December 18, 2017Ms. Brenda Finter, CIH, CSPB2 Environmental4503 S 90th StreetOmaha, Nebraska 68154 Dear Ms. Finter: Thank you for your August 16, 2017, letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Your letter was referred to OSHA's Directorate of Enforcement Programs for a response. You have a question related to the acceptability of a sampler not specifically identified in OSHA's new Respirable Crystalline Silica standards. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation only of the requirements discussed and may not be applicable to any question not delineated within your original correspondence. Your paraphrased question and our response are below. Background: You state that the new Respirable Crystalline Silica standards specifically identify cyclones as acceptable particle-size-selective samplers, but do not mention if impactors can also be used for sampling for respirable crystalline silica. You have included the specifications for a commercially available parallel particle impactor (PPI) that you are interested in using to sample for respirable crystalline silica. Question: If a selective-size sampler meets the ISO standard, 7708:1995: Air Quality – Particle Size Fraction Definitions for Health-Related Sampling, but is not mentioned as an acceptable sampler in Appendix A of the Respirable Crystalline Silica standards, is it acceptable to use it for respirable crystalline silica sampling? Response: Yes. The silica standards, 29 CFR 1910.1053 and 29 CFR 1926.1153, define respirable crystalline silica as "quartz, cristobalite, and/or tridymite contained in airborne particles that are determined to be respirable by a sampling device designed to meet the characteristics for respirable-particle-size-selective samplers specified in the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 7708:1995: Air Quality – Particle Size Fraction Definitions for Health-Related Sampling." In its final rule for respirable crystalline silica, OSHA noted that, in addition to cyclone samplers, personal impactors are available for use at flow rates from 2 to 8 L/min that have been shown to conform closely to the ISO/CEN convention (81 FR 16439, March 25, 2016). Therefore, a PPI or any sampling device that meets the ISO/CEN particle-size-selective criteria for respirable dust samplers would be acceptable for respirable crystalline silica sampling by employers, even if it is not mentioned as an acceptable sampler in Appendix A to the silica standards. The employer must also maintain an accurate record of all exposure measurements taken to assess employee exposure to respirable crystalline silica, which must include information on the sampling and analytical methods used, and the identity of the laboratory that performed the analysis, as required under 29 CFR 1910.1053(k)(1) and 29 CFR 1926.1153(j)(1). With regard to the specific PPI model that you have mentioned in your letter, note that OSHA does not approve or endorse products or equipment. Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. We hope you find this information helpful. OSHA's requirements are set by statute, standards, and regulations. Our letters of interpretation do not create new or additional requirements but rather explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. From time to time, letters are affected when the Agency updates a standard, a legal decision impacts a standard, or changes in technology affect the interpretation. To assure that you are using the correct information and guidance, please consult OSHA's website at www.osha.gov. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact the Office of Health Enforcement at (202) 693-2190. Sincerely, Thomas Galassi, DirectorDirectorate of Enforcement Programs

OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at http://www.osha.gov.March 2, 2018MEMORANDUM FOR REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORSMEMORANDUM FOR:RICHARD MENDELSONActing Deputy Assistant SecretaryFROM:Thomas Galassi, DirectorDirectorate of Enforcement ProgramsSUBJECTDelay of Enforcement of the Beryllium Standards under 29 CFR 1910.1024, 29 CFR 1915.1024, and 29 CFR 1926.1124The final rule on Occupational Exposure to Beryllium, published on January 9, 2017, established new Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) and contained several other ancillary provisions that apply to general industry, construction, and shipyards. This rule was codified in three separate standards at 29 CFR §1910.1024, 29 CFR §1915.1024, and 29 CFR §1926.1124, and became effective on May 20, 2017. Under the general industry standard, all obligations were to commence on March 12, 2018, except for requirements for change rooms and showers in paragraphs (i)(2) and (i)(3), which commence on March 11, 2019, and requirements for engineering controls in paragraph (f), which commence on March 10, 2020.On June 27, 2017, OSHA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to revoke the ancillary provisions of the construction and shipyard standards, 29 CFR §1915.1024 and 29 CFR §1926.1124, but retaining the new PEL and STEL. In that Notice, OSHA announced that it would not enforce the new construction and shipyard standards without further notice while that rulemaking was underway. 82 FR 29183. On August 24, 2017, OSHA noted on its website that it would not enforce the ancillary provisions of those standards without further notice, but did not state whether it would enforce the PEL or STEL.OSHA has been in extensive settlement discussions with several parties who have filed legal actions challenging the general industry standard. In order to provide additional time to conclude those negotiations, we have decided to delay enforcement of the general industry standard by 60 days until May 11, 2018. Furthermore, to ensure employers have adequate notice before OSHA begins enforcing them, as well as in the interest of uniform enforcement and clarity for employers, we have decided to also delay enforcement of the PEL and STEL in the construction and shipyard standards until May 11, 2018. No other parts of the construction and shipyard beryllium standards will be enforced without additional notice. In the interim, if an employer fails to meet the new PEL or STEL, OSHA will inform the employer of the exposure levels and offer assistance to assure understanding and compliance. No provisions of the beryllium final rule may be enforced until May 11, 2018. Please notify your staff of this delay.

OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at http://www.osha.gov.January 12, 2018Mr. Tom Binner & Ms. Dawn KrizVirginia Ship Repair Association150 Boush St., Suite 802Norfolk, VA 23510Dear Mr. Binner and Ms. Kriz:Thank you for your letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regarding the recordkeeping regulation contained in 29 CFR Part 1904 - Recording and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illnesses.Your letter requests clarification of OSHA's injury and illness recordkeeping requirements pertaining to an employer that supervises temporary workers on a day-to-day basis, but has limited access to their medical records when an injury or illness occurs. You indicate that some temporary staffing agencies refuse to provide the host employer with supporting medical information that would enable the host firm to determine whether or how to record a case. Your letter includes an example where a temporary agency refuses to give access to an employee's medical records due to the privacy requirements in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1970 (HIPAA).Recording Injuries and Illnesses of Temporary WorkersOSHA's injury and illness recordkeeping regulation at 29 CFR 1904.31(a) requires employers to record the recordable injuries and illnesses of employees they supervise on a day-to-day basis, even if these workers are not carried on the employer's payroll. The requirements in Section 1904.31 are based on the consideration that the supervising employer is in the best position to obtain the necessary injury and illness information due to its control over the workplace and its familiarity with the work tasks and the work environment. Day-to-day supervision occurs when "in addition to specifying the output, product or result to be accomplished by the person's work, the employer supervises the details, means, methods and processes by which the work is to be accomplished." See, OSHA's Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) 31-1 at www.osha.gov/recordkeeping/entryfaq.html.Section 1904.31(b)(4) provides that companies and their subcontractors should coordinate their efforts to ensure that each injury and illness is recorded only once - by the employer who provides day-to-day supervision at the worksite. This means that the employer who actually provides day-to-day supervision is responsible for recording cases on their OSHA Log regardless of the wording of the parties' contract.Under OSHA's recordkeeping regulation, the employer that provides day-to-day supervision must make reasonable efforts to acquire the necessary information to satisfy their Part 1904 recording responsibilities. However, in situations where the controlling employer is not able to obtain medical information from the employer of a leased or temporary employee, the controlling employer should record injuries or illnesses based on the information that is available. Please know that, in order to produce accurate records, it is OSHA's expectation that employers will share information about work-related injuries and illnesses. See, the January 19, 2001 preamble to OSHA's final rule revising the Part 1904 recordkeeping regulation (66 Federal Register 5916 at 6041).HIPAA Privacy RuleThe HIPAA privacy rule, issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), 45 CFR 160 and 164, provides extensive safeguards and procedures for assuring the confidentiality of individually identifiable health information. As required by HIPAA, the provisions of the privacy rule only apply to "covered entities." The term "covered entity" includes health plans, health care clearinghouses, and health care providers who conduct certain financial and administrative transactions electronically. See, 45 CFR 160.103. As a result, the requirements of the HIPAA privacy rule would only apply to a temporary staffing agency if it meets the definition of a "covered entity."The fundamental requirement of the HIPAA privacy rule is that covered entities may not use or disclose protected health information (PHI) without the written authorization of the person who is the subject of the information. However, the privacy rule includes several exceptions for disclosing PHI without individual authorization. See, 45 CFR 164.512, Uses and disclosures for which an authorization or opportunity to agree or object is not required. The exception at Section 164.512(b) provides that a covered entity may use or disclose PHI for public health activities. Most importantly, Section 164.512(b)(1)(v)C) specifically permits a covered entity to use or disclose PHI in order to comply with obligations under Part 1904.(b) Standard: Uses and disclosures for public health activities - (1) Permitted uses and disclosures. A covered entity may use or disclose protected health information for the public health activities and purposes described in this paragraph to: (v) An employer, about an individual who is a member of the workforce of the employer, if:(C) The employer, needs such findings in order to comply with its obligations, under 29 CFR parts 1904 through 1928, 30 CFR parts 50 through 90, or under state law having a similar purpose, to record such illness or injury or to carry out responsibilities for workplace medical surveillance; andAccordingly, in situations where a temporary staffing agency meets the definition of a covered entity, Section 164.512(b)(1)(v)(C) would permit them to disclose PHI to the controlling employer for purposes of compliance with Part 1904.The following Letters of Interpretation posted on OSHA's web site may also provide you with further useful information:06/23/2003 - "Recording criteria for cases involving workers from a temporary help service, employee leasing service, or personnel supply service": https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=2451808/02/2004 - "OSHA 300 Log requirements versus HIPAA privacy requirements": https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=24898We hope you find this information helpful. OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards, and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in responses to new information. To keep appraised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at http://www.osha.gov.Sincerely,Amanda L. Edens, DirectorDirectorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management

OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at http://www.osha.gov.December 21, 2017Eric BlankenheimBlankenheim Services1650 Tri Park WaySuite AAppleton, WI 54914Dear Mr. Blankenheim:Thank you for your letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regarding 29 CFR Part 1904 - Recording and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illnesses. Specifically, you ask whether the use of a cold compression therapy device is medical treatment for OSHA recordkeeping purposes.In your letter, you state that a cold compression therapy device uses cold therapy, non-rigid wraps, and compression to treat an injury. In general, cold therapy is used in response to inflammation and pain experienced by an individual. This therapy lowers the temperature while slowing the metabolic rate of the tissues, and allows for the survival of those tissues. You also state that non-rigid supports assist in the reduction of an individual's physical symptoms through support and protection of an injured muscle without limiting range of motion of the joint or muscle tissues involved. Also, according to your letter, "compression treatment" includes the use of elastic wraps and massage. Compression produces a force that helps decrease swelling within the injured tissues.Section 1904.7(a) of OSHA's recordkeeping regulation requires employers to record work-related injuries and illnesses that result in medical treatment beyond first aid. Section 1904.7(b)(5)(i) states that medical treatment means "the management and care of a patient to combat disease or disorder." Under Part 1904, medical treatment does not include "first aid" as defined in paragraph 1904.7(b)(5)(ii). Section 1904.7(b)(5)(iii) goes on to state that the list of treatments in Section 1904.7(b)(5)(ii) is a comprehensive list of first aid treatments. Any treatment not included on this list is not considered first aid for OSHA recordkeeping purposes.Several individual components of a cold compression therapy device are included on the list of first aid treatments. For example, the use of cold therapy (1904.7(b)(5)(ii)(E)), non-rigid means of support (such as elastic wraps) (1904.7(b)(5)(ii)(F)), and massage (1904.7(b)(ii)(M) are considered first aid when treating a work-related injury or illness. However, please note that Section 1904.7(b)(5)(ii)(M) states that physical therapy is considered medical treatment and is not considered first aid. Physical therapy is used for more serious injuries, and is provided by licensed personnel with advanced training and therefore rises to the level of medical treatment beyond first aid. See, the preamble to OSHA's January 19, 2001 final rule revising the recordkeeping regulation (66 Federal Register 5915, at 