December 18, 1998
U.S. Department of Labor (S-2315)
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Attn: Mr. Charles Jeffress, Assistant Secretary of Secretary of Labor
200 Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20210
SAFETY AND HEALTH PROGRAM RULE
Assistant Secretary Jeffress:
The purpose of this letter is to submit comments from the American Society
of Safety Engineers (ASSE) to address the proposed Safety and Health
The American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE), is the oldest and largest
Society of Safety Professionals in the world. Founded in 1911, ASSE currently
represents over 32,000 dedicated safety professionals. Included in this
membership are Certified Safety Professionals, Professional Engineers,
ergonomists, academicians, fire protection engineers, system safety experts,
industrial hygienists, physicians, occupational nurses, and an impressive
collection of other disciplines, skills, and backgrounds. We pride ourselves
on our dedication to excellence, expertise, and commitment to the protection
of people, property, and environment on a world-wide basis, (Attachment
SOCIETY INSIGHTS ON THE PROPOSED RULE
ASSE positions are based on consensus and do not reflect complete member
unanimity. ASSE members are involved in the development and implementation
of standards, methods, procedures, systems, and devices for the purpose
of reducing, controlling, or eliminating hazardous exposures. Our interests
are solely those of professional practitioners whose charge is to protect
our nation's resources.
A major element of the Society's mission is to support sound actions
which enable the development of effective safety and health standards
designed to facilitate the identification and control of hazardous conditions
and practices. From such standards, hazard control methods, procedures,
and programs are initiated to promote positive and pro-active approaches
to safety and health. An integral element of these techniques is mandatory
quality training and educational requirements which communicate the necessary
hazard recognition, control, and avoidance information. This methodology,
when properly implemented, has the potential to effectively reduce our
nation's workplace injury and illness toll.
The above complete, systematic approach to workplace safety and health
can be found in most sections of the currently proposed rule. Upon closer
analysis, however, there are issues in the rule which if properly set
forth have the potential for meeting almost all of the stated purposes
of this proposal. After review by the ASSE Executive Committee, Council
on Practices and Standards, Council on Professional Affairs, Governmental
Affairs Committee, Standards Development Committee, Management Division,
Consultants Division, and the Environmental Division the following is
For the reasons cited above, the American Society of Safety Engineers
has taken the position of supporting the intent of the proposed OSHA Comprehensive
Safety and Health Program Rule. We have reviewed the draft rule and offer
the following constructive observations and recommendations. Effective and
efficient safety and health programs are an important ingredient in a well-managed
business program and ultimately provide substantial economic benefits to
the organizations which successfully create, implement, and maintain them.
It must be clearly understood, however, that there is no "one size fits
all" program. To be effective and efficient the safety and health program
must be individually tailored to each business and its own specific safety
and health priorities.
Experience illustrates that companies with a safety and health program
that has been integrated into their business operation are successful
in containing and reducing workers' compensation claims along with their
other related indirect expenses. ASSE supports the development of a stand
alone safety and health program management rule. This rule should be performance
oriented. It should be applicable to all employers and describe the basic
tenets and best practices necessary for successfully developing and managing
a program. The rule needs to be supported by a cohesive outreach effort
melding the resources of OSHA, associations, professional societies, academia
and business. Such a program could be supported by other positive reinforcement
actions such as penalty reductions for good faith efforts by employers,
or granting tax credits for the creation/maintenance of an acceptable
There are still a significant number of organizations in the United
States which do not have safety and health programs, thus, the creation
of a rule will place a renewed national focus on the importance of occupational
safety and health in this country. The Society maintains that compliance
with legislation and regulation is only one facet of an effective and
efficient safety and health management program. The other issue is that
the complexity of creating and maintaining efficient/effective safety
and health management programs is outside the area of expertise for many
organizations. In order to meet the expected need of consultation services,
OSHA should consider reviewing a system for voluntary third party audit
and evaluations, and work with the accredited private sector professional
certification bodies, both public and private recognized registries, and
membership organizations to ensure that consultants have an acceptable
level of competence.
