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 March 20, 2003 at 10:00 a.m.

in the Auditorium of the Harris State Building,

1515 Clay Street, Oakland, 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 March 20, 2003 following the Public Meeting

in the Auditorium of the Harris State Building,

1515 Clay Street, Oakland, 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 March 20, 2003 following the Public Hearing

in the Auditorium of the Harris State Building,

1515 Clay Street, Oakland, 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 March 20, 2003.

 

 

1.

TITLE 8:

CONSTRUCTION SAFETY ORDERS

Chapter 4, Subchapter 4

Article 2, Section 1504

Article 21, Sections 1637 and 1640

Scaffold Design and Use

 

 

2.

TITLE 8:

GENERAL INDUSTRY Safety Orders

Chapter 4, Subchapter 7

Article 110, Section 5214 and

Appendix A of Section 5214

Inorganic Arsenic

 

 

  


                                             

 

A description of the proposed changes are as follows:

 

 

1.

TITLE 8:

CONSTRUCTION SAFETY ORDERS

Chapter 4, Subchapter 4

Article 2, Section 1504

Article 21, Sections 1637 and 1640

Scaffold Design and Use

 

 

 

INFORMATIVE DIGEST OF PROPOSED ACTION/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW

 

This proposed rulemaking action is being initiated at the request of the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Division).  The Division submitted a Form 9, Request for New, or Change in Existing, Safety Order, dated July 18, 2000, to amend the Construction Safety Orders (CSO), Sections 1504 and 1637 to clarify the definitions and design criteria for light-duty, medium-duty, heavy-duty and special-duty scaffolds.

 

According to the Division, a contractor contacted a scaffold company for pricing information on providing and installing metal scaffolding.  Confusion arose when the contractor was presented with two prices: one for a scaffold designed for a working load of 10 pounds per square foot (psf) of working platform, and the other for a scaffold designed for a working load of 25 psf of working platform.  The contractor contacted the Division for the interpretation of Title 8 regulations pertaining to this matter.  After researching the Title 8 safety orders, the Division concluded that the scaffold design criteria specified in various sections of the Construction Safety Orders are neither consistent nor very clear. 

 

For example, tube and coupler, tubular welded frame, bracket, and pump jack scaffolds (Sections 1644(b) and (c), 1645(d), and 1655(a)) must be constructed and erected to support 4 times the maximum intended/rated load that is applied to them.  Light, medium, heavy and special-duty scaffolds, as defined in Section 1504(a), must be designed and constructed to carry maximum working loads of 25, 50, 75 and exceeding 75 psf of scaffold platform, respectively.  Light, medium, and heavy-duty tube and coupler scaffolds address the same load requirements in tables 1, 2, and 3 of Section 1644(b).  Other scaffolds, such as light-trade interior wooden scaffolds, ladder jack and pump jack scaffolds, address different working load requirements that are unique to these scaffolds.

 

29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1926.451(a)(1) specifies that each scaffold and scaffold component shall be capable of supporting its own weight and at least 4 times the maximum intended load applied or transmitted to it.  Similar to this requirement, Section 4.6 of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A10.8-1988 requires that the scaffold be capable of supporting its own weight and at least 4 times the maximum intended load with exceptions for guard rail systems, suspension ropes, solid sawn wood components, and other wood-based members and connections to wood.  ANSI A10.8-1988 further defines load ratings specifically for scaffold platform units.  Section 5.1.2.2 addresses uniformly distributed load criteria for each platform unit of a scaffold.  The applicable uniformly distributed load criteria for each light, medium, heavy and special duty platform unit are 25, 50, 75, and exceeding 75 psf of platform unit area, respectively. 

 

In light of the aforementioned federal requirements and industry standards, this rulemaking action will address the Division’s request to provide clarity and consistency in the scaffold design/construction criteria contained in Title 8 by outlining strength and loading requirements specific to light, medium, heavy and special-duty scaffolds and maximum design load requirements that are applicable to all scaffolds.  These design load requirements differ from the federal counterpart regulations and ANSI standards in that scaffolds must be designed and constructed to support at least 4 times their own weight in addition to at least 4 times the maximum intended working load, whereas federal regulations and ANSI standards require scaffolds to withstand only their own weight and at least 4 times the maximum intended load that is applied or transmitted to them.  The majority of advisory committee members, representative of the scaffold and construction industry, indicated that the federal regulations and ANSI standards are interpreted to mean that the scaffold must be capable to support at least 4 times its own weight and at least 4 times the maximum intended working load.  Upon the advisory committee’s request, Board staff contacted scaffold manufacturers who indicated that scaffolds are designed and manufactured to support 4 times their own weight and 4 times the maximum intended working load.  The proposed design load requirements will be applicable to all scaffolds in order to be at least as effective as comparable federal regulations and the scaffold industry’s design load requirements.

