Standard Interpretations - Table of Contents|
| Standard Number:||1910.263; 1910.212(a)(1); 1910.212(a)(3)(ii); 1910.147; 1910.147(a)(2)(ii)(A); 1910.147(a)(2)(ii)(B); 1910.147(a)(2)(iii)(A); 1910.305(g)|
|MEMORANDUM FOR:||REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS|
|FROM:||RICHARD E. FAIRFAX, DIRECTOR|
[DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS]
|SUBJECT:||OSHA Enforcement: Vertical Food Mixers|
... [Compliance officers] shall record at a minimum the identity of the exposed employee, the hazard to which the employee was exposed, the employee's proximity to the hazard, the employer's knowledge of the condition, and the manner in which important measures were obtained.... [emphasis added]The NOTE after this paragraph states:
If employee exposure (either to safety or health hazards) is not observed, the [compliance officer] shall document facts on which the determination is made that an employee has been or could be exposed.The issue of employee exposure is also addressed by the FIRM, in Chapter III, Inspection Documentation under the discussion of Violations. On page III-5, paragraph C.1.b.(2) states: "The proximity of the workers to the point of danger of the operation shall be documented."
... in order for the Secretary to establish employee exposure to a hazard she must show that it is reasonably predictable either by operational necessity or otherwise (including inadvertence), that employees have been, are, or will be in the zone of danger. We emphasize that, as we stated in Rockwell, the inquiry is not simply into whether exposure is theoretically possible. Rather, the question is whether employee entry into the danger zone is reasonably predictable.The Commission will usually not find there to be a reasonable predictability of inadvertent contact unless the employee's hands are in the "immediate vicinity" of the hazardous area.
|Standard Interpretations - Table of Contents|