While ASSE supports the creation of an OSHA Safety and Health Program
Rule, it has concern that the proposal may be published as a regulation
and not a standard. The issue is that publishing the rule as a regulation
instead of a standard may not provide the opportunity for debate and other
insights in a public setting.
To ensure that the rule is based on good public policy there needs to
be a grandfathering of existing and effective programs and ensuring that
the ASSE recommended core elements of efficient and effective safety and
health management are included, (Attachment #2). In addition, since the
proposed rule is performance based, it is crucial that OSHA Compliance
Officers be thoroughly trained in evaluating programs as a safety professional
and not from the perspective of a compliance officer. ASSE maintains that
this rule provides OSHA with an unprecedented opportunity to provide significant
professional development opportunities for its staff.
Format of the Standard
ASSE members, who reviewed the proposed rule, commented that it was not
difficult to follow and used terminology recognizable to most safety professionals.
We also recognize that significant portions of the proposed rule are consistent
with the ASSE statement titled: Position Statement on OSHA Comprehensive
Safety and Health Management Programs.
Anecdotal History of Similar Initiatives
The state of California addressed safety and health management programs
seven years ago. We acknowledge suggestions that it has not significantly
impacted injuries, illnesses, or fatalities. However, our experience with
this law indicates most California employers have found a way to implement
these regulations to enhance worker safety and health while increasing
profitability, productivity, and financial stability. In our opinion,
the reason why these regulations have proved to be effective is their
focus is on the systematic recognition and control of workplace hazards.
Some ASSE members have expressed concern that the proposed OSHA regulation
seems to go beyond this focus and is attempting to prescribe how employers
shall 'manage' their safety and health program.
Possible Impact of the Proposed Rule
The Society has significant experience with safety and health management
programs. Since 1911, our members have been researching, creating, implementing,
and advocating sound safety and health management practices. In fact,
we maintain that most of the safety management concepts incorporated into
the draft regulation are based on the cumulative efforts of our members
over the last eighty-five years (85) years. Due to this background we
believe ASSE is in a unique position to offer some observations as to
how the rule will be viewed in the private sector. Accordingly, we offer
Possible Drivers for More Support of the Proposed Rule
- Most large employers already have existing safety and health programs
which should hopefully exceed the requirements of the proposed rule.
ASSE maintains the impact on these firms will probably be negligible.
There are some exceptions, but our hope is that the proposed rule will
encourage all large employers to focus on the importance of occupational
safety and health management programs.
- Many ASSE members commented that the biggest area for significant
gain in reducing injuries, illnesses, and fatalities through the proposed
rule is with mid-sized employers. The Society has observed some firms
(e.g.: metal fabricating business with 200 employees), not having any
safety and health program. This rule may provide the motivation for
employers to invest in such programs in order to protect both the welfare
of their employees, safeguard the financial stability of the organization,
and be in compliance with the law.
- Some small employers might see the proposed regulation as being an
unwarranted financial burden on their operations. While ASSE maintains
that all employers should comply with occupational safety and health
laws regardless of size, the Agency needs to work with the applicable
small business organizations to establish a consensus on appropriate
compliance dates. This increased time extension will give small employers
and associations/societies representing small business interests more
involvement in the process and provide them with adequate time to prepare
for implementation of the rule.
During our review of the proposed rule, some evaluators suggested that it
is an excellent opportunity for OSHA to work with other federal agencies
to build more support of safety and health programs for the federal government
as a whole. These are some of the suggestions:
Applicable State Legislation and Regulation
- OSHA should compile data relating specifically to the additional cost
to employers to create, implement, and maintain safety and health management
programs which comply with the rule. The data should then be used to
negotiate tax credits with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). This
approach could be of significant benefit to small employers, and get
more buy-in from associations/societies representing business interests.
Perhaps we now have a unique opportunity to use the tax code as a driver
for effective safety and health management programs.
- Could there be a mechanism established which would allow lower fines
for employers who have made a good faith effort to comply with the regulation.
ASSE is specifically asking if there could be a way to tie this proposal
to Vice President Gore's taskforce report on reinventing government?
