In 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that OSHA could not issue citations for failing to record an injury or illness beyond the six-month statute of limitations set out in the statute. AKM LLC d/b/a Volks Constructors v. Sec’y of Labor, 675 F.3d 752 (D.C. Cir. 2012).

Unhappy with the unfavorable ruling, on July 29, 2015 OSHA issued a proposed rule “Clarification of Employer’s Continuing Obligation to Make and Maintain Accurate Records of Each Recordable Injury and Illness.” According to OSHA, the rule is meant to “clarify that the duty to make and maintain an accurate record of an injury or illness continues for as long as the employer must keep and make available records for the year in which the injury or illness occurred. The duty does not expire if the employer fails to create the necessary records when first required to do so.”  In short, this agency action is not an attempt to clarify an existing duty but to create a new one by undoing the holding in the Volks case.

Public comments to the proposed rule were submitted in September 2015. On October 14, 2016, OSHA submitted the final rule to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) signaling that a final rule may be issued in the next several months.  Under Executive Order 12866, OIRA reviews agency rulemaking to “ensure that agencies carefully consider the consequences of rules (including both benefits and costs) before they proceed.”

OIRA has 90 days to review the final rule and hold stakeholders meetings, if such meetings are requested. After its review, OIRA may clear the rule for promulgation and issuance in the Federal Register or return the rule to OSHA for reconsideration.  If OIRA reviews and clears the final rule it could be issued shortly before the swearing in of the next President in January 2017.

 

Last week a federal judge requested that OSHA agree to further extend the November 1st effective date for the anti-retaliation provisions in OSHA’s “Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses” also known as the Electronic Recordkeeping rule.

In May 2016, OSHA published the final rule requiring electronic submission of Part 1904 recordkeeping records to OSHA depending on the employer’s size and industry. Specifically, employers with 250 or more employees (including part-time, seasonal or temporary workers) in each establishment are required to electronically submit their 300, 300A and 301 forms to OSHA on an annual basis and employers with more than 20 but less than 250 employees in certain identified industries are required to electronically submit their 300A form on an annual basis.

Additionally, the final rule establishes employer injury reporting policies and anti-retaliation provisions. The final rule requires employers to develop employee injury and illness reporting requirements that met specific criteria.

Specifically, employers must inform employees of the following:

  • Procedures for reporting work-related injuries and illnesses promptly and accurately.  According to the final rule, a procedure is not reasonable if it would deter or discourage employees from reporting injuries or illnesses;
  • Employees have the right to report work-related injuries and illnesses;
  • Employers are prohibited from discharging or in any manner discriminating against employees for reporting work-related injuries or illnesses.

Under the anti-retaliation provisions OSHA has indicated that certain safety incentive policies and post-incident drug testing policies will be considered as discriminatory because, according to OSHA, they discourage employees from reporting work-related injuries and illnesses. The final rule was challenged by several trade associations and a preliminary injunction was sought to delay the effective date of the anti-retaliation provisions until a decision in the case was reached.   The preliminary injunction requested nationwide relief, including relief for all employers.  OSHA is objecting to this preliminary injunction and the request for nationwide relief.

In an Order issued on October 14, the judge requested that OSHA grant an additional extension until December 1, 2016 to allow the parties additional time to brief the issue of whether a nationwide injunction for the parties as well as non-parties should be granted. OSHA has until October 18th to notify the court in writing as to whether it will grant the extension until December 1, 2016.

Last week, OSHA’s proposed rule for Walking-Working Surfaces and Personal Protective Equipment (Fall Protection Systems) in General Industry (Subpart D and Subpart I) cleared the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), signaling the forthcoming final publication by OSHA.

This rule has been in the making since 1990 when OSHA originally issued the proposed rule and then updated that proposal in 2010. The rule has two parts – Subpart D, Walking-Working Surfaces and Subpart I, Personal Protective Equipment for Fall Protection. Subpart D sets forth requirements for general industry walking-working surfaces, including when the use of fall protection systems will be required. Subpart I delineates the performance criteria for personal fall protection systems.

