FY
2003 | FY 2004 |
FY 2005
|
FY 2006 | FY 2007 | FY 2008 |
43
Agency Receiving Correction Request: DOL/OSHA-DEA
Date Received: May 3, 2003, received electronically
Summary of Request: On OSHA's web site, the following
regulation (1910.124) is missing some text:
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document
?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id--74&p_text_versionuLSE 1910.124(j)(4) and
(j)(5) are missing. See bottom of page.
Description of Requested Correction: "Complete the text
with the missing information."
Influential: ____ Yes __X__ No __
Undetermined
First Agency Response ____ in progress __X__
completed OSHA responded May 5, 2003
Resolution: Closed, review complete, no correction.
Forwarded request to Directorate of Standards & Guidance. On May 16, 2003
Directorate of Standards and Guidance/OSHA, (202) 693-1982 tested the site and
found no text missing. OSHA sent Email to correspondent on May 28, 2003
indicating that the site had been tested and no text found to be missing. It
was suggested that perhaps there was a glitch in the correspondent's server or
computer when the text was pulled up on the OSHA website.
Appeal Request: __X__ none ____ in progress ____
completed
Summary of Request for Reconsideration:
Type of Appeal Process Used:
Appeal Resolution:
38
Agency Receiving Correction Request: DOL/OSHA/DEA
Date Received: April 17, 2003, received
electronically
Summary of Request: Construction Standard, Section
1926.50 Appendix A, second paragraph refers to the OSHA "200" log. Should this
text have been amended when OSHA changed the recordkeeping form to the
300s?
Description of Requested Correction: Asks that the
correction be made and that someone let him know when it is amended.
Influential: ____ Yes __X__ No ____
Undetermined
First Agency Response ____ in progress __X__
completed OSHA responded October 14, 2003
Resolution: Closed, review complete, no correction. On
10/14/03 OSHA emailed him that change would not be done as this problem
represents a major website revision issue. It is not just the 29 CFR Standards,
but documents of every type, from many different offices. It is the
responsibility of the web officers for the originating offices, to review and
keep their documents up-to-date, and for submitting updates to the Webmaster
for any specific changes to their documents.
In the regulatory text and preamble that was produced in 2001 when the
new OSHA Recordkeeping Forms were proposed, it was noted that whenever the term
"200 Log" is used in the new regulatory text, it is referring to the form used
prior to the effective date (January 1, 2002) of the new Forms.
Appeal Request: __X__ none ____ in progress ___
completed
Summary of Request for Reconsideration:
Type of Appeal Process Used:
Appeal Resolution:
49
Agency Receiving Correction Request: DOL/OSHA-DEA
Date Received: August 20, 2003, received electronically
Summary of Request: In the Establishment Search
Inspection Data, information regarding one of their clients has been
incorrectly stated.
Description of Requested Correction: The requestor has
a copy of the fully Executed Stipulated Settlement Agreement which states the
proper information and the signed Judge's Order Approving Settlement.
Influential: ____Yes ____ No __X__
Undetermined
First Agency Response ____ in progress __X__
completed OSHA responded September 9, 2003
Resolution: Closed, review complete w/correction.
Directorate of Enforcement Programs contacted the requestor to determine the
identification of the establishment and its location on September 9, 2003 and
the matter was settled to their mutual satisfaction by posting the correct
information supplied by the requestor on September 16, 2003.
Appeal Request: __X__ none ____ in progress ___
completed
Summary of Request for Reconsideration:
Type of Appeal Process Used:
Appeal Resolution:
29
Agency Receiving Correction Request: DOL/OSHA-DEA
Date Received: December 11, 2002, received
electronically
Summary of Request: Error in DIR 02-02 (TED 3.5)
Description of Requested Correction: TED 3.5 left out
the denominator in the calculation of percent difference the site is from the
industry average. The BLS industry rate should be in the denominator. The
correspondent puts the site rate in the denominator which is also
incorrect.
Influential: ____Yes __X__ No ____
Undetermined
First Agency Response ____ in progress __X__
completed OSHA responded December 13, 2002 and on March 25, 2003 replaced
Instruction with corrected Direction.