ASSE members pointed out that a significant number of states already have
worker compensation regulations and/or other state legislation and regulation
providing for the establishment of safety and health programs. The Society
recommends that OSHA review these other programs to see if they meet the
intent of the proposed "grandfathering language" cited in (b)(3). One specific
example is the guideline promulgated by the California Occupational Safety
and Health Administration. Our concern is if state existing laws could cause
duplicative and confusing requirements.
Standards Versus Regulations
The Society is concerned that this proposal is being promulgated as a
regulation instead of a standard. Several ASSE members have expressed
concern with this approach for the following reasons:
Please note that the attached pages cite the federal draft requirement and
then underneath it list ASSE observations, comments, ideas, concerns, and
suggestions. We hope this comment package will be of assistance to OSHA.
We thank you for your attention to this matter, and if we can be of assistance
please feel free to contact the Society.
- Since 1995, the document has been titled: OSHA Proposed Safety
and Health Management Standard. Is it appropriate after almost four
(4) years of communication to change nomenclature if it results in changes
to the process?
- If the rule is published as a regulation the standards development
requirements cited in Section 6 of the Occupational Safety and Health
Act are bypassed. Publishing the rule as a regulation instead of a standard
may not provide the opportunity for debate in a public setting. This
could result in generating more litigation than expected, thus, the
rule could be significantly delayed. If we are correct in this view
OSHA needs to provide a rationale in its preface/preamble to the rule.
Fred F. Fleming, CSP, OHST
Society President 1998-1999
Copy To: ASSE Board of Directors
Council on Professional Affairs
Governmental Affairs Committee
DRAFT PROPOSED SAFETY AND HEALTH PROGRAM RULE
29 CFR 1900.1
Docket No. S&H-0027
What is the purpose of this rule? The purpose of this rule
is to reduce the number of job-related fatalities, illnesses, and injuries.
The rule will accomplish this by requiring employers to establish a workplace
safety and health program to ensure compliance with OSHA standards and
the General Duty Clause of the Act (Section 5(a)(1)).
This regulation is the most "performance based" rule we have seen
the Agency publish. The key to success will be ongoing training of compliance
officers to ensure that there is a consistent method to evaluate and measure
safety anf health management programs. Some ASSE members commented the
proposed language would enable OSHA to issue citations which are duplicative
of each other, (e.g.: cite an employer for a violation of 29 CFR 1900.1,
the General Duty Clause, and a specific standard). The Society requests
clarification from OSHA on this issue.
(a)(1) Who is covered by this rule? All employers covered by
the Act, except employers engaged in construction and agriculture, are
covered by this rule.
ASSE Comment: The Society is aware that there will be a separate
regulation for the construction industry, and there are areas of the construction
industry which are unique. However, the key principles of effective and
efficient safety and health management are transferable to any industry
including agriculture. Our suggestion is that the proposed rule for construction
when/if released needs to encompass the key principles cited in this regulation.
The Society is also requesting clarification as to why agriculture is
not covered in the proposed rule. Perhaps the traditional family farm
should not be covered, however, we are puzzled as to why large scale agricultural
corporations would not be included, but small employers with less than
ten (10) employees would be. This approach does not appear to be consistent
with the objectives of the rule.
(a)(2) To what hazards does this rule apply? This rule
applies to hazards covered by the General Duty Clause and by OSHA standards.
ASSE Comment: ASSE agrees this rule should cover all existing standards
and regulations. ASSE was asked by its members if this rule establishes
the groundwork to stop the development of future standards and regulations
since the General Duty Clause could in theory cover any new or future
hazards. This concerns ASSE as the Society believes there will be a need
to publish future standards to provide guidance on evolving safety and
health issues. The Society maintains that it needs to be explicitly recognized
that this rule does not mean that there will not be future standards and
(b) Basic obligation.
(b)(1) What are the employer's basic obligations under the rule?
Each employer must set up a safety and health program to manage workplace
safety and health to reduce injuries, illnesses and fatalities by systematically
achieving compliance with OSHA standards and the General Duty Clause.