OSHA’s objective in issuing the proposed rule in 2010 was to update the standards to reflect current industry practices and national consensus standards and align the standards, to the extent possible, with other OSHA standards in the construction and shipyard industries.

According to the proposed rule, “ The existing OSHA general industry standards recognize the use of guardrails and physical barriers as the primary methods for employee protection against falls. However, those standards do not directly recognize that personal fall protection systems can also provide effective means for employee protection. OSHA believes that the proposed rules will give employers the necessary flexibility to decide which fall protection method or system works best for the work operation being performed, while ensuring employees receive a level of protection that is effective and necessary. OSHA believes many of these slips, trips, and falls can be prevented and has devoted many years to assembling and analyzing information aimed at the elimination and prevention of hazards that cause these incidents.”

OSHA believes that the final rule will prevent 20 fatalities and over 3,000 injuries annually.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration failed to go through the proper rulemaking process before mandating retailers to implement new stricter storage standards for anhydrous ammonia fertilizer, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has ruled. To read the full article, written by Joseph Dreesen, click here.

In July 2015, OSHA issued a Directive on the revised Hazard Communication Standard (“HCS”), Inspection Procedures for the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS 2012), CPL 02-02-079. In that Directive OSHA provided guidance on the interplay between labeling under the HCS and other federal agencies, specifically the Department of Transportation (“DOT”). According to the Directive OSHA considers the DOT diamond-shaped placards that contain hazard symbols to be pictograms and therefore in compliance with the requirements of the standard.

According to DOT, the HCS pictograms are not in conflict with a DOT label. Therefore, “OSHA will allow labels to contain both DOT pictograms (labels as they are referred to by DOT) and the HCS pictograms for the same hazard.” In the future, OSHA will revise Appendix C, C.2.3.3 to reflect this change in policy.

According to OSHA, manufacturers, importers or distributors who must comply with both DOT and HCS requirements have two options: (1) use only the DOT label for the hazard (which OSHA will consider to be compliant for a pictogram) or (2) use both the DOT label and the HCS pictogram for the hazard. However, for hazards that do not require a DOT label, there must be a HCS pictogram to be compliant with the hazard communication standard requirements.

On September 19, 2016, OSHA and the DOT issued a joint memorandum addressing labeling of hazardous chemicals for bulk shipments. The memorandum clarified that “during transportation DOT’s HMR [Hazardous Materials Regulation] governs hazard communication labeling requirements” and “OSHA’s HCS 2012 labeling is not required on shipping containers in transport, even when DOT’s HMR does not require labeling in transportation.” However, labeling under OSHA’s HCS is required for hazardous chemicals “both before and after transportation.”

The memorandum makes clear that labels on bulk shipments that conform to OSHA’s HCS standard are not in violation of DOT’s HMR. “In other words, an HCS 2012-compliant OSHA label and a DOT HMR label or marking may both appear on the same package.”  If bulk packages contain labels with pictograms or symbols that are not in conformance with OSHA’s HCS requirements then such labeling is prohibited by the HMR.

 

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration overstepped its authority in expanding union representation at “walk-arounds” in non-union workplaces, the National Federation of Independent Business has alleged in a lawsuit against the agency filed in Texas. Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Dougherty, No. 3:16-cv-02568 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 8, 2016). To read the full article, written by Carla Gunnin, click here.

On September 15, 2016, Governor Brown approved Senate Bill 465 which requires the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, after consultation with the California Contractors’ State Licensing Board, to transmit to the Board copies of any citations or other actions taken by the Division against a contractor.

Existing law allows the Board to license, regulate, and discipline contractors for their construction activities. Senate Bill 465 now requires the Division to consult with the board and transmit any citations or other actions taken by the Division against a contractor. The bill would authorize the board to enter into an interagency agreement with any other state or local agency that may have possession of information relevant to protect the public.

