Generic viagra online

Generic viagra online

Start Preamble Start Printed Page http://www.pressesite.dk/discount-viagra/ 32376 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), generic viagra online Department of Labor. Interim final rule. Request for generic viagra online comments. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is issuing an emergency temporary standard (ETS) to protect healthcare and healthcare support service workers from occupational exposure to erectile dysfunction treatment in settings where people with erectile dysfunction treatment are reasonably expected to be present. During the generic viagra online period of the emergency standard, covered healthcare employers must develop and implement a erectile dysfunction treatment plan to identify and control erectile dysfunction treatment hazards in the workplace.

Covered employers must also implement other requirements to reduce transmission of erectile dysfunction treatment in their workplaces, related to the following. Patient screening and management. Standard and Transmission-Based Precautions generic viagra online. Personal protective equipment (PPE), including facemasks or respirators. Controls for generic viagra online aerosol-generating procedures.

Physical distancing of at least six feet, when feasible. Physical barriers generic viagra online. Cleaning and dis. Ventilation. Health screening and medical management generic viagra online.

Training. Anti-retaliation. Recordkeeping. And reporting. The standard encourages vaccination by requiring employers to provide reasonable time and paid leave for employee vaccinations and any side effects.

It also encourages use of respirators, where respirators are used in lieu of required facemasks, by including a mini respiratory protection program that applies to such use. Finally, the standard exempts from coverage certain workplaces where all employees are fully vaccinated and individuals with possible erectile dysfunction treatment are prohibited from entry. And it exempts from some of the requirements of the standard fully vaccinated employees in well-defined areas where there is no reasonable expectation that individuals with erectile dysfunction treatment will be present. Effective dates. The rule is effective June 21, 2021.

The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of June 21, 2021. Compliance dates. Compliance dates for specific provisions are in 29 CFR 1910.502(s). Employers must comply with all requirements of this section, except for requirements in paragraphs (i), (k), and (n) by July 6, 2021. Employers must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (i), (k), and (n) by July 21, 2021.

Comments due. Written comments, including comments on any aspect of this ETS and whether this ETS should become a final rule, must be submitted by July 21, 2021 in Docket No. OSHA-2020-0004. Comments on the information collection determination described in Section VII.K of the preamble (OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995) may be submitted by August 20, 2021 in Docket Number OSHA-2021-003. In accordance with 28 U.S.C.

2112(a), the agency designates Edmund C. Baird, Associate Solicitor of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, to receive petitions for review of the ETS. Service can be accomplished by email to zzSOL-erectile dysfunction treatment19-ETS@dol.gov. Written comments.

You may submit comments and attachments, identified by Docket No. OSHA-2020-0004, electronically at www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Follow the online instructions for making electronic submissions. Instructions. All submissions must include the agency's name and the docket number for this rulemaking (Docket No.

OSHA-2020-0004). All comments, including any personal information you provide, are placed in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about submitting information they do not want made available to the public or submitting materials that contain personal information (either about themselves or others), such as Social Security Numbers and birthdates. Docket. To read or download comments or other material in the docket, go to Docket No.

OSHA-2020-0004 at www.regulations.gov. All comments and submissions are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, some information (e.g ., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download through that website. All comments and submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection through the OSHA Docket Office. Documents submitted to the docket by OSHA or stakeholders are assigned document identification numbers (Document ID) for easy identification and retrieval.

The full Document ID is the docket number plus a unique four-digit code. OSHA is identifying supporting information in this ETS by author name and publication year, when appropriate. This information can be used to search for a supporting document in the docket at http://www.regulations.gov. Contact the OSHA Docket Office at 202-693-2350 (TTY number. 877-889-5627) for assistance in locating docket submissions.

Start Further Info General information and press inquiries. Contact Frank Meilinger, Director, Office of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor. Telephone (202) 693-1999. Email meilinger.francis2@dol.gov.

For technical inquiries. Contact Andrew Levinson, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, U.S. Department of Labor. Telephone (202) 693-1950. End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information The preamble to the ETS on occupational exposure to erectile dysfunction treatment follows this outline.

Table of Contents I. Executive Summary II. History of erectile dysfunction treatment III. Pertinent Legal Authority IV. Rationale for the ETS A.

Grave Danger B. Need for the ETS V. Need for Specific Provisions of the ETS VI. Feasibility A. Technological Feasibility B.

Economic Feasibility VII. Additional Requirements VIII. Summary and Explanation of the ETS Authority and Signature I. Executive Summary This ETS is based on the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act or Act) and legal precedent arising under the Act. Under section 6(c)(1) of the OSH Act, 29 U.S.C.

655(c)(1), OSHA shall issue an ETS if the agency determines that employees are exposed to grave danger from exposure to substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful or from new hazards, and an ETS is necessary to protect employees from such danger. These legal requirements are more fully discussed in Pertinent Legal Authority (Section III of this preamble). For the first time in its 50-year history, OSHA faces a new hazard so grave that it has killed nearly 600,000 Start Printed Page 32377people in the United States in barely over a year, and infected millions more (CDC, May 24, 2021a). And the impact of this new illness has been borne disproportionately by the healthcare and healthcare support workers tasked with caring for those infected by this disease. As of May 24, 2021, over 491,816 healthcare workers have contracted erectile dysfunction treatment, and more than 1,600 of those workers have died (CDC, May 24, 2021b).

OSHA has determined that employee exposure to this new hazard, erectile dysfunction (the viagra that causes erectile dysfunction treatment), presents a grave danger to workers in all healthcare settings in the United States and its territories where people with erectile dysfunction treatment are reasonably expected to be present. This finding of grave danger is based on the science of how the viagra spreads and the elevated risk in workplaces where erectile dysfunction treatment patients are cared for, as well as the adverse health effects suffered by those diagnosed with erectile dysfunction treatment, as discussed in Grave Danger (Section IV.A. Of this preamble). OSHA has also determined that an ETS is necessary to protect healthcare and healthcare support employees in covered healthcare settings from exposures to erectile dysfunction, as discussed in Need for the ETS (Section IV.B. Of this preamble).

Workers face a particularly elevated risk of exposure to erectile dysfunction in settings where patients with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment receive treatment or where patients with undiagnosed illnesses come for treatment (e.g., emergency rooms, urgent care centers), especially when providing care or services directly to those patients. Through its enforcement efforts to date, OSHA has encountered significant obstacles, revealing that existing standards, regulations, and the OSH Act's General Duty Clause are inadequate to address the erectile dysfunction treatment hazard for employees covered by this ETS. The agency has determined that a erectile dysfunction treatment ETS is necessary to address these inadequacies. Additionally, as states and localities have taken increasingly more divergent approaches to erectile dysfunction treatment workplace regulation—ranging from states with their own erectile dysfunction treatment ETSs to states with no workplace protections at all—it has become clear that a Federal standard is needed to ensure sufficient protection for healthcare employees in all states. The development of safe and highly effective treatments and the on-going nationwide distribution of these treatments are encouraging milestones in the nation's response to erectile dysfunction treatment.

OSHA recognizes the promise of treatments to protect workers, but as of the time of the promulgation of the ETS, vaccination has not eliminated the grave danger presented by the erectile dysfunction viagra to the entire healthcare workforce. Indeed, approximately a quarter of healthcare workers have not yet completed erectile dysfunction treatment vaccination (King et al., April 24, 2021). Nonetheless, vaccination is critical in combatting erectile dysfunction treatment, and the standard requires employers to provide paid leave to employees so that they can be vaccinated and recover from any side effects. Additionally, certain workplaces and well-defined areas where all employees are fully vaccinated are exempted from all of the standard's requirements, and certain fully vaccinated workers are exempted from several of the standard's requirements. OSHA will continue to monitor trends in erectile dysfunction treatment s and deaths as more of the workforce and the general population become vaccinated and the viagra continues to evolve.

Where OSHA finds a grave danger from the viagra no longer exists for the covered workforce (or some portion thereof), or new information indicates a change in measures necessary to address the grave danger, OSHA will update the ETS, as appropriate. To protect workers in the meantime, however, a multi-layered approach to controlling occupational exposures to erectile dysfunction in healthcare workplaces is required. As discussed in the Need for Specific Provisions (Section V of this preamble), OSHA relied on the best available science for its decisions concerning appropriate provisions for the ETS and its determinations regarding the kind and degree of protective actions needed to protect against exposure to erectile dysfunction at work and the feasibility of instituting these provisions. More specifically, the agency's analysis demonstrates that an effective erectile dysfunction treatment control program must utilize a suite of overlapping controls in a layered approach to protect workers from workplace exposure to erectile dysfunction. OSHA emphasizes that the control practices required by the ETS are most effective when used together.

However, they are also each individually protective. The agency has also evaluated the feasibility of this ETS and has determined that the requirements of the ETS are both economically and technologically feasible, as outlined in Feasibility (Section VI of this preamble). Table I.-1, which is derived from material presented in Section VI of this preamble, provides a summary of OSHA's best estimate of the costs and benefits of the rule using a discount rate of 3 percent. The specific requirements of the ETS are outlined and described in the Summary and Explanation (Section VIII of this preamble). OSHA requests comments on the provisions of the ETS and whether it should be adopted as a permanent standard.

Start Printed Page 32378 II. History of erectile dysfunction treatment The global viagra of respiratory disease (erectile dysfunction disease 2019 or “erectile dysfunction treatment”) caused by a novel erectile dysfunction (erectile dysfunction) has been taking an enormous toll on individuals, workplaces, and governments around the world since early 2020. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), as of May 24, 2021, there had been 166,860,081 confirmed cases of erectile dysfunction treatment globally, resulting in more than 3,459,996 deaths (WHO, May 24, 2021). In the United States as of the same date, the CDC reported over 32,947,548 cases in the United States and over 587,342 deaths due to the disease (CDC, May 24, 2021a. CDC, May 24, 2021c).

Among healthcare workers specifically, as of May 24, 2021, 491,816 healthcare workers in the United States had contracted erectile dysfunction treatment, and at least 1,611 of those workers had died. Both of those figures are likely an undercount (CDC, May 24, 2021b). The first confirmed case of erectile dysfunction treatment was identified in the Hubei Province of China in December of 2019 (Chen et al., August 6, 2020). On December 31, 2019, China reported to the WHO that it had identified several influenza-like cases of unknown cause in Wuhan, China (WHO, January 5, 2020). Soon, erectile dysfunction treatment s had spread throughout Asia, Europe, and North and South America.

By February 2020, 58 other countries had reported erectile dysfunction treatment cases (WHO, March 1, 2020). By March 2020, widespread local transmission of the viagra was established in 88 countries. Because of the widespread transmission and severity of the disease, along with what the WHO described as alarming levels of inaction, the WHO officially declared erectile dysfunction treatment a viagra on March 11, 2020 (WHO, March 11, 2020). The first reported case of erectile dysfunction treatment in the United States was in the state of Washington, on January 21, 2020, in a person who had returned from Wuhan, China on January 15, 2020 (CDC, January 21, 2020). On January 31, 2020, the erectile dysfunction treatment outbreak was declared to be a U.S.

Public health emergency (US DHHS, January 31, 2020). After the initial report of the viagra in January 2020, a steep increase in erectile dysfunction treatment cases in the U.S. Was observed though March and early April. In the six weeks between March 1, 2020 and April 12, 2020, the 7-day moving average of new cases rose from only 57 to 31,779 (CDC, May 24, 2021d). The President declared the erectile dysfunction treatment outbreak a national emergency on March 13, 2020 (The White House, March 13, 2020).

As of March 19, 2020, all 50 states and the District of Columbia had declared emergencies related to the viagra Start Printed Page 32379(NGA, March 19, 2020. NGA, December 4, 2020. Ayanian, June 3, 2020). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued or expanded emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for three erectile dysfunction treatments between December 2020 and May 2021.

Currently, everyone in the United States age 12 and older is eligible to receive a erectile dysfunction treatment. As of May 24, 2021, the CDC reported that 163,907,827 people had received at least one dose of treatment and 130,615,797 people were fully vaccinated, representing 45 percent and 32.8 percent of the total U.S. Population, respectively (CDC, May 24, 2021e). Vaccination rates are higher among people ages 65 and older than among the rest of the population. Despite the relatively rapid distribution of treatments in many areas of the U.S., a substantial proportion of the working age population remains unvaccinated and susceptible to erectile dysfunction treatment , including approximately a quarter of all healthcare and healthcare support workers (King et al., April 24, 2021).

And, as discussed in more detail in Grave Danger (Section IV.A. Of this preamble), because workers in healthcare settings where erectile dysfunction treatment patients are treated continue to have regular exposure to erectile dysfunction and any variants that develop, they remain at an elevated risk of contracting erectile dysfunction treatment regardless of vaccination status. Therefore, OSHA has determined that a grave danger to healthcare and healthcare support workers remains, despite the fully-vaccinated status of some workers, and that an ETS is necessary to address this danger (see Grave Danger and Need for the ETS (Sections IV.A. And IV.B. Of this preamble)).

References Ayanian, JZ. (2020, June 3). Taking shelter from the erectile dysfunction treatment storm. JAMA Health Forum. Https://jamanetwork.com/​channels/​health-forum/​fullarticle/​2766931.

(Ayanian, June 3, 2020). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2020, January 21). First travel-related case of 2019 novel erectile dysfunction detected in United States. Https://www.cdc.gov/​media/​releases/​2020/​p0121-novel-erectile dysfunction-travel-case.html.

(CDC, January 21, 2020). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021a, May 24). erectile dysfunction treatment data tracker. Trends in number of erectile dysfunction treatment cases and deaths in the US reported to CDC, by state/territory.

Trends in Total erectile dysfunction treatment Deaths in the United States Reported to CDC. Https://erectile dysfunction treatment.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction treatment-data-tracker/​#trends_​dailytrendscases. (CDC, May 24, 2021a) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021b, May 24). Cases &.

Deaths among Healthcare Personnel. Https://erectile dysfunction treatment.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction treatment-data-tracker/​#health-care-personnel. (CDC, May 24, 2021b) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021c, May 24). erectile dysfunction treatment data tracker.

Trends in number of erectile dysfunction treatment cases and deaths in the US reported to CDC, by state/territory. Trends in Total erectile dysfunction treatment Cases in the United States Reported to CDC. Https://erectile dysfunction treatment.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction treatment-data-tracker/​#trends_​dailytrendscases. (CDC, May 24, 2021c). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

(2021d, May 24). erectile dysfunction treatment data tracker. Trends in number of erectile dysfunction treatment cases and deaths in the US reported to CDC, by state/territory. Daily Trends in Number of erectile dysfunction treatment Cases in the United States Reported to CDC. Https://erectile dysfunction treatment.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction treatment-data-tracker/​#trends_​dailytrendscases.

(CDC, May 24, 2021d). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021e, May 24). erectile dysfunction treatment Vaccinations in the United States. Https://erectile dysfunction treatment.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction treatment-data-tracker/​#vaccinations.

(CDC, May 24, 2021e). Chen, Y.-T, et al., (2020, August 6). An examination on the transmission of erectile dysfunction treatment and the effect of response strategies. A comparative analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17(16):5687.

Https://www.mdpi.com/​1660-4601/​17/​16/​5687. (Chen et al., August 6, 2020). King, WC, et al., (2021, April 24). erectile dysfunction treatment hesitancy January-March 2021 among 18-64 year old US adults by employment and occupation. MedRxiv.

Https://www.medrxiv.org/​content/​10.1101/​2021.04.20.21255821v3. (King et al., April 24, 2021). National Governor's Association (NGA). (2020, March 19). erectile dysfunction:what you need to know.

Https://www.nga.org/​erectile dysfunction/​. (NGA, March 19, 2020). National Governor's Association (NGA). (2020, December 4). Summary of state viagra mitigation actions.

Https://www.nga.org/​erectile dysfunction-mitigation-actions/​. (NGA, December 4, 2020). The White House. (2020, March 13). Proclamation on declaring a national emergency concerning the novel erectile dysfunction disease (erectile dysfunction treatment) outbreak.

Https://web.archive.org/​web/​20200313234554/​https://www.whitehouse.gov/​presidential-actions/​proclamation-declaring-national-emergency-concerning-novel-erectile dysfunction-disease-erectile dysfunction treatment-outbreak/​. (The White House, March 13, 2020). United States Department of Health and Human Services (US DHHS). (2020, January 31). Determination that a public health emergency exists.

Https://www.phe.gov/​emergency/​news/​healthactions/​phe/​Pages/​2019-nCoV.aspx. (US DHHS, January 31, 2020). World Health Organization (WHO). (2020, January 5). Emergencies preparedness, response—Pneumonia of unknown cause—China.

Disease outbreak news. Https://www.who.int/​csr/​don/​05-january-2020-pneumonia-of-unkown-cause-china/​en/​. (WHO, January 5, 2020). World Health Organization (WHO). (2020, March 1).

erectile dysfunction disease 2019 (erectile dysfunction treatment) situation report—41. Https://www.who.int/​docs/​default-source/​erectile dysfunctione/​situation-reports/​20200301-sitrep-41-erectile dysfunction treatment.pdf?. €‹sfvrsn=​6768306d_​2. (WHO, March 1, 2020). World Health Organization (WHO).

(2020, March 11). erectile dysfunction disease 2019 (erectile dysfunction treatment) situation report—51. Https://www.who.int/​docs/​default-source/​erectile dysfunctione/​situation-reports/​20200311-sitrep-51-erectile dysfunction treatment.pdf?. €‹sfvrsn=​1ba62e57_​10. (WHO, March 11, 2020).

World Health Organization (WHO). (2021, May 24). WHO erectile dysfunction Disease (erectile dysfunction treatment) Dashboard. Https://erectile dysfunction treatment19.who.int/​table. (WHO, May 24, 2021).

III. Pertinent Legal Authority The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act), 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq., is “to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions and to preserve our human resources.” 29 U.S.C. 651(b). To this end, Congress authorized the Secretary of Labor (Secretary) to promulgate and enforce occupational safety and health standards under sections 6(b) and (c) of the OSH Act.[] 29 U.S.C.

655(b). These provisions provide bases for issuing occupational safety and health standards under the Act. Once OSHA has established as a threshold matter that a health standard is necessary under section 6(b) or (c)—i.e., to reduce a significant risk of material health impairment, or a grave danger to employee health—the Act gives the Secretary “almost unlimited discretion to devise means to achieve the congressionally mandated goal” of protecting employee health, subject to the constraints of feasibility. See United Steelworkers of Am. V.

Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1230 (D.C. Cir. 1981). A standard's individual requirements need only be “reasonably related” to the purpose of ensuring a safe and healthful working environment. Id.

At 1237, 1241. See also Forging Industry Ass'n v. Sec'y of Labor, 773 F.2d 1436, 1447 (4th Cir. 1985). OSHA's authority to regulate employers is hedged by constitutional considerations and, pursuant to section 4(b)(1) of the OSH Act, the regulations and enforcement policies of other Start Printed Page 32380federal agencies.

Chao v. Mallard Bay Drilling, Inc., 534 U.S. 235, 241 (2002). The OSH Act reflects Congress's determination that the costs of compliance with the Act and OSHA standards are part of the cost of doing business and OSHA may foreclose employers from shifting those costs to employees. See Am.

Textile Mfrs. Inst., Inc. V. Donovan, 452 U.S. 490, 514 (1981).

Phelps Dodge Corp. V. OSHRC, 725 F.2d 1237, 1239-40 (9th Cir. 1984). See also Sec'y of Labor v.

Beverly Healthcare-Hillview, 541 F.3d 193 (3d Cir. 2008). Furthermore, the Act and its legislative history “both demonstrate unmistakably” OSHA's authority to require employers to temporarily remove workers from the workplace to prevent exposure to a health hazard. United Steelworkers of Am., 647 F.2d at 1230. The OSH Act states that the Secretary “shall” issue an emergency temporary standard (ETS) if he finds that the ETS is necessary to address a grave danger to workers.

See 29 U.S.C. 655(c). In particular, the Secretary shall provide, without regard to the requirements of chapter 5, title 5, United States Code, for an emergency temporary standard to take immediate effect upon publication in the Federal Register if he determines that employees are exposed to grave danger from exposure to substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful or from new hazards, and that such emergency standard is necessary to protect employees from such danger. 29 U.S.C. 655(c)(1).

A separate section of the OSH Act, section 8(c), authorizes the Secretary to prescribe regulations requiring employers to make, keep, and preserve records that are necessary or appropriate for the enforcement of the Act. 29 U.S.C. 657(c)(1). Section 8(c) also provides that the Secretary shall require employers to keep records of, and report, work-related deaths and illnesses. 29 U.S.C.

657(c)(2). The ETS provision, section 6(c)(1), exempts the Secretary from procedural requirements contained in the OSH Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, including those for public notice, comments, and a rulemaking hearing. See, e.g., 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(3). 5 U.S.C.

552, 553. For that reason, ETSs have been referred to as the “most dramatic weapon in [OSHA's] arsenal.” Asbestos Info. Ass'n/N. Am. V.

OSHA, 727 F.2d 415, 426 (5th Cir. 1984). The Secretary must issue an ETS in situations where employees are exposed to a “grave danger” and immediate action is necessary to protect those employees from such danger. 29 U.S.C. 655(c)(1).

Pub. Citizen Health Research Grp. V. Auchter, 702 F.2d 1150, 1156 (D.C. Cir.

1983). The determination of what exact level of risk constitutes a “grave danger” is a “policy consideration that belongs, in the first instance, to the Agency.” Asbestos Info. Ass'n, 727 F.2d at 425 (accepting OSHA's determination that eighty lives at risk over six months was a grave danger). Indus. Union Dep't, AFL-CIO v.

Am. Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607, 655 n.62 (1980). However, a “grave danger” represents a risk greater than the “significant risk” that OSHA must show in order to promulgate a permanent standard under section 6(b) of the OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. 655(b).

Int'l Union, United Auto., Aerospace, &. Agr. Implement Workers of Am., UAW v. Donovan, 590 F. Supp.

747, 755-56 (D.D.C. 1984), adopted, 756 F.2d 162 (D.C. Cir. 1985). See also Indus.

Union Dep't, AFL-CIO, 448 U.S. At 640 n.45 (noting the distinction between the standard for risk findings in permanent standards and ETSs). In determining the type of health effects that may constitute a “grave danger” under the OSH Act, the Fifth Circuit emphasized “the danger of incurable, permanent, or fatal consequences to workers, as opposed to easily curable and fleeting effects on their health.” Fla. Peach Growers Ass'n, Inc. V.

U.S. Dep't of Labor, 489 F.2d 120, 132 (5th Cir. 1974). Although the findings of grave danger and necessity must be based on evidence of “actual, prevailing industrial conditions,” see Int'l Union, 590 F. Supp.

At 751, OSHA need not wait for deaths to occur before promulgating an ETS, see Fla. Peach Growers Ass'n., 489 F.2d at 130. When OSHA determines that exposure to a particular hazard would pose a grave danger to workers, OSHA can assume an exposure to a grave danger wherever that hazard is present in a workplace. Dry Color Mfrs. Ass'n, Inc.

V. Department of Labor, 486 F.2d 98, 102 n.3 (3d Cir. 1973). In demonstrating that an ETS is necessary, the Fifth Circuit considered whether OSHA had shown that there were no other means of addressing the risk than an ETS. Asbestos Info.

Ass'n, 727 F.2d at 426 (holding that necessity had not been proven where OSHA could have increased enforcement of already-existing standards to address the grave risk to workers from asbestos exposure). On judicial review of an ETS, OSHA is entitled to great deference on the determinations of grave danger and necessity required under section 6(c)(1). See, e.g., Pub. Citizen Health Research Grp., 702 F.2d at 1156. Asbestos Info.

Ass'n, 727 F.2d at 422 (judicial review of these legislative determinations requires deference to the agency). Cf. American Dental Ass'n v. Martin, 984 F.2d 823, 831 (7th Cir. 1993) (“the duty of a reviewing court of generalist judges is merely to patrol the boundary of reasonableness”).

These determinations are “essentially legislative and rooted in inferences from complex scientific and factual data.” Pub. Citizen Health Research Grp., 702 F.2d at 1156. The agency is not required to support its conclusions “with anything approaching scientific certainty” and has the “prerogative to choose between conflicting evidence.” Indus. Union Dep't, AFL-CIO, 448 U.S. At 656.

Asbestos Info. Ass'n, 727 F.2d at 425. The determinations of the Secretary in issuing standards under section 6 of the OSH Act, including ETSs, must be affirmed if supported by “substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole.” 29 U.S.C. 655(f). The Supreme Court described substantial evidence as “ `such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.' ” Am.

Textile Mfrs. Inst., 452 U.S. At 522-23 (quoting Universal Camera Corp. V. NLRB, 340 U.S.

474, 477 (1951)). The Court also noted that “ `the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency's finding from being supported by substantial evidence.' ” Am. Textile Mfrs. Inst., 452 U.S. At 523 (quoting Consolo v.

FMC, 383 U.S. 607, 620 (1966)). The Fifth Circuit, recognizing the size and complexity of the rulemaking record before it in the case of OSHA's ETS for organophosphorus pesticides, stated that a court's function in reviewing an ETS to determine whether it meets the substantial evidence standard is “basically [to] determine whether the Secretary carried out his essentially legislative task in a manner reasonable under the state of the record before him.” Fla Peach Growers Ass'n., 489 F.2d at 129. Although Congress waived the ordinary rulemaking procedures in the interest of “permitting rapid action to meet emergencies,” section 6(e) of the OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. 655(e), requires OSHA to include a statement of reasons for its action when it issues any standard.

Dry Color Mfrs., 486 F.2d at 105-06 (finding OSHA's statement of reasons inadequate). By requiring the agency to articulate its reasons for issuing an ETS, the requirement acts as “an essential safeguard to emergency temporary standard-setting.” Id. At 106. However, the Third Circuit noted that it did not require justification of “every substance, type of use or production Start Printed Page 32381technique,” but rather a “general explanation” of why the standard is necessary. Id.

At 107. ETSs are, by design, temporary in nature. Under section 6(c)(3), an ETS serves as a proposal for a permanent standard in accordance with section 6(b) of the OSH Act (permanent standards), and the Act calls for the permanent standard to be finalized within six months after publication of the ETS. 29 U.S.C. 655(c)(3).

See Fla. Peach Growers Ass'n., 489 F.2d at 124. The ETS is effective “until superseded by a standard promulgated in accordance with” section 6(c)(3). 29 U.S.C. 655(c)(2).

It is crucial to note that the language of section 6(c)(1) is not discretionary. The Secretary “shall” provide for an ETS when OSHA makes the prerequisite findings of grave danger and necessity. Pub. Citizen Health Research Grp., 702 F.2d at 1156 (noting the mandatory language of section 6(c)). OSHA is entitled to great deference in its determinations, and it must also account for “the fact that `the interests at stake are not merely economic interests in a license or a rate structure, but personal interests in life and health.' ” Id.

(quoting Wellford v. Ruckelshaus, 439 F.2d 598, 601 (D.C. Cir. 1971)). IV.

Rationale for the ETS A. Grave Danger I. Introduction On January 31, 2020, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) declared erectile dysfunction treatment to be a public health emergency in the U.S. Under section 319 of the Public Health Service Act. The World Health Organization declared erectile dysfunction treatment to be a global health emergency on the same day.

President Donald Trump declared the erectile dysfunction treatment outbreak to be a national emergency on March 13, 2020 (The White House, March 13, 2020). HHS renewed its declaration of erectile dysfunction treatment as a public health emergency effective April 21, 2021 (HHS, April 15, 2021).[] Consistent with these declarations, and in carrying out its legal duties under the OSH Act, OSHA has determined that healthcare employees face a grave danger from the new hazard of workplace exposures to erectile dysfunction except under a limited number of situations (e.g., a fully vaccinated workforce in a breakroom).[] The viagra is both a physically harmful agent and a new hazard, and it can cause severe illness, persistent health effects, and death (morbidity and mortality, respectively) from the subsequent development of the disease, erectile dysfunction treatment.[] OSHA bases its grave danger determination on evidence demonstrating the lethality of the disease, the serious physical and psychiatric health effects of erectile dysfunction treatment morbidity (in mild-to-moderate as well as in severe cases), and the transmissibility of the disease in healthcare settings where people with erectile dysfunction treatment are reasonably expected to be present. The protections of this ETS—which will apply, with some exceptions, to healthcare settings where people may share space with erectile dysfunction treatment patients or interact with others who do—are designed to protect employees from with erectile dysfunction and from the dire, sometimes fatal, consequences of such . The fact that erectile dysfunction treatment is not a uniquely work-related hazard does not change the determination that it is a grave danger to which employees are exposed, nor does it excuse employers from their duty to protect employees from the occupational transmission of erectile dysfunction. The OSH Act is intended to “assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions,” 29 U.S.C.

651(b), and there is nothing in the Act to suggest that its protections do not extend to hazards which might occur outside of the workplace as well as within. Indeed, erectile dysfunction treatment is not the first hazard that OSHA has regulated that occurs both inside and outside the workplace. For example, the hazard of noise is not unique to the workplace, but the Fourth Circuit has upheld OSHA's Occupational Noise Exposure standard, 29 CFR 1910.95 (Forging Industry Ass'n v. Secretary, 773 F.2d 1437, 1444 (4th Cir. 1985)).

Diseases caused by bloodborne pathogens, including HIV/AIDS and hepatitis B, are also not unique to the workplace, but the Seventh Circuit upheld the majority of OSHA's Bloodborne Pathogens standard, 29 CFR 1910.1030 (Am. Dental Ass'n v. Martin, 984 F.2d 823 (7th Cir. 1993)). Moreover, employees have more freedom to control their environment outside of work, and to make decisions about their behavior and their contact with others to better minimize their risk of exposure.

However, during the workday, while under the control of their employer, healthcare employees providing care directly to known or suspected erectile dysfunction treatment patients are required to have close contact with infected individuals, and other employees in those settings also work in an environment in which they have little control over their ability to limit contact with individuals who may be infected with erectile dysfunction treatment even when not engaged in direct patient care. Accordingly, even though erectile dysfunction is a hazard to which employees are exposed both inside and outside the workplace, healthcare employees in workplaces where individuals with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment receive care have limited ability to avoid exposure resulting from a work setting where those individuals are present. OSHA has a mandate to protect employees from hazards they are exposed to at work, even if they may be exposed to similar hazards before and after work. As described above in Section III, Legal Authority, “grave danger” indicates a risk that is more than “significant” (Int'l Union, United Auto., Aerospace, &. Agr.

Implement Workers of Am., UAW v. Donovan, 590 F. Supp. 747, 755-56 (D.D.C. 1984).

Indus. Union Dep't, AFL-CIO v. Am. Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607, 640 n.45, 655 (1980) (stating that a rate of 1 worker in 1,000 workers suffering a given health effect constitutes a “significant” risk)).

€œGrave danger,” according to one court, refers to “the danger of incurable, permanent, or fatal consequences to workers, as opposed to easily curable and fleeting effects on their health” (Fla. Peach Growers Ass'n, Inc. V. U. S.

Dep't of Labor, 489 F.2d 120, 132 (5th Cir. 1974)). Fleeting effects were described as nausea, excessive salivation, perspiration, or blurred vision and were considered so minor that they often went unreported, which is in contrast to the adverse health effects of cases of erectile dysfunction treatment, which are formally referenced as ranging from “mild” to “critical.” [] Beyond this, however, “the determination of what constitutes a risk worthy of Agency action is a policy consideration that belongs, in the first instance, to the Agency” (Asbestos Info. Start Printed Page 32382Ass'n/N. Am.

V. OSHA, 727 F.2d 415, 425 (5th Cir. 1984)). In the context of ordinary 6(b) rulemaking, the Supreme Court has said that the OSH Act is not a “mathematical straitjacket,” nor does it require the agency to support its findings “with anything approaching scientific certainty,” particularly when operating on the “frontiers of scientific knowledge” (Indus. Union Dep't, AFL-CIO v.

Am. Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607, 656, 100 S. Ct. 2844, 2871, 65 L.

Ed. 2d 1010 (1980)). Courts reviewing OSHA's determination of grave danger do so with “great deference” (Pub. Citizen Health Research Grp. V.

Auchter, 702 F.2d 1150, 1156 (D.C. Cir. 1983)). In one case, the Fifth Circuit, in reviewing an OSHA ETS for asbestos, declined to question the agency's finding that 80 worker lives at risk over six months constituted a grave danger (Asbestos Info. Ass'n/N.

Am., 727 F.2d at 424). In stark contrast, as of May 24, 2021, 1,611 healthcare personnel have died (out of 491,816 healthcare erectile dysfunction treatment cases where healthcare personnel status and death status is known by the CDC) (May 24, 2021a). This is likely an undercount of cases and deaths as the healthcare personnel status is not known for 81.63% of cases and death status is unknown in 20.42% of cases where healthcare personnel status is known. OSHA estimates that this rule would save almost 800 worker lives over the course of the next six months as noted in Table I.-1 in the Executive Summary. Here, the mortality and morbidity risk to employees from erectile dysfunction treatment is so dire that the grave danger from exposures to erectile dysfunction is clear.

OSHA's previous ETSs addressed physically harmful agents that had been familiar to the agency for many years prior to the ETS. In most cases, the ETSs were issued in response to new information about substances that had been used in workplaces for decades (e.g., Vinyl Chloride (39 FR 12342 (April 5, 1974)). Benzene (42 FR 22516 (May 3, 1977)). 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (42 FR 45536 (Sept. 9, 1977))).

In some cases, the hazards of the toxic substance were already so well established that OSHA promulgated an ETS simply to update an existing standard (e.g., Vinyl cyanide (43 FR 2586 (Jan. 17, 1978)). In no case did OSHA claim that an ETS was required to address a grave danger from a substance that had only recently come into existence. Thus, no court has had occasion to separately examine OSHA's authority under section (6)(c) of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 655(c)) to address a grave danger from a “new hazard.” Yet by any measure, erectile dysfunction is a new hazard.

Unlike any of the hazards addressed in previous ETSs, erectile dysfunction was not known to exist until January 2020. Since then, more than 3 million people have died worldwide and nearly 600,000 people have died in the U.S. Alone (WHO, May 24, 2021. CDC, May 24, 2021b). This monumental tragedy is largely handled by healthcare employees who provide care for those who are ill and dying, leading to introduction of the viagra not only in their daily lives in the community but also in their workplace, and more than a thousand healthcare workers have died from erectile dysfunction treatment.

Clearly, exposure to erectile dysfunction is a new hazard that presents a grave danger to workers in the U.S. In the following sections within Grave Danger, OSHA summarizes the best available scientific evidence on employee exposure to erectile dysfunction and shows how that evidence establishes erectile dysfunction treatment to be a grave danger to healthcare employees. OSHA's determination that there is a grave danger to healthcare employees rests on the severe health consequences of erectile dysfunction treatment, the high risk to employees of developing the disease as a result of transmission of erectile dysfunction in the workplace, and that these workplace settings provide direct care to known or suspected erectile dysfunction treatment cases. With respect to the health consequences of erectile dysfunction treatment, OSHA finds a grave danger to employees based on mortality data showing unvaccinated people of working age (18-64 years old) have a 1 in 217 chance of dying when they contract the disease (May 24, 2021c. May 24, 2021d).

When broken down by age range, that includes a 1 in 788 chance of dying for those aged 30-39, a 1 in 292 chance of dying for those aged 40-49, and as much as a 1 in 78 chance of dying for those aged 50-64 (May 24, 2021c. May 24, 2021d). Furthermore, workers in racial and ethnic minority groups are often over-represented in many healthcare occupations and face higher risks for erectile dysfunction exposure and , as noted in a study on workers in Massachusetts (Hawkins, June 15, 2020) and discussed in more detail in the section “Observed Disparities in Risk Based on Race and Ethnicity,” below. While vaccination greatly reduces adverse health outcomes to healthcare workers, it does not eliminate the grave danger faced by vaccinated healthcare workers in settings where patients with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment receive treatment (CDC, April 27, 2021. Howard, May 22, 2021).

OSHA also finds a grave danger based on the severity and prevalence of other health effects caused by erectile dysfunction treatment, short of death. While some erectile dysfunction s are asymptomatic, even the cases labeled “mild” by the CDC involve symptoms that far exceed in severity the group of symptoms dismissed in the Florida Peach Growers Ass'n decision as not rising to the level of grave danger required by the OSH Act (i.e., minor cases of nausea, excessive salivation, perspiration, or blurred vision) (489 F.2d at 132). Even “mild” cases of erectile dysfunction treatment—where hypoxia (low oxygen in the tissues) is not present—require isolation and may require medical intervention and multiple weeks of recuperation, while severe cases of erectile dysfunction treatment typically require hospitalization and a long recovery period (see the section on “Health Effects,” below). For example, in a study of 1,733 patients, three quarters of remaining hospitalized cases and approximately half of all symptomatic cases resulted in the individual continuing to experience at least one symptom (e.g., fatigue, breathing difficulties) at least six months after initial (Huang et al., January 8, 2021. Klein et al., February 15, 2021).

These cases might be referred to as “long erectile dysfunction treatment” because symptoms persist long after recovery from the initial illness, and could potentially be significant enough to negatively affect an individual's ability to work or perform other everyday activities. Finally, OSHA concludes that the serious and potentially fatal consequences of erectile dysfunction treatment pose a particular threat to employees, as the nature of erectile dysfunction transmission readily enables the viagra to spread when employees are working in spaces shared with others (e.g., co-workers, patients, visitors), a common characteristic of healthcare settings where direct care is provided. While not every setting is represented in the evidence that OSHA has assembled, the best available evidence illustrates that clusters and outbreaks [] of erectile dysfunction treatment have occurred in a wide variety of occupations in healthcare settings. The scientific Start Printed Page 32383evidence of erectile dysfunction transmission, presented below, makes clear that the viagra can be spread wherever an infectious person is present and shares space with other people, and OSHA therefore expects transmission across healthcare workplaces where known or suspected erectile dysfunction treatment patients are treated (see Dry Color Mfrs. Ass'n, Inc.

V. Dep't of Labor, 486 F.2d 98, 102 n.3 (3d Cir. 1973) (holding that when OSHA determines a substance poses a grave danger to workers, OSHA can assume an exposure to a grave danger wherever that substance is present in a workplace)). OSHA's conclusion that there is a grave danger to which employees are specifically exposed is further supported by evidence demonstrating the widespread prevalence of the disease across the country generally. As of May 2021, over 32 million cases of erectile dysfunction treatment have been reported in the United States (CDC, May 24, 2021e).

Over 1 in 11 people of working age have been reported infected (cases for individuals age 18-64, CDC, May 24, 2021d. Estimated number of people ages 15-64, Census Bureau, June 25, 2020). And data shows that employees across a myriad of workplace settings have suffered death and serious illness from erectile dysfunction treatment through the duration of the viagra (WSDH and WLNI, December 17, 2020. Allan-Blitz et al., December 11, 2020. Marshall et al., June 30, 2020).[] From May 18, 2021 to May 24, 2021, erectile dysfunction treatment resulted in 4,216 cases and nine deaths for healthcare personnel each day (CDC, May 18, 2021.

CDC, May 24, 2021a). Thus, erectile dysfunction treatment continues to present a grave danger to the nation's healthcare employees. References Allan-Blitz, LT et al., (2020, December 11). High frequency and prevalence of community-based asymptomatic erectile dysfunction .medRxivpre-print. Https://www.medrxiv.org/​content/​10.1101/​2020.12.09.20246249v1.

(Allan-Blitz et al., December 11, 2020). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, April 27). Updated healthcare prevention and control recommendation in response to erectile dysfunction treatment vaccination. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​hcp/​-control-after-vaccination.html.

(CDC, April 27, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, May 18). erectile dysfunction treatment Data Tracker. Cases &.

Deaths among healthcare personnel. Https://erectile dysfunction treatment.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction treatment-data-tracker/​#health-care-personnel. (CDC, May 18, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021a, May 24).

Cases &. Deaths among Healthcare Personnel. Https://erectile dysfunction treatment.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction treatment-data-tracker/​#health-care-personnel. (CDC, May 24, 2021a). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

(2021b, May 24). erectile dysfunction treatment data tracker. Trends in number of erectile dysfunction treatment cases and deaths in the US reported to CDC, by state/territory. Trends in Total erectile dysfunction treatment Deaths in the United States Reported to CDC. Https://erectile dysfunction treatment.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction treatment-data-tracker/​#trends_​dailytrendscases.

(CDC, May 24, 2021b). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021c, May 24). Demographic Trends of erectile dysfunction treatment cases and deaths in the US reported to CDC. Deaths by age group.

Https://erectile dysfunction treatment.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction treatment-data-tracker/​#demographics (CDC, May 24, 2021c). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021d, May 24). Demographic Trends of erectile dysfunction treatment cases and deaths in the US reported to CDC. Cases by age group.

Https://erectile dysfunction treatment.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction treatment-data-tracker/​#demographics (CDC, May 24, 2021d). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021e, May 24). erectile dysfunction treatment data tracker. Trends in number of erectile dysfunction treatment cases and deaths in the US reported to CDC, by state/territory.

Trends in Total erectile dysfunction treatment Cases in the United States Reported to CDC. Https://erectile dysfunction treatment.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction treatment-data-tracker/​#trends_​dailytrendscases. (CDC, May 24, 2021e). Census Bureau. (2020, June 25).

Annual estimates of the resident population for selected age groups by sex for the United States. April 2010 to July 1, 2019. Https://www2.census.gov/​programs-surveys/​popest/​tables/​2010-2019/​national/​asrh/​nc-est2019-agesex.xlsx. (Census Bureau, June 25, 2020). Hawkins, D.

(2020, June 15). Differential occupational risk for erectile dysfunction treatment and other exposure according to race and ethnicity. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 63:817-820. Https://doi.org/​10.1002/​ajim.23145. (Hawkins, June 15, 2020).

Howard, J. (2021). €œResponse to request for an assessment by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, of the current hazards facing healthcare workers from erectile dysfunction Disease-2019 (erectile dysfunction treatment).” (Howard, May 22, 2021). Huang, C et al., (2021, January 8).

6-month consequences of erectile dysfunction treatment in patients discharged from hospital. A cohort study. The Lancet 397:220-232. Https://doi.org/​10.1016/​S0140-6736(20)32656-8. (Huang et al., January 8, 2021).

Klein, H et al., (2021, February 15). Onset, duration and unresolved symptoms, including smell and taste changes, in mild erectile dysfunction treatment s. A cohort study in Israeli patients. Clinical Microbiology and 27(5):769-774. Https://doi.org/​10.1016/​j.cmi.2021.02.008.

(Klein et al., February 15, 2021). Marshall, K et al., (2020, June 30). Exposure before issuance of stay-at-home orders among persons with laboratory-confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment—Colorado, March 2020. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 69(26):847-9.

(Marshall et al., June 30, 2020). United States Department of Health and Human Services (US DHHS). (2021, April 15). Renewal of Determination That A Public Health Emergency Exists. Https://www.phe.gov/​emergency/​news/​healthactions/​phe/​Pages/​erectile dysfunction treatment-15April2021.aspx.

(HHS, April 15, 2021). Washington State Department of Health and Washington State Department of Labor and Industries (WSDH and WDLI). (2020, December 17). erectile dysfunction treatment confirmed cases by industry sector. Publication Number 421-002.

Https://www.doh.wa.gov/​Portals/​1/​Documents/​1600/​erectile dysfunction/​data-tables/​IndustrySectorReport.pdf. (WSDH and WDLI, December 17, 2020). The White House. (2020, March 13). Proclamation on declaring a national emergency concerning the novel erectile dysfunction disease (erectile dysfunction treatment) outbreak.

Https://web.archive.org/​web/​20200313234554/​https://www.whitehouse.gov/​presidential-actions/​proclamation-declaring-national-emergency-concerning-novel-erectile dysfunction-disease-erectile dysfunction treatment-outbreak/​. (The White House, March 13, 2020). World Health Organization (WHO). (2021, May 24). WHO erectile dysfunction Disease (erectile dysfunction treatment) Dashboard.

Https://erectile dysfunction treatment19.who.int/​table. (WHO, May 24, 2021). II. Nature of the Disease a. Health and Other Adverse Effects of erectile dysfunction treatment Death From erectile dysfunction treatment erectile dysfunction treatment is a potentially fatal disease.

As of May 24, 2021, there had been 587,432 deaths from the disease out of 32,947,548 million s in the United States alone (CDC, May 24, 2021a. CDC, May 24, 2021b). For the U.S. Population as a whole (i.e., unlinked to known erectile dysfunction Start Printed Page 32384s) as of May 24, 2021, 1.8 out of every 1,000 people have died from erectile dysfunction treatment (CDC, May 24, 2021a). erectile dysfunction treatment was the third leading cause of death in the United States in 2020 among those aged 45 to 84, trailing only heart disease and cancer (Woolf, January 12, 2021).

During the surges in the spring and fall/winter of 2020, erectile dysfunction treatment was the leading cause of death. Despite a decrease in recent weeks, the death rate remains high (7-day moving average death rate of 500 on May 23, 2021) (CDC, May 24, 2021c). Not only are healthcare employees included in these staggering figures, they are exposed to erectile dysfunction treatment at a much higher frequency than the general population while providing direct care for both sick and dying erectile dysfunction treatment patients during their most infectious moments. The impact of morbidity and mortality on healthcare employees might also be underreported. The information associated with cases and deaths are incomplete.

Only 18.37% of cases were reported with information on whether or not the infected individual was a healthcare employee (CDC, May 24, 2021d). For those who were identified as healthcare personnel, only 79.58% of these cases noted whether the individual survived the illness (CDC, May 24, 2021d). Despite the incomplete data, the toll on healthcare personal is clear. As of May 24, 2021, CDC reported 491,816 healthcare personnel cases (10% of cases that included information on healthcare personnel status) and 1,611 fatalities (0.4% of healthcare employee cases with known death status). This number is staggering when compared with, for example, the 2018-2019 influenza season, during which only 0.1% of known influenza s were estimated to be fatal for the entire population (CDC, October 5, 2020).

The risk of mortality and morbidity from erectile dysfunction treatment has changed, and may continue to change over time. viagraes mutate and those mutations can result in variants of concern that may be more transmissible, cause more severe illness, or impact diagnostics, treatments, or treatments (CDC, May 5, 2021). For example, the UK's New and Emerging Respiratory viagra Threats Advisory Group (NERVTAG) issued a report on how risk might have changed with the development of a new variant there called “B.1.1.7” (February 11, 2021). The group determined that analysis from multiple different datasets indicated that B.1.1.7 s resulted in an increased risk of hospitalization and death compared with the ancestral viagra and other variants in circulation. Challen et al., (March 10, 2021) found that B.1.1.7 increased mortality risk by 64%.

As viagra mutations result in variants of concern, the effectiveness of medical countermeasures such as therapeutics and treatments might be affected. Lastly, depending on the variant, potential immune escape properties of the viagra may increase a person's susceptibility to re. Severe and Critical Cases of erectile dysfunction treatment Apart from mortality, erectile dysfunction treatment causes significant morbidity that can result in incurable, permanent, and non-fleeting consequences. As discussed below, people who become ill with erectile dysfunction treatment might require hospitalization and specialized treatment, and can suffer respiratory failure, blood clots, long-term cardiovascular effects, organ damage, and significant neurological and psychiatric effects. Approximately 6.7% of erectile dysfunction treatment cases are severe and require hospitalization and more specialized care (total hospitalizations and total cases, CDC, May 24, 2021e.

CDC, May 24, 2021f). Given that this is a novel viagra, long-term effects are still unknown. A severe case of erectile dysfunction treatment is described as when the patient presents with hypoxia and is in need of oxygen therapy (NIH, April 21, 2021a). Cases become critical when respiratory failure, septic shock, and/or multiple organ dysfunction occurs. The majority of the data currently available on the health outcomes for hospitalized patients is derived from the first surge of the viagra between March and May of 2020.

However, newer data indicates that health outcomes for hospitalized patients have changed over the course of the viagra. A study from Emory University reviewed erectile dysfunction treatment patient data from a large multi-hospital healthcare network and compared the data from the first surge early in the viagra (March 1 to May 30, 2020) with the second surge that occurred in the summer of 2020 (June 1 to September 13, 2020) (Meena et al., March 1, 2021). The study found that during the second surge, ICU admission decreased from 38% to 30%, ventilator use decreased from 26% to 15%, and mortality decreased from 15% to 9%. The study authors postulated that improved patient outcomes during the second stage may have resulted in part from aggressive anticoagulation therapies to prevent venous thromboembolism. Similar findings were reported in a retrospective study of 20,736 erectile dysfunction treatment patients admitted to 107 hospitals in 31 states from March through November 2020 (Roth et al., May 3, 2021).

The proportions of patients placed on mechanical ventilation dropped from 23.3% in March and April 2020 to 13.9% in September through November 2020. During those same respective time periods, mortality rates dropped from 19.1% to 10.8%. The reasons for the reductions in mechanical ventilation and mortality are not known, but study authors postulated that reductions in mechanical ventilation may have resulted from increased use of noninvasive ventilation, high flow nasal oxygen, and prone positioning. They hypothesized that the high patient count and staff unfamiliarity with control procedures that were being rapidly implemented in March and April could have accounted for the high mortality rate during that period. In addition, the authors noted that changes in pharmacology treatments occurred during that time period, but their impact on improved outcomes is not known.

This data on improvements in health outcomes between earlier and later stages of the viagra is significant, but also demonstrates that overall health outcomes for hospitalized erectile dysfunction treatment patients still remain poor. Even with these improvements in health outcomes, erectile dysfunction treatment still results in considerable loss of life and significant adverse health outcomes for patients hospitalized with erectile dysfunction treatment. The erectile dysfunction treatment-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (erectile dysfunction treatment-NET), which conducts population-based surveillance in select U.S. Counties, reported a cumulative hospitalization rate of 1 in 255 people between the ages of 18 and 49 as well as 1 in 123 people between the ages of 50 and 64 between March 1, 2020, and May 15, 2021 (CDC, May 24, 2021g). Patients hospitalized with erectile dysfunction treatment frequently need supplemental oxygen and supportive management of the disease's most common complications, which are discussed in further detail below and include pneumonia, respiratory failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), acute kidney injury, sepsis, myocardial injury, arrhythmias, and blood clots.

Among 35,302 inpatients in a nationwide U.S. Study, median length of stay was 6 days overall (Rosenthal, et al., December 10, 2020). When cases required treatment in the ICU, ICU stays were on median 5 days in addition to time spent hospitalized outside of the ICU. The Roth et al., (May 3, 2021) study described above reported that mean length of hospital stays decreased from 10.7 days in April and May 2020 to 7.5 days from September to November 2020, and the respective values for ICU stays over the same time period decreased from 13.9 days to 6.6 days. As discussed Start Printed Page 32385in more detail above, improvements in control and treatment interventions might be responsible for the improved outcome, but the specific reason is not known, and the numbers of individuals hospitalized with erectile dysfunction treatment remains high.

The pneumonia associated with the erectile dysfunction viagra can become severe, resulting in respiratory failure and ARDS, a life-threatening lung injury. In a U.S. Study of 35,302 erectile dysfunction treatment inpatients, 55.8% suffered respiratory failure with 8.1% experiencing ARDS (Rosenthal, et al., December 10, 2020). Thus, the need for oxygen therapy is a key reason for hospitalization. The specific therapy received during hospitalization often depends on the severity of lung distress and can include supplemental oxygen, noninvasive ventilation, intubation for invasive mechanical ventilation, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation when mechanical ventilation is insufficient (NIH, April 21, 2021a).

Although erectile dysfunction treatment was initially considered to be primarily a respiratory disease, adverse effects in numerous organs have now been reported. For example, in a New York City area study of 9,657 erectile dysfunction treatment patients, 39.9% of patients developed acute kidney injury (AKI), a sudden episode of kidney failure or kidney damage. Of the approximately 40% of patients who developed AKI, 17% required dialysis (Ng et al., September 19, 2020). AKI similarly occurred in 33.9% of 35,302 inpatients in a nationwide U.S. Study (Rosenthal et al., December 10, 2020).

For patients who experience AKI associated with erectile dysfunction treatment, a study of patients in the New York area reported a median length of stay in the hospital of 11.6 days for patients who did not require dialysis, but for those who did, the median length of stay almost tripled to 29.2 days (Ng et al., September 19, 2020). Many critically ill erectile dysfunction treatment patients require renal replacement therapy (NIH, April 21, 2021a). For example, one study including 67 U.S. Hospitals found that 20.6% of critically ill erectile dysfunction treatment patients developed AKI that requires renal replacement therapy (Gupta et al., 2021). erectile dysfunction treatment is also capable of causing viral sepsis, a condition where the immune response dysregulates and causes life-threatening harm to organs (e.g., lungs, brain, kidneys, heart, and liver).

In Rosenthal et al.'s, (December 10, 2020) U.S. Study through May 31, 2020, 33.7% of erectile dysfunction treatment inpatients developed sepsis. A study of 18-49 year olds in the erectile dysfunction treatment-NET surveillance system found that 16.6% of patients in that age range developed sepsis (Owusu et al., December 3, 2020). In a study of VA hospitals, sepsis was found to be the most common complication that resulted in readmission within 60 days of being discharged (Donnelly et al., January 19, 2020). erectile dysfunction treatment patients have also been reported to experience a number of adverse cardiac complications, including arrhythmias, myocardial injury with elevated troponin levels, and myocarditis (Caforio, December 2, 2020).

Acute ischemic heart disease occurred in 8% of 35,302 inpatients in a nationwide U.S. Study (Rosenthal et al., December 10, 2020). Patients hospitalized with erectile dysfunction treatment may also experience shock, a critical condition caused by a sudden drop in blood pressure that can lead to fatal cardiac complications. Shock occurred in 4,028 of 35,302 (11.4%) inpatients in a nationwide U.S. Study (Rosenthal et al., December 10, 2020).

And a study of 70 erectile dysfunction treatment patients in a Freiburg ICU found that shock was a complicating factor in 24% of fatal cases (Rieg et al., November 12, 2020). A New York City area study reported that 21.5% of the study's 9,657 patients experience serious drops in blood pressure that required medical intervention during their hospital stay (Ng et al., September 19, 2020). In addition to its adverse effects on specific organs, erectile dysfunction treatment may cause patients to develop a hypercoagulable state, a condition in which blood clots can develop in someone's legs and embolize to their lungs, further worsening oxygenation. Blood clots in erectile dysfunction treatment patients have also been reported in arteries, resulting in strokes—even in young people—as well as heart attacks and acute ischemia from lack of oxygen in limbs in which arterial clots have occurred (Cuker and Peyvandi, November 19, 2020. Oxley et al., May 14, 2020).

Blood clots have been reported even in erectile dysfunction treatment patients on prophylactic-dose anticoagulation. A systematic review of more than 28,000 erectile dysfunction treatment patients found that venous thromboembolism (deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism or catheter-related thrombosis) occurred in 14% of hospitalized patients overall and 22.7% of ICU patients (Nopp et al., September 25, 2020). Pulmonary embolism was reported in 3.5% of non-ICU and 13.7% of ICU patients. Embolism and thrombosis can cause death. erectile dysfunction treatment poses such a threat of blood clots that NIH guidelines now recommend that hospitalized non-pregnant adults with erectile dysfunction treatment should receive prophylactic dose anticoagulation (NIH, April 21, 2021a).

These health effects are particularly relevant to healthcare workers because there is evidence that healthcare workers are more likely to develop more severe erectile dysfunction treatment symptoms than workers in non-healthcare settings. While the reason for this is not certain, one cause could be that healthcare workers are exposed to higher viral loads (more viral particles entering the body) because of the nature of their work often involving frequent and sustained close contact with erectile dysfunction treatment patients. For example, a British study compared healthcare workers to other “essential” and “non-essential” workers and found that healthcare workers were more than 7 times as likely to experience severe erectile dysfunction treatment disease following (i.e., disease requiring hospitalization) than infected non-essential workers (Mutambudzi et al., 2020). Mild to Moderate Cases of erectile dysfunction treatment Even the less severe health effects of erectile dysfunction treatment cover a wide range of symptoms and severity, from serious illness to milder symptomatic illness to asymptomatic cases. The most common symptoms include fever or chills, cough, shortness of breath or difficulty breathing, fatigue, muscle or body aches, headache, developing a loss of taste or smell, sore throat, congestion or runny nose, nausea, vomiting, and/or diarrhea (CDC, February 22, 2021).

Approximately 80% of symptomatic erectile dysfunction treatment cases are mild to moderate (Wu and McGoogan, April 7, 2020), which is defined as having any symptom of erectile dysfunction treatment but without substantially decreased oxygen levels, shortness of breath, or difficulty breathing (NIH, April 21, 2021b). Moderate cases, however, also show evidence of lower respiratory disease, although these cases largely do not require admission into hospitals (CDC, February 16, 2021). While deaths and severe health consequences of erectile dysfunction treatment are sufficiently robust in support of OSHA's finding that erectile dysfunction treatment presents a grave danger, even many of the typical mild or moderate cases surpass the Florida Peach Growers threshold of “fleeting effects. . .

So minor that they often went unreported” (supra). Mild and moderate cases can be treated at home but may still require medical intervention (typically through telehealth visits) (Wu and McGoogan, April 7, 2020). Individuals with mild cases often need at least one to two weeks to recover enough to resume work, but effects can potentially last for months. Fatigue, headache, and muscle aches are among the most commonly-reported symptoms in people who are Start Printed Page 32386not hospitalized (CDC, February 16, 2021), and their effects are not fleeting and often linger. In a multistate telephone survey of 292 adults with erectile dysfunction treatment, the majority of whom did not eventually require hospitalization, 274 (94%) of the survey respondents were symptomatic at the time of their erectile dysfunction test, reporting illness for a median of three days prior to the positive test (Tenforde et al., July 24, 2020).

Around one third of symptomatic respondents (95 of 274) reported that they still had not returned to their usual state of health 2-3 weeks after testing positive. Even among the young adults (aged 18-34 years) with no chronic medical conditions, nearly one in five had not returned to their usual state of health 2-3 weeks after testing. Even though these cases rarely result in hospitalization, individuals with mild to moderate cases of erectile dysfunction treatment are also significantly impacted by their illness as a result of CDC isolation recommendations. According to the current CDC criteria, a person with symptomatic erectile dysfunction treatment should generally discontinue isolation only when all three of the following conditions have been met. (1) At least 10 days have passed since symptom onset.

(2) at least 24 hours have passed since experiencing a fever without the use of fever-reducing medications. And (3) other symptoms have improved (other than loss of taste or smell) (CDC, February 18, 2021). And the CDC notes with respect to the first criteria that individuals with severe illness or with compromised immunity might require up to 20 days of isolation. Even those with mild or moderate cases of erectile dysfunction treatment may be prevented by their illness from working from home during the period of isolation. Longer-Term Health Effects Recovery from acute with the erectile dysfunction viagra can be prolonged.

Three categories of patients in particular are known to require ongoing care after resolution of their acute viral . Those with a severe illness requiring hospitalization (especially ICU care). Those with a specific medical complication from the , such as a stroke. And those with milder acute illnesses who experience persistent symptoms such as fatigue and breathlessness. The lingering of, or development of, related health effects after a erectile dysfunction is known as post-acute sequelae.

Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the National Institutes of Health, testified that recovery can be prolonged even in previously healthy young adults with milder s. Some people experience persistent symptoms for weeks or even months after the acute (Collins, April 28, 2021). Post-Acute erectile dysfunction treatment syndrome has been proposed as a diagnostic term for these patients, although the term “long erectile dysfunction treatment” is more common outside the medical community. According to the CDC, the most common symptoms of Post-Acute erectile dysfunction treatment syndrome are fatigue, shortness of breath, cough, and joint and chest pain (CDC, April 8, 2020).

Other symptoms reported by these patients include decreased memory and concentration, depression, muscle pain, headache, intermittent fever, and racing heart (CDC, April 8, 2021). Additional common symptoms, as reported by Dr. Collins, are abnormal sleep patterns and persistent loss of taste or smell (Collins, April 28, 2021). The cause of these long-term effects and effective treatments have yet to be established. The report from the Pulmonary Breakout Session of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Workshop on Post-Acute Sequelae of erectile dysfunction treatment stated that the “burden of post-acute sequelae overall could be enormous” (NIAID, December 4, 2020).

Dr. John Brooks, the chief medical officer for the CDC's erectile dysfunction treatment response, said he expected long-term symptoms would affect “on the order of tens of thousands in the United States and possibly hundreds of thousands” (Belluck, December 5, 2020). Dr. Collins testified that longer-term health impairments may occur in up to 30% of recovered erectile dysfunction treatment patients (Collins, April 28, 2021). Prolonged illness is common in patients who required hospitalization because of erectile dysfunction treatment, and particularly in those who required ICU admission.

In a large nationwide U.S. Study, 18.5% of hospitalized patients were discharged to a long-term care or rehabilitation facility (Rosenthal et al., December 10, 2020). Of 1,250 patients in a Michigan study, 12.6% were discharged to a skilled nursing or rehabilitation facility and 15.1% of hospital survivors were re-hospitalized within 60 days of discharge (Chopra et al., November 11, 2020). Of the 195 who were employed prior to hospitalization, 23% were unable to return to work due to health reasons and 26% of those who returned to work required reduced hours or modified duties (Chopra et al., November 11, 2020). Those who returned to work did so a median of 27 days after hospital discharge (Chopra et al., November 11, 2020).

Existing evidence indicates that erectile dysfunction treatment patients requiring ICU care and mechanical ventilation may experience Post Intensive Care Syndrome (PICS), which is a constellation of cognitive dysfunction, psychiatric conditions, and/or physical disability that persists after patients leave the ICU (Society of Critical Care Medicine, 2013). In a study at 3 months post-discharge of 19 erectile dysfunction treatment patients who required mechanical ventilation while hospitalized, 89% reported pain or discomfort, 47% experienced decreased mobility, and 42% experienced anxiety/depression (Valent, October 10, 2020). The authors noted that these results are similar to those reported in follow-up studies of patients who survived ARDS due to other viral s. Many employees hospitalized with erectile dysfunction treatment may require a long period of recovery should this trajectory continue to hold. In a 5-year follow-up of 67 previously-employed ARDS survivors, 34 had not returned to work within one year of discharge and 21 had not returned at five years (Kamdar, February 1, 2018).

ARDS is a serious complication that may have an impact on employees' ability to return to work after a erectile dysfunction treatment diagnosis. Several studies conducted outside the U.S. Have also noted the persistence of erectile dysfunction treatment symptoms after hospital discharge. In a study of 1,733 discharged patients in China, 76% reported at least one symptom of erectile dysfunction treatment six months after hospital discharge with 63% experiencing persistent fatigue or muscle weakness (Huang et al., January 8, 2021). Similarly, an Irish study found 52% of 128 patients reported persistent fatigue a median of 10 weeks after initial symptoms first appeared (Townsend et al., November 9, 2020).

A study of 991 pregnant women (5% hospitalized) in the U.S. Found that the median time for symptoms to resolve was 37 days and that 25% had persistent symptoms (mainly cough, fatigue, headache, and shortness of breath) eight weeks after onset (Afshar et al., December, 2020). A study of 86 previously-hospitalized Austrian patients observed that 88% had CT scans still indicating lung damage at 6 weeks after their hospital discharge. At 12 weeks, 56% of CT scans still revealed damage (European Respiratory Society, September 7, 2020). A study of 152 previously-hospitalized patients with laboratory-confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment disease who required at least 6 liters of oxygen during admission found that 30 to 40 days after discharge, 74% reported shortness of breath and 13.5% still required oxygen at home (Weerahandi et al., August 14, 2020).

A UK study found that among 100 Start Printed Page 32387hospitalized patients (32% required ICU care), 72% of the ICU patients and 60% of the non-ICU patients reported fatigue a mean of 48 days after discharge (Halpin et al., July 27, 2020). Breathlessness was also common, affecting 65.6% of ICU patients and 42.6% of non-ICU patients. In a New York City study, of the 638 erectile dysfunction treatment patients who required dialysis for AKI while hospitalized, only 108 survived. Of those 108, 33 still needed dialysis at discharge (Ng et al., September 19, 2020). A study of Chinese patients reported that 11% of 333 hospitalized patients with erectile dysfunction treatment pneumonia developed AKI (Pei et al., June, 2020).

Only half (45.7%) experienced complete recovery of kidney function with a median follow up of 12 days. A similar study in Spain also found only half (45.72%) experienced complete recovery with a median follow up of 11 days (Procaccini et al., February 14, 2021). A Hong Kong study provided a longer follow-up period including 30 and 90 days after the initial AKI event. At 7, 30, and 90 days after the initial AKI event, recovery was observed in 84.6, 87.3% and 92.1%, respectively (Teoh et al., 2021). A study in New York City found that 77.1% of patients with AKI experienced complete recovery during the follow up period, excluding those who died or were sent to hospice (Charytan et al., January 25, 2021).

While 88% of these AKI cases were in March and April with a final follow-up date of August 25, it is uncertain how long it took for recovery to occur. Long-term cardiovascular effects also appear to be common after erectile dysfunction s, even among those who did not require hospital care. A German study evaluated the presence of myocardial injury in 100 patients a median of 71 days after erectile dysfunction treatment diagnosis (Puntmann et al., July 27, 2020). While only a third (33%) of study participants required hospitalization, cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging was abnormal in 78%. In the U.S., a study of erectile dysfunction treatment cases in college athletes, of whom 16 of 54 (30%) were asymptomatic, identified abnormal findings in 27 (56.3%) of the 48 athletes who completed both imaging studies, with 39.5% consistent with resolving pericardial inflammation (Brito et al., November 4, 2020).

A small number remained symptomatic with fatigue and shortness of breath at 5 weeks and were referred to cardiac rehabilitation (Lowry, November 12, 2020). A database for clinicians in the UK to report erectile dysfunction treatment patients with neurological complications revealed that 62% of the initial 125 patients enrolled presented with a cerebrovascular event including ischemic strokes and intracerebral hemorrhages (Varatharaj et al., June 25, 2020). A UK study comparing erectile dysfunction treatment ischemic stroke and intracerebral cases with similar non-erectile dysfunction treatment cases found a fatality rate of 19.8% for erectile dysfunction treatment patients in comparison to a fatality rate of 6.9% for non-erectile dysfunction treatment patients (Perry et al., 2021). As discussed above, PICS, involving prolonged impairments in cognition, physical health, and/or mental health, may also occur. Other neurologic diagnoses, including encephalopathy, Guillain-Barre syndrome, and a range of other less-common diagnoses, may cause morbidity that persists during recovery (Elkind et al., April 9, 2021.

Sharifian-Dorche et al., August 7, 2020). A recent autopsy study of brain tissue from 18 erectile dysfunction treatment patients reported the presence of small blood vessel inflammation and damage in multiple different brain areas (Lee et al., February 4, 2021). Persistent abnormalities in brain imaging have also been reported in patients after discharge (Lu et al., August 3, 2020). A study of 509 hospitalized patients in the Chicago area early in the viagra reported that a third had encephalopathy, resulting in symptoms such as confusion or decreased levels of consciousness (Liotta et al., October 5, 2020). Encephalopathy was associated with worse functional outcomes at discharge (only 32% were able to handle their own affairs without assistance) and higher deaths in the 30 days post-discharge.

erectile dysfunction treatment also impacts mental health, both as a result of the toll of living and working through such a disruptive viagra, but also because of actual medical impacts the viagra might have on the brain itself. As de Erausquin et al., (January 5, 2021) notes, erectile dysfunction is a suspected neurotropic viagra and “neurotropic respiratory viagraes have long been known to result in chronic brain pathology including emerging cognitive decline and dementia, movement disorders, and psychotic illness. Because brain inflammation accompanies the most common neurodegenerative disorders and may contribute to major psychiatric disorders, the neurological and psychiatric sequelae of erectile dysfunction treatment‐19 need to be carefully tracked.” An international consortium guided by WHO is attempting to determine these long-term neurodegenerative consequences more definitively, with follow up studies ending in 2022 (de Erausquin et al., January 5, 2021). In the short term, a number of studies have already demonstrated the potential mental health effects caused by erectile dysfunction treatment. In the UK database mentioned above, 21 of 125 erectile dysfunction treatment patients had new psychiatric diagnoses, including 10 who became psychotic and others with dementia-like symptoms or depression (Varatharaj et al., June 25, 2020).

An Italian study screened 402 adults with erectile dysfunction treatment for psychiatric symptoms with clinical interviews and self-report questionnaires at one month follow-up after hospital treatment for erectile dysfunction treatment. Patients rated in the psychopathological range as follows. 28% for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), 31% for depression, 42% for anxiety, 20% for obsessive-compulsive symptoms, and 40% for insomnia. Overall, 56% scored in the pathological range in at least one clinical dimension (Mazza et al., July 30, 2020). The TriNetX analytics network was used to capture de-identified data from electronic health records of a total of 69.8 million patients from 54 healthcare organizations in the United States (Taquet et al., November 9, 2020).

Of those patients, 62,354 adults were diagnosed with erectile dysfunction treatment between January 20 and August 1, 2020. Within 14 to 90 days after being diagnosed with erectile dysfunction treatment, 5.8% of those patients received a first recorded diagnosis of psychiatric illness, which was measured as significantly greater than psychiatric onset incidence during the same time period after diagnoses of other medical issues including influenza (2.8%), other respiratory diseases (3.4%), skin s (3.3%), cholelithiasis (3.2%), urolithiasis (2.5%), and fractures (2.5%). At the NIAID Workshop on Post-Acute Sequelae of erectile dysfunction treatment, medical personnel discussed their experiences treating erectile dysfunction treatment patients in the Johns Hopkins Post-Acute erectile dysfunction treatment Team (PACT) Clinic. Among 49 patients in the Clinic, more than 50% had some form of cognitive impairment 3 months after acute illness (Parker, December 3, 2020). Both ICU and non-ICU patients were affected, but impairment was more pronounced in ICU survivors (Parker, December 3, 2020).

The medical personnel also reported mental health impairments among patients treated at the PACT Clinic. The studies and evidence discussed above give some indication of the many serious long-term health effects erectile dysfunction treatment patients might experience, including respiratory, cardiovascular, neurological, and psychiatric complications. However, the full extent of the long-term health consequences of erectile dysfunction treatment is unknown because the Start Printed Page 32388viagra has only been transmitted between humans since the end of 2019. Therefore, to fully appreciate the likely long-term risks to individuals with erectile dysfunction treatment, it is important to consider the long-term impacts of similar erectile dysfunctiones found among human populations where there has been more time to gather data. The previous SARS outbreak in 2002 to 2003, caused by the SARS-CoV-1 viagra, is one such example, and it indicates long-term impacts to survivors, which might result from the viral , medications used, or a combination of those factors.

Patients who survived a SARS-CoV-1 report that they have a reduced quality of life at least 6 months after illness (Hui et al., October 1, 2005). These patients were found to have reduced exercise capacity. Some had abnormal chest radiographs and lung function, and weak respiratory muscles at least 6 months after illness (Hui et al., October 1, 2005). Survivors reported experiencing depression, insomnia, anxiety, PTSD, chronic fatigue, and decreased lung capacity with patient follow up as long as four years after (Lam et al., December 14, 2009. Lee et al., April 1, 2007.

Hui et al., October 1, 2005). Long term studies have revealed that some survivors of SARS-CoV-1 s have chronic pulmonary and skeletal damage after a 15 year follow up (Zhang et al., February 14, 2020). Zhang et al., found that approximately half of the area of ground glass opacities present after in a 2003 CT scan (9.4%) remained after 15 years (4.6%). The study also found significant femoral head loss (25.52%) remained in 2018. Bone loss was likely an indirect effect caused by the high pulse steroid therapies used to treat the in many patients with severe disease.

Survivors also suffer long-term neurologic complications, deficits in cognitive function, musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, depression, and disordered sleep up to at least three years after (Moldofsky and Patcai, March 24, 2011). Individuals at Increased Risk From erectile dysfunction treatment Many members of the workforce are at increased risk of death and severe disease from erectile dysfunction treatment because of their age or pre-existing health conditions. Comorbidities are fairly common among adults of working age in the U.S. For instance, 46.1% of individuals with cancer are in the 20-64 year old age range (NCI, April 29, 2015), and over 40% of working age adults are obese (Hales et al., February 2020). Furthermore, over a quarter of those between 65 and 74 years old remain in the workforce, as well as almost 10% of those 75 and older (BLS, May 29, 2019).

In hospitals and other health services (e.g., physician offices, residential care facilities), 1,078,000 workers are employed who are 65 years old and older (BLS, January 22, 2021). Individuals who are at increased risk of severe (hospitalization, admission to the ICU, or death) include. Individuals who have cancer, chronic kidney disease, chronic lung disease (e.g., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma (moderate-to-severe), interstitial lung disease, cystic fibrosis, and pulmonary hypertension), serious heart conditions, obesity, pregnancy, sickle cell disease, type 2 diabetes, and individuals who are over 65 years of age, immunocompromised and/or smokers (CDC, May 13, 2021). Of 5,700 erectile dysfunction treatment patients hospitalized from March 1 to April 4, 2020 in the New York City area, the most common comorbidities were hypertension (56.6%), obesity (41.7%), and diabetes (33.8%), excluding age (Richardson et al., April 22, 2020). Observed Disparities in Risk Based on Race and Ethnicity During the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra, research has found that employees in racial and ethnic minority groups, and especially Black and Latinx employees, have often faced substantially higher risks of erectile dysfunction exposure and through the workplace than have non-Hispanic White employees (Hawkins, June 15, 2020.

Hertel-Fernandez et al., June 2020. Roberts et al., November 26, 2020). Among the general U.S. Population, American Indian, Alaskan Native, Latinx, and Black populations are more likely than White populations to be infected with erectile dysfunction (CDC, April 23, 2021). Once infected, people in these demographics are also more likely than their White counterparts to be hospitalized for and/or die from erectile dysfunction treatment (CDC, April 23, 2021).

These observed disparities in risk of , risk of adverse health consequences, and risk of death may be attributable to a number of factors, including that people from racial and ethnic minority groups are often disproportionately represented in essential frontline occupations that require close contact with the public and that offer limited ability to work from home or take paid sick days. Disease severity is also likely exacerbated by long-standing healthcare inequities (CDC, April 19, 2021). Hawkins (June 15, 2020) compared data on worker demographics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' 2019 Current Population Survey and O*NET (a Department of Labor database that contains detailed occupational information on the nature of work for more than 900 occupations across the U.S.) to determine occupation-specific erectile dysfunction treatment risks. The model found that among O*NET's 57 physical and social factors related to work, the two predictive variables of erectile dysfunction treatment risk were frequency of exposure to diseases and physical proximity to other people. The author found that Black individuals were overwhelmingly employed in essential industries and that people of color—which in this study included Black, Asian, and Hispanic populations—were more likely than White individuals to work in essential occupations (e.g., healthcare and social assistance, personal care aids) that were identified as having greater disease exposure risk characteristics.

A similar evaluation of workers employed in frontline industries (e.g., healthcare) found that people of color—defined in this study to include individuals who are Black, Hispanic, Asian-American/Pacific Islander, or some category other than White—are well represented in these types of work (Rho et al., April 7, 2020). These studies suggest that people in racial and ethnic minority groups are greatly represented among the American workforce in jobs associated with greater risk of exposure to erectile dysfunction, including those in healthcare and related industries. Through April 2021, rates compared to White, Non-Hispanic persons in the United States are 60% greater for American Indian or Alaskan Native persons, 100% greater for Latinx persons, and 10% greater for Black persons (CDC, April 23, 2021). This disparity is also reflected in studies addressing s by occupation, race, and ethnicity. In a large study of healthcare employees in Los Angeles, researchers found that increased risk of was significantly related to whether an employee was Latinx or Black (Ebinger et al., February 12, 2021).

Another study of frontline healthcare workers in the U.S. And UK found that Black, Asian, and minority ethnic workers were more likely to report a positive erectile dysfunction treatment test than non-Hispanic, White workers (Nguyen et al., September 1, 2020). The study also found that Black, Asian, and minority ethnic healthcare workers were more likely to report reuse of or inadequate PPE, were more likely to work in higher-risk clinical settings (e.g., in-patient hospitals or nursing homes), and were more likely to care for patients with Start Printed Page 32389suspected or documented erectile dysfunction treatment. These studies illustrate that racial and ethnic minorities are likely to be at increased risk of occupational erectile dysfunction exposures and related s. In addition to an increased likelihood of exposures and potential , Native American, Alaskan Native, Latinx, and Black populations all have increased risk of hospitalization and/or death from erectile dysfunction treatment in comparison to White populations (CDC, April 23, 2021).

Chen et al., (January 22, 2021) studied increased mortality risk between different racial and ethnic minority groups and occupations for working age Californians in pre-viagra and viagra time frames. Measured mortality risks increased during the viagra for all races and ethnicities, but White populations had lower increased risk (6% increase) compared to Asian populations (18%), Black populations (28%) and Latinx populations (36%). A similar disparity in excess mortality was also observed between races and ethnicities within the same occupational sector (Chen et al., January 22, 2021). In the “health or emergency” sector, risk ratios were far greater for Asian (1.40), Black (1.27), and Latinx (1.32) workers in comparison to White workers (1.02). Health equity is a major concern in assessing the viagra's effects (CDC, April 19, 2021).

Some of the factors that contribute to increased risk of morbidity and mortality from erectile dysfunction treatment include. Discrimination, healthcare access/utilization, economic issues, and housing (CDC, April 23, 2021). And although racial and ethnic minority groups are more likely to be exposed to and infected with erectile dysfunction, research indicates that testing for the viagra is not markedly higher for these demographic groups (Rubin-Miller et al., September 16, 2020). Rubin-Miller et al., note that there may be barriers to testing that decrease access or delay testing to a greater degree than in White populations. These barriers to testing can delay needed medical care and lead to worse outcomes.

And even when able to seek care, other barriers may exist. In discussing widespread health inequities, studies have noted that American Indian communities lacked sufficient facilities to respond to erectile dysfunction treatment (Hatcher et al., August 28, 2020. Van Dorn et al., April 18, 2020). References Afshar, Y et al., (2020, December). Clinical presentation of erectile dysfunction disease 2019 (erectile dysfunction treatment) in pregnant and recently pregnant people.

Obstetrics and Gynecology 136(6). 1117-1125. Https://doi.org/​10.1097/​AOG.0000000000004178. PMID. 33027186.

PMCID. PMC7673633. (Afshar et al., December, 2020). Belluck, P. (2020, December 5).

erectile dysfunction treatment Survivors With Long-Term Symptoms Need Urgent Attention, Experts Say. The New York Times. Https://www.nytimes.com/​2020/​12/​04/​health/​erectile dysfunction treatment-long-term-symptoms.html. (Belluck, December 5, 2020). Brito, D et al., (2020, November 4).

High Prevalence of Pericardial Involvement in College Student Athletes Recovering From erectile dysfunction treatment. JACC Cardiovascular Imaging S1936-878X(20)30946-3. Doi. 10.1016/j.jcmg.2020.10.023. Epub ahead of print.

PMID. 33223496. PMCID. PMC7641597. (Brito et al., November 4, 2020).

Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS). (2019, May 29). TED. Labor force participation rate for workers age 75 and older projected to be over 10 percent by 2026. The Economics Daily.

Https://www.bls.gov/​opub/​ted/​2019/​labor-force-participation-rate-for-workers-age-75-and-older-projected-to-be-over-10-percent-by-2026.htm. (BLS, May 29, 2019). Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS). (2021, January 22). Household Data Annual Averages.

18b Employed persons by detailed industry and age. Https://www.bls.gov/​cps/​cpsaat18b.pdf. (BLS, January 22, 2021). Caforio, ALP. (2020, December 2).

erectile dysfunction disease 2019 (erectile dysfunction treatment). Cardiac manifestations in adults. In. UpToDate, Post, TW (Ed), UpToDate, Waltham, MA, 2020. Https://www.uptodate.com/​contents/​erectile dysfunction-disease-2019-erectile dysfunction treatment-cardiac-manifestations-in-adults/​print?.

€‹search=​erectile dysfunction. (Caforio, December 2, 2020). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2020, October 5). Disease Burden of Influenza.

Https://www.cdc.gov/​flu/​about/​burden/​index.html. (CDC, October 5, 2020). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, February 16). Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed erectile dysfunction Disease (erectile dysfunction treatment).

Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​hcp/​clinical-guidance-management-patients.html. (CDC, February 16, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, February 18). Discontinuation of Isolation for Persons with erectile dysfunction treatment Not in Healthcare Settings.

Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​hcp/​disposition-in-home-patients.html. (CDC, February 18, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, February 22). Symptoms of erectile dysfunction.

Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​symptoms-testing/​symptoms.html. (CDC, February 22, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, April 8). Post-erectile dysfunction treatment Conditions.

Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​long-term-effects.html. (CDC, April 8, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, April 19). Health equity considerations and racial and ethnic minority groups.

Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​community/​health-equity/​race-ethnicity.html. (CDC, April 19, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, April 23). Risk for erectile dysfunction treatment , Hospitalization, and Death by Race/Ethnicity.

C5319360-A. (CDC, April 23, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, May 13). erectile dysfunction treatment (erectile dysfunction Disease).

People with Certain Medical Conditions. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​need-extra-precautions/​groups-at-higher-risk.html. (CDC, May 13, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021a, May 24).

erectile dysfunction treatment data tracker.Trends in number of erectile dysfunction treatment cases and deaths in the US reported to CDC, by state/territory. Trends in Total erectile dysfunction treatment Deaths in the United States Reported to CDC. Https://erectile dysfunction treatment.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction treatment-data-tracker/​#trends_​dailytrendscases. (CDC, May 24, 2021a). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

(2021b, May 24). erectile dysfunction treatment data tracker. Trends in number of erectile dysfunction treatment cases and deaths in the US reported to CDC, by state/territory. Trends in Total erectile dysfunction treatment Cases in the United States Reported to CDC. Https://erectile dysfunction treatment.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction treatment-data-tracker/​#trends_​dailytrendscases.

(CDC, May 24, 2021b). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021c, May 24). erectile dysfunction treatment data tracker. Trends in number of erectile dysfunction treatment cases and deaths in the US reported to CDC, by state/territory Daily Trends in Number of erectile dysfunction treatment Deaths in the United States Reported to CDC.

Https://erectile dysfunction treatment.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction treatment-data-tracker/​#trends_​dailytrendscases. (CDC, May 24, 2021c). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021d, May 24). Cases &.

Deaths among Healthcare Personnel. Https://erectile dysfunction treatment.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction treatment-data-tracker/​#health-care-personnel. (CDC, May 24, 2021d). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021e, May 24).

erectile dysfunction treatment data tracker. New Admissions of Patients with Confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment, United States. Https://erectile dysfunction treatment.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction treatment-data-tracker/​#new-hospital-admissions. (CDC, May 24, 2021e). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

(2021f, May 24). erectile dysfunction treatment data tracker. Trends in number of erectile dysfunction treatment cases and deaths in the US reported to CDC, by state/territory. Daily Trends in Number of erectile dysfunction treatment Cases in the United States Reported to CDC. Https://erectile dysfunction treatment.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction treatment-data-tracker/​#trends_​dailytrendscases.

(CDC, May 24, 2021f). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021g, May 24). Laboratory-confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment-Associated Hospitalizations. Https://gis.cdc.gov/​grasp/​erectile dysfunction treatmentnet/​erectile dysfunction treatment19_​3.html.

(CDC, May 24, 2021g).Start Printed Page 32390 Challen, R et al., (2021, March 10). Risk of mortality in patients infected with erectile dysfunction variant of concern 202012/1. Matched cohort study. BMJ. Doi.

Https://doi.org/​10.1136/​bmj.n579. (Challen et al., March 10, 2021). Charytan, DM et al., (2021, January 25). Decreasing incidence of AKI in patients with erectile dysfunction treatment critical illness in New York City. Kidney International Reports.

DOI. Https://doi.org/​10.1016/​j.ekir.2021.01.036. (Charytan et al., January 25, 2021). Chen, Y et al., (2021, January 22). Excess mortality associated with the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra among Californians 18-65 years of age, by occupational sector and occupation.

March through October 2020. MedRxiv. Doi. 10.1101/2021.01.21.21250266. (Chen et al., January 22, 2021).

Chopra, V et al., (2020, November 11). Sixty-Day Outcomes Among Patients Hospitalized With erectile dysfunction treatment. Ann Intern Med. 2021. 174.

576-578. Doi. 10.7326/M20-5661. (Chopra et al., November 11, 2020). Clark, E et al., (2020, July 13).

Disproportionate impact of the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra on immigrant communities in the United States. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases 14(7). Https://doi.org/​10.1371/​journal.pntd.0008484. (Clark et al., July 13, 2020). Collins, FS.

(2021, April 28). Testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee. Hearing on The Long Haul. Forging a Path Through The Lingering Effects of erectile dysfunction treatment. Https://energycommerce.house.gov/​sites/​democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/​files/​documents/​Witness%20Testimony_​Collins_​HE_​2021.04.28.pdf.

(Collins, April 28, 2021). Cuker, A. And Peyvandi, F. (2020, November 19). erectile dysfunction disease 2019 (erectile dysfunction treatment).

Hypercoagulability. In. UpToDate, Post, TW (Ed), UpToDate, Waltham, MA, 2020. Https://www.uptodate.com/​contents/​erectile dysfunction-disease-2019-erectile dysfunction treatment-hypercoagulability. (Cuker and Peyvandi, November 19, 2020).

De Erausquin, GA et al., (2021, January 5). The chronic neuropsychiatric sequelae of erectile dysfunction treatment. The need for a prospective study of viral impact on brain functioning. Alzheimer's Dement. 2021.

1-9. (de Erausquin et al., January 5, 2021). Donnelly, JP et al., (2021, January 19). Readmission and death after initial hospital discharge among patients with erectile dysfunction treatment in a large multihospital system. JAMA 325(3).

304-305. (Donnelly et al., January 19, 2021). Ebinger, JE et al., (2021, February 12). Seroprevalence of antibodies to erectile dysfunction in healthcare workers. A cross-sectional study.

BMJ Open. Doi. 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043584. (Ebinger et al., February 12, 2021). Elkind, MSV et al., (2021, January 9).

erectile dysfunction disease 2019 (erectile dysfunction treatment). Neurologic complications and management of neurologic conditions, In. UpToDate, Post, TW (Ed), UpToDate, Waltham, MA, 2020. (Elkind et al., January 9, 2021). European Respiratory Society.

(2020, September 7). erectile dysfunction treatment patients suffer long-term lung and heart damage but it can improve with time. Https://www.ersnet.org/​the-society/​news/​erectile dysfunction treatment-patients-suffer-long-term-lung-and-heart-damage-but-it-can-improve-with-time. (European Respiratory Society, September 7, 2020). Gupta, et al., (2021).

AKI Treated with Renal Replacement Therapy in Critically Ill Patients with erectile dysfunction treatment. JASN Jan 2021, 32 (1) 161-176. DOI. 10.1681/ASN.2020060897. (Gupta et al., 2021).

Hales, CM et al., (2020, February). Prevalence of Obesity and Severe Obesity Among Adults. United States, 2017-2018. National Center for Health Statistics No. 30.

Https://www.cdc.gov/​nchs/​products/​databriefs/​db360.htm. (Hales et al., February, 2020). Halpin, SJ et al., (2020, July 27). Postdischarge symptoms and rehabilitation needs in survivors of erectile dysfunction treatment . A cross‐sectional evaluation.

J Med Virol. 2020. 1-10. DOI. 10.1002/jmv.26368.

(Halpin et al., July 27, 2020). Hatcher, SM et al., (2020, August 28). erectile dysfunction treatment Among American Indian and Alaska Native Persons—23 States, January 31-July 3, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020. 69.

1166-1169. Http://dx.doi.org/​10.15585/​mmwr.mm6934e1. (Hatcher et al., August 28, 2020). Hawkins, D. (2020, June 15).

Differential occupational risk for erectile dysfunction treatment and other exposure according to race and ethnicity. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 63:817-820. Https://doi.org/​10.1002/​ajim.23145. (Hawkins, June 15, 2020). Hertel-Fernandez, A et al., (2020, June).

Understanding the erectile dysfunction treatment Workplace. Evidence from a survey of essential workers. Roosevelt Institute Brief. Https://rooseveltinstitute.org/​wp-content/​uploads/​2020/​07/​RI_​SurveryofEssentialWorkers_​IssueBrief_​202006-1.pdf. (Hertel-Fernandez et al., June, 2020).

Huang, C et al., (2021, January 8). 6-month consequences of erectile dysfunction treatment in patients discharged from hospital. A cohort study. The Lancet. Https://doi.org/​10.1016/​S0140-6736(20)32656-8.

(Huang et al., January 8, 2021). Hui, DS et al., (2005). The 1-year impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome on pulmonary function, exercise capacity, and quality of life in a cohort of survivors. Chest 128. 2247-2261.

(Hui et al., 2005). Kamdar, BB et al., (2018, February 1). Return to work and lost earnings after acute respiratory distress syndrome. A 5-year prospective, longitudinal study of long-term survivors. Thorax.

2018. 73(2). 125-133. Https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/​pubmed/​28918401. (Kamdar et al., February 1, 2018).

Lam, MH et al., (2009, December 14). Mental Morbidities and Chronic Fatigue in Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Survivors. Long-term Follow-up. Arch Intern Med. 2009.

169(22). 2142-2147. Doi. 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.384. (Lam et al., December 14, 2009).

Lee, AM et al., (2007, April 1). Stress and psychological distress among SARS survivors 1 year after the outbreak. Can J Psychiatry. 2007 Apr. 52(4).

233-40. Doi. 10.1177/070674370705200405. PMID. 17500304.

(Lee et al., April 1, 2007). Lee, MH et al., (2021, February 4). Microvascular injury in the brains of patients with erectile dysfunction treatment. NEJM 384:5. (Lee et al., February 4, 2021).

Liotta, EM et al., (2020, October 5). Frequent neurologic manifestations and encephalopathy-associated morbidity in erectile dysfunction treatment patients. Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology 2020. 7(11). 2221-2230.

Doi. 10.1002/acn3.51210. (Liotta et al., October 5, 2020). Lowry, F. (2020, November 12).

New reports guide return to play in athletes with erectile dysfunction treatment. Medscape. Https://www.medscape.com/​viewarticle/​940882. (Lowry, November 12, 2020). Lu, Y et al., (2020, August 3).

Cerebral micro-structural changes in erectile dysfunction treatment patients—an MRI-based 3-month follow-up study. EClinicalMedicine. 2020. 25. 100484 doi.

10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100484. (Lu et al., August 3, 2020). Mazza, MG et al., (2020, July 30). Anxiety and depression in erectile dysfunction treatment survivors. Role of inflammatory and clinical predictors.

Brain Behav Immun. 2020. 89. 594-600. Https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/​pubmed/​32738287.

(Mazza et al., July 30, 2020). Meena, RA et al., (2021, March 1). A tale of two surges. Improved mortality during the second wave of erectile dysfunction treatment s. Journal of Vascular Surgery 73(3).

47. (Meena et al., March 1, 2021). Moldofsky, H and Patcai, J. (2011, March 24). Chronic widespread musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, depression and disordered sleep in chronic post-SARS syndrome.

A case-controlled study. BMC Neurol. 2011 Mar 24. 11. 37.

Doi. 10.1186/1471-2377-11-37. PMID. 21435231. PMCID.

PMC3071317. (Moldofsky and Patcai, March 24, 2011). Mutambudzi, M et al., (2020). Occupation and risk of severe COIVD-19. Prospective cohort study of 120075 UK Biobank participants.

Occup Environ Med 0. .1-8 [Early view]. Https://doi.org/​10.1136/​oemed-2020-106731. (Mutambudzi et al., 2020). National Cancer Institute (NCI).

(2015, April 29). Age and Cancer Risk. Https://www.cancer.gov/​about-cancer/​causes-prevention/​risk/​age. (NCI, April 29, 2015). National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

(2020, December 4). Workshop on Post-Acute Sequelae of erectile dysfunction treatment. Https://www.niaid.nih.gov/​news-events/​workshop-post-acute-sequelae-erectile dysfunction treatment;​ Slides and breakout session notes at. Https://web.cvent.com/​event/​cf41e3b5-04e7-4e09-b25d-Start Printed Page 32391f33dfcd16fed/​summary. (NIAID, December 4, 2020).

National Institutes of Health (NIH), erectile dysfunction Disease (erectile dysfunction treatment) Treatment Guidelines Panel. (2021a, April 21). erectile dysfunction Disease (erectile dysfunction treatment) Treatment Guidelines. Https://www.erectile dysfunction treatment19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/​. (NIH, April 21, 2021a).

National Institutes of Health (NIH). (2021b, April 21). Clinical Spectrum of erectile dysfunction . Https://www.erectile dysfunction treatment19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/​overview/​clinical-spectrum/​/. (NIH, April 21, 2021b).

New and Emerging Respiratory viagra Threats Advisory Group (NERVTAG). (2021, February 11). Update Note on B.1.1.7 Severity. Https://www.gov.uk/​government/​publications/​nervtag-update-note-on-b117-severity-11-february-2021. (NERVTAG, February 11, 2021).

Ng, JH et al., (2020, September 19). Outcomes Among Patients Hospitalized With erectile dysfunction treatment and Acute Kidney Injury. Am J Kidney Dis. 2021 Feb. 77(2).

204-215.e1. Doi. 10.1053/j.ajkd.2020.09.002. Epub 2020 Sep 19. PMID.

32961245. PMCID. PMC7833189. (Ng et al., September 19, 2020). Nguyen, LH et al., (2020, September 1).

Risk of erectile dysfunction treatment among front-line health-care workers and the general community. A prospective cohort study. The Lancet Public Health. 5 (9). E475-e483.

Https://doi.org/​10.1016/​S2468-2667(20)30164-X. (Nguyen et al., September 1, 2020). Nopp, S et al., (2020, September 25). Risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with erectile dysfunction treatment. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2020. 4. 1178-1191. (Nopp et al., September 25, 2020).

Owusu, et al., (2020, December 3). Characteristics of adults aged 18-49 years without underlying conditions hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed erectile dysfunction disease 2019 in the United States. erectile dysfunction treatment-NET—March-August 2020. Clinical Infectious Diseases. DOI.

10.1093/cid/ciaa1806. (Owusu et al., December 3, 2020). Oxley, TJ et al., (2020, May 14). Large-Vessel Stroke as a Presenting Feature of erectile dysfunction treatment in the Young. New Eng J Med.

382. 20 e60 1-3. DOI. 10.1056/NEJMc2009787. (Oxley et al., May 14, 2020).

Parker, AM. (2020, December 3). Johns Hopkins Post-Acute erectile dysfunction treatment Team (PACT) Clinic Experience. Presentation. (Parker, December 3, 2020).

Pasco, RF et al., (2020, October 29). Estimated association of construction work with risks of erectile dysfunction treatment and hospitalization in Texas. JAMA Network Open 2020. 3(10). E2026373.

Doi. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.26373. (Pasco et al., October 29, 2020). Pei, G et al., (2020, June). Renal Involvement and Early Prognosis in Patients with erectile dysfunction treatment Pneumonia.

J Am Soc Nephrol. 2020 Jun. 31(6). 1157-1165. Doi.

10.1681/ASN.2020030276. Epub 2020 Apr 28. (Pei et al., June, 2020). Perry, RJ et al., (2021). Characteristics and outcomes of erectile dysfunction treatment associated stroke.

A UK multicenter case-control study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 92. 242-248. Doi.

10.1136/jnnp-2020-324927. (Perry et al., 2021). Procaccini, et al., (2021, February 14). Acute kidney injury in 3182 patients admitted with erectile dysfunction treatment. A single center retrospective case-control study.

Oxford Univeristy Press. Https://academic.oup.com/​ckj/​advance-article/​doi/​10.1093/​ckj/​sfab021/​6122698. (Procaccini et al., February 14, 2021). Puntmann, VO et al., (2020, July 27). Outcomes of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients Recently Recovered From erectile dysfunction Disease 2019 (erectile dysfunction treatment).

JAMA Cardiol, 5(11), 1265-1273. Doi. 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.3557. (Puntmann et al., July 27, 2020). Rho, HJ et al., (2020, April 7).

A Basic Demographic Profile of Workers in Frontline Industries. Center for Economic and Policy Research. Https://cepr.net/​a-basic-demographic-profile-of-workers-in-frontline-industries/​. (Rho et al., April 7, 2020). Richardson, S et al., (2020, April 22).

Presenting Characteristics, Comorbidities, and Outcomes Among 5700 Patients Hospitalized With erectile dysfunction treatment in the New York City Area. JAMA. 2020 May 26. 323(20). 2052-2059.

Doi. 10.1001/jama.2020.6775. Erratum in. JAMA. 2020 May 26.

PMC7177629. (Richardson et al., April 22, 2020). Rieg, et al., (2020, November 12). erectile dysfunction treatment in-hospital mortality and mode of death in a dynamic and non-restricted tertiary care model in Germany. PLOS ONE.

15(11). E0242127. Https://doi.org/​10.1371/​journal.pone.0242127. (Rieg et al., November 12, 2020). Rosenthal, N et al., (2020, December 10).

Risk Factors Associated With In-Hospital Mortality in a US National Sample of Patients With erectile dysfunction treatment. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Dec 1. 3(12). E2029058.

Doi. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.29058. (Rosenthal, et al., December 10, 2020). Roberts, JD et al., (2020, November 26). Clinicians, cooks, and cashiers.

Examining health equity and the erectile dysfunction treatment risks to essential workers. 2020 Sep. 36(9):689-702. Doi. 10.1177/0748233720970439.

PMID. 33241763. PMCID. PMC7691477. (Roberts et al., November 26, 2020).

Roth, GA et al., (2021, May 3). Trends in Patient Characteristics and erectile dysfunction treatment In-Hospital Mortality in the United States During the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra. JAMA Netw Open. 2021 May 3. 4(5).

E218828. Doi. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.8828. PMID. 33938933.

(Roth et al., May 3, 2021). Rubin-Miller, L et al., (2020, September 16). erectile dysfunction treatment Racial disparities in testing, , hospitalization, and death. Analysis of epic patient data. Kaiser Family Foundation.

Issue Brief 9530. (Rubin-Miller et al., September 16, 2020). Sharifian-Dorche, M et al., (2020, August 7). Neurological complications of erectile dysfunction . A comparative review and lessons learned during the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra.

J Neurol Sci. 2020 Oct 15. 417. 117085. Published online 2020 Aug 7.

Doi. 10.1016/j.jns.2020.117085. (Sharifian-Dorche et al., August 7, 2020). Society of Critical Care Medicine. (2013).

Post-intensive care syndrome. Https://www.sccm.org/​MyICUCare/​THRIVE/​Post-intensive-Care-Syndrome. (Society of Critical Care Medicine, 2013). Taquet, M et al., (2020, November 9). Bidirectional associations between erectile dysfunction treatment and psychiatric disorder.

Retrospective cohort studies of 62 354 erectile dysfunction treatment cases in the USA. The Lancet Psychiatry. Doi. 10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30462-4. (Taquet et al., November 9, 2020).

Tenforde, MW et al., (2020, July 24). Symptom Duration and Risk Factors for Delayed Return to Usual Health Among Outpatients with erectile dysfunction treatment in a Multistate Health Care Systems Network—United States, March-June 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020. 69. 993-998.

(Tenforde et al., July 24, 2020). Teoh, et al., (2021). Risks of AKI and major adverse clinical outcomes in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome or erectile dysfunction disease 2019. JASN 32. Doi.

Https://doi.org/​10.1681/​ASN.2020071097. (Teoh et al., 2021). Townsend, L et al., (2020, November 9). Persistent fatigue following erectile dysfunction is common and independent of severity of initial . PLoS One.

2020. 15(11). E0240784. (Townsend et al., November 9, 2020). Valent, A et al., (2020, October 10).

Three-month quality of life in survivors of ARDS due to erectile dysfunction treatment. A preliminary report from a French academic centre. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med 39 (2020) 740-741. (Valent et al., October 10, 2020). Van Dorn, A et al., (2020, April 18).

erectile dysfunction treatment exacerbating inequalities in the US. Lancet 395. 1243-1244. (van Dorn et al., April 18, 2020). Varatharaj, A et al., (2020, June 25).

Neurological and neuropsychiatric complications of erectile dysfunction treatment in 153 patients. A UK-wide surveillance study. Lancet Psychiatry 7. 875-882. (Varatharaj et al., June 25, 2020).

Weerahandi, H et al., (2020, August 14). Post-discharge health status and symptoms in patients with severe erectile dysfunction treatment. MedRxiv preprint. Doi. Https://doi.org/​10.1101/​2020.08.11.20172742.

