On Safety

The On Safety blog has moved.

OSHA Roundup for Sept. 3, 2013

September 3, 2013


OSHA’s new webpage focuses on safety issues women in the construction industry face.

The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission’s new strategic plan includes quicker case resolution.

Notable proposed fines

$259,000 to a New Jersey-based food product manufacturer for lockout/tagout violations and other alleged hazards

$150,700 to a big box home improvement store in Ohio for safety violations including failure to properly handle flammable-liquid storage containers to prevent accidental electrical discharge

$96,000 to a waterpark in Texas in connection with the death of a lifeguard killed when pinned inside an inadvertently activated wave generation machine

$65,000 to an Ohio manufacturer for allegations of lacking personal protective equipment and fall protection, among others, related to the injuries of two workers

Happening this week

Sept. 3 – Construction worker safety stand-down in Iowa, Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska

Review Counter

Below is a count of how many days recent OSHA proposals have been under review, as of July 29:

# of Days OSHA Proposal
651 Modernizing OSHA’s reporting system for injuries and illnesses (proposed rule)
433 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.)