Search CompleteMarkets

Terrace CIM Carrier Interface Management Software Terrace CIM is advanced, flexible software designed for the Insurance industry. CIM allows 1) carriers to create download files for agencies and 2) agencies to process carrier information and store it locally. CIM is a simple, fast 'out of the box' solution for your interface processing requirements. Elegant, Scalable Architecture Terrace CIM utilizes a simple architecture for creating and processing Insurance information. The server / schema architecture integrates highly-available Windows Server services with abstracted file descriptions. CIM Engine The CIM engine is built to process a high volume of data - unattended - with complete support for activity logging, error processing and failover. The CIM engine is bi-directional, facilitating the writing and/or reading of standard files. CIM Schemas Terrace has abstracted each Insurance file description into simple, self documenting XML schemas. These schemas drive parsing and storage of the policy and accounting data. All Lines of Business CIM is built to process a variety of data, including Policy files (Personal Lines and Commercial Lines), Claims and Accounting (e.g., direct bill transactions). CIM processes standard files (AL3, ACORD XML, CSIO) and non-standard files (Excel, ASCII, etc.). Agencies & Carriers Terrace CIM is built to support reading and/or writing of standard and non-standard insurance files. All vendor agency systems are supported.

Covenants Not To Compete
COVENANTS NOT TO COMPETE by E.J. Leverett Jr., Ph.D., CPCU, CLU, Peter Shedd, J.D., and James Trieschmann, Ph.D., CPCU, CLU Abstract: When an agency is sold, frequently an agreement is signed that limits the rights of the seller to compete with the buyer of the agency. These covenants not to compete have serious tax and legal implications, which are not discussed in this article. The sale of an agency is a complex transaction, and the allocation of the purchase price to the various segments of the sales contract increases the need for careful negotiation. Any sales contract should include a specific dollar figure allocated to goodwill, fixed assets, the book of business (expirations), and the covenant not to compete. How these allocations are made in the contract have considerable impact on the taxes owed by the buyer and the seller, and consequently on the agency's value. Each of these allocations could be the subject of a separate article; this article is concerned only with the allocation and enforceability of the covenant not to compete. DEFINITION A covenant not to compete (sometimes referred to as the 'noncompetition agreement') is, in essence, an agreement that restricts the seller's right to compete with the agency sold. The buyer negotiates for this covenant to get an adequate opportunity to win the loyalty of the agency's existing customers. The seller may agree to this restrictive agreement, albeit hesitantly, to facilitate the sale of the agency. These bargaining positions place the buyer and seller in adversarial roles, which can lead to a court action. Such litigation is typically the result of the buyer and seller taking opposite positions with respect to the enforcement or taxation of a covenant. A finding that a covenant not to compete is invalid can devastate the agency purchaser's ability to conduct business. In addition, such a finding can create adverse tax implications to the buyer and seller. This article highlights areas of covenants not to compete, about which the parties should be aware. TAX IMPLICATIONS Rules involving the tax treatment of covenants not to compete are simple as long as the parties understand the tax treatments of such covenants and goodwill. Goodwill is considered a capital asset, and the seller is permitted to treat the amount assigned to goodwill at favorable capital gains rates. Unfortunately, the buyer is denied any tax deduction because goodwill is thought to have an indeterminable useful life. On the other hand, any consideration that the seller receives in return for agreeing not to compete must be treated as ordinary income. The buyer can capitalize the amount of the purchase price allocated to the non-competition covenant and is entitled to a tax deduction for the life of the covenant. From this brief explanation of the differing tax treatments, the seller and buyer will have opposite interests when negotiating the sale. If the buyer is to prevail, a reasonable amount of the purchase price must be allocated to the covenant not to compete, and the covenant must be reasonable in all aspects. If an excessive amount is allocated or if the covenant is improperly drafted, that portion of the purchase price will be allocated to goodwill. The following segment of this article discusses some of the legal issues that help distinguish a covenant not to compete from goodwill. LEGAL ISSUES BETWEEN COVENANTS AND GOODWILL The goodwill of an agency generally represents the value of the agency as a going concern. The value depends on such factors as the ability of the seller to compete for the business (this requires good health and an age commensurate with competing) and whether the person continues with the agency at the same location. It also must take into account whether these people have the ability to service the account (separate files) and whether the agency is profitable enough to allow the payment of salaries. If the restrictive covenant is effective, it serves to guarantee the buyer's enjoyment of goodwill. The problem presented by differentiating between a non-competition agreement and goodwill is compounded by the vagueness of the standards that the courts have adopted. Among these standards are severability, economic reality, intent, valuation, refutation, and ancillary issues. Severability. The courts generally look favorably upon part of the sales price being allocated to a restrictive covenant only if they find that the covenant is severable from all other assets. The court must be convinced that the covenant was a separate item and actually bargained for between the buyer and the seller. If its purpose is to ensure the beneficial enjoyment of goodwill, the covenant is considered to be a nonseverable, nondepreciable asset. This severability standard has come under criticism because of the fundamental assumption that the covenant cannot be severed from goodwill. Indeed, the severability test conflicts with legal authorities. Corbin in Contracts indicates that the definition of a legally enforceable restrictive covenant is a close association with goodwill. In addition, Mertens in Law of Federal Income Taxation indicates that the function of the restrictive covenant is to protect the assets transferred and thus they cannot be severable. The application of a severability test therefore seems inappropriate. Economic Reality. The enforceability of the covenant depends on whether the covenant has been negotiated between the two parties and has a business reason for being in existence. In other words, courts have stated that there must be economic reality for the covenant's existence. Such covenants are enforceable only when the seller actually could compete with the buyer. For example, a terminally ill 85-year-old seller of an agency that has experienced a down-trend in its business for the past five years is not deemed to be in the position of actually competing with the buyer. Intent. Courts generally interpret contractual obligations in a manner to accomplish the perceived intent of the parties. If an agreement as written is contrary to the parties' intentions, it will not be enforced. If the intent of the agency's purchaser is to restrict the seller from competing unfairly and if such a covenant is agreed to by the seller and is clearly written, the covenant will be enforced to reflect this. Although the parties may clearly express their intent, their agreement to include a covenant not to compete must satisfy the economic need for the covenant, as stated in the preceding paragraph. Valuation. For any contract to be valid, there must be valid consideration. Consequently, a negotiated value of the covenant must be placed in the contract. There must be a valuable consideration; the amount allocated to the covenant must also be reasonable. Courts generally refuse to