[Federal Register: April 6, 1994]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Department of Labor
_______________________________________________________________________
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
29 CFR Part 1910
Personal Protective Equipment for General Industry; Final Rule
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Part 1910
[Docket No. S-060]
RIN 1218-AA71
Personal Protective Equipment for General Industry
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration; Labor.
ACTION: Final Rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is
revising portions of the general industry safety standards addressing
personal protective equipment (PPE). The standards being revised
include those containing general requirements for all PPE
(Sec. 1910.132) and standards that set design, selection, and use
requirements for specific types of PPE (eye, face, head, foot and
hand).
The Agency is updating the standards for PPE to be more consistent
with the current consensus regarding good industry practices, as
reflected by the latest editions of the pertinent American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) standards. The revision will provide
guidance for the selection and use of PPE as well as clearer
requirements that are performance-oriented, where appropriate.
New paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) (containing requirements covering
equipment selection, defective and damaged equipment, and training,
respectively) have been added to Sec. 1910.132. Also, a new section
(Sec. 1910.138) has been added to this Subpart to address hazards to
the hands.
Non-mandatory appendices A and B have also been added to this
Subpart to provide additional guidance to employers and employees with
regard to PPE for eye, face, head, foot, and hand hazards.
DATES: This standard will become effective on July 5, 1994. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the
standards is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of
April 6, 1994.
ADDRESS: In compliance with 28 U.S.C. 2112(a), the Agency designates
for receipt of petitions for review of the standard the Associate
Solicitor for Occupational Safety and Health, Office of the Solicitor,
Room S-4004, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20210.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James F. Foster, U.S. Department
of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N-3647,
200 Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210. Telephone: (202)
219-8151.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
In this preamble, OSHA identifies sources of information submitted
to the record by an exhibit number (Ex. 3). When applicable, comment
numbers follow the exhibit in which they are contained (Ex. 3: 1). If
more than one comment within an exhibit is cited, the comment numbers
are separated by commas (Ex. 3: 1, 2, 3). The page number is also cited
if other than page 1 (Ex. 3: 2, pg. 8). The transcript of the hearing
is cited by the page number followed by identification of the hearing
date (Tr. 80: 4/3). Exhibit and transcript citations are separated by
semicolons (Ex. 3: Ex. 7; Tr. 80: 4/3).
I. Background
The existing OSHA standards for personal protective equipment (PPE)
are contained in Subpart I of OSHA's general industry standards. These
standards were adopted in 1971 from established Federal standards and
national consensus standards.
In developing a proposed revision of Subpart I, the Agency
performed a comprehensive review of the PPE standards. This review
revealed several limitations and concerns with respect to these
standards. First, OSHA determined that many of the existing PPE
standards were outdated since they reflected knowledge and practices
regarding PPE as they existed in the late 1960's and early 1970's. This
meant that employers were being required to explain how compliance with
more recent editions of the pertinent consensus standards provides
equivalent protection to that provided by the older editions in the
OSHA standards.
Second, the Agency determined that there were certain gaps in
coverage of the PPE standards, and that the standards set very
restrictive design criteria which might limit the use of new
technology. OSHA was concerned that restraints on innovation might also
make it more difficult for employers either to increase acceptance of
PPE, or to provide more protective PPE. Recognizing this situation, the
Agency established a process under which OSHA has accepted, for
example, on a case-by-case basis, the use of eye protection which,
while not designed to meet the specifications in the existing
standards, had been demonstrated to provide equivalent or superior
worker protection. The Agency determined, however, that this process
could not keep pace with the development of improved PPE. Consequently,
OSHA was concerned that, unless the PPE standards were revised to be
more performance-oriented, employers and product manufacturers might be
discouraged from improving their equipment and from providing improved
protection to workers.
Also, OSHA had obtained injury data and technical reports which
showed that injuries were occurring to employees who were wearing PPE
as well as to those employees who were not wearing PPE. This indicated
that, in some cases, significant improvements in PPE design and
acceptance might be needed.
Based on these concerns, OSHA developed a proposed revision to its
PPE standards. The proposed revision was published in the Federal
Register as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on August 16, 1989
(54 FR 33832). OSHA proposed to revise the safety standards for eye and
face protection (Sec. 1910.133); head protection (Sec. 1910.135); and
foot protection (Sec. 1910.136) by referencing the latest editions of
the corresponding standards published by the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI). The provisions of existing Secs. 1910.134
and 1910.137 (which cover respiratory protection and electrical
protective devices, respectively) are the subjects of separate
rulemaking actions and are not addressed by this rulemaking.
OSHA also proposed to revise the ``general requirements'' for PPE
(Sec. 1910.132) by adding provisions that: (1) require employers to
select appropriate PPE based on the hazards present and to assure that
employees who obtain their own PPE follow the employers' selection
decisions; (2) prohibit the use of defective or damaged PPE; and (3)
require that employees be trained in the proper use of their PPE.
The NPRM set a period, that ended on October 16, 1990, during which
interested persons could comment on the proposal and request a hearing.
OSHA received 129 comments in response to the proposal (Exhibit 3). The
Agency also received several requests for an informal public hearing to
discuss and clarify some of the requirements in the proposal, and to
discuss and comment on issues and concerns raised as a result of the
proposal. Accordingly, OSHA published a hearing notice on February 1,
1990 (55 FR 3412). The hearing notice requested testimony and
supporting information on the following issues: (1) Marking of eye and
face protection; (2) Third party certification; (3) The use of
photochromic lenses; (4) Training in the proper use of PPE; and (5) The
need for additional regulation of PPE (such as gloves, chemical
protective clothing, and bump caps). The hearing notice (55 FR 3412)
also extended the comment period until March 20, 1990.
Hearings on the proposed standard were held in Washington, D.C., on
April 3 and 4, 1990, with Administrative Law Judge Sheldon R. Lipson
presiding. At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Lipson set July 13,
1990, as the deadline for submission of post hearing comments and
evidence, and September 11, 1990, as the deadline for submission of
summations and briefs. On November 9, 1990, Judge Lipson certified the
hearing record, including the hearing transcript and all written
submissions to the docket.
The rulemaking record contains 173 comments, 577 pages of
testimony, and 53 exhibits.
II. Workplace Hazards Involved
OSHA has determined that workers involved in a wide range of
occupations are exposed to a significant risk of death or injury from
being struck by various objects in the workplace. OSHA's incident data
indicate that a significant portion of all work related injuries and
fatalities involve workers being struck in the eyes, head, face, hand,
and or feet by foreign objects. For example, it has been estimated that
as many as 2,500 eye injuries occur in the workplace every working day
(Ex. 2: 9).
One study indicated that there were 333,272 reported occupational
eye injuries for 1985 (Ex. 2: 8). Another study, pertaining to
disabling injuries, estimated that there were 320,000 hand and finger
injuries, 70,000 eye injuries, 70,000 head and face injuries, and
110,000 foot and toe injuries in 1987. These injuries constituted 31.7
percent of the estimated 1,800,000 total disabling work injuries for
1987 (Ex. 2: 15).
These examples indicate the degree of the hazard to which employees
are exposed. OSHA reviewed many sources that described the type and
number of injuries to employees (e.g. Ex. 2: 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,
13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22; Ex. 6: 2, 3, 4). While these
sources differ as to the number and kind of injuries, they are
consistent in pointing out the high incidence and severity of these
accidents, and provide clear evidence of a significant risk to workers.
In particular, one data source reviewed by OSHA included the Bureau
of Labor Statistics (BLS) Work Injury Reports (WIR) on eye, face, foot,
head and hand injuries (Ex. 2: 11, 12, 13, 14; Ex. 6: 2). These
reports, which examined only those cases where a worker was injured,
identified two major factors: Personal protective equipment was not
being worn the vast majority of the time; and, when some type of
protective equipment was worn, it did not fully protect the worker. For
example, one study (Ex. 6: 2) indicated that 70% of the workers
experiencing hand injuries were not wearing gloves. Hand injuries to
the remaining 30% of the workers who were wearing gloves were caused by
the gloves being either inadequate, damaged, or the wrong type for the
type of hazard present.
Based on the above-documented incidence of hand injury, OSHA has
determined that employers and employees need more guidance regarding
the selection of hand protection than is provided through the generic
provisions of proposed Sec. 1910.132(d). Therefore, as discussed below,
the Agency has provided performance-oriented provisions by adding
Sec. 1910.138, ``Hand protection'' to the final rule.
The final rule addresses the problems identified in the BLS reports
by allowing new innovative designs through the use of performance-
oriented language, by providing information for selecting the proper
protection, and by improving the protection afforded by the equipment.
OSHA believes that the revised standards will result in improvement
in worker acceptance of wearing PPE by allowing better and more
comfortable designs not presently permitted by the current standards,
and by providing information on selecting the proper equipment for the
job.
The Agency has determined that compliance with the final rule will
result in a significant reduction in the risks to workers. As noted in
the Regulatory Impact Analysis, discussed below, it is estimated that
full compliance with the final rule will prevent 712,000 lost-workdays
and 4 fatalities a year.
The Agency has also determined that the revised PPE requirements
and criteria in the final rule provide a cost-effective means for
reducing risks to workers. The Agency has determined that these
provisions are reasonably necessary and appropriate to address the need
for personal protective equipment.
III. Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule
This section contains an analysis of the rulemaking record
pertaining to certain issues raised in the NPRM, and to the provisions
of the standard, both as proposed and as promulgated.
One general objection received during this rulemaking concerned the
use of the phrase ``employers shall ensure'' in certain provisions of
the proposed standard (e.g. Ex. 3: 46, 80, 94). The commenters
expressed the view that, under the proposed language, employers would
be held liable for violations of the standards, regardless of employee
misconduct or other exculpatory considerations. The Agency had proposed
the language in question to emphasize the employer's obligations for
compliance with OSHA standards. The proposed language would not have
affected an employer's ability to raise defenses to a citation.
In light of the objections, OSHA is revising the proposed language
to remove the phrase ``the employer shall ensure'' wherever it appears.
The employer's obligations for compliance with standards issued under
the OSH Act are unaffected by this change.
Also, concern was expressed regarding the extent to which the
proposed standard would allow employees to use PPE that satisfied the
old ANSI standards which were being superseded by current editions
through the proposal. In particular, some commenters (Ex. 3: 68, 69,
100) suggested that the Agency ``grandfather'' existing stocks of PPE
(i.e., allow existing stocks of PPE to be depleted) as long as the PPE
meets the ANSI standard in effect at the time of manufacture. Those
commenters stated that, without grandfathering, employers would be
required to bear the unreasonable expense and disruption of replacing
millions of items of usable PPE.
The proposal simply required the affected PPE to comply with the
then-current editions of the pertinent ANSI standards, without
indicating how PPE produced and tested to satisfy the existing OSHA
standards would be treated.
The Agency believes that virtually all of the PPE in question has
been produced and tested to satisfy the ANSI editions referenced in
either the proposed rule or in the final rule. Therefore, OSHA believes
that, by and large, existing stocks of PPE would comply with the final
rule. However, the Agency recognizes that some PPE that pre-dates the
referenced ANSI standards might be unnecessarily excluded from use
unless it was ``grandfathered''.
In particular, certain protective footwear that complied with the
1983 ANSI edition referenced by the proposal could be excluded from use
because it was not produced and tested to satisfy the 1991 edition
referenced by the final rule, unless the employer demonstrated that the
footwear provided equivalent protection. OSHA believes that the
differences between the 1983 and 1991 editions are so slight that it
would be unreasonable to require employers to demonstrate equivalency.
The Agency also believes that PPE satisfying the pertinent criteria of
the pre-1989 ANSI Z87.1 standard for eye and face protection or the
pre-1986 Z89.1 standard for head protection will adequately protect
affected employees. Therefore, the Agency agrees that it is appropriate
to allow continued use of PPE that was purchased prior to the effective
date of the final rule and has revised the proposed rule accordingly.
In the final rule, as in the NPRM, OSHA has incorporated the
pertinent ANSI standards by reference. The Agency has determined that
it is unnecessary to adopt the text of the three ANSI standards,
because their criteria are addressed to PPE manufacturers, not to
employers who would be selecting PPE for use by their employees. OSHA
believes that it is sufficient to require that employers ensure either
that the PPE used by employees complies with the appropriate ANSI
standard or that the PPE provides protection equivalent to that
provided by PPE manufactured to the ANSI criteria.
Sec. 1910.132 General Requirements.
Paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section were not proposed for
revision. Paragraph (a) requires that protective equipment be provided,
used and maintained in sanitary and reliable condition, as necessary,
to protect employees from workplace hazards.
Paragraph (b) requires that, where employees provide their own
equipment, the employer assure the adequacy, including the proper
maintenance and sanitation, of such equipment.
Paragraph (c) requires that all personal protective equipment be of
safe design and construction for the work to be performed.
Paragraph (d): Selection.
OSHA proposed to add a new paragraph, (d), to Sec. 1910.132 to
address the selection of PPE. OSHA proposed to require employers to
select the PPE for their employees based on an assessment of the
hazards in the workplace, and the hazards which employees are likely to
encounter. Because OSHA is aware that some employees obtain their own
PPE, the Agency also proposed that employers be required to inform
their employees of the selection decisions and to have their employees
follow those decisions when obtaining PPE.
OSHA believes that a hazard assessment is an important element of a
PPE program because it produces the information needed to select the
appropriate PPE for the hazards present or likely to be present at
particular workplaces. The Agency believes that the employer will be
capable of determining and evaluating the hazards of a particular
workplace. Paragraph (d) of the final rule is a performance-oriented
provision which simply requires employers to use their awareness of
workplace hazards to enable them to select the appropriate PPE for the
work being performed. Paragraph (d) clearly indicates that the employer
is accountable both for the quality of the hazard assessment and for
the adequacy of the PPE selected.
Proposed paragraph (d), which was substantively identical to the
final rule, has been revised for the sake of clarity. The Agency has
also added a note which references Non-mandatory Appendix B of
Sec. 1910.132. That Appendix provides an example of procedures that
satisfy the hazard assessment requirement.
Most rulemaking participants supported the proposed requirement
(e.g. Ex. 3: 90, 91, 102). However, some commenters stated that the
proposed paragraph did not clearly indicate if employers would be
required to document the hazard assessment. For example, a commenter
from S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. (Ex. 3: 1) suggested that OSHA clarify
documentation requirements of the workplace assessment. In addition, a
commenter from Union Carbide (Ex. 3: 68, pp. 1-2) stated:
* * * OSHA should clarify that the hazard assessment referred to
there need not be in writing.
OSHA can best determine whether the employer conducted an
adequate hazard assessment by inspecting the areas where PPE is
required. It should not be necessary for employers to prepare and
retain a formal written hazard assessment.
OSHA believes that some form of record is needed to provide OSHA
compliance officers and affected employees with appropriate assurance
that the required hazard assessment has been performed. The Agency
agrees with the commenter that it is not ``necessary for employers to
prepare and retain a formal written hazard assessment.'' Given the
performance-oriented nature of this rulemaking, OSHA has determined
that the generation and review of extensive documentation would be
unnecessarily burdensome.
The Agency has addressed such situations in other rulemakings by
requiring employers to verify their compliance with a requirement
through a written certification. For example, OSHA has required
certification of training in the permit-required confined space
standard, Sec. 1910.146(g)(4); the control of hazardous energy
(lockout/tagout) standard, Sec. 1910.147(c)(7)(iv); in the Telecommuni-
cations standard, Sec. 1910.268(c); and (as discussed below) in
Sec. 1910.132(f)(4) of this final rule. The Agency has found that a
written certification is a reasonable means by which to establish
accountability for compliance.
Therefore, the Agency has determined that employers can adequately
verify compliance with Sec. 1910.132(d) of the final rule through a
written certification which identifies the workplace evaluated; the
person certifying that the evaluation has been performed; the date(s)
of the hazard assessment; and which identifies the document as a
certification of hazard assessment. This requirement has been added to
the final rule as paragraph (d)(2).
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) sets
limits on the efforts of federal agencies to collect ``information''.
The definition of ``information'' in the OMB regulations implementing
the PRA (5 CFR 1320.7(j)) specifies that ``Information does not
generally include * * * certifications * * * provided that they entail
no burden other than that necessary to identify the respondent, the
date, the respondent's address, and the nature of the instrument.''
OSHA has determined that the certification required by paragraph (d)(2)
constitutes a ``certification'' for the purposes of the PRA. Therefore,
that certification would not be subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act or of the implementing regulations (5 CFR part
1320).
Another concern raised during this rulemaking, related to the
selection process, was the subject of proper fit of PPE. A commenter
(Ex. 7:10) has stated that, in the past, males constituted the majority
of the workforce and PPE was sized accordingly. As more and more
females have entered the workforce, they often have had to choose
between wearing PPE that was sized to fit males, and not wearing PPE at
all. This was particularly common with foot protection. As a result,
female workers frequently either have used PPE which did not adequately
protect them, or have simply stopped using PPE because of improper fit
and subsequent discomfort. Based on concern for the safety of female
employees, the commenter suggested that OSHA require PPE to fit
properly.
OSHA agrees with this comment. Since females constitute a larger
percentage of the workforce than ever before, it is imperative that
they (as well as male employees) be provided with PPE that fits
properly. Therefore, OSHA is revising Sec. 1910.132 (d) to add proper
fit as a criterion for PPE selection.
Paragraph (e): Defective and damaged equipment.
OSHA proposed to add a new paragraph, (e), to Sec. 1910.132 that
stated:
Defective or damaged personal protective equipment shall not be
used.
This paragraph is based, in part, on existing Sec. 1910.133
(a)(2)(vii), which states that eye protectors should be kept clean and
in good repair. Under the proposed paragraph, the existing requirement
was to be strengthened and extended to cover all PPE, not just eye
protectors.
Some commenters (e.g. Ex. 3: 1, 41) stated that proposed paragraph
(e) should only cover visually observable defects or damage. For
example, a commenter from Johnson Wax (Ex. 3: 1) stated:
We urge OSHA to limit the scope of this section to ``visible''
defects or damage in PPE.
OSHA certainly agrees that visibly damaged or defective PPE must
not be used. However, there are other methods (such as performance
tests to ensure continued integrity) that the employer could use to
assure that the PPE used by employees is repaired or replaced as
necessary for the protection of each affected employee. Also, employees
can often determine if the protectiveness of the PPE has been
compromised when they are handling the PPE prior to or while donning
it. Accordingly, OSHA believes it would be inappropriate to narrow this
provision to cover only visible defects or damage. Therefore, the
Agency is promulgating paragraph 1910.132 (e) as proposed.
Paragraph (f): Training.
Proposed paragraph (f) required employers to train employees in the
proper use of their PPE. This proposed provision was based on OSHA's
recognition that, as documented by the Bureau of Labor Statistics Work
Injury Reports (Ex. 2: 11, 12, 13, 14), a significant number of the
employees who sustain work-related injuries have not been trained in
the proper use of PPE.
Some commenters (Ex. 3: 64, 117, 119) stated that PPE training,
while necessary for respirators and other complex PPE, is not necessary
for relatively simple equipment such as safety shoes and eye
protectors. In particular, the American Trucking Association (ATA) (Ex.
3: 64) stated:
Requiring training and record-keeping for all PPE would severely
burden motor carriers in terms of time and the related costs.
As an alternative, the ATA suggested that OSHA set non-mandatory
appendices for the guidance of employers.
Other commenters (Ex. 3: 84, 104, 121) suggested that the employer
be required to train employees only for use of the PPE that is required
by the employer to provide protection against hazards identified for
the particular workplace. The Texas Chemical Council (Ex. 3: 121)
stated:
Requiring the employer to train employees on equipment they
provide creates an unnecessary and inappropriate burden on the
employer.
Several commenters (Ex. 3: 75, 83, 90, 106, 126) supported the
training requirement, as proposed. Du Pont (Ex. 3: 90, pg. 2) remarked:
Du Pont's position is that proper employee training is
fundamental to an effective PPE program. We also agree with the
flexibility this proposed section provides employers.
Some commenters (e.g. Ex. 3: 100, 104) suggested that OSHA revise
the proposed paragraph (f) to indicate that training need only be
provided when PPE is first provided to employees. For example, Union
Electric (Ex. 3: 100) said:
Company suggests adding ``at the time it is initially issued.''
The proposal, as written, could imply that employees must be
periodically retrained in the proper use of their equipment. This
certainly is unnecessary for such items as safety glasses, footwear
and headgear, which usually are worn routinely on the job.
Respirators already have a periodic training requirement.
Also, several commenters (Ex. 3: 46, 64, 102, 117) expressed
concern that proposed Sec. 1910.132(f) would require employers to
operate formal training programs. For example, Monsanto (Ex. 3: 102,
pg. 2) stated that OSHA should revise proposed paragraph (f) to
indicate clearly that the training required need not be formal
classroom training.
In addition, McDonnell Douglas (Ex. 3: 129) inquired:
In regard to training all employees in the proper use of all
PPE, what would qualify as ``training''? The term ``training'' could
range from awareness type information to competency training of the
employee.
OSHA should define the term ``training'' or be specific in
individual standards.
Some commenters (Ex. 3: 36, 81, 119) stated that proposed paragraph
(f) should be revised to require ``instruction'' rather than
``training''. The Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association (MVMA) (Ex.
3: 81, pg. 2) said:
Training is too elaborate a term for the degree of explanation
required with PPE. More sophisticated PPE such as respirators or
hearing protection, which require detailed training, is already
provided for by certain OSHA standards. MVMA recommends that
subparagraph (f) be retitled ``Instruction'' and the term
``training'' be changed to ``instructed''.
Some public hearing participants testified in support of the
proposed Sec. 1910.132(f) performance-oriented approach to training.
