California employers must now conduct an assessment of their workplaces for hazards that may require the use of certain personal protective equipment (PPE) and train employees in the use, care, and limitations of required PPE. The PPE included in the scope of the new rules are eye and face protection, foot protection, head protection, and hand protection. The new standard became effective on April 13, 2011.

The rules were originally proposed in 2010 as a result of an audit conducted by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) on the effectiveness of California OSHA’s (CalOSHA) safety and health enforcement and regulatory programs. In preparing responses to the federal audit, CalOSHA realized that it had not adopted equivalent rules to the federal requirements dealing with PPE hazard assessment and training. As a result, it proposed these new requirements to ensure equivalency with federal OSHA in this area – a requirement to operate a “State-plan State” under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.

Under the new rules, California employers must now assess their workplaces to determine if hazards are present, or are likely to be present, which necessitate the use of PPE, and if such hazards are present:

  • select and have employees use the needed PPE;
  • communicate the selection decisions to affected employees; and
  • select the PPE that properly fits affected employees.

Furthermore, employers must document that the hazard assessment has been performed through a written certification that identifies the workplace evaluated, the person certifying that the evaluation has been performed, and the dates of the hazard assessment.

The rules also require that the employer train each employee who is required to use PPE on the following:

  • when PPE is necessary,
  • what PPE is necessary;
  • how to properly wear and adjust the PPE;
  • the limitations of the PPE; and
  • the proper care, maintenance, useful life and disposal of the PPE.

Each employee must demonstrate an understanding of this information and will need to be retrained where changes in the workplace render previous training obsolete, changes in the types of PPE to be used render previous training obsolete, or inadequacies in an affected employee’s knowledge or use of assigned PPE indicate that the employee does not have the required competence. As with the hazard assessment, employers are required to certify in writing that their employees have been trained.

California employers must already assess their worksites through the state’s Injury and Illness Prevention Program rule, so this added requirement may be easily incorporated into existing safety and health systems. Nevertheless, all California employers are advised to review the new requirements and their own PPE programs to ensure they are fully compliant.

An OSHA compliance directive requiring contractors performing residential construction comply with the residential fall protection standard will take effect as scheduled on June 16, 2011. The Standard (29 C.F.R. § 1926.501(b)(13), Duty to Have Fall Protection) generally requires that guardrails, safety nets or personal fall arrest systems be used on residential jobsites that are more than six feet off the ground.

Adopted in 1994, the Standard requires guardrails, safety nets or personal fall arrest systems in residential construction. It contained the following exception, “When the employer can demonstrate that it is infeasible or creates a greater hazard to use these systems, the employer shall develop and implement a fall protection plan which meets [certain] requirements….”  The employer bears the “burden of establishing that it is appropriate to implement a fall protection plan which complies with [the Standard] for a particular workplace situation, in lieu of implementing any of those systems.”

In June 1999, OSHA issued Directive STD 03-00-001, instructing OSHA officials not to commence enforcement of the Standard against an employer if the employer used slide guards or other fall-protection systems that were included in the 1999 Directive.  In 2010, however, the Secretary issued Directive STD 03-11-002, rescinding the 1999 Directive and authorizing enforcement of the Standard as written.

In National Roofing Contractors Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, No. 11-1340 (7th Cir. Apr. 7, 2011), rejecting a challenge seeking to enjoin implementation of the 2010 Directive, the federal appeals court in Chicago ruled the 2010 Directive was an exercise of the DOL’s prosecutorial discretion, rather than an “occupational safety and health standard.”  Therefore, contrary to the plaintiffs’ argument, the 2010 Directive is not subject to judicial review pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 655(f). Thus, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ petition for review and stay of enforcement of the Standard.

Employers take note.  For those that choose one or more “alternate fall protection measures,”  ensure such measures meet or exceed the OSHA’s fall protection standard and reflect that in your fall protection programs. Furthermore, be prepared to explain to compliance officers how you came to the decision to implement the alternative measures.

A special thanks to Mei Fung So, who assisted in the preparation of this post.

