Chapter 1 - AKOSH Field Operations Manual

AKOSH maintains an outreach program tailored to local conditions and needs. Functions include compliance assistance in developing compliance, safety, and health management systems, as well as training and education services, referral services, cooperative programs, abatement assistance, and technical services. C&T is responsible for conducting outreach activities to employers in high-hazard industries and employers who may be affected by special emphasis programs implemented by Enforcement to reduce illness and injury rates across Alaska.

Organizations can enter Strategic Partnerships with AKOSH to address specific safety and health issues. In these partnerships, AKOSH enters into extended, voluntary, cooperative relationships with groups of employers, employees, and employee representatives (sometimes including other stakeholders and sometimes involving only one employer) to encourage, assist, and recognize efforts to eliminate serious hazards and achieve a high level of employee safety and health.

AKOSH offers several avenues for businesses and organizations to cooperate with the agency. Compliance officers are expected to discuss the various cooperative programs with employers at the closing of an enforcement inspection or whenever an employer requests such information.

The Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) is designed to recognize and promote effective safety and health management. A hallmark of VPP is the principle that management, labor, and AKOSH can work together to achieve a safe and healthy workplace. A VPP participant is an employer that has successfully designed and implemented a health and safety management system at its worksite.

The Safety and Health Achievement Recognition Program (SHARP) recognizes employers' efforts to create a safe workplace and exempts them from programmed enforcement inspections inspection. This program is administered by the State On-site Consultation Program but funded under Section 21(d) of the OSH Act.

SHARP is designed to provide incentives and support employers that implement and continuously improve effective safety and health management systems at their worksite. SHARP participants are exempted from AKOSH and OSHA programmed inspections for the duration of the SHARP approval.

The Alaska Construction Health and Safety Excellence (CHASE) Program, developed by the Alaska Occupational Safety and Health (AKOSH) division, addresses Alaska's high construction injury and fatality rates. Designed for the state's unique work conditions, CHASE fosters a proactive partnership between licensed contractors and AKOSH.

Participants enter at the AK-BLUE level for a five-year term, beginning with a baseline safety and health survey. AKOSH professionals help identify hazards and implement corrective actions to strengthen safety management systems. Participating contractors are also removed from AKOSH's scheduled enforcement inspection list, reinforcing the program's trust-based, collaborative approach.

Benefits include the ability to publicly promote partnership status, improved safety culture, and ongoing support to anticipate and mitigate emerging risks. CHASE emphasizes self-monitoring and accountability, driving continuous improvement, reducing injuries and illnesses, and building a safer, more resilient construction industry in Alaska.

AKOSH's inspection priority system is designed to allocate available resources as effectively as possible. The Chief of Enforcement will ensure that inspections are scheduled in accordance with this chapter, are consistent with strategic objectives, and that appropriate documentation of scheduling practices is maintained.

The Chief of Enforcement will also ensure that AKOSH resources are effectively distributed during inspection activities. If an inspection is complex, the Chief of Enforcement may consider utilizing additional AKOSH resources.

Generally, the priority of accomplishment and of assigning staff resources for inspection categories is as shown in Table 2-1 below:

Table 2-1: Inspection Priorities

Unprogrammed inspections should be scheduled and conducted before programmed inspections. Therefore, the first through the fourth priorities (above) will be conducted before programmed assignments.

This procedure does not prohibit the Chief of Enforcement from making a programmed inspection assignment in conjunction with an unprogrammed assignment. When the CSHO performs an unprogrammed assignment (e.g., a complaint) in conjunction with a programmed inspection at the same site, only one inspection report (OIS Inspection Report) will typically be generated to address both assignments. If joint inspection assignments are made (e.g., safety and health), two inspections will typically be generated to address both assignments.

Deviations from this priority list are allowed as long as they are justifiable, promote the efficient use of resources, and effectively protect employees.

Inspection scheduling deviations must be documented in the case file as well as the history section of the Narrative.

Inspections conducted in response to specific evidence of hazardous conditions at a worksite are considered unprogrammed.

Unprogrammed inspections (excluding follow-ups and monitoring) should be scheduled with the following priorities:

1. Reports of alleged imminent danger situations from any source, including referrals and complaints, regardless of formality;
2. Fatalities/Catastrophes (see FOM Chapter 2 for detailed information related to FAT/CAT investigations);
3. Media and employer reports of accidents involving serious injuries or hazards of a serious nature;
4. Formal complaints assigned for inspection by the supervisor, CSHO referrals (including referrals based upon discrimination complaints) with serious hazards, and referrals from other safety and health agencies with serious hazards;
5. Formal complaints with non-serious hazards assigned for inspection by the supervisor;
6. Nonformal complaints assigned for inspection by the supervisor.

