Dept. of Industrial Relations logo
Occupational Safety & Health Standards Board (OSHSB)

Notice of public meeting/public hearing/business meeting of the OSHSB and notice of proposed changes to Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, public meeting, public hearing, and business meeting

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 July 17, 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 July 17, 2003 following the Public Meeting
in the Auditorium of the State Building,
320 West 4th Street, Los Angeles, California
 

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

Business Meeting:

on July 17, 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, General Industry Safety Orders of the California Code of Regulations, as indicated below, at its Public Hearing on July 17, 2003.

1.

Title 8:

General Industry Safety Orders
chapter 4, subchapter 7, article 12
section 3427(a)
tree work – safe work procedures

2.

Title 8:

chapter 4, subchapter 7, article 96
section 4968
tower crane pre-deceleration devices 

A description of the proposed changes are as follows:

1.

Title 8:

General Industry Safety Orders
chapter 4, subchapter 7, article 12
section 3427(a)
tree work – safe work procedures

Informative Digest of Proposed Action/Policy Statement Overview

This rulemaking action was initiated as a result of Standards Board staff review and evaluation of the requirements contained in the General Industry Safety Orders (GISO), section 3427 “Safe Work Procedures” for tree work, maintenance or removal.  The proposed amendments seek to require that visual inspection of trees prior to entry are performed by a qualified person and that the safest method of entry into the tree is determined and used.

Section 3427. Safe Work Procedures.

Subsection (a)(1)

Section 3427 is located in GISO, article 12, “Tree Work, Maintenance or Removal.”  Existing section 3427 provides regulations for safe working procedures.  section 3427(a) is entitled “Climbing” and subsection (a)(1) requires that trees are visually inspected to determine the safest method of entry into the tree as described in the section.  An editorial amendment is proposed to add the word “access” to the title of subsection (a) so that it reads “Climbing and Access.”  This amendment will have the effect of clarifying the provisions of this subsection.

Subsection (a)(1) requires a visual inspection of the tree.  However, the regulation does not identify who must perform the inspection.  An amendment is proposed to identify that a “qualified person” must visually inspect the tree.  The proposed amendment has the effect of ensuring that a person designated by the employer with the appropriate training and experience performs the visual inspection.  A proposed amendment is also made having the effect of ensuring that the safest method of entry into the tree is not only determined, but is used. 

As mentioned above, subsection (a)(1) requires that trees be visually inspected to determine the safest method of entry into the tree as described in the section.  However, subsection (a) only describes provisions for climbing trees, which may not always be the safest or best method of entry into the tree.  For example, a tree with dead or decaying sections or limbs with energized electrical lines running through or near the tree may be entered/accessed for the necessary work by a safer means than climbing, such as the use of an aerial device.  Therefore, in subsection (a)(1) the phrase “as described in this section” is proposed for deletion having the effect of providing options for tree entry/access by means other than climbing.

A non-substantial editorial revision for clarity identifies the second sentence in subsection (a)(1) as subsection (a)(2) and the remaining regulations in subsection (a) are appropriately renumbered in sequential order as subsections (a)(3) through (a)(6).

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.  Also, see comments under the heading above titled “Specific Technology or Equipment.”

Cost Impact on Private Persons or Businesses

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

Costs or Savings in Federal Funding to the State

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

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

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

Other Nondiscretionary Costs or Savings Imposed on Local Agencies

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

Determination of Mandate

The Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board has determined that the proposed regulation does not impose a mandate.  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 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 Business

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

Assessment

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

Reasonable Alternatives Considered

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


A description of the proposed changes are as follows:

2.

Title 8:

General Industry Safety Orders
chapter 4, subchapter 7, article 96
section 4968
tower crane pre-deceleration devices 

Informative Digest of Proposed Action/Policy Statement Overview

The Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Board) initiates this rulemaking as the result of granting OSHSB Petition File No. 441, submitted by Mr. Bradley D. Closson, representing the North American Crane Bureau, at the July 18, 2002 Public Hearing in San Diego, California.

Existing Title 8, General Industry Safety Order (GISO) section 4968 addresses specific safety device requirements for tower cranes, excluding mobile tower cranes.  Subsection (d)(1) requires all tower cranes to be equipped with a safety device (also referred to as a limit device) that provides “predeceleration” before the top and bottom positions of the crane hook are reached.

