The USDOT Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) recently expanded regulatory oversight into commercial vans and small passenger vehicles carrying 9 to 15 passengers.  This includes the driver and is not based on how many people are occupying the vehicle, but the number of designated seats as originally designed.  In the past, these rules were only applicable to this class of vehicle if they were used in interstate commerce and operated in excess of a 75-air mile radius of the driver’s normal work reporting location.  Now businesses that operate these vehicles are subject to the safety standards in FMCSA Part 385 and Parts 390 through 396.  These are the same requirements which motor carriers must follow if they operate vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,001 pounds or more on highways or for interstate commerce. 

Some of these requirements include marking vehicles with the company name and USDOT number.  A bi-annual report (form MCS-150) must be filed with the FMCSA.  An accident register must be maintained.  A driver’s qualification file must be maintained for each driver including documents such as background checks, driver’s medical examination, etc.  FMCSA operating rules must now be followed and the vehicle must maintain required equipment such as such as fire extinguishers and emergency flares or reflective triangles.  FMCSA vehicle maintenance records must be kept including paperwork such as; annual inspection requirements and daily inspection requirements.

Hours-of-Service regulations also apply.  Some of these Hours-of-Service requirements include logbook documentation for the last 7 days.  Drivers can not exceed the 15-hour On-duty hour limit, 10-hour driving limit, or the 60 / 70 hour duty limit on a rolling 7 day or 8 day time period.  Specifics of these requirements are described in FMCSA Section 395.   There are some logbook exceptions including vehicles operated by local governments, or non-business private motor carriers such as church or scout groups.  The logbook 100 air-mail radius exception is still in place. 

For more information check out the FMCSA web page for SMALL PASSENGER-CARRYING VEHICLES.

Scenario: A machinist injured his shoulder last year when he was removing a part from a CNC machine. In order to recover, he was off work for a week, returned to work with lifting restrictions, and received physical therapy for three months. At the end of the therapy, the doctor said he had fully recuperated, and the machinist was able to perform his job without any restrictions. However, the employee just reported that he injured the same shoulder while he was rolling his toolbox to his work area. He said he felt a significant amount of pain in about the same area of his shoulder as before. The Safety Director sent the employee to the company doctor who prescribed treatment identical to the previous injury. The Safety Director felt this incident was a recurrence of the old case.

Question: Did the Safety Director make the correct decision? See what OSHA says.

Answer:  The answer lies with the doctor.  The injury may be different and in another shoulder area even if the employee says it is the same, so the occurrence may be a new case.  If a conflicting second opinion from another doctor is received, the Safety Director will need to make the decision. 

1904.6 (b)(3) states the following:

May I rely on a physician or other licensed health care professional to determine whether a case is a new case or a recurrence of an old case?

You are not required to seek the advice of a physician or other licensed health care professional. However, if you do seek such advice, you must follow the physician or other licensed health care professional’s recommendation about whether the case is a new case or a recurrence. If you receive recommendations from two or more physicians or other licensed health care professionals, you must make a decision as to which recommendation is the most authoritative (best documented, best reasoned, or most authoritative), and record the case based upon that recommendation.

The OSHA Training Institute Education Center at Eastern Kentucky University is conducting OSHA Train-the-Trainer courses at the Indiana Wesleyan University Louisville Kentucky Education and Conference Center this fall. OSHA 500 - Trainer Course for Construction will be held November 16-19th (Refresher class OSHA 502 November 16th-18th) and OSHA 501 - Trainer Course for General Industry will be held December 14-17th (Refresher class OSHA 503 December 14th-16th).

These courses are designed for personnel interested in teaching the 10- and 30-hour Safety and Health Outreach Program to their employees and other interested groups. Special emphasis is placed on those topics that are required in the 10- and 30-hour programs as well as on those most hazardous, using the OSHA Standards as a guide.

Participants are briefed on effective instructional approaches and the effective use of visual aids and handouts, and engage in practice teaching modules. Students who wish to participate as authorized trainers in the OSHA Outreach Training Program must prepare a presentation on an assigned topic individually or as part of a group and successfully pass both a performance test and a knowledge test at the end of the course. Upon successful completion, the student will be authorized as an OSHA Outreach Trainer. This authorization is effective for four years.

Prior to attending either of the trainer courses, participants must complete the applicable standards course (OSHA 510 - Construction Standards or OSHA 511 - General Industry Standards) and have at least five years of safety experience in the appropriate field. A college degree in occupational safety and health, a Certified Safety Professional (CSP) or a Certified Industrial Hygienist (CIH) designation in the applicable training area may be substituted for two (2) years of experience.

