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.Mr. Todd SchlekewayExecutive DirectorNational Association of Tower Erectors<8 Second Street SE<Watertown, SD 57201-3624Dear Mr. Schlekeway:Thank you for your March 17, 2017, letter on the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) final rule revising and updating the general industry Walking-Working Surfaces and Personal Protective Equipment (Fall Protection Systems) standards (29 CFR part 1910, subparts D and I). Also, thank you for taking time to participate in two teleconference calls (April 13 and June 15) with OSHA to discuss your comments and questions about the final rule.As you know, OSHA published the final rule on November 18, 2016, and it became effective on January 17, 2017. The final rule marked the culmination of a rulemaking effort that began in 1973. This effort involved multiple proposed rules, hundreds of public comments, and a week-long public hearing on the proposal. The rulemaking generated a robust record that demonstrates the final rule is feasible. OSHA took a number of steps in the final rule to provide greater compliance flexibility for employers. In addition, the Agency made the final rule more consistent with OSHA’s Construction Fall Protection Standard, which makes compliance easier for stakeholders, such as National Association of Tower Erectors (NATE) member stakeholders (hereafter “NATE employers”), who perform both general industry and construction activities.This response constitutes OSHA’s interpretation only of the requirements and questions discussed in your letter and during the two teleconferences.Question/Comment 1: The final rule includes a 6-month extension of the deadline to train workers on fall hazards and fall protection equipment (§1910.30). NATE does not believe that 6 months is sufficient for some NATE employers, particularly those who perform maintenance on antennas on commercial building roofs, to complete that training. NATE requests that OSHA give NATE employers until November 18, 2017, to comply with the training requirements in the final rule.During the teleconference calls, NATE said some of their employers who perform maintenance on antennas on commercial building roofs also need additional time to analyze fall hazards on thousands of roofs before they can provide fall protection equipment and train their maintenance technicians. Therefore, NATE requests that OSHA also extend the deadline for providing fall protection for employers who perform that maintenance work.Response: The final rule’s extension of the deadline to train workers on fall hazard and equipment ended on May 17, 2017, and the Agency does not think it is necessary to extend it. NATE employers perform work covered by OSHA’s Telecommunications (29 CFR 1910.268) and Construction Fall Protection (29 CFR part 1926, subpart M) Standards. Those standards require employers provide training on fall hazard and fall protection equipment to their workers. OSHA believes the training requirements in the Telecommunications and Construction Fall Protection Standards are equivalent to what the final rule requires since OSHA adopted the training requirement in the final rule from those standards. For example, the Telecommunications Standard, which applies to field work performed at field installations,[1] requires that employers provide training on “various precautions and safe practices.” OSHA has interpreted this as including personal fall protection equipment, such as personal climbing equipment (§1910.268(c)). Employers also must ensure that workers do not engage in activities the standard covers until they have received required training.Similarly, the Construction Fall Protection Standard, which applies to NATE employers who perform construction activities on elevated walking-working surfaces (e.g., installing and repairing telecommunications equipment on towers and commercial building roofs), requires that employers train workers exposed to fall hazards (§1926.503). That training must include the nature of fall hazards in the work area and how to recognize them; the procedures to be followed to minimize fall hazards; the correct use and operation of fall protection systems, including guardrail, personal fall protection, safety net, and warning line systems; the correct procedures for erecting, inspecting, disassembling, and maintaining fall protection equipment; and the correct procedures for handling and storing fall protection equipment (§1926.503(a)(2)). In addition, the construction standard, like the final rule, requires retraining when the employer has reason to believe a worker does not have the required understanding and skills (§1926.503(c)).Where employers already have provided training that meets the final rule, they may not need to provide initial training to those workers. In the preamble OSHA stated: “[a]n employer whose workers have received training, either from the employer or another employer, that meets the requirements of final §1910.30(a) will not need to provide additional initial training” (81 FR 82639). As discussed, NATE employers have trained the vast majority of their workers on fall hazards and fall protection equipment under the Telecommunications and Construction Fall Protection Standards. OSHA believes that training complies with the final rule. Therefore, NATE employers will not need to provide initial training to most of their workers. For the remaining workers (i.e., new workers, workers whose previous training did not meet the final rule), OSHA believes providing training will not pose significant difficulties (81 FR 82639). In the preamble OSHA explained that giving employers six months (until May 17, 2017) to provide training to the remaining workers would allow them to work the training into regular training schedules, which NATE said their employers have (81 FR 82639). Therefore, OSHA does not believe it is necessary to extend the deadline for NATE employers to train workers on fall hazards and fall protection equipment.NATE also requests that OSHA extend the deadline to provide fall protection equipment stating that additional time is necessary because some employers who perform maintenance on antennas on commercial building roofs need to analyze fall hazards before they can provide fall protection. For two reasons, OSHA believes extending the deadline for NATE employers to provide fall protection is not appropriate or warranted. First, since 1971, when OSHA adopted the old general industry fall protection standard, all general industry employers have been required to protect workers from falling off elevated, unprotected edges and surfaces. Even before OSHA published the final rule, NATE employers were already required to provide fall protection for workers exposed to fall hazards while maintaining antennas on commercial building roofs. The final rule did not change that requirement; and NATE employers should be providing fall protection for those maintenance workers.Second, OSHA does not believe that NATE employers need additional time to analyze fall hazards on commercial building roofs. The final rule on Walking-Working Surfaces and Personal Protective Equipment (Fall Protection Systems) Standards (29 CFR part 1910, subparts D and I) adopts the construction standard’s flexible approach for controlling fall hazards, which allows employers to select from among a range of accepted conventional fall protection systems the one that will work best in a particular situation. OSHA believes NATE employers are familiar with the flexible approach because, according to NATE, they perform construction activities as well as general industry operations. OSHA adopted the Construction Fall Protection Standard in 1994, and NATE employers have had many years to evaluate fall hazards in work areas in order to select an appropriate fall protection system. OSHA believes NATE employers should be able to draw on this experience within the final rule’s compliance deadlines if they decide to incorporate the flexible approach to control fall hazards in general industry operations.Question/Comment 2: The final rule requires that fixed ladders extending more than 24 feet above a lower level must be equipped with a cage, well, personal fall arrest system, or ladder safety system before November 19, 2018 (§1910.28(b)(9)(i)(A)). NATE does not believe