For example, the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) testified
(Tr. 159: 4/3):
* * * CMA agrees that training is an essential element of an
effective personal protective equipment program. We believe,
however, that OSHA should continue to address training with
performance-oriented provisions, not with HAZWOPER-type training
requirements. Not only are additional requirements not necessary,
they would be over-burdensome.
In addition, many commenters (e.g., Ex. 3: 36, 41, 50, 60, 73, 86,
98, 116, 128) suggested that OSHA revise proposed Sec. 1910.132(f) to
provide more detailed guidance regarding what constitutes adequate
training. For example, CSX Transportation (Ex. 3: 116) remarked:
A description of the performance requirements for a PPE training
program should be included under 1910.132(f), since training is the
responsibility of the employer.
Other commenters (Ex. 3: 123 and 128) emphasized that ``personal''
training is important to a successful training program. For example,
the Food & Allied Services Trades (Ex. 3: 128, pg. 6) stated:
It is imperative that this training be conducted by ``live''
personnel who will be available to answer questions that workers may
have. Simply showing a twenty minute video tape shall not constitute
adequate training.
Also, commenters (Ex. 3: 36, 73) suggested that OSHA require
training in the ``use and care'' of PPE. For example, the Edison
Electric Institute (EEI) (Ex. 3: 73, pg. 2) said:
To further enhance the protection provided by the standard, EEI
recommends amending proposed 1910.132(f) to require employees to be
trained not only in the use of their equipment, but also in its
care.
Further, some commenters (Ex. 3: 41, 59, 128) suggested that OSHA
require training in the ``use and limitations'' of PPE. The Food &
Allied Services Trades (Ex. 3: 128) stated that training in the
limitations of PPE is needed ``to prevent accidents from occurring due
to overconfidence in the protective ability of certain types of
equipment.''
Other commenters (Ex. 3: 60, 107-D) suggested that employees be
trained regarding PPE limitations and precautions. The American
Optometric Association (Ex. 3: 60) remarked:
We do not believe that Section 1910.132(f) on training
requirements goes far enough to ensure that any limitations or
precautions provided by the manufacturer of the protector are
transmitted to the user and care is taken to see that such
limitations are strictly observed. In addition, we do not believe
that appendix B Non-Mandatory Compliance Guidelines for Hazard
Assessment and Personal Protective Equipment Selection adequately
addresses this area. There is no guarantee that the training
provided employees in the use of eye and face protectors will
uniformly cover the limitations and precautions relating to the use
of protectors unless specific requirements for this training are
given. We strongly urge that language making this a mandatory part
of training be included in the regulation.
Some other commenters (Ex. 3: 74, 88) suggested that training
include information provided by PPE manufacturers. For example, CF
Industries, Inc. (CF) (Ex. 3: 74) objected to the proposed replacement
of existing Sec. 1910.133(a)(5) (which requires employers to pass on to
employees any information received from manufacturers regarding the
limitations and precautions to be considered when using eye and face
protection) by proposed Sec. 1910.132(f). The commenter stated: ``CF
believes that the proposed section is too broad. Various pieces of
personal protective equipment can be used for the same purpose, but
have very different limitations.''
Also, two commenters from the State of Connecticut (Ex. 3: 50, 51)
stated that ``the final rule for 1910.132(f) should lean towards being
more specific'' and that proposed paragraph (f) should be revised to
provide that ``Employees shall be trained in the proper use,
maintenance, care, warning labels and limitations of their personal
protective equipment.''
Other commenters (Ex. 3: 70, 86, 97) stated that proposed
Sec. 1910.132(f) should be revised to incorporate the specific training
requirements of existing Sec. 1910.120, the standard for Hazardous
Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER). For example, the
Emergency Response Management & Training Corporation (Ex. 3: 97)
stated:
As it [proposed Sec. 1910.132(f)] is currently written there are
no specifications as to the quality or quantity of training an
employee will receive on the proper use and limitations of personal
protective equipment. The inclusion of specific knowledge
requirements and competency demonstration may assist in the goal of
improving worker safety in hazardous environments. 29 CFR 1910.120
and NFPA 472-1989 (Standard for Professional Competence of
Responders to Hazardous Materials Incidents) are two examples of
this type.
Based on the concerns expressed regarding what constitutes adequate
training, OSHA requested testimony in Issue 4 of the hearing notice (54
FR 3414, February 1, 1990) on the need for additional training
requirements. In particular, Issue 4 indicated that OSHA was
considering the promulgation of more specific training requirements,
including provisions similar to those in existing Sec. 1910.120,
Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER). The
Agency also solicited input regarding what training is needed; how
training can be evaluated; when retraining is necessary; how much time
is required for training; what recordkeeping is necessary for training
activities; and what impacts (i.e., costs and benefits) the training
requirements would have.
With respect to Issue 4, several commenters (Ex. 7: 3, 8, 11, 20,
29, 38) stated that the training requirements should be more detailed.
For example, the General Electric Company (Ex. 7: 3, pg. 2) said:
Protective equipment training needs to include:
1. Where and how personnel can get the equipment,
2. A system for identifying the correct equipment for an
application * * * procedures and operating manuals should include
specifics on protective equipment types, needs and objectives,
3. Equipment should be shown to individuals prior to using each
for the first time * * * let them touch and try the items on, the
more senses you allow one to use during training the better the
person will recall what he/she learned,
4. Persons should not be considered competent in protective
equipment items until they do a practical test * * * are able to
properly put on the item, explain what protection it provides, etc.
Also, Boeing (Ex. 7: 38) remarked:
Boeing supports the position that additional detail be included
in 1910.132 regarding training objectives and methods. Training
should be based on the complexity of the protective equipment
requirements. For certain protective equipment (e.g. safety
spectacles) training requirements should be minimal or nonexistent.
In addition, OSHA received testimony in favor of more specific
training requirements at the public hearing. For example, the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) testified (Tr. 23-
24: 4/3) that the key elements of a successful training program are:
1) Sensitizing the workers to the need for such protectors and
inviting their participation in developing a suitable plan for
affecting PPE use.
2) Clearly defining the written goals of the PPE program in
terms of the target behaviors sought (e.g., appropriate footwear/
eyewear/headwear to be worn, in what areas, what kinds of care
required).
3) Explicit rewards or recognition to be given contingent on the
workers displaying actions that conform to the aforementioned
positive acts, including knowledge of results or other forms of
feedback.
4) Each PPE program should have some basis for evaluation
(numbers of workers using/not using specified PPE) so that
modifications could be made should the efforts fall short of the
stated goals.
Also, the International Chemical Workers Union testified (Tr. 16:
4/4): Who is responsible for training employees in the proper use and
limitations of personal protective equipment? It is the employer's
responsibility to carry out this training but it is not being done * *
* Every worker should be able to determine that the glove being
provided to them by their employer is the right one for the chemicals
which they handle.
Another hearing participant, the National Environmental Training
Association (NETA), testified (Tr. 272: 4/4) that ``the proposal in
132(f) is not performance-oriented, it's too vague and nonspecific.''
NETA also testified (Tr. 285: 4/4):
The National Environmental Testing Association feels that if
OSHA seriously considers training to be important in protecting
worker safety * * * then the language at 29 CFR 1910.132(f) will
have to be more specific. Unless training is based on measurable
objectives as OSHA has pointed out in the U.S. Department of Labor
publication OSHA 2254 (Training Requirements in OSHA Standards and
Training Guidelines) then it can only be effective by coincidence.
Many Issue 4 commenters (e.g. Ex. 7: 2, 13, 15, 21, 22) stated that
OSHA should not promulgate more detailed training requirements. Those
commenters expressed the belief that performance-oriented proposed
Sec. 1910.132(f) allowed employers in general industry the flexibility
to implement training programs as needed. For example, Amoco
Corporation (Ex. 7: 21, pg.2) stated:
We agree that employees should be trained in the proper use of
their personal protective equipment, since the equipment may not
provide adequate protection if used improperly. We feel, however,
that training programs are best left to each employer to develop on
an individualized, site-specific basis. Manufacturers often provide
information on their particular products upon which an instructional
program can be based. Employers do need an effective formal training
session when the use of new or significantly different equipment is
instituted. This requirement helps ensure that time is actually
dedicated to this purpose, and emphasizes the importance of proper
use to the employee. Training guidance would be helpful, especially
to small businesses, but we feel strongly that such guidance should
be of a non-mandatory nature.
In addition, the Department of the Air Force (Ex. 7: 25) stated
that it ``supports locally devised training, rather than an OSHA
legislated program training requirement, as both cost efficient and
effective.''
Also, several Issue 4 commenters (Ex. 7: 19, 31, 35) stated that
proposed Sec. 1910.132(f) should not incorporate the HAZWOPER training
requirements, because 1) general industry PPE was used in a broader
class of work environments than HAZWOPER-mandated PPE, and 2) the PPE
covered by proposed Sec. 1910.132(f) (e.g., eye and face protection,
head protection and foot protection) was much less complex than that
covered by HAZWOPER. For example, the American Petroleum Institute
(API) (Ex. 7: 35) stated:
Suggestions that would treat Subpart I in a manner similar to
paragraph 1910.120 are without justification. There is no
relationship between the training requirements of paragraph 1910.120
(which are directly responsive to the enabling legislation dealing
with hazardous waste sites) and the use of PPE in the controlled
environment of a more typical place of employment.
In addition, the National Solid Waste Management Association
(NSWMA) stated (Ex. 7: 19, pg. 2-3):
While NSWMA supports the concept of a structure for training of
employees in the use of PPE, we find the use of the Part 1910.120
training requirements for Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency
Response as a model for general industry to be without any
justification.
The Section 1910.120 rule was intended to provide specific
safety criteria to cover a specific industry segment. There are
other industries with equivalent or higher risks where the use of
this section as a model would be appropriate.
NSWMA suggests that OSHA instead consider a training requirement
more closely aligned with the concepts of its Hazard Communication
Standard, wherein the complexity of the program required for
compliance would be directly related to the hazards present. Such a
program would require a survey of hazards, establishment of
specifications for PPE to control those hazards, training for
employees and documentation of the training, and availability of PPE
information to employees * * * In the low-risk example, having
donning and doffing procedures formalized provides no useful
function. What is critical is communicating the need for employees
to understand the hazards and the need to utilize PPE on a
consistent basis.
Based on the rulemaking record, OSHA agrees with commenters that
employers need more specific guidance regarding how to train employees
who use PPE. In particular, the Agency has determined that employees
need training which enables them to know, at least: 1) when PPE is
necessary; 2) what PPE is necessary; 3) how to properly don, doff,
adjust, and wear PPE; 4) the limitations of the PPE; and 5) the proper
care, maintenance, useful life and disposal of the PPE.
Accordingly, OSHA has revised proposed paragraph (f) so that
paragraph (f)(1) of the final rule reads as follows:
The employer shall provide training, including retraining where
appropriate, to each employee who is required by this section to use
PPE. Each such employee shall be trained to know at least the
following:
(i) When PPE is necessary;
(ii) What PPE is necessary;
(iii) How to properly don, doff, adjust, and wear PPE;
(iv) The limitations of the PPE; and
(v) The proper care, maintenance, useful life, and disposal of
the PPE.
The National Environmental Training Association (NETA) and other
rulemaking participants asserted that in order to have a successful
training program, employers should set measurable training objectives
and have their employees demonstrate that they have reached those
objectives. For example, NETA testified (Tr. 272-286: 4/4) that in
order for training to be successful, clear and measurable objectives
must be set, and employees must demonstrate that the training
objectives have been reached, by showing that they understand the
information provided and that they can use the PPE properly.
OSHA agrees with these remarks and has stated in one of its own
publications (OSHA 2254-1988):
* * * in order for the training to be as successful as possible,
clear and measurable objectives should be thought out before the
training begins. For an objective to be effective, it should
identify as precisely as possible what the individuals will do to
demonstrate that they have learned, or that the objective has been
reached. They should also describe the important conditions under
which the individual will demonstrate competence and define what
constitutes acceptable performance.
Therefore, paragraph (f)(2) of the final rule requires that each
affected employee demonstrate an understanding of the training
specified in paragraph (f)(1), and the ability to use the PPE properly,
before being allowed to perform work requiring the use of PPE.
Paragraph (f)(3) of the final rule requires retraining when changes
in workplace conditions or changes in the types of PPE to be used
render previous training obsolete, and when inadequacies in an affected
employee's knowledge or use of assigned PPE indicate that the employee
has not retained the understanding or skill required by paragraph
(f)(2). This provision, which did not appear in the proposed rule,
indicates clearly that employers have an ongoing responsibility to
maintain employee proficiency in the use and care of their PPE.
OSHA received many comments regarding how employers would indicate
their compliance with the proposed training requirement. Some
commenters (e.g., Ex. 3: 41, 90) noted a statement in the NPRM (54 FR
at 33841) that ``the proposal contains no recordkeeping requirements.''
Those commenters agreed with that approach, expressing the belief that
detailed recordkeeping would impose an unreasonable burden, and
requested ``clarification'' that no recordkeeping for training would be
required.
Further, Detroit Edison (Ex. 3: 62), referring to proposed
paragraph (f), noted, ``Documented proof of training is required by
other regulation. Is documentation required? OSHA should present a
clearer picture of this requirement or delete it.''
In addition, United Technologies (Ex. 3: 96) inquired, ``Will
perceived improper use of PPE be deemed by OSHA evidence of inadequate
training in the absence of training documentation?''
Also, McDonnell Douglas (Ex. 3: 129) stated, ``Even though OSHA has
stated to OMB that this NPR does not have any recordkeeping
requirements, what would be required to prove the ``training'' has been
performed?''
Members of the Midwest Consortium for Hazardous Waste Worker
Training (Ex. 3: 49, 59, 98, 123) suggested that OSHA require employers
to document the content of their training programs. For example, Murray
State University (Ex. 3: 123) stated, ``Training should be mainly
hands-on with appropriate documentation.''
In addition, several commenters (e.g. 3: 46, 75, 88, 116) stated
that proposed paragraph (f) would already require employers to document
training. Some of those commenters (Ex. 3: 46, 88) stated simply that,
contrary to the statement in Section VII of the proposed rule, OSHA had
proposed to require recordkeeping, so the Agency had a responsibility
to justify the burden and to properly estimate the cost of
documentation. Other commenters (Ex. 3: 75, 116) stated that the
documentation was needed to verify compliance with the training
requirements, and that OSHA should not impose extensive recordkeeping
requirements. For example, the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA)
stated (Ex. 3: 75):
CMA agrees with OSHA's determination to omit recordkeeping from
the proposed rule. While some form of verification should be
maintained as an indication that training has taken place, specific
documentation requirements would only add to the recordkeeping
burden without increased safety benefits for employees.
In addition, CSX Transportation (Ex. 3: 116) remarked:
In Section 1910.132 a new training requirement exists that will
require the establishment of training records for employees using
PPE. While the standard does not specify any recordkeeping
requirements, documentation for compliance purposes is clearly
indicated.
As noted above, OSHA requested additional comments on the proposed
training provision, including information on the recordkeeping needed
to document compliance, in Issue 4 of the hearing notice (55 FR 3414,
February 1, 1990). In particular, Issue 4 indicated that, based on NPRM
comments (Ex. 3: 70, 86, 97), OSHA was considering training
requirements similar to the HAZWOPER provisions promulgated in
Sec. 1910.120(e). Section 1910.120(e)(6) requires employers to certify
successful completion of training and to give graduates a written
certificate. That provision further provides that persons who lack such
certification shall be prohibited from engaging in hazardous waste
operations.
In response to Issue 4, Jackson Products (Ex. 7: 8, pg. 2) stated:
Training of employees in the use of PPE should be the central
focus of any rules OSHA is promulgating, as this issue has the
highest potential for reducing worker injuries. Documentation of the
training programs could follow the existing guidelines OSHA has
developed for hazardous waste operations and employee right to know
training, i.e., training log, employee signature sheet, etc.
In addition, BP America (Ex. 7: 39) stated, ``we feel that the only
criteria for successful completion of a training course can be that the
trainee has mastered the information to the instructor's satisfaction.
This can be documented in several ways including written exams and
awarding of certificates.''
As noted above, some Issue 4 commenters (Ex. 7: 13, 19, 25, 31, 35)
opposed the adoption of the HAZWOPER training provisions in proposed
paragraph (f). Regarding the applicability of the HAZWOPER
recordkeeping requirements, the National Solid Wastes Management
Association (NSWMA) stated (Ex. 7: 19, pg. 3):
Congress mandated additional regulations in the narrow field of
the occupational safety and health of hazardous waste workers
because hazardous waste operations and remediations involve, in
OSHA's words, ``unique'' work environments. 54 Fed. Reg. 9312.
Congress recognized that such operations involve potential exposure
to a number of hazardous health risks unlike those encountered by
employees in general industry activities. Thus, the OSHA standard
prohibits work upon a hazardous waste site by anyone who is not
properly OSHA-qualified and OSHA-certified. Certification may be
granted only upon completion of initial training and continuing
education courses within a comprehensive and exhaustive number of
areas. See 29 CFR Sec. 1910.120(e)(6). These comprehensive
standards apply whenever and wherever hazardous waste workers handle
hazardous substances. The occupational safety and health
requirements in Section 1910.120 were, accordingly, crafted in
response to the Congressional insistence that safety and health
standards more stringent than those applied to general industry be
fashioned.
As noted above, the NSWMA suggested that OSHA model the
requirements of proposed Sec. 1910.132(f) on the Hazard Communication
Standard. The NSWMA recognized that recordkeeping would be necessary
for training, stating: ``In a low-risk situation, where bump hats and
eye shields may be the only devices needed, a simple written program of
several pages would suffice.'' In addition, the NSWMA stated:
Companies should not be required under this suggested system to
gain prior OSHA certification of individual programs. Rather,
companies should be permitted to certify that they have developed
and implemented programs that are consistent with OSHA approved
standards.
OSHA acknowledges that the proposed training provision implicitly
required some method for verifying compliance. The Agency believes that
the discussion of recordkeeping in Issue 4 of the hearing notice
provided adequate notice that OSHA might require employers to create
some method of verifying their training activities. Accordingly, based
on the rulemaking record and for the sake of clarity, the Agency is
revising proposed paragraph (f) to state explicitly that employers must
verify that they have provided their employees with the requisite
training.
Regarding the information needed to verify compliance, OSHA agrees
with the commenters who have stated that it would be inappropriate to
require specific documentation of the training provided. Given the
performance-oriented focus of this rulemaking, the Agency has
determined that the generation and review of extensive documentation
would be unnecessarily burdensome. The Agency also notes that the
training needs of employees covered by paragraph (f) of this section
(approximately 22 million) are too diverse to enable OSHA to specify
the details required for all of their PPE training.
Based on the rulemaking record, OSHA has determined that employers
can adequately verify compliance with Sec. 1910.132(f) of the final
rule through a written certification. The Agency has determined that a
certification record which identifies each employee trained, the
date(s) of training, and which identifies the document as a
certification of training in the use of PPE, will provide adequate
assurance that the employer has provided the requisite training.
The Agency notes that OSHA has also required certification of
training in the permit-required confined space standard,
Sec. 1910.146(g)(4); the control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout)
standard, Sec. 1910.147(c)(7)(iv); and, in the Telecommunications
standard, Sec. 1910.268(c).
OSHA also notes that such a document will not preclude a citation
if the Agency determines that the employees have not, in fact, been
adequately trained. OSHA believes that compliance with this
requirement, while imposing a minimal burden, provides an important
benefit because it enables the employer and OSHA to verify the status
of training efforts. Therefore, OSHA is promulgating new
Sec. 1910.132(f)(4).
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) sets
limits on the efforts of federal agencies to collect ``information''.
The definition of ``information'' in the OMB regulations implementing
the PRA (5 CFR 1320.7(j)) specifies that ``Information does not
generally include * * * certifications * * * provided that they entail
no burden other than that necessary to identify the respondent, the
date, the respondent's address, and the nature of the instrument.''
OSHA has determined that the certification of training required by
paragraph (f)(4) constitutes a ``certification'' for the purposes of
the PRA.Therefore, the certification would not be subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act or of the implementing
regulations (5 CFR Part 1320).
Sec. 1910.133 Eye and face protection.
Proposed Sec. 1910.133(a) contained general requirements for eye
and face protection. Proposed paragraph (a)(1) required the employer to
ensure that employees use appropriate eye or face protection when they
are exposed to eye or face hazards from flying particles, molten metal,
liquid chemicals, acid and caustic liquids, chemical gases or vapors,
or potentially injurious light radiation.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1) also required that eye protection used by
employees provide both front and side protection from flying objects.
This portion of proposed paragraph (a)(1) resulted in many comments.
Most rulemaking participants agreed with OSHA that eye protectors
should provide both front and side protection from flying objects (e.g.
Ex. 3: 28, 49, 59, 61, 83, 128; Tr. 53: 4/3) because studies (Ex. 2:
11) have indicated that most injuries have occurred (in those instances
when eye protection was used) because flying objects went around the
protection. However, several rulemaking participants disagreed with
this requirement because they believed that OSHA was proposing that all
eye protectors would have to provide side protection (e.g. Ex. 3: 41,
69). For example, a commenter from the Exxon Company (Ex. 3: 47, pp.1-
2) said:
Exxon is concerned that the proposal could be interpreted to
require all safety glasses to be equipped with side shields. Exxon's
position is that many situations exist where safety glasses without
side shields are adequate. For such routine operations, OSHA should
not ignore the fact that most employees will be more reluctant to
wear safety glasses with side shields than glasses without side
shields. The mandatory use of side shields on all safety glasses
could deter the overall use of safety glasses on and off the job
which would ultimately lead to an increase in the total number of
eye injuries.