More information about these upcoming classes can be found at: http://www.ceo.eku.edu/osha/doc/Louisville_2010_Flyer.pdf .

US Labor Department’s OSHA cites SeaWorld of Florida following animal trainer’s death

OSHA has cited SeaWorld of Florida LLC for three safety violations, including one classified as willful, following the death of an animal trainer in February. The total penalty is $75,000.

“SeaWorld recognized the inherent risk of allowing trainers to interact with potentially dangerous animals,” said Cindy Coe, OSHA’s regional administrator in Atlanta, Ga. “Nonetheless, it required its employees to work within the pool walls, on ledges and on shelves where they were subject to dangerous behavior by the animals.”

On Feb. 24, a six-ton killer whale grabbed a trainer and pulled her under the water during what SeaWorld describes as a “relationship session,” which was also observed by park guests. Video footage shows the killer whale repeatedly striking and thrashing the trainer, and pulling her under water even as she attempted to escape. The autopsy report describes the cause of death as drowning and traumatic injuries.

OSHA’s investigation revealed that this animal was one of three killer whales involved in the death of an animal trainer in 1991 at Sea Land of the Pacific in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. SeaWorld had forbidden trainers from swimming with this whale because of his dangerous past behavior, but allowed trainers to interact with the whale, including touching him, while the trainers were lying on the pool edge in shallow water.

According to OSHA SeaWorld trainers had an extensive history of unexpected and potentially dangerous incidents involving killer whales at its various facilities, including its location in Orlando. Despite this record, OSHA states that management failed to make meaningful changes to improve the safety of the work environment for its employees.

“All employers are obligated to assess potential risks to the safety and health of their employees and take actions to mitigate those risks,” said Les Grove, OSHA’s area director in Tampa, Fla. “In facilities that house wild animals, employers need to assess the animals under their care and to minimize human-animal interaction if there is no safe way to reliably predict animal behavior under all conditions.”

OSHA has issued one willful citation to SeaWorld for exposing its employees to struck-by and drowning hazards when interacting with killer whales. The agency defines a willful violation as one committed with plain indifference to or intentional disregard for employee safety and health.

A serious citation is being issued for exposing employees to a fall hazard by failing to install a stairway railing system on the front side, left bridge of the “Believe” stage in Shamu Stadium.

One other-than-serious violation has been issued for failing to equip outdoor electrical receptacles in Shamu Stadium with weatherproof enclosures.

E.N. Range Inc. in Miami, Fla., has been cited for more than $2 million for exposing workers to lead and other hazards.

 OSHA has issued citations to E.N. Range Inc. in Miami, Fla., alleging the company knowingly neglected to protect employees who clean gun ranges from serious overexposure to lead. It also provided, without medical supervision, non-FDA-approved treatments for lead exposure. The company was cited for more than 50 violations of the lead standard and others, with total proposed penalties of $2,099,600.

“This company was well aware of what it needed to do to protect its workers from a well known hazard. It not only failed to provide that protection, it misled employees - most of whom had limited knowledge of English - into believing that it was providing them with appropriate medical treatment,” said Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis. “Such a blatant disregard for the health of workers will not be tolerated under this administration.”

E.N. Range has been cited for 42 willful and serious violations of the lead standard with proposed penalties of $1,884,000. OSHA’s lead standard requires employers to protect their workers from lead exposure which can cause many serious health issues including brain damage, paralysis, kidney disease, and even death.

OSHA’s lead standard also addresses the use of chelating agents, which are medicines intended to reduce blood levels that can have significant adverse side effects. The standard prohibits the use of these agents prophylactically, and permits their therapeutic use only under the supervision of a physician in an appropriate clinical setting. Willful citations were issued alleging that E.N. Range violated this provision by giving its workers non-FDA-approved chelating agents without medical supervision.

“This is an egregious situation where the employer deliberately refused to provide the necessary protections to keep workers safe from overexposure to lead,” said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Dr. David Michaels. “The company even knew its workers suffered from lead poisoning, yet avoided proper medical attention in favor of providing an unapproved and potentially unsafe treatment.”

The citations allege that E.N. Range did not use engineering controls to prevent overexposure to lead, perform air sampling to determine the extent of its workers’ exposure, provide showers for workers who had been exposed to lead, or provide blood testing to exposed workers every six months, all of which are required by the lead standard.

