Update: July 1 deadline for OSHA 300-A electronic data submission

Employers can now begin to electronically report their Calendar Year (CY) 2017 Form 300A data to OSHA. All covered establishments must submit the information by July 1, 2018. Remember, not all establishments are covered by this requirement. To review which establishments need to provide their 2017 data, click here.

Covered establishments with 250 or more employees are only required to provide their 2017 Form 300A summary data. OSHA is not accepting Form 300 and 301 information at this time. Employers can view their submitted CY 2016 Form 300A summary information, but they cannot edit or submit additional 2016 data on this website. According to the OSHA website, the agency is currently drafting a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to reconsider, revise, or remove provisions of the “Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses” final rule.

State Plans that have not adopted the rule

While most states have adopted the federal requirements, there are six states that have not or are delaying enforcement: California, Maryland, South Carolina, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. On April 30, 2018 OSHA issued a press release instructing employers to submit 300A data even if they are in a state that has not adopted the rule. There has been a mixed reaction from the states, but it is generally agreed that Fed OSHA does not have any authority over State Plan employers (only State Plans) and that the remedy for delinquent State Plans is rescinding the approved state plan status, which few expect to happen.

Here is a summary of the responses:

  • California: advised employers to submit 300A data on fed OSHA’s ITA portal
  • Maryland: not requiring employers to submit
  • Minnesota: adopted regulations became effective on May 21, 2018
  • South Carolina: Legislature formally adopted Federal regulation effective May 25, 2018, but are giving employers 6 months to comply (effective date will be November 25, 2018)
  • Utah: instructed employers they may submit 300A data but are not required
  • Wyoming: issued statement confirming rule does not apply to WY employers
  • Washington: issued statement that employers are “still not required to electronically submit data”

Employers in these states may want to adopt a wait and see approach to see what course of action the state in which they operate adopts or how Fed OSHA proceeds on enforcement.

Anti-retaliation provisions

The anti-retaliation provisions of the rule, which became effective December 1, 2016, remain in effect. Essentially, this prohibits employers from discouraging workers from reporting an injury or illness. Employers must inform employees of their right to report work-related injuries and illnesses free from retaliation, which can be satisfied by posting the OSHA workplace poster. An employer’s procedure for reporting work-related injuries and illnesses must be reasonable and not deter or discourage employees from reporting, and the regulation specifically addresses internal injury reporting policies, post-injury drug testing, and safety incentive and compensation programs.

What employers should do

  • Assess whether your establishment meets the reporting criteria
  • Provide refresher training on the requirements
  • Before submitting, audit injury and illness recordkeeping forms
  • Be sure the latest version of the OSHA Rights poster is posted
  • Evaluate injury reporting policies, drug testing policies, and safety incentive and management compensation plans to ensure they do not discourage reporting of injuries
  • If in a state where the rule has not been adopted, stay abreast of both state and federal actions

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

OSHA watch

Silica safety enforcement ramped up at construction sites

Since compliance requirements took effect Sept. 23, 2017, there have been 116 alleged silica violations at companies as of April 17, a Bloomberg Environment analysis of agency records show. The number of violations in the initial six months is likely to increase since it can take up to six months after an inspection to issue citations. A common misunderstanding of Table 1 among small contractors is that using respirators is the first option. Respirators are acceptable protection, but contractors are expected to first change construction methods or tools to reduce the amount of silica that becomes airborne.

Of the 116 silica violations cited, the most frequently mentioned provision was employers failing to measure silica exposure levels (29 C.F.R. 1926.1153(d)(2)(i)). Almost as frequently cited is incorrectly following Table 1’s procedures (29 C.F.R. 1926.1153 (c)(1)), intended to reduce silica exposure. Eighty percent of the cases were classified as serious violations.

Direct final rule revising Beryllium Standard for general industry issued

While enforcement of certain provisions of the beryllium rule began on May 11, the compliance date for the beryllium standard for general industry was extended and certain ancillary provisions in the final rule changed as a result of a settlement agreement with four petitioners.

The direct final rule clarifies certain definitions and provisions for disposal/recycling, along with those that apply in cases of potential skin exposure to materials containing at least 0.1 percent beryllium by weight. The direct final rule will go into effect July 4, “unless the agency receives significant adverse comments by June 4,” according to a press release.

New flier offers steps to keep tractor trailer drivers safe at destination

Developed in concert with the trucking industry, a new flier addresses the most common hazards for drivers after they reach their destination: parking, backing up, and coupling (attaching) and uncoupling (detaching) vehicles.

List of authorized outreach trainers now available online

The website now has a searchable list of authorized Outreach trainers to assist the public in finding authorized instructors for the 10- and 30-hour Outreach classes.

Mid-Atlantic regional construction safety campaign shifts focus to falls

The four-month campaign in the Mid-Atlantic states to address the four leading causes of fatal injuries in construction will focus on falls in May. Caught-in/-between hazards is the focus in June.

