[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 6, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-7581]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: April 6, 1994]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV





Department of Labor





_______________________________________________________________________



Occupational Safety and Health Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



29 CFR Part 1910




Personal Protective Equipment for General Industry; Final Rule
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1910

[Docket No. S-060]
RIN 1218-AA71

 
Personal Protective Equipment for General Industry

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration; Labor.

ACTION: Final Rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is 
revising portions of the general industry safety standards addressing 
personal protective equipment (PPE). The standards being revised 
include those containing general requirements for all PPE 
(Sec. 1910.132) and standards that set design, selection, and use 
requirements for specific types of PPE (eye, face, head, foot and 
hand).
     The Agency is updating the standards for PPE to be more consistent 
with the current consensus regarding good industry practices, as 
reflected by the latest editions of the pertinent American National 
Standards Institute (ANSI) standards. The revision will provide 
guidance for the selection and use of PPE as well as clearer 
requirements that are performance-oriented, where appropriate.
     New paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) (containing requirements covering 
equipment selection, defective and damaged equipment, and training, 
respectively) have been added to Sec. 1910.132. Also, a new section 
(Sec. 1910.138) has been added to this Subpart to address hazards to 
the hands.
    Non-mandatory appendices A and B have also been added to this 
Subpart to provide additional guidance to employers and employees with 
regard to PPE for eye, face, head, foot, and hand hazards.

DATES: This standard will become effective on July 5, 1994. The 
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the 
standards is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of 
April 6, 1994.

ADDRESS: In compliance with 28 U.S.C. 2112(a), the Agency designates 
for receipt of petitions for review of the standard the Associate 
Solicitor for Occupational Safety and Health, Office of the Solicitor, 
Room S-4004, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20210.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James F. Foster, U.S. Department 
of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N-3647, 
200 Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210. Telephone: (202) 
219-8151.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    In this preamble, OSHA identifies sources of information submitted 
to the record by an exhibit number (Ex. 3). When applicable, comment 
numbers follow the exhibit in which they are contained (Ex. 3: 1). If 
more than one comment within an exhibit is cited, the comment numbers 
are separated by commas (Ex. 3: 1, 2, 3). The page number is also cited 
if other than page 1 (Ex. 3: 2, pg. 8). The transcript of the hearing 
is cited by the page number followed by identification of the hearing 
date (Tr. 80: 4/3). Exhibit and transcript citations are separated by 
semicolons (Ex. 3: Ex. 7; Tr. 80: 4/3).

I. Background

    The existing OSHA standards for personal protective equipment (PPE) 
are contained in Subpart I of OSHA's general industry standards. These 
standards were adopted in 1971 from established Federal standards and 
national consensus standards.
    In developing a proposed revision of Subpart I, the Agency 
performed a comprehensive review of the PPE standards. This review 
revealed several limitations and concerns with respect to these 
standards. First, OSHA determined that many of the existing PPE 
standards were outdated since they reflected knowledge and practices 
regarding PPE as they existed in the late 1960's and early 1970's. This 
meant that employers were being required to explain how compliance with 
more recent editions of the pertinent consensus standards provides 
equivalent protection to that provided by the older editions in the 
OSHA standards.
    Second, the Agency determined that there were certain gaps in 
coverage of the PPE standards, and that the standards set very 
restrictive design criteria which might limit the use of new 
technology. OSHA was concerned that restraints on innovation might also 
make it more difficult for employers either to increase acceptance of 
PPE, or to provide more protective PPE. Recognizing this situation, the 
Agency established a process under which OSHA has accepted, for 
example, on a case-by-case basis, the use of eye protection which, 
while not designed to meet the specifications in the existing 
standards, had been demonstrated to provide equivalent or superior 
worker protection. The Agency determined, however, that this process 
could not keep pace with the development of improved PPE. Consequently, 
OSHA was concerned that, unless the PPE standards were revised to be 
more performance-oriented, employers and product manufacturers might be 
discouraged from improving their equipment and from providing improved 
protection to workers.
    Also, OSHA had obtained injury data and technical reports which 
showed that injuries were occurring to employees who were wearing PPE 
as well as to those employees who were not wearing PPE. This indicated 
that, in some cases, significant improvements in PPE design and 
acceptance might be needed.
    Based on these concerns, OSHA developed a proposed revision to its 
PPE standards. The proposed revision was published in the Federal 
Register as a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on August 16, 1989 
(54 FR 33832). OSHA proposed to revise the safety standards for eye and 
face protection (Sec. 1910.133); head protection (Sec. 1910.135); and 
foot protection (Sec. 1910.136) by referencing the latest editions of 
the corresponding standards published by the American National 
Standards Institute (ANSI). The provisions of existing Secs. 1910.134 
and 1910.137 (which cover respiratory protection and electrical 
protective devices, respectively) are the subjects of separate 
rulemaking actions and are not addressed by this rulemaking.
    OSHA also proposed to revise the ``general requirements'' for PPE 
(Sec. 1910.132) by adding provisions that: (1) require employers to 
select appropriate PPE based on the hazards present and to assure that 
employees who obtain their own PPE follow the employers' selection 
decisions; (2) prohibit the use of defective or damaged PPE; and (3) 
require that employees be trained in the proper use of their PPE.
    The NPRM set a period, that ended on October 16, 1990, during which 
interested persons could comment on the proposal and request a hearing. 
OSHA received 129 comments in response to the proposal (Exhibit 3). The 
Agency also received several requests for an informal public hearing to 
discuss and clarify some of the requirements in the proposal, and to 
discuss and comment on issues and concerns raised as a result of the 
proposal. Accordingly, OSHA published a hearing notice on February 1, 
1990 (55 FR 3412). The hearing notice requested testimony and 
supporting information on the following issues: (1) Marking of eye and 
face protection; (2) Third party certification; (3) The use of 
photochromic lenses; (4) Training in the proper use of PPE; and (5) The 
need for additional regulation of PPE (such as gloves, chemical 
protective clothing, and bump caps). The hearing notice (55 FR 3412) 
also extended the comment period until March 20, 1990.
    Hearings on the proposed standard were held in Washington, D.C., on 
April 3 and 4, 1990, with Administrative Law Judge Sheldon R. Lipson 
presiding. At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Lipson set July 13, 
1990, as the deadline for submission of post hearing comments and 
evidence, and September 11, 1990, as the deadline for submission of 
summations and briefs. On November 9, 1990, Judge Lipson certified the 
hearing record, including the hearing transcript and all written 
submissions to the docket.
    The rulemaking record contains 173 comments, 577 pages of 
testimony, and 53 exhibits.

II. Workplace Hazards Involved

    OSHA has determined that workers involved in a wide range of 
occupations are exposed to a significant risk of death or injury from 
being struck by various objects in the workplace. OSHA's incident data 
indicate that a significant portion of all work related injuries and 
fatalities involve workers being struck in the eyes, head, face, hand, 
and or feet by foreign objects. For example, it has been estimated that 
as many as 2,500 eye injuries occur in the workplace every working day 
(Ex. 2: 9).
    One study indicated that there were 333,272 reported occupational 
eye injuries for 1985 (Ex. 2: 8). Another study, pertaining to 
disabling injuries, estimated that there were 320,000 hand and finger 
injuries, 70,000 eye injuries, 70,000 head and face injuries, and 
110,000 foot and toe injuries in 1987. These injuries constituted 31.7 
percent of the estimated 1,800,000 total disabling work injuries for 
1987 (Ex. 2: 15).
    These examples indicate the degree of the hazard to which employees 
are exposed. OSHA reviewed many sources that described the type and 
number of injuries to employees (e.g. Ex. 2: 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 
13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22; Ex. 6: 2, 3, 4). While these 
sources differ as to the number and kind of injuries, they are 
consistent in pointing out the high incidence and severity of these 
accidents, and provide clear evidence of a significant risk to workers.
    In particular, one data source reviewed by OSHA included the Bureau 
of Labor Statistics (BLS) Work Injury Reports (WIR) on eye, face, foot, 
head and hand injuries (Ex. 2: 11, 12, 13, 14; Ex. 6: 2). These 
reports, which examined only those cases where a worker was injured, 
identified two major factors: Personal protective equipment was not 
being worn the vast majority of the time; and, when some type of 
protective equipment was worn, it did not fully protect the worker. For 
example, one study (Ex. 6: 2) indicated that 70% of the workers 
experiencing hand injuries were not wearing gloves. Hand injuries to 
the remaining 30% of the workers who were wearing gloves were caused by 
the gloves being either inadequate, damaged, or the wrong type for the 
type of hazard present.
    Based on the above-documented incidence of hand injury, OSHA has 
determined that employers and employees need more guidance regarding 
the selection of hand protection than is provided through the generic 
provisions of proposed Sec. 1910.132(d). Therefore, as discussed below, 
the Agency has provided performance-oriented provisions by adding 
Sec. 1910.138, ``Hand protection'' to the final rule.
    The final rule addresses the problems identified in the BLS reports 
by allowing new innovative designs through the use of performance-
oriented language, by providing information for selecting the proper 
protection, and by improving the protection afforded by the equipment.
    OSHA believes that the revised standards will result in improvement 
in worker acceptance of wearing PPE by allowing better and more 
comfortable designs not presently permitted by the current standards, 
and by providing information on selecting the proper equipment for the 
job.
    The Agency has determined that compliance with the final rule will 
result in a significant reduction in the risks to workers. As noted in 
the Regulatory Impact Analysis, discussed below, it is estimated that 
full compliance with the final rule will prevent 712,000 lost-workdays 
and 4 fatalities a year.
    The Agency has also determined that the revised PPE requirements 
and criteria in the final rule provide a cost-effective means for 
reducing risks to workers. The Agency has determined that these 
provisions are reasonably necessary and appropriate to address the need 
for personal protective equipment.

III. Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule

    This section contains an analysis of the rulemaking record 
pertaining to certain issues raised in the NPRM, and to the provisions 
of the standard, both as proposed and as promulgated.
    One general objection received during this rulemaking concerned the 
use of the phrase ``employers shall ensure'' in certain provisions of 
the proposed standard (e.g. Ex. 3: 46, 80, 94). The commenters 
expressed the view that, under the proposed language, employers would 
be held liable for violations of the standards, regardless of employee 
misconduct or other exculpatory considerations. The Agency had proposed 
the language in question to emphasize the employer's obligations for 
compliance with OSHA standards. The proposed language would not have 
affected an employer's ability to raise defenses to a citation.
    In light of the objections, OSHA is revising the proposed language 
to remove the phrase ``the employer shall ensure'' wherever it appears. 
The employer's obligations for compliance with standards issued under 
the OSH Act are unaffected by this change.
    Also, concern was expressed regarding the extent to which the 
proposed standard would allow employees to use PPE that satisfied the 
old ANSI standards which were being superseded by current editions 
through the proposal. In particular, some commenters (Ex. 3: 68, 69, 
100) suggested that the Agency ``grandfather'' existing stocks of PPE 
(i.e., allow existing stocks of PPE to be depleted) as long as the PPE 
meets the ANSI standard in effect at the time of manufacture. Those 
commenters stated that, without grandfathering, employers would be 
required to bear the unreasonable expense and disruption of replacing 
millions of items of usable PPE.
    The proposal simply required the affected PPE to comply with the 
then-current editions of the pertinent ANSI standards, without 
indicating how PPE produced and tested to satisfy the existing OSHA 
standards would be treated.
    The Agency believes that virtually all of the PPE in question has 
been produced and tested to satisfy the ANSI editions referenced in 
either the proposed rule or in the final rule. Therefore, OSHA believes 
that, by and large, existing stocks of PPE would comply with the final 
rule. However, the Agency recognizes that some PPE that pre-dates the 
referenced ANSI standards might be unnecessarily excluded from use 
unless it was ``grandfathered''.
    In particular, certain protective footwear that complied with the 
1983 ANSI edition referenced by the proposal could be excluded from use 
because it was not produced and tested to satisfy the 1991 edition 
referenced by the final rule, unless the employer demonstrated that the 
footwear provided equivalent protection. OSHA believes that the 
differences between the 1983 and 1991 editions are so slight that it 
would be unreasonable to require employers to demonstrate equivalency. 
The Agency also believes that PPE satisfying the pertinent criteria of 
the pre-1989 ANSI Z87.1 standard for eye and face protection or the 
pre-1986 Z89.1 standard for head protection will adequately protect 
affected employees. Therefore, the Agency agrees that it is appropriate 
to allow continued use of PPE that was purchased prior to the effective 
date of the final rule and has revised the proposed rule accordingly.
    In the final rule, as in the NPRM, OSHA has incorporated the 
pertinent ANSI standards by reference. The Agency has determined that 
it is unnecessary to adopt the text of the three ANSI standards, 
because their criteria are addressed to PPE manufacturers, not to 
employers who would be selecting PPE for use by their employees. OSHA 
believes that it is sufficient to require that employers ensure either 
that the PPE used by employees complies with the appropriate ANSI 
standard or that the PPE provides protection equivalent to that 
provided by PPE manufactured to the ANSI criteria.

Sec. 1910.132 General Requirements.

    Paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section were not proposed for 
revision. Paragraph (a) requires that protective equipment be provided, 
used and maintained in sanitary and reliable condition, as necessary, 
to protect employees from workplace hazards.
    Paragraph (b) requires that, where employees provide their own 
equipment, the employer assure the adequacy, including the proper 
maintenance and sanitation, of such equipment.
    Paragraph (c) requires that all personal protective equipment be of 
safe design and construction for the work to be performed.

Paragraph (d): Selection.

    OSHA proposed to add a new paragraph, (d), to Sec. 1910.132 to 
address the selection of PPE. OSHA proposed to require employers to 
select the PPE for their employees based on an assessment of the 
hazards in the workplace, and the hazards which employees are likely to 
encounter. Because OSHA is aware that some employees obtain their own 
PPE, the Agency also proposed that employers be required to inform 
their employees of the selection decisions and to have their employees 
follow those decisions when obtaining PPE.
    OSHA believes that a hazard assessment is an important element of a 
PPE program because it produces the information needed to select the 
appropriate PPE for the hazards present or likely to be present at 
particular workplaces. The Agency believes that the employer will be 
capable of determining and evaluating the hazards of a particular 
workplace. Paragraph (d) of the final rule is a performance-oriented 
provision which simply requires employers to use their awareness of 
workplace hazards to enable them to select the appropriate PPE for the 
work being performed. Paragraph (d) clearly indicates that the employer 
is accountable both for the quality of the hazard assessment and for 
the adequacy of the PPE selected.
    Proposed paragraph (d), which was substantively identical to the 
final rule, has been revised for the sake of clarity. The Agency has 
also added a note which references Non-mandatory Appendix B of 
Sec. 1910.132. That Appendix provides an example of procedures that 
satisfy the hazard assessment requirement.
    Most rulemaking participants supported the proposed requirement 
(e.g. Ex. 3: 90, 91, 102). However, some commenters stated that the 
proposed paragraph did not clearly indicate if employers would be 
required to document the hazard assessment. For example, a commenter 
from S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. (Ex. 3: 1) suggested that OSHA clarify 
documentation requirements of the workplace assessment. In addition, a 
commenter from Union Carbide (Ex. 3: 68, pp. 1-2) stated:

    * * * OSHA should clarify that the hazard assessment referred to 
there need not be in writing.
    OSHA can best determine whether the employer conducted an 
adequate hazard assessment by inspecting the areas where PPE is 
required. It should not be necessary for employers to prepare and 
retain a formal written hazard assessment.

    OSHA believes that some form of record is needed to provide OSHA 
compliance officers and affected employees with appropriate assurance 
that the required hazard assessment has been performed. The Agency 
agrees with the commenter that it is not ``necessary for employers to 
prepare and retain a formal written hazard assessment.'' Given the 
performance-oriented nature of this rulemaking, OSHA has determined 
that the generation and review of extensive documentation would be 
unnecessarily burdensome.
    The Agency has addressed such situations in other rulemakings by 
requiring employers to verify their compliance with a requirement 
through a written certification. For example, OSHA has required 
certification of training in the permit-required confined space 
standard, Sec. 1910.146(g)(4); the control of hazardous energy 
(lockout/tagout) standard, Sec. 1910.147(c)(7)(iv); in the Telecommuni-
cations standard, Sec. 1910.268(c); and (as discussed below) in 
Sec. 1910.132(f)(4) of this final rule. The Agency has found that a 
written certification is a reasonable means by which to establish 
accountability for compliance.
    Therefore, the Agency has determined that employers can adequately 
verify compliance with Sec. 1910.132(d) of the final rule through a 
written certification which identifies the workplace evaluated; the 
person certifying that the evaluation has been performed; the date(s) 
of the hazard assessment; and which identifies the document as a 
certification of hazard assessment. This requirement has been added to 
the final rule as paragraph (d)(2).
    The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) sets 
limits on the efforts of federal agencies to collect ``information''. 
The definition of ``information'' in the OMB regulations implementing 
the PRA (5 CFR 1320.7(j)) specifies that ``Information does not 
generally include * * * certifications * * * provided that they entail 
no burden other than that necessary to identify the respondent, the 
date, the respondent's address, and the nature of the instrument.'' 
OSHA has determined that the certification required by paragraph (d)(2) 
constitutes a ``certification'' for the purposes of the PRA. Therefore, 
that certification would not be subject to the requirements of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act or of the implementing regulations (5 CFR part 
1320).
    Another concern raised during this rulemaking, related to the 
selection process, was the subject of proper fit of PPE. A commenter 
(Ex. 7:10) has stated that, in the past, males constituted the majority 
of the workforce and PPE was sized accordingly. As more and more 
females have entered the workforce, they often have had to choose 
between wearing PPE that was sized to fit males, and not wearing PPE at 
all. This was particularly common with foot protection. As a result, 
female workers frequently either have used PPE which did not adequately 
protect them, or have simply stopped using PPE because of improper fit 
and subsequent discomfort. Based on concern for the safety of female 
employees, the commenter suggested that OSHA require PPE to fit 
properly.
    OSHA agrees with this comment. Since females constitute a larger 
percentage of the workforce than ever before, it is imperative that 
they (as well as male employees) be provided with PPE that fits 
properly. Therefore, OSHA is revising Sec. 1910.132 (d) to add proper 
fit as a criterion for PPE selection.

Paragraph (e): Defective and damaged equipment.

     OSHA proposed to add a new paragraph, (e), to Sec. 1910.132 that 
stated:

    Defective or damaged personal protective equipment shall not be 
used.

    This paragraph is based, in part, on existing Sec. 1910.133 
(a)(2)(vii), which states that eye protectors should be kept clean and 
in good repair. Under the proposed paragraph, the existing requirement 
was to be strengthened and extended to cover all PPE, not just eye 
protectors.
    Some commenters (e.g. Ex. 3: 1, 41) stated that proposed paragraph 
(e) should only cover visually observable defects or damage. For 
example, a commenter from Johnson Wax (Ex. 3: 1) stated:

    We urge OSHA to limit the scope of this section to ``visible'' 
defects or damage in PPE.

    OSHA certainly agrees that visibly damaged or defective PPE must 
not be used. However, there are other methods (such as performance 
tests to ensure continued integrity) that the employer could use to 
assure that the PPE used by employees is repaired or replaced as 
necessary for the protection of each affected employee. Also, employees 
can often determine if the protectiveness of the PPE has been 
compromised when they are handling the PPE prior to or while donning 
it. Accordingly, OSHA believes it would be inappropriate to narrow this 
provision to cover only visible defects or damage. Therefore, the 
Agency is promulgating paragraph 1910.132 (e) as proposed.

Paragraph (f): Training.

    Proposed paragraph (f) required employers to train employees in the 
proper use of their PPE. This proposed provision was based on OSHA's 
recognition that, as documented by the Bureau of Labor Statistics Work 
Injury Reports (Ex. 2: 11, 12, 13, 14), a significant number of the 
employees who sustain work-related injuries have not been trained in 
the proper use of PPE.
    Some commenters (Ex. 3: 64, 117, 119) stated that PPE training, 
while necessary for respirators and other complex PPE, is not necessary 
for relatively simple equipment such as safety shoes and eye 
protectors. In particular, the American Trucking Association (ATA) (Ex. 
3: 64) stated:

    Requiring training and record-keeping for all PPE would severely 
burden motor carriers in terms of time and the related costs.

    As an alternative, the ATA suggested that OSHA set non-mandatory 
appendices for the guidance of employers.
    Other commenters (Ex. 3: 84, 104, 121) suggested that the employer 
be required to train employees only for use of the PPE that is required 
by the employer to provide protection against hazards identified for 
the particular workplace. The Texas Chemical Council (Ex. 3: 121) 
stated:

    Requiring the employer to train employees on equipment they 
provide creates an unnecessary and inappropriate burden on the 
employer.

    Several commenters (Ex. 3: 75, 83, 90, 106, 126) supported the 
training requirement, as proposed. Du Pont (Ex. 3: 90, pg. 2) remarked:

    Du Pont's position is that proper employee training is 
fundamental to an effective PPE program. We also agree with the 
flexibility this proposed section provides employers.

    Some commenters (e.g. Ex. 3: 100, 104) suggested that OSHA revise 
the proposed paragraph (f) to indicate that training need only be 
provided when PPE is first provided to employees. For example, Union 
Electric (Ex. 3: 100) said:

    Company suggests adding ``at the time it is initially issued.'' 
The proposal, as written, could imply that employees must be 
periodically retrained in the proper use of their equipment. This 
certainly is unnecessary for such items as safety glasses, footwear 
and headgear, which usually are worn routinely on the job. 
Respirators already have a periodic training requirement.

    Also, several commenters (Ex. 3: 46, 64, 102, 117) expressed 
concern that proposed Sec. 1910.132(f) would require employers to 
operate formal training programs. For example, Monsanto (Ex. 3: 102, 
pg. 2) stated that OSHA should revise proposed paragraph (f) to 
indicate clearly that the training required need not be formal 
classroom training.
    In addition, McDonnell Douglas (Ex. 3: 129) inquired:

    In regard to training all employees in the proper use of all 
PPE, what would qualify as ``training''? The term ``training'' could 
range from awareness type information to competency training of the 
employee.
    OSHA should define the term ``training'' or be specific in 
individual standards.

    Some commenters (Ex. 3: 36, 81, 119) stated that proposed paragraph 
(f) should be revised to require ``instruction'' rather than 
``training''. The Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association (MVMA) (Ex. 
3: 81, pg. 2) said:

    Training is too elaborate a term for the degree of explanation 
required with PPE. More sophisticated PPE such as respirators or 
hearing protection, which require detailed training, is already 
provided for by certain OSHA standards. MVMA recommends that 
subparagraph (f) be retitled ``Instruction'' and the term 
``training'' be changed to ``instructed''.

    Some public hearing participants testified in support of the 
proposed Sec. 1910.132(f) performance-oriented approach to training. 
For example, the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) testified 
(Tr. 159: 4/3):

    * * * CMA agrees that training is an essential element of an 
effective personal protective equipment program. We believe, 
however, that OSHA should continue to address training with 
performance-oriented provisions, not with HAZWOPER-type training 
requirements. Not only are additional requirements not necessary, 
they would be over-burdensome.

