Original Notice.

Preproposal statement of inquiry was filed as WSR 98-24-093.

Title of Rule: Ergonomics.

Purpose: BACKGROUND: Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) are among the most common and costly occupational injuries and illnesses in the United States and Washington state. Nontraumatic soft tissue WMSDs such as tendinitis, carpal tunnel syndrome and low back disorders (but not including injuries from slips, trips, falls, motor vehicle accidents or being struck by or caught in objects) alone account for 32% of all workers' compensation claims accepted by L&I and 46% of all claim costs. There are over 50,000 such claims per year.

There is strong scientific evidence that workers doing jobs and tasks with known risk factors are exposed to preventable hazards for WMSDs. For example, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has recently evaluated more than 2000 scientific publications and reviewed 600 epidemiological studies in detail, concluding "a substantial body of credible epidemiologic research provides strong evidence of an association between musculoskeletal disorders and certain work-related physical factors when there are high levels of exposure and especially in combination with exposure to more than one physical factor (e.g. repetitive lifting of heavy objects in extreme or awkward postures)." There is also evidence that applying the principles and tools of ergonomics to these hazards can effectively reduce these risks and thereby prevent many WMSDs. For example, the Government Accounting Office recently concluded that "Our work has demonstrated that employers can reduce these costs and injuries and thereby improve employee health and morale, as well as productivity and product quality... We found that these effects do not necessarily have to involve costly or complicated processes or reduction measures, because employers were able to achieve results through a variety of simple, flexible approaches."

WISHA's previous enforcement efforts to reduce WMSD hazards have relied upon WAC 296-24-040 Accident prevention programs and WAC 296-24-073 Safe place standards. This has not been sufficient. In the 1980s, L&I recognized the need to provide information and technical assistance to employers to help reduce WMSD hazards. L&I efforts to assist with voluntary reduction of these WMSD hazards have included publication of guidelines and other informational material, free on-site consultation, workshops, research and other forms of technical assistance. After ten years of such efforts L&I surveyed more than 5,000 employers and determined that 60% of employers still report no efforts to reduce WMSD hazards. Even among those employers who recognize WMSD hazards in their workplaces, 40% report no efforts to reduce them. L&I has concluded that a specific ergonomics regulation is necessary to supplement these other activities.

The proposal will add requirements to reduce hazards for WMSDs in chapter 296-62 WAC, through the creation of a new part A-1.

RULE DEVELOPMENT: Rule development conferences were held throughout the state with feedback being received from more than 500 participants. An advisory committee was formed to seek guidance on content of the rule. The committee consisted of 30 members who were representatives from large and small businesses, labor, safety and health professionals, and the medical community. The advisory committee held full day meetings seven times from February 1999 through June 1999. Following these meetings, a "toolbox" committee was formed to assist L&I and the employer community in creating resource and guidance materials with regard to reducing hazards for WMSDs. A second advisory committee was created as a subcommittee of the Construction Advisory Committee to provide additional assistance in this process. The focus of this subcommittee was on how to reduce hazards for WMSDs within construction industries. In addition, minutes from advisory committee meetings and periodic updates were placed on L&I's website as well as mailed to a list of over 700 who had indicated interest in this process.

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED NEW REQUIREMENTS: For WAC 296-62-051 Part A-1, Ergonomics, WISHA's proposal includes the following:

•	The rule is written in a user-friendly question and answer format.
•	Most employers will only have to do a quick review to determine if they are covered by the rule.
•	To determine if the rule applies, easy to understand criteria are provided to identify tasks in the caution zone. "Caution zone jobs" will require further analysis, awareness education, and a determination if there are hazards that must be reduced.
•	Offers employers a choice between a general performance approach or specific performance approach to reduce hazards to be in compliance with the rule. Employers may either establish methods and criteria for the identification and reduction of hazards or use specific criteria identified in the rule.
•	Allows for existing alternative ergonomics' programs to comply with the proposed requirements if employers can demonstrate their method is as effective as the requirements of the rule in reducing hazards for WMSDs, and providing for employee education, training and participation.
•	Includes an implementation schedule, which allows employers ample time to prepare for compliance, especially small businesses.
•	Sets modest education requirements for employees and their supervisors in jobs that have clearly identified potential hazards for WMSDs.
•	Identifies four basic elements the awareness education must contain.
•	Encourages employee participation in the analysis of "caution zone jobs" and measures to reduce them.
•	Provides an appendix with hazard reduction criteria for the employers choosing the specific performance approach. Also provides information outlining a plan for what L&I will do to assist employers.

DESCRIPTION OF NEW SECTIONS WITHIN chapter 296-62 WAC, Part A-1 WAC 296-62-051 Ergonomics. The proposal adds WAC 296-62-051 through 296-62-05176 as a new Part A-1 to the General Occupational Health Standards.

The proposal creates new requirements for the reduction of employee exposure to identified hazards that may cause or aggravate WMSDs. Employers will be required to find and fix these hazards. The rule is designed to prevent soft tissue WMSDs, not including those injuries from slips, trips, falls, motor vehicle accidents or being struck by objects. There are no requirements for medical management and employers will not be considered in violation solely from an employee developing a WMSD.

WAC 296-62-05103 Which employers are covered by this rule? The proposed rule only applies to employers having one or more "caution zone jobs." These are defined as any job or task where an employee's typical work includes any of a set of physical risk factors listed in the rule.

WAC 296-62-05105 What is a "caution zone job?" Employers having "caution zone jobs" must analyze them to see if they have WMSD hazards and must comply with provisions in the rule for employee education, employee involvement, and hazard reduction. "Caution zone jobs" can be identified using the list of physical risk factors to make a reasonable determination if they exist. "Caution zone jobs" are not prohibited.

WAC 296-62-05110 When do employers' existing ergonomics activities comply with this rule? The proposal allows for existing alternative ergonomics' programs to comply with the proposed requirements if employers can demonstrate their method is as effective as the requirements of the rule in reducing hazards for WMSDs, and providing for employee education, training and participation.

WAC 296-62-05120 Which employees must receive ergonomics awareness education and when? The proposal requires basic awareness education be provided to employees and their supervisors in "caution zone jobs" at least every three years. It also requires that employees assigned to work or supervise a "caution zone job" receive the initial education within 30 days of assignment if it has not occurred previously within the 3-year period.

WAC 296-62-05122 What must be included in ergonomics awareness education? The proposal identifies the content of subjects to be included in the ergonomics awareness education. It is anticipated this required training for identified employees and their supervisors will be a modest time commitment. The subjects to be included are: Work-related causes of musculoskeletal disorders, types, symptoms and consequences of WMSDs with the focus on early reporting, information on identifying hazards for WMSDs and common measures to reduce them, and the requirements of the rule.

WAC 296-62-05130 What options do employers have for analyzing and reducing WMSD hazards? The proposal requires that covered employers determine if "caution zone jobs" have hazards for WMSDs and to reduce those hazards identified. Employers may choose either a general performance approach or a specific performance approach. Both approaches require that "caution zone jobs" be analyzed using a systematic method to include identified factors. Individuals responsible for the analysis must know how to use the method effectively and be informed of requirements of the rule. In choosing measures to reduce hazards for WMSDs, engineering or administrative methods are preferred over individual work practice or personal protective equipment. Measures to reduce WMSDs that include job or work practice changes must be accompanied by job specific training.

•

The general performance approach requires that employers reduce all hazards for WMSDs below criteria chosen by the employer or reduce them to the degree feasible. The general performance approach does not require a written program. Under this approach employers must be able to demonstrate how they analyzed "caution zone jobs," identified hazards, what jobs are affected and how hazards were reduced.

•

The specific performance approach requires that "caution zone jobs" be analyzed to determine if any physical risk factors exceed the criteria in Appendix B. If so, the employer must reduce those hazards below the criteria identified or to the degree feasible. There is no written program requirement. Instead the employer must be able to demonstrate that the hazards identified have been reduced below the criteria provided in Appendix B.

WAC 296-62-05140 How must employees be kept involved and informed? The proposal requires employers provide for and encourage employee involvement in the analysis of "caution zone jobs" and measures to reduce identified hazards. The proposal also requires that employers with 11 or more employees who are required to have a safety committee (WAC 296-24-045), involve the committee in choosing the methods used for the employee participation. In addition, the proposal requires employers share with safety committees (WAC 296-24-045) or during safety meetings, the requirements of the rule, what jobs were identified with "caution zone tasks," the results of any hazard analysis, and measures used to reduce those hazards. The proposal also requires that employers review their ergonomics activities at least annually for effectiveness with the safety committees where one is required or ensure an equal means of employee involvement.

WAC 296-62-05150 How are terms and phrases used in this rule? The proposal defines the following key terms used in this rule for ease of understanding.

•	ANSI S3.34-1986 (R1997) Hand Arm Vibration Standards
•	"Caution Zone Jobs"
•	Department of Energy ErgoEASER
•	Ergonomics
•	Intensive Keying
•	Jobs Strain Index
•	Liberty Mutual Manual Handling Tables
•	NIOSH Lifting Equation, 1991
•	Recovery Cycles
•	Typical Work
•	UAW-GM Risk Factor Checklists
•	Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders (WMSDs)

WAC 296-62-05160 When must employers comply with this rule? The proposal includes a table for employers to determine effective and completion dates for rule requirements. The proposed rule is phased in by industry groups, employer size, and major requirements of the rule.

Note: Help for employers in implementing the rule.

The proposal identifies activities L&I will undertake to assist employers with compliance of the rule. These efforts are intended to be part of an overall implementation plan which will encourage employer and employee organizations to assist L&I in providing guides and models, industry best practices, testing of this information and be a clearinghouse for information regarding ergonomics assistance. After rule adoption, L&I will also identify voluntary Demonstration Employers who will work with L&I to test and improve guidelines, best practices and inspection policies and procedures as they are developed.

WAC 296-62-05170 Appendices.

WAC 296-62-05172 Appendix A: Illustrations of physical risk factors. The proposal includes illustrations showing common examples of postures and positions (including pinching, grasping, and using your hand or knee as a hammer). These examples are intended to help employers identify "caution zone jobs" quickly.

WAC 296-62-05174 Appendix B: Criteria for analyzing and reducing WMSD hazards for employers who choose the Specific Performance Approach. The proposal includes an analysis tool when using the specific performance approach to determine if a WMSD hazard exists. It includes illustrations so employers can easily identify if a hazard exists. In addition, the proposal includes steps an employer needs to follow when jobs with "caution zone jobs" that include heavy or frequent lifting are identified. This includes two charts. The proposal also includes a chart showing how to know when vibration hazards need to be reduced.

WAC 296-62-05176 Appendix C: Standard Industry Classification (SIC) Codes. The proposal includes a table which identifies what industries are included in the SIC codes noted in the implementation schedule.

BACKGROUND: Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) are a major contributor to workers' compensation claims, lost workdays and pain and suffering. Musculoskeletal (muscle, bone and connecting tissues) injuries and illness are often referred to as cumulative trauma disorders, repetitive motion disorders, or occupational overuse syndromes. Many employers and employees are unaware of either the risks, or the solutions for WMSDs.

The proposed rule focuses only on risk factors for the largest category of WMSDs, called nontraumatic soft tissue disorders, excluding those injuries from slips, trips, falls, motor vehicle accidents or being struck by or caught in objects, (referred to as WMSDs in the remainder of this document). These disorders are often caused or aggravated by awkward postures; high hand force; highly repetitive motion; repeated impact; heavy, frequent or awkward lifting, and moderate to high vibration. They are often found in jobs characterized by repetitious work or manual materials handling. The state of Washington Industrial Insurance Fund (hereafter referred as the state fund) pays approximately $288 million in WMSD claims every year. In addition, a low estimate of the cost of compensable WMSD claims among self-insured employers is approximately $52 million every year. In other words total direct costs from WMSD generated insurance claims is at least $340 million per year. The total cost of WMSD injuries to the residents of Washington state is actually much higher than the above figure, as insurance payments from the state fund and self-insurers do not fully compensate workers for lost time and income. In addition there is evidence that workers make sizable out of pocket payments to treat WMSDs (Morse, et al, 1998). Finally, there are sizable indirect costs associated with WMSDs. The indirect costs, that are the consequence of WMSDs, are borne by the employer in the form of higher absenteeism, turnover and replacement training costs as well as lower overall productivity. Indirect costs are also borne by the employee afflicted with a serious WMSD in the form of reduced long term earning potential and family stability. Indirect cost estimates range from 0.5 to 20 times direct costs, depending on the investigator and the type of injury being studied, with a median value of 4.1 times direct costs (Andreoni, 1986).