The bill also requires a licensee to report to the registrar within 90 days of the date it received notice of any felony or criminal conviction related to the qualifications, functions, or duties of a licensed contractor.

This new collaboration of state organizations is sure to create new difficulties for contractors. Once a citation is received, the Division may hand over the citation regardless of whether the contractor is guilty of violating the citation and the Board is likely to issue disciplinary actions if the Board determines that the contractor is acting in a way that it negatively affects the pubic.   It is essential that contractors actively engage in their safety and health efforts to avoid receiving a citation.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is considering updating its safety standards covering falls in shipbuilding, ship repair, shipbreaking, and other shipyard-related employment and has issued a Request for Information. Comments and materials must be submitted by December 7, 2016. To read the full article, written by Tressi Cordaro, click here.

Dr. David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, issued a new report, discussing the results of the first year of the severe injury reporting requirements. The report concludes that the severe injury reporting program has been a big success in improving safety and health in workplaces across the United States, and in helping OSHA focus its resources where most needed. OSHA recognizes, however, that more still needs to be done to reduce the number of in-patient hospitalizations and amputations in today’s work places and hold employer’s accountable for such severe injuries.

Under a rule that took effect on January 1, 2015, employers are required to report to OSHA within 24 hours any work-related amputations, in-patient hospitalization or eye loss. In the first full year of severe injury reporting, employers reported 7,636 hospitalizations and 2,644 amputations to OSHA.  This data is from federal OSHA states only and does not include severe injuries from state-plan states that administer their own safety and health programs.

Manufacturing (26%), construction (19%) and transportation and warehousing (11%) had the greatest number of reported hospitalizations in 2015.  Manufacturing (57%) and construction (10%) also had the greatest number of reported amputations in 2015.   OSHA believes that most of the hazards that led to these severe injuries “are well-understood and easily prevented.”

OSHA notes that the objective of the severe injury reporting program is “to encourage employers to evaluate their own processes and equipment and determine what went wrong.” OSHA believes that when employers evaluate their own processes during the severe injury reporting process (rather than by OSHA through an inspection), employers are more likely to take action that will prevent future injuries.

To better manage its resources and engage employers in actively addressing safety and health, OSHA responded to 62% of severe injury reports by asking employers to conduct their own incident investigations and propose remedies to prevent future injuries to OSHA. In this approach, known as a Rapid Response Investigation, the employer is expected to investigate the causes of the severe injury and present to OSHA its findings and proposed abatement methods.  With this approach, the focus is more on identifying and fixing the problem quickly versus citing employers for OSHA violations.

OSHA concludes

We have found this process to be extremely effective in abating hazards while also using far fewer OSHA resources than are required for on-site inspections. In this way, we are able to use agency resources more efficiently and, ultimately, better protect the safety and health of workers.

In a rare acknowledgment of most employer’s good faith, OSHA notes most employers were eager to cooperate with OSHA and prevent future injuries and that “many went above and beyond what was required by OSHA to protect their employees.”

While the program appears to be working in most instances, OSHA believes that as many as 50% of employers may not be reporting severe injuries to OSHA. OSHA bases this conclusion on injury claim numbers provided to it by state workers’ compensation programs and other unidentified factors.   OSHA thinks that many small and mid-size employers are not reporting their severe injuries because they either may not be aware of the new requirements or because they think the cost of not reporting to OSHA is low.

OSHA states that it is developing outreach strategies to help small and mid-size employers understand the requirements.  OSHA also states it will be citing more employers for non-reporting in the second year of the program and beyond if it finds that an employer did not report amputations and hospitalizations.

You can read the full report here.

Using a crane to move headstones and small monuments is “generally” not defined as construction, but the crane operator is still responsible for stringent worker-safety rules regarding crane operations, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration has advised in response to a question from an Arkansas granite and marble cemetery monument delivery company. To read the full article, click here.