NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING/PUBLIC HEARING/BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS BOARD
AND NOTICE OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO TITLE 8
OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS

 

Pursuant to Government Code Section 11346.4 and the provisions of Labor Code Sections 142.1, 142.2, 142.3, 142.4, and 144.6, the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board of the State of California has set the time and place for a Public Meeting, Public Hearing, and Business Meeting:

PUBLIC MEETING On February 21, 2002 at 11:00 a.m.
in the Sierra Hearing Room of the Cal/EPA Building,
1001 I Street, Sacramento, California.

At the Public Meeting, the Board will make time available to receive comments or proposals from interested persons on any item concerning occupational safety and health.

PUBLIC HEARING On February 21, 2002 following the Public Meeting
in the Sierra Hearing Room of the Cal/EPA Building,
1001 I Street, Sacramento, California

At the Public Hearing, the Board will consider the public testimony on the proposed changes noticed below to occupational safety and health regulations in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations.

BUSINESS MEETING On February 21, 2002 following the Public Hearing
in the Sierra Hearing Room of the Cal/EPA Building,
1001 I Street, Sacramento, California

At the Business Meeting, the Board will conduct its monthly business.

The meeting facilities and restrooms are accessible to the physically disabled. Requests for accommodations for the disabled (assistive listening device, sign language interpreters, etc.) should be made to the Board office no later than 10 working days prior to the day of the meeting. If Paratransit services are needed, please contact the Paratransit office nearest you.


 

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO TITLE 8
OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
BY THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS BOARD

Notice is hereby given pursuant to Government Code Section 11346.4 and Labor Code Sections 142.1, 142.4 and 144.5, that the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board pursuant to the authority granted by Labor Code Section 142.3, and to implement Labor Code Section 142.3, will consider the following proposed revisions to Title 8, Construction Safety Orders and General Industry Safety Orders of the California Code of Regulations, as indicated below, at its Public Hearing on February 21, 2002.

  1. TITLE 8: CONSTRUCTION SAFETY ORDERS
    Chapter 4, Subchapter 4, Article 3
    Section 1527
    Washing Facilities at Construction Jobsites

  2. TITLE 8: GENERAL INDUSTRY SAFETY ORDERS
    Chapter 4, Subchapter 7, Article 7
    Section 3291(f)
    Permanent Rooftop Installations – Use of Roof Tie-backs on Buildings

  3. TITLE 8: GENERAL INDUSTRY SAFETY ORDER
    Chapter 4, Subchapter 7, Article 100
    Section 5034
    Crane and Derrick Adjustments and Repairs

 

A description of the proposed changes are as follows:


 1. TITLE 8: CONSTRUCTION SAFETY ORDERS
  Chapter 4, Subchapter 4, Article 3
  Section 1527
  Washing Facilities at Construction Jobsites

    INFORMATIVE DIGEST OF PROPOSED ACTION/POLICY
    STATEMENT OVERVIEW

    The Division of Occupational Safety and Health (the Division) has initiated this rulemaking in response to Petition No. 419 filed with the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Board) on June 13, 2000. The petition letter from Mr. Kenneth Scheidecker, Ironworkers, Local No. 433, Huntington Beach, California requested the Board to amend Title 8, California Code of Regulations, Section 1527 to require handwashing facilities at construction jobsites.

    Currently, Section 1527 requires washing facilities at construction jobsites only when employees are engaged in operations involving hazardous substances.

    Proposed amendments to Section 1527 will require employers to provide a sufficient number of washing facilities at all construction jobsites where toilet facilities are required. In addition, Section 1527 will specify where the facility will be located and the minimum requirements of the facility with respect to water flow, soap, towels, and sanitation. The effect of this proposal is to require employers to provide washing facilities at all construction jobsites where toilets are required.

    The existing requirement of Section 1527 for washing facilities for employees engaged in operations involving hazardous substances is also being amended to specify where the facility will be located, the temperature of the water, and the provision of specialized cleansers, if necessary, to remove the harmful substance. A reference to the shower requirements in Section 3366 is also added to clarify what an employer must do if showering is required by the employer or a Title 8 requirement.

    The proposal is more effective than the comparable Federal OSHA regulation, Title 29 CFR section 1926.51.