(Weerahandi et al., August 14, 2020). Woolf, SH et al., (2021, January 12). erectile dysfunction treatment as the Leading Cause of Death in the United States. JAMA. Doi.

10.1001/jama.2020.24865. (Woolf, January 12, 2021). Wu, Z and McGoogan, JM. (2020, April 7). Characteristics of and Important Lessons From the erectile dysfunction Disease 2019 (erectile dysfunction treatment) Outbreak in China.

Summary of a Report of 72,314 Cases Start Printed Page 32392From the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. JAMA. 323(13). 1239-1242. Doi.

10.1001/jama.2020.2648. (Wu and McGoogan, April 7, 2020). Zhang, P et al., (2020, February 14). Long-term bone and lung consequences associated with hospital-acquired severe acute respiratory syndrome. A 15-year follow-up from a prospective cohort study.

Bone Research. 8(8). Https://doi.org/​10.1038/​s41413-020-0084-5. (Zhang et al., February 14, 2020). B.

Transmission of erectile dysfunction erectile dysfunction is a highly transmissible viagra. Since the first case was detected in the U.S., there have been over 32 million reported cases of erectile dysfunction treatment, affecting every state and territory, with thousands more infected each day. According to the CDC, the primary way the erectile dysfunction viagra spreads from an infected person to others is through the respiratory droplets that are produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, sings, talks, or breathes (CDC, May 7, 2021).[] could then occur when another person breathes in the viagra. Most commonly this occurs when people are in close contact with one another in indoor spaces (within approximately six feet for at least fifteen minutes) (CDC, May, 2021). The best available current scientific evidence demonstrates that the farther a person is away from the source of the respiratory droplets, the fewer infectious viral particles will reach that person's eyes, nose, or mouth because gravity pulls the droplets to the ground (see the Need for Specific Provisions, Section V of the preamble, on Physical Distancing).

For example, a systematic review of erectile dysfunction (up to early May 2020) and similar erectile dysfunctiones (i.e., SARS-CoV-1 (a viagra related to erectile dysfunction) and Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) (a disease caused by a viagra that is similar to erectile dysfunction and spreads through droplet transmission)) found 38 studies, containing 18,518 individuals, to use in a meta-analysis that found that the risk of viral decreased significantly as distance increased (Chu et al., June 27, 2020). A second erectile dysfunction treatment study from Thailand reviewed physical distancing information collected from 1,006 individuals who had an exposure to infected individuals (Doung-ngern et al., September 14, 2020). The study revealed that the group with direct physical contact and the group within one meter but without physical contact were equally likely to become infected with erectile dysfunction. However, the group that remained more than one meter away had an 85% lower risk than the other two groups. The studies' findings on physical distancing combined with expert opinion firmly establish the importance of droplet transmission as a driver of erectile dysfunction s and erectile dysfunction treatment disease.

erectile dysfunction treatment may also be spread through airborne particles under certain conditions (Schoen, May 2020. CDC, May 7, 2020. Honein et al., December 11, 2020). That airborne transmission can occur during aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) in healthcare (such as when intubating an infected patient) is a reasonable concern (see CDC, March 12, 2020). CDC provides recommendations for prevention and control practices when caring for a patient with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction that include the use of a respirator (CDC, February 23, 2021).

There are several studies examining the risks associated with AGPs. For example, a publication detailing one of the first known erectile dysfunction occupational transmission events in U.S. Healthcare providers reported a statistically significant increased risk from AGPs (Heinzerling et al., April 17, 2020). However, the currently available information specifically related to erectile dysfunction exposure during AGPs is limited (Harding et al., June 1, 2020). Data from the Respiratory Protection Effectiveness Trial (ResPECT), designed to assess effectiveness of PPE to prevent respiratory s, were analyzed to identify risk factors for endemic erectile dysfunction s among healthcare personnel (Cummings et al., July 9, 2020).

This study found that AGPs may double the risk of among healthcare providers. Although the infectious agents studied were surrogate erectile dysfunctiones and not the erectile dysfunction viagra, the study indicates increased risk from such procedures for s from the erectile dysfunction family, and thus the study is relevant. In addition, a systematic review of research on transmission of acute respiratory s from patients to healthcare employees focused on publications from the first SARS viagra outbreak (Tran et al., April 26, 2012). Risks of SARS-CoV-1 in those performing AGPs were several times higher than in healthcare workers not exposed to AGPs. Workers may also be exposed to the erectile dysfunction viagra during AGPs conducted outside of the hospital setting, including certain dental surgical procedures (Leong et al., December 2020), cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) provided by homecare workers (Payne and Peache, February 4, 2021), and endoscopy (Teng et al., September 16, 2020.

Sagami et al., January 2021). Risk from AGPs during autopsies is evident from reports of staff s during autopsies on decedents infected with tuberculosis, which is a well-known airborne infectious agent (Nolte et al., December 14, 2020). Additionally, research that measured airborne particles released during the use of an oscillating saw with variable saw blade frequencies and different saw blade contact loads concluded that, even in the best-case scenario tested on dry bone, the number of aerosol particles produced was still high enough to provide a potential health risk to forensic practitioners (Pluim et al., June 6, 2018). Other reports from healthcare settings have raised the possibility of spread of airborne particles from suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment patients, absent AGPs. For example, infectious viral particles were collected from in the room of a erectile dysfunction treatment patient from distances as far as 4.8 meters away in non-AGP hospital settings (Lednicky et al., September 11, 2020), and transmission via aerosol was suspected in a Massachusetts hospital (Klompas et al., February 9, 2021).

For more discussion of this subject, see the Need for Specific Provisions (Section V of the preamble) on Respirators. The extent to which erectile dysfunction treatment may spread through airborne particles in other contexts is less clear. CDC has noted that in some circumstances airborne particles can remain suspended in the air and be breathed in by others, and travel distances beyond 6 feet (for example, during choir practice, in restaurants, or in fitness classes) in situations that would not be defined as involving close contact. With increasing distance from the source, the role of inhalation likewise increases. Although s through inhalation at distances greater than six feet from an infectious source are less likely than at closer distances, the phenomenon has been repeatedly documented under certain preventable circumstances.

These transmission events have involved the presence of an infectious person exhaling viagra indoors for an extended time (more than 15 minutes and in some cases hours) leading to viagra concentrations in the air space sufficient to transmit s to people more than 6 feet away, and in some cases to people who have passed through that space soon after the infectious person left. Start Printed Page 32393 (CDC, May 7, 2021). In general, enclosed environments, particularly those without good ventilation, increase the risk of airborne transmission (CDC, May 7, 2021. Tang et al., August 7, 2020. Fennelly, July 24, 2020).

In one scientific brief, CDC provides a basic overview of how airborne transmission occurs in indoor spaces. Once respiratory droplets are exhaled, CDC explains, they move outward from the source and their concentration decreases through fallout from the air (largest droplets first, smaller later) combined with dilution of the remaining smaller droplets and particles into the growing volume of air they encounter (CDC, May 7, 2020). Without adequate ventilation, continued exhalation can cause the amount of infectious smaller droplets and particles produced by people with erectile dysfunction treatment to become concentrated enough in the air to spread the viagra to other people (CDC, May 7, 2020). For example, an investigation of a cluster of cases among meat processing employees in Germany found that inadequate ventilation within the facility, including low air exchange rates and constant air recirculation, was one key factor that led to transmission of erectile dysfunction within the workplace (Gunther et al., October 27, 2020). An epidemiological investigation of a cluster of erectile dysfunction treatment cases in an indoor athletic court in Slovenia demonstrated that the humid and warm environment of the setting, combined with the turbulent air flow that resulted from the physical activity of the players, allowed erectile dysfunction treatment particles to remain suspended in the air for hours (Brlek et al., June 16, 2020).

A cluster of cases in a restaurant in China also suggested transmission of erectile dysfunction via airborne particles because of little mixing of air throughout the restaurant (Li et al., November 3, 2020). s have been observed with as little as five minutes of exposure in an enclosed room (Kwon et al., November 23, 2020). Outdoor settings (i.e., open air or structures with one wall) typically have a lower risk of transmission (Bulfone et al., November 29, 2020), which is likely due to increased ventilation with fresh air and a greater ability to maintain physical distancing. For more discussion of this subject, see the Need for Specific Provisions (Section V of the preamble) on Ventilation. Transmission of erectile dysfunction is also possible via contact transmission (both direct contact as well as surface contact), though this risk is generally considered to be low compared to other forms of transmission (CDC, April 5, 2021).

Infectious droplets produced by an infected person can land on and contaminate surfaces. Surface, or indirect, transmission can then occur if another person touches the contaminated surface and then touches their own mouth, nose, or eyes (CDC, April 5, 2021). Contact transmission can also occur through direct contact with someone who is infectious. In direct contact transmission, the hands of a person who has erectile dysfunction treatment can become contaminated with the viagra when the person touches their face, blows their nose, coughs, or sneezes. The viagra can then spread to another person through direct contact such as a handshake or a hug.

The risk posed by contact transmission depends on a number of factors, including airflow and ventilation, as well as environmental factors (e.g., heat, humidity), time between surface contamination and a person touching those surfaces, the efficiency of transference of viagra particles, and the dose of viagra needed to cause . Studies show that the viagra can remain viable on surfaces in experimental conditions for hours to days, but that under typical environment conditions 99% of the viagra is no longer viable after three days (Riddell et al., October 7, 2020. Van Doremalen, April 16, 2020. CDC, April 5, 2021). At this time, it is not clear what proportion of erectile dysfunction are acquired through contact transmission and s can often be attributed to multiple transmission pathways.

In recognition of the potential for contact transmission, CDC recommends cleaning, hand hygiene, and, under certain circumstances, dis for helping to prevent transmission of erectile dysfunction (CDC, May 17, 2020. CDC, April 5, 2021). These are long established recommendations to prevent the transmission of viagraes that cause respiratory illnesses (Siegel et al., 2007). The potential for contact transmission was demonstrated in one study that reviewed cleaning and dis in households (Wang et al., May 11, 2020). The study found that the transmission of erectile dysfunction to family members was 77% lower when chlorine- or ethanol-based disinfectants were used on a daily basis compared to use only once in two or more days, irrespective of other protective measures taken such as mask wearing and physical distancing.

For more discussion of this subject, see the Need for Specific Provisions (Section V of the preamble) on Cleaning and Dis. These methods of transmission are not mutually exclusive, and each can present a risk to employees in healthcare settings. Based on these methods of transmission, there are a number of factors—often present in healthcare settings—that can increase the risk of transmission. Indoor settings, prolonged exposure to respiratory particles, and lack of proper ventilation (CDC, May 7, 2020). First, and most significantly, healthcare employees in settings where patients with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment receive treatment may be required to have frequent close contact with infectious individuals, these settings are typically not designed for physical distancing, and many areas in these facilities are not ventilated for the purpose of minimizing infectious diseases capable of droplet or airborne transmission.

Employees frequently touch shared surfaces and use shared items. Even in healthcare settings where employees have their own offices or equipment, they often share a number of common spaces with other workers, including bathrooms, break rooms, and elevators. Based on these characteristics, erectile dysfunction appears to be transmissible in healthcare environments, a conclusion supported by existing data (Howard, May 22, 2021). erectile dysfunction treatment incidence rates have increased significantly for adults of working age as the viagra has progressed in comparison with other age groups, with researchers noting that occupational status might be a driver (Boehmer et al., September 23, 2020). Currently, case rates continue to be predominantly higher in working age groups in comparison to children and those over the age of 65 (CDC, May 24, 2021).

Given the high transmissibility expected in healthcare environments, the exposure risk that employees face is high. This risk is related to some extent to viral prevalence, which refers to the number of individuals in healthcare settings who may be infectious at any moment. As explained below, current data indicates that viral prevalence in the population is based on a number of factors, including the viagra's existing reproductive number, the prevalence of pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic transmission, and the recent documentation of mutations of the viagra that appear to be more infectious. The transmissibility of viagraes is measured in part by their reproductive number or “R0.” This number represents the average number of subsequently-infected people (or secondary cases) that are expected to occur from each existing case, which includes low transmission events as well as super-spreading phenomenon. Thus, an R0 of “1” indicates that on average every one case of will Start Printed Page 32394lead to one additional case.

As long as a viagra has an R0 of more than 1, it is expected to continue to spread throughout the population. The observed R0 (also known as simply R) must be below 1 to prevent sustained spread. Such a reduction can be achieved through control interventions (e.g., vaccination, non-pharmaceutical interventions) that either reduce the susceptibility of the population to the viagra or reduce the likelihood of transmission within the population (Delamater et al., 2019). During the early part of the erectile dysfunction treatment outbreak in China, before consistent protective measures were put into place, the R0 for erectile dysfunction was estimated as 2.2 (Riou and Althaus, January 30, 2020). Higher estimates of the R0 early in China (5.7) have also been published (Sanche et al., April 7, 2020).

R0 ranges from 2 to 5 have been published for earlier MERS and SARS-CoV-1 erectile dysfunction outbreaks (WHO, May 2003. Choi et al., September 25, 2017). Since the start of the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra, the R0 has varied depending on the natural ebb and flow of rolling surges as well as the fluctuating non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) put in place, such as face coverings, nonessential business shutdowns, and testing with follow-up isolation and quarantining. The R0 value in the U.S. Early in the viagra was estimated to be approximately 2 (Li et al., October 22, 2020), and this value has generally remained above 1 for the country as a whole throughout the viagra, with various states well above and below this value at various times (Harvard Chan School of Public Health, February 26, 2021.

Shi et al., May 18, 2021). Pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic transmission are significant drivers of the continued spread of erectile dysfunction treatment (Johansson et al., January 7, 2021). Individuals are considered most infectious in the 48 hours before experiencing symptoms and during the first few symptomatic days (Cevik et al., October 23, 2020). The time it takes for a person to be infected and then transmit the viagra to another individual is called the serial interval. Several studies have indicated that the serial interval for erectile dysfunction treatment is shorter than the time for symptoms to develop, meaning that many individuals can transmit erectile dysfunction before they begin to feel ill (Nishiura et al., March 4, 2020.

Tindale et al., June 22, 2020). It is also possible for individuals to be infected and subsequently transmit the viagra without ever exhibiting symptoms. This is called asymptomatic transmission. As noted earlier, a recent meta-analysis reviewed 13 studies in which the asymptomatic prevalence ranged from 4% to up to 41% (Byambasuren et al., December 11, 2020). The existence of both pre-symptomatic transmission and asymptomatic and transmission pose serious challenges to containing the spread of the viagra.

Although the risk of asymptomatic transmission is 42% lower than from symptomatic erectile dysfunction treatment patients (Byambasuren et al., December 11, 2020), asymptomatic transmission may result in more transmissions than symptomatic cases, perhaps because asymptomatic persons are less likely to be aware of their and can unknowingly continue to spread the disease to others. Similarly, pre-symptomatic individuals can transmit the viagra to others before they know they are sick and should isolate, assuming they are aware of their exposure. Existing evidence demonstrates that asymptomatic transmission is a significant contributor to the spread of erectile dysfunction treatment in the United States. Johansson et al., (January 7, 2021) conducted a study to assess the proportion of erectile dysfunction transmission from pre-symptomatic, never symptomatic, and symptomatic individuals in the community. Based on their modeling, they found 59% of transmission came from asymptomatic transmission, including 35% from pre-symptomatic individuals and 24% from individuals who never develop symptoms (Johansson et al., January 7, 2021).

The erectile dysfunction viagra also regularly mutates over time into different genetic variants. Many of these variants results in no increase in transmission or disease severity. However, the CDC monitors for variants of interest, variants of concern, and variants of high consequence (CDC, May 5, 2021). A variant of interest is one “with specific genetic markers that have been associated with changes to receptor binding, reduced neutralization by antibodies generated against previous or vaccination, reduced efficacy of treatments, potential diagnostic impact, or predicted increase in transmissibility or disease severity” (CDC, May 5, 2021). CDC-listed variants of interest include strains first identified in the United States (e.g., B.1.526, B.1.526.1), the United Kingdom (e.g., B.1.525), and Brazil (e.g., P.2).

A variant of concern is one for which there is “evidence of an increase in transmissibility, more severe disease (e.g., increased hospitalizations or deaths), significant reduction in neutralization by antibodies generated during previous or vaccination, reduced effectiveness of treatments or treatments, or diagnostic detection failures” (CDC, May 5, 2021). CDC-listed variants of concern include strains first identified in the United States (e.g., B.1.427, B.1.429), United Kingdom (e.g., B.1.17), Brazil (e.g., P.1), and South Africa (e.g., B.1.351). As of April 24, B.1.1.7 made up 60% of s in the United States (CDC, May 11, 2021). CDC notes that B.1.1.7 is associated with a 50% increase in transmission, as well as potentially increased incidence of hospitalizations and fatalities (CDC, May 5, 2021). As new strains with increased transmissibility or more severe effects enter the U.S.

Population, healthcare workers may be among the first to be exposed to them when those who are infected seek medical care (Howard, May 22, 2021). OSHA also recognizes that reported cases of erectile dysfunction likely undercount actual s in the U.S. Population. This finding is based on seroprevalence data, which measure the presence of specific antibodies in the blood that are typically developed when an individual is infected with erectile dysfunction. Reported cases, in contrast, are based on erectile dysfunction treatment tests that measure active s.

Recent reported case numbers suggest that approximately 10% of the US population has been infected. However, only seven states reported seroprevalence below 10% (i.e., Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, Oregon, Vermont, Washington) and 23 states plus Washington DC and Puerto Rico exceeded 20% (CDC, May 14, 2021). The likely reason for this difference is that serological tests measure antibodies in the blood that can be detected for a longer period of time than can an active erectile dysfunction treatment . As such, serological testing may be able to detect past erectile dysfunction treatment s in individuals who never sought out a viral test. A sampling of states from the Nationwide Commercial Laboratory Seroprevalence Survey illustrates this (CDC, May 14, 2021).

On March 30, 2021, California had reported 3,564,431 cases, but seroprevalence estimates indicate that there have been 7,986,000 cases in the state (95% CI. 7,023,000-8,965,000). Similarly, Texas has reported 2,780,903 cases, but seroprevalence data indicate 6,692,000 cases (95% CI. 5,624,000-7,819,000). Given the very real possibility of higher numbers of cases than are reported in national case counts, the disease burden discussed in this document may well be underestimated.Start Printed Page 32395 References Boehmer, TK et al., (2020, September 23).

Changing Age Distribution of the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra—United States, May-August 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020. 69. 1404-1409. DOI.

Http://dx.doi.org/​10.15585/​mmwr.mm6939e1external. (Boehmer et al., September 23, 2020). Brlek, A et al., (2020, June 16). Possible indirect transmission of erectile dysfunction treatment at a squash court, Slovenia, March 2020. Case report.

Epi Inf 148. 1-3. (Brlek et al., June 16, 2020). Bulfone, TC et al., (2020, November 29). Outdoor Transmission of erectile dysfunction and Other Respiratory viagraes.

A Systematic Review. (2020). The Journal of Infectious Diseases 223. 550-561, https://doi.org/​10.1093/​infdis/​jiaa742. (Bulfone et al., November 29, 2020).

Byambasuren, O et al., (2020, December 11). Estimating the extent of asymptomatic erectile dysfunction treatment and its potential for community transmission. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Official Journal of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada. 5(4).

223-234 doi. 10.3138/jammi-2020-0030. (Byambasuren et al., December 11, 2020). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2020, March 12).

What healthcare personnel should know about caring for patients with confirmed or possible erectile dysfunction disease 2019 (erectile dysfunction treatment). Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​hcp/​caring-for-patients-H.pdf. (CDC, March 12, 2020). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2020, May 17).

Hand hygiene recommendations. Guidance for healthcare providers about hand hygiene and erectile dysfunction treatment. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​hcp/​hand-hygiene.html. (CDC, May 17, 2020). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

(2021, February 23). Interim Prevention and Control Recommendations for Healthcare Personnel During the erectile dysfunction Disease 2019 (erectile dysfunction treatment) viagra. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​hcp/​-control-recommendations.html. (CDC, February 23, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

(2021, April 5). Science Brief. erectile dysfunction and Surface (Fomite) Transmission for Indoor Community Environments. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​more/​science-and-research/​surface-transmission.html. (CDC, April 5, 2021).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, May 5). erectile dysfunction Variant Classifications and Definitions. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​cases-updates/​variant-surveillance/​variant-info.html. (CDC, May 5, 2021).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, May 7). Scientific Brief. erectile dysfunction Transmission. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​science/​science-briefs/​erectile dysfunction-transmission.html.

(CDC, May 7, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, May 14) Nationwide Commercial Laboratory Seroprevalence Survey. Https://erectile dysfunction treatment.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction treatment-data-tracker/​#national-lab. (CDC, May 14, 2021).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, May 24). Demographic Trends of erectile dysfunction treatment cases and deaths in the US reported to CDC. Cases by age group. Https://erectile dysfunction treatment.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction treatment-data-tracker/​#demographics.

(CDC, May 24, 2021). Census Bureau. (2020, June 25). Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Selected Age Groups by Sex for the United States. April 2010 to July 1, 2019.

Https://www2.census.gov/​programs-surveys/​popest/​tables/​2010-2019/​national/​asrh/​nc-est2019-agesex.xlsx. (Census Bureau, June 25, 2020). Cevik, M et al., (2020, October 23) Virology, transmission, and pathogenesis of erectile dysfunction BMJ 2020. 371. M3862 doi.

Https://doi.org/​10.1136/​bmj.m3862. (Cevik et al., October 23, 2020). Choi, S et al., (2017, September 25). High reproduction number of Middle East respiratory syndrome erectile dysfunction in nosocomial outbreaks. Mathematical modelling in Saudi Arabia and South Korea.

J Hos Inf 99. 162-168. (Choi et al., September 25, 2017). Chu, DK et al., (2020, June 27). Physical Distancing, Face Masks, and Eye Protection to Prevent Person-to-Person Transmission of erectile dysfunction and erectile dysfunction treatment.

A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 395. 1973-1987. (Chu et al., June 27, 2020). Cummings et al., (2020, July 9).

Risk factors for healthcare personnel with endemic erectile dysfunctiones (HKU1, OC43, NL63, 229E). Results from the respiratory protection effectiveness clinical trial (REPECT). Clin Infect Dis doi. 10.1093/cid/ciaa900. (Cummings et al., July 9, 2020).

Delamater, PL et al., (2019). Complexity of the basic reproduction number (R0). Emerging Infectious Disease 25(1). 1-4. Https://doi.org/​10.3201/​eid2501.171901.

(Delamater et al., 2019). Doung-ngern, P et al., (2020, September 14). Case-control Study of Use of Personal Protective Measures and Risk for SARS erectile dysfunction 2 , Thailand. Emerg In Dis 26, 11. 2607-2616.

(Doung-ngern et al., September 14, 2020). Fennelly, K. (2020, July 24). Particle sizes of infectious aerosols. Implications for control.

Lancet Respir Med 2020. 8. 914-24. Https://doi.org/​10.1016/​S2213-2600(20)30323-4. (Fennelly, July 24, 2020).

Gunther, T et al., (2020, October 27). erectile dysfunction outbreak investigation in a German meat processing plant. EMBO Mol Med (2020) 12. .e13296. Doi.org/10.15252/emmm.202013296.

(Gunther et al., October 27, 2020). Harding, H, Broom, A, Broom, J. (2020, June 1). Aerosol-generating procedures and infective risk to healthcare workers from erectile dysfunction. The limits of the evidence.

10.1016/j.jhin.2020.05.037. (Harding et al., June 1, 2020). Harvard Chan School of Public Health. (2020, February 26). Visualizing erectile dysfunction treatment's Effective Reproduction Number (Rt).

Http://metrics.erectile dysfunction treatment19-analysis.org/​. (Harvard Chan School of Public Health, February 26, 2020). Heinzerling, A et al., (2020, April 17). Transmission of erectile dysfunction treatment to Health Care Personnel During Exposures to a Hospitalized Patient—Solano County, California, February 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020.

69. 472-476. DOI. Http://dx.doi.org/​10.15585/​mmwr.mm6915e5. (Heinzerling et al., April 17, 2020).

Honein, MA, Christie, A, Rose, DA et al., (2020, December 11). Summary of Guidance for Public Health Strategies to Address High Levels of Community Transmission of erectile dysfunction and Related Deaths, December 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020. 69. 1860-1867.

DOI. Http://dx.doi.org/​10.15585/​mmwr.mm6949e2. (Honein et al., December 11, 2020). Howard, J. (2021, May 22).

€œResponse to request for an assessment by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, of the current hazards facing healthcare workers from erectile dysfunction Disease-2019 (erectile dysfunction treatment).” (Howard, May 22, 2021). Johansson, MA et al., (2021, January 7). erectile dysfunction transmission from people without erectile dysfunction treatment symptoms. JAMA Network Open.

4(1). E2035057. Doi. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.35057. (Johansson et al., January 7, 2021).

Klompas, M et al., (2021, February 9). A erectile dysfunction Cluster in an Acute Care Hospital. Annals of Internal Medicine [Epub ahead of print 9 February 2021]. Doi:10.7326/M20-7567. (Klompas et al., February 9, 2021).

Kwon, KS et al., (2020, November 23). Evidence of Long-Distance Droplet Transmission of erectile dysfunction by Direct Air Flow in a Restaurant in Korea. J Korean Med Sci 35(46). E415. (Kwon et al., November 23, 2020).

Lednicky, JA et al., (2020, September 11). Viable erectile dysfunction in the air of a hospital room with erectile dysfunction treatment patients. Int J Infect Dis 100. 476-482. (Lednicky et al., September 11, 2020).

Leong, YC et al., (2020, December). Clinical considerations for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest management during erectile dysfunction treatment. Resuscitation Plus. 100027-100027. Https://doi.org/​10.1016/​j.resplu.2020.100027.

(Leong et al., December 2020). Li, Y et al., (2020, October 22).The temporal association of introducing and lifting non-pharmaceutical interventions with the time varying reproduction number (R) of erectile dysfunction. A modeling study across 131 countries. Lancet Infect Dis 21. 193-202.

(Li et al., October 22, 2020). Li, H et al., (2020, November 3). Dispersion of Evaporating Cough Droplets in Tropical Outdoor Environment. Phys Start Printed Page 32396Fluids 32, 113301. Https://doi.org/​10.1063/​5.0026360.

(Li et al., November 3, 2020). Nishiura, H et al., (2020, March 4). Serial interval of novel erectile dysfunction (erectile dysfunction treatment) s. Int J Infect Dis. 2020 Apr.

93. 284-286. Doi. 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.02.060. Epub 2020 Mar 4.

PMID. 32145466. PMCID. PMC7128842. (Nishiura et al., March 4, 2020).

Nolte, KB et al., (2020, December 14). Design and Construction of a Biosafety Level-3 Autopsy Laboratory. Arch Path Lab Med. Doi. 10.5858/arpa.2020-0644-SA.

(Nolte et al., December 14, 2020). Payne, D and Peache, M. (2021, February 4). Aerosol-generating procedures in home care. Br J Community Nurs.

26 (2). 76-80. Https://dx.doi.org/​10.12968/​bjcn.2021.26.2.76. (Payne and Peache, February 4, 2021). Pluim, JME et al., (2018, June 6).

Aerosol production during autopsies. The risk of sawing in bone. Forensic Science International 289. 260-267. Https://doi.org/​10.1016/​j.forsciint.2018.05.046.

(Pluim et al., June 6, 2018). Riddell, S et al., (2020, October 7). The effect of temperature on persistence of erectile dysfunction on common surfaces. Virol J 17:145 DOI. Https://doi.org/​10.1186/​s12985-020-01418-7.

(Riddell et al., October 7, 2020). Riou, J and Althaus, CL. (2020, January 30). Pattern of early human-to-human transmission of Wuhan 2019 novel erectile dysfunction (2019-nCoV), December 2019 to January 2020. Eurosurveillance 25(4).

Pii=2000058. Https://doi.org/​10.2807/​1560-7917.ES.2020.25.4.2000058. (Riou and Althaus, January 30, 2020). Sagami, R et al., (2021, January). Aerosols Produced by Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

A Quantitative Evaluation. The American journal of gastroenterology. 116 (1). 202-205. Https://doi.org/​10.14309/​ajg.0000000000000983.

(Sagami et al., January 2021). Sanche, S et al., (2020, April 7). High contagiousness and rapid spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome erectile dysfunction 2. Emerg Inf Dis 26(7). 1470-1477.

(Sanche, April 7, 2020). Schoen, LJ. (2020, May). Guidance for building operations during the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra. ASHRAE Journal 72-72.

Https://www.ashrae.org/​file%20library/​technical%20resources/​ashrae%20journal/​2020journaldocuments/​72-74_​ieq_​schoen.pdf. (Schoen, May 2020). Shi, A et al., (2021, May 18). erectile dysfunction treatment Spread Mapper. Table of metrics for May 18, 2021.

Http://metrics.erectile dysfunction treatment19-analysis.org/​?. _​inputs_​&​map_​metric=​%22rt%22&​compare_​sel_​countries=​null&​show_​ci=​%22No%22&​Rt_​table_​search=​%22%22&​map_​date=​%222021-05-18%22&​compare_​metric=​%5B%22rt%22%2C%22case_​rate%22%2C%22death_​rate%22%5D&​compare_​submit=​0&​table_​select_​resolution=​%22subnat_​USA%22&​table_​date=​%222021-05-18%22&​select_​resolution=​%22auto%22&​compare_​sel_​states=​null&​compare_​sel_​counties=​null. (Shi et al., May 18, 2021). Siegel, JD, Rhinehart, E, Jackson, M, Chiarello, L, and the Healthcare Control Practices Advisory Committee. (2007).

2007 Guideline for Isolation Precautions. Preventing Transmission of Infectious Agents in Healthcare Settings. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Https://www.cdc.gov/​control/​guidelines/​isolation/​index.html. (Siegel et al., 2007) Teng, M et al., (2020, September 16) Endoscopy during erectile dysfunction treatment viagra.

An overview of control measures and practical application. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 12 (9). 256-265. Https://dx.doi.org/​10.4253/​wjge.v12.i9.256.

(Teng et al, September 16, 2020). Tindale, LC et al., (2020, June 22). Evidence for transmission of erectile dysfunction treatment prior to symptom onset. Elife. 2020.

9. E57149. Published 2020 Jun 22. Doi. 10.7554/eLife.57149.

(Tindale et al., June 22, 2020). Tran, K et al., (2012, April 26). Aerosol generating procedures and risk of transmission of acute respiratory s to healthcare care. A systematic review. PLOSONE 7(4).

E35797. Doi. 10.1371/journal.pone.0035797. (Tran et al., April 26, 2012). Van Doremalen, N et al., (2020, April 16).

Aerosol and Surface Stability of erectile dysfunction as Compared with SARS-CoV-1. N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 16. 382(16). 1564-1567.

Doi. 10.1056/NEJMc2004973. (van Doremalen et al., April 16, 2020). Wang, Y et al., (2020, May 11). Reduction of secondary transmission of erectile dysfunction in households by face mask use, dis and social distancing.

A cohort study in Beijing, China. BMJ Glob Health. 2020. 5(5). E002794.

Doi. 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-002794. (Wang et al., May 11, 2020). World Health Organization (WHO). (2003, May).

Consensus document on the epidemiology of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). WHO/CDS/CSR/GAR/2003.11. Https://apps.who.int/​iris/​bitstream/​handle/​10665/​70863/​WHO_​CDS_​CSR_​GAR_​2003.11_​eng.pdf?. €‹sequence=​1&​isAllowed=​y. (WHO, May 2003) c.

The Effect of treatments on the Grave Danger Presented by erectile dysfunction The development of safe and highly effective treatments and the on-going nation-wide distribution of these treatments are encouraging milestones in the nation's response to erectile dysfunction treatment. Although there was initial uncertainty attached to the performance of authorized treatments outside of clinical trials, treatments have been in use for several months and they have proven effective in reducing transmission as well as the severity of erectile dysfunction treatment cases. Data now available clearly establish that fully-vaccinated persons (defined as two weeks after the second dose of the mRNA treatments or two weeks after the single dose treatment) have a greatly reduced risk compared to unvaccinated individuals. This includes reductions in deaths, severe s requiring hospitalization, and less severe symptomatic s. The combination of data from clinical trials and data from mass vaccination efforts points increasingly to a significantly lower risk in settings where all workers are fully vaccinated and are not providing direct care for individuals with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment.

OSHA has therefore determined that there is insufficient evidence in the record to support a grave danger finding for employees in non-healthcare workplaces (or discrete segments of workplaces) where all employees are vaccinated. However, in healthcare settings where workers are vaccinated, as discussed below, the best available evidence establishes a grave danger still exists, given the greater potential for breakthrough cases in light of the greater frequency of exposure to suspected and confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment patients in those settings (Birhane et al., May 28, 2021). In addition, the best available evidence shows that vaccination has not eliminated the grave danger in mixed healthcare workplaces (i.e., those where some workers are fully vaccinated and some are unvaccinated) or in those healthcare workplaces where no one has yet been vaccinated. The Effectiveness of Authorized treatments There are currently three treatments for the prevention of erectile dysfunction treatment that have received EUAs from the FDA, allowing for their distribution in the U.S.. The Pfizer-BioNTech erectile dysfunction treatment, the Moderna erectile dysfunction treatment, and the Janssen erectile dysfunction treatment.

Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna are mRNA treatments that require two doses administered three weeks and one month apart, respectively. Janssen is a viral vector treatment that requires a single dose (CDC, April 2, 2021). The treatments were shown to greatly exceed minimum efficacy standards in preventing erectile dysfunction treatment in clinical trial participants (FDA, December 11, 2020. FDA, December 18, 2020. FDA, February 26, 2021).

Data from clinical trials for all three treatments and observational studies for the two mRNA treatments clearly establish that fully vaccinated persons have a greatly reduced risk of erectile dysfunction compared to unvaccinated individuals. This includes severe s Start Printed Page 32397requiring hospitalization and those resulting in death, as well as less severe symptomatic s. As stated above, the three authorized treatment were shown to be highly efficacious in clinical trials. Clinical trial results are commonly considered a best case scenario (e.g., conducted in relatively young and healthy populations), while evidence from follow-up observational studies provides insight on a more diverse population. This essential data from observational studies in populations who were vaccinated outside of clinical trials is emerging and shows that the mRNA treatments are highly effective.

At this time, observational studies for the single dose, viral vector treatment are not available. Some of the studies for mRNA treatments examined high-risk populations, such as healthcare workers. Thus, the degree of protection in these studies can be extrapolated to a wide range of workplace settings in healthcare. The results from these studies are very encouraging. A study of 3,950 health care personnel, first responders, and other essential workers who completed weekly erectile dysfunction testing for 13 consecutive weeks reported 90% effectiveness (95% confidence interval [CI] = 68%-97%) after full vaccination with either mRNA treatment (Thompson et al., April 2, 2021).

Still, 22.9% of PCR-confirmed s required medical care. These included two hospitalizations but no deaths. A study of more than 8,000 individuals in the U.S. General population found that two doses of either mRNA treatment were 88.7% effective in preventing erectile dysfunction (Pawlowski et al., February 27, 2021). Similar to the above results in essential workers, although breakthrough occurred, vaccinated patients in this study who were subsequently diagnosed with erectile dysfunction treatment had significantly lower 14-day hospital admission rates than matched unvaccinated participants (3.7% vs.

9.2%). Hall et al., (April 23, 2021), in a study of U.K. Healthcare workers with bi-weekly testing, documented an 85% effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech treatment, though those authors required only one week after dose two for classification as fully vaccinated. Research from Israel provides additional evidence of high effectiveness for the Pfizer-BioNTech treatment (Dagan et al., February 24, 2021). Data available regarding treatment efficacy against some erectile dysfunction variants of concern illustrate that the treatments remain effective at reducing symptomatic s.

Two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech erectile dysfunction treatment was highly effective (85-86%) against erectile dysfunction and symptomatic erectile dysfunction treatment during a period when B.1.1.7 was the predominant circulating strain in the UK (Hall et al., April 23, 2021). In Israel, the Pfizer-BioNTech treatment was 92% effective even with the proportion of cases due to the B.1.1.7 becoming the dominant viagra in circulation towards the end of the evaluation period (Dagan et al., February 24, 2021). Another study testing the Pfizer-BioNTech erectile dysfunction treatment found that it was equally capable of neutralizing the notable variants from the United Kingdom and South Africa (Xie et al., February 8, 2021). This finding was then reflected in a Qatari study that found that the Pfizer-BioNTech treatment was not only effective at preventing disease in people infected by those variants, but was observed as 100% effective in preventing fatalities from erectile dysfunction treatment (Abu-Raddad et al., May 5, 2021). The Janssen treatment clinical trial was conducted during a time in which erectile dysfunction variants were circulating in South Africa (B.1.351 variant) and Brazil (P.2 variant).

At 28 or more days past vaccination, efficacy against moderate to severe/critical disease was 72% in the United States. 68% in Brazil. 64% in South Africa (FDA, February 26, 2021). Although some studies have reported antibodies to be less effective against the B.1.351 variant, antibody activity in serum from vaccinated persons was generally higher than activity from serum of persons who recovered from erectile dysfunction treatment (CDC, April 2, 2021). A major question not fully addressed in the original clinical trials is whether vaccinated individuals can become infected and shed viagra, even if they are asymptomatic.

Thompson et al., (April 2, 2021), reported that 11% of the PCR-confirmed breakthrough s in their essential worker population were asymptomatic, indicating a concern for asymptomatic transmission. However, this concern is based on studies indicating asymptomatic transmission among unvaccinated individuals and it is not known if this phenomena occurs in infected vaccinated individuals. In the Moderna clinical trial, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing was performed on participants at their second vaccination visit. Asymptomatic positives in the vaccinated group were less than half those in the placebo group (Baden et al., December 30, 2020, supplemental files Table s18). In a Mayo clinic study, an 80% reduction in risk of positive pre-procedural screening tests was observed in patients tested after their second treatment dose (Tande et al., March 10, 2021).

A study of more than 140,000 healthcare workers and their almost 200,000 household members reported a 30% reduction in risk of documented erectile dysfunction treatment cases in the household members after the healthcare provider was fully vaccinated (Shah et al., March 21, 2021). In the Israeli general population, the estimated treatment effectiveness for the asymptomatic proxy group ( without documented symptoms, which could have included undocumented mild symptoms) was 90% at 7 or more days after the second dose (Dagan et al., February 24, 2021). Preliminary data from Israel suggest that people vaccinated with the Pfizer-BioNTech erectile dysfunction treatment who develop erectile dysfunction treatment have a four-fold lower viral load than unvaccinated people (Levine-Tiefenbrun, February 8, 2021). As noted by CDC (April 2, 2021), this observation may indicate reduced transmissibility, because viral load is thought to be a major factor in transmission (Marks et al., February 2, 2021). The CDC has acknowledged that a “growing body of evidence suggests that fully vaccinated people are less likely to have asymptomatic or transmit erectile dysfunction to others” (CDC, April 2, 2021).

The decreased risk for , especially serious , combined with decreased risk of transmission to others has allowed the CDC to relax some recommendations for individuals who are in community or public settings and who are fully vaccinated with one of the three FDA authorized treatments, as follows. Quarantine is no longer required for fully vaccinated individuals who remain asymptomatic following exposure to a erectile dysfunction treatment infected person (CDC, May 13, 2021). Testing following a known exposure is no longer needed for a fully vaccinated person, as long as the individual remains asymptomatic and is not in specific settings such as healthcare (CDC, April 27, 2021a), non-healthcare congregate facilities (e.g., correctional and detention facilities, homeless shelters) or high-density workplaces (e.g., pouy processing plants) (CDC, May 13, 2021). In non-healthcare settings, fully vaccinated people no longer need to wear a mask or physically distance, except where required by federal, state, local, tribal, or territorial laws, rules, and regulations, including local business and workplace guidance (CDC, May 13, 2021). In healthcare settings, the picture is more mixed.

While the Start Printed Page 32398CDC still recommends source controls for vaccinated healthcare workers to protect unvaccinated people, it has relaxed several NPIs for health care providers (HCP) in some circumstances. CDC has stated that “fully vaccinated HCP could dine and socialize together in break rooms and conduct in-person meetings without source control or physical distancing” (CDC, April 27, 2021a). The CDC also recommends that fully vaccinated HCP no longer need to be restricted from work after a high-risk exposure, as long as they remain symptom-free (CDC, April 27, 2021a). Perhaps more significantly, while acknowledging the growing body of evidence against erectile dysfunction transmission from vaccinated people to unvaccinated people, the CDC has not identified evidence of a substantial risk of such transmission even in healthcare settings. Therefore, pending additional evidence of such transmission, the risk of transmission from vaccinated healthcare workers to unvaccinated co-workers does not appear to be high enough to warrant OSHA's imposition of mandatory controls through an ETS to protect unvaccinated workers from exposure to vaccinated workers.

On the other hand, HCP treating suspected and confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment patients are expected to have higher exposures to the erectile dysfunction viagra than others in the workforce, because such work involves repeated instances of close contact with infected patients (Howard, May 22, 2021). Exposure can be even higher in aerosol generating activities. Indeed, one study reported higher rates among vaccinated HCWs during a regional erectile dysfunction treatment surge (Keehner et al., Mar. 23, 2021). Thus, the CDC has not relaxed control practices or PPE intended to protect HCP, including respirator use.

(CDC, April 27, 2021a). NIOSH has stated that the “available evidence shows that healthcare workers are continuing to become infected with erectile dysfunction. . . Including both vaccinated and unvaccinated workers, and the conditions for the transmission of the viagra exist at healthcare workplaces” (Howard, May 22, 2021).

The CDC has also indicated that it will continue “to evaluate the impact of vaccination. The duration of protection, including in older adults. And the emergence of novel erectile dysfunction variants on healthcare prevention and control recommendations” (CDC, April 27, 2021a). OSHA, too, will continue to monitor this issue and revise the ETS as appropriate. Grave Danger Exists in Healthcare Workplaces Where Unvaccinated Workers Are Present The evidence shows that the advent of treatments does not eliminate the grave danger from exposure to erectile dysfunction in healthcare workplaces where less than 100% of the workforce is fully vaccinated.

Unvaccinated workers can transmit the viagra to each other and can become infected as a result of exposure to persons with erectile dysfunction treatment who enter the healthcare facility. An outbreak of erectile dysfunction treatment due to an unvaccinated, symptomatic HCP was recently reported in a skilled nursing facility in which 90.4% of residents had been vaccinated (Cavanaugh, April 30, 2021). The outbreak, due to the R.1 variant, caused attack rates that were three to four times higher in unvaccinated residents and HCPs as among those who were vaccinated. Additionally, unvaccinated persons were significantly more likely to experience symptoms or require hospitalization. Therefore, unvaccinated employees at these workplaces remain at grave danger of , along with the serious health consequences of erectile dysfunction treatment, as discussed in the remainder of this section.

Although the risk appears to be lower, breakthrough s of vaccinated individuals do occur, but the potential for secondary transmission remains not fully substantiated. For instance, a small yet significant portion of the population does not respond well to vaccinations (Agha et al., April 7, 2021. Boyarsky et al., May 5, 2021. Deepak et al., April 9, 2021. ACI, April 28, 2021) and may be as vulnerable as unvaccinated individuals.

These individuals could potentially transmit the erectile dysfunction to unvaccinated employees. In a California study, seven out of 4,167 fully vaccinated health care workers experienced breakthrough s (Keehner et al., May 6, 2021). A similar study from the Mayo Clinic, included 44,011 fully vaccinated individuals with 30 breakthrough s being recorded (Swift et al., April 26, 2021). Of those breakthrough cases, 73% were symptomatic. Secondary transmission was not evaluated in the study.

A nursing facility in Chicago found 22 possible breakthrough cases of erectile dysfunction among fully vaccinated staff and residents (Teran et al., April 30, 2021). Of those cases, 36% were symptomatic. However, no secondary transmission was observed in the facility. The lack of secondary transmission was likely due to the facility's implementation of non-pharmaceutical interventions and high vaccination rates. The authors concluded that to ensure outbreaks do not occur from breakthrough s in workplaces with vaccinated and unvaccinated workers that the facilities need to maintain high treatment coverage and non-pharmaceutical interventions.

While these breakthrough events appear to be uncommon, it is important to remember how quickly a few cases can result in an outbreak in unvaccinated populations. Moreover, even though the U.S. Is approaching the time where there is sufficient treatment supply for the entire U.S. Population, administering the treatment throughout the country will still take more time. As of May 24, 2021, CDC statistics show that 43% of the population between 18 and 65 has been fully vaccinated (CDC, May 24, 2021a).

To this end, there is still a need to strengthen confidence in the safety and effectiveness of the treatments for significant portions of the population, including workers, to reduce treatment hesitancy. Even in the healthcare industry, where distribution has enabled entire worker populations to be completely vaccinated by now, some workers exhibited reluctance to getting vaccinated. On January 4, 2021, a study of 1,398 U.S. Emergency department health care personnel found that 95% were offered the treatment, with 14% declining (Schrading et al., February 19, 2021). In February of 2021, the CDC released a study of initial treatment efforts at skilled nursing facilities offering long-term care (Gharpure et al., February 5, 2021).

The study found that only 37.5% of eligible staff were vaccinated, leaving a potentially significant population vulnerable to erectile dysfunction s and capable of transmission. An anonymous survey of employees across the Yale Medicine and Yale New Haven Health system was used to estimate the prevalence of and underlying reasons for erectile dysfunction treatment hesitancy. The survey was sent to about 33,000 employees and medical staff across the Yale healthcare system and included clinical staff and those who support the critical infrastructure without direct patient contact (e.g., food service staff). Out of 3,523 responses (an 11% response rate), 85% of respondents stated they were “extremely likely” or “somewhat likely” to receive the erectile dysfunction treatment. Of that 85%, 12% expressed mild hesitancy by stating they would get it within the next 6 months.

But 14.7% of overall respondents expressed reluctance by responding “neither likely nor unlikely,” “somewhat unlikely,” or “extremely unlikely” to receive the erectile dysfunction treatment. Overall, 1 in 6 personnel in this health system survey expressed at least Start Printed Page 32399some reluctance to get vaccinated (Roy et al., December 29, 2020). Findings in more recent surveys of the general working population from 18 to 65 years old show similar rates of people who stated they would not, probably would not, or would only if required get vaccinated (18.2%) (Census Bureau, May 5, 2021). 17-26% (KFF, April 22, 2021). In March 2021, a survey found that healthcare employees reported some of the highest vaccination percentages of any sector (78.3% and 67.7%, respectively.

King et al., April 24, 2021). However, future growth of vaccination may be a concern with treatment hesitation in those sectors reported as 14.1% and 15.9%, respectively. That unvaccinated healthcare workers remain in grave danger is emphasized by the fact that thousands of new hospital admissions still occur each day (CDC, May 24, 2021b) in the midst of significant distribution of over three hundred million effective treatment doses. These factors indicate that transmission remains robust and significant portions of the population remain vulnerable to erectile dysfunction treatment. Spread of the disease within the healthcare workforce may start with a worker becoming ill through community transmission or an ill patient seeking treatment.

The rate of new cases, hospitalizations, and deaths peaked in January 2021, just before treatments became more widely available outside of healthcare settings. The January to February decline, however, is likely not attributable in large part to the new treatments alone, because only a small portion of the population had received them. During this time, variants of concern, such as B.1.1.7, that are more transmissible and may result in worse health outcomes, have become the majority source of (CDC, May 24, 2021c). Hundreds of people each day are still dying of erectile dysfunction treatment in early May 2021, many of them working-age adults (May 24, 2021d). OSHA will continue to monitor trends as more of the population becomes vaccinated and the post-treatment evidence base continues to grow.

If and when OSHA finds a grave danger from the viagra no longer exists for covered healthcare workplaces (or some portion thereof), or new information necessitates a change in measures necessary to address the grave danger, OSHA will update the rule as appropriate. In summary, the availability and use of safe and effective treatments for erectile dysfunction treatment is a critical milestone that has led to a marked decrease in risk for healthcare employees generally, but grave danger still remains for those whose jobs require them to work in settings where patients with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment receive care. CDC has determined that the remaining risk for fully vaccinated persons outside of healthcare settings is low enough to justify foregoing other layers of controls for settings where all persons are fully vaccinated and asymptomatic (CDC, April 27, 2021), but the CDC continues to recommend respirators and PPE for fully vaccinated healthcare employees in settings where patients with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment receive care. Based on CDC guidance and the best available evidence, OSHA finds a grave danger in healthcare for vaccinated and unvaccinated HCP involved in the treatment of erectile dysfunction treatment patients. References Abu-Raddad, LJ et al., (2021, May 5).

Effectiveness of the BNT162b2 erectile dysfunction treatment against the B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 Variants. NEJM DOI. 10.1056/NEJMc2104974 (Abu-Raddad et al., May 5, 2021). Agency for Clinical Innovation (ACI). (2021, April 28).

Evidence check. Immunocompromised patients and erectile dysfunction treatments. Https://aci.health.nsw.gov.au/​__​data/​assets/​pdf_​file/​0009/​645750/​Evidence-check-Immunocompromised-patients-erectile dysfunction treatment-treatments.pdf. (ACI, April 28, 2021). Agha et al., (2021, April 7).

Suboptimal response to erectile dysfunction treatment mRNA treatments in hematologic malignancies patients. MedRxiv 2021.04.06.21254949. Https://doi.org/​10.1101/​2021.04.06.21254949. (Agha, et al., April 7, 2021). Baden, L et al., (2021, December 30).

Efficacy and safety of the mRNA-1273 erectile dysfunction treatment. The New England Journal of Medicine, 384(5), 403-416. Https://doi.org/​10.1056/​NEJMoa2035389. (Baden et al., December 30, 2020). Birhane, M et al., (2021, May 28).

erectile dysfunction treatment Breakthrough s Reported to CDC—United States, January 1-April 30, 2021. MMWR 70. 792-793. Http://dx.doi.org/​10.15585/​mmwr.mm7021e3. (Birhane et al., May 28, 2021).

Boyarsky, BJ et al., (2021, May 5). Antibody Response to 2-Dose erectile dysfunction mRNA treatment Series in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients. JAMA. 2021 May 5. Doi.

10.1001/jama.2021.7489. PMID. 33950155. (Boyarsky et al., May 5, 2021). Cavanaugh, AM et al., (2021, April 30).

erectile dysfunction treatment outbreak associated with a erectile dysfunction R.1 lineage variant in a skilled nursing facility after vaccination program—Kentucky, March 2021. MMWR 70. 639-643. Http://dx.doi.org/​10.15585/​mmwr.mm7017e2. (Cavanaugh et al., April 30, 2021).

Census Bureau. (2021, May 5). Household Pulse Survey erectile dysfunction treatment Vaccination Tracker. Https://www.census.gov/​library/​visualizations/​interactive/​household-pulse-survey-erectile dysfunction treatment-vaccination-tracker.html. (Census Bureau, May 5, 2021).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, April 2). Science brief. Background rationale and evidence for public health recommendations for fully vaccinated people. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​science/​science-briefs/​fully-vaccinated-people.html.

(CDC, April 2, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021a, April 27). Updated healthcare prevention and control recommendation in response to erectile dysfunction treatment vaccination. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​hcp/​-control-after-vaccination.html.

(CDC, April 27, 2021a). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021b, April 27). Domestic travel during erectile dysfunction treatment. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​travelers/​travel-during-erectile dysfunction treatment19.html.

(CDC, April 27, 2021b). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, May 13). Interim public health recommendations for fully vaccinated people. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​treatments/​fully-vaccinated-guidance.html.

(CDC, May 13, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021a, May 24). Demographic Trends of People Receiving erectile dysfunction treatment Vaccinations in the United States. Https://erectile dysfunction treatment.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction treatment-data-tracker/​?.

CDC_​AA_​refVal=​https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Ferectile dysfunction%2F2019-ncov%2Fcases-updates%2Fcas%E2%80%A6#vaccination-demographic. (CDC, May 24, 2021a). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021b, May 24). erectile dysfunction treatment data tracker.

New Admissions of Patients with Confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment, United States. Https://erectile dysfunction treatment.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction treatment-data-tracker/​#new-hospital-admissions. (CDC, May 24, 2021b). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021c, May 24).

Variant Proportions. Https://erectile dysfunction treatment.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction treatment-data-tracker/​#variant-proportions. (CDC, May 24, 2021c). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021d, May 24).

erectile dysfunction treatment Weekly Deaths per 100,000 Population by Age by Age, Race/Ethnicity, and Sex. Https://erectile dysfunction treatment.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction treatment-data-tracker/​#demographicsovertime. (CDC, May 24, 2021d). Dagan, N et al., (2021, February 24). BNT162b2 mRNA erectile dysfunction treatment in a nationwide mass vaccination setting.

N Engl J Med. 384(15). 1412-1423. Doi. 10.1056/NEJMoa2101765.

Epub 2021 Feb 24. PMID. 33626250. PMCID. PMC7944975.

(Dagan et al., February 24, 2021). Deepak, et al., (2021, April 7). Glucocorticoids and B Cell Depleting Agents Substantially Impair Immunogenicity of mRNA treatments to erectile dysfunction. MedRxiv 2021.04.05.21254656. Https://doi.org/​10.1101/​2021.04.05.21254656.

(Deepak et al., April 7, 2021).Start Printed Page 32400 Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (2020, December 11). Emergency use authorization for an unapproved product review memorandum (Pfizer-BioNTech erectile dysfunction treatment/BNT 162b2 mRNA-1273). Https://www.fda.gov/​emergency-preparedness-and-response/​erectile dysfunction-disease-2019-erectile dysfunction treatment/​pfizer-biontech-erectile dysfunction treatment-treatment. (FDA, December 11, 2020).

Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (2020, December 18). Emergency use authorization for an unapproved product review memorandum (Moderna erectile dysfunction treatment/mRNA-1273). Https://www.fda.gov/​emergency-preparedness-and-response/​erectile dysfunction-disease-2019-erectile dysfunction treatment/​moderna-erectile dysfunction treatment-treatment. (FDA, December 18, 2020).

Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (2021, February 26). Janssen erectile dysfunction treatment. treatments and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, February 26, 2021 Meeting Briefing Document. Https://www.fda.gov/​media/​146219/​download.

(FDA, February 26, 2021). Gharpure, R et al., (2021, February 5). Early erectile dysfunction treatment first-dose vaccination coverage among residents and staff members of skilled nursing facilities participating in the pharmacy partnership for long-term care program—United States, December 2020-January 2021. MMWR 2021. 70.

178-182. DOI. Http://dx.doi.org/​10.15585/​mmwr.mm7005e2. (Gharpure et al., February 5, 2021). Hall, VJ et al., (2021, April 23).

erectile dysfunction treatment coverage in health-care workers in England and effectiveness of BNT162b2 mRNA treatment against (SIREN). A prospective, multicentre, cohort study. Lancet. 2021 Apr 23. S0140-6736(21)00790-X.

Doi. 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00790-X. Online ahead of print. PMID. 33901423.

(Hall et al., April 23, 2021). Howard, J. (2021, May 22). €œResponse to request for an assessment by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, of the current hazards facing healthcare workers from erectile dysfunction Disease-2019 (erectile dysfunction treatment).” (Howard, May 22, 2021).

Keehner et al., (2021, May 6). erectile dysfunction after vaccination in health care workers in California. New England Journal of Medicine 384(18). (Keehner et al., May 6, 2021). KFF.

(2021, April 22). KFF erectile dysfunction treatment Monitor https://www.kff.org/​erectile dysfunction-erectile dysfunction treatment/​dashboard/​kff-erectile dysfunction treatment-treatment-monitor-dashboard/​. (KFF, April 22, 2021). King, WC et al., (2021, April 24). erectile dysfunction treatment hesitancy January-March 2021 among 18-64 year old US adults by employment and occupation.

MedRxiv. Https://www.medrxiv.org/​content/​10.1101/​2021.04.20.21255821v3. (King et al., April 24, 2021). Levine-Tiefenbrun, M et al., (2021, February 8). Decreased erectile dysfunction viral load following vaccination.

MedRxiv. 2021. Https://www.medrxiv.org/​content/​10.1101/​2021.02.06.21251283v1.full.pdf. (Levine-Tiefenbrun, February 8, 2021). Marks, M et al., (2021, February 2).

Transmission of erectile dysfunction treatment in 282 clusters in Catalonia, Spain. A cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis. 21(5). 629-636.

Doi. 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30985-3. Epub 2021 Feb 2. PMID. 33545090.

PMCID. PMC7906723. (Marks et al., February 2, 2021). Pawlowski, C et al., (2021, February 27). FDA-authorized erectile dysfunction treatments are effective per real-world evidence synthesized across a multi-state health system.

MedRxiv [Preprint posted online February 27, 2021]. Https://www.medrxiv.org/​content/​10.1101/​2021.02.15.21251623v3. ( Pawlowski et al., February 27, 2021). Roy, B et al., (2020, December 29). Health care workers' reluctance to take the erectile dysfunction treatment.

A consumer-marketing approach to identifying and overcoming hesitancy. Https://catalyst.nejm.org/​doi/​full/​10.1056/​CAT.20.0676. (Roy et al., December 29, 2020). Schrading, WA et al., (2021, February 19). Vaccination rates and acceptance of erectile dysfunction vaccination among U.S.

Emergency department health care personnel. Acad Emerg Med 28. 455-458. (Schrading et al., February 19, 2021). Shah, ASV et al., (2021, March 21).

Effect of vaccination on transmission of erectile dysfunction treatment. An observational study in healthcare workers and their households. MedRxiv. 2021 https://www.medrxiv.org/​content/​10.1101/​2021.03.11.21253275v1. (Shah et al., March 21, 2021).

Swift, MD et al., (2021, April 26). Effectiveness of mRNA erectile dysfunction treatments against erectile dysfunction in a cohort of healthcare personnel. Clinical Infectious Diseases DOI. Https://doi.org/​10.1093/​cid/​ciab361. (Swift et al., April 26, 2021).

Tande, AJ et al., (2021, March 10). Impact of the erectile dysfunction treatment on asymptomatic among patients undergoing pre-procedural erectile dysfunction treatment molecular screening. Clin Infect Dis. 2021 Mar 10. Ciab229.

Doi. 10.1093/cid/ciab229. Epub ahead of print. PMID. 33704435.

PMCID. PMC7989519. (Tande et al., March 10, 2021). Teran, RA et al., (2021, April 30). Postvaccination erectile dysfunction s among skilled nursing facility residents and staff members—Chicago, Illinois, December 2020-March 2021.

MMWR 70(17). 632-638. (Teran et al., April 30, 2021). Thompson, MG et al., (2021, April 2). Interim estimates of treatment effectiveness of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 erectile dysfunction treatments in preventing erectile dysfunction among health care personnel, first responders, and other essential and frontline workers—eight U.S.

Locations, December 2020-March 2021. MMWR 70. 495-500. DOI. Http://dx.doi.org/​10.15585/​mmwr.mm7013e3.

(Thompson et al., April 2, 2021). Xie, X et al., (2021, February 8). Neutralization of erectile dysfunction spike 69/70 deletion, E484K and N501Y variants by BNT162b2 treatment elicited sera. Nature Medicine. DOI.

Https://doi.org/​10.1038/​s41591-021-01270-4. (Xie et al., February 8, 2021). III. Impact on Healthcare Employees Data on erectile dysfunction s, illnesses, and deaths among healthcare employees supports OSHA's finding that erectile dysfunction treatment poses a grave danger to these employees. Even fairly brief exposure (i.e., 15 minutes during a 24-hour period) can lead to , which in turn can cause death or serious impairment of health.

Employees in healthcare settings include healthcare employees, who provide direct patient care (e.g., nurses, doctors, and emergency medical technicians (EMTs)), and healthcare support employees, who provide services that support the healthcare industry and may have contact with patients (e.g., janitorial/housekeeping, laundry, and food service employees). Employees who perform autopsies are also considered to work in healthcare. Most employees who work in healthcare perform duties that put them at elevated risk of exposure to erectile dysfunction. erectile dysfunction is introduced into healthcare settings by infected patients, other members of the public, or employees. Workers in healthcare settings that provide treatment to patients with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment face a particularly elevated risk of contracting erectile dysfunction (Howard, May 22, 2021).

Once the viagra is introduced into the worksite, the viagra can be transmitted from person-to-person at close contact through inhalation of respiratory droplets. In limited scenarios, it might also be transmitted through inhalation of aerosols, which consists of small droplets and particles that can linger in the air, especially in enclosed spaces with inadequate ventilation (CDC, May 7, 2021). Less frequently, transmission is also possible when someone touches a contaminated item or surface and then touches their nose, mouth, or eyes (CDC, April 5, 2021). A 2021 cross-sectional study of 6,510 healthcare employees from the Northwestern HCW erectile dysfunction Serology Cohort Study (conducted May 28-June 30, 2020 in Illinois) shows that s among healthcare workers were not limited to doctors and nurses. Healthcare administrators had similar rates of seropositivity compared to physicians, and support services had the highest seroprevalence (this group included healthcare facility workers in Start Printed Page 32401food service, environmental services, security, and patient access/registration) (Wilkins et al., 2021).

A meta-analysis published in the American Journal of Epidemiologists compared data from 97 separate studies and found evidence that erectile dysfunction treatment s were both common (11% of the tested cohort of healthcare employees) and spread among different healthcare worker occupations. In this study, however, nurses had the highest rate of seroprevalence while most of the erectile dysfunction treatment-positive medical personnel were working in hospital nonemergency wards during screening (Gomez-Ochoa et al., January 2021). Healthcare employees who provide direct patient care are at high risk of exposure to erectile dysfunction because they have close and sometimes prolonged contact with patients who are infected or potentially infected with erectile dysfunction. This contact occurs when conducting physical examinations and providing treatment and medical support. The risk can be amplified when examining or treating a erectile dysfunction treatment patient who has symptoms such as coughing and difficulty breathing (leading to more forceful inhalation and exhalation), both of which can result in the release of more droplets that can be propelled further.

Healthcare employees who conduct, or provide support during, aerosol-generating procedures on persons with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment also face a greater risk of (Heinzerling et al., April 17, 2020). Examples of procedures that can produce aerosols include intubation, suctioning airways, use of high-speed tools during dental work, and use of power saws during autopsies. A complete list of aerosol-generating procedures, as defined by this ETS, is included in 29 CFR 1910.502(b). Employees in healthcare are also at risk of exposure to erectile dysfunction if they have close contact with co-workers while providing patient care or performing other duties in enclosed areas such as a nursing station, laundry room, or kitchen. Based on the biological mechanisms of erectile dysfunction transmission, there is no doubt that some employees in healthcare are at risk of exposure to erectile dysfunction.

Healthcare employees are performing some job tasks that create an expectation of exposure to people or human remains infected with erectile dysfunction treatment. The nature of caring for a patient known to have erectile dysfunction treatment or performing on autopsy on someone who had erectile dysfunction treatment increases the risk to employees performing that task. This section summarizes recent studies about U.S. Employees in healthcare that illustrate the impact of erectile dysfunction treatment in several types of settings. Because the viagra is recent and the evidence generated is on the frontiers of science, studies are not available for every type of employee in every type of healthcare setting.

The peer-reviewed scientific journal articles, government reports, and journal pre-print articles described below establish the widespread prevalence of erectile dysfunction treatment among healthcare employees. OSHA's findings are based primarily on the evidence from peer-reviewed scientific journal articles and government reports. However, peer review for scientific journal articles and the assembly of information for government reports and other official sources of information take time, and therefore those sources do not always reflect the most up-to-date information (Chan et al, December 14, 2010). This is critical in the context of the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra, where new information is emerging daily. Therefore, OSHA has supplemented peer-reviewed data and government reports with additional information on occupational outbreaks contained in other sources of media (e.g., newspapers).

The reported information from newspapers can provide further evidence of the impact of an emerging and changing disease, especially for certain workers in healthcare and associated occupations (e.g., laundry workers, janitors) that are not well represented in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, and assist OSHA in protecting these employees from the grave danger posed by transmission of erectile dysfunction. OSHA did not make findings based solely on non-peer-reviewed sources such as pre-prints and news articles, but the agency found that those sources sometimes provided useful information when considered in context with more robust sources. Together, these sources of information represent the best available evidence of the impact on employees of the viagra thus far. The peer-reviewed literature, government reports and, in a limited number of cases, non-peer-reviewed articles illustrate a significant number of s among healthcare employees, but the types of workplaces or conditions described are not the only ones in which a grave danger exists. However, the studies add to the evidence that any healthcare employee is at risk of exposure if they have close contact with others who are suspected or confirmed to have erectile dysfunction treatment.

The studies also provide evidence that once erectile dysfunction is introduced into the healthcare workplace (e.g., through an infected patient, other member of the public, or employee), unvaccinated employees in that workplace are at risk of exposure. A. General Investigations of Workers or Workplaces The Washington State Department of Health and the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries collaborated on a report evaluating erectile dysfunction treatment cases and their occupational history (WSDH and WLNI, November 10, 2020). They identified 30,895 confirmed cases of erectile dysfunction treatment in Washington State with occupational data, including healthcare settings, through September 13, 2020. They reported rates for 22 occupational groups, and reported that healthcare and social assistance were among the industry sectors with the highest incidence of s (WSDH and WLNI, November 10, 2020).

The report states that some occupations increase the risk to workers of exposure to erectile dysfunction, but the data does not demonstrate that all the cases reported resulted from occupational exposure. These data were also used to determine how work activities were related to erectile dysfunction treatment. Zhang used information from a previous Washington State report with an earlier cutoff date (through June 11, 2020. 10,850 cases) and cross-referenced it with information available from O*NET (a Department of Labor database that contains detailed occupational information for more than 900 occupations across the U.S.) to determine occupation-specific erectile dysfunction treatment risks (Zhang, November 18, 2020). Zhang created a model using the O*NET descriptors and correlated it to the case reports from Washington State to develop a predictive model for erectile dysfunction treatment cases.

The model found that among O*NET's 57 physical and social factors related to work, the two predictive variables of erectile dysfunction treatment risk were frequency of exposure to diseases and physical proximity to other people. The author found that healthcare professions in general had the highest predicted risk for erectile dysfunction treatment. This finding provides additional evidence that during an active viagra, healthcare employees can be exposed to a grave danger during sustained periods in workspaces where they are working in proximity to others, including patients with erectile dysfunction treatment. The Oregon Health Authority (OHA) publishes a weekly report detailing outbreaks directly related to work settings. OHA epidemiologists consider cases to be part of a workplace outbreak when clusters form with respect to space and time unless their Start Printed Page 32402investigation uncovers an alternative source for the outbreak.

In their May 19, 2021, erectile dysfunction treatment Weekly Report, OHA reported 71 active clusters, including at three separate hospitals (OHA, May 19, 2021). In a May 21, 2021 report, the Tennessee Department of Health reported 238 active clusters (i.e., 2 or more confirmed cases of erectile dysfunction treatment linked by the same location of exposure or exposure event that is not considered a household exposure), with 6 occurring in assisted care facilities, 37 in nursing homes, and 3 in other healthcare settings (Tennessee Department of Health, May 21, 2021). A study on erectile dysfunction testing in Los Angeles from mid-September through October 2020 evaluated 149,957 symptomatic and asymptomatic positive cases associated with an occupation (Allan-Blitz et al., December 11, 2020). rates were found to be particularly high for healthcare personnel and first responders. A Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWRs) (a weekly epidemiological digest published by the CDC) reported on the occupational status of erectile dysfunction treatment cases in Colorado.

In the Colorado study, 1,738 erectile dysfunction treatment cases from nine Colorado counties were evaluated. These cases occurred before the state lockdown that began on March 26, 2020 (Marshall et al., June 30, 2020). Half of the individuals were exposed in a workplace setting, with the greatest number of erectile dysfunction treatment-positive employees coming from healthcare (38%). Chen et al., (January 22, 2021) analyzed records of deaths occurring on or after January 1, 2016 in California and found that mortality rates in working aged adults (18-65 years) increased 22% during the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra (March through October 2020) compared to pre-viagra periods. Relative to pre-viagra periods, healthcare or emergency workers were one occupational group that experienced excess and statistically significant mortality compared to pre-viagra periods (19% increase).

The study authors concluded that essential work conducted in person is a likely avenue of transmission. Hawkins et al., (January 10, 2021) examined death certificates of individuals who died in Massachusetts between March 1 and July 31, 2020. An age-adjusted mortality rate of 16.4 per 100,000 employees was determined from 555 death certificates that had useable occupation information. Employees in healthcare support, personal care services, and social services had particularly high mortality rates. The study authors noted that occupation groups expected to have frequent contact with sick people, close contact with the public, and jobs that are not practical to do from home had particularly elevated mortality rates.

The impact of erectile dysfunction treatment across diverse healthcare sectors is not limited to the United States. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control investigated clusters in occupational settings throughout Europe (ECDC, August 11, 2020). The Centre reviewed 1,376 occupational clusters from 16 European countries from March through July of 2020. Indoor settings contributed to 95% of reported clusters. Hospitals and long-term care facilities accounted for many of the clusters.

References Allan-Blitz, L et al., (2020, December 11). High frequency and prevalence of community-based asymptomatic erectile dysfunction . MedRxix. Https://doi.org/​10.1101/​2020.12.09.20246249. (Allan-Blitz et al., December 11, 2020).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, April 5). Science Brief. erectile dysfunction and Surface (Fomite) Transmission for Indoor Community Environments. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​more/​science-and-research/​surface-transmission.html.

(CDC, April 5, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, May 7). Scientific Brief. erectile dysfunction Transmission.

Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​more/​scientific-brief-erectile dysfunction.html. (CDC, May 7, 2021). Chan, E et al., (2010, December 14). Global capacity for emerging infectious disease detection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(50), 21701-21706.

Https://doi.org/​10.1073/​pnas.1006219107. (Chan et al, December 14, 2010). Chen, Y et al., (2021, January 22). Excess mortality associated with the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra among Californians 18-65 years of age, by occupational sector and occupation. March through October 2020.

MedRxiv. Doi. 10.1101/2021.01.21.21250266. (Chen et al., January 22, 2021). European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC).

(2020, August 11). erectile dysfunction treatment clusters and outbreaks in occupational settings in the EU/EEA and the UK. (ECDC, August 11, 2020). Gómez-Ochoa, SA et al., (2021, January). erectile dysfunction treatment in health-care workers.

A living systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence, risk factors, clinical characteristics, and outcomes. American journal of epidemiology. 2021 Jan. 190(1). 161-75.

(Gomez-Ochoa et al., January 2021). Hawkins, D et al., (2020, December 21). erectile dysfunction treatment deaths by occupation, Massachusetts, March 1-July 31, 2020. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 64(4). 238-244.

DOI. 10.1002/ajim.23227. (Hawkins et al., December 21, 2021). Heinzerling, A et al., (2020, April 17). Transmission of erectile dysfunction treatment to Health Care Personnel During Exposures to a Hospitalized Patient—Solano County, California, February 2020.

MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020. 69. 472-476. DOI. Http://dx.doi.org/​10.15585/​mmwr.mm6915e5.

(Heinzerling et al., April 17, 2020). Howard, J. (2021, May 22). €œResponse to request for an assessment by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, of the current hazards facing healthcare workers from erectile dysfunction Disease-2019 (erectile dysfunction treatment).” (Howard, May 22, 2021).

Marshall, K et al., (2020, June 30). Exposure before issuance of stay-at-home orders among persons with laboratory-confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment—Colorado, March 2020. MMWR. 69(26). 847-9.

(Marshall et al., June 30, 2020). Oregon Health Authority (OHA). (2021, May 19). erectile dysfunction treatment weekly outbreak report. Https://www.oregon.gov/​oha/​erectile dysfunction treatment19/​Documents/​DataReports/​erectile dysfunction treatment-Weekly-Outbreak-Report-2021-1-13-FINAL.pdf.

(OHA, May 19, 2021). Tennessee Department of Health. (2021, May 21). erectile dysfunction treatment critical indicators. (Tennessee Department of Health.

May 21, 2021). Washington State Department of Health (WSDH) and Washington State Department of Labor and Industries (WLNI). (2020, November 10). erectile dysfunction treatment confirmed cases by industry sector. Publication Number 421-002.

Https://www.doh.wa.gov/​Portals/​1/​Documents/​1600/​erectile dysfunction/​IndustrySectorReport.pdf. (WSDH and WLNI, November 10, 2020). Wilkins, JT et al., (2021). Seroprevalence and correlates of erectile dysfunction antibodies in health care workers in Chicago. Open Forum Infectious Diseases.

8(1). Ofaa582. Https://doi.org/​10.1093/​ofid/​ofaa582. (Wilkins et al., 2021). Zhang, M.

(2020, November 18). Estimation of differential occupational risk of erectile dysfunction treatment by comparing risk factors with case data by occupational group. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 64(1):39-47. Doi. 10.1002/ajim.23199.

(Zhang, November 18, 2020). B. Studies Focusing on Employees in Healthcare General Surveillance and Surveys Across the U.S. Burrer et al., (2020) reported surveillance data on erectile dysfunction treatment cases and deaths among “healthcare personnel” between February 12 and April 9, 2020. €œHealthcare personnel” were defined as “paid and unpaid persons serving in healthcare settings who have the potential for direct or indirect exposure to patients or Start Printed Page 32403infectious materials.” [] Although only 16% of all surveillance forms indicated whether the case was healthcare personnel, 19% of the reported cases occurred in healthcare personnel.

Twelve states indicated whether the case was healthcare personnel for at least 80% of all reported cases. An estimated 11% of erectile dysfunction treatment cases from those 12 states were healthcare personnel. Based on reported known contact with confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment cases in the 14 days before illness onset, work exposures likely caused 55% of those s. Between 8% and 10% of infected employees were hospitalized, 2%-5% of the infected employees were admitted to the ICU, and 0.3%-0.6% of those employees died. CDC continues to provide general updates for erectile dysfunction treatment cases and deaths among healthcare personnel.

However, information on healthcare personnel status was reported for only 18.21% of total cases and death status reported for only 79.57% of healthcare personnel cases as of May 24, 2021 (CDC, May 24, 2021a). CDC reports 491,816 healthcare personnel cases (10% of the 4,856,885 cases that included information on healthcare personnel status) and 1,611 fatalities (0.4% of healthcare employee cases) as of May 24, 2021 (CDC, May 24, 2021a). Independent reporting by Kaiser Health News and the Guardian in their ongoing investigative reporting database found 3,607 fatalities among healthcare personnel in the United States as of April 2021(Kaiser Health News and the Guardian, April 2021. February 23, 2021). The reporters for this effort consider even their own count—which is higher than the official CDC count—to be an undercount due to various reporting issues, such as a lack of reporting requirements for long-term care employees for a significant portion of the initial erectile dysfunction treatment surge.

Hartmann et al., (2020) analyzed case interview data from February through May 2020 to assess the burden of erectile dysfunction treatment on healthcare employees in Los Angeles County, CA, where it is mandated that all positive cases be reported to the County Department of Public Health, and all cases are interviewed. Healthcare employees were defined as any person working or volunteering in healthcare settings including hospitals and skilled nursing facilities, medical offices, mental health facilities, and emergency medical services (EMS). The definition also includes healthcare employees providing care in non-healthcare settings such as schools, senior living facilities, and correctional facilities. Healthcare employees included both staff who interacted directly with patients and staff who do not provide direct clinical care to patients. Through May 31, 2020, 5,458 erectile dysfunction treatment cases among healthcare employees were reported to the County Health Department, representing 9.6% of all cases during this time period.

Of those healthcare employees, 46.6% worked in a long-term care setting, 27.7% worked in a hospital, and 6.9% worked in medical offices. Healthcare employees from all other settings represented less than 4% of total healthcare employee cases. Nurses represented 49.4% of all healthcare employee cases. No other group of healthcare employees represented more than 6% of the total reported healthcare employee cases. Of note is that some healthcare associated employees who are expected to have less close contact with patients represented a greater percentage of cases than some healthcare employee that are expected to have close and direct patient contact.

For example, employees in administration (4.3%), environmental services (3.2%), and food services (2.9%) represented a higher percentage of infected healthcare employees than physicians (2.7%). When asked about known exposures, 44% of those who tested positive reported exposure to a erectile dysfunction treatment-positive patient or co-worker in their health facility, 11% reported exposure to a erectile dysfunction treatment-positive friend or family member or recent travel, and 45.1% had unknown exposures. At the time of the interviews, 5.3% of erectile dysfunction treatment-positive healthcare employees in Los Angeles County reported requiring hospitalization because of erectile dysfunction treatment, and as of May 31, 2020 there were 40 (0.7%) deaths. Fell et al., (October 30, 2020) reviewed exposure and data for healthcare personnel in Minnesota between March and July of 2020. After the first confirmed case of erectile dysfunction treatment in Minnesota (on March 6, 2020), the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) requested that healthcare facilities provide a list of exposed healthcare personnel.

Healthcare personnel included EMS personnel, nurses/nursing assistants, physicians, technicians, therapists, phlebotomists, pharmacists, students and trainees, contractors, and those who do not provide direct patient care but could be exposed to infectious agents in a healthcare setting (e.g., clerical, food services, environmental services, laundry, security, engineering and facilities management, administrative, billing, and volunteer personnel). Cases in laboratory personnel are also reported. The facilities were asked to determine if each exposure was high-risk, defined as when the healthcare personnel has close, prolonged contact with a confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment case or their secretions/excretions while not wearing PPE, or close, prolonged contact with persons with erectile dysfunction treatment in their household or community. MDH and the 1,217 participating healthcare facilities assessed 17,200 healthcare personnel for 21,406 exposures to erectile dysfunction treatment cases, of which 5,374 (25%) were classified as higher-risk. It was reported that 373 of 5,374 personnel (6.9%) with high-risk exposures tested positive for erectile dysfunction treatment within 14 days of the exposure.

The report stated that only symptomatic personnel were encouraged to get tested for erectile dysfunction treatment, and therefore it is possible that asymptomatic cases occurred and were not detected. Of those 373 personnel who tested positive for erectile dysfunction treatment, 242 were exposed to a patient, resident of a congregate setting, in a congregate setting outbreak, or to another healthcare personnel. Twenty-one percent of exposures to a confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment case took place in acute or ambulatory care settings, 24% of exposures were to residents in congregate living or long-term care settings, and 25% of exposures were in congregate setting outbreaks. An additional 25% of exposures to confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment cases were exposures to co-workers, and 5% were exposures to household/social contacts. The Fell study (October 30, 2020) also demonstrated that high risk exposures can occur to healthcare employees in positions throughout the healthcare facility.

Available data for 4,669 (87%) of the higher risk exposures in the Fell et al., study indicated that the highest percentages of high-risk exposures were in nursing assistants or patient care aides (1,857. 40%) and nursing staff (1,416. 30%). The proportion of high-risk exposures represented by personnel such as administrators (247. 5%) and environmental services staff (155.

3%) were similar to those reported by medical providers, such as physicians or nurse practitioners (220. 5%). Healthcare personnel working in congregate living or long-term care settings, including skilled nursing, assisted living, and group home facilities, were more likely to receive a positive erectile dysfunction treatment test result within 14 days of a higher-risk exposure than were healthcare personnel working in acute care settings. The study authors note the Start Printed Page 32404potential for employee transmission by cautioning that, in contrast to the recognized risk associated with patient care, healthcare employees might have failed to recognize the risk associated with interacting with co-workers in areas such as breakrooms and nursing stations. Physical distancing and PPE may therefore not have been used as consistently in those situations.

The authors of a different study concluded that nurses and EMTs were, respectively, 26% and 33% more likely to contract erectile dysfunction treatment than attending physicians. Nurses and EMTs' job duties require more intense, close contact with patients compared to physicians, as well as higher frequency and duration of patient contact. Firew et al., (October 21, 2020) conducted a cross-sectional survey of healthcare employees in May of 2020 across 48 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. Territories. The 2,040 respondents who completed at least 80% of the survey were included in the study.

Among included participants, 31.1% were attending physicians, 26.8% were nurses, 13% were EMTs, 8.82% were resident physicians or fellows, 3.97% were physician assistants, and 16.32% were other healthcare employees. A total of 598 respondents (29.3%) reported erectile dysfunction s. In a prospective study of over 2 million community members and 99,795 frontline healthcare workers that was performed in the U.S. And UK from March through April 2020, healthcare workers were 3.4 times as likely to self-report a positive erectile dysfunction treatment test as the general public, after adjusting for the increased likelihood of healthcare personnel receiving a erectile dysfunction treatment test (Nguyen et al., 2020). In the U.S.

Alone, healthcare workers were almost two times more likely to report a positive test after adjusting for greater likelihood of testing. Detection of erectile dysfunction in Healthcare Employees OSHA reviewed a number of studies that included hospital employees. Many hospitals provide short-term and/or long-term care for erectile dysfunction treatment patients who have symptoms that are severe enough to require hospitalization. Therefore, close contact with erectile dysfunction treatment patients is expected in hospital settings, putting hospital employees at risk of developing erectile dysfunction treatment. Examples of employees who work in hospitals include healthcare practitioners, who generally have either licensure or credentialing requirements (e.g., doctors, nurses, pharmacists, physical therapists, massage therapists) for the purpose of promoting, maintaining, monitoring, or restoring health.

Individuals who provide healthcare support services also work at hospitals. Examples of employees who provide healthcare support services and may have close contact with erectile dysfunction treatment patients in some circumstances include patient intake/admission, patient food services, chaplain services, equipment and facility maintenance, housekeeping services, healthcare laundry services, and medical waste handling services. As noted above, hospital employees are at risk from close contact with patients. Some of the studies reviewed below were done in employees of healthcare systems that included both hospitals and ambulatory care centers such as physician offices, medical clinics (including urgent care and retail-based clinics), outpatient surgical centers, and outpatient cancer treatment centers. Although this ETS does not cover non-hospital ambulatory care settings where all non-employees are screened prior to entry and people with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment are not permitted to enter, it was not possible to separate out results for hospital versus ambulatory care employees.

Also it is not known to what extent those ambulatory care centers in the studies reviewed by OSHA performed screening to identify suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment. Risk of exposure and transmission of erectile dysfunction is expected to be lower in ambulatory healthcare settings that perform screening to exclude persons with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment. However some types of ambulatory medical facilities (e.g., family practice. Pediatrics clinic. Urgent care) may choose to test patients for erectile dysfunction treatment or examine and treat erectile dysfunction treatment patients on site.

Therefore, healthcare employees and healthcare support employees in some ambulatory care centers who do not conduct health screening to identify and exclude suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment patients are at risk of due to close contact with patients who could potentially have erectile dysfunction treatment. Barrett et al., (2020) conducted a prospective cohort study of healthcare employees and non-healthcare employees with no known previous erectile dysfunction who were recruited and tested for erectile dysfunction from March 24 through April 7, 2020 at Rutgers University and two of its affiliated university hospitals in New Jersey. As of July 2020, New Jersey was one of the hardest hit areas, with less than 3% of the U.S. Population but 8.5% of all known U.S. Cases.

Healthcare employees were defined as individuals who worked at least 20 hours per week in a hospital, had occupations with regular patient contact, and were expected to have contact with at least three patients per shift over the following three months. Occupations included residents, fellows, attending physicians, dentists, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, registered nurses, technicians, respiratory therapists, and physical therapists. Non-healthcare employees included faculty, staff, trainees, or students working at Rutgers for at least 20 hours a week and who had no patient contact. The study reported that 7.3% of healthcare employees (40 of 546) and 0.4% of non-healthcare employees (1 of 283) tested positive for erectile dysfunction . Even after the authors conducted sensitivity analyses to exclude individuals with symptoms at baseline and those who had exposure to someone with erectile dysfunction treatment or erectile dysfunction treatment symptoms outside of work, differences between rates in healthcare employees and non-healthcare employees continued to be observed.

OSHA finds this suggests that healthcare employees were more likely than non-healthcare employees to have developed erectile dysfunction treatment from a workplace exposure during the early months of the viagra in the United States. The study authors concluded that the potential for workplace exposure is further supported by the fact that only 8% of infected study subjects reported contact with someone having erectile dysfunction treatment symptoms outside of work. In addition, higher rates of were observed in healthcare employees who worked in the hospital that had more erectile dysfunction treatment patients and was located in the community that had higher rates of erectile dysfunction s. The study authors noted that because that hospital was overwhelmed, it was not always possible to separate erectile dysfunction treatment vs. Non-erectile dysfunction treatment patients, which may have led to additional exposures among staff.

Among healthcare employees, nurses had the highest rate of observed s (11.1% tested positive), and attending physicians had the lowest rate of observed (1.8% positive). Resident and fellow physicians had a 3.1% positivity rate and other groups of healthcare employees had a 9% positivity rate. Increased risk of was associated with spending greater proportions of work time in patients' rooms and higher reported exposures to patients with suspected or diagnosed erectile dysfunction treatment. Mani et al., (November 15, 2020) reported results from erectile dysfunction testing of 3,477 symptomatic employees in the University of Washington Start Printed Page 32405Medical system and its affiliated organizations in Seattle, WA, between March 12 and April 23, 2020. During that period, 185 (5.3%) employees tested positive.

Prevalence (i.e., proportion) of erectile dysfunction in frontline healthcare employees (those with face-to-face contact with patients) was 5.2% and prevalence in non-frontline staff was 5.5%. Some staff who were asymptomatic also underwent screening as part of outbreak investigations, and 9 of 151 (6%) tested positive. When findings from symptomatic and asymptomatic staff were combined, erectile dysfunction prevalence was 5.3% in frontline healthcare employees and 5.3% among all employees. Of the 174 employees who tested positive and were followed, six (3.2%) reported erectile dysfunction treatment-related hospitalization, and one employee was admitted to the ICU. No deaths were reported.

The study authors suspected that community transmission likely played a major role in among healthcare employees early in the local epidemic and that similar percentages of s in frontline and non-frontline healthcare employees support the PPE protocols implemented for frontline workers at the institution. In addition, positive cases were likely underestimated due to the focus on testing symptomatic employees. Vahidy et al., (2020) studied asymptomatic rates among staff from a medical center consisting of seven hospitals in Texas and members of the surrounding community in March through April of 2020. Healthcare jobs with possible exposure to erectile dysfunction treatment patients were classified into five categories, with varying levels of patient exposure. (1) Nursing (e.g., nurses/nurses aids, emergency medical technicians), (2) clinicians (e.g., physicians, nurse practitioners), (3) allied healthcare workers (e.g., therapists, social workers), (4) support staff (e.g., security, housekeeping), and (5) administrative or research staff (e.g., managers, research assistants).

A total of 2,872 asymptomatic individuals, including 2,787 healthcare personnel and 85 community residents, were tested for erectile dysfunction . Among the healthcare personnel tested, the prevalence of erectile dysfunction was 5.4% among the 1,992 patient-facing staff treating erectile dysfunction treatment patients and 0.6% among the 625 patient-facing staff not treating erectile dysfunction treatment patients. No cases were seen among the 170 nonclinical healthcare staff that did not interact with patients or in the 85 community residents (Vahidy et al., 2020). The nonclinical healthcare staff worked in buildings with separate heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, and with lower population density because of remote work when compared to clinical healthcare staff. In the different healthcare categories that cared for erectile dysfunction treatment patients, prevalence of ranged from 3.6% to 6.5%, with no significant differences in the different categories of healthcare workers.

Therefore, the study indicates that healthcare workers providing both direct and indirect care to erectile dysfunction treatment patients are at risk. Nagler et al., (June 28, 2020), reported the results of erectile dysfunction testing in employees from the New York Langone Health system, an academic medical center encompassing four hospital campuses and over 250 ambulatory sites, with approximately 43,000 employees. Between March 25 and May 18, 2020, the health system tested employees who were symptomatic (4,150), were asymptomatic but exposed to erectile dysfunction treatment (4,362), and asymptomatic employees who were returning to work after their services had been suspended during the peak of the epidemic (6,234). Among symptomatic employees, the erectile dysfunction treatment positivity rate across the duration of the study was 33%. Among asymptomatic employees with self-reported exposure, the erectile dysfunction treatment positivity rate was 8%.

In asymptomatic employees returning to work, erectile dysfunction treatment positivity rate was 3%. In all groups, the positivity rate in the first week of testing was substantially higher than in the last week of testing, which occurred more than a month after the first week. The study authors noted a temporal correlation of erectile dysfunction treatment case declines in healthcare employees and the community, despite continued workplace exposure, and suggested that s in healthcare employees may reflect importance of community transmission and efficacy of stringent control and PPE standards that remained largely unchanged since the start of the viagra in March 2020. OSHA finds that the study demonstrates the potential for erectile dysfunction treatment to be introduced into the workplace from uncontrolled community spread and that the effective use of control practices and PPE most likely prevented transmission to healthcare employees. Misra-Hebert et al., (September 1, 2020) conducted a retrospective cohort study to obtain data on rates of erectile dysfunction treatment and risk factors for severe disease in healthcare employees and non-healthcare employees (neither category defined) who were tested for erectile dysfunction, and listed in a registry at the Cleveland Clinic Health System, between March 8 and June 9, 2020.

The data was drawn from healthcare employees from different segments of the country. Ninety percent of the healthcare employees and 75% of non-healthcare employees were from Ohio, and the remainder were from Florida. Although more healthcare employees than non-healthcare employees reported exposures to erectile dysfunction treatment (72% vs. 17%), similar, and not significantly different, proportions of employees tested positive for erectile dysfunction treatment in each group. 9% (551/6145) of healthcare employees and 6.5% (4353/66,764) of non-healthcare employees.

OSHA finds it difficult to draw conclusions regarding this finding because the nature of the exposure (e.g., whether it was at close contact) was not explained. In fact, patient-facing healthcare employees (those having direct contact with patients) were 1.6 times more likely than non-patient-facing healthcare employees to test positive. The study authors suggested that the finding represents an increased risk of with work exposure, however they were not able to confirm if the exposure occurred 14 days prior to testing or if PPE was worn during the exposure. Positive cases peaked in early-to-mid April for both healthcare employees and non-healthcare employees (16% and 12%, respectively, as estimated from figure 2 of the study), and then decreased concurrently with the implementation of preventive measures, such as masking and physical distancing, over the course of the study. Of those who tested positive, 6.9% of healthcare employees and 27.7% of non-healthcare employees were hospitalized, and 1.8% and 10.8% respectively, were admitted to the intensive care unit.

The study noted that the lower rates of hospitalization for the healthcare employee group could be explained on the basis that the healthcare employee population was younger and had fewer co-morbidities. Serology Testing in Employees in Hospitals. Although most of the studies described in this section relied on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests to detect cases of erectile dysfunction treatment, a number of studies conducted serology testing to determine how many individuals had been infected by the erectile dysfunction viagra in the past. Serology tests determine if antibodies that respond to the erectile dysfunction viagra are present in samples of blood serum. Seroprevalence is the percentage of individuals in a population who have antibodies.

Terms such as seropositive or seroconversion are often used to describe persons who have tested positive for the erectile dysfunction antibody. Most of the serology tests Start Printed Page 32406conducted looked at a type of antibody known as Immunoglobulin G (IgG). Seroprevalence studies provide a more complete picture of how many individuals in a population may have been infected because many individuals who were infected were not tested for current s for reasons such as lack of symptoms and lack of available testing. Indeed, many individuals who were asymptomatic may be unaware that they were exposed to erectile dysfunction or had erectile dysfunction treatment (CDC, July 6, 2020). The studies described below were conducted before vaccination began, and it is therefore unlikely that the studies are detecting antibodies produced as a result of vaccination.

Venugopal et al., (2020) conducted a cross-sectional study of healthcare employees across all hospital services (including physicians, nurses, ancillary services, and “others”) who worked at a level one trauma center in the South Bronx, NY between March 1 and May 1, 2020. The period of analysis included the first few weeks of March, when New York City experienced a surge of s that resulted in strained resources and supplies such as PPE. This hospital was so highly impacted that it was considered “the epicenter of the epicenter.” Participants were tested for IgG antibodies. They were also tested for erectile dysfunction. Of the 500 out of 659 healthcare employees who completed serology testing, 137 (27%) were positive for erectile dysfunction IgG antibodies.

Seroprevalence was similar across the different types of healthcare employees (25% to 28%). The study authors indicated that seroprevalence in healthcare employees was higher than in the community, and that seroprevalence likely reflected healthcare and community exposures. Sims et al., (November 5, 2020) conducted a prospective cohort serology study at Beaumont Health, which includes eight hospitals across the Detroit, MI metropolitan area. In April of 2020, during the peak of the viagra's first wave, Michigan had the third highest number of cases in the U.S. And most cases were in the Detroit metropolitan area.

All 43,000 hospital employees were invited to participate and seroprevalence was analyzed in 20,614 of them between April 13 and May 28, 2020. A total of 1,818 (8.8%) of participants were seropositive. However, when separated according to employees working at home (n=1,868) versus working in their normal manner, employees working at home were significantly less likely to be seropositive (5.6%) than those going into work (9.1%). The authors speculated that the seropositivity level for employees working at home was representative of the population sheltering at home and only leaving home when necessary. Participants involved with direct patient care had a higher seropositive rate (9.5%) than those who were not (7%).

Healthcare employees with frequent patient contact (phlebotomy, respiratory therapy, and nursing) had a significantly higher seropositive rate (11%) than those with intermittent patient contact (physicians or clinical roles such as physical therapists, radiology technicians, etc.), who on average had a seropositive rate of 7.4%. The study authors speculated that the differences in these two groups may have been based on differences in both duration and proximity of exposure to patients. Another notable observation is that support personnel such as facilities/security and administrative support employees had seropositivity rates of approximately 7% to 8%, which were similar to rates in physicians (values estimated from Figure 2B). Participants reporting frequent contact with either 1) non-erectile dysfunction treatment patients, or 2) physicians or nurses but not patients, had higher rates of seropositivity (7.6%) than those reporting no significant contact with patients, physicians, or nurses (but who handled patient samples) (6.5%). Moscola et al., (September 1, 2020) reported the prevalence of erectile dysfunction antibodies in healthcare employees from the Northwell Health System in the greater New York City area.

The healthcare employees were offered free, voluntary testing at each of the system's 52 sites between April 20 and June 23, 2020. The analysis included 40,329 of the system's 70,812 employees and found that 5,523 (13.7%) were seropositive. The prevalence of erectile dysfunction antibodies was similar to that found in randomly-tested adults in New York State at that time (14%). Analysis of seropositivity by job type reported the highest levels of seropositivity (20.9%) in service maintenance staff (including housekeepers, groundskeepers, medical assistants, and 21 others), followed by 13.1% in nurses, 12.6% in administrative and clerical staff (including non-clinical professionals such as employees in information technology, human resources, medical records, and billing). 11.6% in allied health professionals (including clinical professionals such as physician assistants, physical therapists/occupational therapists, social workers, mental health professionals, pharmacists, and laboratory technicians), and 8.7% in physicians.

Seropositivity rates were highest in employees from the emergency department and non-ICU hospital units (approximately 17% each), followed by “other” non-specified areas (12.1%), and ICUs (9.9%). Wilkins et al., (2021) conducted a cross-sectional study to examine seropositivity rates in 6,510 healthcare workers from a Chicago healthcare system consisting of hospitals, immediate care centers, and outpatient practices. Blood samples were collected through July 8, 2020. The study authors then compared the seropositivity rate of different occupational groups of workers, using administrators as the referent group to reflect exposure consistent with non-healthcare workers. Overall seropositivity for all study participants was 4.8%.

Before adjusting for demographics and self-reported out-of-hospital exposure to erectile dysfunction treatment, the study found that a number of healthcare occupations had a higher crude prevalence rate than the administrator group, including. 10.4% for support service healthcare workers. 10.1% for medical assistants. 9.3% for respiratory technicians. 7.6% for nurses.

And 3.8% for administrators. After adjustment for demographics and self-reported out-of-hospital exposure to erectile dysfunction treatment, the only type of healthcare workers that continued to be significantly more likely to be seropositive than administrators were nurses, who were 1.9 times more likely to be seropositive. The study authors concluded that the higher work-related risk in nurses likely occurred as a result of frequent and close contact with patients. The study also compared seropositivity rates for different occupational tasks and found that adjusted seropositivity rates were higher for workers participating in the care of erectile dysfunction treatment patients when compared with those who did not report participating in the care of erectile dysfunction treatment patients. Being exposed to patients receiving high-flow oxygen therapy and hemodialysis was significantly associated with 45% and 57% higher odds for seropositive status, respectively.

Comparison of Healthcare Worker Serology and the Surrounding Community Although some serology studies suggest that s are more correlated to community transmission than job designation (Jacob et al., March 10, 2021. Carter et al., May 2021), these studies do not undermine the robust evidence that healthcare employees with potential workplace exposure to patients with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment are exposed to an elevated risk of contracting erectile dysfunction treatment compared Start Printed Page 32407to the general population. Carter et al., (May 2021) found that healthcare worker rates varied from region to region, noting the importance of community transmission as a factor in rates. In Jacob et al., (March 10, 2021), health care workers' serology results were compared to residence location, job designation, and other characteristics to identify risk factors. The study authors found that community transmission was a significant factor in acquiring s, but were not able to tie in any specific job designation resulting in increases in risk.

The authors note, however, that the study did not show that workplace exposures did not increase risk. Rather it showed that the levels of community transmission observed may be a greater driver of transmission. It should also be noted that the non-pharmaceutical interventions for each job classification are different, so a direct comparison of non-clinical and clinical personnel may result in conclusions with limited application. One might expect that a full shift with fully and properly implemented non-pharmaceutical interventions should result in lower rates. This appeared evident in a study comparing rates between first and second erectile dysfunction treatment outbreak surges in Norway (Magnusson et al., January 6, 2021).

For instance, during the first wave from February 26, 2020 to July 17, 2020, nurses were almost three times more likely to be infected than those in a similar age range (20 to 70 years old). However, during the second wave from July 18, 2020 to December 18, 2020, rates for nurses were largely indistinguishable from the population at large of a similar age. The authors suggested that the decrease in the odds ratio was potentially due to the implementation of appropriate control practices that were previously lacking. Studies Examining Risks After Known Exposures Heinzerling et al., (April 17, 2020) examined the development of erectile dysfunction treatment in 120 healthcare employees who were unknowingly exposed to a patient with erectile dysfunction treatment. The patient was later identified as one of the first U.S.

Community cases of erectile dysfunction treatment, and Heinzerling et al., (April 17, 2020) concluded that the “investigation presented a unique opportunity to analyze exposures associated with erectile dysfunction transmission in a healthcare setting without recognized community exposures.” Of the 120 healthcare employees who were exposed, 43 developed symptoms within 14 days of exposure and were tested for erectile dysfunction treatment. Three of those employees (7% of those tested) were positive for erectile dysfunction treatment. Although those three employees represent 2.5% of the total exposed, it is possible that more employees might have developed erectile dysfunction treatment because asymptomatic employees were not tested. The healthcare employees who became infected, when compared to those who were not infected, were more commonly present during two aerosol-generating procedures (nebulizer treatment (67% vs. 9%) and non-invasive ventilation (67% vs.

12%). More commonly performed physical examinations of the patient (100% vs. 24%). And were exposed to the patient for longer durations of time (median 120 minutes vs. 25 minutes).

None of the exposed healthcare employees had been wearing the complete set of PPE recommended for contact with erectile dysfunction treatment patients. Long-Term Care Facilities Long-term care facilities include nursing homes, skilled nursing facilities, and assisted living facilities. They provide both medical and personal care services to people unable to live independently. Because long-term care facilities are a congregate living situation, s such as erectile dysfunction treatment can spread rapidly between patients or residents and the healthcare staff who care for them. Therefore, employees who work at these facilities have an elevated risk of exposure and .

Like employees who work at hospitals, employees who work at long-term care facilities include both healthcare practitioners, who may have direct and close contact with patients and residents, as well as healthcare support staff who could also be exposed to patients and residents. See the section on “Detection of erectile dysfunction in Healthcare Employees” above for a description of the types of employees who may work at these facilities. McMichael et al., (March 27, 2020) investigated a erectile dysfunction treatment outbreak affecting patients, employees, and visitors at a long-term care facility in King County, Washington in February of 2020. erectile dysfunction s were identified in 129 persons, including 81 residents, 34 of 170 staff (20%), and 14 visitors. None of the employees died, but 2 of the 34 infected employees (5.9%) had symptoms severe enough to require hospitalization.

The median age of the employees was 42.5 years (range 22-79 years). Job titles reported for the employees that were infected included physical therapist, occupational therapist assistant, environmental care worker, nurse, certified nursing assistant, health information officer, physician, and case manager. The study authors noted that prevention procedures at the facility were insufficient, and they concluded that introduction of erectile dysfunction into long-term care facilities will result in high attack rates among residents, staff, and visitors. Weil et al., (September 1, 2020) reported a cross-sectional study of skilled nursing facilities in the Seattle area between March 29 and May 13, 2020. Testing was performed by Public Health of Seattle and King County (testing of both residents and staff) or the Seattle Flu Study (testing of only employees).

