DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. C-02]

Safety and Health Program Management Guidelines; Issuance of Voluntary
Guidelines

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Department
of Labor

ACTION: Issuance of voluntary guidelines.

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is
issuing safety and health program management guidelines for use by
employers to prevent occupational injuries and illnesses.

The language in these guidelines is general so that it may be broadly
applied in general industry, shipyards, marine terminals, and
longshoring activities regardless of the size, nature, or complexity of
operations. Construction activities are not addressed here because they
are already covered by Subpart C of the Construction standards, 29 CFR
Part 1926.

The guidelines consist of program elements which represent a
distillation of applied safety and health management practices that are
used by employers who are successful in protecting the safety and health
of their employees. These program elements are advocated by many safety
and health professionals and consultants. They were strongly endorsed by
individuals, corporations, professional associations, and labor
representatives who responded to the OSHA request for comments and
information. 53 FR 26790, published on July 15, 1988.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 26, 1989

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: James F. Foster, Office of Information and
Consumer Affairs, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue N.W., Room N3637,
Washington DC 20210, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

I. Background

Over their years of experience with enforcing the provisions of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651 et.seq.). OSHA
representatives have noted a strong correlation between the application
of sound management practices in the operation of safety and health
programs and a low incidence of occupational injuries and illnesses.
Where effective safety and health management is practiced, injury and
illness rates are significantly less than rates at comparable worksites
where safety and health management is weak or non-existent. (See, for
example, "DOL Safety Programs Cut Workers Comp Costs." Good News,
Oklahoma Department of Labor. October 5, 1988, p.1.; and Michael E.
Nave, "Impact of Voluntary Compliance and Compliance Inspection Programs
on Experience Rates among Small Employers in California." Doctoral
Thesis, Oregon Sate University, 1987.) As a result of this awareness,
OSHA increase emphasis on management practices in several of the
Agency's programs. Standards, including notably the Hazard Communication
Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200), began specifically to require management
programs. An early OSHA standard requiring safety and health management
programs in the construction industry was recently clarified and
reaffirmed by the issuance of OSHA Instruction STD 3-1.1. OSHA also
instituted programs to encourage voluntary improvement of safety and
health management. These included information pamphlets and consultation
services to assist in the development of management programs for small
businesses.

In addition, in 1982 OSHA began to approve worksites with exemplary
safety and health management programs for participation in the Voluntary
Protection Programs (VPP). Safety and health practices, procedures, and
recordkeeping at participating worksites have been carefully evaluated
and monitored by OSHA. These VPP worksites generally have lost-workday
case rates that range form on-fifth to one-third the rates experienced
by average worksites (Unpublished statistics, U.S. Department of Labor,
OSHA 1988).

Further, most participating sites report improved employee morale and
productivity as a by-product of their safety and health management
activities.

Based upon the success of VPP and positive experience with other safety
and health program initiatives and in order to broaden the information
available to OSHA from other sources. OSHA published a request for
comments and information on July 15, 1988, that included possible
language for Safety and Health Program Guidelines which would be
applicable to general industry, shipyard, and longshoring activities (53
FR 26790). That request inadvertently omitted reference to marine
terminals, to which the guidelines are also intended to apply.

In response to several requests, on September 1, 1988. OSHA extended the
original six-week comment period for another month, to September 28,
1988 (53 FR 33823). In addition, on September 8, 1988. OSHA announced a
public information-gathering meeting to be held on October 6, 1988, at
the OSHA Training Institute in Des Plaines, Illinois (53 FR 34780).

OSHA received 54 comments from individuals, labor representatives, trade
association, professional safety and health associations and societies,
safety and health consultants, and Federal and State agencies. Thirteen
commenters presented information and comments at the public meeting.

II. Summary of Public Response

In the July 15, 1988, request for information and comment under the
heading, "Issues for Discussion", (53 FR 26796). OSHA asked questions
concerning five major areas: the nature of the risk from inadequate
management; the value of safety and health management guidance;
appropriate methods for educating employers; and incentives for
effective management.

There was no new information received concerning either the nature of
the risk or the value of safety and health programs, but many commenters
expressed the belief that safety and health program management makes a
major impact on loss prevention. During the public meeting, OSHA was
informed that the VPP Participants' Association might be able to obtain
information concerning costs and benefits of effective safety and health
management through its membership (Tr.pp. 73-76).

As a means of educating employers, one commentator suggested videotaping
model safety and health programs to help small businesses (Exh. 3-37).
Another commenter advised a major outreach effort using all types of
media to reach employer (Exh. 3-16).

Suggested incentives for effective management included tax breaks (Exh.
3-33) and incentives similar to those offered by the VPP (Exh.3-37). One
commenter suggesting the tax breaks acknowledged that they might be
difficult to administer fairly (Exh. 3-36). Another commenter proposed
the use of the guidelines by compliance officers to determine whether or
not to do a partial or comprehensive inspection (Exh. 3-27).

Most respondents offered comments and/or suggestions on the subject of
suitable guidance language. Several however, also expressed a preference
that the guidance from OSHA take the form of a mandatory standard rather
than of voluntary guidelines (Exhs. 3-14, 3-17, 3-22, 3-26, 3-28).

Almost all the commenters endorsed the concept that effective safety and
health management is the decisive factor in ensuring worker safety and
health (e.g., 3-4, 3-23, 3-36, 3-37, 3-45, 3-46). Three-fourths of the
respondents specifically endorsed the issuance of guidelines. A few
respondents objected to the proposal because of expected cost,
anticipated impact on diversity and innovation, or the possibility of
confusion resulting from the issuance of voluntary guidelines by a
regulatory agency (e.g., Exhs. 3-41, 3-44, 3-50).

Most respondents indicated that the guidelines are generally applicable
regardless of industry type, size, or nature of activity (e.g., Exhs.
3-28, 3-36). Several commenters recommended greater detail and
specificity regarding duties, responsibilities, and program guidance
(e.g., Exh. 3-29); others stated that greater specificity would inhibit
necessary flexibility (e.g., Exh. 3-12). Although some proposed
reorganization of the guidelines (e.g., Exhs. 3-7, 3-16, 3-22, 3-31,
3-32), there seemed to be agreement that the guidelines as suggested are
generally applicable and complete.

Many respondents strongly maintained that the guidelines should specify
that safety and health management goals and operational activities
should be set forth in writing, regardless of how small the business may
be (Exhs. 3-30, 3-35, 3-37, 3-49, 3-51).

Several commenters, including both organized labor respondents,
maintained that compliance with the guidelines ought to be mandatory
(Exhs. 3-14, 3-17, 3-22, 3-26). The majority maintained that they should
not.

Several commenters provided safety and health program manuals and
materials and suggested that the guidelines include appendices for
industry groups or examples of adequate programs or "question and
answer" examples similar to those in the "Recordkeeping Guidelines for
Occupational Injuries and Illnesses" developed by the bureau of Labor
Statistics (Exhs. 3-13, 3-20, 3-21, 3-30, 3-35, 3-43, 3-45, 3-46).

III. Issues and Rationale for Their Resolution

A. General Issues

Although commenters almost unanimously supported the concept of safety
and health program management they raised several genre issues and
proposed various changes to the language. The general issues were: (1)
Whether OSHA publication of guidelines would be useful; (2) whether a
different organization of the management program elements would promote
their use; (3) whether the guidelines should be mandated in the form of
a rule; (4) whether a task group should be formed to determine the
content of the guidelines; and (5) whether various aspects of a safety
and health management program should be in writing.

1. Usefulness of the Guidelines

A few respondents stated that safety and health program guidelines would
be of no value or even counter-productive. These respondents stated, "We
see no reason for issuance of guidance * * *" (Exh. 3-12): " * * *
guidelines, when issued by a regulatory agency can create confusion with
respect to compliance issues * * *" (Exh. 3-41); and "* * * guidelines
are unnecessary and put companies with comprehensive, long-standing
performance-based programs at risk in being force dot comply with the
very specific, prescriptive language as proposed" (Exh. 3-19).

Most of the respondents expressed the belief that the guidelines
describe policies, procedures, and practices which are essential to
effective safety and health protection and that they are sufficiently
performance-oriented that they can be met by a variety of methods. OSHA
believes that the criteria described are not unreasonably prescriptive
and that they are unlikely to conflict with effective programs already
in place. They are not being promulgated as enforceable rules by are
being issued as guidelines to assist employers in their efforts to
maintain safe and healthful work and working conditions.

In addition, OSHA has observed and most commenters agree, that a
significant number of worksites, particularly medium and small
businesses, often lack the professional resources to develop adequate
safety and health management practices and programs on their own. IN
many larger worksites, some program elements are heavily emphasized
while other important aspects are neglected. After careful consideration
of the record and in light of the above, OSHA concludes that safety and
health management guidelines will not be unnecessarily burdensome and
will assist employers in their efforts to provide safe and healthful
employment.

