FY
2003 | FY 2004 |
FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
FY 2007| FY 2008 |
141
Title: Anesthetic Gases: Guidelines for Workplace
Exposures
Agency Receiving Correction Request: Occupational
Safety and Health Administration
Date Received: September 13, 2005
Information Quality Correction Request: The requestor
writes in an email, "I have a question about the last paragraph: Controlled
rebreathing systems used for very small animals allow exhaled gases to be
immediately expelled from the system into the room air..." The requestor
suggested "...omitting 'used for very small animals' because nonbreathing
systems can be used for animals which are not very small in size."
Interim Resolution: OSHA informed the requestor that
they would confirm the content of her suggestion by consulting with the
American Veterinary Medical Association's Council on Veterinary Service and the
College of Veterinary Anesthesiologists.
Final Resolution: OSHA wrote: "This is to inform you that the
OSHA Salt Lake Technical Center has made your suggested change to OSHA's
Technical Manual on Waste Anesthetic Gases. I recently received concurrence
from the American Veterinary Medical Association that your suggested wording
was correct..."
This request was closed May 19, 2006.
134
Title: Diesel Particulate Matter Rule
Agency Receiving Correction Request: Mine Safety and
Health Administration
Date Received: August 16, 2005
Information Quality Correction Request: Information
regarding this request can be found below.
Resolution:
Appeal:
123
Title: Ergonomics Guidelines for Poultry Processing,
Retail Grocery Stores, and Nursing Homes
Agency Receiving Correction Request: Occupational
Safety and Health Administration
Date Received: April 14, 2005
Information Quality Correction Request: Information
regarding this request can be found below.
Resolution: Information regarding the resolution of
this request can be found below.
This request was closed July 28, 2005.
Appeal: Information regarding this appeal can be found
below.
Date Appeal Received: October 27, 2005
Appeal Resolution: Information regarding this appeal
can be found below.
122 (No longer classified as an
Information Quality Correction Request)
Title: Timber Trench Shoring
Agency Receiving Correction Request: Occupational
Safety and Health Administration
Date Received: April 4, 2005
Information Quality Correction Request: The requestor
stated in an email: There appears to be an error in the Timber Trench
Shoring Tables C-1.1 through C-2.3. The allowable bending strength for douglas
fir is given as 1500 psi and that for mixed oak is given as 850 psi, but the
sizes of the uprights are much larger for the fir than for the oak. Is there
some explanation or is there some error in the tables?
Resolution: On May 17, 2005 OSHA emailed the
requestor: "The difference between the tables over the dimensions for fir and
oak was addressed in the preamble to the final rule for excavations from 1989.
[That preamble discussion is not available on the osha.gov web site.] In
explaining the differences between the tables in Appendix C, the preamble to
the final rule gets into a discussion of the different bending strengths
between the two types of wood (a hardwood vs. a softwood, which is part of the
contrast) as well as the use of nominal versus dimension lumber." The 10/31/89
Final Rule (FR) document preamble was also provided to the correspondent.
On May 18, 2005, the requestor again emailed, "Thank you again for your
response. Reference is made to 'NBS data.' Is that referring to 'National
Design Specification for Wood Construction' or NDS, or is it something else?
Thanks." A second email from OSHA explained that NBS referred to the National
Bureau of Standards now the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST).
This request was closed May 18, 2005.
121 (No longer classified as an
Information Quality Correction Request)
Title: Inspection Error
Agency Receiving Correction Request: Occupational
Safety and Health Administration
Date Received: March 4, 2005
Information Quality Correction Request: A fatality and
an injury were reported on an accident investigation (Inspection 123684904).
The requestor claims that the fatality is incorrect. The requestor also states
that a serious injury occurred and resulted in a hospitalization. However, the
employee continued to work for the same company until last year.
Resolution: OSHA telephoned the correspondent with a
response. During the conversation, OSHA explained that the inspection occurred
and that the record would stand as is.