OSHA has just released a hazard alert to hair salon owners warning of potential formaldehyde exposure from working with some hair smoothing and straightening products. In a press release announcing the hazard alert, OSHA states:

Federal OSHA has found formaldehyde in the air when stylists used hair smoothing products, some of which do not have formaldehyde listed on their labels or in material safety data sheets as required by law. During one investigation, the agency’s air tests showed formaldehyde at levels greater than OSHA’s limits for a salon, even though the product tested was labeled as formaldehyde-free.

OSHA has a health standard that regulates formaldehyde exposure in the workplace. OSHA recommends that hair salons first use products that do not contain formaldehyde. But, OSHA states that “if a salon owner decides to continue using a formaldehyde-containing hair smoothing product, then he or she must follow OSHA’s formaldehyde standard,” including requirements for air monitoring, installing ventilation, and providing PPE, depending upon the extent of formaldehyde exposure.

This is not the first alert issued by OSHA to a specific industry. In recent months, OSHA has publicly put grain handling and retail shopping employers on notice of potential safety and health hazards in those industries. Targeting industries through hazard alert letters, letters of interpretation, Federal Register notices, or other means, may make it easier for OSHA to enforce standards against employers in the industries targeted, as they help to establish employer notice of hazards and feasible means of abatement. Employers in targeted industries need to be particularly aware of safety and health hazards and take steps to ensure they are fully compliant with OSHA rules. In the case of hair salons, OSHA gives an even clearer warning, stating that it currently has a number of ongoing investigations at salons and some citations “have been issued.”

In a much anticipated decision, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (Commission) has ruled that OSHA can enforce its requirement for employers to record work-related injuries and illnesses on the OSHA 300 Log even when the employer’s duty to record the injuries and illnesses occurred more than six months before the issuance of the citation.  The employer in the case had argued that the six month statute of limitations in the Occupational Safety and Health Act for OSHA to enforce violations of the Act prohibited OSHA from enforcing recordkeeping violations that occurred beyond that six month period.  The Commission disagreed, however, and by doing so has reiterated for employers the need to continually review their recordkeeping logs to ensure the entries are accurate.

Under OSHA’s recordkeeping rule, employers are required to enter a recordable injury on the OSHA 300 Log within seven days of the occurrence of the injury.  Employers must also retain their logs for five years and under OSHA’s rule, there is an obligation for employers to go back and update entries should the circumstances surrounding them change.  In an earlier decision, Johnson Controls, Inc., the Review Commission had ruled that OSHA could cite employers for inaccurate entries until the entries were corrected or until the end of the five year retention period, whichever is longer.  The employer in the case at issue argued that Johnson Controls should be overturned for several reasons, including the Supreme Court’s decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), which had held that an employee’s discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was time-barred.  The Review Commission rejected the employer’s arguments, however, and held that under OSHA’s recordkeeping rule, an inaccurate entry on the OSHA 300 Log constitutes a continuing violation of the rule throughout the entire five year retention period. 

For employers, the decision reiterates the need to integrate into their recordkeeping procedures a mechanism to ensure they go back and continually evaluate the accuracy of entries — during the entire retention period.  It is not enough to record an injury within seven days and then "forget" about it.  OSHA expects employers to be diligent in updating recordkeeping entries for accuracy and may cite employers who are not.

OSHA announced today that it will be holding a series of three teleconferences, in partnership with the Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy, on OSHA’s proposed musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) column rule.  The teleconferences are designed to provide small businesses the opportunity to weigh-in on "their experiences in recording work-related MSDs and how they believe the proposed rule would impact them."

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 the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for several months, before OSHA took the unique step of temporarily withdrawing the proposal from OMB review and agreeing to additional stakeholder outreach.

The three teleconferences will be held on April 11 at 1:30 p.m. EDT, April 12 at 9:00 a.m. EDT, and April 12 at 1:30 EDT.  Interested businesses should contact OSHA by April 4 if they wish to participate in the teleconferences.  

OSHA is 40 this year and the Agency is looking back on its history and "celebrating" its accomplishments.  OSHA recently issued a timeline that stretches all the way back to December 29, 1970, when the Occupational Safety and Health Act was signed, and highlights Agency accomplishments up to the present.   