that 2 years gives some member companies enough time to comply with this requirement.Response: OSHA does not believe it is necessary to extend the 2-year compliance deadline for equipping existing fixed ladders (that extend more than 24 feet above a lower level) with some type of fall protection (i.e., cage, well, ladder safety system, personal fall arrest system). As stated in the preamble to the final rule, the old rule already requires that fixed ladders more than 20 feet above a lower level be equipped with a cage or well (81 FR 82601). As such, existing fixed ladders already should be equipped with at least a cage or well. If fixed ladders are so equipped, employers do not have to install a ladder safety system or personal fall arrest system until November 18, 2036, the final deadline for installing ladder safety or personal fall arrest systems on existing fixed ladders. NATE employers will only have to equip those fixed ladders that currently do not have any type of fall protection, which OSHA believes is feasible to accomplish within the 2-year compliance deadline.Question/Comment 3: NATE would like the telecommunications tower industry to be exempted from the 300-foot height limit for Rope Descent Systems (RDS) in §1910.27(b)(2)(i).Response: The final rule does not exempt the telecommunications tower industry from 300-foot height limit on the use of RDS. However, the final rule provides that employers may use RDS above 300 feet if they demonstrate it is not feasible to access such heights by any other means or if those means pose a greater hazard than using an RDS (§1910.27(b)(2)(i)).Question/Comment 4: The final rule requires that anchorages used in personal fall protection systems must be capable of supporting at least 5,000 pounds for each employee attached (§1910.140(c)(13)(i)). NATE believes that employers should be permitted to use anchorages with travel restraint/fall restraint systems that are capable of supporting 1,000 pounds.Response: The final rule requires anchorages used in personal fall protection systems be capable of supporting at least 5,000 pounds for each employee attached. However, the final rule also includes a performance-based alternative that allows employers to use anchorages designed, installed, and used, under the supervision of a qualified person, as part of a complete personal fall protection system that maintains a safety factor of at least two (§1910.140(c)(13)(ii)). OSHA explained the alternative provision in the preamble:The final rule does not require a 5,000-pound anchorage point in every situation. An employer may use an anchorage that meets a different strength, provided that (1) the anchorage is part of a complete fall protection system, (2) the personal fall protection system maintains a safety factor of at least two, and (3) the anchorage is designed, installed, and used under the supervision of a qualified person (81 FR 82655).Question/Comment 5: The final rule requires that D-rings, snaphooks, and carabiners be tested to a “minimum tensile load” of 3,600 pounds without cracking, breaking, or incurring permanent deformation (§1910.140(c)(8)) and that the gate strength of snaphooks and carabiners be “proof tested” to 3,600 lbs. in all directions. NATE recommends that OSHA follow ANSI/ASSE Z359.1 – 2007 national consensus standard for testing requirements of connectors.Response: OSHA recognizes that the requirement in the final rule for “proof testing” the gate strength of snaphooks and carabiners in §1910.140(c)(8) is not consistent with ANSI/ASSE Z359.1 – 2007, which does not require manufacturers to proof test the gate of each snap hook and carabiner. OSHA will publish a technical amendment correcting §1910.140(c)(8) so it is consistent with the ANSI/ASSE standard.Question/Comment 6: NATE disagrees with exempting employers from the requirement to provide fall protection when their employees are inspecting, investigating, or assessing workplace conditions or work to be performed prior to the start of work or after all work has been completed (§1910.28(a)(2)(ii)). NATE believes all workers should be held to uniform standards.Response: OSHA added the fall protection exemption to the final rule for pre-work and post-work inspections or assessments to make the standard consistent with OSHA’s Construction Fall Protection Standard (§1926.500(a)(1)). Also, many stakeholders urged that OSHA add the exemption because installing fall protection would take longer than conducting the inspection, exposing workers to fall hazards for a greater period of time and, thus, a greater hazard of falling (81 FR 82586). OSHA notes the exemption is limited. It applies only to pre-work and post-work inspections and not when fall protection has been installed and is available for workers to use to conduct pre-work and post-work inspections (§1910.28(a)(2)(ii)).Question/Comment 7: NATE believes that OSHA should change the general industry requirement to provide fall protection when an employee can fall four feet or more to a lower level to six feet in order to be consistent with OSHA’s construction industry fall protection standard.Response: As OSHA explained in the preamble to the final rule, the requirement that employers provide fall protection when workers can fall four feet or more to a lower level is not new (81 82588-89). The four-foot fall protection trigger was in the previous general industry standard, which the Agency adopted in 1971. OSHA adopted the 4-foot trigger from the ANSI A12.1-1967 national consensus standard, which prescribed a 4-foot trigger height as far back as 1932. The ANSI/ASSE A1264.1-2007 Safety Requirements for Workplace Walking/Working Surfaces and Their Access; Workplace Floor, Wall and Roof Openings; Stairs and Guardrails Systems Standard also requires fall protection when workers are exposed to unprotected sides or edges that are four feet or more above a lower level. Section 6(b)(8) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act)(29 U.S.C. 655(b)(8)) specifies that OSHA follow the requirements in national consensus standards unless the Agency can show why a rule that substantially differs will better effectuate the purposes of the OSH Act. In the preamble to the final rule, OSHA said that nothing in the rulemaking persuaded the Agency that adopting a fall protection trigger above four feet would provide equivalent or greater protection (81 FR 82589).Additional information about the final rule is available on OSHA’s website at https://www.osha.gov/walking-working-surfaces/index.html. OSHA also provides compliance assistance resources to help employers, particularly small businesses, meet the requirements of the final rule. For compliance assistance, please contact a compliance assistance specialist at https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/compliance_assistance/cas.html or visit OSHA’s compliance assistance webpage at https://www.osha.gov/employers/. In addition, employers and employees can call (800) 321-OSHA toll-free for workplace safety and health information or assistance 24 hours a day.Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. I hope this letter has been helpful in understanding OSHA’s position on these subjects. OSHA’s requirements are set by statute, standards, and regulations. OSHA’s letters of interpretation do not create new or additional requirements; rather they explain the requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances. This letter constitutes OSHA’s interpretation only of the requirements discussed.If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact the Directorate of Enforcement Programs at (202) 693-2100.Sincerely,Loren SweattDeputy Assistant Secretary[1] The Telecommunications Standard applies to “work conditions, practices, means, methods, operations, installations and procedures” performed at telecommunication “field installations,” located outdoors or in building spaces used for such field installations” (§1910.268(a)(1)). In addition, the standard specifies that “field work” includes the “installation, operation, maintenance, rearrangement and removal conductors and other equipment used for signal proposed rule communication service, and of their supporting or containing structures, overhead or underground, on public and private rights of way, including building or other structures” (§1910.268).

