The National Advisory Committee on Ergonomics (NACE) will hold its second public meeting in Washington, D.C., May 6-7, 2003.

NACE is chartered to advise the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health on issues related to OSHA's four-pronged approach to reducing ergonomic-related injuries in the workplace-guidelines, research, outreach and assistance, and enforcement.

The second meeting of NACE will continue discussion on OSHA's ergonomics program and presentations made at the first meeting in January. In addition, the committee will set up working groups on research, guidelines, and outreach and assistance. The working groups will meet on the afternoon of May 6 and report to the full committee the following day. OSHA Administrator John Henshaw will address the full committee on May 7.

Source: Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Four teams of inspectors from the State Fire Marshal’s Office will report to State Fire Marshal Tom Gallagher their findings from a review that began on April 28, 2003 of alleged fire code violations in certain Orange County public schools. Concerns about specific deficiencies were reported in a letter Friday from county fire officials to the State Fire Marshal’s Office.

The teams, each consisting of two state fire code inspectors, began the inspections of 97 schools. Under state law, county fire inspectors have jurisdiction over the schools’ compliance with fire codes, but Orange County Assistant Chief/Fire Marshal Daniel Kucik reported in his letter Friday that his office and officials with Orange County Public Schools had reached an impasse over certain findings.

Source: State of Florida

The Office of the Insurance Commissioner (OIC) reached a $500,000 enforcement agreement with Insurance Company of North America (INA) of Pennsylvania for issuing over 140,000 unapproved certificates for travel insurance and other related insurance products in Washington. The entire $500,000 fine will go to Washington's General Fund.

OIC issued a cease and desist order last August against both INA and Travel Guard Group, Inc.of Wisconsin. Both were ordered to stop selling unapproved plans and to stop excluding terrorism-related claims. Travel Guard, with 60% of the travel insurance market nationwide, was ordered to stop representing itself as an insurance company to Washington consumers.

INA filed their insurance products with the OIC in May of 1997. Despite OIC's disapproval, Travel Guard continued to sell INA products in Washington. After several consumer complaints in April of 2002, OIC learned that Travel Guard was continuing to sell unapproved INA products. INA submitted their products for approval again in May of 2002 and once again, they were disapproved. During this time, Travel Guard kept selling the unapproved INA products to Washington consumers and denying coverage for terrorism-related claims until the cease and desist order.

Source: State of Washington

WASHINGTON -- The Occupational Safety and Health Administration today announced it would reopen for 90 days its rulemaking records on proposed revisions to the Walking and Working Surfaces standard and fall protection provisions of the Personal Protective Equipment standard.

OSHA first proposed revisions on the two standards together in 1990 because of the interdependent nature of the hazards and working conditions that they address. Since then, technology has changed, industry practice has evolved and the costs of controls have been affected. OSHA is reopening the record to gather data and information on these advances and to invite public comment on specific issues concerning each proposal.

The Walking and Working Surfaces standard provides general industry requirements for employers to protect their workers from slips, trips and falls that may cause serious or fatal injuries. OSHA is seeking further comment on the issues of rolling stock and self-propelled, motorized equipment, in addition to qualified climbers, rung width on fixed ladders, hierarchy of fall protection controls, scaffolds and controlled descent devices, and anchors for suspended work.

The Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) standard for general industry contains requirements covering the use and maintenance of PPE, as well as specific provisions on requirements for various types of PPE such as eye, face, head and respiratory protection. OSHA is interested in comments on whether the agency should prohibit the use of body belts for fall arrest and on fall protection amendments to several existing general industry standards.

Source: Occupational Safety and Health Administration

OSHA has developed Information Regarding Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) to provide relevant and timely information regarding this illness to employers, employees, and other interested parties. OSHA may update this information as additional information concerning SARS becomes available.

While the information references enforceable OSHA standards, the information itself is not a new standard or regulation, and it creates no new or independent legal obligations. The Occupational Safety and Health Act requires employers to comply with hazard-specific safety and health standards. In addition, pursuant to Section 5(a)(1) of the OSHAct (the "General Duty Clause"), employers must provide their employees with a workplace free from recognized hazards likely to cause death or serious physical harm. Employers can be cited for violating the General Duty Clause if they do not take reasonable steps to abate or address such a recognized hazard. However, the failure to implement the information is not, in itself, a violation of the General Duty Clause. OSHA citations can only be based on standards, regulations, and the General Duty Clause.

