Members Only
Home
Cart
Contact
July 31, 2003
U.S. Department of Labor
U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. S-029, Room N-2625,
200 Constitution Avenue, NW.
Washington, DC 20210
This comment is being filed by the ANSI (American National Standards Institute) Accredited Z359 Committee for Fall Protection and the A1264 Committee for Floor and Walkway Openings. This comment is being presented on both Z359 and A1264 letterhead so that OSHA will be aware that each committee has taken a position in regard to this reopened rule. The rosters of both committees are attached to this comment. Both committees are in balance per ANSI procedure and represent a wide range of stakeholder interests, (Appendix A). However, we do need to point out that this is a consensus comment and is not indicative of complete committee unanimity.
Both of these committees utilize the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) as secretariat, and ASSE has already published a comprehensive statement regarding the use of voluntary national consensus standards in occupational safety and health. We believe this paper offers some cogent points towards the issues being discussed in this proposal, have attached it, and would ask that it also be kept as part of the record, (Appendix B).
The Z359 and A1264 ASC(s) are in agreement that Subpart D of 29 CFR part 1910, Walking and Working Surfaces, sets forth general industry requirements for employers to protect employees from slips, trips and falls that may cause serious or fatal injuries. These committees are also aware that Subpart I of 29 CFR part 1910, Personal Protective Equipment, contains general requirements covering the use and maintenance of personal protective equipment (PPE), as well as specific provisions on the use, design and performance requirements for various types of PPE such as eye, face, head and respiratory protection.
Our committees support the stated goal of this reopened rule, which is to update requirements in the existing standards and propose changes to consolidate and simplify requirements and to eliminate ambiguities and redundancies. OSHA also proposed to add a number of provisions that were not addressed in the existing standards or the proposed 1990 rule.
General Insights
The Z359 ASC is concerned that OSHA does not cite the ANSI Z359.1-1992 (R1999)-"Safety requirements for Personal Fall Arrest Systems, Subsystems and Components" by reference in this standard. The standard is considered to be perhaps the number one source for technical information regarding fall protection/fall arrest, but it is still not sufficiently referenced in the standard. OSHA has been active on the Z359 ASC and we are puzzled as to why the Agency continues to be reticent to provide recognition to such a cogent and technically sound document. Also, a review of the federal standard indicates that in some areas it virtually mirrors what is in Z359 from a language and content perspective. As a result we specifically recommend that the final rule cite Z359.1-1992(R1999) in Subpart I in the same manner that the Agency recognizes the Z87.1 Standard for eye and face protection equipment for design and performance or how the ANSI A14 standards are recognized in the proposed rule.
As you well know, federal agencies were encouraged to utilize consensus standards by both Congress in Public Law 104-113, "The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995," and the Office of Management and Budget in its Circular A-119, "Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities." If the Z359.1 Standard cannot be cited by reference we would formally request a detailed explanation of why such recognition is not appropriate and why OSHA feels it can write a better product specification standard than the ANSI accredited Z359 ASC, which we respectfully and cordially do not believe it can do.
Request for Comments, Data and Information
OSHA asked for commentary regarding a number of issues. For the sake of this comment we have cited the issue and then listed which committee was offering comment. Our views are as follows:
1. Rolling Stock and Self Propelled, Motorized Mobile Equipment and the Use of Body Belts
The Z359 ASC opposes OSHA excluding rolling stock and self-propelled motorized mobile equipment from coverage under subpart D. This is a significant issue for the committee and it believes that such a policy would be inappropriate. In the past, the Z359 ASC has consistently commented about the use of body belts within the B 56.1 American National Standard. Our position is that a body belt sometimes referred to as safety belt or waist belt is a strap that workers secure around their waists and secure to anchorage points for use in fall protection. The ANSI Z359 Committee has consistently reiterated its concerns to the B56 ASC of the hazards associated with the use of Body Belts as a fall arrestor. Workers wearing body belts would expect the following problems if a fall where to occur:
The ANSI Z359 committee believes a full body harness should be the preferred alternative to body belts for fall arrest. A full body harness distributes arresting forces over larger areas of the workers body and provides better suspension support. Many studies have been conducted supporting the idea of utilizing full body harnesses over body belts. For instance, a study conducted for OSHA in 1986 showed that workers who were suspended by a full body harness would have 29 more minutes of safe suspension time over the utilization of body belts. We believe the body of science and current technology is more than supportive of our position and concerns.