Resolution: On 12/13/02 correspondent was sent
following Email: "We have attempted to correct this error in the past, but for
some reason it keeps deleting the denominator when put on the web. It seems to
be a formatting problem because the formula is correct in the hard copy of the
directive. i.e....[Site Rate-BLS rate]/BSL rate x 100. Our regions know the
correct formula and have been informed that the web site is incorrect." On
03/25/03 TED 8.4 (containing the correction) replaced OSHA Instruction TED 8.1a
and OSHA Direction DIR 02-02 (TED 3.5, which were canceled.
Appeal Request: __X__ none ____ in progress ___
completed
Summary of Request for Reconsideration:
Type of Appeal Process Used:
Appeal Resolution:
12
Agency Receiving Correction Request: DOL/OSHA-DEA
Date Received: October 11, 2002, received
electronically
Summary of Request: Error on OSHA Bulletin Concerning
Laser Hazards
Description of Requested Correction: In the excerpt
below the 0.4 w should be 0.4 mw. This makes a tremendous difference!
Lasers and laser systems are assigned one of four broad Classes (I to
IV) depending on the potential for causing biological damage. The biological
basis of the hazard classes are summarized in Table III:6-4.a. Class I: cannot
emit laser radiation at known hazard levels (typically continuous wave: cw 0.4
w at visible wavelengths). Users of Class I laser products are generally exempt
from radiation hazard controls during operation and maintenance (but not
necessarily during service). Since lasers are not classified on beam access
during service, most Class
.
Influential: ____Yes __X__ No ____
Undetermined
First Agency Response ____ in progress __X__
completed OSHA responded October 25, 2002.
Resolution: Closed, review complete w/correction. Tech
Support posted correction as of 11/04/03.
Appeal Request: __X__ none ____ in progress ___
completed
Summary of Request for Reconsideration:
Type of Appeal Process Used:
Appeal Resolution:
44
Agency Receiving Correction Request: DOL/OSHA-DEA
Date Received: June 26, 2003, received electronically
Summary of Request: Grocery warehousing e-CAT missing
text and Figures 10 and 11.
Description of Requested Correction: Need to include
references to Figure 10 and Figure 11 and insert correct paragraphs.
Influential: ____Yes __X__ No ____
Undetermined
First Agency Response ____ in progress__X__
completed OSHA responded July 8, 2003 and correction posted July 22, 2003.
Resolution: Closed, review complete w/correction. The
problem was found and the correction made. The requestor was informed on July
23, 2003 that the corrections had been posted on the website.
Appeal Request: __X__ none ____ in progress ___
completed
Summary of Request for Reconsideration:
Type of Appeal Process Used:
Appeal Resolution:
42
Agency Receiving Correction Request: DOL/OSHA-DEA
Date Received: May 2, 2003, received electronically
Summary of Request: Inclusion of AMA in Guidelines for
First Aid Programs (CPL 2-2.53): Paragraph A-4
Description of Requested Correction: Add following
paragraph: "The American Heart Association Heartsaver First Aid Course provides
training in basic first aid procedures, with the opportunity for training in
adult CPR and the use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs). The American
Heart Association offers standard and advanced first aid courses throughout the
United States via their Training Centers. After completion of the course and
successful passing of the written and practical tests, trainees receive a
certification card in either first aid, first aid with cardiopulmonary
resuscitation (CPR) or first aid with CPR and AED."
Influential: ____Yes __X__ No ____
Undetermined
First Agency Response ____ in progress __X__
completed OSHA responded May 02, 2003
Resolution: Closed, review complete w/correction.
Paragraph posted on the OSHA website as requested on May 22, 2003.
Appeal Request: __ X__ none ____ in progress ___
completed
Summary of Request for Reconsideration:
Type of Appeal Process Used:
Appeal Resolution:
50
Agency Receiving Correction Request: DOL/OSHA-DEA
Date Received: August 20, 2003, received electronically
Summary of Request: Correct inspection information
regarding ownership as it reflects badly on current owner, Liquid
Container.
Description of Requested Correction: Wants information
removed as it pertains to an establishment purchased by the complainant 3 years
after the inspection and citations were issued to the former owner.