 

This proposed rulemaking action contains non-substantive, editorial and grammatical revisions.  These non-substantive revisions are not all discussed in this Informative Digest, but they are clearly indicated in the regulatory text in underline and strikeout format.  In addition to these non-substantive revisions, the following actions are proposed:

 

Section 1504.  Definitions.

 

Section 1504 gives the definitions of the various terms used in the Title 8, Construction Safety Orders.  Revisions are proposed to amend the scaffold and staging definitions, specifically paragraphs (D) through (G) pertaining to light, medium, heavy and special-duty scaffolds, respectively.  It is proposed to delete the term “metal” from the definitions of these categories of scaffolds so as not to conflict with the requirements contained in existing Section 1637(b), which states in part that “scaffolds shall be constructed of wood or other suitable materials such as steel or aluminum members of known strength characteristics.”  In addition, it is proposed to delete the phrase “not to exceed” before the listed psf working load requirements to prevent scaffolds from being constructed to support loads less than these amounts, and add language that clarifies what constitutes the working loads for each of these scaffold categories.  To eliminate duplication, it is proposed to delete definitions (B) for heavy trade scaffolds and (C) for light trade scaffolds.  It is further proposed to add a new paragraph (B) to provide the definition for a new term, “Scaffold, Engineered”, that is not currently defined in Section 1504 and is included as one of the scaffold categories proposed in Section 1637(b)(2).  The remaining definitions are proposed for re-lettering, consistent with existing Title 8 format.  To avoid conflict with the different load requirements for light-duty interior scaffolds, a “note” is proposed for the definition of “Light-Duty Scaffold” which states that load requirements for light-duty interior scaffolds are contained in Section 1640(c)(1).  The proposed amendments will have no substantive effect other than to clarify to employers that light, medium, heavy and special duty scaffolds may be constructed of materials other than metal and to clarify the working load requirements for these categories of scaffolds.

Section 1637(b)

 

Section 1637 addresses the general requirements for the construction of scaffolds such as, but not limited to, suitable scaffold materials, required strength characteristics, alternative materials of construction, etc.  A revision is proposed to add the title “Scaffold Design and Construction” to Section 1637(b), since additional subsections are proposed (see below) that are specific to the design and construction of scaffolds.  It is also proposed to label existing subsection 1637(b) as 1637(b)(1), and add five new subsections, (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(5), and (b)(6), which address the following design, construction and use requirements for scaffolds:

 

Proposed new subsection (b)(2) will stipulate that each scaffold shall be designed and constructed to support at least 4 times its own weight and 4 times the maximum intended working load applied or transmitted to it.  The proposed amendment will render the state’s standard at least as effective as the federal counterpart regulation contained in 29 CFR 1926.451(a)(1) and clearly indicate to the employer that this design load requirement is applicable to all scaffolds addressed by the Title 8, Construction Safety Orders.  The proposed revision will ensure consistency with federal requirements and current industry standards.

 

New subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of Section 1637(b)(2) are proposed to specify the working loads of 25, 50, and 75 psf of work platform for light, medium, and heavy-duty scaffolds, respectively.  An “exception” to subparagraph (A) is proposed which states that light-duty interior scaffolds shall adhere to the loading requirements contained in Section 1640(c)(1).  Subparagraph (D) is proposed which stipulates that the working load for special-duty scaffolds is in excess of 75 pounds psf, as determined by a qualified person or a Civil Engineer currently registered in the State of California and experienced in scaffold design.  Subparagraph (E) is proposed which stipulates that the working load for engineered scaffolds is to be determined by a Civil Engineer currently registered in the State of California and experienced in scaffold design.  Subparagraph (E) is added to make the requirements of (b)(2) applicable to any engineered scaffold referenced in existing Title 8 safety orders.  The proposed revisions will clarify to employers the strength and loading characteristics required for the design and construction of each category of scaffolds and will ensure consistency with current industry standards.

