Skip to page content
Office of the Chief Information Officer
Bookmark and Share

FY 2005 Information Quality Correction Requests

FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 | FY 2007 | FY 2008 | FY 2009 | FY 2010


Identification Number: 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.


Identification Number: 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:


Identification Number: 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.


Identification Number: 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.


Identification Number: 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.


Identification Number: 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.


Identification Number: 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.


Identification Number: 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.


Identification Number: 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.


Identification Number: 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