OSHA watch

2020 budget proposal

President Trump’s proposed budget calls for a $300,000 increase in the agency’s budget, but includes an increase of almost $4 million for safety enforcement and workplace inspections and the number of full-time equivalent workers at the agency will increase by 33. Whistleblower protection is also slated to receive an extra $1.1 million, and the number of federal inspections budgeted in 2020 is projected to rise by about 300 to 33,133.

Six states sue over electronic reporting rollback

Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey and New York are challenging the “illegal and unjustified attempt to roll back (the regulation’s) requirements for the public reporting of workplace injuries and illnesses…” in State of New Jersey v. R. Alexander Acosta. The states allege the Administrative Procedure Act was violated when the agency changed its course without a “reasonable explanation” for its new policy.

Input on powered industrial trucks sought

Request for Information published in the March 11 Federal Register seeks input to aid in a possible update of the powered industrial trucks standard (1910.178). This standard covers forklifts, fork trucks, tractors, platform lift trucks and motorized hand trucks, among others.

Comments on the RFI are due by June 10.

New trenching and excavation videos

A free 11-minute video highlighting the importance of soil classification when planning trenching and excavation work has been released in English and Spanish.

The Region 6 Training Institute Education Centers recently released a video on trenching and excavation safety. The one-hour video addresses best practices, cave-in protection, resources and other hazards workers encounter in trenching.

Registration is required to access the video.

Revised webpages address safety in the agriculture and maritime industries

The Agricultural Operations webpage was revised to make it easier for users to find safety information on agriculture-related hazards, such as grain bins and silos, heat, machinery, pesticides, and other chemicals.

The revised Maritime Industry webpage offers compliance materials, training information, and other resources to eliminate hazards in longshoring and marine terminals, commercial fishing, and shipyards.

Enforcement notes

California

  • Santa Ana-based Aardvark Clay & Supplies Inc., a ceramics firm, faces more than $250,160 in penalties for willful failure to properly guard equipment after an employee was fatally entangled in a clay manufacturing machine. Although the manufacturer had provided safety guards for the machinery, the employer removed the guards.
  • Underground Construction Co., Inc. of Benicia received three citations and proposed penalties of $27,000 after two of its employees contracted Valley Fever. The workers were exposed to the fungal disease while using hand tools to dig trenches in Kings, Fresno and Merced counties-areas where the soil is known to contain harmful spores that cause the infection.
  • West Coast Land and Development Inc., based in Concord, faces fines of $26,540 for eight violations after a worker was crushed to death by vertically stacked plywood at a San Rafael construction site.

Florida

  • Two contractors, PCL Construction Services Inc. and Universal Engineering Sciences, were cited for safety violations after two employees suffered fatal injuries at a worksite for the new JW Marriott Hotel in Orlando. Inspectors found the contractors failed to inspect formwork, shoring, working decks, and scaffolds properly prior to construction to ensure that the equipment met the required specified formwork drawings. The contractors collectively received three violations totaling $157,792 in proposed penalties, including one willful citation to PCL.
  • The Higgins Group Corp., operating as Higgins Premium Pet Foods, faces $95,472 in penalties for exposing employees to amputation, fall, and other safety hazards at its facility in Miami.
  • Ammunition manufacturer, AMTEC Less Lethal Systems Inc., faces $188,290 in penalties for multiple serious violations, and a willful violation after an explosion fatally injured two workers at the company’s Perry facility.
  • Brinker Florida Inc., operator of a Chili’s Grill and Bar restaurant in Doral, was cited for exposing employees to burns, falls, and other hazards after an employee suffered burns when falling from an unguarded platform into a hot water bath. The company faces proposed penalties totaling $62,513.
  • Roofing and waterproofing contractor, TarHeel Corp., faces $32,013 in penalties for failing to provide employees with fall protection systems and to properly train their employees after an employee suffered fatal injuries in a fall at the Forest Glen Community in Naples.
  • Venice-based Olin Landscaping faces $16,102 in penalties for failing to protect employees from heat-related illnesses and injuries and failing to report a workplace fatality to OSHA within 8 hours, as required.

Georgia

  • Inspected under the National Emphasis Program (NEP) on Trenching and Excavation, Corley Contractors Inc., based in Dallas, faces $106,078 in penalties for exposing employees to excavation hazards while installing water and sewer lines at a worksite in Acworth.
  • Inspected under the Regional Emphasis Program on Lead, U.S. Battery Manufacturing Co. is facing $115,594 in fines for exposing workers to lead, unguarded machinery, and other safety hazards at its facility in Augusta.

Massachusetts

  • The DOL has filed a lawsuit against Boston-based contractor Tara Construction Inc. and its chief executive officer, Pedro Pirez, alleging that they retaliated against an injured employee by facilitating his arrest. The worker incurred a serious injury when he fell from a ladder and reported it to DOL. The Department alleges that shortly after the employee engaged in protected activities, the defendants initiated a law enforcement investigation and facilitated the employee’s detainment by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Nebraska

  • Western Engineering Company Inc. faces $89,032 in penalties when an employee suffered fatal injuries after being pulled into an unguarded slat/drag conveyor at the company’s North Platte asphalt plant. Serious violations related to machine guarding, lockout tagout, confined spaces, and air monitoring.

Pennsylvania

  • Warminster-based Etna Construction Inc. faces $208,560 in fines for failing to protect its workers against trenching hazards at a Philadelphia worksite.

Virginia

  • Virginia Occupational Safety and Health issued 12 citations and $528,692 in penalties to T.D. Fraley & Sons, Inc., after a worker who was removing scaffolding sections received an electric shock from contact with a power line.

Wisconsin

  • Nemak USA Inc., based in Sheboygan, faces penalties of $26,520 for two serious health violations, the maximum penalty allowed by law, for exposing workers to metalworking fluids used on aluminum after three employees were diagnosed with occupational hypersensitivity pneumonitis, a debilitating lung disease.
  • In Secretary of Labor v. Packers Sanitation Services Inc., an administrative law judge with the OSHRC held that Packers Sanitation Services, based in Kieler, failed to guard a quill puller machine and ensure walking services were safe for employees and upheld the assessment of nearly $20,000 in citations.
  • A follow-up inspection of Avid Pallet Services LLC of Beloit found that the company failed to implement sufficient engineering controls to limit dust exposure, as well as train employees on the health hazards of wood dust. The company faces penalties of $188,302 for repeat, serious, and other-than-serious safety and health violations.

