OSHA postpones enforcement

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Rehearing

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration previously announced it would begin enforcing fall protection plans for residential contractors as of Oct. 1 this year. However, on Sept. 29, Jeffry Carter, deputy commissioner of labor for Indiana OSHA, issued a memo that said federal OSHA administrators decided to push back enforcement to March 15, 2012. The memo said that employers using fall protection that met interim requirements would not be cited for violations.

The federal OSHA memo can be found on its website:

Fall protection plans have long applied to commercial construction, but 2012 will be the first year that OSHA will require residential contractors to exercise the same level of caution when employees are working more than six feet above the ground.

Under OSHA regulation section 1926.502, all residential construction companies must ensure that workers are protected from falling by means of safety nets, guardrails or other safety mechanisms like harnesses. This new directive seems to be a direct response to the high number of workplace fatalities caused by falls.

Preliminary findings of the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries show that 115 people died on the job in Indiana last year, 18 of whom worked in construction. Across all occupations, falls were the third most common cause of fatal workplace injury, accounting for 17 deaths. Transportation incidents and contact with objects and equipment were the most common causes of workplace fatalities.

OSHA has already given contractors the better part of a year to make sure they’re in compliance with the fall protection guidelines. In December 2010, OSHA announced that it would begin enforcing the guidelines this spring, but that date was pushed back a few times. Before the September announcement, OSHA had said Oct. 1 would be the end of the “grace period” for contractors to adapt to the new standards.

Chetrice Mosley, spokeswoman for the Indiana Department of Labor, the agency that oversees the Indiana OSHA office, said IOSHA has not hired additional inspectors to enforce the revision to its regulations. Generally, she explained, IOSHA investigates a business when a complaint has already been filed; but there are times when businesses are randomly selected for inspection. In any workplace where a fatality has occurred, IOSHA investigates.

Rehearing "New OSHA guidelines" IL Sept. 14-27, 2011


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues