting, skewed data, as what Steve was talking about,
this issue of we need good data to figure out if there is a problem.
Right?  If we are getting bad data, we are going to get bad conclusions
at the far end, and that policy determination is the far end.  I think
that is incredibly problematic.

	The other side of it is that we are deeply concerned that this is
rulemaking is the door opening to greater rulemaking by OSHA on the
issue or ergonomics, something which we know from research back in the
early parts of 2000, late '90s, et cetera, amounts to a huge regulatory
burden on small businesses.

	Again, going back to the data provided or the studies provided by the
Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy, we are talking about
tens of billions of dollars annually.

	So, with that, I am going to conclude.  We are in opposition to this.
We think that this is not data that needs to be reported.  We think that
it will just create more problems and will just be a huge cost burden.

	With that, I will open it up to questions.  Did I get my five minutes?

	MR. MADDUX:  Oh, easily.  Any questions?

	I guess, first of all, I would just like to make a couple of
clarification, and that is, that the burdens that we estimate here are
average burdens, and that they are intended to be measures that go above
and beyond what people are already doing.

	So, for example, we already know that people are investigating cases
for workers compensation purposes, at least for some overlap of cases,
and that sort of thing.

	I would also point out that the rule does exempt many, many small
employers, which I am sure that you are aware of, which has a huge
limit, and that because of the nature of small business, a business of
20 people, which seems to be the number that you like to use, recorded
injuries at twice the national rate, that would be maybe two injuries a
year.

	MR. LANGER:  On average.  I would think that maybe we ought to look at
breaking down and looking at how those cost burdens impact those at the
lower end of the spectrum.  I think that is important in terms of sort
of looking at the general picture.

	As we know, regulatory costs -- to get back to that $7,700 number --
the reason why I used that 20 employees or fewer is that because of the
hiring of regulatory professionals, those costs go down, and because --
well, and because the cost averaging goes down.

	So, it actually drops, above 20 employees, that cost drops down by
about a third.

	MR. MADDUX:  Okay.  So, you are saying we should use some sort of
different costing mechanisms in the 10 to 20 ranges.

	MR. LANGER:  Yes, well, 10 to 20.

	MR. MADDUX:  That is all I have.

	MS. SHORTALL:  Do you happen to know what percentage of establishments
or players have fewer than 10 employees?

	MR. LANGER:  Yes, it's -- well, fewer than 10, no, I don't have access
to that.

	MS. SHORTALL:  Ten or fewer.

	MR. LANGER:  I know that fewer than 20, it's 90 percent of employers.

	MS. SHORTALL:  Okay.  So, 90 percent of employers would be either
wholly exempt from the recordkeeping or partially exempt.

	MR. LANGER:  I don't know about wholly or partially.  I don't know what
the breakdown is between 1 and 10.

	MS. SHORTALL:  Is there any certain sector of industry in which small
employers predominate, is it service, transportation?  Would you be able
to hazard a guess?

	MR. LANGER:  No, I am just sort of going down. It has been a while
since I looked through those stats.  I know that when I was at NIFB, we
generally reflected the business population, small business population,
that it was about 50 percent retail, 25 percent restaurant, and then the
other 25 percent in other areas.

	MS. SHORTALL:  Okay.  Going back to the question about what you said,
you believed 90 percent had 20 or fewer employees, but the figure I have
heard about 10 or fewer would be 85 percent of establishments.

	Do you think that might be fairly accurate?

	MR. LANGER:  Possibly, I don't know.

	MS. SHORTALL:  Mr. Newell, when he testified, were you able to get here
for his --

	MR. LANGER:  I was here for about half of it.

	MS. SHORTALL:  Well, one of the things he indicated in his was that in
ergonomics cases, frequently, services is a leading indicator of a
business or work process that is inefficient or needs to be improved.

	How do small employers use reports of MSDs, do they also look at them
as leading indicators to see how they could make their business more
efficient?

	MR. LANGER:  I doubt that they quite look at it in such a sophisticated
fashion.  I know that small business owners are constantly looking for
ways to improve their businesses, and you have got to also keep in mind
that, you know, most of these small businesses, they have a very
personal relationship with their employees.

	I mean if you have between 10 and 20 employees, generally, the owner
knows who they are, has personal relationships with all of them, is
trying to do what he can to keep them all, not just safe, but also
working.  I mean they go hand in hand.

	You lose somebody in a business that has, let's say, 100 employees, you
lose somebody for a day, that's 1 percent of that day's productivity.
If you are a small business owner, you have 10 employees, you lose one
person.  That's 10 percent of your productivity for that day.  So, they
are always looking at ways to make sure that their employees are safe
and healthy, and working at their optimal level.

