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 9, 2016 Scott Ege, P.T., M.S.Ege WorkSmart Solutions, PCPO Box 603Rockton, IL 61072 Dear Mr. Ege: 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. You ask for clarification regarding the context, application, and definition of the term "exercise," and whether the recommendation or use of exercise must always be recorded on the OSHA 300 log. Specifically, you request clarification from OSHA on the differences between the use of preventative exercise as an intervention strategy, and therapeutic exercise used to treat a work-related injury or illness. Therapeutic exercise is bodily movement prescribed to correct impairment, improve musculoskeletal function, or maintain a state of well-being (see Krusen's Handbook of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 3rd ed., 1982). Therapeutic exercise is considered medical treatment when it is designed and administered to combat a particular injury, illness, or disorder as part of a treatment plan that includes termination of the therapeutic exercise once the objectives of its implementation have been met. As you noted in your letter, OSHA discussed the issue of therapeutic exercise in the preamble to the final rule establishing OSHA's current injury and illness recordkeeping regulation. See, 66 FR 5992, January 19, 2001. OSHA stated that it considers therapeutic exercise as a form of physical therapy and intentionally did not include it on the list of first aid treatments in Section 1904.7(b)(5)(ii). Section 1904.7(b)(5)(ii)(M) states that physical therapy or chiropractic treatment are considered medical treatment for OSHA recordkeeping purposes and are not considered first aid. Section 1904.7(b)(5)(iii) goes on to state that the treatments included 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. OSHA's regulation at Section 1904.46 defines an injury or illness as an abnormal condition or disorder. Although injury and illness is broadly defined, they capture only those changes that reflect an adverse change in the employee's condition that is of some significance, i.e., that reach the level of an abnormal condition or disorder. Pain and other symptoms that are wholly subjective are included in that definition. See, 66 FR 6080. Accordingly, if an employee exhibits symptoms of an injury or illness, and that injury or illness is considered work-related as defined by Section 1904.5, the administration of exercise makes the case recordable. Please be aware that if a treatment is administered as a purely precautionary measure to an employee who does not exhibit any signs or symptoms of an injury or illness, the case is not recordable. For a case to be recordable, an injury or illness must exist. For example, if, as part of an employee wellness program, a health care provider recommends exercise to employees who do not exhibit signs or symptoms of an abnormal condition, there is no case to record. Furthermore, if an employee has an injury or illness that is not work-related, (e.g., the employee is experiencing muscle pain from home improvement work), the administration of exercise does not make the case recordable either. See, OSHA's May 20, 2011, Letter of Interpretation, Clarification on whether an exercise regimen is first aid or medical treatment www.osha.gov/recordkeeping/RKinterpretations.html. Exercises that are generally part of safe work practices commonly recommended for anyone engaged in certain tasks or working with certain equipment are not considered medical treatment. For example, user instructions provided with a computer work station might include guidance on proper posture or intermittent minor exercises that are typically suggested to help reduce the risk of developing musculoskeletal disorders. Common advice for persons driving long distances may include taking breaks to get out and stretch. Counseling or reminding an employee to engage in such activities or adopt such practices is not considered to be medical treatment. Again, for purposes of OSHA recordkeeping, the focus is on whether an employee has sustained a work-related injury or illness, and whether exercise is used to treat that condition. 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

[unable to retrieve full-text content]

• Standard Number: 1904 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 August 23, 2016 Big Sky Industrial9711 W Euclid RoadSpokane, WA 99224 Dear Ms. Shulund: 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 state there is a bias against smaller employers in the formula used by OSHA to calculate incidence rates of occupational injuries and illness, and you ask if there is a different benchmark for smaller companies to use so that you can be fairly compared and scored. Incidence rates can be used to show the relative level of injuries and illnesses among different industries, firms, or operations within a single firm. Because a common base and a specific period of time are involved, these rates can help determine both problem areas and progress in preventing work-related injuries and illnesses. An incidence rate of injuries and illnesses may be computed from the following formula: (Number of injuries and illnesses X 200,000) / Employee hours worked = Incidence rate. The 200,000 figure in the formula represents the number of hours 100 employees working 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year would work, and provides the standard base for calculating incidence rate for an entire year. A single injury or illness has a much greater effect on incidence rates in small establishments than on larger establishments. Any analysis must take this into account. Incidence rates take on more meaning for an employer when the injury and illness experience of his or her firm is compared with that of other employers doing similar work with workforces of similar size. The BLS publishes incident rates by size of establishment in the following size categories: Size 1 - establishments with 1-10 employeesSize 2 - establishments with 11-49 employeesSize 3 - establishments with 50-249 employeesSize 4 - establishments with 250-999 employeesSize 5 - establishments with 1,000 or more employees These BLS quartile estimates are available at http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/os/ostb4359.pdf Aggregation of multiple years of data can alleviate the unfavorable effect a single case can have on a small establishment's incidence rate. For example, a small establishment can enter three years of injury and illness counts and three years of hours worked into the formula, while retaining the 200,000 constant. This would return an annualized rate for 100 FTE comparable to national rates. The increased hours worked figure would minimize any unusual swings in injury and illness counts. Evaluation of injury and illness data is a vital component of hazard identification and abatement. However, it is only one component of an effective evaluation. OSHA strongly advocates the use of multiple variables to evaluate the effectiveness of an employer's safety and health program. While an injury and illness incident rate is a useful indicator of an establishment's safety and health environment, reliance on only one indicator can lead to wrong conclusions. OSHA believes performance indicators should include both leading and lagging indicators. Lagging indicators generally track worker exposures and injuries that have already occurred. Leading indicators reflect the potential for injuries and illnesses that have not yet occurred. Examples of lagging indicators include: Number and severity of injuries and illnesses; results of worker exposure monitoring; and amount paid to workers' compensation claims. Examples of leading indicators include: level of worker participation in safety program activities; number of hazards and close calls/near misses reported, as well as amount of time taken to respond to reports; number and frequency of management walkthroughs; number of hazards identified during inspections; number of workers who have completed required safety and health training; number of days needed to take corrective action after a workplace hazard is identified or an incident occurs. 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