5952).Additionally, in the 2001 preamble to the final rule, OSHA explained the reasoning behind the list of first aid treatments in Section 1904.7(b)(5)(ii). The Agency stated that, in general, first aid can be distinguished from medical treatment as follows:First aid is usually administered after the injury or illness occurs and at the location (e.g., workplace) where the injury or illness occurred.First aid generally consists of one-time or short-term treatment.First aid treatments are usually simple and require little or no technology.First aid can be administered by people with little training (beyond first aid training) and even by the injured or ill person.First aid is usually administered to keep the condition from worsening, while the injured or ill person is awaiting medical treatment. (See, 66 Federal Register 5915 at 5985).To determine whether cold compression therapy devices constitute medical treatment or first aid under the definitions in the recordkeeping regulation, OSHA's Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management consulted with the OSHA Office of Occupational Medicine and Nursing (OOMN). Based on the definitions in Section 1904.7(b)(5), the factors for distinguishing medical treatment from first aid set forth in the 2001 preamble, and an extensive review of the available literature by the OOMN, OSHA concludes that cold compression therapy devices are medical treatment for purposes of OSHA recordkeeping.In some cases, cold compression therapy devices are used in a doctor's office or hospital setting as part of medical care for a significant injury, trauma, or post-surgery. However, in most cases these devices are used in therapy departments or offices performing physical therapy or occupational therapy. Typically, the device is used to reduce a patient's pain, swelling, or inflammation after therapy. In addition, unlike the first aid treatments listed in Section 1904.7(b)(5)(ii), cold compression therapy devices are not simple to operate. Administering this type of treatment requires specialized training and is applied by a licensed professional.As noted above, some of the individual components of cold compression therapy devices are included on the Part 1904 first aid list. However, cold compression therapy devices also include a component of physical therapy, and physical therapy is not included on the first aid list. Accordingly, since one of its components involves physical therapy, when cold compression therapy devices are used to treat a work-related injury or illness, such devices constitute medical treatment beyond first aid.We hope you find this information helpful. OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards, and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules.Sincerely,Amanda L. Edens, DirectorDirectorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management

OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at http://www.osha.gov.November 28, 2017Mr. Raymond J. SkwarekUCOR, URS / CH2M, Oak Ridge LLCP.O. Box 4699Oak Ridge, TN 37831Dear Mr. Skwarek:Thank you for your letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regarding 29 CFR Part 1904 - Recording and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illnesses. Your letter requests clarification of OSHA's injury and illness recordkeeping requirements in reference to the use of a rigid boot as a precautionary measure.In your letter, you describe a scenario where an employee sprained their ankle while working. An initial x-ray and diagnosis was conducted showing no evidence of a fracture, joint dislocation, and no ankle instability. However, the radiologist recommended a second x-ray to be taken seven days later to conclusively rule out a fracture. As a precautionary measure, the occupational physician recommended that a rigid boot be worn by the employee until the second x-ray was taken. The second x-ray conclusively determined there was no fracture and the rigid boot was immediately removed and not worn again.Question: Does the use of the rigid boot after the first x-ray, and before the second x-ray, constitute medical treatment?Response: Section 1904.7(a) of OSHA's recordkeeping regulation requires employers to record work-related injuries and illnesses that result in medical treatment beyond first aid. Section 1904.7(b)(5)(ii)(F) states the use of any non-rigid means of support, such as elastic bandages, wraps, non-rigid back belts, etc., is considered first aid for OSHA recordkeeping purpose. Section 1904.7(b)(5)(ii)(F) further states that orthopedic devices with rigid stays or other systems designed to immobilize parts of the body are considered medical treatment for recordkeeping purposes.The case described in your letter is a recordable injury. The employee sustained a work-related injury (sprained ankle) while working in the work environment. In response to the sprain, a licensed health care professional directed the employee to wear a rigid boot. For purposes of OSHA recordkeeping, the rigid boot is an orthopedic device used to immobilize the ankle, and therefore is medical treatment beyond first aid. The fact that the rigid boot may also have been used as a preventive, precautionary, or prophylactic measure in this case is not relevant to the determination that the device was used to treat the employee's injury. Similarly, the subsequent x-ray showing no fracture does not change the result that medical treatment beyond first aid had already been provided.Please see OSHA's April 14, 2016, Letter of Interpretation addressing "To use the rigid brace for pain relief is considered medical treatment beyond first-aid." (https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=30860)Also please see OSHA's March 19, 2003, Letter of Interpretation addressing "Results of an MRI do not negate the recordability of a physician's recommendation." (https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=24390).We hope you find this information helpful. OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards, and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in responses to new information. To keep appraised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at http://www.osha.gov.Sincerely,Amanda L. Edens, DirectorDirectorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management

OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at http://www.osha.gov.November 20, 2017MEMORANDUM FOR:REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORSTHROUGH:LOREN SWEATTDeputy Assistant SecretaryFROM:Thomas Galassi, DirectorDirectorate of Enforcement ProgramsSUBJECTEnforcement Guidance for General Industry Rope Descent System (RDS) Anchorage Requirements (29 CFR 1910.27(b)(1))This memorandum provides guidance to Compliance Safety and Health Officers (CSHOs) for enforcing the new RDS anchorage requirements (§1910.27(b)(1)) in the final rule revising the general industry Walking-Working Surfaces and Personal Protective Equipment (Fall Protection Systems) ("Walking-Working Surfaces") standards (29 CFR part 1910, subparts D and I).OSHA published the Walking-Working Surfaces rule on November 18, 2016, and it became effective January 17, 2017 (81 FR 82494). The rule gave employers and building owners until November 20, 2017, to comply with requirements for inspecting, testing, and certifying Rope Descent System (RDS) anchorages before any worker uses an RDS (§1910.27(b)(1)). However, due to a limited availability of qualified persons to inspect, test, and certify anchorages for RDS use, OSHA is providing employers and building owners additional time to comply with §1910.27(b)(1), provided that employers and building owners can demonstrate and document they are exercising due diligence to come into compliance with the standard's requirements.RDS suspension systems allow a worker to descend in a controlled manner and stop at any point during the descent to perform a task (§1910.21(b)).1 RDS generally consist of an anchorage, support rope, descent device, carabiners or shackles, and chair (seatboard)(§1910.21(b)). In the United States, RDS are widely used for building cleaning (including window cleaning), maintenance, and inspection work. Section 1910.27(b)(1) specifies requirements for RDS anchorages, which are devices installed specifically to support an RDS or fixed structural members of a building, such as posts, beams, girders, and columns that may also serve as RDS anchorages in some cases (81 FR 82511). To ensure RDS are safe for workers to use, anchorages must be capable of supporting the impact forces that the equipment may apply. Therefore, before a worker uses an RDS, §1910.27(b)(1) requires:The building owner to inform employers, in writing, that the building owner has identified, tested, certified, and maintained each anchorage so it is capable of supporting at least 5,000 pounds, in any direction, for each worker attached. The information must be based on:An annual inspection by a qualified person; andCertification by a qualified person as necessary and at least every 10 years.Employers are to ensure that no employee uses RDS anchorages