INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS

CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
TITLE 8: CONSTRUCION SAFETY ORDERS
Chapter 4, Subchapter 4, Article 25, Section 1676

Job-Made Ladders


PROBLEM ADDRESSED BY PROPOSED ACTION

This rulemaking action is being initiated at the request of the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Division) to amend Section 1676, Job-Made Ladders. With respect to the design requirements for job-made ladders, the Division noted in a Memorandum dated April 27, 1998 that Section 1676(l) in part states, "knots over 1/8 inch in diameter shall not appear in rungs." However, Section 1676(c) already addresses the issue of knots in ladder steps and states that, "knots appearing in the wide faces of cleats shall not exceed a diameter of 1/4 inch." Since cleats and rungs have the same meaning (crosspieces used as steps to ascend or descend a ladder) a potential conflict in the regulation exists as subsection (l) limits the size of knots to 1/8 inch and subsection (c) to 1/4 inch. In reviewing subsection (l), it is evident that nearly all of the requirements are already addressed in other subsections of Section 1676. Therefore, the proposal repeals parts of subsection (l) and relocates other requirements to subsection (b). Additionally, editorial amendments are proposed for subsection (c).

SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND FACTUAL BASIS OF PROPOSED ACTION

Section 1676. Job-Made Ladders.

Subsection (a)

Existing subsection (a) states that if a ladder provides the only means of access or exit from a working area for 25 or more employees, or simultaneous two-way traffic is expected, a double cleat ladder shall be installed. Existing Section 1676 contains the design and strength requirements for job-made ladders. The term cleats and rungs are used interchangeably in Section 1676 and essentially have the same meaning (crosspieces used as steps to ascend or descend a ladder). A "note" proposed for subsection (a), is necessary to provide a definition of the word "cleats."

 Subsection (b)

Existing subsection (b) contains the design and strength requirements for ladder side rails when made of wood. Language is proposed for relocation from subsection (l) that requires side rails to be "free from sharp edges and splinters." The proposed amendment is necessary because subsection (l) is proposed for repeal. It is important to ensure language requiring job-made ladder side rails to be free from sharp edges and splinters is kept in the regulations.

Subsection (c)

Existing subsection (c) provides the design requirements for wooden ladder rungs. Amendments are proposed for subsection (c) to replace the word, "rungs" with the word, "cleats" for consistency. The term rungs and cleats have the same meaning. The proposed amendments are necessary to eliminate any confusion when the terms are use interchangeably in Section 1676.

Subsection (l)

Existing subsection (l) contains the design requirements for wooden ladder side rails and rungs. The requirement that wood side rails shall be dressed (finished lumber) is already addressed in subsection (b). The language that requires side rails to be "free from sharp edges and splinters" is proposed to be relocated to proposed subsection (b). The requirement that knots over 1/8 inch in diameter shall not appear in rungs is already adequately addressed in existing subsection (c), which limits the size of knots in cleats to 1/4 inch. Board staff concurs with Division representatives, and construction industry representatives contacted that limiting the size of knots in the wide faces of cleats to 1/4 inch will ensure the structural integrity of ladder cleats. The requirements in subsection (l) that knots shall not appear in the narrow faces of side rails, treads, or rungs are addressed in subsections (b) and (c). Therefore, subsection (l) is proposed for repeal because its requirements are either duplicated in existing sections, or will be relocated to subsection (b).

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. The proposal makes editorial changes only and/or eliminates requirements that are duplicated in Section 1676.

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 above, "Specific Technology or Equipment."

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. Also, see the heading above, "Specific Technology or 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.

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.