enforce a covenant in which the consideration allocated to the covenant grossly exceeds the value of the seller's agreeing not to compete. Consequently, the allocation of a large percentage of the purchase price to the covenant, even though the seller is willing to accept the allocation, could result in the courts rejecting the amount as unreasonable. Refutation. Courts in general have indicated that for a covenant to be enforceable, the time period of restraint must be reasonable, as must the territorial restriction. Furthermore, it must be reasonably concluded that the restrictive covenant is necessary to protect the buyer's interest. Consequently, the tax court would probably refute any covenant not worth the allocation amount, not negotiated, or not having a relationship to business reality. Ancillary Issues. To be enforceable, the covenant not to compete must be ancillary or incidental to a legal contract. In addition, it must be reasonable with respect to the time and place of the restrictions against competition. To prove that the covenant is reasonable, the buyer must demonstrate that the restraint placed upon the seller is no more restrictive than is necessary to protect the buyer. There also must be a showing that the covenant does not interfere unreasonably with the interest of the public. These additional issues are discussed below under the heading 'Construction of the Covenant.' Before discussing these issues, however, let's discuss the question of which party has the burden of proving the validity of the allocation of part of the purchase price to the covenant not to compete. BURDEN OF PROOF A noncompetition covenant that has not been allocated a value in the contract does not necessarily mean that a deduction cannot be taken. It is, however, a strong indication that no allocation was intended, and strong proof would be needed to overcome this omission. The courts have developed two rules in deciding the binding effects of a contractual allocation or its absence: the Strong Proof Rule and the Danielson Rule. Strong Proof Rule. In the case of Wilson Athletic Goods Manufacturing Company, 222 F.2d 355 (7th Cir. 1955), no dollar amount was allocated to the covenant. Wilson indicated that it would have been unwilling to purchase the business without the restrictive covenant, and it would not have paid the price it paid without the restrictive covenant. The court indicated that its responsibility was to determine the intent of the contracting parties, and that it was immaterial whether the contract did or did not define a specific valuation in the contract. This resulted in the Strong Proof Rule. The thrust of this rule was that 'strong proof' must be introduced to overturn or establish a dollar figure for the restrictive covenant. The crucial factor is whether the purchaser of the agency genuinely intended that an allocation be made for the restrictive covenant regardless of whether the allocation was specified in the agreement. The Strong Proof Rule was given further support in Schultz v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 294 F.2d 52 (9th Cir. 1961). Danielson Rule. The Danielson Rule is actually an extension of the Strong Proof Rule. The court, in Commissioner of Internal Revenue of Danielson, 378 F.2d 771 (3d Cir. 1967), indicated that it could not be bound by mere legal form. The Danielson Rule indicates that a party can challenge the tax consequences of an agreement only by presenting proof that would be admissible to alter that agreement or to show its unenforceability because of mistake, undue influence, fraud, or duress. In effect, the court applied contract law to determine whether the contract was valid and enforceable. The court's ruling seems to be in conflict with the economic reality test as well as the common law substance versus form doctrine. The commissioner advocated the adoption of the Danielson rule to ensure consistent tax treatment of both parties. Extension of the Danielson Rule would permit the IRS to examine the substance issue, but this rule prevents a party from disavowing negotiated business arrangements for tax reasons. CONSTRUCTION OF THE COVENANT A number of factors should be considered in the use of a covenant not to compete. First, there should be a need for the covenant other than for tax reasons. Second, the covenant should be separately negotiated between buyer and seller. Third, it should be reasonable. Fourth, the consequences of the failure of the covenant should be examined. Need For The Covenant. The first thing that should be examined in the need for a covenant is whether or not the restrictive covenants can be enforced considering the rules of the local governing laws. If local laws are such that it would be extremely difficult or impossible to enforce the restrictive covenant, the only reason for having one would be for taxes. Under these circumstances, it is almost certain that such an agreement should be rejected. Since local laws (including state statutes and community ordinances) can have a profound impact on noncompetition agreements, a complete understanding of these local laws is essential. The advice of local counsel can be invaluable. The second issue that must be considered is whether the seller is a risk to the buyer if the covenant is broken. The seller must have the ability to compete, or the covenant itself is a tax covenant rather than a restrictive covenant. An insurance agent, as a rule, would have a fairly high degree of ability to compete. This ability can be reduced, however, by old age or other factors. Even if competition is possible, consideration must be given to the consequences of using the former agency name, the files, and other such items that would enable the seller to compete. For example, an 86-year-old man who is terminally ill and whose insurance files are in a jumble is unlikely to compete with anyone. Consequently, it is unlikely that a covenant not to compete is needed. The enforceability of a covenant under such circumstances is not great. The third consideration is whether or not the value of the purchased business would be reduced if indeed the seller did compete. The buyer of the agency should attempt to evaluate the benefits and cost over a period of time, and what the lost earnings would be if a covenant were not obtained from the seller. For example, would the value of the business be reduced if the seller or one or more shareholder/employees competed for the insurance business? If this projected reduction in value is determinable, it is a good approximate value to allocate to the covenant in the sales contract. However, this valuation is obviously complex and thus difficult to determine. There seems to be a great misunderstanding on the part of the seller or producer leaving an agency concerning his ability to transfer the existing business to a new competitor to be established by the seller. Research has demonstrated that persons competing for the business never are successful in moving anywhere near as much of the business as they think they will be able to move. This comes as a result of apathy on the part of the customer, tight markets, and re-underwriting of risks that are renewable with the existing company but not necessarily eligible as new business to another company. After examining the desire and ability of the seller to compete, the remaining provisions of the contract should be considered. For example, if the seller can compete and wants to, negotiations for the covenant should occur. Negotiation. If a covenant not to compete is to be a part of the sales contract, discussions about it should take place as early as possible in the negotiations. When the validity of restrictive covenants comes before a court, the court will look for evidence that the covenant and the price allocated to that covenant were bargained for on a separate basis and took place early in the discussion of the sale. The absence of discussions of a covenant not to compete during the negotiation process is a reasonable indication that the covenant was not dealt with separately by the individual parties. This conclusion is further strengthened if the purchase price is established before consideration of the covenant or if the contract is later amended to provide such a covenant. Consequently, if the buyer can indicate that