Enforcement notes

California

  • Mr. Good Vape LLC of Chino, was ordered to reinstate a former manager and pay $110,000 in compensation after he was fired for claiming the company’s production of flavored liquids for e-cigarette vapor inhalers violated federal environmental law.
  • California Premier Roofscapes Inc. was cited for repeat violations of fall protection safety orders and faces proposed $134,454 in penalties.

Florida

  • An administrative law judge of the OSHRC downgraded a citation issued against Ocala-based Jody Wilson Construction Inc. from willful to serious and reduced the penalty from $49,000 to $2,800, noting the contractor had attempted to comply with the standard, albeit incorrectly.

Georgia

  • In a settlement in a whistleblower case, Jasper Contractors, headquartered in Kennesaw, but performing roofing work in Florida, agreed to pay an employee $48,000 in back wages and compensatory damages.

Massachusetts

  • In a settlement with Lynnway Auto Auction Inc., the Billerica facility agreed to correct hazards, implement significant safety measures, and pay $200,000 in penalties, following a May 2017 incident in which a sport utility vehicle fatally struck five people during an auto auction.

Michigan

  • Grand Rapids-based excavation contractor Kamphuis Pipeline Co. faces proposed penalties of $454,750 for exposing employees to trench cave-ins and other serious hazards while installing water metering pits and lines at a North Dakota municipal project.
  • RSB Construction Services LLC, in Goodrich, faces $147,000 in penalties for failing to train workers on fall hazards, and provide required guardrail, safety net, or personal fall arrest systems for workers on a pitched metal roof.

Mississippi

  • An administrative law judge of the OSHRC affirmed two items of a serious citation issued to Southern Hens after an employee’s partial thumb amputation, but vacated a third item, noting the standard is concerned with the ‘how’ of the lockout procedures, not the ‘when.’ The penalty was reduced from $19,134 to $12,000.

Nebraska

  • Contractor Premier Underground LLC was cited for failing to protect its workers from excavation collapse hazards. The company faces proposed penalties of $46,930.
  • Omaha-based plumbing contractor Gavrooden Inc., doing business as Mr. Rooter Plumbing, was cited for the second time in less than six months for failing to protect its workers from excavation collapse hazards. Proposed penalties are $38,061.

Pennsylvania

  • The OSHRC has reversed an administrative law judge’s decision to vacate a one-item serious citation with a proposed penalty of $7,000, issued against Calpine Corp. because access to the exposure was reasonably predictable.

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

The many lives of an OSHA violation

Last month in the article, Court decision: OSHA not legally bound by five-year look back for repeat violations, we discussed the number of ways a repeat violation can be harmful to employers. When there is a good faith defense, it may be well worth contesting citations, even if they are minor. Here are four more reasons to do so:

In early April, Susquehanna Supply Company, Inc., of Williamsport, Pennsylvania pleaded guilty and paid a $250,000 fine for willfully committing an OSHA violation that resulted in an employee’s death. The employee died when he was working in a trench and one of the vertical dirt walls collapsed, burying him up to his chest and crushing him against the bridge’s concrete abutment. This is a reminder that OSHA fines can have multiple lives.

The highest criminal category that can be pursued against employers for OSHA violations is a misdemeanor. However, a 2015 memorandum of understanding between the Department of Justice and OSHA put some bite into the bark of criminal charges by making prosecution available through other agencies, particularly for violations involving an employee fatality and a willful conduct.

In addition to the possibility of criminal prosecution, there is also the possibility that third parties will use an OSHA citation as evidence of negligence in companion liability cases, a worker will use the intentional tort argument in a personal injury case, or an estate may sue for wrongful death. Each state has developed its own standards through legislation and legal precedent about the use of evidence of OSHA violations and cases have met with mixed success.

In some industries, an employer’s safety record is an important factor in the competitive process for new business. It’s easy to do an establishment search on OSHA’s website or obtain the information from a safety network. Bid documents will often include a question about willful, repeat or serious OSHA citations. The goal should be to reach a resolution with OSHA that will not affect the competitive position.

Also, some states, give workers an increase in benefits if the injury is tied to an OSHA violation. Some examples are:

  • California -An employee is injured by serious and willful misconduct of the employer -award increased by 50%
  • Illinois – An employer willfully violates the state Health and Safety Act (ILCS 225) -award increased by 25%
  • Massachusetts – Employer’s serious and willful misconduct causes injury -award is doubled
  • Missouri – Failure of employer to comply with state statute or order by the Missouri Division of Workers’ Compensation -award increased by 15%
  • North Carolina – Willful failure of employer to comply with statutory requirements or order by the North Carolina Industrial Commission – award increased by 10%
  • Wisconsin – Injury caused by failure of employer to comply with any statute, rule or order of the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development -award increased by 15%

OSHA citations can be deceptive; there’s a lot more involved than paying the fine and abating the citation. They can lead to additional lawsuits, penalties by other regulatory agencies, failed bids, and increased workers’ comp costs.

Employers must send a notice of intention to contest within 15 working days of receipt of the OSHA notice of proposed penalty. Every notice of intention to contest shall specify whether it is directed to the citation or to the proposed penalty, or both. The decision to contest is a business decision that needs to be carefully weighed.