     

    COST ESTIMATES OF PROPOSED ACTION

    Costs or Savings to State Agencies

    Insignificant to no cost is anticipated to be associated with providing handwashing facilities at construction sites. It is estimated to cost $15-$35 per month for a handwashing facility and that is an insignificant increase to the average cost of a construction job. State agencies with employees directly involved in construction activities and which have the responsibility for assuring compliance with Title 8 requirements for sanitation at such jobsites will incur a cost for providing washing facilities that comply with the proposed rule. A telephone survey of providers of portable sanitation facilities to construction employers indicated that the costs for providing a portable sink unit for each 20 employees, along with the already required portable toilet, range from $15 to $35 per month per unit including weekly servicing. The current cost for a portable toilet alone with weekly servicing including delivery to, and pick-up from, the worksite ranges in price from approximately $90 to $110 per month.

    Impact on Housing Costs

    The Board has made an initial determination that this proposal will not significantly affect housing costs.

    Impact on Businesses

    The Board has made an initial determination that this proposal will not result in a significant, statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting businesses, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states.

    Cost Impact on Private Persons or Businesses

    Insignificant to no cost is anticipated to be associated with providing handwashing facilities at consturction sites. It is estimated to cost $15-$35 per month for a handwahing facility and that is an insignificant increase to the average cost of a construction job. See the rationale above under Costs or Savings to State Agencies.

    Costs or Savings in Federal Funding to the State

    The proposal will not result in costs or savings in federal funding to the state.

    Costs or Savings to Local Agencies or School Districts Required to be Reimbursed

    No costs to local agencies or school districts are required to be reimbursed. See explanation under "Determination of Mandate."

    Other Nondiscretionary Costs or Savings Imposed on Local Agencies

    The estimated costs would be similar to those identified above for state agencies.

     

    DETERMINATION OF MANDATE

    The Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board has determined that the proposed regulation does not impose a local mandate. Therefore, reimbursement by the state is not required pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of the Government Code because the proposed amendments will not require local agencies or school districts to incur additional costs in complying with the proposal. Furthermore, this regulation does not constitute a "new program or higher level of service of an existing program within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution."

    The California Supreme Court has established that a "program" within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution is one which carries out the governmental function of providing services to the public, or which, to implement a state policy, imposes unique requirements on local governments and does not apply generally to all residents and entities in the state. (County of Los Angeles v. State of California (1987) 43 Cal.3d 46.)

    The proposed regulation does not require local agencies to carry out the governmental function of providing services to the public. Rather, the regulations require local agencies to take certain steps to ensure the safety and health of their own employees only. Moreover, the proposed regulation does not in any way require local agencies to administer the California Occupational Safety and Health program. (See City of Anaheim v. State of California (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1478.)

    The proposed regulation does not impose unique requirements on local governments. All employers - state, local and private - will be required to comply with the prescribed standards.

     

    EFFECT ON SMALL BUSINESSES

    The Board has determined that the proposed amendments may affect small businesses.

     

    ASSESSMENT

    The adoption of the proposed amendments to these regulations will neither create nor eliminate jobs in the State of California nor result in the elimination of existing businesses or create or expand businesses in the State of California.

     

    REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

    Our Board must determine that no reasonable alternative considered by the Board or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of the Board would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed or would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed action.



 2. TITLE 8: GENERAL INDUSTRY SAFETY ORDERS
  Chapter 4, Subchapter 7, Article 7
  Section 3291(f)
  Permanent Rooftop Installations – Use of Roof Tie-backs on Buildings

    INFORMATIVE DIGEST OF PROPOSED ACTION/POLICY

    STATEMENT OVERVIEW

    The Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Board) granted a Permanent Variance to High Bluff Holdings, Inc. (OSHSB File No. 00-V-012) on July 20, 2000 regarding General Industry Safety Order (GISO) Section 3291(f). Subsection (f)(1) requires permanent eyebolts or other permanent devices to be installed on all buildings 3 stories or 36 feet or more in height for the purpose of securing suspended scaffold hooks or clamps and safety lines. An exception to this regulation exempts buildings up to 4 stories or 48 feet in height when certain conditions are met.