Presently, the state of Washington has no specific regulations requiring active identification and control of WMSD risk factors. General regulations requiring an effective accident prevention program and the maintenance of a safe workplace apply to the prevention of WMSD hazards, but they have proven insufficient. An ergonomics rule would provide greater incentives for the identification and control of musculoskeletal hazards in the workplace.

The proposed rule will apply only to employers with jobs having certain risk factors for WMSDs. In the proposed rule these jobs are designated "caution zone jobs." The employer is expected to make a reasonable determination whether this rule applies. Only employers with "caution zone jobs" must comply with Part 2 of the rule. Employers with "caution zone jobs" must provide ergonomics awareness education for workers in those jobs, analyze the "caution zone jobs" for WMSD hazards and reduce exposure to identified hazards. Employers may avoid the job analysis step by directly fixing their "caution zone jobs." The rule is to be phased in over a six-year period, beginning first with employers classified in selected Standard Industrial Classification codes (152, 174, 175, 176, 177, 242, 411, 421, 451, 541, 734 and 805) and having fifty or more employees.

The Regulatory Fairness Act (RFA), chapter 19.85 RCW, requires that the economic impact of proposed regulations on small businesses must be examined relative to their impact on large businesses. The term small business is defined as a business entity that has the purpose of making a profit and has fifty or fewer employees. If a rule results in a disproportionately large impact on small business the RFA requires that mitigation efforts be undertaken. The department anticipates that the average business compliance cost for the rule will exceed the SBEIS minor cost threshold(s).

The small business economic impact statement does not address the current burden of WMSDs, or the anticipated burden under the proposed rule, and is not a cost-benefit analysis. Occupational injury and illness due to WMSDs account for 32% of all state fund accepted claims and 20 million lost workdays from 1990-1997. Prior research shows that WMSDs addressed by the proposed rule are spread throughout Washington industries. Risk factors for these WMSDs are pervasive across all types and sizes of Washington's industries. The proposed ergonomics rule is designed to reduce WMSD hazards, WMSD claims and the associated direct and indirect costs of WMSDs. The direct cost of WMSDs is over $340 million per year. The department anticipates that benefits, in the form of a reduction in WMSDs, will significantly exceed the compliance costs presented in this analysis.

METHODS: A survey undertaken by the safety and health assessment and research for prevention program (SHARP) of L&I in the summer of 1998 was designed to obtain information on exposures of workers to a set of specific risk factors for WMSD. Firms were asked to report the number of workers exposed to each risk factor for less than two hours, two-four hours and for more than four hours. This source allowed us to estimate the proportion of the workforce in each industry which was exposed to each risk factor for more than two hours (Level 2) and the proportion exposed for more than four hours (Level 3).

To determine the anticipated cost imposed by the ergonomics rule on Washington businesses a telephone survey was developed and administered by L&I in the summer of 1999 (second survey). The survey elicited information from a sample of businesses across many industries. The survey contained questions about WMSD hazards, time and costs incurred to identify jobs with hazards, and implementation of control strategies and training programs. The proportion of firms' already implementing controls and the costs per employee for each element were estimated. To help estimate the costs in each industry to achieve an acceptable degree of hazard reduction, data was obtained from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The OSHA estimates, made in 1995, constitute the most comprehensive evidence on ergonomic control costs. They are based on an extensive study of industrial scenarios, provided by ergonomists, to represent a wide range of industrial occupations.

In order to obtain the fraction of the workforce exposed to any or all of the risk factors, fractions exposed to separate risk factors were combined. The fractions of the workforce exposed to each separate risk factor are likely to overlap, but we assumed uniform distribution of risks throughout the workforce. Therefore, our method overestimates the total exposed population and the associated costs which businesses will incur in controlling exposures to WMSD.

For each one-digit SIC and for both small and large businesses, estimates of the total workforce exposure to WMSD risks for two or more hours and four or more hours were made. These, combined with the per employee cost data obtained from the second survey and from OSHA, allow us to calculate total cost estimates for each element of the ergonomics rule.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Results were reported at the most detailed level possible given the best available evidence. Costs in each component were annualized and discounted to reflect present value. Results are summarized for each component of the rule as they apply to certain populations.

Rule Review Costs: The department projects that there will be some costs for the time it takes employers to become familiar with the proposed ergonomics rule and the time required to present the rule to their company's safety committees. These costs are anticipated to be one-time costs and will occur primarily during the rule's phase-in period. Rule review costs are estimated at $1.87 million for small businesses and $0.76 million for large businesses. Expressed on a per employee basis the one time cost is $1.79 for small businesses and $0.48 for large businesses.

Job Identification and Job Analysis: The department anticipates that most employers will perform a quick and inexpensive step to determine whether or not they are covered by the rule. This identification time is estimated at five minutes per job where WMSD hazards may exist. Identification costs are estimated at $0.39 per employee for small employers and $0.22 for large employers per year. For those employers having "caution zone jobs" (Level 2), employers are expected to conduct a more detailed job analysis. It is estimated that because the ergonomic solutions for many jobs are straightforward, employers will decide to fix 30% of the caution zone without the need for job analysis. Total costs of job analysis were determined by applying the applicable population times the total estimated assessment time and wages for job hazard analysis. Annual costs per employee averaged $0.88 for small businesses and $1.16 for large businesses.

Engineering and Administrative Controls: For jobs identified as WMSD hazard (Level 3) jobs employers will be required to take control steps to reduce the exposure. Typically engineering or administrative controls steps will be necessary to reduce the hazard. The OSHA estimated control costs, expressed on a per employee basis (1999 dollars), were multiplied by the number of jobs with WMSD hazards. Annual engineering and administrative control costs per employee averaged $18.46 for small businesses and $20.65 for large businesses.

Personal Protective Equipment Costs: A fall back approach for controlling workplace ergonomics hazards is to use personal protective equipment (PPE). Estimated PPE costs were multiplied times the number of jobs with WMSD hazards. The annual PPE cost per employee averaged $0.16 for small businesses and $0.24 for all large businesses.

Basic Awareness Education: Employers with "caution zone jobs" must provide basic ergonomics awareness education. Estimates of educational awareness cost were aggregates of cost for employee and cost of supervisor and trainer time. Basic ergonomics awareness education costs per employee were estimated to be $1.87 for all small businesses and $1.73 for all large businesses.

Hazardous Job Training: Employees working in jobs with WMSD hazards will be required to be trained on job-based ergonomic hazards. Estimates of specific training cost were aggregates of cost for employee training time and instructor time. Annual per employee hazard job training costs were estimated to be $1.86 for all small businesses and $1.24 for all large businesses.

Training the Trainer: For those conducting job analysis and hazardous job training sessions, some level of advanced training will be necessary. These costs were composed of personnel time and a class cost. Annuals per employee training costs were estimated to be $3.00 for all small businesses and $0.97 for all large businesses.

Managerial and Administrative Costs: No recordkeeping is required under the rule. However, employers must be able to demonstrate various elements of compliance. Associated costs were estimated from responses to the 1999 L&I survey described above, regarding personnel managing ergonomics programs and percent of time spent on ergonomics. Small employer managers spent roughly half the time of large employers on ergonomic related issues. Annual per employee managerial and administrative costs were $3.06 for small businesses and $1.37 for large.

Total Estimated Annual Costs, Per Employee Costs and Costs as a Percent of Sales: Total costs for the proposed rule, and costs per employee were estimated by combining the nine cost subcomponents presented above. Results are presented in Summary Table 1. Total annual compliance costs for small, large and all businesses are estimated at $32.9 million, $44.2 million and $77.1 million dollars respectively. On a per employee basis the average annual costs are $31.47 for small businesses and $28.03 for large businesses and $29.40 for all businesses. Total costs and costs as a percent of sales by industrial category are provided in Summary Table 2. The results show that compliance costs are no more than 0.14% of sales for any single industrial category (small business in SIC1). Additional cost information is available in the full SBEIS.

Summary Table 1. Annual cost of the proposed ergonomics rule in each component category

Ergonomics Rule Cost Module	Small business		Large business		All businesses
	Total	Cost per emp.	Total	Cost per emp.	Total	Cost per emp.
Rule Review	$1,873,229	$1.79	$756,094	$.048	$2,629,323	$1.00
Job ID	$406,834	$0.39	$343,828	$0.22	$750,662	$0.29
Job analysis	$919,534	$0.88	$1,828,192	$1.16	$2,747,726	$1.05
Eng/Admin. Control	$19,318,843	$18.46	$32,529,031	$20.65	$51,847,874	$19.78
PPE	$169,046	$0.16	$376,583	$0.24	$545,628	$0.21
Awareness educate	$1,959,468	$1.87	$2,730,970	$1.73	$4,690,437	$1.79
Haz. Job training	$1,944,774	$1.86	$1,951,656	$1.24	$3,896,430	$1.49
Training the trainer	$3,143,009	$3.00	$1,479,113	$0.94	$4,622,122	$1.76
Mang. Cost	$3,197,527	$3.06	$2,158,640	$1.37	$5,356,167	$2.04
Total Estimated Cost	$32,932,263	$31.47	$44,154,107	$28.03	$77,086,370	$29.40

Summary Table 2. Annual costs and percent of sales by industrial category

SIC Industry	Small Business		Large Business		All Businesses
	Total cost	% of sales	Total costs	% of sales	Total cost	% of sales
0 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY	$3,782,287	0.141%	$898,782	0.065%	$4,681,069	0.115%
1 MINING AND CONSTRUCTION	$10,893,303	0.098%	$5,605,718	0.045%	$16,499,021	0.070%
2 MANUFACTURING: NONDURABLE	$1,000,314	0.031%	$3,761,103	0.011%	$4,761,416	0.013%
3 MANUFACTURING: DURABLE	$1,013,068	0.029%	$9,207,667	0.017%	$10,220,735	0.017%
4 TRANSPORTATION & PUBLIC UTIL	$1,805,716	0.073%	$5,957,881	0.056%	$7,763,597	0.059%
5 WHOLESALE TRADE	$6,921,102	0.025%	$8,167,210	0.009%	$15,088,312	0.012%
6 RETAIL TRADE	$1,265,154	0.029%	$1,353,776	0.008%	$2,618,929	0.013%
7 GENERAL SERVICES	$2,143,929	0.027%	$3,398,294	0.021%	$5,542,223	0.023%
8 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES	$3,919,762	0.038%	$5,696,970	0.035%	$9,616,732	0.036%
9 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION	$187,629	*	$106,707	*	$294,336	*
SUM	$32,932,263	0.0447%	$44,154,107	0.0170%	$77,086,370	0.0232%

* Gross business sales not available for SIC 9

CONCLUSION: The proposed ergonomics rule requires employers with "caution zone jobs" to ensure educational awareness programs on ergonomic risks, signs and symptoms of WMSDs and on elements of the ergonomics rule. Employers with hazardous jobs are expected to eliminate or reduce hazards for employees who are exposed.

Using a combination of information from the SHARP, L&I employer surveys, OSHA and various labor market sources, the Department of Labor and Industries concludes that the ergonomics rule will not have a disproportionate impact to small employers. The department has found that the per employee compliance costs are approximately 10% higher for small employers relative to large employers and does not consider differences large enough to be indicative of disproportionate impact. Identification and analysis, training and awareness all pose relatively small costs. The largest cost component is due to ergonomic controls that only employers with WMSD hazard jobs would be expected to sustain.

The methods used in this analysis did not take into account any of the potential benefits of the proposed ergonomics rule. Each WMSD claim costs the state fund an average of $5,462. Each case represents higher premium costs for employers, additional noninsurance costs, and as well as pain and suffering borne by those with WMSD injuries. Many cases will be prevented through the proper application of ergonomics awareness education and controls. A subsequent cost-benefit analysis will estimate compliance cost of the proposed rule relative to expected benefits.

Despite little evidence that the ergonomics rule will have a disproportionate impact on small employers, the department recognizes that small businesses face inherent disadvantages which might not be fully demonstrated in this analysis. Therefore, the department concludes that a prudent approach to the rule is to make special allowances for potential impacts on small business. Mitigation of costs is planned in three ways. First, as discussed in this report, there will be a phase-in period, which includes delayed enforcement for small businesses. The department intends to undertake substantial efforts to provide assistance for small businesses in preparing for the rule during this phase-in. Second, under the rule employers will have the option of following specific compliance criteria laid out by the department for identifying and reducing WMSD hazards, or developing and using their own compliance criteria which is tailored to the employers' worksite and needs. Third, the department's method of assessing penalties for violations of rules allows a very substantial penalty reduction for small employers.

