A&R Template 4.4 - dom.semi.orgdom.semi.org/.../$FILE/5009DProceduralReview.docx · Web viewSan Francisco Marriott Marquis Hotel. San Francisco, ... Change the Word “Guidelines”

A&R Template 4.4

Record of Line-item Letter Ballot Review by TC Chapter for Procedural Review

Region/Locale: North America

Global Technical Committee: EHS

TC Chapter Cochairs: Sean Larsen/Lam Research, Chris Evanston/Salus, Bert Planting/ASML

Standards Staff: Paul Trio

Scheduled in Background Statement

Actual

Date

07/16/2015

07/16/2015

Location

San Francisco Marriott Marquis Hotel

San Francisco, California

San Francisco Marriott Marquis Hotel

San Francisco, California

Reason for Change of Date and/or Location

(if changed)

Note: See Regulations 9.5 Exception for allowable reason to change.

Document Information

I. Document Number, Title, Lists of Line Items

Document Number 5009D

Document Title

Line Item Revisions to SEMI S8-0712a, Safety Guidelines for Ergonomics Engineering of Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment with title change to: Safety Guideline for Ergonomics Engineering of Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment

List of Line Items

Line Item 1

Line Item Title

Change the Word Guidelines to Guideline in the Document Title

Line Item 2

Line Item Title

Ergonomics Clearances Considerations

Line Item 3

Line Item Title

Changes to Appendix 1, Section 6: Handle Design Criteria, addition of an Appendix providing handle assessment criteria, and addition of several documents to 8 Related documents

Line Item 4

Line Item Title

Changes to Appendix 1, Section 7: New Whole Body Clearance Criteria, Movement (within Appendix 1) of Select Criteria to a New Maintenance and Service Section, and addition of documents to 8 Related Documents

Line Item 1 Adjudication

II. Tally

Standards staff to fill in.

Voting Tally: As-cast tally after close of voting period

Note: A minimum of 60% of the Voting Interests that have TC Members within the global technical committee that issued the Letter Ballot must return Votes. (Regulations 9.7.1.1)

Voting Tally (with example values):

Note: See Regulations 3.2.1 for definition of Voting Interest.

III. Rejects

Voting Interest Reject 1 (Voting Interest Name: Safety Guru)

Voter Reject 1 (Voter: Eric Sklar / Safety Guru, LLC)

Negative 1

Negative

Referenced Section/ Paragraph

*TF/TC Chapter to fill in, including text in the ballot if necessary.

Title

Negative Text

*Original complete Negative text (e.g., issue, justification, suggestion) should be copied.

Negative: Do not make the proposed change.Reason/Justification: There are numerous guidelines within the document. Making the proposed change would introduce a grammatical error in the title.

TF input (optional)

Withdrawal (check one)

x

No Negative withdrawal made by Voter.

GO TO Related subsection

Withdrawal document received by Standards staff on MM/DD/YYYY.

GO TO Final subsection (A)

Related

Motion and Reason

(check one)

x

Related is mutually agreed upon. (Needs no motion.)

GO TO Persuasive subsection

Negative is not related. (Needs 2/3 votes to pass.)

Reason

XXXX

Motion by/

2nd by

Name (Company)/Name (Company)

Discussion

Result of Vote (check one)

XX Y-XX N; Motion passed/failed.

[Negative is not related.] < 2/3


2/3 [Negative is not related.]

GO TO Final subsection (B)

Persuasive

Motion and Reason

(check one)

Negative is related and persuasive. (Needs >1/3 votes to pass.)

x

Negative is related and not persuasive. (Needs 2/3 votes to pass.)

Reason

The TF felt that there was no real issue with changing the title and the TF was directed to do so.

Motion by/

2nd by

Ron Macklin (Macklin & Associates) / Lauren Crane (KLA-Tencor)

Discussion

None


8 Y-0 N; Motion passed.

[Negative is related and persuasive.] > 1/3

Is a technical change recommended?

(check one)

Y

GO TO Address by Technical Change Option subsection

[Negative is related and not persuasive.] < 2/3

N

GO TO Final subsection (E)

2/3 [Negative is related and not persuasive.] < 90%

GO TO Final subsection (C)

x

90% [Negative is related and not persuasive.]