2. Organization of the Guidelines

Some commenters suggested different methods of organizing the elements
of the guidelines or presented safety and health manuals in use at their
operations which were organized differently. One respondent stated that
since some of the most useful material in the notice requesting comment
(53 FR 26790) was in the discussion of the guidelines, the suggested
language should be expanded to include that material in the final
guidelines. A suggested revision of the guidelines was attached to the
comment (Exh. 3-22). This point of view was supported by another
comment, "* * * the information currently contained in the background
section of the July 15 preamble should be condensed into an introduction
to the guidelines * * * OSHA should use [the analysis explaining the
reasons for including each provision of the guidelines] in the body of
the guidelines to ensure that the goals and objectives of the guidelines
will be communicated to employers" (Exh. 3-46).

OSHA recognizes that effective programs can be organized and presented
in a variety of ways and that significantly different terminologies and
approaches are used by safety and health professionals and loss control
managers. While these differences often appear to be great initially,
upon examination by the Agency they are frequently found to address
substantially the same components and objectives.

Since the responses to the request indicated that the program elements
were generally understood, the basic organization of the elements as
presented in the request for comments has been retained in the final
version. OSHA has, however, incorporated some of the background and
explanatory materials into the guidelines to assist the employer's
comprehension of the objective of each action recommended by the
guidelines. In addition, OSHA has added a Commentary following the
guidelines themselves. The commentary incorporates and expands on much
of the explanatory material from the notice requesting comment.

Another commenter questioned whether management commitment is
appropriately described as a program element (Exh. 3-44B). OSHA agrees
with the observation that management commitment is not a program element
in the same sense that worksite analysis, hazard prevention and control,
and training are. However, the eight actions described under the title
"Management Commitment" are specific program activities which directly
indicate management commitment. At the same time, comments received on
the he nature and importance of employee involvement in an effective
safety and health program (Exhs. 3-17, 3-21, 3-37, 3-13) suggest that
such involvement merits clearer emphasis. OSHA has therefore decided to
modify the element title to read, "Management Commitment and Employee
Involvement."

3. Mandating the Guidelines

Several commenters stated that the guidelines should be mandated and
enforced as a rule. For example, "In our view, OSHA has the authority
under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to issue
regulations mandating worksite safety and health committees and broader
workplace programs * * * we strongly urge the Agency to make this
initiative a priority for regulatory action * * *" [Exh. 3-17]; "* * *
instead of a guideline, OSHA [should develop] a negotiated performance
standard * * *" [Exh. 3-14]; "* * * a [safety and health management]
program is [the] * * * basic responsibility [of employers] and they
should be required to do so through regulation * * *" [Exh. 3-22]; " * *
* workplace health and safety programs are so vital that they should be
mandatory, not voluntary as currently proposed * * *" [Exh. 3-26]; "* *
* they should be proposed as a standard * * * the action could boost the
issue of occupational safety and health out of needless conflicts and
confusion to a higher order of national coherence" [Exh. 3-28]. On the
other hand, other respondents " * * * support the guideline versus the
standard approach * * *" [Exh. 3-16]; "* * * management commitment can
not be mandated * * *" [Exh. 3-3]; "* * * we recommend that no attempt
be made to enforce the guidelines as if they were a rule * * *" [Exh.
3-5]; "* * * encourage the Agency to issue these guidelines as
advisories only" [Exh. 3-11].

After considering written comments and oral presentations made at the
information-gathering meeting. OSHA has decided to issue voluntary
safety and health program guidelines rather than a mandatory standard. A
period of experience with published program guidelines will undoubtedly
produce refinements in methods and practices, as well as provide
evidence to indicate whether further action by the Agency is required.
Publication of guidelines does not prevent the Agency from undertaking
regulatory action, if found to be needed at some future date.

4. Task Group Consideration of the Guidelines

Several commentators favored the formation of a task group representing
the affected constituencies and subject matter specialists to refine and
further elaborate the guidelines [Exhs. 3-23, 3-35]. It was also
suggested that a bibliography of literature on safety and health
management be developed and attached to the guidelines [Exhs. 3-36,
3-15, 3-16, 3-52].

OSHA welcomes all information and voluntary efforts designed to
supplement these guidelines for use in special industry groups, special
risk operations, small businesses, and nay other applications. The
Agency recognized the value of these supplementary actions but will not
delay publication of the guidelines while awaiting their completion.
After publication, OSHA will consider how best to utilize the offers of
assistance in compiling supplementary materials.

5. Written Safety and Health Guidance

A number of respondents strongly urged that safety and health programs
be supported by written guidance in all cases. "Communication of
authority, responsibility, and accountability to various parties must be
written to prevent confusion and uncertainty" [Exh. 3-35]. "The program
will be understood better and managers can be held accountable more
readily, if the specific elements of the employer's program are set
forth clearly in writing" [Exh. 3-49]. "[A] truly effective safety
program can [not] be maintained unless it is reduced to writing.
Understandings and practices are too easily confused [considering]
cultural differences, personnel retirements, transfers, etc." [Exh.
3-51]. This point is reinforced by OSHA's experience that almost all of
the worksites observed to have excellent safety and health programs have
written guidance covering such issues as policies, practices,
procedures, emergency plans, posted signs, and performance objectives.

OSHA has noticed, however, that some businesses, usually small ones with
less complex operations and/or potential hazards, effectively
communicate policies and procedures orally and through example. It is
not obvious at what level of complexity, or at what size of operation,
written guidance becomes necessary, nor which particular processes
within various operations require it.

For these reasons, OSHA has retained in the final guidelines the
language providing to flexibility in the use of written guidance but has
added information on the benefits of written guidance.

B. Specific Issues

Issues dealing with the substance of the guidelines were: (1) whether
employees should be involved in the structure and operation of the
program and in decisions which affect their safety and health,
(b)(1)(ii); (2) whether the system to encourage employees to report
conditions that appear hazardous should include the concept of
protection from reprisal, (b)(1)(ii); (3) whether the term "competent
persons" should be used, (b)(1)(i); (4) whether "a clearly communicated
disciplinary system" should be specified, (b)(3)(i); (5) whether
employers can be expected to ensure understanding of rules,
responsibilities, and procedures by members of their organizations,
(b)(4); (6) coordination with other OSHA instructions concerning safety
and health management; (7) providing guidance on recordkeeping; and (8)
miscellaneous clarifications.

1. Employee Involvement

Some respondents felt that OSHA's language on employee involvement,
(b)(1)(ii), was too weak. "[T]he central element of worksite programs
should be safety and health committees with worker participation * * *
mandated by law" [Exh. 3-17]. "OSHA should require that workers be
allowed to participated in all phases of the program" {Exh. 3-26].
Others felt that the language implied a transfer of decision-making
authority to employees from employer "Employers should determine * * *
whether decision-making in this area will be shared * * * or whether it
would unduly interfere with the responsibility to ensure a safe
workplace" [Exh. 3-49]. "Caution is urged as * * * to the
'decision-making' aspects of employee involvement * * * [T]he employer
is responsible" [Exh. 3-51]. Another group felt that OSHA should not
specify employee involvement (Exh. 3-37, 3-42]. Other commenters agreed
with the OSHA concept of employee involvement in decision-making and
suggested added specifications such as advising employee involvement in
all of the suggested possible areas of employee participation (Exh.
3-14, 3-26]. Most testimony at the public meeting which addressed this
point also supported OSHA's choice of language [Exh. 3-4, Tr. pp. 17,
24, and 36].

OSHA has decided to retain the proposed language with slight revision
and with the addition of a clause that explains its intent. [See
(c)(1)(4)]. OSHA agrees that responsibility for decision-making lies
with the employer. It has found, however, that employee involvement in
decisions affecting their safety and health results in better management
decisions and more effective protection. OSHA has therefore added
explanatory language in its Commentary on the guidelines to make clear
its intention to advise that employee not make decisions but that they
be included in the process on decision-making on matters which affect
their health and safety.

2. Employee Reports of Hazards

Some commenters felt that OSHA provisions for employee reports of
hazards (b)(2)(ii), were inadequate. One commenter stated that " * * *
[a worksite] where employees know that management wants to be made aware
of safety issues and will take action to correct them, and even solicits
such suggestions, is a better place to work" (Exh. 3-29). OSHA;s own
experience, reflected in the VPP requirements, indicates a clear need
for a system under which employee reports of safety and health concerns
are encouraged, protected from reprisal, and given an appropriate
response in a reliable and timely fashion. OSHA agrees that a similar
provision should be a part of these guidelines as well. Accordingly, a
separate provision to that effect has been included in the section
dealing with worksite analysis.