Statutory Authority for Adoption: RCW 49.17.010, [49.17].040., [49.17].050.

Statute Being Implemented: Chapter 49.17 RCW.

Summary: See Purpose above.

Reasons Supporting Proposal: See Purpose above.

Name of Agency Personnel Responsible for Drafting: Tracy Spencer, Tumwater, (360) 902-5530; Implementation and Enforcement: Michael A. Silverstein, Tumwater, (360) 902-5495.

Name of Proponent: Department of Labor and Industries, governmental.

Rule is not necessitated by federal law, federal or state court decision.

Explanation of Rule, its Purpose, and Anticipated Effects: See Purpose above.

Proposal Changes the Following Existing Rules: Proposal adds a new section A-1 to chapter 296-62 WAC.

A small business economic impact statement has been prepared under chapter 19.85 RCW.

The proposed rule's focus is on only those risk factors for the largest category of WMSDs called nontraumatic soft tissue disorders, excluding those injuries arising from slips, trips, falls, motor vehicle accidents or being struck by or caught in objects (referred to as WMSDs in the rest of this document). These are often caused or aggravated by awkward postures; high hand force; highly repetitive motion; repeated impact; heavy, frequent, or awkward lifting; and moderate to high vibration. They are often found in jobs characterized by repetitive work or manual materials handling. The state of Washington Industrial Insurance Fund (hereafter referred to as the state fund) pays approximately $288 million in WMSD claims every year. In addition, a conservative estimate of the cost of compensable WMSD claims among self-insured employers is approximately $52 million every year. The cost of WMSD insurance claims for Washington state is therefore at least $340 million per year. The total cost of WMSD injuries to the state is actually much higher than the above figure, as insurance payments from the state fund and self-insurers do not fully compensate workers for lost income from these injuries. In addition there is evidence that workers make sizable out-of-pocket payments to treat WMSDs (Morse, 1998). Finally, there are sizable indirect costs associated with WMSDs. The indirect costs that are the consequence of WMSDs are borne by the employer in the form of higher absenteeism, turnover and replacement training costs as well as lower overall productivity. Indirect costs are also borne by the employee afflicted with a serious WMSD in the form of reduced long-term earning potential and family stability. Indirect cost estimates range from 0.5 to 20 times direct costs depending on the method of calculation and the type of injury being studied, with a median value of 4.1 times direct cost (Andreoni, 1986; Hinze, 1991, Leigh et al., 1997).

Prior research shows that WMSD injuries occur throughout Washington industries. Risk factors for WMSDs are found in all types and sizes of Washington's workplaces. Many employers actively identify hazards and successfully reduce WMSDs, most often gaining information on ergonomics through trade associations and the Department of Labor and Industries (WISHA Division). However, almost two-thirds (62%) of employers have taken no steps to reduce WMSDs. Among those taking no steps, most believed they had no WMSD problems. Among those recognizing the problem, almost 40% had taken no steps (Foley and Silverstein, 1999).

For people who experience these injuries and illnesses, the consequences can be disastrous. Normal everyday tasks become difficult or impossible, and pain interferes with normal family life. Family members must often assume additional responsibilities and replace lost income through acquisition of a second job or sale of personal property such as a home or car (Morse, et al. 1998).

Presently, the state of Washington has no specific regulations requiring active identification and control of WMSD risk factors. General regulations requiring an effective accident prevention program and the maintenance of a safe workplace apply to the prevention of WMSD hazards, but they have proven insufficient. The department believes that an ergonomics rule would increase the level of WMSD hazard identification and control in the workplace.

The proposed rule will apply to employers with jobs that have certain risk factors, which are referred to as "caution zone jobs." The employer is expected to make a reasonable determination whether this rule applies to their workplace. Only employers with "caution zone jobs" must comply with Part 2 of the rule. Employers with "caution zone jobs" must provide ergonomics awareness education for workers in those jobs, analyze the "caution zone jobs" for WMSD hazards and reduce exposure to the hazards that are identified if these exceed certain thresholds. The rule is to be phased in over a six-year period, beginning first with employers classified in selected Standard Industrial Classification codes (152, 174, 175, 176, 177, 242, 411, 421, 451, 541, 734 and 805) and having 50 or more employees.

This small business economic impact statement does not address the current burden of WMSDs, or the anticipated reduction in this burden under the proposed rule, in the calculations of overall economic impacts, and is therefore not a cost-benefit analysis. The proposed ergonomics rule is designed to reduce WMSD hazards, WMSD claims and the associated direct and indirect costs of WMSDs. The direct costs of WMSD injuries are over $340 million per year, and annual indirect costs are estimated to significantly exceed this figure. The department anticipates that benefits, in the form of a reduction in WMSDs, will significantly exceed the costs of compliance that are presented in this analysis.

SMALL BUSINESS ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT: The Regulatory Fairness Act (RFA), chapter 19.85 RCW, requires that the economic impact of proposed regulations on small businesses must be examined relative to their impact on large businesses. The act outlines the requirements for a small business economic impact statement (SBEIS). For the purposes of an SBEIS the term small business is defined as a business entity that has the purpose of making a profit and has fifty or fewer employees. The agency must prepare an SBEIS when a proposed rule, or rule amendments, have the potential of placing a more than minor economic impact on business. For the industries considered, the minor impact thresholds range from approximately $50 to $250 (1990 dollars) per business. These values are calculated as 0.1% of profits for a business of 50 employees (Guide for Facilitating Regulatory Fairness, 1993). The average business compliance cost per establishment, presented in Table 12, will exceed the SBEIS minor cost thresholds for most businesses covered by the proposed rule. In this analysis the measures for assessing disproportionate impact are cost per employee and cost as a percent of gross business income (GBI) more commonly referred to as business sales.

METHODS: This analysis utilizes information taken from the Washington State Employment Security Department, the Washington State Department of Revenue, the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration and two surveys of Washington businesses conducted by the Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) and the safety and health assessment and research for prevention (SHARP) program within L&I. Estimates of WMSD risks were made at the one-digit industrial classification level and for each business size class (employers having 50 or fewer employees and employers having more than 50 employees). These, combined with the OSHA per employee cost data allowed us to calculate total cost estimates for each element of the ergonomics rule. Elements of the ergonomics rule were primarily applied to the employee populations estimated to be in "caution zone jobs" and in jobs requiring control of hazards (WMSD hazard jobs). The elements considered in this analysis are: Initial rule review, job identification and job analysis, awareness education and hazard job training, training the trainer, engineering and administrative controls, personal protective equipment costs, and managerial and administrative costs. Costs were annualized over 10 years for engineering and administrative controls as well as job identification and analysis. Costs were annualized for three years for the various ergonomics education and training components of the rule. Because expenditures occurring in different years must be rendered comparable in terms of their units of value, economists employ the concept of a discount rate. The discount rate captures the fact that a dollar of expenditure today is not equivalent to a dollar of expenditure in the future due to the fact that money can earn interest for its owner. If the risk-free interest rate is r, one dollar today is equivalent in value to (1+r) dollars a year from today. One approach to choosing the appropriate discount rate is to subtract the average inflation rate for the last several years (1.5 to 3%) from the average ten-year treasury bill rate (6-7%). This yields a discount rate of 3 to 5%. Another approach is to use inflation-indexed ten-year treasury bills, which currently have a rate of approximately 3.5%. In this analysis a conservative discount rate of 5% was used to discount future costs and annualize the total costs. Because the proposed rule has a significant phase-in period many of the rule compliance costs will occur several years from now. Future costs were discounted in a manner that was both consistent with the rule's phase-in schedule and conservative as well. For instance, the date by which large businesses must complete their WMSD hazard control measures ranges from two to three years after the rule's effective date. However, in this analysis these future compliance costs were discounted only two years. The estimated rule compliance costs are presented as total cost, cost for each component of the rule, cost per employee, cost per establishment, and cost as a percentage of GBI, for both small and large employers.

Job and employee turnover were issues of concern in this analysis. Employee turnover for the state was approximated using results from the 1988 National Occupational Exposure Survey (NOES). The NOES employee turnover information was available at the one digit SIC level. Job turnover refers to the year-to-year change in the mix of job types in the state due to technological change, or shifts in market conditions. Job turnover was not factored into the cost calculations for the following reasons: 1. In the short term we assume that the mix of jobs in Washington state would remain relatively constant. 2. Job or population growth is not anticipated to change the outcome of this analysis because the impact of the rule is assessed on a per employee basis.

A mail survey undertaken by SHARP staff in the summer of 1998 was designed to obtain information on exposures of workers to risk factors for WMSDs (see Appendix M3: Employer Ergo Survey, June 1998). This survey is referred to as Ergo Survey 1 throughout the remainder of this text. A sample of 10,000 Washington state employers was randomly selected from an administrative database, of which 6,540 were successfully contacted. Completed questionnaires were received from 4,906 businesses across all industries and sizes, for a response rate of 75%. Firms were asked to report the number of workers exposed to each risk factor for less than two hours, two-four hours and for more than four hours. Results of the survey were analyzed and presented in Foley and Silverstein, 1999. Over 33.2% of respondents reported having had employees with WMSD injuries in the previous three years.

This source allowed us to estimate the proportion of the workforce in each industry that was exposed to each risk factor for more than four hours and for more than two hours. We call the entire workforce in a given SIC code the Level 1 population. In our analysis, we have assumed that the exposure of any worker at a firm to any risk factor for more than two hours (four or more hours for intensive keying work) constitutes a risk sufficient to require the firm to undertake job hazard analysis and to institute workforce education. Jobs with two or more hours of exposure are referred to as "caution zone jobs" and the entire population of these jobs is designated the Level 2 population. Exposure to the risk factors for four or more hours (seven or more hours for intensive keying) was assumed to trigger a requirement that the firm implement control measures. Jobs with four or more hours of exposure are referred to as "WMSD hazard jobs" and the entire population of these jobs is designated the Level 3 population. Because Ergo Survey 1 estimated risk factor exposures for zero hours, two or more hours and four or more hours we could not directly estimate the population of employees exposed to seven or more hours of intensive keying. Data used to estimate the seven-hour population came from a survey sponsored by the National Science Foundation for their 1997 report, Science and Engineering Indicators. This survey (Chicago: Chicago Academy of Sciences, International Center for the Advancement of Scientific Literacy, 1997, unpublished tabulations) revealed that the seven-hour population was 43% of the four-hour population. We utilized this ratio to adjust our estimate of the Level 3 keying populations.

To construct an estimate of the cost imposed by the ergonomics rule on Washington businesses a telephone survey was developed and administered by L&I in the summer of 1999 (see Appendix M1: Telephone Survey, July 1999). This survey is referred to as Ergo Survey 2 throughout the remainder of this text. The survey elicited information from a sample of businesses across many industries. The survey contained questions about WMSD hazards, time and costs incurred to identify jobs with hazards, and implement ergonomic changes. If changes in jobs were made, employers provided information on costs of control strategies, and detailed information about programs, personnel and elements of engineering controls and training.

In order to ensure adequate coverage across all Washington industries, the sample of 5,644 businesses was drawn so that industries that had few firms and large businesses were over-represented. Prior to the survey, an informational mailing was sent to each of the businesses selected to participate (see Appendix M2: Cover letter). The mailing alerted businesses that they would be asked to participate in a survey, advised them as to the exact nature of the occupational hazards they would be questioned about, and suggested the types of records they should consult to make the telephone interview proceed as smoothly as possible. Employment and address information for each sampled firm was obtained from the 1998 Quarterly Unemployment Insurance file obtained from the Employment Security Department. Gilmore Research of Seattle conducted the phone survey. The interviews were completed for a total of 1,085 businesses out of a total of 4,425 firms successfully contacted, for a response rate of 24.5%. From Ergo Survey 2, L&I obtained estimates on the proportion of employers already implementing controls that would be deemed sufficient under the proposed rule. Time and personnel requirements for certain elements of the ergonomics rule were also estimated from Ergo Survey 2.

Engineering and administrative control costs necessary to achieve an acceptable degree of hazard reduction were taken from the 1995 OSHA Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA) for the federal ergonomic protection standard. At this time the PRIA constitutes the most comprehensive evidence on ergonomic control costs. Ergonomists developed information (including ergonomic solutions) for OSHA on 165 workplace scenarios that had significant ergonomic problems. OSHA then characterized the jobs reflected in each scenario as belonging to one of twenty-three broad occupational groupings. Costs were then estimated for each occupational grouping. OSHA used their own ergonomic employer survey to estimate the number of workers in each occupational grouping for each major industry (two- and three-digit SIC level). Engineering and control costs were presented on a per employee basis, per establishment basis and by each major industry. The 1995 OSHA draft proposal economic analysis strategy was reviewed by a group of economists from several universities. The OSHA control cost data was converted to cost per employee and then applied to the Department of Labor and Industries' estimates of the Level 3 population for each industrial category.

