[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 138 (Thursday, July 20, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46706-46720]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15285]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
29 CFR Part 1926
[Docket No. OSHA-2019-0003]
RIN 1218-AD25
Personal Protective Equipment in Construction
AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); Labor.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: OSHA is proposing to revise its personal protective equipment
standard in construction to explicitly require that the equipment must
fit properly. The agency requests comments regarding the proposed
revision.
DATES: Submit comments and attachments, as well as hearing requests and
other information, by September 18, 2023. All submissions must provide
evidence of the submission date. (See the following section titled
ADDRESSES for instructions on making submissions.)
ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted as follows:
Written comments: You may submit comments and attachments, as well
as hearing requests and other information, identified by OSHA Docket
No. OSHA-2019-0003, electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which
is the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency's name and
docket number for this rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA-2019-0003). All
comments, including any personal information you provide, are placed in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions interested parties
about submitting personal information such as Social Security numbers
and birthdates.
Docket: To read or download comments or other information in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. All comments and submissions
are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index; however, some
information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to
read or download through that website. All comments and submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection through
the OSHA Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
2500 (TDY number 877-889-5627) for assistance in locating docket
submissions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Press inquiries: Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office of
Communications, telephone: (202) 693-1999; email:
meilinger.francis2@dol.gov.
General and technical inquiries: Vernon Preston, OSHA Directorate
of Construction, telephone: (202) 693-2020; email:
preston.vernon@dol.gov.
Copies of this Federal Register notice and news releases:
Electronic copies of these documents are available at OSHA's web page
at http://www.osha.gov.
Citation Method
In the docket for the personal protective equipment in construction
rulemaking, found at http://www.regulations.gov, every submission was
assigned a document identification (ID) number that consists of the
docket number (OSHA-2019-0003) followed by an additional four-digit
number (e.g., OSHA-2019-0003-0002). In this notice of proposed
rulemaking, citations to items in the docket are referenced by author
or title and date, where appropriate. This information can be used to
search for a supporting document in the docket at http://www.regulations.gov. For example, the citation for the OSHA Publication
Personal Protective Equipment is (Personal Protective Equipment, OSHA
3151-12R, 2004). Some citations include one or more attachments (see,
e.g., NABTU, January 5, 2017, Attachment 1). When citing exhibits in
the docket, OSHA references the author or title of the document, the
date, the attachment number or other attachment identifier, if
necessary for clarity, and page numbers (designated ``p.''). In a
citation that contains two or more documents, the citations are
separated by semicolons. OSHA may also cite items that appear in
another docket. When that is the case, OSHA includes the full document
ID number for the corresponding docket (e.g., OSHA-2010-0034-4247).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Background
A. OSHA's PPE Requirements
B. Rulemaking History
C. Comments Received During the SIP-IV Rulemaking
D. Consideration of National Consensus Standards
III. Discussion of Proposed Changes
A. Section 1926.95(c)
B. The Existing Standard
C. Properly Fitting PPE
D. OSHA Enforcement of PPE Fit Requirements
E. Issues for Comment
IV. Agency Determinations
A. Legal Authority
B. Significant Risk
C. Preliminary Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Act
Certification
D. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review Under the
Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Federalism
F. State Plans
G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
H. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
I. Executive Summary
OSHA is proposing to revise its Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
standard for construction, at 29 CFR 1926.95(c), to explicitly state
that PPE must fit properly to protect workers from workplace hazards.
This revision would align the language in the PPE standard for
construction with the corresponding language in OSHA's PPE standards
for general industry and maritime and affirm OSHA's interpretation of
its PPE standard for construction as requiring properly fitting PPE.
Properly fitting PPE is a critical element of an effective occupational
safety and health program. PPE must fit properly in order to provide
adequate protection to employees. Improperly fitting PPE may fail to
provide any protection to an employee, may present additional hazards,
or may discourage employees from using such equipment in the workplace.
The Preliminary Economic Analysis to this rulemaking demonstrates
that this rule is not economically significant or a major rule. Because
this proposal clarifies an existing requirement, the agency
preliminarily concludes that the rule is not expected to impose new
costs on employers as a result of a new regulatory requirement. OSHA
normally assumes full compliance with existing requirements when
performing its analysis of costs related to a new or amended standard.
However, in this case, the purpose of the proposed rule is to clarify
an existing requirement about which there may be confusion in the
regulated community. OSHA therefore seeks public comment on the impact
of this clarification, if any, on current employer behavior.
To the extent the clarification in this rule could result in
changes in behavior among some employers, OSHA has provided an estimate
of the costs for a specified proportion of employers to come into
compliance with the already-existing requirement to provide properly
fitting PPE. This analysis is being provided as a starting point for
public comments and to demonstrate that, even if there were costs to
this rule as a result of changed employer behavior, the rule would be
feasible to implement. OSHA's cost analysis indicates that the one-time
cost of this rulemaking to the construction industry, attributable to
potential changes in employer behavior, could be approximately
$545,000. To the extent that the rulemaking record indicates there will
be changes in employer behavior, and associated costs, as a result of
the proposed clarification, OSHA expects that worker safety and health
will benefit.
II. Background
A. OSHA's PPE Requirements
Section 6(b)(7) of the OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(7), authorizes
OSHA to include requirements for protective equipment within its safety
and health standards. PPE is worn by employees to minimize exposure to
hazards that can cause severe injuries and illnesses in the workplace.
These injuries and illnesses may result from contact with chemical,
radiological, physical, electrical, mechanical, or other hazards. PPE
includes many different types of protective equipment, such as hard
hats, gloves, goggles, safety shoes, safety glasses, welding helmets
and goggles, hearing protection devices, respirators, coveralls, vests,
and full body suits.
OSHA has specific standards that address PPE in general industry,
shipyard employment, maritime terminals, longshoring, and construction.
These standards require employers to provide PPE when it is necessary
to protect employees from job-related injuries, illnesses, and
fatalities. With few exceptions, OSHA requires employers to pay for PPE
when it is used to comply with an OSHA standard. In addition, the PPE
standards for general industry (29 CFR 1910.132(d)(1)(iii)) and
maritime (29 CFR 1915.152(b)(3)) include a specific requirement that
employers select PPE that properly fits each affected employee.
OSHA's standard at 29 CFR 1926.95 sets out the requirements for PPE
in construction. Section 1926.95(a) provides that all types of PPE
``shall be provided, used, and maintained in a sanitary and reliable
condition whenever it is necessary by reason of hazards.'' Section
1926.95(b) goes on to provide that, even when employees provide their
own PPE, ``the employer shall be responsible to assure its adequacy,
including proper maintenance, and sanitation of such equipment.''
Section 1926.95(c) provides that all PPE ``shall be of safe design and
construction for the work to be performed.'' Unlike the general
industry and maritime PPE standards, the current PPE construction
standard at section 1926.95 does not include an explicit requirement
that PPE properly fit each affected employee.
PPE must fit properly in order to provide adequate protection to
employees. If PPE does not fit properly, it can make the difference
between an employee being safely protected or dangerously exposed. In
some cases, ill-fitting PPE may not protect an employee at all, and in
other cases it may present additional hazards to that employee, and to
employees who work around them. For example, sleeves of protective
clothing that are too long or gloves that do not fit properly may make
it difficult to use tools or control equipment, putting other workers
at risk of exposure to hazards. The legs of protective garments that
are too long could cause tripping hazards and impact others working
near the worker with improperly fitting PPE. The issue of improperly
fitting PPE is particularly important for smaller construction workers,
including some women, who may not be able to use standard size PPE. Fit
problems can also affect larger workers, especially with regard to the
size of certain harnesses.
B. Rulemaking History
The Advisory Committee on Construction Safety and Health (ACCSH) is
a continuing advisory body established by statute (40 U.S.C. 3701 et
seq.) that provides advice and assistance to the OSHA Assistant
Secretary on construction standards and policy matters. The issue of
proper PPE fit in construction was discussed at the ACCSH meeting held
on July 28, 2011. At that meeting, the committee unanimously passed a
motion recommending that OSHA use the Standards Improvement Project-
Phase IV (SIP-IV) rulemaking ``to update the Construction PPE Standards
to mirror the General Industry PPE requirements, specifically that PPE
fit the employee who will use it . . . .'' (ACCSH Meeting Minutes, July
28, 2011). On December 16, 2011, ACCSH unanimously passed another
motion recommending that OSHA consider using the SIP-IV rulemaking to
revise the construction standards to include the requirement that PPE
properly fit construction workers. (ACCSH Meeting Transcript, December
16, 2011, pp. 144-148).
On December 6, 2013, OSHA issued a SIP-IV Request for Information
(RFI)
asking the public ``to identify provisions in OSHA standards that are
confusing or outdated, or that duplicate, or are inconsistent with, the
provisions of other standards, either OSHA standards or the standards
of other agencies.'' (SIP-IV RFI, December 6, 2013). In response,
several commenters, including the AFL-CIO and the International Safety
Equipment Association (ISEA), recommended that OSHA use the SIP-IV
rulemaking to revise its construction PPE standard to ensure that PPE
properly fits all construction employees. (AFL-CIO, February 13, 2013;
ISEA, February 4, 2013).
