Index to materials appearing on this page:
Background Information
Notice of Public Hearings
Notice of Proposed Changes to Title 8
Informative Digest of Proposed Action
Cost Estimate of Proposed Action
Determination of Mandate
Plain English Statement
Assessment
Alternatives Considered
Proposed State Standard
Section 5110. Ergonomics
Appendix A: Ergonomics Program for VDT Operators

[Ergoweb® Note: Since 1993, the State of California has been developing an ergonomics standard. Hearings on a proposed regulation are to occur during January, 1996. This page provides a brief history of the proposed regulation and contains the Notice of Public Hearings, Notice of Proposed Changes to Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, and the Proposed State Ergonomics Standard as issued in an information package by the California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board.]

Background Information
In 1993, the California legislature requested that a state ergonomics regulation be adopted by January 1, 1995. The Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board developed a proposal and conducted hearings in 1994 which revealed much disagreement among affected groups and experts regarding methods to prevent/control cumulative trauma disorders.

The Board decided against adopting the proposed comprehensive regulation in November, 1994. The January 1, 1995 mandated deadline was missed. Concurrently, federal OSHA was gradually slowing its progress on a national ergonomics standard and eventually suspended its efforts.

The California Labor Federation filed a lawsuit during early 1995 to enforce the state legislature's directive. The court ordered the Board to adopt an ergonomics standard by December 1996 (Henning v. California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, California Superior Court, No. 95CS00362, 5/26/95).

On December 12, 1995, the Board released a new performance oriented ergonomics regulation proposal. Public hearings will be conducted in Los Angeles on January 18, 1996 and in Sacramento on January 23, 1996.

Further information involving the development of the proposed regulation is contained within the Informative Digest section of the Notice of Proposed Changes to Title 8.

Regulation Notice of Public Hearings

The Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Board) is anticipating an extensive number of oral comments on this proposal based on experience with the first Ergonomics proposal in 1994. While the Board is under a tight time schedule for the development and adoption of an Ergonomics regulation, it will deviate from its normal practice of holding one public hearing in January, 1996 and instead will hold two public hearings. The first public hearing will be in Los Angeles on January 18, 1996 and the second hearing will be in Sacramento on January 23, 1996. Both proceedings are scheduled to begin promptly at 9:00 a.m. and will adjourn when no persons are present to give oral testimony or no later than 6:00 p.m.

Even with two public hearings, the Board is still expecting a large number of speakers at each location. Therefore, it is likely that each speaker will only be allowed to speak at one public hearing for a period of 3-5 minutes. Persons wishing to speak will need to complete and submit a speaker registration card, which will be available at each hearing location, beginning at 8:30 a.m. Since all oral and written comments will be given the same consideration, persons with extensive comments are strongly encouraged to prepare and submit them to the Board in writing.

As stated in the Notice of Public Hearing, the official record of the rulemaking proceedings will be closed at the conclusion of the public hearings and written comments received after 6:00 p.m. on January 23, 1996 will not be considered by the Board unless an extension of time is announced.

Regulation Notice of Proposed Changes to Title 8

Notice is hereby given pursuant to Government Code Section 11346.4 and Labor Code Sections 142.1, 142.4 and 144.5, that the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board pursuant to the authority granted by Labor Code Section 142.3, will consider the following proposed revisions to the General Industry Safety Orders in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations as indicated below, at its Public Hearings on January 18, 1996 and January 23, 1996.

A description of the proposed changes are as follows:

Article 106. Ergonomics.

Section 5110, Ergonomics.

The Board intends to adopt the proposed rulemaking action pursuant to Labor Code section 6357, which mandates an ergonomic regulation that minimizes repetitive motion injuries. There is currently no existing state or federal regulation that specifically addresses the issue of ergonomics and repetitive motion injuries.