GO TO Not Significant Finding Option subsection

Final

(check if applicable)

(A)

Withdrawn (counted under h in disposition)

(B)

Not related (counted under i in disposition)

x

(C)

Related and not persuasive (significant)

(D)

Not significant (counted under j in disposition)

(E)

Related and persuasive and not addressed by technical change

DOCUMENT FAILS

(F)

Addressed by technical change (counted under k disposition)


Comment generated. See Section V-(ii) Comment # X.

This table is needed for each Negative.

Disposition of Voting Interest Reject 1

Check only when the Document has not been failed.

1

Original number (#) of Negatives

(g)

#

Number of Negatives withdrawn

(h)

#

Number of Negatives found not related

(i)

#

Number of Negatives found not significant

(j)

#

Number of Negatives addressed by technical change (Negative becomes not significant)

(k)

Final

g - (h + i +j + k) = 0

Reject is Not Valid and is not included in the denominator of VI. Approval Conditions Check

x

g - (h + i +j + k) >0

Reject is included in the denominator of VI. Approval Conditions Check

Reject without a Negative

Not Valid

Note: If all of the Negatives included with a Reject Vote are withdrawn, determined to be not related, or determined to be not significant, the Reject Vote is not valid. (Regulations 9.4.3.3)

Note: A Negative addressed by a technical change is automatically considered to be not significant. (Regulations 9.6.4.4.2)

IV. Other Technical Issues

None

V. Comments

There were no comments received for ballot 5009D, line item 1.

V-(ii) Comments Created by Handling Negative

None

VI. Editorial Changes Other than Those Voted on in V

There were no editorial changes for ballot 5009D, line item 1.

VII. Approval Conditions Check

VII. - (i). Approval Rate

APPROVAL CONDITION 1: All Negatives have been discussed and were withdrawn, found not related, found not persuasive, or addressed by a technical change. (Regulations 9.7.1.2)

APPROVAL CONDITION 2: At least 90% of the sum of valid Voting Interest Accept and Voting Interest Reject Votes must be Accept. (Regulations 9.7.1.3)

Note: If both approval conditions are not satisfied, the Document fails.

VII. (ii) Approval Level (check one)

Note: See Regulations 9.7.2 for further information.

x

Globally Approved (No Ratification Ballot needed):

Line Item 1 meets the Letter Ballot approval conditions for the global technical committee.

Need a Ratification Ballot:

Line Item 1 meets the Letter Ballot approval conditions for the TC Chapter and a Ratification Ballot will be issued to validate technical changes.


II. Tally






III. Rejects

There were no reject votes received for ballot 5009D, line item 2.


None

V. Comments

V- (i) Voters Comments

There were no comments received for ballot 5009D, line item 2.


None


There were no editorial changes for ballot 5009D, line item 2.








x






II. Tally






III. Rejects

Voting Interest Reject 1 (Voting Interest Name: KLA-Tencor)

Voter Reject 1 (Voter: Lauren Crane / KLA-Tencor)

Negative 1

Negative



LI3 Section 6

Negative Text


Negative

Really unclear. The sentence starting

Provided forces are for hand-handle and hand-knob could be valid for the exception forces or for the forces later in the table (e.g. 6.7.1.)

Proposed Solution

Clarify to which the sentence applies such as

The forces Provided provided in the following table forces are for hand-handle and hand-knob

TF input (optional)




x

Withdrawal document received by Standards staff on 07/16/2015.


Final


x

(A)


(B)


(C)


(D)


(E)


DOCUMENT FAILS

(F)




Negative 2

Negative



LI3 A3-1.6

Negative Text


Negative

Table A1-2 is not relevant to this topic (and does not, I think, exist). It is table A3-2 that appears to have Ms and Os

Proposed Solution

Reference the relevant table.

TF input (optional)




x



Final


x

(A)


(B)


(C)


(D)


(E)


DOCUMENT FAILS

(F)




Negative 3

Negative



LI3 Global

Negative Text


Negative

Subjecting every possible service task to these criteria will be a huge burden to the industry and given the soft science behind the criteria and the low frequency of most service tasks that can be envisioned for a tool, it does not seem to add sufficient value.

