Department of Labor: Osha2005report

FFY 2005
Minnesota Occupational Safety & Health Compliance

State OSHA Annual Report (SOAR)
and
Minnesota Workplace Safety

Consultation Annual Project Report (CAPR)
MNOSHA
December 2005
Combined SOAR and CAPR for FFY2005
Minnesota Occupational Safety & Health Compliance (OSH) and
- Minnesota Workplace Safety Consultation (WSC)
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction................................................................................................................... 3
Summary of Annual Performance Plan Results – FFY2005 ....................................... 4
Strategic Goal #1
Compliance................................................................................................. 4
Consultation................................................................................................ 7
Strategic Goal #2
Compliance............................................................................................... 14
Consultation.............................................................................................. 18
Strategic Goal #3
Compliance............................................................................................... 29
Consultation.............................................................................................. 32
Special Accomplishments
Compliance.................................................................................................... 36
Consultation................................................................................................... 37
Mandated Activities .................................................................................................... 42
Appendix A – Memo: Agency Response to Construction Leadership Meeting ......... 48
Appendix B – FFY05 MNOSHA Compliance Discrimination Statistics ...................... 49
Appendix C – MNOSHA Compliance Outreach Presentations .................................. 50
Appendix D – Compliance Assistance Plan ............................................................... 51
Appendix E – Compliance Workskill Assessment Chart ............................................ 53
Appendix F – Workflow Analysis
MNOSHA Compliance Discrimination Workflow Chart and Procedures ....... 60
Appendix G – Other, Compliance
2004: Management Improvement

Part 1 – Survey: Start/Stop/Continue Summary ........................................... 66
Part 2 – Management Survey Summary ....................................................... 69
2005: Evaluation Projects / Reports (Executive Summaries)

General Duty Citation Review ....................................................................... 72
Fatality and Serious Injury Review ................................................................ 74
OSHA 31 Review .......................................................................................... 76
Experience Modifier Rate / OSHA Scheduling .............................................. 78
Isocyanate Initiative for Spray-on Truck Bed Liner Investigations................. 80
Shadow Assignments Report ........................................................................ 82
R&S: ODI vs. Work Comp Data for inspection priority ................................. 85
R&S: Safety Incentives................................................................................. 87
2
Minnesota Occupational Safety & Health Compliance (OSH) and
INTRODUCTION
The Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) program is administered by the Minnesota
Department of Labor and Industry (DLI); the program became effective on August 1, 1973, with final State
Plan approval being obtained on July 30, 1985. MNOSHA includes the Occupational Safety and Health
(OSH) Compliance Division, which is responsible for compliance program administration (conducting
enforcement inspections, adoption of standards, and operation of other related OSHA activities) and the
Workplace Safety Consultation (WSC) Division which provides free consultation services, on request, to
help employers prevent workplace accidents and diseases by identifying and correcting safety and health
hazards.
MNOSHA’s mission is: “To make sure every worker in the State of Minnesota has a safe and healthful
workplace.” This mandate involves the application of a set of tools by MNOSHA including standards
development, enforcement, compliance assistance, and outreach which enable employers to maintain
safe and healthful workplaces.
MNOSHA’s vision is to be a leader in occupational safety and health and make Minnesota’s workplaces
the safest in the nation. MNOSHA is striving for the elimination of workplace injuries, illnesses, and
deaths so that all of Minnesota’s workers can return home safely. MNOSHA believes that to support this
vision, the workplace must be characterized by a genuine, shared commitment to workplace safety by
both employers and workers, with necessary training, resources, and support systems devoted to making
this happen.
The Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health Strategic Plan for FFY2004 to 2008 established three
strategic goals:
MNOSHA Compliance (OSH) MNOSHA Workplace Safety Consultation (WSC)

Strategic Goals Strategic Goals
Goal 1: Reduce occupational hazards through Goal 1: Reduce occupational hazards through
compliance inspections direct interventions
Goal 2: Promote a safety and health culture Goal 2: Promote a safety and health culture
through compliance assistance, through consultation assistance,
outreach, cooperative programs and intervention, outreach, cooperative
strong leadership programs and strong leadership.
Goal 3: Strengthen and improve MNOSHA’s Goal 3: Maximize MNOSHA Workplace Safety
infrastructure Consultation effectiveness and efficiency
by strengthening our capabilities and
infrastructure.
The FFY2005 Performance Plan provided the framework for accomplishing the goals of the MNOSHA
Strategic Plan by establishing specific performance goals for FFY2005. This Combined SOAR and CAPR
presents a review of the strategies used and results achieved in FFY2005. Separate appendices have
been included to provide more detail in regard to specific performance goals. Special accomplishments as
well as the successful completion of mandated activities are also discussed.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Page 3
Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) December 2005
GOAL SUMMARIES - SOAR for FFY2005
Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Compliance
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN RESULTS

With few exceptions, MNOSHA Compliance’s FFY2005 performance goals have been achieved. Each of the
FFY2005 performance goals and the activities and strategies used to achieve those goals are described below.
Comments/discussion relating to accomplishment of Goal sub-items follow each chart.
Goal 1
Reduce occupational hazards through compliance inspections
How Progress in Baseline 9/30/03 Target Results Target Results Target
Achieving this Goal Will be Assessed FFY 04 FFY 04 FFY 05 FFY 05 FFY 08
1. Percent reduction in injury and illness A) BLS data: 3% A) BLS 2002 actual = 6% A) BLS 2003 actual = 15%
rates for cases involving days away CY1999- 2001 avg 120,500, an 11% 111,600, an 18% decrease
from work1 = 136,100 decrease from baseline from baseline
B) MN Work Comp B) 2003 actual = 1.32, an B) 2004 actual = 1.30, a
data: indemnity 18% decrease from 19% decrease from
claims rate, 1999- baseline baseline.
2001 avg = 1.61 (DART 2003 data not See comments following
available) chart [1.1]
2. Percent reduction in state fatality rate CY 1999-2001 avg 1% CY2004 = 23 2% See comments following 5%
in MNOSHA’s jurisdiction = 22 fatalities/year chart [1.2]
3. Number of hazards abated and See comments following
establishments visited: chart [1.3.]
a. Total hazards abated / IMIS data N/A 4,813 hazards identified N/A 4,884 hazards identified N/A
establishments visited FFY 2001-2003 2,662 establishments 2,591 establishments
avg = 3,989 visited visited
hazards identified
2,082 establ.
visited
b. Establishment emphasis 60% of all 1,801 or 80% (80.4%) of 60% of all N/A
N/A programmed all programmed programmed 1,374 or 63% of all
1) Inspection emphasis inspections inspections occurred in inspections programmed inspections
high hazard industries occurred in high hazard
Lead and silica industries
Lumber and wood products
Furniture and fixtures
Paper and allied products
Rubber and misc. plastics
Food and kindred products
Industrial machine and equipment
Construction
Public sector
2) Pilot inspection emphasis 5% of all 4% of all programmed 5% of all N/A

N/A programmed inspections conducted in programmed 5.5% (120) of all
Printing and publishing inspections FFY04 inspections programmed inspections
Auto dealers and service stations 5% of baseline conducted in FFY05
Communications programmed inspections
Hotels and lodging were conducted in FFY04
c. Ergo emphasis Develop Ongoing TBD

N/A approach support of See comments following
WSC’s Ergo chart [1.3]
effort
4. Number and timeliness of IMIS data : FFY 10% 257 average days to close 20% 209 average days to close 90%
discrimination inspections conducted 2001-2003 avg decrease in decrease in complete in
days to close = 210 days-to- days-to- See comments following 90 days
close close chart [1.4]
average average
5. Percent of designated programmed IMIS data: FFY Maintain 84% Maintain 83.9% N/A
inspections 2001-2003 avg = baseline baseline
80%
1
BLS data will change from LWDII rate for baseline to DART (Days Away or Restricted Transfer) rate for Target FFY 05-08.

GOAL 1 - Comments
Goal 1.1 -
Reduction in Injury and Illness Rates: FFY05 Target was a 6% reduction.

MNOSHA Compliance continues to review new information and redefine scheduling approaches to reduce
injury and illness rates.
In FFY05, MNOSHA Compliance conducted a complete review of its scheduling directive
(MNOSHA Instruction ADM 2.1); and established new local emphasis programs for asthma, methylene
chloride, and isocyanates. A five-year scheduling list is being used for nursing homes, foundries, meat
packing plants, and the public sector. MNOSHA Compliance plans to continue developing and utilizing
information available through the Department of Economic Security and DLI’s Workers Compensation
Division. The next scheduling approach will be established by April 1, 2006.
7525 Program. In FFY04, MNOSHA Compliance established a 7525 Program, a penalty
reduction incentive program available to qualified employers that links workers compensation claim rates
and MNOSHA compliance penalties. This program allows an employer to obtain a 75% reduction in
penalties provided they reduce their workers compensation claims by 25% within a one-year period. This
plan provides employers in the State of MN an economic incentive to reduce accidents and protect
employees from harm. Participation in this program does not preclude an employer from using
consultation services; in fact, it is encouraged.
Since its inception in FFY04, the 7525 Program has been offered to 113 employers, with the
majority of those (75) offered during FFY 05. Because an employer must contest in order to enter the
7525 Program, the number of accepted employers (23) is much lower than those offered the program for
FFY05. MNOSHA expects the number of employers accepted into this program to increase significantly in
FFY06 as the settlement agreements to those employers offered the program are completed. Analysis of
the affect of the 7525 Program on worker’s compensation rates will not be available until FFY06 when
employers will begin to complete the program.
Goal 1.2 -
Reduction in state fatality rate: FFY05 Target was a 2% reduction.

The target for FFY05 was a 2% reduction in fatalities for the calendar year 2005. MNOSHA Compliance
did not meet this goal. There were 26 fatalities in calendar year 2005, eight of which occurred in the first
quarter of the year. Most of the fatalities in the first quarter were in the construction industry. Given the
unusually high number of fatalities at the beginning of the year, the Commissioner of DLI and MNOSHA
representatives met with numerous stakeholders in the construction industry to heighten awareness and
discuss strategies to reduce the number of fatalities (see related memo from the Commissioner in
Appendix A). Several items were identified and a subgroup continues to meet to evaluate strategies to
implement recommendations.
MNOSHA
CY 1999-2001 average 22
CY 2002 25 14% increase from 1999-2001 average
CY 2004 23 4.5% increase from 1999-2001 average
Goal 1.3 -
Hazards abated / establishments visited. In FFY2005, MNOSHA Compliance investigators conducted

2,591 inspections in which 4,884 hazards were identified and cited. Seventy percent (70%) of the
inspections conducted resulted in violations; 79% of violations were cited serious. MNOSHA continues to
create incentives for employers to address safety and health issues through strong, fair, and effective
enforcement of safety and health regulations. MNOSHA Compliance focused its programmed inspections
to reduce injuries, illnesses, and fatalities in certain emphasis industries. The FFY05 goal was for 60% of
all programmed inspections to be in the primary emphasis industries; 63% was actually achieved. In
addition, 5.5% of programmed inspections occurred in the pilot emphasis industries exceeding the FFY05

goal of 5%.
As part of an ergonomic focus, MNOSHA Compliance conducted 7 programmed inspections in the
meat processing industry and nursing homes.
Goal 1.4 –
Discrimination inspections: FFY05 Target was to decrease the days-to-close average by 20% from
baseline.
In FFY05, the Discrimination Unit of MNOSHA Compliance did not attain the goal of decreasing the days-
to-close average by 20%. However, upon review of the available whistleblower reports, as well as the
mandated measures on the SAMM and in an effort to be better aligned with Federal OSHA’s goals,
MNOSHA determined that a more appropriate measure is the percentage of cases completed within 90
days.
MNOSHA Compliance’s baseline for Discrimination cases completed within 90 days established
in FFY03 was 16%. In FFY04 this increased to 18% and in FFY05 this number continued to improve to
26%. When this same measure is analyzed from the date the case is assigned to an investigator rather
than from the date the case is screened, 79% of the cases completed in FFY05 were completed within the
90-day goal.
At the beginning of FFY05 the Discrimination Unit had 38 cases pending. During FFY05, the Unit
opened an additional 48 cases and closed 69 cases, leaving only 17 cases remaining open at the end of
FFY05. The number of cases closed during FFY05 is the largest number of cases closed in the last five
years. This substantial increase in cases closed led to a significant decrease to the backlog of cases.
Staff continued to refine the screening process, including the initial intake process and monitoring cases,
to ensure return of proper information to remain an active case. Also, a third investigator was added and
the Unit is currently able to proactively work with employers and employees to resolve disputed cases
early in the process. Significant progress was made. In addition to working on active cases, the Unit had
a total of 99 additional contacts that resulted in 39 referrals, 31 outreach events, and 29 cases screened
and closed.
In addition to meeting the challenge of the case backlog, the Unit settled two cases that resulted in
job reinstatement and back pay. Additionally, five cases were found to have merit and have been referred
to the Attorney General’s office for litigation.
During FFY05, MNOSHA Compliance also revised its appeal procedure that has existed since
2003. The current average appeal lapse time is 106 days. The lapse time for new cases is expected to
decrease to 30 days with the Director of MNOSHA Compliance handling the appeal process rather than
the Department’s Legal Services Division.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS IN ACHIEVING CAPR PERFORMANCE GOALS
Goal #1: Reduce Occupational hazards through direct interventions
Performance Goal 1.1: Reduce injuries and illness rates in 14 separate industry groups 4% in FFY 2005 by
focusing MNOSHA WORKPLACE SAFETY CONSULTATION resources on
workplaces within the selected industry groups;
• Lumber & Wood Products Ergonomics Emphasis

• Industrial Machine & Equipment • Nursing Homes
• Furniture & Fixtures
• Construction (Lead & Silica) Pilot Emphasis
• Paper & Allied Products • Printing and Publishing
• Rubber & Misc. Plastics • Auto Dealers
• Logging & Service Stations
• Food & Kindred Products • Communications
• Hotels & Lodging
Annual Performance Goal: Reduce injury and illnesses rates for cases involving days away from work at worksites
receiving direct intervention, within the selected industry groups by 4% annually.
Indicators Activity Measures:
• Number of on-site consultations conducted
• Number of training assistance conducted
• Number of interventions conducted
• Re-evaluate strategies for conducting consultation visits within the selected
industries.
Intermediate Outcome Measures:
• Percent of on-site consultations with identified hazards
Primary Outcome Measures:
• Percent change in DART rates in selected industries.
• Percent change in Workers’ Compensation indemnity claims
• Promote consultation services to employers using workers’
Strategies
compensation data to identify employers’ with high injury and
illness rates within the selected industry groups.
• Implement local strategic initiatives within the overall framework
of MNOSHA Workplace Safety Consultation performance goals
• Develop and implement alliances and other cooperative efforts
with employers and the occupational safety and health community
to identify and address significant workplace hazards,
emphasizing those targeted by MNOSHA Workplace Safety
Consultation performance goals.
• Maintain adequate staffing levels and provide training to staff to
assure knowledge and competence in successfully completing
consultation visits and training for the selected industry groups.
• Promote safety and health programs through the MNSHARP and
MNSTAR programs.
• Prioritize and respond in a timely manner to requests for
consultation services.

Data Source(s) Activity Measures:
• IMIS
Intermediate Outcome Measures
• IMIS
• BLS survey data
• IMIS
• MN Workers’ Compensation indemnity claim data
Baseline BLS data 1999-2001 ; IMIS 2001-2003
Goal 1.1 Safety Activity ResultsHealth Activity Results

Lumber & Wood
Products
NAICS Code(s) Initial 20 Initial 0
321xxx Follow-Up 0 Follow-Up 0
SIC Code(s)
24xx
Totals 20 0

Industrial Machine
& Equipment
SIC Code(s)
35xx
Totals 23 2

Furniture &
Fixtures
SIC Code(s)
25xx
Totals 19 0

Construction
233- 235xxx Follow-Up 83 Follow-Up 21
SIC Code(s)
15xx–17xx
Totals 672 105

Paper &
Allied Products
SIC Code(s)
26xx
Totals 6 0

Rubber &
Misc. Plastics
SIC Code(s)
30xx
Totals 5 1

Logging
113310 Follow-Up 0 Follow-Up 0
SIC Code(s)
2411
Totals 14 0

Food &
Kindred Products
311-312xxx Follow-Up 2 Follow-Up 0
SIC Code(s)
20xx
Totals 15 2

Nursing Homes
623110 Follow-Up 3 Follow-Up 8
SIC Code(s)
805x
Totals 20 41

Printing & Publishing
323xxx & 511xxx Follow-Up 2 Follow-Up 0
SIC Code(s)
27xx
Totals 6 0

Auto Dealers &
Service Stations
SIC Code(s)
55xx
Totals 8 0

Communications
SIC Code(s)
48xx
Totals 16 0

Hotels & Lodging
SIC Code(s)
70xx
Totals 4 6

Other
All Other Follow-Up 16 Follow-Up 8
SIC Code(s)
All Other
Totals 125 19
Overall Project Activity Summary of Goal #1

Indicator Type Indicator Projected Activity in CAPP Results Comments
Activity Measures Total Number of Safety 565 Initial Safety Visits 827 Initial Safety Visits 146 % of Projected
Initial Visits Conducted Activity accomplished.
for FFY 2005
Activity Measures Total Number of Safety 110 Follow-Up Safety Visits 126 Follow-Up Safety 114 % of Projected
Follow-Up Visits Visits Activity accomplished.
Conducted for FFY
2005
Activity Measures Total Number of Health 165 Initial Health Visits 139 Initial Health Visits 84 % of Projected
Initial Visits Conducted Activity accomplished.
for FFY 2005
Activity Measures Total Number of Health 16 Follow-Up Health Visits 37 Follow-Up Health Visits 231 % of Projected
Follow-Up Visits Activity accomplished.
Conducted for FFY
2005
Discussion of Activity Measures:
Initial Visits:
WSC accomplished 146 percent of the total projected safety initial visit activity in workplaces in the MNOSHA
strategic plan NAICS and logging.
WSC accomplished 84 percent of the total projected health initial visit activity in workplaces in the MNOSHA
strategic plan NAICS.
Training and Assistance (T&A) Visits:
WSC accomplished 166 percent of the total projected safety and health T&A activity in workplaces in the
MNOSHA strategic plan NAICS and logging.
Follow-Up Visits:
WSC accomplished 114 percent of the total projected safety follow-up visits in workplaces in the MNOSHA
strategic plan NAIC’s.
WSC accomplished 231 percent of the projected health follow-up visits in workplaces in the MNOSHA
strategic plan NAIC’s.
Interventions:
WSC accomplished 206 percent of the total projected safety and health intervention activity in MNOSHA
strategic plan NAIC’s and logging.
Overall Project Activity Summary:
WSC accomplished 158 percent of the total safety and health activity (initial visits, T&A visits, follow-up visits
and interventions) projected in the FFY2005 CAPP.