For additional information.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

PPE and women: 13 do’s and don’ts

The recent cancellation by NASA of the highly publicized first-ever all-woman spacewalk is a good reminder of the importance of proper fitting PPE. Even with extensive training on the ground, getting the right fit for a spacesuit in microgravity can be a challenge since the body changes slightly in space due to fluid shifts or spine elongation.

Only one suit for a medium-size torso, which is the size that best fits the two astronauts, is ready for use on the station. While the decision was made by one of the astronauts who thought a large-size suit would be fine, but after a spacewalk a week earlier decided the medium-size was a better fit, it was met by some with disbelief on Twitter. The number of women entering traditionally male-dominated fields continues to grow and many have encountered improperly fitting personal protective equipment (PPE) and personal protective clothing (PPC). (The two female astronauts were part of a class that had 50/50 gender representation.)

According to The Washington Post, “Across social media platforms, women told of giant overalls, wading boots that were the wrong size, oversize gloves that kept them from being nimble, a lack of bulletproof vests that accommodated their chest sizes and a dearth of petite-size personal protective equipment at construction sites.”

While there is increased awareness and significant strides have been made in PPE for women, the fact remains that most PPE was designed based on average male body measurements and it has only been in recent years that manufacturers have tailored PPE to women. When there are products specifically designed for women some worksites just don’t have them readily available.

The best practices of providing PPE for women are very similar to those for men. Here are 13 do’s and don’ts:

  • Don’t assume your PPE is appropriate for all of your employees. Find out what is and isn’t working by getting feedback from employees. Monitor the use and identify situations where it is not used when it should be.
  • Don’t ask women to wear PPE that is too big. It is not going to provide adequate protection and in some cases creates even more serious safety risks.
  • Don’t alter PPE. It should be certified to specific standards, and alterations beyond built-in adjustment features can make the garment no longer compliant – and unsafe.
  • Don’t subject women to derogatory remarks or disingenuous humor about how they look in PPE.
  • Don’t assume women are only concerned about “how it looks.”
  • Don’t criticize, ignore, or retaliate against employees who report ill-fitting PPE.
  • Don’t penalize employees who refuse to work when appropriate PPE is not available.
  • Do involve employees in the selection of PPE.
  • Do provide the same range of sizes for women as for men, and ensure suppliers have properly assessed the appropriateness of their equipment to women and men.
  • Do ensure employees try on several sizes or types of PPE before it is issued to ensure the best fit.
  • Do educate employees about why the PPE is to be worn and train how to properly use it.
  • Do make appropriate provisions for pregnant women.
  • Do get supervisor buy-in.

The gender pay gap is substantially less in many non-traditional jobs than in other professions, and training and apprenticeships present great opportunities for women. Yet, as noted in the Construction Productivity Blog, “recruitment bias, company cultures where harassment isn’t thoroughly addressed and even reasons as simple as tools and gear not made for women in mind, also all play a critical role into why more women aren’t considering building as a career.”

Attracting women to non-traditional fields can help industries deal with an acute labor shortage and have economic benefits. According to the Peterson Institute, construction companies that were in the top 25% in gender diversity of their workforce were 46% more likely to outperform their industry average. Providing the right PPE is another way companies can recruit and retain more female talent.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

OSHA watch

“Good-faith” employers get grace period to comply on crane operator documentation requirements

The requirement that employers must evaluate their operators before allowing them to operate cranes independently is being enforced, but employers making good-faith efforts to comply have a 60-day grace period, according to the enforcement guidance effective on Feb. 7. Employers who have evaluated operators in accordance with the final rule, and are making good-faith efforts to comply with the new documentation requirement are offered compliance assistance, in lieu of enforcement. The grace period ends April 15.

New bulletin for workers wearing devices containing lithium batteries

A new Safety and Health Information Bulletin warns employers and workers of potential fire and explosion hazards stemming from lithium batteries used to power small or wearable electronic devices.

New video on ammonium nitrate emphasis program

A new YouTube video deals with inspections under the ammonium nitrate emphasis program.

Employers urged to prevent worker exposure to carbon monoxide

Employers are reminded to take necessary precautions to protect workers from the potentially fatal effects of carbon monoxide exposure. To reduce the risk of exposure, employers should install an effective ventilation system, use carbon monoxide detectors, and take other precautions as described in the Carbon Monoxide Fact Sheet.

Other resources include videos (in English and Spanish), QuickCards (English) (Spanish)and a fact sheet on portable generator safety.

Alert to Nebraska employers: Increase in amputation injuries

A review of Nebraska workers’ compensation claims found 42 employees suffered amputation injuries in 2018, and employers failed to report more than 65 percent of those injuries within 24-hours, as required. The National Emphasis Program for Amputations targets inspections at workplaces with machinery and equipment that cause, or are capable of causing, amputations. Information and resources are available to help employers identify and eliminate workplace hazard.

Enforcement notes

California

  • Solus Industrial Innovations, a plastics manufacturing plant in Rancho Santa Margarita was cited for willfully, knowingly and intentionally maintaining an unsafe and hazardous work environment after two workers were killed in an explosion caused by a water heater that was never intended for commercial use. The case was referred to the local district attorney’s office and a $1.6 million judgment was obtained in a civil case.
  • Platinum Pipeline Inc., based in Livermore, received a $242,600 fine after a worker died when a trench built for a storm drain project collapsed.
  • A joint venture of Shimmick Construction Co. Inc., of Oakland and San Francisco-based Con-Quest Contractors Inc. faces a $65,300 fine after a worker was fatally struck by a steel beam in 2018 while working on a light rail tunnel project in San Francisco.

Connecticut

  • The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut ordered Eastern Awning Systems Inc., a manufacturer of retractable fabric patio awnings based in Watertown, and its owner Stephen P. Lukos to pay a total of $160,000 to two discharged employees who filed safety and health complaints. The judgment also requires the employer to provide neutral letters of reference for the two discharged employees, and to post the judgment and notice of employees’ rights prominently at the workplace.

Florida

  • Inspected under the Regional Emphasis Program for Falls in Construction, Crown Roofing LLC was cited for exposing employees to fall hazards at two separate residential worksites in Port St. Lucie and Naples. The Sarasota-based contractor faces penalties of $265,196. It has been inspected 17 times in the past five years and 11 inspections have resulted in repeat violations.
  • OSHRC affirmed two serious violations, and reinstated one stemming from an inspection of gas line work – overturning an administrative law judge’s decision – and increased the fine from $5,500 to $9,000 against Dade City-based Florida Gas Contractors Inc.