• Standard Number: 1926.500(b)(1) 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 August 4, 2016 Douglas L. Easter, Consultant49 Butternut WalkHoschton, GA 30548 Dear Mr. Easter: Thank you for your letter dated February 4, 2016, requesting clarification of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) fall protection requirements. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of only the requirements discussed and may not be applicable to any question not delineated in your original correspondence. Background: The worksite you describe was a concrete and steel structure approximately 45 feet in height. (The photograph of the structure which you included with your letter is also included as an enclosure to this response). The walking/working surface for employees was on the top of the structure and did not have a guardrail for employee protection. There was a "catch platform" with a guardrail system, less than 6 feet below the walking/working surface, that extended 3 feet out from the edge of the structure. Although we do not have information about the dimensions of the guardrail system on the catch platform, it is clear from the photograph that the top rail was below the walking/working surface on top of the structure. Question: Does this scenario comply with OSHA's fall protection requirements? Answer: No. OSHA considers this scenario a violation of 29 CFR 1926.501(b)(1), which provides that "[e]ach employee on a walking/working surface... with an unprotected side or edge which is 6 feet... or more above a lower level shall be protected from falling by the use of guardrail systems, safety net systems, or personal fall arrest systems." The fall protection standard defines the term "lower levels" as "those areas or surfaces to which an employee can fall." In this scenario, there were two lower levels. The first lower level was the catch platform. The second lower level was the ground. In OSHA's view, the catch platform did not prevent employees from falling to the ground; workers on the top of the structure could easily have fallen over the guardrails on the platform. Although the potential fall of less than 6 feet to the catch platform did not trigger the fall protection requirements at 1926.501(b)(1), that standard did require fall protection to protect employees from the potential fall to the ground, 45 feet below the walking/working surface. To comply with OSHA's fall protection requirements in the pictured scenario, the employer could have either provided the fall protection specified in 1926.501(b)(1) (guardrails on the walking/working surface, safety nets, or personal fall arrest systems) or modified the catch platform to ensure it would have prevented a falling employee from reaching the ground (thus eliminating the only potential fall of 6 feet or greater). With respect to fall protection, the requirements for guardrails, safety nets, and personal fall arrest systems are specified in 29 CFR 1926.502(b), (c) and (d), respectively. The use of a fall restraint system could also have been considered, as OSHA accepts properly utilized fall restraint systems in lieu of fall arrest systems when the restraint system is rigged in such a way that it prevents a fall from the walking/working surface.1 In general, 29 CFR 1926.502(b)(1) specifies that the top edge of a guardrail system must be between 39 and 45 inches above the walking/working surface. Although OSHA does not know the dimensions of the guardrail system used at the worksite described in your letter, it is apparent from the photograph you provided that the top rail of the guardrail system on the catch platform was below the walking/working surface. Therefore, the guardrail system on the catch platform was not sufficient fall protection for the employees working on the walking/working surface of the structure. The employer could potentially have complied with 1926.501(b)(1) by raising the top rails on the pictured catch platform to a height 39-45 inches above the walking/working surface of the structure. (Note that to be considered sufficient fall protection for these workers, the guardrails on the catch platform would also have had to meet the strength and other requirements at 29 CFR 1926.502(b), including the requirements for midrails to prevent employees from falling through the guardrail system.) As a possible alternative to raising the height of the guardrails on the catch platform, the employer could have extended the width of the catch platform far enough to ensure that a falling employee would land on the platform instead of falling over its guardrails to the ground. As a reference, OSHA's fall protection standards would require a safety net used in this scenario to extend 8 feet from the edge of the walking/working surface. See 29 CFR 1926.502(c)(2). With an extended catch platform preventing employees from falling to the ground, the catch platform would have been the only lower level, and (other than the guardrails on the platform itself) no additional fall protection would have been required given that the platform was less than 6 feet below the walking/working surface. Please note that OSHA considers catch platforms, like the one in this scenario, to be "scaffolds" governed by 29 CFR 1926, Subpart L.2 Scaffolds are not necessarily designed to catch a person who has fallen from an elevated position onto the platform. Therefore, any reasonably anticipated dynamic loads need to be considered and factored into the design of any scaffolding intended to be used as a catch platform. Moreover, any scaffolds used as catch platforms must meet all applicable Subpart L requirements before they can safely be used to support, and catch, an employee. Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. 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 response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at http://www.osha.gov. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact the Directorate of Construction at (202) 693-2020. Sincerely, Jeffrey A. Erskine, Acting DirectorDirectorate of Construction Enclosure 1 OSHA suggests that, at a minimum, fall restraint systems have the capacity to withstand at least 3,000 pounds of force or twice the maximum expected force needed to restrain the employee from exposure to the fall hazard. 2 Subpart L defines "scaffold" as "any temporary elevated platform (supported or suspended) and its supporting structure (including points of anchorage), used for supporting employees or materials or both." 29 CFR 1926.450(b).

• Standard Number: 1926.1400(c)(17)(i) 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 July 28, 2016 Mr. Ty E. GablePresidentNational Precast Concrete Association1320 City Center Drive, Suite 200Carmel, Indiana 46032 Re: Subpart CC, 1926.1400, hoisting precast concrete Dear Mr. Gable: Thank you for your April 3, 2013, letter from the National Precast Concrete Association (NPCA) to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). In your letter, you reference a February 26, 2013, OSHA interpretation in which OSHA clarifies that, unlike staging and installing precast members of larger systems and structures, placing a burial vault in an excavation is not considered a construction activity. It is also noted that 29 CFR 1926.1400(c)(17)(i) of the Cranes and Derricks in Construction standard (construction crane standard) includes a limited exclusion for articulating knuckle boom truck cranes. They are excluded when used to transfer materials from the truck crane to the ground, without arranging the materials in a particular sequence for hoisting. NPCA describes how its members transport precast concrete components of larger structures and systems from a manufacturer to a construction site using a truck crane. The precast components are then offloaded to the ground by your members in a designated staging or storage area. Several types of truck cranes are listed that are used to handle precast components which include: fixed frame monorail with trolley hook, articulating boom, telescopic straight boom with a trolley hook, and a telescopic straight boom with a swing station. NPCA questions the relevance of arranging materials in a particular sequence for hoisting and believes that whenever materials are unloaded to the ground using the equipment described, the activity is more appropriately covered by OSHA’s materials handling standards for general industry, 29 CFR 1910.178 or 29 CFR 1910.180. Subsequently, your organization requests that OSHA exempt from the requirements of the construction crane standard, the use of any truck cranes to transport and unload precast components as NPCA describes. Such a materials handling activity is covered by 29 CFR 1926.250, Materials Handling, Storage, Use, and Disposal. In addition, when cranes are used by any employer for this purpose, the requirements of the construction crane standard may also apply unless it specifies that the particular equipment or the activity is exempted. Please note that consideration of whether a work activity is covered by 29 CFR 1910 (OSHA’s General Industry Standards) or 29 CFR 1926 (OSHA’s Construction standards) would be based on a case-specific factual analysis. An example of some of the factors used to determine whether a work activity is covered under OSHA’s construction standards is discussed in a letter of interpretation that can be accessed from OSHA’s website at: http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=24789. As NPCA notes, OSHA considers it a construction activity when a crane is used to lower a precast component into an excavation where it will be positioned and connected to a larger system or structure. However, unloading materials in a particular place on the jobsite, even as directed by a construction employer, is not the only factor considered when determining that materials are being arranged/staged. For application of the construction crane standard, a staging area is considered part of a construction site when unloading and handling of the materials within the staging area is integral to a construction activity being performed. Some clear examples of staging activities include: when building materials such as structural or system components must be specifically organized or oriented when unloaded to the ground to facilitate their ordered connection to a structure or system being constructed. In these scenarios, a construction employer is bringing the materials to the staging area to store or stage them for hoisting from the staging area onto, or for connection to, a structure or system. The storing, staging, and hoisting of materials from the described staging area are all integral and necessary to the construction activity. Therefore, regardless of whether the construction employer operates an articulating truck crane to arrange and orient materials within a staging area, or that employer gets another employer (such as a delivery company) to do so, the use of the crane for this purpose is considered construction and covered by the cranes standard. For these reasons, OSHA concludes that the limited exemption specified in 29 CFR 1926.1400(c)(17) is protective and appropriate for the application of the construction crane standard. Therefore, the handling of precast components as described by NPCA is covered by construction standards when those materials are unloaded to the ground at a construction site but also arranged in a particular sequence for hoisting (essentially stored or staged for use at a construction site). 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 ensure 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, Jeffrey A. Erskine, Acting DirectorDirectorate of Construction

