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 January 16, 2003 at 10:00 a.m.
in the Auditorium of the State Building,

320 West 4th Street, Los Angeles, 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 January 16, 2003 following the Public Meeting
in the Auditorium of the State Building,
320 West 4th Street, Los Angeles, 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 January 16, 2003 following the Public Hearing
in the Auditorium of the State Building,
320 West 4th Street, Los Angeles, 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 Elevator Safety Orders of the California Code of Regulations, as indicated below, at its Public Hearing on January 16, 2003.

 

 

1.

TITLE 8:

CONSTRUCTION SAFETY ORDERS
Chapter 4, Subchapter 4
Article 20, Section 1635
Article 29, Section 1710
Structural Steel Erection Safety Standards

 

2.

TITLE 8:

Elevator Safety Orders

Chapter 4, Subchapter 6

New Article 5.1

New Section 3005

Reporting Accidents Involving Listed Devices

 

 

3.

TITLE 8:

Elevator Safety Orders

Chapter 4, Subchapter 6

Article 7, Section 3016

Article 20, Section 3120.6

Article 22, Section 3122.0

Elevator Pits

 

 


                                   

 

A description of the proposed changes are as follows:

 

1.

TITLE 8:

CONSTRUCTION SAFETY ORDERS
Chapter 4, Subchapter 4
Article 20, Section 1635
Article 29, Section 1710
Structural Steel Erection Safety Standards

 

 

INFORMATIVE DIGEST OF PROPOSED ACTION/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW

 

Federal OSHA promulgated regulations addressing Safety Standards for Steel Erection in its Final Rule published January 18, 2001 as part of 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Subpart R, Sections 1926.750 to 1926.761.  In order to allow industry time to comply with the new standard, federal OSHA extended the effective date of the new standard to January 18, 2002.

 

In response to the Federal Final Rule, the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Board) [in a previous rulemaking action] adopted a majority of requirements contained in Subpart R, under the provisions of the California Labor Code, Section 142.3(a)(3) which addresses the adoption of regulations “substantially the same” as the federal standard(s).  These amendments were adopted by the Board at its March 21, 2002 Public Hearing so that the State’s steel erection regulations in Title 8 would be at least as effective as the federal standard and became effective for the State on May 1, 2002. 

 

This current rulemaking action was developed with the assistance of an advisory committee convened to address comments received on the rulemaking discussed above and to address consideration for adoption of multiple rigging procedures, controlled decking zone procedures, shinning of columns and amendments of other provisions contained in existing Title 8, CSO Section 1710.

 

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:

 

Section 1635.  Floors, Walls and Structural Steel Framed Buildings.

 

Subsection (b)(6)

Section 1635(b), in part, contains requirements related to the installation of floors and decking for structural steel framed buildings.  Existing subsection (b)(6) states that wire mesh or plywood (exterior grade) shall be used to cover openings adjacent to columns where planks do not fit tightly.  An amendment is proposed to add that openings adjacent to columns must be covered where planks “or metal decking” do not fit tightly.  The amendment will have no effect upon the regulated public other than to clarify that openings in metal decking near columns are also required to be covered.

 

Subsection (b)(11)

Existing subsection (b)(11) states that when gathering or stacking temporary floor planks from the last panel, that personnel shall be protected by “safety belts with life lines attached to a catenary line or other substantial anchorage.”  An amendment is proposed to delete the quoted language above and require such personnel to be protected by “a personnel fall protection system used in accordance with Article 24.”  Safety belts are no longer permitted for fall arrest systems and the amendment will have the effect of ensuring fall protection is used in accordance with existing requirements in the CSO, Article 24.

 

Section 1710.  Structural Steel Erection.

 

Section 1710 sets forth requirements to protect employees from the hazards associated with steel erection activities involved in the construction, alteration, and/or repair of single and multi-story buildings, bridges, and other structures where steel erection occurs.

 

Subsections (a)(3) & (4)

Existing subsection (a)(3) lists subsections in Section 1710 that include duties related to controlling contractors.  A proposed amendment deletes the phrase “but are not limited to,” which could present a clarity issue with respect to the controlling contractor’s duties.  The proposed amendment has the effect of clarifying the duties of the controlling contractor in Section 1710.

 

A new subsection (a)(4) is proposed that will have the effect of clearly indicating to the employer when the design component requirements of the standard are effective for construction projects in various stages of completion.  An effective date is proposed for the design component requirements that is consistent with the effective date of newly adopted amendments for Section 1710 that were effective May 1, 2002.

 

Section 1710(b) Definitions.

 

Subsection (b) contains the definitions related to structural steel erection activities.  The following definitions are proposed for addition to subsection (b):  connector, controlled decking zone (CDZ), controlled load lowering, critical lift, multiple lift rigging, and post.  The proposed adoption of these definitions will have the effect of providing clarity to Section 1710 regulations and consistency with the counterpart federal regulations contained in 29 CFR, Subpart R, Steel Erection.

