About ATA Information Center Legislative Affairs Conferences & Councils StateSide Safety Net

Truckline Home
Inside ATA  
Truckline Home
Truckline
ATA Members Sign In Here
SEARCH Help

INDEX
About ATA
Annual Report
Foundation
FAQ
Litigation Center
Map to ATA
Member List
Membership
NATA
Outreach
Press
SCC
TAG
Technology & Engineering Policy Cmte

SERVICES
News
Shopping
Free E-mail & Calendars
Jobs
Message Boards
Industry Calendar
Classifieds
Help & More
Join ATA
Advertise
Sponsors
Site Map
Contact Us
Help

OSHA's Ergonomics Proposal 'Completely Unworkable,' Should Be Withdrawn, ATA Says

Testimony of Stuart Flatow
Director Occupational Safety and Health
American Trucking Associations, Inc.
On OSHA's Proposed Ergonomics Protection Standard Public Hearing
April 7, 2000

RELATED INFO
ATA asks labor secretary to withdraw ergonomics rule
Read ATA's written testimony (PDF format)

Good afternoon. My name is Stuart Flatow, Director of Occupational Safety and Health for the American Trucking Associations, located in Alexandria, Virginia. The American Trucking Associations is a federation of trucking and transportation associations in every state and the District of Columbia, representing over 35,000 motor carriers and suppliers of every type, including, but not limited to, for-hire carriers, truck leasing companies, and truck-equipment manufacturers and other suppliers of goods and services to carriers. On behalf of the ATA and its member companies, I thank you for the opportunity to provide oral testimony on OSHA's proposed ergonomics program standard. Safety for its drivers and other employees, its customers and the traveling public is a top priority of the trucking industry as it works to meet America's freight movement needs. The trucking industry employs approximately 9.6 million people and receives 80% of the freight revenue in this country. In addition, 70% of American communities receive all their goods exclusively by truck.

ATA filed written comments in which we strongly opposed the ergonomics proposal. I incorporate ATA's written comments by reference today and will be focusing on four specific issues of concern. They are: (1) A lack of scientific and medical consensus surrounding ergonomics science; (2) the inaccuracies of OSHA's cost assessment, especially in regards to the trucking industry; (3) that government statistics show that an ergonomics standard is not needed at this time; and (4) that the trucking industry should be exempt from the scope of this proposed rule, if OSHA decides to move forward with issuing this ergonomics standard.

On the issue of consensus, ATA and its member companies support methods to advance workplace safety and injury prevention by using methods that are well-grounded in established scientific, technological, and economic measures that do not dramatically impede production. UnfortunateTell us what you think on the Truckline Message Boards ly, the current proposal before us is completely unworkable because it is not based on sound science-there is no medical consensus on the causes of MSDs and therefore, there can be no consensus on effective measures to reduce or eliminate MSDs. Employers attempting to comply with the standard would be subjected to an endless circle of experimental measures without any certainty that the programs adopted would achieve the stated goal.

As for OSHA's cost estimate, OSHA has set annual compliance costs of its ergonomics programs standard for all covered industries at "$4,232,197,861." However, according to an April, 1999 report issued by the Small Business Administration entitled, Report of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on the Draft Proposed Ergonomics Program Rule, OSHA's costs were, and I quote, "significantly underestimated." The SBA report concluded that annual compliance costs could be as much as fifteen times those estimated by OSHA.

Of particular concern to the trucking industry is OSHA's claim that the annual cost of its ergonomics protection standard to the trucking industry will be "$203,536,417"…an estimate that ATA strongly disputes. Trucking company obligations and associated costs under OSHA's proposed ergonomics program standard greatly resemble the Agency's much criticized and failed 1995-draft ergonomics standard. According to an October 1996 economic impact study conducted by the National Economic Research Associates (NERA), Ergonomics and Economics: The Impact of OSHA's Proposed Ergonomics Standard on the U.S. Trucking Industry, the 1995 draft would have cost trucking over $6.5 billion in annual compliance costs. The modest changes made to OSHA's ergonomics proposal since that draft do not translate into a $6.3 billion reduction in the trucking industry's compliance costs. Such a reduction would be necessary to reach OSHA's projected cost figure of "$203,536,417."

Rather, the costs of compliance with OSHA's current proposed ergonomics standard will likely exceed the $6.5 billion estimated in the 1995 draft.