Answer: No. as long as the aerial lift described is used to hoist tools and lightweight materials related to work that will be performed from the personnel bucket. Section 1926.1400(c)(5) explicitly excludes machinery originally designed to be only configured as vehicle-mounted aerial devices (for lifting personnel) and self-propelled elevating work platforms. Based on the rulemaking record and experiences in enforcement of the cranes standard, OSHA understands that when the rule became effective, the majority of the aerial lifts available were designed to always be configured to hoist personnel in a personnel platform. Some of the aerial lifts could also be equipped with a winch that could lift and lower tools and lightweight materials necessary for the performance of work from within the bucket. Unlike most cranes, the material hoists on those aerial devices had very limited lifting capacities. In addition to other requirements, 29 CFR 1926.453(b)(2)(vi)- (aerial lifts with extensible and articulating boom platforms) states that the load limits of the boom and basket specified by the manufacturer shall not be exceeded. Therefore, OSHA concluded that the use of such winches on aerial lifts was incidental to an aerial lift’s primary function. However, because such an aerial lift does not meet the design specifications required by the crane standard, it would not be stable enough to safely hoist loads, such as typical construction materials, at boom lengths, boom angles, and lifting capacities that cranes are designed to accommodate. Q #2: A company now manufactures equipment that is designed to meet the requirements of both ANSI/SIA A92.2-1990 and ASME B30.5-20042 (pictures C) such that the equipment (picture D) can be configured and used to hoist, lower, and horizontally: move a suspended load; or personnel in a boom-mounted personnel platform. Does any OSHA requirement prohibit an employer from using this equipment? C . D. Answer: No. In fact, by including “multi-purpose equipment” in the scope of the crane standard (&sect1926.1400(a)), OSHA anticipated that equipment would be eventually engineered and sold by manufacturers for employers to use as cranes in addition to other functions. Q #3: When the dual-rated equipment described in Q#2 (picture D) is used on a construction site to hoist personnel in a boom-mounted personnel platform, must the requirements of the crane standard be met or do only the requirements of the aerial lift standard (29 CFR 1926.453) apply? Answer: OSHA is aware of at least one manufacturer who now sells dual-rated equipment. To meet design criteria referenced or specified by OSHA for cranes and aerial lifts, the operator can reconfigure this equipment’s components, engage/disengage its hoist line mechanism, and set its control systems accordingly. For example, to operate this equipment safely as an aerial lift, the operator must be able to determine when any necessary computer programs and boom angle/load limiting devices are set and operating properly to prevent any failures that could occur when personnel are hoisted. In addition, heavier dual-rated equipment supported on outriggers is more likely to penetrate a surface beneath it in comparison to typically lighter aerial lift designs. Therefore, the employer must be able to confirm that the structural integrity and stability of the equipment is adequate to support anticipated loads prior to hoisting personnel. When safety determinations like these regarding the completion of reconfiguration have been confirmed, the requirements of the crane standard would not apply. Unlike aerial lifts that are always configured and primarily used to hoist personnel, some dual-rated equipment may need to be mechanically reconfigured from being a crane to become an aerial lift. This task may require some equipment assembly such as installing outriggers, counterweights, a personnel bucket, or other attachments to its boom. OSHA anticipates that the complexity of the reconfiguring operation is likely to vary by design of the dual-rated equipment. Also, cranes are designed and primarily used to move heavy materials loads and therefore, even dual-rated aerial lifts are likely to have been subjected to significant structural loading when they were used as cranes. Unfortunately, not all crane-related ground condition, assembly/disassembly, and equipment structural deficiencies can be detected by visual inspections alone. For reasons such as these, &sect1926.1431(a) states that cranes can only be used to hoist personnel when it is infeasible to use other safe means to reach elevated positions. In addition, extra safety precautions like those specified in the provisions of &sect1926.1431 must also be implemented by the employer to confirm the equipment’s structural integrity and stability prior to hoisting personnel. Similarly, even though &sect1926.1431 would not apply to reconfigured, dual-rated aerial lifts, when compliance with the manufacturer’s procedures for reconfiguration is not effective for this purpose, the employer still must ensure that all industry-recognized, personnel-hoisting hazards are addressed each time an aerial lift has been mechanically reconfigured from being a crane prior to hoisting personnel. Failure to take such steps would be considered a violation of &sect5(a)(1) of the OSH Act. Q #4: Section 1926.1431(a) states: The use of equipment to hoist employees is prohibited except where the employer demonstrates that the erection, use, and dismantling of conventional means of reaching the worksite, such as personnel hoist, ladder, stairway, aerial lift, elevating work platform, or scaffold, would be more hazardous, or is not possible because of the projects structural design or worksite conditions. This paragraph does not apply to subpart R (Steel Erection) of this part. When aerial lifts (that meet the requirements of ANSI A92.2-1969/1990) are available for hoisting employees at a construction worksite but the equipment described in Q #3 is used for this purpose instead, would that work practice be a violation of &sect1926.1431(a)? Answer: No. As explained in Q #3, dual-rated equipment can be used to hoist personnel at any time after the employer has complied with the manufacturer’s procedures for completing the change in configuration and confirming that the aerial lift is set-up and safe to use. Q #5: Section 1926.1400(g) states: For work covered by Subpart V of 29 CFR Part 1926, compliance with Subpart V is deemed compliance with t&sect1926.1426.1407 through 1926.1411. When the dual-rated equipment described in Q #2 (picture D) or equipment that meets the requirements of ASME B30.5-2004 (picture C) are used to hoist personnel to perform subpart V work, which OSHA standard applies to the use of the equipment- Subpart V or the crane or aerial lift standard (whichever is appropriate)? Answer: Subpart V and either the crane or aerial lift standard (whichever is appropriate based on the consensus standard that the equipment meets when configured with a personnel platform), would both apply. Section 1926.959 (mechanical equipment) specifies protections that address hazards which are specific to the use of mechanical equipment when power distribution and transmission work is performed, and either the aerial lift or crane standard (whichever is appropriate) would cover the general safe use of the equipment which depends upon the configuration of the equipment, as determined by the manufacturer, when personnel will be hoisted. 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 ensure 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, Jeffrey A. Erskine, Acting DirectorDirectorate of Construction 1. The request for interpretation did not specify design requirements of a particular edition of ANSI A92.2 that an aerial lift must meet, but OSHA’s aerial lift standard does. Non-mandatory Appendix C to Subpart L of 29 CFR Part 1926 allows manufacturers to comply with requirements of ANSI A92.2-1990 in lieu of those in ANSI A92.2-1969 to provide equivalent employee protection where appropriate. 2. The request for interpretation did not specify design requirements of a particular edition of ANSI/ASME B30.5 that a crane must meet but the crane standard does. It is presumed that the equipment is manufactured after November 8, 2010.

