Archive Notice - OSHA Archive

NOTICE: This is an OSHA Archive Document, and may no longer represent OSHA Policy. It is presented here as historical content, for research and review purposes only.

OSHA requirements are set by statute, standards and regulations. Our interpretation letters explain these requirements and how they apply to particular circumstances, but they cannot create additional employer obligations. This letter constitutes OSHA's interpretation of the requirements discussed. Note that our enforcement guidance may be affected by changes to OSHA rules. Also, from time to time we update our guidance in response to new information. To keep apprised of such developments, you can consult OSHA's website at

May 13, 1992

Ms. Betty E. Landis
Chief Counsel-IOSHA
State of Indiana
Department of Labor
402 West Washington Street
Room W195
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

Dear Ms. Landis:

This is in response to your April 21 memorandum requesting all information provided to Mr. Railton by our office concerning Chicago Regional Instruction STD 3-9.1.

On or about October 18, Mr. Railton contacted Mr. Roy Gurnham, Director of the Office of Construction and Maritime Compliance Assistance, and requested the status of Region V STD 3-9.1. Mr. Railton stated that an ALJ in Indiana asked him to determine if this STD was still in effect.

On October 22, Mr. Dale Cavanaugh, a member of Mr. Gurnham's staff, contacted Mr. Railton to get the case topic and docket number. During this conversation, Mr. Railton stressed that he needed the information on the status of the STD by COB October 25. A request for the status of this STD was made on October 24 to Mr. John Hermanson of the Region V Office. On the afternoon of October 25, Mr. Cavanaugh called Mr. Railton's office and left a message that the National Office had no record of this STD; that the Regional Office had not yet responded to our inquiry as to whether the STD had been rescinded; and it therefore appeared that the STD was still in effect but that we were still looking into the matter.

On Monday afternoon, October 25, we received a facsimile copy of the cancellation notice of Chicago Regional Instruction STD 3-9.1 from your office as requested from Mr. Hermanson. Mr. Cavanaugh called Mr. Railton the next day but Mr. Railton was not available. On October 29, Mr. Cavanaugh left a message with Mr. Railton's office that the STD had been rescinded in May 1989. No further contact was made with Mr. Railton.

In regard to the current status of the STD and whether it was issued to state plans and was applicable to the Indiana State plan, please be advised that the Chicago Regional STD 3-9.1 was rescinded in May 1989 and therefore is no longer in effect. This STD was issued to Federal OSHA only and did not apply to state plans and therefore was not sent to the State of Indiana.


Patricia K. Clark, Director
Directorate of Compliance Programs





DATE: APRIL 21, 1992

RE: LETTER OF INTERPRETATION CHICAGO REGIONAL INSTRUCTION STD 3-9.1 Commissioner of Labor v. Otis Elevator, BSR Case Docket 89-26


Pursuant to our telephone conversation of April 15, 1992, the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Labor respectfully requests that your office send written confirmation of any information provided to Mr. Scott Railton on or after October 18, 1991, regarding Chicago Regional STD 3-9.1.

As you know, the Commissioner and Otis Elevator Co. (Mr. Railton's client) are involved in a matter before the Indiana Board of Safety Review. On October 28, 1991, Otis made a representation that your office had provided information (specifically, whether the STD was in effect) to Mr. Railton. Although IOSHA never received the STD (and Region V never sent it), information from Region V showed the STD had been rescinded. On October 28, 1991, I faxed information to Mr. Cavenaugh of your office showing the STD had been rescinded in May 1989.

Because of Otis Elevator's representations relating to your office's communications with Mr. Railton, please send a letter indicating what information has been provided to Mr. Railton (or his client, Otis Elevator Company), the current status of the STD, whether the STD was issued to state plans, and whether the STD was/is applicable to the Indiana state plan.

Thank you for your continued assistance in this matter.


Archive Notice - OSHA Archive

NOTICE: This is an OSHA Archive Document, and may no longer represent OSHA Policy. It is presented here as historical content, for research and review purposes only.