 

The definition for the term “decking hole” is proposed for deletion.  The definition means a gap or a void more than 2 inches in its least dimension and less than 12 inches in its greatest dimension in a floor, roof or other walking/working surface.  Pre-engineered holes in cellular decking (for wires, cables, etc.) are not included in this definition.  The Construction Safety Orders, Section 1504 contains definitions for “hole” and “opening.”  The definitions for “hole” and “opening” in Section 1504 when combined with the requirements in CSO Section 1632(b) and 1632(h) for the guarding of floor openings and holes provide the necessary requirements to protect workers from accidentally falling into a floor hole or opening.  Therefore, the definition of “decking hole” is unnecessary and proposed for deletion, which will have the effect of providing clarity to the regulations. 

 

The definition for “hoisting equipment” is proposed for deletion.  This definition could be conflicting with itself and with the common usage of this term (e.g., the existing definition infers that hoisting equipment has “a center of rotation”).  Not all hoisting equipment in steel erection activities has a center of rotation.  The deletion of this definition will have no effect upon the regulated public except to add clarity to the regulations.

 

Section 1710(c), Site layout and construction sequence.

 

Subsection (c)(3)(B)

Existing Section 1710(c) provides the general requirements for construction site layout and sequence.  Subsection (c)(3)(B) requires a safe area for the storage of materials and the operation of the steel erector’s equipment.  A proposed amendment adds language that this area must also be adequately compacted to support the intended loads.  This amendment will have no effect upon the regulated public other than to clarify the conditions necessary for safe storage of materials.

 

Subsection (c)(4)

Existing subsection (c)(4) requires all hoisting operations in steel erection to be pre-planned to ensure that the requirements of General Industry Safety Orders (GISO) Section 5002 “Overhead Loads” are met.  A proposed amendment will delete the reference to GISO Section 5002 in lieu of a reference to newly proposed subsection (d)(1) “Working under loads.”  The amendment will have the effect of referencing regulations consistent with the federal counterpart regulations and that are more specific to structural steel operations for work under loads.

 

Subsection (c)(5)

A new subsection (c)(5) is proposed to adopt provisions of the “site-specific erection plan” consistent with the federal counterpart standard contained in 29 CFR 1926.752(e).  The site-specific erection plan is required when employers develop alternate means and methods to provide employee protection in accordance with the provisions in proposed Sections 1710(d)(9), 1710(h)(1)(C) or Section 1710(h)(5)(D).  These sections pertain to provisions when deactivating safety latches on hoisting hooks, alternative erection methods for setting certain steel joists, and conditions/procedures required for placement of decking bundles on steel joists, respectively.  The amendments will have the effect of allowing the employer alternative methods and procedures when the provisions of any of the three listed sections above are met including the development of a site-specific erection plan prepared by a qualified person. 

 

Section 1710(d) Hoisting and rigging.

 

Subsection (d)(1) Working under loads.

Section 1710(d) contains the provisions for hoisting and rigging procedures.  A new subsection (d)(1) is proposed to address safety precautions for work below suspended loads.  The proposed subsection also requires that suspended loads be pre-planned to limit exposure to employees working below suspended loads except as necessary for connectors when making initial connections or riggers when hooking or unhooking the load.  The amendment has the effect of ensuring that employees will not be unnecessarily exposed to the hazards of suspended loads.

 

Subsection (d)(2) Multiple Lift Rigging Procedure.

Multiple lift rigging (MLR) is also known as “Christmas Treeing.”  MLR procedures facilitate the attachment of up to five independent loads to the rigging of a crane.  In paragraph 29 CFR 1926. 753(e) of Subpart R, Federal OSHA adopted regulations in its steel erection standard to permit MLR procedures.  Amendments are proposed in subsection (d)(2) to adopt MLR procedures in California’s steel erection standard that are similar (with some additional requirements) to those in the federal standard.  In subsections (d)(2)(A) through (d)(2)(F), specific lifting and rigging procedures are required for compliance with MLR procedures.  For example, a MLR lift is limited to five structural members being hoisted per lift.  Rigging procedures must also prevent hazardous contact between structural steel members being hoisted and adjacent structures or workers.  All employees engaged in a multiple lift must be trained in accordance with the training provisions outlined in Section 1710(q)(3)(A).

 

Provided that employers meet all of the provisions in the regulations for MLR procedures, the proposed amendment will have the effect of permitting the lifting of more than one structural steel member on a specific crane lift.  In some cases, this may permit the steel erector to complete construction activities in less time with fewer crane lifts. 

 

Subsection (d)(3)

Existing subsection (d)(1) is renumbered and proposed as subsection (d)(3).  The first sentence in the existing regulation states that the crane or derrick operator shall be responsible for those operations under the operator’s direct control.  The first sentence is proposed for deletion and in the second sentence of the regulation it is clarified that the “crane or derrick” operator has the authority to stop and refuse to handle loads until safety is assured.  The amendment will have no effect upon the regulated public other than to eliminate the first sentence, which is unclear and unnecessary. 

 

Subsection (d)(4)

Subsection (d)(4) contains requirements for landing metal decking bundles.  This subsection is merely relocated from existing Section 1710(h)(5)(D).  The amendment will have no effect upon the regulated public other than to place the requirement in a more appropriate location relating to hoisting and rigging operations.

 

Subsection (d)(5)

Proposed subsection (d)(5) requires that temporary loads placed on a derrick floor to be distributed over the underlying support members to prevent local overloading of the decking material.  The proposed subsection is verbatim to the counterpart federal standard in 29 CFR 1910.754(e)(6)(ii).  The amendment will ensure that temporary loads are adequately and safely supported.

