Document vVBoRk8NbJ7nw62eMJrpwj4kw

TO: Interoffice Communication FROM: DATE: SUB J: SAFETY DIRECTORS T6G: JCC XF: \J0: RF T. G. Grumbles September 7, 1989 VISTA OSHA NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT OSHA is proposing to change personal protective equipment standards that apply to the eyes, face, head and foot. The agency is proposing to change existing specification standards to more performance oriented ones and where appropriate provide clearer requirements and guidance for the selection and use of PPE. Comments are due by October 16. Please let me know if you believe we need to make comments as Vista. \ o---------- T. G. Grumbles dlj . 805 cc: T. H. Huffman, J. A. DeBernardi, W. L. McClain SAFETY DIRECTORS Bruce Trego-Aber, Bill Jones-Balt, M. G. Jakel-Blane, A. E. RussellHmd, K. L. Fogg-LCCP, R. V. Gantz-LCLAB, G. M. Shirley-LCVCM, J. D. Harris-Okc, R. B. Martin-Ponca, D. A. Barclay, D. L. Morgan, J. R. Drumwright 0ot0 33832 Federal Register { Vol. 54. No. 157 / Wednesday. August 16. 1989 / Proposed Rule9 DEPARTMENT CP LABOR SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the existing standards. In addition. Occupational Safety and Health L Background OSHA has obtained injury data and technical reports which show that copie: Administration Sections 1910.132 through 1910.140 of injuries are occurring to employees who subpart I. Personal Protective are not wearing PPE, as well as to some WLM 29CFR Part 1910 [Docket No. S-460] Equipment, were adopted by OSHA in 1971 from established Federal standards and national consensus standards under employees who are wearing PPE. This would indicate that significant improvements in PPE design and TGG JCL RIN 1218-AA71 section 6(a) of the Occupational Safety acceptance are needed. OSHA believes MMG $ Personal Protective Equipment for General Industry and Health Act of 1970 (the Act) (29 U.S.C. 655(a)). Subpart I covers the use of personal protective equipment (PPE), that the record developed in the course of this rulemaking will enable the OLC Agency to promulgate revised standards agency: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Department of in general, and contains specific ' requirements and criteria for eye and for PPE lhat are more dearly written, more comprehensive, and more Labor. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. face protection, respiratory protection, head protection, foot protection, and . electrical protective devices. OSHA accurately reflect available technololgy. CDM OSHA expects that compliance with the proposed revisions will substantially Summary: The Occupational Safety and believes that the existing standards for reduce the risks to workers from the rt: Health Administration (OSHA) proposes to revise portions of the PPE in subpart I are outdated. The pertinent hazards. Agency is addressing the need to update general industry safety standards the regulation of respiratory protection II. Hazards Involved t- .. :i 4 \. -U3 addressing personal protective and electrical protective devices-in equipment. The standards proposed for separate rulemakings. The present revision regulate the design, selection, rulemaking is intended to update the and use of personal protective requirements for eye, face, head and equipment (eye. face, head and foot foot protective devices. The existing protection). standards reflect the knowledge and The existing personal protective practices regarding PPE as they existed equipment (PPE) standards (29 CFR part in the late 1980's through early 1970's. . 1910) apply to all general industry , They specify very restrictive design - - places of employment Many of these criteria (thus limiting the use of new standards are design restrictive, and/or technology), and contain gaps in outdated, and must be supplemented by coverage. administrative action to permit the use of more recently developed PPE which provide equivalent or better protection. Li addition, the existing standards do not always provide clear requirements for the selection and use of PPE. -' OSHA would delete, where appropriate, existing specification OSHA is concerned that restraints on innovation make it more difficult for employers either to increase acceptance of PPE or to provide more protective . PPE. Indeed, recognizing this likelihood, the Agency has already established a process under which OSHA has ------ - accepted, on a case-by-case basis, the provisions and use performance- oriented provisions to address hazards to die eyes, face, head and foot The Agency would also update the general industry PPE standards, where appropriate, to provide clearer 7 - requirements and guidance for the selection and use of PPE. The proposal would also add non-mandatory appendices A and B to this subpart to address PPE for eye. face, head, and foot hazards. use of eye protection which, while not designed to satisfy the existing standards, has been demonstrated through testing to provide equivalent or superior worker protection. However, the Agency believes that this process cannot keep pace with the development of improved PPE. Therefore. OSHA is concerned that, unless the PPE standards are revised to be more performance-oriented, employers and product manufacturers will be discouraged from improving their OSHA has determined that workers in a wide range of occupations are ' exposed to a significant risk of death or serious injury from being struck by various objects in theworkplace. OSHA's accident data indicate that a significant portion of all work related injuries and fatalities involve workers being struck in the eyes, face, head or feet by foreign objects. Among the references which document this problem are the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) work injury reports on eye, face, head and foot injuries: the BLS Supplementary Data System Information, the National Safety Council Accident Facts; the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) studies of accident data; and. artides in trade journals and safety magazines (References 5, 6, 7, 8. 9.10.1L 12,13,14,16.17,18.19. 20. 21. 22). While these sources differ as to the number and kind of injuries, they are consistent in pointing out the high incidences and severity of these accidents, and provide dear evidence of a significant risk to . workers. - In 1981, disabling occupational injuries and illnesses to the head, eyes, face, and feet account for over 14 percent of the disabling occupational DATES: Comments on this proposed equipment and providing improved injuries reported through the Bureau of rulemaking and requests for a hearing protection to workers. Labor Statistics Supplementary Data must be postmarked by October 16. Since 1971. the American National System. The BLS estimated that these 1989. Standards Institute (ANSI) has revised disability injuries included 116,000 eye ; AOORESS: Written comments and its consensus standards for head, foot injuries. 40.000 face injuries. 46.800 head requests for hearing should be sent to and eye and face protection. OSHA injuries, and 156.400 foot and toe injuries the Docket Officer. Docket No. S-060. proposes to use the most recent (Reference 5). , U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-2634. revisions of these standards as part of The 1988 edition ofAccident Facts 200 Constitution Avenue NW., the basis for its rulemaking. For estimated that in 1987. there were ] Washington. DC 20210. instance, OSHA has based its proposed 70.000 eye injuries. 70.000 head and face FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James Foster. Division of revision of the requirements for foot protection on ANSI 241-1983. Personnel Injuries, and 110,000 foot and toe injuries. Those injuries constituted 13.8 Information and Consumer Affairs. U.S. Protection--Protective Footwear. This percent of the estimated 1.800,000 total Department of Labor. Occupational ANSI Standard, unlike the existing disabling work injuries for 1987 Safety and Health Administration. OSHA foot protection standard, covers (Reference 15). Room N-3647. 200 Constitution Avenue foot protection for women as well as for The Injury Surveillance Branch. NW.. Washington. DC 20210. Telephone; men. This proposed change would Division of Safety Research, National 2] 523-8151. address a serious gap in coverage under Institute for Occupational Safety and VVV 000013874 r  *# Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 157 f Wednesday, August 15, 1989 / Proposed Rules 33833 Health (NIOSH), retying on data received through the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, National Electronic Injury Surveillance System, reported 333,272 occupational eye injuries for 1985 (Reference 8). The National Society to Prevent Blindness estimates that 2,500 eye injuries occur in the workplace every working day, and that the cost to employers is $130 million per year (including medir.al costs and wage compensation] (Reference 9). A BLS Supplementary Data System (SDS) tabulation (all industries) of 12 states reported that in 1983 37,379 injuries to the eyes, l&JSfi injuries to the face, 13,844 injuries to the head, and 59,970 injuries to the feet were recorded as worker compensation cases. OSHA notes that each state hay its own requirements for the minimum number of days (ranging from one to eight days) that a worker must be disabled before an injury gives to a worker compensation case. OSHA believes that this factor accounts for the apparent minor discrepancy between the 1933 BLS data and the other estimates for eye injuries. These injuries represent 12.7 percent of die total injuries reported (999,703) (Reference 10j. OSHA has used the Bureau of Labor Statistics Work Injury Reports (WIR) on eye, face, foot and head injuries in determining what sorts of PPE-reiated injuries workers experience (References 11,12.13,14). (See injury tables, below. These tables are based on BLS surveys of injured workers, and do not reflect the universe of norwnjnred workers.) Eye Injuries By Type of Accident, Selected States . Uufy-August 1979] Item All workers <100%) NO. Percent Workers wearing eye (41%) No. Parcar* Tnfel 1,052 ICO 435 too Flying or tailing object sttuek 727 69 3S5 82 Struck ncn> moving object-... . 