INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS

CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
TITLE 8: CONSTRUCTION SAFETY ORDERS
Chapter 4, Subchapter 5, Article 3, Sections 1515(a), 1516(d) and 1517(c)

Head, Eye/Face and Foot Protective Equipment


PROBLEM ADDRESSED BY PROPOSED ACTION

Board staff proposes to amend the regulations indicated above to eliminate unnecessary duplication between similar personal protective requirements for head, eye/face and foot protection contained in the Construction and General Industry Safety Orders. Staff notes that the language addressing these issues is essentially the same with one important difference: the Construction Safety Orders reference outdated, out of print, American National Standard Institute (ANSI) standards.

The outdated ANSI references make compliance with the existing safety orders impossible, or at least very difficult for the employer, since the outdated standards are no longer available. Also, the outdated ANSI standards have been superceded by newer editions which generally contain more comprehensive or more stringent design standards, thereby providing employees with an improved level of safety, which are used by the manufacturers to design and make personal protective equipment.

The proposed revisions to Sections 1515, 1516 and 1517 will result in the deletion of outdated ANSI references. In each case, a referral to the more up to date General Industry Safety Orders standard which effectively addresses the same issues using the latest specifications and standards is proposed. At the same time, the proposal will consolidate a heretofore inconsistent set of safety orders into one location in the GISO in Sections 3381, 3382 and 3385 for head, eye/face and foot protection, respectively.

SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND FACTUAL BASIS OF PROPOSED ACTION

The proposed revisions are as follows:

Section 1515. Head Protection.

This section requires appropriate head protection, meeting ANSI Z89.1-1969 and Z89.1-1981 standards for industrial head protection (Class A and Class D). It also requires head protection for electrical workers to conform to ANSI Z89.2-1971 for safety requirements for head protection for electrical workers exposed to high voltage conductors above 600 volts (Class B).

This section also addresses confinement of hair to prevent entanglement hazards.

Revisions are proposed to delete Section 1515(a), subsections (1) through (4), which reference the outdated ANSI Z89.1-1969, ANSI Z89.2-1971 and Z89.1-1981 standards for industrial head protection for industrial workers and electrical workers; and to add language to subsection (a) to refer the employer to the existing head protection requirements contained in Section 3381 of the General Industry Safety Orders.

The proposed revisions are necessary to ensure employees will wear head protection, which conforms to state-of-the-art standards for general applications and for situations where high voltage conductors present a hazard to the head, which could result in a serious burn, electrocution, or fatality. In addition, revisions will eliminate duplication between the Construction Safety Orders and the existing head protection requirements contained in the General Industry Safety Orders.

Section 1516. Eye and Face Protection.

This section addresses the protection of the eyes and/or face of employees who may be exposed to flying particles, burns, toxic and/or corrosive substances, injurious light rays, etc. The existing regulation also addresses the use of the proper filter lens shade for welding, criteria for the use and design of safety spectacles, face shields, and the use of laser protection.

Section 1516(d) requires eye and face protection to meet the requirements of ANSI Z87.1-1979, Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection. Revisions are proposed to delete the reference to the ANSI Z87.1-1979 standard for replacement by language referring the employer to Section 3382(d) of the General Industry Safety Orders.

The proposed revisions are necessary to ensure that construction industry employees wear eye/face protection, which will effectively protect them from a serious eye injury, which could result in permanent eye injury and/or loss of vision.

Section 1517. Foot Protection.

This section requires the employer to require employees to wear appropriate foot protection against crushing or penetrating blows, injurious substances, etc. and to replace defective footwear. This section also requires footwear to meet specified national consensus standards.

Section 1517(c) specifically requires safety-toe footwear to meet the ANSI Z41.1-1967 standard for men’s safety-toe footwear. Revisions are proposed to delete the ANSI reference indicated above and refer the employer to Section 3385(c) of the General Industry Safety Orders.

The proposed revisions are necessary to ensure that construction industry employees are protected from foot hazards, which could result in serious injury or disability should the employee’s foot be crushed, impaled, or burned by chemicals or slip resulting in a fall.

DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON

None.

IDENTIFIED ALTERNATIVES THAT WOULD LESSEN ADVERSE
IMPACT ON SMALL BUSINESSES

It is anticipated that no adverse impact on small business will occur as a result of the implementation of the proposed amendments. This is because the proposed amendments merely consist of technical, clarifying revisions to existing regulations and do not impose any new or different requirements upon the regulated public. The central issue addressed by the proposed revisions is to clearly indicate to the regulated public that the specific head, eye/face and foot personal protective equipment requirements are found in the General Industry Safety Orders. 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 revisions to Sections 1515, 1516 and 1517. This is because the proposal imposes no new or added requirements and merely consists of technical clarifying revisions of existing regulations through reference to existing GISO’s PPE requirements and elimination of essentially duplicative language contained in the Construction Safety Orders. The effect upon employers in state government will be positive, because it will be easier to locate the requirements for PPE by looking at the General Industry Safety Orders.

Impact on Housing Costs

The 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 "Costs or Savings to State Agencies."

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, the 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 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 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.