	MS. SHORTALL:  So, your group that represents small businesses, what is
your definition of small business, how far up do you go on --

	MR. LANGER:  When I talk about small business, I look at 20 employees
or less.  That, to me, because the regulatory costs are so vastly
different for them, that is what I look at.  That is what I looked at
when I was at NIFB.  NIFB's average member size was 10 employees, so I
looked at that as a good sort of proxy number.

	MS. SHORTALL:  I know you are here today to testify against, in
general, the rule, but do you have any specific comments on individual
aspects of what the proposed rule, for example, the definition of MSD?

	MR. LANGER:  Well, no, well, only because let me sort of taking it
back, it is one of those areas where, as Steve pointed out, the issue of
pain versus discomfort is huge, and the subjectivity that is involved.

	I think you are going to have a lot of small businesses that aren't
going to understand just what -- is not going to know, is going to take
a while to figure it out, and again, some of them are going to err on
the side of caution.

	I think you will find some of them are going to err the other way and
just forget about it, just not going to bother, which is going to
increase their liability, and I see that as a problem, as well.

	MS. SHORTALL:  So, looking at -- I know you are not a member company --
but let's say contact with small employers who have between 10 and 20
employees, since those below don't have to keep the records anyway,
OSHA's definition of injury or illness under the current rule includes
abnormal condition and the preamble to find that to include pain and
other wholly subjective symptoms.

	How do those companies today go about determining whether something
that involves subjective symptoms, such as pain, is a work-related
injury or illness or not?

	MR. LANGER:  Well, I think most of them, because you are talking about
a smaller business, a lot of them can see whether or not what that
worker is doing is hurting them.

	In terms of specific instances, there is probably some sort of an
investigation, but a very, very informal one at that, you know, the
employer going out in back of his warehouse saying what the hell is
going on, what did you do -- pardon my French, I am sorry about that --
what are you guys doing, how did this happen, and that sort of thing.

	There is this issue in terms of a lack of sophistication where they are
not going to know, they don't know with specificity how to figure out if
it was an injury gotten on the job.  You know, if you have a worker who
comes in and complains, they do their very casual -- not casual, that's
not the right word -- but uneducated investigation.  They still may not
come to a determination as to exactly whether or not it was a
workplace-related injury or not.

	MS. SHORTALL:  Have you had any of the small businesses come to you,
the few that do have to keep records, and say anything like we cannot
figure out what an injury and illness is under OSHA's Recordkeeping
rule, or have they been able to --

	MR. LANGER:  We haven't actually stepped out there.  You know, we do
engage in a fair amount of sort of grass-roots, you know, activism.  We
haven't stepped out there with this yet, and we actually plan to.

	That is why we are happy you guys have extended the comment period
until the end of the month, so we can go out and do a little bit more in
the field to figure out what folks out there are going to say.

	MS. SHORTALL:  Okay.  Just a couple more questions.  One of the things
we mentioned in the proposed rule was OSHA's considering putting
together some software, so smaller employers -- it already sounds like
the big employers are way beyond what we would be able to do -- would
have some type of electronic recordkeeping system that would help them
navigate through this as easily as possible.

	To what extent would that be helpful to the few small employers that do
have to keep records?

	MR. LANGER:  We have been on the record.  I actually by way of
background spent some time working with the folks at SBA, who were
working on what they call their business compliance one stop, which was
a way for businesses to sort of go in and do all this without having to
go to DOL's web site, EPA's web site, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
You know, folks are reporting to a variety of different agencies.

	Electronic reporting is good.  Obviously, it can be made mandatory.
One of the big issues you have to keep in mind is that there is about 15
percent of businesses that don't do business on computers, which is
really strange.  I know we all find that stunning in this day and age.

	As long as it's easy to navigate, easy to understand, it is easy to
find.  Then, yeah, I think it's a great idea.  I mean it will reduce the
time that folks are spending actually filling out stuff as long as they
can e-mail it in.  We would support something like that.

	MS. SHORTALL:  Okay.  Do you know to what extent employers of between
10 and 20 employees currently have electronic recordkeeping systems?

	MR. LANGER:  I would say probably, as I said, 85 percent of businesses
that are using computers in any aspect of their business -- and that
again comes out of a study out of the NIFB Research Foundation -- let's
say half of them are probably doing some sort of electronic reporting,
so just under 50 percent, 45 percent.

	MS. SHORTALL:  That's my last question, but I do have a request.

	MR. LANGER:  Okay.

	MS. SHORTALL:  I really am glad you are going to be going out and
talking to people out in the field.  I would ask that you please give
this one message from OSHA, and that is, the comment period is open
until the 30th of March for anyone.  So, as you are talking, if people
individually have comments they would also like to send in, we really
would request and welcome that they come in.

	MR. LANGER:  That is what we do.  We actually really focus on -- just
so you know -- to me, it is very important.  As we move to this issue of
-- I was involved with the whole regulations.gov, electronic rulemaking
-- I believe firmly that the more individuals you have getting involved
in the rulemaking process, the better rules that we have.  You know,
there is a certain degree of sanity.

