Safety regulations and the employment of people with disabilities in automated manufacturing environments.

The disappointing level of unemployment among people with disabilities is a well known fact among vocational rehabilitation (VR) professionals. The National Health Interview Survey conducted from 1994 to 1995 revealed that 63% of people with disabilities were unemployed. When asked why, over half of the respondents stated that there were no appropriate jobs available (Loprest & Maag, 2001). One thing that has helped to spur the employment of people with disabilities is the use of computer based technology in the workplace (Anon, 1990; Lazzaro, 1986; Warren, 1984; Whitehouse, 1994). Today there are scores of assistive technology (AT) devices to help accommodate a variety of functional limitations related to computer access. As more and more companies find themselves with a computer on every desk, opportunities for employment of people with disabilities begin to increase.

Recent decades have witnessed a similar trend toward the use of computer-based equipment in manufacturing. Automated manufacturing technology (AMT), such as computer numeric controlled (CNC) machine systems, use computer-generated parameters to control the motion of tools in machining or assembly processes (Spear, 2001; Sun, 2000). Many AMT machines, such as the MasterCAM[R] compatible systems by CNC Software, Inc. (l) operate using a standard Windows[R] PC-based operating system (MacDonald, 2004).

This move towards automation allows more opportunities for people with disabilities to seek employment in manufacturing because of the potential for reducing the physical requirements of machining and assembly operations. People employed in the manufacturing field are now required to have a different set of skills than they once were; technical and computer skills are becoming more important (Barnet, 1993). Furthermore, the National Association of Manufacturers is predicting a manufacturing labor shortage of as many as 10 million skilled workers by the year 2010, due to the aging population coupled with limited success in demonstrating the benefits of a manufacturing vocation to the next generation of workers (Eisen, 2003).

Even though computer based technologies used with AMT may be similar in nature to those used in office environments, the tasks performed by the equipment operators and the environments in which they work are very different from the office environment. The potential for injury among production workers is significantly higher than the potential for injury among office or clerical workers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported that in 2003 the incidence rate (2) for non-fatal injuries and illnesses was more than five times greater for manufacturing employees (6.8) than for employees of professional, scientific, and technical services (1.3) (USDoL-Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2004b). The total number of fatalities for manufacturing employees (420) was more than four times that of employees of professional, scientific, and technical services (97) (USDoL-Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2004a).

Risks in manufacturing environments exist in spite of the federal government's efforts to make workplaces safer through the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) of 1970. This act states that it is the responsibility of the employer to ensure a safe working environment for their employees. Gaining employment in a manufacturing environment therefore, provides challenges to people with disabilities over and above just having the ability to operate the necessary equipment or perform the necessary production tasks. The worker must be able to perform his or her job while protecting the safety of co-workers, as well as their own safety.

Furthermore, studies have shown that there is potential for discrimination against applicants with disabilities due to barriers in the employer's selection processes and due to negative stereotypes and myths about the abilities of people with functional limitations (Stone & Williams, 1997). Building on these findings, Harcourt et al., discovered that facilities with higher worker's compensation insurance rates tended to be more likely to discriminate against applicants with disabilities in their selection process (Harcourt, Lam, & Harcourt, 2005).

Because safety is such a significant aspect of employment in a manufacturing environment, VR professionals must be prepared to address the safety concerns of prospective manufacturing employers. Therefore, the goal of this paper is to consider the federal safety regulations from the perspective of employing people with disabilities in manufacturing. The paper will describe the regulatory organization established by the OSH Act and will also describe resources available to help all parties comply with stated regulations and standards. The discussion section will highlight the potential impact of these safety regulations on employment of people with disabilities in manufacturing and will provide suggested actions to be taken by the VR professional or the consumer to improve employment potential.

Methodology

Information for this paper has been drawn largely from literature and resources made available through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Much of the content is available on line at www.osha.gov. Additional information has been gathered from conversations with knowledgeable OSHA employees and staff members working in support of OSHA's free consultation services. Industry based literature, relating to employment of people with disabilities and the use of AMT was located through online searches of databases such as Compendex, EBSCO, and Lexis Nexus using keywords relating to manufacturing, disability, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and OSHA. Searches for court cases cross referencing OSHA and ADA were limited to U.S. Supreme Court cases.

