In the final days (and even hours) of the Obama Administration, OSHA promulgated several significant regulatory changes. For example, after several decades, it updated the Walking Working Surfaces Standard (the regulation covering slips, trips and falls). It also published a controversial Electronic Injury Data Submission Rule, two new occupational health exposure standards for silica and beryllium, and brought the U.S. Hazard Communication Standard (the chemical right-to-know regulation) more in line with the United Nation’s Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals. To name a few.
But, as a new administration took the reigns at the Department of Labor, many wondered what would be the fate of these “midnight rules”? While many agency regulations have been subject to additional rulemaking (or even rule-rescinding), as expected given Pres. Trump’s promise for deregulation, others have remained untouched. This webinar will review the status of these OSHA Rules and where they may be headed.
The state of California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health, better known as Cal/OSHA, is perhaps the most aggressive and enforcement-heavy approved state OSH Program in the nation. California employers face a host of requirements that other employers around the country do not. Likewise, the Cal/OSHA inspection and appeal process creates several unique landmines for California employers.
Of particular significance in the coming year, California employers should be on the lookout for a new permanent E-Recordkeeping injury data submission rule, a new focus on finding Repeat violations, and the roll-out of several new California-unique rules.
OSHA’s controversial E-Recordkeeping Rule has been challenged and criticized by stakeholders since its inception, and finally, in January 2019, the Trump Administration unveiled its Final Amended Rule. However, the Amended Rule did not go nearly as far as many expected or hoped. Indeed, the Amended Rule eliminated only the requirement for large establishments to submit 300/301 data, but did nothing to alleviate the data submission burden on smaller employers, and did not address the controversial anti-retaliation provisions (e.g., limits to post-injury drug testing and safety incentive programs) at all.
Not to be confused with E-Recordkeeping, OSHA’s Significant Injury and Fatality Reporting Rule has created significant new interactions between employers and OSHA since its update in 2015. Many employers still wrestle with the nuances of when and how to report significant injuries involving hospitalizations, amputations, and fatalities to OSHA. In particular, employers are struggling to determine what constitutes a reportable hospitalization and amputation.
Yesterday OSHA announced and today OSHA officially published its Final Rule amending its Electronic Recordkeeping Rule. After years of advocacy for change to (or to rescind) OSHA’s controversial Obama-era rule to “Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses” (aka the E-Recordkeeping Rule), and a transition to the de-regulatory platform of the Trump Administration, OSHA has finally approved changes (hopefully just the first step) to pare down the E-Recordkeeping Rule.
On July 30, 2018, OSHA announced a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to amend the E-Recordkeeping Rule. 83 Fed. Reg. 36494 (July 30, 2018). The proposed Rule included only one significant change to the current regulation. Specifically, the proposal sought to rescind the requirement for the largest employers — those with individual establishments with 250 or more employees — to annually submit to OSHA’s online web portal the data from their 300 logs and 301 detailed incident reports of recorded injuries and illnesses.
The proposal left intact the requirement for these large employers and many more smaller employers to annually submit 300A annual summary data. Perhaps even more concerning to employers than leaving in place a portion of the electronic data submission requirements, the final rule does not disturb in any manner the controversial and duplicative “anti-retaliation” provisions, or the interpretations of those provisions included in the Preamble to the 2016 Final Rule. These are the provisions that endeavored to restrict employers’ authority to discipline employees for late injury reporting or for safety violations, as well as limit employer’s ability to perform post-incident drug testing and to provide safety incentives. For more information about these elements of the E-Recordkeeping Rule, check out our previous blog article regarding the E-Recordkeeping Anti-Retaliation provisions.
Tortured History and Difficulties Implementing E-Recordkeeping
Historically, unless OSHA opened an enforcement inspection at an employer’s workplace or the Bureau of Labor Statistics requested an employer participate in its annual injury data survey, employers’ injury and illness recordkeeping data was maintained internally. In a major policy shift, President Obama’s OSHA Continue reading →
The ball has dropped, the confetti has been swept out of Times Square, and 2018 is in the books. It’s time to look back and take stock of what we learned from and about OSHA over the past year. More importantly, it is time to look ahead to what we can expect from OSHA as we transition to the out years of President Trump’s first term. This webinar reviewed OSHA enforcement, rulemaking, and other developments from 2018, and discussed the Top 5 OSHA Issues employers should monitor and prepare for in the New Year.
