This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

33263

Vol. 65, No. 100

Tuesday, May 23, 2000

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration

29 CFR Part 1910

[Docket No. S–777]

RIN No. 1218–AB36

Ergonomics Program

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA), Department of

Labor.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for

comments on economic impact and

informal public hearing.

SUMMARY: OSHA is using this document

to provide information and analysis

concerning the economic impacts of the

proposed ergonomics rule (64 FR 65768,

published November 23,1999) on State

and local governments, the United

States Postal Service, and railroads, and

to seek comment on these economic

impacts. This document supplements

the Agency’s Preliminary Economic

Analysis and Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis of the economic

impact of the Ergonomics Program Rule

(Exhibit 28–1 in the OSHA docket),

which did not directly address these

employers. OSHA is also setting dates

for a pre-hearing comment period, a

public hearing, and a post-hearing

comment period to address the

economic impacts exclusively in these

three industries.

The broader context for OSHA’s

actions can be found in the Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking, published in the

Federal Register of November 23, 1999

(64 FR 65768). The procedures in this

continuation of the public hearing

process will be the same as those used

in the previous nine weeks of public

hearings on the proposed ergonomics

standard (See OSHA’s home page at

www.osha.gov or 65 FR 11948; March 7,

2000).

DATES: Notice of intention to appear at

the informal public hearing: Notices of

intention to appear at the informal

public hearing must be postmarked by

June 14, 2000. If you submit your notice

of intention to appear by facsimile or

electronically through OSHA’s Internet

site, you must transmit the notice by

June 14, 2000.

Pre-hearing comments: Written

comments addressing the economic

impacts of the rule in these industries

must be postmarked no later than June

22, 2000. If you submit comments by

facsimile or electronically through

OSHA’s Internet site, you must transmit

those comments by June 22, 2000.

Hearing Testimony and documentary

evidence: If you will be requesting more

than 10 minutes for your oral

presentation at the hearing, you must

submit the full testimony, postmarked

no later than June 27, 2000, or if you

will be submitting documentary

evidence at the hearing, you must

submit all of that evidence, postmarked

no later than June 27, 2000.

Informal public hearing: The public

hearing will be held in Washington, DC,

beginning at 9 am, on July 7, 2000 and

is expected to conclude that day.

Post-hearing comments: Written posthearing comments must be postmarked

no later than August 10, 2000. If you

submit comments by facsimile or

electronically through OHSA’s Internet

site, you must transmit those comments

no later than August 10, 2000. The

publication of this notice and the

related public hearing do not affect the

90-day period established earlier for

post-hearing submissions related to the

ergonomics program proposed standard

[65 FR 11948, March 7, 2000]. That

period also ends August 10, 2000.

Addresses: Written comments: Mail:

Submit two copies of written comments

to: OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. S–

777, U.S. Department of Labor, Room

N–2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202)

693–2350.

Facsimile: If your written comments

are 10 pages or less, you may fax them

to the Docket Office. The OSHA Docket

Office fax number is (202) 693–1648.

Electronic: You may also submit

comments electronically through

OSHA’s Homepage at www.osha.gov.

Please note, you may not attach

materials such as studies or journal

articles to your electronic comments. If

you wish to include such materials, you

must submit them separately in

duplicate to the OSHA Docket Office at

the address listed above. When

submitting such materials to the OSHA

Docket Office, you must clearly identify

your electronic comments by name,

date, and subject, so that we can attach

them to your electronic comments.

Notice of intention to appear: Mail:

Notices of intention to appear at the

informal public hearing may be

submitted by mail in quadruplicate to:

Ms. Veneta Chatmon, OSHA Office of

Public Affairs, Docket No. S–777, U.S.

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution

Avenue, NW., Room N–3647,

Washington, DC 20210; Telephone:

(202) 693–2119.

Facsimile: You may fax your notice of

intention to appear to Ms. Chatmon at

(202) 693–1634.

Electronic: You may also submit your

notice of intention to appear

electronically through OSHA’s

Homepage at www.osha.gov.

Hearing testimony and documentary

evidence: You must submit in

quadruplicate your hearing testimony

and any documentary evidence you

intend to present at the informal public

hearing to Ms. Veneta Chatmon, OSHA

Office of Public Affairs, Docket No. S–

777, U.S. Department of Labor, Room

N–3647, 200 Constitution Ave, NW.,

Washington, DC 20210. Telephone:

(202) 693–2119, You may also submit

your hearing testimony and

documentary evidence on disk (31⁄2

inch) in WP 5.1, 6.0, 6.1, 8.0 or ASCII,

provided you also send the original

hardcopy at the same time.