   Follow-up Inspections.

   In cases where follow-up inspections are necessary, they shall be conducted as promptly as possible, given available resources. In general, follow-up inspections shall take priority over all programmed inspections and any unprogrammed inspection in which the hazards are anticipated to be other-than-serious.

   Follow-up inspections are required in the following situations, unless an exception applies under b. of this section:

   • Willful violations;
   • Repeat violations;
   • Failure to abate notifications;
   • Citations related to an imminent danger situation;
   • When the employer fails to respond to a request for notification of abatement action by letter or other means after having been contacted several times;
   • Whenever the Chief of Enforcement believes that circumstances (e.g., the number and/or the type of violations, inspection history of the employer, complex engineering controls, etc.) indicate the need for a follow-up based on documentation and/or recommendations of the CSHO; and
   • Severe Violator Enforcement Program (SVEP) qualified cases- See the most current Severe Violator Enforcement Program CPL as adopted by AKOSH.

   Exceptions to required follow-up inspections.

   It will not be necessary to conduct a follow-up inspection if any of the following apply:

   • A follow-up inspection will not be necessary where unquestionable proof of abatement has been presented, e.g., when the CSHO observed and documented the correction of the cited condition during the inspection.
   • The Chief of Enforcement may determine that a follow-up inspection is not required. Justification for not conducting follow-up inspections may include statements from the employee or employer representative, or other knowledgeable professionals, attesting to the correction of the violation. Written signed statements are preferred; however, verbal communications are acceptable if summarized by division personnel in a written memorandum for the case file.
   • Where a recommended follow-up inspection has not been conducted within 90 working days of the final abatement date, and the case has become a final order, the case file may be administratively closed by the CSHO after consultation with the Chief of Enforcement. All administratively closed case files will contain verification of abatement as well as documentation of reasons why the follow-up inspection was not conducted.
   • If a follow-up inspection is to be conducted where an employer has been cited for several violations with varying abatement dates, the follow-up inspection should not be scheduled until after most, if not all, of the abatement dates set for the serious violations in the citation(s) have passed. If the employer has taken satisfactory corrective action, additional follow-up activity typically should not be scheduled unless the Chief of Enforcement believes that complex engineering controls or other special factors involved in the case warrant such activity.
   • The scheduling of follow-up inspections may be affected in various ways by potential or actual employer contests, depending on the status of the Notice of Contest.
   • Follow-up inspections may be conducted during the 15-working-day period
   • granted to contest the citation or request an informal conference, provided the date set for abatement has passed, and the employer has not filed a notice of contest or requested an informal conference. Typically, only those conditions considered high gravity serious will subject an employer to being scheduled for follow-up during the contest period. If such a follow-up inspection reveals a failure to abate, a Notification of Failure to Abate Alleged Violation ( AS 18.60.095(d) ) may be issued immediately without regard to the contest period of the initial citation.
   • When a citation is currently under contest, a follow-up inspection will not be scheduled regarding the contested items. If the employer contests the proposed penalty but not the underlying citation, a follow-up inspection typically should not be conducted unless the violations are considered high gravity, and the supervisor decides that follow-up is necessary. If a follow-up inspection is conducted at an establishment involved in proceedings before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Board, the CSHO will explain during the opening conference that the inspection will not include matters before the Review Board.
   • The abatement period begins when the notice of Formal Contest is withdrawn, the proceedings are settled, or the final order is entered. Thereafter, a follow-up inspection may be scheduled as appropriate.
     1. Monitoring Inspections.
     2. When a monitoring inspection is necessary, the priority is the same as for a follow-up inspection.
     3. Employer Information Requests.
     4. Contacts for technical information initiated by employers or their representatives will not trigger an inspection. Additionally, such employer inquiries will not protect the requesting employer against inspections conducted pursuant to existing policy, scheduling guidelines, and inspection programs.
     5. Reporting of Imminent Danger, Catastrophe, Fatality, Amputations, Accidents, Referrals, or Complaints.

   The Chief of Enforcement will act in accordance with established inspection priority procedures.

   NOTE: See Section V. of this chapter, Unprogrammed Activity Hazard Evaluation and Inspection Scheduling , for additional information.