3. Use of the Term "Competent Person" Several respondents questioned the
use of the term "competent persons," (b)(2)(i), to describe the need for
expertise and experience in the conduct of periodic worksite analysis
(Exh. 3-46). No one disputed whether persons conducting the analysis
should be competent but questioned whether the term "competent" might be
misunderstood in view of the many different risk situations and
conditions possible in various workplaces and given that the term has
specific meaning in maritime and construction standards.

Since the performance objective of a worksite analysis is defined in the
phrase "so that all hazards and potential hazards are identified," OSHA
agrees that it is not necessary to state the need for competence by
persons who perform the work. That need is implicit. The emphasis on
competence was included initially because many processes, equipment, and
substances in use at worksites may pose hazards beyond the recognition
of the employer and employees at the site. This point is made clear in
paragraph (c)(2)(ii) and the term "competent" has been removed. A
discussion of the relative competence needed for the various approaches
to worksite analysis is, however, included in the Commentary.

4. Discipline

The proposed guidelines called for "a clearly communicated disciplinary
system" as one of the sub-elements for hazard prevention and control,
(b)(3)(i). One respondent suggested that such a system is more logically
a part of training. Others questioned whether it should be contained in
the guidelines at all. For example. "* * * it is not within OSHA's
jurisdiction to dictate employer-employee relations. Secondly, it has
been our experience that all to often the `careless worker' is blamed.
In almost every instance we have been able to identify external causes
that contributed to worker's `unsafe' behavior, such as hazardous
conditions * * * production quotas/time pressure, inadequate training,
etc." (Exh. 3-26). On the other hand, some commenters felt that OSHA had
not emphasized discipline enough. For example, "* * * the guidelines
(should) be more direct and also detail a compulsory disciplinary system
or structure * * * to avoid vagueness, to establish consistency and
fairness * * * and to take the oneness load off those who would
otherwise be loath to be so strict" (Exh. 3-10). "(The guidelines)
should include * * * the concept that all employees have certain
responsibilities regarding health and safety which if not exercised
adequately will result in some type of disciplinary action" (Exh. 3-20).

In the revised final version of the guidelines. OSHA refers to
enforcement of safe work procedures through a clearly communicated
disciplinary system where necessary to the control or prevention of
hazards. (See paragraph (c)(3)(i).) OSHA views this reference to
enforcement through a disciplinary procedure as an indispensable piece
of a whole approach to safety and health protection. Based on OSHA's
experience and in light of the record, the Agency concludes that there
is little possibility of effective safety and health protection without
carefully designed rules for safe and healthful practices that cove all
personnel, from the site manager to the hourly employees. Since those
most involved with activity which could expose them to hazards are often
the hourly employees, it makes good sense to involve them in the
establishment of safe work practices and safe work rules as was
discussed at the public meeting (Tr. pp. 117-118). Once these work
practices are established and those who are expected to follow them
understand why it is important to follow them, it is OSHA's experience
that there is little need to utilize a corrective disciplinary system to
ensure that they are followed.

When safe work practices, clearly understood and fairly enforced
disciplinary procedures, and management accountability go hand-in hand,
there is little opportunity to push workers into taking short cuts. OSHA
not in any way suggesting harsh or punitive measures in lieu of the
elimination or control of physical hazards. OSHA concludes that an
organizational discipline exists for all levels of personnel at a
worksite and believes that the application of that system to safety and
health program activities is an important and appropriate concern for
OSHA in the provision of safety and health management guidelines.
Therefore, the language concerning discipline and enforcement is
retained in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (c)(4)(ii). An elaboration of its
rational is included in the Commentary.

5. Ensuring Understanding

Several commenters objected that employers can never perfectly ensure
that all employees understand all rules, responsibilities, and
procedures. They recommended that the words "ensure understanding" be
deleted from guidelines and suggested using language similar to that
provided in one comment that " * * * all employees should be provided
with training" (Exh. 3-54).

It is OSHA's experience that the quality, content, and success of
training vary widely. The act of training itself is not the result that
OSHA recommends for effective worker protection. OSHA recognizes the
natural limits of communication and comprehension, and agrees that some
reasonable interpretation of the phrase "ensure understanding" must be
applied. The term used in the guidelines is intended to convey a need
for the individuals to verify by some reasonable means that hazard
information and the necessary elements of a safety and health program
are understood by the people who must deal with them. This can be done
by formal testing, oral questioning, observations, or other means. In
fact, observation and interviewing of employees are key methods used by
OSHA in VPP reviews to determine, among other thins, the quality of
employee safety, health, and emergency training. The term is intended to
convey the same diligence that would be applied to ensuring an
understanding of other operational requirements, such as time and
attendance, production schedules, and job skills. The Agency is
retaining the words "ensure understanding" in paragraphs (c)(4)(i), (ii)
and (iii).

6. Coordination with other OSHA Instructions

Some respondents from Federal Agencies expressed concern that the
proposed guidelines might conflict with requirements for safety and
health management already established by OSHA for Federal Government
agencies (Exhs 3-10, 3-44). Before preparing the final version, OSHA
compared the proposed guidelines to existing Federal Agency
requirements, its instructions to compliance officers for determining
whether to do full or partial inspections based on safety and health
program management, the requirements of the VPP, and the 7(c)(1)
consultation safety and health program elements. The expanded
sub-element on employee reports of hazards and the explanation added to
the sub-element on employee involvement concerned protection from
discrimination resulted in part from those comparisons. With these
additions. OSHA concluded that, while these guidelines may lead to
adjustments in the other policies reviewed, they pose no fundamental
conflict with those policies.

7. Recordkeeping

Two of the commenters stated that OSHA should address the keeping of
injury records (Exhs. 3-49, 3-51). To avoid confusing duplication. OSHA
has decided not to include areas which are fully covered by regulation.
No language concerning recordkeeping was added to the guidelines. The
guidelines do, however, deal with the effective use of occupational
injury and illness data, (See (c)(2)(v).)

8. Miscellaneous

Some commenters stated concerns with the use in the proposed guidelines
of "OSHA advises." pointing out that this language appears in regulation
and makes the guidelines sound less voluntary. The use of the word
"encourage" was suggested as an alternative (Exhs. 3-14, 3-54). OSHA
does not agree that the use of "advise" constitutes a requirement:
rather it indicates advice which may or may not be accepted. OSHA has,
however, added the words "and encourages" to "advises" in paragraph
(a)(1), to ensure that employers understand the voluntary nature of the
guidelines.

One commenter suggested that "facility" be added to the guideline
language on preventive maintenance of equipment (Exh. 3-28). OSHA agrees
and has expanded preventive maintenance to include the facility as well
as equipment in paragraph (c)(3)(ii). Paragraph (c)(2)(i)(B), concerning
analysis prior to use, was also changed to include "facility." Another
commenter suggested that OSHA use the term "change analysis" in
describing the necessity to review all new equipment, procedures,
materials, and facilities to ensure that potential hazards are
identified and prevented or controlled (Exh. 3-21). Finding merit in
this suggestion, OSHA has added the term to the Commentary on this
issue.

A commenter suggested that OSHA make clear the necessity of safety and
health training prior to the assumption of duties (Exh. 3-21). OSHA
rulemaking records are replete with evidence supporting the need for
such training. Consequently, such language has been included in the
Commentary on employee training.

Based on its own further review, OSHA has made several additional
changes. (1) In the "General" section of the guidelines, the word
"systematic" has been added to emphasize the need for a systematic
approach to all aspects of safety and health management. (2) In the
section on "Management Commitment and Employee Involvement," an initial
sub-element has been added which recommends a policy statement on safety
and health protection, to ensure that all personnel concerned with the
worksite understand the priority of safety and health protection in
relation to other organizational values. (3) In the first sub-element
under "Worksite Analysis," a distinction has been made between
"baseline" comprehensive worksite surveys and "update" surveys, to
emphasize the importance of a comprehensive baseline record for
subsequent worksite analysis. In this same sub-element, the reference to
"phrase hazard analysis" has been dropped, because it is primarily
relevant to construction.

OSHA's request for comments and information was published in the
Proposed Rules Section of the Federal Register (53 FR 28790, July 15,
1988) based on the possibility that any guidelines issuing from it might
be published in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). OSHA has decided
not to publish the guidelines in the CFR at this time. The guidelines
are therefore published as a notice.

Authority and Signature

This document was prepared under the direction of John A Pendergrass,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U. S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority of the Assistant Secretary, the
following guideline is published. Signed at Washington, DC this
nineteenth day of January, 1989.

John A. Pendergrass,

Assistant secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.

Safety and Health Management Guidelines

Scope and Application. (1) This guideline applies to all places of
employment which are covered by OSHA standards in 29 CFR Parts 1910,
1915, 1917 and 1918.

(2) This guideline does not apply to places of employment which are
covered by OSHA standards found in 29 CFR Part 1926.