21 2 & . 1 Liquid or chemical injured worker__ 218 21 59 14 Occurred in . ,. another way __ 66 6 <6 4 (Workers not wearing eye prolection=59 percent). Note: This table does not reflect workers whose eye prmorton prevented ejiaiea. Face Injuries By Type of Accujent, Selected States [July-November 1979] Item No. Ol workers Percent of workers Tnfel 774 100 Flying or tailing objects struck worker________ 344 44 Struck norwnovmg object 46 6 Liquid or ctnraicat injured Swinging ot^ect struck lace-. Object or tool we* pulled vac face,-________ --_____ Powered tool kicked back Ocairred in other way______ i 114 48 20 15 8 Note: This table does not reflect workers whose face protection prevented injuries. v Foot Injuries sy Description of Accident, Selected States July-August 1979 Total .................................. ............ Shurik hy felting nhjnt-t Ohjnrt mttari nnln nr over fnnt Hem Note: This table does not reflect workers whose foot protect!on prevented Injuries. Head Injuries by Description of Accident, Selected States July-September 1979 T,,,,. Item Note This table dee* not retied worker* w*ioM head protection prevented injuries. AH workers <100%) Nuflh bar Per cent Workers weanng safety *taes<23%) Num Perber cer* 1.251 721 16S 59 61 100 283 16 24 56 191 13 38 6 13 2a 6 16 109 8 67 13 5 1 6 All workers (100%) Num ber Per cent Wcrters weanng hard hat* <16%) Num Per ber cent 1,033 ICO 170 100 299 29 21 12 19 26 371 38 62 36 45 4 9 5 vw 000013B7S r 33834 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 10, 1989 / Proposed Rules A Work Injury Report (WIR) on eye injuries conducted by the BLS shows that three-fifths of the injured workers surveyed (1.052) were not wearing eye protection. Where injured workers were wearing eye protection, in 94 percent of the incidents, the harm was caused by materials which went around or under the protector {Reference 11). Similar results are reported in the BLS WIR on face injuries. Virtually all of the injured workers (774) had not worn face protection. Of the nine workers in the survey who were wearing face protection, five were injured by materials which went around or under the protector, and in three cases the protector was knocked off the worker by the impact of the object which caused the injury. The typical face injury was caused by flying or falling biunt metal - objects (Reference 12). --------- - The BLS WIR on head injuries shows that 64 percent of the injured workers studied (1,033) were not wearing head protection. Where workers were wearing PPE, almost 70 percent received blows to an unprotected part of the head. Over one-third of the accidents resulted from failing objects striking the head. Three-tenths of the accidents occurred when workers struck a nonmoving object and one-fifth occurredwhen a swinging object such as a steel bar, struck the head (Reference 13). Regarding foot injuries, the BLS WIR indicates that fewer than one-fourth of the injured workers (1.251) were wearing safety shoes or boots at the time of the accident. Nearly three-fifths of the accidents resulted from failing objects striking the foot Stepping on a sharp object, such as a nail, caused 16 percent of the injuries, and another 13 percent occurred when an object rolled over the foot (Reference 14). These BLS work injury reports on eye, face, head, and foot injuries (Report Numbers 597, 604, 605, and 626] identify two major factors concerning these types of injuries. Personal protective equipment is not being worn the vast majority of the time, and when the protective equipment is worn, it does not fully protect the worker. For instance, objects go around the protector or strike an area for which the protector does not provide protection. OSHA believes that the proposal will address the problems identified in the BLS reports by allowing new innovative designs through the use of performanceoriented language, by providing information for selecting the proper protection, and by improving the protection afforded by the equipment. (For example, the current OSHA foot protection standard does not address penetration resistance through the sole of a safety shoe, nor protection of areas of the foot other than the toe. OSHA intends through its new standards, to gain an improvement in worker acceptance of wearing protective equipment 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. RL Summary and Explanation of the Proposal OSHA proposes to revise subpart I of 29 CFR part 1910 to replace, where appropriate, existing specification provisions with performance-oriented criteria for eye, face, foot and head protection. OSHA would update the design requirements for PPE by revising the standards so they reference the current edition of the pertinent ANSI standards. Requirements for PPE selection, care, use and training would appear in the body of the revised standard. As noted above, the proposed standard includes criteria for women's protective footwear, so that all protective footwear is covered. In addition, protection for the sole of the foot would be required when there is a risk of objects piercing the sole. Such protection is not provided in the current OSHA PPE standards. Provisions have been added which address the selection of PPE, defective and damaged equipment, reissued equipment and training. The requirements of proposed subpart L like those of current subpart I, would apply to all general industry places of employment The proposal would add several general requirements to 5 1910.132; would revise 1910.133, 1910.135 and 1910.136; would reserve S$ 1910.138,1910.139. and 1910.140; and would add appendices A and B to subpart L -............. The proposed format of part 1910, subpart L would contain the following sections: 1910-132--General requirements 1910.133-- Eye and face protection 1910.134-- Respiratory protection 1910.135-- Head protection 1910.136--Foot protection 1910.137-- Electrical protective devices 1910.138--Incorporation by reference [reserved] 1910.139-- (Reserved] 1910.140-- [Reserved] Appendix A--References for further information Appendix B--Compliance guidelines for hazard assessment and personal protective equipment selection The provisions of the current subpart I standards. 1910.132 through 1910.140. would be revised, deleted or retained as set forth in the following table: Current standard Proposed standard 1910.132(a)- -. -. 91910.132(a)* 51910.132(b)____________ 51910.132(b)* 51910.132(g) -- 51910.132(c)* 91910.133(a)(1)_____ __ 51910.133(a)(1) 91910.133(a)(2)(f)_______ 51910.133(b) 51910.133<a)(2)(ii)----------- 51910.133(a)(2) 9l910.133(aK2)(iii)_______ 51910.133(a)(2) 91910.133(a)(2)(iv)______ 51910.133(b) 91910.133(a)(2)(v)_______ 91910.133(f) 9l910.133(a)(2)(vi)______ 91910.133(f) 1910.133(a)(2)(vii)______ 91910.133(e) 1910.133{a)(3)(i)_______ 51910.133(a)(4) 91910.133(a)(3)(H) . .. 91910.133(a)(4) 91010.133<a)(3)(iH). 91910.133(a)(4) 91910.133(a)(4). 51910.133(b)(1) 51910.133(a)(5)..------------ 51910.132(g) 51910.133(a)(6)__________ 51910.133(b) 1910 1-14 51910.134* 51910.137_______ ._______ 1910.137* 91910 13fl 91910.140 --- None (reserved) 'The current requirements for these paragraphs and sections are not proposed for revision in this proposal and will remain unchanged by this njlemak- In addition to these sections, OSHA proposes to add non-mandatory appendices A and B. which provide references for further information for compliance-assistance, and information for hazard assessment and PPE selection, respectively. As discussed previously, the existing PPE standards reference obsolete national consensus standards. In their place. OSHA has referenced the current national consensus standards in the proposed standard. In the years since the Agency promulgated part 1910. OSHA's general policy has been to use its rulemaking proceedings to delete any references to national consensus standards and to incorporate, where appropriate, the pertinent regulatory text into the OSHA standards. OSHA has set this policy because the Agency believes that the compliance burden is most reasonable when employers and employees have all of the requirements which apply to them in the body of the OSHA standards as published by the Agency, without having to track down referenced documents. However, OSHA notes that in the case of PPE design requirements, neither employers nor employees are directly concerned with the detailed design requirements or test methods. They are concerned only that the equipment satisfies the pertinent OSHA Standards. OSHA further notes that it is universal practice for PPE manufacturers to determine (usually by testing) that their equipment meets the ANSI design requirements and. then, to VVV 0000138T6 Federal Register / VoL 54, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 1989 / Proposed Rules 33833 advertise and mark their products as meeting the applicable standard OSHA has determined that compliance with the design requirements in the current editions of the national consensus standards for head, foot, eye and face protection would provide a proper level of protection. Therefore, OSHA proposes to incorporate by reference those standards for the PPE design requirements since, as discussed previously, these requirements are not normally used by employers or employees, but