The authors described the period of the study to be at the peak of the viagra, but the skilled nursing facilities were not experiencing outbreaks at the time of the study. Testing of employees for erectile dysfunction was voluntary, and 1,583 employees at 16 skilled nursing facilities were tested. Eleven of the 16 skilled nursing facilities had at least one resident or employee who tested positive. Forty-six (2.9%) employees had positive or inconclusive testing for erectile dysfunction. Of 1208 residents tested, 110 (9.1%) were positive.

Study authors noted shortages in PPE. Yi et al., (September 7, 2020) evaluated surveillance data on erectile dysfunction treatment for assisted living facilities in 39 states (representing 44% of the total long-term care facilities in the U.S.). The states began reporting data at various periods ranging from February 27 to April 30, 2020. As of October 15, 2020, 6,440 of 28,623 (22%) assisted living facilities had at least one erectile dysfunction treatment case among residents or staff (ranging from 1.3% of assisted living facilities in Iowa to 92.8% of assisted living facilities in Connecticut). In 22 states, 17,799 cases of erectile dysfunction treatment were reported in staff (total number of staff not specified).

In 9 states, 46 of 7,128 (0.6%) employees with erectile dysfunction treatment died. Bagchi et al., (2021) reported on the CDC's National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) surveillance of nursing homes, which began on April 26, 2020. As of May 25, 2020, the Centers for Medicare &. Medicaid Services (CMS) began requiring nursing homes to report erectile dysfunction treatment cases in residents and staff. The authors analyzed data in residents, nursing home staff, and facility personnel that was reported from May 25 through November 22, 2020 in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico.

Staff members and facility personnel were defined as “all persons working or volunteering in the facility, including contractors, Start Printed Page 32408temporary staff members, resident caregivers, and staff members who might work at multiple facilities.” The study authors reported that “case count data were aggregated weekly, and resident-weeks were calculated as the total number of occupied beds on the day data were reported.” Data on number of staff members employed were not collected, and therefore “resident weeks” was used as “a closest best estimate of the at-risk denominator for staff members.” The study authors indicated that “cases per 1,000 resident-week were calculated for residents and staff members using the number of erectile dysfunction treatment cases reported in a week over the corresponding 1,000 resident-weeks.” erectile dysfunction treatment cases in staff members increased during June and July (10.9 cases per 1,000 resident-weeks reported in the week of July 26). Declined during August and September (6.3 per 1,000 resident-weeks in the week of September 13). And increased again by late November (21.3 cases per 1,000 resident-weeks in the week of November 22). The study authors noted that erectile dysfunction treatment rates among nursing home staff followed similar trends in nursing home residents and the surrounding communities, thereby indicating a possible association between erectile dysfunction treatment rates in nursing homes and nearby communities. Terebuh et al., (September 20, 2020) investigated erectile dysfunction treatment clusters in 45 congregate living facilities in Ohio, from March 7 to May 15, 2020.

Most of the facilities investigated were healthcare worksites. More than half of the clusters occurred at medical facilities (51% at nursing homes, 11% at assisted living facilities, 7% at treatment facilities, and 2% at intermediate care facilities). The remaining clusters occurred at corrections facilities (7%), group homes (20%), and shelters (2%). Of the combined 598 residents and healthcare employees who were either confirmed to have erectile dysfunction treatment or identified as a probable case based on symptoms and close contact with a confirmed case, healthcare employees represented 167 (28%) of the confirmed and 37 (6%) of the probable cases of erectile dysfunction treatment. None of the healthcare employees died.

The study authors were able to identify the index case in 25 of the clusters, and 88% of the index cases were determined to be healthcare employees. Studies Focusing on Healthcare Support Services Healthcare support services employees, such as personnel that provide food, laundry, or waste-handling services, are at risk of exposure to patients with erectile dysfunction and contracting erectile dysfunction treatment. Employees who provide healthcare support services usually have less direct contact with patients, but they can have close contact with erectile dysfunction treatment patients or contaminated materials when performing tasks such as cleaning patient rooms, removing waste or dirty laundry from patient rooms, delivering food and picking up used food trays and utensils, or repairing equipment in the patient's room. In addition, healthcare support employees can have close and prolonged contact with their co-workers while performing their duties. One study discussed above (Sims et al., November 5, 2020), shows an rate among healthcare support services employees that is similar to healthcare employees, such as physicians, who have some patient contact.

As noted, support personnel such as facilities/security and administrative support employees had seropositivity rates of approximately 7% to 8%, which were similar to rates in physicians (values estimated from Figure 2B). Both healthcare support employees and physicians had seropositivity rates that were higher than the rates among employees working from home. Hale and Dayot (2020) examined an outbreak of erectile dysfunction treatment among food service employees that occurred in an academic medical center before masking and physical distancing requirements were implemented. After an employee in the food and nutrition department tested positive, 280 asymptomatic staff were tested. The entire food and nutrition department that was actively working was considered exposed because employees shared a common locker room and break area.

Therefore, testing was not limited to employees who worked near the index case as part of their duties. Ten staff members in the department (including the index case) tested positive during the investigation. At least seven of the cases were thought to result from transmission from the index case. Outbreaks for support services have not been well documented and may be encapsulated with incidents for the entire hospital. Local newspaper reports have identified potential incidents in laundry facilities that handle linens contaminated with erectile dysfunction.

In a New Jersey unionized laundry facility, representatives noted that eight employees had been infected with erectile dysfunction and demanded improvements in infectious disease control implementation (Davalos, December 21, 2020). In Canada, a Regina hospital laundry plant was connected with an 18-employee outbreak (Martin, August 10, 2020). The cause of the outbreak was not determined. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) A limited number of studies have examined the impact of erectile dysfunction treatment on employees who provide EMS (e.g., EMTs, paramedics), who are considered healthcare personnel under this standard. The studies that address EMS often address personnel such as EMTs along with other types of emergency responders such as firefighters, who are not considered healthcare personnel under this standard.

EMTs and similar occupations, such as paramedics, have close contact with patients who are or could be infected with erectile dysfunction when they provide medical care or transport those patients. The medical care they provide includes intubation and cardiopulmonary resuscitation, which could generate aerosols and put them at particularly high risk when performing those procedures on someone with confirmed or suspected erectile dysfunction treatment. Prezant et al., (2020) reviewed paid medical leave data for EMS providers and firefighters using New York City fire department electronic medical records from October 1, 2017 through May 31, 2020. The study authors found that as of May 31, 2020, 1,792 of 4,408 EMS providers (40.7%) had been on leave for suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment. When compared with the medical leave data from before the viagra—including months during influenza periods in prior years—the authors found that medical leave for EMS providers was 6.8% above baseline in March 2020 and peaked at 19.3% above baseline in April 2020.

The authors determined that erectile dysfunction treatment was responsible for this increase. The medical leave levels for EMS providers were above those for firefighters. Among firefighters, the data showed that 34.5% had been on leave for suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment as of May 31, 2020, and there was a peak in medical leave at 13.0% above baseline in April 2020. A total of 66 (1.2%) firefighters and EMS providers with erectile dysfunction treatment were hospitalized and 4 died. Despite EMS providers having been given the same PPE (not further specified) as firefighters, EMS providers had higher rates of erectile dysfunction treatment.

The study authors concluded that higher rates in EMS providers were attributable to greater exposure to erectile dysfunction treatment patients while administering medical care. Weiden et al., (January 25, 2021) investigated risk factors for erectile dysfunction and severe disease (hospitalization or death) in New York City first responders (EMS and Start Printed Page 32409firefighters) from March 1 through May 31, 2020, based on medical records. The study had a total of 14,290 participants (3,501 EMS personnel and 10,789 firefighters). From March 1 to May 31, 2020, 9,115 (63.8%) responders had no erectile dysfunction treatment diagnosis, 5,175 (36.2%) were confirmed or suspected erectile dysfunction treatment cases, and 62 (0.4%) were hospitalized. Three participants died in a hospital, and one died at home.

Researchers found that EMS respondents had more cases of severe erectile dysfunction treatment than firefighters (42/3501 [1.2%] vs. 21/10,789 [0.19%]). The erectile dysfunction rate among New York City first responders overall was 15 times the New York City rate. EMS personnel had a 4-fold greater risk of severe disease and 26% increased risk of confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment cases when compared with firefighters. Both firefighters and EMS personnel responded to the viagra-related emergency medical calls and followed the same PPE protocols.

However, EMS personnel had greater erectile dysfunction treatment exposure than firefighters due to greater erectile dysfunction treatment-related call volume and being solely responsible for patient transport, nebulization of bronchodilators, and intubation. Tarabichi et al., (October 30, 2020) recruited first responders (from EMS and fire departments) to participate in a study in the Cleveland, Ohio area. The authors conducted a first serologic survey and viagra test in the period between April 20 through May 19, 2020 and a second between May 18 and June 2, 2020. A total of 296 respondents completed a first visit and 260 completed the second visit. Seventy-one percent of respondents reported exposure to erectile dysfunction and 16 (5.4%) had positive serological testing.

No subject had a positive viagra test. Fifty percent (8/16) of those who tested positive were either asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic. Based on responses to questions about suspected contacts (it does not appear that the time period of exposure was considered), the study author concluded that likely sources of transmission in participants who tested positive were patients or co-workers. In a study examining erectile dysfunction treatment antibodies in employees from public service agencies in the New York City area from May through July of 2020, 22.5% of participants were found to have erectile dysfunction treatment antibodies (Sami et al., March 2021). The percentages of EMTs and paramedics found to have antibodies (38.3 and 31.1%) were among the highest levels observed in all the occupations.

The study authors noted that risk of exposures may be increased for employees who provide emergency medical services because those services are provided in uncontrolled, unpredictable environments, where space is limited (e.g., ambulances) and quick decisions must often be made. Both emergency technicians and paramedics perform procedures such as airway management that involve a high risk of exposure. In fact, the proportions of employees who had antibodies were found to be increased with increasing frequency of aerosol-generating procedures. In-Home Healthcare Providers In-home healthcare workers provide medical or personal care services, similar to those provided in long-term care facilities, inside the homes of people unable to live independently. Patients receiving in-home care could receive services from different types of healthcare providers (e.g., a nurse administering medical care, a physical therapist assisting with exercise, a personal care services provider assisting with daily functions such as bathing).

In addition, a number of workers may provide services to the same patient, while working in shifts over the course of the day. In-home healthcare providers have a high risk of from working close to patients and possibly their family members or other caregivers in enclosed spaces (e.g., performing a physical examination, helping the patient bathe). The impact of erectile dysfunction treatment on in-home healthcare workers is not well studied. In-home healthcare workers might be included in reports of erectile dysfunction treatment cases and deaths in healthcare workers, but those reports do not indicate if any of the affected healthcare workers provided home care. One report from the UK indicated that an occupational category of “social care” which included “care workers and home carers” experienced significantly increased rates of death involving erectile dysfunction treatment (50.1 deaths per 100,000 men and 19.1 deaths per 100,000 women) from March through May of 2020 (Windsor-Shellard et al., June 26, 2020).

And in a related study from March through December of 2020, it was reported that nearly three in four deaths involving erectile dysfunction treatment in social care operations were in “care workers and home carers,” with 109.9 deaths per 100,000 men and 47.1 deaths per 100,000 women (Windsor-Shellard et al., January 25, 2021). Conclusion The representative studies OSHA described in this section on healthcare provide examples of the pervasive impact that erectile dysfunction exposures have had on employees in those industries before treatments were available. Even since treatments have become widely available, approximately 20 to 30% of healthcare workers remained unvaccinated as of March 2021 (King et al., April 24, 2021), and breakthrough cases among vaccinated healthcare employees are evident. The evidence is consistent with OSHA's determination that erectile dysfunction poses a grave danger to healthcare employees. Cases or outbreaks in settings such as hospitals, long-term care facilities, and emergency services departments have had a clear impact on employees in those types of workplaces.

The evidence establishes that employees in those settings, whether they provide direct patient care or supporting services, have been infected with erectile dysfunction and have developed erectile dysfunction treatment. Some of these employees have died and others have become seriously ill. Employees in healthcare are at elevated risk for transmission in the workplace. Employees in these industry settings are exposed to these forms of transmission through in-person interaction with patients and co-workers in settings where individuals with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment receive care. In many cases, close contact with people who are suspected or confirmed to have erectile dysfunction treatment is required of personnel in these types of workplaces, and such close contact usually occurs indoors.

These employees, who form the backbone of the nation's medical response to the erectile dysfunction treatment public health emergency, clearly require protection under this ETS. References Bagchi, S et al., (2021). Rates of erectile dysfunction treatment among residents and staff members in nursing homes—United States, May 25-November 22, 2020. MMWR 70. 52-55.

Http://dx.doi.org/​10.15585/​mmwr.mm7002e2. (Bagchi et al., 2021). Barrett, ES et al., (2020). Prevalence of erectile dysfunction in previously undiagnosed health care workers in New Jersey, at the onset of the US erectile dysfunction treatment viagra. BMC infectious diseases 20(1).

1-0. Doi. 10.1101/2020.04.20.20072470. (Barrett et al., 2020). Burrer, SL et al., (2020).

Characteristics of health care personnel with erectile dysfunction treatment—United States, February 12-April 9, 2020. MMWR 69(15). 477-481. Https://www.cdc.gov/​mmwr/​volumes/​69/​wr/​mm6915e6.htm. (Burrer et al., 2020).

Carter, RE et al., (2021, March 26). Prevalence of erectile dysfunction Antibodies in a Multistate Academic Medical Center. Mayo Clin Proc. 2021 May. 96(5).

1165-1174. Doi. 10.1016/j.mayocp.2021.03.015. PMID. 33958053.

PMCID. Start Printed Page 32410PMC7997730. (Carter et al., March 26, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2020, July, 6).

About serology surveillance. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​cases-updates/​about-serology-surveillance.html. (CDC, July 6, 2020). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021a, May 24).

Cases &. Deaths among Healthcare Personnel. Https://erectile dysfunction treatment.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction treatment-data-tracker/​#health-care-personnel. (CDC, May 24, 2021a). Davalos, J.

(2020, December 21). Hospital laundry workers fear their risk is rising. Bloomberg. Https://www.bloomberg.com/​news/​articles/​2020-12-21/​hospital-laundry-workers-say-every-day-at-work-risks-erectile dysfunction treatment-. (Davalos, December 21, 2020).

Fell, A et al., (2020, October 30). erectile dysfunction exposure and among health care personnel—Minnesota, March 6-July 11, 2020. MMWR 69(43). 1605-1610. Https://www.cdc.gov/​mmwr/​volumes/​69/​wr/​mm6943a5.htm?.

€‹s_​cid=​mm6943a5_​x. (Fell et al., October 30, 2020). Firew, TS et al., (2020). Protecting the front line. A cross-sectional survey analysis of the occupational factors contributing to healthcare workers' and psychological distress during the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra in the USA.

BMJ Open 10(10). Doi. 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042752. (Firew et al., 2020). Hale, M and Dayot, A.

(2020). Outbreak investigation of erectile dysfunction treatment in hospital food service workers. American Journal of Control 49(3). 396-397. Https://doi.org/​10.1016/​j.ajic.2020.08.011.

(Hale and Dayot, 2020). Hartmann, S et al., (2020). erectile dysfunction 2019 (erectile dysfunction treatment) s among healthcare workers, Los Angeles County, February-May 2020. Clinical Infectious Diseases. Doi.

10.1093/cid/ciaa1200. (Hartmann et al., 2020). Heinzerling, A et al., (2020, April 17). Transmission of erectile dysfunction treatment to health care personnel during exposures to a hospitalized patient—Solano County, California, February 2020. MMWR 69(15).

472-476. Https://www.cdc.gov/​mmwr/​volumes/​69/​wr/​mm6915e5.htm. (Heinzerling, et al., April 17, 2020). Jacob, JT et al., (2021, March 10). Risk Factors Associated With erectile dysfunction Seropositivity Among US Health Care Personnel.

10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.1283. (Jacob et al., March 10, 2021). Kaiser Health News and the Guardian. (2021, February 23). Lost on the Frontline.

The Guardian. Https://www.theguardian.com/​us-news/​ng-interactive/​2020/​aug/​11/​lost-on-the-frontline-erectile dysfunction treatment-erectile dysfunction-us-healthcare-workers-deaths-database. (Kaiser Health News and the Guardian, February 23, 2021). Kaiser Health News and the Guardian. (2021, April).

Lost on the Frontline. The Guardian. Https://www.theguardian.com/​us-news/​ng-interactive/​2020/​aug/​11/​lost-on-the-frontline-erectile dysfunction treatment-erectile dysfunction-us-healthcare-workers-deaths-database. (Kaiser Health News and the Guardian, April 2021). King, WC et al., (2021, April 24).

erectile dysfunction treatment hesitancy January-March 2021 among 18-64 year old US adults by employment and occupation. MedRxiv. Https://www.medrxiv.org/​content/​10.1101/​2021.04.20.21255821v3. (King et al., April 24, 2021). Magnusson, K et al., (2021, January 6).

Occupational risk of erectile dysfunction treatment in the 1st and 2nd wave of . MedRxiv https://doi.org/​10.1101/​2020.10.29.20220426. (Magnussen et al., January 6, 2021). Mani, NS et al., (2020, November 15). Prevalence of erectile dysfunction treatment and outcomes among symptomatic healthcare workers in Seattle, Washington.

Clin Infectious Disease 71(10). 2702-2707. Doi. 10.1093/cid/ciaa761. (Mani et al., November 15, 2020).

Martin, A. (2020, August 10). Outbreak at Regina's K-Bro Linens. 18 employees test positive. Regina Leader-Post.

Https://leaderpost.com/​news/​local-news/​outbreak-at-reginas-k-bro-linens-18-employees-test-positive. (Martin, August 10, 2020). McMichael, TM et al., (2020, March 27). Epidemiology of erectile dysfunction treatment in a long-term care facility in King County, Washington. New England Journal of Medicine 382(21).

2005-2011. Doi. 10.1056/NEJMoa2005412. (McMichael et al., March 27, 2020). Misra-Hebert, AD et al., (2020, September 1).

Impact of the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra on healthcare workers' risk of and outcomes in a large, integrated health system. Journal of General Internal Medicine 35. 3293-3301. Https://doi.org/​10.1007/​s11606-020-06171-9. (Misra-Hebert et al., September 1, 2020).

Moscola, J et al., (2020, September 1). Prevalence of erectile dysfunction antibodies in health care personnel in the New York City Area. JAMA 324(9). 893-895. Doi.

10.1001/jama.2020.14765. (Moscola et al., September 1, 2020). Nagler, AR et al., (2020, June 28). Early results from erectile dysfunction PCR testing of healthcare workers at an academic medical center in New York City. Clinical Infectious Diseases 72(7).

1241-1243. Doi. 10.1093/cid/ciaa867. (Nagler et al., June 28, 2020). Nguyen, LH et al., (2020).

Risk of erectile dysfunction treatment among front-line health-care workers and the general community. A prospective cohort study. The Lancet Public Health 5(9). E475-e483. Https://doi.org/​10.1016/​S2468-2667(20)30164-X.

(Nguyen et al., 2020). Prezant, DJ et al., (2020). Medical leave associated with erectile dysfunction treatment among emergency medical system responders and firefighters in New York City. JAMA Netw Open 3(7). Https://doi.org/​10.1001/​jamanetworkopen.2020.16094.

(Prezant et al., 2020). Sami, S et al., (2021, March). Prevalence of erectile dysfunction antibodies in first responders and public safety personnel, New York City, New York, USA, May-July 2020. Emerging Infectious Diseases 27(3). Https://doi.org/​10.3201/​eid2703.204340.

(Sami et al., March 2021). Sims, MD et al., (2020). erectile dysfunction treatment seropositivity and asymptomatic rates in healthcare workers are associated with job function and masking. Clinical Infectious Diseases. Doi.

10.1093/cid/ciaa1684. (Sims et al., November 5, 2020). Tarabichi, Y et al., (2020, October 30). erectile dysfunction among serially tested emergency medical services workers. Prehospital Emergency Care 25(1).

39-45. Https://doi.org/​10.1080/​10903127.2020.1831668. (Tarabichi et al., October 30, 2020). Terebuh et al., (2020, September 20). Characterization of community-wide transmission of erectile dysfunction in congregate living settings and local public health-coordinated response during the initial phase of the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra.

Influenza Other Respir viagraes. Doi. 10.1111/irv.12819. (Terebuh et al., September 20, 2020). Vahidy, FS et al., (2020) Prevalence of erectile dysfunction among asymptomatic health care workers in the greater Houston, Texas, area.

JAMA Network Open 3(7). E2016451. Https://doi.org/​10.1001/​jamanetworkopen.2020.16451. (Vahidy et al., 2020). Venugopal, U et al., (2020, January).

erectile dysfunction seroprevalence among health care workers in a New York City hospital. A cross-sectional analysis during the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra. International Journal of Infectious Diseases 102. 63-69. Https://doi.org/​10.1016/​j.ijid.2020.10.036.

(Venugopal et al., January 2020). Weiden, M et al., (2021, January 25). Pre-erectile dysfunction treatment lung function and other risk factors for severe erectile dysfunction treatment in first responders. ERJ open research 7(1). 00610-2020.

Https://doi.org/​10.1183/​23120541.00610-2020. (Weiden et al., January 25, 2021). Weil, A et al., (2020, September 1). Cross-sectional prevalence of erectile dysfunction among skilled nursing facility employees and residents across facilities in Seattle. J Gen Intern Med 35.

11. Doi. 10.1007/s11606-020-06165-7. (Weil et al., September 1, 2020). Wilkins, JT et al., (2021).

Seroprevalence and correlates of erectile dysfunction antibodies in health care workers in Chicago. Open Forum Infectious Diseases 8(1). Https://doi.org/​10.1093/​ofid/​ofaa582. (Wilkins et al., 2021). Windsor-Shellard, B and Butt, A.

(2020, June 26). erectile dysfunction (erectile dysfunction treatment) related deaths by occupation, England and Wales. Deaths registered between 9 March and 25 May 2020. Https://www.ons.gov.uk/​peoplepopulationandcommunity/​healthandsocialcare/​causesofdeath/​bulletins/​erectile dysfunctionerectile dysfunction treatment19relateddeathsbyoccupationenglandandwales/​deathsregisteredbetween9marchand25may2020. Start Printed Page 32411(Windsor-Shellard and Butt, June 26, 2020).

Windsor-Shellard, B and Nasir, R. (2021, January 25). erectile dysfunction (erectile dysfunction treatment) related deaths by occupation, England and Wales. Deaths registered between 9 March and 28 December 2020. Https://www.ons.gov.uk/​peoplepopulationandcommunity/​healthandsocialcare/​causesofdeath/​bulletins/​erectile dysfunctionerectile dysfunction treatment19relateddeathsbyoccupationenglandandwales/​deathsregisteredbetween9marchand28december2020.

(Windsor-Shellard and Nasir, January 25, 2021). Yi, H et al., (2020, September 7). Health equity considerations in erectile dysfunction treatment. Geospatial network analysis of the erectile dysfunction treatment outbreak in the migrant population in Singapore. J Travel Med.

DOI. 10.1093/jtm/taaa159. (Yi et al., September 7, 2020). IV. Conclusion OSHA finds that healthcare employees face a grave danger from exposure to erectile dysfunction in the United States.[] OSHA's determination is based on three separate manifestations of incurable, permanent, or non-fleeting health consequences of exposure to the viagra, each of which is independently supported by substantial evidence in the record.

The danger to healthcare employees is further supported by powerful lines of evidence demonstrating the transmissibility of the viagra in the workplace and the prevalence of s in employee populations where individuals with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment receive care. First, with respect to the grave health consequences of exposure to erectile dysfunction, OSHA has found that regardless of where and how exposure occurs, erectile dysfunction treatment can result in death. The risk of death from erectile dysfunction treatment is especially high for employees who have underlying health conditions, older employees, and employees who are members of racial and ethnic minority groups, who together make up a significant proportion of the working population. Second, even for those who survive a erectile dysfunction , the viagra often causes serious, long-lasting, and potentially permanent health effects. Serious cases of erectile dysfunction treatment require hospitalization and dramatic medical interventions, and might leave employees with permanent and disabling health effects.

Third, even mild or moderate cases of erectile dysfunction treatment that do not require hospitalization can be debilitating and require medical care and significant time off from work for recovery and quarantine. People who initially appear to have mild cases can suffer health effects that continue months after the initial . Furthermore, racial and ethnic minority groups are at increased risk of erectile dysfunction , as well as hospitalization and death from erectile dysfunction treatment. Each of these categories of health consequences independently poses a grave danger to individuals exposed to the viagra. That danger is amplified for healthcare employees because of the high potential for transmission of the viagra in healthcare settings where individuals with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment receive care.

The best available evidence on the science of transmission of the viagra makes clear that erectile dysfunction is transmissible from person to person in these settings, which can result in large-scale clusters of s. Transmission is most prevalent in healthcare settings where individuals with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment receive care, and can be exacerbated by, for example, poor ventilation, close contact with potentially infectious individuals, and situations where aerosols containing erectile dysfunction particles are likely to be generated. Importantly, while older employees and those with underlying health conditions face a higher risk of dying from erectile dysfunction treatment once infected, fatalities are certainly not limited to that group. Every healthcare workplace exposure or transmission has the potential to cause severe illness or even death, particularly in unvaccinated healthcare workers in settings where patients with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment receive care. Taken together, the multiple, severe health consequences of erectile dysfunction treatment and the evidence of its transmission in environments characteristic of the healthcare workplaces where this ETS requires worker protections demonstrate that exposure to erectile dysfunction represents a grave danger to employees in these workplaces throughout the country.[] The existence of a grave danger to employees from erectile dysfunction is further supported by the toll the viagra has already taken on the nation as a whole.

Although OSHA cannot estimate the total number of healthcare workers in our nation who contracted erectile dysfunction treatment at work and became sick or died, erectile dysfunction treatment has killed 587,342 people in the United States as of May 24, 2021 (CDC, May 24, 2021a). That death toll includes 91,351 people who were 18 to 64 years old (CDC, May 24, 2021b). Current mortality data shows that unvaccinated people of working age have a 1 in 217 chance of dying when they contract erectile dysfunction treatment. As of May 24, 2021, more than 32 million people in the United States have been reported to have s, and thousands of new cases were being identified daily (CDC, May 24, 2021c). One in ten reported cases of erectile dysfunction treatment becomes severe and requires hospitalization.

Moreover, public health officials agree that these numbers fail to show the full extent of the deaths and illnesses from this disease, and racial and ethnic minority groups are disproportionately represented among erectile dysfunction treatment cases, hospitalizations, and deaths (CDC, December 10, 2021. CDC, May 26, 2021. Escobar et al., 2021. Gross et al., 2020. McLaren, 2020).

Given this context, OSHA is confident in its finding that exposure to erectile dysfunction poses a grave danger to the healthcare employees covered by the protections in this ETS. The above analysis fully satisfies the OSH Act's requirements for finding a grave danger. Although OSHA usually performs a quantitative risk assessment before promulgating a health standard under section 6(b)(5) of the OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5), that type of analysis is not necessary in this situation. OSHA has most often invoked section 6(b)(5) authority to regulate exposures to chemical hazards involving much smaller populations, many fewer cases, extrapolations from animal evidence, long-term exposure, and delayed effects.

In those situations, mathematical modelling is necessary to evaluate the extent of the risk at different exposure levels. The gravity of the danger presented by a disease with acute effects like erectile dysfunction treatment, on the other hand, is made obvious by a straightforward count of deaths and illnesses caused by the disease, which reach sums not seen in a century. The evidence compiled above amply support OSHA's finding that erectile dysfunction presents a grave danger in to the healthcare employees covered by the protections in this ETS. In the context of ordinary 6(b) rulemaking, the Supreme Court has said Start Printed Page 32412that the OSH Act is not a “mathematical straitjacket,” nor does it require the agency to support its findings “with anything approaching scientific certainty,” particularly when operating on the “frontiers of scientific knowledge.” Indus. Union Dep't, AFL-CIO v.

Am. Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607, 656, 100 S. Ct. 2844, 2871, 65 L.

Ed. 2d 1010 (1980). This is true a fortiori here in the current national crisis where OSHA must act to ensure employees are adequately protected from the new hazard presented by the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra (see 29 U.S.C 655(c)(1)). Having made the determination of grave danger, as well as the determination that an ETS is necessary to protect these employees from exposure to erectile dysfunction (see Need for the ETS, in Section IV.B. Of this preamble), OSHA is required to issue this standard to protect these employees from getting sick and dying from erectile dysfunction treatment acquired at work.

See 29 U.S.C. 655(c)(1). References Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2020, December 10). erectile dysfunction treatment racial and ethnic health disparities.

Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​community/​health-equity/​racial-ethnic-disparities/​index.html. (CDC, December 10, 2020). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, May 26). Health disparities.

Race and Hispanic origin. Https://www.cdc.gov/​nchs/​nvss/​vsrr/​erectile dysfunction treatment19/​health_​disparities.htm. (CDC, May 26, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021a, May 24).

erectile dysfunction treatment data tracker.Trends in number of erectile dysfunction treatment cases and deaths in the US reported to CDC, by state/territory. Trends in Total erectile dysfunction treatment Deaths in the United States Reported to CDC. Https://erectile dysfunction treatment.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction treatment-data-tracker/​#trends_​dailytrendscases. (CDC, May 24, 2021a). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

(2021b, May 24). Demographic Trends of erectile dysfunction treatment cases and deaths in the US reported to CDC. Deaths by age group. Https://erectile dysfunction treatment.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction treatment-data-tracker/​#demographics. (CDC, May 24, 2021b).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021c, May 24). erectile dysfunction treatment data tracker.Trends in number of erectile dysfunction treatment cases and deaths in the US reported to CDC, by state/territory. Trends in Total erectile dysfunction treatment Cases in the United States Reported to CDC. Https://erectile dysfunction treatment.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction treatment-data-tracker/​#trends_​dailytrendscases.(CDC, May 24, 2021c).

Escobar, GJ et al., (2021, February 9). Racial disparities in erectile dysfunction treatment testing and outcomes. Annals of Internal Medicine. Doi. 10.7326/M20-6979.

(Escobar et al., February 9, 2021). Gross, CP et al., (2020, October). Racial and ethnic disparities in population-level erectile dysfunction treatment mortality. Journal of General Internal Medicine 35(10). 3097-3099.

Doi. 10.1007/s11606-020-06081-w. (Gross et al., October 2020). McLaren, J. (2020, June).

Racial disparity in erectile dysfunction treatment deaths. Seeking economic roots with Census data. NBER Working Paper Series. Working Paper 27407. Doi.

10.3386/w27407. (McLaren, June 2020). B. Need for the ETS This ETS is necessary to protect the healthcare workers with the highest risk of contracting erectile dysfunction treatment at work. Healthcare workers face a particularly elevated risk of contracting erectile dysfunction treatment in settings where patients with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment receive treatment, especially those healthcare workers providing direct care to patients.

The ETS is necessary to protect these workers through requirements including patient screening and management, respirators and other personal protective equipment (PPE), limiting exposure to aerosol-generating procedures, physical distancing, physical barriers, cleaning, dis, ventilation, health screening and medical management, access to vaccination, and anti-retaliation provisions and medical removal protection. I. Events Leading to the ETS Since January 2020, OSHA has received numerous petitions and supporting letters from members of Congress, unions, advocacy groups, and one group of large employers urging the agency to take immediate action by issuing an ETS to protect healthcare employees from exposure to the viagra that causes erectile dysfunction treatment (Scott and Adams, January 30, 2020. NNU, March 4, 2020. AFL-CIO, March 6, 2020.

Wellington, March 12, 2020. DeVito, March 12, 2020. Carome, March 13, 2020. Murray et al., April 29, 2020. Solt, April 28, 2020.

Public Citizen, March 13, 2020. Pellerin, March 19, 2020. Yborra, March 19, 2020. Owen, March 19, 2020. ORCHSE, October 9, 2020).

These petitions and supporting letters asserted that many employees have been infected because of workplace exposures to the viagra that causes erectile dysfunction treatment and immediate, legally enforceable action is necessary for protection. OSHA quickly began issuing detailed guidance documents and alerts beginning in March 2020 that helped employers determine employee risk levels of erectile dysfunction treatment exposure and made recommendations for appropriate controls. On March 18, 2020, then-OSHA Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Loren Sweatt responded to an inquiry from Congressman Robert C. €œBobby” Scott, Chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor, regarding OSHA's response to the erectile dysfunction treatment outbreak (OSHA, March 18, 2020). In the letter, she stated that OSHA had “a number of existing enforcement tools” it was using to address erectile dysfunction treatment, including existing standards such as Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), Respiratory Protection, and Bloodborne Pathogens, as well as the General Duty Clause, 29 U.S.C.

654(a)(1). She also stated that OSHA was working proactively to assist employers by developing guidance documents. And, given the existing enforcement tools, “we currently see no additional benefit from an ETS in the current circumstances relating to erectile dysfunction treatment,” and “OSHA can best meet the needs of America's workers by being able to rapidly respond in a flexible environment.” However, she noted that OSHA would continue to monitor “this quickly evolving situation and will take appropriate steps to protect workers from erectile dysfunction treatment in coordination with the overall U.S. Government response effort.” Shortly after OSHA's announcement that it did not intend to pursue an ETS at that time, the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), the country's largest federation of labor unions, filed an emergency petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.

Circuit, for a writ of mandamus to compel OSHA to issue an ETS for erectile dysfunction treatment, arguing that OSHA's failure to issue legally enforceable erectile dysfunction treatment-specific rules endangered workers (AFL-CIO, May 18, 2020). On May 29, 2020, OSHA denied the AFL-CIO's pending March 6 petition to OSHA for an ETS [] and simultaneously filed a response brief with the D.C. Circuit, arguing the AFL-CIO was not entitled to a writ of mandamus (DOL, May 29, 2020). The agency stated that the union had not clearly and indisputably demonstrated that an ETS was necessary and expressed its view that an ETS was not necessary at that time because of the agency's two-pronged strategy for addressing erectile dysfunction treatment in the workplace. Start Printed Page 32413Enforcement of existing standards and section 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act (the General Duty Clause), as well as development of rapid guidance to provide a flexible response to new and evolving information about the viagra.

On June 11, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a one paragraph per curiam order denying the AFL-CIO's petition, finding that OSHA's “decision not to issue an ETS is entitled to considerable deference,” and “[i]n light of the unprecedented nature of the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra, as well as the regulatory tools that the OSHA has at its disposal to ensure that employers are maintaining hazard-free work environments,. . .

OSHA reasonably determined that an ETS is not necessary at this time.” In re Am. Fed'n of Labor &. Cong. Of Indus. Orgs., No.

20-1158, 2020 WL 3125324 (AFL-CIO, June 11, 2020), rehearing en banc denied (AFL-CIO, July 28, 2020).[] Following OSHA's decision in May 2020 not to issue an ETS, some states and local health departments determined enforceable regulation was necessary, leading to the adoption of a variety of state and local executive orders and emergency regulations with specific worker protection requirements. Virginia, Oregon, California, Michigan, and Washington have issued their own ETSs, (see Section VII, Additional Requirements, for a full discussion of OSHA-approved State Plans), and many additional states and localities have issued other kinds of requirements, guidelines, and protective ordinances for workers. Other states and localities have not. The resulting patchwork of state and local regulations led to inadequate and varying levels of protection for workers across the country, and has caused problems for many employees and businesses. As a result, on October 9, 2020, ORCHSE Strategies, LLC (since acquired by the National Safety Council (NSC))—a group of more than 100 large (mostly Fortune 500) companies in over 28 industries—petitioned OSHA to issue an ETS, recognizing that OSHA had provided “very well prepared and thoughtful” guidance, but concluding an ETS is still needed and that the lack of a uniform response has caused confusion and unnecessary burden on already struggling workplaces (ORCHSE, October 9, 2020).

Notwithstanding the patchwork efforts at the state and local level, the country experienced a significant increase in erectile dysfunction treatment deaths and s. When OSHA decided not to promulgate an ETS in May 2020, the erectile dysfunction treatment death toll in the United States was reaching 100,000 (CDC, May 28, 2020). Since then, an additional 500,000 Americans have died from erectile dysfunction treatment (CDC, May 24, 2021a). Despite a decrease in recent weeks, the death rate remains high (7-day moving average death rate of 500 on May 23, 2021) (CDC, May 24, 2021b), and thousands of Americans are hospitalized with erectile dysfunction treatment every day (CDC, May 24, 2021c). As of May 23, 2021, the agency had issued 689 citations for erectile dysfunction treatment-related violations of existing OSHA requirements, primarily of healthcare facilities including nursing homes.

Violations have included, among other things, failure to properly develop written respiratory protection programs. Failure to provide a medical evaluation, respirator fit test, training on the proper use of a respirator, and personal protective equipment. Failure to report an injury, illness, or fatality. Failure to record an injury or illness on OSHA recordkeeping forms. And failure to comply with the General Duty Clause of the OSH Act.

In addition, OSHA issued over 230 Hazard Alert Letters (HALs), including over 100 HALs to employers in healthcare settings (e.g., hospitals, ambulatory care, and nursing and residential care facilities), where it found erectile dysfunction treatment-related hazards during workplace inspections, but did not believe it had sufficient basis to cite the employer for violating an existing OSHA standard or the General Duty Clause. On January 21, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 13999, entitled “Protecting Worker Health and Safety” (86 FR 7211). In it, he declared that. Ensuring the health and safety of workers is a national priority and a moral imperative. Healthcare workers and other essential workers, many of whom are people of color and immigrants, have put their lives on the line during the erectile dysfunction disease 2019 (erectile dysfunction treatment) viagra.

It is the policy of my Administration to protect the health and safety of workers from erectile dysfunction treatment. The Federal Government must take swift action to reduce the risk that workers may contract erectile dysfunction treatment in the workplace. He further directed OSHA to take a number of steps to better protect workers from the erectile dysfunction treatment hazard, including issuing revised guidance on workplace safety, launching a national emphasis program to focus OSHA enforcement efforts on erectile dysfunction treatment, conduct a multilingual outreach program, and evaluate its erectile dysfunction treatment enforcement policies (id.). In addition, the President directed OSHA to “consider whether any emergency temporary standards on erectile dysfunction treatment, including with respect to masks in the workplace, are necessary, and if such standards are determined to be necessary, issue them by March 15, 2021” (id.). OSHA began working on the issue at once, and shortly after Secretary Walsh took office on March 23, he ordered OSHA to ensure its analysis addressed the latest information regarding the state of vaccinations and viagra variants (Rolfson and Rozen, April 6, 2021).

In accordance with the executive order and Secretary Walsh's directive, OSHA has reviewed its May 2020 decision not to issue an ETS. For the reasons explained below, OSHA does not believe its prior approach—enforcement of existing standards and the General Duty Clause coupled with the issuance of nonbinding guidance—has proven over time to be adequate to “reduce the risk that workers may contract erectile dysfunction treatment” in healthcare settings. Given the grave danger presented by the hazard, OSHA now finds that this standard is necessary to protect the healthcare employees who face the highest risk of contracting erectile dysfunction treatment at work. See Nat'l Cable &. Telecomm.

Ass'n v. Brand X internet Svcs, 545 U.S. 967, 981 (2005) (noting that an agency must “consider the wisdom of its policy on a continuing basis. . .

For example, in response to changed factual circumstances, or a change in administrations”). Asbestos Info. Ass'n, 727 F.2d at 423 (5th Cir. 1984) (“failure to act does not conclusively establish that a situation is not an emergency. .

. [when there is a grave danger to workers,] to hold that because OSHA did not act previously it cannot do so now only compounds the consequences of the Agency's failure to act.”). References American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations. (2020, March 6). €œTo Address the Outbreak of erectile dysfunction treatment-Start Printed Page 3241419.

A Petition for an OSHA Emergency Temporary Standard for Infectious Disease.” (AFL-CIO, March 6, 2020). American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations. (2020, May 18). Emergency Petition For A Writ Of Mandamus, and Request For Expedited Briefing And Disposition, No. 19-1158.

(AFL-CIO, May 18, 2020). American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, USCA Case #20-1158, Document #1846700. (2020, June 11). (AFL-CIO, June 11, 2020). American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations.

Denial of Petition for Rehearing En Banc on Behalf Of American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations. USCA Case #20-1158, Document #1853761. (2020, July 28). (AFL-CIO, July 28, 2020). American Federation of Teachers, et al., Petition For A Writ Of Mandamus, No.

20-73203 (9th Cir., October 29, 2020). (2020, October 29). (AFT, October 29, 2020). Carome, M. (2020, March 13).

€œLetter requesting an immediate OSHA emergency temporary standard for infectious disease.” (Carome, March 13, 2020). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021a, May 24). erectile dysfunction treatment data tracker.Trends in number of erectile dysfunction treatment cases and deaths in the US reported to CDC, by state/territory. Trends in Total erectile dysfunction treatment Deaths in the United States Reported to CDC.

Https://erectile dysfunction treatment.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction treatment-data-tracker/​#trends_​dailytrendscases. (CDC, May 24, 2021a). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021b, May 24). erectile dysfunction treatment data tracker.Trends in number of erectile dysfunction treatment cases and deaths in the US reported to CDC, by state/territory Daily Trends in Number of erectile dysfunction treatment Deaths in the United States Reported to CDC.

Https://erectile dysfunction treatment.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction treatment-data-tracker/​#trends_​dailytrendscases. (CDC, May 24, 2021b). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021c, May 24). erectile dysfunction treatment data tracker.

New Admissions of Patients with Confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment, United States. Https://erectile dysfunction treatment.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction treatment-data-tracker/​#new-hospital-admissions. (CDC, May 24, 2021c). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2020, May 28).

United States erectile dysfunction (erectile dysfunction treatment) Death Toll Surpasses 100,000. Https://www.cdc.gov/​media/​releases/​2020/​s0528-erectile dysfunction-death-toll.html. (CDC, May 28, 2020). DeVito, J. (2020, March 12).

€œGrant OSHA emergency standard for erectile dysfunction treatment to protect frontline workers.” (DeVito, March 12, 2020). Murray, P, Brown, S, Heinrich, M, Brown, S, Blumenthal, R, Markey, EJ, Van Hollen, C, Durbin, RJ, Smith, T, Whitehouse, S, Wyden, R, King Jr., AS, Kaine, T, Reed, J, Menedez, R, Gillibrand, K, Duckworth, T, Warren, E, Hassan, MW, Casey Jr., RP, Sanders, B, Udall, T, Hirono, MK, Harris, KD, Feinstein, D, Klobuchar, A, Booker, CA, Shaheen, J, Cardin, B. (2020, April 29). €œerectile dysfunction treatment ETS Petition.”(Murray et al., April 29, 2020). National Nurses United (NNU).

(2020, March 4). €œNational Nurses United Petitions OSHA for an Emergency Temporary Standard on Emerging Infectious Diseases in Response to erectile dysfunction treatment.” (NNU, March 4, 2020). Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). (2020, March 18). Letter from Loren Sweatt to Congressman Robert C.

€œBobby” Scott. (OSHA, March 18, 2020). Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). (2020, May 29). Letter from Loren Sweatt to AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka.

(OSHA, May 29, 2020). Owen, M. (2020, March 19). €œGrant OSHA emergency standard to protect frontline workers from erectile dysfunction treatment.” (Owen, March 19, 2020). ORCHSE Strategies.

(2020, October 9). €œPetition to the U.S. Department of Labor—Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) for Infectious Disease.” (ORCHSE, October 9, 2020). Pellerin, C. (2020).

€œGrant OSHA emergency standard to protect frontline workers from erectile dysfunction treatment.” (Pellerin, March 19, 2020). Public Citizen. (2020, March 13). €œSupport for AFL-CIO's Petition for an OSHA Emergency Temporary Standard for Infectious Disease to Address the Epidemic of Novel erectile dysfunction Disease.” (Public Citizen, March 13, 2020). Rolfson, B, Rozen, C.

(2021, April 6). Labor Chief Walsh Puts Hold on OSHA viagra Rule for More Analysis. Bloomberg Law. Https://news.bloomberglaw.com/​safety/​labor-chief-walsh-puts-hold-on-osha-viagra-rule-for-more-analysis. (Rolfson and Rozen, April 6, 2021).

Scott, RC and Adams, AS. (2020, January 30). €œPrioritize OSHA's Work on Infectious Diseases Standard/Immediate Issue of Temporary Standard.” (Scott and Adams, January 30, 2020). Solt, BE. (2020).

€œerectile dysfunction treatment ETS Petition.” (Solt, April 28, 2020). United States Department of Labor (DOL). (2020, May 29). In Re. American Federation Of Labor And Congress Of Industrial Organizations.

Department Of Labor's Response to the Emergency Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, No. 20-1158 (D.C. Cir., May 29, 2020). (DOL, May 29, 2020). United States Department of Labor (DOL).

(2020, December 31). American Federation of Teachers, et al., Department of Labor's Opposition to the Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, No. 20-73203 (9th Cir., December 31, 2020). (DOL, December 31, 2020). Wellington, M.

(2020, March 12). €œGrant OSHA emergency standard for erectile dysfunction treatment to protect front-line workers”. (Wellington, March 12, 2020). Yborra, G. (2020, March 19).

€œGrant OSHA emergency standard to protect frontline workers from erectile dysfunction treatment.” (Yborra, March 19, 2020). II. No Other Agency Action Is Adequate To Protect Employees Against Grave Danger For the first time in its 50-year history, OSHA faces a “new hazard” so grave that it has killed almost 600,000 people in the United States in barely over a year, and infected millions more. erectile dysfunction treatment can be spread to employees whenever an infected person exhales. Those employees, once infected, could end up unable to breathe without ventilators or suffer from failure of multiple body organs, and are at risk of death or long-term debilitation.

The erectile dysfunction treatment viagra has taken a particularly heavy toll on workers in healthcare providing frontline care to patients with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment, creating the precise situation that section 6(c)(1) of the OSH Act was enacted to address. This ETS is necessary to protect these employees from the grave danger posed by erectile dysfunction treatment. When OSHA decided not to issue an ETS last spring, the agency had preliminarily determined that sufficient employee protection against erectile dysfunction treatment could be provided through enforcement of existing workplace standards and the General Duty Clause of the OSH Act, coupled with the issuance of industry-specific, non-mandatory guidance. However, in doing so OSHA indicated that its conclusion that an ETS was not necessary was specific to the information available to the agency at that time, and that the agency would continue to monitor the situation and take additional steps as appropriate (see, e.g., OSHA, March 18, 2020, Letter to Congressman Scott (stating “[W]e currently see no additional benefit from an ETS in the current circumstances relating to erectile dysfunction treatment. OSHA is continuing to monitor this quickly evolving situation and will take the appropriate steps to protect workers from erectile dysfunction treatment in coordination with the overall U.S.

Government response effort.” (emphasis supplied). DOL May 29, 2020 at 20 (stating “OSHA has determined this steep threshold [of necessity] is not met here, at least not at this time.” (emphasis supplied))). OSHA's subsequent experience has shown that a new approach is needed to protect healthcare workers from the grave danger posed by the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra. At the outset, employers do not have a reliance interest in OSHA's prior decision not to issue an ETS on May 29, 2020, which did not alter the status quo or require employers to change their behavior. See Dep't of Homeland Security v.

Regents of the Univ. Of Start Printed Page 32415California, 140 S. Ct. 1891, 1913-14 (2020). As OSHA indicated when it made the decision, the determination was based on the conditions and information available to the agency at that time and was subject to change as additional information indicated the need for an ETS.

In light of the agency's express qualifications and the surrounding context, any employer reliance would have been unjustified and cannot outweigh the countervailing urgent need to protect healthcare workers from the grave danger posed by erectile dysfunction treatment. Multiple developments support a change in approach. First, as noted above, although the rates of death and hospitalization from erectile dysfunction treatment have decreased in recent weeks as treatments have become more widely available, erectile dysfunction treatment continues to pose a grave danger to healthcare employees in settings where the risk of exposure to an infected person is elevated because of the nature of the work performed. In addition, some variability in rates in a viagra is to be expected. While the curves of new s and deaths can bend down after peaks, they often reverse course only to reach additional peaks in the future (Moore et al., April 30, 2020).

Several new mutations—or variants—of the viagra, preliminarily understood to be more contagious than the original, are now spreading in this country. Second, as discussed in more detail in Grave Danger (Section IV.A of this preamble), while treatments have been authorized for use for several months, and the nationwide effort to fully vaccinate all Americans is ongoing, more work is needed to build confidence among Americans in the treatments so that enough people are protected to bring the viagra under control, and to ensure that employees can get vaccinated without the risk of losing their jobs or losing pay. The standard is therefore necessary to facilitate vaccination among healthcare workers by requiring employers to “provid[e] reasonable time and paid leave. . .

To each employee for vaccination and any side effects experienced following vaccination” (paragraph (m)). The standard also further encourages vaccination by fully exempting “well-defined hospital ambulatory care settings where all employees are fully vaccinated” and all non-employees are screened and denied entry if they are suspected or confirmed to have erectile dysfunction treatment (paragraph (a)(2)(iv)) and “home healthcare settings where all employees are fully vaccinated” and all non-employees at that location are screened prior to employee entry so that people with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment are not present (paragraph (a)(2)(v)). In addition, the standard encourages vaccination by exempting fully vaccinated employees from the requirements for facemasks, physical distancing, and barriers “in well-defined areas where there is no reasonable expectation that any person with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment will be present” (paragraph (a)(4)). Further, OSHA's actual enforcement experience over the past year—which had only just begun when OSHA announced its previous views on the need for an ETS—has demonstrated that existing enforcement options do not adequately protect healthcare employees from the grave danger posed by erectile dysfunction treatment. As of May 23, 2021, OSHA and its State Plan partners have received more than 67,000 erectile dysfunction treatment-related complaints since March of 2020 (OSHA, May 23, 2021).

OSHA has received more complaints about healthcare settings than any other industry.[] Although the number of employee complaints has gone down in recent months since erectile dysfunction treatments have become more widely available, OSHA continues to receive hundreds of employee complaints every month, including many that concern healthcare settings, asking for investigations of workplaces where employees do not believe they are being adequately protected from erectile dysfunction treatment and indicating that their employers do not follow the guidance issued by the agency and the CDC. The following narratives are just a few recent examples of the kinds of complaints OSHA continues to receive from healthcare employees on a regular basis. 5/21/21 Doctor's office failed to remove employee with erectile dysfunction treatment symptoms. 5/21/21 Assisted living facility for the elderly failed to notify employees that they were exposed to residents with erectile dysfunction treatment. 5/19/21 Doctor's office did not maintain distancing for employees, did not notify employees of exposure to erectile dysfunction treatment, and did not remove employees with erectile dysfunction treatment symptoms from the workplace.

5/19/21 Doctor's office did not ensure that technician wore gloves during erectile dysfunction treatment. 5/10/21 Clinic did not follow guidance for patient screening or removal from the workplace of potentially infected employee. 5/7/21 Psychiatric facility did not properly clean rooms of erectile dysfunction treatment positive patients, did not train employees to properly remove infectious disease PPE when exiting erectile dysfunction treatment positive areas to other areas of the facility, and allows employees who have tested positive for erectile dysfunction treatment to continue to work at the workplace. 5/6/21 Hospital failed to promptly remove employee with erectile dysfunction treatment from the workplace, notify other employees of their exposure to the erectile dysfunction treatment, and did not require employees to wear facemasks. 5/3/21 Doctor's office required employees to reuse isolation gowns to an extent not consistent with CDC guidance.

This ETS addresses numerous issues raised in these complaints, including physical distancing, PPE, cleaning and dis, and measures to keep contagious co-workers away from the workplace. Based on its thorough review of OSHA's existing approach to protecting employees from erectile dysfunction treatment, OSHA finds that existing OSHA standards, the General Duty Clause, and non-mandatory guidance issued by OSHA are not adequate to protect healthcare employees from erectile dysfunction treatment. Similarly, the numerous guidance products published by other entities, such as CDC, are not sufficiently effective at protecting these employees because such guidance is not enforceable and there is no penalty for noncompliance. OSHA has determined that each of these tools, as well any combination of them, is inadequate to address erectile dysfunction treatment-related hazards in the settings covered by this standard, thereby establishing the need for this ETS. This inadequacy has also been reflected in the number of states and localities that have issued their own mandatory standards in recognition that existing measures (including non-mandatory guidance, compliance assistance, and enforcement of existing standards) have failed to adequately protect workers from erectile dysfunction treatment.

While these state and local requirements may have had positive effects where they have been implemented, they are no replacement for a national standard that would establish definitively that erectile dysfunction treatment safety measures are no longer Start Printed Page 32416voluntary for the workers covered by this standard. Without a national standard, the patchwork of inconsistent requirements has proven both ineffective at a national level and burdensome to employers operating across jurisdictions, increasing compliance costs and potentially limiting the ability to implement protective measures at scale (See ORCHSE, October 9, 2020). Congress has charged OSHA with protecting America's workforce, and an ETS is the only measure capable of providing adequate protection to the workers covered by this standard from the grave danger posed by erectile dysfunction treatment. A. The Current Standards and Regulations Are Inadequate In updated enforcement guidance issued in March 2021 (OSHA, March 12, 2021), OSHA identified a number of current standards and regulations that might apply when workers have occupational exposure to erectile dysfunction (Interim Enforcement Response Plan) (OSHA, March 12, 2021).[] In addition to the standards listed there, OSHA has also cited the Hazard communication standard (29 CFR 1910.1200) during erectile dysfunction treatment investigations.

Accordingly, the complete list of potentially applicable standards and regulations follows. 29 CFR part 1904, Recording and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illnesses. This regulation requires certain employers to keep records of work-related fatalities, injuries, and illnesses and report them to the government in specific circumstances. 29 CFR 1910.132, General requirements—Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). This standard requires that appropriate PPE, including PPE for eyes, face, head, and extremities, protective clothing, respiratory devices, and protective shields and barriers, be provided, used, and maintained in a sanitary and reliable condition.

29 CFR 1910.134, Respiratory protection. This standard requires that employers provide, and ensure the use of, appropriate respiratory protection when necessary to protect employee health. 29 CFR 1910.141, Sanitation. This standard applies to permanent places of employment and contains, among other requirements, general housekeeping and waste disposal requirements. 29 CFR 1910.145, Specification for accident prevention signs and tags.

This standard requires the use of biological hazard signs and tags, in addition to other types of accident prevention signs and tags. 29 CFR 1910.1020, Access to employee exposure and medical records. This standard requires that employers provide employees and their designated representatives access to relevant exposure and medical records. 29 CFR 1910.1200, Hazard communication. This standard requires employers to keep Safety Data Sheets (SDS) for chemical hazards, provide SDSs to employees and their representatives when requested, and train employees about those hazards.

The standard does not apply to biological hazards, but hazard communication becomes an issue for the erectile dysfunction viagra when chemicals are used to disinfect surfaces. OSHA notes that, when such chemicals are used in the workplace, the employer is required to comply with the hazard communication standard. The agency has not incorporated hazard communication requirements in the ETS, but has included related training and notification requirements. Section 1910.1200 compliance is only peripherally related to protection against erectile dysfunction hazards, employers are generally aware of those requirements, and the requirements of § 1910.1200 are enforceable without being repeated in the ETS. Through its enforcement efforts to date, OSHA has encountered significant obstacles demonstrating that existing standards and regulations are inadequate to address the erectile dysfunction treatment hazard for healthcare workers, and has determined that a erectile dysfunction treatment ETS is necessary to address these inadequacies.

As discussed in further detail below, OSHA has determined that some of the above-listed standards—including Sanitation at § 1910.141—are in practice too difficult to apply to the erectile dysfunction treatment hazard and have never been cited in erectile dysfunction treatment enforcement. Other standards—such as Respiratory Protection at § 1910.134 and general PPE at § 1910.132—are more clearly applicable to the erectile dysfunction treatment hazard, but for a variety of reasons have offered little protection to the vast majority of employees who are not directly caring for patients with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment. Current CDC guidance does not indicate that respirators are generally needed outside of direct patient care, but CDC does support the protective measures the ETS would require for the workers it covers (Howard, May 22, 2021). Finally, the remaining listed standards and regulations—for recordkeeping and reporting, accident prevention signs and tags, access to employee records, and hazard communication—while applicable to the erectile dysfunction treatment hazard and important in the overall scheme of workplace safety, do not require employers to implement specific measures to protect workers from erectile dysfunction treatment. Further, as addressed in more detail below, even applicable regulations like the reporting requirements did not contemplate a hazard like erectile dysfunction treatment, and have proven to be difficult to apply to it.

Thus, for the reasons elaborated in further detail below, OSHA has determined that its existing standards and regulations are insufficient to adequately address the grave danger posed by erectile dysfunction treatment to healthcare workers. First, most of the safety measures known to reduce the hazard of erectile dysfunction treatment transmission are not explicitly required by existing standards. None expressly requires measures such as facilitating vaccination, facemasks, physical distancing, physical barriers, cleaning and dis (when appropriate), improved ventilation to reduce viagra transmission, isolation of sick employees, minimizing exposures in the highest hazard settings such as aerosol-generating procedures on patients with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment, patient screening and management, notification to employees potentially exposed to people with erectile dysfunction treatment, or training on these requirements. For example, although OSHA's existing Respiratory Protection and PPE standards require respirators and PPE such as gloves and face shields in some settings covered by the ETS, they do not require all of the other layers of protection required by the ETS that are necessary to mitigate the spread of erectile dysfunction treatment in the workplace. See Need for Specific Provisions (Section V of the preamble).

Similarly, while the Sanitation standard at § 1910.141(a)(3) requires places of employment “to be kept clean to the extent that the nature of the work allows,” the standard does not require dis of potentially contaminated surfaces nor does it speak to the level or frequency with which cleaning is required to protect against an infectious Start Printed Page 32417disease hazard like erectile dysfunction treatment. Accordingly, OSHA has not yet identified any instance in which the Sanitation standard could be applied in the agency's erectile dysfunction treatment enforcement efforts. Thus, OSHA's efforts to enforce existing standards to address the erectile dysfunction treatment hazard have been significantly hindered by the absence of any specific requirements in these standards related to some of the most important erectile dysfunction treatment-mitigation measures. The erectile dysfunction treatment ETS addresses this issue by clearly mandating each of these necessary protections. Second, because existing standards do not contain provisions specifically targeted at the erectile dysfunction treatment hazard, it may be difficult for employers and employees to determine what particular erectile dysfunction treatment safety measures are required by existing standards, or how the separate standards are expected to work together as applied to erectile dysfunction treatment.

As explained in more detail in the Need for Specific Provisions (Section V of the preamble), the control practices required to address erectile dysfunction treatment are most effective when used together, layering their protective impact. Because no such layered framework is currently enforced nationally, the existing standards leave large gaps in employee protection from erectile dysfunction treatment. An ETS with a national scope that contains provisions specifically addressing the erectile dysfunction treatment hazards facing healthcare workers will provide clearer instructions to the average employer than the piecemeal application of existing standards. The ETS bundles all of the relevant requirements, providing a roadmap for employers and employees to use when developing a plan and implementing protections, so that employers and employees in the settings covered by this standard know what is required to protect employees from erectile dysfunction treatment. More certainty will lead to more compliance, and more compliance will lead to improved protection of employees.

Third, requirements in some existing standards may be appropriate for other situations but simply do not contemplate erectile dysfunction treatment hazards. For example, as noted above, the Sanitation standard at § 1910.141 requires employers to provide warm water, soap, and towels that can be used for hand washing, an important protective action against erectile dysfunction treatment, and generally requires that places of employment be kept “clean,” but it does not specify dis as a cleaning procedure, even though dis is an important precaution against erectile dysfunction treatment transmission. Nor does it require the provision of hand sanitizer where hand washing facilities cannot be made readily available. Similarly, existing standards do not address facemasks for a hazard such as erectile dysfunction treatment, which protect other workers (source control) as well as provide some degree of protection to the wearer. The ETS, developed in direct response to the erectile dysfunction treatment hazard and associated viagra, provides this needed specificity so the employers covered by the ETS understand exactly what is required during this unprecedented public health emergency.

Fourth, the existing recordkeeping and reporting regulations are not adequate to help the employer or the agency assess the full scope of erectile dysfunction treatment workplace exposures. The recordkeeping regulations were not written with the nature of erectile dysfunction treatment transmission or illness in mind. In order to adequately understand and thereby control the spread of erectile dysfunction treatment in the workplace, it is critical that the employer has a record of all cases of erectile dysfunction treatment occurring among employees. However, such information is outside of the scope of OSHA's existing recordkeeping requirements, which are limited to injuries or illnesses that the employer knows to be work-related. The existing regulations are premised on the assumption that employers can easily identify injuries or illnesses that are work-related, but erectile dysfunction treatment transmission can occur in the workplace, the community, or the household, and it can be difficult to identify the point of transmission.

In numerous investigations, OSHA has identified employee illnesses or deaths from erectile dysfunction treatment that were not reflected in the employer's required recordkeeping logs because the employer was not able to determine whether the illness or death was work-related. The erectile dysfunction treatment log required by the ETS will provide a fuller picture of the prevalence of erectile dysfunction in the workplace by requiring employers to record employee cases without a work-relatedness determination. Furthermore, even where work-relatedness can be determined, the existing reporting regulations are also inadequate in ensuring OSHA has the full picture of the impact of erectile dysfunction treatment in the settings covered by this standard because the regulations only require employers to report in-patient hospitalizations that occur within 24 hours of the work-related incident and to report fatalities that occur within thirty days of the work-related incident. But many erectile dysfunction treatment s will not result in hospitalization or death until well after these limited reporting periods. Consequently they are not required to be reported to OSHA, which limits the agency's ability to fully understand the impact of erectile dysfunction treatment on the workforce.

In order to adequately understand and thereby control the spread of erectile dysfunction treatment in the workforce, it is critical that the employer has a record of all cases of erectile dysfunction treatment occurring among employees and that OSHA is timely informed of all work-related erectile dysfunction treatment in-patient hospitalizations and fatalities. OSHA's existing recordkeeping and reporting requirements are also inadequate for addressing the erectile dysfunction treatment hazard in the workplaces covered by the ETS because the current reporting structure does not require employers to notify employees of possible exposures in the workplace. While the recordkeeping requirements require employers to make illness and injury records available to employees, 29 CFR 1910.35(b)(2), they do not create an affirmative duty requiring employers to notify employees when they may have been exposed to another employee with the disease. Given the transmissibility of erectile dysfunction treatment, timely notification of an exposure is critical to curbing further spread of erectile dysfunction treatment and protecting employees from the erectile dysfunction treatment hazard. Thus, OSHA's existing recordkeeping and reporting requirements are not tailored to address hazards associated with erectile dysfunction treatment in the workplaces covered by the ETS.

As a result, they do not enable OSHA, employers, or employees to accurately identify and address such hazards. The ETS addresses that issue by requiring employers to record each instance identified by the employer in which an employee is erectile dysfunction treatment positive, regardless of whether the instance is connected to exposure to erectile dysfunction treatment at work. Requiring employers to report work-related, erectile dysfunction treatment in-patient hospitalizations and fatalities, regardless of when the exposure in the work environment occurred. And imposing an affirmative duty requiring employers to notify employees of erectile dysfunction treatment exposure. In conclusion, OSHA's experience has demonstrated that existing standards alone are inadequate to address the erectile dysfunction treatment hazard.

The limitations and inadequacies explained above prevent OSHA from requiring all of the layers of controls necessary to protect employees from erectile dysfunction treatment under these existing standards, even in situations that are clearly hazardous to employees. Thus, OSHA finds that its existing standards are not sufficient to protect employees from the grave danger posed by erectile dysfunction treatment.Start Printed Page 32418 b. The General Duty Clause Is Inadequate To Meet the Current Crisis Section 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act, or the General Duty Clause, provides the general mandate that each employer “furnish to each of [its] employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees.” 29 U.S.C. 654(a)(1). While OSHA has attempted to use the General Duty Clause to protect employees from erectile dysfunction treatment-related hazards, OSHA has found that there are significant challenges associated with this approach and therefore this ETS is necessary to protect the workers covered by this standard from the grave danger posed by erectile dysfunction treatment.

While the General Duty Clause can be used in many contexts, in OSHA's experience over the past year, the clause falls short of the agency's mandate to protect employees from the hazards of erectile dysfunction treatment in the settings covered by the standard. As explained more fully below, OSHA finds the ETS will more efficiently and effectively address those hazards. Cf. Bloodborne Pathogens, 56 FR 64004, 64007, 64038 (Dec. 6, 1991) (bloodborne pathogens standard will more efficiently reduce the risk of the hazard than can enforcement under the general duty clause).

As an initial matter, the General Duty Clause does not provide employers with specific requirements to follow or a roadmap for implementing appropriate abatement measures. The ETS, however, provides a clear statement of what OSHA expects employers to do to protect workers, thus facilitating better compliance. The General Duty Clause is so named because it imposes a general duty to keep the workplace free of recognized serious hazards. The ETS, in contrast, lays out clear requirements for erectile dysfunction treatment plans, facemasks, distancing, barriers, cleaning, personal protective equipment, and training, among other things, and identifies the settings in which they are required. Conveying obligations as clearly and specifically as possible provides employers with enhanced notice of how to comply with their OSH Act obligations to protect workers from erectile dysfunction treatment hazards.

See, e.g., Integra Health Mgmt., Inc., 2019 WL 1142920, at *7 n.10 (OSHRC No. 13-1124, 2019) (noting that standards “give clear notice of what is required of the regulated community”). 56 FR 64007 (“because the standard is much more specific than the current requirements [general standards and the general duty clause], employers and employees are given more guidance in carrying out the goal of reducing the risks of occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens”). Moreover, several characteristics of General Duty Clause enforcement actions limit how effectively OSHA can use the clause to address hazards associated with erectile dysfunction treatment. Most important, the General Duty Clause is not a good tool for requiring employers to adopt specific, overlapping, and complementary abatement measures, like those required by the ETS, and some important worker-protective elements of the ETS (such as payment for medical removal) would be virtually impossible for OSHA to require and enforce under the General Duty Clause.

Second, OSHA's burden of proof for establishing a General Duty Clause violation is heavier than for standards violations. Third, the ETS will enable OSHA to issue more meaningful penalties for willful or egregious violations, thus facilitating better enforcement and more effective deterrence against employers who intentionally disregard their obligations under the Act or demonstrate plain indifference to employee safety. Fourth, the General Duty Clause does not provide complete protection to employees at multi-employer worksites, which are common situations in hospitals, where more than one employer controls hazards at the workplace. The ETS will permit more thorough enforcement in these situations. Each of these is discussed in more detail below.

General Duty Clause Citations Impose a Heavy Litigation Burden on OSHA For contested General Duty Clause citations to be upheld, OSHA must demonstrate elements of proof that are supplementary to, and can be more difficult to show than, the elements of proof required for violations of specific standards, where a hazard is presumed. Specifically, to prove a violation of the General Duty Clause, OSHA needs to establish—in each individual case—that. (1) An activity or condition in the employer's workplace presented a hazard to an employee. (2) the hazard was recognized. (3) the hazard was causing or was likely to cause death or serious physical harm.

And (4) feasible means to eliminate or materially reduce the hazard existed. BHC Nw. Psychiatric Hosp., LLC v. Sec'y of Labor, 951 F.3d 558, 563 (D.C. Cir.

2020). For the first element of a General Duty Clause case, OSHA must prove that there is a hazard, i.e., a workplace condition or practice to which employees are exposed, creating the potential for death or serious physical harm to employees. See SeaWorld of Florida LLC v. Perez, 748 F.3d 1202, 1207 (D.C. Cir.

2014). Integra Health Management, 2019 WL 1142920, at *5. In the case of erectile dysfunction treatment, this means showing not just that the viagra is a hazard as a general matter—a fairly indisputable point—but also that the specific conditions in the cited workplace, such as performing administrative tasks in a waiting room setting where patients are seeking treatment for suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment, create a hazard. In contrast, an OSHA standard that requires or prohibits specific conditions or practices establishes the existence of a hazard. See Harry C.

Crooker &. Sons, Inc. V. Occupational Safety &. Health Rev.

Comm'n, 537 F.3d 79, 85 (1st Cir. 2008). Bunge Corp. V. Sec'y of Labor, 638 F.2d 831, 834 (5th Cir.

1981). Thus, in enforcement proceedings under OSHA standards, as opposed to the General Duty Clause, “the Secretary need not prove that the violative conditions are actually hazardous.” Modern Drop Forge Co. V. Sec'y of Labor, 683 F.2d 1105, 1114 (7th Cir. 1982).

With OSHA's finding that the hazard of exposure to erectile dysfunction treatment can exist in the workplaces covered by this standard (see Grave Danger, above), the ETS will eliminate the burden to repeatedly prove the existence of a erectile dysfunction treatment hazard in each individual case under the General Duty Clause. One of the most significant advantages to standards like the ETS that establish the existence of the hazard at the rulemaking stage is that the Secretary can require specific abatement measures without having to prove that the cited workplace is hazardous.[] In contrast, under the General Duty Clause, the Secretary cannot require abatement before proving in the enforcement proceeding that an existing condition at the workplace is hazardous. For example, in a facial challenge to OSHA's Grain Handling Standard, which was promulgated in part to protect employees from the risk of fire and explosion from accumulations of grain dust, the Fifth Circuit acknowledged OSHA's inability to effectively protect employees from these hazards under the General Duty Clause in upholding, in large part, the standard. Start Printed Page 32419See Nat'l Grain &. Feed Ass'n v.

Occupational Safety &. Health Admin., 866 F.2d 717, 721 (5th Cir. 1988) (noting Secretary's difficulty in proving explosion hazards of grain handling under General Duty Clause). Although OSHA had attempted to address fire and explosion hazards in the grain handling industry under the General Duty Clause, “employers generally were successful in arguing that OSHA had not proved that the specific condition cited could cause a fire or explosion.” Id. At 721 &.

N.6 (citing cases holding that OSHA failed to establish a fire or explosion hazard under the General Duty Clause). In other words, the General Duty Clause was not an effective tool because OSHA could not prove that existing conditions at the cited workplace were hazardous. The Grain Handling Standard, in contrast, established specific limits on accumulations of grain dust based on its combustible and explosive nature, and the standard allowed OSHA to cite employers for exceeding those limits without the need to prove at the enforcement stage that each cited accumulation was likely to cause a fire or explosion. See id. At 725-26.

The same logic applies to erectile dysfunction treatment hazards. Given OSHA's burden under the General Duty Clause to prove that conditions at the cited workplace are hazardous, it is difficult for OSHA to ensure necessary abatement before employee lives and health are unnecessarily endangered by exposure to erectile dysfunction treatment. The ETS, on the other hand, allows OSHA to cite employers for each protective requirement they fail to implement without the need to prove in an enforcement proceeding that the particular cited workplace was hazardous at the time of citation without that particular measure in place. An additional limitation of the General Duty Clause is that it requires OSHA to show that there was a feasible and effective means of abating the hazard. To satisfy this element, OSHA is required to prove that there are abatement measures that will be effective in materially reducing the hazard.

See Integra Health Management, 2019 WL 1142920, at *12. Proving the existence of feasible abatement measures that will be effective in materially reducing the hazard usually requires testimony from an expert witness, which limits OSHA's ability to prosecute these cases as broadly as needed to protect more workers. See, e.g., id. At *13 (requiring expert witness to prove proposed abatement measures would materially reduce hazard). In contrast, where an OSHA standard specifies the means of compliance, the agency has already made the necessary technical determinations in the rulemaking and therefore does not need to establish feasibility of compliance as part of its prima facie case in an enforcement proceeding.

Instead, the employer bears the burden of proving infeasibility as an affirmative defense. See, e.g., A.J. McNulty &. Co. V.

Sec'y of Labor, 283 F.3d 328, 334 (D.C. Cir. 2002). S. Colorado Prestress Co.

V. Occupational Safety &. Health Rev. Comm'n, 586 F.2d 1342, 1351 (10th Cir. 1978).

Protecting as many workers as quickly as possible is especially critical in the context of erectile dysfunction treatment because, as explained in Section IV.A, Grave Danger, it can spread so easily in the workplaces covered by this ETS. The General Duty Clause Is Ill-Suited to Requiring Employers To Adopt a Comprehensive Set of Complementary Abatement Measures, Like Those Required by the ETS As explained in Section V. Need for the Specific Provisions of the ETS, effective control programs use a suite of overlapping controls in a layered approach to ensure that no inherent weakness in any one approach results in an incident. Each of the practices required by the ETS provides some protection from erectile dysfunction treatment on its own, but the practices must be used together to ensure adequate worker protection. However, General Duty Clause enforcement poses key obstacles that prevent OSHA from requiring the types of overlapping controls necessary to address erectile dysfunction treatment hazards.

Because the General Duty Clause requires OSHA to establish the existence and feasibility of abatement measures that can materially reduce a hazard, it can be difficult for OSHA to use 5(a)(1) to require a full suite of overlapping or complementary control measures, or, in other words, to require additional abatement measures in situations where an employer is doing something, but not everything the ETS will require, to address erectile dysfunction treatment hazards. In many cases over the past year where OSHA investigated erectile dysfunction treatment-related complaints, the agency discovered that employers were following some minimal mitigation strategy while ignoring other crucial components of employee protection. In such instances, because the employer had taken some steps to protect workers, successfully proving a General Duty Clause citation would have required OSHA to show that additional missing measures would have further materially reduced the erectile dysfunction treatment hazard. Although OSHA believes each measure required by this ETS materially reduces the erectile dysfunction treatment hazard, there are key challenges inherent in trying to make such a showing in an individual case, such as the difficulty of pinpointing exactly when and how employees could become infected with erectile dysfunction treatment and establishing the magnitude of the effect particular abatement measures would have on reducing in the specific conditions present in the employer's workplace. See, e.g., Pepperidge Farm, Inc., 17 OSH Cas.

(BNA) 1993, 1997 WL 212599, at *51 (OSHRC No. 89-265, Apr. 26, 1997) (finding that additional feasible abatement measure established by the Secretary to address ergonomic hazard did not materially reduce the hazard in light of the other steps the employer had taken). The ETS cures this problem by imposing separate requirements for, and establishing the general effectiveness of, each necessary mitigation measure, thereby ensuring employers have an enforceable obligation to provide the full suite of workplace protections recommended by the CDC and other expert bodies. Consider a hospital setting where patients with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment receive treatment.

The employer requires respirators for employees providing direct care to those patients but little else to protect those employees or other workers in those settings who are not directly involved in patient care. Under the ETS, OSHA can cite the employer for violating the specific requirements necessary to protect all workers in those settings, such as facemasks for workers who are not directly caring for patients, physical distancing or barriers between administrative employees and patients who have not yet been screened for suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment, work practice controls for employees performing aerosol-generating procedures on people with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment, patient screening and management, paid leave for vaccination, and medical removal protection. Without the ETS, however, OSHA would have to cite the employer under the General Duty Clause for the much broader violation of failing to eliminate the recognized workplace hazard of erectile dysfunction treatment . This would require OSHA to prove. (1) That the hazard of erectile dysfunction treatment was present and recognized for employees at this particular healthcare workplace, and (2) that additional abatement methods would materially reduce the hazard, over and above the reduction achieved by the use of respirators as already required under 29 CFR 1910.134 for Start Printed Page 32420exposure to people with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment.

Both of these elements would likely require expert witness testimony specific to conditions in this particular workplace, and it may be difficult to establish that each layer of protection necessary to comprehensively protect employees would have materially reduced the hazard depending on the facts of the specific instance. Further, even where OSHA establishes a violation of the General Duty Clause, the employer is under no obligation to implement the precise feasible means of abatement proven by OSHA as part of its prima facie case. Cyrus Mines Corp., 11 OSH Cas. (BNA) 1063, 1982 WL 22717, at *4 (OSHRC No. 76-616, Dec.

17, 1983). Thus, even in cases where OSHA prevails, the employer need not necessarily implement the specific abatement measure(s) OSHA established would materially reduce the hazard. The employer could select alternative controls and then it would be up to OSHA, if it wished to cite the employer again, to establish that the recognized hazard continued to exist and that adding physical distancing or barriers, for example, could materially reduce the hazard even further. Finally, there are some crucial requirements in the ETS that OSHA would have difficulty enforcing under the General Duty Clause. Of particular note, OSHA is adopting provisions in the ETS that require paid time for vaccination and recovery from treatment side effects, and removal of erectile dysfunction treatment-positive employees and other workers exposed to them from the workplace and payment of salary for employees who are removed (medical removal protection, or “MRP”).

These provisions are critical to protecting workers because they facilitate vaccination, which is the preferred means of protecting workers exposed to erectile dysfunction treatment hazards, and removal of infected employees and their close contacts as soon as the employer knows they have erectile dysfunction treatment. Additional discussion of the importance of these provisions can be found in Section V. Need for the Specific Provisions of the ETS. While it might be possible for OSHA to establish the value of vaccination as a protective measure and the need to remove known infected employees in a General Duty Clause case, it is highly unlikely that OSHA could require payment to those employees, or other measures to encourage employees to get vaccinated or to let their employers know when they test positive for erectile dysfunction treatment. Rather, paid leave for vaccination and MRP are measures better implemented through OSHA's statutory authority to promulgate standards.

Standards are forward-looking and can be used to create a comprehensive network of required, and in this case of layered, worker safety protections. The ETS creates just such a network, and vaccination and MRP are important layers of that approach. The ETS Will Permit OSHA To Achieve Meaningful Deterrence When Necessary To Address Willful or Egregious Failures To Protect Employees Against the erectile dysfunction treatment Hazard As described above, in contrast to the broad language of the General Duty Clause, the ETS will clarify what exactly employers are required to do to protect employees from erectile dysfunction treatment-related hazards, making it easier for OSHA to determine whether an employer has intentionally disregarded its obligations or exhibited a plain indifference to employee safety or health. In such instances, OSHA can classify the citations as “willful,” allowing it to propose higher penalties, with increased deterrent effects. Early in the viagra, shifting guidance on the safety measures employers should take to protect their employees from erectile dysfunction treatment created ambiguity regarding employers' specific obligations.

Thus, OSHA could not readily determine whether a particular employer had “intentionally” disregarded obligations that were not yet clear. And, even as the guidance began to stabilize, OSHA's ability to determine “intentional disregard” or “plain indifference” was difficult, for example, when an employer took some, but not all, of the necessary steps to sufficiently address the erectile dysfunction treatment hazard. Given the current understanding that multiple layers of protection are necessary to adequately protect workers from erectile dysfunction treatment, an ETS will ensure that employers have clearer notice of their obligations. This will allow the agency to take appropriate steps to redress the situation where an employer has intentionally disregarded the requirements necessary to protect employees from the erectile dysfunction treatment hazard, or has acted with plain indifference to employee safety. Further, OSHA has adopted its “egregious” policy to impose sufficiently large penalties to achieve appropriate deterrence against bad actor employers who willfully disregard their obligation to protect their employees when certain aggravating circumstances are present, such as a large number of injuries or illnesses, bad faith, or an extensive history of noncompliance.

(OSHA Directive CPL 02-00-080 (October 21, 1990.)) Its purpose is to increase the impact of OSHA's enforcement ability. This policy uses OSHA's authority to issue a separate penalty for each instance of willful noncompliance with an OSHA standard, such as each employee lacking the same required protections, or each workstation lacking the same required controls. It can be more difficult to use this policy under the General Duty Clause because the Fifth Circuit and the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission have held that OSHA may only cite a hazardous condition once under the General Duty Clause, regardless of its scope. Reich v. Arcadian Corp., 110 F.3d 1192, 1199 (5th Cir.

1997). Thus, even where OSHA finds that an employer willfully failed to protect a large number of employees from a erectile dysfunction treatment hazard, OSHA likely could not cite the employer on a per-instance basis for failing to protect each of its employees. A erectile dysfunction treatment-specific ETS will clarify the permissible units of prosecution and thereby make clear OSHA's authority to separately cite employers for each instance of the employer's failure to protect employees and for each affected employee, where appropriate. By providing needed clarity, the ETS will facilitate “willful” and “egregious” determinations that are critical enforcement tools OSHA can use to adequately address violations by employers who have shown a conscious disregard for the health and safety of their workers in response to the viagra. Without the necessary clarity, OSHA has been limited in its ability to impose penalties high enough to motivate the very large employers who are unlikely to be deterred by penalty assessments of tens of thousands of dollars, but whose noncompliance can endanger thousands of workers.

Without a willful classification (or a substantially similar prior violation), the maximum penalty for a serious General Duty Clause violation is $13,653, regardless of the scope of the hazard. The General Duty Clause Provides Incomplete Protection at Multi-Employer Worksites Finally, the General Duty Clause has limited application to multi-employer worksites like hospitals, as it cannot be used to cite an employer whose own employees were not exposed to a hazard even if that employer may have created, contributed to, or controlled the hazard. See Solis v. Summit Contractors, Inc., 558 F.3d 815, 818 (8th Cir. 2009) (“Subsection (a)(1) [the General Duty Clause] creates a general duty running only to an employer's own employees, Start Printed Page 32421while subsection (a)(2) creates a specific duty to comply with standards for the good of all employees on a multi-employer worksite.”).

For example, if a janitorial services contractor were to send one employee who is erectile dysfunction treatment positive into a healthcare setting and knowingly allow that employee to work around employees of other employers, the janitorial services contractor who created the hazard could not be issued a General Duty Clause citation because none of that employer's own employees would have been exposed to the hazard. This limitation of the General Duty Clause can prevent OSHA from citing the employer on a multi-employer worksite who may be the most responsible for an existing erectile dysfunction treatment hazard or best positioned to mitigate that hazard. For all of the reasons described above, OSHA finds that the General Duty Clause is not an adequate enforcement tool to protect the employees covered by this standard from the grave danger posed by erectile dysfunction treatment. C. OSHA and Other Entity Guidance Is Insufficient OSHA has issued numerous non-mandatory guidance products to advise employers on how to protect workers from erectile dysfunction .

(See https://www.osha.gov/​erectile dysfunction) Even the most comprehensive guidance makes clear, as it must, that the guidance itself imposes no new legal obligations, and that its recommendations are “advisory in nature.” (See OSHA's online guidance, Protecting Workers. Guidance on Mitigating and Preventing the Spread of erectile dysfunction treatment in the Workplace (January 29, 2021). And OSHA's earlier 35-page booklet, Guidance on Preparing Workplaces for erectile dysfunction treatment (March 9, 2020)). This guidance, as well as guidance materials issued by other government agencies and organizations, including the CDC, the Centers for Medicare &. Medicaid Services (CMS), the Institute of Medicine (IOM), and the World Health Organization (WHO), help protect employees to the extent that employers voluntarily choose to implement the practices they recommend.[] Unfortunately, OSHA's experience shows that does not happen consistently or rigorously enough, resulting in inadequate protection for employees.

As documented in numerous peer-reviewed scientific publications, CDC, IOM, and WHO have recognized a lack of compliance with non-mandatory recommended -control practices (Siegel et al., 2007. IOM, 2009. WHO, 2009). OSHA was aware of these findings when it previously concluded that an ETS was not necessary, but at the time of that conclusion, the agency erroneously believed that it would be able to effectively use the non-mandatory guidance as a basis for establishing the mandatory requirements of the General Duty Clause, and informing employers of their compliance obligations under existing standards. As explained above, that has not proven to be an effective strategy.

Moreover, when OSHA made its initial necessity determination at the beginning of the viagra, it made an assumption that given the unprecedented nature of the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra, there would be an unusual level of widespread voluntary compliance by the regulated community with erectile dysfunction treatment-related safety guidelines (see, e.g., DOL, May 29, 2020 at 20 (observing that “[n]ever in the last century have the American people been as mindful, wary, and cautious about a health risk as they are now with respect to erectile dysfunction treatment,” and that many “protective measures are being implemented voluntarily, as reflected in a plethora of industry guidelines, company-specific plans, and other sources”)). Since that time, however, developments have led OSHA to conclude that the same uneven compliance documented by CDC, IOM, and WHO is also occurring for the erectile dysfunction treatment guidance issued by OSHA and other agencies. This was evidenced by a cross-sectional study performed from late summer to early fall of 2020 in New York and New Jersey that found non-compliance and widespread inconsistencies in erectile dysfunction treatment response programs (Koshy et al., February 4, 2021). Several other factors have also been found to contribute to uneven implementation of controls to prevent the spread of erectile dysfunction treatment. For example, there has been a reported rise of “erectile dysfunction treatment fatigue” or “viagra fatigue”—i.e., a decrease in voluntary use of erectile dysfunction treatment mitigation measures over time (Silva and Martin, November 14, 2020.

Meichtry et al., October 26, 2020. Belanger and Leander, December 9, 2020). In addition, the fear of financial loss. Skepticism about the danger posed by erectile dysfunction treatment. And even a simple human tendency, called “psychological reactance,” to resist curbs on personal freedoms, i.e., an urge to do the opposite of what somebody tells you to do, may also play a role in the uneven implementation of erectile dysfunction treatment mitigation measures (Belanger and Leander, December 9, 2020.

Markman, April 20, 2020). The high number of erectile dysfunction treatment-related complaints and reports also suggests a lack of widespread compliance with existing voluntary guidance. Although the number of employee complaints is declining, OSHA continues to receive hundreds of complaints every month, including complaints alleging that healthcare employers are not consistently following non-mandatory CDC guidance to protect employees. If guidance were followed more strictly, or if there were enough voluntary compliance with steps to prevent illness, OSHA would expect to see a significant reduction in erectile dysfunction treatment-related complaints from employees. The dramatic increases in the percentage of the population that contracted the viagra toward the end of 2020 and in early 2021 indicated a continued risk of erectile dysfunction treatment spread in workplace settings (for more information on the prevalence of erectile dysfunction treatment see Grave Danger (Section IV.A of the preamble)) despite OSHA's publication of numerous specific and comprehensive guidance documents.

OSHA has found that neither reliance on voluntary action by employers nor OSHA non-mandatory guidance is an adequate substitute for specific, mandatory workplace standards at the federal level. Public Citizen v. Auchter, 702 F.2d 1150 at 1153 (voluntary action by employers “alerted and responsive” to new health data is not an adequate substitute for government action). The ETS is one aspect of the national response to the viagra that is needed to improve compliance with control measures by establishing clear, enforceable measures that put covered employers on notice that they must, Start Printed Page 32422rather than should, take action to protect their employees. For these reasons, OSHA finds that non-mandatory guidance efforts are not sufficient, by themselves or in conjunction with General Duty Clause enforcement, to protect employees covered by this ETS from being infected by, and suffering death or serious health consequences from, erectile dysfunction treatment.

D. A Uniform Nationwide Response to the viagra Is Necessary To Protect Workers OSHA is charged by Congress with protecting the health and safety of American workers. Yet OSHA's previous approach proved ineffective in meeting that charge. While some states and localities stepped in to fill the gaps in employee protection, these approaches do not provide consistent protection to workers and have, in some cases, been relaxed prematurely, leading to additional outbreaks (Hatef et al., April 2021). In some states there are no workplace requirements at all.

OSHA has determined that a Federal standard is needed to ensure sufficient protection for employees in all states in the settings covered by this ETS. Clarity and consistency about the obligations employers have to protect their employees in these settings. And a level playing field among employers. As the viagra has continued in the United States, there has been increasing recognition of the need for a more consistent national approach (GAO, September 2020. Budryk, November 17, 2020.

Horsley, May 1, 2020). One of the justifications for OSHA standards has always been to “level the playing field” so that employers who proactively protect their workforces are not placed at a competitive disadvantage (Am. Textile Mfrs. Inst. V.

Donovan, 452 U.S. 490, 521 n.38 (1981)). Many employers have advised OSHA that they would welcome a nationwide ETS for that reason. For example, in its October 9, 2020 petition for a erectile dysfunction treatment ETS, ORCHSE Strategies, LLC explained that it is “imperative” that OSHA issue an ETS to provide employers one standardized set of requirements to address safety and health for their workers (ORCHSE, October 9, 2020). This group of prominent business representatives explained that an ETS would eliminate confusion and unnecessary burden on workplaces that are struggling to understand how best to protect their employees in the face of confusing and differing requirements across states and localities.

While noting that “OSHA could not pre-empt a State from keeping its own rule (assuming it is `at least as effective' as OSHA's standard),” they also observed that “historically, the impact of federal rulemaking in similar situations (e.g., HazCom) has been that most, if not all, of the States ultimately adhere to the federal requirements. . . . That can only be accomplished if OSHA takes the lead” (id.).

€œWithout an ETS,” they continue, “employers are left on their own to determine the preventive measures that need to be undertaken” (id.). Given that thousands of healthcare employees each week continue to be infected with erectile dysfunction treatment, many of whom will become hospitalized or die, OSHA recognizes that a patchwork approach to worker safety has not been successful in mitigating this infectious disease outbreak, and that an ETS is necessary to provide clear and consistent protection to covered employees across the country. E. OSHA's Other Previous Rationales for Not Promulgating an ETS No Longer Apply In addition to asserting that existing standards, guidance, and the General Duty Clause would provide sufficient tools to address erectile dysfunction treatment hazards to employees, OSHA had previously cited the need to respond to evolving scientific knowledge about the viagra as part of its rationale for not issuing an ETS during the late spring of 2020. Knowledge of the nature of erectile dysfunction treatment was undoubtedly less certain at the beginning of the viagra when OSHA made its initial determination that an ETS was not necessary.

There have been recent changes in CDC recommendations for vaccinated people outside the healthcare context. However, for unvaccinated workers, since the summer of 2020 there has been considerable stability in the guidance from the CDC and other health organizations regarding the basic precautions that are essential to protect unvaccinated people from exposure to erectile dysfunction treatment while indoors. And the CDC still recommends these precautions to protect vaccinated workers in healthcare settings. For example, the CDC's erectile dysfunction treatment guidance on How to Protect Yourself &. Others (CDC, March 8, 2021) includes the same guidance it issued in July 2020 regarding the basic protections of face coverings, distancing, barriers, and hand hygiene.

Moreover, OSHA's previous concern—that an ETS would unintentionally enshrine requirements that are subsequently proven ineffective in reducing transmission—has proven to be overstated. Moreover, even after issuing an ETS OSHA retains the flexibility to update the ETS to adjust to the subsequent evolution of CDC workplace guidance. The major development in control over the last year—the development, authorization, and growing distribution and use of erectile dysfunction treatments—is addressed in the ETS. Going forward, further developments can be addressed through OSHA's authority to modify the ETS if needed, or to withdraw it entirely if vaccination and other efforts end the current emergency. Nothing in the D.C.

Circuit's decision in In re Am. Fed'n of Labor &. Cong. Of Indus. Orgs., No.

20-1158, 2020 WL 3125324 (AFL-CIO, June 11, 2020). Rehearing en banc denied (July 28, 2020) precludes OSHA's decision to promulgate an ETS now. To the contrary, at an early phase of the viagra, when its most severe effects had not yet been experienced, the court decided not to second-guess OSHA's decision to hold off on regulation in order to see if its non-regulatory enforcement tools could be used to provide adequate protection against the viagra. €œOSHA's decision not to issue an ETS is entitled to considerable deference,” the court explained, noting the “the unprecedented nature of the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra” and concluding merely that “OSHA reasonably determined that an ETS is not necessary at this time.” (Id., with emphasis added). Finally, it is worth noting that OSHA's conclusion as to the ineffectiveness of the current approach—i.e., relying on existing enforcement tools and voluntary guidance—is supported by a report issued by the DOL Office of Inspector General, dated February 25, 2021, which concluded after an investigation that OSHA's prior approach to addressing the hazards of erectile dysfunction treatment leaves employees across the country at increased risk of erectile dysfunction treatment (DOL OIG, February 25, 2021).

The DOL OIG report specifically recommended that OSHA reconsider its prior decision not to issue an ETS to provide the necessary protection to employees from the hazards of erectile dysfunction treatment. F. Even in Combination, the Guidance and General Duty Clause Are Still Inadequate Early in the viagra, OSHA took the position that existing standards, together with the combination of non-mandatory guidance and General Duty Clause citations, would be sufficient to protect employees so that specific mandatory requirements would not be necessary. In theory, where existing standards did not address an issue directly, the remaining regulatory gap could be filled by guidance from OSHA, Start Printed Page 32423which would provide notice of erectile dysfunction treatment hazards and describe feasible means of abating them, enabling OSHA to later issue a General Duty Clause citation to an employer who had failed to follow that guidance. OSHA's enforcement experience has now disproven that theory.

As explained above, existing standards leave an enormous regulatory gap that OSHA's guidance, together with the General Duty Clause, cannot cover for the settings covered by this ETS. In practice, the combination of guidance and General Duty Clause authority has done little to protect employees in settings covered by the standard where employers were not focused on that goal. The limitations identified above, including the heavy litigation burden for General Duty Clause citations, remain. Instead of being able to rely on clear requirements in a standard, employers were left to wade through guidance not only from OSHA but also from multiple other agencies, states, media, and other sources without any clarity as to how the different guidance materials should work together or what to do when alternative guidance did not square with OSHA's guidance. Perhaps because OSHA's guidance was not mandatory, it was frequently ignored or followed only in part.

As explained above, the General Duty Clause's shortcomings as an enforcement tool left OSHA, in most cases, ultimately unable to impose all of the layers of protection necessary to protect employees from erectile dysfunction treatment. In sum, based on its enforcement experience during the viagra to date, OSHA concludes that continued reliance on existing standards, together with the combination of guidance and General Duty Clause obligations, in lieu of an ETS, will not protect employees covered by this ETS against the grave danger posed by erectile dysfunction treatment. G. Recent treatment Developments Demonstrate the Importance of the ETS. They Do Not Obviate the Current Need for an ETS The development and availability of safe and highly effective treatments is an important development in the nation's response to erectile dysfunction treatment.

The very low percentage of breakthrough cases (illness among vaccinated people) have led to recent updates to CDC guidance acknowledging vaccination as an effective control to prevent hospitalization and death from erectile dysfunction treatment to such an extent that the CDC has concluded that most other controls are not necessary to protect vaccinated people outside healthcare settings. In the United States, all people ages 12 and older are eligible to be vaccinated, and treatments are readily available in most parts of the country. However, despite the remarkable success of our nation's treatment program and the substantial promise that treatments hold, as explained below, OSHA does not believe they eliminate the need for this standard. OSHA embraces the value of vaccination and views the ETS as essential to facilitating access to this critical control for those workers who wish to receive it while still protecting those who cannot be, or will not be, vaccinated. And by excluding certain workplaces and well-defined work areas where all employees are fully vaccinated from all requirements of the standard (paragraphs (a)(2)(iv) and (v)), and exempting fully vaccinated workers in certain settings where not all employees are vaccinated from several requirements of the standard (paragraph (a)(4)), the ETS encourages vaccination for employers and employees who do not want to follow those requirements.

In addition, for treatments to be effective, workers need first to actually receive them. While the supply of treatments and their distribution continues to increase, as of the date of the promulgation of this standard, approximately a quarter of healthcare workers have not yet completed erectile dysfunction treatment vaccination with many of those expressing treatment hesitation (King et al., April 24, 2021). Although a majority of Americans over 65 are vaccinated, the percentage among the working-age population is much lower (44%) (CDC, May 24, 2021a). There are several barriers to vaccination for the working-age population. Many employees who want to be vaccinated may be unable to do so unless the employer authorizes time off work, or may be financially unable to absorb a reduced paycheck for taking unpaid leave to be vaccinated or potentially missing a significantly larger period of time from work (and a larger financial hit) because of the potential side effects of the vaccination (SEIU Healthcare, February 8, 2021).

A recent Kaiser Foundation survey of people who expressed reluctance to be vaccinated indicates that 70% of those respondents (76% and 77% among Black and Latinx respondents, respectively) were concerned about side effects, and 45% (57% Black and 54% Latinx) cited fears that they might miss work if the side effects made them sick (KFF, May 6, 2021). Another recent study, which surveyed 500 businesses, found that paid time off for vaccination and recovery was the highest overall motivator for employees to get vaccinated (51%), which was even higher than employers offering the treatment on site (49%) (Azimi et al., April 9, 2021). Yet a different report indicates that before the viagra, about 70% of the lowest-wage workers had no access to paid sick leave, meaning that any time off for vaccination or recovery would result in lost wages for those who can least afford those losses (Gould, February 28, 2020). Despite the American Rescue Plan (ARP) extending tax credits for some employers to allow this sort of sick leave, such leave is not mandated. Those surveys are consistent with the experience among healthcare workers at Yale University and Yale New Haven Hospital.

When workers were surveyed at the time the FDA granted Emergency Use Authorization of the Pfizer-BioNTech treatment, the lack of incentives or mitigation of risk (e.g., not using sick days or pay loss for side effects) was a key reason stated by people who identified themselves as unlikely to get the treatment. (Roy et al., December 29, 2020). Following four months of vaccination efforts, researchers found that although 75% had been vaccinated, roughly half of low wage, hourly employees, had not yet been vaccinated, and based on their previous research, identified the provision of additional paid sick leave days as a critical barrier for this population of workers (Roy and Forman, April 7, 2021). Even when employees can arrange for time off for the first dose, some of the same difficulties may prevent workers from returning during the designated time window for the second dose of two-dose treatments. The ETS addresses these obstacles with a requirement that employers must authorize paid leave to cover the time for vaccination and for recovery from side effects.

Further, there is a need to continue building treatment confidence in some parts of the population, making the ETS even more important to assure safe working conditions during the period before these workers are vaccinated. Moreover, as discussed in more depth in Grave Danger (Section IV.A. Of the preamble), even though treatments are now more readily available, they do not protect all workers. Some workers are unable to be vaccinated for medical or other reasons, even if they are willing to be. And in immunocompromised workers, treatments can be considerably less effective than in immunocompetent individuals.[] And while some Start Printed Page 32424employees may simply elect not to be vaccinated for personal reasons, OSHA has a statutory duty to ensure that employers protect those employees from the grave danger of erectile dysfunction treatment regardless of their basis for refusing vaccination.

These factors, along with the uneven vaccination rates among some sub-populations, make the need for this ETS especially acute. For example, the Latinx and Black populations who have been disproportionately harmed by the viagra also have the lowest vaccination rates (Ndugga et al., February 18, 2021. CDC, May 24, 2021a). This ETS can help facilitate vaccination among those groups, protect those who cannot or will not be vaccinated, and thereby mitigate the disproportionate impacts of the viagra for workers in these groups. Even when the ETS helps currently unvaccinated workers overcome the obstacles to becoming vaccinated, they must still be protected by the other measures of this standard until they are fully protected by the treatment.

With the two-dose treatments in particular, the time from a first shot to fully effective vaccination is 5 to 6 weeks. Furthermore, also increasing are new viagra variants, the most prevalent of which, the B.1.1.7 variant first identified in the U.K., now appears responsible for almost 66% of the cases in the U.S (CDC, May 24, 2021b). While the currently authorized treatments appear effective against all of the variants now circulating, promoting vaccination as quickly as possible becomes even more critical because the variant is not only more transmissible, it also appears to cause more severe disease. Finally, while the science continues to develop, the full extent and duration of the immune response remains unknown. Additional evidence is also needed to determine the extent to which people who are vaccinated could still be infected and transmit the disease to others, even if they themselves are protected from the worst health effects.

Although such cases do not appear to be common, the ETS would help protect these employees and their co-workers in mixed groups of vaccinated and unvaccinated people. These issues, as elaborated further in the discussion of Grave Danger, demonstrate that the various protections required in this ETS are still necessary, even for workplaces in which many but not all members of the workforce have been vaccinated. This viagra has taken a devastating toll on all of American society, and addressing it requires a whole-of-government response (White House, April 2, 2021). This ETS is part of that response. OSHA shares the nation's hope for the promise of recovery created by the treatments.

But in the meantime, it also recognizes that measures to mitigate the spread of erectile dysfunction treatment, including encouraging and facilitating vaccination, are still necessary in the settings covered by this standard. However, although OSHA finds it necessary to continue these mitigation measures for the immediate future, the agency will adjust as conditions change. As more of the workforce becomes vaccinated and the post-vaccination evidence base continues to grow, and the CDC updates its guidance, OSHA will withdraw or modify the ETS to the extent the workplace hazard is substantially diminished in the settings covered by this ETS. However, at this point in time, the available evidence indicates that the ETS is still necessary to protect employees in the settings covered by this ETS, and the potential for higher immunity rates later on does not obviate the need to implement the ETS now. References Agency for Clinical Innovation (ACI).