The Department of Labor and Industries' use of the OSHA information overestimates control costs because the OSHA requirements for hazard control in the 1995 draft were more stringent than the current L&I proposal. For example the OSHA 1995 manual-handling checklist approximated a NIOSH lifting equation index of 1 whereas the L&I cutoff approximates a lifting index of 2. In addition the OSHA control cost data did not attempt to incorporate cost reductions from innovation or competition amongst the suppliers of ergonomic equipment.

In Ergo Survey 1 firms were asked to report the number of workers exposed to each of fifteen separate WMSD risk factors. To determine the fraction of the workforce exposed to any or all of the risk factors we had to combine the exposure fractions for each of the individual risk factors. The highest individual exposure fraction represents the lower bound estimate of the total exposure rate. This would be the case where only this subpopulation was exposed to the other individual risk factors. This would be the case when all WMSD hazards were clustered amongst a particular subset of the workforce in a given industry. The upper-bound estimate would be the opposite case, where the subpopulation exposed to the single largest individual risk factor was entirely distinct from the subpopulations exposed to each of the other risk factors. In this case the total exposed fraction would simply be the sum of the ten individual exposure fractions. This would reflect complete hazard segregation across the exposed subpopulations. Neither case is likely to be an accurate estimate of the true population exposure fraction. Instead the fractions of the workforce exposed to each individual risk factor are likely to overlap. This requires us to make an assumption as to the degree of this overlap. We assume that there is neither clustering nor segregation of the subpopulations exposed to each individual risk factor. Instead, we assume a uniform distribution of risks throughout the workforce. Therefore, the fraction of the working population in each one-digit industry that is exposed to one or more of the risks was calculated by the following formula:

Fraction Exposed = MaxRF +	∑[RFi • MaxRF]
	i

Where MaxRF= the largest fraction of the workforce exposed to any single risk factor in a given SIC and RF_i = the fraction of the workforce exposed to each of the other individual risk factors. This formula produces a combined estimate of the overall exposure of the working population to all WMSD risk factors. It assumes that the fraction of the workforce that is exposed to the predominant risk factor (Max RF) is neither more likely nor less likely to be exposed to the other risk factors than is the rest of the workforce. In other words, risks are distributed uniformly across the workforce, rather than clustered. Since a certain degree of clustering is likely to exist, our method will tend to overestimate the total exposed population, and therefore to overestimate the costs which businesses will incur to control these exposures. For each one-digit SIC and for both business size classes, estimates of the total workforce exposure to WMSD risks for two or more hours and four or more hours were made, corresponding to the Level 2 and Level 3 populations.

The Level 2 and 3 population estimates were derived from Ergo Survey 1. These were combined with the job identification, job analysis and training times, and personnel requirements estimates derived from the Ergo Survey 2 and the per employee control cost data from OSHA to estimate the total cost to Washington state businesses for the proposed ergonomics rule.

The populations potentially affected by the proposed ergonomics rule were estimated using the techniques described in the methods section. Total workforce population (Level 1), "caution zone jobs" population (Level 2) and WMSD hazard job populations (Level 3) are presented by one-digit SIC in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Level 1, 2 and 3 Workforce Populations

SIC	INDUSTRY TITLE	LEVEL 1 POP.			LEVEL 2 POP.		LEVEL 3 POP.
		SMALL	LARGE	TOTAL	SMALL	LARGE	SMALL	LARGE
0	Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing	61,501 10,634	33,745 253	95,246 10,887	25,275	4,104	16,214	3,520
1	Mining and Construction	99,207 17,992	39,322 380	138,529 18,372	51,617	21,895	17,977	11,369
2	Manufacturing, nondurables	38,064 4,055	97,655 588	135,719 4,643	5,401	24,285	3,310	13,767
3	Manufacturing, durables	35,244 3,370	212,935 562	248,179 3,932	6,823	127,302	3,212	34,700
4	Transportation, and public utilities	50,471 6,482	141,893 564	192,364 7,046	7,308	41,623	3,863	14,223
5	Wholesale and retail trade	344,248 41,475	271,016 2,314	615,264 43,789	44,546	100,959	22,889	33,763
6	Finance, insurance and real estate	75,385 13,634	60,265 424	135,650 14,058	13,019	19,109	5,040	10,978
7	General services	132,383 20,613	155,965 908	288,348 21,521	15,568	59,104	8,995	18,045
8	Professional services	194,662 49,493	433,617 1,609	628,279 51,102	34,280	51,010	12,741	29,985
9	Public administration	15,294 1,464	128,921 405	144,215 1,869	2,970	1,831	798	464
SUM		1,046,459 169,233	1,575,344 8,007	2,621,793 177,240	206,808	451,224	95,040	170,814

Values in italics are number of establishments

Unit labor compensation rates (total cost for an hour of work) were estimated for the persons identified in Ergo Survey 2 as being responsible for identifying caution zone jobs, performing hazard analysis and ergonomics education or training as well as managing ergonomics programs. If survey respondents indicated that they had more than one person conducting identification, analysis, training and program management functions, the costs were averaged within company. Unit labor compensation rates were considered to be composed of the hourly wage rate and associated fringe benefits. Average hourly wage rates for the ten one digit SIC categories and the fourteen occupation categories utilized in Ergo Survey 2 were obtained from the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics and from the Washington State Employment Security Department and the Department of Personnel. Fringe benefits were estimated at 37% of the hourly wage (United States Bureau of Labor Statistics). Because compensation rates for three of the survey occupation categories could not be readily obtained, the following assumptions were made: Owners were assumed to be compensated at 200% of industry average rates, managers 150%, and supervisors 125% of industry average rates.

A measure of wage dispersion was calculated using the 1998 Washington State Population Survey. Respondents to that survey provided information about employment, earnings and type of business for large and small establishments. The results of wage tabulations indicated that across all industries small businesses paid their managers and supervisors 15% less than large businesses. To adjust for wage dispersion the estimated wages for owners, managers and supervisors from small businesses was adjusted downward by 7.5%, while the wage rate for similar job categories in large businesses was adjusted upward by 7.5%. Wage dispersion data for nonsupervisory jobs revealed that overall pay for similar jobs in small business was 24% lower than in large business.

However, the wage dispersion data were not utilized for nonsupervisory wages. By not applying the wage dispersion data, small businesses costs for certain components of the rule are inflated relative to large business costs. Adjusted average unit labor rates for supervisory personnel grouped by one digit SIC are shown in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Average Unit Labor Costs Associated With Components of the Ergonomics Rule

SIC	INDUSTRY TITLE	Identification step		Analysis step		Ergonomics Training		Program mngmt
		Small	Large	Small	Large	Small	Large	Small	Large
0	Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing	$16.73	$21.17	$17.17	$22.51	$17.96	$21.72	$17.83	$24.87
1	Mining and Construction	$37.65	$33.03	$36.60	$27.80	$38.86	$34.91	$37.83	$36.30
2	Manufacturing, nondurables	$29.45	$32.68	$29.40	$32.19	$31.69	$31.95	$32.63	$33.01
3	Manufacturing, durables	$34.67	$34.01	$33.67	$32.79	$37.91	$36.48	$36.31	$34.57
4	Transportation & public utilities	$32.73	$32.33	$30.34	$32.57	$36.87	$37.71	$36.29	$37.71
5	Wholesale and retail trade	$26.96	$26.59	$27.99	$25.26	$28.12	$25.39	$27.74	$25.68
6	Finance, insurance & real estate	$32.43	$23.01	$34.50	$29.27	$34.53	$32.04	$35.68	$22.24
7	General services	$33.65	$31.76	$34.66	$34.84	$36.64	$29.12	$35.46	$29.31
8	Professional services	$29.85	$27.34	$26.45	$30.21	$34.59	$31.88	$31.47	$34.76
9	Public administration	$22.62	$27.91	$17.05	$26.88	$30.44	$21.91	$28.73	$25.40
TOTAL		$30.26	$29.73	$29.99	$29.87	$32.82	$31.10	$31.88	$31.15

The average unit labor rates for those responsible for conducting identification, hazard analysis, training and ergonomics program management functions, were found to be roughly the same for large and small businesses. Many of the small business respondents to Ergo Survey 2 indicated that they had used or planned to use a consultant to perform various components of an ergonomics program. It is the department's belief that, in general, consultants (and their associated higher unit labor cost) will not be necessary for compliance with this rule. We did not attempt to correct the small business unit labor rates for the higher consultant labor rate.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A. Rule Review Costs: The department projects that there will be costs for both the time it takes employers to initially become familiar with the proposed ergonomics rule and the time required to present the rule to their company safety committees (businesses with eleven or more employees only). These costs are anticipated to be one-time expenditures, but will occur over the first four years of the rule phase-in period. As a conservative measure costs were annualized over three years at a 5% discount rate. Rule review costs are presented in Table 3 below and are estimated at $1.87 million for small businesses and $0.76 million for large businesses. Expressed on a per employee basis the rule review cost is $1.79 for small businesses and $0.48 for large businesses.

Table 3: Estimated Rule Review Cost

		Estimated Washington State Ergonomics Rule Review Costs			Rule Review: Cost per employee, Cost per establishment
SIC	INDUSTRY TITLE	Small	Large	Total	Small	Large	Total
0	Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing	$72,555	$16,389	$88,944	$1.18 $6.82	$0.49 $64.78	$0.93 $8.17
1	Mining and Construction	$303,382	$64,538	$367,920	$3.06 $16.86	$1.64 $169.84	$2.66 $20.03
2	Manufacturing-nondurables	$71,330	$60,967	$132,297	$1.87 $17.59	$0.62 $103.69	$0.97 $28.49
3	Manufacturing-durables	$66,167	$39,411	$105,578	$1.88 $19.63	$0.19 $70.13	$0.43 $26.85
4	Transportation and Public Utilities	$79,041	$119,026	$198,067	$1.57 $12.19	$0.84 $211.04	$1.03 $28.11
5	Wholesale and Retail Trade	$511,969	$216,418	$728,387	$1.49 $12.34	$0.80 $93.53	$1.18 $16.63
6	Finance, Insurance and Real Estate	$115,884	$39,411	$155,295	$1.54 $8.50	$0.65 $92.95	$1.14 $11.05
7	General Services	$231,165	$84,819	$315,984	$1.75 $11.21	$0.54 $93.41	$1.10 $14.68
8	Professional Services	$398,711	$119,026	$517,737	$2.05 $8.06	$0.27 $73.98	$0.82 $10.13
9	Public Administration	$23,024	$34,993	$58,017	$1.51 $15.73	$0.27 $86.40	$0.40 $31.04
SUM		$1,873,229	$756,094	$2,629,323	$1.79 $11.07	$0.48 $94.43	$1.00 $14.83

Annualized 5%, 10 yrs

Small business 1 hr review

Large business 3 hr review

B. Estimated Costs for Identifying "Caution Zone Jobs:" The department anticipates that most businesses will carry out an identification, or screening, step to determine if a particular job might be a "caution zone job." The estimated costs for the identification step were based on the following assumptions. All businesses are covered by the proposed rule and would potentially do this identification step. However, results from Ergo Survey 1 indicate that approximately 10% of small businesses and 1.4% of large businesses have no jobs with ergonomics risk factors and as a consequence will not need to undertake the identification or any subsequent steps. In addition results from Ergo Survey 2 indicated that many businesses have already undertaken some type of job identification step, 16% of small businesses, and 51% of large businesses, on their own and therefore will experience only minimal new costs due to the proposed rule. For those that need to undertake the identification step it was assumed that the time necessary for this step was five minutes per job. The department believes that this is a conservative time estimate and that most jobs can be processed in less than five minutes. For instance many workplaces have classes of jobs where similar tasks are performed, in which case the identification step for one job would suffice for the entire class of jobs. To estimate identification step costs the supervisory unit wage costs (one hour of time by SIC) presented in Table 2 above were multiplied by the number of jobs estimated to require the identification step then by 0.0833 hours (five minutes). For each small business establishment an additional 20 minutes of time was added for compiling the job identification results. For each large establishment an hour of compilation time was added. Costs were annualized over ten years at a 5% discount rate. Table 4 reveals the estimated costs for the identification step for both large and small businesses in Washington state. Total cost was estimated at $407,000 for small business and $344,000 for large business. The RFA suggests that to compare a particular rule's impact, the costs (between large and small businesses) should be presented on a per employee basis. On a per employee basis overall identification costs are estimated to be $0.39 and $0.22 per year for small and large businesses respectively.