rather by manufacturers of PPE. The provisions affected by these incorporations by reference, 1910.133(a](8), 1810.135, and 1810.136, are discussed in more detail below. OSHA proposes to include the provisions that address PPE selection, care, use and training with the revised regulatory text. In the early 1870`s, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health tested various types of personal protective equipment and found that a number of them did not meet the OSHA Standards (by failing to meet the design and test requirements in the referenced American National Standards}. This identified a possible need for third-party certification similar to that required in the OSHA Standards for respirators (NIOSH Certification}, and electrical equipment (UL listing}. More recently, the Safety Equipment institute has met with OSHA to explain the benefits of their third-party certification pregram, and has encouraged OSHA to consider a requirement for certification of PPE. There are advantages and disadvantages to third-party certification. The main disadvantage is that it could result in substantial costs to manufacturers since they would . normally have to contract for services from a recognized testing laboratory. However, one advantage is that PPE which is advertised as meeting certain criteria would be tested (and certified} to ensure that the PPE does, in fact, meet that criteria. Another advantage is that third-party certification would include a follow-up inspection service to periodically test PPE to ensure continued compliance with specified criteria. OSHA requests comments and information on whether or not OSHA should include a requirement in the PPE standards that employers obtain thirdparty certification that their PPE meets the applicable OSHA requirements. While the current OSHA standards do not require certification, there are several certification programs currently in place (such as those administered by the Safety Equipment Institute and the Footwear Industries of America} which are being utilized by equipment manufacturers. Is certification of PPE necessary to ensure that head, foot, eye and face PPE meets OSHA standards? What would be the costs and benefits ci certification, if such a requirement were added? In accordance with paragraph 6(b)(8J of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 655}, the Agency has reviewed the various national consensus standards that cover working conditions addressed in this proposal, OSHA has incorporated appropriate provisions from those national consensus standards as part of this proposal OSHA believes that the proposed standard will better effectuate the purposes of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 than the national consensus standards which have not been made a part of this proposal because this proposal is more comprehensive, provides greater flexibility in its requirements for safety, and provides for public participation and comment. The revision of these general industry PPE Standards will be coordinated with efforts to revise parallel provisions in the Shipyard Employment and Construction Standards so that consistent coverage of hazards which are encountered in these industry sectors can be provided. The following discussion provides a more detailed explanation of the proposed provisions related to personal protective equipment Section 1910.132 General Requirements Existing paragraphs (a) through (c) of 1910.132 are not proposed for revision in this rulemaking. Existing paragraph (a) requires that protective equipment be provided, used and maintained in sanitary and reliable condition, as necessary, to protect employees from workplace hazards. Existing paragraph (b) requires that where employees provide their own equipment the employer assure the adequacy, inrlnHing the proper maintenance and sanitation, of such equipment Existing paragraph (c) requires that ail personal protective equipment be of safe design and construction for the work to be performed. Proposed paragraph (d] of 11910.132 would be added to address the selection of personal protective equipment (PPE}. The current standards do not contain a similar provision. This proposed provision would 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 are responsible for obtaining their own PPE, the proposed provision requires employers to inform their employees of the selection decisions and ensure, regardless of who obtains it that the correct PPE is, in fact obtained. This provision is based on current 1916.133(a)(1), which covers eye and face protection, but the provision has been expanded so that it covers selection of all personal protective equipment. Proposed paragraph (e), a new requirement prohibits the use of defective or damaged PPE. This provision is based, in part, on 1910.133(a)(2)(vu) of file existing standard, which states that protectors should be kept clean and in good repair. Under the proposed paragraph, this requirement would cover all PPE. Proposed paragraph (f) is a new requirement that would require employees to be trained in the proper use of their personal protective equipment This paragraph is based on existing 11910.134(b)(3) that requires training for respirator use and has been expanded to cover all PPE. OSHA proposes this requirement because the Bureau of tabor Statistics Work Injury Reports indicated that a significant number of the employees injured had not received training in the proper use of PPE [References 11,12,13, and 14}, Section 1910.133 Eye andFace Protection Under proposed paragraph (a}(l), employers must ensure that employees use appropriate eye and face protection when they are exposed to eye or face hazards from flying particles, molten metal, liquid chemicals, chemical gases or vapors, or potentially injurious light radiation. The only significant difference between proposed paragraph (a)(1) and existing paragraph (a}[l) is that the term "liquids" would be replaced by the terms "molten metal" and "liquid chemicals'* in the list of hazards for . which eye and face protection are required OSHA believes it is appropriate to specify that molten metal is covered to prevent confusion over whether or not molten metal is a "liquid." Also, proposed paragraph (a)(1) replaces the general requirement for "suitable" eye protection with the requirement that eye protection used by employees provide both front and side protection from flying objects. OSHA notes, for example, that eye protection with side shields or molded wrap around leases and frames, would satisfy this requirement. The proposed revision VVV 000013877 33836 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16, 1989 / Proposed Rules is based on the Bureau of Labor duties already imposed by 3 1910.132(a) energy, such as that produced by Statistics Work Injury Report on eye of the existing standard. welding, use eye protection with filter injuries which identified that in cases Existing 1910.133(a)(2)(vii), which lenses which have a shade number where eye protection was used, 94 - recommends that protectors "be kept appropriate for the work being percent of the incidents occurred when ' clean and in good repair," is proposed to performed. In addition, this proposed an object (or chemical) went around the be removed since it is not a mandatory provision includes a list of the proper protection (Reference 11). OSHA requirement and does not belong in the shade numbers for various operations. requests comments on the need for this standard. The intent of the Existing 1910.133(a)(1) requires revision, including information on the recommendations is covered by protection from potentially injurious extent to which employers are already proposed 5 1910.132(e). light radiation. OSHA has determined, providing eye protection which satisfies Proposed paragraph (a)(3) adds a new however, that the proposed provision the proposed requirement and any requirement--that workers who pass - states the requirements more clearly. additional costs which would be - from well-lit to dimly-lit areas not wear In paragraph (b), OSHA proposes that involved in obtaining eye protection protectors with tinted, or variable tinted the design requirements for eye and face which meets the proposed requirement lenses. This provision would reduce the protection comply with the provisions of Existing % 1910.133 is based on ANSI Z87.1-1968, section 4. Existing paragraph (a)(1) of $ 1910.133 contains a general provision to require eye and face protection where such use. could prevent probable injuries. This provision is so. general that it is difficult to determine what is required. Therefore, we are proposing.to make 31910.133(a)(1) more specific to better clarify when eye and - face protection are required. Existing 5 1910.133(a)(1) also requires that r- . suitable eye and face protection be. . made conveniently available; and, that . unprotected persons not be knowingly ~ subjected to hazards. These two provisions are being deleted from proposed 3 1910.133(a)(1) since they are already addressed elsewhere in this proposed standard (existing . S 1910.132(a) and proposed ' ,, 3 1910.132(d)). Proposed paragraph (a)(2), requires ~ that eye and face protective equipment fit employees properly. The proposed likelihood that extreme lighting changes will temporarily impair an employee's vision, such as when a forklift operator drives a forklift from the outdoors into a poorly lit warehouse. OSHA solicits comments regarding the need for and ~ suitability of this proposed requirement, with emphasis on the extent to which wearing tinted lenses in these situations actually adds to the recognized vision r problem caused by dim lighting. Proposed paragraph (a)(4), which is / based on existing 5 1910.133(a)(3), requires