After years of wondering how OSHA could possibly manage and use data collected under the 2016 E-Recordkeeping Rule, the agency has finally revealed its hand. Last month, OSHA launched its Site-Specific Targeting 2016 (“SST-16”) inspection plan, which outlines the agency’s strategy to target establishments for inspection based on the 300A data collected by OSHA under its Final Rule to Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illness (i.e. the “E-Recordkeeping Rule”).
What is OSHA’s SST-16 Inspection Plan?
The SST-16 Inspection Plan is OSHA’s site-specific targeting inspection plan for non-construction workplaces that have 20 or more employees. The Plan is based on the calendar year 2016 300A injury and illness summary data that employers submitted to OSHA via OSHA’s Injury Tracking Application (aka, the E-Recordkeeping Portal) in December 2017.
Employers should not be surprised by OSHA’s site-specific targeting plan, as this is not a novel program for OSHA. SST was the grandfather of all OSHA enforcement emphasis programs. Prior to 2014, SST programs used injury and illness information collected under the former OSHA Data Initiative to target the agency’s inspection resources.
OSHA believes the SST Program is “program helps OSHA achieve its goal of ensuring that employers provide safe and healthful workplaces by directing enforcement resources to those workplaces with the highest rates of injuries and illnesses.”
The SST-16 Plan selects individual establishments for inspection based on their CY 2016 300A injury data submitted under the E-Recordkeeping Rule. OSHA has created a software that will generate a list of targeted establishments for enforcement from this pool of data. The targeted establishments will be those with Continue reading →
We are now two years into the Trump Administration, and we have seen a mixed bag of changes in the OSHA enforcement and regulatory landscape. We have watched some late Obama-era OSHA rules get repealed by the Congressional Review Act or delayed and amended through deregulatory rulemaking. We have seen some efforts to boost up the VPP Program and other cooperative programs—the sorts of policy shifts at OSHA many expect in a transition to a republican administration. However, we have also been surprised by OSHA increasing the number of inspections, setting records for the number of $100K+ enforcement actions, and continuing to issue hard hitting press releases. And most surprising of all, OSHA still does not have a Senate-approved Assistant Secretary—the longest ever wait for a permanent OSHA Administrator.
As we move into the out years of Pres. Trump’s first term, we expect more reshuffling of OSHA’s enforcement priorities and policies, and more surprises, so it is critical to stay abreast of OSHA developments. This complimentary 2019 OSHA Webinar Series, presented by the OSHA-specialist attorneys inConn Maciel Carey’s national OSHA Practice Group, is designed to give employers insight into changes and developments at OSHA during this unpredictable time.
OSHA guidance states that “if an employee can perform their job functions in a manner which does not pose a safety hazard to themselves or others, the fact they have a disability is irrelevant.” But under the Americans with Disabilities Act, it can be difficult to determine when and how to accommodate a disability while also protecting safety of disabled employees and their co-workers. This assessment is further complicated when employers are unaware a disability may cause or contribute to a workplace hazard. It is important to understand the law in this context, especially due to America’s aging workforce.
The ADA also requires medical information related to a disability be kept confidential, yet OSHA mandates certain information be provided on OSHA injuries and illness recordkeeping Logs. A disability may also impact whether and how an injury is recorded. Likewise, both the ADA and OSHA rules impact employee drug testing and handling drug test information. Therefore, it is critical for employers to understand the intersection between the ADA and OSHA.
Following the tragic West Fertilizer explosion in 2013, then-President Obama issued an Executive Order directing OSHA, EPA and other agencies to “modernize” the way the government regulates chemical manufacturing processes. OSHA and EPA took sweeping actions in response to the Executive Order, from enforcement initiatives (like the second wave of Refinery PSM NEP inspections) to rulemaking and interpretation letters to overhaul OSHA’s PSM and EPA’s RMP regulatory landscape.
Then President Trump took office with a de-regulatory agenda. Just days into office, key safety and environmental regulations were delayed or repealed, new political leadership was installed, and enforcement policies were reexamined. So where does that leave OSHA’s and EPA’s efforts to change the structure of process safety management?
This webinar reviewed the status and likely future of OSHA’s PSM Standard and EPA’s RMP Rule, and other major safety and health related developments rolling out in the early stages of the Trump Administration.