	 It is something that Tom Sullivan, who used to be Chief Counsel of
Advocacy at SBA -- I consider him a mentor, he is now on-board with us
as a Fellow -- Tom tells a story about rulemaking at EPA in which EPA
was going to be mandating a particular device be put on off-road diesel
engines.

	It wasn't until someone actually came in to EPA, a farmer came in and
said I physically cannot fit this device under the hood of my tractor,
that EPA finally realized this wasn't the place to go.  It just goes to
show you need individual support.

	MS. SHORTALL:  Okay.  Then, you can tell the 85 percent who do have
computers that they can file their comments right through REGSET, and
they don't even have to spend the stamp to get it to us.

	MR. LANGER:  I will do that.  Thank you all very much.

	MR. MADDUX:  We are running a fair bit ahead of schedule, so I will
start looking to see if we have some of the speakers that were scheduled
to be up in the afternoon.  Patricia Seeley with AIHA.

	MS. SEELEY:  These are printed copies.

	MS. SHORTALL:  Thank you so much.

	MS. SEELEY:  On behalf of the American Industrial Hygiene Association,
AIHA, thank you for the opportunity to provide these remarks regarding
OSHA's proposed rule to revise the Occupational Injury and Illness
Recording and Reporting Regulation as it applies to the recording of
musculoskeletal disorders, MSDs, on the OSHA 300 Log.

	AIHA is the premier association serving the needs of professionals
involved in occupational and environmental health and safety practicing
industrial hygiene in industry, government, labor, academic
institutions, and independent organizations.

	The AIHA mission is to promote healthy and safe environments by
advancing the science principles, practice, and value of industrial and
occupational hygiene.

	AIHA is not only committed to protecting and improving worker health,
but the health and well-being of adults and children in our communities.
 One of AIHA's goals is to bring good science and the benefits of our
workplace experience to the public policy process directed at worker
health and safety.

	I am Patricia Seeley and I am the current Chair of the AIHA Ergonomics
Committee.  I also hold the designation of certified professional
ergonomist and have been in the profession for 12 years.

	The AIHA Ergonomic Committee is comprised of 75 members from industry,
academia, consulting, labor, and government.  The majority of our
committee members hold the designation of CPE, Certified Professional
Ergonomist, who have worked for decades within, with, or for companies
that already tabulate their MSDs.

	In fact, we all agree that separating out the MSDs from acute traumatic
injuries is the first and essential step in the reduction of MSD
injuries.  The AIHA position statement on ergonomics lists the goals of
MSD reduction:  decrease risk of musculoskeletal injuries and illnesses,
decrease worker discomfort, and improve the quality of work life,
improve workers performance.

	AIHA supports the proposed recordkeeping rule as an effective,
long-term strategy to improve occupational health.  This rule will be
most helpful for those industries and organizations that have not
already addressed MSDs in their workplaces and require accurate data to
initiate their efforts.

	It will further assist companies already monitoring MSDs to benchmark
against other organizations. One difficulty in relying totally upon
insurance company reports for tracking of these disorders is the lack of
consistency of the data.

	There are differences from State to State in how  Workers' Compensation
Bureaus define and compensate for MSDs.  There are also vast differences
in how insurance companies compile, analyze, and provide this data to
the companies they insure.

	Having a well-defined, common method of recording injury and illness
data, such as is being proposed by OSHA for MSDs will provide
consistency of data and allow for better benchmarking.

	Inclusion of the MSD column on the OSHA 300 Illness and Injury Log
facilitates the collection of data on musculoskeletal disorders.  There
is almost universal agreement that what is not measured is not managed.

	The Bureau of Labor Statistics data indicates MSDs operating under
their definition are responsible for 29 percent of their lost work day
cases.  When repeated trauma was last reported in the OSHA 300 Log, so
also including occupational hearing loss, they accounted for 67 percent
of all occupational illnesses.

	To not analyze such a significant portion of the occupational injury
and illness incidences is not in the interest of U.S. commerce and
industry.

	The OSHA 300 Log already includes columns for respiratory disease and
skin disease.  These categories are also very broad and are associated
with a variety of exposures.  For example, respiratory disease may
include cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and
pneumoconiosis among others regardless of the cause.

	The etiology of these diseases is not exclusive to the occupational
environment.  Similar arguments apply to skin diseases.  The inclusion,
therefore, of an MSD column on the OSHA 300 Log conforms with the
approach exemplified by the current law, since MSDs are also not usually
attributed to a one-time, single-factor exposure.

	OSHA promises to provide training and guidance in the definition of
what an MSD is, as well as what it is not.  It is the position of the
AIHA that OSHA's recommendation for a "do not include" language and
specific lists common MSDs as proposed in Section 1904.12, in important
in making this new recordkeeping requirement useful, accurate, and
relatively painless.