(2021, 28 April). Evidence check. Immunocompromised patients and erectile dysfunction treatments. Https://aci.health.nsw.gov.au/​__​data/​assets/​pdf_​file/​0009/​645750/​Evidence-check-Immunocompromised-patients-erectile dysfunction treatment-treatments.pdf. (ACI, 28 April, 2021).

Agha et al., (2021, April 7). Suboptimal response to erectile dysfunction treatment mRNA treatments in hematologic malignancies patients. MedRxiv 2021.04.06.21254949. Https://doi.org/​10.1101/​2021.04.06.21254949. (Agha et al., April 7, 2021).

American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, USCA Case #20-1158, Document #1846700. (2020, June 11). (AFL-CIO, June 11, 2020). American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations. Denial of Petition for Rehearing En Banc on Behalf Of American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations.

USCA Case #20-1158, Document #1853761. (2020, July 28). (AFL-CIO, July 28, 2020). Azimi, T et al., (2021, April 9).Getting to work. Employers' role in erectile dysfunction treatment vaccination.

Https://www.mckinsey.com/​industries/​pharmaceuticals-and-medical-products/​our-insights/​getting-to-work-employers-role-in-erectile dysfunction treatment-vaccination#. (Azimi, April 9, 2021). Belanger, J and Leander, P. (2020, December 9). What Motivates erectile dysfunction treatment Rule Breakers?.

Scientific American. Https://www.scientificamerican.com/​article/​what-motivates-erectile dysfunction treatment-rule-breakers/​. (Belanger and Leander, December 9, 2020). Boyarsky, BJ et al., (2021, May 5). Antibody Response to 2-Dose erectile dysfunction mRNA treatment Series in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients.

JAMA. 2021 May 5. Doi. 10.1001/jama.2021.7489. PMID.

33950155. (Boyarsky et al., May 5, 2021). Budryk, Z. (2020, November 17). Fauci calls for `a uniform approach' to erectile dysfunction viagra.

The Hill. Https://thehill.com/​policy/​healthcare/​526378-fauci-calls-for-a-uniform-approach-to-the-erectile dysfunction-viagra?. €‹rl=​1. (Budryk, November 17, 2020). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

(2020, May 28). United States erectile dysfunction (erectile dysfunction treatment) Death Toll Surpasses 100,000. Https://www.cdc.gov/​media/​releases/​2020/​s0528-erectile dysfunction-death-toll.html. (CDC, May 28, 2020). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

(2021, March 8). How to Protect Yourself &. Others. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​prevent-getting-sick/​prevention.html. (CDC, March 8, 2021).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021a, May 24). Demographic Trends of People Receiving erectile dysfunction treatment Vaccinations in the United States. Https://erectile dysfunction treatment.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction treatment-data-tracker/​#vaccination-demographics-trends. (CDC, May 24, 2021a).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021b, May 24). Variant Proportions. Https://erectile dysfunction treatment.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction treatment-data-tracker/​#variant-proportions. (CDC, May 24, 2021b).

Deepak, et al., (2021, April 7). Glucocorticoids and B Cell Depleting Agents Substantially Impair Immunogenicity of mRNA treatments to erectile dysfunction. MedRxiv 2021.04.05.21254656. Https://doi.org/​10.1101/​2021.04.05.21254656. (Deepak et al., April 7, 2021).

Fendt, L. (2020, September 30). The JBS erectile dysfunction Outbreak is Officially Resolved, but Workers' Families Are Still Fighting For Compensation. CPR News. Https://www.cpr.org/​2020/​09/​30/​colorado-erectile dysfunction-jbs-outbreak-resolved-workers-families-want-compensation/​.

(Fendt, September 30, 2020).Start Printed Page 32425 Gould. E. (2020, February 28). Lack of paid sick days and large numbers of uninsured increase risks of spreading the erectile dysfunction. Https://www.epi.org/​blog/​lack-of-paid-sick-days-and-large-numbers-of-uninsured-increase-risks-of-spreading-the-erectile dysfunction/​.

(Gould, February 28, 2020). Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2020, September). erectile dysfunction treatment. Federal Efforts Could Be Strengthened by Timely and Concerted Actions.

Https://www.gao.gov/​assets/​710/​709934.pdf. (GAO, September 2020). Hatef, E. Et al., (2021, April). Early relaxation of community mitigation policies and risk of erectile dysfunction treatment resurgence in the United States.

Prev Med 145:106435. Doi. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2021.106435 (Hatef et al., April, 2021). Horsely, S. (2020, May 1).

U.S. Workplace Safety Rules Missing in the viagra. National Public Radio. Https://www.npr.org/​2020/​05/​01/​849212026/​it-s-the-wild-west-u-s-workplace-safety-rules-missing-in-the-viagra. (Horsley, May 1, 2020).

Howard, J. (2021, May 22). €œResponse to request for an assessment by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, of the current hazards facing healthcare workers from erectile dysfunction Disease-2019 (erectile dysfunction treatment).” (Howard, May 22, 2021). Institute of Medicine (IOM).

(2009). Respiratory Protection for Healthcare Workers in a Workplace Against Novel H1N1 Influenza A. A letter report. The National Academies Press. Http://www.nap.edu/​catalog/​12748.html.

(IOM, 2009). Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF). (2021, May 6). KFF erectile dysfunction treatment Monitor. April 2021.

Https://www.kff.org/​erectile dysfunction-erectile dysfunction treatment/​poll-finding/​kff-erectile dysfunction treatment-treatment-monitor-april-2021/​. (KFF, May 6, 2021). King, WC et al., (2021, April 24). erectile dysfunction treatment hesitancy January-March 2021 among 18-64 year old US adults by employment and occupation. MedRxiv.

Https://www.medrxiv.org/​content/​10.1101/​2021.04.20.21255821v3. (King et al., April 24, 2021). Koshy, K, Shendell, DG, Presutti, MJ. (February 4, 2021). Perspectives of region II OSHA authorized safety and health trainers about initial erectile dysfunction treatment response programs.

Safety Science 138. Https://doi.org/​10.1016/​j.ssci.2021.105193. (Koshy et al., February 4, 2021). Markman, A. (2020, April 20).

Why are there still so many erectile dysfunction skeptics?. Fast Company. Https://www.fastcompany.com/​90492518/​why-are-there-still-so-many-erectile dysfunction-skeptics. (Markman, April 20, 2020). Meichtry, S et al., (2020, October 26).

viagra Fatigue is Real—And It's Spreading. Collective exhaustion with erectile dysfunction restrictions has emerged as a formidable adversary for governments. The Wall Street Journal. Https://www.wsj.com/​articles/​viagra-fatigue-is-realand-its-spreading-11603704601. (Meichtry et al., October 26, 2020).

Moore, KA et al., (2020, April 30). erectile dysfunction treatment. The CIDRAP Viewpoint. Part 1. The Future of the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra.

Lessons Learned from viagra Influenza. University of Minnesota Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy. Https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/​sites/​default/​files/​public/​downloads/​cidrap-erectile dysfunction treatment19-viewpoint-part1_​0.pdf. (Moore et al., April 30, 2020). Ndugga, N et al., (2021, February 18).

Latest Data on erectile dysfunction treatment Vaccinations Race/Ethnicity. Kaiser Family Foundation. Https://www.kff.org/​erectile dysfunction-erectile dysfunction treatment/​issue-brief/​latest-data-on-erectile dysfunction treatment-vaccinations-race-ethnicity/​. (Ndugga et al., February 18, 2021). Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

(2020, March 9). Guidance on Preparing Workplaces for erectile dysfunction treatment. Https://www.osha.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​publications/​OSHA3990.pdf. (OSHA, March 9, 2020). Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

(2020, March 18). Letter from Loren Sweatt to Congressman Robert C. €œBobby” Scott. (OSHA, March 18, 2020). Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

(2021, January 29). Protecting Workers. Guidance on Mitigating and Preventing the Spread of erectile dysfunction treatment in the Workplace. Https://www.osha.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​safework. (OSHA, January 29, 2021).

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). (2021, March 12). Enforcement Memo. Updated Interim Enforcement Response Plan for erectile dysfunction Disease 2019 (erectile dysfunction treatment). Https://www.osha.gov/​memos/​2021-03-12/​updated-interim-enforcement-response-plan-erectile dysfunction-disease-2019-erectile dysfunction treatment.

(OSHA, March 12, 2021). Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). (2021, May 23). erectile dysfunction treatment Response Summary. Https://www.osha.gov/​enforcement/​erectile dysfunction treatment-data.

(OSHA, May 23, 2021) ORCHSE Strategies. (2020, October 9). €œPetition to the U.S. Department of Labor—Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) for Infectious Disease.” (ORCHSE, October 9, 2020) Roy, B et al., (2020, December 29). Health Care Workers' Reluctance to Take the erectile dysfunction treatment.

A Consumer-Marketing Approach to Identifying and Overcoming Hesitancy. NEJM Catalyst. Https://catalyst.nejm.org/​doi/​pdf/​10.1056/​CAT.20.0676. (Roy et al., December 29, 2020). Roy, B and Forman, HP.

(2021, April 7). Doctors. Essential workers should get two days of paid leave for erectile dysfunction treatment side effects. Https://www.usatoday.com/​in-depth/​opinion/​2021/​04/​07/​essential-workers-paid-leave-erectile dysfunction treatment-treatment-side-effects-column/​4816014001/​. (Roy and Forman, April 7, 2021).

SEIU Healthcare. (2021, February 8). Research shows 81% of healthcare workers willing to take erectile dysfunction treatments but personal financial pressures remain a significant barrier for uptake. Https://www.newswire.ca/​news-releases/​research-shows-81-of-healthcare-workers-willing-to-take-erectile dysfunction treatment-treatments-but-personal-financial-pressures-remain-a-significant-barrier-for-uptake-888810789.html. (SEIU Healthcare, February 8, 2021).

Siegel, JD, Rhinehart, E, Jackson, M, Chiarello, L, and the Healthcare Control Practices Advisory Committee. (2007). 2007 Guideline for Isolation Precautions. Preventing Transmission of Infectious Agents in Healthcare Settings. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Https://www.cdc.gov/​control/​guidelines/​isolation/​index.html. (Siegel et al., 2007). Silva, C and Martin, M. (2020, November 14). U.S.

Surgeon General Blames “viagra Fatigue” for Recent erectile dysfunction treatment Surge. NPR. Https://www.npr.org/​sections/​erectile dysfunction-live-updates/​2020/​11/​14/​934986232/​u-s-surgeon-general-blames-viagra-fatigue-for-recent-erectile dysfunction treatment-surge. (Silva and Martin, November 14, 2020). United States Department of Labor (DOL).

(2020, May 29). In Re. American Federation Of Labor And Congress Of Industrial Organizations. Department Of Labor's Response to the Emergency Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, No. 20-1158 (D.C.

Cir., May 29, 2020). (DOL, May 29, 2020). United States Department of Labor (DOL), Office of the Inspector General (OIG). (2021, February 25). erectile dysfunction treatment.

Increased Worksite Complaints and Reduced OSHA Inspections Leave U.S. Workers' Safety at Increased Risk. Http://www.oig.dol.gov/​public/​reports/​oa/​2021/​19-21-003-10-105.pdf. (DOL OIG, February 25, 2021). World Health Organization (WHO).

(2009). WHO Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care. A Summary—First Global Patient Safety Challenge Clean Care is Safer Care. (WHO, 2009). The White House.

(2021, April 2). Press Briefing by White House erectile dysfunction treatment Response Team and Public Health Officials. Https://www.whitehouse.gov/​briefing-room/​press-briefings/​2021/​04/​02/​press-briefing-by-white-house-erectile dysfunction treatment-response-team-and-public-health-officials-23/​. (The White House, April 2, 2021). V.

Need for Specific Provisions of the ETS Grave Danger (Section IV.A. Of the preamble) identifies the danger of exposure to erectile dysfunction for healthcare workers and explains how the erectile dysfunction viagra is transmitted. This section, on Need for Specific Provisions, examines the scientific underpinnings for the controls that OSHA has identified to stop that transmission in workplaces. In Section VIII, the Summary and Explanation for the various provisions of the ETS, OSHA Start Printed Page 32426explains how those controls must be implemented in the workplace. Not all of the requirements of the ETS are examined in this Need for Specific Provisions section.

Some are addressed fully in the Summary and Explanation sections. A. Introduction—Effective Prevention Utilizes Overlapping Controls An effective prevention program utilizing a suite of overlapping controls in a layered approach better ensures that no inherent weakness in any one approach results in an incident. OSHA emphasizes that each of the prevention practices required by the ETS provide some protection from erectile dysfunction treatment by themselves, but work best when used together, layering their protective impact to boost overall effectiveness. A common depiction of this approach in use is Reason's model of accident causation dynamics, more commonly referred to as the “Swiss Cheese Model of Accident Causation” (Reason, April 12, 1990).

Reason combined concepts of pathogen transmission and airplane accidents to present a model that illustrated that accidents are the result of the interrelatedness of imperfect defenses and unsafe actions that are largely unobservable until an adverse outcome becomes apparent. Using the Swiss cheese analogy, each control has certain weaknesses or “holes.” The “holes” differ between different controls. By stacking several controls together with different weaknesses, the “holes” are blocked by the strengths of the other controls. In other words, if controls with different weaknesses are layered, then any unexpected failure of a single control is protected against by the strengths of other controls. The model provides a guiding approach to reduce incidents across many sectors (Reason et al., October 30, 2006) and that perspective is reflected in widely accepted approaches to controlling infectious diseases (HICPAC, January 1, 1996.

Rusnak et al., July 31, 2004. CDC, 2012. WHO, 2016). The CDC Healthcare Control Practices Advisory Committee's (HICPAC) Isolation Guidelines, which apply to healthcare settings, are an example of established national guidelines that illustrate layered controls to prevent the transmission of infectious diseases (Siegel et al., 2007). The Isolation Guidelines recommend two tiers of precautions.

Standard Precautions and Transmission-Based Precautions (e.g., airborne, droplet, contact). Standard Precautions, under the Isolation Guidelines, are the minimum prevention practices that apply to patient care, regardless of the suspected or confirmed status of the patient, in any setting where health care is practiced. They are based on the principle that there is a possible risk of disease transmission from any patient, patient sample, or interaction with infectious material. For Standard Precautions, guidance follows that a certain set of controls should be implemented to reduce infectious disease transmission regardless of the diagnosis of the patient, in part because there is always baseline risk that is not necessarily either obvious or detectable. These precautions include controls such as improved hand hygiene, use of personal protective equipment, cleaning of equipment, environmental controls, handling of bed linens, changing work practices, and patient placement.

When used in concert, these approaches protect workers from potential exposure to infectious agents. The Isolation Guidelines' second tier of precautions, Transmission-Based Precautions, takes into consideration the transmission mechanism of specific diseases and complements Standard Precautions to better protect workers from the presence of known or suspected infectious agents. For instance, erectile dysfunction, the infectious agent that causes erectile dysfunction treatment, is considered to be mainly transmissible through the droplet route in most settings (though there is evidence for airborne transmission as noted throughout this preamble). Droplet transmission occurs by the direct spray of large droplets onto conjunctiva or mucous membranes (e.g., the lining of the nose or mouth) of a susceptible host when an infected person sneezes, talks, or coughs. Droplet precautions are a suite of layered controls that are designed to prevent the direct spray of infectious material and supplement the suite of layered controls used for Standard Precautions.

They are designed to protect workers from infectious agents that can be expelled in large respiratory droplets from infected individuals. These added interventions are implemented when is known or suspected and include placing patients in single rooms or physically distant within the same room, increased mask usage, and limiting patient movement. erectile dysfunction treatment is considered capable of spreading through multiple routes of transmission, including airborne. Thus, the CDC recommends respiratory protection, isolation gowns, and gloves in healthcare settings to protect workers in those settings. While a suite of layered controls is appropriate for controlling infectious diseases, it is important to use the hierarchy of controls when choosing which controls to include and the order in which to implement them.

Briefly, the hierarchy of controls refers to the concept that the best way to control for hazards is to preferentially utilize the most effective before complementing with less effective controls.[] Ideally, the hazard is eliminated, which would likely mean using an option such as conducting a telehealth visit outside of a patient care setting with respect to erectile dysfunction treatment to ensure that there is no shared workspace and thus no potential for employee exposure to erectile dysfunction treatment. When a telehealth visit is not possible, workers must be protected through the implementation of controls. Outside the realm of control, the utilization of an engineering control or a change in on-site work practices could alone effectively minimize a hazard in many cases. However, prevention failures often are not apparent until an outbreak occurs, resulting in many infected workers. Therefore, it is important for employers to not only adhere to the hierarchy of controls when identifying controls to implement, but also to augment layers of feasible engineering controls (e.g., adequate ventilation, barriers) with administrative and work practice controls (e.g., physical distancing, cleaning, dis, telework, schedule modification, health screening).

Personal protective equipment (e.g., gloves, respirators, and facemasks) can provide the final layer of control. This approach is consistent with both OSHA and CDC guidance for protecting workers and the public from erectile dysfunction treatment. In addition to the broad recognition and implementation of layered controls to protect against infectious diseases, a recent study elucidated the effectiveness of isolated and layered controls, with respect to close contacts amidst several community erectile dysfunction treatment outbreaks in Thailand (Doung-ngern et al., September 14, 2020). While individual controls, such as wearing a face covering or maintaining at least a minimum distance from others, significantly reduced cases (28% and 40%, respectively), the researchers concluded Start Printed Page 32427that a layered approach would be expected to reduce s by 84%. Several similar studies evaluated the importance of layering controls during the 2002/2003 SARS outbreak caused by SARS-CoV-1, which is a different strain of the same species of viagra as the viagra that causes erectile dysfunction treatment (erectile dysfunction) and has some similar characteristics.

Importantly, both viagraes are strains of the same viral species and exhibit the same modes of transmission. Researchers assessed five Hong Kong hospitals on how the utilization of interventions affected SARS transmission (Seto et al., May 3, 2003). In total, the study evaluated 244 workers on their compliance with wearing masks, gowns, and gloves as well as adhering to hand hygiene protocols. Among the 69 workers who fully complied with the layered controls, there were no s. However, 13 of 185 workers who used only some of the interventions were infected.

The researchers concluded that the combined practice of droplet and contact precautions together significantly reduced the risk of from exposures to SARS-infected individuals. Another study investigated the approaches taken to reduce SARS-CoV-1 transmission in hospitals in Taiwan during the 2003 portion of the outbreak (Yen et al., February 12, 2010). Researchers surveyed forty-eight Taiwanese hospitals that provided care for 664 SARS-CoV-1 patients, including 119 healthcare workers, to determine which controls each hospital implemented. Control measures included isolation of fever patients in the Emergency Department (ED), installation of handwashing stations in the ED, routing patients from the ED to an isolation ward, installation of fever screen stations in the ED, and installation of handwashing stations throughout the hospital. Analysis showed that while early SARS-CoV-1 case identification at fever screening stations outside the hospital could reduce transmission inside the hospital by half, combining that intervention with other interventions could almost double that reduction.

A modeling effort to simulate an epidemic of seasonal influenza at a hypothetical hospital in Ann Arbor, Michigan, found that different interventions used in a layered approach would result in a greater predicted reduction in nosocomial cases (i.e., healthcare-associated s) (Blanco et al., June 1, 2016). The study evaluated six different intervention techniques thought to be effective against influenza, including hand hygiene, employee vaccination, patient pre-vaccination, patient isolation, therapies (e.g., antibody treatments, steroids), and face coverings. The researchers found, based on the model, that while no individual intervention exceeded a 27% percent reduction in cases, utilizing all controls would prevent half of all cases. While this model employed influenza as the vehicle to examine the effectiveness of layered protections, it gives no reason to believe that this approach would not be equally effective for other viagraes such as erectile dysfunction. In 2016, the World Health Organization, a specialized agency of the United Nations that is focused on international public health (WHO, 2016), addressed the use of layering interventions to reduce s in performed systematic reviews in its “Guidelines on Core Components of Prevention and Control Programmes at the National and Acute Health Care Facility Level.” OSHA's perspective of layered interventions (e.g., engineering controls, work practice controls, personal protective equipment, training) is consistent with what the WHO Guidelines define as “multimodality.” WHO defines multimodality as follows.

A [layered] strategy comprises several elements or components (three or more. Usually five, http://www.ihi.org/​topics/​bundles/​Pages/​default.aspx) implemented in an integrated way with the aim of improving an outcome and changing behavior. It includes tools, such as bundles and checklists, developed by multidisciplinary teams that take into account local conditions. The five most common components include. (i) System change (availability of the appropriate infrastructure and supplies to enable prevention and control good practices).

(ii) education and training of health care workers and key players (for example, managers). (iii) monitoring infrastructures, practices, processes, outcomes and providing data feedback. (iv) reminders in the workplace/communications. And (v) culture change within the establishment or the strengthening of a safety climate. The WHO guidelines strongly recommend practicing multimodality/layered interventions to reduce s based on WHO's systematic review of implementation efforts at facility-level and national scales.

Based on a systematic review of 44 studies on implementing control practices at the facility level, and another systematic review of 14 studies on the success of National rollout programs using layered strategies, WHO concluded that using layered strategies was effective in improving prevention and control practices and reducing hospital-acquired illnesses (WHO, 2016). Vaccination does not eliminate the need for layered controls for healthcare workers exposed to erectile dysfunction treatment patients, which can result in exposures that are more frequent and potentially carrying higher viral loads than those faced in workplaces not engaged in erectile dysfunction treatment patient care. The Director of the CDC's National Institute for Occupational Health (NIOSH) recently wrote to OSHA that layers of control are still needed for vaccinated healthcare workers who remain at “particularly elevated risk of being infected” while treating erectile dysfunction treatment patients. €œThe available evidence shows that healthcare workers are continuing to become infected with erectile dysfunction, the viagra that causes erectile dysfunction treatment, including both vaccinated and unvaccinated workers. .

. Regardless of vaccination status, healthcare workers need additional protections such as respirators and other personal protective equipment (PPE) during care of patients with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment.” (Howard, May 22, 2021). Further, a recent CDC study found that despite the positive impact on the roll-out of large-scale vaccination programs on reducing the transmission of erectile dysfunction treatment, a decline in non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs. E.g., physical distancing, face covering use) may result in a resurgence of cases (Borchering, May 5, 2021). The authors concluded that vaccination coverage in addition to compliance with mitigation strategies are essential to minimize erectile dysfunction treatment transmission and prevent surges in hospitalizations and deaths.

Thus, to effectively control erectile dysfunction treatment transmission to those who are not vaccinated or immune, an increase in vaccination coverage in addition to NPIs, such as physical distancing, are crucial. Based on the above evidence, OSHA is requiring in the ETS that healthcare employers must not only implement the individual prevention measures discussed in the following sections, but also layer their controls to protect workers from the erectile dysfunction treatment hazard due to the additional protection provided to workers when multiple control measures are combined. References Blanco, N et al., (2016, June 1). What Transmission Precautions Best Control Influenza Spread in a Hospital. American Journal of Epidemiology 183 (11).

1045-1054. Https://doi.org/​10.1093/​aje/​kwv293. (Blanco et al., June 1, 2016). Borchering, RK et al., (2021, May 5). Modeling of Future erectile dysfunction treatment Cases, Hospitalizations, and Deaths, by Vaccination Rates and Start Printed Page 32428Nonpharmaceutical Intervention Scenarios—United States, April-September 2021.

MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. EPub. 5 May 2021. Doi. Http://dx.doi.org/​10.15585/​mmwr.mm7019e3.

(Borchering, May 5, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2012). An Introduction to Applied Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Lesson 1. Introduction to Epidemiology, Section 10.

Chain of . In. Principles of Epidemiology in Public Health Practice, Third Edition. Http://www.cdc.gov/​ophss/​csels/​dsepd/​SS1978/​Lesson1/​Section10.html. (CDC, 2012).

Doung-ngern, P et al., (2020, September 14). Case-control Study of Use of Personal Protective Measures and Risk for SARS erectile dysfunction 2 , Thailand. Emerg In Dis 26, 11. 2607-2616. Https://doi.org/​10.3201/​eid2611.203003.

(Doung-ngern et al., September 14, 2020). Hospital Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). (1996, January 1). Guideline for isolation precautions in hospitals. Control and Hospital Epidemiology 17(1).

53-80. (HICPAC, January 1, 1996). Howard, J. (2021, May 22). €œResponse to request for an assessment by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services, of the current hazards facing healthcare workers from erectile dysfunction Disease-2019 (erectile dysfunction treatment).” (Howard, May 22, 2021). Reason, J. (1990, April 12). The Contribution of Latent Human Failures to the Breakdown of Complex Systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London B327475 B327484.

Https://dol.org/​10.1098/​rstb.1990.0090. (Reason et al., April 12, 1990). Reason, J et al., (2006, October 30). Revisiting the Swiss Cheese Model of Accidents. EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre, Note No.

13/06. (Reason et al., October 30, 2006). Rusnak, JM et al., (2004, July 31). Management guidelines for laboratory exposures to agents of bioterrorism. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 46(8).

791-800. Doi. 10.1097/01.jom.0000135536.13097.8a. (Rusnak et al., July 31, 2004). Seto, WH et al., (2003, May 3).

Effectiveness of precautions against droplets and contact in prevention of nosocomial transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). The Lancet 361(9368). 1519-1520. Https://doi.org/​10.1016/​s0140-6736(03)13168-6. (Seto et al., May 3, 2003).

Siegel, J, Rhinehart, E, Jackson M, Chiarello, L, and the Healthcare Control Practices Advisory Committee. (2007). 2007 Guideline for isolation precautions. Preventing transmission of infectious agents in healthcare settings. Https://www.cdc.gov/​control/​pdf/​guidelines/​isolation-guidelines-H.pdf.

(Siegel et al., 2007). World Health Organization (WHO). (2016). Guidelines on Core Components of Prevention and Control Programmes at the National and Acute Health Care Facility Level. Https://www.who.int/​gpsc/​ipc-components-guidelines/​en/​.

(WHO, 2016). Yen, MY et al., (2010, February 12). Quantitative evaluation of control models in the prevention of nosocomial transmission of SARS viagra to healthcare workers. Implication to nosocomial viral control for healthcare workers. Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases 42.

510-515. Https://10.3109/​00365540903582400. (Yen et al., February 12, 2010). B. erectile dysfunction treatment Plan An effective erectile dysfunction treatment plan is modeled on the core components of safety and health programs, which utilize a systematic approach to reduce injuries and illnesses in the workplace.

The occupational safety and health community uses various names to describe this type of systematic approach (e.g., safety and health programs, safety and health management systems, and injury and illness prevention programs) and uses the terms “plans” and “programs” interchangeably. An effective safety and health program involves proactively and continuously identifying and mitigating hazards, before employees are injured or develop disease. The approach involves trained employees and managers working together to identify and address issues before the issues become a problem. Such an approach helps employers meet their obligation under the OSH Act to provide employees a place of employment free from recognized hazards (OSHA, January 2012. OSHA, October 18, 2016).

The erectile dysfunction treatment plan required by this ETS encompasses the core components of this type of safety and health programs. Developing and implementing a erectile dysfunction treatment plan is an essential part of an effective response to the erectile dysfunction treatment hazards present in the workplace because the process involves identifying employees who are at risk of exposure to the viagra and determining how they can be effectively protected from developing erectile dysfunction treatment using a multi-layered approach. Many companies that have received awards for their safety and health accomplishments have credited safety and health programs for their success. Because of the value, effectiveness, and feasibility of such programs, many countries throughout North America, Asia, and Europe require employers to implement programs to prevent injury and illness. Numerous studies and data sources provide evidence of such programs improving safety and health management practices and performance which leads to reductions in injury, illness, and fatalities.

For example, a review of the impact of implementation of safety and health programs in eight states showed a reduction of injury and illness rates ranging from 9% to more than 60% (OSHA, January 2012). In three of these states with mandatory injury and illness prevention programs, workplace fatality rates were up to 31% lower than the national average (OSHA, January 2012). OSHA has traditionally identified seven core elements of successful safety and health programs including (1) management leadership, (2) worker participation, (3) hazard identification and assessment, (4) hazard prevention and controls, (5) evaluation and improvement, (6) coordination and communication at multi-employer sites, and (7) education and training (OSHA, January 2012. OSHA, October 18, 2016). The erectile dysfunction treatment plan required by this ETS was developed with these elements in mind.

The first core element, management leadership, involves a demonstrated commitment to establishing a safety and health culture and continuously improving safety and health in the workplace. A commitment to health and safety is demonstrated by implementing a clear plan for preventing illness and injury, and communicating the plan to all employees (including contractors and temporary staff). Designating a coordinator to track progress of the plan and ensure that all aspects of the plan are implemented further demonstrates management's commitment to employee safety and health (OSHA, 2005. OSHA, January 2012. OSHA, October 18, 2016).

The second, and one of the most important components of a safety and health program, is the participation of trained and knowledgeable employees, including those employed by other employers (e.g., contractors, temporary staff). Employees provide unique perspective and expertise because they are often the most knowledgeable people about the hazards associated with their jobs and how those hazards can be controlled. Employees who are trained to recognize hazards and appropriate controls to address those hazards and know that they can speak freely to employers, can provide valuable input on hazards that need to be addressed, which can lead to a reduction in hazards or exposure to hazards. They can also provide input on improvements that are needed to protections that have already been implemented. An emphasis on employee participation is consistent with the OSH Act, OSHA standards, and Start Printed Page 32429OSHA enforcement policies and procedures, which recognize the rights and roles of workers and their representatives in matters of workplace safety and health (OSHA, 2005.

OSHA, January 2012. OSHA, October 18, 2016). The third core element of a safety and health program approach is hazard identification and assessment. To be most effective, hazard assessments must be conducted as a team approach with management, coordinators, and employees involved in the hazard assessment process (e.g., identifying potential hazards) and the development and implementation of the erectile dysfunction treatment plan. An assessment to identify safety and health hazards can include surveying the facility to observe employee work habits and evaluating employee input from surveys or meeting minutes.

Specifically, the risk of exposure to biological hazards, such as the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra, can be assessed by determining if workers could be exposed (e.g., through close contact with patients, co-workers, or members of the public. Contact with contaminated surfaces, objects, or waste) and if controls are present to mitigate those risks (OSHA, 2005. OSHA, October 18, 2016). While a standard can specify controls applicable to particular hazards, the hazard assessment can help identify where controls are needed in specific areas of a particular worksite. The fourth core element of an effective workplace safety and health program approach is hazard prevention and control, which involves teams of managers, coordinators, and employees assessing if a hazard can be eliminated (e.g., by working at home to eliminate potential viagra exposure in the workplace).

When hazards cannot be eliminated, the hazard prevention process considers which hazards can be controlled by implementing work practices (e.g., regular cleaning, disinfecting, physical distancing) or controls (e.g., physical barriers, improvements to the ventilation system). Additionally, the process of hazard prevention and control determines if PPE is required as part of a multi-layered strategy to protect workers from infectious biological agents (OSHA, 2005. OSHA, October 18, 2016). The controls may function more effectively when implemented in the most targeted manner following a hazard assessment and team-based evaluation. The fifth core element of an effective safety and health program approach is evaluation and improvement.

Safety and health programs require periodic evaluation to ensure they are implemented as intended and continue to achieve the goal of preventing injury and illness. This re-evaluation can reduce hazards, or result in improvements in controls to help reduce hazards. Managers have the prime responsibility for ensuring the effectiveness of the program but managers should work as a team with coordinators and employees to continually monitor the worksite to identify what is and is not working and make adjustments to improve worker safety and health measures (OSHA, January 2012. OSHA, October 18, 2016). The sixth core element of an effective safety and health program approach is communication and coordination between host employers, contractors, and staffing agencies.

Because the employees of one employer may expose employees of a different employer to a hazard, this communication is essential to protecting all employees. An effective program ensures that before employees go to a host worksite, both the host employer and staffing agencies communicate about hazards on the worksite, procedures for controlling hazards, and how to resolve any conflicts that could affect employee safety and health (e.g., who will provide PPE). The exchange of information about each employer's plans can help reduce exposures by identifying areas where one employer may need to provide additional protections (barriers, timing of workshifts, etc.) to its employees. Additionally, exchanging contact information between employers can facilitate worker protection in case they need to report hazards or illnesses that may occur (OSHA, October 18, 2016). In order to reduce erectile dysfunction treatment transmission in the workplace, it will be particularly important for employers to have clear plans about how they can quickly alert other employers if a worker at a multi-employer site subsequently tests positive for erectile dysfunction treatment and was in close contact with workers of other employers.

The seventh core element of an effective safety and health program is education and training. Education and training ensures that employees, supervisors, and managers are able to recognize and control hazards, allowing them to work more safely and contribute to the development and implementation of the safety and health program (OSHA, 2005. OSHA, January 2012. OSHA, October 18, 2016). Later in this Need for Specific Provisions section there is a detailed explanation about the need for training as a separate control to minimize erectile dysfunction treatment transmission.

The effectiveness of a safety and health program approach in preventing injury and illnesses is recognized by a number of authoritative bodies. In its Total Worker Health program, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) lists a number of core elements that are consistent with OSHA's safety and health program approaches, including demonstrating leadership commitment to safety and health, eliminating or reducing safety and health hazards, and promoting and supporting employee involvement (NIOSH, December 2016). The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) developed ISO 45001, a consensus standard to help organizations implement a safety and health management system (ISO, 2018). ISO notes that key potential benefits of the system include reduced workplace incidents, establishment of a health and safety culture by encouraging active involvement of employees in ensuring their health and safety, reinforcement of leadership commitment to health and safety, and improved ability to comply with regulatory requirements. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and American Society of Safety Professionals (ASSP) also developed a health and safety management systems standard for the purpose of reducing hazards and risk in a systematic manner, based on a team approach that includes management commitment and employee involvement, with an emphasis on continual improvement (ANSI/ASSP, 2019).

ANSI/ASSP note the widespread acceptance that safety and health management systems can improve occupational safety and health performance. (Id.) They further highlight OSHA reports of improved safety and health performance by companies who implement programs that rely on management system principles (e.g., the Voluntary Protection Program), and that major professional safety and health organizations support management systems as effective in improving safety and health. As further proof that safety and health management systems are valuable, they note that many large and small organizations within the U.S. And internationally are implementing these systems. Based on the best available evidence, OSHA concludes that a erectile dysfunction treatment plan that is modeled on the safety and health program principles discussed above, implemented by a erectile dysfunction treatment coordinator, influenced by employee input, and continuously evaluated, is an effective tool to ensure comprehensive identification and mitigation of erectile dysfunction treatment hazards.

As a result, OSHA concludes that a erectile dysfunction treatment plan will reduce the incidence of erectile dysfunction treatment in Start Printed Page 32430the workplace by helping to ensure that all effective measures are implemented as part of a multi-layered strategy to minimize employee exposure to erectile dysfunction treatment. References American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/American Society of Safety Professionals (ASSP). (2019). ANSI/ASSP Z10.0-2019. Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems.

(ANSI/ASSP, 2019). International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (2018). Occupational health and safety. ISO 45001.

(ISO, 2018). National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). (2016, December). Fundamentals of total worker health approaches. Essential elements for advancing worker safety, health, and well-being.

Publication no. 2017-112. Https://www.cdc.gov/​niosh/​docs/​2017-112/​pdfs/​2017_​112.pdf. (NIOSH, December 2016). Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

(2005). Small Business Handbook. Small Business Safety and Health Management Series. OSHA 2209 02R 2005. Https://www.osha.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​publications/​small-business.pdf.

(OSHA, 2005). Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). (2012, January). Injury and Illness Prevention Programs. White Paper.

Https://www.osha.gov/​dsg/​InjuryIllnessPreventionProgramsWhitePaper.html. (OSHA, January 2012). Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). (2016, October 18). Recommended Practices for Safety and Health Programs.

OSHA 3885. Https://www.osha.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​publications/​OSHA3885.pdf. (OSHA, October 18, 2016). C. Patient Screening and Management Limited contact with potentially infectious persons is a cornerstone of erectile dysfunction treatment viagra management.

For example, screening and triage of everyone entering a healthcare setting is an essential means of identifying those individuals who have symptoms that could indicate with the erectile dysfunction viagra (CDC, February 23, 2021). Persons with such symptoms can then be triaged appropriately to minimize exposure risk to employees. CDC guidance provides a number of approaches for screening and triage, including screening at entry, separate triage areas for patients desiring evaluation for erectile dysfunction treatment concerns, and electronic pre-screening prior to arrival (CDC, February 23, 2021). Once identified, potentially infected individuals can then be isolated for evaluation, testing, and treatment. Triage increases the likelihood of implementation of the appropriate level of personal protective equipment for employees and other protections required for exposure to potentially infectious patients.

Patient segregation in healthcare settings also reduces nosocomial (healthcare-acquired) s for employees. Inpatients continue to require regular re-evaluation for erectile dysfunction treatment symptoms.[] Symptoms-based screening is a standard component of control. This approach was recommended during the 2003 SARS epidemic (caused by SARS-CoV-1, a different strain of SARS) and is routinely recommended for airborne s such as M. Tuberculosis and measles, and as a general practice in control programs (Siegel et al., 2007). Because erectile dysfunction can be transmitted by individuals who are infected but do not have symptoms (asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission), symptom-based screening will not identify all infectious individuals (Viswanathan et al., September 15, 2020).

However, persons with symptoms early in their erectile dysfunction are among the most infectious (Cevik et al., November 19, 2020). Therefore, symptom-based screening will identify some of the highest-risk individuals for erectile dysfunction transmission and thereby reduce the risk to workers. References Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, February 23). Interim prevention and control recommendations for healthcare personnel during the erectile dysfunction Disease 2019 (erectile dysfunction treatment) viagra.

Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​hcp/​-control-recommendations.html. (CDC, February 23, 2021). Cevik, M. Et al., (2020, November). erectile dysfunction, SARS-CoV, and MERS-CoV viral load dynamics, duration of viral shedding, and infectiousness.

A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Microbe 2021. 2. E13-22. Https://doi.org/​10.1016/​S2666-5247(20)30172-5.

(Cevik et al., November 19, 2020). Siegel, J., Rhinehart, E., Jackson, M., Jackson, M., Chiarello, L. (2007). Guideline for isolation precautions. Preventing transmission of infectious agents in healthcare settings.

Https://www.cdc.gov/​control/​pdf/​guidelines/​isolation-guidelines-H.pdf. (Siegel et al., 2007). Viswanathan, M. Et al., (2020, September 15). Universal screening for erectile dysfunction .

A rapid review. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 9. Art. No.. CD013718.

DOI. 10.1002/14651858.CD013718. (Viswanathan et al., September 15, 2020). D. Standard and Transmission-Based Precautions Standard and Transmission-Based Precautions are well-accepted as important to controlling disease transmission (HICPAC, December 27, 2018.

CDC, January 7, 2016). It should be noted that during times of significant transmission, such as during this viagra, additional protections are needed to supplement the basic level of recommended precautions and practices in these guidelines. For instance, wearing at least a facemask regardless of interaction with known or suspected infectious patients is needed during the viagra (CDC, February 23, 2021). Standard Precautions refers to prevention practices, implemented in healthcare settings, where the presence of an infectious agent is assumed (i.e., without the suspicion or confirmation of exposure). The use of Standard Precautions thus relies on the assumption that all patients, patient samples, potentially contaminated materials (e.g., patient laundry, medical waste), and human remains in healthcare settings are potentially infected or colonized with an infectious agent(s).

For example, Standard Precautions would include appropriate hand hygiene and use of personal protective equipment as well as practices to ensure respiratory hygiene, sharps safety, safe injection practices, and sterilization and dis of equipment and surfaces (CDC, February 23, 2021). Transmission-Based Precautions add an additional layer of protection to Standard Precautions. Transmission-Based Precautions refers to those good prevention practices, used in tandem with Standard Precautions that are based on the way an infectious agent(s) may be transmitted. These precautions are needed, for example, when treating a patient where it is suspected or confirmed that the patient may be infected or colonized with agents that are infectious through specific routes of exposure (Siegel et al., 2007). For example, handwashing and safe handling of sharps (needles, etc.) are routine Standard Precautions.

An infectious agent capable of airborne transmission through aerosols would require patient care in an airborne isolation room (AIIR), if available, under Transmission-Based Precautions. Even before a patient is treated, certain Transmission-Based Precautions Start Printed Page 32431can be critical to protecting healthcare workers. For example, one typical precaution is that patients and visitors who enter a waiting room before being seen or triaged must wear facemasks, or face coverings, as a source control device to prevent them from spreading airborne droplets near the employees. These source control devices may also be critical to reducing the likelihood that erectile dysfunction treatment is spread as the patients are transported from the admission area to a treatment area. The critical need for implementing Standard and Transmission-Based Precautions in healthcare settings is evident in the Healthcare Control Practices Advisory Committee's (HICPAC's) 2017 Core Prevention and Control Practices for Safe Healthcare Delivery in All Settings.[] The core practices included in that document include Standard and Transmission-Based Precautions, which, HICPAC recommended, need to be implemented in all settings where healthcare is delivered.

That Standard and Transmission-Based Precautions are a long-standing and essential element of control in healthcare industries is also evidenced by the CDC's 2007 Guideline for Isolation Precautions. Preventing Transmission of Infectious Agents in Healthcare Settings, which incorporate Standard and Transmission-Based Precautions into their recommendations. This 2007 Guideline updated 1996 guidelines, which introduced the concept of Standard Precautions and also noted the existence of control recommendations dating back to 1970 (Siegel et al., 2007). Both Standard and Transmission-Based Precautions are recommended by the CDC for healthcare personnel during the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra (CDC, February 23, 2021). The CDC considers healthcare personnel (HCP) to include all paid and unpaid persons serving in healthcare settings who have the potential for direct or indirect exposure to patients or infectious materials, including body substances (e.g., blood, tissue, and specific body fluids).

Contaminated medical supplies, devices, and equipment. Contaminated environmental surfaces. Or contaminated air. HCP include, but are not limited to, emergency medical service personnel, nurses, nursing assistants, home healthcare personnel, physicians, technicians, therapists, phlebotomists, pharmacists, students and trainees, contractual staff not employed by the healthcare facility, and persons not directly involved in patient care, but who could be exposed to infectious agents that can be transmitted in the healthcare setting (e.g., clerical, dietary, environmental services, laundry, security, engineering and facilities management, administrative, billing, and volunteer personnel). The CDC also has recommendations for protection of workers in industries associated with healthcare.

According to the CDC's Interim Prevention and Control Recommendations for Healthcare Personnel During the erectile dysfunction Disease 2019 (erectile dysfunction treatment) viagra (incorporated by reference, § 1910.509), on-site management of laundry, food service utensils, and medical waste should also be performed in accordance with routine procedures (CDC, February 23, 2021). The work of the College of American Pathologists (CAP) illustrates the importance of taking core precautionary measures in healthcare industries during the viagra. CAP has provided recommendations for staff protection during the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra. For example, CAP has provided erectile dysfunction treatment-specific autopsy recommendations which include biosafety considerations such as performing autopsies on erectile dysfunction treatment-positive cases in an airborne isolation room (College of American Pathologists, February 2, 2021).[] The Standard and Transmission-Based Precautions required by the ETS only extend to exposure to erectile dysfunction and erectile dysfunction treatment protection. The agency does not intend the ETS to apply to other workplace hazards.

References Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2016, January 7). Transmission-based precautions. Https://www.cdc.gov/​control/​basics/​transmission-based-precautions.html. (CDC, January 7, 2016).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, February 23). Interim prevention and control recommendations for healthcare personnel during the erectile dysfunction Disease 2019 (erectile dysfunction treatment) viagra. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​hcp/​-control-recommendations.html. (CDC, February 23, 2021).

College of American Pathologists. (2021, February 2). Amended erectile dysfunction treatment autopsy guideline statement from the CAP Autopsy Committee. Https://documents.cap.org/​documents/​erectile dysfunction treatment-Autopsy-Statement.pdf. (College of American Pathologists, February 2, 2021).

Healthcare Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). (2018, December 27). Core prevention and control practices for safe healthcare delivery in all settings. Https://www.cdc.gov/​hicpac/​recommendations/​core-practices.html. (HICPAC, December 27, 2018).

Siegel, J., Rhinehart, E., Jackson, M., Jackson, M., Chiarello, L. (2007). Guideline for isolation precautions. Preventing transmission of infectious agents in healthcare settings. Https://www.cdc.gov/​control/​pdf/​guidelines/​isolation-guidelines-H.pdf.

(Siegel et al., 2007). E. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) As previously discussed in Grave Danger (Section IV.A. Of the preamble), erectile dysfunction treatment s occur mainly through exposure to respiratory droplets (referred to as droplet transmission) when a person is in close contact with someone who has erectile dysfunction treatment. erectile dysfunction treatment can sometimes also be spread by airborne transmission (CDC, May 13, 2021).

As the CDC explains, when people with erectile dysfunction treatment cough, sneeze, sing, talk, or breathe, they produce respiratory droplets, which can travel a limited distance—thereby potentially infecting people within close physical proximity—before falling out of the air due to gravity. Facemasks, face coverings, and face shields are all devices used for their role in reducing the risk of droplet, and potentially airborne, transmission of erectile dysfunction treatment primarily at the source. Additional discussion on the efficacy of each device, and the need for facemasks and face shields specifically, is explained below. (Respirator use is also included in the ETS and more information on the Start Printed Page 32432need for respirators to prevent the spread of erectile dysfunction treatment is discussed in the Need for Specific Provisions for Respirators, further below.) Well-fitting facemasks, not face coverings, are the baseline requirement in healthcare settings because of their fluid resistant qualities (discussed in detail below). However, the role of facemasks and face coverings are otherwise similar in source control and personal protection for the wearer.

OSHA's position on the importance of face coverings and facemasks is supported by a substantial body of evidence. Consistent and correct use of face coverings and facemasks is widely recognized and scientifically supported as an important evidence-based strategy for erectile dysfunction treatment control. Accordingly, with specific exceptions relevant to outdoor areas and vaccinated persons, the CDC recommends everyone two years of age and older wear a face covering in public settings and when around people outside of their household (CDC, April 19, 2021). And, on January 21, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 13998, which recognizes the use of face coverings or facemasks as a necessary, science-based public health measure to prevent the spread of erectile dysfunction treatment, and therefore directed regulatory action to require that they be worn in compliance with CDC guidance while traveling on public transportation (e.g., buses, trains, subway) and while at airports (Executive Order 13998, 86 FR 7205, 7205 (Jan. 21, 2021).

CDC, February 2, 2021). Similarly, the World Health Organization (WHO) has recognized face coverings as a key measure in suppressing erectile dysfunction treatment transmission, and thus, saving lives. The WHO observes that face coverings (and facemasks) serve two purposes, to both protect healthy people from acquiring erectile dysfunction treatment and to prevent sick people from further spreading it (WHO, December 1, 2020). I. Need for Facemasks Facemasks are simple bi-directional barriers that tend to keep droplets, and to a lesser extent airborne particulates, on the side of the filter from which they originate.

The term “facemask,” as used in this ETS, is defined as a surgical, medical procedure, dental, or isolation mask that is FDA-cleared, FDA-authorized, or offered or distributed as described in an FDA enforcement policy. These are most commonly referred to as “surgical masks” or “medical procedure masks.” As previously mentioned, facemasks reduce the risk of droplet transmission through their dual function as both source control and personal protection (OSHA, January 28, 2021. Siegel et al., 2007). In healthcare settings, facemasks have long been recognized as an important method of source control for preventing the spread of infectious agents transmitted via respiratory droplets (e.g., in the operating room to prevent provider saliva and respiratory secretions from contaminating the surgical field and infecting patients). However, facemasks do not filter out very small airborne particles and do not provide complete protection even from larger particles because the mask seal is not tight (FDA, December 7, 2020).

Facemasks are designed and regulated through various FDA processes to protect the person wearing them. Not all devices that resemble facemasks are FDA-cleared or authorized. To receive FDA clearance, manufacturers are required to submit an FDA premarket notification (also known as a 510(k) notification) for new products. Data in the 510(k) submission must show that the facemask is substantially equivalent to a facemask already on the market in terms of safety and effectiveness. Facemasks are tested for fluid resistance, fiation efficiency (particulate fiation efficiency and bacterial fiation efficiency), differential pressure, flammability and biocompatibility (FDA, July 14, 2004).[] Research developed during the current erectile dysfunction viagra provides evidence of the protection afforded by facemasks.

First, a universal surgical masking requirement for all healthcare workers and patients was implemented in Spring 2020 in the Mass General Brigham healthcare system, which is the largest in Massachusetts (Wang et al., July 14, 2020). Based on daily rates among healthcare workers, the authors found that universal masking was associated with a significantly lower rate of erectile dysfunction positivity. Although the authors noted that other interventions, such as restricting visitors, were also put in place, they concluded that their results supported universal masking as part of a multi-pronged reduction strategy in healthcare settings. Second, a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated research on healthcare workers exposed to erectile dysfunction, as well as the SARS and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) viagraes (Chu et al., June 27, 2020). Six studies compared the odds of in those who wore surgical or similar facemasks compared to those who did not wear any facemask.

Four of the six studies were on healthcare workers and all six were from the 2003 SARS epidemic. Participants who wore surgical or similar facemasks had only a third of the risk of those who did not wear any facemask. Third, a review of respiratory protection for healthcare workers during viagras noted that surgical mask material has been shown to protect against more than 95% of viral aerosols under laboratory conditions (Garcia-Godoy et al., May 5, 2020). The authors also reviewed research showing that surgical masks reduced aerosolized influenza exposure by an average of six-fold, depending on mask design.[] Finally, in one epidemiological study, a specialized team of contact tracers at Duke University Health System in North Carolina categorized recorded erectile dysfunction treatment cases among their healthcare workers (Seidelman et al., June 25, 2020). Of the cases that were categorized as healthcare-acquired (meaning acquired as a result of either an unmasked exposure for greater than 10 minutes at less than 6 feet to another healthcare worker who was symptomatic and tested positive for the viagra, or an exposure to a erectile dysfunction treatment-positive patient while not wearing all CDC-recommended PPE or while there was a breach in PPE), 70% were linked to an unmasked exposure to another healthcare worker.

Although cloth face coverings have gained widespread use outside of healthcare settings during this viagra, OSHA has determined that cloth face coverings do not offer sufficient protection for covered healthcare workers for multiple reasons. First, cloth face coverings, as defined by the CDC, encompass such a wide variety of coverings that there is no assurance Start Printed Page 32433of any consistent protection to the wearer, and even source protection can vary significantly depending on the construction and fit of the face covering. Second, a number of studies suggest that, properly worn over the nose and mouth, facemasks provide better protection than face coverings, which is an important consideration in healthcare settings where there are regular, known exposures to erectile dysfunction treatment-positive persons. For example, one randomized trial of cloth face coverings compared rates of clinical respiratory illness, influenza-like illness, and laboratory-confirmed respiratory viagra s in 1,607 healthcare workers in 14 hospitals in Vietnam (MacIntyre et al., March 26, 2015). risks were statistically higher in the cloth face covering group compared to the facemask group.

The risk of influenza-like illness was 6.6 times higher, and the risk of laboratory-confirmed respiratory viagra was 1.7 times higher, in those who wore cloth face coverings compared to those who wore facemasks. Another study which reviewed respiratory protection for healthcare workers during viagras showed greater protection from surgical masks compared to face coverings (Garcia-Godoy et al., May 5, 2020). Finally, Ueki et al., (June 25, 2020) evaluated the effectiveness of cotton face coverings, facemasks, and N95s (a commonly used respirator) in preventing transmission of erectile dysfunction using a laboratory experimental setting with manikins. The researchers found that all offerings provided some measure of protection as source control, limiting droplets expelled from both infected and uninfected wearers, but that facemasks and N95s provided better protection than cotton face coverings. Specifically, the researchers found that when spaced roughly 20 inches apart, if both an infected and uninfected individual were wearing a cotton face covering, the uninfected person reduced inhalation of infectious viagra by 67%.

But if both individuals were wearing facemasks, exposure was reduced by 76% and when an infected individual was wearing an N95, exposure was reduced by 96%. Third, cloth face coverings do not function as a barrier to protect employees from hazards such as splashes or large droplets of blood or bodily fluids, which is a common hazard in healthcare settings. And finally, OSHA has previously established that medical facemasks are essential PPE for many workers in healthcare, as enforced under both the PPE standard (29 CFR 1910.132) and more specifically, the Bloodborne Pathogens standard (29 CFR 1910.1030). Given the health outcomes related to erectile dysfunction treatment and the exposure characteristics found in healthcare settings (e.g., splashes or large droplets of blood or bodily fluids), OSHA has determined that cloth face coverings are not appropriate for workers in these settings. Research clearly indicates that facemasks provide essential protection for workers in covered healthcare settings.

II. Need for Face Shields The term “face shield,” as used in this ETS, is a device typically made of clear plastic, that covers the wearer's eyes, nose, and mouth, wraps around the sides of the wearer's face, and extends below the wearer's chin. Face shields have long been recognized as effective in preventing splashes, splatters, and sprays of bodily fluids and have a role in preventing the primary route of droplet transmission, although not aerosolized transmission. As explained above, OSHA has determined based on the best available evidence that facemask usage is a necessary protective measure to prevent the spread of erectile dysfunction treatment for any covered employee. However, the use of face shields, a less protective barrier, is permitted to either supplement facemasks where there is a particular risk of droplet exposure, or as an alternative option in certain limited circumstances where facemask usage is not feasible.

Face shields are proven to provide some protection to the wearer from exposure to droplets, and OSHA has long considered face shields to be PPE under the general PPE standard (29 CFR 1910.132) and the Eye and Face Protection standard (29 CFR 1910.133) for protection of the face and eyes from splashes and sprays. The potential protective value of face shields against droplet transmission is supported by a 2014 study, in which NIOSH investigated the effectiveness of face shields in preventing the transmission of viral respiratory diseases. The purpose of the study was to quantify exposure of cough aerosol droplets and examine the efficacy of face shields in reducing this exposure. Although face shields were not found to be effective against smaller particles, which can remain airborne for extended periods and can easily flow around a face shield to be inhaled, the face shields were effective in blocking larger aerosol particles (median size of 8.5 µM). Face shields worn over a respirator also reduced surface contamination of the respirator by 97%.

The study's final conclusion was that face shields can be a useful complement to respiratory protections. However, they cannot be used as a substitute for respiratory protection, when needed (Lindsley et al., June 27, 2014). A recent update of the Lindsley study (Lindsley et al., January 7, 2021) found that face shields blocked only 2% of aerosol produced by coughing. These findings suggest that face shields might be a relevant form of protection in healthcare settings to protect employees from droplet exposure when they could have close contact with individuals who are potentially infected with erectile dysfunction treatment. Face shields have proven less effective as a method of source control or a method of personal protection than facemasks.

For example, in considering face shields' value as source control, Verma et al., (June 30, 2020) observed the effect of a face shield on respiratory droplets produced by simulating coughs or sneezes with a manikin. The face shield initially blocked the forward motion of the droplet stream, but droplets were then able to flow around the shield and into the surrounding area. The study authors concluded that face shields alone may not be as effective in blocking droplets. In another study, Stephenson et al., (February 12, 2021) evaluated the effectiveness of face coverings, facemasks, and face shields in reducing droplet transmission. Breathing was simulated in two manikin heads (a transmitter and receiver) that were placed four feet apart.

Artificial saliva containing a marker simulating viral genetic material was used to generate droplets from the transmitter head. The researchers found that face coverings, facemasks, and face shields all reduced the amount of surrogate genetic material measured in the environment and the amount that reached the receiver manikin head at four feet. While face shields reduced surrogate genetic material by 98.6% in the environment and 95.2% at the receiver, genetic material was still deposited downward in the immediate area of the transmitter, suggesting that use of face shields without a facemask could result in a contamination of shared surfaces. This limits the effectiveness of face shields alone as a method of source control for shared workspaces. Additionally, face shields used as personal protective devices showed that the face shields protected the wearer from large cough aerosols directed at the face, but were much less effective against smaller aerosols which were able to flow around the edges of the shield and be inhaled (Lindsley et al., June 27, 2014).

Based on this evidence, OSHA has determined that face shields are not Start Printed Page 32434generally appropriate as a substitute for a facemask because they are less effective at reducing the risk of droplet and potential airborne transmission. However, face shields do offer some protection from droplet transmission and are, accordingly, required by the ETS to be used in any circumstance where, for example, an individual may not be able to wear a facemask due to a medical condition or due to other hazards (e.g., heat stress, arc flash fire hazards). In such limited (and often temporary) situations, a face shield may be the most effective measure to add a layer of protection to reduce workers' overall erectile dysfunction treatment transmission risk, particularly when combined with other protective measures. Additionally, OSHA recognizes that face shields can provide some additional protection when used in addition to a facemask by protecting the wearer's eyes and preventing their facemask from being contaminated with respiratory droplets from other persons. This additional protection may be particularly useful for employees who cannot avoid close contact with others or are unable to work behind barriers.

Accordingly, the ETS allows employers to require face shields in addition to facemasks where employment circumstances might warrant the additional protection. OSHA has always considered recognized consensus standards, with design and construction specifications, when determining the PPE requirements of the agency's standards, as required by the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 655(b)(8)) and the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272 note). The agency has already incorporated by reference the ANSI/ISEA Z87.1, Occupational and Educational Personal Eye and Face Protection Devices consensus standard for face shields in its Eye and Face Protection standard (29 CFR 1910.133).

In this ETS the agency will incorporate by reference more recent editions of the ANSI/ISEA standard than are currently provided for in the existing standard. Additionally, for the limited purpose of complying with the ETS, the agency will also allow any face shield that meets the criteria outlined in the definition of “face shield” found in the definition sections of the ETS. That is. (1) Certified to the ANSI/ISEA Z87.1-2010, 2015, or 2020 standard. Or (2) covers the wearer's eyes, nose, and mouth to protect from splashes, sprays, and spatter of body fluids, wraps around the sides of the wearer's face (i.e., temple-to-temple), and extends below the wearer's chin.

Any face shield that is worn for the purpose of complying with any OSHA standard other than Subpart U must still meet the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.133. III. Need for Other Types of PPE Gloves and gowns (overgarments) are the two most common types of PPE used in healthcare settings. A major principle of Standard Precautions is that all blood and body fluids, whether from a patient, patient sample, or infectious material, may contain transmissible infectious agents (Siegel et al., 2007). Therefore, gloves and gowns (overgarments) are required for certain examinations and all procedures.

These include everything from venipuncture to removing medical waste to intubation. Similarly, gowns or similar protective clothing are necessary for any activities in which splashes or clothing contamination is possible. This applies as part of Standard Precautions as well as for care of patients on Contact Precautions where unintentional contact with contaminated environmental surfaces must be avoided (Siegel et al., 2007). Eye protection in the form of goggles or face shields (as discussed above) can be used with facemasks to protect mucous membranes (eyes, nose, and mouth) in situations where, for example, sprays of blood or body fluids are possible. CDC recommends that healthcare workers wear eye protection during patient care encounters to ensure eyes are protected from infectious bodily fluids (CDC, February 23, 2021).

IV. Conclusion In closing, the best available experimental and epidemiological data support consistent use of facemasks in healthcare work settings to reduce the spread of erectile dysfunction treatment through droplet transmission. Adopting facemask policies is necessary, as part of a multi-layered strategy combined with other non-pharmaceutical interventions such as physical distancing, hand hygiene, and adequate ventilation, to protect employees from erectile dysfunction treatment. Based on the proven effectiveness of facemask use and the effectiveness of face shields in preventing contamination of facemasks and protecting the eyes when there is a particular risk of droplet exposure, OSHA's erectile dysfunction treatment ETS includes necessary provisions for required use of facemasks and face shields (e.g., either as a complementary device or in such circumstances where it is not appropriate or possible to wear a facemask). The ETS also requires additional PPE, such as gloves, gowns, and eye protection, in certain limited circumstances where there is likely exposure to persons with erectile dysfunction treatment.

References Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, February 2). Order under Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 264) and 42 Code of Federal Regulations 70.2, 71.31(b), 71.32(b). Federal Register notice.

Wearing of face masks while on conveyances and at transportation hubs. Https://www.cdc.gov/​quarantine/​masks/​mask-travel-guidance.html. (CDC, February 2, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, February 23).

Interim prevention and control recommendations for healthcare personnel during the erectile dysfunction Disease 2019 (erectile dysfunction treatment) viagra. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​hcp/​-control-recommendations.html. (CDC, February 23, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, April 19).

Guidance for Wearing Masks. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​prevent-getting-sick/​cloth-face-cover-guidance.html. (CDC, April 19, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, May 13).

How erectile dysfunction treatment spreads. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​prevent-getting-sick/​how-erectile dysfunction treatment-spreads.html. (CDC, May 13, 2021). Chu, DK et al., (2020, June 27). Physical Distancing, Face Masks, and Eye Protection to Prevent Person-to-Person Transmission of erectile dysfunction and erectile dysfunction treatment.

A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet 395. 1973-1987. Https://doi.org/​10.1016/​. (Chu et al., June 27, 2020).

Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (2004, July 14). Guidance for industry and FDA staff. Surgical masks—premarket notification [510(k)] submissions. Https://www.fda.gov/​regulatory-information/​search-fda-guidance-documents/​surgical-masks-premarket-notification-510k-submissions.

(FDA, July 14, 2004). Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (2020, December 7). N95 respirators, surgical masks, and face masks. Https://www.fda.gov/​medical-devices/​personal-protective-equipment--control/​n95-respirators-surgical-masks-and-face-masks#s2.

(FDA, December 7, 2020). Garcia-Godoy, L. Et al., (2020, May 5). Facial protection for healthcare workers during viagras. A scoping review.

BMJ global health, 5(5), e002553. Https://doi.org/​10.1136/​bmjgh-2020-002553. (Garcia-Godoy et al., May 5, 2020). Lindsley, W. Et al., (2014, June 27).

Efficacy of face shields against cough aerosol droplets from a cough simulator. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 11(8), 509-518. Doi. 10.1080/15459624.2013.877591. (Lindsley et al., June 27, 2014).

Lindsley, W. Et al., (2021, January 7). Efficacy of face masks, neck gaiters and face shields for reducing the expulsion of simulated cough-generated aerosols. Aerosol Science and Technology, DOI. Start Printed Page 3243510.1080/02786826.2020.1862409.

(Lindsley et al., January 7, 2021). MacIntyre, C. Et al., (2015, March 26). A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers. BMJ Open 2015.

5. E006577. Doi. 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006577. (MacIntyre et al., March 26, 2015).

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). (2021, January 28). Frequently asked questions erectile dysfunction treatment. Https://www.osha.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​faqs. (OSHA, January 28, 2021).

Seidelman, J. Et al., (2020, June 25). Universal masking is an effective strategy to flatten the severe acute respiratory erectile dysfunction viagra 2 (erectile dysfunction) healthcare worker epidemiologic curve. Control &. Hospital Epidemiology, 41(12), 1466-1467.

Doi. 10.1017/ice.2020.313. (Seidelman et al., June 25, 2020). Siegel, J, Rhinehart, E, Jackson, M, Chiarello, L, and the Healthcare Control Practices Advisory Committee. (2007).

2007 Guideline for isolation precautions. Preventing transmission of infectious agents in healthcare settings. Https://www.cdc.gov/​control/​pdf/​guidelines/​isolation-guidelines-H.pdf. (Siegel et al., 2007). Stephenson, T.

Et al., (2021, February 12). Evaluation of facial protection against close-contact droplet transmission. MedRxiv. Doi. 10.1101/2021.02.09.21251443.

(Stephenson et al., February 12, 2021). Ueki, H et al., (2020, June 25). Effectiveness of face masks in preventing airborne transmission of erectile dysfunction. MSphere 5. E00637-20.

Https://doi.org/​10.1128/​mSphere.00637-20. (Ueki et al., June 25, 2020). Verma, S. Et al., (2020, June 30). Visualizing the effectiveness of face masks in obstructing respiratory jets.

Physics of Fluids, 32(6), 061708. Doi. Https://doi.org/​10.1063/​5.0016018. (Verma et al., June 30, 2020). Wang, X.

Et al., (2020, July 14). Association between universal masking in a health care system and erectile dysfunction positivity among health care workers. Journal of the American Medical Association, 324(7), 703-704. Doi. 10.1001/jama.2020.12897.

(Wang et al., July 14, 2020). World Health Organization (WHO). (2020, December 1). Mask use in the context of erectile dysfunction treatment. Https://www.who.int/​emergencies/​diseases/​novel-erectile dysfunction-2019/​advice-for-public/​when-and-how-to-use-masks.

(WHO, December 1, 2020). F. Respirators I. Respirator Use in Healthcare As noted in Grave Danger (Section IV.A. Of the preamble), it is well-accepted that erectile dysfunction treatment might spread through airborne transmission during aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) such as intubation.

Moreover, outside of AGP scenarios, CDC has noted growing evidence that airborne droplets and particles can remain suspended in air, travel distances beyond 6 feet, and be breathed in by others (CDC, May 13, 2021). Grave Danger (Section IV.A. Of the preamble) notes studies showing that infectious viral particles have been collected at distances as far as 4.8 meters away from a erectile dysfunction treatment patient (Lednicky et al., September 11, 2020), and airborne erectile dysfunction treatment has been identified in a Massachusetts hospital (Klompas et al., February 9, 2021). Accordingly, the CDC recommends the use of airborne Transmission Precautions, including the use of respirators, for any healthcare workers caring for patients with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment (CDC, March 12, 2020). This airborne transmission risk is in addition to the risks associated with contact and droplet transmission.

Respirators have long been recognized as an effective and mandatory means of controlling airborne transmissible diseases and the use of this personal protective equipment is regulated under OSHA's Respiratory Protection standard (29 CFR 1910.134). The CDC has issued core guidelines for when “healthcare personnel” should use respiratory protection against erectile dysfunction treatment (see Interim Prevention and Control Recommendations for Healthcare Personnel During the erectile dysfunction Disease 2019 (erectile dysfunction treatment) viagra (CDC, February 23, 2021)). These recommendations have been based on the most currently available information about erectile dysfunction treatment, such as how the viagra spreads, and are applicable to all healthcare settings in the U.S. In the guidance, the CDC defines “healthcare settings” as places where healthcare is delivered, including but not limited to. Acute care facilities, long-term acute care facilities, inpatient rehabilitation facilities, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, home healthcare, vehicles where healthcare is delivered (e.g., mobile clinics), and outpatient facilities (e.g., dialysis centers, physician offices).

In addition, the CDC provides examples of “healthcare personnel,” which include emergency medical service personnel, nurses, nursing assistants, home healthcare personnel, physicians, technicians, therapists, phlebotomists, pharmacists, students and trainees, contractual staff not employed by the healthcare facility, and persons not directly involved in patient care, but who could be exposed to infectious agents that can be transmitted in the healthcare setting (e.g., clerical, dietary, environmental services, laundry, security, engineering and facilities management, administrative, billing, and volunteer personnel). The CDC describes who is at greatest risk for erectile dysfunction treatment in a set of FAQs designed for healthcare workers (CDC, March 4, 2021). In the FAQs, the CDC notes that those currently at greatest risk of erectile dysfunction treatment are persons who have had prolonged, unprotected close contact (i.e., within 6 feet for a combined total of 15 minutes or longer in a 24 hour period) with a patient with confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment, regardless of whether the patient has symptoms. Moreover, according to the CDC, persons frequently in congregate healthcare settings (e.g., nursing homes, assisted living facilities) are at increased risk of acquiring because of the increased likelihood of close contact. In the FAQs, the CDC also reports that current data suggest that close-range aerosol transmission by droplet and inhalation, and contact followed by self-delivery to the eyes, nose, or mouth are likely routes of transmission for erectile dysfunction treatment, and that long-range aerosol transmission, has not been a feature of the viagra.

The CDC further explains that potential routes of close-range transmission include splashes and sprays of infectious material onto mucous membranes and inhalation of infectious virions (i.e., the active, infectious form of a viagra) exhaled by an infected person, but that the relative contribution of each of these is not known for erectile dysfunction treatment. As the CDC states in the FAQs (CDC, March 4, 2021), although facemasks are routinely used for the care of patients with common viral respiratory s, N95 filtering facepiece respirators or equivalent (e.g., elastomeric half-mask respirators) or higher-level (e.g., full facepiece respirators or PAPRs) respirators are routinely recommended to protect healthcare workers from emerging pathogens like the viagra that causes erectile dysfunction treatment, which have the potential for transmission via small particles. The CDC further advises that while facemasks will provide barrier protection against droplet sprays contacting mucous membranes of the nose and mouth, they are not designed to protect wearers from inhaling small particles. Because of this, the CDC recommends the use of respirators for close-contact care of patients with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment. The CDC recommends that N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) and higher-level respirators, such as other disposable FFRs, powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs), and elastomeric respirators, should be used when both barrier and respiratory protection is Start Printed Page 32436needed for healthcare workers because respirators provide better fit and fiation characteristics.

The CDC recommendations in Interim Prevention and Control Recommendations for Healthcare Personnel During the erectile dysfunction Disease 2019 (erectile dysfunction treatment) viagra are divided into two separate categories. These include. (1) Recommended prevention and control practices when caring for a patient with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment. And (2) recommended routine prevention and control practices during the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra (CDC, February 23, 2021). A topic of interest related to the selection and use of respirators is their dual role as both personal protective equipment for the wearer and also source control to reduce the potential for transmission of potentially infectious exhaled air to others.

While many filtering facepiece respirators do not have an exhalation valve, other filtering facepiece respirators do. The other “higher-level” respirators referenced above, and in CDC guidance (e.g., half or full facepiece elastomeric respirators and PAPRs), do have exhalation valves. An exhalation valve is a portal in the respirator to allow unfiltered air to leave the respirator in order to reduce breathing resistance for the wearer and reduce moisture and heat buildup inside the respirator. While the exhalation valve does allow some particles to escape through the valve, it is important to compare the performance of a respirator with an exhalation valve to other acceptable forms of source control in order to determine if there are actually reduced levels of effectiveness. NIOSH studied this issue and released a technical report entitled “Filtering Facepiece Respirators with an Exhalation Valve.

Measurements of Fiation Efficiency to Evaluate Their Potential for Source Control” (NIOSH, December 2020). In the report, NIOSH concluded that respirators with exhalation valves were equally effective as facemasks. This study found that unmitigated FFRs with an exhalation valve that were tested in an outward position (with particles traveling in the direction of exhalation) have a wide range of penetration, emitting between <1% and 55%. Further testing could measure greater particle penetration. Even without mitigation, FFRs with exhalation valves can reduce 0.35-µm MMAD particle emissions more consistently than surgical masks, procedure masks, cloth face coverings, or fabric from cotton t-shirts.

. . . FFRs with an exhalation valve provide respiratory protection to the wearer, and this study demonstrates that they can also reduce 0.35-µm MMAD particle emissions to levels similar to or better than those provided by surgical masks and unregulated barrier face coverings. The results that NIOSH observed can be explained in two ways.

First, the majority of the leakage takes place around the seal by the nose and mouth, and respirators are designed to provide tight seals around the face so that there is only minimal leakage. Facemasks, on the other hand, do not typically seal tightly to the face and thus significant quantities of unfiltered air with small particles will also escape through the gaps on the side and at the nose, as well as potentially through the fabric of less protective filter materials. Second, the level of fiation in facemasks is highly variable, so a wide range of filter efficiencies have been acceptable under CDC guidance. The CDC does not recommend that respirators with exhaust valves be used as source controls, but the CDC's last updated recommendation on this subject was published in August of 2020, four months before the NIOSH study, and cited lack of data as the basis for the warning against relying on such respirators (CDC, April 9, 2021b). Therefore, the NIOSH study with its conclusion that respirators with exhaust valves are not less adequate as source controls than other acceptable source controls, appears to represent the best available evidence.

OSHA therefore concludes that at this time there is no basis for OSHA to prohibit any NIOSH-approved filtering facepiece respirator from serving as both personal protective equipment and as source control. The NIOSH report also details methods of covering the filtering facepiece respirator's exhalation valve in various manners to further improve the effectiveness as source control, which OSHA considers a recommended practice, but not strictly necessary. There are also other methods that can be used to cover or filter the exhalation valve of elastomeric respirators (e.g., place a medical mask over the respirator). II. The CDC's Recommended Prevention and Control Practices When Caring for a Patient With Suspected or Confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment The CDC recommends that healthcare personnel (including workers that perform healthcare services and those that perform healthcare support services) who enter the room or area of a patient with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment adhere to Standard Precautions plus gown, gloves, and eye protection, and also use a NIOSH-approved N95 filtering facepiece or equivalent or higher-level respirator.

The CDC notes in a set of FAQs that its recommendation to use NIOSH-approved N95 disposable filtering facepiece or higher-level respirators when providing care for patients with suspected or known erectile dysfunction treatment is based on the current understanding of the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra and related respiratory viagraes (CDC, March 10, 2021). As noted above, the CDC recommendations listed in Interim Prevention and Control Recommendations for Healthcare Personnel During the erectile dysfunction Disease 2019 (erectile dysfunction treatment) viagra are applicable to all U.S. Settings where healthcare is delivered. To this end, the recommendations on respirator use are repeated in a variety of additional CDC guidelines for specific categories of healthcare settings (e.g., nursing homes, dental settings, assisted living facilities, home health care settings). For example, in its guidance for nursing homes, the CDC recommends that residents with known or suspected erectile dysfunction treatment be cared for while using all recommended PPE, including an N95 or higher-level respirator (CDC, March 29, 2021).

In addition, in its guidance for dental settings, the CDC recommends that dental healthcare personnel who enter the room of a patient with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment use a NIOSH-approved N95 or equivalent or higher-level respirator, as well as other PPE (CDC, December 4, 2020). Additionally, in its guidance for assisted living facilities, the CDC recommends an N95 or higher-level respirator for personnel for situations where close contact with any (symptomatic or asymptomatic) resident cannot be avoided, if erectile dysfunction treatment is suspected or confirmed in a resident of the assisted living facility (i.e., resident reports fever or symptoms consistent with erectile dysfunction treatment) (CDC, May 29, 2020). Also, in its guidance for home healthcare settings, the CDC recommends that when home health agency personnel are involved in the care of people with confirmed or suspected erectile dysfunction treatment at their homes, the personnel adhere to relevant prevention and control practices as described in the core healthcare guidance Interim Prevention and Control Recommendations for Healthcare Personnel During the erectile dysfunction Disease 2019 (erectile dysfunction treatment) viagra (i.e., that they use N95 or higher-level respirators) (CDC, October 16, 2020). In addition to its prevention and control guidelines for healthcare personnel in healthcare settings, the CDC has issued prevention and control guidelines for conducting postmortem procedures on decedents/Start Printed Page 32437human remains during the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra in Collection and Submission of Postmortem Specimens from Deceased Persons with Confirmed or Suspected erectile dysfunction treatment (CDC, December 2, 2020). In this guidance, the CDC recommends respirators while conducting autopsies on decedents in all cases due to the likelihood of aerosol generation during the performance of autopsies (CDC, December 2, 2020).

The WHO has also issued guidelines for erectile dysfunction treatment control for aerosol-generating procedures during autopsies. For example, WHO recommends respirators for procedures such as the use of power saws (WHO, September 4, 2020). As supported by the above evidence and guidance from authoritative bodies, OSHA has concluded that healthcare employees have a heightened risk of erectile dysfunction treatment when working with patients with known or suspected erectile dysfunction treatment. Accordingly, in any healthcare setting where employees are exposed to patients with known or suspected erectile dysfunction treatment, whether or not AGPs are performed, employers are required to provide N95s or higher-level respirators and follow all requirements under 29 CFR 1910.134, including medical evaluations and fit testing. III.

Applicability of the Respiratory Protection Standard to erectile dysfunction treatment OSHA's Respiratory Protection standard (29 CFR 1910.134) has general requirements for respiratory protection for workers exposed to respiratory hazards, including the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra. In the context of the viagra, the agency has applied the Respiratory Protection standard to situations in healthcare settings where workers are exposed to suspected or confirmed sources of erectile dysfunction treatment. OSHA's Respiratory Protection standard has been in effect since 1998 and the purpose of those controls have been established for decades (63 FR 1152, January 8, 1998). The standard contains requirements for the administration of a respiratory protection program, with worksite-specific procedures, respirator selection, employee training, fit testing, medical evaluation, respirator use, respirator cleaning, maintenance, and repair, among other requirements. It is important to note that the standard applies to “biological hazards” (63 FR 1180, January 8, 1998).

Accordingly, the agency will continue to apply the Respiratory Protection standard to work tasks and situations in healthcare as covered by 29 CFR 1910.502. IV. Respirator Provisions Tailored to the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra Will Clarify Employer Responsibilities Notwithstanding the applicability of the Respiratory Protection standard, as OSHA will explain in this discussion, it is imperative that the ETS contain additional provisions related to the employer's discretion to select respirators beyond what is required by 29 CFR 1910.134. These additional requirements are necessary in order to appropriately protect workers in healthcare industries. In the Need for the ETS (Section IV.B.

Of the preamble), OSHA has addressed why existing standards in general are inadequate to address the erectile dysfunction treatment hazard. In this discussion the agency focuses more specifically on how clarifications regarding respirator need and use will help address erectile dysfunction treatment hazards. Many employers are confused as to when respiratory protection is required for protection against erectile dysfunction treatment, leaving many unprotected healthcare workers at high risk of becoming infected with erectile dysfunction treatment. This confusion has been exacerbated by two factors. First, many employers that need to provide respirators to protect their workers from erectile dysfunction treatment have never needed to provide respirators to their workers in the past (e.g., many employers in the home health care or nursing home sector), or have not had to routinely provide respirators to certain workers in their facilities to protect them against infectious disease hazards (e.g., the housekeeping or facilities maintenance staff in some medical facilities).

Second, there have been respirator and fit testing supply shortages and a widespread misinterpretation by employers of OSHA's temporary enforcement memoranda on respiratory protection. One issue of great concern to the agency is a misunderstanding by employers about crisis capacity strategies, which were initially suggested by the CDC as a means to optimize supplies of disposable N95 FFRs in healthcare settings when the alternative would be no respiratory protection at all. Many workers report that their employers have employed crisis capacity strategies as the de facto daily practice, even when additional respirators were available for use. To address these issues, the ETS contains clear mandates on when respiratory protection is required for protection against erectile dysfunction treatment and contains a note encouraging employers to use elastomeric respirators or PAPRs instead of filtering facepiece respirators to prevent shortages and supply chain disruption. To address initial N95 FFR shortages, the CDC began to create and issue a series of strategies to optimize supplies of disposable N95 FFRs in healthcare settings when there is limited supply (CDC, April 9, 2021a).

The strategies are based on the three general strata that have been used to describe surge capacity to prioritize measures to conserve N95 FFR supplies along the continuum of care (Hick et al., June 1, 2009). Contingency measures (temporary measures during expected N95 shortages), and then crisis capacity measures (emergency strategies during known shortages that are not commensurate with U.S. Standards of care), augment conventional capacity measures and are meant to be considered and implemented sequentially. However, as the supply of respirators for healthcare personnel has increased, the CDC and FDA have encouraged employers to transition away from the most extreme measures of respirator conservation, crisis and contingency capacity strategies, to conventional use (FDA, April 9, 2021. CDC, April 9, 2021a).

The use of crisis capacity strategies is likely to increase the risk of erectile dysfunction treatment exposure when compared to conventional and contingency capacity strategies. The CDC's conventional capacity strategies for optimizing the supply of N95 FFRs, which the CDC recommends be incorporated into everyday practices, include a variety of measures, such as training on use and indications for the use of respirators, just-in-time fit testing, limiting respirators during training, qualitative fit testing, and the use of alternatives to FFRs. CDC's conventional capacity strategy recommendation is to use NIOSH-approved alternatives to N95 FFRs where feasible. These include other classes of disposable FFRs, reusable elastomeric half-mask and full facepiece air-purifying respirators, and reusable powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs). All of these alternatives provide equivalent or higher-level protection than N95 FFRs when properly worn.

To assist employers in this effort, NIOSH maintains a searchable, online Certified Equipment List identifying all NIOSH-approved respirators (NIOSH, n.d., retrieved on January 11, 2021). Since they are reusable, elastomeric respirators and PAPRs have the added advantage of being able to be disinfected, cleaned, and reused according to manufacturers' instructions. As such, they can be used by workers after the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra and during future viagras that may again create N95 FFR Start Printed Page 32438shortages. Consistent with this, the ETS provides in a note that, where possible, employers are encouraged to select elastomeric respirators or PAPRs instead of filtering facepiece respirators to prevent shortages and supply chain disruption. Also consistent with this, the ETS provides in the same note that, when there is a limited supply of filtering facepiece respirators (and only when there is a limited supply of filtering facepiece respirators), employers may follow the CDC's Strategies for Optimizing the Supply of N95 Respirators (April 9, 2021a).

This may include the use of respirators beyond the manufacturer-designated shelf life for healthcare delivery. Use of respirators approved under standards used in other countries that are similar to NIOSH-approved N95 respirators. Limited re-use of N95 FFRs. And prioritizing the use of N95 respirators and facemasks by activity type. However, again, the FDA and CDC are recommending healthcare personnel and facilities transition away from crisis capacity conservation strategies, such as decontaminating or bioburden reducing disposable respirators for reuse, due to the increased domestic supply of new respirators.

The FDA and CDC believe there is an increased supply of respirators to transition away from these strategies (FDA, April 9, 2021. CDC, April 9, 2021a). OSHA notes finally that its enforcement of the Respiratory Protection standard has been complicated by the respirator and fit-testing supply shortages incurred during the viagra. In response to these shortages, the agency issued numerous temporary enforcement guidance memoranda allowing its Compliance Safety and Health Officers (CSHOs) to exercise enforcement discretion when considering issuing citations under the Respiratory Protection standard and/or the equivalent respiratory protection provisions of other health standards during the viagra (OSHA, n.d., Retrieved December 22, 2020). OSHA's temporary enforcement memoranda are aligned with CDC's Strategies for Optimizing the Supply of N95 Respirators, which recommend a variety of conventional, contingency, and crisis capacity control strategies, as mentioned above (CDC, April 9, 2021a).

Unfortunately, these memoranda have been widely misinterpreted by employers, resulting in additional confusion about OSHA's respiratory protection requirements during the viagra. OSHA bases this conclusion on staff expertise and experience, as well as on reporting in news media articles (Safety + Health, April 9, 2020. Bailey and Martin, March 19, 2020). (See also Need for the ETS (Section IV.B. Of the preamble).) For example, employers have misinterpreted the temporary enforcement guidance memoranda as offering blanket waivers or exemptions for complying with certain provisions of the Respiratory Protection standard (e.g., annual fit-testing requirements).

In addition, many employers did not understand that these memoranda allow for enforcement discretion by CSHOs only in circumstances where an employer can demonstrate that it made unsuccessful but objectively reasonable efforts to obtain and conserve supplies of FFRs and fit-testing supplies. While the memoranda were intended as guidelines for CSHOs, employer misinterpretation of these memoranda has resulted in fewer protections for workers, particularly in healthcare industries. OSHA is therefore clarifying that respirators are required for the protection of workers exposed to suspected or confirmed sources of erectile dysfunction treatment in healthcare settings, and in all of those cases the respirators must be used in accordance with the Respiratory Protection standard (29 CFR 1910.134). OSHA also encourages employers, where possible, to select elastomeric respirators or PAPRs instead of filtering facepiece respirators to prevent shortages and supply chain disruption. Because the crisis capacity strategy is less protective, the employer should only use crisis capacity strategies for a limited period of time and take immediate steps to purchase and use elastomeric respirators or PAPRs in order to prevent future shortages and further expose their workers to the grave danger of erectile dysfunction treatment.

V. Conclusion The best available evidence demonstrates that respirator use is an important means of reducing the likelihood of erectile dysfunction treatment of the wearer when used in accordance with § 1910.134. Respirators are necessary controls that provide some protection to healthcare workers and healthcare support service workers when exposed to persons with known or suspected erectile dysfunction treatment. Based on the above analysis, the agency concludes that it is necessary to add into the ETS respiratory protection requirements tailored specifically to the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra. These requirements will assist employers in identifying when respiratory protection is required for healthcare workers and will help address and strengthen worker protection during the viagra.

To this end, the ETS takes a prioritization approach to the conservation of respirators by requiring the use of respirators only where airborne transmission is the most likely (when employees are exposed to persons with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment, or in accordance with Standard and Transmission-Based Precautions in healthcare settings). The increased certainty associated with the respirator requirements in the healthcare section and added flexibility of allowing employers to follow 29 CFR 1910.504 in some limited circumstances will lead to more compliance, and more compliance will lead to improved protection of workers. In addition, a note in the ETS will better inform employers that they can consider selecting from other NIOSH-approved respirator options (i.e., elastomeric respirators and PAPRs) as alternatives to N95 FFRs for protection against erectile dysfunction treatment, as well as other respiratory s (e.g., tuberculosis, varicella, etc.) both during the viagra and beyond. Knowledge of alternative respiratory protection options for healthcare employers to consider will help them choose appropriate alternative respirators and help mitigate respirator supply shortages. References Bailey, M.

And Martin, J. (2020, March 19). OSHA allows healthcare employers to suspend N95 annual fit-testing during erectile dysfunction “Outbreak.” The National Law Review. Https://www.natlawreview.com/​article/​osha-allows-healthcare-employers-to-suspend-n95-annual-fit-testing-during. (Bailey and Martin, March 19, 2020).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2020, March 12). What healthcare personnel should know about caring for patients with confirmed or possible erectile dysfunction treatment. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​hcp/​caring-for-patients-H.pdf. (CDC, March 12, 2020).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2020, May 29). Considerations for preventing spread of erectile dysfunction treatment in assisted living facilities. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​hcp/​assisted-living.html. (CDC, May 29, 2020).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2020, October 16). Interim guidance for implementing home care of people not requiring hospitalization for erectile dysfunction treatment. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​hcp/​guidance-home-care.html. (CDC, October 16, 2020).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2020, December 2). Collection and submission of postmortem specimens from deceased persons with confirmed or suspected erectile dysfunction treatment. Start Printed Page 32439 https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​hcp/​guidance-postmortem-specimens.html. (CDC, December 2, 2020).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2020, December 4). Guidance for dental settings. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​hcp/​dental-settings.html. (CDC, December 4, 2020).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, February 23). Interim prevention and control recommendations for healthcare personnel during the erectile dysfunction disease 2019 (erectile dysfunction treatment) viagra. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​hcp/​-control-recommendations.html. (CDC, February 23, 2021).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, March 4). Clinical questions about erectile dysfunction treatment. Questions and answers. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​hcp/​faq.html.

(CDC, March 4, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, March 10). Frequently asked questions about erectile dysfunction (erectile dysfunction treatment) for laboratories. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​lab/​faqs.html#Laboratory-Biosafety.

(CDC, March 10, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, March 29). Interim Prevention and Control Recommendations to Prevent erectile dysfunction Spread in Nursing Homes. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​hcp/​long-term-care.html.

(CDC, March 29, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021a, April 9). Strategies for optimizing the supply of N95 respirators. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​hcp/​respirators-strategy/​index.html.

(CDC, April 9, 2021a). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021b, April 9). Personal Protective Equipment. Questions and Answers.

Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​hcp/​respirator-use-faq.html. (CDC, April 9, 2021b). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, May 13). How erectile dysfunction treatment spreads.

Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​prevent-getting-sick/​how-erectile dysfunction treatment-spreads.html. (CDC, May 13, 2021). Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (2021, April 9). FDA Recommends Transition from Use of Decontaminated Disposable Respirators—Letter to Health Care Personnel and Facilities.

Https://www.fda.gov/​medical-devices/​letters-health-care-providers/​fda-recommends-transition-use-decontaminated-disposable-respirators-letter-health-care-personnel-and. (FDA, April 9, 2021). Hick, J. Et al., (2009, June 1). Refining surge capacity.

Conventional, contingency, and crisis capacity. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 3(2 Suppl), S59-S67. Https://doi.org/​10.1097/​DMP.0b013e31819f1ae2. (Hick et al., June 1, 2009). Klompas, M.

Et al., (2021). A erectile dysfunction cluster in an acute care hospital. Annals of Internal Medicine. [Epub ahead of print 9 February 2021] https://doi.org/​10.7326/​M20-7567. (Klompas et al., February 9, 2021).

Lednicky, J. Et al., (2020, September 11). Viable erectile dysfunction in the air of a hospital room with erectile dysfunction treatment patients. International Journal of Infectious Diseases, 100, 476-482. Doi.

10.1016/j.ijid.2020.09.025. (Lednicky et al., September 11, 2020). National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) (2020, December). Filtering facepiece respirators with an exhalation valve. Measurements of fiation efficiency to evaluate their potential for source control.

By Portnoff, L., Schall, J., Brannen, J., Suhon, N., Strickland, K., Meyers, J. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2021-107. Https://www.cdc.gov/​niosh/​docs/​2021-107/​pdfs/​2021-107.pdf?. €‹id=​10.26616/​NIOSHPUB2021107.

Retrieved January 10, 2021. (NIOSH, December, 2020). National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). (n.d.) Certified equipment lists. Retrieved January 11, 2021 from https://www.cdc.gov/​niosh/​npptl/​topics/​respirators/​cel/​default.html.

(NIOSH, n.d., Retrieved January 11, 2021). Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). (n.d.). erectile dysfunction treatment—regulations—enforcement memoranda. Retrieved December 22, 2020 from https://www.osha.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​standards#temp_​enforcement_​guidance.

(OSHA, n.d., Retrieved December 22, 2020). Safety + Health. (2020, April 9). OSHA allowing all employers to suspend annual respirator fit testing. Https://www.safetyandhealthmagazine.com/​articles/​19685-osha-allowing-all-employers-to-suspend-annual-respirator-fit-testing.

(Safety + Health, April 9, 2020). World Health Organization (WHO). (2020, September 4). prevention and control for the safe management of a dead body in the context of erectile dysfunction treatment. Https://www.who.int/​publications/​i/​item/​-prevention-and-control-for-the-safe-management-of-a-dead-body-in-the-context-of-erectile dysfunction treatment-interim-guidance.

(WHO, September 4, 2020). G. Mini Respiratory Protection Program I. Introduction OSHA emphasizes that when respirators are required under the ETS to protect employees against exposure to suspected or confirmed sources of erectile dysfunction treatment, they must be used in accordance with the Respiratory Protection standard (29 CFR 1910.134). Moreover, nothing in the ETS changes an employer's obligation to identify hazards or provide a respirator that must be used in accordance with the Respiratory Protection standard for any other workplace hazard that might require respiratory protection (e.g., silica, asbestos, airborne infectious agents such as Mycobacterium tuberculosis).

OSHA's Respiratory Protection standard requires employers to develop and implement a comprehensive written respiratory protection program, required worksite-specific procedures and elements that include, but are not limited to, respirator selection and use, medical evaluation, fit testing, respirator maintenance and care, and training. Establishing such a program can take time to establish and require a level of expertise that some employers do not have, particularly if they are a covered healthcare employer that did not typically have respiratory hazards before erectile dysfunction treatment (e.g., many employers in the home health care or nursing home sector). In such cases, these regulatory requirements may have unintentionally prevented employers from providing their employees with a higher level of respiratory protection than afforded by a facemask in circumstances where it may have been beneficial to do so. The “mini respiratory protection program” section of the ETS (29 CFR 1910.504) is designed to strengthen employee protections with a small set of provisions for the safe use of respirators designed to be easier and faster to implement than the more comprehensive respiratory protection program. The ETS is addressing an emergency health crisis, so it is critical for employers to be able to get more employee protection in place quickly.

OSHA expects that this approach will facilitate additional employee choice for the additional protection provided by respirators while reducing disincentives that may have discouraged employers from allowing or voluntarily providing respirators. A mini respirator program is therefore an important control to protect employees from the hazard posed by erectile dysfunction treatment. The mini respiratory protection program section is primarily intended to be used for addressing circumstances where employees are not exposed to suspected or confirmed sources of erectile dysfunction treatment, but where respirator use could offer enhanced protection to employees. Examples include when a respirator could offer enhanced protection in circumstances where a less protective (in terms of filtering and fit) facemask is required under the ETS. (See 29 CFR 1910.502(f)(4).) The decision to use a respirator in place of a facemask could be due to the higher filter efficiency and better sealing characteristics of respirators when compared to facemasks and/or in consideration of an employer's determination during their hazard assessment of constraints on their Start Printed Page 32440ability to implement other ETS provisions (e.g., physical distancing and barriers).

If an employee uses a respirator in place of a facemask, then the employer must ensure that the respirator is used in accordance with the mini respiratory protection program section of the ETS or in accordance with the Respiratory Protection standard. For example, if an employee that is required to wear a facemask instead chooses to wear a respirator when performing an aerosol-generating procedure (AGP) on a patient who is not suspected or confirmed with erectile dysfunction treatment, the ETS only requires the employer to ensure that the respirator is used in accordance with the mini respiratory protection program section, rather than in accordance with the Respiratory Protection standard, because there is no exposure to a suspected or confirmed source of erectile dysfunction treatment (see 29 CFR 1901.502(f)(4)(ii)). In contrast, employees performing AGPs on patients with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment must be provided with respirators that are used in accordance with the Respiratory Protection standard (see 29 CFR 1901.502(f)(3)(i)). Additionally, employers will still be obligated to provide a respirator that is used in accordance with the Respiratory Protection standard for any AGPs performed on patients suspected or confirmed with an airborne disease, such as tuberculosis or measles. II.

Experience From the Respiratory Protection Standard (29 CFR 1910.134) In determining the need for a mini respiratory protection program section, the agency considered its experience with the existing Respiratory Protection standard. While the majority of the Respiratory Protection standard pertains to the use of respirators that are required for the protection of employees against airborne hazards, there is one provision allowing, but not requiring, employers to permit employees to wear respirators in situations where respirators are not required for protection against airborne hazards. (See 29 CFR 1910.134(c)(2).) In establishing the requirements of this provision of the Respiratory Protection standard, OSHA also establishes some general concepts to guide respirator use. These concepts include. (1) That the respirator use will not in itself create a hazard.

(2) that the employer provides the respirator user with information about the safe use and limitations of respirators. And (3) that the respirator is cleaned, stored, and maintained so that its use does not present a health hazard to the user. (29 CFR 1910.134(c)(2)(i) and (ii)). OSHA has historically imposed a different set of requirements on employers for when respirators are required to protect employees from airborne hazards as compared to when they are not required for protection against airborne hazards but are instead used voluntarily by employees. More specifically, paragraph (c)(1) of the Respiratory Protection standard requires employers to develop and implement a comprehensive written respiratory protection program with required worksite-specific procedures and elements whenever respirator use is required by the standard.

As noted earlier, these elements include, but are not limited to, respirator selection and use, medical evaluation, fit testing, respirator maintenance and care, and training. In contrast, paragraph (c)(2) of the Respiratory Protection standard requires employers to implement only a subset of these elements for the voluntary use of respirators, greatly reducing the obligations of employers who allow their employees to use respirators when such use is not required for employee protection. In the 1998 rulemaking, OSHA determined that paragraph (c)(2) is necessary because the use of respirators may itself present a health hazard to employees who are not medically able to wear them, who do not have adequate information to use and care for respirators properly, and who do not understand the limitations of respirators. Paragraph (c)(2) is intended to allow employers flexibility to permit employees to use respirators in situations where the employees wish to do so, without imposing the burden of implementing an entire respirator program. At the same time, it will help ensure that such use does not create an additional hazard and that employees are provided with enough information to use and care for their respirators properly (63 FR 1190, January 8, 1998).

The vast majority of voluntary respirator use situations under the Respiratory Protection standard have historically involved the use of FFRs, worn merely for an employee's comfort (63 FR 1190, January 8, 1998). Examples include employees who have seasonal allergies requesting a FFR for comfort when working outdoors and employees requesting a FFR for comfort while sweeping a dusty floor (63 FR 1190, January 8, 1998). In contrast, respirator use situations under this section of the ETS will involve employers who provide a respirator or employees who want to wear a respirator, out of an abundance of caution, as enhanced protection against erectile dysfunction treatment. They may also opt to wear respirators other than FFRs (e.g., elastomeric respirators, PAPRs), particularly given the supply shortages of N95 FFRs experienced during the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra. Thus, the circumstances of respirator use in the ETS are not merely to accommodate individual conditions or comfort, but rather in recognition of some increased risk due to asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission of erectile dysfunction treatment that is not expected to rise to the level where respirators are required for exposure to suspected or confirmed sources of erectile dysfunction treatment.

OSHA emphasizes that while the new set of requirements for respirator use under the ETS differ in some aspects from those specified under the Respiratory Protection standard, their intent remains the same. That is, employers who provide respirators at the request of their employees or who allow their employees to bring their own respirators into the workplace must ensure that the respirator used does not present a hazard to the health of the employee. In the 1998 rulemaking, OSHA concluded in the rare case where an employee is voluntarily using other than a filtering facepiece (dust mask) respirator (paragraph (c)(2)(ii)), the employer must implement some of the elements of a respiratory protection program, e.g., the medical evaluation component of the program and, if the respirator is to be reworn, the cleaning, maintenance, and storage components. An exception to this paragraph makes clear that, where voluntary respirator use involves only filtering facepieces (dust masks), the employer is not required to implement a written program. While medical evaluation is required when employees are voluntarily wearing respirators other than FFRs under the Respiratory Protection standard, there are no requirements under the ETS to provide medical evaluations for employees wearing such respirators.

The agency concludes that it would be too onerous and costly for employers to provide medical evaluations to employees wearing elastomeric respirators or PAPRs in place of FFRs used in accordance with crisis capacity strategies during the short period of the ETS. However, OSHA's experience with its Respiratory Protection standard suggests that respiratory protection can still be effective even when subject to particular safety provisions, but not subject to the full range of requirements. In place of medical evaluations, the agency has included a training requirement on how to recognize medical signs and symptoms that may Start Printed Page 32441limit or prevent the effective use of employer-provided respirators and what to do if the employee experiences signs and symptoms (29 CFR 1910.504(d)(1)(v)), as well as a requirement for the discontinuation of employer-provided respirator use (see 29 CFR 1910.504(d)(4)). This requirement mandates that employees who wear employer-provided respirators must discontinue respirator use when the employer or supervisor reports medical signs or symptoms that are related to their ability to use a respirator. In addition, any employee who previously had a medical evaluation and was determined to not be medically fit to wear a respirator should not be provided with an employer-provided respirator under the ETS.

The ETS does not require employers to include any of the use requirements specified under the ETS into a written respiratory protection program. OSHA concludes that it would be too onerous for employers to incorporate these requirements into a written respiratory protection program during the short period of the ETS, particularly for those employers who have no need to have a written respiratory protection program in place for required respirator use. OSHA reemphasizes that the intent of the requirements in the mini respiratory protection program are to ensure that employees are provided with information to safely wear respirators, without imposing the burden of additional requirements for a written respiratory protection program on employers. OSHA notes that unlike the voluntary use requirements specified under the Respiratory Protection standard, there are different requirements for the use of employee-provided respirators as compared to those for employer-provided respirators under the mini respiratory protection program section. This is because the agency is requiring employers to permit the use of employee-provided respirators.

OSHA concludes that it is necessary to permit employees to wear their own respirators in healthcare settings given the risk for asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission and the nature of much of the work that precludes such control measures as physical distancing and barriers. However, the agency concludes that it would be too onerous to mandate as many requirements for such use as are mandated when employers are given the option of whether or not to provide employees with respirators for use. III. Requirements for Employee-Provided Respirators In the 1998 rulemaking, OSHA determined that complete training is not required for employees using respirators voluntarily. Instead, the final rule required employers to provide the information contained in Appendix D to the Respiratory Protection standard, entitled “Information for Employees Using Respirators When Not Required Under the Standard,” to ensure that employees are informed of proper respirator use and the limitations of respirators (63 FR 1190-1192, January 8, 1998).

Under the ETS, there is only one requirement for the use of employee-provided respirators. This requirement is for the employer to provide these employees with a specific notice, as specified under paragraph (c) of the mini respiratory protection program section. This notice is almost identical to the notice contained in Appendix D to the Respiratory Protection standard, with some minor changes intended only to tailor the information to the situational needs of the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra. IV. Requirements for Employer-Provided Respirators As noted above, under the ETS, the requirements for the use of employer-provided respirators are more expansive under the mini respiratory protection program section than the requirements for employee-provided respirators.

However, OSHA notes that employers are not obligated by the ETS to provide employees with respirators for use under the mini respiratory protection program section, so these requirements are only mandated when an employer voluntarily provides employees with respirators for use under the mini program. The requirements include provisions pertaining to training, user seal checks, reuse of respirators, and discontinuing use of respirators. When employers choose to provide respirators to employees, the same rationale applies as it did in the 1998 rulemaking requiring employers to undertake these minimal obligations when they allow voluntary respirator use is consistent with the fact that employers control the working conditions of employees and are therefore responsible for developing procedures designed to protect the health and safety of the employees. Employers routinely develop and enforce rules and requirements for employees to follow based on considerations of safety. For example, although an employer allows employees discretion in the types of clothing that may be worn on site, the employer would prohibit the wearing of loose clothing in areas where clothing could get caught in machinery, or prohibit the use of sleeveless shirts where there is a potential for skin contact with hazardous materials.

