View
215
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
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
GO TO Persuasive subsection
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
Result of Vote (check one)
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)
(check if applicable)
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.
Line Item 2 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
There were no reject votes received for ballot 5009D, line item 2.
IV. Other Technical Issues
None
V. Comments
V- (i) Voters Comments
There were no comments received for ballot 5009D, line item 2.
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 2.
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 2 meets the Letter Ballot approval conditions for the global technical committee.
Need a Ratification Ballot:
Line Item 2 meets the Letter Ballot approval conditions for the TC Chapter and a Ratification Ballot will be issued to validate technical changes.
Line Item 3 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: KLA-Tencor)
Voter Reject 1 (Voter: Lauren Crane / KLA-Tencor)
Negative 1
Negative
Referenced Section/ Paragraph
*TF/TC Chapter to fill in, including text in the ballot if necessary.
LI3 Section 6
Negative Text
*Original complete Negative text (e.g., issue, justification, suggestion) should be copied.
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)
Withdrawal (check one)
No Negative withdrawal made by Voter.
GO TO Related subsection
x
Withdrawal document received by Standards staff on 07/16/2015.
GO TO Final subsection (A)
Final
(check if applicable)
x
(A)
Withdrawn (counted under h in disposition)
(B)
Not related (counted under i in disposition)
(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)
(check if applicable)
Comment generated. See Section V-(ii) Comment # X.
Negative 2
Negative
Referenced Section/ Paragraph
*TF/TC Chapter to fill in, including text in the ballot if necessary.
LI3 A3-1.6
Negative Text
*Original complete Negative text (e.g., issue, justification, suggestion) should be copied.
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)
Withdrawal (check one)
No Negative withdrawal made by Voter.
GO TO Related subsection
x
Withdrawal document received by Standards staff on 07/16/2015.
GO TO Final subsection (A)
Final
(check if applicable)
x
(A)
Withdrawn (counted under h in disposition)
(B)
Not related (counted under i in disposition)
(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)
(check if applicable)
Comment generated. See Section V-(ii) Comment # X.
Negative 3
Negative
Referenced Section/ Paragraph
*TF/TC Chapter to fill in, including text in the ballot if necessary.
LI3 Global
Negative Text
*Original complete Negative text (e.g., issue, justification, suggestion) should be copied.
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)
Withdrawal (check one)
No Negative withdrawal made by Voter.
GO TO Related subsection
x
Withdrawal document received by Standards staff on 07/16/2015.
GO TO Final subsection (A)
Final
(check if applicable)
x
(A)
Withdrawn (counted under h in disposition)
(B)
Not related (counted under i in disposition)
(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)
(check if applicable)
Comment generated. See Section V-(ii) Comment # X.
Disposition of Voting Interest Reject 1
Check only when the Document has not been failed.
3
Original number (#) of Negatives
(g)
3
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
x
g - (h + i +j + k) = 0
Reject is Not Valid and is not included in the denominator of VI. Approval Conditions Check
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)
Voting Interest Reject 2 (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.
A3-3.1
Negative Text
*Original complete Negative text (e.g., issue, justification, suggestion) should be copied.
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)
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)
Related is mutually agreed upon. (Needs no motion.)
GO TO Persuasive subsection
x
Negative is not related. (Needs 2/3 votes to pass.)
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
Result of Vote (check one)
11 Y-0 N; Motion passed.
[Negative is not related.] < 2/3
GO TO Persuasive subsection
x
2/3 [Negative is not related.]
GO TO Final subsection (B)
Final
(check if applicable)
(A)
Withdrawn (counted under h in disposition)
x
(B)
Not related (counted under i in disposition)
(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)
(check if applicable)
Comment generated. See Section V-(ii) Comment # X.
Negative 2
Negative
Referenced Section/ Paragraph
*TF/TC Chapter to fill in, including text in the ballot if necessary.
A3-4.1
Negative Text
*Original complete Negative text (e.g., issue, justification, suggestion) should be copied.
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)
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)
Related is mutually agreed upon. (Needs no motion.)
GO TO Persuasive subsection
x
Negative is not related. (Needs 2/3 votes to pass.)
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
Result of Vote (check one)
9 Y-0 N; Motion passed.
[Negative is not related.] < 2/3
GO TO Persuasive subsection
x
2/3 [Negative is not related.]