    Recent experience with OSHSB Variance File No. 00-V-012 indicates that the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) interprets the exception indicated above to mean 4 stories and 48 feet (emphasis added) in height. As a result, an applicant with a building that was 4 stories and 54 feet in height had to apply for a variance. In this case, the applicant planned to use a ground supported aerial device to elevate exterior building maintenance people, including window cleaners, to do any outside building work. The applicant had no plans to use a suspended scaffold which would require safety hooks, clamps, and safety lines, based on their understanding of the safety orders.

    The purpose of this rulemaking proposal is to amend Exception No. 2 to Section 3291(f)(1) in order to clarify the intent of the regulation, which is to exclude buildings from the requirements of 3291(f) when they are either up to 4 stories or 48 feet in height.

    Section 3291. Special Design Considerations—Permanent Roof Top Installations

    Section 3291 addresses requirements pertaining to the design and installation of permanent rooftop installations including, but not limited to: use of a civil or mechanical engineer to prepare calculations, use of sleeves for buildings that are designed with eyebrows, sleeve design, use of roof davit systems, use of outrigger beams, use of roof tie-backs, use of an Operating Procedures Outline Sheet (OPOS), and procedures for parapets of excessive height.

    Section 3291(f) addresses spacing of roof tie-back devices, design specifications and anchorage requirements. Subsection (f)(1) specifies that every building that is 3 stories or 36 feet or more in height shall be provided with eyebolts or other permanent devices installed at the roof level for the purpose of tying back suspended scaffold hooks or clamps and safety lines.

    Subsection (f)(1) contains two exceptions to the foregoing requirement. Exception No. 2 states that eyebolts for roof tie-back systems are not required on buildings constructed up to 4 stories or 48 feet in height when building maintenance can be accomplished using extension tools, ladders, approved ground equipment such as scaffolds, or aerial devices designed and used for positioning personnel.

    A revision is proposed to amend Exception No. 2 to Section 3291(f)(1) to read, "Roof tie-backs are not required on buildings that are either up to 4 stories or that are 48 feet in height …". The proposed revision will clarify to the employer that roof tie-back systems are not required on buildings that are either 48 feet in height or 4 stories. The proposed revision clarifies that the term "4 stories" does not automatically equate to 48 feet in height and will have no effect on the regulated public.

     

    COST ESTIMATES OF PROPOSED ACTION

    Costs or Savings to State Agencies

    No costs or savings to state agencies will result as a consequence of the proposed action. This proposal merely makes a technical, clarifying revision to existing Title 8 regulations and has no new or added effect upon employers.

    Impact on Housing Costs

    The Board has made an initial determination that this proposal will not significantly affect housing costs.

    Impact on Businesses

    The Board has made an initial determination that this proposal will not result in a significant, statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting businesses, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states.

    Cost Impact on Private Persons or Businesses

    The Board is not aware of any cost impacts that a representative private person or business would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action.

    Costs or Savings in Federal Funding to the State

    The proposal will not result in costs or savings in federal funding to the state. No state agencies or employees are engaged in operations involving exterior building maintenance, a service which is generally contracted out on an "as needed" basis.

    Costs or Savings to Local Agencies or School Districts Required to be Reimbursed

    No costs to local agencies or school districts are required to be reimbursed. See explanation under "Determination of Mandate."

    Other Nondiscretionary Costs or Savings Imposed on Local Agencies

    This proposal does not impose non-discretionary costs or savings on local agencies.

     

    DETERMINATION OF MANDATE

    The Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board has determined that the proposed regulation does not impose a local mandate. Therefore, reimbursement by the state is not required pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of the Government Code because this regulation does not constitute a "new program or higher level of service of an existing program within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution."

    The California Supreme Court has established that a "program" within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution is one which carries out the governmental function of providing services to the public, or which, to implement a state policy, imposes unique requirements on local governments and does not apply generally to all residents and entities in the state. (County of Los Angeles v. State of California (1987) 43 Cal.3d 46.)

    The proposed regulation does not require local agencies to carry out the governmental function of providing services to the public. Rather, the regulation requires local agencies to take certain steps to ensure the safety and health of their own employees only. Moreover, the proposed regulation does not in any way require local agencies to administer the California Occupational Safety and Health program. (See City of Anaheim v. State of California (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1478.)

    The proposed regulation does not impose unique requirements on local governments. All employers - state, local and private - will be required to comply with the prescribed standard.

