|
OSHA Unified Agenda - [Completed Actions] |
|
|
RIN: 1218-AC42 |
Publication ID: Spring 2009 |
|
Title: Amendment of Standards To Clarify the Individualized Nature of Employer Duties To Provide PPE and Train Employees |
|
|
Abstract: OSHA amended its standards for general industry, maritime and construction to clarify that when a standard requires the employer to provide PPE to employees, or train employees, each employee not provided PPE or trained is a separate instance of a violation of the standard. The amendment clarifies the remedy available to OSHA for violations of the PPE and training standards; it does not change the standards’ substantive requirements in any way and will add no new regulatory burden. A variety of OSHA standards require that employers provide and ensure the use of appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), such as respirators or protective clothing, where necessary because of a workplace hazard. The specific language of the standards varies. For example, the respiratory protection provisions of most specific standards state that “for employees who use respirators required by this section, the employer must provide respirators that comply with the requirements of this paragraph,” See, for example, 29 CFR 1926 1101(h) (1), while the coke oven emissions standard, 29 CFR 1910.1029(h) requires employers "to provide and ensure the use of" flame resistant clothing and other protective gear. OSHA standards also require that employers train employees on hazards to which they may be exposed, including hazards requiring PPE. Some training provisions, such as the provision in the general industry PPE standard, 29 CFR 1910.132(f), specifically state that training must be provided to “each employee” required to use PPE. Other training provisions are more generally worded. For example, the training provision in the hazard communication standard, 29 CFR 1910.1200(h) states that “employers shall provide employees with effective information and training on hazardous chemicals in their work area at the time of their initial assignment and whenever [a new hazard is introduced].” Despite minor differences in wording between them, all standards requiring employers to provide PPE to employees because of a hazard required the employer to provide the PPE to each individual employee covered by the requirement. Similarly, standards requiring employers to provide training to employees require the employer to train each individual employee. The Agency has consistently maintained that each employee not provided PPE or trained is a separate instance of a violation that may, in appropriate circumstances, be separately cited. The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission has suggested that variations in the wording of OSHA’s PPE and training provisions may affect the agency’s authority to assess per-employee violations. In Secretary of Labor v. Eric K. Ho, Ho Ho Ho Express, Inc. and Houston Fruitland, Inc., 20 O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) 1361, 1371-72 (Review Comm’n 2003), the Commission majority ruled that the Secretary could not issue per-employee citations for failure to provide respirators under a prior provision of the construction asbestos standard. In a later decision, the Commission stated that the slightly different language of the general respirator provision requirement in the lead standard permitted per-employee citations. Secretary of Labor v. Manganas Painting Co., Inc., 21 O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) 1964, 1998-99 (Review Comm’n 2007). The amendment clarifies the agency’s ability to issue per-instance violations for each employee not trained or not provided PPE under general industry, construction and maritime standards requiring training and PPE. |
|
|
Agency: Department of Labor(DOL) |
Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant |
|
RIN Status: Previously published in the Unified Agenda |
Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Completed Actions |
|
Major: No |
Unfunded Mandates: No |
|
CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910; 29 CFR 1915; 29 CFR 1917 to 1918; 29 CFR 1926 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations.) |
|
|
Legal Authority: 29 USC 655(b) |
|
|
Legal Deadline:
None |
||||||||||||||||||
|
Timetable:
|
|
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No |
Government Levels Affected: None |
|
Small Entities Affected: No |
Federalism: No |
|
Included in the Regulatory Plan: No |
|
|
RIN Data Printed in the FR: No |
|
|
Agency Contact: |
|