GO TO Final subsection (B)
Final
(check if applicable)
(A)
Withdrawn (counted under h in disposition)
x
(B)
Not related (counted under i in disposition)
(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)
(check if applicable)
Comment generated. See Section V-(ii) Comment # X.
Disposition of Voting Interest Reject 2
Check only when the Document has not been failed.
2
Original number (#) of Negatives
(g)
#
Number of Negatives withdrawn
(h)
2
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
x
g - (h + i +j + k) = 0
Reject is Not Valid and is not included in the denominator of VI. Approval Conditions Check
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
V- (i) Voters 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
FROM: Section/Paragraph xxx
TO: Section/Paragraph xxx
Justification (If necessary)
Motion
To approve above editorial change(s)
Motion by/2nd by
Name (Company)/Name (Company)
Discussion
XXXX
Vote
XX Y-XX N; Motion passed/failed.
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
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
FROM: Section/Paragraph xxx
TO: Section/Paragraph xxx
Justification (If necessary)
Motion
To approve above editorial change(s)
Motion by/2nd by
Name (Company)/Name (Company)
Discussion
XXXX
Vote
XX Y-XX N; Motion passed/failed.
Commenter 2 (Edward Karl / Applied Materials) - Comment 2
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
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
FROM: Section/Paragraph xxx
TO: Section/Paragraph xxx
Justification (If necessary)
Motion
To approve above editorial change(s)
Motion by/2nd by
Name (Company)/Name (Company)
Discussion
XXXX
Vote
XX Y-XX N; Motion passed/failed.
V-(ii) Comments Created by Handling Negative
None
VI. Editorial Changes Other than Those Voted on in V
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
Commenter 1 (Lauren Crane / KLA-Tencor) - Comment 1
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
Origin of this editorial change
(Check one)
x
Voter Reject 1 (Voter: Eric Sklar / Safety Guru, LLC) Negative 1
Commenter 2 (Edward Karl / Applied Materials) - Comment 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).
Justification: (If necessary)
Motion
To approve the above editorial change(s).
Motion by/
2nd by
Edward Karl (Applied Materials) / Lauren Crane (KLA-Tencor)
Discussion
None
Vote
10 Y-0 N; Motion passed
2
Origin of this editorial change
(Check one)
x
Voter Reject 1 (Voter: Eric Sklar / Safety Guru, LLC) Negative 2
Commenter 2 (Edward Karl / Applied Materials) - Comment 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.
Justification: (If necessary)
Motion
To approve the above editorial change(s).
Motion by/
2nd by
Edward Karl (Applied Materials) / Lauren Crane (KLA-Tencor)
Discussion
None
Vote
10 Y-0 N; Motion passed
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 3 meets the Letter Ballot approval conditions for the global technical committee.
Need a Ratification Ballot:
Line Item 3 meets the Letter Ballot approval conditions for the TC Chapter and a Ratification Ballot will be issued to validate technical changes.
Line Item 4 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: KLA-Tencor)
Voter Reject 1 (Voter: Lauren Crane / KLA-Tencor)
Negative 1
Negative
Referenced Section/ Paragraph
*TF/TC Chapter to fill in, including text in the ballot if necessary.
LI4 Global
Negative Text
*Original complete Negative text (e.g., issue, justification, suggestion) should be copied.
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.
Withdrawal (check one)
No Negative withdrawal made by Voter.
GO TO Related subsection
x
Withdrawal document received by Standards staff on 07/16/2015.
GO TO Final subsection (A)
Final
(check if applicable)
x
(A)
Withdrawn (counted under h in disposition)
(B)
Not related (counted under i in disposition)
(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)
(check if applicable)
Comment generated. See Section V-(ii) Comment # X.
Disposition of Voting Interest Reject 1
Check only when the Document has not been failed.
1
Original number (#) of Negatives
(g)
1
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
x
g - (h + i +j + k) = 0
Reject is Not Valid and is not included in the denominator of VI. Approval Conditions Check
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
V- (i) Voters Comments
Commenter 1 (Lauren Crane / KLA-Tencor) - Comment 1
Comment
LI4 sect. 7 intro
Comment
see for example SEMI S8 ???? is ambiguous
Proposed Solution
Replace question marks with a more concrete reference.