The petitioner requested changing the term “predeceleration” to “deceleration” because the term “predeceleration” is confusing and is not used in the federal tower crane regulations, nor in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) B30.3 national consensus standard.  Additionally, the Petitioner requested eliminating the requirement to have a limit device that provides predeceleration before the bottom position of the hook is reached, arguing that the work site may have several levels that the crane unloads at.  The level for which the limit device is set to provide deceleration may not be the same level where most of the loading and unloading is done.  Moreover, the Petitioner emphasized that this requirement does not exist in any federal regulation or national consensus standard.

In the Board’s July 18, 2002 Petition Decision, Board staff agreed with the Petitioner that the term “predeceleration” in section 4968(d)(1) is confusing and that replacing this word with the term “deceleration” would add clarity and consistency to the regulation.  Board staff also agreed with the Petitioner’s rationale for removing the requirement for a limit device that provides deceleration before the bottom position of the hook is reached.  Board staff noted that section 4968(d)(1) is intended to prevent “shock loading” of the crane due to the abrupt stopping of a rapidly descending load.  Shock loading may cause damage to tower cranes such as, damage to individual structural components, structural weakening through metal fatigue, or total structural failure of the crane.  Board staff concluded that compliance with this requirement is problematic in that many construction sites have numerous crane unloading levels and deceleration limit devices to prevent shock-loading can only be set to one level; levels above the limit set would not be affected by the limit device.  For example, if the deceleration device is set for the basement level of a building under construction, loading and unloading activities at any level above the basement level would not be protected from shock loading under this section.  Additionally, if the deceleration limit device is set at the street level while the crane is loading and unloading at levels below the street level, the deceleration device would interfere with the normal operation of the crane by limiting the hoisting speed at the lower levels to the speed dictated by the deceleration device.

Also in the Board’s Petition Decision, the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Division) recommended deleting the language that excludes mobile tower cranes.  The Division stated that this change is necessary to make section 4968 consistent with the recent revision to Figure 15 in section 4885 of article 91 whereby cranes once classified as mobile tower cranes were reclassified as mobile cranes.

Section 4968.  Safety Devices.

Section 4968 contains safety requirements for all tower cranes (excluding mobile tower cranes) and states that they are to be equipped with a number of safety devices such as, but not limited to: audible and visual alarms, limit controls, electronic instrumentation, etc.  Subsection (d)(1) requires all tower cranes to be equipped with a safety device (also referred to as a limit device) that provides “predeceleration” before the top and bottom positions of the crane hook are reached.

A revision is proposed to delete the language that excludes mobile tower cranes in order to make section 4968 consistent with the aforementioned revision made to Figure 15 of article 91.  It is also proposed to replace the word “predeceleration” with “deceleration” so as to clarify the requirements by using common industry terminology consistent with federal requirements and national consensus language contained in ASME B30.3.  And, it is proposed to remove the requirement for a safety device that provides deceleration before the bottom position of the hook is reached, which will eliminate the requirement for a safety device that is impractical and that interferes with the normal operation of the crane.

The proposed amendments will have the effect of making section 4968 consistent with national consensus standard language contained in ASME B30.3 and the recent reclassification of cranes depicted in Figure 15 in section 4885 of article 91.

Cost Estimated 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 proposed amendment clarifies the regulation to eliminate confusion about the definition and regulatory requirements for trolley suspension hoists.

Cost Impact on Private Persons or Businesses

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

Costs or Savings in Federal Funding to the State

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

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

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

Other Nondiscretionary Costs or Savings Imposed on Local Agencies

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

Determination of Mandate

The Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board has determined that the proposed regulation does not impose a 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 amendment will not require local agencies or school districts to incur additional costs in complying with the proposal.  Furthermore, the regulation does not constitute a “new program or higher level of service of an existing program within the meaning of section 6 of article XIII B of the California Constitution.”

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

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

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

Effect on Small Businesses

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

Assessment

The adoption of the proposed amendments to 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.

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 July 11, 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 July 17, 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 Marley Hart, Acting 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 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.