Aggregates Manager

November 2013

Aggregates Manager Digital Magazine

Issue link:

Contents of this Issue


Page 4 of 86

by Therese Dunphy, Editor-in-Chief November 2013 Vol. 18, No. 11 /AggregatesManager @AggMan_editor Editorial Editor-in-Chief: Therese Dunphy Editorial Director: Marcia Gruver Doyle Online Editor: Wayne Grayson Online Managing Editor: Amanda Bayhi Design & Production Art Director: Sandy Turner, Jr. Production Designer: Timothy Smith Advertising Production Manager: Linda Hapner Construction Media Senior VP, Construction Media: Dan Tidwell VP of Sales, Construction Media: Joe Donald 3200 Rice Mine Rd NE Tuscaloosa, AL 35406 800-633-5953 Corporate Chairman/CEO: Mike Reilly President: Brent Reilly Chief Process Officer: Shane Elmore Chief Administration Officer: David Wright Senior Vice President, Sales: Scott Miller Senior Vice President, Editorial and Research: Linda Longton Vice President of Events: Alan Sims Vice President, Audience Development: Stacy McCants Vice President, Digital Services: Nick Reid Director of Marketing: Julie Arsenault For change of address and other subscription inquiries, please contact: Aggregates Manager TM magazine (ISSN 1552-3071) is published monthly by Randall-Reilly Publishing Company copyright 2013. Executive and Administrative offices, 3200 Rice Mine Rd. N.E., Tuscaloosa, AL 35406. Subscription rates: $24 annually, Non-domestic $125 annually. Single copies: $7. We assume no responsibility for the validity of claims of manufacturers in any advertisement or editorial product information or literature offered by them. Publisher reserves the right to refuse non-qualified subscriptions. Periodical circulation postage paid at Tuscaloosa, Alabama and additional entries. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by an information storage retrieval system, without written permission of the copyright owner. POSTMASTER: Send all UAA to CFS. (See DMM 707.4.12.5); NON-POSTAL AND MILITARY FACILITIES: send address corrections to Aggregates Manager, 3200 Rice Mine Road N.E.,  Tuscaloosa, AL  35406. Editorial_AGRM1113.indd 3 TAKE TIME itAND Get Right O n Sept. 12, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) published a notice of proposed rulemaking for occupational exposure to respirable crystalline silica. While our coverage of health and safety issues typically focuses on the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), which regulates aggregate operations, this is an issue that must be addressed now (read more details on page 32). As most of you already know, crystalline silica is often found in stone, sand, and gravel, among other common construction materials. The impact of this rulemaking is enormous; industry experts estimate the cost of this regulation to be $658 million. In addition, MSHA has said it intends to introduce a silica regulation for the mining industry. Its regulation is expected to rely on this standard's regulatory analysis. When the notice was published, OSHA allowed a 90-day window for public review and comment. As Dec. 11 rapidly approaches, consider that the rule — which proposes a 50-percent reduction in the current permissible exposure limit to 50µg/m3 of workspace air and an action level of 25µg/m3 of workspace air — had a development period of more than a dozen years. The White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) began to review it in February 2011. It took the OMB two and a half years to review the proposed rulemaking because the rule itself is 230 pages long. In addition, there are nearly 500 pages of background documents and more than 1,400 pages of preliminary economic analysis. And, the docket for the rulemaking exceeds 1,700 documents! We'd need an industry full of speed-readers just to wade through this stockpile of paperwork within 90 days, let alone develop meaningful and accurate comments. To make matters even more challenging, OSHA has withheld documents used in its rulemaking, despite formal requests for them. So to recap, the agency took 12 years to develop the rule and wants industry to have a little more than 12 weeks to comment on it. A 90-day window denies the public the opportunity to fairly and fully comment on the rule. It is simply unacceptable. So let's talk about what would be an appropriate timeline. It's unrealistic to think that we'd be allowed the same two and a half years OMB had to wade through this regulation, but, at minimum, OSHA should take its original estimate and double it. An extension until March would give the industry a scant two weeks per year of development to review the rule. An additional extension for written testimony, of say 30 to 60 days, might actually give commenters time to put pen to paper and articulate the challenges this rule may pose. As an industry, we must demand an appropriate extension. OSHA must allow experts to process this regulation and provide meaningful feedback. Industry jobs will likely depend on it. AGGREGATES MANAGER November 2013 3 10/18/13 8:47 AM

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Aggregates Manager - November 2013