Table 4: Estimated Job Identification Cost

		Estimated Washington State Ergonomic Job Identification Costs			Identification step: Cost per employee, Cost per establishment
SIC	INDUSTRY TITLE	Small	Large	Total	Small	Large	Total
0	Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing	$16,572	$6,296	$22,868	$0.27 $1.56	$0.19 $24.88	$0.24 $2.10
1	Mining and Construction	$55,250	$15,891	$71,141	$0.56 $3.07	$0.40 $41.82	$0.51 $3.87
2	Manufacturing-nondurables	$12,590	$9,079	$21,668	$0.33 $3.10	$0.09 $15.44	$0.16 $4.67
3	Manufacturing-durables	$12,456	$25,101	$37,557	$0.35 $3.70	$0.12 $44.66	$0.15 $9.55
4	Transportation and Public Utilities	$16,629	$27,096	$43,725	$0.33 $2.57	$0.19 $48.04	$0.23 $6.21
5	Wholesale and Retail Trade	$110,820	$81,015	$191,835	$0.32 $2.67	$0.30 $35.01	$0.31 $4.38
6	Finance, Insurance and Real Estate	$26,151	$4,612	$30,764	$0.35 $1.92	$0.08 $10.88	$0.23 $2.19
7	General Services	$58,825	$40,910	$99,735	$0.44 $2.85	$0.26 $45.05	$0.35 $4.63
8	Professional Services	$94,032	$125,181	$219,213	$0.48 $1.90	$0.29 $77.80	$0.35 $4.29
9	Public Administration	$3,509	$8,648	$12,158	$0.23 $2.40	$0.07 $21.35	$0.08 $6.50
SUM		$406,834	$343,828	$750,662	$0.39 $2.40	$0.22 $42.94	$0.29 $4.24

Annualized 5%, 10 yrs

Global 5 min. ID time, adj for existing ergonomics programs

C. Estimated Costs for Hazard Analysis of "Caution Zone Jobs": If a "caution zone job" is found in the identification step of workplace analysis, then a more detailed hazard analysis must be performed. The following assumptions were made to determine the cost to large and small businesses for the hazard analysis step. The number and distribution of "caution zone jobs" (Level 2 jobs) was estimated using the results of Ergo Survey 1 and were presented in Table 1. Because many businesses have conducted hazard analysis, the number of "caution zone jobs" requiring analysis is actually smaller than the Level 2 population reported in Table 1. The actual fraction of employers needing to conduct hazard analysis was estimated using responses to Ergo Survey 2 questions and was applied to the Level 2 population numbers. Analysis time was estimated from the department's Ergo Survey 2, with the minimum analysis time being 60 minutes. In addition hazard analysis was assumed to require 30 minutes of time of the employee performing the job or tasks. A final assumption was made that for 30% of the "caution zone jobs" the nature of and solutions for the WMSD hazards would be readily apparent and therefore a detailed hazard analysis step would not be required. Costs were annualized over 10 years at 5%. Total costs of hazard analysis were approximately $0.92 million for small businesses and $1.83 million for large businesses. Per employee annual costs for this component of the rule are $0.88 and $1.16 for small and large businesses respectively. Results at the one digit SIC level are shown in Table 5.

Table 5: Estimated Job Analysis Costs

		Estimated Washington State Job Analysis Costs			Analysis step: Cost per employee, Cost per establishment
SIC	INDUSTRY TITLE	Small	Large	Total	Small	Large	Total
0	Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing	$48,184	$9,716	$57,899	$0.78 $4.53	$0.29 $38.40	$0.61 $5.32
1	Mining and Construction	$417,740	$41,492	$459,233	$4.21 $23.22	$1.06 $109.19	$3.32 $25.00
2	Manufacturing, nondurables	$15,996	$91,324	$107,320	$0.42 $3.94	$0.94 $155.31	$0.79 $23.11
3	Manufacturing, durables	$25,783	$199,435	$225,219	$0.73 $7.65	$0.94 $354.87	$0.91 $57.28
4	Transportation and public utilities	$21,164	$410,026	$431,190	$0.42 $3.27	$2.89 $727.00	$2.24 $61.20
5	Wholesale and retail trade	$144,016	$431,429	$575,445	$0.42 $3.47	$1.59 $186.44	$0.94 $13.14
6	Finance, insurance and real estate	$40,523	$21,275	$61,798	$0.54 $2.97	$0.35 $50.18	$0.46 $4.40
7	General services	$105,885	$185,018	$290,904	$0.80 $5.14	$1.19 $203.76	$1.01 $13.52
8	Professional services	$94,610	$437,020	$531,630	$0.49 $1.91	$1.01 $271.61	$0.85 $10.40
9	Public administration	$5,632	$1,455	$7,088	$0.37 $3.85	$0.01 $3.59	$0.05 $3.79
SUM		$919,534	$1,828,192	$2,747,726	$0.88 $5.43	$1.16 $228.32	$1.05 $15.50

Annualized 5%, 10yrs

D. Estimated Engineering and Administrative Control Costs: Jobs that are identified as having WMSD hazards in the hazard analysis step will require control measures. Engineering and administrative controls are two approaches to controlling WMSD hazards in the workplace. Engineering and administrative control costs for large and small businesses were estimated using the following assumptions. The number of WMSD hazard jobs, which is the Level 3 population (see Table 1), was determined using information from Ergo Survey 1. Engineering and administrative control costs on a per employee basis were estimated using data from the 1995 OSHA Ergonomics Protection Standard PRIA (costs annualized by OSHA at 7% over 10 years, adjusted to 5% for this analysis). The estimated control costs were converted to 1999 dollars and multiplied by the number of WMSD hazard jobs. Engineering and administrative control costs were estimated to be approximately $19.3 million for small businesses and $32.5 million for large businesses. Overall cost per employee were $18.46 for small employers and $20.65 for large employers. Results at the one digit SIC level are shown in Table 6 below.

Table 6: Estimated Engineering, Administrative Control Costs

		Estimated Washington State Engineering and Administrative Control Costs			Engineering and Administrative Controls: Cost per employee, Cost per establishment
SIC	INDUSTRY TITLE	Small	Large	Total	Small	Large	Total
0	Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing	$2,696,991	$783,110	$3,480,101	$43.9 $253.6	$23.2 $3,095.3	$36.5 $319.7
1	Mining and Construction	$7,393,590	$4,855,706	$12,249,296	$74.5 $410.9	$123.5 $12,778.2	$88.4 $666.7
2	Manufacturing, nondurables	$664,836	$3,129,310	$3,794,147	$17.5 $164.0	$32.0 $5,322.0	$28.0 $817.2
3	Manufacturing, durables	$569,614	$6,878,056	$7,447,670	$16.2 $169.0	$32.3 $12,238.5	$30.0 $1,894.1
4	Transportation and public utilities	$1,267,422	$4,708,615	$5,976,038	$25.1 $195.5	$33.2 $8,348.6	$31.1 $848.1
5	Wholesale and retail trade	$4,065,494	$5,460,866	$9,526,360	$11.8 $98.0	$20.1 $2,359.9	$15.5 $217.6
6	Finance, insurance and real estate	$403,486	$782,168	$1,185,654	$5.4 $29.6	$13.0 $1,844.7	$8.7 $84.3
7	General services	$750,673	$2,018,240	$2,768,913	$5.7 $36.4	$12.9 $2,222.7	$9.6 $128.7
8	Professional services	$1,451,626	$3,879,130	$5,330,756	$7.5 $29.3	$8.9 $2,410.9	$8.5 $104.3
9	Public administration	$55,110	$33,829	$88,940	$3.6 $37.6	$0.3 $83.5	$0.6 $47.6
SUM		$19,318,843	$32,529,031	$51,847,874	$18.46 $114.2	$20.65 $4,062.6	$19.8 $292.5
Source: OSHA PRIA, 1995		Costs annualized and adjusted to 1999 dollars

E. Estimated Cost for Personal Protective Equipment: A secondary approach for controlling workplace WMSD hazards is to use personal protective equipment (PPE). The technique for estimating PPE costs was similar to that for engineering and administrative controls costs above. The PPE costs, on a per employee basis, were derived from the OSHA PRIA then multiplied times the number of WMSD hazard jobs in Washington state. The PPE costs for all small business were $169,000 and $377,000 for all large businesses. Overall costs per employee were $0.16 for small employers and $0.24 for large employers: Note the PPE per employee costs are low because they are inexpensive and a much less effective ergonomic control measure. See Table 7 for details.

Table 7: Estimated PPE Control Costs

		Estimated Washington State Annual PPE Control Costs			PPE Controls: Cost per employee, Cost per establishment
SIC	INDUSTRY TITLE	Small	Large	Total	Small	Large	Total
0	Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing	$3,596	$1,706	$5,302	$0.06 $0.34	$0.05 $6.74	$0.06 $0.49
1	Mining and Construction	$6,187	$8,931	$15,118	$0.06 $0.34	$0.23 $23.50	$0.11 $0.82
2	Manufacturing, nondurables	$3,372	$9,058	$12,430	$0.09 $0.83	$0.09 $15.41	$0.09 $2.68
3	Manufacturing, durables	$1,906	$23,320	$25,226	$0.05 $0.57	$0.11 $41.49	$0.10 $6.42
4	Transportation and public utilities	$13,395	$56,938	$70,334	$0.27 $2.07	$0.40 $100.95	$0.37 $9.98
5	Wholesale and retail trade	$37,338	$40,547	$77,885	$0.11 $0.90	$0.15 $17.52	$0.13 $1.78
6	Finance, insurance and real estate	$20,027	$66,041	$86,068	$0.27 $1.47	$1.10 $155.76	$0.63 $6.12
7	General services	$24,128	$59,433	$83,562	$0.18 $1.17	$0.38 $65.46	$0.29 $3.88
8	Professional services	$55,997	$108,662	$164,659	$0.29 $1.13	$0.25 $67.53	$0.26 $3.22
9	Public administration	$3,100	$1,945	$5,045	$0.20 $2.12	$0.02 $4.80	$0.03 $2.70
SUM		$169,046	$376,583	$545,628	$0.16 $1.00	$0.24 $47.03	$0.21 $3.08
	Costs annualized and adjusted to 1999 dollars
	Source: OSHA PRIA, 1995

F. Estimated Cost for Basic Awareness Education: Employers with "caution zone jobs" (Level 2 population in Table 2) must provide basic ergonomics awareness education. The following assumptions were made when estimating these costs: There are two cost components to awareness education, the first corresponding to the time that the employee had to spend in the educational session and the other to the time the instructor committed to the session. Basic awareness education sessions were conservatively assumed to be 40 minutes in length for employees and 1 hour for the session instructor (manager, supervisor, etc.). The cost for the employee component of awareness education was determined by multiplying the estimated number of "caution zone jobs" in a given SIC category, by the average hourly wage in that SIC multiplied by 40 minutes. A cost of one dollar per employee was assessed for copying and assembling the session handouts. To estimate the cost for instructor time in providing the educational session, the department assumed an average educational session size of three for small businesses, and twenty for large businesses. Total number of "caution zone jobs" for large and small businesses within a particular SIC were then divided by the corresponding average session size to arrive at the number of sessions required. The number of sessions was then multiplied by the instructor unit wage rates, from Table 2, to determine costs. Costs were adjusted for employee turnover using results from the National Occupational Exposure Survey (1988). Total costs were annualized over three years at 5%. Awareness education costs were estimated to be $1.96 million for all small businesses and $2.73 million for all large businesses. Overall cost per employee were $1.87 for small employers and $1.73 for large employers: See Table 8 for details.