Introduction. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
has concluded that effective management of worker safety and health
protection is a decisive factor in reducing the extent and the severity
of work-related injuries and illnesses. Effective management addresses
all work-related hazards, including those potential hazards which could
result from a change in worksite conditions or practices. It addresses
hazards whether or not they are regulated by government standards.

OSHA has reached this conclusion in the course of its evaluation of
worksites in its enforcement program, its State-operated consultation
program, and its Voluntary Protection Programs. These evaluations have
revealed a basic relationship between effective management of worker
safety and health protection and a low incidence and severity of
employee injuries. Such management also correlates with the elimination
or adequate control of employee exposure to toxic substances and other
unhealthful conditions.

OSHA's experience in the Voluntary Protection Programs has also
indicated that effective management of safety and health protection
improves employee morale and productivity, as well as significantly
reducing workers' compensation costs and other less obvious costs of
work-related injuries and illnesses.

Through an analysis of public comment received in response to its
request and through an earlier review of literature. OSHA has found that
the conclusions it has reached from its own experience are supported by
a substantial body of expert and practitioner opinion.

Based on this cumulative evidence that systematic management policies,
procedures and practices are fundamental to the reduction of
work-related injuries and illnesses and their attendant economic costs.
OSHA offers the following guidelines for effective management of worker
safety and health protection. OSHA urges all employers to establish and
to maintain programs which meet these guidelines in a manner which
addresses the specific operations and conditions of their worksites.

The Guidelines

(a) General. (1) Employers are advised and encouraged to institute and
maintain in their establishments a program which provides systematic
policies, procedures, and practices that are adequate to recognize and
protect their employees from occupational safety and health hazards.

(2) An effective program includes provisions for the systematic
identification, evaluation, and prevention or control of general
workplace hazards, specific job hazards, and potential hazards which may
arise from foreseeable conditions.

(3) Although compliance with the law, including specific OSHA standards,
is an important objective, and effective program looks beyond specific
requirements of law to address all hazards. It will seek to prevent
injuries and illnesses, whether or not compliance is at issue.

(4) The extent to which the program is described in writing is less
important than how effective it is in practice. As the size of a
worksite or the complexity of a hazardous operation increases, however,
the need for written guidance increases to ensure clear communications
of policies and priorities and consistent and fair application of rules.

(b) Major Elements. An effective occupational safety and health program
will include the following four elements. To implement these elements,
it will include the actions described in paragraph (c).

(1) Management commitment and employee involvement are complementary.
Management commitment provides the motivating force and the resources
for organizing and controlling activities within an organization. In an
effective program, management regards workers safety and health as a
fundamental value of the organization and applies its commitment to
safety and health protection with as much vigor as to other
organizational purposes. Employee involvement provides the means through
which workers develop and/or express their own commitment to safety and
health protection, for themselves and for their fellow workers.

(2) Worksite analysis involves a variety of worksite examinations, to
identify not only existing hazards but also conditions and operations in
which changes might occur to create hazards. Unawareness of a hazard
which stems from failure to examine the worksite is a sure sign that
safety and health policies and/or practices are ineffective. Effective
management actively analyzes the work and worksite, to anticipate and
prevent harmful occurrences.

(3) Hazard prevention and controls are triggered by a determination that
a hazard or potential hazard exists. Where feasible, hazards are
prevented by effective design of the jobsite or job. Where it is not
feasible to eliminate them, they are controlled to prevent unsafe and
unhealthful exposure. Elimination or controls is accomplished in a
timely manner, once a hazard or potential hazard is recognized.

(4) Safety and health training addresses the safety and health
responsibilities of all personnel concerned with the site, whether
salaried or hourly. If is often most effective when incorporated into
other training about performance requirements and job practices. Its
complexity depends on the size and complexity of the worksite, and the
nature of the hazards and potential hazards at the site.

(c) Recommended Actions (i) Management Commitment and Employee
Involvement. (i) State clearly a worksite policy on safe and healthful
work and working conditions, so that all personnel with responsibility
at the site and personnel at other locations with responsibility for the
site understand the priority of safety and health protection in relation
to other organizational values.

(ii) Establish and communicate a clear goal for the safety and health
program and objectives for meeting that goal, so that all members of the
organization understand the results desired and the measures planned for
achieving them.

(iii) Provide visible top management involvement in implementing the
program, so that all will understand that management's commitments is
serious.

(iv) Provides for the encourage employee involvement in the structure
and operation of the program and in decisions that affect their safety
and health, so that they will commit their insight and energy to
achieving the safety and health program's goal and objectives.

(v) Assign and communicate responsibility for all aspects of the program
so that manages, supervisors, and employees in all parts of the
organization know what performance is expected of them.

(vi) Provide adequate authority and resources to responsible parties, so
that assigned responsibilities can be met.

(vii) Hold managers, supervisors, and employees accountable for meeting
their responsibilities, so that essential tasks will be performed.

(viii) Review program operations at least annually to evaluate their
success in meeting the goal and objectives, so that deficiencies can be
identified and the program and/or the objectives can be revised when
they do not meet the goal of effective safety and health protection. (2)
Worksite Analysis. (i) So that all hazards are identified:

(A) Conduct comprehensive baseline worksite surveys for safety and
health and periodic comprehensive update surveys:

(B) Analyze planned and new facilities, processes, materials, and
equipment; and

(C) Perform routine job hazard analyses.

(ii) Provide for regular site safety and health inspection, so that new
or previously missed hazards and failures in hazard controls are
identified.

(iii) So that employee insight and experience in safety and health
protection may be utilized and employee concerns may be addressed,
provide a reliable system for employees, without fear of reprisal, to
notify management personnel about conditions that appear hazardous and
to receive timely and appropriate responses; and encourage employees to
use the system. (iv) Provide for investigation of accidents and "near
miss" incidents, so that their causes and means for their prevention are
identified.

(v) Analyze injury and illness trends over time, so that patterns with
common causes can be identified and prevented.

(3) Hazard Prevention and Control. (i) So that all current and potential
hazards, however detected, are corrected or controlled in a timely
manner, established procedures for that purpose, using the following
measures:

(A) Engineering techniques where feasible and appropriate:

(B) Procedures for safe work which are understood and followed by all
affected parties, as a result of training, positive reinforcement,
correction of unsafe performance, and, if necessary, enforcement through
a clearly communicated disciplinary system:

(C) Provision of personal protective equipment; and

(D) Administrative controls, such as reducing the duration of exposure.

(ii) Provide for facility and equipment maintenance, so that hazardous
breakdown is prevented.

(iii) Plan and prepare for emergencies, and conduct training and drills
as needed, so that the response of all parties to emergencies will be
"second nature."

(iv) Establish a medical program which includes availability of first
aid on site and of physician and emergency medical care nearby, so that
harm will be minimized if any injury or illness does occur.

(4) Safety and Health Training. (i) Ensure that all employees understand
the hazards to which they may be exposed and how to prevent harm to
themselves and others from exposure to these hazards, so that employees
accept and follow established safety and health protections.

(ii) So that supervisors will carry out their safety and health
responsibilities effectively, ensure that they understand those
responsibilities and the reasons for them, including:

(A) Analyzing the work under their supervision to identify unrecognized
potential hazards:

(B) Maintaining physical protections in their work areas; and

(C) Reinforcing employee training on the nature of potential hazards in
their work and on needed protective measures, through continual
performance feedback and, if necessary, through enforcement of safe work
practices.

(iii) Ensure that managers understand their safety and health
responsibilities, as described under (c)(1). "Management Commitment and
Employee Involvement," so that the managers will effectively carry out
those responsibilities.

The Commentary

(Paragraph by Paragraph)

This Commentary indicates the background and rationale for each part of
the guidelines. To facilitate its use, each segment of the guidelines
except the introduction is repented just before it is discussed. The
background of the introduction immediately follows this paragraph.

Introduction

Comment on Introduction. Over the years, OSHA and State enforcement and
consultation staff have seen many examples of exemplary workplaces where
safety and health programs were well managed and where injury rates were
exceptionally low. The common characteristics observed at these sites
were the use of organized and systematic methods to assign appropriate
responsibility to all managers, supervisors, and employees, to inspect
regularly for and control existing and potential hazards, and to orient
and train all employees in the ways and means to eliminate or avoid
those hazards.

The fundamental importance of such methods has been reflected in
decisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission and
the U.S. Courts of Appeal, especially in cases involving an employer
claim that a violative workplace condition or action resulted from
unpreventable employee misconduct. Such misconduct has been recognized
as a defense against citation only when an employer had a work rule
prohibiting the conduct, had provided training to ensure that the rule
was understood, and had supplied adequate supervision (including regular
inspections and work rule enforcement) to ensure that the work rule was
followed. These criteria have been applied by the courts in cases
involving the citation of OSHA standards as well as the general duty
clause. The implication of these cases is that an employer has the duty
to establish and maintain such management practices, to the extent that
they are necessary to ensure that safe and healthful working conditions
are maintained and that safe and healthful work practices are followed.

