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:

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.

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.

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 20, 2003.

A description of the proposed changes are as follows:

INFORMATIVE DIGEST OF PROPOSED ACTION/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW

This rulemaking action is being initiated based on requests from several sources and recommendations from an advisory committee to address various issues contained in Section 1712, Hazards Associated with the Use of Reinforcing Steel and Other Similar Projections.  These issues include: fall protection requirements with respect to point-to-point travel on vertical reinforcing steel (rebar), the use of body protection when carrying and placing (punking) rebar, adding a reference to requirements pertaining to the specifications, testing criteria and approval of manufactured protective covers, and the lack of clarity with regard to the use of caps as a means of impalement protection.

On May 19, 1997, federal OSHA issued a Standard Interpretation letter regarding fall protection for employees climbing or moving on pre-assembled reinforcing steel assemblies.  The letter stated that, “pending future rulemaking, employees could climb or move on both built-in-place and preassembled rebar units without fall protection until they reached their work location or until they reached a fall distance of 24 feet.  Over 24 feet, continuous fall protection would be required.”

Based on this Standard Interpretation letter, the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Board) received a Cal/OSHA Form 9, Request for New, or Change in Existing, Safety Order, with attachments from the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Division), dated October 12, 1998, requesting an amendment to the CSO Section 1712(e) “exception” regarding the fall protection requirements for point-to-point travel on vertical reinforcing steel.  The proposed amendment would limit point-to-point travel on vertical reinforcing steel without the use of fall protection to 24 feet above a surface providing that there is no impalement hazard.  The proposal will render California’s regulation consistent with the fed OSHA interpretation letter.

In a memorandum with attachments, dated June 6, 2000, the Division requested that Board staff amend Section 1712(d)(5), which requires that manufactured covers and caps be approved as provided for in Section 1505 and be legibly marked with the manufacturer’s name or logo.  Section 1505, “Approvals,” defines the term “approved” as used in the CSO.  Based on the Division’s recommendation, staff proposes to revise the existing text to make it specific to manufactured protective covers made prior to October 1, 2000 and add the requirement that protective covers manufactured on or after October 1, 2000 shall meet the requirements of Section 344.90.  Newly promulgated Section 344.90, entitled “Impalement Protection, Specifications and Testing Criteria (See Construction Safety Orders, Title 8, CCR §1712)”, addresses the specifications, testing criteria and approval requirements for newly manufactured protective covers. 

In addition, upon further review of Section 1712, Board staff is recommending deleting the definition and all references to “caps” in Section 1712 since existing language implies that caps can be used for impalement protection during at grade work.  This language conflicts with the current impalement test criteria for protective covers contained in existing Sections 1712(d)(2) and 344.90.  In a Federal OSHA Standard Interpretation letter dated May 9, 1997, fed OSHA clarifies that rebar caps are not to be used as a means of impalement protection.  Fed OSHA based their interpretation clarification of 29CFR 1926.701 on studies conducted by the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Division). 

Lastly, Board staff recommends revising the title of Section 1712 to read, “Reinforcing Steel and Other Similar Projections” to more accurately reflect the contents of Section 1712.

This proposed rulemaking action contains some nonsubstantive and editorial revisions and reformatting of subsections.  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:

Section 1712.  Hazards Associated with the Use of Reinforcing Steel and Other Similar Projections.

Section 1712 contains requirements that address impalement protection requirements, fall protection requirements, protective device approval, work practices and associated definitions.  An amendment is proposed to revise the title of Section 1712 to read, “Reinforcing Steel and Other Similar Projections.  The proposed revision will have no effect other than to more accurately reflect the contents of Section 1712.

Section 1712(b) defines caps as “manufactured devices that completely cover the exposed ends of reinforcing steel and have flat or mushroomed surface at least twice the diameter of the reinforcing steel they are designed to cover.”  Section 1712(c)(1) requires employees working “at grade” and who are exposed to protruding reinforcing steel or other similar projections to be protected against the hazard of impalement by guarding the exposed ends with protective covers, troughs or caps.  Section 1712(c)(3) prohibits the use of caps as impalement protection for employees working above grade or any surface.  Section 1712(d)(1) prohibits job-built caps.  Section 1712(d)(4) requires that caps are made of rigid molded plastic or similar material and be the proper size for the reinforcing steel being covered.  And, Section 1712(d)(5) requires caps to be approved pursuant to Section 1505 and to be legibly marked with the manufacturer’s name or logo.  An amendment is proposed to delete the definition and all references to caps in Section 1712.  The proposed amendment will eliminate the confusion caused by Section 1712(c)(1), which allows caps to be used for impalement protection during “at grade” work, and the definition for “caps” in subsection (b), both of which are inconsistent with the impalement protection requirements contained in existing Section 344.90.  The proposed amendment will provide clarity within the regulation and ensure consistency with the aforementioned fed OSHA directive that caps are not to be used as a means of impalement protection.

Existing Section 1712(d)(3) requires that job-built wood protective covers and troughs be constructed of at least “Standard Grade” Douglas Fir, as graded by the Western Lumber Grading Rules 91, handbook, effective September 1, 1991, published by the Western Wood Products Association, which is incorporated by reference into the regulation.  It is proposed to update this document to the latest version (1998) and incorporate an additional document by reference, the Standard No. 17 Grading Rules for West Coast Lumber Inspection Bureau, effective September 1, 1991 and revised January 1, 2000, which can be used to meet this requirement.  The proposed amendment will have no effect other than to ensure that job-built wood protective covers and troughs are constructed to meet current wood grading requirements consistent with existing industry practice.