7. Effect of Contest

   If an employer has contested a citation and/or a penalty from a previous inspection at a specific worksite, and the case is still pending before the Review Board, the following guidelines apply to additional inspections of the employer at that worksite:

   1. If the employer has contested only the penalty, the inspection will be scheduled as if there were no contest.
   2. If the employer has contested the citation or any items therein, programmed and unprogrammed inspections may be scheduled. Issues under Formal Contest will be excluded from the inspection unless a potential imminent danger is involved.
8. Enforcement Exemptions and Limitations.
   1. In providing funding for OSHA, Congress has consistently restricted enforcement activities for two categories of employers: small farming operations and small employers in low-hazard industries. Congress may also place exemptions and limitations on OSHA activities through the annual Appropriations Act.
   2. Before initiating an inspection of an employer in these categories, the Assistant Chief of Enforcement will evaluate whether the Appropriations Act for the fiscal year would prohibit the inspection. Where this determination cannot be made beforehand, the CSHO will determine the status of the small farming operation or a small employer in a low-hazard industry upon arrival at the workplace. If the prohibition applies, federal OSHA grant funds may not be used to conduct an inspection. Only State funds must be used.
9. Preemption by Another Agency.
   1. Section 4(b)(1) of the OSH Act states that the Act does not apply to working conditions over which a federal agency exercises statutory responsibility "to prescribe or enforce standards or regulations affecting occupational safety or health."" In many cases, determining whether a federal agency preempts state law is highly complex.
   2. If a question arises, usually upon receipt of a complaint, referral, or other inquiry, consult the Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) list on the OSHA website to determine if the issue has been previously addressed. An MOU is an agreement created to address/resolve coverage issues and to improve working relationships among federal agencies and organizations regarding employee safety and health.
   3. At times, an inspection may already be underway when the coverage jurisdiction question arises. The Chief of Enforcement will be notified as soon as possible and will assess each situation on a case-by-case basis.
10. Home-Based Worksites.
    1. AKOSH will not inspect an employee's home office in the employee's residence. A home office is defined as office work activities in a home-based setting/worksite (e.g., filing, keyboarding, computer research, reading, writing), and may include the use of office equipment (e.g., telephone, facsimile machine, computer, scanner, copy machine, desk, file cabinet).
    2. AKOSH will only conduct inspections of other home-based worksites, such as home manufacturing operations that occur within a residence, when it receives a complaint or referral alleging that a violation of a safety or health standard exists that threatens physical harm, an imminent danger is present, or a work-related fatality has occurred.
11. Inspection/Investigation Types.
    1. Unprogrammed.

       Inspections scheduled in response to allegations of hazardous working conditions identified at a specific worksite are classified as unprogrammed. This type of inspection responds to:

       1. Imminent Dangers;
       2. Fatalities/catastrophes;
       3. Complaints; and
       4. Referrals.
       5. It also includes follow-up and monitoring inspections scheduled by the Chief of Enforcement.

       NOTE: This category includes all employers/employees directly affected by the subject of the unprogrammed inspection activity and is especially applicable to multi-employer worksites.

       NOTE: Not all complaints and referrals qualify for an inspection. See Chapter 3, Complaint and Referral Processing, for additional information.

12. Unprogrammed Related.

    Inspections of employers at multi-employer work sites whose operations are not directly addressed by the subject of the conditions identified in a complaint, accident, or referral are designated as unprogrammed related.

    An example would be a trenching inspection conducted at the unprogrammed worksite, where the trenching hazard was not identified in the complaint, accident report, or referral.

13. Programmed.

    Programmed inspections are scheduled inspections of worksites based upon objective or neutral selection criteria, such as the High Hazard Targeting System (HHT). The worksites are selected according to statewide and national scheduling plans for safety and health or under local, regional, and national special emphasis programs. All emphasis programs are adopted as AKOSH Program Directives, and may be found on the Labor Standards and Safety website: https://labor.alaska.gov/lss/program_directives.htm

14. Program Related.

    Inspections of employers at multi-employer worksites whose activities were not included in the programmed assignment, such as a low-injury-rate employer at a worksite where programmed inspections are being conducted for all high-rate employers.

The description of the Special Emphasis Program shall be identified by one or more of the following:

1. Specific industry;
2. Trade/craft;
3. Substance or other hazard;
4. Type of workplace operation;
5. Type/kind of equipment; and
6. Other identifying characteristics.

The reasons for and the scope of a Special Emphasis Program shall be described, and may be limited by geographic boundaries, size of worksite, or similar considerations.

National or local pilot programs may also be established under Special Emphasis Programs. Such programs may be conducted to assess the actual extent of suspected or potential hazards, determine the feasibility of new or experimental compliance procedures, or for any other legitimate purpose.