	Back injuries, including herniated spinal discs, should be included as
proposed, as well as tarsal tunnel syndrome, and Raynaud's phenomena.
AIHA also supports the inclusion of subjective symptoms including pain,
burning, or numbness as defined in Section 1912, Subsection (b)(3), as
long as the symptoms meet all four requirements of the proposed rule.

	AIHA recommends inclusion of a list of risk factors for MSDs in order
to assist OSHA recordkeepers who are familiar with the work and tasks of
their own employees within companies.

	Referring to risk factors has been found helpful by companies who
already do their own MSD reporting. These risk factors would include
such items as awkward, twisted postures, extended forward bending of the
trunk, trunk rotation, whole body and/or upper extremity vibration,
forceful upper body exertion, work above hard level, repetitive work,
extended static work without possibility of repositioning, long
durations, extended reaches, heavy, awkward listing, forceful wrist
deviation or pinched wrists, neck extension, forceful exertions with
exposure to pressure points, extended work without adequate footing.

	These general risk factors have been identified from the peer-reviewed
research literature over the past several decades as problematic for the
soft muscle tissues subject to MSD development over a period of time.

	There is also substantial evidence of under-reporting of MSDs as noted
by the U.S. House of Representative's Committee on Education and Labor
hearings in 2008, and the Government Accountability Office, GAO, in
2009.

	Injury under-reporting is particularly egregious in the case of MSDs as
contrasted with acute traumatic injuries, because the cause of an MSD is
not a single identifiable and observable incident, such as occurs with
such acute injuries as burns, fractures, or cuts.

	Since MSDs occur over time, the question, what were you doing when the
injury occurred is irrelevant. Workers are often not educated to report
long-term discomfort or pain, which may have been treated over months
and years by a medical professional and never reported as work related.

	They may need to report an injury on the day it occurs, a requirement
not applicable to MSDs.  Workers often assume that MSDs are simply age
related or arthritic.  The fact is, however, that whether an MSD is
reported in the OSHA log or is hidden by non-reporting, the company
still pays for it either through Workers' Compensation or through its
own health insurance premiums and medical plan.

	It will be of substantial benefit to draw further attention to the
actual injury or illness picture by capturing MSD data.  It is important
to remember that MSDs are, in general, preventable.  The science exists
to design interventions that will minimize the development of MSDs in
the workplace, and many companies have already benefited from internal
processes for addressing MSDs.

	These companies each began with the acknowledgment that MSDs are
extremely expensive in human productivity and monetary terms by looking
at internal data.  By requiring these companies to report usable and
consistent data, OSHA can assist industry in identifying priorities for
resource allocation to prevent further MSDs.

	This recordkeeping change will also assist OSHA by showing the benefits
of its efforts with prior and post implementation injury/illness data.
AIHA pledges our full assistance to OSHA to see that this proposed rule
accomplishes its intended objectives.

	AIHA's concern continues to be the prevention of MSD risks to workers
and others.  I ask that my written comments be submitted for the record
and have attached to these comments a copy of the AIHA adopted position
statement on the issue of restoring the MSD column to the OSHA 300 Log.

	On behalf of AIHA, thank you for the opportunity to participate and
present our views.  I would be happy to answer any questions you may
have.

	MR. MADDUX:  Thank you, Patricia.

	I guess one of the questions that I have is what utility the data from
an MSD column would have for ergonomists, such as yourself, that are
providing these services to employers around the country.

	Would you use that data?

	MS. SEELEY:  AIHA has not taken a specific statement on that except to
report the rule, but I can tell you as a consultant, and working within
companies as an ergonomist, that it is extremely painstaking, very
time-consuming to not have this data.

	Each company is coming up with their own definition of MSDs, and as an
ergonomist, I am always asked whether I am working for a research
organization and institute within a company, as a consultant, I am
always asked, well, you tell us, give us your list, and then we will go
back to the data and we will find it for you, and it still requires so
much sifting and sorting to go back painstakingly into each particular
case.

	What I have found I had to do was often to go back to the worker and
the supervisor and interview them, because there wasn't sufficient data
to tell us that, and in order to get a picture of a work group and their
exposure to ergonomic factors, besides doing the ergonomic analysis,
besides shadowing them, besides doing the site visits, you need that
data to begin with, and that would be extremely helpful.

	MR. MADDUX:  So, this would really make your investigations, your work
a little bit quicker, a little bit more efficient?

	MS. SEELEY:  Yes.  I guess I would add that in my work with small
businesses, because you don't have much data, and you don't have much
injury, ergonomics is really about prevention, and so you go out and you
do that analysis on site.  You talk to the workers themselves, but if
you have, even in a small company, let's say that you have two or three
MSDs that have happened, boy, this is getting everybody's attention,
let's find out what is going on.