2005
Minnesota Dept. of Labor and Industry
Minnesota DART and DAFW rates from the 2003 and 2004 BLS surveys
NAICS 2003 2003 DAFW 2004 2004

SIC industry NAICS Industry code(s) DART rate rate DART rate DAFW rate
Lumber & Wood

Products Wood product manufacturing 321xxx 5.7 2. 2.6.6 5.6 2.6
Industrial Machine &

Equip. Machinery manufacturing 333xxx 2.9 1.2 3.7 2.0
Furniture and related product

Furniture & Fixtures manufacturing 337xxx 5.3 2.4 4.9 2.5
Construction Construction 23xxxx 4.3 2.8 3.8 2.6
Paper & Allied

Products Paper manufacturing 322xxx 3.1 1.6 3.8 1.9
Rubber & Misc. Plastics and rubber products

Plastics manufacturing 326xxx 3.9 1.5 4.6 2.2
Logging Logging 113310 NA NA NA NA
Food & Kindred

Products Food manufacturing 311xxx 5.4 1.4 5.5 1.4
Beverage and tobacco
product manufacturing 312xxx NA NA NA NA
Nursing and residential care

Nursing Homes facilities 623xxx 7.5 3.1 5.2 3.0
Printing and related support

Printing & Publishing activities 323xxx 3.5 1.4 2.8 1.1
Publishing industries 511xxx 1.3 0.8 1.2 0.8
Auto Dealers & Motor vehicle and parts

Service Stations dealers 441xxx 2.7 1.2 3.7 2.5
Gasoline stations 447xxx 27 1.6 2.0 1.2
Communications Broadcasting 515xxx NA NA NA NA

Telecommunications 517xxx 1.4 0.9 0.4 0.3
Hotels & Lodging Accommodation 721xxx 2.6 1.6 3.1 1.7
Other Other NA NA NA NA

2005
Minnesota Dept. of Labor and Industry
Workers' compensation indemnity claim rates for WSC focus industries

Federal fiscal years 2003 and 2004
NAICS Industry NAICS FFY 2003 FFY 2004 employment employment indemnity indemnity percentage
code(s) indemnity indemnity 2003 2004 rate FFY rate FFY change
claims claims (thousands) (thousands) 2003 per 2004 per
100 100
workers workers
Wood product manufactur 321xxx 414 420 16715 16980 2.48 2.47 -0.1%
Machinery manufacturing 333xxx 416 406 34,623 34,138 1.20 1.19 -1.0%
Furniture and related

product manufacturing 337xxx 263 289 12,427 12,610 2.12 2.29 8.3%
Construction 23xxxx 3,660 3,616 131,142 132,521 2.79 2.73 -2.2%
Paper manufacturing 322xxx 287 243 13,141 12,386 2.18 1.96 -10.2%
Plastics and rubber

products manufacturing 326xxx 259 271 16,958 16,371 1.53 1.66 8.4%
Logging 113310 12 18 805 815 1.49 2.21 48.2%
Food manufacturing 311xxx 752 661 46,057 43,811 1.63 1.51 -7.6%
Beverage and tobacco
product manufacturing 312xxx 165 147 2,223 2,143 7.42 6.86 -7.6%
Nursing care facilities 623110 1,078 1,122 51,538 50,372 2.09 2.23 6.5%
Printing and related

support activities 323xxx 291 280 30,752 30,300 0.95 0.92 -2.3%
Publishing industries 511xxx 199 161 24,686 25,912 0.81 0.62 -22.9%
Motor vehicle and parts

dealers 441xxx 442 416 35,101 34,874 1.26 1.19 -5.3%
Gasoline stations 447xxx 163 166 25,632 24,125 0.64 0.69 8.2%
Broadcasting 515xxx 45 78 5,823 5,731 0.77 1.36 76.1%

Telecommunications 517xxx 115 84 15,565 14,939 0.74 0.56 -23.9%
Accommodation 721xxx 268 275 32,162 31,996 0.83 0.86 3.1%
The indemnity claims data were available from the Minnesota workers' compensation claims database. Indemnity claims in
Minnesota are claims with more than three calendar days of work disability, including the day of injury or reported illness. Claim
counts were multiplied by a year-specific development factor to estimate the ultimate number of indemnity claims. The same
development factor was used for all industries.

Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Compliance (cont’d)
Goal 2
Promote a safety and health culture through compliance assistance, outreach,
cooperative programs, and strong leadership
How Progress in Baseline Target Results Target Results Target

Achieving this Goal Will be Assessed 9/30/03 FFY 04 FFY 04 FFY 05 FFY 05 FFY 08
1. Increase in:
a. Partnerships # of FFY 02 1 new 1 new program. 1 new program 1 new program 5 new
partnerships: 2 program See comments See comments programs
following chart following chart
[2.1.a] [2.1.a]
b. Voluntary Protection Programs 10 2 new sites 2 new sites. 2 new sites 2 new sites = 14 10 new
(MNSTAR) See comments sites
following chart
[2.1.b]
2. Increase in total number of people participating N/A Establish Baseline Increase 5% Increased 89.7% 20% above
in OSHA outreach/training in areas such as: baseline = established. above baseline above baseline: baseline
1,722 3,267 participants.
a. Total See comments
b. Retail trade, eating/drinking places following chart
(youth) [2.2]
c. Immigrant and other hard-to-reach
employers and employees
d. Primary metal industries
e. Transportation equipment
f. Fabricated products
g. Emerging businesses
h. Construction
3. Participate in homeland security efforts at state Current Ongoing Ongoing. Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing
and national levels practice See comments
following chart
[2.3]
4. Develop a plan to identify opportunities where N/A Develop plan Plan Implement plan Plan TBD
compliance assistance and cooperative to establish developed. implemented.
agreements will maximize our impact. baseline See comments
following chart
[2.4]
5. Maintain response time and/or service level to Current Ongoing Ongoing. Ongoing Ongoing. Ongoing
stakeholders in areas such as: practice See comments
following chart
a) Telephone inquiries and assistance [2.5]
b) Written requests for information
c) MNOSHA website information/updates
GOAL 2 - Comments
Goal 2.1.a -
Increase Partnerships by 1 in FFY05.

During FFY05, MNOSHA Compliance entered into a formal partnership agreement with the UAW and
Ford Motor Company. Goals of the partnership agreement are for Ford management and employees to
work cooperatively to provide a common vision in providing Ford employees a safe and healthful
workplace. This partnership enables MNOSHA to meet and discuss safety and health challenges openly
with the UAW and Ford Motor Company staff in order to benefit the employees of the State of Minnesota.
Also during FFY05, MNOSHA Compliance continued to support and strengthen relationships with

organizations that represent safety and health best practices. MNOSHA continued its work in the three
previously established partnerships including: The Minnesota Machine Guarding Partnership, The CHASE
Partnership (Associated General Contractors), and the National Association of Tower Erectors
Partnership.
Goal 2.1.b -
Increase VPPs by 2 in FFY05.

MNSTAR is a voluntary protection program available to any size employer in Minnesota The MNSTAR
program relies mainly on the concept of self-assessment by the requesting employer and uses the federal
VPP criteria (OSHA Instruction TED 8.4a, Revised Voluntary Protection Programs (VPP) Policies and
Procedures Manual). MNSTAR requires the employer’s commitment to complete an extensive
application, which includes providing the WSC Unit with copies of all requested written policies and
programs. The employer’s lost workday injury and illness rate must be below the state and national levels
for their industry. Employers who meet all requirements for MNSTAR status are exempt from
programmed inspections by MNOSHA Enforcement for three years. The MNSTAR VPP has been very
successful since its inception in FFY1999. MNSTAR status has been awarded to both large and small
employers in high-hazard and in state-targeted industries. At the close of FFY05, a total of 14 worksites
had received certification. Two employers were certified as MNSTAR sites in FFY05. MNSTAR certified
companies include:
• Boise Cascade Corporation, International Falls, MN (SIC 2621) - 1161 individuals at worksite; awarded Star
9/3/99
• CF Industries, Inc., Glenwood, MN (SIC 5191) - 10 employees; awarded Star 4/13/00.
• Minnesota Power, 27 facilities throughout Minnesota (SIC 4910) - 1,332 individuals in service area; awarded Star
10/15/00.
• International Paper, Sartell, MN (SIC 2621) - 600 employees; awarded Star 2/15/01.
• Marvin Windows and Doors, Warroad, MN (SIC 2431) - 2,425 employees; awarded Star 8/1/01.
• Ah-Gwah-Ching Center, Ah-Gwah-Ching, MN (SIC 8051) – 229 employees; awarded Star 2/14/02.
• Potlatch Corporation-Bemidji Lumbermill, Bemidji, MN (SIC 2421) – 94 employees; awarded Star 6/17/02.
• Potlatch Corporation-Bemidji OSB Mill, Bemidji, MN (SIC 2493) – 239 employees; awarded Star 6/17/02.
• IBM, Rochester, MN (SIC 3571) – 6,153 employees; awarded Star 7/16/02.
• New Ulm Medical Center, New Ulm, MN (SIC 8062) – 470 employees; awarded Star 3/7/03.
• Alexandria Extrusion Co., Alexandria, MN (SIC 3354) – 325 employees; awarded Star 9/30/03.
• Louisiana Pacific Co., Two Harbors, MN (SIC 2493) – 143 employees; awarded Merit 2/12/04; awarded
Star 4/15/05.
• Weyerhaeuser, White Bear Lake, MN (SIC 2653) – 132 employees; awarded Star 7/22/04.
• Specialty Minerals, Inc., International Falls, MN (SIC 2819) – 6 employees; awarded Star 4/7/05.
Goal 2.2 -
In FFY05, Increase number of people participating in outreach 5% above baseline.

In FFY04, MNOSHA Compliance established its baseline of 1,722 people participating in MNOSHA
outreach/training per year in various areas. In FFY05, MNOSHA Compliance conducted 42 presentations
and exceeded baseline by 89.7% (3,267). The target of 5% above baseline (1,808) was exceeded by
more than 80%.
Each year, five leading organizations request outreach services from MNOSHA Compliance.
They include: Midwest Center for Occupational Health and Safety; Minnesota Safety Council; Minnesota
Health and Housing Alliance; Associated General Contractors of Minnesota; and American Society of
Safety Engineers. In addition, MNOSHA has continued to provide its popular construction breakfast five
times per year.
The construction breakfast was developed as a resource for members of the construction industry
who are responsible for construction-worksite safety to stay current with MNOSHA standards. The
construction breakfast provides a forum for members of the construction trades to discuss and share
issues and experiences with the speaker and other field investigators in attendance. Participants are
encouraged to ask questions, and express opinions and safety concerns in an open and respectful

environment. In FFY05, MNOSHA Compliance’s construction breakfast program continued to take an
active role in keeping safety in the forefront as reflected in this years’ presentations. Several MNOSHA
investigators and employees, two attorneys from the Attorney General’s Office, a Department of Health
industrial hygienist, and a private company’s safety director, contributed exceptional effort to present
pertinent safety information. These presentations were targeted at clarifying OSHA statutes, standards,
and rules that will ultimately reduce workplace hazards in the construction industry.
Presentations in FFY05 reflected a variety of topics that were suggested by last year’s audience
and industry stakeholders. The topics included lead hazards, skid steer and backhoe worksite safety,
AWAIR and the employee right-to-know program, most cited standards and fatal statistics, multi-employer
responsibilities and inspection procedures, and residential fall protection. The presentations attracted 470
people with a record 139 people attending the presentation on residential fall protection. Overall,
participants in the construction breakfast program increased 34% from FFY04.
In addition to the construction breakfast program, MNOSHA continues to participate in major
safety conferences throughout the state. MNOSHA staffed a booth with safety and health professionals,
and provided speakers at the Minnesota Safety Council Conference, the Associated General Contractors
Safety Days, and the American Society of Safety Engineers Professional Development Conference.
Topics of presentations at these events included MNOSHA Update, Fall Protection and Lockout/Tagout.
In addition to the wide variety of presentations to traditional safety and health participants,
MNOSHA Compliance increased strategic plan presentation participation from 601 participants in FFY04
to 1,263 participants in FFY05. This represents a 52% increase in participation.
In addition to live presentations, MNOSHA Compliance continues to provide valuable safety and
health material via its website. Hazard Alerts regarding Falls from Ladders used in Advertising Sign
Maintenance, Tree Felling, Carpenter Bracket Scaffolds, and Motor Vehicle Safety were added in FFY05.
In addition, the following booklets were also added:
Clarification of MN Rules 5205.0675, subp. 2, Overhead Door (new);

Sheet of variances (new);
Contents of a first aid kit (new);
Guideline for releases of hazardous substances that may require an emergency response (new);
Recordkeeping requirements for training (new);
Employee Right-To-Know model program for small employers (new);
MNOSHA’s most frequently cited standards, 2004 (updated);
MNOSHA’s most frequently cited standards for the construction industry, 2004 (updated);
Emergency eyewash and shower (updated);
Occupational Safety and Health resources on the Internet (updated).
Additionally, MNOSHA Compliance created a new directive that sets up parameters for written
communication that is to be shared with stakeholders. This directive (ADM 3.22) outlines how a Fact
Sheet, Hazard Alert and/or Fatal File is to be designed and reviewed within MNOSHA Compliance. The
MNOSHA Fatal Files will be developed on significant accidents that occur. MNOSHA feels that this
information, when shared with stakeholders, will help prevent future similar fatalities.
MNOSHA continued online publication of its quarterly Safety Lines newsletter in FFY05. Also,
MNOSHA staff served as technical advisors for the publication “To Compliance and Beyond,” a newsletter
developed for small businesses.
MNOSHA also has a video lending library, which offers a selection of safety and health videos and
DVDs available for a free two-week loan.
Goal 2.3 -
Homeland Security.
The MNOSHA Compliance program continued to be an active participant on the State Emergency
Response Team. Two Directors from the Catastrophic Events Team (CEI) Team attended the two-day
Minnesota Incident Management System course in June 2005. Team members reviewed the Emergency
Response Contingency Plan (MNOSHA Instruction CPL 2.94) in July and updates were made to several
response checklists in September. The online preparedness survey was begun, with anticipated
completion to occur in FFY06.
The Division applied for a FFY05 grant through Minnesota Homeland Security and Emergency

Management (HSEM) to fund assistance with homeland security issues. MNOSHA submitted an
application memo to HSEM, but was not awarded a grant. Additional funds will be made available, and
MNOSHA will have another opportunity to apply for funding during the first quarter of FFY06.
Goal 2.4 -
Implement Compliance Assistance Plan in FFY05.

As stated in Appendix C – the FFY04 memo regarding the Compliance Assistance Plan – MNOSHA
Compliance focused on four major areas to improve compliance assistance. This plan was primarily
carried out through the reorganization of outreach resources. During FFY05, MNOSHA Compliance
posted and conducted interviews for a vacant training officer position. It was then determined that
MNOSHA could better accomplish its outreach goal by including the newly-created safety investigator III
positions in outreach efforts throughout the state, and by having phone assistance coordinated throughout
the state by the St. Paul office. By doing this, the two existing training officers are available to provide
back-up assistance to the information officer, but no longer have responsibility for daily coverage of
phones, freeing them up to concentrate on outreach activities. This has allowed MNOSHA to use its staff
resources more effectively. In addition to reassigning responsibilities within the Division, MNOSHA
Compliance has promoted an investigator who speaks fluent Spanish, hired another investigator that
writes fluent Spanish, and can request the services of the department’s legal analyst, who also speaks
fluent Spanish. In addition, MNOSHA also works with the department’s newly-hired community services
representative, who proactively provides outreach services to immigrant and other hard-to-reach
employees and employers.
MNOSHA Compliance did not directly allocate a Principal Safety Investigator/IH3 to develop and
maintain partnership agreements. Instead, MNOSHA Compliance assigned an additional Principal
Investigator to the Greater Minnesota area, and decided to implement all of the partnership agreements
through each of the various work units impacted. All of the investigative units are covered by one or more
of these agreements.
MNOSHA Compliance has focused its outreach efforts in the construction, primary metals and
fabricated products industries; for youth through various school programs; and through professional
organizations. As stated in Goal 2.2, MNOSHA Compliance increased the number of presentations for the
strategic plan industries by 52%; a majority of these presentations were to construction employers.
MNOSHA Compliance’s construction breakfast also experienced an increase in participation of 34%.
MNOSHA Compliance assigned two staff members to develop two PowerPoint presentations to
assist with outreach presentations for the primary metals and fabricated products industries. The two
presentations are designed for different audiences: the first for employees with new responsibilities in the
area of machine safeguarding; and, the second for those with some experience in the field. Both
presentations also discuss the most frequently-cited standards in these industries.
Goal 2.5 -
In FFY05, maintain response time and/or service level to stakeholders.

Every business day, MNOSHA Compliance has two safety and health professionals on duty that answer
questions primarily received through phone calls and via e-mail. In the past, MNOSHA had a primary
information officer assigned to provide better customer service. MNOSHA currently has an information
officer and an industrial hygienist III assigned to answer these inquiries. Additional assistance is provided
as needed by Health, General Industry, Greater Minnesota and Construction. These two positions
respond to approximately 5,700 phone calls and 1,400 e-mails each year. Over 98% of theses inquiries
are answered within one day. These phone calls and e-mails are received from three primary sources –
employees, employers and consultants – and cover a wide variety of topics. The employees usually call
to file workplace safety complaints; the employers and consultants call to obtain information on how to
comply with MNOSHA standards. Most information is provided to callers during the initial phone call,
while others are directed to the MNOSHA or federal OSHA websites, or another state agency for
assistance.
MNOSHA Compliance also provides a variety of safety and health information on its website,
including printable handouts and information about its video library, which offers a selection of safety and
health videos and DVDs available for a free two-week loan. The MNOSHA site also provides links to other
websites where safety and health regulations and other information can be accessed. The number of hits

to the main MNOSHA webpage increased from 56,166 hits in FFY04 to 60,761 hits in FFY05.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS IN ACHIEVING CAPR PERFORMANCE GOALS (cont’d)
Goal #2: Promote a safety and health culture through consultation assistance,
cooperative programs and strong leadership.
Performance Goal 2.1A Increase familiarity, through interventions, outreach, and training, with MNOSHA
standards, regulations, and reference materials among stakeholder groups, which
include;
Youths – Focus on apprenticeship participants, retail trade and eating & drinking
establishments.
Small Business Owners – Focus on targeted employers in Goal number 1.1.
Workplace Violence – Focusing on industries with high incidences of workplace
violence
Targeted industries – MNOSHA Workplace Safety Consultation selected industries
with a focus on silica and lead in construction.
Primary metal industries
Transportation equipment
Fabricated products
Ergonomics – Targeting industries with high rates of MSD’s (nursing homes).
Annual Performance Goal: Increasing the number of people trained in the above stakeholder groups by 4% in
FFY 2005.
• Number of employers requesting training
• Number of business organizations/associations requesting training
• Number of training sessions conducted
Number of persons that attended training
• Work with Labor Standards and Apprenticeship Unit to
Strategies
incorporate safety and health curriculum and training to
apprenticeship program participants.
• Prioritize requests so that 90% of consultation services are with
small employers
• Provide training and outreach assistance to employers who have
workplace violence concerns
• Promote training and outreach services in the targeted industries
selected by MNOSHA Workplace Safety Consultation.
• Promote and provide training and outreach services via the web,
direct mailing, mass faxing, and part of on-site consultation visits.
• Utilize Alliances to promote our outreach and training services

• IMIS
• IMIS
• BLS survey data
• IMIS
Baseline IMIS data and State workers compensation data for FFY 2001

Assessment:
Indicator Type Indicator Projected Activity Results Comments

in CAPP
Activity Measure Total number of 130 Safety and 216 Total Safety and Health 166% of Projected activity
Safety and Health Training, Training and Assistance visits accomplished
Health Training and Assistance Projected goals changed to
and Assistance visits intervention services in
Visits for compliance with TED 3.6
FFY2005 chapter four.
Activity Measure Total number of 170 Safety and 351 Safety and Health 206 % of projected activity
Safety and Health Interventions were conducted. accomplished. Most training
Health Training Interventions sessions were changed to
Interventions intervention services in
Conducted for compliance with TED 3.6
FFY2005 chapter four.
During FFY2005, WSC continued to utilize its own website as an effective communication resource for
employees and employers. Employees and employers outside the state also view our website.
Employers can find out about WSC specific information and have the ability to request consultation
services by filling out a form on-line. WSC also posts all of their scheduled training sessions on the web.
All parties interested may download a complete copy of the brochure for dates, locations, and a
description of the training to be conducted. WSC has also put two PowerPoint training programs on the
website. One was on Blood Borne Pathogens and the other on Recording Hearing losses. These Power
Points can be downloaded and used by employers to train their employees. WSC staff developed both of
these programs. During FFY2005 there were 8479 hits on the WSC website.
Quarterly Training – The quarterly training sessions were re-started again during the first quarter of
FFY2005. During the first quarter of FFY2005, WSC in conjunction with our training partner organizations
throughout Minnesota, conducted seven half-day training seminars covering the following safety
management topics: (1) Recordkeeping requirements, and (2) Electrical Standards for General Industry.
Total attendance at the seven-first quarter seminars was 68 individuals. All of the second quarter
FFY2005 training sessions were cancelled because of poor attendance. During the third quarter of
FFY2005 WSC in conjunction with our training partner organizations throughout Minnesota, conducted
three half-day training seminars covering the following safety topics: (1) Fatal Facts, and (2) Ergonomics.
Total attendance at the three third quarter seminars was 27 individuals. During the fourth quarter of
FFY2005, WSC in conjunction with our training partner organizations throughout Minnesota, conducted
one half-day training seminar covering the following safety management topic: (1) Safety and Health for
Public Sector Employers. Total attendance at the fourth quarter seminars was 12 individuals.
Construction Breakfast – The Construction Breakfast seminar series continued in FFY2005 at four
locations in greater Minnesota. The topic for the first breakfast seminar in FFY2005, held in November
2004, was Health Hazards in Construction. There were a total of 15 attendees. The second breakfast
seminar series was held in January 2005 and the topic was Fatality/Serious Injury Review. There were a
total of 71attendees. The third breakfast seminar series was held in March 2005 and the topic was
Residential Construction. There were a total of 30 attendees. The 4th breakfast seminar series was held
in May 2005 and the topic was Health Hazards. There were a total of 12 attendees. No breakfast
seminars were held during the summer months. The breakfast seminar series resumed again in
September 2005 at two locations. The September breakfast seminar topic was Rough Terrain Forklifts;
there were 47 attendees. The breakfasts will continue to be held every other month through May.
General Industry Luncheons – WSC has continued to partner with four organizations in greater
Minnesota and holds bimonthly luncheon seminars with them. During FFY2005 WSC held 19 luncheon
meetings with the four organizations. The training topics vary for each location covering a wide range of
OSHA regulations including; machine guarding, electrical/arc flash, AWAIR, and recording hearing loss.
There were a total of 367 attendees at these sessions.