    In addition, many commenters (e.g., Ex. 3: 36, 41, 50, 60, 73, 86, 
98, 116, 128) suggested that OSHA revise proposed Sec. 1910.132(f) to 
provide more detailed guidance regarding what constitutes adequate 
training. For example, CSX Transportation (Ex. 3: 116) remarked:

    A description of the performance requirements for a PPE training 
program should be included under 1910.132(f), since training is the 
responsibility of the employer.

    Other commenters (Ex. 3: 123 and 128) emphasized that ``personal'' 
training is important to a successful training program. For example, 
the Food & Allied Services Trades (Ex. 3: 128, pg. 6) stated:

    It is imperative that this training be conducted by ``live'' 
personnel who will be available to answer questions that workers may 
have. Simply showing a twenty minute video tape shall not constitute 
adequate training.

    Also, commenters (Ex. 3: 36, 73) suggested that OSHA require 
training in the ``use and care'' of PPE. For example, the Edison 
Electric Institute (EEI) (Ex. 3: 73, pg. 2) said:

    To further enhance the protection provided by the standard, EEI 
recommends amending proposed 1910.132(f) to require employees to be 
trained not only in the use of their equipment, but also in its 
care.

     Further, some commenters (Ex. 3: 41, 59, 128) suggested that OSHA 
require training in the ``use and limitations'' of PPE. The Food & 
Allied Services Trades (Ex. 3: 128) stated that training in the 
limitations of PPE is needed ``to prevent accidents from occurring due 
to overconfidence in the protective ability of certain types of 
equipment.''
    Other commenters (Ex. 3: 60, 107-D) suggested that employees be 
trained regarding PPE limitations and precautions. The American 
Optometric Association (Ex. 3: 60) remarked:

    We do not believe that Section 1910.132(f) on training 
requirements goes far enough to ensure that any limitations or 
precautions provided by the manufacturer of the protector are 
transmitted to the user and care is taken to see that such 
limitations are strictly observed. In addition, we do not believe 
that appendix B Non-Mandatory Compliance Guidelines for Hazard 
Assessment and Personal Protective Equipment Selection adequately 
addresses this area. There is no guarantee that the training 
provided employees in the use of eye and face protectors will 
uniformly cover the limitations and precautions relating to the use 
of protectors unless specific requirements for this training are 
given. We strongly urge that language making this a mandatory part 
of training be included in the regulation.

    Some other commenters (Ex. 3: 74, 88) suggested that training 
include information provided by PPE manufacturers. For example, CF 
Industries, Inc. (CF) (Ex. 3: 74) objected to the proposed replacement 
of existing Sec. 1910.133(a)(5) (which requires employers to pass on to 
employees any information received from manufacturers regarding the 
limitations and precautions to be considered when using eye and face 
protection) by proposed Sec. 1910.132(f). The commenter stated: ``CF 
believes that the proposed section is too broad. Various pieces of 
personal protective equipment can be used for the same purpose, but 
have very different limitations.''
    Also, two commenters from the State of Connecticut (Ex. 3: 50, 51) 
stated that ``the final rule for 1910.132(f) should lean towards being 
more specific'' and that proposed paragraph (f) should be revised to 
provide that ``Employees shall be trained in the proper use, 
maintenance, care, warning labels and limitations of their personal 
protective equipment.''
    Other commenters (Ex. 3: 70, 86, 97) stated that proposed 
Sec. 1910.132(f) should be revised to incorporate the specific training 
requirements of existing Sec. 1910.120, the standard for Hazardous 
Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER). For example, the 
Emergency Response Management & Training Corporation (Ex. 3: 97) 
stated:

    As it [proposed Sec. 1910.132(f)] is currently written there are 
no specifications as to the quality or quantity of training an 
employee will receive on the proper use and limitations of personal 
protective equipment. The inclusion of specific knowledge 
requirements and competency demonstration may assist in the goal of 
improving worker safety in hazardous environments. 29 CFR 1910.120 
and NFPA 472-1989 (Standard for Professional Competence of 
Responders to Hazardous Materials Incidents) are two examples of 
this type.

    Based on the concerns expressed regarding what constitutes adequate 
training, OSHA requested testimony in Issue 4 of the hearing notice (54 
FR 3414, February 1, 1990) on the need for additional training 
requirements. In particular, Issue 4 indicated that OSHA was 
considering the promulgation of more specific training requirements, 
including provisions similar to those in existing Sec. 1910.120, 
Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER). The 
Agency also solicited input regarding what training is needed; how 
training can be evaluated; when retraining is necessary; how much time 
is required for training; what recordkeeping is necessary for training 
activities; and what impacts (i.e., costs and benefits) the training 
requirements would have.
    With respect to Issue 4, several commenters (Ex. 7: 3, 8, 11, 20, 
29, 38) stated that the training requirements should be more detailed. 
For example, the General Electric Company (Ex. 7: 3, pg. 2) said:

    Protective equipment training needs to include:

    1. Where and how personnel can get the equipment,
    2. A system for identifying the correct equipment for an 
application * * * procedures and operating manuals should include 
specifics on protective equipment types, needs and objectives,
    3. Equipment should be shown to individuals prior to using each 
for the first time * * * let them touch and try the items on, the 
more senses you allow one to use during training the better the 
person will recall what he/she learned,
    4. Persons should not be considered competent in protective 
equipment items until they do a practical test * * * are able to 
properly put on the item, explain what protection it provides, etc.

    Also, Boeing (Ex. 7: 38) remarked:

    Boeing supports the position that additional detail be included 
in 1910.132 regarding training objectives and methods. Training 
should be based on the complexity of the protective equipment 
requirements. For certain protective equipment (e.g. safety 
spectacles) training requirements should be minimal or nonexistent.

    In addition, OSHA received testimony in favor of more specific 
training requirements at the public hearing. For example, the National 
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) testified (Tr. 23-
24: 4/3) that the key elements of a successful training program are:

    1) Sensitizing the workers to the need for such protectors and 
inviting their participation in developing a suitable plan for 
affecting PPE use.
    2) Clearly defining the written goals of the PPE program in 
terms of the target behaviors sought (e.g., appropriate footwear/
eyewear/headwear to be worn, in what areas, what kinds of care 
required).
    3) Explicit rewards or recognition to be given contingent on the 
workers displaying actions that conform to the aforementioned 
positive acts, including knowledge of results or other forms of 
feedback.
    4) Each PPE program should have some basis for evaluation 
(numbers of workers using/not using specified PPE) so that 
modifications could be made should the efforts fall short of the 
stated goals.

    Also, the International Chemical Workers Union testified (Tr. 16: 
4/4): Who is responsible for training employees in the proper use and 
limitations of personal protective equipment? It is the employer's 
responsibility to carry out this training but it is not being done * * 
* Every worker should be able to determine that the glove being 
provided to them by their employer is the right one for the chemicals 
which they handle.
    Another hearing participant, the National Environmental Training 
Association (NETA), testified (Tr. 272: 4/4) that ``the proposal in 
132(f) is not performance-oriented, it's too vague and nonspecific.'' 
NETA also testified (Tr. 285: 4/4):

    The National Environmental Testing Association feels that if 
OSHA seriously considers training to be important in protecting 
worker safety * * * then the language at 29 CFR 1910.132(f) will 
have to be more specific. Unless training is based on measurable 
objectives as OSHA has pointed out in the U.S. Department of Labor 
publication OSHA 2254 (Training Requirements in OSHA Standards and 
Training Guidelines) then it can only be effective by coincidence.

    Many Issue 4 commenters (e.g. Ex. 7: 2, 13, 15, 21, 22) stated that 
OSHA should not promulgate more detailed training requirements. Those 
commenters expressed the belief that performance-oriented proposed 
Sec. 1910.132(f) allowed employers in general industry the flexibility 
to implement training programs as needed. For example, Amoco 
Corporation (Ex. 7: 21, pg.2) stated:

    We agree that employees should be trained in the proper use of 
their personal protective equipment, since the equipment may not 
provide adequate protection if used improperly. We feel, however, 
that training programs are best left to each employer to develop on 
an individualized, site-specific basis. Manufacturers often provide 
information on their particular products upon which an instructional 
program can be based. Employers do need an effective formal training 
session when the use of new or significantly different equipment is 
instituted. This requirement helps ensure that time is actually 
dedicated to this purpose, and emphasizes the importance of proper 
use to the employee. Training guidance would be helpful, especially 
to small businesses, but we feel strongly that such guidance should 
be of a non-mandatory nature.

    In addition, the Department of the Air Force (Ex. 7: 25) stated 
that it ``supports locally devised training, rather than an OSHA 
legislated program training requirement, as both cost efficient and 
effective.''
    Also, several Issue 4 commenters (Ex. 7: 19, 31, 35) stated that 
proposed Sec. 1910.132(f) should not incorporate the HAZWOPER training 
requirements, because 1) general industry PPE was used in a broader 
class of work environments than HAZWOPER-mandated PPE, and 2) the PPE 
covered by proposed Sec. 1910.132(f) (e.g., eye and face protection, 
head protection and foot protection) was much less complex than that 
covered by HAZWOPER. For example, the American Petroleum Institute 
(API) (Ex. 7: 35) stated:

    Suggestions that would treat Subpart I in a manner similar to 
paragraph 1910.120 are without justification. There is no 
relationship between the training requirements of paragraph 1910.120 
(which are directly responsive to the enabling legislation dealing 
with hazardous waste sites) and the use of PPE in the controlled 
environment of a more typical place of employment.

    In addition, the National Solid Waste Management Association 
(NSWMA) stated (Ex. 7: 19, pg. 2-3):

    While NSWMA supports the concept of a structure for training of 
employees in the use of PPE, we find the use of the Part 1910.120 
training requirements for Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency 
Response as a model for general industry to be without any 
justification.
    The Section 1910.120 rule was intended to provide specific 
safety criteria to cover a specific industry segment. There are 
other industries with equivalent or higher risks where the use of 
this section as a model would be appropriate.
    NSWMA suggests that OSHA instead consider a training requirement 
more closely aligned with the concepts of its Hazard Communication 
Standard, wherein the complexity of the program required for 
compliance would be directly related to the hazards present. Such a 
program would require a survey of hazards, establishment of 
specifications for PPE to control those hazards, training for 
employees and documentation of the training, and availability of PPE 
information to employees * * * In the low-risk example, having 
donning and doffing procedures formalized provides no useful 
function. What is critical is communicating the need for employees 
to understand the hazards and the need to utilize PPE on a 
consistent basis.

    Based on the rulemaking record, OSHA agrees with commenters that 
employers need more specific guidance regarding how to train employees 
who use PPE. In particular, the Agency has determined that employees 
need training which enables them to know, at least: 1) when PPE is 
necessary; 2) what PPE is necessary; 3) how to properly don, doff, 
adjust, and wear PPE; 4) the limitations of the PPE; and 5) the proper 
care, maintenance, useful life and disposal of the PPE.
    Accordingly, OSHA has revised proposed paragraph (f) so that 
paragraph (f)(1) of the final rule reads as follows:

    The employer shall provide training, including retraining where 
appropriate, to each employee who is required by this section to use 
PPE. Each such employee shall be trained to know at least the 
following:

    (i) When PPE is necessary;
    (ii) What PPE is necessary;
    (iii) How to properly don, doff, adjust, and wear PPE;
    (iv) The limitations of the PPE; and
    (v) The proper care, maintenance, useful life, and disposal of 
the PPE.

    The National Environmental Training Association (NETA) and other 
rulemaking participants asserted that in order to have a successful 
training program, employers should set measurable training objectives 
and have their employees demonstrate that they have reached those 
objectives. For example, NETA testified (Tr. 272-286: 4/4) that in 
order for training to be successful, clear and measurable objectives 
must be set, and employees must demonstrate that the training 
objectives have been reached, by showing that they understand the 
information provided and that they can use the PPE properly.
    OSHA agrees with these remarks and has stated in one of its own 
publications (OSHA 2254-1988):

    * * * in order for the training to be as successful as possible, 
clear and measurable objectives should be thought out before the 
training begins. For an objective to be effective, it should 
identify as precisely as possible what the individuals will do to 
demonstrate that they have learned, or that the objective has been 
reached. They should also describe the important conditions under 
which the individual will demonstrate competence and define what 
constitutes acceptable performance.

    Therefore, paragraph (f)(2) of the final rule requires that each 
affected employee demonstrate an understanding of the training 
specified in paragraph (f)(1), and the ability to use the PPE properly, 
before being allowed to perform work requiring the use of PPE.
    Paragraph (f)(3) of the final rule requires retraining when changes 
in workplace conditions or changes in the types of PPE to be used 
render previous training obsolete, and when inadequacies in an affected 
employee's knowledge or use of assigned PPE indicate that the employee 
has not retained the understanding or skill required by paragraph 
(f)(2). This provision, which did not appear in the proposed rule, 
indicates clearly that employers have an ongoing responsibility to 
maintain employee proficiency in the use and care of their PPE.
    OSHA received many comments regarding how employers would indicate 
their compliance with the proposed training requirement. Some 
commenters (e.g., Ex. 3: 41, 90) noted a statement in the NPRM (54 FR 
at 33841) that ``the proposal contains no recordkeeping requirements.'' 
Those commenters agreed with that approach, expressing the belief that 
detailed recordkeeping would impose an unreasonable burden, and 
requested ``clarification'' that no recordkeeping for training would be 
required.
    Further, Detroit Edison (Ex. 3: 62), referring to proposed 
paragraph (f), noted, ``Documented proof of training is required by 
other regulation. Is documentation required? OSHA should present a 
clearer picture of this requirement or delete it.''
    In addition, United Technologies (Ex. 3: 96) inquired, ``Will 
perceived improper use of PPE be deemed by OSHA evidence of inadequate 
training in the absence of training documentation?''
    Also, McDonnell Douglas (Ex. 3: 129) stated, ``Even though OSHA has 
stated to OMB that this NPR does not have any recordkeeping 
requirements, what would be required to prove the ``training'' has been 
performed?''
    Members of the Midwest Consortium for Hazardous Waste Worker 
Training (Ex. 3: 49, 59, 98, 123) suggested that OSHA require employers 
to document the content of their training programs. For example, Murray 
State University (Ex. 3: 123) stated, ``Training should be mainly 
hands-on with appropriate documentation.''
    In addition, several commenters (e.g. 3: 46, 75, 88, 116) stated 
that proposed paragraph (f) would already require employers to document 
training. Some of those commenters (Ex. 3: 46, 88) stated simply that, 
contrary to the statement in Section VII of the proposed rule, OSHA had 
proposed to require recordkeeping, so the Agency had a responsibility 
to justify the burden and to properly estimate the cost of 
documentation. Other commenters (Ex. 3: 75, 116) stated that the 
documentation was needed to verify compliance with the training 
requirements, and that OSHA should not impose extensive recordkeeping 
requirements. For example, the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) 
stated (Ex. 3: 75):

    CMA agrees with OSHA's determination to omit recordkeeping from 
the proposed rule. While some form of verification should be 
maintained as an indication that training has taken place, specific 
documentation requirements would only add to the recordkeeping 
burden without increased safety benefits for employees.

     In addition, CSX Transportation (Ex. 3: 116) remarked:

    In Section 1910.132 a new training requirement exists that will 
require the establishment of training records for employees using 
PPE. While the standard does not specify any recordkeeping 
requirements, documentation for compliance purposes is clearly 
indicated.

    As noted above, OSHA requested additional comments on the proposed 
training provision, including information on the recordkeeping needed 
to document compliance, in Issue 4 of the hearing notice (55 FR 3414, 
February 1, 1990). In particular, Issue 4 indicated that, based on NPRM 
comments (Ex. 3: 70, 86, 97), OSHA was considering training 
requirements similar to the HAZWOPER provisions promulgated in 
Sec. 1910.120(e). Section 1910.120(e)(6) requires employers to certify 
successful completion of training and to give graduates a written 
certificate. That provision further provides that persons who lack such 
certification shall be prohibited from engaging in hazardous waste 
operations.
    In response to Issue 4, Jackson Products (Ex. 7: 8, pg. 2) stated:

    Training of employees in the use of PPE should be the central 
focus of any rules OSHA is promulgating, as this issue has the 
highest potential for reducing worker injuries. Documentation of the 
training programs could follow the existing guidelines OSHA has 
developed for hazardous waste operations and employee right to know 
training, i.e., training log, employee signature sheet, etc.

    In addition, BP America (Ex. 7: 39) stated, ``we feel that the only 
criteria for successful completion of a training course can be that the 
trainee has mastered the information to the instructor's satisfaction. 
This can be documented in several ways including written exams and 
awarding of certificates.''
    As noted above, some Issue 4 commenters (Ex. 7: 13, 19, 25, 31, 35) 
opposed the adoption of the HAZWOPER training provisions in proposed 
paragraph (f). Regarding the applicability of the HAZWOPER 
recordkeeping requirements, the National Solid Wastes Management 
Association (NSWMA) stated (Ex. 7: 19, pg. 3):

    Congress mandated additional regulations in the narrow field of 
the occupational safety and health of hazardous waste workers 
because hazardous waste operations and remediations involve, in 
OSHA's words, ``unique'' work environments. 54 Fed. Reg. 9312. 
Congress recognized that such operations involve potential exposure 
to a number of hazardous health risks unlike those encountered by 
employees in general industry activities. Thus, the OSHA standard 
prohibits work upon a hazardous waste site by anyone who is not 
properly OSHA-qualified and OSHA-certified. Certification may be 
granted only upon completion of initial training and continuing 
education courses within a comprehensive and exhaustive number of 
areas. See 29 CFR Sec.  1910.120(e)(6). These comprehensive 
standards apply whenever and wherever hazardous waste workers handle 
hazardous substances. The occupational safety and health 
requirements in Section 1910.120 were, accordingly, crafted in 
response to the Congressional insistence that safety and health 
standards more stringent than those applied to general industry be 
fashioned.

    As noted above, the NSWMA suggested that OSHA model the 
requirements of proposed Sec. 1910.132(f) on the Hazard Communication 
Standard. The NSWMA recognized that recordkeeping would be necessary 
for training, stating: ``In a low-risk situation, where bump hats and 
eye shields may be the only devices needed, a simple written program of 
several pages would suffice.'' In addition, the NSWMA stated:

    Companies should not be required under this suggested system to 
gain prior OSHA certification of individual programs. Rather, 
companies should be permitted to certify that they have developed 
and implemented programs that are consistent with OSHA approved 
standards.

    OSHA acknowledges that the proposed training provision implicitly 
required some method for verifying compliance. The Agency believes that 
the discussion of recordkeeping in Issue 4 of the hearing notice 
provided adequate notice that OSHA might require employers to create 
some method of verifying their training activities. Accordingly, based 
on the rulemaking record and for the sake of clarity, the Agency is 
revising proposed paragraph (f) to state explicitly that employers must 
verify that they have provided their employees with the requisite 
training.
    Regarding the information needed to verify compliance, OSHA agrees 
with the commenters who have stated that it would be inappropriate to 
require specific documentation of the training provided. Given the 
performance-oriented focus of this rulemaking, the Agency has 
determined that the generation and review of extensive documentation 
would be unnecessarily burdensome. The Agency also notes that the 
training needs of employees covered by paragraph (f) of this section 
(approximately 22 million) are too diverse to enable OSHA to specify 
the details required for all of their PPE training.
    Based on the rulemaking record, OSHA has determined that employers 
can adequately verify compliance with Sec. 1910.132(f) of the final 
rule through a written certification. The Agency has determined that a 
certification record which identifies each employee trained, the 
date(s) of training, and which identifies the document as a 
certification of training in the use of PPE, will provide adequate 
assurance that the employer has provided the requisite training.
    The Agency notes that OSHA has also required certification of 
training in the permit-required confined space standard, 
Sec. 1910.146(g)(4); the control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout) 
standard, Sec. 1910.147(c)(7)(iv); and, in the Telecommunications 
standard, Sec. 1910.268(c).
    OSHA also notes that such a document will not preclude a citation 
if the Agency determines that the employees have not, in fact, been 
adequately trained. OSHA believes that compliance with this 
requirement, while imposing a minimal burden, provides an important 
benefit because it enables the employer and OSHA to verify the status 
of training efforts. Therefore, OSHA is promulgating new 
Sec. 1910.132(f)(4).
    The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) sets 
limits on the efforts of federal agencies to collect ``information''. 
The definition of ``information'' in the OMB regulations implementing 
the PRA (5 CFR 1320.7(j)) specifies that ``Information does not 
generally include * * * certifications * * * provided that they entail 
no burden other than that necessary to identify the respondent, the 
date, the respondent's address, and the nature of the instrument.''
    OSHA has determined that the certification of training required by 
paragraph (f)(4) constitutes a ``certification'' for the purposes of 
the PRA.Therefore, the certification would not be subject to the 
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act or of the implementing 
regulations (5 CFR Part 1320).

Sec. 1910.133 Eye and face protection.

    Proposed Sec. 1910.133(a) contained general requirements for eye 
and face protection. Proposed paragraph (a)(1) required the employer to 
ensure that employees use appropriate eye or face protection when they 
are exposed to eye or face hazards from flying particles, molten metal, 
liquid chemicals, acid and caustic liquids, chemical gases or vapors, 
or potentially injurious light radiation.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(1) also required that eye protection used by 
employees provide both front and side protection from flying objects. 
This portion of proposed paragraph (a)(1) resulted in many comments. 
Most rulemaking participants agreed with OSHA that eye protectors 
should provide both front and side protection from flying objects (e.g. 
Ex. 3: 28, 49, 59, 61, 83, 128; Tr. 53: 4/3) because studies (Ex. 2: 
11) have indicated that most injuries have occurred (in those instances 
when eye protection was used) because flying objects went around the 
protection. However, several rulemaking participants disagreed with 
this requirement because they believed that OSHA was proposing that all 
eye protectors would have to provide side protection (e.g. Ex. 3: 41, 
69). For example, a commenter from the Exxon Company (Ex. 3: 47, pp.1-
2) said:

    Exxon is concerned that the proposal could be interpreted to 
require all safety glasses to be equipped with side shields. Exxon's 
position is that many situations exist where safety glasses without 
side shields are adequate. For such routine operations, OSHA should 
not ignore the fact that most employees will be more reluctant to 
wear safety glasses with side shields than glasses without side 
shields. The mandatory use of side shields on all safety glasses 
could deter the overall use of safety glasses on and off the job 
which would ultimately lead to an increase in the total number of 
eye injuries.
    We concur with OSHA that employees should be equipped with 
adequate eye protection to prevent injuries from flying objects. In 
those instances where our employees may be potentially exposed to 
flying objects, our safety program calls for the mandatory use of 
eye protection that provides both front and side protection.