Georgia

  • Hilti Inc., a hardware merchant wholesaler, was cited for exposing employees to struck-by hazards after an employee was injured while operating a forklift at a distribution center in Atlanta. The Plano, Texas-based company faces penalties of $164,802.
  • Eye Productions Inc., a motion picture company, was cited for failing to provide adequate head protection during stunts while filming the “MacGyver” show in Chattahoochee Hills. Proposed penalties total $9,472.

Massachusetts

  • In Secretary of Labor v. HRI Hospital Inc. d/b/a Arbour-HRI Hospital, an administrative law judge vacated a citation that HRI Hospital Inc., based in Brookline, failed to adequately protect its employees from being physically assaulted by patients.

Minnesota

  • In Secretary of Labor v. SJ Louis Construction of Texas Ltd. (a division of SJ Louis Construction Inc., of Rockville, Minnesota), the ALJ determined that SJ Louis, an underground utilities contractor, failed to construct a trench in Cypress, Texas, in compliance with regulations and failed to provide employees proper egress. A penalty of $36,000 was assessed.

Pennsylvania

  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District has entered a consent judgment ordering Blown Away Dry Bar and Salon, based in Kennett Square, to pay a $40,000 settlement to a fired hair stylist. Investigators determined the defendants retaliated against the employee when her husband reported workplace safety and health hazards to OSHA, a violation of the (OSH) Act.
  • An administrative law judge of the OSHRC affirmed a general duty clause citation against Brooke Glen Behavioral Hospital’s facility in Fort Washington for exposing its employees to workplace violence, as well as a $12,471 penalty.
  • KidsPeace Inc. was cited for exposing employees to workplace violence hazards at two behavioral and mental health facilities in Orefield. The company faces proposed penalties totaling $29,010.

Tennessee

  • Hankook Tire Company received 11 citations and faces $85,200 in penalties for failure to conduct periodic crane inspections, provide adequate personal protective equipment for workers handling hazardous chemicals, ensure that proper lockout/tagout procedures were followed, and guard machinery.

For additional information.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

More than 60,000 employers submit data not required by OSHA

General confusion surrounding OSHA’s electronic record-keeping rule may spell trouble for some employers that voluntarily submitted data even though they are not regulated by the rule. Although the “courtesy” submissions may seem harmless, OSHA is using the data to target enforcement activities.

In a webinar, Daniel Deacon, a Washington, D.C.-based associate in Conn Maciel Carey LLP’s OSHA and labor and employment practice groups, reported that in 2017 there were 60,956 so-called out-of-scope submissions of Form 300A data, up from 52,171 in 2016. He noted confusion about the rule, misunderstanding of the thresholds for employment figures, and states that have not adopted the rule all contribute to this surprisingly high number.

According to OSHA, there is significant underreporting problem. The agency reported that more than one-third of the workplaces did not submit required reports in 2016. Under its Site Specific Targeting 2016 Program, the agency is targeting inspections of employers that should have reported, but did not. Moreover, compliance officers have been directed to review reporting records on all inspections.

March 2, 2019, was the deadline for employers to electronically report OSHA Form 300A data for calendar year 2018. The establishments covered by this requirement are specified on OSHA’s Injury Tracking Application webpage.

Other reporting challenges

Although employers are getting more comfortable with the severe injury reporting rule adopted in 2015, incidents are being reported to OSHA that should not be reported. On the other hand, OSHA has issued at least 400 citations for late reporting or failure to report.The rule requires employers report the inpatient hospitalization of a single employee as well as all amputations and loss of an eye within 24 hours.

Here are some key provisions:

  • If the injury or illness resulted in the employee’s death within 30 days of the incident, it is reportable to OSHA within eight hours of learning the outcome.
  • If the injured worker went to the hospital, was the employee formally admitted to the inpatient service of the hospital? If yes, did they receive medical treatment (more than observation or diagnostics) after admission? If yes, reportable to OSHA within 24-hours of learning the outcome.
  • Common mistakes in reporting: reporting when employee spent more than 24 hours in emergency service before being formally admitted; inpatient medical treatment was deferred for more than 24 hours; medical treatment was provided beforeadmission to the inpatient service; not reporting inpatient first aid treatment.
  • Did the injury result in a body part becoming severed from the employee’s body, either during the incident or after the incident in a medical amputation? If yes, did the amputation occur within 24-hours of the work-related incident? If yes, report to OSHA within 24 hours of learning of the outcome.
  • Did the injury result in loss of an eye? If yes, report to OSHA within 24-hours of learning of the outcome. Note: this does not include loss of eyesight.

Other common issues are reporting injuries that are not work related, misunderstanding when the 24-hour timeclock begins, and responding inappropriately to a rapid response letter by blaming the employee for the incident or not offering corrective actions.

The challenges of keeping up with OSHA’s rules and regulations are enormous. While it’s critical to strictly adhere to OSHA requirements, providing unnecessary information or not reporting when you should can lead to something you don’t want…an inspection. If you need help, contact us.

You can also learn more about OSHA Recordkeeping, and benchmarking your injury results at http://www.premiumreductioncenter.com/osha-incident.html, as well  access to FREE OSHA 300 Log recordkeeping software.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

The daunting challenge of maintaining a drug-free workplace

With a national opioid crisis that defies holistic solutions, the legalization of medicinal marijuana in more than 30 states and recreational marijuana in 10 states, increases in deadly overdoses in the workplace, changing state laws, confusion over OSHA’s anti-retaliatory drug testing rule, and concerns about medical privacy, no employer should think they are immune to the problem. In fact, according to the National Safety Council (NSC), 15.6% of American workers live with a substance disorder and The Hartford reports that 64% of HR professionals are ill-prepared to help a worker with an opioid addiction.

These factors, coupled with a tight labor market and low unemployment, have led some employers to soften zero-tolerance policies for jobs where safety is not critical and there is a low risk of injury or error. The decision to relax zero-tolerance policies requires buy-in from company leadership and supervisors as well as serious evaluation of the consequences. Although the legalization of marijuana exponentially increases the complexity of the issue, the reasons for maintaining a drug-free workplace remain constant: safety of employees and customers, lower absenteeism, reduced turnover, fewer workers’ comp claims, fewer workplace conflicts, and reduced liability for workplace accidents.