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

OSHA watch

Enforcement of the Beryllium Standard begins May 11

Enforcement of the final rule on occupational exposure to beryllium in general, construction, and shipyard industries begins on May 11, 2018.

Local governments and emergency services will be notified when a company receives a serious citation

Spurred by a fatal chemical explosion and fire at a New York cosmetic factory, OSHA, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Homeland Security are working on the new protocols for communicating and training with local governments and first responders.

Regional campaign on ‘focus four’ construction hazards in Region Three

Running from March to June, a campaign to raise awareness of the four leading safety hazards in the construction industry (electrocution, falls, struck-by, and caught-in or caught-between) will take place in Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia and Washington. Representatives will conduct toolbox talks on each hazard.

A $1 million settlement for safety violations

Hebron, Ohio-based Sunfield Inc. has agreed to pay $1 million in fines and hire a safety and health coordinator to resolve violations found at the company’s Hebron plant. The inspection, which took place after two employees suffered severe injuries when they came in contact with moving machine parts, revealed the company lacked adequate power press guarding and hazardous energy control procedures that could have prevented the incidents.

Standard interpretation related to recording and reporting injuries of temporary workers versus HIPAA requirements

A recent standard interpretation addresses injury and illness recordkeeping requirements pertaining to an employer that supervises temporary workers on a day-to-day basis but has limited access to their medical records when an injury or illness occurs.

New fact sheet for owners and managers on conducting a walk around

The fact sheet urges business owners and managers to personally conduct periodic walk around inspections. It reviews the best way to prepare for an inspection, what to do while onsite, and how to develop an abatement plan.

New bulletins provide information on horizontal drilling hazards and chemically induced hearing loss

“Preventing Hearing Loss Caused by Chemical (Ototoxicity) and Noise Exposure” was published in conjunction with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and provides recommendations to employers and safety professionals about identifying ototoxicants in the workplace and establishing hearing conservation programs where these chemicals are used.

“Avoiding Underground Utilities during Horizontal Directional Drilling Operations” highlights the hazards associated with striking different underground utilities. Horizontal directional drilling has reduced visibility compared to vertical drilling. The bulletin was based on an incident that led to an explosion at a nearby restaurant, resulting in a worker fatality.

Enforcement notes

California

  • Alhambra Foundry Co. Ltd. faces $283,390 in proposed fines for workplace safety and health violations following a confined space accident that resulted in the amputation of an employee’s legs.
  • Petro Chemical Materials Innovation in South Gate faces $72,345 in penalties for failing to de-energize and guard a moving conveyer belt while a worker was cleaning it, resulting in the amputation of the worker’s right arm.

Florida

  • Jacksonville-based Jax Utilities Management Inc., a utilities contractor, was cited for $271,606 in proposed penalties and deemed a severe violator for exposing employees to trenching hazards. The investigation was launched after an employee was injured and hospitalized when an unprotected trench collapsed.
  • Naples-based L.I. Aluminum Design Inc., a pool and patio installer, received four serious citations, and faces proposed penalties of $40,096 after a worker fatally fell.
  • Middleburg-based Southeastern Subcontractors Inc. is facing $22,173 in proposed penalties following a heat-related fatality.
  • A Texas communications contractor, Tower King II Inc., faces penalties of $12,934 after three workers were killed while trying to install a new antenna on a communications tower in Miami Gardens. The capacity of the rigging attachments was not adequate to support the loads and the workers fell over 1,000 feet.

Georgia

  • Jose A. Serrato, a Marietta-based independent roofing contractor, was cited for exposing employees to fall hazards at a worksite in Birmingham and cited with $133,604 in proposed penalties. Mr. Serrato has been cited seven times in the past five years.

Massachusetts

  • Luis Guallpa, doing business as Milford-based Guallpa Contracting Corp., faces penalties of $299,324 for exposing workers to fall and other hazards at a Nashua, New Hampshire work site. The company had previously been cited in 2014 and 2015.
  • Jet Logistics Inc. (JLI) and New England Life Flight Inc., doing business as Boston MedFlight (BMF), were ordered to reinstate a pilot who lost his job after complaining about safety concerns and possible violations of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations. JLI and BMF must pay the pilot $133,616.09 in back wages and interest; $100,000 in compensatory damages; reasonable attorney fees; and refrain from retaliating against the employee. The employers must also post a notice informing all employees of their whistleblower protections under AIR21.

Nebraska

  • An egg processing facility, Michael Foods Inc.’s of Wakefield, faces proposed penalties of $188,464 after an employee was fatally struck by a dock leveler. The proposed penalties relate to lockout/tagout, electrical and arc flash hazards violations.

New York

  • Summit Milk Products LLC faces $143,000 in proposed penalties for uncorrected and new hazards. A follow-up inspection was done after the company failed to report how it corrected violations found in an earlier inspection. Again, it was found that employees were not protected from heated milk in excess of 150 degrees and the injuries were not recorded in the 300 log.

Pennsylvania

  • Allentown-based Lamm’s Machine Inc. faces $14,782 in proposed penalties for exposing employees to hazardous chemical vapors from a degreasing operation in an enclosed space.