the subject of the covenant was introduced at the inception of negotiations and was bargained for until it was included in the final agreement, the buyer should be able to satisfy the intent requirement. A second factor to consider is the specific dollar value that should be assigned to the covenant not to compete. The buyer should offer what under all the circumstances appears to be a reasonable price for this covenant. Buyers always will be required to satisfy the economic reality test, particularly when they are being asked to justify an express allocation to the covenant in the sales agreement. An absolute dollar figure should be allocated to the covenant not to compete rather than an arbitrary percentage of the purchase price. If the figure allocated to the covenant is based on a single year's commission -- (1) a percentage of renewal premiums bought from the seller, (2) a percentage of annual fees, (3) or the fair market value of land and buildings-it is evident that the buyer and seller did not separately bargain for the covenant. Under such conditions, the covenant has a significant probability of failure. The third item that must be dealt with in the negotiation is making certain that both parties understand the tax consequences of allocating part of the purchase price to a restrictive covenant. The fact that one or both parties may be ignorant of the tax effect is not normally determinative. However, the courts have cited a buyer's or seller's tax ignorance as reason to alter a specific allocation to reflect the substance of the transaction. It is dangerous to count on a court to reform the contract because of the parties' ignorance. If the contract is reformed, the amount assigned to the covenant is removed and applied to goodwill, and the unfavorable tax treatment to the buyer may be devastating. The fourth item of concern deals with tax reporting. The one item drawing the most careful scrutiny from the IRS is the inconsistent reporting of a sales transaction for tax purposes. Both the buyer and the seller should agree to report the transaction for tax purposes in a manner consistent with the sales contract provision. If this is not done, both the buyer and the seller could be drawn into unexpected litigation over the matter. The sales contract should provide at least some protection against this by specifying the respective party's tax treatment. In addition, the agreement should provide a basis for recovering any cost resulting from the IRS disallowing the contract's tax treatment. Reasonableness. Most jurisdictions will reject the covenant not to compete if it unduly restricts the right to a person's livelihood. This is a difficult proposition because each contract has its own unique qualities. The agreement must be reasonable in its protection of the purchaser and the remaining members of the business. The covenant should: 1. Be reasonable in point of time 2. Be reasonable in the area of restraint 3. Be necessary to protect goodwill 4. Not be an undue burden to the promisor 5. Not be against public policy The civil court determining the enforceability of a restrictive covenant may examine each of these five points to determine if the contract is reasonable to both parties and to the general public. Unique outside factors may come into play in the area of product, type of service, employee's contact with customers, and other goodwill factors. Time. The time restriction in the covenant usually is stated in years. What is reasonable is determined by the courts in each specific case, since the amount of time buyers need to be free from competition by the seller varies greatly. As guidelines, it would appear that anything beyond five years has high probability of being declared unreasonable, although some documented circumstances have allowed a 10-year restriction. Four years is more likely to be accepted than five years. Three years is more likely to be accepted than four years. Currently, it appears that the courts are tending to accept and set the norm at three years. A two-year restriction period is better than three in regard to enforceability and a 13-month period is perhaps even better yet. The 13-month period is not really as short as it seems because it effectively gets the parties through two policy-renewal periods. A caveat: Each case is distinctive, since it has its own set of circumstances. Territory. Whether the restriction is reasonable in the area of restraint is a more difficult question for the courts to determine. The area of restriction is usually described in a mile radius or a county area. In determining what would be fair to both parties, two additional factors must be considered. The first is the population of the area of restraint. If the agency is located in a rural area, having a large restricted zone may be justifiable- for example, a 50-mile radius. On the other hand, if the agency is located in a metropolitan area, a 50-mile radius is likely to be declared unreasonable, since it would be quite possible for an insurance agent to return to the business on the opposite side of the city and never come into contact with the customers served by the other agency. The court is likely to determine that the population is sufficiently large to solicit new business without affecting the business that was sold. The amount of business done in the restricted area should also be considered. If an agency does its business in a centralized location, there is no justification for restricting a large area, where no business is done, just in the hopes of soliciting business at some point in the future. The courts would probably declare this tactic unreasonable and against public policy. A piracy agreement and a privacy agreement can reasonably and effectively take care of the competitive problem. The piracy agreement restricts a person's activities dealing with specific customer files that were sold to the buyer, and the privacy agreement indicates that the seller would tell no one about the customers. These agreements reasonably dispose of the territory issue. Protection Of Goodwill. Any restrictive covenant should be in place because it is needed to protect the goodwill that goes with an agency. If the restriction is there solely for tax purposes, it is not likely to be upheld. Items of goodwill such as the name, location, people in the agency, profitability of the agency, and availability of the files from which to work are factors to consider. If the person cannot or has no desire to compete, there is no reason to have a restrictive covenant. Furthermore, there's no need for one if there is no goodwill in the agency. Undue Burden. Does a restrictive covenant place an undue burden on the promisor? No court is going to place an unreasonable restriction on a person's right to make a living. By the same token, courts will not permit unfair competition for something that was properly negotiated, for which a price was paid, and which contains reasonable constraints. Therefore, to hamstring a seller because the buyer has an economic advantage is a fact that can be used later to refute the covenant. Public Policy. The restrictive covenant should not violate the interest of the public or antitrust laws. If it prevents the public from getting the benefit of fair competition, it is unlikely to be upheld. Restrictive covenants are not designed to allow an agency to have a monopoly and charge unjust fees for its services. If the covenant is a restraint to fair trade, it will be ruled void and unenforceable. Consequences Of Failure. No matter how carefully a restrictive covenant is drawn, certain circumstances will cause it to be unenforceable. This situation cannot be avoided entirely. The task, therefore, is to draw the contract in the best manner possible considering the five factors mentioned in the 'reasonableness' section above. The consequence of a contract's being thrown out by the courts is that the amount allocated to the restrictive covenant will be transferred to goodwill, with its differing tax ramifications. As a result, a depreciable item suddenly becomes nondepreciable. If the deal was structured on the basis of the tax consequences given by the covenant, the failure can be devastating to the buyer. It is not uncommon for a court to find some of the provisions of the restrictive covenant