We concur with OSHA that employees should be equipped with
adequate eye protection to prevent injuries from flying objects. In
those instances where our employees may be potentially exposed to
flying objects, our safety program calls for the mandatory use of
eye protection that provides both front and side protection.
Another commenter, from the American Optometric Association,
remarked (Ex. 3: 60, pg. 2):
While we recognize that mandatory side shields would afford
additional protection in many instances, they may not be practical
in all situations. In addition, they may tend to reduce compliance
with the use of the protector in cases where peripheral hazard
protection is not required. We would recommend that side shields be
required only when the job evaluation indicates that a definite
peripheral hazard exists.
OSHA intended that proposed paragraph (a)(2) require side
protection only when flying object hazards were present. Therefore, the
Agency has revised the provision concerning flying object hazards to
state clearly that front and side protection are required when there is
a hazard from flying objects.
OSHA agrees that there are situations when side protection is
unnecessary, and that employers should be allowed to decide, based on a
hazard assessment which complies with the requirements of
Sec. 1910.132(d) of the final rule, if such protection is necessary for
their employees.
While one rulemaking participant (Ex. 3: 66) believed that side
shields should be permanently attached, other rulemaking participants
stated that side protectors need not be permanent and that OSHA should
permit detachable or clip-on side protectors. For example, a commenter
from Liberty Optical (Ex. 3: 63) said:
Clip-on side shields meet all the Z-87 performance standards
that the permanent side shields meet and can be worn when necessary.
To be able to wear proper protection where appropriate and be
realistic in its use, will make the employee not look to side step
it and, therefore, make it more effective and safer. If a blanket
mandatory permanent side shield regulation to cover all industrial
environments is implemented, it will reverse all gains made in
recent years and will not accomplish its goal for a safer industrial
environment.
OSHA agrees that side protection need not be permanent and that
detachable side shields should be permitted as long as they meet the
criteria specified in this section of the final rule. Permitting
detachable side shields will provide employers the flexibility to use
this kind of protection when necessary, based on conditions at the
workplace.
The Agency has revised proposed paragraph (a)(1) accordingly,
dividing the proposed paragraph into two provisions,
Sec. 1910.133(a)(1) and (a)(2). Paragraph (a)(1) of the final rule
states the general requirement to have each employee use eye or face
PPE when exposed to eye or face hazards, while paragraph (a)(2) states
that eye PPE must provide side protection, which may be detachable,
when flying object hazards are present.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2) required that eye and face protection
properly fit employees. Although the Agency did not receive any
comments concerning the proper fit of eye and face protection, OSHA did
receive comments addressing the proper fit of PPE, in general, and the
need for properly fitting PPE for both male and female employees. This
subject was discussed previously under Sec. 1910.132 of this preamble,
and OSHA has included a requirement in Sec. 1910.132 of the final rule
that all PPE properly fit employees. Therefore, proposed paragraph
(a)(2) has not been included in the final rule, since it would be
redundant.
OSHA proposed in paragraph (a)(3) that protectors with tinted or
variable tinted lenses not be worn when an employee must pass from a
brightly lighted area, such as outdoors, into a dimly lighted area,
such as a warehouse. The Agency proposed this requirement because it
believed that the provision might reduce the likelihood that extreme
lighting changes would temporarily impair the vision of an employee.
This proposed requirement was the subject of Issue 3 of the hearing
notice (55 FR 3412, February 1, 1990). The proposed paragraph and Issue
3 generated a substantial amount of comment and testimony. While a few
rulemaking participants agreed with the proposed provision (e.g. Ex. 3:
28; Ex. 7: 2, 38), many opposed the provision and/or approach proposed
by OSHA (e.g. Ex. 3: 55, 61, 68; Ex. 7: 7, 8, 15, 23; Tr. 193: 4/3; Tr.
150-156: 4/4; Tr. 169: 4/4). Some of the rulemaking participants stated
that the proposed paragraph was too restrictive and vague. These
rulemaking participants stated that the employer (or designated safety
officer) should decide when the use of this type of eyewear may create
a hazard. This approach is similar to that used in the ANSI standard
for eye protection (ANSI Z87.1-1989; paragraph 6.5.2).
For example, a commenter from the American Optometric Association
(Ex. 7: 11, pg. 2) stated:
The use of photochromic lenses in industrial situations is
dependent upon the visual demands of the task and the visual needs
of the wearer. The decision on the need for and use of photochromic
lenses can best be made by evaluation of the work place requirements
by the employer in consultation with the employee's eye doctor. The
development of a blanket policy restricting the use of photochromic
lenses for certain job tasks is unwarranted. The individual visual
needs and working conditions should dictate when photochromic lenses
may be inappropriate.
The American Optometric Association supports the ANSI Z87.1
position which provides employers the discretion to decide when
photochromic lenses may be utilized.
Additionally, an ophthalmologist from the Mount Sinai Medical
Center (Ex. 7: 14 pg. 2) remarked:
* * * the many beneficial features of photochromic lenses,
particularly in safety glasses, justifies their continued unfettered
use in the workplace. My concern is that this proposed government
intervention will likely deter workers from using these photochromic
lenses as safety devices and that increased numbers of eye injuries
and workplace accidents will ultimately result.
A hearing participant from Corning, Inc. (Tr. 111-114: 4/4)
testified:
Today, photochromic lenses are used throughout the world and
over 500 million lenses have been sold. Roughly, more than 250
million pairs of eye glasses. Currently, more than 38 million
photochromic lens blanks are sold each year. Corning has therefore
literally hundreds of millions of man years of experience with the
use of photochromic eyeglasses without any reported health of safety
problem of the type to which the proposed regulation is addressed. I
believe that proposal 1910.133 (a)(3) is too vague and is in any
event unnecessary and overly restrictive. The use of photochromic
lenses are subject to the ANSI Z87.1 standards including paragraph
6.5.2 and we believe this is the appropriate standard for dealing
with any possible need for a limitation on photochromic usage.
That witness also asserted (Tr. 120: 4/4):
In daylight, outdoors, when the photochromic lenses darken to
function as sunglasses they protect the eyes dark adaptation
process. It is well known that those who wear sunglasses in sunlight
adapt to darker environments up to twice as fast as those who do
not. In the transient condition, that is, coming in from a brighter
outdoor condition to a darker indoor condition, wearing photochromic
lenses can actually provide better and more comfortable vision under
a broad variety of work conditions. Visual function in the
transition to and from bright light is superior when photochromic
rather than clear lenses are used.
After evaluating the rulemaking record, OSHA has concluded that the
proposed requirement was too restrictive. The Agency has determined
that the employer, or the employer's representative (such as the
company safety professional), will be in the best position to determine
when tinted or variable tint lenses should or should not be used, based
on awareness of workplace conditions. OSHA also notes that this
approach is consistent with the current ANSI standard (ANSI Z87.1-1989-
paragraph 6.5.2) which is (as discussed below) being incorporated by
reference in the final rule. Accordingly, proposed paragraph (a)(3) has
not been retained in the final rule.
Proposed paragraph (a)(4) required that employees who wear
prescription lenses while engaged in operations that involve eye
hazards shall wear eye protection that incorporates the prescription in
their design, or shall be protected by eye protection that can be worn
over prescription lenses without disturbing the proper position of the
prescription or protective lenses.
The Agency did not receive any comments on this proposed provision
and it is, therefore, contained in the final rule as proposed. However,
since this section has been reorganized, the provision has been
redesignated as Sec. 1910.133(a)(3) of the final rule.
Existing Sec. 1910.133 (a)(4) states that ``every protector shall
be distinctly marked to facilitate identification only of the
manufacturer.'' OSHA had proposed to delete this provision because the
Agency believed that compliance did not add to or detract from the
safety of the protector.
Although a few commenters agreed with OSHA in principle (e.g. Ex.
3: 50, 92, 115), the vast majority of commenters stated that the
marking requirement should not be deleted (e.g. Ex. 3: 75, 88, 92, 114,
126).
For example, a commenter from the Optical Laboratories Association
(Ex. 3: 71, pg. 4) asserted:
The existing system of easily identifying the manufacturers of
the components of eye PPE is embedded in the standard to assure
accountability and is accepted throughout the industry. It should be
retained.
In addition, a commenter from Monsanto (Ex. 3: 102, pg. 3) stated:
Since employees are permitted to provide their own eye
protection and employers are held accountable to ensure that
employees are wearing the proper eye protection, these markings
provide employers a ready way of checking for whether or not
employees are wearing the proper eye protection.
Also, CF Industries (Ex. 3: 74) commented:
The identification markings are necessary in the event of a
manufacturing defect or material defect, so that the purchaser may
receive an adjustment from the seller or manufacturer.
Identification is also needed in case the manufacturer makes a
product recall.
Dr. Joseph F. Novak (Ex. 3: 107-A) commented:
My suggestion is that OSHA approved safety eyewear be marked in
a manner similar to that of the ANSI Z87.1-1989 Code.
In supporting the concept that OSHA should be consistent with the
ANSI requirement for marking, a commenter from US West, Inc. (Ex. 3:
85, pp. 2-3) stated:
US WEST, Inc. recommends that the identifying marking, i.e.
manufacturers monogram and ``Z87'', continue to be required (ANSI
Z87.1-1989 8.10). US WEST, Inc. disagrees with OSHA's statement
that``* * * marking to identify the manufacturers of eye and face
protection does not add or delete from the safety afforded by the
protector.'' Lenses meeting ANSI Z87 are easily identified by the
manufacturers monogram. ``Street'' or ``dress'' spectacles not
meeting ANSI Z87 are also easily identified by the absence of such
markings. US WEST, Inc. has found non-Z87 replacement prescription
lenses placed in employees Z87 frames, reducing the employees degree
of protection.
Based on the above-discussed comments, OSHA included Issue 1 in the
Hearing Notice, to elicit more information regarding the utility of
compliance with existing Sec. 1910.133(a)(4). The comments and
testimony received (Ex. 7: 2, 13, 31; Tr. 55, 133, 156: 4/3; Tr. 68,
148, 225: 4/4) uniformly supported retaining the marking requirement.
For example, one commenter from SIGNODE (Ex. 7: 6) stated:
There is agreement that marking of eye and face protection
``does not add or detract from the safety afforded by the
protector'' however, the current etched lens marking provide the
safety manager, management and supervision a means of verifying that
the worker, employee, contractor or visitor is, in fact, wearing
proper safety eyewear, not street wear.Based on the rulemaking
record, OSHA has concluded that the requirement for marking of eye
and face protectors should be retained. OSHA agrees with commenters
that the marking of eye and face protectors provides easy
recognition that the protectors meet specified criteria (ANSI Z87.1-
1989); that marking will provide accountability, and traceability in
cases of product recall; and that marking requirements should be
consistent with the ANSI Z87.1-1989 standard, since this is the
accepted and recognized practice throughout the industry.
Accordingly, the requirement for marking of eye and face protectors
is being retained in Sec. 1910.133(a)(4) of the final rule.
Proposed paragraph (a)(5) required that employees use equipment
with filter lenses that have a shade number appropriate for the work
being performed for protection from potentially injurious light
radiation. OSHA also proposed a table in this paragraph which contained
a list of appropriate shade numbers for various operations. The Agency
did not receive any comments on this provision, and it is contained in
the final rule with minor editorial changes.
Proposed paragraph (b) of Sec. 1910.133 contained ``acceptable
design'' requirements for eye and face protection. In this provision,
OSHA proposed that eye and face protection comply with the design
requirements specified in ANSI Z87.1-1989, or be of a design which
could be demonstrated to be equally effective.
Rulemaking participants supported the proposed adoption of the ANSI
standard for eye and face protection (ANSI Z87.1-1989). However, a few
commenters (e.g. Ex. 3: 101, 125) expressed concern that the Agency
proposed to adopt only the ``design requirements'' of ANSI Z87.1. These
commenters asserted that OSHA should adopt by reference all of the ANSI
standard, not just the design requirements.
OSHA agrees that eye and face protective devices must meet all of
the provisions contained in the ANSI standard. This requirement is
stated explicitly in ANSI Z87.1-1989, Section 3. OSHA acknowledges that
the proposal did not clearly express the Agency's intent to reference
ANSI Z87.1-1989 in its entirety and is revising the proposed rule
accordingly.
Other rulemaking participants (e.g. Ex. 3: 1, 62, 75, 102, 128)
suggested that OSHA adopt by reference the ``current'' edition of all
of the applicable ANSI standards (i.e., the ANSI standards for eye and
face protection, head protection, and foot protection) rather than
referencing a specific edition. These commenters stated that this
approach would prevent a situation where the OSHA standards would be
outdated when the ANSI standards are revised in the future.
OSHA notes that it would be improper for the Agency to reference
consensus standards as suggested, because such action would illegally
subdelegate authority over the content of OSHA standards to the
committees responsible for updating the ANSI standards.
The Agency will accept eye and face protective devices as complying
with this section if they are demonstrated to be as effective as those
meeting the specific ANSI standard referenced by the final rule. For
example, the final rule is incorporating by reference the 1989 edition
of ANSI Z87.1 for eye and face protection. Eye and face protective
devices meeting a subsequent edition of the same ANSI standard would be
acceptable to the Agency (and a de minimis violation of the standard)
if it could be demonstrated by the employer that they were as effective
as those meeting the 1989 edition.
In particular, employers would need to establish either that there
was no substantive difference between a subsequent edition of Z87.1 and
the 1989 edition, or that PPE which satisfied subsequently modified
test criteria provided protection equivalent to that provided by PPE
which satisfied the 1989 edition. Proposed paragraph (b) of
Sec. 1910.133 has been revised accordingly.
The incorporation by reference of ANSI Z87.1-1989 has been approved
by the Office of the Federal Register, in accordance with the
requirements of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Therefore, proposed
paragraph (b) has been revised so that paragraph (b)(1) of the final
rule reflects that approval and provides the requisite information
regarding access to the text of ANSI Z87.1-1989.
As discussed above, OSHA has also determined that it is appropriate
to permit the continued use of eye and face PPE purchased prior to the
effective date of the final rule, as long as it complies with the ANSI
standard (Z87.1-1968) referenced by existing Sec. 1910.133(a)(6). To
this end, the Agency has redesignated proposed paragraph (b) as
paragraph (b)(1) of the final rule and has added ``grandfathering''
text in paragraph (b)(2) of the final rule.
With respect to the subject of eye and face protection, Issue 5 of
the Hearing Notice (55 FR 3412) requested comments and information
concerning the use of contact lenses. Specifically, the Agency asked if
it should expand its eye and face requirements to cover contact lenses.
Some commenters (e.g. Ex. 7: 13, 15, 16) stated that no additional
regulations were necessary for the use of contact lenses. Other
commenters (Ex. 7: 21, 26) believed that OSHA should address the issue
of contact lenses in the final rule, and should clarify if it is
permissible to wear contact lenses with eye protection.
Several commenters (e.g. Ex. 3: 107-D; Ex. 7: 5, 22) stated that
wearing contact lenses with appropriate eye protection does not present
any additional hazards.
Based on the rulemaking record, OSHA believes that contact lenses
do not pose additional hazards to the wearer, and has determined that
additional regulation addressing the use of contact lenses is
unnecessary. The Agency wants to make it clear, however, that contact
lenses are not eye protective devices. If eye hazards are present,
appropriate eye protection must be worn instead of, or in conjunction
with, contact lenses.
Sec. 1910.135 Head Protection
Proposed Sec. 1910.135 set requirements for the use of protective
helmets and set criteria for acceptable equipment designs. Proposed
paragraph (a) required employees to wear protective helmets (1) ``when
working in areas where there is a potential for injury to the head from
falling or moving objects'' and (2) ``where they are near exposed
electrical conductors which could be contacted by the protective
helmets.'' Proposed paragraph (b) referenced American National
Standard, ANSI Z89.1-1986, ``Protective Headwear for Industrial
Workers-Requirements''.
The proposed language was based on existing Secs. 1910.132(a) and
1910.135 and on ANSI Z89.1-1986. Existing Sec. 1910.132(a) requires
that the PPE necessary to protect employees from workplace hazards be
provided, used and maintained properly. That standard specifically
includes head protection under its coverage. Existing Sec. 1910.135
facilitates compliance with existing Sec. 1910.132(a) regarding helmets
worn for protection ``from falling and flying objects and from limited
electric shock and burn,'' by requiring that those helmets comply with
the American National Standard Safety Requirements for Industrial Head
Protection, Z89.1-1969. ANSI Z89.1-1986 is the most recent edition of
the pertinent national consensus standard.
Proposed Sec. 1910.135(a)(1), unlike existing Sec. 1910.135,
explicitly required the use of protective helmets. The proposed
paragraph also made some editorial revisions to existing Sec. 1910.135.
For example, the proposal replaced ``flying'' with ``moving'', because
OSHA believed the term ``moving'' better described the means in which
objects contact employees. OSHA used the terms ``flying'' and
``moving'' in the existing and proposed rules, respectively, in
conjunction with the term ``falling'' to be consistent with ANSI Z89.1-
1969.
A commenter (Ex. 7: 20) stated that OSHA should address lateral
impact protection ``since there are substantial injuries that occur
from directions other than vertical impact* * *'' In the course of this
rulemaking, OSHA obtained a helmet (Ex. 46) capable of protecting
employees against lateral as well as vertical impacts.
In addition, NIOSH testified (Tr. 30: 4/3) that, while most blows
to the head come from the back, front or side, ANSI Z89.1 1986
addresses only protection for the top of the head. NIOSH further
testified: ``Currently helmets are being marketed that provide impact
protection to most parts of the head. OSHA standards should encourage
the use of these more protective helmets.''
Some rulemaking participants (Ex. 3: 84, 96) expressed concern
regarding the use of the term ``moving'' in the proposed paragraph. For
example, the American Petroleum Institute (API) (Ex. 3: 84, pg. 4)
stated:
API is opposed to the wording of this paragraph. The ANSI
Standard Z89.1-1986 referenced in 1910.135(b) contains helmet
specifications ``to protect the heads of industrial workers from
impact or penetration by falling objects* * *'' OSHA must recognize
that the ANSI standard does not provide design criteria for moving
objects. If OSHA intends this section to also cover helmets
protecting against moving objects, as proposed in 1910.135(a)(1),
additional design criteria should be cited in 1910.135(b).
In addition, United Technologies (Ex. 3: 96, pg. 2) stated:
Under 1910.135 Head Protection, we find the requirement to
provide head protection vague, and welcome additional clarification
from OSHA with regard to potential for injury to the head from
moving objects. We are concerned compliance personnel will interpret
the requirement so broadly as to include any use of hoisting
equipment. Although we can envision an occasional situation where
there may be a hazard, most operations using a hoist would present
no significant hazard.
Another commenter (Ex. 3: 40) suggested that OSHA revise proposed
Sec. 1910.135(a)(1) so that the provision ``Mandates that employers
require their employees wear protective helmets when they are in an
area where there is potential for injury to the head from falling,
moving, swinging, flying or airborne objects.'' The commenter did not
state why it believed the recommended language was needed.
Also, commenters (Ex. 3: 72, 79) stated that proposed
Sec. 1910.135(a)(1) should also require employees to wear head
protection when working in confined spaces and commenters (Ex. 3: 79,
119) have stated that OSHA should require protection against impacts
with fixed objects.. For example, Centel (Ex. 3: 72) noted that
injuries may result from contact with low hanging structures and that
Centel already requires its employees working in confined spaces to
wear head protection.
In addition, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) (Ex. 3: 79)
stated:
We believe a statement should be added with provision for
protection against impacts with fixed objects. We recommend a
sentence should be added that addresses this hazard. We also suggest
that in areas that are confined or congested and the employee is
subject to impact with fixed objects, suitable protective helmets be
worn. We recommend that bump caps should not be used in an
industrial environment because there are too many possibilities of
head injuries that could occur. We recommend maximum head protection
at all times in this type of environment.
The current ANSI standard, Z89.1-1986, addresses only protection
``from impact and penetration by falling objects and from high-voltage
electric shock and burn.'' The Agency has determined that it would be
inappropriate for Sec. 1910.135(a) to cover head protection that is not
also covered by the ANSI standard referenced in Sec. 1910.135(b),
unless OSHA provides criteria for assessing compliance. The Agency has
determined that it is not in a position to set such criteria, so OSHA
has deleted the term ``moving'' from Sec. 1910.135(a)(1) of the final
rule and has not added the terms suggested by commenters.
The Agency believes that compliance with the ANSI criteria
referenced through Sec. 1910.135(b) of the final rule will enable
employers to protect their employees from a large proportion of
potential head hazards. Head protection not covered by Sec. 1910.135 of
the final rule, such as would be needed to protect employees from
``moving'' or ``fixed'' objects, is covered by the general requirements
of Sec. 1910.132, as revised. OSHA anticipates that employers whose
hazard assessments identify head hazards that are not abated through
compliance with ANSI Z89.1-1986, will develop and implement other
measures as necessary, to protect their employees.
Proposed Sec. 1910.135(a)(2) required that employees who are near
exposed energized conductors which their heads could contact must wear
helmets designed for protection from electrical hazards. Two commenters
(Ex. 3: 36, 73) suggested that OSHA revise the proposed provision by
adding requirements for proper maintenance of head protection. In
particular, Public Service Electric and Gas Company (Ex. 3: 36) stated
that proposed paragraph (a)(2) should also require: ``Protective
helmets shall be worn and cared for as recommended by the manufacturer.
Protective helmets shall not be altered or defaced which would take
away the impact and/or dielectric integrity of the helmet.''
OSHA has determined that any employee protection which could result
from compliance with the suggested language on maintenance will already
be attained through compliance with existing and proposed
Sec. 1910.132. This section contains requirements concerning defective
and damaged equipment, Sec. 1910.132(e); and, training requirements
pertaining to the maintenance of PPE, Sec. 1910.132(f)(1)(v).