	But having that data categorized as an MSD, and then being able to
benchmark that with other companies within your industry, and other
industries, would be extremely helpful.

	MR. MADDUX:  Thank you.  The proposed definition of MSD that we have
put forward, is that consistent with the analysis that you do?  I mean
would that match up pretty well?

	MS. SEELEY:  AIHA's statement really supported what OSHA'S definition
is, and we think that there is probably some more work to be done on
that, but in my work as a consultant, and within companies and for
research institutes, it is very consistent.

	You know, looking at rotator cuff syndrome for people who work
overhead, that's an obvious link.  Looking at carpal tunnel syndrome,
people who have extreme wrist exposures are working in the office
ergonomics arena, and we find a high correlation there.

	So, a specific definition and let's go from there will provide I think
a lot of value.

	MR. MADDUX:  It sounds like you have worked with quite a few smaller
employers.  Do you think that the people that you have worked with in
the field, that they would be able to look at this definition and make
the correct decision about whether or not to check an MSD column?

	MS. SEELEY:  I think that is one of the reasons why we included a list
of risk factors, because what I found was in order to get some value out
of, okay, this work group of maybe in a large company you have 400
workers doing this kind of overhead line mechanic work, for example, or
you are in a small company, you have 10 manual materials handlers.

	If you know they are doing that kind of work, and you look at those
specific risk factors that person is recording, knows, oh, well, this is
their job classification and here are some representative risk factors
that apply to that job classification.  That would certainly make it
easier to categorize it.

	MR. MADDUX:  Thank you, Sarah.

	MS. SHORTALL:  You had mentioned some of the risk factors that OSHA
might consider using.  Are you suggesting that OSHA put that in as
examples, or put it in as part of a requirement, meaning that these type
of factors would have to be present for it to be considered an MSD or
work related?

	MS. SEELEY:  AIHA supports the inclusion of the risk factors.  From my
own experience within companies as a consultant, that is helpful as a
guide.  I personally wouldn't see it as a requirement, but if OSHA gives
it as a guide in some of their training, I think that will assist people
and make that classification a much more simple decision.

	MS. SHORTALL:  When you said that you have done work for small
businesses, what would you say are the size range of those small
businesses you have worked with?

	MS. SEELEY:  I am working for one right now that only has 7 employees.
Wisconsin is a very big area for small businesses, a lot of our big
manufacturing companies have left, and so we have an awful lot of
companies that are under 100.

	So, I work anywhere from 5 -- they might have as many as 50, but
typically, in that 10 to 20 to 30 range, and go on site and do -- it
tends to be manual materials handling.  It doesn't tend to be highly
repetitive assembly work and, as in the utility industry, it's a wide
variety, and that is where it gets to be difficult if you don't have a
list of risk factors.

	When they are not doing assembly line work, the same thing every day,
all day, and often times you can't see the work.  In the utility
industry, it is when the power goes out, and they are in snow and rain
and ice and sleet, and I don't want to be out doing an ergonomics
assessment, thank you very much.

	I am not always welcome, because things are a little dangerous at that
time, and we are too busy, just come back at another time, and we will
model it for you.

	I think with that wide array of exposures, especially with manual
material handling work, and not light assembly on the assembly line, I
think it is very helpful to companies, because the companies that I have
worked with, that are already doing this include a list of risk factors.

	They have come up with their own definition, we are going to include
this, this, and this, but here are the risk factors, and here is our
person who does our recordkeeping.  Keep that in mind.  If you have got
a question, call the supervisor here, but knowing the job
classifications, that is very helpful for them.

	MS. SHORTALL:  In working with the small businesses that have over 10
employees, what percentage of them have electronic recordkeeping systems
now?

	MS. SEELEY:  In my experience, less than half.

	MS. SHORTALL:  Less than half.  All right.

	OSHA is considering publishing some software that it would make free to
employers for doing recordkeeping, and to what degree would you think
this would be welcomed by small business?

	MS. SEELEY:  In Wisconsin, probably not very. They are pretty
provincial.  These are very small companies, the ones that are getting
to, a lot of them, you know, papa still is busy in his 70s, 60s and 70s,
still running the business, and not quite ready to hand it over to his
son Joe, who maybe is more technologically literate.

	They are just not quite there.  It is coming slowly, and I think that
is a very individual case of whether it's welcome or not.

	MS. SHORTALL:  In looking at our definition of MSD in some of the
examples that we included in there, are there any MSDs that we should be
adding to that list or removing from that list?

	MS. SEELEY:  AIHA didn't take a statement on that, and frankly, the
ones that are in the list and the ones as you have mentioned today, I
think are pretty comprehensive.  The big one has always been lower back
injuries.  If we have a handle on that, we have addressed an awful lot
of the MSD exposure.

