MOEL Ordinance No. 470: connect risk assessment to participation and action (Partial amendment to the Enforcement Rule of the Occupational Safety and Health Act)

Identify hazards, decide acceptability and implement improvements

Article 37 specifies identification of all confirmed or reasonably anticipated exposures, a decision on acceptable risk and implementation of measures for unacceptable risks. Risk assessment and improvement were not first invented in 2026.

Not a real site photo

1. Board: prepare a means to share the schedule and results.
2. Documents: connect participation input with improvement results.
3. Workshop entrance: distinguish examining actual work from holding only a meeting.

Investigation and disclosure provisions also change

Article 71 covers specified non-major industrial injuries selected by ministerial notice, involving events such as fire/explosion, collapse, falls, asphyxiation/poisoning, chemical release or heatwave work. Not every minor accident automatically falls into this investigation category.

Article 71-2 specifies workplace overview, event sequence, causes and prevention recommendations in reports, with publication through channels such as the ministry website. Read Act Article 56-2 for disclosure timing and exclusions.

The amendment commenced on 1 June 2026; the current Rule also incorporates later Ordinance 477.

Connect assessment timing to the work

Initial assessment is due before the first work begins. Periodic assessment is required at least once annually from the following year. An additional assessment is required before the relevant work where further hazards may arise or a serious industrial accident or occupational accident occurs. A change introducing hazards is not simply postponed until the next annual exercise because no accident has yet occurred.

Article15 of Notice2024-76 still states commencement of initial assessment within1 month of business establishment. The newer Article37(2) of the Enforcement Rule says before the first work begins. Current scheduling must follow that newer ministerial rule rather than copying the older notice sentence.

Worker participation under Notice Article6 and sharing under Article13 also predate2026. Participation, sharing and3-year retention are not all new institutions. Order470 specifically sets out procedures, timing, participation methods, before-and-after sharing and more detailed records at ministerial-rule level.

Include workers and share information before and after

Article 37-2 specifies participation through workplace walkthroughs, optionally supplemented by surveys, interviews or other consultation. Where special circumstances prevent walkthrough participation, use at least one of those alternative methods.

A name on a form does not represent actual participation. Article 37-3 specifies sharing the schedule before assessment, and hazards, risk decisions, improvement plans and implementation results afterwards.

Check that completion results are shared, not only the original plan.

Share the schedule first and implementation results afterward

Article37-3 distinguishes before and after assessment. Share the schedule beforehand; afterward share identified hazards, risk-level decisions, planned improvements and implementation results. A schedule announcement alone or a stored assessment sheet alone does not cover the full sequence. Workers need to know both when to participate and what changed.

Workplace walkthroughs are the basic participation method. Surveys, interviews and other consultation may supplement them. That differs from alternative participation where special circumstances prevent a walkthrough. A survey does not automatically permit omission of the walkthrough.

For example, a worker’s report of an entrapment hazard during maintenance should connect to the identified hazard, risk decision, improvement and implementation result. A list of signatures is less informative than a traceable response to the reported hazard. This is an application example, not a claim about a particular workplace.

Distinguish a new-hazard assessment from the annual review

For example, if a changed feeding method alters where hands can reach, examine whether the previous assessment covered that hazard. The additional-assessment trigger includes the possibility of new hazards, not only an accident. A scheduled annual review does not justify starting the relevant work first.

Sharing the schedule in advance lets participating workers prepare to explain hazards. Post-assessment sharing includes implementation results, not only announced plans. Read participation and sharing requirements separately instead of treating one attendance list as completion of every stage.

Three-year retention continues, with more explicit record fields

The former Article 37 already required records of hazards, risk decisions and measures to be kept for three years. Ordinance 470 moves the record provision to Article 37-4 and specifies assessment timing and responsible persons, participating workers and worker representatives, and the findings/plans/results.

It is inaccurate to describe three-year retention itself as newly created. Linking action owners and completion checks is a useful practical suggestion for tracing actual implementation.

Additional items such as action owners and photographs are practical ways to apply the requirements at the worksite.

Connect planned measures with their implementation

Article37-4 records include timing and responsible personnel, participating workers and worker representatives, and the hazards, risk decisions, improvements and implementation results to be shared. Retention is3 years, as it was under the earlier Article37; the retention period was not newly extended.

Keep planned and implemented states distinguishable. A single completion tick can obscure information needed to share the actual result. Check existing assessment documents against the required items rather than inventing a statutory form.

Publication of accident-investigation reports under Article71-2 is a different measure in the same amendment. It is not a requirement to publish every risk-assessment sheet online. Also distinguish wording requiring sharing from wording requiring efforts toward ongoing awareness.

The official reasons describe specification of assessment methods, procedures and timing delegated by the Act, alongside investigation and reporting changes. Order470 commences on2026-06-01. Keep the scope and preparations for those different systems separate.

Recognition under a notice and the employer’s assessment duty

Notice2024-76 also addresses risk-assessment recognition and follow-up checks. Its application provisions for recognition criteria or recognised workplaces differ from Order470’s commencement provision. An application or recognition date is not the effective date of the new ministerial rules.

Performing assessment, participation, sharing and recording is distinct from applying for recognition. Recognition documents do not eliminate reassessment of new work hazards. Identify which system a document belongs to before transferring its scope or timing.

The rule sequences hazard identification, a decision on acceptable risk and, where unacceptable, improvement and implementation. A list of measures alone may not show which hazard and decision each measure addresses. Connect workers’ hazard information, the decision and the implemented action for meaningful sharing.