It’s also troublesome for supervisors because substance abuse often falls below the radar of the workplace. Yet, for five consecutive years, unintentional workplace overdose deaths have increased by at least 25%. Drug testing, which is often a critical component of a zero-tolerance policy, can identify those at risk.

Here are five things to consider when evaluating a drug policy:

Legal concerns

While federal law regulating drug testing affects some heavily-regulated industries, there is no comprehensive federal law regulating drug testing in the private sector. The Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 requires all recipients of federal grants and some federal contractors to maintain a drug-free workplace.The ADA does not consider drug abuse a disability and allows drug testing; however, disability discrimination is a significant legal risk. If an applicant is not hired or an employee is terminated because of a positive drug test and the medication was legally prescribed for a disability, the employer could be liable. Reasonable accommodations must be provided at application, hiring, and during employment.

State laws that do regulate workplace drug testing vary widely and are constantly changing. Generally, state laws allow employers to drug test job applicants. However, many have rules about providing notice, preventing discrimination, and following procedures to prevent inaccurate samples. The laws governing testing of current employees varies widely by state, with some prohibiting random testing and others requiring ‘reasonable suspicion.’ There are also laws governing post-accident testing. It’s critical to understand and stay abreast of the laws in all the states in which you operate.

Marijuana

Marijuana is one of employers’ biggest worries and one of the driving reasons for employers to relax pre-employment drug testing. There is legitimate fear that it will reduce the pool of qualified candidates. Some address this issue by removing marijuana from the test panel for many positions that are not safety-critical.

The laws vary significantly with states that have legalized marijuana and case law is limited and evolving. Some states have card holder anti-discrimination statutes and some states prohibit firing of an employee who tests positive for marijuana while others allow it. Although all marijuana use is still illegal under federal law, state courts across the country are deciding cases on medical marijuana use and accommodation. Employers are wise to consider whether positive drug tests are connected to medicinal use before making employment decisions.

Employers should be careful about penalizing employees for off-duty marijuana use, since some states have statutes protecting employees. However, most states permit employers to prohibit marijuana use on their premises and to discipline employees who come to work under the influence.

While the uncertainty is unnerving for employers, a growing number of states are writing statutes to remove the ambiguities. Statutes in Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington DC, and West Virginia address employment protection for medical marijuana patients. It’s still possible to restrict marijuana use in these states, but care needs to be taken in crafting and enforcing a policy.

If you choose to differentiate marijuana policies from other drug policies, consider these questions:

  • Will treating marijuana differently create problems in the workforce?
  • Under what circumstances will employees be tested for marijuana?
  • What are the consequences of not testing (i.e. more injuries, absenteeism)?
  • What is the process to determine a medical exception to the policy?
  • What happens when an employee fails the test?

Workers’ Comp

Substance abuse can contribute to workplace accidents and a drug-free workplace helps prevent accidents, thus lowering workers’ comp costs. In some states, employers implementing a drug-free workplace receive a premium discount. As of October 2018, 13 states had such laws. While the requirements and discounts vary, the states include Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Mississippi, Ohio, New York, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wyoming.

In addition, some states have enacted laws to make it easy for employers who properly drug test to deny workers’ compensation benefits. For example, Florida law provides that if the employee tests positive for drugs, then “it is presumed that the injury was occasioned primarily by…the influence of the drug upon, the employee.”

Medical marijuana raises thorny issues for employers. Can a claim be denied if an employee tests positive for using state-approved medical cannabis? Can an injured employee receive medical marijuana to treat a workplace injury? Both are new and evolving issues that will be the subject of future court cases and state regulations. The Minnesota Department of Labor & Industries issued rules allowing cannabis as a reimbursable form of medical treatment.

OSHA

The anti-retaliatory provisions of OSHA’s e-Recordkeeping rule resulted in considerable confusion about post-injury drug testing policies, which was somewhat clarified in a guidance memo in October 2018. Before doing post-accident drug testing, employers should:

  • Have a reasonable basis to conclude drug use could have contributed to the injury
  • Test all employees whose conduct could have caused an accident, even if they were not injured
  • Identify high hazard work as a reason for testing
  • Determine if the drug test can provide insight to the root cause of incident
  • Consider whether drug test is capable of measuring impairment at the time the injury occurred
  • Ensure employees are not discouraged or dissuaded from reporting injuries

Remember, the rule does not affect new hires, random testing, or testing to comply with state or federal laws or required by Workers’ Comp insurers.

Privacy

Although challenges to workplace drug testing policies on the grounds that they violate employees’ privacy have generally not been successful, the manner in which the test is conducted and how the results are used have been successfully challenged. Drug test results are considered protected health information and must be kept confidential. Further, as laws on employee privacy continue to evolve, testing that is not clearly authorized by law could be open to legal challenges.

Conclusion

Zero-tolerance policies are strong stands that send an important cultural message, but like any policy it should be evaluated periodically. How effective has it been? Has it hampered recruitment and retention efforts for positions that are not safety-critical? Has it prevented workers from seeking the help they need to deal with substance abuse? Does it impede flexibility?

Anecdotally, more employers are tailoring drug testing to the job and adding a fitness-for-duty component. Any policy changes require serious consideration as protecting employees remains the top priority. However, no change in policy should excuse an employee who is impaired while working. There’s just too much at risk.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

OSHA watch

Maximum penalty of repeat or willful violation rises to $132,598

The cost of non-compliance is on the rise with the annual adjustment for inflation, effective January 24, 2019. The chart below shows the 2019 increases for each type of violation:

Violation Type/Description CFR Citation 2018 Max Penalty 2019 Max Penalty
Serious 29 CFR 1903.15(d)(3) $12,934 $13,260
Other-than-Serious 29 CFR 1903.15(d)(4) $12,934 $13,260
Willful 29 CFR 1903.15(d)(1) $129,336 $132,598
Repeated 29 CFR 1903.15(d)(2) $129,336 $132,598
Posting Requirement 29 CFR 1903.15(d)(6) $12,934 $13,260
Failure to Abate 29 CFR 1903.15(d)(5) $12,934 $13,260

Reminder: Feb. 1 was deadline for posting Form 300A

Each year, from Feb. 1 to April 30, OSHA’s Form 300A, which summarizes job-related injuries and illnesses logged in the prior calendar year, must be displayed in a common area where notices to employees are usually posted. Details can be found in our January 2019 issue.