to be an unreasonable restraint of trade. Depending on the applicable state laws, a court may have the option of throwing out the entire contract, or it may have the discretionary power to reform the contract to make its terms reasonable. An example of reformation took place in the case of Alexander and Alexander (A&A) v. Drayton, 278 F.Supp. 824, 830 (E.D.Pa. 1974). A&A had precluded Drayton from competition within a 100-mile radius of three major cities for a period of 10 years. Drayton, who was 52 years old, would have to wait until he was 62 to compete, and the court found that to be unreasonable. What's more, the court found that the 100-mile radius restriction from three different major cities was unreasonable and limited it to a single city, Philadelphia, for a period of two years. The court further reformed the contract by stating that it would enjoin Drayton from disclosing the names of the customers and the expiration list to the new employer. These lists were deemed to be trade secrets and were entitled to protection by the court. The power of courts to reform an overly broad covenant not to compete is based on state law. Some states allow their courts the discretionary power of reformation; other states require that such covenants be declared unenforceable. Even when courts can reform a covenant, it is the prerogative of the court to reform the CONTRACT, and the buyer must bear that in mind. It is more likely that the court will view unreasonable provisions as grounds to refuse to enforce the contract in its entirety. CONCLUSION No set of circumstances guarantee the viability of a covenant not to compete. It must be drawn carefully, based on the various factors discussed here. It should be reasonable in time and scope and have economic reality. A seller who signs a negotiated covenant not to compete should be restricted from unfairly competing for that business-but should not be expected to give up the ability to make a living for an indefinite period of time. A time frame of two to three years (concerning the customers that were sold or the agency's customer list) and a restriction on revealing the customers to anyone is the proper direction for a valid and enforceable covenant not to compete. Both parties should understand clearly the tax consequences of a restrictive covenant so that no party is in an unfair position. Reformation is possible, but it is the sole prerogative of the court. The best recommendation for any party (buyer or seller) that wants to draft a covenant not to compete is to seek adequate professional advice.

Occupational Exposure To Hazardous Chemicals In Laboratories
INFORMATION DATE 19901212 DESCRIPTION USDOL Program Highlights, Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals SUBJECT Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories ABSTRACT The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, recognizing the unique characteristics of the laboratory workplace, tailored a standard for occupational exposure to hazardous chemicals in laboratories to include approximately 934,000 employees in 34,214 industrial, clinical, and academic laboratories. U.S. Department of Labor Program Highlights Fact Sheet No. OSHA 90-33 OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS IN LABORATORIES SUMMARY The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, recognizing the unique characteristics of the laboratory workplace, tailored a standard for occupational exposure to hazardous chemicals in laboratories to include approximately 934,000 employees in 34,214 industrial, clinical, and academic laboratories. SCOPE AND APPLICATION Covers all laboratories engaged in the laboratory use of chemicals defined as hazardous by this standard, generally, superseding provisions of all other health standards except in specific instances. The obligation to maintain employee exposures at or below the permissible exposure limits (PELs) specified in the air contaminants standard and in substance specific standards is retained. Does not apply for laboratory use of hazardous chemicals which provide no potential for employee exposure such as procedures using chemically-impregnated test media and commercially prepared test kits. Employee Exposure Determination The employer must measure the employee's exposure periodically to any substance regulated by a standard which requires monitoring if there is reason to believe that exposure levels for that substance routinely exceed the action level (or in the absence of an action level, the PEL). The employer must notify the employee of the results within 15 working days after receipt of the monitoring results. Chemical Hygiene Plan Where hazardous chemicals are used in the workplace the employer must develop and carry out the provisions of a written Chemical Hygiene Plan (CHP). The CHP must include the necessary work practices, procedures and policies to ensure that employees are protected from all potentially hazardous chemicals in use in their work area. The plan must be available to employees, to employee representatives, and to the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health. Employee Training and Information The employer must provide employees with information and training to ensure that they are aware of the hazards of the chemicals present in their work area. This information must be provided at the time of an employee's initial assignment to a work area where hazardous chemicals are present and prior to assignments involving new exposure situations. Employees must be informed of: The contents of this standard and its appendixes must be made available to them. The location and availability of the employer's Chemical Hygiene Plan. The permissible exposure limits for OSHA regulated substances or recommended exposure limits for other hazardous chemicals where there is no applicable OSHA standard. Signs and symptoms associated with exposures to hazardous chemicals used in the laboratory. And the location and availability of known reference material on the hazards, safe handling, storage and disposal of hazardous chemicals found in the laboratory including, but not limited to Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) received from chemical suppliers. Employee training must include: Methods and observations that may be used to detect the presence or release of a hazardous chemical; The physical and health hazards of chemicals in the work area; and The measures they can take to protect themselves from these hazards, including specific procedures the employer has implemented to protect employees from exposure to hazardous chemicals, such as appropriate work practices, emergency procedures, and personal protective equipment to be used. The employee must be trained on the applicable details of the employer's written Chemical Hygiene Plan. Medical Consultation and Examinations All employees who work with hazardous chemicals must be given the opportunity to receive medical attention, including any follow-up examinations which the examining licensed physician determines to be necessary under certain circumstances. Medical examinations and consultants must be provided without cost to the employee, without loss of pay, and at a reasonable time and place. The employer must provide certain information to the physician, including the identity of thee hazardous chemicals, a description of the conditions under which the exposure occurred, and a description of the signs and symptoms of exposure that the employee employee is experiencing. Hazard Identification Labels on incoming containers of hazardous chemicals must not be removed or defaced. MSDSs on incoming hazardous chemicals must be retained and made available to lab employees. Respirator Use Where the use of respirators is necessary to maintain exposure below permissible exposure limits, the employer must provide, at no cost to the employee, the proper respirator equipment. Recordkeeping The employer must establish and maintain for each employee an accurate record of any measurements taken to monitor employee exposure and any medical consultation and examination including tests or written opinions. This is one of a series of fact sheets highlighting U.S. Department of Labor programs. It is intended as a general description only and does not carry the force of legal opinion.