Similarly, if an employer determines that improper or inappropriate respirator use presents a hazard to the wearer, OSHA finds that the employer must exert control over such respirator use and take steps to see that respirators are safely used under an appropriate program (63 FR 1190-1191, January 8, 1998). The training requirements for the use of employer-provided respirators expand on the basic respirator awareness notice required for the use of employee-provided respirators. They require the employer to provide training on. (a) How to inspect, put on and remove, and use a respirator. (b) the limitations and capabilities of the respirator, particularly when the respirator has not been fit tested.

(c) procedures and schedules for storing, maintaining, and inspecting respirators. (d) how to perform a user seal check as described in paragraph (e) of this section. And (e) how to recognize medical signs and symptoms that may limit or prevent the effective use of respirators and what to do if the employee experiences signs and symptoms. These training requirements for respirator use are similar to the training requirements mandated under the Respiratory Protection standard for required respirator use. (See 29 CFR 1910.134(k)).

OSHA concludes that more extensive training provisions are required for the use of employer-supplied respirators under the ETS because such use is likely to be based on other factors related to the risk of erectile dysfunction treatment, including the ability to implement other control measure (e.g., physical distancing and barriers). The user seal check requirements mandate employers to ensure that employees conduct user seal checks and to ensure the employees correct any problems discovered during the user seal check. This is similar to the user seal check provision for required respirator use under the Respiratory Protection standard. (See 1910.134(g)(1)(iii)). OSHA concludes that ensuring that user seal checks are conducted is necessary because employees who wear respirators are not required to be fit tested under the ETS.

OSHA notes that, in the 1998 rulemaking, OSHA concluded that user seal checks are important in assuring that respirators are functioning properly, and that although user seal checks are not as objective a measure of facepiece leakage as a fit test, they do Start Printed Page 32442provide a quick and easy means of determining that a respirator is seated properly (63 FR 1239-40, January 8, 1998). Given that employees who choose to wear employer-provided respirators will likely be doing so out of an abundance of caution to protect against potential airborne transmission of erectile dysfunction and will not be fit tested, OSHA concludes that it is necessary for employers to train employees how to conduct a user seal check and to ensure that they are performed properly in order to improve the effectiveness of the respirator. In the 1998 rulemaking, OSHA determined that “if the respirators being used voluntarily are reused, it is necessary to ensure that they are maintained in proper condition to ensure that the employee is not exposed to any contaminants that may be present in the facepiece, and to prevent skin irritation and dermatitis associated with the use of a respirator that has not been cleaned or disinfected” (63 FR 1190, January 8, 1998). To this end, and given the potential for supply shortages of FFRs necessitating their reuse under certain circumstances during the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra, OSHA concludes that it is necessary to add specific requirements for the reuse of respirators used voluntarily. These requirements incorporate some CDC recommendations for the reuse of FFRs used in accordance with crisis capacity strategies (CDC, April 9, 2021).

References Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, April 9). Strategies for Optimizing the Supply of N95 Respirators. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​hcp/​respirators-strategy/​index.html. (CDC, April 9, 2021).

H. Aerosol-Generating Procedures on Persons With Suspected or Confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment As explained in more detail in Grave Danger (Section IV.A. Of the preamble), aerosol-generating procedures (AGP) are well-known to be high-risk activities for exposure to respiratory s. Workers in a wide range of settings, such as emergency responders, healthcare providers, and medical examiners performing autopsies, are at risk during AGPs. For the purposes of the ETS, only the following procedures are considered AGPs.

Open suctioning of airways, sputum induction, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, endotracheal intubation and extubation, non-invasive ventilation (e.g., BiPAP, CPAP), bronchoscopy, manual ventilation, medical/surgical / postmortem procedures using oscillating bone saws, and dental procedures involving uasonic scalers, high-speed dental handpieces, air/water syringes, air polishing, and air abrasion. For further information on why these procedures are considered AGPs under the ETS, please see the discussion of aerosol-generating procedures in Section VIII, Summary and Explanation. The CDC provides extensive guidance for performance of AGPs (CDC, February 23, 2021). First, exposure should be limited where possible. The CDC recommends that the use of procedures or techniques that might produce infectious aerosols should be minimized when feasible, as should the number of people in the room.

CAP has also recognized the risks involved in conducting AGPs by recommending limiting the use of aerosol-generating tools, such as oscillating bone saws, during autopsies on erectile dysfunction treatment-positive cases (College of American Pathologists, February 2, 2021). Post-mortem procedures using oscillating bone saws have specifically been noted as a erectile dysfunction treatment-related exposure concern (Nolte et al., December 14, 2020). The following controls are therefore recommended for autopsies involving the use of oscillating bone saws. Isolation rooms, limiting the number of people in the room who are exposed, negative pressure ventilation, adequate air exchange, double door access, and use of respirators. As noted in Grave Danger (Section IV.A.

Of the preamble), it is well-accepted that erectile dysfunction treatment may spread through infectious aerosols during AGPs. Therefore, where these procedures must be performed, there are two important controls for these situations. Ventilation (for example, in the form of air isolation rooms (AIIR), if available) and respiratory protection. Both of these controls are required for AGPs in the ETS. For more information on why there is a need to include in this ETS a requirement for respirators during aerosol-generating procedures, please see Need for Specific Provisions (Section V of this preamble) on Respirators.

It is well-established that insufficient ventilation increases the risk of airborne disease transmission. Indeed, this is the foundation for the World Health Organization recommendations on ventilation in healthcare settings (Atkinson et al., 2009). When air is stagnant or poorly ventilated, aerosols may increase in concentration and increase exposure. Both a lack of ventilation and inadequate ventilation are associated with increased rates of airborne diseases. Increasing ventilation rates has been shown to decrease transmission risk of airborne disease.

Ventilation is able to direct airflow away from uninfected individuals, which reduces risk of transmission. The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) is the authoritative organization for ventilation standards in the U.S. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has been tasked by the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency with the design and construction of alternative care sites during surges in the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra.

USACE requested that ASHRAE provide engineering guidance for ventilation within alternative care sites. The resulting joint ASHRAE/USACE document makes recommendations for removal of aerosols generated by patients during AGPs and other patient care activities in alternative care sites (ASHRAE and USACE. November 20, 2020). Additionally, ASHRAE provides specific guidance on source control and AIIRs related to aerosol-generating procedures during the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra (ASHRAE, January 30, 2021). Airborne isolation rooms (AIIR) are specifically designed to control the spread of aerosols and prevent airborne transmission of disease (Sehulster and Chinn, June 6, 2003).

An AIIR has negative pressure in comparison to accessible areas outside the room, which causes air to flow into (rather than out of) the room from the room's access points when they are open (e.g., an open door). When the access points (e.g., the door) are closed and ventilation is adequate, contaminated air cannot escape at all into the rest of the facility. Air exhaust can be delivered directly outdoors or passed through a special high-efficiency (HEPA) filter. In this way, AIIRs minimize potentially contaminated air flow outward into the rest of the facility. Because of the risk of airborne transmission, the CDC recommends the use of AIIRs when AGPs are performed on patients with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment.

However, increased protection for workers performing AGPs is not a new recommendation solely for the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra. The CDC and WHO both routinely recommend higher levels of personal protective equipment for workers performing these procedures on patients with other respiratory s (CDC, October 30, 2018). The CDC recommendations for AGPs performed on influenza patients specify use of AIIRs when feasible. The Start Printed Page 32443recommendations also specify that the use of portable HEPA fiation units to further reduce the concentration of contaminants in the air should be considered. Similarly, the World Health Organization recommends more protective respirators for AGPs (WHO, April, 2008).

Finally, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has developed a ventilated headboard that can be used to reduce employee exposure to patient-generated aerosols containing respiratory pathogens (NIOSH, May 26, 2020). References American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). (2021, January 30). Guide to the erectile dysfunction treatment Pages. Https://www.ashrae.org/​technical-resources/​healthcare.

(ASHRAE, January 30, 2021). American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (2020, November 20). Alternate Care Site HVAC Guidebook. Https://www.ashrae.org/​about/​news/​2020/​new-alternative-care-site-guidebook-available-to-help-respond-to-the-rising-need-for-hospital-beds-due-to-erectile dysfunction treatment.

(ASHRAE and USACE, November 20, 2020). Atkinson, J et al., (2009). Natural Ventilation for Control in Health-Care Setting World Health Organization Guidelines. Https://www.who.int/​water_​sanitation_​health/​publications/​natural_​ventilation/​en/​. (Atkinson et al., 2009).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2018, October 30). Prevention strategies for seasonal influenza in healthcare settings. Https://www.cdc.gov/​flu/​professionals/​control/​healthcaresettings.htm. (CDC, October 30, 2018).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, February 23). Interim prevention and control recommendations for healthcare personnel during the erectile dysfunction Disease 2019 (erectile dysfunction treatment) viagra. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​hcp/​-control-recommendations.html. (CDC, February 23, 2021).

College of American Pathologists. (2021, February 2). Amended erectile dysfunction treatment autopsy guideline statement from the CAP Autopsy Committee. Https://documents.cap.org/​documents/​erectile dysfunction treatment-Autopsy-Statement.pdf. (College of American Pathologists, February 2, 2021).

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). (2020, May 26). Worker protective controls—engineering controls to reduce airborne, droplet and contact exposures during epidemic/viagra response. Https://www.cdc.gov/​niosh/​topics/​healthcare/​engcontrolsolutions/​ventilated-headboard.html. (NIOSH, May 26, 2020).

Nolte, K. Et al., (2020, December 14). Design and construction of a biosafety level-3 autopsy laboratory. Arch Path Lab Med. Doi.

10.5858/arpa.2020-0644-SA. (Nolte et al., December 14, 2020). Sehulster, L. And Chinn, R. (2003, June 6).

Guidelines for Environmental Control in Health-Care Facilities. MMWR 52(RR10). 1-42. Https://www.cdc.gov/​mmwr/​preview/​mmwrhtml/​rr5210a1.htm. (Sehulster and Chinn, June 6, 2003).

World Health Organization (WHO). (2008, April). Epidemic- and viagra-prone acute respiratory diseases— prevention and control in health care. Https://www.who.int/​csr/​resources/​publications/​aidememoireepidemicpandemid/​en/​. (WHO, April, 2008).

I. Physical Distancing The best available current scientific evidence demonstrates that erectile dysfunction treatment spreads mainly through transmission between people who are physically near each other. The basic concept is that the majority of respiratory droplets expelled from an infected person through talking, coughing, breathing, or sneezing can travel a limited distance before falling to the surface below due to gravity. Therefore, the farther a person is away from the source of the respiratory droplets, the fewer infectious viral particles are likely to reach that person's eyes, nose, or mouth. The fewer infectious viral particles that reach that person, the lower the risk of transmission.

Additional explanation of transmission is discussed in Grave Danger (Section IV.A. Of the preamble). OSHA recognizes that this is a simplification of the complex issue of how droplets and aerosols moving through space applies to the transmission of erectile dysfunction. Nonetheless, the broad scientific principles described in this preamble enable OSHA to describe to affected employers and employees why the protective measures required by this ETS are necessary to protect employees from exposure to the viagra. The research described below demonstrates that a significant factor in determining whether a healthy employee will become infected with erectile dysfunction treatment is how close that employee is to other people (e.g., co-workers, patients, visitors, delivery people).

Infected individuals can transmit the viagra to others whether or not the infected person is experiencing symptoms, and symptoms may not be immediately noticeable, so it is important to keep all employees distanced from other people whether or not those other people exhibit symptoms. Symptomatic, asymptomatic, and pre-symptomatic transmission is discussed further in Grave Danger (Section IV.A. Of the preamble). The role that physical distancing plays in this ETS is thus to ensure that employees are separated from other people as much as possible so as to reduce the risk that viagra-containing droplets reach employees. Consistent with CDC guidance, OSHA defines physical distancing as maintaining a sufficient distance between two people—generally considered to be at least six feet of separation—such that the risk of viral transmission through inhalation of viagra-containing particles from an infected individual is significantly reduced.

OSHA is aware of emerging scientific literature that suggests even greater distances may be beneficial. OSHA is also aware of some literature from other countries that suggests less than six feet may be appropriate in some circumstances. However, based on the evidence summarized below, OSHA believes that anything less than six feet is not sufficient to address the level of risk established in the studies the agency has reviewed. While it is likely that a distance of greater than six feet will result in some lowered risk and OSHA recommends six feet as a minimum distance, OSHA is not aware of sufficient evidence to justify mandating a distance farther than the six feet recommended by the CDC. Physical distancing is a critical component of infectious disease prevention guidelines and is a key protective measure of the current erectile dysfunction treatment-specific prevention recommendations from the CDC, WHO, and other public health entities, as discussed in greater detail below (CDC and OSHA, March 9, 2020.

WHO, June 26, 2020. CalOSHA, 2020. ECDC, March 23, 2020. PHAC, May 25, 2020). The importance of physical distancing is evident from CDC's guidance for determining who qualifies as close contacts of an individual who is erectile dysfunction treatment positive.

People who have been in close contact with a erectile dysfunction treatment-positive individual are most likely to become infected. To become infected with erectile dysfunction treatment, a healthy individual typically needs to inhale a certain amount of viral particles (i.e., an infectious dose). The closer that healthy individual is to an infected person emitting infectious viral particles, the greater their exposure may be. In practice, a person generally needs to be both close enough to an infectious person and near them long enough to inhale an infectious dose. The CDC acknowledges the potential for inhalation at distances greater than six feet from an infectious source, but notes Start Printed Page 32444that this is less likely than at a closer distance (CDC, May 7, 2021).

This continues to support OSHA's recommendation for a minimum distance of six feet. It is also important to note that multiple short exposures over the course of a day can add up to a long enough period of time to receive an infectious dose of erectile dysfunction treatment. Therefore, CDC's definition of close contact is dependent on both proximity to one or more infected people and the time period over which that proximity occurred. The CDC defines close contact as “someone who was within 6 feet of an infected person for a cumulative total of 15 minutes or more over a 24-hour period starting from 2 days before illness onset (or, for asymptomatic patients, 2 days prior to test specimen collection) until the time the patient is isolated” (CDC, March 11, 2021). The CDC uses this close contact designation to help determine contact tracing to minimize transmission spread and to help communicate the risk of transmission to the public.

The CDC close contact definition describes the likely context for transmission events under most circumstances. However, it should be noted that s can occur from exposures of less than 15 minutes. For example, one event was documented that resulted from only roughly five minutes of exposure (Kwon et al., November 23, 2020). Thus, distancing may reduce erectile dysfunction treatment exposure during even short periods of exposure. The notion that physical distancing can protect a healthy individual from respiratory droplets is well established for droplet-transmissible diseases and has been a topic of study for well over a hundred years (Flugge, 1897.

Jennison, 1942. Duguid, November 1, 1945. Wells, November 1, 1955). Carl Flugge (1897) is credited with originating the concept of droplet transmission. In his study using settling plates to collect large droplets that were emitted from an individual, he found that droplets fell to the plates within two meters (approximately 6.6 feet).

Combining this knowledge with the known presence of infectious materials in respiratory droplets, Flugge suggested that remaining two meters from infected individuals would be protective. This understanding of droplet transmission was further expanded a few decades later, when William F. Wells noted that in Flugge's study, Flugge was unable to observe a proportion of small droplets that would evaporate before settling on the plates and that these evaporated droplets traveled differently, suggesting that some measure of transmission may happen beyond the large droplet transmission that Flugge observed (Wells, November 1, 1934). Subsequently, in the 1940s and 1950s, high-speed photography improved to the point where it could capture, upon emission, most of the respiratory droplets—large and small—that formed. This line of study validated much of the groundwork that Flugge and Wells laid (Jennison, 1942.

Duguid, November 1, 1945. Hamburger and Robertson, May 1, 1948. Wells, November 1, 1955). These studies illustrated that large droplets can be a major driver of disease transmission, but also that there might be exceptions to the effectiveness of physical distancing when it comes to viagra-laden small droplets. Even though erectile dysfunction treatment is a recent disease, evidence of the effectiveness of physical distancing in reducing exposures to erectile dysfunction has been illustrated through a variety of scientific approaches, including an experimental study by Ueki et al., (October 21, 2020), a modeling study by Li et al., (November 3, 2020), and real world observational studies by Chu et al., (June 27, 2020) and Doung-ngern et al., (September 14, 2020).

In a controlled laboratory experiment performed by Ueki et al., (October 21, 2020), researchers developed a scenario where 6 mL of erectile dysfunction viral serum was nebulized from a mannequin's mouth to form a mist that simulated a cough. Another mannequin, which was outfitted with an artificial ventilator set to an average adult ventilation rate, collected a proportion of the mist at distances of 0.25 meters (approximately 0.8 feet), 0.5 meters (approximately 1.6 feet), and 1 meter (approximately 3.3 feet). Using the 0.25-meter distance as a baseline, increasing the distance between the mannequins reduced viral particle exposure (measured as the number of viral RNA copies) by 62% at 0.5 meters and 77% at 1 meter. The study clearly illustrates the increased protection from viral exposure that results from increasing distance between individuals. Modeling studies also provide evidence supporting the effectiveness of physical distancing in preventing exposure to erectile dysfunction.

In Li et al., (November 3, 2020), researchers modeled exposures resulting from respiratory droplets dispersed from a simulated typical cough using simulated saliva with a erectile dysfunction viral concentration measured from infected individuals. The simulated cough emitted 30,558 viral copies at distances of one meter (approximately 3.3 feet) and two meters (approximately 6.6 feet) between the infectious person and the person exposed. At one meter, more than 65% of the droplet volume (about 20,000 viral copies) reached the recipient. However, almost all of the exposure was deposited below the head, with only 9 viral copies estimated to land on the area that would normally be covered by a face covering. When the distance was increased to two meters, 63 viral copies landed on the recipient, with only 0.6 copies expected to hit the face covering area.

This study illustrates not only the benefit of distance for reducing inhalation exposure, but also for reducing contamination of clothing, which can contribute to overall exposure if a person touches their contaminated clothing and then touches their eyes, nose, or mouth. Outside of experimental and modeling scenarios, observations in real world situations also substantiate the finding that increasing physical distance protects people from developing s. A systematic review of 172 studies on erectile dysfunction (up to early May 2020), SARS-CoV-1 (a viral strain related to erectile dysfunction), and Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) (a disease caused by a viagra that is similar to erectile dysfunction and spreads through droplet transmission) found 38 studies, containing 18,518 individuals, to use in a meta-analysis that evaluated the effectiveness of physical distancing (Chu et al., June 27, 2020). The researchers compared the rates for individuals who were within one meter (approximately 3.3 feet) of infected people versus the rates for those who were greater than one meter away. For individuals who were within one meter, the chance of viral was 12.8%.

When distance was greater than one meter, the chance of viral decreased to 2.6%. Furthermore, researchers projected that with each additional meter of distance the risk would be reduced by an additional 2.02 times. The importance of physical distancing even when people are not exhibiting symptoms was further demonstrated by a erectile dysfunction treatment study from Thailand. Researchers reviewed physical distancing information collected from 1,006 individuals who had an exposure to infected individuals (Doung-ngern et al., September 14, 2020). At the time of the exposure, many of the infected individuals were not yet experiencing symptoms, and none of the exposed individuals included in the study were experiencing symptoms.

The researchers contacted the individuals 21 days after their exposures to determine if any secondary s had occurred. Out of 1,006 participants, 197 tested positive and 809 either tested Start Printed Page 32445negative or were considered low risk contacts, did not exhibit symptoms and, therefore, were not tested. The researchers then compared the incidence of secondary s to data on how close the exposed individuals were to the infected individuals. Exposed individuals were placed into three groups. Those who had direct physical contact with the infected individual, those who were within one meter (approximately 3.3 feet) but without physical contact, and those who remained more than one meter away.

The study revealed that the group with direct physical contact and the group within one meter but without physical contact were equally likely to become infected with erectile dysfunction. However, the group that remained more than one meter away had an 85% lower risk than the other two groups. As noted earlier, there is additional nuance to droplet fate beyond just the general effects of gravity on large droplets. Studies evaluating the dispersion of aerosols (i.e., particles that are smaller than typical droplets) and atypical droplets in the air have created a more thorough understanding of disease transmission and the limitations on the effectiveness of physical distancing (Jones et al., August 25, 2020). The distance that droplets may be able to travel depends on their size, expelled velocity, airflow, and other environmental considerations (Xie et al., May 29, 2007.

Dbouk and Drikakis, May 1, 2020. Li et al., April 22, 2020). Bahl et al., (April 16, 2020) reviewed ten studies on the horizontal spread of droplets, finding that seven of the studies observed maximum distances traveled by droplets that greatly exceeded two meters (approximately 6.6 feet). One of which suggested the possibility of travel up to eight meters (approximately 26.2 feet). Several case studies have identified incidents where transmission of erectile dysfunction occurred over distances of 15.1 feet (Li et al., April 22, 2020), 21.3 feet (Kwon et al., November 23, 2020) and 26.2 feet (Gunther et al., October 27, 2020).

These studies suggest that while maintaining a physical distance of two meters reduces transmission significantly, there is still some risk of transmission beyond two meters. Thus, these studies illustrate that physical distancing is an important control, but also why physical distancing alone is insufficient, and a multi-layered strategy that includes additional control measures is necessary to protect employees from contracting erectile dysfunction treatment. As demonstrated by the studies above, it is widely accepted that physical distancing reduces transmission of infectious diseases generally, and erectile dysfunction treatment specifically. While the specific distance needed to ensure maximum reduction of erectile dysfunction treatment transmission can be debated, six feet has long been used in the U.S. As the minimum acceptable distance in most situations to prevent transmission of droplet-transmissible infectious diseases, and the CDC has recommended that distance to combat erectile dysfunction treatment since the start of the viagra (CDC and OSHA, March 9, 2020).

Physical distancing strategies can be applied on an individual level (e.g., avoiding coming within six feet of another individual), a group level (e.g., canceling group activities where individuals would be in close contact), and an operational level (e.g., promoting telework, reconfiguring the infrastructure or reducing facility occupancy levels to allow sufficient space for physical distancing). As described in further detail in Summary and Explanation (Section VIII of the preamble), CDC and OSHA have identified various approaches to maintaining physical distance between employees, such as. Reducing the number of employees on-site at one time. Reducing facility occupancy levels (both for employees and non-employees). Staggering arrival, break, and departure times to maintain distancing during specific times at work when adherence is difficult.

And holding on-site training or meeting activities in larger spaces to allow for sufficient distance between attendees (CDC and OSHA, March 9, 2020). Physical distancing practices and recommendations are also well-accepted internationally as an effective measure to reduce the spread of erectile dysfunction treatment. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends physical distance of at least one meter (approximately 3.3 feet) in all workplace settings, with a preference for two meters (approximately 6.6 feet) (WHO, June 26, 2020). WHO also recommends providing sufficient work space of at least 10 square meters for each employee where it is feasible based on work tasks. Some foreign governments have implemented physical distancing requirements and recommendations varying in distances of.

One meter (e.g., Hong Kong, Singapore, United Kingdom, Norway), 1.5 meters (e.g., Germany, Spain), and 2 meters (e.g., Japan, South Korea, Canada) (Han et al., November 7, 2020. PHAC, May 25, 2020). While the required or recommended amount of distance varies between jurisdictions, it is clear that physical distancing is considered to be a critical tool in preventing the spread of erectile dysfunction treatment around the world and that, even where six feet of distance cannot be maintained, maintaining as much distance as possible can help minimize the possibility of disease transmission (Chu et al., June 27, 2020. Doung-ngern et al., September 14, 2020. Li et al., November 3, 2020.

Ueki et al., 2020). Based on the best available evidence, the agency concludes that physical distancing of at least six feet is an effective and necessary tool to protect employees from erectile dysfunction treatment by reducing incidence of erectile dysfunction treatment illness. This conclusion applies to physical distancing on its own and also when complemented by other measures as part of a multi-layered strategy to minimize employee exposure to erectile dysfunction treatment. References Bahl, P. Et al., (2020, April 16).

Airborne or Droplet Precautions for Health Workers Treating erectile dysfunction Disease 2019. The Journal of Infectious Diseases jiaa189. Https://doi.org/​10.1093/​infdis/​jiaa189. (Bahl et al., April 16, 2020). California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (CalOSHA).

(2020). erectile dysfunction treatment Prevention Emergency Standard. OSHSB-98(2/98). (CalOSHA, 2020). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

(2020, March 9). Guidance on Preparing Workplaces for erectile dysfunction treatment. Https://www.osha.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​publications/​OSHA3990.pdf. (CDC and OSHA, March 9, 2020). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

(2021, March 11). Appendices (Close Contact). Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​php/​contact-tracing/​contact-tracing-plan/​appendix.html#contact. (CDC, March 11, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

(2021, May 7). Scientific Brief. erectile dysfunction Transmission. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​more/​scientific-brief-erectile dysfunction.html. (CDC, May 7, 2021).

Chu, DK et al., (2020, June 27). Physical Distancing, Face Masks, and Eye Protection to Prevent Person-to-Person Transmission of erectile dysfunction and erectile dysfunction treatment. A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet 395. 1973-1987.

Https://doi.org/​10.1016/​. (Chu et al., June 27, 2020). Dbouk, T. And Drikakis, D. (2020).

On Coughing and Airborne Droplet Transmission to Humans. Physics of Fluids 32, 053310. Https://doi.org/​10.1063/​5.0011960. (Dbouk and Drikakis, May 1, 2020). Doung-ngern, P.

Et al., (2020, September 14). Case-control Study of Use of Personal Protective Measures and Risk for SARS erectile dysfunction 2 , Thailand. Emerging Infectious Diseases 26, 11. 2607-2616. Https://doi.org/​10.3201/​Start Printed Page 32446eid2611.203003.

(Doung-ngern et al., September 14, 2020). Duguid, JP. (1945). The Numbers and the Sites of Origin of the Droplets Expelled During Expiratory Activities. Edinburgh Medical Journal 52, 11.

385-401. (Duguid, November 1, 1945). European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). (2020, March 23). Considerations related to social distancing measures in response to erectile dysfunction treatment—second update.

Https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/​en/​publications-data/​considerations-relating-social-distancing-measures-response-erectile dysfunction treatment-second. (ECDC, March 23, 2020). Flugge, C. (1897). Uber Luft.

Zeitschrift fur Hygiene und Infektionskrankheiten 25. 179-224. (Flugge, 1897). Gunther, T. Et al., (2020, October 27).

erectile dysfunction Outbreak Investigation in a German Meat Processing Plant. EMBO Molecular Medicine. Https://doi.org/​10.15252/​emmm.202013296. (Gunther et al., October 27, 2020). Hamburger, M.

And Robertson, OH. (1948, May 1). Expulsion of Group A Hemolytic Streptococci in Droplets and Droplet Nuclei by Sneezing, Coughing, and Talking. American Journal of Medicine 4(5). 690-701.

(Hamburger and Robertson, May 1, 1948). Han, E. Et al., (2020, November 7). Lessons Learned from Easing erectile dysfunction treatment Restrictions. An Analysis of Countries and Regions in Asia Pacific and Europe.

The Lancet 396. 1525-1534. Https://doi.org/​10.1016/​. (Han et al., November 7, 2020). Jennison, MW.

(1942). Atomising of Mouth and Nose Secretions into the Air as Revealed by High-Speed Photography. Aerobiology 17. 106-128. (Jennison, 1942).

Jones, NR et al., (2020, August 25). Two Metres or One. What is the Evidence for Physical Distancing in erectile dysfunction treatment?. BMJ 370. M3223.

Http://dx.doi.org/​10.1136/​bmj.m3223. (Jones et al., August 25, 2020). Kwon, KS et al., (2020, November 23). Evidence of Long-Distance Droplet Transmission of erectile dysfunction by Direct Air Flow in a Restaurant in Korea. J Korean Med Sci 35(46).

E415. Https://jkms.org/​DOIx.php?. €‹id=​10.3346/​jkms.2020.35.e415. (Kwon et al., November 23, 2020). Li, H.

Et al., (2020, November 3). Dispersion of Evaporating Cough Droplets in Tropical Outdoor Environment. Physics of Fluids 32, 113301. Https://doi.org/​10.1063/​5.0026360. (Li et al., November 3, 2020).

Li, Y. Et al., (2020, April 22). Aerosol Transmission of erectile dysfunction. Evidence for Probable Aerosol Transmission of erectile dysfunction in a Poorly Ventilated Restaurant. PREPRINT https://doi.org/​10.1101/​2020.04.16.20067728.

(Li, April 22, 2020). Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC). (2020, May 25). Physical Distancing. How to Slow the Spread of erectile dysfunction treatment.

ID 04-13-01. Https://www.canada.ca/​content/​dam/​phac-aspc/​documents/​services/​publications/​diseases-conditions/​erectile dysfunction/​social-distancing/​physical-distancing-eng.pdf. (PHAC, May 25, 2020). Ueki, H. Et al., (2020, October 21).

Effectiveness of Face Masks in Preventing Airborne Transmission of erectile dysfunction. MSphere 5. E00637-20. Https://doi.org/​10.1128/​mSphere.00637-20. (Ueki et al., October 21, 2020).

Wells, WF. (1934, November 1). On Airborne . Study II. Droplets and Droplet Nuclei.

American Journal of Epidemiology 20(3). 611-618. (Wells, November 1, 1934). Wells, WF. (1955, November 1).

Airborne Contagion and Air Hygiene. An Ecological Study of Droplet s. Journal of the American Medical Association 159. 90. (Wells, November 1, 1955).

World Health Organization (WHO). (2020, June 26). erectile dysfunction disease (erectile dysfunction treatment). Health and Safety in the Workplace. Https://www.who.int/​news-room/​q-a-detail/​erectile dysfunction-disease-erectile dysfunction treatment-health-and-safety-in-the-workplace.

(WHO, June 26, 2020). Xie, X. Et al., (2007, May 29). How far droplets can move in indoor environments—revisiting the Wells evaporation-falling curve. Indoor Air 17.

211-225. Doi. 10.1111/j.1600-0668.2006.00469.x. (Xie et al., May 29, 2007). J.

Physical Barriers When people with erectile dysfunction treatment cough, sneeze, sing, talk, yell, or breathe, they produce respiratory droplets. Epidemiological research has found that most erectile dysfunction treatment transmission occurs via respiratory droplets that are spread from an infected individual during close (within 6 feet) person-to-person interactions (CDC, May 7, 2021. CDC, May 13, 2021a. WHO, July 9, 2020). The amount of respiratory droplets and particles released when a person breathes is significant, and the amount increases when someone talks or yells (Asadi et al., February 20, 2019.

Alsved et al., September 17, 2020. Abkarian et al., October 13, 2020). Barriers can be used to minimize occupational exposure to erectile dysfunction. Barriers work by preventing droplets from traveling from the source (i.e., an infected person) to an employee, thus reducing droplet transmission. When barriers are used properly, they will intercept respiratory droplets that may contain erectile dysfunction.

Barriers are particularly critical when physical distancing of six feet is required but not feasible (AIHA, September 9, 2020. Fischman and Baker, June 4, 2020. CDC, April 7, 2021. CDC, March 8, 2021. WHO, May 10, 2020.

University of Washington, October 29, 2020). When engineering controls, such as physical barriers, are appropriately installed and located, they can reduce exposure to infectious agents, such as erectile dysfunction, without relying on changes in employee behavior (OSHA, 2009). Therefore, engineering controls are often the most effective type of control and can also be a cost-effective layer of protection (AIHA, September 9, 2020). Physical barriers are not a stand-alone measure and are only one part of a multi-layered approach for control. To protect employees from exposure to erectile dysfunction, engineering controls need to be combined with work practice controls, administrative controls, and PPE to ensure adequate protection (CDC, April 7, 2021.

CDC, March 8, 2021). Physical barriers, such as plastic or acrylic partitions, are well-established and accepted as an control approach to containing droplet transmissible diseases. Recommendations for the use of physical barriers are commonly made in connection with viagra events, such as the 2010 viagra influenza (see, for example, OSHA, 2009) or avian influenza viagras (see, for example, CDC, January 23, 2014). However, physical barriers are recognized as effective engineering controls for preventing the transmission of infectious agents and, therefore, have been commonly used in other workplace settings even under non-viagra conditions. For instance, sneeze guards are included in the FDA's 2017 Food Code, which all 50 states use for their food safety regulations (FDA, 2017).

These barriers, typically placed in front of and above food items, intercept contaminants, such as respiratory droplets, that may be expelled from a person's mouth or nose (Todd et al., August 1, 2010). Impermeable barriers intercept respiratory droplets and prevent them from reaching another individual (Fischman and Baker, June 4, 2020. Ibrahim et al., June 1, 2020. Dehghani et al., December 22, 2020. University of Washington, October 29, 2020).

Thus, physical barriers can be a practical solution for decreasing the transmission of infectious viral particles for a wide range of work activities and locations. Only barriers that keep respiratory droplets out of an employee's breathing zone will reduce overall exposure to erectile dysfunction. The breathing zone is the area immediately around an individual's mouth and nose from which a person draws air when they breathe and extends 9 inches beyond a person's nose and mouth (OSHA, February 11, 2014). Additional considerations for the design and implementation of physical barriers to Start Printed Page 32447properly block face-to-face pathways of breathing zones, including acceptable materials and installation, is discussed in the Summary and Explanation (Section VIII of the preamble). While erectile dysfunction treatment-related research on barriers is fairly limited due to the recent emergence and ongoing nature of the viagra, there is some evidence of the effectiveness of physical barriers in healthcare settings during the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra.

Using a surrogate for erectile dysfunction, Mousavi et al., (August 13, 2020) designed an experimental study in which general patient rooms in a healthcare facility were converted into isolation rooms constructed out of plastic barriers with zipper doors. The authors found that the use of the barrier alone could stop the particles that contacted the barrier and prevent 80% of the surrogate erectile dysfunction particles from spreading to adjacent spaces. In contrast, without the barrier, particles were easily dispersed to other areas of the facility. The barrier was actually more effective at containing particles than a solid door, as the barrier did not create changes in airflow patterns like a door does when it opens and closes. A simulation study using a double set of plastic drapes as a barrier around a patient's head and neck during patient intubation found that the drapes were effective at minimizing contamination to the healthcare provider and patient (Ibrahim et al., June 1, 2020).

Similarly, a simulation study performed in a dental healthcare setting evaluated the use of clear, flexible barriers that were fitted over the patient chair and covered the patient's head, neck, and chest. The barriers had small openings for the employee's hands. The barriers were found to reduce the number of dyed water droplets landing on the provider and in the surrounding work environment during the dental procedure (Teichert-Filho et al., August 18, 2020). A simulation study of peroral endoscopy procedures performed through the mouth found that the use of an acrylic box around a patient's head during the procedure may reduce the number of droplets transmitted to the providers performing the procedure (Gomi et al., October 21, 2020). A separate group of researchers developed a simulation study in an open work station environment to evaluate how physical barriers may impact disease transmission.

They found that physical barriers were able to reduce the transmission of simulated 1um aerosolized particles from a source individual to others who were over 6 feet away by 92% (Abuhegazy et al., October 20, 2020). OSHA notes that it would be expected that large droplets, as opposed to aerosolized particles, would be reduced to a greater extent because they do not remain airborne for extended periods of time unlike aerosolized particles, as noted in the Physical Distancing section of the Need for Specific Provisions analysis. Researchers found that a erectile dysfunction treatment outbreak among hospital food service employees was effectively contained with the prompt implementation of physical barriers in the workplace where physical distancing was not implemented (Hale and Dayot, August 13, 2020). This included installing partitions at cashier stations between employees and non-employees, as well as in food preparation areas between workstations (Hale and Dayot, August 13, 2020). While this evidence of the effectiveness of barriers was not drawn from healthcare settings, the same concept would be equally applicable to preventing transmission between people at similarly fixed locations in healthcare facilities, such as barriers separating a receptionist from a patient in intake or barriers separating workers sitting side by side at desks in a hospital's administrative office.

It is not clear, however, that barriers are necessary to separate fully vaccinated employees from employees who are not fully vaccinated and are not suspected or confirmed to have erectile dysfunction treatment. As discussed in the Grave Danger section and in the explanation for the scope exception in § 1910.501(a)(4), the CDC has acknowledged a “growing body” of evidence that vaccination can reduce the potential that a vaccinated person will transmit the erectile dysfunction viagra to non-vaccinated co-workers (CDC, April 12, 2021. CDC, May 13, 2021b). Based on the best available evidence, the agency concludes that physical barriers are an effective and necessary means of, and play a vital role in, reducing transmission of erectile dysfunction when complemented by other measures as part of a multi-layered strategy to minimize the risks of employee exposure to erectile dysfunction by employees who are not fully vaccinated or from non-employees. References Abkarian, M.

Et al., (2020, October 13). Speech can produce jet-like transport relevant to asymptomatic spreading of viagra. PNAS 117. 41, 25237-25245. Https://www.pnas.org/​cgi/​doi/​10.1073/​pnas.2012156117.

(Abkarian et al., October 13, 2020). Abuhegazy, A. Et al., (2020, October). Numerical investigation of aerosol transport in a classroom with relevant to erectile dysfunction treatment. Physics of Fluids 32, 103311.

Https://doi.org/​10.1063/​5.0029118. (Abuhegazy et al., October 20, 2020). Alsved, M. Et al.,(2020, September 17). Exhaled respiratory particles during singing and talking.

Aerosol Science and Technology 54. 1245-1248. Https://doi.org/​10.1080/​02786826.2020.1812502. (Alsved et al., September 17, 2020). American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA).

(2020, September 9). Reducing the Risk of erectile dysfunction treatment Using Engineering Controls. Guidance Document. Https://aiha-assets.sfo2.digitaloceanspaces.com/​AIHA/​resources/​Guidance-Documents/​Reducing-the-Risk-of-erectile dysfunction treatment-using-Engineering-Controls-Guidance-Document.pdf. (AIHA, September 9, 2020).

Asadi, S et al., (2019, February 20). Aerosol emission and superemission during human speech increase with voice loudness. Scientific Reports 9. 2348. Https://doi.org/​10.1038/​s41598-019-38808-z.

(Asadi et al., February 20, 2019). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2014, January 23). Interim Guidance for Control Within Healthcare Settings When Caring for Confirmed Cases, Probable Cases, and Cases Under Investigation for with Novel Influenza A viagraes Associated with Severe Disease. Https://www.cdc.gov/​flu/​avianflu/​novel-flu--control.htm.

Accessed January 28, 2021. (CDC, January 23, 2014). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, April 12). Benefits of getting a erectile dysfunction treatment.

Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​treatments/​treatment-benefits.html. (CDC, April 12, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, May 7). Scientific Brief.

erectile dysfunction Transmission. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​more/​scientific-brief-erectile dysfunction.html. (CDC, May 7, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021a, May 13).

How erectile dysfunction treatment Spreads. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​prevent-getting-sick/​how-erectile dysfunction treatment-spreads.html. (CDC, May 13, 2021a). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021b, May 13).

Interim Public Health Recommendations for Fully Vaccinated People. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​treatments/​fully-vaccinated-guidance.html. (CDC, May 13, 2021b). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, March 8).

Guidance for Businesses and Employers Responding to erectile dysfunction Disease 2019 (erectile dysfunction treatment). Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​community/​guidance-business-response.html. (CDC, March 8, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, April 7).

erectile dysfunction treatment Employer Information for Office Buildings. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​community/​office-buildings.html. (CDC, April 7, 2021). Dehghani, F. Et al., (2020, December 22).

The hierarchy of preventive measures to Start Printed Page 32448protect workers against the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra. A review. Work 67. 771-777. DOI.

10.3233/WOR-203330. (Dehghani et al., December 22, 2020). Fischman, ML and Baker, B. (2020, June 4). erectile dysfunction treatment Resource Center.

American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine [ACOEM]. Https://acoem.org/​erectile dysfunction treatment-Resource-Center/​erectile dysfunction treatment-Q-A-Forum/​Could-you-provide-guidance-on-the-use-of-plexiglass-barriers-for-workplaces-for-sneeze-guard%E2%80%9D-dropl. (Fischman and Baker, June 4, 2020). Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (2017).

Food Code. 2017 Recommendations of the United States Public Health Service, Food and Drug Administration. (FDA, 2017). Gomi, K. Et al., (2020, October 21).

Peroral endoscopy during the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra. Efficacy of the acrylic box (Endo-Splash Protective (ESP) box) for preventing droplet transmission. Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology 4. 1224-1228. Doi.

10.1002/jgh3.12438. (Gomi et al., October 21, 2020). Hale, M. And Dayot, A. (2020).

Outbreak Investigation of erectile dysfunction treatment in Hospital Food Service Workers. American Journal of Control. S0196-6553(20)30777-X. Https://doi.org/​10.1016/​j.ajic.2020.08.011. (Hale and Dayot, August 13, 2020).

Ibrahim, M. Et al., (2020, June 1). Comparison of the effectiveness of different barrier enclosure techniques in protection of healthcare workers during tracheal intubation and extubation. Anesthesia and Analgesia Practice 14. 3.

DOI. 10.1213/XAA.0000000000001252. (Ibrahim et al., June 1, 2020). Mousavi, ES et al., (2020, August 13). Performance analysis of portable HEPA filters and temporary plastic anterooms on the spread of surrogate erectile dysfunction.

Building and Environment 183. 107186. Https://doi.org/​10.1016/​j.buildenv.2020.107186. (Mousavi et al., August 13, 2020). Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

(2009). Guidance on Preparing Workplaces for an Influenza viagra. Https://www.osha.gov/​Publications/​influenza_​viagra.html. (OSHA, 2009). Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

(2014, February 11). OSHA Technical Manual, Section II. Chapter 1—Personal Sampling for Air Contaminants. Https://www.osha.gov/​dts/​osta/​otm/​otm_​ii/​otm_​ii_​1.html. (OSHA, February 11, 2014).

Teichert-Filho, R. Et al., (2020, August 18). Protective device to reduce aerosol dispersion in dental clinics during the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra. International Endodontic Journal. Doi.

10.1111/iej.13373. (Teichert-Filho et al., August 18, 2020). Todd, ECD et al., (2010, August 1). Outbreaks where food workers have been implicated in the spread of foodborne disease. Part 7.

Barriers to reduce contamination of food by workers. J. Of Food Protection 73(8). 1552-1565. Https://doi.org/​10.4315/​0362-028X-73.8.1552.

(Todd et al., August 1, 2010). University of Washington. (2020, October 29). University of Washington Guidance for Plexiglass Barriers in Support of erectile dysfunction treatment Prevention Efforts. University of Washington Environmental Health &.

Safety. Https://www.ehs.washington.edu/​system/​files/​resources/​erectile dysfunction treatment-plexiglass-barriers-workplace.pdf. (University of Washington, October 29, 2020). World Health Organization (WHO). (2020, May 10).

Considerations for public health and social measures in the workplace context of erectile dysfunction treatment. Annex to Considerations in adjusting public health and social measures in the context of erectile dysfunction treatment, May 2020. Https://www.who.int/​publications-detail-redirect/​considerations-for-public-health-and-social-measures-in-the-workplace-in-the-context-of-erectile dysfunction treatment. (WHO, May 10, 2020). World Health Organization (WHO).

(2020, July 9). Transmission of erectile dysfunction. Implications for prevention precautions. Https://www.who.int/​news-room/​commentaries/​detail/​transmission-of-erectile dysfunction-implications-for--prevention-precautions. (WHO, July 9, 2020).

K. Hygiene and Cleaning erectile dysfunction treatment can also be spread through contact transmission, which occurs when a person touches another person who has erectile dysfunction treatment (e.g., during a handshake) or a surface or item contaminated with the viagra (e.g., workstations, shared equipment or products) and then touches their own eyes, nose, or mouth (CDC, May 13, 2021. CDC, April 5, 2021d). Contact transmission via inanimate objects is also known as fomite transmission. While contact transmission is less common than droplet transmission, and the risk of from touching a surface is low, contracting erectile dysfunction treatment via contact transmission remains a concern in the workplace.

Contact transmission is discussed in greater detail in Grave Danger (Section IV.A. Of the preamble). To protect against erectile dysfunction treatment transmission, the CDC has recommended cleaning and situational disinfecting of high-touch surfaces, as well as frequent handwashing, as key prevention methods (CDC, April 5, 2021a, and CDC, May 17, 2020, respectively). Cleaning means the removal of dirt and impurities, including germs, from surfaces using soap and water or other cleaning agents (i.e., not Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-registered disinfectants). Cleaning alone reduces germs on surfaces by removing contaminants and may also weaken or damage some of the viagra particles, which decreases risk of from surfaces.

Dis means using an EPA-registered List N disinfectant in accordance with manufacturers' instructions to kill germs on surfaces or objects. Dis further lowers the risk of spreading and the CDC recommends dis in indoor community settings where there has been a suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment case in the previous 24 hours (CDC, April 5, 2021d). I. Cleaning and Hand Hygiene Are Most Effective in Combination Based on the best available evidence, OSHA has determined that proper hand hygiene, cleaning, and situational dis of high-touch surfaces and surfaces touched by someone with erectile dysfunction treatment are critical provisions of the ETS, both on their own and also when complemented by other measures as part of a multi-layered strategy to minimize employee exposure to this grave erectile dysfunction treatment danger. Practicing proper hand hygiene combined with routine cleaning of contact surfaces, minimizes the risk of contracting erectile dysfunction treatment through contact with contaminated surfaces, followed by touching the mouth, nose, or eyes (Honein et al., December 11, 2020).

Cleaning surfaces removes harmful contaminants from surfaces, reducing the risk of erectile dysfunction treatment transmission following hand contact with those surfaces. Dis of surfaces and equipment in indoor community settings should be done if a suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment case was utilizing those areas within the past 24 hours (CDC, April 5, 2021d). Cleaning, dis, and hand hygiene are foundational components of Standard and Transmission-Based Precautions for control and prevention (Siegel et al., 2007). II. Cleaning and Dis Respiratory secretions or droplets expelled by infected individuals can contaminate surfaces and objects (WHO, July 9, 2020).

Evidence suggests that the viagra that causes erectile dysfunction treatment may remain viable on surfaces for hours to days (Riddell et al., October 7, 2020. Van Doremalen et al., April 16, 2020. CDC, April 5, 2021b), depending on the ambient environment and the type of surface (WHO, July 9, 2020). Although fomites and contaminated surfaces are not a common transmission mode of erectile dysfunction treatment, demonstration of surface contamination and experiences with surface contamination linked to subsequent transmission with other erectile dysfunctiones, have informed the development of cleaning and situational Start Printed Page 32449dis recommendations to mitigate the potential of fomite transmission of erectile dysfunction treatment (WHO, May 14, 2020. CDC, April 5, 2021d).

Cleaning of visibly dirty surfaces is a best practice measure for prevention of erectile dysfunction treatment and other viral respiratory illnesses in all settings, including healthcare. Dis of these surfaces may be appropriate if it is reasonable to assume that individuals with erectile dysfunction treatment may have been present. Cleaning and dis reduces the risk of spreading by removing and killing germs on surfaces people frequently touch, and in areas that were occupied or visited by a person confirmed to have erectile dysfunction treatment (CDC, April 5, 2021a. WHO, May 14, 2020. CDC, April 5, 2021c.

CDC, April 5, 2021d). Scientific evidence and guidelines from the CDC and WHO support cleaning and situational dis of surfaces as an effective practice to prevent the transmission of infectious viagraes. Human erectile dysfunctiones, including MERS erectile dysfunction or endemic human erectile dysfunctiones (HCoV), can be efficiently inactivated by surface dis procedures (Kampf et al., February 6, 2020). A study of 124 Beijing households with one or more laboratory-confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment positive family members demonstrated the efficacy of dis in preventing the transmission of erectile dysfunction treatment. The study found that disease transmission to family members was 77% less with use of chlorine- or ethanol-based disinfectants every day compared to use of disinfectants once in two or more days, irrespective of other protective measures taken such as mask wearing and physical distancing (Wang et al., May 11, 2020).

The World Health Organization recommends thoroughly cleaning environmental surfaces with water and detergent and applying commonly used hospital-level disinfectants, such as sodium hypochlorite (i.e., the active ingredient in chlorine bleach), for effective cleaning and dis (WHO, May 14, 2020). Surface dis with 0.1% sodium hypochlorite or 62-71% ethanol significantly reduces erectile dysfunction infectivity on surfaces within 1 minute of exposure time (Kampf et al., February 6, 2020). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has compiled List N, a list of disinfectant products that can be used against the viagra that causes erectile dysfunction treatment, including ready-to-use sprays, concentrates, and wipes (EPA, April 9, 2021). EPA includes products on List N if they have demonstrated efficacy against the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra, or a germ that is harder to kill than erectile dysfunction viagra, or another human erectile dysfunction that is similar to the erectile dysfunction viagra (EPA, February 17, 2021). III.

Hand Hygiene In all settings, including settings where regular cleaning may be difficult, frequent hand washing and avoiding touching of the face should be considered the primary prevention approach to mitigate erectile dysfunction treatment transmission associated with surface contamination (WHO, May 14, 2020). Hand hygiene is generally recognized as an effective intervention at preventing respiratory illnesses and infectious disease transmission (Rabie and Curtis, March 7, 2006. Haque, July 12, 2020. Rundle et al., July 22, 2020). The CDC and the WHO have determined that frequent handwashing, plus sanitization, are essential control measures for erectile dysfunction treatment prevention within the workplace, and HICPAC identifies hand hygiene as an essential element of Standard Precautions (CDC, May 17, 2020.

WHO, July 9, 2020. WHO, May 14, 2020. Siegel et al., 2007). To prevent viagra transmission, the CDC recommends that healthcare workers engage in frequent handwashing with soap and water for at least 20 seconds, or use an alcohol-based hand sanitizer with at least 60% alcohol (CDC, May 17, 2020). Alcohol-based hand sanitizers are the most effective products for reducing the number of germs on the hands of healthcare providers and are the preferred method for cleaning hands in most clinical situations, while handwashing is necessary whenever hands are visibly soiled (CDC, January 8, 2021).

Handwashing with soap and water mechanically removes pathogens (Burton et al., January 6, 2011), and laboratory data demonstrates that hand sanitizers that contain at least 60% alcohol are effective at killing the viagra that causes erectile dysfunction treatment (Kratzel et al., July 2020. Siddharta et al., March 15, 2017). Experience with work settings shows that flexible hand hygiene approaches are effective to address unique scenarios in various work environments. For example, handwashing is usually emphasized over hand sanitizing, but CDC recommends the use of alcohol-based hand sanitizers as the primary method for hand hygiene in most healthcare situations (CDC, October 14, 2020). In healthcare settings, alcohol-based hand sanitizers with 60-95% alcohol effectively reduce the number of pathogens that may be present on the hands of healthcare providers, particularly after interacting with patients (CDC, May 17, 2020).

In most clinical settings, unless hands are visibly soiled, an alcohol-based hand rub is preferred over soap and water due to evidence of better compliance compared to soap and water. However, CDC does recommend healthcare workers wash their hands for at least 20 seconds with soap and water when hands are visibly dirty, before eating, and after using the restroom (CDC, May 17, 2020). Alcohol-based hand sanitizers are also important as an alternative to soap and water for workers who do not have ready access to handwashing facilities (e.g., emergency responders). References Burton, M. Et al., (2011, January 6).

The effect of handwashing with water or soap on bacterial contamination of hands. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 8(1), 97-104. Https://doi.org/​10.3390/​ijerph8010097. (Burton et al., January 6, 2011). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

(2020, May 17). Hand hygiene recommendations. Guidance for healthcare providers about hand hygiene and erectile dysfunction treatment. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​hcp/​hand-hygiene.html. (CDC, May 17, 2020).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2020, October 14). Frequent questions about hand hygiene. Https://www.cdc.gov/​handwashing/​faqs.html. (CDC, October 14, 2020).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, January 8). Hand Hygiene in Healthcare Settings. Https://www.cdc.gov/​handhygiene/​providers/​index.html. (CDC, January 8, 2021).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2021a, April 5). Reopening guidance for cleaning and disinfecting public spaces, workplaces, businesses, schools, and homes. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​community/​reopen-guidance.html. (CDC, April 5, 2021a).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021b, April 5). Cleaning and dis for households. Interim recommendations for U.S. Households with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment.

Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​prevent-getting-sick/​cleaning-dis.html. (CDC, April 5, 2021b). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021c, April 5). Cleaning and disinfecting your facility.

Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​community/​disinfecting-building-facility.html. (CDC, April 5, 2021c). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021d, April 5). Science Brief.

erectile dysfunction and Surface (Fomite) Transmission for Indoor Community Environments. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​more/​science-and-research/​surface-transmission.html. (CDC, April 5, 2021d).Start Printed Page 32450 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, May 13). How erectile dysfunction treatment spreads.

Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​prevent-getting-sick/​how-erectile dysfunction treatment-spreads.html. (CDC, May 13, 2021). Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2021, February 17). How does EPA know that the products on List N work on erectile dysfunction?.

https://www.epa.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​how-does-epa-know-products-list-n-work-erectile dysfunction. (EPA, February 17, 2021). Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2021, April 9). List N tool.

erectile dysfunction treatment disinfectants. Https://cfpub.epa.gov/​giwiz/​disinfectants/​index.cfm. (EPA, April 9, 2021). Haque, M. (2020).

Handwashing in averting infectious diseases. Relevance to erectile dysfunction treatment. Journal of Population Therapeutics and Clinical Pharmacology, 27(S Pt 1), e37-e52. Https://doi.org/​10.15586/​jptcp.v27SP1.711. (Haque, July 12, 2020).

Honein, MA et al., (2020, December 11). Summary of Guidance for Public Health Strategies to Address High Levels of Community Transmission of erectile dysfunction and Related Deaths, December 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020. 69. 1860-1867.

DOI. Http://dx.doi.org/​10.15585/​mmwr.mm6949e2. (Honein et al., December 11, 2020). Kampf, G. Et al., (2020).

Persistence of erectile dysfunctiones on inanimate surfaces and their inactivation with biocidal agents. The Journal of Hospital , 104(3), 246-251. Https://doi.org/​10.1016/​j.jhin.2020.01.022. (Kampf et al., February 6, 2020). Kratzel, A.

Et al., (2020, July). Inactivation of erectile dysfunction by WHO—recommended hand rub formulations and alcohols. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 26(7), 1592-1595. Https://doi.org/​10.3201/​eid2607.200915. (Kratzel et al., July 2020).

Rabie, T. And Curtis, V. (2006). Handwashing and risk of respiratory s. A quantitative systematic review.

Tropical Medicine &. International Health, 11(3), 258-267. Https://doi.org/​10.1111/​j.1365-3156.2006.01568.x. (Rabie and Curtis, March 7, 2006). Riddell, S.

Et al., (2020, October 7). The effect of temperature on persistence of erectile dysfunction on common surfaces. Virology journal, 17(1), 145. Https://doi.org/​10.1186/​s12985-020-01418-7. (Riddell et al., October 7, 2020).

Rundle, C. Et al., (2020, July 22). Hand hygiene during erectile dysfunction treatment. Recommendations from the American Contact Dermatitis Society. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 83(6), 1730-1737.

Https://doi.org/​10.1016/​j.jaad.2020.07.057. (Rundle et al., July 22, 2020). Siddharta, A. Et al., (2017, March 15). Virucidal activity of World Health Organization—recommended formulations against enveloped viagraes, including Zika, Ebola, and Emerging erectile dysfunctiones.

The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 215(6), 902-906. Https://doi.org/​10.1093/​infdis/​jix046. (Siddharta et al., March 15, 2017). Siegel, J., Rhinehart, E., Jackson, M., Chiarello, L., and the Healthcare Control Practices Advisory Committee. (2007).

2007 Guideline for isolation precautions. Preventing transmission of infectious agents in healthcare settings. Https://www.cdc.gov/​control/​pdf/​guidelines/​isolation-guidelines-H.pdf. (Siegel et al., 2007). van Doremalen, N.

Et al., (2020, April 16). Aerosol and surface stability of erectile dysfunction as compared with SARS-CoV-1. The New England Journal of Medicine, 382(16), 1564-1567. Https://doi.org/​10.1056/​NEJMc2004973. (van Doremalen et al., April 16, 2020).

Wang, Y., Tian, H., Zhang, L., Zhang, M., Guo, D., Wu, W. (2020). Reduction of secondary transmission of SAR-CoV-2 in households by face mask use, dis and social distancing. A cohort study in Beijing, China. BMJ Global Health, 5, e002794.

Doi. 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-002794. (Wang et al., May 11, 2020). World Health Organization (WHO). (2020, May 14).

erectile dysfunction disease 2019 (erectile dysfunction treatment). Situation report, 115. Https://apps.who.int/​iris/​handle/​10665/​332090. (WHO, May 14, 2020). World Health Organization (WHO).

(2020, July 9). Transmission of erectile dysfunction. Implications for prevention precautions. Https://www.who.int/​news-room/​commentaries/​detail/​transmission-of-erectile dysfunction-implications-for--prevention-precautions. (WHO, July 9, 2020).

L. Ventilation Improving existing ventilation and ensuring optimal performance of ventilation is an effective way to reduce viral transmission in occupational populations. Work sites with existing heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems can utilize improvements to, and maintenance of, high performance ventilation as part of a layered response for infectious disease control. The effectiveness of ventilation in controlling disease transmission is based on scientific research and the recommendations of well-respected occupational safety and health organizations, including government agencies. As explained in Grave Danger (Section IV.A.

Of the preamble), there is evidence of airborne erectile dysfunction treatment transmission within enclosed spaces with inadequate ventilation. As a result, there is considerable support for ensuring adequate ventilation through maintenance and improvements. Federal agencies, international organizations, industry associations, and scientific researchers agree that ensuring adequate ventilation is important in reducing potential airborne transmission of erectile dysfunction treatment (ASHRAE, April 14, 2020. Schoen, May 2020. WHO, May 10, 2020.

AIHA, September 9, 2020. CDC, May 7, 2021. CDC, April 7, 2021. CDC, March 23, 2021. Tang et al., August 7, 2020.

Morawska et al., May 27, 2020). In one scientific brief, the CDC provides a basic overview of how ventilation can reduce the transmission of erectile dysfunction treatment in indoor spaces. Once respiratory droplets are exhaled, the CDC explains, they move outward from the source and their concentration decreases through fallout from the air (largest droplets first, smaller later) combined with dilution of the remaining smaller droplets and particles into the growing volume of air they encounter (CDC, May 7, 2021). Without adequate ventilation, continued exhalation can lead to the amount of infectious smaller droplets and particles produced by people with erectile dysfunction treatment to become concentrated enough in the air to spread the viagra to other people (CDC, May 13, 2021). Ventilation controls the transmission of erectile dysfunction treatment in two ways.

First, improving indoor ventilation by appropriately maximizing air exchanges and by maintaining and improving heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems can disperse and decrease the concentration of erectile dysfunction treatment-containing small droplets and particles suspended in the air. The lower the concentration, the less likely some of those viral particles can be inhaled into an employee's lungs. Contact their eyes, nose, or mouth. Or fall out of the air to accumulate on surfaces. Protective ventilation practices and interventions can reduce the airborne concentration, which reduces the overall viral dose to occupants (CDC, March 23, 2021).

Improved ventilation can also significantly reduce the airborne time of respiratory droplets (Somsen et al., May 27, 2020. CDC, March 23, 2021). As a result, the risk of transmission of erectile dysfunction treatment indoors is reduced, which makes workplaces safer (Schoen, May 2020. CDC, April 7, 2021. CDC, March 23, 2021.

Honein et al., December 11, 2020). Ventilation systems alone cannot completely prevent airborne transmission (EPA, July 16, 2020. CDC, March 23, 2021), but are particularly effective when implemented in conjunction with additional control measures in a layered approach, including other engineering controls and other protections required in this ETS. Second, air filters in HVAC systems remove particles, including aerosolized particles containing erectile dysfunction treatment, from Start Printed Page 32451recirculated air streams before returning the air to workspaces. Increased filter efficiency is a component of the HVAC system which can be adjusted to reduce the risk of erectile dysfunction treatment transmission (Schoen, May 2020.

ASHRAE, April 14, 2020. CDC, May 7, 2021. CDC, March 8, 2021. CDC, March 23, 2021. Morawska et al., May 27, 2020).

Minimum Efficiency Reporting Values (MERV) report a filter's ability to capture larger particles between 0.3 and 10 microns (µm). MERV ratings range from 1 to 16, and a higher rating indicates a more efficient filter. The viagra that causes erectile dysfunction treatment is approximately 0.125 µm in diameter. However, the viagra is contained in infectious particles, droplets, and droplet nuclei (dried respiratory droplets) that are predominantly 1 µm in size and larger. The CDC recommends increasing fiation to the highest extent possible that is compatible with the design of the HVAC system (CDC, March 23, 2021).

The American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) recommends using filters with a MERV rating of at least 13, where feasible, or the highest level compatible with the specified HVAC system, to help capture the infectious aerosols containing erectile dysfunction treatment (Schoen, May 2020. ASHRAE, December 8, 2020). The use of fiation has also been supported by others, including Mousavi et al., August 26, 2020. A MERV rating of 13 is at least 85-percent efficient at capturing particles from 1 µm to 3 µm in size (Schoen, May 2020. CDC, March 8, 2021.

CDC, March 23, 2021), which is the size of the particles carrying erectile dysfunction treatment. A MERV-14 filter is at least 90% efficient at capturing particles of this same size, and efficiencies for MERV-15 and MERV-16 filters are even greater. As such, filters with MERV ratings of 13 or greater are much more efficient at capturing particles of this size than a MERV 8 filter (CDC, March 23, 2021). The ability of HVAC systems to reduce the risk of exposure depends on many factors, including design features, operation and maintenance practices, and the quality and quantity of outdoor air supplied to the space. The CDC has emphasized that building owners and operators should ensure that ventilation systems are functioning properly and providing acceptable levels of indoor air quality for the occupancy level of the given space.

Consultation with an HVAC professional will help ensure that improvements to ventilation systems are implemented in accordance with the capacity and design of the HVAC system, according to state and local building codes and guidelines, and to avoid imbalances that could negatively alter other indoor air quality parameters (e.g., temperature, humidity, moisture) (EPA, July 16, 2020. CDC, March 23, 2021). The CDC has also recommended increasing airflow (CDC, March 23, 2021) to occupied spaces, if possible. One way to achieve this is by opening windows and doors (Howard-Reed et al., February 2002. CDC, March 23, 2021), where feasible and as weather conditions permit.

However, decisions to open windows and doors should be done after evaluating other safety and health risks for occupants, such as risk of falling or breathing outdoor environmental contaminants (e.g., carbon monoxide, molds, and pollens) (CDC, April 7, 2021. CDC, March 8, 2021. CDC, March 23, 2021). In order for this type of ventilation to serve as an effective erectile dysfunction treatment control, the air flow must be directed so that contaminated air is not funneled through workspaces toward another person. Based on the best available evidence, the agency concludes that implementation of improved ventilation and maintaining HVAC system performance is an effective and necessary approach to reduce incidence of erectile dysfunction treatment both on its own and also when complemented by other measures as part of a multi-layered strategy to minimize employee exposure to the grave erectile dysfunction treatment danger.

References American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA). (2020, September 9). Reducing the Risk of erectile dysfunction treatment Using Engineering Controls. Guidance Document. Https://aiha-assets.sfo2.digitaloceanspaces.com/​AIHA/​resources/​Guidance-Documents/​Reducing-the-Risk-of-erectile dysfunction treatment-using-Engineering-Controls-Guidance-Document.pdf.

(AIHA, September 9, 2020). American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). (2020, April 14). ASHRAE Position Document on Infectious Aerosols. Https://www.ashrae.org/​file%20library/​about/​position%20documents/​pd_​infectiousaerosols_​2020.pdf.

(ASHRAE, April 14, 2020). American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). (2020, December 8). Debunking myths about MERV, air fiation. Https://www.ashrae.org/​news/​ashraejournal/​debunking-myths-about-merv-air-fiation.

(ASHRAE, December 8, 2020). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, March 8). Guidance for Businesses and Employers Responding to erectile dysfunction Disease 2019 (erectile dysfunction treatment). Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​community/​guidance-business-response.html.

(CDC, March 8, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, March 23). Ventilation. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​community/​ventilation.html.

(CDC, March 23, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, April 7). erectile dysfunction treatment Employer Information for Office Buildings. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​community/​office-buildings.html.

(CDC, April 7, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, May 7). Scientific Brief. erectile dysfunction Transmission.

Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​more/​scientific-brief-erectile dysfunction.html. (CDC, May 7, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, May 13). How erectile dysfunction treatment Spreads.

Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​prevent-getting-sick/​how-erectile dysfunction treatment-spreads.html. (CDC, May 13, 2021). Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2020, July 16). Ventilation and erectile dysfunction (erectile dysfunction treatment).

Https://www.epa.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​ventilation-and-erectile dysfunction-erectile dysfunction treatment. (EPA, July 16, 2020). Honein, MA et al., (2020, December 11). Summary of Guidance for Public Health Strategies to Address High Levels of Community Transmission of erectile dysfunction and Related Deaths, December 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020.

69. 1860-1867. DOI. Http://dx.doi.org/​10.15585/​mmwr.mm6949e2. (Honein et al., December 11, 2020).

Howard-Reed, C. Et al., (2002, February). The effect of opening windows on air change rates in two homes. Journal of Air and Waste Management Association 52. 147-159.

(Howard-Reed et al., February 2002). Morawska, L. Et al, (2020, May 27). How can airborne transmission of erectile dysfunction treatment indoors be minimized?. Environmental International 142.

105832. Https://doi.org/​10.1016/​j.envint.2020.105832. (Morawska et al., May 27, 2020). Mousavi, ES et al., (2020, August 26). erectile dysfunction treatment Outbreak and Hospital Air Quality.

A Systematic Review of Evidence on Air Fiation and Recirculation. Environmental Science and Technology. Acs.est.0c03247. Https://doi.org/​10.1021/​acs.est.0c03247. (Mousavi et al., August 26, 2020).

Schoen, LJ. (2020, May). Guidance for building operations during the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra. ASHRAE Journal. (Schoen, May 2020).

Somsen, GA. Et al., (2020, May 27). Small droplet aerosols in poorly ventilated spaces and erectile dysfunction transmission. The Lancet 8. 658-659.

Https://doi.org/​10.1016/​. (Somsen et al., May 27, 2020). Tang, S. Et al., (2020, August 7). Aerosol transmission of erectile dysfunction?.

Evidence, prevention and control. Environmental International 144. 106039. Https://doi.org/​10.1016/​j.envint.2020.106039. (Tang et al., August 7, 2020).Start Printed Page 32452 World Health Organization (WHO).

(2020, May 10). Considerations for public health and social measures in the workplace context of erectile dysfunction treatment. Annex to Considerations in adjusting public health and social measures in the context of erectile dysfunction treatment, May 2020. Https://www.who.int/​publications-detail-redirect/​considerations-for-public-health-and-social-measures-in-the-workplace-in-the-context-of-erectile dysfunction treatment. (WHO, May 10, 2020).

M. Health Screening and Medical Management As discussed in more detail in Grave Danger (Section IV.A. Of the preamble), erectile dysfunction treatment is a disease that is primarily transmitted from person to person through respiratory droplets that are produced when someone breaths, talks, sneezes, or coughs, and the droplets contact the eyes, nose, or mouth of another person. It may also infrequently be transmitted by someone touching a contaminated surface and then touching their eyes, nose, or mouth. Consequently, to effectively reduce the transmission of erectile dysfunction treatment in the workplace, it is necessary to have a medical management program that identifies and removes infected or likely infected employees from the workplace, and notifies employees about possible exposures to erectile dysfunction treatment so they can take appropriate steps to further reduce transmission.

I. Employee Screening Regular health screening for possible indications of erectile dysfunction treatment is a first step in detecting employees who might be erectile dysfunction treatment-positive so those employees can seek medical care or testing, or inform the employer if they have certain symptoms. While pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic s and the non-specificity of erectile dysfunction treatment symptoms make it difficult to quantify the accuracy of symptom screening in predicting erectile dysfunction treatment, health screening is a strategy supported by the CDC and the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM). ACOEM recommends that employers implement a medical surveillance program that includes educating and training employees on how to recognize when they may have erectile dysfunction treatment, in order to prevent employees with s from entering the workplace (ACOEM, August 19, 2020). The CDC recommends that employers conduct screening at the worksite, or train employees to be aware of and recognize the signs and symptoms of erectile dysfunction treatment and to follow CDC recommendations to self-screen for symptoms before coming to work (CDC, March 8, 2021).

Screening for employee symptoms, particularly when combined with their recent activities (e.g., the likelihood they have had a recent exposure to erectile dysfunction treatment), can help determine if the employee is suspected to have erectile dysfunction treatment or should be tested. Testing can be useful in guiding the treatment that employees receive for their illness as well as triggering isolation to prevent exposure to others (NASEM, November 9, 2020). The FDA (March 11, 2021) has issued a number of emergency use authorizations for erectile dysfunction treatment tests that detect s with the erectile dysfunction viagra. CDC recommends prompt erectile dysfunction treatment testing of anyone who has had a known exposure to someone with erectile dysfunction treatment, has had a possible exposure to someone with erectile dysfunction treatment, or has symptoms of erectile dysfunction treatment, as a strategy to reduce erectile dysfunction transmission (Honein et al., December 11, 2020). Based on medical advice and information provided by testing, employees can learn if they are suspected or confirmed to have erectile dysfunction treatment.

The earlier employees learn whether they are infected, the more likely that workplace exposures can be prevented. As explained below, it is necessary that employees who are suspected or confirmed to have erectile dysfunction treatment be removed from the workplace to prevent transmission to other employees. However, because erectile dysfunction treatment symptoms are non-specific and common with other infectious and non-infectious conditions, not all individuals experiencing these symptoms will necessarily have erectile dysfunction treatment. Thus, Struyf et al., (2021) concluded that using a single sign or symptom of erectile dysfunction treatment will result in low diagnostic accuracy and that combinations of symptoms increase specificity while decreasing sensitivity (explained in further detail below). However the authors also noted that studies are lacking on diagnostic accuracy of combinations of signs and symptoms.

The success of a screening strategy in identifying whether an employee has erectile dysfunction treatment is based on two factors. Sensitivity and specificity for identifying erectile dysfunction treatment. Sensitivity refers to the ability of the symptom screening strategy to correctly identify persons who have erectile dysfunction treatment. Specificity refers to the ability of the symptom screening strategy to correctly identify persons who do not have erectile dysfunction treatment. As an example, a systematic review and meta-analysis by Pang et al., (2020) determined a sensitivity of 0.48 and specificity of 0.93 for smell disorders in identifying erectile dysfunction treatment.

This means that under the scenarios in which the studies were conducted, screening for smell disorders would correctly identify around 48% of individuals who have erectile dysfunction treatment (sensitivity), and would correctly identify 93% of individuals who do not have erectile dysfunction treatment (specificity). A number of studies have been conducted to determine common symptoms associated with erectile dysfunction treatment, along with their sensitivity and specificity. In addition to the Pang et al., (2020) study, there have been several other studies strongly linking smell and taste disorders as a symptom indicative of erectile dysfunction treatment. In a review of 18 studies of erectile dysfunction treatment patients, Printza and Constantidis (2020) reported that loss of either smell or smell and taste was reported in most studies, and that that symptom is more prevalent in erectile dysfunction treatment patients than in patients suffering from other respiratory s. The report also found that the loss of smell was more prevalent among patients with a less severe case of erectile dysfunction treatment disease.

Four systematic reviews, three of which included meta-analyses, reported that for smell or taste disorders, sensitivity ranged from 0.41 to 0.65 and specificity ranged from 0.90 to 0.93 (Pang et al., 2020. Printza and Constantidis, 2020. Kim et al., 2021. Struyf et al., 2021). A systematic review found that while loss of taste or smell is the most specific symptom of erectile dysfunction treatment, the most commonly reported symptoms of erectile dysfunction treatment were fever, cough, fatigue, shortness of breath, and sputum production (Alimohamadi et al., 2020).

In another review of a convenience sample (i.e., a non-randomly selected sample based on availability, opportunity, or convenience) of erectile dysfunction treatment patients in the United States, 96% of patients reported having a fever, a cough, or shortness of breath (Burke et al., 2020). The review also found that 68% of hospitalized patients experienced all three of those symptoms, but only 31% of non-hospitalized patients reported all three symptoms. A systematic review by Kim et al., (2021) determined sensitivity and specificity, respectively, for fever (0.6, 0.55), cough (0.59, 0.39), and difficulty breathing (0.18, 0.84). Although not intended to identify individuals who could potentially have erectile dysfunction treatment, and the diagnostic accuracy of the approach is not known, the surveillance definition used by the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) provides insight on an approach to using symptoms to identify possible cases of erectile dysfunction treatment in the absence of a more likely determination by a healthcare provider. The CSTE surveillance definition for erectile dysfunction treatment includes.

(1) At least two of Start Printed Page 32453the following symptoms. Fever (measured or subjective), chills, rigors (i.e., shivering), myalgia (i.e., muscle aches), headache, sore throat, nausea or vomiting, diarrhea, fatigue, congestion or runny nose. Or (2) any one of the following symptoms. Cough, shortness of breath, difficulty breathing, new olfactory (i.e., smell) disorder, new taste disorder. Or (3) severe respiratory illness with a least one of the following.

Clinical or radiographic evidence of pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) (CSTE, 2020). Given the non-specificity of erectile dysfunction treatment symptoms, consultation with a licensed healthcare provider can provide more insight on the likelihood that an employee with certain symptoms has erectile dysfunction treatment. A licensed healthcare provider can elicit key clinical information, such as timing, frequency, intensity, and other factors in diagnosing the patient, after considering different medical explanations. A licensed healthcare provider can also elicit additional clinical information (e.g., pre-existing medical conditions), elicit epidemiologic information (e.g., exposure to erectile dysfunction treatment, travel history, rates of community transmission), and order laboratory testing to assist with the diagnosis of erectile dysfunction treatment and differentiation from other medical conditions. In general, the presence of erectile dysfunction treatment symptoms can alert employees that they may have erectile dysfunction treatment, which will allow them to take appropriate next steps.

Thus, by monitoring for erectile dysfunction treatment symptoms through regular health screening, employees can better address their personal health and avoid potentially infecting other people by seeking medical attention and getting tested for erectile dysfunction treatment as appropriate. Informing their employer if they are suspected or confirmed to have erectile dysfunction treatment, including concerning symptoms. And remaining away from the workplace where appropriate. Therefore, health screening is an effective strategy for preventing the transmission of erectile dysfunction treatment in the workplace. II.

Employee Notification to Employer of erectile dysfunction treatment Illness or Symptoms Employers can reduce workplace exposures by preventing employees who are, or could be, erectile dysfunction treatment positive from entering the workplace and transmitting the disease to others. But to do so, employers must be aware that an employee is suspected or confirmed to have erectile dysfunction treatment or is symptomatic. The Summary and Explanation (Section VIII of the preamble) includes more discussion of the precise criteria and rationale for when an employee is required to notify an employer that they are suspected or confirmed to have erectile dysfunction treatment or are experiencing certain types of symptoms. It is critical that employees make their employers aware promptly after the employee is suspected or confirmed to have erectile dysfunction treatment through test, medical diagnosis, or the specific symptoms of concern discussed in the Summary and Explanation (Section VIII of the preamble). With this information the employer can act to help prevent transmission in the workplace.

III. Employer Notification to Employees of erectile dysfunction treatment Exposure in the Workplace Notifying employees of a possible exposure to someone confirmed to have erectile dysfunction treatment is an important and effective intervention to reduce transmission. Under the ETS, this includes any employee who was not wearing a respirator and any other required PPE while in close contact with the individual with erectile dysfunction treatment or while working in the same physical space around the same time as the individual with erectile dysfunction treatment and consequently may have had contact with that individual or touched a contaminated surface. As the CDC has recognized, notification is important because it allows for an exchange of information with the person exposed to someone with erectile dysfunction treatment and helps ensure that person can pursue quarantine, timely testing, medical evaluation, and other necessary support services (CDC, February 26, 2021). Notification also acts as a complement to an employer's regular health screening program by informing employees who may have been exposed to erectile dysfunction treatment in the workplace, so that they can appropriately assess and monitor their health and report any symptoms that may develop to their employer.

It is also important for employers to notify other employers whose employees may have had close contact or been in the same area as those infected individuals while not wearing required PPE so those employers can notify their employees. The impact that notification of possible erectile dysfunction treatment exposures can have in reducing erectile dysfunction treatment transmission was demonstrated in a study by Kucharski et al., (2020), which found that when location-specific contact tracing and notification was used to make decisions on isolation and home quarantine, transmission of erectile dysfunction treatment was reduced by 64% when contact tracing was performed manually and 47% when performed by an app. However, the authors found that while notification is effective in helping to decrease the spread of erectile dysfunction treatment by making individuals aware of potential s, it is not a standalone measure. Notification must be used in a layered approach in order to create an effective control plan. IV.

Medical Removal From the Workplace Employers can substantially reduce disease transmission in the workplace by removing employees who are suspected or confirmed to have erectile dysfunction treatment based on a erectile dysfunction treatment test or diagnosis by a healthcare provider, or who have developed certain symptoms or combinations of symptoms associated with erectile dysfunction treatment. Employers can also reduce the risk of erectile dysfunction treatment in the workplace by removing employees who are at risk of developing erectile dysfunction treatment because they were recently exposed to someone with erectile dysfunction treatment in the workplace. According to the CDC, a major mitigation effort for erectile dysfunction treatment is “to reduce the rate at which someone infected comes in contact with someone not infected. . .

.” (CDC, February 16, 2021b). The ETS focuses on removing employees from the workplace, rather than specifying requirements for quarantine or isolation that are typically outside the control of the employer because they would occur away from the workplace, but the concept of separating infected or potentially infected individuals from others is the same. Both the CDC and ACOEM endorse the use of isolation and quarantine as measures needed to reduce this rate of contact and consequently slow the spread of erectile dysfunction treatment. Isolation ensures that persons known or suspected to be infected with the viagra stay away from all healthy individuals. Isolating contagious, or potentially contagious, employees from their co-workers can prevent further spread at the workplace and safeguard the health of other employees.

Quarantine is used to keep persons at risk of developing erectile dysfunction treatment away from all other people until it can be determined whether the individual is infected following an exposure to someone with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment (Honein et al., 2020). The first two categories of employees who should be removed from the workplace are those employees who are suspected to be or are confirmed to have erectile dysfunction treatment based on a erectile dysfunction treatment test or diagnosis by a healthcare provider and those employees who develop certain Start Printed Page 32454erectile dysfunction treatment symptoms.[] Removal of these two categories of employees is consistent with isolation guidance from the CDC (February 11, 2021). Employers also prevent further transmission of erectile dysfunction treatment in the workplace by providing employees a place to isolate from other workers until they can go home if they arrive with, or develop, erectile dysfunction treatment symptoms at work (CDC, February 16, 2021a. CDC, March 8, 2021). ACOEM (August 19, 2020) also recommends that symptomatic employees stay home to protect healthy workers.

Several studies have focused on the impact of isolating persons with erectile dysfunction treatment from others during their likely known infectious period, and those studies show that isolation is a strategy that reduces the transmission of s. For example, Kucharski et al., (2020) found that transmission of erectile dysfunction would decrease by 29% with self-isolation within the household, which would extend to 37% if the entire household quarantined. Similarly, Wells et al., (2021) found that isolation of individuals at symptom onset would decrease the reproductive rate (R0) of erectile dysfunction treatment from an R0 of 2.5 to an R0 of 1.6. However, the study authors noted that when assuming low levels of asymptomatic transmission the R0 never fell below one, meaning there is a need for isolation to be used in concert with a more robust and layered control program, as is required by other provisions in the ETS. The third category of employees who should be removed from the workplace to further reduce disease transmission are those who are at risk of developing erectile dysfunction treatment because they have had recent close contact in the workplace with someone who is erectile dysfunction treatment-positive while not wearing a respirator and all required PPE (CDC, March 12, 2021).

The need for removal of these employees is based on quarantine guidance from CDC (December 2, 2020) and is consistent with CDC recommendations for quarantine as a means of reducing workplace transmission (CDC, February 16, 2021a). Such removal is important because infected individuals are capable of transmitting the viagra before they start experiencing symptoms and are aware that they are ill, and many (estimated to be 17% in one analysis) may never experience symptoms at all (Byambasuren et al., December 11, 2020). Therefore, ensuring that exposed employees are removed from work until it is unlikely that they have developed erectile dysfunction treatment is critical for preventing the transmission of s. CDC defines exposure through unprotected close contact as being within 6 feet of an infected person for a cumulative total of at least 15 minutes over a 24-hour period starting at 2 days before illness onset (or 2 days before samples are collected for testing in asymptomatic patients) and until the infected person meets the criteria for ending isolation (CDC, March 1, 2021). The risk level of the exposure depends on factors such as whether the healthcare provider was wearing a facemask or respirator, if an AGP was being performed without all recommended PPE, or if the patient had source control in place.

However, CDC does not recommend quarantine following close contact with someone who is suspected or confirmed to have erectile dysfunction treatment, if the person who had close contact meets all of the following criteria. (1) They have been fully vaccinated for erectile dysfunction treatment. (2) it has been at least 2 weeks since the full vaccination was completed. And (3) they do not develop any symptoms (CDC, May 13, 2021. CDC, March 12, 2021).

CDC also has analyzed accumulating evidence indicating that persons who have recovered from laboratory-confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment and remain symptom-free may not have to quarantine again if exposed within three months of the illness. CDC (March 16, 2021) concluded that although the evidence does not definitively demonstrate the absence of re within a three-month period, the benefits of avoiding unnecessary quarantine likely outweigh the risks of re as long as other precautions such as physical distancing, facemasks, and hygiene continue to be implemented. CDC's recommendation was based on a review of more than 40 studies examining evidence of re- in recovered individuals (complete reference list included in CDC, (March 16, 2021). While many studies demonstrated that re can occur at least 90 days after (e.g., Colson et al., 2020. Van Elslande et al., 2021), other studies suggest re- is possible as early as 45 days after (e.g., Abu-Raddad et al., 2020.

Larson et al., 2020. Tillet et. Al., 2020). Although antibodies to the viagra that causes erectile dysfunction treatment have not been definitively correlated with protection from re and it is not clear what level of antibodies would be required for protection, increasing numbers of studies are suggesting that the majority of recovered patients develop antibodies specific for the viagra that causes erectile dysfunction treatment (e.g., Deeks et al., 2020. Gudbjartsson et al., 2020).

Antibody responses have been reported to last for six months or more in some studies (e.g., Choe et al., 2021. Dan et al., 2021), but other studies suggested lower levels of antibodies or detection of antibodies for shorter periods of time (e.g., Ibarrondo et al., 2020. Seow et al., 2020). In addition to the production of antibodies, immunity can be achieved through viagra-specific T- and B-cells (e.g., Kaneko et al., 2020), and some studies show that T- and B-cell immunity can last for 6 months or more (e.g., Dan et al., 2021. Hartley et al., 2020).

Some studies suggest that T- and B-cell responses could be higher in symptomatic versus asymptomatic adults (e.g., Zuo et al., 2021). Results from animal challenge studies (e.g., Chandrashekar et al., 2020. Deng et al., 2020), and seropositive adults in outbreak settings (Abu-Raddad et al., 2020. Lumley et al., 2021) provide additional evidence that initial might protect against re. In addition to the uncertainty noted above, CDC notes that risk of re may be increased in the future, with the circulation of variants (e.g., CDC, March 16, 2021.

Nonaka et al., 2021. Harrington et al., 2021. Zucman et al., 2021). Because of the uncertainty regarding re and increased possibility of re following exposure to variants, the CDC recommends that employees be removed from the workplace if they develop symptoms after close contact with someone who has erectile dysfunction treatment, even if the employee is fully vaccinated or was confirmed to have erectile dysfunction treatment in the previous three months (CDC, May 13, 2021. CDC, April 2, 2021).

V. Medical Removal Protection Benefits Notification and removal will be most effective if the employees responsible for reporting do not face potential financial hardships for accurate reporting of symptoms and illnesses. As noted above, employers must know that an employee is suspected or confirmed to have erectile dysfunction treatment or has certain symptoms of erectile dysfunction treatment before they can remove those employees from the workplace. But removing employees from the workplace based on their own reports is likely to prove an effective control for erectile dysfunction treatment only if the employees are not afraid they will be penalized for making those reports. OSHA's experience demonstrates that employees will self-report at a sufficient level to make removal program effective only when removed employees do not face a significant financial penalty—Start Printed Page 32455such as lost income during the removal period—and when employees may return to work after their removal period without any adverse action or deprivation of rights or benefits because of the removal.

Because the employer will often have no other way to learn whether an employee is suspected or confirmed to have erectile dysfunction treatment, or has certain symptoms of erectile dysfunction treatment, medical removal protections are necessary to ensure that employees are not disincentivized to report suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment or symptoms of erectile dysfunction treatment. Because infectious employees pose a direct hazard to their co-workers, removing barriers to reporting symptoms or confirmed diagnoses protects not only the reporting employee but also every other employee who would otherwise be exposed to . OSHA's experience shows that the threat of lost earnings, benefits, and/or seniority protection provides a significant disincentive for employees to participate in workplace medical screening and reporting programs (see United Steelworkers of America v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1237 (D.C. Cir.

1981) (recognizing the importance of removing financial disincentives for workers exposed to lead)). In the lead rulemaking, OSHA adopted a medical removal protection benefits provision in part due to evidence that employees were using chelating agents to achieve a rapid, short-term reduction in blood lead levels because they were desperate to avoid economic loss, despite the possible hazard to their health from the use of chelating agents (43 FR 54354, 54446 (November 21, 1978)). OSHA's standards for cotton dust and lead contain testimony from numerous employees indicating that workers would be reluctant to report symptoms and participate in medical surveillance if they fear economic consequences (43 FR at 54442-54443. 50 FR at 51154-51155). A major reason that OSHA included medical removal protection benefits in the formaldehyde standard is because the standard does not have a medical examination trigger, such as an action level, but instead relies on annual medical questionnaires and employee reports of signs and symptoms.

Thus, the approach is completely dependent on employee cooperation (57 FR at 22293). Literature reviews have similarly reported that lack of compensation is one reason why employees might go into work while sick (Heymann et al., 2020. Kniffen et al., 2021). Based on this evidence, OSHA concludes that protection of benefits for removed employees is necessary to maximize employee reporting of suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment and symptoms associated with erectile dysfunction treatment. This in turn maximizes protection for all employees at the workplace.

VI. Return to Work After employees have been removed from the workplace as required by this standard, the employer must ensure that they do not return to the workplace until there is no longer a risk of disease transmission. Scientific evidence is available to determine the appropriate duration of isolation for erectile dysfunction treatment, which can be used to determine the appropriate duration of removal from the workplace. As general guidance, CDC recommends isolating symptomatic people with erectile dysfunction treatment for at least 10 to 20 days after symptom onset, dependent on factors such as the severity of and health of the immune system. In most cases, the CDC states that a person can end isolation when (i) 10 days have passed since symptom onset.

(ii) fever has been resolved (without fever-reducing medications) for at least 24 hours. And (iii) other symptoms (except loss of taste and smell) have improved. In cases of severe illness, the decision to end isolation may require consultation with an control expert. For persons who are confirmed positive but never develop symptoms, CDC recommends ending isolation at 10 days after the first positive test (CDC, March 16, 2021). These recommendations are based on scientific evidence reviewed by CDC which suggest that levels of viral RNA in upper respiratory tract samples begin decreasing after the onset of symptoms (CDC, March 16, 2021.

CDC, unpublished data, 2020, as cited in CDC, March 16, 2021. Midgley et al., 2020. Young et al., 2020. Zou et al., 2020. Wölfel et al., 2020.

Van Kampen et al., 2021). Levels of replication-competent viagraes (i.e., viagraes that are able to infect cells and produce more infectious viral particles) also decrease over time. With only two possible exceptions, no replication-competent viagra was detected after 10 days of symptom onset in individuals with mild-to-moderate disease (CDC, unpublished data, 2020, as cited in CDC, March 16, 2021. Wölfel et al., 2020. Arons et al., 2020.

Bullard et al., 2020. Liu et al., 2020a. Lu et al., 2020. Personal communication with Young et al., 2020, as cited in CDC, March 16, 2021. Korea CDC, May 19, 2020.

Quicke et al., 2020). In a study of persons with severe disease (possibly complicated in some individuals by an immunocompromised status), the median duration of shedding infectious viagra was 8 days after onset of symptoms, and the probability of shedding viagra after 15 days was estimated at 5% or less (van Kampen et al., 2021). In severely immunocompromised patients, “sub-genomic viagra RNA” or replication competent viagra was detected beyond 20 days and as much as 143 days after a positive viagra test (e.g., Avanzato et al., 2020. Choi et al., 2020). A large contact-tracing study found no evidence of s in individuals who had contact with infectious individuals in a household or hospital when exposure occurred at least 6 days after illness onset (Cheng et al., 2020).

Accordingly, these studies support the CDC's recommended isolation guidance (CDC, February 16, 2021a. CDC, February 18, 2021a. CDC, February 18, 2021b). However, as noted, CDC's recommendations for isolation are broad guidance. The appropriate duration for any given individual may differ depending on factors such as disease severity or the health of the employee's immune system.

As a general rule, CDC does not recommend a testing strategy as a means for determining when to end isolation, with the possible exception of severely immunocompromised persons (CDC, March 16, 2021). This is because tests to detect viral genetic material may yield positive results after a person is no longer infectious. Except in a very limited number of cases, studies have demonstrated that although some individuals were observed to persistently shed viagra (for up to 12 weeks), replication-competent viagra has not been recovered at three weeks past illness (Korea CDC, May 19, 2020. CDC, March 16, 2021. Li et al., 2020.

Xiao et al, 2020. Liu et al., 2020a. Quicke et al., 2020). In addition, a study of 285 persons with persistent viagra shedding, including 126 who experienced recurrent symptoms, found no evidence that any of the 790 contacts were infected from exposures to the people with persistent viagra shedding (Korea CDC, May 19, 2020. CDC, March 16, 2021).

On the other hand, testing conducted after onset of sensitive symptoms associated with erectile dysfunction treatment can identify individuals who are not infected. Peak viagra shedding has been reported to occur just before and as symptoms are developing (Beeching et al., 2020. He et al., 2020). Testing for erectile dysfunction treatment soon after the onset of symptoms has been estimated to result in a low false-negative rate of 10%, based on the reported Polymerase Chain Reaction test sensitivity (Grassley et al., 2020).Start Printed Page 32456 Return-to-work criteria for employees who are removed from the workplace because they are at risk of developing erectile dysfunction treatment after exposure to someone with erectile dysfunction treatment in the workplace, but have not yet developed symptoms or tested positive themselves, are based on the CDC's quarantine guidance. Based on available scientific evidence, the CDC generally recommends a 14-day quarantine period for individuals who have been exposed to a confirmed case of erectile dysfunction treatment and are therefore at risk of developing erectile dysfunction treatment (CDC, December 2, 2020.

CDC, March 12, 2021). The 14-day quarantine period is based on the conclusion that the upper bound of the incubation period (the period between the point of and symptom onset) for erectile dysfunction treatment is 14 days, and that there is a possibility that an unknowingly infected person can transmit the disease if quarantine is discontinued before 14 days (CDC, December 2, 2020). The scientific community agrees that a 14-day quarantine period is ideal. Linton et al., (2020) recommended a quarantine period of at least 14 days, based on a mean incubation period of 5 days, with a range of 2-14 days, in patients from and outside of Wuhan, China. Lauer et al., (2020) concluded that the CDC recommendation to monitor for symptoms for 14 days is supported by the evidence, including their study of patients outside the Hubei province that reported a mean incubation period of 5.1 days and symptom development within 11.5 days in 97.5% of those who develop symptoms.

Although a 14-day quarantine is ideal and generally recommended, the CDC has recognized that a shorter quarantine period may be less burdensome and result in increased compliance. Therefore, the CDC reviewed emerging scientific evidence to provide shorter quarantine options that employers can consider if allowed by local public health authorities (Oran and Topol, 2020. Johansson et al., 2020. Kucirka et al., 2020. Clifford et al., 2020.

Quilty et al., 2021. Wells et al., 2021. Khader et al., 2020, as cited in CDC, December 2, 2020. Liu et al., 2020b. Ng et al., 2021.

Grijalva et al., 2020). One of those options is testing for the viagra at five days after exposure and ending quarantine at seven days after exposure if results are negative. Importantly, this option is only appropriate for individuals who do not develop symptoms over the quarantine period (as such individuals should instead be managed according to the CDC's isolation strategies). Based on the evidence reviewed, CDC concluded that ending quarantine after a negative test and seven days with no symptoms would result in a residual transmission risk of about 5%, with an upper limit of about 12% (CDC, December 2, 2020). VII.

Conclusion As demonstrated above, the best available evidence strongly supports OSHA's conclusion that implementation of a comprehensive medical management program which includes health screening. Notifications of potential exposures. Removing employees who are erectile dysfunction treatment positive, suspected to be positive, have certain symptoms, or have been exposed to a person with erectile dysfunction treatment from the workplace until there is no longer a risk of disease transmission. And protection of removed employees' compensation, rights, and benefits are necessary measures to reduce incidence of erectile dysfunction treatment exposure in the workplace. Because the viagra that causes erectile dysfunction treatment is spread through exposure to infected individuals or surfaces contaminated by infected individuals, quickly identifying and removing employees from the workplace who have developed, likely developed, or are at heightened risk of developing erectile dysfunction treatment will allow employers to significantly reduce the spread of erectile dysfunction treatment in the workplace.

The prompt identification and removal of these employees can prevent transmission of the viagra to others in the workplace. In addition, medical removal protection provisions that ensure compensation and protection of rights and benefits during removal will encourage employees to report diagnoses of suspected or confirmed-positive erectile dysfunction treatment and symptoms. However, as noted above, some employees with erectile dysfunction treatment will not have symptoms, and testing to allow employees to return to work after exposures to erectile dysfunction treatment or experiencing symptoms associated with erectile dysfunction treatment will likely result in some false negatives. Therefore, a medical management program should be complemented by other measures as part of a multi-layered strategy to minimize employee exposure to the grave danger of erectile dysfunction treatment. References Abu-Raddad, LJ.

Et al., (2020). Assessment of the risk of erectile dysfunction re in an intense re-exposure setting. Clinical Infectious Disease. 2020 Dec 14. Ciaa1846.

Doi. 10.1093/cid/ciaa1846. Epub ahead of print. PMID. 33315061.

PMCID. PMC7799253. (Abu-Raddad et al., 2020). Alimohamadi, Y. Et al.,(2020).

Determine the most common clinical symptoms in erectile dysfunction treatment patients. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Preventive Medicine and Hygiene. 2020 Oct 6. 61(3).

E304-E312. Doi. 10.15167/2421-4248/jpmh2020.61.3.1530. PMID. 33150219.

PMCID. PMC7595075. (Alimohamadi et al., 2020). American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM). (2020, August 19).

erectile dysfunction (erectile dysfunction treatment). Https://info.mdguidelines.com/​wp-content/​uploads/​2020/​08/​ACOEM-erectile dysfunction treatment-Aug-19-2020-public.pdf. (ACOEM, August 19, 2020). Arons, MM. Et al., (2020).

Presymptomatic erectile dysfunction s and Transmission in a Skilled Nursing Facility. New England Journal of Medicine. 2020 May 28. 382(22). 2081-2090.

Doi. 10.1056/NEJMoa2008457. Epub 2020 Apr 24. PMID. 32329971.

PMCID. PMC7200056. (Arons et al., 2020). Avanzato, VA. Et al., (2020).

Case Study. Prolonged infectious erectile dysfunction shedding from an asymptomatic immunocompromised individual with cancer. Cell. 2020 Dec 23. 183(7).

1901-1912.e9. Doi. 10.1016/j.cell.2020.10.049. Epub 2020 Nov 4. PMID.

33248470. PMCID. PMC7640888. (Avanzato et al., 2020). Beeching, NJ.

Et al., (2020). erectile dysfunction treatment. Testing times. Rapid near patient testing for both current and past s is urgently required. BMJ 2020.

369. M1403 doi. 10.1136/bmj.m1403 (Published 8 April 2020). (Beeching et al., 2020). Bullard, J.

Et al., (2020). Predicting infectious Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome erectile dysfunction 2 from diagnostic samples. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Dec 17. 71(10).

2663-2666. Doi. 10.1093/cid/ciaa638. PMID. 32442256.

PMCID. PMC7314198. (Bullard et al., 2020). Burke, RM. Et al., (2020).

Symptom profiles of a convenience sample of patients with erectile dysfunction treatment—United States, January-April 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Jul 17. 69(28). 904-908.

Doi. 10.15585/mmwr.mm6928a2. PMID. 32673296. PMCID.

PMC7366851. (Burke et al., 2020). Byambasuren, O. Et al., (2020, December 11). Estimating the extent of asymptomatic erectile dysfunction treatment and its potential for community transmission.

Systematic review and meta-analysis. Official Journal of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada. 5(4). 223-234. Doi.

10.3138/jammi-2020-0030. (Byambasuren et al., December 11, 2020). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2020, December 2). Options to Reduce Quarantine for Contacts of Persons with erectile dysfunction Using Symptom Monitoring and Diagnostic Testing.

Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​more/​scientific-brief-options-to-reduce-quarantine.html. (CDC, December 2, 2020). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, February 11). General Business Frequently Asked Questions.

Suspected or Confirmed Cases of erectile dysfunction treatment in the workplace. Https://Start Printed Page 32457www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​community/​general-business-faq.html#Suspected-or-Confirmed-Cases-of-erectile dysfunction treatment-in-the-Workplace. (CDC, February 11, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021a, February 16).

Criteria for return to work for healthcare personnel with erectile dysfunction (Interim Guidance). Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​hcp/​return-to-work.html. (CDC, February 16, 2021a). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021b, February 16).

Implementation of Mitigation Strategies for Communities with Local erectile dysfunction treatment Transmission https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​community/​community-mitigation.html. (CDC, February 16, 2021b). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021a, February 18). Isolate if you are sick.

Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​if-you-are-sick/​isolation.html. (CDC, February 18, 2021a). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021b, February 18). Discontinuation of isolation for persons with erectile dysfunction treatment not in healthcare settings.

Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​hcp/​disposition-in-home-patients.html. (CDC, February 18, 2021b). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, February 26). Notification of Exposure.

A Contact Tracers Guide for erectile dysfunction treatment. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​php/​notification-of-exposure.html#:~:text=​PDF%20%5B17%20Pages%5D-,Overview,and%20other%20necessary%20support%20services. (CDC, February 26, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, March 1).

Public Health Guidance for Community-Related Exposure. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​php/​public-health-recommendations.html. (CDC, March 1, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2021, March 8). Guidance for business and employers responding to erectile dysfunction disease 2019 (erectile dysfunction treatment).

Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​community/​guidance-business-response.html. (CDC, March 8, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, March 12). When to Quarantine.

Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​if-you-are-sick/​quarantine.html. (CDC, March 12, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, March 16). Interim Guidance on Duration of Isolation and Precautions for Adults with erectile dysfunction treatment.

Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​hcp/​duration-isolation.html. (CDC, March 16, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, April 2). Science Brief.

Background Rationale and Evidence for Public Health Recommendations for Fully Vaccinated People. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​science/​science-briefs/​fully-vaccinated-people.html. (CDC, April 2, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, May 13).

Interim Public Health Recommendations for Fully Vaccinated People. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​treatments/​fully-vaccinated-guidance.html. (CDC, May 13, 2021). Chandrashekar, A. Et al., (2020).

erectile dysfunction protects against rechallenge in rhesus macaques. Science. 2020 Aug 14. 369(6505). 812-7.

(Chandrashekar et al., 2020). Cheng, HY. Et al., (2020). Contact Tracing Assessment of erectile dysfunction treatment Transmission Dynamics in Taiwan and Risk at Different Exposure Periods Before and After Symptom Onset. JAMA Intern Med.

2020 Sep 1. 180(9). 1156-1163. Doi. 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2020.

PMID. 32356867. PMCID. PMC7195694. (Cheng et al., 2020).

Choe, PG. Et al., (2021). Antibody Responses 8 Months after Asymptomatic or Mild erectile dysfunction . Emerging Infectious Diseseases. 2021 Mar.

27(3). 928-931. Doi. 10.3201/eid2703.204543. Epub 2020 Dec 22.