OSHA has reflected it increasing recognition of the importance of
effective safety and health program management by including program
management requirements in standards; by recommending safety and health
program improvements in conjunction with inspections; by issuing
citations under the general duty clause of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (Sec. 5(a)(1), 29 U.S.C. 654) which include safety
and health management factors; by revising its State-operated
consultation program to focus on the promotion of effective safety and
health management; and by a range of other promotional efforts.

To further encourage employers and employees to adopt and improve
existing safety and health programs, OSHA established on July 2, 1982
(47 FR 29025), the Voluntary Protection Programs (VPP) to recognize
worksites with exemplary safety and health management. The participation
requirements embodied in the VPP are a distillation of the means,
methods, and processes already in use at worksites where safety and
health conditions are exceptionally good.

Because VPP participating worksites are officially recognized and are
excluded form routine programmed OSHA inspections, the quality of the
safety and health programs at these sites must be maintained as models
of effectiveness. In 1988, 62 sites were participating in the VPP, and
several had been in the program for five or more years. Collectively,
during their participation in the VPP, these sites experienced lost-time
injuries that were approximately one-fifth to one-third of the average
for their industrial classifications. (Unpublished statistics, U.S.
Department of Labor, OSHA, 1988).

The fact the VPP participants have injury rates which are so much lower
than their industry averages demonstrates that significant reduction is
possible. It also strongly indicates that the requirements of the VPP,
distilled in the management policies, procedures, and practices
described in these recommended guidelines, are major means to achieve
the reduction.

In addition, employers at these sites reported improved morale and
productivity benefits, as well as significantly reduced workers'
compensation and other costs. One plant manager found that the
implementation of a single safe work practice at his 44-employee plant
during the first three years of participation in the VPP resulted in a
greater volume of product and a reduction in rejected project. This
change alone saved $265,000 a year. (Proceedings of Public Information
Gathering Meeting on Suggested Guidelines for General Safety and Health
Programs. U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Docket No. C-02. P.77 (October
6, 1988).)

The reduction in workers' compensation and other costs and the
improvements in worksite morale and productivity reported by VPP
participants reflect significant economic benefits which complement the
substantial safety and health benefits of improvement management of
worker protection. A Business Roundtable report (Improving Construction
Safety Performance (New York, The Business Roundtable. Report A-3.
January, 1982). p. 16) concludes that, for construction, the savings
from effective administration of safety and health protection is 3.2
times the cost. OSHA has no independent confirmation of this ratio nor
of its relevance to industries other than construction. Based on its
experience with VPP sites and the conclusions of experienced safety and
health professionals, however, OSHA believes that the long-term benefits
of effective safety and health management consistently exceed its costs.

To understand this conclusion, it is essential to understand the
indirect as well as the direct costs of occupational injuries and
illnesses. According to commonly accepted safety management concepts as
outlined by Frank E. Bird, Jr. in his Management Guide to Loss Control
(Loganville, GA: Institute Press, 1978), for every $1 in medical or
insurance compensation costs ("direct costs") for a worker injury, $5-50
more are likely to be spent on "indirect costs" to repair building, tool
or equipment damage; to replace damage products or materials; and to
make up for losses from production delays and interruptions. An
additional $1-3 in indirect costs will be spent for hiring and training
replacements and for time to investigate the incident. Mr. Bird's
figures do not consider the impact of reduced commitment to work when
employees operate in a situation in which injuries are common. Because
they frequently involve longer absences, the impact of job- related
illnesses can be even greater.

Although economic incentives are secondary to human health and safety as
motives for safety and health protection, an employer may find it useful
to calculate the total (direct and indirect) costs of injuries and
illnesses as a means of determining the economic benefits which might be
achieved by preventing the injuries and illnesses. By determining the
average cost of an injury and of an illness, the employer can estimate
the incremental impact of reducing the rate of injuries and illnesses at
the site and therefore the potential economic benefit of such reduction.

Some employers may wish to compare their savings or costs in relation to
the nation average for their industries. A method which can be used for
that comparison with respect to occupational injuries is described by
David R. Bell, a former OSHA employee, in his article, "Gauging Safety
Outlays and Objectives," in Occupational Hazards. June, 1987. If the
lost workday case rate (LWCR) for a site is below the national average,
a formula provided by Bell can be used to calculate how many fewer
injuries occurred than would have occurred if the site rate had equalled
the national average. (Lost workdays case rates are published annually
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in "Occupational Injuries and
Illnesses in the United States by Industry", available from the U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. The rate for each
industry represents the average number of lost workday cases that
occurred per 100 employees in the industry).

The number of cases which would have occurred if the site rate had been
average Bell calls "expected cases" and the actual cases he calls
"injuries avoided." His formula, in which "employment at the site" means
the number of equivalent work-years at the site during the year, is as
follows:

Industry LWCR = Employment at the site

 	100 	= 	Expected LW Cases --

Actual LW Cases =

Number of Injuries

Avoided

If the site lost workday case rate is above, the national average, the
number of cases by which the site exceeds the national average can be
determined by subtracting "expected cases" from "actual cases," once the
former number has been calculated.

By multiplying the number of "injuries avoided" or the number of
injuries above the average by the average cost of an injury at the site,
the employer can estimate the savings or losses which resulted from the
quality of its management of safety protection relative to national
performance. (Because national data on the incidence of occupational
illnesses is incomplete, the formula is less useful in relation to
occupational health protection.)

(a) General

"(a) General. (1) Employers are advised and encouraged to institute and
maintain in their establishments a program which provides systematic
policies, procedures, and practices that are adequate to recognize and
protect their employees from occupational safety and health hazards."

Comment: In essence, this paragraph states that the end (protection of
employees from occupational safety and health hazards) determines the
means. The criterion for determining what is needed in a safety and
health program at a particular site is: whatever feasible action it
takes to protect the workers from the safety and health hazards at that
specific site. The form of the safety and health program elements and
implementing actions will vary at each site according to the nature of
site organization and the nature of the hazards and potential hazards at
the site.

"(2) An effective program includes provisions for the systematic
identification, evaluation, and prevention or control of general
workplace hazards, specific job hazards and potential hazards, which may
arise from foreseeable conditions."

Comment: Provisions for identifying and preventing hazards are
systematic. If not, hazards or potential hazards will be missed and/or
preventive controls will break down, and the chance of injury or illness
will significantly increase.

General workplace hazards include such conditions as tripping hazards in
walking areas and poor illumination. Specific job hazards may relate to
the specific conditions in a job, such as exposure to a saw blade, or to
the inherent hazardousness of an operation required in the job, such as
the removal of jammed material from a point of operation. Potential
hazards include such situations as the possibility of exposure to toxic
chemicals as a result of a rupture of piping from the impact of a
forklift.

"(3) Although compliance with the law, including specific OSHA
standards, is an important objective, an effective program looks beyond
specific requirements of law to address all hazards. It will seek to
prevent injuries and illnesses, whether or not compliance is at issue."

Comment: OSHA and other government standards provide important guidance
on the identification and control of hazards, but they are not always
enough. Although compliance with the law is an important objective of
and motive for an effective program. OSHA has found that the most
successful programs look beyond government standards and legal
requirements. They look for other sources of information about hazards,
such as the National Electrical Code (NEC), the American Conference of
Government Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), and the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI): and they use their own seasoned analytical
abilities to look for and address hazards not covered by government or
other standards. Their motive is to prevent injuries and illnesses and
the attendant human and economic costs, whether or not compliance with
the law is at issue.

This approach is essential in view of the difficulty that regulatory
agencies have in moving quickly to set standards for every possible
hazard in the workplace and to revise them when new information becomes
available.

"(4) The extent to which the program is described in writing is less
important than how effective it is in practice. As the size of a
worksite or the complexity of a hazardous operation increases, however,
the need for written guidance increases to ensure clear communication of
policies and priorities and consistent and fair application of rules."

Comment: OSHA recognizes that relatively simple, unwritten policies,
practices, and procedures are adequate to address the hazards in many
smaller or less hazardous establishments. The more complex and hazardous
and operation is, the more formal (written) and complex the program will
probably need to be. A written program which is revised regularly can
clarify policy, create consistency and continuity in its interpretation,
serve as a checkpoint whenever there is a question of priority between
safety and production, and support fair and equitable enforcement of
safe work rules and practices.

(b) Major Elements

"(b) Major Elements. An effect occupational safety and health program
will include the following four elements. To implement these elements,
it will include the actions described in paragraph (c).

(1) Management commitment and employee involvement are complementary.
Management commitment provides the motivation force and the resources
for organizing and controlling activities within an organization. In an
effective program, management regards worker safety and health as a
fundamental value of the organization and applies its commitment to
safety and health protection with as much vigor as to other
organizational purposes. Employee involvement provides the means through
which workers develop and/or express their own commitment to safety and
health protection, for themselves and for their fellow workers.