    Another commenter, from the American Optometric Association, 
remarked (Ex. 3: 60, pg. 2):

    While we recognize that mandatory side shields would afford 
additional protection in many instances, they may not be practical 
in all situations. In addition, they may tend to reduce compliance 
with the use of the protector in cases where peripheral hazard 
protection is not required. We would recommend that side shields be 
required only when the job evaluation indicates that a definite 
peripheral hazard exists.

    OSHA intended that proposed paragraph (a)(2) require side 
protection only when flying object hazards were present. Therefore, the 
Agency has revised the provision concerning flying object hazards to 
state clearly that front and side protection are required when there is 
a hazard from flying objects.
    OSHA agrees that there are situations when side protection is 
unnecessary, and that employers should be allowed to decide, based on a 
hazard assessment which complies with the requirements of 
Sec. 1910.132(d) of the final rule, if such protection is necessary for 
their employees.
    While one rulemaking participant (Ex. 3: 66) believed that side 
shields should be permanently attached, other rulemaking participants 
stated that side protectors need not be permanent and that OSHA should 
permit detachable or clip-on side protectors. For example, a commenter 
from Liberty Optical (Ex. 3: 63) said:

    Clip-on side shields meet all the Z-87 performance standards 
that the permanent side shields meet and can be worn when necessary. 
To be able to wear proper protection where appropriate and be 
realistic in its use, will make the employee not look to side step 
it and, therefore, make it more effective and safer. If a blanket 
mandatory permanent side shield regulation to cover all industrial 
environments is implemented, it will reverse all gains made in 
recent years and will not accomplish its goal for a safer industrial 
environment.

    OSHA agrees that side protection need not be permanent and that 
detachable side shields should be permitted as long as they meet the 
criteria specified in this section of the final rule. Permitting 
detachable side shields will provide employers the flexibility to use 
this kind of protection when necessary, based on conditions at the 
workplace.
    The Agency has revised proposed paragraph (a)(1) accordingly, 
dividing the proposed paragraph into two provisions, 
Sec. 1910.133(a)(1) and (a)(2). Paragraph (a)(1) of the final rule 
states the general requirement to have each employee use eye or face 
PPE when exposed to eye or face hazards, while paragraph (a)(2) states 
that eye PPE must provide side protection, which may be detachable, 
when flying object hazards are present.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(2) required that eye and face protection 
properly fit employees. Although the Agency did not receive any 
comments concerning the proper fit of eye and face protection, OSHA did 
receive comments addressing the proper fit of PPE, in general, and the 
need for properly fitting PPE for both male and female employees. This 
subject was discussed previously under Sec. 1910.132 of this preamble, 
and OSHA has included a requirement in Sec. 1910.132 of the final rule 
that all PPE properly fit employees. Therefore, proposed paragraph 
(a)(2) has not been included in the final rule, since it would be 
redundant.
    OSHA proposed in paragraph (a)(3) that protectors with tinted or 
variable tinted lenses not be worn when an employee must pass from a 
brightly lighted area, such as outdoors, into a dimly lighted area, 
such as a warehouse. The Agency proposed this requirement because it 
believed that the provision might reduce the likelihood that extreme 
lighting changes would temporarily impair the vision of an employee.
    This proposed requirement was the subject of Issue 3 of the hearing 
notice (55 FR 3412, February 1, 1990). The proposed paragraph and Issue 
3 generated a substantial amount of comment and testimony. While a few 
rulemaking participants agreed with the proposed provision (e.g. Ex. 3: 
28; Ex. 7: 2, 38), many opposed the provision and/or approach proposed 
by OSHA (e.g. Ex. 3: 55, 61, 68; Ex. 7: 7, 8, 15, 23; Tr. 193: 4/3; Tr. 
150-156: 4/4; Tr. 169: 4/4). Some of the rulemaking participants stated 
that the proposed paragraph was too restrictive and vague. These 
rulemaking participants stated that the employer (or designated safety 
officer) should decide when the use of this type of eyewear may create 
a hazard. This approach is similar to that used in the ANSI standard 
for eye protection (ANSI Z87.1-1989; paragraph 6.5.2).
    For example, a commenter from the American Optometric Association 
(Ex. 7: 11, pg. 2) stated:

    The use of photochromic lenses in industrial situations is 
dependent upon the visual demands of the task and the visual needs 
of the wearer. The decision on the need for and use of photochromic 
lenses can best be made by evaluation of the work place requirements 
by the employer in consultation with the employee's eye doctor. The 
development of a blanket policy restricting the use of photochromic 
lenses for certain job tasks is unwarranted. The individual visual 
needs and working conditions should dictate when photochromic lenses 
may be inappropriate.
    The American Optometric Association supports the ANSI Z87.1 
position which provides employers the discretion to decide when 
photochromic lenses may be utilized.

    Additionally, an ophthalmologist from the Mount Sinai Medical 
Center (Ex. 7: 14 pg. 2) remarked:

    * * * the many beneficial features of photochromic lenses, 
particularly in safety glasses, justifies their continued unfettered 
use in the workplace. My concern is that this proposed government 
intervention will likely deter workers from using these photochromic 
lenses as safety devices and that increased numbers of eye injuries 
and workplace accidents will ultimately result.

    A hearing participant from Corning, Inc. (Tr. 111-114: 4/4) 
testified:

    Today, photochromic lenses are used throughout the world and 
over 500 million lenses have been sold. Roughly, more than 250 
million pairs of eye glasses. Currently, more than 38 million 
photochromic lens blanks are sold each year. Corning has therefore 
literally hundreds of millions of man years of experience with the 
use of photochromic eyeglasses without any reported health of safety 
problem of the type to which the proposed regulation is addressed. I 
believe that proposal 1910.133 (a)(3) is too vague and is in any 
event unnecessary and overly restrictive. The use of photochromic 
lenses are subject to the ANSI Z87.1 standards including paragraph 
6.5.2 and we believe this is the appropriate standard for dealing 
with any possible need for a limitation on photochromic usage.

    That witness also asserted (Tr. 120: 4/4):

    In daylight, outdoors, when the photochromic lenses darken to 
function as sunglasses they protect the eyes dark adaptation 
process. It is well known that those who wear sunglasses in sunlight 
adapt to darker environments up to twice as fast as those who do 
not. In the transient condition, that is, coming in from a brighter 
outdoor condition to a darker indoor condition, wearing photochromic 
lenses can actually provide better and more comfortable vision under 
a broad variety of work conditions. Visual function in the 
transition to and from bright light is superior when photochromic 
rather than clear lenses are used.

    After evaluating the rulemaking record, OSHA has concluded that the 
proposed requirement was too restrictive. The Agency has determined 
that the employer, or the employer's representative (such as the 
company safety professional), will be in the best position to determine 
when tinted or variable tint lenses should or should not be used, based 
on awareness of workplace conditions. OSHA also notes that this 
approach is consistent with the current ANSI standard (ANSI Z87.1-1989-
paragraph 6.5.2) which is (as discussed below) being incorporated by 
reference in the final rule. Accordingly, proposed paragraph (a)(3) has 
not been retained in the final rule.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(4) required that employees who wear 
prescription lenses while engaged in operations that involve eye 
hazards shall wear eye protection that incorporates the prescription in 
their design, or shall be protected by eye protection that can be worn 
over prescription lenses without disturbing the proper position of the 
prescription or protective lenses.
    The Agency did not receive any comments on this proposed provision 
and it is, therefore, contained in the final rule as proposed. However, 
since this section has been reorganized, the provision has been 
redesignated as Sec. 1910.133(a)(3) of the final rule.
    Existing Sec. 1910.133 (a)(4) states that ``every protector shall 
be distinctly marked to facilitate identification only of the 
manufacturer.'' OSHA had proposed to delete this provision because the 
Agency believed that compliance did not add to or detract from the 
safety of the protector.
    Although a few commenters agreed with OSHA in principle (e.g. Ex. 
3: 50, 92, 115), the vast majority of commenters stated that the 
marking requirement should not be deleted (e.g. Ex. 3: 75, 88, 92, 114, 
126).
    For example, a commenter from the Optical Laboratories Association 
(Ex. 3: 71, pg. 4) asserted:

    The existing system of easily identifying the manufacturers of 
the components of eye PPE is embedded in the standard to assure 
accountability and is accepted throughout the industry. It should be 
retained.

     In addition, a commenter from Monsanto (Ex. 3: 102, pg. 3) stated:

    Since employees are permitted to provide their own eye 
protection and employers are held accountable to ensure that 
employees are wearing the proper eye protection, these markings 
provide employers a ready way of checking for whether or not 
employees are wearing the proper eye protection.

     Also, CF Industries (Ex. 3: 74) commented:

    The identification markings are necessary in the event of a 
manufacturing defect or material defect, so that the purchaser may 
receive an adjustment from the seller or manufacturer. 
Identification is also needed in case the manufacturer makes a 
product recall.

    Dr. Joseph F. Novak (Ex. 3: 107-A) commented:

    My suggestion is that OSHA approved safety eyewear be marked in 
a manner similar to that of the ANSI Z87.1-1989 Code.

    In supporting the concept that OSHA should be consistent with the 
ANSI requirement for marking, a commenter from US West, Inc. (Ex. 3: 
85, pp. 2-3) stated:

    US WEST, Inc. recommends that the identifying marking, i.e. 
manufacturers monogram and ``Z87'', continue to be required (ANSI 
Z87.1-1989 8.10). US WEST, Inc. disagrees with OSHA's statement 
that``* * * marking to identify the manufacturers of eye and face 
protection does not add or delete from the safety afforded by the 
protector.'' Lenses meeting ANSI Z87 are easily identified by the 
manufacturers monogram. ``Street'' or ``dress'' spectacles not 
meeting ANSI Z87 are also easily identified by the absence of such 
markings. US WEST, Inc. has found non-Z87 replacement prescription 
lenses placed in employees Z87 frames, reducing the employees degree 
of protection.

    Based on the above-discussed comments, OSHA included Issue 1 in the 
Hearing Notice, to elicit more information regarding the utility of 
compliance with existing Sec. 1910.133(a)(4). The comments and 
testimony received (Ex. 7: 2, 13, 31; Tr. 55, 133, 156: 4/3; Tr. 68, 
148, 225: 4/4) uniformly supported retaining the marking requirement.
    For example, one commenter from SIGNODE (Ex. 7: 6) stated:

    There is agreement that marking of eye and face protection 
``does not add or detract from the safety afforded by the 
protector'' however, the current etched lens marking provide the 
safety manager, management and supervision a means of verifying that 
the worker, employee, contractor or visitor is, in fact, wearing 
proper safety eyewear, not street wear.Based on the rulemaking 
record, OSHA has concluded that the requirement for marking of eye 
and face protectors should be retained. OSHA agrees with commenters 
that the marking of eye and face protectors provides easy 
recognition that the protectors meet specified criteria (ANSI Z87.1-
1989); that marking will provide accountability, and traceability in 
cases of product recall; and that marking requirements should be 
consistent with the ANSI Z87.1-1989 standard, since this is the 
accepted and recognized practice throughout the industry. 
Accordingly, the requirement for marking of eye and face protectors 
is being retained in Sec. 1910.133(a)(4) of the final rule.

    Proposed paragraph (a)(5) required that employees use equipment 
with filter lenses that have a shade number appropriate for the work 
being performed for protection from potentially injurious light 
radiation. OSHA also proposed a table in this paragraph which contained 
a list of appropriate shade numbers for various operations. The Agency 
did not receive any comments on this provision, and it is contained in 
the final rule with minor editorial changes.
    Proposed paragraph (b) of Sec. 1910.133 contained ``acceptable 
design'' requirements for eye and face protection. In this provision, 
OSHA proposed that eye and face protection comply with the design 
requirements specified in ANSI Z87.1-1989, or be of a design which 
could be demonstrated to be equally effective.
    Rulemaking participants supported the proposed adoption of the ANSI 
standard for eye and face protection (ANSI Z87.1-1989). However, a few 
commenters (e.g. Ex. 3: 101, 125) expressed concern that the Agency 
proposed to adopt only the ``design requirements'' of ANSI Z87.1. These 
commenters asserted that OSHA should adopt by reference all of the ANSI 
standard, not just the design requirements.
    OSHA agrees that eye and face protective devices must meet all of 
the provisions contained in the ANSI standard. This requirement is 
stated explicitly in ANSI Z87.1-1989, Section 3. OSHA acknowledges that 
the proposal did not clearly express the Agency's intent to reference 
ANSI Z87.1-1989 in its entirety and is revising the proposed rule 
accordingly.
    Other rulemaking participants (e.g. Ex. 3: 1, 62, 75, 102, 128) 
suggested that OSHA adopt by reference the ``current'' edition of all 
of the applicable ANSI standards (i.e., the ANSI standards for eye and 
face protection, head protection, and foot protection) rather than 
referencing a specific edition. These commenters stated that this 
approach would prevent a situation where the OSHA standards would be 
outdated when the ANSI standards are revised in the future.
    OSHA notes that it would be improper for the Agency to reference 
consensus standards as suggested, because such action would illegally 
subdelegate authority over the content of OSHA standards to the 
committees responsible for updating the ANSI standards.
    The Agency will accept eye and face protective devices as complying 
with this section if they are demonstrated to be as effective as those 
meeting the specific ANSI standard referenced by the final rule. For 
example, the final rule is incorporating by reference the 1989 edition 
of ANSI Z87.1 for eye and face protection. Eye and face protective 
devices meeting a subsequent edition of the same ANSI standard would be 
acceptable to the Agency (and a de minimis violation of the standard) 
if it could be demonstrated by the employer that they were as effective 
as those meeting the 1989 edition.
    In particular, employers would need to establish either that there 
was no substantive difference between a subsequent edition of Z87.1 and 
the 1989 edition, or that PPE which satisfied subsequently modified 
test criteria provided protection equivalent to that provided by PPE 
which satisfied the 1989 edition. Proposed paragraph (b) of 
Sec. 1910.133 has been revised accordingly.
    The incorporation by reference of ANSI Z87.1-1989 has been approved 
by the Office of the Federal Register, in accordance with the 
requirements of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Therefore, proposed 
paragraph (b) has been revised so that paragraph (b)(1) of the final 
rule reflects that approval and provides the requisite information 
regarding access to the text of ANSI Z87.1-1989.
    As discussed above, OSHA has also determined that it is appropriate 
to permit the continued use of eye and face PPE purchased prior to the 
effective date of the final rule, as long as it complies with the ANSI 
standard (Z87.1-1968) referenced by existing Sec. 1910.133(a)(6). To 
this end, the Agency has redesignated proposed paragraph (b) as 
paragraph (b)(1) of the final rule and has added ``grandfathering'' 
text in paragraph (b)(2) of the final rule.
    With respect to the subject of eye and face protection, Issue 5 of 
the Hearing Notice (55 FR 3412) requested comments and information 
concerning the use of contact lenses. Specifically, the Agency asked if 
it should expand its eye and face requirements to cover contact lenses.
    Some commenters (e.g. Ex. 7: 13, 15, 16) stated that no additional 
regulations were necessary for the use of contact lenses. Other 
commenters (Ex. 7: 21, 26) believed that OSHA should address the issue 
of contact lenses in the final rule, and should clarify if it is 
permissible to wear contact lenses with eye protection.
    Several commenters (e.g. Ex. 3: 107-D; Ex. 7: 5, 22) stated that 
wearing contact lenses with appropriate eye protection does not present 
any additional hazards.
    Based on the rulemaking record, OSHA believes that contact lenses 
do not pose additional hazards to the wearer, and has determined that 
additional regulation addressing the use of contact lenses is 
unnecessary. The Agency wants to make it clear, however, that contact 
lenses are not eye protective devices. If eye hazards are present, 
appropriate eye protection must be worn instead of, or in conjunction 
with, contact lenses.

Sec. 1910.135 Head Protection

    Proposed Sec. 1910.135 set requirements for the use of protective 
helmets and set criteria for acceptable equipment designs. Proposed 
paragraph (a) required employees to wear protective helmets (1) ``when 
working in areas where there is a potential for injury to the head from 
falling or moving objects'' and (2) ``where they are near exposed 
electrical conductors which could be contacted by the protective 
helmets.'' Proposed paragraph (b) referenced American National 
Standard, ANSI Z89.1-1986, ``Protective Headwear for Industrial 
Workers-Requirements''.
    The proposed language was based on existing Secs. 1910.132(a) and 
1910.135 and on ANSI Z89.1-1986. Existing Sec. 1910.132(a) requires 
that the PPE necessary to protect employees from workplace hazards be 
provided, used and maintained properly. That standard specifically 
includes head protection under its coverage. Existing Sec. 1910.135 
facilitates compliance with existing Sec. 1910.132(a) regarding helmets 
worn for protection ``from falling and flying objects and from limited 
electric shock and burn,'' by requiring that those helmets comply with 
the American National Standard Safety Requirements for Industrial Head 
Protection, Z89.1-1969. ANSI Z89.1-1986 is the most recent edition of 
the pertinent national consensus standard.
    Proposed Sec. 1910.135(a)(1), unlike existing Sec. 1910.135, 
explicitly required the use of protective helmets. The proposed 
paragraph also made some editorial revisions to existing Sec. 1910.135. 
For example, the proposal replaced ``flying'' with ``moving'', because 
OSHA believed the term ``moving'' better described the means in which 
objects contact employees. OSHA used the terms ``flying'' and 
``moving'' in the existing and proposed rules, respectively, in 
conjunction with the term ``falling'' to be consistent with ANSI Z89.1-
1969.
    A commenter (Ex. 7: 20) stated that OSHA should address lateral 
impact protection ``since there are substantial injuries that occur 
from directions other than vertical impact* * *'' In the course of this 
rulemaking, OSHA obtained a helmet (Ex. 46) capable of protecting 
employees against lateral as well as vertical impacts.
    In addition, NIOSH testified (Tr. 30: 4/3) that, while most blows 
to the head come from the back, front or side, ANSI Z89.1 1986 
addresses only protection for the top of the head. NIOSH further 
testified: ``Currently helmets are being marketed that provide impact 
protection to most parts of the head. OSHA standards should encourage 
the use of these more protective helmets.''
    Some rulemaking participants (Ex. 3: 84, 96) expressed concern 
regarding the use of the term ``moving'' in the proposed paragraph. For 
example, the American Petroleum Institute (API) (Ex. 3: 84, pg. 4) 
stated:

    API is opposed to the wording of this paragraph. The ANSI 
Standard Z89.1-1986 referenced in 1910.135(b) contains helmet 
specifications ``to protect the heads of industrial workers from 
impact or penetration by falling objects* * *'' OSHA must recognize 
that the ANSI standard does not provide design criteria for moving 
objects. If OSHA intends this section to also cover helmets 
protecting against moving objects, as proposed in 1910.135(a)(1), 
additional design criteria should be cited in 1910.135(b).

    In addition, United Technologies (Ex. 3: 96, pg. 2) stated:

    Under 1910.135 Head Protection, we find the requirement to 
provide head protection vague, and welcome additional clarification 
from OSHA with regard to potential for injury to the head from 
moving objects. We are concerned compliance personnel will interpret 
the requirement so broadly as to include any use of hoisting 
equipment. Although we can envision an occasional situation where 
there may be a hazard, most operations using a hoist would present 
no significant hazard.

    Another commenter (Ex. 3: 40) suggested that OSHA revise proposed 
Sec. 1910.135(a)(1) so that the provision ``Mandates that employers 
require their employees wear protective helmets when they are in an 
area where there is potential for injury to the head from falling, 
moving, swinging, flying or airborne objects.'' The commenter did not 
state why it believed the recommended language was needed.
    Also, commenters (Ex. 3: 72, 79) stated that proposed 
Sec. 1910.135(a)(1) should also require employees to wear head 
protection when working in confined spaces and commenters (Ex. 3: 79, 
119) have stated that OSHA should require protection against impacts 
with fixed objects.. For example, Centel (Ex. 3: 72) noted that 
injuries may result from contact with low hanging structures and that 
Centel already requires its employees working in confined spaces to 
wear head protection.
    In addition, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) (Ex. 3: 79) 
stated:

    We believe a statement should be added with provision for 
protection against impacts with fixed objects. We recommend a 
sentence should be added that addresses this hazard. We also suggest 
that in areas that are confined or congested and the employee is 
subject to impact with fixed objects, suitable protective helmets be 
worn. We recommend that bump caps should not be used in an 
industrial environment because there are too many possibilities of 
head injuries that could occur. We recommend maximum head protection 
at all times in this type of environment.

    The current ANSI standard, Z89.1-1986, addresses only protection 
``from impact and penetration by falling objects and from high-voltage 
electric shock and burn.'' The Agency has determined that it would be 
inappropriate for Sec. 1910.135(a) to cover head protection that is not 
also covered by the ANSI standard referenced in Sec. 1910.135(b), 
unless OSHA provides criteria for assessing compliance. The Agency has 
determined that it is not in a position to set such criteria, so OSHA 
has deleted the term ``moving'' from Sec. 1910.135(a)(1) of the final 
rule and has not added the terms suggested by commenters.
    The Agency believes that compliance with the ANSI criteria 
referenced through Sec. 1910.135(b) of the final rule will enable 
employers to protect their employees from a large proportion of 
potential head hazards. Head protection not covered by Sec. 1910.135 of 
the final rule, such as would be needed to protect employees from 
``moving'' or ``fixed'' objects, is covered by the general requirements 
of Sec. 1910.132, as revised. OSHA anticipates that employers whose 
hazard assessments identify head hazards that are not abated through 
compliance with ANSI Z89.1-1986, will develop and implement other 
measures as necessary, to protect their employees.
    Proposed Sec. 1910.135(a)(2) required that employees who are near 
exposed energized conductors which their heads could contact must wear 
helmets designed for protection from electrical hazards. Two commenters 
(Ex. 3: 36, 73) suggested that OSHA revise the proposed provision by 
adding requirements for proper maintenance of head protection. In 
particular, Public Service Electric and Gas Company (Ex. 3: 36) stated 
that proposed paragraph (a)(2) should also require: ``Protective 
helmets shall be worn and cared for as recommended by the manufacturer. 
Protective helmets shall not be altered or defaced which would take 
away the impact and/or dielectric integrity of the helmet.''
    OSHA has determined that any employee protection which could result 
from compliance with the suggested language on maintenance will already 
be attained through compliance with existing and proposed 
Sec. 1910.132. This section contains requirements concerning defective 
and damaged equipment, Sec. 1910.132(e); and, training requirements 
pertaining to the maintenance of PPE, Sec. 1910.132(f)(1)(v).
    Another commenter (Ex. 3: 81) stated that proposed paragraph (a)(2) 
was unclear, because it appeared ``to require nonconductive helmets for 
electricians whenever they are ``near exposed electrical conductors'' 
even if there is no reasonable probability of contact.'' The commenter 
suggested that OSHA revise the proposed language to require the wearing 
of protective helmets ``WHEN they are near exposed electrical 
conductors which their heads could contact.''
    The Agency notes that the suggested language is consistent with the 
description of proposed paragraph (a)(2) in the preamble to the 
proposed rule (54 FR 33836). OSHA agrees that clarification of the 
proposed paragraph is appropriate and has revised the proposed 
paragraph accordingly.
    Proposed Sec. 1910.135(b) required that the design of protective 
helmets comply with the design requirements of ANSI Z89.1-1986 or be of 
a design that provides equivalent protection. Existing Sec. 1910.135 
references the requirements and specifications established in ANSI 
Z89.1-1969. As noted in the preamble to the NPRM (54 FR 33837), OSHA 
has determined that, except as regards electrical insulation for Class 
B helmets, the 1969 and 1986 editions of ANSI Z89.1 set essentially the 
same requirements. The Agency also has determined that Class B helmets 
currently in use already comply with the electrical insulation 
requirements of ANSI Z89.1-1986.
    OSHA also proposed to allow protective helmets which, while not 
designed to the specifications of ANSI Z89.1-1986, were ``demonstrated 
to be equally effective''. The Agency believed that this performance-
oriented approach would encourage innovation and the use of improved 
equipment.
    A commenter (Ex. 3: 119) stated that the proposed language allowing 
protective helmets of a design which has been demonstrated to be 
equally effective ``is not well defined.'' In addition, the commenter 
questioned the availability of the means and the personnel to determine 
if helmets not designed according to ANSI Z89.1-1986 were equally 
effective. The commenter suggested that OSHA delete the language in 
question and require compliance with ANSI Z89.1-1986.
    Another commenter (Ex. 7: 20, pg. 3), in discussing the proposed 
language ``demonstrated to be equally effective'', inquired:

    Does this mean or does it include possible
    --prototype lab tests with field trials
    --engineering or technical expert evaluation
    --certification agency assessment
    --appropriate standard and certification by foreign 
manufacturer, or certification or testing agency which could 
presumably satisfy the primary intent for protection of the 
reference standard.
    To require a user to develop a new standard or a new 
certification process for a new product or design already proven 
elsewhere could void the flexibility intended in the ``equivalency'' 
clause.

