On Safety

The On Safety blog has moved.

OSHA Roundup for Sept. 8, 2014

September 8, 2014


The White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has interfered with the development of new rules, according to a review from two prominent public health bloggers.

New Mexico’s State Plan program partners with the Mexican Consulate to train the state’s Spanish-speaking employees on workplace safety.

Cal/OSHA takes part in a construction industry inspection blitz that netted dozens of citations and more than $135,000 in penalties.

Notable proposed fines

$497,000 to an Illinois recycling facility for confined space and guarding violations in connection with the death of a 37-year-old worker, whose arm was caught in a conveyor belt

$341,550 to an Oklahoma coating and metal processing facility for various violations related to allegedly exposing workers to hexavalent chromium

$186,340 to a Florida construction company for various fall protection violations

$84,000 to a Nebraska co-op for guard rail and fall protection violations in connection with the fatal fall of a 73-year-old employee

Review Counter

Below is a count of how many days recent OSHA proposals have been under review, as of Sept. 8:

# of Days OSHA Proposal
4 Occupational Exposure to Beryllium (proposed rule)
146 Chemical Management and Permissible Exposure Limits (prerule)

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs – part of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget – reviews proposed regulations. The process is required for most rules before they can move forward, and typically takes 90 days.

The opinions expressed in "On Safety" do not necessarily reflect those of the National Safety Council or affiliated local Chapters.

Post a comment to this article

Safety+Health welcomes comments that promote respectful dialogue. Please stay on topic. Comments that contain personal attacks, profanity or abusive language – or those aggressively promoting products or services – will be removed. We reserve the right to determine which comments violate our comment policy. (Anonymous comments are welcome; merely skip the “name” field in the comment box. An email address is required but will not be included with your comment.)