(2) Worksite analysis involves a variety of worksite examinations, to
identify not only existing hazards but also conditions and operations in
which changes might occur to create hazards. Unawareness of a hazard
which stems from failure to examine the worksite is a sure sign that
safety and health policies and/or practices are ineffective. Effective
management actively analyzes the work and worksite, to anticipate and
prevent harmful occurrences.

(3) Hazard prevention and control are triggered by a determination that
a hazard or potential hazard exists. Where feasible, hazards are
prevented by effective design of the job site or job. Where it is not
feasible to eliminate them, they are controlled to prevent unsafe or
unhealthful exposure. Elimination or control is accomplished in a timely
manner, once a hazard or potential hazard is recognized.

(4) Safety and health training addresses the safety and health
responsibilities of all personnel concerned with the site, whether
salaried or hourly. It is often most effective when incorporated into
other training about performance requirements and job practices. Its
complexity depends on the size and complexity of the worksite, and the
nature of the hazards and potential hazards at the site."

Comment: These paragraphs set forth the areas of managerial practice
which are essential to effective safety and health protection. These
practices, means, and methods are consistent with those used by
employers to achieve other organizational objectives, such as cost
control, quality, and productivity. Giving safety and health equal
organizational priority in relation to these other objectives is
fundamental to the protection of individual employees and to the
effectiveness of the organization itself.

These elements consist of methods historically used to accomplish
organizational objectives. They are generic in that they are generally
applicable regardless of unique operations or conditions of particular
firms. Only the form which they take varies. Though at points they are
expressed in the terms of the "hierarchical" organizations most common
in American industry (i.e., by reference to "managers," "supervisors,"
"employees"), they can easily be adapted to other organizational forms
or styles of operation. They relate to essential concerns and activities
of any organization. It is on this basis that OSHA considers them
applicable in shipyard employment, marine terminals, and longshoring as
well as general industry.

(c) Recommended Actions.

(c)(1) Management Commitment and Employee Involvement

Comment: Each action listed in this section represents the application
to occupational safety and health of a key means for organizing,
motivating and controlling activities within an organization.

"(c)(1)(i) State clearly a worksite policy on safe and healthful work
and working conditions, so that all personnel with responsibility at the
site and personnel at other locations with responsibility for the site
understand the priority of safety and health protection in relation to
other organizational values."

Comment: A statement of policy is the foundation of safety and health
management. It communicates the value in which safety and health
protection is held in the business organization. If it is absorbed by
all in the organization, it becomes the basic point of reference for all
decisions affecting safety and health. It also becomes the criterion by
which the adequacy of protective actions is measured.

"(c)(1)(ii) Establish and communicate a clear goal for the safety and
health program and objectives for meeting that goal, so that all members
of the organization understand the results desired and the measures
planned for achieving them."

Comment: A goal, and implementing objectives, make the safety and health
policy more specific. Communicating them ensures that all in the
organization understand the direction it is taking.

"(c)(1)(iii) Provide visible top management involvement in implementing
the program so that all will understand that management's commitment is
serious."

Comment: Actions speak louder than words. If top management gives high
priority to safety and health protection in practice, other will see and
follow. If not, a written or spoken policy of high priority for safety
and health will have little credibility, and others will not follow it.
Plant managers who wear required personal protective equipment in work
areas, perform periodic "housekeeping" inspections, and personally track
performance in safety and health protection demonstrate such
involvement.

"(c)(1)(iv) Provide for and encourage employee involvement in the
structure and operation of the program and in decisions that affect
their safety and health, so that they will commit their insight and
energy to achieving the safety and health program's goal and
objectives."

Comment: Since an effective program depends on commitment by employees
as well as managers, it is important for their concerns to be reflected
in it. An effective program includes all personnel in the
organization--managers, supervisors, and other--in policy development,
planning, and operations.

This does not mean transfer of responsibility to employees. the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 clearly places responsibility
for safety and health protection on the employer. However, employees
intimate knowledge of the jobs they perform and the special concerns
they bring to the job give them a unique perspective which can be used
to make the program more effective.

Employee participation may take any or all of a number of forms. For
instance, the system for notifying management personnel about conditions
that appear hazardous serves as a major means of worksite analysis to
identify hazards and is therefore included as paragraph (c)(2)(iii).
Such a system is, however, by itself not sufficient to provide for
effective employee involvement. Forms of participation which engage
employees more fully in systematic prevention include (1) inspecting for
hazards and recommending corrections or controls; (2) analyzing jobs to
locate potential hazards and develop safe work procedures; (3)
developing or revising general rules for safe work; (4) training newly
hired employees in safe work procedures and rules, and/or training their
co-workers in newly revised safe work procedures; (5) providing programs
and presentations for safety meeting; and (6) assisting in accident
investigations.

Such functions can be carried out in a number of organizational
contexts. Joint labor-management committees are most common. Other means
include labor safety committees, safety circle teams, rotational
assignment of employees to such functions, and acceptance of employee
volunteers for the functions.

Employee involvement is effective only when the employer welcomes it and
provides protection from any discrimination, including unofficial
harassment, to the employees involved. However, inclusion of employees
in one or more of the suggested activities, or in any way that fits the
individual worksite and provides an employee role that has impact on
decisions about safety and health protection, will strengthen the
employer's overall program of safety and health protection.

"(c)(1)(v) Assign and communicate responsibility for all aspects of the
program, so that managers, supervisors, and employees in all parts of
the organization know that performance is expected of them."

Comment: Assignment of responsibility for safety and health protection
to a single staff member, or even a small group, will leave other
members feeling that someone else is taking care of safety and health
problems. Everyone in an organization has some responsibility for safety
and health.

A clear statement of that responsibility, as it relates both to
organizational goals and objectives and to the specific functions of
individuals, is essential. If all persons in an organization do not know
what is expected of them, they are unlikely to perform as desired.

"(c)(1)(vi) Provide adequate authority and resources to responsible
parties, so that assigned responsibilities can be met."

Comment: It is unreasonable to assign responsibility without providing
adequate authority and resources to get the job done. For example, a
person with responsibility for the safety of a piece of machinery need
the authority to shut it down and get it repaired. Needed resources may
include adequately trained and equipped personnel and adequate
operational and capital expenditure funds.

"(c)(1)(vii) Hold managers, supervisors, and employees accountable for
meeting their responsibilities, so that essential tasks will be
performed."

Comment: Stating expectations of managers, supervisors, and other
employees means little if management is not serious enough to track
performance, to reward it when it is competent and to correct it when it
is not. Holding everyone accountable for meeting their responsibilities
is at the heart of effective workers safety and health protection. If
management states high expectations for such protection but pays greater
attention to productivity or other values, safety and health protection
will be neglected.

To be effective, a system of accountability must be applied to everyone,
from senior management to hourly employees. If some are held firmly to
expected performance and other are not, the system will lose its
credibility. Those held to expectations will be resentful; those allowed
to neglect expectations may increase their neglect. Consequently, the
chance of injury and illness will increase.

"(c)(1)(viii) Review program operations at least annually to evaluate
their success in meeting the goal and objectives, so that deficiencies
can be identified and the program and/or the objectives can be revised
when they do not meet the goal of effective safety and health
protection."

Comment: A Comprehensive program audit is essential periodically to
evaluate the whole set of safety and health management means, methods,
and processes, to ensure that they are adequate to protect against the
potential hazards at the specific worksite. The audit determines whether
policies and procedures are implemented as planned and whether in
practice they have met the objectives set for the program. It also
determines whether the objectives provide sufficient challenge to lead
the organization to meet the program goal of effective safety and health
protection. When either performance or the objectives themselves are
found inadequate, revisions are made. Without such a comprehensive
review, program flaws and their interrelationship may not be caught and
corrected.

(c)(2) Worksite Analysis

Comment: The identification of hazards and potential hazards at a
worksite requires an active, on-going examination and analysis of work
processes and working conditions. Because many hazards are by nature
difficult to recognize, effective examination and analysis will approach
the work and working conditions from several perspectives. Each of the
activities recommended in this paragraph represents a different
perspective.

The recognition of hazards which could result from changes in work
practices or conditions requires especially thorough observation and
thought, both from those who perform the work and those who are
specially trained for that purpose. Since such divergence from the
routine and familiar is often the occasion for injuries and health
hazard exposures to occur, the anticipation of such changes is critical.

Identification at a worksite of those safety and health hazards which
are recognized in its industry is a critical foundation for safety and
health protection. It is the general duty of the employer under the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. Successful employers will
actively seek the benefit of the experience of others in their industry,
through trade associations, equipment manufacturers, and other sources.

An effective program does not stop at this point, however. It
continually reviews working conditions and operations to identify
hazards which have not previously been recognized in the industry.