    OSHA believes that the performance criteria set out in ANSI Z89.1-
1986, Section 7, indicate clearly how employers or the Agency can 
determine if helmets that do not otherwise comply with the consensus 
standard are ``equally effective''. OSHA also believes that the 
performance-oriented language of proposed paragraph (b) allows 
employers the appropriate flexibility to address their particular 
safety needs.
    Another commenter (Ex. 3: 126) stated that ``protective helmets 
should comply with the performance requirements as well as the design 
requirements of ANSI Standard Z89.1-1986.''
    In the course of evaluating these comments, OSHA noted that there 
are no provisions specifically designated as ``design requirements'' in 
ANSI Z89.1-1969 or ANSI Z89.1-1986. The 1986 edition, in particular, 
sets scope and purpose provisions; definitions; types and classes 
provisions; materials provisions; physical requirements; performance 
requirements; and test methods for protective helmets. The preamble 
discussion of proposed paragraph (b) (54 FR 33836-33837) referenced the 
physical requirements (e.g., the maximum weight), the performance 
requirements (e.g., impact resistance, penetration protection, 
flammability, water absorption resistance and electrical insulation) 
and the test methods (e.g., ``stringent'' test methods for testing of 
``Class B'' helmets against high-voltage) of ANSI Z89.1-1986.
    OSHA agrees, and intends, that head PPE meet all of the provisions 
contained in the ANSI standard. This requirement is stated explicitly 
in ANSI Z89.1-1986, Section 2. OSHA acknowledges that the proposal did 
not clearly express the Agency's intent to reference ANSI Z89.1-1986 in 
its entirety and is revising the proposed provision accordingly.
    The incorporation by reference of ANSI Z89.1-1986 has been approved 
by the Office of the Federal Register, in accordance with the 
requirements of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Paragraph (b) of the 
final rule has been revised to reflect that approval and to provide the 
requisite information regarding access to the text of ANSI Z89.1-1986.
    As discussed above, OSHA has determined that it is appropriate to 
permit the continued use of head PPE purchased prior to the effective 
date of the final rule, as long as it complies with the ANSI standard 
(Z89.1-1969) referenced by existing Sec. 1910.135. To this end, the 
Agency has redesignated proposed paragraph (b) as paragraph (b)(1) of 
the final rule and has added ``grandfathering'' text in paragraph 
(b)(2) of the final rule.
    In the proposal (54 FR 33837), OSHA solicited comments and 
information concerning bump caps, head protection that was not 
addressed in existing or proposed Sec. 1910.135 and that would not 
satisfy the criteria of Z89.1-1986. In particular, the Agency requested 
information with respect to the appropriateness of addressing this type 
of head protection in the final rule. OSHA also solicited input 
regarding the need for regulation of bump caps in Issue 5 of the 
Hearing Notice (55 FR 3412). Some rulemaking participants (e.g. Ex. 3: 
28, 40, 58) have suggested that OSHA establish requirements for bump 
caps. For example, Sandia National Laboratories (Ex. 3: 58) stated:

    Currently, there are no Federal standards, regulations, or 
guidance of any kind with which industry can make proper and 
adequate decisions on the use of bump caps.
    Bump caps are not new to the work place. Where the risk of head 
injury has been determined to be of low probability or result in 
minor contusions, scraps or cuts, bump caps have been provided. The 
old adage that ``something is better than nothing'' tends to prevail 
when industry is forced to make an educated guess. Is the adage true 
in the case of bump caps?
    In summary there is a need for Federal time and money to be 
spent on discovering the pro's and con's associated with bump caps 
and developing corresponding guidance for their use in the work 
place.

     On the other hand, Kerr-McGee Corporation (Ex. 3: 119, pg. 3) 
stated :

    Kerr-McGee's use of bump caps is limited to areas where there is 
no potential for injury to the head from electrical contact or from 
falling or moving objects, but where a hazard may exist due to 
striking one's head against fixed, low-clearance objects.
    Kerr-McGee is not aware of any voluntary or consensus standards 
covering bump caps. If the degree of protection afforded by 
currently-produced bump caps is determined by scientific studies to 
be inadequate for their intended use as stated on the products, then 
OSHA should request ANSI to develop a standard. Otherwise, we do not 
see the need for additional specifications or standards.

    Most rulemaking participants ( e.g. Ex. 3: 2, 64, 65, 68; Ex. 7: 
22; Tr. 140: 4/3; Tr. 160-61: 4/3) opposed adding requirements for bump 
caps to the final rule because they believe that if head protection is 
needed, then it would be safer to require head protection meeting ANSI 
Z89.1-1986. For example, a commenter from the American Trucking 
Association (Ex. 3: 64, pg. 5) remarked:

    For the trucking industry in general, bump caps are not 
practical. Although they are used in some operations for select job 
tasks, the motor carrier industry has found little benefit in 
reducing minor head injuries through their use. In fact, safety 
personnel from a cross section of the nation's motor carriers 
recently explained that bump caps can be more of a hinderance than a 
help; they frequently fall off, and in some instances, they can 
cause vision obstructions.

     Another commenter, from the Union Carbide Corporation (Ex. 3: 68, 
pg. 3), said:

    * * * Union Carbide would not support a provision pertaining to 
``bump caps''. Where there is sufficient hazard potential to 
indicate the need for bump caps, it is safer simply to require that 
hard hats be used.

     A commenter from the Amoco Corporation (Ex. 7: 21, pg. 2) stated:

    We believe that the use of ``bump caps'' has no place in a 
company-sponsored safety program and therefore do not favor its 
inclusion in this proposal.

    OSHA has concluded, based on review of the rulemaking record, that 
the available data do not support regulatory action regarding bump 
caps. Therefore, the Agency will neither restrict the use of bump caps 
nor set criteria for such use. OSHA will evaluate an employer's choice 
of head protection based on the e hazards to which employees may be 
exposed. Therefore, the employer's compliance with the requirement for 
a hazard assessment, in Sec. 1910.132(d), is of critical importance.

Sec. 1910.136 Foot Protection

    Proposed paragraph (a) of this section required employers to ensure 
that employees wear protective footwear when working in areas where 
there is a danger of foot injuries due to falling and rolling objects, 
or objects piercing the sole. This proposed provision received a large 
amount of support from rulemaking participants (e.g. Ex. 3: 49, 59, 64, 
67). Many of the rulemaking participants agreed with referencing the 
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard for personal 
protection, ANSI Z41-1983, ``Protective Footwear,'' particularly since 
this standard, unlike the superseded 1967 edition, sets criteria for 
women's footwear and for puncture resistance. However, two commenters 
were concerned as to when this protection would be required. A 
commenter from the American Trucking Association (ATA) stated (Ex. 3: 
64, pp. 4-5):

    * * * in some operations drivers may be exposed to falling or 
rolling freight hazards, or other hazards presented by nails or 
other sharp objects. In these cases, safety shoes, non-penetrable 
soles, or some other type of protective footwear are appropriate. On 
the other hand, there are thousands of drivers that never handle 
freight or come into exposure with falling or rolling freight, sharp 
objects, or any other number of hazards.
    * * * The need to require the equipment must be determined on a 
case by case basis--taking into account the specific operations, and 
the specific tasks and hazards of the various job functions.

    Another commenter, from the Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA), 
expressed a similar concern with respect to when foot protection is 
required (Ex. 3: 2):

    Specialty shoes such as ``electrical hazard'' footwear or 
``conductive'' shoes have special requirements that would not permit 
metal insoles to prevent the puncture. If this requirement is 
upheld, the current design standards and performance criteria for 
electrical hazard shoes could not be met.

    OSHA notes that these concerns are addressed by Sec. 1910.132(d), 
as proposed and as promulgated. That provision requires the employer to 
perform a hazard assessment. From the hazard assessment, the employer 
can determine what PPE is needed. As to the example presented by the 
ATA, if it is determined through an appropriate hazard assessment that 
an employee is not exposed to foot hazards, the employer would not have 
to provide this type of protection. As discussed above, the hazard 
assessment provision allows employers the flexibility to choose the PPE 
that is appropriate for a particular workplace situation.
    Regarding the ALCOA comment, OSHA notes that if it is determined 
through a hazard assessment that electrical workers are not exposed to 
the hazard of sharp objects puncturing the soles of shoes (which would 
be the case in many instances), the protective footwear would not have 
to provide this type of protection.
    On the other hand, if it is determined through a hazard assessment 
that employees are exposed both to electrical and puncture hazards, the 
employer would be required to ensure that employees wear shoes which 
protect the employees from both hazards.
    Both the 1983 and 1991 editions of ANSI Z41 set criteria for 
protection of feet from electrical hazards. While proposed 
Sec. 1910.136(b) required that footwear be designed to either comply 
with Z41-1983 or be demonstrated to provide equivalent protection, 
proposed Sec. 1910.136(a) did not explicitly require that employees 
wear foot protection against electrical hazards. The Agency had 
intended proposed paragraphs (a) and (b) to be consistent and to 
reflect the 1983 edition of ANSI Z41. While employers are already 
required to protect employees from electrical hazards under existing 
Sec. 1910.132, OSHA believes that guidance regarding foot protection 
against electrical hazards will be clearer and more useful if it 
appears in Sec. 1910.136. OSHA has revised proposed Sec. 1910.136(a) 
accordingly.
    In paragraph (b) of Sec. 1910.136, OSHA proposed that the design of 
protective footwear comply with the requirements of ANSI Z41-1983, or 
be of a design which has been demonstrated to be equally effective.
    Rulemaking participants (e.g. Ex. 3: 49, 59, 67, 72, 105, 118, 123) 
supported the adoption of the ANSI standard for foot protection (ANSI 
Z41). Further, several commenters (e.g. Ex. 3: 65, 67, 82, 84) 
suggested that OSHA adopt by reference the ``updated'' or ``current'' 
edition of ANSI Z41. For example, Footwear Industries of America (FIA) 
(Ex. 3: 67, pg. 2) remarked:

    FIA therefore agrees with OSHA's proposal to update its personal 
protective equipment standard for foot protection to comply with the 
improvements made in the ANSI standard. The Agency should note, 
however, that the 1983 version of the ANSI Z41 standard may soon be 
replaced by an updated set of industry standards.
    FIA suggests that OSHA may wish to await the 1990 version of 
ANSI Z41 rather than to incorporate a seven-year old, nearly 
outdated standard into 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1910.136.

    The Agency notes that the 1991 edition of the ANSI standard for 
foot protection has, in fact, replaced the 1983 edition of ANSI Z41 
referenced by OSHA in proposed Sec. 1910.136(b).
    OSHA has determined that it is appropriate to reference the current 
1991 edition of ANSI Z41 in Sec. 1910.136(b) of the final rule because 
that edition imposes essentially the same requirements as the 1983 
edition, except that the 1991 edition provides more specific 
performance requirements for resistance to compressive forces and 
standardizes the puncture resistance testing method. OSHA believes, 
based on its review of the pertinent ANSI standards and of the 
protective footwear currently available, that compliance with the 
referenced requirements of ANSI Z41-1991 will not result in disallowing 
foot protection that would have complied with the requirements of ANSI 
Z41-1983.
    As discussed above, OSHA has determined that it is appropriate to 
provide explicitly for the continued use of foot PPE purchased prior to 
the effective date of the final rule, as long as it complies with the 
ANSI standard (ANSI Z41.1-1967) referenced by existing Sec. 1910.136. 
Therefore, the Agency has redesignated proposed paragraph (b) as 
paragraph (b)(1) of the final rule, and has added ``grandfathering'' 
text in paragraph (b)(2) of the final rule.
    A commenter from the Tennessee Valley Authority (Ex. 3: 79) 
observed that OSHA proposed to incorporate only the design requirements 
of the referenced ANSI standards and not the selection requirements, 
guidelines, and other general information contained in the documents. 
As explained above in the preamble, OSHA acknowledges that the proposal 
did not clearly express the Agency's intent to reference the ANSI 
standards in their entirety and is revising proposed paragraph (b) 
accordingly.
    The incorporation by reference of the pertinent ANSI standards has 
been approved by the Office of the Federal Register, in accordance with 
the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Therefore, 
proposed paragraph (b) has been revised so that paragraphs (b)(1) and 
(b)(2) of the final rule reflect that approval and provide the 
requisite information regarding access to the text of those ANSI 
standards.

Sec. 1910.138 Hand protection.

    Issue 5 of the hearing notice (55 FR 3414), requested testimony, 
comments and information regarding the need for regulation of 
additional types of PPE. Specifically, the Agency stated that it was 
considering the appropriateness of promulgating requirements for hand 
protection (gloves) and skin protection (chemical protective clothing).
    The Agency's concern with respect to hand protection and chemical 
protective clothing arose from information contained in the record 
(e.g. Ex. 6: 2, 3, 4, 5), which indicates that a large number of 
employee injuries are occurring due to the lack of adequate protection 
from hand and skin hazards. Additionally, neither OSHA or ANSI 
currently have criteria for hand protection nor for chemical protective 
clothing.
    While OSHA received some information pertaining to chemical 
protective clothing, most of the rulemaking participants who addressed 
Issue 5 focused their remarks on gloves. Those rulemaking participants 
suggested that OSHA provide performance criteria and test methods for 
gloves and provide better guidance for the selection of gloves. They 
stated that in many instances gloves are not being worn, and when 
gloves are worn, they are often the wrong type of glove for the 
application involved (e.g. Ex. 3: 114; Ex. 7: 33, 38, 42; Ex. 53; Tr. 
213-236: 4/3; Tr. 13-20: 4/4).
    For instance, a commenter from the United Steelworkers of America 
(Ex. 3: 114, pg. 2) said:

    Protective clothing and gloves: OSHA should also set standards 
for these items since so many gloves do not work with some chemicals 
and last longer with other chemicals.

    Also, a commenter from the Washington State Department of 
Transportation (Ex. 7: 33) stated:

    I think that additional language regarding skin and hand 
protection needs to be added to this section so this type of PPE is 
not excluded from the selection process.

    That commenter also submitted suggested language to address hand 
hazards, and the selection and fit of gloves.
    Boeing (Ex. 7: 38, pg. 2) commented:

    Boeing supports the position that additional guidelines related 
to body and hand protection are necessary in 1910.132. Such 
guidelines should provide information on the selection of hand and 
body PPE based on reported experience and industry needs. Such 
guidance would facilitate the acquisition and use of appropriate PPE 
and eliminate any uncertainty regarding proper application.

    A hearing participant from the Occupational Health Foundation 
testified (Tr. 213: 4/3):

    Based on our experience visiting plants and working with 
workers, we believe there's a critical need for language to really 
spell out the program requirements for effective use of gloves.

    That participant also remarked (Tr. 215: 4/3):

    In 1988, occupational skin disease accounted for about one-
fourth of all reported occupational illnesses. Even with under-
reporting, it's a very serious worker health problem.

    In addition, a hearing participant from the International Chemical 
Workers Union testified (Tr. 15-16: 4/4):

    I go into a lot of plants throughout the country and site visits 
and the first thing I do is I look at the OSHA 200 log. I see many 
cases of occupational dermatitis. My first assumption was these 
people are not wearing gloves. After further investigation once I'm 
in that facility, I find out that the workers are wearing gloves, 
but they're wearing the wrong glove for the application involved. 
So, this really needs to be addressed.

    The Agency also received some useful information about the various 
types of gloves and types of hazards for which they should be used; the 
composition of the various types of gloves; and, other helpful 
information (Ex. 3: 27). There were also some informative studies 
submitted to the record concerning the hand and skin hazards posed by 
certain chemicals (Ex. 42).
    After careful evaluation of the rulemaking record, OSHA has 
concluded that the high incidence of hand injuries, together with 
evidence that hand protection either is not being worn by employees or 
is being worn for the wrong type of hazards, warrants the inclusion of 
more detailed requirements for selection and wearing of hand 
protection.
    Therefore, a new section, Sec. 1910.138, is being added to the 
final rule to address hand protection.
    Paragraph (a) requires that employers select, and that employees 
use, appropriate hand protection. In addition, paragraph (a) identifies 
some of the types of hazards for which hand protection must be worn by 
employees. These include hand hazards and potential hand hazards from 
skin absorption of harmful substances; severe cuts or lacerations; 
severe abrasions; punctures; chemical burns; thermal burns; and harmful 
temperature extremes.
    Paragraph (b) addresses the selection of the appropriate type of 
hand protection for the hazard or potential hazard that is present at 
the workplace. The purpose of this provision is to assure that 
employees are using the appropriate type of gloves for the tasks to be 
performed. For example, foundry workers generally must wear gloves that 
provide thermal protection, while meat cutters must wear gloves that 
protect against cuts. While the selection of the appropriate type of 
glove for a certain task or hazard may seem to be obvious, the 
rulemaking record indicates that many hand injuries have occurred 
because the wrong type of glove was used for a certain task.
    Therefore, OSHA has determined that employers need more explicit 
guidance in determining what hand protection their employees need. The 
Agency anticipates that compliance with this provision will assure that 
employees use the appropriate type of hand protection for the assigned 
tasks and the identified hazards.
    OSHA has also added information to Appendix B of the final rule 
regarding the selection of appropriate hand protection.

Third party certification

    In the NPRM (54 FR 33835), OSHA solicited comments on whether or 
not the Agency should require third party certification of PPE. OSHA 
indicated that it would consider promulgating such a provision to 
ensure that PPE meets OSHA standards. In addition, Issue 2 of the 
hearing notice (55 FR 3413) solicited testimony, with supporting 
information, regarding the extent to which third party certification of 
PPE required by Subpart I would be appropriate.
    The third party certification issue generated more response than 
any other subject covered by this rulemaking. Many of the participants 
in this rulemaking supported third party certification (e.g. Ex. 3: 3, 
16, 27, 37, 83, 90, 92, 98, 114, 120, 123; Ex. 7: 3, 18, 20; Tr. 55: 4/
3; Tr. 92-97: 4/3; Tr. 6-7: 4/4; Ex. 49).
    In supporting third party certification, a commenter from MSA (Ex. 
3: 18) stated:

    In order to provide user companies with assurances that personal 
protective equipment meets the appropriate standards, we think it 
would be highly desirable for OSHA to require third-party 
certification of PPE. We think a program such as the one offered by 
the Safety Equipment Institute that provides independent testing and 
quality assurance audits is extremely valuable and adds minimum cost 
to safety equipment.

    A commenter from ETL Testing Laboratories, Inc. (Ex. 3: 43) added:

    Our experience supports the use of third-party certification as 
positive assurance that the products covered by a program do, in 
fact, meet the standards to which they are tested, and that follow-
up inspections verify that they continue to meet the requirements. 
Third-party certification programs offer the user of personal 
protective equipment a positive pledge that the product has been 
designed and manufactured to provide the protection needed. It 
further simplifies the selection process by way of readily available 
lists of complying products and recognizable labels and marks on 
them.
    Although we are not prepared to give detailed estimates of costs 
of third-party certification for the various products, the fees are 
not burdensome, even on small businesses. The equipment must be 
tested, whether it is in a program or not; therefore, that cost is 
present in either case. The administration of a simple yet effective 
program with follow-up factory inspection would probably not exceed 
$1,500-2,000 per year per plant based on some similar programs we 
operate. Obviously, there are many types of programs, and the fees 
will vary dependent on the level of services rendered.

    In supporting third party certification, a commenter (Ex. 3: 103) 
from the Safety Equipment Institute (SEI) described that organization's 
certification program as follows:

    SEI's program of periodic quality assurance audits and product 
testing is now widely accepted by industry and government. Over two 
hundred organizations and federal agencies require the SEI 
certification as a condition of procurement for PPE. SEI combines 
both compliance testing of product and periodic quality assurance 
audits of manufacturers' production facilities. These activities are 
performed under SEI direction by independent third parties to 
maintain an objective program.

    A commenter from the Food & Allied Service Trades (Ex. 3: 128, p.4) 
asserted:

    We feel that third party certification, akin to that currently 
required for respiratory protection, should be mandated by the 
proposed rule. Such certification would guarantee that equipment was 
thoroughly tested prior to its being relied on to provide safety for 
workers who may daily, or even occasionally, encounter hazardous 
situations.

    A hearing participant from the Industrial Safety Equipment 
Association (ISEA) (Tr. 136-137: 4/3) testified:

    Whether the third party certification is performed by private or 
governmental entity, ISEA supports its use as a means of confirming 
the quality of products made for the protection of workers. In the 
absence of government standards and certification of compliance, 
ISEA endorses third party certification of compliance with ANSI 
standard Z87.1, 1989, and Z89.1, 1986.
    We believe that the additional cost involved for manufacturers 
of personal protective equipment to obtain certification is minimal, 
as is reflected by the number of eye and face protection devices and 
industrial helmets which are already certified by the Safety 
Equipment Institute.
    Third party certification costs are averaged over the volume of 
units sold, and we believe end up as an insignificant cost increase.