Table 8: Estimated Awareness Education Costs

		Estimated Washington State Basic Awareness Education Costs			Awareness Education: Cost per employee, Cost per establishment
SIC	INDUSTRY TITLE	Small	Large	Total	Small	Large	Total
0	Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing	$154,239	$13,688	$167,927	$2.51 $14.50	$0.41 $54.10	$1.76 $15.42
1	Mining and Construction	$575,234	$166,413	$741,647	$5.80 $31.97	$4.23 $437.93	$5.35 $40.37
2	Manufacturing, nondurables	$42,606	$90,088	$132,694	$1.12 $10.51	$0.92 $153.21	$0.98 $28.58
3	Manufacturing, durables	$74,629	$869,237	$943,866	$2.12 $22.15	$4.08 $1,546.69	$3.80 $240.05
4	Transportation and public utilities	$75,687	$226,413	$302,100	$1.50 $11.68	$1.60 $401.44	$1.57 $42.88
5	Wholesale and retail trade	$424,710	$622,599	$1,047,309	$1.23 $10.24	$2.30 $269.06	$1.70 $23.92
6	Finance, insurance and real estate	$125,893	$128,124	$254,016	$1.67 $9.23	$2.13 $302.18	$1.87 $18.07
7	General services	$157,668	$347,149	$504,817	$1.19 $7.65	$2.23 $382.32	$1.75 $23.46
8	Professional services	$298,726	$255,790	$554,516	$1.53 $6.04	$0.59 $158.97	$0.88 $10.85
9	Public administration	$30,077	$11,468	$41,545	$1.97 $20.54	$0.09 $28.32	$0.29 $22.23
SUM		$1,959,468	$2,730,970	$4,690,437	$1.87 $11.58	$1.73 $341.07	$1.79 $26.46
	40 min emp time and 1 hr supervisor time		Annualized 5%, 3 yrs
	Small: 3 per class, Large: 20 per class

G. Estimated Cost for Hazardous Job Training: Employers must provide hazardous job training for those employees working in jobs identified as WMSD hazard jobs. As with the basic awareness education, there are two components to the total cost: The cost for employee training time and the cost for instructor time. The assumptions used to make this cost estimate were that hazardous job training sessions required one hour of employee time and two hours of instructor time. Small businesses training sessions were estimated to have two employees, while large businesses had ten employees per session. As with awareness education a cost of one dollar per employee was assessed for copying and assembling training session handouts. Costs were adjusted for job turnover. Hazard job training costs were estimated at $1.94 million for all small businesses and $1.95 million for all large businesses. Overall costs per employee were $1.86 for small employers and $1.24 for large employers: See Table 9 for detailed results.

Table 9: Estimated Hazardous Job Training Costs

		Estimated Washington State Hazardous Job Training Costs			Awareness training: Cost per employee, Cost per establishment
SIC	INDUSTRY TITLE	Small	Large	Total	Small	Large	Total
0	Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing	$201,892	$22,333	$224,225	$3.28 $18.99	$0.66 $88.27	$2.35 $20.60
1	Mining and Construction	$443,951	$130,370	$574,321	$4.47 $24.67	$3.32 $343.08	$4.15 $31.26
2	Manufacturing, nondurables	$49,463	$156,402	$205,865	$1.30 $12.20	$1.60 $265.99	$1.52 $44.34
3	Manufacturing, durables	$75,712	$480,266	$555,978	$2.15 $22.47	$2.26 $854.57	$2.24 $141.40
4	Transportation and public utilities	$83,497	$156,828	$240,325	$1.65 $12.88	$1.11 $278.06	$1.25 $34.11
5	Wholesale and retail trade	$464,303	$390,138	$854,441	$1.35 $11.19	$1.44 $168.60	$1.39 $19.51
6	Finance, insurance and real estate	$117,505	$117,462	$234,967	$1.56 $8.62	$1.95 $277.03	$1.73 $16.71
7	General services	$214,963	$199,410	$414,374	$1.62 $10.43	$1.28 $219.61	$1.44 $19.25
8	Professional services	$275,424	$291,401	$566,825	$1.41 $5.56	$0.67 $181.11	$0.90 $11.09
9	Public administration	$18,062	$7,046	$25,109	$1.18 $12.34	$0.05 $17.40	$0.17 $13.43
SUM		$1,944,774	$1,951,656	$3,896,430	$1.86 $11.49	$1.24 $243.74	$1.49 $21.98
	1 hr emp training 2 hr supervisor time	Annualized 5%, 3 yrs
	Small: 2 per class Large: 10 per class

H. Estimated Cost for Training Job Analysts and Trainers: For those businesses conducting job analysis and hazard job training sessions a moderate level of additional training will be necessary for those conducting the job analysis or training sessions. The costs for training the trainer and the job analyst were made using the following assumptions. For small businesses it was assumed that one person required training for every three WMSD hazard jobs, for large businesses one person was trained for every twelve such employees. Training sessions were assumed to take twelve hours of employee time and cost $250. Costs were adjusted for job turnover. Training costs were annualized over five years at 5%. These training costs were estimated to be $3.14 million for all small businesses and $1.48 million for all large businesses. Overall annual costs per employee were $3.00 for small employers and $0.94 for large employers. Table 10 below summarizes the results.

Table 10: Estimated Training the Trainer Costs

		Training the Trainer Costs			Training the Trainer: Cost per employee, Cost per establishment
SIC	INDUSTRY TITLE	Small	Large	Total	Small	Large	Total
0	Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing	$363,817	$22,937	$386,754	$5.92 $34.21	$0.68 $90.66	$4.06 $35.52
1	Mining and Construction	$677,797	$112,082	$789,879	$6.83 $37.67	$2.85 $294.95	$5.70 $42.99
2	Manufacturing, nondurables	$86,036	$68,705	$154,741	$2.26 $21.22	$0.70 $116.84	$1.14 $33.33
3	Manufacturing, durables	$118,546	$317,507	$436,053	$3.36 $35.18	$1.49 $564.96	$1.76 $110.90
4	Transportation and public utilities	$150,756	$126,697	$277,453	$2.99 $23.26	$0.89 $224.64	$1.44 $39.38
5	Wholesale and retail trade	$733,491	$270,142	$1,003,633	$2.13 $17.69	$1.00 $116.74	$1.63 $22.92
6	Finance, insurance and real estate	$173,654	$106,357	$280,011	$2.30 $12.74	$1.76 $250.84	$2.06 $19.92
7	General services	$352,988	$165,316	$518,304	$2.67 $17.12	$1.06 $182.07	$1.80 $24.08
8	Professional services	$460,347	$286,367	$746,714	$2.36 $9.30	$0.66 $177.98	$1.19 $14.61
9	Public administration	$25,578	$3,003	$28,581	$1.67 $17.47	$0.02 $7.42	$0.20 $15.29
SUM		$3,143,009	$1,479,113	$4,622,122	$3.00 $18.57	$0.94 $184.73	$1.76 $26.08
	12 hr training class, cost $250	Annualized 5%, 5 yrs
	Small: 1 trained per 3 Level 2 or 3 emp
	Large: 1 trained per 12 Level 2 or 3 emp

I. Estimated Managerial and Administrative Costs: Managerial and administrative costs for the rule were estimated from responses to questions in Ergo Survey 2 about which personnel were assigned to manage ergonomics programs and the percent of their time spent on the ergonomics program. Personnel assigned to manage ergonomics programs for small businesses spent 3.8% of their time on ergonomic-related issues; the corresponding portion for large businesses was 6.6% of time. To estimate managerial costs the following assumptions were made: Only businesses with WMSD hazard jobs had significant ergonomics programs, small businesses would have one person involved in managing an ergonomics program, while large businesses were assumed to have three people involved. Managerial responsibilities were assumed to take up 10% of the manager's ergonomics program time in small businesses and 20% in large businesses. The managerial and administrative costs were annualized over three years at 5%. Total managerial and administrative costs were estimated to be $3.20 million for all small businesses and $2.16 million for all large businesses. Overall annual costs per employee were $3.06 for small employers and $1.37 for large employers. Table 11 summarizes the estimated managerial costs.

Table 11: Management and Administrative Costs

		Management and Administrative Costs			Management and Administrative Costs: Cost per employee, Cost per establishment
SIC	INDUSTRY TITLE	Small	Large	Total	Small	Large	Total
0	Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing	$224,442	$22,607	$247,049	$3.65 $21.11	$0.67 $89.36	$2.59 $22.69
1	Mining and Construction	$1,020,172	$226,900	$1,247,072	$10.28 $56.70	$5.77 $597.11	$9.00 $67.88
2	Manufacturing, nondurables	$54,085	$142,598	$196,683	$1.42 $13.34	$1.46 $242.51	$1.45 $42.36
3	Manufacturing, durables	$68,255	$343,144	$411,399	$1.94 $20.25	$1.61 $610.58	$1.66 $104.63
4	Transportation and public utilities	$98,125	$184,300	$282,425	$1.94 $15.14	$1.30 $326.77	$1.47 $40.08
5	Wholesale and retail trade	$428,962	$654,055	$1,083,017	$1.25 $10.34	$2.41 $282.65	$1.76 $24.73
6	Finance, insurance and real estate	$242,031	$88,326	$330,357	$3.21 $17.75	$1.47 $208.32	$2.44 $23.50
7	General services	$247,633	$297,998	$545,631	$1.87 $12.01	$1.91 $328.19	$1.89 $25.35
8	Professional services	$790,287	$194,394	$984,681	$4.06 $15.97	$0.45 $120.82	$1.57 $19.27
9	Public administration	$23,535	$4,318	$27,853	$1.54 $16.08	$0.03 $10.66	$0.19 $14.90
SUM		$3,197,527	$2,158,640	$5,356,167	$3.06 $18.89	$1.37 $269.59	$2.04 $30.22
	Small firms: 3.8% ergo time, 1 person per firm, 10% mngmt time	Annualized 5%, 3 yrs
	Large firms: 6.6% ergo time, 3 people per firm, 20% mngmt time

J. Total Estimated Costs and Per Employee Costs: Total costs for the proposed rule were estimated by combining the nine cost subcomponents presented above. The estimated total annualized cost for small business is $32.9 million while for large businesses the total annualized cost is $44.2 million: Total annualized cost for the proposal is $77.1 million. For reasons given above these total cost numbers should be considered conservative estimates and probably overstate the true cost of the proposed rule. Detailed results are presented in Table 12. The RFA stipulates that one method for determining if a rule has a disproportionate impact on small business is to compare costs with large business on a per employee basis. Table 12 reveals that the average cost per employee are $31.47 for all small businesses and $28.03 for all large businesses. Average annual compliance cost per establishment range from $80 for small establishments in SIC category 8 (Professional Services) to $16,413 for large establishments in SIC category 3 (Manufacturing: Durables). The information presented in Table 12 indicates that the anticipated overall compliance costs for the ergonomics rule are about 12% higher for small businesses relative to large businesses. The department has determined that this difference is not enough to be indicative of a disproportionate impact on small businesses. However, for SIC 0, SIC 8 and some industrial groupings within SIC 1 and SIC 5, the department anticipates that per employee costs may be significantly higher for small businesses. Anticipating this possibility the department plans to take several steps to mitigate the impact of the rule on small businesses.

Table 12: Total Estimated Costs and Cost per Employee

		Total Estimated Washington State Ergonomics Rule Cost			Total Estimated Rule Cost per Employee, Cost per establishment
SIC	INDUSTRY TITLE	Small	Large	Total	Small	Large	Total
0	Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing	$3,782,287	$898,782	$4,681,069	$61.50 $356	$26.63 $3,552	$49.15 $430
1	Mining and Construction	$10,893,303	$5,605,718	$16,499,021	$109.80 $607	$142.56 $14,949	$119.10 $899
2	Manufacturing, nondurables	$1,000,314	$3,761,103	$4,761,416	$26.28 $247	$38.51 $6,407	$35.08 $1,028
3	Manufacturing, durables	$1,013,068	$9,207,667	$10,220,735	$28.74 $301	$43.24 $16,413	$41.18 $2,585
4	Transportation and public utilities	$1,805,716	$5,957,881	$7,763,597	$35.78 $311	$41.99 $13,634	$40.36 $1,243
5	Wholesale and retail trade	$6,921,102	$8,167,210	$15,088,312	$20.10 $167	$30.14 $3,563	$24.52 $345
6	Finance, insurance and real estate	$1,265,154	$1,353,776	$2,618,929	$16.78 $94	$22.46 $3,286	$19.31 $188
7	General services	$2,143,929	$3,398,294	$5,542,223	$16.19 $104	$21.79 $3,810	$19.22 $259
8	Professional services	$3,919,762	$5,696,970	$9,616,732	$20.14 $80	$13.14 $4,971	$15.31 $193
9	Public administration	$187,629	$106,707	$294,336	$12.27 $125	$0.83 $271	$2.04 $155
SUM	Total Cost & Cost per Employee	$32,932,263	$44,154,107	$77,086,370	$31.47	$28.03	$29.40
	Cost per establishment				$197	$6,008	$441
	Annualized costs in 1999 dollars

K. Overall Impact of the Ergonomics Rule: One method for assessing the overall impact of a rule is to present the anticipated costs as a percent of gross business income (GBI). The GBI data were obtained from the Washington State Department of Revenue. Results of these comparisons are shown in Table 13 below. The estimated cost, as a percent of GBI, is 0.045% for all small businesses and 0.017% for all large businesses. The relatively higher fraction for small businesses is primarily a consequence of large businesses having significantly higher GBI (sales) per employee. The one digit SIC category that will experience the greatest impact is SIC 0 (Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing) at 0.141% for small businesses and at 0.065% for large businesses. The department anticipates the proposed rule will have only negligible impact on business sales or prices for goods and services.