Implicit in the provision for the survey, reviews, and analyses
recommended in this section is the need for employers to seek competent
advice and assistance when they lack needed expertise and to use
appropriate means and methods to examine and assess all existing and
foreseeable hazards. Personnel who perform comprehensive baseline and
update surveys, analysis of new facilities, processes, procedures, and
equipment, and job hazard analyses may require greater expertise than
those who conduct routine inspections, since the former are conducting a
boarder and/or deeper review.

Personnel performing regular inspections should, however, possess a
degree of experience and competence adequate to recognize hazards in the
areas they review and to identify reasonable means for their correction
or control. Such competence should normally be expected of ordinary
employees who are capable of safely supervising or performing the
operations of the specific workplace. Smaller businesses which need
assistance in the development of such competence can receive free
assistance from a number of sources, including OSHA and a nationwide
network of OSHA-funded, State- operated consultation projects.

"(c)(2)(i) So that all hazards and potential hazards are identified:

(A) conduct comprehensive baseline worksite survey for safety and health
and periodic comprehensive update surveys;

(B) analyze planned and new facilities, processes, materials, and
equipment; and

(C) perform routine job hazard analyses."

Comment: A comprehensive baseline survey of the work and working
conditions at a site permits a systematic recording of those hazards and
potential hazards which can be recognized without intensive analysis.
This baseline record provides a checklist for the more frequent routine
inspections, recommended in paragraph (c)(2)(ii). With those hazards
under control, attention can be given to the intensive analysis required
to recognized less obvious hazards.

Subsequent comprehensive surveys provide an opportunity to step back
from the routine check on control of previously recognized hazards and
look for others. With the baseline established, these subsequent reviews
are one occasion for focusing more intensive analysis in areas with the
highest potential for new or less obvious hazards. The frequency with
which comprehensive examinations are needed depends on the complexity,
hazardousness, and changeability of the worksite. Many successful
worksites conduct such reviews on an annual or biannual basis.

Analysis of new facilities, processes, materials, and equipment in the
course of their design and early use (sometimes called "change
analysis") provides a check against the introduction of new hazards with
them. Effective management ensures the conduct of such analyses during
the planning phase, just before their first use, and during the early
phases of their use. Numerous specific OSHA standards require inspection
of particular equipment, conditions, and activities as a safety
precaution prior to operation or use. This guideline makes clear that,
in effective safety and health programs, this generally recognized
inspection practice is applied more broadly to all conditions and
activities.

Job hazard analysis is an important tool for more intensive analysis to
identify hazards and potential hazards not previously recognized, and to
determine protective measures. Through more careful attention to the
work processes in a particular job, analysis can recognize new points at
which exposure to hazards may occur or at which foreseeable changes in
practice or conditions could result in new hazards.

"(c)(2)(ii) Provide for regular site safety and health inspections, so
that new or previously missed hazards and failures in hazard controls
are identified."

Comment: Once a comprehensive examination of the workplace has been
conducted and hazard controls have been established, routine site safety
and health inspections are necessary to ensure that changes in
conditions and activities do not create new hazards and that hazard
controls remain in place and are effective. Routine industrial hygiene
monitoring and sampling are essential components of such inspections in
many workplaces.

Personnel conducting these inspections also look out for new or
previously unrecognized hazards, but not as thoroughly as those
conducting comprehensive surveys.

The frequency and scope of these "routine" inspection depends on the
nature and severity of the hazards which could be present and the
relative stability and complexity of worksite operations.

"(c)(2)(iii) So that employee insight and experience is safety and
health protection may be utilized and employee concerns may be
addressed, provide a reliable system for employees, without fear of
reprisal, to notify management personnel about conditions that appear
hazardous and to receive timely and appropriate responses; and encourage
employees to use the system."

Comment: A reliable system for employees to notify management of
conditions or practices that appear hazardous and to receive a timely
and appropriate response serves a dual purpose. It gives management the
benefit of many more points of observations and more experienced insight
in recognizing hazards or other symptoms of breakdown in safety and
health protection systems. It also gives employees assurance that their
investment in safety and health is worthwhile.

A system is reliable only if it ensures employees a credible and timely
response. The response will include both timely action to address any
problems identified and a timely explanation of why particular actions
were or were not taken.

Since the employer benefits from employee notices, effective management
will not only guard against reprisals to avoid discouraging them but
will take positive steps to encourage their submission.

"(c)(2)(iv) Provide for investigation of accidents and `near miss'
incidents, so that their causes and means for preventing repetitions are
identified."

Comments: Accidents, and incidents in which employees narrowly escape
injury, clearly expose hazards. Analysis to identify their causes
permits development of measures to prevent future injury or illness.
Although a first look may suggest that "employee error" is a major
factor, it is rarely sufficient to stop there. Even when an employee has
disobeyed a required work practice, it is critical to ask, "Why?" A
thorough analysis will generally reveal a number of deeper factors,
which permitted or even encouraged an employee's action. Such factors
may include a supervisor's allowing or pressuring the employee to take
short cuts in the interest of production, inadequate equipment, or a
work practice which is difficult for the employee to carry out safely.
An effective analysis will identify actions to address each of the
causal factors in an accident or "near miss" incident.

"(c)(2)(v) Analyze injury and illness trends over time, so that patterns
will common causes can be identified and prevented."

Comment: A review of injury experience over a period of time may reveal
patterns of injury with common causes which can be addressed.
Correlation of changes in injury experience with changes in safety and
health program operations, personnel, and production processes may help
to identify causes.

(c)(3) Hazard Prevention and Control

Comment: Effective management prevents or controls identified hazards
and prepares to minimize the harm form job-related injuries and
illnesses when they do occur.

"(c)(3)(i) So that all current and potential hazards, however detected,
are corrected or controlled in a timely manner, establish procedures for
that purpose, using the following measures:

(A) engineering techniques where feasible and appropriate;

(B) procedures for safe work which are understood and followed by all
affected parties, as a result of training, positive reinforcement, and,
if necessary, endorsement through a clearly communicated disciplinary
system;

(C) provision of personal protective equipment; and

(D) administrative controls, such as reducing the duration of exposure."

Comment: Hazards, once recognized, are promptly prevented or controlled.
Management action in this respect determines the credibility of its
safety and health management policy and the usefulness of it entire
program.

An effective program relies on the means for prevention or control which
provides the best feasible protection of employee safety and health.

It regards legal requirements as a minimum. When there are alternative
ways to address a hazard, effective managers have found that involving
employees in discussions of methods can identify useful prevention and
control measures, serve as a means for communicating the rational for
decisions made, and encourage employee acceptance of the decisions.

When safe work procedures are the means of protection, ensuring that
they are followed becomes critical. Ensuring safe work practices
involves discipline in both a positive sense and a corrective sense.
Every component of effective safety and health management is designed to
create a disciplined environment in which all personnel act on the basic
that worker safety and health protection is a fundamental value of the
organization. Such an environment depends on the credibility of
management's involvement in safety and health matters, inclusion of
employees in decisions which affect their safety and health, rigorous
worksite analysis to identify hazards and potential hazards, stringent
prevention and control measures, and thorough training. In such an
environment, all personnel will understand the hazards to which they are
exposed, why the hazards pose a threat, and how to protect themselves
and others form the hazards. Training for the purpose is reinforced by
encouragement of attempt to work safely and by positive recognition of
safe behavior.

If, in such a context, an employee, supervisor, or manager fails to
follow a safe procedure, it is advisable not only to stop the unsafe
action but also to determine whether some condition of the work has made
it difficult to follow the procedure or whether some management system
has failed to communicate the danger of the action and the means for
avoiding it. If the unsafe action was not based on an external condition
or a lack of understanding, or if, after such external condition or lack
of understanding has been corrected, the person repeats the action, it
is essential that corrective discipline be applied. To allow an unsafe
action to continue not only continues to endanger the actor and perhaps
others; it also undermines the positive discipline of the entire safety
and health program. To be effective, corrective discipline must be
applied consistently to all, regardless of role or rank; but it must be
applied.

Factors which may affect the time required for correction of hazards
include: (1) The complexity abatement technology; (2) the degree of
risk; and (3) the availability of necessary equipment, materials, and
staff qualified to complete the correction. Because conditions affecting
hazard correction and control vary widely, it is impractical of OSHA to
recommend specific time limits for all situations. An effective program
corrects hazards in the shortest time permitted by the technology
required and the availability of needed personnel and materials. It also
provides for interim protection when immediate correction is not
possible.

"(c)(3)(ii) Provide for facility and equipment maintenance, so that
hazardous breakdown is prevented."

Comment: Maintenance of equipment of facilities in an especially
important means of anticipating potential hazards and preventing their
development. Planning, scheduling, and tracking preventive maintenance
activities provides a systematic way of ensuring that they are not
neglected.