 

Subsection (d)(9)

Subsection (d)(9) provides that safety latches on hooks shall not be deactivated or made inoperable unless a qualified person determines the task of placing purlins and single joists is safer by doing so and when the employer has prepared a “site-specific” erection plan.  [See explanation about site-specific erection plans under the paragraph for subsection (c)(5)].  The proposal is consistent with the federal counterpart standard and will have the effect of providing employers the option to deactivate safety latches only when it is safer to do so and the provisions of the subsection are met.

 

Section 1710(e) Walking/working surfaces.

 

Subsection (e)(1)(B)

Subsection (e)(1)(B), in part, requires that when shear connectors are used in construction of composite floors, roofs and bridge decks, employees shall lay out and install the shear connectors after the metal decking has been installed, using the metal decking as a working platform.  A “note” is proposed for this section as a reminder that Section 1710(n)(8) prohibits the installation of shear connectors within a controlled decking zone.  The proposed amendment is an informational reminder and will have no effect upon the regulated public.

 

 

Section 1710(f) Column anchorage.

 

Subsection (f)(2)(A)

Subsection (f)(2)(A) states that anchor rods (anchor bolts) shall not be repaired, replaced, or field-modified without the approval of the structural engineer of record.  A “note” is proposed for this subsection stating that minor adjustment of anchor rods (anchor bolts) that do not affect the structural integrity of anchor rods (anchor bolts) are not considered “repairs” for the purposes of this subsection.  The note is informational and will have the effect of permitting minor adjustments to anchor bolts (that do not affect the structural integrity of the bolts) without the approval of a structural engineer.

 

Section 1710(h) Open web steel joists.

 

Subsection (h)(1)(C)

Existing subsection (h)(1)(C) requires that where steel joists at or near columns span 60 feet (18.3 m) or less, the joist shall be designed with sufficient strength to allow one employee to release the hoisting cable without the need for erection bridging.  This section is proposed for repeal because steel joist manufacturers indicate it will take time to develop and manufacture a joist that can comply with this provision.  Federal OSHA has postponed enforcement of this provision in its counterpart standard 29 CFR 1926.757(a)(3) as indicated in its compliance directive [Directive Number: CPL 2-1.34] dated March 22, 2002, page 4-11.  The repeal of this subsection will eliminate a regulation that cannot be complied with.

 

Subsection (h)(1)(D)

Existing subsection (h)(1)(D) will be renumbered as subsection (h)(1)(C) in the proposal.  This subsection states that where steel joists at or near columns span more than 60 feet (18.3 m), the joists shall be set in tandem with all bridging installed.  An amendment is proposed that will require joists to be set in tandem with all bridging installed unless an alternative method of erection, which provides equivalent stability to the steel joist, is designed by a qualified person and is included in the site-specific erection plan.  The amendment will have the effect of permitting alternative methods (e.g., providing bracing above the top of the joist) when a site-specific erection plan has been developed.  (Also see the paragraph under subsection (c)(5) with respect to site-specific erection plans.)

 

Subsection (h)(5)(D)

Existing subsection (h) contains requirements related to open web steel joists.  Subsection (h)(5)(D) requires metal decking bundles to be landed on framing members so that enough support is provided to allow the bundles to be unbanded without dislodging the bundles from the supports.  The provisions of this subsection are proposed for relocation to proposed subsection (d)(4).  The relocation of this section will have no effect upon the regulated public other than to include these requirements in subsection (d) related to hoisting and rigging operations where it is more appropriately located.

 

Subsection (h)(5)(E)

Existing subsection (h)(5)(E) will be renumbered as subsection (h)(5)(D) in the proposal.  The existing subsection states that no bundle of decking may be placed on steel joists until all bridging has been installed and anchored and all joist bearing ends attached, unless the employer meets six specific conditions listed in subsections (h)(5)(D)1. through (h)(5)(D)6.  The first condition [subsection (h)(5)(D)1.] requires that the employer has first determined from a qualified person and documented in an erection plan that the structure is capable of supporting the load.  An amendment is proposed that will have the effect of providing consistency with the federal counterpart standard in 29 CFR 1926.757(e)(4)(i) to require that the employer document in a “site-specific” erection plan that the structure is capable of supporting the load.  The amendment will have the effect of requiring documentation in the “site-specific erection plan” (See proposed Appendix C) in lieu of in an “erection plan” which must be prepared by a civil engineer as required by Section 1709(d). 

 

Section 1710(l) Temporary Flooring-Skeleton Steel Construction in Multistory Buildings.

 

Subsection (l)(3)

Subsection 1710(l)(3) requires wire rope perimeter safety cables or other guardrail protection at the exposed edges of decked floors.  The subsection also requires midrail protection to be installed at the completion of decking.  It is proposed to relocate the provisions for midrail requirements from subsection (l)(3) to a new subsection (l)(4).  The relocation of this provision is editorial and will have no effect upon the regulated public.