Table 13: Costs as Percent of Gross Business Income

SIC	INDUSTRY	Small Business		Large Business		All Businesses
		Total cost	% of sales	Total cost	% of sales	Total cost	% of sales
0	AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY	$3,782,287	0.141%	$898,782	0.065%	$4,681,069	0.115%
1	MINING AND CONSTRUCTION	$10,893,303	0.098%	$5,605,718	0.045%	$16,499,021	0.070%
2	MANUFACTURING: NONDURABLE	$1,000,314	0.031%	$3,761,103	0.011%	$4,761,416	0.013%
3	MANUFACTURING: DURABLE	$1,013,068	0.029%	$9,207,667	0.017%	$10,220,735	0.017%
4	TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITY	$1,805,716	0.073%	$5,957,881	0.056%	$7,763,597	0.059%
5	WHOLESALE TRADE	$6,921,102	0.025%	$8,167,210	0.009%	$15,088,312	0.012%
6	RETAIL TRADE	$1,265,154	0.029%	$1,353,776	0.008%	$2,618,929	0.013%
7	GENERAL SERVICES	$2,143,929	0.027%	$3,398,294	0.021%	$5,542,223	0.023%
8	PROFESSIONAL SERVICES	$3,919,762	0.038%	$5,696,970	0.035%	$9,616,732	0.036%
9	PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION	$187,629	*	$106,707	*	$294,336	*
SUM		$32,932,263	0.0447%	$44,154,107	0.0170%	$77,086,370	0.0232%

*No sales data or profits reported for SIC 9

CONCLUSION: The proposed ergonomics rule requires employers with "caution zone jobs" to analyze their jobs to determine if WMSD hazards exist and to reduce the hazards for employees who are exposed. Employers are also required to provide basic awareness education on WMSD risk factors, the signs and symptoms of WMSDs and the elements of the ergonomics rule, for those in "caution zone jobs."

Using a combination of information from the SHARP and L&I employer surveys, OSHA and various labor market sources, the Department of Labor and Industries has determined that the ergonomics rule will not impose a disproportionate impact on small employers. The department has found that the per employee compliance costs on average are approximately 12% higher for small employers relative to large employers and does not consider the difference large enough to be indicative of disproportionate impact. Identification and analysis, training and awareness education all pose relatively small costs. The largest cost component of the rule is due to the engineering and administrative measures that are required to reduce exposure for workers in WMSD hazard jobs (Level 3 populations). A higher proportion of small employers than large employers will not have any WMSD hazard jobs and therefore will not bear any costs for engineering and administrative control measures.

This analysis did not take into account any of the potential benefits of the ergonomics rule. Each WMSD claim costs the state fund an average of $5,462, and represents higher premium costs for employers, as well as lost income and pain and suffering for Washington workers and their families. The department believes that many of these injuries can be prevented through proper ergonomics awareness education, job training and job design. A cost-benefit analysis will follow this report and will compare the costs of compliance to the anticipated benefits of the ergonomics rule.

Despite little evidence that the ergonomics rule will pose a disproportionate burden on small employers, the department recognizes that small businesses face inherent disadvantages which might not be fully addressed in this analysis. Therefore, the department concludes that a prudent approach to the rule is to make special allowances for small business. Mitigation of compliance costs for small business is planned in several ways. First, as discussed earlier in this report, there will be a phase-in period, which includes delayed enforcement for small businesses. The department intends to undertake substantial efforts to provide assistance for small businesses in preparing for the rule during this phase-in period. Second, employers will have options under the rule which allow an employer to follow specific criteria for identifying and reducing hazards, or to develop and use their own criteria which may be tailored to meet the employers' needs. Finally, the department's method of assessing penalties for violations of rules allows a very substantial penalty reduction for small employers.

Other Mandates of the Regulatory Fairness Act

The Department's Effort to Involve Businesses When Developing the Proposed Rule: Nine rule development conferences were held in seven cities throughout the state with feedback being received from more than 500 conference participants. In addition an advisory committee was formed to seek guidance from outside of the department on the content of the rule. The committee conducted seven all day meetings and consisted of thirty members representing large and small business, labor and safety and health professionals. A second advisory committee was created as a subcommittee of Construction Advisory Committee and focused on how the rule would address WMSDs in the construction committee. Following the committee meetings a "toolbox" committee was formed to assist L&I and the employer community in creating resources and guidance materials for reducing WMSD hazards. Finally, the department has continued to add material to its' ergonomics website.

What industries must comply with this rule proposal? The proposed rule will apply to all types and sizes of industries in the state of Washington.

REFERENCES

Andreoni, D. (1986) The Cost of Occupational Accidents and Disease. Occupational Safety and Health Series 54. Geneva, International Labour Office.

Bernard, B.P. (1997). Musculoskeletal Disorders and Workplace Factors, A Critical Review of Epidemiologic Evidence for Work-related Musculoskeletal Disorders of the Neck, Upper Extremity and Low Back. CDC/DHHS (NIOSH) Publ: 97-141.

Facilitating Regulatory Fairness: A Resource Guide to Implementation for Rule Writers (1993). Department of Trade and Economic Development. Washington State Business Assistance Center.

Foley, Michael and Barbara Silverstein (1999). Musculoskeletal Disorders, Risk Factors and Prevention Steps: A Survey of Employers in Washington State. SHARP Technical Report 53-1-1999. Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Labor and Industries.

Hinze, J. (1991). Indirect Costs of Construction Accidents: A Report to the Construction Industry Institute, University of Texas, Austin.

Leigh, J. Paul, S. Markowitz, M. Fahs, C. Shin and P. Landrigan (1997). Occupational Injury and Illness in the United States: Estimates of Costs, Morbidity and Mortality. Archives of Internal Medicine 157:1557-1568.

Morse, Timothy F. Charles Dillon, Nicholas Warren, Charles Levenstein and Andrew Warren (1998). The Economic and Social Consequences of Work-related Musculoskeletal Disorders: The Connecticut Upper-extremity Surveillance Project (CUSP). International Journal of Occupational Environmental Health 4: 209-216.

National Occupational Exposure Survey (NOES): Analysis of Management Interview Responses (1988). (Question 65: "Turnover Rate Among Non-Administrative Permanent Employees," pp. 658-662). National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Field interviews conducted 1981-1983.

OSHA: Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA) for the Ergonomic Protection Standard. 1995.

Science and Engineering Indicators Survey (1997) Chicago Academy of Science (CAS). Unpublished survey results. Personal communication Jon Miller, CAS.

Silverstein, B. Kalat J. (1999). Non-Traumatic Soft Tissue MSDs, 1990-1997. SHARP Technical Report 40-3-99. Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Labor and Industries.

Silverstein B., Kalat J. (1998). Work related Disorders of the Back and Upper Extremity in Washington state, 1989-1996. SHARP Technical Report 40-1-1997. Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Labor and Industries.

A copy of the statement may be obtained by writing to Greg Nothstein, Economic Analyst, Department of Labor and Industries, P.O. Box 44000, Olympia, WA 98504-4000, phone (360) 902-6805, fax (360) 902-4202.

RCW 34.05.328 applies to this rule adoption. WISHA is proposing to add a new section A-1 to chapter 296-62 WAC. The purpose of the section is to assist employers in reducing employee exposure to workplace hazards that can cause or aggravate work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSD). The rule will require employers to identify and attempt to reduce these WMSD hazards. The proposed new section (A-1 of chapter 296-62 WAC) is a significant legislative rule as defined by RCW 34.05.328 (5)(c)(iii)).

Hearing Location: On January 5, 2000, at 1:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., at the Washington State Convention Center, Rooms 618-620, 8th and Pike, Seattle, Washington; on January 6, 2000, 1:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., at the Howard Johnson Plaza Hotel, Orcas Room, 3105 Pine Street, Everett, WA; on January 10, 2000, at 1:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., at the Tacoma Public Library, Olympic Room, 1102 Tacoma Avenue South, Tacoma, WA; on January 11, 2000, at 1:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., at the Red Lion Hotel at the Quay, Centennial Center, 100 Columbia Street, Vancouver, WA; on January 12, 2000, at 1:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., at Cavanaugh's Inn at the Park, Skyline Room, 303 West North River Drive, Spokane, WA; on January 13, 2000, at 1:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., at Cavanaugh's at Yakima Center, Ball Room, 607 East Yakima Avenue, Yakima, WA; and on January 14, 2000, at 1:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., at the Labor and Industries Building, Room S117-S118, 7273 Linderson Way S.W., Tumwater.

Assistance for Persons with Disabilities: Contact Josh Swanson by December 22, 1999, at (360) 902-5484.

Submit Written Comments to: Jennie Hays, Project Manager, WISHA Services Division, P.O. Box 44620, Olympia, WA 98504-4620, by 5:00 p.m. on February 14, 2000. In addition to written comments, the department will accept comments submitted to fax (360) 902-5529 or by e-mail at ergorule@lni.wa.gov. Comments submitted by fax must be ten pages or less.

Date of Intended Adoption: May 1, 2000.

November 15, 1999

Gary Moore

Director

OTS-3457.6

NEW SECTION
WAC 296-62-051
Ergonomics.

[]

The purpose of this rule is to reduce employee exposure to workplace hazards that can cause or aggravate work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs). In workplaces where these hazards exist, employers must reduce them. Doing so will prevent WMSDs such as tendinitis, carpal tunnel syndrome and low back disorders. The rule is not designed to prevent injuries from slips, trips, falls, motor vehicle accidents or being struck by or caught in objects.

This rule contains three parts.

•	Part 1, WAC 296-62-05105, provides a quick way for employers to know if they are covered.
•	Part 2 requires covered employers to meet an employee-education requirement and identify WMSD hazards. If hazards exist, the employer must reduce them.
•	Part 3 shows covered employers when they must comply with this rule. An employer's type of business and number of employees determine how much time is permitted for compliance (3 to 6 years for fixing WMSD hazards).

The rule does not include any requirements for the medical management of WMSDs or change any requirements for handling industrial insurance claims. An employer will not be in violation of this rule solely because an employee develops a WMSD or related symptom.

The department will work with a group of demonstration employers to test and improve guidelines, best practices, and inspection policies and procedures as they are developed.

[]

Employers with "caution zone jobs" are covered by this rule. A "caution zone job" is a job or task where an employee's typical work includes any of the physical risk factors listed in WAC 296-62-05105.

[]

"Caution zone"
A "caution zone job" is a job or task where an employee's typical work includes any of the physical risk factors listed below.
• Employers having one or more "caution zone jobs" must comply with Part 2 of this rule. "Caution zone jobs" may not be hazardous, but do require further evaluation.
• This rule does not prohibit "caution zone jobs."
• Employers who have made a reasonable determination that they do not have "caution zone jobs" are not covered by this rule.
Awkward Postures	•	Working with the hand(s) above the head, or the elbow(s) above the shoulder, for more than 2 hours total per workday
	•	Working with the neck, back or wrist(s) bent more than 30 degrees for more than 2 hours total per workday
	•	Squatting for a total of 2 hours per workday or kneeling for a total of 2 hours per workday
High Hand Force	•	Pinching an object weighing more than 2 pounds per hand for more than 2 hours total per workday
	•	Gripping an object weighing more than 6 pounds per hand for more than 2 hours total per workday
Highly Repetitive Motion	•	Repeating the same motion with the neck, shoulders, elbows, wrists, or hands (except for keying) with little or no variation every few seconds for more than 2 hours total per workday
	•	Performing intensive keying for more than 4 hours total per workday
Repeated Impact	•	Using the hand or knee as a hammer more than 10 times per hour for more than 2 hours total per workday
Heavy, Frequent or Awkward Lifting	•	Lifting objects weighing more than 75 pounds once per workday or 55 or more pounds more than 10 times per workday
	•	Lifting objects weighing more than 10 pounds if done more than twice per minute for more than 2 hours total per workday
	•	Lifting objects weighing more than 25 pounds above the shoulders, below the knees or at arms length more than 25 times per workday
Moderate to High Vibration	•	Using impact wrenches, carpet strippers, chain saws, percussive tools (jack hammers, scalers, riveting or chipping hammers) or other hand tools that typically have high vibration levels for more than 30 minutes total per workday
	•	Using grinders, sanders, jig saws or other hand tools that typically have moderate vibration levels for more than 2 hours total per workday
		(Employers may assume that hand tools vibrating less than 2.5 meters per second squared (m/s2) eight-hour equivalent are not covered.)