Final rule on electronic recordkeeping issued

As expected, the final rule eliminates the requirement for establishments with 250 or more employees or those with 20 to 249 employees in certain industries with historically high occupational injury and illness rates to electronically submit information from Form 300 (Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses) and Form 301 (Injury and Illness Incident Report) each year. These establishments are still required to electronically submit information from Form 300A (Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses). The final rule also requires covered employers to electronically submit their Employer Identification Number with their information from Form 300A.

The deadline for electronic submissions is March 2, 2019. More information.

A lawsuit has already been filed by the Public Citizen Health Research Group, the American Public Health Association and the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists arguing the final rule violates of the Administrative Procedure Act.

FAQs on silica standard for general industry published

The FAQs, which include answers to 64 questions organized by topic, provide guidance to employers and workers on the standard’s requirements, including exposure assessments, hazard communication and methods of compliance.

Free compliance assistance resources on falls offered online

To help employers prepare for the sixth annual National Safety Stand-Down to Prevent Falls in Construction, set to take place May 6-10, the following resources are online:

Requirements for trainers in Outreach Training Program revised

Among the 18 changes, which are scheduled to go into effect April 1, is eliminating the 90-day grace period after a trainer card expires, as well as updating the trainer code of conduct and responsibilities.

New safety resource on safe operation of tractors

A new rollover protection brochure provides information in English and Spanish on the safe operation of tractors. It emphasizes the importance of using rollover protective structures and seat belt systems to help reduce worker injuries.

Enforcement notes

California

  • US Postal Service faces fines of $149,664 for not addressing worker safety in high-heat conditions after a mail carrier was found dead in a postal vehicle on a record-setting 117-degree-Fahrenheit day in July.

Florida

  • Compass Group USA Inc., operating as Chartwells Dining, was cited for exposing employees to burn and chemical hazards at its cafeteria in Coral Gables. The company faces $134,880 in penalties for exposing employees to hazards associated with exit routes, failing to provide suitable facilities for quick drenching for employees who work with cleaning chemicals, and for not providing effective training to the employees working with the chemicals.
  • Inspected under the REP for Falls in Construction, Ad-Ler Roofing Inc. was cited for exposing employees to dangerous falls at a Naples residential worksite, one month after similar violations were found at another worksite. The Fort Myers-based contractor faces penalties of $91,466.

Missouri

  • New Haven-based Franklin County Construction LLC faces $56,910 in penalties after an employee suffered fatal fall injuries when a roof truss collapsed.

Nebraska

  • Hastings-based Noah’s Ark Processors is facing $182,926 in penalties after an employee suffered severe burns caused by exposure to anhydrous ammonia at one of its meat processing facilities. Sixteen serious violations were issued relating to process safety management (PSM) program deficiencies, failing to guard roof openings, and electrical safety and lockout/tagout violations.
  • An administrative law judge of the OSHRC affirmed a serious violation and $11,408 penalty after an employee was hospitalized due to an arc flash. Jacobs Field Services’ policy of permitting employees to remove portions of their personal protective equipment after they had determined the load side – but not the line side – of an electrical disconnect box was de-energized violated the statute.

New York

  • St. Louis, Mo-based Western Specialty Contractors is facing criminal charges and $155,204 in penalties for exposing employees to serious injuries. Operated by an untrained employee, an unsecured mini-crane overturned and fell four stories at an NYC worksite.
  • An administrative law judge of the OSHRC affirmed a serious violation against Fairport-based Ontario Exteriors Inc. when a worksite policy that directed its employees to traverse a steep second-story roof without fall protection at the beginning and end of each work day resulted in the injury of one worker. The law judge reduced the fine in half to $1,811 noting that the court believes the company will comply with fall protection requirements in the future.

Pennsylvania

  • Spear Excavating LLC based in Pennsburg was cited for exposing employees to trenching hazards at a worksite in Malvern. The company faces $106,057 in proposed penalties. The inspection was initiated by a complaint.
  • An administrative law judge of the OSHRC affirmed a serious citation and $11,408 fine against Coastal Drilling East LLC after an employee’s finger had to be amputated following a workplace accident. Cited under the general duty clause, the company argued that abatement of the cited condition was infeasible and the violation was the result of unpreventable employee misconduct, but the law judge cited an absence of training, instruction, and supervision and inconsistent enforcement.

Wisconsin

  • Two utility contractors – Bear Communications LLC of Lawrence, Kansas, and subcontractor V C Tech Inc. of Ypsilanti, Michigan – were issued a serious safety violation, and face penalties of $12,934 each – the maximum penalty allowed when they failed to establish the location of underground utilities prior to beginning excavation work. A volunteer firefighter responding to the incident was fatally injured.

For additional information.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

OSHA: 2018 enforcement facts and what to watch for in 2019

What happened in 2018

A recent webinar by Conn Maciel Carey L.L.P., a Washington-based law firm, took a look at OSHA enforcement action in 2018 with surprising results:

  • Despite expectations that many of the enforcement programs would be retired, the agency continues to implement the same number of enforcement emphasis programs as were implemented at the end of the Obama administration (150 local and regional programs and nine national)
  • There was a $5M increase in the FY 2019 budget and state OSH programs received a $2M increase, the first since FY14, rather than the expected budget cuts
  • Still no Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA (longest ever vacancy)
  • Statutory requirement to increase penalties annually remains in place
  • Number of inspections was similar to FY2017, and larger than FY16, the last year of the Obama administration – 32,202
  • Total violations issued was slightly lower than FY 2017 – 52,141 – and about 12% lower than FY16
  • A high percentage of inspections result in the issuance of violations – 28%. This has been relatively stable over the past eight years, indicating it is very difficult to have a clean OSHA inspection
  • The average penalty per serious violation increased significantly – 37.6% to $5,016
  • Although the number of $100,000+ penalty cases dropped from the record-setting 218 in FY17, there were 168 in FY 2018. This is still one of the top five years of $100,000+ enforcement actions
  • The heavy use of repeat violations has continued, with 5.1% of all violations in this category. The percentage has been over 5% since FY2016
  • A 2016 site-specific targeting inspection plan offers insights on how OSHA will use the 300A injury data collected under the new e-recordkeeping rule. Establishments with elevated DART rates and those that did not submit the required data are the primary targets, but others can be inspected
  • There has been continued expansion of the general duty clause to cite employers for heat stress, ergonomics, workplace violence, and chemical exposures below PEL
  • A May 2018 memo formalized the use drones to collect evidence, including the requirement that the agency obtain employers’ consent. Some fear the use of drones has the potential to expand OSHA’s violation-finding capabilities during any inspection and that the guidelines are too vague