before they have obtained written information from the building owner that each anchorage meets the requirements in §1910.27(b)(1)(i). The employer must also keep that information for the duration of the current job.As mentioned, the final rule gave building owners and employers until November 20, 2017, to comply with the RDS anchorage requirements (§1910.27(b)(1)(iii)). OSHA has become aware that many building owners have not been able to contract with a qualified person to perform the required tasks and come into compliance by the standard's compliance deadline. In addition, some building owners already may have inspected, tested, and certified RDS anchorages as required by the standard, but the anchorage is now out of compliance due to damage or shock loading, and the building owner is unable to secure services to replace or recertify the anchorage before an RDS is scheduled to be used again.In such cases, OSHA will evaluate, during relevant inspections, the efforts of both building owners and employers to comply with §1910.27(b)(1). Evaluations will consider a building owner's attempts to initiate inspection, testing, and certification of RDS anchorages. For employers, evaluations will consider alternative protective measures used before anchorages are certified, as well as demonstrated and documented compliance efforts to follow the standard's requirements. Where building owners and employers have sufficiently demonstrated/documented such efforts, OSHA will exercise, on a case-by-case basis, enforcement discretion to not issue citations under §1910.27(b)(1). To assist CSHOs in conducting these evaluations, the following enforcement guidance is provided.Inspection Guidance for 29 CFR 1910.27(b)(1)Building OwnersCSHOs must review the building owner's written records to determine whether: A qualified person has identified, inspected, tested, and certified each RDS anchorage;The building owner is maintaining each RDS anchorage in compliance with §1910.27(b)(1)(i);A qualified person has inspected each RDS anchorage annually;A qualified person has certified each RDS anchorage as frequently as necessary and at least every 10 years; andThe building owner has informed the employer that each RDS anchorage meets the requirements in §1910.27(b)(1)(i).CSHOs may contact the qualified person under contract for the inspection, testing, and certification to confirm contract details and test results, if available.EmployersThe CSHO must review records to determine whether: The employer has obtained information from the building owner that each RDS anchorage meets the requirements in §1910.27(b)(1);The employer has kept information from the building owner throughout the duration of the current job (§1910.27(b)(1)(ii)); andThe employer has demonstrated that all other means of performing the task are not feasible or would expose workers to a greater hazard before the employer uses an RDS anchorage that has not been inspected, tested, and certified by a qualified person as complying with §1910.27(b)(1).CSHOs should interview employees as part of the overall assessment to determine: The employer's efforts to implement the RDS anchorage requirements in §1910.27(b)(1)(ii);The employer's compliance with the worker training requirements in §1910.30; andThe employer's compliance with RDS inspection requirements (§1910.27(b)(2)(iv)).Citation Guidance for 29 CFR 1910.27(b)(1)Building OwnersIf a building owner, exercising due diligence, is experiencing difficulty acquiring the services of a qualified person to conduct the necessary inspection, testing, and certification due to the limited availability of those services, CSHOs will evaluate progress towards complying with the standard. At a minimum, OSHA expects that building owners:Provide evidence that they have contacted a qualified person to inspect, test, and certify RDS anchorages; Provide written evidence of an agreement with a qualified person to provide these services, such as an executed contract or letter of confirmation from the qualified person; Provide the Agency with written evidence of the anticipated dates of inspection, testing, or certification, as appropriate; Provide evidence that a diligent effort was made to complete RDS anchorage inspection, testing, and certification before work is to begin (for example, by contacting multiple services to determine their availability); and Inform employers who may use RDS that the anchorages have not been inspected, tested, and certified.In cases where there is an agreement to provide the inspection services but the services have not yet been initiated or completed, CSHOs will review the agreement to determine whether the following key elements are present:A visual inspection of each anchorage; Testing of each anchorage to determine whether it is capable of supporting at least 5,000 pounds, in any direction, for each employee attached; Recommendations for and implementation of corrections or replacement of each defective or damaged RDS anchorage; Certification that each anchorage meets the requirements in §1910.27(b)(1)(i); and A date the contract work will be completed. EmployersAdditionally, employers performing work on buildings may be impacted where building owners experience difficulties in contracting for and completing inspection, testing, and certification of RDS anchorages. In such cases, CSHOs will evaluate the extent of an employer's efforts to comply, including use of other measures to perform work during the delay. In cases where RDS anchorages have not been inspected, tested, and certified, employers must still obtain information from building owners indicating those tasks have not been performed. Based on the information provided, the employer may choose to use alternative measures or decide not to proceed with work. If employers proceed with scheduled work, they may use alternative means for working at heights, such as, but not limited to, powered platforms, bucket trucks, cranes, and mobile/portable scaffolds. In these cases, CSHOs will evaluate compliance with requirements applicable to operations/equipment used.Where an employer demonstrates that all other means for safely performing the specific job tasks either are not feasible or would create a greater hazard, they may choose to perform the work using supplemental protective measures (e.g., energy absorbers to limit forces on the anchorages, or nets to provide additional fall protection) with limited use of RDS. For example, if an employer establishes that all other means of accessing heights are not feasible, and decides to use RDS with untested anchorages, the employer may provide nets as a supplemental means of fall protection. In addition, in these cases where the employer chooses limited use of RDS, it must ensure that a qualified person determines that the anchorage, in its current condition, is capable of safely supporting workers, using the following factors:A visual inspection of the anchorage, its environment, and supporting structure;Any known history of use of the anchorage, including whether the anchorage has previously been exposed to shock loads without retesting the anchorage;An evaluation of the strength of the anchorage, or a structure's substantial mass;Condition of the anchorage or structure and surrounding and supporting surfaces;Angle from the descent line to the anchorage or structure;Whether the descent line will be exposed to outside hazards such as moving machinery, sharp edges, and heat; andPermanence of the anchorage or structure, and surrounding and supporting surfaces.Employers also must ensure that the RDS is used under the supervision of a qualified person. Where the employers or building owners have demonstrated/documented these efforts to comply, OSHA will, on a case-by-case basis, exercise enforcement discretion in issuing citations under §1910.27(b)(1).All citations for any potential violation of §1910.27(b)(1) shall be reviewed by the Directorate of Enforcement Programs before issuance.If you have any questions regarding this policy, please contact Sherman Williamson at (202) 693-2051 or [email protected] An RDS also is called a controlled descent device, but does not include industrial rope access systems (§1910.21(b))

OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at http://www.osha.gov. November 9, 2017 Mr. Anthony D. TiltonTrent Cotney P. A. Construction Law Group113 South Monroe Street, 1st FloorTallahassee, Florida 32301 Re: CPL 02-00-124; Multi-Employer Citation PolicyDear Mr. Tilton: Thank you for your May 26, 2017, letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). In your letter, you reference OSHA compliance directive CPL 02-00-124, the Multi-Employer Citation Policy. You ask OSHA to make enforcement determinations based only on the information you provided or to contact you to obtain additional information so that OSHA can make enforcement determinations. More specifically, you describe three construction worksite scenarios in which the general contractor observes a subcontractor exposing its employees to fall hazards at the worksite. The general contractor undertakes different actions in each scenario with varying levels of interaction with the subcontractor. You ask OSHA to determine if the general contractor is a "creating, correcting, or controlling employer" based on the facts of each scenario. In our August 14, 2017, email response and during our August 24, 2017, phone conversation with you, we explained that OSHA conducts fact- and site-specific enforcement evaluations when considering whether to issue citations, so it would be inappropriate for OSHA to provide multi-employer citation determinations based on hypothetical worksite conditions. If OSHA provided guidance based on hypothetical circumstances, employers could misapply the guidance at their real-world worksites where actual facts likely differ from proffered hypotheticals. Accordingly, OSHA cannot respond specifically to your hypothetical scenarios, but rather recommends that you consider using for your training purposes: examples provided in the relevant compliance directive; court decisions; facts of closed OSHA compliance inspections accessible from the inspection data webpage; and industry-recognized work practices addressing shared safety responsibilities at worksites, including those codified in new or revised construction standards for steel erection, cranes and derricks, power distribution and transmission, and confined spaces. Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. We hope you find this information helpful. OSHA’s requirements are set by statute, standards, and regulations. Our letters of interpretation do not create new or additional requirements, but rather explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances. This letter constitutes OSHA’s interpretation of the requirements discussed. From time to time, letters are affected when the Agency updates a standard, a legal decision impacts a standard, or changes in technology affect the interpretation. To assure that you are using the correct information and guidance, please consult OSHA’s website at http://www.osha.gov. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact the Directorate of Construction at (202) 693-2020. Sincerely, Dean McKenzie, DirectorDirectorate of Construction

OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at http://www.osha.gov.October 19, 2017MEMORANDUM FOR:REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORSTHROUGH:THOMAS GALASSIActing Deputy Assistant SecretaryFROM:PATRICK J. KAPUST, Acting DirectorDirectorate of Enforcement ProgramsSUBJECTInterim Enforcement Guidance for the Respirable Crystalline Silica in Construction Standard, 29 CFR 1926.1153This memorandum provides interim enforcement guidance to Compliance Safety and Health Officers (CSHOs) for enforcing 29 CFR 1926.1153, Respirable Crystalline Silica. The Respirable Crystalline Silica in Construction standard establishes a new 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50 µg/m3, and an action level (AL) of 25 µg/m3.As you know, OSHA has been enforcing the Respirable Crystalline Silica in Construction standard since September 23, 2017. However, for the first 30 days, OSHA offered compliance assistance in lieu of enforcement for those employers who were making good faith efforts to comply with the new construction standard. Effective October 23, 2017, OSHA will fully enforce all appropriate provisions of the Silica in Construction standard. This memorandum will serve as interim enforcement guidance while the standard's companion compliance directive is proceeding through the review process. It will expire when the compliance directive becomes effective and available to the field.This memorandum highlights some of the requirements of 29 CFR 1926.1153, but does not provide guidance on all of the standard's provisions. The attachments provide inspection and citation guidance; as well as flow charts to assist with evaluating employers' control methods. Please consult the Office of Health Enforcement when you need further information or guidance on 29 CFR 1926.1153, Respirable Crystalline Silica.Further, due to the new requirements in 29 CFR 1926.1153, Respirable Crystalline Silica, OSHA has revoked CPL 03-00-007, National Emphasis Program - Crystalline Silica. However, the inspection procedures for both General Industry and Maritime will remain unchanged until the compliance date for these industries begins on June 23, 2018.OverviewThe final rule on Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica, published on March 25, 2016, established a new PEL of 50 µg/m3 for all covered industries. It also required other employee protections, such as performing exposure assessments, using exposure control methods, using respiratory protection, offering medical surveillance, developing hazard communication information, and keeping silica-related records. The rule included two standards: one for Construction - 29 CFR 1926.1153; and one for General Industry and Maritime - 29 CFR 1910.1053, both of which became effective on June 23, 2016.Under the construction standard, all obligations were to commence on June 23, 2017, except for requirements for sample analysis in 29 CFR 1926.1153(d)(2)(v), which commence on June 23, 2018. The construction standard has a number of unique features, which warranted development of additional guidance materials. As you are aware, OSHA delayed enforcing this standard until September 23, 2017, to provide training to compliance officers and conduct outreach to the regulated community. Additionally, for the first 30 days, OSHA offered compliance assistance in lieu of enforcement for those employers who were making good faith efforts to comply. Outreach to employers and trainings for CSHOs and other field staff has already been conducted, and additional educational materials are currently being developed.As a reminder, the September 23, 2017, enforcement date applied only to construction, the requirements for General Industry/Maritime are set to commence on June 23, 2018.If you have any questions, please contact Audrey Profitt or Sven Rundman in the Office of Health Enforcement at 202-693-2190.AttachmentsAttachment A: Enforcement GuidanceGeneral Information29 CFR 1926.1153, Respirable Crystalline Silica applies to all occupational exposures to respirable crystalline silica in construction work, except where employee exposure will remain below 25 micrograms per cubic meter of air (25 µg/m3) as an 8-hour TWA under any foreseeable conditions. The exemption is based on total respirable crystalline silica exposures from all sources and must take into account all conditions that may add or contribute to the employee's overall exposure levels.29 CFR 1926.1153, Respirable Crystalline Silica establishes an 8-hour TWA PEL of 50 µg/m3 and an AL of 25 µg/m3. The standard also contains a unique, flexible option for employers whose employees are engaged in the construction tasks listed in Table 1 at 29 CFR 1926.1153(c)(1).If the employer fully and properly implements the engineering controls, work practices, and respiratory protection listed in Table 1, it is not required to conduct exposure assessments or otherwise comply with a PEL for employees engaged in those tasks.The employer must comply with paragraph (d) (the PEL, exposure assessment, and methods of compliance requirements) for employees who are engaged in tasks not listed on Table 1 or where it has not fully and properly implemented the engineering controls, work practices, and respiratory protection listed in Table 1 for all employees engaged in listed tasks.Inspection Guidance - Specified Exposure Control Methods [paragraph (c)] and Alternative Exposure Control Methods [paragraph (d)]General InformationCSHOs should be prepared to collect personal breathing zone samples on the first day of the inspection. When sampling is warranted, CSHOs must perform air monitoring in accordance with the OSHA Technical Manual (OTM), Section II, Chapter 1, and OSHA sampling method ID-142.CSHOs may contact the SLTC Laboratory through the regional office if they need guidance on developing a sampling strategy for unusual worksite conditions.CSHOs must review the employer's written silica Exposure Control Plan (ECP) and other relevant programs (e.g., respiratory protection program, hazard communication program, etc.) as part of the investigation.If the employer has conducted an exposure assessment, CSHOs should also review the assessment to determine what levels might be expected before entering the work area. As noted above, employers are not required to assess the exposures of employees engaged in Table 1 tasks if the employer has fully and properly implemented the engineering controls, work practices, and respiratory protection listed in Table 1 for the employees engaged in those tasks.CSHOs should interview affected employees, including the competent person, as part of the overall assessment of the employer's implementation of its ECP.For Employers Following Table 1 [paragraph (c)]Where the construction employer is fully and properly implementing the engineering controls, work practices, and respiratory protections specified in Table 