     

    EFFECT ON SMALL BUSINESSES

    The Board has determined that the proposed amendments may affect small businesses.

     

    ASSESSMENT

    The adoption of the proposed amendments to these regulations will neither create nor eliminate jobs in the State of California nor result in the elimination of existing businesses or create or expand businesses in the State of California.

     

    REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

    Our Board must determine that no reasonable alternative considered by the Board or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of the Board would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed or would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed action.




 3. TITLE 8: GENERAL INDUSTRY SAFETY ORDERS
  Chapter 4, Subchapter 7, Article 100
  Section 5034
  Crane and Derrick Adjustments and Repairs

 

INFORMATIVE DIGEST OF PROPOSED ACTION/

POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW

This rulemaking action was initiated at the request of the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Division) by memorandum to the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Board) dated August 21, 2000 from John Howard, Chief, DOSH.

The Division's memorandum indicates that the language contained in GISO Section 5034(f) requires all repair welds on critically stressed members of cranes be permitted only when recommended by the manufacturer. This has caused some confusion for those that repair cranes and crane booms as well as those that inspect and certify cranes. The confusion exists because Section 5034(e) provides that instructions for crane welding repair procedures shall be provided by a "certified agent". Furthermore, subsection (b) of Section 5035, Damaged Booms, allows for new or extensively repaired booms and/or extensions to be designed or repaired and inspected by a certified agent.

This rulemaking action proposes an amendment to Section 5034(f) for consistency with Sections 5034(e) and 5035(b) that a "certified agent" permits the repair welds on critically stressed crane or derrick parts.

Section 5034. Adjustments and Repairs

Subsection (f)

Section 5034 provides the general requirements and precautions that must be taken before adjustments and repairs are performed on cranes or derricks. This section also sets forth the requirements for welding repairs. Subsection (f), in part, requires that all repair welds performed on critically stressed members are allowed, "where permitted by the manufacturer's recommendations". An amendment is proposed to delete the phrase "where permitted by the manufacturer's recommendations" and replace this language with "where permitted by a certified agent". Section 4884 of the GISO defines a "certified agent" as, "The manufacturer, or a person who is currently registered as a professional civil, mechanical, or structural engineer by the State of California and is knowledgeable in the structure and use of the equipment." Therefore, the amendment will have no effect upon the regulated public other than to provide clarity to the regulations in Section 5034, and consistency with Section 5034(e) in that instructions for welding repair procedures are to be provided by the certified agent. It is also proposed to correct an editorial error in the term "mast cord" in the first sentence of Section 5034(f) to read "mast chord". This amendment is an editorial correction only and will have no effect upon the regulated public.

COST ESTIMATES OF PROPOSED ACTION

Costs or Savings to State Agencies

No costs or savings to state agencies will result as a consequence of the proposed action. As outlined above, the amendment proposes to delete the phase "where permitted by the manufacturer's recommendations" and replace this language with "where permitted by a certified agent" in Section 5034(f). This revision is for clarity and consistency with Sections 5034(e) and 5035(b).

Impact on Housing Costs

The Board has made an initial determination that this proposal will not significantly affect housing costs.

Impact on Businesses

The Board has made an initial determination that this proposal will not result in a significant, statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting businesses, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states.

Cost Impact on Private Persons or Businesses

The Board is not aware of any cost impacts that a representative private person or business would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action.

Costs or Savings in Federal Funding to the State

The proposal will not result in costs or savings in federal funding to the state.

Costs or Savings to Local Agencies or School Districts Required to be Reimbursed

No costs to local agencies or school districts are required to be reimbursed. See explanation under "Determination of Mandate."

Other Nondiscretionary Costs or Savings Imposed on Local Agencies

This proposal does not impose nondiscretionary costs or savings on local agencies.

 

DETERMINATION OF MANDATE

The Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board has determined that the proposed regulation does not impose a mandate requiring reimbursement by the state pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of the Government Code because the proposed amendment will not require local agencies or school districts to incur additional costs in complying with the proposal. Furthermore, this regulation does not constitute a "new program or higher level of service of an existing program within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution."

The California Supreme Court has established that a "program" within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution is one which carries out the governmental function of providing services to the public, or which, to implement a state policy, imposes unique requirements on local governments and does not apply generally to all residents and entities in the state. (County of Los Angeles v. State of California (1987) 43 Cal.3d 46.)