Carbon Monoxide Poisoning
INFORMATION DATE 19920818 DESCRIPTION USDOL Program Highlights, Carbon Monoxide Poisoning TOPIC Carbon Monoxide SUBJECT Carbon Monoxide Poisoning ABSTRACT Carbon monoxide-a colorless, odorless, tasteless gas-is one of the most common industrial hazards. Mild poisoning can cause such symptoms as nausea, dizziness or headaches, while severe poisoning can result in brain or heart damage or even death. This poisonous gas is produced by the incomplete burning of any material containing carbon, such as gasoline, natural gas, oil, propane, coal or wood. Forges, blast furnaces and coke ovens all produce carbon monoxide, but one of the most common sources of exposure in the workplace is the internal combustion engine. U.S. Department of Labor Program Highlights Fact Sheet No. OSHA 92-11 CARBON MONOXIDE POISONING WHAT IS IT? Carbon monoxide-a colorless, odorless, tasteless gas-is one of the most common industrial hazards. Mild poisoning can cause such symptoms as nausea, dizziness or headaches, while severe poisoning can result in brain or heart damage or even death. This poisonous gas is produced by the incomplete burning of any material containing carbon, such as gasoline, natural gas, oil, propane, coal or wood. Forges, blast furnaces and coke ovens all produce carbon monoxide, but one of the most common sources of exposure in the workplace is the internal combustion engine. Be suspicious of carbon monoxide poisoning if you develop headache, flushed face, dizziness or weakness. Bear in mind that although carbon monoxide has no telltale odor, it may mix with gases which do have an odor. Thus, the smell of other gases doesn't mean an absence of carbon monoxide. ARE YOU LIKELY TO BE POISONED? If you have a heart condition, your condition may be aggravated by carbon monoxide. Ingestion of barbiturates and alcohol may increase the gas' health effects. Furthermore, smokers will have higher carboxyhemoglobin than non-smokers, and therefore face higher risk from carbon monoxide exposures on the job. Harmful levels of carbon monoxide are a potential danger to: acetylene workers, blast furnace workers, boiler room workers, brewery workers, carbon black makers, coke oven workers, customs workers, diesel engine operators, dock workers, garage mechanics, metal oxide reducers, miners, organic chemical synthesizers, petroleum refinery workers, pulp and paper workers, steel workers, toll booth and tunnel attendants, and warehouse workers. HOW DOES CARBON MONOXIDE HARM YOU? Large amounts of carbon monoxide can kill in minutes. The more carbon monoxide in the air and the longer you are exposed to it, the greater the danger. Any one or more of the following symptoms can signal carbon monoxide poisoning: headaches, tightness across the chest, nausea, drowsiness, inattention or fatigue. As the amount of carbon monoxide in the air increases, more serious symptoms develop such as lack of coordination, weakness and confusion. The poisoning can be reversed if caught in time. But even if you recover, acute poisoning may result in permanent damage to the parts of your body which require a lot of oxygen, such as the heart and brain. There is a significant reproductive risk involved with carbon monoxide. An AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL MEDICINE article quotes two studies showing that acute carbon monoxide exposures that were non-lethal to the mother were associated with fetal loss. WHAT CAN YOU DO ABOUT CARBON MONOXIDE? If you suspect carbon monoxide, get out of the area and into the open fresh air. Remove anyone overcome by the gas immediately and give the person artificial respiration. Call for a doctor and continue the artificial respiration until the doctor arrives or the person recovers. Prompt action can make the difference between life and death. HOW CAN POISONING BE PREVENTED? Suggestions for Employers Install an effective ventilation system to remove poisonous carbon monoxide from the area. Maintain appliances and equipment in good order, adjusting flames, burners and drafts to reduce the formation of carbon monoxide. Consider switching from fossil fuel-powered equipment to battery-powered machinery when possible. Provide approved respirators for emergency use. Regular respirators (negative pressure) will not work in this atmosphere. If necessary, provide an independent air supply to workers. Install carbon monoxide monitors or regularly test air in areas when carbon monoxide is generated or used. Provide preplacement and periodic medical examinations for workers who may be exposed to carbon monoxide. If possible, transfer affected workers to other jobs. Instruct workers in the hazards of carbon monoxide and train them in the proper use of respirators. Suggestions for Workers Report to your employer any condition which might make carbon monoxide form or accumulate. Be alert to ventilation problems, especially in enclosed areas where gases of burning fuels may be released. Report complaints early. Don't overexert yourself if you suspect carbon monoxide poisoning. Physical activity increases the body's need for oxygen and thus increases the danger of poisoning. If you get sick, don't forget to tell your doctor about the possibility of exposure to carbon monoxide. Think carefully about your smoking habits. Tobacco, when burned, releases carbon monoxide which reduces the oxygen-carrying ability of the blood, even before any industrial exposure is added. WHAT ARE THE FEDERAL STANDARDS? The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standard for exposure to carbon monoxide prohibits workers' exposure to more than 35 parts of the gas per million parts of air (ppm), averaged over an 8-hour workday. There is also a ceiling limit of 200 ppm (as measured over a 15-minute period). This is one of a series of fact sheets highlighting U.S. Department of Labor programs. It is intended as a general description only and does not carry the force of legal opinion.