Based on stakeholder suggestions, on October 4, 2016, OSHA
published the SIP-IV Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the
Federal Register. (SIP-IV NPRM, October 4, 2016). Among other things,
OSHA proposed revising 29 CFR 1926.95(c) to include an explicit
requirement that PPE must properly fit each affected employee. In the
preamble to the SIP-IV NPRM, OSHA stated that the proposed revision
would ``clarify the construction PPE requirements on this point and
make them consistent with general industry PPE requirements.'' (SIP-IV
NPRM, October 4, 2016). Additionally, OSHA stated that clarifying the
requirement would ``help ensure employers provide employees with
properly fitting PPE, thereby adequately protecting employees exposed
to hazards requiring PPE.'' (SIP-IV NPRM, October 4, 2016).
OSHA received several comments specifically addressing the proposed
revision to section 1926.95(c) in the SIP-IV NPRM. Some commenters
fully supported the proposed revision while a coalition of construction
industry stakeholders opposed it. OSHA discusses the specific comments
received during the SIP-IV rulemaking in the next section of this
preamble.
Based on the comments received, and the rulemaking record, on May
13, 2019, OSHA published the SIP-IV final rule in the Federal Register.
(SIP-IV Final Rule, May 13, 2019). The final rule did not include the
proposed revision to the construction standard at section 1926.95(c).
Instead, OSHA determined that such a revision to the construction PPE
standard should occur in a separate rulemaking outside the SIP process.
In the preamble to the final rule, OSHA explained that proposing to
revise the PPE requirements separate from the SIP-IV rulemaking ``would
provide the public with broader notice of the proposal, encourage
robust commentary, and better inform OSHA's approach to employer
obligations and worker safety in relation to PPE used in
construction.'' (SIP-IV Final Rule, May 13, 2019).
On July 17, 2019, OSHA presented a draft proposed rule to ACCSH for
its recommendation, as required by the advisory committee for
construction regulation at 29 CFR 1912.3(a). The committee asked OSHA
to review enforcement statistics on PPE fit and consider including
guidelines for what constitutes ``proper fit.'' (ACCSH Meeting
Transcript, July 17, 2019). One member of ACCSH expressed concern that
OSHA would require employers to present a ``fit verification'' to an
OSHA compliance officer during a workplace inspection. In response,
OSHA explained that the proposed rule would not change how employers
currently assess the PPE needs of their workers. OSHA also explained
that the proposed revision had been included in the SIP-IV rulemaking
in an effort to make the construction standard consistent with the
general industry and maritime PPE standards. In addition, while some
ACCSH members did not believe there would be a cost associated with the
proposed rule, one member asked OSHA to consider cost closely given the
transient nature of the construction industry. After the period for
comments and questions ended, ACCSH unanimously passed a motion
recommending that OSHA move forward with the proposed rule.
C. Comments Received During the SIP-IV Rulemaking
OSHA received four comments on the proposed revision of Sec.
1926.95(c) in response to the SIP-IV NPRM. The Laborers' Health &
Safety Fund of North America (LHSFNA) and North America's Building
Trades Union (NABTU) both supported the proposed revision to clarify
that PPE must properly fit each affected employee. (LHSFNA, January 5,
2017; NABTU, January 5, 2017, Attachment 1). Both commenters also
stated that improperly fitting PPE can limit or negate the ability of
the PPE to protect employees. According to NABTU, ``[t]his is
particularly important for women in the construction industry, who
often have difficulty obtaining properly fitting PPE.'' (NABTU, January
5, 2017, Attachment 1, p. 6). LHSFNA commented that the fit problem can
also affect men, including with respect to harness sizes for men who
are over certain weight limits. (LHSFNA, January 5, 2017, p. 3). NABTU
stated that the proposed revision would not only make the construction
standard consistent with the general industry standard, but was also
supported by worker organizations, safety associations, and ACCSH.
(NABTU, January 5, 2017, Attachment 1, p. 6).
OSHA also received a comment in support of the proposed revision
from Emmanuel Omeike (Omeike, December 4, 2016), a safety professional,
which included two studies addressing PPE and women in construction.
(Omeike, December 4, 2016, Attachments 3, 4). The comment noted
examples of several employees who were wearing PPE, but nonetheless
sustained injuries due to improper fit. (Omeike, December 4, 2016, p.
10). Mr. Omeike stated that employees are more likely to remove
improperly fitting PPE, thus negating whatever protection the PPE might
otherwise provide. (Omeike, December 4, 2016, pp. 11-12). Lastly, the
commenter stated that prevention through design can eliminate many
costs associated with PPE because PPE designed to be adjustable and
customizable can prevent employee exposure to hazards created by
improperly fitting PPE.
Additionally, OSHA received comments from the Construction Industry
Safety Coalition (CISC) (CISC, January 4, 2017) opposing the proposed
revision to section 1926.95(c). This commenter raised concerns about
the possible impact the proposed revision would have on the
construction industry, the definition of ``properly fits,'' employer
confusion regarding compliance, and whether the SIP-IV rulemaking was
the appropriate means to revise the standard. ``CISC does not believe
that OSHA seriously considered the full impact this revision will have
on employers and the construction industry in general. While the
proposed revision only adds a few new words, its broad scope covers a
wide variety of PPE and situations that are not fully appreciated in
the SIP-IV . . . Placing an explicit requirement that employers must
ensure that all types of construction PPE `properly fits' all different
sized employees in all different situations would be a monumental task
which in many cases is not necessary and will not improve safety.
Moreover, the proposed revision fails to provide adequate notice to
employers as to what `properly fit' would mean. Does this mean that an
employee who complains that a hard hat is uncomfortable does not
`properly fit' or what about arc-flash clothing that may be too long in
the legs for one employee, does this not properly fit?'' (CISC, January
4, 2017, p. 7). CISC also commented that revising Sec. 1926.95(c) to
include an explicit requirement that all PPE fit properly ``greatly
changes the dynamic of th[e] standard and places enormous new
responsibilities on construction
employers.'' The comment went on to state that the proposed revision
does not simply clarify the standard, but ``opens up construction
employers to subjective standards of whether particular PPE fits
properly and what steps employers must take to ensure that such PPE
fits properly, particularly when most PPE does not come in exact sizing
for employees.'' (CISC, January 4, 2017, p. 8). CISC added that, in
many cases, whether PPE properly fits is subjective and that it would
be difficult for employers in construction to assess PPE for many
employees of varying sizes in every situation. ``[T]he subjective
nature of this standard would greatly increase the potential for
enforcement actions without giving employers fair notice of what is
required.'' (CISC, January 4, 2017, p. 8).
CISC also stated that it disagreed with OSHA's statement in the
preamble to the SIP-IV proposed rule that applying the same standard to
construction employers will have the same effect or benefit as in
general industry. The comment emphasized that the types and need for
PPE vary greatly in construction, therefore adding a new fit
requirement will create more of a burden for construction employers.
(CISC, January 4, 2017, p. 8). CISC also argued that SIP-IV was not the
appropriate avenue for making the proposed change, and urged OSHA to
embark on ``a more thorough and complete rulemaking process which gives
fair notice to the regulated community and will allow the agency to
receive comments from the regulated community as to the impact and
implications that this change would have on employers.'' (CISC, January
4, 2017, p. 8).
In response to the comments provided by CISC, OSHA acknowledges
that there is a wide variety of PPE and hazards in the construction
industry. To protect workers from these varied hazards in the
construction industry, it is critical that workers' PPE fit them
properly. OSHA used the phrase ``proper fit'' in the SIP-IV rulemaking
because that is the phrase used in OSHA's general industry and maritime
PPE standards. The agency's intention throughout the SIP-IV rulemaking
was to apply the proposed ``properly fits'' provision in the same
manner as in general industry and maritime. OSHA further notes that the
addition of the ``properly fits'' provision to the general industry
standard was made for the same reason it was proposed during the SIP-IV
rulemaking-- that standard-sized PPE does not fit all employees,
particularly women. (See 59 FR 16334 (April 6, 1994)). OSHA's
experience is that employers in general industry have had no issue
understanding the phrase ``properly fits'' with regard to PPE.
Finally, as stated in the preamble to the SIP-IV final rule, ``the
purpose of SIP-IV is to remove or revise outdated, duplicative,
unnecessary, and inconsistent requirements in OSHA's safety and health
standards.'' (SIP-IV Final Rule, May 13, 2019). Given the limited
purposes of SIP-IV, and the comments on the PPE revision described
above, OSHA determined not to finalize the revision to Sec. 1926.95(c)
in the SIP-IV rulemaking. Instead, OSHA concluded that such a change to
the PPE construction standard should take place outside the SIP
process. OSHA believes that by proposing this change independently of
the SIP rulemaking process, the agency in this case is encouraging
robust public comment. As a result, OSHA expects that its approach to
employer obligations and worker safety in relation to properly fitting
PPE in construction will be better informed. In addition, many of the
specific issues raised by commenters during the SIP-IV rulemaking have
been considered by OSHA and are addressed elsewhere in this preamble.
D. Consideration of National Consensus Standards
In adopting a standard, section 6(b)(8) of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C.
655(b)(8)) requires OSHA to consider national consensus standards;
where the agency decides to depart from the requirements of a national
consensus standard, it must explain why the OSHA standard better
effectuates the purposes of the OSH Act. OSHA has reviewed national
consensus standards on PPE and determined that it would better
effectuate the purposes of the OSH Act to revise OSHA's existing
construction standard as described in this proposed rule.
