S. 2184, which is sponsored by Sen. John Breaux, D-La., sets a two-year deadline for OSHA to promulgate a new rule. A rule issued in the closing days of the Clinton administration was nullified by Congress last year using a statute called the Congressional Review Act.

While it sets a deadline, S. 2184 also says that a new rule should not apply to non-work related injuries and should not expand state workers' compensation laws.

However, John Savercool, vice president of federal affairs for the Washington-based American Insurance Association, said that the workers' comp language is ambiguous.

While it may be intended to limit any potential conflict with state workers' comp laws, he said, it does not effectively do so.

The issue is what is called "work restriction protection," which was part of the earlier rule issued under the Clinton Administration, he said.

Under the heading of work restriction protection, OSHA mandated specific levels of compensation for ergonomic injuries, despite existing statutory language barring OSHA from interfering with actual compensation under state workers' comp laws, he said.

OSHA, Mr. Savercool said, took the position when it wrote the earlier rule that work restriction protection does not expand the application of state workers' compensation laws, but merely supplements it.

Under S. 2184, he said, OSHA could take the same position.

To clear up any ambiguity, he said, S. 2184 needs to be amended to expressly prohibit OSHA from promulgating an ergonomics rule that has compensation provisions.

Ken Schloman, Washington counsel with the Downers Grove, Ill.-based Alliance of American Insurers, added that the Alliance is also disappointed with the committee's action.

The Alliance, he said, supports the position of the Bush administration that any standards should be flexible. The Alliance opposes a "one-size-fits-all" approach, Mr. Schloman said.