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.govJune 30, 2017MEMORANDUM FOR: REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS AND STATE PLAN DESIGNEESTHROUGHDOROTHY DOUGHERTYDeputy Assistant SecretaryFROM:DEAN McKENZIE, DirectorDirectorate of ConstructionSUBJECT:Monorail Hoists Enforcement PoliciesThe scope of Cranes and Derricks in Construction (the cranes standard, 29 CFR Part 1926, subpart CC) includes a functional definition for the equipment covered. The standard applies to "power-operated equipment, when used in construction, that can hoist, lower, and horizontally move a suspended load." (29 CFR 1926.1400(a)). Monorail hoists are not explicitly excluded from the scope of the rule, and OSHA has issued several letters of interpretation confirming the crane standard's coverage of specific monorail hoists in certain construction operations. Nonetheless, as a number of stakeholders have pointed out, the standard is not a perfect fit for monorail hoists, and OSHA intends to consider rulemaking options to address this issue. The purpose of this memorandum is to announce a temporary enforcement policy pending the resolution of that rulemaking process. Most monorail hoist systems have a completely fixed monorail (I-beam). When used in construction, these hoisting systems are typically mounted on equipment such as work vehicles, trailers, and scaffolding systems. The monorails can be extended and contracted in only a fixed horizontal direction to hoist materials and can only hoist them as high as the monorail. Some examples of materials commonly lifted and placed by monorail hoists during construction are precast concrete components (septic tanks, storm drain and sewer conduits, vaults, etc.); storage tanks (propane, oil, etc.); mechanical components (engines, commercial generators, etc.); trade specific components (electrical transformers, industrial spooled materials, sewer lids, etc.); and temporary storage units. Monorail hoists present unique issues. Many monorail hoist manufacturers do not design their systems to meet any particular criteria recommended in consensus standards, though the designs of their hoisting mechanisms most resemble those of overhead hoists covered by ASME B30.17-2015 (Cranes and Monorails (With Underhung Trolley or Bridge)). Stakeholders have pointed out that a number of the provisions of the crane standard add very little protection when these monorail hoists are used. For example, the stakeholders have told OSHA that because these monorails are fixed such that they do not angle up or down, the equipment does not warrant the elevated level of protections from power line contact required by the crane standard. They also note that monorails cannot boom out significantly beyond the wheelbase of a vehicle or the base of its supporting structure, and thus the hoisting equipment does not pose the dangerous cantilevering and stability hazards that are addressed by requirements of the crane standard. Furthermore, they assert that there is no need for specific protections from hazards posed by booming out loads, boom free fall, equipment swing radius, or any crane-related hazards that would necessitate the use of devices like level indicators, boom/jib stops, boom/jib limiting devices, boom length/radius indicators, and drum hoist rotation indicators. Finally, stakeholders have pointed out that the loads handled by monorail hoists are not heavy enough to trigger the need for a load weighing device or the use of load charts to prevent overloading and tipping the hosting equipment.However, it is clear that monorail and overhead hoist systems present recognized workplace hazards, including those addressed by 29 CFR 1926.554 (Overhead hoists), ASME B30.17, and various manufacturers' recommendations. For the reasons discussed above, and until the application of the cranes standard to monorail hoists is revisited through rulemaking, OSHA intends to exercise its enforcement discretion by not citing employers for failing to achieve full compliance with the cranes standard when monorail hoists are used, if the following conditions are met to protect employees:For Construction Applications(1) Compliance with 29 CFR 1926.554 (Overhead hoists). OSHA notes that its Overhead Hoist standard requires the use of outriggers and other supports whenever prescribed by the manufacturer. (2) Operators of this equipment are trained in accordance with 29 CFR 1926.21. (3) The employer has determined that each operator is qualified to safely operate that hoisting system per 29 CFR 1926.20(b)(4). (4) When monorail hoists are mounted on equipment such as work vehicles, utility trailers, scaffolding systems (including mast climbing), and various other mobile or stationary support systems, the employer must also comply with all other OSHA construction requirements that are applicable to each supporting vehicle, equipment, and structure. Should an employer operating such equipment fail to comply fully with all of the requirements described, the requirements of the cranes standard would apply.For General Industry ApplicationsOSHA's longstanding policy regarding monorail hoists in general industry work is that they are not covered by a specific general industry standard, so employers must protect employees from the hazards of this equipment in accordance with Section 5(a)(1) (the general duty clause) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (see OSHA's letter to Mr. Neal R. Khein, Jr. (Feb. 12, 1991) and memo to James Lake (April 23, 1984), both available at www.osha.gov). The general duty clause requires employers to use this equipment in a manner that would be considered safe in the industry. One means of doing so would be to comply with the four requirements detailed in the policy above, and another means of doing so would be to comply with the safety standards recognized in the industry, including the relevant portions of ASME B30.17-2015 (Cranes and Monorails (With Underhung Trolley or Bridge)).Description of Equipment Covered by these Enforcement PoliciesFor the purposes of this enforcement policy, a monorail hoist means a hoisting mechanism attached to a completely fixed monorail (I-beam) mounted on equipment such as work vehicles, trailers, or scaffolding systems. The monorail hoists can be extended and contracted in only a fixed horizontal direction to hoist materials and can hoist materials only as high as the monorail. The monorail hoist does not have a rotating superstructure and cannot swing on a hinge or boom out significantly beyond the wheelbase of a vehicle or the base of its supporting structure. Examples of these systems are pictured in the attachment.Attachment:Examples of Monorail Hoists Covered by this PolicyPhoto 1: Septic Tank Delivery RigPhoto Courtesy of the National Precast Concrete AssociationPhoto 2: Septic Tank Delivery RigPhoto Courtesy of the National Precast Concrete AssociationPhoto 3: Septic Tank Delivery RigPhoto Courtesy of the National Precast Concrete AssociationPhoto 4: Burial Vault Delivery RigPhoto Courtesy of the Roberts Vault Co. Inc.Photo 5: Vault HandlerPhoto Courtesy of the Axis CorporationPhoto 6: Propane Tank HandlerPhoto Courtesy of the Fisk Tank Carriers/G.D. Roberts Company Inc.Photo 7: Work Vehicle Mounted Monorail HoistPhoto Courtesy of Smak Industrial Handling SolutionsPhoto 8: Work Vehicle Mounted Monorail HoistPhoto Courtesy of Smak Industrial Handling SolutionsPhoto 9: Mast Climber with Non-Swinging Mounted Monorail HoistPhoto Courtesy of Hydro Mobile

