| |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|||
| |||||
     |
 |
|
 July 9, 1999 OSHA Docket Office Re: Comments on the Proposed Rule -- Employer Payment for Personal Protective Equipment Dear Sir or Madam: The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. (SPI), submits these comments in response to OSHA’s Proposed Rule on Employer Payment for Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). 61 Fed. Reg. 15402-15441 (March 31, 1999). SPI appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposed rule. SPI and its members recognize the importance of employees wearing appropriate PPE as a basic element of job safety. Indeed, the effective and routine use of personal protective equipment is an important component of an overall occupational safety and health management program. Accordingly, we support the efforts of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to provide guidance in this area. In this regard, SPI and its members support OSHA’s efforts to clarify an employer’s traditional obligation to pay for certain initial PPE outlays. The proposal does need to be revised to limit employers’ obligations to necessary replacements, and to clarify that contractors, not host employers, are responsible for the provision and use of necessary PPE to the contractor’s employees. SPI is a 2,000 member not-for-profit trade organization representing all segments of the plastics industry in the United States. The Society’s members include processors and manufacturers of plastics and plastics products, suppliers of raw materials, processors and converters of plastics resins, and manufacturers of accessory equipment for the plastics industry. Founded in 1937, SPI is the major national trade association of the plastics industry. Given the number of employees in our industry and the nature of its operations, SPI and its members have a significant interest in regulations involving employer obligations to provide PPE for their employees. A. Provision of Initial PPE SPI and its members support OSHA’s proposal to require employers to pay for the initial purchase of required PPE with the exception of safety-toe protective shoes and prescription safety eye wear that can also be used off the job site for personal use. B. Provision of Replacement PPE The current proposal needs to be revised to ensure that employers are not required to pay for unnecessary replacements. The preamble to the proposed rule refers to an exemption to the employer pays rule if the employee fails to bring PPE to the job site or unreasonably loses or damages PPE. 61 Fed. Reg. at 15414. This essential principle concerning the circumstances under which an employee becomes responsible for replacements was not reflected in the proposed regulatory text. SPI and its members support an exception in which employers pay for replacement PPE that must be replaced due to normal wear and tear rather than due to employee misuse, loss, or personal use. However, unless employees can be held accountable for misuse of PPE, there is no incentive or mechanism to ensure that employees use and maintain PPE appropriately. SPI believes the proposal should be revised to limit employer-paid replacement of PPE based on normal usage and maintenance. The language of sections 29 C.F.R. §§ 1910.132, 1915.152, 1917.96, 1918.106 and 1926.95 should be revised by adding the following sentence: The employer’s obligation to pay for replacement of PPE is limited to normal wear and tear and does not extend to instances of employee misuse, personal use, or loss. C. Host Employer Obligations The proposed rule governs an employer’s obligations to its employees, but it does not address how host employers are affected. OSHA should clarify that contractors are responsible for the initial purchase and necessary replacement of their own employees’ equipment. For example, if the employee of an contractor arrives at the host employer’s site without the required PPE or is not using appropriate PPE for the current task, the rule should specify that the host employer is not responsible for providing and paying for the contractor employee’s PPE, and therefore cannot be cited for failing to do so. The final rule or preamble to the final rule should clarify this allocation of responsibilities. On behalf of SPI and its members, we appreciate the opportunity to provide you with our views on this matter, and thank the Agency in advance for its consideration of these comments. SPI remains willing to assist OSHA in developing this rule. Should you have any questions regarding these comments, or if we can be of assistance in providing you with further information, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Lewis R. Freeman,
Jr. Of Counsel: More
Public Policy: Environment
. Worker Safety . Transportation
. Codes and Standards . Food,
Drug,and Cosmetic Packaging . International
Trade
. Other Issues
|
|
|
|
 © Copyright 2003 The Society of the Plastics Industry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
      |