Ipc Sections List In Telugu Pdf Free 104
With respect to section 1904.5(a)(1) of the final rule, OSHA has decided to exclude from recording all injuries and illnesses caused by foreign substances which an employer is required to report under 29 CFR 1910.93 (inspection of workplaces). These cases should not be included in the final rule because they are covered by the final rule’s comprehensive new foreign substance exemption. This final rule excludes from recordation all other injuries and illnesses arising out of work situations. These cases include such things as MSDs, repetitive motion disorders, cancer, respiratory diseases, traumatic injury, injuries resulting from the use of medical devices, exposure to biologic agents or xenobiotics, and life-threatening or debilitating occupational diseases. For these cases, OSHA believes that the list of exempt cases as defined in the final rule is consistent with the intent of the Act. The final rule excludes some of the most serious occupational diseases and injuries which would not be covered under this provision. For example, cancers and traumatic injuries are not covered under this provision. Although it may be medically or scientifically feasible to categorize traumatic injuries in terms of contribution to the development of cancer or other disease processes, the Committee has rejected categorizing traumatic injuries this way. This categorization is not consistent with legislative intent, and it is not medically feasible.
Under section 1904.5(b)(2)(iii) of the final rule, OSHA will not include injuries and illnesses arising from psychosocial stressors on the job in the list of nonexempt injuries and illnesses. Psychosocial stressors include stress arising from work supervision, harassment, workload, or a work-related relationship that involves an intimate or close personal contact.
The Act requires the employer to furnish a work environment that is free of recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause injury to an employee. The employer also has a statutory duty to provide a safe workplace to its employees. Employers are generally responsible for implementing and maintaining such safety and health programs for their workers as will be effective in reducing the hazards of their workplaces. For instance, employers must make available to their employees safety-related information, such as safety training, safety handbooks, and instructions on safety and health program implementation.
OSHA received comments from private sector employers, unions, other agencies, and numerous individuals. The comments were almost all in support of the final rule’s proposed regulations for some or all of the following reasons: lower compliance costs; prevent false claims of recordkeeping compliance; provide realistic compliance alternatives for small employers; provide a reliable reporting mechanism that will not be delayed by penalties; provide more safety to employees; lower fear of recordkeeping requirements; provide real-time continuous monitoring of toxic and other substances; and facilitate safety research, while reducing disincentives to safety research by smaller employers. Some commenters suggested that very small employers (i.e., those with employee head counts of 4-5 workers) should not be subjected to the recordkeeping rules.
After considering the comments on the proposed rule, the agency has further revised the first aid treatments in section 1904.8(b)(4)(i) by: (1) Revising the definition of first aid treatment to account for the inclusion of treatments that are generally regarded as first aid regardless of whether they are specifically included in the OSHA First Aid list (e.g., bandage removal and ice packs), but could, under certain circumstances, be regarded as medical treatment; and (2) modifying the language in the section to reflect this revised definition.