For example, if a new solvent is brought into the workplace, skol lager beer crocs and it has hazards similar to existing chemicals for which training has already been conducted, then no new training is required.
skol lager beer crocs
argued that the rule is not feasible for small businesses, and is too costly to implement (see, e.g., Exs. 11-3, 11-39, , and ). “The HCS was enacted for all the right reasons skol lager beer crocs but has placed an unreasonable burden on small businesses.” Ex. 11-39. OSHA recognizes that there are costs involved in achieving compliance, but our analyses indicate that these costs are feasible, and the requirements are necessary to achieve employee protection. In summary, OSHA concludes that there is substantial evidence in the record indicating that there is a significant risk in the construction industry that warrants coverage under the HCS; the current requirements for training under 1926.21 do not mitigate that risk sufficiently; and the requirements of the rule can feasibly be implemented in the construction workplace.
With regard to state requirements, OSHA included in the rulemaking record enforcement data from a number of state plan states that expanded the scope to construction prior to promulgation of the Federal rule (Exs. 4-183, 4-184). As can be seen from these statistics, construction employers in these states are found to be in compliance in the majority of inspections. This evidence indicates that the rule is feasible. For example, the state of Tennessee has a provision for exchanging MSDSs on multi-employer worksites. Yet two-thirds of the employers inspected were found to be in complete compliance with the rule, indicating that they must be able to comply with the requirements for exchanging MSDSs. This is confirmation that the industry arguments discussed above are not substantiated in practice. “Additional training is to be done whenever a new hazard is introduced into the work area, not a new chemical.