Results

A comprehensive review of all OSHA standards and regulations is beyond the scope of a single article. Therefore, this paper only provides an overview with respect to four distinct aspects of federally enforced safety regulations: the origin and structure of OSHA; enforcement procedures and penalties; recognized standards; and OSHA training, outreach, and education resources.

Origin and Structure of OSHA

In the late 1960's, work-related deaths and injuries were on a rise (Fleming, 2001). In order to help protect America's work force, the OSH Act was signed into legislation in 1970. Section 5(a)(1) of this act explains that it is the employer's responsibility to provide an environment that is "free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees" ("OSH Act", 1970). The OSH Act established three agencies that work to meet its stated goals: the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC). In brief, OSHA sets and enforces the safety and health standards, NIOSH conducts research on safety and health issues in the workplace, and the OSHRC oversees appeals made by employers against enforcement actions (Fleming, 2001).

In an effort to maximize resources, the OSH Act also encourages states to establish their own job safety and health programs, which OSHA then monitors. Currently 22 states and territories have complete state-based job safety and health programs. Four additional states have established programs to cover public employees only. Because each of these programs must establish standards that are "at least as effective" as the federally recognized standards, this paper will focus largely on regulatory issues enforced by OSHA.

OSHA's mission is to assure safe working conditions for working men and women by; setting and enforcing standards; providing training, outreach, and education; establishing partnerships; and encouraging continual improvement in workplace safety and health ("OSH Act", 1970). This paper is concerned primarily with OSHA's role in setting and enforcing standards and in providing training, outreach, and education. An awareness of the relevant standards and enforcement procedures is necessary for the VR professional to understand the regulatory impact on the potential manufacturing employer. Knowledge of available educational resources will also help the VR professional be more prepared to help his or her client wishing to pursue employment in manufacturing. Issues of partnership with OSHA and continual improvement in workplace safety and health deal more with the employer or facility as a whole, rather than the individual employee.

Overview of OSHA Enforcement Procedures and Penalties

OSHA requires employers to log records of workplace fatalities, injuries, and illnesses and to report directly to OSHA any accidents resulting in death of one or more employees or hospitalization of three or more employees. The OSHA illness and injury logs must be kept by the employer for five years and be available for inspection by representatives of OSHA, Health and Human Services (HHS), or the BLS upon request. Some work establishments, such as financial institutions and data processing services, as well as facilities with less than 10 employees, are classified as "partially exempt," which means that they are not required to maintain injury and illness records unless selected to participate in OSHA's Data Initiative. The Data Initiative helps OSHA identify areas of greatest need. If the incident rate for a company exceeds a specified level, it is more likely to be inspected ("Determination of Work-relatedness", 2001).

OSHA enforces compliance with identified standards by inspecting worksites. During the inspection, the Compliance Safety and Health Officer (CSHO) will document any hazards observed in the workplace and issue citations accordingly (USDoL-OSHA, 1994). The citation will inform the employer of the standards with which he or she is not complying, the amount of time the employer has in which to correct the noncompliance, and the proposed penalties associated with the citation. Because OSHA does not have the resources to inspect every worksite, inspections are conducted based on the following priorities:

Threat of imminent danger: The threat of imminent danger is defined in Section 13(a) of the OSH Act as, "... any conditions or practices in any place of employment which are such that a danger exists which could reasonably be expected to cause death or serious physical harm immediately or before the imminence of such danger can be eliminated through the enforcement procedures otherwise provided by this Act."

Response to fatal accidents or catastrophes: "Fatal accidents," as the name implies, indicates that there has been an accident resulting in death of one or more employees. A catastrophe is defined as three or more employees being hospitalized as a result of a work-related incident.

Responses to a complaint or referral: Complaints and referrals can originate from virtually any person wishing to report an alleged hazard. If a complaint is received, which meets certain conditions related to lower-priority hazards, the CSHO may elect to conduct an off-site investigation (also known as a phone/fax investigation). In this case the CSHO will telephone the employer and follow up with a fax or letter, explaining about the alleged hazards. In order to avoid an on-site inspection, the employer must respond within five days, to the satisfaction of the CSHO and the complainant, regarding any problems and noting any corrective actions taken or planned (USDoL-OSHA, 1994).