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 July 18, 2016 MEMORANDUM FOR: REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS AND STATE PLAN DESIGNEES THROUGH: DOROTHY DOUGHERTYDeputy Assistant Secretary FROM: THOMAS GALASSI DirectorDirectorate of Enforcement Programs SUBJECT: Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicalsand Covered Concentrations of Listed Appendix A Chemicals This memorandum rescinds and replaces the memorandum of the same title dated June 5, 2015. It clarifies the earlier memorandum, provides additional guidance, and incorporates a new interim citation policy. This memorandum describes OSHA’s enforcement policy on the concentration of a chemical that must be present in a process for the purpose of determining whether the chemical is at or above the threshold quantity listed in Appendix A of the Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals (PSM) standard (29 C.F.R. § 1910.119).  It was developed in accordance with the President’s August 1, 2013, Executive Order 13650, Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security. OSHA’s Current Enforcement Policy: Maximum Commercial Grade The PSM standard applies to, among other things, “a process which involves a chemical at or above the specified threshold quantities listed in Appendix A to this section.”  29 C.F.R. § 1910.119(a)(1)(i).  Appendix A lists 137 chemicals and gives the threshold quantity in poundsfor each one.  For 11 of the 137 chemicals, a minimum concentration is listed along with the chemical name.1  The remaining 126 chemicals are listed without reference to any concentration.   This has created an issue regarding whether the threshold quantities for Appendix A chemicals without listed concentrations apply only to the chemicals in their undiluted (pure) form, or to mixtures in which the chemicals are present at some concentration.  Neither the regulatory text nor regulatory history contains guidance on this question. Following the 1991 publication of the PSM Final Rule, OSHA issued a series of letters of interpretation and compliance directives on this subject.  OSHA’s initial position, stated in letters issued in December 1992 and April 1993, was that the threshold quantities in Appendix A “apply only to pure (or ‘chemical grade’) chemicals unless otherwise stated in the appendix.”2 But in another letter issued in June 1993, OSHA appeared to modify this position stating: The substances listed in Appendix A without specified concentration limits are intended to be covered by the PSM Standard at commercial grade percentages of purity because the commercial grade of most of the [highly hazardous chemicals] HHC’s is approximately 99 percent purity. Many of the HHC’s, if not actually at 99% purity, are only one to two percent less than 99 percent pure. For example, the commercial grades of acrolein and allyl chloride are 97 percent purity. Some of these HHC's are considerably less than 99 percent pure.3 In 1994, OSHA further refined its policy, stating that the chemicals listed in Appendix A without minimum concentrations are covered at “commercial grade” concentrations and higher.  The letter defined “commercial grade” as “a typical maximum concentration of the chemical that is commercially available and shipped.” OSHA also noted that an employer could determine the maximum commercial concentration by referring to any published catalog of chemicals for commercial sales.4 OSHA PSM compliance directives issued during this period contain similar statements describing the agency’s policy.5 OSHA’s policy as set forth in these letters of interpretation is ambiguous on several key issues.  First, it is not clear whether the threshold quantity of a chemical without a specified concentration must be accounted for under the standard if the commercial grade concentration is significantly less than 99 percent or the chemical is used in the process at a concentration that is greater or lesser than maximum commercial grade concentration.  Second, it is not clear whether the threshold quantity of a chemical in a mixture (e.g., a solution containing the chemical and a solvent) includes only the weight of the chemical or includes the weight of the mixture as a whole. These and other inconsistencies in OSHA’s policy led to the dismissal of a criminal indictment in a case involving a 1999 explosion at Concept Sciences Inc. in Allentown, Pennsylvania.  U.S. v. Ward, No. Crim. 00-681, 2001 WL 1160168, at *11-*17 (E.D. Pa., Sept. 5, 2001).  The case involved the PSM standard’s coverage of a process using a solution of hydroxylamine at a concentration of 86.5 percent.  At the time, the maximum commercial grade concentration of hydroxylamine was 50 percent. The quantity of hydroxylamine in the process exceeded the threshold quantity in Appendix A only if the weight of the water in the hydroxylamine solution was included.  The district court found that Concept Sciences’ president, Chip Ward, lacked reasonable notice that the standard applied to the process because OSHA’s interpretive guidance was ambiguous as to the concentration level at and above which hydroxylamine is covered.  Id. at 9-12.  The court noted that the June 22, 1993 interpretive letter could be read to mean that a process involving an Appendix A chemical without a specified concentration is covered by the standard only if the chemical concentration is near 99 percent purity.  Id. at 12. The court also found that OSHA’s interpretation letters were unclear whether the threshold quantity of a chemical in solution includes the weight of the solvent. Id. at 14-17.  As a result of this lack of clarity, the court found that the standard could not be enforced against Ward in these circumstances. OSHA’s Reconsideration of the Maximum Commercial Grade Policy Pursuant to E.O. 13650, OSHA undertook a critical review of its commercial grade policy to identify necessary changes.  OSHA was concerned not only with clarifying the policy, but also assuring its consistency with the protective purposes of the standard. In particular, OSHA was concerned that the policy does not adequately account for the potential that the chemicals listed in Appendix A without specified concentrations may retain their hazardous characteristics even at relatively low concentrations. In addressing this question, OSHA considered the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) experience in implementing provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) relating to the public health and environmental impacts of releases of hazardous chemicals.  The CAAA required EPA to develop a list of substances that would likely be hazardous to the public or the environment if released, and promulgate regulations and guidance on the prevention and mitigation of such releases.  Pursuant to notice and comment procedures, EPA promulgated a List of Regulated Toxic Substances and Threshold Quantities for Accidental Release Prevention.  59 Fed. Reg. 4478-01 (January 31, 1994).   EPA has also issued regulations requiring that regulated entities develop and submit Risk Management Plans (RMPs) which must include a hazard assessment, a prevention program, and an emergency response program.  In promulgating the rule, EPA addressed the concentration at which a dilute solution of a substance may pose a hazard sufficient to require a determination regarding whether a threshold quantity is present in a process.  59 Fed Reg. 4488. EPA concluded that, for a few chemicals, it could determine specific cut-off concentrations below which the chemicals need not be considered in determining whether a threshold quantity is present.  The remaining substances, EPA found, could reasonably be considered to be hazardous in concentrations at or above one percent, if present in a process at the threshold quantity, unless the partial pressure of the substance was less than 10 millimeters of mercury (10 mm Hg.).  Ibid. Accordingly, the EPA rule includes a provision requiring that if a listed substance with no specified cut-off concentration is present in a mixture at a concentration of one percent or greater by weight, the threshold quantity of the substance must be determined unless the owner or operator can demonstrate that the partial pressure of the substance under all conditions in the process is below 10 mm Hg. 40 C.F.R. 68.115(b)(1).  OSHA believes that the one percent concentration cut-off established in the EPA rule is the appropriate policy on the concentration of an Appendix A chemical that must be present in a mixture before the threshold quantity of the chemical must be determined.  Both the PSM standard and EPA’s Risk Management Program are intended to prevent, or ameliorate the effects of, catastrophic releases of hazardous chemicals.  EPA’s conclusion, following notice and comment, that even one percent solutions of regulated substances may reasonably be anticipated to cause effects of concern in an accidental release is highly relevant.  The current maximum commercial grade policy provides no clear threshold above which a chemical mixture is covered, and could permit dangerous concentrations of hazardous chemicals in mixtures to be exempted from PSM coverage. The commercial grade approach is also confusing for employers attempting to apply the standard.  To determine the commercial grade for an Appendix A listed chemical, employers must determine the maximum concentration at which the listed chemical is commercially available for industrial use.  