The program must be appropriate to conditions in the workplace, such as
the hazards to which employees are exposed and the number of employees
(b)(2) What core elements must the program have?The program
must have the following core elements:
(i) Management leadership and employee participation;
(ii) Hazard identification and assessment;
(iii) Hazard prevention and control;
(iv) Information and training; and
(v) Evaluation of program effectiveness.
(b)(3) Does the rule have a grandfather clause? Yes. Employers
who have implemented a safety and health program before the effective
date of this rule may continue to implement that program if:
(i) The program satisfies the basic obligation for each core element;
(ii) The employer can demonstrate the effectiveness of any provision of
the employer's program that differs from the other requirements included
under the core elements of this rule.
ASSE Comment: ASSE takes the position that grandfathering of programs
is sound public policy. The Society attended a series of stakeholder meetings,
and the issue of existing programs was brought up in every one of them.
Recognizing the importance of existing programs will go a long way in
obtaining acceptance of the rule by safety and health professionals and
other impacted constituencies. A significant number of ASSE members suggested
that the proposed regulation is basically "a barebones program", and that
many programs exceed the core elements. The key once again is to ensure
that OSHA Compliance Officers have a consistent way of measuring the effectiveness
of existing programs. Otherwise, the final result will be inconsistent
(c) Management leadership and employee participation.
(c)(1) Management leadership.
(c)(1)(i) What is the employer's basic obligation? The employer
must demonstrate management leadership of the safety and health program.
(c)(1)(ii) What must an employer do to demonstrate management leadership
of the program? An employer must:
(A) Establish the program responsibilities of managers, supervisors, and
employees for safety and health in the workplace and hold them accountable
for carrying out those responsibilities;
(B) Provide managers, supervisors, and employees with the authority, access
to relevant information, training, and resources they need to carry out
their safety and health responsibilities; and
(C) Identify at least one manager, supervisor, or employee to receive
and respond to reports about workplace safety and health conditions and,
where appropriate, to initiate corrective action.
ASSE Comment: The Society appreciates the apparent intent of this proposal
which is to promote a team approach to safety and health management programs
and establish some documented levels of responsibility. However, we have
concern with points [A]and [C] which identifies one individual to be responsible
for the establishment of programs and the initiation of corrective action.
In many cases, this employee will be the staff safety professional. The
primary mission of the safety professional is to provide information to
management which is backed by good science and sound technology. The concern
of ASSE is that during implementation and interpretation of the regulation,
there is the possibility that OSHA could hold safety professionals responsible
for workplace safety and health issues beyond their control. We ask for
clarification on the following issues:
If we are incorrect in these views/concerns, we specifically request that
OSHA needs to provide rationale in its preface/preamble addressing this
concern in the rule.
- Would prompt communication of identification of hazards and suggested
courses of action or corrections to responsible management leadership,
by safety professionals, meet the intent of point [C]?
- Would a safety professional be potentially held criminally liable
under the OSH Act if his/her suggested corrective action was not taken
and the result was a fatality, injury, or illness to an employee?
- ASSE remains concerned with the tort liability of safety professionals
who are charged with this responsibility arising from workplace injuries,
illnesses, and fatalities.
(c)(2) Employee participation.
(c)(2)(i) What is the employer's basic obligation? The employer
must provide employees with opportunities for participation in establishing,
implementing, and evaluating the program.
(c)(2)(ii) What must the employer do to ensure that employees have
opportunities for participation? The employer must:
(A) Regularly communicate with employees about workplace safety and health
(B) Provide employees with access to information relevant to the program;
(C) Provide ways for employees to become involved in hazard identification
and assessment, prioritizing hazards, training, and program evaluation;
(D) Establish a way for employees to report job-related fatalities, injuries,
illnesses, incidents, and hazards promptly and to make recommendations
about appropriate ways to control those hazards; and
(E) Provide prompt responses to such reports and recommendations.
(c)(2)(iii) What must the employer do to safeguard employee participation
in the program? The employer must not discourage employees from
making reports and recommendations about fatalities, injuries, illnesses,
incidents, or hazards in the workplace, or from otherwise participating
in the workplace safety and health program.