Programmed inspection of a worksite: Programmed inspections are based on objective or neutral selection criteria, according to national scheduling plans or special emphasis programs. Programmed inspections occur on the basis of data collected by the BLS through industry logs of recorded injuries and illnesses.

Follow-up/Monitoring inspections: Follow-up/Monitoring inspections are conducted to ensure that previously cited violations have been corrected or, as in cases where a long period of time is needed for the facility to come into compliance, conditions are in the process of being corrected.

After receiving a citation, the employer has an opportunity to contest the inspection results with the OSHA Area Director. Following any formal or informal conferences with the employer, the final penalty amount is decided by the OSHA Area Director in a final report, issued no more than six months after the inspection. Types of violations, in order of severity are listed in Table 1 together with the maximum allowable fine for that offense.

Because the investigations must be conducted by individual representatives in potentially adverse conditions, there are also penalties that may be applied to individuals who attempt to interfere with the CSHO's investigation. These violations are shown in Table 2.

Overview of OSHA Standards

Now that the enforcement process and potential penalties have been outlined, the question remains, "what must an employer do to avoid such action?" As mentioned above, OSHA sets and enforces the minimum safety and health standards by which U.S. industry must comply. It would not be possible within the scope of this one document to describe all of the standards OSHA regulates among the various industries. Instead, this paper will describe the source of OSHA standards as well as categories defining different types of standards.

OSHA uses a mixture of federal mandates, standards that were in place prior to its formation, and current consensus standards to regulate safety and health hazards. Standards from organizations such as the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and other industry associations are referred to as voluntary standards unless referenced directly in the OSH Act or related legislation.

OSHA standards are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 29. In addition to the Occupational Safety and Health Standards for General Industry (CFR29-1910), OSHA has also established separate standards for Construction (CFR29-1926) and Maritime (CFR29-1915, - 1917, &- 1918) industry operations. OSHA standards may be categorized as either horizontal (applicable to all types of industry) or vertical (applied to a certain type of industry) (USDoL-OSHA, 1994). OSHA standards may also be described as performance or specification standards. Specification standards provide the exact procedure or measurement to be applied in a certain circumstance, whereas performance standards allow the employer to choose the method of protection for his or her employees as long as it meets the performance requirements of the standard. To get a flavor for the different descriptors used in specification or performance standards for horizontal or vertical categories respectively, Table 3 shows examples of the various types of standards.

When no standards are in place specifically explaining a safety procedure, employers must still comply with the General Duty Clause (GDC) found in Section 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act, which states that the employer must, "... furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees." The GDC is used to cite recognized hazards when there is no specific standard with which the employer is not complying. Under the GDC, recognized hazards can be identified in three ways:

1. The employer's industry recognizes it as a hazard (e.g. through voluntary standards not otherwise referenced in OSHA regulations),

2. The employer recognizes it as a hazard, or

3. Any reasonable person would recognize it as a hazard (USDoL-OSHA, 1994). According to OSHA's Field Inspection Reference Manual (FIRM). (This third condition is also termed "Common Sense Recognition.")

For employer recognition to be cited as a reason for violating a recognized hazard there must be evidence that the employer was aware of the hazard and did nothing to protect his or her employees against it. Common sense recognition of the hazard is only used in flagrant cases where industry recognition or employer recognition cannot be established (USDoL-OSHA, 1994).

Sometimes the employer must seek clarification for, or exclusion from, a particular regulation via letters of interpretation or requests for variance, respectively. Letters of interpretation explain how OSHA standards need to be applied to the workplace.

These letters are generated in response to specific questions raised by employers, employees, or others affected by the regulations. They do nothing to expand or alter OSHA policy, but communicate how the current regulations should be interpreted (Swanson, 2002).

A variance is basically an exception to a standard for a specific situation; it cannot be applied uniformly across all workplace settings, people, or even across similar machines. A variance can be either:

1. Temporary: until the necessary resources are available for the employer to meet the required standard or regulation,

2. Permanent: if the employer can prove that their work environment is as safe and healthful as they would be if the employer complied with the existing standard, or

3. Experimental: with approval from either the Secretary of HHS or the Secretary of Labor (US Department of Labor), if the employer is working to develop new job safety and health techniques.

