But even with that win, the AFL-CIO, which led the fight for federal protective equipment rules, had to stage one last battle to make sure it was as tough as possible.
The new rule covers workers in general industry, shipyards, long-shoring, and marine terminals, and spells out requirements for eye-protection, such as goggles, and facial protection devices, plus head and foot protection. Construction workers are not covered by the new rules -- because OSHA said it lacked the “resources” to do so.
“Some commenters questioned the decision not to include construction...OSHA responded at the hearing that it decided not to include the construction industry because of the size of the undertaking and OSHA\'s limited resources,” the agency said.
The new OSHA rule for protective equipment for workers says employers “will be able to continue to use the same equipment they have been using to meet their compliance obligation under the existing standards\' design-criteria requirements.” One difference, which led to the long fight, is that employers will now have to buy the equipment for almost all workers.
“The final rule provides employers with additional options for meeting the design-criteria requirement -- options most employers already are using. Therefore, this final rule does not alter the substantive protection that must be provided to employees and the compliance burdens on employers,” OSHA added.
And employers will have “increased flexibility in choosing personal protective equipment” (PPE) for workers. “The final rule does not require an employer to update or replace its PPE solely as a result of this rule if the PPE currently in use meets the existing standards” to protect workers, the agency stated.
The final fight came over language OSHA proposed that replaced specific references to consensus national standards for protective equipment for workers -- be they boots, protective aprons, goggles or anything else -- with a requirement that the protective equipment be of “good design” and “performance-oriented.”
The AFL-CIO did not like that at all. Nor did others who commented, including three state labor departments. The federation “noted the proposal was confusing, that it removed a ‘baseline’ level of protection from the standards, that the criteria defining a good-design standard were too vague and subjective, and that the proposal could result in less employee protection,” OSHA admitted.
“In addition, the AFL-CIO asserted OSHA could alleviate the administrative and practical difficulties associated with outdated national consensus standards by updating the OSHA standards through direct-final rulemaking,” covering protective items.
OSHA still thought it was right, but yielded to the protests. “OSHA believes the widespread opposition to the ‘good-design’ provision indicates possible misapplication of the standard if adopted as proposed. In addition, the widespread support for continued incorporation of national consensus standards convinces OSHA that using direct-final rulemaking to update references to national consensus standards may alleviate the administrative and practical problems that arise. Accordingly, OSHA is not adopting the proposed good-design approach.”
online pharmacy buy propecia no prescription with best prices today in the USA
OSHA requires that personal protective equipment “be safely designed and constructed for the tasks performed,” acting OSHA administrator Jordan Barab, a former union safety and health specialist, said in a statement."Workers exposed to occupational hazards requiring head, foot, or eye and face
buy premarin online https://bartaco.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/premarin.html no prescription pharmacy
protection will now be provided protection based on a standard that reflects state-of-the-art technology and materials. This final rule is another step in OSHA\'s efforts to update or remove references to outdated national consensus and industry standards," he said.Mark Gruenberg writes for Press Associates, Inc., news service. Used by permission.
Share
But even with that win, the AFL-CIO, which led the fight for federal protective equipment rules, had to stage one last battle to make sure it was as tough as possible.
The new rule covers workers in general industry, shipyards, long-shoring, and marine terminals, and spells out requirements for eye-protection, such as goggles, and facial protection devices, plus head and foot protection. Construction workers are not covered by the new rules — because OSHA said it lacked the “resources” to do so.
“Some commenters questioned the decision not to include construction…OSHA responded at the hearing that it decided not to include the construction industry because of the size of the undertaking and OSHA\’s limited resources,” the agency said.
The new OSHA rule for protective equipment for workers says employers “will be able to continue to use the same equipment they have been using to meet their compliance obligation under the existing standards\’ design-criteria requirements.” One difference, which led to the long fight, is that employers will now have to buy the equipment for almost all workers.
“The final rule provides employers with additional options for meeting the design-criteria requirement — options most employers already are using. Therefore, this final rule does not alter the substantive protection that must be provided to employees and the compliance burdens on employers,” OSHA added.
And employers will have “increased flexibility in choosing personal protective equipment” (PPE) for workers. “The final rule does not require an employer to update or replace its PPE solely as a result of this rule if the PPE currently in use meets the existing standards” to protect workers, the agency stated.
The final fight came over language OSHA proposed that replaced specific references to consensus national standards for protective equipment for workers — be they boots, protective aprons, goggles or anything else — with a requirement that the protective equipment be of “good design” and “performance-oriented.”
The AFL-CIO did not like that at all. Nor did others who commented, including three state labor departments. The federation “noted the proposal was confusing, that it removed a ‘baseline’ level of protection from the standards, that the criteria defining a good-design standard were too vague and subjective, and that the proposal could result in less employee protection,” OSHA admitted.
“In addition, the AFL-CIO asserted OSHA could alleviate the administrative and practical difficulties associated with outdated national consensus standards by updating the OSHA standards through direct-final rulemaking,” covering protective items.
OSHA still thought it was right, but yielded to the protests. “OSHA believes the widespread opposition to the ‘good-design’ provision indicates possible misapplication of the standard if adopted as proposed. In addition, the widespread support for continued incorporation of national consensus standards convinces OSHA that using direct-final rulemaking to update references to national consensus standards may alleviate the administrative and practical problems that arise. Accordingly, OSHA is not adopting the proposed good-design approach.”
online pharmacy buy propecia no prescription with best prices today in the USA
OSHA requires that personal protective equipment “be safely designed and constructed for the tasks performed,” acting OSHA administrator Jordan Barab, a former union safety and health specialist, said in a statement.
"Workers exposed to occupational hazards requiring head, foot, or eye and face
buy premarin online https://bartaco.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/premarin.html no prescription pharmacy
protection will now be provided protection based on a standard that reflects state-of-the-art technology and materials. This final rule is another step in OSHA\’s efforts to update or remove references to outdated national consensus and industry standards," he said.
Mark Gruenberg writes for Press Associates, Inc., news service. Used by permission.