The Inaugural Process Safety Summit in Washington, DC on October 23, 2018 was a huge success. The event allowed more than 160 safety and legal representatives from the petroleum refining, chemical manufacturing, paper manufacturing, and fertilizer industries to hear from and share with senior federal government officials from OSHA, EPA and the Chemical Safety Board, both through interactive panel discussions and breakout discussions. The agency panels and facilitated discussions covered topics ranging from enforcement under the Trump Administration, to the status of OSHA’s PSM and RMP Rulemakings, candid debates about major issues in dispute in recent PSM and RMP cases, and practical discussions about how to prepare for the next round of inspections under OSHA’s new PSM National Emphasis Program and comply with RMP in the wake of the new Amendments and the imminent Rescission Rule.
the importance of candid discussions between regulators and the regulated community; and
the near-term risk of agencies possibly revisiting and revising the historical performance-oriented paradigm of the process safety regulatory framework.
Too often, OSHA and EPA representatives complain that Industry “can make up the rules as it goes along.” – Tweet from a former Senior OSHA Official.
Statements like that imply a haphazard approach to process safety that it is not reflected by the diligent work of refiners and manufacturers across the country. Our experience shows a much different take on process safety. We hear about all of the ways that process safety is evolving, we watch how lessons are being learned and applied from incidents and experience, and we see how much time is spent anticipating the kinds of issues that could cause a process safety incident. More importantly, remarks about Industry “making up the rules as it goes along” also reflect a flawed view that Continue reading →
On May 11, 2016, OSHA published its Final Rule for injury and illness recordkeeping electronic data submissions — what we refer to as the E-Recordkeeping Rule. The rule fundamentally changed OSHA’s long-standing injury and illness recordkeeping program by requiring injury and illness data to be proactively shared with OSHA, which intended originally (and still, but after some delay) to publicize the data for all the world to see. The 2016 E-Recordkeeping Rule required:
All establishments with 250 or more employees in industries covered by the recordkeeping regulation to submit to OSHA annually their injury and illness data and information from their OSHA 300 Logs, 301 Incident Reports, and 300A Annual Summaries.
Establishments with 20-249 employees in select “high hazard industries” to annually submit information from their 300A Annual Summaries only.
In addition to the electronic data submission requirements, the E-Recordkeeping also introduced (out of left field) some new anti-retaliation restrictions that were intended to eliminate employer policies that may discourage employees from reporting injuries, purportedly for the nefarious purpose of reducing the numbers of injuries the employer has to share with OSHA. These anti-retaliation provisions included very generic, vague language, but through a series of memos, interpretation letters, and other guidance, we have learned that the anti-retaliation elements primarily restrict employers’ use of safety incentive programs (prizes for injury-free work), post-incident drug testing, executive compensation and bonuses, and post-incident discipline. Although none of those terms even appears in the 2016 regulatory text, OSHA included a panoply of new restrictions impacting very common workplace policies and programs in the Preamble to the Final Rule. For more information about the controversial anti-retaliation elements of the E-Recordkeeping Rule, check out our previous blog post.
Since promulgation in May 2016, implementation of all aspects of the Rule has been mired in difficulty. Continue reading →
During the Obama Era, OSHA sharpened its enforcement teeth considerably by rewriting policies to characterize more violations as repeat and willful, and by significantly increasing its civil penalty authority. Now, OSHA violations characterized as Repeat or Willful carry penalties up to approx. $126,000 each. But what are Repeat and Willful violations? And what are these “Egregious” (or per-instance) citations OSHA has been issuing more and more often that lead to multi-million dollar enforcement actions?
This webinar covered the legal standard for Repeat, Willful and Egregious violations, the circumstances most often associated with them, the consequences for receiving them, and how OSHA’s enforcement policies have resulted in significant increases in the frequency with which we see them.
Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit handed EPA (and Industry) a significant setback in the long-running battle over the 2017 Amendments to EPA’s Risk Management Program (RMP) Rule (EPA’s companion regulation to OSHA’s Process Safety Management Standard). Specifically, in a per curiam order in Air Alliance Houston v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit held that EPA under the Trump Administration acted improperly when it issued a final rule delaying the effective date by 20 months (from June 2017 to February 2019), of a significant set of Amendments to the RMP Rule that had been promulgated in the final days of the Obama Administration.