Informal public hearing: The one-day

public hearing to be held in

Washington, D.C. will be located in the

Auditorium in the U.S. Department of

Labor, Francis Perkins Building, 200

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,

D.C. 20210.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT:

OSHA’s Ergonomics Team at (202) 693–

2116, or visit the OSHA Homepage at

www.osha.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Supplement for State and Local

Governments, Railroads and the U.S.

Postal Service to the Summary of the

Preliminary Economic Analysis and

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

of Proposed Ergonomics Program

Standard

Introduction

OSHA has prepared this analysis of

the costs, benefits, number of

33264 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 23, 2000 / Proposed Rules

establishments and employees affected,

and potential impacts of OSHA’s

proposed ergonomics program standard

on state and local governments in Stateplan states, railroads, and the United

States Postal Service. The methodology

used to analyze the economic effects of

the proposed standard for these sectors

is the same as that used for other

industries in OSHA’s Preliminary

Economic Analysis of the Proposed

Ergonomics Program Standard (PEA)

(Ex. 28–1). Where different sources of

data or different assumptions are used

for these three sectors, they are noted in

a Technical Appendix (Ex. 28–15).

As indicated in the preamble to the

ergonomics rule [64 FR 66054], OSHA

standards do not apply to state and local

governments, except in states that have

voluntarily elected to adopt an OSHA

State Plan. Because state and local

governments in State-plan states can be

expected to implement the rule, OSHA

has analyzed the costs and impacts, as

well as benefits, of the proposal for

those state and local governments in

State-plan states. Currently, California (a

State-plan state) has its own ergonomics

standard, and other states are in the

process of developing their own.

However, for simplicity, this summary

analysis ignores the effects of existing

and proposed state ergonomics

regulations.

OSHA shares jurisdiction for

occupational safety and health in the

railroad industry with the Federal

Railroad Administration. Although a

number of railroad employees will not

be covered by this standard, OSHA has

not located data to identify what

proportion of employees will be affected

by the standard and has therefore

decided to include all railroad workers

in this analysis. This results in a

substantial overestimate of the impact of

the proposal on the railroad industry.

The US Postal Service (USPS) is now

entirely under the jurisdiction of OSHA,

and would thus be affected in the same

ways as other private-sector employers.

Industrial Profile

Employment in These Three

Industries: Based on Bureau of the

Census data, there were 8.7 million state

and local government employees in

State-plan states in 1997. This total

excludes those employees working in

some governmental entities, notably

hospitals, which have already been

included in OSHA’s PEA (Ex. 28–1)

because they were included in the

Census Bureau’s County Business

Patterns data used for that analysis (Ex.

28–2, p. vi). For the railroad industry,

the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported

that a total of 226,500 employees work

for the railroads. Based on the USPS

annual report, there were 904,636

employees, including non-career

employees, in the Postal Service in 1998

[USPS, 1998].

Number of Musculoskeletal Disorders

(MSDs) in These Three Industries: Using

data on OSHA recordable MSDs

provided to the record by the AFL–CIO

[Ex. 32–339–1], and adjusting these data

to accord with the scope of the proposed

rule and OSHA’s definition of MSDs,

OSHA estimates that there were

approximately 175,000 MSD cases (both

lost workday and non-lost workday)

among employees in general industry in

state and local governments in Stateplan states. OSHA estimates, using the

same data and methodology for

estimating the number of OSHA

recordable MSDs that were used for all

other private-sector businesses in the

Preliminary Economic Analysis (Ex. 28–

1), that there were a total of 1,250 MSDs

in the railroad industry, of which 781

were lost workday MSDs. For the USPS,

information on OSHA-recordable MSDs

was not available; OSHA therefore

estimated that the number of MSDs

among postal workers was equal to the

number of filed workers’ compensation

claims due to ‘‘exertion’’ (defined as

including both overexertion and

repetition cases) filed with the Federal

Office of Workers’ Compensation

Programs in fiscal year 1996 (OWCP,

1996). There were 29,407 such cases in

that year.