that employees who wear ! , prescription lenses be protected by.eye ; protection that incorporates the prescription in its design or by eye protection that can be worn over prescription lenses without interfering with the prescription lenses such that vision becomes impaired, or when protection is not fully provided because of interference. Existing 3 1910.133(a)(4), which requires that "every protector shall be ' ANSI Z87.1-1989, or be of a design that provides equivalent protection. Currently, the requirements for the design of eye and face protection are found in 3 1910.133(a)(6), which references the.1968 edition of ANSI - Z87.1. Proposed paragraph (b) merely updates the ANSI reference for the design of eye and face protection to reflect the current (1989) edition. The design criteria contained in the 1989 - edition of ANSI Z87.1 are much more performance-oriented than those in the existing OSHA standard, and can be met by eye and face protection currently in use in general industry. - The 1989 edition of ANSI Z07.1 that OSHA proposes to incorporate by reference contains design criteria for piano spectacles, as well as criteria and test methods for: Optical performance; transmittance impact, flammability; corrosive resistance for metal parts; and, cleanability. requirement is based on existing distinctly marked, to facilitate Section 1910.135 Head Protection 3 1910.133 (a)(2)(ii) and (a)(2)(iii), as well identification only of the manufacturer,"., as on ANSI ZS7.1-1969. section 7.4. : is proposed to be removed since a OSHA believes that the proposed marking to identify the manufacturer of simplified requirement will provide ^ eye and face protection does not add or employers with the appropriate ; detract from die safety afforded by the guidance so they can assure good vision . protector ANSI Z87.1-1989. which is and proper eye protection for . . ' ; proposed to be incorporated by ;.. employees. The Agency has not retained ` reference, contains this same ` ' existing paragraph (a)(2)(i) in the requirement However, the deletion of proposed rule, because that provision's . this requirement by the proposal, would requirement for PPE which provides supersede this ANSI requirement. "adequate protection" would be covered Existing 3 1910.133(a)(5), which by proposed paragraph (a)(1). requires that "limitations or Proposed paragraph (a)(1), mandates that employers require their employees wear protective helmets when they are wotking where there is a potential for injury to the head from falling or moving objects. Hus language, based on existing 5 1910.132(a), has been revised to clarify when heed protection is required.. Proposed paragraph (a)(2) requires that employees who are near exposed energized conductors which their heads In addition, existing precautions" provided by the could contact must wear helmets 5 1910.133(a)(2)(iv), which requires manufacturer "be transmitted to the user designed for protection from electrical protectors to "be durable", is proposed and care be taken to see that such shock hazards. This provision, based on to be removed since the intent of the limitations and precautions are strictly existing 53 1910.132(a) and 1910.135. existing provision is now covered by observed." is proposed to be removed. ~ would clarify when electrical protective proposed 3 1910.132(e), which prohibits The intent of the existing provision is type helmets must be worn. defective or damaged PPE from being now covered by proposed 31910.132(f). ' Proposed paragraph (b) requires that used, and by proposed 3 1910.133(b). which requires employees to be trained the design of protective helmets comply which covers the design requirements in the proper use of their PPE, and by > j with the provisions of ANSI Z89.1-1986. for eye and face protection. proposed appendix B which provides "Requirements for Protective Headwear Existing 3 1910.133 (a)(2J(v) and compliance guidelines for selection of for Industrial Workers," (Reference 2) or -(a)(2)(vi) which require protectors to "be PPE. - - be of a design that provides equivalent capable of being disinfected" and "be Proposed paragraph (a)(5), anew - protection. ANSI Z09.1-1980 covers easily cleanable," are proposed to be provision, requires that employees 1 ; Impact resistance, penetration ' removed since they are redundant to potentially exposed to injurious radiant - protection, flammability, water VVV 000013878 *'*: t. V ; :v-Ll Federal Register / Vol. 54, No, 157 / Wednesday, August 18. 1989 / Proposed Rules 33837 absorption resistance, electrical 1967 edition of ANSI Z41.1 did not set insulation and maximum weight. Hie requirements for sole puncture . existing OSHA standard for head resistance, whereas the current ANSI protection, 5 1910.135, references ANSI Z41-1983 standard does. The Bureau of Z89.1-1969 (Reference 26). This earlier Labor Statistics' Work Injury Report . edition, except insofar as it addresses (WIR) on foot injuries (Reference 14) electrical insulation for Class B helmets, indicates that objects piercing the sole sets essentially the same requirements accounted for 16 percent of foot injuries as would apply through the proposed to all workers in the survey, and eight paragraph (b) reference to ANSI Z89.1- percent for those workers in the survey 1986. A significant difference between who were wearing safety shoes. the helmet provisions referenced in Therefore. OSHA is proposing that proposed paragraph (b] and the present . footwear, in addition to protecting OSHA requirements involves the employees from falling or rolling objects, relevant testing for helmets used lor protect them from sole punctures. The protection against live electrical Agency solicits comments and conductors. The testing requirements in information on the extent to which the 1986 ANSI standard are somewhat employers or employees are arranging more stringent for "Class B" helmets for the availability and use of protective than those referenced in the current footwear which meets the proposed OSHA standards. However, OSHA requirement OSHA also seeks believes that helmets currently used for information, on any additional costs protection against electrical contact in involved in obtaining foot protection general industry meet the electrical which meets the proposed requirement insulation requirements in ANSI Z89.11988. The effect of this change in testing requirements involves only a small number of employees, primarily linemen and tree trimmers, who generally wear helmets which are classified under the ANSI standard as "Class B" helmets. The Agency solicits comments and information on helmets presently used for electrical protection in general industry, and whether such helmets would comply with the proposed OSHA standards. Currently, OSHA does not have any requirements for "bump caps" (a type of headwear that is intended to provide In paragraph (b), OSHA proposes that the design of protective footwear comply with the provisions of ANSI Z41-1983 (Reference 3) or be of a design that provides equivalent protection. The provisions in ANSI Z41-1983 cover compression resistance, impact resistance and puncture resistance. Existing 1910.138. through its reference to the 1967 edition, sets compression and impact requirements, which are the same as those in ANSI Z41-1983. However, as noted above, the 1967 edition applied only to men's protective footwear. ANSI Z41-1983 covers both head protection from minor impact and men's and women's protective footwear, protection from cuts and scrapes). Should OSHA include requirements for thus filling a gap in the current OSHA standard for protective footwear. OSHA the use and design of "bump caps"? Are believes that protective footwear which there any voluntary or consensus complies with the ANSI Z41.1-19G7 . standards for "bump caps"? What - " standard would also comply with the would be the economic and safety- V ANSI Z41-1983 requirements for impact if OSHA added requirements-far compression and impact resistance. As the use and design of "bump caps"? ` discussed above, puncture resistance How should OSHA target the use of was not covered in the ANSI Z41.1-1967 bump caps to determine when or when standard. . . ... not they are needed? Appendices A and B to Subpart I Section 1910.138 Foot Protection Proposed paragraph (a) requires employers to ensure that their employees wear protective footwear when they are working in areas where there is a danger of foot injuries due to falling and rolling objects, or objects piercing the sole. In substance, the same general requirement is contained in existing 1910.132(a). This proposed language, however, clarifies the circumstances where foot protection would be required. The current OSHA .. standard for foot protection. 9 1910.136, references ANSI Z41.1-1967, which has been superseded by ANSI Z-11-1983. The As discussed above, OSHA proposes to add non-mandatory appendices A and B to subpart I to provide a list of references for further information which may be useful in implementing this standard, and to provide compliance guidelines on hazard assessment and personal protective equipment selection. IV. References 1.American National Standards Institute (ANSI). American National StandardPractice for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection. (ANSI Z07.1-1989). New York. NY: ANSI. 1989. 2. American National Standards Institute (ANSI). American National Standard Safety Requirements for Protective Headwearfor Industrial Workers. (ANSI ZQ9-1-1986). New York, NY: ANSI. 1981. 3. American National Standards Institute (ANSI). American National StandardforPersonnel ProtectionProtective Footwear. (ANSI Z41-1983). New York, NY: ANSI. 1983. 