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
FROM: Section/Paragraph xxx
TO: Section/Paragraph xxx
Justification (If necessary)
Motion
To approve above editorial change(s)
Motion by/2nd by
Name (Company)/Name (Company)
Discussion
XXXX
Vote
XX Y-XX N; Motion passed/failed.
V-(ii) Comments Created by Handling Negative
None
VI. Editorial Changes Other than Those Voted on in V
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
Commenter 1 (Lauren Crane / KLA-Tencor) - Comment 1
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).
Justification: (If necessary)
Editorial change proposed to fix ballot preparation error. The ???? was a placeholder for the publication date code.
Motion
To approve the above editorial change(s).
Motion by/
2nd by
Eric Sklar (Safety Guru, LLC) / Edward Karl (Applied Materials)
Discussion
None
Vote
9 Y-0 N; Motion passed
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 4 meets the Letter Ballot approval conditions for the global technical committee.
Need a Ratification Ballot:
Line Item 4 meets the Letter Ballot approval conditions for the TC Chapter and a Ratification Ballot will be issued to validate technical changes.
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
8 Y-0 N; Motion passed
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
Name (Company)/Name (Company)
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)
Approval Rate=41/41=
100.0%
90%
Sheet4
Sheet1Accepts(Accepts + Valid Rejects)Approval Rate=41/41=100.0%90%
Sheet2
Sheet3
Voting Interest:Returned VotesDistributionReturn Rate
Letter Ballot5789=64.0%
60%
Intercommittee Ballot14
Voting Interest Reject(s)2Total Voters with Rejects2
Voting Interest Accept(s)38
Sheet4
Sheet1Voting Interest:Returned VotesDistributionReturn RateLetter Ballot5789=64.0%60%>=90%Intercommittee Ballot14Voting Interest Reject(s)2Total Voters with Rejects2Voting Interest Accept(s)38
Sheet2
Sheet3
Accepts
(Accepts +
Valid Rejects)
Approval Rate=38/38=
100.0%
90%
Sheet4
Sheet1Accepts(Accepts + Valid Rejects)Approval Rate=38/38=100.0%90%
Sheet2
Sheet3
Voting Interest:Returned VotesDistributionReturn Rate
Letter Ballot5789=64.0%
60%
Intercommittee Ballot14
Voting Interest Reject(s)1Total Voters with Rejects1
Voting Interest Accept(s)38
Sheet4
Sheet1Voting Interest:Returned VotesDistributionReturn RateLetter Ballot5789=64.0%60%>=90%Intercommittee Ballot14Voting Interest Reject(s)1Total Voters with Rejects1Voting Interest Accept(s)38
Sheet2
Sheet3
Accepts
(Accepts +
Valid Rejects)
Approval Rate=38/38=
100.0%
90%
Sheet4
Sheet1Accepts(Accepts + Valid Rejects)Approval Rate=38/38=100.0%90%
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.
Line item 4, Body clearance dimensions.
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.
Line item 4, Body clearance dimensions.
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.
Line item 4, Body clearance dimensions.
EN-ISO 14738:2002, Safety of machinery Anthropometric requirements for the design of workstations at machinery.
Line item 4, Body clearance dimensions.
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.
Line item 3, Hand pressure data.
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.
Line item 3, Hand anthropometric data.
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.
Line item 4, Body clearance dimensions.
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.
Line item 4, Body clearance dimensions.
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.
Line item 4, Body clearance dimensions.
Human Hand Dimension for Ergonomic Design 2010. Research Institute of Human Engineering for Quality Life: Osaka, Japan, 2010.
Line item 3, Hand anthropometric data.
ISO 14738: Safety of Machinery - Anthropometric Requirements for the Design of Workstations at Machinery. International Standards, 14738, Geneva: International Organization for Standardization, 2002.
Line item 4, Body clearance dimensions.
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.
Line item 3, Hand pressure data.
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.
Line item 4, Body clearance dimensions.
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.
Voting Interest:Returned VotesDistributionReturn Rate
Letter Ballot5789=64.0%
60%
Intercommittee Ballot14
Voting Interest Reject(s)1Total Voters with Rejects1
Voting Interest Accept(s)44
Sheet4
Sheet1Voting Interest:Returned VotesDistributionReturn RateLetter Ballot5789=64.0%60%>=90%Intercommittee Ballot14Voting Interest Reject(s)1Total Voters with Rejects1Voting Interest Accept(s)44
Sheet2
Sheet3
Recommended