Significant case decisions

  • The Obama administration expanded the “look-back” period, which is the basis of repeat violations to five years from the three years that was in the field operations manual. In Triumph Construction vs. Sec of Labor, the court found that OSHA is not bound by any look-back period since it is not in the statute or the regulations. Although the five-year period is still in the manual, legally there can be an indefinite look-back period.
  • The ability of OSHA to expand an unprogrammed injury inspection (based on a reported hospitalization) to a wall-to-wall inspection was addressed in U.S. v. Mar-Jac Poultry. The 11th Circuit court rejected the warrant to inspect the facility based on the injuries recorded on the 300 log, which it found did not establish reasonable suspicion of violations.
  • OSHA successfully defended the legality of its multi-employer policy and ability to cite a general contractor as a “controlling employer” in Acosta vs. Hensel Phelps.
  • Under the Obama administration, there was an effort to expand “per day” violations, which a grain handler challenged. The OSHRC ALJ granted Summary Judgment to the employer, noting per day penalties are inconsistent with the statute except when regulation language is clear such as for failure to abate.
  • EPA tried to delay the implementation of the EPA’s RMP amendments that were made in the final hours of the Obama administration, but the court found the delay rule unlawful.

What’s happened in 2019?

  • OSHA was fully funded so its enforcement activities were not affected by the government shutdown
  • There was a delay in the annual increase in penalties because the Federal Register was shut down, but the increase is in place now (see OSHA Watch below)
  • Scott Mugno was re-nominated for Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA on January 16
  • A final rule on electronic recordkeeping eliminates the requirement for large and certain high-risk establishments to annually submit 300 logs and 301 incident reports. The establishments are still required to electronically submit information Form 300A and to submit their employer identification number

What’s expected

  • Further amendments to beryllium standard
  • Final rule to remove critical language of “unexpected energization” from Lockout Tagout standard
  • Hazard Communication standard revisions to align with the current version of Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling (GHS)
  • Possible changes to Table 1 of the new Silica rule
  • Further challenges to electronic recordkeeping

Takeaway: To date, there has not been the pullback on enforcement that was expected under the Trump administration. It remains aggressive and citations are more expensive. If a company is inspected there is only a one in four chance that it will not receive a citation. Forward-thinking companies are vigilant about compliance.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

OSHA watch

Revised Beryllium Standard for General Industry proposed

The proposed rule, published in the Dec. 11 Federal Register, would revise provisions regarding recordkeeping, personal protective clothing and equipment, written control exposure plans, disposal and recycling, medical surveillance, and hazard communication. It also would change or add six terms in the “definitions” paragraph of its regulations: beryllium sensitization, beryllium work area, chronic beryllium disease, CBD diagnostic center, confirmed positive and dermal contact with beryllium.

Another proposed change is removing Appendix A, which lists suggested controls, and replacing it with a new Appendix A, “Operations for Establishing Beryllium Work Areas.”

The enforcement date for the provisions affected by this proposal was December 12, 2018. While this rulemaking is pending, compliance with the standard as modified by this proposal will be accepted as compliance. The deadline to comment on the proposed rule is Feb. 11.

Initiative to increase awareness of trenching and excavation hazards and solutions launched in southeastern states

As part of the agency’s focus on trenching safety, area offices in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Mississippi have launched an initiative to educate employers and workers on trenching safety practices. They are reaching out to excavation employers, industry associations, equipment rental organizations, water utility suppliers, and national and local plumbing companies to educate them to identify trenching hazards. Compliance assistance resources are available on the updated Trenching and Excavation webpage.

CPWR infographic provides trench safety tips

CPWR, The Center for Construction Research and Training, developed an infographic focusing on trench safety, including best practices to protect workers in trenches.

(English / Spanish)

Winter weather resources

The Winter Weather webpage provides information on protecting workers from hazards while working outside during severe cold and snow storms. This guidance includes information on staying safe while clearing snow from walkways and rooftops.

Court ruling: general contractors can be cited for hazardous conditions at multi-employer worksites, even if those conditions do not directly affect their own employees

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which covers Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi, recently overturned a ruling of the OSHRC that Hensel Phelps Construction Co., a general contractor, could not be held liable for violations from one of its subcontractors, under the multi-employer work site policy despite it not having any employees exposed to the hazard.

In Acosta v. Hensel Phelps Construction Co., the Fifth Circuit aligned with seven other federal circuit courts in granting OSHA authority to issue citations to controlling employers.

Certification organization releases employer guides on updated crane operator requirements

The National Commission for the Certification of Crane Operators has published three employer guides on the updated crane operator requirements, which went into effect Dec. 10. The two-page guides address the rule’s training, certification and evaluation regulations.

(Training / Certification / Evaluation)

Area offices must use four-part test when citing respiratory hazards without PELs

Area offices must apply a four-part test before issuing General Duty Clause citations for respiratory hazards that do not have a permissible exposure limit, according to a memorandum sent to regional administrators.

The memo, issued Nov. 2, notes that area offices cannot base a General Duty Clause citation on only a “measured exposure” in excess of an occupational exposure limit or a documented exposure to a “recognized carcinogen.” Instead, they must use the following tests in those situations:

  1. The employer failed to keep the workplace free of a hazard to which employees of that employer were exposed.
  2. The hazard was recognized.
  3. The hazard was causing or was likely to cause death or physical harm.
  4. A feasible and useful method to correct the hazard was available.

Enforcement notes

California

  • Santa Cruz-based Future2 Labs Health Services Inc., a manufacturer of cannabis products faces $50,470 in penalties for 10 violations, following an explosion that left a worker seriously injured.
  • A Riverside construction company, Empire Equipment Services Inc., was cited $66,000 for serious workplace safety violations that resulted in the death of a worker when a 17-foot-deep trench collapsed.
  • The U.S. Army Reserve 63 Regional Support Command at a Sacramento maintenance facility was issued safety violations, after a federal civilian employee was fatally injured when the automated lifting mechanism of a utility vehicle cargo box failed and pinned him between the bed and the vehicle frame
  • Southern California Edison received six citations, totaling $95,435 in penalties, after a worker suffered a serious electric shock. Inspectors determined that the company failed to control hazardous energy, isolate exposed underground cables with protective coverings, and eliminate all possible sources of backfeeding energy.