Osha Regional Offices
INFORMATION DATE 19910815 DESCRIPTION USDOL Program Highlights on Regional Offices SUBJECT Regional Offices ABSTRACT These states and territories operate their own OSHA-approved job safety and health programs (Connecticut and New York plans cover public employees only). States with approved programs must have a standard that is identical to, or at least as effective, as the Federal Standard. U.S. Department of Labor Program Highlight Fact Sheet No. OSHA 91-42 REGIONAL OFFICES Region I (CT,* MA, ME, NH, RI, VT*) 133 Portland Street 1st Floor Boston, MA 02114 Telephone: (617) 565-9860  Region II (NJ, NY,* PR,* VI*) 201 Varick Street Room 670 New York, NY 10014 Telephone: (212) 627-3900  Region III (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT,* WY*) 3535 Market Street, Federal Building # 1576 Denver, CO 80294 Telephone: (303) 844-1600  Region IV (American Samoa, AZ,* CA,* Guam, HI, NV,* Trust Territories of the Pacific) 71 Stevenson Street Suite 587 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 972-8500  Region V (IL, IN,* MI,* MN,* OH, WI) 230 South Dearborn Street, Suite 715 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (773) 761-3877  Region VI (AR, LA, NM,* OK, TX) 525 Griffin Street Room 602 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 320-2400  Region VII (IA,* KS, MO, NE) 911 Walnut Street, Room 406 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (816) 483-9531  Region VIII (DC, DE, MD,* PA, VA,* WV) Gateway Building, Suite 2100 1961 Stout Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 Telephone: (215) 596-1201  Region IX (AL, FL, GA, KY,* MS, NC, SC,* TN*) 1375 Peachtree Street, N. E., Room 415 Atlanta, GA 30367 Telephone: (770) 493-6644  Region X (AK,* ID, OR,* WA*) 1111 Third Avenue Room 3244 Seattle, WA 98101-3212 Telephone: (206) 553-5930  * These states and territories operate their own OSHA-approved job safety and health programs (Connecticut and New York plans cover public employees only). States with approved programs must have a standard that is identical to, or at least as effective, as the Federal Standard. This is one of a series of fact sheets highlighting U. S. Department of Labor programs. It is intended as a general description only and does not carry the force of legal opinion. This information will be made available to sensory impaired individuals upon request: voice phone (202) 219-6666.

Workplace Fire Safety, 1
INFORMATION DATE 19910815 DESCRIPTION USDOL Program Highlights on Workplace Fire Safety SUBJECT Workplace Fire Safety ABSTRACT OSHA standards require employers to provide proper exits, fire fighting equipment, emergency plans, and employee training to prevent fire deaths and injuries in the workplace. Some of the requirements include building fire exits, portable fire extinguishers, fire suppression system and a fire prevention plan. U.S. Department of Labor Program Highlight Fact Sheet No. OSHA 91-41 WORKPLACE FIRE SAFETY Fire safety is important business. National Fire Prevention Week is intended to focus on the importance of fire safety in the home, in schools and at work. But workplace fire safety is the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) principal focus and saving lives and preventing injuries due to fire is a key concern. There is a long and tragic history of workplace fires in this country. One of the most notable was the fire at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory in New York City in 1911 in which nearly 150 women and young girls died because of locked fire exits and inadequate fire extinguishing systems. History has repeated itself recently in the fire in Hamlet, NC, where 25 workers died in a fire in a poultry processing plant. It appears that here, too, there were problems with fire exits and extinguishing systems. When OSHA conducts workplace inspections, it checks to see whether employers are complying with OSHA standards for fire safety. OSHA standards require employers to provide proper exits, fire fighting equipment, emergency plans, and employee training to prevent fire deaths and injuries in the workplace. Building Fire Exits Each workplace building must have at least two means of escape remote from each other to be used in a fire emergency. Fire doors must not be blocked or locked to prevent emergency use when employees are within the buildings. Delayed opening of fire doors is permitted when an approved alarm system is integrated into the fire door design. Exit routes from buildings must be clear and free of obstructions and properly marked with signs designating exits from the building. Portable Fire Extinguishers Each workplace building must have a full complement of the proper type of fire extinguisher for the fire hazards present. Employees expected or anticipated to use fire extinguishers must be instructed on the hazards of fighting fire, how to properly operate the fire extinguishers available, and what procedures to follow in alerting others to the fire emergency. Only approved fire extinguishers are permitted to be used in workplaces, and they must be kept in good operating condition. Proper maintenance and inspection of this equipment is required of each employer. Where the employer wishes to evacuate employees instead of having them fight small fires there must be written emergency plans and employee training for proper evacuation. Emergency Evacuation Planning Each employer needs to have a written emergency action plan for evacuation of employees which describes the routes to use and procedures to be followed by employees. Also procedures for accounting for all evacuated employees must be part of the plan. The written plan must be available for employee review. Where needed, special procedures for helping physically impaired employees must be addressed in the plan; also, the plan must include procedures for those employees who must remain behind temporarily to shut down critical plant equipment before they evacuate. The preferred means of alerting employees to a fire emergency must be part of the plan and an employee alarm system must be available throughout the workplace complex and must be used for emergency alerting for evacuation. The alarm system may be voice communication or sound signals such as bells, whistles or horns. Employees must know the evacuation signal. Training of all employees in what is to be done in an emergency is required. Employers must review the plan with newly assigned employees so they know correct actions in an emergency and with all employees when the plan is changed. Fire Prevention Plan Employers need to implement a written fire prevention plan to complement the fire evacuation plan to minimize the frequency of evacuation. Stopping unwanted fires from occurring is the most efficient way to handle them. The written plan shall be available for employee review. Housekeeping procedures for storage and cleanup of flammable materials and flammable waste must be included in the plan. Recycling of flammable waste such as paper is encouraged; however, handling and packaging procedures must be included in the plan. Procedures for controlling workplace ignition sources such as smoking, welding and burning must be addressed in the plan. Heat producing equipment such as burners, heat exchangers, boilers, ovens, stoves, fryers, etc., must be properly maintained and kept clean of accumulations of flammable residues; flammables are not to be stored close to these pieces of equipment. All employees are to be apprised of the potential fire hazards of their job and the procedures called for in the employer's fire prevention plan. The plan shall be reviewed with all new employees when they begin their job and with all employees when the plan is changed. Fire Suppression System Properly designed and installed fixed fire suppression systems enhance fire safety in the workplace. Automatic sprinkler systems throughout the workplace are among the most reliable fire fighting means. The fire sprinkler system detects the fire, sounds an alarm and puts the water where the fire and heat are located. Automatic fire suppression systems require proper maintenance to keep them in serviceable condition. When it is necessary to take a fire suppression system out of service while business continues, the employer must temporarily substitute a fire watch of trained employees standing by to respond quickly to any fire emergency in the normally protected area. The fire watch must interface with the employers' fire prevention plan and emergency action plan. Signs must be posted about areas protected by total flooding fire suppression systems which use agents that are a serious health hazard such as carbon dioxide, Halon 1211, etc. Such automatic systems must be equipped with area pre-discharge alarm systems to warn employees of the impending discharge of the system and allow time to evacuate the area. There must be an emergency action plan to provide for the safe evacuation of employees from within the protected area. Such plans are to be part of the overall evacuation plan for the workplace facility. This is one of a series of fact sheets highlighting U.S. Department of Labor programs. It is intended as a general description only and does not carry the force of legal opinion. This information will be made available to sensory impaired individuals upon request: voice phone, (202) 219-6666.