Moving beyond the cost estimates to my third issue, government statistics have shown that all injuries and illness rates, including so-called repetitive stress injuries (RSIs), have consistently declined over the past several years, questioning the need for OSHA to move forward with an ergonomics standard at all. For example, a US Department of Labor 1998 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) report entitled "Workplace Injuries and Illnesses in 1998," shows that incidence and numbers of so-called RSIs such as carpal tunnel syndrome have declined to 253,300 reported cases, a 24 percent reduction, down from 332,000 reported cases in 1994. In addition, the 1998 report maintains that these types of cases make up just four percent of all workplace injuries and illnesses, accounting for less than one percent of injuries and illnesses that keep workers off the job. This continued decline in the absence of an OSHA-mandated ergonomics program calls into question the need for OSHA to issue an ergonomics program standard. Furthermore, the 1998 BLS report shows that incidence rates for all recordable injuries and illnesses per 100-full-time workers have declined by 21 percent, from 8.4 per 100 full-time workers in 1994 to 6.7 in 1998.

As for the trucking industry, it is important to note that despite an increase in employment, occupational injuries and illnesses in the trucking industry continue to decline. According to the 1998 BLS report, while employment in the trucking and warehouse industry increased from 1,669,000 in 1997 to 1,739,000 in 1998, a nearly 5 percent increase, total recordable injuries decreased by nearly 15%, with injuries resulting from lost workdays declining by nearly 13 percent over that same period. Again, this dramatic decline in workplace injuries from 1997 to 1998 occurred at a time when employment in the trucking industry increased by 70,000 workers. Furthermore, occupational injuries and illnesses in the trucking and courier segment of the trucking industry have also experienced a significant decline from a total of 155,200 in 1996 to 131,000 in 1998…a 15% decline. Incidence rates also declined significantly from 10.3 per 100 full-time workers in 1996 to 8.4 per 100 full-time workers in 1998...a 19% decline.

These statistics highlight the fact that the trucking industry continues to take worker safety seriously by instituting proactive measures and expending significant resources in reducing injuries and illnesses where solutions are proven and benefits can be measured. OSHA's ergonomics standard would likely impede this positive trend by requiring motor carriers, as well as other employers, to shift limited resources away from instituting proven measures of reducing worker injuries and illness to experiment with costly and unproven technologies.

I'd now like to move to my fourth and final issue. OSHA has elected not to impose its proposed ergonomics rules on employers in the agriculture, construction and maritime industries, notwithstanding the high incidence of MSD injuries in those jobs. OSHA's reasoning for this preliminary exclusion, is that it does not have any or only limited empirical case studies in those sectors to provide it meaningful guidance. In addition, OSHA states that work conditions and factors present in those industries often are quite different from those in general industry. By way of example, OSHA lists some of these special factors in the construction industry:

  • "consisting primarily of jobs of short duration;
  • under a variety of adverse environmental and workplace conditions (e.g., cold, heat, confined space);
  • at nonfixed work sites;
  • on multi employer worksites;
  • involve the use of day laborers and short term temporary workers;
  • involve situations in which employees provide their own tools and equipment; and
  • involve employees who are trained by unions and other outside certifying organizations."

We applaud OSHA's decision to exempt certain industries from this rulemaking due to the agency's confessed need to further develop information based on those industry's special working conditions and the agency's limited experience and knowledge about ergonomics solutions in those industries. However, the trucking industry has similar, if not even more unique conditions, which also warrant OSHA from exempting them from this rulemaking. Failure to do so, would result in arbitrary treatment of similar situated industries in contravention of the Administrative Procedures Act.

Also, OSHA's experience with and information about ergonomics solutions in the trucking and warehouse industries is also relatively limited. There is a dearth of information in OSHA's proposal about how ergonomic measures have been successfully and cost-effectively employed in trucking operations.

To that end, in the event that OSHA decides to moves forward with its ergonomics rulemaking, ATA urges OSHA to change proposed section 1910.904 by inserting, " trucking" after "construction" so that trucking operations are among the areas not covered by the standard.

Excluding trucking operations will help ensure that OSHA's action does not threaten the competitive structure of the freight transportation industry, which consists of trucking operations, rail operations and maritime operations. With the exclusion of trucking operations, OSHA would also give equal treatment to similarly situated industries.

The ATA appreciates this opportunity to highlight these areas of particular concern and urges OSHA to withdraw the proposed ergonomics program standard for all of the reasons stated here and in our comments. That concludes my testimony.



Inside ATA | Information Center | Legislative | Councils & Conferences | StateSide | Safety Net | Business Center | Career Center | News | Shopping | Free E-Mail & Calendars | Message Boards | Classifieds | Industry Calendar | Jobs | Contact Us | Site Map | Sponsors | Advertise | Help
Copyright American Trucking Associations, All Rights Reserved Privacy Statement