advanced search

Ready, Set Sorry, Time's Up!

Sep 1, 2008 12:00 PM, By Michael Eby, Editor-in-Chief

Have you ever received a flyer or coupon in the mail that got you really excited, but then burst your bubble when you realized the sales date ended yesterday? Then you wonder, did the company send it out too late on purpose, or did the post office drag its feet on the delivery end? Either way, you feel like you've missed a great opportunity.

I got this same feeling about a week ago when I ran across a U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Trade News Release that announced OSHA was accepting public comments on a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on personal protective equipment (PPE) and training standards. The press release was issued on August 19^th, and the deadline for accepting public comments closed on September 18^th. In other words, by the time this issue hits your desk, the 30-day public comment period will have quickly passed you by.

According to the release, the proposal clarifies that when an OSHA standard requires an employer to provide PPE or training to employees, it must do so for each employee subject to the requirement. Each employee not protected may be considered a separate violation for penalty purposes. It goes on to say the proposed rule affects OSHA's general industry, construction, and maritime standards. In many cases, OSHA combines separate violations of a single requirement in a standard into a single penalty. However, under the instance-by-instance penalty policy, OSHA may propose a separate penalty for each specific violation where the employer demonstrates a flagrant disregard for safety and health. The release goes on to say that the proposed rule makes clear that failure to provide appropriate PPE or training may result in per-instance penalties in appropriate cases. The proposed rule does not add new compliance obligations, nor are employers required to provide any new type of PPE or training. The amendments merely clarify that a separate penalty may be assessed for each employee not provided the required PPE or training.

Why the big rush to push this through so quickly? In my opinion, 30 days just isn't enough time — especially for the organizations that represent many small- to medium-sized contractors. As I dug into this issue a little deeper, I realized my thinking aligned with others in the construction field. In fact, I ran across three letters posted on the OSHA Web site, all of which requested a 90-day extension for submission of written comments. Here are a few excerpts from those letters.

“ASA believes the proposed requirements will have a substantial impact on construction employers, in particular smaller businesses.” — E. Colette Nelson, executive vice president, American Subcontractors Association, Inc., Alexandria, Va.

“The National Utility Contractors Association (NUCA) is concerned that the amendments proposed by OSHA will have a greater impact on the construction industry and our membership than OSHA has envisioned.” — George S. Kennedy, vice president of safety, NUCA, Arlington, Va.

“Contrary to OSHA's supposition, the proposed rule is complex and presents a number of significant legal and cost issues that must be analyzed before ABC can provide informed and meaningful comments.” — Robert A. Hirsch, director, legal and regulatory affairs, Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc., Arlington, Va.

Kennedy and Hirsch also requested that OSHA schedule public hearings on this matter, which would give the agency an opportunity to better explain the requirements, respond to submitted written comments, and allow those affected by the change to request further clarification and express their concerns verbally. I couldn't agree with them more. What are your thoughts? If you want to share them with OSHA, then I hope an extension is granted. Otherwise, you're out of luck.

Want to use this article? Click here for options!

© 2012 Penton Business Media, Inc.

---

Acceptable Use Policy blog comments powered by Disqus

Browse Back Issues Select an Issue EC&M Magazine | April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 1, 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 1, 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 1, 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 1, 2006 May 1, 2006 April 2006 March 1, 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 1, 2004 January 1, 2004 December 1, 2003 November 1, 2003 October 1, 2003 September 1, 2003 August 1, 2003 July 1, 2003 June 1, 2003 May 1, 2003 April 1, 2003 March 1, 2003 February 1, 2003 January 1, 2003 December 1, 2002 November 1, 2002 October 1, 2002 September 1, 2002 August 1, 2002 July 1, 2002 June 1, 2002 May 1, 2002 April 1, 2002 March 1, 2002 February 1, 2002 January 1, 2002 December 1, 2001 November 1, 2001 October 1, 2001 September 1, 2001 August 1, 2001 July 1, 2001 June 1, 2001 May 1, 2001 April 1, 2001 March 1, 2001 February 1, 2001 February 1, 1995 January 1, 2001 December 1, 2000 November 1, 2000 October 1, 2000 September 1, 2000 August 1, 2000 July 1, 2000 June 1, 2000 May 1, 2000 April 1, 2000 March 1, 2000 February 1, 2000 January 1, 2000 December 1, 1999 November 1, 1999 October 1, 1999 September 1, 1999 August 1, 1999 July 1, 1999 June 1, 1999 May 1, 1999 April 1, 1999 March 1, 1999 February 1, 1999 January 1, 1999 December 1, 1998 November 1, 1998 October 1, 1998 September 1, 1998 August 1, 1998 July 1, 1998 June 1, 1998 May 1, 1998 April 1, 1998 March 1, 1998 February 1, 1998 January 1, 1998 December 1, 1997 November 1, 1997 December 1, 1996 November 1, 1996 October 1, 1996 September 1, 1996 August 1, 1996 July 1, 1996 June 1, 1996 May 1, 1996 April 1, 1996 March 1, 1996 February 1, 1996 January 1, 1996 December 1, 1995 November 30, 1995 November 1, 1995 October 1, 1995 September 1, 1995 August 1, 1995 July 1, 1995 June 1, 1995 May 1, 1995 April 1, 1995 March 1, 1995

browse e-newsletters