Florida

  • Jacksonville-based Derek Williams, operating as Elo Restoration Inc., was cited for exposing employees to fall hazards at two separate worksites in St. Augustine and Daytona Beach. Inspected under the Regional Emphasis Program on Falls in Construction, the roofing contractor faces $116,551 in penalties.
  • Elo Restoration was also cited, along with Travis Slaughter, operating as Florida Roofing Experts, Inc., for exposing workers to fall hazards at another St. Augustine worksite. Responding to a complaint of unsafe roofing activities, inspectors determined that the companies failed to ensure workers were attached to a fall protection system. Both companies were issued the maximum allowable penalty of $129,336.
  • L.A. Disaster Relief and Property Maintenance LLC, a property maintenance and land clearing company, faces $94,415 in penalties for failing to implement a hazard communication program after an employee suffered burn injuries at a McDavid worksite.
  • Doral-based Nupress of Miami, Inc., a commercial printer, faces $71,139 in penalties for exposing workers to amputation, electrical, and other hazards.
  • Turnkey Construction Planners Inc., a roofing contractor based in Melbourne, was inspected under the Regional Emphasis Program on Falls in Construction and faces $199,184 in penalties for exposing employees to fall hazards.

Georgia

  • Parts Authority LLC, doing business as Parts Authority Georgia LLC, a wholesale auto and truck parts distributor based in Norcross, faces $133,406 in penalties for exposing employees to fire, electrical shock, and struck-by hazards.

Missouri

  • World Wrecking and Scrap Salvage Services Inc., a demolition company, was cited for failing to provide fall protection after two employees suffered fatal injuries at a demolition site in St. Louis and faces penalties of $23,280.

Nebraska

  • Clearwater-based Thiele Dairy was cited for failure to develop and implement safety and health programs related to grain bin entry after an employee suffered fatal injuries and faces penalties totaling $78,899.

Pennsylvania

  • In Secretary of Labor v. J.D. Eckman Inc., an administrative law judge of the OSHRC vacated citations against the bridge and highway construction company related to a workplace incident in which an employee was fatally struck in a traffic control zone. The citation was issued under the General Duty Clause, which the judge found inapplicable under the circumstances.

For more information.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

OSHA alert: Injury reporting records take on increased importance and upcoming deadlines

Form 300A posting deadline: February 1, 2019
Electronic rule making update
Form 300A electronic submission deadline: March 2, 2019
How the data is being used: Site-Specific Targeting Initiative

This month, all employers required to keep Form 300, the Injury and Illness Log, should be reviewing the Log to verify that entries are complete and accurate and correcting any deficiencies. Two important dates are approaching. The annual summary of injuries and illnesses recorded on OSHA Form 300A, Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses, must be posted where notices are customarily located in workplaces, no later than February 1, 2019 and kept in place until April 30.

Under the electronic record-keeping rule, certain employers must submit the form electronically to OSHA by March 2, 2019. And there is now an inspection targeting plan based on the data submitted under this rule, subjecting employers to further scrutiny of their injury and illness rates. Given the potential impact for inspections, employers should carefully ensure they submit accurate records. They should also proactively monitor and address patterns in their injury and illness rates to lower recordable injuries.

Form 300A posting deadline February 1, 2019

When an accident occurs, an employer must document a recordable injury or illness on the OSHA Form 300 log within seven days. Employers should pay careful attention to their logs and the work relatedness of safety incidents, particularly in light of the electronic submission rule. Some employers tend to focus on medical treatment or days away from work, rather than beginning with – was this work-related? The OSHA Regulation 29 C.F.R. §1904.7 contains an in-depth overview of recordable injuries and illnesses. Additional information on determining medical treatment and first aid can be located at 29 C.F.R. §1904.7(b)(5).

Standard interpretations on recordkeeping issued in 2018 include:

  • Prescription medications, such as an Epi-Pen considered medical treatment beyond first-aid. – [1904.7]
  • Clarification on the use of a cold therapy only setting on a therapeutic device is first-aid – [1904.7(b)(5)(ii)]

A Form 300 log is required for each physical establishment location that is expected to be in operation for at least one year. Form 300A summarizes the total number of fatalities, missed workdays, job transfers or restrictions, and injuries and illnesses as recorded on Form 300. Even if there were no recordable incidents in 2018, companies required to maintain records still must post the summary with zeros on the total lines. Copies should be made available to any employee who might not see the summary (such as a remote employee who works from home).

A company executive, as defined by OSHA, must certify the summary. Employers must keep the records for five years following the calendar year covered by them, and if the employer sells the business, he or she must transfer the records to the new owner.

Electronic rule-making update

Last month, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the Trump administration’s motion to dismiss litigation challenging OSHA’s decision to suspend parts of its electronic record-keeping rule. Initiated by three public health advocacy groups, Public Citizen Health Research Group, the American Public Health Association and the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, the lawsuit argued that OSHA’s action was not simply an exercise of enforcement discretion, but rather a complete suspension of a regulatory deadline subject to review.

However, importantly, the federal court also denied a preliminary injunction barring OSHA from implementing its planned delay, noting the advocacy groups had not demonstrated that they will suffer irreparable harm absent preliminary injunctive relief. Also, the court decision was not on the merits of the case, but rather on whether the group had standing to sue or the case should be dismissed as OSHA argued.

Originally, as part of its electronic recordkeeping rule, OSHA mandated that certain employers submit 2017 data from Forms 300, 300A and 301. However, on July 30, 2018 a proposed rule officially eliminated the Forms 300 and 301 data submission requirements. While the Fall 2018 Regulatory agenda had predicted that the proposed regulation would go over to OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) on time for the standard to be issued in June 2019, the final draft was submitted earlier than expected on December 7, 2018.

But for many employers this proposed rule does not go far enough. Since it does not rescind the agency’s plan to publish employer information, they argue it puts employers at risk for improper disclosure and release of sensitive employer information. Nor does it formally repeal the provisions regarding post-incident drug testing or incentive programs, although an October 2018 memorandum was issued to clarify these provisions. And the anti-retaliation provisions are unchanged.