Although this can be done with catalogs or by contacting chemical suppliers, undertaking such a process can be difficult because it requires employers: (1) to know and understand the entirety of the supply chain for a particular HHC and (2) to make a determination as to the maximum commercial grade without a means of verifying whether the determination is correct. OSHA’s New Enforcement Policy: the One Percent Test To better address the hazards associated with mixtures of Appendix A HHCs, OSHA hereby rescinds the maximum commercial grade or pure (chemical) grade policy and adopts a one percent test similar to that adopted by EPA. The new enforcement policy is as follows: In determining whether a process involves a chemical (whether pure or in a mixture) at or above the specified threshold quantities listed in Appendix A, the employer shall calculate: (a) the total weight of any chemical in the process at a concentration that meets or exceeds the concentration listed for that chemical in Appendix A,  and (b) with respect to chemicals for which no concentration is specified in Appendix A, the total weight of the chemical in the process at a concentration of one percent or greater.  However, the employer need not include the weight of such chemicals in any portion of the process in which the partial pressure of the chemical in the vapor space under handling or storage conditions is less than 10 millimeters of mercury (mm Hg).  The employer shall document this partial pressure determination. In determining the weight of a chemical present in a mixture, only the weight of the chemical itself, exclusive of any solvent, solution, or carrier is counted. A few examples illustrate the new policy’s application.  If a process involves a 2000-pound mixture of 50 percent chloropicrin by weight and an appropriate solvent, the following formula determines coverage: Weight x [concentration] = amount of highly hazardous chemical2000 pounds x 50 percent = 1000 pounds chloropicrin1000 pounds exceeds the 500-pound threshold quantity in Appendix A. For a chemical with a listed concentration, the same formula applies.  For example, if a process involves a 10,000 pound mixture of 70 percent diacetyl peroxide and an appropriate solvent, the calculation is a follows: Weight x [concentration] = amount of highly hazardous chemical10000 pounds x 70 percent = 7000 pounds of diacetyl peroxide7000 pounds exceeds the 5000-pound threshold quantity. But, in contrast, 5000 pounds of 70 percent diacetyl peroxide is not covered: Weight x [concentration] = amount of highly hazardous chemical5000 pounds x 70 percent = 3500 pounds of diacetyl peroxide3500 pounds is less than the 5000-pound threshold quantity. OSHA notes that where an entry in Appendix A is listed as “anhydrous,” it does not cover aqueous solutions or aqueous mixtures. Anhydrous means “containing no water” or “without water.”  Thus, by definition, Appendix A to PSM does not cover aqueous solutions or aqueous mixtures of chemicals specifically listed as “anhydrous.”  In addition, although not specifically designated as “anhydrous,” OSHA has interpreted Appendix A to mean that the PSM standard does not cover Hydrogen Chloride (CAS 7647-01-0) and/or Hydrogen Fluoride (CAS 7664-39-3) in aqueous solutions or aqueous mixtures.   Therefore, the following entries in Appendix A are not covered when in aqueous solutions or aqueous mixtures: (1) Ammonia, Anhydrous (CAS 7664-41-7)7;(2) Dimethylamine, Anhydrous (CAS 124-40-3);(3) Hydrogen Cyanide, Anhydrous (CAS 74-90-8);(4) Methylamine, Anhydrous (CAS 74-89-5);(5) Hydrochloric Acid, Anhydrous/ Hydrogen Chloride (CAS 7647-01-0); and(6) Hydrofluoric Acid, Anhydrous/ Hydrogen Fluoride (CAS 7664-39-3). In such cases, the listing in Appendix A covers only the anhydrous form of the chemical. Furthermore, OSHA finds that aqueous mixtures of hydrogen bromide (at concentrations below 63%) and mixtures of alkylaluminum (at any concentration) will fall within the partial pressure exemption under all normal handling and storage conditions. Attachment A of this memorandum gives questions and answers to typical situations compliance officers may encounter in determining the concentration of an HHC for PSM coverage. Effect of this Memorandum on Prior Guidance OSHA hereby rescinds all prior statements (including statements in directives, letters of interpretation, and memoranda) related to Appendix A of the PSM standard to the extent they are inconsistent with the one percent policy. OSHA specifically clarifies that the following letters of interpretation are unaffected by this memorandum and are currently good statements of OSHA policy: Letter of Interpretation to Frank Samartinov, June 24, 1992 (available at https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=20717) (hydrochloric (muriatic) acid not covered by the PSM standard); Letter of Interpretation to David Smith (Question 1 only), March 21, 1994 (available at https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=21427) (hydrochloric (muriatic) acid not covered by the PSM standard); Letter of Interpretation to Ernie Woody, Jan. 21, 1993 (available at https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=20995) (hydrochloric (muriatic) acid not covered by the PSM standard); Letter of Interpretation to Robert Rusczek, May 18, 1994 (available at https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=21487) (aqueous solutions of hydrogen fluoride not covered by the PSM standard); Letter of Interpretation to Gerald Lancour, Jan. 28, 1994 (available at http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=21377) (aqueous solutions of hydrogen fluoride not covered by the PSM standard); Letter of Interpretation to Cary Franklin, June 28, 1992 (available at https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=20727) (formaldehyde mixtures at concentrations below 37% not covered by the PSM standard); Letter of Interpretation to Jon LaRue, June 24, 1993 (available at https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=21180) (discussion of PSM coverage for sulfuric acid and oleum/fuming sulfuric acid). Letter of Interpretation to Thomas Grumbles, March 25, 1992 (available at http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=20603) (hydrogen chloride/hydrochloric acid, anhydrous are the same substance). Interim Enforcement Policy Through March 31, 2017, OSHA will not cite any employers for violations of the PSM standard based on this memorandum (or the prior memorandum dated June 5, 2015).  However, during this time period, PSM citations may still be issued based on the previous “commercial grade concentration” policy, under which OSHA considers the total weight of the chemical in the process at commercial grade concentrations and higher. Through March 31, 2018, with respect to processes that will be covered by the PSM standard for the first time as a result of the one percent test, OSHA will make it a top priority for Compliance Assistance Specialists (CASs) in its Area Offices to provide assistance, when requested, to help employers bring such processes into PSM compliance.  Eligible employers can also seek assistance from OSHA’s On-site Consultation Program.  To the extent relevant expertise is available among consultation program personnel, requests for assistance with these processes should be a high priority for receiving on-site consultation visits. From April 1, 2017, through March 31, 2018, the following policies will apply with respect to processes that are covered by the PSM standard for the first time as a result of the one percent test: OSHA will not conduct programmed inspections of such processes. OSHA will not cite an employer under the PSM standard for any PSM violations involving such processes provided the employer is making good faith efforts to come into compliance with the PSM standard by March 31, 2018.  OSHA will consider efforts made by employers to be “in good faith” if they can demonstrate that ongoing efforts to comply with the standard are underway and documented. This policy does not apply in cases involving a fatality or catastrophe. Any citations involving PSM violations at such processes shall be submitted to the OSHA Regional Office prior to issuance to ensure consistency and clarity.  For cases where the Regional Office needs assistance in its review, it shall consult with OSHA’s Directorate of Enforcement Programs ¿ Office of Chemical Process Safety and Enforcement Initiatives. Attachment A Question 1:  A process comprises 1,000 pounds of a mixture containing ten percent diborane (CAS 19287-45-7) by weight.  Is the process covered by PSM? OSHA Response:  Yes.  Ten percent by weight of 1,000 pounds is 100 pounds of diborane.  The threshold quantity of diborane is 100 pounds, therefore the process is covered under PSM. Question 2:  A process comprises 10,000 pounds of 50 percent diacetyl peroxide solution. Is the process covered by PSM? OSHA Response: No.  Diacetyl peroxide is specifically listed in Appendix A at concentrations greater than 70 percent.  Therefore, solutions containing diacetyl peroxide at less than 70 percent are not covered by PSM regardless of the aggregate amount of the highly hazardous chemical.  Question 3:  An employer shows that his process containing 11,000 pounds of a three percent HHC solution has an HHC partial pressure of 7mmHg. The threshold quantity of the HHC is 100 pounds. Is the process covered by PSM? OSHA Response: No. Although HHC is present at a concentration above one percent, and in a threshold quantity exceeding 100 pounds, the employer need not count the threshold quantity because it has shown that the partial pressure of the chemical in the process is less than 10 mmHg.  To calculate this, the employer measures the vapor space pressure at 14.7 psia (760 mmHg) and determines, through analysis, that HHC makes up less than 0.9 mole percent of the vapor.  Therefore, the HHC partial pressure is 760 mmHg x 0.009  = 7 mmHg. Question 4:  A portion of an interconnected process contains a mixture with less than one percent of the covered HHC.  Does this mean that this portion of the process is not covered under PSM? OSHA Response:  No.  An interconnected process is a single process for purposes of coverage under PSM; it is either covered or not covered based on whether the weight of one or more HHCs in any portion of the process meets or exceeds the threshold quantity (TQ) in Appendix A.  