This request was closed April 20, 2005.
111 (No longer classified as an
Information Quality Correction Request)
Title: Workplace Safety and Health
Agency Receiving Correction Request: Occupational
Safety and Health Administration
Date Received: January 12, 2005
Information Quality Correction Request: The requestor
stated in an email: It doesn't seem accurate to relate the [29 CFR
1910].55 materials to the 29 CFR 1910.160, 161, and 162 as applicable
standards.
Resolution: On January 5, 2005, OSHA responded citing
an August 11, 1994 memorandum for Regional Administrators, a February 1, 1999
letter and a May 11, 1999 letter discussing the difference between maintenance
and construction work. This can be viewed on the Internet at
http://www.osha.gov. "OSHA's regulations
define construction work as 'construction, alteration, and/or repair, including
painting and decorating.' 1 Section 1910.12(a) further provides that OSHA's
construction industry standards apply 'to every employment and place of
employment of every employee engaged in construction work.'
Unlike construction work, there is no regulatory definition for
'maintenance,' nor a specified distinction between terms such as 'maintenance,'
'repair,' or 'refurbishment.' 'Maintenance activities' have commonly been
defined in dictionaries as making or keeping a structure, fixture or foundation
(substrates) in proper condition in a routine, scheduled, or anticipated
fashion. In OSHA's directive on the general industry confined space standard,
the Agency stated that maintenance involves 'keeping equipment working in its
existing state, i.e., preventing its failure or decline'3 [emphasis added]. In
applying this concept to the broad range of circumstances encountered in the
construction industry, the factors discussed in the letters and those discussed
below must also be considered.
Construction work is not limited to new construction, but can include
the repair of existing facilities or the replacement of structures and their
components. For example, the replacement of one utility pole with a new,
identical pole would be maintenance; however, if it were replaced with an
improved pole or equipment, it would be considered construction.
In addition to the concept of one-for-one replacement versus
improvement, the scale and complexity of the project are relevant."
"This takes into consideration concepts such as the amount of time and
material required to complete the job. For example, if a steel beam in a
building had deteriorated and was to be replaced by a new, but identical beam,
the project would be considered a construction repair rather than maintenance
because of the replacement project's scale and complexity. Also, if a bridge
was to be stripped and re-painted, that would be considered construction work
even if the repainting were done on a scheduled basis. Replacement of a section
of limestone cladding on a building, though not necessarily a large project in
terms of scale, would typically be considered construction because it is a
complex task in view of the steps involved and tools and equipment needed to do
the work.
As discussed in the Tindell letter, the physical size of an object that
is being worked on can be a factor if, because of its size, the process of
removal and replacement involves significantly altering the structure or
equipment that the component is within. This is another example of how the
project scale and complexity is relevant - if the process of removal and
replacement is a large-scale project, then it is likely to be construction. It
is not the classification of what you are working on as "equipment" or
"structure" that is significant, but rather the project's scale and
complexity.
Characteristics such as the material of the component are sometimes
relevant in determining what specific standards apply, although by themselves
such characteristics are unlikely to be an important factor in deciding whether
an activity is considered maintenance or construction.
Whether the work is performed in-house or by an outside contractor is
not a factor; it is not the personnel which will determine whether work will be
considered maintenance or construction, but the work itself."
This request was closed February 1, 2005.
113 (No longer classified as an
Information Quality Correction Request)
Title: Enforcement Procedures and Scheduling for
Occupational Exposure to Tuberculosis
Agency Receiving Correction Request: Occupational
Safety and Health Administration
Date Received: January 27, 2005
Information Quality Correction Request: The requestor
stated in an email: OSHA publication: "CPL 02-00-106 - CPL 2.106 -
Enforcement Procedures and Scheduling for Occupational Exposure to
Tuberculosis" Appendix B describes the use of smoke trails for testing. The
document is somewhat misleading and deficient in information since there are
other test procedures that are not as invasive and alarming to patients as the
smoke is. One such device on the market is the ball-in-tube indicator that
mounts through the wall and continuously monitors the room for negative airflow
into the room. It has a failsafe feature, requires no electricity and the staff
can see it every time they go to the room, without smoke! In all fairness, a
bulletin should be issued explaining such.
Resolution: On February 14, 2005 OSHA sent an email to
the correspondent stating, "....In the 1990's, the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) demonstrated that smoke generated from
smoke tubes was very dilute by the time it was dispersed and near a patient.
Tests performed by NIOSH demonstrated that no deleterious health effects were
caused by smoke present from a smoke puff at the door undercut. The NIOSH
results were published in the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
TB Guidelines. This reference was also in the NIOSH submissions to OSHA
following OSHA's publication of the proposed Standard on TB. Another document
used in reviewing the use of smoke tube tests was Guidelines on the
Design and Operation of HVAC Systems in Disease Isolation Areas, which is
meant to incorporate guidelines provided by nationally recognized agencies and
military design offices into a central document for new and existing
facilities. It is intended to be used as a supplement to design criteria
published by the DOD and other national agencies and organizations. Chapter 6,
Recommendations for HVAC System Testing and Maintenance, recommends
that smoke tubes be used when the room is temporarily unoccupied (i.e., patient
is in the shower, out for exercise, etc.). In the CDC Guidelines for
Preventing the Transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in Health-Care
Facilities, 1994," the section on monitoring negative pressures gives the HVAC
engineer and/or safety and health professional the option to monitor the
negative pressure in a room by visually observing the direction of airflow
(e.g., using smoke tubes) or by measuring the differential pressure between the
room and its surrounding area. It's cautionary remark states that smoke is
irritating if inhaled and care should be taken not to inhale it directly from
the smoke tube. However, the quantity of smoke generated from the tube is
minimal and is not detectable at short distances from the tube."
This request was closed March 2, 2005.
114 (No longer classified as an
Information Quality Correction Request)
Title: Remove citation posted on OSHA web site
Agency Receiving Correction Request: Occupational
Safety and Health Administration
Date Received: January 27, 2005
Information Quality Correction Request: The requestor
stated in an email referring to OSHRC Docket No. 04-0212 and OSHA Inspection
306804931: The above referenced docket was withdrawn. I have a signed
letter by DOL and Judge Irving Sommer dated 5/6/2005. There were no violations.
How do I get this removed? Why, when potential clients go to the OSHA citation
search web site to check out our firm do they see we have been cited for
exposing our workers to serious electrical hazards?
Resolution: On May 11, 2005, OSHA telephoned the
correspondent and explained that the record would not be changed.
This request was closed on May 11, 2005.
118 (No longer classified as an
Information Quality Correction Request)
Title: Erroneous Inspection Information
Agency Receiving Correction Request: Occupational
Safety and Health Administration
Date Received: March 2, 2005
Information Quality Correction Request: The requestor
stated in an email, The substance listed for the four violations of
1910.1200 is listed as tetramethyl lead. It should be isopropyl alcohol
(Inspection No. 305934283).
Resolution: On March 29, 2005, OSHA emailed the
requestor: The correction you requested has been made. See:
http://merlin.osha.gov/cgi-bin/est/est1vd?30593428302001.
This request was closed March 29, 2005.
130
Title: Respirator Assigned Protection Factors
Agency Receiving Correction Request: Occupational
Safety and Health Administration
Date Received: February 10, 2005
Information Quality Correction Request: Information
regarding this request can be found below.
Resolution: Information regarding the resolution of
this request can be found below.
This request was closed April 26, 2005.
Appeal: Information regarding this appeal can be found
below
Date Appeal Received: May 31, 2005
Appeal Resolution: Information regarding the
resolution of this appeal can be found below
This appeal was closed July 21, 2005
|