Influential: ____Yes __X__ No ____
Undetermined
First Agency Response ____ in progress __X__
completed OSHA initially responded October 10, 2003 denying correction and
decision Emailed to the requestor on October 14, 2002.
Resolution: Email message stated: "The OSHA database's
Establishment Search function is designed to present the history of OSHA
activity at a specific worksite, not the history of a specific employer. There
is no information in the database that would indicate the owner of the
establishment. Therefore, all inspections of Liquid Container will be displayed
in response to an establishment search of that name.
Please be assured that any subsequent OSHA actions at the site which
take into account the history of violations, such as issuance of repeat or
willful violations, would not be based solely on an establishment search but
would take into consideration other information such as ownership.
I hope that this information serves to clarify our policy."
Appeal Request: ____ none ____ in progress __X__
completed Appeal received October 14, 2003 via Email OSHA responded
November 6, 2003 with correction
Summary of Request for Reconsideration: OSHA's own
definition of "Establishment Name" states, "Identifies the employer who was
inspected", not the activity at a specific worksite. Owner at time of
inspection was U.S. Container Corporation and not Liquid Container.
Type of Appeal Process Used: Senior official review
Appeal Resolution: Closed, appeal complete
w/correction. In response to the requestor's email, OSHA's data office has
changed the database so that a search for "Liquid Container" will only bring up
the inspections at the Fruitland Avenue address since December 1999.
Currently, three inspections are shown, all in 2002 or 2003. The earlier
inspections are now listed under "United States Container Corp."
45
Agency Receiving Correction Request: DOL/OSHA-DEA
Date Received: July 1, 2003, received electronically
Summary of Request: Missing Table O-12
Description of Requested Correction: Upon reviewing the
subject standards, I noted a reference to a Table O-12 in 1910.219(e)(1)(i) and
1910.219(o)(5)(ii), and 1926.307(e)(1)(i) and 1926.307(o)(5)(ii). However, I
cannot find Table O-12 anywhere in 1910 or 1926. 1910, Subpart O, has a Table
O-11, but none higher (Figures O-1 through O-38 do not relate to the topic).
1926, Subpart I, has no tables at all (Figures I-1 to I-12 do not relate to the
topic), and 1926, Subpart O "Motor Vehicles, Mechanized Equipment, and Marine
Operations" not only does not relate to the topic but has neither Tables or
Figures. The same error has existed in past years. Can we get it corrected?
Influential: ____Yes __X__ No ____
Undetermined
First Agency Response ____ in progress __X__
completed OSHA responded November 13, 2003.
Resolution: Closed, review complete with correction.
The errors noted in §§1910.219 and 1926.307 have been corrected. The
technical amendment correcting those errors was published in the Federal
Register on June 8, 2004.
Appeal Request: __X__ none ____ in progress ___
completed
Summary of Request for Reconsideration:
Type of Appeal Process Used:
Appeal Resolution:
65
Agency Receiving Correction Request: DOL/OSHA-DEA
Date Received: August 21, 2003, received electronically
Summary of Request: Critique of OSHA 3115 Handbook
(Underground Construction)
Description of Requested Correction: Wants proofreading
corrections made
Influential: ____Yes __X__ No ____
Undetermined
First Agency Response ____ in progress __X__
completed OSHA responded October 21, 2003
Resolution: Closed, review complete w/correction. The
correspondent was informed via Email dated 10/21/2003 that "
this
publication has been updated and is scheduled for archiving within the next few
days. The hard copy version of this 1996 publication was correct. The 2003 hard
copy version has been available since August, 25, 2003 from the OSHA
publications center at 202-693-1888." The 2003 electronic copy appeared on the
OSHA Internet site as of 11/01/2003.
Appeal Request: __X__ none ____ in progress ___
completed
Summary of Request for Reconsideration:
Type of Appeal Process Used:
Appeal Resolution:
40
Agency Receiving Correction Request: DOL/OSHA-DEA
Date Received: March 6, 2003, received electronically
Summary of Request: OSHA Technical Manual
Correction
Description of Requested Correction: The manual at link
www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/otm_ii/otm_ii_1.html
refers to the Sensidyne-Gastec Model 800 Part No. 7010657 (piston). Sensidyne
no longer holds the rights to distribute Gastec products. NEXTTEQ, LLC is now
the exclusive U.S. master wholesale distributor. Additionally, the pump has
been updated and has a new part number and name.