Note: In carrying out this paragraph (c)(2), the employer must
comply with the National Labor Relations Act.
The relationship of employees to employers is a subject central to the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA Act) when describing the
intent of the Act. The OSHA Act speaks of encouraging employers and employees
in a joint effort to reduce the number of hazards in the workplace; of stimulating
employers and employees to institute and to perfect existing safety programs.
The OSHA Act also recognized the separate but interdependent responsibilities
and rights with respect to achieving safe and healthful working conditions.
ASSE supports the requirement that management should not discourage
employees from being actively involved in a workplace safety and health
management program. However, ASSE has concern that the Agency might use
the proposed language in [c](2)(iii) language in attempt to prohibit traditional
safety incentive programs. We recommend that the language proposed in
the regulation not be used to prohibit traditional safety incentive programs.
Compliance officers need to be trained that incentive programs are to
be part of a broader safety and health program, not serving as the entire
program or the primary element of it. Incentive programs must incorporate
emphasis on employees reporting any work-related injury/illness irrespective
of the effect on the incentive program award status.
(d) Hazard identification and assessment.
(d)(1) What is the employer's basic obligation? The employer
must systematically identify and assess hazards to which employees are
exposed and assess compliance with the General Duty Clause and OSHA standards.
(d)(2) What must the employer do to systematically identify and
assess hazards and assess compliance? The employer must:
(i) Conduct inspections of the workplace;
(ii) Review safety and health information;
(iii) Evaluate new equipment, materials, and processes for hazards before
they are introduced into the workplace; and
(iv) Assess the severity of identified hazards and rank those that cannot
be corrected immediately according to their severity.
Note: Some OSHA standards impose additional, more specific requirements
for hazard identification and assessment. This rule does not displace
ASSE Comment: Clearly some of the elements cited in (i) through (iv)
are outside the levels of competence for many organizations impacted by
this rule, primarily small businesses. This proposed rule offers an opportunity
to raise awareness of safety and health programs which has not been seen
since 1969. The time has come for OSHA to work with the accredited professional
safety and health certification bodies and membership organizations, such
as ASSE, to implement and maintain a quality system for voluntary third
party audits and evaluations.
The long term success of this rule will dictated by the competence of
those responsible to monitor its compliance. ASSE takes the opportunity
to point out that the Society is the secretariat of the accredited American
National Standards (ANSI) project titled; Z590, Criteria for Establishing
Levels of Competence and Certification in the Safety Profession. Our belief
is that this standard as a work in progress, when created/approved, will
have significant impact on the practice of the safety profession. The
Morella Amendment to the National Technology Transfer Act of 1995 requires
that national voluntary consensus be considered for implementation during
formal rule making, thus, the significance of this standard for the proposed
rule. Most importantly, OSHA has an official vote on the draft standard,
and we recommend that the agency consider recognizing/citing the standard
in the rule after it is approved through the ANSI process.
(d)(3) How often must the employer carry out the hazard identification
and assessment process? The employer must carry it out:
(ii) As often thereafter as necessary to ensure compliance with the General
Duty Clause and OSHA standards and at least every two years; and
(iii) When safety and health information or a change in workplace conditions
indicates that a new or increased hazard may be present.
ASSE Comment: The Society has concern with requirement (iii) as
it is not realistic to expect a safety professional to conduct a hazard
identification and assessment each time there is information provided
in a professional safety or trade association publication. This concern
is due to the OSHA definition of "Safety and Health Information". In effect,
this sets the stage to punish employers and safety professionals who are
proactive in the safety and health profession. This would also have a
chilling effect on safety professionals belonging to professional organizations
such as ASSE. Our suggestion is that (iii) be taken out of the regulation
or the definition be revised in the following manner:
When safety and health information or a A significant
change in workplace conditions indicates that a new or increased hazard
may be present.
(d)(4) When must the employer investigate safety and health events
in the workplace? The employer must investigate each work-related
death, serious injury or illness, or incident (near-miss) having the potential
to cause death or serious physical harm.
