A description of the proposed changes are as follows:
INDUSTRY SAFETY ORDERS
Section 3641. Orchard Man-Lifts (Pruning Tower).
This section contains requirements specifying various criteria for the construction and stability of orchard man-lifts via references to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A92.5-1980 standard, Sections 3 and 4. In addition, this section addresses identification requirements (e.g. marking of the equipment) for make, model, rated platform workload, maximum platform height, etc. Section 3641 also requires orchard man-lifts to have legible plates or markings to confirm conformance to the referenced ANSI A92.5-1980, Sections 3 and 4 requirements for construction and stability, respectively. Section 3641 also contains numerous other orchard man-lift design criteria which must be complied with in addition to the requirements above addressing access openings to the platform, platform design, guardrails, operating controls, etc.
Revisions are proposed for subsection (a)(1) to require orchard man-lifts manufactured after September 1, 1991, to meet either the ANSI A92.5-1980, Sections 3 and 4 requirements or the ANSI/SIA A92.5-1992, Section 4 requirements for construction and stability. Further revisions are proposed for subsection (a)(1)(A) to require orchard man-lifts manufactured after the effective date of the regulation (OAL to fill in date) to meet the 1992 version of the ANSI/SIA A92.5 requirements for construction and stability.
A separate revision is also proposed for subsection (b) to reference both the ANSI A92.5-1980 and 1992 standards with regard to providing a legible plate/marking stating conformance of the orchard man-lift with Sections 3 and/or 4 standards (depending on which standard the orchard man-lift was constructed to) for construction and stability.
The proposed revisions will merely clarify to the employer who purchases and operates orchard man-lifts manufactured after the proposals effective date that the equipment is to conform to the construction and stability requirements of the ANSI/SIA A92.5-1992 standard for orchard man-lifts. Older lifts purchased prior to the effective date of this regulation shall conform to either the 1980 or 1992 version of the ANSI A92.5 standard. The employer would need to verify conformance of new as well as older equipment to either the 1992 or 1980 ANSI standard as evidenced by labels or markings, manufacturers information, etc.
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
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 revisions to Section 3641. This is because the proposal imposes no new or added requirements and merely consists of technical clarifying revisions of existing regulations.
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 require private persons or entities to incur additional costs in complying with the proposal. 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 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" and "Impact on Businesses."
Other Nondiscretionary Costs or Savings Imposed on Local Agencies
This proposal does not impose nondiscretionary costs or savings on local agencies. See explanation under "Costs or Savings to State 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, 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 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.
Our agency must determine that no alternative considered by us 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.