Not surprisingly, the timeline is heavily populated by regulatory actions and standards issued by the Agency.  Rules varying from asbestos, to grain handling, to Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories are highlighted.  Interestingly, the timeline highlights a non-federal OSHA rule as well – California’s adoption of an ergonomics standard in 1997.  OSHA does not mention that it finalized its own ergonomics standard toward the end of the Clinton Administration, which was later rescinded by Congress under the Congressional Review Act.  OSHA also highlights the start of several voluntary compliance programs, such as its Voluntary Protection Program, its training and education grants, and the development of its safety and health program guidelines in 1989.

As for OSHA’s recent accomplishments, the list includes a few, notably OSHA’s proposed initiative to require employers to adopt an Injury and Illness Prevention Program.  "I2P2" seems to continue to be OSHA’s signature regulatory initiative, however, stakeholders are still waiting for the Agency to begin the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act process for the proposal and as the timeline attests, it has been almost a year since OSHA announced this initiative.  The list does not include major enforcement initiatives issued recently, such as the Severe Violator Enforcement Program and OSHA’s Administrative Penalty Increase Memorandum.

Stakeholders should check OSHA’s timeline out — it is worth the read!  

  

OSHA has just released a Small Entity Compliance Guide for its Cranes and Derricks in Construction final rule.  The intent of the Guide is to assist employers — and particularly small employers — in understanding OSHA’s new crane safety requirements.  All employers covered by the rule should review the document to further ensure compliance.

OSHA’s new Enforcement Guidance for Personal Protective Equipment in General Industry (CPL 02-01-050) has been “on the street” for a few weeks and employers are still working through its details. While employers need to go through the directive carefully on their own and incorporate the aspects of the directive that are applicable to their facilities, after a closer review of the document, it is worth emphasizing a few pieces of information that may go unnoticed:

  • OSHA states in the directive that body protection is required for employees who face potential bodily injury in the workplace of “any kind” that cannot be eliminated through other control measures. Examples given are radiation, temperature extremes, hot splashes from molten metals, and other hot liquids. According to OSHA, an employer can provide laboratory coats, coveralls, vests, jackets, aprons, surgical gowns, or full body suits to protect against these and other similar hazards, depending on their exact nature.
  • Metatarsal guards are required when there is a potential for injury to the metatarsal portion of the foot from impact or compression hazards. “Examples include handling heavy pipes or similar activities where loads could drop on or roll over an employee’s foot.”
  • Employees who work in actual or potentially explosive and hazards locations “must wear” conductive shoes to reduce the risk of static electricity buildup on the body. However, employees exposed to electrical hazards must never wear conductive shoes.
  • For employers who have instituted a reimbursement policy for PPE (i.e., an employee initially purchases the PPE and is then reimbursed by the employer), the employer should reimburse the employee within one billing cycle or one pay period.

With enforcement guidance out, employers should expect CSHOs to focus more on PPE and PPE payment in the course of inspections. Employers should review their PPE policies, hazard assessments, training, and payment practices to ensure they are fully compliant.

OSHA is a step closer to publishing a proposed rule regulating crystalline silica exposure in general industry, construction, and maritime.  OSHA’s proposal has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866.  This is the final internal review before the proposal gets published in the Federal Register and signals that OSHA’s proposal will be out in early to mid-Summer.

Crystalline silica is ubiquitous, comprising a substantial percentage of the Earth’s crust.  OSHA has evidence that exposure to crystalline silica at the current permissible exposure limit (PEL) causes silicosis and other diseases.  It has been seeking to comprehensively regulate the substance – and reduce the PEL – for over a decade.  In 2003, OSHA completed a Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) panel for an early draft version of the rule and has since been preparing regulatory text and background health, risk, and economic data to support the rulemaking.

OSHA’s rulemaking efforts in this area are complicated by the broad scope of the rule — a number of employers in a variety of industries use silica in their operations — as well as technical issues associated with controlling silica exposures.  There are also difficult issues of sampling methodology that the Agency must overcome.  And of course, stakeholders are keenly interested in what ancillary provisions OSHA might propose, such as medical surveillance requirements, housekeeping requirements, and requirements related to regulated areas.

All employers should stay tuned and follow this rulemaking closely, even at this early OMB review stage.  OMB has recently extended its review of a couple of OSHA rulemakings, which have had the effect of delaying publication.  It will be interesting to see how this particular review period proceeds.