Performance Goal 2.1B Increase the number of participants in the MNSHARP Recognition Program by
4 new employers in FFY 2005.
Annual Performance Goal: Add four new MNSHARP employees.
• Number of employers inquiring about MNSHARP program
• Number of employers who engage in the MNSHARP process
Number of companies certified as MNSHARP sites
• Target small high-hazard strategic employers who have received full-

Strategies service consultations.
• Target small high-hazard employers who have received compliance
inspections.
• Conduct statewide training in safety and health program requirements.
• Place program information on web site to encourage more employer
participation.
• Provide public recognition at MN Safety Council annual convention.
• Encourage program participants to mentor other small employers.
• Provide safety abatement grant support to participants who qualify.
• Implement safety and health training partnerships.
• Implement safety committee effectiveness training to strengthen employee
involvement.
• Republish news releases in Safety Lines newsletter.
• Showcase employer’s accomplishments through the Department’s web site

Impact
publication of press releases.
• Continuously reduce the average LWDII rate of current participants.
• Reduced workers’ compensation claims or premiums.
• Recognize employers through cabinet-level participation at employer’s
worksite for flag raising ceremony.

• IMIS data
• Log of applications/certifications for program
• Voluntary reporting of OSHA 300 log data from MNSHARP
participants and partnership employers
• BLS survey data
• MN Workers’ Compensation data
• OSHA 300 log data
Baseline Number of MNSHARP certified sites at beginning of FFY 2004

MNSHARP Program Assessment:
Indicator Type Indicator Projected Results Comments
Activity in CAPP
Activity Measure Number of 4 During FFY2005, four new Two other work sites are
new Deferral participants received MNSHARP presently working towards
MNSHARP deferral certification. Met 100% of deferral status for FFY2006.
sites. goal

Activity in CAPP
Activity Measure Number of 4 During FFY2005, WSC retained Nineteen total certified
companies thirteen participants in the participants in the MNSHARP
certified as MNSHARP program. Six new program.
MNSHARP participants received MNSHARP MNSHARP DART and TCIR
sites. certification. Met 125% of goal averaged to 71% below and
56% below the Federal BLS
statistics.
“MNSHARP” (Minnesota Safety and Health Achievement Recognition Program) is a voluntary, consultation-
based program, which assists small high-hazard employers in achieving safety and health improvements and
recognizes them for doing so. Eligibility is limited to employers with up to 250 workers at the work site or less
than 500 employees corporate-wide. MNSHARP participants receive a comprehensive safety and health
consultation survey, which results in a one-year deferral status while the action plan is completed. During that
year, participants must correct identified hazards and develop and implement an effective safety and health
program with full employee involvement. MNOSHA Enforcement exempts the employer from compliance-
programmed inspections for one year while in deferral status. When the employer meets all requirements, and
the DART (Days Away Restricted Transfer) and TCIR (Total Case Incident Rate) is below the national average
for their industry, a MNSHARP Certificate of Recognition is awarded and MNOSHA Enforcement exempts the
employer from compliance-programmed inspections during its first year of certification. If an on-site safety and
health survey by the WSC Division reveals that the employer is continuing to meet the program requirements,
the employer’s certification is renewed and the employer continues to be exempt from compliance
programmed inspections for two additional years. On average, the TCIR of the 19 employers in MNSHARP
was 56 percent below their national industry average. On average, the DART rate of the 19 employers in
MNSHARP was 71 percent below their national industry average.

Strategic Goal #2: Promote a safety and health culture through consultation assistance, cooperative programs and strong
leadership.
Performance Goal Increase the number of participants in the MNSHARP Inspection Deferral Program by four in
2.1C: FFY 2005.
FFY2005 Add four new MNSHARP Inspection Deferrals.
Performance Goal:

• Number of employers inquiring about MNSHARP deferral program
• Number of employers who engage in the MNSHARP process
• Number of companies in Inspection Deferral status
• Target small high-hazard strategic employers who have received full-service consultations.
• Target small high-hazard employers who have received compliance inspections.
• Conduct statewide training in safety and health program requirements.
• Place program information on web site to encourage more employer participation.
• Provide public recognition at MN Safety Council annual convention.
• Encourage program participants to mentor other small employers.
Strategies: • Provide safety abatement grant support to participants who qualify.
• Implement safety and health training partnerships.
• Implement safety committee effectiveness training to strengthen employee involvement.
• Republish news releases in Safety Lines newsletter.
• Recommend employers who show promise into the program.
Impact • Showcase employer’s accomplishments through the Department’s web site publication of press
releases.
• Exceed the number of employers by showing an increase in employers who meet qualifications.
• Continuously reduce the average LWDII rate of current participants.
• Reduced workers’ compensation claims or premiums.

• IMIS data
• Log of applications/certifications for program
• Voluntary reporting of OSHA 300 log data from MNSHARP deferral
participants.
• BLS survey data
• MN Workers’ Compensation data
• OSHA 300 log data
Baseline Number of MNSHARP deferrals working towards MNSHARP certification at the

Beginning of FFY 2005.
MNSHARP Deferral Program Assessment:

Activity in CAPP
Activity Measure Number of 4 During FFY2005, four new Two other work sites are
new Deferral participants received MNSHARP presently working towards
MNSHARP deferral certification. Met 100% of deferral status for FFY2006.
sites. goal

Strategic Goal #2: Promote a safety and health culture through consultation assistance, cooperative
programs and strong leadership
Performance Goal 2.1D: Increase the number of Alliances with MNOSHA Workplace Safety Consultation by
two in FFY 2005.
Annual Performance Goal: Maintain existing alliances and add two new alliances.

• Design promotional pamphlets and market program.
• Director and team leaders to market program to employers, trade
and business associations.
• Number of Alliance agreements signed.
Strategies • Identify business groups, associations, and organizations related
to one of the selected industry groups and promote alliance
program.
• Establish an alliance agreement and get signatures from
Presidents and CEO’s.
• Identify business groups, associations, and organizations related
to one of the identified stakeholder groups for outreach and
training and promote alliance program.
• Showcase alliances on DLI website.

• IMIS
• IMIS
• BLS survey data
• IMIS
Baseline Number of Alliances at the beginning of FFY 2005.

Activity in
CAPP
Activity Number of 2 Signed 2 Alliance Agreements 100% of Projected
Measure Alliance Alliance were signed during Activity accomplished
Agreements Agreements FFY2005
during FFY2005

STATE PLAN STATE
DATE OTHER PARTICIPANTS
*MNOSHA Consultation Unit
Consultation Other
Implemen
State Draft Signing Kick-off Implementation
Organization/ Subject(s) Union tation Organiza-
Plan Alliance /Conclu Meeting State Sig-nee Sig-nee Team
Company of Alliance Involvement Team tion
State Developed ded Held Member
Member
Develop FED
safety and OSHA
health OH Region V
training
Alliance for the
materials WI Indiana
Polyurethanes MN NO 7/12/05
for the OSHA
Industry
spray-on IL
truck bed Michigan
liner OSHA
industry
Education,
in the form
Minnesota
of safety
Mechanical
MN and health YES 8/23/05
Contractors
training for
Association
Mechanical
Contractors
2005 Program Activities

Planned/Actual Visits
*Recognition (R)1 Pre-
Combined Other Non-
Annual Training and *Exemption (E) Recognition
Initial Visits Follow-Up Totals by Visit Related Alliances
Performance Assistance *Exemption/Recognition1 and Exemption
Goal Activities2
Goal (E/R) Programs
New Renewal
Safety Health Safety Health Safety Health S&H S&H S&H
S&H S&H
Performance
565 165 110 16 856
goal 1.1
Results of
827 139 126 37 1,129
goal 1.1
Performance
110 20 130 100 70
goal 2.1.A
Results of
216 216 351
goal 2.1.A
Performance
4 4 8 8
goal 2.1.B
Results of
6 6 8 8
goal 2.1.B
Performance
4 4
goal 2.1.C
Results of
4 4
goal 2.1.C
Performance
1 1
goal 2.1.D
Results of
2
goal 2.1.D
Combined
Planned 730 Planned130 Planned126 Planned Planned 4 Planned 8 Planned 4 Planned170 Planned 2
Safety and
Actual 966 Actual 216 Actual 163 986 Actual 6 Actual 8 Actual 4 Actual 351 Actual 2
Health
Actual
Activities
1,345
1
Enter the number of projected new and renewal Recognition (R), Exemption (E), and Exemption and Recognition (E/R) sites
separately in this column
2
Activities reflected in this column must be entered on the Intervention Form (Form 66), so that they can be captured in the IMIS.
States working with Small Business Development Centers should record activities on this worksheet and on the Intervention Form in
order to get credit when the funding formula is calculated.

Performance Goal 2.2A: Develop a plan to promote systematic approaches to safety and health in
Minnesota workplaces
Annual Performance Goal: Review training, outreach, and intervention plan annually to determine
effectiveness and make changes as needed so that strategic goals are being
met.

• Review and update existing outreach, cooperative and
intervention plans
• Existing outreach plan is modified and aligned to match the
goals outlined in the FFY 2005 plan
• The outreach, intervention and training goals are being met.
• Utilize existing outreach plan.
Strategies • Review existing outreach and training and make appropriate
adjustments so that the needs of the current 5-year strategic
plan are met.
• Identify and implement adjustments, including targeting new
areas and developing new training, that increase the impact
of consultation services and leadership activities

• IMIS
• IMIS
• BLS survey data
• IMIS
Baseline None
Assessment:
WSC will suspend the quarterly training sessions for at least one year. Attendance at the nine locations
through out the state has declined, making it ineffective. In place of the quarterly training sessions WSC will
focus outreach efforts through their Alliances. The Alliances will provide an opportunity to work with motivated
employers in high hazard industries. WSC currently has seven signed Alliances with another one pending.
WSC has also made some adjustments with the Construction Breakfast training sessions that have been held
in four locations throughout the state. Poor attendance at a couple of the locations has resulted in some
location changes. In addition WSC is trying to establish some informal partnerships to help promote
attendance at the sessions.

Performance Goal 2.2B: Participate in homeland security efforts at state level.
Annual Performance Goal Provide training and outreach assistance through alliances with MNOSHA
Enforcement, the Department of Public Safety and other public/private entities.
Indicators: Activity Measures:
• Train staff who will provide employers support.
• Trained staff participation in mock drills.
Provide intervention (Formal training, speeches, etc.) to small employers
through seminars and attendance at employers’ safety days, conferences, etc.
Strategies • Designate staff to participate on the Enforcement
Catastrophic Event Inspection team.

• Number of interventions at the state level.
Baseline None
Assessment:
The MNOSHA Safety Consultation unit has developed a one four-hour module of training for small businesses to
be delivered in FFY2005. Emergency preparedness training has been provided to one staff person who will
participate in Homeland Security activities with the MNOSHA Compliance staff. There is no clear direction from
Federal OSHA on the role of the 21(d) Consultation program. When we receive direction, Consultation will
strengthen its role.

Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Compliance (cont’d)
Goal 3
Strengthen and improve MNOSHA’s infrastructure
How Progress in Baseline Target Results Target Results Target

1
Achieving this Goal Could Be Assessed 9/30/03 FFY 04 FFY 04 FFY 05 FFY 05 FFY 08
1. Review rules annually for effectiveness: Current Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing
ongoing evaluation, development of practice See comments
rules, standards, guidelines and following chart
procedures [3.1]
2. Conduct a comprehensive work skill N/A Complete Assessment Training Training Training
assessment and generate a workforce assessment complete. identified for identified. identified for
development and retention plan core items for See comments all core items
investigations following chart
[3.2]
3. Identify and verify performance Current Identify Problems identified. Determine Solutions Performance
measurements generated at the federal practice problems with potential researched. measures
level in regard to our overall current solutions for See comments are accurate
performance performance performance following chart
measures measure [3.3]
problems
4. Survey employers and employees on our -2001 Evaluate Online survey Promote on- Survey Continually
effectiveness Employer online options available. line survey promoted, improve
survey option; gather feedback performance
results feedback and gathered and based on
-2003 analyze analyzed. survey
Employee quarterly See comments comments
survey following chart
results [3.4]
5. Develop a workflow analysis and identify Current Develop Workflow analysis Develop Workflow Ongoing
potential strengths and weaknesses of practice workflow conducted. workflow analyses
the services we provide to stakeholders analysis of analysis of conducted.
current abatement See comments
process verification following chart
and [3.5]
discrimination
processes
GOAL 3 - Comments
Goal 3.1 -
In FFY05, conduct Annual Review of Rules/Standards, Guidelines and Procedures.

The MNOSHA Compliance Directives Coordination Team (DCT) is charged with coordinating and managing
the MNOSHA internal information system. The DCT consists of one MNOSHA management analyst, two
MNOSHA program analysts, as well as two MNOSHA Management Team directors. This group monitors
federal standard/policy activity and coordinates updates to all relevant MNOSHA standards, directives, and
policies accordingly. MNOSHA adopts federal standards by reference and/or develops MN-specific standards
when necessary to support MNOSHA program goals. Federal standards/amendments adopted in FFY05
include Mechanical Power-Transmission Apparatus; Mechanical Power Presses; Telecommunications;
Hydrogen; Controlled Negative Pressure REDON Fit Testing Protocol; Standards for Shipyard Employment;
1
The Goal 3 issues have a cause-and-effect relationship with the Goal 1 and 2 issues. Consequently, the outcome of achieving this goal
is success in achieving the other two goals. For this reason the performance measures included for Goal 3 are more activity-oriented
than outcome oriented.
Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment; and the Standards Improvement Project – Phase II. The biennial
statutorily-required update to MN Rules 5208.1500, Standard Industrial Classification List for AWAIR, was
completed in FFY05. In addition, Minnesota-specific standards are reviewed annually by the Agency, and
obsolete rules are recommended for repeal.
In FFY04, the DCT developed and implemented a five-year plan for managing/updating MNOSHA
Compliance’s catalog of directives. Staff has been selected to review and revise directives. Eleven directives
were reviewed in FFY04, an additional 42 were reviewed in FFY05, and two new directives were written in FFY05.
Of the 135 directives scheduled for review and development in the five-year plan, 55 have been completed (41%).
Goal 3.2 -
FFY05: Identify training for core items.

During FFY05, MNOSHA Compliance worked on the goal of identifying training for core item for investigators
by making extensive changes to the training directive, ADM 5.1. The changes included: addition of the
formative evaluation and educational background sheet, addition of the workforce skill set, revising core
requirements, changes in new investigator training schedules, incorporation of the updated employee
performance appraisal form and clarification and documentation regarding training opportunities for
experienced staff. To accomplish the training, MNOSHA Compliance updated all of its training schedules and
now use Groupwise to schedule all training. Included in ADM 5.1, Appendix D-1, D-2 and D-3, are 69 units
that have been scheduled for the 17 new investigative staff hired by MNOSHA Compliance during FFY05.
The updated schedule involves additional staff and streamlines resources on each subject for each new
investigator. In addition to the training of new investigators, MNOSHA staff attended 34 different classes that
included 140 staff training slots. The course average is from five to nine days. The classes attended include a
wide variety of major topics such as: fall protection, electrical principals, industrial ventilation, inspection
techniques and legal aspects. MNOSHA sponsored events included an 8-hour hazardous waste operations
and emergency response refresher, two courses presented by the OSHA Training Institute – OSHA 3160
Steel Erection and OSHA 3100 Spray Finishing, and Coating Principles. In order to further develop the soft
skills, MNOSHA has included in ADM 5.1, Appendix C, a list of locations for soft skill development and
purchased a CD for each of the soft skills to aid each supervisor helping staff to become proficient in soft skills
as well as technical skills.
Goal 3.3 -
FFY05: Determine potential solutions for performance measures problems.

Meetings were held in third quarter FFY04 to review data elements in SAMM and SIR reports.
Discrepancies in the SIR report were identified and a memo transmitted to the federal OSHA Area Director
in fourth quarter FFY04. The report was forwarded to a recommended federal contact person, but there
has been no response to date.
ITS staff was directed to develop internal reports to provide data for the incorrect SIR information.
Studies were conducted in FFY05 to determine how to integrate a data collection system, streamline the
process, and incorporate imaging technology to improve overall performance.
Goal 3.4 -
Survey employers and employees: In FFY05 promote online survey, gather and analyze feedback.
MNOSHA values the opinions of the employers and employees involved in compliance inspections. In
addition to mail-in surveys collected in FFY01 and FFY03, MNOSHA Compliance evaluated and implemented
separate online Internet surveys for employers and employees recently involved in a MNOSHA Compliance
inspection. The online Internet surveys allow ongoing tracking of the inspection experiences of any employers
and employees choosing to log on and participate. The survey requests information regarding the employer’s
or employee’s perspective of the investigators knowledge of OSHA rules and regulations, ability to answer
questions, ability to explain the employee or employer’s rights and obligations, how useful the information
provided by the investigator and the inspection itself will be in improving workplace safety and health, how
satisfied the employer or employee was with the inspection, what their understanding is of why their worksite
was chosen for an inspection, as well as any additional comments. These online Internet surveys are a
valuable tool for MNOSHA to analyze and improve its one-to-one interactions with employers and employees
as well as to provide feedback to the investigative staff regarding their efforts to promote a safety and health
culture throughout Minnesota worksites.
In addition to the employer/employee survey, MNOSHA Compliance launched a Website Satisfaction
survey in FFY04, to encourage feedback from stakeholders to facilitate continuous improvement of
MNOSHA’s website. Survey responses are evaluated quarterly.
In FFY05, in an effort to gather more feedback, MNOSHA Compliance re-designed its webpage to make
the online surveys more visible and attractive to stakeholders. The MNOSHA website address will be added
to all new business card orders for staff. The OSHA information sheet and inspection booklet, handouts
provided to every employer inspected, now include the MNOSHA website address. And mentioning the
website to employers is now an item on the inspection checklist used by investigators in the field. MNOSHA
will continue to evaluate and improve ways to gather feedback through its website.
Goal 3.5 -
Develop workflow analysis of abatement verification and discrimination processes in FFY05.

In FFY04, MNOSHA Compliance reported on the efforts made to reduce the lapse time for health citation
issuance. While the year’s average was 54 days, the fourth quarter‘s average was 36 days and the
expectations were that MNOSHA health staff would meet the annual goal of 35 days. In FFY05, the average
citation issuance lapse time was reduced 37% from 54 days to 34.5 days. The goal was met.
In FFY05, process improvements were made regarding tracking and abatement verification. Prior to
FFY05, monthly abatement status reports were generated. Beginning in FFY05, the reports were improved,
generated weekly, and provided to clerks and Directors/Supervisors, to better track abatement progress.
Also in FFY05, the work flow process for discrimination was reviewed. Meetings to discuss the
current workflow and options regarding revising the workflow were held in quarters 1 and 2. Implementation of
recommendations occurred primarily in the third quarter. The workflow analysis was a prime driver in reducing
the case load of the discrimination unit and has proven to be a useful tool in training new discrimination
investigators. (See workflow chart in Appendix F.)

