The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Oct. 19 announced intentions to expand its official interpretation of the term “feasible” in relation to occupational noise exposure standards.  The new interpretation would expand OSHA’s ability to cite companies for not implementing administrative or engineering controls instead of only supplying personal protective equipment.

Under the current enforcement policy, a citation is issued if a company fails to use engineering and administrative controls when they cost less than hearing conservation equipment or such equipment is ineffective.  An example of an administrative control would be to limit the amount of time an employee is exposed to an area with high noise levels, and an example of an engineering control would be to physically install a device to reduce the noise levels of a machine.  Updating the definition of “feasible” to mean “capable of being done,” OSHA would be able to cite a company for not implementing administrative or engineering controls unless that company can demonstrate that implementing such controls would put them out of business or threaten the viability of their company.

In explaining the reason for the new interpretation, OSHA cited a 1981 Supreme Court decision in American Textile Manufacturers Institute Inc., v Donovan that determined the word “feasible” as related to the Occupational Safety and Health Act meant “capable of being done,” regardless of costs or benefits. 

Although the propose interpretation is not the same as a proposed rule and does not require a comment period, OSHA is accepting comments until Dec. 20.  ABC will file comments before the deadline.