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

Court decision: OSHA not legally bound by five-year look back for repeat violations

A recent court decision indefinitely extending the time limitation for OSHA to assess repeat violations has serious implications for employers. The case, Triumph Construction Corp. v. Sec. of Labor, involved a repeat excavation-related citation issued to Triumph Construction Corp. in 2014. A prior citation of the same evacuation standard was issued to Triumph in 2009.

Triumph argued that the repeat citation was not appropriate because the amount of time that had passed from the original 2009 citation to the new 2014 alleged violation was outside OSHA’s stated repeat look-back policy in its Field Operations Manual (FOM), which was three years at the time. Under the Obama administration in 2016, the FOM was updated to expand the look back period to five years.

However, an OSHRC Administrative Law Judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the repeat citation. The court pointed out that neither the Occupational Safety and Health Act nor the regulations OSHA had issued under the Act spelled out any time period that limited the issuance of repeat citations. The time limitation set forth in the enforcement manual “is only a guide” and “is not binding on OSHA or the commission.”

In effect, the ruling means OSHA has the discretion, to go as far back as it wishes to identify any prior substantially similar violations to serve as the basis for a “repeat” violation.

Why it’s important

Repeat violations can harm employers in a number of ways. First, the maximum penalties are ten times higher than serious and other-than-serious violations – $129,336 compared to $12,934. Plus, a violation at one location of a multi-establishment company can be used as the basis for a repeat violation at any other location in a fed OSHA state within that organization, a policy established under the Obama administration that still stands.

Yet, even more important is the way that repeat violations are used. OSHA continues to issue the shaming press releases for significant offenses and that includes repeat violations. Also, it increases the possibility of an establishment being placed into the Severe Violator Enforcement Program (SVEP), where they are publicly branded as severe violators, subject to more inspections, and have no way to get out. Further, it can affect insurance premiums and the ability to compete for contracts.

What employers should do

The best practice, of course, is to avoid OSHA inspections and citations. However, if an inspection occurs and minor penalties are issued, don’t assume that the best course of action is to pay the penalty. The court decision has made it clear that the FOM is not binding on OSHA or the Commission and does not create any substantive rights for employers. If a serious citation is issued and confirmed, the risk of a much more costly and damaging repeat violation exists indefinitely. When there is a good faith defense, it may be well worth contesting the violation.

If a citation is confirmed, employers should be vigilant to ensure that citations regarding the same hazards don’t reoccur.

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

OSHA Inspectors ordered to crack down on employers who failed to electronically file

With much confusion surrounding the rule, a little more than a third of workplaces that were required to electronically file their 2016 Form 300A did not file the reports. The agency stopped accepting the 2016 data as of Jan. 1, 2018. In February, compliance officers were instructed to initiate inquiries into whether workplaces had electronically filed their 300A forms for 2016. Failure to file can lead to an other-than-serious citation, with a maximum penalty of $12,934. The agency has six-months from Dec. 15, 2017 to June 15, 2018, to issue citations to those employers who failed to electronically file the required information.

The agency is not requiring electronic OSHA 300 logs or 301 forms now, in anticipation of a new rule. Two types of establishments are expected to continue submitting 300A summary forms electronically: those with 250 or more employees, and those with between 20 and 249 employees in high-hazard industries. The deadline is July 1, 2018.

If you would like FREE access to a secure, online OSHA 300 Log record keeping software, maintain records by location, and allow you to electronically upload the required records, please go to our website by clicking here.

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

Getting LOTO wrong is costly: Here’s how to get it right

Many companies believe they are in compliance with OSHA’s Lockout/Tagout (LOTO) standard; yet, it is one of the most difficult to comply with and is the number five violation in general industry and construction. To give you an idea of the standard’s complexity, a compliance directive to explain the enforcement policy and inspection procedures for compliance officers is 136 pages long, whereas the standard is only a few pages.

An increased focus on violations of Lockout/Tagout (1910.147) and Machine Guarding (1910.212, .213, .217, and .219) began in 2006 with the Amputations National Emphasis Program (NEP). This became even more pronounced when OSHA changed the requirements for reporting work-related fatalities and severe injuries in 2015. Employers must report any in-patient hospitalization, amputation or loss of an eye within 24 hours of learning of the incident.

When an amputation is reported, it’s almost certain that an inspection will take place. In 2017, more than 10% (3,596) of all OSHA inspections were under the Amputations NEP, 75% of which were in manufacturing, and 1,247 were triggered by employer reports.

What’s important to note is that this resulted in 7,850 citations, including 302 willful and repeat violations, which carry maximum fines of $126,749. The proposed total cost of the citations is over $55 million. In addition to the potential for costly fines is the even more ominous possibility of being placed in OSHA’s Severe Violators Enforcement Program (SVEP).

One of the criteria OSHA uses to place an employer in the SVEP is 2+ Willful, Repeat, or Failure to Abate violations related to high emphasis hazards. There are only nine high emphasis hazards and amputations is one of them. According to a Conn Maciel Carey PLLC webinar, 68% of the SVEP cases fall under this qualifying criterion.

