OSHA Temporarily Withdraws MSD Column Rule From OMB Review

The Department of Labor has just announced that OSHA is temporarily withdrawing from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) its proposed rule to restore a column for musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) on employer injury and illness logs.

The rule, originally proposed last year, would have required employers to “check a box” in a separate column on the OSHA 300 log – an “MSD” column – for injuries and illnesses that fit within the Agency’s proposed definition.  OSHA also proposed to remove existing language from its recordkeeping compliance directive that “minor musculoskeletal discomfort” is not recordable as a restricted work case “if a health care professional determines that the employee is fully able to perform all of his or her routine job functions, and the employer assigns a work restriction for the purpose of preventing a more serious injury.”    

OSHA's proposal had been stuck at OMB for several months, causing many stakeholders to question when or if a final rule would be issued.  In a press release announcing the withdrawal, OSHA cites the need to seek greater input from small businesses on the impact of the proposal.  OSHA "will do so through outreach in partnership with the U.S. Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy."

New California Law Creates Rebuttable Presumption of Serious Workplace Safety Violations

A new state law makes it easier for the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) to classify workplace safety violations as “serious” for purposes of issuing citations and proposed penalties to employers. Assembly Bill 2774, signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in September 2010, broadens the definition of “serious violation” and establishes specific procedures for Cal/OSHA to create a rebuttable presumption that a “serious violation” exists at a worksite. According to Cal/OSHA, the law will “help strengthen the Cal/OSHA program, improve enforcement efforts and better protect California’s workers.”

Under the new law, Cal/OSHA can create a rebuttable presumption that a “serious violation” exists if it demonstrates that “there is a realistic possibility that death or serious physical harm could result from the actual hazard created by the violation.” This “realistic possibility” standard is looser than the California Labor Code’s previous requirement of a "substantial probability” of death or serious physical harm.

AB 2774 also expands the definition of “serious physical harm” to mean:

[A]ny injury or illness, specific or cumulative, occurring in the place of employment or in connection with any employment, that results in any of the following:

  1. Inpatient hospitalization for purposes other than medical observation.
  2. The loss of any member of the body.
  3. Any serious degree of permanent disfigurement.
  4. Impairment sufficient to cause a part of the body or the function of an organ to become permanently and significantly reduced in efficiency on or off the job….

The new law establishes specific procedures for Cal/OSHA to follow.  Before issuing a citation alleging that a particular violation is serious, Cal/OSHA inspectors are directed to consider the following information:

  • The training employees and supervisors have had related to preventing employee exposure to the hazard or similar hazards;
  • Employer procedures for uncovering and controlling the hazard or similar hazards;
  • Supervision of exposed or potentially exposed employees;
  • Employer procedures for communicating with employees regarding its health and safety rules; and
  • Any information the employer provides regarding the circumstances surrounding the alleged violative conditions, why the employer believes a serious violation does not exist, and why the employer’s actions were reasonable.

Under the law, Cal/OSHA may accomplish the above by presenting a form to the employer – at least 15 days before issuing a serious violation citation – essentially describing the alleged serious violation and requesting a response from the employer. 

If Cal/OSHA establishes a presumably serious violation, the employer may rebut the presumption by presenting evidence that it “did not know and could not, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, have known of the presence of the violation.” This burden can be met by proving (1) that the employer took all steps a reasonable employer would take under the same circumstances, and (2) the employer took effective action to eliminate employee exposure to the hazard created by the violation as soon as it was discovered.

California employers should be aware of this new law and the specific procedures established for Cal/OSHA inspectors to meet their burden of proving a serious violation. In addition, California employers should take note of the types of information and evidence available to rebut the presumption of a serious violation. This involves having strong training programs for employees and supervisors, systems to “find and fix” hazards, and understanding industry best practices for addressing hazards. 

OSHA Withdraws Proposed Noise Interpretation

Citing "concerns raised" and the need for "more public outreach," OSHA is withdrawing its  proposed interpretation on occupational noise.  The proposal would have altered existing Agency enforcement policy for determining when an employer could utilize PPE to protect employees from noise exposures, as opposed to relying on engineering and administrative controls.  Existing policy provides that employers will be cited for not implementing certain engineering or administrative controls when hearing protectors are ineffective or the cost of such controls are actually less than the cost of implementing a full hearing conservation program.  OSHA was proposing to eliminate this framework and consider engineering and administrative controls to be feasible so long as they would "not threaten the employer's ability to remain in business or if the threat to viability results from the employer's having failed to keep up with industry safety and health standards."

Many stakeholders expressed concerns over the proposal and the potential costs.  OSHA originally set a 60-day comment period for the proposal, but then extended that in response to numerous requests for more time to submit comments.  Now, OSHA appears to be backing away from the proposal altogether.

Instead, the Agency says that it will find other ways to reduce the number of hearing loss cases by:

  • Conducting a thorough review of comments received from the public in response to the proposed interpretation.
  • Holding a stakeholder meeting to discuss ways to prevent occupational hearing loss.
  • Consulting on approaches with NIOSH and the National Academy of Engineering.
  • Initiating a "robust" outreach and compliance assistance effort to provide guidance on "inexpensive, effective engineering controls" to reduce noise exposures.  

Even though OSHA has withdrawn the proposal, all stakeholders are encouraged to engage the Agency on noise exposures and control measures.  OSHA is still asking for input on this issue and employers should take the Agency up on its offer.  As opportunities arise for additional input, we will keep stakeholders apprised.

Employers: Time to Prepare And Post Your OSHA 300A

It's that time of year again!  Employers covered by OSHA's recordkeeping rule must prepare and post the OSHA Form 300A "Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses" by February 1 and keep the form posted until April 30.  The form must be posted at each establishment covered, in a conspicuous place where notices to employees are customarily posted.

After the form is completed, but before posting, a company executive must also certify that "he or she has examined the OSHA 300 Log and that he or she reasonably believes, based on his or her knoweldge of the process by which the information was recorded, that the annual summary is correct and complete."

Under OSHA's rule, a company executive can be one of the following:

  • an owner of the company (only if the company is a sole proprietorship or partnership);
  • an officer of the corporation;
  • the highest ranking company official working at the establishment; or
  • the immediate supervisor of the highest ranking company official working at the establishment.

This obligation is important and employers can be cited for failure to post.  Employers should take steps now to make sure they are fully compliant.