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS IN ACHIEVING CAPR PERFORMANCE GOALS (cont’d)
Goal #3 Maximize MNOSHA Workplace Safety Consultation effectiveness and

efficiency by strengthening our capabilities and infrastructure.
Performance Goal 3.1A Develop and implement a marketing plan, focusing MNOSHA Workplace Safety
Consultation assistance towards employers with the highest workers’
compensation cost and the highest injury and illness rates within the targeted
industries.
Annual Performance Goal Annually create a marketing plan tailored to meet the strategic goals for FFY
2005.
• Use Economic Security employers’ information.
• Use workers’ compensation injury information.
• Compile employers list and promote consultation services.
• Improve number of targeted employers request services.
• Use special marketing services
Strategies • Free radio and television advertising.
• Direct cold calling
• Use employers group fax
• Use direct mail
• Press releases

• BLS
• Workers’ Compensation data
• Economic Security data
• IMIS
• BLS
• IMIS
• BLS
Baseline none
Assessment:
The MNOSHA Workplace Safety Consultation unit has effectively used its outreach, intervention, and training to promote its consultation
activities. The unit has used the Minnesota Safety Hazard Abatement Grant Program participants list as another venue for promoting its on-
site consultation program. Other marketing activities are listed below:
• MNOSHA website • Trade and business association presentations

• Press releases • Word of mouth and through satisfied customer referrals
• Speakers Bureau • Alliances and construction partners
• Health alliance convention
• Direct mailing to targeted industries from the state’s workers’ compensation unit data and from the
Department of Economic security employers’ information.

Performance Goal 3.1B Increase in the number of staff to receive certification training in FFY 2005
(CSP, CIH, ASP)
Annual Performance Goal Assess staff training needs and appropriate budget to accomplish training for
certificates.
• Secure commitment and provide annual training to staff to
position them for examinations.
• Motivate staff for annual testing and provide annual funding.
Add one certification once every two years.
Strategies Provide OTI training; CD-Rom, class room or web based training as needed to
prepare staff to test for certifications.

• Secure staff commitment.
• Allocate study time and ensure staff sit for exam.
• Staff takes exam and passes.
Baseline 4 CSP’s
2 CIH
Assessment:
The MNOSHA Consultation unit has added one staff with appropriate credentials, and a temporary worker.

Performance Goal 3.1C Develop and implement effectiveness measures and ensure MARC and CAPR
requirements are met and maintained in FFY 2005.
Annual Performance Goal Meet all of the requirements outlined in the Consultation Annual Project Plan
(CAPP) and MARC.
• Review and approve assessment of monthly and quarterly
MNOSHA Workplace Safety Consultation
• Review of MNOSHA Workplace Safety Consultation activity
during quarterly monitoring with Federal OSHA Area Director
and Region V Consultation Program Manager.
• CAPR
• Promote MNOSHA WORKPLACE SAFETY
Strategies
CONSULTATION services in line with the 5-year strategic
plan and the CAPP.
• Monitor MNOSHA WORKPLACE SAFETY
CONSULTATION activity weekly and monthly by reviewing
IMIS data and make adjustments in staff work assignments
if necessary to stay on track with CAPP.
• With assistance from the department’s Research and
Statistics Unit, conduct annual effectiveness study and
publish results.

• IMIS and workers’ compensation data
• IMIS
• OPTMS
• MARC
• Workers’ compensation data
• IMIS
• OPTMS
• MARC
• Annual effectiveness study or report
Baseline CAPP, MARC
Assessment:
The MNOSHA Consultation program has met the CAPP and MARC requirement for FFY 2005.
• Percent of initial visits in large hazard establishment…99.38%
• Percent of initial visits to smaller businesses…98.02%
• Percent of visits where consultants conferred with employee…100%
• 4A through 4C on closed cases only…100%
• Percent of serious hazards verified no later than 90 days…100%
• Total number of visits planned vs. actual from CAPP…132% (Planned 856 and 1,129 conducted)
• SHARP goal met, Deferral goal met, and Intervention goal exceeded.

Performance Goal 3.1D Improve MNOSHA Workplace Safety Consultation strategic management of
human capital in FFY 2005.
Annual Performance Goal Annually plan and develop a staff-training plan with a focus on emerging safety
and health issues.
• Ensure OSHA has the skills, capabilities and diversity to
accomplish its mission by conducting a comprehensive
workforce skills assessment and implementing a human
capital/workforce development plan.
• Ensure future leadership by implementing a succession plan.
• Enhance future technical competencies by creating incentives
for professional development.
• Improve recruitment, development, diversity, and retention of
talent.
Implement an effective safety and health program within OSHA.
Strategies
• Send staff to OTI and other relevant training sources.
• Send staff to local and specialized academic institutions to
enhance knowledge, skills and abilities.
• Implement alliances with trade and business associations to
be monitored by experiences professionals.

• Baseline staff skills assessment.
• Annual MNOSHA Workplace Safety Consultation training
plan.
• Certificate for completion of training courses
Baseline Results of initial staff skills assessment FFY 2003
Assessment:
The MNOSHA Consultation Unit met its annual staff development plan for FFY 2005. The unit made
improvements by hiring one individual with CSP credentials. The staff also participated in local and OTI courses.
Other staff did not meet their training needs because OTI courses were cancelled. Example of staff development
courses included (1) Applied Ergonomics, (2) Form 33, (3) Construction Safety, (4) Local Safety Council courses,
and the OSHA 502, etc.

- Minnesota Occupational Safety & Health Compliance (OSH) and
SPECIAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS
In addition to traditional compliance activities, MNOSHA also concentrates efforts in other areas aimed at
assisting employers to make their workplaces safer and healthier. Some achievements for FFY2005 include:
Compliance:
General Accomplishments.
In FFY2005, the MNOSHA Compliance staffing level was approximately 92 people. Fifteen new investigators
were trained.
The Field Safety and Health Manual (FSHM) was re-issued. The Field Compliance Manual (FCM),
and Case File Prep Manual (CFPM) were updated. In addition, the directives maintenance project continued,
and several directives were updated in FFY05.
A few of MNOSHA Compliance’s process improvement efforts are already indicated in other sections of this
annual report, including understanding and optimizing discrimination resources, defining work skills, and
developing an ongoing directive review and update process. The following process improvements were made
during FFY05:
Communication and Management Effectiveness

MNOSHA, as well as all organizations, can improve communication and management effectiveness. In each
staff meeting, management asked what communication should continue, stop, and start. Included is an
overview of input obtained as a result of this exercise. (See Appendix G, for the entire Summary.) It was
decided by the management team to implement the following changes:
1. Define what teams are active.
2. Update layout of the central electronic information folder.
3. Provide a summary of changes along with an updated copy of the directive.
4. Send as much information out electronically as possible.
5. Define and adhere to a chain of command.
6. Update Friday email to staff to provide more detail.
7. Meet DLI’s new legislative liaison.
8. Include electronic path on memos.
9. Share quarterly monitoring information with staff.
10. Define the official communication tool for teams, staff minutes, OMT and DCT.
11. Update ADM 8.1 so the hyper-links work.
12. Generate a list of acronyms.
MNOSHA had completed all but item 2 at the end of FFY04. The layout of the central electronic folder
was updated in FFY05.
Also in FFY05, MNOSHA began implementing Perfect Law software among the Principal safety
investigators and IH 3 staff who conduct informal conferences.
In addition, it was agreed to try to: communicate assignments prior to putting them in writing; give as
much time as possible to implement changes; seek input from staff on policy and/or program changes; provide
more positive feedback; use a more open management style; and, complete performance reviews in a timely
manner.
In FFY05, the MNOSHA OMT read a management effectiveness book, titled, “Zapp! The Lightning of
Empowerment,” by William C. Byham, Ph.D., and attended a seminar on “Fish in the Workplace.”
Technology
MNOSHA Compliance conducts evaluation of potential new equipment and/or technology throughout the year.
This allows for identification of potential end-of-year purchases. In FFY05, MNOSHA purchased 77 new noise

dosimeters for field investigators with PC interface capabilities. The capability of this technology represents a
better and more efficient way to present monitoring results to employers.
Health Scheduling: The MNOSHA Compliance Health Director and Supervisor met with representatives of the
Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) in FFY05 to discuss efforts to impact the prevalence of occupational
asthma. Using data provided by MDH, MNOSHA initiated a pilot inspection program in selected industries
suspected of using contaminants which may contribute to asthma.
Grassroots: In FFY05, MNOSHA and the DLI Communication Unit, began the task of revising and publishing
Grassroots, the annual publication of the OSHA State Plan Association (OSHSPA). Timely publication and
distribution of the FFY05 edition was accomplished in September 2005. MNOSHA will also publish the FFY06
edition.
Evaluation Projects/Reports: MNOSHA Compliance and the DLI Research and Statistics Division conducted
the following research projects in FFY 2005 to help MNOSHA improve as an organization (see Appendix G for
Executive Summaries):
• Determine whether Experience Modifier Rates can be incorporated into MNOSHA’s scheduling plan
as an additional factor to aid in the selection of companies under target industry lists.
• Analyze OSHA-31 data for MNOSHA from January 2003 through June 2005 for trends and
inconsistencies in time reporting for inspection activities and program support for investigators and
compared data to federal OSHA statistics.
• Review General Duty citations issued April 2002 through April 2005 and recommended modification of
specified Minnesota Rules to clarify hazards due to the prevalence of the citation identified.
• Analyze fatalities, catastrophes, and serious injuries investigated from January 2000 through June
2005 and develop informative letters to those Minnesota industries identified with a high number of
fatal and serious accidents that occurred in within their SIC.
• Analyze data from a 2004 Health inspection program targeting isocyanate exposure in the spray-on
truck bed relining industry.
• Compare Workers’ Compensation Claims and OSHA Data Initiative Cases to determine whether it
makes sense to continue using both sources and ascertain what, if anything, can be learned to
improve MNOSHA’s targeting strategies.
• Analyze Workers’ Compensation Safety Incentives in Minnesota and offer ideas for expanding these
incentives in the Assigned Risk Plan (ARP).
IH Students Shadow MNOSHA: During the Winter 2005 school semester, 12 students from the University of
Minnesota School of Public Health PUBH 5172, Industrial Hygiene Applications course accompanied
MNOSHA Compliance industrial hygienists and industrial hygiene engineers on compliance inspections. The
purpose of this exercise was to provide students with an opportunity to learn more about OSHA’s activities and
to experience, first-hand, an inspector’s work. It also presented MNOSHA a unique opportunity to showcase a
portion of its enforcement program.
Each student accompanied an inspector once during the semester to observe an inspection and
interactions with business owners and employees. Students prepared a short paper on their experience which
was included with their overall grade for the course.
At the conclusion, each group was asked a short survey on their reaction to the experience. Based on
their overall responses, this was a positive experience for the students and the inspectors. (See Appendix G).
Consultation:
Loggers’ Safety Education Program (LogSafe). This program, which is 100% state-funded and administered
by the WSC unit, provides safety training through eight-hour seminars throughout the state. The goal of the
program is to help reduce injuries and illnesses in the logging industry through onsite consultation services,
outreach and training seminars. In order to receive workers’ compensation premium rebates from the
Targeted Industry Fund, logger employers must maintain current workers’ compensation and they and their
employees must have attended, during the previous year, a logging safety seminar sponsored or approved by
the WSC unit. During FFY2005, WSC conducted 17 logger safety seminars with 525 employees and 532
employers in attendance for a total of 1057 participants. There were 22 training sessions tied to a previous
initial consultation with 734 participants. There were 78 interventions conducted statewide with 1,887
participants. The intervention and training sessions conducted included (1) CPR/first aid, (2) chain saw/PPE,
(3) AWAIR safety and health program, (4) Right-to-Know program, (5) hearing conservation, (6) lockout-
tagout, (7) fire extinguisher training, (8) safe work practices, and (9) hazard recognition. Fourteen on-site
consultations visits were conducted. WSC conducted a satisfaction survey with 92% response rate (861 of
939 seminar participants). Survey Results:
• Participants are generally quite satisfied with the quality of the training they receive: 85% were
satisfied with the meeting facilities, 78% were satisfied with the training, 87% were satisfied with the
instructor’s knowledge and 83% were satisfied with the instructor’s ability to answer their question.
• Employers had slightly lower average satisfaction scores, and sole proprietors had slightly higher
ones.
• The greatest dissatisfaction, though small, is with the usefulness of the training in day-to-day work: 7%
of employers versus 3% of others were dissatisfied with the usefulness of the seminar’s content in
their day-to-day work.
• Participants would like to see training on mechanized equipment, forest workers diseases, equipment
repair and global positioning systems.
• Participants like the current one-day, eight-hour seminars (31%) and would like to see it offered more
at logger education conferences. About half as many responses were received for “conduct an eight-
hour on-site Logsafe training on a specific piece of equipment” and roughly the same number for “ a
half-day Logsafe seminar and a half-day Safety Consultation visit”.
Workplace Violence Prevention Program. This program helps employers and employees reduce the
incidence of violence in their workplaces by providing on-site consultation, telephone assistance, education
and training seminars, and a resource center. This program is targeted toward workplaces at high risk of
violence, such as convenience stores, service stations, taxi and transit operations, restaurants and bars,
motels, guard services, patient care facilities, schools, social services, residential care facilities, and
correctional institutions. The Workplace Violence Prevention Program is a 100% state-funded program and is
administered by the WSC unit. In FFY2005, WSC conducted 45 violence-related intervention presentations
covering 1,390 private sector employers and employees. WSC has partnered with the Minnesota Corporation
Citizenship Initiative program to help develop information for employers on how to address domestic violence
in the workplace.
Safety Grants Program. This 100% state-funded program, which is administered by the WSC unit, awards
funds up to $10,000 for qualifying employers on projects designed to reduce the risk of injury and illness to
their employees. Qualified applicants must be able to match the grant money awarded and must use the
award to complete a project that reduces the risk of injury or disease to employees. During State Fiscal Year
(SFY) 2005, a total of 180 safety grants were awarded to private and public sector employers (e.g., schools,
higher education facilities, cities, counties, and state agencies). These grants were applied toward projects
with total costs of $4.4 million; employers contributed approximately $3.4 million of the total. Purchased:
JetVacs, Fall Protection Equipment, gas monitors, patient lifts, cranes, trench boxes, defibrillators, fire and
smoke alarms, chlorine leak detectors, Personal Protection Equipment, dust collectors, delimber, vests, paint
booths, ergonomic furniture, eye wash stations, etc.
Ergonomics Task Force. Ergonomic specialist positions: In July – 2003, two positions were created to assist
employers in reducing the occurrences of Work-Related Musculo-Skeletal Disorders (WMSD). The positions
were created in response to recommendations made by the Ergonomics Task Force, which convened the
summer of 2002. The main responsibilities of the positions are to educate Minnesota employers and
employees on the recognition and control of risk factors associated with WMSD. This will be accomplished
through development of training & education presentations and materials, on-site ergonomic evaluations, and
providing resources on ergonomics and the control of WMSD, on the DLI website.
In an effort to maximize impact in reducing WMSD within the state, initial efforts will focus on the nursing home
industry. Part of this focus has included the development and commencement of a nursing home study. This
study is assessing the injury & illness impact, at nursing home facilities that choose to obtain assistance, from
Workplace Safety Consultation compared to, those facilities that do not. The study requires volunteers, who
are willing to make a commitment, to reduce WMSD, through the acquisition of lift & transfer equipment. And
the development and implementation of required elements of an ergonomics management system, and
associated work policies. This study began in January of 2004. 26 employers are now committed to the
study. All 26 employers have received their initial comprehensive safety and health on-site consultation visits.
As a result of these visits, the consultants identified 651 safety and health hazards. These hazards have been
corrected on a timely basis. The estimated penalty savings is about $256,000. Example of hazards included
the following:
Health Hazards Safety Hazards

Hazard Category: Number of Hazard Category: Number of
Instances Instances
Blood-borne Pathogens 92 AWAIR 65
Right-to-Know 38 Machine Guarding 71
Permit-Required Confined Space 12 Electrical 154
OSHA 300 Log 47 Eye Wash Stations 9
Asbestos 5 Walking/Working Surfaces 20
Lock-out/Tag-out 56
Fall Protection 13
Exist Access 8
Labor-Management Safety 10
Committee
Nursing Home Study Ergonomic Visits
As part of the nursing home study, 41 ergonomic consultations were conducted to assist the study participants in
the identification and management of ergonomic risk factors that contribute to worker injury.
Other Primary Ergonomics Visits
A total of 22 ergonomic consultations were provided for various general industry, public sector, and long-term care
sites. Eight additional safety & health consultations were provided that included ergonomic evaluation of specific work
tasks and work areas.
Ergonomics Training
Twenty formal training presentations were provided on ergonomics, for private and public sector employers.
Workplace Safety Consultations quarterly training – (3 sessions) – Ergonomics

A total of 18 employers and 24 employees attended the sessions.
Training in partnership with the Minnesota Safety Council:
Supervisor’s Role in Managing Ergonomics (5 sessions)

A total of 74 employers and 121 employees attended the sessions.
Evaluate Your Office Work Station (3 sessions)

A total of 18 employers and 43 employees attended the sessions
Evaluate Your Industrial Work Station (3 sessions)

A total of 19 employers and 27 employees attended the sessions
American Association of Occupational Health Nurses 2005 Exposition – Ergonomics in Long-Term Care (1
session)
Minnesota Municipal Utilities Association – (5 sessions) – Office Ergonomics

State Office of Administrative Hearings – (1 sessions) – Office Ergonomics

INTERNAL QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM
All fulltime WSC consultants have previously worked for two or more years as compliance officers in the MNOSHA
Enforcement Division, giving them the necessary skills to identify hazards while performing on-site consultation
surveys. As part of an orientation process with the consultation program supervisor, the new consultant receives
an extensive review of the consultation process, including on-site procedures, consultation policies, forms
completion and establishment of a case file. Following orientation, the new consultant will accompany the
supervisor and one or more principal consultants in on-site field consultations. During the consultant's
probationary period, under the direction of the supervisor, the new consultant participates in the Web-Based OTI
course 1500 and the TED 3.6 - Consultation Policies and Procedures Manual (CPPPM). Additionally, new
consultants are enrolled into OTI Course #245, which is essentially the evaluation of safety and health programs.
New consultants also receive training on using the web based Consultation Form 33, and the Minnesota Bureau of
Mediation Services Facilitation course.
As one primary function of the WSC program, employers and employees can receive offsite technical assistance
by phone, addressing standards interpretation, abatement assistance, hazard prevention and control
methodologies, and appropriate referrals to other agencies for non-OSHA related issues. Telephone assistance is
also offered describing WSC programs, requirements, and obligations to those employers wishing to initiate on-site
consultation services at their worksite. This information is also found on the MNOSHA Web site. The MNOSHA
Web site is accessible to employers and employees at www.doli.state.mn.us. This Web site contains information
on WSC programs and the WSC quarterly outreach-training schedule. In addition, WSC receives, and within 24
hours responds to, numerous E-mail inquiries that range from federal standards interpretation to state specific
directives.
During on-site consultation visits, WSC consultants follow the current 1908 regulations, state policies and
procedures, and the mandatory checklist requirements. Use of the checklist ensures that the consultants covers
all required information, including the employer's obligation to correct all identified serious hazards in a timely
manner. The relationship between MNOSHA Enforcement and WSC is included in the checklist items.
Consultants generate a written report after each visit, which is mailed to the employer. For General Industry Safety
reports, the employer receives the written report within 15 working days after the closing conference. For
Construction Safety reports, the employer receives the written report within five working days after the closing
conference. For Health reports, the employer receives the written report within 30 days after the closing
conference. The report identifies the hazards and relates each hazard to the appropriate federal or state standard
number that is in violation. The report also provides a recommendation for options on how to correct each of the
identified hazards and a mutually agreed upon date of correction. Employers are obligated to respond in writing on
how they have corrected each identified serious hazard. Approximately five percent of the consultants’ time is
spent conducting follow-up visits verifying that hazards have been corrected.
The WSC program follows the Federal Consultation Policies and Procedures Manual - TED 3.6. In addition, WSC
internal policies and protocols have been developed to further guide program activities and maintain consistency.
Information regarding WSC programs, their performance and program issues, flow down, across, and up the
organization in periodic staff meetings, memos, E-mails and OMT meeting minutes.
Consultant activity is monitored via weekly planned activity entries on the WSC calendar, activity logs updated
monthly, NCR reports regarding consultation activities in FFY2004, and NCR error reports ensuring correction of
form entry problems. On a weekly basis, each consultant is given a copy of a report indicating previous
consultation activity with yet uncorrected hazards. This process ensures that employers are contacted regarding
the timeliness of their corrective actions.
The director, to ensure that the correct federal or state standards have been referenced for the identified hazards
reviews all case files for safety and health consultations. This process ensures accuracy and consistency of the
WSC program.
Each consultant undergoes an annual performance evaluation conducted by either the WSC program director or

supervisor.
On a quarterly basis, a monitoring meeting is held with the Federal Area Director to discuss progress made
towards the state's strategic plan goals, quality control issues, and opportunities for corrective action when
warranted. The MARC, CAM, SAM and SIR are the basis of the quarterly discussion. The MNOSHA
Management Team meets on a weekly basis to discuss the day-to-day issues, concerns, and opportunities of the
MNOSHA program.
Marketing of WSC services is accomplished:
1) During outreach training sessions conducted at nine locations throughout the state on a quarterly basis,
2) MNOSHA Web site,
3) Press releases,
4) WSC Speakers Bureau,
5) In Alliance with our outreach training partners throughout the state,
6) Booths during trade and business association conferences
Customer satisfaction surveys are conducted annually. Outreach training sessions conducted by WSC staff
include course evaluations to determine participant levels of satisfaction.

Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health (MNOSHA) Compliance
MANDATED ACTIVITIES
Activities mandated under the Occupational Safety and Health Act are considered core elements of
Minnesota’s occupational safety and health program. The accomplishment of these core elements is tied to
achievement of the State’s strategic goals. Many mandated activities are “strategic tools” used to achieve
outcome and performance goals.
“Mandated activities” include program assurances and state activity measures. Fundamental program
requirements that are an integral part of the MNOSHA program are assured through an annual commitment
included as part of the 23(g) grant application. Program assurances include:
f Unannounced, targeted inspections, including prohibition against advance notice;
f First instance sanctions;
f A system to adjudicate contestations;
f Ensuring abatement of potentially harmful or fatal conditions;
f Prompt and effective standards setting and allocation of sufficient resources;
f Counteraction of imminent dangers;
f Responses to complaints;
f Fatality/catastrophe investigations;
f Ensuring employees:
* Protection against, and investigation of, discrimination
* Access to health and safety information
* Information on their rights and obligations under the Act
* Access to information on their exposure to toxic or harmful agents
f Coverage of public employees;
f Recordkeeping and reporting;
f Voluntary compliance activities.
Mandated activities are tracked on a quarterly basis using the SAMM (State Activity Measures) Report which
compares State activity data to an established reference point. Additional activities are tracked using the
Interim State Indicator Report (SIR) and the OSHA Performance Measurement Report (Minnesota). A
comparison of MNOSHA activity measures for FFY03, FFY04 and FFY05 is provided in the tables beginning
on the following page.
Significant improvement was seen in these mandated activities in FFY05:

-Complaint inspections were conducted within an average of 2.6 days, significantly lower than
the goal of 9 days;
-Complaint investigations were conducted within an average of 1.1 days, significantly lower than
the goal of 2 days.
-MNOSHA safety programmed inspections results in 71.3% with serious/willful/repeat citations
versus the national average of 57.4%.
-MNOSHA health programmed inspections results in 60.6% with serious/willful/repeat citations
versus the national average of 50.5%.

COMPARISON OF FFY03, FFY04, and FFY05 ACTIVITY MEASURES
MNOSHA Compliance
STATE ACTIVITY MANDATED MEASURES (SAMMs)
Goal/
Performance Measure FFY03 FFY04 FFY05 National Comments
Data
Average number of days to 4.58 5.00 2.63 9 The average number of days to initiate a
initiate complaint inspections complaint inspection decreased significantly in
FFY05 and remains well below the established
goal.
Average number of days to 3.76 2.09 1.09 2 The average number of days to initiate a
initiate complaint complaint investigation continued to decrease in
investigations FFY05 and is below the established goal.
Percent of Complaints where 100 100 100 100 MNOSHA continues to timely notify all
complainants were notified on complainants.
time
Percent of complaints and 95.71 97.96 100 100 All imminent danger complaints were responded
referrals responded to within 1 to within one day.
day – Imminent Danger
Number of denials where entry 2 2 0 0 There were no denials where entry was not
not obtained obtained in FFY 05.
% of serious/willful/repeat 65.36 58.70 71.34 100 MNOSHA has concentrated efforts through its
violations verified – Private workflow analysis to address verification of
abatement which resulted in improvement in this
area.
% of serious/willful/repeat 59.18 77.42 83.33 100 The verification of Public Sector violations
violations verified – Public continued to improve in FFY05 but remains below
the goal.
Average number of calendar 24.82 24.87 23.65 45.3 The average number of calendar days from
days from opening conference opening conference to citation issue for safety
to citation issue – Safety cases remained steady and well below the
national average.
Average number of calendar 56.81 54.84 35.67 58.6 The average number of calendar days from
days from opening conference opening conference to citation issuance for health
to citation issue – Health cases deceased significantly in FFY05 and is well
below the national average.
% of programmed inspections 63.45 66.88 71.29 57.4 The percent of programmed safety inspections
with serious/willful/repeat with serious/willful/repeat violations increased in
violations – Safety FFY05 and remains above the national average.
% of programmed inspections 47.50 60.81 60.61 50.5 The percent of programmed health inspections
with serious/willful/repeat with serious/willful/repeat violations remains above
violations – Health the national average.
Average violations per 2.13 2.13 2.19 2.1 MNOSHA remains slightly above the national
inspection with violations – average for the number of violations per
Serious/willful/repeat inspection with S/W/R violations.
Average violations per .49 .47 .49 1.3 MNOSHA remains below the national average for
inspection with violations – other-than-serious violations.
Other
Average initial penalty per 657.64 722.18 830.19 1,287.80 The average initial penalty per serious violation
serious violation (Private has increased steadily but remains below the
Sector Only) national average. In addition to the limited
numbers of large employers, the number of
AWAIR and written RTK citations issued impacts
this.
% of total inspections in public 5.23 3.9 5.63 4.9 The number of public sector inspections increased
sector in FFY05.
STATE ACTIVITY MANDATED MEASURES (SAMMs)
Goal/
Performance Measure FFY03 FFY04 FFY05 National Comments
Data
Average lapse time from 153.30 135.41 163.96 206.7 The average lapse time from receipt of contest to
receipt of contest to first level first level decision increased in FFY 05 but
decision remains below the national average.
Percent of 11(c) investigations 7.35 18.18 26.09 100 The percent of 11(c) investigations completed
completed within 90 days within 90 days improved in FFY05.
% of 11(c) complaints that are 16.18 14.55 15.94 20.9 The percent of merit cases increased in FFY05.
meritorious
% of meritorious 11(c) 54.55 100 54.55 84.4 The percent of meritorious cases settled
complaints that are settled decreased in FFY 05.
Data Source: State Activity Mandated Measures (SAMM) – November 6, 2005.
INTERIM STATE INDICATOR REPORT (SIR)

Goal/National
Performance Measure FFY03 FFY04 FFY05 Data Comments
Enforcement (Private Sector) 90.3 91.1 89.8 58.4 The percent of programmed safety
% Programmed Inspections- inspections in the private sector
Safety continues to be significantly higher than
the national average.
Enforcement (Private Sector) 64.2 58.1 60.2 40.4 The percent of programmed health
% Programmed Inspections- inspections in the private sector
Health continues to be significantly higher than
the national average.
Enforcement (Private Sector) 68.5 70.8 73.7 64.8 The percent of programmed safety
% Programmed Inspections with inspections with violations in the private
Violations – Safety sector continued to increase in FFY05
and remains above the national average.
Enforcement (Private Sector) 56.1 66.1 56.6 53.1 The percent of programmed health
% Programmed Inspections with inspections with violations in the private
Violations – Health sector decreased in FFY05 but remains
above the national average.
Enforcement (Private Sector) 80.4 80.4 79.7 75.8 The percent of serious violations in
% Serious Violations – Safety safety cases declined slightly in FFY05.
Enforcement (Private Sector) 72.7 75.5 72.5 61.2 The percent of serious violations in
% Serious Violations – Health health cases decreased slightly in
FFY05.
Enforcement (Private Sector) 4.9 4.3 4.9 19.3 The percent of safety cases with
Abatement Periods for Violations abatement periods greater than 30 days
Safety % > 30 days remained steady and well below the
national average.
Enforcement (Private Sector) 5 10.4 8.9 11.3 The percent of health cases with
Abatement Periods for Violations abatement periods greater than 60 days
Health % > 60 days decreased in FFY05 and is below the
national average.
Enforcement (Private Sector) 195.30 210.60 265.70 1011.10 The average other-than-serious penalty
Average Penalty – Safety for safety cases increased in FFY05 but
Other-than-Serious remains well below the national average.
In addition to the limited numbers of
large employers, the number of AWAIR
and written RTK citations issued impacts
this.

INTERIM STATE INDICATOR REPORT (SIR)
Goal/National
Performance Measure FFY03 FFY04 FFY05 Data Comments
Enforcement (Private Sector) 249.8 241.7 281.10 876.30 The average other-than-serious penalty
Average Penalty – Health for health cases remains well below the
Other-than-Serious national average. In addition to the
limited numbers of large employers, the
number of AWAIR and written RTK
citations issued impacts this.
Enforcement (Private Sector) 4.1 3.7 3.5 4.8 Calculation error. Memo to Region 5
Inspections per 100 Hours – Area Director regarding data discrepancy
Safety was sent. No response or action
received.
Enforcement (Private Sector) 1.7 2.5 2.8 1.8 The number of health inspections per
Inspections per 100 hours – Health hundred hours increased in FFY05.
Enforcement (Private Sector) 0 .1 .1 4.7 This measure does not accurately reflect
% Violations vacated MNOSHA’s system where employers
must contest prior to scheduling an
informal conference.
Enforcement (Private Sector) 0 0 0 4.4 This measure does not accurately reflect
% Violations Reclassified MNOSHA’s system where employers
must contest prior to scheduling an
informal conference.
Enforcement (Private Sector) 79.8 78.9 77.5 60.6 The penalty retention rate for private
% Penalty Retention sector inspections decreased in FFY05
but remains above the national average.
Enforcement (Public Sector) 94.7 81.7 91.9 N/A The percent of programmed safety
% Programmed Inspections – inspections increased in FFY05.
Safety
Enforcement (Public Sector) 0 13.6 31.8 N/A The number of programmed health
% Programmed Inspections – inspections in the public sector increased
Health significantly in FFY05.
Enforcement (Public Sector) 69.9 78.4 72.6 N/A The percent of serious violations for
% Serious Violations – Safety public sector safety inspections is
consistent with those in the private
sector.
Enforcement (Public Sector) 45.5 88.5 78.6 N/A The percent of serious violations in
% Serious Violations – Health health cases in the public sector
decreased in FFY05.
Review Procedures 12.7 10.6 15.8 23.1 MNOSHA continues to vacate a lower
% Violations Vacated percentage of violations after
contestation than the national average.
Review Procedures 9.9 11.5 12.5 14.1 MNOSHA continues to reclassify fewer
%Violations Reclassified violations after contestation than the
national average.
Review Procedures 46.9 53 54.3 52.3 MNOSHA’s penalty retention rate
% Penalty Retention continued to increase in FFY05.
Data Source: Interim State Indicator Report (SIR) – September 2005.

MNOSHA Performance Measurement Report
MEASURES/ INDICATORS FFY04 FFY05 COMMENTS
Performance Measure 1
Silica
Number of Inspections 36 87
MNOSHA prioritized strategic industries in accordance
Percent of Total Inspections 1.4% 3.4%
with the FFY2004-2008 strategic plan.
Number of serious/willful/repeat 32 117
Lead
MNOSHA prioritized strategic industries in accordance
with the FFY2004-2008 strategic plan.
Food & Related Products (20XX) MNOSHA prioritized strategic industries in
accordance with the FFY2004-2008 strategic
Number of serious/willful/repeat 280 205 plan.
Lumber & Wood Products (24XX) MNOSHA prioritized strategic industries in
accordance with the FFY2004-2008 strategic
Number of serious/willful/repeat 120 189 plan.
Furniture & Fixtures (25XX)
Number of Inspections 28 45 MNOSHA prioritized strategic industries in
Percent of Total Inspections 1.1% 1.7% accordance with the FFY2004-2008 strategic plan.
Paper & Related Products (26XX)
Percent of Total Inspections 1.3% 1.1% MNOSHA prioritized strategic industries in accordance
Number of serious/willful/repeat 70 55 with the FFY2004-2008 strategic plan.
Rubber & Misc. Plastics (30XX)
Number of Inspections 77 75 MNOSHA prioritized strategic industries in accordance
Percent of Total Inspections 2.9% 2.9% with the FFY2004-2008 strategic plan.
Industrial Machine / Equip (35XX)
Construction
Public Sector

MNOSHA Performance Measurement Report
MEASURES/ INDICATORS FFY03 FFY04 FFY05 COMMENTS
ADDITIONAL FIELD Overall, the additional field indicators

remained consistent in FFY 05.
INDICATORS
% serious/willful/repeat violations 81% 82% 81%
Number of significant cases 0 0 2
Number of programmed inspections 2220 2210 2155
Number of unprogrammed inspections 354 420 417
Average penalty for serious/willful/repeat

723 811.36 952.76
violations
% of inspections with “other than serious”
8% 7% 6%
violations
Contested cases rate 17 16.7 18.7
Hour per safety construction inspection 10 9 10
Hours per safety non-construction

20 22 20
inspection
Hours per health construction inspection 23 26 14
Hours per health non-construction

34 33 27
inspection
Median citation lapse time for safety
14 13 14
construction inspections
Median citation lapse time for safety non-
15 16 13
Median citation lapse time for: The median health lapse time decreased
30 62 21
Health non-construction inspections significantly.
Median citation lapse time for: Health
40 28 29
% of inspections in compliance:
35% 32% 32%
Construction
29% 28% 28%
non-construction
31% 27% 26%
Programmed
43% 45% 49%
Unprogrammed
% of inspections in compliance: Total 32% 30% 30%
Total number of inspections conducted 2574 2630 2572
Total number of complaint investigations 402 341 425
Total number of consultation activities 1004 939 1142 WSC Division
Total number of technical assistance WSC Division

669 253 263
activities
Data source: OSHA Performance Measurement Report: Measures and Indicators Related to Performance Goals – Minnesota Data
September 2005

Appendix A
Labor and Industry - a trusted resource utilized by employees and employers STATE OF MINNESOTA
Date: April 29, 2005
To: Construction Leadership Meeting attendees

And Interested Parties
From: Commissioner Scott Brener

Assistant Commissioner Roslyn Wade
Subject: Agency response to the construction leadership meeting
A special meeting on March 11, 2005, sought your advice, input and support. During January and February
2005, Minnesota OSHA investigated four construction-related fatalities and four general-industry fatalities.
The purpose of this meeting was to find ways to address this alarming fatality rate, specifically in the
construction industry.
The items specifically identified during the meeting for improvement (see attachment) have been utilized to
continue to develop the MNOSHA Compliance and Workplace Safety Consultation units. The following
will be implemented:
• Look at employees presently licensed, such as plumbers and electricians, to determine what
additional safety and health training could be provided.
• Educate city inspectors about basic safety and health requirements.
• Evaluate other state OSHA plan incentives or approaches for the construction industry.
• Implement a social marketing approach to educate employees how bad safety and health practices
can impact their family.
• Provide more information to small residential contractors.
• Send safety grant application to small employers if MNOSHA Compliance does an inspection.
The following recommendations will require evaluation prior to an implementation decision:

• Tie excellent, safety and health performance to a reduction in workers' compensation rates in order
to provide more financial incentive for employers.
• Implement 100 percent fall protection at six feet.
• Determine how to help small employers cover a portion of the cost associated with safety and
health training.
• Develop a transportable, training communication tool, such as an employee card that indicates an
employee has completed a certain course.
I want to express my appreciation for your input and ongoing support toward reducing this alarming fatality
rate.

APPENDIX B
MNOSHA
Compliance
Discrimination
Statistics FFY
2005
FFY 2003 FFY 2004 FFY 2005
Number of Cases 63 55 69
Closed after
Investigation
withdrawn 4 4 9
dismissed 51 43 50
settled other 0 4 2
merit 5 1 5
settled 3 3 3
Lapse time from 85.6 93.1 days 70 days

assigned date to
disposition date
(cumulative)
Opened
Referred
Screened and Closed
Number of Outreach 44 31 31
Cases
Pending

APPENDIX C
MNOSHA Compliance Quarterly

Outreach Statistics FFY 2005
Total Attendance Number of Presentations Average Attendance
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 YTD Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 YTD Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 YTD
Total Outreach 951 1325 673 318 3267 19 29 15 11 74 50 46 45 28 42
Strategic Presentations
(Manufacturing and Construction) 305 562 289 147 1303 4 13 2 3 22 76 43 145 54 59
Youth 95 93 30 0 218 2 4 1 0 7 48 23 30 0 31
Immigrant (Hard to Reach) 0 0 0 50 50 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 50 0
Emerging Business 63 12 95 20 190 1 1 3 1 6 63 12 32 20 32
Professional S & H
Presentations (Consultants /
Loss Control Reps)* 39 72 0 10 121 4 7 0 1 12 10 10 0 10 10
Leading Organizations 153 150 246 101 650 7 5 8 6 26 22 30 31 17 25
Other 335 508 13 0 856 5 6 1 0 12 67 85 13 0 71
Construction Breakfasts N/A N/A N/A N/A 470 N/A N/A N/A N/A 5 N/A N/A N/A N/A 94
Booth at Safety and Health

Conference N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 3 2 0 6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Shaded groups not included in
the totals as that would cause
them to be double counted

Appendix D
Department of Labor and Industry — a trusted resource utilized by employees and employers
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 30, 2004
FROM: Patricia Todd
SUBJECT: Compliance Assistance Plan
As part of the FFY’04 Performance Plan for MNOSHA a target was established to develop a compliance
assistance and cooperative agreement plan that would maximize our impact. In determining how to establish
this plan I reviewed: what Federal OSHA provides in regard to compliance assistance, what our WSC unit
provides, what MNOSHA provides, and where we need to improve.
The type of compliance assistance Federal OSHA provides is: outreach and services to help employers
prevent and reduce workplace fatalities, illnesses, and injuries. These include compliance assistance
information, publications and tools; education and training courses; free onsite consultation services; and
provides information and training about Federal OSHA requirements. The compliance assistance activity
is located in the compliance area of OSHA. The types of cooperative agreements provided by Federal
OSHA include: alliances, consultation, partnerships, and voluntary protection program.
As defined in their five-year strategic plan and annual performance plans the WSC unit: participates in
alliances, certifies MNSHARP companies, certifies MNSTAR companies, participates in homeland security
efforts, and provides outreach. The outreach areas of focus include: youth through DLI Labor Standards and
Apprenticeship, small business owners, construction, primary metals, transportation, fabricated products,
ergonomics, and workplace violence.
As defined in MNOSHA’s five-year strategic plan and annual performance we: participate in partnerships,
handle daily contact with external stakeholders, participate in homeland security, and provide outreach. The
outreach areas of focus include: youth, immigrant and hard to reach employees and employers, primary
metals, transportation, fabricated products, emerging business, and construction.
I recommend that we divide up these various activities in order to optimize our resources and to better serve
our external stakeholders:
WSC MNOSHA
Partnerships
Alliances
MNSHARP Daily contact external stakeholders
MNSTAR Homeland Security
WSC Outreach Activities MNOSHA Outreach Activities
Youth through Labor Standards and Youth through schools.
Apprenticeship
Ergonomics Immigrant employees and employers
Workplace Violence Construction
Transportation Primary metals and fabrication
The basis for the outreach division is:

• Youth can be contacted through various mediums. The WSC unit has developed an ongoing

relationship with Labor Standards and Apprenticeship and MNOSHA has developed a relationship
with schools. This approach would build off the present system.
• WSC has hired two full-time people to handle ergonomics and therefore, should be in charge of that
outreach activity.
• WSC has a full time position allocated to workplace violence training.
• One of the main injuries encountered within transportation can be related to ergonomics; therefore,
it is a good fit for WSC.
• MNOSH listed immigrant and hard to reach employers and employees as an area of focus in our
strategic plan and performance plan.
• MNOSHA is working with members of the primary metals and fabrication to develop a partnership. It
is a logical extension to also focus on outreach.
In addition, MNOSHA is working with safety and health professional organizations to deliver outreach on
policy and complying with MNOSHA standards.
In order to accomplish these areas of focus within MNOSHA I recommend:

1. Fill a vacant training officer position within MNOSHA compliance capable of interacting with
immigrant and hard to reach employees and employers.
2. Allocate a principal/IH3 to develop and maintain our partnership agreements.
3. Focus MNOSHA outreach resources in: construction, primary metals and fabrication, youth through
the schools, and professional organizations.
4. Apply for a FFY’05 grant through HCSM to fund a fulltime position in regard to Homeland security. If
this position does not get funded then maintain our present activity level.
During FFY’05 we will be starting the implementation of this plan.