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.govMay 31, 2017<!-- --> Mr. Tyler PhelanPhillips 661075 W Sam Houston Parkway N, Suite 200Houston, TX 77043 Dear Mr. Phelan:The purpose of this letter is in response to the Letter of Interpretation Request we received on April 5, 2017. This response is to follow up on previous information you received from an E-Correspondence request you sent in on the applicability of OSHA standards to your company's "designated waterfront facility".You have asked whether 29 CFR 1917.112 (guarding of edges in marine terminals) or another OSHA standard applies to the guarding of the edges of docks at a designated waterfront facility, i.e., a facility used solely for the bulk storage, handling and transfer of flammable, non-flammable, or combustible liquids or gases. OSHA standards do not apply to this situation. Part 1917 (marine terminals) provides that its specific requirements do not apply to such facilities - 29 CFR 1917.1(a)(1)(i). Part 1917 also provides that Part 1910 (general industry standards) do not apply to "marine terminals," with exceptions not relevant here. Since a designated waterfront facility literally falls within the category of a "marine terminal," i.e.,"... wharves, bulkheads, quays, piers, docks and other berthing locations and adjacent storage or adjacent areas and structures associated with the primary movement of cargo or materials from vessel to shore or shore to vessel ... (29 CFR 1917.2), Part 1910 standards do not apply to this situation.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 memorandums and letters of interpretation do not create new or additional requirements but rather explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances. From time to time, memorandums and letters are affected when the Agency updates a standard, a legal decision impacts a standard, or changes in technology affect the interpretation. To ensure that you are using the correct information and guidance, please consult OSHA's website at https://www.osha.gov. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact the Office of Maritime Enforcement at (202) 693-2399.Sincerely, Thomas Galassi, DirectorDirectorate of Enforcement Programs

April 25, 2017Mr. Fred HartzHoltec International200 Braddock AvenueTurtle Creek, PA; 15145Dear Mr. Hartz: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 the requirements at Section 1904.31, Covered Employees. Specifically, you ask OSHA to clarify who is responsible for recording injuries and illnesses of workers when supervision is shared by a prime contractor and subcontractor at a construction site. Scenario: In your letter, you state that your company manufactures, constructs, and provides services for spent fuel storage and transportation casks for the nuclear fuel industry. Your company contracts third party labor, operating engineers, electricians, boilermakers, welders, and craft supervisors (boiler maker foreman and general foremen) under the direction of your project management (emphasis added). At these worksites, your company is considered the “prime contractor,” and the third party labor is considered the “subcontractor.” There is also language in the contracts that the subcontractor will provide “seconded labor under the direction and supervision” of your project management team.Question: If we subcontract with a third party to construct, assemble, alter, or repair our casks at a host client’s facility, who is responsible for recording work-related injuries and illnesses?Response: OSHA’s recordkeeping regulation at Section 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. Section 1904.31(b)(3) states that if a contractor's employee is under the day-to-day supervision of the contractor, the contractor is responsible for recording the injury or illness. If another employer (e.g., host employer or prime contractor) supervises the contract employee’s work on a day-to-day basis, that employer must record the injury or illness. OSHA’s Frequently Asked Question 31-1 at https://www.osha.gov/recordkeeping/entryfaq.html clarifies the meaning of day-to-day supervision. 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."Under OSHA’s recordkeeping regulation, the determination regarding which entity must record the injuries and illnesses of contract employees must be based on the actual facts concerning day-to-day supervision at the workplace. This means that the entity that actually provides day-to-day supervision is responsible for recording cases on the OSHA Log regardless of the wording of the parties’ contractual agreements. See, OSHA’s June 6, 2012, letter to Belal Kayyali at https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=28637and OSHA’s October 19, 2015, letter to Jeff Dahlquist at https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=29951Your letter states that your company provides direction as the prime contractor, through your project management team, to the subcontractor workers. There is no indication that the subcontractor companies supervise the “details, means, methods and processes by which the work is to be accomplished." Supervision at this level is the determining factor of which company has the responsibility to record injuries and illnesses experienced by employees. It appears, based on the information in your letter, that your company provides day-to-day supervision of the subcontractor workers. If this is true, you must record their recordable injuries and illnesses on your 300 log.Finally, please be aware that in situations where more than one employer provides supervision, Section 1904.31(b)(4) requires that companies and their subcontractors coordinate their efforts to ensure that each injury and illness is recorded only once – by the employer who provides day-to-day supervision of the injured or ill employee. In other words, for purposes of OSHA recordkeeping, there cannot be joint day-to-day supervision of subcontractors. Accordingly, even though there is language in your contract that the subcontractor will remove the responsibility of day-to-day supervision from their craft supervisors to your management team, and that all the liabilities are the legal responsibility of the subcontractor, there can only be one employer actually providing day-to-day supervision, and only one employer responsible for recording an injury or illness on the 300 log.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 Edens, Director Directorate 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.govApr 06, 2017MEMORANDUM FORREGION ADMINISTRATORS FROM:DOROTHY DOUGHERTYDeputy Assistant Secretary SUBJECT:Delay of Enforcement of the Crystalline Silica Standard for Construction under 29 CFR 1926.1153The final rule on Occupational Exposure to Crystalline Silica in Construction, published on March 25, 2016, established a new Permissible Exposure Limit and contained several other ancillary provisions that apply to the construction industry. This rule was codified at 29 CFR §1926.1153 and became effective on June 23, 2016. Under the standard, all obligations were to commence on June 23, 2017 except for requirements for sample analysis in paragraph (d)(2)(v), which commence on June 23, 2018.The construction standard for crystalline silica has a number of unique features warranting development of additional guidance materials. In order to provide the opportunity to conduct additional outreach to the regulated community and to provide additional time to train compliance officers, we have decided to delay enforcement of this standard until September 23, 2017. We are currently developing educational materials for employers and enforcement guidance for your staff that will be made available shortly. Please instruct your staff to provide these materials to employers that are subject to the requirements under § 1926.1153 and to provide guidance on what steps the employers can take to ensure that they are in compliance with the new provisions when enforcement begins on September 23, 2017.