The company was also found in violation of the respiratory protection standard for failing to provide medical evaluations and fit testing for respirators. Additionally, the company is being cited for failing to abate a previously-cited violation discovered during an inspection in February 2009. That failure-to-abate notice charges that the employer had neglected to implement a job rotation schedule to reduce lead exposures. The company is also being cited for additional serious violations, including a spliced electrical cable and failure to ensure the blades of a box fan were adequately guarded.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited the U.S. Postal Service for five alleged willful violations of safety standards following an inspection at the Portsmouth, N.H., Processing and Distribution Center. The Postal Service faces a total of $350,000 in fines, chiefly for exposing workers to electrical hazards.

OSHA’s inspection, conducted in response to employee complaints, found untrained or inadequately trained employees at the Portsmouth distribution center performing troubleshooting and voltage testing on or near live electrical equipment and wiring that had not first been de-energized. The workers also lacked personal protective equipment and were not instructed on proper electrical lockout/tagout procedures.

As a result of its inspection, OSHA has issued five willful citations to the Postal Service for the conditions at the Portsmouth facility. OSHA defines a willful violation as one committed with plain indifference to or intentional disregard for employee safety and health.

“These citations and the sizable fines proposed here reflect the Postal Service’s ongoing knowledge of and failure to address conditions that exposed its workers to the severe and potentially deadly hazards of electric shock, arc flashes and arc blasts,” said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Dr. David Michaels.

The Labor Department has filed an enterprise-wide complaint against the U.S. Postal Service for electrical work safety violations. The complaint asks the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission to order the USPS to correct electrical violations at all of its facilities nationwide. This complaint marks the first time OSHA has sought enterprise-wide relief as a remedy.

Recently OSHA was asked why the definitions for Flammable and Combustible Liquids are different between the Construction and General Industry standards.  Bill Parsons with OSHA took a stab at providing an answer.

Question #1: Why are the definitions for combustible liquids and flammable liquids different under OSHA’s construction and general industry standards?

Answer #1: The terms “combustible liquids” and “flammable liquids” are defined in the construction standard at 29 CFR 1926 and in the general industry standard at 29 CFR 1910 as follows:

	Construction	General Industry
Combustible liquids	§1926.155(c)	§1910.106(a)(18)
	“[A]ny liquid having a flash point at or above 140 °F. (60 °C.) and below 200 °F. (93.4 °C.).”	“[A]ny liquid having a flashpoint at or above 100 °F. (37.8 °C.).”
Flammable liquids	§1926.155(h)	§1910.106(a)(19)
	“[A]ny liquid having a flash point below 140 °F. and having a vapor pressure not exceeding 40 pounds per square inch (absolute) at 100 °F.”	“[A]ny liquid having a flashpoint below 100 °F. (37.8 °C.), except any mixture having components with flashpoints of 100 °F. (37.8 °C.) or higher, the total of which make up 99 percent or more of the total volume of the mixture.”

The definitions in the two standards are different because the definitions were adopted from different sources. The definitions in the general industry standard originated in a national consensus standard, NFPA 30-1969, while the definitions in the construction standard were adopted from established federal standards under the Construction Safety Act. Because the two sources defined the terms differently, the construction standard and the general industry standard are not consistent.

Question #2: Are there any plans to make the definitions consistent?

Answer #2: OSHA is currently addressing these definitions in the Hazard Communication rulemaking. The proposed rule, available at 74 Federal Register 50280 (Sept. 30, 2009), proposes new definitions for combustible and flammable liquids that correspond with the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS). The proposed rule is available on the OSHA website at http://osha.gov/FedReg_osha_pdf/FED20090930.pdf.

Top Stories

OSHA proposes nearly $115,000 in fines against Rochester, NY, machine shop for uncorrected and recurring hazards.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has proposed $114,750 in additional fines against Pierce Industries, a Rochester, N.Y., machine shop, chiefly for failing to correct hazards cited during a previous OSHA inspection. The company was cited in December 2009 for a variety of hazards, including failing to test its piping system to ensure it was gas-tight under pressure and to adequately train its workers in the safe operation of forklifts.

The company agreed to correct these conditions, but OSHA’s follow-up inspection found this had not been done. A recurring hazard of improperly used electrical outlet boxes also was identified. As a result of these conditions, OSHA has issued the company two failure-to-abate citations with $105,750 in proposed fines for the uncorrected hazards, and one repeat citation with a $3,000 fine for the recurring electrical hazard. OSHA issues failure-to-abate citations and additional penalties when an employer fails to correct previously cited hazards. A repeat violation is issued when an employer previously was cited for the same or similar violation of any standard, regulation, rule or order at any other facility in federal enforcement states within the last three years.