Existing Section 1712(d)(5) requires manufactured covers and caps be approved as provided for in Section 1505 and be legibly marked with the manufacturer’s name or logo.  Referenced Section 1505 contains the definition and criteria for approval.  It is proposed to revise the existing text to make it specific to manufactured protective covers made prior to October 1, 2000 and add the requirement that protective covers manufactured on or after October 1, 2000 shall meet the requirements of Section 344.90.  The proposed amendment will ensure consistency amongst existing requirements and will update and clarify subsection (d)(5) by referencing the newly promulgated Section 344.90 which outlines the specifications, testing criteria and approval requirements for manufactured protective covers made after October 1, 2000 and includes the reference to Section 1505. 

Existing Section 1712(e) requires that fall protection, or other method affording equivalent protection from the hazard of falls from elevated surfaces, be worn by employees working on vertical rebar 6 feet above an adjacent surface except for point-to-point horizontal or vertical travel on reinforcing steel.  The exception to this fall protection requirement lacks a height limitation in which fall protection must be used.  Because fed OSHA interprets their fall protection standard in 29 CFR 1926.501 as requiring continuous fall protection at heights over 24 feet above a surface, an amendment is proposed to revise the exception to Section 1712(e) to permit point-to-point horizontal or vertical travel on reinforcing steel up to 24 feet above the surface below providing there are no impalement hazards.  The proposed amendment will have the effect of ensuring that fall protection is worn by rebar workers when moving point-to-point on reinforcing steel at heights exceeding 24 feet, and that point-to-point travel without fall protection is only permitted when no impalement hazard exists.  The proposed revision will also ensure that the state’s requirement is at least as effective as fed OSHA’s interpretation of their own standard.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

•    Western Lumber Grading Rules 98, handbook, effective March 1, 1998, published by the Western Wood Products Association.

•    Standard No. 17 Grading Rules for West Coast Lumber, handbook, effective September 1, 1991 and revised January 1, 2000, published by the West Coast Lumber Inspection Bureau.

These documents are too cumbersome or impractical to publish in Title 8.  Therefore, it is proposed to incorporate the documents by reference.  Copies of these documents are available for review Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at the Standards Board Office located at 2520 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 350, Sacramento, California.

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.  See also “Impact on Businesses” above.

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 with 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 may affect small businesses.

ASSESSMENT

The adoption of the proposed amendments to this regulation 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:

INFORMATIVE DIGEST OF PROPOSED ACTION/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW

This rulemaking action is being initiated by the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board staff to update an outdated National Code reference in Section 4821(a) of the General Industry Safety Orders.

Existing Section 4821 addresses the material and design requirements for gas systems piping for welding and cutting.  A revision is proposed to update and incorporate by reference the American National Standard Code referenced in Section 4821(a).  The existing reference, “Section 2, Industrial Gas and Air Piping Systems of the American National Standard Code for Pressure Piping ANSI B31.1.1983”, was not corrected in a previous rulemaking.  The proposed revision will correct this reference to read, “Chapters 1 through 4 of the American National Standard Code for Pressure Piping, ASME B31.1 2001, Power Piping.”  Incorporating the latest edition of this document by reference will ensure current national standards are met.  The proposed revision will have no effect on the regulated public since only minor, nonsubstantial revisions have been made to ASME B31.1 since 1983 and the regulated public is already required to adhere to these 1983 requirements referenced in existing Section 4821(a).

Section 4821.  Gas Systems Piping for Welding and Cutting, Materials and Design.

Existing Section 4821(a) requires piping and fittings for gas systems used in welding and cutting operations to comply with Section 2, Industrial Gas and Air Piping Systems of the American National Standard Code for Pressure Piping ANSI B31.1.1983, insofar as it does not conflict with subsections (b) and (c).  Subsection (b) requires piping to be at least Schedule 40 and fittings to be at least standard weight in sizes up to and including 6-inch nominal.  And subsection (c) states that copper tubing shall be Types K or L in accordance with the Standard Specification for Seamless Copper Water Tube, ASTM B88-96, which is hereby incorporated by reference.

A revision is proposed to update and incorporate by reference the American National Standard Code referenced in Section 4821(a) to read, “Chapters 1 through 4 of the American National Standard Code for Pressure Piping, ASME B31.1 2001, Power Piping.”  The proposed revision will ensure current national standards are met and will have no effect on the regulated public since only minor, nonsubstantial revisions have been made to ASME B31.1 since 1983.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

•   Chapters 1 through 4 of the American National Standard Code for Pressure Piping, ASME B31.1, Power Piping, 2001 Edition.

This document is too cumbersome or impractical to publish in Title 8.  Therefore, it is proposed to incorporate this document by reference.  A copy of this document is available for review Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the Standards Board Office located at 2520 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 350, Sacramento, California.

COST ESTIMATES OF PROPOSED ACTION

Cost 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 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 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 made an initial determination that this proposal 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 February 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 February 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.

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:

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.