The proposed regulation does not require local agencies to carry out the governmental function of providing services to the public. Rather, the regulation requires local agencies to take certain steps to ensure the safety and health of their own employees only. Moreover, the proposed regulation does not in any way require local agencies to administer the California Occupational Safety and Health program. (See City of Anaheim v. State of California (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1478.)

The proposed regulation does not impose unique requirements on local governments. All employers - state, local and private - will be required to comply with the prescribed standards.

EFFECT ON SMALL BUSINESSES

The Board has determined that the proposed amendments will not affect small businesses.

ASSESSMENT

The adoption of the proposed amendments to these regulations will neither create nor eliminate jobs in the State of California nor result in the elimination of existing businesses or create or expand businesses in the State of California.

 

REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

Our Board must determine that no reasonable alternative considered by the Board or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of the Board would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is proposed or would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed action.

The above proposals do not contain building standards as defined by Health and Safety Code Section 18909.

A copy of the proposed changes in STRIKEOUT/UNDERLINE format is available upon request made to the Occupational Safety and Health Standard Board's Office, 2520 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 350, Sacramento, CA 95833, (916) 274-5721. Copies will also be available at the Public Hearing.

An INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS containing a statement of the purpose and factual basis for the proposed actions, identification of the technical documents relied upon, and a description of any identified alternatives has been prepared and is available upon request from the Standards Board's Office.

Notice is also given that any interested person may present statements or arguments orally or in writing at the hearing on the proposed changes under consideration. It is requested, but not required, that written comments be submitted so that they are received no later than

February 15, 2002. The official record of the rulemaking proceedings will be closed at the conclusion of the public hearing and written comments received after 5:00 p.m. on February 21, 2002 will not be considered by the Board unless the Board announces an extension of time in which to submit written comments. Written comments should be mailed to the address provided below or submitted by fax at (916) 274-5743 or e-mailed at oshsb@hq.dir.ca.gov. The Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board may thereafter adopt the above proposal substantially as set forth without further notice.

The Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board's rulemaking file on the proposed actions including all the information upon which the proposals are based are open to public inspection Monday through Friday, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at the Standards Board's Office, 2520 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 350, Sacramento, California 95833.

The full text of proposed changes, including any changes or modifications that may be made as a result of the public hearing, shall be available from the Executive Officer 15 days prior to the date on which the Standards Board adopts the proposed changes.

Inquiries concerning either the proposed administrative action or the substance of the proposed changes may be directed to John D. MacLeod, Executive Officer, or Michael Manieri, Principal Safety Engineer, at (916) 274-5721.

You can access the Board's notice and other materials associated with this proposal on the Standards Board's homepage/website address which is http://www.dir.ca.gov/oshsb. Once the Final Statement of Reasons is prepared, it may be obtained by accessing the Board's website or by calling the telephone number listed above.



NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF REGULATIONS
INTO TITLE 8, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
BY THE
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS BOARD

 

After proceedings held in accordance with and pursuant to the authority vested in Sections 142, 142.3 and 142.4, of the Labor Code to implement, interpret, or make specific, the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, by a majority vote, adopted additions, revisions, or deletions to the California Code of Regulations as follows:

  1. Title 8, Chapter 4, Subchapter 7, Construction Safety Orders, Article 7, Section 3340(c) and (d), Accident Prevention Signs.

    Heard at the September 20, 2001 Public Hearing; adopted on October 18, 2001; filed with the Secretary of State on November 8, 2001; and became effective on December 8, 2001.

  2. Title 8, Chapter 4, Subchapter 7, General Industry Safety Orders, Article 100, Section 5031, Crane Inspection Records.

    Heard at the August 16, 2001 Public Hearing; adopted on October 18, 2001; filed with the Secretary of State on November 29, 2001; and became effective on December 29, 2001.

A copy of these standards is available upon request from the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, 2520 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 350, Sacramento, CA 95833, (916) 274-5721.

If you have Internet access, visit the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board by going to: http://www.dir.ca.gov/oshsb and follow the links to the Standards Board. This information is updated monthly. The Standards Board's e-mail address is: oshsb@dir.ca.gov.