“An uncorrected hazard is an ongoing threat to the safety and health of workers. Employers need to understand that ignoring or putting off corrective action can be costly in financial as well as human terms,” said Arthur Dube, OSHA’s area director in Buffalo. “In cases like this, OSHA will check to verify that cited hazards have been corrected and, if not, employers will be subject to additional and potentially much larger fines.”

Pierce Industries also has been issued two serious citations with $6,000 in fines for two new hazards, incomplete procedures and employee training to ensure that machines’ power sources were properly locked out of service before maintenance. OSHA issues serious citations when death or serious physical harm is likely to result from hazards about which the employer knew or should have known.

“One means of eliminating recurring hazards such as these is for employers to establish a safety and health program in which workers and management jointly work to identify and eliminate hazardous conditions on a continual basis,” said Robert Kulick, OSHA’s regional administrator in New York.

OSHA fines Wisconsin grain cooperative $721,000 after worker is engulfed in frozen soybeans and then issues warning letter to industry following series of similar incidents including suffocation of 2 teenagers in Illinois grain elevator.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has proposed fines of $721,000 against Cooperative Plus Inc. in Burlington for violations of federal workplace safety standards. OSHA alleges that this employer, a farmer owned cooperative, exposed workers to the risk of being engulfed and suffocated in grain storage bins without proper equipment and procedures. In a near tragedy that occurred in February, a worker was trapped in soybeans up to his chest in 25 degree weather and ultimately rescued after a four hour ordeal.

“Cooperative Plus ignored long established safety standards for working safely in grain handling operations and knowingly exposed workers to possible suffocation. In this case, a worker almost died,” said Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis. “Disregarding well-recognized standards places workers in this industry in serious danger and will not be tolerated.”

In an OSHA Press release OSHA Stated “In spite of clear OSHA standards, employers continue to put workers at risk of death by requiring them to enter grain storage bins without proper protection. The citations against Cooperative Plus are being issued one week after a separate and especially tragic incident in a grain elevator in Illinois in which two teenage workers, a 14- and a 19-year-old, were killed and a 20-year-old was hospitalized after being similarly engulfed in grain. In a third case last year, a South Dakota Wheat Growers Association worker was killed after being engulfed by grain in a wheat handling facility. In May, OSHA issued a fine of more than $1.6 million against the South Dakota Wheat Growers Association”.

In response to these and other events, OSHA is sending a strong letter to all grain elevator operators warning them not to allow workers to enter grain storage facilities without proper equipment, precautions and training. “We are putting these employers on notice,” said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Dr. David Michaels. “OSHA will use the full extent of the law to ensure that any employer who violates these standards is held accountable for its lack of concern for worker safety.”

Based on its investigation of the Cooperative Plus incident, OSHA has cited that employer for 10 willful violations. Two per-instance willful violations are for failing to provide workers entering grain storage bins with body harnesses and lifelines and to provide an observer while other workers entered the grain bins. A citation has been issued for each bin entry OSHA documented in which the employer failed to observe these requirements. OSHA also has issued additional willful violations that address the company’s failing to ensure that safe procedures were implemented for entry into the bins; to prohibit workers from walking on the grain inside the bin; to provide rescue equipment for workers entering the bins and to implement an emergency action plan.

OSHA cites AAR Summa Technology in Huntsville, Ala., with proposed penalties of $191,500 for 22 safety and health violations

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has issued 22 citations against AAR Summa Technology for exposing workers to safety and health hazards at its Huntsville plant. Proposed penalties total $191,500.

“Management needs to show a commitment to worker safety and health consistent with this company’s ranking as one of the top defense contractors in the world,” said Roberto Sanchez, OSHA’s area director in Birmingham, Ala.

OSHA began its inspection in February after receiving a complaint about hazards at the facility, which produces military aircraft parts. Two willful safety violations were issued for failing to provide proper lockout/tagout procedures of energy sources for workers performing maintenance and service functions on machinery, and for failing to provide protective machine guards on equipment.

Sixteen serious safety violations were issued for failing to repair or replace hooks used to lift and hold shop fabricated lifting devices, allowing materials to obstruct the exit pathways, failing to properly maintain machinery, exposing workers to electrical hazards, failing to train workers on hazards associated with aluminum dust, and using excessively pressurized compressed air to clean off parts.

Three serious health violations were issued for exposing workers to noise hazards, failing to perform audiometric tests on employees and failing to train workers on hazards related to noise.

A repeat health violation was issued for failing to provide a site-specific written respiratory protection program. A repeat violation is issued when an employer previously was cited for the same or a similar violation of any standard, regulation, rule or order at any other facility in federal enforcement states within the last three years.