Another commenter (Ex. 3: 81) stated that proposed paragraph (a)(2)
was unclear, because it appeared ``to require nonconductive helmets for
electricians whenever they are ``near exposed electrical conductors''
even if there is no reasonable probability of contact.'' The commenter
suggested that OSHA revise the proposed language to require the wearing
of protective helmets ``WHEN they are near exposed electrical
conductors which their heads could contact.''
The Agency notes that the suggested language is consistent with the
description of proposed paragraph (a)(2) in the preamble to the
proposed rule (54 FR 33836). OSHA agrees that clarification of the
proposed paragraph is appropriate and has revised the proposed
paragraph accordingly.
Proposed Sec. 1910.135(b) required that the design of protective
helmets comply with the design requirements of ANSI Z89.1-1986 or be of
a design that provides equivalent protection. Existing Sec. 1910.135
references the requirements and specifications established in ANSI
Z89.1-1969. As noted in the preamble to the NPRM (54 FR 33837), OSHA
has determined that, except as regards electrical insulation for Class
B helmets, the 1969 and 1986 editions of ANSI Z89.1 set essentially the
same requirements. The Agency also has determined that Class B helmets
currently in use already comply with the electrical insulation
requirements of ANSI Z89.1-1986.
OSHA also proposed to allow protective helmets which, while not
designed to the specifications of ANSI Z89.1-1986, were ``demonstrated
to be equally effective''. The Agency believed that this performance-
oriented approach would encourage innovation and the use of improved
equipment.
A commenter (Ex. 3: 119) stated that the proposed language allowing
protective helmets of a design which has been demonstrated to be
equally effective ``is not well defined.'' In addition, the commenter
questioned the availability of the means and the personnel to determine
if helmets not designed according to ANSI Z89.1-1986 were equally
effective. The commenter suggested that OSHA delete the language in
question and require compliance with ANSI Z89.1-1986.
Another commenter (Ex. 7: 20, pg. 3), in discussing the proposed
language ``demonstrated to be equally effective'', inquired:
Does this mean or does it include possible
--prototype lab tests with field trials
--engineering or technical expert evaluation
--certification agency assessment
--appropriate standard and certification by foreign
manufacturer, or certification or testing agency which could
presumably satisfy the primary intent for protection of the
reference standard.
To require a user to develop a new standard or a new
certification process for a new product or design already proven
elsewhere could void the flexibility intended in the ``equivalency''
clause.
OSHA believes that the performance criteria set out in ANSI Z89.1-
1986, Section 7, indicate clearly how employers or the Agency can
determine if helmets that do not otherwise comply with the consensus
standard are ``equally effective''. OSHA also believes that the
performance-oriented language of proposed paragraph (b) allows
employers the appropriate flexibility to address their particular
safety needs.
Another commenter (Ex. 3: 126) stated that ``protective helmets
should comply with the performance requirements as well as the design
requirements of ANSI Standard Z89.1-1986.''
In the course of evaluating these comments, OSHA noted that there
are no provisions specifically designated as ``design requirements'' in
ANSI Z89.1-1969 or ANSI Z89.1-1986. The 1986 edition, in particular,
sets scope and purpose provisions; definitions; types and classes
provisions; materials provisions; physical requirements; performance
requirements; and test methods for protective helmets. The preamble
discussion of proposed paragraph (b) (54 FR 33836-33837) referenced the
physical requirements (e.g., the maximum weight), the performance
requirements (e.g., impact resistance, penetration protection,
flammability, water absorption resistance and electrical insulation)
and the test methods (e.g., ``stringent'' test methods for testing of
``Class B'' helmets against high-voltage) of ANSI Z89.1-1986.
OSHA agrees, and intends, that head PPE meet all of the provisions
contained in the ANSI standard. This requirement is stated explicitly
in ANSI Z89.1-1986, Section 2. OSHA acknowledges that the proposal did
not clearly express the Agency's intent to reference ANSI Z89.1-1986 in
its entirety and is revising the proposed provision accordingly.
The incorporation by reference of ANSI Z89.1-1986 has been approved
by the Office of the Federal Register, in accordance with the
requirements of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Paragraph (b) of the
final rule has been revised to reflect that approval and to provide the
requisite information regarding access to the text of ANSI Z89.1-1986.
As discussed above, OSHA has determined that it is appropriate to
permit the continued use of head PPE purchased prior to the effective
date of the final rule, as long as it complies with the ANSI standard
(Z89.1-1969) referenced by existing Sec. 1910.135. To this end, the
Agency has redesignated proposed paragraph (b) as paragraph (b)(1) of
the final rule and has added ``grandfathering'' text in paragraph
(b)(2) of the final rule.
In the proposal (54 FR 33837), OSHA solicited comments and
information concerning bump caps, head protection that was not
addressed in existing or proposed Sec. 1910.135 and that would not
satisfy the criteria of Z89.1-1986. In particular, the Agency requested
information with respect to the appropriateness of addressing this type
of head protection in the final rule. OSHA also solicited input
regarding the need for regulation of bump caps in Issue 5 of the
Hearing Notice (55 FR 3412). Some rulemaking participants (e.g. Ex. 3:
28, 40, 58) have suggested that OSHA establish requirements for bump
caps. For example, Sandia National Laboratories (Ex. 3: 58) stated:
Currently, there are no Federal standards, regulations, or
guidance of any kind with which industry can make proper and
adequate decisions on the use of bump caps.
Bump caps are not new to the work place. Where the risk of head
injury has been determined to be of low probability or result in
minor contusions, scraps or cuts, bump caps have been provided. The
old adage that ``something is better than nothing'' tends to prevail
when industry is forced to make an educated guess. Is the adage true
in the case of bump caps?
In summary there is a need for Federal time and money to be
spent on discovering the pro's and con's associated with bump caps
and developing corresponding guidance for their use in the work
place.
On the other hand, Kerr-McGee Corporation (Ex. 3: 119, pg. 3)
stated :
Kerr-McGee's use of bump caps is limited to areas where there is
no potential for injury to the head from electrical contact or from
falling or moving objects, but where a hazard may exist due to
striking one's head against fixed, low-clearance objects.
Kerr-McGee is not aware of any voluntary or consensus standards
covering bump caps. If the degree of protection afforded by
currently-produced bump caps is determined by scientific studies to
be inadequate for their intended use as stated on the products, then
OSHA should request ANSI to develop a standard. Otherwise, we do not
see the need for additional specifications or standards.
Most rulemaking participants ( e.g. Ex. 3: 2, 64, 65, 68; Ex. 7:
22; Tr. 140: 4/3; Tr. 160-61: 4/3) opposed adding requirements for bump
caps to the final rule because they believe that if head protection is
needed, then it would be safer to require head protection meeting ANSI
Z89.1-1986. For example, a commenter from the American Trucking
Association (Ex. 3: 64, pg. 5) remarked:
For the trucking industry in general, bump caps are not
practical. Although they are used in some operations for select job
tasks, the motor carrier industry has found little benefit in
reducing minor head injuries through their use. In fact, safety
personnel from a cross section of the nation's motor carriers
recently explained that bump caps can be more of a hinderance than a
help; they frequently fall off, and in some instances, they can
cause vision obstructions.
Another commenter, from the Union Carbide Corporation (Ex. 3: 68,
pg. 3), said:
* * * Union Carbide would not support a provision pertaining to
``bump caps''. Where there is sufficient hazard potential to
indicate the need for bump caps, it is safer simply to require that
hard hats be used.
A commenter from the Amoco Corporation (Ex. 7: 21, pg. 2) stated:
We believe that the use of ``bump caps'' has no place in a
company-sponsored safety program and therefore do not favor its
inclusion in this proposal.
OSHA has concluded, based on review of the rulemaking record, that
the available data do not support regulatory action regarding bump
caps. Therefore, the Agency will neither restrict the use of bump caps
nor set criteria for such use. OSHA will evaluate an employer's choice
of head protection based on the e hazards to which employees may be
exposed. Therefore, the employer's compliance with the requirement for
a hazard assessment, in Sec. 1910.132(d), is of critical importance.
Sec. 1910.136 Foot Protection
Proposed paragraph (a) of this section required employers to ensure
that employees wear protective footwear when working in areas where
there is a danger of foot injuries due to falling and rolling objects,
or objects piercing the sole. This proposed provision received a large
amount of support from rulemaking participants (e.g. Ex. 3: 49, 59, 64,
67). Many of the rulemaking participants agreed with referencing the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard for personal
protection, ANSI Z41-1983, ``Protective Footwear,'' particularly since
this standard, unlike the superseded 1967 edition, sets criteria for
women's footwear and for puncture resistance. However, two commenters
were concerned as to when this protection would be required. A
commenter from the American Trucking Association (ATA) stated (Ex. 3:
64, pp. 4-5):
* * * in some operations drivers may be exposed to falling or
rolling freight hazards, or other hazards presented by nails or
other sharp objects. In these cases, safety shoes, non-penetrable
soles, or some other type of protective footwear are appropriate. On
the other hand, there are thousands of drivers that never handle
freight or come into exposure with falling or rolling freight, sharp
objects, or any other number of hazards.
* * * The need to require the equipment must be determined on a
case by case basis--taking into account the specific operations, and
the specific tasks and hazards of the various job functions.
Another commenter, from the Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA),
expressed a similar concern with respect to when foot protection is
required (Ex. 3: 2):
Specialty shoes such as ``electrical hazard'' footwear or
``conductive'' shoes have special requirements that would not permit
metal insoles to prevent the puncture. If this requirement is
upheld, the current design standards and performance criteria for
electrical hazard shoes could not be met.
OSHA notes that these concerns are addressed by Sec. 1910.132(d),
as proposed and as promulgated. That provision requires the employer to
perform a hazard assessment. From the hazard assessment, the employer
can determine what PPE is needed. As to the example presented by the
ATA, if it is determined through an appropriate hazard assessment that
an employee is not exposed to foot hazards, the employer would not have
to provide this type of protection. As discussed above, the hazard
assessment provision allows employers the flexibility to choose the PPE
that is appropriate for a particular workplace situation.
Regarding the ALCOA comment, OSHA notes that if it is determined
through a hazard assessment that electrical workers are not exposed to
the hazard of sharp objects puncturing the soles of shoes (which would
be the case in many instances), the protective footwear would not have
to provide this type of protection.
On the other hand, if it is determined through a hazard assessment
that employees are exposed both to electrical and puncture hazards, the
employer would be required to ensure that employees wear shoes which
protect the employees from both hazards.
Both the 1983 and 1991 editions of ANSI Z41 set criteria for
protection of feet from electrical hazards. While proposed
Sec. 1910.136(b) required that footwear be designed to either comply
with Z41-1983 or be demonstrated to provide equivalent protection,
proposed Sec. 1910.136(a) did not explicitly require that employees
wear foot protection against electrical hazards. The Agency had
intended proposed paragraphs (a) and (b) to be consistent and to
reflect the 1983 edition of ANSI Z41. While employers are already
required to protect employees from electrical hazards under existing
Sec. 1910.132, OSHA believes that guidance regarding foot protection
against electrical hazards will be clearer and more useful if it
appears in Sec. 1910.136. OSHA has revised proposed Sec. 1910.136(a)
accordingly.
In paragraph (b) of Sec. 1910.136, OSHA proposed that the design of
protective footwear comply with the requirements of ANSI Z41-1983, or
be of a design which has been demonstrated to be equally effective.
Rulemaking participants (e.g. Ex. 3: 49, 59, 67, 72, 105, 118, 123)
supported the adoption of the ANSI standard for foot protection (ANSI
Z41). Further, several commenters (e.g. Ex. 3: 65, 67, 82, 84)
suggested that OSHA adopt by reference the ``updated'' or ``current''
edition of ANSI Z41. For example, Footwear Industries of America (FIA)
(Ex. 3: 67, pg. 2) remarked:
FIA therefore agrees with OSHA's proposal to update its personal
protective equipment standard for foot protection to comply with the
improvements made in the ANSI standard. The Agency should note,
however, that the 1983 version of the ANSI Z41 standard may soon be
replaced by an updated set of industry standards.
FIA suggests that OSHA may wish to await the 1990 version of
ANSI Z41 rather than to incorporate a seven-year old, nearly
outdated standard into 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1910.136.
The Agency notes that the 1991 edition of the ANSI standard for
foot protection has, in fact, replaced the 1983 edition of ANSI Z41
referenced by OSHA in proposed Sec. 1910.136(b).
OSHA has determined that it is appropriate to reference the current
1991 edition of ANSI Z41 in Sec. 1910.136(b) of the final rule because
that edition imposes essentially the same requirements as the 1983
edition, except that the 1991 edition provides more specific
performance requirements for resistance to compressive forces and
standardizes the puncture resistance testing method. OSHA believes,
based on its review of the pertinent ANSI standards and of the
protective footwear currently available, that compliance with the
referenced requirements of ANSI Z41-1991 will not result in disallowing
foot protection that would have complied with the requirements of ANSI
Z41-1983.
As discussed above, OSHA has determined that it is appropriate to
provide explicitly for the continued use of foot PPE purchased prior to
the effective date of the final rule, as long as it complies with the
ANSI standard (ANSI Z41.1-1967) referenced by existing Sec. 1910.136.
Therefore, the Agency has redesignated proposed paragraph (b) as
paragraph (b)(1) of the final rule, and has added ``grandfathering''
text in paragraph (b)(2) of the final rule.
A commenter from the Tennessee Valley Authority (Ex. 3: 79)
observed that OSHA proposed to incorporate only the design requirements
of the referenced ANSI standards and not the selection requirements,
guidelines, and other general information contained in the documents.
As explained above in the preamble, OSHA acknowledges that the proposal
did not clearly express the Agency's intent to reference the ANSI
standards in their entirety and is revising proposed paragraph (b)
accordingly.
The incorporation by reference of the pertinent ANSI standards has
been approved by the Office of the Federal Register, in accordance with
the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Therefore,
proposed paragraph (b) has been revised so that paragraphs (b)(1) and
(b)(2) of the final rule reflect that approval and provide the
requisite information regarding access to the text of those ANSI
standards.
Sec. 1910.138 Hand protection.
Issue 5 of the hearing notice (55 FR 3414), requested testimony,
comments and information regarding the need for regulation of
additional types of PPE. Specifically, the Agency stated that it was
considering the appropriateness of promulgating requirements for hand
protection (gloves) and skin protection (chemical protective clothing).
The Agency's concern with respect to hand protection and chemical
protective clothing arose from information contained in the record
(e.g. Ex. 6: 2, 3, 4, 5), which indicates that a large number of
employee injuries are occurring due to the lack of adequate protection
from hand and skin hazards. Additionally, neither OSHA or ANSI
currently have criteria for hand protection nor for chemical protective
clothing.
While OSHA received some information pertaining to chemical
protective clothing, most of the rulemaking participants who addressed
Issue 5 focused their remarks on gloves. Those rulemaking participants
suggested that OSHA provide performance criteria and test methods for
gloves and provide better guidance for the selection of gloves. They
stated that in many instances gloves are not being worn, and when
gloves are worn, they are often the wrong type of glove for the
application involved (e.g. Ex. 3: 114; Ex. 7: 33, 38, 42; Ex. 53; Tr.
213-236: 4/3; Tr. 13-20: 4/4).
For instance, a commenter from the United Steelworkers of America
(Ex. 3: 114, pg. 2) said:
Protective clothing and gloves: OSHA should also set standards
for these items since so many gloves do not work with some chemicals
and last longer with other chemicals.
Also, a commenter from the Washington State Department of
Transportation (Ex. 7: 33) stated:
I think that additional language regarding skin and hand
protection needs to be added to this section so this type of PPE is
not excluded from the selection process.
That commenter also submitted suggested language to address hand
hazards, and the selection and fit of gloves.
Boeing (Ex. 7: 38, pg. 2) commented:
Boeing supports the position that additional guidelines related
to body and hand protection are necessary in 1910.132. Such
guidelines should provide information on the selection of hand and
body PPE based on reported experience and industry needs. Such
guidance would facilitate the acquisition and use of appropriate PPE
and eliminate any uncertainty regarding proper application.
A hearing participant from the Occupational Health Foundation
testified (Tr. 213: 4/3):
Based on our experience visiting plants and working with
workers, we believe there's a critical need for language to really
spell out the program requirements for effective use of gloves.
That participant also remarked (Tr. 215: 4/3):
In 1988, occupational skin disease accounted for about one-
fourth of all reported occupational illnesses. Even with under-
reporting, it's a very serious worker health problem.
In addition, a hearing participant from the International Chemical
Workers Union testified (Tr. 15-16: 4/4):
I go into a lot of plants throughout the country and site visits
and the first thing I do is I look at the OSHA 200 log. I see many
cases of occupational dermatitis. My first assumption was these
people are not wearing gloves. After further investigation once I'm
in that facility, I find out that the workers are wearing gloves,
but they're wearing the wrong glove for the application involved.
So, this really needs to be addressed.
The Agency also received some useful information about the various
types of gloves and types of hazards for which they should be used; the
composition of the various types of gloves; and, other helpful
information (Ex. 3: 27). There were also some informative studies
submitted to the record concerning the hand and skin hazards posed by
certain chemicals (Ex. 42).
After careful evaluation of the rulemaking record, OSHA has
concluded that the high incidence of hand injuries, together with
evidence that hand protection either is not being worn by employees or
is being worn for the wrong type of hazards, warrants the inclusion of
more detailed requirements for selection and wearing of hand
protection.
Therefore, a new section, Sec. 1910.138, is being added to the
final rule to address hand protection.
Paragraph (a) requires that employers select, and that employees
use, appropriate hand protection. In addition, paragraph (a) identifies
some of the types of hazards for which hand protection must be worn by
employees. These include hand hazards and potential hand hazards from
skin absorption of harmful substances; severe cuts or lacerations;
severe abrasions; punctures; chemical burns; thermal burns; and harmful
temperature extremes.
Paragraph (b) addresses the selection of the appropriate type of
hand protection for the hazard or potential hazard that is present at
the workplace. The purpose of this provision is to assure that
employees are using the appropriate type of gloves for the tasks to be
performed. For example, foundry workers generally must wear gloves that
provide thermal protection, while meat cutters must wear gloves that
protect against cuts. While the selection of the appropriate type of
glove for a certain task or hazard may seem to be obvious, the
rulemaking record indicates that many hand injuries have occurred
because the wrong type of glove was used for a certain task.
Therefore, OSHA has determined that employers need more explicit
guidance in determining what hand protection their employees need. The
Agency anticipates that compliance with this provision will assure that
employees use the appropriate type of hand protection for the assigned
tasks and the identified hazards.
OSHA has also added information to Appendix B of the final rule
regarding the selection of appropriate hand protection.
Third party certification
In the NPRM (54 FR 33835), OSHA solicited comments on whether or
not the Agency should require third party certification of PPE. OSHA
indicated that it would consider promulgating such a provision to
ensure that PPE meets OSHA standards. In addition, Issue 2 of the
hearing notice (55 FR 3413) solicited testimony, with supporting
information, regarding the extent to which third party certification of
PPE required by Subpart I would be appropriate.
The third party certification issue generated more response than
any other subject covered by this rulemaking. Many of the participants
in this rulemaking supported third party certification (e.g. Ex. 3: 3,
16, 27, 37, 83, 90, 92, 98, 114, 120, 123; Ex. 7: 3, 18, 20; Tr. 55: 4/
3; Tr. 92-97: 4/3; Tr. 6-7: 4/4; Ex. 49).
In supporting third party certification, a commenter from MSA (Ex.
3: 18) stated:
In order to provide user companies with assurances that personal
protective equipment meets the appropriate standards, we think it
would be highly desirable for OSHA to require third-party
certification of PPE. We think a program such as the one offered by
the Safety Equipment Institute that provides independent testing and
quality assurance audits is extremely valuable and adds minimum cost
to safety equipment.
A commenter from ETL Testing Laboratories, Inc. (Ex. 3: 43) added:
Our experience supports the use of third-party certification as
positive assurance that the products covered by a program do, in
fact, meet the standards to which they are tested, and that follow-
up inspections verify that they continue to meet the requirements.
Third-party certification programs offer the user of personal
protective equipment a positive pledge that the product has been
designed and manufactured to provide the protection needed. It
further simplifies the selection process by way of readily available
lists of complying products and recognizable labels and marks on
them.
Although we are not prepared to give detailed estimates of costs
of third-party certification for the various products, the fees are
not burdensome, even on small businesses. The equipment must be
tested, whether it is in a program or not; therefore, that cost is
present in either case. The administration of a simple yet effective
program with follow-up factory inspection would probably not exceed
$1,500-2,000 per year per plant based on some similar programs we
operate. Obviously, there are many types of programs, and the fees
will vary dependent on the level of services rendered.
In supporting third party certification, a commenter (Ex. 3: 103)
from the Safety Equipment Institute (SEI) described that organization's
certification program as follows:
SEI's program of periodic quality assurance audits and product
testing is now widely accepted by industry and government. Over two
hundred organizations and federal agencies require the SEI
certification as a condition of procurement for PPE. SEI combines
both compliance testing of product and periodic quality assurance
audits of manufacturers' production facilities. These activities are
performed under SEI direction by independent third parties to
maintain an objective program.
A commenter from the Food & Allied Service Trades (Ex. 3: 128, p.4)
asserted:
We feel that third party certification, akin to that currently
required for respiratory protection, should be mandated by the
proposed rule. Such certification would guarantee that equipment was
thoroughly tested prior to its being relied on to provide safety for
workers who may daily, or even occasionally, encounter hazardous
situations.