When OSHA puts an employer in the SVEP, it issues a press release before employers can contest the citation(s). This can have a negative impact on recruiting employees, obtaining bids and permits, and be devastating to a company’s reputation. Moreover, there are mandatory follow-up inspections, inspections at related facilities, and corporate-wide abatements. It’s not a place employers want to be – once designated as a severe violator, there is no clear-cut method for getting out of the program. And it’s not only large employers that are affected. Small employers make up the majority, with about 75% having 100 or fewer employees and roughly 55% having 25 or fewer employees.

Lastly, LOTO is among the most frequent OSH Act criminal violations.

What employers get wrong

When OSHA conducts an inspection, it’s relatively easy to spot LOTO violations. In 2017, the most frequent standard section cited was related to machine-specific procedures: 1910.147(c)(4)(i) – procedures shall be developed, documented, and utilized for the control of potentially hazardous energy. Employers that are cited often misunderstand the scope of activities covered by LOTO. They often focus exclusively on electrical hazards, but the standard covers a broad range of energy sources, such as mechanical, hydraulic, pneumatic, chemical, thermal, or other types of energy.

The program must include written equipment-specific LOTO procedures for all equipment, including vehicles such as forklifts and trucks, with hazardous energy sources and must include all energy sources. While it is possible to group equipment and machinery that have the same hazardous energy sources and the same or similar methods of controlling the energy, some employers do not understand the criteria for grouping that is set forth in section IX of OSHA’s compliance directive, or may neglect to list all covered machinery in the scope of the energy control procedure.

In some cases, employers neglect to document key elements of the procedure. There are also specific rules that apply when a contractor services the machinery and noncompliance leads to citations.

Employers and employees may mistakenly believe a procedure falls under the minor servicing exception. The standard contains specific criteria that must be met for the minor servicing exception to apply and all elements must be satisfied for an exception. Other common mistakes include not updating the procedures when changes occur, applying the construction rather than general industry standard, and overlooking facility support and operational equipment, such as HVAC machinery, boilers, and compressors.

The second most frequently cited standard is 1910.147(c)(6)(i) – the employer shall conduct a periodic inspection of the energy control procedure at least annually to ensure that the procedure and the requirements of this standard are being followed. In this case, annual means every twelve months. Some companies have the wrong person conducting the inspection. It must be an “authorized employee” other than the workers utilizing the lockout/tagout procedure being inspected.

If machines are grouped together the inspection must be of a representative number of employees implementing the procedure. “Representative” is subject to interpretation, so it’s important to have a rationale for the number chosen (complexity, older procedure, etc.). Moreover, the outcome of the inspection must be reviewed with all authorized employees as part of the periodic inspection. Employers also must “certify” that the inspections include the machine or equipment on which the energy control procedure was being utilized, the date of the inspection, the employees included in the inspection, and the person performing the inspection. And inspections must take place for each one of the LOTO procedures.

The third most cited standard is 1910.147(c)(1) – The employer shall establish a program consisting of energy control procedures, employee training and periodic inspections to ensure that before any employee performs any servicing or maintenance on a machine or equipment where the unexpected energizing, startup, or release of stored energy could occur and cause injury, the machine or equipment shall be isolated from the energy source and rendered inoperative.

A written lockout procedure is not required when a machine only has one energy supply that’s easy to identify and lock out. The machine can’t have any potential for stored energy and locking that one energy isolating device completely de-energizes the machine. Even if an employer uses an outside contractor for servicing and does no in-house servicing, a LOTO program is required because there are affected employees.

Fourth is related to training. 1910.147(c)(7)(i) – The employer shall provide training to ensure that the purpose and function of the energy control program are understood by the employees and that the knowledge and skills required for the safe application, usage, and removal of the energy controls are acquired by the employees.

Employers do a good job of training authorized employees, but sometimes overlook affected employees (who operate equipment being serviced) and all other employees who may be present in areas where LOTO is utilized, including management. Also, temporary employees often are forgotten. Another common problem is failure to develop “Group Lockout” procedures when more than two employees service a machine or to require use of a Group Lockout device.

Other common citations include wrong use of locks, wrong use of tags, and working under someone else’s lock.

Complying with OSHA’s Control of Hazardous Energy policy is difficult and the consequences for violating the regulation can be severe. Proposed changes in the regulation (see next article) may lead to more citations. An effective program will reduce the potential for employee injury as well as regulatory liability.

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

OSHA watch

Civil penalties increase to adjust for inflation

OSHA is required to annually adjust civil penalties under a 2015 law that significantly increased the maximum penalties allowed for violations. In January, the maximum penalty for willful and repeat violations increased from $126,749 to $129,336. The maximum fines for other-than-serious, serious, and failure to abate violations rose from $12,615 to $12,934 per violation.

The updated regulatory agenda for fall 2017 contains fewer changes than the previous agenda

The fall agenda shows 16 regulations in three active stages: pre-rule, proposed rule and final rule – up from 14 in the previous agenda. Two rules were moved from “long-term action” status: amendments to the Cranes and Derricks in Construction Standard (now in the proposed rule stage), and Rules of Agency Practice and Procedure Concerning OSHA Access to Employee Medical Records (final rule stage).