This ruling creates significant concern for the regulated community. The Amendments require major overhauls to they way covered employers implement their risk management plans. But EPA is still advancing a rulemaking to rescind and narrow those Amendments. Without this delay, there is tremendous uncertainty about whether or when to implement changes to those programs.
Indeed, EPA’s express purpose of the lengthy delay of the RMP Amendments was to provide time for EPA to reconsider and eliminate or curtail the sweeping new provisions. The D.C. Circuit criticized EPA for its attempts to delay a regulation that it had just recently issued, stating in the written opinion that:
“the Delay Rule thus contains no provisions that advance or accomplish these goals [of preventing accidental releases and protecting human health and the environment], but instead delays these objectives contrary to EPA’s prior determinations in a rulemaking.”
This complimentary program will feature panel discussions with representatives from EEOC, NLRB, and OSHA addressing key policy trends and regulatory developments. They will be joined by senior corporate counsel from multinational corporations and Conn Maciel Carey’s Labor & Employment and OSHA specialist attorneys. There will also be moderated breakout roundtable sessions covering issues of concern to various industry segments.
1:00 PM – Registration and Networking
1:30 PM – OSHA Panel
Angie Loftus (OSHA Area Director – Chicago North Area Office)
As a small budget agency, OSHA has long looked for policies that will leverage individual enforcement actions to have the greatest impact on Industry. That is the origin of OSHA’s controversial policy of “Regulation by Shaming.” During the Obama Administration, employer shaming became a significant enforcement tool and came in many forms, from increasing use of enforcement press releases that included embarrassing and inflammatory quotations about employers, to maintaining a public bad actors list in connection with the Severe Violator Enforcement Program, and the piècede résistance – publishing a Rule by which OSHA will collect and publish employers’ injury and illness data and details about fatalities.
The Trump Administration has signaled it will take a different approach to public shaming, but at the very least, the vestiges of these policies still remain, and some Administration actions suggest they are here to stay.
After years of advocacy for change to (or to rescind) OSHA’s controversial Obama-era rule to “Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses” (aka the E-Recordkeeping Rule), and a transition to the de-regulatory platform of the Trump Administration, OSHA has taken a step (hopefully just the first step) to pare down the E-Recordkeeping Rule. Specifically, OSHA announced a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to amend the E-Recordkeeping Rule. While the proposed change will undoubtedly be welcomed by Industry, the scope of the proposed change, however, does not address most of the fundamental concerns employers have repeatedly raised about the controversial rule.
The Proposed Rule includes only one significant change to the current regulation. The proposal seeks to eliminate the requirement for the largest employers, those with establishments with 250 or more employees, to annually submit to OSHA the data from their 300 logs and 301 detailed incident reports of recorded injuries and illnesses via OSHA’s new online web portal. However, the proposal leaves intact the concerning requirements for these large employers and many smaller employers to annually submit 300A annual summary data via OSHA’s electronic portal.
Perhaps even more concerning to employers than leaving in place a portion of the electronic data submission requirements, the proposed rule does not disturb in any manner the highly controversial “anti-retaliation” provisions, or the interpretations of those provisions included in the 2016 final rule preamble. In addition to establishing requirements for electronic submission of injury and illness recordkeeping data, the 2016 E-Recordkeeping Rule endeavored to restrict employers’ rights to adopt employee injury reporting policies and expanded OSHA’s enforcement authority by introducing a vague new set of “anti-retaliation” provisions.
What is the Process Safety Summit in Washington, DC?
The Process Safety Summit in Washington, DC will be an annual event featuring a full-day program in Washington, DC gathering interested stakeholders from the chemical, petrochemical, and petroleum refining industries, and other industries with operations impacted by OSHA’s PSM Standard and EPA’s RMP Rule.
The focus of the Process Safety Summit in Washington, DC will be on the process safety regulatory landscape. The full-day Program will cover the PSM/RMP rulemakings, enforcement programs, significant cases, trends through the transition to the new Administration, best practices, and other key process safety regulatory issues impacting Industry.
This Process Safety Summit fills an important gap in Washington, DC. Although there are opportunities for trade groups and employers to interact with key government regulators, none of those opportunities focus on process safety, and the process safety-oriented events that do exist are far from Washington, DC, making it hard to attract more than one senior agency official.
[Part 1]: 5 reasons it is critical for employers to ensure compliance with OSHA’s LOTO Standard; and
[Part 2]: 5 common mistakes employers make implementing LOTO requirements.