There are many consensus standards that address PPE, with each
standard focusing on a different type of equipment. For example, OSHA
incorporates by reference American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
Z87.1, Occupational and Educational Personal Eye and Face Protection
Devices, and ANSI Z89.1, Head Protection, into its construction
standards. However, there are several other PPE consensus standards
that address not only different types of PPE, but also different uses
for that PPE, such as NFPA 2113, Standard on Selection, Care, Use, and
Maintenance of Flame-Resistant Garments for Protection of Industrial
Personnel Against Flash Fire. Rather than adopting each PPE consensus
standard, and whatever language it may include on proper fit, OSHA
proposes to revise its existing construction standard to make it clear
that all types of PPE used in the workplace must fit properly. OSHA
believes that centralizing the requirement in the OSHA construction
standard will make employers more aware of their responsibility to
ensure that PPE used to protect workers from hazards must fit properly.
Additionally, many consensus standards do not include mandatory
language. For example, both of the ANSI standards discussed above
include specific language concerning properly fitting PPE. However,
while ANSI Z87.1 discusses the importance of properly fitting eye and
face protection, the standard does not include mandatory language
regarding its use. Similarly, rather than including mandatory language,
ANSI Z89.1 merely refers users of head protection equipment to the
manufacturer for advice on proper fit. The revision to section
1926.95(c) outlined in this proposed rule would make properly fitting
PPE an enforceable requirement rather than the non-mandatory
suggestions contained in these consensus standards. The agency believes
that a clear and explicit enforceable requirement will help ensure that
employers provide employees with properly fitting PPE. OSHA requests
comment on whether this proposal will better effectuate the purposes of
the OSH Act than the applicable national consensus standards.
III. Discussion of Proposed Changes
A. Section 1926.95(c)
Based on the information collected from stakeholders, the
recommendations from ACCSH, comments received during the SIP-IV
rulemaking, and the important role properly fitting PPE plays in
protecting workers, OSHA proposes to amend 29 CFR 1926.95(c) to
explicitly require employers to ensure that all PPE that is selected
properly fits each affected employee. Current Sec. 1926.95(c) states
``All personal protective equipment shall be of safe design and
construction for the work to be performed.'' However, unlike OSHA's
general industry and maritime standards, the current standard for
construction does not contain an explicit requirement that PPE must
properly fit each affected employee.
OSHA proposes to amend section 1926.95(c) to include the
requirement, in subparagraph (c)(2), that employers select PPE that
properly fits each affected employee. OSHA also proposes
to move the current language in section 1926.95(c) regarding safe
design and construction to subparagraph (c)(1). As proposed, paragraph
(c) would include language requiring employers to ensure that both
requirements in subparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) are met. OSHA believes
that adding the language explicitly requiring properly fitting PPE in
proposed subparagraph (c)(2) will help to ensure that employees are
provided with PPE that protects them from workplace hazards.
OSHA requests comment on the proposed language in Sec. 1926.95(c).
Specifically, is the proposed language, which is consistent with OSHA's
general industry and maritime standards, appropriate? Why or why not?
Should subparagraph (c) include different language regarding the proper
fit of PPE? If yes, what should the different language be, and why?
B. The Existing Standard
Although OSHA is proposing to add clarifying language to the
current PPE construction standard to improve awareness of the
requirement for properly fitting PPE, OSHA has historically interpreted
the language in the current PPE construction standard to require all
PPE to properly fit each affected employee. Specifically, 29 CFR
1926.95(a) provides that PPE ``shall be provided [and] used . . . [in
a] reliable condition wherever it is necessary by reason of hazards.''
PPE is thus ``necessary'' when hazards exist in the workplace, but ill-
fitting PPE is not ``in a reliable condition'' because it risks failing
to mitigate the hazards that make the PPE necessary. For instance, if
hazardous chemicals make PPE in the form of reliable protective
clothing or a face shield necessary, ill-fitting PPE may fail to
reliably protect the worker from exposure to those hazardous chemicals.
Similarly, under subsection (b), employers must assure the
``adequacy'' of employees' own PPE. PPE is manifestly inadequate if the
fit is so poor it cannot perform its protective function. Also, it
would make little sense to require employee-provided PPE to be
adequate, but not to require the same of employer-provided PPE. Lastly,
subsection (c) requires that PPE must be ``of safe design . . . for the
work to be performed.'' This provision requires that the specific
design of the PPE, which would include its measurements and size, be
safe for the work to be performed by each individual worker.
OSHA's PPE standard for construction requires action from the
employer to protect each individual worker. Subsection (a) of section
1926.95 requires employers to assess the actual hazards to employees in
their workplaces and provide PPE whenever it is necessary to protect
against those hazards, and subsection (b) requires employers to assess
the adequacy, including the maintenance and sanitation, of employee-
provided PPE--which an employer can only do by reviewing each piece of
PPE individually. Finally, it is not logical to read subsection (c) as
only requiring that the PPE be safely designed in the abstract. For
example, gloves may be safely designed to protect against a particular
hazard, but they may not be safely designed for a worker whose hands
are so small that the gloves fall off throughout the workday or get
caught in the machinery the worker is required to use.
An examination of OSHA's guidance addressing PPE use in the
construction industry reinforces OSHA's longstanding position that PPE
used in construction must fit properly to protect workers from hazards.
These guidance documents expressly state that PPE should fit properly
and explain the hazards of ill-fitting PPE. The OSHA publication
Personal Protective Equipment, which explains that ``the information
methods, and procedures . . . are based on the OSHA requirements for
PPE,'' including Sec. 1926.95, states ``Employers should take the fit
and comfort of PPE into consideration when selecting appropriate items
for their workplace. PPE that fits well and is comfortable to wear will
encourage employee use of PPE. Most protective devices are available in
multiple sizes and care should be taken to select the proper size for
each employee. If several different types of PPE are worn together,
make sure they are compatible. If PPE does not fit properly, it can
make the difference between being safely covered or dangerously
exposed. It may not provide the level of protection desired and may
discourage employee use.'' (Personal Protective Equipment, OSHA 3151-
12R, 2004, p. 8). OSHA's Fact Sheet on Personal Protective Equipment,
which refers to Sec. 1926.95, explains that after determining hazards
are present that require the use of PPE, an employer must ``select
personal protective equipment that properly fits your workers.'' (Fact
Sheet on Personal Protective Equipment, April 2006)). Also, Assessing
the Need for Personal Protective Equipment, a document created by
OSHA's Directorate of Training and Education, includes a checklist for
various types of PPE. For each type of PPE listed, there is an entry
for ensuring ``effective fit'' of the PPE. (Assessing the Need for
Personal Protective Equipment).
Additionally, OSHA has developed guidance for specific types of
PPE. For example, OSHA's Eye and Face Protection eTool is a
comprehensive resource for assessing workplace hazards necessitating
the use of eye and face protection and how to choose the appropriate
protection. (Eye and Face Protection eTool, accessed July 23, 2020).
The eTool lists the construction standards under ``OSHA Requirements,''
and discusses proper fit of eye protection. Also, in the eTool's
``FAQs,'' the document explains that training should include why
improper fit of the eye and face protection can compromise protection.
OSHA requests comment on whether the inclusion of an explicit
requirement in Sec. 1926.95(c) would help clarify construction
employers' obligations to provide properly fitting PPE to their
employees.
C. Properly Fitting PPE
PPE is an essential element of an effective safety and health
program. While many OSHA standards require employers to control or
eliminate safety and health hazards before relying on PPE to protect
employees, PPE often provides a critical last line of defense to
protect individual employees. PPE that fits improperly not only fails
to protect workers from the hazards it is designed to protect against,
but it may also create additional hazards for those workers.
In many cases, ill-fitting PPE may not provide any protection at
all to an individual employee. For example, ill-fitting gloves may slip
and expose an employee's skin to hazardous chemicals. Improperly
fitting goggles may have gaps at the temples, and expose the employee
to flying debris entering their eyes. Further, there are some cases in
which ill-fitting PPE may create additional hazards for employees. For
example, improperly fitting protective clothing that is too long in the
legs may present a tripping hazard for an employee, or an improperly
fitting glove may become caught in machinery being operated by the
employee. In Personal Protective Equipment for Women: Addressing the
Need, a report prepared by the Ontario Women's Directorate (OWD) and
Industrial Accident Prevention Association (IAPA), a women stated she
suffered a broken finger using a grinder while wearing gloves that were
too big for her hands. (OWD & IAPA, 2006, p. 13). A comment described
above, from safety professional Emmanuel Omeike, noted several
instances of employees who were wearing PPE, but nonetheless
sustained injuries due to improper fit. (Omeike, December 4, 2016, p.
10).
The construction industry includes many high-risk occupations, with
various safety and health hazards. It is also comprised of a diverse
workforce, including many employees who are not of a certain
``standard'' size or body type. For these workers, improperly fitting
PPE may pose safety or health risks. For example, improperly fitting
PPE can be an issue for small-stature construction workers, including
some women, who may not be able to use PPE that is only available in a
standard size. In the 1999 report Women in the Construction Workplace:
Providing Equitable Safety and Health Protection, by ACCSH's Health and
Safety of Women in Construction (HASWIC) workgroup, women shared that
standard sized PPE was difficult or impossible to use. One woman
explained how she was issued a welding jacket with sleeves ``a foot
longer than her hand,'' that she had to roll up, potentially exposing
her to burn hazards. (HASWIC, 1999). Additionally, some standard-sized
PPE may be too small for larger workers and expose them to hazards as a
result.