At the time Labor Code section 6357 was enacted, the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Division) was conducting a series of ergonomic advisory committees in part to respond to three petitions granted by the Board in 1986 regarding Video Display Terminals (VDTs). Although both the Division's VDT advisory committee convened in the 1980's and an ergonomic advisory committee convened in the 1990's could not reach a consensus, the Division did complete a proposal for the Board's consideration in 1993. That proposal received an unprecedented amount of testimony during the Board's public hearings and comment periods in 1994. At the same time, federal OSHA's Assistant Secretary announced its high priority for the development of a federal ergonomics standard which was to be published as a proposed rule by mid 1994.

The Board attempted to comply with the mandated deadline of January 1, 1995 for adopting an ergonomics regulation. However, after deliberating over the large number of public comments, the Board determined that there was virtually no agreement among the affected groups or knowledgeable experts on a means to effectively regulate the prevention of cumulative trauma disorders. The Board also learned that federal OSHA suspended its effort to publish an ergonomics proposed rule with no indication of when and if such effort would resume. Thus, rather than adopt the comprehensive proposal before it in November 1994, the Board decided to develop a performance oriented ergonomic proposal. In addition, this proposal also responds to a subsequent court order imposed on the Board in June 1995 that requires the Board adopt an ergonomic standard by December 1996.

Section 5110 (a)

The proposal specifies that the regulation applies to the employer's workplace activities where repetitive motion injuries occur. The proposal defines what is meant by repetitive motion injuries in terms of how they relate to the workplace.

The effect of the proposed subsection will be to focus the application of the regulation on those employers and the specific locations in their workplaces where there is a demonstrated problem with repetitive motion injuries.

Section 5110 (b)

The proposal requires employers subject to this section to have an ergonomic program designed to minimize repetitive motion injuries. The employer will be required to establish and implement the components of the program including an evaluation of the affected worksite, control of the ergonomic hazards that caused the injuries and provision of job-specific training to employees.

The effect of the proposed subsection will be to require employers to have an ergonomic program that effectively minimizes the extent and number of repetitive motion injuries occurring in their workplace.

Section 5110 (c)

The proposal provides that the ergonomic program measures implemented by the employer shall satisfy the requirements of this section unless the employer knows of more effective measures that are cost effective.

The effect of this subsection is to relieve the employer from a potential burden to implement either unproven or costly measures when the employer's implemented measures have not completely eliminated work-related repetitive motion injuries.

Section 5110 (d) and Appendix A

The proposal provides a non-mandatory appendix that employers with video display terminal (VDT) operations may use to meet the requirements of the section.

The effect of this subsection and appendix is to give employers, with repetitive motion injuries occurring in their VDT operations, the option of implementing their own ergonomic program or following the specific program provided in the appendix.

Costs or Savings to State Agencies

According to unpublished 1993 data from the Division of Labor Statistics and Research, there were 28,000 employer reports of disorders associated with repetitive trauma. Assuming that all those reported disorders were for repetitive motion injuries and that for estimating purposes, those injuries were evenly distributed among employers, there would have been at most 14,000 workplaces subject to this proposal in 1993. Based on 1993 employment data from the California Employment Development Department, it is also estimated that the average workplace has 14 employees. Therefore, further assuming that all 14 of those employees' work activities were subject to this proposal, a total of 196,000 employees would potentially be covered based on 1993 data. In 1993 approximately 5% of repetitive motion injuries were reported by state agencies, which would translate into an estimated 700 state workplaces subject to this proposal.

The costs to those affected state agencies for implementing an ergonomics program in workplaces subject to this proposal is undetermined since costs can vary widely and is dependant upon what steps have already been undertaken to reduce repetitive motion injuries. Since there is no valid data to make reasonable cost estimates and no specific cost information was provided or obtained in 1994 during the previous rulemaking process for a comprehensive ergonomic proposal, Board staff was unable to determine the cost of this proposal.