    Other rulemaking participants expressed concerns with the concept 
of third party certification. One concern expressed by several 
rulemaking participants (e.g. Ex. 3: 28, 79, 87, 105) was the belief 
that OSHA envisioned requiring employers, rather than manufacturers of 
the PPE, to obtain the third party certification. That was not the 
Agency's intent. OSHA notes that the manufacturer of the PPE, not the 
purchaser/user, is, in general, the party who is in the appropriate 
position to have products tested and evaluated. OSHA's intention 
regarding the duty of employers was to reaffirm the employer's 
responsibility to purchase and have employees use only PPE that would 
meet the requirements of the pertinent standards.
    Rulemaking participants also expressed concern that it would be 
very difficult to have third party certification of prescription safety 
eyewear (e.g. Ex. 3: 60, 71, 93, 115; Ex. 7: 11, 34; Tr. 184-191: 4/3; 
Tr. 206: 4/4; Ex. 50). They asserted that third party certification 
would not be practical since the eyecare providers and prescription 
laboratories, generally small businesses, who produce prescription 
eyewear would be unable to bear the burden of third party 
certification. They also stated that each pair of prescription glasses 
is unique to the individual for whom it was prescribed. Those 
rulemaking participants explained that lenses are tested by the 
manufacturer to meet ANSI standards, and frames are tested to meet ANSI 
standards by the frame manufacturers. Those participants also expressed 
the belief that this testing meets the intent of third party 
certification. OSHA notes that the assurance provided by such 
procedures may be even better than that obtained through third party 
certification because each lens and frame is tested, rather than the 
representative sample of eyewear that would be tested through a third 
party certification program.
    For example, a commenter from the Optical Laboratories Association 
(OLA), stated (Ex. 3: 71, pp.1-2):

    It is the position of OLA that third-party certification of 
devices utilizing lenses made to individual prescription (Rx) is not 
feasible, and in fact would not guarantee the safety-level provided 
by the present system as prescribed by Z87. This is so because 
third-party certification of all devices would not be practicable, 
whereas under the present system prescription lenses are subject to 
a rigorous test and the fabricator of each lens certifies, by its 
trademark, that the lens meets the standard.
    It is therefore submitted that the existing system of separate 
testing of the frame and lenses of spectacles containing 
prescription lenses meets OSHA's objectives and is practical. 
Further testing of the completed device after the lenses are 
inserted would not be feasible. While the test may not cause a 
device failure, it may damage the lenses and weaken the frame.

    A commenter from Corning (Ex. 3: 115, pg. 4) said:

    We do not believe that this [third party testing of prescription 
eyewear] is practical. Most industrial eyewear today [is] 
prescribed. * * * each prescription pair of glasses is unique to the 
individual for which it was prescribed and made. The common 
denominator is that prescription eyewear lenses are 100% tested to 
pass the industrial eyewear requirements for primary protection, 
i.e., impact resistance. Further, frames are tested and marked by 
the frame manufacturer to meet the requirements.

    Other rulemaking participants opposed third party certification of 
PPE (e.g. Ex. 3: 65, 68, 99; Ex. 7: 1, 8, 39). For instance, the belief 
was expressed (Ex. 3: 119) that the present voluntary system is 
adequate, particularly in light of widespread concerns regarding 
product liability. In general, those opposed to third party 
certification believed it would add cost, without adding any 
appreciable safety benefit.
    For example, a commenter from the American Gas Association (Ex. 3: 
46, pg. 13) stated:

    We urge OSHA not to adopt such a requirement. Such certification 
would increase unnecessarily the incremental cost of compliance 
while providing few, if any, benefits. Manufacturers who claim they 
are in compliance with the ANSI standard could be subject to 
liability in cases where products fail to meet that standard. The 
cost of third party compliance would be borne by the industry when 
the risk of liability should be sufficient to ensure compliance.

    Another commenter, from the Pacific Maritime Association (Ex. 3: 
80), remarked:

    Third party certification of personal protective equipment by 
employers would be both costly to the manufacturer and, 
subsequently, the employer. Additionally, it is not clear in the 
proposal as to how this requirement would enhance the safety of the 
workforce. It would place an additional administrative and financial 
burden on both manufacturers and employers, which does not seem to 
be justified.

    In response to the hearing notice, a commenter from the Motor 
Vehicle Manufacturers Association (MVMA) asserted (Ex. 7: 31, pg. 2):

    MVMA strongly objects to the proposal of requiring third party 
certification for personal protective equipment. We believe that 
personal protective equipment which meets the requirements of 
various safety standards such as ANSI and the certification programs 
conducted by the Safety Equipment Institute are adequate to provide 
the assurance that the PPE will meet the performance specifications 
necessary to protect an employee. To require a third party 
certification will be redundant, costly and will not enhance the 
safety or performance of PPE.

    In opposing third party certification, a commenter from Monsanto 
(Ex. 7: 16) said:

    [W]e question whether third party certification will add any 
benefits in terms of protection for employees. It will certainly add 
to the cost of such equipment. We believe that the manufacturers' 
written statement that their equipment meets the requirements of the 
appropriate ANSI standard should be sufficient. Our perception is 
that this arrangement has worked well over the years and we see no 
benefit in changing it.

    OSHA has carefully considered this issue and, after a thorough 
evaluation of all of the information contained in the record, has 
concluded for several reasons, that it would not be appropriate to 
require third party certification.
    First, while OSHA has recognized that third party certification of 
PPE can increase confidence in and use of PPE, a requirement for such 
third party certification will not add to the inherent safety of the 
PPE tested and certified. Also, given the extent to which the PPE 
industry has already voluntarily adopted third party certification, the 
Agency believes that any benefit resulting from the addition of such a 
requirement would be minimal.
    Furthermore, revised subpart I provides other means to determine if 
PPE meets the pertinent standard. In particular, compliance with 
revised subpart I's performance-oriented requirements for hazard 
assessment, PPE selection, and training will result in appropriate 
selection, use and maintenance of PPE by affected employees. For 
example, the Agency expects that the training required in new 
Sec. 1910.132(f) will increase affected employee confidence in the 
assigned PPE and, as a consequence, increase the use of PPE.
    Also, OSHA believes, given the limited benefit expected from third 
party certification, that it would be unreasonable to require that 
employers procure only PPE that has third party certification. Such a 
requirement would impose unnecessary burdens on PPE manufacturers who 
can establish by other means that their products comply with the 
pertinent OSHA standards.
    In addition, the Agency believes that allocating the resources 
needed to implement and enforce a requirement for third party 
certification would unreasonably detract from OSHA's ability to enforce 
the other provisions of revised subpart I.
    The Agency is also adding non-mandatory appendices A and B to 
provide additional guidance to employers and employees with regard to 
PPE for eye, face, head, foot, and hand hazards.

IV. Regulatory Impact, Regulatory Flexibility and Environmental 
Assessment of Revisions to Subpart I, Personal Protective Equipment

Introduction

    In 1971, OSHA adopted its current standards for personal protective 
equipment (PPE) from national consensus standards under section 6(a) of 
the OSH Act. Since then, advances in PPE technology have resulted in 
greater occupational protection in workplaces where equipment 
innovations have been adopted. In this final rule, OSHA promulgates a 
nationwide standard for PPE that reflects these improved means of 
hazard prevention.
    Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735) requires that a Regulatory 
Impact Analysis be prepared for any ``significant regulatory action''. 
A ``significant'' rule would have an annual effect on the economy of 
$100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, 
a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the 
environment, public health or safety, or state, local or tribal 
governments or communities. In addition, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
(5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) requires an analysis of whether a regulation 
will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. Finally, section 6(f) of the Occupational Safety and 
Health Act provides that, where a party has challenged the validity of 
an OSHA standard in the Court of Appeals, the determinations of OSHA 
(such as findings regarding the nature and severity of workplace 
hazards and the feasibility of identified abatement measures) shall be 
conclusive if supported by substantial evidence in the record 
considered as a whole.
    OSHA determined, based on the Agency's Preliminary Regulatory 
Impact Analysis [1] and its review of the rulemaking record, that the 
final rule for General Industry PPE is not a ``significant regulatory 
action'' for the purposes of review under Executive Order 12866. 
However, in order to satisfy the various statutory requirements placed 
upon the Agency and to further explain why OSHA has classified this 
regulatory action as ``non-significant'' for Executive Order 12866 
purposes, OSHA presents this Final Regulatory Impact, Regulatory 
Flexibility and Environmental Impact Assessment.

Industry Profile

    Based on a report prepared by Eastern Research Group under contract 
to the Department of Labor [2], OSHA has determined that the hazards 
addressed by the personal protective equipment standard are present in 
varying degrees in virtually all workplaces covered by the OSHA General 
Industry standards (29 CFR 1910). The extent of the rule's impact will 
vary by industry depending on the hazards, the types of occupational 
activity and current practices regarding PPE use.
    Many types of PPE have been in widespread use in industry for many 
years. However, until recently very little statistical data existed to 
determine the number of employees who either are using PPE or who 
should be wearing PPE by virtue of the hazards to which they are 
exposed.
    OSHA's inspection data document that approximately 3.5 percent of 
all planned safety inspections result in citations under the existing 
PPE standards. The inspection data identifies the standard industrial 
classification (SIC) of the establishment, size of plant workforce, 
union status, and information related to the inspection itself; less 
frequently reported are data on degree of hazard present in workplaces, 
the number of workers exposed to the hazard, or the type of PPE 
required.
    In its Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis [1], OSHA examined 
injury statistics for affected industry sectors. Among the accident 
databases searched by OSHA were Work Injury Reports (WIR) published by 
the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). These reports examine cases where 
a worker was injured and provide evidence that many workers are not 
wearing adequate personal protective equipment. Based on the BLS data, 
relatively few firms with serious recordable injury cases have 
performed a formal assessment of the potential hazards in their 
workplace. In addition, little training was offered to workers 
regarding the importance of using protective equipment in these firms.
    To obtain accurate information on the need for personal protective 
equipment and the extent to which that need is being met, OSHA 
conducted a national survey in 1989 [3,4,5]. The survey sampled 5,361 
establishments, representing 1.1 million establishments in 61 SIC 
groups. The survey identified the hazards related to industrial 
processes and the types of PPE required when working in or near these 
processes. The survey solicited information on PPE practices and safety 
procedures and assessed whether engineering controls such as protective 
guards or overhead nets were in place. Answers to survey questions were 
used to evaluate the appropriateness of PPE use. Survey questions also 
addressed PPE training and hazard assessment. (See the background 
document and appendices in this docket for more detailed information on 
the survey and supporting data related to this analysis.)
    Table 1 shows the major industry groups covered by the PPE 
standard, the total number of affected establishments, total affected 
employment, number of production employees and number of employees 
exposed to PPE-related hazards. Of the 16.9 million production workers, 
the survey identified 11.7 million exposed workers within 1.1 million 
establishments who should be wearing some form of PPE. These numbers 
are lower than was indicated in the PRIA, due to a refinement in the 
analysis regarding affected population. Occupational categories 
identified by OSHA as having a significant degree of required PPE use 
include craft, operating, maintenance and material handling employees. 
These categories encompass most production employees and are most 
likely to be affected by this standard. However, as noted in the PRIA 
[1, p. II-2-4], OSHA has previously estimated over a million other 
workers may also be exposed to hazards requiring PPE use in the rest of 
general industry \1\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\As was indicated in the PRIA, while all general industry 
workers are potentially affected by these standards, exposed workers 
are heavily concentrated in certain occupations and in certain 
industries. Building upon information provided for the PRIA and 
comments to the record, this final analysis focuses on those groups 
of workers and industries judged to have a heavy concentration of 
PPE use. In this analysis population at risk was determined by 
survey results indicating a hazard that required the use of PPE. The 
PRIA had used the term ``population at risk'' to refer to all 
workers in two ``production worker'' job categories in general 
industry [1, p. II-1-5]. It should be noted that this analysis in no 
way implies that other workers may not be exposed to hazards 
preventable by PPE, but simply that the great majority are found in 
certain specific job categories and industries. 

   TABLE 1--Number of Establishments and Employees in Industries Affected by the Personal Protective Equipment  
                                                    Standard                                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Total          Total      Production   Employees 
           SICs                      Industries           Establishments    Employees    Employees     At Risk  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20,21                       Food & Tobacco.............            23,388    1,673,287    1,196,818      782,205
22                          Textiles...................             6,439      727,651      596,846      255,815
23,31                       Apparel & Leather..........            25,708    1,239,402      964,677      558,884
24                          Lumber & Wood Products.....            37,063      739,296      597,764      405,054
25                          Furniture & Fixtures.......            10,563      515,866      412,323      306,280
26                          Paper & Allied Products....             6,732      680,961      479,730      387,578
27                          Printing & Publishing......            60,836    1,499,451      680,370      462,259
28                          Chemicals..................            12,411    1,023,169      497,054      402,925
29                          Petroleum Refining.........             2,158      166,032       44,169       33,805
30                          Rubber & Plastics..........            14,703      851,467      565,705      393,468
32                          Stone, Glass, Concrete.....            15,351      550,779      400,987      282,065
33                          Primary Metals.............             7,130      741,297      549,603      476,145
34                          Fabricated Metals..........            34,605    1,401,605      921,660      638,577
35                          Machinery & Computers......            53,031    2,032,338    1,018,420      788,598
36                          Electric & Electronics.....            17,836    2,063,033    1,204,266      810,492
37                          Transportation Equipment...             9,688    1,762,926    1,113,656      894,417
38,39                       Misc. Manufacturing........            24,860    1,091,140      599,624      410,532
41,42                       Transportation.............           124,121    1,770,983    1,258,897      688,183
48                          Communications.............            23,505    1,281,837      788,800      642,609
49                          Utilities..................            17,741      934,650      334,492      266,440
501,55,75                   Automotive Trade & Services           326,793    3,066,501    1,373,718      803,309
50,51,52                    Wholesale & Retail Trade...           189,947    2,056,173      963,641      822,312
7692                        Welding Repair.............             6,653       31,800       24,622       20,317
13                          Oil & Gas Extraction.......            26,957      396,519      117,579       92,602
078,08                      Horticulture & Forestry....            46,294      290,552      173,863     106,782 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  TOTAL                                                         1,124,513   28,588,715   16,879,284  11,731,653 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. D.O.L., OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, based on the results of a 1989 nationwide survey.     

    From survey results OSHA developed a profile of the affected 
population by exposed bodily area (anatomical part), summarized in 
Table 2. As the table shows, almost 8.8 million workers are exposed to 
foot injury, while the potential for hand injury exists for 4.7 million 
workers. Other anatomical parts covered by this rule are eyes (2.8 
million workers at risk), head (1.9 million workers) and face (381,000 
workers). 

                 TABLE 2--Number of Employees and Parts of the Body Requiring Personal Protective Equipment Among the Population at Risk                
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                Body Part Exposed*                      
            SICs                      Industries            Production     Total Exposed ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Employees      Population        Head         Eye         Face         Hand         Foot   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20,21                        Food & Tobacco.............       1,196,818         782,205      112,574       91,806           0      220,059      652,884
22                           Textiles...................         596,846         255,815       36,685      104,918       3,877      134,689      129,498
23,31                        Apparel & Leather..........         964,677         558,884       16,527       72,682           0      462,683      133,101
24                           Lumber & Wood Products.....         597,764         405,054       65,597       29,483     104,352      103,547      388,436
25                           Furniture & Fixtures.......         412,323         306,280       26,231       41,767      26,130      127,295      234,696
26                           Paper & Allied Products....         479,730         387,578       35,146      132,898       4,576      156,569      326,256
27                           Printing & Publishing......         680,370         462,259            0      242,298           0      257,095      333,121
28                           Chemicals..................         497,054         402,925      116,763      158,344       3,098      155,596      322,095
29                           Petroleum Refining.........          44,169          33,805       14,562       11,918         476       16,136       15,948
30                           Rubber & Plastics..........         565,705         393,468       47,984       57,839      20,048      124,766      313,688
32                           Stone, Glass, Concrete.....         400,987         282,065       64,462       38,156      19,234       81,620      243,835
33                           Primary Metals.............         549,603         476,145       95,001       95,727     120,272      214,995      394,255
34                           Fabricated Metals..........         921,660         638,577       33,157       85,767      12,101      144,447      570,595
35                           Machinery & Computers......       1,018,420         788,598       59,583      146,365       2,246      329,603      631,485
36                           Electric & Electronics.....       1,204,266         810,492       66,001      334,211         611      469,622      455,479
37                           Transportation Equipment...       1,113,656         894,417       53,777      129,841       4,575      315,617      759,262
38,39                        Misc. Manufacturing........         599,624         410,532       35,815      124,151       9,092      203,543      284,091
41,42                        Transportation.............       1,258,897         688,183       70,798       79,546         588       67,043      665,473
48                           Communications.............         788,800         642,609      461,102      133,783      15,162      341,999      182,129
49                           Utilities..................         334,492         266,440      126,995      106,879      24,321       96,394      246,691
501,55, 75                   Automotive Trade & Services       1,373,718         803,309       55,791      297,398           0      407,995      595,690
50,51,52                     Wholesale & Retail Trade...         963,641         822,312      255,319      154,863       4,842      134,153      742,635
7692                         Welding Repair.............          24,622          20,317          797       11,108         172       10,492       15,278
13                           Oil & Gas Extraction.......         117,579          92,602       49,872       51,451           0       51,804       76,391
078,08                       Horticulture & Forestry....         173,863         106,782       22,050       39,546       5,146       83,217      44,856 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  TOTAL                                                       16,879,284      11,731,653    1,922,589    2,772,745     380,919    4,710,979   8,757,868 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* ``Exposed body part'' total exceeds total exposed population because some employees are exposed to multiple hazards.                                  
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis.                                                                                  

Technological Feasibility and Costs of Compliance

Technological Feasibility

    The existing and revised standards for subpart I require personal 
protective equipment wherever necessary by reason of the hazards of 
processes, environment or worker activity. New Sec. 1910.132(d) 
requires workplace hazard assessment and new Sec. 1910.132(f) requires 
employee training in the use of PPE. The revised standards for eye and 
face protection, protective headwear and foot protection update, 
prospectively, references to pertinent consensus standards. OSHA 
expects that employers will be able to comply with the new and revised 
requirements without difficulty, because the means of compliance are 
readily available and because the final rule ``grandfathers'' equipment 
that complies with the existing standards.
    OSHA anticipates that the new requirements for hazard assessment, 
prohibition of defective and damaged equipment, and employee training 
can be implemented with available technical personnel and other 
resources. OSHA's survey probed the extent to which firms have already 
adopted the elements of a PPE program. Comments in the record were also 
evaluated in order to establish current industry practices.
    On the basis of evidence in the record, including results from the 
OSHA PPE survey, OSHA has determined that the final PPE standard is 
both technologically and economically feasible.

Costs of Compliance

    OSHA estimated compliance costs using data on current practices and 
exposed population from the PPE survey. Aggregating costs across 
industry sectors, OSHA estimates a total annual compliance cost of new 
provisions in the revised rule will result in a cost of $52.4 million. 
Total compliance costs by industry sector are presented in Table 3. 

                TABLE 3--Industry Compliance Costs for the Personal Protective Equipment Standard               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Total Annualized Cost
                                                   Annualized Cost of    Annualized Cost     of Compliance with 
         SICs                 Industries            Compliance with         of Hazard         Revisions to PPE  
                                                 Training Requirement       Assessment            Standard      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20,21                   Food & Tobacco.........             $2,672,097           $563,775             $3,235,871
22                      Textiles...............             $1,533,441           $170,892             $1,704,333
23,31                   Apparel & Leather......             $2,582,549           $742,021             $3,324,570
24                      Lumber & Wood Products.             $1,676,192           $584,579             $2,260,771
25                      Furniture & Fixtures...             $1,250,063           $263,721             $1,513,783
26                      Paper & Allied Products             $1,403,654           $149,625             $1,553,279
27                      Printing & Publishing..             $3,346,716         $1,083,078             $4,429,794
28                      Chemicals..............             $1,059,463           $116,425             $1,175,888
29                      Petroleum Refining.....                $44,768            $22,235                $67,003
30                      Rubber & Plastics......             $1,312,997           $339,299             $1,652,296
32                      Stone, Glass, Concrete.               $591,905           $237,192               $829,097
33                      Primary Metals.........               $688,419           $142,911               $831,330
34                      Fabricated Metals......             $1,073,787           $610,317             $1,684,104
35                      Machinery & Computers..             $1,694,596           $914,849             $2,609,445
36                      Electric & Electronics.             $3,259,889           $349,067             $3,608,956
37                      Transportation                      $1,748,188           $152,397             $1,900,586
                         Equipment.                                                                             
38,39                   Misc. Manufacturing....             $1,525,950           $297,213             $1,823,163
41,42                   Transportation.........             $1,345,878         $1,873,465             $3,219,343
48                      Communications.........               $302,276           $105,567               $407,843
49                      Utilities..............               $466,182           $118,261               $584,444
501,55,75               Automotive Trade &                  $3,873,396         $4,772,142             $8,645,538
                         Services.                                                                              
50,51,52                Wholesale & Retail                  $1,757,275         $1,736,471             $3,493,746
                         Trade.                                                                                 
7692                    Welding Repair.........                $44,047            $50,749                $94,796
13                      Oil & Gas Extraction...               $927,521           $175,555             $1,103,077
078,08                  Horticulture & Forestry               $282,269           $373,659              $655,928 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  TOTAL                                                    $36,463,518        $15,945,464           $52,408,983 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis                                           

    OSHA's survey identified 433,149 establishments which need to take 
steps to come into compliance with the new provisions for hazard 
assessment. (Of 825,265 affected establishments, approximately 47 
percent already had a hazard assessment program in place.) The cost to 
conduct hazard assessments was estimated to be $15.9 million per year, 
assuming a reassessment is conducted once every five years.
    The new provision for PPE training would affect approximately 10.8 
million employees estimated in need of PPE training, at an annual cost 
of $36.5 million.
    Estimates for the cost of providing PPE training differ from those 
in Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis due to comments received and 
results from OSHA's PPE survey. This information indicated that the 
problem of PPE non-usage is considerably more widespread than 
originally estimated. Correspondingly, this indicated that the 
population requiring PPE training was larger than originally estimated.

Assessment of Hazards and Benefits

Injuries

    OSHA believes that the risk of fatality and injury to workers is 
unacceptably high among sectors affected by the revised personal 
protective equipment standard. The revised PPE standard is designed to 
enhance compliance with existing requirements and ensure future 
compliance related to a heightened level of hazard awareness and 
training. These changes to the standard should help to eliminate or 
reduce accidents within industries subject to the rule.
    The standard has performance-oriented provisions addressing eye, 
face, hand, head and foot hazards that allow employers to adopt the 
most up-to-date PPE for use in their establishment. The flexibility to 
substitute new materials and technologies should produce more 
comfortable and protective PPE. An increase in worker acceptance and 
use of PPE should translate into additional benefits. OSHA's 
expectation is that increased use of better equipment will prevent or 
lessen the severity of many incidents.
    According to BLS statistics in Occupational Injuries and Illnesses 
in the United States by Industry, 1989 [6], there were a total of 1.6 
million lost-workday cases and 1.8 million non-lost-workday cases 
during the survey year. Eastern Research Group [7] analyzed survey-
related data, which were used to extract the number of these injuries 
that were related to use (or nonuse) of PPE. In turn, BLS Work Injury 
Reports were analyzed to estimate what portion of those injuries 
related to inconsistent or inappropriate use of PPE, or lack of hazard 
identification. Injuries prevented in significantly affected industry 
sectors are shown in Table 4. Since injuries will be prevented in some 
other industry sectors as well, total estimates are conservative. 