Part 1 Summary: Five Reasons it is Critical to Get LOTO Right
As we discussed in Part 1 of this two-part article, there are five important OSHA enforcement reasons why it is vital for employers to truly grasp OSHA’s regulatory requirements for lockout/tagout (LOTO) and implement them.
Those 5 reasons are:
Amputation Injuries Create Special Reporting Obligations
LOTO Citations are Low Hanging Fruit for OSHA
OSHA is Actively Pursuing LOTO Violations with a National Emphasis Program
LOTO Violations Qualify for the Severe Violator Enforcement Program
LOTO Violations are Among the Most Used for OSH Act Criminal Prosecutions
For a detailed discussion about those reasons, check out Part 1 of this two-part article.
Part 2: Five Common LOTO Mistakes
This part details the five most common mistakes and misunderstandings associated with OSHA’s regulatory requirements for LOTO.
1. Confusion about When the LOTO Standard Applies
Normal production operations are not covered by the LOTO standard. Rather, the requirements of OSHA’s LOTO standard kick in during servicing and/or maintenance, or any production activity that requires an employee to remove or bypass a guard or other safety device, or if an employee is required to place any part of his or her body into an area on a machine or piece of equipment where work is performed upon the material being processed. Otherwise, the employer is expected to install and maintain appropriate guards that protect employees as required by 1910.212, OSHA’s machine guarding standard.
While the LOTO and machine guarding standards tend to complement each other—one protects employees during normal production operations (guarding), while the other protects employees during servicing or maintenance (LOTO). Technically, OSHA may not cite the Continue reading →
[Part 1]: Five reasons it is critical for employers to ensure compliance with OSHA’s LOTO Standard; and
[Part 2]: Five common mistakes employers make when implementing the LOTO requirements.
Part 1: Why it is Critical for Employers to Get LOTO Right
The list could be much longer, but we have identified five enforcement-related reasons why it is particularly important for employers to fully grasp OSHA’s LOTO requirements and to implement them effectively.
Before we get to the enforcement reasons for strict LOTO compliance, let’s first note that the associated hazards that LOTO was designed to protect against are serious and frequently realized. Workers performing service or maintenance on machinery face the risk of serious injuries and even death, if hazardous energy is not properly controlled. The most common types of injuries from unexpected energization during maintenance are amputations or lacerations to body parts, as well as electrocutions, burns, and crushing/struck-by.
OSHA reports that “craft workers, electricians, machine operators, and laborers are among the 3 million workers who service equipment routinely and face the greatest risk of injury. Workers injured on the job from exposure to hazardous energy lose an average of 24 workdays for recuperation.” OSHA also explains that the failure to control hazardous energy accounts for 10% of the serious accidents in most industries.
While employers should never lose focus from that important safety reason to focus on LOTO, the purpose of this article is to address the numerous regulatory enforcement reasons that getting LOTO right is uniquely important.
1. Amputation Injuries Create Special Reporting Obligations
Amputations, which is one of the primary hazards intended to be addressed by effective LOTO, is one of the only specific injury types for which there is a special duty for employers to proactively to report to OSHA. Continue reading →
Employers’ perceptions about their legal responsibilities for certain workers is not always reality, particularly in the context of oft-changing interpretations of what constitutes an employer-employee relationship. An employer may classify workers as a temp or independent contractor, but that does not mean DOL agrees. At the tail end of the Obama Admin., DOL issued guidance that a majority of workers should be treated as employees, insinuating that in most cases, employers are accountable for the obligations of an employer-employee relationship. However, the Trump Admin. appears is shifting gears. That guidance was withdrawn by new Sec. of Labor Acosta. Congress has also begun to undercut the broad joint-employer standard established by the NLRB in Browning-Ferris, by revisiting language in applicable laws. It remains essential for employers to carefully evaluate employment relationships and their own functions in the multi-employer context.
Even if there is no legal employer-employee relationship, companies may have safety obligations and liability depending on their role at multi-employer worksites or when using temporary workers. Protection of temporary workers was a priority of OSHA in the prior Admin., and the guidance developed in that context remains the current standard for host employers and staffing agencies. OSHA has also stood by its multi-employer policy, though it is being challenged in federal court.