A hearing participant from the Industrial Safety Equipment
Association (ISEA) (Tr. 136-137: 4/3) testified:
Whether the third party certification is performed by private or
governmental entity, ISEA supports its use as a means of confirming
the quality of products made for the protection of workers. In the
absence of government standards and certification of compliance,
ISEA endorses third party certification of compliance with ANSI
standard Z87.1, 1989, and Z89.1, 1986.
We believe that the additional cost involved for manufacturers
of personal protective equipment to obtain certification is minimal,
as is reflected by the number of eye and face protection devices and
industrial helmets which are already certified by the Safety
Equipment Institute.
Third party certification costs are averaged over the volume of
units sold, and we believe end up as an insignificant cost increase.
Other rulemaking participants expressed concerns with the concept
of third party certification. One concern expressed by several
rulemaking participants (e.g. Ex. 3: 28, 79, 87, 105) was the belief
that OSHA envisioned requiring employers, rather than manufacturers of
the PPE, to obtain the third party certification. That was not the
Agency's intent. OSHA notes that the manufacturer of the PPE, not the
purchaser/user, is, in general, the party who is in the appropriate
position to have products tested and evaluated. OSHA's intention
regarding the duty of employers was to reaffirm the employer's
responsibility to purchase and have employees use only PPE that would
meet the requirements of the pertinent standards.
Rulemaking participants also expressed concern that it would be
very difficult to have third party certification of prescription safety
eyewear (e.g. Ex. 3: 60, 71, 93, 115; Ex. 7: 11, 34; Tr. 184-191: 4/3;
Tr. 206: 4/4; Ex. 50). They asserted that third party certification
would not be practical since the eyecare providers and prescription
laboratories, generally small businesses, who produce prescription
eyewear would be unable to bear the burden of third party
certification. They also stated that each pair of prescription glasses
is unique to the individual for whom it was prescribed. Those
rulemaking participants explained that lenses are tested by the
manufacturer to meet ANSI standards, and frames are tested to meet ANSI
standards by the frame manufacturers. Those participants also expressed
the belief that this testing meets the intent of third party
certification. OSHA notes that the assurance provided by such
procedures may be even better than that obtained through third party
certification because each lens and frame is tested, rather than the
representative sample of eyewear that would be tested through a third
party certification program.
For example, a commenter from the Optical Laboratories Association
(OLA), stated (Ex. 3: 71, pp.1-2):
It is the position of OLA that third-party certification of
devices utilizing lenses made to individual prescription (Rx) is not
feasible, and in fact would not guarantee the safety-level provided
by the present system as prescribed by Z87. This is so because
third-party certification of all devices would not be practicable,
whereas under the present system prescription lenses are subject to
a rigorous test and the fabricator of each lens certifies, by its
trademark, that the lens meets the standard.
It is therefore submitted that the existing system of separate
testing of the frame and lenses of spectacles containing
prescription lenses meets OSHA's objectives and is practical.
Further testing of the completed device after the lenses are
inserted would not be feasible. While the test may not cause a
device failure, it may damage the lenses and weaken the frame.
A commenter from Corning (Ex. 3: 115, pg. 4) said:
We do not believe that this [third party testing of prescription
eyewear] is practical. Most industrial eyewear today [is]
prescribed. * * * each prescription pair of glasses is unique to the
individual for which it was prescribed and made. The common
denominator is that prescription eyewear lenses are 100% tested to
pass the industrial eyewear requirements for primary protection,
i.e., impact resistance. Further, frames are tested and marked by
the frame manufacturer to meet the requirements.
Other rulemaking participants opposed third party certification of
PPE (e.g. Ex. 3: 65, 68, 99; Ex. 7: 1, 8, 39). For instance, the belief
was expressed (Ex. 3: 119) that the present voluntary system is
adequate, particularly in light of widespread concerns regarding
product liability. In general, those opposed to third party
certification believed it would add cost, without adding any
appreciable safety benefit.
For example, a commenter from the American Gas Association (Ex. 3:
46, pg. 13) stated:
We urge OSHA not to adopt such a requirement. Such certification
would increase unnecessarily the incremental cost of compliance
while providing few, if any, benefits. Manufacturers who claim they
are in compliance with the ANSI standard could be subject to
liability in cases where products fail to meet that standard. The
cost of third party compliance would be borne by the industry when
the risk of liability should be sufficient to ensure compliance.
Another commenter, from the Pacific Maritime Association (Ex. 3:
80), remarked:
Third party certification of personal protective equipment by
employers would be both costly to the manufacturer and,
subsequently, the employer. Additionally, it is not clear in the
proposal as to how this requirement would enhance the safety of the
workforce. It would place an additional administrative and financial
burden on both manufacturers and employers, which does not seem to
be justified.
In response to the hearing notice, a commenter from the Motor
Vehicle Manufacturers Association (MVMA) asserted (Ex. 7: 31, pg. 2):
MVMA strongly objects to the proposal of requiring third party
certification for personal protective equipment. We believe that
personal protective equipment which meets the requirements of
various safety standards such as ANSI and the certification programs
conducted by the Safety Equipment Institute are adequate to provide
the assurance that the PPE will meet the performance specifications
necessary to protect an employee. To require a third party
certification will be redundant, costly and will not enhance the
safety or performance of PPE.
In opposing third party certification, a commenter from Monsanto
(Ex. 7: 16) said:
[W]e question whether third party certification will add any
benefits in terms of protection for employees. It will certainly add
to the cost of such equipment. We believe that the manufacturers'
written statement that their equipment meets the requirements of the
appropriate ANSI standard should be sufficient. Our perception is
that this arrangement has worked well over the years and we see no
benefit in changing it.
OSHA has carefully considered this issue and, after a thorough
evaluation of all of the information contained in the record, has
concluded for several reasons, that it would not be appropriate to
require third party certification.
First, while OSHA has recognized that third party certification of
PPE can increase confidence in and use of PPE, a requirement for such
third party certification will not add to the inherent safety of the
PPE tested and certified. Also, given the extent to which the PPE
industry has already voluntarily adopted third party certification, the
Agency believes that any benefit resulting from the addition of such a
requirement would be minimal.
Furthermore, revised subpart I provides other means to determine if
PPE meets the pertinent standard. In particular, compliance with
revised subpart I's performance-oriented requirements for hazard
assessment, PPE selection, and training will result in appropriate
selection, use and maintenance of PPE by affected employees. For
example, the Agency expects that the training required in new
Sec. 1910.132(f) will increase affected employee confidence in the
assigned PPE and, as a consequence, increase the use of PPE.
Also, OSHA believes, given the limited benefit expected from third
party certification, that it would be unreasonable to require that
employers procure only PPE that has third party certification. Such a
requirement would impose unnecessary burdens on PPE manufacturers who
can establish by other means that their products comply with the
pertinent OSHA standards.
In addition, the Agency believes that allocating the resources
needed to implement and enforce a requirement for third party
certification would unreasonably detract from OSHA's ability to enforce
the other provisions of revised subpart I.
The Agency is also adding non-mandatory appendices A and B to
provide additional guidance to employers and employees with regard to
PPE for eye, face, head, foot, and hand hazards.
IV. Regulatory Impact, Regulatory Flexibility and Environmental
Assessment of Revisions to Subpart I, Personal Protective Equipment
Introduction
In 1971, OSHA adopted its current standards for personal protective
equipment (PPE) from national consensus standards under section 6(a) of
the OSH Act. Since then, advances in PPE technology have resulted in
greater occupational protection in workplaces where equipment
innovations have been adopted. In this final rule, OSHA promulgates a
nationwide standard for PPE that reflects these improved means of
hazard prevention.
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735) requires that a Regulatory
Impact Analysis be prepared for any ``significant regulatory action''.
A ``significant'' rule would have an annual effect on the economy of
$100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy,
a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or state, local or tribal
governments or communities. In addition, the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) requires an analysis of whether a regulation
will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Finally, section 6(f) of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act provides that, where a party has challenged the validity of
an OSHA standard in the Court of Appeals, the determinations of OSHA
(such as findings regarding the nature and severity of workplace
hazards and the feasibility of identified abatement measures) shall be
conclusive if supported by substantial evidence in the record
considered as a whole.
OSHA determined, based on the Agency's Preliminary Regulatory
Impact Analysis [1] and its review of the rulemaking record, that the
final rule for General Industry PPE is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' for the purposes of review under Executive Order 12866.
However, in order to satisfy the various statutory requirements placed
upon the Agency and to further explain why OSHA has classified this
regulatory action as ``non-significant'' for Executive Order 12866
purposes, OSHA presents this Final Regulatory Impact, Regulatory
Flexibility and Environmental Impact Assessment.
Industry Profile
Based on a report prepared by Eastern Research Group under contract
to the Department of Labor [2], OSHA has determined that the hazards
addressed by the personal protective equipment standard are present in
varying degrees in virtually all workplaces covered by the OSHA General
Industry standards (29 CFR 1910). The extent of the rule's impact will
vary by industry depending on the hazards, the types of occupational
activity and current practices regarding PPE use.
Many types of PPE have been in widespread use in industry for many
years. However, until recently very little statistical data existed to
determine the number of employees who either are using PPE or who
should be wearing PPE by virtue of the hazards to which they are
exposed.
OSHA's inspection data document that approximately 3.5 percent of
all planned safety inspections result in citations under the existing
PPE standards. The inspection data identifies the standard industrial
classification (SIC) of the establishment, size of plant workforce,
union status, and information related to the inspection itself; less
frequently reported are data on degree of hazard present in workplaces,
the number of workers exposed to the hazard, or the type of PPE
required.
In its Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis [1], OSHA examined
injury statistics for affected industry sectors. Among the accident
databases searched by OSHA were Work Injury Reports (WIR) published by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). These reports examine cases where
a worker was injured and provide evidence that many workers are not
wearing adequate personal protective equipment. Based on the BLS data,
relatively few firms with serious recordable injury cases have
performed a formal assessment of the potential hazards in their
workplace. In addition, little training was offered to workers
regarding the importance of using protective equipment in these firms.
To obtain accurate information on the need for personal protective
equipment and the extent to which that need is being met, OSHA
conducted a national survey in 1989 [3,4,5]. The survey sampled 5,361
establishments, representing 1.1 million establishments in 61 SIC
groups. The survey identified the hazards related to industrial
processes and the types of PPE required when working in or near these
processes. The survey solicited information on PPE practices and safety
procedures and assessed whether engineering controls such as protective
guards or overhead nets were in place. Answers to survey questions were
used to evaluate the appropriateness of PPE use. Survey questions also
addressed PPE training and hazard assessment. (See the background
document and appendices in this docket for more detailed information on
the survey and supporting data related to this analysis.)
Table 1 shows the major industry groups covered by the PPE
standard, the total number of affected establishments, total affected
employment, number of production employees and number of employees
exposed to PPE-related hazards. Of the 16.9 million production workers,
the survey identified 11.7 million exposed workers within 1.1 million
establishments who should be wearing some form of PPE. These numbers
are lower than was indicated in the PRIA, due to a refinement in the
analysis regarding affected population. Occupational categories
identified by OSHA as having a significant degree of required PPE use
include craft, operating, maintenance and material handling employees.
These categories encompass most production employees and are most
likely to be affected by this standard. However, as noted in the PRIA
[1, p. II-2-4], OSHA has previously estimated over a million other
workers may also be exposed to hazards requiring PPE use in the rest of
general industry \1\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\As was indicated in the PRIA, while all general industry
workers are potentially affected by these standards, exposed workers
are heavily concentrated in certain occupations and in certain
industries. Building upon information provided for the PRIA and
comments to the record, this final analysis focuses on those groups
of workers and industries judged to have a heavy concentration of
PPE use. In this analysis population at risk was determined by
survey results indicating a hazard that required the use of PPE. The
PRIA had used the term ``population at risk'' to refer to all
workers in two ``production worker'' job categories in general
industry [1, p. II-1-5]. It should be noted that this analysis in no
way implies that other workers may not be exposed to hazards
preventable by PPE, but simply that the great majority are found in
certain specific job categories and industries.
TABLE 1--Number of Establishments and Employees in Industries Affected by the Personal Protective Equipment
Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Total Production Employees
SICs Industries Establishments Employees Employees At Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20,21 Food & Tobacco............. 23,388 1,673,287 1,196,818 782,205
22 Textiles................... 6,439 727,651 596,846 255,815
23,31 Apparel & Leather.......... 25,708 1,239,402 964,677 558,884
24 Lumber & Wood Products..... 37,063 739,296 597,764 405,054
25 Furniture & Fixtures....... 10,563 515,866 412,323 306,280
26 Paper & Allied Products.... 6,732 680,961 479,730 387,578
27 Printing & Publishing...... 60,836 1,499,451 680,370 462,259
28 Chemicals.................. 12,411 1,023,169 497,054 402,925
29 Petroleum Refining......... 2,158 166,032 44,169 33,805
30 Rubber & Plastics.......... 14,703 851,467 565,705 393,468
32 Stone, Glass, Concrete..... 15,351 550,779 400,987 282,065
33 Primary Metals............. 7,130 741,297 549,603 476,145
34 Fabricated Metals.......... 34,605 1,401,605 921,660 638,577
35 Machinery & Computers...... 53,031 2,032,338 1,018,420 788,598
36 Electric & Electronics..... 17,836 2,063,033 1,204,266 810,492
37 Transportation Equipment... 9,688 1,762,926 1,113,656 894,417
38,39 Misc. Manufacturing........ 24,860 1,091,140 599,624 410,532
41,42 Transportation............. 124,121 1,770,983 1,258,897 688,183
48 Communications............. 23,505 1,281,837 788,800 642,609
49 Utilities.................. 17,741 934,650 334,492 266,440
501,55,75 Automotive Trade & Services 326,793 3,066,501 1,373,718 803,309
50,51,52 Wholesale & Retail Trade... 189,947 2,056,173 963,641 822,312
7692 Welding Repair............. 6,653 31,800 24,622 20,317
13 Oil & Gas Extraction....... 26,957 396,519 117,579 92,602
078,08 Horticulture & Forestry.... 46,294 290,552 173,863 106,782
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 1,124,513 28,588,715 16,879,284 11,731,653
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. D.O.L., OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, based on the results of a 1989 nationwide survey.
From survey results OSHA developed a profile of the affected
population by exposed bodily area (anatomical part), summarized in
Table 2. As the table shows, almost 8.8 million workers are exposed to
foot injury, while the potential for hand injury exists for 4.7 million
workers. Other anatomical parts covered by this rule are eyes (2.8
million workers at risk), head (1.9 million workers) and face (381,000
workers).
TABLE 2--Number of Employees and Parts of the Body Requiring Personal Protective Equipment Among the Population at Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Body Part Exposed*
SICs Industries Production Total Exposed ---------------------------------------------------------------
Employees Population Head Eye Face Hand Foot
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20,21 Food & Tobacco............. 1,196,818 782,205 112,574 91,806 0 220,059 652,884
22 Textiles................... 596,846 255,815 36,685 104,918 3,877 134,689 129,498
23,31 Apparel & Leather.......... 964,677 558,884 16,527 72,682 0 462,683 133,101
24 Lumber & Wood Products..... 597,764 405,054 65,597 29,483 104,352 103,547 388,436
25 Furniture & Fixtures....... 412,323 306,280 26,231 41,767 26,130 127,295 234,696
26 Paper & Allied Products.... 479,730 387,578 35,146 132,898 4,576 156,569 326,256
27 Printing & Publishing...... 680,370 462,259 0 242,298 0 257,095 333,121
28 Chemicals.................. 497,054 402,925 116,763 158,344 3,098 155,596 322,095
29 Petroleum Refining......... 44,169 33,805 14,562 11,918 476 16,136 15,948
30 Rubber & Plastics.......... 565,705 393,468 47,984 57,839 20,048 124,766 313,688
32 Stone, Glass, Concrete..... 400,987 282,065 64,462 38,156 19,234 81,620 243,835
33 Primary Metals............. 549,603 476,145 95,001 95,727 120,272 214,995 394,255
34 Fabricated Metals.......... 921,660 638,577 33,157 85,767 12,101 144,447 570,595
35 Machinery & Computers...... 1,018,420 788,598 59,583 146,365 2,246 329,603 631,485
36 Electric & Electronics..... 1,204,266 810,492 66,001 334,211 611 469,622 455,479
37 Transportation Equipment... 1,113,656 894,417 53,777 129,841 4,575 315,617 759,262
38,39 Misc. Manufacturing........ 599,624 410,532 35,815 124,151 9,092 203,543 284,091
41,42 Transportation............. 1,258,897 688,183 70,798 79,546 588 67,043 665,473
48 Communications............. 788,800 642,609 461,102 133,783 15,162 341,999 182,129
49 Utilities.................. 334,492 266,440 126,995 106,879 24,321 96,394 246,691
501,55, 75 Automotive Trade & Services 1,373,718 803,309 55,791 297,398 0 407,995 595,690
50,51,52 Wholesale & Retail Trade... 963,641 822,312 255,319 154,863 4,842 134,153 742,635
7692 Welding Repair............. 24,622 20,317 797 11,108 172 10,492 15,278
13 Oil & Gas Extraction....... 117,579 92,602 49,872 51,451 0 51,804 76,391
078,08 Horticulture & Forestry.... 173,863 106,782 22,050 39,546 5,146 83,217 44,856
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 16,879,284 11,731,653 1,922,589 2,772,745 380,919 4,710,979 8,757,868
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* ``Exposed body part'' total exceeds total exposed population because some employees are exposed to multiple hazards.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis.
Technological Feasibility and Costs of Compliance
Technological Feasibility
The existing and revised standards for subpart I require personal
protective equipment wherever necessary by reason of the hazards of
processes, environment or worker activity. New Sec. 1910.132(d)
requires workplace hazard assessment and new Sec. 1910.132(f) requires
employee training in the use of PPE. The revised standards for eye and
face protection, protective headwear and foot protection update,
prospectively, references to pertinent consensus standards. OSHA
expects that employers will be able to comply with the new and revised
requirements without difficulty, because the means of compliance are
readily available and because the final rule ``grandfathers'' equipment
that complies with the existing standards.
OSHA anticipates that the new requirements for hazard assessment,
prohibition of defective and damaged equipment, and employee training
can be implemented with available technical personnel and other
resources. OSHA's survey probed the extent to which firms have already
adopted the elements of a PPE program. Comments in the record were also
evaluated in order to establish current industry practices.
On the basis of evidence in the record, including results from the
OSHA PPE survey, OSHA has determined that the final PPE standard is
both technologically and economically feasible.
Costs of Compliance
OSHA estimated compliance costs using data on current practices and
exposed population from the PPE survey. Aggregating costs across
industry sectors, OSHA estimates a total annual compliance cost of new
provisions in the revised rule will result in a cost of $52.4 million.
Total compliance costs by industry sector are presented in Table 3.
TABLE 3--Industry Compliance Costs for the Personal Protective Equipment Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annualized Cost
Annualized Cost of Annualized Cost of Compliance with
SICs Industries Compliance with of Hazard Revisions to PPE
Training Requirement Assessment Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20,21 Food & Tobacco......... $2,672,097 $563,775 $3,235,871
22 Textiles............... $1,533,441 $170,892 $1,704,333
23,31 Apparel & Leather...... $2,582,549 $742,021 $3,324,570
24 Lumber & Wood Products. $1,676,192 $584,579 $2,260,771
25 Furniture & Fixtures... $1,250,063 $263,721 $1,513,783
26 Paper & Allied Products $1,403,654 $149,625 $1,553,279
27 Printing & Publishing.. $3,346,716 $1,083,078 $4,429,794
28 Chemicals.............. $1,059,463 $116,425 $1,175,888
29 Petroleum Refining..... $44,768 $22,235 $67,003
30 Rubber & Plastics...... $1,312,997 $339,299 $1,652,296
32 Stone, Glass, Concrete. $591,905 $237,192 $829,097
33 Primary Metals......... $688,419 $142,911 $831,330
34 Fabricated Metals...... $1,073,787 $610,317 $1,684,104
35 Machinery & Computers.. $1,694,596 $914,849 $2,609,445
36 Electric & Electronics. $3,259,889 $349,067 $3,608,956
37 Transportation $1,748,188 $152,397 $1,900,586
Equipment.
38,39 Misc. Manufacturing.... $1,525,950 $297,213 $1,823,163
41,42 Transportation......... $1,345,878 $1,873,465 $3,219,343
48 Communications......... $302,276 $105,567 $407,843
49 Utilities.............. $466,182 $118,261 $584,444
501,55,75 Automotive Trade & $3,873,396 $4,772,142 $8,645,538
Services.
50,51,52 Wholesale & Retail $1,757,275 $1,736,471 $3,493,746
Trade.
7692 Welding Repair......... $44,047 $50,749 $94,796
13 Oil & Gas Extraction... $927,521 $175,555 $1,103,077
078,08 Horticulture & Forestry $282,269 $373,659 $655,928
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL $36,463,518 $15,945,464 $52,408,983
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis
OSHA's survey identified 433,149 establishments which need to take
steps to come into compliance with the new provisions for hazard
assessment. (Of 825,265 affected establishments, approximately 47
percent already had a hazard assessment program in place.) The cost to
conduct hazard assessments was estimated to be $15.9 million per year,
assuming a reassessment is conducted once every five years.
The new provision for PPE training would affect approximately 10.8
million employees estimated in need of PPE training, at an annual cost
of $36.5 million.
Estimates for the cost of providing PPE training differ from those
in Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis due to comments received and
results from OSHA's PPE survey. This information indicated that the
problem of PPE non-usage is considerably more widespread than
originally estimated. Correspondingly, this indicated that the
population requiring PPE training was larger than originally estimated.