                    TABLE 4--Injuries Prevented Through Compliance With New PPE Requirements                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Lost Workday     Lost Workdays  Non-lost-workday
             SIC                         Industry             Cases Prevented     Prevented     Cases Prevented 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20,21                          Food & Tobacco...............             3,178          57,195             3,945
22                             Textiles.....................               710          12,780             1,405
23,31                          Apparel & Leather............               607          11,531             1,482
24                             Lumber & Wood Products.......             1,850          35,151             2,375
25                             Furniture & Fixtures.........             1,216          20,680             1,818
26                             Paper & Allied Products......               978          21,512             1,718
27                             Printing & Publishing........               755          14,340             1,361
28                             Chemicals....................               783          14,870             1,082
29                             Petroleum Refining...........               120           2,529               125
30                             Rubber & Plastics............             1,873          31,837             2,625
32                             Stone, Glass, Concrete.......               989          19,782             1,578
33                             Primary Metals...............             1,829          36,587             2,821
34                             Fabricated Metals............             3,506          63,114             6,097
35                             Machinery & Computers........             3,372          57,324             6,744
36                             Electric & Electronics.......             1,343          24,173             2,578
37                             Transportation Equipment.....             1,966          37,359             5,829
38,39                          Misc. Manufactuing...........             1,044          19,374             1,610
41,42                          Transportation...............             2,127          54,710             2,355
48                             Communications...............               255           4,846               357
49                             Utilities....................               740          13,318               867
501,55,75                      Automotive Trade & Services..             1,423          26,005             7,942
50,51,52                       Wholesale & Retail Trade.....             6,243         109,743             7,005
7692                           Welding Repair...............                90           1,424                91
13                             Oil & Gas Extraction.........               389          11,680               404
078,08                         Horticulture & Forestry......               537          10,358               316
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        37,924         712,223           64,530 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics and OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis            

    OSHA estimates that 712,000 lost workdays\2\ and 65,000 non-lost 
workday cases will be realized from compliance with requirements for 
employee training and workplace hazard assessment. These benefits will 
be gained through selection of more appropriate PPE, increased 
awareness of hazards and improved consistency in use. These benefit 
estimates exceed those of the PRIA because OSHA has determined that 
current compliance with the PPE standards is poorer than was estimated 
in the PRIA. In addition, OSHA believes these requirements will enhance 
compliance with existing requirements, thereby preventing more 
injuries; however, the extent of these benefits are difficult to 
quantify.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\Recent research by Arthur Oleinick identifies a possible 
underestimation of lost workdays when reference periods are bounded 
by calendar years, as in the BLS survey. For elaboration of this 
point, see Oleinick [8].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA also estimated the number of fatalities associated with the 
absence of personal protective equipment. From an analysis of BLS, 
NIOSH and OSHA accident data, OSHA estimates that 125 fatal head 
injuries occur annually. While most fatal head injuries are the result 
of crushing injuries, falls, explosions and other traumatic events 
beyond the scope of this standard, some are preventable with the use of 
head protection. Based on a review of OSHA accident abstracts and an 
understanding of the rule's scope and effectiveness, OSHA estimates 
that 4 head injury fatality cases are preventable each year through 
compliance with the new provisions of the standard.

Cost Savings

    Based upon these estimated reduction in injuries, OSHA estimates 
that society will reap substantial economic benefits from prevented 
injuries. Lost work time injuries can be particularly expensive.
    PPE is uniquely effective in preventing eye injuries, for example, 
which can be severely debilitating. Dr. Leonard Parver [9, pp. 28-29] 
of Georgetown University's ophthalmology department elaborated on this 
cost to employers:

    These injuries tend to be very devastating. They have severe 
impact on the patient in terms of vision, and the costs are 
phenomenal. We estimate the costs of hospitalizing these patients at 
$250 million per year. That's just for the hospital stay; that 
doesn't include lost work days and compensation costs. This is a 
very significant problem, and very, very preventable. We're not 
talking about reinventing the wheel here. We have the means of doing 
this. We have adequate eye protective gear. It's a matter of 
educating the workforce that this is necessary.

    While employers typically bear only a fraction of the costs related 
to injuries, these costs can be substantial. Employers specifically 
will benefit from reduced lost production time, administrative time 
spent preparing insurance claims and accident reports and replacing 
injured workers. Based on a 1981 study by Levitt and coworkers [10], 
OSHA estimates the cost to employers from the average lost worktime 
injury is at least $4000\3\. This cost includes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\Levitt's wage rates were adjusted to reflect current wage 
conditions in general industry [11]. In light of the National Safety 
Council estimates presented later in this document, given the 
debilitating severity of many PPE accidents (eye, head), and the 
surge in workers compensation costs in recent years, an estimate of 
$4000 per injury is likely to be conservative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Administrative cost of handling insurance company claims.
     Wages paid to other workers for the time not worked (work 
interrupted).
     Cost of scheduling and funding overtime necessitated by 
the accident.
     Cost to find and train a replacement worker.
     Extra wage cost to rehabilitate the returning worker at a 
reduced capacity.
     Cost to clean up, repair, or replace damage from the 
accident.
     Cost of wages for supervision associated with the 
accident.
     Cost for safety and clerical personnel to record and 
investigate the accident.

    Other nonquantifiable costs associated with accidents, such as 
increased anxiety among non-injured workers, the loss of employee 
goodwill towards the employer, and the impact on public perception of a 
company and its products were not considered in the Levitt study.
    Based on the Levitt study and the estimated 37,924 lost workdays 
prevented, OSHA estimates that the rule will save firms over $150 
million annually.
    However, as noted above, the cost of workplace injuries is 
typically borne primarily by employees themselves. The National Safety 
Council recently calculated the societal cost per lost worktime injury 
at $27,000 [7,p. 35], by factoring in long-term wage losses, medical 
expenses, administrative expenses and miscellaneous employer costs. 
Applying this figure to OSHA's estimate of 37,924 lost workday injuries 
prevented annually, revisions to this rule should save society 
(employees, employers and third parties) over $1 billion annually.
    These estimates of the economic benefits of the rule may be 
conservative, since the benefits analysis focuses on injuries 
prevented, not reduced severity of injuries. To the extent the rule 
results in nonlost workday injuries, as opposed to disabling lost 
workday injuries, the economic benefits may be greater yet. In sum, 
OSHA estimates the rule will save society over $1 billion annually, 
dwarfing the initial $52 million investment. Employers themselves 
should save over $150 million through full compliance with revisions to 
the PPE standard, approximately three times the estimated cost of 
compliance.

Economic Impact and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    OSHA analyzed the potential economic impact of the revised PPE 
standard and has determined that none of the major industry groups 
subject to the standard would experience a significant economic burden 
as a result of compliance, even before cost savings to employers are 
factored in. Table 5 presents average compliance cost, revenue, profit, 
and economic impacts of the standard for establishments in affected 
industry groups. If all of the compliance costs are passed through to 
the consumer, OSHA estimates that the average price increase would be 
negligible, less than 0.001 percent, calculated as the ratio of total 
compliance cost to industry sales. The maximum price increase in any 
industry would be less than 0.005 percent. Given the minuscule price 
increases necessary to cover these safety investments, employers should 
be able to pass along compliance costs to their customers. However, 
even if all costs were absorbed by the affected firms, the average 
reduction in profits would be approximately 0.01 percent, the largest 
being 0.06 percent. OSHA, therefore, does not expect the revised 
standard to have a significant economic impact on affected firms or 
industries\4\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\In the Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis [1], OSHA 
analyzed the entire spectrum of affected industries, and had 
determined no significant economic impact would result on 
establishments on any industry, with substantially less impact in 
those establishments without heavy PPE use. This determination was 
reached even though the PRIA included costs not directly 
attributable to the proposal, resulting in a total cost estimate 
which was nearly twice the cost estimated in this final analysis. 
Accordingly, OSHA reaffirms that establishments in those industries 
will incur minimal economic impact. 

                                 TABLE 5--Economic Impact of the PPE Standard on Affected Establishments (Gross Costs)                                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                      Average Pre-  Cost as Percent of: 
                                                         Number of        Annual       Average Cost   Average Sales   Tax Profits  ---------------------
           SIC                     Industry              Affected       Compliance         per             per            per                           
                                                      Establishments       Cost       Establishment  Establishment   Establishment   Revenue    Profit  
                                                                                                                                                        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20,21                      Food & Tobacco...........          20,959      $3,235,871         $154       $35,979,353    $2,233,881     0.0004%     0.007%
22                         Textiles.................           3,994       1,704,333          427        12,519,165       697,823     0.0034%     0.061%
23,31                      Apparel & Leather........          19,253       3,324,570          173         5,586,936       330,094     0.0031%     0.052%
24                         Lumber & Wood Products...          36,022       2,260,771           63         3,131,243       168,014     0.0020%     0.037%
25                         Furniture & Fixtures.....           9,670       1,513,783          157         5,300,655       304,204     0.0030%     0.051%
26                         Paper & Allied Products..           5,425       1,553,279          286        26,331,141     1,459,848     0.0011%     0.020%
27                         Printing & Publishing....          38,618       4,429,794          115         4,681,511       348,979     0.0025%     0.033%
28                         Chemicals................           9,625       1,175,888          122        32,935,814     1,974,902     0.0004%     0.006%
29                         Petroleum Refining.......           1,394          67,003           48       159,307,423     7,965,371     0.0000%     0.001%
30                         Rubber & Plastics........          12,222       1,652,296          135         9,587,427       599,044     0.0014%     0.023%
32                         Stone, Glass, Concrete...          12,754         829,097           65         6,671,737       390,362     0.0010%     0.017%
33                         Primary Metals...........           6,114         831,330          136        23,060,401     1,210,615     0.0006%     0.011%
34                         Fabricated Metals........          28,179       1,684,104           60         6,444,462       372,424     0.0009%     0.016%
35                         Machinery & Computers....          41,692       2,609,445           63        11,274,470       763,560     0.0006%     0.008%
36                         Electric & Electronics...          12,777       3,608,956          282        13,186,533       772,544     0.0021%     0.037%
37                         Transportation Equipment.           8,081       1,900,586          235        56,312,311     3,036,469     0.0004%     0.008%
38,39                      Misc. Manufacturing......          17,197       1,823,163          106        10,197,872       687,010     0.0010%     0.015%
41,42                      Transportation...........          91,583       3,219,343           35         2,502,991       721,995     0.0014%     0.005%
48                         Communications...........           6,857         407,843           59        18,184,342     3,168,484     0.0003%     0.002%
49                         Utilities................          11,134         584,444           52        26,418,648     2,742,749     0.0002%     0.002%
501,55, 75                 Automotive Trade &                255,506       8,645,538           34         1,896,375        67,478     0.0018%     0.050%
                            Services.                                                                                                                   
50,51,52                   Wholesale & Retail Trade.         121,753       3,493,746           29         6,001,894       264,946     0.0005%     0.011%
7692                       Welding Repair...........           6,652          94,796           14           294,996        27,928     0.0048%     0.051%
13                         Oil & Gas Extraction.....           9,129       1,103,077          121        36,323,403     3,601,331     0.0003%     0.003%
078,08                     Horticulture & Forestry..          35,675         655,928           18           526,658        42,007     0.0035%     0.044%
                           TOTAL/WEIGHTED AVERAGE...         822,265     $52,408,983          $64        $7,233,605      $519,497     0.0009%    0.012% 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Office of Regulatory Analysis                                          

    In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of USC 601 et 
seq.), OSHA also analyzed the economic impact on small establishments 
(19 or fewer employees), looking particularly for signs that the rule 
would pose excessive burdens per employee, relative to impacts faced by 
larger entities. OSHA has determined that, in relation to compliance 
with the standard, equipment purchases and labor utilization will to a 
great extent depend positively on size of workforce; smaller firms are 
not expected to incur relatively higher costs per worker. As shown in 
Table 6, OSHA estimates that the average price impact for small 
establishments will be 0.002 percent, while profit impacts will not 
exceed 0.04 percent under the assumption that all compliance costs are 
absorbed by firms. These impacts are judged to be relatively minor; 
therefore, the PPE standard is economically feasible for small 
establishments. 

                  TABLE 6--Economic Impact of the PPE Standard on Affected Small Establishments (19 or Fewer Employees) (Gross Costs)                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                      Average Pre-  Cost as Percent of: 
                                                         Number of        Annual       Average Cost   Average Sales   Tax Profits  ---------------------
           SIC                     Industry              Affected       Compliance         per             per            per                           
                                                      Establishments       Cost       Establishment  Establishment   Establishment   Revenue    Profit  
                                                                                                                                                        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20,21                      Food & Tobacco...........          10,095        $301,241          $30        $5,080,999      $380,574     0.0006%      0.01%
22                         Textiles.................           1,204          77,500           64         3,081,265       159,437     0.0021%      0.04%
23,31                      Apparel & Leather........           9,134         230,385           25           994,572        46,206     0.0025%      0.05%
24                         Lumber & Wood Products...          23,190         537,285           23           550,727        23,541     0.0042%      0.10%
25                         Furniture & Fixtures.....           5,476         165,026           30           854,790        38,885     0.0035%      0.08%
26                         Paper & Allied Products..           1,755          71,002           40         3,998,272       212,874     0.0010%      0.02%
27                         Printing & Publishing....          25,705         775,395           30           504,012        29,648     0.0060%      0.10%
28                         Chemicals................           5,743          87,504           15         4,017,910       233,815     0.0004%      0.01%
29                         Petroleum Refining.......             892          19,860           22        17,849,435       892,472     0.0001%      0.00%
30                         Rubber & Plastics........           4,473          94,909           21         2,020,670       110,565     0.0011%      0.02%
32                         Stone, Glass, Concrete...           8,695         152,938           18         1,234,776        58,639     0.0014%      0.03%
33                         Primary Metals...........           2,098          38,723           18         5,945,929       310,452     0.0003%      0.01%
34                         Fabricated Metals........          13,852         253,472           18         1,465,387        69,533     0.0012%      0.03%
35                         Machinery & Computers....          25,991         413,117           16         1,786,536       105,311     0.0009%      0.02%
36                         Electric & Electronics...           5,397         119,451           22         7,374,341       432,032     0.0003%      0.01%
37                         Transportation Equipment.           4,171          67,847           16         3,281,219       164,394     0.0005%      0.01%
38,39                      Misc. Manufacturing......          11,330         332,099           29         1,104,625        60,718     0.0027%      0.05%
41,42                      Transportation...........          50,514         895,120           18           457,059        50,523     0.0039%      0.04%
48                         Communications...........           4,432         101,226           23         2,187,022       381,072     0.0010%      0.01%
49                         Utilities................           6,262          61,913           10         1,998,589       197,519     0.0005%      0.01%
501,55, 75                 Automotive Trade &                230,396       5,845,664           25           505,347        16,312     0.0050%      0.16%
                            Services.                                                                                                                   
50,51,52                   Wholesale & Retail Trade.          91,722       1,371,448           15         1,245,583        44,869     0.0012%      0.03%
7692                       Welding Repair...........           6,078          53,146            9           105,240         8,543     0.0083%      0.10%
13                         Oil & Gas Extraction.....           6,494         167,833           26           979,674        79,670     0.0026%      0.03%
078,08                     Horticulture & Forestry..          30,238         494,539           16           184,033        12,622     0.0089%     0.13% 
                                                     --------------------------------                                                                   
                           TOTAL/WEIGHTED AVERAGE...         585,337     $12,728,644          $22        $1,014,850       $54,419     0.0021%     0.04% 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Office of Regulatory Analysis                                          

Environmental Impact

    The revisions to the PPE standard have been reviewed in accordance 
with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.), the regulations of the Council on 
Environmental Quality (40 CFR part 1500 through 1517), and the 
Department of Labor's NEPA procedures (29 CFR part 11). As a result of 
this review, OSHA has determined that the new PPE standard will have no 
significant environmental impact.

References

    1. Preliminary Regulatory Impact and Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis of the Personal Protective Equipment Standard, U.S. 
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 
Office of Regulatory Analysis, June 30, 1989. Exhibit 4-6.
    2. Eastern Research Group. Economic Analysis of the Revised 
General Industry Personal Protection Equipment Standard (CFR Part 
1910.132 - 1910.140). Prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor, 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration under Contract No. J-
9-F-0057. Arlington, MA. October 1988, as described in Exhibit 4-6.
    3. PPE Survey Description. Exhibit 4-1.
    4. Survey Instrument. Exhibit 4-2.
    5. Tables of Weighted Survey Data. Exhibit 4-5.
    6. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Summary and Analysis of Injuries 
and Illnesses in the United States by Industry, 1989. U.S. 
Department of Labor, Bulletin 2379, April 1991.
    7. Eastern Research Group. Summary and Analysis of Injuries and 
Illnesses in a Data Base of OSHA Draft Form 200s (1986-1987). March 
1990. Exhibit 32.
    8. Oleinick, Arthur, et al. ``Current Methods of Estimating 
Severity for Occupational Injuries and Illnesses: Data From the 1986 
Michigan Comprehensive and Compensable Injury and Illness 
Database.'' American Journal of Industrial Medicine 23 (1993): 231-
252.
    9. ``In the Blink of an Eye'', Occupational Hazards, June 1991.
    10.Levitt, Raymond, et al. Improving Construction Safety 
Performance: The User's Role. Stanford University Department of 
Civil Engineering. Technical Report No. 260. August 1981. Exhibit 3-
20, Docket S-012A.
    11. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Industry Profile Study of a 
Standard for Control of Hazardous Energy Sources Including Lockout/
Tagout Procedures. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor, 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, under Contract J-9-F-
2-0047, Exhibit 3-15, Docket S-012A.
    12. National Safety Council, Accident Facts, 1993 Edition.

V. Statutory Considerations

A. Introduction

    OSHA has described the hazards that require the use of PPE and the 
measures required to protect affected employees from those hazards in 
Section I, Background, Section II, Workplace hazards involved; and 
Section III, Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule, above. The 
Agency is providing the following discussion of the statutory mandate 
for OSHA rulemaking activity to explain the legal basis for its 
determination that the revised PPE standard, as promulgated, is 
reasonably necessary to protect affected employees from significant 
risks of injury and death.
    Section 2(b)(3) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 
authorizes ``the Secretary of Labor to set mandatory occupational 
safety and health standards applicable to businesses affecting 
interstate commerce'', and section 5(a)(2) provides that ``[e]ach 
employer shall comply with occupational safety and health standards 
promulgated under this Act'' (emphasis added). Section 3(8) of the OSH 
Act (29 U.S.C. Sec.  652(8)) provides that ``the term 'occupational 
safety and health standard' means a standard which requires conditions, 
or the adoption or use of one or more practices, means, methods, 
operations, or processes, reasonably necessary or appropriate to 
provide safe or healthful employment and places of employment.''
    In two recent cases, reviewing courts have expressed concern that 
OSHA's interpretation of these provisions of the OSH Act, particularly 
of section 3(8) as it pertains to safety rulemaking, could lead to 
overly costly or under-protective safety standards. In International 
Union, UAW v. OSHA, 938 F.2d 1310 (D.C. Cir. 1991), the District of 
Columbia Circuit rejected substantive challenges to OSHA's lockout/
tagout standard and denied a request that enforcement of that standard 
be stayed, but it also expressed concern that OSHA's interpretation of 
the OSH Act could lead to safety standards that are very costly and 
only minimally protective. In National Grain & Feed Ass'n v. OSHA, 866 
F.2d 717 (5th Cir. 1989), the Fifth Circuit concluded that Congress 
gave OSHA considerable discretion in structuring the costs and benefits 
of safety standards but, concerned that the grain dust standard might 
be under-protective, directed OSHA to consider adding a provision that 
might further reduce significant risk of fire and explosion.
    OSHA rulemakings involve a significant degree of agency expertise 
and policy-making discretion to which reviewing courts must defer. (See 
for example, Building & Constr. Trades Dep't, AFL-CIO v. Brock, 838 
F.2d 1258, 1266 (D.C. Cir. 1988); Industrial Union Dep't, AFL-CIO v. 
American Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607, 655 n. 62 (1980).) At the same 
time, the agency's technical expertise and policy-making authority must 
be exercised within discernable parameters. The lockout/tagout and 
grain handling standard decisions sought clarification of the agency's 
view of the scope of its expertise and authority. In light of those 
decisions, the preamble to this safety standard states OSHA's views 
regarding the limits of its safety rulemaking authority and explains 
why the Agency is confident that its interpretive views have in the 
past avoided regulatory extremes and continue to do so in this rule.
    Stated briefly, the OSH Act requires that, before promulgating any 
occupational safety standard, OSHA demonstrate based on substantial 
evidence in the record as a whole that: (1) the proposed standard will 
substantially reduce a significant risk of material harm; (2) 
compliance is technologically feasible in the sense that the protective 
measures being required already exist, can be brought into existence 
with available technology, or can be created with technology that can 
reasonably be developed; (3) compliance is economically feasible in the 
sense that industry can absorb or pass on the costs without major 
dislocation or threat of instability; and (4) the standard is cost 
effective in that it employs the least expensive protective measures 
capable of reducing or eliminating significant risk. Additionally, 
proposed safety standards must be compatible with prior agency action, 
must be responsive to significant comment in the record, and, to the 
extent allowed by statute, must be consistent with applicable Executive 
Orders. These elements limit OSHA's regulatory discretion for safety 
rulemaking and provide a decision-making framework for developing a 
rule.

B. Congress concluded that OSHA regulations are necessary to protect 
workers from occupational hazards and that employers should be required 
to reduce or eliminate significant workplace health and safety threats.