Proposed Solution

Do not include reference to service tasks. Constrain only Operation and maintenance tasks.

TF input (optional)




x



Final


x

(A)


(B)


(C)


(D)


(E)


DOCUMENT FAILS

(F)






3


(g)

3


(h)

#


(i)

#


(j)

#


(k)

Final

x

g - (h + i +j + k) = 0


g - (h + i +j + k) >0



Not Valid



Voting Interest Reject 2 (Voting Interest Name: Safety Guru)

Voter Reject 1 (Voter: Eric Sklar / Safety Guru, LLC)

Negative 1

Negative



A3-3.1

Negative Text


Negative: Correct table reference from A2-1 to A3-1Reason/Justification: This appears to be a document preparation error and, as the intended reference is obvious, may be corrected by an editorial change.

TF input (optional)


x





Related

Motion and Reason

(check one)



x


Reason

Error addressed as an editorial change. See editorial change #2 in Table VI below.

Motion by/

2nd by

Eric Sklar (Safety Guru, LLC) / Lauren Crane (KLA-Tencor)

Discussion

None





x



Final


(A)


x

(B)


(C)


(D)


(E)


DOCUMENT FAILS

(F)




Negative 2

Negative



A3-4.1

Negative Text


Negative: Correct table reference from A1-2 to A3-2Reason/Justification: This appears to be a document preparation error and, as the intended reference is obvious (The title of the correct table is in the sentence.), may be corrected by an editorial change.

TF input (optional)


x





Related

Motion and Reason

(check one)



x


Reason

Error addressed as an editorial change. See editorial change #3 in Table VI below.

Motion by/

2nd by

Eric Sklar (Safety Guru, LLC) / Lauren Crane (KLA-Tencor)

Discussion

None





x



Final


(A)


x

(B)


(C)


(D)


(E)


DOCUMENT FAILS

(F)






2


(g)

#


(h)

2


(i)

#


(j)

#


(k)

Final

x

g - (h + i +j + k) = 0


g - (h + i +j + k) >0



Not Valid




None

V. Comments


Commenter 1 (Lauren Crane / KLA-Tencor) - Comment 1

Comment

LI3 Section 6

Comment

less than the amounts below is ambiguous

Amounts of what? If one assume forces are the forces immediately below or much farther below (e.g. 6.7.1) the intended ones?

Proposed Solution

Dimensions of handles and knobs to which one needs to apply less than the following force and torque amounts below do not need to be assessed to the

criteria in this section:

I think this could be addressed with an editorial change.

Action

The TC Chapter agreed to do one of the following actions.

*No motion is required in this step.

Already addressed by Commenter #, Comment #

No further action was taken by the TC Chapter.

Refer to the TF for more consideration.

New Business

x

Editorial Change

Options for editorial

change (check one)

x

Case 1: No vote in this section:

To be included and voted on as a group in VI. Editorial Changes Other than Those Voted on in V.

Case 2: Voted in this section:

Original section number and at least one full sentence are required in FROM and TO fields.

Editorial Changes

1

FROM: Section/Paragraph xxx

TO: Section/Paragraph xxx

Justification (If necessary)

2




Motion

To approve above editorial change(s)

Motion by/2nd by


Discussion

XXXX

Vote


Commenter 2 (Edward Karl / Applied Materials) - Comment 1

Comment

A3-3.1

Comment

Refer to Table A2-1 seems to be an error.

Proposed Solution:

Correct reference to Table A3-1

Action






New Business

x

Editorial Change


change (check one)

x





Editorial Changes

1




2




Motion


Motion by/2nd by


Discussion

XXXX

Vote



Comment

A3-2.1 and A3-4

Comment:

Table A1-2 is not included in the ballot. Its not clear if the reference to Table A1-2 in sections A3-2.1 and A3-4 are correct.

Proposed Solution:

Please double-check to ensure that the references to Table A1-2 in Sections A3-2.1 and A3-4 are correct.

Action






New Business

x

Editorial Change


change (check one)

x





Editorial Changes

1




2




Motion


Motion by/2nd by


Discussion

XXXX

Vote



None


Original section/paragraph number and at least one full sentence are required in FROM and TO fields.