Assessment of Hazards and Benefits
Injuries
OSHA believes that the risk of fatality and injury to workers is
unacceptably high among sectors affected by the revised personal
protective equipment standard. The revised PPE standard is designed to
enhance compliance with existing requirements and ensure future
compliance related to a heightened level of hazard awareness and
training. These changes to the standard should help to eliminate or
reduce accidents within industries subject to the rule.
The standard has performance-oriented provisions addressing eye,
face, hand, head and foot hazards that allow employers to adopt the
most up-to-date PPE for use in their establishment. The flexibility to
substitute new materials and technologies should produce more
comfortable and protective PPE. An increase in worker acceptance and
use of PPE should translate into additional benefits. OSHA's
expectation is that increased use of better equipment will prevent or
lessen the severity of many incidents.
According to BLS statistics in Occupational Injuries and Illnesses
in the United States by Industry, 1989 [6], there were a total of 1.6
million lost-workday cases and 1.8 million non-lost-workday cases
during the survey year. Eastern Research Group [7] analyzed survey-
related data, which were used to extract the number of these injuries
that were related to use (or nonuse) of PPE. In turn, BLS Work Injury
Reports were analyzed to estimate what portion of those injuries
related to inconsistent or inappropriate use of PPE, or lack of hazard
identification. Injuries prevented in significantly affected industry
sectors are shown in Table 4. Since injuries will be prevented in some
other industry sectors as well, total estimates are conservative.
TABLE 4--Injuries Prevented Through Compliance With New PPE Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lost Workday Lost Workdays Non-lost-workday
SIC Industry Cases Prevented Prevented Cases Prevented
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20,21 Food & Tobacco............... 3,178 57,195 3,945
22 Textiles..................... 710 12,780 1,405
23,31 Apparel & Leather............ 607 11,531 1,482
24 Lumber & Wood Products....... 1,850 35,151 2,375
25 Furniture & Fixtures......... 1,216 20,680 1,818
26 Paper & Allied Products...... 978 21,512 1,718
27 Printing & Publishing........ 755 14,340 1,361
28 Chemicals.................... 783 14,870 1,082
29 Petroleum Refining........... 120 2,529 125
30 Rubber & Plastics............ 1,873 31,837 2,625
32 Stone, Glass, Concrete....... 989 19,782 1,578
33 Primary Metals............... 1,829 36,587 2,821
34 Fabricated Metals............ 3,506 63,114 6,097
35 Machinery & Computers........ 3,372 57,324 6,744
36 Electric & Electronics....... 1,343 24,173 2,578
37 Transportation Equipment..... 1,966 37,359 5,829
38,39 Misc. Manufactuing........... 1,044 19,374 1,610
41,42 Transportation............... 2,127 54,710 2,355
48 Communications............... 255 4,846 357
49 Utilities.................... 740 13,318 867
501,55,75 Automotive Trade & Services.. 1,423 26,005 7,942
50,51,52 Wholesale & Retail Trade..... 6,243 109,743 7,005
7692 Welding Repair............... 90 1,424 91
13 Oil & Gas Extraction......... 389 11,680 404
078,08 Horticulture & Forestry...... 537 10,358 316
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
37,924 712,223 64,530
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics and OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis
OSHA estimates that 712,000 lost workdays\2\ and 65,000 non-lost
workday cases will be realized from compliance with requirements for
employee training and workplace hazard assessment. These benefits will
be gained through selection of more appropriate PPE, increased
awareness of hazards and improved consistency in use. These benefit
estimates exceed those of the PRIA because OSHA has determined that
current compliance with the PPE standards is poorer than was estimated
in the PRIA. In addition, OSHA believes these requirements will enhance
compliance with existing requirements, thereby preventing more
injuries; however, the extent of these benefits are difficult to
quantify.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Recent research by Arthur Oleinick identifies a possible
underestimation of lost workdays when reference periods are bounded
by calendar years, as in the BLS survey. For elaboration of this
point, see Oleinick [8].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSHA also estimated the number of fatalities associated with the
absence of personal protective equipment. From an analysis of BLS,
NIOSH and OSHA accident data, OSHA estimates that 125 fatal head
injuries occur annually. While most fatal head injuries are the result
of crushing injuries, falls, explosions and other traumatic events
beyond the scope of this standard, some are preventable with the use of
head protection. Based on a review of OSHA accident abstracts and an
understanding of the rule's scope and effectiveness, OSHA estimates
that 4 head injury fatality cases are preventable each year through
compliance with the new provisions of the standard.
Cost Savings
Based upon these estimated reduction in injuries, OSHA estimates
that society will reap substantial economic benefits from prevented
injuries. Lost work time injuries can be particularly expensive.
PPE is uniquely effective in preventing eye injuries, for example,
which can be severely debilitating. Dr. Leonard Parver [9, pp. 28-29]
of Georgetown University's ophthalmology department elaborated on this
cost to employers:
These injuries tend to be very devastating. They have severe
impact on the patient in terms of vision, and the costs are
phenomenal. We estimate the costs of hospitalizing these patients at
$250 million per year. That's just for the hospital stay; that
doesn't include lost work days and compensation costs. This is a
very significant problem, and very, very preventable. We're not
talking about reinventing the wheel here. We have the means of doing
this. We have adequate eye protective gear. It's a matter of
educating the workforce that this is necessary.
While employers typically bear only a fraction of the costs related
to injuries, these costs can be substantial. Employers specifically
will benefit from reduced lost production time, administrative time
spent preparing insurance claims and accident reports and replacing
injured workers. Based on a 1981 study by Levitt and coworkers [10],
OSHA estimates the cost to employers from the average lost worktime
injury is at least $4000\3\. This cost includes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Levitt's wage rates were adjusted to reflect current wage
conditions in general industry [11]. In light of the National Safety
Council estimates presented later in this document, given the
debilitating severity of many PPE accidents (eye, head), and the
surge in workers compensation costs in recent years, an estimate of
$4000 per injury is likely to be conservative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative cost of handling insurance company claims.
Wages paid to other workers for the time not worked (work
interrupted).
Cost of scheduling and funding overtime necessitated by
the accident.
Cost to find and train a replacement worker.
Extra wage cost to rehabilitate the returning worker at a
reduced capacity.
Cost to clean up, repair, or replace damage from the
accident.
Cost of wages for supervision associated with the
accident.
Cost for safety and clerical personnel to record and
investigate the accident.
Other nonquantifiable costs associated with accidents, such as
increased anxiety among non-injured workers, the loss of employee
goodwill towards the employer, and the impact on public perception of a
company and its products were not considered in the Levitt study.
Based on the Levitt study and the estimated 37,924 lost workdays
prevented, OSHA estimates that the rule will save firms over $150
million annually.
However, as noted above, the cost of workplace injuries is
typically borne primarily by employees themselves. The National Safety
Council recently calculated the societal cost per lost worktime injury
at $27,000 [7,p. 35], by factoring in long-term wage losses, medical
expenses, administrative expenses and miscellaneous employer costs.
Applying this figure to OSHA's estimate of 37,924 lost workday injuries
prevented annually, revisions to this rule should save society
(employees, employers and third parties) over $1 billion annually.
These estimates of the economic benefits of the rule may be
conservative, since the benefits analysis focuses on injuries
prevented, not reduced severity of injuries. To the extent the rule
results in nonlost workday injuries, as opposed to disabling lost
workday injuries, the economic benefits may be greater yet. In sum,
OSHA estimates the rule will save society over $1 billion annually,
dwarfing the initial $52 million investment. Employers themselves
should save over $150 million through full compliance with revisions to
the PPE standard, approximately three times the estimated cost of
compliance.
Economic Impact and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
OSHA analyzed the potential economic impact of the revised PPE
standard and has determined that none of the major industry groups
subject to the standard would experience a significant economic burden
as a result of compliance, even before cost savings to employers are
factored in. Table 5 presents average compliance cost, revenue, profit,
and economic impacts of the standard for establishments in affected
industry groups. If all of the compliance costs are passed through to
the consumer, OSHA estimates that the average price increase would be
negligible, less than 0.001 percent, calculated as the ratio of total
compliance cost to industry sales. The maximum price increase in any
industry would be less than 0.005 percent. Given the minuscule price
increases necessary to cover these safety investments, employers should
be able to pass along compliance costs to their customers. However,
even if all costs were absorbed by the affected firms, the average
reduction in profits would be approximately 0.01 percent, the largest
being 0.06 percent. OSHA, therefore, does not expect the revised
standard to have a significant economic impact on affected firms or
industries\4\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\In the Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis [1], OSHA
analyzed the entire spectrum of affected industries, and had
determined no significant economic impact would result on
establishments on any industry, with substantially less impact in
those establishments without heavy PPE use. This determination was
reached even though the PRIA included costs not directly
attributable to the proposal, resulting in a total cost estimate
which was nearly twice the cost estimated in this final analysis.
Accordingly, OSHA reaffirms that establishments in those industries
will incur minimal economic impact.
TABLE 5--Economic Impact of the PPE Standard on Affected Establishments (Gross Costs)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Pre- Cost as Percent of:
Number of Annual Average Cost Average Sales Tax Profits ---------------------
SIC Industry Affected Compliance per per per
Establishments Cost Establishment Establishment Establishment Revenue Profit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20,21 Food & Tobacco........... 20,959 $3,235,871 $154 $35,979,353 $2,233,881 0.0004% 0.007%
22 Textiles................. 3,994 1,704,333 427 12,519,165 697,823 0.0034% 0.061%
23,31 Apparel & Leather........ 19,253 3,324,570 173 5,586,936 330,094 0.0031% 0.052%
24 Lumber & Wood Products... 36,022 2,260,771 63 3,131,243 168,014 0.0020% 0.037%
25 Furniture & Fixtures..... 9,670 1,513,783 157 5,300,655 304,204 0.0030% 0.051%
26 Paper & Allied Products.. 5,425 1,553,279 286 26,331,141 1,459,848 0.0011% 0.020%
27 Printing & Publishing.... 38,618 4,429,794 115 4,681,511 348,979 0.0025% 0.033%
28 Chemicals................ 9,625 1,175,888 122 32,935,814 1,974,902 0.0004% 0.006%
29 Petroleum Refining....... 1,394 67,003 48 159,307,423 7,965,371 0.0000% 0.001%
30 Rubber & Plastics........ 12,222 1,652,296 135 9,587,427 599,044 0.0014% 0.023%
32 Stone, Glass, Concrete... 12,754 829,097 65 6,671,737 390,362 0.0010% 0.017%
33 Primary Metals........... 6,114 831,330 136 23,060,401 1,210,615 0.0006% 0.011%
34 Fabricated Metals........ 28,179 1,684,104 60 6,444,462 372,424 0.0009% 0.016%
35 Machinery & Computers.... 41,692 2,609,445 63 11,274,470 763,560 0.0006% 0.008%
36 Electric & Electronics... 12,777 3,608,956 282 13,186,533 772,544 0.0021% 0.037%
37 Transportation Equipment. 8,081 1,900,586 235 56,312,311 3,036,469 0.0004% 0.008%
38,39 Misc. Manufacturing...... 17,197 1,823,163 106 10,197,872 687,010 0.0010% 0.015%
41,42 Transportation........... 91,583 3,219,343 35 2,502,991 721,995 0.0014% 0.005%
48 Communications........... 6,857 407,843 59 18,184,342 3,168,484 0.0003% 0.002%
49 Utilities................ 11,134 584,444 52 26,418,648 2,742,749 0.0002% 0.002%
501,55, 75 Automotive Trade & 255,506 8,645,538 34 1,896,375 67,478 0.0018% 0.050%
Services.
50,51,52 Wholesale & Retail Trade. 121,753 3,493,746 29 6,001,894 264,946 0.0005% 0.011%
7692 Welding Repair........... 6,652 94,796 14 294,996 27,928 0.0048% 0.051%
13 Oil & Gas Extraction..... 9,129 1,103,077 121 36,323,403 3,601,331 0.0003% 0.003%
078,08 Horticulture & Forestry.. 35,675 655,928 18 526,658 42,007 0.0035% 0.044%
TOTAL/WEIGHTED AVERAGE... 822,265 $52,408,983 $64 $7,233,605 $519,497 0.0009% 0.012%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Office of Regulatory Analysis
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of USC 601 et
seq.), OSHA also analyzed the economic impact on small establishments
(19 or fewer employees), looking particularly for signs that the rule
would pose excessive burdens per employee, relative to impacts faced by
larger entities. OSHA has determined that, in relation to compliance
with the standard, equipment purchases and labor utilization will to a
great extent depend positively on size of workforce; smaller firms are
not expected to incur relatively higher costs per worker. As shown in
Table 6, OSHA estimates that the average price impact for small
establishments will be 0.002 percent, while profit impacts will not
exceed 0.04 percent under the assumption that all compliance costs are
absorbed by firms. These impacts are judged to be relatively minor;
therefore, the PPE standard is economically feasible for small
establishments.
TABLE 6--Economic Impact of the PPE Standard on Affected Small Establishments (19 or Fewer Employees) (Gross Costs)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Pre- Cost as Percent of:
Number of Annual Average Cost Average Sales Tax Profits ---------------------
SIC Industry Affected Compliance per per per
Establishments Cost Establishment Establishment Establishment Revenue Profit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20,21 Food & Tobacco........... 10,095 $301,241 $30 $5,080,999 $380,574 0.0006% 0.01%
22 Textiles................. 1,204 77,500 64 3,081,265 159,437 0.0021% 0.04%
23,31 Apparel & Leather........ 9,134 230,385 25 994,572 46,206 0.0025% 0.05%
24 Lumber & Wood Products... 23,190 537,285 23 550,727 23,541 0.0042% 0.10%
25 Furniture & Fixtures..... 5,476 165,026 30 854,790 38,885 0.0035% 0.08%
26 Paper & Allied Products.. 1,755 71,002 40 3,998,272 212,874 0.0010% 0.02%
27 Printing & Publishing.... 25,705 775,395 30 504,012 29,648 0.0060% 0.10%
28 Chemicals................ 5,743 87,504 15 4,017,910 233,815 0.0004% 0.01%
29 Petroleum Refining....... 892 19,860 22 17,849,435 892,472 0.0001% 0.00%
30 Rubber & Plastics........ 4,473 94,909 21 2,020,670 110,565 0.0011% 0.02%
32 Stone, Glass, Concrete... 8,695 152,938 18 1,234,776 58,639 0.0014% 0.03%
33 Primary Metals........... 2,098 38,723 18 5,945,929 310,452 0.0003% 0.01%
34 Fabricated Metals........ 13,852 253,472 18 1,465,387 69,533 0.0012% 0.03%
35 Machinery & Computers.... 25,991 413,117 16 1,786,536 105,311 0.0009% 0.02%
36 Electric & Electronics... 5,397 119,451 22 7,374,341 432,032 0.0003% 0.01%
37 Transportation Equipment. 4,171 67,847 16 3,281,219 164,394 0.0005% 0.01%
38,39 Misc. Manufacturing...... 11,330 332,099 29 1,104,625 60,718 0.0027% 0.05%
41,42 Transportation........... 50,514 895,120 18 457,059 50,523 0.0039% 0.04%
48 Communications........... 4,432 101,226 23 2,187,022 381,072 0.0010% 0.01%
49 Utilities................ 6,262 61,913 10 1,998,589 197,519 0.0005% 0.01%
501,55, 75 Automotive Trade & 230,396 5,845,664 25 505,347 16,312 0.0050% 0.16%
Services.
50,51,52 Wholesale & Retail Trade. 91,722 1,371,448 15 1,245,583 44,869 0.0012% 0.03%
7692 Welding Repair........... 6,078 53,146 9 105,240 8,543 0.0083% 0.10%
13 Oil & Gas Extraction..... 6,494 167,833 26 979,674 79,670 0.0026% 0.03%
078,08 Horticulture & Forestry.. 30,238 494,539 16 184,033 12,622 0.0089% 0.13%
--------------------------------
TOTAL/WEIGHTED AVERAGE... 585,337 $12,728,644 $22 $1,014,850 $54,419 0.0021% 0.04%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Office of Regulatory Analysis
Environmental Impact
The revisions to the PPE standard have been reviewed in accordance
with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.), the regulations of the Council on
Environmental Quality (40 CFR part 1500 through 1517), and the
Department of Labor's NEPA procedures (29 CFR part 11). As a result of
this review, OSHA has determined that the new PPE standard will have no
significant environmental impact.
References
1. Preliminary Regulatory Impact and Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis of the Personal Protective Equipment Standard, U.S.
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
Office of Regulatory Analysis, June 30, 1989. Exhibit 4-6.
2. Eastern Research Group. Economic Analysis of the Revised
General Industry Personal Protection Equipment Standard (CFR Part
1910.132 - 1910.140). Prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration under Contract No. J-
9-F-0057. Arlington, MA. October 1988, as described in Exhibit 4-6.
3. PPE Survey Description. Exhibit 4-1.
4. Survey Instrument. Exhibit 4-2.
5. Tables of Weighted Survey Data. Exhibit 4-5.
6. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Summary and Analysis of Injuries
and Illnesses in the United States by Industry, 1989. U.S.
Department of Labor, Bulletin 2379, April 1991.
7. Eastern Research Group. Summary and Analysis of Injuries and
Illnesses in a Data Base of OSHA Draft Form 200s (1986-1987). March
1990. Exhibit 32.
8. Oleinick, Arthur, et al. ``Current Methods of Estimating
Severity for Occupational Injuries and Illnesses: Data From the 1986
Michigan Comprehensive and Compensable Injury and Illness
Database.'' American Journal of Industrial Medicine 23 (1993): 231-
252.
9. ``In the Blink of an Eye'', Occupational Hazards, June 1991.
10.Levitt, Raymond, et al. Improving Construction Safety
Performance: The User's Role. Stanford University Department of
Civil Engineering. Technical Report No. 260. August 1981. Exhibit 3-
20, Docket S-012A.
11. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Industry Profile Study of a
Standard for Control of Hazardous Energy Sources Including Lockout/
Tagout Procedures. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, under Contract J-9-F-
2-0047, Exhibit 3-15, Docket S-012A.
12. National Safety Council, Accident Facts, 1993 Edition.
V. Statutory Considerations
A. Introduction
OSHA has described the hazards that require the use of PPE and the
measures required to protect affected employees from those hazards in
Section I, Background, Section II, Workplace hazards involved; and
Section III, Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule, above. The
Agency is providing the following discussion of the statutory mandate
for OSHA rulemaking activity to explain the legal basis for its
determination that the revised PPE standard, as promulgated, is
reasonably necessary to protect affected employees from significant
risks of injury and death.
Section 2(b)(3) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act
authorizes ``the Secretary of Labor to set mandatory occupational
safety and health standards applicable to businesses affecting
interstate commerce'', and section 5(a)(2) provides that ``[e]ach
employer shall comply with occupational safety and health standards
promulgated under this Act'' (emphasis added). Section 3(8) of the OSH
Act (29 U.S.C. Sec. 652(8)) provides that ``the term 'occupational
safety and health standard' means a standard which requires conditions,
or the adoption or use of one or more practices, means, methods,
operations, or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate to
provide safe or healthful employment and places of employment.''
In two recent cases, reviewing courts have expressed concern that
OSHA's interpretation of these provisions of the OSH Act, particularly
of section 3(8) as it pertains to safety rulemaking, could lead to
overly costly or under-protective safety standards. In International
Union, UAW v. OSHA, 938 F.2d 1310 (D.C. Cir. 1991), the District of
Columbia Circuit rejected substantive challenges to OSHA's lockout/
tagout standard and denied a request that enforcement of that standard
be stayed, but it also expressed concern that OSHA's interpretation of
the OSH Act could lead to safety standards that are very costly and
only minimally protective. In National Grain & Feed Ass'n v. OSHA, 866
F.2d 717 (5th Cir. 1989), the Fifth Circuit concluded that Congress
gave OSHA considerable discretion in structuring the costs and benefits
of safety standards but, concerned that the grain dust standard might
be under-protective, directed OSHA to consider adding a provision that
might further reduce significant risk of fire and explosion.
OSHA rulemakings involve a significant degree of agency expertise
and policy-making discretion to which reviewing courts must defer. (See
for example, Building & Constr. Trades Dep't, AFL-CIO v. Brock, 838
F.2d 1258, 1266 (D.C. Cir. 1988); Industrial Union Dep't, AFL-CIO v.
American Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607, 655 n. 62 (1980).) At the same
time, the agency's technical expertise and policy-making authority must
be exercised within discernable parameters. The lockout/tagout and
grain handling standard decisions sought clarification of the agency's
view of the scope of its expertise and authority. In light of those
decisions, the preamble to this safety standard states OSHA's views
regarding the limits of its safety rulemaking authority and explains
why the Agency is confident that its interpretive views have in the
past avoided regulatory extremes and continue to do so in this rule.
Stated briefly, the OSH Act requires that, before promulgating any
occupational safety standard, OSHA demonstrate based on substantial
evidence in the record as a whole that: (1) the proposed standard will
substantially reduce a significant risk of material harm; (2)
compliance is technologically feasible in the sense that the protective
measures being required already exist, can be brought into existence
with available technology, or can be created with technology that can
reasonably be developed; (3) compliance is economically feasible in the
sense that industry can absorb or pass on the costs without major
dislocation or threat of instability; and (4) the standard is cost
effective in that it employs the least expensive protective measures
capable of reducing or eliminating significant risk. Additionally,
proposed safety standards must be compatible with prior agency action,
must be responsive to significant comment in the record, and, to the
extent allowed by statute, must be consistent with applicable Executive
Orders. These elements limit OSHA's regulatory discretion for safety
rulemaking and provide a decision-making framework for developing a
rule.
B. Congress concluded that OSHA regulations are necessary to protect
workers from occupational hazards and that employers should be required
to reduce or eliminate significant workplace health and safety threats.
