• About WordPress
    • WordPress.org
    • Documentation
    • Learn WordPress
    • Support
    • Feedback
  • Log In
  • Personnel
    • Professional Safety Staffing
    • Safety Recruiting
    • Careers with FDRsafety
  • Expert Witness
    • Jim Stanley
    • Steve Hawkins
    • Expert Witness Services
  • Compliance
    • Risk Assessments
    • Industrial Hygiene
    • Fall Protection Safety Services
    • Forklift Safety Services
    • Machine Guarding Safety Services
    • Combustible Dust Compliance
    • Confined Space Safety
  • Safety Training
    • Safety Awareness
    • Instructor-led courses
    • Training Case Study
  • About
    • Our Mission and Values
    • Our Leaders
    • FDRsafety Senior Advisors
    • Safety Solutions Blog
    • Safety Terms Glossary
  • Careers
  • Contact
    FDRsafety
    • Personnel
      • Professional Safety Staffing
      • Safety Recruiting
      • Careers with FDRsafety
    • Expert Witness
      • Jim Stanley
      • Steve Hawkins
      • Expert Witness Services
    • Compliance
      • Risk Assessments
      • Industrial Hygiene
      • Fall Protection Safety Services
      • Forklift Safety Services
      • Machine Guarding Safety Services
      • Combustible Dust Compliance
      • Confined Space Safety
    • Safety Training
      • Safety Awareness
      • Instructor-led courses
      • Training Case Study
    • About
      • Our Mission and Values
      • Our Leaders
      • FDRsafety Senior Advisors
      • Safety Solutions Blog
      • Safety Terms Glossary
    • Careers
    • Contact

Enforcement

OSHA backtracks on noise plan; first major about-face in this administration

  • Posted by Jim Stanley
  • Categories Enforcement, Legislation, OSHA
  • Date January 19, 2011

OSHA announced Wednesday it was withdrawing a proposed interpretation of noise standards that could have presented some employers with onerous costs to retrofit equipment.

It is the first major about-face for OSHA since it began a dramatic ramp-up of enforcement under the Obama Administration.

Since 1983, OSHA in most cases has not cited employers who used personal protective equipment and a hearing conservation program to address noise rather than engineering and administrative controls. The exceptions have been for noise so loud that it borders on 100 dBA when the most effective hearing protection is used or in cases where the controls cost less than an effective hearing conservation program. In practice, controls are almost always more expensive, so citations for failure to use them have been rare.

OSHA proposed last fall to change that approach and interpret the noise standards as written. Those standards call on employers to reduce excessive noise with “feasible” administrative or engineering controls.

Under the new approach, now withdrawn, OSHA said administrative or engineering controls would be considered economically feasible “if they will not threaten the employer’s ability to remain in business or if the threat to viability results from the employer’s having failed to keep up with industry safety and health standards.”

In practice that could have meant the installation of expensive engineering controls or the construction of enclosures around equipment.

In withdrawing the proposal, David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA, said:

“It is clear from the concerns raised about this proposal that addressing this problem requires much more public outreach and many more resources than we had originally anticipated. We are sensitive to the possible costs associated with improving worker protection and have decided to suspend work on this proposed modification while we study other approaches to abating workplace noise hazards.”

OSHA said it would also initiate an outreach and compliance assistance effort to help businesses take advantage of “the many inexpensive, effective engineering controls for dangerous noise levels.”

  • Share:
Jim Stanley

Previous post

Mr. President: Please start with OSHA when you review regulations
January 19, 2011

Next post

As OSHA withdraws ergonomics proposal, here’s what else it should rethink
January 26, 2011

You may also like

1600px-Point_Guarding
Review Commission Machine Guarding Decision
16 February, 2021
FallingRocks-1
Is Gravity Part of OSHA’s LOTO Regulation?
15 April, 2020
FDR-070918
OSHA Alert: How to Prepare for an OSHA Inspection
19 March, 2020

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search

Categories

  • Accident Prevention
  • Articles
  • CSA
  • Enforcement
  • FDRsafety newsletter
  • Legislation
  • News and Announcements
  • OSHA
  • Recordkeeping
  • Research
  • Risk Assessments
  • Safety and sustainability
  • Temporary Safety Professionals / Recruiting
  • Training
  • Transportation safety
  • Uncategorized

Latest Posts

Additional Thoughts On Reevaluating OSHA
06Mar2025
Feasibility For Machine Guarding Is A Big Deal For Employers and Employees
13May2024
Online Powered Industrial Truck Operator Certification Problems
25Aug2023

Get In Touch

Contact

360 Cool Springs Boulevard,
Suite 101,
Franklin, TN 37067

1-888-755-8010

info@fdrsafety.com

Careers

Accreditations

Contact Us

Powered by WordPress.