    At section 2(a) of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. Sec.  651(a)), Congress 
announced its determination that occupational injury and illness should 
be eliminated as much as possible: ``The Congress finds that 
occupational injury and illness arising out of work situations impose a 
substantial burden upon, and are a hindrance to, interstate commerce in 
terms of lost production, wage loss, medical expenses, and disability 
compensation payments.'' Congress therefore declared ``it to be its 
purpose and policy * * * to assure so far as possible every working man 
and woman in the Nation safe * * * working conditions [29 U.S.C. Sec.  
651(b)].''
    To that end, Congress instructed the Secretary of Labor to adopt 
existing federal and consensus standards during the first two years 
after the OSH Act became effective and, in the event of conflict among 
any such standards, to ``promulgate the standard which assures the 
greatest protection of the safety or health of the affected employees 
[29 U.S.C. Sec.  655(a)].'' Congress also directed the Secretary to set 
mandatory occupational safety standards [29 U.S.C. Sec.  651(b)(3)], 
based on a rulemaking record and substantial evidence [29 U.S.C. Sec.  
655(b)(2)], that are ``reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide 
safe * * * employment and places of employment.'' When promulgating 
permanent safety or health standards that differ from existing national 
consensus standards, the Secretary must explain ``why the rule as 
adopted will better effectuate the purposes of this Act than the 
national consensus standard [29 U.S.C. Sec.  655(b)(8)].'' 
Correspondingly, every employer must comply with OSHA standards and, in 
addition, ``furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of 
employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or 
are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees [29 
U.S.C. Sec.  654(a)].''
    ``Congress understood that the Act would create substantial costs 
for employers, yet intended to impose such costs when necessary to 
create a safe and healthful working environment. Congress viewed the 
costs of health and safety as a cost of doing business* * *. Indeed, 
Congress thought that the financial costs of health and safety problems 
in the workplace were as large as or larger than the financial costs of 
eliminating these problems [American Textile Mfrs. Inst. Inc. v. 
Donovan, 452 U.S. 490, 519-522 (1981) (ATMI); emphasis was supplied in 
original].'' ``[T]he fundamental objective of the Act [is] to prevent 
occupational deaths and serious injuries [Whirlpool Corp. v. Marshall, 
445 U.S. 1, 11 (1980)].'' ``We know the costs would be put into 
consumer goods but that is the price we should pay for the 80 million 
workers in America [S. Rep. No. 91-1282, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970); 
H.R. Rep. No. 91-1291, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970), reprinted in Senate 
Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Legislative History of the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, (Committee Print 1971) 
(``Leg. Hist.'') at 444 (Senator Yarborough)].'' ``Of course, it will 
cost a little more per item to produce a washing machine. Those of us 
who use washing machines will pay for the increased cost, but it is 
worth it, to stop the terrible death and injury rate in this country 
[Id. at 324; see also 510-511, 517].''

    [T]he vitality of the Nation's economy will be enhanced by the 
greater productivity realized through saved lives and useful years 
of labor.
    When one man is injured or disabled by an industrial accident or 
disease, it is he and his family who suffer the most immediate and 
personal loss. However, that tragic loss also affects each of us. As 
a result of occupational accidents and disease, over $1.5 billion in 
wages is lost each year [1970 dollars], and the annual loss to the 
gross national product is estimated to be over $8 billion. Vast 
resources that could be available for productive use are siphoned 
off to pay workmen's compensation and medical expenses* * *.
    Only through a comprehensive approach can we hope to effect a 
significant reduction in these job death and casualty figures. [Id. 
at 518-19 (Senator Cranston)]

    Congress considered uniform enforcement crucial because it would 
reduce or eliminate the disadvantage that a conscientious employer 
might experience where inter-industry or intra-industry competition is 
present. Moreover, ``many employers -- particularly smaller ones -- 
simply cannot make the necessary investment in health and safety, and 
survive competitively, unless all are compelled to do so [Leg. Hist. at 
144, 854, 1188, 1201].''
    Thus, the statutory text and legislative history make clear that 
Congress conclusively determined that OSHA regulation is necessary to 
protect workers from occupational hazards and that employers should be 
required to reduce or eliminate significant workplace health and safety 
threats.

C. As construed by the courts and by OSHA, the OSH Act sets clear and 
reasonable limits for agency rulemaking action.

    OSHA has long followed the teaching that section 3(8) of the OSH 
Act requires that, before it promulgates ``any permanent health or 
safety standard, [it must] make a threshold finding that a place of 
employment is unsafe -- in the sense that significant risks are present 
and can be eliminated or lessened by a change in practices [Industrial 
Union Dep't, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607, 642 
(1980) (plurality) (Benzene); emphasis was supplied in original].'' 
Thus, the national consensus and existing federal standards that 
Congress instructed OSHA to adopt summarily within two years of the OSH 
Act's inception provide reference points concerning the least an OSHA 
standard should achieve (29 U.S.C. Secs.  655(a)). As a result, OSHA is 
precluded from regulating insignificant safety risks or from issuing 
safety standards that do not at least lessen risk in a significant way.
    The OSH Act also limits OSHA's discretion to issue overly 
burdensome rules, as the agency also has long recognized that ``any 
standard that was not economically or technologically feasible would a 
fortiori not be `reasonably necessary or appropriate' under the Act. 
See Industrial Union Dep't v. Hodgson, [499 F.2d 467, 478 (D.C. Cir. 
1974)] (`Congress does not appear to have intended to protect employees 
by putting their employers out of business.') [American Textile Mfrs. 
Inst. Inc., 452 U.S. at 513 n. 31 (a standard is economically feasible 
even if it portends `disaster for some marginal firms,' but it is 
economically infeasible if it `threaten[s] massive dislocation to, or 
imperil[s] the existence of,' the industry)].''
    By stating the test in terms of ``threat'' and ``peril,'' the 
Supreme Court made clear in ATMI that economic infeasibility begins 
short of industry-wide bankruptcy. OSHA itself has placed the line 
considerably below this level. (See for example, ATMI, 452 U.S. at 527 
n. 50; 43 FR 27, 360 (June 23, 1978). Proposed 200 g/m3 PEL 
for cotton dust did not raise serious possibility of industry-wide 
bankruptcy, but impact on weaving sector would be severe, possibly 
requiring reconstruction of 90 percent of all weave rooms. OSHA 
concluded that the 200 g/m3 level was not feasible for weaving 
and that 750 g/m3 was all that could reasonably be required). 
See also 54 FR 29, 245-246 (July 11, 1989); American Iron & Steel 
Institute, 939 F.2d at 1003. OSHA raised engineering control level for 
lead in small nonferrous foundries to avoid the possibility of 
bankruptcy for about half of small foundries even though the industry 
as a whole could have survived the loss of small firms.)
    All OSHA standards must also be cost-effective in the sense that 
the protective measures being required must be the least expensive 
measures capable of achieving the desired end (ATMI, at 514 n. 32; 
Building and Constr. Trades Dep't AFL-CIO v. Brock, 838 F.2d 1258, 1269 
(D.C. Cir. 1988)). OSHA gives additional consideration to financial 
impact in setting the period of time that should be allowed for 
compliance, allowing as much as ten years for compliance phase-in. (See 
United Steelworkers of Am. v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1278 (D.C. Cir. 
1980), cert. denied, 453 U.S. 913 (1981).) Additionally, OSHA's 
enforcement policy takes account of financial hardship on an 
individualized basis. OSHA's Field Operations Manual provides that, 
based on an employer's economic situation, OSHA may extend the period 
within which a violation must be corrected after issuance of a citation 
(CPL. 2.45B, Chapter III, paragraph E6d(3)(a), Dec. 31, 1990).
    To reach the necessary findings and conclusions, OSHA conducts 
rulemaking in accordance with the requirements of section 6 of the OSH 
Act. The rulemaking process enables the Agency to determine the 
qualitative and, if possible, the quantitative nature of the risk with 
(and without) regulation, the technological feasibility of compliance, 
the availability of capital to the industry and the extent to which 
that capital is required for other purposes, the industry's profit 
history, the industry's ability to absorb costs or pass them on to the 
consumer, the impact of higher costs on demand, and the impact on 
competition with substitutes and imports. (See ATMI at 2501-2503; 
American Iron & Steel Institute generally.) Section 6(f) of the OSH Act 
further provides that, if the validity of a standard is challenged, 
OSHA must support its conclusions with ``substantial evidence in the 
record considered as a whole,'' a standard that courts have determined 
requires fairly close scrutiny of agency action and the explanation of 
that action. (See Steelworkers, 647 F.2d at 1206-1207.)
    OSHA's powers are further circumscribed by the independent 
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, which provides a 
neutral forum for employer contests of citations issued by OSHA for 
noncompliance with health and safety standards (29 U.S.C. Secs.  659-
661; noted as an additional constraint in Benzene at 652 n. 59). OSHA 
must also respond rationally to similarities and differences among 
industries or industry sectors. (See Building and Constr. Trades Dep't, 
AFL-CIO v. Brock, 838 F.2d 1258, 1272-73 (D.C. Cir. 1988).)
    OSHA rulemaking is thus constrained first by the need to 
demonstrate that the standard will substantially reduce a significant 
risk of material harm, and then by the requirement that compliance is 
technologically capable of being done and not so expensive as to 
threaten economic instability or dislocation for the industry. Within 
these bounds, further constraints such as the need to find cost-
effective measures and to respond rationally to all meaningful comment 
militate against regulatory extremes.

D. The revised PPE standard complies with the statutory criteria 
described above and is not subject to the additional constraints 
applicable to section 6(b)(5) standards.

    Standards which regulate hazards that are frequently undetectable 
because they are subtle or develop slowly or after long latency 
periods, are frequently referred to as ``health'' standards. Standards 
that regulate hazards, like explosions or electrocution, that cause 
immediately noticeable physical harm, are called ``safety'' standards. 
(See National Grain & Feed Ass'n v. OSHA (NGFA II), 866 F.2d 717, 731, 
733 (5th Cir. 1989). As noted above, section 3(8) provides that all 
OSHA standards must be ``reasonably necessary or appropriate.'' In 
addition, section 6(b)(5) requires that OSHA set health standards which 
limit significant risk ``to the extent feasible.'' OSHA has determined 
that the revised PPE standard is a safety standard, because the revised 
PPE standard addresses hazards, such as molten metal, falling objects 
and electricity, that are immediately dangerous to life or health, not 
the longer term, less obvious hazards subject to section 6(b)(5).
    The OSH Act and its legislative history clearly indicate that 
Congress intended for OSHA to distinguish between safety standards and 
health standards. For example in section 2(b)(6) of the OSH Act, 
Congress declared that the goal of assuring safe and healthful working 
conditions and preserving human resources would be achieved, in part:

    * * * by exploring ways to discover latent diseases, 
establishing causal connections between diseases and work in 
environmental conditions, and conducting other research relating to 
health problems, in recognition of the fact that occupational health 
standards present problems often different from those involved in 
occupational safety.

    The legislative history makes this distinction even clearer:

    [The Secretary] should take into account that anyone working in 
toxic agents and physical agents which might be harmful may be 
subjected to such conditions for the rest of his working life, so 
that we can get at something which might not be toxic now, if he 
works in it a short time, but if he works in it the rest of his life 
might be very dangerous; and we want to make sure that such things 
are taken into consideration in establishing standards. [Leg. Hist. 
at 502-503 (Sen. Dominick), quoted in Benzene at 648-49]

    Additionally, Representative Daniels distinguished between 
``insidious `silent killers' such as toxic fumes, bases, acids, and 
chemicals'' and ``violent physical injury causing immediate visible 
physical harm'' (Leg. Hist. at 1003), and Representative Udall 
contrasted insidious hazards like carcinogens with ``the more visible 
and well-known question of industrial accidents and on-the-job injury'' 
(Leg. Hist. at 1004). (See also, for example, S. Rep. No. 1282, 91st 
Cong., 2d Sess 2-3 (1970), U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 1970, pp. 
5177, 5179, reprinted in Leg. Hist. at 142-43, discussing 1967 Surgeon 
General study that found that 65 percent of employees in industrial 
plants ``were potentially exposed to harmful physical agents, such as 
severe noise or vibration, or to toxic materials''; Leg.Hist at 412; 
id. at 446; id. at 516; id. at 845; International Union, UAW at 1315.)
    In reviewing OSHA rulemaking activity, the Supreme Court has held 
that section 6(b)(5) requires OSHA to set ``the most protective 
standard consistent with feasibility'' (Benzene at 643 n. 48). As 
Justice Stevens observed:

    The reason that Congress drafted a special section for these 
substances * * * was because Congress recognized that there were 
special problems in regulating health risks as opposed to safety 
risks. In the latter case, the risks are generally immediate and 
obvious, while in the former, the risks may not be evident until a 
worker has been exposed for long periods of time to particular 
substances. [Benzene, at 649 n. 54.]

    Challenges to the grain dust and lockout/tagout standards included 
assertions that grain dust in explosive quantities and uncontrolled 
energy releases that could expose employees to crushing, cutting, 
burning or explosion hazards were harmful physical agents so that OSHA 
was required to apply the criteria of section 6(b)(5) when determining 
how to protect employees from those hazards. Reviewing courts have 
uniformly rejected such assertions. For example, the Court in 
International Union, UAW v. OSHA, 938 F.2d 1310 (D.C. Cir. 1991) 
rejected the view that section 6(b)(5) provided the statutory criteria 
for regulation of uncontrolled energy, holding that such a ``reading 
would obliterate a distinction that Congress drew between `health' and 
`safety' risks.'' The Court also noted that the language of the OSH Act 
and the legislative history supported the OSHA position (International 
Union, UAW at 1314). Additionally, the Court stated: ``We accord 
considerable weight to an agency's construction of a statutory scheme 
it is entrusted to administer, rejecting it only if unreasonable'' 
(International Union, UAW at 1313, citing Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 
467 U.S. 837, 843 (1984)).
    The Court reviewing the grain dust standard also deferred to OSHA's 
reasonable view that the Agency was not subject to the feasibility 
mandate of section 6(b)(5) in regulating explosive quantities of grain 
dust (National Grain & Feed Association v. OSHA (NGFA II), 866 F.2d 
717, 733 (5th Cir. 1989)). It therefore applied the criteria of section 
3(8), requiring the Agency to establish that the standard is 
``reasonably necessary or appropriate'' to protect employee safety.
    As explained in Section I, Background, Section III, Summary and 
Explanation of the Standard, and in Section IV, Summary of the Final 
Regulatory Impact Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, above, 
OSHA has determined that the non-use or misuse of appropriate PPE poses 
significant risks to employees and that the provisions of the final 
rule are reasonably necessary to protect affected employees from those 
risks. The Agency estimates that compliance with the revised PPE 
standard will cost $52.4 million annually and will reduce the risk of 
the identified hazards (preventing 4 fatalities and 102,000 injuries 
annually). This constitutes a substantial reduction of significant risk 
of material harm for the exposed population of approximately 22 million 
general industry employees. The Agency believes that compliance is 
technologically feasible because the rulemaking record indicates that 
the PPE required by the standard is already in general use throughout 
the industries covered by the standard. Additionally, OSHA believes 
that compliance is economically feasible, because, as documented in the 
Regulatory Impact Analysis, all regulated sectors can readily absorb or 
pass on compliance costs during the standard's first five years, and 
economic benefits will exceed compliance costs thereafter.
    As detailed in Section IV, Summary of the Final Regulatory Impact 
Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and the Table below, the 
standard's costs, benefits, and compliance requirements are consistent 
with those of other OSHA safety standards, such as the Hazardous Waste 
Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) standard. 

                                                                                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Number of       Number of                                
                             Final rule date (FR        deaths         injuries      Annual cost    Annual cost 
  Standard (CFR cite)              cite)               prevented       prevented     first five    next five yrs
                                                       annually        annually      yrs (mill)       (mill)    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grain handling            12-31-87 (52 FR 49622)..              18             394   5.9 to 33.4     5.9 to 33.4
 (1910.272)                                                                                                     
HAZWOPER (1910.120)       3-6-89 (54 FR 9311).....              32          18,700           153             153
Excavations (Subpt P)     10-31-89 (54 FR 45,954).              74             800           306             306
Process Safety Mgmt       2-24-92 57 FR 6356......             330           1,917         880.7           470.8
 (1910.119)                                                                                                     
Permit-Required Confined  1-14-93 58 FR 4462......              54           5,041         202.4          202.4 
 Spaces (1910.146)                                                                                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA assessed employee risk by evaluating exposure to PPE-related 
hazards in a large range of industries. The Summary of the Final 
Regulatory Impact Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, Section 
IV, above, presents OSHA's estimate of the costs and benefits of the 
revised PPE standard in terms of the Standard Industrial Classification 
(SIC) codes for the industries regulated.
    The Agency acknowledges that some industries covered by the revised 
PPE standard have more documented PPE-related injuries or fatalities 
than do others. However, the record indicates that the hazards 
addressed by the standard exist throughout general industry. OSHA does 
not believe that the significance of the risk associated with exposure 
to PPE-related hazards within a given SIC classification is dependent 
on the number of incidents documented for that particular industry 
sector. OSHA has set the scope of the revised PPE standard to address 
those situations where employees are exposed to PPE-related hazards, 
regardless of the relative frequency of incidents. The Agency believes, 
based on analysis of the elements of the hazards identified, there is 
sufficient information for OSHA to determine that employees in the 
covered sectors face significant risks related to the non-use or misuse 
of PPE. Therefore, the Agency has determined that all employees within 
the scope of the revised PPE standard face a significant risk of 
material harm and that compliance with the revised PPE standard is 
reasonably necessary to protect affected employees from that risk, 
regardless of the number of injuries or fatalities reported for the SIC 
code to which the employer has been assigned.
    In order to facilitate data analysis, OSHA has organized the 
pertinent injury and fatality information according to the SIC code for 
the particular industry sectors where incidents have been reported. 
Given the limitations of the OSHA database and the likelihood of 
misclassification (due, for example, to the difficulty of classifying 
contractors), the Agency does not believe that the risks associated 
with the use or misuse of PPE vary according to the SIC code to which 
employers have been assigned.
    OSHA has considered and responded to all substantive comments 
regarding the proposed PPE standard on their merits in the Section III, 
Summary and Explanation of the Standard, earlier in this preamble. In 
particular, OSHA evaluated all suggested changes to the proposed rule 
in terms of their impact on worker safety, their feasibility, their 
cost effectiveness, and their consonance with the OSH Act.

VI. Federalism

    This regulation has been reviewed in accordance with Executive 
Order No. 12612 (52 FR 41685, October 30, 1987), regarding Federalism. 
Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) preempts 
state laws relating to issues on which Federal OSHA has promulgated 
occupational safety and health standards. Under the OSH Act, a State 
can avoid preemption in issues covered by Federal standards only if it 
submits, and obtains Federal approval of, a plan for the development of 
such standards and their enforcement. Occupational safety and health 
standards developed by such Plan States must, among other things, be at 
least as effective in providing safe and healthful employment and 
places of employment as the Federal standards. Where such standards are 
applicable to products distributed or used in interstate commerce they 
may not unduly burden commerce and must be justified by compelling 
local conditions.
    The Federal standard for personal protective equipment used in 
general industry addresses hazards that are not unique to any one State 
or region of the country. Nonetheless, States with occupational safety 
and health plans approved under section 18 of the OSH Act will be able 
to develop their own State standards to deal with any special problems 
which might be encountered in a particular State. Moreover, because 
this standard is written in general, performance-oriented terms, there 
is considerable flexibility for State plans to require, and for 
affected employers to use, methods of compliance which are appropriate 
to the working conditions covered by the standard.
    In brief, this final rule addresses a clear national problem 
related to occupational safety and health in general industry. Those 
States which have elected to participate under section 18 of the OSH 
Act are not preempted by this standard, and will be able to address any 
special conditions within the framework of the Federal Act, while 
ensuring that the State standards are at least as effective as that 
standard.

VII. State Plan States

    The 25 States and territories with their own OSHA approved 
occupational safety and health plans must develop a comparable standard 
applicable to both the private and public (state and local government 
employees) sectors within six months of the publication date of a 
permanent final Federal rule or show OSHA why there is no need for 
action, e.g., because an existing state standard covering this area is 
already ``at least as effective as'' the new Federal standard.
    These States and territories are Alaska, Arizona, California, 
Connecticut (plan covers only State and local government employees), 
Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, 
New Mexico, New York (plan covers only State and local government 
employees), North Carolina, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Oregon, 
Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Virgin Islands, Washington and 
Wyoming.
    After the effective date of the Federal final rule, until such time 
as a State standard is promulgated, Federal OSHA will provide interim 
enforcement assistance, as appropriate, in these States.

VIII. Recordkeeping

    This final rule does not contain recordkeeping requirements.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1910

    Eye protection; Face protection; Foot protection; Hand protection; 
Footwear; Hard hats; Head protection; Incorporation by reference; 
Occupational safety and health; Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration; Personal protective equipment; Safety glasses; Safety 
shoes.

Authority

    This document has been prepared under the direction of Joseph A. 
Dear, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 
U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, 
D.C. 20210.
    Accordingly, pursuant to sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational 
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of 
Labor's Order No. 1-90 (55 FR 9033); and 29 CFR part 1911, 29 CFR part 
1910 is amended as set forth below.

    Signed at Washington D.C. this 25th day of March, 1994.
Joseph A. Dear,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.

PART 1910--[AMENDED]

Subpart I--Personal Protective Equipment

    1. The authority citation for subpart I of part 1910 is revised to 
read as follows:

    Authority: Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and 
Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor's 
Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48 FR 35736) 
or 1-90 (55 FR 9033), as applicable; and 29 CFR part 1911, as 
applicable.

    2. New paragraphs (d) through (f) are added to Sec. 1910.132 to 
read as follows:


Sec. 1910.132  General requirements.

 * * * * *
    (d) Hazard assessment and equipment selection. (1) The employer 
shall assess the workplace to determine if hazards are present, or are 
likely to be present, which necessitate the use of personal protective 
equipment (PPE). If such hazards are present, or likely to be present, 
the employer shall:
    (i) Select, and have each affected employee use, the types of PPE 
that will protect the affected employee from the hazards identified in 
the hazard assessment;
    (ii) Communicate selection decisions to each affected employee; 
and,
    (iii) Select PPE that properly fits each affected employee.

    Note: Non-mandatory Appendix B contains an example of procedures 
that would comply with the requirement for a hazard assessment.

    (2) The employer shall verify that the required workplace hazard 
assessment has been performed through a written certification that 
identifies the workplace evaluated; the person certifying that the 
evaluation has been performed; the date(s) of the hazard assessment; 
and, which identifies the document as a certification of hazard 
assessment.
    (e) Defective and damaged equipment. Defective or damaged personal 
protective equipment shall not be used.
    (f) Training. (1) The employer shall provide training to each 
employee who is required by this section to use PPE. Each such employee 
shall be trained to know at least the following:
    (i) When PPE is necessary;
    (ii) What PPE is necessary;
    (iii) How to properly don, doff, adjust, and wear PPE;
    (iv) The limitations of the PPE; and,
    (v) The proper care, maintenance, useful life and disposal of the 
PPE.
    (2) Each affected employee shall demonstrate an understanding of 
the training specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this section, and the 
ability to use PPE properly, before being allowed to perform work 
requiring the use of PPE.
    (3) When the employer has reason to believe that any affected 
employee who has already been trained does not have the understanding 
and skill required by paragraph (f)(2) of this section, the employer 
shall retrain each such employee. Circumstances where retraining is 
required include, but are not limited to, situations where:
    (i) Changes in the workplace render previous training obsolete; or
    (ii) Changes in the types of PPE to be used render previous 
training obsolete; or
    (iii) Inadequacies in an affected employee's knowledge or use of 
assigned PPE indicate that the employee has not retained the requisite 
understanding or skill.
    (4) The employer shall verify that each affected employee has 
received and understood the required training through a written 
certification that contains the name of each employee trained, the 
date(s) of training, and that identifies the subject of the 
certification.