The following regulations moved from the proposed rule stage in the previous agenda to the final rule stage in the new agenda:

  • Occupational Exposure to Beryllium
  • Crane Operator Qualification in Construction
  • Quantitative Fit Testing Protocol: Amendment to the Final Rule on Respiratory Protection
  • Technical Corrections to 16 OSHA Standards
  • Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses

The status of Standards Improvement Project IV, (Lockout/Tagout) the only regulation listed in the final rule stage in July, has not changed.
New fact sheet: Housekeeping, sanitation practices in commercial fishing

The new fact sheet, Commercial Fishing: Safe Housekeeping and Sanitation Practices, states that over half of the recordable injuries in commercial fishing are preventable through good housekeeping and sanitary practices.
New publication warns of fatal confined space hazards on farms

An addition to the Fatal Facts series emphasizes the hazards of working in confined spaces on farms. These spaces include grain and feed silos, sump pits, and manure storage tanks. The fact sheet examines an incident in which a worker asphyxiated inside a whey storage tank.
Safety reminders for snow removal activities

Wintry weather has taken hold across much of the country and employers and workers are reminded to stay mindful of safety during snow removal activities.
Enforcement notes

California

  • International Polymer Solutions Inc. in Irvine received five citations related to failing to properly control hazardous energy when a moving machine part flew off and struck a worker in the chest, causing serious injury. Proposed penalties are $55,650.
  • Hadley Date Gardens Inc. in Thermal was cited for serious workplace safety and health violations following a bee swarm that stung and killed a tree worker. The company faces $41,310 in proposed penalties for failing to evaluate the worksite for hazardous bee and insect exposure, and failing to establish appropriate safety protocols, which include providing protective equipment and training.

Florida

  • Action Concrete Construction Inc. of Panama City Beach faces proposed penalties of $59,864 for exposing its employees to fall hazards and eye injuries.
  • A fatality investigation involving the death of five workers at the Big Bend River Station electrical power plant in Apollo Beach resulted in citations to Tampa Electric Co. and Gaffin Industrial Services Inc., totaling over $160,000. The fines related to energy control procedures and PPE.

Georgia

  • Koch Foods of Gainesville L.L.C. was cited for multiple safety and health violations at its poultry processing plant, including a repeat violation for exposing employees to amputation hazards by failing to provide machine guarding. Proposed penalties are $208,977.
  • Stalwart Films LLC faces proposed penalties totaling the maximum allowable fine of $12,675, for the company’s failure to provide adequate protection from fall hazards. While filming the television show, “The Walking Dead.,” a stuntman was fatally injured after falling more than 20 feet.
  • Social Circle-based Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. faces proposed penalties of $69,058 for exposing its employees to burn, hazardous energy, amputation, and caught-in safety hazards.
  • Thomson-based auto parts manufacturer HP Pelzer Systems Automotive Inc. faces penalties for safety violations and proposed penalties totaling $129,336 after an employee suffered a finger amputation.

Illinois

  • A pallet manufacturer, New Lenox-based Supplyside USA, which operates as Prime Woodcraft Inc., faces $91,862 in penalties after an employee was injured while performing maintenance on equipment.
  • A mechanic, who alleged he was terminated after voicing concerns about unsafe working conditions at a bowling center owned by Lucky Strike Entertainment LLC, in Lombard, will receive a total of $40,000 in back wages as part of a consent judgment.

Indiana

  • An administrative law judge affirmed citations against Fort Wayne-based commercial construction company, CME Corp, after a temporary employee was injured when he fell through an unguarded hole, but lowered the assessed fine to $6,500 in total penalties because of the company’s strong safety record. The company had contested the fine, arguing the opening was a point of access to the upper level from the pit and did not need to be guarded under the applicable regulations.

Massachusetts

  • Schnabel Foundation Company faces $212,396 in proposed penalties for failing to protect employees against crushing hazards while they installed permanent foundation supports beneath the Woburn Public Library. A 2,600-pound rock dislodged from the foundation and fatally struck an employee.

New York

  • Marshall Ingredients LLC faces over $300,000 in proposed penalties after a temporary worker suffered a hand amputation. The company was cited for failing to protect employees against amputations and other hazards at its Wolcott facility. The temporary staffing agency, People Ready, was also cited with two serious violations for lack of hazardous energy control and fire extinguisher training. Proposed penalties totaled $24,020.