1 for each employee engaged in listed tasks, there is no requirement for the CSHO to collect personal air samples for those tasks. Fully and properly implementing the controls specified in Table 1 includes following the requirements of paragraph (c)(2) relating to means of exhaust, water flow rates, and enclosed cabs.Where the construction employer: (1) has employees performing a task or using equipment that is not listed in Table 1; or (2) has not fully and properly implemented the engineering controls, work practices, and respiratory protection listed in Table 1 for all employees engaged in Table 1 tasks, CSHOs must collect personal air samples to measure the 8-hour TWA for the silica operations likely to exceed the PEL.For Tasks Not Listed in Table 1 or Where the Employer Has Not Fully and Properly Implemented the Engineering Controls, Work Practices, and Respiratory Protection Described in Table 1 for All Employees Engaged in Listed Tasks [paragraph (d)]These construction employers must comply with paragraph (d) of the standard, including the PEL, exposure assessment, and methods of compliance requirements.CSHOs must review the employer's air monitoring records, or other data the employer used to assess exposures. See Exposure Assessment options below.CSHOs must collect personal samples to measure the 8-hour TWA for the silica operations likely to exceed the PEL.Exposure Assessment Options Under 29 CFR 1926.1153(d)(2)Employers must assess the exposure of each employee who is or may be potentially exposed to respirable crystalline silica at or above the AL using either the performance option or the scheduled monitoring option.Performance OptionProvides some flexibility; the burden is on the employer to demonstrate that the data fully complies with the requirements.Allows employers to assess the 8-hour TWA exposure for each employee on the basis of any combination of air monitoring data or objective data sufficient to accurately characterize employee exposures to respirable crystalline silica. Data must reflect worker exposures on each shift, each classification, and in each work area.Objective data means information - such as air monitoring data from industry-wide surveys, or calculations based on the composition of a substance - demonstrating employee exposure to respirable crystalline silica associated with a particular product or material, or a specific process, task, or activity. To qualify as objective, the data must reflect workplace conditions closely resembling, or with a higher exposure potential, than the processes, types of material, control methods, work practices, and environmental conditions present in the employer's current operations.Employers may use historical monitoring data as objective data if it meets these requirements.Employers must comply with remaining assessment provisions where applicable (e.g., employee notification of results, observation of monitoring). Note: The requirements for methods of sample analysis in paragraph (d)(2)(v) are the only exception to the September 23, 2017, compliance date. These requirements begin on June 23, 2018.Employers may characterize employee exposure within a particular range (e.g., employee exposure is between the AL and the PEL).Scheduled Monitoring OptionRequires both initial and periodic monitoring. Employers must perform initial monitoring as soon as work begins to determine exposure levels and where to implement control measures.Employers must conduct periodic monitoring at specified intervals based on most recent monitoring results.Monitoring must assess the 8-hour TWA exposure for each employee on the basis of one or more personal breathing zone air samples that reflect the exposures on each shift, each job classification, and work area. Where several employees perform the same tasks on the same shift and in the same work area, the employer may sample a representative group of employees to meet this requirement. Representative sampling must be of the employee(s) who are expected to have the highest exposure to respirable crystalline silica.Discontinuing the air monitoring requirements is based on monitoring results. See 29 CFR 1926.1153(d)(2)(iii)(B) & (E).Methods of Compliance [paragraph (d)(3)]Requires employers to use engineering and work practice controls to reduce and maintain employee exposures to respirable crystalline silica to or below the PEL, unless the employer can demonstrate that such controls are not feasible.Where controls are not sufficient to reduce employee exposure to or below the PEL, the employer must: Use controls to reduce employee exposure to the lowest feasible level and supplement them with the use of respiratory protection.Note: The respirable crystalline silica standards do not prohibit employers from rotating employees to different jobs to achieve compliance with the PEL.Other Silica Construction Standard ProvisionsRespiratory Protection [paragraph (e)]For tasks not listed in Table 1 or where the employer has not fully and properly implemented the Table 1 controls, respiratory protection is required where exposures exceed the PEL.Fully and properly implementing the engineering controls, work practices, and respiratory protection listed in Table 1 for an employee engaged in a listed task includes ensuring that employees are using respiratory protection as specified in Table 1. If Table 1 requires respiratory protection when the anticipated task duration exceeds four hours, employees engaged in the task must wear the respirator during the entire period of time they are performing the task, not just the period of time that exceeds four hours.For the purpose of determining task duration, the duration begins when the employee first puts the tool or equipment into operation, and continues until the tool/equipment is no longer in use. For tasks conducted on an intermittent basis during a shift separated by extended intervals, do not include the time interval between Table 1 tasks in the task duration.Where the standard requires the use of respiratory protection, employers must institute a respiratory protection program in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.134.Housekeeping Practices [paragraph (f)]The paragraph prohibits dry sweeping and dry brushing where such activities could contribute to employee exposures to respirable crystalline silica, unless wet sweeping, HEPA-filtered vacuuming, or other methods that minimize the likelihood of exposure are not feasible (i.e., the other cleaning methods would not be effective, would cause damage, or would create a hazard in the workplace). The employer bears the burden of showing that the alternative methods are not feasible.Using sweeping compounds (e.g., non-grit, oil- or waxed-based) is an acceptable dust suppression housekeeping method.The use of compressed air for cleaning is allowed where the compressed air is used in conjunction with a ventilation system that effectively captures the dust cloud created by the compressed air, or where no alternative method is feasible.The employer's exposure control plan must include the description of the housekeeping measures.Written Exposure Control Plan (Competent person) [paragraph (g)]Employers must establish and implement a written exposure control plan (ECP) that contains certain specified elements.The employer must designate a competent person to make frequent and regular inspections of job sites, materials, and equipment to implement the written ECP.The competent person must: Be capable of identifying existing and foreseeable respirable crystalline silica hazards in the workplace;Have authorization to take prompt corrective measures to eliminate or minimize identified hazards; andHave the knowledge and ability necessary to fulfill his or her responsibilities.While the standard does not require employers to list the name of the competent person in the written ECP (because it could change daily), construction employees must be able to identify the designated competent person.Medical Surveillance [paragraph (h)]Employers must make medical examinations available to employees who will be required to wear a respirator for 30 or more days a year according to 29 CFR 1926.1153, Respirable Crystalline Silica. The 30-day trigger applies per employer (exposures with previous employers do not count toward the 30-day total). Any partial day of respirator use (even if for only one hour or less) is considered one day of respirator use for the purposes of medical surveillance requirements.The employer must make the initial (baseline) medical examination available within 30 days after initial assignment (unless the employee has received a medical examination in accordance with the standard within the past three years).The medical opinion provided to the employer must contain only the date of the exam, a statement from the physician or other licensed health care professional (PLHCP) that the exam met the requirements of the standard, and any limitations on the employee's use of respirators.If the employee has provided the PLHCP with written authorization, then the written medical opinion for the