In determining whether HHCs in any portion of an interconnected process meet or exceed the TQ, the employer need not count any HHC present in a mixture at a concentration less than one percent by weight. However, the employer must determine the total weight of any HHC in a mixture at a concentration of one percent or greater in any portion of the process, and if the total weight meets or exceeds the TQ, the process, as a whole, is covered. In a similar fashion, the EPA RMP rule addresses the same concept.  At 40 CFR 68.115(b)(1), EPA states that the covered material in the portion of the process where the partial pressure is less than 10 mmHg should not be counted towards the threshold quantity. 1. E.g., “Diacetyl Peroxide (Concentration > 70%)”; “Hydrogen Peroxide (52% by weight or greater).”  Appendix A. 2. Letter of Interpretation to Shari Roney, April 14, 1993 (available at http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=21091). See also Letter of interpretation to David L. Walker, December 21, 1992 (available at http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=20963). 3. Letter of Interpretation to F.L. Lambert, June 22, 1993 (available at http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=21176). 4. Letter of Interpretation to David B. Smith, March 21, 1994 (available at https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=21427). See also PSM Applicability to a 50% Solution of Hydroxylamine, April 30, 1999 (available at https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=22736). 5. See the 1992 and 1994 PSM compliance directives (CPL 02-02-045) (available at http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=DIRECTIVES&p_id=1559 (1992) and http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=DIRECTIVES&p_id=1558 (1994)). 6. Hydrofluoric acid (specifically designated in Appendix A of the PSM standard as “anhydrous”) and hydrogen fluoride both are listed in Appendix A of the PSM standard with the same Chemical Abstract Number and threshold quantities.  OSHA letters of interpretation state that anhydrous hydrofluoric acid and hydrogen fluoride are the same hazardous chemical (see Letter of Interpretation to Robert Rusczek, May 18, 1994 (available at https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=21487)).  Hydrochloric acid (specifically designated in Appendix A of the PSM standard as “anhydrous”) and hydrogen chloride both are listed in Appendix A of the PSM standard with the same Chemical Abstract Number and threshold quantities.  OSHA letters of interpretation state that anhydrous hydrochloric acid and hydrogen chloride are the same substance (see Letter of Interpretation to Thomas Grumbles, March 25, 1992 (available at http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=20603)).  In accordance with these letters of interpretation, aqueous hydrochloric acid (also known as muriatic acid) and aqueous hydrofluoric acid are not covered by the PSM standard. 7. There is a separate entry in Appendix A for “Ammonia solutions (>44% ammonia by weight)”, which covers aqueous ammonia mixtures of greater than 44% concentration.

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 May 25, 2016 Mr. Darrell HornbackICWUC Health and Safety Department329 Race StreetCincinnati, OH 45202 Dear Mr. Hornback: 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 requested an interpretation of OSHA's revised reporting requirements under Section 1904.39. In your scenario, you state that an employee lost the tip of his finger in a workplace event. A physician classified the injury as an avulsion. You ask if this injury should have been reported to OSHA as an amputation. Section 1904.39(b)(11) defines an amputation as follows: How does OSHA define "amputation"? An amputation is the traumatic loss of a limb or other external body part. Amputations include a part, such as a limb or appendage that has been severed, cut off, amputated (either completely or partially); fingertip amputations with or without bone loss; medical amputations resulting from irreparable damage; amputations of body parts that have since been reattached. Amputations do not include avulsions, enucleations, deglovings, scalpings, severed ears, or broken or chipped teeth. Note that avulsions are specifically excluded from the definition of amputation. OSHA provides further clarification on differentiating between amputations and avulsions in an FAQ at http://www.osha.gov/recordkeeping2014/faqs.html: How do you differentiate between an amputation without bone and avulsions?If and when there is a health care professional's diagnosis available, the employer should rely on that diagnosis. If the diagnosis is avulsion, the event does not need to be reported. If the diagnosis is amputation, the event must be reported. If there is no available diagnosis by a health care professional, the employer should rely on the definition and examples of amputation included in the regulatory text of section 1904.39. Examples of avulsion that do not need to be reported include deglovings, scalpings, fingernail and toenail avulsions, eyelid avulsions, tooth avulsions, and severed ears. Remember, employers are required to report amputations to OSHA when they learn that the reportable event occurred. The employer must report the event when he or she has information that the injury is a work-related amputation. The case described in your scenario is not a reportable amputation because the injury was diagnosed as an avulsion by a physician. As stated in the FAQ above, if and when there is a health care professional's diagnosis available, the employer should rely on that diagnosis. If the diagnosis is avulsion, the event does not need to be reported. 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

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 May 11, 2016 MEMORANDUM FOR: REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS THROUGH: DOROTHY DOUGHERTYDeputy Assistant Secretary FROM: THOMAS M. GALASSI, DirectorDirectorate of Enforcement Programs SUBJECT: RAGAGEP in Process Safety Management Enforcement This enforcement policy addresses the Process Safety Management (PSM) Standard's recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices (RAGAGEP) requirements. Enforcement activity, including the Petroleum Refinery Process Safety Management National Emphasis Program (Refinery NEP), and requests for assistance from the field, revealed the need for this guidance. This memorandum rescinds and replaces the memorandum of the same title dated June 5, 2015. It is intended to be a clarification of the policy described in the earlier memorandum and does not reflect any substantive change in OSHA enforcement policy. Background on Recognized and Generally Accepted Good Engineering Practices The PSM Standard, 29 CFR 1910.119, directly references or implies the use of RAGAGEP in three provisions: (d)(3)(ii): Employers must document that all equipment in PSM-covered processes complies with RAGAGEP; (j)(4)(ii): Inspections and tests are performed on process equipment subject to the standard's mechanical integrity requirements in accordance with RAGAGEP; and (j)(4)(iii): Inspection and test frequency follows manufacturer's recommendations and good engineering practice, and more frequently if indicated by operating experience. In addition, (d)(3)(iii) addresses situations where the design codes, standards, or practices used in the design and construction of existing equipment are no longer in general use. In such cases, the employer must determine and document that the equipment is designed, maintained, inspected, tested, and operating in a safe manner. As used in the PSM standard, RAGAGEP apply to process equipment design and maintenance; inspection and test practices; and inspection and test frequencies. Examples of RAGAGEP Widely adopted codesCertain consensus standards have been widely adopted by federal, state, or municipal jurisdictions. For example, many state and municipal building and other codes incorporate or adopt codes such as the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 101 Life Safety and NFPA 70 National Electric codes. Consensus documents Certain organizations like the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) follow the American National Standards Institute's (ANSI) Essential Requirements: Due process requirements for American National Standards (Essential Requirements) when developing consensus standards and recommended practices. Under the ANSI and similar requirements, these organizations must demonstrate that they have diverse and broadly representative committee memberships. Examples of consensus documents include the ASME B31.3 Process Piping Code and the International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration's (IIAR) ANSI/IIAR 2-2008 — Equipment, Design, and Installation of Closed-Circuit Ammonia Mechanical Refrigerating Systems. Such consensus documents are widely used as sources of RAGAGEP by those knowledgeable in the industry. Non-consensus documents Some industries develop non-consensus engineering documents using processes not conforming to ANSI's Essential Requirements. Where applicable, the practices described in these documents can be widely accepted as good practices. For example, the Chlorine Institute's (CI) "pamphlets" focus on chlorine and sodium hypochlorite (bleach) safety and are used by some companies handling these materials. Note that OSHA also recognizes applicable manufacturer's recommendations as potential sources of RAGAGEP. Internal standards The preamble to the PSM standard recognizes that employers may develop internal standards for use within their facilities. The preamble states, in relevant part: The phrase suggested by rulemaking participants: "recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices" is consistent with OSHA's intent. The Agency also believes that this phrase would include appropriate internal standards of a facility . . . .