1

Origin of this editorial change

(Check one)

x


Other [ ]

Section/Paragraph: LI3 Section 6

FROM:

(Handle dimensions are correct for use of bare hand or use of typical cleanroom gloves.)

Dimensions of handles and knobs to which one needs to apply less than the amounts below do not need to be assessed to the criteria in this section:

Linear force: 13 N (3 lbf)

Torque: 0.43 N-m (3.8 lbf-in.)

Sections 5.1 and 9 should be used to assess the location of all handles and knobs regardless of the force required.

Unless otherwise noted, the provided dimensions are acceptable for use with or without gloves.

If a handle is used for both machine operation and maintenance/service tasks then apply the operational criteria.

Provided forces are for hand-handle and hand-knob interface only and might exceed the maximum recommended forces for performing a task based on the appropriate analysis tool. See Appendix 2 for a list of lifting, strength, and material handling analysis tools.

TO:

SEMI Staff Note: Yellow highlights are the actual proposed editorial changes.

(Handle dimensions are correct for use of bare hand or use of typical cleanroom gloves.)

Dimensions of handles and knobs to which one needs to apply less than the amounts below do not need to be assessed to the criteria in this section:

Linear force: 13 N (3 lbf)

Torque: 0.43 N-m (3.8 lbf-in.)

do not need to be assessed to the criteria in this section.

Sections 5.1 and 9 should be used to assess the location of all handles and knobs regardless of the force required.

Unless otherwise noted, the provided dimensions are acceptable for use with or without gloves.

If a handle is used for both machine operation and maintenance/service tasks then apply the operational criteria.

Forces provided in 6.7.1, 6.8.1, and 6.9.1Provided forces are for hand-handle and hand-knob interface only and might exceed the maximum recommended forces for performing a task based on the appropriate analysis tool. See Appendix 2 for a list of lifting, strength, and material handling analysis tools.

Justification: (If necessary)

Editorial change proposed for clarification and to reduce ambiguity.

Motion

To approve the above editorial change(s).

Motion by/

2nd by

Lauren Crane (KLA-Tencor) / Bert Planting (ASML)

Discussion

None

Vote

10 Y-0 N; Motion passed

2


(Check one)

x

Voter Reject 1 (Voter: Eric Sklar / Safety Guru, LLC) Negative 1


Other [ ]

Section/Paragraph: A3-3.1

FROM:

Enclosed handle measurement conventions follow in Table A2-1 with cross section views shaded in blue. Hook and fingertip grip handles are measured differently depending on the direction of force applied by the hand (see green arrows below).

TO:

Enclosed handle measurement conventions follow in Table A23-1 with cross section views shaded in blue. Hook and fingertip grip handles are measured differently depending on the direction of force applied by the hand (see green arrows below).


Motion


Motion by/

2nd by

Edward Karl (Applied Materials) / Lauren Crane (KLA-Tencor)

Discussion

None

Vote


2


(Check one)

x

Voter Reject 1 (Voter: Eric Sklar / Safety Guru, LLC) Negative 2


Other [ ]

Section/Paragraph: A3-4.1

FROM:

Table A1-2, Enclosed Handle Dimensions, provides recommended dimensions and maximum hand-handle contact forces for enclosed handles. Data in this table may be interpolated for intermediate values.

TO:

Table A13-2, Enclosed Handle Dimensions, provides recommended dimensions and maximum hand-handle contact forces for enclosed handles. Data in this table may be interpolated for intermediate values.


Motion


Motion by/

2nd by

Edward Karl (Applied Materials) / Lauren Crane (KLA-Tencor)

Discussion

None

Vote









x






II. Tally






III. Rejects

Voting Interest Reject 1 (Voting Interest Name: KLA-Tencor)

Voter Reject 1 (Voter: Lauren Crane / KLA-Tencor)

Negative 1

Negative



LI4 Global

Negative Text


Negative

Subjecting every possible service task to these criteria will be a huge burden to the industry and given the soft science behind the criteria and the low frequency of most service tasks that can be envisioned for a tool, it does not seem to add sufficient value.

Proposed Solution

Do not include reference to service tasks. Constrain only Operation and maintenance tasks.

