On Safety

The On Safety blog has moved.

OSHA Roundup for Sept. 16, 2013

September 16, 2013


The comment period for OSHA’s proposed silica rulemaking is open following the rule’s official publication in the Federal Register.

OSHA is accepting nominations for five open positions on its Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health.

A new acting chief is in charge of California’s OSHA program.

OSHA should cover all workers, and several rules – including silica and combustible dust – should be issued, an AFL-CIO resolution says.

Notable proposed fines

$194,000 to a Nebraska sewer service company for violations related to a trench collapse that seriously injured a worker

$83,415 to a Mississippi cottonseed oil producer for fall violations in connection with a worker’s back injury sustained in a fall

$61,600 to a manufacturer in Ohio for a machine guarding violation in response to a worker laceration injury

$53,900 to a New Jersey construction company for alleged fall hazards related to a worker injured in a 45-foot fall

Review Counter

Below is a count of how many days recent OSHA proposals have been under review, as of Sept. 16:

# of Days OSHA Proposal
664 Modernizing OSHA’s reporting system for injuries and illnesses (proposed rule)
446 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.)