 

Subsection (l)(4)

A new subsection (l)(4)(A) provides the requirement relocated from existing subsection (l)(3) that midrail protection shall be installed at the completion of decking.  A new subsection (l)(4)(B) also requires midrail protection be installed prior to the decked area being used by trades other than the steel erector or the decking crew.  Proposed subsection (l)(4)(B) will have the effect of clarifying an already recommended industry practice that midrail protection is installed before other trades access the decked area.

 

Subsection (l)(6)

Subsection (l)(6)(B), proposed as subsection (l)(7)(B), requires the use of approved personal fall protection devices when gathering and stacking temporary floor planks from the last panel.  A proposed amendment changes the phrase “personal fall protection devices” with the phrase “personal fall protection system.”  This is an editorial change as the phrase “personal fall protection system” is defined in CSO, Section 1504 while the former phrase is not.  The amendment will have no effect upon the regulated public.

 

Section 1710(m) Work and Traveling on the Skeleton Steel of Multistory Buildings or Structures.

 

Subsection (m)(1)

Existing subsection (m)(1) provides fall protection requirements for iron workers engaged in connecting work.  The subsection requires the use of a personal fall protection system for connectors when the fall distance is greater than two stories or 30 feet, whichever is less.  An amendment is proposed for subsection (m)(1)(A) to clarify that connecting activity includes not only connecting beams, but also includes connecting “other structural members.”  The amendment will have the effect of providing clarity to the regulation and consistency with the proposed definition of “connector” located in subsection (b).

 

Proposed subsection (m)(1)(B) adopts nearly verbatim language from the counterpart federal standard in 29 CFR 1926.760(b)(3).  The provisions of this subsection require that connectors at heights over 15 and up to 30 feet above a lower level, be provided with a personal fall arrest system, positioning device system or fall restraint system and wear the equipment necessary to be able to be tied off; or be provided with other means of protection from fall hazards in accordance with subsection (m).  The effect of this regulation will be to provide the connector the ability to use fall protection between 15 and up to 30 feet should the connector believe it is safer or necessary to do so.  An informational note is also proposed that states for fall protection requirements associated with work above reinforcing steel and similar projections, see Section 1712 of the Construction Safety Orders.

 

Proposed subsection (m)(1)(C) addresses requirements for the shinning of columns which is the common and accepted industry practice for connectors to vertically climb up or down columns to access workpoints.  The effect of this regulation will be to provide the requirements to address and permit this practice for connecting work and provide an alternative to the use of ladders or other means of access when the fall distance does not exceed two stories or 30 feet, whichever is less. 

 

Subsection (m)(3)

Existing subsection (m)(3) pertains to iron worker duties when traveling at the periphery or interior of a building.  Subsection (m)(3)(A) states that when moving from work point to work point or releasing slings, iron workers shall be permitted to walk the top flange of a beam when the fall distance is not more than 30 feet or two stories, whichever is less.  Subsection (m)(3)(B) provides that when the fall distance is greater than 30 feet, or two stories, whichever is less, iron workers shall coon or walk the bottom flange (inside flange or peripheral beams), or may walk the top flange if they are tied-off to catenary lines.  Within the parenthetical phrase above (inside flange or peripheral beams) an editorial correction deletes the word “or” in lieu of the correct word “of.”

 

Existing subsection (m)(3) permits iron workers (other than those performing connecting work) to walk the top flange of beams up to 30 feet, or two stories, whichever is less, without the use of fall protection.  The federal counterpart fall protection standard for steel erection does not permit iron workers, other than connectors, to walk the top flange of beams above 15 feet in height without the use of fall protection.  Therefore, amendments are proposed for subsection (m)(3)(A) and (B) that will have the effect of requiring that iron workers (other than those performing connecting work) be tied-off to catenary lines or use other fall protection when walking the top flange of beams if the fall distance is greater than 15 feet.

 

Section 1710(n) Controlled Decking Zone (CDZ).

 

Subsection (n) contains the requirements for the employer option to establish a Controlled Decking Zone (CDZ).  A CDZ is an area established specifically for the initial placement and securing of metal decking where access to the area is restricted and work may take place without the use of a personal fall protection system for leading edge workers between 15 and 30 feet above a lower level.

 

Many of the requirements for establishing a CDZ are verbatim or similar to the federal counterpart standard in 29 CFR 1926.760(c).  However, the proposed California CDZ standard has additional requirements that are not included in the federal standard for workers in a CDZ where conventional fall protection is not used.  For example, when implementing a CDZ, the federal standard does not require the employer to determine that the use of a personal fall protection system is impractical or creates a greater hazard [See proposed subsection (n)(1)].  Further, subsections (n)(2) through (n)(5) contain requirements such as supervision of the CDZ by a competent person, documentation of the reasons why conventional fall protection is infeasible or creates a greater hazard and provisions for the use of a safety monitoring system when a CDZ is implemented.

 

The CDZ would address limited situations where it is problematic or infeasible on metal decked areas such as certain roofs where there is insufficient or no overhead anchorage points for proper set up of fall protection systems for workers.  The effect of proposed subsection (n) would be that if an employer establishes a CDZ that conforms to the requirements of subsection (n) and affected personnel are trained pursuant to subsection (q)(3)(C), employees authorized to work in the CDZ could do so without the use of a fall protection system.  Employers would establish an administrative program to implement the requirement of proposed subsection (n) if they choose to implement a CDZ.