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.govMarch 17, 2017MEMORANDUM FORREGION ADMINISTRATORSTHROUGHDOROTHY DOUGHERTYDeputy Assistant SecretaryFROM:THOMAS GALASSI, DirectorDirectorate of Enforcement ProgramsSUBJECT:Exemption of Variable Boom Reach Equipment (â¿¿Reach Stackersâ¿�) from the 29 CFR 1917.50 Certification Requirement for Marine TerminalsPURPOSE:This memo is to inform all Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Field Offices that reach stackers are exempt from complying with the certification requirement set forth in 29 CFR 1917.50. BACKGROUND:On August 9, 2016, during the meeting of the Longshoring Workgroup, of the Maritime Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health (MACOSH) and at a follow-up conference call on September 22, 2016, industry representatives expressed concern about OSHAâ¿¿s consideration requiring that reach stackers (Figure 1), be certificated pursuant to 29 CFR 1917.50. That provision requires certain material handling devices used in marine terminals, listed in paragraph (c), be certificated. However, there are exceptions to this provision. 29 CFR 1917.50(j)(1) provides that the certification requirement does not apply to: â¿¿1) Small industrial crane trucks as described on page 8 and illustrated on page 13 of ASME B56.1, 1959, â¿¿Safety Code for Powered Industrial Trucksâ¿¿, and powered industrial trucks.â¿� For the following reasons we conclude that reach stackers are powered industrial trucks and therefore fall within this exception. ASME B56.1, 1959, â¿¿Safety Code for Powered Industrial Trucks,â¿� p. 7, referred to in subparagraph (j)(1), defines a â¿¿powered industrial truckâ¿� as â¿¿a mobile, power-driven truck or tractor, as specifically defined below, used to carry, push, pull, lift, stack or tier material.â¿� A reach stacker is a mobile, power-driven truck, which moves loads both vertically and horizontally, used to handle and stack material. Therefore, a reach stacker is a powered industrial truck and thus falls within the subparagraph (j)(1) exception to the certification requirement of 29 CFR 1917.50. Furthermore, manufacturers of reach stackers have classified reach stackers as powered industrial trucks, just as they and OSHA classified top loaders (see Figure 2), which also stack materials, albeit only vertically. Thus, a plain reading of 29 CFR 1917.50(j)(1)) indicates that reach stackers used in marine terminals to load, unload, and move maritime cargo are exempt from the 29 CFR 1917.50 certification requirement because they are powered industrial trucks. However, powered industrial trucks used at marine terminals are subject to 29 CFR 1917.43 and to the powered industrial truck training requirements in 29 CFR 1910.178(l), as referenced in 29 CFR 1917.1(a)(1)(xiv). If you have any questions, please contact Nicholas DeAngelis in the Office of Maritime Enforcement at [email protected] or 202-693-2186.

