Directives - Table of Contents|
| Record Type:||Instruction|
| Directive Number:||CSP 01-01-002|
| Old Directive Number:||STP 2.2|
| Title:||Definition of "Issue"|
| Information Date:||10/30/1978|
| Standard Number:||1902|
OSHA Instruction STP 2.2 October 30, 1978
May 3, 1972
OSHA Program Directive # 72-15
To: Regional Administrators, Assistant Regional Administrators for State Programs, National Office Directors
Subject: Definition of "Issue"
1. Purpose. To further define the term "issue" as used in section 18 of the Act and in the State plan regulations, 29 CFR 1902.
2. Directives Affected. This supplements Program Directive #72-14 , "Standards Comparison Format for 18(b) Plans."
- a. Basic Definition of "Issue".
- the scope of a State plan in terms of "issues" with respect to
which a Federal standard has been promulgated. The State plan regulations
present a basic definition of an issue as "an industrial, occupational or
hazard grouping which is at least as comprehensive as a corresponding
grouping contained in (i) one or more sections in Subpart B or R or Part 1910
of this chapter, or (ii) one or more of the remaining subparts of Part 1910."
Subparts B and R of Part 1910 primarily include "vertical" standards related
to particular industries such as construction work (1910.12), textiles
(1910.262) and pulpwood logging (1910.266). With the exception of
agricultural these Federally defined vertical issues also include all
applicable horizontal standards. Longshoring (1910.16) is a specific
occupational grouping but is also closely identified with a particular
industry. The remaining subparts of Part 1910 generally relate to
"horizontal" standards, i. e. standards in broad hazard categories applicable
to many or all industries. Examples are Subpart E - means of Egress, Subpart
OSHA Instruction October 30, 1976
Personal Protective Equipment, and Subpart L - Fire Protection.
- b. Definition of Other "Issues".
- The State plan regulations also provide that, for cause shown, a
plan may be approved which relates to other industrial, occupational or
hazard groupings with respect to which Federal standards have been
promulgated if these other groupings are "administratively practicable" and
do not conflict with the purposes of the Act. As indicated above, an
industrial grouping is considered a vertical issue; that is, the standards
can only be applied in the industry(ies) delineated. Hazard groupings, on
the other hand, are considered horizontal issues, that is, the standards can
be applied wherever appropriate regardless of the industry. Occupational
groupings do not necessarily fall into either the vertical or horizontal
categories. An issue which contains standards applicable to a given
occupational group may be necessary in some special cases, but because of the
difficulties such a grouping would cause in delineating Federal and State
responsibilities clearly and the more widespread use of industrial or hazard
groupings, it is not anticipated that occupational groupings will be widely
- from those defined in Part 1910 will result in the creation of
new vertical issues, i. e. industrial groupings in addition to those in
Subparts B or R. These vertical issues must be identifiable on the basis of
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes to be acceptable. The most
desirable way for vertical issues to be defined is as combinations of SIC
major groups, e. g. - "all Manufacturing, SIC Major Groups 19 through 39," or
at least as single SIC major groups. Finer 3 or 4 digit SIC groups would tend
to result in less efficient allocation of Federal and State inspection
- c. Requirements
- does OSHA. For example, Subpart I- Personal Protective
OSHA Instruction STP 2.2 October 30,1978
- Equipment, contains a number of standards relating to protective
equipment, but by no means all possible standards relating to this issue.
Therefore, if the State selects Subpart I as an issue, it is required to
apply State standards which are identical with or at least as effective as
all the Federal standards contained therein. Once the State has met this
requirement, it can also include in this issue additional standards relating
to personal protective equipment. The enforcement of those additional
standards will also be eligible for 50% funding.
- be required to apply State standards which are identical with or
at least as effective as all federal horizontal standards applicable in that
issue. Once this requirement is met, the State may also enforce other
standards in their vertical issue for which there are no federal counterparts
and may be funded for their enforcement. However, these standards can only be
funded to the extent they apply to the vertical issue; they cannot be funded
when applied horizontally. An example of this would be where a State made
SIC 33, Primary Metal Industries, a vertical issue. After the State includes
all applicable horizontal standards they could also, if they wished; apply
boiler safety standards in those industries (we have not presently
promulgated boiler safety standard) and be funded for their enforcement.
However, this would not allow for Federal funding of the boiler inspection
program in industries not selected as issues.
- d. Support for Different "Issues" and Other Differences in
- certain documents support for variations in coverage of the
Federal standards. The necessity for such difference must be conclusively
documented and in addition, they must be found to be administratively
practicable, since areas lacking State coverage will be subject to Federal
enforcement. This would include cases where definitions
OSHA Instruction STP 2.2 October 30, 1978
- of "issue" create different vertical industrial groupings as a
result of which the standards comparable to the Federal horizontal standards
would not be applicable to all industries in the State. It would also
include cases where certain groups of employers or employees are excluded
from coverage under an issue that has been chosen.
- At least two factors must be considered before the Assistant
Secretary will approve a plan with different employer or employee exclusions
and/or with different definitions of issues: (1) whether the separate areas
of Federal and State responsibility are clearly defined and whether
establishments under Federal or State jurisdiction are easily identifiable
for scheduling inspections; and (2) whether the different issue definitions
result in an acceptable or practicable division between separate Federal and
State areas of responsibility in any given workplace.
- Some States have asked specifically if they could exclude "home
office" white collar employees in a separate location from a manufacturing
plant. This would be permissible (different occupational groupings) their
places of employment are reported separately so that Federal jurisdiction can
be readily ascertained. However, exclusion from coverage in an issue under a
State plan on the basis of number of employees will not be deemed
4. Action. Each Regional Administrator, through the ARA for State Programs, should explain to State designees the various options available in defining issues and the effect of each option on his State plan. Further, the ARA should help the State designee to define issues in such a way as to provide the maximum safety and health protection for covered workers and the most efficient possible division of effort between State and Federal activities.
|Directives - Table of Contents|