 

Section 1710(o) Custody of guardrail systems.

 

Existing subsection (n), which is proposed as subsection (o), addresses the need to ensure that fall protection (meaning wire rope or other guardrail protection) left by the steel erector for use by other trades is maintained after steel erectors have completed their work.  The existing regulation requires that fall protection provided by the steel erector remain in the area where the steel erection activity has been completed, to be used by other trades, only if the controlling contractor has: 1) directed the steel erector to leave the fall protection in place; and 2) has inspected and accepted control and responsibility for the fall protection prior to use.  

 

It is clear in the federal OSHA explanation of its counterpart standard, that this regulation is intended to apply to wire rope or other guardrail systems left at the job site by the steel erector.  Therefore, an amendment is proposed for clarity to delete the phrase “fall protection” and replace it with “wire rope or other guardrail protection.”  The proposed amendment will have no effect upon the regulated public other than to add clarity to the regulation. 

 

Section 1710(q) Training.

 

When federal OSHA promulgated its Final Rule for structural steel erection in 29 CFR, Subpart R, federal OSHA recognized the need for a separate training section to address many of the new requirements of the standard such as the use of personal fall protection equipment and special procedures for multiple lift rigging, decking activities in a controlled decking zone, and connecting work.  With the assistance of the advisory committee members convened to discuss proposed revisions to California’s regulations in Title 8, it was determined that California should adopt similar training provisions for steel erection activities to supplement the general training requirements in CSO Section 1509 “Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP).” 

 

Proposed subsection (q) will provide consistency with the federal counterpart training requirements including some modifications such as expanding the training requirements for multiple lift rigging procedures.  The effect of adding the training procedures in subsection (q) will be that employers will need to establish an administrative program that supplements their Section 1509 IIPP program to ensure that workers involved in structural steel erection have been properly trained in the hazards specific to their work assignments. 

 

Appendix C to Section 1710 -- Guidelines for Establishing the Components of a Site-specific Erection Plan: Non-mandatory Guidelines for Complying with Section 1710(c)(5).

 

In subsection (c)(5), it is proposed to adopt provisions of the “site-specific erection plan” consistent with the federal counterpart standard contained in 29 CFR 1926.752(e).  Therefore, it is also proposed to adopt the non-mandatory guidelines in new Appendix C to Section 1710 for complying with the provisions of the site-specific erection plan.  Appendix C is non-mandatory and will have the effect of providing employers assistance and information for compliance with the provisions of Section 1710(c)(5).

 

 

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.  The proposal adds language in Section 1710(m)(1)(C) to address a work practice for connectors to access workpoints.  This work practice for connectors is referred to as the “shinning of columns” and is considered an existing industry practice by steel erectors in California. 

 

The proposal also provides the employer the option in Section 1710(n) to use controlled decking zones as a method to address fall hazards between 15 and 30 feet for leading edge decking work.  Further, in subsection (d)(2) the proposal permits employers the option to perform multiple lift rigging (lifting up to five structural members) in one lift, which may reduce the time necessary for skeletal steel erection of buildings.  Other amendments are also of a clarifying and technical nature with no adverse economic impact affecting businesses anticipated.

 

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 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, these regulations require local agencies to take certain steps to ensure the safety and health of their own employees only.  Moreover, these 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:

Elevator Safety Orders

Chapter 4, Subchapter 6

New Article 5.1

New Section 3005

Reporting Accidents Involving Listed Devices

 

 

 

INFORMATIVE DIGEST OF PROPOSED ACTION/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW

 

Existing Title 8, Elevator Safety Orders do not contain requirements for reporting or investigating accidents where maintenance, operation, or use of a device listed in Section 3000(c) results in injury or death to a member of the general public.  The only accidents required to be reported are those involving serious injury or illness, or death of an employee, pursuant to Section 342 of the Regulations of the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Division).  Reported employee-related accidents are subsequently categorized (by industry) and statistically recorded as worksite-related.  When an employee-related accident involving a listed device requires an investigation, it is conducted by the Division and not the Division’s Elevator Unit that oversees these devices.  The Elevator Unit, however, will provide technical assistance when requested by the Division.

 

Carl J. White & Associates petitioned the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Board), Petition File No. 408, to amend the Elevator Safety Orders to include accident reporting and investigation requirements which involve the riding public.  The petitioner implies that accidents occurring on devices such as elevators/escalators would be investigated by the Division and, that by involving an impartial third party like the Division, accidents could be prevented and/or reduced.  The petitioner believes that reporting these accidents would not burden the owners since they are already required to report accidents to their insurance company if the accident results in injuries that require a physician. 

 

The Board granted the petition to the extent that the Division convene an advisory committee to consider the petitioner’s recommendations.  The Division attempted to convene a representative advisory committee, however, only four members attended, two of which were Division representatives.  Those in attendance did, nevertheless, agree with the petitioner’s assessment that owners of elevators/escalators are not required to notify the Division when accidents occur on elevators, escalators, moving walks, or similar public conveyances (devices).  Elevator service companies occasionally inform the Division of accidents as a matter of courtesy.  By contrast, it is industry practice that owners, or the owner’s responsible agent, report those accidents that result in an injury to a passenger to the insurer.  Such accident information is confidential and, therefore, not available to the Division.

