Rule-Making Notices (Hearing Notices)

These 2010 OSHA editions contain numerous revisions to the 2003 editions. Many of these revisions simply improve clarity and consistency; correct errors; update cross-references to other industry standards; and add new cross-references to other contemporary industry standards. Other revisions that are more substantive include (1) establishing the employer's responsibilities to provide personal protective equipment and training; (2) considerably reducing the permissible exposure limit for hexavalent-chromium compounds, from 0.5 to 0.005 mg/m3; (3) changing the repeat-exposure monitoring periods for acrylonitrile, vinyl chloride, 1-2-dipromo-3-chloropropane, and cotton dust; (4) changing the employer's responsibility for exposure-monitoring notification for acrylonitrile, vinyl chloride, 1-2-dipromo-3-chloropropane, coke-oven emissions, and cotton dust; (5) lengthening the cycle for updating the compliance program for inorganic arsenic, vinyl chloride, 1-2-dipromo-3-chloropropane, and coke-oven emissions; (6) lengthening the minimum timeframe for medical examinations for vinyl chloride and coke-oven emissions; (7) replacing general fire-prevention provisions for shipyards with comprehensive fire-protection provisions; and (8) reinstating roll-over protective-structure provisions from 1996 for tractors used in agricultural operations.

These proposed rule changes would also clarify and update the chapter's scope, application, definitions, inspection criteria, and incorporation-of-standards provisions and would update the Department's current modifications of the incorporated OSHA standards. These updates to these modifications include (1) improving the clarity, consistency, format, and organization of these modifications; (2) clarifying which safety vests or other clothing provide adequate visibility protection for roadway workers; (3) clarifying that traffic-control devices for warning traffic and protecting roadway workers are required by other authorities to comply with the Uniform Traffic Devices Manual produced by the American Traffic Safety Services Association; (4) replacing the additional criteria for securing the footing of ladders, with reference to the standards that are available from the American National Standards Institute for construction and use of portable ladders; (5) repealing the ventilation requirements that overlap with the design requirements in Wisconsin's uniform Commercial Building Code; (6) replacing the plan submittal requirements for spray booths with an informational Note that refers to the corresponding building-design requirements in the Commercial Building Code; (7) clarifying the first-aid and resuscitation training that is acceptable for work in confined spaces; (8) repealing the additional criteria for sampling devices and air monitoring, for confined spaces; (9) clarifying which emergency eyewash and shower facilities provide adequate protection for exposure to materials that are corrosive or can cause irreversible eye or body injury; (10) replacing the additional requirements that overlap with the requirements in ch. SPS 314 for separating incompatible materials from each other, with a revised informational Note that refers to ch. SPS 314; (11) no longer replacing the air-contaminant maximums in 29 CFR 1910 with the maximums from the 1992 edition of 29 CFR 1910, and no longer requiring the additional monitoring relating to those 1992 maximums; (12) requiring dump bodies of all vehicles, rather than just on trucks, to have a locking mechanism for preventing accidental lowering of the body while maintenance or inspection work is being done or while the vehicle is left unattended; (13) repealing the additional requirements for providing guarding along the edge of an excavation; and (14) repealing the additional requirements to provide yellow warning lights for nighttime exposure to excavations.

Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulation

In Wisconsin, OSHA applies its above requirements to private-sector employees but not to public-sector employees. The requirements in ch. SPS 332 apply to public-sector employees but not to private-sector employees. Consequently, although the two sets of requirements are nearly but not entirely identical, they do not overlap in where or how they apply.

This update of ch. SPS 332 does not include consideration of any changes to the above OSHA standards that have occurred after July 1, 2010. The Department plans to consider those changes during its next update of this chapter.

Comparison with rules in adjacent states

An Internet-based search of state-level rules for public-employee safety and health standards in the adjacent states yielded the following results:

Illinois: The Illinois Department of Labor mostly adopts the OSHA standards without any modifications, for protecting all public-sector employees in the state, but has a unique standard for recordkeeping. OSHA has approved the Illinois State Plan, as established under section 18 of the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, but maintains jurisdiction over all private-sector workplaces, federal agencies, maritime employers (e.g., shipyards, marine terminals, and longshoring), military facilities, Indian-sovereignty workplaces, and the United States Postal Service.

Iowa: The Iowa Division of Labor Services administers the OSHA-approved Iowa State Plan, which applies to all public and private sector workplaces in the state, with the exception of private-sector maritime activities, marine terminals, and longshoring; federal-government-owned and contractor-operated military facilities; bridge construction projects spanning the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers between Iowa and other states; federal government employers and employees; and the United States Postal Service (these fall under OSHA jurisdiction). The State Plan includes the following state-specific standards in addition to the OSHA standards: Sanitation and Shelter Rules for Railroad Employees, Hazardous Chemical Risks Right to Know – General Provisions, Community Right to Know, Public Safety/Emergency Response Right to Know, and Asbestos Removal and Encapsulation.