Although undetermined, some or all of the statewide costs and costs to state agencies should be offset by an undetermined and probably significant amount of savings to be realized from the reduction in worker's compensation and productivity costs associated with fewer repetitive motion injuries as a result of this proposal. Furthermore, many State agencies already have existing ergonomic programs that would meet the proposed requirements with little or no additional changes or expense. In conclusion, some or all of the costs anticipated by the proposal should be offset by the fact that many employers already have some ergonomic program requirements and that there should be some beneficial worker compensation and productivity cost savings realized from implementing further ergonomic program measures.

Impact on Housing Costs

The proposal will not significantly affect housing costs.

Impact on Businesses

This proposal should not result in a significant adverse economic impact on businesses, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states.

Cost Impact on Private Persons or Entities

The proposal should not require private persons or entities who are employers to incur additional costs in complying with the proposal.

Costs or Savings in Federal Funding to the State

No impact.

Costs or Savings to Local Agencies or School Districts Required to be Reimbursed

No costs to local agencies or school districts are required to be reimbursed. See explanation under "Determination of Mandate".

Other Nondiscretionary Costs or Savings Imposed on Local Agencies

This proposal should not impose nondiscretionary costs or savings on local agencies. Based on 1993 data, 11% of repetitive motion injuries were reported by local agencies. Therefore, an estimated 1,500 local agencies' workplaces would have been subject to the proposal in 1993.

The Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board has determined that the proposed regulations do not impose a mandate requiring reimbursement by the state pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of the Government Code because the proposed amendments will not require local agencies to incur additional costs in complying with the proposal. Furthermore, these regulations do not constitute a "new program or higher level of service of an existing program within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution."

The California Supreme Court has established that a "program" within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution is one which carries out the governmental function of providing services to the public, or which, to implement a state policy, imposes unique requirements on local governments and does not apply generally to all residents and entities in the state. (See County of Los Angeles v. State of California (1987) 43 Cal.3d 46.)

These proposed regulations do not require local agencies to take certain steps to ensure the safety and health of their own employees only. Moreover, the proposed regulations do not in any way require local agencies to administer the California Occupational Safety and Health program. (See City of Anaheim v. State of California (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1478.)

The proposed regulations do not impose unique requirements on local governments. All employers - state, local and private - will be required to comply with the prescribed standards.

It has been determined that the proposal does affect small business. The express terms of the proposal written in plain English have been prepared by the Board pursuant to Government Code Sections 11342(e) and 11346.2(a)(1) and is available from the agency contact person named in this Notice.

The adoption of the proposed amendment to this regulation will neither create nor eliminate jobs in the State of California nor result in the elimination of existing businesses or create or expand businesses in the State of California.

Proposed Ergonomic Standard
[Ergoweb® Note: Due to some limitations in HTML formatting, the exact STRIKEOUT/UNDERLINE technique presentation of the Proposed State Standard could not be reproduced. However, the following text is the content of the Proposed State Standard document issued by the California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board.]

Add new Section 5110, Ergonomics to read:

Group 15. Occupational Noise and Ergonomics.

Article 106. Ergonomics.

Section 5110. Ergonomics.

(a) This section shall apply to a job, process, operation or similar work activity at the workplace where repetitive motion injuries occur. For purposes of this section, repetitive motion injuries are injuries resulting from a repetitive job, process, operation or similar work activity at the workplace which have been the predominant cause of a diagnosed, objectively identified, musculoskeletal injury to more than one employee within the last 12 months.

(b) Every employer subject to this section shall establish and implement an ergonomic program designed to minimize repetitive motion injuries. The ergonomic program shall include a worksite evaluation, control of ergonomic hazards and training of employees.

(1) Worksite evaluation. Each job, process, operation or similar work activity covered by this section or a representative number of such jobs, processes, operations or similar work activities shall be evaluated for ergonomic hazards which have caused repetitive motion injuries.

(2) Control of ergonomic hazards. Any ergonomic hazard that caused repetitive motion injuries shall, in a timely manner, be corrected or if not capable of being corrected have the hazard minimized to the extend feasible. The employer shall consider engineering controls, such as work station redesign, adjustable fixtures or tool redesign and administrative controls, such as job rotation, work pacing or work breaks.