Access to properly fitting PPE has always been an important safety
and health issue for women working in construction. In the past,
because women made up a relatively small percentage of the construction
workforce, many manufacturers of protective equipment were reluctant to
invest in research and development to produce correctly sized and
proportioned products for women. Historically, manufacturers and
suppliers have produced and sold protective equipment designed to fit
average-sized men. As a result, ill-fitting PPE could jeopardize the
safety and health of female construction workers.
Based on Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Current Employment
Statistics and the Census Bureau's County Business Patterns (CBP) data,
there were approximately 974,000 women working in the construction
industry in 2018. (OSHA PEA Spreadsheet, 2023).\1\ As a result of more
women working in the construction industry, the availability of PPE for
women has increased. The ISEA reports that many employers now provide a
full range of sizes for PPE. (ISEA, February 4, 2013). Also, ISEA and
the Center to Protect Workers' Rights (CPWR) have developed lists of
manufacturers who offer safety and health equipment that is appropriate
for women working in construction. (ISEA List of Female PPE
Manufacturers, accessed October 27, 2020; CPWR--Construction Personal
Protective Equipment for the Female Workforce, accessed October 27,
2020). OSHA requests comment on the availability of PPE for persons who
may be smaller or larger than the average worker in the construction
industry or for persons with other physical characteristics that differ
from the average worker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See the Preliminary Economic Analysis, below, for a
description of how this figure was derived.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to adversely impacting safety and health, ill-fitting
PPE can also reduce an employee's job efficiency. For example, an ill-
fitting glove may cause an employee to use more energy to grip a piece
of equipment, resulting in fatigue. In the HASWIC report, a woman
shared her experience of using welding gloves that were so large she
was unable to pick up anything. (HASWIC, 1999). Also, employees are
more likely to remove or not use ill-fitting PPE, negating whatever
protection the PPE might otherwise provide. (See Omeike, December 4,
2016, pp. 11-12). In Personal Protective Equipment for Women:
Addressing the Need, survey participants cited poorly fitting gloves as
a major problem, with one woman saying she tended not to use them
because they were awkward. (OWD & IAPA, 2006, p. 13).
It is OSHA's position that ``properly fits'' means the PPE is the
appropriate size to provide an employee with the necessary protection
from hazards, and does not create additional safety and health hazards
arising from being either too small or too large. When PPE fits
properly, employees are unlikely to discard or modify it because of
discomfort or interference with their work activities. OSHA is not
concerned with the cosmetic appearance, or ``exact fit'' of PPE. The
proposed standard does not include the phrase ``exact fit'' in the
regulatory text. Instead, the proposed rule uses the phrase ``properly
fits,'' consistent with the OSHA general industry and maritime PPE
standards. The agency believes that providing clear and explicit
language in the construction standard on PPE fit will help ensure
employers provide employees with properly fitting PPE, thereby ensuring
protection for employees exposed to workplace hazards.
D. OSHA Enforcement of PPE Fit Requirements
OSHA anticipates that application of the proposed language
requiring properly fitting PPE in the construction standard would be
the same as for general industry and maritime. Sections
1910.132(d)(1)(iii) and 1915.152(b)(3) each explicitly provide that the
employer must select PPE that properly fits each affected employee.
Appendix B of 29 CFR 1910, Subpart I (PPE), which provides assistance
for employers in selecting PPE, provides: ``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.'' This same type of
guidance would apply to the proposed new requirement for proper fit in
section 1926.95(c)(2).
OSHA has reviewed its enforcement data for the general industry and
maritime standards that require PPE to properly fit and for the PPE
requirements in 29 CFR 1926.95(a)-(c). The enforcement data spans from
April 6, 1994, when OSHA promulgated revisions to the PPE requirements
in general industry requiring PPE to fit properly (see 59 FR 16334), to
July 30, 2021.
During that period of time, OSHA cited employers 51 times for
violations of 1910.132(d)(1)(iii) and one time for a violation of
1915.152(b)(3). In many cases, employers were cited for not providing
gloves that properly fit employees, exposing them to chemical and
physical hazards. In one case, an amputation occurred when a worker's
improperly fitting latex glove was caught between a power steering belt
and a pulley. (Inspection No. 908699).\2\ An employer was also cited
for failing to provide small and medium gloves to workers exposed to
numerous chemical hazards. (Inspection No. 896842). Another inspection
resulted in a violation of the standard because gloves that were too
large for some employees reduced their dexterity. (Inspection No.
1418803). There were also several instances where employers provided
workers with personal fall arrest systems that did not fit the employee
properly, exposing them to fall hazards. (Inspection Nos. 638178,
1006483, 1346323, 1417821). In one instance, an employer provided
workers with improperly fitting conductive booties, leading not only to
electrical shock hazards, but also tripping hazards. (Inspection No.
525479). OSHA cited one employer under the general industry standard
for inadequate PPE where duct tape was used to secure PPE to spats in
an effort to provide protection from burns caused by molten aluminum.
(Inspection No. 514938). In
maritime, the one violation resulted from a rigger working on a mast
without a properly fitting fall protection harness, exposing the rigger
to fall hazards. (Inspection No. 894520).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Records for inspections referenced in this document can be
found at https://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/InspectionNr.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In construction, from April 6, 1994 to July 30, 2021, OSHA issued
1,722 citations for violations of 29 CFR 1926.95(a)-(c); most of the
citations were for violations of section 1926.95(a). OSHA cited the
inappropriate fit of PPE nine times, all under 29 CFR 1926.95(a). The
majority of these instances were for improperly fitting gloves that
exposed employees to hazards. (Inspection Nos. 1074915, 1103257,
1255622, 1291644, 1062401, 1062798). In one instance, an employer was
cited because their employee did not wear protective eyewear because it
did not fit over the employee's prescription eyewear. (Inspection No.
1074380).
These citations help to demonstrate that fit has always been an
important part of meeting the PPE requirements in OSHA's construction
standards. Without its consideration, workers can be exposed to
multiple types of workplace hazards, including physical, chemical, and
environmental hazards. The language of this proposed rule will make the
requirement for properly fitting PPE clear and increase awareness of
employers' obligations when choosing and evaluating PPE for their
workers.
E. Issues for Comment
In addition to the questions throughout the preamble, OSHA seeks
comment on the following issues related to this proposed rulemaking:
Will this proposal effectuate the purposes of the OSH Act
better than the applicable national consensus standards?
ACCSH recommended that OSHA consider developing additional
guidance to explain what ``proper fits'' means for PPE used in
construction. (ACCSH Meeting Transcript, July 17, 2019). Is existing
OSHA guidance regarding PPE ``proper fit'' in construction adequate? If
not, what type of additional guidance should OSHA provide?
Is there confusion about what ``properly fits'' means for
PPE used in the construction industry?
How would the proposed revision impact the construction
industry? Specifically, would revising the construction standard to
mirror the language in the current general industry and maritime
standards change how employers choose PPE for their employees? How?
Are there differences between general industry and
maritime, and the construction industry, that impact whether OSHA
should include the phrase ``properly fits'' in the construction
standard?
Are there types of PPE that are not available in varying
sizes? If yes, please give specific examples of the PPE and how you
address this in the workplace.
Finally, what, if any, burden will the proposed change to
section 1926.95(c) impose on employers in the construction industry?
In addition, see the issues for comment in section IV.C of this
preamble.
IV. Agency Determinations
A. Legal Authority
The purpose of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970)
(``OSH Act,'' 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) is ``to assure so far as possible
every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working
conditions and to preserve our human resources.'' (29 U.S.C. 651(b)).
To achieve this goal, Congress authorized the Secretary of Labor to
promulgate and enforce occupational safety and health standards. (29
U.S.C. 654, 655(b), and 658). A safety or health standard ``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.'' (29
U.S.C. 652(8)). A safety standard is reasonably necessary or
appropriate within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 652(8) if:
It substantially reduces a significant risk of material
harm in the workplace;
It is technologically and economically feasible;
It uses the most cost-effective protective measures;
It is consistent with, or is a justified departure from,
prior agency action;
It is supported by substantial evidence; and
It is better able to effectuate the purposes of the OSH
Act than any relevant national consensus standard.
(See United Auto Workers v. OSHA, 37 F.3d 665, 668 (D.C. Cir. 1994)
(Lockout/Tagout)). In addition, safety standards must be highly
protective. (See id. at 669).
A standard is technologically feasible if the protective measure it
requires already exist, available technology can bring these measures
into existence, or there is a reasonable expectation for developing the
technology that can produce these measures. (See, e.g., American Iron
and Steel Inst. v. OSHA, 939 F.2d 975, 980 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (per
curiam) (Lead II)). A standard is economically feasible when industry
can absorb or pass on the cost of compliance without threatening an
industry's long-term productivity or competitive structure. (See
American Textile Mfrs. Inst. v. Donovan, 452 U.S. 490, 530 n.55 (1981);
Lead II, 939 F.2d at 980). A standard is cost effective if the
protective measures it requires are the least costly of the available
alternatives that achieve the same level of protection. (See, e.g.,
Lockout/Tagout, 37 F.3d at 668).
Section 6(b)(7) of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 655(b)(7)) authorizes
OSHA to include requirements for protective equipment within a
standard. It provides that, where appropriate, standards must prescribe
suitable protective equipment and control or technological procedures
to be used in connection with workplace hazards and must provide for
monitoring or measuring employee exposure as necessary to protect
employees. (29 U.S.C. 655(b)(7)).