4. American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Proposed ANSI Z87.1198X, Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection Standard, Draft V. New York, NY: ANSI. August 1986. 5. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). "National Estimates of the Number of Disabling Occupational Injuries and Illnesses by Part of Body Affected in the Private Sector. 1980 and 1981," U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC. 6. National Safety Council. "Accident Facts 1981 Edition,'' Chicago, IL: 1981. 7. National Safety Council. "Accident Facta 1986 Edition," Chicago, IL: 1986. 8. Injury Surveillance Branch, Division of Safety Research. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Unpublished summary analysis, "Frequencies of Selected Occupational Conditions by Data Source. 1980-1985," Morgantown, WV: NIOSH. 1989. 9. National Society to Prevent Blindness. "Disabling Eye Injuries in the Workplace--A Descriptive Overview," Chicago, IL: November 1984. 10. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS): SDS Table 102. Part of Body Affected: Number and Percent Distribution of Cases. All Workers."; "SDS Table 122. Part of Body Affected: Number and Percent Distribution of Cases, By Indemnity Compensation and Medical Payments, All Workers."; "SDS Table 102. Part of Body Affected: Number and Percent Distribution of Cases, All Workers. Cases Involving Medical Treatment," Washington, DC: BLS 1987. - 11. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). "Accidents Involving Eye Injuries," Washington, DC: BLS, 1980. 12. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). "Accidents Involving Face Injuries," Washington. DC: BLS, 1980. 13. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). . "Accidents Involving Head Injuries," Washington. DC: BLS. 1980. 14. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). "Accidents Involving Foot Injuries," Washington, DC: BLS. 1981. 15. National Safety Council. "Accident Facts 1988 Edition", Chicago, Illinois: 1987. 16. Lancianese, Frank W. "Special Report: How Two Companies Combat Eye, Face, and Head Hazards," 0000138T9 YVY 33838 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 157 \ Wednesday, August 16; 1989 / Proposed Rules Occupational Hazards. Cleveland, Ohio: February 1384. 17. McCrea, Mary Jacobs. "Identification of Eye Hazards in the ' Workplace," Department of Health. Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service. Food and Drug Administration. Dermal and Ocular Toxicology Branch, Washington. DC: Memorandum. October 23,1978. 18. Kamin, Jeff I. "NIOSH Research Program... Developing Safety Standards for Eye and Face Protection." National Safety News, Chicago, IL: October 1974. 19. McKenzie. Leisa. "The Eyes Have It* But Not Without Personal Protective Equipment" Ohio Monitor, Columbus, Ohio, September 1985. 20. Crapnell, Stephen G. "Eye, Head, and Face Injuries: Prevention. Protection, and Payoff," Occupational Hazards, Cleveland, Ohio, July 1983. 21. Kendall, Richard M. "Pfizer Formula Prevents Eye, Face, and Head Injuries," OccupationalHazards, Cleveland, Ohio, November 1986. 22. Nemec, Margaret M. "Head. Eye and Face Protection at Republic Steel." Occupational Hazards, Cleveland, Ohio. February I960. 23. American National Standards Institute (ANSI]. Proposed ANSI ZB7.1L9QX, Occupational and Educational Eye andFace Protection Standard, Draft VL New York. NY: ANSI, August 1987. 24. Kaufman. Joel G. Letter to Mr. Edward Hall dated September 6.1985, impact Testing of Lenses. Glendale Optical Company. September 1985. 25. King. JJL el al. "Norton Panalens 180 Project Report," Norton Company Safety Products Division, December 8, 1980. 26. American National Standards Institute (ANSI], American National Standard Safety Requirements for Industrial Head Protection. (ANSI Z89.1-1969J. New York. NY: ANSI, 1969. V. Preliminary Regulatory Impact Assessment and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Introduction OSHA adopted its current standards for personal protective equipment (PPE) from National Consensus Standards under section 6(a) of the OSH Act. In the nearly two decades that have passed since these standards were developed, a number of advances have been made in PPE technology. Thus. OSHA isproposing to revise this workplace standard in order to reflect these improved means of hazard prevention. Executive Order 12291 (48 FR13197) requires that a regulatory impact analysis be prepared for any proposed regulation that meets the criteria for a "major rule": that is, that would be likely to resuit in an annual impact on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in cost or prices for consumers, individual industries, federal state, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or, significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign- based enterprises in domestic or export markets. In addition, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 60. ef seq.) requires an analysis of whether a regulation will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Consistent with these requirements. OSHA has prepared this Preliminary Regulatory Impact and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the proposed revisions to the PPE standard. As a result of this analysis OSHA has made a preliminary determination that the proposed revision to the PPE regulations will not constitute a major rule. Affected Industries and Current Use Based on a preliminary report prepared by Eastern Research Group [l| OSHA has determined that virtually all industries covered by the General Industry Standards will be affected by these revisions. The extent of the impact will vary by industry depending on the hazards, the types of occupations and the current practice regarding PPE use. The US. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) groups employment into seven major occupational categories, of which two: (1) Construction, operating, maintenance and material handling and (2) agriculture, forestry, fishing and related activities are assumed to include most of the occupations covered by this proposal. These two employment groups have been used as an estimate of the population-at-risk. Table 1-1 presents estimates of the number of establishments, total employment and population-at-risk, by affected industry. Table M.--Establishments ano Employment of Affected Industries . , SC code industry Eataftfishments(a) , Employment(b) (00) Employ ment per estabiistv ment Popula tion-at-risk (00(9 078 08 RsNng, hunting, end trapping OS 09 Mining 13 20 21 22 Textile mrti nrartmt* 23 24 25 28 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Primary meut ............ ------ --------------------- - 163.698 31,128 441.8 178.0 2.7 5.7 160.2 1.916 129.000 25.042 347.822 0.221 10,612 8.324 56.13T 2.328 8.921 8.6 4.5 09 18.997.1 1.619.9 705.3 1.105.5 7105 407.1 674J 7S9.S 1512 752.5 75.1 113.4 yrn 46.0 t.1922 . 42.0 568.1 588.3 84.7 72.5 5&S 81.9 108.7 511.3 94.7 612.7 121.8 451.1 583.2 wv 000013880 Federal Register f Vol. 54, No. 15T / Wednesday, August 16, 1989 / Proposed Rules______ 33839 Table l-i.--Establishments and Employment of Affecteo Industries--Continued 8IC code industry Establishments(a) Employffldntyb) (000) Employ ment per establish* mem Pop'jla- Son-ai-fssk (COO) 34 35,380 1.431.1 40.4 1,050.4 35 50.703 2,059.7 40.6 1,172.0 36 17.392 2.123.0 122.1 1,154.9 37 9,498 2.015.1 212.2 1,229.2 38 8.294 706.8 65.2 344.2 39 15.924 362.0 22.7 246.2 184,197 4,150.0 22.5 2.075.2 41 14.042 281.5 20.0 198.7 42 89,081 1,382.2 15.5 1,031.1 47 33.836 283.8 8.4 35.2 48 1,278.8 43.3 359.3 49 17.725 923.7 52.1 450.8 432^78 5.734.0 13.3 1,694.7 50 268.948 3.383.0 12.6 923.6 51 163,330 14.4 771.1 17,345.0 12.6 2.019.3 52 66,517 701.1 10.2 174.6 53 35,265 2.362.9 67.0 139.4 54 182,725 2.872.9 15.7 249.9 55 200,942 1,942.7 9.7 833.9 56 7.7 46.0 57 96,001 770.6 7.9 174.2 56 351,323 5,878.8 16.7 70.5 59 317,754 2J245.6 7.1 2S0.7 485,806 6,477.1 13.3 462.6 60 52^15 1,736.0 33.2 8.7 61 61,145 13.6 0.0 62 16,843 20.6 2.4 63 34,630 1,364.2 39.4 146.0 64 ' 96.262 560.7 6.0 0.0 65 198,460 1,187.3 6.0 286.1 66 4.973 38.6 9.8 67 19,258 10.0 9.9 1,706,018 22,280.5 13.1 2,639.4 70 1.401.1 29.2 no.7 72 175,171 1.104.2 6.3 297.0 73 4,781.0 18.5 693.2 75 127,636 762.1 6.0 533.5 76 56.669 320.0 5.6 217.0 78 16.208 226.5 12.4 29.1 79 60,210 915.0 15.2 129.9 60 390.223 6.550.5 16.5 229.3 61 125,706 747.7 5.9 0-0 82 30,093 1,428.0 47.5 91.4 83 88,096 1,457.0 16.5 131.t 84 2.005 46.2 23.0 5.9 86 175.977 1,262.0 7.2 125-8 69 149,620 1,279.2 6.5 43.5 NA--Not available. ' Sources: Eastern Research Group [11. (a) U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, County Business Patterns, 1895. (b) U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment ana Earnings. (c) National Amorists' Assoc, and ERG estimates. (d) National Marine Fisheries Services. 