PMID. 33350923. PMCID. PMC7920668. (Choe et al., 2021).

Choi, B. Et al., (2020). Persistence and Evolution of erectile dysfunction in an Immunocompromised Host. New England Journal of Medicine. 2020 Dec 3.

383(23). 2291-2293. Doi. 10.1056/NEJMc2031364. Epub 2020 Nov 11.

PMID. 33176080. PMCID. PMC7673303. (Choi et al., 2020).

Clifford, S. Et al., (2020). Strategies to reduce the risk of erectile dysfunction reintroduction from international travellers. MedRxiv. 2020.10.1101/2020.07.24.20161281.

Https://doi.org/​10.1101/​2020.07.24.20161281. (Clifford et al., 2020). Colson, P. Et al., (2020). Evidence of erectile dysfunction re- with a different genotype.

Journal of . 2020 Nov 15. S0163-4453(20)30706-4. Doi. 10.1016/j.jinf.2020.11.011.

Epub ahead of print. PMID. 33207255. PMCID. PMC7666873.

(Colson et al., 2020). Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE). (2020). erectile dysfunction Disease 2019 (erectile dysfunction treatment) 2020 Interim Case Definition, Approved August 5, 2020. Https://wwwn.cdc.gov/​nndss/​conditions/​erectile dysfunction-disease-2019-erectile dysfunction treatment/​case-definition/​2020/​08/​05/​.

(CSTE, 2020). Dan, JM. Et al., (2021). Immunological memory to erectile dysfunction assessed for up to 8 months after . Science.

2021 Feb 5. 371(6529). Eabf4063. Doi. 10.1126/science.abf4063.

Epub 2021 Jan 6. PMID. 33408181. PMCID. PMC7919858.

(Dan et al., 2021). Deeks, JJ, et al., (2020). Antibody tests for identification of current and past with erectile dysfunction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Jun 25.

6(6). CD013652. Doi. 10.1002/14651858.CD013652. PMID.

32584464. PMCID. PMC7387103. (Deeks et al., 2020). Deng, W.

Et al., (2020). Primary exposure to erectile dysfunction protects against re in rhesus macaques. Science. 2020 Aug 14. 369(6505).

818-823. Doi. 10.1126/science.abc5343. Epub 2020 Jul 2. PMID.

32616673. PMCID. PMC7402625. (Deng et al., 2020). Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

(2021, March 11). In Vitro Diagnostics EUAs. Https://www.fda.gov/​medical-devices/​erectile dysfunction-disease-2019-erectile dysfunction treatment-emergency-use-authorizations-medical-devices/​in-vitro-diagnostics-euas. (FDA, March 11, 2021). Grassly, NC.

Et al., (2020). Comparison of molecular testing strategies for erectile dysfunction treatment control. A mathematical modelling study. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2020 Dec.

20(12). 1381-1389. Doi. 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30630-7. Epub 2020 Aug 18.

PMID. 32822577. PMCID. PMC7434438. (Grassly et al., 2020).

Grijalva, CG. Et al., (2020). Transmission of erectile dysfunction s in Households—Tennessee and Wisconsin, April-September 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Nov 6.

69(44). 1631-1634. Doi. 10.15585/mmwr.mm6944e1. PMID.

33151916. PMCID. PMC7643897. (Grijalva et al., 2020). Gudbjartsson, DF.

Et al., (2020). Humoral Immune Response to erectile dysfunction in Iceland. New England Journal of Medicine. 2020 Oct 29. 383(18).

1724-1734. Doi. 10.1056/NEJMoa2026116. Epub 2020 Sep 1. PMID.

32871063. PMCID. PMC7494247. (Gudbjartsson et al., 2020). Harrington, D.

Et al., (2021). Confirmed Re with erectile dysfunction Variant VOC-202012/01. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2021 Jan 9. Ciab014.

Doi. 10.1093/cid/ciab014. Epub ahead of print. PMID. 33421056.

PMCID. PMC7929017. (Harrington et al., 2021). Hartley, GE. Et al., (2020).

Rapid generation of durable B cell memory to erectile dysfunction spike and nucleocapsid proteins in erectile dysfunction treatment and convalescence. Science Immunology. 2020 Dec 22. 5(54). Eabf8891.

Doi. 10.1126/sciimmunol.abf8891. PMID. 33443036. PMCID.

PMC7877496. (Hartley et al., 2020). He, X. Et al., (2020). Temporal dynamics in viral shedding and transmissibility of erectile dysfunction treatment.

Nature Medicine 2020 May. 26(5). 672-675. Doi. 10.1038/s41591-020-0869-5.

Epub 2020 Apr 15. Erratum in. Nat Med. 2020 Sep. 26(9).

1491-1493. PMID. 32296168. (He et al., 2020). Heymann, J.

Et al., (2020). Protecting health during erectile dysfunction treatment and beyond. A global examination of paid sick leave design in 193 countries. Global Public Health. 2020 Jul.

15(7). 925-934. Doi. 10.1080/17441692.2020.1764076. Epub 2020 May 12.

PMID. 32396447. (Heymann et al., 2020). Honein, MA. Et al., (2020).

Summary of Guidance for Public Health Strategies to Address High Levels of Community Transmission of erectile dysfunction and Related Deaths, December 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020. 69. 1860-1867. DOI.

Http://dx.doi.org/​10.15585/​mmwr.mm6949e2. (Honein et al., December 11, 2020).Start Printed Page 32458 Ibarrondo, FJ. Et al., (2020). Rapid Decay of Anti-erectile dysfunction Antibodies in Persons with Mild erectile dysfunction treatment. New England Journal of Medicine.

2020 Sep 10. 383(11). 1085-1087. Doi. 10.1056/NEJMc2025179.

Epub 2020 Jul 21. Erratum in. New England Journal of Medicine. 2020 Jul 23. PMID.

32706954. PMCID. PMC7397184. (Ibarrondo et al., 2020). Johansson, MA.

Et al., (2020). Reducing travel-related erectile dysfunction transmission with layered mitigation measures. Symptom monitoring, quarantine, and testing. MedRxiv preprint doi. Https://doi.org/​10.1101/​2020.11.23.20237412.

(Johansson et al., 2020). Kaneko, N. Et al., (2020). Loss of Bcl-6-Expressing T Follicular Helper Cells and Germinal Centers in erectile dysfunction treatment. Cell.

2020 Oct 1. 183(1). 143-157.e13. Doi. 10.1016/j.cell.2020.08.025.

Epub 2020 Aug 19. PMID. 32877699. PMCID. PMC7437499.

(Kaneko et al., 2020). Kim, DH. Et al., (2021). Predictive value of olfactory and taste symptoms in the diagnosis of erectile dysfunction treatment. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Clinical and Experimental Otorhinolaryngology 2021 Jan 25. Doi. 10.21053/ceo.2020.02369. Epub ahead of print. PMID.

33541033. (Kim et al., 2021). Kniffin, KM. Et al., (2021). erectile dysfunction treatment and the workplace.

Implications, issues, and insights for future research and action. American Psychologist 2021 Jan. 76(1). 63-77. Doi.

10.1037/amp0000716. Epub 2020 Aug 10. PMID. 32772537. (Kniffen et al., 2021).

Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Korea CDC). (2020, May 19). Findings from Investigation and Analysis of re-positive cases. Https://www.cdc.go.kr/​board/​board.es?. €‹mid=​a30402000000&​bid=​0030&​act=​view&​list_​no=​367267&​nPage=​1external icon.

(Korea CDC, May 19, 2020). Kucharski, AJ. Et al., (2020). Effectiveness of isolation, testing, contact tracing, and physical distancing on reducing transmission of erectile dysfunction in different settings. A mathematical modelling study.

The Lancet Infectious Disease. 2020 Oct. 20(10). 1151-1160. Doi.

10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30457-6. Epub 2020 Jun 16. PMID. 32559451. PMCID.

PMC7511527. (Kucharski et al., 2020). Kucirka, LM. Et al., (2020). Variation in False-Negative Rate of Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction-Based erectile dysfunction Tests by Time Since Exposure.

Annals of Internal Medicine. 2020 Aug 18. 173(4). 262-267. Doi.

10.7326/M20-1495. Epub 2020 May 13. PMID. 32422057. PMCID.

PMC7240870. (Kucirka et al., 2020). Larson, D. Et al., (2020). A Case of Early Re- with erectile dysfunction.

Clinical Infectious Diseases. Epub ahead of print. PMID. 32949240. PMCID.

PMC7543357. Https://academic.oup.com/​cid/​advance-article/​doi/​10.1093/​cid/​ciaa1436/​5908892. (Larson et al., 2020). Lauer, SA. Et al., (2020).

The Incubation Period of erectile dysfunction Disease 2019 (erectile dysfunction treatment) From Publicly Reported Confirmed Cases. Estimation and Application. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2020 May 5. 172(9).

577-582. Doi. 10.7326/M20-0504. Epub 2020 Mar 10. PMID.

32150748. PMCID. PMC7081172. (Lauer et al., 2020). Li, N.

Et al., (2020). Prolonged erectile dysfunction RNA shedding. Not a rare phenomenon. Journal of Medical Virolology. 2020 Nov.

92(11). 2286-2287. Doi. 10.1002/jmv.25952. Epub 2020 May 22.

PMID. 32347980. PMCID. PMC7267144. (Li et al., 2020).

Linton, NM. Et al., (2020). Incubation Period and Other Epidemiological Characteristics of 2019 Novel erectile dysfunction s with Right Truncation. A Statistical Analysis of Publicly Available Case Data. Journal of Clinical Medicine.

2020 Feb 17. 9(2). 538. Doi. 10.3390/jcm9020538.

PMID. 32079150. PMCID. PMC7074197. (Linton et al., 2020).

Liu, WD. Et al., (2020a). Prolonged viagra shedding even after seroconversion in a patient with erectile dysfunction treatment. Journal of . 2020 Aug.

81(2). 318-356. Doi. 10.1016/j.jinf.2020.03.063. Epub 2020 Apr 10.

PMID. 32283147. PMCID. PMC7151379. (Liu et al., 2020a).

Liu, Y. Et al., (2020b). Secondary attack rate and superspreading events for erectile dysfunction. The Lancet. 2020 Mar 14.

395(10227). E47. Doi. 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30462-1. Epub 2020 Feb 27.

PMID. 32113505. PMCID. PMC7158947. (Liu et al., 2020b).

Lu, J. Et al., (2020). Clinical, immunological and virological characterization of erectile dysfunction treatment patients that test re-positive for erectile dysfunction by RT-PCR. EBioMedicine. 2020 Sep.

59. 102960. Doi. 10.1016/j.ebiom.2020.102960. Epub 2020 Aug 24.

PMID. 32853988. PMCID. PMC7444471. (Lu et al., 2020).

Lumley, SF. Et al., (2021). Antibody Status and Incidence of erectile dysfunction in Health Care Workers. New England Journal of Medicine. 2021 Feb 11.

384(6). 533-540. Doi. 10.1056/NEJMoa2034545. Epub 2020 Dec 23.

PMID. 33369366. PMCID. PMC7781098. (Lumley et al., 2021).

Midgley, CM. Et al., (2020). Clinical and Virologic Characteristics of the First 12 Patients with erectile dysfunction Disease 2019 (erectile dysfunction treatment) in the United States. Nature Medicine 2020 Jun. 26(6).

861-868. Doi. 10.1038/s41591-020-0877-5. (Midgley et al., 2020). National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM).

(2020, November 9). Advantages and trade-offs of erectile dysfunction treatment diagnostic tests, national testing strategies examined in new rapid response to government. Https://www.nationalacademies.org/​news/​2020/​11/​advantages-and-trade-offs-of-erectile dysfunction treatment-diagnostic-tests-national-testing-strategies-examined-in-new-rapid-response-to-government. (NASEM, November 9, 2020). Ng, OT.

Et al., (2021). erectile dysfunction seroprevalence and transmission risk factors among high-risk close contacts. A retrospective cohort study. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2021 Mar.

21(3). 333-343. Doi. 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30833-1. Epub 2020 Nov 2.

PMID. 33152271. PMCID. PMC7831879. (Ng, et al., 2021).

Nonaka, CKV. Et al., (2021). Genomic evidence of a erectile dysfunction re cases with E484K spike mutation in Brazil. Pre-print posted January 6, 2021. Doi.

10.20944/preprints202101.0132.v1. (Nonaka et al., 2021). Oran, DP. And Topol, EJ. (2020).

Prevalence of Asymptomatic erectile dysfunction . A Narrative Review. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2020 Sep 1. 173(5).

362-367. Doi. 10.7326/M20-3012. Epub 2020 Jun 3. PMID.

32491919. PMCID. PMC7281624. (Oran and Topol, 2020). Pang, KW.

Et al., (2020). Frequency and Clinical Utility of Olfactory Dysfunction in erectile dysfunction treatment. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Current Allergy and Asthma Reports. 2020 Oct 13.

20(12). 76. Doi. 10.1007/s11882-020-00972-y. PMID.

33048282. PMCID. PMC7552599. Https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/​pmc/​articles/​PMC7552599/​#_​_​ffn_​sectitle. (Pang et al., 2020).

Printza, A. And Constantinidis, J. (2020). The role of self-reported smell and taste disorders in suspected erectile dysfunction treatment19. European Archives of Otorhinolaryngol.

2020 Sep. 277(9). 2625-2630. Doi. 10.1007/s00405-020-06069-6.

Epub 2020 May 23. PMID. 32447496. PMCID. PMC7245504.

Https://doi.org/​10.1007/​s00405-020-06069-6. Available at https://link.springer.com/​content/​pdf/​10.1007/​s00405-020-06069-6.pdf. (Printza and Constantinidis, 2020). Quicke, K. Et al., (2020).

Longitudinal Surveillance for erectile dysfunction RNA Among Asymptomatic Staff in Five Colorado Skilled Nursing Facilities. Epidemiologic, Virologic and Sequence Analysis. (Preprint) Medrxiv. 2020. Doi.

10.1101/2020.06.08.20125989. (Quicke et al., 2020). Quilty, BJ. Et al., (2021). Quarantine and testing strategies in contact tracing for erectile dysfunction.

A modelling study. The Lancet Public Health. 2021 Mar. 6(3). E175-e183.

Doi. 10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30308-X. Epub 2021 Jan 21. PMID. 33484644.

PMCID. PMC7826085. (Quilty et al., 2021). Seow, J. Et al., (2020).

Longitudinal observation and decline of neutralizing antibody responses in the three months following erectile dysfunction in humans. Nature Microbiology. 2020 Dec. 5(12). 1598-1607.

Doi. 10.1038/s41564-020-00813-8. Epub 2020 Oct 26. PMID. 33106674.

(Seow et al., 2020). Struyf, T. Et al., (2021). Signs and symptoms to determine if a patient presenting in primary care or hospital outpatient settings has erectile dysfunction treatment. Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews.

2021 Feb 23. 2. CD013665. Doi. 10.1002/14651858.CD013665.pub2.

PMID. 33620086. (Struyf et al., 2021). Tillett, RL. Et al., (2020).

Genomic evidence for re with erectile dysfunction. A case study. The Lancet Infectious Start Printed Page 32459Diseases. 2021 Jan. 21(1).

52-58. Doi. 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30764-7. Epub 2020 Oct 12. PMID.

33058797. PMCID. PMC7550103. (Tillet et al., 2020). Van Elslande, J.

Et al., (2021). Symptomatic erectile dysfunction re by a phylogenetically distinct strain. Clinical Infectious Diseases ciaa1330. Doi. 10.1093/cid/ciaa1330.

Epub ahead of print. PMID. 32887979. PMCID. PMC7499557.

(Van Elslande et al., 2021). Van Kampen, JJA et al., (2021) Duration and key determinants of infectious viagra shedding in hospitalized patients with erectile dysfunction disease-2019 (erectile dysfunction treatment). Nature Communications. 2021 Jan 11. 12(1):267.

Doi. 10.1038/s41467-020-20568-4. PMID. 33431879. PMCID.

PMC7801729. (van Kampen et al., 2021). Wells, CR. Et al., (2021). Optimal erectile dysfunction treatment quarantine and testing strategies.

Nature Communications 2021 Jan 7. 12(1). 356. Doi. 10.1038/s41467-020-20742-8.

PMID. 33414470. PMCID. PMC7788536. (Wells et al., 2021).

Wölfel, R. Et al., (2020). Virological assessment of hospitalized patients with erectile dysfunction treatment-2019. Nature. 2020 May.

581(7809). 465-469. Doi. 10.1038/s41586-020-2196-x. Epub 2020 Apr 1.

Erratum in. Nature. 2020 Dec. 588(7839). E35.

PMID. 32235945. (Wölfel et al., 2020). Xiao, F. Et al., (2020).

Infectious erectile dysfunction in Feces of Patient with Severe erectile dysfunction treatment. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2020 Aug. 26(8). 1920-1922.

Doi. 10.3201/eid2608.200681. Epub 2020 May 18. PMID. 32421494.

PMCID. PMC7392466. (Xiao et al., 2020). Young, BE. Et al., (2020).

Epidemiologic Features and Clinical Course of Patients Infected With erectile dysfunction in Singapore. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2020 Apr 21. 323(15). 1488-1494.

Doi. 10.1001/jama.2020.3204. Erratum in. JAMA. 2020 Apr 21.

PMC7054855. (Young et al., 2020). Zou, L. Et al., (2020). erectile dysfunction Viral Load in Upper Respiratory Specimens of Infected Patients.

New England Journal of Medicine. 2020 Mar 19. 382(12). 1177-1179. Doi.

10.1056/NEJMc2001737. Epub 2020 Feb 19. PMID. 32074444. PMCID.

PMC7121626. (Zou et al., 2020). Zucman, N. Et al., (2021). Severe re with South African erectile dysfunction variant 501Y.V2.

A case report. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2021 Feb 10. Ciab129. Doi.

10.1093/cid/ciab129. Epub ahead of print. PMID. 33566076. PMCID.

PMC7929064. (Zucman et al., 2021). Zuo, J. Et al., (2021). Robust erectile dysfunction-specific T cell immunity is maintained at 6 months following primary .

Nature Immunology. 2021 Mar 5. Doi. 10.1038/s41590-021-00902-8. Epub ahead of print.

PMID. 33674800. (Zuo et al., 2021). N. Vaccination treatments are an important tool to reduce the transmission of erectile dysfunction treatment in the workplace.

A treatment serves three critical functions. First, it can reduce the likelihood that a vaccinated person will develop erectile dysfunction treatment after exposure to erectile dysfunction. Second, it can lessen the symptoms and effects in cases where the vaccinated person does contract erectile dysfunction treatment. And third, although the CDC still recommends source controls for vaccinated healthcare workers, it also acknowledges a growing body of evidence that vaccination can reduce the potential that a vaccinated person will transmit the erectile dysfunction viagra to non-vaccinated co-workers (CDC, April 12, 2021. CDC, April 27, 2021).

Vaccination also serves an important role in reducing health disparities in employees of certain demographics, who may be especially vulnerable to severe health effects or death from erectile dysfunction treatment (Dooling et al., December 22, 2020). Below OSHA provides a general explanation of the need for vaccination measures in the ETS. However, a fuller explanation of the efficacy of existing treatments and their impact on the risk of erectile dysfunction treatment and transmission is discussed in Grave Danger (Section IV.A. Of the preamble). OSHA has long recognized the importance of vaccinating employees against preventable illnesses to which they may be exposed on the job.

The Bloodborne Pathogens standard, for example, requires the hepatitis B treatment be made available to any employees with occupational exposure to blood and other potentially infectious materials, in order to reduce the risk of hepatitis B and subsequent illness and death (56 FR 64004, 64152 (Dec. 6, 1991)). A number of professional health organizations have similarly long recognized the importance of vaccinating employees to prevent illness. This is particularly true in healthcare industries, where employees are more regularly at risk of occupational exposure to transmissible diseases. For example, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which reviews evidence of risk and treatment effectiveness, recommends vaccinating healthcare employees against numerous diseases, including influenza, another viral disease spread through droplet transmission (Shefer et al., November 25, 2011).

Similarly, both HICPAC and the American Hospital Association have encouraged and endorsed vaccination programs or policies for healthcare workers. CDC, WHO, and the National Academies of Science, among others, have all acknowledged that broad vaccination of all people for erectile dysfunction treatment, in combination with other public health measures, is a critical tool that can be used to address the viagra (CDC, April 29, 2021. WHO, January 8, 2021. NASEM, 2020). Any treatments offered to employees must be demonstrated to be safe and effective.

Fortunately, over the course of the viagra, there have been extensive efforts to develop erectile dysfunction treatments. As discussed in greater detail in Grave Danger (Section IV.A. Of the preamble), there are presently three erectile dysfunction treatments authorized for emergency use by the FDA in the United States. The Pfizer-BioNTech erectile dysfunction treatment, the Moderna erectile dysfunction treatment, and the Janssen Biotech, Inc. Johnson and Johnson erectile dysfunction treatment, each recommended for use by ACIP in persons at least 12 years of age and older for the Pfizer-BioNTech treatments or 18 years of age and older for the Moderna and Johnson and Johnson (Janssen) treatments (Oliver et al., December 18, 2020.

Oliver et al., January 1, 2021. FDA, April 9, 2021. FDA, April 1, 2021. FDA, February 26, 2021. FDA, May 10, 2021).

In determining whether to grant EUA for a new erectile dysfunction treatment, the FDA considers several statutory criteria provided in section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3). In evaluating an EUA request, FDA considers, among other things, the totality of scientific evidence available to determine if it is reasonable to believe that the treatment may be effective (i.e., an efficacy of at least 50%) in preventing erectile dysfunction treatment and that the known and potential benefits of the treatment, when used to prevent erectile dysfunction treatment, outweigh the known and potential risks of the treatment (FDA, April 9, 2021. FDA, April 1, 2021. FDA, February 26, 2021).

The product manufacturer must also demonstrate quality and consistency in manufacturing. Accordingly, any erectile dysfunction treatment that receives an EUA from the FDA—including the Pfizer-BioNTech treatment, Moderna treatment, the Johnson and Johnson (Janssen) treatment, and any future treatment that receives such an authorization after the issuance of this ETS—has been shown to be sufficiently safe and effective. All three treatments that have been authorized to date, including the Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Johnson &. Johnson (Janssen) treatments, have been found to be highly effective for the appropriate ages (Oliver et al., December 18, 2020. Oliver et al., January 1, 2021.

Polack et al., December 31, 2020. FDA, December 17, 2020. FDA, December 10, 2020. FDA, February 26, 2021). The treatments were also found to be effective in preventing disease that is severe or requires hospitalization.

The evidence Start Printed Page 32460available at this time, however, does not yet establish that the treatments eliminate the potential for asymptomatic erectile dysfunction treatment development. Rather, fully vaccinated people are less likely to have asymptomatic or transmit erectile dysfunction to others (CDC, May 14, 2021). All three authorized treatments have met the authorization standard for safety, with the majority of adverse effects observed to be mild or moderate in severity and transient, including. Fatigue. Headache.

Chills. Muscle pain. Joint pain. Lymphadenopathy (swelling or enlargement of lymph nodes) on the same side as the injection. And injection site pain, redness, and swelling (CDC, December 13, 2020.

CDC, December 20, 2020. CDC, May 14, 2021. Oliver et al., December 18, 2020. Oliver et al., January 1, 2021. Polack et al., December 31, 2020.

FDA, December 17, 2020. FDA, December 10, 2020. FDA, February 26, 2021). Further, as discussed more extensively in the Summary and Explanation (Section VIII of the preamble) requirement for paid time off for vaccination, vaccination can only function as an effective control if workers have access to it. Additional explanation of the importance of removing barriers to controls is also discussed in Summary and Explanation (see discussion of requirements that employees receive protections of the ETS at no cost, as well as requirements for paid time off for vaccination, both in Section VIII of the preamble).

Vaccination References Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2020, December 13). Local reactions, systemic reactions, adverse events, and serious adverse events. Pfizer-BioNTech erectile dysfunction treatment. Https://www.cdc.gov/​treatments/​erectile dysfunction treatment/​info-by-product/​pfizer/​reactogenicity.html.

(CDC, December 13, 2020). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2020, December 20). Local reactions, systemic reactions, adverse events, and serious adverse events. Moderna erectile dysfunction treatment.

Https://www.cdc.gov/​treatments/​erectile dysfunction treatment/​info-by-product/​moderna/​reactogenicity.html. (CDC, December 20, 2020). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, April 12). Benefits of getting a erectile dysfunction treatment.

Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​treatments/​treatment-benefits.html. (CDC, April 12, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, April 27). Updated Healthcare Prevention and Control Recommendations in Response to erectile dysfunction treatment Vaccination.

Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​hcp/​-control-after-vaccination.html. (CDC, April 27, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, April 29). FAQ “Why would a treatment be needed when we can do other things.

. .?. . Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​treatments/​faq.html. (CDC, April 29, 2021).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, May 14). Interim clinical considerations for use of erectile dysfunction treatments currently authorized in the United States. Https://www.cdc.gov/​treatments/​erectile dysfunction treatment/​info-by-product/​clinical-considerations.html?. €‹CDC_​AA_​refVal=​https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Ftreatments%2Ferectile dysfunction treatment%2Finfo-by-product%2Fpfizer%2Fclinical-consideratio%E2%80%A6.

(CDC, May 14, 2021). Dooling, K et al., (2020, December 22). The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices' updated interim recommendation for allocation of erectile dysfunction treatment—United States, December 2020. MMWR Rep 2021. 69.

1657-1660. DOI. Http://dx.doi.org/​10.15585/​mmwr.mm695152e2. (Dooling et al., December 22, 2020). Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

(2020, December 10). FDA briefing document. Pfizer-BioNTech erectile dysfunction treatment. Https://www.fda.gov/​media/​144245/​download. (FDA, December 10, 2020).

Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (2020, December 17). MRNA-1273 sponsor briefing document (Moderna). Https://www.fda.gov/​media/​144453/​download. (FDA, December 17, 2020).

Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (2021, February 26). FDA Briefing Document. Janssen Ad.COV2.S treatment for the Prevention of erectile dysfunction treatment. (FDA, February 26, 2021) Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

(2021, April 1). Moderna erectile dysfunction treatment. Https://www.fda.gov/​emergency-preparedness-and-response/​erectile dysfunction-disease-2019-erectile dysfunction treatment/​moderna-erectile dysfunction treatment-treatment. (FDA, April 1, 2021). Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

(2021, April 9). Pfizer-BioNTech erectile dysfunction treatment. Https://www.fda.gov/​emergency-preparedness-and-response/​erectile dysfunction-disease-2019-erectile dysfunction treatment/​pfizer-biontech-erectile dysfunction treatment-treatment. (FDA, April 9, 2021). Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

(2021, May 10). Pfizer-BioNTech erectile dysfunction treatment EUA Letter of Authorization Reissued. Https://www.fda.gov/​media/​144412/​download. (FDA, May 10, 2021). National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM).

(2020). Framework for equitable allocation of erectile dysfunction treatment. Https://www.nap.edu/​download/​25917. (NASEM, 2020). Oliver, S et al., (2020, December 18).

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices' interim recommendation for use of Pfizer-BioNTech erectile dysfunction treatment—United States, December 2020. MMWR Rep 2020. 69. 1922-1924. DOI.

Http://dx.doi.org/​10.15585/​mmwr.mm6950e2. (Oliver et al., December 18, 2020). Oliver, S et al., (2020, December 20). The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices' interim recommendation for use of Moderna erectile dysfunction treatment—United States, December 2020. MMWR Rep 2021.

69. 1653-1656. DOI. Http://dx.doi.org/​10.15585/​mmwr.mm695152e1. (Oliver et al., January 1, 2021).

Polack, F et al., (2020). Safety and efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA erectile dysfunction treatment. New England Journal of Medicine, 383(27), 2603-2615. Doi. 10.1056/nejmoa2034577.

(Polack et al., December 31, 2020). Shefer, A. Et al., (2011, November 25). Immunization of health-care personnel. Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

MMWR Recommendations and Reports 60(RR07). 1-45. Https://www.cdc.gov/​mmwr/​preview/​mmwrhtml/​rr6007a1.htm. (Shefer et al., November 25, 2011). World Health Organization (WHO).

(2021, January 8). erectile dysfunction treatment. Https://www.who.int/​emergencies/​diseases/​novel-erectile dysfunction-2019/​erectile dysfunction treatment-treatments. (WHO, January 8, 2021). O.

Training The CDC has determined that training is a necessary component of a comprehensive control plan for erectile dysfunction treatment. The WHO has also determined that training is an important control strategy for erectile dysfunction treatment (WHO, May 10, 2020). When providing guidance for employers, the CDC has said that employees need to be educated on steps they can take to protect themselves from potential erectile dysfunction treatment exposures at work. Employers informing employees of the hazards to which employees may be exposed while working is a cornerstone of occupational health and safety (OSHA, 2017). Employees play a particularly important role in reducing exposures because appropriate application of work practices and controls limit exposure levels.

Employees therefore need to be informed of the grave danger of erectile dysfunction treatment, as well as the workplace measures included in their employers' erectile dysfunction treatment plans because those measures are necessary to reduce risk and provide protection to employees. Employees must know what protective measures are being utilized and be trained in their use so that those measures can be effectively implemented. Training has been shown to be an effective tool to reduce injury and illness (Burke et al., February 2006), but training is even more critical when the workplace hazard includes the potential transmission of the potentially deadly erectile dysfunction viagra from one employee to another. One improperly trained employee could increase risk for that employee and for all of that employee's contacts, including coworkers. Start Printed Page 32461Therefore, training is an essential component of a layered approach to minimizing the risk of contracting erectile dysfunction treatment in the workplace.

Training and education provide employees and managers an increased understanding of existing safety and health programs. A thorough understanding of these programs is necessary so employees can more effectively contribute to their development and implementation. Training provides employers, managers, supervisors, and employees with the knowledge and skills needed to do their work safely and to avoid creating hazards that could place themselves or others at risk, as well as awareness and understanding of workplace hazards and how to identify, report, and control them. Specialized training can address unique hazards. Because OSHA has long recognized the importance of training in ensuring employee safety and health, many OSHA standards require employers to train employees (e.g., the Bloodborne Pathogen standard at 29 CFR 1910.1030(g)(2)).

When required as a part of OSHA standards, such as is required by this ETS, training helps to ensure that employees are able to conduct work in a safe and healthful manner (OSHA, April 28, 2010). Training is essential to ensure that both employers and employees understand the sources of potential exposure to erectile dysfunction treatment and control measures to reduce exposure to the hazard. Employee comprehension is critical to ensuring that training is an effective control. If training information is not presented in a way that all employees understand, the training will not be effective. Employers must thus consider language, literacy, and social and cultural appropriateness when designing and implementing training programs for employees (O'Connor et al., 2014).

Additionally, if employers do not offer training to employees in a convenient manner, employees may be less likely to participate in the training. Therefore, to be effective, training must be offered during scheduled work times and at no cost to the employee. This will ensure that all employees will have the time and financial resources to receive training. This is also consistent with other OSHA standards. For example, the Bloodborne Pathogen standard requires training be provided at no cost and during working hours (§ 1910.1030(g)(2)(i)) and in a manner employees understand (§ 1910.1030(g)(2)(vi)).

Research dating back to the 1980s has found “overwhelming evidence” of the effectiveness of training programs on employee knowledge (NIOSH, 1998), as well as employee behaviors (NIOSH, January 2010). With enhanced knowledge of safety and health hazards and controls, employees can implement safer work practices. This can result in reductions in workplace-related illnesses (Burke et al., February 2006). The CDC has stated that information on workplace policies should be communicated clearly, frequently, and via multiple messages (CDC, March 8, 2021). Training and education on safe work practices and controls should be used to raise awareness among employees.

Emphasizing the effectiveness of these workplace controls helps to counteract misinformation. Additional training, such as on PPE and control policies and procedures, should be given to employees in those workplaces where there is a high risk of exposure to erectile dysfunction treatment (WHO, May 10, 2020). Scientific research and case studies have further reinforced the importance of training in responding to the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra. Researchers found that a erectile dysfunction treatment outbreak was effectively contained as a result of prompt implementation of control measures, including early in-person education of employees on the signs, symptoms, and transmission of erectile dysfunction treatment (Hale and Dayot, August 13, 2020). Knowledge of PPE was markedly improved following training on PPE for healthcare employees in China during the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra (Tan et al., June, 2020).

Training has been widely recognized as a key component of occupational safety and health. Even though the body of scientific evidence on the importance of training during the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra is limited given its ongoing nature, the evidence that does exist only further emphasizes the important role of training in protecting the health and safety of employees. As such, OSHA has concluded that training is necessary to ensure proper implementation of the employer's erectile dysfunction treatment plan and all other control measures, and that such training will reduce incidence of erectile dysfunction treatment illness both on its own and when complemented by other measures as part of a multi-layered strategy to minimize employee exposure to the grave erectile dysfunction treatment danger. References Burke, M.J. Et al., (2006, February).

Relative effectiveness of worker safety and health training methods. American Journal of Public Health 96. 315-324. (Burke et al., February 2006). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

(2021, March 8). Guidance for Businesses and Employers Responding to erectile dysfunction Disease 2019 (erectile dysfunction treatment). Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​community/​guidance-business-response.html. (CDC, March 8, 2021). Hale, M.

And Dayot, A. (2020). Outbreak Investigation of erectile dysfunction treatment in Hospital Food Service Workers. American Journal of Infectection Control. S0196-6553(20)30777-X.

Https://doi.org/​10.1016/​j.ajic.2020.08.011. (Hale and Dayot, August 13,2020). National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). (1998, June). Assessing Occupational Safety and Health Training.

A literature review, June 1998. Https://www.cdc.gov/​niosh/​docs/​98-145/​pdfs/​98-145.pdf?. €‹id=​10.26616/​NIOSHPUB98145. (NIOSH, June 1998). National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) (2010, January).

A systematic review of the effectiveness of training and education for the protection of workers, January 2010. Https://www.cdc.gov/​niosh/​docs/​2010-127/​pdfs/​2010-127.pdf. (NIOSH, January 2010). O'Connor, T. Et al., (2014).

Occupational safety and health education and training for underserved populations. New Solutions24(1). 83-106. (O'Connor et al., 2014). Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

(2010, April 28). Training Standards Policy Statement. Https://www.osha.gov/​dep/​standards-policy-statement-memo-04-28-10.html.(OSHA, April 28, 2010). Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). (2017).

Workers' Rights. Https://www.osha.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​publications/​osha3021.pdf.(OSHA, 2017). Tan, W. Et al., (2020, June). Whole-process emergency training of personal protective equipment helps healthcare workers against erectile dysfunction treatment.

Design and effect. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 62. 420-423. DOI. 10.1097/JOM.0000000000001877.

(Tan et al., June, 2020). World Health Organization(WHO).(2020, May 10). Considerations for public health and social measures in the workplace context of erectile dysfunction treatment. Annex to Considerations in adjusting public health and social measures in the context of erectile dysfunction treatment, May 2020. Https://www.who.int/​publications-detail-redirect/​considerations-for-public-health-and-social-measures-in-the-workplace-in-the-context-of-erectile dysfunction treatment.(WHO, May 10, 2020).

VI. Feasibility A. Technological Feasibility This section presents an overview of the technological feasibility assessment for OSHA's Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) for erectile dysfunction treatment. The ETS has four sections. Healthcare (29 CFR 1910.502).

Mini Respiratory Protection Program (29 CFR 1910.504). Severability (29 CFR 1910.505). And Incorporation by Start Printed Page 32462Reference (29 CFR 1910.509). The ETS applies to all settings where any employee provides healthcare services or performs healthcare support services. The settings covered by the ETS are listed in Table VI.A.-1.

The mini respiratory protection program section supplements the ETS to provide additional protection to workers in appropriate cases. The healthcare and mini respiratory protection program sections of the ETS will be discussed below. It is not necessary to discuss the severability or incorporation by reference sections, as those sections do not by their own terms impose any requirements that raise issues of technological feasibility. Technological feasibility has been interpreted broadly to mean “capable of being done” (Am. Textile Mfrs.

Inst. V. Donovan, 452 U.S. 490, 509-510 (1981)). A standard is technologically feasible if the protective measures it requires already exist, can be brought into existence with available technology, or can be created with technology that can reasonably be expected to be developed, i.e., technology that “looms on today's horizon” (United Steelworkers of Am., AFL-CIO-CLC v.

Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1272 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (Lead I). Amer. Iron &.

Steel Inst. V. OSHA, 939 F.2d 975, 980 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (Lead II).

American Iron and Steel Inst. V. OSHA, 577 F.2d 825 (3rd Cir. 1978)). Courts have also interpreted technological feasibility to mean that a typical firm in each affected industry or application group will reasonably be able to implement the requirements of the standard in most operations most of the time (see Public Citizen v.

OSHA, 557 F.3d 165 (3d Cir. 2009). Lead I, 647 F.2d at 1272. Lead II, 939 F.2d at 990). OSHA's assessment focuses on the controls required by the ETS that stakeholders may believe raise issues of technological feasibility.

These controls include the implementation of a erectile dysfunction treatment plan and healthcare-specific good control practices, as well the following controls. Physical distancing. Physical barriers. And ventilation.[] As discussed below, OSHA's finding of technological feasibility is supported by a large number of erectile dysfunction treatment transmission prevention plans and best practice documents it reviewed, as well as physical distancing scenarios and a job matrix it developed, across the healthcare sector. While OSHA focuses on certain types of evidence in specific parts of the analysis, much of the evidence supports other discrete findings made by OSHA.

Thus, for example, while OSHA focuses on its review of plans and best practice documents in establishing the feasibility of developing and implementing a erectile dysfunction treatment plan, that evidence also supports the feasibility of implementing healthcare-specific good control practices, physical distancing and physical barriers, and ventilation. In addition, this analysis discusses only a few examples of the plans and best practice documents it reviewed, does not recount every element of the Start Printed Page 32463plans and best practice documents that it reviewed, and does not recount all details of the scenarios and job matrix it developed. OSHA based its technological feasibility assessment on all the evidence in the docket, and not just the select portions discussed here. The discussion below is merely illustrative of the full complement of evidence reviewed to demonstrate that employers have implemented the controls required by the ETS. Finally, OSHA's finding of technological feasibility should not be read to indicate that individual plans or best practice documents OSHA reviewed are ETS-compliant, that lack of inclusion of a control in a plan or document indicates the control is infeasible, that the use of a barrier by employers in a given situation indicates that physical distancing was not feasible in that situation, or that a particular control used (e.g., a plastic sheet or curtain used as a physical barrier) is compliant with the ETS's requirements.

The plans and best practice documents are intended to show two things. (1) That developing plans to address erectile dysfunction treatment in various workplaces is both common and feasible, and (2) that the controls required by the ETS have been implemented and are feasible in the healthcare settings. The specifics of the plans may vary, but the ETS erectile dysfunction treatment plan requirements are written as performance requirements that provide sufficient flexibility to ensure that it is feasible for employers to develop and implement such a plan, including appropriate controls, for any given healthcare workplace. I. The ETS's Approach to Employee Protection The ETS generally includes provisions that are based on and in accordance with applicable CDC and other well-established guidelines for good control practices relevant to the exposures encountered by employees during their job tasks.

For example, the ETS requires the employer to develop and implement policies and procedures to adhere to Standard and Transmission-Based Precautions. As discussed in detail in the Need for Specific Provisions (Section V of the preamble, these requirements are consistent with well-established CDC and other guidelines that are routinely followed by employers subject to the ETS. That the ETS is based on CDC and other guidelines or practices that are well established and have been routinely followed by many employers both before and during the viagra is compelling evidence supporting OSHA's finding of technological feasibility. Moreover, as described in more detail in the Need for Specific Provisions (Section V of the preamble), erectile dysfunction treatment transmission control practices work best when used together, overlapping their protective impact. To this end, the erectile dysfunction treatment ETS provides a multilayered approach in which a combination of control measures must be implemented to minimize the risks of exposure to erectile dysfunction treatment.

Thus, to effectively reduce the risk, employers must ensure that they follow all requirements of the ETS that are feasible. As discussed in the Need for Specific Provisions (Section V of the preamble), the OSHA regulatory text reflects a multilayered strategy by requiring employers to implement multiple mitigation strategies with several layers of controls to lower the risks of exposure and reduce the spread of disease. Utilizing overlapping controls in a layered approach better ensures that no inherent weakness in any one approach results in an incident. OSHA emphasizes that the control practices required by the ETS work best when used together, layering their protective impact (Garner, 1996. Rusnak et al., September 2004.

Miller et al., 2012. WHO, 2016). For example, in addition to requiring employers to ensure that employees engage in physical distancing, wear facemasks and follow healthy hand hygiene practices, employers must ensure the use of physical barriers at fixed work locations outside of direct patient care areas where 6 feet of physical distancing is not feasible and ensure adequate building ventilation. No one measure can prevent transmission by itself, but several layers combined can significantly reduce the overall risk of erectile dysfunction treatment transmission (e.g., a facemask alone will not be enough to prevent the spread of erectile dysfunction treatment without physical distancing and other controls (Akhtar et al., December 22, 2020)). Implementing multiple mitigation strategies is even more necessary to reduce the risk, because it will not be feasible to apply every control in every workplace situation.

Thus, the ETS employs strategies to ensure that employees will be protected even when a particular control is not feasible. As discussed below, OSHA concludes that this multilayered approach to employee protection is feasible based on its review of commonly implemented healthcare-specific good control practices contained in nationally recognized control practices like CDC guidelines, employer plans, best practice documents, scenarios, and a job matrix that show these precautions are already in place or can be readily implemented by typical firms in the healthcare sector. OSHA emphasizes, finally, that although the ETS takes a multilayered approach to employee protection, it also establishes how and when controls must be used. For example, physical barriers are required only where physical distancing is not feasible because, as OSHA discusses in depth in Need for Specific Provisions (Section V of the preamble), physical barriers work by preventing droplets from traveling from the source (i.e., an infected person) to an employee, and are particularly critical when physical distancing of 6 feet is not feasible because most erectile dysfunction treatment transmission occurs via respiratory droplets that are spread from an infected individual during close (within 6 feet) person-to-person interactions. A.

erectile dysfunction treatment Plans Paragraph (c) of the ETS requires the employer to develop and implement a erectile dysfunction treatment plan that includes policies and procedures to minimize the risk of transmission of erectile dysfunction treatment, as reflected in paragraphs (d) through (n) in the ETS. These provisions are summarized in Table VI.A.-2 below, and are discussed in detail in Need for Specific Provisions and Summary and Explanation (Sections V and VIII of the preamble, respectively). Start Printed Page 32464 OSHA conducted a search for existing erectile dysfunction treatment plans and best practices developed by employers, trade associations, and other organizations and posted on their publicly available websites. OSHA's search revealed 77 plans and best practice documents from companies and trade associations in the Health Care and Social Assistance industry sector that address erectile dysfunction treatment hazards using the multilayered approach and controls required by the ETS. To the extent individual plans are not discussed specifically below, a breakdown with the name of the company or organization, a description of the contents, and a link to the plan can be found in the erectile dysfunction treatment Plans by NAICS spreadsheet (ERG, February 9, 2021).

Based on its review of these plans, OSHA concludes that it is feasible for employers in typical firms in the healthcare sector to comply with the requirements in the ETS for a erectile dysfunction treatment plan.[] Below, OSHA highlights the elements of a few of the plans and best practice documents it reviewed. In each case, OSHA presumes that an organization believes that the particular approaches contained in the organization's own documents are technologically feasible. ETS Workplace-Specific Hazard Assessments Required by Different Healthcare Organizations Paragraph (c)(4)(i) of the ETS requires healthcare employers to conduct a workplace-specific hazard assessment to identify potential workplace hazards related to erectile dysfunction treatment. The workplace-specific hazard assessment requirements are discussed in detail in Need for Specific Provisions and Summary and Explanation (Sections V and VIII of the preamble, respectively). OSHA conducted a search for existing erectile dysfunction treatment plans and best practices developed by employers, trade associations, and other organizations and posted on their publicly available websites and found that many required employers to conduct a workplace hazard assessment to determine the erectile dysfunction treatment exposure risks to employees.

While the specifics of the assessments may not mirror the full requirements for OSHA's erectile dysfunction treatment plans, those hazard assessments indicate and provide additional support for OSHA's determination that it is feasible for healthcare employers to design and implement erectile dysfunction treatment plans. The best practices also indicate that it is feasible for healthcare employers to have policies and procedures to regularly check on the proper implementation of Start Printed Page 32465controls, which corresponds to OSHA's requirement that employers regularly re-assess the erectile dysfunction treatment plan to ensure that it is updated and useful. The Santa Clara Valley Medical Center (SCVMC) is a 574-bed acute care, fully accredited public teaching hospital affiliated with Stanford University Medical School and provides a full range of inpatient, emergency rehabilitation, neonatal, intensive care, high-risk maternity care, psychiatry, pediatric intensive care, and burn intensive care services. The ambulatory outpatient services include both primary and specialty clinics located not only at SCVMC, but also at satellite facilities located throughout the area (SCVMC, December 1, 2020). The SCVMC plans reviewed includes guidelines for erectile dysfunction treatment exposure and risk assessment, contact tracing, testing, and return to work for their employees (SCVMC, December 1, 2020).

Furthermore, the erectile dysfunction treatment plan includes a policy outlining the worker exposure evaluation process to be conducted by each department and each ambulatory care clinic that is part of the SCVMC network. The assessment of exposure risk is required for all individuals working in the SCVMC hospitals and clinics including employees, volunteer, staff, physicians, contract personnel, or other workers. The assessment required by the erectile dysfunction treatment plan should evaluate physical distancing, period or duration of exposure, as well as the implementation of controls such as facemasks and respiratory protection, and other PPE necessary to protect employees from erectile dysfunction treatment exposure. OSHA also reviewed the erectile dysfunction treatment plan for Michigan Medicine, one of the largest fully accredited academic medical centers in Michigan made up of the University of Michigan health system and medical school. The Michigan Medicine erectile dysfunction treatment plan includes specific requirements for each department to conduct employee erectile dysfunction treatment job hazard assessments to evaluate and mitigate the risk of erectile dysfunction treatment for University of Michigan workers (Michigan Medicine U-M, May 18, 2021).

The U-M erectile dysfunction treatment plan also requires each department to create a departmental specific erectile dysfunction treatment work plan for its area to document their erectile dysfunction treatment employee job hazard assessment and plan. The plan also provides departments with resources to develop and implement the required erectile dysfunction treatment employee job hazard assessment as well as a departmental erectile dysfunction treatment work plan including blank templates for both. The hazard assessment and subsequent plan required by each department must evaluate and address for each employee, the ability to maintain physical distance from all other persons, employee requirements for facemasks, respiratory protection, and other PPE, hand hygiene and respiratory etiquette, workplace cleaning and dis within the department or unit. The requirements of the job hazard assessment cover employees, vendors, contractors, and all other workers performing task in the department. Additionally, OSHA reviewed the erectile dysfunction treatment plan of Johns Hopkins Medicine, which is made up of the Johns Hopkins University Health System with six academic and community hospitals, four suburban health care and surgery centers, over 40 patient care locations, and a home care group that offers an array of health care services.

The Johns Hopkins Medicine erectile dysfunction treatment plan includes requirements that assess the erectile dysfunction treatment transmission hazards in the workplace to determine the proper implementation of controls (Johns Hopkins Medicine, 2021). The plan also includes policies and procedures to implement a daily erectile dysfunction treatment safety audit program. Each day, the erectile dysfunction treatment safety auditor ensures every hospital, outpatient clinic and care center is practicing proper masking, physical distancing, handwashing and dis of frequently touched surfaces. As with the SCVMC example, this supports the feasibility of regular reassessments that employers will need to conduct for their erectile dysfunction treatment plans. Based on its review of these plans, OSHA concludes that it is feasible for employers in typical firms in the healthcare sector to comply with the requirements in the ETS for a erectile dysfunction treatment workplace-specific hazard assessment.

ETS Controls Are Included in Best Practices Recommended by Healthcare Professional Associations Some of OSHA's evidence that the erectile dysfunction treatment plan, distancing, barriers, and ventilation modifications are feasible for healthcare employers is that such measures, or substantially similar measures, are already recommended by some of the largest professional associations in the healthcare industry. The American Society for Health Care Engineering (ASHE) is the largest professional membership group of the American Hospital Association. The ASHE is comprised of over 12,000 professionals who design, build, maintain, and operate healthcare facilities. ASHE members include health care facility managers, control specialists, and others. ASHE has developed best practices for minimizing the risk from erectile dysfunction treatment.

These best practices can be, and have been, used by ASHE members' organizations to develop their individual plans. (ASHE, December 23, 2020) The ASHE best practices are a collection of strategies which can be implemented to reduce the spread of erectile dysfunction treatment. The ASHE best practices recommend a multilayered control strategy. ASHE states that healthcare organizations are working to maintain physical distance of at least six feet and one way that this has been achieved is by scheduling check-in times to limit occupancy as well as other controls such as floor markings. When physical distancing is not feasible, employers have installed physical barriers, such as clear, acrylic plexiglass or vinyl, along with requiring face masks.

ASHE also states that healthcare organizations have taken a combination of approaches for cleaning and dis, such as cleaning workstations including high-touch surfaces daily. ASHE also discusses health screening and medical management. According to ASHE, some healthcare organizations have implemented self-screening policies and procedures, including, for example, having employees certify that they have not displayed symptoms or been in recent contact with someone that has tested positive for erectile dysfunction treatment. Finally, the ASHE best practices recommend ensuring that ventilation systems are working properly, including ensuring that all negative pressure spaces including AIIRs are properly maintained, and that the circulation of outdoor air is increased as much as possible. The ASHE best practices also provide employers with steps to verify that CDC recommended guidelines for air changes and time required for contaminate removal based on air changes are followed.

The American Health Care Association and the National Center for Assisted Living (AHCA/NCAL), an association representing long term and post-acute care providers, with more than 14,000 member facilities including non-profit and proprietary skilled nursing centers, assisted living communities, sub-acute centers and homes for individuals with intellectual and development disabilities, has also developed best practices for minimizing the risk from erectile dysfunction treatment (AHCA/NCAL, 2021). Similar to the ASHE best practices and other plans and best practice documents that were reviewed, the AHCA/NCAL best practices contain many of the controls that are required Start Printed Page 32466by the ETS. Also similar to the ASHE and other best practice documents, the AHCA/NCAL membership can use the AHCA/NCAL best practices to develop their individual plans. For example, the AHCE/NCAL best practices recommend implementing controls to maintain physical distance including rearranging offices and workstations as needed, posting signs and floor markers, and limiting the number of individuals permitted in the workplace. In addition, the AHCA/NCAL best practices recommend the use of facemasks and increased cleaning and dis.

The best practices also contain recommendations on health screening and medical management. Members have implemented recommendations on self-questionnaire policies and procedures for employees and all other individuals before they can enter the site, including, for example, recommendations on having employees certify that they have not displayed symptoms or been in recent contact with someone that has tested positive for erectile dysfunction treatment. The AHCE/NCAL best practices also contain recommendations on conducting contact tracing while protecting the employee's identity, and engaging in facility-wide protocols to protect other employees. The New Mexico EMT Association (NMEMTA) is a professional organization supporting emergency medical technicians and others serving the public in the emergency services sector (NMEMTA, March 29, 2020). Similar to other best practice documents that were reviewed, the NMEMTA best practices contain many of the controls that are required by the ETS and recommend a multilayered approach to control.

Furthermore, NMEMTA members can use this guidance to develop their individual plans. The NMEMTA best practices recommend implementing physical distancing controls when responding to an emergency as well as when transporting patients. For example, NMEMTA provides guidance on limiting the number of responders by implementing policies for coordinating with dispatchers prior to initial assessment, and additional work practices such as using radio communications to minimize the number of responders on scene. Additionally, the NMEMTA best practices recommend policies and procedures to limit the number of EMS workers in the ambulance and provide guidance on installing physical barriers to separate the driver from the treatment area of the ambulance. The NMEMTA best practices also recommend policies for requiring the proper PPE and respiratory protection for EMS employees as well as for placing facemasks on patients and family members traveling in the ambulance.

The National Association for Home Care &. Hospice (NAHC) is a nonprofit organization that represents the nation's 33,000 home care and hospice organizations. NAHC also advocates for the more than two million nurses, therapists, aides, and other caregivers employed by such organizations to provide in-home services to some 12 million Americans each year who are infirm, chronically ill, or disabled (NAHC, March 3, 2020). NAHC developed best practices for home health and hospice employers. The NAHC best practices recommend a multilayered control plan to protect employees from erectile dysfunction treatment.

These best practices include strategies for maintaining physical distance, including ways to limit instances where caregivers are within 6 feet of other persons. For example, the NAHC best practices contain policies for requiring household members to stay in separate rooms of the home as much as possible and to maintain at least 6 feet of distance from the caregiver when they must be in the same room. In addition, the best practices recommend procedures to ensure the home space has good air flow via an HVAC system or by opening windows and doors during the visit. The best practices also provide guidance on implementing protocols for performing hand hygiene and cleaning and dis of the workspace, tools, equipment and other high touch surfaces. The best practices also recommend requirements for the use of facemasks, respirators, and other PPE for home health and hospice caregivers, patients, and members of the household during the home visit.

Additionally, the best practices provide strategies for the implementation of patient telehealth, as well as self-screening before visits to prevent employee exposure to known or suspected erectile dysfunction treatment patients without taking appropriate precautions (e.g., PPE and respirators). Examples of Existing Healthcare Employer Plans and Controls OSHA also reviewed a number of existing plans prepared by hospitals and other healthcare providers that also illustrate that employers in the healthcare sector have implemented a multilayered approach to protect their workers from erectile dysfunction treatment. MedStar Health, a not-for-profit community health system comprised of physician offices, urgent care centers, regional ambulatory care centers, and 10 community hospitals, has developed and implemented a erectile dysfunction treatment plan (MedStar, May 5, 2021). The plan adopts a multilayered approach to protect workers from erectile dysfunction treatment across MedStar's facilities and contains many of the provisions also required by the ETS. For example, MedStar requires controls to ensure physical distancing, including, for example, restricting the entry of visitors and non-essential employees to reduce occupancy.

Additionally, MedStar requires the use of facemasks by employees, patients, and visitors. MedStar also requires employees to self-screen and monitor for signs and symptoms of erectile dysfunction treatment and for visitors to utilize the telephone triage system when scheduling visits to isolate known or suspected cases of erectile dysfunction treatment . Finally, MedStar requires cleaning and dis of the workplace daily, as well as hand hygiene protocols before, during, and after all appointments and procedures. Other employer plans reviewed also adopt a multilayered approach to erectile dysfunction treatment protection (see, e.g., Cambridge Health Alliance, 2021. Johns Hopkins Medicine, 2021.

HCA Healthcare, 2021. Dignity Healthcare, 2021). With respect to physical distancing, employer plans include strategies to reduce and restrict occupancy at facilities. For example, employers have implemented staggered shifts for employees, as well as teleworking arrangements, to help reduce occupancy and ensure physical distancing. Employers have also expanded remote telemedicine consultations so fewer patients with non-emergency conditions need to visit hospitals and other facilities where patient care occurs to receive medical care.

In this respect, where video conferencing systems cannot be used, employers have used other virtual options, such as online secured patient portals with chat and messaging features, to reduce the occupancy of healthcare facilities. Employers have also implemented telephone triage systems, and, in this way, patients identified as low risk for erectile dysfunction treatment can be cared for virtually, if appropriate, while patients identified as higher risk for erectile dysfunction treatment can be routed to the appropriate care. In addition, employers have reduced or completely eliminated patient visiting hours for those patients with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment. Finally, employers have installed floor markings as visual cues to stay six feet apart throughout the facility, including common areas such as waiting rooms and cafeterias, spaced public seating six Start Printed Page 32467feet apart, and limited the number of people in a space, whenever possible. The employer plans cited above also include policies and procedures for the installation of physical barriers to protect workers outside of direct patient care areas when physical distancing may not be possible at all times.

For example, some hospitals have installed physical barriers at checkpoints, to protect security guards, as well as at reception desks and patient/visitor information counters, to protect the employees working there, from exposure to visitors, patients, and co-workers. The employer plans reviewed also include policies and procedures for the use of facemasks. Moreover, the plans include policies on increased cleaning and dis. For example, the plans include requirements that surfaces and equipment are thoroughly cleaned and disinfected daily using products that are effective against erectile dysfunction treatment. The plans also include policies on maintaining HVAC systems and using system filters with a MERV rating of 13 or higher, as well as polices for pre-screening patients and employees for erectile dysfunction treatment (including requirements for self-questionnaires designed to identify anyone who has or is suspected to have erectile dysfunction treatment before their arrival at the facility).

OSHA has determined that developing a erectile dysfunction treatment plan, as required by the ETS, is feasible based on the evidence that employers in the health care sector have developed plans that address many of the requirements of the ETS. Additionally, national trade associations and other organizations in the health care sector have developed best practices to aid in the development of these plans (ERG, February 9, 2021). As discussed in the Summary and Explanation (section [VIII]), the plan must address the hazards identified per the hazard assessment required by paragraph (c)(4) of the ETS and the employer must do regular inspections to ensure ongoing effectiveness of the plan and update as needed. B. Implementation of Good Control Practices The ETS contains four provisions for good control practices, each of which is discussed in detail in Need for Specific Provisions and Summary and Explanation (Sections V and VIII of the preamble, respectively).

§ 1910.502(d)—Patient screening and management. The purpose of this provision is to limit contact with potentially infectious persons by, for example, requiring screening and triage of everyone entering a healthcare setting and limiting and monitoring points of entry to the setting. § 1910.502(e)—Standard and transmission-based precautions. The ETS requires that, in settings where healthcare services, healthcare support services, are provided, the employer must develop and implement policies and procedures to adhere to Standard and Transmission-Based Precautions. Standard and Transmission-Based Precautions are established and commonly used practices for reducing the risk of transmission of infectious agents such as erectile dysfunction treatment.

§ 1910.502(f)—Personal protective equipment (PPE). The ETS requires employers to provide and ensure employees use facemasks or respirators in specified situations, and also requires the use of other PPE, such as gloves and eye protection, in appropriate circumstances. § 1910.502(g)—Aerosol-generating procedures on a person with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment. Because aerosol-generating procedures are known to be high risk activities for exposure to respiratory s such as erectile dysfunction treatment, the ETS contains special requirements to address this hazard. For example, the employer must limit the number of employees present during the procedure to only those essential for patient care and procedure support.

Some of these controls are obviously feasible simply because of the nature of the control. The process of screening, for example, can typically be accomplished simply through questioning, so there are no technological feasibility barriers to implementing those controls. To support its assessment of the technological feasibility of other controls in the ETS, OSHA reviewed evidence that shows that the healthcare-specific good control practices identified in § 1910.502(d) through (g) are commonly implemented by employers who have employees in healthcare settings. This evidence includes. CDC control guidance documents, many of which are erectile dysfunction treatment specific.

Regulations issued by the Centers for Medicare &. Medicaid Services (CMS). And accreditation of these settings by The Joint Commission. And OSHA's Bloodborne Pathogens (BBP) Standard, 29 CFR 1910.1030. For example, § 1910.502(e) requires compliance with the CDC's Standard and Transmission-Based Precautions.

As detailed below, OSHA can show that this is technologically feasible by demonstrating that at least some hospitals and other healthcare settings follow these precautions (thereby showing it is capable of being done and can be implemented in other healthcare settings). To demonstrate that, OSHA points to two reasons why healthcare employers comply with these precautions. First, OSHA's BBP standard already requires hospitals and other healthcare facilities to implement a parallel framework, often with similar systems and controls, to comply with many of the same precautions. Even where the requirements for some controls must be implemented somewhat differently under this ETS than under the BBP standard, OSHA is not aware of technological feasibility challenges that arise from these differences. For example, a hospital's erectile dysfunction treatment plan will be different from its BBP Exposure Plan, but the planning process will already be familiar to the hospital and there should be enough similarities in the construction of plans identifying and addressing hazards that there will not be any feasibility issues with formulating the erectile dysfunction treatment plan.

Second, healthcare employers must have an control program that includes Standard and Transmission-Based Precautions to be eligible for certain government funds (CMS distribution of Medicare and Medicaid funds) or accreditation (The Joint Commission). CMS regulations only cover providers that accept or collect payments from Medicare or Medicaid. Compliance with the CMS regulations is generally validated through periodic accreditation surveys of facilities by CMS-approved accreditation organizations, including The Joint Commission, state survey agencies, and other accrediting organizations (e.g., Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care (AAAHC)). CMS and The Joint Commission reliance on largely the same criteria as this ETS means that the technological feasibility of the ETS is supported by those hospitals and other healthcare settings who do have to comply by proving that the requirements are capable of being done.[] Start Printed Page 32468 CDC Control Guidance Documents The CDC has issued control guidance, listed in Table VI.A.-3, that apply to the following settings and industry groups. Hospitals and ambulatory care, plasma and blood collection facilities and dialysis facilities, home health care, emergency responders and prehospital care, autopsies, long-term care, and dental and oral care.

These guidelines provide -control recommendations for use in the settings covered by the ETS (listed in Table VI.A.-3). The guidance provides recommendations for implementing policies and practices to minimize the risk of exposure to respiratory pathogens, and many are recently issued guidelines specific to erectile dysfunction treatment. Start Printed Page 32469 Start Printed Page 32470 The CDC guidelines in Table VI.A.-3 are commonly implemented, longstanding, and essential elements of control in healthcare settings (i.e., the settings listed in Table VI.A.-1), evidenced by the CDC's 2007 Guideline for Isolation Precautions. Preventing Transmission of Infectious Agents in Healthcare Settings (Item 8 in Table VI.A.-3, above), which incorporates Standard and Transmission-Based Precautions into its recommendations. This 2007 Guideline updated 1996 guidelines, which introduced the concept of Standard Precautions, and also noted the existence of control recommendations dating back to 1970.

The implementation of the CDC guidelines is also evidenced by regulations issued by the Centers for Medicare &. Medicaid Services (CMS) that apply to settings in Table VI.A.-1 and the accreditation of settings in Table VI.A.-1 by The Joint Commission, as described below. OSHA notes that guidelines that are grouped with one setting in Table VI.A.-1 may apply to other settings as well. For example, the Interim Prevention and Control Recommendations for Healthcare Personnel During the erectile dysfunction Disease 2019 (erectile dysfunction treatment) viagra (Item 1 in Table VI.A.-3) applies to Emergency Medical Personnel, Home Health Care, and Long-Term Care, in addition to applying to Hospitals and Ambulatory Care.[] Start Printed Page 32471 CMS Regulations That Condition Participation in Medicare and Medicaid on Implementation of Nationally Recognized Control Guidelines The Centers for Medicare &. Medicaid Services (CMS) administers healthcare programs for the elderly (Medicare) and needs-based state programs that help with medical costs (Medicaid).

As a condition for participation in Medicare or Medicaid, medical providers must comply with regulations issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), 42 CFR Pts. 400-699. A number of these regulations, which apply to a broad spectrum of the settings listed in Table VI.A.-1, condition participation in Medicare and Medicaid on the implementation of nationally recognized control practices like the CDC guidelines listed in Table VI.A.-3. The applicable CMS regulations are summarized in Table VI.A.-4. Start Printed Page 32472 Accreditation by The Joint Commission Founded in 1951, The Joint Commission is an independent, not-for-profit organization that accredits and certifies more than 22,000 healthcare organizations and programs in the United States (The Joint Commission, 2021a).

Joint Commission accreditation and certification is recognized nationwide as a symbol of quality that reflects an organization's commitment to meeting certain performance standards. Joint Commission standards are the basis of an objective evaluation process that can help healthcare organizations measure, assess and improve performance. The standards focus on important patient, individual, or resident care and organization functions that are essential to providing safe, high-quality care (The Joint Commission, 2021b). To maintain accreditation, organizations undergo an on-site survey by a Joint Commission survey team at least every three years (laboratories are surveyed every two years). In these surveys, The Joint Commission monitors compliance with its standards for the implementation of good control and biosafety practices (including, for example, adherence to Standard and Transmission-Based Precautions, as recommended by the CDC Guidelines in Table VI.A.-3) (The Joint Commission, 2021c).

The Joint Commission offers accreditation for the following settings (many of which are contained in Table VI.A.-1) (The Joint Commission, 2021c). Ambulatory care facilities. Critical access hospitals. Behavioral health care. Hospitals.

Home care services. Nursing care centers. And Office-based surgery centers. OSHA's Bloodborne Pathogens Standard, 29 CFR 1910.1030 Employers subject to the ETS have also been subject to requirements in the Bloodborne Pathogens (BBP) standard for 30 years, since it was promulgated in 1991. As the BBP standard was promulgated, OSHA found “with Start Printed Page 32473respect to the technological feasibility of the standard that its provisions permit practical means to reduce the risk now faced by those employees working with blood and other infectious materials and that there do not appear to be any major obstacles to implementing the rule.” (56 FR 64004, 64039 (Dec.

6, 1991)). OSHA's finding of technological feasibility during the BBP standard rulemaking is additional evidence that there are no technological feasibility barriers to complying with the ETS. For example, Standard Precautions, which are required by the ETS, are similar to, but more extensive than, “Universal Precautions”, which are required by the BBP standard to prevent contact with blood or other potentially infectious materials (see definitions in the BBP standard). The BBP standard defines “Universal Precautions” as an approach to control wherein all human blood and certain human body fluids are treated as if known to be infectious for HIV, HBV, and other bloodborne pathogens. Standard Precautions were developed to integrate principles of Universal Precautions into broader principles pertaining to routes of exposure other than the bloodborne route, such as via the contact, droplet, or airborne routes.

For example, although the BBP standard might not apply, Standard Precautions would be utilized when workers are exposed to urine, feces, nasal secretions, sputum, vomit, and other body fluids, and also when workers are exposed to mucous membranes and non-intact skin. Using Standard Precautions when there is exposure to these materials, it should be assumed that the materials potentially contain infectious agents that could be transmitted via the contact, droplet, or airborne routes. Standard Precautions not only include the control methods specified as Universal Precautions (e.g., hand hygiene, the use of certain types of PPE based on anticipated exposure, safe injection practices, and safe management of contaminated equipment and other items in the patient environment), but also include, for example, respiratory and cough etiquette. The respiratory and cough etiquette and other additional controls for Standard Precautions are minor expansions on the Universal Precautions already applicable to most healthcare facilities, and OSHA is not aware of any technological barriers for employers subject to the ETS. In addition to the above requirements, the BBP standard contains requirements for an exposure control plan, engineering and work practice controls, hand hygiene, personal protective equipment, housekeeping (e.g., cleaning and decontamination), and vaccination, which all have corollaries in the ETS.

While there are differences between the BBP standard and the ETS, there is overlap. For example, although the requirements for a erectile dysfunction treatment plan in the ETS are different than those for the exposure control plan required by the BBP standard, the process for developing and implementing these plans should be similar. Based on this overlap, there should not be any technological feasibility barriers to complying with the corollary provisions in the ETS. C. Physical Distancing and Physical Barriers Physical Distancing.

The ETS (paragraph (h)) requires the employer to ensure that each employee is separated from all other people by at least 6 feet unless the employer can demonstrate that such physical distancing is not feasible for a specific activity, and that, when the employer establishes it is not feasible for an employee to maintain a distance of at least 6 feet from all other people, the employer must ensure that the employee is as far apart from all other people as feasible. Physical Barriers. The ETS (paragraph (i)) requires that at each fixed work location outside of direct patient care areas where an employee is not separated from all other people by at least 6 feet of distance, the employer must install cleanable or disposable solid barriers, except where the employer can demonstrate it is not feasible (or the paragraph (a)(4) exception for vaccinated employees applies). As discussed above, OSHA reviewed a number of plans and best practice documents developed and employed by the healthcare sector to reduce the risk of erectile dysfunction treatment exposure. These plans included recommendations and requirements for the implementation of physical distancing and physical barriers in the settings covered by the ETS.

These plans and best practice documents provide strong evidence that it is technologically feasible to implement these controls in the healthcare sector. Moreover, OSHA developed physical distancing scenarios and a job matrix spreadsheet, discussed below, which also provide strong evidence that the implementation of physical distancing and physical barriers is technologically feasible in the healthcare sector. Physical Distancing Scenarios OSHA developed “physical distancing” scenarios for a variety of workplaces covering a wide range of situations to describe the controls that have been put in place to maintain not only physical distancing but also physical barriers at each fixed work location outside of direct patient care areas (e.g., entryway/lobby, check-in desks, triage, hospital pharmacy windows, bill payment), as well as other controls required by the ETS as part of a multilayered strategy to reduce or eliminate the transmission of erectile dysfunction. As OSHA discusses in more depth below, these scenarios are based primarily on erectile dysfunction treatment plans developed by employers. OSHA uses these scenarios (and by extension the plans on which they are based) to support its feasibility determination regarding the physical distancing and physical barrier requirements of the ETS, and also to show that other controls required by the ETS are being, or can be implemented, by typical employers across affected workplaces.

OSHA also uses these scenarios to explore ways to mitigate the remaining risk of exposure when it is infeasible to comply with the requirements for physical distancing. While this portion of the analysis falls outside the pure examination of the technological feasibility of the required controls, it is intended to demonstrate the steps that employers are expected to take to reduce exposure risk. Some of the plans that OSHA consulted in developing these scenarios include examples of controls that would not meet the requirements of the ETS, but OSHA has attempted to incorporate some of these examples into the scenarios while noting that some of the controls may only be used when the other controls are infeasible. Thus, for example, some scenarios describe the use of both physical distancing and physical barriers by employers. OSHA's description of the scenarios below should not be read to mean that OSHA sanctions the use of physical barriers in lieu of physical distancing, when physical distancing is feasible.

For an in-depth discussion on the rationale underlying OSHA's rulemaking decisions, please see Need for Specific Provisions (Section V of the preamble). As another example, some scenarios describe facemasks, ventilation, and other controls required by the ETS as additional controls when physical distancing is not feasible. But these controls are not alternatives to physical distancing under the ETS. Again, physical distancing (or physical barriers at fixed workstations outside of direct patient care areas, when physical distancing is not feasible) must be Start Printed Page 32474implemented alongside these controls under the ETS as part of a multilayered approach to control. Finally, OSHA emphasizes that physical distancing is feasible for the vast majority of situations employers may face in their daily job duties.

There are a select number of situations where physical distancing is not feasible, and for these situations, employers must implement physical barriers if feasible at fixed work locations outside of direct patient care areas. And, again, employers must implement the other controls as required by the standard (e.g., facemasks, and respirators, cleaning and dis, health screening and medical management, employee notification). In reviewing the record, OSHA found that, while exposure to erectile dysfunction treatment can occur from contact with co-workers or the public as part of healthcare workers' job duties in a wide range of workplaces covered by the ETS, many of the processes and controls used to minimize risk are the same or similar. The physical distancing scenarios OSHA's contractor—a safety and health subject matter expert—developed include examples of policies and procedures implemented to maintain physical distancing, physical barriers, and other controls based on a review of guidance and existing viagra plans and other sources. This information was supplemented where needed with additional internet searches, for instance, from news articles, industry surveys, or articles in industry publications that demonstrate how companies in different industries have been implementing physical distancing.

The contractor also relied on its professional expert judgment (ERG, February 25, 2021). The scenarios identify groups of workers who face similar work situations with regard to physical proximity (within 6 feet) of another person (e.g., visitors, members of the public), and for whom the same or similar precautions to limit physical proximity can be implemented. In this respect, some of the evidence on which OSHA relies in this assessment (with respect to the offices, law enforcement, security guards, and protective services, home healthcare, personal care, and companion service providers, and postmortem services scenarios) rely on plans and best practices from both industries affected by this ETS and other industries not affected by the ETS. In analyzing the evidence of physical distancing and barriers across multiple industry sectors, OSHA observed that the feasible methods of implementing physical distancing and physical barriers for employees with similar exposures was similar regardless of industry (for example, employing physical distancing and barriers to protect administrative and clerical staff, receptionists, those who are exposed to human remains, and those who enter personal residences to provide care). To this end, OSHA's assessment of the feasibility of implementing physical distancing and physical barriers in the healthcare section is based on evidence from other industries to the extent that workers share similar job roles and perform similar job tasks such that the feasibility of distancing and barriers would be the same in either case.

OSHA also developed a job matrix spreadsheet to identify groups of workers facing similar work situations. To develop this spreadsheet, OSHA first found and reviewed 418 plans from employers representing various separate 3-digit North Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes, and 286 best practice documents from trade associations and other organizations covering 46 3-digit NAICS codes (ERG, February 9, 2021). As part of the review, OSHA included plans and best practices from industries outside of healthcare to clearly demonstrate the feasibility of implementing a multilayered approach to erectile dysfunction treatment control (including facemasks and the installation of physical barriers where distancing is not feasible) for similar work situations. Next, OSHA identified unique job categories across the industry sectors with many categories present across multiple NAICS codes. These job categories were cross-referenced with the scenarios to develop the job matrix spreadsheet (February 25, 2021).

This job matrix spreadsheet was used to identify job categories facing similar situations regarding the ability to maintain physical distance with coworkers and/or members of the public. OSHA expects that, for these situations, employers can implement the same or similar precautions, for not only limiting physical proximity, but also for the other multilayered controls required by the ETS. Workers with public-facing job duties, such as receptionists and security guards, share many of the same or similar exposure control challenges, and employers of these job categories over a wide variety of industry sectors have implemented similar multilayered controls such as physical distancing, the installation of barriers, requirements for face masks, and hand hygiene, among others, as discussed below (February 25, 2021). OSHA concludes, based on the job matrix that evidence of feasibility for one scenario also establishes feasibility for other scenarios to the extent job categories cut across scenarios. The scenarios OSHA developed for the healthcare sector are listed in Table VI.A.-5.

Start Printed Page 32475 Below, OSHA highlights some of the elements of these scenarios and portions of the job matrix on which it relied. In the discussion below, OSHA will first describe some of the types of jobs workers conduct in most workplaces in the scenarios discussed (or across scenarios to the extent this is supported by the job matrix), and identify some of the unique work processes that are already conducted in a physically distanced manner or that can be easily modified to avoid or reduce physical proximity for each scenario discussed (or, as applicable, across scenarios). OSHA then describes some of the discrete activities where physical contact with others (i.e., the public or other workers) may be necessary or unavoidable, along with the precautions and controls that can still feasibly be implemented for the scenarios (or, as applicable, across scenarios) as part of a multilayered approach to protection, such as facemasks, ventilation, and the use of physical barriers. In this respect, OSHA's analysis found employers have implemented physical barriers at fixed work locations outside of direct patient care areas (e.g., entryway/lobby, check-in desks, triage, hospital pharmacy windows, bill payment). Physical barriers are required as part of the multi-layered approach to control that is at the heart of the ETS.

As discussed more fully in the Need for Specific Provisions (Section V of the preamble), physical barriers, when properly installed, are effective at intercepting respiratory droplets and minimizing the risk of exposure to erectile dysfunction treatment, especially in areas where employees cannot maintain a minimum of 6 feet of distance from coworkers, customers, and members of the general public. The ETS does not specify the type of material that must be used for physical barriers, but the material must be impermeable to infectious droplets that are transmitted when an infected individual is sneezing, coughing, breathing, talking, or yelling. In addition, physical barriers must be made from materials that can be easily cleaned and disinfected unless in lieu of cleaning the employer may opt to replace the barrier. Using replaceable materials would allow an employer to dispose of and replace barriers between uses, instead of cleaning and disinfecting more permanent barriers. The effective design and implementation of physical barriers will differ among workplaces based on job tasks, work processes, and even potential users.

Physical barriers must be designed, constructed, and installed to prevent droplets from reaching employees when they are in their normal sitting or standing location relative to the workstation. For example, under the provision, plastic sheeting can qualify as a physical barrier only in situations where it is fixed in place and blocks face-to-face pathways of air between the users on either side while those workers are performing all of their assigned tasks. Examples of physical barriers across a variety of workplaces are discussed in the scenarios below. Further considerations for the design and implementation of physical barriers to properly block face-to-face pathways of breathing zones, including whether plastic sheeting, films, curtains, and other non-rigid materials are acceptable materials, as well as installation, are discussed in the summary and explanation of Physical Barriers. Employers subject to the ETS share a common challenge.

Finding ways to limit physical proximity (of less than 6 feet) between each worker and other workers, as well as visitors and other non-employees in the workplace. In the limited situations where physical distancing is not feasible, employers often face similar challenges and employ similar solutions in designing and installing physical barriers to help protect their employees, even though the types of products or services they offer or the work they do vary. For example, employers often install physical barriers with a pass-through space at the bottom. A barrier is thus an effective tool in helping to protect a security guard at a check point at a hospital's entrance, a receptionist in the billing department, and any other public-facing employee. Physical barriers have also been installed to shield healthcare workers and others from individuals with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment (for example in triage areas of an emergency department).

Employers have also installed barriers between urinals and sinks in restrooms both as separations between persons using the facility and as a splash guard (ERG, February 9, 2021. ERG, February 25, 2021). As the assessment below makes clear, OSHA has found no feasibility issues with the implementation of physical distancing or physical barriers in typical operations in the healthcare sector. General Office Settings General office settings are common across a number of industry sectors, and many healthcare facilities have areas Start Printed Page 32476with administrative offices similar to general office settings. OSHA developed a physical distance scenario for offices by identifying industry sectors where office worksites are common.

OSHA found that employers have successfully implemented a variety of physical distancing measures (measures to keep people 6 feet apart) by incorporating administrative and engineering controls for the various job categories that work in offices such as supervisors and managerial staff, administrative and clerical staff, and receptionists. Administrative and clerical workers are a common job category within office worksites across a wide variety of industries. In addition to the offices scenario, administrative and clerical workers were identified in a number of other physical distancing scenarios including. Law enforcement, security guards, and protective services. Postmortem care.

And long-term care (although OSHA believes administrative and clerical workers likely work within most scenarios, given that administrative and clerical work is usually necessary regardless of industry sector). A number of strategies for maintaining physical distancing as part of a multilayered approach have been implemented for administrative and clerical staff, including establishing remote work, altering the work environment to limit the number of chairs and workstations, relocating workers to locations that ensure proper physical distancing, and arranging visitor seating areas to be at least 6 feet away from employees' desks. Employers can also adopt telehealth services to completely isolate clerical and administrative staff from the patients, clients, and other people they might otherwise be interacting with in person. Meetings can be conducted virtually, or conference tables and chairs can be relocated to areas of the office where physical distancing can be ensured. Employers may also establish occupancy limits for certain rooms (e.g., bathrooms, breakrooms, elevators, lunchrooms, and changing areas), stagger breaks to limit the number of workers on break at the same time, and use signs and markings to communicate occupancy limits and to remind workers to keep 6 feet apart.

Shared equipment, such as copiers or printers, can also be located more than 6 feet apart so that different employees can use that equipment at the same time without having to be close to each other. OSHA notes that many supervisors and managers (e.g., hospital administrators) have many of the same types of exposures as administrative and clerical staff. They commonly work in communal office areas, engage in collaborative group work, and hold office meetings in conference rooms. Moreover, as supervisors and managers, they implement the physical distancing strategies described above for the facilities where they work, and not just to apply to administrative and clerical staff. While receptionists are a common job category within office worksites, they are also employed in a variety of industry sectors.

Receptionists are public-facing employees and their jobs include tasks which routinely put them in contact with the public, such as greeting and directing patients and families appropriately, responding to inquiries, coordinating with first responders or law enforcement, working with patients to process medical billing and paperwork, and maintaining security and telecommunications systems. OSHA identified a number of physical distancing strategies that have been commonly used to increase physical distancing for receptionists. When telework is not possible, employers have eliminated reception seating areas, closed lobbies, and required patients and visitors to phone or text ahead for entry into the workplace. In addition, signs and floor marks indicating 6-foot spaces where lines can form in reception areas have been found to help maintain physical distance between visitors and receptionists. When limiting access to reception areas is difficult, employers have reduced occupancy by only allowing seating at every other chair in waiting areas.

Touchless or remote payment and scheduling options have been successfully used to limit face-to-face interactions with customer clients. As discussed above there are many options of potential controls to provide physical distancing for supervisors and managers, receptionists, administrative and clerical workers, and other office workers who work in office settings. However, there may be limited instances where employees might be unable to physically distance all of the time. As part of a multilayered approach to transmission control, physical barriers have been installed in office settings across all industry sectors. For example, workers in office settings (e.g., medical billing and financial service, transcription, and medical records departments) often spend the majority of the day at their desks or other fixed workstations.

For these situations, employers have installed plexiglass barriers or partitions between workstations and between public-facing staff and patients, families, customers, clients, and other non-employees. At public facing workstations, physical barriers with small openings have been installed to enable the passing of paperwork and payment machines, for example. Under the ETS, when it is not feasible for employees to be properly distanced from each other, barriers must also be installed between the employees. Law Enforcement, Security Guards, and Protective Services A physical distance scenario developed particularly for law enforcement, security guards, and protective services identified a number of industry sectors where job categories within the scenario are common. OSHA found that employers of security guards have successfully implemented a variety of physical distancing controls to maintain 6 feet of physical distance from other people.

Common physical distancing controls for security guards include staggering work shifts and limiting or ending in-person meetings. The use of walk-through metal detectors instead of hand-held wands and electronic mobile credentials to avoid the need for security officers to physically check individuals have also been implemented (if wands are used, the person being wanded should face away from the security guard). Electronic mobile credentials can also be centrally managed from a remote location, limiting the need for personnel to visit badging offices. Employers have utilized signs, floor markings, and ropes to mark a 6-foot distance around security guard stations to remind people who are standing in line to maintain appropriate distance from the security officer and other people in line. As part of a multilayered approach to transmission control, employers have also installed physical barriers to protect these workers when they are at fixed workstations.

Across healthcare workplaces, employees working in security checkpoints are commonly unable to maintain physical distance from non-employees who need to be checked-in or are waiting in line (for example, during identification screenings at hospital entrances). In such circumstances, the installation of barriers helps protect security personnel interacting with the public. Emergency Medical Services OSHA developed a physical distancing scenario for Emergency Medical Service (EMS) organizations. EMS workers cover a number of job categories including emergency medical Start Printed Page 32477technicians (EMTs), paramedics, and cross-trained firefighters serving in the capacity of paramedics or EMTs. OSHA identified a number of common physical distancing controls implemented by EMS providers, which limit the number of onsite workers within physical proximity of patients and others, and also limit crowd size during emergency response.

First, to limit the number of EMS workers that respond to a call to those absolutely necessary, EMS employers have implemented polices to coordinate with the emergency response operator (e.g., the 911 operator/dispatcher) on how many EMS responders are needed. Also, employers have implemented policies to ensure that the emergency response operator coordinates with law enforcement to disburse or move unnecessary people before the ambulance arrives. Additionally, employers have instituted work practices where one EMS worker conducts the initial patient evaluation and performs medical treatment, remaining in radio communication with the other EMS worker, who will enter to assist only if necessary. EMS employers have also instituted policies to limit the number of workers in the ambulance to those who are medically necessary and to encourage family members to follow the ambulance in their own vehicle rather than riding in the ambulance. EMS workers cannot always avoid proximity to coworkers or patients during some operations including, for example, engaging in emergency medical care, transporting patients in ambulances, and transferring patients to healthcare facilities.

When EMS workers respond to an emergency, they are involved in evaluating and treating the patient onsite before transporting the patient as necessary. EMS workers may need to work as a team in order to perform some tasks (e.g., while performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and using a bag valve mask also known as an Ambu bag). In addition, arriving EMS workers could be within 6 feet of people at the site, including family members and the general public who may have gathered. Employers of emergency medical services (EMS) workers have installed physical barriers to protect their workers in at least some of these situations. For example, physical barriers are often installed between the workstations of emergency response operators, who assist in coordinating the response to emergency situations (e.g., for the EMS system or the public health system, and in 911 call centers or healthcare facilities).

Employers have also installed physical barriers between the treatment compartment of ambulances and the driver's compartment to protect drivers and other workers who need not be exposed to patients. OSHA also identified a number of strategies that have been used by EMS providers as part of a multilayered approach to control. Employers have implemented policies for requiring employees to wear appropriate respiratory protection and other PPE, placing a face covering or facemask on the patient when possible, and requiring family members to wear face coverings or leave the area while EMS workers respond to emergencies in patient homes. In addition, employers have instituted protocols for moving a patient with confirmed or suspected erectile dysfunction treatment outside or in a more ventilated area for treatment where medically possible (note that the ETS requires healthcare workers to wear respirators when treating a patient who is confirmed or suspected to have erectile dysfunction treatment as well as when they are exposed to aerosol-generating procedures conducted on a patient who is confirmed or suspected to have erectile dysfunction treatment). In some situations, EMS workers might need to ride in the cab within 6 feet of each other as well as the patient being transported.

In these situations, overlapping controls, such as requiring all EMS workers in the patient compartment to wear appropriate PPE and to wash their hands or use an alcohol-based hand sanitizer that contains at least 60% alcohol, have been implemented. Moreover, as stated, where feasible, physical barriers can be constructed to isolate the driver's cab from the rear patient care area. In addition, patients riding in the rear compartment can wear a face covering and face shield, when possible, or at least a face shield when a face covering is not possible. Employers have also established procedures to open outside air vents in the cab and turn on the rear exhaust ventilation fans to the highest setting to create a pressure gradient toward the patient area. It is also common that EMS operations must quickly return an ambulance to service after responding to an emergency involving, or transporting patients who are, erectile dysfunction treatment positive.

In such circumstances, multiple EMS workers must often concurrently participate in cleaning and dis of the patient area in the ambulance. In these situations, employers have used outdoor cleaning areas or indoor exhaust ventilation, in addition to following widely-established polices requiring PPE and face coverings. Long-Term Care Long-term care employers operate nursing homes, retirement communities, assisted living facilities, and intermediate and continuing care facilities. There are a wide range of job titles for workers in this industry including healthcare providers (e.g., physicians, nurses, nurses' assistants, orderlies, physical, occupational, and speech therapists, personal care aides, and psychiatric aides), as well as support staff (e.g., facility administration, reception, engineering and maintenance, housekeeping, laundry, food service, transportation, pharmacy, and security). OSHA identified a number of physical distancing strategies that have been implemented in various areas of long-term care facilities such as reception areas, waiting rooms, dining rooms, and common areas.

These strategies include. Restricting the number of visitors. Limiting access to the residential area to essential workers (i.e., maintenance workers performing non-critical tasks and staff performing billing services would not be granted access). Increasing the number of meal services. Limiting the number of residents in the dining area at one time.

And providing room service. Although physical distancing can be feasibly maintained most of the time, there are some situations where workers in long-term care facilities cannot always avoid physical proximity with residents, visitors, or co-workers. Long-term care employers have installed physical barriers to protect employees in many of these situations. For example, resident care and front desk staff may need to be within 6 feet of visitors during visitor check-in or when providing information or assistance, and administrative staff may have a central counter for information and resources for residents. In these situations, employers have installed physical barriers between workstations and visitor or resident areas.

Food servers and aides may need to be within 6 feet of a resident when serving food, servicing or clearing buffet food lines, and when providing assistance. In these situations as well, employers have installed physical barriers between employees and residents. Healthcare providers may also need to provide care or therapy in resident rooms or other care/therapy areas. As part of a multilayered approach to control, some employers have required workers caring for residents to wear a gown, safety glasses, gloves, and either a surgical mask or N95 respirator (depending on whether the worker is Start Printed Page 32478providing care to residents with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment, for example). Also, in accordance with American Health Care Association/National Center for Assisted Living (AHCA/NCAL) recommendations, employers have, to the extent possible, reduced the frequency of routine procedures, such as taking vital signs and weights, and have also required residents to wear a face covering when staff enter their rooms or when receiving care/therapy from a healthcare provider, unless they are medically unable to do so.

Many employers have also implemented cohorting procedures for staff and patients (i.e., assigning staff to specific residents and only those residents) while minimizing staff working across units (AHCA and NCAL, April 21, 2020). Home Healthcare, Personal Care, and Companion Service Providers OSHA developed a physical distancing scenario for organizations that visit private residences to provide healthcare services and health care support services. Employers in this industry use a wide range of job titles for their workers including professional home healthcare practitioners (e.g., physicians, nurses, medical technicians). Personal care providers (e.g. Self-care aides).

And other workers who offer companion services for disabled persons, the elderly, and persons diagnosed with intellectual and developmental disabilities. To help ensure physical distancing, employers in this industry have switched to virtual services when possible by determining whether some clients' needs can be met through telehealth or with online technology, such as video conferencing. Many physical distancing strategies have also been implemented by employers of this sector when services must be conducted at a patient's private residence. These include implementing protocols for workers to maintain 6 feet of distance from clients and other household members, and for workers providing service in teams to maintain 6 feet of distance from each other, as much as possible while they perform their work. Employers have also implemented procedures to instruct all people within the household (other than the direct client receiving services) to go to another room, or at a minimum, maintain at least 6 feet of distance from workers.

Workers performing in-home healthcare or personal care services cannot always feasibly maintain 6 feet of physical distance from their clients or co-workers. In these situations, companies have successfully implemented a multi-layered suite of controls such as requiring all workers to wear facemasks, respiratory protection, or other PPE, and requiring patients and members of households to self-screen for erectile dysfunction treatment before the visit. Also employers have required all workers to wash their hands or use an alcohol-based hand sanitizer that contains at least 60% alcohol before and after each visit, and have implemented administrative controls such as assigning workers to “bubbles” or cohorts to reduce the number of other individuals with whom a worker comes in physical proximity. Finally, employers have taken steps to ensure that private residences have adequate airflow by way of either an HVAC system or open windows and doors. Postmortem Services OSHA developed a physical distancing scenario to address the conduct of autopsies.

Jobs involved in conducting medical autopsies generally fall within the following categories. Medical examiners, forensic pathologists, and autopsy technicians who examine bodies postmortem. And administrative and clerical staff who may be essential for support purposes. The postmortem care industry has implemented a variety of physical distancing controls to prevent physical proximity (within 6 feet) of other people when performing autopsies. Physical distancing controls for these situations are meant to keep professional healthcare practitioners and, in some cases guests (e.g., law enforcement, family members of the deceased), at least 6 feet apart.

These strategies include posting reminders of the need to maintain at least 6 feet of physical distance from other persons, where possible, training workers on proper physical distancing relative to other workers and guests, and establishing work schedules (e.g., alternating days, extra shifts) that reduce the total number of workers in a facility at any given time. In addition, many employers require workers to limit the number of staff in the prep/exam room at any given time to the minimum number necessary. In workplaces where autopsies are performed, physical proximity cannot always be avoided. In these situations, facilities have successfully implemented a multi-layered suite of controls, such as wearing appropriate PPE, to protect workers from other people (e.g., guests or other staff) during postmortem medical examination, for example. Physical barriers have also been installed in other areas where physical distancing may be difficult to maintain including, at reception counters, in restrooms, in consultation rooms, and in offices, for example.

Summary of Feasibility Challenges for Distancing and Physical Barriers While OSHA strongly emphasizes the use of physical distancing and physical barriers, it recognizes that there are a few situations where employers have found that it is not feasible to implement either or both. Physical distancing and physical barriers may not be feasible during direct patient care, including the conduct of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) while treating a patient in the back of an ambulance, for example. Physical barriers may also be infeasible where they obstruct an emergency egress path or interfere with a facility's fire safety systems (e.g., fire alarm notification devices, fire sprinklers, fire pull stations). OSHA emphasizes a multilayered approach for employers to protect their workers. Physical distancing and, if necessary, physical barriers at fixed work locations outside of direct patient care areas must be used in conjunction with other controls, such as facemasks, hand hygiene, and ventilation, and not as the sole means of control.

When confronting the rare situations where both physical distancing and physical barriers are not feasible, employers can still implement the remaining layers of overlapping controls, including facemasks, hand hygiene, and ventilation, required by the standard to reduce the risk of erectile dysfunction treatment transmission. Based on the evidence that physical distancing and physical barriers are already being implemented across a broad range of healthcare settings, OSHA concludes that it is feasible to implement the ETS's requirements for physical distancing and for physical barriers at fixed work locations outside of direct patient care areas (e.g., entryway/lobby, check-in desks, triage, hospital pharmacy windows, bill payment). In the few cases where physical distancing and physical barriers are both not feasible, work can be conducted to maintain as much distance as possible, and the additional controls such as facemasks, ventilation, and hygiene required by the ETS will still provide some measure of protection. D. Ventilation Ventilation systems are another necessary part of a multilayered strategy to control transmission of erectile dysfunction treatment (CDC, March 23, 2021).

As will be discussed in more detail below, the Start Printed Page 32479ability of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems to reduce the risk of exposure depends on many factors, including design features, operation and maintenance practices, and the quality and quantity of outdoor air supplied to the space. Paragraph (k) of the ETS require employers who own or control buildings or structures with existing heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems to ensure that. (1) Each HVAC system is used in accordance with the HVAC manufacturer's instructions and its design-specifications. (2) the amount of outside air circulated through its HVAC system and the number of air changes per hour (ACHs) are maximized to the extent appropriate. (3) all air filters are rated Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 13 or higher, if compatible with the HVAC system (or, alternatively, rated at the highest compatible filtering efficiency).

(4) all air filters are maintained and replaced as necessary. And (5) all outside air intake ports are clean, maintained, and cleared of any debris that may affect the function and performance of the HVAC system. Moreover, where an employer has an existing airborne isolation room (AIIR), the employer must maintain and operate it in accordance with its design and construction criteria. In the remainder of this section, OSHA discusses how employers can comply with these requirements and then draws its conclusion on technological feasibility. Using HVAC Systems in Accordance With Manufacturer's Instructions and Design Specifications To meet the ETS's requirements, employers must verify that the system is functioning as designed.

Because each building and its existing HVAC systems will be different, the employer might need to consult a professional engineer or HVAC specialist to determine the best way to maximize the system's ventilation and air fiation capabilities for each specific room in the building and thereby ensure the system is operating according to design specifications. The American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 180-2018 Standard Practice for Inspection and Maintenance of Commercial Building HVAC Systems provides guidance on preventive maintenance for HVAC systems, including checklists that employers can use to verify the system is operating as designed (ASHRAE, June 11, 2018). Additional guidance can be found in CDC's Guidance for Businesses and Employers Responding to erectile dysfunction Disease 2019 (erectile dysfunction treatment) (CDC, March 8, 2021), and the ASHRAE Guidance for Re-Opening Buildings (ASHRAE, October 5, 2020). Healthcare settings have additional HVAC design parameters for meeting specifications for directional airflow and relative pressure differentials. For example, according to ASHRAE's Standard 170 Ventilation of Health Care Facilities, ventilation systems that provide air movement from clean areas (e.g., nursing stations) to potentially contaminated areas (e.g., patient airborne isolation rooms) are recommended for preventing airborne transmission.

Thus, the air pressure of the room or space would be maintained at a negative pressure relative to the hallways and surrounding spaces. This means that when the door is opened, potentially contaminated air or other dangerous particles from inside the room will not flow outside into non-contaminated areas. (ASHRAE, 2017). Normally functioning existing isolation rooms should already be able to serve this function because Joint Commission accreditation and Centers for Medicare &. Medicaid Services (CMS) regulations have requirements for negative pressure airborne isolation rooms design.

Using AIIRS in Accordance With Design and Construction Criteria AIIRs are designed to prevent the transmission of airborne transmissible agents to areas outside a patient's room. These rooms have a high air exchange rate and are under negative air pressure, meaning that the room air has a slight negative pressure compared to the surrounding rooms. The high air exchange rate (at least 12 air changes per hour (ACH) for new construction or renovation, 6 ACH otherwise) helps change the room air frequently and reduces (but does not eliminate) buildup of airborne disease agents, such as the viagra that causes erectile dysfunction treatment. The negative air pressure differential (0.01 inch of water [2.5 Pa]) helps reduce the chance that the remaining airborne viagra will exit the room door and contaminate air in adjacent hallways. An anteroom is a beneficial room feature that helps further isolate the AIIR from the adjacent hallway.

When the AIIR has an anteroom, the AIIR's air pressure should be negative to the anteroom, while the anteroom air pressure should be negative to the adjacent hallway. This arrangement means air from the hallway will flow into the anteroom each time the door is opened, and air from the anteroom will flow into the AIIR—minimizing the amount of airborne disease agents (viagra) that exits the room. ASHRAE Standard 170, Ventilation of Health Care Facilities offers detailed guidance for designing and operating AIIRs (ASHRAE, 2017). Maximizing Outside Air Circulated Through HVAC System(s) and the Number of Air Changes per Hour (ACHs) to the Extent Appropriate Building HVAC systems are designed to draw in a certain amount of outdoor air into the building to maintain indoor air quality. By introducing fresh air into the building, HVAC systems can prevent the buildup of airborne contaminants through dilution.

The introduction of outdoor air into the building can also help limit the potential for the viagra that causes erectile dysfunction treatment to accumulate in the building. The more outdoor air the HVAC system is capable of drawing into the building, the greater the impact may be on limiting the potential for the viagra to accumulate. Maximizing the amount of outdoor air introduced to the system can be achieved by fully opening the building's outdoor air intake dampers. However, this may introduce other indoor air quality or comfort concerns resulting from humidity, temperature extremes, or outdoor pollution. Employers should work with building managers or HVAC professionals to adjust the HVAC system to bring in as much outdoor air as possible, while taking into consideration outdoor pollution levels and ensuring that the HVAC system is capable of maintaining building temperature and humidity levels within acceptable occupant comfort ranges.

OSHA notes that it does not expect employers to reconfigure duct work to comply with this provision. When maximizing the outside air, employers should take into account not to draw in air from potential pollution sources such as smoking areas, loading docks, vehicle traffic areas, or active construction zones, or air being re-entrained from the building exhaust itself. Start Printed Page 32480 Balancing refers to the process of measuring the air flow through the supply ducts and adjusting the dampers to provide an even distribution of air through the HVAC system duct work and supply vents. According to ASHRAE Standard 111 Measurement, Testing, Adjusting, and Balancing of Building HVAC Systems, testing and balancing an HVAC system provides the means to determine and monitor system performance. Proper balancing ensures that outdoor air brought into the building will be evenly supplied to all areas of the building and limit the potential for ventilation dead zones or stagnant air to accumulate (ASHRAE, October 31, 2017).

In addition to considering the factors discussed above with respect to maximizing outside air, employers must also consider how to maximize ACHs. ACHs are a measure of the air volume that is added to or removed from a space in one hour divided by the volume of the space. The more frequently the air within that space is replaced per hour, or the more ACHs, the more the overall potential concentration of erectile dysfunction treatment in the work environment will be reduced. Building owner/operators or employers can seek assistance from HVAC professionals on maximizing ACHs based on the workspace and the design capabilities of the HVAC system(s) (ASHRAE, 2017). Using Air Filters Rated MERV 13 or Higher, if Compatible With the HVAC System(s), or, Alternatively, to the Highest Compatible Filtering Efficiency Building HVAC systems are equipped with air filters that remove particles from recirculated air streams before returning the air to occupied spaces.

Air filters are available in a variety of materials such as pleated paper, cloth, woven fiberglass, and polyester. A filter's efficiency is measured by the fraction of particles the filter is able to remove from the air stream. The higher the filter's efficiency the better it is at removing particles from the air. There are several systems for rating filter efficiencies. The most common is the MERV rating system, which was developed by ASHRAE.

Many existing HVAC systems are designed and installed to operate with filters ranging from MERV 6 to MERV 8. MERV 8 filters are only about 20 percent efficient in removing particles in the 1 µm to 3 µm size range (the size range of concern for aerosol droplets containing the viagra that causes erectile dysfunction treatment). Employers and building managers can improve this efficiency by upgrading to MERV 13 or higher filters, to the extent those filters are currently compatible with system components (e.g., filter housing slot type, size, and shape). MERV 13 filters are at least 85 percent efficient at capturing particles in the 1 µm to 3 µm size range. Increasing filter efficiency, however, can increase pressure drop across the filters leading to increased fan energy use, reduced airflow rates, and or/issues controlling indoor temperature and humidity levels.

As a result, employers and building owners may need to consult an HVAC professional to optimize filter efficiency consistent with their HVAC system's capabilities. Maintaining and Replacing All Air Filters as Necessary The required frequency for changing filters will vary depending on the characteristics of the HVAC system, and therefore the ETS does not specify a frequency for filter changing. Ensuring All Outside Air Intake Ports Are Clean, Maintained, and Cleared of Any Debris That May Affect the Function and Performance of the HVAC System(s) To comply with this provision, a visual inspection of the outside air intakes, which can be accomplished as part of a routine maintenance program, is required. Additional Ventilation Measures A note to the ETS's ventilation requirements provides that, in addition to the requirements for existing HVAC systems and AIIRs, all employers should also consider other measures to improve ventilation in accordance with CDC guidance. Below are some additional measures that an employer should consider to increase total airflow supply to occupied spaces.