Also, as OSHA noted, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) issued an interim final rule prohibiting the use of body belts for fall arrest (49 CFR 214.7 and 49 CFR 214.105)(67 FR 1903, January 15, 2002). In the preamble to the rule, the FRA stated that ``it is now obvious that a formerly permitted use of body belts in fall arrest systems presents an undue hazard to the user''. We take the position that this is good policy and is supported by sound science, good data, and available technology.
For the reasons above we believe such exclusion would be inappropriate and would oppose such a policy. Our letters to the B56 ASC are also included with this comment for inclusion into the formal record, (Appendix C).
2. Climbing fixed ladders that are not equipped with fall protection.
The Z359 ASC has taken the position that cages cannot be considered as an alternative to personal fall protection systems (PFPSs). PFPSs are safety systems that arrest an accidental fall while cages due to their very nature and design do not arrest a fall. A number of committee members took the position that the only benefit from a cage is that a cage does not arrest or stop a fall, it merely redirects a falling body. The role of OSHA is to prevent injuries, illnesses, and fatalities and we believe the logic of such a proposal is in serious error.
3. The Issue of Qualified Climbers
The Z359 ASC has significant concern with recognition of the term "qualified climber" in this standard and the concept that it is okay to climb high distances without fall protection. Our view is that this concept was developed as a way to justify climbing of structures without fall arrest systems (FASs). It is important to point out that fall protection technology is commonly available today and fully capable of protecting all qualified climbers from the effects of gravity. The Z359 ASC has gone on record in opposing some fall protection standards that incorporate the concept that climbing high distances without necessary equipment is okay if the person has some type of qualification.
The fact is that qualified climbers do fall and nobody is immune to gravity. The Qualified Climber who does not employ fall arrest system when erecting steel structures, or when climbing transmission towers, telecommunication towers and other structures - is exposed to the hazard of falling. The severity of injuries sustained in falls from such structures is usually extremely high and fatalities are common. Every person working aloft without protection against falling is at risk of injury or fatality. No amount of training in free climbing will prevent an experienced person from slipping, missing a step, being subjected to static electric charge, having a muscle cramp, or being hit by a tool dropped from above when climbing. These hazards and exposures can be controlled and the risks minimized with FASs commonly available from safety equipment suppliers. Finally, we fail to see how the concept of the qualified climber is going to survive legal challenges in the courts or loss control hazard risk assessments in the insurance industry.
4. Training
The Z359 and A1264 ASC(s) believes that training is a serious issue and should be addressed in this standard. Our experience indicates that poor training is one of the key causes of incidents involving fall protection and fall arrest. The Z359 ASC is currently working on a proposed draft standard titled Z359.0 Accepted Practices for Fall Protection Programs. The scope of the standard establishes requirements and guidelines for a managed fall protection program, including fall hazard assessment, elimination or control of fall hazards, rescue and evacuation planning, training, inspection, and program evaluation. We believe this project could be of significant assistance if/when the standard is approved.
The American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) is also the Secretariat for the American National Standards Institute Z490.1 Standard entitled "Criteria for Accepted Practices in Safety, Health, and Environmental Training." The standard, approved in July 2001, sets accepted practices for SH&E training to help employers and consumers select quality safety and health training materials, instructors and other program components. Z490.1 is also used to audit, monitor, evaluate and analyze the programs of training providers as well as the employee training activities of corporations and government entities seeking third-party review. OSHA also has representation on this committee and was proactive in creating this standard.
It is well known that, federal agencies were encouraged to utilize consensus standards by both Congress in Public Law 104-113, "The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995," and the Office of Management and Budget in its Circular A-119, "Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities."
We would suggest that OSHA reference Z490.1 in Section 1910.32(b)(5)(ii)) of the standard or provide a reference to it in the non-mandatory appendix. OSHA should also provide links on the OSHA web site that would encourage those people seeking information on training to consider availing themselves of the valuable training information provided in Z490.1.
5. New and Updated National Consensus Standards
OSHA noted in the Federal Register announcement that many employers as well as OSHA use the latest versions of national consensus standards for guidance and as references in creating safe workplaces. As was noted in the Federal Register, Section 6(b)(8) of the Act requires that OSHA whenever the Agency issues a standard that differs substantially from an existing consensus standard it must publish a statement of reasons why the OSHA standard as adopted will better effectuate the purposes of the Act than the consensus standard (29 U.S.C. 655(b)(8)). Finally, federal agencies were encouraged to utilize consensus standards by both Congress in Public Law 104-113, "The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995," and the Office of Management and Budget in its Circular A-119, "Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities."