In order to request a variance, the employer must show that the accommodation will be equally as safe or safer than the existing standard. OSHA will review the request considering the employer's evidence and possibly visiting the workplace to confirm the validity of the statements made in the request. If OSHA determines that the request is merited, it can grant the variance. The employer responsibilities and the ways the variance diverges from the OSHA standards will be documented (USDoL-OSHA, 2002). Historically, variances are much less common than letters of interpretation.

Figure 1 gives a good indication of the number of permanent variances still in effect approved each year and the number of letters of interpretation that are answered each year. This confirms that OSHA is very cautious about letting employers operate outside of the normal standards of practice, but also very active in assisting employers to understand the safety and health standards. VR professionals may note that the peak in 1992 occurs in the same year that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) came into effect. However, this increase in letters of interpretation is due largely to a concurrent implementation of an OSHA standard regulating the occupational exposure to blood borne pathogens.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Overview of OSHA Training, Outreach, and Education

This brief overview of the OSHA regulations and enforcement practices demonstrates how seriously the issue of occupational safety and health is regarded by the Federal government and how much effort is required on the part of the employer to maintain and document a safe work environment. OSHA's ultimate goal is to reduce work-related injuries, illnesses, and fatalities to zero. As such, OSHA does not merely enforce the standards but, they also provide a number of educational materials, training events, and partnership programs to help employers and employees to better understand and implement safe working practices. Resources include on-line assistance via the Internet, access to Compliance Assistance Specialists or free OSHA Consultation Services, and communication with OSHA through letters of interpretation as described earlier.

OSHA On-line assistance: OSHA maintains a very useful website at www.osha.gov. The website includes information about the agency itself as well as links to the OSH Act, standards and regulations, the recordkeeping and reporting forms, training materials in print and multimedia formats, compliance assistance materials, FAQ's, OSHA news bulletins, and a number of other resources. Through the E-tools function, visitors gain access to interactive, web-based training modules related to specific recognized hazards and safety techniques. Through the Electronic Compliance Assistance Tools visitors can also subscribe to regular OSHA newsletters and customize the OSHA website to highlight their main topics of interest.

Compliance Assistance (CA) Specialists: CA specialists are located in OSHA area and regional offices and are typically former Compliance Safety and Health Officers. The CA specialists provide general information about OSHA standards and compliance

assistance resources to a variety of local groups. The CA specialists work to promote cooperation with OSHA and are available to speak at seminars or local conferences. These OSHA employees assist local employers in setting up safety and health management systems for their respective workplaces. For more comprehensive assistance, the CA specialist may refer the employer to the OSHA consultation services ("OSHA Compliance Assistance: Compliance Assistance Specialists", 2004).

OSHA Consultation Services: OSHA offers free consultation services to small business employers (3) seeking assistance with safety and health issues at their facility. These services are run by the state governments and have to be requested by the employer. Upon request, OSHA consultants will go to the workplace at no cost to the employer, help the employer identify workplace hazards, and also assist the employer in correcting the existing hazards. The OSHA consultants are not CSHO's and will not cite the employer for any violations uncovered during this time and will not refer violations to OSHA inspectors, provided that the employer corrects any serious hazards identified by the consultant ("Consultation: Free On-Site Safety and Health Services", 2004).

Discussion

OSHA's mission is to assure the safety and health of America's workers, including workers with disabilities. In light of the potential fines described earlier in this paper, it is not surprising that manufacturing employers may be hesitant to employ a person with a severe disability if doing so could lead to unnecessary safety and health violations. Because the OSH Act puts the burden of ensuring a safe working environment on the employer, a potential employee with a disability applying for a job in a potentially hazardous environment, must not only be able to demonstrate to the employer that he or she is capable of fulfilling the essential functions of the job ("Americans with Disabilities Act", 1990), but must also be able to demonstrate to the employer that he or she is able to perform the essential functions safely within the safety and health regulatory framework.

The employer may not be knowledgeable about the abilities of potential employees with disabilities. Even though the employee may be able to demonstrate an ability to operate the necessary equipment, the employer's "common sense" may signal a potential risk. For example, in the U.S. Supreme Court case of EEOC v. Murray, a forklift operator, who had been operating a forklift for over twenty years, was fired following a company-mandated medical screening for all forklift operators. The company's policy stated that workers with certain diagnosed medical conditions, including insulin-dependant diabetes, would be prohibited from operating a forklift. The company held that, "the operation of forklifts in this particular plant by persons with specific medical conditions, such as insulin-dependent diabetes, posed a hazard likely to cause death or serious physical harm to its employees." The company therefore determined that they were obligated, under the GDC to take steps to eliminate the potential hazard. In this case, the court ruled that the GDC could only be used to preclude an individual from a specific type of employment if an elevated risk of a direct threat can be proven for the individual in question, and not merely based on their medical diagnosis ("EEOC v. Murray", 2001).