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

OSHA and EEOC regulatory updates and enforcement stats on first year of Trump administration

OSHA

Rule and policy status

  • Maximum penalties for violations increased to adjust for inflation as of Jan. 2, 2018.OSHA is required to annually adjust civil penalties under a 2015 law that significantly increased the maximum penalties allowed for violations. In January, the maximum penalty for willful and repeat violations increased from $126,749 to $129,336. The maximum fines for other-than-serious, serious, and failure to abate violations rose from $12,615 to $12,934 per violation.
  • General industry compliance date for Beryllium Standard – March 12, 2018
  • General industry compliance date for Silica rule – June 23, 2018
  • Certification of crane operators – Nov. 10, 2018
  • Elements of Walking-Working Surfaces & Fall Protection – Nov. 19, 2018
  • Rewrite of Lockout/Tagout (LOTO) remains active in the final rule stage under the Standards Improvement Project to make non-controversial changes to confusing or outdated standards. The proposal is to remove “unexpected energization” language from the standard.
  • Injury Data Electronic Submission. OSHA is working on a draft of a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) to “reconsider, revise, or remove provisions of the “Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses” final rule. While July 1, 2018 remains the deadline for the next data submission, OSHA recently changed its website to read: “Covered establishments with 250 or more employees are only required to provide their 2017 Form 300A summary data. OSHA is not accepting Form 300 and 301 information at this time.” Pundits are speculating that changes will include increasing the thresholds for high hazard industries and small employers, limiting submission to Form 300A, and eliminating the Anti-Retaliation provisions.
  • There has been no pullback in the criminal prosecution of employers for willful violations that result in a fatality. A.G. Sessions has not archived the Yates memo, which was issued under the Obama administration and expanded individual accountability for corporate wrongdoing and encouraged use of the tougher environmental statutes. Many expect continued criminal prosecutions.
  • There has been a shift away from the enforcement-heavy philosophy of the Obama administration and an increase in compliance assistance programs and alliances. NBC News recently reported that the number of OSHA inspectors fell 4 percent over the first nine months of 2017; 40 inspectors had left the agency and not been replaced. Impact varied by region, with the Southeast region losing 10 inspectors and experiencing a 26% decline in inspections in the first eight months of the Trump administration. However, inspections in 2017 did increase overall.
  • To date, there has been no change to the expanded scope of the Obama administration’s repeat violation policies. However, this should be watched as many expect a return to the treatment of individual, independent workplaces rather than an umbrella corporate approach and a lookback period of three, rather than five years.
  • There is an effort underway to revitalize the Voluntary Protection Programs (VPP).
  • There was a significant shift away from public shaming. Only 45 press releases related to fines were published in 2017, compared to an average of 463/year for the previous five years. (Conn Maciel Carey L.L.P.)
  • Even though Fed OSHA is reducing the emphasis on enforcement, some state OSH programs, such as California, are increasing enforcement.

Enforcement stats

A recent webinar by the law firm, Washington-based Conn Maciel Carey L.L.P. took a look at OSHA enforcement action in 2017 and the results may surprise you:

  • While the number of OSHA inspections declined each year from 2012 to 2016, they increased 1.4% from 31,948 in 2016 to 32,396 in 2017
  • The number of violations issued has declined since 2010. Between 2016 and 2017, the number of violations declined from 59,856 to 52,519 or 12.2%
  • The percentage of inspections that resulted in no citations issued has remained relatively stable – between 23% and 27%
  • The average penalty per serious violation was $3,645 in 2017, up from $3,415 in 2016
  • The cases with proposed penalties of $100,000 of more jumped dramatically from 154 in 2016 to 218 in 2017, but million-dollar cases fell from an average of 8.4 per year to 6 in 2017
  • The number of repeat violations dropped from 3,146 in 2016 to 2,771 in 2017

 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Rule and policy status

  • The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has vacated the EEOC’s wellness rule effective Jan. 1, 2019, instructing the agency that its goal of revising the rule by 2021 is too slow
  • The Obama rule for large companies to report wages by race and gender on the EEO-1 form was stayed by the Office of Management and Budget in August 2017, except for the new March 31 filing deadline. Covered employers must file their 2017 Form EEO-1 no later than March 31, 2018 and the snapshot period used to compile data should be one pay period during the period from October 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017
  • A pullback on efforts to expand Title VII to cover sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination is expected

Enforcement stats

  • Retaliation charges accounted for the largest number of charges (41,097) filed in fiscal year 2017 for the seventh consecutive year and represented 48.8% of all charges
  • While the overall number of charges filed declined by 7.9%, there was only a slight decline in retaliation charges
  • Following retaliation, race was the second most frequent charge filed with the agency in fiscal year 2017 (28,528) – 33.9% of the total. This was followed by disability, 26,838, or 31.9% of the total; sex, 25,605, or 30.4% and age, 18,376, or 21.8%.
  • The agency also received 6,696 sexual harassment charges and obtained $46.3 million in monetary benefits for victims of sexual harassment

According to the 14th annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report issued by Chicago-based law firm Seyfarth Shaw L.L.P, key 2017 trends were:

  • The monetary value of top workplace class action settlements rose dramatically, with the top 10 settlements in various employment-related class action categories totaling $2.27 billion, an increase of more than $970 million from 2016’s $1.75 billion
  • Evolving case law precedents and new defense approaches resulted in better outcomes for employers in opposing class certification requests
  • There was no “head-snapping pivot” in filings and settlement of government enforcement litigation despite the change in administration. In fact, government enforcement litigation increased in 2017
  • Several key U.S. Supreme Court rulings over the past year were arguably more pro-business than past year’s decisions

Despite the change in the administration and the Trump deregulatory agenda, the enforcement stats suggest workplace issues are still a high priority for OSHA and the EEOC. Some speculate this will change when new leadership is fully in place. Others suggest that significant enforcement will continue since the language and requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act make deregulation difficult without legal challenges and even if the risk of being subjected to systemic EEOC litigation lessens, employers who do not have robust and effective anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies and practices will remain at significant risk of litigation from private attorneys.