B. Significant Risk
Section 3(8) of the OSH Act requires that OSHA standards be
``reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide safe or healthful
employment'' (29 U.S.C. 652(8)), which the Supreme Court has
interpreted as requiring OSHA to show that ``significant risks are
present and can be eliminated or lessened by a change in practices.''
(Indus. Union Dep't, AFL-CIO v. Am. Petroleum Inst., 448 U.S. 607, 642
(1980) (plurality opinion) (Benzene)). The Court clarified that OSHA
has considerable latitude in defining significant risk and in
determining the significance of any particular risk, noting that ``[i]t
is the agency's responsibility to determine, in the first instance,
what it considers to be a `significant' risk.'' (Id. at 655).
Although OSHA makes significant risk findings for both health and
safety standards, the methodology used to evaluate risk in rulemakings
involving safety standards is normally more straightforward. Unlike the
risks related to health hazards, which ``may not be evident until a
worker has been exposed for long periods of time to particular
substances,'' the risks associated with safety hazards ``are generally
immediate and obvious.'' (Benzene, 448 U.S. at 649, n.54).
OSHA need not make findings on risk for the proposed change to 29
CFR 1926.95(c). This proposed rule involves a clarification of an
existing OSHA standard and would not create any new requirements for
employers. Accordingly, OSHA is not required to conduct a significant
risk analysis for the proposed changes to section
1926.95. (See Edison Elec. Inst. v. OSHA, 849 F.2d 611, 620 (D.C. Cir.
1988)).
C. Preliminary Economic Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Act
Certification
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 require that OSHA estimate the
benefits, costs, and net benefits of regulations. The Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1532(a)) also require OSHA to estimate the costs,
assess the benefits, and analyze the impacts of rules that the agency
promulgates. In addition, the OSH Act requires that OSHA show the
economic feasibility of standards.
A standard is economically feasible when industries can absorb or
pass on the costs of compliance without threatening industry's long-
term profitability or competitive structure (Cotton Dust, 452 U.S. at
530 n. 55), or ``threaten[ing] massive dislocation to, or imperil[ing]
the existence of, the industry.'' (United Steelworkers of Am. v.
Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1272 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (Lead I)). ``[T]he
Supreme Court has conclusively ruled that economic feasibility [under
the OSH Act] does not involve a cost-benefit analysis.'' (Pub. Citizen
Health Research Grp. v. U.S. Dept. of Labor, 557 F.3d 165, 177 (3d Cir.
2009)). The OSH Act ``place[s] the `benefit' of worker health above all
other considerations save those making attainment of this `benefit'
unachievable.'' (Cotton Dust, 452 U.S. at 509). Therefore, ``[a]ny
standard based on a balancing of costs and benefits by the Secretary
that strikes a different balance than that struck by Congress would be
inconsistent with the command set forth in'' the statute. (Id.). This
case law arose with respect to health standards issued under section
6(b)(5) of the Act, which specifically require a showing of
feasibility; OSHA has also rejected the use of formal cost benefit
analysis for safety standards, which are not governed by section
6(b)(5). (See 58 FR 16,612, 16,622-23 (Mar. 30, 1993) (``in OSHA's
judgment, its statutory mandate to achieve safe and healthful
workplaces for the nation's employees limits the role monetization of
benefits and analysis of extra-workplace effects can play in setting
safety standards.'')).
The purpose of this rule is to revise the language of the PPE
requirements in the construction standard to make it consistent with
the requirement in OSHA's general industry and maritime standards. This
rule is not an ``economically significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 or UMRA, and it is not a ``major rule'' under the
Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) or Sec. 804 of the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA). In
addition, it does not meet any of the other criteria specified by UMRA
or the Congressional Review Act for a significant regulatory action or
major rule. Finally, this rule complies with Executive Order 13563.
Preliminary Economic Analysis
OSHA is amending the construction standard at 29 CFR 1926.95--
Criteria for Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), paragraph (c), to
clarify that PPE must properly fit each employee. The existing standard
states that PPE shall be of safe design and construction for the work
to be performed and current paragraph (a) states that PPE shall be
provided, used, and maintained in a sanitary and reliable condition
wherever it is necessary. As discussed in more detail elsewhere in this
preamble, for PPE to provide protection against the hazards for which
it is designed, it must fit properly.
OSHA views the proposed revision to section 1926.95(c) as a
clarification of existing requirements and therefore preliminarily
concludes that the rule is not expected to impose new costs on
employers as a result of a new regulatory requirement. OSHA normally
assumes full compliance with existing requirements when performing its
analysis of costs related to a new or amended standard. However, in
this case, the purpose of the proposed rule is to clarify an existing
requirement about which there may be confusion in the regulated
community. To the extent the clarification in this rule could result in
new changes in behavior among some employers, OSHA has estimated the
costs for a specified proportion of employers to come into compliance
with the already-existing requirement to provide properly fitting PPE.
This analysis is being provided as a starting point for public comments
and to demonstrate that, even if there were costs associated with this
rule as a result of changed employer behavior, the rule would be
feasible to implement.
As discussed above in Section II.C, Comments Received During the
SIP-IV Rulemaking, OSHA previously proposed revising the language in
section 1926.95(c) to clarify that PPE must properly fit each employee.
During that rulemaking, while several commenters supported the revision
to section 1910.95(c), the CISC commented that the proposed revision
would increase the costs to employers for providing PPE (CISC, January
4, 2017). Specifically, CISC commented that amending paragraph (c)
would result in employers maintaining inventory of PPE that would not
otherwise be necessary without the revised language. However, the
proposed revision to paragraph (c) contains no such requirement, and
employers would only be required to have PPE that properly fits their
employees. As OSHA explained above, this is a requirement that already
exists under the construction standard; the new language merely
clarifies that requirement. In the long run, the cost of inventory
should be largely unaffected by this rulemaking as employers will need
to use one size or another for each affected employee. In other words,
the employer will only need to provide each employee with one set of
PPE under the revised regulatory language, which is the case whether
the PPE fits properly or not. In addition to safety issues, equipment
that is ill fitting may wear out faster or reduce worker productivity
on the job. Moreover, it is inherently cost-ineffective to pay for PPE
that does not perform its essential function properly or that the
worker will not wear consistently.
On November 15, 2007, OSHA published a final rule addressing
Employer Payment for Personal Protective Equipment (PPE Payment) (72 FR
64341). In that rulemaking, OSHA identified the various types of PPE
that are worn by employees, and the numbers of employees that would
typically use each type of PPE, in the construction industries: NAICS
236 (Construction of Buildings), NAICS 237 (Heavy and Civil Engineering
Construction), and NAICS 238 (Specialty Trade Contractors). As part of
its analysis, OSHA also calculated the cost, and estimated the useful
life, of each item of PPE (see 72 FR 64406-64408).
As shown in Table 1, below, OSHA has preliminarily determined that
the types of PPE used in construction fall into the following three
categories: PPE provided by the employer and not of universal fit, PPE
items purchased by the employee and reimbursed by the employer, and PPE
of universal fit.
Table 1--PPE Used in the Construction Industries *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provided by the employer, not Provided by employee
universal fit and reimbursed Universal fit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Protective Clothing, Prescription Safety Body Harnesses,
Chemical Protective Footwear, Glasses, Protective Body Belts, Ear
Chemical Splash Goggles, Electrical PPE, Inserts,
Earmuffs, Face Shields, Protective Welding Hardhats,
Gloves for Abrasion Clothing, Safety Welding
Protection, Gloves for Shoes with Metatarsal Helmets.
Chemical Protection, Non- Guards, Safety Shoes
Prescription Safety Glasses, Without Metatarsal
Safety Goggles, Safety Vests, Guards, Welding
Splash Aprons. Goggles, Welding
Helmets.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Respirators are not included in the table, as fit testing is already
required in paragraph 1910.134(f) of the respiratory protection
standard (29 CFR 1910.134(f)), which covers the construction industry.
(See 29 CFR 1926.103).
Source: OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis (OSHA PEA Spreadsheet,
2023).
PPE items of universal fit are those that are completely adjustable
and capable of fitting any person. For those items, the employer will
be able to continue providing the same items they are already providing
to employees and will not have to replace them as a result of this
rule. PPE items purchased by the employee and then reimbursed by the
employer should already fit properly since the employee should have
selected the size that fits them best. Considering that these employee-
purchased PPE items likely already fit, the employer will not have to
replace them until they have reached the end of their useful life. As a
result, employers would incur no cost for replacing those items under
this proposed rule. The remaining PPE items are those provided by the
employer that are not universal fit. For these items, the standard size
may not fit all workers--primarily people who are much larger or much
smaller than average. Therefore, in cases where employers have provided
standard-sized PPE, some workers may not have been provided properly
fitting PPE. OSHA has preliminarily determined the average useful life
for the PPE items that are provided by the employer and are not
universal fit, as presented in Table 2.
Table 2--Useful Life of Selected PPE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Useful life
Provided by the employer, not universal fit (yr.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Protective Clothing............................ 0.50
Chemical Protective Footwear............................ 0.50
Chemical Splash Goggles................................. 0.50
Earmuffs................................................ 0.50
Face Shields............................................ 1.00
Gloves for Abrasion Protection.......................... 0.25
Gloves for Chemical Protection.......................... 0.05
Non-Prescription Safety Glasses......................... 1.00
Safety Goggles.......................................... 0.50
Safety Vests............................................ 0.50
Splash Aprons........................................... 0.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis (OSHA PEA Spreadsheet,
2023).