MEMORANDUM FORREGIONAL ADMINISTRATORSFROM:DOROTHY DOUGHERTYDEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY THOMAS GALASSIDIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS DEAN MCKENZIEDIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF CONSTRUCTIONSUBJECT:Enforcement of minimum approach distance requirements in 29 CFR 1910.269 and 29 CFR Part 1926, Subpart VOn April 11, 2014, OSHA promulgated a final rule revising the general industry and construction standards for work on electric power generation, transmission and distribution installations. On February 13, 2015, OSHA entered into a settlement agreement with the Edison Electric Institute, the Utility Line Clearance Coalition, and the Tree Care Industry Association resolving legal challenges to that final rule. As part of that settlement, OSHA issued a memorandum (dated February 18, 2015) with the subject line "29 CFR 1910.269 and 29 CFR Part 1926, Subpart V-Enforcement dates." The memorandum adopted a delayed enforcement date for certain minimum approach distance requirements in 29 CFR 1910.269 and 29 CFR Part 1926, Subpart V. On January 20, 2016, OSHA issued a second memorandum (subject line, "29 CFR 1910.269 and 29 CFR Part 1926, Subpart V-Enforcement dates for minimum approach distances") further delaying enforcment of those requirements. This memorandum further extends those enforcement dates as follows:Until June 30, 2017, for voltages of 169.1 kilovolts and more: (i) no citations will be issued under 29 CFR 1910.269(l)(3)(ii) or 29 CFR 1926.960(c)(1)(ii), which require the employer to determine the maximum anticipated per-unit transient overvoltage; and (ii) OSHA will accept compliance with the minimum approach distances in Table 6 or Tables 10 to 13 in Appendix B to 29 CFR 1910.269 as compliance with 29 CFR 1910.269(l)(3)(i) and 29 CFR 1926.960(c)(1)(i).Until June 30, 2017, for voltages of 72.6 to 169.0 kilovolts, no citations will be issued under 29 CFR 1910.269(l)(3)(ii) or 29 CFR 1926.960(c)(1)(ii), which require the employer to determine the maximum anticipated per-unit transient overvoltage, provided the employer assumes a maximum anticipated per-unit transient overvoltage, phase-to-ground, of 3.0 per unit.OSHA does not expect to further extend these enforcement dates. OSHA is adopting the following policy for enforcement of the minimum approach distance requirements in 29 CFR 1910.269 and 29 CFR 1926.960 beginning on July 1, 2017:For voltages over 72.5 kilovolts, 29 CFR 1910.269(l)(3)(ii) and 29 CFR 1926.960(c)(1)(ii) require the employer to determine the maximum anticipated per-unit transient overvoltage, phase to ground, through an engineering analysis or assume a maximum anticipated per-unit transient overvoltage, phase-to-ground, in accordance with Table R-9 or Table V-8, respectively. On September 12, 2016, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) presented a paper titled, "Practical Approaches to Reducing Transient Overvoltage Factors for Live Work" at its ESMO 2016 conference in Columbus, OH. That paper describes practices that can be adopted1 to reduce maximum transient overvoltages to "industry-accepted values" given in IEEE 516-20092 and shown in the following table:Table A--Industry Accepted Values of Maximum Per-Unit Transient OvervoltageVoltage Range (kV)Maximum per-unity transientovervoltage, phase-to-ground72.6 to 3623.0363 to 5502.4551 to 8002.0The IEEE committee responsible for developing this paper performed research to determine, based on sound engineering principles, what practices are necessary to limit transient overvoltages on electric power systems operating at over 72.5 kilovolts. As a result of this research, the committee developed recommendations that, if followed, limit maximum transient overvoltages to the values listed in Table A. OSHA has concluded that the paper constitutes an engineering analysis of electric power systems operating at over 72.5 kilovolts and that employers can follow the guidance in the paper to comply with 29 CFR 1910.269(l)(3)(ii) and 29 CFR 1926.960(c)(1)(ii). Consequently, for voltages exceeding 72.5 kilovolts, OSHA will accept compliance with minimum approach distances calculated in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.269 Table R-3 or 29 CFR Part 1926, Subpart V, Table V-2, as applicable, using values of maximum per-unit transient overvoltage, phase-to-ground, as listed in Table A of this memorandum provided all of the following conditions are in place:The employer responsible for the circuit on which employees are working selects and maintains circuit breakers to minimize the probability of circuit breaker restrike;Live-line work is not performed while lightning is visible at the worksite;Reclosing is blocked on the circuit on which employees are working;Line switching is not performed on the circuit on which employees are working;Capacitor switching is disabled on the circuit on which employees are working; andWhen the work is on a line operating at 550.1 to 800.0 kilovolts, nominal, the line length is limited to 322 kilometers (200 miles).Table B lists minimum approach distances calculated in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.269 Table R-3 and 29 CFR Part 1926, Subpart V, Table V-2 using values for maximum transient overvoltage, phase-to-ground, from Table A.3 Employers may use the minimum approach distances in Table B, provided the conditions listed in this memorandum apply and the employer follows the notes to that table. Employers that do not meet these conditions must establish minimum approach distances in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.269(l)(3) or 29 CFR 1926.960(c)(1), as applicable.Table B—Alternative Minimum Approach Distances for Voltages of More Than 72.5 kV *†‡Voltage Range,Phase-to-Phase(kV)Phase-to-Ground ExposurePhase-to-Phase Exposuremft (ft, in **)mft (ft, in ‡)72.6 to 121.01.023.3 (3 ft, 4 in)1.274.2 (4 ft, 3 in)121.1 to 145.01.163.8 (3 ft, 10 in)1.464.8 (4 ft, 10 in)145.1 to 169.01.304.3 (4 ft, 4 in)1.655.4 (5 ft, 5 in)169.1 to 242.01.725.6 (5 ft, 8 in)2.558.4 (8 ft, 5 in)242.1 to 362.02.769.1 (9 ft, 2 in)4.4914.7 (14 ft, 9 in)362.1 to 420.02.508.2 (8 ft, 3 in)4.1713.7 (13 ft, 9 in)420.1 to 550.03.6211.9 (11 ft, 11 in)6.1820.3 (20 ft, 4 in)550.1 to 800.04.8315.8 (15 ft, 10 in)8.4727.8 (27 ft, 10 in)* Employers may use the minimum approach distances in this table provided the worksite is at an elevation of 900 meters (3,000 feet) or less. If employees will be working at elevations greater than 900 meters (3,000 feet) above mean sea level, the employer may determine minimum approach distances by multiplying the distances in this table by the correction factor in 29 CFR 1910.269 Table R-5, or 29 CFR Part 1926, Subpart V, Table V-4, corresponding to the altitude of the work.† Employers may use the phase-to-phase minimum approach distances in this table provided that no insulated tool spans the gap and no large conductive object is in the gap.‡ The clear live-line tool distance must equal or exceed the values for the indicated voltage ranges.** OSHA is providing the distance in feet and inches, rounded up, for convenience only.1: In most cases, the entity that operates the system (typically an electric utility) will implement these practices. When a contract employer must comply with the minimum approach distance requirements in §§1910.269 and 1926.960, the entity operating the system would be the host employer. To apply the maximum transient overvoltages set in Table A, the host employer and contract employer will need to coordinate their work rules and procedures in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.269(a)(3)(iii) or 29 CFR 1926.950(c)(3), as applicable, so that the practices outlined in this memorandum are adhered to.2: IEEE Std 516-2009, IEEE Guide for Maintenance Methods on Energized Power Lines.3: OSHA developed Table B by extracting the values for the minimum approach distances for phase-to-ground and phase-to-phase exposures from Table 14 through Table 21 in Appendix B to 29 CFR 1910.269 (or the equivalent Table 7 through Table 14 in Appendix B to 29 CFR Part 1926, Subpart V) corresponding to the voltage range in Table B and the maximum transient overvoltage, phase-to-ground, from Table A. Note that Table B does not replace any of the tables in 29 CFR 1910.269 or 29 CFR Part 1926, Subpart V.