Number of Establishments in These

Three Sectors: Establishment data are

needed because portions of the

proposed standard are triggered on an

establishment basis. Establishment data

are not available for any of these sectors;

OSHA therefore used a variety of

estimation techniques to calculate this

information. OSHA estimated that there

are 167,788 state and local government

establishments, 4,802 railroad

establishments, and 33,613 USPS

establishments, including both post

offices and classified stations. OSHA

welcomes comment both on the number

of establishments in these sectors, and

on how, for regulatory purposes,

establishments should be defined for

state and local governments and for

railroads. For example, if several state

agencies work in a single building,

would they be considered one or several

establishments? Would the reporting

structure applying to these agencies,

e.g., whether they report to separate

branches of state government, affect this

definition?

Benefits

OSHA’s method for estimating the

potential reductions in the number of

MSDs the proposed standard would

prevent and monetizing the benefits

associated with this reduction are

described in detail in Chapter IV of the

PEA [Ex. 28–1]. The Agency estimates

that, during the first ten years after

implementation of the proposed

standard, the proposal would prevent

476,000 covered MSDs among state and

local government employees, nearly

1,900 covered MSDs among railroad

employees, and approximately 94,000

covered MSDs among postal workers.

The Agency estimates that the proposed

standard will capture additional annual

benefits of approximately $1 billion as

a result of including workers in state

and local government in State-plan

states, the US Postal Service, and the

railroads.

Costs of Compliance

Following the methodology presented

in the Chapter V of the Preliminary

Economic Analysis [Ex. 28–1], OSHA

estimated the annual costs of

compliance for these three industries.

Table 1 presents the proposal’s total

annual costs and the total cost to

employers for these three sectors. In

total, these three industries add $418

million per year to the total costs (to

society) of the rule, and $588 million

per year to the costs of the proposal to

employers. (The difference between

these two costs is the cost of the

proposal’s Work Restriction Protection

provisions, which is a cost to employers

but does not represent a net cost to

society.)

TABLE 1.—ANNUALIZED COSTS OF

COMPLIANCE OF THE PROPOSAL TO

SOCIETY AND TO EMPLOYERS IN

THESE THREE INDUSTRIES

[In millions of dollars]

Industry

Annualized costs

to—

Society Employers

State and Local Governments in Stateplan States .............. 351 497

Railroads ..................... 8 9

United States Postal

Service .................... 59 82

Total ................. 418 588

Economic Feasibility Analysis

As in the Preliminary Economic

Analysis [Ex. 28–1], OSHA conducted a

screening analysis of the potential

impacts of the proposed standard on the

before-tax profits and sales of the

affected industries. A screening analysis

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 23, 2000 / Proposed Rules 33265

simply looks at the projected costs of

the proposal as a percentage of the pretax profits and sales of the affected

industries but does not actually predict

the magnitude of the impacts of these

costs on these before-tax profits or sales.

Screening analyses are used to

determine whether the compliance costs

potentially associated with the proposed

standard could lead to significant

impacts on affected establishments

under the two worst case scenarios (full

cost passthrough and no cost

passthrough). OSHA has used the same

methodology in its screening analysis

for the three industries of interest here.

The actual impact of the proposed

standard on the profit and sales of

establishments in a given private

industry will depend on the price

elasticity of demand for the products or

services produced by establishments in

that industry, as discussed in detail in

Chapter VI of the Preliminary Economic

Analysis [Ex. 28–1]. For the public

(government) sector, the impacts of the

proposal’s compliance costs would

indicate the extent to which the

government jurisdiction would have to

raise taxes or cut back on government

services.

According to the Census Bureau, total

revenues to state and local government

in the State-plan states in Fiscal Year

1996 were $763.3 billion [Census, 1996].

The annual costs of compliance for the

proposed standard would therefore be

equal to approximately 0.07 percent of

these revenues. Increasing the amount

of tax collected by these entities by $7

for every $10,000 of revenue currently

collected would permit these entities to

fully recover outlay. (For comparison,

annual increases to payroll made to stay

even with inflation are normally 15 to

20 times these costs.) Changes of this

small magnitude will have little or no

effect on the ability of state and local

governments to deliver services to their

constituents.

In the railroad industry, estimated

annual revenues are $36.9 billion, and

thus the costs of compliance with the

standard are estimated to equal 0.03%

of revenues under the worst-case

scenario for price increases [DOT, 1999].