TF input (optional)

The scope of S8 since inception has be applicable to The guidelines apply to the design, operation, maintenance, and service of semiconductor manufacturing equipment, as well as, to a limited extent, equipment installation (see 7.3). See 2.1 of S8.

Further to this, the scope of S8 aligns with the safety philosophy of S2; per 6.1

A primary objective of the industry is to eliminate or control hazards during the equipments life cycle (i.e., the installation, operation, maintenance, service, and disposal of equipment).

Since life cycle includes service we shouldnt exclude it.




x



Final


x

(A)


(B)


(C)


(D)


(E)


DOCUMENT FAILS

(F)






1


(g)

1


(h)

#


(i)

#


(j)

#


(k)

Final

x

g - (h + i +j + k) = 0


g - (h + i +j + k) >0



Not Valid




None

V. Comments



Comment

LI4 sect. 7 intro

Comment

see for example SEMI S8 ???? is ambiguous

Proposed Solution

Replace question marks with a more concrete reference.

Action






New Business

x

Editorial Change


change (check one)

x





Editorial Changes

1




2




Motion


Motion by/2nd by


Discussion

XXXX

Vote



None


Original section/paragraph number and at least one full sentence are required in FROM and TO fields.

1


(Check one)

x


Other [ ]

Section/Paragraph: Section 7 intro

FROM:

If a horizontal dimension extends outside the envelope of the equipment, as provided, then the excursion should be included in the equipment ergonomics clearances (see for example SEMI-S8 ????, paragraph 7.3).

TO:

If a horizontal dimension extends outside the envelope of the equipment, as provided, then the excursion should be included in the equipment ergonomics clearances (see for example SEMI-S8 ????, paragraph 7.3).


Editorial change proposed to fix ballot preparation error. The ???? was a placeholder for the publication date code.

Motion


Motion by/

2nd by

Eric Sklar (Safety Guru, LLC) / Edward Karl (Applied Materials)

Discussion

None

Vote









x





Checks for Entire Document Including All Approved Line Items

VIII. Safety Check

Note: This Safety check applies to the entire Standard or Safety Guideline including all the approved Line Items. See 15 of the Regulations for further information.

Motion

This is not a Safety Document, when all safety-related information is removed, the Document is still technically sound and complete. (Regulations 8.7.1)

x

This is a Safety Document, when all safety-related information is removed, the Document is not technically sound and complete. (Regulations 8.7.2)

x

Safety Checklist (Regulations 15.3) is complete and has been included with the Document throughout the balloting process. (Regulations 15.1.2)

Motion by/2nd by

Ron Macklin (Macklin & Associates) / Edward Karl (Applied Materials)

Discussion

None

Vote


IX. Intellectual Property (IP) Check

Note: This IP check applies to the entire Standard or Safety Guideline including all the approved Line Items. See 16 of the Regulations for further information.

x

The TC Chapter meeting chair asked those participating, if they were aware of any potentially material patented technology or copyrighted items* in the Standard or Guideline. (Regulations 8.8.1)

x

No potentially material patented technology or reproduction of copyrighted items is known.

GO TO SECTION X.

Potentially material patented technology or reproduction of copyrighted items is known, but a Letter of Assurance (LOA) or copyright release letter for such items has been obtained or presented to the TC Chapter.

GO TO SECTION X.

Potentially material patented technology or reproduction of copyrighted items is known and use of such materials is technically justified by the TC Chapter, but an LOA or copyright release letter for some of the item(s) has NOT been obtained or presented to the TC Chapter.

Motion

Ask ISC for special permission to publish.

Quit activity.

Wait for LOA for patented technology or release of copyrighted items.

Motion by/2nd by


Discussion

XXXX

Vote

XX Y-XX N

Final Action

Motion passed

Motion failed

* Note: Such potentially material patented technology or copyrighted items might have become known since the Standard or Safety Guideline was last reviewed, or might become relevant due to this Letter Ballot.

X. Action for This Document

Motion

(Check all applicable items)

x

Line item(s) [1] and [2] passed TC Chapter review as balloted and will be forwarded to the ISC A&R SC for procedural review.

x

Line item(s) [3] and [4] passed TC Chapter review with editorial changes and will be forwarded to the ISC A&R SC for procedural review.