Appendix E
8/30/04
Updated: 9/30/05
MNOSHA WORKFORCE SKILLS (Compliance)

LEGEND
GREATER MN. INVESTIGATOR
MANAGERS / SUPERVISORS
GREATER MN PRINCIPALS
Priority Rank Frequency
OFFICE ADMIN. SUPPORT

HEALTH INVESTIGATOR
CONST. INVESTIGATOR
TECHNICAL SUPPORT
C – Core 0 Initial Only
G. I. INVESTIGATORS
SAFETY PRINCIPALS
ELECTRONICS TECH
TRAINING OFFICERS
B – Beyond Core 1 Annually
DISCRIMINATION
I.H. PRINCIPALS
2 Every 2 years
3 Every 3 years
5 Every 5 years
Á Refresher Available
CORE REQUIREMENT
SOFT SKILLS
Writing (Appendix C) C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0
Presentation/0utreach (Appendix C) B/0 B/0 B/0 B/0 B/0 B/0 B/0 C/0 B/0 C/0
Time Management (Appendix C) B/0 B/0 B/0 B/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 B/0 B/0 B/0 C/0
Organizational Skills related to Case Files
(Appendix C) C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0
Interpersonal Communication (Appendix C) C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0
Interviewing (Appendix C) C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 B/0
Conflict Resolution (Appendix C) C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1
Managing Change (Appendix C) C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0
Problem Solving (Appendix C) C/3 C/3 C/3 C/3 C/3 C/3 C/3 C/3 C/3 C/3 C/3 C/3 C/3
Team Building (Appendix C) B/0 B/0 B/0 B/0 B/0 B/0 B/0 B/0 B/0 B/0 B/0 B/0 B/0
LEGEND

HEALTH INVESTIGATOR
CONST. INVESTIGATOR
TECHNICAL SUPPORT
G. I. INVESTIGATORS
SAFETY PRINCIPALS
ELECTRONICS TECH
TRAINING OFFICERS
DISCRIMINATION
I.H. PRINCIPALS
2 Every 2 years
3 Every 3 years
5 Every 5 years
CORE REQUIREMENT
Handling/Responding to Criticism (Appendix C) C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1
Peer Debriefing for Fatalities (Appendix C) C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1
Burnout Issues (Appendix C) C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1
Decision Making (Appendix C) C/3 C/3 C/3 C/3 C/3 C/3 C/3 C/3 C/3 C/3 C/3 C/3 C/3
Train the Trainer (Appendix C) B/0 B/0 B/0 C/0 B/0
Adult Learning Principles (Appendix C) B/0 B/0 B/0 C/0 B/0
Training Program Development (Appendix C) C/0 B/0
Creative Training Techniques (Appendix C) C/0 B/0
Phone Handling Procedures (Appendix C) C/3 C/3 C/3 C/3 C/3 C/3 C/3 C/3 C/3 C/3 C/3 C/3
Display Booth Assembly/Procedures (Appendix
C) B/0
Dealing with the Public (Appendix C) C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/0

LEGEND

HEALTH INVESTIGATOR
CONST. INVESTIGATOR
TECHNICAL SUPPORT
G. I. INVESTIGATORS
SAFETY PRINCIPALS
ELECTRONICS TECH
TRAINING OFFICERS
DISCRIMINATION
I.H. PRINCIPALS
2 Every 2 years
3 Every 3 years
5 Every 5 years
CORE REQUIREMENT
HARD SKILLS
Employee Right-To-Know (OSHI

protection) C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1
DLI Emergency Procedures C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1 C/1
B/0 B/0
Basic Electrical Standards,
OSHA 2030, 3095 Á C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 B/0
Machine Guarding, OSHA 2040, 2045 Á C/0 B/0 C/0 B/0 C/0 C/0 B/0 B/0
Fire Protection & Life Safety, OSHA 2070,
2075 Á C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 B/0
Hazardous Materials, OSHA 2010, 2015 Á C/0 C/0 B/0 C/0 C/0 B/0 B/0
Power Press Safeguarding, OSHA 3040 Á C/0 C/0 C/0 B/0
LEGEND

HEALTH INVESTIGATOR
CONST. INVESTIGATOR
TECHNICAL SUPPORT
G. I. INVESTIGATORS
SAFETY PRINCIPALS
ELECTRONICS TECH
TRAINING OFFICERS
DISCRIMINATION
I.H. PRINCIPALS
2 Every 2 years
3 Every 3 years
5 Every 5 years
CORE REQUIREMENT
Professional Development, OTI B/3 B/3 B/3 B/3 B/3 B/3 B/3 B/3
Defensive Driving, MSC Á C/3 C/3 C/3 C/3 C/3 C/3 C/3 C/3 C/3 C/3 C/3
Fall Protection Standards, OSHA 3110 Á B/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 B/0
Excavation Standards, OSHA 3010 Á B/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 B/0
Scaffold Standards, OSHA 3080 Á B/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 B/0
Concrete Forms & Shoring, OSHA 3030 Á C/0 C/0 C/0 B/0
Intro to Industrial Hygiene, OTI/MSC/INT Á B/0 B/0 B/0 C/0 B/0 B/0 C/0
Ind. Ventilation, OSHA 2210 or U of M Course
Á C/0 C/0
Ind. Toxicology, OAHA 2230 or U of M Course
Á C/0 C/0
Respiratory Prot., OSHA 2220 or 3M Course Á B/0 B/0 B/0 C/0 B/0 B/0 C/0
Industrial Noise, OSHA 2200 Á B/0 B/0 B/0 C/0 B/0 B/0 C/0
Advanced Electrical Training, OSHA 3090 B/0 B/0 B/0 B/0 B/0

LEGEND

HEALTH INVESTIGATOR
CONST. INVESTIGATOR
TECHNICAL SUPPORT
G. I. INVESTIGATORS
SAFETY PRINCIPALS
ELECTRONICS TECH
TRAINING OFFICERS
DISCRIMINATION
I.H. PRINCIPALS
2 Every 2 years
3 Every 3 years
5 Every 5 years
CORE REQUIREMENT
Confined Spaces, OSHA 2260 B/0 B/0
Spray Finishing, OSHA 3100 B/0 B/0
Inspection Process/Procedures (Appendix D-2) C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0
Inspection Techniques and Legal Aspects,
OSHA 1410 B/0 B/0 B/0 B/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 B/0
Standards/Directive Knowledge (Appendix D-3) C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0
Hazard Recognition (Appendix D-3) C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0
Accident Investigation, OSHA 1020 Á C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0
Biohazards, OSHA 2340 B/0 B/0
Demolition, OSHA 3500 B/0 B/0 B/0 B/0 B/0 B/0
Discrimination Training, INT/0TI Á C/0
Compliance Training (Appendix D-3) C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0
Statutory Knowledge (Appendix D-2) C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0
Company Background Search (Appendix D-2) C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0
LEGEND

HEALTH INVESTIGATOR
CONST. INVESTIGATOR
TECHNICAL SUPPORT
G. I. INVESTIGATORS
SAFETY PRINCIPALS
ELECTRONICS TECH
TRAINING OFFICERS
DISCRIMINATION
I.H. PRINCIPALS
2 Every 2 years
3 Every 3 years
5 Every 5 years
CORE REQUIREMENT
Case File Preparation, INT Á C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 B/0 C/0
Discrimination Case File Preparation, INT/0TI C/0
Á
TECHNICAL SKILLS
Microsoft Office C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0
Digital Camera (Appendix D-2) C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0
GroupWise (Appendix D-1) C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0
IMIS-Basic 31, 1b, OSHA 1, Input Skills
(Appendices D-1 and D-2) C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0
Operation/Calibration of Equipment, INT Á C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0
Web Based Applications (Appendix D-2) C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0
Scanning (on-the-job training) B/0 C/0 C/0

LEGEND

HEALTH INVESTIGATOR
CONST. INVESTIGATOR
TECHNICAL SUPPORT
G. I. INVESTIGATORS
SAFETY PRINCIPALS
ELECTRONICS TECH
TRAINING OFFICERS
DISCRIMINATION
I.H. PRINCIPALS
2 Every 2 years
3 Every 3 years
5 Every 5 years
CORE REQUIREMENT
AV Equipment Operation (on-the-job training) C/0
CD Creation/Duplication (Appendix D-2) C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0
Phone Operation (Appendix D-2) C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0 C/0
IMIS Report Skills C/0 C/0

APPENDIX F

APPENDIX F

Appendix F
MNOSHA COMPLIANCE
DISCRMINATION WORKFLOW
INTAKE THROUGH COMPLETION
I. INTAKE
A. Phone calls. All phone intake messages are returned.
1. Call backs
a. If the potential complainant is available a screening is done.
b. If the potential complainant is not home, a message is left to contact the discrimination
investigator making the call. Two attempts will be made to reach the caller. If not reached,
the code logged into access is outreach.
i. If the potential complainant articulates a prima facie case, the case will be opened
as a new file. A prima facie case must have protected activity, Respondent knowledge,
adverse employment action, must be reported within 30 days of the adverse employment
action and MNOSHA must have jurisdiction. Investigator opens Access and obtains a case
number to start the process.
ii. If the potential caller does not articulate a prima facie case, the investigator
explains why there is no prima facie case, and they are sent a screen and close letter. The
investigator opens Access database and obtains a case number, enters in all data, and
writes a screen and close letter. The screen intake sheet and the screen & close letter are
saved in the Screen & Close file for the current year. The code logged into Access is
Screen & Close. The letter is then sent out by the investigator.
iii. If the potential caller does not have a case that is under the jurisdiction of
MNOSHA, they will be referred to the appropriate agency. The investigator will enter into
Access, obtains a case number and enter in all data. The code logged into Access is
Referral.
B. New cases
1. Once a new case has a case number (entered into Access):
a. The investigator fills out the screening document/questionnaire

b. Recommendation form is done
c. Letter to the Complainant is done
d. A letter to the Respondent is done
e. Designation of representative form is done.
All these are saved to a file created on the G drive for discrimination, in the appropriate years file.
The investigator then goes to the USDOL’s Whistleblower website and enters all the information,
including a NAICS code. This generates the federal ID number for this case.
* A copy of what is known as the OSHA 87 (Case Activity Worksheet) is printed from the
whistleblower site.
Copies are made of the two letters, questionnaire, designation of rep form, and the OSHA 87.
Certified letters are then prepared and sent to Complainant and Respondent. The file is prepared
with the copies of the letters, designation of rep form, questionnaire, recommendation and
OSHA 87.
2. Non-cooperation
a. Files are monitored for responses from Complainant and Respondent.
i. No response from Complainant.
The Complainant is called on the telephone.

If there is no response the Complainant is sent a second letter and another copy of
the questionnaire to fill out. They are informed that this must be returned within 10
days of receipt of the letter. The letter include copies of the previous proof of
service. A copy of the letter is also sent via first class mail.
ii. If there is still no return of the questionnaire, the Complainant is sent a

dismissal/closure letter, along with a chronology of attempts to reach them and copies of
proof of service. The letter is sent by certified mail.
iii. No response from Respondent.

Respondent is sent a second letter informing them if they do not cooperate in this
investigation, the decision in the case will be based on the information supplied by the
Complainant. Proof of service is also sent. The letter is sent by certified mail.
II. CASE ASSIGNED
A. Preparation
1. Read all materials from intake, Complainant submissions and Respondent submissions.
2. Understand the probable motivations and make note of strong points, weak points and
inconsistencies.
3. Call or send a letter of introduction to the Complainant that you have been assigned the case.
4. Prepare a list of witnesses
5. Prepare a chronological schedule of events.
6. Check timeliness. File date must be within 30 days of adverse employment action.
7. Outline the discrimination elements and prepare interview questions
a. Protected activity
b. Respondent knowledge
c. Adverse Employment Action
d. Nexus
i. Timing
ii. Animus
iii. Disparate Treatment
e. Respondent Defense – look for pretext

f. Dual Motive Case
8. Review Compliance files if available and make copies of relevant forms, look for notes from the
OSHI that may relate to discrimination or Respondent knowledge, talk to OSHI as needed.
9. If additional information is needed from either side call and follow up with a confirming letter to
ask for the information.
10. Assemble the physical file with tabs to facilitate finding material during interviews – see “Index
Numeric” and “Index Alphabetic” templates for organization.
11. Set up telephone log from templates and note every conversation.
12. Look for possible solutions or settlements and discuss with both parties.
B. Interviews
1. Interviews should be recorded with digital recorders when possible.
2. In person interviews: The witness is given a printed copy of the Tennessen warning. The witness
may read the warning or be read the warning by the investigator. The investigator should ask on
the recording if the witness has any questions and answer those questions. The witness should
sign, date and provide an address on the warning.
3. Phone interviews: The Tennessen warning may be sent to the witness prior to the interview for
their review or it may be read to them over the phone. The witness should be asked if they have
any questions.
4. Complainant interview should include:
a. Confirm protected activity, knowledge and adverse action

b. Review timing – go back to previous problems
c. Look for pretext
d. Review witness list and ask what they will say
e. Explain Respondent defense and ask for Complainant response
f. Review present employment status, remind Complainant of duty to
mitigate losses, record wages, time off work, etc.
g. Ask for expected outcome
5. Respondent interviews may be done at Respondent location, their representative’s office or at

DLI.
a. Management witnesses may have legal counsel present during interview. Non-management
witness shall not have management representatives present unless they request it. Non-
management may have a Union representative or a representative of their
choice present for the interview.
b. Offer any possible settlement or solution to minimize costs and make Complainant whole.
c. Witness interviews should include:
i. Review Complainant relationship and work history
ii. Ask each witness for their version of events leading up to the adverse action that
occurred for Complainant.
iii. Ask specific questions to confirm or refute Complainant’s allegations.
6. Post Interviews: If additional information was requested, follow up with a confirming letter.
7. Download the digital recording to your computer in the dictation module, record to a CD. If the
case is going to the AG or with approval from OMT Director, send a note to Word Processing to
transcribe the interview if needed. Use a non-scratch pen (Sharpie) to record file number and
interview name on the CD.
A. File Completion
1. Assemble all file materials in the blue folder

2. Begin the FIR to formalize your thoughts and the logic of your decision
3. If not already done, prepare the list of events in chronological order leading up to the adverse
action.
4. Review and understand all facets of the file
a. Understand the elements and prepare the defense or be ready to show where there is
sufficient evidence for MNOSHA to meet its burden in establishing the elements of a prima
facie case.
b. During finalization of the FIR, the investigator may find it helpful to talk to other investigators
and OMT Director. If the case is to be merit finding, investigator must discuss the case with the
OMT Director in charge of discrimination before contacting Complainant or Respondent.
Director of MNOSHA Compliance must approve the merit finding before the file can be turned
over to the Attorney Generals office.
5. Calculate back pay if needed.
6. Closing Conference
a. If the file is non-merit, contact Complainant and provide information on why case did not meet
merit standard. Explain that Complainant has the right to review the decision for a period of 15
days.
b. If the file is merit, Contact Complainant to establish what would make them whole. Then
contact Respondent to inform them of the merit finding and what the Complainant is
requesting. If Respondent accepts, draw up a settlement agreement. This step may require
the investigator to mediate or negotiate between the parties. If no settlement is reached the
case will be forwarded to the Attorney Generals office upon approval of Director of MNOSHA
Compliance.
7. Complete Final Investigative Report
8. Present the completed file to OMT Director for approval and signature.
9. Update the Access database with FIR date and decision
10. Update Federal Whistle blower site with decision, date, back pay if applicable, etc. and print a
new Case Activity Worksheet. Sign the Case File Worksheet with the filed date.
11. Prepare closing letters
a. If the decision is merit or non-merit prepare the letter from templates. Use previous cases for
guidance when needed.
b. Make copies
c. Send out all correspondence via certified mail
d. Staple the green delivery confirmation cards to the letter copy when they are returned.
e. Monitor the appeal period
12. Assemble all materials with the blue, twin prong fastener files. Use the Case file organization
template found in “templates” to arrange the file and act as a guide for the index.

Appendix G
Summary of Start/Stop/Continue Communication Input

December 29, 2003
Start:
In general the input was to: define a chain of command, organize the “g drive”, seek more input from staff,
define the communication tool for the organization, and provide more positive feedback.
Policy Changes
• Allow enough time for staff to figure out how to implement changes.
• Memos should have more detail and it would be nice to have significant changes put into a formal
memo procedure.
• More staff input with policy changes.
• Provide investigators with paper copies of policies/procedures if they want them.
• Directives status updates should be published somewhere.
• Ensure specific changes are communicated to all employees.
• Have supervisors communicate information from the OMT meetings to the staff verbally.
• Formalize a method for employee input through a suggestion box.
• Send out more information on changes, i.e., OSHA 300 change.
• Get investigators’ input when making policy/equipment/technology changes.
• Could a monthly summary be sent on Federal Register changes?
G:/Drive or Network
• Update ADM 8.1; some of the hyper-links don’t work.
• Clean up forms on network.
• Put all meeting notes on the “g-drive”.
• Send “g-drive” CD’s to home offices quarterly.
Chain of Command
• OMT should go to Office Supervisor when help is desired from support staff instead of going directly
to them.
• Identify approval process and chain of command when an OSHI has the need to talk to a resource
for additional technical help.
Performance
• Provide more individual performance feedback.
• More feedback on performance other than just numbers.
• Reward good work.
Meeting and/or Minutes

• Expand the OMT meeting notes to include:
o Clarify any changes and the impact on staff
o Give direction on how to accomplish the changes
● Define acronyms.
● Start having a GreaterMN staff meeting.
● Have more opportunities for large group discussions.
Management
• Use good communication skills.
• Initiate a management accountability program via an employee survey to be reviewed by the
commissioner.
• Listen to staff and challenge the idea not the person.
• Manage by respect.
Written Forms of Communication

• Put the path for the “g drive” on the bottom of memos so they can be found.
• Use the subject line feature located in GroupWise when sending out emails so staff won’t have to
open an email that doesn’t pertain to them.
• Send a letter to employers who are in compliance.
Miscellaneous
• Meet the new legislative liaison.
• Have the DCT approve all clothing used for employee recognition.
• Include a reference in 1B’s if you spoke to a principal or OMT about a citation.
• Clarify what is the official OMT communication tool.
• Provide a list of appropriate contacts on topics.
Stop:
In general the recommendations are to: use less acronyms, stop rumors, and limit the distribution of paper
copies.
• Stop asking for input on this subject in general, it has been asked enough.
• Stop rumor mongering; check out rumors before spreading them.
• Regarding rumors, don’t know who to go to for clarification.
• Reduce distribution of paper copies of items such as serious injuries and fatalities.
• Don’t email scanned documents to home offices, it locks up the computer.
• Attach monthly performance charts to all emails instead of directing users to a network site.
• Stop the paper avalanche and new initiatives.
• Stop using (so many) acronyms.
• Stop forgetting about GreaterMN when communicating.
• Stop restricting communication of case files to other investigators and principals.
• Stop threatening employees.
• Quit opinion shopping as it relates to case files for purposes of sequestering a more politically
favorable outcome.
• Stop Friday email, unless more detail is provided.
Continue:
In general staff like getting information electronically such as staff meeting minutes, performance data, and
Friday emails. Also paper copies of directives and manuals must still be available.
• Keep doing what is presently being done.
• Continue to send meeting minutes via email.
• Continue OMT/DCT minutes; they are great.
• Continue Friday emails and perhaps do a “week in review” and/or “next week in review”.
• Continue sending all information that is presently being sent.
• Keep allowing paper copies of directives and manuals.
• Keep OMT minutes but add more detail and rearrange minutes by subject matter.
• Continue legislative updates.
• Continue to provide quarterly staff reports for the overall MNOSHA division and for individual
performance.
• Keep sending out division performance data.
• Continue to acting as a resource for field investigators.
• Continue developing OTI training locally.
• Keep providing IH support from metro.
Do differently:
In general staff would like information shared and issues resolved quicker, for the DCT to provide an
overview and details of changes, and better definition of the “g drive” layout.
• Decisions need to be made quicker about questions/issues raised by staff.
• Need more emails to staff from their supervisors regarding OMT decisions and other important
topics.
• In email announcements to staff about directive changes, DCT should include a general list of the
changes along with the actual directive.
• DCT needs to know more quickly about new programs or other important changes that require a lot
of implementation tasks.
• When assignments are made, make sure people who have been assigned are aware of the
assignment before a general announcement is made.
• Identify where the staff and team minutes are located on the “g drive”.
• Define what teams are active.

