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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.