In this case, the employee had been an insulin-dependant diabetic for nearly the entire time that he was operating the forklift. He was able to control his condition with the use of appropriately applied medication. In the same way, other workers with disabilities may use assistive technology to help compensate for functional limitations without compromising their safety. It is important for the VR professional and the consumer to help make this clear to the prospective employer.

Employment of people with disabilities often requires the presence of an accommodation to the equipment or workspace. Despite the incentives that are currently in place to assist employers in making such accommodations, the presence of OSHA's regulatory requirements may provide disincentives for this practice. For example, before an accommodation can be made, the employer must be sure that the accommodation not only provides for the necessary functional ability, but that it also does not introduce any new hazards into the work environment for new or existing employees. Job Hazard Analyses (4) are used to explore the possible effects of an accommodation. If the accommodation creates new hazards, those must be addressed before any change can occur. The VR professional should be prepared to assist the employer in understanding the functional ability of the prospective employee as well as assistive technology issues related to the Job Hazard analysis.

As stated earlier, OSHA regulations reflect the minimum acceptable standards for safety and health in the workplace. For this reason, OSHA is not in a position to provide employers with much guidance related to the special safety needs of employees with disabilities. For example, in a letter of interpretation asking about requirements to provide accessible exit signs for people with disabilities, OSHA responded,

"Nothing in the OSH Act or its standards prohibit or preclude an employer from adopting the [extra] measures ... described. However, as previously noted, the Agency has no specific standards that would require an employer to adopt these measures. Absent a specific standard, OSHA cannot mandate an employer to take steps that may foster occupational safety and health unless the Agency can demonstrate that such steps are necessary to furnish employment and a place of employment that are free from recognized hazards that are causing, or are likely to cause, death or serious harm to the employer's employees" (Fairfax, 2002).

In other words, OSHA is limited in its ability to mandate specific measures unless a standard of practice can be established and adopted. Therefore, it is important for the VR professional to be aware of the regulatory burden that is placed on the employer of manufacturing facilities if new employment opportunities are to be created for people with disabilities. It is also important for VR professionals to play a role in helping to educate employers about the abilities of prospective employees with disabilities and the effectiveness of assistive technology in enhancing those abilities. This may require a significant effort on the part of VR professionals to identify specific hazards related to the employment of people with disabilities in manufacturing work environments.

For example, in certain circumstances such as protection against exposure to blood borne pathogens ("OSHA Standards-Bloodborne Pathogens", 2001), injuries from machines with stored energy ("OSHA Standards--The Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/Tagout)", 1996), or exposure to hazardous materials ("OSHA Standards--Hazard Communication", 1996), OSHA requires that employers use written documentation to communicate safety information to employees. For people who have disabilities related to written communication, the written documentation will not serve to protect the employee. Therefore, the employer must exceed the existing standard by providing the required information in an accessible format in order to ensure a comparable level of safety for people with disabilities.

A key component to ensuring safety for employees with disabilities in the manufacturing workplace is understanding the employees' abilities. According to Title I of the ADA, employers can utilize medical examinations to determine if the placement of an employee is appropriate, but only after an initial offer has been extended to the person and only if all candidates for similar jobs are required to undergo a medical examination ("Americans with Disabilities Act", 1990). Post-offer screening helps employers determine a baseline of the abilities of the employee related to pre-existing conditions, which is also important for record-keeping purposes.

By definition, a pre-existing condition (the person's disability in this case) is not recordable as a work related injury or illness unless it is significantly aggravated due to an event in the workplace ("Determination of Work-relatedness", 2001). Post-offer screening will ensure that employers have a clear understanding of the person's abilities prior to their employment at the company, which will hopefully prevent safety or health related hazards. Here again, it may be necessary for the VR professional to assist in providing the necessary AT (if AT is to be used at the workplace) so that the prospective employee can adequately demonstrate his or her capabilities during a post-offer screening. In cases where post-offer screening may not be required by the employer because candidates for similar jobs have not been examined, it may be appropriate for the VR professional, together with the prospective employee, to explain the employees' functional abilities in order to maximize employee safety.