4987. Fisheries of the United States, 1988. April, ERG considered each vessel to be an establishment Most types of PPE have been in widespread use in most industries for many years. There are, however, very little statistical data available that would allow a determination of 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 shows that approximately 3.5 percent of all planned safety inspections result in a citation under the existing PPE standard. What is not shown by these data is the degree of hazard present at these workplaces, the number of workers exposed to the hazard, or the type of PPE required. Several Work Injury Report (WIR) published by the BLS cover a number of specific industries or types of injuries. These reports, which examine only those cases where a worker was injured, indicate that many workers are not wearing PPE or are wearing inadequate PPE. Of the approximately 22 million workers at risk, OSHA estimates that about 12.3 percent or 2.8 million workers are not wearing the appropriate PPE (See chapter II of full analysis). OSHA also estimates that relatively few firms have performed a forma! hazard assessment of the potential hazards in their workplace. Also. OSHA assumes that many workers are not wearing PPE or are wearing inadequate PPE due to a lack of training regarding the importance of using this equipment. Nonregulatory Environment The primary objective of OSHA's proposed revisions to the PPE standard is to reduce the number of employee injuries and deaths resulting from nonuse of PPE or use of inappropriate PPE. OSHA believes that the present risk to employees is too high and that the proposed revisions will prevent a substantial number of these injuries and fatalities. OSHA examined the nonregulatory approaches for promoting VVV 000013881 33840 Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 157 / Wednesday, August 16. 1389 / Proposed Rules adequate levels of PPE use including (1] economic forces generated by the private market system. (2) incentives created by Workers' Compensation programs or the threat of private suits, and (3) related activities of private agencies. As a result of this review, OSHA has determined that the need for government regulation arises from the significant risk of job-related injury or death caused by the inadequate rate of optional private hazard-abatement expenditure. Private markets fail to provide enough safety and health resources due to the lack of risk information, the immobility of labor, and the extemalization of part of the social costs of worker injuries and deaths. Workers' Compensation systems do not approximately $28.3 million annually, offer an adequate remedy because the The annualized cost of training in the premiums do not reflect specific proper use of PPE is expected to be $13.9 workplace risk, and liability claims are million per year and the annualized cost restricted by state statutes preventing employees from suing their employers. While certain voluntary standards exist, their scope and approach fail to provide adequate protection for ad workers. Thus, OSHA has determined that a federal standard is necessary. of the requirement to conduct a hazard assessment is estimated to be S13.S million per year assuming a reassessment is conducted once every Five years. Using alternative assumptions regarding the frequency of the reassessment of either an initial Costs of Compliance assessment followed by annual Under both the existing and proposed reassessments or a reassessment every standards there are requirements to ten years resulted in estimated costs of provide PPE wherever there are hazards $19.4 and $9.8 million respectively. present in the workplace. OSHA . - ....Table 1-2 presents the aggregate cost estimates that the incremental cost to estimates by provision for each major comply with the revised rule would be - industry group. Table 1-2.--Summary of Aggregate Compuance Costs Major industry group 1910.132(a) Provision of PPE 1910.132(d) Hazard assessment 1910.132(g) PPE training 1910.133(8X1) SJdeshtekfs Total compliance costs Proposed - standard . Existing .. standard - Incremental costs Landscape and horticuluraf services, forestry, and fisheries __ ... OB and gas extraction Manufacturing... Transportation, communication, utilities___ .... Wholesale trade. .... Finance, insurance, real estate........................... Setvicea.. ,, ..... ........ Totals ___ _ 51.090.011 1.660.095 *0,723.673 6.637.128 4.890.006 3.636.204 833,375 5.808.593 65.279,087 51.021.816 169.111 4,671,996 1,712.609 4,361.144 749.492 249,101 623.291 13,778.560 Source; U.S. Department of Laoor, OSHA Office of Regulatory Analysis. $419,036 91.507 6.910.023 1.469,490 1.130,399 1,583,219 250,395 2.036.008 13,890,077 -- 58,093 14.761 10.553 2,419 13.793 560.284 52.538.957 1.925.359 52,739,412 9.891.528 10.416.310 5.979.467 1.335,291 6.681.686 93306,008 51.090.011 1,660,095 40.723.673 6,637.128 4.890.006 3.636.204 833.375 5,808.593 . 65.279,067 51.448,946 26S.2S3 12.015.739 3.254,398 5,526.304 2,343.263 SOI ,915 2.873.093 28.228.921 Assessment ofHazards and Benefits Full compliance with the existing or proposed standards is expected to reduce the incidence of certain types of workplace injuries and fatalities. OSHA's injury analysis has focused primarily on head, eye, face, hand and foot injuries as the ones most likely to be affected by PPE use. OSHA estimates that, annually, there are approximately 411.000 non-fatal injuries that may be related to PPE use among the population of workers covered by the standard. Based on a review of the available data, OSHA estimates that approximately 82,200 could be prevented by full compliance with the existing standard and that an additional 41,000 could be prevented by full compliance with the proposed standard. In addition. OSHA estimates that 6 fatalities per year, which result from head injuries, could be prevented by full compliance with either the existing or proposed standards. The standard has performance- oriented provisions which address eye. face, head and foot hazards and allows employers to adopt the most up-to-date PPE for use in their establishments. The flexibility to substitute new material and technologies should produce more comfortable and Drotective PPE. An increase in worker acceptance and use of PFE will translate into additional benefits. While the improvement in the level of benefits is difficult to quantify, the expectation is that increased use of better equipment will prevent or lessen the severity of many accidents to the eye. face, head or foot Economic Impact and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis OSHA has assessed the potential economic impact of the proposed PPE standard and has made a preliminary determination that none of the major industry groups would experience a significant economic burden as a result of the proposed standard. If all of the costs are passed through to the consumer. OSHA estimates that the average price increase would be 0.001 percent, based on the ratio of compliance costs to the value of ' industry shipments. The maximum price increase in any industry would be 0.06 percent. On the other hand, if all costs were absorbed by the affected firms. OSHA estimates that the maximum reduction in profits would be less than 0.03 percent. OSHA. therefore, expects that the proposed standard will not have a significant economic impact. OSHA also determined that the proposed standard would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small firms. References 1. Eastern Research Croup. Economic Analysis ofthe Revised General Industry Personal Protection Equipment Standard (CFR 1910.132 through 1910.140) Prepared for the U.S, Department of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Administration under Contract No. J-9-F-O057. Arlington. MA. October 1988. 2. OSHA IMIS data covering 1965. 3966, 1987. 3. U-S. Department of Labor-Bureau of Labor Statistics. Work Injury Reports. VL Environmental Assessment Finding ofNo Significant Impact This proposed rule and its major alternatives have.been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.}. the Guidelines of the Council on vvv o 0001^832 Federal Register f Vol. 54, No. 157 / Wednesday. August 16, 1S89 / Proposed Rules 33811 Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts climate, or other factors, states with provisions of the proposed rule to which 1500 through 1517). and the Department occupational safety and health plans objection is taken or about which the of Labor's NEPA Procedures (29 CFR approved under section 18 of the OSH hearing request is made, and must state part 11). As a result of this review, the Act would be able to develop their own the grounds: therefore Assistant Secretary for OSHA has state standards to address any special 4. Each objection and hearing request determined that the proposed rule will problems. Moreover, the performance must be separately stated and have no significant environmental nature of this proposed standard, of and impact. by itself, allows for flexibility by states The proposed revisions and additions and employers to provide as much to 29 CFR part 1910. Subpart 1--Personal safety as possible using varying Protective Equipment, focus on the methods consonant with conditions in reduction of accidents or injuries by . each state. means of personal protective equipment, - In short, there is a clear national proper selection and use. and training. problem related to occupational safety The proposal also contains language, and health related to personal protective and format changes. These revisions do equipment.. While the individual states, not impact on air, water, or soil quality, if ail acted, might be able collectively to plant or animal life, the use of land, or deal with the safety problems involved, other aspects of the environment. most have not elected to do so in the Therefore, these revisions are seventeen years since the enactment of categorized as excluded actions the OSH Act Those states which have according to subpart Br section 11.10. of elected to participate under section 16of the DOL NEPA regulations. the OSH Act would not be preempted by VIL Recordkeeping this proposed regulation, and would be able to address special, local conditions This proposal contains no within the framework provided by thi3 recordkeeping requirements. performance-oriented standard, while ' Vin. Federalism This proposed standard has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12612 (52 FR 41685. Oct. 30. 