Form 300A electronic submission deadline: March 2, 2019

Establishments with 250 or more employees that are currently required to keep injury and illness records under the Recordkeeping Standard, as well as establishments with 20-249 employees that are also covered by the Recordkeeping Standard and operating in certain industries with historically high rates of occupational injuries and illnesses are now required to submit their calendar year Form 300A electronically by March 2, 2019.

How the data is being used: Site-Specific Targeting Initiative

On Oct. 16, 2018, OSHA launched a “site-specific targeting” plan, SST-16, that uses employer-submitted data from 2016 to select non-construction worksites for inspections. The SST-16 directs that “OSHA will create inspection lists of establishments with elevated Days Away, Restricted or Transferred (DART) rate, together with a random sample of establishments that did not provide the required 2016 Form 300A data to OSHA.” The employers are chosen using software that randomly selects the establishments.

Although establishments with elevated DART rates and those that did not submit the required data are the primary targets, establishments with lower DART rates can also be inspected. A random sample of low injury rate establishments on the inspection list will be selected to verify data accuracy.

While OSHA inspections are generally unwelcome, SST inspections are particularly onerous. They are unannounced, comprehensive, and can take significant time and resources. They are not limited to recordkeeping practices, potentially hazardous areas, or operations with an elevated DART rate, and often result in substantial citations. Employers that failed to comply with the electronic reporting requirements for 2016 or reported a high elevated DART rate (compared to industry average rates) would be wise to begin preparing for an inspection.

Despite the expectation that the Trump Administration would significantly lessen the burden of data submission requirements on employers, much of it appears here to stay, at least for a while. There have been fewer shifts in OSHA enforcement and rulemaking than expected by experts, who point to the leadership void at the agency. While Scott Mugno’s nomination was sent to the Senate on Nov. 1, 2017, it has been stalled and OSHA still does not have a Senate-approved Assistant Secretary – the longest ever vacancy.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

OSHA watch

Final rule on crane operator certifications issued

As anticipated, the final rule clarifying certification requirements for crane operators, requires certification by type of crane or type of crane and lifting capacity. “Certification/licensing” must be accomplished via an accredited testing service, an independently audited employer program, military training, or compliance with qualifying state or local licensing requirements. Employers also are required to “train operators as needed to perform assigned crane activities” and provide training when it is necessary to operate new equipment.

Most requirements in the final rule became effective on Dec. 9, 2018. The evaluation and documentation requirements will become effective on Feb. 7, 2019. Employers who have evaluated operators prior to Dec. 9, 2018 will not have to conduct those evaluations again, but have to document when those evaluations were completed.

New publication on lockout/tagout and temporary workers

A new bulletin on lockout/tagout explains the joint responsibility of host employers and staffing agencies to ensure that temporary employees are properly protected against the sudden release of stored energy. Prior to beginning work, both employers should review the task assignments and job hazards to identify, eliminate, and control the release of hazardous energy before workers perform service or maintenance on machinery.

Regional Emphasis Program (REP) in Pacific Northwest for fall protection in construction

Enforcement of the REP, which includes Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington, will begin after a period of outreach and education. Enforcement activities will include “onsite inspections and evaluations of construction operations, working conditions, recordkeeping, and safety and health programs to ensure compliance.”

Cal/OSHA emergency regulations approved for electronic submission form 300A by December 31, 2018

The Office of Administrative Law approved the emergency regulations that businesses required to submit the Cal/OSHA Form 300A online include all establishments with 250 or more employees, unless specifically exempted by section 14300.2 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, and establishments with 20 to 249 employees in the specific industries listed on page 8 of the emergency regulation’s proposed text (including common industries such as manufacturing, grocery stores, department stores, and warehousing and storage).

Enforcement notes

California

  • Oakland-based general contractor, Bay Construction, Inc., was cited for dismantling a trench box while an employee was still working inside and later killed by a loosened support rail. The company was issued nine citations with $141,075 in proposed penalties, including five classified as general, two serious, one serious accident-related and one willful-serious accident-related.
  • Amazon Landscaping Co. faces six citations and $54,750 in penalties after a worker was fatally injured when a rope he had around his body became entangled in the stump grinder and he was pulled into the cutting wheel.
  • After a series of appeals relating to citations issued to Pinnacle Telecommunications Inc. after an employee suffered serious head injuries from a 7-foot fall from a telecommunications structure, the Alameda County Superior Court affirmed that fall-protection safety orders apply to elevated indoor telecommunications structures and the penalty of $25,560.

Florida

  • PGT Industries Inc., operating as CGI Windows and Doors Inc. in Hialeah, was cited for machine guarding hazards after an employee suffered a partial finger amputation while working on an unguarded punch press. The window and door manufacturer faces $398,545 in penalties, including the maximum amount allowed by law for the violations that can cause life-altering injury.
  • Inspected under the REP on falls, Crown Roofing, LLC, was cited for exposing employees to fall hazards, including installing roofing materials without the use of a fall protection system. The roofing contractor was issued the maximum allowable penalty of $129,336.
  • Inspected under the REP on falls, Panama City Framing LLC was cited for exposing employees to fall hazards at a worksite in Panama City. The company faces $113,816 in proposed penalties.
  • Tom Krips Construction Inc. and Etherna Services Inc. were cited after a lattice boom section of a crane fell onto an employee during disassembly, crushing his foot and ankle at a Fort Lauderdale worksite. Tom Krips Construction Inc. faces $29,877 in penalties, and Etherna Services Inc. penalties total $5,174.

Georgia

  • Dollar Tree Distribution Center, Inc., and U.S. Xpress, Inc., were cited for exposing workers to hazards after an employee was fatally struck by a forklift and face penalties of $130,112 and $12,934 respectively. Both companies were cited for failing to ensure that employees wore high-visibility vests while working at night inside the center and Dollar Tree Distribution Center Inc. was also cited for using a vehicle with a non-functioning headlight, failing to guard a nip point on a conveyor discharge belt, and storing unstable materials on racks.

Massachusetts

  • Northeast Framing Inc., based in Lunenberg, was cited for exposing workers to falls and other hazards following an employee’s fatal fall at an East Boston worksite. The company faces $311,330 in penalties, the maximum allowed by law.

Nebraska

  • Rivera Agri Inc., a provider of temporary agricultural labor, was cited for failing to protect employees working in excessive heat after a farmworker succumbed to apparent heat-related symptoms while working in a cornfield near Grand Island. The company was cited for a serious violation of the General Duty Clause, and faces proposed penalties totaling $11,641.

For more information.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com