In order to estimate the potential costs and impacts of this
proposed standard, OSHA has taken the PPE items in Table 2 and updated
the information that was in the Final Economic Analysis supporting the
PPE Payment rulemaking to estimate the current number of employees that
might use each type of PPE \3\ and the unit cost of each type of PPE.
The PPE Payment analysis was published in 2007 as part of the final
rule on PPE Payment. Information on PPE use by employees for the 2007
analysis was derived from a statistically representative nationwide
telephone survey of 3,722 employers conducted for OSHA. The survey was
benchmarked to the whole working population based on employment data
available at that time. (See 72 FR 64391). When the economic analysis
for the PPE Payment rule was performed, the most recent data available
on numbers of employees was from the U.S. Census' 2004 County Business
Patterns. OSHA utilized this 2004 data to estimate the number of
employees using PPE and the industries they worked in. The most current
information on prices for the PPE Payment analysis was from 2007 and
was based on the GDP deflator from the Federal Reserve's St. Louis FRED
(Federal Reserve Economic Data). In the PPE Payment rulemaking,
therefore, the employee numbers were from 2004, based on the CBP's most
recent data at that time, and the prices for PPE were from 2007, based
on FRED's most recent GDP deflator at the time. These numbers, along
with the more recent estimates for the current proposed rule, are
presented in Table 3, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In the final rule on PPE Payment, OSHA estimated the number
of employees in non-State Plan states using any type of PPE (72 FR
64391). OSHA estimates that the proportion of employees who use PPE
in the construction industries in all 50 states and territories is
the same as the proportion of employees who use PPE in non-State
Plan states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similar to the data presented in the PPE Payment rulemaking, OSHA
will be relying on data from two different time periods for estimates
related to this proposed rule. The most recent data available to
estimate the number of employees in the affected industries is from the
CBP for 2020; the most recent FRED GDP report, used to make an updated
estimate of PPE prices, is from the third quarter of 2022. The total
number of PPE items used by employees in 2020 is derived by multiplying
the number of employees (based on 2020 CBP data) by the number of PPE
items used, per employee, from the Final Economic Analysis supporting
the PPE Payment final rule. The agency then uses the unit costs of PPE
items (in 2007) from the PPE Payment rule and applies the GDP deflator
from the FRED to estimate the unit cost of those PPE items in 2022
dollars. Finally, to get the total potential one-time costs of this
proposed standard, OSHA applies those
2022 unit costs to the estimated number of PPE items used in 2020
(benchmarked to the updated Census data), based on the proportion of
employees that might need replacement PPE.
Using data from the gross domestic product data series (GDP
deflator from FRED, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPDEF, accessed
January 20, 2023), OSHA estimates that the average price for PPE in
2022 is 37.4 percent higher than in 2007, the base year for data the
agency used when promulgating the PPE Payment rule. Using the most
recent data (2020) available from the CBP report (https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cbp/data/tables.html), OSHA estimates
that employment in the construction industries has increased by 8.04
percent since 2004. As part of the PPE Payment rulemaking, OSHA
previously estimated that the total number of PPE items worn by
construction employees in 2004 was about 13 million. However, in the
PPE payment rulemaking analysis, OSHA did not include safety vests in
the list of necessary PPE. For this rulemaking, the agency has
estimated the cost and use of safety vests and has included them in the
number of PPE items worn by construction workers in 2020, the unit cost
in 2022, and the total cost in 2022. Using the estimated construction
workforce increase of 8.04 percent, the agency estimates that the total
number of PPE items worn by construction employees was about 14.9
million in 2020. Dividing the total number of PPE items in use
(14,892,806) by the total number of construction workers in 2020
wearing PPE (5,734,977) yields an estimate that each construction
employee wearing PPE provided by the employer, and not universal fit,
wears an average of 2.6 items of PPE.
In summary, OSHA is preliminarily estimating that the total cost of
PPE that is provided by construction employers, and is not universal
fit, has increased since 2007. Driven primarily by the aforementioned
37.4 percent price increase between 2007 and 2022, that cost is now
estimated to be just over $170 million, including an additional
estimated $3.9 million for safety vests. Based on this information, the
agency calculates an average per unit PPE cost of $11.45 and an average
cost of $29.74 to outfit a construction employee in their needed PPE.
Table 3--Use and Cost of Selected PPE Used in the Construction Industries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total PPE items Total PPE items
PPE provided by the employer, not used by used by PPE unit PPE unit Total cost
universal fit employees employees cost 2007$ cost 2022$ 2022$
(2004) U.S. (2020) U.S.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Protective Clothing.......... 358,089 386,877 $41.30 $56.76 $21,960,279
Chemical Protective Footwear.......... 211,871 228,904 21.40 29.41 6,732,595
Chemical Splash Goggles............... 584,797 631,811 6.20 8.52 5,383,851
Earmuffs.............................. 642,362 694,004 13.60 18.69 12,972,241
Face Shields.......................... 1,194,399 1,290,422 14.90 20.48 26,426,058
Gloves for Abrasion Protection........ 2,940,764 3,177,183 8.30 11.41 36,243,886
Gloves for Chemical Protection........ 896,173 968,219 3.50 4.81 4,657,537
Non-Prescription Safety Glasses....... 3,485,009 3,765,183 6.20 8.52 32,084,272
Safety Goggles........................ 2,506,959 2,708,504 4.65 6.39 17,309,989
Safety Vests *........................ NA 828,178 NA 4.65 3,849,472
Splash Aprons......................... 197,632 213,520 10.00 13.74 2,934,632
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total of PPE items used by 13,018,055 14,892,806 ........... ........... 170,554,811
construction employees...........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average per Unit PPE Cost 2022.... ............... ............... ........... ........... 11.45
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Safety Vests were not included in the 2004 analysis; OSHA Office of Regulatory Analysis has estimated their
use in 2020 and their cost in 2022 dollars to be consistent with the use and costs for the other types of PPE.
(ERG Cost Analysis for Safety Vests, August 17, 2020).
Source: OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis; based on PPE Payment rule (72 FR 64406). (See OSHA PEA Spreadsheet,
2023, tab ``PPE Payment--Cost by PPE'' for unit costs in 2007 and tab ``PPE Payment--PPE Use'' for PPE items
used in 2004.)
Given the current lack of data on how many employees might be
wearing improperly fitting PPE, OSHA estimated this parameter using
some general population height and weight distributions. Based on BLS
Current Employment Statistics, OSHA estimates that in 2022, the
construction industry was made up of 86 percent men and 14 percent
women. According to the CBP, there were 7,182,071 employees in the
construction industry in 2020. Taken together, these data suggest that
employment in the construction industry is comprised of about 6,173,572
men and about 1,008,499 women. Furthermore, OSHA's 2007 PPE Payment
Final Rule estimated that only 79.85 percent of construction employees
use PPE of any type. Based on this figure, the agency estimates that
about 4,929,677 men and about 805,299 women in the construction
industry use any type of PPE.
To estimate what proportion of women and men might require non-
standard sizes of PPE,\4\ the agency referred to the Census Bureau's
2011 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHNES) (https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2010/compendia/statab/130ed/tables/11s0205.pdf). Using height and weight figures for the general
population from NHNES, OSHA preliminarily determines, as shown in Table
4, below, that women and men weighing above 300 pounds and women
shorter than five feet tall might require non-standard sizes of PPE and
thus could have improperly fitting PPE (the base figure was too small
to meet statistical standards of reliability of a derived figure for
men shorter than five feet tall).\5\ OSHA acknowledges that using the
general population height and weight distributions may not align
precisely with the profile of construction workers. For example,
Hispanic males make up a greater
proportion of the construction workforce than the population in general
and are, on average, slightly shorter than, and weigh less than, non-
Hispanic white males. It is also possible that there are fewer people
who are much smaller or larger than average in the construction
industry. OSHA also acknowledges that this estimate is imprecise
because it assumes that all workers who weigh more than 300 pounds and
all female workers who are shorter than five feet tall require PPE that
is not standard sized; conversely, it assumes that standard-sized PPE
is appropriate for all other workers. Given the necessity of estimating
these parameters, OSHA seeks comment on what characteristics, and what
data sources, should be considered when estimating the proportion of
employees that might require non-standard sizes of PPE in the
construction industries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ OSHA uses the term ``non-standard'' to refer to sizes of PPE
which are available on the market, but which some construction
employers may not routinely order or keep in stock.
\5\ OSHA's analysis assumes that only construction workers who
meet the specified height or weight criteria may require non-
standard sizes of PPE. OSHA then draws from this universe of workers
when calculating how many workers may actually be using PPE that
does not properly fit. OSHA's analysis does not attempt to account
for workers who wear standard-sized PPE but may nevertheless have
been provided with improperly fitting PPE by their employers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to data limitations and as a simplifying assumption for this
preliminary analysis, the agency also assumes that construction workers
are distributed across age groups in the same proportions as the
general population examined in the NHNES. The agency then multiplies
those percentages by the total number of men, and the total number of
women, in the construction industry that wear any type of PPE. Those
results are presented here, in Table 4.