"(c)(3)(iii) Plan and prepares for emergencies, and conduct training and
drills as needed, so that the response of all parties to emergencies
will be "second nature."

Comment: Planning and training for emergencies is essential in
minimizing the harmful consequences of an accident or other threat if it
does occur. If personnel are not so thoroughly trained to react to
emergencies that their responses are immediate and precise, they may
expose themselves and others to greater danger rather than reduce their
exposure. The nature of potential emergencies depends on the nature of
site operations and its geographical location. The extent to which
training and drills are needed depends on the severity and complexity of
the emergencies which may arise.

"(c)(2)(iv) Establish a medical program which includes availability of
first aid on site and of physician and emergency medical care nearby, so
that harm will be minimized if an injury or illness does occur."

Comment: The availability of first aid and emergency medical care are
essential in minimizing the harmful consequences of injuries and
illnesses if they do occur. The nature of services needed will depend on
the seriousness of injuries or health hazard exposures which may occur.
Minimum requirements are addressed in OSHA standards.

(c)(4) Safety and Health Training

Comment: Education and training are essential means for communicating
practical understanding of the requirements of effective safety and
health protection to all personnel. Without such understanding,
managers, supervisors, and other employees will not perform their
responsibilities for safety and health protection effectively.

It is not suggested that elaborate or formal training programs solely
related to safety and health are always needed. Integrating
consideration of safety and health protection into all organizational
activities is the key to its effectiveness. Safety and health
information and instruction is, therefore, often most effective when
incorporated into other training about performance requirements and job
practices, such as management training on performance evaluation,
problem solving, or managing change; supervisors' training on the
reinforcement of good work practices and the correction of poor ones;
and employee training on the operation of a particular machine or the
conduct of a specific task.

Each paragraph in this section recommends that the employer ensure
understanding of safety and health information by employees,
supervisors, and managers. The act of training itself is not sufficient
to endure practical comprehension. Some means of verifying comprehension
is essential. Formal testing, oral questioning, observation, and other
means can be useful. In its Voluntary Protection Programs. OSHA has
found that observing and interviewing employees, supervisors, and
managers are the most effective measures for determining their
understanding of what is expected of them in practice. Although there is
no fully reliable means for ensuring understanding, effective safety and
health management will apply the same diligence with respect to safety
and health protection as is applied to ensuring an understanding of
other operational requirements, such as time and attendance, production
schedules, and jog skills.

"(c)(4)(i) Ensure that all employees understand the hazards to which
they may be exposed and how to prevent harm to themselves and others
from exposure to these hazards, so that employees accept and follow
established safety and health protections."

Comment: The commitment and cooperation of employees in preventing and
controlling exposure to hazards is critical, not only for their own
safety and health but for that of others as well. That commitment and
cooperation depends on their understanding what hazards they may be
exposed to, why the hazards pose a threat, and how they can protect
themselves and others from the hazards. The means of protection which
they need to understand include not only the immediate protections from
hazards in their work processes and locations, but also the management
systems which commit the organization to safety and health protection
and provide for employee involvement in hazard identification and
prevention.

OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard specifies, for chemical hazards, an
employer duty to inform employees about workplace hazards and to provide
training that will enable them to avoid work-related injuries or
illnesses. Other standards set forth training requirements, as
summarized in OSHA Publication 2254. "Training Requirements in OSHA
Standards and Training Guidelines." The rational for these standards
requirements is, however, applicable in relation to all hazards.

Education and training in safety and health protection is especially
critical for employees who are assuming new duties. This fact is
reflected by the disproportionately high injury rates among workers
newly assigned to work tasks. Although some of these injuries may be
attributable to other causes, a substantial number are directly related
to inadequate knowledge of job hazards and safe work practices. The
Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that in 1979. 48 percent of workers
injured had been on the job less than one year. ("The New Worker Factor
Associated with Occupational Injuries and Illnesses," U.S. Department of
Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982.) These figures make clear the
importance of training employees on job hazards and safe work practices
before they assume new duties.

The extent of hazard information which is needed by employees will vary,
but includes at least; (1) The general hazards and safety rules of the
worksite; (2) specific hazards, safety rules, and practices related to
particular work assignments; and (3) the employee's role in emergency
situations. Such information and training is particularly relevant to
hazards that may not be readily apparent to, to within the ordinary
experience and knowledge of, the employee.

"(c)(4)(ii) So that supervisors will carry out their safety and health
responsibilities effectively, ensure that they understand those
responsibilities and the reasons for them, including;

(A) analyzing the work under their supervision to identify unrecognized
potential hazards;

(B) maintaining physical protections in their work areas; and

(C) reinforcing employee training on the nature of potential hazards in
their work and on needed protective measures, through continual
performance feedback and, if necessary, through enforcement of safe work
practices."

Comment: First-line supervisors have an especially critical role in
safety and health protection because of their immediate responsibility
for workers and for the work being performed. Effective training of
supervisors will address their safety and health management
responsibilities as well as information on hazards, hazard prevention,
and response to emergencies. Although they may have other safety and
health responsibilities, those listed in these guidelines merit
particular attention.

"(c)(4)(iii) Ensure that managers understand their safety and health
responsibilities" and described under (c)(1). "Management Commitment and
Employee Involvement," so that the managers will effectively carry out
those responsibilities."

Comment: Because there is a tendency in some businesses to consider
safety and health a staff function and to neglect the training of
managers in safety and health responsibilities, the importance of
managerial training is noted separately. Managers who understand both
the way and the extent to which effective safety and health protection
impacts on the overall effectiveness of the business itself are far more
likely to ensure that the necessary safety and health management systems
operates as needed.


[Federal Register: March 15, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 50)]
[Notices]
[Page 14004-14005]
[DOCID:fr15mr11-63]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER01-2765-028; ER07-1358-015; ER00-2885-029; ER09-
1141-008; ER05-1232-025; ER02-2102-028; EL10-73-000.
    Applicants: J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation, BE Louisiana
LLC, Cedar Brakes I, L.L.C., Utility Contract Funding, L.L.C., Cedar
Brakes II, L.L.C., J.P. Morgan Commodities Canada Corporation.
    Description: Response to Show-Cause Order of J.P. Morgan Ventures
Energy Corporation, et. al.
    Filed Date: 02/28/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110228-5001.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1580-003.
    Applicants: Saguaro Power Company LP.
    Description: Saguaro Power Company LP submits tariff filing per 35:
SPC--Amendment to Market-Based Rate Tariff 03072011 to be effective 9/
8/2010.
    Filed Date: 03/08/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110308-5026.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, March 29, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2288-003.
    Applicants: Optim Energy Marketing LLC.
    Description: Optim Energy Marketing LLC submits tariff filing per
35: Optim MBR Tariff Compliance filing to be effective 8/20/2010.
    Filed Date: 03/08/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110308-5000.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, March 29, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2044-001.
    Applicants: MidAmerican Energy Company.
    Description: MidAmerican Energy Company submits tariff filing per
35: Capacity and Energy Sales Tariff Compliance Filing to be effective
9/30/2010.
    Filed Date: 03/08/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110308-5062.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, March 29, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2954-001.
    Applicants: DTE Calvert City, LLC.
    Description: DTE Calvert City, LLC submits tariff filing per
35.17(b): Amendment to Market-Based Rate Application to be effective 2/
28/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/08/2011.

    Accession Number: 20110308-5051.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 21, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3030-000.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Electric Power Company.
    Description: Wisconsin Electric Power Company submit notice of
termination for FERC Electric Tariff, Rate Schedule 118, Power Sales
Agreement with Northern States Power Company.
    Filed Date: 03/07/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110308-0200.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, March 28, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3031-000.
    Applicants: Metro Energy, LLC.
    Description: Metro Energy, LLC submits tariff filing per 35.15: MBR
Tariff Cancellation to be effective 3/9/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/08/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110308-5027.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, March 29, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3032-000
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): R32 ISA Original Service Agreement No. 2785 to be
effective 2/8/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/08/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110308-5061.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, March 29, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3033-000.
    Applicants: Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc.
    Description: Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35.1: Baseline Tariff Filing to be effective 3/8/
2011.
    Filed Date: 03/08/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110308-5070.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, March 29, 2011.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    As it relates to any qualifying facility filings, the notices of
self-certification [or self-recertification] listed above, do not
institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status. A notice
of self-certification [or self-recertification] simply provides
notification that the entity making the filing has determined the
facility named in the notice meets the applicable criteria to be a
qualifying facility. Intervention and/or protest do not lie in dockets
that are qualifying facility self-certifications or self-
recertifications. Any person seeking to challenge such qualifying
facility status may do so by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR
292.207(d)(iii). Intervention and protests may be filed in response to
notices of qualifying facility dockets other than self-certifications
and self-recertifications.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 8, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-5895 Filed 3-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P