Michigan: The Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MIOSHA) administers the OSHA-approved Michigan State Plan, which applies to all places of employment in the state, with the exception of federal-government employees, the United States Postal Service, maritime and mining activities, and domestic employment, which are subject to OSHA jurisdiction. MIOSHA has adopted most of the OSHA standards by reference, but has a unique standard for child labor.

Minnesota: The Minnesota Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MNOSHA) administers the OSHA-approved Minnesota State Plan, which applies to all places of employment in the state, with the exception of federal government employees, the United States Postal Service, and certain agricultural operations (those pertaining to the field sanitation standard and temporary labor camps), which are subject to federal jurisdiction. MNOSHA has adopted most of the OSHA standards by reference, and has the following unique standards: Toxic Chemical Handling and Exposure, Agriculture, Repetitive Motion Injuries, Heat Exposure, and Noise Exposure.

Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies

These proposed rule changes were developed primarily by comparing the July 1, 2003, editions of the six OSHA standards that are currently incorporated into ch. SPS 332 to the July 1, 2010, editions which are proposed to be incorporated in place of the 2003 editions. All of the Department's current modifications of the 2003 editions were then analyzed in comparison to the 2010 editions, and in comparison to current best practices. These comparisons and analyses were then presented to and discussed with the Department's Public Safety Advisory Council, and the Council's resulting recommendations were incorporated into these proposed rule changes. The following organizations and agencies were represented on this Council:

City of Milwaukee

Department of Administrtion, Division of State Facilities

Department of Administrtion, State Risk Management

League of Wisconsin Municipalities

Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District

Municipal Electric Utilities of Wisconsin

University of Wisconsin System

Wisconsin Alliance of Cities

Wisconsin Association of School Boards

Wisconsin Counties Association

Wisconsin Rural Water Association

Wisconsin Towns Association

Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business or in preparation of economic impact analysis

These rule changes would apply only to public-sector employees and their employers, so any economic impacts on small business are expected to only be indirect.

Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis

The Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis is below.

Effect on Small Business

These rule changes are not expected to have an economic impact on small businesses as defined in section 227.114 (1) of the Statutes. The Department's Regulatory Review Coordinator may be contacted by e-mail at [e-mail], or by calling [phone].

Agency Contact Person

Sam Rockweiler, Rules Coordinator, at the Department of Safety and Professional Services, Division of Policy Development, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 151, P.O. Box 8366, Madison, WI, 53708-8366; or at telephone [phone]; or by e-mail at [e-mail]; or by telecommunications relay services at 711.

STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DOA-2049 (R03/2012)	Division of Executive Budget and Finance 101 East Wilson Street, 10th Floor P.O. Box 7864 Madison, WI 53707-7864 FAX: [phone]
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES Fiscal Estimate & Economic Impact Analysis

1. Type of Estimate and Analysis
X Original   ⍽ Updated   ⍽ Corrected
2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
SPS 332, Public Employee Safety and Health
3. Subject
Public Employee Safety and Health Standards
4. Fund Sources Affected			5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
⍽ GPR   ⍽ FED   X PRO   ⍽ PRS   ⍽ SEG   ⍽ SEG-S			20.165(2)(j)
6. Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
⍽ No Fiscal Effect ⍽ Indeterminate	⍽ Increase Existing Revenues ⍽ Decrease Existing Revenues		X Increase Costs X Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget ⍽ Decrease Cost
7. The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
⍽ State's Economy ⍽ Local Government Units		⍽ Specific Businesses/Sectors ⍽ Public Utility Rate Payers ⍽ Small Businesses (if checked, complete Attachment A)
8. Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million? ⍽ Yes   X No
9. Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
Under section 101.055 (3) of the Statutes, the Department is required to adopt, by rule, standards to protect the safety and health of public-sector employees. The standards must provide protection that is at least equal to the protection which is provided to private-sector employees under standards promulgated by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and must be revised as necessary to maintain that equivalent protection. Chapter SPS 332 currently includes, by reference, the July 1, 2003, edition of these OSHA standards – except for maximum-permissible-exposure limits for air contaminants, which are carried forward from the 1992 edition. This rulemaking would primarily update this chapter to include the July 1, 2010, edition of these OSHA standards, and would no longer substitute the 1992 air-contaminants limits in place of the more-recent OSHA limits.
10. Summary of the businesses, business sectors, associations representing business, local governmental units, and individuals that may be affected by the proposed rule that were contacted for comments.
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
12. Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
No significant negative economic or fiscal impact is expected.
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
The safety and health risks that public-sector employees are exposed to would be reduced to the level that private-sector employees were exposed to under the 2010 edition of these OSHA standards.
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
Same as number 13.
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
See comparison in the rule analysis that accompanies the proposed rule revisions.
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
See comparison in the rule analysis that accompanies the proposed rule revisions.
17. Contact Name				18. Contact Phone Number
Sam Rockweiler				608-266-0797

This document can be made available in alternate formats to individuals with disabilities upon request.