 

Those attending the committee meeting also agreed that by requiring that accidents on these devices be reported, the Division could compile statistics that currently do not exist.  The subsequent investigation of these accidents, when required, could reveal relevant data, such as equipment failure or mechanical malfunction that may have caused the accident.  The information would also be useful to the Division when the Division evaluates the serviceability and mechanical condition of the device during the yearly inspection required for the owner to obtain the permit needed to operate the device.  The information could also reveal detrimental trends in the function and operation of the device that could be corrected to prevent such accidents from occurring. 

 

This proposal recommends revisions to the Elevator Safety Orders that would require the owners of devices, such as elevators, escalators, moving walks, etc., listed in Subsection 3000(c), to report to the Division’s Elevator Unit Headquarters in writing, those accidents which result in injury to any person(s) requiring medical treatment beyond ordinary first aid within five days of the accident.  The proposal also requires that any accident resulting in serious injury or death be reported immediately via telephone to the Division’s Elevator Unit Headquarters.  The proposal further requires the owners of devices to preserve the equipment and site conditions for investigation by the Division.

 

New Article 5.1.  Accident Reports and Procedures

 

The proposal will establish new Article 5.1 entitled “Accidents Reports and Procedures” which will contain requirements for reporting accidents involving all those who maintain, operate, or use a device as listed in Section 3000(c) of the Elevator Safety Orders. 

 

New Section 3005.  Reporting Accidents Involving Listed Devices.

 

Subsection (a)

 

Proposed subsection (a) outlines the scope of the regulation, stating that the Article applies to all devices listed in Section 3000(c), and provides the definitions for the terms: “responsible agent”, “immediately”, “incident”, and “serious injury” which are used throughout the Article.  Subsection (a) is for information and clarity purposes only and will have no effect on the regulated public.

 

Subsection (b)

 

Proposed subsection (b) addresses the accident reporting requirements required of all listed device owners or their responsible agent.  The proposal requires all accidents where maintenance, operation, or use of a listed device results in injury to any person(s) which requires medical treatment beyond ordinary first aid to be reported in writing within five days of the accident to the Elevator Unit Headquarters Office in Anaheim.  Subsection (b)(1) requires all serious injuries or deaths to be reported immediately via telephone to the Elevator Unit Headquarters Office in Anaheim.  The proposal will have the effect of requiring device owners or their responsible agent to report to the Elevator Unit Headquarters Office, those accidents which require medical treatment beyond ordinary first aid.

 

Subsection (c)

 

Proposed subsection (c) addresses the requirements regarding the preservation of all equipment and site conditions for investigation by the Division for those accidents resulting in serious injury or death as a result of the maintenance, operation, or use of a listed device.  Subsection (c)(1) states that upon receiving a report of an accident from an owner/responsible agent, the Division shall determine whether further preservation of the equipment or site conditions is necessary and shall inform the owner/responsible agent of its determination.  Subsection (c)(2) adds that if the Division determines that continued preservation is necessary, the Division shall make a reasonable effort to initiate the accident investigation within 24 hours of receipt of the report from the owner/responsible agent.  And finally, subsection (c)(3) states that upon initiating the accident investigation, the Division shall provide the owner/responsible agent with instructions on how long the equipment or site conditions shall continue to be preserved.  The proposal will have the effect of ensuring that equipment and site conditions are preserved for investigation by the Division when accidents resulting in serious injury or death occur.

 

Subsection (d)

 

Proposed subsection (d) requires any state, county, or local fire or law enforcement agency responding to an accident involving a listed device where the accident results in a serious injury or death, to immediately notify the Elevator Unit Headquarters Office in Anaheim.  The proposal will have the effect of ensuring that the Elevator Unit Headquarters Office in Anaheim is immediately notified of any accident involving a listed device that results in serious injury or death.

 

Subsection (e)

 

Proposed subsection (e) outlines the information required in all accident reports, whether phoned-in or submitted in writing.  This information, if available, is to include: the date, time and location of the accident; the name, address and phone number of the owner of the device; the name and phone number of the person reporting the accident; the names, addresses and phone numbers of all persons involved in the accident; the names, addresses and phone numbers of all witnesses and the contact person at the accident site; a description of the injury(ies) and treatment provided to the injured party(ies) involved in the accident; and a detailed description of the accident.  The proposal will have the effect of ensuring that all necessary information pertaining to an accident involving a listed device is reported.

 

Subsection (f)

 

Proposed subsection (f) requires all Incidents, as defined in proposed subsection (a), to be documented to include a description of the incident and the date on which the incident occurred, and that this documentation be kept in the elevator machine room or similar area adjacent to the device for review by the Division during the Division’s annual inspection of the device.  The proposal will have the effect of ensuring that any event, failure, or malfunction of a listed device is recorded and tracked and used for maintenance and inspection purposes so as to prevent any serious accidents from occurring.