3987) regarding Federalism. This Order ensuring that their standards are at least as effective as the Federal standard. --- State comments are invited on this ; proposal, and will be fully considered prior to promulgation of a final rule. numbered; and 5. The objections and hearing requests must be accompanied by a detailed summary of the evidence proposed to be adduced at the requested hearing. Interested persons who have objections to various provisions or have changes to recommend may, of course, make these objections or recommendations in their comments: OSHA will fully consider them. There is only need to file formal ''objections" separately if the interested pemon desires to request an oral hearing. OSHA recognizes that there may be interested persons who, through their knowledge of safety or their experience in the operations involved, would wish to endorse or support certain provisions in the standard. OSHA welcomes such supportive comments, including any pertinent accident data or cost information which may be available, in order that the record of this rulemaking will present a balanced picture of the public response on the issues involved. requires that agencies, to the extent possible, refrain from limiting state policy options, consult with states prior to taking anyactions that would restrict state policy options, and take such actions only when there is clear IX. Public Participation Lnterested persona are requested to submit written data, views and arguments with respect to this proposal. These comments must be postmarked by October 16. 1989. and submitted in X. State Plan Standards The 25 states and territories having OSHA-approved occupational safety and health plans must adopt a comparable standard within six months constitutional authority and the quadruplicate to the Docket Office, of the publication date of a final presence of a problem of national scope. Docket No. S-060. U.S- Department of standard. These 25 are: Alaska. Arizona, The Order provides for preemption of state law only if there is a clear Labor, Room N-2634. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 200 California. Connecticut (for state and local government employees only), Congressional intent for the agency to Constitution Avenue NW-, Washington. Hawaii. Indiana. Iowa, Kentucky, do so. Any such preemption is to be DC 20210. Maryland. Michigan. Minnesota. I limited to the extent possible. The data, views and arguments that Nevada. New Mexico. New York (for Section 38 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act), expresses are submitted will be available for public inspection and copying at the state and local government employees only). North Carolina. Oregon. Puerto vftLji Congress' clear intent to preempt state above address. All timely submissions Rico, South Carolina. Tennessee. Utah. laws relating to issues with respect to received will be made a part of this Vermont, Virginia. Virgin Islands. which Federal OSHA has promulgated proceeding. Washington, and Wyoming. Until such occupational safety or health standards. In addition, under section 6(b)(3) of time as a state standard is promulgated, Under the OSH Act, a state can avoid the OSH Act and 29 CFR 1911.21, Federal OSHA will provide interim preemption oniy if it submits, and interested persons may file objections to enforcement assistance, as appropriate. ' obtains Federal approval of. a plan for the development of such standards and the proposal and request an informal hearmg. The objections and hearing XI. List of Index Terms their enforcement. Occupational safety requests should be submitted in 29 CFR part 1910: Eye protection: Face and health standards developed by such quadruplicate to the Docket Office at the protection: Foot protection; Footwear: Plan-States must, among other things, be above address and must comply with Hard hats: Head protection; at least as effective in providing safe the following conditions: Incorporation by reference: and healthful employment and places of 1. The objections and bearing requests Occupational safety and health; employment as the Federal standards. must include the name and address of Occupational Safety and Health The federally proposed personal the individual or organization making Administration: Personal protective protective equipment standard is the objection or request: equipment; Safety glasses; Safety shoes. drafted so that employees in every state would be protected by general 2. The objections and hearing requests must be postmarked by October 16. Audiocity performance-oriented standards. To the 1983. This document was prepared under extent that there are state or regional 3. The objections and hearing requests the direction of John A. Pendergrass. peculiarities caused by the terrain, the must specify with particularity the Assistant Secretary of Labor for WV 000013883 ........ T~- 33842 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No.' 157 / Wednesday, August 10. 1989 / Proposed Rules Occupational Safety and Health, U.S, Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington. DC 20210. Accordingly, pursuant to sections 4(b), 6(b) and 6(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657). Secretary of Labor's Order No. 9-83 (48 FR 35736), and 29 CFR part 1911, it is proposed to amend 29 CFR part 1910, subpart L as set forth below. Signed at Washington, DC, this Sth day of August 1969. Alan C. McMillan, Acting AssistantSecretary ofLabor. Part 1910 of title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 1910--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS 1. The authority citation for subpart I of part 1910 would be revised to read as follows: Authority: Sections 4. 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653.855. 657); Secretary of Labor's Order No. 9-63 (48 FR 35738), and 29 CFR part 1911. 2. Section 1910.132 would be amended by adding new paragraphs (d) through (f); 1910.133. 1910.135 and 1910.130 would be revised: | 1910.138,1910.139 and 1910.140 would be removed: and appendices A and B would be added to subpart I of part 1310 to read as follows: Subpart I--Personal Protective Equipment $1910.132 General requirements. *** (d) Selection. Eased on an assessment of the workplace hazards relative to personal protective equipment (PPE), employers shall select the types of PPE which will protect employees from the particular occupational hazard(s) they are likely to encounter. Such selection decisions shall be communicated to employees and followed by them if employees obtain their own equipment (e) Defective and damaged equipment. Defective or damaged personal protective equipment shall not be used. (f) Training. Employees shall be trained in the proper use of their personal protective equipment. $ 1910.133 Eye and face protection. (a) General requirements. (1) Employers shall 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. Eye protection used by employees shall provide both front and side protection from flying objects. (2) Eye and face protection shall property fit employees. (3) Protectors with tinted or variable tinted lenses shall 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. (4) Employees who wear prescription lenses while engaged in operations that involve eye hazards shall wear eye protection that incorporated 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. (5) Employees shall use equipment with filter lenses which have a shade number appropriate for the work being performed for protection from potentially injurious light radiation. The following is a listing of appropriate shade numbers for various operations. Filter Lenses for Protection Against Radiant Enepgy Operation Shade No. 2 Light Cutting, up to one inch. 3 or 4 Medium Cutting, one to sbe inches...-..-- 4 or 5 Heavy Cutting, over six inches 6 or 6 Light Gas Welding, up to Vs inch-.-..___ 4 or 5 Medium Gas Welding, V>-Mi/inch.... 5 or 6 Heavy Gas Welding, over S4 inch______ 6 Of 8 Shielded Metal-Arc Welding 10 Inert-Gas Metal-Arc Welding (non-fer rous) Via to %* inch electrodes______ -- 11 Inert-Gas Metal-Arc Welding (lenous) Vt* to inch electrodes.. 12 Shielded Metal-Arc Welding 12 Vit to % inch electrodes.__________ 14 Atomic Hydrogen Welding. 10 to 14 Carbon Are Welding.. . 14 Note: If filler lenses are used in goggles worn under s helmet which has a len3, the shade number of the lens in the helmet may be reduced so that the sum of the shade numbers of the two lenses will equal the value as shown in the above listing. (b) Acceptable designs. Eye and face protection shall comply with the design requirements for eye and face protection in American National Standard. ANSI Z87.1-1989. "Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection", which is incorporated by reference, or shall be of a design which has been demonstrated to be equally effective. 1910.135 Head protection. (a) General requirements. (1) Employers shall ensure that employees wear protective helmets when working in areas where there is a potential for injury to the head from failing or moving objects. (2) Protective helmets designed to reduce electrical shock hazard shail be worn by employees where they are near exposed electrical conductors which could be contacted by the protective helmets. (b) Acceptable designs. The design of protective helmets shall comply with the requirements of American National Standard, ANSI Z89.1-1986, "Requirements for Protective Headwear for Industrial Workers." which is incorporated by reference or shall be of a design which has been demonstrated to be equally effective. $1910.138 Foot protection. (a) General requirements. Employers shall ensure that employees wear protective footwear when working in areas where there is a danger of foot injuries due to falling and roiling objects, or objects piercing the sole. (b) Acceptable designs. The design of protective footwear shall comply with the requirements of American National Standard. ANSI Z41.1-1983. "Personal Protection-Protective Footwear," which is incorporated by reference or shall be of a design which has been demonstrated to be equally,effective. Appendix A to Subpart I--References for Further Information This appendix neither adds nor detracts from requirements proposed by the standards in subpart I. Documents 1-3 merely restate the titles of the ANSI standards which contain the requirements for the design of head. foot, eye and face protection and which are incorporated by reference in 5 1910.133. 