Table 4--Construction Employees Who May Require Non-Standard Sizes of PPE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ages
--------------------------------------------- Average Total
Construction employee characteristic 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 (%) employees
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Men Above 300 pounds....................... 2.50 3.10 1.90 1.90 2.20 2.32 114,369
Women Above 300 pounds..................... 2.30 1.60 1.70 0.60 0.70 1.38 11,113
Women Under 5 foot tall.................... 5.70 8.00 5.00 8.00 9.00 7.14 57,498
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Employees Who May Require Non- ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ......... 182,980
Standard Sizes of PPE.................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis (OSHA PEA Spreadsheet, 2023).
The agency estimates that 182,980 construction employees might
require non-standard sizes of PPE, but recognizes that not all of those
employees are using improperly fitting PPE. OSHA assumes that up to 10
percent of those workers--or 18,298 workers--are currently being
provided with incorrectly fitting PPE. At an average, per-person cost
of $29.74 for PPE,\6\ OSHA preliminarily estimates that replacing the
PPE for these 18,298 employees would cost almost $545,000 for the
entire construction industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ OSHA assumes that larger and smaller sizes of PPE cost the
same as the average size PPE of that type.
Table 5--Potential PPE Replacement Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assumed percent of employees needing
replacement PPE (2020) Total employees Total cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10% of Employees....................... 18,298 $544,172
--------------------------------
Average Per-Employee PPE Cost (2.6 ................. 29.74
items per employee)...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis (OSHA PEA Spreadsheet,
2023).
As presented in Table 5, the agency preliminarily estimates that if
10 percent of employees are provided with properly fitting PPE as a
result of this clarifying rule, the rule might have a one-time total
cost to the construction industry of $544,172. After initially
replacing improperly fitting PPE, employers would be expected to
continue to provide properly fitting PPE as those items reach the end
of their useful life. Since employers need to provide replacement PPE,
whether properly fitting or not, in the absence of this clarifying
rule, OSHA estimates that there will be no additional on-going costs to
provide properly fitting PPE as part of the normal process of
replacement.
OSHA seeks comment on all aspects of its preliminary economic
analysis, including:
The types of PPE that construction employees use;
The types of PPE that are available in different sizes;
The types of PPE that are universal fit (i.e., they can be
adjusted to fit any person);
Whether there are types of PPE that only come in one
standard size that is not adjustable. If yes, give examples;
The extent of employer reimbursement for employee
purchases for various types of PPE;
Whether the agency's categorization of the various types
of PPE into the three categories in Table 1 (provided by the employer,
not universal fit; provided by the employee and reimbursed; and
universal fit) is accurate, and why or why not;
The average useful life of various types of PPE;
The benefits of, and productivity increases from, wearing
properly fitting PPE;
Workplace accidents related to improperly fitting PPE;
The average cost for each PPE item, including whether
there are price differences for different sizes of PPE, as well as the
average cost to outfit an employee in necessary PPE;
Whether employers will need to provide their workers with
different sizes of PPE than they are currently providing them, and what
specific changes employers will make to their current practices if this
rule is finalized as proposed;
Whether there are other significant cost elements that
have not been accounted for in OSHA's analysis that extend beyond
simply acquiring properly fitting PPE;
Whether employers have incurred additional costs in
fitting employees who need non-standard sizes of PPE with PPE that fits
properly;
Whether there will be ongoing costs to employers to
provide correctly sized PPE. In particular, OSHA is interested in what
ongoing activities employers anticipate they would need to undertake in
response to this rule clarification and how much time and expense those
activities would require.
Sensitivity Analysis
OSHA believes that instances of employees with improperly fitting
PPE are limited given the existing requirement for proper fit. The
primary analysis above assumes that only 10 percent of the employees
who may require non-standard sizes of PPE would need to have their PPE
replaced. For the first sensitivity analysis, the agency compared the
assumed 10 percent of potentially affected employees with a lower rate
of 5 percent and, alternatively, a higher rate at each quartile of the
group (25, 50, and 100 percent). Additionally, some employees may only
need one item of replacement PPE while others might have to replace
more items. As discussed above, OSHA has estimated that affected
employees in construction wear an average of 2.6 pieces of PPE of the
type covered by OSHA's analysis; the main analysis assumes they would
all need to be replaced. In reality, for individual employees, some
items might need to be replaced and not others. The second sensitivity
analysis examines the cases where employees need replacements for 1, 2,
or 3 items of PPE, along with the 2.6 items used in the primary
analysis.
In the first sensitivity analysis, OSHA multiplied the total number
of employees who may require non-standard sizes of PPE (182,980) by the
various assumed non-compliance percentages. Table 6, below, presents a
range of 5 percent to 100 percent non-compliance. OSHA believes most
companies want to act in the best interest of their employees and are
already in compliance with the existing requirement to provide properly
fitting PPE. As such, OSHA believes the actual non-compliance rate is
towards the lower end of the range presented in Table 6. At most, fewer
than 200,000 employees might be affected.
Table 6--Employees Needing Replacement PPE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assumed percent needing replacement PPE Total employees
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.................................................... 9,149
10................................................... 18,298
25................................................... 45,745
50................................................... 91,490
75................................................... 137,235
100.................................................. 182,980
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the second sensitivity analysis, OSHA examined the potential
number of pieces of PPE that might need to be replaced for each
affected employee. In Table 7, below, OSHA calculated the total number
of PPE items, in the affected construction industries, that might need
to be replaced based on employees needing 1, 2, 3, or the average 2.6
pieces of replacement PPE.
Table 7--PPE Items Needing Replacement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total PPE items needing replacement
Percent of employees needing replacement PPE ---------------------------------------------------
1 2 2.6 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5........................................................... 9,149 18,298 23,758 27,447
10.......................................................... 18,298 36,596 47,517 54,894
25.......................................................... 45,745 91,490 118,792 137,235
50.......................................................... 91,490 182,980 237,585 274,470
75.......................................................... 137,235 274,470 356,377 411,705
100......................................................... 182,980 365,960 475,169 548,940
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To complete the sensitivity analysis, OSHA multiplied the cost of
the average piece of affected PPE, calculated as $11.45 per piece, by
the number of total items of PPE needing replacement (displayed in
table 7, above). The results are presented in table 8, below.
Table 8--Total Cost of Replacement PPE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total PPE items needing replacement
Percent of employees needing replacement PPE ---------------------------------------------------
1 2 2.6 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5........................................................... $104,776 $209,552 $272,086 $314,327
10.......................................................... 209,552 419,103 544,172 628,655
25.......................................................... 523,879 1,047,758 1,360,429 1,571,637
50.......................................................... 1,047,758 2,095,517 2,720,859 3,143,275
75.......................................................... 1,571,637 3,143,275 4,081,288 4,714,912
100......................................................... 2,095,517 4,191,033 5,441,717 6,286,550
---------------------------------------------------
Per Employee Cost....................................... 11.45 22.90 29.74 34.36
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 8 shows that, as a worst-case scenario, if no employers are
providing properly fitting PPE to employees that need non-standard
sizes, and if each employee needs 3 items of replacement PPE (more PPE
than the average of 2.6 PPE items), then the total one-time cost to
industry to provide that properly fitting PPE would be less than $6.3
million. Meanwhile, the cost to industry could be as low as only
$105,000.
Benefits
As noted above, rather than impose a new requirement, this proposed
rule would clarify an existing requirement in 29 CFR 1926.95(c) for PPE
to fit properly. The proposed change harmonizes the PPE fit
requirements in construction with those in general industry and
maritime and should alleviate any confusion that may exist among
construction employers, potentially addressing safety and health
hazards caused by improperly fitting PPE.
In 2007, OSHA promulgated the PPE Payment rule, which clarified the
responsibilities of employers to pay for PPE (72 FR 64342). In that
rule, OSHA noted that PPE must fit properly in order to provide the
protection it was designed to provide (e.g., 72 FR 64350-51, 64380).
Accompanying the PPE Payment rule was a detailed analysis of the types
and numbers of injuries that would likely be prevented by the rule, and
the value of those benefits. One finding of the analysis, which
implicitly assumed employees would be provided with properly fitting
PPE, was that PPE is a particularly cost-effective form of injury
prevention, particularly in the construction industry. The analysis
found that the economic benefits of preventing an injury with PPE in
the construction industry were approximately three times the cost of
providing the PPE.\7\ While there is substantial uncertainty about
whether any costs will be generated by this proposed rulemaking on PPE
fit, the agency is confident that if the rule results in construction
employers incurring costs for properly fitting PPE, the benefits of the
properly fitting PPE will likely exceed the costs. In addition, as has
been noted elsewhere, much of the benefit of this rulemaking derives
from providing greater clarity in terms of employer obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The 2007 analysis estimated that the rule would prevent
almost 5,000 injuries (see Table XV-3) in construction, for a total
economic value of approximately $90 million (see Table XV-4), at a
cost of approximately $30 million (NAICS 23) (see Table XV-5) (72 FR
64401-64408).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While OSHA has preliminarily determined that the proposed change
will not have quantifiable benefits, the agency requests comment on
this preliminary determination. More specifically, if employers were to
change the PPE they provide their workers as a result of this rule,
what are the anticipated benefits to worker safety and health from
these changes? How should OSHA quantify these benefits?