Influential: ____Yes __X__ No ____
Undetermined
First Agency Response ____ in progress __X__
completed OSHA responded May 6, 2003
Resolution: Closed, review complete w/correction.
Contacted company in Japan on a couple of the verbiage issues and on 05/06/03
OSHA posted the following changes:
From: "SENSIDYNE-GASTEC, MODEL 800, PART NO. 7010657-1 (PISTON). This
pump can be checked for leaks as mentioned for the Kitagawa pump; however, the
handle should be released after 1 minute, and should return to within 6-mm or
less of resting or fully closed position. Periodic relubrication of the pump
head, the piston gasket, and the piston check valve is needed and is
use-dependent."
To: "NEXTTEQ, LLC (GASTEC MODEL GV-100 PISTON SAMPLING PUMP). When
checking the pump for leaks, first confirm that the inlet clamping nut is
firmly tightened. Next, push the pump handle fully in and align the guide marks
on the pump shaft and handle. Then insert a fresh unbroken tube into the rubber
inlet of the pump. Pull out the handle fully until it is locked, and wait 1
minute. Unlock the handle (by turning it more than 1/4 turn) and guide it back
gradually applying a little force. Otherwise, the handle will spring back due
to the vacuum in the cylinder and may damage the internal parts. Confirm the
handle returns to the initial position and the guideline on the pump shaft is
not seen. If this is not confirmed, follow the maintenance procedures explained
in the operations manual for the Model GV-100 pump, or contact your Nextteq
representative for maintenance assistance. The maintenance procedures involve
leak checks on the inlet clamping nut and rubber inlet, and performing pump
cylinder lubrication. Nextteq is Gastec's exclusive U.S. master wholesale
distributor. The Gastec Corporation manufactures Gastec tubes and pumps."
Appeal Request: __X__ none ____ in progress ___
completed
Summary of Request for Reconsideration:
Type of Appeal Process Used:
Appeal Resolution:
47
Agency Receiving Correction Request: DOL/OSHA-DEA
Date Received: July 1, 2003, received electronically
Summary of Request: Possible Error in Summary Table of
Beryllium Exposure
Description of Requested Correction: Error in summary
table of beryllium exposure limits (http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/beryllium/index.html):
according to Table Z-2 (http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?
p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9993), "30-minute" modifier should be mentioned
in conjunction with peak exposure limit for beryllium, not with ceiling limit
for beryllium. Same "30 minute" modifier is similarly applied erroneously to
the ceiling limit on following page
http://www.osha.gov/dts/chemicalsampling/data/CH_220600.html.
Similarly, "30-minute" modifier is applied erroneously to ceiling limit
and not to peak exposure limit on following page:
http://www.osha.gov/dts/hib/hib_data/hib19990902.html.
Influential: ____Yes __X__ No ____
Undetermined
First Agency Response ____ in progress __X__
completed OSHA responded October 9, 2003
Resolution: Closed, review complete, no correction.
OSHA E-mailed the requestor that there is no error and that OSHA's explanation
of ceiling values and peak values is more clearly described in 1910.1000 under
paragraph (b)(2).
Appeal Request: __X__ none ____ in progress ___
completed
Summary of Request for Reconsideration:
Type of Appeal Process Used:
Appeal Resolution:
46
Agency Receiving Correction Request: DOL/OSHA-DEA
Date Received: August 20, 2003, received electronically
Summary of Request: Incorrect Name for American Dental
Hygienists'Association
Description of Requested Correction: "American Dental
Hygiene Association." is incorrect and should read, "The American Dental
Hygienists' Association."
Influential: ____Yes __X__ No ____
Undetermined
First Agency Response ____ in progress __X__
completed OSHA responded September 9, 2003
Resolution: Closed, review complete w/correction.
Correction posted on website on 08/21/03.