The notice provides the following:

1. Background on SARS
2. Information for OSHA Staff for Public Inquiries
3. Information on Precautions in Healthcare Facilities
4. Information for Laboratory Workers
5. Information for Airline Flight Crew and Airport Personnel
6. Information for Crew Cleaning Planes that Carried Suspected SARS Cases
7. Information for Workers Involved in Air Medical Transport of SARS Patients
8. Safety & Health During Handling of Human Remains of SARS Patients
9. Employee Training
10. If a Worker Experiences Symptoms

Source: Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Atlanta – Insurance Commissioner John W. Oxendine has ordered First Actual American Insurance Company to stop the unauthorized marketing of medical malpractice liability
insurance in Georgia.

The order requires First Actual American Insurance Company; Little Shell Pembina Band of North America; Zachary Betts, of Victorsville, California; Ronald K. Delorme, of Bismarck, North Dakota; and Kenneth Shipley, of Tustin, California to immediately cease and desist the unauthorized transaction of insurance business in the state of Georgia.

First Actual American Insurance Company, allegedly headquartered in Canby, Oregon, isn’t currently licensed or authorized - nor has it ever been licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the state of Georgia, Commissioner Oxendine said.

An investigation revealed that First Actual American was offering to sell medical malpractice insurance through fax solicitations to health care providers.

Source: State of Georgia

Interpretation # 1

The first letter of interpretation confirms that the use of liquid bandages constitutes first aid treatment instead of medical treatment.

Interpretation # 2

The second letter of interpretation confirms that an injury is Recordable regardless of whether or not the injured employee fills the prescription provided by the treating health care professional.

Interpretation # 3

The third letter of interpretation confirms that an injury is recordable even if it is out of the control of the employer.

Interpretation # 4

Provides clarification of work relatedness and if oxygen administration is considered recordable.

Source: Occupational Safety and Health Administration

In response to questions about the use of warning lines in lieu of conventional fall protection at construction sites, OR-OSHA reviewed memos, interpretations and other communications issued by OR-OSHA dealing with warning lines, safe work distances and other closely related subjects as well as federal and WISHA policy and the preamble to the federal fall protection standard.

The conclusion was that if there is no exposure to an unprotected side or edge, then there is no hazard and thus, no violation of a standard. Since there is no designated distance that defines a safe working distance, both OR-OSHA staff and employers need to thoroughly evaluate all relevant factors to determine whether it is safe to use a line, conventional fall protection or fall restraint, or to designate a safe working distance.

All OR-OSHA field staff are trained and encouraged to use their professional judgement to evaluate the need for and adequacy of fall protection for elevated work locations. In order to exercise this professional judgement the following conditions must be evaluated. When a safe work distance is designated, which may also include some sort of warning line or other barricade, it must be one that eliminates the potential for the worker to stumble and fall over the unprotected edge but at a minimum 10 feet. There should also be a margin of error included in the distance since there is not a positive means of stopping the worker’s forward momentum toward the unprotected edge. Factors that might enter into such an evaluation could include weather conditions, lighting, the slope and condition of the walking surface, the kind of work being performed, materials being handled, the height of the worker above the work surface (such as working from a ladder), housekeeping, training, experience, how much time the job takes, or the distance that the worker stays away from any open sides or edges.

For both agency staff and stakeholders the guiding principle to follow when evaluating warning or barricade lines is that the distance from the unguarded edge of the work surface must be great enough to remove the worker from exposure to a fall hazard. Factors to evaluate in determining the allowable use and correct location of barrier lines include such things as the kind of fall hazard present, the work being done and the exposure to the hazard, the pitch of the work surface, whether the deck is secure or not, the degree of slickness of the walking surface, weather conditions and environmental conditions (ice, moss, rain, wind, lighting, sun glare, etc.), what equipment is being used, access and egress protection, training, and supervision. It’s quite simple, if there’s no exposure, then there’s no hazard, and thus, no violation.

Source: State of Oregon