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

OSHA watch

Industry challenge to silica rule rejected by court

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has rejected all industry challenges to the silica rule and ordered the agency to explain why it omitted medical removal provisions. Industry groups had challenged the rule on several points, including whether there was evidence it would reduce a significant risk of material health impairment, whether it was technically and economically feasible, and if it violated the Administrative Procedure Act. It also challenged whether substantial evidence supports two ancillary provisions of the rule: allowing workers who undergo medical examinations to keep the results confidential from their employers; and prohibiting employers from using dry cleaning methods unless doing so is infeasible.

Labor unions challenged two parts of the silica rule: the requirement that medical surveillance for construction workers be provided only if the employee must wear a respirator for 30 days for one employer in a one-year period; and the absence of medical removal protections. The court rejected the first, but asked for an explanation of the second.


New and revised fact sheets on silica now available

More than a dozen fact sheets that provide guidance on the respirable crystalline silica standard for construction have been released.


Redesigned webpages make it easier to find training resources

Employers and employees can get information on job safety classes, trainers, tools, and 10-hour and 30-hour cards on the redesigned training webpage.

Tips to protect workers from winter hazards

The Winter Weather webpage provides information on protecting employees from hazards while working outside during severe cold and snow storms, including information on staying safe while clearing heavy snow from walkways and rooftops.


Alliance participants issue alert on use of multi-gas monitors in the oil and gas industry

A new hazard alert explains how multi-gas monitors can protect workers from atmospheric hazards in oil and gas operations.

Enforcement notes

California

  • Following the collapse of a temporary mold and vertical shoring at an Oakland construction site, which hospitalized 13 workers, Cal/OSHA issued serious and serious accident-related citations to subcontractors Largo Concrete Inc. and N.M.N. Construction Inc. for $73,365 and $70,320, respectively. General citations were issued to general contractor Johnstone Moyer Inc. for $3,630.

Florida

  • Inspected under the NEP on Trenching and Excavation, Tallahassee-based, R.A.W. Construction LLC faces proposed penalties of $148,845 for exposing its employees to trench collapse hazards.

Georgia

  • Inspected under the NEP on Trenching, Dustcom Limited Inc., a Garden City construction company, was cited for failing to protect its employees from trench collapse hazards and faces proposed penalties of $130,552.

Illinois

  • Three companies working on the renovation of Chicago’s Old Post Office were cited for failing to comply with respiratory protection, provide training, and properly handle PPE. American Demolition was also cited for failing to establish a written lead compliance program. Proposed penalties for American Demolition Corporation, Valor Technologies Inc., and Tecnica Environmental Services Inc. are $105,765, $64,538, and $50,194, respectively.

Indiana

  • A Jeffersonville home and farm supply center, Rural King Supply, is facing proposed fines of $14,000 after state safety inspectors allegedly found elevated carbon monoxide levels at the facility due to emissions from improperly maintained forklifts.

Kansas

  • A comprehensive settlement has been reached with Bartlett Grain Company LP requiring the company to implement safeguards, training, and audit procedures at its 20 grain handling facilities in six states.The agreement resolves contested citations issued in April 2012 after six individuals were killed and two injured as a result of an explosion at the Atchison grain elevator. Bartlett Grain has also agreed to pay $182,000 in penalties.

Michigan

  • MIOSHA issued a second Cease Operations Order, the strongest enforcement action the agency can levy, against Sunset Tree Service & Landscaping, LLC of Bay City for continuing to operate without abating hazards on the jobsite.

Missouri

  • An administrative law judge of the OSHRC affirmed citations issued against Wentzville-based Auchly Roofing Inc. for failing to use fall protection, but reduced the penalties from $7,482 to $2,494 based on the small size of the employer, good faith safety efforts, and a clean record for 20 years. The company contested the citations, arguing that the violations were de minimis in nature and that compliance with the fall protection standards cited presented a greater hazard to the employees.

New York

  • A jury and judge ordered Albany-based asbestos abatement and demolition company, Champagne Demolition, LLC and its owner, Joseph A. Champagne, to pay $173,793.84 to a former employee who was fired in June 2010 after reporting improper asbestos removal practices at a school worksite in Gloversville.

Pennsylvania

  • US Environmental Inc. was cited for 12 safety violations, including willfully exposing workers to confined space and fall hazards at its Downingtown location. Proposed penalties are $333,756.
  • The owner of Pittsburgh-based, A Rooter Man, pleaded guilty in federal court to a charge of willfully violating an OSHA regulation, resulting in the death of a worker. Sentencing, which could include prison, is scheduled for February 2018.

 

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