INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS

CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
TITLE 8: CONSTRUCTION SAFETY ORDERS
Chapter 4, Subchapter 4, Article 3, Section 1512(b);

Emergency Medical Services, First Aid


PROBLEM ADDRESSED BY PROPOSED ACTION

Section 1512(b) of the Construction Safety Orders requires that each employer ensure the availability of appropriately trained persons to render first aid. Where more than one employer is involved in a single construction project on a given construction site, employers may form a pool of appropriately trained persons. In the matter of Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board Variance File No. 97-V-105, the Applicant, Consolidated Engineering Laboratories (CEL) was cited for a violation of Section 1512(b) when the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Division) determined that the only employee on the job site from CEL was not trained to render first aid. CEL provides construction and materials inspections as well as testing services to the construction industry. Employees from CEL typically work alone and provide these services at job sites, however, they are not engaged in construction activity. Individuals working in the capacity described above may visit several job sites in a day. Existing Section 1512(b) would require the employer to provide an individual trained in first aid at each job site or the field employee would have to self-administer first aid, neither of which would be practical.

This rulemaking proposal is Board staff initiated to provide an exception to clarify that first aid training is not required for employers such as CEL or other similar service providers (e.g., engineers, inspectors or technicians) with only one employee on a construction job site who is not engaged in construction activity.

SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND FACTUAL BASIS OF PROPOSED ACTION

Section 1512. Emergency Medical Services.

Subsection (b)

Existing subsection (b) requires that each employer have a suitable number of appropriately trained persons to render first aid on construction sites. Where more than one employer is involved in a single construction project on a given construction site, the employers may form a pool of appropriately trained persons provided the pool is large enough to service the combined work forces for such employers. An amendment is proposed which will provide an exception to the first aid training requirement for employers provided the conditions in the exception are met.

The exception applies to engineering contractors or other service providers with only one employee at a job site who is not engaged in construction activity. The exception is applicable only if the employer has implemented an effective Injury and Illness Prevention Program; provides appropriate personal protective equipment; and upon entering the job site, the employee reports to the superintendent or person in charge and is advised where and from whom medical treatment can be obtained. The proposed amendment is necessary to exempt employers with one employee at a job site when the requirements of the regulation are clearly not feasible, necessary or practical for the employer to comply with.

DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON

This document is available for review during normal business hours at the Standards Board Office located at 1300 I Street, Suite 920, Sacramento, California.

IDENTIFIED ALTERNATIVES THAT WOULD LESSEN ADVERSE

IMPACT ON SMALL BUSINESSES

No adverse impact on small businesses is anticipated from the implementation of the proposed amendments. Therefore, no alternatives which would lessen the impact on small businesses have been identified.

SPECIFIC TECHNOLOGY OR EQUIPMENT

This proposal will not mandate the use of specific technologies 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 amendments. Also, see the heading below "Impact on Businesses."

Impact on Housing Costs

The proposal will not significantly affect housing costs.

Impact on Businesses

The 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. This is because the proposal merely provides a clarification of the existing regulation which is not intended to apply to employers such as those described in the proposed exception to Section 1512(b).

Cost Impact on Private Persons or Entities

The proposal will not require private persons or entities to incur additional costs in complying with the proposal.

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 or Mandate."

Other Nondiscretionary Costs or Savings Imposed on Local Agencies

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

DETERMINATION OF MANDATE

The Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board has determined that the proposed regulation does not impose a mandate requiring reimbursement by the state pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of the Government Code because the proposed amendment will not require local agencies or school districts to incur additional costs in complying with the proposal. Furthermore, 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.

PLAIN ENGLISH STATEMENT

It has been determined that the proposal may 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 amendment 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.

ALTERNATIVES THAT WOULD AFFECT PRIVATE PERSONS

No alternatives considered by 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.