At section 2(a) of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. Sec. 651(a)), Congress
announced its determination that occupational injury and illness should
be eliminated as much as possible: ``The Congress finds that
occupational injury and illness arising out of work situations impose a
substantial burden upon, and are a hindrance to, interstate commerce in
terms of lost production, wage loss, medical expenses, and disability
compensation payments.'' Congress therefore declared ``it to be its
purpose and policy * * * to assure so far as possible every working man
and woman in the Nation safe * * * working conditions [29 U.S.C. Sec.
651(b)].''
To that end, Congress instructed the Secretary of Labor to adopt
existing federal and consensus standards during the first two years
after the OSH Act became effective and, in the event of conflict among
any such standards, to ``promulgate the standard which assures the
greatest protection of the safety or health of the affected employees
[29 U.S.C. Sec. 655(a)].'' Congress also directed the Secretary to set
mandatory occupational safety standards [29 U.S.C. Sec. 651(b)(3)],
based on a rulemaking record and substantial evidence [29 U.S.C. Sec.
655(b)(2)], that are ``reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide
safe * * * employment and places of employment.'' When promulgating
permanent safety or health standards that differ from existing national
consensus standards, the Secretary must explain ``why the rule as
adopted will better effectuate the purposes of this Act than the
national consensus standard [29 U.S.C. Sec. 655(b)(8)].''
Correspondingly, every employer must comply with OSHA standards and, in
addition, ``furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of
employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or
are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees [29
U.S.C. Sec. 654(a)].''
``Congress understood that the Act would create substantial costs
for employers, yet intended to impose such costs when necessary to
create a safe and healthful working environment. Congress viewed the
costs of health and safety as a cost of doing business* * *. Indeed,
Congress thought that the financial costs of health and safety problems
in the workplace were as large as or larger than the financial costs of
eliminating these problems [American Textile Mfrs. Inst. Inc. v.
Donovan, 452 U.S. 490, 519-522 (1981) (ATMI); emphasis was supplied in
original].'' ``[T]he fundamental objective of the Act [is] to prevent
occupational deaths and serious injuries [Whirlpool Corp. v. Marshall,
445 U.S. 1, 11 (1980)].'' ``We know the costs would be put into
consumer goods but that is the price we should pay for the 80 million
workers in America [S. Rep. No. 91-1282, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970);
H.R. Rep. No. 91-1291, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970), reprinted in Senate
Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Legislative History of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, (Committee Print 1971)
(``Leg. Hist.'') at 444 (Senator Yarborough)].'' ``Of course, it will
cost a little more per item to produce a washing machine. Those of us
who use washing machines will pay for the increased cost, but it is
worth it, to stop the terrible death and injury rate in this country
[Id. at 324; see also 510-511, 517].''
[T]he vitality of the Nation's economy will be enhanced by the
greater productivity realized through saved lives and useful years
of labor.
When one man is injured or disabled by an industrial accident or
disease, it is he and his family who suffer the most immediate and
personal loss. However, that tragic loss also affects each of us. As
a result of occupational accidents and disease, over $1.5 billion in
wages is lost each year [1970 dollars], and the annual loss to the
gross national product is estimated to be over $8 billion. Vast
resources that could be available for productive use are siphoned
off to pay workmen's compensation and medical expenses* * *.
Only through a comprehensive approach can we hope to effect a
significant reduction in these job death and casualty figures. [Id.
at 518-19 (Senator Cranston)]
Congress considered uniform enforcement crucial because it would
reduce or eliminate the disadvantage that a conscientious employer
might experience where inter-industry or intra-industry competition is
present. Moreover, ``many employers -- particularly smaller ones --
simply cannot make the necessary investment in health and safety, and
survive competitively, unless all are compelled to do so [Leg. Hist. at
144, 854, 1188, 1201].''
Thus, the statutory text and legislative history make clear that
Congress conclusively determined that OSHA regulation is necessary to
protect workers from occupational hazards and that employers should be
required to reduce or eliminate significant workplace health and safety
threats.
C. As construed by the courts and by OSHA, the OSH Act sets clear and
reasonable limits for agency rulemaking action.
OSHA has long followed the teaching that section 3(8) of the OSH
Act requires that, before it promulgates ``any permanent health or
safety standard, [it must] make a threshold finding that a place of
employment is unsafe -- in the sense that significant risks are present
and can be eliminated or lessened by a change in practices [Industrial
Union Dep't, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607, 642
(1980) (plurality) (Benzene); emphasis was supplied in original].''
Thus, the national consensus and existing federal standards that
Congress instructed OSHA to adopt summarily within two years of the OSH
Act's inception provide reference points concerning the least an OSHA
standard should achieve (29 U.S.C. Secs. 655(a)). As a result, OSHA is
precluded from regulating insignificant safety risks or from issuing
safety standards that do not at least lessen risk in a significant way.
The OSH Act also limits OSHA's discretion to issue overly
burdensome rules, as the agency also has long recognized that ``any
standard that was not economically or technologically feasible would a
fortiori not be `reasonably necessary or appropriate' under the Act.
See Industrial Union Dep't v. Hodgson, [499 F.2d 467, 478 (D.C. Cir.
1974)] (`Congress does not appear to have intended to protect employees
by putting their employers out of business.') [American Textile Mfrs.
Inst. Inc., 452 U.S. at 513 n. 31 (a standard is economically feasible
even if it portends `disaster for some marginal firms,' but it is
economically infeasible if it `threaten[s] massive dislocation to, or
imperil[s] the existence of,' the industry)].''
By stating the test in terms of ``threat'' and ``peril,'' the
Supreme Court made clear in ATMI that economic infeasibility begins
short of industry-wide bankruptcy. OSHA itself has placed the line
considerably below this level. (See for example, ATMI, 452 U.S. at 527
n. 50; 43 FR 27, 360 (June 23, 1978). Proposed 200 g/m3 PEL
for cotton dust did not raise serious possibility of industry-wide
bankruptcy, but impact on weaving sector would be severe, possibly
requiring reconstruction of 90 percent of all weave rooms. OSHA
concluded that the 200 g/m3 level was not feasible for weaving
and that 750 g/m3 was all that could reasonably be required).
See also 54 FR 29, 245-246 (July 11, 1989); American Iron & Steel
Institute, 939 F.2d at 1003. OSHA raised engineering control level for
lead in small nonferrous foundries to avoid the possibility of
bankruptcy for about half of small foundries even though the industry
as a whole could have survived the loss of small firms.)
All OSHA standards must also be cost-effective in the sense that
the protective measures being required must be the least expensive
measures capable of achieving the desired end (ATMI, at 514 n. 32;
Building and Constr. Trades Dep't AFL-CIO v. Brock, 838 F.2d 1258, 1269
(D.C. Cir. 1988)). OSHA gives additional consideration to financial
impact in setting the period of time that should be allowed for
compliance, allowing as much as ten years for compliance phase-in. (See
United Steelworkers of Am. v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1278 (D.C. Cir.
1980), cert. denied, 453 U.S. 913 (1981).) Additionally, OSHA's
enforcement policy takes account of financial hardship on an
individualized basis. OSHA's Field Operations Manual provides that,
based on an employer's economic situation, OSHA may extend the period
within which a violation must be corrected after issuance of a citation
(CPL. 2.45B, Chapter III, paragraph E6d(3)(a), Dec. 31, 1990).
To reach the necessary findings and conclusions, OSHA conducts
rulemaking in accordance with the requirements of section 6 of the OSH
Act. The rulemaking process enables the Agency to determine the
qualitative and, if possible, the quantitative nature of the risk with
(and without) regulation, the technological feasibility of compliance,
the availability of capital to the industry and the extent to which
that capital is required for other purposes, the industry's profit
history, the industry's ability to absorb costs or pass them on to the
consumer, the impact of higher costs on demand, and the impact on
competition with substitutes and imports. (See ATMI at 2501-2503;
American Iron & Steel Institute generally.) Section 6(f) of the OSH Act
further provides that, if the validity of a standard is challenged,
OSHA must support its conclusions with ``substantial evidence in the
record considered as a whole,'' a standard that courts have determined
requires fairly close scrutiny of agency action and the explanation of
that action. (See Steelworkers, 647 F.2d at 1206-1207.)
OSHA's powers are further circumscribed by the independent
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, which provides a
neutral forum for employer contests of citations issued by OSHA for
noncompliance with health and safety standards (29 U.S.C. Secs. 659-
661; noted as an additional constraint in Benzene at 652 n. 59). OSHA
must also respond rationally to similarities and differences among
industries or industry sectors. (See Building and Constr. Trades Dep't,
AFL-CIO v. Brock, 838 F.2d 1258, 1272-73 (D.C. Cir. 1988).)
OSHA rulemaking is thus constrained first by the need to
demonstrate that the standard will substantially reduce a significant
risk of material harm, and then by the requirement that compliance is
technologically capable of being done and not so expensive as to
threaten economic instability or dislocation for the industry. Within
these bounds, further constraints such as the need to find cost-
effective measures and to respond rationally to all meaningful comment
militate against regulatory extremes.
D. The revised PPE standard complies with the statutory criteria
described above and is not subject to the additional constraints
applicable to section 6(b)(5) standards.
Standards which regulate hazards that are frequently undetectable
because they are subtle or develop slowly or after long latency
periods, are frequently referred to as ``health'' standards. Standards
that regulate hazards, like explosions or electrocution, that cause
immediately noticeable physical harm, are called ``safety'' standards.
(See National Grain & Feed Ass'n v. OSHA (NGFA II), 866 F.2d 717, 731,
733 (5th Cir. 1989). As noted above, section 3(8) provides that all
OSHA standards must be ``reasonably necessary or appropriate.'' In
addition, section 6(b)(5) requires that OSHA set health standards which
limit significant risk ``to the extent feasible.'' OSHA has determined
that the revised PPE standard is a safety standard, because the revised
PPE standard addresses hazards, such as molten metal, falling objects
and electricity, that are immediately dangerous to life or health, not
the longer term, less obvious hazards subject to section 6(b)(5).
The OSH Act and its legislative history clearly indicate that
Congress intended for OSHA to distinguish between safety standards and
health standards. For example in section 2(b)(6) of the OSH Act,
Congress declared that the goal of assuring safe and healthful working
conditions and preserving human resources would be achieved, in part:
* * * by exploring ways to discover latent diseases,
establishing causal connections between diseases and work in
environmental conditions, and conducting other research relating to
health problems, in recognition of the fact that occupational health
standards present problems often different from those involved in
occupational safety.
The legislative history makes this distinction even clearer:
[The Secretary] should take into account that anyone working in
toxic agents and physical agents which might be harmful may be
subjected to such conditions for the rest of his working life, so
that we can get at something which might not be toxic now, if he
works in it a short time, but if he works in it the rest of his life
might be very dangerous; and we want to make sure that such things
are taken into consideration in establishing standards. [Leg. Hist.
at 502-503 (Sen. Dominick), quoted in Benzene at 648-49]
Additionally, Representative Daniels distinguished between
``insidious `silent killers' such as toxic fumes, bases, acids, and
chemicals'' and ``violent physical injury causing immediate visible
physical harm'' (Leg. Hist. at 1003), and Representative Udall
contrasted insidious hazards like carcinogens with ``the more visible
and well-known question of industrial accidents and on-the-job injury''
(Leg. Hist. at 1004). (See also, for example, S. Rep. No. 1282, 91st
Cong., 2d Sess 2-3 (1970), U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 1970, pp.
5177, 5179, reprinted in Leg. Hist. at 142-43, discussing 1967 Surgeon
General study that found that 65 percent of employees in industrial
plants ``were potentially exposed to harmful physical agents, such as
severe noise or vibration, or to toxic materials''; Leg.Hist at 412;
id. at 446; id. at 516; id. at 845; International Union, UAW at 1315.)
In reviewing OSHA rulemaking activity, the Supreme Court has held
that section 6(b)(5) requires OSHA to set ``the most protective
standard consistent with feasibility'' (Benzene at 643 n. 48). As
Justice Stevens observed:
The reason that Congress drafted a special section for these
substances * * * was because Congress recognized that there were
special problems in regulating health risks as opposed to safety
risks. In the latter case, the risks are generally immediate and
obvious, while in the former, the risks may not be evident until a
worker has been exposed for long periods of time to particular
substances. [Benzene, at 649 n. 54.]
Challenges to the grain dust and lockout/tagout standards included
assertions that grain dust in explosive quantities and uncontrolled
energy releases that could expose employees to crushing, cutting,
burning or explosion hazards were harmful physical agents so that OSHA
was required to apply the criteria of section 6(b)(5) when determining
how to protect employees from those hazards. Reviewing courts have
uniformly rejected such assertions. For example, the Court in
International Union, UAW v. OSHA, 938 F.2d 1310 (D.C. Cir. 1991)
rejected the view that section 6(b)(5) provided the statutory criteria
for regulation of uncontrolled energy, holding that such a ``reading
would obliterate a distinction that Congress drew between `health' and
`safety' risks.'' The Court also noted that the language of the OSH Act
and the legislative history supported the OSHA position (International
Union, UAW at 1314). Additionally, the Court stated: ``We accord
considerable weight to an agency's construction of a statutory scheme
it is entrusted to administer, rejecting it only if unreasonable''
(International Union, UAW at 1313, citing Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC,
467 U.S. 837, 843 (1984)).
The Court reviewing the grain dust standard also deferred to OSHA's
reasonable view that the Agency was not subject to the feasibility
mandate of section 6(b)(5) in regulating explosive quantities of grain
dust (National Grain & Feed Association v. OSHA (NGFA II), 866 F.2d
717, 733 (5th Cir. 1989)). It therefore applied the criteria of section
3(8), requiring the Agency to establish that the standard is
``reasonably necessary or appropriate'' to protect employee safety.
As explained in Section I, Background, Section III, Summary and
Explanation of the Standard, and in Section IV, Summary of the Final
Regulatory Impact Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, above,
OSHA has determined that the non-use or misuse of appropriate PPE poses
significant risks to employees and that the provisions of the final
rule are reasonably necessary to protect affected employees from those
risks. The Agency estimates that compliance with the revised PPE
standard will cost $52.4 million annually and will reduce the risk of
the identified hazards (preventing 4 fatalities and 102,000 injuries
annually). This constitutes a substantial reduction of significant risk
of material harm for the exposed population of approximately 22 million
general industry employees. The Agency believes that compliance is
technologically feasible because the rulemaking record indicates that
the PPE required by the standard is already in general use throughout
the industries covered by the standard. Additionally, OSHA believes
that compliance is economically feasible, because, as documented in the
Regulatory Impact Analysis, all regulated sectors can readily absorb or
pass on compliance costs during the standard's first five years, and
economic benefits will exceed compliance costs thereafter.
As detailed in Section IV, Summary of the Final Regulatory Impact
Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and the Table below, the
standard's costs, benefits, and compliance requirements are consistent
with those of other OSHA safety standards, such as the Hazardous Waste
Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) standard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Number of
Final rule date (FR deaths injuries Annual cost Annual cost
Standard (CFR cite) cite) prevented prevented first five next five yrs
annually annually yrs (mill) (mill)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grain handling 12-31-87 (52 FR 49622).. 18 394 5.9 to 33.4 5.9 to 33.4
(1910.272)
HAZWOPER (1910.120) 3-6-89 (54 FR 9311)..... 32 18,700 153 153
Excavations (Subpt P) 10-31-89 (54 FR 45,954). 74 800 306 306
Process Safety Mgmt 2-24-92 57 FR 6356...... 330 1,917 880.7 470.8
(1910.119)
Permit-Required Confined 1-14-93 58 FR 4462...... 54 5,041 202.4 202.4
Spaces (1910.146)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OSHA assessed employee risk by evaluating exposure to PPE-related
hazards in a large range of industries. The Summary of the Final
Regulatory Impact Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, Section
IV, above, presents OSHA's estimate of the costs and benefits of the
revised PPE standard in terms of the Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC) codes for the industries regulated.
The Agency acknowledges that some industries covered by the revised
PPE standard have more documented PPE-related injuries or fatalities
than do others. However, the record indicates that the hazards
addressed by the standard exist throughout general industry. OSHA does
not believe that the significance of the risk associated with exposure
to PPE-related hazards within a given SIC classification is dependent
on the number of incidents documented for that particular industry
sector. OSHA has set the scope of the revised PPE standard to address
those situations where employees are exposed to PPE-related hazards,
regardless of the relative frequency of incidents. The Agency believes,
based on analysis of the elements of the hazards identified, there is
sufficient information for OSHA to determine that employees in the
covered sectors face significant risks related to the non-use or misuse
of PPE. Therefore, the Agency has determined that all employees within
the scope of the revised PPE standard face a significant risk of
material harm and that compliance with the revised PPE standard is
reasonably necessary to protect affected employees from that risk,
regardless of the number of injuries or fatalities reported for the SIC
code to which the employer has been assigned.
In order to facilitate data analysis, OSHA has organized the
pertinent injury and fatality information according to the SIC code for
the particular industry sectors where incidents have been reported.
Given the limitations of the OSHA database and the likelihood of
misclassification (due, for example, to the difficulty of classifying
contractors), the Agency does not believe that the risks associated
with the use or misuse of PPE vary according to the SIC code to which
employers have been assigned.
OSHA has considered and responded to all substantive comments
regarding the proposed PPE standard on their merits in the Section III,
Summary and Explanation of the Standard, earlier in this preamble. In
particular, OSHA evaluated all suggested changes to the proposed rule
in terms of their impact on worker safety, their feasibility, their
cost effectiveness, and their consonance with the OSH Act.
VI. Federalism
This regulation has been reviewed in accordance with Executive
Order No. 12612 (52 FR 41685, October 30, 1987), regarding Federalism.
Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) preempts
state laws relating to issues on which Federal OSHA has promulgated
occupational safety and health standards. Under the OSH Act, a State
can avoid preemption in issues covered by Federal standards only if it
submits, and obtains Federal approval of, a plan for the development of
such standards and their enforcement. Occupational safety and health
standards developed by such Plan States must, among other things, be at
least as effective in providing safe and healthful employment and
places of employment as the Federal standards. Where such standards are
applicable to products distributed or used in interstate commerce they
may not unduly burden commerce and must be justified by compelling
local conditions.
The Federal standard for personal protective equipment used in
general industry addresses hazards that are not unique to any one State
or region of the country. Nonetheless, States with occupational safety
and health plans approved under section 18 of the OSH Act will be able
to develop their own State standards to deal with any special problems
which might be encountered in a particular State. Moreover, because
this standard is written in general, performance-oriented terms, there
is considerable flexibility for State plans to require, and for
affected employers to use, methods of compliance which are appropriate
to the working conditions covered by the standard.
In brief, this final rule addresses a clear national problem
related to occupational safety and health in general industry. Those
States which have elected to participate under section 18 of the OSH
Act are not preempted by this standard, and will be able to address any
special conditions within the framework of the Federal Act, while
ensuring that the State standards are at least as effective as that
standard.
VII. State Plan States
The 25 States and territories with their own OSHA approved
occupational safety and health plans must develop a comparable standard
applicable to both the private and public (state and local government
employees) sectors within six months of the publication date of a
permanent final Federal rule or show OSHA why there is no need for
action, e.g., because an existing state standard covering this area is
already ``at least as effective as'' the new Federal standard.
These States and territories are Alaska, Arizona, California,
Connecticut (plan covers only State and local government employees),
Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada,
New Mexico, New York (plan covers only State and local government
employees), North Carolina, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Oregon,
Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Virgin Islands, Washington and
Wyoming.
After the effective date of the Federal final rule, until such time
as a State standard is promulgated, Federal OSHA will provide interim
enforcement assistance, as appropriate, in these States.
VIII. Recordkeeping
This final rule does not contain recordkeeping requirements.
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1910
Eye protection; Face protection; Foot protection; Hand protection;
Footwear; Hard hats; Head protection; Incorporation by reference;
Occupational safety and health; Occupational Safety and Health
Administration; Personal protective equipment; Safety glasses; Safety
shoes.
Authority
This document has been prepared under the direction of Joseph A.
Dear, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health,
U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20210.
Accordingly, pursuant to sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of
Labor's Order No. 1-90 (55 FR 9033); and 29 CFR part 1911, 29 CFR part
1910 is amended as set forth below.
Signed at Washington D.C. this 25th day of March, 1994.
Joseph A. Dear,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.
PART 1910--[AMENDED]
Subpart I--Personal Protective Equipment
1. The authority citation for subpart I of part 1910 is revised to
read as follows:
Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's
Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736)
or 1-90 (55 FR 9033), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911, as
applicable.
2. New paragraphs (d) through (f) are added to Sec. 1910.132 to
read as follows:
Sec. 1910.132 General requirements.
* * * * *
(d) Hazard assessment and equipment selection. (1) The employer
shall assess the workplace to determine if hazards are present, or are
likely to be present, which necessitate the use of personal protective
equipment (PPE). If such hazards are present, or likely to be present,
the employer shall:
(i) Select, and have each affected employee use, the types of PPE
that will protect the affected employee from the hazards identified in
the hazard assessment;
(ii) Communicate selection decisions to each affected employee;
and,
(iii) Select PPE that properly fits each affected employee.
Note: Non-mandatory Appendix B contains an example of procedures
that would comply with the requirement for a hazard assessment.
(2) The employer shall verify that the required workplace hazard
assessment has been performed through a written certification that
identifies the workplace evaluated; the person certifying that the
evaluation has been performed; the date(s) of the hazard assessment;
and, which identifies the document as a certification of hazard
assessment.
(e) Defective and damaged equipment. Defective or damaged personal
protective equipment shall not be used.