    3. Section 1910.133 is revised to read as follows.


Sec. 1910.133  Eye and face protection.

    (a) General requirements. (1) Each affected employee shall use 
appropriate eye or face protection when exposed to eye or face hazards 
from flying particles, molten metal, liquid chemicals, acids or caustic 
liquids, chemical gases or vapors, or potentially injurious light 
radiation.
    (2) Each affected employee shall use eye protection that provides 
side protection when there is a hazard from flying objects. Detachable 
side protectors (e.g. clip-on or slide-on side shields) meeting the 
pertinent requirements of this section are acceptable.
    (3) Each affected employee who wears prescription lenses while 
engaged in operations that involve eye hazards shall wear eye 
protection that incorporates the prescription in its design, or shall 
wear eye protection that can be worn over the prescription lenses 
without disturbing the proper position of the prescription lenses or 
the protective lenses.
    (4) Eye and face PPE shall be distinctly marked to facilitate 
identification of the manufacturer.
    (5) Each affected employee shall use equipment with filter lenses 
that have a shade number appropriate for the work being performed for 
protection from injurious light radiation. The following is a listing 
of appropriate shade numbers for various operations. 

                                                                        
                                                                        
          Filter Lenses for Protection Against Radiant Energy           
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Minimum*    
   Operations       Electric Size 1/    Arc Current     Protective Shade
                        32 in.                                          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shielded metal     Less than 3......  Less than 60....  7               
 arc welding                                                            
                   3-5..............  60-160..........  8               
                   5-8..............  160-250.........  10              
                   More than 8......  250-550.........  11              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas metal arc                         less than 60....  7               
 welding and flux                                                       
 cored arc                                                              
 welding                                                                
                                      60-160..........  10              
                                      160-250.........  10              
                                      250-500.........  10              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas Tungsten arc                      less than 50....  8               
 welding                                                                
                                      50-150..........  8               
                                      150-500.........  10              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air carbon         (Light)..........  less than 500...  10              
Arc cutting        (Heavy)..........  500-1000........  11              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plasma arc                            less than 20....  6               
 welding                                                                
                                      20-100..........  8               
                                      100-400.........  10              
                                      400-800.........  11              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plasma arc         (light)**........  less than 300...  8               
 cutting                                                                
                   (medium)**.......  300-400.........  9               
                   (heavy)**........  400-800.........  10              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Torch brazing                         ................  3               
Torch soldering                       ................  2               
Carbon arc                            ................  14              
 welding                                                                


                                                                        
                                                                        
          Filter Lenses for Protection Against Radiant Energy           
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Minimum*    
   Operations      Plate thickness--  Plate thickness-- Protective Shade
                        inches               mm                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas Welding:                                                            
  Light           Under 1/8.........  Under 3.2.......  4               
  Medium          1/8 to 1/2........  3.2 to 12.7.....  5               
  Heavy           Over 1/2..........  Over 12.7.......  6               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oxygen cutting:                                                         
  Light           Under 1...........  Under 25........  3               
  Medium          1 to 6............  25 to 150.......  4               
  Heavy           Over 6............  Over 150........  5               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* As a rule of thumb, start with a shade that is too dark to see the    
  weld zone. Then go to a lighter shade which gives sufficient view of  
  the weld zone without going below the minimum. In oxyfuel gas welding 
  or cutting where the torch produces a high yellow light, it is        
  desirable to use a filter lens that absorbs the yellow or sodium line 
  in the visible light of the (spectrum) operation.                     
** These values apply where the actual arc is clearly seen. Experience  
  has shown that lighter filters may be used when the arc is hidden by  
  the workpiece.                                                        

    (b) Criteria for protective eye and face devices. (1) Protective 
eye and face devices purchased after July 5, 1994 shall comply with 
ANSI Z87.1-1989, ``American National Standard Practice for Occupational 
and Educational Eye and Face Protection,'' which is incorporated by 
reference, or shall be demonstrated by the employer to be equally 
effective. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director 
of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 
part 51. Copies may be obtained from the American National Standards 
Institute. Copies may be inspected at the Docket Office, Occupational 
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 
Constitution Ave., N.W. room N2634, Washington, D.C. or at the Office 
of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street NW., suite 700, 
Washington, DC.
    (2) Eye and face protective devices purchased before July 5, 1994 
shall comply with the ANSI ``USA standard for Occupational and 
Educational Eye and Face Protection,'' Z87.1-1968 or shall be 
demonstrated by the employer to be equally effective. This 
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal 
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies 
may be inspected at the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., N.W. 
room N2634, Washington, D.C. or at the Office of the Federal Register, 
800 North Capitol Street NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

    4. Sections 1910.135 and 1910.136 are revised to read as follows:


Sec. 1910.135  Head protection.

    (a) General requirements. (1) Each affected employee shall wear 
protective helmets when working in areas where there is a potential for 
injury to the head from falling objects.
    (2) Protective helmets designed to reduce electrical shock hazard 
shall be worn by each such affected employee when near exposed 
electrical conductors which could contact the head.
    (b) Criteria for protective helmets. (1) Protective helmets 
purchased after July 5, 1994 shall comply with ANSI Z89.1-1986, 
``American National Standard for Personnel Protection--Protective 
Headwear for Industrial Workers-Requirements,'' which is incorporated 
by reference, or shall be demonstrated to be equally effective. This 
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal 
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies 
may be obtained from the American National Standards Institute. Copies 
may be inspected at the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., N.W. 
room N2634, Washington, D.C. or at the Office of the Federal Register, 
800 North Capitol Street NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
    (2) Protective helmets purchased before July 5, 1994 shall comply 
with the ANSI standard ``American National Standard Safety Requirements 
for Industrial Head Protection,'' ANSI Z89.1-1969, or shall be 
demonstrated by the employer to be equally effective. This 
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal 
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies 
may be inspected at the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., N.W. 
room N2634, Washington, D.C. or at the Office of the Federal Register, 
800 North Capitol Street NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.


Sec. 1910.136  Foot protection.

    (a) General requirements. Each affected employee shall wear 
protective footwear when working in areas where there is a danger of 
foot injuries due to falling and rolling objects, or objects piercing 
the sole, and where such employee's feet are exposed to electrical 
hazards.
    (b) Criteria for protective footwear. (1) Protective footwear 
purchased after July 5, 1994 shall comply with ANSI Z41-1991, 
``American National Standard for Personal Protection--Protective 
Footwear,'' which is incorporated by reference, or shall be 
demonstrated by the employer to be equally effective. This 
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal 
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies 
may be obtained from the American National Standards Institute. Copies 
may be inspected at the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., N.W. 
room N2634, Washington, D.C. or at the Office of the Federal Register, 
800 North Capitol Street NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
    (2) Protective footwear purchased before July 5, 1994 shall comply 
with the ANSI standard ``USA Standard for Men's Safety-Toe Footwear,'' 
Z41.1-1967, which is incorporated by reference, or shall be 
demonstrated by the employer to be equally effective. This 
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal 
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies 
may be inspected at the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., N.W. 
room N2634, Washington, D.C. or at the Office of the Federal Register, 
800 North Capitol Street NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

    5. A new Sec. 1910.138 is added to read as follows.


1910.138  Hand protection.

    (a) General requirements. Employers shall select and require 
employees to use appropriate hand protection when employees' hands are 
exposed to hazards such as those from skin absorption of harmful 
substances; severe cuts or lacerations; severe abrasions; punctures; 
chemical burns; thermal burns; and harmful temperature extremes.
    (b) Selection. Employers shall base the selection of the 
appropriate hand protection on an evaluation of the performance 
characteristics of the hand protection relative to the task(s) to be 
performed, conditions present, duration of use, and the hazards and 
potential hazards identified.

    6. Appendices A and B to Subpart I are added to read as follows.

Appendix A to Subpart I--References for further information (Non-
mandatory)

    The documents in Appendix A provide information which may be 
helpful in understanding and implementing the standards in Subpart 
I.
    1. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). ``Accidents Involving Eye 
Injuries.'' Report 597, Washington, D.C.: BLS, 1980.
    2. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). ``Accidents Involving Face 
Injuries.'' Report 604, Washington, D.C.: BLS, 1980.
    3. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). ``Accidents Involving Head 
Injuries.'' Report 605, Washington, D.C.: BLS, 1980.
    4. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). ``Accidents Involving Foot 
Injuries.'' Report 626, Washington, D.C.: BLS, 1981.
    5. National Safety Council. ``Accident Facts'', Annual edition, 
Chicago, IL: 1981.
    6. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). ``Occupational Injuries and 
Illnesses in the United States by Industry,'' Annual edition, 
Washington, D.C.: BLS.
    7. National Society to Prevent Blindness. ``A Guide for 
Controlling Eye Injuries in Industry,'' Chicago, Il: 1982.

Appendix B to Subpart I--Non-mandatory Compliance Guidelines for Hazard 
Assessment and Personal Protective Equipment Selection

    This Appendix is intended to provide compliance assistance for 
employers and employees in implementing requirements for a hazard 
assessment and the selection of personal protective equipment.
    1. Controlling hazards. PPE devices alone should not be relied 
on to provide protection against hazards, but should be used in 
conjunction with guards, engineering controls, and sound 
manufacturing practices.
    2. Assessment and selection. It is necessary to consider certain 
general guidelines for assessing the foot, head, eye and face, and 
hand hazard situations that exist in an occupational or educational 
operation or process, and to match the protective devices to the 
particular hazard. It should be the responsibility of the safety 
officer to exercise common sense and appropriate expertise to 
accomplish these tasks.
    3. Assessment guidelines. In order to assess the need for PPE 
the following steps should be taken:
    a. Survey. Conduct a walk-through survey of the areas in 
question. The purpose of the survey is to identify sources of 
hazards to workers and co-workers. Consideration should be given to 
the basic hazard categories:
    (a) Impact
    (b) Penetration
    (c) Compression (roll-over)
    (d) Chemical
    (e) Heat
    (f) Harmful dust
    (g) Light (optical) radiation
    b. Sources. During the walk-through survey the safety officer 
should observe: (a) sources of motion; i.e., machinery or processes 
where any movement of tools, machine elements or particles could 
exist, or movement of personnel that could result in collision with 
stationary objects; (b) sources of high temperatures that could 
result in burns, eye injury or ignition of protective equipment, 
etc.; (c) types of chemical exposures; (d) sources of harmful dust; 
(e) sources of light radiation, i.e., welding, brazing, cutting, 
furnaces, heat treating, high intensity lights, etc.; (f) sources of 
falling objects or potential for dropping objects; (g) sources of 
sharp objects which might pierce the feet or cut the hands; (h) 
sources of rolling or pinching objects which could crush the feet; 
(i) layout of workplace and location of co-workers; and (j) any 
electrical hazards. In addition, injury/accident data should be 
reviewed to help identify problem areas.
    c. Organize data. Following the walk-through survey, it is 
necessary to organize the data and information for use in the 
assessment of hazards. The objective is to prepare for an analysis 
of the hazards in the environment to enable proper selection of 
protective equipment.
    d. Analyze data. Having gathered and organized data on a 
workplace, an estimate of the potential for injuries should be made. 
Each of the basic hazards (paragraph 3.a.) should be reviewed and a 
determination made as to the type, level of risk, and seriousness of 
potential injury from each of the hazards found in the area. The 
possibility of exposure to several hazards simultaneously should be 
considered.
    4. Selection guidelines. After completion of the procedures in 
paragraph 3, the general procedure for selection of protective 
equipment is to: a) Become familiar with the potential hazards and 
the type of protective equipment that is available, and what it can 
do; i.e., splash protection, impact protection, etc.; b) compare the 
hazards associated with the environment; i.e., impact velocities, 
masses, projectile shape, radiation intensities, with the 
capabilities of the available protective equipment; c) select the 
protective equipment which ensures a level of protection greater 
than the minimum required to protect employees from the hazards; and 
d) fit the user with the protective device and give instructions on 
care and use of the PPE. It is very important that end users be made 
aware of all warning labels for and limitations of their PPE.
    5. Fitting the device. Careful consideration must be given to 
comfort and fit. PPE that fits poorly will not afford the necessary 
protection. Continued wearing of the device is more likely if it 
fits the wearer comfortably. Protective devices are generally 
available in a variety of sizes. Care should be taken to ensure that 
the right size is selected.
    6. Devices with adjustable features. Adjustments should be made 
on an individual basis for a comfortable fit that will maintain the 
protective device in the proper position. Particular care should be 
taken in fitting devices for eye protection against dust and 
chemical splash to ensure that the devices are sealed to the face. 
In addition, proper fitting of helmets is important to ensure that 
it will not fall off during work operations. In some cases a chin 
strap may be necessary to keep the helmet on an employee's head. 
(Chin straps should break at a reasonably low force, however, so as 
to prevent a strangulation hazard). Where manufacturer's 
instructions are available, they should be followed carefully.
    7. Reassessment of hazards. It is the responsibility of the 
safety officer to reassess the workplace hazard situation as 
necessary, by identifying and evaluating new equipment and 
processes, reviewing accident records, and reevaluating the 
suitability of previously selected PPE.
    8. Selection chart guidelines for eye and face protection. Some 
occupations (not a complete list) for which eye protection should be 
routinely considered are: carpenters, electricians, machinists, 
mechanics and repairers, millwrights, plumbers and pipe fitters, 
sheet metal workers and tinsmiths, assemblers, sanders, grinding 
machine operators, lathe and milling machine operators, sawyers, 
welders, laborers, chemical process operators and handlers, and 
timber cutting and logging workers. The following chart provides 
general guidance for the proper selection of eye and face protection 
to protect against hazards associated with the listed hazard 
``source'' operations. 

                 Eye and Face Protection Selection Chart                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Source            Assessment of Hazard        Protection      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMPACT--Chipping, grinding  Flying fragments,     Spectacles with side  
 machining, masonry work,    objects, large        protection, goggles, 
 woodworking, sawing,        chips, particles      face shields. See    
 drilling, chiseling,        sand, dirt, etc..     notes (1), (3), (5), 
 powered fastening,                                (6), (10). For severe
 riveting, and sanding..                           exposure, use        
                                                   faceshield.          
                                                                        
HEAT--Furnace operations,   Hot sparks..........  Faceshields, goggles, 
 pouring, casting, hot                             spectacles with side 
 dipping, and welding.                             protection. For      
                                                   severe exposure use  
                                                   faceshield. See notes
                                                   (1), (2), (3).       
                            Splash from molten    Faceshields worn over 
                             metals.               goggles. See notes   
                                                   (1), (2), (3).       
                            High temperature      Screen face shields,  
                             exposure.             reflective face      
                                                   shields. See notes   
                                                   (1), (2), (3).       
                                                                        
CHEMICALS--Acid and         Splash..............  Goggles, eyecup and   
 chemicals handling,                               cover types. For     
 degreasing plating..                              severe exposure, use 
                                                   face shield. See     
                                                   notes (3), (11).     
                            Irritating mists....  Special-purpose       
                                                   goggles.             
                                                                        
DUST-- Woodworking,         Nuisance dust.......  Goggles, eyecup and   
 buffing, general dusty                            cover types. See note
 conditions..                                      (8).                 
                                                                        
LIGHT and/or RADIATION--..                                              
  Welding: Electric arc     Optical radiation...  Welding helmets or    
                                                   welding shields.     
                                                   Typical shades: 10-  
                                                   14. See notes (9),   
                                                   (12)                 
  Welding: Gas              Optical radiation...  Welding goggles or    
                                                   welding face shield. 
                                                   Typical shades: gas  
                                                   welding 4-8, cutting 
                                                   3-6, brazing 3-4. See
                                                   note (9)             
  Cutting, Torch brazing,   Optical radiation...  Spectacles or welding 
   Torch soldering                                 face-shield. Typical 
                                                   shades, 1.5-3. See   
                                                   notes (3), (9)       
  Glare                     Poor vision.........  Spectacles with shaded
                                                   or special-purpose   
                                                   lenses, as suitable. 
                                                   See notes (9), (10). 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes to Eye and Face Protection Selection Chart:                       
                                                                        
(1) Care should be taken to recognize the possibility of multiple and   
  simultaneous exposure to a variety of hazards. Adequate protection    
  against the highest level of each of the hazards should be provided.  
  Protective devices do not provide unlimited protection.               
(2) Operations involving heat may also involve light radiation. As      
  required by the standard, protection from both hazards must be        
  provided.                                                             
(3) Faceshields should only be worn over primary eye protection         
  (spectacles or goggles).                                              
(4) As required by the standard, filter lenses must meet the            
  requirements for shade designations in Sec. 1910.133(a)(5). Tinted and
  shaded lenses are not filter lenses unless they are marked or         
  identified as such.                                                   
(5) As required by the standard, persons whose vision requires the use  
  of prescription (Rx) lenses must wear either protective devices fitted
  with prescription (Rx) lenses or protective devices designed to be    
  worn over regular prescription (Rx) eyewear.                          
(6) Wearers of contact lenses must also wear appropriate eye and face   
  protection devices in a hazardous environment. It should be recognized
  that dusty and/or chemical environments may represent an additional   
  hazard to contact lens wearers.                                       
(7) Caution should be exercised in the use of metal frame protective    
  devices in electrical hazard areas.                                   
(8) Atmospheric conditions and the restricted ventilation of the        
  protector can cause lenses to fog. Frequent cleansing may be          
  necessary.                                                            
(9) Welding helmets or faceshields should be used only over primary eye 
  protection (spectacles or goggles).                                   
(10) Non-sideshield spectacles are available for frontal protection     
  only, but are not acceptable eye protection for the sources and       
  operations listed for ``impact.''                                     
(11) Ventilation should be adequate, but well protected from splash     
  entry. Eye and face protection should be designed and used so that it 
  provides both adequate ventilation and protects the wearer from splash
  entry.                                                                
(12) Protection from light radiation is directly related to filter lens 
  density. See note (4) . Select the darkest shade that allows task     
  performance.                                                          

    9. Selection guidelines for head protection. All head protection 
(helmets) is designed to provide protection from impact and 
penetration hazards caused by falling objects. Head protection is 
also available which provides protection from electric shock and 
burn. When selecting head protection, knowledge of potential 
electrical hazards is important. Class A helmets, in addition to 
impact and penetration resistance, provide electrical protection 
from low-voltage conductors (they are proof tested to 2,200 volts). 
Class B helmets, in addition to impact and penetration resistance, 
provide electrical protection from high-voltage conductors (they are 
proof tested to 20,000 volts). Class C helmets provide impact and 
penetration resistance (they are usually made of aluminum which 
conducts electricity), and should not be used around electrical 
hazards.
    Where falling object hazards are present, helmets must be worn. 
Some examples include: working below other workers who are using 
tools and materials which could fall; working around or under 
conveyor belts which are carrying parts or materials; working below 
machinery or processes which might cause material or objects to 
fall; and working on exposed energized conductors.
    Some examples of occupations for which head protection should be 
routinely considered are: carpenters, electricians, linemen, 
mechanics and repairers, plumbers and pipe fitters, assemblers, 
packers, wrappers, sawyers, welders, laborers, freight handlers, 
timber cutting and logging, stock handlers, and warehouse laborers.
    10. Selection guidelines for foot protection. Safety shoes and 
boots which meet the ANSI Z41-1991 Standard provide both impact and 
compression protection. Where necessary, safety shoes can be 
obtained which provide puncture protection. In some work situations, 
metatarsal protection should be provided, and in other special 
situations electrical conductive or insulating safety shoes would be 
appropriate.
    Safety shoes or boots with impact protection would be required 
for carrying or handling materials such as packages, objects, parts 
or heavy tools, which could be dropped; and, for other activities 
where objects might fall onto the feet. Safety shoes or boots with 
compression protection would be required for work activities 
involving skid trucks (manual material handling carts) around bulk 
rolls (such as paper rolls) and around heavy pipes, all of which 
could potentially roll over an employee's feet. Safety shoes or 
boots with puncture protection would be required where sharp objects 
such as nails, wire, tacks, screws, large staples, scrap metal etc., 
could be stepped on by employees causing a foot injury.
    Some occupations (not a complete list) for which foot protection 
should be routinely considered are: shipping and receiving clerks, 
stock clerks, carpenters, electricians, machinists, mechanics and 
repairers, plumbers and pipe fitters, structural metal workers, 
assemblers, drywall installers and lathers, packers, wrappers, 
craters, punch and stamping press operators, sawyers, welders, 
laborers, freight handlers, gardeners and grounds-keepers, timber 
cutting and logging workers, stock handlers and warehouse laborers.
    11. Selection guidelines for hand protection. Gloves are often 
relied upon to prevent cuts, abrasions, burns, and skin contact with 
chemicals that are capable of causing local or systemic effects 
following dermal exposure. OSHA is unaware of any gloves that 
provide protection against all potential hand hazards, and commonly 
available glove materials provide only limited protection against 
many chemicals. Therefore, it is important to select the most 
appropriate glove for a particular application and to determine how 
long it can be worn, and whether it can be reused.
    It is also important to know the performance characteristics of 
gloves relative to the specific hazard anticipated; e.g., chemical 
hazards, cut hazards, flame hazards, etc. These performance 
characteristics should be assessed by using standard test 
procedures. Before purchasing gloves, the employer should request 
documentation from the manufacturer that the gloves meet the 
appropriate test standard(s) for the hazard(s) anticipated.
    Other factors to be considered for glove selection in general 
include:
    (A) As long as the performance characteristics are acceptable, 
in certain circumstances, it may be more cost effective to regularly 
change cheaper gloves than to reuse more expensive types; and,
    (B) The work activities of the employee should be studied to 
determine the degree of dexterity required, the duration, frequency, 
and degree of exposure of the hazard, and the physical stresses that 
will be applied.
    With respect to selection of gloves for protection against 
chemical hazards:
    (A) The toxic properties of the chemical(s) must be determined; 
in particular, the ability of the chemical to cause local effects on 
the skin and /or to pass through the skin and cause systemic 
effects;
    (B) Generally, any ``chemical resistant'' glove can be used for 
dry powders;
    (C) For mixtures and formulated products (unless specific test 
data are available), a glove should be selected on the basis of the 
chemical component with the shortest breakthrough time, since it is 
possible for solvents to carry active ingredients through polymeric 
materials; and,
    (D) Employees must be able to remove the gloves in such a manner 
as to prevent skin contamination.
    12. Cleaning and maintenance. It is important that all PPE be 
kept clean and properly maintained. Cleaning is particularly 
important for eye and face protection where dirty or fogged lenses 
could impair vision.
    For the purposes of compliance with Sec. 1910.132 (a) and (b), 
PPE should be inspected, cleaned, and maintained at regular 
intervals so that the PPE provides the requisite protection.
    It is also important to ensure that contaminated PPE which 
cannot be decontaminated is disposed of in a manner that protects 
employees from exposure to hazards.
[FR Doc 94-7581 Filed 4-5-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-F