Committee on Education and the Workforce

House Votes to Delay OSHA’s Ergonomics Rule

H.R. 987 Requires Completion of NAS Study Before Standards are Issued

WASHINGTON - The House today passed H.R. 987, the Workplace Preservation Act, to prohibit the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) from issuing a proposed or final rule on workplace ergonomics until after the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) completes a study examining the relationship between repetitive tasks and repetitive stress injuries. The bill passed with a 217-209 vote.

"There are two primary reasons why I support H.R. 987," said House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman Bill Goodling (R-PA). "First, there is a great deal of scientific and medical uncertainty and debate about ergonomics. Our Workforce Protections Subcommittee conducted several hearings during the past two years and received testimony from leading physicians and medical researchers on repetitive stress disorders. One thing is clear from their testimony: the diagnosis, causes of pain and disorder, and the treatments are far from simple or uniform.

"Second, an ergonomics regulation would be a substantial mandated cost on American companies and American economy. OSHA’s own conservative estimate shows that the draft regulation could cost $3.5 billion per year."

The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO), ensures the NAS completes its Congressionally mandated study on ergonomics and report its findings to Congress before OSHA issues a proposed or final standard, Goodling added. In October 1998, Congress appropriated $890,000 for the non-partisan study. In February 1999, OSHA issued a draft ergonomics standard that extends workplace regulations into many common areas, including lifting, walking, turning, climbing, keyboarding, and sitting.

"This debate isn’t about whether we need to ensure safety in the workplace for American workers," said Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), a member of the Workforce Committee. "There can be no debate about that. Rather, the debate is about whether we expect regulatory agencies to base their rules on medical evidence and sound science.

"We are not prohibiting OSHA from regulating ergonomics. At this point, however, we simply do not have the scientific and medical proof to back up OSHA’s proposed rule."

###