Line item(s) [X], [X] and [X] passed TC Chapter review with technical changes and with or without editorial changes and will be forwarded to the ISC A&R SC for procedural review. A Ratification Ballot will be issued to verify the technical changes.

Line item(s) [X], [X] and [X] failed TC Chapter review and will be returned to the TF for rework.

Line item(s) [X], [X] and [X] failed TC Chapter review and work will be discontinued.

Motion by/ 2nd by

Ron Macklin (Macklin & Associates) / Lauren Crane (KLA-Tencor)

Discussion

None

Vote

8 Y-0 N

Final Action

x

Motion passed

Motion failed

Standards staff to record the result of the A&R procedural review here:

A&R

Line item(s) [X], [X] and [X] are Approved for publication

Line item(s) [X], [X] and [X] are Approved pending acceptance of the Ratification Ballot

Line item(s) [X], [X] and [X] are Not approved

Reason:

A&R Ballot Report Template (Line Item) Revision 1.4

Accepts

(Accepts +

Valid Rejects)

Approval Rate=44/45=

97.8%

90%

Sheet4

Sheet1Accepts(Accepts + Valid Rejects)Approval Rate=44/45=97.8%90%

Sheet2

Sheet3

Voting Interest:Returned VotesDistributionReturn Rate

Letter Ballot5789=64.0%

60%

Intercommittee Ballot14

Voting Interest Reject(s)0Total Voters with Rejects0

Voting Interest Accept(s)41

Sheet4

Sheet1Voting Interest:Returned VotesDistributionReturn RateLetter Ballot5789=64.0%60%>=90%Intercommittee Ballot14Voting Interest Reject(s)0Total Voters with Rejects0Voting Interest Accept(s)41

Sheet2

Sheet3

Accepts

(Accepts +

Valid Rejects)


100.0%

90%

Sheet4


Sheet2

Sheet3



60%




Sheet4


Sheet2

Sheet3

Accepts

(Accepts +

Valid Rejects)


100.0%

90%

Sheet4


Sheet2

Sheet3



60%




Sheet4


Sheet2

Sheet3

Accepts

(Accepts +

Valid Rejects)


100.0%

90%

Sheet4


Sheet2

Sheet3

5009DSafetyCheckli

st.docx

Safety Checklist for SEMI Draft Document #5009D

Delayed Line Items Revisions to SEMI S8-0712a, SAFETY GUIDELINES FOR ERGONOMICS ENGINEERING OF SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING EQUIPMENT

Developing/Revising Body

Name/Type:

Ergonomics Task Force

Technical Committee:

Environmental, Health, and Safety

Region:

North America

Leadership

Position

Last

First

Affiliation

Leader:

Schwab

Paul

Texas Instruments, Inc.

Leader:

Macklin

Ron

R. Macklin & Associates, LLC

Technical Editor

Sklar

Eric

Safety Guru, LLC

Documents, Conflicts, and Consideration

Safety related codes, standards, research studies, guidelines, and practices used in developing the safety guideline, and the manner in which each item was considered by the technical committee.

# and Title

Manner of Consideration

Aldien, Y., D. Welcome, S. Rakheja, R. Dong, and P. E. Boileau. "Contact Pressure Distribution at Hand-Handle Interface: Role of Hand Forces and Handle Size." International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 35, no. 3 (2005): 267-86.

Line item 3, Hand pressure data.

BIFMA G1-2013 Ergonomics Guideline for Furniture Used in Office Work Spaces Designed for Computer Use. American National Standards Institute.

Line item 4, Body clearance dimensions.

Diffrient, Niels, Alvin R. Tilley, David Harman, and Henry Dreyfuss Associates. Humanscale 4/5/6 : A Portfolio of Information: 4. Human Strength and Safety, 5. Controls and Displays, 6. Designing for People. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1981.

Line item 3, Original source for Section 6 handle design criteria.

EN 547-2:2009, Safety of machinery - Human body measurements - Part 2: Principles for determining the dimensions required for access openings, European Committee for Standardization, Vienna, 2009.