A fascinating jurisdictional tug-of-war has broken out between federal OSHA and a few fed OSHA approved State OSH Programs, in relation to OSHA’s Final Rule to “Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses” (aka the E-Recordkeeping Rule). The E-Recordkeeping Rule requires large employers and smaller employees that operate in certain “high hazard industries” to proactively submit their electronic injury and illness data to OSHA through a special web portal – the Injury Tracking Application (“ITA”).
State Plan Adoption of OSHA’s E-Recordkeeping Rule
When fed OSHA promulgated the Rule in 2016, it built into the Rule a mandate that all State Plans adopt substantially identical requirements to the final E-Recordkeeping Rule within six months after its publication. However, because the State Plan states all have their own legislative or rulemaking processes, they cannot simply snap their fingers and instantly adopt a new fed OSHA rule.
Most of the 20+ State Plans acted promptly to promulgate their own version of the E-Recordkeeping rule, ahead of the deadline to submit data the first year of the Rule, but as of the end of 2017, when employers’ 2016 300A data was due to be submitted, eight State Plans had not yet adopted (and some, like California, had not even started the process to adopt) an E-Recordkeeping Rule. Those states included:
Washington (WA DLI, WISHA, or DOSH);
South Carolina (SC OSHA);
Wyoming (WY OSHA); and
The delay by these States has primarily been a result of fed OSHA’s numerous announcements that it will soon issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to amend (or rescind) the federal E-Recordkeeping Rule. The State Plans have been reluctant to invest the time and resources to implement their own versions of the rule, only to watch fed OSHA change it, causing the states to have to change their own rules again very soon.
Of those eight states, only Vermont has since finalized its E-Recordkeeping Rule this year, and the other seven remain delinquent in their obligation to adopt the Rule.
Last year, fed OSHA and those eight state plans apparently recognized that only employers in fed OSHA states or State Plan states that had already adopted the E-Recordkeeping rule were required to submit their 300A data to OSHA. This year, however, fed OSHA spoke up about the delinquent states. Continue reading →
OSHA’s controversial Electronic Recordkeeping and Anti-Retaliation Rule was promulgated in May 2016. Despite a barrage of negative comments during the rulemaking, multiple enforcement deferrals, and two legal challenges that have been stayed pending the Trump Administration’s re-evaluation of the Rule, all elements of the rule are currently in effect. Indeed, last December, hundreds of thousands of workplaces, for the first time, submitted their injury and illness recordkeeping data to OSHA through its Injury Tracking Application (ITA) web portal.
The Trump Administration is ready to announce its future plans for the E-Recordkeeping Rule, signaling that it will publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to revise (or potentially rescind) the Rule later this month. However, the extent of the revisions to the rule remain unknown, and the timing is key as we approach July 1, 2018, the deadline for the second round of injury data submissions.
Conn Maciel Carey LLP, a boutique law firm with national practices in workplace safety (OSHA and MSHA), labor & employment, and litigation, is pleased to announce that Beeta B. Lashkari has joined the firm as an attorney in its Washington, D.C. office.
Ms. Lashkari, a former attorney-investigator at the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB), will advise and represent clients in a wide-range of inspections, investigations, and enforcement actions, including those from the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the CSB, and state and local regulators. As one of only four attorney-investigators at the CSB, Ms. Lashkari was involved in several major investigations of chemical accidents.
“Beeta brings a unique array of experience and perspective that will enhance the safety and health law services we provide to employers across all industries, and particularly chemical and petrochemical manufacturers,” said Eric J. Conn, Chair of the firm’s national OSHA practice. “We’ve been busy this year expanding our firm, and Beeta is another superb addition to our already deep bench of OSH law experts.”
Ms. Lashkari will also support the firm’s labor and employment practice group in managing workplace investigations, including Continue reading →
OSHA’s Lockout/Tagout (Energy Control) Standard is always one of OSHA’s most frequently cited standards, and now, with the “Amputations National Emphasis Program” raging on into 2018, as well as LOTO violations continuing to be considered “high emphasis hazards” to qualify employers into the dreaded Severe Violator Enforcement Program, it is critical for employers to get Lockout/Tagout right. While LOTO continues to be an important standard, it also continues to be one of the least understood standards. This webinar will highlight the Top 10 most misunderstand and frequently cited aspects of the LOTO rule, and forecast some potential changes to the rule and OSHA’s enforcement of it.