(f) Training. (1) The employer shall provide training to each
employee who is required by this section to use PPE. Each such employee
shall be trained to know at least the following:
(i) When PPE is necessary;
(ii) What PPE is necessary;
(iii) How to properly don, doff, adjust, and wear PPE;
(iv) The limitations of the PPE; and,
(v) The proper care, maintenance, useful life and disposal of the
PPE.
(2) Each affected employee shall demonstrate an understanding of
the training specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this section, and the
ability to use PPE properly, before being allowed to perform work
requiring the use of PPE.
(3) When the employer has reason to believe that any affected
employee who has already been trained does not have the understanding
and skill required by paragraph (f)(2) of this section, the employer
shall retrain each such employee. Circumstances where retraining is
required include, but are not limited to, situations where:
(i) Changes in the workplace render previous training obsolete; or
(ii) Changes in the types of PPE to be used render previous
training obsolete; or
(iii) Inadequacies in an affected employee's knowledge or use of
assigned PPE indicate that the employee has not retained the requisite
understanding or skill.
(4) The employer shall verify that each affected employee has
received and understood the required training through a written
certification that contains the name of each employee trained, the
date(s) of training, and that identifies the subject of the
certification.
3. Section 1910.133 is revised to read as follows.
Sec. 1910.133 Eye and face protection.
(a) General requirements. (1) Each affected employee shall use
appropriate eye or face protection when exposed to eye or face hazards
from flying particles, molten metal, liquid chemicals, acids or caustic
liquids, chemical gases or vapors, or potentially injurious light
radiation.
(2) Each affected employee shall use eye protection that provides
side protection when there is a hazard from flying objects. Detachable
side protectors (e.g. clip-on or slide-on side shields) meeting the
pertinent requirements of this section are acceptable.
(3) Each affected employee who wears prescription lenses while
engaged in operations that involve eye hazards shall wear eye
protection that incorporates the prescription in its design, or shall
wear eye protection that can be worn over the prescription lenses
without disturbing the proper position of the prescription lenses or
the protective lenses.
(4) Eye and face PPE shall be distinctly marked to facilitate
identification of the manufacturer.
(5) Each affected employee shall use equipment with filter lenses
that have a shade number appropriate for the work being performed for
protection from injurious light radiation. The following is a listing
of appropriate shade numbers for various operations.
Filter Lenses for Protection Against Radiant Energy
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum*
Operations Electric Size 1/ Arc Current Protective Shade
32 in.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shielded metal Less than 3...... Less than 60.... 7
arc welding
3-5.............. 60-160.......... 8
5-8.............. 160-250......... 10
More than 8...... 250-550......... 11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas metal arc less than 60.... 7
welding and flux
cored arc
welding
60-160.......... 10
160-250......... 10
250-500......... 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas Tungsten arc less than 50.... 8
welding
50-150.......... 8
150-500......... 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air carbon (Light).......... less than 500... 10
Arc cutting (Heavy).......... 500-1000........ 11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plasma arc less than 20.... 6
welding
20-100.......... 8
100-400......... 10
400-800......... 11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plasma arc (light)**........ less than 300... 8
cutting
(medium)**....... 300-400......... 9
(heavy)**........ 400-800......... 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Torch brazing ................ 3
Torch soldering ................ 2
Carbon arc ................ 14
welding
Filter Lenses for Protection Against Radiant Energy
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum*
Operations Plate thickness-- Plate thickness-- Protective Shade
inches mm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas Welding:
Light Under 1/8......... Under 3.2....... 4
Medium 1/8 to 1/2........ 3.2 to 12.7..... 5
Heavy Over 1/2.......... Over 12.7....... 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oxygen cutting:
Light Under 1........... Under 25........ 3
Medium 1 to 6............ 25 to 150....... 4
Heavy Over 6............ Over 150........ 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* As a rule of thumb, start with a shade that is too dark to see the
weld zone. Then go to a lighter shade which gives sufficient view of
the weld zone without going below the minimum. In oxyfuel gas welding
or cutting where the torch produces a high yellow light, it is
desirable to use a filter lens that absorbs the yellow or sodium line
in the visible light of the (spectrum) operation.
** These values apply where the actual arc is clearly seen. Experience
has shown that lighter filters may be used when the arc is hidden by
the workpiece.
(b) Criteria for protective eye and face devices. (1) Protective
eye and face devices purchased after July 5, 1994 shall comply with
ANSI Z87.1-1989, ``American National Standard Practice for Occupational
and Educational Eye and Face Protection,'' which is incorporated by
reference, or shall be demonstrated by the employer to be equally
effective. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director
of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51. Copies may be obtained from the American National Standards
Institute. Copies may be inspected at the Docket Office, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Ave., N.W. room N2634, Washington, D.C. or at the Office
of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street NW., suite 700,
Washington, DC.
(2) Eye and face protective devices purchased before July 5, 1994
shall comply with the ANSI ``USA standard for Occupational and
Educational Eye and Face Protection,'' Z87.1-1968 or shall be
demonstrated by the employer to be equally effective. This
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies
may be inspected at the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., N.W.
room N2634, Washington, D.C. or at the Office of the Federal Register,
800 North Capitol Street NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
4. Sections 1910.135 and 1910.136 are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1910.135 Head protection.
(a) General requirements. (1) Each affected employee shall wear
protective helmets when working in areas where there is a potential for
injury to the head from falling objects.
(2) Protective helmets designed to reduce electrical shock hazard
shall be worn by each such affected employee when near exposed
electrical conductors which could contact the head.
(b) Criteria for protective helmets. (1) Protective helmets
purchased after July 5, 1994 shall comply with ANSI Z89.1-1986,
``American National Standard for Personnel Protection--Protective
Headwear for Industrial Workers-Requirements,'' which is incorporated
by reference, or shall be demonstrated to be equally effective. This
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies
may be obtained from the American National Standards Institute. Copies
may be inspected at the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., N.W.
room N2634, Washington, D.C. or at the Office of the Federal Register,
800 North Capitol Street NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(2) Protective helmets purchased before July 5, 1994 shall comply
with the ANSI standard ``American National Standard Safety Requirements
for Industrial Head Protection,'' ANSI Z89.1-1969, or shall be
demonstrated by the employer to be equally effective. This
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies
may be inspected at the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., N.W.
room N2634, Washington, D.C. or at the Office of the Federal Register,
800 North Capitol Street NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
Sec. 1910.136 Foot protection.
(a) General requirements. Each affected employee shall wear
protective footwear when working in areas where there is a danger of
foot injuries due to falling and rolling objects, or objects piercing
the sole, and where such employee's feet are exposed to electrical
hazards.
(b) Criteria for protective footwear. (1) Protective footwear
purchased after July 5, 1994 shall comply with ANSI Z41-1991,
``American National Standard for Personal Protection--Protective
Footwear,'' which is incorporated by reference, or shall be
demonstrated by the employer to be equally effective. This
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies
may be obtained from the American National Standards Institute. Copies
may be inspected at the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., N.W.
room N2634, Washington, D.C. or at the Office of the Federal Register,
800 North Capitol Street NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(2) Protective footwear purchased before July 5, 1994 shall comply
with the ANSI standard ``USA Standard for Men's Safety-Toe Footwear,''
Z41.1-1967, which is incorporated by reference, or shall be
demonstrated by the employer to be equally effective. This
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies
may be inspected at the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., N.W.
room N2634, Washington, D.C. or at the Office of the Federal Register,
800 North Capitol Street NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
5. A new Sec. 1910.138 is added to read as follows.
1910.138 Hand protection.
(a) General requirements. Employers shall select and require
employees to use appropriate hand protection when employees' hands are
exposed to hazards such as those from skin absorption of harmful
substances; severe cuts or lacerations; severe abrasions; punctures;
chemical burns; thermal burns; and harmful temperature extremes.
(b) Selection. Employers shall base the selection of the
appropriate hand protection on an evaluation of the performance
characteristics of the hand protection relative to the task(s) to be
performed, conditions present, duration of use, and the hazards and
potential hazards identified.
6. Appendices A and B to Subpart I are added to read as follows.
Appendix A to Subpart I--References for further information (Non-
mandatory)
The documents in Appendix A provide information which may be
helpful in understanding and implementing the standards in Subpart
I.
1. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). ``Accidents Involving Eye
Injuries.'' Report 597, Washington, D.C.: BLS, 1980.
2. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). ``Accidents Involving Face
Injuries.'' Report 604, Washington, D.C.: BLS, 1980.
3. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). ``Accidents Involving Head
Injuries.'' Report 605, Washington, D.C.: BLS, 1980.
4. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). ``Accidents Involving Foot
Injuries.'' Report 626, Washington, D.C.: BLS, 1981.
5. National Safety Council. ``Accident Facts'', Annual edition,
Chicago, IL: 1981.
6. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). ``Occupational Injuries and
Illnesses in the United States by Industry,'' Annual edition,
Washington, D.C.: BLS.
7. National Society to Prevent Blindness. ``A Guide for
Controlling Eye Injuries in Industry,'' Chicago, Il: 1982.
Appendix B to Subpart I--Non-mandatory Compliance Guidelines for Hazard
Assessment and Personal Protective Equipment Selection
This Appendix is intended to provide compliance assistance for
employers and employees in implementing requirements for a hazard
assessment and the selection of personal protective equipment.
1. Controlling hazards. PPE devices alone should not be relied
on to provide protection against hazards, but should be used in
conjunction with guards, engineering controls, and sound
manufacturing practices.
2. Assessment and selection. It is necessary to consider certain
general guidelines for assessing the foot, head, eye and face, and
hand hazard situations that exist in an occupational or educational
operation or process, and to match the protective devices to the
particular hazard. It should be the responsibility of the safety
officer to exercise common sense and appropriate expertise to
accomplish these tasks.
3. Assessment guidelines. In order to assess the need for PPE
the following steps should be taken:
a. Survey. Conduct a walk-through survey of the areas in
question. The purpose of the survey is to identify sources of
hazards to workers and co-workers. Consideration should be given to
the basic hazard categories:
(a) Impact
(b) Penetration
(c) Compression (roll-over)
(d) Chemical
(e) Heat
(f) Harmful dust
(g) Light (optical) radiation
b. Sources. During the walk-through survey the safety officer
should observe: (a) sources of motion; i.e., machinery or processes
where any movement of tools, machine elements or particles could
exist, or movement of personnel that could result in collision with
stationary objects; (b) sources of high temperatures that could
result in burns, eye injury or ignition of protective equipment,
etc.; (c) types of chemical exposures; (d) sources of harmful dust;
(e) sources of light radiation, i.e., welding, brazing, cutting,
furnaces, heat treating, high intensity lights, etc.; (f) sources of
falling objects or potential for dropping objects; (g) sources of
sharp objects which might pierce the feet or cut the hands; (h)
sources of rolling or pinching objects which could crush the feet;
(i) layout of workplace and location of co-workers; and (j) any
electrical hazards. In addition, injury/accident data should be
reviewed to help identify problem areas.
c. Organize data. Following the walk-through survey, it is
necessary to organize the data and information for use in the
assessment of hazards. The objective is to prepare for an analysis
of the hazards in the environment to enable proper selection of
protective equipment.
d. Analyze data. Having gathered and organized data on a
workplace, an estimate of the potential for injuries should be made.
Each of the basic hazards (paragraph 3.a.) should be reviewed and a
determination made as to the type, level of risk, and seriousness of
potential injury from each of the hazards found in the area. The
possibility of exposure to several hazards simultaneously should be
considered.
4. Selection guidelines. After completion of the procedures in
paragraph 3, the general procedure for selection of protective
equipment is to: a) Become familiar with the potential hazards and
the type of protective equipment that is available, and what it can
do; i.e., splash protection, impact protection, etc.; b) compare the
hazards associated with the environment; i.e., impact velocities,
masses, projectile shape, radiation intensities, with the
capabilities of the available protective equipment; c) select the
protective equipment which ensures a level of protection greater
than the minimum required to protect employees from the hazards; and
d) fit the user with the protective device and give instructions on
care and use of the PPE. It is very important that end users be made
aware of all warning labels for and limitations of their PPE.
5. Fitting the device. Careful consideration must be given to
comfort and fit. PPE that fits poorly will not afford the necessary
protection. Continued wearing of the device is more likely if it
fits the wearer comfortably. Protective devices are generally
available in a variety of sizes. Care should be taken to ensure that
the right size is selected.
6. Devices with adjustable features. Adjustments should be made
on an individual basis for a comfortable fit that will maintain the
protective device in the proper position. Particular care should be
taken in fitting devices for eye protection against dust and
chemical splash to ensure that the devices are sealed to the face.
In addition, proper fitting of helmets is important to ensure that
it will not fall off during work operations. In some cases a chin
strap may be necessary to keep the helmet on an employee's head.
(Chin straps should break at a reasonably low force, however, so as
to prevent a strangulation hazard). Where manufacturer's
instructions are available, they should be followed carefully.
7. Reassessment of hazards. It is the responsibility of the
safety officer to reassess the workplace hazard situation as
necessary, by identifying and evaluating new equipment and
processes, reviewing accident records, and reevaluating the
suitability of previously selected PPE.
8. Selection chart guidelines for eye and face protection. Some
occupations (not a complete list) for which eye protection should be
routinely considered are: carpenters, electricians, machinists,
mechanics and repairers, millwrights, plumbers and pipe fitters,
sheet metal workers and tinsmiths, assemblers, sanders, grinding
machine operators, lathe and milling machine operators, sawyers,
welders, laborers, chemical process operators and handlers, and
timber cutting and logging workers. The following chart provides
general guidance for the proper selection of eye and face protection
to protect against hazards associated with the listed hazard
``source'' operations.
Eye and Face Protection Selection Chart
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Assessment of Hazard Protection
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMPACT--Chipping, grinding Flying fragments, Spectacles with side
machining, masonry work, objects, large protection, goggles,
woodworking, sawing, chips, particles face shields. See
drilling, chiseling, sand, dirt, etc.. notes (1), (3), (5),
powered fastening, (6), (10). For severe
riveting, and sanding.. exposure, use
faceshield.
HEAT--Furnace operations, Hot sparks.......... Faceshields, goggles,
pouring, casting, hot spectacles with side
dipping, and welding. protection. For
severe exposure use
faceshield. See notes
(1), (2), (3).
Splash from molten Faceshields worn over
metals. goggles. See notes
(1), (2), (3).
High temperature Screen face shields,
exposure. reflective face
shields. See notes
(1), (2), (3).
CHEMICALS--Acid and Splash.............. Goggles, eyecup and
chemicals handling, cover types. For
degreasing plating.. severe exposure, use
face shield. See
notes (3), (11).
Irritating mists.... Special-purpose
goggles.
DUST-- Woodworking, Nuisance dust....... Goggles, eyecup and
buffing, general dusty cover types. See note
conditions.. (8).
LIGHT and/or RADIATION--..
Welding: Electric arc Optical radiation... Welding helmets or
welding shields.
Typical shades: 10-
14. See notes (9),
(12)
Welding: Gas Optical radiation... Welding goggles or
welding face shield.
Typical shades: gas
welding 4-8, cutting
3-6, brazing 3-4. See
note (9)
Cutting, Torch brazing, Optical radiation... Spectacles or welding
Torch soldering face-shield. Typical
shades, 1.5-3. See
notes (3), (9)
Glare Poor vision......... Spectacles with shaded
or special-purpose
lenses, as suitable.
See notes (9), (10).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes to Eye and Face Protection Selection Chart:
(1) Care should be taken to recognize the possibility of multiple and
simultaneous exposure to a variety of hazards. Adequate protection
against the highest level of each of the hazards should be provided.
Protective devices do not provide unlimited protection.
(2) Operations involving heat may also involve light radiation. As
required by the standard, protection from both hazards must be
provided.
(3) Faceshields should only be worn over primary eye protection
(spectacles or goggles).
(4) As required by the standard, filter lenses must meet the
requirements for shade designations in Sec. 1910.133(a)(5). Tinted and
shaded lenses are not filter lenses unless they are marked or
identified as such.
(5) As required by the standard, persons whose vision requires the use
of prescription (Rx) lenses must wear either protective devices fitted
with prescription (Rx) lenses or protective devices designed to be
worn over regular prescription (Rx) eyewear.
(6) Wearers of contact lenses must also wear appropriate eye and face
protection devices in a hazardous environment. It should be recognized
that dusty and/or chemical environments may represent an additional
hazard to contact lens wearers.
(7) Caution should be exercised in the use of metal frame protective
devices in electrical hazard areas.
(8) Atmospheric conditions and the restricted ventilation of the
protector can cause lenses to fog. Frequent cleansing may be
necessary.
(9) Welding helmets or faceshields should be used only over primary eye
protection (spectacles or goggles).
(10) Non-sideshield spectacles are available for frontal protection
only, but are not acceptable eye protection for the sources and
operations listed for ``impact.''
(11) Ventilation should be adequate, but well protected from splash
entry. Eye and face protection should be designed and used so that it
provides both adequate ventilation and protects the wearer from splash
entry.
(12) Protection from light radiation is directly related to filter lens
density. See note (4) . Select the darkest shade that allows task
performance.
9. Selection guidelines for head protection. All head protection
(helmets) is designed to provide protection from impact and
penetration hazards caused by falling objects. Head protection is
also available which provides protection from electric shock and
burn. When selecting head protection, knowledge of potential
electrical hazards is important. Class A helmets, in addition to
impact and penetration resistance, provide electrical protection
from low-voltage conductors (they are proof tested to 2,200 volts).
Class B helmets, in addition to impact and penetration resistance,
provide electrical protection from high-voltage conductors (they are
proof tested to 20,000 volts). Class C helmets provide impact and
penetration resistance (they are usually made of aluminum which
conducts electricity), and should not be used around electrical
hazards.
Where falling object hazards are present, helmets must be worn.
Some examples include: working below other workers who are using
tools and materials which could fall; working around or under
conveyor belts which are carrying parts or materials; working below
machinery or processes which might cause material or objects to
fall; and working on exposed energized conductors.
Some examples of occupations for which head protection should be
routinely considered are: carpenters, electricians, linemen,
mechanics and repairers, plumbers and pipe fitters, assemblers,
packers, wrappers, sawyers, welders, laborers, freight handlers,
timber cutting and logging, stock handlers, and warehouse laborers.
10. Selection guidelines for foot protection. Safety shoes and
boots which meet the ANSI Z41-1991 Standard provide both impact and
compression protection. Where necessary, safety shoes can be
obtained which provide puncture protection. In some work situations,
metatarsal protection should be provided, and in other special
situations electrical conductive or insulating safety shoes would be
appropriate.
Safety shoes or boots with impact protection would be required
for carrying or handling materials such as packages, objects, parts
or heavy tools, which could be dropped; and, for other activities
where objects might fall onto the feet. Safety shoes or boots with
compression protection would be required for work activities
involving skid trucks (manual material handling carts) around bulk
rolls (such as paper rolls) and around heavy pipes, all of which
could potentially roll over an employee's feet. Safety shoes or
boots with puncture protection would be required where sharp objects
such as nails, wire, tacks, screws, large staples, scrap metal etc.,
could be stepped on by employees causing a foot injury.
Some occupations (not a complete list) for which foot protection
should be routinely considered are: shipping and receiving clerks,
stock clerks, carpenters, electricians, machinists, mechanics and
repairers, plumbers and pipe fitters, structural metal workers,
assemblers, drywall installers and lathers, packers, wrappers,
craters, punch and stamping press operators, sawyers, welders,
laborers, freight handlers, gardeners and grounds-keepers, timber
cutting and logging workers, stock handlers and warehouse laborers.
11. Selection guidelines for hand protection. Gloves are often
relied upon to prevent cuts, abrasions, burns, and skin contact with
chemicals that are capable of causing local or systemic effects
following dermal exposure. OSHA is unaware of any gloves that
provide protection against all potential hand hazards, and commonly
available glove materials provide only limited protection against
many chemicals. Therefore, it is important to select the most
appropriate glove for a particular application and to determine how
long it can be worn, and whether it can be reused.
It is also important to know the performance characteristics of
gloves relative to the specific hazard anticipated; e.g., chemical
hazards, cut hazards, flame hazards, etc. These performance
characteristics should be assessed by using standard test
procedures. Before purchasing gloves, the employer should request
documentation from the manufacturer that the gloves meet the
appropriate test standard(s) for the hazard(s) anticipated.
Other factors to be considered for glove selection in general
include:
(A) As long as the performance characteristics are acceptable,
in certain circumstances, it may be more cost effective to regularly
change cheaper gloves than to reuse more expensive types; and,
(B) The work activities of the employee should be studied to
determine the degree of dexterity required, the duration, frequency,
and degree of exposure of the hazard, and the physical stresses that
will be applied.
With respect to selection of gloves for protection against
chemical hazards:
(A) The toxic properties of the chemical(s) must be determined;
in particular, the ability of the chemical to cause local effects on
the skin and /or to pass through the skin and cause systemic
effects;
(B) Generally, any ``chemical resistant'' glove can be used for
dry powders;
(C) For mixtures and formulated products (unless specific test
data are available), a glove should be selected on the basis of the
chemical component with the shortest breakthrough time, since it is
possible for solvents to carry active ingredients through polymeric
materials; and,
(D) Employees must be able to remove the gloves in such a manner
as to prevent skin contamination.
12. Cleaning and maintenance. It is important that all PPE be
kept clean and properly maintained. Cleaning is particularly
important for eye and face protection where dirty or fogged lenses
could impair vision.
For the purposes of compliance with Sec. 1910.132 (a) and (b),
PPE should be inspected, cleaned, and maintained at regular
intervals so that the PPE provides the requisite protection.
It is also important to ensure that contaminated PPE which
cannot be decontaminated is disposed of in a manner that protects
employees from exposure to hazards.
[FR Doc 94-7581 Filed 4-5-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-F