(1) Internally developed standards must still represent recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices. Reasons an employer might choose to follow internal standards can include: Translating the requirements of published RAGAGEP into detailed corporate or facility implementation programs and/or procedures. Setting design, maintenance, inspection, and testing requirements for unique equipment for which no other RAGAGEP exists. Supplementing or augmenting RAGAGEP selected by the employer that only partially or inadequately address the employer's equipment. Controlling hazards more effectively than the available codes and consensus and/or non-consensus documents when deemed necessary by the employer's PSM program. Addressing hazards when the codes and consensus and/or non-consensus documents used for existing equipment are outdated and no longer describe good engineering practice. In keeping with the performance-oriented nature of the PSM standard, employers select the RAGAGEP they apply in their covered processes. The examples of RAGAGEP noted above are not intended to reflect a hierarchy of RAGAGEP. If an employer selects and follows widely adopted codes or consensus documents or widely adopted non-consensus documents for RAGAGEP, OSHA will accept such materials as RAGAGEP where applicable and appropriate. If an employer develops and follows internal procedures, the compliance safety and health officer (CSHO) should assess whether the internal procedures represent recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices. Like all employers complying with the PSM standard, an employer using internal procedures as RAGAGEP has an obligation under 1910.119(d)(3)(ii) to document that its equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices. For technical help, consult with the Regional PSM Coordinator, a technical support engineer, or the PSM group at OSHA's Directorate of Enforcement Programs - Office of Chemical Process Safety and Enforcement Initiatives at 202-693-2341. "Shall" and "Should" in RAGAGEP "Shall," "must," or similar language used in RAGAGEP reflects the developer's view that the practice is a mandatory minimum requirement to control a hazard. Similarly, "shall not," "prohibited," or similar language references or describes unacceptable approaches or practices. If an employer deviates from an applicable "shall" or "shall not" requirement in the employer's adopted RAGAGEP, OSHA will presume a violation. In accordance with the inspection procedures described in Chapter 3 of OSHA's Field Operations Manual (CPL 02-00-159, Oct. 1, 2015), the employer will have an opportunity to explain the rationale for the deviation and why it believes its approach reflects recognized and generally accepted goodengineering practices. Use of the term "should" or similar language in RAGAGEP denotes a recommendation that reflects an acceptable and preferred practice. If a "should" provision in the employer's selected RAGAGEP is applicable to the covered process or particular situation, OSHA presumes that employer compliance with the recommended approach is acceptable. If an employer selects RAGAGEP that contains "should" provisions, but does not follow them, OSHA will not presume a violation. In such cases, the CSHO should evaluate whether the employer's approach reflects recognized and generally accepted goodengineering practices and whether the employer documented that its equipment complies with RAGAGEP. An employer does not need to document deviations from a "should" statement provided it documents that its equipment complies with RAGAGEP. If an employer selects RAGAGEP that contains "should not" provisions (or similar language describing disfavored practices), and then follows the disfavored practices, OSHA will not presume a violation. In such cases, the CSHO should evaluate whether the employer's approach reflects recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices and whether the employer documented that its equipment complies with RAGAGEP. An employer does not need to document deviations from a "should not" statement provided it documents that its equipment complies with RAGAGEP. For technical help, consult with your Regional PSM Coordinator, a technical support engineer, or the PSM group at OSHA's Directorate of Enforcement Programs - Office of Chemical Process Safety and Enforcement Initiatives at 202-693-2341. "Normative" and "Informative" Requirements in RAGAGEP Codes and consensus documents frequently contain appendices or annexes that provide supplemental information and/or requirements. The content of these appendices or annexes may be "normative" or "informative." "Normative" sections generally explain how to comply with the code and/or consensus document requirements and may contain both "shall" and "should" language. As discussed above, "shall" denotes the developer's view that the normative statement is mandatory, while "should" indicates a recommendation that reflects an acceptable and preferred practice. "Informative" sections generally provide background and reference information with respect to the code and/or consensus document requirements but may also identify and/or address hazards or acceptable means of abatement. Employers should read and consider these sections, but OSHA does not expect employers to consult all of the sources that are cited in an informative section or appendix. Again, for technical help, CSHOs should consult their Regional PSM coordinator, technical support engineer, or the Office of Chemical Process Safety and Enforcement Initiatives. Enforcement Considerations Under 1910.119, employers select the RAGAGEP with which their equipment and procedures must comply. In evaluating RAGAGEP compliance, CSHOs should be aware of a number of potential issues: There may be multiple RAGAGEP that apply to a specific process. For example, American Petroleum Institute (API), RP 520 Sizing, Selection, and Installation of Pressure-Relieving Devices in Refineries Part II - Installation, and International Standards Organization, Standard No. 4126-9, Application and installation of safety devices, are both RAGAGEP for relief valve installation and contain similar but not identical requirements. Both documents are protective and either is acceptable to OSHA. Employers do not need to consider or comply with a RAGAGEP provision that is not applicable to their specific worksite conditions, situations, or applications. Some employers apply RAGAGEP outside of their intended area of application, such as using ammonia refrigeration pressure vessel inspection recommended practices in a chemical plant or refinery process. Use of inapplicable RAGAGEP can result in poor hazard control and can be grounds for citations. There may be cases where the selected RAGAGEP does not control all of the hazards in an employer's covered process. As discussed above, the employer is expected to adopt other RAGAGEP (potentially including internal standards, guidance, or procedures) to address remaining process hazards. Whether internal standards constitute RAGAGEP should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. An employer's internal standards may be more stringent than other relevant sources of RAGAGEP. More-stringent standards may be needed to adequately control hazards due to the unique characteristics of the employer's process. In all cases the employer must document that its equipment complies with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices. Employers that meet the requirements of other applicable sources of RAGAGEP, but fail to comply with their own more stringent internal requirements, may be citable under other PSM provisions: If there is a failure to follow more stringent internal Inspection & Test (I&T) procedures, consider citations under 1910.119(j)(2) for failure to implement their written I&T procedures Process equipment may be outside acceptable limits defined in the employer's PSI. If so, consider citations under 1910.119(j)(5). Additional or more stringent equipment safeguards may be specified by employers based on findings and recommendations from PHAs, Incident Investigations, or Management of Change procedures. Failure to implement or complete documented actions-to-be-taken may be cited under the relevant section of the Standard (e.g., 1910.119(e), (l), or (m)). Selectively applying individual provisions from multiple RAGAGEP addressing similar hazards might be inappropriate. Standard writing organizations develop their requirements as packages and mixing-and-matching provisions from multiple sources could result in inadequately controlled hazards. Internal standards that incorporate select provisions from different sources of RAGAGEP may in some circumstances be appropriate, or may be more protective than applying one source of RAGAGEP. This situation should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Consult the regional PSM Coordinator, regional engineering support, or the Office of Chemical Process Safety and Enforcement Initiatives if you are uncertain how to proceed. The PSM standard at 1910.119(j)(4)(ii) requires employers to follow RAGAGEP in establishing and implementing inspection and testing procedures. At 1910.119(j)(4)(iii), the standard provides that the frequency of inspections and tests of process equipment must be consistent with applicable manufacturers' recommendations and good engineering practices, and that inspections and tests must be performed more frequently if determined to be necessary by prior operating experience. CSHOs should review relevant documents, such as the employer's written inspection and test procedures (required under 1910.119(j)(2)), to determine the employer's selected RAGAGEP. In accordance with 1910.119(d)(3)(ii), employers must document that