(3) Training. Employees shall be provided job-specific training that includes an explanation of:

(A) The employer's ergonomic program;

(B) The ergonomic hazards which cause repetitive motions injuries;

(C) The symptoms and consequences of injuries caused by repetitive motion;

(D) The importance of reporting symptoms and injuries to the employer; and

E) Methods used by the employer to minimize repetitive motion injuries.

(c) Measures implemented by an employer in an effort to minimize repetitive motion injuries shall satisfy the employer's obligations under this section, unless it is shown that a measure known to but not taken by the employer is substantially certain to cause a greater reduction in such injuries and that this alternative measure would not impose additional unreasonable costs.

(d) Appendix. Appendix A is a non-mandatory appendix that employers may follow for video display terminal (VDT) operations and thereby be deemed in compliance with this section for such operations.

Note: Authority cited: Sections 142.3 and 6357, Labor Code. Reference: Sections 142.3 and 6357, Labor Code.

I. Workstation and Training Evaluation

Each VDT workstation or a representative number from a group of similar VDT workstations shall be initially evaluated using the following worksheet. The evaluation should be repeated whenever the VDT workstation is significantly changed or in response to an ergonomic complaint or injury.

WORKSTATION EQUIPMENT	Yes	No
Does the chair, work surface and VDT fit the operator or readily adjust, such that the operator can have the following elements of proper posture:
1. The keyboard and other input devices are at approximately elbow height.	___	___
2. The primary screen display is below eye level with primary viewing area from 1 to 60 degrees below the horizontal plane at eye level.	___	___
3. Is there is adequate space beneath the work surface for the employees's legs.	___	___
4. Is the front edge of the keyboard, other input devices and/or their support surface (wherever palm, writs or forearm contact occurs) rounded and/or padded.	___	___
5. Is the work surface of sufficient size to accommodate the VDT components, document holder and other taks-dependent items.	___	___
6. Is there adequate space and comfortable support for the employee's knees and hips to be bent at approximately 90 degrees with arms at their sides and wrists straight at the keyboard/input device.	___	___
7. Is the screen display equiped or positioned to minimize glare.	___	___
WORK/REST SHIFTS	Yes	No
8. Does the employee have frequent short interruptions from keystroking/inputting at regular intervals throughout the shift during which they can perform other duties or otherwise give their hands and wrists a break.	___	___
RECOGNITION AND TRAINING	Yes	No
Are employees trained and aware of the following information:
9. The employer's use of this Appendix as their ergonomic program.	___	___
10. VDT equipment and/or work practices that caused repetitive motion injuries.	___	___
11. Symptoms of repetitive motion injuries associated with VDT use.	___	___
12. The importance of reporting symptoms and injuries to the employer.	___	___
13. The importance of employee taking frequent short interruptions from keystroking/inputting at regular intervals throughout the shift during which they can perform other duties or otherwise give their hands and wrists a break.	___	___
14. The importance of the employee maintaining proper posture and proper adjustment of the workstation to minimize repetitive motion injuries.	___	___
15. Methods used by the employer to minimize ergonomic injuries.	___	___

II. Control of Ergonomic Hazards.

Any VDT workstation(s) identified during the workstation evaluation as posing an ergonomic risk (i.e. by an answer of No to any of the first 8 worksheet questions) shall be corrected by using any combination of feasible engineering and/or administrative controls to change any No answer to Yes.

III. Training of VDT Operators

A training program shall be provided to all employees determined by workstation evaluation to be at risk for the same type of repetitive motion injuries that triggered the evaluation (i.e. by an answer of No to any of the 15 worksheet questions). The training program shall adress the information provided in questions 9 through 15 of the evaluation in sufficient detail that any previous No answers to questions 9 to 15 are changed to Yes.