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.govNovember 21, 2016Arthur H. RoedeWelwyn Associates, LLC200 Arden Crest CourtCary, North Carolina 27513-3831Dear Mr. Roede: 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. Specifically, you ask if the following scenario constitutes restricted work activity for OSHA recordkeeping purposes. ScenarioAn employee suffers a work-related laceration but is physically capable of performing all routine job functions. However, the employee is prevented from performing normal job duties in close proximity to the biological production area of the facility as a precaution against potential biocontamination of the output of its processes. Response:Section 1904.7(a) of OSHA's recordkeeping regulation provides that employers must consider an injury or illness to meet the general recording criteria, and therefore to be recordable, if it results in restricted work or transfer to another job. Restricted work occurs when, as the result of a work-related injury or illness, (a) an employer keeps the employee from performing one or more of the routine functions of his or her job, or from working the full workday that he or she would otherwise have been scheduled to work; or (b) a physician or other licensed health care professional recommends that the employee not perform one or more of the routine functions of his or her job, or not work the full workday that he or she would otherwise have been scheduled to work. See, Section 1904.7(b)(4)(i).Restricted work cases are those which involve restrictions that are imposed or recommended as the result of a work-related injury or illness. If an employee has a work-related injury or illness, and that employee's work is restricted by the employer to prevent exacerbation of, or to allow recuperation from, that injury or illness, the case is recordable as a restricted work case because the restriction was necessitated by the work-related injury or illness. Please note that if the employee's work-related illness or injury played any role in the restriction, OSHA considers the case to be a restricted work case. See, the preamble to the January 19, 2001 final rule revising OSHA's recordkeeping regulation at 66 Federal Register 5981. In the scenario presented, the restriction was placed on the employee to protect the integrity of the product being produced rather than for preventing exacerbation of, or to allow recuperation from, that injury or illness. Accordingly, the case described above does not involve restricted work activity.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 Edens, DirectorDirectorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management

September 21, 2016MEMORANDUM FORREGIONAL ADMINISTRATORSSTATE PLAN PROGRAM MANAGERSTHROUGH:DOROTHY DOUGHERTYDeputy Assistant SecretaryFROM:THOMAS GALASSI, DirectorDirectorate of Enforcement ProgramsSUBJECT:Clarifications to CPL 02-02-079, Inspection Procedures for the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS 2012)This memorandum provides information on issues raised since the publication of the Inspection Procedures for the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS 2012) compliance directive, CPL 02-02-079. This memo serves primarily to assist the field staff in clarifying the requirements of HCS 2012. Question 1: Has OSHA changed the meaning of the phrase "exposed under normal conditions of use or in a foreseeable emergency?"Response: The Agency's interpretation of that phrase has been stated previously and is applicable to HCS 2012. The following reiterates OSHA's interpretation:The terminology "exposed under normal conditions of use or in a foreseeable emergency" excludes substances for which the hazardous chemical is inextricably bound or is not readily available, and, therefore, presents no potential for exposure. ("Exposure" includes accidental or possible exposure, see definition under paragraph (c) of the standard). Further, employees such as office workers or bank tellers who encounter chemicals only in "non-routine," isolated instances are not covered. However, an employee in a graphic arts department who "routinely" uses paints, adhesives, etc., would be covered by the HCS. Question 2: When do all containers of hazardous chemicals shipped by a manufacturer or importer have to be HCS 2012-compliant labeled? Response: If after June 1, 2015, the manufacturer or importer can demonstrate that it exercised reasonable diligence and good faith efforts to obtain hazard classification information from the upstream supplier(s) but for circumstances beyond its control, it has not received the necessary information to develop HCS 2012-compliant labels, it may continue to ship containers downstream provided the containers are HCS 1994-compliant labeled. Even though a manufacturer or importer may have built up a substantial inventory, over time, containers of hazardous chemicals that were packaged for shipment prior to June 1, 2015 should become less of a labeling burden to manufacturers and importers as inventory is depleted. Therefore, all containers of hazardous chemicals shipped by a manufacturer or importer must be HCS 2012-compliant labeled by June 1, 2017.Question 3: Are end-user employers required to re-label existing stock of containers?Response: End users (i.e., employers) with existing stock or who have received shipped containers of hazardous chemicals with HCS 1994 labels (even after the June 1, 2016 final effective date) are allowed to maintain and use those containers with HCS 1994 labels. The end user must not remove or deface any chemical containers with HCS 1994 labels, unless the end user immediately marks the containers with workplace labeling. If an end user receives HCS 2012 labels from an upstream supplier for its existing stock, it is advisable to affix the HCS 2012 label over the HCS 1994 label, although it is not required. The end user is responsible for training its workers regarding the new label elements. Question 4: Will OSHA allow an HCS pictogram for Hazards Not Otherwise Classified (HNOC) on a label or safety data sheet?Response: It is stated currently in CPL 02-02-079that "[t]he manufacturer, importer or distributor may include hazard symbols on the label or SDS for HNOCs as long as that symbol is not an HCS pictogram and does not contradict or cast doubt on the information that is required." This information has been revised and is now replaced with the following guidance:The manufacturer, importer, or distributor may include non-HCS/GHS hazard symbols on the label or SDS for HNOCs as long as that symbol does not contradict or cast doubt on the information that is required. OSHA considers use of any HCS pictograms, except the exclamation mark pictogram, to indicate the hazards of an HNOC as contradicting or casting doubt on the required information. OSHA considers the exclamation mark acceptable for HNOCs because it conveys more general hazard information. OSHA will permit use of the exclamation mark pictogram for HNOCs if the label also indicates that the pictogram is being used for a hazard not otherwise classified (e.g., the words "Hazard Not Otherwise Classified" or "HNOC" appear below the exclamation mark pictogram). However, the exclamation