On Safety

The On Safety blog has moved.

OSHA Roundup for Aug. 12, 2013

August 12, 2013


OSHA issues a draft of its strategic plan, which will put greater emphasis on health hazards.

Final OSHA rule changes federal agency recordkeeping rule requirements.

OSHA launches a Regional Emphasis Program on noise hazards in New England.

Regulatory delays, including those in OSHA, are explored during a Senate subcommittee hearing.

OSHA and NIOSH issue a hazard alert on the dangerous solvent 1-bromopropane.

Notable proposed fines

$235,800 to a lift truck manufacturer in Illinois for a variety of safety and health violations, including lack of personal protective equipment and training

$188,300 to an Ohio-based industrial manufacturer for allegations that workers were exposed to lead and copper fumes greater than permissible exposure levels

$117,500 to an Alabama steel manufacturer for violations that included lack of hand protection

$66,900 to a Dallas food manufacturer for violations connected to an amputation of a worker’s arm

Review Counter

Below is a count of how many days recent OSHA proposals have been under review, as of Aug. 12:

# of Days OSHA Proposal
910 Silica (proposed rule)
629 Modernizing OSHA’s reporting system for injuries and illnesses (proposed rule)
411 Electric power transmission and distribution; electrical protective equipment (final rule)

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 "Washington Wire" 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.)