Appeal Request: __X__ none ____ in progress ___
completed
Summary of Request for Reconsideration:
Type of Appeal Process Used:
Appeal Resolution:
55
Agency Receiving Correction Request: DOL/OSHA-DEA
Date Received: August 21, 2003, received electronically
Summary of Request: Incorrect SIC Code
Description of Requested Correction: Motorola - Fort
Worth Complex has the wrong SIC Code on the VPP charts located on
http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/vpp/index.html
. Both charts have our SIC code as 2869 which is incorrect. The correct SIC
code is 3663. Please correct or advise whom to contact concerning this
error.
Influential: ____Yes __X__ No ____
Undetermined
First Agency Response ____ in progress __X__
completed OSHA responded September 19, 2003
Resolution: Closed, review complete w/correction. OSHA
Fed/State Ops authorized the correction, which was made in the latest monthly
VPP stats for August which were posted on the OSHA website as of 09/19/2003.
(Only the current month's VPP stats are posted online.)
Appeal Request: __X__ none ____ in progress ___
completed
Summary of Request for Reconsideration:
Type of Appeal Process Used:
Appeal Resolution:
51
Agency Receiving Correction Request: DOL/OSHA-DEA
Date Received: August 20, 2003, received electronically
Summary of Request: OSHA 1910.145 - Specifications for
accident prevention signs and tags, sites American National Standard
Z53.1-1967. The present version of the ANSI specification is Z53.1-1998. Is it
implied that the latest version should be adhered to when new designs are in
process?
Description of Requested Correction: Wants updates,
which OSHA will provide as soon as FEDERAL REGISTER publication and process of
changing regulations is completed.
Influential: ____Yes __X__ No ____
Undetermined
First Agency Response ____ in progress __X__
completed OSHA responded November 13, 2003
Resolution: Correspondent informed via Email that
updates are scheduled, but will be take time as must be published in FEDERAL
REGISTER. He was given a contact name and number for further updating
information.
Appeal Request: __X__ none ____ in progress ___
completed
Summary of Request for Reconsideration:
Type of Appeal Process Used:
Appeal Resolution:
25
Agency Receiving Correction Request: DOL/MSHA
Date Received:: November 18, 2002 by email
Summary of Request: An error in the Number of Surface
Coal Empl. Historical Statistics 1931 - 2001
Description of Requested Correction: Same as above.
Influential: ___ Yes __X__ No __Undetermined
First Agency Response: ___in progress __X__
completed
Resolution: Correction made
Appeal Request: __X__ none ___in progress
___completed
Summary of Request for Reconsideration:
Type of Appeal Process Used:
Appeal Resolution:
67
Agency Receiving Correction Request: DOL/MSHA
Date Received : Received September 12, 2003 by
email
Summary of Request: The requestor
stated, "While reviewing the data for our citation history I saw the
information for 1998 is incorrect. All citations for that year have been
duplicated resulting in information suggesting we had twice as many citations
in 1998 as actually occurred. If you could please help me correct this matter I
would appreciate it."
Description of Requested Correction: Same as above
Influential: ___Yes __X__ No ___
Undetermined
First Agency Response: ___ in progress __X__
completed
Resolution: Computer system bug was corrected.
Appeal Request: __X__ none ___ in progress ___
completed
Summary of Request for Reconsideration:
Type of Appeal Process Used:
Appeal Resolution:
36
Agency Receiving Correction Request: U.S. Department of
Labor Veterans' Employment and Training Service
Date Received: February 5, 2003 via E-mail
Summary of Request: Change of Address on our web page:
Under the job description of Radiotelephone Operator we would like to have our
800-288-3824 number listed and the address is a location that
we were at four years ago.
Description of Requested Correction: The correct
address should be:
Electronics Technicians Association, Intl 5 Depot Street
Greencastle, IN 46135
Influential: ___Yes __X__ No
First Agency Response: ____ in progress __X__
completed Final Response: April 4, 2003.
Resolution: Eliminated page which contained incorrect
address. Provided link to new, alternative and consolidated website: It was
determined that we would eliminate redundancy and, more importantly, provide
more efficient, current and effective assistance to the veterans, transitioning
service members and training providers we serve and with whom we partner, by
simply providing a link to Department of Defense sites such as the Department
of the Army's "COOL" site at www.armyeducation.army.mil/cool/.
Appeal Request: __X__ none ____ in progress ____
completed
Summary of Request for Reconsideration:
Type of Appeal Process Used:
Appeal Resolution:
|