OSHA training, outreach, and education resources are available to VR professionals who wish to assist employers in accommodating people with disabilities in manufacturing. Letters of interpretation can provide valuable insight into understanding how a person's disability might impact employment decisions. The process presents an opportunity for employers, VR professionals, or consumers to inquire how issues related to disability are incorporated into the existing safety standards. Furthermore, if an employee needs an accommodation that would not be in compliance with the existing safety standards, but provides an environment that is equally as safe, then employers can seek a variance from OSHA for the necessary accommodation.

The VR professional may also help to ease concerns about employee safety by meeting with and informing the CSHO and CA specialist about the abilities of their consumers with disabilities. Once a particular manufacturing employment opportunity has been identified, the VR professional can meet with local OSHA representatives to gain a better understanding about the particular health and safety hazards found in that industry. Where a particular consumer is concerned, the VR professional will then be able to discuss with the OSHA representative possible workplace accommodations and their potential impact on workplace safety. This will enhance the effectiveness of the workplace accommodation and, if the prospective employer is willing to participate, it may also help to ease the employer's concerns about hiring a person with a disability.

These discussions with OSHA representatives will allow the VR professional and the consumer to better represent himself or herself to the prospective employer. The discussions will also serve to educate the OSHA representative about the abilities of employees with disabilities and the appropriateness of various workplace accommodations and assistive technologies. That increased knowledge will make the OSHA representative better at forming conclusions about potential GDC violations based on "Common Sense Recognition."

Conclusions

In order for VR professionals to make use of opportunities for employment in manufacturing, they must work to understand the regulatory requirements for work in the facility, even apart from the employee's primary workspace. In doing so, they must be able to demonstrate to the prospective employer that the consumer is able to perform the essential functions of the job, while working safely in the manufacturing environment.

This document has just scratched the surface of the safety and health regulations that may apply to potential employees with disabilities in a specific industry. The VR professional is encouraged to investigate the resources mentioned in this paper with special attention to standards relating to industries indigenous to their geographic location.

Due to the overlap in type of technology, much work has already been accomplished related to computer access for people with disabilities. However, the increased risk associated with working in a manufacturing environment warrants taking the research to the next level by analyzing potential safety and health hazards when such accommodations are applied in a manufacturing setting. Therefore, further research by VR professionals, related to accommodation of people with disabilities in manufacturing environments is necessary to identify safe and effective accommodations.

In order to minimize the potential for safety and health violations, VR professionals should seek ways to educate mainstream employers and OSHA representatives regarding the abilities of people with disabilities. Where possible, this education should contain quantifiable characteristics for recognized populations in order to help the employer make sound personnel decisions and to help the OSHA representative accurately assess employee safety and health risks. The VR professional may also seek to participate in the development of training materials and consensus standards used by OSHA. By carefully considering the wording used in existing standards and regulations, improvements may be made to ensure equal access to protection and training for employees in manufacturing, with or without disabilities.

References

Americans with Disabilities Act, USC 42 101 (1990).

Anon. (1990). Opening doors for the disabled. Byte, 15(8), 258.

Barnet, R. (1993, September). The End of Jobs. Harper's Magazine, 287, 47-52.

Consultation: Free On-Site Safety and Health Services. (2004). Retrieved November 10, 2004, 2004, from http://www.osha. gov/dcsp/smallbusiness/consult.html.

Eisen, P. (2003). Keeping America Competitive--How a Talent Shortage Threatens U.S. Manufacturing (White Paper). Washington, D.C.: National Association of Manufacturers, The Manufacturing Institute, and Deloitte & Touche.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Petitioner v. Marray, Inc. and International Union UAW Local (United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division 2001).

Fairfax, R. (2002). OSHA's Exit Sign Requirements for Disabled Persons. In J. Tessmer (Ed.) (pp. Letter of Interpretation). Kula: Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Fleming, S. (2001, Spring). OSHA at 30: Three Decades of Progress in Occupational Safety and Health. Job Safety and Health Quarterly, 12, 23-32.

Harcourt, M., Lain, H., & Harcourt, S. (2005). Discriminatory practices in hiring: institutional and rational economic perspectives. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(11), 2113.