employer must also contain the following: (1) any recommended limitations on the employee's continued exposure to silica; and (2) any PLHCP recommendation that the employee should be referred to a specialist.Communication of Hazards [paragraph (i)]Required for all employees who are or could foreseeably be exposed to respirable crystalline silica at or above the AL of 25 µg/m3 as an 8-hour TWA.Requires employers to include respirable crystalline silica in their hazard communication program; ensure that employees have access to labels on containers of crystalline silica and related safety data sheets; and train their employees as specified in the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS), 29 CFR 1910.1200, and paragraph (i)(2) of 29 CFR 1926.1153, Respirable Crystalline Silica.29 CFR 1910.1200 (HCS) applies and CSHOs should cite employers for hazard communication deficiencies where employees are exposed or potentially exposed to respirable crystalline silica at levels below the AL.Citation GuidanceTasks Listed in Table 1Where the employer has fully and properly implemented the engineering controls, work practices, and respiratory protections specified in Table 1, the CSHO will not cite the employer for any PEL or exposure assessment violation.Where the employer has not fully and properly implemented the engineering controls, work practices, and respiratory protections specified in Table 1 and the employer has not conducted an exposure assessment under 29 CFR 1926.1153(d), the CSHO will cite 29 CFR 1926.1153(c) and (d)(2) as a grouped violation, along with citing any other noted deficiencies (e.g., respiratory protection, hazard communication) as separate violations. The CSHO will cite deficiencies in the employer's assessment under paragraph (d)(2) as a grouped violation with 29 CFR 1926.1153(c), along with citing any other noted deficiencies (e.g., respiratory protection, hazard communication).Where the employer has not fully and properly implemented the engineering controls, work practices, and respiratory protections specified in Table 1, and sampling shows exposure over the PEL, the CSHO will cite 29 CFR 1926.1153(c) and (d)(1) as a grouped violation.Where the employer has not fully and properly implemented the engineering controls, work practices, and respiratory protections specified in Table 1 but the employer has conducted an exposure assessment under 29 CFR 1926.1153(d): If CSHO sampling shows an overexposure and the employer has not instituted all feasible engineering and work practice controls or adequately protected employees via an effective respiratory protection program, the CSHO will cite the overexposure as a violation of 29 CFR 1926.1153(d)(1) and (d)(3) grouped with 29 CFR 1926.1153(c).If, in the CSHO's opinion, the employer's exposure data may not be representative (e.g., new or different operations are occurring in the workplace that do not closely resemble the operations represented in the employer's exposure data), the CSHO should also cite 29 CFR 1926.1153(d)(2), as appropriate, and group with 29 CFR 1926.1153(c). Where appropriate, cite any other deficiencies.If CSHO sampling shows an over exposure and the employer has instituted all feasible engineering and work practice controls and employees are adequately protected via an effective respiratory protection program, then the CSHO will not cite the employer for a PEL violation.Tasks Not Listed In Table 1If CSHO sampling shows an overexposure and the employer has not instituted all feasible engineering and work practice controls or adequately protected employees via an effective respiratory protection program, the CSHO will cite the overexposure as a violation of 29 CFR 1926.1153(d)(1). Deficiencies in any of the requirements for engineering and work practice controls and respiratory protection must follow the citation procedures for combining and grouping violations in CPL 02-00-160, Field Operations Manual (FOM).The CSHO should cite 29 CFR 1926.1153(e)(1)(ii)(C) when the employer did not provide necessary respiratory protection where engineering and work practice controls were not sufficient to reduce exposures to or below the PEL.If, in the CSHO's opinion, the employer's exposure data may not be representative (e.g., new or different operations are occurring in the workplace that do not closely resemble the operations represented in the employer's exposure data), the CSHO should cite 29 CFR 1926.1153(d)(2).If the employer violates any other provision of 29 CFR 1926.1153, Respirable Crystalline Silica, the CSHO must issue the citation(s) in accordance with the FOM.Exposure VariabilityIf a CSHO obtains a sample showing exposures above the PEL, but has reason to think, based on the employer's air monitoring data, that the results may be due to unpreventable exposure variability, then the Area Director may consider whether to conduct a follow-up inspection in lieu of issuing a citation.The CSHO will compare the employer's exposure data with CSHO sampling results to determine whether the employer's data are representative. To be representative, the employer's samples must have been obtained under conditions that closely resemble or have a higher exposure potential than CSHO samples.The CSHO should confer with the Area Director regarding whether re-sampling is appropriate.The burden is on the employer to demonstrate that the CSHO's samples are not representative of normal exposure levels.CSHO ProtectionCSHOs must use appropriate PPE for potential hazard exposures. They must not enter a respirable crystalline silica-regulated area, or other area where exposures are likely to exceed the PEL, unless it is absolutely necessary and then only if using appropriate PPE. For inspection and air sampling activities, CSHOs should use remote operations when practical. CSHOs should be conservative about time spent in areas where high concentrations of silica exist or are suspected.Attachment B: Flow Charts for Evaluating Construction Employer Methods of Controlling Exposure to Respirable Crystalline SilicaFlowchart A: Specified Exposure Controls for Table 1 TasksIf employees are performing Table 1 tasks, and the employer has not implemented controls, and has not conducted an exposure assessment, then the employer is in violation of paragraphs (c) and (d). For each employee with occupational exposure to respirable crystalline silica (RCS), CSHOs should consider the following questions.Is any employee performing a task listed in Table 1?If Yes, go to Q2.If No, evaluate compliance with 29 CFR 1926.1153(d) - see Flowchart B.Are the engineering controls and work practices listed for that Table 1 task in use?If Yes, go to Q3.If No, evaluate compliance with 29 CFR 1926.1153(d) - see Flowchart B.Are the engineering controls fully and properly implemented?If Yes, go to Q4.If No, evaluate compliance with 29 CFR 1926.1153(d) - see Flowchart B.Is the employee wearing the required level of respiratory protection?If Yes, employer is in compliance with Table 1.If No, evaluate compliance with 29 CFR 1926.1153(d) - see Flowchart B.Note 1: CSHOs should repeat Flowchart A for each employee engaged in a Table 1 task.Note 2: To determine whether the engineering controls, work practices, and respiratory protection specified in Table 1 are fully and properly implemented, CSHOs should consult 29 CFR 1926.1153(c)(2), which contains additional requirements for tasks performed indoors or in an enclosed area, and for control measures involving wet methods or an enclosed cab or booth.Flowchart B: Alternative Exposure Control MethodsAre workers performing tasks with foreseeable exposure to RCS at or above the action level? (Note that the use of engineering controls to maintain exposure to below the AL indicates that the standard covers the operation.)If Yes, go to Q2.If No, the standard does not apply to exposures below the AL.Has the employer conducted an exposure assessment for each employee who may be exposed at or above the AL?If Yes, go to Q3.If No, the employer is not in compliance with paragraph (d)(2). Conduct exposure monitoring.Is the exposure assessment representative of current conditions?If Yes, go to Q4.If No, the employer is not in compliance with paragraph (d)(2). Conduct exposure monitoring.Does the employer's exposure assessment show that employees are exposed at or below the PEL?If Yes, there is no need to conduct exposure monitoring.If No, conduct exposure monitoring and go to Q5.Does the CSHO's exposure monitoring show employee exposure at or below the PEL?If Yes, the employer is in compliance with paragraph (d)(1).If No, go to Q6.Has the employer implemented all feasible controls to reduce RCS exposure to at or below the PEL?If Yes, go to Q7.If No, the employer is not in compliance with paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(3).If respiratory protection is required, are workers wearing the required level of respiratory protection?If Yes, the employer is in compliance with paragraph (d)(3).If No, the employer is not in compliance with paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(3), and (e).

OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at http://www.osha.gov.September 20, 2017MEMORANDUM FOR:REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORSFROM:THOMAS GALASSIActing Deputy Assistant SecretarySUBJECTLaunch of Enforcement of the Respirable Crystalline Silica in Construction Standard, 29 CFR § 1926.1153The Respirable Crystalline Silica construction standard, 29 CFR § 1926.1153, becomes enforceable on September 23, 2017. The standard establishes a new 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 50 µg/m3, an action level (AL) of 25 µg/m3, and a host of ancillary requirements.During the first 30 days of enforcement, OSHA will carefully evaluate good faith efforts taken by employers in their attempts to meet the new construction silica standard. OSHA will render compliance assistance and outreach to assure that covered employers are fully and properly complying with its requirements. Given the novelty of the Table 1 approach, OSHA will pay particular attention to assisting employers in fully and properly implementing the controls in the table. OSHA will assist employers who are making good faith efforts to meet the new requirements to assure understanding and compliance.If, upon inspection, it appears an employer is not making any efforts to comply, OSHA's inspection will not only include collection of exposure air monitoring performed in accordance with Agency procedures, but those employers may also be considered for citation. Any proposed citations related to inspections conducted in this time period will require National Office review.To ensure effective implementation of the new standard, OSHA has developed interim inspection and citation guidance to be released prior to termination of this memorandum. The compliance directive will be finalized thereafter.Regional offices are advised to contact the Office of Health Enforcement at 202-693-2190 with questions regarding enforcement of the new silica rule.

OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at http://www.osha.gov.September 14, 2017Nichole WinnettJackson Lewis P. C.10701 Parkridge Blvd.Suite 300Reston, VA 20191Dear Ms. Winnett:Thank you for your letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regarding the requirements contained in 29 CFR Part 1904 - Recording and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illnesses. Your letter requests interpretation of an incident involving a work-related exposure to 15% hydrofluoric acid.Scenario: Three employees were exposed to 15% hydrofluoric acid when an acid line with a booster pump ruptured. The employees did not immediately report signs or symptoms, and were taken off-site for medical examination. Two of the three employees subsequently complained of dyspnea (difficulty in breathing), skin irritation, irritation of the throat, and congestion. Based on the emergency room physician's initial diagnosis, the two employees did not exhibit any symptoms. They were not provided medical treatment beyond first aid and were released to full duty.Later that same day, both employees visited an off-site medical clinic with complaints of shortness of breath, headaches, nausea, coughing, wheezing, and scratchy throat. The medical clinic physician did not find any signs or symptoms in their physical examination, but prescribed albuterol inhalers for both employees as a precautionary measure for shortness of breath.Several days later, both employees went back to the medical clinic for a follow-up visit. The relevant portion of the physician's notes stated that the employees made no complaints of signs or symptoms.Question: Based on the information above, did the employees sustain an injury or illness?Response: As noted in your letter, Section 1904.46 defines an injury or illness as: "An abnormal condition or disorder for OSHA recordkeeping purposes. Injuries include cases such as, but not limited to, a cut, fracture, sprain, or amputation. Illnesses include both acute and chronic illnesses, such as, but not limited to, a skin disease, respiratory disorder, or poisoning." Pain and other symptoms that are wholly subjective are also considered an abnormal condition or disorder. There is no need for the abnormal condition to include objective signs to be considered an injury or illness. See, the preamble to OSHA's January 19, 2001 final rule revising the recordkeeping regulation (66 Federal Register 5915 at 6080).OSHA also provides guidance for determining the existence of an injury or illness in Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) 4-1 at https://www.osha.gov/recordkeeping/entryfaq.html:Question 4-1. Does an employee report of an injury or illness establish the existence of the injury or illness for recordkeeping purposes?No. In determining whether a case is recordable, the employer must first decide whether an injury or illness, as defined by the rule, has occurred. If the employer is uncertain about whether an injury or illness has occurred, the employer may refer the employee to a physician or other health care professional for evaluation and may consider the health care professional's opinion in determining whether an injury or illness exists. [Note: If a physician or other licensed health care professional diagnoses a significant injury or illness within the meaning of §1904.7(b)(7) and the employer determines that the case is work-related, the case must be recorded.]In your letter, you stated that neither physician determined that an injury or illness existed as a result of the exposure to the hydrofluoric acid. Therefore, the employer may rely on these opinions to conclude that no injury or illness occurred.Question: If an injury or illness did occur, is the emergency room physician's opinion more authoritative than the medical clinic physician's opinion?Response: As discussed above, since an injury or illness did not occur, the case is not recordable, and there is no need to evaluate whether the case meets one of the general recording criteria.We hope you find this information helpful. OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards, and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in responses to new information. To keep appraised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at http://www.osha.gov.Sincerely,Amanda L. Edens, DirectorDirectorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management