[]

Employers may continue to use effective alternative methods established before this rule's adoption date. If used, the employer must be able to demonstrate that the alternative methods, taken as a whole, are as effective as the requirements of this rule in reducing the WMSD hazards of each job and providing for employee education, training and participation.

[]

(1) Employers must ensure that all employees working in or supervising "caution zone jobs" receive ergonomics awareness education at least once every three years. The employer may provide ergonomics awareness education or may rely on education provided by another employer or organization.

(2) When employees are assigned to work in or supervise "caution zone jobs," they must receive ergonomics awareness education within 30 calendars days, unless they have received it in the past three years. This requirement applies when the initial "awareness education" deadline in the implementation schedule (WAC 296-62-05160) has passed.

[]

Ergonomics awareness education must include:

(1) Information on work-related causes of musculoskeletal disorders, including physical risk factors present in the type of job to which the employee is assigned (nonwork factors may be included as well);

(2) The types, symptoms and consequences of WMSDs and the importance of early reporting;

(3) Information on identifying WMSD hazards and common measures to reduce them; and

(4) The requirements of this ergonomics rule.

[]

All covered employers must determine whether "caution zone jobs" have WMSD hazards and must reduce the WMSD hazards identified. Employers may choose either the general performance approach or the specific performance approach as follows:

WAC 296-62-05130 - Analyzing and reducing WMSD hazards:				WAC 296-62-05130 - Analyzing and reducing WMSD hazards:
General Performance Approach				Specific Performance Approach
1.	The employer must analyze "caution zone jobs" to identify those with WMSD hazards that must be reduced. A WMSD hazard is a physical risk factor that by itself or in combination with other physical risk factors has a sufficient level of intensity, duration or frequency to cause a substantial risk of WMSDs. The employer must choose criteria for this analysis that are as effective as widely accepted nationally recognized criteria such as the Liberty Mutual Manual Handling Tables, the Job Strain Index, the Department of Energy ErgoEaser, the ANSI S3.34-1986 (R1997) Hand Arm Vibration Standards, the 1991 NIOSH Lifting Equation, or the UAW-GM Risk Factor Checklists.			1.	The employer must analyze "caution zone jobs" to identify those with WMSD hazards that must be reduced. A WMSD hazard is a physical risk factor that exceeds the criteria in Appendix B of this rule.
2.	The employer must analyze "caution zone jobs" using a systematic method that includes the following, if applicable:			2.	Same as General Performance Approach.
	a.	Physical demands specific to the worksite including posture, force, repetition, repeated impacts, vibration, duration, work pace, task variability and recovery cycles;
	b.	Layout of the work area, including reaches, working heights, seating and surfaces; and
	c.	Manual handling requirements, including size, shape, weight, and packaging.
3.	Individuals responsible for hazard analysis must know how to use the analysis method effectively and be informed about the requirements of this rule.			3.	Individuals responsible for hazard analysis must know how to use the analysis provided in Appendix B effectively and be informed about the requirements of this rule.
4.	The employer must reduce all WMSD hazards below the criteria chosen in WAC 296-62-05130(1) or to the degree feasible.			4.	The employer must reduce all WMSD hazards below the criteria in Appendix B of this rule or to the degree feasible.
5.	Measures used by employers to reduce WMSD hazards must take into account the causes of the hazards and must be implemented in the following order of preference:			5.	Same as General Performance Approach.
	a.	Engineering or administrative measures to reduce WMSD hazards. Examples include:
		•	changes to workstations and tools
		•	reducing the size and weights of loads handled
		•	process redesign to eliminate unnecessary steps or introduce task variety
		•	job rotation
		•	work schedule modification
	b.	Measures that primarily rely on individual work practices or personal protective equipment to reduce WMSD hazards. Examples include:
		•	kneepads
		•	impact gloves
		•	team lifting
		•	training on work techniques
6.	If measures to reduce WMSD hazards include changes in the job or work practices then job-specific training must be provided. This job-specific training must include:			6.	Same as General Performance Approach.
	a.	The hazards of the job or task;
	b.	Safe work practices; and
	c.	The proper use and maintenance of specific measures to reduce WMSD hazards that have been implemented.
7.	No written ergonomics program is required. The employer must be able to demonstrate the following:			7.	No written ergonomics program is required. The employer must be able to demonstrate that all WMSD hazards have been reduced below the criteria identified in Appendix B of this rule or to the degree feasible.
	a.	The method used to analyze "caution zone jobs";
	b.	The criteria used to identify WMSD hazards;
	c.	The jobs with identified WMSD hazards; and
	d.	The reduction of all WMSD hazards below the criteria chosen in WAC 296-62-05130(1) or to the degree feasible.

[]

(1) The employer must provide for and encourage employee participation in analyzing "caution zone jobs" and selecting measures to reduce WMSD hazards. Employers with eleven or more employees who are required to have safety committees (WAC 296-24-045), must involve this committee in choosing the methods to be used for employee participation.

(2) Employers with eleven or more employees must share the following information with the safety committee (if a committee is required by WAC 296-24-045). Employers who are not required to have a safety committee (WAC 296-24-045) must provide this information at safety meetings:

(a) The requirements of this rule;

(b) Identified "caution zone jobs";

(c) Results of the hazard analysis and/or identification of jobs with WMSD hazards; and

(d) Measures to reduce WMSD hazards.

(3) The employer must review its ergonomics activities at least annually for effectiveness and for any needed improvements. This review must include members of the safety committee where one exists or ensure an equally effective means of employee involvement.

[]

Note: Check L&I's WISHA Services website at http://www.lni.wa.gov/wisha/ergo for current links to any of the websites referred to in this section.

ANSI S3.34-1986 (R1997) Hand Arm Vibration Standards - American National Standard Guide for the Measurement and Evaluation of Human Exposure to Vibration Transmitted to the Hand. ANSI S3.34-1986 (R1997). Available for purchase at the ANSI web site http://web.ansi.org/default.htm.

"Caution zone jobs" - Jobs or tasks in which the employee's typical work includes physical risk factors identified in WAC 296-62-05105. These jobs have a sufficient degree of risk to require ergonomics awareness education and job hazard analysis.

Department of Energy ErgoEaser - Ergonomics Education, Awareness, System Evaluation and Recording (ErgoEaser) software package. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environment, Safety, and Health (1995). Can be downloaded from the Department of Energy website at http://tis.eh.doe.gov/others/ergoeaser/download.htm.

Ergonomics - The science and practice of designing jobs or workplaces to match the capabilities and limitations of the human body.

Intensive Keying - Keying with the hands or fingers in a rapid, steady motion with few opportunities for temporary work pauses.

Job Strain Index - The Strain Index: A proposed method to analyze jobs for risk of distal upper extremity disorders, Moore, J.S., and A. Garg, (1995). Published in American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, Vol. 56, pgs. 443-458. Website http://sg-www.satx.disa.mil/hscoemo/tools/strain.htm.

Liberty Mutual Manual Handling Tables - The design of manual handling tasks: Revised tables of maximum acceptable weights and forces, Snook, S., Ciriello, V., (1991). Published in Ergonomics, Vol. 34, No. 9, pgs. 1197-1213.

NIOSH Lifting Equation, 1991 - Applications Manual for Revised Lifting Equation, Waters, T., Putz-Anderson, V., Garg, A., (1994). Available from the National Technical Information Center (NTIS), Springfield, VA 22161. 1-800-553-6847. Calculator website: http://www.industrialhygiene.com/calc/lift.html. Application guideline website: http//www.cdc.gov/niosh/94-110.html.

Recovery Cycles - Work periods with light task demands, or rest breaks, that permit an employee to recover from physically demanding work.

Typical Work - Work that is a regular or foreseeable part of the job.

UAW-GM Risk Factor Checklists - UAW-GM Risk Factor Checklist 2, 1998. UAW-GM Health and Safety Center, 1030 Doris Road, Auburn Hills, Michigan.

Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders (WMSDs) - Occupational disorders that involve soft tissues such as muscles, tendons, ligaments, joints, blood vessels and nerves. Examples include: Muscle strains and tears, ligament sprains, joint and tendon inflammation, pinched nerves, degeneration of spinal discs, carpal tunnel syndrome, tendinitis, rotator cuff syndrome. For purposes of this rule WMSDs do not include injuries from slips, trips, falls, motor vehicle accidents or being struck by or caught in objects.

[]

Employers covered by this rule must comply with its requirements by the dates shown.

INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

1.	Developing Ergonomics Guides and Models
	The department will work with employer and employee organizations to develop guides for complying with this rule (for example, a model program for ergonomics awareness education). Employer use of these guides will be optional.
2.	Identifying Industry Best Practices
	The department will work with employer and employee organizations to develop or identify methods of reducing WMSD hazards that will serve as examples of industry-specific best practices. As industry-specific best practices are developed, they may be used to demonstrate employer compliance with the requirement to reduce WMSD hazards. Employers will not be restricted to the use of industry best practices for compliance.
3.	Establishing Inspection Policies and Procedures
	The department will develop policies and procedures for inspections and enforcement of this rule prior to the first effective date. These policies and procedures will be communicated to employers and employees through mailing lists, business associations, labor unions and other methods before the department issues any citations or penalties.
4.	Testing Guidelines with Demonstration Employers
	Following adoption of this rule, the department intends to identify employers who agree to serve as Demonstration Employers. The department will work with these employers to test and improve guidelines, best practices and inspection policies and procedures as they are developed.
5.	Providing Information on Ergonomics
	The department will work with employer and employee organizations to collect and share the most effective examples of ergonomic training, job analysis, and specific solutions to problems. The department will make special efforts to share this information with the small business community.

[]

[]

The following illustrations are provided as reference only. Some users of this rule may find the pictures aid their understanding of the text in WAC 296-62-05105.

Place illustration here.

Place illustration here.

Place illustration here.

[]

For each "caution zone job" find any physical risk factors that apply. Reading across the page, determine if all of the conditions are present in the job. If they are, a WMSD hazard exists and must be reduced (see WAC 296-62-05130(4), specific performance approach).

For each "caution zone job" find any physical risk factors that apply. Reading across the page, determine if all of the conditions are present in the job. If they are, a WMSD hazard exists and must be reduced (see WAC 296-62-05130(4), specific performance approach).

Place illustration here.

Place illustration here.

Place illustration here.

Place illustration here.

Place illustration here.

Place illustration here.

Place illustration here.

[]

The descriptive titles for the SIC codes listed in the implementation schedule (WAC 296-62-05160) are provided below. SIC codes are established by the federal Office of Management and Budget and are listed in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1987 edition.

SIC*	INDUSTRY	EXAMPLES
152	General Building Contractors, Residential Buildings	• •	general contractors--single-family houses general contractors--residential buildings other than single-family
174	Masonry, Stonework, Tile Setting & Plastering	• • •	masonry, stone setting, and other stone work plastering, drywall, acoustical, and insulation work terrazzo, tile, marble, and mosaic work
175	Carpentry and Floor Work	• •	carpentry work floor laying and other floor work (NEC**)
176	Roofing, Siding and Sheet Metal	•	installation of roofing, siding, and sheet metal work
177	Concrete Work	•	includes portland cement and asphalt
242	Sawmills & Planing Mills	• • •	sawmills and planing mills hardwood dimension and flooring mills special products sawmills (NEC**)
411	Local & Suburban Transportation	• •	local and suburban transit local passenger transportation (NEC**)
421	Trucking & Courier Service, not Air	• • •	trucking local trucking with or without storage courier services (except by air)
451	Air Transportation, Scheduled and Air Courier	• •	scheduled air transportation air courier services Note: WISHA jurisdiction excludes planes in flight.
541	Grocery Stores	• • •	supermarkets food stores grocery stores
734	Services to Dwellings & Other Buildings	• •	disinfecting and pest control services building cleaning and maintenance services (NEC**)
805	Nursing & Personal Care	• • •	skilled nursing care facilities intermediate care facilities nursing and personal care facilities (NEC**)

*SIC or NAICS equivalent. In 2000, federal agencies that produce statistical data will adopt NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) codes and begin to phase out the SIC codes. State and local government agencies also will use this new coding structure to promote a common language for categorizing today's industries.

**NEC - not elsewhere classified.

[]

© Washington State Code Reviser's Office