INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS

CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
TITLE 8: Chapter 4, Subchapter 7, Article 17,
Section 3513 of the General Industry Safety Orders
Flywheel Speed

PROBLEM ADDRESSED BY PROPOSED ACTION

The California Administrative Procedures Act requires that agencies avoid duplication in the requirements of their regulations.

Section 3513 requires that no flywheel shall be operated at a speed which will develop excessive stresses.

Board staff has determined that GISO, Section 3328, Machinery and Equipment, addresses the issue of safe use of machinery and equipment and therefore, Section 3513 is duplicative, unnecessary and proposed for repeal.

SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND FACTURAL BASIS OF PROPOSED ACTION

Section 3513. Flywheel Speed
Section 3513 states that no flywheel shall be operated at a speed which will develop excessive stresses. Section 3513 is proposed for repeal because Section 3328(a), requires that machinery and equipment be of adequate design and not be used under speeds, stresses, or loads which endanger employees. In addition, Section 3328(b) requires machinery and equipment to be inspected and maintained as recommended by the manufacturer. The proposal is necessary to eliminate duplication in the requirements of a regulation.

DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON

None.

IDENTIFIED ALTERNATIVES THAT WOULD LESSEN ADVERSE ECONOMIC 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 modifications. Also refer to 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 repeal of Section 3513 of the GISO merely eliminates duplication of requirements for flywheel speeds that are already covered in Section 3328, Machinery and Equipment.

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 or school districts.

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, 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.

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 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.

ALTERNATIVES THAT WOULD AFFECT PRIVATE PERSONS

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