their covered process equipment complies with RAGAGEP (equipment built to older standards may come under 1910.119(d)(3)(iii), see paragraph 10 below). Equipment that does not comply with RAGAGEP cannot be documented as compliant. Therefore, both the failure to document compliance and the deviations from compliance with RAGAGEP can be the basis for citations under 1910.119(d)(3)(ii) (see procedures for combining and grouping violations in Chapter 4 of the Field Operations Manual (CPL 02-00-159, Oct. 1, 2015)). Note that the documentation requirement in 1910.119(d)(3)(ii) does not require the employer to document all of its engineering judgments. When writing 1910.119(d)(3)(ii) RAGAGEP-related citations, always cite the employer for failing to document compliance with recognized and generally accepted good engineering practices, describe the hazard, e.g., exposure of employees to fire, explosion, or toxic hazards, and reference the RAGAGEP selected by the employer. If the employer has not specified an applicable RAGAGEP, use "such as" language to reference an applicable source of RAGAGEP. Equipment covered under PSM's Mechanical Integrity provisions (listed in 1910.119(j)) that is outside acceptable limits, as defined by the process safety information (including RAGAGEP), is deficient under 1910.119(j)(5). Employers are required by this provision to correct deficiencies before further use or in a safe and timely manner when necessary means are taken to assure safe operation in the interim. If an employer fails to correct the deficiency before further use, or fails to assure safe operation and schedule a permanent correction timely, the failure may be cited under 1910.119(j)(5). If an employer has implemented interim measures and scheduled correction, additional investigation may be required to determine whether the employer has assured safe operation and the scheduled correction is timely. 1910.119(d)(3)(ii) and (j)(5) citations are often grouped. Consult your Regional OSHA support staff and/or SOL if you are uncertain if grouped citations are appropriate. Note, in the case where an employer is operating deficient equipment based on the use of interim safeguards pending final correction of the deficiency, the employer must develop and implement a management of change procedure for the continued safe operation of the equipment when required by 29 CFR 1910.119(l). Older covered equipment may not have been designed and constructed under an applicable RAGAGEP because none existed at the time of design and construction. Alternatively, the equipment may have been designed and constructed under provisions of codes, standards, or practices that are no longer in general use. In such cases, 29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(iii) requires employers to determine and document that the equipment is designed, maintained, inspected, tested, and operating in a safe manner. Failure to do so may be cited under 1910.119(d)(3)(iii). When writing 1910.119(d)(3)(iii) citations, always cite the employer for failing to determine and document that the relevant equipment is designed, maintained, inspected, tested, and operating in a safe manner. If the employer has adopted an appropriate internal standard applicable to such older equipment, 29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(ii) requires the employer to document that the equipment complies with the internal standard. Failure to do so may result in a citation under 29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(ii). When a 29 CFR 1910.119(d)(3)(ii) or (iii) citation is under consideration, it is important to establish and to document the age and installation date of the relevant process and equipment, and the dates and extent of process and equipment modifications, as well as the RAGAGEP selected by the employer, including the edition and publication date. Organizations that develop codes and consensus and/or non-consensus documents may update them based on newly identified or recognized hazards; improved understanding of existing hazards; industry operating experience; and/or incidents indicating that more stringent hazard control is needed. If the updated document explicitly provides that new clauses or requirements are retroactive, those updates are relevant to determining whether the employer's practice continues to conform to RAGAGEP. Where RAGAGEP are updated to be more protective but are not explicitly retroactive, PSM does not mandate that employers upgrade their equipment, facilities, or practices to meet current versions of their selected RAGAGEP. However, under 1910.119(d)(3)(iii), employers must determine and document that their equipment is designed, maintained, inspected, tested, and operating in a safe manner. Notify the Office of Chemical Process Safety and Enforcement Initiatives if you encounter sources of RAGAGEP that appear to have changed to be less protective or that are being interpreted by employers in a manner that is less protective. There have been times in the past when OSHA has determined that specific provisions in published guidance documents no longer reflect generally accepted and good engineering practices. Such determinations should only be made in consultation with the Office of Chemical Process Safety and Enforcement Initiatives. When writing 1910.119(j)(4)(ii) citations, always cite the employer for failing to follow RAGAGEP in its inspection and testing procedures, and reference the relevant RAGAGEP adopted / recognized by the employer. If the employer has not specified an applicable RAGAGEP, use "such as" language to reference an applicable source of RAGAGEP. When the employer's I&T procedures comply with RAGAGEP, but are not implemented or followed, consider 1910.119(j)(2) citations. When writing 1910.119(j)(4)(iii) citations, always cite the employer for not inspecting and/or testing process equipment at frequencies consistent with applicable manufacturers' recommendations and good engineering practices, or more frequently if indicated by prior operating experience, i.e., based on the condition of the equipment when previously inspected or tested. When writing RAGAGEP-related citations when the employer has not specified a RAGAGEP, CSHOs should be careful to reference in the citation's alleged violation description only RAGAGEP that are actually applicable to the equipment and process being inspected. CSHOs have sometimes referenced inapplicable API relief valve RAGAGEP in citations involving ammonia refrigeration processes. (1) PSM preamble accessed at http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=PREAMBLES&p_id=1041 on January 15, 2013. Recommended article from FiveFilters.org: Most Labour MPs in the UK Are Revolting.

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 21, 2016 Mr. Leary JonesBalfour Beatty Construction Services10620 Treena St., #300San Diego, CA 92131 Dear Mr. Jones: Thank you for your December 11, 2015, 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 requested an interpretation regarding the work-related exception in Section 1904.5(b)(2)(vi). Scenario:An employee sustained an injury when his hand was caught between two objects. After receiving treatment for the injury, the employee was immediately given a post-accident drug test. The results of the drug test indicated the employee was intoxicated from alcohol. For purposes of this response, we presume the employee¿s injury was caused by an event at work, and meets at least one of the general recording criteria in Section 1904.7. Question:Does this injury meet the exemption in Section 1904.5(b)(2)(vi), given the worker was self-medicating with alcohol for his non-work related condition of alcoholism? Response:No. OSHA¿s regulation at Section 1904.5(b)(2)(vi) states ¿You are not required to record injuries and illnesses if the injury or illness is solely the result of personal grooming, self-medication for a non-work-related condition, or is intentionally self-inflicted.¿ Under this exception, an employee¿s negative reactions to a medication brought from home to treat a non-work-related condition would not be considered a work-related illness, even though it first manifested at work. See, the preamble to the final rule revising OSHA¿s recordkeeping regulation, 66 Federal Register 5951, January 19, 2001. In analyzing this question, we consulted with physicians from OSHA s Office of Occupational Medicine and Nursing. The physicians concluded that the intake of alcohol does not treat the disorder of alcoholism. Instead, drinking alcohol is a manifestation of the disorder. Accordingly, the injury described in the scenario above does not meet the exception in Section 1904.5(b)(2)(vi) for self-medication. Please note that during the 2001 rulemaking to revise the recordkeeping regulation; several commenters suggested a work-related exception for employees engaged in illegal activities, horseplay, or failure to follow established work rules or procedures. However, in the preamble to the final rule, OSHA explained that it would not adopt this exception because excluding these injuries and illnesses would be inconsistent with OSHA¿s longstanding reliance on the geographic presumption to establish work-relatedness. Furthermore, the Agency believes that many of the working conditions pointed to in these comments involve occupational factors, such the effectiveness of disciplinary policies and supervision. Thus, recording such incidents may serve to alert both the employer and employees to workplace safety and health issues. See, 66 Federal Register 5958. 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. Recordkeeping FAQs and letters of interpretation can be viewed at http://www.osha.gov/recordkeeping/index.html. Sincerely, Amanda Edens, Director Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management Recommended article from FiveFilters.org: Most Labour MPs in the UK Are Revolting.