EN-ISO 14122-1:2001, Safety of machinery : permanent means of access to machinery -- Part 1: Choice of fixed means of access between two levels. European Committee for Standardization, Vienna, 2009.


EN-ISO 14122-2:2001, Safety of machinery permanent means of access to machinery --Part 2: Working platforms and walkways. European Committee for Standardization, Vienna, 2009.


EN-ISO 14738:2002, Safety of machinery Anthropometric requirements for the design of workstations at machinery.


Fransson-Hall, Charlotte, and sa Kilbom. "Sensitivity of the Hand to Surface Pressure." Applied Ergonomics Special Issue Hand Tools for the 1990s 24, no. 3 (1993): 181-89.


Freivalds, Andris. Biomechanics of the Upper Limbs: Mechanics, Modelling and Musculoskeletal Injuries. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2000.

Line item 3, Finger phalanx lengths and joint angles.

Garrett, John W. Anthropometry of the air force female hand, AMRL-TR-69-26, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, 1970.

Line item 3, Hand anthropometric data.

Garrett, John W. The adult human hand: some anthropometric and biomechanical considerations. Human Factors 13 (1971): 117-131.


Gordon, Claire C. 1988 Anthropometric Survey of U.S. Army Personnel: Summary Statistics, Interim Report. Natick, Mass: U.S. Army Natick Research, Development and Engineering Center, 1989.


Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International

3081 Zanker Road

San Jose, CA 95134-2127

Phone: 408.943.6900, Fax: 408.943.7943

Letter (Yellow) BallotLetter (Yellow) BallotLetter (Yellow) BallotInformational (Blue) Ballothb kDocument Under DevelopmenthghghLetter (Yellow) Ballot1000ALetter (Yellow) Ballot5009C

DRAFT

Document Number: 5009D

Date: 7/27/2015

Informational (Blue) Ballot1000AInformational (Blue) Ballotjn l

LETTER BALLOT

This is a Draft Document of the SEMI International Standards program. No material on this page is to be construed as an official or adopted Standard or Safety Guideline. Permission is granted to reproduce and/or distribute this document, in whole or in part, only within the scope of SEMI International Standards committee (document development) activity. All other reproduction and/or distribution without the prior written consent of SEMI is prohibited.

Page 1Doc. 5009D SEMI

Grant, Katharyn A., Daniel J. Habes, and Libby L. Steward. "An Analysis of Handle Designs for Reducing Manual Effort: The Influence of Grip Diameter." International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 10, no. 3 (1992): 199-206.

Line item 3, Handle diameter.

Harrison, Catherine R., and Kathleen M. Robinette. CAESAR: Summary Statistics for the Adult Population (Ages 18-65) of the United States of America. Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio: Air Force Research Laboratory, Human Effectiveness Directorate, Crew System Interface Division, 2002.


Hertzberg, H., I. Emanuel, and M. Alexander, The Anthropometry of Working Positions. 1. A Preliminary Study, WADC Technical Report 54-520. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 1956.


Human Hand Dimension for Ergonomic Design 2010. Research Institute of Human Engineering for Quality Life: Osaka, Japan, 2010.


ISO 14738: Safety of Machinery - Anthropometric Requirements for the Design of Workstations at Machinery. International Standards, 14738, Geneva: International Organization for Standardization, 2002.


Japanese Body Size Data, 2004-2006. Research Institute of Human Engineering for Quality of Life: Osaka, Japan, 2008.

Line item 4, Body clearance dimensions. Minimum chair height.

Johansson, Lena, Anders Kjellberg, sa Kilbom, and Goran M. Hagg. "Perception of Surface Pressure Applied to the Hand." Ergonomics 42, no. 10 (1999): 1274-82.


McDowell, M. A. et al. Anthropometric Reference Data for Children and Adults: United States, 20032006, National Health Statistics Reports, no. 10, October 22, 2008.

Line item 4, Body clearance dimensions. Abdominal circumference measurements.

MIL-HDBK-759: Handbook for Human Engineering Design Guidelines. Washington, D.C: Department of Defense.

Line item 3, Handle design criteria.

SEMI S2-0712 Environmental Health and Safety Guideline for Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment.

All line items. Reviewed to avoid direct conflicts.