	MS. SHORTALL:  Do small businesses -- I am going to stay with greater
than 10, since the ones less than 10 don't have to keep the records --
the ones that have more than 10 employees, are they currently doing
tracking analysis of work-related MSDs, or are they relying totally on
outsiders like yourself to come in and do that analysis for them?

	MS. SEELEY:  In my experience, they typically have someone who is their
HR person, who has been assigned to the safety function, doesn't know a
whole lot about safety.  They know they have got lower back problems or
they have, gee, Joe over here just developed carpal tunnel, and we are
worried about it, and then they typically -- they know they have an
issue, but they can't really get their hands around it, and so they hire
an outside consultant, say, you come in and tell us.

	MS. SHORTALL:  Earlier this morning, we had one person testify that
employers are using different forms of work restriction and job transfer
as a way to avoid having a recordable MSD.

	Do you find that occurring in the businesses you are working with?

	MS. SEELEY:  In my experience, I haven't found that to be true.

	MS. SHORTALL:  Currently, OSHA's definition of injury and illness
includes subjective symptoms, such as pain and other wholly subjective
symptoms.

	How do small employers today go about figuring out whether a report by
an employee of pain or another subjective symptom constitutes a
work-related injury or illness?

	MS. SEELEY:  That is a very good question.  That is a tough question.
Because my business is such a wide range from very small to the biggest,
it is really hard to get my hands around that.

	I can say, as an ergonomist, that pain and discomfort is an important
indicator.  When I go out and job shadow someone and do an ergonomics
investigation, it is one of the questions I will ask, is what are the
tools, equipment, materials, work practices that, by the end of the day
or by the end of the week, or over a period of time have caused you the
most discomfort, and that generally gets them talking about those tools,
equipment, materials, and work practices, and prioritizing in their
mind.

	I have found that to be a very helpful experience.  How employers are
dealing with that, the smaller it gets and the smaller the work group
gets, the most that that supervisor is the front-line person to being in
touch with their worker and knowing what is going on with them and the
work group as a whole.

	The bigger it gets, the more you have.  You might have 15, 20, 100, up
to several thousand people that are doing the same work, and have a
better picture on that, but the smaller it is, it really comes down to
that front-line supervisor, are they treating this as this is an ongoing
chronic condition, are they considering it to be non-work related, do
they think it is just because they are getting old, they have arthritis.

	The bottom line comes down to is the company perceiving, especially a
productivity loss, but also the human terms, but are they, over time,
finding that there is something less in their production and their
ability to do the job well that is affected by work exposures.

	That is where they are generally hiring me as a consultant or I am
working with a large industry group and saying we need to get a handle
on this work group, and that they are asking the questions.

	Lacking that consistent data across the board is the real handicap.

	MS. SHORTALL:  I have two more questions.  One is generally, when
employees report pain, are either the HR person or the front-line
supervisor of the company referring them to health care providers for
assessments?

	MS. SEELEY:  Yes.

	MS. SHORTALL:  My last question, if everyone will indulge me, I am from
Wisconsin, so I have a curious question to ask you.

	To what extent have you been doing industrial hygiene work for any
small cheese companies in Wisconsin, of which there are many, and that
seems to be a growing industry there?

	MS. SEELEY:  I don't personally, because my practice is solely limited
to ergonomics, but I do know several industrial hygienists at
cheese-making companies, there are such folks, and they do very good and
very thorough work.

	MS. SHORTALL:  Thank you very much for indulging me, everybody.  Thank
you again for coming here today to testify.  We appreciate it so much.

	MR. MADDUX:  At this time, we will have Jackie Nowell with UFCW.

	MS. NOWELL:  Thank you and good morning.  My name is Jackie Nowell and
I am the Director of Occupational Safety and Health Office at the Food
and Commercial Workers Union here in D.C.

	Thank you for the opportunity to be here today and give comments to
this important recordkeeping rulemaking.  I am going to spend my time on
the MSD column, however, we will be submitting written comment to the
docket that will include all of the issues that OSHA is addressing with
this rulemaking.

	There is a need for data.  Data leads to changes in the workplace.  As
one industry person said to me, the current situation leads to MSD as
being hidden.  It is no accident that we have no data, and OSHA finds
itself here today with a recordkeeping rulemaking.

	The last Administration achieved their purpose, they didn't want to
know.  They made ergonomics all voluntary, they put out guidance which,
you know, to several industries, and they threatened some 5A1 inspection
action.

	The industry cooperated with reports on how MSDs had gone away and
essentially, that was supposed to be the end of the story.  So, today, I
am going to address the results of OSHA's decision back in '03, just did
that, what two trade groups have done with the current MSD statistics.

	I am going to just briefly mention the definition, but again I am happy
to take questions.  I just think that I would rather spend my time on
the column.

	We have a database, and I will go into that, and I have slides of those
results, and I do want to talk about this issue of restricted duty
versus lost time cases, because we have a lot of credibility from our
data.