Lazzaro, J. J. (1986). OPENING THE WORKPLACE TO THE DISABLED. High Technology (Boston), 6(3), 54.

Loprest, P., & Maag, E. (2001). Barriers and Supports for Work among Adults with Disabilities: Results from the NHIS-D. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

MacDonald, M. (2004). Mastercam #1 Among CAM Manufacturers Again. Retrieved May 6, 2005, from http://www.mastercam.com/Press/Cimdata/CIMdata.doc.

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, CFR 29 (1970).

OSHA Compliance Assistance: Compliance Assistance Specialists. (2004). Retrieved November 10, 2004, 2004, from http: //www.osha.gov/dcsp/compliance_assistance/cas.html

OSHA Standards--Bloodborne Pathogens, CFR 29 1910.1030 (2001).

OSHA Standards--Determination of Work-relatedness, CFR 29 1904.5 (2001).

OSHA Standards--Hazard Communication, CFR 29 1910.1200 (1996).

OSHA Standards--The Control of Hazardous Energy (Lockout/ Tagout), CFR 29 1910.147 (1996).

Spear, B. (2001). Robots and Patents. World Patent Information, 23, 333-338.

Stone, D. L., & Williams, K. J. (1997). The impact of ada on the selection process: Applicant and organizational issues. Human Resource Management Review, 7(2), 203-231.

Sun, H. (2000). Current and Future Patterns of Using Advanced Manufacturing Technologies. Technovation, 20, 631-641.

Swanson, R. (2002). OSHA Letters of Interpretation and Directives System and Functions. In T. Phillips, Esq. (Ed.). Houston.

USDoL-Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2004a). Fatal occupational injuries by industry and event or exposure. All United States, 2003. In cftb0187.pdf (Ed.).

USDoL-Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2004b). Incidence rates of nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses by industry and case types, 2003. In ostb1335.pdf(Ed.).

USDoL-OSHA. (1994). OSHA Field Inspection Reference Manual CPL 2.103. Retrieved. from http://www.osha.gov/ Firm_osha_toc/Firm_toc_by_sect.html.

USDoL-OSHA. (2002). Variance Factsheet. Retrieved 11/9/ 2004, 2004, from http://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/data_ General_Facts/variance-factsheet.html

Warren, C. G. (1984). Employing Severely Disabled Persons in Computer-Related Fields Ottawa, Ont, Can.

Whitehouse, D. (1994). Overcoming disabilities with information technology: An international survey. In Proceedings of the 13th IFIP World Computer Congress. Part 2 (of 3), Aug 28-Sep 2 1994 (pp. 436). Hamburg, Ger: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, Neth.

Scott Haynes

Georgia Institute of Technology 

Sandy Shackelford

Georgia Institute of Technology

Bryan Black

Georgia Tech Research Institute 

(1) The U.S.-based company provides Mastercam CAD/CAM solutions to more than 79,000 installations in 75 countries in industries including mold-making, prototyping, automotive, aerospace, and consumer products. Mastercam runs under Windows 2000, and Windows XP and is compatible with all other CAD/CAM systems.

(2) The incidence rates represent the number of injuries and illnesses per 100 full-time workers per year.

Scott Haynes, MBME, Center for Assistive Technology and Environmental Access, Georgia Institute of Technology, 490 10th Street, NW, Atlanta, GA 30332 Email:

(3) Small businesses are defined as businesses that employ less than 250 employees at a fixed site and no more than 500 employees nationwide.

(4) For a more detailed explanation of Job Hazard Analysis, OSHA publishes a booklet titled Job Hazard Analysis 2002 Revised (OSHA 3071), which is available in PDF format at the following website: http://www.osha.gov/pls/publications/pubindex.list

Table 1
Severity of OSHA violations based on maximum fine amounts

Violation      Maximum         Description of violation
               fine per
               violation
De Minimus     $0              circumstances deviate from the stated
                               standard but have no direct or
                               immediate relationship to the safety or
                               health of the employee

Violating      $7,000          required information is not posted
Posting                        appropriately
Requirements

Other than     $7,000          the most serious injury or illness
Serious                        cannot reasonably be predicted to cause
                               death or serious physical harm to
                               exposed employees but does have a
                               direct and immediate relationship to
                               their safety and health

