In this commentary the Standards Board is alerted to serious problems with the emergency standard it appears about to pass. Putting a safety standards in an Injury and Illness Prevention Program – IIPP - is not what the authorizing statute intended nor allows. This reg will hamper California safety professionals and business.

The Standards Board will vote soon on this extensive set of rules. Here is the proposed regulation and how you can weigh in – but you’d better do it quickly because the vote is just about here.

Standards Board safety variances are few and far between in a landscape dominated by elevator issues. Here are two the board just voted on related to construction personnel hoists and tunnel gas protection.

Here are the most recent fatality investigations begun by Cal/OSHA, including new COVID cases.

Despite employer opposition, Cal/OSHA's Standards Board unanimously votes for an emergency regulation on COVID in the workplace. Why will it be impossible for employers to comply/ Is it even constitutional? Here's the regulation and what stakeholders have to say about it.

Disneyland strenuously objected when Cal/OSHA pinpointed an outbreak of this potentially deadly disease to cooling towers at the famed park. Now the company has accepted the agency's citations and penalties.

The Cal/OSHA Standards Board has some unfinished business regarding construction personnel hoists, and stake-holders say its time to bring those issues to the fore. Here's what they are all about.

While Division of Occupational Safety and Health inspections and citations were down in the first quarter of this year, one increased trend portends higher metrics the rest of the year. Here are the latest stats.

Updated claims data is out for cases related to the COVID-19 pandemic. How are the different industries re-sponding? Get the details here.

Cal/OSHA is expected to release its draft emergency standard on COVID in the workplace. Here's a first look at what the agency likely has in mind.

47 COR 40-8343 [¶23,073]

GENERAL PHYSICAL CONDITIONS AND STRUCTURES – ACCESS, WORK SPACE, AND WORK AREAS, PORTABLE LADDERS
Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 3276(e)(15)(E) (2020) – The Division failed to establish Employer violated the cited safety order, because the piece of equipment that was the basis of the citation was not a step ladder.

Summary of COSHAB-ALJ’s Decision dated October 6, 2020, Inspection No. 1176128 (San Dimas, CA).

47 COR 40-8341 [¶23,072R]

JURISDICTION – PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Labor Code § 6614(a) (2020) – The Appeals Board lacked jurisdiction to grant reconsideration over Employer’s untimely petition for reconsideration.

Digest of COSHAB’s Denial of Petition for Reconsideration dated October 2, 2020, Inspection No. 1328184.

 

47 COR 40-8337 [¶23,071R]

SAFE PRACTICES AND PERSONAL PROTECTION, PERSONAL SAFETY DEVICES AND SAFEGUARDS – FOOT PROTECTION
Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 3385(a) (2020) – Employer had a program that provided most employees with effective protection from exposure to the hazard of foot injuries. However, some employees remained exposed to possible foot injuries during the process of loading and unloading items from industrial vehicles. Employer failed to provide those employees with required foot protection. The Appeals Board reinstated a citation that the ALJ had vacated, but reclassified the violation from serious to general.

Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Reconsideration dated September 17, 2020, Inspection No. 1251604.

47 COR 40-8337 [¶23,070R]

JURISDICTION – PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Labor Code § 6614(a) (2020) – The Appeals Board lacked jurisdiction to grant reconsideration over Employer’s untimely petition for reconsideration.

Digest of COSHAB’s Denial of Petition for Reconsideration dated September 8, 2020, Inspection No. 1322702.

 

47 COR 40-8335 [¶23,069]

CONSTRUCTION SAFETY ORDERS – HAULAGE AND EARTH MOVING, WARNING METHODS
Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 1592(e) (2020) – Employer failed to implement sufficient controls for hauling operations to ensure vehicle operators knew of the presence of workers on foot in the area of operation, a serious, accident-related violation.

Summary of COSHAB-ALJ’s Decision dated August 5, 2020, Inspection No. 1290383 (San Jose, CA).

47 COR 40-8331 [¶23,067]

SAFE PRACTICES AND PERSONAL PROTECTION, PERSONAL SAFETY DEVICES AND SAFEGUARDS – HEAT ILLNESS PREVENTION
Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 3395(f)(2) (2020) – Employer failed to implement its emergency procedures when a new employee exhibited signs of possible heat illness, a serious violation.

Summary of COSHAB-ALJ’s Decision dated August 3, 2020, Inspection No. 1332715 (Delano, CA).

47 COR 40-8329 [¶23,066R]

ELECTRICAL SAFETY ORDERS, LOW-VOLTAGE ELECTRICAL SAFETY ORDERS – REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTRICAL INSTALLATIONS, IDENTIFICATION OF EQUIPMENT, MOTORS AND APPLIANCES
Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 2340.22(a) (2020) – The Appeals Board affirmed the ALJ’s finding that Employer failed to label electrical panels, a general violation.

ELECTRICAL SAFETY ORDERS, LOW-VOLTAGE ELECTRICAL SAFETY ORDERS – CONDUCTORS ENTERING BOXES, CABINETS, OR FITTINGS, UNUSED OPENINGS IN CABINETS, BOXES, AND FITTINGS EFFECTIVELY CLOSED
Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 2473.1(b) (2020) – The Appeals Board affirmed the ALJ’s finding that Employer failed to close unused openings in electrical panels, a general violation.

POINTS OF OPERATION AND OTHER HAZARDOUS PARTS OF MACHINERY, FOOD AND TOBACCO MACHINERY, GARBAGE DISPOSAL EQUIPMENT
Cal. Code Regs, tit. 8, § 4559(a) (2020) – Reversing the ALJ’s finding, the Appeals Board concluded the Division did not prove Employer failed to use any of the alternative means of compliance permitted in the safety order. Thus, it did not establish that Employer failed to adequately guard the feed throat of a sink-mounted disposal unit.

Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Reconsideration dated August 7, 2020, Inspection No. 1300039.

 

47 COR 40-8327 [¶23,065]

JURISDICTION – FEDERAL PREEMPTION
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations governing a pressure test procedure for aircraft engines preempted application of the lockout/tagout provisions of §3314. The safety order could not be enforced without impairing the FAA’s acknowledged supremacy in the area of inflight safety.

Summary of COSHAB-ALJ’s Decision dated July 15, 2020, Inspection No. 1356645 (Lancaster, CA).