	This is what the industry did with the current statistics.  Headline in
2004 from the American Meat Institute, DOL data show that meat industry
injuries have been cut in half since '96.  Now, this was despite BLS
warning against comparing 2002 statistics to any other year.

	So, they decided just to go back and do the whole time frame.  Again,
much of the decrease was due to no MSDs.  They were really going down.
Then, the National Chicken Council just a month ago put out a headline
that since 1992, MSD rates have fallen over 75 percent.

	Now, again, BLS warned not to go back, and as Peg showed you with her
analysis, if we are only looking at lost time MSDs, of course, they are
saying they are gone.

	Again, I am just going to echo what Peg said about the definition.  We
think it's fine.  What OSHA is proposing, we know it is what has been
used in the red meat guidelines and by OSHA for years and years, and I
can give you Tyson's definition if you would like, if you want to have a
conversation about that.

	But let me get on to the MSD column and tell you about our database.
We analyzed OSHA logs from retail grocery stores, health care
facilities, poultry, food processing, and meatpacking plants represented
by UFCW. The database we developed covers OSHA logs from 2004, mostly
through 2008.

	The report that we wrote covers an analysis of the logs from
meatpacking and poultry only, only because of staff time and effort.
The data for meatpacking and poultry we have 298,000 meatpacking and
poultry workers contained in the database, 79,000 worked in poultry,
210,000 in meatpacking.

	For each of the five years, there are between 35- and 55,000 workers in
the database, and it represents about a quarter of our members in these
two industries. Again, there will be much more detail when I submit the
written comment.

	In terms of our definition of an MSD, I like the way Pam Vossenas put
it, it was really a guessing game, because each entry on the log had to
be assessed, and we used an intern for two straight summers, so in 2008
and 2009, she worked all summer long only on this database, along with a
lot of other staff time.

	I will say more about the quality of the data, but what we did was use
what the companies were using as an MSD, so if they literally wrote in
the box this was an MSD, we used that one.

	We used pain of an upper extremity.  We have been doing this for a
long, long time.  Meatpacking was one of the first industries to be
cited by OSHA back in the '80s for ergonomics, so we know about pain of
upper extremities given the work that we know that happens in
meatpacking and poultry, so we used pain of an upper extremity.

	Then, we used strains and sprains, we coded them if they were
associated with repetition in an upper extremity, and not a one-time
event.  Sometimes that was squishy to try to figure that out.

	What we found.  There were a range of recording problems.  We would
find a log entry that was so complete as to be a medical diagnosis.  We
found some that merely said pain, no body parts, no cause, no anything,
handwritten, and this will be a meatpacking plant with 1,200 to 1,500
workers, handwritten log.

	Then, like I said, with others, we found just complete information not
only on the cause, but the diagnosis.  So, there was a range of what we
found.

	When we would have the local unions request the OSHA 300 logs, the
companies would oblige and give them sometimes, sometimes we had to go
back, but they wouldn't include summary.  So, without the summary, we
didn't have a denominator, we couldn't figure the rate, so it was a
constant process of having to call the locals, give us a guess on how
many employees in there, so we could make a guess on a rate.

	We did find that MSDs were the leading cause of injuries.  I am going
to talk about restricted duty versus light duty cases, but I really want
to stress the time and effort that it took to do this.

	I don't do computer work, I do health and safety work. I am in the
field.  I do investigations.  I assist local unions.  I don't create
Excel data spreadsheets, so I had to get my research office to help me
do that.

	Like I said, I had an intern for the summer who did nothing for that
first summer but read logs.  We created a little chart that she would
use to record each one in a box.

	This database also contains all injuries and illnesses, and so we were
really looking for what are the leading causes of injury in our
workplaces, so we can go back and help the locals with preventive
strategies.

	So, there was that process, and then we had to include the research
department again to run pivot tables, which they did, and you will see a
few of those here and more when I give you the report.

	It was such a task, and so the intern would run in my office and say,
okay, I have got these five questions.  What would you call this?  The
column would make so much sense in terms of allowing us to keep this
database in a way that didn't cause these enormous challenges.

	We are working with Tyson on an ergonomics program, which I will just
spend a couple minutes talking about.  They have just given me the 2009
logs.  I don't have an intern now.  I have to literally -- they are
nice, they include the summary sheet, so I know how many employees there
were -- but I literally will have to go through each and every box and
create our little table and then go back to my database and put these
in, and then run the pivot tables again.

	I guess in the spirit of what else can OSHA do, here needs to be
electronic records.  This is really outrageous that we have to spend,
those of us who do this work, and we are not talking just labor unions,
clearly, ergonomists do this as well, the companies do this as well, to
have to manipulate this data in a brand-new database when companies are
already keeping it electronically.