Technological Feasibility
The purpose of the proposed amendment to section 1926.95(c) is to
improve clarity for the construction sector, as well as ensure
consistency with existing OSHA standards for general industry and
maritime. Because the requirement for properly fitting PPE already
exists in the construction industry, OSHA believes that providing
properly fitting PPE is already common practice among construction
employers. OSHA does not believe that employers will encounter any
significant obstacles acquiring PPE that will properly fit their
workers. Therefore, OSHA preliminarily concludes that this proposed
rule would be technologically feasible.\8\ The agency welcomes comments
on the technological feasibility of the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ OSHA notes that it is not required to perform a
technological feasibility analysis for this proposed rule because it
is simply a clarification of an existing requirement. The
technological feasibility analysis presented in this document is for
informational purposes only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic Feasibility
OSHA historically has applied two threshold tests to look at
economic feasibility for establishments covered by the rule: whether
the rule's average per establishment costs as a percentage of average
per establishment revenues, for each industry sector, are below 1
percent, and whether those costs as a percentage of profits are below
10 percent.\9\ To determine whether there is a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, there are also two threshold tests: whether the
average costs for small entities are 1 percent of their average
revenues or below, and whether those costs are 5 percent or less of the
small entities' profits.\10\ None of these threshold tests are hard
ceilings or determinative; they are guidelines the agency uses to
examine whether there are any potential economic impact issues that
require additional study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ For example, see p. VI-14 of the Final Economic Analysis
supporting OSHA's rule on Respirable Crystalline Silica. Final
Economic Analysis and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for
OSHA's Rule on Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline
Silica, Chapter VI (OSHA-2010-0034-4247).
\10\ For example, see OSHA's Final Regulatory Flexibility
Screening Analysis in support of the Hazard Communication rule (77
FR 17661).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because this is a clarification of an existing requirement, OSHA
does not expect the proposed revision to the construction PPE standard
to impose new costs on employers as a result of a new regulatory
requirement. As previously stated, the proposed provision is consistent
with the PPE requirements in the agency's general industry and maritime
standards, and in agreement with OSHA's longstanding interpretation of
the current requirements for PPE in section 1926.95. As noted above, to
the extent the clarification in this rule could result in changes in
behavior among some employers, OSHA has provided an estimate of the
costs for a specified proportion of employers to come into compliance
with the already-existing requirement to provide properly fitting PPE.
Even assuming these estimated costs will be incurred by employers as a
result of the rule the rule easily passes OSHA's threshold tests for
feasibility. The average construction industry employer has revenues of
$3.3 million annually \11\ and 9 employees.\12\ As a worst case
scenario, if such an employer had to replace all the PPE at issue in
this rulemaking for all of their employees
(i.e., 2.6 items per employee), it would cost under $300, which is less
than .01% of an average employer's revenues. Therefore, this proposed
rule is clearly economically feasible. The agency welcomes comments on
its preliminary economic feasibility analysis and determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ U.S. 2017 Economic Census. Construction: Summary Statistics
for the U.S., States, and Selected Geographies: 2017. Available at
https://data.census.gov. Table ID EC1700BASIC. (Accessed March 21,
2022.) (OSHA PEA Spreadsheet, 2023).
\12\ U.S. 2017 Economic Census. Construction: Summary Statistics
for the U.S., States, and Selected Geographies: 2017 reports a total
of 715,364 establishments with 6,647,047 employees which averages to
9 employees per establishment. (OSHA PEA Spreadsheet, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis and Certification of No
Significant Impact on a Substantial Number of Small Entities
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq. (as amended)), OSHA examined the regulatory requirements of this
rule to determine whether the proposed requirement would have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As discussed above, because this is a clarification of an existing
requirement, OSHA preliminarily estimates that this rule would impose
zero costs on employers. Even if OSHA assumes that this rule would lead
to changes in employer behavior and associated costs, however, the
costs are minimal and would not be imposed on an ongoing basis. OSHA
estimates that, on average, there will be no more than one worker who
might be wearing improperly fitting PPE at any given firm. Given that
replacement PPE costs less than $30 per employee, this proposal would
not impose significant costs on small employers. The agency therefore
certifies that, if promulgated, this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
D. OMB Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposal contains no information collection requirements
subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA)
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR part
1320. The PRA defines a collection of information as ``the obtaining,
causing to be obtained, soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to
third parties or the public, of facts or opinions by or for an agency,
regardless of form or format.'' (44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)).
E. Federalism
OSHA reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with the Executive
Order on Federalism (E.O. 13132, 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), which
requires that Federal agencies, to the extent possible, refrain from
limiting State policy options, consult with States prior to taking any
actions that would restrict State policy options, and take such actions
only when clear constitutional and statutory authority exists and the
problem is national in scope. E.O. 13132 provides for preemption of
State law only with the expressed consent of Congress. Any such
preemption is to be limited to the extent possible.
Under Section 18 of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 667), Congress expressly
provides that States and U.S. territories may adopt, with Federal
approval, a plan for the development and enforcement of occupational
safety and health standards. States and territories that obtain Federal
approval for such a plan are referred to as ``State Plans'' (29 U.S.C.
667). Occupational safety and health standards developed by State Plans
must be at least as effective in providing safe and healthful
employment and places of employment as the Federal standards and, when
applicable to products that are distributed or used in interstate
commerce, must be required by compelling local conditions and not
unduly burden interstate commerce. (29 U.S.C. 667(c)(2)). Subject to
these requirements, State Plans are free to develop and enforce under
State law their own requirements for safety and health standards.
In States without OSHA approved State Plans, Congress expressly
provides for OSHA standards to preempt State occupational safety and
health standards in areas addressed by the Federal standards. In these
States, this proposal would limit State policy options in the same
manner as every standard or amendment to a standard promulgated by
OSHA. In States with OSHA approved State Plans, this rulemaking would
not significantly limit State policy options.
The proposed amendment to 29 CFR 1926.95(c) complies with E.O.
13132.
F. State Plans
This proposed rule would revise the language in the construction
standard, 29 CFR 1926.95(c), to include an explicit requirement that
PPE used in the construction industry must fit properly. This change
would be consistent with requirements that exist in the general
industry and maritime standards and with OSHA's prior interpretation of
the construction standard. When Federal OSHA promulgates a new standard
or more stringent amendment to an existing standard, OSHA-approved
State Plans must either amend their standards to be ``at least as
effective as'' the new standard or amendment, or show that an existing
state standard covering this area is already ``at least as effective''
as the new Federal standard or amendment. (29 CFR 1953.5(a)). State
Plan adoption must be completed within six months of the promulgation
date of the final Federal rule. OSHA concludes that this proposed rule,
by including an explicit requirement that PPE used in the construction
industry must fit properly, will maintain or increase the protection
afforded to employees. Therefore, within six months of the final rule's
promulgation date, State Plans would be required to adopt amendments to
their standards that are ``at least as effective,'' unless they
demonstrate that such amendments are not necessary because their
existing standards are already ``at least as effective'' in protecting
workers as the final Federal rule.
The 29 OSHA-approved State Plans are: Alaska, Arizona, California,
Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New
Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Virgin Islands, Washington, and
Wyoming. The Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Maine, and
the Virgin Islands State Plans cover state and local government
employees only, while the rest cover the private sector and state and
local government employees.
G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
OSHA reviewed this proposal according to the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA''; 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). As discussed
above in Section IV.C of this preamble, the agency preliminarily
determined that this proposal would not impose costs on any private- or
public-sector entity. Accordingly, this proposal would not require
additional expenditures by either public or private employers. Even to
the extent that changes in behavior resulting from the rule would lead
to employers expending money for new, properly fitting PPE, these costs
are minimal and will only be incurred one time.
As noted above, the agency's standards do not apply to State and
local governments except in States that have elected voluntarily to
adopt a State Plan approved by the agency. Consequently, this proposal
does not meet the definition of a ``Federal intergovernmental
mandate.'' (See Section 421(5) of the UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(5))).
Therefore, for the purposes of the UMRA, the agency certifies that this
proposal would not mandate that State, local, or Tribal governments
adopt new, unfunded regulatory obligations. Further, OSHA concludes
that the rule would not impose a Federal mandate on the private sector
in excess of $100
million (adjusted annually for inflation) in expenditures in any one
year.
H. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
OSHA reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with Executive Order
13175 (65 FR 67249) and determined that it would not have ``tribal
implications'' as defined in that order. The amendment to the PPE
standard for construction, if promulgated, would not have substantial
direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes.
List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1926
Construction, Personal Protective Equipment, Occupational safety
and health.
Authority and Signature
Douglas L. Parker, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, authorized the preparation
of this document pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657; 40 U.S.C.
3701 et seq.; 5 U.S.C. 553; Secretary of Labor's Order 8-2020, 85 FR
58393 (2020); and 29 CFR part 1911.
Signed at Washington, DC, on July 14, 2023.
Douglas L. Parker,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
Amendments to Standards
For the reasons stated in the preamble, OSHA proposes to amend 29
CFR part 1926 to read as follows:
PART 1926--SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION
Subpart E--Personal Protective and Life Saving Equipment
0
1. The authority citation for subpart E is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.; 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), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 5-
2002 (67 FR 65008), 5-2007 (72 FR 31160), 4-2010 (75 FR 55355), 1-
2012 (77 FR 3912), or 8-2020 (85 FR 58393), as applicable; and 29
CFR part 1911.
0
2. Amend Sec. 1926.95 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 1926.95 Criteria for personal protective equipment.
* * * * *
(c) Design and selection. Employers must ensure that all personal
protective equipment:
(1) Is of safe design and construction for the work to be
performed; and
(2) Is selected to ensure that it properly fits each affected
employee.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-15285 Filed 7-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