Robert Morris Associates [Ex. 28–10]

estimated the pre-tax profit rate for the

railroad industry in 1996 to be 12.2%.

The standard’s costs are therefore

estimated to represent 0.21% of profits

in the worst case scenario for profits.

Even if the costs of compliance were

taken entirely from profits (a highly

unlikely scenario), they would only

reduce, for example, $1,000,000 in

profits to $997,900. Such a change in

profits would have no measurable effect

on the viability or competitive structure

of the railroad industry.

The U.S.P.S. reported revenues in

1996 of $56.6 billion [USPS, 1998].

Therefore, the cost of complying with

the proposal in SIC 43 would amount to

0.14% of revenue. Such a change in

revenues is too small to significantly

impact finances or raise questions of

economic feasibility. For comparison,

annual increases to payroll made to stay

even with inflation are 10 to 15 times

the annual costs of complying with the

proposal. Such an impact will have no

effect on the viability of the U.S. Postal

Service.

Regulatory Flexibility Information

The Agency also examined the impact

of the costs of the proposal on small

governmental entities, i.e., those

governmental jurisdictions serving

fewer than 50,000 people. According to

the Census Bureau’s employment and

payroll survey, there were 17,289

governmental jurisdictions with fewer

than 50,000 people in the State-plan

states, employing a total of 2,312,873

workers. OSHA estimates that these

jurisdictions include approximately

45,357 establishments, although

defining these in the public sector is

difficult, since no data on this point are

available. Employing the assumptions

used to analyze the costs of the standard

to state and local governments, the

estimated annualized cost of the

proposal to small governmental entities

would be $152 million. According to the

Census’ survey of government revenues,

the revenues in governmental

jurisdictions serving fewer than 50,000

people in State-plan states in 1996 were

$101 billion. Therefore, the costs of

compliance would be equal to 0.15

percent of the revenues of these entities.

The Small Business Administration

defines ‘‘small’’ railroads as those

employing fewer than 1500 employees

in SIC 4013 and fewer than 500 in SIC

4011. For the purposes of this analysis,

OSHA is classifying all local and

regional railroads in the ‘‘small’’

category. Using the same methodology

as that described above, OSHA

estimates the costs of compliance for

small railroad companies to be

$896,233, or 0.03 of the revenues and

0.24 percent of the profits, of these

companies.

Because the U.S. Postal Service

represents the only large governmental

entity serving all U.S. citizens, there are

no small entities in SIC 43.

The impacts of the proposed standard

on the small entities in the state and

local government and railroad

industries do not exceed OSHA’s

criteria for identifying significant

impacts on small entities-compliance

costs equal to more than 1 percent of

revenues or 5 percent of profits.

References

BLS, 1997. Bureau of Labor Statistics,

‘‘National Employment, Hours, and

Earnings’’, Found at: http://

146.142.4.24/cgi-bin/dsrv

U.S. Bureau of the Census. Survey of

Government Employment and Payroll,

March 1997.

Data found at: http://www.census.gov/

govs/www/apes97loc.html

U.S. Bureau of the Census. State and

Local Finance Estimates, by State: 1995–

96. Data found at: http://

www.census.gov/www/esti96.html

U.S. Department of Transportation,

Bureau of Transportation Statistics,

Transportation Statistics Annual

Report, 1999. Found at: http://

www.bts.gov/programs/transtu/tsar/

tsar99/tsar99pt.html

U.S. Postal Service, 1998 Annual

Report. Found at: http://www.usps.gov/

history/anrpt98/pdf.htm

OWCP 1996. Federal Agency Injury

and Illness Data Base, derived from

Office of Workers’ Compensation

Programs Case Create data file,

Department of Labor, Fiscal Year 1996.

Formatted by OSHA Office of

Management and Data Systems.

(Unpublished).

Request for Comment

OSHA requests any additional,

relevant data and information and

comment on all aspects of this analysis,

and on the data sources and

methodology used for this analysis, as

outlined in the Technical Appendix,

Exhibit 28–15.

Authority: This document was prepared

under the direction of Charles N. Jeffress,

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational

Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor,

200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20210. It is issued under sections 4, 6,

and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health

Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657),

Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 6–96 (62 FR

111), and 29 CFR part 1911.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 18th day of

May, 2000.

Charles N. Jeffress,

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational

Safety and Health.

[FR Doc. 00–12983 Filed 5–19–00; 10:21 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–26–U