 

Section 1637(b)(3) is proposed which specifies that a scaffold shall not be subjected to loads greater than its maximum intended working load (see 1637(b)(2)).  The proposed revision will prohibit the employer from overloading scaffold platforms beyond their intended working loads.

 

Section 1637(b)(4) is proposed which states:  “Manufactured scaffolds shall be used in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations.”  The proposed revision will ensure that manufactured scaffolds are used in a manner consistent with their design.

 

Section 1637(b)(5) is proposed which states that a qualified person shall determine the maximum intended working load for scaffolds that are neither manufactured nor engineered.  The proposed revision will require the employer to select a qualified person, as defined in the Construction Safety Orders, to make the required determination.

 

Section 1637(b)(6) is proposed which requires that the maximum intended working load for each scaffold be posted at a conspicuous location at each jobsite or be provided to each supervisory employee who shall have it readily available.  The proposed revision will prevent overloading of scaffolds by making employees aware of the maximum intended working loads of scaffolds used at the jobsite.

 

Section 1640(C).  Light – Trade Interior Scaffolds.

 

Section 1640 addresses the design and construction requirements for light – trade wooden pole scaffolds.  Subsection (b) is applicable to exterior scaffolds, whereas subsection (C) is applicable to interior scaffolds.  A revision is proposed to replace the term “Trade” in the section title and the titles of subsections (b) and (C) with the word “Duty” for consistency with the definitions in Section 1504 and current industry terminology.  In addition, an editorial revision is proposed to re-letter subsection (C) as “(c)” for consistency with existing Title 8 lettering format.  The proposed revisions are for clarity purposes 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.

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 impact 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 non-discretionary costs or savings on local agencies.

 

 

DETERMINATION OF MANDATE

 

The Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board has determined that the proposed regulations do 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, these regulations do 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 regulations do 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 regulations do 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.)

 

These proposed regulations do 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.

 

 


 

 

A description of the proposed changes are as follows:

 

2.

TITLE 8:

GENERAL iNDUSTRY Safety Orders

Chapter 4, Subchapter 7

Article 110, Section 5214 and

Appendix A of Section 5214

Inorganic Arsenic

 

 

INFORMATIVE DIGEST OF PROPOSED ACTION/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW

 

Section 5214 of the General Industry Safety Orders establishes requirements for the control of employee exposure to inorganic arsenic.  The Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Division) has noted inconsistencies in this section with other sections contained in Title 8, with comparable federal standards, and with exposure limits established by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).  This rulemaking action proposes to correct these inconsistencies, as follows, to ensure harmony amongst existing Title 8 regulations and to be at least as effective as federal counterpart regulations and nationally recognized exposure limits. 

 

This proposed rulemaking action contains numerous nonsubstantive, editorial, reformatting of subsections, and grammatical revisions.  These nonsubstantive revisions are not all discussed in this Informative Digest.  However, these proposed revisions are clearly indicated in the regulatory text in underline and strikeout format.  In addition to these nonsubstantive revisions, the following actions are proposed:

 

The current standard includes a table which establishes the appropriate level of respiratory protection for different exposures.  Changes are proposed to make this table consistent with the comparable federal regulation, and Section 5144.

 

The current standard requires that eye protection meet the requirements of Article 10.  It also lists two types of eye protection, face shields and ventilated goggles, which are not permitted by Article 10 for certain exposures.  The proposal deletes the reference to specific protective devices, and retains the requirement that eye protection meet the requirements of Article 10.

 

The current standard requires that the written housekeeping and maintenance plan list the appropriate frequencies of cleaning and maintenance of dust collection equipment. A separate subsection requires “periodic cleaning of dust collection and ventilation equipment and checks of their effectiveness”.  A change is proposed to clarify that the requirement for the written plan includes ventilation equipment.  A change is also proposed to clarify that the ventilation and dust collection systems must comply with the requirements of section 5143.

 

Current Appendix A refers to the use of face shields and vented goggles.  The proposal removes that reference, and provides an example of a type of eye protection that is permitted by Article 10.

 

 

COST ESTIMATES OF PROPOSED ACTION

 

Costs or Savings to State Agencies

No significant costs or savings to state agencies will result as a consequence of the proposed action.

 

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 overall costs are anticipated to be associated with adoption of these amendments.

 

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 Saving 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 regulations do 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, these regulations do 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.)

 

These proposed regulations do 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, proposed regulations do 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.)

 

These proposed regulations do 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.

 

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 March 14, 2003.  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 March 20, 2003 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, CA 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.