1910.135, and 1010.136. The remaining documents in this appendix A provide additional information which may be helpful In understanding and implementing these standards. 1. American National Standards Institute (ANSI). American National Standard Practice for Occupational and Educational Eye and Face Protection. (ANSI 287.1-1989). New York. NY: ANSI, 1989. 2. American National Standards institute (ANSI). American National Standard Safety Requirements for Protective Headwear for Industrial Workers (ANSI Z39.1-1980). New York. NY: ANSI. 1986. ' 3. American National Standards Institute (ANSI). American National Standard for Personnel Protection-Protective Footwear. (ANSI 7A1--1983). New York. NY: ANSI. 1963. 4. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). "Accidents Involving Eye Injuries." Report 597. Washington. DC: BLS. 1980. 5. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). "Accidents Involving Face Injuries." Report 60t. Washington. DC: BLS. 1980. VVV QOQOl3884 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No, 157 / Wednesday, August 16. 1989 ( Proposed Rules 33843 6. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). "Accidents Involving Head Injuries." Report 605. Washington. DC: BLS, 198Q. 7. Bureau of Labor Statistics (ELSL '"Accidents Involving Foot Injuries." Report 629. Washington. DC: BLS, 1901. 8. National Safety Council. "Accident Facts". Annual edition. Chicago. IL: 1561. 9. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). "'Supplementary Data System (SD3) Tables of Injuries Involving the eyes, face. head, and feet by Occupation and Industry,** Washington. DC: BLS. for various years. 10. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). "Occupational Injuries end Illnesses in the United States by Industry," Annual edition. Washington* DC; BLS. 11. National Society to Prevent Blindness. *'A Guide for Controlling Eye Injuries in Industry," Chicago. IL: 1982. 12. Plummer, R.W. and Stobbe, T.J.. "Recommended Use of Personal Protective * Equipment in Selected Occupational Codes and job Activities." Washington. DC: OSHA. 1984. 13. Plummet.-R.W- Stobbe. T.J. at aL . "Personal Protective Equipment and Welders," Washington. DC: OSHA, 1902. 14. Plummer. R.W., Stobbe. T.J,, et aL "Collection of Data and information on the Appropriate.Personal Protective Equipment to be Used by Petrochemical Workers," Washington. DC; OSHA. 1984. 15. Plummer. R.W- Stobbe. T.].. et aL Collection of Data and information on the Appropriate Personal Protective Equipment to be Used by Foundry Workers." Washington. DC; OSHA. 1983, Appendix B--Non Mandatory Compliance Guidelines for Hazard Assessment and Personal Protective Equipment Selection................ 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 hazard situations that exist In an occupational or educational operation or process, and to match the protective device to the particular hazard. It should be the responsibility of the safety officer to apply common sense and fundamental technical principles to accomplish these tasks. This process is somewhat subjective by nature, because of the infinite variety of situations where PPE may be required. Z. Assessment guidelines. In order ta ' 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 the feet. head, eyes and face of 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 bums, eye injury or ignition of protective equipment, etc.; (c) types of chemical exposures; (d) sources of harmful dust: (e) sources of light radiation. Le.. welding, brazing, cutting, furnaces, heat treating, high intensity lights, etc.; (I) sources offalling objects or potential for dropping objects; (g) sources of sharp objects which might pierce the feet; (h) sources of rolling or pinching objects which coaid crush the feeU (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 ofhazards. The objective is to prepare for an analysis of the hnT-qrWa tn 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 foot, head, eye and face injuries should be made. Each of the basic hazards [paragraph 3.a.) should be reviewed . and a determination made as to the type and level of risk 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 foT 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; Le- 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 a]] warning labels for and limitations of their PPE. 5. Fitting the device. Consideration must be given to comfort and fit PPE that fils poorly will not afford the necessary protection. Continued wearing of the device ts 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. 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 hard hats is important to ensure that the hard hat will not fall off during work operations. In some cases a chin strap may be necessary to keep the hard hat 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. 6. Reassessment ofhazards. 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. 7. Selection chart guidelines for eye and face protection. Some occupations (not a complete list] for which eye protection should be considered are; Carpenters, electricians, machinists. m^-Knnira and repairers, millwrights, plumbers aod pipefitters, sheet metal workers and tinsmiths, assemblers, senders, 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 tbs listed hazard "source" operations. Selection Chart Source Assessment Rtrtsctfon Impact Chipping, grinding, machining, maaonary work, wood. wonting, sawing, drilling, chiseling. powered fastening, riveting, and sanding. Heat Furnace operations, pouring, casting, hot dipping, and welding. Plying fragments, objects, targe eftpe, par ticles, sand. dirt. etc. Splash from molten metals -- Spectacles with side protection, goggles. facesMetds. See notes <i>. (3). (5), (6). (10). For severe exposure, use taceshieWa. Faceshielda, goggles, soectades with side protection. For severe exposure use faceshieid. See notes (1), (2), (3). Faceshiekls worn over goggles. See notes (Ik (2L (3). vvv 000013835 33844 Federal Register ( Vol. 64. No. 157 / Wednesday. August 16. 1989 / Proposed Rules Source Chemical: Acid and chemicals handling, degreasing plating Woodworking, buffing, general dusty conditions Light Raoiation: Welding: Cutting Torch brazing Selection Chart--Continued Assessment Protection High temperature exposure ................,......... Screen faeeshielda, reflective faceshields. See notes (i). (2), (3). Splash ......... Irritating mists--.-. ............. ......- .... Goggles, eyecup and cover types. For severe exposure, use faceshlekl See notes (3), (11). ,, --.......... Special purpose goggles. Nuisance dust... ~ Goggles, eyecup and cover types. See note (8). Welding helmets or welding shields. Typical shades: 1014. See notes (9), (12). Welding goggles or welding faceshleld. Typical shades: gas welding 4-8, cutting 3-6. brazing 3-4. See note (9). Spectacles or welding faceshield. Typical shades, 1.5-3. See notes (3). (9). suitable. See notes (9). (10). Notes to Selection Chart Table (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 irimary eye protection (spectacles or goggles). . (4) As required by the standard, filter lenses shall meet the requirements for shade designations in 91910.133(a)(5). Tinted and shaded lenses are not filter lenses unless they are marked or identified as such. (5) As required by the standard, persona whose vision requires the use of prescription (Rx) lenses shall wear either protective devices fitted with prescription (Rx) lenses or protective devices designed to be worn over regular prescription (Rx) eyewear. (6) As required by the standard, wearers of contact lenses shall also be required to wear appropriate eye and face protection devices in a hazardous environment It should be recognized that dusty and/or chemical environments may represent an addition 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-ideshield 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. 8. Selection guidelines forfootprotection. Safety shoes and boots which meet the ANSI Z41 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 of 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 ettL. could be stepped on by employees causing an injury. Some occupations (not a complete list) for which foot protection should be 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 groundskeepers, timber cutting and logging workers, stock handlers and warehouse laborers. 9. Selection guidelines forheadprotection. All head protection (hardhats) 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 bum. When selecting head protection, knowledge of potential electrical hazards is important Gass 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 only 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, head protection 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 occupations (not a complete list) for which head protection should be considered are: carpenters, electricians, linemen, mechanics and repairers, plumbers and pipefitters, assemblers, packers, wrappers, sawyers, welders, laborers, freight handlers, timber cutting and logging, stock handlers, and warehouse laborers. (FR Doc. 89-18947 Filed 8-15-89; 0:45 am] BILLING CODE 4S10-2S-M VVV 000013886