Appendix G
A ll O S H A C o m p lia n c e M a n a g e r s e x c e p t P a t ric ia T o d d
N um ber of responses: 62
1
=
t
en
0
em
=
2
ry
=
ov
3
4
o
y
=
pr
ct
or
=
od
Im
fa
t
nt
ac
Go
is
lle
ds
sf
at
ce
ry
ti
Q u alit y
ee
ns
Ex
Ve
Sa
U
1. C o m m u n ic a te s a n d liste n s w e ll, u n d e r sta n d s, an d is c le ar w h e n
25 28 5 3 0
sp e ak in g t o m e .
2 . I n vo lve s o u r te am in p la n n in g an d p r o b le m -so lvin g w h e n it is
23 27 9 2 0 I n e a c h c e ll: T h e
a p p r o p r iate .
n u m b e r o f re s p o n s e s
3 . I s a vaila b le w h e n I n e e d t o d isc u ss t h in g s .
28 22 7 3 0 to th is q u e s tion at
t h is s c o r e .
4 . "P itc h e s in " w h e n I am o ve r lo a d e d an d u n d e r sta n d s w h a t to
26 19 12 2 1
d o ; isn 't af r a id to d o th e "d ir ty w o r k " if n e c e ssa r y .
5 . P la n s w e ll so a s n o t t o m ak e u n n e c e ssa r y w o r k fo r e ve r y o n e .
20 28 7 5 0
6 . N o t ic e s w h e n I d o a g o o d jo b o r g o th e "e x t r a m ile " a n d

28 23 5 6 0
e x p r e sse s a p pr e c iat io n .
7 . M o t ivate s m e t o d o m y ve r y b e st w o r k .
24 23 11 3 1
8 . T e lls m e ab o u t im p r o ve m e n ts I c an m ak e w ith o u t "p u t tin g

23 23 12 3 0
m e d o w n ."
9 . S h o w s r e sp e c t fo r m y id e as ab o u t w a y s to m a k e th in g s w o r k
29 23 8 2 0
sm o o th e r ; u se s t h e m o r e x p lain s w h y th e y c an 't b e u se d .
10 . S h a r e s im p o r ta n t in f o r m at io n f r o m "u p sta ir s" so w e k n o w
19 27 13 2 0
w h a t's g o in g o n o r w h at's g o in g to h ap p e n .
11. A c t s in a p o sitive w ay ; c a r e s ab o u t m o r ale a n d tr ie s to k e e p
32 19 8 3 0
it h ig h ; e x p r e s se s e m o tio n s ap p r o p r ia te to situ a tio n .
12 . A c k n o w le d g e s w h e n c o n f lic ts ar ise an d w o r k s t o so lve th e m
24 21 10 4 0
w ith o u t p la c in g b lam e .
13 . T r e ats all te am m e m b e r s f air ly ; a vo id s h avin g "p e ts;"
27 19 10 5 0
t r e at s e ve r y o n e w ith e q u al r e sp e c t.
14 . E n c o u r ag e s m e to t ak e in itiative in p la n n in g m y w o r k .
28 26 7 1 0
15 . H e lp s an d su p p o r ts m y le ar n in g n e w th in g s to im p r o ve m y
sk ills b y at te n d in g t r a in in g o r w o r k in g in n e w ar e as o n th e 27 23 10 2 0
jo b .
16 . E stab lish e s p o lic ie s w it h in p u t f r o m o th e r s; is c o n siste n t in
22 23 12 2 0
a p p ly in g p o lic ie s t o a ll st af f .
17 . E n c o u r ag e s m e to a ssu m e 10 0 p e r c e n t r e sp o n sib ilit y f o r
e x c e lle n c e in m y w o r k ; d o e sn 't "sn o o p e r vise " to m a k e su r e 34 19 7 2 0
I 'm d o in g m y jo b .
18 . A d m it s m ist ak e s an d a p o lo g iz e s w h e n ap p r o p r ia te .
27 18 12 4 0
19 . A c t s m o r e lik e a g o o d te am le ad e r th an a h o tsh o t, h e avy -

36 18 6 2 0
h an d e d b o ss; is r e sp e c te d b y te a m m e m b e r s.
2 0 . G ive s m e f e e d b a c k o n m y p e r f o r m an c e o n a r e g u la r b a sis
21 23 11 6 0
so I d o n 't f e e l su r p r ise d in a f o r m al r e vie w .
O V E R A L L A V E R A G E : 3 .1 7

Manager: Patricia Todd
Number of responses: 61
0
=
1
2
y
=
3
or
t
4
en
=
ct
or
pr d s
=
od
em
fa
t
nt
Im ee
ac
Go
is
lle
ov
N
sf
at
ce
ry
ti
Quality
ns
Ex
Sa
Ve
U
1. Communicates and listens well, understands, and is clear when
speaking to me. 8 19 13 11 7
2. Involves our team in planning and problem-solving when it is

5 12 15 19 6 In each cell: The
appropriate.
number of responses
3. Is available when I need to discuss things. 9 19 24 4 1
to this question at
4. "Pitches in" when I am overloaded and understands what to
5 9 24 7 8 this score.
do; isn't afraid to do the "dirty work" if necessary.
5. Plans well so as not to make unnecessary work for everyone.
6 12 20 17 4
6. Notices when I do a good job or go the "extra mile" and

11 12 16 9 7
expresses appreciation.
7. Motivates me to do my very best work. 4 17 16 15 5
8. Tells me about improvements I can make without "putting
5 16 15 12 6
me down."
9. Shows respect for my ideas about ways to make things work
smoother; uses them or explains why they can't be used. 3 17 19 11 5
10. Shares important information from "upstairs" so we know

6 17 16 15 3
what's going on or what's going to happen.
11. Acts in a positive way; cares about morale and tries to keep
it high; expresses emotions appropriate to situation. 8 11 13 19 8
12. Acknowledges when conflicts arise and works to solve them

without placing blame. 6 13 17 14 5
13. Treats all team members fairly; avoids having "pets;"

8 15 16 16 5
treats everyone with equal respect.
14. Encourages me to take initiative in planning my work. 4 16 24 6 3
15. Helps and supports my learning new things to improve my
skills by attending training or working in new areas on the 9 22 16 4 8
job.
16. Establishes policies with input from others; is consistent in
7 12 14 14 10
applying policies to all staff.
17. Encourages me to assume 100 percent responsibility for
excellence in my work; doesn't "snoopervise" to make sure
12 20 16 5 6
I'm doing my job.
18. Admits mistakes and apologizes when appropriate. 6 15 14 13 6

19. Acts more like a good team leader than a hotshot, heavy-
4 16 15 11 11
handed boss; is respected by team members.
20. Gives me feedback on my performance on a regular basis
5 13 17 11 6
so I don't feel surprised in a formal review.
OVERALL AVERAGE: 2.08

Summary Scores
d
d
To
t
p
ce
Ex
7
1
er
er
er
er
er
er
er
s
gr
ag
ag
ag
ag
ag
ag
ag
M
an
an
an
an
an
an
an
ll
M
Response Rate A79% 100% 50% 91% 70% 100% 88% 78%
Average score 3.17 3.56 3.48 3.38 3.37 2.89 2.72 2.08
High score 3.42 3.71 4.00 3.81 3.86 3.11 3.14 2.54
Low score 2.97 3.43 2.67 3.00 2.86 2.22 2.29 1.84

APPENDIX G
Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health

Division
Report on the Analysis of General Duty Citations from April 2002

Through April 2005
Summary
General Duty Clause
The general duty clause is used by OSHA to ensure the protection of workers from serious and recognized
workplace hazards. The general duty clause can only be issued when there is an absence of an OSHA
standard that applies to the hazard, which can result in a vast range of apparent hazards cited. A project
was conducted to examine the general duty clause citations issued from April 2002 through April 2005 to
assess citation trends. About 318 citations were collected and entered into a database for the analysis of
repeating conditions for citations.
General Duty Clause Citation Results
Among the 318 general duty citations reviewed, over 60 distinct hazards were identified. The following
apparent hazards were found to contribute to the majority of the citations:
1. Fall hazards—Aerial lifts

2. Fall hazards—Forklifts
3. Equipment—Protection from Hazards
4. Equipment—Maintenance
5. Equipment—Seatbelts
6. PVC—Compressed Air Transmission
7. Biological hazards
Recommendations
In response to the analysis of the general duty clause citations, it is recommended that the corresponding
Minnesota Rules be modified to clarify the following hazards due to the prevalence of the citations:
1. Fall hazards from aerial lifts due to employees not wearing personal fall arrest systems
(PFAS) on self-propelled, extensible boom aerial lifts.
− Add a subpart to MN Rule 5205.0750 (Motorized Self-Propelled Vehicles) to include fall
hazard citations related to non-vehicle mounted aerial lifts (e.g. JLG, Genie, etc.)
2. Fall hazards with forklifts as a result of employees not wearing PFAS or employees working
on platforms without appropriate guardrail systems.
− A subpart to MN Rule 5205.0760 (Powered Industrial Truck Operations) could be added
requiring the use of fall protection and guardrail systems with personnel baskets.
3. Equipment hazards due to inadequate protective measures such as pipe threaders without a
positive pressure “deadman” switch.
− MN Rule 5205.0870 (Foot Actuated Machines) could have a subpart included to require
“deadman” switches on all pipe threading machines.

4. Equipment hazards as the result of improper or inadequate maintenance.
− Add a subpart to MN Rule 5205.0660 (Maintenance Goals) to incorporate the requirement
of proper maintenance for all tools and equipment.
5. Equipment hazards of forklifts with a rollover protection structure (ROPS) not being
equipped with seatbelts.
− A subpart to MN Rule 5205.0760 (Powered Industrial Truck Operations) could be added to
require the presence and use of seatbelts in all forklifts installed with a rollover protective
structure.
6. PVC pipe hazards associated with the transport of compressed air.
− The MN Rule 5205.0710 (Alteration of Tools and Equipment) could possibly be used to cite
the hazard or MN Rule 5205.0711 could be added to clarify the use of PVC piping with
compressed air.

APPENDIX G

Division
Report on the Analysis of Fatalities and Serious Injuries in Minnesota

from January 2000 through June 2005
Summary
Fatalities and Serious Injuries
In the state of Minnesota, all fatalities and catastrophes that occur due to a work-related incident are
investigated by MNOSHA. Many serious injuries are investigated as well. A project was conducted to
examine the fatalities and serious injuries investigated from January 2000 through June 2005 to assess
trends relating to the nature of the accident, type of industry involved, and types of OSHA violations that
were contributory to the incident.
Fatality and Serious Injury Results
From January 2000 through June 2005, 139 fatalities, 1 catastrophe, and 188 serious injuries were
investigated by MNOSHA. The following information on the major distribution of fatalities and serious
injuries was observed:
• Fatalities
1. Crushed By = 34%
2. Fall = 28%
3. Struck By = 14%
4. Other = 23%
• Serious Injuries
1. Crushed By = 27%
2. Amputation = 26%
3. Fall = 16%
4. Electrical Contact = 7%
5. Other = 24%
Recommendations
In response to the analysis of the fatalities and serious injuries investigated, it is recommended that
informative letters be sent to the following industries due to the prevalence of fatal and serious accidents
that occurred:
• Highway and Street Construction, Except Elevated Highways (SIC 1611) and Local Trucking
Without Storage (SIC 4212). Information on the hazards of workers being crushed by moving vehicles
and/or from falling loads and methods to prevent such accidents should be provided to these industries.
• Metal Stampings (SIC 3469). The hazard of workers contacting moving machine parts on
mechanical power presses and methods to ensure the safe use of such equipment should be addressed
for this industry.

• Electrical Work (SIC 1731). This industry should be notified of the hazards of electrical work and
of methods to prevent electrical injuries and electrocutions.
• Roofing, Siding and Sheet Metal Work (SIC 1761), General Contractors- Nonresidential
Buildings, Other than Industrial Buildings and Warehouses (SIC 1542), and Concrete Work (SIC
1771). Information on the hazard of workers not using proper fall protection while working from roofs
and scaffolding should be provided to these industries.
• Water, Sewer, Pipeline, and Communications and Power Line Construction (SIC 1623).
Notification of the hazard of trench cave-ins and guidelines on safe work practices for constructing and
working in trenches should be addressed for this industry.

APPENDIX G

Division
Report on the Analysis of OSHA-31 Data from January 2003 through

June 2005
Summary
OSHA-31 Data
The OSHA-31 (S) Weekly Program Activity Report form is used to assess the allocation of time spent on
program activities by MNOSHA staff. Time spent for inspection activities and program support is broken
down into the following categories:
• Compliance Activity for Safety and Health Inspections
− Involves time allocated to case prep, travel, on-site activities, report prep, other
conferences, litigation, and denial cases for inspections.
• Program Support and Compliance Assistance
− Includes time spent on outreach activity, nonformal complaints, training, professional duties,
and program support/admin.
This project was conducted to examine the OSHA-31 data for MNOSHA from January 2003 through June
2005. The collected data was analyzed for trends and inconsistencies in time reporting for inspection
activities and program support for MNOSHA investigators and was compared to federal OSHA statistics.
OSHA-31 Data Results
The following information regarding the allocation of time spent by OSHIs was found:
• Inspections = 40.9%
− Case Prep = 6.4%
− Travel = 10.6%
− On-Site Activities = 21.7%
− Tech Support = 2.4%
− Report Prep = 45.9%
− Other Conference = 5.1%
− Litigation = 7.7%
− Denial = 0.0%
• Outreach = 3.4%
• Phone = 2.4%
• Training = 6.1%
• Professional Duties = 11.1%
• Support and Administration = 12.3%
• Leave-Unavailable Hours = 15.2%
Comparisons were made between the different units within MNOSHA (i.e. Construction, Health, Metro
Safety, and Greater Minnesota). It was found that units were similar in the reporting of time for inspection
and program support activities. In addition, MNOSHA data was compared to Federal OSHA data and both
State and Federal plans yielded a similar allocation of time.
OSHA-31 Data Analysis
The following main issues were observed in the analysis of the OSHA-31 data:
• A large number of OSHIs who had completed their trainee status did not have their trainee title
changed in the IMIS system.
• OSHIs were logging time for inspections and using their OSHI identification number under
inspections that were being conducted while in training.
• An OSHI did not follow the MNOSHA ADM 1.1-1 (Appendix A) as data from the OSHA-31 forms
was not being reported to the nearest 0.5 (half) hour, but rather to the nearest 0.1 hour.
Conclusions
Analysis led to the following recommendations:
• Add instructions to the MNOSHA ADM 1.1-1 directive on how to properly log inspection hours while
under trainee status.
• Develop a process to ensure OSHIs are removed from trainee status in IMIS once their training has
been completed in order to provide accurate OSHA-31 data and inspection reports from the IMIS
system.

APPENDIX G

Administration
Report on the Experience Modifier Rate for Possible Incorporation

with OSHA Scheduling Practices
Summary
The EMR
The experience modifier rate (EMR) is a rating factor used by insurance companies to determine the
insurance premium of a company for workers’ compensation coverage. The EMR compares the claim
profile of the employer to a projected claim profile for employers of similar size in the same industry. In
Minnesota, the projected claim profile is determined by the National Council on Compensation Insurance,
Inc. (NCCI).
The EMR is calculated as follows:
1. Claim statistics from three complete years of experience are used.
2. Claim Statistics include all medical-only and indemnity/loss time claims incurred in the three years
for a company.
3. The claim statistics are then compared to the amount of claims projected for the companies within
that specified industry.
4. EMR = (Actual Claims / Expected Claims)
- If EMR = 1.00, the company is considered to have an average rating.
- If EMR > 1.00, the company has incurred an increased amount of claims in comparison to
the industry standard.
- If EMR < 1.00, the company has a decreased amount of claims.
NOTE: In the insurance industry, an EMR ≥ 1.2 is generally considered an indicator of deficient
safety and health performance.
Previous OSHA use of EMRs
A study was conducted by California OSHA prior to 2002. Companies with an EMR of 1.25 or greater were
identified for enforcement inspections and consultation assistance.
• For enforcement purposes, the study indicated that regardless of the EMR value, there was a lack of
correlation between the EMR and the number of OSHA violations issued at a site.
• For consultation purposes, companies under the High Hazard Consultation Program with EMRs
exceeding 1.25 were targeted for assistance. It was determined that assistance intervention for
targeted companies provided an average decrease of 25% in EMR.
Options
1. Incorporate EMR into the MNOSHA scheduling plan as an additional factor to aid in the selection of
companies under target industry lists. Companies with an EMR of 1.25 or higher would receive
greater priority in the inspection process.
2. Remain with the current scheduling plan.
3. Provide this report to the MNOSHA Workplace Consultation Unit. Companies with EMRs exceeding
1.25 could be used for consultation marketing purposes.
Recommendations
The results of the report indicate that the EMR should not be used in the scheduling plan for inspections with
MNOSHA for the following reasons:
• The EMR has several limitations including bias towards larger companies/larger payroll and it is not
an indicator of current safety performance at a company.
• The EMR is not a useful predictor of workers’ compensation losses that are the result of direct
violations of MNOSHA regulations and standards.
• Obtaining the EMR would be difficult as not all companies have an EMR with their insurance and it
would cost money to get EMRs for interstate companies.
• The EMR is similar to the indemnity claim rate, which is already being used under the Employment
and Economic Development Data Planning Guide (ES).

