Willful violations

We have said that every time the calibration analyzes a new unknown sample, this amounts to an additional validation test of the calibration. It can be a major mistake to believe that, just because a calibration worked well when it was being developed, it will continue to produce reliable results from that point on. When we discussed the requirements for a training set, we said that collection of samples in the training set must, as a group, be representative in all ways of the unknowns that will be analyzed by the calibration. If this condition is not met, then the calibration is invalid and cannot be expected to produce reliable results. Any change in the process, the instrument, or the measurement procedure which introduces changes into the data measured on an unknown will violate this condition and invalidate the method If this occurs, the concentration values that the calibration predicts for unknown samples are completely unreliable We must therefore have a plan and procedures in place that will insure that we are alerted if such a condition should arise. 

In other words, you should not always jump to the conclusion that pushing an arrow will violate the octet rule. You should first look to see if you can push another arrow that will eliminate the problem. 

Now let s do step 1 can we convert any lone pairs into pi bonds If we try to bring down the lone pairs, we will violate the octet rule by forming a carbon atom with five bonds ... 

A sufficient condition for pg to be A-representable is an equation or inequality that guarantees any g-density is A-representable. Although some A-representable g-densities might violate a sufficient condition, every non-A-representable g-density will violate a sufficient condition. 

Material failure to comply with federal requirements affecting research. Includes but is not limited to serious or substantial, repeated and/or willful violations involving the use of funds, care of animals, human subjects, investigational drugs, genetic products, new devices, or radioactive, biologic, or chemical materials. 

The newspaper stated, A willful violation is one that the employer intentionally or knowingly commits according to an OSHA news release. [23] The first deals with the lack of inspection and testing procedures for existing pipe.. . . The second part addresses the frequency of further inspections once company officials discovered components were made of the wrong materials. ... 

Several types of categories of violations are available to describe the degree seriousness of the charge. Three of the more commonly seen classes of violations are willful, serious and other-than-serious. A willful violation is defined as one committed by an employer with either an intentional disregard of, or plain indifference to the requirements of the regulation. To support a willful violation, OSHA must generally demonstrate that the employee knew the facts about the cited condition and knew the regulation required the situation to be corrected. OSHA s penalty policy requires that the initial penalties for violations shall be between 25,000 and 70,000 based upon a number of factors. 

It was found by OSHA that the contractor, Fish Engineering, had a history of serious and willful violations of safety standard, which Phillips had not acted upon. The same contractor also had been involved in a fatal accident at the same facility three months earlier. 

The DOL also has the right to seek an injunction, which means that the secretary of labor files a restraint prohibiting future violations of FLSA laws. Damages may include back pay (statute of limitations is 2 years for unintentional violations and 3 years for willful violations), penalties, attorney fees, and court costs. In a lawsuit, as opposed to an administrative audit by the DOL, employees generally collect back pay and liquidated damages in the amount of back pay (double damages). 

It is possible that some new hydride, perhaps less stable than the known ones, will violate some of these assumptions. This is particularly likely for reaction intermediates. Hence an examination has been made ( 3) of some of the more likely possibilities which may occur if the symmetry restriction is removed. It is further quite likely that the present form of the valence and topological theory will be of aid in the elucidation of reaction mechanisms. 

Poor The proposed no-smoking ordinance in our town will violate a number of our citizens civil rights, and no one has proved secondary smoke is dangerous anyway. [This thesis contains two main assertions—the ordinance s violation of rights and secondary smoke s lack of danger—that require two different kinds of supporting evidence.]... 

Penal Sanctions may also be imposed on any employer, manufacturer, producer, importer or siqjplier who willfully violates ttie Act or the rules promulgated by it. Offences committed due to negligence (on conviction) carry flie fidl sanction of a fine or a prison sentence not exceeding one year. 

With this in mind, the seller should make sure that any pre-Closing activities it intends to conduct that may expose a violation of TSCA are set up in advance to maximize the ability to meet the requirements of the various EPA penalty mitigation pohcies. Sellers should also be mindful that TSCA 16 makes it a crime to knowingly or willfully violate TSCA, so a seller must react quickly to correct continuing violations it discovers to avoid criminal risks. 

Any person who knowingly or willfully violates any provision of section 2614 or 2689 of this title, shall, in addition to or in lieu of any civil penalty which may be imposed under subsection (a) of this section for such violation, be subject, upon conviction, to a fine of not more than 25,000 for each day of violation, or to imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. 

Willful violations are those committed with an intentional disregard of, or plain indifference to, the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and OSHA regulations. 

OSHA must generally demonstrate that the employer knew about the facts of the cited condition and knew that the regulation required that action be taken. The essential point is that a willful violation is based not on what was done, but on being aware that a standard existed, and then choosing not to follow it. It is not considered a wiUful violation if the employer, in good faith, misinterprets the law or has a genuine dispute over the meaning of the law. 

Companies will usually go to considerable trouble to have willful violations downgraded to serious or less. Not only does a willful citation indicate a significant failure in management standards, it can also be used by plaintiffs in civil litigation to support their claims for high payment, and the employer may be criminally liable if someone dies. 

In summary, if an employer or one of his employees chooses not to comply with an OSHA regulation, OSHA has grounds for a willful violation. Intent is not a factor. 

Willful violations are violations that the employer intentionally and knowingly commits. The employer either knows that what they are doing is a violation or is aware that a hazardous condition exists and has made no reasonable effort to eliminate it. Penalties of up to 70,000 may be proposed for each willful violation, with a minimum penalty of 5,000 for each violation. 

Section 17(e) of the OSHA Act provides criminal penalties for an employer who is convicted of willfully violating an OSHA standard, rule, or order when the violation results in the death of an employee. Cases that may be appropriate for criminal prosecution are referred to the U.S. Department of Justice. In 2006 there were 12 criminal referrals, 2007 had 10,2(K)8 had 14, and 2009 had 11 (data from www.osha.gov, October 2010). 

OSHA compliance officers can enter workplaces at reasonable times where work is taking place, inspect condition, facility machine, equipment, or materials, and question in private an employee or other person formally associated with the company. OSHA is empowered to issue citations and/or set penalties. Citations are issued for (a) other than serious violations, (b) willful violations, (c) repeat violations, and (d) failure to correct prior violations. 

Safety professionals should be aware of the new Severe Violator Enforcement Program established in 2010, which is intended to focus OSHA enforcement resources on recalcitrant employers who endanger workers by demonstrating indifference to their responsibilities under the law. Additionally, safety professionals should be aware that it is proposed to increase the monetary penalties. The current maximum penalty for a serious violation, one capable of causing death or serious physical harm, is only 7,000 and the maximum penalty for a willful violation is... 

Example 1 A CSHO conducts an SST inspection and cites the employer for one high gravity willful violation of 29 CFR 1910.23 and one low gravity willful violation of 29 CFR 1910.28. The inspection has not met the Non-Fatality/Catastrophe Criterion Related to High-Emphasis Hazards and is not subject to the SVEP. 

OSHA published 29 CER 1910.1030, relating exposures to bloodbome pathogens on December 6, 1991. The rule took effect on March 6, 1992. Under the standard, employers affected by the standard were to be in fttU compliance by July 6, 1992. An exposure control plan was to be in effect by May 5, 1992, and employee training made available by June 5, 1992. OSHA has taken a firm posture on implementation of the mle. OSHA can impose a fine of up to 70,000 per willful violation. 

---