(d)(5) What records of safety and health program activities must
the employer keep? The employer must keep records of the hazards
identified and their assessment and the actions the employer has taken
or plans to take to control those hazards. Exemption: Employers
with fewer than 10 employees are exempt from the recordkeeping requirements
of this rule.
(e) Hazard prevention and control.
(e)(1) What is the employer's basic obligation? The employer's
basic obligation is to systematically comply with the hazard prevention
and control requirements of the General Duty Clause and OSHA standards.
(e)(2) If it is not possible for the employer to comply immediately,
what must the employer do? The employer must develop a plan for
coming into compliance as promptly as possible, which includes setting
priorities and deadlines and tracking progress in controlling hazards.
Note: Any hazard identified by the employer's hazard identification
and assessment process that is covered by an OSHA standard or the General
Duty Clause must be controlled as required by that standard or that clause,
(f) Information and training.
(f)(1) What is the employer's basic obligation? The employer
must ensure that:
(i) Each employee is provided with information and training in the safety
and health program; and
(ii) Each employee exposed to a hazard is provided with information and
training in that hazard. Note: Some OSHA standards impose additional,
more specific requirements for information and training. This rule does
not displace those requirements.
(f)(2) What information and training must the employer provide to
exposed employees? The employer must provide information and training
in the following subjects:
(i) The nature of the hazards to which the employee is exposed and how
to recognize them; (ii) What is being done to control these hazards;
(iii) What protective measures the employee must follow to prevent or
minimize exposure to these hazards; and
(iv) The provisions of applicable standards.
(f)(3) When must the employer provide the information and training
required by this rule? (f)(3)(i) The employer must provide initial
information and training as follows:
(A) For current employees, before the compliance date specified in paragraph
(i) for this paragraph (f); and
(B) For new employees, before initial assignment to a job involving exposure
to a hazard.
Note: The employer is not required to provide initial information
and training in any subject in paragraph (f)(2) for which the employer
can demonstrate that the employee has already been adequately trained.
(f)(3)(ii) The employer must provide periodic information and training:
(A) As often as necessary to ensure that employees are adequately informed
and trained; and
(B) When safety and health information or a change in workplace conditions
indicates that a new or increased hazard exists.
ASSE Comment: The Society has concern with requirement (f)(3)(ii) as
it is not realistic to expect a safety professional to conduct training
each time there is information provided in a professional safety or trade
association publication. This concern is due to the OSHA definition of "Safety
and Health Information". In effect, this sets the stage to punish employers
and safety professionals who are proactive in the safety and health profession.
This would also have a chilling effect on safety professionals belonging
to professional organizations such as ASSE. Our suggestion is that (iii)
be taken out of the regulation or the definition be revised in the following
When safety and health information or a A significant
change in workplace conditions indicates that a new or increased hazard
may be present.
(f)(4) What training must the employer provide to employees who
have program responsibilities? The employer must provide all employees
who have program responsibilities with the information and training necessary
for them to carry out their safety and health responsibilities.
ASSE Comment: A significant portion of this regulation is dedicated
to the importance of training. Significantly, the Society is the secretariat
of the accredited American National Standards (ANSI) project titled; Z490,
Criteria for Best Practices in Safety, Health, and Environmental Training.
Our belief is that this standard as a work in progress, when created/approved,
will have significant impact on safety, health, and environmental training
and federal/state legislation and regulation impacting such training.
The Morella Amendment to the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 requires that national voluntary consensus be considered for
implementation during formal rule making, thus, the significance of this
rule. Most importantly, OSHA has an official on the Z490 committee creating
the draft standard, and we recommend that the agency consider recognizing/citing
the standard in the rule after it is approved through the ANSI process.
(g) Evaluation of program effectiveness.
(g)(1) What is the employer's basic obligation? The employer's
basic obligation is to evaluate the safety and health program to ensure
that it is effective and appropriate to workplace conditions.