 

 

FINDING OF NECESSITY FOR REPORT REQUIREMENT

 

The Board finds that it is necessary for the health, safety and welfare of the people of the state that this regulation’s reporting requirements apply to business.  The reporting requirement for accidents that occur on devices such as elevators, escalators, moving walks, etc., which result in injury or death to the general public, serves to inform the Elevator Unit within the Division of Occupational Safety and Health of such accidents.  The Elevator Unit subsequently responds by conducting an investigation of the accident, i.e., equipment and site inspection, interviewing witnesses, etc., to determine the cause.  The findings of the investigation will be evaluated and used to prevent similar accidents and further injury to the people of the state.  Currently, no regulation requires that accidents on those devices resulting in injury or death to the general public be reported to the Division or any other state agency.

 

 

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.  The Division does not charge state agencies for services performed on elevators, escalators, moving walks, etc.

 

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.  It is anticipated that the cost impact for the owners of these devices to comply with this proposal will be minimal.  Accidents on devices covered by this proposal are infrequent, based on the Division’s past experience and on informal information relayed to the Division by elevator service companies.  However, when an accident involving serious injury or death is reported pursuant to this proposal, the owner of the device will be charged $110.00 per hour while Division staff investigates the accident.  The hourly fee is identical to the current fee charged to the device owner by the Division to conduct the yearly inspection associated with the permit to operate the device, pursuant to Section 344.30 of the Regulations of the Division of Occupational Safety and Health. 

 

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.  See “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 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.)

 

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.)

 

The 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.

 


 

 

3.

TITLE 8:

Elevator Safety Orders

Chapter 4, Subchapter 6

Article 7, Section 3016

Article 20, Section 3120.6

Article 22, Section 3122.0

Elevator Pits

 

 

INFORMATIVE DIGEST OF PROPOSED ACTION/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW

 

Petition File No. 411 was submitted to the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Board) requesting meetings be conducted with the plumbing industry to consider amendments to Section 3120.6.  The Petitioner stated that sump pumps in the elevator pit are prohibited according to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) A17.1 Main Committee interpretation of Rule 106.1(b)(3), which is incorporated by reference in Section 3120.6.  The intent of Rule 106.1(b)(3) is to provide a drainage system to remove water that may accumulate accidentally on the elevator pit floor.  It is also the intent that the drain system be permanent and that it operate without human intervention, according to interpretations of the ASME.  Operation without human intervention implies that the sump pump should activate automatically, however, human intervention in the elevator pit is necessary with sump pumps to monitor and/or activate the pumps and to provide routine maintenance and repair.  The Board granted the petition to the extent that the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Division) convene a representative advisory committee to consider the Petitioner's concern.

 

The Division convened the advisory committee and invited the Petitioner to attend pursuant to the Board's Petition Decision.  The committee members agreed with the Petitioner's assertion that using sump pumps for drainage of the elevator pit does not comply with the intent of Rule 106.1(b)(3) since sump pumps require human intervention. 

 

This proposal deletes the reference to Rule 106.1(b)(3), which specifies that drains or sumps be provided in elevator pits of electric elevators.  In lieu of the drainage requirements specified in Rule 106.1(b)(3), the proposal amends Section 3120.6 to permit the installation of different water removal systems in the elevator pit and to allow for human intervention occasionally should the water removal system fail.  However, human intervention is not considered an integral water removal system.  The proposal complies with the intent of Rule 106.1(b)(3) since the water removal system will provide drainage in the elevator pit floor.  A similar amendment to Section 3122.0 is proposed for hydraulic elevators. 

 

The proposal also adds Section 3120.6(d), which specifies that water accumulations shall be removed or pumped from the pit.  The intent of Section 3120.6(d) is to ensure that water is not allowed to accumulate in elevator pits.  This requirement also is proposed for hydraulic elevators in Section 3122.0.

 

The proposal also amends Section 3120.6(b), which contains a list of subsections from Section 3016 that owners of elevators installed after October 25, 1998 must comply with.  The proposal adds Section 3016(c) to the list of subsections contained in Section 3120.6.  Section 3016(c) requires that elevator owners install guards between adjacent pits on electric elevators installed on or before October 25, 1998.  This requirement was inadvertently omitted from the new Elevator Safety Orders, which became effective on October 25, 1998.  Even though the requirement was not codified for elevators installed after October 25, 1998, elevator contractors/installers continued to provide these guards on these elevators because of the requirement contained in Section 3016(c) for older installations.

 

This proposal contains editorial and formatting revisions.  These non-substantive 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.  Please note, due to the passage of Assembly Bill 3000 (Stats. 2002, c. 1124), which was signed by the Governor and filed with the Secretary of State on September 30, 2002, the building standard requirements contained in the Health and Safety Code Section 18943(b) and in Labor Code Sections 142.3 and 142.6 no longer apply to the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board.  Consequently, all Title 24 Section references and the reference to Health and Safety Code Section 18943(b) in the reference citations contained in this rulemaking are proposed for deletion and are included in these non-substantive revisions.

 

In addition to these non-substantive revisions, the following actions are proposed:

 

Section 3016.  Pits for Elevators.

Subsection (b) Design and Construction of Pits.

Subsection (b)(6)

 

Existing subsection (b)(6) indicates where the pumping equipment provided by the owner shall be located on electric elevators installed prior to October 25, 1998.

 

The proposal requires owners of existing electric elevators installed prior to October 25, 1998 to ensure an authorized person from an elevator company that is currently licensed by the State of California Contractors License Board is present if it is necessary to enter the pit to remove accidental water accumulations.