Protecting Workers In Imminent Danger
INFORMATION DATE 19920827 DESCRIPTION USDOL Program Highlights-Responding to Workplace Emergencies TOPIC Worker Protection SUBJECT Protecting Workers in Imminent Danger ABSTRACT If a health or safety hazard at the workplace puts a worker in imminent danger of death or a serious injury including situations immediately dangerous to life and health, the supervisor should be notified immediately. The condition must be corrected so that no workers will be exposed to the danger until it is eliminated or controlled. U.S. Department of Labor Program Highlights Fact Sheet No. OSHA 92-18 PROTECTING WORKERS IN IMMINENT DANGER In Imminent Danger If a health or safety hazard at your workplace puts you in imminent danger of death or a serious injury including situations immediately dangerous to life and health, tell your supervisor immediately. Ask that the condition be corrected and that no workers be exposed to the danger until it is eliminated or controlled. If your employer does not take steps to remove the danger, you may contact the nearest office of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) or your state occupational safety and health authority. OSHA should be listed under 'U.S. Government, Department of Labor' in your telephone directory. If you live in one of the 25 states or territories which operate their own OSHA programs, you will find the listing under a state government heading such as 'Department of Labor' or 'Department of Industry.' Tell OSHA the facts. Be specific. Identify the hazard which concerns you. If you request, OSHA will not reveal your name to your employer, so don't hesitate to give OSHA your name, address, and a telephone number where you can be contacted. What OSHA Can Do The director of the closest OSHA area office will review your complaint and immediately decide whether OSHA should make an investigation. If he or she decides that an investigation is necessary, an OSHA inspector or 'compliance officer' will conduct an inspection of your workplace-usually the same day you report the problem. Reports of imminent dangers receive the highest priority for OSHA inspections. If OSHA cannot inspect within one working day after receipt of the report, the area director will contact the employer immediately to request that the hazard be corrected and any affected employees removed from the danger area. An inspection to determine whether the imminent danger has been eliminated will then be conducted at a later time. During an inspection, if compliance officers find an imminent danger, they will ask your employer to correct the hazardous condition and remove endangered employees from the area. If your employer refuses, OSHA may post an 'Imminent danger' notice and may seek from the nearest federal district court for an order requiring the employer to remove the danger. Before the OSHA inspectors leave the workplace, they will inform all affected employees of the hazard. Refusing Dangerous Work OSHA can protect you if you are discharged or otherwise disciplined for refusing to perform a task that would expose you to imminent danger of death or serious injury, providing you have sought and been unable to obtain a remedy from your supervisor and there is insufficient time to have the condition corrected through filing a complaint with OSHA. You may also be protected by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) if you refuse dangerous work in cooperation with or on behalf of other workers. OSHA and the NLRB cooperate in refusal-to-work cases involving health or safety hazards. You may contact either agency to discuss your case if you have been punished for refusing dangerous work. You Cannot Be Penalized For Reporting A Hazard Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, it is against the law for your employer to punish you for reporting a safety or health hazard. You cannot be discriminated against, fired, demoted, or otherwise penalized for complaining to your employer about a hazard, requesting an OSHA inspection, participating in union safety and health activities, or otherwise exercising your rights under the OSHA Act. If you believe you have been illegally punished, you must file your complaint with OSHA within 30 days for it to be timely. OSHA can take action, including going to court if necessary, to force your employer to restore your job, earnings, and benefits. You will not have to pay any legal fees. Health Hazards Can Cause Imminent Danger Many people think that only safety hazards which could cause accidents can be considered imminent dangers. It is important to remember that health hazards can cause imminent dangers. Exposure to some toxic substances or dangerous fumes, dusts, or gases can cause irreversible physical harm, shortened life, or reduced physical or mental performance. OSHA may consider such hazards to be imminent dangers even if the health effects of exposure to these hazards do not become immediately apparent. This is one of a series of fact sheets highlighting U.S. Department of Labor programs. It is intended as a general description only and does not carry the force of legal opinion.