We support OSHA updating references to voluntary national consensus standards to the most current ones. However, we have concern with recognition being given to ANSI/IWCA I-14.1-2001 as our belief is that this standard does not provide an adequate level of safety. In addition, the Z359 ASC has concern with recognition of the ANSI/ASME B56.1 Standard for the reasons cited earlier in this comment. It should be noted that ANSI A10.14, "American National Standard for Requirements for Safety Belts, Harnesses, Lanyards, Lifelines, and Drop Lines for Construction and Industrial Use" was administratively withdrawn by ANSI and is no longer a recognized standard. Finally, recognition of the individual A12 and A64 Standards is not appropriate under any circumstances as these standards have long been out of date and are now addressed by the combined A1264.1 Standard.
The ANSI A1264 Committee strongly supports the decision by ANSI to provide recognition to:
ANSI A1264.1-1995 (R2002), American National Standard - Safety Requirements for Workplace Floors and Wall Openings, Stairs and Railing Systems.
ANSI A1264.2-2001, American National Standard--Standard for the Provision of Slip Resistance on Walking/Working Surfaces.
Slip Resistance Issues
The ANSI A1264 Committee supports OSHA's decision to include the 0.5 guideline as a reasonable measure of slip resistance.
Although research is continuing to investigate the relationship between floor traction and slipping incidents, other organizations have studied the problem in depth for many years. There is a relationship between the slipperiness of a surface and slip/fall occurrences, as there is a significant body of literature and evidence that maintains this relationship does indeed exist. There is also a significant body of court precedent recognizing the significance of the 0.5 guideline, and OSHA recognition adoption of this threshold is simply recognition of what has been a widely-accepted value over the past half century.
In addition to the references cited in the rationale section of the draft standard supporting the 0.5 guideline, we have added several other entries from Government, trade associations and the scientific literature.
During creation of the A1264.2 Standard, the ANSI A1264.2 Committee considered the ramifications of setting a minimum acceptable slip-resistance value for all floors under all conditions in the standard. As a result the 0.5 guideline was recognized in the right non-mandatory (explanatory) column. The committee agreed that it was not possible to take such an action at this time due to a number of factors including but not limited to: the number of testing devices being used and the lack of correlation between those devices and the fact that a "standardized slider pad" and/or "standardized test surface" is not recognized. The committee suggested the use of standard test Neolite as a slider pad material because of its uniform and homogeneous properties, its availability as a specified material, and its resistance to contamination.
One issue that should be addressed by OSHA is how to adequately measure slip resistance. For example, the A1264.2 standard adopts two ASTM Committee F-13 standards by reference for wet testing purposes (ASTM Committee F13 is the committee on Pedestrian/Walkway Safety and Footwear). The A1264 Committee suggested that any devices used to measure friction be devices that are recognized by the ASTM F-13 committee, or other ASTM standards development committees, which have recognition criteria equal to or greater than that of ASTM F-13. These two F-13 standards specify currently recognized and scientifically accepted devices: ASTM F-1679-96, "Standard Test Method for Using a Variable Incidence Tribometer (VIT)", and ASTM F-1677-96 "Test Method for Using a Portable and Inclinable Articulated Strut Slip Tester (PIAST)". We also point to the following:
By incorporating the A1264.2 Standard into OSHA's rules, any concerns about technological advancements in tribometry and the measurement of friction are alleviated, as devices that are redeemed scientifically worthy are automatically included in the standard if it were to be recognized by either ASTM F-13 or another nationally recognized standards development committee with certification criteria equal to or greater than that of ASTM F-13.
General References
We noted that OSHA listed a number of different publications from different safety and health groups. We would also request that the following ASSE publication be listed also as it is of high caliber and would be of assistance:
Conclusion
We do thank you for your time and attention to our comments. If you should have any comments or concerns please feel free to contact secretariat staff (Patrick Arkins or Tim Fisher) at 847/699-2929.
Sincerely Yours:
Jack Dobson, CSP Keith Vidal, P.E.
Chair, Z359 ASC Chair, A1264 ASC