 

The effect of the proposal is that no persons may enter the pit to remove water accumulation unless an authorized person is present.

 

Subsection (b)(7)

 

The proposal allows the owners of electric elevators to provide a water removal system in the elevator pit on elevators installed prior to October 25, 1998.  The water removal system, if provided, shall comply with Section 3120.6(c).

 

The proposal provides owners of electric elevators the option to provide a water removal system that complies with Section 3120.6(c) in elevators installed prior to October 25, 1998.

 

Section 3120.6.  Pits

Subsection (a)

 

The existing subsection, without a letter designation, requires the owners of electric elevators to provide elevator pits that comply with section 106 of ASME A17.1-1996.  Within section 106 is Rule 106.1(b)(3), which specifies that drains or sumps be provided in elevator pits.

 

The proposal will eliminate the need to comply with Rule 106.1(b)(3) of section 106 of ASME A17.1-1996.   

 

The owners of electric elevators will be allowed to provide other water removal systems in lieu of providing drainage specified in Rule 106.1(b)(3) to deal with water accumulations in the elevator pit floor.  The water removal system, when provided, shall comply with proposed Section 3120.6(c).

 

Subsection (b)

 

Existing subsection (a) requires the owners of electric elevators to comply with the pit requirements specified in Sections 3016(a), 3016(d)(3), 3016(d)(4), 3016(d)(5), and 3016(h).

 

The proposal will add Section 3016(c) to the list of sections that owners of electric elevators must comply with.  Section 3016(c) requires owners to provide enclosures of a certain height between pits in adjacent hoistways. 

 

The reference to Section 3016(c), which applies to elevators installed prior to October 25, 1998, was inadvertently omitted from Section 3120.6 when the new Elevator Safety Orders were drafted for elevators installed after October 25, 1998.  Although the requirement was not codified in Section 3120.6, elevator contractors/installers continued to provide the guards on elevators installed after October 25, 1998. 

 

Subsection (c)

 

In lieu of complying with ASME A17.1-1996, Rule 106.1(b)(3), the proposal allows the owners of electric elevators to provide a water removal system such as a sump pump, suction drain, or gravity drain to remove water accumulations from the pit floor.  The water removal equipment is not to be located in the elevator pit, hoistway, or machine room.  The piping related to the water removal system must be located outside the pit and machine room except that the piping extending from the pit floor to the lowest landing may be installed inside the hoistway.  The water removal system is not to be connected directly to a sewer.  If a drain in the pit is provided as the water removal system, the drain shall be designed so the water cannot enter the pit through the drain; and the drain shall be in the sump if a sump is provided.

 

The proposal permits owners of electric elevators to provide a permanent water removal system comprised of various drainage methods.  The equipment associated with the water removal system is located outside the pit, which will abolish the need for personnel not familiar with elevator operations to enter the elevator pit to maintain drainage equipment or to remove water accumulations.

 

Subsection (d)

 

The proposal requires the owners of electric elevators to ensure that when human intervention is needed to remove accidental water accumulation from the pit floor it is done in the presence of an authorized person from an elevator company that is currently licensed by the State of California Contractors License Board.

 

The proposal provides a procedure should human intervention be necessary to remove water accumulations from the pit if, on occasion, the water does not drain through the water removal system.

 

Subsection (e)

 

The proposal allows owners of electric elevators installed after October 25, 1998 to provide a water removal system consistent with Section 3120.6(c).

 

The proposal provides the option to owners of electric elevators to retrofit electric elevators with a water removal system as specified in Section 3120.6(c).

 

Note

 

The note informs the owners of electric elevators that discharge from the water removal system may be subject to the local authority having jurisdiction.

 

The note emphasizes that the storage or removal from the site of discharge from the elevator pit is not within the scope of Elevator Safety Orders.  The issue arises occasionally between the building owners and the local authority having jurisdiction.

 

Section 3122.0.  Hoistway, Hoistway Enclosures, and Related Construction.

 

Subsection (d)

 

Existing Section 3122.0(d) requires owners of hydraulic elevators to comply with Section 3120.6(a) with respect to pit requirements.  Section 3120.6(a) in turn references Section 3016 for requirements on design and construction of elevator pits for electric elevators.

 

The proposal will require owners of hydraulic elevators to comply with the same requirements specified in Section 3120.6 for electric elevators with respect to elevator pits.  This permits owners of hydraulic elevators to provide the same water removal systems that are allowed for electric elevators specified in proposed Section 3120.6(c).  The proposal also requires owners of hydraulic elevators to comply with proposed Section 3120.6(d) with respect to removing water accumulations from the pit.

 

 

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

 

Owners of elevators will not incur a new cost to comply with this proposal since elevator owners are already required to maintain the pit floor clear of water accumulations.  This proposal merely provides methods that owners may use to prevent water accumulations.  It is noted that water accumulations in the pit are accidental and infrequent occurrences.  Potential recurrent water accumulations from ground water seepage is not likely because the pit is designed to prevent water infiltration, pursuant to section 1206.2a of ASME A17.1-1996.  Therefore, 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.)

 

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.)

 

The 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 containinga 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 January 10, 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 January 16, 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.