Disabling demand-control ventilation (DCV) controls that reduce air-supply based on temperature or occupancy. Using natural ventilation (i.e., opening windows if possible and safe to do so) to increase outdoor air dilution of indoor air when environmental conditions and building requirements allow. Running the HVAC system at maximum outside airflow for 2 hours before and after occupied times. Generating clean-to-less-clean air movements, re-evaluating the positioning of supply and exhaust air diffusers and/or dampers, and adjusting zone supply and exhaust flow rates to establish measurable pressure differentials. Requiring that staff work in “clean” ventilation zones and not in higher-risk areas (e.g., visitor reception) to the extent feasible.

Using portable high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) fan/fiation systems to help enhance air cleaning especially in higher-risk areas. And Ensuring exhaust fans in restroom facilities are functional and operating at full capacity when the building is occupied. The terms of the ETS make clear that there are no technological hurdles to compliance with its ventilation requirements. First, the ventilation requirements apply only to existing systems. A note in the ETS emphasizes that the requirements do not require installation of new HVAC systems or AIIRS, or upgrades of existing systems to replace or augment functioning systems.

Therefore, the ventilation requirements do not raise the questions of feasibility typically associated with employers needing to install new engineering controls to come into compliance with a new standard. Second, the HVAC requirements apply only to employers who own or control buildings or structures. Thus, for example, the requirements do not apply to employers who lease space and do not control the building or structure, and the ETS does not raise questions as to how these employers would comply with the ventilation requirements. Third, employers covered by the general section are required only to ensure that HVAC systems operate with a sufficient filter (MERV-13 where possible) in accordance with manufacturer's instructions and design specifications, and only in a manner that is appropriate for the system using methods that are compatible with the system, and that AIIRs are maintained and operated in accordance with their design and construction criteria. As such employers are not required by the ETS to modify their HVAC systems or AIIRs in any manner, only to ensure that they are operating as designed, which negates questions as to how the employer would make modifications.

Fourth, a number of the plans, best practice documents, and scenarios discussed above reference HVAC systems and ventilation. The use of HVAC systems to manage building air fiation and circulation of fresh air as part of overlapping controls to address the erectile dysfunction treatment hazard illustrate that there is no technological feasibility barrier to compliance with the ETS's ventilation requirements in typical firms in all affected industries. The ETS's filter requirements are inherently technologically feasible because they only require the installation of the Start Printed Page 32481maximum filter that is compatible with the applicable HVAC system. The design and complexity of HVAC systems can vary widely depending on a range of factors including the use, size, and age of the building, and, as discussed, deciding on the maximum appropriate amount of outside air to circulate through the HVAC system(s) and number of ACHs can be a complex task. However, larger buildings have dedicated facilities management staff who are responsible for regular ventilation system maintenance and adjustment and will have the prerequisite experience to evaluate the capabilities of the HVAC system, while in other cases, employers may need to consult with an HVAC professional to ensure that facilities HVAC is functioning in accordance with the HVAC manufacturer's instructions and the design specifications of the HVAC system(s).

Based on these factors, OSHA concludes that there are no technological barriers to compliance with the ETS's ventilation requirements. E. Other Provisions There are no technological feasibility barriers related to compliance with other requirements in the ETS (e.g., facemasks, and respirators, cleaning and dis, health screening and medical management, employee notification). Indeed, as explained above, many of the plans, best practice documents, and scenarios reviewed by OSHA indicate that these controls have been implemented by employers across industry sectors as part of a multilayered approach to protecting workers from the erectile dysfunction treatment hazard. OSHA highlights a few of the ETS's other requirements below, but only to point out administrative issues that will be explored in more depth in other sections of the preamble.

Facemasks. The ETS requires employers to provide, and ensure that employees wear, facemasks that are FDA-cleared, authorized by an FDA EUA, or offered or distributed as described in an FDA enforcement policy. Facemasks that meet these requirements are currently widely available. There may be situations where wearing a facemask presents a hazard to an employee of serious injury or death (e.g., arc flash, heat stress, interfering with the safe operation of equipment). The relevant section of the Summary and Explanation provides further discussion on this topic.

Respirators. As noted in Need for Specific Provisions and Summary and Explanation (Sections V and VIII of the preamble, respectively), the increased need for respirators by healthcare workers during the viagra has resulted in shortages of N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs). The ETS addresses these shortages by encouraging employers to use not only N95 FFRs, but also other respirators such as elastomeric respirators and powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs), where feasible. For further details, see paragraph (f) of the ETS, as well as relevant sections of Need for Specific Provisions and Summary and Explanation. Notification.

Paragraphs (l)(2) and (l)(3) of the ETS contain erectile dysfunction treatment-connected notification requirements for both the employer and the employee. OSHA identifies no technological feasibility issues in connection with the ETS's notification requirements. It is the employer's responsibility to ensure that appropriate instructions and procedures are in place so that designated representatives of the employer (e.g., managers, supervisors) and employees conform to the rule's requirements. There are also no technological barriers to compliance with the mini respiratory protection program section of the ETS. That section requires employers, many of whom have never developed or implemented a respiratory protection program under the Respiratory Protection standard, 29 CFR 1910.134, to develop and implement one if their employees wear respirators.

However, the mini respiratory protection program section will require a program that is far less extensive, and thus easier to comply with, than what is required under 29 CFR 1910.134. For example, the mini respiratory protection program section will not require quantitative fit testing or medical evaluations regarding employees' ability to use respirators, both of which are required under 29 CFR 1910.134. Therefore, OSHA concludes that compliance with the mini respiratory protection program section does not raise issues of technological feasibility. OSHA discusses the administrative cost of complying with the mini respiratory protection program section in its economic feasibility analysis. II.

Conclusions OSHA has reviewed the requirements imposed by the ETS and has determined that achieving compliance with the rule is technologically feasible for typical operations in the settings that are covered by the ETS. In reaching this determination, OSHA reviewed evidence that shows that healthcare-specific good control practices are routinely implemented by employers who have employees in covered settings. This evidence includes. Readily available CDC control guidance documents, many of which are erectile dysfunction treatment specific. Regulations issued by the Centers for Medicare &.

Medicaid Services (CMS), compliance with which is typically required for accreditation of these settings by The Joint Commission. And the application of similar requirements in OSHA's Bloodborne Pathogens Standard, 29 CFR 1910.1030. OSHA's assessment also analyzed the technological feasibility of complying with the requirements of the ETS for developing a erectile dysfunction treatment Plan. Maintaining physical distancing. Installing physical barriers.

And ensuring existing ventilation systems are operating as designed. As noted, the ETS requires employers to develop and implement a erectile dysfunction treatment plan through a multilayered approach to addressing the spread of erectile dysfunction treatment by taking feasible measures to reduce or eliminate the transmission of erectile dysfunction treatment. This includes requirements for employers to implement procedures to ensure employees maintain at least 6 feet of physical distancing from others to the extent feasible and, when distancing is not feasible, to install physical barriers, again to the extent feasible. It also allows flexibility in the material of barriers. OSHA recognizes that sometimes it may not be feasible to implement either physical distancing or physical barriers for particular work activities, but even if this is the case, employers must still protect their employees through the other provisions of the flexible multilayered approach required by the ETS.

The regulatory text allows for alternatives in some situations, and OSHA has identified a variety of alternatives that it believes would be technologically feasible in those situations most of the time. As explained, there are no technological feasibility barriers related to compliance with requirements in the ETS for facemasks and respirators, cleaning and dis, health screening and medical management, or employee notification. Based on the combination of OSHA's evaluation of technological feasibility of controls in the various scenarios examined, OSHA finds that the ETS is technologically feasible. References Akhtar, J et al., (2020, December 22). Can face masks offer protection from airborne sneeze and cough droplets in close-up, face-to-face human interactions?.

€”A quantitative study. American Institute of Physics 32. 127112. Https://Start Printed Page 32482aip.scitation.org/​doi/​10.1063/​5.0035072. (Akhtar et al., December 22, 2020).

American Health Care Association (AHCA) and National Center for Assisted Living (NCAL). (2020, April 21). Steps to Limit erectile dysfunction treatment Spread and Outbreaks in Long Term Care. Https://www.ahcancal.org/​Survey-Regulatory-Legal/​Emergency-Preparedness/​Documents/​erectile dysfunction treatment19/​When-erectile dysfunction treatment-Gets-In.pdf. (AHCA and NCAL, April 21, 2020).

American Society for Health Care Engineering (ASHE). (2020, December 23). erectile dysfunction treatment Resources for Health Care Facilities. Https://www.ashe.org/​erectile dysfunction treatment19resources. (ASHE, December 23, 2020).

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). (2017). ASHRAE Standard 170 Ventilation of Health Care Facilities. (ASHRAE, 2017). American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE).

(2017, October 31). Standard 111 Measurement, Testing, Adjusting, and Balancing of Building HVAC Systems. (ASHRAE, October 31, 2017). American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). (2018, June 11).

Standard 180-2018 Standard Practice for Inspection and Maintenance of Commercial Building HVAC Systems. ANSI/ASHRAE/ACCA Standard 180-2018. (ASHRAE, June 11, 2018). American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). (2020, October 5).

Guidance for Re-Opening Buildings. Https://www.ashrae.org/​technical-resources/​resources. (ASHRAE, October 5, 2020). Cambridge Health Alliance. (2021).

erectile dysfunction treatment Alerts. Https://www.challiance.org/​patients-visitors/​erectile dysfunction treatment-alerts. (Cambridge Health Alliance, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2016, September).

Guide to Prevention for Outpatient Settings. Minimum Expectations for Safe Care. Https://www.cdc.gov/​control/​pdf/​outpatient/​guide.pdf. (CDC, September 2016). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

(2018, December 27). Core Prevention and Control Practices for Safe Healthcare Delivery in All Settings—Recommendations of the Healthcare Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). Https://www.cdc.gov/​hicpac/​recommendations/​core-practices.html. (CDC, December 27, 2018). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

(2019,October 28). Control in Healthcare Personnel, Infrastructure and Routine Practices for Occupational Prevention and Control Services. Https://www.cdc.gov/​control/​guidelines/​healthcare-personnel/​index.html. (CDC, October 28, 2019). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

(2020, April 10). Interim Control Guidance for Public Health Personnel Evaluating Persons Under Investigation (PUIs) and Asymptomatic Close Contacts of Confirmed Cases at Their Home or Non-Home Residential Settings. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​php/​guidance-evaluating-pui.html. (CDC, April 10, 2020). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

(2020, April 24). Considerations for Alternate Care Sites, Prevention and Control Considerations for Alternate Care Sites. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​hcp/​alternative-care-sites.html. (CDC, April 24, 2020). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

(2020, April 28). Summary of Prevention Practices in Dental Settings. Basic Expectations for Safe Care. Https://www.cdc.gov/​oralhealth/​control/​summary--prevention-practices/​index.html. (CDC, April 28, 2020).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2020, April 29). Guidance for Blood and Plasma Facilities, Interim Control Guidance on erectile dysfunction treatment for Personnel at Blood and Plasma Collection Facilities. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​hcp/​blood-and-plasma-collection.html. (CDC, April 29, 2020).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2020, May 12). Considerations for Memory Care Units in Long-term Care Facilities. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​hcp/​memory-care.html.(CDC, May 12, 2020). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

(2020, May 17). Hand Hygiene Recommendations, Guidance for Healthcare Providers about Hand Hygiene and erectile dysfunction treatment. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​hcp/​hand-hygiene.html. (CDC, May 17, 2020). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

(2020, May 28). Nursing Homes and Assisted Living (Long-Term Care Facilities [LTCFs]) Prevention Tools. Https://www.cdc.gov/​longtermcare/​prevention/​index.html. (CDC, May 28, 2020). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

(2020, May 29). Considerations for Preventing Spread of erectile dysfunction treatment in Assisted Living Facilities. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​hcp/​assisted-living.html. (CDC, May 29, 2020). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

(2020, June 10). Using Telehealth to Expand Access to Essential Health Services during the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​hcp/​telehealth.html. (CDC, June 10, 2020). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

(2020, July 15). Interim Recommendations for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Systems and 911 Public Safety Answering Points/Emergency Communication Centers (PSAP/ECCs) in the United States During the erectile dysfunction Disease (erectile dysfunction treatment) viagra. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​hcp/​guidance-for-ems.html. (CDC, July 15, 2020). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

(2020, August 19). Using Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​hcp/​using-ppe.html. (CDC, August 19, 2020). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

(2020, October 16). Interim Guidance for Implementing Home Care of People Not Requiring Hospitalization for erectile dysfunction Disease 2019 (erectile dysfunction treatment). Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​hcp/​guidance-home-care.html. (CDC, October 16, 2020). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

(2020, November 6). What Firefighters and EMS Providers Need to Know about erectile dysfunction treatment. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​community/​organizations/​firefighter-EMS.html. (CDC, November 6, 2020). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

(2020, November 10). What do funeral home workers need to know about handling decedents who had erectile dysfunction treatment?. https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​community/​funeral-faqs.html. (CDC, November 10, 2020). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

(2020, November 13). Guidance for Pharmacies, Guidance for Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians in Community Pharmacies during the erectile dysfunction treatment Response. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​hcp/​pharmacies.html. (CDC, November 13, 2020). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

(2020, December 2). Collection and Submission of Postmortem Specimens from Deceased Persons with Confirmed or Suspected erectile dysfunction treatment, Postmortem Guidance. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​hcp/​guidance-postmortem-specimens.html. (CDC, December 2, 2020). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

(2020, December 4). Guidance for Dental Settings. Interim Prevention and Control Guidance for Dental Settings During the erectile dysfunction Disease 2019 (erectile dysfunction treatment) viagra. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​hcp/​dental-settings.html. (CDC, December 4, 2020).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).(2020, December 16). Guidance for Direct Service Providers. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​hcp/​direct-service-providers.html. (CDC, December 16, 2020). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

(2020, December 17). Interim Additional Guidance for Prevention and Control Recommendations for Patients with Suspected or Confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment in Outpatient Hemodialysis Facilities. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​hcp/​dialysis.html. (CDC, December 17, 2020).Start Printed Page 32483 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021a, February 16).

Implementation of Mitigation Strategies for Communities with Local erectile dysfunction treatment Transmission. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​community/​community-mitigation.html. (CDC, February 16, 2021a). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021b, February 16).

Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed erectile dysfunction Disease (erectile dysfunction treatment). Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​hcp/​clinical-guidance-management-patients.html. (CDC, February 16, 2021b). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, February 23).

Interim Prevention and Control Recommendations for Healthcare Personnel During the erectile dysfunction Disease 2019 (erectile dysfunction treatment) viagra. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​-control/​control-recommendations.html. (CDC, February 23, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, March 8).

Interim Guidance for Businesses and Employers Responding to erectile dysfunction Disease (erectile dysfunction treatment). Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​community/​guidance-business-response.html. (CDC, March 8, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, March 11).

Interim U.S. Guidance for Risk Assessment and Work Restrictions for Healthcare Personnel with Potential Exposure to erectile dysfunction treatment. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​hcp/​guidance-risk-assesment-hcp.html. (CDC, March 11, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

(2021, March 16). Prevention and Control Assessment Tool for Nursing Homes Preparing for erectile dysfunction treatment. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​hcp/​assessment-tool-for-nursing-homes.html. (CDC, March 16, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

(2021, March 17). Healthcare Facilities. Managing Operations During the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​healthcare-facilities/​guidance-hcf.html. (CDC, March 17, 2021).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, March 23). Ventilation in Buildings. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​community/​ventilation.html. (CDC, March 23, 2021).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, March 29). Interim Prevention and Control Recommendations to Prevent erectile dysfunction Spread in Nursing Homes. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​hcp/​long-term-care.html. (CDC, March 29, 2021).

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, April 2). Post treatment Considerations for Healthcare Personnel, Prevention and Control Considerations for Healthcare Personnel with Systemic Signs and Symptoms Following erectile dysfunction treatment Vaccination. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​hcp/​post-treatment-considerations-healthcare-personnel.html. (CDC, April 2, 2021).

Dignity Healthcare. (2021). erectile dysfunction (erectile dysfunction treatment) Resources. Https://www.dignityhealth.org/​erectile dysfunction-disease-2019. (Dignity Healthcare, 2021).

Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG). (2021, February 9). erectile dysfunction treatment Plans by NAICS. (ERG, February 9, 2021).

Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG). (2021, February 25). Physical Distancing Scenarios. (ERG, February 25, 2021).

Garner, J. (1996). Guideline for isolation precautions in hospitals. The Hospital Control Practices Advisory Committee. Control and Hospital Epidemiology 17(1).

53-80. Https://doi.org/​10.1086/​647190. (Garner, 1996). HCA Healthcare. (2021).

Our erectile dysfunction treatment response. Https://hcahealthcare.com/​erectile dysfunction treatment/​index.dot. (HCA Healthcare, 2021). The Joint Commission. (2021a).

About our Standards. Https://www.jointcommission.org/​standards/​about-our-standards/​. (The Joint Commission, 2021a). The Joint Commission. (2021b).

Facts about the Joint Commission. Https://www.jointcommission.org/​about-us/​facts-about-the-joint-commission/​. (The Joint Commission, 2021b). The Joint Commission. (2021c).

Accreditation and Certification. Https://www.jointcommission.org/​accreditation-and-certification/​. (The Joint Commission, 2021c). Johns Hopkins Medicine. (2021).

erectile dysfunction (erectile dysfunction treatment) Information and Updates. erectile dysfunction treatment Testing and Care. Https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/​erectile dysfunction/​testing-and-care.html. (Johns Hopkins Medicine, 2021). MedStar Health.

(2021, May 5). Information from MedStar Health on erectile dysfunction treatment. Https://www.medstarhealth.org/​mhs/​about-medstar/​erectile dysfunction treatment-info/​. (MedStar, May 5, 2021). Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan (Michigan Medicine U-M).

(2021, May 18). U-M erectile dysfunction treatment Preparedness and Response Plan. Https://ehs.umich.edu/​wp-content/​uploads/​2020/​05/​UM-erectile dysfunction treatment-Preparedness-and-Response-Plan.pdf. (Michigan Medicine U-M, May 18, 2021). Miller, J et al., (2012, January 6).Guidelines for Safe Work Practices in Human and Animal Medical Diagnostic Laboratories.

MMWR 2012. 61(01). 1-101. Https://www.cdc.gov/​mmwr/​preview/​mmwrhtml/​su6101a1.htm. (Miller et al., January 6, 2012).

National Association for Home Care &. Hospice (NAHC). (2020, March 3). Guide for Household Members, Intimate Partners, and Caregivers. Https://www.nahc.org/​wp-content/​uploads/​2020/​03/​erectile dysfunction-Caregiver-Guide-Customizable.docx.

(NAHC, March 3, 2020). New Mexico EMT Association (NMEMTA). (2020, March 29). erectile dysfunction Guidelines. Http://www.nmemta.org/​erectile dysfunctionGuideline03-29-2020.pdf.

(NMEMTA, March 29, 2020). Rusnak, J et al., (2004, September). Laboratory exposures to staphylococcal enterotoxin B. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 10(9). 1544-1549.

Https://doi.org/​10.3201/​eid1009.040250. (Rusnak et al., September 2004). Santa Clara Valley Medical Center (SCVMC). (2020, December 1). erectile dysfunction treatment Exposure, Risk Assessment, Contact Tracing, Testing, and Return to Work Guidelines for Healthcare Workers (HCWs).

Https://www.scvmc.org/​erectile dysfunction treatment19/​Employee/​12012020%20erectile dysfunction treatment%20Exposure%20Policy.pdf. (SCVMC, December 1, 2020). Siegel, J, Rhinehart, E, Jackson, M, Chiarello, L, and the Healthcare Control Practices Advisory Committee. (2007). 2007 Guideline for isolation precautions.

Preventing transmission of infectious agents in healthcare settings. Https://www.cdc.gov/​control/​pdf/​guidelines/​isolation-guidelines-H.pdf. (Siegel et al., 2007). World Health Organization (WHO). (2016).

Guidelines on Core Components of Prevention and Control Programmes at the National and Acute Health Care Facility Level. (WHO, 2016). B. Economic Feasibility I. Introduction This section presents OSHA's estimates of the costs, benefits, and other impacts anticipated to result from the ETS.

The estimated costs are based on employers achieving full compliance with the requirements of the ETS. They do not include prior costs associated with firms whose current practices are already in compliance with the ETS requirements. The purpose of this analysis is to. Identify the establishments and industries affected by the ETS. Estimate and evaluate the costs and economic impacts that regulated establishments will incur to achieve compliance with the ETS.

Evaluate the economic feasibility of the rule for affected industries. And Estimate the benefits resulting from employers coming into compliance with the rule in terms of the reduction in erectile dysfunction treatment disease and resulting fatalities. In this analysis, OSHA is fulfilling the requirement under the OSH Act to show the economic feasibility of this ETS. This analysis is different from a benefit-cost analysis prepared in accordance with E.O. 12866 in that the agency is focused only on costs to employers when evaluating economic feasibility.

In a true benefit-cost analysis, the costs to all parties (e.g., employees, Start Printed Page 32484governments) are included. Throughout this analysis, there are places where OSHA estimates there are no costs borne by employers. This does not necessarily mean that there are no costs or burdens imposed on others but, from the standpoint of establishing feasibility, these are not being assessed as part of OSHA's analysis of economic feasibility.[] A standard must be economically feasible in order to be “necessary” under section 6(c)(1)(B) of the OSH Act. Cf. Am.

Textile Mfrs. Inst., Inc. V. Donovan, 452 U.S. 490, 513 n.

31 (1981) (Cotton Dust) (“any standard that was not economically. . . Feasible would a fortiori not be `reasonably necessary or appropriate' under the Act”). Nat'l Maritime Safety Ass'n v.

Occupational Safety &. Health Admin., 649 F.3d 743, 752 (D.C. Cir. 2011). A standard is economically feasible when industries can absorb or pass on the costs of compliance without threatening industry's long-term profitability or competitive structure, Cotton Dust, 452 U.S.

At 530 n. 55, or “threaten[ing] massive dislocation to, or imperil[ing] the existence of, the industry.” United Steelworkers of Am. V. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1272 (D.C. Cir.

1981) (Lead I). Given that section 6(c) is aimed at enabling OSHA to protect workers in emergency situations, the agency is not required to make the showing with the same rigor as in ordinary section 6(b) rulemaking. Asbestos Info. Ass'n/N. Am.

V. OSHA, 727 F.2d 415, 424 n.18 (5th Cir. 1984). In Asbestos Information Association, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the costs of compliance were not unreasonable to address a grave danger where the costs of the ETS did not exceed 7.2% of revenues in any affected industry. Id.

At 424. OSHA's evaluation of the overall costs and benefits of the ETS has been performed for the purposes of complying with requirements outside of the OSH Act (e.g., Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act). €œ[T]he Supreme Court has conclusively ruled that economic feasibility [under the OSH Act] does not involve a cost-benefit analysis.” Pub. Citizen Health Research Grp. V.

U.S. Dept. Of Labor, 557 F.3d 165, 177 (3d Cir. 2009). See also Asbestos Info.

Ass'n, 727 F.2d at 424 n.18 (noting that formal cost benefit is not required for an ETS, and indeed may be impossible in an emergency). The OSH Act “place[s] the `benefit' of worker health above all other considerations save those making attainment of this `benefit' unachievable.” Cotton Dust, 452 U.S. At 509. Therefore, “[a]ny standard based on a balancing of costs and benefits by the Secretary that strikes a different balance than that struck by Congress would be inconsistent with the command set forth in” the statute. Id.

While this case law arose with respect to health standards issued under section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which specifically require feasibility, OSHA finds the same concerns applicable to emergency temporary standards issued under section 6(c) of the Act. An ETS “serve[s] as a proposed rule” for a section 6(b)(5) standard, and therefore the same limits on any requirement for cost-benefit analysis should apply. Indeed, OSHA has also rejected the use of formal cost benefit analysis for safety standards, which are not governed by section 6(b)(5). See 58 FR 16612, 16622-23 (Mar. 30, 1993) (“in OSHA's judgment, its statutory mandate to achieve safe and healthful workplaces for the nation's employees limits the role monetization of benefits and analysis of extra-workplace effects can play in setting safety standards.”).[] The scope of judicial review of OSHA's determinations regarding feasibility (both technological and economic) “is narrowly circumscribed.” N.

Am.'s Bldg. Trades Unions v. OSHA, 878 F.3d 271, 296 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (Silica).

€œOSHA is not required to prove economic feasibility with certainty, but is required to use the best available evidence and to support its conclusions with substantial evidence.” Amer. Iron &. Steel Inst. V. OSHA, 939 F.2d 975, 980-81 (D.C.

Cir. 1991) (Lead II). 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(5), (f). €œCourts, [moreover], `cannot expect hard and precise estimates of costs.' ” Silica, 878 F.3d at 296 (quoting Lead II, 939 F.2d at 1006).

Rather, OSHA's estimates must represent “a reasonable assessment of the likely range of costs of its standard, and the likely effects of those costs on the industry.” Lead I, 647 F.2d at 1266. The “mere `possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence,' or deriving two divergent cost models from the data `does not prevent [the] agency's finding from being supported by substantial evidence.' ” Silica, 878 F.3d at 296 (quoting Cotton Dust, 452 U.S. At 523). Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of the intended regulation and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, and public health and safety effects. Distributive impacts.

And equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasized the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. OSHA has prepared this ETS and the accompanying economic analysis on an extremely condensed timeline and has complied with E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 only to the extent practicable under the circumstances (see Exec.

Order No. 13999, Jan. 21, 2021, 86 FR 7211 (Jan. 26, 2021)). This rule is an economically significant regulatory action under Sec.

3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and has been reviewed by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget, as required by executive order. II. Healthcare Industry Profile a. Introduction In this section, OSHA provides estimates of the number of affected entities, establishments, and employees for the industries that have settings covered by 29 CFR 1910.502. The term “entity” describes a legal for-profit business, a non-profit organization, or a local governmental unit, whereas the term “establishment” describes a particular physical site of economic activity.

Some entities own and operate more than one establishment. Throughout this analysis, where estimates were derived from available data those sources have been noted in the text. Estimates without sources noted in the text are based on agency expertise. B. Scope of the ETS The ETS applies to all settings where any employee provides healthcare or healthcare support services except.

The provision of first aid by an employee who is not a licensed healthcare provider. The dispensing of prescriptions by pharmacists in retail settings. Non-hospital ambulatory care settings where all non-employees are screened prior to entry and people with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment are not permitted to enter those settings;Start Printed Page 32485 well-defined hospital ambulatory care settings where all employees are fully vaccinated and all non-employees are screened prior to entry and people with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment are not permitted to enter those settings. Home healthcare settings where all employees are fully vaccinated and all non-employees are screened prior to entry and people with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment are not present. Healthcare support services not performed in a healthcare setting (e.g., off-site laundry, off-site medical billing).

Or telehealth services performed outside of a setting where direct patient care occurs. In well-defined areas of covered settings where there is no reasonable expectation that any person with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment will be present, paragraphs (f), (h), and (i) do not apply to employees who are fully vaccinated. Healthcare services are delivered through various means including, but not limited to. Hospitalization, long-term care, ambulatory care (e.g., treatment in physicians' offices, dentists' offices, and medical clinics), home health and hospice care, and emergency medical response. Healthcare support services include, but are not limited to, patient intake/admission, patient food services, equipment and facility maintenance, housekeeping, healthcare laundry services, medical waste handling services, and medical equipment cleaning/reprocessing services.

In order to determine which employers are covered by the ETS, OSHA identified both the occupations where workers would be providing healthcare and healthcare support services and the setting where those tasks would be done. For example, a social worker in a hospital may be working in conjunction with healthcare providers and therefore providing healthcare or healthcare support services. However, a social worker working for a children and family services or social advocacy organization would not be covered by the ETS since neither they nor anyone else at their organization would be providing healthcare or healthcare support services. OSHA's methodology for determining which establishments and employees are covered by the ETS focuses on job tasks and settings. OSHA did not assign costs to certain categories of job tasks because they are excluded from the scope of the ETS by paragraph (a).

These include. Employees who are teleworking. Employees who are providing services via telehealth. Employees providing healthcare support services at off-site locations. Employees who are in uncovered portions of settings (e.g., retail stores with health clinics, schools with school nurses) that are not fully covered by the ETS.

And employees who work in parts of hospitals that would meet the ambulatory care exemption in paragraph (a)(2)(iv). Numerous employees of hospitals, long-term care facilities, and nursing homes are likely to fall into one of these categories. While these workers are included in Table VI.B.3 as employees of covered establishments, OSHA has not assigned employee-based costs to their employers in this analysis. Furthermore, OSHA has not determined how many non-hospital ambulatory care providers will screen patients for erectile dysfunction treatment s and symptoms, and therefore be fully exempt from this rule under paragraph (a)(2)(iii). To the extent that providers meet these exemption criteria, they will incur no costs for compliance with respect to these settings.

Therefore, for this subset of establishments, the costs presented in OSHA's analysis will be dramatic overestimates (i.e., OSHA assumes full costs where costs should be zero). Overall, however, OSHA believes that the number of workers estimated to be covered by the ETS is reasonable and leads to reasonable aggregate estimates of the average costs of compliance for employers in covered settings. Table VI.B.1 summarizes the individual North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes, along with OSHA's estimated percentage of entities and employees, covered by the ETS. The percentage of entities covered were generally estimated as the percentage of firms reporting having employees whose occupation would have them providing healthcare and healthcare support services (see Appendix VI.B.A). In some healthcare industries (e.g., many of those in NAICS 62 Health Care and Social Assistance), 100 percent of entities are estimated to be affected, but for industries outside of the healthcare sector, no more than 25 percent of entities were estimated to be covered by the ETS.

The percent of employees covered by the ETS in covered, non-healthcare entities is estimated based on the percentage of employees in those industries who are reported to be employed in the occupation categories identified in Appendix VI.B.A. Start Printed Page 32486 Only some state- and local-government entities are included in this analysis. State- and local-government entities are specifically excluded from coverage under the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 652(5)). Workers employed by these entities only have OSH Act protections if they work in states that have an OSHA-approved State Plan.

(29 U.S.C. 667). Consequently, this analysis excludes public entities in states that do not have OSHA-approved State Plans. Start Printed Page 32487Table VI.B.2 presents the states that have OSHA-approved State Plans and their public entities are included in the analysis. c.

Affected Entities and Employees OSHA used data from the U.S. Census' 2017 County Business Patterns (CBP) to identify private sector entities and employees, including for-profit and non-profit entities affected by the ETS (U.S. Census Bureau, November 21, 2019, U.S. Census Bureau, March, 2020). And uses the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) 2017 Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) to characterize state and local government entities (BLS, May 23, 2018).

For covered public fire departments and firefighters cross-trained as EMTs, OSHA relied on data from the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) National Fire Department Registry (USFA, 2018). OSHA similarly obtained estimates of the number of employees in entities from CBP and QCEW. OSHA used the BLS 2018 Occupational Employment Statistics (OES), which provides NAICS-specific estimates of employment by occupation, to determine the subset of employees performing the tasks outlined in the scope of the ETS (BLS, March 29, 2019). Within the affected NAICS industries, OES includes approximately 700 unique occupations.

Of these, OSHA identified 90 occupations representing jobs where workers would perform healthcare or healthcare support services (see Appendix VI.B.A). OSHA then calculated the proportion of total employees that these occupations represented for the NAICS industries that reported employing these occupations in OES data, and applied those proportions to the CBP and QCEW employee estimates for the covered entities. This results in an estimate of the subset of employees by NAICS industry where workers are covered by the ETS. For many regulatory economic analyses, the agency uses the most up-to-date economic data as its baseline to describe the current state of the economy. It then applies the anticipated changes due to the new OSHA standard or regulation to that baseline.

However, even the most current data OSHA uses in a typical economic analysis—including employment, number of establishments, revenue, etc.—represent economic conditions from at least one calendar year in the past. Even with that lag in the data due to reporting and compilation time, the idea is that the basic structure of the economy changes slowly, so the recent past is a good predictor of the near future. Given the unique circumstances of the viagra and its economic disruption, OSHA's usual approach is inappropriate for the present analysis. The agency has therefore also made adjustments to the baseline industry profile to account for the economic conditions that are expected to persist during the time period in which this ETS will be in effect. Specifically, OSHA takes the above data as the baseline for 2019, the last full year before the onset of the viagra.[] Then the agency adjusted employment and revenue by industry in order to capture the current adverse conditions and provide better estimates of employment and revenue both currently and over the period in which the ETS will be in effect.

The detailed methodology for these adjustments is presented in Appendix VI.B.D. Table VI.B.3 summarizes the entities and employees covered by the ETS. OSHA estimates a total of approximately 563,000 entities, including approximately 749,000 establishments, and approximately 18.1 million total employees who are employed by establishments covered by the ETS. All affected establishments are assumed to incur the establishment-based costs of compliance. In addition, OSHA estimates that there are approximately 10.3 million employees in those establishments who would not meet any of the exemptions in paragraph (a) and whose employers would therefore incur per-employee costs of compliance as well.

However, as shown in Table VI.B.3, the portion of employees for whom OSHA took per-employee costs varies considerably by NAICS industry. Start Printed Page 32488 d. Affected Small Entities and Employees While OSHA has determined that it is impracticable to comply fully with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (see Additional Requirements, Section VII of the preamble), the agency has nevertheless examined the impact of the ETS on small and very small entities as part of OSHA's analysis of feasibility. There are three types of small entities under the Start Printed Page 32489RFA. (1) Small businesses.

(2) small non-profit organizations. And (3) small governmental jurisdictions. The Small Business Administration (SBA) uses characteristics of businesses classified using the NAICS as a basis for determining whether businesses are small within a given industry. SBA small entity size criteria vary by industry, but are usually based on either number of employees or revenue (Table of Small Business Size Standards (SBA, August 19, 2019)). A small non-profit organization is any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field.

A small governmental jurisdiction is a government of a city, county, town, township, village, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000. To determine the number of private SBA-defined small entities, OSHA relies on 2017 CBP data, which report total revenues by entity and employment size. For those industries with a revenue criterion, OSHA calculated the average revenue for each employment size class in the Census data and identified the largest size class where average revenue is less than the SBA-defined small entity threshold. For those industries with employment criterion, OSHA calculated the average employees per entity by employment size class and included all entities below the SBA threshold. To estimate the subset of local government entities that are small, OSHA uses additional QCEW data that are specified geographically by county at the 4-digit NAICS level along with 2017 county-level population data from the U.S.

Census Bureau's (December 6, 2018) American Community Survey. Using these data, OSHA estimates the percentage of local government entities, by county, that are small local governments (i.e., in counties with a population less than 50,000), for each affected setting. OSHA then applies these proportions to the prior national estimates of all local government entities, by NAICS industry. The RFA's definition of small nonprofits is those not “dominant in their field.” As OSHA customarily does, it assumes all nonprofits are small based on this definition.[] Start Printed Page 32490 Lastly, Table VI.B.5 presents estimates for very small entities (those with fewer than 20 employees) affected by the ETS. OSHA estimates that the ETS affects approximately 472,000 very small entities, employing approximately 2.2 Start Printed Page 32491million workers.

Of those, approximately 1.2 million are estimated to be workers who are in scope and covered by the ETS. Start Printed Page 32492 e. Summary of Affected Firms, Establishments, and Employees by NAICS Industry and Setting Table VI.B.6 presents a summary of the number of affected entities, establishments, and employees by NAICS industry and setting. The cost estimates presented in this analysis rely on assumptions that are specific to the type of services provided in various healthcare settings in each affected NAICS industry. Table VI.B.6 provides the mapping between the affected NAICS industries and their typical setting based on the type of services provided.

Start Printed Page 32493 Start Printed Page 32494 Start Printed Page 32495 III. Cost Analysis for the erectile dysfunction treatment ETS In this section, OSHA provides estimates of the per-establishment costs for the requirements of the ETS. Section 6(c)(3) of the OSH Act states that the Secretary will publish a final standard “no later than six months after publication of the emergency standard.” Costs are therefore estimated over a six-month time period. However, during that period, to the extent OSHA finds that a grave danger from the viagra no longer exists for the covered workforce (or some portion thereof), or new information indicates a change in measures necessary to address the grave danger, OSHA will update the ETS, as appropriate. In developing the cost estimates, OSHA estimates that some establishments are already following at least some of the ETS's requirements.

The extent to which firms are already meeting the requirements of this ETS is estimated based, in part, on data presented in ERG (August 9, 2013), the infectious disease expert panel report prepared for OSHA. Because the expert panel was conducted pre-viagra, OSHA determined that some compliance rates were likely too low given the heightened awareness of control practices, the amount of time since the viagra started, and, especially, the outbreaks in healthcare settings and recognition of the importance of control measures for protecting workers and patients. In those limited circumstances, OSHA constrained compliance to be no less than 75 percent for large and SBA-defined small entities and 50 percent for very small entities. Where establishments are already meeting ETS requirements, those costs are not attributable to the ETS. Throughout this analysis, where OSHA provides no other estimate, the agency assumes baseline compliance rates of 50 percent for very small entities and 75 percent for all other entities.[] OSHA recognizes that the estimated compliance rates are somewhat imprecise, but they are intended to reflect the relatively widespread adoption by employers of some of the practices required by the ETS in response to state OSHA standards, state and local government ordinances, and CDC, OSHA or other guidance.

Exceptions to the 50 percent/75 percent compliance rates have been made for a few requirements that are highly specific to OSHA's ETS (like recordkeeping requirements, rule familiarization, and paid medical removal). While it is likely that levels of current compliance vary among the elements of this ETS, OSHA lacks data to make such specific determinations for each provision in the limited time available under these emergency circumstances. OSHA examined the impact of lower levels of baseline compliance on costs in a sensitivity analysis (see section VI.B.III.q). Despite this estimated baseline compliance, employer compliance is not so widespread, nor does it incorporate enough of the practices required by this ETS, as to render this ETS unnecessary. As discussed in Section V.

Need for Specific Provisions of the ETS, OSHA emphasizes that each of the control practices required by the ETS provides some protection from erectile dysfunction treatment by itself, but the controls work best when used together, layering their protective impact to boost overall effectiveness. The “Swiss Cheese Model of Accident Causation” (Reason, April 12, 1990) argues that each control has certain weaknesses or “holes.” The “holes” differ between different controls. By stacking several controls with different weaknesses on top of one another, the “holes” are blocked by the strengths of the other controls. In other words, if the controls are layered, then any unexpected failure of a single control is protected against by the strengths of other controls. This model also demonstrates the necessity for high levels of compliance with all requirements of this ETS, since failure to follow the requirements may leave the “holes” exposed and lead to an increased risk of disease transmission in the workplace.

It should be noted that this analysis deals strictly with averages and estimates. For any given establishment, actual costs may be higher or lower than the point estimate shown here, but using an average allows OSHA to evaluate feasibility by industry as required by the OSH Act. In addition, OSHA has limited data on many of the parameters needed in this analysis and has estimated them based on the available data, estimates for similar requirements for other OSHA standards, consultation with experts in other government agencies, and internal agency judgment where necessary. OSHA's estimates are therefore based on the best evidence available to the agency at the time this analysis of costs and feasibility was performed. Many ETS requirements result in labor burdens that are monetized using the labor rates described in Section VI.B.III.a OSHA differentiates per-establishment burden by establishment size for large, SBA-defined small, and very small entities with fewer than 20 employees (which are a subset of SBA-defined small entities).

In doing so, OSHA accounts for the fact that, in most industries, a substantial portion of the SBA-defined small entity population is also very small. In most cases, OSHA assigned different unit cost burdens to entities with fewer than 20 employees and to other SBA-defined small entities (with 20 or more employees). Both of these groups are combined when calculating average costs for all SBA-defined small entities. OSHA estimates that approximately 563,000 entities have employees who provide healthcare and healthcare support services and would be subject to the requirements of the ETS, including approximately 749,000 establishments, and 10.3 million employees (see Table VI.B.3). Section VI.B.III.a describes the wage rates used to estimate the labor costs incurred by affected entities.

Sections VI.B.III.b through VI.B.III.o present the estimated costs for each of the requirements of the ETS. Finally, section VI.B.III.p summarizes the total per-establishment costs and total costs of the ETS. A. Wage Rates OSHA estimated occupation-specific wage rates from BLS 2018 Occupational Employment Statistics data (BLS, March 29, 2019). For each affected NAICS industry, OSHA used the BLS (March 29, 2019) data to estimate the average wages across the workers in the affected Start Printed Page 32496occupations listed in Appendix VI.B.A.

OSHA estimated loaded wages using a fringe benefit rate of 44.4 percent, the average rate for all civilian workers in the healthcare and social assistance industries in the BLS (December 14, 2018) Employer Costs for Employee Compensation data, as well as OSHA's standard estimate for overhead of 17 percent times the base wage. The loaded wage rate averages by NAICS industry and setting are presented in Appendix VI.B.B. In addition to the wages of the healthcare providers and employees in other covered occupations in the affected NAICS industries, the cost analysis also uses an estimated wage rate for occupational health specialists, training development specialists, and a blended wage rate that reflects the mix of doctors and nurse practitioners. b. Rule Familiarization and erectile dysfunction treatment Plan ETS Requirements—Under § 1910.502(c).

The employer must develop, implement, and update a erectile dysfunction treatment plan that addresses the hazards identified in the hazard assessment required by this paragraph. The erectile dysfunction treatment plan must include policies and procedures that minimize the risk of transmission of erectile dysfunction treatment for each employee. This provision also requires employers to coordinate and communicate with other employers at sites with multiple employers in order to ensure that each employee is protected. Employers must have policies and procedures to ensure that employees who enter into private residences or other physical locations controlled by those not covered by the OSH Act are protected. Non-managerial employees must be given the opportunity to provide input into the hazard assessment and the erectile dysfunction treatment plan.

The plan must be written if the employer has more than 10 employees. In order for an employer to be exempt from providing certain controls for fully-vaccinated employees in a well-defined area of a workplace where there is no reasonable expectation that any person with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment will be present, the erectile dysfunction treatment plan must include policies and procedures to determine employees' vaccination status. This section of the feasibility analysis presents the estimated costs for developing the plan, while the costs of implementing the plan are presented in the subsequent sections (VI.B.III.c through VI.B.III.o) of this report.[] Cost Analysis Assumptions As part of the Infectious Diseases Small Business Advisory Review (SBAR) Panel, OSHA estimated that the development of a full Worker Control Plan (WICP) that included written standard operating procedures for all infectious disease transmission routes would take between 20 and 40 hours to develop, depending on the setting (OSHA, 2014). For this ETS, which applies specifically to erectile dysfunction treatment, OSHA estimates that the written plan, including the hazard assessment, would take 25 percent of the time needed to develop a full WICP. The exception is hospitals, which are assumed to need 40 hours to develop their plans.

OSHA has not included additional time for employee participation and assumes that the time estimated to develop the erectile dysfunction treatment plan is extensive enough to account for this activity. In addition to the costs for developing the erectile dysfunction treatment plan, OSHA assumes that establishments with fewer than 20 employees will incur a labor burden of 1 hour for rule familiarization and larger establishments will incur a labor burden of 1.5 hours for rule familiarization. OSHA also assumes an additional recurring daily labor burden to monitor each workplace to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of the erectile dysfunction treatment plan. OSHA estimates this will take 10 minutes per day of labor per large establishment on average, with 5 minutes per day for SBA-defined small and very small entities. This burden is incurred daily, seven days a week,[] for six months.

OSHA notes that surveillance on the efficacy of an control plan is not a wholly new activity for healthcare settings (CDC, March 15, 2017). The Core Prevention and Control Practices for Safe Healthcare Delivery in All Settings from the Healthcare Control Practices Advisory Committee (the federal advisory committee appointed to provide advice and guidance to the Department of Health and Human Services and CDC regarding the practice of control in healthcare settings) includes performance monitoring as one of its core elements. Specifically, healthcare providers should “monitor adherence to control practices” and “monitor the incidence of s. . .

To detect transmission of infectious agents in the facility” (CDC, March 15, 2017). OSHA estimates that there will be some additional burden due to the requirements of this ETS, but that it would be a small amount of additional time added on to what is a regular activity that would be undertaken regardless of the ETS. As part of the planning and on-going monitoring, some employers will need to communicate with other employers whose employees are at the site (e.g., contractors, vendors) about the specifics of their plan and additional information as necessary on an on-going basis. OSHA estimates that hospitals, nursing homes, and other long-term care facilities will spend 30 minutes one time after the promulgation of this ETS Start Printed Page 32497to communicate with contractors and others regarding expectations for their activities under the requirements of this ETS. Additionally, OSHA estimates that hospitals, nursing homes, and other long-term care facilities will spend, on average, 15 minutes every week engaging in on-going communication with contractors under this provision.

Other settings are estimated to only rarely use contractors, and so their time burden is set to zero for both initial and on-going communication. The total cost for this communication for hospitals, long-term care facilities, and nursing homes is a product of. One-time labor burden (half an hour for applicable settings) plus the on-going labor burden (0.25 hours weekly for 26 weeks) Wage rate (NAICS-specific wages) Cost per Establishment, Rule Familiarization and erectile dysfunction treatment Plan Table VI.B.8 presents a summary of the per-establishment rule familiarization and erectile dysfunction treatment plan development, daily monitoring, and host employer communication time burdens and costs for all establishments. The baseline compliance estimates in Table VI.B.8 are based on the estimated compliance rates in ERG (August 9, 2013), the infectious disease expert panel report prepared for OSHA, and adjusted so that baseline compliance is no less than 50 percent for establishments with fewer than 20 employees and no less than 75 percent for larger establishments. The expert panel survey was done during non-viagra conditions, so OSHA assumes compliance may be higher in health care settings today.

See the introduction to this section for more discussion. OSHA assumes zero current compliance for rule familiarization. Table VI.B.9 presents the same costs as Table VI.B.8 by establishment size. Start Printed Page 32498 c. Patient Screening and Management ETS Requirements—Under § 1910.502(d) In settings where direct patient care is provided, employers must limit and monitor points of entry, screen and triage all non-employees entering the setting, and implement other applicable patient management strategies.

Cost Analysis Assumptions As noted in Summary and Explanation (Section VIII of the preamble), screening is a standard part of control practices. OSHA expects that healthcare settings will ask about erectile dysfunction treatment s and perform a quick check of existing symptoms or assessment for newly emerged symptoms that might suggest the presence of a erectile dysfunction treatment . This screening does not need to be a highly involved procedure and can be completed through verbal questions and answers. OSHA estimates the six-month incremental time burden per facility for screening and triaging non-employees for erectile dysfunction treatment illness and symptoms of erectile dysfunction treatment (for all establishments) as follows. General Hospitals.

An incremental burden of 385.1 hours is estimated based on a burden of 1 minute per patient each day for an average of 1 patient per employee [] and a baseline compliance rate of 81 percent. [385.1 = (1−0.81) * (666.3/60) * (365/2). Where 81% is the compliance rate, 666.3 is the number of patients (estimated as being equal to the average number of employees per establishment),[] 60 is the number of minutes in an hour (which allows OSHA to calculate the burden in hours per day), and 365/2 is the number of days of burden] Other Hospitals. An incremental burden of 60.4 hours is estimated based on a burden of 1 minute per patient each day for an average of 1 patient per employee 38 and a baseline compliance rate of 81 percent. [60.4 = (1−0.81) * (104.5/60) * (365/2).

Where 81% is the compliance rate, 104.5 is the number of patients (equal to the average number of employees per establishment), 60 is the number of minutes in an hour (which allows OSHA to calculate the burden in hours per day), and 365/2 is the number of days of burden] Nursing Homes. An incremental burden of 20.4 hours is estimated based on a burden of 1 minute per patient each day for an average of 32 patients per facility [] and a baseline compliance rate of 79 percent. [20.4 = (1−0.79) * (32/60) * (365/2). Where 79% is the compliance rate, 32 is the number of patients, 60 is the number of minutes in an hour (which allows OSHA to calculate the burden in hours per day), and 365/2 is the number of days of burden] Long Term Care (excluding nursing homes). An incremental burden of 14.7 hours is estimated based on a burden of 1 minute per patient each day for an average of 23 patients per facility40 and a baseline compliance rate of 79 percent.

[14.7 = (1−0.79) * (23/60) * (365/2). Where 79 percent is the compliance rate, 23 is the number of patients, 60 is the number of minutes in an hour (which allows OSHA to calculate the burden in hours per day), and 365/2 is the number of days of burden] Other Patient Care. An incremental burden of 39.9 hours is estimated as 30 minutes per day [] and a baseline compliance rate of 56 percent [39.9 = (1−0.56) * (30/60) * (365/2). Where 56 percent is the compliance rate, 30 is the minutes of burden per day, 60 is the number of minutes in an hour (which allows OSHA to calculate the burden in hours per day), and 365/2 is the number of days of burden] Correctional Facility Clinics. An incremental burden of 18.25 hours is estimated as 30 minutes per day and a baseline compliance rate of 80 percent [18.25 = (1−0.80) * (30/60) * (365/2).

Where 80 percent is the compliance rate, 30 is the minutes of burden per day, 60 is the number of minutes in an hour (which allows OSHA to calculate the burden in hours per day), and 365/2 is the number of days of burden] The baseline compliance estimates are based on ERG (August 9, 2013), the infectious disease expert panel report prepared for OSHA. As noted above, the rate of compliance with the patient screening and management requirements was estimated to be relatively high prior to the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra. It is possible that these compliance rates are even higher now, given the emphasis on screening for symptoms over the course of the viagra. However, while OSHA has estimated that those settings that were judged to have very low compliance pre-erectile dysfunction treatment are likely complying with screening requirements more thoroughly now, the agency has not adjusted those settings with higher rates of patient screening pre-erectile dysfunction treatment since the agency lacks data to make these adjustments. The estimated time spent to screen patients is based on the agency's evaluation of the time necessary to ask standard erectile dysfunction treatment screening questions.

Cost per Establishment, Patient Screening and Management Table VI.B.10 shows the average cost per establishment for patient screening and management by setting and size and incorporates the compliance rates as detailed above. Start Printed Page 32499 d. Standard and Transmission-Based Precautions ETS Requirements—Under § 1910.502(e) Employers must develop and implement policies and procedures that adhere to standard and transmission-based precautions. Cost Analysis Assumptions OSHA estimates that any time spent on the development of policies and procedures that are in accordance with standard and transmission-based precautions is included in the cost of developing the erectile dysfunction treatment plan discussed earlier. OSHA does not expect that employers will need to deviate significantly from existing practice to account for these precautions and practices, and any costs associated with following standard and transmission-based precautions are covered under the cost estimates for the other sections of this ETS (PPE, hygiene and cleaning, etc.).

Therefore, OSHA did not estimate the costs associated with compliance with this provision separately. E. Personal Protective Equipment ETS Requirements—Under § 1910.502(f) Employers are required to provide facemasks and ensure those facemasks are worn by each employee over the nose and mouth when indoors and when occupying a vehicle with other people for work purposes. Employers must ensure that each employee changes their facemask at least once per day, whenever the facemask is soiled or damaged, and more frequently as necessary (e.g., patient care reasons). Employers must provide respirators and other PPE for workers exposed to people with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment, for employees involved in aerosol-generating healthcare procedures on people with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment, and as necessary to comply with standard and transmission-based precautions under paragraph (e).

Required PPE includes gloves, an isolation gown or protective clothing, and eye protection. Cost Analysis Assumptions The total cost to establishments to provide PPE will vary based on the type of care provided in a facility and the number of encounters workers will have with patients during a given period. The cost of implementing this PPE provision will also vary by the number of employees and the number of patients that the facility sees, as well as by whether employees are working with people who are suspected or confirmed to have erectile dysfunction treatment. A small practice with few employees and low patient volume may have very low costs for PPE while a large hospital with hundreds of workers and patients on any given day will likely have much higher costs for PPE. For the purposes of estimating costs for this provision, OSHA is assuming that 25 percent of covered employees in hospitals and nursing homes (which corresponds roughly with the percent of covered workers estimated to work in areas of a hospital where patients with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment s would be seen) and three percent of in-scope employees in other covered settings (identified in section VI.B.II.b as being in the scope) will be provided with, and use, disposable N95 respirators.

These estimates are based on OSHA's best professional judgment. All other workers in covered settings are estimated to use two disposable facemasks (surgical masks) per shift. The general approach for estimating the total cost of PPE used by employees who have exposure to persons with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment involves the following steps. 1. Estimate the percentage of healthcare providers and employees providing healthcare or healthcare support services in each setting that will use each given type of PPE.

2. For each given type of PPE, estimate how many pieces of equipment an employee will use over six months (e.g., estimate that hospital workers need 1 N95 respirator per shift, work 3 shifts per week on average, so they will need 78 N95 respirators over 6 months). 3. Estimate the unit cost for each PPE item. And 4.

Calculate the product of (a) the number of covered employees, (b) the percent that will use a given type of PPE (step 1), (c) the number of items needed per affected worker over six months (step 2), and (d) the unit cost (step 3). Table VI.B.11 presents the estimated percentages of employees who will need the required PPE by setting. Start Printed Page 32500 Table VI.B.12 presents estimates for the units of PPE needed per employee shift for the employees using a given type of PPE. OSHA assumes that one N95 respirator and either one disposable face shield [] or protective eyewear will be used per shift. The estimated number of gowns and gloves needed per shift are based on estimates from Carias et al., (April 10, 2015) and Swaminathan et al., (October, 2007).

For general hospital, nursing homes, and long-term care facilities, OSHA estimates that employees work three twelve-hour shifts per week, or 78 shifts over six months. For other settings, OSHA estimates that employees work five eight-hour shifts per week, or 130 shifts over six months. Table VI.B.13 presents the total units of PPE per establishment that would need to be used over a six-month period, by setting and worker type. These estimates combine the numbers of covered workers by setting with the percentages presented in Table VI.B.11, the pieces of equipment needed from Table VI.B.12, and the number of shifts per worker that occur over 6 months, and were adjusted for baseline compliance (80 percent for general hospitals and nursing home respirator costs, 90 percent for all other PPE in general hospitals and nursing homes, and 72 percent for other settings). Start Printed Page 32501 Table VI.B.14 presents the estimated PPE unit costs.

Note that these unit costs reflect typical costs when there is not a PPE shortage. Cost per Establishment, Personal Protective Equipment The results from Table VI.B.14 and Table VI.B.13 are combined to estimate the per-establishment compliance costs of additional PPE presented in Table VI.B.15. Cost Analysis Assumptions, Respiratory Protection Program Under this section of the ETS, where employers are required to provide respirators, they must be provided and used in accordance with OSHA's Respiratory Protection standard (29 CFR 1910.134). Note that costs related to optional respirator use under the mini respiratory protection program (29 CFR 1910.504) are discussed in sections VI.B.IV and VI.B.V below but are included in the total average costs presented below in Table VI.B.20 below. OSHA estimates that 15 percent of nursing home employers and 50 percent of employers in NAICS 621111 Offices of Physicians who do not currently have a respirator program would either be required by the ETS to implement a respiratory protection program or would voluntarily determine that their employees need additional respiratory protection.[] Of those establishments, OSHA estimates that, at most, 25 percent would, as a result of the requirements in this ETS, need to establish a full program under § 1910.134 and the remainder would be able to take advantage of the mini respiratory protection program under § 1910.504 (see section VI.B.IV.b Scope of the Mini Respiratory Protection section of the ETS below for additional detail).

In establishments that already have a respirator program, OSHA estimates that the ETS will cause more employees to be wearing respirators and their employers will incur the additional costs related to medical evaluation, fit testing, and training for those employees. In this section, OSHA is evaluating the costs for program development, medical evaluation, fit testing, and training related to respiratory protection. As stated above, OSHA is estimating costs assuming that all affected employees will use disposable N95 respirators only.Start Printed Page 32502 Workers who need respiratory protection (i.e., those assumed to be using N95 respirators) will need to have a medical evaluation, fit testing, and training. These are one-time costs per affected worker. That is, total costs are simply calculated as the number of affected workers multiplied by the one-time per worker cost.

The estimated average numbers of workers per establishment affected by respiratory protection requirements under the ETS are presented below in Table VI.B.16. Table VI.B.17 presents the estimated percentage of baseline compliance with the respiratory protection requirements by setting. The baseline estimates are based on ERG (August 9, 2013), the infectious disease expert panel report prepared for OSHA, but as explained in the introduction to this section, are assumed to be at least 50 percent for establishments with fewer than 20 employees and at least 75 percent for larger establishments. The per worker labor burdens and costs include those associated with the medical examination and the fit testing, which are described below. Respiratory Protection Plan Development The respiratory protection standard requires employers to develop and maintain a written respiratory protection program.

OSHA estimates that a physician or other licensed healthcare professional will spend 4 hours for establishments with fewer than 20 employees and 8 hours for larger establishments (OSHA, 2018) to develop this plan. Medical Evaluation The Respiratory Protection standard requires employers to provide a medical evaluation to determine the employee's ability to use a respirator before the employee is fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace. 29 CFR 1910.134(e)(1). (OSHA, 2018). While OSHA's respiratory protection standard requires medical re-evaluation under certain circumstances, OSHA believes that, given the limited time this ETS will be in effect, there will not be sufficient time for conditions to change and trigger the requirement for the re-evaluation and therefore OSHA did not estimate any costs associated with medical re-evaluation in this analysis.

The preliminary medical evaluation (medical questionnaire) is estimated to take 15 minutes of the worker's time and 5 minutes of a physician or other licensed health care professional's (PLHCP) time. OSHA estimates that a follow-up medical evaluation is needed 23 percent of the time (OSHA, 2018). When a follow-up medical evaluation is needed, OSHA estimates that this has a cost of $391 plus the cost burden for the 1 hour of the worker's time (OSHA, 2018). In addition, it is estimated that a travel cost of $5 plus a half hour of the worker's time is incurred for all settings Start Printed Page 32503except for hospitals (since the follow-up is assumed to occur off-site for employees in settings other than hospitals). Fit Testing and Training The Respiratory Protection standard requires that, before a worker is required to use a respirator with a negative or positive pressure tight-fitting face piece, the employee must be fit tested with the same make, model, style, and size of respirator that will be used.

Fit testing costs and training are estimated as one hour of the workers time, plus one half hour of the fit tester's time for fit testing, one half hour per 10 employees of the fit tester's time for training, and the cost of two N95 respirators (OSHA, 2018). Summary of per Worker Respiratory Protection Costs Table VI.B.18 summarizes how the per worker respiratory protection costs are estimated. Cost per Establishment, Respiratory Protection Table VI.B.19 presents a summary of the respiratory protection costs per establishment, including plan development, fit testing, training, and medical evaluation costs. Table VI.B.20 presents a summary of the average per establishment combined cost for PPE and respiratory protection. The costs included in Table VI.B.20 also include the costs associated with the Start Printed Page 32504Mini Respiratory Protection Program described in section VI.B.V.0 f.

Aerosol-Generating Healthcare Procedures on a Person With Suspected or Confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment ETS Requirements—Under § 1910.502(g) When an aerosol-generating procedure is performed on a person with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment, the employer must limit the number of employees present during the procedure to only those essential for patient care and procedure support and ensure that the procedure is performed in an existing airborne isolation room (AIIR), if available. After the procedure is completed, the employer must clean and disinfect the surfaces and equipment in the room or area where the procedure was performed. Cost Analysis Assumptions Any costs associated with PPE or enhanced cleaning required under this provision are included in the sections addressing PPE and cleaning and dis. Costs associated with assuring properly functioning AIIRs are considered in section VI.B.III.j on ventilation, below. G.

Physical Distancing ETS Requirements—Under § 1910.502(h) The employer must ensure that each employee is separated from all other people by at least six feet when indoors unless the employer can demonstrate that such physical distancing is not feasible for a specific activity. When six feet of distancing is not feasible, the employer must ensure that the employees are as far apart as is feasible. This provision does not apply to momentary exposure while people are in movement (e.g., passing in hallways or aisles). Cost Analysis Assumptions To implement physical distancing requirements, OSHA assumes employers post signage encouraging physical distancing. 25 Signs on average per large establishment, with 15 and 10 signs for SBA-defined small and very small establishments, respectively.

OSHA estimated a unit cost per sign of $0.10, with the assumption that employers will use free downloadable signs from the CDC and self-print those signs. OSHA also includes costs for floor markings, based on the unit cost for a roll of masking tape ($4.39 (Office Depot, 2020)), and assuming 3 rolls per large establishments, 2 rolls per SBA-defined small establishment, and 1 roll per very small establishments. OSHA also assumes 2 minutes of labor per sign, including printing and installation by an employee. Cost per Establishment, Physical Distancing Table VI.B.21 presents a summary of the physical distancing costs per healthcare establishment, incorporating the baseline compliance rates of 50 percent for very small entities and 75 percent for all other entities. These include costs of the signs, the floor markings, and the labor of installing them (calculated using the average loaded wage shown in Appendix VI.B.B).

Start Printed Page 32505 h. Physical Barriers ETS Requirements—Under § 1910.502(i) The employer must install cleanable or disposable, solid barriers at each fixed work location outside of direct patient care areas where each employee is not separated from all other people by at least 6 feet. An exception is made for where the employer can demonstrate that it is not feasible. Cost Analysis Assumptions OSHA estimates that the ETS will result in additional clear plastic barriers installed in 10 percent of general hospital, other hospital, first aid and emergency care, and other patient care settings. Other facilities in these settings are assumed to have installed these barriers or an equivalent barrier prior to the ETS.

OSHA estimates that each setting will install 3 clear plastic barriers with a cost of $300 per barrier.[] This is an average. OSHA also assumes 15 minutes of labor for 2 maintenance workers for the installation of each barrier. While OSHA has no data on the number of barriers that have been purchased and installed or how many additional barriers will need to be made, the agency has included what it has determined, based on agency judgment, to be a reasonable estimate for this requirement. It is likely that some workplaces will need more barriers than others. It is also likely that many establishments will reevaluate their current barrier set up as a result of this ETS and determine that they need additional barriers.

This is an average, so it also accounts for the likelihood that some establishments will not need any barriers because the nature of the work makes spacing feasible, or because barriers are infeasible. Cost per Establishment, Physical Barriers Table VI.B.22 presents the average total physical barrier costs for establishments covered by the ETS by setting and incorporates the baseline compliance rate of 90 percent as discussed above for hospitals, first aid and emergency care, and other patient care. Start Printed Page 32506 i. Cleaning and Dis ETS Requirements—Under § 1910.502(j) In patient care areas and resident rooms, and for medical devices and equipment, the employer must follow standard practices for cleaning and dis of surfaces and equipment in accordance with applicable CDC guidelines. In other areas, the employer must clean high-touch surfaces and equipment at least once per day.

When an employer is aware that a person who is erectile dysfunction treatment positive has been in the workplace within the last 24 hours, the employer must clean and disinfect any areas, materials, and equipment under the employer's control that have likely been contaminated by that person. The employer must also provide alcohol-based hand rub or readily accessible hand washing facilities. Cost Analysis Assumptions In settings other than hospitals, nursing homes, and long-term care facilities, OSHA assumes establishments will, in addition to their current cleaning product purchases, need to purchase a six-month supply of multipurpose cleaners and disinfectants, at a cost of $4.54 for each (i.e., a supply of multipurpose cleaner and a supply of disinfectants/virucides), for a total of about $9 per establishment (W.B. Mason, 2020). Hospitals are estimated to spend a total of $56 million annually on soaps and cleaning products, and nursing homes and long-term care settings are estimated to spend $60 million annually on these supplies (BEA, November, 2018).

OSHA estimates that spending on cleaning products will increase by 5 percent as a result of the ETS, and accounts for these increased cleaning product costs on a per employee basis, which is equivalent to an additional $0.37 per hospital employee and an additional $0.69 per nursing home and long-term care setting employee. This increased spending also covers the costs of cleaning associated with aerosol-generating procedures under paragraph (g) of the ETS. OSHA expects that the majority of cleaning that would need to be done to comply with this provision is already being done in response to CDC guidelines or could be completed in nonproductive downtime without affecting worker productivity. Given the emphasis on cleaning and dis in healthcare settings (those in NAICS 622), the agency believes that all necessary cleaning is being done at healthcare establishments. However, outside of NAICS 622, OSHA has included a time burden of 2 additional minutes per shift for 25 percent of covered workers, for cleaning, in order to err on the side of being overly inclusive of costs.

This provision of the ETS also requires that the employer provide alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) or readily accessible hand washing facilities. OSHA estimates that this ETS will result in a 10 percent increase in the use of ABHR or an average incremental increase of 0.0067 ounces [] of hand sanitizer per use of ABHR (assumed to be 10 percent of the ABHR needed per use, which translates into a 10 percent increase in use overall), with an estimated incremental cost of 0.335 cents per use.[] The estimated number of uses of ABHR is based on the estimate for the number of gloves used (see Table VI.B.13), assuming that there are two ABHR uses per pair of gloves used (i.e., using ABHR before putting on and after taking off each pair of gloves). Cost per Establishment, Cleaning and Dis Table VI.B.23 presents the average cleaning and dis costs for healthcare establishments by setting and establishment size and incorporates the baseline compliance rates of 50 percent for very small entities and 75 percent for all other entities. Start Printed Page 32507 j. Ventilation ETS Requirements—Under § 1910.502(k) Employers who own or control buildings or structures with an existing heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system, must ensure that.

The system is used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions and the design specifications. The amount of outside air circulated through the system and the number of air changes per hour are maximized to the extent appropriate. Air filters are rated Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 13 or higher, if compatible, or the highest compatible filtering efficiency for the HVAC system(s). Air filters are maintained and replaced as needed. And intake ports are cleaned, maintained, and cleared of debris.

This provision does not require installation of new HVAC systems or AIIRs to replace or augment functioning systems. However, where an employer has an existing AIIR, the AIIR must be maintained and operated in accordance with its design and construction criteria. The regulatory text does include a note encouraging additional ventilation measures. However, as they are not a mandatory component of the ETS, costs have not been taken for those additional measures. Cost Analysis Assumptions For all settings, OSHA assumes each establishment will need an average of 3 MERV 13 air filters for large establishments, with 2 for SBA-defined small businesses, and 1 for very small establishments.

The unit cost is $21.50 per filter (Home Depot, 2020).[] OSHA assumes filters are replaced every three months, and this replacement requires 10 minutes of labor per filter for an Installation, Maintenance, and Repair (SOC 49-0000) employee every three months. For hospitals with 20 or more employees OSHA assumed that a larger filter would be used, with a unit cost of $79 (HD Supply, 2021) and a replacement labor burden of 20 minutes of labor per filter. While it is a good business practice to maintain the HVAC system in good working order and OSHA believes that most establishments have HVAC systems that meet the requirements of the ETS, OSHA estimates that some small amount will need to have their HVAC systems serviced. In addition to the cost of purchasing and installing new air filters, OSHA estimates that large hospitals, nursing homes, and long-term care settings will require four hours of a general maintenance and repair worker's time to evaluate the condition of the HVAC system and to complete any necessary maintenance. In all other settings, 30 percent of large employers who need this maintenance will need 2 hours of maintenance work and SBA-defined small employers who need this maintenance will need 1 hour of maintenance work.

OSHA assumes that very small entities will be less likely to control the HVAC system in their facility and therefore assigns no additional maintenance costs to those establishments. Any necessary HVAC work could be done by an outside source like an HVAC maintenance contractor or could be done by in-house maintenance workers if they are available. The draft infectious disease cost analysis prepared for SBREFA included engineering control costs for hospitals to maintain AIIRs to manufacturer's specifications (OSHA, 2014). These costs were updated to current dollars for the analysis of this ETS. And while the infectious disease cost analysis included both initial costs and annual maintenance costs, since the ETS is only effective for six months, OSHA included in this analysis only maintenance costs to bring existing AIIRs up to the manufacturer's specifications where they are not already being maintained properly.

OSHA estimates that most hospitals (83 percent) that have AIIRs properly maintain them (ERG, August 9, 2013). Based on analyses performed in conjunction with OSHA's (1997) proposed rule addressing occupational exposure to tuberculosis, 64 FR 54160 (Oct. 17, 1997), the agency estimates that there would be a one-time cost of $8,143 to perform maintenance on an AIIR so that it functions properly (e.g., maintains negative air pressure relative to the surrounding areas, completes the recommended number of hourly air exchanges) (WCG, November 14, 1994. Updated to 2020 dollars). This is based on an estimated cost per square foot to purchase and install material, including ducting, fans, and HEPA filters, in an average isolation room measuring 150 square feet (WCG, November 14, 1994.

Updated to 2020 dollars). Note that since the analysis timeframe is 6 months, there are no on-going maintenance costs attributable to the ETS. Cost per Establishment, Ventilation Table VI.B.24 presents the average ventilation costs for healthcare establishments by setting and size. These estimates incorporate the baseline compliance rates of 50 percent for very small entities and 75 percent for all other entities, and a baseline compliance rate of 83 percent for maintenance of AIIRs in hospitals. Start Printed Page 32508 k.

Health Screening and Medical Management ETS Requirements—Under § 1910.502(l) The employer must screen each employee before each work day or shift for erectile dysfunction treatment symptoms and require employees to promptly notify the employer when they are erectile dysfunction treatment positive, have been told by a healthcare provider that they are suspected to be erectile dysfunction treatment positive, or are experiencing certain specified symptoms of erectile dysfunction treatment. When an employer is notified that a person who has been in the workplace is erectile dysfunction treatment positive, the employer must notify each employee who had, and other employers whose employees had, close contact with that person in the workplace. The employer must also notify any employee who worked in, and any other employers whose employees worked in, a well-defined portion of a workplace in which the erectile dysfunction treatment-positive person was present during the potential transmission period. This paragraph also contains a requirement that the employer immediately remove any employee who is positive for erectile dysfunction treatment. Removal, which in the ETS refers to temporary removal from the workplace, must continue until that employee meets the criteria for return to work.

In addition, the employer must remove any employee who has been told by their healthcare provider that they are suspected to have erectile dysfunction treatment and any employee who is experiencing certain erectile dysfunction treatment symptoms. The employer must ensure that any such employee is kept out of the workplace until they either meet the return to work criteria or they test negative for erectile dysfunction treatment based on a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test, which the employer must provide at no cost to the employee. In addition, the employer must remove any employee who has had close contact with someone in the workplace who is erectile dysfunction treatment positive (unless the employee has either been fully vaccinated or has recently recovered from erectile dysfunction treatment). Employees who had close contact must be removed for 14 days or until they test negative for erectile dysfunction treatment via a test provided at least 5 days after the exposure and paid for by the employer. Employees who had symptoms or were informed by a licensed healthcare provider they are suspected to have erectile dysfunction treatment, but did not have close contact, can return to work immediately if they test negative.

Employees removed because of close contact must stay away from work for at least 7 calendar days from the date of exposure, even if they test negative. When an employee is removed under the above criteria the employer must continue to pay the employee's normal earnings, as though the employee were still at their regular job, up to $1,400 a week for the first two weeks. If employees remain sick after that first two-week period and must stay out longer, employers with fewer than 500 employees are only required to pay two thirds of regular pay, up to $200 per day, after the initial 10 working days. Pay during removal can be offset with any employer or public benefits, such as paid leave or workers' compensation, until the employee meets the return to work criteria.[] The requirement to pay the employee terminates if the employer offers a erectile dysfunction treatment test at least five days after the exposure and the employee refuses to take it. Employers may also require employees who are removed from the workplace under this paragraph to work remotely or in isolation when suitable work is available.

These employees would be paid as usual for their work. Employers with 10 or fewer employees are required to remove employees from the workplace under this paragraph but are not required to pay them during the time they are removed. The ETS does not require notification or removal of employees who were wearing respirators, along with other required PPE, at the time they had close contact with a person with erectile dysfunction treatment. In addition, an employee's close contact with a patient with erectile dysfunction treatment does not trigger the notification requirements (and therefore does not trigger removal requirements) if the patient with erectile dysfunction treatment was in an area where such patients are normally expected, such as an emergency room or erectile dysfunction treatment clinic (as opposed to a maternity unit of a hospital, a physician's office that screens out erectile dysfunction treatment patients, a physical therapist's office, etc.). Cost Analysis Assumptions The health screening activities could include instructing employees to perform a self-assessment for symptoms before they arrive to work.

The training on the elements of this self-assessment are included under the cost of training and there is no cost to the employer for this activity because it can be completed by the employee concurrent with other Start Printed Page 32509daily activities without taking time from those activities. Although employers are not required to use temperature screening for employee screening, OSHA assumes for purposes of this analysis that this may be done as part of screening and estimates that it will take an average of 15 seconds per employee per day. OSHA also estimates that establishments will purchase no-touch thermometers at a rate of 1 per 100 employees, on average, with a minimum of 1 per establishment and unit cost of $29.50 per thermometer (Rice et al., December 18, 2020). OSHA also includes 5 minutes of General and Operations Manager (OES 11-1020) labor per case (i.e., each employee required to notify their employer) to make arrangements for the employee per above, and an additional 40 minutes per case to notify other potentially exposed employees. This includes the time to identify which of the exposed employees would be excluded from the notification and removal requirements because they were wearing respirators and required PPE at the time of the exposure.

Cost per Establishment, Health Screening and Notification In order to estimate the feasibility of the ETS and due to the highly uncertain path of the viagra over the period this ETS will be in effect, OSHA examined feasibility based on historic numbers of cases and fatalities from two periods. March 19, 2021 through April 19, 2021, inclusive of the cases on the start and end dates (designated as the “primary” scenario) and a monthly average over April 1, 2020 through April 1, 2021, inclusive of the start and end dates (called the “alternative” scenario). Using these scenarios, OSHA estimated cost per establishment for the screening and notification requirements of this provision under both scenarios. Costs per establishment are shown below in Table VI.B.25 by setting and size. They incorporate the baseline compliance rates of 50 percent for very small entities and 75 percent for all other entities.

Medical Removal Protection and Medical Removal Protection Benefits There are two types of costs that employers can incur to comply with the ETS requirements for medical removal. Payments to employees who are removed from work and payment for testing to determine whether those employees can return to work. OSHA developed cost estimates for medical removal protection (MRP) benefits for the two scenarios described above in section VI.B.III.k, Health Screening and Notification. The estimates for each scenario (primary and alternative) follow the same procedure.[] In order to estimate the cost to employers of providing MRP benefits to their workers, OSHA needed to make the following estimates. The number of workers who would need to be removed [] from the workplace.

The number of removed workers who would be erectile dysfunction treatment positive. The number of workers who would receive a erectile dysfunction treatment test, the number of workers who would test negative for erectile dysfunction treatment, and the cost to the employer of those tests. The number of days erectile dysfunction treatment positive employees and employees who receive a negative erectile dysfunction treatment test would be paid MRP benefits. The daily wage paid to removed workers. The number of days that can be offset by other paid leave benefits.

And The impact of the tax credit for paid sick leave included in the American Rescue Plan Act (ARP), Public Law 117-2, assuming 100 percent take-up for all Start Printed Page 32510qualifying firms (i.e., those with fewer than 500 employees).[] Number of Workers Removed The base number of erectile dysfunction treatment cases among workers is determined based on historic data. OSHA's calculations of the number of erectile dysfunction treatment cases among workers affected by this ETS, based on the two scenarios, are shown in the benefits section of this analysis (see section VI.B.VIII.d for details of those estimates). As shown in Row A of of the Benefits section, OSHA identified 2,041,229 erectile dysfunction treatment cases during the period of March 19, 2021 through April 19, 2021, which serves as the basis for the “primary” scenario, and 2,507,290 cases as the monthly average over the year beginning April 1, 2020 and ending April 1, 2021, which serves as the “alternative” scenario. As explained in the Benefits analysis, OSHA then adjusted that number of cases by removing cases that were outside of the range of working age adults (18-64 years) and then including a further reduction to account for a percentage of that population that is not employed (See Benefits, Rows B and C). Using the primary scenario as an example, there were 1,047,145 remaining cases (See Benefits, Row C).

OSHA then removed an additional 228,797 cases to account for teleworkers, who in this analysis do not receive any benefit from the ETS nor incur any costs for the employer. The remaining number of cases (818,348, as shown on Row E of Benefits) is one month of cases among workers expected to be in the physical workplace. While OSHA begins its analysis with the same data as presented in Benefits, the Benefits and Cost analysis diverge at this point because the Benefits remove additional cases to account for community spread (see, Row F), while those cases are not removed for costs because employers will incur removal costs for those workers regardless of whether they were infected at work or elsewhere. Because this analysis is examining the effect of six months of the ETS, OSHA multiplied that 818,348 by six months to produce a product of 4,910,088 total cases of workers in the workplace over 6 months. Based on OSHA's industry analysis, 13 percent of all employees in the workforce are covered by 29 CFR 1910.502 (see the Benefits analysis).

OSHA assumes that the number of cases would be allocated according to those percentages, so during the entire period of the ETS the number of workers under the ETS who have erectile dysfunction treatment are, respectively, 625,933 (primary), and 768,848 (alternative).[] In Table VI.B.26, for convenience, OSHA presents the cases discussed in the following text. Like the benefits analysis, the cost analysis further reduces the number of cases to account for vaccinations. Due to the prioritization of healthcare workers for vaccinations, OSHA assumes a vaccination rate of 75 percent for the healthcare sector.[] Since the original CDC data reflect cases that occurred during periods with a reduced but positive vaccination rate, the calculation to adjust the data for the increase to a 75 percent vaccination rate is slightly complicated. It is explained later in the Benefits section. The final result is that for the primary scenario OSHA estimates that 62.9 percent of the cases remain after all adjustments are incorporated, and for the alternative scenario, 40.4 percent of cases remain.

The reduction in the number of cases prevented through vaccination ultimately means that fewer employees will need to be temporarily removed from the workplace per the requirements of the ETS (with a corresponding reduction in benefits). OSHA thus estimates that under the primary scenario there is an adjusted total of 393,662 erectile dysfunction treatment cases (those cases remaining after the additional number of cases are reduced to reflect cases prevented by vaccination—75 percent) are removed. (625,933 * Start Printed Page 325110.629)). The adjusted number of cases under the alternative scenario is 310,637 (768,848 * 0.404). Finally, the agency adjusts MRP cases to account for a gradual reduction in the need for MRP as the comprehensive protections of the standard lower the number of transmissions at the workplace (e.g., working with distance or barriers, etc.).

Most other costs of the ETS do not include this type of adjustment because they are not dependent on reductions in workplace transmission (e.g., barriers would still be required regardless of whether some workplace transmissions are prevented). As in the Benefits analysis, OSHA assumes that the effectiveness rate in the workplace will be an overall 75 percent, meaning that 75 percent of the s would be prevented over the 6-month course of the ETS. The final number of cases for the primary scenario is therefore reduced to 98,445 (393,662 * (1-0.75)), and for the alternative scenario it is reduced to 77,659 (310,637 * (1-0.75)). Note that the effectiveness would be higher except that OSHA assumes, as it does in Benefits, that 20 percent of the cases will be worker s resulting from community transmission outside the workplace and therefore not reduced by the provisions of the ETS. However, unlike Benefits, those community spread cases are not subtracted from the total number of remaining cases because the employers will still bear the same cost for addressing them as if the worker had been infected at the workplace.

For example, whether the employee was infected in the workplace or outside the workplace, once the employer learns that the employee has tested positive for erectile dysfunction treatment the employer must still remove that employee from the workplace in order to protect its other employees and must provide MRP benefits to the removed employee. OSHA estimates that in half of these cases (49,208 for the primary scenario) workers will know they are erectile dysfunction treatment positive through a erectile dysfunction treatment test or via diagnosis by a licensed healthcare provider of suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment (OSHA assumes this group diagnosed by a healthcare provider is then confirmed by a positive test). The other half will have symptoms as described in the ETS (before being tested and confirmed positive). Beyond the positive cases, other workers will need to be removed from the workplace because they are exposed to someone at the workplace who has erectile dysfunction treatment, or develop the symptoms specified in § 1910.501(i)(2)(iii) or (iv), even though they are not actually infected with erectile dysfunction treatment and ultimately test negative (but must still be temporarily removed from the workplace pending the testing results). To estimate this number of removed workers, OSHA assumes that for every worker who has symptoms and who will eventually test positive for erectile dysfunction treatment there will be an equal number (49,208 for the primary scenario) of workers who will have symptoms but who will test negative and not be infected (Kim et al., Jan 25, 2021, Tostmann et al., April 23, 2020).

OSHA further assumes that for every potential erectile dysfunction treatment case reported to an employer (based on a test, diagnosis, or symptoms) there will be 1.5 workers who will have close contact at work with a person with erectile dysfunction treatment.[] The ETS exempts workers who are wearing respirators and other required PPE from being removed due to close contact with a person with erectile dysfunction treatment. OSHA assumes 25 percent of the workers are wearing N95 respirators and the other required PPE (section VI.B.III.e of this analysis) and therefore would not need to be notified of such contact nor removed from work as a result of it. This is support for the assumption that on average 1.5 people covered by the ETS will need to be removed because they have close contact with an infected person at work. Thus, focusing just on the primary scenario from above for the purposes of illustration, with 98,415 erectile dysfunction treatment cases there will be an additional 147,263 workers (98,415*1.5) who would need to be removed from work because they had close contact at work with someone who has erectile dysfunction treatment. Number of Workers Who Would Receive a erectile dysfunction treatment Test When testing is an option, OSHA expects employers to have employees tested so that the employees can return to their work as quickly as possible.

For workers with suspected erectile dysfunction treatment illness with symptoms, which includes cases diagnosed by a licensed healthcare provider that are then tested and found to be negative, the employer can offer the test immediately. If the test is negative, the worker can immediately return to work upon receipt of the test results. If the test is positive, the employee would continue removal according to either guidance from a licensed healthcare provider or CDC's isolation guidance. For workers who are removed due to close contact, OSHA has made several assumptions. Workers removed due to close contact with a primary worker who is erectile dysfunction treatment positive will either be removed for 14 calendar days or the employer can provide a erectile dysfunction treatment test 5 days after the workplace exposure.

If the results of the test are negative, the worker removed due to close contact can return to work 7 calendar days after exposure. If the results of the test are positive, the worker will continue for the full removal of 14 days. The cost of the test is estimated to be a $10 administrative fee plus $5 in travel costs (this is an average—some employees will not require any travel reimbursement, while others may have higher travel costs). All other costs of testing are assumed to be borne by insurance or other third-party payers. Note that for testing after an employee is removed there is no need to factor in lost work time because the employee is not working and is already compensated for that time.

Number of Days of MRP Benefits If a worker is erectile dysfunction treatment positive, OSHA assumes they will be removed from the workplace on average for 10 working days,[] based on following CDC guidelines on isolation days and accounting for the severity of the cases.[] The CDC guidelines recommend 10 calendar days minimum for isolation absent a continued fever. Workers who are removed from work before they know if they have erectile dysfunction treatment fall into two groups. Workers who are removed because they have specific symptoms, and workers removed because they have been in close contact with someone at work who is erectile dysfunction treatment positive. For workers in this first group (with symptoms) who are provided tests by their employers but test negative, OSHA estimates they will be tested on the first day they are removed and will be removed from work for an average of two days. For workers in the second group, who are removed due to close contact with a erectile dysfunction treatment case in the workplace, the employer may provide the employee with a test at least five days after the exposure to the erectile dysfunction treatment positive employee.

The regulatory text (paragraph (i)(4)(iii)(2)(i) also states that an employee removed due to close contact who tests negative can return to work after 7 calendar days from exposure. OSHA therefore estimates that employees in the second group (removed due to having close contact) will be tested five days after exposure and, if their test comes back negative, they will return to work after 7 calendar Start Printed Page 32512days (which translates to 5 working days of paid removal). If their test comes back positive, OSHA assumes employees in both groups (symptoms and close contact) will on average complete the remainder of a 10-working day (14 calendar days) period of removal before returning to work.[] Daily MRP Benefits Paid to Removed Workers The ETS includes a $1,400 weekly cap on MRP payments, except that employers with fewer than 500 workers need not pay more than $200 per day (2/3 of the worker's regular pay, up to $200 per day) after the first two weeks. Since OSHA uses average wage rates in this analysis, this analysis necessitated the calculation of a truncated average wage with a weekly limit of $1,400 as prescribed in paragraph (i)(5)(iii)(A). The wage data used for this analysis do not have the kind of detail needed to calculate an exact truncated average wage, so the agency employed a relatively rough estimate using the median, rather than the average, wage (since with right-tailed data like wage distributions the median is below the mean) and then truncating the median wage at $1,400 for a full-time, 40-hour work week, if needed.

This maximum wage is therefore $35 an hour ($1400/40). Note that this may overestimate the costs given that wages are capped at 2/3 of regular pay (up to $200/day) after the first two weeks for employers with fewer than 500 workers. Other Paid Leave Offsetting MRP Benefits OSHA also considered how much of the MRP payments can be offset by other payment sources. For this analysis, OSHA only considered the availability and cost offset due to sick leave and payroll tax credits for qualifying leave payments made for removal that are part of the recently enacted ARP (see Pub. L.

117-2, section 9641). For this analysis, OSHA assumed a 100 percent take-up of the tax credit for sick leave paid under provisions in the ARP for all eligible employers (i.e., establishments with fewer than 500 employees) while these provisions are in effect. Hence, for firms with fewer than 500 employees, all the wage costs associated with providing MRP benefits are assumed to be zero while the credits are available. These tax credits will generally be claimed on employers' tax returns, which in most cases are filed quarterly, although employers may be able to access funds early in anticipation of claiming the credits. The agency estimates that approximately three months of the ETS will be in place while the ARP tax credit will not be unless the tax credit is extended (these ARP provisions are currently slated to cover leave provided through September 30, 2021) and so OSHA includes 3/6 of MRP costs to account for the three months of costs that would not be reimbursed through the tax credit.

For cases where the employer applies an employee's sick leave to days where the employee is both removed from work and is unable to work at home, OSHA calculated the average number of sick days the employee will have at the time of the removal and deducted those days in calculating the wage payments the employer makes. BLS data show that, overall, 78 percent of workers have access to paid sick leave with an average length of available leave of 8 days.[] Assuming workers have used, on average, 50 percent of their available paid sick leave for other reasons by the time the leave is needed during the ETS, the average employee would have 3.12 days of paid sick leave available (0.78 * 0.5 * 8). Because there is the possibility of multiple removal periods for a single individual (in which case the worker would likely have no sick leave available the second time), OSHA adjusted the available paid sick leave days per worker down from 3.12 to 3 days. Hence, for workers who are removed for symptoms or close contact and tested but ultimately found to not be infected, employers will not have to pay any quarantine wage costs if the employees are out 3 work days or fewer. If they are out longer, the employer would have to pay for each of the days the employee is out after the first 3 work days.

For example, if an employee who was removed for a total of 7 days and tested negative, the cost to the employer would be for 4 days of removal following the 3 days of sick leave. For employees who are erectile dysfunction treatment positive and must be removed from the workplace for 10 work days (14 calendar days), the employer will incur costs to pay wages to those employees for 7 work days, on average, after adjusting for the 3 days of sick leave. The analysis assumes that employers will either take the tax credit or apply employee sick days to offset medical removal costs. Because it does not calculate the additional savings available to the employer if it both applies employee sick days and takes the tax credit, the estimate of the offsets available may be an underestimation. While workers' compensation insurance might offset some costs under this provision, OSHA did not consider any reduction in costs to employers due to this insurance.

The workers' compensation system differs by state so it is hard to generalize the overall offset of this insurance. Some states have moved towards mandating payment for erectile dysfunction treatment quarantines for certain types of workers (first responders, health care) but, at this point, there are few such mandates in place and generally workers' compensations systems have been reluctant to pay claims for erectile dysfunction treatment illnesses.[] To the extent that workers' compensation payments are available to workers removed due to erectile dysfunction treatment, the costs to employers estimated in this analysis will be overstated. Due to a lack of sufficient data, OSHA has assumed no baseline compliance Start Printed Page 32513with MRP benefits. To the extent that employers are currently paying for workers with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment s to take leave, this analysis would have some tendency to overstate the cost of this provision. An important caveat is that this analysis deals strictly with averages and estimates.

OSHA has made no attempt to model clustering of s. Over the year prior to this ETS, there have been multiple incidents where multiple employees in a single workplace were infected, but the methodology in this analysis assumes independence across s. This means that the cost and feasibility determinations do not consider situations where a single employer has multiple s among their employees. Conversely, in a situation where s are clustered, that would mean that, since some employers would be seeing more cases among their employees than the average, other employers would have a below-average number of, or even zero, s. The effects of modeling clusters of s on industry-wide feasibility are unclear, but OSHA believes a methodology that assumes the average number of s for all employers is reasonable as part of the analysis supporting the feasibility of this ETS.

OSHA also notes that, from the standpoint of an analysis that estimates the costs and benefits to society, much of MRP benefits would be considered a transfer payment from one party to another, which is not actually a cost to society as a whole. Since this analysis is focused on determining economic feasibility, which involves a determination of costs borne by employers, the nature of these payments is not taken into account. This analysis also does not attempt to forecast the course of the viagra or the effect this ETS will have on the viagra. To the extent that the historical data do not represent the course of the viagra over the period the ETS is in effect, and that various interventions alter the course of the viagra beyond the adjustments made for vaccination status, these costs may be overstated or understated. Cost per Establishment, Medical Removal Protection and Medical Removal Protection Benefits Costs per establishment for medical removal and medical removal protection benefits are shown below in Table VI.B.27.

l. Vaccination ETS Requirements—Under § 1910.502(m) The employer must support erectile dysfunction treatment vaccination for each employee by providing reasonable time and paid leave (e.g., paid sick leave, administrative leave) to each employee for vaccination and any side effects experienced following vaccination. Cost Analysis Assumptions The ETS does not require any employer to make a treatment available to employees. Based on the discussion in section VI.B.III.k, OSHA estimates that, on average, employees will have three days of paid sick leave available before the employer has to pay any additional cost for sick leave. This leave will be more than enough to cover the time needed to receive a treatment and any needed time off to recover from the side effects of the treatment.[] Therefore, OSHA estimates that employers will incur no costs under this provision.[] Start Printed Page 32514 m.

Training ETS Requirements—Under § 1910.502(n) Employers must ensure that each employee receives training, in a language and at a literacy level the employee understands, on topics such as. erectile dysfunction treatment transmission, symptoms, and ways to reduce risk. Patient screening and management. And workplace tasks and situations that could result in erectile dysfunction treatment . The training must also cover employer policies and procedures related to preventing the spread of erectile dysfunction treatment.

PPE. Cleaning and dis. Health screening and medical management, including medical removal. And sick leave. Employees must be provided with information on multi-employer agreements related to control and on the employer's erectile dysfunction treatment plan, as well as the identity of the safety coordinator for the erectile dysfunction treatment plan.

Additional training is required whenever changes occur that affect the employee's risk, policies or procedures are changed, or there is an indication the necessary skill or understanding was not retained. The employer must also inform employees about the anti-retaliation requirements under paragraph (o).[] Finally, the employer must ensure that the training is conducted by a person knowledgeable about the covered subject matter, and that employees being trained have an opportunity to ask questions and get answers from a person knowledgeable about the covered subject matter. Cost Analysis Assumptions Based on the infectious disease expert panel report (ERG, August 9, 2013), OSHA estimates that training is already being provided 84 percent of the time for workers in hospitals, 68 percent of the time for workers in home healthcare, and 74 percent of the time for workers in long-term care and nursing homes. Estimates of current compliance were constrained to be no lower than 75 percent for large or SBA-defined small entities or 50 percent for very small entities in other settings, as explained in the introduction to this section. The costs include those associated with the training development and providing the training to employees, as discussed in the sections below.

OSHA estimated for the infectious diseases SBAR Panel that it would take a total of 30 hours for the individual who would be training workers exposed to infectious agents to develop training materials. And the initial training was estimated to take either two or three hours, depending on the job tasks of the workers. OSHA estimates that developing training materials and providing training under this ETS will take less time than the training required under the infectious diseases draft regulatory framework since that training was more extensive. This ETS also allows training completed prior to the effective date of the ETS to count towards compliance, provided it meets the relevant training requirements under this section. OSHA estimates that, for large establishments, hospitals, nursing homes, and long-term care settings of all sizes, it will take 2/3 of that 30-hour estimate to develop training materials under this ETS.

It will take 1/2 or slightly less than 1/2 of 30 hours for SBA-defined small entities (15 hours for hospitals, nursing homes, and long-term care settings and 12 hours for other settings). And very small entities will need 7 hours to develop their training materials. OSHA also estimates that it will take 1/2 the time for employees to receive the training. Delivering the training to workers is estimated to take between 1 and 1.5 hours depending on the job tasks of the workers. As described above, development of the training materials is assumed to be a one-time cost burden between 7 and 20 hours per establishment, depending on size and type of facility.

The cost per establishment to develop this training is estimated as the product of the one-time labor burden and wage rate ($52.73 for a training development specialist). The baseline adjustments discussed are then applied to these costs. OSHA estimates the training cost burden assuming 1.25 hours (i.e., the average of 1 hour and 1.5 hours) for each covered employee's time and an average of 12 employees in each instructor-led training session (i.e., about 0.1 hours of the instructor's time per covered employee, estimated at the cost of a training development specialist's loaded wage or $52.73 per hour). The total training development costs are estimated as the product of. The number of establishments affected.

And The average cost per establishment. The total costs to deliver training are estimated as the product of. The number of workers covered. And The average cost per worker who receives the training. Baseline compliance rates for the various settings were described previously in this section.

Cost per Establishment, Training The average per-establishment costs of training are summarized in Table VI.B.28. Start Printed Page 32515 n. Recordkeeping ETS Requirements—Under § 1910.502(q) Employers with more than 10 employees must establish and maintain records, including all versions of the erectile dysfunction treatment plan, and a erectile dysfunction treatment log to record each instance identified by the employer in which an employee has erectile dysfunction treatment. Employers must also make those records available to specified individuals, and OSHA, upon request. Employers with 10 or fewer employees on the effective date of this standard are not required to comply with this paragraph.

Cost Analysis Assumptions OSHA assumes 0.5 hours of labor from a General and Operations Manager (SOC 11-1020) to establish a erectile dysfunction treatment log. For each erectile dysfunction treatment case, OSHA assumes 10 minutes of labor from an Information and Records Clerk (SOC 43-4000) to record the case in the employer's erectile dysfunction treatment log.[] As noted above in section VI.B.III.k, OSHA estimated the costs for provisions that are dependent on the number of erectile dysfunction treatment s based on numbers of cases under both a primary and an alternative scenario. Using these data, OSHA calculated the number of cases per establishment that will need to be recorded under both scenarios, along with the associated cost.[] Start Printed Page 32516 Cost per Establishment, Recordkeeping Table VI.B.29 presents the average recordkeeping costs for covered establishments by setting and incorporates the baseline compliance rates of 50 percent for very small entities and 75 percent for all others. O. Reporting erectile dysfunction treatment Fatalities and Hospitalizations to OSHA ETS Requirements—Under § 1910.502(r) The employer must report each work-related erectile dysfunction treatment fatality within 8 hours of learning about the fatality and each work-related erectile dysfunction treatment in-patient hospitalization within 24 hours of learning about it.

When reporting work-related erectile dysfunction treatment fatalities and in-patient hospitalizations to OSHA, the employer must follow the requirements in 29 CFR 1904.39, except for 29 CFR 1904.39(a)(1) and (2) and § 1904.39(b)(6). Cost Analysis Assumptions OSHA assumes 45 minutes of labor from a General and Operations Manager (SOC 11-1020) to report each hospitalization or fatality. While this is higher than the 30 minutes estimated to be necessary to report other fatalities or hospitalizations to OSHA,[] OSHA's estimate of 45 minutes is intended to account for any potential complexities in determining the work-relatedness of erectile dysfunction treatment fatalities and hospitalizations. In existing OSHA enforcement guidance, issued in May of 2020,[] OSHA offers several “considerations” for determining whether an employer has made a reasonable determination of work-relatedness. The reasonableness of the employer's investigation into work-relatedness, The evidence available to the employer, and The evidence that a erectile dysfunction treatment illness was contracted at work.

Under that first consideration, OSHA says. Employers, especially small employers, should not be expected to undertake extensive medical inquiries, given employee privacy concerns and most employers' lack of expertise in this area. It is sufficient in most circumstances for the employer, when it learns of an employee's erectile dysfunction treatment illness, (1) to ask the employee how he believes he contracted the erectile dysfunction treatment illness. (2) while respecting employee privacy, discuss with the employee his work and out-of-work activities that may have led to the erectile dysfunction treatment illness. And (3) review the employee's work environment for potential erectile dysfunction exposure.

The review in (3) should be informed by any other instances of workers in that environment contracting erectile dysfunction treatment illness. Based on this guidance, and the fact the healthcare employers covered by the ETS are typically used to making work-relatedness determinations for OSHA reporting purposes, OSHA believes 45 minutes likely overstates the average time necessary to comply with the reporting provisions. OSHA calculated costs for this provision based on the numbers of fatalities among healthcare workers under the primary and alternative scenarios. Hospitalizations were estimated based on the ratio of hospitalizations to fatalities reported by CDC of about 8.4 hospitalizations for each fatality.[] Based on these parameters, OSHA estimates the cost of reporting per establishment under both scenarios.[] Cost per Establishment, Reporting erectile dysfunction treatment Fatalities and Hospitalizations to OSHA Table VI.B.30 presents the average reporting costs for covered establishments by setting, incorporating the baseline compliance rates for reporting fatalities of 50 percent for very small entities and 75 percent for all others. No baseline compliance is assumed for reporting of hospitalizations.72 Start Printed Page 32517 p.

Total Costs Table VI.B.31 summarizes the total costs per establishment across covered establishments. Table VI.B.32 presents the total costs across all establishments for the primary scenario. Start Printed Page 32518 q. Sensitivity Analyses OSHA considered two sensitivity analyses in order to consider alternative values for selected parameters used in the cost analysis for which there was greater uncertainty. The following sensitivity analyses are presented below in Table VI.B.33 (all establishments), Table VI.B.34 (SBA-Defined small establishments), and Table VI.B.35 (very small establishments with fewer than 20 employees).

Sensitivity Analysis 1. Costs estimated assuming a lower take-up rate for the tax credit available for paid leave that would apply to paid removal (75 percent and 50 percent take-up rates for establishments with 100-499 and <100 employees, respectively, instead of the 100 percent take-up rate for these establishments under the primary estimate). Sensitivity Analysis 2. Costs estimated with double the number of assumed close contacts with erectile dysfunction treatment positive workers (3 close contacts per instead of 1.5). Start Printed Page 32519 IV.

Mini Respiratory Protection Program a. Introduction In this section, OSHA provides estimates of the number of affected entities, establishments, and employees for the industries that will establish a respirator program in accordance with § 1910.504, the mini respiratory protection program section of the ETS.[] Throughout this analysis, where estimates were derived from available data those sources have been noted in the text. Estimates without sources noted in the text are based on agency expertise. B. Scope of the Mini Respiratory Protection Program Section This section of the ETS is applicable when employers provide respirators, or allow employees to provide their own respirators, instead of a facemask.

The mini respiratory protection program section applies to respirator use not covered by OSHA's respiratory protection standard at § 1910.134. While no employer is required to establish a respiratory protection program under this section of the ETS, OSHA assumes that some employers will take advantage of the mini respiratory protection program and opt to provide a higher level of respiratory protection to their workers. OSHA estimates that 50 percent of NAICS 6216 Home Health Care Services, 37.5 percent of NAICS 621111 Offices of Physicians, and 37.5 percent of NAICS 623 Nursing and Residential Care Facilities will establish a program under this section of the ETS. C. Affected Entities and Employees below shows the entities and employees affected by this section of the ETS.

Start Printed Page 32520 V. Cost of the Mini Respirator Program a. Wage Rates OSHA used occupation-specific wage rates from BLS 2018 Occupational Employment Statistics data (BLS, March 29, 2019) to calculate hourly wage costs. Within each affected 6-digit NAICS industry, OSHA calculated the employee-weighted average wage to be used in the analysis. OSHA estimated loaded wages using industry-specific fringe benefit rates for all civilian workers as reported in the BLS 2018 Employer Costs for Employee Compensation data, as well as OSHA's standard estimate for overhead of 17 percent times the base wage (BLS, December 14, 2018).

B. Respirators Provided by Employees ETS Requirements—Under § 1910.504(c) Where employees provide and use their own respirators, the employer must provide each employee with a specified notice (provided in the regulatory text) detailing proper protocols and warnings. Cost Analysis Assumptions OSHA estimates that time spent by employers to comply with this provision will be negligible and the notice required can be provided as part of the training required under 1910.502(n). Because this provision is applicable when employees provide their own respirators, OSHA is not including any cost for respirators. C.