mark pictogram may only appear once on a label; if it already appears as a required pictogram for a classified hazard, it may not appear a second time as supplemental information for the HNOC.Question 5: What ingredients must be listed in sections 3 and 8 of the safety data sheet?Response: CPL 02-02-079 currently states that "[t]he list of constituents in sections 3 and 8 must be the same." This statement has been clarified and is replaced with the following guidance:If a chemical ingredient is listed in section 3 of the SDS, it only needs to be listed in section 8 if there is a PEL, TLV or other occupational exposure limit (OEL). However, if a chemical ingredient is listed in SDS section 8, then OSHA would expect to see the same ingredient listed in SDS section 3. OSHA does not require that all chemical ingredients be listed in SDS section 8 – just those that are identified in section 3 and that have PELs, TLVs, and/or OELs. Question 6: Is "Trade Secret" the only compliant wording allowed on a safety data sheet to indicate that an ingredient is being withheld per the trade secret provisions of HCS?Response: In addition to the use of "trade secret," OSHA would also accept language such as "confidential," "confidential business information," or "proprietary" when indicating on an SDS that information is being withheld when that information is subject to trade secret provisions of HCS. See 77 FR 17474, 17738 (Mar. 26, 2012).Question 7: What collaborative work is being done between OSHA and Health Canada to coordinate and align each country's positions on GHS?Response: In June 2013, OSHA signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Health Canada formalizing the collaborative effort. Under this agreement, OSHA and Health Canada agreed to collaborate on efforts to implement the GHS in their respective jurisdictions with the goal of reducing differences, and to continue coordinating efforts in any future developments of the GHS. In May 2015, OSHA announced that it will continue its partnership with Health Canada to align the United States and Canadian regulatory approaches regarding communication (labels and safety data sheets) and classification requirements for workplace chemicals through the Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC). OSHA also is working with Health Canada to coordinate the adoption of future updates of the GHS, without reducing the level of safety or of protection to workers, to facilitate common approaches and implementation to minimize potential future variances between the two countries.This collaborative effort between OSHA and Health Canada focuses on areas of interest where the HCS 2012 and Canada's Hazardous Products Regulation national hazard communication standard, Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS) 2015, affect both the U.S. and Canada when hazardous chemicals are shipped between the two countries. Where an SDS element is required by Health Canada's WHMIS, and not by OSHA's Hazard Communication standard, it is permitted/allowed by OSHA, unless the information would contradict or cast doubt on the required information. Similarly, an SDS element that is required under HCS 2012 is permitted in Canada. An example applies to carcinogenicity. The HCS 2012 requires that if a chemical is identified as a carcinogen by OSHA, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), or the National Toxicology Program (NTP), then this information must be disclosed in SDS section 11, Toxicological information. Health Canada permits this information on the SDS even though under WHMIS the IARC and NTP listed carcinogens are not required to be disclosed on the SDS. However, if an SDS from Health Canada is sent to the U.S., the SDS must disclose information on any OSHA, IARC and NTP listed carcinogens. There are a number of areas where HCS 2012 and Canada's WHMIS 2015 are different, and the two countries are working on ways to minimize these differences. The "variances" [Canadian term for differences] between our two countries may be found at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/occup-travail/whmis-simdut/ghs-sgh/classification/hazardous-products-produits-dangereux/variances-ecarts-eng.php.The above clarifications and information will be included in the next revision to the HCS compliance directive. If you have any questions regarding these or any other issues on the HCS, please contact Sven Rundman of my staff at [email protected] or 202-693-2585.cc: DCSP

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 12, 2016 Mr. Jeff McKinneyOne Cochrane Dr.Pennsboro, WV 26415 Dear Mr. McKinney: 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. In your letter you request an interpretation from OSHA regarding the work-relatedness of an eye injury experienced by your employee. Scenario:Your employee works with glass and was wearing the appropriate personal protective equipment. He stated that while driving home from work, he began to feel something in his eye and it became irritated. That evening, he sought medical treatment for the eye irritation. The medical diagnosis stated that there was an abrasion to the employee's eye with no foreign body present. The employee was unsure if his eye was irritated at work or not. Response:Section 1904.5(a) provides that an injury or illness must be considered work-related if an event or exposure in the work environment either caused or contributed to the injury or illness. Work-relatedness is presumed for injuries and illnesses resulting from events or exposures occurring in the work environment, unless an exception in Section 1904.5(b)(2) specifically applies. A case is presumed work-related if, and only if, an event or exposure in the work environment is a discernible cause of the injury or illness or of a significant aggravation to a pre-existing condition. Because the employee's condition arose outside of the work environment and there was no discernable event or exposure that led to the condition, the presumption of work-relationship does not apply. If it is not obvious whether the precipitating event occurred in the work environment or elsewhere, the employer is to evaluate the employee's work duties and environment and make a determination whether it is more likely than not that work events or exposures were a cause of the injury or illness or of a significant aggravation of a pre-existing condition (§29 CFR 1904.5(b)(3)) 1904.5(b)(3) How do I handle a case if it is not obvious whether the precipitating event or exposure occurred in the work environment or occurred away from work? In these situations, you must evaluate the employee's work duties and environment to decide whether or not one or more events or exposures in the work environment either caused or contributed to the resulting condition or significantly aggravated a pre-existing condition. The employer has the ultimate responsibility for making good-faith recordkeeping determinations regarding an injury and/or illness. Employers must decide if and how a particular case should be recorded and their decision must not be an arbitrary one. 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 Edens, DirectorDirectorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management