INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS

CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
TITLE 8: Chapter 4, Subchapter 7, Article 21,
Sections 3575(a) and 3581 of the General Industry Safety Orders
Abrasive Wheels


PROBLEM ADDRESSED BY PROPOSED ACTION

Article 21 of the General Industry Safety Orders (GISO) contains various regulations pertaining to the safe use, design, guarding, etc. of abrasive wheels. Section 3575 of Article 21 contains the article’s scope of application and a number of definitions for terms used in regulations contained in Article 21. Section 3575 also contains a reference to an outdated American National Standard (ANSI) B7.1 – 1978 safety requirements for the use, care and protection of abrasive wheels (wheels). This standard has been superseded by the B7.1-1988 standard.

Because of the age of the 1978 ANSI standard, it is no longer in print and makes acquiring a copy of the 1978 standard difficult for employers. If employers cannot acquire a copy of the ANSI B7.1 – 1978 standard, they cannot assure compliance with Section 3575 (a) (2) which requires all abrasive wheels to comply with the 1978 ANSI standard. Additionally, most newer abrasive wheels in use today conform to more recent versions of the ANSI B7.1 standard, namely the 1988 version. Therefore, requiring employers using newer equipment to conform to a 20 year old ANSI standard creates an additional compliance problem for those employers. Secondly, Section 3581 which addresses safe speeds for wheels is a duplication of another GISO requirement contained in Section 3328 which already prohibits employers from using/operating equipment/machinery (e.g. abrasive wheels) at speeds, loads or stresses which would endanger employees.

SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND FACTUAL BASIS OF PROPOSED ACTION

To rectify the above two problems, Board staff proposes to update Section 3575 (a) (2) to reference the current ANSI B7.1 – 1988 standard for wheels manufactured after July 1, 1998 via required labeling verifying conformance, and requiring wheels made on or before July 1, 1998 to meet the requirements of either the 1978 or 1988 versions of the ANSI B7.1. In this way employers who use wheels conforming to the ANSI B7.1 – 1988 standard would not be out of compliance for using newer equipment manufactured on or before July 1, 1998.

The proposed revisions are as follows:

Section 3575. Scope and Definitions.
This section contains the scope statement for Article 21, Abrasive Wheels, and explains what type of equipment is covered and not covered by Article 21 regulations. For example, subsection (a) (1) explains to the employer that Article 21 establishes safety requirements for the use, care, and protection of abrasive wheels (i.e. guarding), also storage, handling, mounting, etc. Section 3575 also contains a reference to a national consensus safety standard for abrasive wheels and various definitions for terminology used in the regulations contained in Article 21.

Subsection (a) (2) requires abrasive wheels to meet the ANSI B7.1 – 1978 safety requirements for the use, care and protection of abrasive wheels.

A revision is proposed to add language to subsection (a) (2) which would require abrasive wheels manufactured on or before July 1, 1998 to meet either the ANSI B7.1 – 1978 or the current 1988 version of that standard. Further revisions are proposed to require abrasive wheels manufactured after July 1, 1998 (i.e. new abrasive wheels) to be labeled as meeting the requirements of the ANSI B7.1 – 1988 standard (most recent revision of the ANSI B7.1-1978 standard).

The proposed revisions are necessary to ensure employees use abrasive wheels according to recognized national consensus safe practices and ensure new abrasive wheels conform to the latest state-of-the-art safe practices for abrasive wheel safety. The proposed revisions are necessary to effectively protect employees from hazards posed by improper abrasive wheel use which could result in serious employee injury to the face and extremities.

Section 3581. Speed.
This section consists of a single subsection (a) which prohibits employers from operating abrasive wheels at maximum speeds which exceed the manufacturer’s recommendations.

A revision is proposed to repeal subsection (a) in its entirety to eliminate the duplication within Title 8 between Sections 3581 and 3328 which address the same issue in a more comprehensive manner.

DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON

  1. ANSI B7.1-1978, Safety Requirements for the Use, Care and Protection of Abrasive Wheels, ANSI publications, New York, New York.
  2. ANSI B7.1-1988, Safety Requirements for the Use, Care and Protection of Abrasive Wheels, ANSI publications, New York, New York.
These documents are available for review during normal business hours at the Standards Board office located at 1300 "I" Street, Suite 920, Sacramento, California.

INDETIFIED ALTERNATIVES THAT WOULD LESSEN ADVERSE ECONOMIC IMPACT ON SMALL BUSINESSES

It is anticipated that no adverse impact on small business will occur as a result of the implementation of the proposed amendments. This is because the proposed amendments merely consist of technical, clarifying revisions to existing regulations through the repeal of unnecessary and redundant requirements and the updating of ANSI B7.1 standards and do not impose any new or different requirements upon the regulated public. The central issue addressed by the proposed revisions is to clearly indicate to the regulated public the applicability of the current and older versions of the ANSI B7.1 safety requirements to the employers abrasive wheel operations.

SPECIFIC TECHNOLOGY OR EQUIPMENT

This proposal does not mandate the use of specific technology or equipment.

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 revision to Section 3575 (a) and the repeal of Section 3581. This is because the proposal imposes no new or added requirements and merely consists of technical clarifying revisions of existing regulations (updating to the most current ANSI B7.1 revision and elimination of redundant language).

Impact on Housing Costs
This proposal will not significantly affect housing costs.

Impact on Businesses
This proposal will not result in a significant adverse economic impact on businesses, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states. (See explanation under "Costs or Savings to State Agencies.")

Cost Impact on Private Persons or Entities
The proposal will not result in costs or savings to private persons or entities. ( See explanation. under "Costs or Savings to State Agencies.")

Costs or Savings in Federal Funding to the State
The proposal will not result in costs or saving 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" and "Impact on Businesses."

Other Nondiscretionary Costs or Savings Imposed on Local Agencies
The proposal does not impose nondiscretionary costs or savings on local agencies. See explanation under "Costs or Savings to State Agencies" and "Impact on Businesses."

DETERMINATION OF MANDATE

The Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board has determined that the proposed regulations do 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 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 standard.

PLAIN ENGLISH STATEMENT

It has been determined that the proposal does affect small business. The express terms of the proposal written in plain English have been prepared by the Board pursuant to Government Code Sections 11342 (e) and 11346.2 (a) (1) and the informative digest for this proposal constitutes a plain English overview.

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.

ALTERNATIVES THAT WOULD AFFECT PRIVATE PERSONS

No alternatives considered by the Board would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the regulations are proposed or would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed action.