CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
TITLE 8: GENERAL INDUSTRY SAFETY ORDERS
Chapter 4, Subchapter 7, Article 6, Sections 3292(d)(1) and 3294(i)
Emergency Procedures Plan for Powered Platforms and Equipment for Building Maintenance
PROBLEM ADDRESSED BY PROPOSED ACTION
Article 5, Window Cleaning, Appendix A of the General Industry Safety Orders (GISO), contains the requirements for an Operating Procedures Outline Sheet (OPOS). The OPOS establishes safe window cleaning and exterior maintenance procedures for buildings and structures. An OPOS is required for buildings 36 feet or more in height that do not have established window cleaning procedures meeting the requirements specified in the General Industry Safety Orders (GISO) Articles 5 and 6. An OPOS is also required for buildings 36 feet or more in height with extreme architectural features that require the use of complex rigging or equipment.
When powered platform installations are permanently dedicated to interior or exterior maintenance of a building, the owners of such buildings are required by Section 3292(d)(1) to develop an emergency procedures plan to assure safe access to and egress from suspended platform equipment. An amendment is proposed to ensure that a building owners emergency procedures plan, required in Section 3292(d)(1), is incorporated into the development of an OPOS, when an OPOS is required.
Additionally, GISO Section 3294(i) requires employers whose employees use suspended platform equipment for building maintenance to have a written emergency action plan that is reviewed with employees. An amendment is proposed to ensure the employers emergency action plan is consistent with the emergency procedures plan required of the building owner in Section 3292(d)(1).
SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND FACTUAL BASIS OF PROPOSED ACTION
Section 3292. General.
Existing Section 3292 contains the scope, application and certain building owner requirements to assure the safe use of powered platforms and equipment for building maintenance. Subsection 3292(d)(1) requires owners of buildings or structures to develop an "emergency procedures plan." The emergency procedures plan must be in written and/or pictorial form and address concerns such as safe access to and egress from suspended scaffolds, safety belt anchorages and safe walkways for emergencies. Regulations in Section 3282(p) require owners of buildings 36 feet or more in height with the need to use complex rigging or equipment to also develop an Operating Procedures Outline Sheet (OPOS). The OPOS, when required, must address some of the same emergency procedural items discussed above for Section 3292(d)(1). An amendment is proposed for subsection (d)(1) to require that when an OPOS has been developed, the "emergency procedures plan" shall be incorporated into the OPOS. The proposed amendment is necessary to ensure that the building owners emergency and rescue procedures are consistent.
Section 3294. Powered Platform Installations Affected Parts of Buildings.
Section 3294 provides general requirements for affected parts of buildings which utilize working platforms for building maintenance. Existing subsection (i) requires that a written emergency action plan be developed and implemented for each kind of working platform scaffold. This subsection also requires the employer to review the emergency action plan with affected employees to ensure they are prepared for emergencies (e.g., awareness of alarm systems and emergency escape routes). An amendment is proposed to add language that will ensure the emergency action plan is developed in conjunction with the emergency procedures plan required of the building owner in Section 3292(d)(1). The proposed amendment is necessary to ensure the employers emergency action plan is consistent with the emergency procedures plan developed by the building owner.
DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON
Memorandum dated August 7, 1998, from John Howard, Chief, Division of Occupational Safety and Health to John MacLeod, Executive Officer, Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board.
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.
Impact on Housing Costs
The proposal will not 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. The proposed amendment for Section 3292(d)(1) merely clarifies that the building owners "emergency procedures plan" be incorporated into the building owners Operating Procedures Outline Sheet (OPOS) should an OPOS be required. Additionally, the proposed amendment for Section 3294(i) clarifies that the "emergency action plan" required of employers is consistent with the "emergency procedures plan" required of the building owner.
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 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 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, the 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.
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.
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 action is proposed or would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed action.