APPENDIX G

Division
Report on the Isocyanate Initiative for Spray-on Truck Bed Liner

Investigations from April 2004 Through June 2005
Executive Summary
Introduction
The urethane spray-on truck bed liner industry has been growing rapidly and it is estimated that over 2,000
businesses are in operation in the United States. Increasing knowledge of health hazards and even a
fatality in Michigan related to spraying truck bed liners has initiated concern among occupational safety and
health agencies. The major hazard associated with the bed liners is the exposure to isocyanates, generally
MDI, during the application process. The spray gun used for application aerosolizes the product which
introduces MDI into the ambient air. In order to prevent exposures to this airborne MDI, such measures as
proper engineering controls (i.e. enclosures and ventilation), and respiratory protection must be employed.
MNOSHA Isocyanate Initiative
As a result of the hazards associated with MDI for spray-on truck bed liners, the MNOSHA Health Unit
implemented an initiative to inspect companies involved in the application of urethane truck bed liners.
Sampling was conducted for MDI during the liner application process. Other aspects relating to the health of
employees were also investigated such as respiratory protection programs, engineering controls, and
Employee Right-To-Know programs.
Isocyanate Initiative Results
From April 2004 through June 2005, 32 bed liner companies were inspected and resulted in 27 companies
where sampling was able to be conducted. Sampling results obtained reveal that 67% (18 of the 27
companies sampled) of the businesses had overexposures to MDI. Overexposures averaged approximately
7 times in excess of the established limits and ranged from 1.2 to 26.5 times the PEL. Inspections with
significant results included the following situations:
• A company had exposures to MDI 26.5 times the PEL
− Exposure was compounded by inadequate respiratory protection.
• Another business was exposing an assistant in addition to the truck bed liner sprayer.
− Assistant for the process was exposed to 12.5 times the MDI PEL. Overexposure was caused by
the assistant being positioned near the exhaust fan.
• A company had levels of MDI exceeding the PEL by 1.2 times at the air intake for the supplied air
respirator.
− Supplied air system was located outside of a tarp enclosed area, but still inside the room where
spraying was conducted.
Inspections also indicated significant violations at the companies and the following citations were commonly
issued:
• Respiratory protection 1910.134(a)(2) = 26 citations
• Engineering controls 1910.1000(e) = 17 citations
• Overexposure to MDI 1910.1000 (a)(3) = 17 citations
• Right-To-Know (RTK) Written Program 5206.0700 (1)(B) = 12
• RTK Training 5206.0700 (1&2) = 6 citations
• RTK Training Records 5206.0700(1)(D) = 4 citations
• RTK Training Frequency 5206.0700(1)(G) = 2 citations
• Other (2 for compressed air for cleaning, 6 electrical hazards, 2 use of portable electrical equipment)=
10 citations
TOTAL CITATIONS = 94
Conclusions and Recommendations
In response to the high incidence of overexposure with the spray-on truck bed liner industry identified by
MNOSHA, it is recommended that information be conveyed to employers regarding the health hazards
associated with exposure to MDI in the bed liner product. The following information for employers should be
included as a means to possibly prevent further exposure with bed liner companies:
• Engineering Controls—Ventilation systems to capture, dilute, and direct the spray aerosol can be an
important factor in reducing exposures to MDI for workers.
• Administrative/Work Practice Controls—Keep sprayers and assistants involved in the application of
the bed liner process away from the spray by having employees spray the material while standing along
the side of the truck bed and keeping employees away from the flow of contaminated air. Reduction in
exposure can also be achieved by using a process for spraying that uses lower temperatures,
decreased pressures, and uses materials with lower concentrations of MDI.
• Personal Protective Equipment—Ensure that proper practices are followed regarding the use of
respirators such as storage, maintenance, fit testing, positioning of clean air intake for SAR, and medical
evaluations. Also, ensure that proper precautions are taken to protect against skin contact with MDI by
using coveralls, chemical suits, gloves, face protection, head and neck coverage, all need to be used to
cover all exposed areas of skin on workers applying the bed liner.
• Right-To-Know Training—Information on the potential hazards associated with MDI (occupational
asthma, skin dermatitis, sensitization, etc.) needs to be supplied to employees.
Information could be supplied to employers through means of outreach presentations, letters, and/or articles
to increase awareness on the hazards of spray-on truck bed liners and on measures to take for reducing
exposures to MDI.

APPENDIX G
Minnesota OSHA
and
University of Minnesota
Shadow Assignments Report

Prepared by
Alden Hoffman, Clayton Handt

July 28, 2005
I. Abstract
During the Winter 2005 school semester, twelve students from the University of Minnesota School of Public
Health PUBH 5172, Industrial Hygiene Applications course accompanied Minnesota OSHA (MNOSHA)
industrial hygienists and industrial hygiene engineers on compliance inspections. The purpose of this
exercise was to provide students with an opportunity to learn more about OSHA’s activities and to
experience, first-hand, an inspector’s work. It also presented MNOSHA a unique opportunity to showcase a
portion of its enforcement program.
Each student accompanied an inspector once during the semester to observe an inspection and interactions
with business owners and employees. Students prepared a short paper on their experience which was
included with their overall grade for the course.
At the conclusion, each group was asked a short survey on their reaction to the experience. Based on their
responses, this was a positive experience for all the students and for most of the inspectors.
II. Course Background
The goal of the PUBH 5172, Industrial Hygiene Applications course is to develop a better understanding of
the “practice” of industrial hygiene, applying the principles of recognition, evaluation and control.
This course is taught every other year and is a requirement for completion of the industrial hygiene masters
program. The students are pursuing a masters degree in the industrial hygiene program, which is housed in
the School of Public Health, Division of Environmental Health Sciences. Some of the students are
completing their degrees while others are in their first year of the two-year program.
III. History of Project
This project began with a discussions between Associate Professor Lisa Brosseau, and OMT Director Alden
Hoffman at the October 13, 2004 Occupational Medicine Advisory Board meeting at Regions Hospital.
Associate Professor Brosseau and Mr. Hoffman are both members of this advisory board. Mr. Hoffman
received a followup email on October 15, 2004 which began to describe the proposal.

Once approval was granted, planning was undertaken to develop an introductory letter for students’ use and
for Mr. Hoffman to visit the class near the start of the semester to inform the students about MNOSHA in
general and the expectations of this project.
On January 26, 2005 Mr. Hoffman was the featured speaker at Professor Brosseau’s class. Students were
informed of MNOSHA’s scheduling procedures, inspection priorities, rights of inspectors, owners,
employees. The confidentiality of the visits was stressed by both Mr. Hoffman and Professor Brosseau.
Student names and contact information was obtained at this time and later matched with MNOSHA staff.
The inspectors were asked to contact the students within the first two weeks of February for eventual field
work in March and April. This would allow the students time to prepare their project papers before the end
of the semester in early May.
IV. Field Visits
Thirteen inspectors were involved in this project. Newly hired inspectors were not included in this project.
One was unable to schedule a mutually available time. One other inspector traveled twice with a student
and found both establishments out of business. A third inspector and student found no activity at the
worksite. Of the remaining ten inspections, nine were routine Programmed inspections, the other being an
employee complaint inspection. There was no attempt made to control the worksites scheduled. Each
inspector followed their normal process of selection.
There was limited sampling conducted on the ten visits and students were only able to observe air sampling
at three sites. The size of the facilities ranged from 20-400 employees, with an average of about 120
employees. See Appendix A for more details on the types of industries inspected.
Although an introductory letter had been prepared, none were needed as all employers expressed no
hesitation in allowing the student to accompany the inspector.
V. Surveys
At the conclusion of the field visit and prior to the end of the course, each group was asked a short survey
on their reaction to the experience. As this was the first project of its type, many of the questions dealt with
the logistics of getting the two groups together. Students enjoyed the experience and would like to see it
continue for the next class.
For the inspectors, all but two had little difficulty scheduling an inspection with the student and expressed the
need for students to be more flexible. Other responses included limiting the number of students to one
commenter suggesting this not be done again.
VI. Discussion
This was a unique method to showcase the MNOSHA program to future health and safety professionals. It
also has potential for recruitment although many students in this year’s class already had employment
arrangements prior the close of the semester. One student was later hired as a permanent inspector within
two months of the conclusion of the class.
All of the students and most of the inspectors thought the experience was worthwhile.
MNOSHA investigators are frequently asked to include other individuals during their inspections, from
recently hired inspectors, to visiting occupational medicine physicians three months per year, to occasional
department Cabinet members.
Both sides thought that better site selection was needed. Larger facilities with more to see were desired by
the students, while investigators selected more moderately sized facilities to counter the extra time being
taken because they were not on their own.
Expectations were different among the two groups. Where MNOSHA generally feels it is more
advantageous to see air sampling “in action” (generally a 6-8 hour experience), students were more pressed
for time and preferred a shorter stay.
The OSHIs were asked to contact the students within the first two weeks of February for eventual field work
in March and April. Neither group had significant issues in contacting each other to arrange convenient
dates, although one pair was unable to arrange a convenient date. Moving field assignments earlier to
February would coincide with the current schedule for visiting Occupational Medicine physicians from
Regions Hospital, which currently involves 3-5 health inspectors.
Recognition should be made to the twelve employers who allowed the students into their facilities without
hesitation.
VII. Recommendations -
As this class is offered every other year, MNOSHA should consider repeating this in 2007. Even with the
time allotted, scheduling visits still proved challenging. Once class enrollment is set, it would be possible to
begin the process earlier in the semester to allow both groups nearly ten weeks to complete the visits.
Improvements are needed in explaining the field experience such as on days of air sampling, inspectors will
be spending the entire day there and that students are free to leave as needed.
There was no assigned inspections for this project. Employers too small will not provide much to witness
while very large employers may take too long to inspect and the student is unlikely to be present for the
entire visit. A size range of approximately 35-75 employees may be optimum for this project.
It was fortunate that the number of experienced inspectors and the number of students was an exact match
this semester. This is not expected in the future and changes may be necessary.
These might include limiting the students to just those who are in their final year, or including MNOSHA’s
Greater MN industrial hygienist, or including MNOSHA’s Consultation industrial hygienists. It is not
recommended that two students accompany one inspector to a given worksite.
The following Appendices to this report have not been included, but will be furnished upon request.
Appendix A - Demographics of Employers Inspected
Appendix B - Student Survey Feedback
Appendix C - Inspector Survey Feedback

APPENDIX G
Comparing Workers’ Compensation

Claims and OSHA Data
Initiative Cases
September 2005
Eleni Messiou and Brian Zaidman
Executive Summary
The performance of the Minnesota OSHA (MNOSHA) compliance inspection program depends
on targeting establishments that will most benefit from inspections. MNOSHA uses the
information collected by the OSHA Data Initiative (ODI) as its primary source to identify
establishments for compliance inspections. This information is supplemented by a list produced
from the state’s workers’ compensation indemnity claims (WC claims) database. The
completeness of injury and illness reporting in the ODI has been a perennial question and this
project compared the data available from the two data sources to help MNOSHA management
make decisions regarding whether to continue using both sources and how to improve inspection
targeting.
Employers’ ODI responses for calendar 2003 injuries and illnesses were compared with their
workers’ compensation claims. The following are the report’s major findings:
• Of the 1,701 employers in the ODI, only 44 percent matched to an employer with 2003 WC
claims. Among the employers not matching to WC claims, 42 percent had no cases with days
away from work and 14 percent had DAFW cases with an average of two or fewer days away
from work and hence were less likely to have WC claims. Only 25 percent of employers were
unmatched or did not have obvious reasons for not matching.
• Many of the match failures among employers with DAFW cases were found to be due either to
misidentification or to differences in reporting deadlines in the OSHA and workers’
compensation programs.
Even for many of the employers with records in both systems, the number of cases was often
very different. An in-depth analysis of three samples of employers was carried out to identify the
reasons for discrepancies in the number of cases. For these employers, the full OSHA log (Form
300) was sent to the department to enable comparisons of individual injury and illness cases.

• For employers found to have more WC claims than the number of ODI cases with days away
from work (DAFW cases), the main reasons for the discrepancy were found to be: 1) the
OSHA log was not amended when a case’s status changed; 2) disputed WC cases were
omitted or misreported in the log; 3) log reporting was incorrect; or 4) the WC database was
not establishment-specific.
• For employers found to have fewer WC claims than DAFW cases, the main reasons for
discrepancy were found to be: 1) log entries did not meet the indemnity threshold to appear in
the WC claims database; and 2) mismatches from differences in identifying employers and
cases in the two databases.
Most employers initially found to have an equal number of WC claims and DAFW cases were
confirmed to have accounted properly in both programs. None of the employers participating in
the detailed analysis were found to have intentionally falsified their OSHA log. Most
discrepancies between the OSHA logs and the WC claims were a result of technical differences
between the two programs or common OSHA recordkeeping errors.
• The WC claims and ODI databases contain similar information. For individual work
establishments, however, there are often enough differences between the data sources that
both sources are needed to develop a complete picture of the workplace safety and health
conditions. The analysis supports the current MNOSHA practice of using both databases for
targeting establishments for compliance inspections.

APPENDIX G
Workers’ compensation safety

incentives
Christian Rummelhoff and David Berry
Research & Statistics
Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry
October 3, 2005
Executive summary
This paper describes safety incentives in Minnesota’s workers’ compensation insurance system and offers
suggestions for expanding the incentives available in the Assigned Risk Plan (ARP). The ARP is the state-
run insurer of last-resort for employers unable to obtain insurance from private insurers in the “voluntary
market.” Employers may be in the ARP because they are small, have a poor loss history, are in a
dangerous industry, or have been in business a short time and have only a limited loss history. The ARP
accounts for 38 percent of all insured employers; since these employers tend to be relatively small, they
account for only 5.9 percent of insured payroll and 7.7 percent of insured indemnity claims.2
Current incentives include the following:
Experience rating. Employers in the voluntary market and the ARP are subject to experience rating if their annual
premium is at least $3,000 (about 44 percent in the voluntary market and 11 percent in the ARP). The employer’s
premium is adjusted according to its own recent losses relative to the average for similar employers. Since prior
losses are a weak predictor of future losses for small employers, the “experience modification factor” has only a
slight sensitivity to actual losses for small employers but becomes more sensitive to losses for larger employers.
Merit rating. Non-experience-rated employers in the ARP are subject to “merit rating.” Merit rating provides a 33-
percent premium credit to employers with no wage-loss claims during the last three years, no adjustment if there
has been one wage-loss claim, and a 10-percent debit for two or more claims. The legislature enacted merit rating
to provide premium relief to employers that had superior safety records but were unable to benefit from experience
rating.
Deductible plans. Deductible plans reduce premium if the employer accepts responsibility for losses up to a limit.
Deductibles are popular in the voluntary market but seldom used in the ARP.
Schedule rating. Schedule rating, available only in the voluntary market, provides a premium credit or debit on the
basis of employer characteristics—such as safety equipment or training—that are not reflected in the employer’s
experience modification factor.
Retrospective rating. Also limited to the voluntary market, retrospective rating adjusts premium to reflect losses for
claims that arose during the policy period, usually with a cap on final premium. This option is used primarily by
large employers.
2 Indemnity claims are claims in which cash benefits are paid to the injured worker or survivors to compensate for
wage loss, permanent impairment, or death. About 20 percent of all paid claims are indemnity claims; the remainder
have only medical costs.
Dividend plans. Dividend plans, available only in the voluntary market, return a portion of premium to the insured
after policy expiration, on the basis of actual loss experience.
Safety inspection credit. The ARP conducts 800-1,000 safety inspections annually of members with poor safety
records or in high-risk industries. Inspected employers receive a one-year, one-percent credit or debit,
respectively, for each recommendation they implement or fail to implement. Voluntary-market insurers may award
a three-percent credit to employers requesting safety consultations (separate from schedule rating), but this is
seldom used.
Pricing programs in Minnesota’s voluntary market generally follow nationwide conventions; therefore, it
seems unrealistic to contemplate changes there. Since the ARP is run by the Department of Commerce
(through third-party administrators), it presents an opportunity for considering enhancements to pricing
programs to increase safety incentives. The preponderance of smaller employers in the ARP presents a
special challenge in adjusting premium to reflect risk, since past losses are a weak predictor of future losses
for those employers.
The following possible changes in ARP pricing seem worthy of consideration:
Incorporate more years of experience into the experience-rating formula. A longer experience period would be
less subject to random fluctuation than the current three-year period, and would thus be a better reflection of the
employer’s underlying level of risk. This would allow the formula to be made more sensitive to loss history for all
employers, and would allow more small employers to be experience-rated.
Introduce schedule rating. This could provide an additional basis for recognizing superior safety practices for small
employers, whose actual loss histories are unreliable indicators of underlying risk. It could also provide immediate
rewards for safety improvements for larger employers until these are realized in reduced losses.
Modify merit rating. The 33-percent credit for employers without wage-loss claims during the past three years is a
statutory provision not based on actuarial analysis. While it provides a strong safety incentive for small employers,
it takes away much of the pricing variation that would otherwise be available for distinguishing among different loss
records for other employers. Further, many employers receiving the 33-percent credit are being rewarded for
good luck rather than for a truly low level of risk.
Introduce a modified form of retrospective rating. In the current retrospective-rating formula (voluntary market
only), actual losses have greater than dollar-for-dollar effect on final premium3 (although there are minimum and
maximum premium factors). The formula could be modified for use in the ARP by making final premium less
sensitive to actual losses and reducing the total-premium cap for small employers. With appropriate modifications
of this type, retrospective rating could be made mandatory in the ARP.
These are merely items to consider, not actual recommendations. Development of actual proposals would
require careful study by the Department of Commerce, the Department of the Labor and Industry, and the
Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Insurers Association (the state’s workers’ compensation rating bureau
and data service organization). A modification of the 33-percent merit-rating credit would require a statutory
change. Other changes could be accomplished by rule. Any proposal for change should be evaluated
according to how well it achieves the goal of pricing insurance according to the actual risk presented by the
insured.
3 This is because loss-adjustment expenses increase with actual losses.


Department of Labor: Osha2005report

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Department of Labor: Osha2005report

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

FFY 2005

Minnesota Occupational Safety & Health Compliance

Minnesota Workplace Safety

Summary of Annual Performance Plan Results – FFY2005 ....................................... 4

Mandated Activities .................................................................................................... 42

Appendix A – Memo: Agency Response to Construction Leadership Meeting ......... 48

Appendix B – FFY05 MNOSHA Compliance Discrimination Statistics ...................... 49

Appendix C – MNOSHA Compliance Outreach Presentations .................................. 50

Appendix D – Compliance Assistance Plan ............................................................... 51

Appendix E – Compliance Workskill Assessment Chart ............................................ 53

Appendix F – Workflow Analysis

MNOSHA Compliance Discrimination Workflow Chart and Procedures ....... 60

Appendix G – Other, Compliance

2004: Management Improvement

2005: Evaluation Projects / Reports (Executive Summaries)

MNOSHA Compliance (OSH) MNOSHA Workplace Safety Consultation (WSC)

SUMMARY OF ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN RESULTS

2) Pilot inspection emphasis 5% of all 4% of all programmed 5% of all N/A

c. Ergo emphasis Develop Ongoing TBD

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Page 4

Reduction in Injury and Illness Rates: FFY05 Target was a 6% reduction.

Reduction in state fatality rate: FFY05 Target was a 2% reduction.

Hazards abated / establishments visited. In FFY2005, MNOSHA Compliance investigators conducted

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Page 5

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Page 6

Goal #1: Reduce Occupational hazards through direct interventions

• Lumber & Wood Products Ergonomics Emphasis

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Page 7

Baseline BLS data 1999-2001 ; IMIS 2001-2003

Goal 1.1 Safety Activity ResultsHealth Activity Results

Goal 1.1 Safety Activity ResultsHealth Activity Results

Goal 1.1 Safety Activity ResultsHealth Activity Results

Goal 1.1 Safety Activity ResultsHealth Activity Results

Goal 1.1 Safety Activity ResultsHealth Activity Results

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Page 8

Goal 1.1 Safety Activity ResultsHealth Activity Results

Goal 1.1 Safety Activity ResultsHealth Activity Results

Goal 1.1 Safety Activity ResultsHealth Activity Results

Goal 1.1 Safety Activity ResultsHealth Activity Results

Goal 1.1 Safety Activity ResultsHealth Activity Results

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Page 9

Goal 1.1 Safety Activity ResultsHealth Activity Results

Goal 1.1 Safety Activity ResultsHealth Activity Results

Overall Project Activity Summary of Goal #1

Discussion of Activity Measures:

Training and Assistance (T&A) Visits:

Overall Project Activity Summary:

FFY2005 Combined SOAR and CAPR Page 11

NAICS 2003 2003 DAFW 2004 2004

Lumber & Wood

Industrial Machine &

Furniture and related product

Construction Construction 23xxxx 4.3 2.8 3.8 2.6

Paper & Allied

Rubber & Misc. Plastics and rubber products

Logging Logging 113310 NA NA NA NA

Food & Kindred

Nursing and residential care

Printing and related support

Auto Dealers & Motor vehicle and parts

Communications Broadcasting 515xxx NA NA NA NA

Hotels & Lodging Accommodation 721xxx 2.6 1.6 3.1 1.7