	I had a company tell a local union, no, we don't have to give you those
logs for 15 days, and so we, of course, had to educate the company that
no, you have to give it to us in 24 hours, immediately, over the fax
machine came the logs.

	They are already keeping the data in an electronic version, that they
don't also have to make the leap to have those records be in a database,
it is the missing link as far as we are concerned.

	I will talk about the baseline in a minute.  I told you how many were
covered, need for an easy way.  I am going to give you a little bit of
information on Tyson.

	This is what we found.  If I just look at meatpacking and I just look
at injuries, we find, again by our definitions, 37 percent of the
injuries were MSDs, the second leading cause was lacerations, I am
sorry, the number slipped off here, strains and sprains.

	Backs, we actually coded as a separate column.  Now, many of those
could go in MSDs, but we didn't do that.  We kept the backs separate
because we didn't want to be making decisions about where a back injury
went given the lack of data on these logs.

	That was for meatpacking.  Here is poultry, 14 percent MSDs, strains
and sprains were the third cause, 12 percent, lacerations were 15
percent.  This is Other.  Again, pain.

	Let me go back and you can just look at something pretty while I talk a
little more.  In fact, in respect to losing data and baselines, we are
doing a project with Tyson Food, specifically, their red meat plants.

	The way we got there was that I began the data with them.  We got the
locals to get the logs, we analyzed the logs, and the MSDs were through
the roof as a couple of the local unions had told us, well over 50
percent, and that is right off their own data, and they are the ones who
write it in really well.

	So, what we said was you are recording them really well, but what are
you doing to prevent them, and the restricted duty cases were through
the roof.  So, we approached corporate and said you have got a problem,
and they actually, at the same time, said to us, yes, we know we have a
problem.

	They actually had a baseline from which we can now use, two years into
our project with them, to restart a 20-year-old ergonomics programs.
These are the old IVP plans.

	They have a baseline.  Without this data having been tracked by OSHA,
we are missing a lot of baseline upon which to build an ergonomic
prevention program.  In this case, we have one because this is a company
that, for a lot of reasons, had decided they were going to concentrate
again.

	I will say a lot more about that project in my written comment.  They
also have a computer system, because I asked them specifically how do
you tease out your MSDs, and he said we can do that because of the way
we have got it in our system.

	So, I am willing to bet that the big employers can do this pretty
easily, and to be honest, if they are in a high risk industry, they are
already doing it.  This is not rocket science.  This is adding a column.

	So, let me just say that another industry person said to me, a column
would be helpful and that he could not see any down side to it.  Now,
there is no industry here in the room, and I am afraid that the industry
that comes forward is the trade groups who will say this is bad, no more
regs.

	But if you talk to individual industry people, this is not a burden.
As a matter of fact, in terms of the cost of this, I would venture that
they will save money.  Think of the money and the time and the effort it
took for us to analyze the logs.  They are doing some of that.  They may
have to push a button or whatever, but this will be an easier button to
push.

	I would actually propose that rather than this costing industry, it is
going to be a cost saving, to be more precise in how they are
categorizing it.

	Lastly, let me talk about restricted versus lost time cases, because as
Peg said, that is where we have lost the data.  If we are only counting
MSD cases with lost time, there are no lost time cases.  So, that is
such an underestimate of the problem.

	We put in comments during the stay, delay, we don't want to do it era
of OSHA and the Recordkeeping rule that for a very long time, companies
had not been giving workers lost time for injuries, let alone for MSDs.
We see surgery on Friday, you are back in the plant on Monday, and that
is for carpal tunnel.

	So, there is no lost time, it is all restricted duty, and so without
counting those cases, there is nothing, there is no data, and here is my
data.

	If I look at columns H, I, J on the log, J being all injuries, and
other injuries and illnesses, H lost time, and I restricted duty, there
it is for meatpacking.  It couldn't be any more graphic to say where are
the MSDs.

	Now, specifically, I can't tell you that my database says that this MSD
case was a restricted duty case, but I can tell you that the majority of
that purple is MSD cases, and in poultry it looks about the same.

	So, there is a need for the column.  It will simplify life, it will
allow OSHA to gather data that have gone missing for 8 years, and it
will make my life infinitely easier.

	Thank you, and I will take questions.

	MR. MADDUX:  Thank you, Jackie.  Very interesting data.

	Are you guys doing analyses also at individual plants and using it at
an establishment level, and kind of how does that work?

	MS. NOWELL:  We actually have three projects going right now.  This is
with meat, large corporations, where we take the data to them and say,
okay, let's get cracking, we have got a problem here.  So, it has been
really valuable for that.

	MR. MADDUX:  Does the analysis of data actually sort of lead you then
to -- where does it lead you to, to just sort of investigations or to
solutions or --

	MS. NOWELL:  It leads us to saying we have got a problem and we need to
figure out how to fix it, exactly.