Cal/OSHA has published revisions to its controversial residential fall protection proposal. And there is a notice out for comments. Will they be able to address construction’s concerns and keep the Feds happy?

After a controversial and failed vote in March, Cal/OSHA’s Standards Board adopts a revised indoor heat illness rule. Will this one pass muster with OAL?

One nay and three yeas. Here’s how California’s legislative year concluded on the occupational safety and health front. The summaries tell you what you need to know.

Cal/OSHA has published its annual list of employment sectors with higher-than-average DART rates. Which sectors are in, and what was the target rate?

Cal/OSHA has completed it investigations into fatal workplace incidents earlier this year. Here are the results and what it means for the employers.

Here are the latest fatal workplace incidents from around California.

Five years after a refinery trade group filed state and federal lawsuits against Cal/OSHA’s Process Safety Management reforms, the litigants have reached a settlement. Here’s what the agreement would do and what happens next.

The new occupational safety representative for the Cal/OSHA Standards Board is both a firefighter and a chemistry expert. Meet Derek Urwin.

Fed-OSHA’s Susan Harwood Training Grants for 2024 have been announced. Here are the California organizations sharing in the funding.

Rolling or sliding gates have been the source of numerous fatalities and injuries over several decades. Cal/OSHA has authorized an advisory committee to study reforms that could prevent these incidents. But are the solutions as simple as they seem?

49 COR 40-8867 [¶23,303]

RAILROAD INDUSTRY –
Labor Code §6800 – limits the Division’s regulatory authority to employees in an office or shops devoted to construction, maintenance or repair of railroad equipment and all other railroad employees with respect to occupational health. The evidence proffered showed that the Division did not have jurisdiction over the railroad operations cited in the Citation issued.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Order re: Motion to Dismiss dated August 5, 2024, Inspection No 1583201 (San Jose)

 

49 COR 40-8863 [¶23,302]

MACHINE GUARDING –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §4002 (a) –The evidence proffered by the Division was insufficient to establish that the Employer failed to guard by location a machine with a revolving hazard created by a rotating rod.

HAZARDOUS ENERGY CONTROL –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3314(c) – The evidence proffered by the Division, showed the roll sizer machine was not stopped, nor was its power source de-energized or disengaged.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE – INDEPENDENT EMPLOYEE ACTION –
Employer met all five elements of the IEAD by a preponderance of the evidence and, thus, was excused from liability for Citation 2.

PENALTIES –
The Citations were vacated, and no penalties were assessed.

Digest of COSHAB – ALJ’s Decision dated August 13, 2024, Inspection No. 1238985 (Bakersfield, CA)

49 COR 40-8862 [¶23,301R]

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

Digest of COSHAB’s Denial of Petition for Reconsideration dated August 22, 2024, Inspection No. 1590457.

 

49 COR 40-8857 [¶23,300R]

INJURY AND ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM (IIPP)
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §§3203(a)(6) and (a)(7)  –  The Division did not meet its burden in proving that Employer failed to effectively implement its IIPP (controls to minimize exposure to violent assaults and adequate training to respond to increased workplace violence).

SERIOUS VIOLATION – REALISTIC POSSIBILITY
–  Labor Code §6432
The Division’s evidence did not demonstrate that the actual injuries sustained required inpatient hospitalization for purposes other than observation; thus, the burden of proof was not met to establish the Serious classification.

Digest of COSHAB’s Decision After Reconsideration dated August 8, 2024, Inspection No. 1415736.

49 COR 40-8860 [¶23,299R]

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

Digest of COSHAB’s Denial of Petition for Reconsideration dated August 8, 2024, Inspection No. 1417264.

 

49 COR 40-8857 [¶23,298]

MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT GUARDING –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §4075(a) –
The evidence proffered showed that the sprocket chain drives located 7 feet or less above the working level were not guarded.

VIOLATIONS – SERIOUS CLASSIFICATION ACCIDENT RELATED
Labor Code §6432(a) –
The Division established a rebuttable presumption that Citation 2 was properly classified as Serious. The causal nexus between the Serious violation and the injury was sufficient to sustain the Accident-Related classification.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES –
Guarded by Location –
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §3941 –
The evidence proffered showed the defense was inapplicable and unsupported by the facts, as location of the chain drives did not remove the likelihood of contact for operators.

Independent Employee Act Defense –
The defense is unavailable in failure to guard cases.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTY
Citation 2 was affirmed, and the proposed penalty was assessed.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated July 19, 2024, Inspection No 1595696 (Fresno)

49 COR 40-8853 [¶23,297]

REPORTING OF SERIOUS ILLNESS
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §342(a) – The evidence proffered showed that Employer did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the employee’s hospitalization; thus, the citation was dismissed.

EXPOSURE ANALYSIS
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §5199(h)(6)(C)  -The evidence proffered showed that the Division did meet its burden of proof to show that Employer failed to investigate and provide notifications after an exposure incident.

TRAINING
Title 8, California Code of Regulations, §5144 (i)(4)(G) – The Division did not establish that the training provided on the donning and doffing of gowns was insufficient to make the nurses proficient in the task.

SERIOUS VIOLATION – REBUTTAL PRESUMPTION OF CLASSIFICATION
Labor Code §6432(c) – Employer failed to rebut the presumption that Citation 2 was properly classified as Serious by demonstrating that it took all the steps a reasonable and responsible employer should be expected to take, before the violation occurred.

ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES
Citation 2 was affirmed, and the penalty was adjusted accordingly.

Digest of COSHAB ALJ’s Decision dated July 23, 2024,  Inspection No 1483438 (Burlingame)

49 COR 40-8851 [¶23,296R]

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

Digest of COSHAB’s Denial of Petition for Reconsideration dated July 26, 2024, Inspection No. 1351361.