Serious        $7,000          there is a substantial probability that
                               death or serious physical harm could
                               result, unless the employer did not and
                               could not know of the presence of the
                               violation

General Duty   $7,000          involves both a serious hazard and
Clause                         exposure of employees but, only where
                               there is no standard (GDC) that applies
                               to the particular hazard involved

Failure to     $7,000          added for each day beyond the
Abate                          prescribed abatement date that the
                               employer fails to correct a previously
                               cited violation

Falsifying     $10,000         upon conviction of falsifying records,
Records                        reports, or applications

Repeated       $70,000         the employer has been cited previously
has                            for a substantially similar condition
                               and the citation

                                   become a final order
Willful        $70,000         evidence shows either an intentional
                               violation of the Act or plain
                               indifference to its
                                   requirements

Criminal       $250,000 for
willful        an individual
               $500,000 for    willful violations which result in the
               a corporation   death of an employee

Table 2
Individual violations related to obstruction of CSHO inspection
process

Violation         Maximum     Description of violation
                  fine per
                  violation
Advanced notice   $1,000      if convicted of improperly alerting an
of inspections                employer in advance of an OSHA
                              inspection (underspecial circumstances,
                              such as imminent danger, a CSHO may
                              choose to give the employer advanced
                              notice)

Assaulting a      $5,000      if convicted of assaulting or otherwise
compliance        resisting, opposing, intimidating or interfering
officer           with a CSHO in the performance of his or her duties

Table 3
Examples of Horizontal/Vertical and Performance/Specification
standards enforced by OSHA.

                  Horizontal (Universal)        Vertical (Specific
                   e.g. 29 CFR 1910.212              Industry)
                 General Requirements for      e.g. 29 CFR 1910.213
                       All Machines            Woodworking Machinery
                                                   Requirements

Performance      1910.212(a)(1) Types of       1910.213(r)(4) Misc.
                        guarding.              woodworking machines.

                 "One or more methods of     "The mention of specific
                machine guarding shall be     machines in paragraphs
                 provided to protect the       (a) thru (q) and this
                    operator and other         paragraph (r) of this
                 employees in the machine     section, inclusive, is
                area from hazards such as     not intended to exclude
                those created by point of        other woodworking
                  operation, ingoing nip         machines from the
                 points, rotating parts,     requirement that suitable
                 flying chips and sparks.    guards and exhaust hoods
                   Examples of guarding      be provided to reduce to
                   methods are-barrier       a minimum the hazard due
                guards, two-hand tripping    to the point of operation
                devices, electronic safety      of such machines."
                      devices, etc."

Specification   1910.212(a)(5) Exposure of    1910.213(c)(3) Hand-fed
                         blades.                 circular ripsaws.

                "When the periphery of the    "Each hand-fed circular
                 blades of a fan is less     ripsaw shall be provided
                than seven (7) feet above    with non-kickback fingers
                   the floor or working      or dogs so located as to
                level, the blades shall be     oppose the thrust or
                 guarded. The guard shall     tendency of the saw to
                 have openings no larger      pick up the material or
                   than one- half (1/2)       to throw it back toward
                          inch."             the operator. They shall
                                              be designed to provide
                                              adequate holding power
                                              for all the thicknesses
                                             of materials being cut."

Figure 1.

Number of permanent variances granted and letters of interpretation
granted by OSHA for previous year (available from OSHA web page).

Permanent Variences Still in Effect

Year Variance Awarded

2003   2
2002   0
2000   0
2001   0
1999   1
1998   0
1997   0
1996   0
1995   0
1994   1
1993   0
1992   0
1991   1
1990   0
1989   0
1988   0
1987   1
1986   0
1985   2
1984   0
1983   1
1982   0
1981   0
1980   0
1979   0
1978   2
1977   2
1976   2
1975   0
1974   3
1973   5
1972   0

Letters of Interpretation

Number of Letters

2003   136
2002   106
2001    88
2000    92
1999   167
1998   134
1997   146
1996   186
1995   228
1994   202
1993   227
1992   326
1991   252
1990   152
1989   118
1988    75
1987    82
1986   118
1985    84
1984    70
1983    88
1982    61
1981    71
1980    49
1979    43
1978    48
1977    60
1976    81
1975    85
1974    12
1973     5
1972     3

Note: Table made from bar graph.