SEMI S8-0712 Safety Guidelines for Ergonomics Engineering of Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment.

All line items. Base document for changes.

Seo, Na Jin, and Thomas J. Armstrong. "Investigation of Grip Force, Normal Force, Contact Area, Hand Size, and Handle Size for Cylindrical Handles." Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50, no. 5 (2008): 734-44.

Line item 3, Handle normal force data.

United States Occupational Safety & Health Administration. General Industry : OSHA Safety and Health Standards (29 CFR 1910). Washington, D.C. U.S. Dept. of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 1983.

Line item 4, Body clearance dimensions. Walking path clearance.

VanCott, Harold P., and Robert G. Kinkade, Ed., Human Engineering Guide to Equipment Design, U.S. Department of Defense. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972.


Note: Recommendations within this document were derived from or compared to the documents listed in this section. The Task Force selected criteria that meet the majority of the referenced documents, that are the most conservative, or that are most appropriate for the semiconductor industry and the regions where this equipment is used.

Known inconsistencies between the safety guideline and any other safety related codes, standards, and practices cited in the safety guideline

# and Title Inconsistency with This Safety Guideline

# and Title Inconsistency with This Safety Guideline

None known

None known

Other conflicts with known codes, standards, and practices or with commonly accepted safety and health principles to the extent practical

# and Title

Nature of Conflict with This Safety Guideline

None known

None known

Participants and Contributors

Name, Last

Name, First

Affiliation

Austin

Lindy

Salus Engineering

Barsky

Joe

TUV Rheinland

Birrell

Ron

TUVSUD America

Bogner

Mark

TUVSUD America

Braun

Stephan

TUV Reinland

Breder

Paul

Estec Solutions

Brody

Steve

Product ESH Consulting

Crane

Lauren

KLA-Tencor

D'Agostino

Mark

Varian

Ergete

Nigusu

Intertek, Global Semiconductor Safety Services, GS3

Evanston

Chris

Salus Engineering

Faust

Bruce

TUV America

Fessler

Mark

TEL

Frankfurth

Mark

Cymer

Funk

Rowland

Salus Engineering

Giles

Andrew

Estec Solutions

Green

Paul

Ultratech

Greenburg

Cliff

Nikon

Hamilton

Jeff

TEL

Harralson

Mark

Intel

Hayford

James

AMAT/Semitool

Hsu

Peter

Aixtron

Hughes

Stanley

Lam Research

Ibuka

Shigehito

Horiba

Illerhaus

Chris

CI Industrial Safety Consulting, LLC

Johnson

J.D.

Advanced Energy

Jones

Matt

Empirical

Karl

Ed

Applied Materials

Kelly

Paul

Estec Solutions

Kiley

Andrew

Varian

Krauss

Mark

System Development-ESH

Krauss

Josh

EHS2

Krov

Alan

TEL

Kryska

Paul

Novellus

Kuwatani

Ken

TUV-SUD

Larsen

Sean

Lam Research

Layman

Curt

Seagate

Leboults

Kyle

Xactix

Macklin

Ron

Ron Macklin Associates

Marshall

Les

Global 450 Consortium

Mashiro

Supika

TEL

McDaid

Raymond

Lam

McGreevey

Mark

DNS Electronics

Mills

Ken

Estec Solutions

Nesbitt

Abraham

ESTEC

Oswalt

James

Mattson

Petry

William

IBM Corporation

Planting

Bert

ASML

Rai

Sunny

Intertek

Roberge

Steven

Axcelis Technologies, Inc.

Sackllah

Michael

Intel

Sawyer

Debbie

Glacier Export Services, LLC

Schmitt

Jeff

IBM Corporation

Schwab

Paul

Texas Instruments, Inc.

Shristi

Kharel

KLA-Tencor

Sklar

Eric

Safety Guru

Sleiman

Samir

Brooks Automation

Tan

Conrad

Lewis Bass

Werner

Stephen

Intel Corporation

Wong

Carl

AMAT

Yakimow

Byron

Cymer

The content requirements of this checklist are documented in 15.2 of the Regulations Governing SEMI Standards Committees.



60%




Sheet4


Sheet2

Sheet3