Occupational Exposure To Formaldehyde
INFORMATION DATE 19920216 DESCRIPTION USDOL Program Highlights-OSHA's Final Rule on Formaldehyde TOPIC Formaldehyde SUBJECT Occupational Exposure to Formaldehyde ABSTRACT Formaldehyde is one of the most common chemicals in use today. As a chemical building block, its use can be traced to consumer goods through a wide spectrum of manufacturing processes. The use of formaldehyde as a preservative in medical laboratories and as an embalming agent in mortuaries is generally known. Formaldehyde is primarily used in the manufacture of urea, phenol, and melamine resins and for a variety of special industrial chemicals. The downstream use of formaldehyde-based inputs is found throughout the U.S. economy. It contributes to the production of about 8 percent of the gross national product (GNP) of the United States. U.S. Department of Labor Program Highlights Fact Sheet No. OSHA 92-27 OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO FORMALDEHYDE Formaldehyde is one of the most common chemicals in use today. As a chemical building block, its use can be traced to consumer goods through a wide spectrum of manufacturing processes. The use of formaldehyde as a preservative in medical laboratories and as an embalming agent in mortuaries is generally known. Formaldehyde is primarily used in the manufacture of urea, phenol, and melamine resins and for a variety of special industrial chemicals. The downstream use of formaldehyde-based inputs is found throughout the U.S. economy. It contributes to the production of about 8 percent of the gross national product (GNP) of the United States. HEALTH EFFECTS Studies indicate that formaldehyde is a potential human carcinogen. Airborne concentrations above 0.1 ppm (per million parts of air) can cause irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat. The severity of irritation increases as concentrations increase; at 100 ppm it is immediately dangerous to life and health. Dermal contact causes various skin reactions including sensitization, which might force persons thus sensitized to find other work. THE STANDARD To protect workers exposed to formaldehyde, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standard (29 CFR 1910.1048) applies to formaldehyde gas, its solutions, and a variety of material such as trioxane, paraformaldehyde, and resin formulations, and solids and mixtures containing formaldehyde that serve as sources of the substance. In addition to setting permissible exposure levels, exposure monitoring and training, the standard requires medical surveillance and medical removal, recordkeeping, regulated areas, hazard communication, emergency procedures, primary reliance on engineering and work practices to control exposure, and maintenance and selection of personal protective equipment. PERMISSIBLE EXPOSURE LIMIT The permissible exposure limit (PEL) for formaldehyde in all workplaces (including general industry, construction, and maritime, but not in agriculture) covered by the OSHA Act is 0.75 ppm measured as an 8-hour time weighted average (TWA). The standard includes a 2 ppm short-term exposure limit (STEL) (i.e., maximum exposure allowed during a 15-minute period). The 'action level' is 0.5 ppm measured more than eight hours. EXPOSURE MONITORING The standard requires that the employer conduct initial monitoring to identify all employees who are exposed to formaldehyde at or above the action level or STEL and to accurately determine the exposure of each employee so identified. If the exposure level is maintained below the STEL and the action level, employers may discontinue exposure monitoring, until such time as there is a change which could affect exposure levels. The employer must also monitor employee exposure promptly, upon receiving reports of formaldehyde-related signs and symptoms. MEDICAL REMOVAL PROTECTION Medical removal protection provisions are included for employees suffering significant adverse effects from formaldehyde exposure. This provision requires that such employees be removed to jobs with less exposure until their condition improves, or until a physician determines that they will not ever be able to return to any workplace formaldehyde exposure, or for a period of six months, whichever occurs first. ENGINEERING AND WORK PRACTICE CONTROLS The employer must institute engineering and work practice controls to reduce and maintain employee exposure to formaldehyde at or below the TWA and the STEL. Whenever the employer has established that feasible engineering and work practice controls cannot reduce employee exposure to or below the PEL, the employer must apply these controls to reduce employee exposure to the extent feasible and must supplement them with respirators that satisfy this standard. LABELING Specific hazard labeling requirements are needed for all forms of formaldehyde, including mixtures and solutions, composed of 0.1 percent or greater formaldehyde, and for materials capable of releasing formaldehyde in excess of 0.1 ppm. Hazard labeling, including a warning that formaldehyde presents a potential cancer hazard, is required where formaldehyde levels, under reasonably foreseeable conditions of use, may potentially exceed 0.5 ppm. TRAINING Training is required at least annually for all employees exposed to formaldehyde concentrations of 0.1 ppm or greater. The training will increase employees' awareness of specific hazards in their workplace and of the control measures employed. The training also will assist successful medical surveillance and medical removal programs. These provisions will only be effective if employees know what signs or symptoms are related to the health effects of formaldehyde, if they know how to report them to the employer properly, and if they are periodically encouraged to do so. AFFECTED ESTABLISHMENTS AND EMPLOYEES OSHA estimates that the total number of firms using formaldehyde is 112,066; employees exposed total 2,156,801. The estimated number of workers grouped according to worker exposure levels is: 83,818 employees exposed between 0.75 ppm and 1.0 ppm, mainly in apparel (58,831), furniture (11,612) and foundries (6,085). 122,554 employees exposed between 0.5 ppm and 0.75 ppm, mainly in apparel (58,831), textile finishing (19,125), furniture 12,643), laboratories (12,220) and foundries (10,594). 1,950,429 employees exposed between 0.1 ppm and 0.5 ppm, certainly in apparel (823,637), furniture (235,095), papermills (100,100) and plastic molding (90,000). EFFECTIVE DATES Respiratory protection required to meet the PEL of 0.75 ppm must be provided; engineering and work practice controls and medical-removal protection should now also be operating. The labeling provisions should have been implemented at the end of 1992. Labeling of containers of formaldehyde products must continue to comply with the provisions of OSHA's hazard communication standard (29 CFR 1910.1200) until that time. Periodic training for all employees exposed to formaldehyde between 0.1 ppm and 0.5 ppm is also required. BENEFITS OSHA has estimated that compliance with the reduction of the PEL from 1 ppm (as an eight-hour TWA) to .75 ppm in the standard will result in the avoidance of up to three additional cases of formaldehyde-induced cancer annually. In addition, OSHA estimates that of the 2.1 million workers exposed to formaldehyde, one percent, or 21,568, may be removed annually from respiratory distress as a result of the provisions for medical removal. This is one of a series of fact sheets highlighting U.S. Department of Labor programs. It is intended as a general description only and does not carry the force of legal opinion.