Respirators Provided by Employers ETS Requirements—Under § 1910.504(d) Where employers provide respirators to their employees, the employer must ensure that employees receive specified training. The employer must also ensure that employees who use tight-fitting respirators perform a user seal check each time a respirator is put on to achieve a proper seal, and ensure that problems discovered during the seal check are corrected. The employer must also ensure that a single filtering facepiece respirator used by a particular employee is reused only by that employee and only under the conditions specified. Reuse of single use respirators is discouraged. When there are medical signs and symptoms related to an employee's ability to wear a respirator, the employer must require that employee to discontinue use of the respirator.

Cost Analysis Assumptions OSHA estimates that, in order to comply with this provision, employers will provide training to employees using respirators under this provision. OSHA estimates that it will take 30 minutes to deliver the training to employees with 10 employees per training session. The labor burden for providing the training is estimated using the same fit tester's wage rate used in section VI.B.III.e. OSHA also includes a one-time cost of 10 minutes per employee for the initial user seal check demonstration. The cost for N95 respirators is accounted for in section VI.B.III.e—PPE.

OSHA has included no baseline compliance in estimating the cost of this provision (i.e., a zero percent current compliance rate) since this is a new option for respiratory protection that employers would not currently be implementing absent this ETS. Cost per Establishment Table VI.B.37 below shows the estimated cost per establishment for establishments affected by this requirement. Start Printed Page 32521 VI. Economic Feasibility Determination a. OSHA's Screening Tests for Economic Feasibility To determine whether a rule is economically feasible, OSHA typically begins by using two screening tests to determine whether the costs of the rule are beneath the threshold level at which the economic feasibility of an affected industry might be threatened.

The first screening test is a revenue test. While there is no hard and fast rule on which to base the threshold, OSHA generally considers a standard to be economically feasible for an affected industry when the annualized costs of compliance are less than one percent of annual revenues. The one-percent revenue threshold is intentionally set at a low level so that OSHA can confidently assert that the rule is economically feasible for industries that are below the threshold (i.e., industries for which the costs of compliance are less than one percent of annual revenues). To put the one percent threshold into perspective, in healthcare and healthcare support industries, prices (and therefore revenues) are generally observed to change by well more than one percent per year, indicating that firms are able to withstand such changes.[] In other words, in many industries, prices (and therefore revenues) are generally observed to change by well more than one percent per year, indicating that firms are able to withstand such changes. The second screening test that OSHA traditionally uses to consider whether a standard is economically feasible for an affected industry is if the costs of compliance are less than ten percent of annual profits (see, e.g., OSHA's economic analysis of its Silica standard, 81 FR 16286, 16533 (March 25, 2016).

Upheld in N. Am.'s Bldg. Trades Unions v. OSHA, 878 F.3d 271, 300 (D.C. Cir.

2017)). The ten-percent profit test is also intended to be at a sufficiently low level so as to allow OSHA to identify industries that might require further examination. Specifically, the profit screening is primarily used to alert OSHA to potential impacts on industries where the price elasticity of demand does not allow for ready absorption of new costs (e.g., industries with foreign competition where the American firms would incur costs that their foreign competitors would not because they are not subject to OSHA requirements). In addition, setting the threshold for the profit test low permits OSHA to reasonably conclude that the rule would be economically feasible for industries below the threshold. To put the ten-percent profit threshold test into perspective, evidence used by OSHA in its 2016 OSHA silica rule indicates that, for the combined affected manufacturing industries in general industry and maritime from 2000 through 2012, the average year-to-year fluctuation in profit rates (both up and down) was 138.5 percent (81 FR 16545).[] When an industry “passes” both the “cost-to-revenue” and “cost-to-profit” screening tests, OSHA is assured that the costs of compliance with the rule are economically feasible for that industry.

Most of the healthcare and healthcare support industries covered by the ETS fall into this category. A rule is not necessarily economically infeasible, however, for the industries that do not pass the initial revenue screening test (i.e., those for which the costs of compliance with the rule are one percent or more of annual revenues), the initial profit screening test (i.e, those for which the costs of compliance are ten percent or more of annual profits), or both. Instead, OSHA normally views those industries as requiring additional examination as to whether the rule would be economically feasible (see N. Am.'s Bldg. Trades Unions v.

OSHA, 878 F.3d at 291). OSHA therefore conducts further analysis of the industries that “fail” one or both of the screening tests in order to evaluate whether the rule would threaten the existence or competitive structure of those industries (see United Steelworkers of Am., AFL-CIO-CLC v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1272 (D.C. Cir. 1980)).

B. Time Parameters for Analysis OSHA's economic analyses almost always measure the costs of a standard on an annual basis, conducting the screening tests by measuring the cost of the standard against the annual profits and annual revenues for a given industry. One year is typically the Start Printed Page 32522minimum period for evaluating the status of a business. For example, most business filings for tax or financial purposes are annual in nature. Some compliance costs are up-front costs and others are spread over the duration of the ETS.

Regardless, the costs of the rule overall will not typically be incurred or absorbed by businesses all at once. For example, the initial capital costs for equipment that will be used over many years are typically addressed through installments over a year or a longer period to leverage loans or payment options to allow more time to marshal revenue and minimize impacts on reserves. The compliance costs for this ETS are for a temporary rule of a limited duration. While the costs of an ETS are only incurred during that duration, making the examination of costs over a six-month period expected for the ETS the logical analysis, OSHA believes most healthcare providers are likely to pay for those costs in installments when possible in order to minimize cash-flow effects and allow more time to replenish initial outlays for compliance with the rule. Using one year of revenues and profits as the denominators in the cost-to-revenue and cost-to-profit ratios would have resulted in ratios that are half of the estimated ratios presented in this analysis.

Under that approach, none of the industries would have exceeded the revenue screen, and only 10 industries would have triggered the profit or revenue screen. Nevertheless, faced with some uncertainty about how a given court might view an analysis involving separate time periods of cost and revenue/profits, and with only a limited amount of time to complete the economic analysis for this emergency rule, OSHA determined that there was not time to conduct a full screening analysis based on both annual profits and revenues as well as a full screening analysis on a shorter 6-month time period. While OSHA believes the most appropriate screens would be based on annual profits and revenue, it has followed the more cautious route of basing the screens on 6 months of profits and revenue to avoid any potential uncertainty about whether the ETS is economically feasible for the affected sectors. It is therefore unsurprising that businesses in a greater number of NAICS industries exceed the thresholds under this measurement, and OSHA believes that edging above the screening thresholds is less of an indicator of economic peril in this context than in the context of a typical rulemaking analysis. Nevertheless, OSHA has examined each of the NAICS that did not clear either of these conservative screening tests and has concluded that the ETS is economically feasible for each one.

C. Data Used for the Screening Tests The estimated costs of complying with the ETS, which OSHA relied upon to examine feasibility based on the two tests described above, are presented, for each provision of the ETS, in section VI.B.III. (see summary of total costs by establishment in Table VI.B.38). The revenue numbers used to determine cost-to-revenue ratios were obtained from the 2017 Economic Census. This is the most current information available from this source, which OSHA considers to be the best available source of revenue data for U.S.

Businesses.[] OSHA adjusted these figures to 2019 dollars using the Bureau of Economic Analysis's GDP deflator, which is OSHA's standard source for inflation and deflation analysis. To account for the economic effects of the viagra beginning in 2020, and provide a more reasonable estimate of revenues for the period in 2021 during which the ETS will be in effect, the agency used other national datasets to derive percentage changes to the baseline data. Those sources and the method used for adjusting revenues are described in more detail in Appendix VI.B.D. The profit screening test for feasibility (i.e., the cost-to-profit ratio) was calculated as ETS costs divided by profits. Profits were calculated as profit rates multiplied by revenues.

The before-tax profit rates that OSHA used were estimated using corporate balance sheet data from the 2013 Corporation Source Book (Internal Revenue Service, 2013). The IRS discontinued the publication of these data after 2013, and therefore the most current years available are 2000-2013.[] The most recent version of the Source Book represents the best available evidence for these data on profit rates.[] For each of the years 2000 through 2013, OSHA calculated profit rates by dividing the “net income” from all firms (both profitable and unprofitable) by total receipts from all firms (both profitable and unprofitable) for each NAICS. OSHA then averaged these rates across the 14-year (2000 through 2013) period. Since some data provided by the IRS were not available at disaggregated levels for all industries and profit rates, data at more highly aggregated levels were used for such industries. That is, where data were not available for each six-digit NAICS code, data for the corresponding four- and five-digit NAICS codes were used.

Finally, although profit rates were determined using data from the two previous decades, the profit calculations have been adjusted, as described in Appendix VI.B.D of this economic analysis, to reflect declining revenues—and therefore declining profits (profits = profit rate * revenues) during the viagra. Profit rates are expressed as a percentage and are reported in Table VI.B.38, below. Profits themselves were used to calculate the cost-to-profit estimates, which are also reported in Table VI.B.38, below. OSHA has estimated costs over a 6-month timeframe for this ETS. As discussed above, OSHA has therefore used six months of revenue to conduct the cost-to-revenue tests and six months of profit to conduct the cost-to-profit tests.

D. Expected Healthcare Industry Responses to New Temporary Costs In general, “[w]hen an industry is subjected to a higher cost, it does not simply swallow it. It raises its price and reduces its output, and in this way shifts a part of the cost to its consumers and a part to its suppliers.” Am. Dental Ass'n v. Sec'y of Labor, 984 F.2d 823, 829 (7th Cir.

1993). This summary by the Seventh Circuit is in accord with microeconomic theory. In the face of new compliance costs (or other external costs), firms that otherwise have a profitable line of business may have to increase prices to stay viable. Increases in prices typically result in reduced quantity demanded, but rarely eliminate all demand for the product. Depending on the cost and profit structure of individual firms within the industry, a decrease in the total production of goods or services may result from smaller output for each establishment within the industry.

The closure of some plants within the industry. A reduced number of new establishments entering the industry. Or a combination of the three. Whenever demand is relatively inelastic, employers facing new costs typically can pass them along to customers and thereby avoid economic harm to their business. To understand the point about the price elasticity of demand, some economic background is needed.

The price elasticity of demand Start Printed Page 32523refers to the relationship between the price charged for a product or service and the quantity demanded for that product or service. The more elastic the relationship, the larger the decrease in the quantity demanded for a product when the price goes up. When demand is elastic, establishments have less ability to pass compliance costs on to customers in the form of a price increase and must absorb such costs in the form of reduced profits. In contrast, when demand is relatively inelastic, the quantity demanded for the product or service will be less affected by a change in price. In such cases, establishments can recover most of the variable costs of compliance (i.e., costs that are highly correlated with the quantity of output or service) by raising the prices they charge.

Under this scenario, if costs are variable rather than fixed, business activity and profit rates are largely unchanged by small changes in costs. Ultimately, any impacts are primarily borne by those customers who purchase the relevant product or service for a slightly higher price. A large percentage of the costs of this ETS are variable costs because they depend primarily on the number of employees at an establishment.[] Increases in fixed costs can also be passed along, but with a likely reduction in output. A reduction in output could happen as a result of delayed entry of new firms into the industry or the reduction in the level of service or production by individual incumbent establishments, which in healthcare could take the form of a reduction of worker hours and/or fewer appointments. Some marginal establishments could close, but healthcare providers as a group are more likely to be insulated from that level of economic jeopardy.

It is important to note at the outset that the control measures necessary for patient safety and worker safety are substantially the same measures and thus included in the reimbursable costs for patient care activities. The agency also notes that the healthcare industry was able to absorb similar types of costs without significant issues when OSHA implemented its Bloodborne Pathogens rule (56 FR 64004 (Dec. 6, 1991)), which also required hazard assessment and similar PPE. OSHA expects healthcare providers will have a number of options for passing along or addressing any cost increases associated with the ETS. First, where health care providers are reimbursed by private health insurers for a percentage of a charge, small increases in charges such as those that would result from the ETS can be implemented quickly and the increase will be distributed between the insurer and the patient (Williams and Saine, December 14, 2015).

Even larger charge increases could be implemented after negotiation with insurers. In either case, the distribution of the price increase makes it less likely that any price increases from this rule would significantly impact demand. Second, the federal government has already taken steps to provide economic assistance to any healthcare providers that have difficulty passing along costs increases to patients and insurers because of erectile dysfunction treatment. Pursuant to the CARES Act, Public Law 116-136 (March, 2021), and the erectile dysfunction treatment Provider Relief Fund, HHS is distributing $178 billion to hospitals and healthcare providers “on the front lines of the erectile dysfunction response,” which are the providers the ETS focuses on (HHS, January 21, 2021). Providers who participate in Medicare have been eligible for loans through the Medicare Accelerated and Advance Payment Programs, which helps providers facing cash flow disruptions during an emergency (Kaiser Family Foundation, April 20, 2021).

Medicare has also authorized increased payments to address erectile dysfunction treatment care needs, which are often the same as the worker protections required by the ETS (more facemasks, respirators, gloves, etc.) (Id.) Third, some health care providers, including some long-term care facilities, have simply added “erectile dysfunction treatment fees” to directly cover the increased cost of facemasks and other erectile dysfunction treatment related worker protections. (Paavola, November 5, 2020). Further, the temporary nature of the ETS and its associated costs suggests that firms may have more flexibility to respond than when facing a permanent increase in costs. For example, firms may be able to temporarily increase prices or temporarily defer planned capital expenditures or other maintenance to cover compliance costs. When all establishments in an affected industry are covered by a rule and have to comply with the rule, none of the competitors gain any economic advantage from the rule and the ability of a competitor to offer a substitute product or service at a lower price is greatly diminished.

In this case, all the firms in the industry will try to, and generally be able to, pass on most of the costs of the rule in increased prices and revenues rather than in reduced profits. The scope of the ETS is so broad that nearly all firms in nearly all industries that provide healthcare or healthcare support services (at least those OSHA examined due to exceeding the threshold for either the revenue or profit test) would be covered, with the result that even substitution of a service by a different industry is very unlikely. Turning now to the specifics of the ETS and giving an advance summary of the results of the industry investigations that follow all of the industries that exceed the initial profit or revenue screening test to determine economic feasibility provide a domestic service that is not subject to international competition. Thus, in those industries, competition from establishments that are not also subject to this ETS and its related costs is unlikely. Because this indicates that entities in these industries will likely be able to pass most of the costs of the rule on to customers (patients) in the form of increased prices, their profits will not be much affected by the ETS.

E. Limitations of Economic Screens As with other OSHA rulemaking efforts, the agency relies on the two screening tests (costs less than one percent of revenue and costs less than ten percent of profit) as an initial indicator of economic feasibility. Both have their limits in use, and the profit screen in particularly is subject to several limitations. First, as previously noted, OSHA has been using corporate balance sheet data from the IRS as the best available evidence for estimating corporate profits for years.[] Nevertheless, because firms typically have an incentive to minimize their tax burden, it is reasonable to expect that some of the reported accounting data may have been strategically adjusted to reduce reported profits and their associated tax implications. Business profits are particularly amenable to such accounting manipulations (relative to business revenues), which can reduce the accuracy of reliance on profits alone Start Printed Page 32524as a measure for evaluating economic feasibility.[] Second, and most importantly, the profit test has a fairly limited function in the economic analysis for this particular rule because it functions primarily as a screen for a limited purpose.

Alerting OSHA to potential impacts where a high price elasticity of demand will prevent firms from passing costs along to customers. In particular, the profit screen test is primarily used to alert OSHA to potential issues with foreign competition or substitution of goods that could threaten to disrupt an industry, but neither of those are serious considerations for the provision of healthcare services in the U.S. Subject to the ETS. The fact that some healthcare provider groups exceed the profit screen does not mean that there is necessarily an issue of foreign competition or substitution. It just alerts OSHA of the need to look more closely.

These issues are discussed further in the sections below as part of OSHA's examination of the feasibility for particular industries. VII. Economic Feasibility Analysis. All Establishments The preceding discussion has been abstract and technical. This section summarizes OSHA's feasibility findings for specific industries covered by section 1910.502.

As stated previously, the agency uses the two screening tests (costs less than one percent of revenue and costs less than ten percent of profit) as an initial indicator of economic feasibility. However, for this ETS the cost-to-revenue test appears to be the more reliable indicator of feasibility for the industries covered by the ETS. In this section, OSHA discusses the industries that fall above the threshold level for either screening test. OSHA is aware that the economic climate in which this ETS has been promulgated is unique, and that many employers and their workers have been under considerable economic strain for the past year or more. While some healthcare providers were undoubtedly in that group to the extent that patients avoided elective services in accordance with CDC recommendations, the decrease in profits and revenues they experienced resulted to a large extent from their businesses' inability to service their customers' and patients' needs because of erectile dysfunction treatment-related safety issues, rather than a decrease in the demand for their products.

On the other hand, some larger healthcare providers, such as hospitals, experienced significant increases in demand because of the viagra. OSHA has designed the ETS with a flexible approach that provides options for full and partial scope exemptions to control their costs while protecting workers as demand increases for their services as the economy continues to reopen and vaccination becomes increasingly prevalent. Table VI.B.38, “Screening Analysis for all Establishments” shows that for the majority of covered NAICS industries, the cost-to-revenue and cost-to-profit ratios are below both of OSHA's screening thresholds. Only four six-digit NAICS are estimated to have costs in excess of one percent of revenues, ranging from a high of 1.46 percent for NAICS 621310 (Offices of Chiropractors) to 1.05 percent for NAICS 621399 (Offices of All Other Miscellaneous Health Practitioners). The four industries that exceed the revenue screen are.

1. NAICS 621310—Offices of Chiropractors, 1.46 percent. 2. NAICS 621112—Offices of Physicians, Mental Health Specialists, 1.14 percent. 3.

NAICS 621330—Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians), 1.09 percent. 4. NAICS 621399—Offices of All Other Miscellaneous Health Practitioners, 1.05 percent. There are several reasons why the ETS will still be economically feasible for these industries. First, and most critically, the four NAICS industries for which costs are above the revenue screen all provide ambulatory care, typically in non-hospital settings.

Healthcare providers in non-hospital ambulatory care settings can avoid the costs of complying with the ETS simply by performing screening for erectile dysfunction treatment and preventing people with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment from entering their facility (see paragraph (a)(2)(iii)). Many providers in the four NAICS industries that are above the revenue threshold are likely already taking these actions. If an employer determines that complying with the rule would cause financial hardship for its business, that employer could choose to institute these simple policies and procedures for screening and preventing patients with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment from entering the facility. OSHA anticipates that most establishments in the four NAICS industries that are above the revenue screen will be exempt from the ETS, as there is no regular need for providers like chiropractors and mental health care specialists to care for patients who have erectile dysfunction treatment. Those providers who are not already screening out patients with erectile dysfunction treatment s or symptoms may choose to begin doing so if they have concerns about covering the costs of complying with the ETS.

Therefore, because it is so simple to for employers in these industries to avoid the costs of the ETS, OSHA finds that on that basis alone the ETS is inherently feasible for these industries. Second, even to the extent that some of these establishments choose to care for patients with erectile dysfunction treatment, they will likely be a small segment of these industries. Providers that choose not to screen out patients with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment, and incur the costs to comply with the ETS, will likely do so because they would be providing a niche service with sufficient economic incentives to enable them to pass the costs of compliance on to their erectile dysfunction treatment patients or to those patients' insurers. These industries provide domestic services and are not subject to international competition. In addition, all similarly situated ambulatory care health care providers would be subject to the ETS to the extent that they treat erectile dysfunction treatment patients, so there would be no opportunity to substitute that service for erectile dysfunction treatment patients for a cheaper one by switching providers.

Finally, for mental health practitioners in NAICS 621112 and NAICS 621330, there is the additional option of providing telehealth services in many cases. This telehealth option would also permit employers to avoid the costs of complying with the ETS (see § 1910.502(a)(2)(vii). Although the Dingel &. Neiman study (Dingel and Neiman, July 9, 2020) indicated a lack of telework/telemed options, likely because of medical licensing and legal restrictions on providing distanced care, that study was performed before the viagra began.[] Since the study was conducted, there has been a significant loosening of restrictions on the provision of mental health services through non-geographic settings. On March 6, 2020, the erectile dysfunction Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act was signed into law.

That statute gave the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) the authority to waive geographic and originating site Medicare telehealth Start Printed Page 32525reimbursement restrictions for mental health services during certain emergency periods. On March 17, 2020, a division of HHS released guidance allowing patients to be seen via live videoconferencing in their homes, without having to travel to a qualifying “originating site” for Medicare telehealth encounters. As a result, OSHA expects that many mental health physicians and other practitioners who might face economic feasibility issues as a result of the ETS would elect to provide virtual mental health services that fall outside the scope of the rule. Furthermore, psychiatrists and other mental health practitioners practice in a highly regulated industry that is typically based on state licensure that even restricts practice across state lines, never mind national borders. As a result, there is little foreign competition in these industries, indicating that these practitioners would have the ability to pass the costs of compliance onto patients (or insurers).

For the above reasons, OSHA finds that the ETS is economically feasible for establishments in NAICS 621310, NAICS 621112, NAICS 621330 and NAICS 621399. As shown in Table VI.B.38, establishments in 10 six-digit NAICS covered by the ETS are estimated to have costs in excess of ten percent of profits, ranging from a high of 23.82 percent for NAICS 621112 (Offices of Physicians, Mental Health Specialists) to 11.51 percent for NAICS 621320 (Office of Optometrists). The industries with costs that exceed ten percent of profits are. 1. NAICS 621112—Offices of Physicians, Mental Health Specialists, 23.82 percent.

2. NAICS 621310—Offices of Chiropractors, 23.21 percent. 3. NAICS 621330—Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians), 17.31 percent. 4.

NAICS 621399—Offices of All Other Miscellaneous Health Practitioners, 16.65 percent. 5. NAICS 621340—Offices of Physical, Occupational and Speech Therapists and Audiologists, 15.69 percent. 6. NAICS 621391—Office of Podiatrists, 14.81 percent.

7. NAICS 621410—Family Planning Centers, 12.41 percent. 8. NAICS 623210—Residential Intellectual and Developmental Disability Facilities, 12.07 percent. 9.

NAICS 621210—Office of Dentists, 11.71 percent. And 10. NAICS 621320—Office of Optometrists, 11.51 percent. Several of these NAICS industries are the same as those that failed the revenue-screening test. As discussed above, those NAICS industries, and nearly all of the rest of the NAICS industries with cost-to-profit ratios above 10 percent, are expected to avoid the costs of complying with the ETS by performing screening for erectile dysfunction treatment and preventing people with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment s from entering their facility (see paragraph (a)(2)(iii)).

This exemption is available to ambulatory care facilities, which describes nine out of the ten NAICS industries that were above the profit threshold. As noted earlier, in those NAICS industries, establishments for which full compliance with the ETS might cause economic feasibility concerns could avoid the costs of the standard by adopting procedures to screen non-employees prior to entry and prevent those with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment from entering. The one exception is NAICS 623210—Residential Intellectual and Developmental Disability Facilities. Because facilities in this NAICS industries provide residential care, they would not fall under any of the full scope exemptions in the ETS. However, OSHA notes that this NAICS industry did not fail the cost-to-revenue screening test, which OSHA believes is the more useful metric for this industry.

There is no foreign competition, and because all facilities in this NAICS industry must comply with the ETS and incur similar costs, the availability of cheaper substitute services will be limited. OSHA also notes that the ETS includes a partial scope exemption for vaccinated workers in specific areas that could save the employer compliance costs for facemasks, distancing, and barriers (see § 1910.502(a)(4)), particularly to the extent that employers in this NAICS industry do not normally allow residents with erectile dysfunction treatment into their facilities. Finally, OSHA notes that none of the 10 industries that are above the profit screen are subject to foreign competition. The services provided by these industries are often necessities and covered in part or total by insurance, both of which are contributing factors to a very inelastic demand curve, enabling them to pass the cost of the ETS onto the patients, as described earlier in this section. Accordingly, the firms in these 10 industries with ETS costs exceeding 10 percent of profits would not, in fact, have to absorb the costs in the form of lost profits, but would be able to increase revenue to recover most or all of the ETS costs.

Thus cost-to-revenues is the proper metric for these industries. And, as explained above, OSHA does not anticipate feasibility problems in the four industries with cost-to-revenues ratios above one percent. The remaining six did not fall above the revenue threshold. For these reasons, OSHA finds that the ETS is economically feasible for all covered industries in their entirety. Start Printed Page 32526 Start Printed Page 32527 Start Printed Page 32528 a.

Economic Feasibility Screening Analysis. Small and Very Small Businesses The preceding discussion focused on the economic viability of each affected industry in its entirety, including entities of all sizes. Even though OSHA found that the ETS does not threaten the economic viability of these industries, the agency also examines whether there is still a possibility that the competitive structure of these industries could be significantly altered. For instance, if the increase in costs were such that most or all small firms in that industry would have to close, it could reasonably be concluded that the competitive structure of the industry had been affected by the rule. To address this possibility, OSHA will follow its normal rulemaking procedure for examining the average compliance costs per affected small entity and very small entity for each industry covered under the ETS.

As with all establishments, the agency relies on the two screening tests (costs less than one percent of revenue and costs less than ten percent of profit) to evaluate the impacts on small and very small entities.[] In cases where the small and very small entities in particular industries are above the threshold level for either screening test, OSHA will investigate further.[] OSHA notes that cost impacts for affected small or very small entities will generally tend to be somewhat higher, on average, than the cost impacts for the average business in those affected industries. That is to be expected. After all, smaller businesses typically suffer from diseconomies of scale in many aspects of their business, leading to lower revenue per dollar of cost and higher average costs. Small businesses are able to overcome these obstacles by providing specialized products and services, offering local service and better service, or otherwise creating a market niche for themselves. The higher cost impacts for smaller businesses estimated for this rule generally fall within the range observed in other OSHA standards and OSHA is not aware of any record of major industry failures resulting from those standards.[] As explained above, OSHA is relying on the threshold of a costs-to-revenue ratio of one percent as the superior indicator of economic feasibility unless the industries that “fail” the cost-to-profits screening test are unable to pass the costs onto their customers.

For the industries that have a cost-to-profit ratio above ten percent, therefore, the discussion focuses on the ability of these industries to pass along their increased costs, rather than absorbing them in the form of reduced profits. For industries that are below the thresholds for both the cost-to-revenue and cost-to-profit ratios, the agency concludes that the costs of complying with the ETS are unlikely to threaten the survival of small establishments or very small establishments and are, consequently, unlikely to alter the competitive structure of the affected industries. Table VI.B.39, “Screening Analysis for SBA-Defined Small Entities,” shows that the estimated cost of complying with the ETS for the average small establishment covered by the standard is $5,438. Table VI.B.40. Screening Analysis for Very Small Entities (fewer than 20 Employees) shows that the estimated cost of the rule for the average very small entity is $3,432.

Small entities in five six-digit NAICS industries covered by the ETS are estimated to have costs in excess of one percent of annual revenues. 1. NAICS 621310—Offices of Chiropractors, 1.47 percent. 2. NAICS 621399—Offices of All Other Miscellaneous Health Practitioners, 1.24 percent.

3. NAICS 621340—Offices of Physical, Occupational and Speech Therapists and Audiologists, 1.23 percent. 4. NAICS 621112—Offices of Physicians, Mental Health Specialists, 1.14 percent. 5.

NAICS 621330—Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians), 1.09 percent. As discussed above in the section on feasibility for all establishments, these NAICS industries that failed the revenue screen are all ambulatory care facilities that can be easily scoped out of compliance with the requirements of the ETS pursuant to paragraph (a)(2)(iii) and therefore most employers will not need to incur the costs of complying with the standard. The other reasons noted above for the same NAICS industries still apply to these categories of small businesses. Because all five NAICS industries that are above the revenue threshold for small entities are comprised of ambulatory care providers, OSHA finds the ETS to be feasible for small entities in those NAICS industries. Turning to the cost-to-profit test, small entities in 16 six-digit NAICS industries covered by the ETS are estimated to have costs in excess of ten percent of profits, ranging from a high of 23.79 percent for NAICS 621112 (Offices of Physicians, Mental Health Specialists) to 10.90 percent for NAICS 623312 (Assisted Living Facilities for the Elderly).

The 16 industries with cost-to-profit ratios above 10 percent for SBA-defined small entities are. 1. NAICS 621112—Offices of Physicians, Mental Health Specialists, 23.79 percent. 2. NAICS 621310—Office of Chiropractors, 23.39 percent.

3. NAICS 621410—Family Planning Centers, 20.32 percent. 4. NAICS 621399—Offices of All Other Miscellaneous Health Practitioners, 19.70 percent;Start Printed Page 32529 5. NAICS 621340—Offices of Physical, Occupational and Speech Therapists and Audiologists, 19.57 percent.

6. NAICS 622110—General Medical and Surgical Hospitals, 17.76 percent. 7. NAICS 621330—Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians), 17.30 percent. 8.

NAICS 621391—Office of Podiatrists, 15.15 percent. 9. NAICS 561311—Employment Placement Agencies, 15.13 percent. 10. NAICS 621111—Offices of Physicians (except Mental Health Specialists), 14.49 percent.

11. NAICS 623210—Residential Intellectual and Developmental Disability Facilities, 12.35 percent. 12. NAICS 621210—Office of Dentists, 12.21 percent. 13.

NAICS 621320—Office of Optometrists, 12.06 percent. 14. NAICS 621991—Blood and Organ Banks, 12.02 percent. 15. NAICS 621498—All Other Outpatient Care Centers, 11.60 percent.

16. NAICS 623312—Assisted Living Facilities for the Elderly, 10.90 percent. Of the sixteen industries that fail the profit screening, all but 5 would be eligible for the ambulatory care exemptions in § 1910.502(a)(2)(iii) (for ambulatory care outside hospital settings) or (a)(2)(iv) (for ambulatory facilities located within hospital settings where workers are vaccinated). Some, such as mental health care providers, may also be able to provide care through telehealth, thereby avoiding the costs of the ETS (see § 1910.502(a)(vii)). As discussed in the previous section, all the firms in the 5 NAICS industries that do not provide ambulatory care must comply with the ETS, substantially diminishing the ability of a competitor to offer a substitute product or service at a lower price, as they all are expected to incur the costs of compliance.

These industries also provide domestic services and are not subject to foreign competition. This, along with the fact that services provided by these industries are often necessities and covered in part or total by insurance, are contributing factors to very inelastic demand curves. The inelasticity of demand enables practitioners in these industries to pass costs along to their patients. Accordingly, the small entities in these industries with ETS costs exceeding 10 percent of profits would not, in fact, have to absorb the costs in the form of lost profits, but would be able to increase revenue to recover most or all of the ETS costs. Thus, the cost-to-revenues screen is the more useful metric for these industries, and none of those firms fail the revenue screen.

The five industries that do exceed the profit threshold are not obvious candidates for the ambulatory care exemption or any of the other blanket exemptions to the scope of the standard, although they may be able to reduce costs through the vaccinated-employee partial exemption in § 1910.502(a)(4). Each of these is addressed in turn below with the explanation of why the ETS would be feasible for the majority of small entities in these NAICS industries. NAICS 622110—General Medical and Surgical Hospitals. These essential services have significant inelastic demand and there are no substitute services that would not also be subject to the ETS. As described earlier in this section, these establishments can pass along costs, or can apply for CARES Act Relief funds to help them weather financial difficulties during the temporary period in which the ETS will be in effect.

NAICS 561311—Employment Placement Agencies. Entities in this NAICS industry are included in the scope of the ETS because they place healthcare personnel into medical facilities or other locations to provide healthcare services. However, it seems unlikely that they would be providing healthcare services inside their placement offices, so the exception for “healthcare support services not performed in a healthcare setting” would likely apply such that they could avoid the costs of the rule with respect to their administrative offices (§ 1910.502(a)(2)(vi)). To the extent that they have employees who contract to work in other healthcare settings, they could either pass along the costs through increases in the contract costs or arrange with the host healthcare provider to directly assume the costs for providing PPE, barriers, and other protections needed in the host setting. In the unlikely event that the ETS costs impacted demand in this area, employers in this field could decrease the number of employees.

NAICS 623210—Residential Intellectual and Developmental Disability Facilities. It is feasible for the employers in this NAICS industry to comply with the ETS for the reasons already provided earlier with respect to the same NAICS industry failing the profit screen for the all-sized category, as well as the other general reasons identifies in this section. NAICS 621991—Blood and Organ Banks. The ETS would be economically feasible for small businesses in this NAICS industry because blood and organs are textbook examples of essential goods and services for which there is such a constant demand that firms in this NAICS industry can easily pass along costs to the hospitals and other clients who need to obtain blood or organs. NAICS 623312—Assisted Living Facilities for the Elderly.

This NAICS industry, which only slightly exceeds the profit-to-cost screen of 10 percent at 10.9 percent, is not subject to substitution because there is typically significant demand for these services and all similar facilities would be covered by the ETS. For these reasons, the increase in costs are not such that most or all small firms in those NAICS industries would have to close, and OSHA concludes that the competitive structure of these industries will not be affected by the rule. OSHA therefore finds that the ETS is economically feasible for small entities in these industries. As shown in Table VI.B.40, very small entities in 10 six-digit NAICS industries covered by the ETS are estimated to have costs in excess of one percent of revenues, ranging from a high of 1.63 percent for NAICS 621330 (Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians)) to 1.02 percent for NAICS 621910 (Ambulance Services). 1.

NAICS 621330—Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians), 1.63 percent. 2. NAICS 621399—Offices of All Other Miscellaneous Health Practitioners, 1.56 percent. 3. NAICS 621310—Office of Chiropractors, 1.54 percent.

4. NAICS 621340—Offices of Physical, Occupational and Speech Therapists and Audiologists, 1.49 percent. 5. NAICS 621410—Family Planning Centers, 1.41 percent. 6.

NAICS 621112—Offices of Physicians, Mental Health Specialists, 1.37 percent. 7. NAICS 621610—Home Health Care Services, 1.13 percent. 8. NAICS 621391—Office of Podiatrists, 1.08 percent.

9. NAICS 922160—Public Firefighter-EMTs, 1.03 percent. 10. NAICS 621910—Ambulance Services, 1.02 percent. Most employers in all but three of those NAICS industries are likely eligible for the non-hospital ambulatory care exception in § 1910.502(a)(2)(iii) if they screen out and bar entry to people with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment.

That basis alone is sufficient to support a finding that the ETS will not disrupt any of those industries. In addition, OSHA notes that all of the very small businesses in this group that failed the Start Printed Page 32530revenue screen provide services that do not face foreign competition and cannot be readily substituted by other domestic healthcare providers because those providers would also be subject to the ETS and incur the same costs. There are three groups that are not likely to qualify for the ambulatory care scope exception. All three have inelastic demand for their services and no obvious substitutes, so they could easily pass along costs. NAICS 621610—Home Health Care Services, NAICS 922160—Public Firefighter-EMTs, NAICS 621910—Ambulance Services, The ETS includes provides a scope exception in § 1910.502(a)(2)(v) for home health care when the employees conducting a home visit are fully vaccinated and screen their patients and limit their services to homes where there is no one with suspected or confirmed to have erectile dysfunction treatment.

Public Firefighters-EMTs and Ambulance Services are both essential services that typically receive enough support from public funding that it would be very unlikely that any such employer would be driven out of business by an increase in cost, and even more unlikely that the industry would be disrupted by the ETS costs. Both the firefighter/EMTs and ambulance services barely failed the screen at 1.02 and 1.03, respectively, even when costs were compared to just 6 months of revenue. Very small entities in 26 six digit NAICS industries that are covered by the ETS are estimated to have costs in excess of ten percent of profits, ranging from 34.14 percent for NAICS 561311 (Employment Placement Agencies) to 10.02 percent for NAICS 621991 (Blood and Organ Banks). The 26 very small entities with cost-to-profit ratios above 10 percent are. 1.

NAICS 561311—Employment Placement Agencies, 34.14 percent. 2. NAICS 621410—Family Planning Centers, 32.17 percent. 3. NAICS 621112—Offices of Physicians, Mental Health Specialists, 28.69 percent.

4. NAICS 621330—Offices of Mental Health Practitioners (except Physicians), 25.90 percent. 5. NAICS 621399—Offices of All Other Miscellaneous Health Practitioners, 24.77 percent. 6.

NAICS 621310—Offices of Chiropractors, 24.45 percent. 7. NAICS 621340—Offices of Physical, Occupational and Speech Therapists and Audiologists, 23.69 percent. 8. NAICS 621420—Outpatient Mental Health and Substance Abuse Centers, 20.46 percent.

9. NAICS 621610—Home Health Care Services, 19.93 percent. 10. NAICS 922160—Public Firefighters-EMTs, 18.23 percent. 11.

NAICS 621111—Offices of Physicians (except Mental Health Specialists), 17.97 percent. 12. NAICS 621910—Ambulance Services, 17.93 percent. 13. NAICS 621498—All Other Outpatient Care Centers, 17.49 percent.

14. NAICS 621391—Offices of Podiatrists, 17.10 percent. 15. NAICS 623312—Assisted Living Facilities for the Elderly, 16.59 percent. 16.

NAICS 623210—Residential Intellectual and Developmental Disability Facilities, 16.04 percent. 17. NAICS 621320—Offices of Optometrists, 13.74 percent. 18. NAICS 621210—Offices of Dentists, 13.48 percent.

19. NAICS 621492—Kidney Dialysis Centers, 13.31 percent. 20. NAICS 621999—All Other Miscellaneous Ambulatory Health Care Services, 12.65 percent. 21.

NAICS 623311—Continuing Care Retirement Communities, 12.62 percent. 22. NAICS 611710—Educational Support Services, 11.95 percent. 23. NAICS 623990—Other Residential Care Facilities, 11.67 percent.

24. NAICS 611110—Elementary and Secondary Schools, 11.63 percent. 25. NAICS 561210—Facility Support Services, 10.48 percent. And 26.

NAICS 621991—Blood and Organ Banks, 10.02 percent. The feasibility of the ETS has been addressed earlier for employers in most of these NAICS industries, while a number of the employers not previously addressed would be eligible for the ambulatory care exception in § 1910.502(a)(2)(iii) (Outpatient Care, Outpatient Mental Health and Substance Abuse Centers, Physicians' Offices, Kidney Dialysis Centers, Miscellaneous Ambulatory Care). As with the small entities, these industries provide domestic services and are not subject to international competition. As a result, these industries would have the ability to pass costs onto the customer. Accordingly, the very small entities in these industries with ETS costs exceeding 10 percent of profits would not, in fact, have to absorb the costs in the form of lost profits, but would be able to increase revenue to recover most or all of the ETS costs.

There do not appear to be any feasibility issues for any of the remaining very small entities that failed the profit screen for the reasons below. NAICS 623311—Continuing Care Retirement Communities. As with assisted living, these are not subject to substitution because there is typically significant demand for these services and all similar facilities would be covered by the ETS. NAICS 623990—Other Residential Care Facilities. Same as continuing care retirement communities.

NAICS 611710—Educational Support Services. Employers in this NAICS are likely small firms who provide school nursing services to public and private schools. OSHA believes that the demand for such services is inelastic, and such entities will be able to pass the roughly $2,000 in one-time costs to their clients. NAICS 611110—Elementary and Secondary Schools. Employers who are very small entities within this NAICS industry and failed the profit screen are likely to be private educational institutions with a school nurse or similar personnel.

However, the NAICS industries includes a variety of educational institutions, including for profit, non-profit, and public. Public schools have the ability to pass compliance costs on to their local funding jurisdictions, while some private schools have affiliated religious or other institutions that can provide financial support to these institutions without it counting toward “profit.” In addition, the federal government has distributed significant funding to schools for the purposes of assisting the schools in protecting against erectile dysfunction treatment, so many schools will be able to use that money to protect their healthcare workers in accordance with the ETS. Even in the unlikely event that a small number of institutions would not be able to sustain the one-time $2,000 cost of the ETS, the likely result could be the temporary closure of a school nurse's office, if permitted by law, as opposed to closure of an entire school. Even in the unlikely event that a small number of institutions would not be able to sustain the one-time $2,000 cost of the ETS, OSHA finds it very unlikely that the failure of such schools for that reason would disrupt the education sector when many private education institutions are non-profit organizations. NAICS 561210—Facility Support Services.

Employers providing services tied to specific facilities will typically be essential to that facility, especially when any potential source of substitution would also be subject to the same ETS costs. For the reasons identified above the increase in costs are not such that most or all very small firms in that industry would have to close, the competitive Start Printed Page 32531structure of these industries will not be affected by the rule. OSHA therefore concludes that compliance with the ETS would be economically feasible for very small entities in these covered industries. Start Printed Page 32532 Start Printed Page 32533 Start Printed Page 32534 b. Conclusion To determine whether compliance with the ETS is economically feasible for all affected industries, OSHA conducted two screening tests to determine whether the costs of the rule are beneath the threshold level at which the economic viability of an affected industry might be threatened.

The two screening tests are the one-percent-of-revenue test and the ten-percent-of-profit test. For those industries with costs beneath both of these threshold levels, the rule was presumed to be economically feasible. Industries that have costs beneath both thresholds for all establishments constitute the majority of industries covered by the ETS. For industries with costs above one percent of revenues or ten percent of profits, OSHA performed additional analysis regarding whether firms would Start Printed Page 32535be eligible for scope exemptions to avoid the cost of compliance with the ETS or whether they could generally pass on the compliance costs of the rule in the form of higher prices or if, instead, firms would have to absorb the costs of the rule in the form of lost profits. Given the fact that all competitors in the industries that had costs above the revenue or profit threshold have to comply with the ETS, OSHA does not expect foreign competition or other factors to restrict the ability of affected firms to pass the costs of the ETS on to consumers through price increases.

OSHA has, for that reason and for the additional reasons described in more detail above, concluded that the revenue test is the most appropriate metric to use for determining the economic feasibility of the ETS. Looking at ETS costs to revenues, OSHA has concluded that complying with the ETS is economically feasible for all covered industries in their entirety. Furthermore, none of the economic impacts on small or very small entities are such as to threaten the structure of any of the covered healthcare industries (this is further buttressed by the significant baseline compliance of the small and very small entities in these industries). In addition, it is important to note that the costs of compliance with the ETS will only affect revenues and profits for the period during which the ETS is in effect, which is expected to be at most 6 months, so it will be easier for employers to withstand the impact of any additional costs for this time period as opposed to absorbing ongoing costs typically required by rulemakings. Finally, OSHA notes that most of the NAICS that failed one or both of the screens would not have done so if OSHA followed its normal analysis of comparing costs to annual profit and revenue, as opposed to only 6 months of profits and revenue.

Under a one-year timeframe of revenues and costs, the economic impacts of the ETS would have been cut in half. VIII. erectile dysfunction treatment ETS Health Benefits a. Introduction This chapter estimates the health benefits of the erectile dysfunction treatment Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS), while the following chapter discusses other (non-health) benefits of the ETS. Assessing the health benefits of the ETS accurately is a difficult task because erectile dysfunction treatment case and fatality counts change rapidly and because the recent deployment of three new treatments and the advance of rapidly spreading variants have complicated the calculation of baseline s and deaths for the ETS.

As treatments have become available to an increasing number of people, fatalities from erectile dysfunction treatment have dropped over the last few months. Meanwhile, case counts and hospitalizations have not uniformly decreased alongside vaccinations, instead at times increasing—including among people of working age—as a particularly transmissible variant accounts for more than a quarter of new cases assessed in the U.S. To be representative of recent experience, OSHA is examining the number of cases and fatalities during the recent month of March 20, 2021 through April 20, 2021, to develop an estimate of how many s and fatalities will be prevented over the 6-month period of the ETS if those numbers stay constant during that time. OSHA labels this its “primary” estimate. But there is a great deal of uncertainty around any estimates of health benefits obtained from the ETS.

OSHA also developed a scenario that uses the historic average over the first year of the viagra, divided by two, as an alternative estimate of impacts for the next six months. There are further discussions of the effects of treatments below, as a part of a systematic construction of possible cases and fatalities avoided. The estimation of the monetized health benefits of the ETS, taking into account community transmission (transmission outside the workplace) and the degree of worker vaccination, as well as other uncertainties, is developed step by step in the following sections. The first section describes the scope and limitation of ETS health benefits. The second section describes the data and underlying assumptions used in OSHA's estimation of health benefits for workers in healthcare (HCWs) subject to 29 CFR 1910.502.

The third section addresses how OSHA developed several baseline estimates of s and deaths from the erectile dysfunction viagra for HCWs that might occur in the absence of the ETS and vaccination. The fourth section describes how OSHA estimated the s and deaths that would be prevented by the ETS relative to (alternative) baseline conditions. In that section, OSHA takes into account the rapid development and deployment of treatments for the working population. The health benefits of s and deaths averted due to the ETS are monetized in the fifth section. The chapter concludes with a summary of estimated health benefits of the ETS under various scenarios.

B. Scope of OSHA's Estimates of ETS Health Benefits and Discussion of Secondary Benefits For the purpose of estimating the ETS benefits, OSHA has not attempted to quantify or account for a variety of secondary and feedback health benefits arising as a result of the ETS. For example, the agency does not account for the secondary benefits of avoided erectile dysfunction treatment cases among family and friends (other than co-workers) that would occur due to exposure to an infected worker absent the ETS. The agency also does not count the benefits of avoided cases that would otherwise occur due to workplace transmission from employees to patients and other visitors to a healthcare facility. Nor does the agency include the many downstream benefits to the public of keeping HCWs safe from erectile dysfunction treatment, including maintaining sufficient healthy staff with the necessary skills to treat patients in need of care.

Other unquantified benefits include those due to the feedback effects of reduced community spread of the viagra that may lead to fewer erectile dysfunction treatment s and deaths generally, including reduced spread to workers outside the workplace. As discussed below in the following two paragraphs, the agency believes that taken together these non-quantified benefits are sizable. Reducing cases of erectile dysfunction treatment among HCWs will help ensure the effective functioning of the healthcare system, which in turn protects workers who become patients, as well as many others, after erectile dysfunction treatment . Patients hospitalized for erectile dysfunction treatment require substantial health care resources such as staff, beds, and equipment. Many hospitals over the course of the viagra have been at or near ICU capacity due to the surges in erectile dysfunction treatment cases, diminishing the health care system's ability to provide essential healthcare services.

Reducing employee s can remove one of the stressors on the healthcare system. Reducing s among HCWs in particular will increase the number of staff available to treat patients with both erectile dysfunction treatment and non-erectile dysfunction treatment ailments. In turn, the quality of care will improve since medical staff will be less time constrained. Additionally, the estimated quantified ETS benefits do not include non-health related benefits such as a beneficial impact on the economy at large or the impact of how the disease has disproportionately impacted communities of color both financially and in terms of health effects and lives lost throughout the viagra. For a Start Printed Page 32536discussion of non-health related benefits please see the section VI.B.VIII.i, Other (Non-Health) Benefits of the ETS.

C. Limitations of OSHA's Estimates of ETS Health Benefits OSHA's analysis of potential benefits has a number of analytical limitations due to the uncertain trajectory of the viagra, difficulty forecasting future and death rates, difficulty quantifying the impacts of various factors that might influence this analysis, unavailability of data and information suitable for extrapolation, and limits on the time and resources available for this analysis given the emergency circumstances. Throughout the analysis, OSHA found it necessary to include a variety of simplifying assumptions. Some of the most important are summarized here and discussed further later in the analysis. The ETS will be in place for six months.

HCWs are age 18-64. HCWs have the same erectile dysfunction treatment rates as non-health care workers (NHCWs).[] Each of the next 6 months of s and deaths will duplicate the “primary” scenario or the monthly “alternative” scenario average. The average vaccination rate over the next six months for the HCW population will be 75 percent. treatments will have an 85.2 percent efficacy rate at preventing s and will prevent all fatalities (U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), December 18, 2020, U.S.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA), December 11, 2020, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), February 4, 2021). 80 percent of erectile dysfunction treatment s and deaths in HCWs are workplace-acquired. The remaining 20 percent are attributable to community spread. The standard will have preventiveness coefficients of 94 percent of HCW workplace transmissions and, taking into account a community spread of 20 percent, an overall effectiveness rate of 75 percent for HCWs.

These simplifying assumptions mean that specific analytical inputs and outputs might be over- or underestimated to the extent that real world conditions vary from these assumptions. As discussed further, a sensitivity analysis was conducted exploring some alternative simplifying assumptions, along with examples with much lower monthly case counts. This analysis is presented at the end of this document. OSHA was also not able to adjust its quantitative estimates to account for several factors that might impact the potential benefits of the ETS. These include.

Unreported s or deaths. s and deaths may have been underreported early in the viagra, when knowledge of, and testing for, erectile dysfunction treatment were more limited. Potential reductions in fatalities from improvements in medical treatment for erectile dysfunction treatment in the coming months. Impacts of mutations or variations in the erectile dysfunction viagra on disease transmissibility or severity, viagra susceptibility to one or more class of therapies, and neutralization of antibodies generated during previous or vaccination. Changes in social and state, local, tribal, and territorial government practices and restrictions beyond those reflected in the baseline and death counts.

These changes could result in more or fewer vulnerable workers being exposed to erectile dysfunction treatment. Decreases in teleworking and more in-person work, which would increase the benefits for this ETS. Chronic impacts of erectile dysfunction treatment disease, including any potential risk of premature death. While OSHA relied on the best available evidence in forming its estimates, it is possible that given these analytical limitations, aspects of OSHA's quantitative estimate of benefits may be over or underestimated. Additionally, a variety of potential benefits were not quantified.

OSHA requests public comments on relevant data, literature, and methodological suggestions that it might use to improve underlying assumptions or otherwise address these limitations at the final standard rule stage, if a final standard is needed. OSHA also welcomes comments on all aspects of the economic analysis. D. Data and Estimation Methods The starting point for estimating the expected number of erectile dysfunction treatment s and deaths prevented by the ETS is to estimate the expected number of the respective health outcomes in the absence of the ETS. The data source for the baseline estimates is from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The CDC's Cases and Deaths, Daily and Total Trends, found on the CDC Daily Tracker website (CDC April 20, 2021). The CDC collects erectile dysfunction treatment data from state and county health departments and publishes a daily update that includes the number of confirmed s in the U.S. Along with cumulative deaths. The CDC reports both the total number of “confirmed” erectile dysfunction treatment s (i.e., confirmed by a lab test such as a polymerase chain reaction or serologic test) and “probable” cases (i.e., clinical and epidemiologic evidence without confirmed testing).[] Note that the CDC daily reports likely undercount the number of s since most people infected with erectile dysfunction treatment are not tested.[] The characteristics of the CDC data that OSHA uses to calculate the baseline estimates for the healthcare worker populations are described below. Start Printed Page 32537 Forecasts of erectile dysfunction treatment cases and deaths involve a high level of uncertainty, because they depend largely on predicting human behavior, both inside and outside of work.

Mitigation policies at all levels of government, which are constantly changing. And the emergence of new variants of the viagra, all of which are major factors influencing erectile dysfunction treatment outcomes. Forecasting the course of the viagra beyond four weeks is so uncertain that many infectious disease modelers refuse to do it. For example, one recent review found that, compared to one-week forecasts, prediction errors doubled when forecasting four weeks out and were five to six times higher when forecasting 20 weeks out (Cramer et al., February 5, 2021). The same review found that, on average, models looking eight weeks or more ahead estimated ranges that included the actual outcome less than half the time.

Given that degree of uncertainty, the CDC only forecasts for four weeks and does so as an ensemble model, which brings together insights from numerous different models into a combined forecast (CDC, April 20, 2021). Short-range predictions from models such as the CDC Ensemble Model have provided useful information. For example, on March 15, 2021 the CDC Ensemble Model for the week ending April 10, 2021 showed a mid-point estimate of 272,367 cases. That week there were 451,328 cases, but this was well within the forecast range of 137,538 to 510,617 cases per week. On April 25, 2021, this group of models predicted 248,663 to 723,900 (mid-point of 476,970) new cases per week likely to be reported in the week ending May 15, 2021.

The actual number of reported cases for the week ending May 15 was 218,241. This was below even the models' 97.5 percent lower bound estimate from April. Rather than using available forecasting models,[] OSHA will rely on the documented number of cases and deaths during either a recent time period or for the first year of the viagra as representing a range of possible baseline estimates. A review of forecasting models available to the public over the past year shows they have been universally inaccurate. OSHA has found none are sufficiently reliable to support an estimate of erectile dysfunction treatment cases and deaths for the next 6 months.

OSHA's estimates of health benefits from the ETS are therefore derived from its analysis of the cases in this range, with subsequent adjustments as described below. OSHA believes this approach is appropriate as a starting point for this analysis, and notes that the agency's estimates appear in line with the three-week modeling, although the CDC Ensemble Model produces a range of estimates with a midpoint (476,970 cases per week) that is near OSHA's estimate of 510,307 cases per week, based on the month before April 20, 2021 (CDC, April 20, 2021). Summary of erectile dysfunction treatment Cases and Fatalities Prevented by the ETS Using OSHA's “primary” scenario based on actual data from March 19, 2021 through April 19, 2021 (explained below), and taking into account overall effectiveness of 75 percent, the agency estimates there would be 295,284 HCW s and 776 HCW deaths prevented by the ETS.[] These results are summarized in Table VI.B.41. Most of this section explains OSHA's use of data to discover the number of cases and fatalities that would occur over six months without the ETS. OSHA's step-by-step derivation of baseline s and deaths over a six-month period is described in the sections below.

Identification of Total erectile dysfunction treatment Cases by Age Group To Determine Infected Worker Population OSHA bases its analysis of the health benefits on the estimated reduction in the number of erectile dysfunction treatment s and deaths among covered HCWs as a result of compliance with the ETS. Prevented cases of erectile dysfunction treatment s can range widely in severity and include asymptomatic cases, cases involving mild to moderate symptoms, cases involving severe symptoms prompting hospitalization, cases with long-term health effects, including disability, and fatal cases. For other rulemakings, OSHA has calculated benefits for the reduced risk of premature death from chronic disease.[] For this ETS, given that the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra is a little over a year old, the agency believes that estimates of the costs of premature death due to the disease's chronic effects would be too speculative to quantify. OSHA relies on CDC data reported on April 19, 2021, which was as current as the timeline for this emergency rulemaking allows, to identify the data sample for baseline estimates of HCWs erectile dysfunction treatment s and deaths. HCWs, for purposes of this section of the preamble, are those covered by Section 1910.502 of the ETS.

As of April 19, 2021, the U.S. Had 31,484,148 reported erectile dysfunction treatment s and 564,292 deaths. Out of the 31,484,148 erectile dysfunction treatment s, 24,726,290 individual “Human with 2019 Novel erectile dysfunction Case Report Forms,” containing more extensive information about each patient, have been collected Start Printed Page 32538by the CDC.[] Of those forms collected, 24,740,863 indicated the age of the individual who had erectile dysfunction treatment. Based on those forms, 74 percent of the people who identified their age were of working age (assumed to be ages 18 to 64 for purposes of this analysis). Table VI.B.42, below, presents the total number of cases and deaths reported by the CDC through April 19, 2021, along with the agency's estimate of cases and deaths among employed workers ages 18-64.

As its starting point, OSHA used the number of cases reported by the CDC on April 19, 2021 (31,484,148). From there, OSHA used the 74 percent figure described in Table VI.B.42 to exclude all cases among people ages 1-17 years and 65 years and over to obtain the total number of cases among people ages 18 to 64.[] Once OSHA had estimated the number of cases within the 18-64 age range, the agency applied an average employment-to-population ratio of 69 percent to the number of cases among people ages 18-64 to determine the number of employed people infected.[] OSHA's estimate of the number of cases among employed adults, ages 18-64, is based on the simplifying assumption that employed and unemployed adults within this broad age range contract erectile dysfunction treatment at the same rate. Teleworkers are removed from this analysis. Although workers who do not telework may actually have a much higher rate than either teleworkers or unemployed individuals because of increased contact with others at work, this assumption is necessary because of the lack of specific data on differences in rates between employed and unemployed individuals. OSHA followed the same procedure to obtain the number of fatalities among workers aged 18 to 64.

The information in Table VI.B.42 was used to help develop the baseline estimates that follow. In order to estimate benefits arising from the ETS, OSHA provides “primary” and “alternative” historic estimates of the number of cases and fatalities based on two different methods of counting cases and fatalities. These primary and alternative estimates provide a bounded range for benefits calculations. The primary historic estimate corresponds to the number of s and fatalities in the U.S. (not just workers) among people ages 18 to 64 in a one-month period (March 19-April 19, 2021).

OSHA relies on this estimate in its primary analysis for several reasons. (1) It has a basis in recent historic fact, (2) the estimate is well within the bounds of short-term CDC forecasts, and (3) at the time this analysis was conducted, this is a reasonable estimate considering the current numbers and the uncertainty between the rate of vaccinations and the spread of more transmissible variants. If the entire epidemic had behaved similarly to the primary month levels of s and fatalities, there would have been a lower number of s and fatalities over the past year. The alternative estimate is based on the historic average monthly s and fatalities between April 1, 2020 and April 1, 2021, which covers most of the viagra.[] To obtain this alternative estimate, OSHA took the total s and fatalities for this period among those who were 18 to 64 years old, and then divided by 12 months. Start Printed Page 32539 OSHA considered using a higher estimate based on the pre-treatment December 2020 surge in cases and fatalities but will instead report the 12-month monthly-average as the alternative estimate.

A December estimate of cases and deaths would be at least twice the magnitude of even the OSHA alternative estimate (the higher of OSHA's two estimates) and could significantly over-estimate the benefits even after vaccinations are considered. Furthermore, at the time this analysis was conducted, a December weekly case count (of over 1 million) seemed unreasonable and was also significantly higher than the highest estimate from the CDC Ensemble model. The primary and alternative historical averages for s and fatalities for the U.S. Population ages 18 to 64 are summarized in Table VI.B.43. Baseline Estimate Assumptions For this analysis, OSHA assumes that the ETS will be in effect for six months.

Estimating baseline erectile dysfunction treatment s and deaths that will occur among HCWs over this six-month period is uncertain due to several factors, including. (1) The novel nature of the viagra and resulting viagra. (2) heterogeneous timing and conditions of exposure control policies enacted by various governmental authorities. (3) new viagra variants. And (4) the effect of currently-authorized treatments.

OSHA was unable to adjust or fatality rates for any of these factors except vaccination, which is discussed further below. OSHA also includes a simplifying assumption that NHCWs and HCWs have the same erectile dysfunction treatment rates. OSHA believes this method significantly undercounts HCW cases. However, in the benefits calculations, OSHA takes into account the higher vaccination rates for HCWs. This results in the ETS providing a lower percentage of s avoided per HCW relative to per NHCW.

In developing its main set of baseline estimates, OSHA makes an important simplifying assumption. For the alternative historic estimates, OSHA assumes that the average monthly number of HCW s and fatalities over the next 6 months will, absent this ETS, equal the average monthly number of HCW s and fatalities during the first twelve months of the epidemic, with April 1, 2020 as the starting point. In other words, OSHA assumes that the average monthly number of HCW s and deaths that occurred during the twelve-month period from April 2020 to April 2021 will also occur on a monthly basis during the six-month period beginning when the ETS goes into effect. The same assumption is also true for the primary scenario. For the primary scenario, absent the ETS, OSHA assumes that the same monthly number of cases and fatalities that occurred from March 19, 2021 through April 19, 2021 would be prevented each month, on average, for the next six months.

This simplifying assumption of a constant continuing average number of baseline s and deaths makes sense because, among other reasons, one would not expect employers to institute additional control procedures beyond what they already have in place absent the requirements of the ETS. As a starting point for creating the baseline, this assumes other influences—including social and government practices and restrictions. and fatality rates. Variants of the viagra. And the efficacy, production, and use of available treatments—will stay relatively constant, or, more realistically, will balance each other out.

E. Baseline Estimates of Cases and Deaths Table VI.B.44 and Table VI.B.45 and the discussion below illustrate OSHA's process for determining the number of baseline cases and deaths that can be affected by the ETS. Start Printed Page 32540 Start Printed Page 32541 OSHA's process for identifying the number of workplace cases of erectile dysfunction treatment, which for this analysis is treated the same as the number of s,[] is illustrated in Table VI.B.44. The primary scenario OSHA is examining extrapolates data from March-April 2021. While OSHA has data from the CDC indicating the total number of erectile dysfunction treatment cases recorded during March 19-April 19 (2,041,229), those data do not specify which of those cases are infected workers and which are other members of the community.

The data do, however, identify most of the cases by age. After OSHA has adjusted the number of these cases for age (to focus on cases of working-age people—see Table VI.B.42 and Row B of Table VI.B.44), OSHA also reduces that number to account for working-age persons who are not employed based on age-specific employment percentages, assuming the employed and non-employed have an equal chance of becoming infected. The remaining total number of worker cases from CDC data for this month is estimated to be 1,047,145 (see Row C of Table VI.B.44). OSHA's benefits calculations include several additional adjustments, each described in more detail later, to ensure that they are focused on the prevention of just those transmissions that would have occurred at the workplace. First, OSHA allocated all cases between teleworking employees (by definition they are not at the workplace so cannot be infected at work) and physical workplace employees.

Second, OSHA adjusted the number of cases remaining for physical workplace employees by removing some of those cases as potentially attributable to community spread ( transmission occurring outside the workplace) versus workplace . Any discovered at work could have been contracted at work, at home, or elsewhere outside of the workplace. The ETS does not protect employees when they are away from the workplace, and they might still become infected in non-work settings. Failure to account for these non-work-acquired s would lead to an overestimation of the number of cases averted by the ETS. Unfortunately, the data available to the agency for estimating baseline erectile dysfunction treatment s and deaths do not distinguish between workplace s and those acquired elsewhere.

To make such a distinction, OSHA ultimately must try to account for the community spread of s. Finally, it is important to note that while OSHA is attempting to remove community spread cases from benefits calculations, many such community spread cases include workers in the workplace, so OSHA still takes full ETS costs for them. For example, the employer would still be required to pay for the medical removal of an employee who was infected outside the workplace in order to keep that employee from transmitting the viagra to others at the workplace. As a final step, OSHA removed a number of cases to account for vaccinations (later in the analysis the vaccinations are also factored into reducing monetized benefits). erectile dysfunction treatment Cases Among Teleworkers Table VI.B.46 presents percentages of the labor force by teleworking and non-teleworking sectors.

Note that teleworkers are estimated from all those occupations capable of telework as estimated by Dingel and Neiman (July 9, 2020) and will be overestimated to the extent that, as viagra conditions improve, more workers return to the physical workplace.[] Start Printed Page 32542 To use these worker percentages to allocate total cases among the groups we need to know the relative rate of s for teleworkers versus employed non-teleworkers. Here OSHA relies on a study conducted in mid-2020 that found a relative rate of 66 percent.[] Applying this relative rate, along with the teleworking percentage of 33 percent, to the total number of worker cases, OSHA calculates that the total number of erectile dysfunction treatment cases among teleworkers is 228,797 (33% × 66% × 1,047,145) (See Table IV.B.44, Row D).[] Adjustment to physical workplace cases to remove cases from community spread. The remaining 818,348 (1,047,145−228,797) cases among people of working age are attributed to workers who work in the physical workplace (See Table IV.B.44, Row E). These cases are likely to be partly due to community spread and partly to workplace transmission. This analysis includes a simplifying assumption that the community spread share is 20 percent.[] This leaves 654,678 cases attributed to workplace transmission (818,348 × (1-20%)) (See, Row F).

Allocation of workplace transmission to section 502. Next the remaining 654,678 cases among healthcare workers and non-healthcare workers are allocated by their relative share of non-teleworking employment, where healthcare workers are 13 percent (9%/(9% + 58%)) and non-health care workers represent the remainder, which is 87 percent (100% − 13%). The number of workplace cases for healthcare workers is therefore 83,458 (13% × 654,678) (See Table IV.B.44, Row H). Next, because these numbers are only for a single month, OSHA multiplies these totals by six to get the total number cases during the next six months. For healthcare workers, 500,746 cases (6 × 83,458).

(See Table IV.B.44, Row J). Finally, OSHA reduces cases by vaccination rates, taking into account treatment effectiveness. OSHA's adjustment for treatments has two steps. (1) Removing some cases to account for vaccination preventing them. And (2) adding back in some cases to reflect the fact that the treatment is not 100 percent effective, so a small number of people who are vaccinated are still included in the number of erectile dysfunction treatment cases.

For the first step, if OSHA simply assumed no one was vaccinated during the period from which the raw data were drawn, and the vaccination rate stays constant during the period of the ETS with an average of 75 percent, the reduction for vaccination would be the simple subtraction of 75 percent of the cases in the raw data. But that would result in an over-reduction of cases because the CDC's raw data does in fact already have some vaccination rates built in. Healthcare workers were some of the first workers to be eligible for vaccination. For the primary scenario, which is the data from March/April 2021, OSHA estimates the vaccination rate for healthcare workers at 50 percent during that period.[] In the second step, OSHA must account for the fact that vaccination will not prevent all erectile dysfunction treatment cases, so a small group of vaccinated HCWs will still become erectile dysfunction treatment cases even after being vaccinated (although OSHA assumes that the treatment will still prevent all of them from dying). In other words, if the treatment efficacy rate was 100 percent, then OSHA would just focus on vaccinated cases versus unvaccinated cases, but the treatments are assumed to have only an 85.2 efficacy rate at preventing erectile dysfunction treatment, which is the average rate derived from the three available treatments.[] The formula adjusting for the reduction of vaccinated cases from the 50 percent baseline, as further adjusted to account for treatment inefficacy, is.

Cases = (raw data from Table IV.B.44, Row J) * (((75% vaccinated) * (1-treatment efficacy) + (1-75%) unvaccinated)/((50% vaccinated) * (1-treatment efficacy) + (1-50%) unvaccinated)) which translates to cases = (500,746 adjusted HCW with erectile dysfunction treatment during month of March/April 2021) * ((0.75 * 0.148) + 0.25)/(0.5 * 0.148) + 0.5)) = 314,929 Start Printed Page 32543[314,969 when adjusted for rounding] or cases = (500,746) * 0.361/0.574 = 314,929 [314,969 when adjusted for rounding] OSHA multiplies the raw data by the ratio of the ETS period adjustment to that during the data period. For the primary scenario, the result is that 62.9 percent of raw data cases remain. For the alternative scenario, which is based on a full year of data for which vaccination was not available until December 2020 when treatments were FDA-authorized for use, the vaccination rates for healthcare workers was lower than 50 percent. For the average rate for the alternative scenario the agency assumes a rate of 50%/4 = 12.5 percent. Based on the same adjustment formula used for the primary scenario, the number of cases in the alternative scenario is reduced by 40.4 percent.[] Since the base level of vaccinations was lower for the alternative scenario, a smaller number of cases are removed from that total to account for vaccinations.

As a result, vaccinations lower the number of cases for HCWs to 295,284. Table IV.B.44 provides these final totals of cases after the effects of vaccination in Row K. Another way of explaining this process is that OSHA's method of calculating the number of s prevented by the ETS involves a seven-step process. Again, OSHA illustrates this process from the “primary” baseline, although this method is also applicable to the alternative baseline estimate as well. First, a count of monthly s is created by summing daily s from CDC's daily tracking data.

In this example, for the period between March 19 and April 19 there were 2,041,229 new s (or cases) counted by CDC that month (CDC, April 20, 2021, file. €œcase_daily_trends__united_states”). Next, a count of monthly s for working age adults is created by multiplying the number of recent cases (2,041,229) by the share of those cases (0.74) in which the person infected with erectile dysfunction treatment was a working-age adult (aged 18-64).[] The product is 1,513,606 (shown in Table VI.B.43). In the third step, the share of the population ages 18-64 who are employed (0.69) is multiplied by the previous product to produce the number of workers infected in the period March 19-April 19 (1,513,606 × 0.69 = 1,047,145) (see Table IV.B.44, Row C). The fourth step is the removal of community transmission cases, which was explained above.

In that step 228,797 cases for teleworkers are removed, along with an additional 20 percent for community spread for in-person workers, leaving a total of 654,678 cases (see Table IV.B.44, Rows D through F). For the fifth step, the number of workers infected from March 19-April 19 is divided between HCWs and NHCWs by using the share of each worker type found in OSHA's industry profile. About 87 percent are NCHWs, and the remaining 13 percent are HCWs.[] For NHCWs, this product is 571,221 (0.87 × 654,678),[] and for HCWs, the figure is the remainder, 83,458 (654,678−571,221) (See Table IV.B.44, Rows G and H). In the sixth step, the number of NHCW and HCW s is multiplied by 6 to convert the estimate for one month to a six-month period. For NHCWs, this is 3,427,323 (571,221 × 6) s.

For HCWs, this is 500,746 (83,458 × 6) s. Table IV.B.44 summarizes these results (See Rows I and J). In the final step of determining the number of cases, the numbers HCW cases are further reduced to account for vaccination as described above (see Rows K and L). Fatalities OSHA's estimation of fatalities uses a slightly modified seven-step procedure to take advantage of the HCW and fatality data reported to CDC. It is the same methodology used for determining the number of s, but beginning with the baseline of CDC data on fatalities instead of s.

Again, using March 19, 2021 to April 19, 2021 as the basis for the primary scenario, for the first step a count of monthly fatalities is created by summing daily fatalities from CDC's tracking data (CDC, April 20, 2021). In this example, for the recent month there were 23,642 new deaths counted by CDC in that period. Next, a count of monthly fatalities for working age adults is created by multiplying the number of deaths from March 19-April 19, 2021 (23,642) by the share of deaths among adults ages 18-64 out of all deaths from erectile dysfunction treatment for that month (0.19). This product is 4,561 deaths of working-age adults in the March/April 2021 time period. In the third step, the share of the population aged 18-64 who are employed (0.69) is multiplied by the previous product to produce the number of worker deaths in the recent month (4,561 × 0.69 = 3,155).

Fatalities attributed to community spread are removed, following the same logic as was used above for cases. There were 689 teleworker fatalities (by definition attributable to community spread), and after removing the 20 percent of in-person worker fatalities attributable to community spread, the remainder is 1,973 erectile dysfunction treatment worker fatalities attributable to the workplace for that month. The six-month total of 11,835 worker fatalities (for both NHCWs (10,180) and HCWs (1,656)) is obtained by multiplying the estimated number of worker deaths for one month by 6. For the fifth step, the focus shifts to measurement of HCW fatalities. Since June 2020, CDC has been reporting HCW s and fatalities.

While there is significant underreporting of HCW status and possibly HCW s and fatalities (making this data unsuitable for direct analysis of HCW impacts), OSHA believes that the ratio of fatalities to s for HCWs is unlikely to be much affected by underreporting of total cases.[] OSHA therefore uses the ratio of HCW fatalities to HCW s (0.0033), which could be considered a provisional HCW case fatality rate, to produce the estimate of work-related HCW fatalities.[] For the primary scenario, multiplying (0.0033 × 500,746 HCW s) yields 1,656 HCW fatalities projected over the next six months.[] In the final step for determining the total number of work-related fatalities that would occur over the next six months without the ETS, the effects of vaccinations on the number of fatalities are shown. For fatalities, OSHA assumes that vaccination will prevent all Start Printed Page 32544fatalities for those vaccinated. For HCWs, OSHA assumes that 75 percent will be vaccinated. The treatment fatality adjustment explained above is ultimately expressed as a 50 percent reduction. Because OSHA assumes that vaccination prevents all fatalities, these adjustments are the following.

Fatalities = (raw data from Table VI.B.4546, Row K) * (((75% vaccinated) * (1−100 percent treatment efficacy) + (1−75%) unvaccinated)/((50% vaccinated) * (1−100 percent treatment efficacy) + (1−50%) unvaccinated)) which translates to fatalities = (1,656) * ((0.75*0.0 + 0.25)/(0.5*0.0) + 0.5)) = 828 or fatalities = 1,656 * 0.25/0.5 = 828 In the case of the primary scenario, this equation collapses because two terms (in bold above) are multiplied by zero, leaving the multiplier as (0.25)/(0.5) = 0.5, so the fatalities are reduced by half by the additional vaccinations that would happen over the next six months. Using the same equation for the alternative scenario, fatalities are reduced by a factor of 0.29. Fatalities = (2,034) * ((0.75 * 0.0 + 0.25)/(0.125 * 0.0) + 0.875)) = 581 The final number of fatalities, after taking into account community spread, preventiveness, and vaccination is 776 HCW under the primary analysis, and 545 HCW under the alternative analysis (Table VI.B.4546, Row M). F. s and Deaths Prevented by the ETS A critical factor in the estimation of the benefits of the ETS is the percentage of baseline s and deaths that would be avoided by full implementation of all ETS requirements.

This final adjustment to reach the number of cases prevented is summarized in Row L of in Need for Specific Provisions (Section V of the preamble), OSHA reviews numerous studies evaluating the effectiveness of various control practices in preventing infectious diseases. Given the consistent, multi-layered approach required by the ETS, the rate of erectile dysfunction treatment prevention in non-healthcare and healthcare settings covered by the ETS should approach 100 percent, assuming full compliance with all requirements. For the benefits section, OSHA suggests that overall program effectiveness for workers has two underlying components. Workplace preventiveness and community spread. Workplace preventiveness is how well the ETS works to prevent workplace transmission.

The community spread is the transmission that happens outside of the workplace that, by definition, the ETS is incapable of preventing.[] These factors can be explained by the equation. Overall effectiveness = Preventiveness after taking into account Community Spread. OSHA believes the standard will have preventiveness coefficients of about 94 percent of HCW workplace transmissions (see earlier calculations) and, taking into account a community spread of 20 percent, for an overall effectiveness rate of 75 percent for HCWs.[] A sensitivity analysis explores potentially higher values of community spread, much lower monthly case and fatality counts, and the impact of lower overall effectiveness rates on the estimates of monetized health benefits. Health Care Worker Population For its main estimates of benefits, OSHA has selected a 75 percent overall effectiveness rate of the ETS for all HCWs, taking into account both the workplace preventiveness of the ETS and community transmission. This higher rate reflects the expectations that workers covered by the ETS will have enhanced ventilation and that roughly a quarter of those workers are required to wear respirators and other PPE because of exposure to people with suspected or confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment.

Additionally, employers in these settings are already accustomed to control practices, even if these practices are different under normal circumstances. Then, as a sensitivity analysis, the agency also presents results using a 56 percent overall effectiveness rate, which corresponds to an overall higher rate of community spread of 40 percent.[] These alternative effectiveness and preventiveness rates are used to derive estimates of the number of erectile dysfunction treatment s and deaths prevented by the ETS among HCWs. Applying the 75 percent ETS effectiveness rate to the baseline estimates, along with a vaccination rate of 75 percent for HCWs, yields benefits of the ETS of 295,284 confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment HCW s and 776 deaths prevented over a six-month period as a result of the ETS (see Table VI.B.4142). Applying the 56 percent ETS effectiveness sensitivity rate to the March/April estimates yields benefits of 221,463 confirmed erectile dysfunction treatment HCW s and 466 deaths prevented over the six-month period as a result of the ETS. G.

Monetizing ETS Health Benefits OSHA here provides estimates of the monetized value of the erectile dysfunction treatment s and fatalities prevented as a result of the ETS. These estimates are included solely to facilitate the type of analysis required by E.O. 12866 because the OSH Act, as interpreted by the courts, prohibits OSHA from using cost-benefit analysis as a basis for regulatory decisions. See, e.g., Pub. Citizen Health Research Grp.

V. U.S. Dept. Of Labor, 557 F.3d 165, 177 (3d Cir. 2009) (“the Supreme Court has conclusively ruled that economic feasibility does not involve a cost-benefit analysis”), citing Am.

Textile Mfrs. Inst., Inc. V. Donovan, 452 U.S. 490, 513 (1981).

OSHA has developed estimates of monetized benefits under important baseline assumptions of partial worker vaccination at the time the ETS takes effect resulting in an average worker vaccination rate of 75 percent for HCWs over the course of the ETS. This is not an endpoint prediction of vaccination rates, but rather an approximate average rate attained over the course of the ETS. This is an assumption of what the estimated total vaccination rates will be for HCWs under age 65 about three or four months into the ETS, given that some treatments take two to six weeks to be fully effective after the first shot. Value of Each ETS Fatality Avoided The agency's methodology for monetizing benefits is based on relevant academic literature and approaches OSHA and other regulatory agencies have taken in the past for similar regulatory actions.[] To estimate the monetary value of each erectile dysfunction treatment-related fatality prevented as a result of the ETS, OSHA relies on estimates developed from the willingness of affected individuals to pay to avoid a marginal increase in their risk of dying.[] While a willingness-to-pay (WTP) approach clearly has theoretical merit, it should be noted that Start Printed Page 32545an individual's willingness to pay to reduce the risk of death may tend to underestimate the total societal willingness to pay, which could include the willingness of others—particularly immediate family—to pay to reduce that individual's risk of fatality.[] For estimates using the WTP concept, OSHA relied on existing studies of the imputed value of fatalities avoided based on the theory of compensating wage differentials in the labor market. These studies rely on certain critical assumptions for their accuracy, particularly that workers understand the risks to which they are exposed and that workers have legitimate choices between high- and low-risk jobs.

Actual labor markets only imperfectly reflect these assumptions.[] A number of academic studies, as summarized in Viscusi and Aldy (August, 2003), have shown a correlation between higher job risk and higher wages, suggesting that employees demand monetary compensation in return for a greater risk of injury or fatality. The estimated trade-off between lower wages and marginal reductions in fatal occupational risk—that is, workers' willingness to pay for marginal reductions in such risk—yields an imputed value of an avoided fatality. The willingness-to-pay amount for a reduction in risk divided by the reduction in risk.[] OSHA has used this approach in many recent proposed and final rules.[] Viscusi and Aldy (August, 2003) conducted a meta-analysis of studies in the economics literature that use a WTP methodology to estimate the imputed value of life-saving programs and found that each fatality avoided was valued at $6.7 million in 2000 dollars. Using the GDP Deflator (BEA, 2021), this $6.7 million base number in 2000 dollars yields an estimate of $9.73 million in 2019 dollars for each fatality avoided. OSHA is also using $9.73 million as the monetary value of each estimated 2021 fatality prevented as a result of the ETS.

Value of Each erectile dysfunction treatment Related Avoided OSHA also reviewed the available research regarding the dollar value of preventing a generic injury or illness. Using WTP to value non-fatal injuries or illnesses is the approach recommended in OMB Circular A-4 (OMB, September 17, 2003). In the paper cited immediately above, Viscusi and Aldy (August, 2003) conducted a critical review of 39 studies estimating the value of a statistical injury or illness. The authors found that most studies resulted in estimates in the range of $20,000 to $70,000 per injury or illness (in 2000 dollars), although several studies resulted in higher estimates.[] A mid-point WTP estimate for a generic injury or illness would therefore be $45,000, to be raised to $65,364 (2019 dollars) to account for the rise in the cost of living since 2000, the base year for the monetized values estimated by Viscusi and Aldy (August, 2003). For this value to be a representative WTP estimate for the average erectile dysfunction treatment , the severity of the typical erectile dysfunction treatment must be similar to that of the typical OSHA recordable injury or illness.

While most erectile dysfunction treatment s are asymptomatic or mild and involve maybe two weeks of forgone earnings and minor medical bills (totaling perhaps $1,000-$5,000), others are more severe. Some will involve hospitalization and, in some cases, long-term disability.[] For those persons who have not received an FDA-authorized erectile dysfunction treatment, the percentage of erectile dysfunction treatment cases involving hospitalization is still fluctuating, with perhaps 10 percent being a reasonable estimate. The medical and foregone earnings cost per hospitalization may range from $10,000 to $300,000 or more. There is a growing body of literature on chronic illnesses that are linked to prior erectile dysfunction treatment s. The erectile dysfunction, once it enters the body, may attach itself to any organ or tissue, including the lungs, heart, kidneys, brain, and nervous system.

This can lead to acute or chronic health effects, such as stroke, heart attack, kidney failure, loss of brain function, extreme mental and physical fatigue, and various other deleterious effects.[] Further discussion and summary of evidence concerning the persistence of erectile dysfunction treatment symptoms after hospital discharge and the occurrence of longer-term disabilities is presented in Grave Danger (Section IV.A of the preamble). The cost of chronic conditions resulting from erectile dysfunction treatment s is difficult to estimate because the duration and severity of those chronic conditions, as well as subsequent reductions in life expectancy (not considered in these estimates of ETS health benefits), are not well known at this time. In other rulemakings, however, OSHA has identified costs (all inflated to 2019 dollars) for other chronic diseases, such as chronic silicosis (cost of injury of approximately $400,000 from Miller (November 22, 2005)). Chronic bronchitis (approximately $600,000 from EPA (2008)). And chronic beryllium disease (approximately $2.2 million for direct morbidity and medical costs from Bartell et al., (2000)).

Because there is still some uncertainty surrounding the frequency and severity of erectile dysfunction treatment s and their distribution, OSHA has chosen to use the earlier estimate presented for a generic non-fatal injury or illness of $65,364 as a reasonable approximation of the WTP value of an avoided erectile dysfunction treatment non-fatal among workers who have not received the erectile dysfunction treatment. Estimated ETS Monetized Health Benefits With FDA authorization of several erectile dysfunction treatments and increased vaccination efforts by the Administration, OSHA believes that by the date of publication of the ETS, approximately 70 percent of HCWs will have been fully vaccinated. Based on early results, the treatments appear to be reducing the number of erectile dysfunction treatment cases. Crucially, they appear to be virtually eliminating erectile dysfunction treatment Start Printed Page 32546fatalities and significantly reducing both the number and severity of erectile dysfunction treatment s among the vaccinated population. Still, none of the treatments are 100 percent effective, and their usefulness against newer strains of erectile dysfunction treatment remains uncertain.

With that as background, OSHA has adjusted the baseline number of erectile dysfunction treatment s for HCWs by the treatment effectiveness.[] OSHA will use the same Value of Statistical Illness (adjusted for inflation) of $65,364 used in previous rules. In addition, OSHA has reduced the estimated number of erectile dysfunction treatment fatalities prevented by 75 percent for HCWs to account for vaccination in the workforce, but retained the WTP value of $9.73 million for each fatality avoided. The monetized values of s and fatalities prevented by the ETS, accounting for HCW vaccination, are shown Table VI.B.46 below. Table VI.B.46 also includes the subsequent estimated health benefits of the ETS under various scenarios after taking into account the effect of worker vaccinations in the baseline. Table VI.B.47 presents the results when the estimates in Table VI.B.46 are subject to a sensitivity test using 56 percent overall effectiveness of the ETS, while recognizing the presence of worker vaccinations in the baseline and accounting for 40 percent community spread versus 20 percent in the baseline analysis.[] d.

Low-Case Sensitivity Analysis Cases have declined significantly in recent weeks, and perhaps a combination of natural causes, herd immunity, vaccinations, and government policy will result in case numbers continuing to fall dramatically. To consider this possibility, a sensitivity analysis that takes into account dramatically lower case and fatality counts is presented below. Rather than choosing a relatively low historic month, like June 2020 (847,000 new cases, 21,635 deaths), OSHA creates a future fictional month, called “month 13”, based on 20 percent of the average monthly cases over the viagra (April 2020-May 2021:32,798,861 cases, or 2,522,989 cases/month). This is 504,598 cases and taking 20 percent of total fatalities, 8,860 fatalities. This estimate would be considerably lower than the May 2021 monthly case count of 861,373 cases and 14,943 fatalities.

€œMonth 13” also has about one-quarter of the cases of the “primary” scenario, and about 58 percent of the fatalities of the “primary” scenario.[] Using all of the other assumptions about preventiveness, community spread, and treatments, explained above, the fictitious “month 13” month would translate into significant benefits over a six-month period, including 72,893 HCW cases prevented over six months, 192 HCW fatalities prevented, and monetized benefits of $6.6 billion during that period. H. Conclusion In this chapter, OSHA examined the potential of the ETS to prevent s and deaths from erectile dysfunction treatment Start Printed Page 32547among workers in the U.S. OSHA analyzed the possible numbers of cases in the absence of an ETS using historical monthly data on s and fatalities during the viagra. The monthly baseline scenarios were based on a primary and an alternative estimate.

The primary estimate reflects cases and fatalities during March/April 2021 while the alternative estimate is based on an average monthly level of cases and fatalities for all the viagra months (April 2020-April 2021). The benefits of the ETS simply reflect the reduction in s and fatalities under different estimates of the overall effectiveness of the ETS (75 percent for HCWs and 56 HCWs as a sensitivity test) and assuming an average vaccination rate of 75 percent for HCW. Monetized benefits were calculated based on WTP estimates developed in the academic literature and applied in prior OSHA rules. s and deaths prevented among all health care workers, based on the primary estimate, are 295,284 and 776, respectively. Monetized benefits for the primary estimate, assuming a 75 percent overall effectiveness rate, are $26.8 billion (with the alternative scenario yielding monetized benefits of $20.5 billion).

OSHA's “primary” benefits estimate is the agency's preferred scenario. The “primary” scenario uses numbers of cases and deaths that occurred from March 19, 2021 through April 19, 2021 and assumes an average vaccination rate of 75 percent for HCW 75 percent overall effectiveness rate for the HCW. OSHA's analysis indicates that over a 6-month period the ETS would prevent 776 deaths at a cost of about $4 billion, while the value of fatalities avoided is $7.5 billion. This simple calculation ignores the additional health benefits provided by avoided s. I.

Other (Non-Health) Benefits of the ETS It is also helpful to put this rule in context. OSHA's regulatory authority extends only to workplaces, and not to society as a whole. As a result, its feasibility analyses are necessarily limited to what is feasible for the workplaces subject to its authority, and the benefits analyses it performs for other purposes also focus on the benefits to workers. Therefore, the foregoing analysis follows the normal OSHA practice of considering only the costs and benefits to workers and their employers and fulfills the agency's legal and analytical obligations with respect to the ETS. The viagra, however, affects the economy as a whole, and affects workplaces within that context.

Although the primary purpose of this erectile dysfunction treatment emergency temporary standard (ETS) is to help prevent health care worker s and deaths due to the viagra, the ETS also helps create conditions that will facilitate an equitable economic recovery. While treatments show much promise, it will take months before all of the workforce is fully vaccinated, and even then there is uncertainty about existing treatments' efficacy against new viagra variants. Workplace safety measures such as physical distancing, face coverings, and physical barriers are still needed in parts of the healthcare sector to prevent immediate s and reduce the spread of s and, thereby, speed and strengthen the economic recovery (Chudik et al., April, 2021). Such measures will not only safeguard the health and employment status of vulnerable workers, but will also provide visible forms of protections to patients to restore consumer confidence. More importantly, the ETS benefits society by reducing the spread of the viagra.

An uninfected health care worker cannot infect others in the community, resulting in better control of the viagra overall. If the viagra is better contained in this industry, widespread economic functions have a greater chance of continuing. Healthcare workers who are less worried about being infected and losing their lives or ability to work are more likely to have the confidence to engage in normal consumption rather than saving to guard against medical costs and loss of income. Thus, the protections of this ETS will lower concerns about and help give individuals a sense of safety and security, which will in turn help stimulate economic activity. The economic impacts of the viagra have been unevenly distributed across demographic and socioeconomic groups and have exacerbated inequalities.

The initial negative impact on employment was larger for women, minorities, the less educated, and the young, even after accounting for industry and occupation (Lee et al., January 1, 2021). Lockdowns of schools and businesses to prevent the spread of erectile dysfunction treatment, which the successful implementation of the ETS will help avoid, have had particularly large effects on vulnerable groups, such as women, due to the disproportionate burden women face in caring for children (Caselli et al., 2020). Particularly, low-income workers in frontline healthcare industries are disproportionately Black, Hispanic, female, and foreign born (Leibenluft and Olinsky, April 20, 2020). Again, OSHA expects the stimulative effects of the ETS will help ameliorate these equity concerns created by the viagra. Beyond their direct function in protecting workers, several of the provisions of the ETS have important economic effects.

One area of particular importance is that of paid medical removal protection (MRP). MRP is a crucial part of this emergency temporary standard. Paid MRP benefits are not the same as paid sick leave, since the former are to ensure that (potentially) contagious workers who cannot work remotely or in isolation may be removed from the workplace without losing pay, thereby encouraging them to take part in the kind of erectile dysfunction treatment exposure prevention program created by this standard. But the benefits of paid MRP are similar to paid sick leave for these purposes. Indeed, like paid sick leave, paid MRP encourages workers who have been exposed to the viagra to self-isolate, thereby containing and mitigating the spread of the viagra.

Paid MRP, like paid sick leave, allows workers who are (potentially) infected to stay home rather than infect their coworkers as collateral damage (OECD, 2020). Keeping these workers out of the physical workplace lowers the transmission of erectile dysfunction treatment and saves lives (McLaren and Wang, December 2020). States that gained access to paid sick leave through the Families First erectile dysfunction Response Act (FFCRA) saw around 400 fewer confirmed cases per state per day relative to the pre-FFCRA period and to states that had already enacted sick pay mandates before enactment of the FFCRA (Pichler et al., October 15, 2020). Paid sick leave also helps reduce income inequality. The ability to take paid family or medical leave is highly unequal.

Low-wage workers are less likely to have access to paid leave and tend to take unpaid leave at higher rates than other groups, though they take less leave overall (Sawhill et al., December 5, 2019). A 2017 study of the distributional impact of three policy models for providing paid sick days found that a national paid sick day policy would benefit proportionately more women than men and proportionally more workers of color than white workers, compared to the then current policy. Low-income workers would see their share of paid sick days increase the most (IMPAQ International LLC, January, 2017). While the American Rescue Plan of 2021 does not extend the mandate for paid sick leave, as discussed above, the feasibility of this provision is enhanced by the tax credits that are available to employers Start Printed Page 32548who provide MRP as required by the standard. Paid sick leave also helps ward against the impact of losing the sick workers, and their families, as consumers.

It is worth noting that the American Rescue Plan of 2021 also includes stimulus checks to individuals in the amount of $1,400, which is roughly the amount of the maximum required weekly payments under the MRP provision of the ETS, although the ETS does not prevent employers from paying high-paid workers their full wages or salary. This reflects the significance of the impact that the loss of even a single week's income can have on the economy, and the ETS would prevent this loss on the consumer side. Appendix VI.B.A. Healthcare and Other Covered Occupations in the Scope of the ETS Error!. Reference source not found.

Lists the BLS occupations used by OSHA to designate employees in settings where healthcare and healthcare support services are performed and the entities that employ them. Start Printed Page 32549 Start Printed Page 32550 Appendix VI.B.B. Average Loaded Wages by NAICS Code and Healthcare Setting Table VI.B.B.1 presents the average loaded wages for covered employees by NAICS code and healthcare setting. Both averages are weighted by covered employment. Start Printed Page 32551 Start Printed Page 32552 Appendix VI.B.C.

Average Cost per Establishment by 6-Digit NAICS Code Table VI.B.C.1 presents the average incremental cost per establishment for compliance with the ETS. Appendix VI.B.D. Adjustment to Economic Analysis for viagra Shock and To Forecast Out to ETS Time Period For many regulatory economic analyses, the agency uses the most up-to-date economic data as its baseline to describe the current state of the economy, as discussed above. It then applies the anticipated changes due to the new OSHA standard or regulation to that baseline. However, even the most current data OSHA uses in a typical economic analysis—including employment, number of establishments, revenue—represent economic conditions from at least one calendar year in the past.

Even with that lag in the data due to reporting and compilation time, the basic structure of the economy changes slowly, so the Start Printed Page 32553recent past is a reasonable predictor of the near future. Given the unique circumstances of the viagra and its economic disruption, OSHA's usual approach does not make sense for the present analysis. The agency has therefore also made adjustments to the baseline industry profile to account for the economic conditions that are expected to persist during the time period in which this ETS will be in effect. The baseline employment and revenue numbers were obtained from the 2017 Economic Census (the most current information available from the Economic Census) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2021).

Revenue values were adjusted to 2019 dollars using the BEA's GDP deflator (BEA, 2021). OSHA adopts these adjusted 2019 revenue data as representing the state of the economy before the viagra hit in 2020. Similarly, OSHA uses 2018 OES data for wages, brought forward to 2019 using the GDP deflator to be consistent with revenue data (BLS, March 29, 2019). To adjust for the economic effects of the viagra and provide a more reasonable estimate of employment and revenue numbers for the period during which the ETS will be in effect, the agency used other national datasets to derive percentage changes to this baseline 2019 data. To adjust for changes in employment since 2019, OSHA relies on the BLS' Current Employment Statistics (CES), which is published monthly and provides estimates by NAICS code (BLS, December, 2020).

At the time of this analysis, the December 2020 CES, which contains full data through November 2020, had been published. The agency uses average employment, within each NAICS industry, over all months of 2019 as the “normal” base economy before erectile dysfunction treatment arrived. OSHA then uses the percentage difference between the reported 2019 employment and the reported employment from November 2020 as its measure of the viagra shock, and adjusts the 2019 data by this percentage. The average employment decline across all covered NAICS industries over the period 2019 to November 2020 is three percent. The adjustment described above is intended to make the employment estimates per establishment more representative of conditions as of the end of 2020.

The ultimate objective, however, is to estimate economic conditions during the forthcoming 6-month period. The exact timing of the ETS at the time of this analysis is not known. OSHA assumes that the end of the ETS occurs later in 2021. The agency uses forecasts of aggregate growth in GDP from the well-known Conference Board (The Conference Board, May, 2021) to extend its employment estimates from the end of 2020 through the 3rd quarter of 2021. See Table VI.B.D.1 for the Conference Board's forecasts.[] For revenue (and by extension, profits) OSHA also uses various estimates to adjust the data forward from the 2019 baseline.

First, the agency uses the percentage change in GDP by industry, reported by the BEA, to adjust revenue and profits through the 3rd quarter of 2020 (see Table VI.B.D.2).[] Start Printed Page 32554 At the time of this analysis, the BEA only has an aggregate GDP growth estimate for the 4th quarter of 2020, which is 4.0 percent. That aggregate estimate is used to bring the data to the end of 2020.[] While costs for the rule only occur during the time the ETS is in effect, the amount of time that firms have to pay for those costs, through direct revenues, loans, or other means, is not necessarily limited to the ETS period itself. In theory, the firm could continue paying the costs through the remaining life of the firm. Here the agency limits the revenue used for the feasibility analysis to six months, which extends to the end of 2021. Again, the agency uses the aggregate GDP forecasts of the Conference Board, shown above in Table VI.B.D.1, to estimate revenues through 2021.

Chaining these various datasets together, OSHA estimates final percentage changes in employment and revenue/profits through 3rd quarter 2021. There was a big decrease in employment, revenue, and profits in the middle of 2020 due to the viagra but there has since been a rebound and GDP forecasts are somewhat positive going forward. Of course, there is a great deal of uncertainty in forecasts at this time, but OSHA believes it has made reasonable estimates of current and future conditions based on public government datasets and other substantial evidence in the record. For employment, the overall average percentage change across all 6-digit NAICS industries from 2019 to 3rd quarter 2021 is −2.9%. The same average for revenue is 2.5%.

References Allan-Blitz, LT et al., (2020, December 11). High frequency and prevalence of community-based asymptomatic erectile dysfunction . MedRxiv pre-print. Https://www.medrxiv.org/​content/​10.1101/​2020.12.09.20246249v1. (Allan-Blitz et al., December 11, 2020).

American Hospital Association (AHA). (2021). AHA Data Hub. 2015-2019 Data. Https://guide.prod.iam.aha.org/​stats/​total-us.

(AHA, 2021). Autor, D et al., (2020, February 3). The Fall of the Labor Share and the Rise of Superstar Firms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 135, 645-709. (Autor et al., February 3, 2020).

Bartell, SM et al., (2000). Risk estimation and value‐of‐information analysis for three proposed genetic screening programs for chronic beryllium disease prevention. Risk Analysis, 20, 87-100. (Bartell et al., 2000). Beale, HBR.

(2003). Financial Data Sources. Microeconomic Applications Inc. (Beale, 2003). Bergstrom, T.

(2006, March). €œBenefit-Cost in a Benevolent Society.” The American Economic Review, 96, 339-351. (Bergstrom, March 2006). Bui, D et al., (2020, August 17). Racial and ethnic disparities among erectile dysfunction treatment cases in workplace outbreaks by industry sector—Utah, March 6-June 5, 2020.

MMWR 2020. 69. 1133-1138. Http://Start Printed Page 32555dx.doi.org/​10.15585/​mmwr.mm6933e3. (Bui et al., August 17, 2020).

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). (2018, November). 2018 Comprehensive Update of the Industry Economic Accounts. (BEA, November, 2018). Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).

(2021). GDP Price Deflator. (BEA, 2021). Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). (2021, March 29).

GDP by Industry. (BEA, March 29, 2021). Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). (2021, May 26). Gross Domestic Product.

(BEA, May 26, 2021). Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2018, May 23). 2017 Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW). (BLS, May 23, 2018).

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2018, December 14). Employer Costs for Employee Compensation. Data Series CMU1026220000000P, All 2018 Civilian Wages and Salaries for the Healthcare and Social Assistance Industry. (BLS, December 14, 2018).

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2019, March 29). May 2018 Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) Survey. (BLS, March 29, 2019). Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

(2020). Current Population Survey. Https://www.census.gov/​programs-surveys/​cps.html. (BLS, 2020). Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

(2020, December). Current Employment Statistics—CES (National). (BLS, December, 2020). Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2021, June 3).

Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers. Medical Care in U.S. City Average [CPIMEDSL], available from FRED, Federal Reserve of St. Louis. Https://fred.stlouisfed.org/​series/​CPIMEDSL.

[Accessed June 3, 2021]. (BLS, June 3, 2021). Byambasuren, O et al., (2020, December 11). Estimating the extent of asymptomatic erectile dysfunction treatment and its potential for community transmission. Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Journal of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada. 5(4). 223-234. Https://doi.org/​10.3138/​jammi-2020-0030. (Byambasuren et al., December 11, 2020).

Carias, C et al., (2015, April 10). Potential Demand for Respirators and Surgical Masks During a Hypothetical Influenza viagra in the United States. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 60, S42-S51. (Carias et al., April 10, 2015). Caselli, F et al., (2020).

The Great Lockdown. Dissecting the Economic Effects. In. Gopinath, G. (ed.) World Economic Outlook.

A Long and Difficult Ascent. International Monetary Fund. (Caselli et al., 2020). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2017, March 15).

Core Prevention and Control Practices for Safe Healthcare Delivery in All Settings -Recommendations of the Healthcare Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). Https://www.cdc.gov/​hicpac/​recommendations/​core-practices.html. (CDC, March 15, 2017). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2020, May 1).

Human with 2019 Novel erectile dysfunction Case Report Form. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​downloads/​pui-form.pdf. (CDC, May 1, 2020). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, February 18).

Isolate if you are sick. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​if-you-are-sick/​isolation.html. (CDC, February 18, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, March 12).

When You Can be Around Others After You Had or Likely Had erectile dysfunction treatment. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​if-you-are-sick/​end-home-isolation.html#:~:text=​You%20can%20be%20around%20others,erectile dysfunction treatment%2D19%20are%20improving. (CDC, March 12, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, March 23).

About erectile dysfunction treatment Data. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​cases-updates/​about-us-cases-deaths.html. (CDC, March 23, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, April 20).

erectile dysfunction treatment Data Tracker. Https://erectile dysfunction treatment.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction treatment-data-tracker/​. (CDC, April 20, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, April 29).

Estimated Disease Burden of erectile dysfunction treatment. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​cases-updates/​burden.html. (CDC, April 29, 2021). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, May 25).

Possible Side Effects After Getting a erectile dysfunction treatment. Https://www.cdc.gov/​erectile dysfunction/​2019-ncov/​treatments/​expect/​after.html. (CDC, May 25, 2021). Chen, Y et al., (2021, January 22). Excess mortality associated with the erectile dysfunction treatment viagra among Californians 18-65 years of age, by occupational sector and occupation.

March through October 2020. MedRxiv. Doi:10.1101/2021.01.21.21250266. (Chen et al., January 22, 2021). Chopra, V et al., (2020, November 11).

Sixty-Day Outcomes Among Patients Hospitalized With erectile dysfunction treatment. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2021. 174. 576-578.

Doi. 10.7326/M20-5661. (Chopra et al., November 11, 2020). Chudik, A et al., (2021, April). erectile dysfunction treatment Time-varying Reproduction Numbers Worldwide.

An Empirical Analysis of Mandatory and Voluntary Social Distancing. National Bureau of Economic Research. Http://www.nber.org/​papers/​w28629. (Chudik et al., April, 2021). Cramer, EY et al., (2021, February 5).

Evaluation of individual and ensemble probabilistic forecasts of erectile dysfunction treatment mortality in the US. MedRxiv. Https://doi.org/​10.1101/​2021.02.03.21250974. (Cramer et al., February 5, 2021). Cunningham, J.

(2020, December 9). erectile dysfunction treatment. Workers' Compensation. Https://www.ncsl.org/​research