(g)(2) How often must the employer evaluate the effectiveness of
the program? The employer must evaluate the effectiveness of
(i) As often as necessary to ensure program effectiveness;
(ii) At least once within the 12 months following the final compliance
date specified in paragraph (i); and
(iv) Thereafter at least once every two years.
(g)(3) When is the employer required to revise the program?
The employer must revise the program in a timely manner to correct deficiencies
identified by the program evaluation.
(h) Multi-employer workplaces.
(h)(1) What are the host employer's responsibilities? The host
employer's responsibilities are to:
(i) Provide information about hazards, controls, safety and health rules,
and emergency procedures to all employers at the workplace; and
(ii) Ensure that safety and health responsibilities are assigned as appropriate
to other employers at the workplace.
(h)(2) What are the responsibilities of the contract employer?
The responsibilities of a contract employer are to:
(i) Ensure that the host employer is aware of the hazards associated with
the contract employer's work and what the contract employer is doing to
address them; and
(ii) Advise the host employer of any previously unidentified hazards that
the contract employer identifies at the workplace.
(i)(1) What is the effective date for this rule? The effective
date for this rule is [insert date 90 days from the date of publication
in the Federal Register].
(i)(2) When must the employer be in compliance with the requirements
of this rule?
(i)(2)(i) Employers with fewer than 10 employees must comply with the
requirements of paragraphs (c), (f), and (h) by [insert date 18 months
after the effective date], and with paragraphs (d), (e), and (g) by [insert
date 36 months after the effective date]. (i)(2)(ii) Employers with 10
employees or more must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (c),
(f), and (h) by [insert date 9 months after the effective date], and with
paragraphs (d), (e), and (g) by [insert date 18 months after the effective
Control means to reduce exposure to hazards in accordance with
the General Duty Clause or OSHA standards, including providing appropriate
supplemental and/or interim protection, as necessary, to exposed employees.
Prevention and elimination are the best forms of control.
Contract employer is an employer who performs work for a host employer
at the host employer's workplace. A contract employer does not include
an employer who provides incidental services that do not influence the
workplace safety and health program, whose employees are only incidentally
exposed to hazards at the host employer's workplace (e.g., food and drink
services, delivery services, or other supply services).
Employee means all persons who are considered employees under the
OSH Act, including temporary, seasonal, and "leased" employees.
Employer means all persons who are considered employers under the
Exposure (exposed) means that an employee in the course of employment
is reasonably likely to be subjected to a hazard.
General Duty Clause means the General Duty Clause of the OSH Act,
Section 5(a)(1), which states that "[e]ach employer...shall furnish to
each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free
from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death
or serious physical harm to his employees."
Host employer means an employer who controls conditions at a multi-employer
Multi-employer worksite means a workplace where there is a host
employer and at least one contract employer.
Program means procedures, methods, processes, and practices that
are part of the management system at the workplace.
Safety and health information means the establishment's fatality,
injury, and illness experience, OSHA 200 logs, workers' compensation claims,
nurses' logs, the results of any medical screening/surveillance, employee
safety and health complaints and reports, environmental and biological
exposure data, information from prior workplace safety and health inspections,
Materials Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs), the results of employee symptom
surveys, safety manuals and health and safety warnings provided to the
employer by equipment manufacturers and chemical suppliers, information
about occupational safety and health provided to the employer by trade
associations or professional safety or health organizations, and the results
of prior accident and incident investigations at the workplace.
ASSE Comment: We offer the following alternative definition:
Safety and health information means the establishment's fatality,
injury, and illness experience, OSHA 200 logs, workers' compensation claims,
nurses' logs, employee safety and health complaints and reports, environmental
and biological exposure data, any other publicly available safety and
health document(s), Materials Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs), safety manuals
and health and safety warnings provided to the employer by equipment manufacturers
and chemical suppliers,
information about occupational safety and health
provided to the employer by trade associations or professional safety
or health organizations, and the results of prior accident and incident
investigations at the workplace.
Severity means the likelihood of employee exposure, the seriousness
of harm associated with the exposure, and the number of exposed employees.
Click here to go
back to the ASSE Correspondance, Statement, and Testimony page.